BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1927 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1927

DoubleX

11-13-2008, 04:06 PM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: 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 carry great weight. 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.

1927 Guide
There are 25 candidates on the 1927 ballot – 21 holdovers and 4 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1922 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (4)
Frank Baker
Art Fletcher
Clyde Milan
Joe Wood

Holdovers (21)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Chief Bender 6th 52.00% 52.00% (1926)
Bill Bradley 8th 12.00% 16.13% (1921)
Ray Caldwell 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1926)
Frank Chance 9th 68.00% 68.00% (1926)
Gavvy Cravath 3rd 32.00% 37.50% (1925)
Mike Donlin 9th 12.00% 25.93% (1919)
Johnny Evers 2nd 40.00% 40.00% (1926)
Clark Griffith 13th 52.00% 62.50% (1925)
Miller Huggins 7th 20.00% 20.83% (1925)
Hughie Jennings 14th 72.00% 72.00% (1926)
Fielder Jones 15th 8.00% 19.23% (1920)
Addie Joss 13th 64.00% 74.07% (1919)
Johnny Kling 10th 24.00% 26.92% (1920)
Ed Konetchy 2nd 12.00% 12.00% (1926)
Tommy Leach 6th 44.00% 44.00% (1926)
Ed Reulbach 6th 12.00% 17.24% (1924)
Jimmy Sheckard 10th 28.00% 42.31% (1920)
Roy Thomas 12th 8.00% 25.00% (1917)
Joe Tinker 7th 24.00% 25.00% (1925)
Hippo Vaughn 2nd 16.00% 16.00% (1926)
Ossie Vitt 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1926)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (7)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Ray Chapman Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1925)
Jack Coombs Lack of Support 2 12.50% (1925)
Lave Cross Eligibility Expired 15 40.00% (1926)
Ray Fisher Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1925)
Claude Hendrix Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1925)
Buck Herzog Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1925)
Benny Kauff Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1925)

Last Year of Eligibility (1)

Player High Support
Fielder Jones 19.23% (1920)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Hughie Jennings 72.00% (1926)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (5)
Player 1925 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Hughie Jennings 72.00% 12
Frank Chance 68.00% 7
Addie Joss 64.00% 12
Chief Bender 52.00% 1
Clark Griffith 52.00% 4

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
Hughie Jennings 72.00% (1926) 3
Hardy Richardson* 69.57% (1912) 3 1915
Frank Chance 68.00% (1926) 1
Jimmy Ryan 67.86% (1922) 1 1922

* = Elected by Veterans Committee

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (64)
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 Deceased (1854-1927) 53
Roger Bresnahan 1925 79.17% 6 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1897, 1900-1915 17 Living - Age 48 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Living – Age 69 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 51 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 59 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 59 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 57 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Living – Age 70 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 47 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 57 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 57 44
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903) Deceased
Larry Doyle 1926 76.00% 2 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1907-1920 14 Living - Age 41 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 61 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 51 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 70 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 70 52
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Living – Age 61 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 72 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 70 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 56 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 53 47
Herman Long* 1925 (VC) 75.00% VC Shortstop Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1889-1904 16 Deceased (1866-1909) Deceased
Sherry Magee 1924 86.21% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1904-1919 16 Living – Age 43 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 56 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 68 46
Cal McVey*^ 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Catcher/First Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879 9 Deceased (1849-1926) 71
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Living – Age 67 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 58 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 Deceased (1875-1926) 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 72 65
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Living – Age 56 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 Deceased (1842-1927) 78
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 71 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 61 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 53 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 54 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 46 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 68 61
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 80 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 51 43

George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 80 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 60 49

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

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (5): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Buck Ewing, Cal McVey, Deacon White
First Base (5): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner, Joe Start
Second Base (6): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Larry Doyle, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (2): Jimmy Collins, Ezra Sutton
Shortstop (9): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, John Ward, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, 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
1925 (2): Roger Bresnahan, Bobby Wallace
- 1925 VC (1): Herman Long
1926 (1): Larry Doyle

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 (15): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Billy Hamilton, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (17): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell , Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (2): Larry Doyle, 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) (6): John Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Herman Long, 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) (13): Roger Bresnahan, Roger Connor, George Davis, Larry Doyle, 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 Browns (AL) (1): Bobby Wallace
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: 83.79%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 5
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.86 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 15
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 8
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 4
- 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: 2.15
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 31 (1921)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 25
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 13
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters) - 6
- 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: 15.76 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.37
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 12
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 39
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 80
- Deceased in Past Year: Charlie Bennett, George Wright

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
1925: 24
1926: 25

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
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)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84636)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)

jjpm74

11-13-2008, 04:30 PM

Frank Baker--No Brainer
Chief Bender--Excellent pitcher
Frank Chance--Player-Manager
Hughie Jennings--Incredible peak
Addie Joss--Great peak
Johnny Kling--Best catcher of the era next to Bresnahan
Tommy Leach--Incredible defensively, great offensively
Hippo Vaughn--Excellent Peak
Joe Wood--Excellent Peak

Not much else worth repeating again except that Baker is a no brainer; Chance is very much over the line and his managerial career significantly overlapped with his playing career; Leach is being extremely undervalued by about 1/3rd of our voters; and hopefully enough people can rally behind Jennings.

henrich

11-13-2008, 05:48 PM

Baker
Bender
Reulbach

These are the three I voted for. I looked at Jennings real close, but I couldn't pull the trigger. He did have good numbers for a short time, but not long enough for me. Sorry, but do know that I re-examined-just came to the same conclusion.

leecemark

11-13-2008, 06:10 PM

--You cast a 3 man ballot and one of them is Ruelbach? Hard to see how he stands out so much from the pack. I doubt he draws much support from anyone else.

jalbright

11-13-2008, 06:13 PM

Baker
Leach

leecemark

11-13-2008, 06:14 PM

Frank Baker, 3B - should be unanimous
Frank Chance 1B - player-mananger package makes him an easy yes for me
Clark Griffith, SP - best pitcher on the ballot with plenty of extra credit
Hughie Jennings, SS - great peak, but admitted short career
Tommy Leach, 3B/CF - great defender and very good bat

STLCards2

11-13-2008, 06:14 PM

Here are my selections:

Baker
Griffith
Jennings
Joss
Cravath
Chance

leecemark

11-13-2008, 06:23 PM

jjpm74

11-13-2008, 07:25 PM

==Zemtech, could you perhaps comment on your ballot and why you think Frank Baker unworthy. This project calls for everyone to post their ballot. You are not the only one not to do so, but yours is interesting enough that I'm sure we'd all enjoy sharing your thought process.

1st name on the ballot? Maybe he just missed him or didn't realize Frank Baker = Home Run Baker

I actually missed Chief Bender on the ballot a few times because of that.

Speaking of which, why are Chief Bender and Hippo Vaughn referred to by their nicknames, but Smoky Joe Wood and Home Run Baker referred to by their real names on the ballot?

BlueBlood

11-13-2008, 07:29 PM

1. Baker, 3B
2. Bender, P
3. Jennings, SS
4. Joss, P

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Fourteen (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
Thirteen (1915 onward) - Addie Joss
Six (1922 onward) - Chief Bender
One (1927) - Frank Baker

philkid3

11-13-2008, 07:49 PM

Frank Baker
Bill Bradley
Frank Chance
Hughie Jennings
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker

philkid3

11-13-2008, 07:52 PM

I actually think Art Fletcher has an argument and could be persuaded to vote for him, but then he hasn't even gotten a vote yet, so that probably won't happen.

I'll have some arguments up for Hughie Jennings later.

dgarza

11-13-2008, 08:07 PM

Frank Baker
Chief Bender
Frank Chance
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Johnny Evers
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
Joe Tinker

1. Frank Baker
2. Addie Joss
3. Gavvy Cravath
4. Chief Bender
5. Mike Donlin
6. Hugh Jennings
7. Johnny Evers
8. Joe Tinker
9. Frank Chance

Paul Wendt

11-13-2008, 08:52 PM

1st name on the ballot? Maybe he just missed him or didn't realize Frank Baker = Home Run Baker

I actually missed Chief Bender on the ballot a few times because of that.

Speaking of which, why are Chief Bender and Hippo Vaughn referred to by their nicknames, but Smoky Joe Wood and Home Run Baker referred to by their real names on the ballot?

I can't speak for his purpose but in these four examples Mike XX is following the implied recommendation of the SABR Biographical Research Committee by using the baseball names in its biographical database.

"Chief Bender" and "Hippo Vaughn" are baseball names or use names (yoose names) in the SABR biographical database. That implies a recommendation to writers and editors for general purposes and it is one that many encyclopedias follow in their primary listings for ballplayers --many including the Pete Palmers (Total Baseball, eds 1 to 7, and The Baseball Encyclopedia after 2003), Retrosheet, and Baseball-Reference. "Babe Ruth" may be the most famous name in baseball and it is one baseball name similar in kind to this pair.

In contrast "Home Run" (Baker) and "Smoky Joe" (Wood) are mere nicknames --nicknames that are not part of the players' baseball names. Indeed, "Frank Baker" is the baseball name of John Franklin Baker. "Joe" is a given name or Wood's given name is unknown, for that distinction one should write to the chair of the Biog Res Cmte (see "Research" at sabr.org). "The Sultan of Swat" (Ruth) and "Lefty" (Carlton) are two mere nicknames of which only Lefty is similar in kind to this pair; it may be paired with the surname in ordinary English where Sultan of Swat stands alone as a nickname for Ruth.

In the last couple days I have provided some more information about this in contributions to "Nicknames, R.I.P." (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84791) in the History forum.

Paul Wendt

11-13-2008, 09:05 PM

I actually think Art Fletcher has an argument and could be persuaded to vote for him, but then he hasn't even gotten a vote yet, so that probably won't happen.
Art Fletcher is one of Pete Palmer's discoveries, one of the relatively unknown players whose status soared within the sabrmetric party after publication of linear weights ratings in The Hidden Game of Baseball and Total Baseball (called "Total Baseball Rating" or TPR and TPI for non-pitchers and pitchers).

Note, I am not saying Art Fletcher is or was George Davis. They ranked #152 and #19 in the first Total Baseball (TB1, 1989). That's a big difference but I doubt that anyone here needs to be told that Art Fletcher even at #152 was a ranking that made some people say "who?". And it made some people look up Art Fletcher and adopt him. some readers put TPR "in fashion" in a small way pretty quickly.

henrich

11-13-2008, 09:45 PM

--You cast a 3 man ballot and one of them is Ruelbach? Hard to see how he stands out so much from the pack. I doubt he draws much support from anyone else.

I'm trying real hard to keep things in context of the age. Reulbach is a notch ahead of McCormick. I voted for McCormick so I feel obliged to vote for Reulbach. If I were voting today, I would say he's a borderline candidate outside looking in, but in this era, he's in the upper echelon for me. 9572 is pretty close. McCormick was in the 9200's. That gives me about 20 pitchers that I would vote yes on from the beginning. I don't think that's excessive. He beats Joss by 1500 points-his career just didn't last long enough.

Brooklyn

11-13-2008, 09:59 PM

Baker and Joss

philkid3

11-14-2008, 02:13 AM

I want to flesh out more of an argument, but I'm not up to it at the moment.

Anyway, here are some career WARP lines and how Hughie Jennings compares to some shortstops we've inducted. I think his best and his per-game performances are just too good to leave out. He sticks around for 3 more less than mediocre seasons and he hits Herman Long in career totals, and considering his managerial accomplishments, I don't want to keep him out for that.

Career Wins Above Replacement

Honus Wagner: 252.5
Bill Dahlen: 173.2
George Davis: 169.3
Bobby Wallace: 157.5
Jack Glasscock: 133.3
Monte Ward: 122.0
Herman Long: 112.8
Hughie Jennings: 93.0

Best Three WARP Seasons

Honus Wagner: 54.4
Hughie Jennings: 45.4
George Davis: 41.4
Bobby Wallace: 39.5
Jack Glascock: 35.3
Bill Dahlen: 35.1
Herman Long: 32.6
Monte Ward: 32.6

Five Year Peak WARP

Honus Wagner: 86.8
Hughie Jennings: 68.8
Bobby Wallace: 59.9
George Davis: 55.9
Bill Dahlen: 54.8
Jack Glasscock: 50.2
Herman Long: 45.9
Monte Ward: 42.2

Games Per Win

Honus Wagner: 11.1
Jack Glasscock: 13.0
Hughie Jennings: 13.8
George Davis: 14.0
Bill Dahlen: 14.1
Monte Ward: 15.0
Bobby Wallace: 15.1
Herman Long: 16.6

Games Played

Honus Wagner: 2,792
Bill Dahlen: 2,443
Bobby Wallace: 2,383
George Davis: 2,368
Herman Long: 1,874
Monte Ward: 1,825
Jack Glasscock: 1,736
Hughie Jennings: 1,285

Pennants Won While Player-Managing

Hughie Jennings: 3
Honus Wagner: 0
Bill Dahlen: 0
Bobby Wallace: 0
George Davis: 0
Herman Long: 0
Monte Ward: 0
Jack Glasscock: 0

PVNICK

11-14-2008, 05:35 AM

Baker
Bender
Chance
Kling
Leach
Sheckard

I somehow skimmed over Joss and forgot to vote for him, if that is correctable. Otherwise same players. Baker may well be the greatest 3B of all time or give Jimmy Collins a run for his money.

DoubleX

11-14-2008, 06:42 AM

I'm trying real hard to keep things in context of the age. Reulbach is a notch ahead of McCormick. I voted for McCormick so I feel obliged to vote for Reulbach. If I were voting today, I would say he's a borderline candidate outside looking in, but in this era, he's in the upper echelon for me. 9572 is pretty close. McCormick was in the 9200's. That gives me about 20 pitchers that I would vote yes on from the beginning. I don't think that's excessive. He beats Joss by 1500 points-his career just didn't last long enough.

Why Reulbach and not Joss? Reulbach pitched just 300 more innings, despite not dying like Joss did, and those 300 innings do not make up for Joss' 19 point lead in ERA+. Moreoever, Reulbach, was much less of a workhorse than Joss, and that's saying something considering one of the biggest reservations about Joss is his lack of innings. Nonetheless, Joss twice finished in the top 5 in IP, Reulback never finished higher than 9th. Reulbach averaged 256 IP per 162 while Joss averaged 290.

Paul Wendt

11-14-2008, 07:54 AM

Pennants Won While Player-Managing

Hughie Jennings: 3
Honus Wagner: 0
Bill Dahlen: 0
Bobby Wallace: 0
George Davis: 0
Herman Long: 0
Monte Ward: 0
Jack Glasscock: 0

Hugh Jennings played two incomplete seasons with the Phillies in 1901 and 1902 when he was a student and baseball coach at Cornell. He played 82 and 78 games of 140 scheduled. He was no longer able to work as a "throwing infielder": only 2 and 9 games, or 6 games fielding SS and 5 fielding 2B. That was essentially the end of his mlb playing career. In 1903 he played six games for Brooklyn under his old manager Ned Hanlon.

During 1907-1909 when you give him credit for three pennants as player-manager he played in three games total, one fielding 2B and SS in 1907 and two fielding 1B in 1909. Eight plate appearances, total.
(He achieved three base hits including one double, scored one run and batted in two. That makes me doubt his abilities as manager. He should have used Jennings as a pinch-batter at least several times more, right? Well maybe not. Maybe he had some "insight" that Jennings was overmatched and lucky.)

KCGHOST

11-14-2008, 09:55 AM

Baker
Griffith
Jennings
Joss

Cowtipper

11-14-2008, 10:11 AM

Frank Baker
Chief Bender
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Ed Reulbach
Joe Wood

Freakshow

11-14-2008, 12:45 PM

Doyle was elected. Cross exired. Taking their places are newbies Baker and Wood.

Baker
Chance
Cravath
Evers
Griffith
Huggins
Jennings
F. Jones
Joss
Kling
Leach
Sheckard
Thomas
Tinker
Wood

DoubleX

11-14-2008, 01:08 PM

I'm surprised that Clyde Milan hasn't received any support yet. Fielder Jones has lasted 15 years, and I believe Milan is very similar and arguable better.

PVNICK

11-14-2008, 01:42 PM

Wow. Milan was one of the top leadoff men in the AL for the better part of a decade, usually finishing in the top ten in the league in runs, SB and hits. He also played day in and day out at CF during that time. The numbers on defensive are inconclusive, if anyone had info as to his glove it would help. He finished as high as 4th in, I guess, the Chalmers Award voting so even given the differerces in voting rules back then he must have been held in some esteem. He's certainly someone who merits at least a look rather than a one and out.

philkid3

11-14-2008, 03:44 PM

I'm a little bothered by the prospect of Fletcher perhaps falling off the ballot. I should have voted for him.

henrich

11-14-2008, 04:10 PM

Why Reulbach and not Joss? Reulbach pitched just 300 more innings, despite not dying like Joss did, and those 300 innings do not make up for Joss' 19 point lead in ERA+. Moreoever, Reulbach, was much less of a workhorse than Joss, and that's saying something considering one of the biggest reservations about Joss is his lack of innings. Nonetheless, Joss twice finished in the top 5 in IP, Reulback never finished higher than 9th. Reulbach averaged 256 IP per 162 while Joss averaged 290.

Joss didn't pitch 10 years as that's a requirement for the Hall of Fame I have a hard time getting over that.

I hear your point though. The difference for me is in championships won and played in. Reulbach won two world series championships and played in two others. Joss has zero post season experience by my records.

Reulbach also beats him in wins 182 to 159, K's 1137 to 926.
Joss beats Reulbach in Shutouts 45-40. Another point in Joss' favor is that Reulbach averaged 6.59 innings per start while Joss was 8.13 (writing your point in a different way) However Reulbach also got more saves (prior to it being a statistic 13 to 6 which is hardly significant) Joss also had a better peak, but Reulbach wasn't far behind him.

For my system with all involved that puts Reulbach at 9500 and Joss at 8100.

Freakshow

11-14-2008, 04:11 PM

Neither Fletcher not Milan received much support a year ago in the Round 1 poll in The Ultimate Quest for Candidates: Round 1 – The 1910’s (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69987). Each was named on but one of the 28 ballots cast. Hall of Very Good candidates, nothing more.

DoubleX

11-14-2008, 04:43 PM

Joss didn't pitch 10 years as that's a requirement for the Hall of Fame I have a hard time getting over that.

That's not a requirement for our Hall of Fame though - 1500 IP is the threshold for us, and we've already elected a number of players who have played less than 10 years. For all intents and purposes, we are operating as if we are THE Hall of Fame and Cooperstown does not exist. We go by our standards, as we set them, and within the time context that they're set, and we should do our best not to be guided by Cooperstown or our 2008 standards. EDIT: For the record, our Hall of Fame is in Hoboken, NJ :)

Plus, IMO it would be unfair to hold the 10 year requirement against Joss because the only reason he did not reach it is because he died. That's pretty drastic and not a normal circumstance. I think an exception is warranted.

I hear your point though. The difference for me is in championships won and played in. Reulbach won two world series championships and played in two others. Joss has zero post season experience by my records.

That's a team product though. Reulbach pitched on those great, dynastic Cubs teams with stars at virtually every position, and in many years, he arguably wasn't any better than the 3rd or 4th or even 5th starter on his own team. For example, take the four years he played in the WS (1906-1908 and 1910): In 1906, he was no better than the 3rd starter, behind Mordecai Brown and Jack Pfiester, and the team also had star pitchers Jack Taylor and Orval Overall. In 1907, he was no better than the 5th starter, behind Brown, Overall, Pfiester, and Carl Lundgren. Reulbach failed to accumulate even 200 IP that year. In 1908, he was again at best only the 3rd starter, behind Brown and Overall, and pretty close to Pfiester. In 1910, he was no better than 5th on the team with a measley 92 ERA+ in just 173 IP.

Joss never had anything close to that kind of talent, and Joss, unlike Reulbach, had to be the ace of his team most years. In 6 of his 9 seasons, Joss led the team in ERA+ and 4 times in IP. Reulbach, on the other hand, only once led his team in ERA+ (he couldn't even do it while pitching in the Federal League) and just once in IP, despite more chances than Joss due to not dying. So there is a stark difference in team support and how much Reulbach was counted on for his team's success compared to Joss.

Reulbach also beats him in wins 182 to 159, K's 1137 to 926.
Joss beats Reulbach in Shutouts 45-40. Another point in Joss' favor is that Reulbach averaged 6.59 innings per start while Joss was 8.13 (writing your point in a different way) However Reulbach also got more saves (prior to it being a statistic 13 to 6 which is hardly significant) Joss also had a better peak, but Reulbach wasn't far behind him.

The difference in counting numbers, particularly wins, can be attributed to A) Reulbach pitching on much better teams than Joss; and B) Reulbach not dying like Joss and thus being able to play longer. What's more telling to me is that Joss had shutouts in a greater percentage of the games he started , 17.3% compared to 13.3% for Reulbach, and Joss finished a much higher percentage of the games he started, an impressive 90% compared to 67% for Reulbach. Just imagine that - 9 out of 10 games Joss started, he finished.

For my system with all involved that puts Reulbach at 9500 and Joss at 8100.

How does your system work? I really can't see much of an argument for Reulbach being better than Joss, much less that much better.

I think Reulbach is deserving of some consideration, but if you like Reulbach, I really think you should like Joss because they are in a similar mold, except Joss was much better and much more of an ace.

jjpm74

11-14-2008, 06:08 PM

I'm surprised that Clyde Milan hasn't received any support yet. Fielder Jones has lasted 15 years, and I believe Milan is very similar and arguable better.

I can't believe no one's voted for Fletcher. I was hoping he'd at least make it to next year so I could do a better comparison between him and Tinker.

henrich

11-14-2008, 08:24 PM

That's not a requirement for our Hall of Fame though - 1500 IP is the threshold for us, and we've already elected a number of players who have played less than 10 years. For all intents and purposes, we are operating as if we are THE Hall of Fame and Cooperstown does not exist. We go by our standards, as we set them, and within the time context that they're set, and we should do our best not to be guided by Cooperstown or our 2008 standards. EDIT: For the record, our Hall of Fame is in Hoboken, NJ :)

Plus, IMO it would be unfair to hold the 10 year requirement against Joss because the only reason he did not reach it is because he died. That's pretty drastic and not a normal circumstance. I think an exception is warranted.

That's a team product though. Reulbach pitched on those great, dynastic Cubs teams with stars at virtually every position, and in many years, he arguably wasn't any better than the 3rd or 4th or even 5th starter on his own team. For example, take the four years he played in the WS (1906-1908 and 1910): In 1906, he was no better than the 3rd starter, behind Mordecai Brown and Jack Pfiester, and the team also had star pitchers Jack Taylor and Orval Overall. In 1907, he was no better than the 5th starter, behind Brown, Overall, Pfiester, and Carl Lundgren. Reulbach failed to accumulate even 200 IP that year. In 1908, he was again at best only the 3rd starter, behind Brown and Overall, and pretty close to Pfiester. In 1910, he was no better than 5th on the team with a measley 92 ERA+ in just 173 IP.

Joss never had anything close to that kind of talent, and Joss, unlike Reulbach, had to be the ace of his team most years. In 6 of his 9 seasons, Joss led the team in ERA+ and 4 times in IP. Reulbach, on the other hand, only once led his team in ERA+ (he couldn't even do it while pitching in the Federal League) and just once in IP, despite more chances than Joss due to not dying. So there is a stark difference in team support and how much Reulbach was counted on for his team's success compared to Joss.

The difference in counting numbers, particularly wins, can be attributed to A) Reulbach pitching on much better teams than Joss; and B) Reulbach not dying like Joss and thus being able to play longer. What's more telling to me is that Joss had shutouts in a greater percentage of the games he started , 17.3% compared to 13.3% for Reulbach, and Joss finished a much higher percentage of the games he started, an impressive 90% compared to 67% for Reulbach. Just imagine that - 9 out of 10 games Joss started, he finished.

How does your system work? I really can't see much of an argument for Reulbach being better than Joss, much less that much better.

I think Reulbach is deserving of some consideration, but if you like Reulbach, I really think you should like Joss because they are in a similar mold, except Joss was much better and much more of an ace.

You have some excellent skills at debate working here:)

I chose 14 stats that are arguably the most important stats that writers have looked at over the years and I applied the same formula to everyone. If a pitcher reaches 10,000 points then he has a legitimate shot at being selected/elected to the Hall of Fame. The 14 stats are as follows: wins x 10, Saves x 15, K's x 1, Shutouts x 100, gold gloves x 100, Cy Youngs x 500, MVP's x 500, 2nd-10th place for Cy or MVP = 10 points for 10th place, 20 points for 9th place, 90 points for 2nd place, you get the idea. Championship seasons x 500, league championships x 250, playoffs x 100, leading the league in Wins, ERA, Saves and K's = 100, 2nd place 90 points...10th place 10 points. Oh and I gave 500 points for the Rolaids relief award winner, nothing for 2nd place.

Joss you make a compelling argument for, and next year 1928, I will vote for him. Thanks for taking the time. You convinced me on the 10 year mark, the sheer dominance of his complete games, and shutout percentage. I don't buy the #1 starter to #4 starter business, because that can be too arbitrary from the manager's prerogative.

Again, good argument.

leecemark

11-14-2008, 08:33 PM

--I'd be happy to see you drop Ruelbach than add Joss. If you really think Ed belongs then its hard to see how Addie doesn't make your queue though. Both are below the line for me, but Joss is closer than Ruelbach.

DoubleX

11-14-2008, 09:05 PM

I chose 14 stats that are arguably the most important stats that writers have looked at over the years and I applied the same formula to everyone. If a pitcher reaches 10,000 points then he has a legitimate shot at being selected/elected to the Hall of Fame. The 14 stats are as follows: wins x 10, Saves x 15, K's x 1, Shutouts x 100, gold gloves x 100, Cy Youngs x 500, MVP's x 500, 2nd-10th place for Cy or MVP = 10 points for 10th place, 20 points for 9th place, 90 points for 2nd place, you get the idea. Championship seasons x 500, league championships x 250, playoffs x 100, leading the league in Wins, ERA, Saves and K's = 100, 2nd place 90 points...10th place 10 points. Oh and I gave 500 points for the Rolaids relief award winner, nothing for 2nd place.

Why do you award 15 points for saves but 10 for wins? I admire that you're trying to develop a method to assist in your evaluation, but there is some arbitrariness in this, namely how many points you've decided to assign for various statistics and that many of the statistics themselves have an element of arbitrariness (such as the fact that wins are very team dependent and awards are based on perceptions and biases of the writers). I hope this conversation might give you pause to consider at least partially adopting a different tact of evaluation.

As for the #1 to #4 starter point, I wasn't actually going by the order the manager used, I was going by how successful each pitcher was for the Cubs in those years. In each of those World Series years, there were 2-4 pitchers on the Cubs that based on a combination of performance and durability, were better than Reulbach. Don't get me wrong, Reulbach was a good pitcher, but he was surrounded by a great team, including better pitchers in many years, and his durability was pretty mediocre (though some of that may have had to do with managerial decisions).

jjpm74

11-14-2008, 09:09 PM

Henrich, your system would carry a lot more weight if you eliminated the bonus points for things like Cy Young and MVP awards. Those awards are very arbitrary and subjective to begin with; not to mention the fact that they didn't exist throughout baseball's history (nor did the World Series or the concept of a post season for that matter).

For relievers, games finished, IP/G, DERA, SO/9, BB/9, OPPBA, OPPOBP, GF and holds should also be weighed. Not just saves.

henrich

11-15-2008, 03:40 PM

My task at the outset was to echo the reasoning behind selection to Cooperstown. I hear your points on individual rankings. I just took it to heart that if I were a writer (voter), how should I judge who to vote for...where do the statistics scream at me that this guy is a hall of fame player. I realize that there will be outliers and mistakes, but those should be the exception rather than the rule. In the real world, I think anything over 95% accurate would be significant. I think because I've based it upon what history has done, and used it to predict the future (s)elections that I think anything above 85% accurate would be significant dealing with the Veteran's Committees and the like. However, it is the most predictive system that I've seen. Reulbach and Joss would fall short by my measure from today's world to the past, but I'm pretending that I don't know that based upon the players that come available to vote upon each year, but still using it as a ranking system.

Voters care about championships, fair or not. They also care abou RBI's, wins and other counting stats. I didn't use HR's as a category, but I did use total bases to account for the different eras of strength. total bases is a strong category to use and it separates the contenders from the pretenders in my opinion.

Saves are given more points than wins, because relievers will never be able to equal the other categories and compete with a starter otherwise. They will miss out on strikeouts, shutouts, wins, leading the league in ERA, etc. The formula is dead on accurate for relievers, thus far. With Gossage and Sutter elected and they being just over the 10,000 mark, then that sets the measure for where the line is at and where it should be going forward.

By knowing that, Franco, Hoffman, Lee smith and Rivera will all get elected. Franco played 2 seasons too long, and it may cost him in years on the ballot, but he'll still make it as the best left handed reliever of all-time. Wagner doesn't have the counting stats yet, and may never get there with his latest arm trouble.

World Series Championships have been around since 1903, that doesn't hurt me in my numbers except for era 1, which I should fix this summer. Even still the players are compared against their contemporaries and also against eras. I think I only lose out here with those that played prior to the world series and then try to compare them to modern players.

the rest of it I feel transcends very well across eras. All hitters that reach 10,000 are in prior to the era of free agency minus 4 hitters. That's a sample of everyone who had 4000 at bats or more approximately 1000 hitters and only 4 don't fit.

After 1973, the era of free agency and the DH has changed the expectancy of players longevity and now the number is at 11,000 (for starting pitchers too) Again there are only a few exceptions that violate the predictive system.

RP Lee Smith over 12,000 garnering 43%
SP Bert Blyleven 15,944 61.9%
SP Tommy John 12,575 gained 29% of the votes
SP Jim Kaat 12,501 30% at highest point
SP Allie Reynolds 11,828 34%strong candidate by Veterans Committee
SP Jack Morris 11,678 42.9%
SP Luis Tiant 11,361 31%
SP Mickey Lolich 11,267 25%

Hitters I'm off on of those eligible 10,000 prior to '73 and 11,000 post '73.
1B Garvey 11,605 future veteran's committee selection
1B Hodges 10,839 strong candidate in Veteran's Committee
2B Gordon 10,265 strong candidate in Veteran's Committee
3B Nettles 10,208 hit under .250 hurt his chances
LF Rice Jim 11,347 strong peak, ineffective longevity hurts 72%
LF Raines 11,220 strong debut 25% if I recall
CF Willie Davis 10,131 not sure, have to look up
RF Parker 12,194 still on the ballot, maybe a character issue
RF Dawson 12,370 very viable candidate

That's 17 off if I'm grading right now, which should improve as soon as next year with Hodges, Gordon, and Reynolds being selected by the Vets committee (hopefully)

Rice has a strong chance of being selected next year and Blyleven and Dawson the year after. That brings me to 11 mistakes with over 2200 players ranked, which these still can be rectified in time. That's not including all the 16,000 or so players that have ever played the game. I'm not sure why I would want to change with that kind of percentage predicted accurately. I don't have a calculator, but the magic number is there, but if I have my math right that's 99.5% accurate for the predicted number for slam dunk candidate.

The people that I missed on, are regular players that this community rail on for being mistakes by the Hall of Fame. Especially Blyleven, Gordon and Dawson. Though each of the above have supporters and detractors, the point is they are in the conversation.

This isn't meant to be defensive, just an explanation of why I continue to use despite some detractors. I do think there's no other way to grow, but to listen to others criticism, but I also think it's important to explain it with numbers at times to show that I'm steadfast with reason on certain issues.

philkid3

11-15-2008, 05:01 PM

Voters care about championships, fair or not. They also care abou RBI's, wins and other counting stats.
But why should we care about what they care about?

Paul Wendt

11-15-2008, 07:33 PM

On some 1926 and some 1927 newcomers to the ballot

Ping Bodie
Who was Ping Bodie? the hottest prospect of his time? the first big purchase from the PCL?

Ossie Vitt
or was Ossie Vitt a hot prospect or a big purchase from the PCL?

Larry Doyle
Did he waltz in without even a word of comparison with Huggins and Evers, not to mention 3B and SS contemporaries? I think he did. I voted for him but didn't anticipate that it would be "one and done".

Art Fletcher
I will cast him a vote. With my blurb about Pete Palmer's discovery, above, he will be my "special" for 1927.

Dots Miller
Miller is one of the few whose names I didn't recognize when they were nominated to the Progressive ballots. There have been many who were listed as "probably will not make the ballot" but few named for the ballot.

Joe Wood
Hippo Vaughn
Is Joe Wood a serious candidate? or Hippo Vaughn? Or Ed Reulbach, see next article, who has been around for a few years? (By "serious" I allude to their polling more than the one or two votes comonly cast to personal favorites and to interesting figures, votes not often repeated in year two.)
- This is a trio of contributing pitchers but why does anyone doubt that Roy Thomas and Fielder Jones were greater ballplayers? not to mention Jimmy Sheckard or Tommy Leach.

Duffy Lewis
The Man from Maine earns B+ from Bill James which is excellent for a leftfielder. But we knew that. Lewis is the one who played left in Fenway Park when there was a "cliff" not a wall. The cliff was an earthen riser for fans to stand (or sit) in rows and see over the fans in front of them. Perhaps it was also structural, if the field surface was below street level. Today it would be called a berm and it would be beyond a fence. I understand that many minor league parks now have berms and no seats beyond the outfield fences. Berms are also called grassy knolls.
(P.S. I have heard Red Sox radio announcer Joe Castiglione call sometimes Duffy Lewis and sometimes Jack Barry "hall of famers". I suppose it is because they are from Maine, and they are the greatest or among the greatest players from Maine, members of some Maine halls of fame. Maine is a big part of the Red Sox listening territory although it is relatively underpopulated.)

Clyde Milan
Bill James grades him only B+, not good for a centerfielder. That is a surprise to me. That is down in George Van Haltren territory, perhaps average for CF and below average for a long-career centerfielder.
But Clyde Milan is not a plausible candidate and there is no basis for comparison with Fielder Jones.

Dode Paskert
The SABR Deadball Era Committee's best beloved --at least under the influence of recent chair David C. Jones. Bill James grades Paskert A-, merely above average for CF.

Paul Wendt

11-15-2008, 07:50 PM

Reulbach
-- a mind-boggling choice here and also next-door in the Tier 6 runoff. He shouldn't be a serious candidate.

By the way, Reulbach's career year was his rookie year, 1905, before the Chicubs won their first pennant. In 1906 he pitched very well in Game Two, a complete one-hitter that tied the Series, but he and fellow flash-in-the-pan Jack Pfiester shared the decisive innings of the series, the 3rd and 4th of Game Five, when the Chisox scored two and four runs.

1906 World Series at Baseball-Reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1906_WS.shtml)
Series: 2-2
Game: Cubs 3, White Sox 1, after two innings
Top of the 3rd, White Sox Batting, Behind 1-3, Ed Reulbach facing 3-4-5
--- 34% F Isbell Ground-rule Double (Deep LF)
R -2- 45% G Davis Ground-rule Double (Deep RF); Isbell Scores
Jack Pfiester replaces Ed Reulbach pitching and batting 9th
O -2- 40% G Rohe Strikeout
-2- 43% J Donahue Hit By Pitch
O 12- 38% P Dougherty Groundout: SS-2B/Forceout at 2B; Davis to 3B
R 1-3 48% B Sullivan Davis Steals Hm; Dougherty Steals 2B; Davis Scores/No RBI
O -2- 45% " " Strikeout
2 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors, 1 LOB. White Sox 3, Cubs 3.
flash-in-the-pan?
I exaggerate, but he wasn't "great" for long, about half as long as Addie Joss, with the same lightish workload in several seasons.

Paul Wendt

11-15-2008, 08:30 PM

Frank Baker and upon special request Art Fletcher (note on Art Fletcher discovered (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1357144&postcount=15))
Baker and Fletcher replace Lave Cross and Larry Doyle (elected pronto!).

Frank Baker
Bill Bradley
Frank Chance
Gavy Cravath
Johnny Evers
Art Fletcher
Clark Griffith, pitcher, captain, manager, player's union officer, American League recruiter, organizer of home teams for Comiskey Park with the White Stockings out of town, leader of the challenge to Spalding's baseball monopoly, invader of New York
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Johnny Kling
Ed Konetchy
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Roy Thomas
Joe Tinker

Note.
This is my second vote for Ed Konetchy. I didn't anticipate that and I recognize there may be a better case for Al Bender or Ad Joss. "Classic" is or was Koney's biggest supporter at Baseball-Fever. For the moment this repeat vote for Konetchy is a token of respect. and Best wishes for Classic to return for the holiday.

Note.
It is very likely that I would get back to vote before deadline if I postponed it tonight. On the other hand, it is possible I would miss 1927 and 1928 (Thanksgiving Day). I feel that I should spend some of limited crunch time on the Also-Rans pitchers.

henrich

11-15-2008, 09:25 PM

But why should what they care about what they care about?

I'm not sure I understand this one...Is it why should the diehard fans care about what the writers care about? If that's the question, then it's trying to make sense of it all...what makes one player better than another...how do they compare within an era, within a position, across eras, at different positions. I guess I took it from a different direction in that I was trying to start with the givens and then work as though the voters were correct most of the time. Maybe that's a pretty big given, but that's the approach I went with. That premise has gotten me into some healthy disagreements from time to time. So call me a defender of the hall of fame choices...and if they have it wrong, I have faith that they will get it right in time.

AstrosFan

11-15-2008, 09:39 PM

Baker
Griffith
Jennings
Chance
Leach

Baker was tremendous. Griffith, Jennings, Chance all get credit beyond their playing career. Leach is very underrated. Thought about Joss, but he was never the most valuable pitcher in his league (though very close several times), and with a nine-season career, I can't vote him in.

philkid3

11-15-2008, 11:10 PM

I'm not sure I understand this one...Is it why should the diehard fans care about what the writers care about? If that's the question, then it's trying to make sense of it all...what makes one player better than another...how do they compare within an era, within a position, across eras, at different positions. I guess I took it from a different direction in that I was trying to start with the givens and then work as though the voters were correct most of the time. Maybe that's a pretty big given, but that's the approach I went with. That premise has gotten me into some healthy disagreements from time to time. So call me a defender of the hall of fame choices...and if they have it wrong, I have faith that they will get it right in time.
It should have been why should we -- as in those of us voting in this thread -- care about what the Hall of Fame voters care about.

DoubleX

11-16-2008, 12:06 AM

henrich

11-16-2008, 04:05 PM

If a voter here chooses to place extra emphasis on championships and awards as part of his/her criteria in voting, that's perfectly fine. We each have our own methods of evaluation and there isn't a perfect method. We don't, however, need to follow the standards employed by the BBWAA in voting for Cooperstown. As I said earlier, for all intents and purposes we are the BBWAA and Cooperstown does not exist. We're creating our own standards and are not guided by Cooperstown. Just think of us as Hoboken. :)

Henrich, as a side question, instead of awarding extra points to saves, how about just separating relievers from starters altogether and just compare relievers to relievers. That way you wouldn't have to worry about making up for the fact that relievers will earn less in wins compared to starters and you can just compare them to other relievers. Also, giving them extra points for saves and throwing them in the mix with starters, ignores the fact that relievers in general have much less value than starters. So if you get a guy who saves 300 games, say Jeff Montgomery, your system would much more greatly reward him and his 869 innings than say someone like Lefty Grove who won 300 games and pitched 3940 innings. I realize other things go into the equation, but to give Montgomery's 304 saves 4560 points right off the bat, and have that ahead of Lefty Grove's 300 wins being equal to 3000 points, just doesn't seem very sound.

Your first comment I agree with wholeheartedly and I'm glad you reminded me of this point that it is separate and not within the rules and sanctimony of the one in Cooperstown. This will affect my vote on Joss.

The side note question, the relievers as you stated will never be able to compete with the excellent starters anyway. In the Montgomery example versus Lefty Grove

Name H-Factor K's shutouts
Montgomery 6213 733 0
Grove 14,841 2266 33

Grove smokes Montgomery because Montgomery can't hang with the shutouts and his lack of innings pitched is exposed with his lack of k's versus Grove.

K's x 1 will take care of the innings pitched problem
shutouts x 100 will take care of any relief pitchers that aren't truly dominant.

I don't think there's a lot of discrepency on my picks in and others picks out

I have Rivera, Hoffman, Lee Smith and Franco in.

I have Quisenberry, Lyle, Wagner out currently

Some will disagree but only time will tell. I think the selection of gossage and Sutter has only solidified the system I utilize for relief pitchers. As Gossage and Sutter just clear the 10,000 mark and the 4 in are over that line as well.

In the above example of Grove versus Montgomery I don't know if that's the case example you want, but I'd be happy to do this with any choice that you would like and it may prove or disprove your thoughts. I'd be curious myself.

DoubleX

11-16-2008, 07:26 PM

One of the concerns early on in this project was that we were seemingly neglecting middle IFers. Well we've now elected 9 players at SS, two more than at any other non-pitching position, we may add another if Jennings is elected, and 6 players at 2B, more than at C and 3B, as well as the key offensive positions of 1B and RF.

So is there now any concern that we've perhaps been too generous with middle IFers? I'm particularly concerned with the VC's election of Herman Long. For instance, take a current player near the end of his career like Dave Bancroft, he's had a nice career at SS, both offensively and defensively, consistently one of the better shortstops in both facets for the past decade, but he wouldn't normally strike me as a HoFer. However, with Long in there, I think it's now harder to argue against someone like Bancroft (and to a lesser extent, perhaps someone like Roger Peckinpaugh or Art Fletcher).

And now to depart from the time context for a moment - I am almost positive that we won't give Bancroft much support. I believe he'll be the latest example of us giving a hard time to someone generally regarded as questionable in Cooperstown, yet rallying to a similar player, such as Long, who is on the outside, because we have this feeling, perhaps sbconsciously, to correct some wrong. I hope I'm wrong on this and that we do abide by our standards and treat someone like Bancroft fairly, but with Long in, and in general us being pretty friendly to SS, I think it's going to be tough to argue against a number of players, like Bancroft, who we normally view as marginal candidates. If our standards say Long is in, someone like Bancroft will have a strong case, IMO (just as Jimmy Ryan does with Van Haltren and Duffy being in, but that's a different story).

Paul Wendt

11-16-2008, 08:52 PM

One of the concerns early on in this project was that we were seemingly neglecting middle IFers. Well we've now elected 9 players at SS, two more than at any other non-pitching position, we may add another if Jennings is elected, and 6 players at 2B, more than at C and 3B, as well as the key offensive positions of 1B and RF.

So is there now any concern that we've perhaps been too generous with middle IFers? I'm particularly concerned with the VC's election of Herman Long. For instance, take a current player near the end of his career like Dave Bancroft, he's had a nice career at SS, both offensively and defensively, consistently one of the better shortstops in both facets for the past decade, but he wouldn't normally strike me as a HoFer.
For what it's worth, I will vote for Dave Bancroft.
If someone else votes for Bancroft, perhaps Freakshow from D-town who is currently voting for Fielder Jones and Roy Thomas, then I expect to vote for Bancroft 15 times.

What is a "middle infielder"?
One of my own early, public assessments here was that voters fell all over themselves to elect a bunch of 1880s pitchers and then a bunch of outfielders while passing over greater players at all three of the infield positions {3B, SS, 2B}. (Those are three of the four to six positions that various people call "infield".) That was primarily a comparative point about those three infield positions and the three outfield positions {LF, CF, RF}. I observed that some people may consider 3B and 2B to be "failed shortstops". Then some people should think of shortstop as "center infield" and should vote for more shortstops, in lieu of 3B and 2B. --just as people who know baseball vote for more centerfielders, in lieu of LF and RF.

However, with Long in there, I think it's now harder to argue against someone like Bancroft (and to a lesser extent, perhaps someone like Roger Peckinpaugh or Art Fletcher).
but "to a lesser extent, perhaps" is a double qualification, and a qualification easily so heavy that it leaves Peckinpaugh and Fletcher beyond the pale. Beyond the pale is not just outside but outside serious consideration.[/QUOTE]

Paul Wendt

11-16-2008, 08:58 PM

The side note question, the relievers as you stated will never be able to compete with the excellent starters anyway. . . .

Some will disagree but only time will tell. I think the selection of gossage and Sutter has only solidified the system I utilize for relief pitchers. As Gossage and Sutter just clear the 10,000 mark and the 4 in are over that line as well.
At this stage in this Progressive project the issue may be credit for saves that is granted to starting pitchers from the 1870s to 1920s, mainly the latter 1900s-1920s half of that period. Do you give credit for leading the league in saves, or even league rank 10 in saves, during a time when there was relatively little value in league-leading saves and almost no value in league-tenth saves.

Cowtipper

11-16-2008, 08:59 PM

Jennings is barely hanging on...again. Hmm...

Paul Wendt

11-16-2008, 09:17 PM

EDIT: For the record, our Hall of Fame is in Hoboken, NJ :)
Good.
I expect to visit Hoboken someday.
Are we/you anywhere particular in Hoboken?

DoubleX

11-16-2008, 09:31 PM

Good.
I expect to visit Hoboken someday.
Are we/you anywhere particular in Hoboken?

On the corner of 11th and Washington Street, former site of Elysian Fields. The location was picked after much debate. Many advocated for it to be in a little town in upstate NY where the Mills Commission concluded that Abner Doubleday invented the game. The accuracy of this claim is questionable, but even if true, Hoboken seemed much more appropriate given its very close proximity to NYC and documented history of Elysian Fields hosting much of the early years of the organized game.

philkid3

11-17-2008, 06:17 AM

There's a good chance I'll vote for Bancroft.

But I like our middle infield standards at this point.

dgarza

11-17-2008, 06:19 AM

Just think of us as Hoboken. :)

And founded by Ira Kaplan and Georgia Hubley. ;)

DoubleX

11-17-2008, 08:28 AM

I'm glad to see that people intend to support Bancroft. I don't think it's premature to discuss him, as he's likely nearing the end of his career (in actuality, he retired in 1930). He's someone I don't think I would normally support, but I do think our standards at SS, particularly with Herman Long now in, could open the door for a number of players down the road, Bancroft perhaps being the first.

KCGHOST

11-17-2008, 09:48 AM

Bancroft deserves discussion. Whether he deserves election is another thing.

If you want Hughie Jennings elected might hope the election closes now.

DoubleX

11-17-2008, 09:58 AM

Bancroft deserves discussion. Whether he deserves election is another thing.

If you want Hughie Jennings elected might hope the election closes now.

The question to me is whether Bancroft would deserve induction based on our standards, and I think with 9 shortstops in (perhaps 10 with Jennings), including Long, Bancroft will have a pretty good argument. I think he will be an interesting person to watch because I think he could really test how well we're able to distinguish our standards from our impressions based on Cooperstown.

Paul Wendt

11-17-2008, 11:07 AM

On the corner of 11th and Washington Street, former site of Elysian Fields. The location was picked after much debate. Many advocated for it to be in a little town in upstate NY where the Mills Commission concluded that Abner Doubleday invented the game. The accuracy of this claim is questionable, but even if true, Hoboken seemed much more appropriate given its very close proximity to NYC and documented history of Elysian Fields hosting much of the early years of the organized game.
Thanks!
Is there any plan to bridge the Hudson? Our grandfathers and our schoolteachers would have said that it is too wide, that's for sure, but they have been wrong about so much.

I hope to get there while the ferries are still operating.
Probably I will travel to Penn Station from Philadelphia or Boston, then walk to Hudson Yards. Of course I will try to get more information before I start walking.

jjpm74

11-17-2008, 11:21 AM

Thanks!
Is there any plan to bridge the Hudson? Our grandfathers and our schoolteachers would have said that it is too wide, that's for sure, but they have been wrong about so much.

I guess you missed the groundbreaking ceremony last month. Construction of a bridge is already underway! It will be a suspension bridge. That sounds awefully dangerous to me. Rumor has it this eyesore will be named after our 1st president and be open for use next year.

Paul Wendt

11-17-2008, 11:33 AM

Bancroft deserves discussion. Whether he deserves election is another thing.
If you want Hughie Jennings elected might hope the election closes now.
Jennings.
Has he no Irish-American friends of the right kind in the right places?
Many of them have learned the lesson of le sabot, iynwim.

DoubleX

11-17-2008, 12:11 PM

Thanks!
Is there any plan to bridge the Hudson? Our grandfathers and our schoolteachers would have said that it is too wide, that's for sure, but they have been wrong about so much.

I hope to get there while the ferries are still operating.
Probably I will travel to Penn Station from Philadelphia or Boston, then walk to Hudson Yards. Of course I will try to get more information before I start walking.

Construction very recently begun on a bridge, about 10 miles north of Hoboken, connecting NJ to upper Manhattan. But perhaps more importantly, a tunnel just very recently opened about a mile from the site of the Hall of Fame, connecting NJ to downtown Manhattan. Within 10-15 minutes, you can get from Wall Street to the Hall of Fame. If car congestion becomes a problem, as some speculate it will, there are still the ferries as well as underground trains running from Hoboken to both midtown and downtown Manhattan. So the Hall site is well accessible to the city.

Mike90

11-17-2008, 12:31 PM

Frank Baker and Joe Wood. I strongly considered Addie Joss.

jjpm74

11-17-2008, 12:45 PM

Frank Baker and Joe Wood. I strongly considered Addie Joss.

What does Joe Wood have that Addie Joes doesn't?

leecemark

11-17-2008, 01:20 PM

--He did have one all time great season - which is one more than Joss. Thats the only thing he has over Joss though and since I think Joss is below the line.....

henrich

11-17-2008, 04:40 PM

At this stage in this Progressive project the issue may be credit for saves that is granted to starting pitchers from the 1870s to 1920s, mainly the latter 1900s-1920s half of that period. Do you give credit for leading the league in saves, or even league rank 10 in saves, during a time when there was relatively little value in league-leading saves and almost no value in league-tenth saves.

Good point. I do credit them with leading the league in saves up to 10th place in a season. This may seem contrary to logic here, but I also know that there are difficulties that the early guys have to overcome, such as not getting a Cy Young Award (500 points) or not getting into the playoffs like teams do today, whereas back then only two teams got extra credit for that.

The most anyone received in a career for leading the league in saves was 750 points. Most of them gained around 230 points...call it a generous curve:)

jjpm74

11-17-2008, 06:00 PM

--He did have one all time great season - which is one more than Joss. Thats the only thing he has over Joss though and since I think Joss is below the line.....

I can see voting for Joss and not Wood but not the other way around. That's why I'm curious.

I also see that Jennings was once again voted under the 75% threshold and once again has almost zero chance of getting elected. It makes me wonder if it is even worthwhile to discuss candidates. Especially when several voters have yet to post a single response of any kind in any election and probably aren't even reading the thread before voting.

DoubleX

11-17-2008, 06:01 PM

It's 1927 - the save stat has yet to be contrived and that kind of pitcher usage isn't really part of the game anyway.

jjpm74

11-18-2008, 02:10 PM

Next year should be an interesting year. We have these players eligible for the ballot:

Jim Bagby
Donie Bush
George Cutshaw
Eddie Foster
Larry Kopf
Pat Ragan
Burt Shotton
Fred Toney
Tilly Walker

It's very unlikely that any of them will advance to 1929. Next year will also be Hughie Jennings' last year on the ballot, barring a surge in votes in his favor this election. Will we elect Jennings in his last year on the ballot or will he have to wait until the VC to get elected? The other interesting candidate next year will be Addie Joss. He's been teetering on the brink of election for several years now and several participants have expressed an interest in voting for him next year. It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, we elect.

Poor Tommy Leach just can't seem to muster enough supporters to his side. I guess being the best defensive player at 2 positions through 50 years of baseball history along with having great offensive numbers isn't enough for voters. If only he was solely a CF or 3B. He would have been elected on the 1st ballot.

Beyond next year, here are the highlights coming up:

1929--Jake Daubert, Del Pratt
1930--Harry Hooper, Bobby Veach, Rube Marquard
1931--Fred Merkle, Wilbur Cooper, Hooks Dauss
1932--Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, Stuffy McInnis, Zack Wheat

Freakshow

11-18-2008, 02:33 PM

Next year have these players eligible for the ballot:

Jim Bagby
Donie Bush
George Cutshaw
Eddie Foster
Larry Kopf
Pat Ragan
Burt Shotton
Fred Toney
Tilly Walker
Also, a couple of age rule candidates:

Jimmy Austin-3B (age 48)(played 1929)
Oscar Stanage-C (age 45)

Reb Russell would need a special exemption, with only 9 years in MLB. He had 81 wins and a 121 ERA+ in the teens, before his arm went dead. He switched to RF and hit well for the Pirates in a couple years. He is still raking pitchers in the American Association (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=russel001ewe)as of this year.

jjpm74

11-18-2008, 04:22 PM

Also, a couple of age rule candidates:

Jimmy Austin-3B (age 48)(played 1929)
Oscar Stanage-C (age 45)

Reb Russell would need a special exemption, with only 9 years in MLB. He had 81 wins and a 121 ERA+ in the teens, before his arm went dead. He switched to RF and hit well for the Pirates in a couple years. He is still raking pitchers in the American Association (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=russel001ewe)as of this year.

Reb Russell almost hit the IP minimum. He also was/is impressive as a hitter. IMO, we should make a special allowance for him.

DoubleX

11-19-2008, 08:00 AM

Next year should be an interesting year. We have these players eligible for the ballot:

Jim Bagby
Donie Bush
George Cutshaw
Eddie Foster
Larry Kopf
Pat Ragan
Burt Shotton
Fred Toney
Tilly Walker

Here's my list of eligible players:

Jimmy Austin - Age Rule
Jim Bagby
Josh Billings - Likely won't be on ballot
Donie Bush
George Cutshaw
Eddie Foster
Harry Harper - Likely won't be on ballot
Larry Kopf - Likely won't be on ballot
Mike Menosky - Likely won't be on ballot
Reb Russell - I'll give the special exemption due to combination of IP and PA
Fred Toney
Oscar Stanage - Age Rule
Burt Shotton
Tilly Walker

Domenic

11-19-2008, 08:51 AM

I can see voting for Joss and not Wood but not the other way around. That's why I'm curious.

I voted for both, but I could see an argument in voting for Wood, but not Joss.

Both offer portraits of a player that was dominant in their career, albeit for a short period of time. Joss' 1908 and Wood's 1912 were all-time great seasons, and both had two other dominant seasons. From there, Joss takes an advantage in longevity.

I could see an argument being made from there, though, encompassing the players' abilities with the bat. Joss batted .144/.198/.188 with an OPS+ of 20 over 817 at-bats. Wood batted .283/.357/.411 with an OPS+ of 111 over 1952 at-bats. Granted, Wood was solely an outfielder for his last two seasons of his career, but that adds a huge dimension of value that Joss cannot really compete with.

That's where the debate comes in, methinks. Does Wood's incredible advantage with the bat match-up with Joss' 900+ IP advantage? I do not think it does - I would probably give Joss the nod, on the whole. However, both make it into my Hall of Fame.

bambambaseball

11-19-2008, 01:54 PM

Could somebody show me the information about Cravath? His minor league years? I cant find the link now and hes someone I might put back on my balott next year.

jjpm74

11-19-2008, 02:22 PM

Could somebody show me the information about Cravath? His minor league years? I cant find the link now and hes someone I might put back on my balott next year.

Is this what you're looking for?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/gavvy_cravath/

Cowtipper

11-19-2008, 02:34 PM

Could somebody show me the information about Cravath? His minor league years? I cant find the link now and hes someone I might put back on my balott next year.

I wouldn't suggest taking his minor league years into consideration, considering this Hall is about what they did in the big leagues...

...I think.

AG2004

11-20-2008, 12:43 PM

AG2004

11-20-2008, 01:27 PM

It's 1927 - that kind of pitcher usage isn't really part of the game anyway.

Not quite true. For the past few years in Washington, Bucky Harris has been using Firpo Marberry in just that way. The Senators won pennants in 1924 and 1925; that is pretty good for a team that has been in the second division for most of its existence. I think Garland Braxton might be taking over that role in Washington.

Miller Huggins, who had Braxton on his team in 1926 -- and used Braxton as a finisher, despite his 2.67 ERA -- used Wilcy Moore in a similar role this past season. Moore's 2.28 ERA was the best on his team, and he's won a lot of games when coming in during the late innings.

I think Harris and Huggins might have stumbled onto something here. A good pitcher is supposed to go nine innings -- but, as the late Christy Mathewson learned early on, in order to go nine innings, you have to ease up most of the time and save your best for the tough spots, when there's a good chance a run might score. Ruth was the first player who made every at-bat a tough spot; even with the bases empty, you still had a good chance of giving up a run. We have young players in Gehrig and Wilson who can hit a lot of home runs because they were taught it was a good thing to hit for power. Their at-bats are now tough spots. More young players are coming along in the Gehrig/Wilson mold. This means that there will be many more tough spots in the future than there were in Mathewson's time.

With all those tough spots, even the great pitchers will be tired in the ninth inning. Perhaps it might be a good idea to save a good pitcher for the eighth and ninth innings of close games. If the game is tied, or there's a one-run margin either way, you'll gain a huge advantage by sending in someone to pitch following the Marberry/Moore pattern.

Managers copy what works, and, in the AL, that pattern has worked. I am confident that, by the 1937 season, every will be reserving one of their top pitchers for those close games. Those who are slow to do so will have no choice but to change once they see the other teams winning all the close ones.

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 02:09 PM

I wrote then, "Hoboken's Elysian Fields were subdivided during the 1870s, and buildings and streets now cover most of the location." Thus, I suggested 133 Clinton Street, the old clubhouse of the Brooklyn Excelsiors, as a site.

DoubleX replied in post 85,

"I believe 133 Clinton Street is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But a location nearby, with a couple of blocks, could be good. In general though, I'd say that Brooklyn Heights would be a good area given the history of baseball in Brooklyn, its close proximity to Brooklyn Bridge and the great view of developing Manhattan."

I don't recall any further discussion on the matter during subsequent years.

Good memory - I hadn't recalled this conversation. Well we could put the matter up for discussion and make a final decision (and pretend what's been said about it in this thread hasn't occurred). Hoboken or Brooklyn? The fact that there has been construction over the site of Elysian Fields shouldn't be a bar, as I'm sure we could find a spot nearby or buy the Elysian Fields property and renovate and/or build new construction. Chances are, anywhere we would pick in Brooklyn (and it sounds like Brooklyn Heights), we'd have to build over land that is currently occupied anyway. The extent and type of construction and Brooklyn Heights is actually fairly similar.

I think either would make a good location given the history and convenience.

philkid3

11-20-2008, 03:03 PM

Whoah! How did Jennings get back over the line?!

CLOSE THE POLL CLOSE THE POLL CLOSE THE POLL!

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 04:20 PM

Whoah! How did Jennings get back over the line?!

CLOSE THE POLL CLOSE THE POLL CLOSE THE POLL!

I didn't see that coming. He was three votes short a few hours ago, and given that we've had just 25 votes three of the past four years, I didn't think he'd get the three extra votes he needed (bringing the overall total to 28 votes).

I think now though that SS has become our new corner OF position. We've now elected 10 players at SS, easily the most among position players, and I think taken as a group, it will be hard in the future to argue against a number of candidates not meeting the line (as I said, Dave Bancroft would appear to be the first such case).

jjpm74

11-20-2008, 04:51 PM

Wow, that came out of nowhere. :faint:

BlueBlood

11-20-2008, 04:56 PM

Holy diver! Jennings was elected? Talk about sweeping votes for about a week. :hyper:

philkid3

11-20-2008, 07:33 PM

What a coup!

AG2004

11-21-2008, 09:34 AM

Good memory - I hadn't recalled this conversation. Well we could put the matter up for discussion and make a final decision (and pretend what's been said about it in this thread hasn't occurred). Hoboken or Brooklyn? The fact that there has been construction over the site of Elysian Fields shouldn't be a bar, as I'm sure we could find a spot nearby or buy the Elysian Fields property and renovate and/or build new construction. Chances are, anywhere we would pick in Brooklyn (and it sounds like Brooklyn Heights), we'd have to build over land that is currently occupied anyway. The extent and type of construction and Brooklyn Heights is actually fairly similar.

I think either would make a good location given the history and convenience.

Much of the property on the Elysian Fields site has been turned into factories. Also, while the H&M serves Hoboken, its stop (and the Lackawanna Railroad's terminal) is located about a mile south of the former Elysian Fields site.

The 133 Clinton Street building in Brooklyn is still up, and that structure would give us a direct link to pre-Civil War baseball. If need be, an adjacent building could also be purchased and renovated. The Clinton street site is also within two or three blocks of St. Francis College, Brooklyn's Borough Hall, and stations on both of the city's subway lines (the BMT at Court Street and the IRT at Borough Hall).

I'd prefer Brooklyn due to the easier access.