BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1918

[DoubleX]

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.


1918 Guide
There are 27 candidates on the 1918 ballot - 16 holdovers and 11 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1913 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (11)
Nixey Callahan – Oversight (Originally eligible in 1910, returned to play 1911-1913)
Art Devlin
Tom Hughes
Johnny Kling
Orval Overall
Cy Seymour
Jimmy Sheckard
Jake Stahl
Fred Tenney – Oversight (Originally eligible in 1916)
John Titus
Doc White

Holdovers (16)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Cupid Childs 13th 56.00% 56.52% (1913)
Lave Cross 7th 28.00% 30.43% (1912)
Hugh Duffy 8th 68.00% 68.00% (1916, 1917)
Clark Griffith 4th 52.00% 52.00% (1917)
Hughie Jennings 5th 64.00% 64.00% (1917)
Fielder Jones 6th 12.00% 12.00% (1916, 1917)
Addie Joss 4th 56.00% 64.00% (1916)
Joe Kelley 6th 72.00% 72.00% (1917)
Herman Long 10th 48.00% 56.52% (1913)
John McGraw 8th 32.00% 47.83% (1912)
Jack Powell 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1917)
Jimmy Ryan 11th 48.00% 52.00% (1916)
Roy Thomas 3rd 24.00% 24.00% (1917)
Mike Tiernan 15th 44.00% 44.00% (1917)
George Van Haltren 11th 68.00% 69.57% (1912)
Vic Willis 4th 60.00% 60.00% (1917)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (4)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Kitty Bransfield Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1916, 1917)
Topsy Hartsel Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1916)
Deacon Phillippe Lack of Support 2 8.00% (1916)
Jesse Tannehill Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1916)

Last Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Mike Tiernan 44.00%

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (8)
Player 1916 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Joe Kelley 72.00% 3
Hugh Duffy 68.00% 6
George Van Haltren 68.00% 10
Hughie Jennings 64.00% 3
Vic Willis 60.00% 1
Cupid Childs 56.00% 6
Addie Joss 56.00% 3
Clark Griffith 52.00% 2

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
Joe Kelley 72.00% (1917) 1
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3 1915
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 4
Hugh Duffy 68.00% (1916, 1917) 2


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (40)
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
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20
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 (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21
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% 1 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 (4): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, 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 (5): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, 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
1917 (2): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke

First Balloters (20)
Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
Fred Clarke 1917
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: 20
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 11
- Average Election Percentage: 83.29%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 15 – Al Spalding
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.75 Years
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.35
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903, 1914)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 24.12
- 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: 15.8 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Joe Kelley – 72.00% (1917)

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
1917: 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)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)

[jjpm74]

My Ballot:

Cupid Childs--second baseman with a good peak. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in his 13th year of eligibility.

Hugh Duffy--one of many outfielders lumped together. He may not stay on my ballot.

Hughie Jennings--We need more middle infielders and he has a nice peak.

Addie Joss--May not last on my ballot much longer. I need to know more about why he belongs.

Joe Kelley--He seems to have risen to the top of the outfielder heap and is safely on my ballot as long as he's eligible.

Johnny Kling--An excellent catcher who will remain on my ballot

Herman Long--A great middle inforlder who I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to.

Jimmy Ryan--One of the many who does not stand apart from the outfield heap.

Jimmy Sheckard--A defensive wiz who may not last on my ballot.

Roy Thomas--Just a tad below Joe Kelley, but above the Duffy/Ryan/Van Haltren/Tiernen quartet.

Mike Tiernan--His 15th and final year on the ballot. Close enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

George Van Haltren--One of a quartet who may not last much longer on my ballot.

Vic Willis--One of two pitchers I have on my ballot who may not stick. What makes his case a good one? I see he has quite a bit of support but no one to champion his cause.

Not on my ballot:

Lave Cross--The third base equivalent of Jake Beckley

John McGraw--Career too short; hasn't established himself as a manager.

Clark Griffith--What makes him stand out? I'm not seeing it.

Fielder Jones--Still waiting for someone to explain his case.

Cy Seymour--Do we need to keep carrying every decent outfielder in the history of the game? Does he stand out enough?

My 1919 ballot is wide open to additions/subtractions. I'd really like to hear more about the carry overs.

I'd also like to hear more about Frank Chance since I can go either way on him next year.

[DoubleX]

I went with:

Cupid Childs
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

I added Childs to my ballot deciding that I have been giving short-shrift to middle IFers. I gave Long and Jennings good consideration and came close on Jennings, but couldn't quite get there. Long, I'd have to hear some good arguments, and I would like to hear them if anyone has any to offer.

Kelley is the new "almost king" now being the only player to get over 70% in an election and not get elected. Kelley was kind of in the middle of pack for a few years, but his support has really picked up recently.

Van Haltren looks like the next Hardy Richardson - consistent strong support, but can't get over the hump. Seems like a lot of people like him just enough, but no one likes him enough to make the strong argument.

Still don't get why Duffy and Van Haltren do so much better than Ryan.

Now that Beckley is elected, Willis might be my next cause. I really don't see much difference between Willis and Mullane. Right now Mullane looks like such an outlier among the elected pitchers that he looks to be a mistake. If he's in, I really don't see how we can't Willis in either.

I also don't see much difference between Willis and McGinnity. Willis wasn't quite the workhorse McGinnity was at peak, but Willis was a workhorse in his own right as well, leading the league once, finishing in the top 5 five times, and the top 10 ten times. The difference between Willis and McGinnity in peak workhorse value is probably made up by Willis' extra career value. McGinnity had a 120 ERA+ in 3440 IP, while Willis had a 118 ERA+ in 4000 IP. The extra 560 IP gives the Willis the edge here, IMO.

So I'm left scratching my head as to how McGinnity can be a 1st balloter, but Willis is struggling to gain momentum?

[jjpm74]

Is this really it for next year?

Frank Chance
Mike Donlin
Kid Elberfeld
Mike Mitchell
Pat Moran
Earl Moore
Tom Needham
Charlie Smith

Only 5?

[jjpm74]

So I'm left scratching my head as to how McGinnity can be a 1st balloter, but Willis is struggling to gain momentum?

I'd be very interested in hearing more about Willis. He is very close to dropping off my ballot as I've just been giving him the benefit of the doubt last year and this year, but have yet to hear any strong arguments in his favor.

[DoubleX]

Is this really it for next year?

Frank Chance
Mike Donlin
Kid Elberfeld
Mike Mitchell
Pat Moran
Earl Moore
Tom Needham
Charlie Smith

Only 5?

Johnny Bates and Bill Sweeney are also eligible. Bates will be on the ballot, Sweeney probably not.

We're really in the doldrums right now. The 1917-1920 period is pretty weak overall, with just one standout candidate during those 4 elections - Fred Clarke, whom we elected last year.

Frank Chance will be an interesting candidate next year, but if he gets in, I think it will take some time. Roger Bresnahan headlines the 1920 class, and he too will be interesting (high peak at catcher, few overall ABs).

There will be a dramatic improvement though in 1921 and 1922. In '21 we'll have Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, and Mordecai Brown. In '22 we'll have Honus Wagner, Sam Crawford, Ed Walsh, and Eddie Plank. Even the second tier guys in these 2 years, like Joe Tinker, Ed Reulbach, Harry Davis, Miller Huggins and Nap Rucker will be steps up from much of what we'll have from 1917-1920.

Things will take a step back again in 1923 though when Bobby Wallace and Tommy Leach appear to be the best of the class.

[DoubleX]

I'd be very interested in hearing more about Willis. He is very close to dropping off my ballot as I've just been giving him the benefit of the doubt last year and this year, but have yet to hear any strong arguments in his favor.

I think his best argument, which I was trying to address before, is that he fits within the standards we've set. He compares pretty favorably, IMO, to both Tony Mullane and Joe McGinnity, the latter of whom we elected 1st ballot. With those guys in, I think Willis deserves to be in, but I'd be curious to hear from people who voted for Mullane and/or McGinnity and are not voting for Willis. With Mullane I hope it's not just a case of we're so used to advocating him being in the actual Hall that we put him in here, whereas we don't really discuss Willis much because he's in. If that is the case, this becomes a very arbitrary exercise.

[KCGHOST]

Childs
Duffy
Griffith
Joss
Kelly
McGraw
Ryan
Tiernan
Van Haltren

[Paul Wendt]

Jimmy Callahan played all over the field as a rookie. He and Cy Seymour were good pitchers. Seymour was the wet and wild heir apparent to Amos Rusie, Callahan was a little more successful.

Cy Seymour lost it in 1900. The Giants farmed him to the AL White Stockings but Comiskey returned him after a few games. Credit John McGraw with putting him in the outfield and in the lineup every day. Credit interim Cincinnati manager Frank Bancroft with putting him in center, after the Reds and Giants took their pick of the Orioles players. Credit new Cincinnati manager Joe Kelley with leaving him there (McGraw had Kelley in center, Seymour in right for the Orioles). Credit Seymour with a remarkable transformation, becoming a fine major league batter while playing at that level.

[Paul Wendt]

Perhaps five years ago Marc Okkonen, author of Baseball Uniforms (http://books.google.com/books?id=MmFYAAAACAAJ&dq=Marc+Okkonen&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result), declared to the SABR Deadball Era Cmte that he had never seen Jimmy Callahan called Nixey in his own time and he challenged the group to report a sighting. As far as I know, no one did, and there were many of us reading historical newspapers, working on the two Deadball Stars books. (Most of the nearly 300 short biographies are now online at the SABR Bioproject (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=14136&bid=935).)

[jalbright]

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

[AstrosFan]

I just want to be clear. I'm supposed to only evaluate them on player performance only, right? No regards to pioneer status, or managerial performance, or anything like that.

[Paul Wendt]

>>
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 8
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) - 4
<<

I suppose New York has been the dominant team? :noidea

[Paul Wendt]

I just want to be clear. I'm supposed to only evaluate them on player performance only, right? No regards to pioneer status, or managerial performance, or anything like that.
Wrong. That is some other projects. Here we consider their whole careers while they were players. We aren't required to put much weight on extras, as one might in a dollar-valuation.
- eg, pioneer player, player-captain-manager, player-LeaguePresident
- eg, Spalding helps Hulbert design and recruit the National League, but not Spalding pioneers the publication and distribution of sporting literature and equipment

[jjpm74]

Wrong. That is some other projects. Here we consider their whole careers while they were players.
- eg, pioneer player, player-captain-manager
- eg, Spalding helps Hulbert design the National League, but not Spalding pioneers the publication and distribution of sporting literature and equipment

The first major test of this will be Frank Chance. It may take 13 years, but I have a feeling he'll get in as our first player-manager.

[jjpm74]

It's nice to see increased support for both Cupid Childs and Joe Kelley this year. Childs was significantly better than Jack Glasscock who we elected long ago and Joe Kelley is a whole tier above the other outfielders on the board.

[leecemark]

--Deferring my ballot for now. Jennings is the only returning member of my ballot. I could be persuaded on Long and Childs - especially if we elect some of the marginal outfielders who have been close in recent years. I will say that Joe Kelley's surge to the front of that pack is a good sign. I'm lukewarm on his cause, but that is more than I can say for VanHaltren, Ryan or Duffy.
--Willis I could also be persuaded on, but it would have to be on his own merits. Being comparable to the worst pitchers we've already selected is not in and of itself a compelling reason to vote for him.

[jjpm74]

I think his best argument, which I was trying to address before, is that he fits within the standards we've set. He compares pretty favorably, IMO, to both Tony Mullane and Joe McGinnity, the latter of whom we elected 1st ballot. With those guys in, I think Willis deserves to be in, but I'd be curious to hear from people who voted for Mullane and/or McGinnity and are not voting for Willis. With Mullane I hope it's not just a case of we're so used to advocating him being in the actual Hall that we put him in here, whereas we don't really discuss Willis much because he's in. If that is the case, this becomes a very arbitrary exercise.

The part I'm struggling with is the how/where he fits in? Are you saying he's somewhere between Tony Mullane and Joe McGinnity? If so, how far away from McGinnity is he? Comparing him to Tony Mullane makes me question whether or not I should keep voting for him since I consider Tony Mullane's election a major mistake.

[leecemark]

The first major test of this will be Frank Chance. It may take 13 years, but I have a feeling he'll get in as our first player-manager.


--I'll be voting for him. He was not just player-manager of the Cubs dynsasty, but also its best player. His lack of longevity I'm sure will be an issue for some voters, but it isn't enough to keep him off my ballot.

[jjpm74]

--I'll be voting for him. He was not just player-manager of the Cubs dynsasty, but also its best player. His lack of longevity I'm sure will be an issue for some voters, but it isn't enough to keep him off my ballot.


Were he not also the manager on the most successful club of the era, his short career might have been a hurdle, but his short career + his role as manager + his being an integral part of that dynasty are more than enough to put him on my ballot. I'm not so keen on the other 2/3s of the famous trio, however.

On Childs, we're short on middle infielders and he's the best one on the board by a fair margin (only Jennings comes close, IMO). Why the reluctance to add him to your ballot?

[DoubleX]

I just want to be clear. I'm supposed to only evaluate them on player performance only, right? No regards to pioneer status, or managerial performance, or anything like that.

Consider anything they did while they played. Once they stopped playing though and took on a different role entirely, then that's something left for the VC. So a player/manager is fair game, as is any contribution or subjective fame factor from when the player played.

The part I'm struggling with is the how/where he fits in? Are you saying he's somewhere between Tony Mullane and Joe McGinnity? If so, how far away from McGinnity is he? Comparing him to Tony Mullane makes me question whether or not I should keep voting for him since I consider Tony Mullane's election a major mistake.

I'm starting to consider Mullane's election a mistake as well and starting to think his election, while the non-election of Welch and now Willis, reflects a unconscious bias by the electorate.

Anyway, using an argument you advanced before when we were discussing Welch vs. Griffith I believe, when you argued that there was more competition in Griffith's day than Welch's day, I do think Willis is better than Mullane, and perhaps a good notch better.

I also think he's pretty close to McGinnity, and I could go either way. McGinnity was more of a workhorse at peak, but Willis was a good workhorse in his own right. I think Willis moves slightly ahead on career value as I'm a little more impressed with his 118 ERA+ in 4000 IP than McGinnity's 120 in 3440 IP.

The two are also very close at peak performance. Willis' average ERA+ in his top 5 years is 147 while McGinnity's is 140. However, McGinnity pitched 200 more innings during those 5 years, 1891-1691, thereby closing the gap, though probably not entirely. So peak is close, IMO, but I'd probably give a slight edge to Willis.

If we expand to top 10 years, well that would include all of McGinnity's career. McGinnity had a 120 ERA+ in 3440 IP, while Willis in his 10 best seasons has a 128 ERA+ in just about 3100 IP. So it's a similar story - Willis has a noticeable ERA+ advantage, but McGinnity has a decent IP advantage to offset some, but not all of the ERA+ advantage, IMO.

Anyway, I think at least this info shows that Willis has a strong argument for being at least on par with McGinnity and perhaps better. I don't really understand why McGinnity was elected 1st ballot but Willis struggles. I'd really like to hear from people who voted for McGinnity (and Mullane) but not Willis; perhaps they can shed some light on this seeming discrepancy.

--Willis I could also be persuaded on, but it would have to be on his own merits. Being comparable to the worst pitchers we've already selected is not in and of itself a compelling reason to vote for him.

I agree, but I believe you did vote for both Mullane and McGinnity, so I'm interested to hear why them but not Willis, particular after the McGinnity/Willis comparison I made above. If you supported the worst pitchers, I'm wondering what the compelling reason is to not support a very similar and perhaps superior pitcher. Are you saying now that your votes were mistakes and that you've ratcheted up your standards? That's fair enough, but do you really think McGinnity is a mistake? Mullane is a pretty clear outlier to me and I'm pretty certain a product of us being so used to advocating for him, but McGinnity seems like a pretty reasonable choice to me. Willis, a peer of McGinnity, IMO, has a strong argument for being as good as, and perhaps slightly better than McGinnity (as I said I could go either way), so it seems somewhat arbitrary to elect McGinnity but deny his peer Willis. So I'm interested to hear what separates them in the eyes of the non-Willis but pro-McGinnity/Mullane camp.

[dgarza]

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


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

[henrich]

1. Lave Cross
2. Hugh Duffy
3. Joe Kelley
4. Jack Powell
5. Jimmy Ryan
6. Vic Willis
7. Herman Long

[Brooklyn]

With two getting elected last year, and no newcomers meeting the standard, I'm down to just one returning player on my ballot, Joss. I re-visited some of my other close calls, and not ready to pull the trigger on any of them yet, so just a single vote for me.

For people not voting for Joss, I'd like to know if you are going to eventually vote for Koufax, and, if so, what the differentiators are (I understand that no one named Koufax has come along yet, so if you'd prefer to defer this question 50 years, that is fine, but I'd like to hear people opine while Joss is still on the ballot)

[Paul Wendt]

McGinnity was more of a workhorse at peak, but Willis was a good workhorse in his own right. I think Willis moves slightly ahead on career value as I'm a little more impressed with his 118 ERA+ in 4000 IP than McGinnity's 120 in 3440 IP.
Certainly. Supposing those numbers are precise (they aren't), the difference is Willis, 560 innings at ERA+ = 107.0.

P.S.
Willis - Waddell = 1035 innings at 86.7
Waddell - Joss = 634 innings at 114.3
There is no significant difference among the four as batters measured by OPS+
The two are also very close at peak performance. Willis' average ERA+ in his top 5 years is 147 while McGinnity's is 140. However, McGinnity pitched 200 more innings during those 5 years, 1891-1691, thereby closing the gap, though probably not entirely. So peak is close, IMO, but I'd probably give a slight edge to Willis.
That's generous to Willis. The difference is McGinnity, 200 innings at ERA+ = 99.8.
If we expand to top 10 years, well that would include all of McGinnity's career. McGinnity had a 120 ERA+ in 3440 IP, while Willis in his 10 best seasons has a 128 ERA+ in just about 3100 IP. So it's a similar story - Willis has a noticeable ERA+ advantage, but McGinnity has a decent IP advantage to offset some, but not all of the ERA+ advantage, IMO.
That's reasonable. The difference is McGinnity, 340 innings pitched at ERA+ = 76.4.

[DoubleX]

Certainly. Supposing those numbers are precise (they aren't), the difference is Willis, 560 innings at ERA+ = 107.0.

They aren't precise, as I rounded, but the difference is small. Willis actually pitched 3996 innings with a 118 ERA+ and and McGinnity actually pitched 3441 innings with a 120 ERA+. So the actually innings difference is 555.

That's generous to Willis. The difference is McGinnity, 200 innings at ERA+ = 99.8.

That's reasonable. The difference is McGinnity, 340 innings pitched at ERA+ = 76.4.

I'm a little confused here. First, how exactly did get these numbers? Second, what do they mean? I think I understand, but I'm unable to articulate it, so could you help me out?

[Paul Wendt]

For people not voting for Joss, I'd like to know if you are going to eventually vote for Koufax, and, if so, what the differentiators are (I understand that no one named Koufax has come along yet, so if you'd prefer to defer this question 50 years, that is fine, but I'd like to hear people opine while Joss is still on the ballot)
Every one of his eight full seasons, Addie Joss ranked 7th or better in his league by adjusted ERA including one "ERA+ championship". But he ranked in the top ten by innings only twice.

Addie Joss, league rank, 8 seasons 1902-1909
_____52_ : innings
76273313 : ERA+

Ed Walsh ranked 7th or better by adjusted ERA, every one of his seven full seasons. He ranked in the top ten by innings five times including four "innings championships". Walsh was a much better batter, too.

Ed Walsh, league rank, 7 seasons 1906-1912
_11_211 : innings
7132173 : ERA+

[Paul Wendt]

They aren't precise, as I rounded, but the difference is small. Willis actually pitched 3996 innings with a 118 ERA+ and and McGinnity actually pitched 3441 innings with a 120 ERA+. So the actually innings difference is 555.
Unfortunately the rounding in ERA+ = 118 and 120 is severe. On that ERA+ scale the difference between them is 1 to 3 points.

I'm a little confused here. First, how exactly did get these numbers? Second, what do they mean? I think I understand, but I'm unable to articulate it, so could you help me out?
If McGinnity pitches another 555 innings at ERA+ = 107.0, then he will match Willis in both measures (supposing actual adjusted ERAs precisely 120.0 and 118.0).

In a spreadsheet, so I can change the four data and get the difference without repeating any work, I solve for the unknown ERA+ that equates the two careers in the sense I just explained.

It may be worthwhile for someone else to replicate the calculation.

[BlueBlood]

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

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Thirteen (1906 Onward) - Cupid Childs
Eleven (1908 onward) - George Van Haltren
Eight (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Five (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Four (1915 onward) - Addie Joss, Vic Willis
Three (1916 onward) - Joe Kelley

[leecemark]

Consider
I agree, but I believe you did vote for both Mullane and McGinnity, so I'm interested to hear why them but not Willis, particular after the McGinnity/Willis comparison I made above. If you supported the worst pitchers, I'm wondering what the compelling reason is to not support a very similar and perhaps superior pitcher. Are you saying now that your votes were mistakes and that you've ratcheted up your standards? That's fair enough, but do you really think McGinnity is a mistake? Mullane is a pretty clear outlier to me and I'm pretty certain a product of us being so used to advocating for him, but McGinnity seems like a pretty reasonable choice to me. Willis, a peer of McGinnity, IMO, has a strong argument for being as good as, and perhaps slightly better than McGinnity (as I said I could go either way), so it seems somewhat arbitrary to elect McGinnity but deny his peer Willis. So I'm interested to hear what separates them in the eyes of the non-Willis but pro-McGinnity/Mullane camp.

--Mullane I think was a mistake. One which I contributed to, but I don't feel bound to repeat the mistake everytime a similar player comes along. McGinnity I do not think was a mistake, but I do think he is pretty near the bottom rank of what I consider a legit Hall of Famer. Willis doesn't have to be much worse then to be below that line.

[leecemark]

On Childs, we're short on middle infielders and he's the best one on the board by a fair margin (only Jennings comes close, IMO). Why the reluctance to add him to your ballot?

--I see Childs as a peak candidate whose best year - by a wide margin - came in a VERY marginal league (1890 AA). The steep discounting of that season that I see as appropriate really hurts his peak case. Still, if any of the backlog outfielders makes it I'll be inclined to add Childs to balance the scales a little. If I do then Herman Long would likley accompany him. Long may actually be the more deserving of the two - and more deserving than the outfielders who have been outpolling him.

[leecemark]

With two getting elected last year, and no newcomers meeting the standard, I'm down to just one returning player on my ballot, Joss. I re-visited some of my other close calls, and not ready to pull the trigger on any of them yet, so just a single vote for me.

For people not voting for Joss, I'd like to know if you are going to eventually vote for Koufax, and, if so, what the differentiators are (I understand that no one named Koufax has come along yet, so if you'd prefer to defer this question 50 years, that is fine, but I'd like to hear people opine while Joss is still on the ballot)

--Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball over a 5 year period. Joss was never the best pitcher in baseball and seldom very close to the best. For a player with such a short carrer, Joss just wasn't dominant enough (mostly due to low IP totals for the era) to get my vote.

[PVNICK]

Childs
Cross
Long
Ryan
Sheckard
Tiernan
Van Haltren

I initially checked off Kling as he was a formidable player during the Cubs dynasty and probably the best catcher since Bennett but the 4000 AB made me have second thoughts. Sheckard is my only new entry. He had top of the league numbers from before the turn of the century right into the very decade in which we are voting. The only issue may be that his best seasons were mainly around the turn of the century meaning he might be a Vada Pinson type (if I can use my crystal ball for an analogy).

[jjpm74]

I initially checked off Kling as he was a formidable player during the Cubs dynasty and probably the best catcher since Bennett but the 4000 AB made me have second thoughts. Sheckard is my only new entry. He had top of the league numbers from before the turn of the century right into the very decade in which we are voting. The only issue may be that his best seasons were mainly around the turn of the century meaning he might be a Vada Pinson type (if I can use my crystal ball for an analogy).

4000 AB was the norm for a catcher in his day. Roger Bresnahan, who was the best catcher of Kling's generation only had 4400 ABs. Think about modern pitchers and how sparingly they are used as a comparable.

Here's the breakdown of the catchers we elected and their # of games as a catcher as well as a few other notable catchers to this point in history:

Player Games Caught

Deacon McGuire 1611
Chief Zimmer 1239
Johnny Kling 1168
Roger Bresnahan 974
Charlie Bennett 954
Buck Ewing 636
King Kelly 583
Deacon White 458
Cal McVey 183 2513

[PVNICK]

Thanks for the insight.

[DoubleX]

--Mullane I think was a mistake. One which I contributed to, but I don't feel bound to repeat the mistake everytime a similar player comes along. McGinnity I do not think was a mistake, but I do think he is pretty near the bottom rank of what I consider a legit Hall of Famer. Willis doesn't have to be much worse then to be below that line.

Why do you feel Willis is below McGinnity?

Career ERA+
Willis: 118 (3996 IP)
McGinnity: 120 (3441 IP)

Average Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
Willis: 147 (1691 IP)
McGinnity: 140 (1891 IP)

Average Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
Willis: 128 (3100 IP)
McGinnity (his entire career): 120 (3441 IP)

No. of 150 ERA+ Seasons
Willis: 3
McGinnity: 1

Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
Willis: 167, 154, 153, 130, 129, 115, 111, 107, 104, 98
McGinnity: 169, 148, 137, 131, 118, 115, 108, 105, 102, 78

In his 10 best seasons, Willis has an 8 point ERA+ advantage over McGinnity's entire 10 year career, and Willis has a 7 point advantage in top 5 years. McGinnity's extra innings just don't make up that entire gap (as I believe Paul was illustrating). Some more comparisons:

Top 5 IP Finishes
Willis: 5 (led league once)
McGinnity: 7 (led league 4 times)

Top 10 IP Finishes
Willis: 9
McGinnity: 8

Top 5 ERA+ Finishes
Willis: 3 (led league twice)
McGinnity: 3 (led league once)

Top 10 ERA+ Finishes
Willis: 5
McGinnity: 5

Top 5 ERA Finishes
Willis: 3 (led league once)
McGinnity: 3 (led league once)

Top 10 ERA Finishes:
Willis: 5
McGinnity: 5

Top 5 Shutouts Finishes:
Willis: 5 (led league twice)
McGinnity: 2 (led league once)

Top 10 Shutouts Finishes:
Willis: 9
McGinnity: 4

Career Shutouts:
Willis: 50 (10.6% of starts)
McGinnity: 32 (8.4% of starts)

Top 5 Complete Games Finishes:
Willis: 7 (led league twice)
McGinnity: 6 (led league twice)

Top 10 Complete Games Finishes:
Willis: 10
McGinnity: 6

Career Complete Games:
Willis: 388 (82.4% of starts)
McGinnity: 314 (82.4% of starts)

Top 5 Strikeout Finishes:
Willis: 4 (led league once)
McGinnity: 2

Top 10 Strikeout Finishes:
Willis: 7
McGinnity: 4

Top 5 WHIP Finishes:
Willis: 3
McGinnity: 3 (led league once)

Top 10 WHIP Finishes:
Willis: 4
McGinnity: 4

Given this information, I find it hard to believe you would draw the line between Willis and McGinnity. I have yet to hear why one is a first balloter and why one struggles for support. They are extremely close and I think Willis has decent arguments for being better.

To elect Mullane and McGinnity but not Willis makes our electorate seem pretty arbitrary, IMO. Is it because one played on successful teams in New York while the other played mostly on struggling teams in Boston? There were some terrible teams in Boston.

[jjpm74]

Given this information, I find it hard to believe you would draw the line between Willis and McGinnity. I have yet to hear why one is a first balloter and why one struggles for support. They are extremely close and I think Willis has decent arguments for being better.

To elect Mullane and McGinnity but not Willis makes our electorate seem pretty arbitrary, IMO. Is it because one played on successful teams in New York while the other played mostly on struggling teams in Boston? There were some terrible teams in Boston.

A number of people like myself were looking for a compelling argument why Willis deserves our vote. IMO, you have given a good enough reason and I'd be surprised if Willis doesn't pick up some momentum next year. :thumbsup:

[DoubleX]

A number of people like myself were looking for a compelling argument why Willis deserves our vote. IMO, you have given a good enough reason and I'd be surprised if Willis doesn't pick up some momentum next year. :thumbsup:

Thanks. It all depends on how you feel about McGinnity. If you feel McGinnity is a legit Hall of Famer, which I'm guessing most of us do given that we elected him 1st ballot, then I believe the comparisons I just posted compare Willis very favorably to McGinnity. I actually entered this exercise thinking that ultimately I'd give the edge McGinnity, but I think I've convinced myself that Willis was better, despite being buried on some terrible teams for much of his career (whereas McGinnity pitched on mostly good teams).

[Paul Wendt]

In his 10 best seasons, Willis has an 8 point ERA+ advantage over McGinnity's entire 10 year career, and Willis has a 7 point advantage in top 5 years. McGinnity's extra innings just don't make up that entire gap (as I believe Paul was illustrating).
Yes, in effect. My point concerns the career records by these two statistics only, so it must be supplemented by reference to the pattern such as peak (for example as DoubleX is doing) and by reference to batting (for example by OPS+ where McGinnity, Waddell, Joss, Willis in that order are all between 28 and 18).

>>
That's generous to Willis. The difference is McGinnity, 200 innings at ERA+ = 99.8.

That's reasonable. The difference is McGinnity, 340 innings pitched at ERA+ = 76.4.
<<

Let me clarify.
Saying "that's generous" I was taking for granted that extra work at ERA+ = 100 is valuable, is a "positive" here.
Saying "that's reasonable" I was taking for granted that extra work at ERA+ = 76 is not valuable, is a "negative" here.

I suppose that most people agree but I'm sure that some disagree.


--
Now a point for the other side:
According to the pitcher/fielder analysis that generates DERA, Willis enjoyed slightly better fielding support, in terms of saving runs. When Boston was a great team it was a great fielding team and it remained a good fielding team for a few more seasons. New York was never a great fielding team. According to this analysis, McGinnity's best fielding support was in his rookie season, the last season of the original Orioles.

[PVNICK]

My thought on Willis, was circa 1918 there would have been multiple 300 game winners and 250+ game winners (admittedly he was 249), so he would have looked spotty compared to the Youngs, Radbournes, Galvins, Keefes, Clarksons, et. al. I didn't consider the modern stats so much because, well they're modern stats. Am I off-base?

[leecemark]

--I don't think so. I doubt Willis was regarded as a front line star in his own time (or now for that matter). He probably deserved more credit, but my guess (and its no more than that) is that he was regarded as something of an average innings eater. If anyone can provide contempory accounts that suggest he WAS regarded as one of the great pitchers of the day I be very interested in reading them and it could be a difference maker with my ballot.

[DoubleX]

--I don't think so. I doubt Willis was regarded as a front line star in his own time (or now for that matter). He probably deserved more credit, but my guess (and its no more than that) is that he was regarded as something of an average innings eater. If anyone can provide contempory accounts that suggest he WAS regarded as one of the great pitchers of the day I be very interested in reading them and it could be a difference maker with my ballot.

Mark, after reading this I have to ask - did you even look at the comparisons I made between Willis and McGinnity above? Can you honestly look at those and not say that Willis compares at least pretty favorable to McGinnity? And are you really putting a ton of stock in contemporary accounts? Willis pitched mostly on a bad team in Boston. So just by his disposition, achieving accolades is already against him. Haven't we learned we Bert Blyleven (looking ahead of course) that contemporary accounts can easily underrate pitchers on bad teams in afterthought markets? Now, Boston itself was not an afterthought market, but the Beaneaters were an afterthought of a team.

And still, no one has yet to state the argument against Willis, and what separates him from McGinnity and Mullane to the point where they're in and he's not. At least when I was pushing Welch and Beckley, people were putting forth good counter arguments, but there's been nothing here so far with Willis. The argument that Willis isn't on the level of the very elite fails here when a voter supported Mullane and McGinnity. To vote for them and then say Willis doesn't cut it, without justification, seems very arbitrary.

EDIT: I just came across this tidbit, courtesy of SABR's Baseball Biography Project (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=15298&bid=879) to address your concern. In 1901 Willis was paid $2,400. At the time, the league had a maximum salary threshold, which was $2,400. 1900 was actually a bad season for Willis, but he was paid the league maximum the next year anyway. I think that speaks to an impression, at least by his team, that he was valued as a front line starter.

In 1902, the Tigers offered Willis $4500 to jump the AL. A year earlier, McGinnity jumped to the AL for $3000. So if value of services indicates anything, it might be that Willis was more sought after than McGinnity.

There is also a 1910 quote from the Sporting News that Willis, "should have a year or two of high-class work left in him if he will behave himself." This implies that he's already had some years of "high-class work."

[Paul Wendt]

he would have looked spotty compared to the Youngs, Radbournes, Galvins, Keefes, Clarksons, et. al.
I doubt that the "Radbournes, Galvins, Keefes, Clarksons," or Mullanes, McCormicks, Mathewses with their early wins would have cast such long shadows.
- How many people owned the reference books one needs for tracking career wins? (Spalding published some all-time guide around 1908, iirc. Has anyone seen it?)
- Cooperstown didn't hustle to elect all the 300-game winners in the 1940s. Some of them not until after Early Wynn's long struggle to attain the milestone.

More recent pitchers we have elected would have been important references (beyond "the Youngs" that is Rusie, Waddell, McGinnity), plus Hawley, Griffith, Powell, Bender, Joss, Brown, Walsh, Cicotte.

As I recall Ban Johnson, Ernie Lanigan, F.C. Lane (all?) worked for some earned run average to define the champion pitcher. Winning percentage was important for a long time. Jack Chesbro was one of the leaders for a few years.

[leecemark]

Mark, after reading this I have to ask - did you even look at the comparisons I made between Willis and McGinnity above? Can you honestly look at those and not say that Willis compares at least pretty favorable to McGinnity? And are you really putting a ton of stock in contemporary accounts? Willis pitched mostly on a bad team in Boston. So just by his disposition, achieving accolades is already against him. Haven't we learned we Bert Blyleven (looking ahead of course) that contemporary accounts can easily underrate pitchers on bad teams in afterthought markets? Now, Boston itself was not an afterthought market, but the Beaneaters were an afterthought of a team.

And still, no one has yet to state the argument against Willis, and what separates him from McGinnity and Mullane to the point where they're in and he's not. At least when I was pushing Welch and Beckley, people were putting forth good counter arguments, but there's been nothing here so far with Willis. The argument that Willis isn't on the level of the very elite fails here when a voter supported Mullane and McGinnity. To vote for them and then say Willis doesn't cut it, without justification, seems very arbitrary.

EDIT: I just came across this tidbit, courtesy of SABR's Baseball Biography Project (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=15298&bid=879) to address your concern. In 1901 Willis was paid $2,400. At the time, the league had a maximum salary threshold, which was $2,400. 1900 was actually a bad season for Willis, but he was paid the league maximum the next year anyway. I think that speaks to an impression, at least by his team, that he was valued as a front line starter.

In 1902, the Tigers offered Willis $4500 to jump the AL. A year earlier, McGinnity jumped to the AL for $3000. So if value of services indicates anything, it might be that Willis was more sought after than McGinnity.

There is also a 1910 quote from the Sporting News that Willis, "should have a year or two of high-class work left in him if he will behave himself." This implies that he's already had some years of "high-class work."

--Mike, you made a good sabermetric argument. It really isn't the numbers that separate the borderline guys though. Its having some sort of hook to catch the voters attention. Some sort of significance beyond the numbers. Mullane has Ladies Day:). McGinnity has the Ironman rep and his contribution to championship teams. Willis not so much.
--As far as salary I believe that most regular players were drawing down the max. Or at least alot of them. If Willis was in a 50 way tie for league's highest paid player than that says little about his status. It may well be that the cost of luring players went up between 1901 and 1902 so that would mitagate the signiicance of his higher offer (anything over 2400 would have been a good offer in 1901, but a bidding war was underway by the next season).
--As to the last point; high class might mean just pretty good rather than elite. Its pretty vague terminology. The "if he behaves himself" line is more interesting to me. It suggests Willis may have been a clubhouse problem. Knowing very little about him outside the numbers, that is the first indication I've had that he may have cntributed less than his numbers suggest. I'll be doing some additional research to follow up on this.

[DoubleX]

Mark, you're probably right about the salary. It occurred to me right after I posted, but I was in a haste to get it up.

I also raised my eyebrows at the behavior thing, but I got the sense it was tied to money, and I doubt Willis was alone in that respect. He also lamented that those Boston teams were terrible, and that perhaps affected his attitude. However, I've also come across contemporaneous accounts that Willis was very pleased when traded to Pittsburgh and assured the team that he would give them his best efforts.

Anyway, thanks to AG2004 pointing me towards a wonderful database including old Baseball Magazine and Sporting Life articles, I've come across just in the past few minutes these contemporaneous impressions of Willis:

- Baseball Magazine piece from 1908 entitled "Who's Who in Baseball:" Willis is included among several other of the stars of the game and is given a detailed bio that is more extensive than most. It also mentions that his 1908 season "ranks with the best in the National League" and is generally laudatory of his career.

-Baseball Magazine article from 1914 by William Connelly entitled "The Greatest Baseball Team of All History:" Willis is included in his discussion of the best pitchers, particularly as an example of why a pitcher's winning percentage can be misleading: "What a disadvantage it is for a good pitcher to be with an inferior team is shown clearly in the case of Vic Willis. When he was with a good team – the bon-ton Boston bunch of 1898, for instance, and the Pittsburgs in 1906, ‘7, ‘8 and ‘9 – he always kept well above the .600 mark. On the other hand, while with the lowly Bean-town team that followed the breakup of the old champions, and later with feeble St. Louis, he had all he could do to go over the .500 figure now and then, and most of the time he fell below it, sometimes away below it."

- Baseball Magazine article from 1912 listing the best player from each state. Willis is listed as the best player from Delaware.

- Sporting Life blurb from 1905 mentioning that Boston and Willis had "finally" come to terms and that "turn-outs will be far larger if they succeed in getting him in line." The surrounding context makes clear that getting Willis back in the rotation (“in line”) ASAP will greatly improve attendance.

- The Sporting Life throughout 1907 and 1908 (and perhaps other years, I didn't look long enough) advertised baseball cards for "celebrated base ball players," including Willis. To be fair though, there are a decent number in total, perhaps 6-10 players from each team.

I'm sure I'd find more through this database if I kept looking. It really is great. Here's a link (http://search.la84foundation.org/search?site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&proxycustom=%3CHOME/%3E) if anyone is interested. Thanks again to AG for sharing this.

[philkid3]

Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Scheckard
Cy Seymour
Mike Tiernan
George Van Haltren

[TheSlaff]

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

[Freakshow]

Beckley and Clarke were elected. Taking their places are newbie Sheckard and first-timer Joss.

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

[Paul Wendt]

--As far as salary I believe that most regular players were drawing down the max. Or at least alot of them. If Willis was in a 50 way tie for league's highest paid player than that says little about his status. It may well be that the cost of luring players went up between 1901 and 1902 so that would mitagate the significance of his higher offer (anything over 2400 would have been a good offer in 1901, but a bidding war was underway by the next season).
Willis may have been one of the stars signed by the AL in 1901 (Detroit?) but persuaded to jump to the NL. If so, I suppose they made a salary offer better than one about six months earlier. It's possible that I am misrecalling 1902 for 1901 and possible that $2400 is not what he actually signed or earned.

[AG2004]

My ballot

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


The Armistice means that fighting in Western Europe and Southwest Asia is over. However, our soldiers in the AEF Siberia and in the Polar Bear Expedition need your support in stopping the Bolsheviks.

When the Bolsheviks are defeated, and our military is no longer needed abroad, we will once again be able to enjoy base ball. If the major leagues were to resume play after a year or two without business, then the Red Sox and the White Sox will dominate over the next decade. The Cubs won the NL pennant last year and look to return to their historic greatness. Those three teams will be winning many World Series, and people who currently support those clubs will be participating in many more victory celebrations, in the years to come.

Ten of the fifteen World Series have been won by teams from either Boston or Chicago. The Athletics were able to win a few, but they didn't have the money to keep competing once the Federal League appeared. With the demise of the Philadelphia powerhouse, will any teams from outside Boston or Chicago ever be able to be baseball's greatest club again, winning several Series titles over a five-year period? No. Of the current cities in the majors, Boston and Chicago were the places where the greatest clubs have been from, and teams from those cities will continue to dominate.

Logically, it would seem that the teams from New York should be able to compete on that level. However, there are three major league teams in that city, and the business is thus too divided for any New York City club to be able to dominate the game. The Giants did win the Series in 1905, but I wouldn't expect a run of championships for any New York team in the near future.

[jjpm74]

I'm a bit surprised, but if one more person votes in the 3 hours this is still open and they have Duffy and Van Haltren included on their ballot, both would be elected.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Hugh Duffy
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Johnny Kling
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard
George Van Haltren
Vic Willis

[BlueBlood]

Wow! Talk about coming through in the clutch! :eek:

[DoubleX]

Inducting Duffy and Van Haltren, should open floodgates, IMO. There will likely be a lot of players in the future that will have strong arguments to get in because Duffy and Van Haltren are there. Starting with the current ballot, it's hard to argue that Joe Kelley and Jimmy Ryan shouldn't be in if Duffy and Van Haltren are in. In fact, I think it's impossible to argue that those two shouldn't be in based upon this new standard, and I'd say it would be arbitrary and reckless at this point for us to elect Duffy and Van Haltren and not Kelley and Ryan. Jimmy Sheckard's case should become much stronger as well, same as Mike Tiernan who is leaving our ballot this election.

[jjpm74]

Inducting Duffy and Van Haltren, should open floodgates, IMO. There will likely be a lot of players in the future that will have strong arguments to get in because Duffy and Van Haltren are there. Starting with the current ballot, it's hard to argue that Joe Kelley and Jimmy Ryan shouldn't be in if Duffy and Van Haltren are in. In fact, I think it's impossible to argue that those two shouldn't be in based upon this new standard, and I'd say it would be arbitrary and reckless at this point for us to elect Duffy and Van Haltren and not Kelley and Ryan. Jimmy Sheckard's case should become much stronger as well, same as Mike Tiernan who is leaving our ballot this election.

Now that we've officially elected Duffy and Van Haltren, Kelley and Childs shouldn't be far behind. Both had better careers and Childs also played at a position that was more demanding defensively than where Duffy and VanHaltren play. I'm surprised to see these two get elected and honestly thought we'd elect no one, but I'm not opposed to either one. In the end, I see this as a good thing as it shows that we're not going to limit this to inner circle guys and maybe are looking more at context.

[DoubleX]

Now that we've officially elected Duffy and Van Haltren, Kelley and Childs shouldn't be far behind. Both had better careers and Childs also played at a position that was more demanding defensively than where Duffy and VanHaltren play. I'm surprised to see these two get elected and honestly thought we'd elect no one, but I'm not opposed to either one. In the end, I see this as a good thing as it shows that we're not going to limit this to inner circle guys and maybe are looking more at context.

It's good that we're not stuck on just inner circle guys, but I think that was established before we elected Duffy and Van Haltren. The two being elected together creates a definitive enlarged standard. Taking this out of context and looking forward, with these guys in, are we going to be able to fairly deny guys like Dwight Evans, Tony Oliva, Bobby Bonds, Al Oliver, Ken Singleton, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis, and so on. There's no question now that our standards are pretty lax. That's fine, I'm glad we're not going by our pre-conceived notions of the real Hall of Fame, but the problem is that this will open the door to a lot of gray area people and perhaps a heightened element of arbitrariness.

[Paul Wendt]

It's good that we're not stuck on just inner circle guys, but I think that was established before we elected Duffy and Van Haltren. The two being elected together creates a definitive enlarged standard.
It restores the old concern about outfielders.

Taking this out of context and looking forward, with these guys in, are we going to be able to fairly deny guys like Dwight Evans, Tony Oliva, Bobby Bonds, Al Oliver, Ken Singleton, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis, and so on. There's no question now that our standards are pretty lax. That's fine, I'm glad we're not going by our pre-conceived notions of the real Hall of Fame ...
I'm not sure about that. Both Duffy and Van Haltren are in the BBF HOF. This hints at mimicking that project more closely, and it is similar to the "real HOF" in number of honored mlb players.

[leecemark]

--Agree with XX this established us as very much in the large hall mode. Look for a much larger ballot from me going forward. Agree also with Paul that have different standard for outfielders (i.e. bats) and infielders (i.e. gloves) with infielders not getting the same benefit of the doubt. Jennings, Childs and Long were every bit as good of player and bid of stars as Duffy and Van Haltren. Defense was MUCH more important int he 19th and early 230th century. Well need to recognize that in our voting patterns.