Top 100 Pitcher project phase 2: ranking round 1 Pre-1893-1919

[jjpm74]

The purpose of phase 2 of this project is to narrow down our round 1 candidates to 40 candidates who will eventually be narrowed down to 20. Here is the list of candidates we are choosing from in this round:

Chief Bender
Tommy Bond
Mordecai Brown
Jack Chesbro
Eddie Ciccotte
John Clarkson
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Candy Cummings
Pud Galvin
Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Tim Keefe
Sliver King
Rube Marquard
Bobby Mathews
Christy Matthewson
Jim McCormick
Joe McGinnity
Tony Mullane
Kid Nichols
Deacon Phillippe
Eddie Plank
Charley Radbourne
Ed Reulbach
Amos Rusie
Al Spalding
Jesse Tannehill
Hippo Vaughn
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
John Ward
Mickey Welch
Vic Willis
Smoky Joe Wood
Cy Young

***This will be a vote for 10 and 10 only. Ballots cast with less than 10 or more than 10 will not be counted.***

This phase of polls will run for 4 days each to try to expedite this process.

[jjpm74]

Links to previous rounds:

Pre-1893 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78102)
1893-1919 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78755)
1920-1945 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79250)
NeL and Pre-NeL (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79656)
1946-1968 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79664)
1969-1985 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80460)
1986-2007 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80845)
Active Pitchers (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81263)

Previous round winners:

Pre-1893:

John Clarkson
Tommy Bond
Bob Caruthers
Larry Corcoran
Candy Cummings
Pud Galvin
Tim Keefe
Sliver King
Bobby Mathews
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Charley Radbourne
Al Spalding
John Ward
Mickey Welch

1894-1919:

Chief Bender
Mordecai Brown
Jack Chesbro
Eddie Ciccotte
Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Rube Marquard
Christy Mathewson
Joe McGinty
Kid Nichols
Deacon Phillippe
Eddie Plank
Ed Reulbach
Amos Rusie
Jesse Tannehill
Hippo Vaughn
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Vic Willis
Smoky Joe Wood
Cy Young

1920-1945:

Pete Alexander
Tommy Bridges
Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Dizzy Dean
Red Faber
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Waite Hoyt
Walter Johnson
Ted Lyons
Carl Mays
Herb Pennock
Eppa Rixey
Red Ruffing
Urban Shocker
Dazzy Vance
Bucky Walters

NeL and Pre-NeL:

Ray Brown
Andy Cooper
Leon Day
Martin DiHigo
John Donaldson
Bill Foster
Rube Foster
Bill Jackman
Jose Mendez
Satchel Paige
Cannonball Dick Redding
Bullet Joe Rogan
Luis Tiant Sr.
Smoky Joe Williams
Nip Winters

1946-1968:

Jim Bunning
Don Drysdale
Bob Feller
Whitey Ford
Bob Gibson
Sandy Koufax
Bob Lemon
Dutch Leonard
Sal Maglie
Juan Marichal
Denny McLain
Don Newcombe
Hal Newhouser
Billy Pierce
Robin Roberts
Johnny Sain
Warren Spahn
Dizzy Trout
Virgil Trucks
Hoyt Wilhelm
Early Wynn

1969-1985:

Vida Blue
Steve Carlton
Rollie Fingers
Ron Guidry
Catfish Hunter
Fergie Jenkins
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Jerry Koosman
Mickey Lolich
Sparky Lyle
Tug McGraw
Phil Neikro
Jim Palmer
Gaylord Perry
Dan Quisenberry
Rick Reuschel
Tom Seaver
Don Sutton
Luis Tiant Jr.
Wilbur Wood

1986-2007:

Bert Blyleven
Kevin Brown
Roger Clemens
David Cone
Dennis Eckersley
John Franco
Doc Gooden
Goose Gossage
Tom Henke
Orel Hershiser
Jimmy Key
Dennis Martinez
Jack Morris
Nolan Ryan
Brett Saberhagen
Curt Schilling
Lee Smith
Dave Stieb
Bruce Sutter*
Frank Tanana
Fernando Vanenzuela
David Wells

Active pitchers:

Tom Glavine
Roy Halladay
Trevor Hoffman
Tim Hudson
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Pedro Martinez
Mike Mussina
Roy Oswalt
Andy Pettitte
Mariano Rivera
C.C. Sabathia
Johan Santana
John Smoltz
Billy Wagner

*Somehow was left of the last ballot. Sutter will appear in phase two.

[Buzzaldrin]

Young, Waddell, Mathewson, Caruthers, Clarkson, Nichols, Plank, Brown, Keefe, Joss

[jjpm74]

This next round will involve pairing 2 groups and picking 10 from each of those groups. This group of 40 we end up which will then be whittled down to 20 to use to make our top ten. After the initial 4 set, there will be a vote for 20 from the remaining Nel and pre-1945 pitchers and a vote for 20 from the post-1945 pitchers and so on until we end up with rough rankings as follows:

Pitchers who may be in the top 20
Pitchers who may be in 21-40
Pitchers who may be in 41-60
Pitchers who may be in 61-80
Pitchers who may be in 81-100

*there will also be about 50 who don't make the cut after phase 2 is complete that we could rank later if there is an interest.

For phase 3, the plan was to then do 3 day votes for the best pitcher until we get to #10. At that point, should I add 21-40 in with the remaining pitchers who were not ranked in the first subset or continue with the first subset until all 20 are ranked? My concerns are that one the one hand, I don't want to end up with a pitcher ranked #20 if that pitcher could have ended up #25 if they were included with the sub group. On the other hand, I also don't want to see pitchers initially landing in the top group sliding down the rankings to #40 or lower. Thoughts?

[Brad Harris]

1. Cy Young
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Kid Nichols
4. John Clarkson
5. Eddie Plank
6. Tim Keefe
7. Amos Rusie
8. Ed Walsh
9. Pud Galvin
10. Joe McGinnity or Charley Radbourn

I'm really torn between McGinnity and Radbourn. Any help?

[Paul Wendt]

What is your rationale for ranking Walsh and McGinnity #1-2 among "Cy's and Matty's medium and short contemporaries" (see next).

[Paul Wendt]

Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, and maybe others are in the next group - paired with the "Negro Leagues"? If so they will make it tough for the 1920s and 1930s debutantes in the next poll. Meanwhile their absence leaves me not even considering anyone from the youngest generation represented here.
- Cicotte, Marquard, Vaughn, Wood

I see four only "no-brainers" pardon the expression:
- Clarkson, Nichols, Young, Matty

There are other long careers on the board, enough for a careerist to get close to ten. I'll take some but it looks like a relevant open question will be who of Cy's and Matty's medium and short contemporaries should go to the head of the class. I count eleven and I think these are the best six, ruling out Bender, Reulbach, and the three Pirates.
- Waddell, Willis, McGinnity, Joss, Brown, Walsh
Jointly they will reap numerous votes, I'm sure, but none is in a strong position with me now.
(This comparison is now relevant to the Progressive project too.)

At the same time, I'm not comfortable with Spalding, Ward, Griffith at this stage. Merely as pitchers they fall short. Probably I will wait for them to pick up a few votes from others, or not.

Without them, I can't see filling my ballot with Caruthers, Rusie and the 300-game winners, so will be back to Waddell, et al.
What talent he had, but how many times did he jump the team? or not show up for a single game?

[jjpm74]

Keep in mind that these 10 will be paired up with 30 other pitchers ultimately then whittled down to 20.

I think I've come up with the most equitable way to get our loose groups:

There are roughly 150 pitchers from the first round. I'll be conducting 4 4 day polls to come up with a group of 40 that will be whittled down to 20. These pitchers will make up the top tier but will not necessarily end up being out top 20 pitchers (more below). After these 4 quick polls, the losers will go back into the pool as will the 20 who don't make the next cut and we will then do the same thing again to get our next 20 except we'll be choosing from 2 sets of 4 eras rather than 4 sets of 2 eras. We will do this until we end up with 6 tiers of pitchers loosely grouped at 20 each for a total of 120 pitchers. The pitchers who don't make it to phase 3 we can always revist later on if there's an interest.

For phase 3, we will be running quick polls at 3 day intervals where we are simply choosing the best pitcher. When the current top unranked tier dips to 10 pitchers, the next tier is then added to the poll to keep a healthy pool of candidates. Does this work for those participating?

[jjpm74]

I'm really torn between McGinnity and Radbourn. Any help?

If it's between McGinnity and Radbourn for you, McGinnity had a similar peak but played at the modern pitching distance and had more competition among pitchers to rise to the top. McGinnity was the stronger of the two, IMO.

[STLCards2]

How about a little more love for the 3 time ERA+ and 8 time K/9 leader, Rube Waddell. Even with only 3,000 IP, that career 135 ERA+ is hard to pass up.

Also, can I have my 10th vote for McGinnity changed to Rusie? I passed him over accidentaly.

[jjpm74]

Also, can I have my 10th vote for McGinnity changed to Rusie? I passed him over accidentaly.

Noted. Thanks.

[leecemark]

--Very tough field. I went back and forth several times, making cuts and adding others - then still submitted my ballot omitting Kid Nichols:eek:. Went back and editted Waddell out and Nichols in. In chornilogical order; Spaulding, Clarkson, Keefe, Galvin, Rusie, Nichols, Young, Mathewson, Brown, Walsh. I am sure more than 10 of these would make my top 100 though. Waddell probably make smy top 40 (and maybe should have made my ballot). Plank probably makes my top 50.

[STLCards2]

--Very tough field. I went back and forth several times, making cuts and adding others - then still submitted my ballot omitting Kid Nichols:eek:. Went back and editted Waddell out and Nichols in. In chornilogical order; Spaulding, Clarkson, Keefe, Galvin, Rusie, Nichols, Young, Mathewson, Brown, Walsh. I am sure more than 10 of these would make my top 100 though. Waddell probably make smy top 40 (and maybe should have made my ballot). Plank probably makes my top 50.

Why low on Plank? Here is a guy that newer-minded (for lack of better terms) seem down on, but looking at the defences behind him, it seems his ERA+ is legit. He got run support, yes, but no more than Marichal, etc. Plank lacked dominant seasons, but that doesn't hinder other pitcher's all-time rankings. It can't be due to a huge era adjustment, or you surely wouldn't have Spaulding or Galvin ahead.

[BlueBlood]

Brown, Clarkson, Matthewson, Nichols, Plank, Rusie, Waddell and Young were the nine whose boxes I immediately checked. Then it came down to Old Hoss, Keefe & McGinnity. Ultimately, I gave the edge to the old school with Hoss narrowly defeating Keefe.

[leecemark]

Why low on Plank? Here is a guy that newer-minded (for lack of better terms) seem down on, but looking at the defences behind him, it seems his ERA+ is legit. He got run support, yes, but no more than Marichal, etc. Plank lacked dominant seasons, but that doesn't hinder other pitcher's all-time rankings. It can't be due to a huge era adjustment, or you surely wouldn't have Spaulding or Galvin ahead.

--Plank was a consistently good pitcher, but never really a great one. That does hinder pitcher in my all time rankings.

[BlueBlood]

Excluding 19th century guys and the Top 15 or so in James's ranking, Plank pretty much has a Five Year Peak that's arguably the best of the guys left, if not close to a few with a slightly higher peak. Personally, I'd rank him in my Top 30, no question.

[leecemark]

--According to Total Baseball Plank was one f the top 5 pitchers in his league only twice - 4th in 1903 and 5th in 1904. That is not an impressive peak. Plank is 34th (as of 2002 - the Historical Abstract ios my lone WS shource) in Top 5 peak by Win Shares. That does not subtract the 19th century pitcher who made the top 100 (though it may miss someone who didn't). That does overrate Plank though as it was much easier to compile Wom Shares - a cumlative stat - in the deadball era than in modern time. For example, WS shows Planks's 5 year peak as better than Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux or Roger Clemens. I serious doubt anyone here thinks Plank was anywhere near as great a peak (or any other kind) pitcher as those gentlemen.
--Amoung his contemporaries you've got totals of 217, 200, 180, 177, 163, 182, 161, 145, and 142. That makes Planks 133 the 10th best 5 year peak amoung deadball pitchers. He had a better career than at least some fo those guys so he is clealry a top 10 deaball pitcher, but that is only about 1/6th of baseball history. If you make room in this polls top 10 for more than a couple 19th century guys (a bigger slice than the deadball, although harder to judge due to changing pitching condiditions) then Plank is a though sell to make the cut.

[Buzzaldrin]

Brown, Clarkson, Matthewson, Nichols, Plank, Rusie, Waddell and Young were the nine whose boxes I immediately checked.

that's only eight.

[Buzzaldrin]

I must say that it annoys me that Rusie has as much support as Clarkson and more than Keefe. You do realize that his career was only as long as Addie Joss' and he wasn't as good? (let alone Caruthers, if you throw in hitting talent).

Okay, he had a fastball, but he walked 200 guys a year exactly half the seasons of his career. If this guy ends up higher on the all-time end result of this poll than Dazzy Vance I'll be sorely disappointed.

Rusie better than Keefe or Clarkson? Not by a long shot.

[Brad Harris]

1. Cy Young
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Kid Nichols
4. John Clarkson
5. Eddie Plank
6. Tim Keefe
7. Amos Rusie
8. Ed Walsh
9. Pud Galvin
10. Joe McGinnity or Charley Radbourn

I'm really torn between McGinnity and Radbourn. Any help?

I wound up replacing Plank and Rusie with Brown and Waddell and taking McGinnity (over Radbourn) as my 10th.

My votes:
1. Young
2. Mathewson
3. Nichols
4. Clarkson
5. Keefe
6. Brown
7. Walsh
8. Waddell
9. Galvin
10. McGinnity

[BlueBlood]

that's only eight.

The ninth was Walsh.

1. Matthewson
2. Young
3. Nichols
4. Brown
5. Walsh
6. Rusie
7. Plank
8. Clarkson
9. Waddell
10. Radbourn

[STLCards2]

1. Cy Young
2. Christie Mathewson
3. Kid Nichols
4. John Clarkson
5. Ed Walsh
6. Eddie Plank
7. Tim Keefe
8. Mordecai Brown
9. Rube Waddell
10.Amos Rusie

[leecemark]

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) Rube Waddell 145 (240)
9) Clark Grifith 143 (273)
10) Stan Coveleski 142 (245)
11) Vic Willis 138 (293)
12) Eddie Plank 133 (360)
13) Addie Joss 131 (193)
14) Jesse Tannehill 130 (233)
15) Joe Wood 111 (193)

[STLCards2]

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) Rube Waddell 145 (240)
9) Clark Grifith 143 (273)
10) Stan Coveleski 142 (245)
11) Vic Willis 138 (293)
12) Eddie Plank 133 (360)
13) Addie Joss 131 (193)
14) Jesse Tannehill 130 (233)
15) Joe Wood 111 (193)


I am sure if you included an arbitrary "10" year or "11" year peak Plank would come out a lot better. What is so special about 5 seasons?

[leecemark]

--10 or 11 years wouldn't really be a "peak". Very few pitchers have a run near the top level that long. Injuries tend to disrupt and/or shorten careers and guys (particularly the flame throwers) start losing their stuff before they get 10 full years in. Five years is enough to establish a real peak level of performance and short enough that if a guy faded quicker than that they aren't going to belong amoung the all time greats. I didn't pick it though, Bill James did - I just copied the info over.
--The shorter "best 3 years" calulation would be even worse for Plank as he never had a dominanting season. A long period would help him somehat since he was a consistently good pitcher for a long time. I guess whether or not being good for a long time can add up to being a great pitcher is a matter of taste. Connie Mack, who managed him almost all his career, didn't think so. Plank was never his go to guy for the big games.

[Paul Wendt]

I wound up replacing Plank and Rusie with Brown and Waddell and taking McGinnity (over Radbourn) as my 10th.
That means you plunked for Brown, Waddell, and McGinnity over Rusie, Plank, and Radbourn (edit).
--and bumped Galvin over Plank since last writing, which seems to buck the trend

Probably you know that Rusie was another workhorse like McGinnity (and Walsh). Brown was not.

Amos Rusie was not a creature of the shorter distance, on the contrary. Although he no longer pitched 500 innings, he "took off" in 1893. The longer distance played to his strength.
I didn't mention him earlier and I hadn't considered that I might pass over Rusie.
He was one of the great pitchers. Does he deserve a penalty for disrupting the team? Keeping them guessing every winter and spring about whether he would return?

[STLCards2]

I included Brown, byt it may be worth noting that possibly no pitcher in baseball history (save maybe Jim Plamer) has his ERA deflated by a great defense more than Brown. Thos Cubs teams has an other-worldy defense. With a neutral - or even good, but not great defense behind him, his ERA+ would drop like a lead balloon.

Still a great pitcher, but not as great as his stats would indicate.

[Freakshow]

I included Brown, byt it may be worth noting that possibly no pitcher in baseball history (save maybe Jim Plamer) has his ERA deflated by a great defense more than Brown. Thos Cubs teams has an other-worldy defense. With a neutral - or even good, but not great defense behind him, his ERA+ would drop like a lead balloon.

Still a great pitcher, but not as great as his stats would indicate.
Exactly. Brown is a vastly overrated pitcher. If you set aside his Federal League play he only had 2703 IP in MLB. While deserving of the HOF, he's not one of the greats of his time. I did not vote for him but took Mathewson, Plank and Walsh from the 1900's.

[Paul Wendt]

Right. That's why Brown is in the second tier where reputation makes him not only Matty's rival but near-equal.
There are trouble spots elsewhere, too.
Rube Waddell was one of the great pitchers. Does he deserve a penalty for disrupting the team? Keeping them guessing about whether he would return next week or even tomorrow? :laugh:

[Paul Wendt]

Rusie, McGinnity, and Walsh were workhorses on a league-season scale almost throughout their careers as starting pitchers

Innings pitched, rank in league (T ten, - regular by starts, _ borderline regular, x did not play; bold NL monopoly 1892-00)

-11-211 : Walsh 06-12
___--715T : Brown 03-11
-----52- : Joss 02-09
---434-T-- : Waddell 00-09
-8-T1-523685 : Willis 98-09
411311625 : McGinnity 99-07 ('3' for 1902 in both leagues)
-3-6----__ : Griffith 93-02
222123x9- : Rusie 90-98, dnp'96

Note the 12 seasons for Willis, not a short career as a regular starter. At the same time, he was not an outstanding workhorse on the league-season level.

[jjpm74]

Only a day left on this. We could use some more input and ballots.

[JDD]

Very interesting list, and quite the decision to list Johnson among other players... (he pitched more than 4000 innings before 1919).

I am guessing he is in the next list. When it came time to compare an old timer to the more modern dead-baller, I went with 20th century guys. Here is my list, I think:

Brown, Galvin, Joss, Mathewson, Nichols, Plank, Waddel, Walsh, Wood, Young

[jjpm74]

Very interesting list, and quite the decision to list Johnson among other players... (he pitched more than 4000 innings before 1919).

I am guessing he is in the next list.

He is. The generational lists were in place only to cut down on the number of potential candidates in the preliminary rounds. After this round of voting, the pitchers will no longer be looked at in context and will appear on the same lists as their contemporaries.

[Paul Wendt]

On the interpretation "whole player during his career as a pitcher" and looking for dominating players before 1893, I voted for Spalding and Caruthers along with Clarkson, the one whose pitching was most dominating over several seasons.

Perhaps I voted for the dominating players throughout, with the exception of Plank over Radbourn.

Spalding, Caruthers, Clarkson, Rusie, Nichols, Young, Waddell, Matty, Walsh
+ Plank

It turns out there is a big gap in the standings just at the 10/11 ranks that are decisive in this round.
Comfortable leads as I would group them
Keefe >> Galvin, Radbourn (undiscussed)
Rusie, Waddell >> McGinnity, Joss (much discussed)

[jjpm74]

These 10 will advance:

Mordecai Brown
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
Christy Matthewson
Kid Nichols
Eddie Plank
Amos Rusie
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Cy Young