BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1925

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes are essentially votes against. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot, with an exception for first-year eligible players, who will need at least 1 vote to appear on the next ballot.

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 Major League seasons . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 ABs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.


1925 Guide
There are 33 candidates on the 1925 ballot – 22 holdovers and 11 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1920 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (11)
Ray Chapman
Jack Coombs
Gavvy Cravath
Larry Doyle
Ray Fisher
Claude Hendrix
Buck Herzog
Benny Kauff
Lefty Leifield
Fred Luderus
George McBride

Holdovers (22)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Chief Bender 4th 44.83% 44.83% (1924)
Bill Bradley 6th 13.79% 16.13% (1921)
Roger Bresnahan 6th 72.41% 72.41% (1924)
Frank Chance 7th 48.28% 65.38% (1920)
Lave Cross 14th 24.14% 38.46% (1920)
Harry Davis 4th 6.90% 11.54% (1923)
Mike Donlin 7th 17.24% 25.93% (1919)
Clark Griffith 11th 44.83% 52.00% (1917)
Miller Huggins 5th 17.24% 17.24% (1924)
Hughie Jennings 12th 65.52% 69.23% (1923)
Fielder Jones 13th 13.79% 19.23% (1920)
Addie Joss 11th 62.07% 74.07% (1919)
Johnny Kling 8th 17.24% 26.92% (1920)
Tommy Leach 4th 41.38% 41.38% (1924)
John McGraw 15th 34.48% 47.83% (1912)
Ed Reulbach 4th 17.24% 17.24% (1924)
Jimmy Sheckard 8th 27.59% 42.31% (1920)
Roy Thomas 10th 13.79% 25.00% (1917)
Joe Tinker 5th 24.14% 24.14% (1924)
Terry Turner 2nd 3.45% 3.45% (1924)
Bobby Wallace 3rd 58.62% 61.54% (1923)
Hooks Wiltse 6th 6.90% 7.69% (1923)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (1)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Jeff Tesreau Lack of Support 2 3.85% (1923)

Last Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
John McGraw 47.83% (1912)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Lave Cross 38.46% (1920)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (4)
Player 1924 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Roger Bresnahan 72.41% 5
Hughie Jennings 65.52% 10
Addie Joss 62.07% 10
Bobby Wallace 58.62% 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
Addie Joss 74.07% (1919) 2
Roger Bresnahan 72.41% (1924) 1
Hardy Richardson* 69.57% (1912) 3 1915
Hughie Jennings 69.23% (1923) 1
Jimmy Ryan 67.86% (1922) 1 1922

* = Elected by Veterans Committee


HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (60)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased Age at Election
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1871-1897 27 Deceased (1852-1922) 50
Ross Barnes^ 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9 Deceased (1850-1915) 61
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20 Deceased (1867-1918) 50
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15 Living – Age 71 53
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Living – Age 67 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 49 45
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905) Deceased
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16 Living – Age 57 42
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911) 45
Cupid Childs 1920 76.92% 15 Second Base Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1888, 1890-1901 13 Deceased (1867-1912) Deceased
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21 Living – Age 57 45
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909) 40
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 55 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Living – Age 68 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 45 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 55 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 55 44
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903) Deceased
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 59 52
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906) 43
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 49 40
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902) Deceased
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Living – Age 68 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 68 52
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Living – Age 59 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 70 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 68 44
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19 Deceased (1872-1923) 44
Joe Kelley 1920 84.62% 8 Left Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1906, 1908 17 Living – Age 54 49
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16 Deceased (1857-1894) Deceased
Napoleon Lajoie 1921 96.77% 1 Second Base Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1896-1916 21 Living – Age 51 47
Sherry Magee 1924 86.21% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1904-1919 16 Living – Age 41 40
Christy Mathewson 1922 93.55% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1900-1916 17 Deceased (1880-1925) 41
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10 Living – Age 54 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 66 46
Cal McVey*^ 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Catcher/First Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879 9 Living – Age 76 71
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Living – Age 65 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 56 42
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23 Deceased (1850-1919) 51
Dickey Pearce*^ 1920 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) 1871-1877 7 Deceased (1836-1908) Deceased
Lip Pike*^ 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Baltimore Canaries (NA) 1871-1878, 1881, 1887 10 Deceased (1845-1893) Deceased
Eddie Plank 1922 92.86% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1901-1917 17 Living – Age 50 47
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11 Deceased (1854-1897) Deceased
Hardy Richardson* 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC Second Base/Left Field Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 70 65
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Living – Age 54 30
Al Spalding^ 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8 Deceased (1850-1915) Deceased
Joe Start*^ 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC First Base Providence Grays (NL) 1871-1886 16 Living - Age 83 78
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 69 51
Ezra Sutton* 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Third Base Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1871-1888 18 Deceased (1850-1907) Deceased
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15 Deceased (1860-1922) 47
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Living – Age 59 52
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Honus Wagner 1922 92.86% 1 Shortstop Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1897-1917 21 Living – Age 51 48
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 44 41
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Deceased (1860-1925) 47
Mickey Welch* 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1892 13 Living – Age 66 61
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 78 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 49 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 78 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 58 49

* = Elected by Veterans Committee
^ = Played Significantly Prior to 1871

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (4): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Cal McVey, Deacon White
First Base (5): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner, Joe Start
Second Base (5): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (2): Jimmy Collins, Ezra Sutton
Shortstop (7): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Dickey Pearce, John Ward, Honus Wagner, George Wright
Left Field (7): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (7): Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
Right Field (5): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (18): Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis, 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
1919 (1): Vic Willis
1920 (2): Cupid Childs, Joe Kelley
- 1920 VC (7): Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Mickey Welch
1921 (3): Mordecai Brown, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1922 (4): Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, Ed Walsh
1923 (0):
1924 (1): Sherry Magee


Players Elected by Primary Decade
1870s (9): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright
1880s (21): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Tony Mullane, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward, Mickey Welch
1890s (14): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Billy Hamilton, Joe Kelley, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (15): Mordecai Brown, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell , Honus Wagner, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (1): Sherry Magee

Players Elected by Primary Organization
Baltimore Canaries (NA) (1): Lip Pike
Baltimore Orioles (NL) (2): Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley
Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters) (NL) (5): John Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Kid Nichols, Ezra Sutton, Vic Willis
Boston Red Sox (fka Americans) (AL) (2): Jimmy Collins, Cy Young
Boston Red Stockings (NA) (4): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright
Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) (1): Dickey Pearce
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (5): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Bill Dahlen, George Gore, King Kelly
Chicago White Sox (AL) (1): Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (2): Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (2): Elmer Flick, Napoleon Lajoie
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Detroit Tigers (AL) (1): Sam Crawford
Detroit Wolverines (NL) (1): Charlie Bennett
Louisville Colonels (NL, AA) (1): Pete Browning
New York Giants (NL) (11): Roger Connor, George Davis, Buck Ewing, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jim O’Rourke, Amos Rusie, George Van Haltren, John Ward, Mickey Welch
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (2): Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell
Philadelphia Athletics (AA) (1): Harry Stovey
Philadelphia Phillies (NL) (4): Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Sherry Magee, Sam Thompson
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) (3): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke, Honus Wagner
Providence Grays (NL) (3): Paul Hines, Charley Radbourn, Joe Start
St. Louis Cardinals (fka Browns) (NL, AA) (1): Bob Caruthers


Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 28
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 17
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.19%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years: 5
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.87 Years
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 7
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Addie Joss – 74.07% (1919)
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923)
- Average Regular Election Electees Per Year: 2.21
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 31 (1921)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 25.04
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 11
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters), Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) - 5
- Electee with Longest Post-1871 Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Post-1871 Career: Dickey Pearce – 8 Seasons
- Average Post-1871 Career Length of Electees: 15.58 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.51
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 11
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 40
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Joe Start – Age 83
- Deceased in Past Year: Christy Mathewson, John Ward

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
1919: 27
1920: 26
1921: 31
1922: 28
1923: 25
1924: 29

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)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)

[jjpm74]

Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Lave Cross
Larry Doyle
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Johnny Kling
Tommy Leach
Bobby Wallace

[jalbright]

Doyle
Leach
Wallace

[henrich]

bender
cross
coombs
reulbauch

[dgarza]

Chief Bender
Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Larry Doyle
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
John McGraw
Joe Tinker
Bobby Wallace


1. Larry Doyle
2. Addie Joss
3. Gavvy Cravath
4. Chief Bender
5. Mike Donlin
6. John McGraw
7. Hugh Jennings
8. Bobby Wallace
9. Roger Bresnahan
10. Joe Tinker
11. Frank Chance

[DoubleX]

People have made the case for Roger Bresnahan, which IMO is strong, but no one has really commented on why Bresnahan doesn't cut it. I'd really like to hear it because I'm surprised that Bresnahan has lingered this long.

[BlueBlood]

1. Bender, P
2. Bresnahan, C
3. Doyle, 2B
4. Jennings, SS
5. Joss, P
6. Wallace, SS

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Twelve (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Eleven (1915 onward) - Addie Joss
Six (1920 onward) - Roger Bresnahan
Four (1922 onward) - Chief Bender
Three (1923) - Bobby Wallace
One (1925) - Larry Doyle

[jalbright]

People have made the case for Roger Bresnahan, which IMO is strong, but no one has really commented on why Bresnahan doesn't cut it. I'd really like to hear it because I'm surprised that Bresnahan has lingered this long.

My issue with Bresnahan is that his career is short. His 5374 PA are less than the number of AB of all but two HOF catchers, Campanella and Cochrane. Campy lost playing time due to the color line and his paralyzing accident, and Cochrane has 5169 AB, very nearly Bresnahan's PA--and Cochrane has 800+ career walks. With all that, Bresnahan is close, but it's hard for me to pull the trigger for a guy with a career that short, especially since he wasn't exclusively a catcher.

[DoubleX]

My issue with Bresnahan is that his career is short. His 5374 PA are less than the number of AB of all but two HOF catchers, Campanella and Cochrane. Campy lost playing time due to the color line and his paralyzing accident, and Cochrane has 5169 AB, very nearly Bresnahan's PA--and Cochrane has 800+ career walks. With all that, Bresnahan is close, but it's hard for me to pull the trigger for a guy with a career that short, especially since he wasn't exclusively a catcher.

That's really not putting Bresnahan in the context of his time. We're supposed to be looking at this as if it's 1925 right now, Cochrane is just a rookie and Campanella is 4 years old.

I have no problem with using what we know of modern statistics to help assist in our evaluations, but I've said many times, I want us to be looking at the players in the context of their time and not holding them to a standard that has yet to manifest. I have a hard time imagining that a voter in 1925 would not have been impressed with Bresnahan's career and contributions to catchign (and I'm positive a voter in 1925 would not be comparing Bresnahan to players that are young children at the time or have yet to be born).

So in the context of 1925, what is the beef against Bresnahan? What catcher has been better since say 1890?

EDIT: I know it's difficult to recreate the perspective of the time, but what we can certainly do is compare the players to the history of the game up to that point and not factor in players that would come later. If we're going to compare players in 1925 to players in 1995, then I don't see much of a point in this project, going by year would just be a way to distribute players.

[dgarza]

So in the context of 1925, what is the beef against Bresnahan? What catcher has been better since say 1890?

Bresnahan didn't play alot of games as C, but, then again, catchers did not play as often as they would in the future. While sometimes a catcher would play 100 games as catcher a year, something around 80-90 games a year as catcher was more the norm.

Bresnahan gets help in longevity by playing OF and other positions (some of his best years were as an OF).
But if we just look at the years he was primarily a C, Bresnahan was probably still the best C from 1890-1920. I will say that while Chief Meyers was a step below Bresnahan, he really was pretty comparable just looking at both players' catching-only careers.

[DoubleX]

But if we just look at the years he was primarily a C, Bresnahan was probably still the best C from 1890-1920. I will say that while Chief Meyers was a step below Bresnahan, he really was pretty comparable just looking at both players' catching-only careers.

Perhaps, the two did catch a similar amount of games, but Bresnahan is clearly ahead in career value. Meyers had a 117 OPS+ in 3200 PAs, while Bresnahan had a 126 in nearly 5400 PAs. I also believe Bresnahan deserves some boost from popularizing modern catcher equipment, thereby helping all catchers increase their durability and production. Bresnahan is the image of the modern catcher.

[dgarza]

Perhaps, the two did catch a similar amount of games, but Bresnahan is clearly ahead in career value. Meyers had a 117 OPS+ in 3200 PAs, while Bresnahan had a 126 in nearly 5400 PAs. Over the total course of both careers there is more distance. But they are closer just as catchers; Bresnahan's catching career value is really not that far ahead of Meyers's.

Does anybody know what Bresnahan's OPS+ would be if you took away 1897 & 1902-1904? Obviously not 126. Probably still in the 120s.

[jalbright]

1) I have never bought into this premise of look at it from 1925, and won't now. I have expressly stated my intent and it has been deemed acceptable. If that has changed, I will, as indicated earlier, cease to participate. I assume that isn't the case until or unless expressly told otherwise. With that in mind, I answered the question.

2) Even accounting for how much catchers caught in Bresnahan's day, I still think it's a short career. This afternoon, I'll try to dig up info on how Bresnahan rates in that regard against his (non-HOF) peers.

[PVNICK]

Bender
Bresnahan
Chance
Cross
Doyle
Joss
Kling
Sheckard
Wallace

I was very close to voting for the Ray Chapman, who was perhaps the best SS in the game or at least in the AL since about 1917. However, if him then why not Jennings or someone else whose career was cut short. Joss had more than four years and so ultimately fell on the other side of the line.

Cravath's dominance lies a lot in the HR which is largely a home field effect and so I can't see voting him in.

McBride must have been a fantastic fielder to be a regular for so long even in the less analytical times that he played in. His range factor is consistently above the league average and if I recall was often best in the league.

Larry Doyle is the only newcomer on my ballot this time around.

[DoubleX]

1) I have never bought into this premise of look at it from 1925, and won't now. I have expressly stated my intent and it has been deemed acceptable. If that has changed, I will, as indicated earlier, cease to participate. I assume that isn't the case until or unless expressly told otherwise. With that in mind, I answered the question.

Jim, when we discussed this before, I had thought you meant you wouldn't abandon what you know of modern statistical analysis. That's certainly fine, but I have remained consistent from the onset that the object of this is to do our best to look at players in the context of their own time and the history of the game to that point. So if we're using win shares, for example, we're comparing players to this point in history on win shares and not considering what future players have done. In 1925, for example, we would know nothing of Roy Campanella and very little of Mickey Cochrane, so comparing a player in 1925 to them isn't within the premise of this project. I think most people have been following this as best they can.

This is a tough situation. I don't want you to leave this project, but doing our best to keep players in a historical context is at the very root of this project.

2) Even accounting for how much catchers caught in Bresnahan's day, I still think it's a short career. This afternoon, I'll try to dig up info on how Bresnahan rates in that regard against his (non-HOF) peers.

I'd be interested to see what you find. I have to agree that his career was probably a little short, even for a catcher, but for me it's easily made up by his high level of production and those innovations popularized (though people will understandably differ in how much credit to give him for that).

[leecemark]

--I have no problem with using modern tools to look at these players. I do think that we need to compare them to their contemporaries and those who preceded them in deciding their worthiness though. We now have 25 years of voting history to establish a standard for tho Hall. That standard should take priority over the standards that have developed in Cooperstown voting. I see Bresnahan as the 4th best catcher in the 55 years of MLB history. That is good enough for me.

[leecemark]

--I seem to be running a larger ballot than most at this point.

Roger Bresnahan, C - best catcher of the 20th century - or at least the part of it we've seen so far
Ray Chapman, SS - this will probably be the only year I vote for him, but he was on a HoF path before his untimely death and deserves better than one and done
Frank Chance, 1B - best 1B of the deadball era and player-maanger of its best team
Larry Doyle, 2B - best NL player of the 1910s
Clark Griffith, SP - best pitcher on the ballot with lots of extra credit
Hughie Jennings, SS - best SS peak of the 19th centurym with the possible exception of George Wright
Tommy Leach, 3B/CF - 2nd best player of great Pirates teams. Strong bat and exceptional glove at 2 key defensive psoitions
Bobby Wallace, SS - very good SS for a very long time

[PVNICK]

I had this issue with Johnny Kling in 1918. I bolded (or hope I did) jjpm74's info and response.

jjpm74
Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,232

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

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

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


Code:
Player Games Caught

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

[jjpm74]

--I seem to be running a larger ballot than most at this point.


About half of the posted ballots list around 10 players.

[leecemark]

--I guess my is just large compared to those who have bother to post as well as vote. Mike (XX) isn't getting the lists he is asking for from many voters. Nor the discussion he/we would like to see from others. Is it time to consider going to written ballots over the poll?

[DoubleX]

--I guess my is just large compared to those who have bother to post as well as vote. Mike (XX) isn't getting the lists he is asking for from many voters. Nor the discussion he/we would like to see from others. Is it time to consider going to written ballots over the poll?

It's a fair question, but I'm going to stick with the poll for now, for threes reasons: 1) It would take some extra time on my part to tally the ballots; 2) I fear written ballots could cause the electorate to shrink too much; 3) We've had some bumps, but I think the process here is working pretty well. Our Hall is a little generous, but we can be tough and have proven we can build cases for candidates. All told, I'm fairly happy with how this has been working out thus far. In the real process, I'm sure there are obstinate voters that you can't really reach out to or reason with, and here we can look at some of the hit and run voting like that. At the very least, the hit and run voters we do get seem to consistently come back year after year, so I would hope by now they are familiar with the process, the standards, and some of the discussion.

[jjpm74]

Here's a list of every catcher who's appeared on a ballot to this point and their games caught:

Deacon McGuire 1611
Wilbert Robinson 1316
Chief Zimmer 1239
Malachi Kittridge 1196
Red Dooin 1195
George Gibson 1194
Jack Clements 1073
Johnny Kling 1168
Bill Sullivan 1122
John Warner 1032
Duke Farrell 1003
Roger Bresnahan 974
Heinie Peitz 960
Charlie Bennett 954
Chief Meyers 911*
Pop Snyder 877
Jack O'Connor 860
Ed McFarland 830
Frank Bowerman 826
Boileryard Clarke 739
Silver Flint 743
Jimmy Archer 736
Pop Schriver 654
Buck Ewing 636
Doggie Miller 636
John Grim 578
King Kelly 573
Farmer Vaughn 553
Jack Boyle 544
Mike Grady 525
John Clapp 472
Deacon White 458
Fred Carroll 377
Jack Rowe 298
Cal McVey 183

* Did not appear on a ballot because he didn't his the minimum number of ABs.


Players in bold are either in our HOF or currently have some support. While Bresnahan's carrer is not on the long side, it's also not on the short side when looking at who we've seen play to this point in history.

[jjpm74]

Some other points that can help make or break Bresnahan's case:

--How much credit he is given for introducing shin guards to MLB.

--How much credit he is given for his 5 years of managerial work as a player-manager

--How many years he was the best player on his team

--Where he stacks up in win shares as compared to other catchers from the list above

[DoubleX]

Players in bold are either in our HOF or currently have some support. While Bresnahan's carrer is not on the long side, it's also not on the short side when looking at who we've seen play to this point in history.

Thanks for that list. I've been pretty flexible in including catchers and Chief Meyers is really the only one of note that I left off the ballot (due to not making any of the eligibility minimums), so that list should be a good list of the best catchers of the past 55 years.

Not only is Bresnahan not that far from the top, but his level of production far exceeds just about everyone else on the list. Most catchers struggle to come close to a 100 OPS+ for a season, much less a career, and Bresnahan had 126 for his career. So it would appear in the context of his time, Bresnahan's career length at catcher was not only pretty typical, but pretty good, and his production is really what sets him apart.

Also, in addition to shin guards, I thought he also had a role in shaping the catcher's mask?

[jjpm74]

I just plugged Meyers in for the sake of completion.

[DoubleX]

To step outside time context for a moment, Even today, with modern equipment, conditioning, and medicine, catchers still take a beating. Their hands are often all mangled from several little injuries, their knees are in bad shape, and they have to deal with foul balls off the mask and collisions. It's a tough position. So imagine just how beat up a catcher must have been back then with much inferior protection and much worse conditioning and medicine. Imagine a catcher taking a foul ball off the mask back then (if they even had a mask)? Plus, with the game being played more aggressively in general back then, with an emphasis on manufacturing runs, I imagine there were also a lot more collisions at the plate. So it's not surprising that catchers had shorter and generally less productive careers back then. As such, it is very much to Bresnahan's credit, IMO, that not only did he have a pretty good length career for a catcher, but that he was extremely productive, plus the equipment innovations he popularized to help catchers mitigate the intense rigors they faced as catchers.

[philkid3]

Bill Bradley
Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Miller Huggins
Hughie Jennings
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker
Bobby Wallace


Larry Doyle is pretty close to my ballot. With more thought on it and some discussion I could put him on.

Gavvy Cravath was not nearly as close as I thought he'd be. I'm still keeping him on my "maybes" list, but he's probably never getting a vote from me.

[Cowtipper]

Bender
Bresnahan
Cravath
Cross
Donlin
Doyle
Griffith
Joss
Reulbach
Wallace

Cravath needs a lot more support. He had a 151 career OPS+, and perhaps more impressively his black ink was 46. That means that he led the league in a lot of things, a lot of the time. Considering his career was only 11 years long, that is even more impressive.

He was THE power hitter of his era, the pre-Babe Ruth Babe Ruth as well, leading the league in home runs six times.

His OWP is .758, 20th best all-time. In fact, his OWP is better than guys like Harry Heilmann, Ed Delahanty and Nap Lajoie.

[philkid3]

AG2004 did a very good Keltner break down of Cravath that goes a long way towards arguing against him in the Hall of Fame.

Couple that with a 62.6-28.9-43.8 career WARP line with only one season better than 8.6 and three seasosn below 6, and he's got quite the steep hill to climb for me.

[jjpm74]

Win shares by year Roger Bresnahan:

1897--3
1900--0
1901--6
1902--12
1903--27
1904--23
1905--19
1906--29
1907--18
1908--27
1909--8
1910--13
1911--14
1912--6
1913--5
1914--14
1915--7

231 total

Roger Bresnahan accumulated 169 of his win shares in the 1900s. That is tops for all catchers in the decade.

Here's a link to AG2004's excellent Keltner of Bresnahan. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=937249&postcount=41)

Emphasizing this part in particular:

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

He led all major league catchers in win shares in 1905, 1906, and 1908, and was second (by one win share) only to Johnny Kling in 1907. He was the best major league catcher in his decade. Also, he was among the top three NL outfielders in win shares in 1903.

Baseball Magazine started naming its All-American teams in 1908. Bresnahan made the teams in 1908 and 1911, and made the all-National League team in 1909.

Bresnahan and Kling were the premiere catchers of their generation.

OPS+ all catchers who have appeared on a ballot here to date with a career OPS+ of 100 or better:

Cal McVey 152
King Kelly 138
Fred Carroll 135
Buck Ewing 129
Deacon White 127
Roger Bresnahan 126
Mike Grady 125
Charlie Bennett 118
Chief Meyers 117
Jack Clements 117
John Clapp 117
Jack Rowe 115
Ed McFarland 103
Deacon McGuire 101
Johnny Kling 100

*Important to note here that everyone on this list with a higher OPS+ than
Bresnahan played far fewer games as a catcher.

Offensively, Bresnahan is among the best of all catchers to date including many who fielded other positions.

[jalbright]

Bender
Cravath needs a lot more support. He had a 151 career OPS+, and perhaps more impressively his black ink was 46. That means that he led the league in a lot of things, a lot of the time. Considering his career was only 11 years long, that is even more impressive.

He was THE power hitter of his era, the pre-Babe Ruth Babe Ruth as well, leading the league in home runs six times.

His OWP is .758, 20th best all-time. In fact, his OWP is better than guys like Harry Heilmann, Ed Delahanty and Nap Lajoie.

If he hadn't derived so much help from the Baker Bowl and/or succeeded in a park that wasn't known as an offensive haven (the Minneapolis Millers being the other), I might be able to overlook the brevity of his career. But he didn't, and I can't.

[jalbright]

Look, I think Bresnahan is really close, but I just can't pull the trigger on this one, at least not without loss shares. That might well do the trick, but it's not here yet. To 1925, Bresnahan caught the 22d most games, behind the following:

Ray Schalk
Deacon McGuire
Steve O'Neill
Wilbert Robinson
Chief Zimmer
Malachi Kittredge
Ivy Wingo
Red Dooin
George Gibson
Hank Severeid
Johnny Kling
Frank Snyder
Billy Sullivan
Oscar Stanage
Jack Clements
Wally Schang
John Warner
Bill Killefer
Duke Farrell
Eddie Ainsmith
Lou Criger

And, despite playing in an even more difficult period to catch, only 20 games behind is Charlie Bennett.

His offensive production pushes him toward the top of this crowd, and, were he all catcher, he'd be in there. But two of his four big seasons, 1903 and 1904, he caught 11 and 0 games respectively. Had he caught a lot those years, I'd be sold. But he didn't. And if he's not a catcher, he's not close. It's hard to put a CF/C in perspective, and I won't fault anyone for voting for him, but I'm not yet willing to vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he's a tough case.

[jjpm74]

Look, I think Bresnahan is really close, but I just can't pull the trigger on this one, at least not without loss shares. That might well do the trick, but it's not here yet. To 1925, Bresnahan caught the 22d most games, behind the following:

Ray Schalk
Deacon McGuire
Steve O'Neill
Wilbert Robinson
Chief Zimmer
Malachi Kittredge
Ivy Wingo
Red Dooin
George Gibson
Hank Severeid
Johnny Kling
Frank Snyder
Billy Sullivan
Oscar Stanage
Jack Clements
Wally Schang
John Warner
Bill Killefer
Duke Farrell
Eddie Ainsmith
Lou Criger

And, despite playing in an even more difficult period to catch, only 20 games behind is Charlie Bennett.

His offensive production pushes him toward the top of this crowd, and, were he all catcher, he'd be in there. But two of his four big seasons, 1903 and 1904, he caught 11 and 0 games respectively. Had he caught a lot those years, I'd be sold. But he didn't. And if he's not a catcher, he's not close. It's hard to put a CF/C in perspective, and I won't fault anyone for voting for him, but I'm not yet willing to vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he's a tough case.

I can see why you're reluctant to pull the trigger even from a 1925 perspective using this line of reasoning. Thanks for applying an honest approach that focuses on the era. This is the kind of debate/discussion that makes a project like this enjoyable and I think what DoubleX envisioned when he started this project. :thumbsup:

[dgarza]

Interesting note about Cravath (and this may be a record) :
In 1919, he led his league in HRs, yet he only played 60% of his team's games.
Perhaps he was even a bench player???
Has any player ever led the league in HRs while playing such a low percentage of games?

[DoubleX]

His offensive production pushes him toward the top of this crowd, and, were he all catcher, he'd be in there. But two of his four big seasons, 1903 and 1904, he caught 11 and 0 games respectively. Had he caught a lot those years, I'd be sold. But he didn't. And if he's not a catcher, he's not close. It's hard to put a CF/C in perspective, and I won't fault anyone for voting for him, but I'm not yet willing to vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he's a tough case.

I feel like you're putting a lot of emphasis in the time he didn't play catcher. He caught 71% of the games he played, which is a very larger percentage, so it's not like he spent a ton of time at other positions. I don't think the fact that he played 29% of his games at other positions overrides the fact that he did catch about as much as anyone else in his day and was vastly more productive than the average catcher.

[jjpm74]

I feel like you're putting a lot of emphasis in the time he didn't play catcher. He caught 71% of the games he played, which is a very larger percentage, so it's not like he spent a ton of time at other positions. I don't think the fact that he played 29% of his games at other positions overrides the fact that he did catch about as much as anyone else in his day and was vastly more productive than the average catcher.

True, but his 1903 and 1904 years were the most productive of his 6 year peak and both were spent primarily in the outfield. They were also his best years as a speedster. This isn't enough to discount him, IMO but I can see where anyone on the fence about him would count these years against him.

The one certainty about Bresnahan is that once he took over as a catcher, his productivity declined rapidly.

I disagree that if we were looking at him as an outfielder that he wouldn't stack up. Keep him in the outfield and we could have easily ended up with a Hamilton type player. The fact that he took over catching duties, and was very offensively productive when he did so should not be held against him, IMO.

[DoubleX]

This isn't enough to discount him, IMO but I can see where anyone on the fence about him would count these years against him.

In line with your third paragraph (which I did not quote), it doesn't make sense to "discount" seasons where he had a 162 and 140 OPS+ while playing mostly CF. Granted, it's not catcher, but seasons like that should count in favor of a player regardless of position.

I also don't think his productivity really declined once he moved to catcher on a near full time basis in 1905. After 162 and 140 OPS+ seasons playing CF (1903 and 1904), his next four seasons while playing mostly catcher were 132, 140, 129, and 138. I don't think that's a dropoff at all really given the switch to catcher and the much greater physical demands on the position, and to keep up a similar offensive level at catcher greatly increased his value.

[jalbright]

I feel like you're putting a lot of emphasis in the time he didn't play catcher. He caught 71% of the games he played, which is a very larger percentage, so it's not like he spent a ton of time at other positions. I don't think the fact that he played 29% of his games at other positions overrides the fact that he did catch about as much as anyone else in his day and was vastly more productive than the average catcher.

But the point is, at least for me, his lack of longevity can only be excused if he's viewed solely as a catcher--and he wasn't. Shouldn't someone who's 30% other positions be more durable? Remember what I said about my view of his candidacy--it's close despite all that. I'm simply not sold on his case and will vote accordingly.

[DoubleX]

But the point is, at least for me, his lack of longevity can only be excused if he's viewed solely as a catcher--and he wasn't. Shouldn't someone who's 30% other positions be more durable? Remember what I said about my view of his candidacy--it's close despite all that. I'm simply not sold on his case and will vote accordingly.

I suppose, but on the other hand, his play at other positions came almost entirely before his play at catcher. So it's not like he went to other positions after or during catching to extend his career. All told, he caught more games than a typical catcher during his career and was much more productive than a typical catcher. And when he did play at other positions, notably CF, he was productive at a Hall of Fame level there as well. I just don't understand holding that extra bit of great play against him.

Here's what he has to me:

1) More games than a typical catcher of his generation

2) Much, much greater production than a typical catcher of his generation

3) Extra games at other positions, notably CF, where he produced at a HoF level.

[jalbright]

I'm not holding it against him. The only way he has enough positives to make it for me right now is solely as a catcher. That would be how I'd get beyond the brevity of his career. But he wasn't purely a catcher, and indeed some of the most productive years he had were as a CF. It's a pain to deal with combination guys (Torre will be another one when we're dealing with him solely as a player), but when I combine them, I just come up with Bresnahan short. Sorry. Maybe when we get loss shares, I'll change my mind, maybe not. I'm not even campaigning against the guy--I'm merely explaining my reluctance to vote for him. It's only a persistent and as yet unsuccessful attempt to change my mind that might make it seem otherwise.

[jjpm74]

I'm not holding it against him. The only way he has enough positives to make it for me right now is solely as a catcher. That would be how I'd get beyond the brevity of his career. But he wasn't purely a catcher, and indeed some of the most productive years he had were as a CF. It's a pain to deal with combination guys (Torre will be another one when we're dealing with him solely as a player), but when I combine them, I just come up with Bresnahan short. Sorry. Maybe when we get loss shares, I'll change my mind, maybe not. I'm not even campaigning against the guy--I'm merely explaining my reluctance to vote for him. It's only a persistent and as yet unsuccessful attempt to change my mind that might make it seem otherwise.

You keep referring to his career as brief, but on the previous page I think I clearly illustrated that as a catcher his career was not brief at all, especially when specifically focusing on catchers in his own era. That chart lists games played as a catcher. There are 11 people who caught more games than him and 23 people who caught less games than him.

By including currently active catchers in your consideration set, you're not taking into consideration the fact that they are using modern equipment whereas in Bresnahan's time, equipment was still rudimentary and in its infancy. We credit the 19th century catchers for the brevity of their careers by citing the lack of equipment and platooning aspect of the position. Why are we using modern (1925 era) catchers as an excuse to punish Bresnahan for playing in an era where catchers still lacked suitable equipment and for health and safety issues didn't play their entire careers as catchers?

Bresnahan also played CF, not RF or 1B when he wasn't catching. CF is a defensive position.

[DoubleX]

I'm not holding it against him. The only way he has enough positives to make it for me right now is solely as a catcher. That would be how I'd get beyond the brevity of his career. But he wasn't purely a catcher, and indeed some of the most productive years he had were as a CF. It's a pain to deal with combination guys (Torre will be another one when we're dealing with him solely as a player), but when I combine them, I just come up with Bresnahan short. Sorry. Maybe when we get loss shares, I'll change my mind, maybe not. I'm not even campaigning against the guy--I'm merely explaining my reluctance to vote for him. It's only a persistent and as yet unsuccessful attempt to change my mind that might make it seem otherwise.

Jim, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm starting to believe that you're not reading (or didn't see) any of the counter arguments people have posted here, because as others pointed out, Bresnahan's career as just a catcher was not at all brief by the standards of the day and the vast majority of his games were spent at catcher (unlike Torre, whom you mentioned).

As others have pointed out, Bresnahan's career length as a catcher was actually above average for his time, and thus his great years in CF should be seen as gravy, IMO. I also don't think Bresnahan is much of a combination guy because he did spend 71% of his games at catcher, whereas Torre, whom you mentioned, spent just 41% of his game as catcher; or the great Buck Ewing who caught just 47% of his games. Yes, two of Bresnahan's better years came while in CF, but he also had four similarly productive years at catcher, proving that he could maintain a high level of production despite the heavy rigors of the position.

So again you have:

1) Above average career length at catcher; PLUS

2) Amazing and unequaled production at catcher (for his day), which even if his catching career was brief (though it wasn't, as others have pointed out), should easily make up for the detriment; PLUS

3) A couple of Hall of Fame caliber years in CF; PLUS

4) Popularizing equipment innovations for catchers that quickly became standard and greatly improved the durability and productivity of catchers.

As an added point, his ability to play other positions should be to his credit. Due to the intense rigors of playing catcher at the time, it was hard for catchers to play regularly over an extended period, thus Bresnahan's ability to play CF and 3B allowed him to stay in the lineup and be productive whereas most other catchers would have sat (and probably wouldn't have had the offensive abilities to merit being in the lineup like Bresnahan).

You keep referring to his career as brief, but on the previous page I think I clearly illustrated that as a catcher his career was not brief at all, especially when specifically focusing on catchers in his own era. That chart lists games played as a catcher. There are 11 people who caught more games than him and 23 people who caught less games than him.

It should be stressed that the list of catchers only comprises those who have appeared on the ballot up this time (plus Chief Myers), so it doesn't not include the dozens of catchers that didn't even make the eligibility requirements or whose production was too scant. So between 1871 and the present (1925), 54 years of history, Bresnahan is 11th all time in games caught. Even considering that some earlier players would have moved ahead with longer schedules, it seems pretty clear that Bresnahan's career at catcher was not brief at all but was actually relatively long by the standards of the day. Throw in the fact that no catcher, except Buck Ewing (who did not catch as much as Bresnahan and caught less than 50% of his games (remember, Bresnahan is at 71%)), even approach Bresnahan's level of offensive production, and he seems to have a very strong argument to me before even getting to his two great years in CF and his equipment contributions.

[jalbright]

He could only make it for me if he was exclusively a catcher. If he was, I'd vote for him. He wasn't 30% of the time, and that's enough to keep him from getting my vote. Period. Nothing that has been said changes that for me. Sorry. You asked why he wasn't getting more support, and now you're turning this into pushing me to vote another way, and I've discussed in detail and provided reasonable answers, only to get hounded some more. I guess I shouldn't have responded. I can tell you this, keeping this up is no way to persuade me to change my vote.

[DoubleX]

He could only make it for me if he was exclusively a catcher. If he was, I'd vote for him. He wasn't 30% of the time, and that's enough to keep him from getting my vote. Period. Nothing that has been said changes that for me. Sorry. You asked why he wasn't getting more support, and now you're turning this into pushing me to vote another way, and I've discussed in detail and provided reasonable answers, only to get hounded some more. I guess I shouldn't have responded. I can tell you this, keeping this up is no way to persuade me to change my vote.

So the fact that he played more games at catcher than the vast majority of catchers in 54 years, and did so at a much higher level of production, doesn't mean anything?

I assume you voted for Buck Ewing, well he played just 47% of his games at catcher, and offensively really wasn't anything that Bresnahan wasn't, so why would he get your vote but not Bresnahan?

Jim, I'm sorry if you feel you're being pushed here, but to be honest, your "reasonable answers" seem to circumvent the logical arguments that others have made which directly address your concerns. If trying to make points that directly address your concerns is "no way to persuade" you, how exactly should one attempt to persuade you? I just feel like there is some kind of disconnect here, something perhaps I'm not following in your position.

EDIT: Even if we don't convince you Jim, I am hopeful that this conversation will help to shed some light on Bresnahan for others.

[leecemark]

--I am voting for Bresnahan, but see Jim's point. Having some of his best seasons - in fact his best offensive seasons - while playing the outfield rather than catcher do detract from his case. He would not be a Hall of Famer as an outfielder (at least not with the same numbers - its reasonable to argye they would have been better without the grind of catching).
--I don't think my view of Bresnanhan is really much different than Jim's except that I see him as just over the line and Jim sees him just below. That is true as far as the real Hall goes anyway - Bresnahan is the lowest rated catcher that I endorse. From a 1925 perspective and based on the standards we've adopted in this project he is a little further over the line IMO.

[Paul Wendt]

Interesting note about Cravath (and this may be a record) :
In 1919, he led his league in HRs, yet he only played 60% of his team's games.
Perhaps he was even a bench player???
player-manager, 1919-1920
He wasn't young, and the legs go first.
But Frank Chance and Roger Bresnahan became player-managers during prime athletic years and they sat out many games.

[jalbright]

So the fact that he played more games at catcher than the vast majority of catchers in 54 years, and did so at a much higher level of production, doesn't mean anything?

I assume you voted for Buck Ewing, well he played just 47% of his games at catcher, and offensively really wasn't anything that Bresnahan wasn't, so why would he get your vote but not Bresnahan?

Jim, I'm sorry if you feel you're being pushed here, but to be honest, your "reasonable answers" seem to circumvent the logical arguments that others have made which directly address your concerns. If trying to make points that directly address your concerns is "no way to persuade" you, how exactly should one attempt to persuade you? I just feel like there is some kind of disconnect here, something perhaps I'm not following in your position.

EDIT: Even if we don't convince you Jim, I am hopeful that this conversation will help to shed some light on Bresnahan for others.


I would appreciate your stopping repeating the same arguments. I've already heard them and are simply unconvinced. Repetition does not equal persuasion. I never said your arguments were illogical, but I think I deserve the same courtesy, and I'm not getting the sense it's reciprocated. Thank you.

[DoubleX]

--I am voting for Bresnahan, but see Jim's point. Having some of his best seasons - in fact his best offensive seasons - while playing the outfield rather than catcher do detract from his case. He would not be a Hall of Famer as an outfielder (at least not with the same numbers - its reasonable to argye they would have been better without the grind of catching).

From a position neutral standpoint, he had his best offensive season while playing CF. However, from a value standpoint, I think there is a strong argument to make that his 1905-1908 seasons, where he averaged a 135 OPS+ while playing catcher, were each more valuable than his 1903-1904 seasons in CF, particularly given the typically very low offensive output at catcher during those seasons.

I would appreciate your stopping repeating the same arguments. I've already heard them and are simply unconvinced. Repetition does not equal persuasion. I never said your arguments were illogical, but I think I deserve the same courtesy, and I'm not getting the sense it's reciprocated. Thank you.

Jim, I'm repeating the same arguments because when people factually show that Bresnahan is 11th in all time games caught during a 54 year window and you continually assert that his career was too brief at catcher, it really makes me wonder whether you've read the arguments. In that vein, I felt like I wasn't getting a courtesy from you. But I'll leave it at that and will speak no more of this to you.

I have never bought into this premise of look at it from 1925, and won't now. I have expressly stated my intent and it has been deemed acceptable. If that has changed, I will, as indicated earlier, cease to participate. I assume that isn't the case until or unless expressly told otherwise. With that in mind, I answered the question.

As a sidenote, was this ever cleared up? I don't think you responded to my explanation of the aims of the project earlier in this thread, so I can't tell if you're still going by a 2008 perspective or if you're ok with the context approach. As I said before, it would be very unfortunate if you chose to leave the project over this (and very much hope you don't), but I think the aim has been pretty clear from the onset. I think Mark summed the approach up best earlier in this thread:

I have no problem with using modern tools to look at these players. I do think that we need to compare them to their contemporaries and those who preceded them in deciding their worthiness though. We now have 25 years of voting history to establish a standard for tho Hall. That standard should take priority over the standards that have developed in Cooperstown voting.

[jalbright]

I tried to accomodate your desire for a 1925 centered discussion, and it hasn't persuaded you. I can appreciate that. That doesn't mean I have to change my mind, though.

I already made the adjustment for Bresnahan's career length. I'm aware of the issue--see this post (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=368720&postcount=135). The bottom line is, as Mark indicated, we draw the line in different places, but I in no way think my position is irrational. In overall history, even making the adjustments I did make which recognize the greater difficulty for catchers to have long careers in Bresnahan's day, I see his career as short. I don't think that's a crazy point of view, either. I'll concede it's rational to see it another way. That doesn't mean I have to change my mind.

[DoubleX]

I tried to accomodate your desire for a 1925 centered discussion, and it hasn't persuaded you. I can appreciate that. That doesn't mean I have to change my mind, though.

I already made the adjustment for Bresnahan's career length. I'm aware of the issue--see this post (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=368720&postcount=135). The bottom line is, as Mark indicated, we draw the line in different places, but I in no way think my position is irrational. In overall history, even making the adjustments I did make which recognize the greater difficulty for catchers to have long careers in Bresnahan's day, I see his career as short. I don't think that's a crazy point of view, either. I'll concede it's rational to see it another way. That doesn't mean I have to change my mind.

Fair enough, I was just explaining why I was repeating my argument, and I very much appreciate that you were looking at it from a 1925 perspective. I didn't meant to tie the Bresnahan discussion into the perspective question, though I can see how one could naturally assume that. I just wanted to clear that logistical issue up. Though, incidentally, I feel better about your position on Bresnahan knowing that you tried to put it into a 1925 context (rather than comparing him to Cochrane and Campanella).

I'll stop posting on this now, but will be happy to discuss Bresnahan with anyone else (it would also be nice to get some Bobby Wallace discussion going).

[DoubleX]

This is who I have for next year:

Ping Bodie
Ray Caldwell
Charlie Deal - Probably won't be on ballot
Bill Killefer
Ed Konetchy
Duffy Lewis
Dots Miller
Dode Paskert
Pol Perritt - Probably won't be on ballot
Slim Sallee
Jim Shaw - Probably won't be on ballot
Lefty Tyler
Hippo Vaughn
Ossie Vitt - Probably won't be on ballot
Kaiser Wilhelm - Probably won't be on ballot
Art Wilson - Probably won't be on ballot

Pretty slim pickings. Hippo Vaughn and Ed Konetchy are really the only players even worth thinking about, IMO.

[BlueBlood]

Those two both have solid cases although they definitely seem under our standards. Certainly, don't bother with any of the names you're not sure on...a smaller ballot means people's attention will be drawn to the names we're trying to get over the hurdle since 1926 is yet another catch-up year.

[KCGHOST]

Bresnahan
Doyle
Griffith
Joss
McGraw
Wallace

[jjpm74]

This is who I have for next year:

Ping Bodie
Ray Caldwell
Charlie Deal - Probably won't be on ballot
Bill Killefer
Ed Konetchy
Duffy Lewis
Dots Miller
Dode Paskert
Pol Perritt - Probably won't be on ballot
Slim Sallee
Jim Shaw - Probably won't be on ballot
Lefty Tyler
Hippo Vaughn
Ossie Vitt - Probably won't be on ballot
Kaiser Wilhelm - Probably won't be on ballot
Art Wilson - Probably won't be on ballot

Pretty slim pickings. Hippo Vaughn and Ed Konetchy are really the only players even worth thinking about, IMO.

Also Johnny Evers by way of the age rule.

Ossie Vitt's defensive ability should warrant inclusion on the ballot.

I would definitely eliminate Bill Killefer. He caught 1005 games but barely managed 3100 ABs and his offensive ability was abysmal. We excluded the Chief. We may as well exclude Killefer as well.

This is my suggestion for the ballot:

Ping Bodie
Ray Caldwell
Johnny Evers
Ed Konetchy
Duffy Lewis
Dots Miller
Dode Paskert
Slim Sallee
Lefty Tyler
Hippo Vaughn
Ossie Vitt

I could see myself voting for Evers and Vaughn and maybe throwing a token vote the way of Kontechy and Lewis.

[BlueBlood]

It's all about Doyle, Jennings & Joss next year. They're the three remaining viable candidates (after we induct Wallace & Bresnahan this round) and all could be knocked over the top with a persuasive argument or two at the start of the 1926 election thread.

[DoubleX]

It's all about Doyle, Jennings & Joss next year. They're the three remaining viable candidates (after we induct Wallace & Bresnahan this round) and all could be knocked over the top with a persuasive argument or two at the start of the 1926 election thread.

I'm not that confident yet that Bresnahan or Wallace will be elected. I'm hopeful at least one will, I'm also hopeful that if it's not Bresnahan, the discussion about him this year will get him a few extra votes next year.

[Freakshow]

Magee was elected. Taking his place is newbie Cravath.

Bresnahan
Chance
Cravath
L. Cross
Griffith
Jennings
F. Jones
Joss
Kling
Leach
McGraw
Sheckard
Thomas
Tinker
Wallace

[DoubleX]

Voter turnout is down, so I'm bumping this up with a few hours left.

[leecemark]

--Bresnahan makes it if he can avoid having a no voter step forward in the next few hours. Next closest is Bobby Wallace, but he needs 3 yes and zero no votes. Maybe next "year" Bobby:dance.
--Addie Joss has the next most support, but his support has ebbed and he probably will run out the clock and move to the VC (where I also won't support him). Larry Doyle debuted at near 60% which bodes well for his eventual chances for election.

[DoubleX]

--Addie Joss has the next most support, but his support has ebbed and he probably will run out the clock and move to the VC (where I also won't support him). Larry Doyle debuted at near 60% which bodes well for his eventual chances for election.

I don't quite understand what happened to Joss. One year he finished with over 74% support. You can't get any closer than that. It's as if we suddenly became much more discerning a couple of years back.

[Paul Wendt]

It's possible that I will vote for Johnny Kling again, or for Larry Doyle sometime. Not this year.

Bill Bradley
Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Gavy Cravath
Lave Cross
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Benny Kauff
Tommy Leach
John McGraw
Jimmy Sheckard
Roy Thomas
Joe Tinker
Bobby Wallace


Benny Kauff?
born four years after the Ty Cobb of the American League; died four months after

Kauff earned the nickname on the field in 1914 and he was a great player for several seasons thereafter. He accomplished more than Tip O'Neill or Mike Donlin and he was easily good enough to win a place in the Hall of Fame if his were merely a short career in that class, like Elmer Flick's.

Of course his mlb career was not merely short, in this context, it was so short that he would be a serious candidate only if he were the Ty Cobb of the National League, or if it were certain that he was a babe mistreated by Landis and other powers. I don't know the facts about the alleged fencing, nor am I an expert who is short on facts. I know only that he was not guilty in court and blacklisted in baseball. And that he lived the fast life.

I trust that his place on the 1926 ballot will not make it too difficult for voters to focus on stronger candidates.


Roy Thomas needs my vote to remain on the ballot.
Wow.

[Paul Wendt]

About half of the posted ballots list around 10 players.
Here on my virtual desktop I have the 1924 tally in my "XXballot" table.

Last year we cast
196 votes for 22 players who returned to the ballot this year.
. . .
+25 votes for Sherry Magee, elected
+ 0 votes for "holdovers dropped from the ballot", Jeff Tesreau alone
----
221 votes for 23 players who earned a vote, 28 nominees in all

There were 29 ballots cast including none blank.

=> 7.6 votes per ballot
7.9 votes per nominee
9.6 votes per nominee with at least one vote

[AG2004]

My ballot

Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Larry Doyle
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Bobby Wallace

With Jimmy Ryan out of the hall, and the Thompson-Griffin area being an iffy situation for outfielders, it's a little hard for me to have Roy Thomas on my ballot now.

Cravath? Baseball magazine named him to just two of its all-NL teams, which gives you some idea of how some experts considered him while he was active. In both 1914 and 1918, he led the National League in home runs without hitting a single home run outside the city of Philadelphia. Cravath was certainly a good player, but he needed Nicollet Park and the Baker Bowl to make him great. If the Red Sox had kept him in 1908, or if they had been successful in their efforts to get him back (from the Millers) after the 1909 season, Cravath would most likely not have hit so many home runs. He was a solid player who just got lucky when he ended up with the Phillies.

[BlueBlood]

Bres can miss one ballot from a new voter. Wallace now only needs one more person to vote for him and he's in.

[jjpm74]

Congrats to both Bresnahan and Wallace for getting elected. It'll be interesting how next year pans out.

I see a few who could definitely benefit from some discussion and/or clarification:

Chief Bender
Frank Chance
Gavvy Cravath
Lave Cross
Larry Doyle
Johnny Evers
Miller Huggins
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

There are four within the above group who had a significant impact off the field as well as on the field that helps catapult them over the top if considering these achievements:

Frank Chance--Frank Chance as a player was the best player on the best team in baseball. In addition, he also managed the team while playing. This role as manager and leader should definitely be taken into consideration when looking at Chance's case.

Clark Griffith--In addition to being an outstanding pitcher, Griffith was also a player-manager for much of his career and put together an impressive 20 year career as a manager, compiling almost 3000 wins before moving into the position of team president. Griffith continues to be a big presence in baseball now as an executive.

Miller Huggins--As a player, he may have been the best at his position. As a manager, he's finished 1st 3 times already and with the young talent he has, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were to win many more.

Hughie Jennings--As a player, Jennings was possibly the best in baseball at his position. As a manager over a 16 year span, including 4 years as a player-manager, Jennings just won 4 league titles which puts him in very elite company.

Our hall is one where we look at the whole player. Why not extend this approach to these five candidates, all of whom deserve a place there when looking at their full picture?