BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1917 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1917

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 12:32 PM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. 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.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes are essentially votes against. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

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, though extra scrutiny will be applied. 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.

1917 Guide
There are 26 candidates on the 1917 ballot - 20 holdovers and 6 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1912 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (6)
George Browne
Fred Clarke – Age Rule
Bob Ewing
Matty McIntyre
Barney Pelty
Jack Powell

Holdovers (20)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Jake Beckley 6th 72.00% 73.91% (1913)
Kitty Bransfield 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1916)
Cupid Childs 12th 44.00% 56.52% (1913)
Lave Cross 6th 24.00% 30.43% (1912)
Hugh Duffy 7th 68.00% 68.00% (1916)
Clark Griffith 3rd 44.00% 44.00% (1916)
Topsy Hartsel 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1916)
Hughie Jennings 4th 52.00% 52.00% (1916)
Fielder Jones 5th 12.00% 12.00% (1916)
Addie Joss 3rd 64.00% 64.00% (1916)
Joe Kelley 5th 60.00% 60.00% (1916)
Herman Long 9th 28.00% 56.52% (1913)
John McGraw 7th 36.00% 47.83% (1912)
Deacon Phillippe 2nd 8.00% 8.00% (1916)
Jimmy Ryan 10th 52.00% 52.00% (1916)
Jesse Tannehill 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1916)
Roy Thomas 2nd 16.00% 16.00% (1916)
Mike Tiernan 14th 24.00% 26.92% (1914)
George Van Haltren 10th 64.00% 69.57% (1912)
Vic Willis 3rd 48.00% 48.00% (1916)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Ginger Beaumont Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1915)
Sam Leever Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1916)
George Stone Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1915)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (7)
Player 1916 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Jack Beckley 72.00% 5
Hugh Duffy 68.00% 5
Addie Joss 64.00% 2
George Van Haltren 64.00% 9
Joe Kelley 60.00% 2
Hughie Jennings 52.00% 2
Jimmy Ryan 52.00% 1

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Jake Beckley 73.91% (1913) 3
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3 1915
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 3
Hugh Duffy 68.00 (1916) 1

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Mike Tiernan 26.92%

Hall of Famers

Players Elected (38)
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 (Cubs) (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 (NL) 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 (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20
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
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 2 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13
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 (Cubs) (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
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10
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 (Braves) (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
Al Spalding 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8
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
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13
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
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22

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 (1): Jimmy Collins
Shortstop (5): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, 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 (4): King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (12): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Rube Waddell, Cy Young

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):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity
1914 (1): George Davis
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell
1916 (4): Bill Dahlen, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Cy Young

First Balloters (19)
Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
John Clarkson 1901
Jimmy Collins 1913
Roger Conner 1902
Bill Dahlen 1916
George Davis 1914
Ed Delahanty 1908
Buck Ewing 1902
Billy Hamilton 1906
Tim Keefe 1901
Jim O’Rourke 1901
Joe McGinnity 1913
Kid Nichols 1911
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906
Rube Waddell 1915
Cy Young 1916

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 19
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 11
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 15 – Al Spalding
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.74 Years
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.38
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903, 1914)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23.43
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 8
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) - 4
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Al Spalding – 8 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.55 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Jake Beckley – 73.91%

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
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25
1916: 25

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)

PVNICK

09-03-2008, 12:48 PM

Beckley
Childs
Clarke
Cross
Long
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren

Only Clarke makes the ballot of the newcomers. I dropped McGraw because he really has too short a career and due to the colloquoy/info from the last election.

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 12:49 PM

jjpm74

09-03-2008, 12:58 PM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Fred Clarke
Lave Cross
Hugh Duffy
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Roy Thomas
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

I few of these guys are on my ballot for the 1st time. Some others are returning after a hiatus. Of the 1st timers, the more I look at Mike Tiernan, the more I'm convinced that he is the leader of the Duffy, Kelley, Van Haltren, Tiernan, Ryan train and ahead of two outfielders we already elected (Browning and Thompson). Roy Thomas is in a class of his own and his case is probably the strongest of the holdovers. Fred Clarke is the best of the new class by about 1000%. He's the only possible 1st ballot guy for the next few years coming. Beckley and Cross are here but in danger of being dropped if neither gains some momentum. Joss and Willis may not make it, but both are close enough that they'll stick as long as they're eligible. Griffith and Jennings are getting some extra creditt from me for now, though both are probably better left to the VC.

jalbright

09-03-2008, 02:12 PM

1. Childs
2. Clarke
3. Duffy
4. Kelley
5. Long
6. Van Haltren
7. Willis

AG2004

09-03-2008, 02:21 PM

Beckley has now come within 1 vote of election 3 times in the past 4 years. Won't someone throw him a bone? When he played, it was not that common for a player to be a consistently good player for a long time as Beckley was. Now I know his detractors will shoot back and say he came around at the right time to facilitate that longevity - maybe so, but how come there aren't more contemporaries with his type of longevity and production if it's all about his era? If it's all about his era, shouldn't there be more players that began around 1890 with his longevity and counting numbers? Why does he stand alone? Isn't that uniqueness worth anything? Year after year during his career, players came and players went. NONE hung on like Beckley and produced year after year after year after year at 1B like Beckley. So he's not Anson/Brouthers/Conner, but that has more to do with how good they were than Beckley's inferiority; and between that trio and the Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg trio, Beckley came arguably as close any 1Bmen, particularly when you factor in longevity.

No players named Gehrig, Foxx, or Greenberg have ever played major league baseball.

Anson, Brouthers, and Connor were consistently good players. During Beckley's era, Bill Dahlen and George Davis had similar longevity and much more career values. When you first made the counting numbers argument several years ago, Davis was in the top six in multiple categories. He was fairly close to Beckley in counting numbers, and he was a shortstop, which means that he was producing more than Beckley overall. Dahlen also had many more win schedule-adjusted win shares than Beckley did.

We should also consider the possibility that nobody that good came along at first around 1890. There were nine outfielders of the 1890s who were superior to Beckley, and some of them remain outside of the Hall of Fame. During the oughts, Chance was able to sustain a level of play similar to Stovey's or Thompson's best, but he was able to do so for just five years.

Next his detractors might say that subsequent players will pass his production. Well, so what? If you go on long enough, of course his numbers would be eclipsed.

There is the possiblity that the person who will eclipse his numbers may just be starting out in the game. For a while, Fournier looked like he had potential. He even led the AL in slugging in 1915. However, he was disappointing in 1916, and his PCL performance this past year indicates that he was a one-season wonder. George Sisler, though, had a solid year this past season. If he is able to continue at that level, he might surpass Beckley.

Beckley was inferior to Ezra Sutton, who played third, and to Joe Start, who played first prior to the Anson/Brouthers/Connor triad. The voters rejected both Sutton and Start. Since Beckley was below that level, consistency would require that he not be elected to the Hall.

----

Speaking of first basemen, the White Sox have done very well to replace Fournier with Gandil. Fournier was a flash in the pan who missed many games even when he was at his best. Gandil, on the other hand, is a reliable, everyday player. His hitting was poor over the past two seasons, but, since he will be remaining in Chicago this upcoming season, he is likely to return to the form he displayed during his time in Washington. This will make the White Sox even better than it was last season, when it won 100 regular-season games and the World Series.

The replacements of Zeb Terry and Shano Collins by Swede Risberg and Nemo Leibold will probably help the team; both are young players and will probably get better as time goes by. However, Gandil's veteran leadership was the key improvement to the team -- Fournier was only two years younger -- and his example can only help the White Sox in the future. Replacing Fournier with Gandil made the Chicago club into a championship nine, and Gandil will help lead the White Sox to more championships and more glory over the next decade.

----

Finally, I wish to apologize to those people who followed the advice I gave last year to buy Russian War Bonds:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1302343&postcount=96

I did not expect the Provisional Government of Kerensky to replace the Tsar. I especially did not expect communists to overthrow Kerensky and take Russia out of the war. However, the Communists will not be successful in maintaining their rule; they don't have enough industrial workers in Russia for a revolution to be successful, and the peasants won't support them because they can farm their own individual plots of land without forming a collective. I assure you that you will get the money back eventually.

Brad Harris

09-03-2008, 02:27 PM

Finally, I wish to apologize to those people who followed the advice I gave last year to buy Russian War Bonds:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1302343&postcount=96

I did not expect the Provisional Government of Kerensky to replace the Tsar. I especially did not expect communists to overthrow Kerensky and take Russia out of the war. However, the Communists will not be successful in maintaining their rule; they don't have enough industrial workers in Russia for a revolution to be successful, and the peasants won't support them because they can farm their own individual plots of land without forming a collective. I assure you that you will get the money back eventually.

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

That's a relief! ;)

KCGHOST

09-03-2008, 02:32 PM

Beckley
Childs
Clarke
Duffy
Griffith
Joss
J. Kelley
McGraw
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltern

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 02:44 PM

No players named Gehrig, Foxx, or Greenberg have ever played major league baseball.

Call me clairvoyant then. I might respond, "What are win shares?" since you appear to be so heavily reliant on them. Which brings me to a tangent about counting numbers. I realize the folly in putting too much emphasis in counting numbers, but for over a century, counting numbers and simple rate stats were the traditional and primary methods were how players were evaluated. In this historical exercise, I think it would be folly for us to completely dismiss counting numbers and how that in the time period we're looking at, could have shaped how someone was perceived as a Hall of Famer or not (not saying anyone is completely dismissing, like I said this is a tangent).

Anson, Brouthers, and Connor were consistently good players. During Beckley's era, Bill Dahlen and George Davis had similar longevity and much more career values. When you first made the counting numbers argument several years ago, Davis was in the top six in multiple categories. He was fairly close to Beckley in counting numbers, and he was a shortstop, which means that he was producing more than Beckley overall. Dahlen also had many more win schedule-adjusted win shares than Beckley did.

I don't really see what your point is here. You've named just two players with similar longevity, and both were elected by us on their first ballot. This only feeds my point that the only players who can approach or surpass Beckley's unique longevity and production for his era are top tier players. Thus proving it was not an easy feat at all. Our benchmark is not just the top tier though, and just because Beckley is not Dahlen or Davis (or Wagner, Lajoie, or Crawford) does not mean that he still isn't a very unique player for his period and worthy of induction. Your point would work much better if we hadn't been so quick to elect Davis and Dahlen.

We should also consider the possibility that nobody that good came along at first around 1890. There were nine outfielders of the 1890s who were superior to Beckley, and some of them remain outside of the Hall of Fame. During the oughts, Chance was able to sustain a level of play similar to Stovey's or Thompson's best, but he was able to do so for just five years.

Who are these 9 OFers? Not that I doubt you, I just don't feel like thinking of who they are right now. Even so, again, likely none could match, or come close to matching Beckley's unique longevity and consistency. Sure, some of these guys had better peaks than Beckley, but they came and went, while Beckley continued to go out there and put up a 125 OPS+ for nearly two decades. That has to count for something. Moreover, you're comparing 1B to OF, and as I mentioned earlier, I believe during Beckley's era, the offensive expectations were lower for 1B. Sure, you had guys like Brouthers and Conner putting up huge OPS+ numbers early in Beckley's career, but you also had several just as far south as 100 OPS+ as the big three were north. Then after Brouthers, Conner, and Anson declined and left the game, very few 1Bmen were surpassing Beckley in OPS+, let alone the same players doing so on a consistent basis. Again, players would come and go, but Beckley would go out there and do the same thing year after year, and during a time when many teams had 1Bmen with an OPS+ well south of 100. In most years, Beckley was probably 20-25 points ahead of the average 1Bman in OPS+, even during the years where Brouthers, Conner, and Anson were inflating the figure early in Beckley's career.

And just to show how low offensive expectations were at 1B during Beckley's post-Anson/Brouthers/Connor career, he led the all 1Bmen in 1900 with 128 OPS+, and then led NL 1Bmen in both 1901 at 130. This was not a time when 1B was a huge offensive position, and in a given year, the majority of the league's 1Bmen could be below 100 OPS+, and perhaps considerably so. So Beckley's 125 might not look that impressive by modern standards or the standards of Anson/Brouthers/Connor, but in the context of his era, to have that kind of production at 1B year after year after year for nearly two decades, was pretty darn impressive and extremely hard to come by.

The point here people argue that Beckley's longevity is only a product of the time he played, but if that's the case why are you only able to give two contemporaries with similar longevity (Davis and Dahlen)? Why weren't there more players like Beckley sticking around for that long, putting up a 125 OPS+, and impressive counting numbers across the board? Why is Beckley so unique? No one can answer this. The attempted answer seems to be because his era allowed him to do so, but that ignores that it allowed everyone of his era to do so, and yet no one else did.

There is the possiblity that the person who will eclipse his numbers may just be starting out in the game. For a while, Fournier looked like he had potential. He even led the AL in slugging in 1915. However, he was disappointing in 1916, and his PCL performance this past year indicates that he was a one-season wonder. George Sisler, though, had a solid year this past season. If he is able to continue at that level, he might surpass Beckley.

There's a possibility that someone just starting out in the game will pass Cy Young's win total. So should we not have elected Young? And again, the only players who have been passing Beckley are the TRUE GREATS of the game - Wagner, Lajoie, and Crawford among current or recently retired players. If Beckley's feats were so easy to achieve, why are only the TRUE GREATS of the game passing him? Why aren't any run of the mill players passing him? Why aren't anyone less than the TRUE GREAT passing him? Again, that has to count for something.

Beckley was inferior to Ezra Sutton, who played third, and to Joe Start, who played first prior to the Anson/Brouthers/Connor triad. The voters rejected both Sutton and Start. Since Beckley was below that level, consistency would require that he not be elected to the Hall.

I'm more sympathetic to these arguments, but you're comparing players across fairly different eras (something I was admonished for doing when comparing McGinnity to Welch), while my argument is to illustrate why Beckley stood out in his time. I don't think you can make a good comparison between Start, a player whose prime years were in the 1860s and 1870s, to Beckley, whose prime years were in the 1890s and 1900s. The game had gone through so much evolution in those 30 years. Same goes for Sutton, but then we're also talking about different positions.

I did vote for both Start and Sutton though and was dismayed that neither were elected. In Start's case, it may have been the inability to consider his 1860s play. If so, he should have a good chance in the VC election. As for Sutton, I think he showed early on that we're going to have a difficult time evaluating 3Bmen (much like the real Hall). Jumping out of historical context, it's possible we could elect just 3 or 4 3Bmen to represent an 80 year period (1871-1951).

Speaking of first basemen, the White Sox have done very well to replace Fournier with Gandil. Fournier was a flash in the pan who missed many games even when he was at his best. Gandil, on the other hand, is a reliable, everyday player. His hitting was poor over the past two seasons, but, since he will be remaining in Chicago this upcoming season, he is likely to return to the form he displayed during his time in Washington. This will make the White Sox even better than it was last season, when it won 100 regular-season games and the World Series.

There's something I don't quite trust about that Gandil...

dgarza

09-03-2008, 02:54 PM

Finally, I wish to apologize to those people who followed the advice I gave last year to buy Russian War Bonds:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1302343&postcount=96

I did not expect the Provisional Government of Kerensky to replace the Tsar. I especially did not expect communists to overthrow Kerensky and take Russia out of the war. However, the Communists will not be successful in maintaining their rule; they don't have enough industrial workers in Russia for a revolution to be successful, and the peasants won't support them because they can farm their own individual plots of land without forming a collective. I assure you that you will get the money back eventually.Sure. Do you expect us to believe that you knew nothing about what the Communists were going to do?
I think there's reason you didn't vote for Jake Beckley of the Cincinnati Reds.

AG2004

09-03-2008, 03:39 PM

Sure. Do you expect us to believe that you knew nothing about what the Communists were going to do?

I was sure that any Communist Revolution during 1917 would have been in Germany or France. That's why I advised investing in Russian war bonds. I was also sure that the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be built in Nicaragua.

Sometimes I err in my predictions. However, in 1901 or 1902, I predicted that nobody would hit 200 career home runs in our lifetimes. That prediction seems to be holding up pretty well.

henrich

09-03-2008, 03:42 PM

1. Jake Beckley
2. Fred Clarke
3. Lave Cross
4. Hugh Duffy
5. Joe Kelley
6. Herman Long
7. Jack Powell
8. Jimmy Ryan
9. George Van Haltren
10. Vic Willis

I was generous this time within my own standards.
To me Clarke, Beckley, Duffy, and Willis all score over 10,000. With Powell he's so close to the line I don't mind that vote at all. I extended my lines a bit for Cross, Kelley, Long, Ryan and Van Haltren.

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 04:21 PM

Here are some more specifics about how Beckley's consistency and longevity really stood out during his time:

During his 17 prime years, 1888-1889, 1891-1905, leaving out his one year in the Players League (1890) and his two decline years (1906-1907), Beckley's OPS+ during that time was 126. The average 1Bmen's OPS+ during that time was 106. In many years, the majority of 1Bmen would be below 100, and some significantly so. Moreover, if you remove the 8 years where Anson/Brothers/Connor overlap, because they really were freaks compared to the rest of the 1Bmen in the league, the average OPS+ at 1B goes down to 100 for those 17 years. This shows three things:

1) This was a time when 1B was not the offensive position that it would become or that people would expect from the likes of Anson/Brouthers/Connor.

2) Anson/Brouthers/Connor are extremely special, and that should not be held against Beckley. Consider that in the 8/17 years of overlap, less than half this period, the three of them by themselves brought up the entire 1B average by 6 points. They really stood out, and for everyone else, they'd be happy to just get league average production out of their 1Bmen.

3) Sure, there were guys who came and went that had a couple of years better than Beckley, but none had anywhere close to Beckley's longevity. Again, if Beckley was such a product of his era, why isn't there anyone else like Beckley? Why is Beckley the only one who could go out there for 17 years and play significantly better year in and year out than his average peer at his position?

leecemark

09-03-2008, 05:26 PM

jjpm74

09-03-2008, 05:35 PM

No on Vic Willis, Mark?

BlueBlood

09-03-2008, 05:37 PM

Added Clarke based on the full package.

1. Beckley
2. Childs
3. Clarke
4. Duffy
5. Joss
6. Kelley
7. Jennings
8. Van Haltren
9. Willis

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Twelve (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Ten (1908 onward) - George Van Haltren
Seven (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Six (1912 onward) - Jake Beckley
Four (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Three (1915 onward) - Addie Joss, Vic Willis
Two (1916 onward) - Joe Kelley
One (1917 onward) - Fred Clarke

leecemark

09-03-2008, 05:39 PM

No on Vic Willis, Mark?

--I have an open mind on Willis. He is not an obvious Hall of Famer to me though and nobody has given me a reason to vote for him yet.

henrich

09-03-2008, 06:17 PM

I was sure that any Communist Revolution during 1917 would have been in Germany or France. That's why I advised investing in Russian war bonds. I was also sure that the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be built in Nicaragua.

Sometimes I err in my predictions. However, in 1901 or 1902, I predicted that nobody would hit 200 career home runs in our lifetimes. That prediction seems to be holding up pretty well.

You all are crackin' me up.

philkid3

09-03-2008, 06:30 PM

Took a long time to think about this ballot. For now, I'm leaving all three outfielders off, where I have been voting for Duffy. I do not necessarily want an overly small hall, though, and I don't necessarilly think adding them assures we want a large hall. The farther back you go the harder it is to judge the value a player added to his team, so I'm not necessarily going to see players in the 50s the same way I see Duffy now.

That said, for the moment, they're off. I want more time to think and I definitely want to see more arguments for or against.

Every single person who's been ahead of Hughie Jennings on my queue has gotten in, and only a couple who I've had below him have gotten in. He's been consistently my cut-off line for who the rest of ya'll vote for, apparently.

John McGraw is now dropped. I'll eyeball his support and he might get back on.

My Ballot
Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Fred Clarke
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Mike Tiernan

philkid3

09-03-2008, 06:35 PM

Shoot, I accidently voted for Duffy anyway because I'm on auto-pilot I guess.

If it's too much trouble to pull him off, that's fine. I've been voting for him, anyway.

DoubleX

09-03-2008, 06:38 PM

--It appears that we have some additional voting going big hall this year. Several have answered the question "why VanHaltren and not Ryan and Duffy?" with "okay I'll take them all". I'll stick with none of them. My ballot is down to 2 players this year - Fred Clarke and Hughie Jennings.

How are we to gauge what's a big Hall or small Hall anyway. As far as we're concerned this is the only Hall and it'll be as big as we make it. I don't think we should vote with a set number of inductees in mind because in theory, we really have no idea what the future of the game will look like and how big the Hall will become. No problems though with some voters being more selective though, just saying we don't have to vote to some blueprint, we're making our own.

Putting pretend time aside for the moment, I think I mentioned in an earlier election that I suspect had the Hall of Fame proceeding since 1901 as we are, it would be larger than it is today. That's because it would have better perspective on the players we're looking at, rather than the VC which was trying to figure out around 70 years of baseball history when it first convened, and thus likely missed a lot of players that may have been elected had their been BBWAA elections (Mullane and Dahlen are good examples of this). Of course, Frankie Frisch did his best to somewhat offset this number with his questionable elections.

Erik Bedard

09-03-2008, 07:11 PM

Sometimes I err in my predictions. However, in 1901 or 1902, I predicted that nobody would hit 200 career home runs in our lifetimes. That prediction seems to be holding up pretty well.

If only that Cravath fellow hadn't been held back by the PCL and Cantillon in Minneapolis, he could have proven you wrong already. He is showing no signs of declining performance at age 36, but it is highly unlikely that he will double his current HR performance and reach the fabled 200 mark.

Have you heard the rumors out of Boston that young Ruth is requesting to be moved to the outfield? He is a fair hitter, as evidenced by his .325 average this past season, but I for one think this will be a foolish move.

BlueBlood

09-03-2008, 07:27 PM

That Ruth is far too husky of a fellow to have a long career. As he ages, he will lack the speed necessary in today's ball game.

dgarza

09-03-2008, 07:49 PM

Jake Beckley
Fred Clarke
Hugh Duffy
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

1. Hugh Duffy
2. Fred Clarke
3. Vic Willis
4. George Van Haltren
5. Jake Beckley
6. Addie Joss
7. Joe Kelley
8. Jimmy Ryan
9. Mike Tiernan
10. Hugh Jennings

Paul Wendt

09-03-2008, 07:49 PM

Some may have missed an article late in 1916, "Where are We?" by AG2004
. . .

Outfielders - Starred players are in; others are out. Schedule length-adjusted win share lines follow.

*Stovey 314-93-132
*Thompson 261-91-128
O'Neill 224-91-139
Griffin 266-83-121
C. Jones 242-97-143 (108)

For Jones, the 108 refers to any span of five consecutive calendar years; the 143 refers to any span of five consecutive seasons in which he was permitted to play (and thus skips over 1881 and 1882).

There's definitely a line between Thompson and Griffin. Jones apparently didn't get credit for blacklisted seasons. Had he voluntarily retired from the game for those two years, he would fall below Thompson. The Thompson-O'Neill comparison indicates the career-peak balance. 260 win shares is enough for a Thompson-like peak, but not enough for a Griffin-like one.

Thus, Roy Thomas' adjusted line of 269-89-137 would presumably get him in just over the Thompson line. Tiernan's 278-87-133 might also get him in. If the voters were to reject both of them, Thompson's election would definitely be a mistake.
. . .
I recall asking people several times for a defense or justification of Thomspon, but I never received it. Thompson had high RBI totals, but, with Billy Hamilton leading off, and Ed Delahanty on the team, he should have had high RBI totals. Without those RBI totals, Thompson didn't have much of a case.
We elected Sam Thompson without my support and I am voting for Roy Thomas now.

The mixed disposition and argument for Thompson and against Thomas, at least in comparison with each other, may have several components as follows and they may be effective for the silent majority of Thompson voters.

- good old bias for batting in runs against scoring them

- focus on batting rather than the whole game, maybe rationalized by the conviction that we measure or simply recognize batting prowess more accurately than baserunning or fielding

- reliance on OPS+ rather than more complicated statistics. Even as a measure of batting rate only, OPS+ is biased and maybe moreso against Roy Thomas than against anyone else. As the simple sum of on-base and slugging averages, OPS+ puts equal weight on "one point" in both averages, but statistical analyses conclude that one point of O is worth anywhere from 1.2 to 2 times one point of S. And Thomas is the most extreme example of reaching base greatly and slugging weakly. He rarely makes even a two-base hit; his slugging average is respectable only because he hits a lot of singles.

- fondness for the members of appealing teams, not to mention sharper memories of memorable teams! Thompson played for the Wolverines and the Phillies when they were exciting teams, with other star players. They were usually strong enough to get more than an equal share of coverage in the sporting press. Baseball fans everywhere in Sam Thompson's day read stories like Why Don't the Phillies Win? and will they win this year? That was still true for a couple seasons when Roy Thomas joined the team, but Connie Mack and Ban Johnson's Americans beat them badly and they exited the national stage quickly.

- suspicion that baseball dealt Sam Thompson a bad hand. Everyone knows that Roy Thomas lingered in the amateur world --and that Mike Griffin and Fielder Jones walked away from the big leagues when they were stars. But why did Thompson arrive in Detroit only at 25 years old? Does anyone know?

- belief that the National League was the stronger major league when Thompson played there and the weaker one when Thomas played there. And perhaps belief that the 12 NL teams of the 1890s were stronger than either the preceding or the following leagues; Thompson played more of the monopoly seasons, five to two.

BlueBlood

09-03-2008, 08:40 PM

Has anyone here voted for every person that's been enshrined in this Hall? And who here has voted for the least (aside from Sockeye)?

I didn't vote for John Ward, so no perfect score from me.

philkid3

09-03-2008, 10:41 PM

Since I've joined, everyone who's gotten in has gotten in with my vote.

Freakshow

09-04-2008, 06:32 AM

Keeler, Flick, Dahlen and Young were elected. Taking their place are newbie Clarke and first-timers McGraw, Willis and Thomas.

Beckley
Childs
Clarke
L. Cross
Duffy
Griffith
Jennings
J. Kelley
Long
McGraw
Ryan
Thomas
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Willis

Brooklyn

09-04-2008, 07:32 AM

Beckley, Clarke, Joss

TheSlaff

09-04-2008, 08:07 AM

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Fred Clarke
Hugh Duffy
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

Paul Wendt

09-04-2008, 10:34 AM

Has anyone here voted for every person that's been enshrined in this Hall?
only around the basepaths, 3b ss 2b 1b c.
Run them in that order and you are a clown.

Captain Cold Nose

09-04-2008, 10:53 AM

Erik Bedard

09-04-2008, 12:57 PM

Has anyone here voted for every person that's been enshrined in this Hall? And who here has voted for the least (aside from Sockeye)?

*raises hand*

DoubleX

09-04-2008, 01:09 PM

Has anyone here voted for every person that's been enshrined in this Hall? And who here has voted for the least (aside from Sockeye)?

I didn't vote for John Ward, so no perfect score from me.

I never voted for George Wright. I also didn't vote for Al Spalding until the year of his election and I went back and forth on Ross Barnes, but did vote for him the year he was elected. I think I've supported everyone else that's been elected.

I can't believe we have 20 votes already, and in a pretty lean year too. Perhaps we'll set a new high in votes this time (or perhaps the last few votes will just trickle in over the next few days). Clarke looks to be a no doubter. I'm fairly optimistic for Beckley making it this year, but I won't hold my breath. At some point he'll have to get in - how many times can a guy come up just one vote short? Kelley is at the line right now and Van Haltren and Duffy are close, but I don't see any of them getting there.

leecemark

09-04-2008, 01:18 PM

jjpm74

09-04-2008, 03:09 PM

--Nice to see Kelley's support rising above the ValHaltren/Duffy/Ryan line. He is the best of the lot, although that still makes him a marginal candidate (and off my ballot). The early returns had it looking like another large class this year, which would have forced me to reevalue my standards (apparently I've set the bar higher than most of our voters). All the backloggers but Beckley have slipped below for now and that will keep me holding the line for another year if thats the way it turns out.

It just had to do with who voted early. I honestly doubt Beckley or Kelley will get elected in this project (though I wouldn't mind if I was wrong). Looking at the trends so far, with the exception of Browning, we seem to be mirroring most other super majority dependent projects. I don't know how many people are following the conversations and adjusting their ballots vs. how many are just checking off the same boxes they would for every other project, but I doubt enough people are adjusting their approach to get the Kelleys and Suttons of the world elected. If anything, most people are likely using their modern approach and then searching for a justification to apply it to this era. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. ;)

henrich

09-04-2008, 04:58 PM

It just had to do with who voted early. I honestly doubt Beckley or Kelley will get elected in this project (though I wouldn't mind if I was wrong). Looking at the trends so far, with the exception of Browning, we seem to be mirroring most other super majority dependent projects. I don't know how many people are following the conversations and adjusting their ballots vs. how many are just checking off the same boxes they would for every other project, but I doubt enough people are adjusting their approach to get the Kelleys and Suttons of the world elected. If anything, most people are likely using their modern approach and then searching for a justification to apply it to this era. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. ;)

My adjustment is minor, I look at those that played in an era and if they shine there I adjust to a bit of a lower standard due to who has played before them, which is why I'm voting for the likes of Van Haltren, Ryan, Kelley, if it were today I wouldn't vote for any of those three with the possible exception of Ryan.

DoubleX

09-07-2008, 09:07 AM

This is who I have eligible for the next election. Did I miss any age eligible guys?

Nixey Callahan - He actually was first eligible in 1910, as he didn't play for 5 years, but then came back from 1911-1913, including two full seasons.
Art Devlin
Tom Hughes
Johnny Kling
Cy Morgan - May not be on ballot
Ed Phelps - May not be on ballot
Heinie Peitz
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Jake Stahl
John Titus
Doc White

Erik Bedard

09-07-2008, 09:11 AM

Whoops, forgot Clarke. He'll get in anyway.

Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Vic Willis

leecemark

09-07-2008, 09:17 AM

--4 or 5 guys who will merit discussion anyway. Sheckard will fit nicely into the outfield backlog - and may be the best of the lot. If I vote for any of the new guys it will be him. The problem remains the same as always with the outfield glut though - a bunch of guys with a reasonable or semi-reasonable case, but none who really stand out and there are too many of them to vote for the whole gang. If I vote for anybody else it will be because I'm voting late and they have no other votes. Kling, Seymour and White deserve respectfull notice, but not election.

Paul Wendt

09-07-2008, 10:17 AM

This is who I have eligible for the next election. Did I miss any age eligible guys?

Nixey Callahan - He actually was first eligible in 1910, as he didn't play for 5 years, but then came back from 1911-1913, including two full seasons.
Jimmy Callahan left the majors to seek his fortune in Chicago semipro ball. I don't know anything about his return but it may be related to the ascent of Rube Foster, who is famous for eventually gaining control, serving as booking agent for many of the strong white teams.

Paul Wendt

09-07-2008, 10:29 AM

This is who I have eligible for the next election. Did I miss any age eligible guys?
None that I catch but my methods are no good for this. I missed half of your list.
Nixey Callahan - He actually was first eligible in 1910, as he didn't play for 5 years, but then came back from 1911-1913, including two full seasons.
Art Devlin
Tom Hughes
Johnny Kling
Cy Morgan - May not be on ballot
Ed Phelps - May not be on ballot
Heinie Peitz
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Jake Stahl
John Titus
Doc White

Heinie Peitz - did we cover him earlier?

By the way, did we pass over Fred Tenney a few years ago?

jjpm74

09-07-2008, 10:36 AM

jjpm74

09-07-2008, 10:46 AM

By the way, did we pass over Fred Tenney a few years ago?

It looks like we somehow overlooked Tenney. He should also be added to the 1918 ballot.

This is the full list of names for next year's ballot. Red indicates a player that you may not want to include:

Nixey Callahan
Art Devlin
Long Tom Hughes
Johnny Kling
Harry McIntire
Cy Morgan
Orval Overall
Ed Phelps
Heinie Peitz
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Jake Stahl
Fred Tenney
John Titus
Doc White

Freakshow

09-08-2008, 10:58 AM

It looks like we somehow overlooked Tenney. He should also be added to the 1918 ballot.

This is the full list of names for next year's ballot. Red indicates a player that you may not want to include:

Nixey Callahan
Art Devlin
Long Tom Hughes
Johnny Kling
Harry McIntire
Cy Morgan
Orval Overall
Ed Phelps
Heinie Peitz
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Jake Stahl
Fred Tenney
John Titus
Doc White
Peitz was one and done in 1911; Tenney was missed.

Harry Davis is 45 in 1918. He retired after the 1911 World Series (the end of his "continuous play", in a sense) and signed on to manage Cleveland. Things went badly and he was replaced before season's end. He inserted himself in 2 games along the way.

Connie Mack welcomed him back as a coach in 1913, playing him on occasion. That was the last year that he had 10 PA or more than 1 game in the field.

From 1914-17 he made token appearances.

I'd make him eligible in 1918; Mike will probably make him sit until 1922.

DoubleX

09-08-2008, 11:52 AM

I'd make him eligible in 1918; Mike will probably make him sit until 1922.

Yup. He appeared in every year through 1917, even if just briefly. Had there be a break in there, he would be eligible when turning 45.

Peitz is done.

Tenney was regrettably missed, so I'll put him on next year.

I'll add Orval Overall, but Ed Phelps doesn't cut it. I'm on the fence with Cy Morgan.

jjpm74

09-08-2008, 01:37 PM

Yup. He appeared in every year through 1917, even if just briefly. Had there be a break in there, he would be eligible when turning 45.

Peitz is done.

Tenney was regrettably missed, so I'll put him on next year.

I'll add Orval Overall, but Ed Phelps doesn't cut it. I'm on the fence with Cy Morgan.

Is the cutoff for pitchers 1400 or 1500 IP? If its 1400, Cy Morgan should stay as he was the victim of poor run support. On a better team, Morgan would have had a W-L record close to Orval Overall. Morgan's career era was 2.51 (though his ERA+ was a mere 104).

DoubleX

09-08-2008, 03:06 PM

Is the cutoff for pitchers 1400 or 1500 IP? If its 1400, Cy Morgan should stay as he was the victim of poor run support. On a better team, Morgan would have had a W-L record close to Orval Overall. Morgan's career era was 2.51 (though his ERA+ was a mere 104).

It's 1500, but he would be eligible under the 10 year rule. The fact though that he didn't meet the IP limit is a big thing against him, and a 104 ERA+ in that small of a sample is definitely not impressive. Overall only has 1535 IP, but his 122 ERA+ is much more impressive.

AG2004

09-10-2008, 08:34 AM

Call me clairvoyant then. I might respond, "What are win shares?" since you appear to be so heavily reliant on them. Which brings me to a tangent about counting numbers. I realize the folly in putting too much emphasis in counting numbers, but for over a century, counting numbers and simple rate stats were the traditional and primary methods were how players were evaluated. In this historical exercise, I think it would be folly for us to completely dismiss counting numbers and how that in the time period we're looking at, could have shaped how someone was perceived as a Hall of Famer or not (not saying anyone is completely dismissing, like I said this is a tangent).

Some people who are working on a "Hall of Merit" are using win shares. Rumor has it that, when Freedman owned the Giants, some accountants at Tammany Hall with no real work to do decided to perform mathematical analyses of base ball to aid Freedman. Freedman, being Freedman, ignored the advice of his colleagues. That's just one story I've heard.

There's a possibility that someone just starting out in the game will pass Cy Young's win total. So should we not have elected Young? And again, the only players who have been passing Beckley are the TRUE GREATS of the game - Wagner, Lajoie, and Crawford among current or recently retired players. If Beckley's feats were so easy to achieve, why are only the TRUE GREATS of the game passing him? Why aren't any run of the mill players passing him? Why aren't anyone less than the TRUE GREAT passing him? Again, that has to count for something.

We currently have no pitchers with more wins than Young. We have three members of the Hall who were superior first basemen than Beckley, and Frank Chance was arguably superior to Beckley based on peak performance.

At the turn of the century, the foul-strike rule was introduced to the game. As a result, offensive levels decreased, and it became much more difficult to match the performances of the 1890s. In 1911, a new ball was introduced, and averages zoomed up as a result. However, by 1913, the secret of Russell Ford's scuff ball had leaked out, and averages fell down. If the scuff ball were to be banned, and clean baseballs put into play on a regular basis, averages would return to their 1911-12 levels, and we would see run of the mill players passing Beckley again.

We will have to wait for the end of the Great War for that to happen, however. I don't see base ball being a priority before then.

----

My Ballot

Cupid Childs
Fred Clarke
Hugh Duffy
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Roy Thomas
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

Do your part to support the war effort . . .

Buy LIBERTY BONDS!

jjpm74

09-10-2008, 08:43 AM

dgarza

09-10-2008, 08:54 AM

Between the money I lost to White Star and the money I lost to the Russian Revolution, I'm content keeping my money where its safe: in a bank. They'll never lose my money!If you're looking to make your money work for you, you should look into the sporting arena.
The Cubs have had their day, but that other team is starting to look pretty good.

AG2004

09-10-2008, 09:02 AM

If only that Cravath fellow hadn't been held back by the PCL and Cantillon in Minneapolis, he could have proven you wrong already. He is showing no signs of declining performance at age 36, but it is highly unlikely that he will double his current HR performance and reach the fabled 200 mark.

If Cantillon hadn't swindled the Senators out of Cravath, he would still be playing in Washington. The bulk of Cravath's home runs have come in Philadelphia. In 1914, Cravath hit 19 home runs, and all of them were at the Huntingdon Street Grounds. If Cravath had remained in the captal, he would not have accumulated those high home run totals.

Still, you have stumbled upon a grain of truth. If anyone were to reach 200 home runs, it would have to be a Phillie. No other stadium increases home run totals to such a degree as "the Hump."

Have you heard the rumors out of Boston that young Ruth is requesting to be moved to the outfield? He is a fair hitter, as evidenced by his .325 average this past season, but I for one think this will be a foolish move.

Boston may have to move him. The Red Sox have a strong pitching staff, but a weak lineup. The team will lose players to the war effort, and these past two seasons indicated that the hitting was weak even before the loss of players to battle started. Boston has enough good pitchers to adjust to Ruth being in the outfield on a semi-permanent basis, but the team needs someone who can hit.

Even though Ruth's swing is poor - he's going to hit a lot of fly ball outs with that uppercut, and he would do well to forget about power and get an even higher average with a level swing - I think the Red Sox can live with it for a season or two until the war ends. Then Boston can sign some hitters, and Ruth can return to being a full-time pitcher.

DoubleX

09-10-2008, 09:11 AM

If the scuff ball were to be banned, and clean baseballs put into play on a regular basis, averages would return to their 1911-12 levels, and we would see run of the mill players passing Beckley again.

First, what do you mean again? When have we previously seen run of the mill players pass Beckley's counting numbers. And looking into my crystal ball, over the next 15 years or so, it will still only be the bona fide greats of the game passing Beckley - Cobb, Speaker, and Collins (and Wheat in a category or two).

You continue to dodge the core question here - if what Beckley did was so run of the mill and such a product of his time, why was he the only person who did it? Why don't any of his peers match his lofty counting totals? You mentioned Dahlen and Davis, they do have impressive counting numbers, but they don't match Beckley in most categories, and while I do agree they were better players, they were shortstops, and their inclusion doesn't by itself mean Beckley can't be included.

You also have conveniently ignored how I compared Beckley's production to the average 1B production of his time and showed pretty much year in and year out for 17 years, which is a long time back then, Beckley was well above the average OPS+ for his peers at the position. 1B was much more a defensive position back then, with lower production expectations - so if you're holding Beckley's 125 OPS+ against him, over a long career too boot, you're not putting his production into the context of 1B during his career - which is something I illustrated earlier. Sure, there were some that did better a couple of times, but they all came and went - only Beckley kept plugging away year after year after year at the same productive level. His longevity and consistency compared to his peers made him extremely unique for his time, and I believe I have demonstrated that. Again, if he was so run of the mill, why is he the only one of his period with a career like his? Shouldn't there have been at least a few others?

AG2004

09-10-2008, 09:16 AM

Do your part to support the war effort . . .

Buy LIBERTY BONDS!

Between the money I lost to White Star and the money I lost to the Russian Revolution, I'm content keeping my money where its safe: in a bank. They'll never lose my money!

I still think Karensky's forces will win the Russian Civil War.

Besides, if Germany were to win the war, how safe would your money be in a bank? The Kaiser's forces would steal all they could get. They would claim it as "reparations" for America's allying with the terrorists of Serbia. But we know that the Serbs merely wanted to free more territory from the monarchy in Vienna; they are not bloodthirsty monsters.

In retrospect, we should be thankful that Japan declared war on Germany several years ago. The U-boats are bad enough in the Atlantic and the North Sea. If they were to expand operations into the Pacific . . . I shudder at the thought. Fortunately, Japan conquered Germany's Pacific possessions in 1914, and therefore ensured that naval forces based on those islands will never interfere with American shipping in the future.

AG2004

09-10-2008, 10:44 AM

First, what do you mean again? When have we previously seen run of the mill players pass Beckley's counting numbers. And looking into my crystal ball, over the next 15 years or so, it will still only be the bona fide greats of the game passing Beckley - Cobb, Speaker, and Collins (and Wheat in a category or two).

Actually, Beckley was a good player. He was better than a run-of-the-mill player, but he wasn't a great player, and, in any single season, there were players better than him.

Here are the players who led in win shares at first base each season from 1892 to 1903. Numbers in parentheses represent adjustments to 154 games.

1892: Dan Brouthers 34
1893: Jake Beckley 17 (20)
1894: Dan Brouthers 21 (25)
1895: Candy La Chance 19 (22)
1896: Jack Doyle 17 (20)
1897: Nap Lajoie 21 (25)
1898: Bill Joyce 25
1899: Fred Tenney 25
1900: Jake Beckley 21 (23)
1901: Buck Freeman 24 (26)
1902: Fred Tenney 25 (28)
1903: Frank Chance 31 (34)

For a ten-year period between 1893 and 1902, the first basemen weren't all that great. Some of them could be very good, but greatness was beyond them. It was a weak generation of first basemen.

You continue to dodge the core question here - if what Beckley did was so run of the mill and such a product of his time, why was he the only person who did it? Why don't any of his peers match his lofty counting totals? You mentioned Dahlen and Davis, they do have impressive counting numbers, but they don't match Beckley in most categories, and while I do agree they were better players, they were shortstops, and their inclusion doesn't by itself mean Beckley can't be included.

Let's provide career win shares for some of Beckley's contemporaries. Schedule-adjusted numbers are in parentheses.

George Davis 398 (426)
Bill Dahlen 393 (419)
Jesse Burkett 389 (423)
Ed Delahanty 355 (390)
George Van Haltren 344 (371)
Billy Hamilton 337 (371)
Willie Keeler 333 (358)
Jake Beckley 318 (344)
Jimmy Ryan 316 (341)
Joe Kelley 305 (334)

Van Haltren, Ryan, and Kelley aren't in the Hall yet. They didn't achieve the offensive counting numbers that Beckley did, but they are similar to him in career win shares totals because of their defensive value. Keeler was a half-decade later than Beckley, and thus played half of his career after the foul-strike rule was implemented.

Keeler was playing nearly every day from 1894 to 1906 (with the exception of the 1898 season). Burkett played every day, Delahanty rarely missed games once he reached his prime, and, from 1889 to 1897, Hamilton was an everyday player as well (1893 was an exception; typhoid fever cost him the last third of the season). Joe Kelley was out there each day from 1893 to 1897, and again in 1899. Once he stopped pitching, Van Haltren was also an everyday player for a long time.

On the other hand, Davis missed a lot of games each year from 1898 to 1900, and missed most of the 1903 season because of lawsuits involving his contract. Each year from 1896 to 1899, Beckley missed a lot of games. Bill Dahlen was usually an everyday player, but he missed most of the first half of the 1897 season with an injury, and also missed a lot of games in 1899.

This might just be an educated guess, but most of Beckley's peers were pushed to the limit season after season. While they produced more value per year while they were able to play, they weren't able to play for as long as Beckley did. Hence they don't have the plate appearances Beckley did, and, since they had a higher share of value from their fielding, they don't have his counting numbers. Davis and Dahlen did have more season-by-season value than Beckley, but they also had multi-year periods when they weren't overused, and thus could have the longer careers that the outfielders didn't have.

You also have conveniently ignored how I compared Beckley's production to the average 1B production of his time and showed pretty much year in and year out for 17 years, which is a long time back then, Beckley was well above the average OPS+ for his peers at the position. 1B was much more a defensive position back then, with lower production expectations - so if you're holding Beckley's 125 OPS+ against him, over a long career too boot, you're not putting his production into the context of 1B during his career - which is something I illustrated earlier.

Beckley's season-by-season totals aren't very great. The crop of first basemen between 1893 and 1902 wasn't very impressive; had Beckley been playing at a Hall of Fame level, he should have been able to lead 1B in win shares more than two seasons. All of the position players in the Hall of Fame were able to record significant numbers of seasons with at least 25 season-length-adjusted win shares, and thus would have been able to beat the totals posted above on a regular basis during their primes. Beckley could not.

Sometimes there's a glut of stars at a position, and sometimes there aren't any. The 1880s had three top first basemen, but Beckley's era just didn't have the greats. Glasscock's season-adjusted win shares line is 308-87-114. Herman Long's line is 289-90-131, which is enough for me to move him ahead of Glasscock in my ratings -- and there were three shortstops of the 1890s who were even better than Long was.

Sure, there were some that did better a couple of times, but they all came and went - only Beckley kept plugging away year after year after year at the same productive level. His longevity and consistency compared to his peers made him extremely unique for his time, and I believe I have demonstrated that. Again, if he was so run of the mill, why is he the only one of his period with a career like his? Shouldn't there have been at least a few others?

He was better than run of the mill, but he wasn't great. There were other players with more career value, and others with slightly less career value but much higher peaks (Ryan and Hugh Duffy come to mind). Dahlen and Davis shared the longevity and consistency - but they were able to maintain a much higher standard of play than Beckley did. If Beckley's career totals were a result of his receiving significantly greater amounts of rest than his more talented contemporaries obtained, and not due to his being a better player when he was playing -- he trails his nearest rivals for the Hall among contemporary outfielders by at least five win shares per season in peak performance -- that would tend to undercut his case.

Nowadays, most top players do get the occasional day of rest, and that should help them have longer careers. They aren't pushed to the limit, and get a chance to recover for a day or two when their bodies need it. There are some seasons when they don't need the recovery time, but, when they do need it, it's there for them.

We have learned from the mistakes of the 1890s. Had most of that decade's top stars also had the occasional time off when they had injuries which required a day or two of rest, instead of being pushed into playing the game and wearing out their bodies even further, they probably would have been able to exceed Beckley's counting numbers, especially given the lack of the foul-strike rule in that era. I think we have learned how much the human body can take, but I cry when I realized how many star careers were shortened by the means through which we learned it.

Brad Harris

09-10-2008, 10:51 AM

Beckley has always seemed to me to be the Tony Perez of his day.

DoubleX

09-10-2008, 10:52 AM

All you keep doing is reducing this conversation to win shares, a metric seven or eight decades in the offing. It's a fruitless conversation. I've mentioned that in a given year there were players better than Beckley, but for the most part, they were all flashes in the pan. They all came and went, but Beckley was still there, year after year after year, doing the same thing. He was extremely unique for his era in this respect.

For someone who keeps trying to put this into the perspective of the time we're looking at with historical asides (which are amusing), it's quite puzzling that it seems the only criteria you're using to judge players is a very modern, complex, and imperfect method of evaluation. Sure, use it as a factor, I do see value in win shares, but I'd like this project to be about more than using the hindsight of 90 years hence - when you use nothing but win shares, you scoff at historical context, because then it's all about what your 2008 eyes tell you. Counting numbers, for over a century, were how players were measured, and that should not be totally eschewed, IMO. According to counting numbers, I think there would be few people in 1917 who would not have found Beckley's totals impressive and worthy of a Hall of Fame distinction. I'm not saying counting numbers are the be all and end all either, just saying that they should count for something, and again, you can't answer why Beckley is unique among his peers in the counting numbers he's achieved and why only the true giants of the game can surpass him? Is Beckley that much of a fluke? Sure, some stars of previous generations would have passed Beckley's totals if they had longer schedules, but so what? We've already acknowledged their greatness by inducting them. You still haven't addressed Beckley among his peers - why does he stand alone? Why did none of his contemporaries, who benefited from the same extended schedules, have the longevity and consistency as Beckley? Sure, again, people have past him in some areas, but they are few and among the very best EVER (Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, then later Cobb, Speaker, and Collins - being passed by these guys is no shame).

AG2004

09-10-2008, 12:38 PM

All you keep doing is reducing this conversation to win shares, a metric seven or eight decades in the offing.

They're being passed along through some people involved in a "Hall of Merit."

[OOC - Though the word itself was not used at the time, there was "sabermetric" analysis on baseball being done during the 1910s, and some of it was published in Baseball magazine. Given enough people interested in statistical analysis at the time, the analysis would have been available. The HOM people and some people here would have done such work. It may not have been the equivalent of win shares, but some numbers would have been available.]

It's a fruitless conversation. I've mentioned that in a given year there were players better than Beckley, but for the most part, they were all flashes in the pan. They all came and went, but Beckley was still there, year after year after year, doing the same thing. He was extremely unique for his era in this respect.

In any five-year stretch, there were also players better than Beckley, and not all of them were flashes in the pan. Van Haltren, Ryan, Duffy, Childs, Long . . . all of them had five-year stretches better than Beckley's best. There were quite a few players with better ten-year stretches than Beckley. And Beckley was not unique; Dahlen and Davis were also still there, year after year after year, doing the same thing, and doing their things better than Beckley did his. Once he ceased to be a pitcher, Van Haltren was consistent, and had a career in the field almost as long as Beckley's. If you're trying to argue that Beckley's combination of longevity and consistency is unique for his era, it's not going to work; other players had similar combinations.

For someone who keeps trying to put this into the perspective of the time we're looking at with historical asides (which are amusing), it's quite puzzling that it seems the only criteria you're using to judge players is a very modern, complex, and imperfect method of evaluation. Sure, use it as a factor, I do see value in win shares, but I'd like this project to be about more than using the hindsight of 90 years hence - when you use nothing but win shares, you scoff at historical context, because then it's all about what your 2008 eyes tell you.

OOC - Win shares does take historical context into account. Also, as mentioned before, there were people doing statistical analyses at the time, so there is some justification for using statistical measures.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/BBM/1913/bbm112i.pdf
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/BBM/1916/bbm165j.pdf
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/BBM/1917/bbm183o.pdf

If we were around, F. C. Lane would not have been alone.

Counting numbers, for over a century, were how players were measured, and that should not be totally eschewed, IMO. According to counting numbers, I think there would be few people in 1917 who would not have found Beckley's totals impressive and worthy of a Hall of Fame distinction. I'm not saying counting numbers are the be all and end all either, just saying that they should count for something, and again, you can't answer why Beckley is unique among his peers in the counting numbers he's achieved and why only the true giants of the game can surpass him?

[OOC - I doubt counting numbers were of great importance, as nobody really knew who held the career home run record before Ruth broke it. RBIs were not an official statistic during Beckley's era, yet you have used it in listing counting numbers, so it's difficult to completely step out of one's era. Rate statistics were more highly valued, and Beckley trails many outfielders there. Beckley might have hit .308, but McInnis had a .313 average at the end of the 1917 season and a great defensive reputation. Jake Daubert had maintained a .304 average through the end of 1917, and was also known for his defense. Between 1912 and 1916, Daubert was the first baseman on Baseball Magazine's All-American team four times. I suppose that most people of the era would have seen Beckley as similar to McInnis or Daubert - a good player and a top first baseman, but not even close to being the greatest player in the game during their eras.]

Is Beckley that much of a fluke? Sure, some stars of previous generations would have passed Beckley's totals if they had longer schedules, but so what? We've already acknowledged their greatness by inducting them. You still haven't addressed Beckley among his peers - why does he stand alone? Why did none of his contemporaries, who benefited from the same extended schedules, have the longevity and consistency as Beckley? Sure, again, people have past him in some areas, but they are few and among the very best EVER (Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, then later Cobb, Speaker, and Collins - being passed by these guys is no shame).

Davis and Dahlen did have the longevity and consistency that Beckley did; I shouldn't have to repeat it again. If you consider Van Haltren's overall value, also had the combination of longevity and consistency - some of it just came as a pitcher early on. Beckley doesn't have Van Haltren's peak total, nor does he have his career total - and Van Haltren is not in the Hall of Fame.

I think I addressed the longevity issue above. During the 1890s, most star players rarely missed games unless they were suffering from typhoid fever or were recovering from a train crash or otherwise suffered from something severe. They didn't get the occasional one- or two-day rest when they needed it, and playing through those injuries shortened their careers.

As noted earlier, Beckley, Davis, and Dahlen were rare among the stars of the day in which they had multi-year periods when they weren't forced to play everyday. I don't think it's a coincidence that they were able to have longer careers than their contemporaries. One can look at the season-by-season games played totals for the era's top players to see that this was the case.

The players of the 1870s and 1880s with long careers did have the ability to recuperate due to the shorter schedules. The top players of the 1900s and 1910s could have long careers because they were able to take the occasional day off when needed. By then, however, management had learned that players needed the time off, and realized that not giving them a break now and then would shorten their careers. (These breaks would show up in games played totals. If you played 140 games over a 154-game schedule, you could not have had a major injury, because that would have required more than two weeks off. Instead, you just had a day off now and then.)

Davis and Dahlen were shortstops. Thus, Beckley was unique among 1B/OF of his era in getting the rest periods and days off that enabled him to continue playing though his late 30s. Due to those days off, he was able to get more PAs than other outfielders who appeared around 1888, and hence was able to get higher counting numbers. If other top players had the opportunities for rest that Beckley had, their careers would have been longer, and thus they would be able to exceed Beckley's counting numbers. Keeler and Clarke were about six years younger, and became established only during the mid-1890s. Therefore, more of their careers came after the foul-strike rule was implemented, and their peaks did not overlap the mid-1890s offensive boom.

With the foul-strike rule in place, offensive levels fell so much that only the top players could approach Beckley's counting numbers. A merely good player of that era wouldn't have the rate stats to compete. As noted, the 1911 ball increased the rate stats, and the level of offense fell due to the scuff ball. If balls were replaced on a regular basis, and dark and damaged balls taken out of play, offensive levels would return to their 1911-12 levels, and players who were good but not great would be able to compile counting numbers comparable to Beckley's. Great players, who would be able to have even higher rate stats, and who would have careers longer than their 1890s counterparts because management has learned the value of giving stars an occasional rest day or two when necessary, should shatter those marks.

In a sense, Beckley is a fluke, because he was the only 1B/OF with a peak during the offensive boom of the 1890s to have received the in-season rest periods necessary to have a long career. Players with long careers are much more common now than they were during Beckley's time, and they were more common in the 1870s/1880s than during Beckley's time. I think it's because players of other eras got more of the two- or three-day periods to recuperate when necessary than players of the 1890s did. (For the record, Jimmy Ryan's peak came before the offensive boom. He was involved in a railroad crash in 1893, and wasn't the same player afterwards. He did have a lot of days off, relatively speaking, and was also able to play through the age of 40.)

Beckley's peers did have the extended schedules, but, among 1B/OF, only Beckley was able to benefit from having the occasional time off during the season several times during a multi-year period. That's why he was able to have the longevity. Dahlen and Davis also benefited from that, and they also had the longevity. Now that more managers know the value of the occasional day of rest, more players are also able to have the longevity of Beckley despite the longer schedule. Sadly, most managers of Beckley's era pushed their stars too much, and thus cut several years off of their players' careers.

jjpm74

09-10-2008, 12:42 PM

Aren't you guys tired of the endless argument over Beckley?

Thank God the guy was elected. Another 9 weeks of the endless Beckley debate would have been a real :banghead:

DoubleX

09-10-2008, 12:46 PM

Aren't you guys tired of the endless argument over Beckley?

Thank God the guy was elected. Another 9 weeks of the endless Beckley debate would have been a real :banghead:

I am tired of it and I'm glad he's been elected. :)

EDIT: AG, since you mentioned Baseball Magazine again, is there somewhere I can view them online? Also, I asked you a few elections ago when you were comparing the Magazine's awards for Joss and Nap Rucker whether the magazine was published before 1908 (I had thought it wasn't), thus excluding most of Joss' career, including his best seasons?

AG2004

09-10-2008, 05:52 PM

I am tired of it and I'm glad he's been elected. :)

EDIT: AG, since you mentioned Baseball Magazine again, is there somewhere I can view them online? Also, I asked you a few elections ago when you were comparing the Magazine's awards for Joss and Nap Rucker whether the magazine was published before 1908 (I had thought it wasn't), thus excluding most of Joss' career, including his best seasons?

The magazine was published between 1908 and 1957. It excluded most of Joss' career, but 1908 was his best season.

Only recently did I learn that some issues were posted on the web. The LA84 foundation has copies from 1908 to 1920 available at:

http://www.la84foundation.org/5va/baseballmagazine_frmst.htm

For years from 1912 on, you can put in a search for "Lane" as the author and enter the year of your choice. Just click one article from the issue you want - the bookmarks section will provide links to all articles from that issue. Other years may require different search terms; I haven't tried all of them.

jjpm74

09-10-2008, 06:06 PM

I am tired of it and I'm glad he's been elected. :)

Just out of curiosity, why champion Beckley's cause, but at the same time not even vote for Lave Cross?

Cross 21 seasons (1887-1907), 2275 games, 2645 hits, 1333 runs, 1371 RBIs, .292 BA, .328 OBP, .382 SLG
Beckley 20 seasons (1888-1907) 2386 games, 2930 hits, 1600 runs, 1575 RBIs, .308 BA, .361 OBP, .435 SLG

Cross played at more demanding position than Beckley (3B) and played during the exact same generation yet Beckley is now in our HOF and Cross is struggling to stay on the ballot.

DoubleX

09-10-2008, 06:23 PM

Just out of curiosity, why champion Beckley's cause, but at the same time not even vote for Lave Cross?

Cross 21 seasons (1887-1907), 2275 games, 2645 hits, 1333 runs, 1371 RBIs, .292 BA, .328 OBP, .382 SLG
Beckley 20 seasons (1888-1907) 2386 games, 2930 hits, 1600 runs, 1575 RBIs, .308 BA, .361 OBP, .435 SLG

Cross played at more demanding position than Beckley (3B) and played during the exact same generation yet Beckley is now in our HOF and Cross is struggling to stay on the ballot.

I like Cross more than most, and I vaguely recall advancing his case in some thread here a long time ago, but his 100 OPS+ just isn't enough for me. Otherwise, the argument is very similar to Beckley - Cross had great longevity and consistency compared to his peers at his position. I might actually rethink Cross now that I've put him in that light - he did stand out within his time and at his position and I perhaps was unconsciously holding more modern standards against him.

Another interesting candidate a few elections from now will be Tommy Leach, IMO.

AG, thanks for the link, I'm looking forward to checking that stuff out.

jjpm74

09-10-2008, 06:28 PM

I like Cross more than most, and I vaguely recall advancing his case in some thread here a long time ago, but his 100 OPS+ just isn't enough for me. Otherwise, the argument is very similar to Beckley - Cross had great longevity and consistency compared to his peers at his position. I might actually rethink Cross now that I've put him in that light - he did stand out within his time and at his position and I perhaps was unconsciously holding more modern standards against him.

Another interesting candidate a few elections from now will be Tommy Leach, IMO.

AG, thanks for the link, I'm looking forward to checking that stuff out.

I almost added him to my 1918 ballot now that Beckley's the standard. Put in the same light, Cross looks like someone to consider more closely.

DoubleX

09-10-2008, 07:01 PM

I almost added him to my 1918 ballot now that Beckley's the standard. Put in the same light, Cross looks like someone to consider more closely.

You voted for him this time though, so why did you drop him?

I'm not really going to compare him to Beckley because they are different positions and different standards in my mind, though in many ways Cross was to 3B what Beckley was to 1B in the same era.

Cross is also likely encountering the same problem that Beckley encountered, difficulty putting his production into the context of his era because of our modern eyes. I admit, now that you got me thinking about Cross, I believe that was my problem. I looked at Cross' 100 OPS+ and my first thought was that if elected him, we'll have to elect so many other 3Bmen, particularly from the last 50 years. But that was the wrong way to approach it. I was worried about guys like Ron Cey, Toby Harrah, Gary Gaetti, Bill Madlock, and so on, but I shouldn't have been. A 100 OPS+ by a 3Bmen in Cross' era and with Cross' longevity, is pretty impressive, IMO, and am seriously considering voting for him next time.

The most difficult part of this exercise is to ignore what we know of what is to come. I think the thought process I just described is probably natural for many of us - we look at a player from 1900 think about players 80 years later, and we shouldn't be doing that. Really, in the context of his time, Cross stands out at his position. And it's not like we've set some firm standards at 3B, as we've elected just 1 player, which is a clear indictment, IMO, of our inability to properly grasp the position in an era-appropriate context. Along these lines, I think we completely missed the boat by failing to elect Ezra Sutton.