BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1919 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1919

DoubleX

09-17-2008, 03:10 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.

1919 Guide
There are 23 candidates on the 1919 ballot - 17 holdovers and 6 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1914 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (6)
Johnny Bates
Frank Chance
Mike Donlin
Kid Elberfeld
Mike Mitchell
Earl Moore

Holdovers (17)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Cupid Childs 14th 70.83% 70.83% (1918)
Lave Cross 8th 25.00% 30.43% (1912)
Clark Griffith 5th 45.83% 52.00% (1917)
Hughie Jennings 6th 62.50% 64.00% (1917)
Fielder Jones 7th 12.50% 12.50% (1918)
Addie Joss 5th 62.50% 64.00% (1916)
Joe Kelley 7th 66.67% 72.00% (1917)
Johnny Kling 2nd 16.67% 16.67% (1918)
Herman Long 11th 45.83% 56.52% (1913)
John McGraw 9th 33.33% 47.83% (1912)
Orval Overall 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1918)
Jimmy Ryan 12th 58.33% 58.33% (1918)
Cy Seymour 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1918)
Jimmy Sheckard 2nd 41.67% 41.67% (1918)
Roy Thomas 4th 25.00% 25.00% (1917)
Doc White 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1918)
Vic Willis 5th 58.33% 60.00% (1917)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (4)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Jack Powell Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1918)
Mike Tiernan Eligibility Expired 15 44.00% (1917)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support
Cupid Childs 69.57% (1918)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (8)
Player 1916 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Cupid Childs 70.83% 7
Joe Kelley 66.67% 4
Hughie Jennings 62.50% 4
Addie Joss 62.50% 4
Jimmy Ryan 58.33% 2
Vic Willis 58.33% 2

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (5)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Joe Kelley 72.00% (1917) 2
Cupid Childs 70.83% (1918) 1
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3 1915

Hall of Famers

Players Elected (42)
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
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17
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
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17
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 (6): Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, George Van Haltren
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
1918 (2): Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren

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: 82.90%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 15 – Al Spalding
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years: 4
- Average Wait Before Election: 4.02 Years
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.33
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903, 1914)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 24.11
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 9
- 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: 15.86 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
1918: 24

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)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)

DoubleX

09-17-2008, 03:27 PM

The last election could have significant ramifications, IMO. By electing Duffy and Van Haltren, we’ve definitively enlarged the standards here, and with their election, it will be hardy to fairly keep out a lot of players now. This starts with Joe Kelley and Jimmy Ryan. If Duffy and Van Haltren are in, I can see absolutely no reason to justifiably keep out Kelley and Ryan. To do so now would be reckless and arbitrary. I’m only directing this at the supporters of Duffy and Van Haltren. If you didn’t vote for them, then you’re probably not going to vote for Kelley and Ryan, but if you helped to elect Duffy and Van Haltren, I can’t fathom why you wouldn’t be supporting Kelley and Ryan now.

Looking back, it would appear that at least Hardy Richardson and Mike Tiernan deserved election, IMO, based on the election of Duffy and Van Haltren. Personally, I never got what the fascination was with Duffy in particular.

Also, how can we elect these guy but the not elect good hitting middle IFers like Cupid Childs and Hughie Jennings, or someone like Ed McKean who didn’t even stick on our ballot (and who also had good counting numbers)? I wish I had pushed harder for McKean when he was on the ballot, especially knowing what I know now about how generous we'd be with OFers.

And what of 3B? We’ve elected just one 3Bmen to represent 45 years of history. That’s strikingly inadequate. We really dropped the ball on Ezra Sutton, IMO (hopefully the VC can right that wrong). But I’m going to advocate Lave Cross now. I haven’t voted for him until this year, after JJPM pointed him out. Many of us look at Cross and see his 100 OPS+ and we aren’t impressed, and that was the case for me. But I believe such a reaction fails to put him into the context of his era. A 100 OPS+ from a 3Bman back then is pretty good, especially considering the rare length of Cross’ career. I believe we’re holding what we know of the future against Cross, but that’s not fair. If you put Cross into the perspective of his time, consider his position, the length and consistency of his career, and the fact that we’ve only elected one 3Bman, I think Cross has a pretty good case. Other than Sutton, how many other 3Bmen have we had with Cross' career value? That says something about the position during this era.

Finally, I believe I outlined a pretty strong case for Vic Willis last time. We elected Joe McGinnity on the first ballot, but I believe that all the information I posted last time give Willis a decent argument for being the better pitcher, and certainly better than Tony Mullane.

Here’s the case again for Vic Willis as measured against our first-balloter, Joe 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 illustrated). 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

My two favorite parts: 1) Willis' decided advantage in peak ERA+; and 2) The fact that a higher percentage of Willis' starts were shutouts.

As for those who questioned Willis' star-power, I came across these tidbits during a brief search:

- 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.

- 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."

- A 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.

- A 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."

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

- A 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.

Paul Wendt

09-17-2008, 03:46 PM

LF CF RF
O'Rourke cf-u Hines Kelly -c
Stovey -1b Hamilton Thompson
Delahanty Browning -lf Flick
Burkett Gore Keeler
Clarke Duffy -lf
Van Haltren

3B SS 2B 1B
Collins Ward -p-o-2 McPhee Anson
Wright Barnes Brouthers
Glasscock Connor
Davis Beckley
Dahlen
P
Clarkson
Keefe
Radbourn
Galvin
Rusie C
Mullane Ewing
Caruthers -of White -3b
Nichols Bennett
McGinnity
Spalding
Waddell
Young

P.S.
not in Hall of Merit: Duffy, Van Haltren, Mullane
not in BB-Fever HOF: Browning, Beckley
not in Hall of Fame: an even dozen :)

henrich

09-17-2008, 04:22 PM

3B Lave Cross
SS Herman Long
LF Joe Kelley
CF Jimmy Ryan
SP Vic Willis

I think Ryan and Kelley have a shot this time with the election of Van Haltren. I've always felt that Ryan was better than Van Haltren. Kelley is very borderline for me, but I vote for him just inside the line, but could be argued out of it. Vic Willis to me is a no brainer. I feel like he's been overlooked thus far, but that's just the system I utilize. Not sure what others think. Cross is pretty good for 3B. If he were an outfielder I'd put him in the Kelley category. Kind of lukewarm, but being an infielder, I have a little more enthusiasm for him. Same goes for Long. He's less so than Cross, but still a pretty good candidate.

jjpm74

09-17-2008, 04:39 PM

Frank Chance--Player/Manager and the best player on the best dynasty. He should be getting more support than he is so far.

Cupid Childs--Given that we have elected Glasscock, Borwning, Duffy and Van Haltren, it baffles me how we've managed to overlook this player to this point.

Lave Cross--I keep going back and fort on this guy. The bottom line is that we elected Beckley and Cross is statistically very similar to him but at a better defensive position.

Mike Donlin--If only he was more serious and concentrated on the game more and life in the fast lane less. Even in his short career, he led the league in almost every offensive stat every year he played.

Hughie Jennings--A borderline candidate for me who risks being dropped if I don't hear a better argument on his behalf.

Addie Joss--A short career guy. This may be his last year on my ballot. The more I look at him, the less I'm convinced that he should be counted among the greats.

Joe Kelley--Had a better career than Browning, Duffy and Van Haltren. They were all elected. Why not him?

Johnny Kling--The best catcher of his generation with the exception of Roger Bresnahan. He's a mainstay on my ballot.

Herman Long--A great short stop.

Jimmy Ryan--Had a better career than Browning, Duffy and Van Haltren. They were all elected. Why not him?

Jimmy Sheckard--Had a better career than Browning, Duffy and Van Haltren. They were all elected. Why not him?

Roy Thomas--Had a better career than Browning, Duffy and Van Haltren. They were all elected. Why not him?

Vic Willis--Maybe we're not giving him enough credit as a community? He sure seems like someone we should be voting for. He compares very favorably to Joe McGinnity who was elected on the 1st ballot.

Paul Wendt

09-17-2008, 04:58 PM

Cupid Childs--Given that we have elected Glasscock, Borwning, Duffy and Van Haltren, it baffles me how we've managed to overlook this player to this point.
What does he have to show that Glasscock doesn't?

Mike Donlin--If only he was more serious and concentrated on the game more and life in the fast lane less. Even in his short career, he led the league in almost every offensive stat every year he played.
More than life in the fast line. Six months behind bars for assault (1902). And less than the fast line, careering on the vaudeville circuit, no less honorable than basebrawl, eh?

Mike Donlin and Johnny Bates played all three outfield positions, 5.7 full seasons for Donlin and 6.9 for Bates. They both played more CF than either corner, about 40% and 60% center respectively. Bill James gives them letter grades C and C-, which is impressively bad. Pete Browning played 50% center and earned a C+.

jalbright

09-17-2008, 05:29 PM

1. Childs
2. Kelley
3. Long
4. Willis

There are four guys who I like as contributors: Griffith, Jennings, McGraw and Chance--but solely as players, I think they fall short.

DoubleX

09-17-2008, 05:31 PM

Mike Donlin--If only he was more serious and concentrated on the game more and life in the fast lane less. Even in his short career, he led the league in almost every offensive stat every year he played.

He actually only led the league in anything just 4 times, and never in any of the more important categories. He led once in runs (1905), twice in singles (1905 and 1908), and once in offensive win % (1903). There were five seasons, 1901, 1903-1905, and 1908, where he was pretty much in the top 5 in everything.

Here's my ballot:

Frank Chance - I really struggled make a decision here. As a player, he just didn't have enough of a career, but he is a very unique case in that he was a very successful player/manager, winning 2 WS and 4 pennants while also having a nice peak as a player. I could drop him in the future though.

Cupid Childs - With the standards we've set in the OF, we've been terrible in the IF. With Duffy and Van Haltren in, Childs should be in too.

Lave Cross - I think it's time we reevaluated our standards for 3B. Just think about how few even decent 3B candidates have come through. We already dropped the ball with Ezra Sutton. Cross might not measure up in 2008, but from 1871-1919, he really stands out at his position.

Addie Joss - Not much to say here actually.

Joe Kelley - With Duffy and Van Haltren in, no reason to keep him out. If only we could go back and apply this new lowered standard to Hardy Richardson and Mike Tiernan. Both would be as good, if not better choices than Duffy and Van Haltren.

Jimmy Ryan - Still don't understand how anyone can separate him from Duffy and Van Haltren. I actually believe he has a decent argument for being the best of the three (Duffy to me is clearly the worst given he spent by far the least amount of time in CF). Not electing Ryan now would be very arbitrary, IMO.

Vic Willis - I believe I made a very strong case for Willis above, at least in comparison to his peer and first-balloter Joe McGinnity. If McGinnity is a first balloter, can't see why Willis, who may have been better, isn't in already. If you helped elect McGinnity and Mullane and are not voting for Willis, I'd love to hear why not.

leecemark

09-17-2008, 05:55 PM

--My ballot leaps from 1 to 12 players. I can no longer deny that the standards of the Hall are way lower than just the really big stars. I'll be voting a big ballot in the VC as well.

Frank Chance, 1B (1898-1914) - 1st Year 4 57.14%
Cupid Childs, 2B (1888, 1890-1901) - 14th Year 6 85.71%
Clark Griffith, SP (1891, 1893-1907, 1909, 1912-1914) - 5th Year 3 42.86%
Hughie Jennings, SS (1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912) - 6th Year 4 57.14%
Joe Kelley, LF (1891-1906, 1908) - 7th Year 7 100.00%
Johnny Kling, C (1900-1908, 1910-1913) - 2nd Year 4 57.14%
Herman Long, SS (1889-1904) - 11th Year 6 85.71%
John McGraw, 3B (1891-1906) - 9th Year 1 14.29%
Jimmy Ryan, CF (1885-1903) - 12th Year 6 85.71%
Jimmy Sheckard, LF (1897-1913) - 2nd Year 3 42.86%
Roy Thomas, CF (1899-1911) - 4th Year 3 42.86%
Vic Willis, SP (1898-1910) - 5th Year 7 100.00%

Cowtipper

09-17-2008, 05:59 PM

Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Vic Willis

jjpm74

09-17-2008, 06:07 PM

There are four guys who I like as contributors: Griffith, Jennings, McGraw and Chance--but solely as players, I think they fall short.

Are we only voting for Chance as a player? I thought we were voting for him as a Player-Manager. If we're only looking at his playing career, please remove my vote for him.

jjpm74

09-17-2008, 06:09 PM

He actually only led the league in anything just 4 times, and never in any of the more important categories. He led once in runs (1905), twice in singles (1905 and 1908), and once in offensive win % (1903). There were five seasons, 1901, 1903-1905, and 1908, where he was pretty much in the top 5 in everything.

Yes, but he was among the leaders in just about everything. Look at his gray ink and what he managed to do with large gaps in his career. Had he taken baseball more seriously, I'm pretty sure he would have been one of the all time greats. He's worthy of a 1st year vote at the very least. ;)

BTW, Ed McKean is a definite for my VC ballot looking at who we voted in. He may fare somewhat better in the VC balloting.

DoubleX

09-17-2008, 06:15 PM

--My ballot leaps from 1 to 12 players. I can no longer deny that the standards of the Hall are way lower than just the really big stars. I'll be voting a big ballot in the VC as well.

It's a tough thing. The Hall is only as good as the standards we've set, and last year made clear that we have a relatively lenient standard. I think my ballot was always pretty flexible, but I'm now also questioning whether I need to go larger to stay in touch with our standards.

We also have a major problem in that we haven't fairly apportioned our standards. We've been very generous in the OF, but this hasn't translated to the other positions (well one might argue that Beckley is part of this pattern at 1B). Our treatment of 3B has been particularly questionable. One might argue that it's a product of poor candidates at 3B, but if after 45 years of history we deem only 3Bman worthy, that tells me that our standards for 3B are out of touch with the era. That's why I've added Lave Cross and perhaps why you've put John McGraw back on your ballot.

Also, I'd like to hear some arguments for Johnny Kling. He intrigues me, but I don't see how he's that different than Duke Farrell, who lasted just an election or two. I'm really eager to see how Roger Bresnahan does next year. The fact that Kling is getting some support is a good sign for Bresnahan, IMO, because it shows that people will look past the relatively few PAs and low counting numbers, by putting the catcher position into perspective.

BTW, Ed McKean is a definite for my VC ballot looking at who we voted in. He may fare somewhat better in the VC balloting.

I think a lot of guys could fair better with the VC than they did here simply because our standards are more defined now, with our standards be lower than some of us may have originally anticipated. I'd think that both Hardy Richardson and Ezra Sutton will have strong chances of VC election now.

I really wish I pushed McKean more in retrospect. But our standards were still very much developing back then and it seemed at the time we were progressing towards adopting higher standards than we have in actuality. I think he has a good argument for fitting within the standards we've now set - 114 OPS+ as a SS, and his raw numbers are pretty impressive considering his position and era - 2000+ hits, 1100+ RBI, 300+ SB, .302 BA.

Cowtipper

09-17-2008, 06:19 PM

DoubleX

09-17-2008, 06:24 PM

What determines what people eligible to be first timers will be on the ballot or not? Do you just use your discretion? I know you have guidlines set, but a lot more players ended their careers in 1914 with career lengths of 10 years or more.

It's a discretionary thing. I always post a list of eligible players in the prior election and note those that I don't anticipate placing on the ballot. Anyone is free to comment and suggest that I include a player that I might list as potentially be left off.

Is there anyone in particular that you're noticing I left off?

Cowtipper

09-17-2008, 06:37 PM

It's a discretionary thing. I always post a list of eligible players in the prior election and note those that I don't anticipate placing on the ballot. Anyone is free to comment and suggest that I include a player that I might list as potentially be left off.

Is there anyone in particular that you're noticing I left off?

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. There's no one I think you left off, I was just wondering how you went about choosing the players.

jjpm74

09-17-2008, 07:08 PM

Speaking of, next year has a lot of clunkers (represented in red) that barely scrape the eligibility requirements and a lot of likely 1 and dones as well:

Roger Bresnahan
Al Bridwell
Bill Bradley
Howie Camnitz
Jim Delahanty
Russ Ford
Eddie Grant
Frank LaPorte
Larry McLean
Danny Murphy
George Stovall
Howie Camnitz
Art Fromme
Otto Hess
George Mullin
Frank Smith
Ira Thomas
George Suggs
Ed Willett
Hookse Wiltse

Outside of Roger Bresnahan, I could see George Mullin pick up a couple of votes and maybe see a token vote thrown the way of Russ Ford and Hooks Wiltse.

dgarza

09-17-2008, 07:59 PM

Frank Chance
Mike Donlin
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Jimmy Ryan
Vic Willis

1. Vic Willis
2. Addie Joss
3. Joe Kelley
4. Jimmy Ryan
5. Mike Donlin
6. Hugh Jennings
7. Frank Chance

philkid3

09-17-2008, 10:21 PM

Frank Chance
Cupid Childs
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan

I've been too busy to read through the threads, but I'm surprised by how little support Cy Seymour and Jimmy Sheckard got, which makes me think I'm missing something. I've dropped them for now. With Van Haltren and Duffy getting in, Tiernan coming off, and Chance going on, that puts me to my smallest ballot yet at 6 (though I have several players I'm looking at).

I was iffy on Duffy, Ryan and Van Haltren and finally decided to vote for them all last year. The fact that Duffy and Van Haltren are in definitely has me voting for Ryan from now on.

PVNICK

09-18-2008, 05:41 AM

Chance
Childs
Cross
Kling
Long
Ryan
Sheckard

After some feedback from jjpm I set aside my career length "issue" on Kling. Chance is my only other new vote. Willis I probably will vote for next time around.

BlueBlood

09-18-2008, 06:43 AM

I'll vote for Chance in the contributor section of the VC but not here.

1. Childs
2. Kelley
3. Jennings
4. Joss
5. Willis

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Fourteen (1906 Onward) - Cupid Childs
Six (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Five (1915 onward) - Addie Joss, Vic Willis
Four (1916 onward) - Joe Kelley

Captain Cold Nose

09-18-2008, 07:06 AM

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

Brooklyn

09-18-2008, 07:20 AM

just voting for Adie Joss.

I've always been a small hall guy, and recognize that the players that got in last year did lower the Hall standards. But I don't believe in "if x got in then so should Y". I have in my minds standards for a HOFer, and am going to keep those standards, which admittedly is higher than the standards currently being set.

Said another say, Van Haltren and Ryan got 75% without my vote. If other voters care to elect people based on that standard, that is fine with me - but they will also have to get in without my vote.

Paul Wendt

09-18-2008, 07:43 AM

So there is some "high" standard Addie Joss surpasses?

Evidently he fares poorly by the "low" standards that many others recognize.

DoubleX

09-18-2008, 07:43 AM

just voting for Adie Joss.

I've always been a small hall guy, and recognize that the players that got in last year did lower the Hall standards. But I don't believe in "if x got in then so should Y". I have in my minds standards for a HOFer, and am going to keep those standards, which admittedly is higher than the standards currently being set.

What about Willis? You voted for McGinnity and I think I laid out a pretty good argument for Willis being perhaps better than McGinnity. I'm fine with not being a fan of "if x got in then so should y," but it's a little different when you voted for x and y is very favorably comparable.

KCGHOST

09-18-2008, 08:09 AM

Childs
Griffith
Joss
J. Kelley
McGraw
Ryan
Tiernan

jjpm74

09-18-2008, 09:56 AM

leecemark

09-18-2008, 10:08 AM

--I voted for 12 here and Joss was not one of them.

BlueBlood

09-18-2008, 10:57 AM

Kelley's a lock to be in with Willis, Ryan & Childs all trailing by only one vote. If there's anyone worth stumping for, it's Childs since this is his penultimate appearance on the regular ballot.

Five Year OPS+ Peak: 181 (in AA), 150, 135, 131, 123, 121 (5th best season in NL)

You'd be hard pressed to find any other 2Bs of the era with a similar peak.

He put up a career 119 OPS+ which is line with HOF standards for a 2B. This is coupled with a fielding rage well above the league value, so we could bump up his overall worth to about a 125 OPS+

Second Basemen With A Better Five Year Win Share Peak That Have Been Eligible For This Project:

None. That's right, none. We could argue that Ross Barnes had a better peak although it was in an easier league with the fair-foul rule and far less games per season. Bid McPhee, our other elected 2B, trails Childs by 19 Win Shares in Top 3 seasons and 20 Win Shares in Five Year Peak. In his defense, Bid McPhee is one of the greatest 2B fielders in history (especially considering he didn't use a glove for many years) and has more career value than Childs. But at this point in the project, shouldn't we have elected two 2Bs that continually excelled in the National League era, rather than one?

Paul Wendt

09-18-2008, 11:15 AM

Second Basemen With A Better Five Year Win Share Peak That Have Been Eligible For This Project:

None. That's right, none. We could argue that Ross Barnes had a better peak although it was in an easier league with the fair-foul rule and far less games per season. Bid McPhee, our other elected 2B, trails Childs by 19 Win Shares in Top 3 seasons and 20 Win Shares in Five Year Peak.
Childs is OK but let's not overdo it.

First, no one enjoying major league credit (and a superficial career year) for AA 1890 should throw stones at the National Association. He gets only one stone to throw and he is required to throw it at Fred Dunlap's 1884 in the Union Association.

Second, more games every season helped Childs and Co. earn win shares: more games to share winning. The extralong 154-game schedule in 1892 was a one-year experiment preceding a repeat experiment by six years and preceding final adoption of 154 games by 12 years. That makes Childs look a little better even in comparison with others who played the 1892 season, because it was his career year.

Freakshow

09-18-2008, 12:29 PM

Duffy and Van Haltren were elected. Tiernan expired. Taking their places are newbie Chance and first-timers Jones and Seymour.

Chance
Childs
L. Cross
Griffith
Jennings
F. Jones
Joss
J. Kelley
Long
McGraw
Ryan
Seymour
Sheckard
Thomas
Willis

NineWorldSeries

09-18-2008, 12:33 PM

I've thrown my support behind Kelley this time.

Griffith
Jennings
Joss
Kelley
McGraw
Willis

Freakshow

09-18-2008, 12:38 PM

Speaking of, next year has a lot of clunkers (represented in red) that barely scrape the eligibility requirements and a lot of likely 1 and dones as well:

Roger Bresnahan
Al Bridwell
Bill Bradley
Howie Camnitz
Jim Delahanty
Russ Ford
Eddie Grant
Frank LaPorte
Larry McLean
Danny Murphy
George Stovall
Howie Camnitz
Art Fromme
Otto Hess
George Mullin
Frank Smith
Ira Thomas
George Suggs
Ed Willett
Hookse WiltseAlso eligible in 1920 by the age 45 rule is catching ace Billy Sullivan.

jjpm74

09-18-2008, 03:18 PM

Also eligible in 1920 by the age 45 rule is catching ace Billy Sullivan.

At least he had a better offensive career than Billy Bergen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bergebi01.shtml). :rofl:

Sullivan's probably the only player I can think of who does deserve to be on the ballot based solely on his defensive value.

leecemark

09-18-2008, 06:55 PM

--Herman Long was the best defensive SS of his time and ranks 2nd all time in total chances per game. He was a key member of one of the greatest teams of the 19th century. The Boston Beaneaters won three straight NL pennants from 1891-93 with a young Long serving as their table setter. Long lead the club in stolen bases and runs over this run, finishing 2nd in the NL in 91 and leading the league in 93. He also had some sock, finishing 4th in HRs in 91 and 2nd in doubles in 92.
--Long was still a key player when the Beaneaters won two more pennants in 97-98. Long, Jimmy Collins, Bobby Lowe and Fred Tenney made up the best defensive infield of the 19th century and one of the best ever. Long had his last big season in 1900, leading the league in HRs.
--We've already elected two of Long's teamates in Jimmy Collins and Hugh Duffy, but Long was as important or moreso to the Beaneaters 5 pennant winners in the 1890s. With the standards we've established for Hall of Famers, the original Flying Dutchman ought to be an obvious addition.

AG2004

09-18-2008, 07:44 PM

(Note - Much of this post was lost during the editing process. The full post appeared again as #37.)

Cross has 300 season-adjusted win shares over the length of his career. Jimmy Collins finished with 292 season-adjusted win shares, and Tommy Leach retired with 336. At the end of this season, Frank Baker had 289. Ezra Sutton had 233, and we don't have figures for the NA.

Cross was merely a run-of-the-mill starter for most of his career.

(Since it wasn't mentioned above, I should add that Deacon White had 287 adjusted win shares for his NL career. That doesn't take his NA play into account.)

AG2004

09-18-2008, 07:49 PM

And what of 3B? We’ve elected just one 3Bmen to represent 45 years of history. That’s strikingly inadequate. We really dropped the ball on Ezra Sutton, IMO (hopefully the VC can right that wrong). But I’m going to advocate Lave Cross now. I haven’t voted for him until this year, after JJPM pointed him out. Many of us look at Cross and see his 100 OPS+ and we aren’t impressed, and that was the case for me. But I believe such a reaction fails to put him into the context of his era. A 100 OPS+ from a 3Bman is pretty good, especially considering the rare length of Cross’ career. If you put Cross into the perspective of his time, consider his position, the length and consistency of his career, and the fact that we’ve only elected one 3Bman, I think Cross has a pretty good case. Other than Sutton, how many other 3Bmen have we had with Cross' career value? That says something about the position during this era.

Cross has 300 season-adjusted win shares over the length of his career. Jimmy Collins finished with 292 season-adjusted win shares, and Tommy Leach retired with 336. At the end of this season, Frank Baker had 289. Ezra Sutton had 233, and we don't have figures for the NA.

Cross was merely a run-of-the-mill starter for most of his career. Note that the 100 OPS+ is an average. He was a great defensive player in the 1890s, but he had an OPS+ of 76 in 1895, followed that with an OPS+ of 74 in 1896, and topped that with an OPS+ of 71 in 1897. He was a substantially better hitter in the oughts, but his defensive play had slipped by then. In both cases, Cross would end up with a plethora of average seasons.

Cross' best season was 1902, when he was the best defensive 3B in the league, was a very good hitter, and played most of the season. When Cross was able to put everything together, he was a great player. However, Cross wasn't able to put everything together very often. Either his hitting was poor, or he had an off season on defense, or he missed a lot of games, and he ended up being just a typical starter.

Let's compare the number of good seasons that Cross had to the number of seasons some of his contemporaries had. An average starter would have 15-19 win shares after the schedule adjustments are made; a good season is one with at least 20 adjusted win shares. (The schedule adjustments are to 154 games from 1892 onward, and for the 1890 PL and 1891 NL. They are to 140 games for seasons prior to 1890, as well as for the 1890 NL, 1890 AA, and 1891 AA.)

Lave Cross: 4
John McGraw: 7
Denny Lyons: 7
Billy Nash: 9
Arlie Latham: 5
Bill Joyce: 5
Jimmy Collins: 9

For most of his career, Cross was a run-of-the-mill starter (sometimes he was worse than that). He excelled in 1894 and 1902, but two very good seasons should not be enough to put a player in the Hall of Fame. I don't see any justification for honoring someone merely for being an average starter for a long period of time.

(For the record, Beckley had 9 seasons which reached the 20-adjusted-win-share mark. They weren't exceptional seasons - Beckley's best was 23 adjusted win shares - but Beckley was better than an average player for most of his career. Cross doesn't even reach that level.)

Brooklyn

09-18-2008, 10:02 PM

So there is some "high" standard Addie Joss surpasses?

Evidently he fares poorly by the "low" standards that many others recognize.

I'm not saying that my standard is going to be exactly the same as everyone else. I respect that fact that many don't see him as a HOFer, and they have the right to not vote him. A lot of people voting for one candidate is not going to sway my vote (convincing dialog aside), and a lot of people not voting for a candidate won't sway my vote, either.

If you are a small hall guy, why are you voting for a pitcher who was never counted among the best in the league in his own era let alone across eras?

I really like high peak guys. I may not have been alive in 1918, but I find it hard to believe that a guy that had 8-straight top 7 eras, including 2 era titles, was not considered one of the best in his league. His W-L record was probably not what someone in that era would be looking for in a "best in the league" pitcher, but he did average almost 20 games a year for his first 8 years.

He also gets the benefit of the doubt in my book for dying in his prime, while on a Hall of Fame path. Yes, his 1910 was cut short my arm trouble unrelated to his death, but we don't know what he would have done had he come back.

It also certainly doesn't hurt that he has the lowest career WHIP of all time (minimum 1,000 innings pitched) and 2nd only to Walsh in career ERA (again, min 1,000 innings pitched). Obviously he was benefited in these categories by era and a short career, but still impressive.

I hate ERA+ as a stat. I won't get started on the problems with it here. But consider that he pitched almost exactly the same number of innings as Koufax, and his ERA+ is 11 points higher 142 - 131. I'm a big Koufax supporter, but I asked the question on an earlier poll as to why Koufax and not Joss. The answer I got was that Joss didn't have the the five year run that Koufax had from 1962-1966. While I can't dispute that, Joss also didn't have the mediocre seasons that Koufax had through 1960.

What about Willis? You voted for McGinnity and I think I laid out a pretty good argument for Willis being perhaps better than McGinnity. I'm fine with not being a fan of "if x got in then so should y," but it's a little different when you voted for x and y is very favorably comparable.

Two of my prior choices that I was most borderline about were Mullane and MCGinnity. I think Willis does in fact fit in pretty well with both of them. And you are right, very similar to McGinnity, although I do think there is separation.

I'd give the edge to McGinnity. While I know W-L's are not popular on this board, they had about the same number of wins but McGinnity had 63 less losses. Granted McGinnity's Giants were much better than Willis's Beaneters, but Willis did play on some good Pirates teams. Over the course of McGinnity's career, he played on teams with a 58.7% winning percentage (splitting the 1902 season in half). In games McGinnity got a decision, his team won 63.4% of the time. In games he didn't, his team won 57.0% of the time. For Willis, his career W% is 54.8%, and in games he didn't get a decision his team's W% is 52.7%. I realize there are a lot of factors that go into W/L, but Willis's record just wasn't that much better than his team's when he didn't pitch.

McGinnity also has an ERA and WHIP title and led the league in wins 5 times, and innings 4 times. Willis led the league in ERA once and innings once and strikeouts once.

Back to back 30 win years for McGinnity. 8-straight 20 win seasons for McGinnity. No losing seasons for McGinnity. McGinnity lost game 2 of the 1905 World Series without giving up an earned run, then tossed a 5-hit shutout in game 4. Granted these accomplishments all go hand and hand with playing on a good team, but part of the Hall of Fame is Fame, and McGinnity did it on a bigger stage

Are there any years that you would have Willis winning the Cy Young, if there was one? I think it is hard to argue that McGinnity wouldn't have won in 1904. He was clearly the best pitcher in the league that year, something that I'm not sure Willis ever was.

DoubleX

09-18-2008, 10:12 PM

Are there any years that you would have Willis winning the Cy Young, if there was one? I think it is hard to argue that McGinnity wouldn't have won in 1904. He was clearly the best pitcher in the league that year, something that I'm not sure Willis ever was.

Willis would have been very deserving of the Cy Young in 1899 and definitely in the mix in at least 1901 and 1906.

Paul Wendt

09-18-2008, 11:09 PM

Are there any years that you would have Willis winning the Cy Young, if there was one? I think it is hard to argue that McGinnity wouldn't have won in 1904. He was clearly the best pitcher in the league that year, something that I'm not sure Willis ever was.
Thorn & Holway in 1976 named Willis their National League "Creighton Award" winner for 1899 and 1901, McGinnity for 1900 and 1904. Most of the weaker players lost their NL jobs in 1900, when the league bought out four of its 12 teams. So the best player seasons of 1900 do not stand out as they should from those players' career records. But limit your vision to 1900 alone.

Beginning in 1900 there are some other retroactive Cy Young Awards that I compiled a few years ago for SABR's Deadball Era Cmte. "Everyone" gives the two awards to McGinnity but there is no agreement on 1901.
Cy Young Award, Hypothetical Winners 1900-1919 (http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/cy.html)

>>
Willis would have been very deserving of the Cy Young in 1899 and definitely in the mix in at least 1901 and 1906.
<<

NL 1906 is one of those where the retro-selectors all agree, Mordecai Brown.

PVNICK

09-19-2008, 05:40 AM

Cross has 300 season-adjusted win shares over the length of his career. Jimmy Collins finished with 292 season-adjusted win shares, and Tommy Leach retired with 336. At the end of this season, Frank Baker had 289. Ezra Sutton had 233, and we don't have figures for the NA.

Cross was merely a run-of-the-mill starter for most of his career. Note that the 100 OPS+ is an average. He was a great defensive player in the 1890s, but he had an OPS+ of 76 in 1895, followed that with an OPS+ of 74 in 1896, and topped that with an OPS+ of 71 in 1897. He was a substantially better hitter in the oughts, but his defensive play had slipped by then. In both cases, Cross would end up with a plethora of average seasons.

Cross' best season was 1902, when he was the best defensive 3B in the league, was a very good hitter, and played most of the season. When Cross was able to put everything together, he was a great player. However, Cross wasn't able to put everything together very often. Either his hitting was poor, or he had an off season on defense, or he missed a lot of games, and he ended up being just a typical starter.

Let's compare the number of good seasons that Cross had to the number of seasons some of his contemporaries had. An average starter would have 15-19 win shares after the schedule adjustments are made; a good season is one with at least 20 adjusted win shares. (The schedule adjustments are to 154 games from 1892 onward, and for the 1890 PL and 1891 NL. They are to 140 games for seasons prior to 1890, as well as for the 1890 NL, 1890 AA, and 1891 AA.)

Lave Cross: 4
John McGraw: 7
Denny Lyons: 7
Billy Nash: 9
Arlie Latham: 5
Bill Joyce: 5
Jimmy Collins: 9

For most of his career, Cross was a run-of-the-mill starter (sometimes he was worse than that). He excelled in 1894 and 1902, but two very good seasons should not be enough to put a player in the Hall of Fame. I don't see any justification for honoring someone merely for being an average starter for a long period of time.

(For the record, Beckley had 9 seasons which reached the 20-adjusted-win-share mark. They weren't exceptional seasons - Beckley's best was 23 adjusted win shares - but Beckley was better than an average player for most of his career. Cross doesn't even reach that level.)

I've voted for Cross probably every year he has been on the ballot based on his career and postion. But after reading your post I went back and parsed his record, so to speak, and I just can't see voting for him. His big hitting years were almost exclusively in the first few years of the AL, 1894 and 1895 and the 1891 AA. It's hard to see voting him in, though the volume numbers probabaly had him retiring as top 5 or 10 in runs, hits and RBI and a .292 average while beign a premier 3B in the field.

jjpm74

09-19-2008, 06:50 AM

I've voted for Cross probably every year he has been on the ballot based on his career and postion. But after reading your post I went back and parsed his record, so to speak, and I just can't see voting for him. His big hitting years were almost exclusively in the first few years of the AL, 1894 and 1895 and the 1891 AA. It's hard to see voting him in, though the volume numbers probabaly had him retiring as top 5 or 10 in runs, hits and RBI and a .292 average while beign a premier 3B in the field.

In 2008, I wouldn't even be considering Lave Cross as a potential HOFer. The reason I ultimately added him is three fold:

1. Cross' career numbers at the time he retired were among the best in the history of the game as of 1919. Career numbers are also what people would have been starting to look at in 1919 thanks largely to the publications of the time. Not things like OPS+ and Win Shares (he fails miserably in both these departments).

2. We are now 19 cycles in and we've only managed to elect 1 third baseman. Had Ezra Sutton been elected, the standard for third basemen would have been a little more clear, but to this point, with only 1 elected, we're still in the process of looking at third base and what makes a third baseman a HOFer which brings me to #3.

3. With no standard set for third basemen, I'm forced to look at the closest thing to a similar position on the field. That position is 1st base. Our weakest 1st baseman we've elected is Jake Beckley who put up career numbers that are comparable to Lave Cross. If we get some kind of better standard via the veteran's committee or through some up coming elections, Cross is far from what I'd call a definite to stay on my ballot. What might help or hurt Lave Cross' cause is if someone searched through the available literature from the era to see what was being said about him. If nothing is being said or if he was being referred to as a poor player, he'd lose steam and tail off the ballot. If, however, it's found out that he was held in high regard and counted among the best to this point in history, why shouldn't we add him?

On a separate note, while everyone's free to apply whatever methodology they want when comparing candidates, I really wish people would stop using advanced SABRmetrics in thread discussions since things like win shares weren't even a theory in 1919. If we're going to keep applying things like win shares and OPS+ to the discussions and can't find alternative approaches to supporting/dismissing outliers, aren't we just spinning our wheels here?

leecemark

09-19-2008, 06:51 AM

--Jennings was an excellent defensive SS and had one of the best offensive peaks of any SS in history. Hughie posted OPS+ of over 140 4 years in a row in the mdi-late 1890s. He, not the already elected Keeler or soon to be elected Kelley, was the best player on the Orioles dynasty of this period. We elected a pair of outfielders with 121 and 122 OPS+ last year. It would seem we could find a spot for a SS with a 117.

leecemark

09-19-2008, 06:56 AM

--and if we have room for a 117 SS, then perhaps a 119 2B could also find a place on your ballot. Next year will be Childs last year on the ballot. He is over 70% at this writing. Your vote could make the difference. We've only elected two secondbasemen over nearly a half century of baseball (although Lajoie will be coming up soon and Eddie Collins is already being called a future Hall of Famer). Childs is easily the best available secondsacker available to us now. Lets not leave him up to the VC as we did with similarly qualified near miss Hardy Richardson.

jjpm74

09-19-2008, 06:59 AM

DoubleX

09-19-2008, 11:24 AM

I still don't get why Jimmy Ryan is struggling here? His support is up, but with Van Haltren and Duffy in, there is no question that Ryan should be in. We look arbitrary. People who voted for Van Haltren and Duffy but not Ryan, why? I've been asking this for years, but no one has answered this.

Paul Wendt

09-19-2008, 12:16 PM

Beginning in 1900 there are some other retroactive Cy Young Awards that I compiled a few years ago for SABR's Deadball Era Cmte. "Everyone" gives the two awards to McGinnity but there is no agreement on 1901.
Cy Young Award, Hypothetical Winners 1900-1919 (http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/cy.html)
See the Directory (one level up), section "Players in Hindsight" (http://world.std.com/~pgw/Deadball/index.html#players)
Annual Awards - contemporary
# details of the Chalmers MVP vote, 1911-14 (official)
# All America Teams, 1908-19 ( Baseball Magazine ) - count player appearances on those 12 teams
# 1905 All Stars ( League Presidents )
Career Honors - contemporary
# 1911 "Hall of Fame" ( Baseball Magazine )

Annual Awards - hypothetical or retroactive
# Cy Young ( SABR, Bill Deane/TB, STATS, Thorn-Holway )
# Rookie of the Year ( SABR, Bill Deane/TB, STATS ) - details of the SABR Rookie vote for 1901-10
# Most Valuable Player ( Bill Deane/TB, STATS )
# All Stars ( STATS )

DoubleX

09-20-2008, 04:52 AM

For most of his career, Cross was a run-of-the-mill starter (sometimes he was worse than that). He excelled in 1894 and 1902, but two very good seasons should not be enough to put a player in the Hall of Fame. I don't see any justification for honoring someone merely for being an average starter for a long period of time.

Run of the mill player? That's what your 2008 eyes tell you. I have to agree with JJPM here, you seem to be putting too much reliance on modern metrics, thereby holding players of a century ago to modern standards of observation, consequently taking them completely out of the context of their time. If you want to see what high regard Cross was held in during his time, I suggest you check out that very database you were kind enough to point me towards. I've done that and the contemporary reverence held for Cross is impressive, and indicates that he was regarded as far more than a "run of the mill player." Again, this is what your 2008 evaluation based on Win Shares tell you, but it completely disregards what a 1908 context would have told you, and that's what this project endeavors to achieve.

EDIT: Read the following and tell me that Cross was regarded as a "run of the mill" player in his day:

A 1906 Sporting Life article's has this headline: "High Honor Lavished On Veteran Lave Cross. The Athletics' Ex-Captain Dined by Philadelphia Scribes and Fans. A Rousing Farewell Tribute and Valuable Gift to One of the Grand Old Characters of the National Game." The article goes on to say, "It was the most remarkable honor ever accorded a player in any community. In the words of witty Charley Dryden: 'Never was a departing athelete so honored...After twenty-one years in Chicago, the large, bland Mr. Anson, has nothing to show but a billiard parlor, containing one table for each year of active service. And Adrian [Cap] bought the green-topped tables himself. Lafayette Napoleon Cross is a lucky athlete.'" Among the guests were Tom Shibe (who escorted Cross to Washington), both league presidents, the Philadelphia district attorney, and both Philadelphia managers (Mack and Duffy). The entire article takes up two pages, and even lists the dinner menu, as well as lyrics to songs in Cross' honor entitled "Good-bye Lave Cross Good-bye" and "Luck to Good Old Lave Cross." If there is any doubt that Cross was held with the highest of esteem, I suggest people check out this very long and extremely glowing article (http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1906/VOL_47_NO_06/SL4706012.pdf), rife with quotes. This article gives in great detail, the high reverence held for Cross as both a player and person, and after reading this, it is unfathomable to me that people in 1919 would not have elected Cross immediately to the Hall of Fame.

Also in 1906, Sporting Life ran an article on Cross, who was then 40 and at the beginning of what would be his first year with Washington and his next to last in the game. The article begins with a discussion about "the great men who have preceded" Cross to Washington, and expressly puts Cross in the "good company" of the likes of George Washington (who actually died shortly before the capital was built, but living in nearby Mt. Vernon, likely visited the site at some point). The article goes on to say, "That Lave will be treated with deference due hi station and attainments is conceded at the outset. He is a national character and as such the nation should be good to him." The article then speaks of Cross defensive prowess, namely that he can play on the grass, an apparent novelty back then, and thereby affecting what the other team can do (such as bunting and playing in with bases loaded). The article then says, "Already yet the transfer of the veteran third baser has imparted a boom to the sport at Washington. They look upon Lave as a high card. The management has issued a golden pass to President Roosevelt who may desire to see what a real, strenuous, bold athlete looks like." Finally, the article concludes by noting that more recent likenesses of Cross depict him with a larger forehead than likenesses from earlier in his career, which the author suspects is an act of respect for Cross' in that he has "accomplished great things."
In a 1906 Sporting Life article, talking about trade interest in Cross, then the Captain of the Philadelphia A's, the author says in respect to the trade rumors (one of which includes interest in Cross as a player/manager), "All of which is a deserved tribute to one of the grand old men of the game, a player who stands as a constant example to the youngsters of what proper habits can be made to bring in the way of cash returns and love of the fans."

Does this all seem like the regard people would have for a "run of the mill player?" Do Win Shares in 2008 tell you any of this? Do they put into perspective how during his time, Cross was highly regarded?

leecemark

09-20-2008, 07:50 AM

TheSlaff

09-20-2008, 08:07 AM

Frank Chance
Cupid Childs
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
John McGraw
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard
Vic Willis

BlueBlood

09-20-2008, 09:50 AM

This is starting to look real good for me. Willis/Childs are right at 75% with Kelley guaranteed induction. This leaves Jennings/Joss on my ballot with 65% and 70% respectively, both close enough where I can attempt to give them a solid push over the next few years by convincing some non-supporters. It would be marvelous to not have any old candidates on my ballot once 1921 rolls around.

DoubleX

09-20-2008, 05:33 PM

--Cross was a respected veteran player. He had a nice article written about him when he moved to a new team and a very nice tribute thanking him for his service to the fledging Athletics. These types of kinds words are not strong evidence for that Cross was regarded as a superstar type player in his day.

Please read the articles Mark. Players regarded as "run of the mill" players did not get the kind of praise and attention that Cross received. It's arrogant to sit here in 2008 and say that a player wasn't regarded as a star in his time when there is evidence directly to the contrary. In the case of "thanking him for his service," it was a lot more than just a simple thank you. It was a major event, unlike anything else I've come across for any other player at that time, let alone "run of the mill" players. The fact that all this effort was made on Cross' behalf says a lot, IMO.

To be honest, I'm troubled how you would just so easily dismiss contemporaneous accounts like this. Earlier you asked for contemporaneous accounts for certain players, and now they mean nothing? If we're trying to look at this as best we can from the perspective of 1919, would we really be so dismissive of accounts from a decade earlier? If we're not going to place any value in contemporaneous accounts and just dismiss what they have to offer from our 2008 perch, then I see little point to this project. We'll just make this another project where we do a cold analysis based on modern analysis and pretend that we know all we need to know about a player from a century ago based strictly on numbers on paper. I also wonder if we're able to fully appreciate just how much more defense was valued back then compared to now, and how a player, like Cross, could have been a star based on his defense. It's hard to fathom for us because we're so used to evaluating first and foremost on offensive numbers, but perhaps that fails to properly account for historical context here.

Also, I don't appreciate the comparison to Sockeye in the other thread, and consequently being dismissive of the thoughtfulness behind my posts.

leecemark

09-20-2008, 06:23 PM

DoubleX

09-20-2008, 06:39 PM

--I agree we are not paying enough attention to defense and how important it was in those days. I just think there are better candidates to fly that flag. When Herman Long has his plaque that will be time enough to consider the likes of Lave Cross.

Since you mentioned Herman Long, I'd like to hear a case for him. I gave him a lot of thought this time around but couldn't quite pull the trigger. The difference here is I'm trying to make a case for Cross. Long likely won't get elected by himself, if you want to see him in, he could probably use your help.

leecemark

09-20-2008, 06:59 PM

--I made a pitch for him in post 35 of this thread.

DoubleX

09-21-2008, 09:12 AM

--I made a pitch for him in post 35 of this thread.

I missed that. Was Long truly the best defensive SS of his time? Is there any evidence of this? Was he better than Dahlen? Did he stand out so much that the play of some next generation shortstops (like Joe Tinker) wouldn't have overly diluted Long's play?

The question for me though is really on offense. Pretty good for a SS, good counting numbers for his time and position, and the SBs are nice too. I had been a little concerned that voting for him could open the door to a lot of pretty good hitting shortstops, but in the pursuit of fairness, I didn't let that concern stop my advocacy for Jake Beckley at 1B. So perhaps I will rethink Long. I'd have to see a little more though about how much he stood out in his time though.

jjpm74

09-21-2008, 09:22 AM

The question for me though is really on offense. Pretty good for a SS, good counting numbers for his time and position, and the SBs are nice too. I had been a little concerned that voting for him could open the door to a lot of pretty good hitting shortstops, but in the pursuit of fairness, I didn't let that concern stop my advocacy for Jake Beckley at 1B. So perhaps I will rethink Long. I'd have to see a little more though about how much he stood out in his time though.

Think Bid McPhee defensively. Offensively, there's a good separation between Long and Dahlen.

leecemark

09-21-2008, 09:27 AM

--Long was definately regarded as the best defensive SS of the early 90s. When the Beaneaters were winning 3 straight pennants from 1891-93 Long was their best defender and amoung their best hitters. Probably their best position player over the course of that run.
--By mid-decade Dahlen and possibly Jennings were giving him a run for best defensive SS - and were better hitters. Dahlen is better than Long, but he was an easy first ballot guy. Jennings was better at his peak, but didn't have nearly the staying power (Hughie is also on my ballot). I am pretty confident that Long was better than Glasscock, whom we have elected.

Windy City Fan

09-21-2008, 09:54 AM

I don't know if Long was a better fielder than Glasscock, but even if he was, Glasscock swung a much better bat - 112 OPS+ vs 94. I voted for Glasscock, but I'm having trouble pulling the trigger on Long.

jalbright

09-21-2008, 09:57 AM

Here's my and AG2004's thoughts on Long:

Herman Long

Herman is in the top 10 position players in Win Shares in the 1890's, and managed to achieve 22.91 win shares per 162 games(solid all-star level) for the 13.40 full seasons in his career. He was a heck of a glove man, and his black plus gray ink is well over what I'd want to see for a shortstop (he had 85, 50 is the cutoff I use).

I'll add this slightly edited (as I disagree with the expressions of the quality of several other early SS contained therein--I don't think that the edits seriously affect the fine points made) version of AG2004's usual fine work.

One of the fun things about doing these lists is that occasionally I come across someone who I hadn't thought of as a Hall of Famer, and hasn't appeared on any ballots for the BBFHOF, but appears worthy of induction into the BBFHOF once I go through everything. When producing my adjusted win shares totals for 19th-century shortstops, I made such a discovery: Herman Long.

.... Long had the misfortune to appear when there were three better players at the position: Davis, Dahlen, and Jennings. Worse yet, most of Long's career came when there was just one major league. ...

Long also had the bad fortune to come up against a glut of great defensive shortstops as well. Glasscock won four win shares gold gloves, but he was just an A- shortstop. Wallace, who won just two such titles, was an A+ shortstop. However, the 1890s also offered A+ shortstops in Bob Allen, Germany Smith, Bill Dahlen, and Hughie Jennings, and an A shortstop in Tommy Corcoran. That's a glut. Having one league made it twice as difficult to win a win shares gold glove.

...

When I finished the Keltner List for Long, however, I concluded that, with the possible exception of Rizzuto, Long was the best major league shortstop outside the BBFHOF. (Rizzuto is the possible exception because giving him credit for military service may move him ahead of Long.) Long was also a leader on one of baseball's dynasties and was still rated highly by sportswriters 40 years after his peak years ended. That's a very good sign that he ought to be a Hall of Famer.

Long's reputation suffers mainly because he played against Davis and Dahlen and Jennings in a one-league era; had he achieved the same record in eras that didn't produce so many deserving shortstops, it would be easier to see that, like Davis and Dahlen and Jennings, he deserves induction into the BBFHOF. ...

Case to Consider: LONG, Herman

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He led Boston’s position players in win shares in 1891. He was second among the team’s position players in 1893, but third in the majors.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He led major league shortstops in win shares in 1891 and 1893, and AA shortstops in 1889. He was second among NL shortstops, and hence among major league SS, in 1892.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

He had 29 raw win shares (32 per 154 scheduled games) in 1891, when Boston won the pennant by 3.5 games, so there was a lot of impact there. Long also had 26 win shares (30 per 154 games) in 1893, as the Beaneaters won by five games. Long was just barely at an All-Star level in 1897, when Boston won by two, but he was credited as a team leader. Thus, Long had an impact on several pennant winners.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Since he played in 138 games at 35 and 120 games at 36 (both in 140-game seasons), I would have to say yes.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

By similarity scores: John Ward, Pee Wee Reese, Bid McPhee, Bobby Lowe, Jack Glasscock, Tony Fernandez, Dick Bartell, Ed McKean, Bill Dahlen, and Garry Templeton. We have three members of Cooperstown, and three BBFHOF members (although Ward is in as a contributor).

Adjusted career win shares, 1800s shortstops: Jack Glasscock 308, LONG 289, Ed McKean 240, Hughie Jennings 238. Later shortstops include Rabbit Maranville 302, Luis Aparicio 293, Tony Fernandez 280, Bert Campaneris 280, Lou Boudreau 277, Joe Sewell 277, Dave Concepcion 269, Dave Bancroft 269. This is actually a little below the cutoff area; Maranville’s 302 is the second-highest raw total among shortstops outside the BBFHOF, and Barry Larkin’s 314 is the second-lowest raw total among shortstops in the BBFHOF.

Best three seasons, 1800s SS: Bill Dahlen 95, George Davis 84, Herman Long 90, Jack Glasscock 87. Moderns with similar totals include Ernie Banks 96, Lou Boudreau 96, Vern Stephens 93, Alan Trammell 90, Jim Fregosi 89, Maury Wills 87, Rico Petrocelli 87, Johnny Pesky 87, Pee Wee Reese 85, Joe Sewell 84, Dave Bancroft 84. Long is pretty much at the border here.

Best five consecutive seasons, 1800s SS: George Davis 140, Bill Dahlen 136, Herman Long 131, Frank Fennelly 116. Later shortstops with similar totals include Lou Boudreau 135, Jim Fregosi 135, Pee Wee Reese 134, Alan Trammell 132, Johnny Pesky 130, Vern Stephens 129, Eddie Joost 126, Joe Sewell 125, and Rico Petrocelli 125. Long is right at the border here as well.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Long has a score of 7 (304th place) on the Black Ink test and 78 (300th) on the Gray Ink test. Both are low for position players, but good for shortstops in Cooperstown, and Long played most of his career when there was just one major league. Long also has a HOF Standards score of 36.9 (173rd), which is a little low for position players in general, but then again, he was a shortstop. Long also picked up two win share gold gloves.

Long is in neither Cooperstown nor the Hall of Merit.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

According to the win shares system, Long was an A+ defensive shortstop, and that isn’t reflected in his offensive statistics. On the other hand, Long played in the high-offense 1890s, and the South End Grounds was one of the league’s top hitters’ parks, so that boosts his raw offensive numbers.

Long was also considered one of the Beaneaters’ on-field leaders as they won five pennants in eight years.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. Pearce, Cepeda, and Moore are better, in my opinion. However, one could make the case that Long is the best major league shortstop outside the BBFHOF.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Long had two seasons which come out to 30+ win shares per 152 scheduled games. That’s a little low for position players, but the only major league shortstop with multiple 30+ win share seasons who isn’t in the BBFHOF is Vern Stephens, and one of his came in 1944.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Long recorded seven seasons with 20+ win shares per 154 scheduled games; that’s a little low, as eight is the general borderline. However, Long also had two seasons which come out to 19 win shares, and the system may underrate a top defensive player a little; nine All-Star-type seasons would push Long above the borderline.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

At his peak, yes.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Long holds the major league record for most errors in a career. On the other hand, his 6.4 chances per game is also the record for most per game by a major league shortstop. The two records may be related; Long was involved in a lot of plays most shortstops were not good enough to reach, and the fielding equipment of the 1800s, combined with the fact that seasons were longer in his day than they were earlier, would put him at a disadvantage compared to fielders of similar ability in other eras when it came to the number of errors made in a career.

Also, in 1936 Hall of Fame voting, Long finished eighth in the nineteenth-century vote; he’s the only one in the top ten in that vote who isn’t in the BBFHOF. He finished ahead of, among others, Brouthers, Connor, Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, Burkett, Hamilton, Kelly, Nichols, Clarkson, and Rusie. As far as I know, the 1936 Veterans’ vote was the only such vote performed by the BBWAA.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

In general, yes.

CONCLUSION: As far as major league shortstops go, Herman Long is right at the current border between “in the BBFHOF” and “outside the BBFHOF.” The leadership he brought to one of baseball’s dynasties and the high regard writers still had about him 40 years after his peak ought to be enough to move him onto my queue.

On the other hand, he was the fourth-best shortstop of his era; among shortstops who came up between 1889 and 1891, Dahlen, Davis, and Jennings were all better. It isn’t that often that we have a glut of players at one position who arrive at around the same time and are all Hall of Famers. Kaline, Aaron, Robinson, and Clemente debuted in 1953-1956, but there aren’t many other gluts.

...Long’s major drawback is an accident of timing; had he appeared in the 1880s or 1920s or 1960s, he would have overshadowed his contemporaries instead of being overshadowed by them. That accident of timing isn’t a good reason to drop him. Long is worthy of the BBFHOF.

DoubleX

09-21-2008, 04:53 PM

How in the world is Jimmy Ryan under 60% now? Seriously, can just one person tell me why they distinguish him from Duffy and Van Haltren?

NineWorldSeries

09-21-2008, 05:51 PM

Not without using modern metrics (so excuse me for that, please):

Hugh Duffy:
HOF Standards: Batting - 54.2 (52) (Average HOFer ? 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 151.5 (79) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Van Haltren:
HOF Standards: Batting - 51.2 (68) Pitching - 6.0 (1194) (Average HOFer ? 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 108.0 (133) Pitching - 3.0 (1456) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Jimmy Ryan:
HOF Standards: Batting - 48.3 (82) (Average HOFer ? 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 82.5 (209) Pitching - 2.0 (1599) (Likely HOFer > 100)

BlueBlood

09-21-2008, 07:00 PM

Yep, it's hard without modern metrics but they can quickly tell the story.

Career Win Shares:

Van Haltren: 344
Ryan: 316
Kelley: 305

Win Shares Per 162:

Van Haltren: 28.08
Kelley: 26.82
Ryan: 25.44

Top 5 Consecutive Seasons:

Kelley: 136
Ryan: 129
Van Haltren: 121

Basically, Ryan is worth the least on a per-season basis which is what I use the most in such comparisons. His peak is slightly above Haltren but George has far more career value. Basically, he equals Van Haltren/Kelley in their weakest of the 3 categories, but is never first in either. Van Haltren has the per season average that puts him well ahead and in easy HOF territory while Kelley had a pretty good peak. Kelley's Win Share line is about identical with Edd Roush, for example.

Another interesting point is top seasons. Let's take away the top season from each player.

Career Win Shares:

Van Haltren: 314
Ryan: 282 (Ryan drops the most because he loses a 34 Win Share season)
Kelley: 274

Peak Five:

Kelley: 105
Ryan: 95 (Ryan drops from 7 behind Kelley to 10. He drops from 8 ahead of Van Haltren to 4)
Van Haltren: 91

And we can conjecture that the per season average of Ryan would be hurt the absolute most, really dragging him under. Basically, Kelley/Van Haltren's best seasons were pretty much in line with their second/third best....Ryan had a bit of a fluke year that helped elevate his stats lines by a bit more of an unusual amount. In other words, the overall peak of Kelley was better with Van Haltren not too far behind. Ryan's second and third best seasons both trail Van Haltren's second and third best seasons, for example.

DoubleX

09-21-2008, 07:10 PM

Not without using modern metrics (so excuse me for that, please)

Just to be clear, I have no problem with using modern metrics here, but I'm troubled when they become the be all and end all of trying to put a player from a 100+ years ago into context. Hall of Fame worthiness is about more than just statistics, and I feel that's completely lost here when we rely on nothing but say Win Shares. If we're just going to overly rely on one modern statistic, why even bother with this project? We might as well just acknowledge certain players based on Win Shares and be done with it.

And we can conjecture that the per season average of Ryan would be hurt the absolute most, really dragging him under. Basically, Kelley/Van Haltren's best seasons were pretty much in line with their second/third best....Ryan had a bit of a fluke year that helped elevate his stats lines by a bit more of an unusual amount. In other words, the overall peak of Kelley was better with Van Haltren not too far behind. Ryan's second and third best seasons both trail Van Haltren's second and third best seasons, for example.

Where does Duffy come in?

BlueBlood

09-21-2008, 08:18 PM

Career: 295
Peak: 144
Per Season: 27.51

Career value is a little under but his monstrous peak and per-season value made him the best of the lot in my eyes. A Hall of Fame should reward the best players and Duffy at his best was certainly better than, and well and above, Van Haltren/Ryan/Kelley. Frankly, they're all bunched together enough in career value that it's not even worth paying attention to. When you focus simply on peak and seasonal value, then Ryan clearly is the weakest of the lot and Duffy is the most qualified.

leecemark

09-21-2008, 08:53 PM

How in the world is Jimmy Ryan under 60% now? Seriously, can just one person tell me why they distinguish him from Duffy and Van Haltren?

--I didn't even vote for Van Haltren or Duffy, but their election clearly set the standard at a place where I felt I had to vote for Ryan this time. He is certainly in their class and maybe at the head of that class.

BlueBlood

09-22-2008, 05:10 AM

If the next ballot contains a vote for Willis or Joss, they move up to exactly 75%. We have another to the wire finish on our hands.

jjpm74

09-22-2008, 07:01 AM

If the next ballot contains a vote for Willis or Joss, they move up to exactly 75%. We have another to the wire finish on our hands.

On the flip side of that, Joe Kelley has slipped quite a bit from his early lead and is far from safe at this point.

DoubleX

09-22-2008, 08:24 AM

If the next ballot contains a vote for Willis or Joss, they move up to exactly 75%. We have another to the wire finish on our hands.

We should be good for at least one or two more votes. We have 23 now, and we often get 25, sometimes 26. AG2004 will likely vote near the end as usual and he did vote for both Kelley and Willis last time, but not Joss.

I'm disappointed that we continue to drop the ball on middle IFers. Admittedly, I'm late to this battle, but with Duffy and Van Haltren in, we really should be electing someone like Cupid Childs.

BlueBlood

09-22-2008, 08:57 AM

Childs will have a great chance if Joss, Willis & Kelley all get in. He'll have the highest remaining percentage around and the next election is his last. The lurkers might send him over the top.

AG2004

09-24-2008, 12:36 PM

I am surprised that there has not yet been a comment on the largest sports story of the past week. Several days ago, the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees for an unbelievable sum of $100,000. At the start of the decade, we thought that the entire Philadelphia infield was worth that much, hence its nickname, but here we have one player going for that value. In terms of cash, it is the biggest transaction in the history of base ball. It will also go down through the ages as the dumbest transaction in the game's history. It will be remembered a century from now as a huge blunder, and the New York Yankees have guaranteed that they will be known the biggest laughingstock and biggest losers in the game by the time this century is over. Boston has come off the big winner in this deal.

Critics of this position may say that Ruth's home run total of 29 this past season makes him a valuable commodity. True, it is the single-season record for home runs, and Ruth's home run record will last for decades. However, having learned that Ruth is a threat with the bat, pitchers will be more careful when throwing to him. I will be greatly surprised if he finishes within 14 home runs of this season's total over the course of the 1920 season.

Ruth also has problems with his swing. Sure, his batting average of .322 was good for eighth, which means that hitting for power does not necessarily prevent one from having a high average. However, we have seen plenty of players in the past who broke into the majors with one good season, only to return to normal once opposing pitchers figured them out. If he continues to uppercut after that, those flies will be caught by outfielders, and both his home run totals and averages will plummet. Ruth has had several great seasons, but they were as a pitcher. 1919 was the only year that he was an everyday player, and there is no guarantee that Ruth can continue to hit at that level.

Even worse, Ruth is a malcontent and a troublemaker who has, in the past, walked out on his team. For this, the Yankees are willing to pay $100,000? Why should ordinary players sacrifice their numbers for the good of the team when Ruth gets rewarded for focusing only on himself to the detriment of the club? Remember, the Yankees also have Carl Mays. With those two disrupting the team, the Yankees will no longer be able to play as a unit. Their third-place finish this year was New York's best since 1910. With the team being ripped apart, how can they be able to improve on that? Frazee called Ruth "one of the most selfish and inconsiderate athletes I have ever seen." He was right. The headache isn't worth it.

May I further add that Ruth believes alcohol enhances his performance -- it provides him with energy while relieving tension. I remind you that the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act were both passed earlier this year. Without his magic elixir, what would Ruth do? He would turn to organized crime to get it, and, following the news about Hal Chase, we cannot let that element gain more influence over the game. If the large quantities of alcohol don't destroy him, those eighteen-egg omelettes will. He's going to run himself out of the game in a few years.

With the $100,000 that they received from the Yankees for a few years of doubtful future service from this problem player who still doesn't know the best way to swing a bat, the Red Sox can purchase some fine young players to take his place. If they buy nine or ten players from the minors over the next two or three years, and only three of them succeed, the Red Sox will have more talent as a result when all has been said and done.

Boston has gained by getting rid of Ruth, and New York has made itself much worse off. The travesty is that the Yankees have generously handed over $100,000 to one of base ball's powerhouse clubs for the privilege of shooting themselves in the foot. It is a monumentally stupid deal, and the Yankees will be justly ridiculed for decades to come for what they agreed to.

AG2004

09-24-2008, 12:41 PM

My ballot

Frank Chance
Cupid Childs
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard
Roy Thomas
Vic Willis

Chance has a higher peak value than Thompson. With the credit he gets for managing the Cubs during his playing days, Chance ends up with more career value than Thompson. Since Chance is over the Thompson line, he's on my ballot.

jjpm74

09-24-2008, 01:15 PM

Chance has a higher peak value than Thompson. With the credit he gets for managing the Cubs during his playing days, Chance ends up with more career value than Thompson. Since Chance is over the Thompson line, he's on my ballot.

Something never directly answered by anyone (not directed at you AG just quoted you for context) Are we supposed to credit Chance for his managerial play? Yes or no? The answer to this question makes a big difference in terms of how Chance is perceived.

DoubleX

09-24-2008, 01:16 PM

I am surprised that there has not yet been a comment on the largest sports story of the past week.

It's a big story, but I'm still in shock that the White Sox lost the World Series to the Reds. The Sox are a juggernaut compared to the Reds, but they just didn't look quite like themselves in the World Series, particularly their star pitchers Cicotte and Williams. Perhaps they just ran out of gas?

jjpm74

09-24-2008, 01:21 PM

philkid3

09-24-2008, 01:24 PM

Speaking of Cicotte, there's little doubt we'll be voting for him some day, right?

His teammate, Jackson, as well, but he has so many years left.

Captain Cold Nose

09-24-2008, 01:25 PM

Can't say I care. I got a god tip to bet on the Reds and made over $100 on a $20 bet!

If God gave you the tip why'd you only bet $20.

The Reds has a much better record. Just because Chicago won the series two years ago doesn't make them a better team. I don't buy any of it.

jjpm74

09-24-2008, 01:27 PM

If God gave you the tip why'd you only bet $20.

The Reds has a much better record. Just because Chicago won the series two years ago doesn't make them a better team. I don't buy any of it.

That's all I had left out of my weekly wages. They've been hiring a lot of foreigners at the factory and I had to take a pay cut because of it!

AG2004

09-24-2008, 04:19 PM

It's a big story, but I'm still in shock that the White Sox lost the World Series to the Reds. The Sox are a juggernaut compared to the Reds, but they just didn't look quite like themselves in the World Series, particularly their star pitchers Cicotte and Williams. Perhaps they just ran out of gas?

Chicago just ran out of steam. Faber had to miss the World Series due to flu, and also sat out most of the final month of the season. The White Sox were left with three good starters. Of those, Cicotte led the AL in innings pitched, and Williams was third in IP. Cicotte could have handled the workload, but Williams had never come close to pitching 297 innings before. The White Sox finished the regular season 2-7, with both wins coming by just one run.

Cincinnati had a wonderful pitching staff. You had five solid starters, and Hod Eller's ERA of 2.39 (and ERA+ of 116) was the worst among the five. The other four starters had an ERA+ above 120. During the World Series, Dutch Reuther had the worst ERA on the Reds -- at 2.57.

The White Sox had two worn-out pitchers, and had to fill the gaps with Roy Wilkinson, who was inexperienced and outclassed, and Bill James, who had experience but was never any good. Cincinnati had the pitching, while Chicago didn't. I'm not surprised Cincinnati won.

The Reds has a much better record. Just because Chicago won the series two years ago doesn't make them a better team. I don't buy any of it.

Do you remember how Heinie Zimmerman batted .120 with no walks two years ago? Do you remember how he followed up his one triple by getting caught on an attempted steal of home with two out? Do you remember his key error in game five that helped Chicago break open a big lead in the eighth? Do you remember how he tried to chase down Eddie Collins at the plate in game six, running down the third base line with the baseball in his hand?

Did you see that Zimmerman was banned from baseball earlier this year for attempting to bribe teammates to throw games?

I think Chicago might have won that World Series because Zimmerman was trying to lose it. The 1917 Series will live in infamy as a crooked series. The removal of Hal Chase and Zimmerman from the sport resulted in a clean sport, and there haven't been any thrown games since their expulsion in September.

AG2004

09-24-2008, 04:30 PM

That's all I had left out of my weekly wages. They've been hiring a lot of foreigners at the factory and I had to take a pay cut because of it!

I was hoping it was something other than taking advice to buy Russian war bonds a few years ago.

After the victories by the Bolsheviks in October and November over Yudenich's Whites at Petrograd, the Volunteer Army at Orel, and the Cossacks at Voronezh, I'm beginning to think that money spent on those bonds might be a total loss.

jjpm74

09-24-2008, 04:56 PM

DoubleX

09-24-2008, 05:05 PM

I'm wondering what caused Joe Kelley's complete collapse in the voting and Addie Joss' major surge? Kelley looked like he had this election locked and was sitting pretty at nearly 90% support about half way in. Joss seems to have picked up quite a few supporters. Why? He's someone I'm planning to drop from my ballot since I've yet to hear any reason to keep voting for him and he was never the star guys like McGinnity and Young were.

Joss and Kelley came as close as one can get to being elected. I'm a little surprised by Joss' surge as well as there hasn't been much conversation about him lately. Kelley should undoubtedly be in, especially after lesser players Van Haltren and Duffy got in. I suspect Kelley could make it next year with another weak incoming class (Bresnahan is really the only player of note). After that though, we'll have a few really strong classes.

I don't get how Childs took such a big step back this year. Last year he was over 70%, but this year he finished under 60%. It definitely seems like we have much more lenient standards for OFers.

I also still don't get why Jimmy Ryan lags so far behind Hugh Duffy and George Van Haltren.

At least Vic Willis made it. He's really the last of my pet projects for now (though I can see a number later on using the Van Haltren/Duffy standard). I did start that thread on Lave Cross, but that had more to do with using him as an example as to why we shouldn't just rely on our 2008 statistic-aided perspective.

Paul Wendt

09-24-2008, 06:00 PM

Congratulations!

Speaking of, next year has a lot of clunkers (represented in red) that barely scrape the eligibility requirements and a lot of likely 1 and dones as well
. . .
Outside of Roger Bresnahan, I could see George Mullin pick up a couple of votes and maybe see a token vote thrown the way of Russ Ford and Hooks Wiltse.
Token votes are difficult to predict for most people who have no experience casting them. Believe me, Bill Bradley is a good bet.

Captain Cold Nose

09-25-2008, 06:39 AM

That's all I had left out of my weekly wages. They've been hiring a lot of foreigners at the factory and I had to take a pay cut because of it!

Very sorry. I know too well what that's like.

I'm trying to forget Zim. Oh how I rooted for him when he won the triple crown. I didn't want to think of any of it. But something like that is hardly a short operation. Would it be allowed to happen again? They couldn't let it, would they? Mr. Comiskey is too smart, he's been around forever in baseball.