BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1928 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1928

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 06:12 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.

1928 Guide
There are 29 candidates on the 1928 ballot – 19 holdovers and 10 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1923 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (10)
Jimmy Austin (Age Rule)
Jim Bagby
Donie Bush
George Cutshaw
Eddie Foster
Reb Russell (Special Exemption)
Burt Shotton
Oscar Stanage (Age Rule)
Fred Toney
Tilly Walker

Holdovers (19)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Chief Bender 7th 46.43% 52.00% (1926) 39.29% (1922) 44.36%
Bill Bradley 9th 10.71% 16.13% (1921) 10.71% (1927, 1922) 12.85%
Frank Chance 10th 60.71% 68.00% (1926) 48.28% (1924) 58.33%
Gavvy Cravath 4th 25.00% 37.50% (1925) 25.00% (1927) 31.50%
Mike Donlin 10th 7.14% 25.93% (1919) 7.14% (1927) 15.68%
Johnny Evers 3rd 28.57% 40.00% (1926) 28.57% (1927) 34.29%
Art Fletcher 2nd 3.57% 3.57% (1927) 3.57% (1927) 3.57%
Clark Griffith 14th 50.00% 62.50% (1925) 32.00% (1915) 47.01%
Miller Huggins 8th 14.29% 20.83% (1925) 7.14% (1922) 15.31%
Addie Joss 14th 60.71% 74.07% (1919) 52.00% (1915) 63.07%
Johnny Kling 11th 25.00% 26.92% (1920) 9.68% (1921) 18.19%
Ed Konetchy 3rd 10.71% 12.00% (1926) 10.71% (1927) 11.36%
Tommy Leach 7th 39.29% 44.00% (1926) 33.33% (1925) 38.06%
Ed Reulbach 7th 10.71% 17.24% (1924) 7.69% (1923) 11.11%
Jimmy Sheckard 11th 25.00% 42.31% (1920) 25.00% (1927) 32.24%
Roy Thomas 13th 7.14% 25.00% (1917) 7.14% (1927) 15.79%
Joe Tinker 8th 25.00% 25.00% (1925, 1927) 10.71% (1922) 21.52%
Hippo Vaughn 3rd 10.71% 16.00% (1926) 10.71% (1927) 13.36%
Joe Wood 2nd 35.71% 35.71% (1927) 35.71% (1927) 35.71%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Ray Caldwell Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1926) 0% (1927) 2.00%
Fielder Jones Eligibility Expired 15 19.23% (1920) 8.00% (1915, 1926) 12.24%
Ossie Vitt Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1926) 0% (1927) 2.00%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (2)
Player High Support
Clark Griffith 62.50% (1925)
Addie Joss 74.07% (1919)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (3)
Player 1927 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Frank Chance 60.71% 8
Addie Joss 60.71% 13
Clark Griffith 50.00% 5

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)
Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Addie Joss 74.07% (1919) 2
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 (66)
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
Frank Baker 1927 96.43% 1 Third Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1908-1914, 1916-1919, 1921-1922 13 Living - Age 42 41
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 49 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Living – Age 70 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 52 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 60 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 60 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 58 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Living – Age 71 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 48 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 58 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 58 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 42 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 62 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 52 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 71 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 71 52
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Living – Age 62 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 73 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 71 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 57 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 54 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 44 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 57 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 69 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 68 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 59 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 73 65
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Living – Age 57 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 72 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 62 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 54 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 55 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 47 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 69 61
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 81 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 52 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 81 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 61 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 (3): Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins, Ezra Sutton
Shortstop (10): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, 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
1927 (2): Frank Baker, Hughie Jennings

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 (16): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, 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 (3): Frank Baker, Larry Doyle, Sherry Magee

Players Elected by Primary Organization
Baltimore Canaries (NA) (1): Lip Pike
Baltimore Orioles (NL) (3): Hughie Jennings, 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) (3): Frank Baker, 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: 29
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 18
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 83.86%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 6
- Average Wait Before Election: 3.98 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 16
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 8
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 4
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Addie Joss – 74.07% (1919)
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Addie Joss - 63.07%
- 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: 25.11
- 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: 15.71 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.41
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 12
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 40
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 81
- Deceased in Past Year: Hughie Jennings

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
1927: 28

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)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)

jalbright

11-20-2008, 06:19 PM

Tommy Leach

leecemark

11-20-2008, 06:28 PM

--Tommy Leach plus combo candidates Frank Chance and Clark Griffith.

jjpm74

11-20-2008, 06:30 PM

Chief Bender--will be on my ballot for the duration of his tim on the ballot.

Frank Chance--his managerial career significantly overlapped his playing career. As a pure player he's close. With the extra credit, he's over the hump for me.

Clark Griffith--Even ignoring extra credit, Griffith is easily the best pitcher on the ballot.

Addie Joss--If he doesn't make it this year, he risks being dropped by me. He's very borderline.

Johnny Kling--The best catcher on the board and second best in his generation.

Tommy Leach--Easily the best player on the ballot A+ defense at 3B, A+ defense at CF, impressive CWS, great peak, great offensive player, second best on a team where Honus Wagner was the best. If he played on any other team, he'd be there. I wonder if there will ever be another player to log 900 games at third base and 900 games at CF?

Reb Russell--His pitching career plus his playing career was short but impressive enough to earn a 1st round nod from me. I need to take a closer look at him before deciding whether or not he'll stay on my ballot for more than 1 year.

Jimmy Sheckard--Weighing defense heavily here and the fact that several lesser outfielders have already been elected. A newcomer to my ballot.

Joe Wood--Likely the last year on my ballot unless I see some kind of argument that convinces me that he had enough of a career to warrant a return to my ballot next year.

Dropped from my ballot:

Hippo Vaughn--Great peak, but no longevity to back it up.

BlueBlood

11-20-2008, 06:48 PM

jjpm74

11-20-2008, 06:50 PM

1. Bender, P
2. Joss, P

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Fourteen (1915 onward) - Addie Joss
Seven (1922 onward) - Chief Bender

Rolling in with two pitchers that in my eyes are easily over the line although not far past it.

Just out of curiosity, why two borderline pitchers but no workhorses like Griffith or position players like Leach?

BlueBlood

11-20-2008, 06:58 PM

Leach spent a lot of time at the outfield. Despite having some big seasons, he isn't even much by 3B standards either offensively.

Griffith had a quality peak...I probably should be factoring in his managerial career and voting for him as a player since I wouldn't mind him being inducted as such....same for Frank Chance. I guess I haven't been voting for either because I want them to go in as contributors instead as their off-field accomplishments seem to outweigh their playing days.

Joss had a killer peak as we all know. Bender had some really big seasons, lots of trips to the post-season, was the first Native-American superstar, etc. Bender's like inches from my gray area, Joss is past it by about a hallway.

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 07:12 PM

With just one year after this left on the ballot, I want to again stump for Addie Joss. He's come as close as one can get to election without being elected - twice over 70% and once over 74%. In that respect, it would seem almost criminal to let someone get so close but not let them in. But that's not the crux of my argument. Instead, I'll respond to some of the reservations that have been mentioned about Joss:

1) Joss didn't pitch for at least 10 years.

This doesn't fly here. I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with electing someone who didn't play at least 10 years, as that is the Cooperstown standard, but for this project, Cooperstown for all intents and purposes does not exist (even so, Cooperstown saw fit to make an exception for Joss anyway, which should say something about the high regard for Joss). We are the Hall of Fame, and 10 years is not our standard. Here, if a player did not play at least 10 years, he can be eligible if he pitched at least 1500 innings or had at least 3000 ABs. Extra scrutiny will apply in these situations. Joss had 2300+ innings pitched, so he fits the bill.

I also don't get why people might be more comfortable voting for Joss if he lived and pitched maybe 3-5 additional mediocre years. In that case, the his Hall of Fame case would still be predicated on the amazing peak of the first 8 years of his career - that period would not change.

Additionally, given the fact that his career ended due to death, I don't think the shortness of it should be held against him. Death is fairly drastic to say the least. Some have mentioned that Joss may not have been able to continue due to his arm troubles, but I earlier produced a contemporaneous report that Joss' arm was doing much better and everything indicated that he would play at least in 1911. In sum, I don't think his lack of longevity should be held against him, given that the cause was death. And regardless, his peak was great and of a Hall of Fame level - when you're judging a pitcher, peak is one of the first things you look at, and Joss has it regardless of the length of his career, IMO.

Finally, I don't see how Joss isn't all that different than Hughie Jennings, whom we just elected. Jennings' case as a player is based almost entirely on four peak seasons. Outside of that, he really doesn't have much - just 7 full seasons and 5600 PAs, spread out over many partial years. I know that some might argue that a difference between Joss and Jennings is that Jennings was arguably the best at his position during those 4 years. In response to that, I'd say that: 1) Four years of arguably being the best really isn't much of case without more; 2) There were much fewer shortstops for Jennings to compete against than there were for pitchers for Joss to compete against; 3) Outside of those 4 years, Jennings doesn't have much else during the rest of his career; and 4) Joss does have a year where he was likely the best pitcher in the game, and maybe 3 or 4 more where he has a good argument for being in the top 5 or so.

2) Joss wasn't a workhorse.

I admit, this is something a valid argument. Joss only twice finished in the top 5 in IP. However, he wasn't terrible in racking up innings, averaging a very respectable 278 IP over the first 8 seasons of his career, twice reaching at least 325 (his last season he pitched just 107 due to injury).

What's more important, however, is the quality of the innings he did pitch. I don't see how one can say that a 142 ERA+ over 2300+ innings is not impressive. That's quite a peak, and over the course of 9 consecutive seasons no less. Joss' great ERA+ during that time, makes up for the IP advantage that other pitchers might have, because not many pitchers are going to have a 142 ERA+ over a period of 9 consecutive years (maybe their 9 best strung together, but consecutive is more rare).

In his best 5 seasons, Joss' ERA+ was 161. I don't see how that's not impressive. Again, he may have left innings out there, but the extreme high quality of the innings he did pitch, does make up for much of that. Would someone who pitched may 200 extra innings but with an ERA+ of say 130 really be more impressive?

Additionally, 5 times Joss finished in the top 3 in ERA+, and 8 times in the top 7. 4 times Joss finished in the top 2 in WHIP, and 8 times in the top 5. And for what it's worth, Joss has the all time lowest career WHIP. Granted, his career WHIP would have been higher had his career been longer, but he has a 32 point lead in WHIP over the next guy (Ed Walsh) and is the only qualifying player under 1. In all, it's quite a run for a 9 year career, and again speaks to the very high level of the innings he did pitch.

Moreover, Joss finished an incredible 90% of the games he started and had a shutout in almost 1 out of every 5. Just imagine that - Joss would finish 9 out of every 10 starts and hurl a shutout in nearly 1 out of every 5. That's impressive.

Additionally, Joss' 1908 campaign has to rank as one of the finest seasons we've ever seen by a pitcher. He pitched 325 innings that year, good for 2nd in the league, with a phenomenal 205 ERA+ and a minuscule 0.806 WHIP.

3) Was Joss considered a star in his own time?

I believe I produced some contemporaneous accounts of this several threads ago, so I'll try to dig them up. What sticks out the most to me is that after Joss died, his peers held him in high enough esteem to hold what was essentially the first all star game in his honor. The biggest names in the game at the time came from all over to play an exhibition in Cleveland to honor Joss and raise money for his family. That says a lot to me about how Joss was regarded.

Cowtipper

11-20-2008, 07:22 PM

Chief Bender
Frank Chance
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Clark Griffith
Addie Joss
Ed Reulbach
Joe Wood

I got rid of Baker and Jennings (obviously), and I'm adding Frank Chance to my ballot.

STLCards2

11-20-2008, 09:24 PM

Joss
Chance
Griffith

Man, I though I had a big HOF. Some people here must support 300 HOFers.

leecemark

11-20-2008, 09:28 PM

I also don't get why people might be more comfortable voting for Joss if he lived and pitched maybe 3-5 additional mediocre years. In that case, the his Hall of Fame case would still be predicated on the amazing peak of the first 8 years of his career - that period would not change.

--What makes you think that had the sore armed Joss lived and cracked out some mediocre seasons he would fare better? I think he would fare worse. It is only is high ERA+ that makes him any kind of candidate. Lowering that to get him from a short career to a middling one would not win him more votes IMO.

Additionally, given the fact that his career ended due to death, I don't think the shortness of it should be held against him. Death is fairly drastic to say the least. Some have mentioned that Joss may not have been able to continue due to his arm troubles, but I earlier produced a contemporaneous report that Joss' arm was doing much better and everything indicated that he would play at least in 1911. In sum, I don't think his lack of longevity should be held against him, given that the cause was death. And regardless, his peak was great and of a Hall of Fame level - when you're judging a pitcher, peak is one of the first things you look at, and Joss has it regardless of the length of his career, IMO.

--Death is just another injury in terms of player evaluation for me. Joss was no longer able to pitch and whether that was the result of a sore arm or a fatal illness has no bearing on how I evaluate his career.

Finally, I don't see how Joss isn't all that different than Hughie Jennings, whom we just elected. Jennings' case as a player is based almost entirely on four peak seasons. Outside of that, he really doesn't have much - just 7 full seasons and 5600 PAs, spread out over many partial years. I know that some might argue that a difference between Joss and Jennings is that Jennings was arguably the best at his position during those 4 years. In response to that, I'd say that: 1) Four years of arguably being the best really isn't much of case without more; 2) There were much fewer shortstops for Jennings to compete against than there were for pitchers for Joss to compete against; 3) Outside of those 4 years, Jennings doesn't have much else during the rest of his career; and 4) Joss does have a year where he was likely the best pitcher in the game, and maybe 3 or 4 more where he has a good argument for being in the top 5 or so.

--Jennings wasn't just the best at his position. He was at least arguably the best player in baseball for several years. Joss has no such claim to being the best pitcher in baseball. Not even for one season.

2) Joss wasn't a workhorse.

I admit, this is something a valid argument. Joss only twice finished in the top 5 in IP. However, he wasn't terrible in racking up innings, averaging a very respectable 278 IP over the first 8 seasons of his career, twice reaching at least 325 (his last season he pitched just 107 due to injury).

--If Joss averaged 278 IP over 8 years and only twice finished in the top 5 in IP doesn't that just tell us that 278 IP was not a particularly impressive figure for a pitcher in that decade? Ditto for his top seasons not leading the league. Lots of guys were putting up 300 IP seasons and a few were going over 400.

--Responses in bold. Joss wouldn't be a horrible selection. He is hardly a compelling one though. His near misses are a pretty good gauge of what he is IMO - a solid gray area candidate who doesn't quite pass muster.

Paul Wendt

11-20-2008, 09:56 PM

With just one year after this left on the ballot, I want to again stump for Addie Joss. He's come as close as one can get to election without being elected - twice over 70% and once over 74%. In that respect, it would seem almost criminal to let someone get so close but not let them in. But that's not the crux of my argument. Instead, I'll respond to some of the reservations that have been mentioned about Joss:

1) Joss didn't pitch for at least 10 years.
. . . [still part of point one, re "10 years"] . . .
Finally, I don't see how Joss isn't all that different than Hughie Jennings, whom we just elected. Jennings' case as a player is based almost entirely on four peak seasons. Outside of that, he really doesn't have much - just 7 full seasons and 5600 PAs, spread out over many partial years. I know that some might argue that a difference between Joss and Jennings is that Jennings was arguably the best at his position during those 4 years.
Ee little disingenuous, hah?

- arguably the best in baseball during those 4 years

- presumably judgment is nearly unanimous that Jennings was the best at his position for 4-5 seasons, ie the best shortstop in baseball 1894 or 1895 to 1898.

In response to that, I'd say that: 1) Four years of arguably being the best really isn't much of case without more;
Suppose for the sake of argument that you accept my preceding point: arguably the best ballplayer of them all, not merely the best shortstop.
Why isn't that much of a case?

First, how many players have been arguably the best in baseball over a period so long as four seasons? That is not common.
Second, Jennings may have been the best over five or six seasons: eg, the best by a longshot 1895-98, easily the best 1894-98, and barely the best but still the best player 1894-99. Why not?

I have practically lost contact with a friend who put a lot of work into judgments or calculations such as this. (Maybe clerical work, such as calculations from a published system like Win Shares. Maybe more sophisticated work involving judgments. I don't know his method. This is Eric Chalek from Portland ME or nearby. Perhaps another one of our crowd knows his method.)
My friend made a judgment for every timespan in mlb history, who was the best player. Maybe he covered the best player at every fielding position, and the five best overall players. I don't recall that detail. The key idea is that for [I]every pair of annual dates such as <1871,1928> or <1893,1917> or <1917,1918>, he determined who was the best player and perhaps the best at each fielding position and the five best players.

Now the fun starts (no real fun for me because I don't really have his database of <yearB,yearA> selections). How many players have been the best in baseball during a 4-seasons period. If Hugh Jennings has done that twor three times, meaning 1895-98 and one or both of 1894-97 and 1896-99, he may be in select company.

Babe Ruth has been baseball's greatest player for the last eight four-season periods at least, namely 1918/21 to 1925/28. Some would say that he will be the greatest player of 1926/29 regardless what he accomplishes during the 1929 season, even if injury knocks him out early. Some would say that he was the greatest player during 1917/20 or 1916/19. Others would name Cobb from 1905/08 until so late as 1917/20.

Do you think Walter Johnson or Pete Alexander was baseball's greatest player during any four-season period? Maybe not. The other side has a better case, in my opinion.

Whatever you may judge regarding Walter's or Pete's very best four-year run, it must be clear that only a few players have been baseball's greatest player during so long a period as four seasons. Do we all agree on that?

Hugh Jennings was baseball's "arguably the best" player during four-season spans 1894/97, 1895/98, and 1896/99. Perhaps everyone with plausible claim to any four-season period should be in our Hall of Fame. The number of such claimants will not be large, nor is this approach a slippery slope, for the number of best players over four seasons is strictly limited to 55, namely one each for every period 1871/74 to 1925/28. Ruth and Cobb may be the only ones during the last twenty years!

3) Outside of those 4 years, Jennings doesn't have much else during the rest of his career; and 4) Joss does have a year where he was likely the best pitcher in the game
That is obviously false outside of Joss's own best four seasons, so the only valid point herein is a contrast between Jennings outside his best four seasons and Joss in his very best season.

Moreover, Joss finished an incredible 90% of the games he started
Is that incredible? I believe it.
When Joss completed 20 of 24 (83%) in 1904, the league aggregate rate was was 1097 of 1252. That is only 155 of 1252 incomplete, more than one in nine but fewer than one in eight. The incomplete game was not rare.

Yes, that was a "down" year for Joss; commonly he did complete a greater than league-average share of his pitcher starts. But his completions record is not "incredible" today and it may have been ordinary for a good pitcher in his day.Add

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 09:59 PM

--Responses in bold. Joss wouldn't be a horrible selection. He is hardly a compelling one though. His near misses are a pretty good gauge of what he is IMO - a solid gray area candidate who doesn't quite pass muster.

First, I should have put a disclaimer saying this isn't meant for Leecemark, because I knew when writing it that I wouldn't persuade you. :) I know your feelings on Joss, you've been consistent on here for years, but that won't stop me from trying to persuade a few others.

As to your comments:

--What makes you think that had the sore armed Joss lived and cracked out some mediocre seasons he would fare better? I think he would fare worse. It is only is high ERA+ that makes him any kind of candidate. Lowering that to get him from a short career to a middling one would not win him more votes IMO.

First, I definitely believe he would have pitched some more had he not died. How long is anyone's guess though. You are right in that some people might not be as impressed with his ERA+, but his ERA+ was so high that even with a few mediocre seasons, it probably would have stayed relatively high, maybe in the low 130s. But at the core of my point, I think some people would be more impressed with some additional mediocre filler years because some people place a lot of emphasis in career counting numbers. They'd see higher win totals and IP and feel more comfortable with Joss, even though it's still his peak that makes him a Hall of Famer with the extra mediocre seasons as superfluous filler.

--Death is just another injury in terms of player evaluation for me. Joss was no longer able to pitch and whether that was the result of a sore arm or a fatal illness has no bearing on how I evaluate his career.

You can try to come back or pitch through a sore arm, you can't try to come back or pitch through death. I don't believe death should be held against a player. You can't do anything about death, and that was the single reason why Joss' career couldn't continue - not injury or apathy. Had he not died, he would have continued his career (and again, contemporary accounts had him ready for the season).

--Jennings wasn't just the best at his position. He was at least arguably the best player in baseball for several years. Joss has no such claim to being the best pitcher in baseball. Not even for one season.

If we are to go by Win Shares, and I know how much some people love Win Shares, I believe Jennings had one season where he had a strong claim to best position player in baseball - 1896. But he was among the handful of best for that four year period, so perhaps I was understating him. Still, 4 years is not a very long time at all, and outside of those 4 years, Jennings doesn't have much else going for him.

As for Joss, Joss has an at least decent claim to being the best pitcher in baseball in 1908. It's between him and Ed Walsh. Walsh pitched a ridiculous amount of innings (which should not be held against Joss, because it was ridiculous compared to everyone), but Joss did finish 2nd in IP that year and 42 points ahead of Walsh in ERA+. Joss did have a few seasons where he was in the conversation for the top 5-7 pitchers. The IP is against him in some of those years, but it's the only thing against him, and in those years it's not enough to overcome the high quality of the innings he did pitch in terms of ERA+, WHIP, and extremely high percentage of complete games and shutouts.

--If Joss averaged 278 IP over 8 years and only twice finished in the top 5 in IP doesn't that just tell us that 278 IP was not a particularly impressive figure for a pitcher in that decade? Ditto for his top seasons not leading the league. Lots of guys were putting up 300 IP seasons and a few were going over 400.

278 was not by any means a shabby number and is a figure that would put him just outside the top 10 in the AL in most years. Plus, it's the quality of the innings pitched by Joss that I feel you're undervaluing. What's more impressive 320 IP of 135 ERA+ or 280 of 160 ERA+? Joss made the most of when he did pitch, he was thoroughly dominant and finished 9 out of 10 games he started.

leecemark

11-20-2008, 10:09 PM

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 10:16 PM

Ee little disingenuous, hah?

- arguably the best in baseball during those 4 years

- presumably judgment is nearly unanimous that Jennings was the best at his position for 4-5 seasons, ie the best shortstop in baseball 1894 or 1895 to 1898.

Like I said, I probably understated Jennings a little, but I believe 1896 is the only year he really has a distinct claim to best overall player. In 1895, 96, 1898, he was likely the best SS, but I'm giving 1897 to George Davis. And really the crux of the point is that Jennings has very little beyond those 4 years. Is 4 years really enough? It's not like he had a number of additional good seasons and those just represent peak, those seasons represent pretty much it. This is something I think we need to keep in mind going forward - 3 or 4 great years and little else is apparently enough (I guess we can punch Dave Parker's ticket now, and he at least had a real career outside of his 3 or 4 great years).

And Joss' CG percentage was fairly extraordinary even for his day. He completed 90% of his starts. Here are some of his more notable contemporaries:

Joe McGinnity: 82%
Vic Willis: 82%
Mordecai Brown: 82%
Christy Mathewson 79%
Ed Walsh: 79%
Jack Chesbro: 78%
Eddie Plank: 77%
Rube Waddell: 77%

Speaking of Rube Waddell, he sailed in on the first ballot, but he was nothing at all to write home about in terms of IP. He just four times finished in to the top 10 IP, never higher than 3rd (Joss topped at 2nd), despite having more opportunities than Joss due to not dying. Waddell averaged 269 IP per 162, Joss averaged 189 per 162. In all, Waddell pitched just 600 more innings than Joss, but had an ERA+ 7 points lower and a WHIP about 150 points higher. Moreover, both averaged an ERA+ of 160.4 in their best 5 seasons.

Waddell is essentially what Joss would have been if Joss didn't die and pitched a few more lesser years. I guess those few extra lesser years are the difference between Waddell being a first balloter and Joss not getting in, because otherwise, they are very similar in terms of peak performance and the IP issues.

DoubleX

11-20-2008, 10:21 PM

--I didn't say 278 IP was shabby. However, "not shabby" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the Hall of Fame;). Joss was a very good pitcher - but just wasn't the kind of horse you'd expect for a Hall of Fame pitcher from this period. His best season was maybe the 10th or 15th or even 20th best pitcher season of the decade. That doesn't cut it for a guy who is all peak.

If you go by Win Shares, it's around 10th. Anyway, I do think Rube Waddell's career numbers are a lot like what Joss' would have been had Joss lived to pitch another couple of mediocre years. They are very similar in terms of peak and IP questions (though Joss is a little more questionable in terms of IP).

EDIT: I think there's also a way to look at the high in-season IP totals of someone like Ed Walsh as perhaps a bad thing. One great season with a ridiculous amount of IP for Walsh, may have cost him two or three good seasons down the road, and in that vein, he had less long-term value to his team. Despite some very lofty in-season IP totals, Walsh only finished with 600 more career IP than Joss, despite the fact that Walsh was able to pitch in 5 more seasons than Joss due to not dying like Joss did. Had Joss not died, that gap would have been much smaller, and perhaps Joss would have passed Walsh, giving Joss more long-term value. I realize this argument doesn't go very far when you hold Joss' death against him, but it's meant to show that in the bigger picture, a few years with enormous IP totals may have undercut value in the long-run. Walsh would have had more value, IMO, if he scaled back by as many as 100 IP in a number of years and was able to tack on several more good years to his career. (NOTE: I'm not arguing that Joss is better than Walsh, just using it as an example).

leecemark

11-21-2008, 12:10 AM

philkid3

11-21-2008, 02:58 AM

Chief Bender
Bill Bradley
Frank Chance
Art Fletcher
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker

I've added Bender on my list as something of a cultural recognition as the icon for American Indian ballplayers of our era. He doesn't necessarily fit my statistical standard, but I think there's more to the Hall of Fame than that.

Art Fletcher is also getting a vote from me for a highly unusual reason: I want him to stay on the ballot. I may decide, with more thought and research, that he first my standard, but I can't do that if he's not on the ballot. Usually I would leave a player like that off, but usually such a player isn't facing falling off the ballot entirely.

I may vote for Joss next year. If he's close, I don't want to stand in his way.

Donie Bush I think has something of an argument, though I have him just short. I'll be okay with him falling off the ballot, probably, though I may revisit him come Veterans Committee time.

henrich

11-21-2008, 03:23 AM

I opened up my ballot a great deal this election. I added Joss (as promised), kept reulbach, added Walker (for one nominal selection), added Leach, added Chance for managerial credit, kept Bender. This was a much bigger ballot for me this time. We'll see how it plays out.

PVNICK

11-21-2008, 05:32 AM

Bender
Chance
Evers
Joss
Kling
Leach
Sheckard

I'm not sure why I kept Evers off my ballot in the past. Above average bat for any position, some phenomenal seasons, good if inconsistent defensive numbers and 2B for the greatest team of the last half of the 00s.

I was going to give a vote to George Cutshaw who had a decent bat for a 2B and may well have been the best defensive second baseman in the NL.

Donie Bush was the SS and leadoff hitter for the Tigers always among the league leaders in BB and runs with a decent glove.

I knwo we aren't supposed to consider it but where can I find a list of "retroactive gold gloves" and is there anything better to go on for defense than just RF/9 v. league and if you wish FPct. and DP for this time frame?

dgarza

11-21-2008, 06:52 AM

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

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

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 07:25 AM

--Saying I "hold Joss' death against him" is false and at least a little insulting. Joss' death was a tragedy, as would be anyone's early demise leaving behind a wife and young children. I certainly do not hold it against him. I simply don't give him credit for things he didn't accomplish.

You equated his death to an injury or just walking away, and I don't think it's like that at all. The reason Joss' career ended when it did was death. If he didn't die, he would have pitched more. It wasn't his choice, and it at least with injury, he could attempt to pitch through it (as many did during the day). His career was cut short due to death, and a fairly sudden one at that. You don't get a choice at all with death.

Anyway, I resigned myself before I even started this conversation, to the fact that I would never sway you on Joss. You aren't my target audience. I'm aiming at people on the fence, and I suspect there are at least a few, given how Joss' support seems to fluctuate. With just this year and next on the ballot, I'm trying to stabilize that support.

leecemark

11-21-2008, 08:01 AM

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 08:27 AM

--I know you don't expect to get my vote. What you appear to be doing is trying to undercut my side of the argument by suggesting only a heartless monster could fail to extend Joss some extra credit for years lost due to his death. Neither of us are going to convince the other, but we both have the right - obligation even if this project is going to be interesting and worthwhile - to try and convince those on the fence. One of the best things about BBF is that we generally try to do that with logic and reason and not by demonizing those on the other side of the debate.

I'm not trying to demonize you in the least. I just can't equate death to injury or voluntarily walking away from the game like you do. I do believe the effect of that, from an evaluation standpoint, is to effectively hold death against him and ignore that if he hadn't died, if he would have pitched more. If you're going to hold his short career against him, which it appears you are, the cause is inescapable. I'm not saying give him extra credit, just to consider that the shortness of his career was extremely atypical and involuntary, and not to equate the brevity of his career with someone whose career was cut short due to other, more voluntary reasons. For instance, I don't think it would be fair to put Joss in the same boat as someone who walked away from the game after 9 years. That person chose to walk away, Joss had no such choice.

Domenic

11-21-2008, 08:33 AM

Bender
Cravath
Joss
Leach
Wood

I accidentally voted for Bradley instead of Bender - could that be rectified? Sorry.

leecemark

11-21-2008, 08:34 AM

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 09:16 AM

--Injuries and illnesses are generally involuntary. If Joss' injury had been say a rotor cuff his career would for all practical purposes have been over. That he may have gone out and thrown a few mediocore or worse innings in subsequent years that would add nothing to his case for me.

Just to highlight this point, here's a perfect example of a pitcher who had an amazing peak but flamed out due to an injury:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hahnno01.shtml

He only received minimal support and the main reason was that he flamed out early due to an injury. Why should Joss be given extra credit for dying when Hahn wasn't for suffering a career ending injury?

If Joss' case is to be made, it should emphasize his impressive peak. Not his untimely death.

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 09:52 AM

--Injuries and illnesses are generally involuntary. If Joss' injury had been say a rotor cuff his career would for all practical purposes have been over. That he may have gone out and thrown a few mediocore or worse innings in subsequent years that would add nothing to his case for me.

You can at least try to pitch through injury, you can't try to pitch through death. And if the injury is too much to bear, you make the decision not to play, or maybe the team makes it for you, but either way, there is a choice to be made, a luxury that isn't there in death. If you're dead, you don't have the luxury of even being injured - death is well beyond injury. I can't reconcile how injury and death can be equated in evaluating a player. Plus, contemporaneous accounts had Joss ready to go for the season, and I believe even if he had been injured and pitched mediocre, he was a big enough name that if he chose to kept trying to pitch, someone would have been given him a shot for at least a couple more years.

Brooklyn

11-21-2008, 10:40 AM

I agree with DoubleX on Joss. been voting for him 14 years now, and disappointed he came so close and seemed to lose support after.

The big argument agaisnt him seems to be the workhorse issue.

From 1902-1909, he totaled 2,219.7 innings pitched, good enough for 10th best over that period. Granted, that is somewhat biased as it picks the years of his career, but still shows he wasn't as bad as innings wise as it is being perceived

If you look at his 5 best year, 1905-1909, he has the 6th most innings pitched over that period, behind George Mullin (a league average pitcher who through a lot of inning) and 4 HOFers (matthewson, Willis, Young and Walsh).

So he might not have been on the leaderboard on most individual years, but the guys beating him every year couldn't sustain it year in and year out.

I see his peak being good enough that he deserves to be in. I agree wtih DoubleX that if he pitched 5 or so more mediocre years, he would have likely gotten to the 240 or so win range, and get his ERA at a still high level, and would have looked like a much better candidate - and as Double X stated, we'd all be looking at his peak, not those 5 extra years

Freakshow

11-21-2008, 10:48 AM

Baker and Jennings were elected. Jones expired. Taking their places are Bender, Konetchy and Vaughn.

Bender
Chance
Cravath
Evers
Griffith
Huggins
Joss
Kling
Konetchy
Leach
Sheckard
Thomas
Tinker
H. Vaughn
Wood

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 11:53 AM

I agree with DoubleX on Joss. been voting for him 14 years now, and disappointed he came so close and seemed to lose support after.

If you're looking for a point of optimism, it's that this year and next are very weak, with Del Pratt and Larry Gardner representing the cream of the crop next year, and that concerted conversation about players I believe has been helpful in elected many (Barnes, Spalding, Jennings, Beckley, Willis, Bresnahan, etc.). So the more attention we give Joss, the better.

leecemark

11-21-2008, 12:31 PM

--I don't know that I'll vote for Pratt but he is at least worth discussing. He had a 112 OPS+ in 1800+ games, which is pretty good for a 2B. He is in the top 250 in both Black and Gray Ink - again pretty good for a 2B (although not admissable evidence in this project;)). His basic defensive stats at BBF make him look pretty good, but I'd sure like to know how he was regarded defensively by contemporary observers. He HAS to be a very good defender to make it on to my ballot. OTOH he top 2 most similar player are Larry Doyle - a contempory 2B with a poor defensive rep who we elected on the first ballot and Jimmy Collins - another first ballot guy, although one with a sterlign defensive rep.
--His third most similar player is Larry Gardner who will join him debutting on the ballot (Pratt is Gardner's most similar player). Gardner has a slightly lower OPS+ (109) in a few more games (1900+). He doesn't fare as well on the INk tests. One of his key skills was taking the base on balls, which is not well rewarded in Ink scores and they are a strong negative indicator for him. Gardner's basic defensive stats look pretty average too. Gardner was a key player for pennant winners in both Boston and Cleveland while Pratt played almost exclusively for second division teams if that matters in your decision making process.
--Both players probably need a boost to their statisical record to have a shot at election. Here is a littl einfo to get started. According to Bill James Gardner was moved from 2nd to 3rd because he was a very good defender and 3B was regarded as the more important position. According to the 1917 Reach guide (also stolen from the BJNHA) Gardner was "a slendid defender and fast on the bases." Gardner is current the baseball coach at the University of Vermont, where he played his college ball.
--James awards Pratt one WS Gold Glove and has him as the runner up 5 more times. Pratt was a college man (which delayed the start of his pro career) and the spokesman for his teammates in battles with management - which resulted in his being traded several times. Prat was traded from St Louis for another potential Hall of Famer, Urban Shicker, after he sued Browns owner Phil Ball.

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 12:53 PM

Mark, I'm glad you started a conversation on Pratt. I've been looking forward to his eligibility for some time because I think he makes for a really interesting candidate. He didn't immediately leap at me as a Hall of Famer, but the more I look at him, the more I like him, and I think our standards are such, that he probably does have an at least decent case. I'm leaning towards voting for him.

Gardner is also an interesting candidate. When you consider that we've elected just 3 3Bmen, perhaps it is worth applying extra scrutiny to Gardner and try to understand why we've elected so few 3Bmen. Outside the three we've elected, Gardner's case is about as good as anyone else who's played the position to date (though I'd say the recently retired Heinie Groh has better case and Pie Traynor is looking pretty good right now).

Sidenote - We didn't elect Doyle first ballot, did we? I thought he had to wait a year or two?

leecemark

11-21-2008, 01:09 PM

--My recollection is that he received exactly 75% on his first time up. Of course, I didn't aactually go back and check or any thing crazy like that:D.

Cowtipper

11-21-2008, 01:15 PM

Why I'm voting for...

Chief Bender
Good W%, good grey ink, good ERA, good comps. Enough "goods" to put him on my ballot. 1907-1911 were very good ERA+ wise.

Frank Chance
The most worthy out of the Tinkers-Evers-Chance trio. He had the highest career BA out of all three and the best OPS+. He was also a great manager during his playing career, which is what is what solidifies his spot on the ballot for me.

Gavvy Cravath
Was a premier power hitter of his day. Led the league in home runs six times in his 11 year career, and was in the top 5 eight times. Black ink of 46 is 19 points better than average Hall of Famer. OPS+ of 151 is great.

Mike Donlin
There's just something about that .333 average and 144 OPS+.

Clark Griffith
His pitching record alone makes him HOF worthy. Good W%, good comps. He managed a bit during his playing career, and that makes him even more worthy.

Addie Joss
Killer ERA and ERA+. Great W%.

Ed Reulbach
Too good to not get a vote. Very good ERA, good ERA+, good W%. His first 3-5 seasons were some of his best.

Joe Wood
For such a short career, he was excellent. Amazing ERA, W% and ERA+.

Cowtipper

11-21-2008, 01:25 PM

One guy that I'm stuck on is Tommy Leach. Offensively, he wasn't that great. 2143 hits? Not bad, but not great. 109 OPS+? That 646th all-time. .269 average? That's league-average. Great hitters aren't league-average hitters.

According to "The Pittsburgh Pirates Encyclopedia," he is only the 27th best player to play in that organization. Which means 26 players in just the Pirates organization were better than him.

What's the big hullabaloo about Tommy Leach?

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 01:38 PM

What's the big hullabaloo about Tommy Leach?

For starters, he's the only player in major league history to have played over 900 games at both 3B and CF. In addition, his A+ defensive win shares at both 3B and CF would have earned him around 15 gold gloves if the award existed at the time.

He also wasn't a league average hitter at the time. Here's his win shares:

5 year peak:17-19-29-31-26
Top WS: 31-30-29
CWS: 335

I also think you're ignoring the fact that his OPS+ of 109 is in the top end of the spectrum for the positions he played. Not the bottom end. He was much more than "league average." He was a special kind of player that was valuable enough that he could field 2 difficult positions better than anyone else in the league and could be shifted from one to the other as needed.

I won't attempt to argue against your ballot, but will say that if you consider Reulbach "too good to ignore," and Donlin too good, you're ignoring things like era, durability and context and placing way too heavy an emphasis on raw numbers.

dgarza

11-21-2008, 01:40 PM

.269 average? That's league-average. Great hitters aren't league-average hitters.
Unless you're Mike Schmidt.

What's the big hullabaloo about Tommy Leach?Myself, I am not quite sold on Leach (although he's somewhat close).
What seperates Leach out from the rest of the crowd is his speed, but especially his defensive value.

Cowtipper

11-21-2008, 02:01 PM

Unless you're Mike Schmidt.

Myself, I am not quite sold on Leach (although he's somewhat close).
What seperates Leach out from the rest of the crowd is his speed, but especially his defensive value.

Mike Schmidt hit for power and had black and grey ink to show for his efforts.

Schmidt's black and grey ink:

74 and 224 -- both better than avg. Hall of Famer

Leach's black and grey ink:

11 and 114 -- both considerably below avg. Hall of Famer

In Leach's case, his defensive value would have to be exemplary to put him over the top. And apparently it was.

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 02:04 PM

In Leach's case, his defensive value would have to be exemplary to put him over the top. And apparently it was.

It was and then some.

PVNICK

11-21-2008, 02:04 PM

The defensive argument finally put me into Leach's camp. At the plate he was no slouch. He was among the best hitters in the league around the turn of the century leading the league in HR and 3B in 1902, led the league in runs in 1909 and still going strong leading the league in runs in 1913. He finished top 5 in runs, RBI, SB, hits, 2B, 3B, HR, avg, OBP, and Spct at some point in his career. Top 10 seasons in every almost every "advanced" measure in 1902, 1907 and 1913 plus a few more by runs created. For a player that was a great fielder at key defensive positions that its an exceptional resume. When he retired he may well have been the second greatest player to ever play 3B after Jimmy Collins.

dgarza

11-21-2008, 02:16 PM

Mike Schmidt hit for power and had black and grey ink to show for his efforts.

I think Cowtipper was making a point about a player's average, and then drew some sort of conclusion based on that average alone.

Cowtipper

11-21-2008, 02:39 PM

I think Cowtipper was making a point about a player's average, and then drew some sort of conclusion based on that average alone.
In a way. Leach's average alone wasn't that great. In fact, it was average. He hit .269, the league hit .269. If you're going to hit exactly what the league averaged, you have to do something else that was awesome. Schmidt hit home runs and did lots of other good things. Leach played great defense, etc, etc.

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 03:29 PM

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 04:06 PM

EDIT - Chief Bender (I don't get it): Also, can someone explain to me the case for Chief Bender? He's doing much better than I thought he would. People talk about Joss' IP problem, but Bender never, not even just once, finished in the top 10 in IP. His career high in IP was just 270 (his rookie year) - that's an extremely scant amount for a career high in that era, and he only reached 250 three times. He just twice won 20 games. He just once finish in the top 5 in ERA+, and never finished higher than 3rd in any major category. Even when he did finish in the top 10 in some major categories, such as ERA+ (6 times) or WHIP (7 times), it was often in 100 less innings (and perhaps more) than his competition. He finished with a career ERA+ of 112 in just over 3000 IP, which is decent, but not particularly impressive. I just don't get what the the case is here. What am I missing? He seems to be a lot more hype than substance.

Chief Bender played an integral role on several Philadelphia A's championship teams (along with Eddie Plank and to a lesser degree Jack Coombs). He also persevered despite struggling with discrimination throughout his entire career. I used to feel the same way as you about Bender until I read Tom Swift's book (http://tom-swift.com/cbb/) about Bender. It was a real eye opener. In 2008, he's borderline for me, but in 1928, he was significant enough to make by ballot.

NineWorldSeries

11-21-2008, 05:33 PM

Bender
Griffith
Joss

philkid3

11-21-2008, 05:40 PM

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 05:41 PM

Someone on this forum, I can't remember who, has, in the past, described players as someone he'd want to make the Hall of Fame, but without his voting for him.

I think Joss is like that. I want him to get in without my vote. That said, I'll vote for him next year if he misses out.

If you want him to get in, he'll probably need your vote to get in. Especially since I'm strongly considering removing him from my ballot next year and don't plan on voting for him if he gets to the VC.

DoubleX

11-21-2008, 06:01 PM

If you want him to get in, he'll probably need your vote to get in. Especially since I'm strongly considering removing him from my ballot next year and don't plan on voting for him if he gets to the VC.

I don't see why you'd wait to his 15th year to remove him. He's made it that far, and you've been supporting him up to that point, might as well throw him a bone at that point.

I also don't understand why you'd vote for him here but not the VC. What exactly would change?

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 06:10 PM

I don't see why you'd wait to his 15th year to remove him. He's made it that far, and you've been supporting him up to that point, might as well throw him a bone at that point.

I also don't understand why you'd vote for him here but not the VC. What exactly would change?

Joss is very borderline for me. I haven't been voting for him all along. He's only been on my ballot a few times. Because of the fact that he's so borderline for me, I can't see giving him my endorsement in 1935 if he doesn't make it by way of the regular election. If he were someone I saw as an oversight on the part of the standard election who was perceivably better than the weakest players elected by the general vote (like Herman Long, Jimmy Ryan or Tommy Leach), that's a different story. So far, I haven't seen any convincing argument that Joss is that type of candidate. If elected, he wouldn't be far off from the weakest elected, but he'd be below that current standard and the weakest pitcher elected for me.

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 06:11 PM

To encourage discussion (and hopefully see some new nominations), I've posted the ballot for the 1930 VC Contributors:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85051

Paul Wendt

11-21-2008, 06:24 PM

Chief Bender
. . .
I've added Bender on my list as something of a cultural recognition as the icon for American Indian ballplayers of our era. He doesn't necessarily fit my statistical standard, but I think there's more to the Hall of Fame than that.
Uh-oh, that's something to think about.

Art Fletcher is also getting a vote from me for a highly unusual reason: I want him to stay on the ballot. I may decide, with more thought and research, that he first my standard, but I can't do that if he's not on the ballot. Usually I would leave a player like that off, but usually such a player isn't facing falling off the ballot entirely.
I cast one vote for him last year but don't take that for granted. Keep up the campaign.
On the other hand I do have three places vacated by Baker, Jennings, and Jones. So I make no promises either way. EOAF should keep up the campaign too.

Paul Wendt

11-21-2008, 06:35 PM

Why I'm voting for...

Chief Bender
Good W%, good grey ink, good ERA, good comps. Enough "goods" to put him on my ballot. 1907-1911 were very good ERA+ wise.
See his World's Series records too.

Ed Reulbach
Too good to not get a vote. Very good ERA, good ERA+, good W%. His first 3-5 seasons were some of his best.
some of his best?
By any measure, his first year was his best, right?
By any measure, his first five years were his best five, right?
By ERA+, his first two years were his best two and his first three years were his best three.

Paul Wendt

11-21-2008, 07:14 PM

With a couple of lean years here, I'm glad were discussing guys like Joss and Leach. I'd like to throw Frank Chance's name in there as well.

As strictly a player, his case is similar to Hughie Jennings' in some ways. Like Jennings, Chance had about 3 seasons (1903, 1904, and 1906) where he was in the discussion for best position player in the NL - well best not named Honus Wagner (Jennings was never up against a player anywhere close to Wagner's caliber). Having a strong claim for second best after the incomparable Wagner, arguably the greatest player we've seen (though Ty Cobb now has a strong case as well), is no shame.
1.
Do we agree that Chance has a strong case for second best NL player even during three selected seasons? (where everyone speaks of a five-year span for Jennings)
Note, from "in the discussion" to "having a strong claim" is a big jump.

2.
There were two competing major leagues during this time period some may credit to Frank Chance, double the number of major leagues during Jennings peak seasons.

3.
Who was the second best player in the Frank Chance National League?
Lajoie moved to the AL in 1901, Flick in 1902, Crawford in 1903. Perhaps Fred Clarke or Tommy Leach or Roy Thomas was the second best player then, and Sherry Magee or Cy Seymour was the second best player during Frank Chance's very best seasons?

Frank Chance in his prime (after Clarke, Leach, and Thomas put up their best season) was never up against a player of the caliber Hugh Jennings faced by the half dozen or dozen: Delahanty, Hamilton, and briefly Sam Thompson, briefly Lajoie, briefly Flick; Burkett, Davis and Dahlen; Joe Kelley and briefly McGraw (always there but only briefly a great player in conjunction with Jennings).

Alternatively, Frank Chance was up against such a player, but Mike Donlin played even less than Chance!

4.
(or simply skip all this, it gets dull)
Beyond that, there was about a 6 or 7 year period where Chance had a good claim for at least being the best at his position,
but he wasn't playing baseball full time. Was first base so demanding a position on the field? Like catcher, where Roger Bresnahan did not play full time after he added the manager's portfolio? Fred Clarke played full time in LF and managed the Pirates too, for a lot longer than Frank Chance played part time and managed the Cubs.

I think that's saying a little bit more than Jennings' feat at SS for two reasons: 1) Chance's run of dominance at his position was longer than Jennings; and 2) We've elected 10 shortstops compared to just 5 first basemen, so I would think it's time to expand our numbers there.
Maybe shortstops are more important than firstbasemen.

what really sets Chance apart, IMO, is that he may have been an even better player for longer if he wasn't the greatest player/manager of all time. Guys like Jennings, Griffith, McGraw went on to successful managerial careers, but did so pretty much after they were done as players. Chance on the other hand, managed the first dynasty of the World Series era, guiding his team to four pennants and two titles, while simultaneously being the best player on the team. That's quite a feat, IMO, and deserving of recognition here. :applaud:
The Giants played in the first modern World's Series of 1905 but they have only themselves to blame for playing only one.

The Pirates, however, played in the so-called first World's Series of 1903 and Barney Dreyfuss would have been happy to play a series with the Mackmen in 1902. (Connie Mack would have been just as happy, I believe.) Dreyfuss, Clarke, and Pittsburgh may blame the other National League clubs for playing only one.

Cowtipper

11-21-2008, 07:38 PM

See his World's Series records too.

some of his best?
By any measure, his first year was his best, right?
By any measure, his first five years were his best five, right?
By ERA+, his first two years were his best two and his first three years were his best three.

I said "some of his best" because he had 1915, when he played in the Federal League. He went 21-10 with a 2.23 ERA, and his ERA+ was 128.

jjpm74

11-21-2008, 11:10 PM

I'm surprised to see that no one has put in a vote for Donie Bush. Bush set a ML record for put outs in a single season and was a speedster on the bases. His defense is a C, but maybe that's because of his ability to get to more balls than anyone else?

On a separate note, Art Fletcher was an A+ defensively at a defensive position and with his 100 OPS+ and his 24-22-18-25-27 peak, albeit in a relatively short career with average to just below average hitting, I think he's done enough to gain a spot on my ballot in 1929 if he makes it that far.

leecemark

11-21-2008, 11:30 PM

I said "some of his best" because he had 1915, when he played in the Federal League. He went 21-10 with a 2.23 ERA, and his ERA+ was 128.

--The Federal League wasn't quite a major league. Most of the major leaguers who played in it were either oldsters collecting a last payday or youngsters who would have still been seasoning in the minors had the FL not started up. Then a good chunk of the rosters were players who never played in the real majors before or after. Pointing out that Bender had one of his best years in the FL only detracts from his record.

DoubleX

11-22-2008, 07:38 AM

1.Do we agree that Chance has a strong case for second best NL player even during three selected seasons? (where everyone speaks of a five-year span for Jennings)
Note, from "in the discussion" to "having a strong claim" is a big jump.

Going by Win Shares, which seems to be the stat of choice for some here, Chance was right up there among positional players not named Wagner in the NL in the three years I mentioned. So yeah, I would say that I would give him a "strong claim" for best not named Wagner in the NL. Also, my win shares lists on are on my other computer, so I can't look up the actual number, but I don't believe Jennings ever led all positional players anyway, and was behind George Davis among just shortstops in at least one of his peak years (of course though, it good argument could be made for Jennings in some of those years anyway just on the mere fact he was a SS).

2.
There were two competing major leagues during this time period some may credit to Frank Chance, double the number of major leagues during Jennings peak seasons.

This is a valid point, but I also believe in just that short decade, there was a greater depth of talent at the professional level, though it doesn't completely make up for how an extra league would dilute talent.

3.
Who was the second best player in the Frank Chance National League?
Lajoie moved to the AL in 1901, Flick in 1902, Crawford in 1903. Perhaps Fred Clarke or Tommy Leach or Roy Thomas was the second best player then, and Sherry Magee or Cy Seymour was the second best player during Frank Chance's very best seasons?

Frank Chance in his prime (after Clarke, Leach, and Thomas put up their best season) was never up against a player of the caliber Hugh Jennings faced by the half dozen or dozen: Delahanty, Hamilton, and briefly Sam Thompson, briefly Lajoie, briefly Flick; Burkett, Davis and Dahlen; Joe Kelley and briefly McGraw (always there but only briefly a great player in conjunction with Jennings).

Alternatively, Frank Chance was up against such a player, but Mike Donlin played even less than Chance!

Again, I don't have my Win Shares lists in front of me, so I can't go by that measure, but I would guess some of the players you mentioned - Seymour, Donlin, Clarke, throw Bresnahan's name in there, Sheckard maybe. Your point is a good one, but it was still a professional league with professional caliber players, and having a strong argument for the best (not name Wagner) is still a good argument, IMO.

4.
but he wasn't playing baseball full time. Was first base so demanding a position on the field? Like catcher, where Roger Bresnahan did not play full time after he added the manager's portfolio? Fred Clarke played full time in LF and managed the Pirates too, for a lot longer than Frank Chance played part time and managed the Cubs.

I do think 1B was much more demanding back then than we in 2008 give credit for, but of course it wasn't like catcher. I don't know what the correlation is, but it's entirely possible that had Chance played more, perhaps he wouldn't have been as successful as a manager. I admit though that Fred Clarke and his player/manager success escaped my mind when I posted.

Maybe shortstops are more important than firstbasemen.

That's true, but we've elected 10 of them now, which seems like a pretty high figure to me. I am concerned about the standard we've set at SS. Take the 1890s for example. There were 12 teams, and we've determined that 1/3 of the teams had a Hall of Fame SS in his prime (Davis, Dahlen, Jennings, and Long), with two more to debut during the decade (Wallace and Wagner). That doesn't strike you as a high number? With a high number of highly qualified players available, the value/premium placed on the position is diminished because it apparently isn't as hard to find a high quality player at that position as elsewhere.

While at 1B, we've elected just 5 players, and not one whose career started after 1890 (Beckley is our most recent and he started in 1888). That seems like a representation problem to me, and given the high percentage of Hall of Fame shortstops from this period, it does perhaps suggest that it was more difficult to find a high quality 1Bman of Chance's caliber, than a high quality SS. Isn't there at least one player who played 1B whose career began in the last 35 years worthy of the Hall? I believe Chance is that player.

:applaud:

I'm guessing we agree here. Chance was the best player on the first dynasty of the WS era, and was the manager of that team too boot. Throw in the fact that during his peak, he was at least likely the best at his position and among the best in the NL, and I think it's all enough to make up for the relative shortness of his playing career.

DoubleX

11-22-2008, 07:43 AM

I'm surprised to see that no one has put in a vote for Donie Bush. Bush set a ML record for put outs in a single season and was a speedster on the bases. His defense is a C, but maybe that's because of his ability to get to more balls than anyone else?

I'm a little surprised too, though I was much more surprised that Clyde Milan didn't receive any (how does Fielder Jones last 15 years and Milan can't get through 1?).

Anyway, I don't think Bush is all that different from Herman Long. I do think Long is a cut better, but I also think Long's election should at least open the door for a serious discussion about someone like Bush, and I would have expected he'd get at least some consideration.

Eastvanmungo

11-22-2008, 09:19 AM

Bender
Chance
Griffith
Joss
Leach

STLCards2

11-22-2008, 09:22 AM

Cowtipper

11-22-2008, 09:42 AM

Chief Bender never once finished finished in the top 10 in IP in his league. Not a single time. Bender also never finished higher than 5th in ERA+ a single time.

3,o00 IP and a 112 ERA+ is well below HOF standards.

That's because he also had Eddie Plank and Rube Waddell on his team for a long time. You can't really penalize a guy for things he can't control. Plank of course finished in the top ten in IP eight times, and Waddell four times.

Bender did however lead the league in W% three times, which is fairly impressive.

DoubleX

11-22-2008, 09:51 PM

That's because he also had Eddie Plank and Rube Waddell on his team for a long time. You can't really penalize a guy for things he can't control. Plank of course finished in the top ten in IP eight times, and Waddell four times.

There was a reason that Bender was behind Waddell and Plank - they were a lot better, it wasn't just arbitrary. There were also years where Bender was behind other pitchers on his team, making him no better than the 4th best starter on his own team, such as Jack Coombs, Cy Morgan, and Jimmie Dygert.

Bender did however lead the league in W% three times, which is fairly impressive.

That is a very team oriented statistic. In those three years, Bender also had the benefit of playing on pennant winning teams, twice winning the World Series. Moreover, in the third of those years, Bender only pitched 179 innings, and averaged a fairly paltry 215 innings in those three years combined. That is not impressive in the least.

Bender has some subjective elements going for him, namely that he garnered a lot of attention due to this ethnic background and had to persevere through bigotry, but his play on the field was a lot more hype than substance, and the subjective factor is just not enough to overcome this, IMO.

leecemark

11-22-2008, 10:18 PM

I'm a little surprised too, though I was much more surprised that Clyde Milan didn't receive any (how does Fielder Jones last 15 years and Milan can't get through 1?).

Anyway, I don't think Bush is all that different from Herman Long. I do think Long is a cut better, but I also think Long's election should at least open the door for a serious discussion about someone like Bush, and I would have expected he'd get at least some consideration.

--Long was a great defensive SS. Bush was average at best with the glove. That is a pretty big difference. I did consider giving Bush a courtesty vote to prevent his being one and done, but I do not think he has a reasonabe argument for the Hall.

Paul Wendt

11-25-2008, 12:00 PM

Joss
Chance
Griffith

Man, I though I had a big HOF. Some people here must support 300 HOFers.
Speaking from 2008 perspective,
We may expect that 300 is about typical for the size of a "personal" Hall of Fame or Hall of Merit.

Plenty of internet projects suggest about 300 including recent and active players who are not yet eligible in Cooperstown.

Suppose we close the books after the "2008" elections for Cooperstown (veterans Dec 2007, regular Dec/Jan 2008), ending when the BBWAA first considered Tim Raines and other players with 2002 finales. Similarly we cut after the "2008" election for the Hall of Merit (Nov 2007) when that group first considered Raines and co.
(The regular 2009 election is now in progress at the Hall of Merit with ballot deadline 2008-12-07, Sunday two weeks. Visit the 2009 Ballot Discussion (page 4) (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/2009_ballot/) --with links to specific discussions and to 2009 Ballot.)

There are Hall of Merit 234 players, which matches Cooperstown in a sense. Cooperstown honors some of them primarily for non-playing roles (Al Spalding, Rube Foster, etc), but for sake of discussion call it 234 for both the HOM and the HOF.
: The BaseBall-Fever Hall of Fame (see threads in this forum) is not simple to compare in detail. Closing books before the "2009" election that considered Roger Clemens and other players with 2007 presumed finales (October 2008) there were 251 BBFHOF members called Players. That includes 2003-2006 finales not yet eligible for HOM or C'town consideration and it includes about players from outside the US (nine Japan and one Puerto Rico?); it also excludes some members called Contributors who were important players, like Joe Torre(HOM) and Frank Chance(C'town). I have never tried to carry the comparison of member counts beyond this point. At the same time, the number of 2003-2006 finale players in the BBFHOF (eg, Roberto Alomar and Jeff Bagwell) is a poor guide to the rate that recent players will be honored, because others from those finale seasons will be elected in the future (eg, Kevin Brown and Rafi Palmeiro).

How many would we typically put in our personal HOFs and pHOMs from the recent (Roberto Alomar), ancient veteran (Tom Glavine), long-time veteran (Mariano Rivera), and middle-age veteran (Albert Pujols) players? How many do we think C'Town should induct? Dozens, probably 50 is the right order of magnitude.

KCGHOST

11-25-2008, 12:43 PM

Griffith
Joss

Paul Wendt

11-25-2008, 01:27 PM

I'm a little surprised too, though I was much more surprised that Clyde Milan didn't receive any (how does Fielder Jones last 15 years and Milan can't get through 1?).
Two possibilities:
- Clyde Milan's supporters didn't vote for him
- Clyde Milan didn't have any supporters

Background note:
Season schedules, fewer than 154 games

Fielder who needs no nickname Jones:
1896-97, 132 games (add 1/6 to both of those two seasons)
1900-03, 140 games (add 10% to all of those four seasons)

Clyde the Deer Milan:
1918, about 126 games (add 20%)
1919, 140 games (add 10%)

Win Shares (WS) by Bill James
Why does the win share system credit them with Fielder Jones 290, Clyde Milan 265 (or 97 and 88 games), despite the smaller numbers of games available to Jones?

For Clyde the Deer Milan, with 1918-19 WS=<18, 9>, a linear adjustment is +3.6 and +0.9 win shares. Call it five extra, adjusted total cwsA= 270.

For Fielder the man who needs no nickname Jones, with 1896-97 WS=<16,18> and 1900-03 WS=<20,23,25,20>, a linear adjustment is +5.8 and +8.8. Call it fifteen extra, adjusted total cwsA=305.

Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP) by Clay Davenport

WARP1 or version 1 says that a game is a game is a game
: Jones 110 in 13 years, which is super
: Milan 79 in 15 years, which is OK

WARP3 or version 3 is "adjusted for all time" meaning for number of games, league quality, and fielding position quality.
: Jones 79
: Milan 51

Career centerfielders 1890s and 1900s plus Clyde Milan
WARP1;WARP3
116 ; 95 : Billy Hamilton
(110 ; 82 : George Van Haltren incl pitching)
109 ; 79 : Fielder Jones, 1896-1908 => business
108 ; 84 : Jimmy Ryan
104 ; 77 : George Van Haltren, no pitching
104 ; 76 : Mike Griffin, 1887-1898 > business
102 ; 76 : Hugh Duffy
(101 ; 71 : Cy Seymour incl pitching)
_94 ; 65 : Roy Thomas
_84 ; 55 : Ginger Beaumont
_83 ; 55 : Cy Seymour, no pitching
_83 ; 54 : Dummy Hoy
_79 ; 51 : Clyde Milan
_77 ; 58 : Chick Stahl, 1896-1907 => suicide
_59 ; 44 : Mike Donlin (the actor in center)
_50 ; 38 : Bill Lange, 1893-1899 => marriage and business and S.F. society
_44 ; 32 : Jimmy Barrett, 1899(Sep)-1904 => broken leg, traumatic then chronic

DoubleX

11-25-2008, 04:12 PM

Here's who I got for next year:

Eddie Ainsmith - Likely won't be on ballot
Leon Cadore - Likely won't be on ballot
Jake Daubert
Larry Gardner
Earl Hamilton
Doc Lavan - Likely won't be on ballot
Al Mamaux - Likely won't be on ballot
Guy Morton - Likely won't be on ballot
Ivy Olson
Jeff Pfeffer
Ray Powell - Likely won't be on ballot
Del Pratt
Amos Strunk

Another pretty weak group, though I think Pratt, Gardner, and perhaps Daubert, are worth of some discussion. I actually think I'll vote for Pratt. I might be persuaded on Gardner as well - we've only elected three 3Bmen, and Gardner is as good as anyone eligible we haven't elected, so perhaps we need to modify our expectations for the position.

jjpm74

11-25-2008, 05:17 PM

BlueBlood

11-25-2008, 09:32 PM

We won't be electing anybody next time if Joss is elected this time....if Joss just misses the mark, then 1929 is 1928-redux with him being the only player with a window of opportunity.

Paul Wendt

11-25-2008, 11:11 PM

Daubert is almost a lock to make my ballot. Pratt and Gardner I'm not convinced on, but could be persuaded. Ivy Olson was a master at sacrificing runners over. He may end up getting a first time pass by someone as well.
Jeff Pfeffer - where are all the Giants fans?
Earl Hamilton - a book seller (remainders) based in Connecticut

AG2004

11-27-2008, 10:46 AM

That's true, but we've elected 10 of them now, which seems like a pretty high figure to me. I am concerned about the standard we've set at SS. Take the 1890s for example. There were 12 teams, and we've determined that 1/3 of the teams had a Hall of Fame SS in his prime (Davis, Dahlen, Jennings, and Long), with two more to debut during the decade (Wallace and Wagner). That doesn't strike you as a high number? With a high number of highly qualified players available, the value/premium placed on the position is diminished because it apparently isn't as hard to find a high quality player at that position as elsewhere.

I think it's just that so many top shortstops came along at one time. Glasscock is in the Hall, but I don't see him as better than any of the 1890s crowd. Dave Bancroft was a good shortstop in recent years, but I don't believe that he was as good as Long was. There's no major league shortstop with a prime in the 1910-1925 era who measures up to the 1890s group of Hall of Famers. Ray Chapman might have reached that level had he lived - give him credit for games lost due to the shortened seasons of 1918 and 1919, and his play from 1917 onwards was at a Hall of Fame level - but he didn't live.

While at 1B, we've elected just 5 players, and not one whose career started after 1890 (Beckley is our most recent and he started in 1888). That seems like a representation problem to me, and given the high percentage of Hall of Fame shortstops from this period, it does perhaps suggest that it was more difficult to find a high quality 1Bman of Chance's caliber, than a high quality SS. Isn't there at least one player who played 1B whose career began in the last 35 years worthy of the Hall? I believe Chance is that player.

Well, Sisler has a very good case for the Hall. Lou Gehrig has been amazing during his four years of full-time play. Bill Terry could bloom into a Hall of Famer with six years of top-level play; it's not unheard of for players to have reached their peaks during their early 30s.

There were three top-level first basemen with peaks in the 1880s. In the 1930s, we'll have Gehrig, who might be better than any of them when everything is done, and, if we're lucky, we might have another great one.

I think that, by 1940, we'll have seen the gap between Hall-worthy shortstops and Hall-worthy first basemen (inclinding those about to retire) all but eliminated. It might be reduced to one or two players, but that wouldn't be a significant difference.

These things go in cycles.

AG2004

11-27-2008, 04:00 PM

Also, my win shares lists on are on my other computer, so I can't look up the actual number, but I don't believe Jennings ever led all positional players anyway, and was behind George Davis among just shortstops in at least one of his peak years (of course though, it good argument could be made for Jennings in some of those years anyway just on the mere fact he was a SS).

I checked the top five position players in win shares between 1894 and 1898.

1894:
1) Hugh Duffy 33
2) Joe Kelley 30
3) Billy Hamilton 29
4) George Davis 25
5t) Hughie Jennings 24
5t) John McGraw 24
5t) Jake Stenzel 24

Davis was still a 3B for the majority of his games in 1894. Also, Davis' Giants played 8 more games than Jennings' Orioles; that is enough to account for the difference.

1895:
1) Ed Delahanty 31
2) Billy Hamilton 30
3t) Hughie Jennings 29
3t) Mike Griffin 29
3t) Bill Lange 29

The Orioles won the pennant by 3.5 games over Cleveland; Philadelphia, with Delahanty and Hamilton, was 9 games back. So, if you wanted to call Jennings the most valuable position player, you might have a case.

1896:
1) Hughie Jennings 36
2t) Bill Dahlen 31
2t) Ed Delahanty 31
2t) Joe Kelley 31
5) Billy Hamilton 30

1897:
1) Willie Keeler 32
2) George Davis 31
3) Fred Clakre 30
4) Hughie Jennings 29
5) Billy Hamilton 28

1898:
1) Jimmy Collins 34
2t) Ed Delahanty 33
2t) Billy Hamilton 33
4) Hughie Jennings 32
5) John McGraw 31

The NL adopted a 154-game schedule in 1898, increasing the season length by 22 games.

Total win shares, 1894-1898
1t) Hughie Jennings 150 (170 adjusted for season length)
1t) Billy Hamilton 150 (170 adjusted)
3) Ed Delahanty 140 (158)
4) Jesse Burkett 137 (156)
5) Hugh Duffy 123 (140)

Top five-year peaks, 1890s position players, adjusted win shares
1) Ed Delahanty 173
2t) Hughie Jennings 170
2t) Billy Hamilton 170
4t) Jesse Burkett 161
5t) Hugh Duffy 161

By comparison, Joss' peak is not that of a clear-cut Hall of Famer.

Best three seasons, contemporary P: Vic Willis 101, Clark Griffith 94, Eddie Plank 89, Jack Powell 89, JOSS 88, Jack Taylor 85, Bill Dinneen 81, Babe Adams 81, George Mullin 80.

Best five consecutive seasons: Vic Willis 138, Bill Dinneen 134, Eddie Plank 133, JOSS 131, Jack Taylor 124.

Bill Dinneen had 200 career win shares; Joss, 191.

At his best, Dinneen's rate stats weren't as good at Joss', but Joss' durability wasn't as good as Dinneen, so their overall contribution was about equal. Joss' value, both in career and peak, is approximately equal to Dinneen's. Joss didn't need as many innings to gather that value, which puts him ahead of Dinneen in my eyes, but it's not enough to get him on my ballot.

AG2004

11-27-2008, 04:19 PM

My ballot:
Frank Chance
Clark Griffith
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

-----

Back in 1901, I wrote,
I request that you [Sockeye ] do not set . . . standards such as hitting 200 home runs. . . . someone, someday, might hit that many home runs in a career. . . . Also . . . . someone who served as Chief Engineer for the Chinese Imperial Bureau of Mines could someday become President of the United States.

With the recent election of Herbert Hoover, someone who served as Chief Engineer for the Chinese Imperial Bureau of Mines will become president next year. We also have people who have managed to hit 200 home runs in a career.

That shows you my ability to predict future events. Thus, I advise people to invest in the stock market as soon as possible. My sources indicate that Andrew Mellon, as honest and competent a financial mind as can be found, will continue his role as Secretary of the Treasury. Thus, the economy can only continue on the upward course it has been on during the previous two administrations.

I know that my advice, at the end of 1916, to invest in Russian War Bonds was not ideal. But it is not likely for someone to produce two pieces of financial advice on such a catastrophic level. Ignore Roger Babson. He's been predicting for the past few years that the stock market would collapse, but it hasn't done so yet. Don't believe his cries of "Wolf!"

You can thank me for this piece of advice when the 1930s begin.

DoubleX

11-27-2008, 07:23 PM

Second time now that Addie Joss has come within 1% of election...

jjpm74

11-27-2008, 07:24 PM

DoubleX

11-27-2008, 09:29 PM

Wow, someone must have really squeezed their vote in at the last minute. I checked here about 1/2 an hour before time expired and Addie Joss was at 76%. He then fell to 74.07%. I guess he won't be making it into our Hall.

My guess is that AG slipped in near the end. I don't think hope is lost. He could garner an extra vote or two due to it being his last year, next year is another weak year so people may give extra consideration to some of the stronger holdovers like joss, and I feel l made a pretty good argument for him earlier in this thread. If his supporters from this time stay steady, he'd just need one vote. Coming so close to election, not once but twice now, and being denied, can't be fun.

philkid3

12-03-2008, 01:11 PM