Lip Pike

[Cowtipper]

Lip Pike played 10 seasons, hitting .321 with an OPS+ of 155. An early slugger, he led the league in home runs four times, accumulating a grey ink of 26. He led the league in slugging once, games once, doubles once, RBI once, OPS+ once, EXBH once, and AB/HR twice. His grey ink of 120 was also quite impressive, though not at the level of a Hall of Famer.

Because he played during a time when not a lot of games were played each year, none of his comps are in the Hall of Fame, or even Hall of Fame worthy. His comps are George Hall, Lyman Bostock, Jimmy Bannon, Bill Lamar, Austin McHenry, Danny Taylor, Ray Blades, Smead Jolley, Cliff Lee and Tuck Turner.

In 1936, he received a single vote for the Hall of Fame.

So, what say you about Mr. Pike? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

[SABR Matt]

LOL...no

The fact that he flamed out as league quality began to improve is the first and most important indictment. The fact that he barely lasted 10 years is the second indictment...especially ten years playing only 40 or 50 games a year...

Just no.

Not even remotely close.

[jjpm74]

LOL...no

The fact that he flamed out as league quality began to improve is the first and most important indictment. The fact that he barely lasted 10 years is the second indictment...especially ten years playing only 40 or 50 games a year...

Just no.

Not even remotely close.

Pike played professional baseball for over 14 years. He did not "flame out" as league quality improved. That thing we refer to as age caught up to him.

[SABR Matt]

Age or no age, he never played in a baseball league that would stack up to today's COLLEGE baseball circuit in terms of skill and competitive depth.

[jjpm74]

Age or no age, he never played in a baseball league that would stack up to today's COLLEGE baseball circuit in terms of skill and competitive depth.

Neither did Cap Anson or any other player who played in the 19th century. What's your point?

[DTF955]

It would be possible, I believe, to induct a man from the era he played in. Pike is not that man, though.

He only had 4 seasons about 150 OPS+ - one of only 28 games. He was also old at 33; when I think of guys who were old then, I thikn of Steve Kemp, not Lou Gehrig.

A player from that era would be eligible for induction, in my view, if:
1. He had most of his seasons around 180-200 OPS+, not just 12-140;
2. He played sterling defense, and was clearly getting balls that nobody else was getting to, consistently (we're talking guys with no gloves or little to protect their hands, anyway);
3. He played as a starter 15 years or more at that level.

In other words, if he's Lou Gehrig plus WIllie Mays, yeah. that peak of his, where he has 3 seasons above 170 OPS+, is what I'm looking for. Did he clearly have that when he played in the pre-NA days, say 1865-1870? If he did, then I *might* change my vote to a "maybe." (But, then I look at that range factor, and it's not standing out for me. His fielding percentage is sure better than league average, but I'd need both for that to really be part of the equation for me.)

But, best in his league has to be somewhere closer to Ruthian for me to say he serves in.

[SABR Matt]

Um...that dominating a pathetically inferior league should not be a qualification for the HOF?

There's a very large very steep climb in league quality from 1871 to 1893 when the rules changed for the last time before the big change of 1920. It goes from leagues which were the equivalent of weaker college divisions to leagues that were the equivalent of AAA in that time and climbs more closely to near modern league quality by the 20s.

Any player who has all of his playing time in the 1870s (essentially) without displaying Ruthian level dominance or real defensive skill is an automatic N! O! for me. They didn't play enough games to really know how great they could have been in full seasons...they didn't play against real competition. They didn't play under rules that even remotely resembled the rules everyone else in the HOF used. They were hobbyists getting a small paycheck for putting on a show. They weren't really major leaguers.

[dgarza]

The fact that he flamed out as league quality began to improve is the first and most important indictment.
That so-called "flame out" is merely circumstantial.
Would we say Johnny Mize "flamed out" as league quality improved?

Pike was productive into his 30s. I'm hard pressed to call that a "flame out". He died in his 40s, not that long after still playing pro-ball.

The fact that he barely lasted 10 years is the second indictment...Except that he played longer than that.

especially ten years playing only 40 or 50 games a year...
Of course, age still keeps ticking during all those days between games.

We must keep expectations and opportunities of the times in mind.
Should we knock...

Pitchers today for not pitching complete games?
Basketball players of the 1960s for not dunking?
Elvis, The Beatles, or Dizzy Gillespie for not flooding the market with 70-minute albums?

[SABR Matt]

The reason I brought up the limited number of games dgarza is that it makes his statistical record harder to believe...it has been heavily documented by sabermetricians that the fewer plate appearances you have, the less you can trust your rate stats (like OPS+ for example)...a 155 OPS+ in the paultry tiny sampling of games he played at the "major league" level (such as it was) is not a convincing record compared to a modern 155 OPS+ player...both because the game counts aren't high enough to get a statistically significant sample and because the league was vastly inferior.

[dgarza]

He only had 4 seasons about 150 OPS+ - one of only 28 games. I'm not sure I follow.
Pike had OPS+ years of 204, 195, 176, 170. Are you saying those are "about 150"? I would say they are "well beyond" 150.

[SABR Matt]

I think he meant ABOVE 150

[dgarza]

Any player who has all of his playing time in the 1870s (essentially) without displaying Ruthian level dominance or real defensive skill is an automatic N! O! for me. I think Pike was a HOF-quality player, but he was no Ross Barnes.
Now Ross Barnes, I would think, more closely matches the definition of a more dominating 1870s player who also had real defensive skills.

[dgarza]

they didn't play against real competition. They didn't play under rules that even remotely resembled the rules everyone else in the HOF used. They were hobbyists getting a small paycheck for putting on a show. They weren't really major leaguers.I'll leave the size of the paycheck aside. I'm not sure how much that relates to the HOF and I don't know how proportional it was to other professions.

I think there is a place in the HOF for 1860, 1870s players, even despite LQ, competition, rules, etc. Others do not. That is more a philosophical call on what each of us thinks the purpose of the HOF is. Even if we all can agree that Pike was one of the best players of that type of game against that type of competition, that may not be enough for some, HOF-wise.

[AstrosFan]

I think there is a place for 1870s players if they prove they can still play at a HOF level even when they can't take advantage of screwy rules and league quality improves. Ross Barnes is a classic example of a player who couldn't do this. If he's not the most overrated player at BBF, he's in the top three.

[dgarza]

The reason I brought up the limited number of games dgarza is that it makes his statistical record harder to believe...it has been heavily documented by sabermetricians that the fewer plate appearances you have, the less you can trust your rate stats (like OPS+ for example)...
Well yes, of course sample size is important. And, of course, it has been documented by more than just sabermetricians.

a 155 OPS+ in the paultry tiny sampling of games he played at the "major league" level (such as it was) is not a convincing record compared to a modern 155 OPS+ player...both because the game counts aren't high enough to get a statistically significant sample and because the league was vastly inferior.
I would not think or guess that anyone here voting "yes" or "maybe" would be ranking Pike nearly as high as Joe DiMaggio (another CFer whose career OPS+ is also 155). Instead, they are just thinking that Pike "has a place" as a HOFer.

[dgarza]

I think there is a place for 1870s players if they prove they can still play at a HOF level even when they can't take advantage of screwy rules and league quality improves. Ross Barnes is a classic example of a player who couldn't do this. If he's not the most overrated player at BBF, he's in the top three.Ross Barnes also has one of the Top 3 baseball myths surrounding him. :dance

[jjpm74]

The argument that no one from before 1893's rule change deserves to be in the HOF is a very weak one. The majority of players who played in 1892 also played in 1893 and 1894 without skipping a beat. Only a handful of players were actually affected to the point that they couldn't adjust. Most notably a handful of pitchers.

Baseball is a constantly evolving game. One can draw the line at 1871 or 1876 or 1893 or 1919 or 1945 or 1966 or 1985 and point out how the previous generations were inferior.

[AstrosFan]

What? That he didn't take advantage of the fair/foul rule? The hell he didn't. Barnes hit for power, but he made a lot of use of that rule. It probably added at least 80 points to his OPS+ in 1876.

Barnes's decline was a combination of the rules changes and injuries. His stats should be docked due to the former, and he should not be credited because of the latter. There is no way he belongs in the Hall.

1870s stars I would put in the Hall, because they managed to sustain their high performance level long after the NA disbanded:

Deacon White
Ezra Sutton
Paul Hines

Anyone not mentioned is already in.

[Buzzaldrin]

What? That he didn't take advantage of the fair/foul rule? The hell he didn't. Barnes hit for power, but he made a lot of use of that rule. It probably added at least 80 points to his OPS+ in 1876.


You know this based on what?

And just purely out of curiosity, do you believe that spitballers who threw the pitch when it was legal should not be welcome in the hall- despite their records- because the rule was later changed preventing the pitch?

[STLCards2]

What? That he didn't take advantage of the fair/foul rule? The hell he didn't. Barnes hit for power, but he made a lot of use of that rule. It probably added at least 80 points to his OPS+ in 1876.

Barnes's decline was a combination of the rules changes and injuries. His stats should be docked due to the former, and he should not be credited because of the latter. There is no way he belongs in the Hall.

1870s stars I would put in the Hall, because they managed to sustain their high performance level long after the NA disbanded:

Deacon White
Ezra Sutton
Paul Hines

Anyone not mentioned is already in.


If a player knowingly, intelligently, and willingly takes advantage of a legal rule in order to produce for his team (and does so effectively), he should recieve credit for that. The better question is - why the heck wasn't everybody taking advantage of these rules? If they chose not too - they were stupid and cost their teams a lot of value. If they didn't have the ability to do so, than that is mark in favor of Barnes who obviously did have the ability to do so.

I am not endorsing Barnes neccessarily, but not becasue he used rules to his and his teams' advantage...good for him and shame on anybody who didn't.

I am always on the borderline on guys like Pike and Barnes. I feel ther is a place for them in the HOF, but don't know "where" exactly.

[AstrosFan]

Taking advantage of a silly rule should not be credited toward Barnes in regards to his greatness, because doing so in no way constitutes greatness.

***

My estimate of what Barnes would do was based on what I considered a conservative guess of how often a master bunter would take advantage as a percentage of his singles. 80 points off his OPS+ leave him at 151, which, given his averages the last two years and that the quality of baseball improved when the NL formed, seems fair. But again, it is just a guess. Don't read too much into it.

However, even if we ignore the fair/foul rule, he's still a player who flamed out early. I give no credit to anyone whose career was cut short by injuries. At the end, you've got a guy who managed to post a 166 OPS+ in about 2500 PA against competition that was about the level of Single-A ball at best, and was a fine defensive second basemen. I don't really think he's one of the top fifty second basemen of all time.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

At the end, you've got a guy who managed to post a 166 OPS+ in about 2500 PA against competition that was about the level of Single-A ball at best

Was there greater competition out there Pike was refusing to play against? Did he have any control over how good that competition was?

[AstrosFan]

That has nothing to do with anything. I am just not impressed with dominance of a weak league over a short period. I am impressed, however, by players who excelled during the NA days, and continued their excellence long after the NA had folded. Guys like Pike, Barnes, Meyerle, McVey do not meet that standard. They just flamed out too early, and given how weak the leagues they starred in were, their brief period of dominance is not enough.

[SABR Matt]

The argument that no one from before 1893's rule change deserves to be in the HOF is a very weak one. The majority of players who played in 1892 also played in 1893 and 1894 without skipping a beat. Only a handful of players were actually affected to the point that they couldn't adjust. Most notably a handful of pitchers.

Baseball is a constantly evolving game. One can draw the line at 1871 or 1876 or 1893 or 1919 or 1945 or 1966 or 1985 and point out how the previous generations were inferior.

Did I say no one before 1893 deserves to be in the hall? Cause I'm pretty sure I did *NOT*...I'm pretty sure I said anyone who's career was more or less entirely before 1880.

[SABR Matt]

You know this based on what?

And just purely out of curiosity, do you believe that spitballers who threw the pitch when it was legal should not be welcome in the hall- despite their records- because the rule was later changed preventing the pitch?

It takes skill to throw a good spitball. It takes no skill at all to dink a ball into foul territory and run to first base.

[SABR Matt]

That has nothing to do with anything. I am just not impressed with dominance of a weak league over a short period. I am impressed, however, by players who excelled during the NA days, and continued their excellence long after the NA had folded. Guys like Pike, Barnes, Meyerle, McVey do not meet that standard. They just flamed out too early, and given how weak the leagues they starred in were, their brief period of dominance is not enough.

There are two ways for a guy from the 1870s to make it into the hall for me.

1) They can continue to star in the 1880s

2) They can do something remarkable that helped the game develop (Cummings, for example).

Just being a solid top-3 player in the 1870s without continuing that dominance into the 1880s (Anson) does not make for a HOFer.

[jjpm74]

There are two ways for a guy from the 1870s to make it into the hall for me.

1) They can continue to star in the 1880s

2) They can do something remarkable that helped the game develop (Cummings, for example).

Just being a solid top-3 player in the 1870s without continuing that dominance into the 1880s (Anson) does not make for a HOFer.

So when a player got to 1880, they magically got better because they could still play after 1879?

[SABR Matt]

Please don't talk to me like I'm a 4 year old jjm

Of course it's not that simple. But when a player could continue dominating WELL INTO!! the 1880s, then YES...that makes a much stronger case than dominating the 1870s.

[jjpm74]

Please don't talk to me like I'm a 4 year old jjm

Of course it's not that simple. But when a player could continue dominating WELL INTO!! the 1880s, then YES...that makes a much stronger case than dominating the 1870s.

That would put Joe Start; a player who was one of the best players of the 1860s and 1870s andstill dominant well into the 1880s despite the fact that he was 38 when 1880 rolled around and was well into his 40s before showing a significant decline as a definite yes for the HOF for you, correct?

[SABR Matt]

Joe Start would have some case, yes, although he wasn't really "dominant" in the 1880s...that's partly due to age. Numerically, he doesn't show up, but there is room for some finagling in cases like his.

He's an interesting one to debate though.

[jjpm74]

Joe Start would have some case, yes, although he wasn't really "dominant" in the 1880s...that's partly due to age. Numerically, he doesn't show up, but there is room for some finagling in cases like his.

He's an interesting one to debate though.

He is a tough one to get a handle on and one aspect of his career that complicates things further is whether or not to credit him as a pioneer who helped define the role of a modern first baseman. Had he been 10 years younger, his case would have been even more interesting since he outperformed Cap Anson for much of the 1870s.

[SABR Matt]

Indeed...I think Cap Anson is WAY overrated at Fever, but Start would probably have been just as big a star had he been born ten years later and grown into a game that was already organized.

I'm no expert on pre-1871 baseball, but he's one guy I'd probably make allowances for.

[Buzzaldrin]

Had he been 10 years younger, his case would have been even more interesting since he outperformed Cap Anson for much of the 1870s.

Which 1870s are you talking about? From 1871-1879, Anson never hit below .317 (in 1879 itself) and hit as high as .415. He had ten straight OPS+ above 133. Start- who played much better in the NL than the NA, had OPS+ as low as 74 during this period (three times below 100), hit below .300 in four of the nine seasons, and even during his best seasons of the decade (1877-1879) was only on a fairly even par with Anson at bat. He may have outperformed him in the field, but come on.

Start blossomed with the arrival of the NL in a big way (well, after 1877). Why was that? He was in his mid 30s when he hit his career peak. If the NL was so much better than the NA was- why did Start and others like Tom York, Jim O'Rourke, and George Hall (till he was banned) and to a lesser extent Deacon White become seemingly better players with the arrival of the NL?

And back to Ross Barnes and the fair/foul rule- I'm gonna go poke around to see what I can find, but does anyone here know offhand WHY the rule change was made in the first place? I find it hard to believe that it was made because of Barnes alone.

I also find it very hard to accept that this rule change was a significant factor in Barnes' decline. There is no question that Barnes was a fantastic athlete- he was an excellent fielder and a powerful hitter. Suggesting the he was so one dimensional at the bat that he failed to adapt to a minor rule change and dropped his batting average 160 points is ridiculous. He was obviously capable of making contact with the ball and he had just led the league in extra base hits three times in five years- and this rule change turned a .400 hitter and into a .270 one? I don't think so. The suggestion is absurd.

If anyone know the why of the rule change, please let me know.

[SABR Matt]

I actually agree that Barnes' sudden implosion was unlikely to be ONLY as a result of the rules change, though I think that contributed.

In 1877, he only played in 22 games...he must have gotten injured, because his power vanished as well as his batting average and you can't explain the power drain by his bunt-cheating.

He's still not a hall of famer because, for whatever reason, he didn't play the game nearly long enough to amount to anything. BTW, although Barnes was an above average fielder, the few fielding metrics we have that go back to 1871 don't seen to indicate that he was particularly GREAT with the glove...merely above average. And his fielding skill disappeared in 1877 as well, so there must have been something going on health-wise.

[Buzzaldrin]

From what I've read, he got ague (you gotta love old diseases- back in college doing research on my thesis, i came across three people in London in 1349 who died of "planet"- what do you suppose that was?), which is a recurring and debilitating fever (apparently similar to malaria) in 1877, and also was beset by injuries. Poor guy, but his career was a bit longer than you think; he was a star already in 1869 and 1870, and with a peak from 69-76- eight years, with six of them statistically available, well, if he's not deserving of HOF consideration then neither should Koufax, Dean, Joss, or anyone like that be.

By the way, been looking at the Brooklyn Eagle archives from 76 and 77. It's frustrating because they have an article on the rule changes for 1878 but not 77. Maybe I can find something somewhere else. I did learn that in 1878 the pitcher could now deliver from the waist down, whereas before it was the hip. Fascinating.

[SABR Matt]

Ague...I'm gonna have to look that one up...LOL

Adding two years of peak (1869 and 1870) doesn't change my opinion. Sandy Koufax didn't just have a brief great peak...he had a brief great peak of historic proportions, a solid early tail (he was average to a little above average before he clicked) for several more seasons and all of this occurred ina fairly strong league. Again...in order for a 19th century player to be HOF worthy in my book they must do at least two of these three things:

1) Play for a very long time and demonstrate that they can handle rules changes and increasing quality of play
2) Have a dominant peak (Barnes gets the checkmark here)
3) Do something of historical importance well enough that it actually advanced the game (Candy Cummings and his curveball, Spalding and his fielding gloves)

Even though his illness and injuries in 1877 didn't make a statement about Barnes, the player, I don't give people HOF nods playing the what-if game with the exception of war credit. Barnes would need to have done something to advance the game to make the hall of fame. At best, he's a maybe for me.

[Buzzaldrin]

I can certainly respect that. he's a tough call for a lot of people. I put Barnes in the hall; others don't.

One thing, though- Koufax did not have a solid early tail. For his, say, six year peak, he was 129-47 with a 2.19 ERA and under 6.5 hits/9 innings (this is his four historic seasons and his 61-62 merely "very very good" seasons). In his other six seasons, however, he was 36-40 with an ERA of 4.10 and 5.3 walks/9 innings. Trivia time: of all the pitchers in baseball who threw as many innings as Koufax 1955-1960, how many had a worse ERA? Only one (Chuck Stobbs). Once again- this is HALF of his career we're talking about. That is not a solid beginning and not, by any definition of the word average, above average. Now, I think that Koufax belongs in the hall in spite of this, but let's not forget that before 1961, he was one of the most frustrating, disappointing, and at times just plain bad active pitchers in the major leagues (with the best potential though).

[SABR Matt]

Not really true, re: Koufax.

The walks were frustrating yes...but he was still limiting the longball more than the average pitcher and had high K rates and low BABIP relative to team as well...making him a good bit better than the W-L or ERA would suggest.
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1960 NL -0.79 0.22 3.91 -2.0 0.3 5.4 3.34
1958 NL -0.73 0.08 2.28 -1.8 0.0 2.4 1.63
1957 NL -0.86 0.05 2.31 -1.9 0.1 3.2 1.50
1959 NL -0.51 0.11 1.51 -1.4 0.1 0.9 1.11

Total it up: 9.71 pitching wins (1.90 above average - net PCA-BA of .281)

Compared to what he could have been, those first four years seemed really aggravating, but he was indeed quite solid overall.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's been a long time since the 1870s, and it's hard to tell, really, just how good Lip Pike actually was.

Was Lip Pike a true "pioneer" or baseball? Besides playing in the 1870s, what would qualify Pike as a "pioneer"?

Lip Pike played CF for the most part. How demanding a defensive position was CF in Pike's day?

Assuming it is accurate, Pike's Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .688 (over .700 on four (4) occasions) This puts Pike in a gray area; he was a full timer in a part-time league. It is not fair to penalize Pike for playing to win by the rules of his day, but it IS fair to ask if Pike would be able to be a star in other eras. Just how much of his offense was driven by the "fair-foul" rule? (Pike didn't walk much, so I suspect the "fair-foul" rule was a tool he used.)

[jjpm74]

(Pike didn't walk much, so I suspect the "fair-foul" rule was a tool he used.)

This was not a rule he took advantage of. Any "advantage" gained by the rule would have been very negligible for Lip Pike. Pike was a power hitter. Not a slap and drag hitter (which is what Barnes was).