BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1913 [Archive]

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 08:19 AM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. 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.
- NOTE: After 1915, voters may only vote for between 0-10 candidates.

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.

1913 Guide
There are 38 candidates on the 1913 ballot; 22 holdovers and 16 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1908 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (17)
John Anderson
Jimmy Barrett
Shad Barry
Jimmy Collins
Kid Gleason
Charlie Hickman
Fielder Jones
Joe Kelley
Ed McFarland
Dan McGann
Joe McGinnity
Deacon McGuire
Ossee Schreckengost
Socks Seybold
Jimmy Slagle
John Warner

Holdovers (22)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Jake Beckley 2nd 52.17% 52.17% (1912)
Cupid Childs 8th 52.17% 54.55% (1909)
Larry Corcoran 13th 8.70% 18.18% (1909)
Tommy Corcoran 2nd 4.35% 4.35% (1912)
Lave Cross 2nd 30.43% 30.43% (1912)
Hugh Duffy 3rd 65.22% 65.22% (1912)
Noodles Hahn 3rd 13.04% 13.04% (1912)
Charley Jones 13th 30.43% 32.00% (1910, 1911)
Herman Long 5th 47.83% 52.00% (1910)
Bobby Lowe 2nd 4.35% 4.35% (1912)
Jim McCormick 13th 30.43% 40.00% (1910)
John McGraw 2nd 47.83% 47.83% (1912)
Cal McVey 13th 43.48% 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 13th 47.83% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 13th 69.57% 69.57% (1913)
Jimmy Ryan 6th 47.83% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 13th 73.91% 73.91% (1912)
Joe Start 13th 65.22% 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton 13th 56.52% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 9th 17.39% 20.00% (1910)
George Van Haltren 6th 69.57% 69.57% (1912)
Mickey Welch 13th 47.83% 52.00% (1910)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (8)
Player 1912 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Al Spalding 73.91% 8
Hardy Richardson 69.57% 9
George Van Haltren 69.57% 5
Hugh Duffy 65.22% 2
Joe Start 65.22% 9
Ezra Sutton 56.52% 6
Jake Beckley 52.17% 1
Cupid Childs 52.17% 3

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 73.91% (1912) 2
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 1
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 2

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Duke Farrell Lack of Support 3 12.00% (1911)
Dummy Hoy Lack of Support 6 12.50% (1907)
Chick Stahl Lack of Support 2 8.00%

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
1912 (0):

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: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.42
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23
- 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 – 73.91% (1912)

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
1912: 23

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)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)

KCGHOST

08-04-2008, 08:35 AM

Beckley
Childs
J. Collins
Duffy
J. Kelley
McGinnity
McGraw
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren

Freakshow

08-04-2008, 09:11 AM

Cross, Tiernan and Long are replaced by Collins, Kelley and McGinnity.

Beckley
Childs
J. Collins
Duffy
C. Jones
J. Kelley
McGinnity
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

NineWorldSeries

08-04-2008, 09:26 AM

Beckley
Duffy
McCormick
McGinnity
McGraw
Spalding
Van Haltren
Welch

Paul Wendt

08-04-2008, 09:28 AM

Charlie Hickman, the last of the line?
Will we see another play so many positions in the majors, including pitcher? Bresnahan proved good enough behind the plate that he did not move around so much.

If we count 30 pitching games as one full season then Hickman played almost three full seasons at first plus two in the outfield and one each at second, third, and pitcher.

He did not anywhere play enough to be graded by Bill James.

--

Joe Kelley and Joe McGinnity seem to me the most interesting new candidates for the group.
Will they waltz in with the great Collins? Or wait?

McGinnity is two months older than Amos Rusie (!) and the Iron Man is still pitching too.
Kelley brought the ladies to the ballpark. The Orioles never recovered from his move to Brooklyn. ;)

leecemark

08-04-2008, 09:36 AM

--Newcomers Jimmy Collins and Joe McGinnity are easy choices. Joe Kelley is certainly worthy of consideration, but I'll let others make the case for him. He misses my ballot on his debut.

--Al Spaulding missed by a single vote last year. Lets make sure he gets over the hump this time around. Not only was he a great player he was one of the foremost figures in building this great game. Ezra Sutton is displaced by Collins as the greatest thirdbaseman available to us, but he held the title a long time and will hold a ballot spot for me until his time expires. Cal McVey is another first generation star I'd hate to see us miss out on. As promised, Joe Start drops off ballot to avoid setting the bar into Beckley territory. We'll revisit whether his 1860s peak gets him over that bar come VC time.

-- John McGraw had a terrific peak as a player, but probably wouldn't make my ballot if he wasn't making such an impression as a manager. Whether that combination works for 75% of our elecorate remains to be seen. Hardy Richardson and Herman Long are borderline candidates for me. They make ballot largely because they represent the best candidates of the player side of the player vs hitter divide. McGraw may also represent the peak side of the peak vs career debate.

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 10:12 AM

Jake Beckley--One of the best 1st basemen in the history of the game to this point.
Cupid Childs--Solid 2nd baseman and better than Richardson who received more votes in the last election.
Jimmy Collins--The best 3rd baseman in the history of the game
Larry Corcoran--A hard throwing dominant pitcher from the 19th century.
Lave Cross--One of the best 3rd basemen in the game.
Charley Jones--Sticking with my no borderline outfielders rule. Jones and Pike had OPS+ well ahead of many of the other outfielders receiving support
Herman Long--An excellent defensive short stop who risks being dropped from my ballot when we go to 10.
Joe McGinnity--A powerhouse over a 10 year stretch.
Cal McVey--A high peak 1st generation player
Lip Pike--The highest peak of any outfielder outside our HOF.
Hardy Richardson--A great player who was only 2 vote from election in 1912.
Al Spalding--2nd year on my ballot. Very borderline candidate who may be better as a VC choice.
Joe Start--An excellent 1st baseman for a very long time.
Ezra SuttonThe best 3rd baseman until Collins came along and even still one of the best players of the 19th century.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 10:29 AM

-- John McGraw had a terrific peak as a player, but probably wouldn't make my ballot if he wasn't making such an impression as a manager. Whether that combination works for 75% of our elecorate remains to be seen. Hardy Richardson and Herman Long are borderline candidates for me. They make ballot largely because they represent the best candidates of the player side of the player vs hitter divide. McGraw may also represent the peak side of the peak vs career debate.

You're voting for McGraw based on what he's doing as a manager? This is supposed to be a player election. I can see giving credit to a player/manager, as that is part of his playing career, but strictly managerial contributions, that's something best left to the VC, IMO. Looking into the future, are we going to elect Connie Mack as a player because he was a manager for 50 years? Or what about Miller Huggins during his run with the Yankees? The two aspects have to be distinguished, IMO. If not, then we to have include and give consideration to every mediocre player that might go on to be a good manager.

I'm having trouble voting for Spalding, that's why I haven't voted yet. I'm pretty much on the fence with him, but I also strongly believe he's a great VC candidate. That's just my general view on players that didn't make it out of the 1870s in general, plus Spalding's contributions to the game really transcend his playing career that I'd rather acknowledge him for everything he's done rather than his playing career which is just a small part. Nevertheless, I could end up voting for him anyway given that he's so close.

The player that I'm most interested to see what kind of support he gets is Joe Kelley. I don't know if I'm going to vote for him either, but he seems very much in that gray area we've created.

We should finally elect a pure 3Bmen this year. I don't think Sutton is going to make it, but he should be a good VC candidate.

Finally, as a general note to all, you might have noticed that in rules I've stated that we will be going to 10 votes after 1915. This is because in 1915 we're going to lose the remaining original candidates, thereby significantly reducing the ballot, to the point where 15 votes, which in many elections could be much more than half the ballot, seems kind of superfluous. Plus, voters don't seem to be on the whole closer to 10 now. However, if people feel strongly that we should keep it at 15, I'll reconsider.

EDIT: I added this note about Beckley in my last post in the last election, and I wanted to repeat it here: 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 even 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.

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 10:31 AM

Early in the game, but this is who I have for 1914:

Red represents players who technically meet the minimum but who's careers didn't amount to much.

Frank Bowerman C
Jack Chesbro P
George Davis SS
Bill Dinneen P
Hobe Ferris 2B
Chick Fraser P
Frank Isbell 1B/2B
Al Orth P
Doc Powers C
Bob Rhoads P
Claude Ritchey 2B
Jimmy Williams 2B

Not much coming in next year. I only see 2-3 on that list that will receive any support and only Davis has a chance at a 1st ballot election next year.

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 11:11 AM

I'm having trouble voting for Spalding, that's why I haven't voted yet. I'm pretty much on the fence with him, but I also strongly believe he's a great VC candidate. That's just my general view on players that didn't make it out of the 1870s in general, plus Spalding's contributions to the game really transcend his playing career that I'd rather acknowledge him for everything he's done rather than his playing career which is just a small part. Nevertheless, I could end up voting for him anyway given that he's so close.

If you don't see his playing career as enough to get him elected, leave him to the VC. I'm confident that Spalding would be elected by the VC rather quickly and I was having the same reservations as you (though I ultimately added him to my ballot).

The player that I'm most interested to see what kind of support he gets is Joe Kelley. I don't know if I'm going to vote for him either, but he seems very much in that gray area we've created.

Kelley was better than Van Haltren, Duffy and Ryan. If those three gain election and Kelley doesn't, I'm really going to have to wonder what criteria people are using. I'm very close to adding Kelley to my ballot. His exclusion at this point is due to the fact that we have Charley Jones and Lip Pike who were both better than Kelley.

Finally, as a general note to all, you might have noticed that in rules I've stated that we will be going to 10 votes after 1915. This is because in 1915 we're going to lose the remaining original candidates, thereby significantly reducing the ballot, to the point where 15 votes, which in many elections could be much more than half the ballot, seems kind of superfluous. Plus, voters don't seem to be on the whole closer to 10 now. However, if people feel strongly that we should keep it at 15, I'll reconsider.

Instead of assigning a specific year as a cutoff, what about using a threshold? Maybe the 1st year where there are less than 13 players on the ballot that have appeared on a previous ballot. Currently we have 23 players who have been on the ballot 2+ years. Assuming no one from 1901 get elected, we'll be losing 8 but will still have 16 players that have had enough support. To offset the 2nd year saves, make it the 1st year we dip below 13 players discounting the guys who advanced to a second year courtesy of a solitary vote. Looking at the voting trends, it looks like there are still going to be a significant number of candidates with support even after 1915.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 11:30 AM

If you don't see his playing career as enough to get him elected, leave him to the VC. I'm confident that Spalding would be elected by the VC rather quickly and I was having the same reservations as you (though I ultimately added him to my ballot).

That's part of my thinking. On the other hand though, if the majority of my fellow voters feels that a player should be elected, and I'm on the fence with that player, a large part of me feels I should defer to the opinion of my fellow voters. I have too much respect for pretty much everyone involved for me to allow my non-vote to essentially be a vote against them.

Kelley was better than Van Haltren, Duffy and Ryan. If those three gain election and Kelley doesn't, I'm really going to have to wonder what criteria people are using. I'm very close to adding Kelley to my ballot. His exclusion at this point is due to the fact that we have Charley Jones and Lip Pike who were both better than Kelley.

Kelley suffers a little compared to the other three in that he didn't play much time in CF, but otherwise, I think he has a good argument for being better. I still don't understand why so much support for Duffy, who I believe is the worst of the group.

Instead of assigning a specific year as a cutoff, what about using a threshold? Maybe the 1st year where there are less than 13 players on the ballot that have appeared on a previous ballot. Currently we have 23 players who have been on the ballot 2+ years. Assuming no one from 1901 get elected, we'll be losing 8 but will still have 16 players that have had enough support. To offset the 2nd year saves, make it the 1st year we dip below 13 players discounting the guys who advanced to a second year courtesy of a solitary vote. Looking at the voting trends, it looks like there are still going to be a significant number of candidates with support even after 1915.

If we're going to do it, I'd rather just do it like ripping off a band aid. 1915 seems like a good time because all the original players will be gone, and the eligibility rules were greatly fudged anyway to make most of them eligible. Thus, 15 votes made sense because we were looking at more players than we would normally, but after they drop off, every one else on the ballot would be eligible in the normal course, thus I feel there's no longer the need for 15 votes.

Paul Wendt

08-04-2008, 11:38 AM

Early in the game, but this is who I have for 1914:
. . .
Not much coming in next year. I only see 2-3 on that list that will receive any support and only Davis has a chance at a 1st ballot election next year.
1914, Jennings and Griffith

1915 will be important if some people anticipate giving another look and casting a few votes to the first cohort before its deadline. That seems likely but the competition will be fierce. No doubt some of us will cast at least five votes to the newcomers that fall.
pitchers - Joss, Leever, Waddell, Willis
others - Beaumont, Flick, Keeler, Stone

On the other hand, changes of heart such as this one by leecemark may balance anyone's intention to loosen up in year fifteen. :(
"As promised, Joe Start drops off ballot to avoid setting the bar into Beckley territory. We'll revisit whether his 1860s peak gets him over that bar come VC time."

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 11:45 AM

I'm surprised McGinnity is at 100% so far. I plan on voting for him, but I thought he'd face more opposition. I actually wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get in on the 1st ballot. His 120 ERA+ in 3400 IP isn't exactly within the standards we've set thus far. Mullane's 118 ERA+ is the lowest of players we've elected, but he pitched nearly 1100 more innings than McGinnity.

For those supporting McGinnity and not Welch, who has just 1 vote compared to McGinnity's 7 right now I have to ask - why? I would think Welch's 114 ERA+ in 1400 more IP than McGinnity is about as impressive as McGinnity's 120 ERA+. Moreover, McGinnity pitched just 10 years, and if you look at Welch's ERA+ in his best 10 years, where he pitched a total of 4358 IP, nearly 1000 more than McGinnity, he actually edges McGinnity - 122-120. So I don't see what the difference is here. Seems like Welch is being punished for pitching and extra 1400 innings compared to McGinnity. It's silly to think that if Welch pitched 1400 less innings and had a 122 ERA+, he'd be a better candidate, or vice versa, if McGinnity pitched 1400 less innings and had lower ERA+ by 6 or 7 points, he's be a worse candidate. I don't get it. Could someone explain?

So to sum:

McGinnity's Career: 10 Years, 120 ERA+, 3441 IP

Welch's 10 Best Years: 10 Years, 122 ERA+, 4358 IP

So I don't get the ready support for McGinnity and the reluctance for Welch. It seems we're punishing Welch for having a longer career (or rewarding McGinnity for having a shorter one). It's becoming alarmingly clear here that we don't put much stock in career value, and prefer guys with short careers and high peaks, ignoring the fact that if they had a longer career, their rate numbers wouldn't look so good and might look more like Welch's (or Beckley's). So I would love to hear some explanations from the pro-McGinnnity but anti-Welch crowd. I can't reconcile the disparity.

Paul Wendt

08-04-2008, 12:27 PM

--Newcomers Jimmy Collins and Joe McGinnity are easy choices. Joe Kelley is certainly worthy of consideration, but I'll let others make the case for him. He misses my ballot on his debut.
I agree with Commissioner XX in wondering why McGinnity is an easy choice.
He may be one tier below Kelley, eg fourth-tier pitcher and third-tier outfielder.

Freakshow

08-04-2008, 12:39 PM

Early in the game, but this is who I have for 1914:

Red represents players who technically meet the minimum but who's careers didn't amount to much.

Frank Bowerman C
Jack Chesbro P
George Davis SS
Bill Dinneen P
Hobe Ferris 2B
Chick Fraser P
Frank Isbell 1B/2B
Al Orth P
Doc Powers C
Bob Rhoads P
Claude Ritchey 2B
Jimmy Williams 2B

Yeah, that's about it, plus these three:

Hughie Jennings-SS (age 45)
Mike Kahoe-C
Jack O’Connor-C (age 45)

Griffith also turns 45, but he played in 1914 so I believe he has to wait another year.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 12:52 PM

leecemark

08-04-2008, 01:16 PM

jalbright

08-04-2008, 01:52 PM

Childs
Collins
Duffy
Kelley
Long
McGinnity
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren

Erik Bedard

08-04-2008, 02:03 PM

Paul Wendt

08-04-2008, 02:46 PM

Griffith's problem is he kept appearing from 1912-1914, even if it was for less than an inning. He'll be eligible at his first inactive year at 45 or older, which is next year.

I'm curious to see what kind of support he'll get. His career is very similar to McGinnity's, about 3400 IP and a 121 ERA+ (McGinnity had about 3450 IP and a 120 ERA+). McGinnity never had a year though that was anywhere close to as good as Griffith's 1898 season. Somehow I expect that Griffith won't get as much ready support as McGinnity - which brings me back to my last post about Welch. Still don't get it.

I believe it is reasonable now to consider simply all of Joe McGinnity, Clark Griffith, Rube Waddell, Vic Willis, Ed Walsh, the unfortunate Addie Joss, and Fred Clarke's great staff: Leever, Phillippe, Chesbro, and Tannehill. If the Federal League gets off the ground, Plank and Brown and some others may have several seasons ahead of them but the others I have named are all done or nearly so. None is in the class with Matty or Cy Young but all worked well and in similar conditions.

It is not reasonable in the same way to compare McGinnity with Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick from the 1880s. They both worked several seasons before the majors permitted full overhand pitching, and when two men could easily share the workload for 84 or 98 league games. So that comparison is more demanding; it should be complicated rather than simple.

--
Someone has identified normal pitcher workloads by sophisticated methods that may be approximated very roughly using the season leader lists. In all the 8-team leagues, consider the 8th and 9th ranking pitchers by innings and by number of starts in the box. In the 12-team leagues of the 1890s, consider the 12th and 13th ranking pitchers.

For example, when Jim McCormick led the National League in 1880, every team still used one primary pitcher. The teams did not make many changes that season, maybe none at all, so the top eight ranking pitchers were one from each team (bold).

Top Ten, pitcher starts, NL 1880
McCormick-CLV 74
Ward-PRO 67
Richmond-WOR 66
Welch-TRO 64
White-CIN 62
Corcoran-CHC 60
Bond-BSN 57
Galvin-BUF 54
Foley-BSN 28
Goldsmith-CHC 24

Top ten, pitcher innings, NL 1880
McCormick-CLV 657.7
Ward-PRO 595.0
Richmond-WOR 590.7
Welch-TRO 574.0
Corcoran-CHC 536.3
White-CIN 517.3
Bond-BSN 493.0
Galvin-BUF 458.7
Foley-BSN 238.0
Goldsmith-CHC 210.3

Naturally the average of the 8th and 9th ranking pitchers is almost precisely one half of one team's season workload.
starts: 54, 28 ==> 41
innings: 458, 238 => 348

Next season Keefe, Radbourn, and Goldsmith split the work almost equally with Welch, Ward, and Corcoran in Troy, Providence, and Chicago. Guess which five men led the league?
league leaders, NL 1881 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_1881_t.shtml)

Thirty years later Nap Rucker led the National League of 1910 with 39 starts and 320 innings --not so many as McCormick although the schedule called for 154 games, up from 84.

The average of 8th and 9th ranking pitchers, NL 1910.
starts: 31, 31 ==> 31
innings: 272, 266 => 269

That in turn is only about one-fifth of one team's season workload.

(The average of 8th and 9th rank is a simple summary statistic. It is the threshold normally surpassed by one man per team. The record showing how that threshold has moved through time and perhaps differed between leagues is easy to construct. "Someone" provided a more sophisticated treatment. IIRC someone and someone else handled pitcher workloads and catcher workloads over at the Hall of Merit.)

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 03:26 PM

That's part of my thinking. On the other hand though, if the majority of my fellow voters feels that a player should be elected, and I'm on the fence with that player, a large part of me feels I should defer to the opinion of my fellow voters. I have too much respect for pretty much everyone involved for me to allow my non-vote to essentially be a vote against them.

I'm sure at least some of those votes are taking Spalding's off the field exploits into consideration. My reservations on Spalding stems from the emphasis on having a pitcher from every generation. Given how primitive pitching was in the 1880s, it was that much more primitive in the 1870s. Were it not for Spalding's exploits as a fielder and hitter, he never would have made my ballot and risks being dropped next year.

One question for those gunning for Spalding, why the insistence on having a pitcher of Spalding's ilk while we continue to overlook Lip Pike, Cal McVey, Ezra Sutton, and Joe Start from this same period? All 4 had more productive careers than Spalding. Pike and McVey lacked longevity but more than made up for it in peak. Sutton and Start both enjoyed unusually long careers yet for whatever reason, we continue as a group to overemphasize Spalding's value as a pitcher while de-emphasizing the significance of McVey, Pike, Sutton and Start all of whom are unlikely to get elected at this point.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 03:33 PM

--Welch is to pitchers what Beckley is to position players. He did pitch 1,000 more innings in his prime decade than McGinnity, but there were huge differences in the expectations for pitchers in the 1880s and 1900s. Despite pitching considerably more innings Welch was not a noteworthy horse in his own time. McGinnity OTOH was famous as a workhorse. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit for "fame" when I say he is an easy choice though. I will have to do a more rigorous review of his case next year - assuming he doesn't get elected this year. Peak voters managed derail what looked early on like a easy first ballot election for Beckley last year. Perhaps career voters can do the same for McGinnity this year.

I don't know Mark, I'm feeling like some people here have their minds made up on some players they view as lower tier players in the real Hall, and thus won't give them the proper credit here. McGinnity did lead the league in IP four times, but he really wasn't that much more of a workhorse over his career than Welch. For instance, both finished in the top 6 in IP 8 times, and Welch finished in the top 8 10 times (McGinnity is still at 8). And the fact still remains that in 1000 more prime innings, Welch has the better ERA+, I don't know how you can get around that. That's significant. If this were a real exercise, I imagine that in 100 years people like us would be on a website like this wondering what on Earth the voters were thinking when they missed Welch, and then Welch would suddenly transform into Tony Mullane - the pet project of the 21st century cyberfans.

Also, back to Beckley for a minute. You earlier argued that's a travesty we were overlooking guys like Sutton and Barnes and middle IFers in general from an entire generation. Well how many 1Bmen do you think we'll elect between when Anson/Brouthers/Conner retired in the mid 1890s and when Gehrig hangs them up in 1939? Sisler maybe? Terry? With the proclivities of this electorate, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of those guys don't make it. That's a near 45 year period where we might have one 1Bman. During that period, Beckley stands out as much as anyone else at the position, and very few actually even come close to Beckley. So again, I think this is a problem of putting players into the perspective of their era. Beckley is no Anson/Brothers/Conner, just as Sutton is no Collins/Baker, but when he played, there weren't any other Beckleys playing 1B just as there were no other Suttons playing 3B when he played. I mean, was there even anyone close to Beckley at 1B during his career? I would have thought given your prior advocacy for Sutton and the need to properly represent generations in general, you'd be sympathetic to putting a player in the context of his era, but perhaps that only applies to the very early game?

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 03:36 PM

It is not reasonable in the same way to compare McGinnity with Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick from the 1880s. They both worked several seasons before the majors permitted full overhand pitching, and when two men could easily share the workload for 84 or 98 league games. So that comparison is more demanding; it should be complicated rather than simple.

Now this is an argument I can live with. Now on the same token, shouldn't this also be something held against Al Spalding? Just 7 years in an infant league with rules and styles that greatly differ from the game now. Seems like it would be hard to assess someone like Spalding (or Barnes earlier), against guys who played in a more modern and familiar game.

I'm sure at least some of those votes are taking Spalding's off the field exploits into consideration. My reservations on Spalding stems from the emphasis on having a pitcher from every generation. Given how primitive pitching was in the 1880s, it was that much more primitive in the 1870s. Were it not for Spalding's exploits as a fielder and hitter, he never would have made my ballot and risks being dropped next year.

One question for those gunning for Spalding, why the insistence on having a pitcher of Spalding's ilk while we continue to overlook Lip Pike, Cal McVey, Ezra Sutton, and Joe Start from this same period? All 4 had more productive careers than Spalding. Pike and McVey lacked longevity but more than made up for it in peak. Sutton and Start both enjoyed unusually long careers yet for whatever reason, we continue as a group to overemphasize Spalding's value as a pitcher while de-emphasizing the significance of McVey, Pike, Sutton and Start all of whom are unlikely to get elected at this point.

As of now, I don't think I'll be voting for Spalding. I feel like there is so much obstinacy against guys with rare career value like Welch and Beckley, that I don't feel motivated to compromise my position on players who had their entire careers encapsulated in the very different game of the 1870s. They are best kept for the VC, IMO, rather than assessed against players from later on.

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 05:14 PM

Breaking character for a moment, here is a list of 1st baseman who retired prior to 1948 who are in the HOF and their OPS+ (bold indicates elected to our progressive HOF):

Cap Anson (1897) 141
Jake Beckley (1907) 125
Jim Bottomley (1937) 125
Dan Brouthers (1896 cameo in 1904) 170
Frank Chance (1914) 135
Roger Connor (1897) 153
Jimmy Foxx (1945) 163
Lou Gehrig (1939) 179
Harry Heilmann 142 (primarily an outfielder)
Hank Greenberg (1947) 158
George Kelly (1932) 109
George Sisler (1930) 124
Bill Terry (1936) 136

I'm assuming Gehrig and Foxx get in on their 1st try. Terry and Sisler will possibly get in but aren't locks. Greenberg may get in as well. Bottomley, Chance, Kelly don't have much of a chance. Beckley will be a very unlikely entry since there's just enough (literally) detractors to keep him out. This means we have nobody from 1897-1936 who played 1st base who was good enough for Cooperstown :confused:

These are who we will be looking at between among 1st basemen who retired between 1909 and 1947 (will appear on the progressive ballot between 1914 and 1952) in this project along with their OPS+ (minimum 1000 hits):

Lou Gehrig 179
Jimmie Foxx 163
Hank Greenberg 158
Harry Heilmann 148 (primarily an outfielder for his career)
Jack Fournier 142
Bill Terry 136
Dolph Camilli 136
Frank Chance 135
Hal Trosky 130
Ripper Collins 126
Jake Beckley 125
Jim Bottomley 125
George Sisler 124
Ed Kontechy 122
George Grantham 121
Zeke Bonura 121
Harry Davis 119
Jake Daubert 117
Fred Luderus 114
Joe Judge 114
George H. Burns 113
Hal Chase (not eligible) 112
Gus Suhr 112
Fred Merkle 109
George Kelly 109
Fred Tenney 109
Lu Blue 109
Stuffy McInnis 105
Joe Kuhel 104
Wally Pipp 104
Earl Sheely 104
Chick Gandil (not eligible) 103
Lew Fonseca 103
Kitty Bransfield 97
Dick Siebert 95
Dots Miller 95
Charlier Grimm 95
George Stovall 92
Babe Dahlgren 92
Walter Holke 89
Frank Isbell 89
Lou Finney 88

From another era, we also have Joe Start with a 121 OPS+ and 2 years of eligibility remaining.

George Sisler and Jake Beckley are the two best 1st basemen in the league going from Anson to Gehrig. There is also Frank Chance, but he is seriously lacking in career value and only gets over the hump courtesy of his managerial career. Sisler I consider a longshot. Are we really going to cover almost 50 years of history with no 1st baseman worthy of our HOF?

On a separate note, why are good 1st basemen prior to 1947 almost non-existent in the majors? Was it that the worst player on the team played 1st base? Was it that we are undervaluing the defensive role of the position during this period? What was it?

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 05:25 PM

I forgot Chance. He'll be interesting as he'll put the whole player/manager thing to the test. I suspect he'll get in, but it may take several years. I believe Sisler will get in, but I also think people have very strong opinions on Sisler, usually in that he's extremely overrated, and I do wonder if that will erode objectively assessing his career. Terry is kind of a mini-Sisler, and I wouldn't be surprised if Terry took a while to get in.

I don't see Bottomley getting in. If people don't like Beckley, they are not going to like Bottomley. Kelly has no chance and I'd be surprised if he even survives more than a couple of years on the ballot. Fournier has a really nice peak, but there really isn't enough there.

Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg will all likely be first balloters, but between them and the Anson/Brouthers/Connor trio, there's just not a lot at 1B during that 40 year period.

I think this exercise shows that for a 30-40 year period, 1B was not the offensive juggernaut position that we regard it today, and I think we need to temper our expectations to put 1B into the proper perspective of the era we're looking at now. It was more of a defensive position back then, more like 3B, and offensive production at the position isn't like we know it to be today. I think we're applying unfair future standards if we're holding 1Bmen during this period up to the standards of post-Gehrig 1Bmen.

EDIT: It's interesting that if you look at the list you gave, Beckley clearly has the highest OPS+ among 1Bmen of his era (perhaps with an exception for Chance, but Chance's career was much, much shorter).

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 06:11 PM

If McGinnity, why not Hahn? Conversely, if Hahn, why not McGinnity? That's the debate I'm grappling with right now, and that's why I haven't submitted my ballot yet. One thing is for sure, Collins will be on it.

When thinking McGinnity, think Rusie in terms of dominance. When thinking Hahn, think Corcoran. McGinnity was that good for just enough of a period to give him the edge over Hahn (who was also great and undervalued here, IMHO).

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 06:14 PM

EDIT: It's interesting that if you look at the list you gave, Beckley clearly has the highest OPS+ among 1Bmen of his era (perhaps with an exception for Chance, but Chance's career was much, much shorter).

I think that we're very unlikely to make any further headway on Beckley. Beckley doesn't get the nod from the peak guys and Chance doesn't get the nod from the career guys. Take Beckley and give him Chance's peak along with Beckley's longevity and you have a 1st ballot 1st tier HOFer. That's why, IMO, Beckley will probably run the 15 years on the ballot but not get above the 70% threshold.

Fournier has a really nice peak, but there really isn't enough there.

Fournier was a defensive disaster who was moved to 1st base in the hopes that he could at least field that position. The problem there was that he couldn't field the bunt to save his life. Given how great Fournier was with the bat and how terrible he was on the field, Fournier probably would have been a perfect DH if it existed in his era.

AG2004

08-04-2008, 06:57 PM

EDIT: I added this note about Beckley in my last post in the last election, and I wanted to repeat it here: 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 even 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.

Frank Chance would be a better choice at 1B than Beckley. Chance led all Cubs position players each season from 1903 to 1907, and that includes the 116-win season in 1906 and 107-win season in 1907. Beckley was good for a long time, but Chance was a great player for that five-year span. Chance's win share line, adjusted for season length, comes out to 243-98-146. The career value may be a little low, but no 1B who played mostly since 1890 has come close to Chance's peak. "I think that says something about both the era and Chance. Not every 1Bman is going to be Anson, Brouthers, and Connor, and, thus far, there haven't even been any other 1Bmen like Chance."

----

Responding to a comment made during the previous election, I looked at outfielders and first basemen during Beckley's day. I found a number of players who played at least two seasons as a corner outfielder, then switched to first base for multiple seasons: Buck Ewing, Ed Delahanty, John Anderson, Fred Tenney, George Decker, and Claude Hickman. Only Delahanty and Anderson would move from first to the outfield, and remain in the outfield for at least two consecutive years. (Both of them played outfield for the AL's Washington club after their time at first base, which may be related to the fact that the team was terrible during the first decade of its existence. Washington also tried moving Hickman from the outfield to second base.) Along the defensive spectrum, first base had less value than corner outfielder [even back then - 2008 addition to this sentence].

Had Beckley been able to throw, he could have played in the outfield, where his overall career value would have been similar to George Van Haltren, and one couldn't advance Beckley's case on the ground that he was better than other outfielders on the time. However, since Beckley couldn't throw, he had less career value than he could have -- but he gets support for being the best first baseman of his time. In other words, since Beckley could have been a better player, but wasn't, he gains an argument for induction. This is utterly perverse. Beckley should not be rewarded for having a bad throwing arm, but arguing that "Beckley deserves induction because he was better than other 1B of his time, even if he was worse than George Van Haltren" is doing just that.

[Note: before one criticizes Van Haltren for having "only" 8979 PAs, one should realize that he started out as a pitcher, and, over the course of three different seasons, combined 65 complete games with 151 appearances in the outfield. Those CGs do take something out of a player.]

jalbright

08-04-2008, 06:58 PM

I don't know Mark, I'm feeling like some people here have their minds made up on some players they view as lower tier players in the real Hall, and thus won't give them the proper credit here. McGinnity did lead the league in IP four times, but he really wasn't that much more of a workhorse over his career than Welch. For instance, both finished in the top 6 in IP 8 times, and Welch finished in the top 8 10 times (McGinnity is still at 8). And the fact still remains that in 1000 more prime innings, Welch has the better ERA+, I don't know how you can get around that. That's significant. If this were a real exercise, I imagine that in 100 years people like us would be on a website like this wondering what on Earth the voters were thinking when they missed Welch, and then Welch would suddenly transform into Tony Mullane - the pet project of the 21st century cyberfans.

There are two issues with that comparison of McGinnity and Welch. One is there were many more pitchers in McGinnity's day in a more organized sport. The top ten in Welch's day amounted to 1/3 of the starting pitchers much of the time, and, because the game was less organized, it's less likely that the vast majority of the best pitchers were in the majors. Thus, Welch's top 10 performances are less impressive IMHO than McGinnity's. Welch probably qualifies as a workhorse, though, but IMO he did not produce the same quality of work. Big difference to me, at least. The second is that pitchers relied more on their defense in Welch's day than in McGinnity's, and thus I think there should be an adjustment in favor of the McGinnity-era pitcher.

dgarza

08-04-2008, 08:05 PM

Jake Beckley
Larry Corcoran
Hugh Duffy
Charley Jones
Joe Kelley
Jim McCormick
Joe McGinnity
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. Joe McGinnity
5. Mickey Welch
6. Cal McVey
7. George Van Haltren
8. Jake Beckley
9. Joe Kelley
10. Hardy Richardson
11. Lip Pike
12. Jimmy Ryan
13. Mike Tiernan
14. Charley Jones
15. Larry Corcoran

Erik Bedard

08-04-2008, 08:12 PM

When thinking McGinnity, think Rusie in terms of dominance. When thinking Hahn, think Corcoran. McGinnity was that good for just enough of a period to give him the edge over Hahn (who was also great and undervalued here, IMHO).

I'd put Hahn a bit over McGinnity peak-wise, personally, closer to Rusie than Corcoran. What I'm debating is whether McGinnity's longer career makes up for it. Right now I'm leaning toward yes, but I could really go either way.

leecemark

08-04-2008, 08:29 PM

--Ironman seems a little better nickname for a Hall of Famer than Noodles:).

JDD

08-04-2008, 09:16 PM

I think this is my ballot (not sure if this checks my checks so to speak... maybe I forgot Ossee):

Jack Beckley, 1B (1888-1907) - 2nd Year
Jimmy Collins, 3B (1895-1908) - 1st Year
Lave Cross, 3B (1887-1907) - 2nd Year
Hugh Duffy, CF/OF (1888-1901, 1904-1906) - 3rd Year
Joe Kelley, LF (1891-1906, 1908) - 1st Year
Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 5th Year
Bobby Lowe, 2B (1890-1907) - 2nd Year
Joe McGinnity, SP (1899-1908) - 1st Year
John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 3rd Year
Deacon McGuire, C (1884-1888, 1890-1908, 1910, 1912) - 1st Year
Jimmy Ryan, CF (1885-1903) - 6th Year
Ossee Schreckengost, C (1897-1899, 1901-1908) - 1st Year
Mike Tiernan, RF (1887-1899) - 9th Year
George Van Haltren, CF (1887-1903) - 6th Year

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 09:25 PM

Frank Chance would be a better choice at 1B than Beckley. Chance led all Cubs position players each season from 1903 to 1907, and that includes the 116-win season in 1906 and 107-win season in 1907. Beckley was good for a long time, but Chance was a great player for that five-year span. Chance's win share line, adjusted for season length, comes out to 243-98-146. The career value may be a little low, but no 1B who played mostly since 1890 has come close to Chance's peak. "I think that says something about both the era and Chance. Not every 1Bman is going to be Anson, Brouthers, and Connor, and, thus far, there haven't even been any other 1Bmen like Chance."

Chance played what, 6 almost full seasons? Had about 5500 less PAs than Beckley? You really think he comes anywhere close to a 135 career OPS+ if he had more than 5100 PAs?

Responding to a comment made during the previous election, I looked at outfielders and first basemen during Beckley's day. I found a number of players who played at least two seasons as a corner outfielder, then switched to first base for multiple seasons: Buck Ewing, Ed Delahanty, John Anderson, Fred Tenney, George Decker, and Claude Hickman. Only Delahanty and Anderson would move from first to the outfield, and remain in the outfield for at least two consecutive years. (Both of them played outfield for the AL's Washington club after their time at first base, which may be related to the fact that the team was terrible during the first decade of its existence. Washington also tried moving Hickman from the outfield to second base.) Along the defensive spectrum, first base had less value than corner outfielder [even back then - 2008 addition to this sentence].

I still strongly disagree that defensively, at this point in time 1B was less important than corner OF. The style of play at the time inherently involved 1B much more than today as well as more than corner OF, and I don't think it's a coincidence that between the mid 1890s and around 1930, there really weren't many big time offensive performers at 1B in that stereotypical mode.

DoubleX

08-04-2008, 09:28 PM

There are two issues with that comparison of McGinnity and Welch. One is there were many more pitchers in McGinnity's day in a more organized sport. The top ten in Welch's day amounted to 1/3 of the starting pitchers much of the time, and, because the game was less organized, it's less likely that the vast majority of the best pitchers were in the majors. Thus, Welch's top 10 performances are less impressive IMHO than McGinnity's. Welch probably qualifies as a workhorse, though, but IMO he did not produce the same quality of work. Big difference to me, at least. The second is that pitchers relied more on their defense in Welch's day than in McGinnity's, and thus I think there should be an adjustment in favor of the McGinnity-era pitcher.

Seems like a lot of justifying as to why not to vote for Welch. ERA+ already adjusts for era and compares a player to his peers. The simple fact remains that in Welch's 10 best seasons, he had a higher ERA+ than McGinnity did in his only 10 seasons, and in 1000 more IP to boot. So I don't get why a 120 ERA+ is good in one era, but a 122 ERA+ is no good in another. In both cases, the players dominated their respective eras similarly.

I really think a lot of this has to do with the fact that many people view Welch as a lower tier Hall of Famer, and thus have trouble seeing his career objectively. It's the same reason why on the other side, people pull so readily for guys like Tony Mullane or Bert Blyleven. We're so used to trumpeting their cases that we get over eager to support them when given the chance. But in Welch's case, we're so used to minimizing him, that we perhaps don't give him his proper due. I fear the same might happen to George Sisler when the time comes. If we fail to elect Welch here, I believe in our hypothetical future he would become akin to what Tony Mullane is to us now - a pet project that we like to lament about his non-induction.

jjpm74

08-04-2008, 09:43 PM

AG2004

08-05-2008, 08:54 AM

Chance played what, 6 almost full seasons? Had about 5500 less PAs than Beckley? You really think he comes anywhere close to a 135 career OPS+ if he had more than 5100 PAs?

Your argument relies upon the assumption that "career means everything, peak means nothing." The fact is that Beckley never managed to exceed the level of 23 win shares over a 154-game schedule. Chance's win share peak, over five consecutive seasons, comes out to 146 after a schedule-length adjustment. That would not decrease with more PAs. Beckley's win share peak comes out to 107 after a schedule-length adjustment. That's a gigantic gap.

As I said above, Beckley was good for a long time, but Chance was great for a five-year stretch. We already have Sam Thompson in the Hall, and his schedule-adjusted win share line is 261-91-128. Pete Browning, another Hall member, has a schedule-adjusted line of 266-98-143. Chance's career value is only 243 after season length adjustments, but his management of the Cubs during his playing days is worth something. Beckley's induction would be a major step down in peak value for 1B/OF; there's no such member at those positions with a peak nearly as bad as Beckley's. Chance, on the other hand, would fit in with some of the players we have already inducted.

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 09:52 AM

Your argument relies upon the assumption that "career means everything, peak means nothing."

Aren't you just doing the opposite? Making a Hall of Fame case based on 6 almost full seasons? Just 5 times Chance exceeded 500 PAs, that's a pretty paltry career at this point in time. I don't care what win shares say, because for a variety reasons that I believe others articulated in earlier elections, they are flawed here. It's also very arbitrarily convenient to say, "look at 5 peak years, Chance is better." Ok, what about 10? 12? 15? Do you have anything else to justify why just 5 or 6 years is enough to make a player a Hall of Famer? Do we put in every player now that had 5 good win share years and little else? It's obvious you're saying career value means absolutely nothing because you're valuing 5 or 6 years and that's it. It's not like Chance has a number of decent seasons around that. He has a could of ok seasons, but like I said, his entire career is really that 6 year period - so you're saying that 6 years is all we need for a Hall of Famer?

As a sidenote unrelated to this conversation, I find it absolutely ridiculous that McGinnity has 11 votes, 100%, and Welch has just 3 votes. I'm sorry, but I can't take this electorate seriously right now. I have yet to see a compelling argument against Welch. Perhaps it's because of Sockeye, perhaps it's because subconciously we're so used to the "Mullane should be in the real Hall because Welch is in" mentality, but for whatever reason, people seem automatically predisposed against Welch and not giving him a fair shake, IMO.

Brad Harris

08-05-2008, 11:12 AM

As a sidenote unrelated to this conversation, I find it absolutely ridiculous that McGinnity has 11 votes, 100%, and Welch has just 3 votes. I'm sorry, but I can't take this electorate seriously right now. I have yet to see a compelling argument against Welch. Perhaps it's because of Sockeye, perhaps it's because subconciously we're so used to the "Mullane should be in the real Hall because Welch is in" mentality, but for whatever reason, people seem automatically predisposed against Welch and not giving him a fair shake, IMO.

I'd like to rise above the whole "revenge for Sockeye" thing, but I just can't right now. I'm sure I'll get around to it one of these years after the vehemence has worn off a little more. ;)

PVNICK

08-05-2008, 11:44 AM

Beckley
Childs
Collins
Cross
Long
McGinnity
McGraw
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Welch
I also added on Pike and Start, who were dominant figures in the games infancy. As me in a week and I may think otherwise.

Paul Wendt

08-05-2008, 12:57 PM

For now this is all the time I can afford:

XX quoted #19 (emphasis added now) and replied
>>
It is not reasonable in the same [simple] way to compare McGinnity with Mickey Welch and Jim McCormick from the 1880s. They both worked several seasons before the majors permitted full overhand pitching, and when two men could easily share the workload for 84 or 98 league games. So that comparison is more demanding; it should be complicated rather than simple.
<<
>>
Now this is an argument I can live with. Now on the same token, shouldn't this also be something held against Al Spalding? Just 7 years in an infant league with rules and styles that greatly differ from the game now. Seems like it would be hard to assess someone like Spalding (or Barnes earlier), against guys who played in a more modern and familiar game.
<<

I mean to suggest that a counting statistic achieved by the 8th-9th ranking pitcher in an 8-team league may be used as the basis for "complicated" rather than "simple" comparison. For "workhorse" in pitchers, instead of simply comparing innings or saying "apples and oranges, we can't compare" (XX seems disposed to do one or the other), we/you might compare innings pitched relative to that benchmark (IPpitcher / IPbenchmark).

bambambaseball

08-05-2008, 02:36 PM

Ok I get it. These are a week and the other thing that is stickied is three weeks?

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 03:03 PM

I'm really curious why Jimmy Collins is struggling to keep his head above the water. The voting to this point through 14 ballots cast makes little sense to me:

Joe McGinnity 100%
Jimmy Collins 78.57%
Jake Beckley 78.57%
Hardy Richardson 78.57%
George Van Haltren 78.57%
Al Spalding 71.43%

I thought the sentiment was that Jimmy Collins was going to run away with this. Not teeter in the company of Beckley and Richardson and Van Haltren :confused:

Are we ever going to elect a third baseman? :hp

leecemark

08-05-2008, 06:24 PM

--I voted for both, but if we could only pick one player in would definately be Collins over McGinnity. McGinnity is almost certainly going to be elected, but I hope somebody at least leaves him off. 100% would be a shocking finish for a 2nd tier guy like Ironman.
--Has Spaulding's support waned after coming up one vote short last time or have his supporters just not gotten their ballots in yet? Only a couple more shots for him.

BlueBlood

08-05-2008, 06:34 PM

--Has Spaulding's support waned after coming up one vote short last time or have his supporters just not gotten their ballots in yet? Only a couple more shots for him.

I haven't voted yet. I'm reviewing a few cases a bit closer but I will vote for Spalding.

AG2004

08-05-2008, 07:29 PM

Aren't you just doing the opposite? Making a Hall of Fame case based on 6 almost full seasons?

I'm not claiming that Chance ought to be in the Hall; I'm merely claiming that he would be a better choice than Beckley. His induction would lower the career standards set for 1B/OF by a smalll amount -- but Beckley's induction would lower the peak standards by a larger proportion.

Just 5 times Chance exceeded 500 PAs, that's a pretty paltry career at this point in time. I don't care what win shares say, because for a variety reasons that I believe others articulated in earlier elections, they are flawed here. It's also very arbitrarily convenient to say, "look at 5 peak years, Chance is better." Ok, what about 10? 12? 15? Do you have anything else to justify why just 5 or 6 years is enough to make a player a Hall of Famer?

Chance had only six seasons with 20+ win shares. However, Pete Browning had only six seasons when, adjusted for season length, come out to 20+ win shares. Chance's peak is also similar to Browning's.

Since Pete Browning is in the Hall, his selection does indicate that 6 good years (including 3 great ones) and a five-year win share peak in the mid-140s is enough to make someone a Hall of Famer. In 1901, I argued that Browning was not deserving of induction, and I tried to stop Sam Thompson's induction during the middle of the oughts. However, Browning and Thompson have been inducted, and Chance's overall profile is very comparable to the profiles of those two members.

Do we put in every player now that had 5 good win share years and little else? It's obvious you're saying career value means absolutely nothing because you're valuing 5 or 6 years and that's it. It's not like Chance has a number of decent seasons around that. He has a could of ok seasons, but like I said, his entire career is really that 6 year period - so you're saying that 6 years is all we need for a Hall of Famer?

Five good years - 20 win shares or more - isn't enough. Browning had three seasons of 30+ win shares, and three more of 20+ (after adjusting for schedule lengths). Chance had six seasons of 20 win shares, with 35, 34, and 29 win shares in his best three seasons. Since the Cubs pitchers may get slightly more credit than they deserve (with fielders getting less), and Chance was the team leader and manager, Chance may actually have been worth 30 or 31 win shares in that one season. That would give him three MVP-type seasons, just like Browning.

Chance had some value outside those seasons; he ends up with 243 adjusted win shares for his career after season length adjustments. It's a little below Thompson's 261 or Browning's 266. However, Chance's overall profile is similar to Browning's, and his value as manager may be enough to close the major difference between the two, which is 23 (schedule-length-adjusted) win shares' worth of career value.

Pete Browning is a Hall of Famer - he was elected by the voters. That indicates that players similar to Browning should also be Hall of Famers. Since Chance's overall profile - career, peak, number of great seasons, number of good seasons - is similar to Browning's, I see that a good case could be made for Chance.

If the likes of Browning and Thompson had been kept out of the Hall of Fame -- and I argued against their elections, especially in Thompson's case -- I wouldn't be able to make this case for Chance. However, their induction indicates that a combination of career and peak similar to theirs is the standard for the Hall of Fame, and one could argue that Chance meets that standard. There's nobody with a career/peak combination similar to that of Beckley's in the Hall, and that's an argument against Beckley.

I couldn't keep Thompson out of the Hall of Fame. I tried, but I wasn't successful. Beckley's induction would reduce standards for membership even more. That's why I'm making a stand here.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 07:38 PM

--Frank Chance was absolutely a greater player than Jake Beckley. Whether playing at a lower level twice as long makes up the difference for Beckley is something each voters needs to decide for him/herself. Or whether either deserves a vote for that matter.
--Frank Chance was the best player on the best team of his generation. That he was also the player-manager of those teams puts him head and shoulders above Browning or Thompson IMO. Had he not been player-manager he would be a borderline candidate, but the combination will put him on my ballot.

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 08:18 PM

I'm not claiming that Chance ought to be in the Hall; I'm merely claiming that he would be a better choice than Beckley. His induction would lower the career standards set for 1B/OF by a smalll amount -- but Beckley's induction would lower the peak standards by a larger proportion.

In other words, Chance conforms to your approach better than Beckley? Trying to convince a career guy that Chance is a better choice than Beckley is as futile as a career guy trying to convince you that Beckley is better than Chance, IMO.

Personally, I think Chance is a borderline HOFer only when taking his managerial career into consideration. His playing career doesn't cut it for me. Beckley is also a borderline guy and that's only because he was very consistent for a very long time. He had no point in his career where he excelled.

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 08:23 PM

--Frank Chance was absolutely a greater player than Jake Beckley. Whether playing at a lower level twice as long makes up the difference for Beckley is something each voters needs to decide for him/herself. Or whether either deserves a vote for that matter.

This argument makes absolutely no sense to me. If Chance was elected, he'd have the shortest career of anyone in the HOF. He was good for a short time. Beckley was productive for 4X as many seasons as Chance. I'll take a consistently good player like Beckley over a flash in the pan often injured player like Chance any day.

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 09:34 PM

I have to admit, I'll probably vote for Chance because he did have a nice, albeit short peak, amd he has the subjective fame factor going in that he was the best player on some very good and notable teams, and the whole player/manager thing. I don't think it's an either/or thing here with Chance and Beckley, as I don't thinks supporting one means you have to be closed minded to the other.

Anyway, Mark, you never answered my question about McGraw. Are you considering his post-playing managerial career when voting for him? I ask because I don't think that's appropriate in a players election.

And as a general note, I still can't reconcile the huge disparity between McGinnity and Welch and I'm convinced that for whatever reason (Sockeye perhaps), people are predisposed against giving Welch a fair shake as no one has really presented a good argument against him.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 09:47 PM

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 09:48 PM

That could very well be the case with Welch (I think that's a likelihood, actually). Welch should have more support than he has. His voting should be at least on par with Beckley IMO. In the case of McGinnity, however, I'm not even looking at McCormick, Spalding, Welch and Corcoran for comparison. McGinnity came later than those three and there was no one in the league more dominant than him during his brief but amazing career. Seeing McGinnity with this kind of support holds well for when guys like Joss and Wood come up, IMO (though Eric Bedard has a very good point about Hahn).

A bigger concern for me is that the same kind of support isn't there for Jimmy Collins. Perhaps pitchers from this era are easier to understand than infielders?

leecemark

08-05-2008, 09:56 PM

--I am very unlikley to vote for Addie Joss and even less likely to vote for Joe Wood. Premature to make them the focus of discussion, so this post will be my only one on them until they are eligible. That said, even as an established peak voter they come up short for me. Wood's peak was just too short and he has virtually no filler to shore up his case. Joss peak wasn't quite high enough, mostly due to his lack of durability (kind of the anti-Ironman), to make up for his lack of career. Maybe if he had been going strong when illness struck him down I could project at little (though I'm not big on that), but he suffered a career threatening arm injury the year before.

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 10:02 PM

True. One pitcher who doesn't get enough support here is Hahn, however. He has Wood beat and is comparable to Joss, IMO.

AG2004

08-05-2008, 10:02 PM

In other words, Chance conforms to your approach better than Beckley? Trying to convince a career guy that Chance is a better choice than Beckley is as futile as a career guy trying to convince you that Beckley is better than Chance, IMO.

Personally, I think Chance is a borderline HOFer only when taking his managerial career into consideration. His playing career doesn't cut it for me. Beckley is also a borderline guy and that's only because he was very consistent for a very long time. He had no point in his career where he excelled.

[I'm stepping out of character and addressing this from a 2008 perspective.]

I may value peak more than career in the BBFHOF election. Using the standard I've applied to those elections, I would say that Chance doesn't belong in the HOF as a player; he would need his managerial career to get in.

However, for these progressive elections, I'm pretending that it's 1913. I have no idea what a Hall of Famer will be in 2008, and I can't apply my 2008 standards here. I proposed my standards for this Hall in 1901, but the other voters decided that they were too restrictive.

In order to decide who belongs in the Hall, the best question to define the "HOF Standard" is, "Who has been inducted so far?" Nobody has used up their initial eligibility yet, so I can't declare that someone still on the ballot is definitely not a Hall of Famer. However, those people who have been inducted are Hall of Famers. If someone exceeds the standards set worst players in -- for 1B/OF, they would be Browning and Thompson -- I'll put him on my ballot. If he is in the area of those two players, there could be a case for him, and that's all I can say about Chance - there's a case for him. Chase is a borderline candidate, since he's about as good as Browning or Thompson, and they represent the current borderline.

I can't look at who Cooperstown inducted between 1936 and 2008 to make my decisions here, because those events are still far in the future in 1913. If the other voters had rejected Browning and Thompson, while voting for players with long careers and low peaks, I would have changed my standards to reflect that, and I wouldn't be saying that Chance had a case for this Hall. That's why I'm supporting Ryan here -- Ryan is better than Thompson, and we don't have enough of a history for this Hall to decide whether Thompson was a mistake.

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 10:13 PM

[I'm stepping out of character and addressing this from a 2008 perspective.]

I may value peak more than career in the BBFHOF election. Using the standard I've applied to those elections, I would say that Chance doesn't belong in the HOF as a player; he would need his managerial career to get in.

However, for these progressive elections, I'm pretending that it's 1913. I have no idea what a Hall of Famer will be in 2008, and I can't apply my 2008 standards here. I proposed my standards for this Hall in 1901, but the other voters decided that they were too restrictive.

In order to decide who belongs in the Hall, the best question to define the "HOF Standard" is, "Who has been inducted so far?" Nobody has used up their initial eligibility yet, so I can't declare that someone still on the ballot is definitely not a Hall of Famer. However, those people who have been inducted are Hall of Famers. If someone exceeds the standards set worst players in -- for 1B/OF, they would be Browning and Thompson -- I'll put him on my ballot. If he is in the area of those two players, there could be a case for him, and that's all I can say about Chance - there's a case for him. Chase is a borderline candidate, since he's about as good as Browning or Thompson, and they represent the current borderline.

I can't look at who Cooperstown inducted between 1936 and 2008 to make my decisions here, because those events are still far in the future in 1913. If the other voters had rejected Browning and Thompson, while voting for players with long careers and low peaks, I would have changed my standards to reflect that, and I wouldn't be saying that Chance had a case for this Hall. That's why I'm supporting Ryan here -- Ryan is better than Thompson, and we don't have enough of a history for this Hall to decide whether Thompson was a mistake.

The one thing both me and you are attempting to do is approach this from a period perspective. However, looking at your approach, it seems like you're just taking your 2008 approach and cleaning it up to look pretty in a 1913 sense. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of the game in general and regularly visit your Keltner lists for other projects, but I think if you're strictly focusing on peak value in a project like this, you're only paying lip service to the whole period approach. Counting stats, longevity and narratives are what any kind of analyst would have used in 1913 to determine how much of a star someone was. Not win shares and peak value.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 10:39 PM

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 10:44 PM

--Actually counting stats (at least the career version) were not, to the best of my knowledge, a big deal in early baseball. Very few people were probably even aware that Roger Conner was the career HR leader. Even 20 years into the future Sam Rice is retiring just shy of 3,000 hits because nobody was particularly concerned about such a thing. I suspect that how big a star you were preceived to be at your best was more important at this stage of history, rather than less.

The fact that from an early age they were keeping box scores suggests that at the very least runs for a hitter and wins for a pitcher were an important factor in determining stardom. Perceived defensive excellence was also a big factor almost across the boards.

EDIT: in the case of home runs, I disagree with you. The early accounts of the game surrounding Charley Jones and a handful of others clearly make note of their home run hitting ability and the distance a given hit carried.

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 10:45 PM

Stats are also a completely moot point in the case of someone like Lip Pike who at the time of his retirement was almost universally seen as the greatest outfielder of his day. Someone who has been left off your ballot for 13 years now despite your vocal support for stars from his era.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 10:54 PM

jjpm74

08-05-2008, 10:58 PM

--I think that is another misconception our electorate has suffered from. Pike was at least amoung the elite outfielders of the first generation, but outfielders in general were not as highly regarded as infielders. Our choices have been very much out of balance in that regard.

I don't know if I agree with that. I've come across more narratives attesting to Pike's stardom than Sutton et.al. Maybe Paul will see this and clear this up one way or the other as he's much more familiar with narratives from this generation than anyone else here.

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 11:13 PM

--McGraw is at least a borderline candidate as strictly a player. The fact that he has already made a great showing as a manager by the time he appeared on the ballot doesn't hurt him any. Would have been a non-issue had he been on ballot after his career as a regular, but his debut was delayed my token appearances as a player-manager for his early teams.

It doesn't hurt him, but it shouldn't help him here. If you don't think his career as a player cuts it, which you implied in your earlier post, you shouldn't vote for him here. If we starting considering his non-playing contributions, we'll have to do that with everyone and then this is no longer a players election. Like I said earlier, should we revisit Connie Mack's playing career because he went on to manage for 50 years? The aspects need to be distinguished here, though I have no problem considering the totality of a person's contributions in a VC election. To the extent that McGraw was a player/manager, it's fair to consider how that impacted his playing career, but I don't believe he ever played a full season as a player manager and with the exception of 2 or 3 years, most of his playing appearances as a manager were those token appearances you mentioned, so I don't think it's enough here because he was essentially a manager and not really at all a player anymore. For someone like Frank Chance it's a little different because Chance had some of his peak seasons as player/manager and managed his team to four pennants and two WS as a player/manager.

Also, I don't think it's fair to punish Welch because of Sockeye. I really don't think Welch has received a fair shake here at. It's inexplicable, to the point of embarrassing, that McGinnity has 100% of the votes while Welch has 1/3 right now.

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 11:17 PM

[I'm stepping out of character and addressing this from a 2008 perspective.]However, for these progressive elections, I'm pretending that it's 1913. I have no idea what a Hall of Famer will be in 2008, and I can't apply my 2008 standards here. I proposed my standards for this Hall in 1901, but the other voters decided that they were too restrictive.

I think from a 1913 perspective voters would have been impressed with a guy like Beckley who ranks in the top 3 or so in a number of offensive categories and would shake their head with extreme puzzlement when you would reply with "win shares." I think they'd also give strong consideration to the fact that after the Anson/Brouthers/Conner group, Beckley easily stood out among the next couple of generations of 1Bmen.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 11:18 PM

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 11:23 PM

--What I said was McGraw was borderline as a player. We have elected some other players I see as borderline at best (and are close to doing it several more times over), so I don't see a problem letting his other achievements tilt the balance for McGraw. Connie Mack is miles below the borderline as a player (he was never even on the ballot was he?), so that is not a very good comparison.

I suppose I can see an argument in that the managerial part of McGraw's career gives him that subjective aspect that tilts the scale in his favor. Still, for me, his playing career is too short for it to be enough as the subjective bonus points end when his playing career ended. I'll readily vote for him in a VC election though.

Also, my point with Mack is that if we are to give consideration to post-playing managerial careers, at what point do we have a cutoff? By even considering post-managerial careers your suggesting that it's ok to have a balancing that includes that factor. As such, why wouldn't be ok to consider Mack's playing career and factor in his amazing managerial career to find that all told he could be elected here? The point is, post-playing managerial careers should not be considered and should be cutoff from the playing career. If we don't do that, then we'd be potentially opening the door for factoring in all post-playing managerial careers into the equation, and that's not with this is about.

leecemark

08-05-2008, 11:31 PM

DoubleX

08-05-2008, 11:37 PM

--It is going to be very rare that someone is successfull quickly enough as a manager for that to really be considered when they hit the ballot. Rarer still when that person is a reasonable candidate as a player to start with. I don't think McGraw is setting any sort of precedent here, even if he should be elected and his election was known to have been given a boost by his managerial career. I'll stop mentioning it as a factor in his making by ballot though.

I don't think McGraw is going to get elected anyway. We seem to hate 3Bmen. As much as I'm stunned by Welch's poor support, I'm even more stunned that Collins is barely over the line. He is almost certainly the best 3Bmen the game has seen to this point, perhaps by a significant margin over anyone else, and we're having trouble electing him? This doesn't bode well for the future at 3B.

In general though, I believe 3B is a hard position to get a handle on. So few players really stand out in history, and the kind of production we expect from 3B is pretty unique as it's somewhere in between a middle IFer and 1B/corner OF, so it's in a kind of ambiguous area.

Freakshow

08-06-2008, 08:12 AM

It's inexplicable, to the point of embarrassing, that McGinnity has 100% of the votes while Welch has 1/3 right now.
As Paul attempted to point out, pitching 400 IP in 1904 was A LOT more impressive then pitching 400 IP in 1884. Basically, the first guy is the league's #1 workhorse; the second is just another normal staff ace.

So the problem with Welch is his standing in his era. We already have elected six 1880's pitchers (Clarkson, Keefe, Radbourn, Galvin, Mullane, Caruthers). If you can show that Welch is as good as one of these, then you have a case, perhaps.

But why do most of the "great" pitchers come from the 1880's? In the 1870's we're struggling to elect ONE. In the 1890's we have Nichols and Rusie. We'll add Young and maybe Griffith - that's it. McGinnity is the first of the 1900's pitchers eligible. I think he ends up in the top six for the decade (others being Mathewson, Plank, Walsh, Brown and Waddell).

At the Hall of Merit, I wasn't a BIG supporter of McGinnity, but I thought he was deserving of election. Here's my comment from my 1917 ballot (http://web.archive.org/web/20040208164944/www.baseballprimer.com/hom/archives/00000131.shtml) (post #94 in the thread):

13) McGinnity - A poor man's Rusie, but that's still enough to be the best pitcher on the ballot. I like guys who play, and while the Iron Man lacked longevity, few pitchers were more durable. Most IP 1899-1908:
1-3441 J. McGinnity
2-3419 C. Young
3-3184 V. Willis
4-3010 J. Powell
5-2841 J. Chesbro
6-2745 B. Dinneen
7-2694 R. Waddell

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 08:37 AM

McGinnity's like the definition of five year peak. He is a five year peak.

Seasons Via ERA+

1. 169 ERA+
2. 148 ERA+
3. 137 ERA+
4. 131 ERA+
5. 118 ERA+
...................................
6. 115 ERA+
7. 104 ERA+
8. 105 ERA+
9. 102 ERA+
10. 78 ERA+

#10 is one thing I absolutely detest about Win Shares or at least the form that's currently out there. That 78 ERA+ adds up to a ton of value because the guy pitched 310 innings that season. That's just plain stupid. I certainly wouldn't want a guy playing 22% under average chalking up so many innings.

Anyway, his peak ERA+ wise isn't something that a bunch of other players couldn't muster. McGinnity's excess here comes with the absolutely mind boggling amount of innings that he pitched which in turn gives him more value. Still, he loses a lot if we were to imagine a modern day pitcher like him. The guy would only be around for ten years because he's trapped in the minors until Age 28, and then puts up the above numbers with far, far less innings pitched as nowadays we have five man rotations and guys can't possibly pitch as deep into a game. Let's not forget that the deadball era was easier on the arm since there's less runners on base whereas an offensive heavy environment means starting pitchers going down for the count much sooner every game. Truthfully, it's ridiculous that McGinnity of all people is earning 100% here and will join a select club when he's on the low-end of a Top 50 pitchers ranking, if he even makes it onto such a list.

This got me re-thinking about the case for Welch yesterday afternoon because:

1) Welch pitched more innings and therefore could have the same career value if not more

and

2) James cut Win Shares in half for starting pitchers back in Welch's time, hence many of them (such as Caruthers) being heavily underrated. Welch, for example, isn't in James's 100 Pitchers list which is unfathomable given that Mickey had a 114 ERA+ in 4802 IP. In my mind, that's more than enough career value to make the grade.

Welch is still 17th on the All Time list for Innings Pitched. (Hear me out, and don't whine about me stepping out of 1913). So I went to B-R and looked up the guys with a massive workload that didn't end up in Cooperstown or the BBF HOF.

14. Bobby Matthews - 107 ERA+ in 4956.3 (297 wins....if only he had known)
20. Tommy John - 110 ERA+ in 4710 (12 wins away from the mark)
26. Jim Kaat - 107 ERA+ in 4530 (17 wins away)
31. Jack Powell - 106 ERA+ in 4389 (245 Career Wins)

Anyway, my point was to see just what set Welch apart from some of these others and to determine if I could support a player with far more career IP than Mr. McGinnity. I mean, if Welch has about a 1400 IP lead, that certainly could make up the ground, right?

First off, I can not even come close to supporting any of the above. John does not have a great peak and the others are so barely above average that they aren't worth discussing. So clearly, Welch has his own argument without anybody else to point too. Coincidentally, this election has led me the most to rethink whether I should be supporting him simply because of McGinnity. The test for me is Welch's best seasons of ERA+ compared to Joe's which would pretty much show that Mickey's only ignored by the Bill James collective.

1. McGinnity - 169 in 408
1. Welch - 164 in 492

The edge here goes to Welch. Now, I know a lot of you point out that in Welch's day there were like 1 1/3 pitchers per team but it's not like McGinnity also wasn't in a much higher IP count era than what would occur later, etc. Maybe if he were forty years removed (or even thirty) from his time period (say, if McGinnity had been pitching in the 30s) he'd have a better argument of being a workhorse but he started pitching in the 1800's for cryin' out loud. I see him as a relic of the decades before he played. There's always a few of a species that survive the initial extinction and baseball has all sorts of such stories. For example, how about the endless "He'll be the last ever to reach 300 games!" that we stomach on ESPN.

2. Welch - 141 in 425.3
2. McGinnity - 148 in 366

Let's call it a draw.

3. McGinnity - 137 in 434
3. Welch - 134 in 375

I'll now call it even overall with McGinnity winning this by about the same margin as Welch with the first comparison.

4. McGinnity - 131 in 343
4. Welch - 121 in 557.3

No question, Welch.

5. Welch - 114 in 426
5. McGinnity - 118 in 351.7

Welch by a hair. For me, the biggest thing I've learned from this is that Welch stopped pitching in 1892. McGinnity began pitching professionally in 1899 at the age of 28. He was 21 when Welch was still pitching. Sorry, but McGinnity really is an absolute relic of his time, one of the last gasps of the steel arms of the 19th Century. McGinnity with 100% and Welch consistently around 50% is confusing. Give Welch a 10 year career by shaving off his last two seasons and he'd probably pull about a 116 ERA+ in 1200 more innings than McGinnity. Sorry, but they're on par with one another. I'd be thinking of Joe's stats as the more impressive had he come around decades later. Instead, he's barely removed from Welch's rubber armed era and played in a similar offensive context. None of it leads to surprising stats in the least. It's what you'd expect from Mickey Welch removed a decade.

Also of note, Welch had a 68 OPS+ in 2201 ABs. That's a lot of offensive value from a pitcher and closes the gap moreso with McGinnity since Joe's bat amounted to a 28 over his career. Although it does have to be kept in mind that McGinnity was already on a typical downhill slide for hitters by the time he entered the majors whereas Welch was hitting from Age 20 to 32, barely past where his offensive peak would be.

Brad Harris

08-06-2008, 08:53 AM

There was some discussion early about the five-year peak of Chance vs. Beckley. Just wanted to note that BP's DT cards show only a small lead for Chance in that department. In fact, it was a small enough margin that I was very surprised. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference but I've read that Davenport accounts for era adjustments better than win shares does in those earlier years of the game. Personally, I'd prefer Ed Konetchy over either of them, but that's entirely besides the point.

DoubleX

08-06-2008, 08:54 AM

McGinnity - A poor man's Rusie, but that's still enough to be the best pitcher on the ballot. I like guys who play, and while the Iron Man lacked longevity, few pitchers were more durable. Most IP 1899-1908:
1-3441 J. McGinnity
2-3419 C. Young
3-3184 V. Willis
4-3010 J. Powell
5-2841 J. Chesbro
6-2745 B. Dinneen
7-2694 R. Waddell

I can play with numbers over an arbitrary period as well:

Most IP 1880-1890:

1) Pud Galvin - 4918
2) Mickey Welch -4638
3) Tim Keefe - 4424
4) Charley Radbourn - 4320
5) Jim McCormick - 3614
6) Jim Whitney - 3498

Welch ranks only behind the incomparable Pud Galvin. The difference between Welch and the next guy, Keefe, is about 5%. The difference between McGinnity and the next guy, Young, is less than 1%. The difference between Welch and the 6th guy, Whitney, is almost 25%. The difference between McGinnity and the 6th guy, Dinneen, is about 20%. This goes to show that Welch too was very much a workhorse in his own time over a larger sample and stood out more so as such than McGinnity did. I mentioned earlier, Wlelch never led the league in IP as McGinnity did, but he finished in the top 6 as many times and in the top 8 more times than McGinnity, also showing that over a larger sample, Welch was actually more of a workhorse in his era than McGinnity was in his.

Additionally, there's also the fact that I've mentioned and that people keep ignoring is that Welch's 10 year peak ERA+ of 122, is higher than McGinnity's career ERA+, and that's already adjusted for era (nevermind the 1000+ extra IP).

Anyway, my problem isn't just that McGinnity is being elected (I did vote for him), it's that he's getting 100% of the vote and Welch is getting 33%. Based on your post, McGinnity is maybe the 6th best of his generation, while Welch might be the 7th best of his, is that difference big enough to explain the huge disparity in voting? Still, no one has given a plausible explanation for this great difference, so I'm left to conclude that voters are unfairly prejudiced against Welch, and it's not right in the least. There is an obvious lack of objectivity regarding Welch and I expected more from this electorate.

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 08:56 AM

There was some discussion early about the five-year peak of Chance vs. Beckley. Just wanted to note that BP's DT cards show only a small lead for Chance in that department. In fact, it was a small enough margin that I was very surprised. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference but I've read that Davenport accounts for era adjustments better than win shares does in those earlier years of the game.

Chance had trouble playing in games, hence why the peaks are similar. 1906 is the only time he came close to playing a full season's worth and that only amounted to 136 games.

1905 = 105 Games
1906 = 136 Games
1903 = 125 Games
1904 = 124 Games
1907 = 111 Games

Brad Harris

08-06-2008, 08:57 AM

DoubleX

08-06-2008, 09:00 AM

Welch by a hair. For me, the biggest thing I've learned from this is that Welch stopped pitching in 1892. McGinnity began pitching professionally in 1899 at the age of 28. He was 21 when Welch was still pitching. Sorry, but McGinnity really is an absolute relic of his time, one of the last gasps of the steel arms of the 19th Century. McGinnity with 100% and Welch consistently around 50% is confusing. Give Welch a 10 year career by shaving off his last two seasons and he'd probably pull about a 116 ERA+ in 1200 more innings than McGinnity. Sorry, but they're on par with one another. I'd be thinking of Joe's stats as the more impressive had he come around decades later. Instead, he's barely removed from Welch's rubber armed era and played in a similar offensive context. None of it leads to surprising stats in the least. It's what you'd expect from Mickey Welch removed a decade.

Also of note, Welch had a 68 OPS+ in 2201 ABs. That's a lot of offensive value from a pitcher and closes the gap moreso with McGinnity since Joe's bat amounted to a 28 over his career. Although it does have to be kept in mind that McGinnity was already on a typical downhill slide for hitters by the time he entered the majors whereas Welch was hitting from Age 20 to 32, barely past where his offensive peak would be.

Excellent post, further illustrating just how embarrassing the disparity between McGinnity and Welch is. I have no problem with saying McGinnity is better, but no one has said much to justify why he deserves 100% and Welch just 1/3. All the strong arguments are coming from the other side, but they seem to be falling on deaf ears as people for whatever reason, don't want to open their minds up to Welch. It's embarrassing and a huge travesty of this process, and the evidence is abundantly clear in the huge inexplicable disparity between McGinnity and Welch.

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 09:06 AM

Ignoring Win Shares, this is the only valid argument I can see between the two and why McGinnity would edge out Welch.

Adjusted ERA+ Top Tens For McGinnity:

1899 NL-148-3
1900 NL-131-7
1902 NL-136-6
1903 NL-137-4
1904 NL-169-1

Adjusted ERA+ Top Tens For Welch:

1880 NL-99-10
1881 NL-110-6
1883 NL-114-10
1884 NL-121-10
1885 NL-164-3
1886 NL-109-10
1888 NL-141-4
1889 NL-134-3

Oh, wait. Welch is in the Top Five just as often as McGinnity (3 times apiece). I'll ignore that Welch ends up in the Top 10 barely four other times along with a sixth place in 1881. Way less pitchers in his day made it easier to rank higher. However, we have to remember just how valuable a single ace like Welch was in his day. He was one of the top four pitchers in baseball three times (as was McGinnity) but with far more IP than Joe. So again, this once great argument is kind of a wash for me.

leecemark

08-06-2008, 09:22 AM

--I too am surprised that McGinnity is at 100%. Pointing out the disparity between his percent and Welch's is really a dubious point though. We are simply on a yes/no scale here, not a curve. 100% of us agree that McGinnity is a Hall of Famer. That does not indicate that we all - or even any of - think he is at the top of that Hall. If we all agreed that McGinnity was the 10th best pitcher to come up for vote so far and Welch was 11th and we all agreed that 10th was where we draw the line then Ironman Joe would be at 100% and Smiling Mickey would be at 0%. Maybe we have a consensus that McGinnity is a B+ and Welch is a B and most of us are only willing to vote for B+'s?
--Pointing out that there is not a huge difference in time between them and ignoring that effect on IP is very misleading as well. Welch's last year was 1892 - not coincidentally the last year of pitching from 45 feet. The expectations for pitcher's changed quickly and dramatically with that rule change. Likewise the significance of "top 8" finishes. If each of the 8 teams is using 1-2 pitchers as they were in Welch's day then 8th is average at best and certainly not a inidcator of greatness. In McGinnity's time each team was using 3-4 regular starting pitchers. 8th place was much more significant (you'd be good enough to at least be the #1 for somebody).

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 09:25 AM

But can't we agree that starting pitchers were far more valuable to the success of a team in the 1800's that afterwards? Meaning, Welch is a much more important player for his team than McGinnity. Having McGinnity on your team would get you absolutely nowhere if you didn't have a few other good starters and a great lineup, etc. Whereas in Welch's time, you would need a pitcher of his caliber in order to be competitive since they were about a third of the team.

Freakshow

08-06-2008, 09:34 AM

Way less pitchers in his day made it easier to rank higher. A fact which swings your comparison clearly in McGinnity's favor.
However, we have to remember just how valuable a single ace like Welch was in his day.
What does this mean? EDIT: I see you just tried to explained this.
So again, this once great argument is kind of a wash for me.

No difference here?

Highest rank in league in IP

McGinnity
1899 NL-366.3-4
1900 NL-343.0-1
1901 AL-382.0-1
1903 NL-434.0-1
1904 NL-408.0-1
1905 NL-320.3-6
1906 NL-339.7-2
1907 NL-310.3-5

Welch
1880 NL-574.0-4
1883 NL-426.0-6
1884 NL-557.3-4
1885 NL-492.0-2
1886 NL-500.0-3
1888 NL-425.3-5
1889 NL-375.0-5

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 09:38 AM

There we go. Now that's what I wanted to see.

As for pitchers being more valuable in Welch's day, I think I just explained it in the above post. Every team would need a pretty good guy on the mound in Welch's era or they'd have absolutely no chance at winning. Look no further than Spalding being about half of the 1871 Red Stockings.

leecemark

08-06-2008, 09:40 AM

--OTOH pitching was a smaller part of run prevention then. Pitchers were heavily reliant on their defense. Welch had some pretty good players behind him in his prime. Of course so did McGinnity and defense was only incrementally less important 20 years later. In any case I see McGinnity as just above the line and Welch just below. We should not take McGinnity 100% as a sign he is truely an inner circle pitcher (and thus Welch being a reasonable comparison making him an obvious choice). Its just that everyone has seen McGinnity at least a little bit above whereever they happen to draw the line for being worthy.

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 09:43 AM

I agree with your sentiment. It's certainly not about detracting McGinnity as it's pretty much impossible for him to be left out of anyone's Hall. It's more that his candidacy is raising questions as to whether or not I should support Welch.

Freakshow

08-06-2008, 09:54 AM

There we go. Now that's what I wanted to see.

As for pitchers being more valuable in Welch's day, I think I just explained it in the above post. Every team would need a pretty good guy on the mound in Welch's era or they'd have absolutely no chance at winning.
If this is true, we would expect Welch's teams to be near the top every year. They weren't.

Where Welch's team finished each year:
80 4
81 5
82 7
83 6
84 4
85 2
86 3
87 4
88 1
89 1
90 6
91 3

OK, he won a couple pennants. Was this due to Welch being their ace? No, he shared that job with Keefe. In addition they had these guys behind them:

Roger Connor
Buck Ewing
John Ward
Jim O'Rourke
George Gore
Mike Tiernan

As Mark indicates, I don't see that you can conclude that having an "ace" was any more important in Welch's day than in subsequent eras.
Look no further than Spalding being about half of the 1871 Red Stockings.
Spalding and Welch were not of the same pitching era. Important changes occurred within a short time period.

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 09:59 AM

I'm fully aware of that. But I still think Welch filled a huge pitching role just as guys in a four man rotation were of greater importance than those in a five man, etc.

jjpm74

08-06-2008, 10:05 AM

Didn't Welch pitch his entire career underhand and at the shorter pitching distance whereas McGinnity pitched his entire career at the modern pitching distance overhand? Forgetting about the fact that McGinnity led his league in IP many times whereas Welch was 2nd in his best year, it is much easier to pitch that many innings underhand and far less strain on your rotator cuff. Even if Welch was snap throwing.

Now if Welch was throwing side armed, this argument can be thrown out the window. Was he throwing side armed or underhand?

Freakshow

08-06-2008, 10:39 AM

One more thing about McGinnity. His value as a closer, and pioneering in that role. He would usually be used to finish 6 or 7 games every year in addition to his heavy starting load. He retired as the all-time career leader in saves, leading the league three times plus four other years in his league's top 3. McGraw relied on McGinnity more than Mathewson in this role.

Not a big deal, but worth mentioning.

jalbright

08-06-2008, 10:45 AM

one thing I absolutely detest about Win Shares or at least the form that's currently out there. That 78 ERA+ adds up to a ton of value because the guy pitched 310 innings that season. That's just plain stupid. I certainly wouldn't want a guy playing 22% under average chalking up so many innings.

This is one of the reasons I'm anxious to see the Loss Shares paired with win shares. Getting the opposite side of the coin in there should help, and if well done, should help a lot. It's clearly more impressive to ring up 20 win shares in half the playing time that someone else takes to get the same number.

Brad Harris

08-06-2008, 10:51 AM

I'm fully aware of that. But I still think Welch filled a huge pitching role just as guys in a four man rotation were of greater importance than those in a five man, etc.

I beg to differ. Pitchers in a four-man rotation were not "of greater importance", they simply had more opportunities to create value for their team.

One of the more important aspects of "neutralizing" era for purposes of player comparison is to accurately account for disparities in those opportunities (that were products of the era and not the fault of an individual player.)

Welch isn't better than Wes Ferrell, for example, because Welch started more games, if those games started are (as in this case) a product of the time in which they respectively played.

DoubleX

08-06-2008, 03:03 PM

--Pointing out that there is not a huge difference in time between them and ignoring that effect on IP is very misleading as well. Welch's last year was 1892 - not coincidentally the last year of pitching from 45 feet. The expectations for pitcher's changed quickly and dramatically with that rule change. Likewise the significance of "top 8" finishes. If each of the 8 teams is using 1-2 pitchers as they were in Welch's day then 8th is average at best and certainly not a inidcator of greatness. In McGinnity's time each team was using 3-4 regular starting pitchers. 8th place was much more significant (you'd be good enough to at least be the #1 for somebody).

It's interesting that you were able to look past significant rule and stylistic changes when strongly advocating Ross Barnes, even though it was pretty clear he didn't adapt well to the more modern game. Again, it's like people are making excuses to not vote for Welch instead of giving him a fair shake. (NOTE: I know you'll probably respond with something like "but Barnes was the best player at the time" which is a fair point, but you didn't seem phased by the fact that he played in a game that was very different from what it would become near the end of his career and after his career, and that he didn't really adapt to that, so it doesn't seem right to now mention changes as a mark against another player; if you're going to disregard it for one, you should for all).

EDIT: I assume now that everyone not voting for Welch will also likely not be voting for guys like Early Wynn, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro when they come up. That's the precedent we're setting now. I will be extremely disappointed to see anyone not voting for Welch to be voting for one those guys later on and would love to hear whatever roundabout excuses come up then.

EDIT 2: Ok, I could see voting for Niekro, but not Wynn or Sutton.

leecemark

08-06-2008, 04:00 PM

Paul Wendt

08-06-2008, 04:48 PM

Chance had trouble playing in games, hence why the peaks are similar. 1906 is the only time he came close to playing a full season's worth and that only amounted to 136 games.

1905 = 105 Games
1906 = 136 Games
1903 = 125 Games
1904 = 124 Games
1907 = 111 Games

I have not read enough to understand the order of listing.
1903 was Chance's breakout season when he set several of his final career personal bests. He played 125 of 139 games, his closest to a 90% season (126 of 140 is precisely 90%).

A 154-game schedule was introduced for the third and final time in 1904.

DoubleX

08-06-2008, 07:31 PM

--I can look past rule changes. Its not like I haven't voted for other pitchers from before the modern distance and rules. I'm still voting for one now in Spaulding. You do have to put it into context though and in context Welsh was not an extraordinary workhorse, while McGinnity was. I am baffled by your inability to see this. And you have correctly pointed out the difference between Barnes and Welch (which is also the difference between Spaulding and Welch). One was THE greatest in the game for an extended period and the other was a second tier star even at his best.

I'm baffled by your inability to put Welch into an objective context. How much more information do I have to give? Earlier I posted that with the exception of the incomparable Pud Galvin, Welsh during his peak was 5% ahead of the next guy in IP and 25% ahead of the 6th guy, while McGinnity during his career was less than 1% ahead of the next guy and about 20% ahead of the 6th guy. That shows that McGinnity wasn't that extraordinary of a workhorse, but was just edging the guys after him, whereas Welch, with the exception of Galvin, was more noticeably standing out from his peers in terms of workload. Moreover, Welch finished in the top 6 in IP as often as McGinnity and in the top 8 more often. I don't get why when I post this kind of information it's just blatantly ignored. I'm completely baffled. It is absolutely wrong to say that Welch was not a workhorse in his time and that McGinnity was such an extraordinary workhorse - how can he be so extraordinary when he's less than 1% ahead of the next guy?! There's also still the fact that Welch in his 10 year peak had a higher ERA+, which is adjusted for era context, than McGinnity in his entire 10 year career, yet this continues to be ignored as well.

As for Barnes, he was the greatest in a game that in many ways, barely resembles the game that we know it. To be honest, given all this inexplicable obstinacy regarding Welch, especially given that all the information I post continually is bypassed and ignored revealing that people are incapable of viewing Welch objectively, I very much regret compromising my view on Barnes and voting for him. IMO, he had no place on the ballot and would have been best left to the VC. If others aren't going to be open minded here and are just going to disregard information on players they don't like, as is the case here with Welch, then I see no reason to be open minded, and perhaps should just end this project?

Your views in particular Mark, have bee inconsistent in this process and seem to bend depending on whether they favor your candidate or not. For example, you lambasted us in several elections for being slow to elect middle IFers and guys like Ezra Sutton, strongly implying that we should have adequate positional representation from that era, even if the players may not be the best of candidates in the big picture and that future generations could yield more at those positions. But now you rail against Jake Beckley while failing to realize that in at least 30 year period between the Brouthers/Anson/Conner group and maybe George Sisler, he is arguably the best at his position. You can perhaps extend that another 10-15 years until the Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg group comes along. The treatment of Beckley also evidences a failure to adopt an appropriate era-specific perspective. People don't like Beckley because he doesn't have the stereotypical offensive 1B numbers. Well you know what? No one does at 1B between the mid 1890s and the 1930s. Shouldn't that tell you something about the position during that era? That perhaps when evaluating 1Bmen of that era it's unfair and doesn't make sense to apply the stereotypical standards because those weren't the standards then?! You're essentially punishing Beckley for being a product of his time, just as you felt others were punishing Barnes and Sutton for being products of their time. It's unfair Mark, and I would have expected you to see that. Seriously, between Anson/Brouthers/Conner and Sisler, how many better 1Bmen were there than Beckley. If you want to not vote for him because he doesn't measure up in his time, that's fine, but justify that, but I'm not convinced at all that people aren't voting for him because they can't put him into the context of is time. All you've got so far is that he didn't have Frank Chance's peak. Well so what? Chance doesn't have Beckley's career. Moreover, the two are so different that I don't see much value in comparing them, and I also don't believe that just because you support one you can't support the other (as I will likely support both, same with Welch and McGinnity).

DoubleX

08-06-2008, 07:57 PM

Mark, I'm sorry for the tone of my last post. I'm just very frustrated right now because I really believe like people are really just bypassing whatever information I throw out there and are being very inflexible.

BlueBlood

08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

I have not read enough to understand the order of listing.

I was listing his five best consescutive seasons in order of highest OPS+

Brad Harris

08-06-2008, 08:56 PM

leecemark

08-06-2008, 11:15 PM

--Mike, I understand your frustration. I frequently experience it myself when someone - or a group of someones - just can't see what seems obvious to me. We just have a different mindset on what makes a Hall of Famer. I assure you I am being mostly consistent though. I am supporting everyone I think was a great player. Welch and Beckley don't meet that criteria.
--I think many of us are underrating the importance of defense and particularly infield defense in the 19th century. An average hitter with a great glove could be a great player in a context where the ball is constantly in play and seldom going deep (with pitchers being in turn less important to run prevention - do we really need another 1880s pitchers?). For the 1870s and 80s I think there was a strong tendancy to put the best players in the infield, not the outfield.
--As for Beckley, he was a good firstbaseman who lasted a long time. There was no shortage of guys as good or better than he was, they just didn't last for one reason or another. Sometimes you just don't have a great player (or one who can sustain greatness anyway) at a position for extended periods. There is no SS I'd support for the Hall from the 1960s or 70s.

Brooklyn

08-07-2008, 07:21 AM

Beckley, Collins, McGinnity, Spalding, Welch

KCGHOST

08-07-2008, 08:36 AM

When dealing with guys who may-or-may-not-be HoFers you have to realize that not everyone is going to see the evidence the way you do. In Welch's case his sole case rests on his volume of innings. He ranks 16th in IP's and everyone ahead of him is either in the HoF, should or will be in the HoF (Maddux and Clemens), or is named Bert Blyleven. That's not too shabby a group to be part of. On the other hand his productivity is rather low for all those IP's. Really was he any better than Silver King or Jim McCormick??

This group has shown a willingness to induct 19th Century guys who didn't make the HoF in the real world. Maybe Welch's inability to break 40% is because of the weakness of his candidacy not the weakness of the electorate. Having said all that I must admit that your passion for Welch has me re-thinking my negative position on Welch. I don't know that I will change my position, but I am re-evaluating.

Sometimes it is good to doubt one's infallibity.

jalbright

08-07-2008, 09:43 AM

Here's my bottom line problem with Welch, based on Win Shares:

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

These are Welch's contemporaries, so there's no issue with the timeline. If we take six, Welch doesn't make it in career, he doesn't make it in best 3 years, nor in best five consecutive. Excluding McCormick, Whitney and Hecker, the only ones Welch beats in any of those three categories is Caruthers by 19 in career--which is answered by Caruthers leads of 17 in best three and 61 in best five consecutive. The other is Galvin loses by six in best five consecutive--but wins career by 49 and best three by 10. If you don't take at least seven, there's no reason to take Welch IMHO--and I don't want to go that far. I don't want to go as low as a clear #7 of this bunch. If he'd been a my idea of #7 in this way of looking at things, but somebody else's realistic six and somebody else's reasonable four or five, I'd be more amenable to stretching the line to cover him. But it seems to me based on what I know now there's a rather bright line above Welch, and I'm not inclined to cross it. Maybe loss shares will change my mind, but I doubt until that comes out I can be persuaded.

Erik Bedard

08-07-2008, 10:30 AM

Welch may be better than Caruthers and Mullane, and he may be the equal of McGinnity and/or Hahn. However, since I didn't vote for the first two, and the others I had extensive internal debates on, I'm fairly comfortable leaving him off at the moment.

leecemark

08-07-2008, 10:40 AM

DoubleX

08-07-2008, 10:43 AM

These are Welch's contemporaries, so there's no issue with the timeline. If we take six, Welch doesn't make it in career, he doesn't make it in best 3 years, nor in best five consecutive. Excluding McCormick, Whitney and Hecker, the only ones Welch beats in any of those three categories is Caruthers by 19 in career--which is answered by Caruthers leads of 17 in best three and 61 in best five consecutive. The other is Galvin loses by six in best five consecutive--but wins career by 49 and best three by 10. If you don't take at least seven, there's no reason to take Welch IMHO--and I don't want to go that far. I don't want to go as low as a clear #7 of this bunch. If he'd been a my idea of #7 in this way of looking at things, but somebody else's realistic six and somebody else's reasonable four or five, I'd be more amenable to stretching the line to cover him. But it seems to me based on what I know now there's a rather bright line above Welch, and I'm not inclined to cross it. Maybe loss shares will change my mind, but I doubt until that comes out I can be persuaded.

Just out of curiosity, did you see any of blueblood's posts on why win shares from this period are not a particularly good measure? I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about that.

EDIT: Anyway, I can't remember if we've gone over the candidates for the next election or not, but here's who I got:

Frank Bowerman
Jack Chesbro
George Davis
Bill Dinneen
Hobe Ferris - 3000 AB Rule
Chick Fraser
Frank Isbell
Jack O'Connor - Age Rule
Al Orth
Doc Powers - Probably won't be on ballot
Bob Rhoades - 1500 IP Rule, Probably won't be on ballot
Claude Ritchey
Jimmy Williams

Things will get interesting in the 1915 election as there are a number pitchers that could spark some debate - Rube Waddell, Addie Joss, Vic Willis, Clark Griffith, and Sam Leever, plus Willie Keeler, Elmer Flick and Ginger Beaumont.

jjpm74

08-07-2008, 11:08 AM

--Welch only has 2 more "moments" left, so I'm pretty sure his case will go to the VC. I'm wondering how the VC will end up working. For myself I don't see it as an opportunity to lower standards. I'll give greater weight to pre-1871 play for those first generation guys. Some of them I'm already voting for, but I'd be willing to consider others. I'll also be much more inclined to factor in contributions outside the playing record.
--For guys who don't have any kind of "extra credit" though I can't see voting for somebody I didn't vote for in the regular elections. I might even pass on guys who were "players only" who did make my ballot. As our VC will consist largely of the same electorate that considered these players the first time, I don't know that its approriate to overrule 15 years of voting history. It will take something beyond their BBF numbers to get my vote. I suspect our standards are going to be low enough that going with a more lenient standard for the VC would lead to a Hall bigger than I'm comfortable with.

I don't know what the VC format will be, but I think it's time we start thinking about it more since we'll see its formation in just 2 elections.

For me, I see it as an opportunity to take a closer look at these players:

Doc Adams
Dick McBride
Cal McVey
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Al Reach
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

I also see it as an opportunity to help discuss and establish better parameters for positions like 3B, 1B, 2B/SS, LF/RF, CF and P. Anyone who thinks the VC part of this project is a dumbing down process, who views 19th century players as inferior and not worth looking at, or who insists on attempting to apply win shares to pre-1892 players shouldn't be participating in it, IMO.

jjpm74

08-07-2008, 11:12 AM

Just out of curiosity, did you see any of blueblood's posts on why win shares from this period are not a particularly good measure? I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about that.

EDIT: Anyway, I can't remember if we've gone over the candidates for the next election or not, but here's who I got:

Frank Bowerman
Jack Chesbro
George Davis
Bill Dinneen
Hobe Ferris - 3000 AB Rule
Chick Fraser
Frank Isbell
Jack O'Connor - Age Rule
Al Orth
Doc Powers - Probably won't be on ballot
Bob Rhoades - 1500 IP Rule, Probably won't be on ballot
Claude Ritchey
Jimmy Williams

Things will get interesting in the 1915 election as there are a number pitchers that could spark some debate - Rube Waddell, Addie Joss, Vic Willis, Clark Griffith, and Sam Leever, plus Willie Keeler, Elmer Flick and Ginger Beaumont.

I think that matches up to what we already came up with:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1272083&postcount=15

EDIT: Hughie Jennings SS and Mike Kahoe C are also eligible.

Things will get interesting in the 1915 election as there are a number pitchers that could spark some debate - Rube Waddell, Addie Joss, Vic Willis, Clark Griffith, and Sam Leever, plus Willie Keeler, Elmer Flick and Ginger Beaumont.

I'll be focused on my current ballot and whoever doesn't get elected this year as next year is the last for quite a few guys. The only person in this group I may vote for is Willie Keeler and he may have to wait until 1916 for my support.

jalbright

08-07-2008, 12:40 PM

leecemark

08-07-2008, 12:41 PM

--I am agreeable to a framework for the VC that tells us who we can consider and what sort of accomplishments we should be looking at. I am not agreeable to anything that tells voters how to evaluate the candidates though.
--Perhaps the VC should be run on an entirely different format than the regular elections. I definately would not want to see the floodgates opened for a large number of backdoor players. We might decide ahead of time how many players and contributors we want to elect and then use weighted ballots. That number should not be more than 2-3 (if we are are electing every 5 years or 1-2 if the elections will be more frequent.

leecemark

08-07-2008, 12:48 PM

For me, I see it as an opportunity to take a closer look at these players:

Doc Adams
Dick McBride
Cal McVey
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Al Reach
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

.

--I support Adams and Reach as contributors. Spaulding I hope makes it as a player in the regular elections, but he would be #1 on my VC list if he doesn't. Pearce would be right behind. McVey I've been supporting, but I'd have to review his pre-NA and post-NL contributions to see if he has the kind of plusses (over and above his regular record) I want from a VC candidate.
--Joe Start needs to have some big pre-NA seasons documented to be a really strong candidate. I think he has them, but the case would need to be reviewed. Ditto for LIp Pike. Ezra Sutton I've been supporting for many years, but I don't think he has much in the way of "extra credit". I'll keep voting for him thru 1915, but don't know if that will carry over to the VC. Dick McBride may have a case, but I don't know it so soe persuading would be needed.
--Harry Wright should be an easy choice as a contributor. Perhaps Ned Hanlon. I'd also add Henry Chadwick, William Hulbert and Ban Johnson as strong candidates in the contributors category.

DoubleX

08-07-2008, 12:52 PM

I don't agree with BlueBlood on a number of things, and when it comes to comparing these guys within their own timeframe and at the same position, I don't see a problem. The distortions are the same. If you don't agree with me, that's your prerogative. Please accord the same respect to my exercise of the same prerogative. Thank you.

I'm just curious to hear why though. For arguments sake, say Blueblood has a valid point that win shares are distorted for the 19th century - so what good is it even to compare players among their peers with distorted information? I don't see what you can derive from that. When Blueblood and I make posts about Welch, no one really seems to respond directly to the information we provide. It's like it's totally bypassed. So I'd like to hear, for my own edification, why you feel win shares are a worthwhile measure for this period, in contrast to Blueblood's position? I though Blueblood laid out a pretty good argument at one point, so I'd like to hear the other side.

jalbright

08-07-2008, 01:41 PM

Double X,

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument insofar as it deals with pitcher to pitcher of that same era--most of it is focused on Beckley, rather than Welch. Whatever distortions Win Shares may have, I don't see that they invalidate the idea that Welch is clearly no better than the seventh pitcher of that time--a time in which 2 or at most 3 pitchers did almost all the pitching for a team. So, why do I have to further justify not taking a seventh pitcher from such a small pool? Personally, I would have stopped before that point.

Welch had plenty of talent behind him, so he's not a guy who's in a position to complain much. Now if he had been in a several year version of Steve Carlton, 1972, I might be more inclined to change my view--but that's not the case. We simply do not agree on this point, and there's no law which says we must. Besides, 11 of 17 voters thus far in this election agree with me--and Welch has never amassed more than 52% of the vote in this project, nor more than 59% in my project, despite far more opportunity to gain support and an ever declining talent pool to draw from. To me, that says Welch at best is a marginal HOF candidate in the eyes of our voters. I'm clearly not a lonely holdout preventing his election--if I changed my vote, he still wouldn't get elected.

jjpm74

08-07-2008, 01:58 PM

Moved to the pertinent thread.

Paul Wendt

08-07-2008, 02:09 PM

EDIT: Anyway, I can't remember if we've gone over the candidates for the next election or not, but here's who I got:
Maybe we should use a separate thread for the job of getting the ballots right every year, one thread for all years. It will always be handy and we won't discuss players there except as relevant for nominating them.

jalbright

08-07-2008, 02:16 PM

I'm just curious to hear why though. For arguments sake, say Blueblood has a valid point that win shares are distorted for the 19th century - so what good is it even to compare players among their peers with distorted information? I don't see what you can derive from that. When Blueblood and I make posts about Welch, no one really seems to respond directly to the information we provide. It's like it's totally bypassed. So I'd like to hear, for my own edification, why you feel win shares are a worthwhile measure for this period, in contrast to Blueblood's position? I though Blueblood laid out a pretty good argument at one point, so I'd like to hear the other side.

What measure would you suggest in its stead? I don't think I've seen anything which persuades me that Win Shares is useless, even for the 19th century. Further, I've limited many of the issues by carefully keeping this a pitcher of the 1880s to pitcher of the 1880s comparison. You have to show me that Win Shares is so bad that it can't even handle this limited a comparison to get me to walk away from the argument I've made. I'm not aware of any method with the data so obviously available where I can know what all is considered and what isn't that is any better. WARP-3 doesn't tell us many of the steps involved in how the numbers are derived. How can I evaluate the issues with it that way? To me, you either have to 1) prove Win Shares is completely invalid as a measuring tool (which means you can never use it, either, at least not for the times/places it's that horrendous for), or 2) you have to provide me with a tool I'm satisfied is better--and I've spelled out what I'm looking for to begin to reach that determination. I don't think you have or can meet those requirements.

jjpm74

08-07-2008, 02:21 PM

If you're sticking to comparing 1880s pitchers to 1880s pitchers, it is not useless.

Win shares become problematic when looking at 1860s and 1870s players in that context because the level of talent and game schedules varied greatly from team to team and existing statistical information for some of these players is incomplete. That's not as true of the 1880s.

DoubleX

08-07-2008, 03:16 PM

Welch had plenty of talent behind him, so he's not a guy who's in a position to complain much. Now if he had been in a several year version of Steve Carlton, 1972, I might be more inclined to change my view--but that's not the case. We simply do not agree on this point, and there's no law which says we must. Besides, 11 of 17 voters thus far in this election agree with me--and Welch has never amassed more than 52% of the vote in this project, nor more than 59% in my project, despite far more opportunity to gain support and an ever declining talent pool to draw from. To me, that says Welch at best is a marginal HOF candidate in the eyes of our voters. I'm clearly not a lonely holdout preventing his election--if I changed my vote, he still wouldn't get elected.

And to me, I believe many of those voters aren't giving Welch proper consideration. That might not be you, but Blueblood and I have provided a lot of information, beyond just a singular stat such as win shares, to show why we feel Welch measures up. We might not convert you, but I'm hoping to the get the attention of some of the electorate because I feel pretty certain, based on all the information I've posted, that Welch isn't getting a fair shake here. Again, I'm not saying that's you, as it is fair to support and not support whomever you want. I just want to make sure he's getting a fair shake and that the pro arguments aren't falling on deaf ears. Of those people not supporting Welch, we've only heard from a very small portion about why they're not supporting Welch. So given everything Blueblood and I have posted, I would like to hear why they're not. I appreciate you giving your rationale and I can respect that, doesn't mean I don't want to hear from others as well. I just want to understand why the lack of support, and right now I just can't. If everyone not supporting for Welch is doing so because of win shares, that's fine, I just want to hear something to help me understand.

EDIT: Just as a general note, looking ahead I wonder if this Hall will include guys like Sutton and Wynn. If Welch isn't getting in, I can't really see those two getting in either. They're of very similar dispositions - lots of innings, lots of wins, but probably not among the best half dozen or so pitchers of their generation (Wynn might be, Sutton definitely not).

jjpm74

08-07-2008, 03:43 PM

EDIT: Just as a general note, looking ahead I wonder if this Hall will include guys like Sutton and Wynn. If Welch isn't getting in, I can't really see those two getting in either. They're of very similar dispositions - lots of innings, lots of wins, but probably not among the best half dozen or so pitchers of their generation (Wynn might be, Sutton definitely not).

What makes you think anyone is going to restrict Sutton's generation to 6? There were 8 teams and 16 regular pitchers in total in the entire league in Welch's time. There were 24 teams and 96 regular starting pitchers not even counting relievers in the league in Sutton's time. Being one of the 10th best of 96 is much more significant than being the 7th best of 16. Sutton's Gray ink of 240 is something that weighs much more heavily than Welch's Gray ink of 236. Sutton had a lot more competition to surpass than Welch.

Welch is at best a gray area HOFer. Not a clear omission.

BlueBlood

08-08-2008, 12:40 AM

Ultimately, these projects have only greatly enforced my belief that pitchers are very huddled together in the grand scheme of things. There's about a dozen first tier pitchers in baseball history (which includes Paige/Smokey from the NL), then about another twenty I could easily rank as second-rate of the great. Then there's those like McGinnitty, Joss, McCormick, Caruthers, Radbourn, etc. that are all barely behind the second group and barely ahead of those on the outside looking in.

I can't vote for Welch. I've thought about this for days and he's not on the line. He's perhaps closer to being in than McGinnity is to being out. I'm not sure exactly what that means though. Anyway, I was planning to omit McGinnity as well from my ballot to prove a point but that would go against the nature of this project and I think some interesting arguments have come about from this and since a few are having their doubts about how far Welch really is from HOF level, then we've all learned something similar.

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

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Thirteen (1901 onward) - Joe Start
Twelve (1902 onward) - Hardy Richardson
Eight (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Eight (1905 and 1907-1913) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Seven (1901, 1908-1913) - Al Spalding
Six (1908 onward) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
Three (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Two (1912) - Jake Beckley
One (1913) - Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity

Paul Wendt

08-08-2008, 11:35 AM

Tommy the Cork is second year on the ballot, not first

On Base Average supports John Warner, but I can't imagine why. Warner was 94 points below league average for his career. That is may be ok for a catcher but it can't be voteworthy. I have always liked On Base Average better than On Base Percentage so this is disappointing to me.

bambam,
Bobby Lowe :thumbsup:, Herman Long :thumbsdown:
:noidea

--
The group sees Joe McGinnity a clear choice at pitcher and Joe Kelley a doubtful outfielder. I won't be surprised if Kelley picks up some votes after his first year on the ballot and I think it's appropriate that he and Duffy, Ryan, GVH, Jones will be here for comparison with Keeler, Roy Thomas, Ginger Beaumont, Elmer Flick.
I suppose some McGinnity voters have privately compared him with Waddell, Willis, Walsh, Joss, Brown and made their judgments (vote for all six, or whatever) but I guess he does benefit from beating his colleagues to the ballot. He is older, like Griffith and Rusie!

Paul Wendt

08-08-2008, 11:57 AM

McGinnity's like the definition of five year peak.
. . .
his peak ERA+ wise isn't something that a bunch of other players couldn't muster. McGinnity's excess here comes with the absolutely mind boggling amount of innings that he pitched which in turn gives him more value. Still, he loses a lot if we were to imagine a modern day pitcher like him. The guy would only be around for ten years because he's trapped in the minors until Age 28, and then puts up the above numbers with far, far less innings pitched as nowadays we have five man rotations and guys can't possibly pitch as deep into a game. Let's not forget that the deadball era was easier on the arm since there's less runners on base whereas an offensive heavy environment means starting pitchers going down for the count much sooner every game.
They called him Iron Man McGinnity as a compliment to his pitching achievemens in one day or back to back as much as his season totals, and in reference to his work in the iron foundry. (Given the modern baseball economy, maybe he would have worked harder earlier at developing his pitches and never seen the inside of the iron foundry.)

He was a submarine pitcher which is much less stressful than overhand pitching for the shoulder. Most of the early 1880s pitchers adopted overhand when it was permitted in 1884 and 1885? although Radbourn completed his iron man season without going overhand, probably only because he didn't go overhand.

I don't know how far underhand McGinnity pitched except that everyone calls him a submariner rather than a sidearmer or crossfirer. Before 1884/85, the rule was below the shoulder, which permits high sidearm pitching. I am sure that McGinnity didn't pitch like that. There are some remarks that his upshoot (rising pitch) works partly because he releases the ball low.

Paul Wendt

08-08-2008, 12:28 PM

#70
There was some discussion early about the five-year peak of Chance vs. Beckley. Just wanted to note that BP's DT cards show only a small lead for Chance in that department. In fact, it was a small enough margin that I was very surprised. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference but I've read that Davenport accounts for era adjustments better than win shares does in those earlier years of the game. Personally, I'd prefer Ed Konetchy over either of them, but that's entirely besides the point.
Davenport does adjust for league quality that he measures by statistical analysis. Beckley put up some of his best seasons in the 12 team majors (and under 132 games) where Chance put up his best seasons 1902-07 in the 16 team majors and in the National League when the AL impact was greatest, not merely the expansion but signing NL stars (and under 154 games beginning 1904).

Compare Davenport's two ratings WARP1, impact in his own league, with WARP3, adjusted to estimate impact in some reference season (sometime after 1969, I presume).
For Beckley 1893-95 there is no discount. His 6-win seasons 1893-95 count as 6 wins "today". And his nominally best season, 8+ wins in 1904, counts as only 6 wins today. Part of that is the adjustment for season length which is tiny beginning 1904, except for abbreviated seasons. But there is more. Look at Chance 1903, knocked down from 8.2 wins to 6.7 despite +10% adjustment for the 140-game schedule.

Warning: there is other stuff going on to explain Beckley's relatively strong WARP3 rating.
- Beckley also put up some poor seasons in the 12-team league, 1896-98, and he was a very good regular player for four seasons of the NL-AA era. (He was consistent, durable, and very good 1889-1895 after a great part-season in 1888.)
- Beckley does much better than outfielders Griffin, Duffy, Ryan, and Van Haltren in the adjustment from WARP1 to WARP3. --and they rather than Chance were his contemporaries, in time and in league except Griffin's first four seasons.
I suspect Beckley does well because Davenport estimates a relatively big improvement in outfield defense since the 1890s and a relatively small improvement in firstbase defense during the same lapsed time. Chris Cobb at the Hall of Merit explains some of Davenport's adjustments along these lines.
Should that matter? Even if it should matter, who can be comfortable with Davenport's estimates of fielding improvement by position, when the details are secret (unpublished and not discussed either*)?
"Everyone" is leery of WARP3 because everyone answers "No" to the second question.

add: Another outfielder Willie Keeler holds up well under adjustment, like Beckley and unlike the other outfielders named. Does that reflect estimated improvement in rightfield defense since their time?
One thing to do is ask Clay Davenport.

leecemark

08-08-2008, 09:34 PM

--I compiled this for the Top 100 pitchers project, but it may be of interest to some voters here. Its a peak ranking of 45' and deadball pitchers. The first number is the win shares total from their best 5 seasons. Career winshares is the second number listed. Amos Rusie doesn't look like he belongs in our Hall as a 45 footer, but his peak is very impressive for a 60 foot pitcher. His peak actually spanned the 2 eras. The pre-1893 list is no doubt incomplete. James didn't apply the forumula to NA stats (or hadn't yet in my source material) and some other 1870s-80s guys may have been overlooked since this list came from his top 100 - where 45' pitchers were severely overlooked.

Pre-1893
1) Bob Caruthers 255 (total WS 338) - many with his bat
2) John Clarkson 246 (398)
3) Charlie Radbourne 249 (346)
4) Tim Keefe 236 (413)
5) Tommy Bond 225 (243)
6) Amos Rusie 205 (293) - actually about half and half pre/deadball
7) Mickey Welch 201 (354)
8) Pud Galvin 187 (402)
9) Tony Mullane 183 (401) - missed 2 peak year to blacklist
--Al Spaulding did not make the list as NA was not included. James gives prety short shift to 19th century players and these came from NBJHA so there may be some other ommisions who should be cut into the list.

Deadball
1) Walter Johnson 217 (564)
2) Kid Nichols 208 (426)
3) Cy Young 200 (635)
4) Pete Alexander (477) - peak interupted by WWI
5) Ed Walsh 177 (265)
6) Mordeci Brown 163 (296)
7) Joe McGinnity 162 (269)
8) Christy Mathewson 161 (426)
9) Rube Waddell 145 (240)
10) Clark Grifith 143 (273)
11) Stan Coveleski 142 (245)
12) Vic Willis 138 (293)
13) Eddie Plank 133 (360)
14) Addie Joss 131 (193)
15) Jesse Tannehill 130 (233)
16) Joe Wood 111 (193)

BlueBlood

08-08-2008, 11:04 PM

I was the only person to vote very recently and we've been stuck on 19 for awhile. Right now, if a new voter checks the boxes next to Spalding and/or Beckley, they're in line to make the Hall with 75% exactly.

Paul Wendt

08-08-2008, 11:51 PM

--I compiled this for the Top 100 pitchers project, but it may be of interest to some voters here. Its a peak ranking of 45' and deadball pitchers.

There were multiple distances including 45' for a long time beginning 1845(?). Most of these pitchers worked mainly at 55'6" before 1893 --pitchers box, front 50' back 55'6".

Matty is missing?

leecemark

08-09-2008, 06:31 AM

--Zipped right over Mathewson when typing that list in. His peak is not nearly as impressive as you might think - at least according to Win Shares. Only 8th best amoung the deadballers. Fifth best career total, but all 4 men ahead of him are also ahead in career. I don't know that win shares is the best/final word on this subject, but I have long believed he tends to be overrated around here and this is supporting evidence.

jjpm74

08-10-2008, 09:30 AM

This round seems top have stalled out voting wise.

BlueBlood

08-10-2008, 03:02 PM

You're right. No new votes.

Also, from now on, I'm going to try and post my ballot right away. The higher percentage of the vote a player has, the more likely the lurkers and/or people on the fence are to cast a ballot in favor. The longer from the start of the poll that one posts their ballot (or makes a solid argument), the less likely chance they have of boosting a candidate.

henrich

08-10-2008, 06:35 PM

My votes:
1B Beckley
3B Cross
SS Long
CF Duffy
CF Ryan
CF Van Haltren
SP McCormick
SP McGinnity
SP Welch

From 1876-1900 I have Welch 3rd behind Galvin and Keefe. He's barely ahead of Clarkson.

DoubleX

08-10-2008, 10:17 PM

Pre-1893
1) Bob Caruthers 255 (total WS 338) - many with his bat
2) John Clarkson 246 (398)
3) Charlie Radbourne 249 (346)
4) Tim Keefe 236 (413)
5) Tommy Bond 225 (243)
6) Amos Rusie 205 (293) - actually about half and half pre/deadball
7) Mickey Welch 201 (354)
8) Pud Galvin 187 (402)
9) Tony Mullane 183 (401) - missed 2 peak year to blacklist
--Al Spaulding did not make the list as NA was not included. James gives prety short shift to 19th century players and these came from NBJHA so there may be some other ommisions who should be cut into the list.

I'm not sure what to make of your list, but it's interesting that Welch is a good amount ahead of two contemporaries we have elected - Galvin and Mullane, and is just barely behind another we've elected, Rusie. It just doesn't make sense to me that we've elected some of these guys, yet Welch struggles to get more than 1/3 of the vote. The disparity between Welch and guys we've elected like Galvin, Mullane, and now McGinnity (irrespective of the era issues), is not anything close to the gap in our voting, and that's why I strongly believe that as a whole, this electorate is for whatever reason, not giving Welch a fair shake. So with 2 years left, I strongly urge everyone to give Welch some due consideration.

Anyway, this is the first time I've checked in for a few days and I'm absolutely stunned that Beckley is over the line. Of the Beckley/Welch duo I've been touting, I've felt more strongly about Welch, but I'm glad to see Beckley could be on the verge. He's not a top tier Hall of Famer by any means, but our Hall is already larger than that and his accomplishments fit the bill, IMO. This might actually cause me to reconsider my stance on Spalding.

I'm also very surprised that Jimmy Collins hasn't garnered more than 80%. Do we really hate 3Bmen that much? I'm equally as surprised that McGinnity has such strong support given that better candidates got in with less. Guess you never really know here, which keeps things interesting.

EDIT: I made some edits to my post not as I hadn't realize there was still some time left.

BlueBlood

08-10-2008, 10:34 PM

Spalding....stalling out moreso than last time....very frustrating. :banghead:

Paul Wendt

08-10-2008, 11:41 PM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Jimmy Collins
Lave Cross
Fielder Jones
Charley Jones
Joe Kelley (my brain slipped)
Herman Long
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton

leecemark

08-11-2008, 07:55 AM

I'm not sure what to make of your list, but it's interesting that Welch is a good amount ahead of two contemporaries we have elected - Galvin and Mullane, and is just barely behind another we've elected, Rusie. It just doesn't make sense to me that we've elected some of these guys, yet Welch struggles to get more than 1/3 of the vote. The disparity between Welch and guys we've elected like Galvin, Mullane, and now McGinnity (irrespective of the era issues), is not anything close to the gap in our voting, and that's why I strongly believe that as a whole, this electorate is for whatever reason, not giving Welch a fair shake. So with 2 years left, I strongly urge everyone to give Welch some due consideration.

--Welch lead in 5 year Win Shares over Mullane an Galvin is not so large. Their career leads are substantially larger. This is true even though both are shorted some in the official record books. Galvin was amoung the best pitchers in baseball before joining the NL. Mullane lost 2 years in mid-career to blacklisting over a contract dispute.
-- Still, I don't know that I would have voted for Galvin had he not been the all time wins leader when he came up for election. I know wins tend to be scoffed at by many, but the winningest pitcher of all time would have been hard to leave off ballot for me. Mullane is a bit of a cult figure. The Appollo of the Box may have a popularity exceeding his actual accomplishments. Either way those 2 are not inner circle Hall of Famer and being comparable to them is not a guarentee of election. Welch would not be a terrible choice, but he is just below my line - and apparently that of a majority of our voters.

AG2004

08-11-2008, 08:27 AM

dgarza

08-11-2008, 08:32 AM

My ballot
:cry: May Beckley haunt you in your dreams.

Paul Wendt

08-11-2008, 08:58 AM

> Joe Kelley (my brain slipped)
This puts Kelley in a prominent tie for now. It seems they will all be around when Willie Keeler arrives. Fred Clarke will be delayed but he would not help much as a point of reference. They are the last of the "1890s outfielders" in my book.

15 Van Haltren
14 Duffy
11 Ryan
11 Kelley
11 Pike (old-timer)
8 C.Jones (old-timer)
5 Tiernan
2 F.Jones

jjpm74

08-11-2008, 10:49 PM

Is this project still on?

jjpm74

08-11-2008, 10:55 PM

My ballot

Cupid Childs
Jimmy Collins
Hugh Duffy
Charley Jones
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Joe McGinnity
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren

Too bad, Fielder Jones. You're over the Thompson standard. However, there are so many other OF/1B over the Thompson line and so many SS/3B/2B over the Glasscock line that someone worthy of election, according to the fact that Thompson and Glasscock are in, can't make the top fifteen.

Just out of curiosity, why do you wait until the last second to vote in every project? Is it for dramatic effect? Is it to make you feel like you have a greater impact when you sink a candidate or two under the line when the supporters think they have him elected? What is it? I don't understand why you would vote at the last second every time when you post and have your mind made up usually well before the election ends. Please clarify.

EDIT: I've noticed that you only do this in close elections. In elections that aren't close, you either don't weigh in at all or weigh in early.

DoubleX

08-11-2008, 11:39 PM

Is this project still on?

It's still on. I'll have 1914 going tomorrow. I was a little disappointed in seeing Beckley fall under the line at the very last moment that I couldn't be bothered with putting everything together for the next election. But Beckley has a long time left on the ballot and I'm hopeful he'll get over the hump at some point. It's hard to predict though as a candidate's support can vary widely from one election to the next. Still, I feel good that we made such positive progress with Beckley. I still feel more strongly about Welch, but he appears to be a lost cause at this point.

Also I meant to respond to this earlier:

What makes you think anyone is going to restrict Sutton's generation to 6? There were 8 teams and 16 regular pitchers in total in the entire league in Welch's time. There were 24 teams and 96 regular starting pitchers not even counting relievers in the league in Sutton's time. Being one of the 10th best of 96 is much more significant than being the 7th best of 16. Sutton's Gray ink of 240 is something that weighs much more heavily than Welch's Gray ink of 236. Sutton had a lot more competition to surpass than Welch.

While I do think this is a good point and I see what you're saying about the relative talent pools, it assumes that the same 16 pitches pitched for the entire length of Welch's career and/or that Welch every year was the 7th best of the 16. But that's far from the truth as during Welch's peak 11 seasons, only Pud Galvin had better longevity, with Welch being 5% ahead of the next guy in workload and about 25% ahead of the 6th guy, so Welch had very rare staying power for his era and is not measured against 16 pitchers.

On the flipside, Sutton is not measured against 96, and in many years Sutton was probably much lower than the 10th best pitcher in the game. Over his entire career 10th best during that time is probably about right (I might say 9th), but the pool he's measured against isn't 96 as there isn't a constant 96 to compare him to - that number is in flux. It's more accurate to say he's the 10th best of his era, of which time there was a much larger pool, but I don't think you can isolate the pool to a specific number. On the flipside, it would be more fair to say Welch was the 7th best of his era in a smaller talent pool (though I don't know if I'd agree that he was the 7th best).

ERA+ also takes into account era considerations and attempts to put players from across the eras on even planes. I mentioned before, Welch's peak 10 year ERA+ is 122, compared to McGinnity's 120 for his entire 10 year career, yet this point has been completely bypassed by people. Further along these lines, I can't see how we can later justify Don Sutton's 108 ERA+ making it. Moreover, the gap between Sutton and the top flight pitchers of his day that we are likely to elect, guys Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, and even Niekro, IMO, is much greater than the gap between Welch and contemporaries like Mullane and Galvin that we've elected. My point here is that Welch is much closer to his peers we've elected than Sutton is likely to be to his peer we will elect. Sutton, IMO, is much closer to peers we are not likely to elect, such as John, Kaat, Tiant, Koosman, and Reuschel, that the sole reason we might elect him will likely be his 300+ wins and all his innings. Yet those are things that Welch also had but we don't seem impressed by. So yeah, if we don't elect Welch, I really can't see how way down the line we can justify Sutton.

jjpm74

08-11-2008, 11:57 PM

While I do think this is a good point and I see what you're saying about the relative talent pools, it assumes that the same 16 pitches pitched for the entire length of Welch's career and/or that Welch every year was the 7th best of the 16. But that's far from the truth as during Welch's career, only Pud Galvin had better longevity, with Welch being 5% ahead of the next guy in workload and about 25% ahead of the 6th guy, so Welch had very rare staying power for his era and is not measured against 16 pitchers.

On the flipside, Sutton is not measured against 96, and in many years Sutton was probably much lower than the 10th best pitcher in the game. Over his entire career 10th best during that time is probably about right (I might say 9th), but the pool he's measured against isn't 96 as there isn't a constant 96 to compare him to - that number is in flux. It's more accurate to say he's the 10th best of his era, of which time there was a much larger pool, but I don't think you can isolate the pool to a specific number. On the flipside, it would be more fair to say Welch was the 7th best of his era in a smaller talent pool (though I don't know if I'd agree that he was the 7th best).

Looking closely at both careers, it looks like Welch had around 25 to compete with and Sutton had around 135. That's still a huge difference no matter how you cut it and that isn't taking relievers into consideration in Sutton's era.

DoubleX

08-12-2008, 12:06 AM

Looking closely at both careers, it looks like Welch had around 25 to compete with and Sutton had around 135. That's still a huge difference no matter how you cut it and that isn't taking relievers into consideration in Sutton's era.

You missed my point - you can't compare to a specific number because it either assumes that for every year of his career Welch was 7/25 and Sutton 10/135, or that for their entire careers, Welch and Sutton had the exact same competition throughout (i.e. during Welch career, he was grouped with the same 24 other pitchers). I understand your point here that Sutton stood out in a much larger talent pool, and it's a very valid point, but I don't think you can use specific numbers here because it belies the fact that during Welch's career in particular, the other 24 pitchers were greatly in flux from year to year. To say he was the 7th best of his era in a small talent pool is a much more accurate and fair statement, IMO. To say he was the 7th best out of 25 during his career is not because there were a lot more than 25 pitchers during his career. Moreover, on a year to year basis, there were years where Welch was better than 7th out of 25, so it doesn't really work that way either.

I added this while you were responding and am curious to get your response:

ERA+ also takes into account era considerations and attempts to put players from across the eras on even planes. I mentioned before, Welch's peak 10 year ERA+ is 122, compared to McGinnity's 120 for his entire 10 year career, yet this point has been completely bypassed by people. Further along these lines, I can't see how we can later justify Don Sutton's 108 ERA+ making it. Moreover, the gap between Sutton and the top flight pitchers of his day that we are likely to elect, guys Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Ryan, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, and even Niekro, IMO, is much greater than the gap between Welch and contemporaries like Mullane and Galvin that we've elected. My point here is that Welch is much closer to his peers we've elected than Sutton is likely to be to his peer we will elect. Sutton, IMO, is much closer to peers we are not likely to elect, such as John, Kaat, Tiant, Koosman, and Reuschel, that the sole reason we might elect him will likely be his 300+ wins and all his innings. Yet those are things that Welch also had but we don't seem impressed by. So yeah, if we don't elect Welch, I really can't see how way down the line we can justify Sutton.

And just to add, the size of Sutton's talent pool shouldn't matter if he doesn't measure up anyway, and as I mentioned above, he's noticeably behind the top 8 of his generation, much more than Welch is behind the lower-run of his peers that we've already elected. Just because a player is the X best player of his generation shouldn't automatically preclude his induction or mean that he should be inducted. Thus follows, IMO, Welch is much closer to the Hall of Famers we've elected of his generation than Sutton will be to those that we will likely elect of his generation.

jjpm74

08-12-2008, 12:30 AM

And just to add, the size of Sutton's talent pool shouldn't matter if he doesn't measure up anyway, and as I mentioned above, he's noticeably behind the top 8 of his generation, much more than Welch is behind the lower-run of his peers that we've already elected. Just because a player is the X best player of his generation shouldn't automatically preclude his induction or mean that he should be inducted. Thus follows, IMO, Welch is much closer to the Hall of Famers we've elected of his generation than Sutton will be to those that we will likely elect of his generation.

I don't even see where/how this is relevant :confused:

You're trying to compare a middle of the pack 19th century per-modern distance pitcher who threw underhand and managed to squeak out 300 wins to a modern day 300 game winner in a more competitive league in an era where the likelihood of winning 300 games was slim to none. I see Sutton as comparable to Mike Mussina. I see Mickey Welch as comparable to Jamie Moyer. Put Welch into 1995-2008 and he has 113 wins ad 117 losses with an ERA over 4.

DoubleX

08-12-2008, 12:53 AM

I don't even see where/how this is relevant :confused:

You're trying to compare a middle of the pack 19th century per-modern distance pitcher who threw underhand and managed to squeak out 300 wins to a modern day 300 game winner in a more competitive league in an era where the likelihood of winning 300 games was slim to none. I see Sutton as comparable to Mike Mussina. I see Mickey Welch as comparable to Jamie Moyer. Put Welch into 1995-2008 and he has 113 wins ad 117 losses with an ERA over 4.

Ok, so what happens to guys like Pud Galvin and Tony Mullane in 1995-2008, or is this something that's just unique to Welch? Moreover, this point is completely irrelevant, unless you feel we should judge everyone by 1995-2008 standards? We're judging people by the context of their era, and again ERA+ is very handy for this, and again my point with ERA+ has been completely bypassed.

And again, I think you missed my point. It's fair to say that Sutton succeeded in a larger talent pool, but that doesn't change the fact that Welch will likely be closer to the Hall of Fame standards of his generation than Sutton to his. Sutton is much further away, IMO, from his peers we are likely to elect like Perry, Blyleven, Niekro, and Jenkins, than Welch is from his peers we have elected like Galvin and Mullane. If you're calling Welch middle of the pack, then what about guys like Galvin and Mullane? Aren't they middle of the pack as well, just one spot higher? I don't understand why this doesn't seem to be coming across here.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can call Welch "middle of the pack." Yes, it was common as muck for a pitcher to pitch 4800 innings as Welch did back then with a 114 ERA+ in that amount of innings and a 122 ERA+ in his peak 10 years. That is not "middle of the pack" in the least. I can buy it if you're like Mark and say he's just under the line (with the line being around Galvin and Mullane), but to say he's middle of the pack, thereby implying he's average, is beyond hyperbole.

BlueBlood

08-12-2008, 05:44 AM

It's interesting to point out that Welch's league was limited to a certain number of pitchers. If Welch is seventh best in the league during his era, he is the seventh best pitcher in the country. If Sutton is tenth for his era, he is the tenth best pitcher in the country. It's not Welch's fault that there were so few slots to fill, leaving a lot of pitchers unable to make the majors. Perhaps it also shouldn't be to Sutton's benefit that he played in an expanded league and had a lot of guys that should've been in the minors decades prior pitching around him, meaning his ERA+ would be even lower if they weren't around pulling the average ERA up.

Freakshow

08-12-2008, 08:28 AM

during Welch's peak 11 seasons, only Pud Galvin had better longevity, with Welch being 5% ahead of the next guy in workload and about 25% ahead of the 6th guy, so Welch had very rare staying power for his era and is not measured against 16 pitchers.
A truer reflection of Welch's longevity for his era is shown below, putting the lie to the bold phrase above:

Career IP, careers mostly played before 1893 (seasons with 400+ IP)
6003 Galvin (9)
5048 Keefe (7)
4956 Mathews (7)
4802 Welch (6)
4536 Clarkson (6)
4535 Radbourn (6)
4531 Mullane (6)
4324 Weyhing (5)
4276 McCormick (5)

So Welch is one of a bunch of similar guys. Galvin is is the one with "very rare staying power", especially when you consider his IA years.

AG2004

08-12-2008, 08:59 AM

Just out of curiosity, why do you wait until the last second to vote in every project? Is it for dramatic effect? Is it to make you feel like you have a greater impact when you sink a candidate or two under the line when the supporters think they have him elected? What is it? I don't understand why you would vote at the last second every time when you post and have your mind made up usually well before the election ends. Please clarify.

It's mostly because I usually spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about who goes on what side of the cut-off line for the ballot. Fielder Jones may be out, but, as I had Welch on last year's ballot, I still had one more player to leave drop from the list in order to get down to fifteen. I wasn't sure who that one last player would be. Beckley may be a definite out, and Duffy a definite in, but I had to decide about Ryan, Pike, and Welch for this year's ballot.

The other reason is basically procrastination - I see the deadline is some time off and think that I'll post the final vote later, since I might still need some time to consider the final ballot slot. The final one or two positions are usually places where my mind isn't made up well in advance.

(From a 2008 standpoint, one can compare this to deciding which teams go into the NCAA basketball tournament. Most of the teams are solidly in or solidly out well in advance of the final meeting for creating the bracket. The committee spends hours and hours arguing about who's the final team in and the final team out. Sometimes the members make their final decision on who goes where on the elevator, after they have left their suite and just before they make the final announcement. They need all that time to reach the final decision.)

EDIT: I've noticed that you only do this in close elections. In elections that aren't close, you either don't weigh in at all or weigh in early.

Most of the voting I do is for multiple-player elections, and that's where I spend most of my time thinking. That's also where I have something substantial to add. If there's not a lot of discussion going on, and the overwhelming consensus is on the position I'm supporting, there's not much I can add to the thread.

[EDIT - I almost forgot about the deadline this time. I was going to post Sunday night, but became engrossed in the swimming action, fell asleep just after midnight, and didn't realize the deadline was about to pass until 10:20 Monday morning. There was no nefarious scheme here, just mere procrastination and forgetfulness.]

jjpm74

08-12-2008, 09:09 AM

Ok, so what happens to guys like Pud Galvin and Tony Mullane in 1995-2008, or is this something that's just unique to Welch? Moreover, this point is completely irrelevant, unless you feel we should judge everyone by 1995-2008 standards? We're judging people by the context of their era, and again ERA+ is very handy for this, and again my point with ERA+ has been completely bypassed.

If you don't want people drawing modern comparisons for Welch, why are you introducing Don Sutton to the equation? This is like trying to compare a horse and buggy to a Ford Escort. Both served their purpose in their given era but there's no basis for comparison outside of some superficial similarities.

And again, I think you missed my point. It's fair to say that Sutton succeeded in a larger talent pool, but that doesn't change the fact that Welch will likely be closer to the Hall of Fame standards of his generation than Sutton to his. Sutton is much further away, IMO, from his peers we are likely to elect like Perry, Blyleven, Niekro, and Jenkins, than Welch is from his peers we have elected like Galvin and Mullane. If you're calling Welch middle of the pack, then what about guys like Galvin and Mullane? Aren't they middle of the pack as well, just one spot higher? I don't understand why this doesn't seem to be coming across here.

I get your point. The point his detractors have been trying to make is that Welch's accomplishments were nothing special for his era and that there is a clear cutoff line between him and the in guys; something they've effectively done and that has resulted in some guys who were on the fence like myself being swayed over to their argument for exclusion.

DoubleX

08-12-2008, 09:34 AM

If you don't want people drawing modern comparisons for Welch, why are you introducing Don Sutton to the equation? This is like trying to compare a horse and buggy to a Ford Escort. Both served their purpose in their given era but there's no basis for comparison outside of some superficial similarities.

I wasn't warping statistics like you were. I was comparing both players to each other by how they measure to their Hall of Fame peers (or likely Hall of Fame peers in Sutton's case). Your post also unveiled a double standard - you punished Welch greatly in the 1995-2008 context while completely ignoring that his peers we've elected, notably Pud Galvin and Tony Mullane, would look pretty averageish under your adjustments as well.

I get your point. The point his detractors have been trying to make is that Welch's accomplishments were nothing special for his era and that there is a clear cutoff line between him and the in guys; something they've effectively done and that has resulted in some guys who were on the fence like myself being swayed over to their argument for exclusion.

Your response suggests you still don't get my point. You imply Sutton is a Hall of Famer. My argument is he is further away from the likely Hall of Famers of his era than Welch is from the players we've elected from his era. It's as simple as this: 1) Welch is closer to the Hall of Fame standards of his era; 2) Sutton is further from the Hall of Fame standards of his era. 3) If a guy who is close to the Hall of Fame standards of his era, like Welch, can't make it, than a guy who is further from the Hall of Fame standards of his era, like Sutton, shouldn't make it.

And finally, again the whole ERA+ thing has been bypassed. That's meant to put eras on the same plane. I'll say again - Welch's 10 year peak ERA+ is 122; McGinnity's entire 10 year career ERA+ is 120. No one wants to seem to address this.

EDIT: I also don't really see what the detractors have offered that's been so compelling. The one argument seems to be win shares, but IMO, win shares should not, by any means, be the be all and end all of a Hall of Fame case. It's a handy measure at times, but it's imperfect and like any statistic, doesn't tell the whole story. Otherwise, why don't we just pick a win share number, do away with the voting, and induct any player that reached that number?

EDIT 2: Upon further thought, I'm done with Welch. It's obvious he's not getting elected, and I think in our hypothetical world, he'll become the pet project of bloggers cyberspace in the early 21st century, must as someone like Tony Mullane is in reality.