BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1931 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1931

DoubleX

12-16-2008, 03:14 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.

1931 Guide
There are 37 candidates on the 1931 ballot – 25 holdovers and 12 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1926 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (12)
Babe Adams
Carson Bigbee
Wilbur Cooper
Hooks Dauss
Jimmy Johnston
Fred Merkle
Everett Scott
Hank Severeid
Milt Stock
Bill Wambsganss
Whitey Witt
Ross Youngs

Holdovers (25)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Chief Bender 10th 56.00% 60.00% (1929) 39.29% (1922) 48.63%
George J. Burns 2nd 24.00% 24.00% (1930) 24.00% (1930) 24.00%
Frank Chance 13th 72.00% 72.00% (1930) 48.28% (1924) 60.32%
Gavvy Cravath 7th 24.00% 37.50% (1925) 24.00% (1930) 28.74%
Jake Daubert 3rd 12.00% 16.00 (1929) 12.00% (1930) 14.00%
Mike Donlin 13th 12.00% 25.93% (1919) 7.14% (1927) 14.69%
Johnny Evers 6th 20.00% 40.00% (1926) 28.57% (1927) 26.16%
Max Flack 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1930) 4.00% (1930) 4.00%
Art Fletcher 5th 8.00% 12.00% (1929) 3.57% (1927) 7.75%
Larry Gardner 3rd 8.00% 12.00% (1929) 8.00% (1930) 10.00%
Harry Hooper 2nd 24.00% 24.00% (1930) 24.00% (1930) 24.00%
Miller Huggins 11th 12.00% 20.83% (1925) 7.14% (1922) 14.23%
Johnny Kling 14th 16.00% 26.92% (1920) 9.68% (1921) 18.19%
Ed Konetchy 6th 12.00% 12.00% (1926, 1930) 8.00% (1929) 10.76%
Tommy Leach 10th 60.00% 60.00% (1930) 33.33% (1925) 43.58%
Dutch Leonard 2nd 12.00% 12.00% (1930) 12.00% (1930) 12.00%
Rube Marquard 2nd 28.00% 28.00% (1930) 28.00% (1930) 28.00%
Del Pratt 3rd 16.00% 16.00% (1929, 1930) 16.00% (1929, 1930) 16.00%
Ed Reulbach 9th 16.00% 17.24% (1924) 7.69% (1923) 12.20%
Jimmy Sheckard 14th 32.00% 42.31% (1920) 25.00% (1927) 31.72%
Casey Stengel 2nd 4.00% 4.00% (1930) 4.00% (1930) 4.00%
Joe Tinker 11th 24.00% 25.00% (1925, 1927) 10.71% (1922) 20.55%
Hippo Vaughn 6th 16.00% 18.52% (1928) 10.71% (1927) 15.45%
Bobby Veach 2nd 24.00% 24.00% (1930) 24.00% (1930) 24.00%
Joe Wood 5th 28.00% 35.71% (1927) 29.63 (1928) 29.34%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Ivy Olson Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1929) 0% (1930) 2.00%
Jeff Pfeffer Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1929) 0% (1930) 2.00%
Amos Strunk Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1929, 1930) 4.00% (1929, 1930) 4.00%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (2)
Player High Support
Johnny Kling 26.92% (1920)
Jimmy Sheckard 42.31% (1920)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (3)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Frank Chance 72.00% 11
Tommy Leach 60.00% 3
Chief Bender 56.00% 4

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (68)
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 45 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 51 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Living – Age 73 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 55 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 63 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 63 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 61 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1857-1931) 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 51 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 61 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 61 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 45 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 65 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 55 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 74 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 74 52
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Addie Joss 1929 76.00% 15 Pitcher Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1902-1910 9 Deceased (1880-1911) Deceased
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Living – Age 65 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 76 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 74 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 60 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 57 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 Deceased (1884-1929) 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 Deceased (1871-1929) 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 72 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 71 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 62 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 Deceased (1855-1931) 65
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Living – Age 60 35
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902-1903 18 Deceased (1885-1923) Deceased
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 75 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 65 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 57 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 58 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 50 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 72 61
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 84 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 55 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 84 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 64 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 Connor, 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, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (7): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (8): Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren
Right Field (5): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (19): Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Addie Joss, 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 Connor, 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
1928 (0):
1929 (1): Addie Joss
1930 (0):
- 1930 VC (1): Jimmy Ryan

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 (17): 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, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (18): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, 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) (6): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Bill Dahlen, George Gore, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan
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) (3): Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, 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: 83.72
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 7
- Average Wait Before Election: 4.17 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 17
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 9
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 3
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Frank Chance – 72.00% (1930)
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Frank Chance - 60.32%
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930)
- Average Regular Election Electees Per Year: 2.03
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 31 (1921)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 25.17
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 13
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Boston Braves, Chicago Cubs - 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: 15.65 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: 14
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 36
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 84
- Deceased in Past Year: Roger Connor, Hardy Richardson

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
1928: 27
1929: 25
1930: 25

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84636)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)
1928 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85029)
1929 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85206)
1930 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85358), 1930 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85439)

dgarza

12-16-2008, 03:51 PM

Chief Bender
George Burns
Frank Chance
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Johnny Evers
Harry Hooper
Rube Marquard
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs

1. Bobby Veach
2. Gavvy Cravath
3. Chief Bender
4. Mike Donlin
5. George Burns
6. Ross Youngs
7. Rube Marquard
8. Harry Hooper
9. Johnny Evers
10. Joe Tinker
11. Frank Chance

jjpm74

12-16-2008, 04:34 PM

Only 4 this year:

Frank Chance
Johnny Kling
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard

Frank Chance and Tommy Leach stick out like a sore thumb at this point. Johnny Kling and Jimmy Sheckard are only on my ballot because comparable players are in our hall and it is their 14th year.

BlueBlood

12-16-2008, 04:37 PM

Towing the line on Frank Chance. Waiting to see if my vote would make a difference...if enough people here think he's worthy enough to be listed as a player, I'll budge.

Pitching phenoms Chief Bender & Wilbur Cooper definitely have my vote.

henrich

12-16-2008, 05:27 PM

I went uardthis season

Adams
Bender
Gardner
Hooper
Leach
Marquard
Reulbach
Vaughn

DoubleX

12-16-2008, 06:16 PM

Johnny Kling and Jimmy Sheckard are only on my ballot because comparable players are in our hall and it is their 14th year.

Who is comparable to Kling? Bresnahan? Kling did catch about 190 games more than Bresnahan, but Bresnahan is 26 points ahead in OPS+ in about 700 more PAs. I think a better argument for Kling would be the dearth of catchers we've elected. Bresnahan is the only catcher we've elected whose career started after 1880, and in total, we've only really elected three players that were predominantly catchers - Bresnahan, Ewing, and Bennett; McVey and White could almost as easily be grouped at 1B and 3B, respectively, as they could at catchers. So we have one catcher representing the last 40 years or so, and three representing the last 55 or so. That doesn't seem right.

That being said, we do have a crop of young catchers playing right now that are unlike anything we've really seen thus far at the position. Guys like Gabby Hartnett, Mickey Cochrane, and Bill Dickey all have been impressive, and you might be able to add Rick Ferrell to that group with the year he's had in '31. We'll also see Ray Schalk and Wally Schang become eligible this decade, so we'll see how they fair.

jjpm74

12-16-2008, 06:41 PM

Johnny Kling stood out as a durable player on a dynastic team at a position no one fielded better than him with the exception of possibly Bresnahan in his generation.

Jimmy Sheckard falls within our defined outfield standard.

Tommy Leach I've discussed to death. If the participants who value flashy short career players over a player who fielded 2 defensive positions at a Hall of Fame level can't bring themselves to vote for him here, maybe he will do better when he gets to the VC.

Frank Chance may end up being the best player not to be elected to our hall if he fails to get elected this year and slips onto the VC ballot. He stands little chance in his last few years of eligibility given the dearth of talent waiting to be elected coming down the pipeline and has enough detractors on the VC to get elected as a player and enough detractors in the contributors VC to not get elected as a contributor.

The election of Addie Joss and the pass given to Mickey Welch on the VC has made me very wary of borderline pitchers. All of these pitchers are either borderline, a stretch, or would redefine our standard and water down our pitching standards even further:

Babe Adams
Chief Bender
Wilbur Cooper
Hooks Dauss
Dutch Leonard
Rube Marquard
Hippo Vaughn
Joe Wood

I only plan on voting for pitchers who definitely fall within our standards. Not pitchers that are a reach or pitchers who are barely comparable to our lowest rated pitchers in our hall.

jalbright

12-16-2008, 07:24 PM

Wilbur Cooper
Tommy Leach

philkid3

12-16-2008, 07:41 PM

I'm voting for Bobby Veach this year just to give him some support, but I'm not yet sold on him.

Can any historians tell me a little bit about him that I might like to know as a Hall of Fame voter?

philkid3

12-16-2008, 07:45 PM

Chief Bender
Frank Chance
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach

mwiggins

12-16-2008, 08:47 PM

Frank Chance
Tommy Leach
Wilbur Cooper
Ross Youngs

PVNICK

12-17-2008, 05:40 AM

Bender
Chance
Evers
Kling
Leach
Sheckard

Freakshow

12-17-2008, 07:18 AM

Nobody was elected. Nobody expired. Dithering at the margins, Pratt and Vaugn were replaced by Veach and newbie Cooper.

Bender
GJ Burns
Chance
W. Cooper
Cravath
Evers
Hooper
Huggins
Kling
Konetchy
Leach
Sheckard
Tinker
Veach
Wood

KCGHOST

12-17-2008, 07:24 AM

Frank Chance.

Brooklyn

12-17-2008, 07:28 AM

none of the above

jjpm74

12-17-2008, 08:17 AM

Since this year is a wash as the same people who voted against Leach and Chance are voting against them this year, we might as well start talking about the 1932 election class:

Position Players:

Chick Feuster (unlikely to be on the ballot)
Jack Fournier
Heinie Groh
Baby Doll Jacobson
Iris Meusel
Stuffy McInnis
Roger Peckinpaugh
Frank Snyder
Jack Tobin
Zack Wheat

Zach Wheat seems like a 1st ballot lock. It will also be interesting to see how Heinie Groh and Jack Fournier do. Both will likely have their share of supporters.

Pitchers:

Jesse Barnes
Walter Johnson
Hugh McQuillan unlikely to be on the ballot
George Mogridge
Dick Rudolph
Dutch Ruether
Bob Shawkey
Sherry Smith
Sherry Smith

Walter Johnson is another 1st ballot lock.

DoubleX

12-17-2008, 08:24 AM

The next couple of years are greatly improved. In 1933, we'll have Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Stan Coveleski, and Urban Shocker, headlining the ballot.

As for next year, Johnson and Wheat should sail through. While there are some other good candidates, I think Groh is the only other player who stands a chance of election at any point. Fournier's OPS+ is impressive, but his career was relatively short and counting numbers not particularly impressive.

Getting back to Groh, I think it'll take some good discussion to get him in, but I'm optimistic he'll get there. We've elected just three 3Bmen to represent 60 60 years of history. I definitely think this a position where we really have to take a moment to consider what our expectations are.

jjpm74

12-17-2008, 08:29 AM

mwiggins

12-17-2008, 08:48 AM

Cowtipper

12-17-2008, 10:40 AM

Bender
Chance
Cooper
Cravath
Daubert
Donlin
Hooper
Leach
Reulbach
Veach
Wood

Paul Wendt

12-17-2008, 11:43 AM

Have we have moved out of the "imagination zone" where several new candidates appeal to our collective imagination and pick up one to three votes? Last year we had two "Clean Sox" Nemo Leibold and Shano Collins, the third and fourth outfielders. Hy Myers was a "hero" of two Dodgers champions. (Uncle Robbie isn't going any where in the veterans election either.)

On a bad hunch, evidently, I guessed that Hy Myers and Howie Shanks may have been the brightest Jewish star since Lip Pike. "Jewish Major Leaguers" by Martin Abramowitz (http://jewishmajorleaguers.org/) says No.

In fact it seems to say no in two ways, pointing to Barney Pelty 1903-1912, who reaped no votes here. Further, our record shows that the class of 1917's George Browne, Matty McIntyre (! Ty Cobb's nemesis), Barney Pelty, Bob Ewing, and Jack Powell(!) all passed through here without a single vote.

DoubleX

12-17-2008, 11:44 AM

I really don't see how you can vote for Leach without also voting for Groh. And was Groh really that much worse of a defender than Jimmy Collins? Offensively it's hard to argue that Collins was any better, and I'd argue that Groh had the better career offensively. Unless Collins is the bottom-of-the-barrel baseline for 3B, Groh seems like almost a no-brainer to me.

I don't Leach and Groh can really be compared. To Leach's credit he was great defensively at two important defensive positions, thereby giving his team a unique type of value. Offensively, he wasn't as good as Groh, but his career was significantly longer than Groh's, amassing more than 2000 more plate appearances than Groh. Leach also stole twice as many bases as Groh.

Strictly as 3Bmen, I'd go with Groh first because he was purely a 3Bmen, but Leach has a very strong and unique multi-position argument.

bambambaseball

12-17-2008, 08:03 PM

How come Hooks Dauss only has 1 vote and Max Flack has 0 votes? They were both good players. Dauss has over 200 wins!:ughh

Cowtipper

12-17-2008, 08:26 PM

Because it's not the Hall of Good and all the Guys Who Won Over 200 Games

bambambaseball

12-17-2008, 09:22 PM

Because it's not the Hall of Good and all the Guys Who Won Over 200 Games

Hooks Dauss was a better pitcher then Babe Adams and Chief Bender. Both of them have a lot more votes. That is weird.

mwiggins

12-17-2008, 10:11 PM

Hooks Dauss was a better pitcher then Babe Adams and Chief Bender. Both of them have a lot more votes. That is weird.

Why do you think Hooks was better than Babe or Chief? I guess I don't see how he's even close to them. Hooks won 20 games 3 times, but he only finished in the top 10 in ERA or ERA+ or WHIP only once each, and his ERA+ is only 102 over 3390 innings. To me he's even less deserving than Rube Marquard.

Whereas Babe Adams, in 3,000 innings, has an ERA+ of 117 and finished in the top 10 in ERA and ERA+ 6 times and the top 10 in WHIP 10 times. Chief, also in 3,000 innings, has an ERA+ of 112 and finished in the top 10 in ERA 7 times, ERA+ 6 times, and WHIP 7 times. I wouldn't vote for either one of them, but at least they were All-Star level pitchers with careers of a decent length.

bambambaseball

12-17-2008, 10:15 PM

2008 hes not a hofer to me
1931 hes one of the winningest pitchers of all time who had more great seasons then Joe Wood and Chief Bender combined. Dauss was a #1 starter vs Joe Wood and Chief Bender who were #3 starters and Joe Wood who had a very short career and just one great year.

mwiggins

12-17-2008, 10:27 PM

bambambaseball

12-17-2008, 10:31 PM

Did Dause have any great years? Joe had at least one, probably a couple. Chief had 2 or 3 that were borderline great.

Joe had only 1. Hes like Vide Blue. Bender had none. He had some good post seasons. Hes like Sid Fernandez or Ron Darling.

Cowtipper

12-17-2008, 11:08 PM

Hooks Dauss was a better pitcher then Babe Adams and Chief Bender. Both of them have a lot more votes. That is weird.

Chief Bender is getting so many votes because he's in the real Hall of Fame. I think that's why he gets so much support. Adams has a better ERA+ and W%, and he has two World Series under his belt. I think that's why he gets more support.

mwiggins

12-18-2008, 09:02 AM

Joe had only 1. Hes like Vide Blue. Bender had none. He had some good post seasons. Hes like Sid Fernandez or Ron Darling.

Bender had a much better career than either Fernandez or Darling, though. But your take isn't far off from where I have them. But that still doesn't help Dauss's case, since Bender had multiple seasons at least as good as Dauss's best year(s).

Dauss's 1915: 24-13, 309IP, 121 ERA+. Finished 3rd in IP and CG, 2nd in Wins.

Bender's 1910: 23-5, 250IP, 149 ERA+. Finished 8th in ERA+, 5th in ERA, 4th in Wins, 6th in CG, 4th in WHIP, 1st in W-L%, 3rd in K/BB.

mwiggins

12-18-2008, 11:10 AM

2008 hes not a hofer to me
1931 hes one of the winningest pitchers of all time

I actually wouldn't say he's one of the winningst pitchers in baseball history as of 1931. By my quick calculations, he's 15th in wins among the 20th century guys, and would be ranked around 30th with everyone included. Nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think being 30th in wins after 50 years or so of major league baseball is HoF-worthy impressive. Especially when his win total is really the only thing he has going for him.

AG2004

12-21-2008, 07:49 AM

The election of Addie Joss and the pass given to Mickey Welch on the VC has made me very wary of borderline pitchers. All of these pitchers are either borderline, a stretch, or would redefine our standard and water down our pitching standards even further:

Babe Adams
Chief Bender
Wilbur Cooper
Hooks Dauss
Dutch Leonard
Rube Marquard
Hippo Vaughn
Joe Wood

I only plan on voting for pitchers who definitely fall within our standards. Not pitchers that are a reach or pitchers who are barely comparable to our lowest rated pitchers in our hall.

Wilbur Cooper would not water down the Hall. He was among the top five pitchers in his league in win shares each year for eight consecutive years (1917-24), and was sixth the season before the streak started. If you could make an all-league starting rotation on a regular basis for eight or nine years, you're at least a solid candidate. His poor performance at both ends of his career shouldn't negate his great performance in his middle nine years.

Here's how many times Joss and the eight candidates listed above finished among the top five pitchers in their league in win shares:

8 times - Wilbur Cooper
5 times - Hippo Vaughn, Babe Adams
3 times - Rube Marquard
2 times - Chief Bender, Hooks Dauss, Addie Joss, Dutch Leonard, Joe Wood

Cooper was better than his career ERA+ indicates because he pitched a lot of innings at his peak, because he was pretty good with the bat (for a pitcher), and because the bad years are concentrated at the beginning and end of his career (meaning that his best nine-year stretch was much better than his career average).

I urge those who have doubts about Cooper to look at his record during the 1916-1924 stretch, and then ask themselves if some struggles outside that core should weaken his case for the Hall that much.

leecemark

12-21-2008, 08:03 AM

--That makes a strong case for Cooper. It also illustrates what a mistake Joss was. 2 top 5s for a guy whose entire case is based on peak performance:crazy.

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 08:09 AM

leecemark

12-21-2008, 08:21 AM

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 08:38 AM

--Pull it together, XX. I think you know Win Shares are not the deciding factor for me. They are a piece of evidence though and the way to argue against them is not to get all hysterical about a member using them. Maybe a few voters are looking primarly - or perhaps only - at Win Shares. We've got others who don't use them at all. It is the mix of ideas that make this worth doing .

Mark, I definitely know they are not a deciding factor for you, and for many others, and perhaps I did go too far. But win shares can be treated with a certain great reverence.

Still, along my last thought, on Herman Long, I want to now use Win Shares and Herman Long to advocate for Del Pratt:

Given the importance some afford to Win Shares rankings, and that we have elected Herman Long, perhaps we should give greater consideration to Del Pratt. Pratt led the AL in fielding Win Shares just once, but finished second, often to the incomparable Eddie Collins, 5 more times, for a total of 6 seasons as one of the top 2 (it's no shame finishing second repeatedly to Eddie Collins). In comparison, Herman Long finished 1st or 2nd 4 times. Yes, we're talking 2B vs. SS here, but given that Long's argument is premised almost entirely on his supposed defensive ability at SS, I don't see why the same argument couldn't be made for Pratt at 2B. The difference in defensive value based on position is made up by Pratt's huge advantage in offense (112 OPS+ to 94 - sorry to deviate from Win Shares). Further, if you take the average of their 10 best Win Shares seasons, Pratt and Long are almost identical - you get a 21.2 average for Long and a 21 average for Pratt. So they appeared to have nearly identical value. Now again, someone might say that Long's 21 had more value coming at SS, but was that really the case in his generation? I mean, we've elected four other shortstops whose careers substantially overlapped with Long's (Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, and Wallace). So was Long's play such a premium during his generation given that nearly 50% of the teams in the league had and at least equivalent, if not better overall player at SS? Among Pratt's peers, we have elected one thus far, Larry Doyle, and will almost certainly elect Eddie Collins, a true all time great that is far beyond any other name mentioned in this conversation. After that, unless I'm forgetting someone, I don't think there is another player who has as good an argument as Pratt for 3rd best of his era at his position. Being 3/16 is better than being 4/12 or 5/12. So there would appear to be a much greater premium on Pratt's production at 2B during his era than Long's at SS during his era.

leecemark

12-21-2008, 08:59 AM

--I voted for Pratt in this election, although I am not entirely sold on his candidacy. I do not endorse him for Cooperstown, but I think we have established a significantly lower standard for our Hall. I go back and forth on whether to accept that or continue to rail against it. Accepting it means a yes for Pratt and, fresh off the VC election of Ryan, he and several other got th ebenefit of the dount this time. Whether that will be true again next year I don't know.
--Still I don't think Pratt was as good as Long. Is a 112 OPS+ at 2B equal to or better than a 94 at SS? Teams were far more willing to put at bat at second in this period and live with questionable defense. I definately think Pratt could be a better defender compard to his peers at 2B than Long was at SS with Long still being a significantly better defender. Also with percentage of run prevention alloted to defense as compared to pitching has gone up over time. In early baseball the defense was perhaps MORE important than the pitcher. WS does not do a good job of adjusting for that. A proper adjustment would favor Long more than Pratt. Long also had the longer career.
--For Cooperstown Long is very much a gray area guy for me and Pratt is clearly below the line. For this project Long is a solid although hardly inner circle guy and Pratt is in the gray area.

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 09:09 AM

I don't think our standards are lower than Cooperstown in the least. Sure, we have a few more questionable selections, but Cooperstown has proven very capable of questionable selections, some much more questionable than anyone we have elected. Plus, it's not surprising that we've elected perhaps more players from the period we've looked at thus far than Cooperstown has. This is because we are proceeding annually starting in 1901, and thus, unlike Cooperstown, are looking at generations of players near the time they played and measured against their peers, rather than lumping decades of players together to be sorted through the veterans committee starting in the late 1930s. It is easier for us to look back and pick out players from this time period than it has been for Cooperstown. I think the most recent VC election by Cooperstown demonstrates this. Players like Bill Dahlen, Deacon White, and Sherry Magee, were arguably the three strongest on pre-1943 ballot. But unfortunately, these players may have faded too far into history now for the VC to get a proper perspective on. Joe Gordon, on the other hand, benefited from some people (such as Bobby Doerr, who I believe is on the pre-1943 committee) who can remember his career and are motivated to get him in before he too falls too far back into history.

When all is said and done though, I think are questionable picks will be worthwhile because it will indicate a better and more thorough effort by us to identify the stars of the day than Cooperstown has. Think of the questionable picks as a slight safety net to ensure that we don't miss obvious Hall of Famers like Bill Dahlen, Deacon White, and Ron Santo, as Cooperstown has. On the flipside, we likely won't have a litany of questionable VC picks that makes one wonder what our standards really are, such as Cooperstown has had. Our standards, while perhaps somewhat larger than you had expected, should at least be more clearly defined that Cooperstown because we likely won't have the George Kellys and Rick Ferrells and Rube Marquards and Tommy McCarthys and such.

leecemark

12-21-2008, 09:16 AM

jjpm74

12-21-2008, 09:19 AM

When all is said and done though, I think are questionable picks will be worthwhile because it will indicate a better and more thorough effort by us to identify the stars of the day than Cooperstown has. Think of the questionable picks as a slight safety net to ensure that we don't miss obvious Hall of Famers like Bill Dahlen, Deacon White, and Ron Santo, as Cooperstown has. On the flipside, we likely won't have a litany of questionable VC picks that makes one wonder what our standards really are, such as Cooperstown has had. Our standards, while perhaps somewhat larger than you had expected, should at least be more clearly defined that Cooperstown because we likely won't have the George Kellys and Rick Ferrells and Rube Marquards and Tommy McCarthys and such.

So far it's looking like Frank Chance and Tommy Leach will be our Ron Santo and Deacon White and Addie Joss, Mickey Welch and Hugh Duffy/Jimmy Ryan/George Van Haltren are our Rick Ferrell, Rube Marquard and Tommy McCarthy. While we like to think we are more informed than Cooperstown, collectively we are proving that we are just as vulnerable to electing players who fall short because they did something simple that is measurable in their counting stats while overlooking superior players who one needs to look beyond wins, era, batting average and career hits to see.

jjpm74

12-21-2008, 09:32 AM

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 09:32 AM

--I agree we probably won't the the truely terrible selections that the VC delivered to Cooperstown. What we are building is more a solidification of the gray area, even the lower gray area, as acceptable. We will skip the grade D/F HoFers, but have alot more grade C- players. Of course we won't miss the grade B players they have so that is a plus. Overall though I think we are probably headed for north of 300 and quite possibly 400 inductees.

Early on, I did wonder how big we'll get, but we've slowed down considerably in the last decade. Things will of course pick up, but we'll likely hit another lull or two down the line, and I don't think we'll ever again elect with the frequency we did in the first two decades, which had a lot to do with looking back on a greater period of history during that time.

Through 31 elections we've elected 68 players. If we stay on this rate, we'll have 136 by 1962 and 204 by 1993. So I'd say an outside guess of 250 seems more likely than 300 or 400. With some of the players we elected, I can see why that might open door for someone like Ken Singleton down the road, but I think as we go through time, we'll see our perspective and how we view different eras change. Perhaps we're exhibiting some of the romanticized views of the game that was predominant during the early 20th Century, and we'll temper that as we go forward. I also think it's easier for a player to stand out through much of the history we've looked at thus far because longer and more consistent careers are rarer. As we go through the years, those kind of careers will become more commonplace and we'll have to be more discerning because standing out won't be what it has been.

I'd rather have the standards of our Hall than Cooperstown. I'd rather make sure we get all those B level candidates while elected some C- players, than missing out on some B level candidates while inexplicably electing a number of D/F players (in addition to a number of C- players). As JJPM said, I feel better about guys like Chance and Leach representing the biggest omissions of our Hall than guys like Santo, Blyleven, Dahlen, and so on, represent the biggest omissions of the real Hall. Our omissions are debatable, but I think we'll avoid having multiple egregious omissions, unlike Cooperstown. And I'd rather have us lamenting the induction of guys like Duffy/Van Haltren/Ryan/Welch/Joss, than being dumbfounded over the likes of Tommy McCarthy, George Kelly, Rick Ferrell, Rube Marquard, and so on. I also think we've done a better job of having clearer standards than Cooperstown and looking less arbitrary. Sure, you may feel that Duffy/Van Haltren/Ryan are under the line, but they are about as close as three players can be. Electing all three establishes a clear standard, which even if larger than your ideal, removes some of the arbitrariness of Cooperstown's standards. With Cooperstown, the "mistakes" are all over the spectrum, you can't really say, well that's the standard, even if below the line, because it's all over the place - a player here, a player there. At least with us, our "mistakes" are all around the same point, so we can at least say we have some standard.

So on the whole, I'm pretty happy with our standards as we're doing a much better job than Cooperstown at avoiding mistakes at both ends (i.e. omitting clearly deserving players and electing clearly questionable players).

EDIT: As an aside, I do think Frank Chance we'll eventually be elected one way or another. He's currently two votes shy in this election, and I think his recent performance bodes well for a possible election before his eligibility expires (though on the flipside, he's up against two strong classes the next two years). I think Leach stands a decent shot with the VC as well (if this election is any indicator, he thus far has the support of 11 VC members).

EDIT 2: I do think AG made a pretty good argument for Wilbur Cooper and it's something to think about. I also think though that competition at the top during the 1900s was stronger than during the 1910s. We've elected 9 pitchers from the 1900s, that's quite a number. Beyond Johnson and Alexander, two all time greats, what pitchers really stand out during the 1910s? Eddie Cicotte maybe (though he won't be making our Hall)? You have a number of guys who were good to great for a few years, but no one really sustained it for long enough.

bambambaseball

12-21-2008, 10:17 AM

Wilbur Cooper is underrated. His peak win shares during a very competetive period is a good reason to throw your support his way. He is the best pitcher on the balott this year too!

BlueBlood

12-21-2008, 12:40 PM

Just voted for Bender, Cooper & Chance. Chance is too close to election and I said I'd tip the scales in his favor if that were the case. We've got another nail biter. :nod:

Paul Wendt

12-21-2008, 02:28 PM

. . . I want to now use Win Shares and Herman Long to advocate for Del Pratt:

. . . I mean, we've elected four other shortstops whose careers substantially overlapped with Long's (Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, and Wallace). So was Long's play such a premium during his generation given that nearly 50% of the teams in the league had and at least equivalent, if not better overall player at SS? . . . I don't think there is another player who has as good an argument as Pratt for 3rd best of his era at his position. Being 3/16 is better than being 4/12 or 5/12.
For what time period do you rank Herman Long the fourth of fifth best of 12 shortstops?

Long debuted in 1889 as a shortstop and that was his role throughout his major career. Through 1902 he played essentially full-time although he missed 30-odd games in '90 and about 30 shortstop games in '94, '97, and '02 (call it 20 dnp and 10 in other roles). There were two leagues through 1891 and beginning 1900, a single major league with usually 12 teams during the middle nine of these 14 seasons only. Monte Ward 1885-90 and part of 1891 is not in the consideration set, although it would be fair to include him early in Long's career. Jack Glasscock was a nearly full-time shortstop 1880-1893, then 85 and 38 games in '94-95.

Hugh Jennings became a regular shortstop during the 1891 season in the AA (70g SS) and he was a primary shortstop in the NL during 1892, then 1894 and after. Bill Dahlen first played plurality shortstop in 1892 but he was a nearly full-time shortstop only from 1895. George Davis became a regular shortstop in 1897 (or late 1896), Bobby Wallace in 1899.

Long was a good batter during the first eight seasons 1889-96. How much shortstop did the players named here provide during those seasons?

seasons ('+' represents a big plus, such as Long 1903, 60 games)
2+ Ward (one NL while Long AA, one PL)
5, Jennings (one AA)
2+++ Dahlen
0+ Davis
0, Wallace

On the other hand Del Pratt played 11++ seasons as a regular secondbaseman. Nap Lajoie as a regular 2B overlaps the first five and Rogers Hornsby as a regular 2B overlaps the final 3++. (As regular players Lajoie and Hornsby overlapped one season, but Hornsby played 3B and SS for four season, hence the 3-year gap when neither was a regular 2B.)

AG2004

12-21-2008, 04:14 PM

Ugh, I'm just going to retitle this the "BBF Progressive Win Shares" election starting with the next election - will that make people happy? We'll just pull out the Bill James abstract and automatically elect people that meet a certain Win Shares number. We won't even need to vote.

Bad idea. One number either privileges peak above career or career above peak, which is a shortcoming when we try to balance the two.

Speaking of mistakes based on Win Shares, let's talk about Herman Long. He was apparently elected based on his defensive reputation, as his offense certainly doesn't measure up, yet he led his position just twice in fielding Win Shares. Shouldn't we expect a little more from a guy whose case is entirely premised on defense? I'll make sure to take both Joss and Long out next year when we revamp into the BBF Progressive Win Share election project. There will likely be a number of other players coming out as well.

For the bulk of Long's career, there was just one major league, which made it a bit harder to achieve league leads. The 1890s were also blessed with a number of great defensive shortstops, including Dahlen, Smith, and Jennings. Long was one of four A+ defensive shortstops associated with the decade.

Still, along my last thought, on Herman Long, I want to now use Win Shares and Herman Long to advocate for Del Pratt:

Given the importance some afford to Win Shares rankings, and that we have elected Herman Long, perhaps we should give greater consideration to Del Pratt. Pratt led the AL in fielding Win Shares just once, but finished second, often to the incomparable Eddie Collins, 5 more times, for a total of 6 seasons as one of the top 2 (it's no shame finishing second repeatedly to Eddie Collins).

There were also several seasons when Collins led the AL, but didn't lead the majors.

In comparison, Herman Long finished 1st or 2nd 4 times. Yes, we're talking 2B vs. SS here, but given that Long's argument is premised almost entirely on his supposed defensive ability at SS, I don't see why the same argument couldn't be made for Pratt at 2B.

For most of the 1890s, there was just one major league. Furthermore, Jennings would usually play fewer games than the person who led the league in fielding at short, thus hampering his overall WS totals. Pratt, on the other hand, would rarely miss a game.

Long was an A+ defensive shortstop, but the 1890s happened to produce more than its share of top shortstops. Pratt, however, was a B defensive second baseman. There weren't many great defensive 2B during Pratt's era. Frisch is an A+ second baseman, but he arrived in the majors midway through Pratt's career, and Frisch and Pratt didn't compete in the same league, anyhow.

The difference in defensive value based on position is made up by Pratt's huge advantage in offense (112 OPS+ to 94 - sorry to deviate from Win Shares).

During Long's first nine years, his OPS+ was about 104. Pratt's best nine-year stretch produced an OPS+ around 114. Long was much worse at the plate than his career average during his final few seasons; Pratt, not so much.

Further, if you take the average of their 10 best Win Shares seasons, Pratt and Long are almost identical - you get a 21.2 average for Long and a 21 average for Pratt. So they appeared to have nearly identical value. Now again, someone might say that Long's 21 had more value coming at SS, but was that really the case in his generation?

Did you take into account the shorter seasons of the time? With my season length adjustments, we get a 21.6 average for Pratt -- and 23.1 for Long.

I mean, we've elected four other shortstops whose careers substantially overlapped with Long's (Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, and Wallace). So was Long's play such a premium during his generation given that nearly 50% of the teams in the league had and at least equivalent, if not better overall player at SS?

Jenning's last year as a shorstop was 1898; Wallace's first was 1899. That would mean that about 25% of the teams in the majors had a better shortstop than Long.

However, Long's schedule-adjusted win share line is 289-90-131; Jack Glasscock's line is 308-89-114 (there's a UA discount). Wallace's schedule-adjusted WS line is 345-79-117. You could argue that Long's advantage in peak counterbalances Wallace's career advantage.

Among Pratt's peers, we have elected one thus far, Larry Doyle, and will almost certainly elect Eddie Collins, a true all time great that is far beyond any other name mentioned in this conversation. After that, unless I'm forgetting someone, I don't think there is another player who has as good an argument as Pratt for 3rd best of his era at his position. Being 3/16 is better than being 4/12 or 5/12. So there would appear to be a much greater premium on Pratt's production at 2B during his era than Long's at SS during his era.

Sometimes there's an excess of great players at a position. Which is better, 3/16 or 1/12? If we're talking about Roger Connor as opposed to Jake Beckley, 3/16 is better. With Dahlen, Davis, and Jennings, the 1890s had an excess of top shortstops. Long was a better player than Glasscock, and I'd also say he was better than Wallace.

Pratt's win share line is 242-75-109 (100 is a typographical error). That doesn't compare well to Long's schedule-adjusted line of 289-90-131. Long's raw line of 265-83-120 is also superior to Pratt's line.

However, Larry Doyle's win share line is 289-90-130. Doyle might pick up a handful of career win shares once we adjust for 1918/19, but his peak would remain the same. Basically, once we adjust for season length, Doyle and Long were basically the same in peak value and overall career value.

I don't see how Long's membership in the Hall of Fame makes the case for Pratt.

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 04:17 PM

I did some quick research as to where Long ranked in Win Shares among NL shortstops each season from 1890-1902. I did not look at his 1889 year in the AA nor 1903 year in the AL, which was his final year. I also did not factor in AL shortstops from 1901 and 1902.

During this period, Long led NL shortstops in Win Shares twice, 1891 and 1893, but his average ranking during that 13 year period was 4th, which is pretty much where I put him earlier, though the names ahead of him varied more than I had posted above. If you reduce his average rank to a percentage, he would be on average among the top 41% of shortstops in the league in a given year during that 13 year span, and there were just three years where he ranked among the top 25%, while six years in the top third.

Here's the year-to-year list of players ahead of him (note, I did this quickly, so I wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked something or made a mistake someplace; I should also note that the players listed were the primary shortstops for their teams in the year given, though some of these players may have also played at other positions in the given year, such as Dahlen in 1892 when he split time between 3B and SS (though you'd think that would put him a disadvantage in terms of accumulating fielding win shares)):

1890 (8 teams)
1) Jack Glasscock - 25
2) Jimmy Cooney - 22
t3) Bob Allen - 21
t3) Ed McKean - 21
5) Ollie Beard - 17
6) Herman Long - 14

1891 (8 teams)
1) Herman Long - 29

1892 (12 teams)
1) Bill Dahlen - 32
2) Germany Smith - 29
3) Herman Long - 28

1893 (12 teams)
1) Herman Long - 26

1894 (12 teams)
1) Hughie Jennings - 24
2) Bill Dahlen - 21
3) Ed McKean - 19
t4) Tommy Corcoran - 16
t4) Herman Long - 16

1895 (12 teams)
1) Hughie Jennings - 29
2) Ed McKean - 25
3) Bill Dahlen - 20
4) Herman Long - 19

1896 (12 teams)
1) Hughie Jennings - 36
2) Bill Dahlen - 31
3) Gene DeMontreville - 21
4) Herman Long - 20

1897 (12 teams)
1) George Davis - 31
2) Hughie Jennings - 29
3) Gene DeMontreville - 18
4) Herman Long - 17

1898 (12 teams)
1) Hughie Jennings - 32
2) Bill Dahlen - 27
t3) Monte Cross - 20
t3) George Davis - 20
5) Herman Long - 19

1899 (12 teams)
1) Bobby Wallace - 25
2) Bill Dahlen - 23
3) George Davis - 20
4) Bones Ely - 18
t5) Monte Cross - 18
t5) Bill Keister - 17
t7) Tommy Corcoran - 16
t7) Herman Long - 16

1900 (8 teams)
1) Bill Dahlen - 21
2) George Davis - 18
t3) Herman Long - 13
t3) Bobby Wallace - 13

1901 (8 teams)
1) Bobby Wallace - 26
2) George Davis - 24
3) Bill Dahlen - 18
4) George Magoon - 12
5) Herman Long - 8

1902 (8 teams)
1) Bill Dahlen - 23
2) Joe Tinker - 17
3) Rudy Hulswitt - 15
4) Otto Krueger - 14
5) Herman Long - 13

At some point when I have time, I'm going to try to do the same for Del Pratt and Dave Bancroft. In respect to Bancroft, I have a feeling he'll rank similarly from year to year among his peers as Long did among his. I really think that Long's election could open the door for someone like Bancroft.

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 04:56 PM

Bad idea. One number either privileges peak above career or career above peak, which is a shortcoming when we try to balance the two.

Ok, so we'll still vote, but the only criteria we will use is win shares, meaning the only debate we'll have is peak vs. career. The results will still be much more predictable than they have been, rendering much of the process we've been engaging in superfluous.

For the bulk of Long's career, there was just one major league, which made it a bit harder to achieve league leads. The 1890s were also blessed with a number of great defensive shortstops, including Dahlen, Smith, and Jennings. Long was one of four A+ defensive shortstops associated with the decade.

Other than your point about the one league, this doesn't sound that dissimilar from my post above about how the 1900s were much stronger for pitchers than the 1910s, throwing into question exactly what Wilbur Cooper's yearly win shares rankings mean, given the relative dearth of competition. We've elected 9 pitchers that can be most attributed to the 1900s, how many will we elect that fit most in the 1910s? Johnson, Alexander? Then who? Cicotte may have been in there, but looking at Cooper's peers on the whole, there seems to be a pretty steep drop many seasons in competition at the top, especially relative to 5-15 years earlier.

For most of the 1890s, there was just one major league. Furthermore, Jennings would usually play fewer games than the person who led the league in fielding at short, thus hampering his overall WS totals. Pratt, on the other hand, would rarely miss a game.

Not sure how Jennings is coming up in here. Do you mean Long? Regardless, Pratt's durability is to his credit. I see what you're saying in that he had more opportunities to earn win shares, but isn't that part of the contributory value win shares seeks to measure? If a player misses time, that undercuts his value and that should be held against him. Long (assuming that's who you're talking about) may have contributed more per game, but given the games he missed, over the course of a season, his overall value was very similar to Pratt's.

Long was an A+ defensive shortstop, but the 1890s happened to produce more than its share of top shortstops. Pratt, however, was a B defensive second baseman. There weren't many great defensive 2B during Pratt's era. Frisch is an A+ second baseman, but he arrived in the majors midway through Pratt's career, and Frisch and Pratt didn't compete in the same league, anyhow.

I'm not so sure Pratt was just a B second basemen. Personally, I do have doubts about how reliably we can assess defensive ability now, let alone from several decades ago. Assessing defense is very much an imperfect science, and when it comes to all the way back then, much of it is conjecture, and I don't think we can fully account for how subtle differences in the game's nuances could have changed how the game was played defensively. If you want to think you have a grapple on defense from a century ago, good for you, but I'll still have my doubts.

During Long's first nine years, his OPS+ was about 104. Pratt's best nine-year stretch produced an OPS+ around 114. Long was much worse at the plate than his career average during his final few seasons; Pratt, not so much.

Good point. Plus Pratt walked away before he could experience an extended decline (though he was mostly able to keep up his production throughout his career, which ended at age 36, while Long noticeably dropped off at age 32).

Did you take into account the shorter seasons of the time? With my season length adjustments, we get a 21.6 average for Pratt -- and 23.1 for Long.

I did not, and I still don't find that difference all that significant. The real question is what's the premium for that kind of contribution among their peers? At some point I'll do for Pratt what I did above for Long. In most years, around 1/3 of the teams in the league could find someone to play SS and contribute on par or better than Long, and for his career (or at least the NL portion, consisting of the vast bulk), it was over 40% of the teams on average in a given year. I have no idea what the outcome will be for Pratt, but I have a feeling that at the very least, he will also be on average among the top 40% in the league at his position from year to year.

Long was a better player than Glasscock, and I'd also say he was better than Wallace.

I didn't look at Glassock, but a cursory look at win shares for Wallace doesn't seem to support this. Wallace annihilates Long in career value, and is ahead in any measure outside of peak 3 win shares, where he trails Long by 7 (or 2.33 per year). Beyond top three years, it's all Wallace. For instance, Long has 5 20 win share seasons. Even if you adjust for the longer schedules Wallace played later in his career, Long would not come close to matching Wallace's 12 20 win share seasons. Is your analysis limited to just the top 3 seasons, because that's what it seems here (unless you've gone beyond win shares here).

I don't see how Long's membership in the Hall of Fame makes the case for Pratt.

It's about value within the context of their times. Again, I haven't done the comparisons for Pratt compared to his peers, but if there was a greater premium on the type of contribution Pratt brought relative to his peers than there was for Long relative to his peers, I think an argument might be made, but I'll have to look. I might be totally offbase with Pratt.

Paul Wendt

12-21-2008, 05:22 PM

. . . I'm not so sure Pratt was just a B second basemen. Personally, I do have doubts about how reliably we can assess defensive ability now, let alone from several decades ago.
Is there any basis in Pratt's reputation to suppose that he was probably better than a B, rather than probably worse than a B?

I did not, and I still don't find that difference all that significant. The real question is what's the premium for that kind of contribution among their peers? At some point I'll do for Pratt what I did above for Long. In most years, around 1/3 of the teams in the league could find someone to play SS and contribute on par or better than Long, and for his career (or at least the NL portion, consisting of the vast bulk), it was over 40% of the teams on average in a given year.
over 40% now?
During a significant chunk of Long's career that would be 5 of 12 teams, with Long sixth best or worse. Or would it be 4 of the 11 rival teams, with Long fifth best or worse?

--
"I didn't look at Glassock,"

For Glasscock it is impossible to finesse the fact that there was usually more than one league, but the leagues weren't usually roughly equal. sometimes, sometimes.

For Monte Ward's six full seasons at shortstop, I do think it is reasonable to see him holding one of sixteen positions in two roughly equal major leagues. --and in 1891, with only one roughly equal league, but I see him holding a position for only half a season!

DoubleX

12-21-2008, 06:04 PM

over 40% now?
During a significant chunk of Long's career that would be 5 of 12 teams, with Long sixth best or worse. Or would it be 4 of the 11 rival teams, with Long fifth best or worse?

Paul, did you see my previous post where I show where Long ranked in win shares each year from 1890-1902 compared to peers. If you change his rankings into a percentage, the average is top 41%. That includes factoring in an extra sport for the years in which Long tied with another player; for example, in 1894, even though Long tied for 4th, for the purposes of his percentage, 5/12 players in the league, including Long, contributed equally or better than Long, putting Long in the top 41.67% that year.

This is all moot anyway because Long has been elected. Time would be better served trying to get someone like Frank Chance over the hump or by looking forward.

bambambaseball

12-21-2008, 06:23 PM

Wow, 30 votes and still 2 more days! :eek:

AG2004

12-21-2008, 09:20 PM

Other than your point about the one league, this doesn't sound that dissimilar from my post above about how the 1900s were much stronger for pitchers than the 1910s, throwing into question exactly what Wilbur Cooper's yearly win shares rankings mean, given the relative dearth of competition. We've elected 9 pitchers that can be most attributed to the 1900s, how many will we elect that fit most in the 1910s? Johnson, Alexander? Then who? Cicotte may have been in there, but looking at Cooper's peers on the whole, there seems to be a pretty steep drop many seasons in competition at the top, especially relative to 5-15 years earlier.

If we're looking at 1915-1924, we also have Carl Mays and Stan Coveleski as possibilities.

Cooper had a win share line, with adjusted peak for 1918-19, of 266-87-140. Coveleski has a peak-adjusted line of 245-97-151, and Mays has a peak-adjusted line of 256-96-140. However, Mays had 5 top-five win share finishes, and Coveleski 6 such finishes, to Cooper's 8 such finishes. Hippo Vaughn's peak-adjusted line is 205-90-136. Cooper's closer to Coveleski and Mays than he is to Vaughn et al.

Not sure how Jennings is coming up in here. Do you mean Long?

I meant Long.

Regardless, Pratt's durability is to his credit. I see what you're saying in that he had more opportunities to earn win shares, but isn't that part of the contributory value win shares seeks to measure? If a player misses time, that undercuts his value and that should be held against him. Long (assuming that's who you're talking about) may have contributed more per game, but given the games he missed, over the course of a season, his overall value was very similar to Pratt's.

It is one thing if player A misses time, while player B plays everyday. It is another thing if player A competes in an era of 132-game seasons, while player B competes in an era of 154-game seasons. To compare player A's record in a 132-game season to player B's in a 154-game schedule, I just multiply player A's win share totals by (154/132).

Pratt had more opportunities to earn win shares because the seasons were longer when he played. That difference has nothing to do with durability. My season length adjustments assume that a player would miss the same percentage of games in a 154-game season as in a 132-game or 140-game season. The differences due to player disability are preserved, but those due to schedule length are eliminated.

Pratt goes to 21.6 WS/season after the adjustments; the only short seasons I adjust for are 1918 and 1919. Long goes to 23.1 WS/season, since most of his top years came in seasons of under 154 scheduled games.

I did not [take season length into account], and I still don't find that difference all that significant. The real question is what's the premium for that kind of contribution among their peers? At some point I'll do for Pratt what I did above for Long. In most years, around 1/3 of the teams in the league could find someone to play SS and contribute on par or better than Long, and for his career (or at least the NL portion, consisting of the vast bulk), it was over 40% of the teams on average in a given year. I have no idea what the outcome will be for Pratt, but I have a feeling that at the very least, he will also be on average among the top 40% in the league at his position from year to year.

Long's case rests heavily on his first ten years, 1889-98. Still, we should note several things about your argument:

*Between 1892 and 1899, there were just 12 major league teams. During Pratt's time, there were 16. Adding four more major league teams would not have changed Long's rank among shortstops, but it would have changed his percentile. Because of the lower number of teams in that period, using percentiles will work against all players from that time.

*In each year from 1895 to 1898, Long was one win share away from a tie for third. I'm not sure how significant one win share is, since rounding error could account for the difference.

*Herman Long was recognized as a key leader for Boston, and those Boston teams won pennants in 1891, 1892, 1893, 1897, and 1898. The Win Shares system does not account for team leadership. Because of this factor, Long may have been worth a little more to his teams than the statistics say. One could thus be justified in prefering Long to Smith in 1892, Long to DeMontreville in 1897, and Long to Cross or Davis in 1898. (In contrast, the Yankees traded Pratt away after the 1920 season because he was an important part of the team's anti-Miller Huggins group that year.)

I didn't look at Glassock, but a cursory look at win shares for Wallace doesn't seem to support this. Wallace annihilates Long in career value, and is ahead in any measure outside of peak 3 win shares, where he trails Long by 7 (or 2.33 per year). Beyond top three years, it's all Wallace. For instance, Long has 5 20 win share seasons. Even if you adjust for the longer schedules Wallace played later in his career, Long would not come close to matching Wallace's 12 20 win share seasons. Is your analysis limited to just the top 3 seasons, because that's what it seems here (unless you've gone beyond win shares here).

After my season length adjustments, Long ends up with 7 20-win share seasons, plus two more at 19. However, Long also has 2 30-win share seasons after the season length adjustments, while Wallace has none. Wallace's best season would be 29 after the schedule adjustments. The five-year peak and MVP-candidate-type seasons are points in Long's favor.

It's about value within the context of their times. Again, I haven't done the comparisons for Pratt compared to his peers, but if there was a greater premium on the type of contribution Pratt brought relative to his peers than there was for Long relative to his peers, I think an argument might be made, but I'll have to look. I might be totally offbase with Pratt.

The schedule length adjustment means that Long's contribution, in both peak and overall career value, was similar to Larry Doyle's. The types of contribution may have been different, but the overall value was similar.

I use season length adjustments in order to account for the context you mention. Since the multiplier is the same for all position players who played during an individual season, it doesn't change how they rank compared to each other. However, it makes it easier to see how they compare to players from other eras by removing the effect of season length on win shares. It simply says that if a player had X win shares in a 140-game season like 1902 or 1919, that value, in terms of a pennant race, is equal to X times (154/140) win shares in a 154-game season like 1913 or 1924.

At some point when I have time, I'm going to try to do the same for Del Pratt and Dave Bancroft. In respect to Bancroft, I have a feeling he'll rank similarly from year to year among his peers as Long did among his. I really think that Long's election could open the door for someone like Bancroft.

Long's schedule-adjusted win share line was 289-90-131; Bancroft's schedule-adjusted line is 273-84-119. Bancroft wasn't as good as Long was.

Furthermore, where were the Dahlens and the Jenningses of the 1920s? There weren't any shortstops of their caliber in the major leagues. Moore was impressive, and Wells also looks good, but they competed in the Negro Leagues. Such a method will make Bancroft look better than he really was.

philkid3

12-22-2008, 04:16 AM

Ty Cobb was a 1st class jerk who lacked integrity. He will not have my vote when he becomes eligible. The rest of that class definitely have my support. That is indeed a good year to look forward to given the past few elections.

Could someone enlighten me a little bit on our guidelines and how much classiness matters?

Also, I assume you've been consistent with this standard, right?

Paul Wendt

12-22-2008, 09:45 AM

Contrary to the common style, in this note bold highlights the new candidates. It does not imply support. Indeed, I voted for none of them this year, although I expect to jump onto the fastest bandwagons next year.
--

After missing some elections I have passed on the first years. Voting for Babe Adams and Wilbur Cooper next year will lend the illusion of momentum --or the illusion that none of their voters is a one-timer.

Joe Wood needs an argument. There must be some plausible arguments about the hall of fame that cast Wood as a leading man, although their time may have passed without any attention here. Whom would we have elected in setting the stage for Wood? Mike Donlin, Charlie Ferguson, maybe Fred Dunlap, maybe Levi Meyerle.

Someone named "Hooks Dauss" enjoys one vote (as steadfast readers know). Fred Merkle, Everett Scott, and Hank Severeid all have a vote or two (something I checked in advance of voting). Indeed one person plunked for all three but did not comment as he did on Dauss. . . . That's right, if i read it correctly. Hooks Dauss basks in a vote, so he will see 1932. The voter who lamented the no-show of support actually voted for Merkle, Scott, and Severeid but not for Dauss.

Bill Wambsganss is a literal or is that literary favorite, because his name more or less rhymes with itself and because it has 8 consonants, only two vowels. Wambsganss is supposed to be a glove wiz at second, a la Scott at short, but Bill James grades him only B-! Wambsganss is is one of the weakest batters we have seen outside the battery. Putting it together I decided to pass him by.

This year there were four players whom I must look up in old baseball guides [well, a web encyclopedia] because I don't know them by name. I don't mid seeing that none of them has a vote: Carson Bigbee, Jimmy Johnston (name rings a bell, can't place him), Milt Stock, Whitey Witt.

to be continued

AG2004

12-22-2008, 12:45 PM

At some point when I have time, I'm going to try to do the same for Del Pratt and Dave Bancroft. In respect to Bancroft, I have a feeling he'll rank similarly from year to year among his peers as Long did among his. I really think that Long's election could open the door for someone like Bancroft.

From the list, we have seven seasons out of ten where Herman Long, playing in the same league as Ed McKean, had more win shares than the latter. Yet, DoubleX, while you have cast votes for McKean in the final round of VC elections, you regard Long as a mistake. If Long doesn't belong, then why does McKean?

I doubt that Long's election would open the door for Bancroft. McKean's potential election, however, would open the door for Bancroft . . . and Pratt.

Here's how the win share lines of some shortstops compare with those of second basemen. Since Long and McKean were stars of the 1890s, I adjusted their win share totals from 1890 onwards to bring them in line with 154-game schedules.

SS: Herman Long 289-90-131
2B: Larry Doyle 289-90-130

SS: Dave Bancroft 269-84-115
2B: Johnny Evers 268-82-117

SS: Ed McKean 240-77-105
2B: Del Pratt 242-75-109

I would say that the shortstops and the second basemen are pretty evenly matched. Long and Doyle are at about the same level; if Doyle's induction fails to make the case for Evers, then I don't see how Long's induction makes the case for Bancroft. Likewise, if Evers' case is weak, then Bancroft's case would also be weak. Furthermore, this shows the problem with voting for McKean in VC elections; McKean's induction would provide both Pratt and Bancroft with a good reason for entering the Hall.

EDIT: I checked who voted for Pratt and for Evers. DoubleX, just how is Pratt's case better than Evers'? If Evers didn't get your vote, then why Pratt?

DoubleX

12-22-2008, 03:53 PM

If we're looking at 1915-1924, we also have Carl Mays and Stan Coveleski as possibilities.

Adding Mays and Coveleski to the mix still doesn't really compare to the crop of pitchers at the top in the previous decade.

It is one thing if player A misses time, while player B plays everyday. It is another thing if player A competes in an era of 132-game seasons, while player B competes in an era of 154-game seasons. To compare player A's record in a 132-game season to player B's in a 154-game schedule, I just multiply player A's win share totals by (154/132).

Pratt had more opportunities to earn win shares because the seasons were longer when he played. That difference has nothing to do with durability. My season length adjustments assume that a player would miss the same percentage of games in a 154-game season as in a 132-game or 140-game season. The differences due to player disability are preserved, but those due to schedule length are eliminated.

Umm, I don't believe that was the point you made that I was responding to. I was responding to this:

"Furthermore, Jennings would usually play fewer games than the person who led the league in fielding at short, thus hampering his overall WS totals. Pratt, on the other hand, would rarely miss a game."

That all seemed to imply you were talking about durability rather than schedule length, in that Long (aka Jennings) was deficient in win shares compared to some of his peers due to missing games while Pratt maximized his win shares output by playing the majority of his games. That very much seems like durability, and that should be to Pratt's credit in terms of value (and as reflected in win shares) not held against him.

And for the record, later on, I did acknowledge that I had not considered adjustments for season length, but felt that any adjustment wouldn't make much of a difference, and this seems to be reflected in your adjustments which enlarge the average win share disparity between Long and Pratt, but only to 1.5 win shares, which isn't that much. But that still doesn't address the question I was asking - how each player compares in terms of win shares to his peers. This element of the conversation, which I believe I have been stressing, seems to have gone ignored.

*Between 1892 and 1899, there were just 12 major league teams. During Pratt's time, there were 16. Adding four more major league teams would not have changed Long's rank among shortstops, but it would have changed his percentile. Because of the lower number of teams in that period, using percentiles will work against all players from that time.

I don't see how this matters. If Long is 4th best out of 8 or 4th best out of 12 or 4th best out of 16, all are facts either way you slice it. The percentage reflects where Long ranked in respect to the size of the league he played in, we can't just ignore the size of the competition. Moreover, how do you know adding four more teams and thus four more player would not have affected Long's ranking? Perhaps some previously obscured bench player would have been given an opportunity and made the most if there were 4 extra teams. Perhaps the extra scouting that would have come from a larger league would have uncovered a previously undiscovered talent. Perhaps the extra travel would have more greatly fatigued Long. Perhaps a player would have been playing in a different and much more favorable park and put up better statistics. You really don't know how 4 extra teams would have affected the rankings or not.

*In each year from 1895 to 1898, Long was one win share away from a tie for third. I'm not sure how significant one win share is, since rounding error could account for the difference.

I don't know how big of a difference it is either, but you seem to think the 1.5 difference you mentioned between Long and Pratt is considerable.

*Herman Long was recognized as a key leader for Boston, and those Boston teams won pennants in 1891, 1892, 1893, 1897, and 1898. The Win Shares system does not account for team leadership. Because of this factor, Long may have been worth a little more to his teams than the statistics say. One could thus be justified in prefering Long to Smith in 1892, Long to DeMontreville in 1897, and Long to Cross or Davis in 1898. (In contrast, the Yankees traded Pratt away after the 1920 season because he was an important part of the team's anti-Miller Huggins group that year.)

Are you considering something other than Win Shares here? This won't fly when we revamp the process into an all Win Shares process.

After my season length adjustments, Long ends up with 7 20-win share seasons, plus two more at 19. However, Long also has 2 30-win share seasons after the season length adjustments, while Wallace has none. Wallace's best season would be 29 after the schedule adjustments. The five-year peak and MVP-candidate-type seasons are points in Long's favor.

I don't have my win shares in front of me, but I feel pretty confident in saying that any advantage Long has in peak, which can't be much more than single digits over 3-5 years, does not make up for Wallace's big advantage in career value. If you prefer peak over career, that's fine, but this seems to place a ton of emphasis on peak, especially when the disparity isn't that great.

Long's schedule-adjusted win share line was 289-90-131; Bancroft's schedule-adjusted line is 273-84-119. Bancroft wasn't as good as Long was.

That still doesn't show how Bancroft compared annually to his peers in comparison to how Long compared to his peers. That's the information I'm really looking for here (same with Pratt).

Furthermore, where were the Dahlens and the Jenningses of the 1920s? There weren't any shortstops of their caliber in the major leagues. Moore was impressive, and Wells also looks good, but they competed in the Negro Leagues. Such a method will make Bancroft look better than he really was.

And this goes right back to your point about Wilbur Cooper. Shouldn't his relative dearth of competition diminish his win share standings? It seems you're using a double standard.

Anywho, I'm leaving this conversation now, at least in respect to Long. I don't see the sense in debating Long anymore, he's elected, and I'll admit you've done enough to persuade me that he wasn't as bad a selection as I had thought he was. Nevertheless, I'm also tired of having a conversation premised almost entirely on win shares. As I've said, I'm a little troubled when the evaluation process is reduced to nothing but win shares (or any one measure for that matter). Though, I would still very much like to see how Bancroft annually stood among his peers in comparison to Long, keeping in mind though that Long faced better competition as you pointed out.

EDIT: I vote for McKean because I feel he went grossly overlooked in the process (unlike Long who was eventually elected). He seems to have picked up some greater support in the VC elections and thus may no longer need my support to deliver him attention, so I'll reevaluate him before the next election to determine if I should continue to support him.

As for Pratt vs. Evers: I am close on Evers, and I have to admit that I've been lazy in doing due diligence on Evers. But, if you can believe it, I'm actually not dogmatically using win shares to determine who to vote for. Outside of a couple of flukish seasons for Evers, Pratt was a better hitter, and given that I'm dubious about how well we can assess defense from way back then (or even the present), Pratt's offensive advantage makes the slight difference for me. I also think Pratt's counting numbers are more representative of the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't put much emphasis in counting numbers when strictly ranking players, but when discussing the Hall of Fame, counting numbers are something I consider to some degree as I believe part of what the Hall of Fame celebrates are certain measurable achievements. In this regard, I'm much more comfortable with Pratt's 1996 hits than Evers' 1659 hits (at the end of the day, the most fundamental skill the game is based on is putting bat on ball, and that's why I think in a Hall of Fame context it is fair to celebrate someone who more prolifically excelled at that fundamental skill). And I suppose at the end of the day, there's a little bit of the same sympathy here that I give to McKean. Evers is generally far more celebrated than Pratt and with the two players being close in my estimation, I feel that Pratt could better benefit from my support.

If you respond to this last point showing how Evers and Pratt and McKean and Long compare through win shares, I will just ignore you. I have full access to win shares and they do factor in at some level in my evaluation process, but they are not the be all and end all for me. I believe it is entirely possible to evaluate a Hall of Fame case with little or no use of win shares (though, I do use them to some degree). But when you consistently respond with almost nothing but win shares, it kind of looks like you don't give my evaluation process, or the mere fact that someone could use a non-win shares driven evaluation process, much accord. I'm certainly open to and appreciative of your use of win shares, I just have a hard time seeing them used as gospel here.

AG2004

12-22-2008, 04:44 PM

Umm, I don't believe that was the point you made that I was responding to. I was responding to this:

"Furthermore, Jennings would usually play fewer games than the person who led the league in fielding at short, thus hampering his overall WS totals. Pratt, on the other hand, would rarely miss a game."

That all seemed to imply you were talking about durability rather than schedule length, in that Long (aka Jennings) was deficient in win shares compared to some of his peers due to missing games while Pratt maximized his win shares output by playing the majority of his games. That very much seems like durability, and that should be to Pratt's credit in terms of value (and as reflected in win shares) not held against him.

I'll respond to the rest after I read it. However, I was unclear on the point I was trying to make.

Specifically, it is that James gives his Win Share Gold Gloves to the person with the most defensive win shares at the position in question for the season. However, the win shares book does not list who has the highest rate statistic at the position each year.

Baseball-reference provides both hit totals and batting averages; the person with the most hits may not lead in BA, and vice versa. Pratt may have come in second among AL 2B in defense all those seasons because he played more games than his competitors, not because his rate (DWS per 1000 innings) was substantially better than other 2B in the league.

Without the rate stats, I can't tell which is the case for Pratt. I also can't tell if Long lost out on the WS Gold Gloves because of his the level at which he played or because of the number of innings he played.

That's what I was trying to say when I made the point.

AG2004

12-22-2008, 09:47 PM

And for the record, later on, I did acknowledge that I had not considered adjustments for season length, but felt that any adjustment wouldn't make much of a difference, and this seems to be reflected in your adjustments which enlarge the average win share disparity between Long and Pratt, but only to 1.5 win shares, which isn't that much. But that still doesn't address the question I was asking - how each player compares in terms of win shares to his peers. This element of the conversation, which I believe I have been stressing, seems to have gone ignored.

The peers include all other position players, not just other players at the same position. Let's take 1896 as an example. We have 12 teams and seven everyday positions (catcher wasn't quite an everyday position yet), for 84 regular position players. Long was tied for 16th. That put him in the top 20% of position players.

What about Long's position among infielders? If we consider 2B, SS, and 3B, Long is 6th out of 36. That puts him in the top 17%. If we throw in the first basemen, Long becomes 6th out of 48 -- he's in the top 13%. The top first baseman in 1896 was Jack Doyle - who had three fewer win shares than Long. Should I say that Doyle was better than Long?

Comparing a player to his contemporaries at his position is a part of my evaluation process. But it's only a part, since there may be other stars at the position. Consider first base -- the three top first basemen of all time played in the 1880s. Gehrig might equal or even surpass the members of the Anson-Brouthers-Connor trio, but there's no guarantee that he'll play long enough to do so. George Sisler has a solid case for the Hall when he becomes eligible, but he's still behind the 1880s trio. If Sisler had played during that time, would we be justified in keeping him out, even if he were still better than Beckley? I can't do that; sometimes there are a lot of good players at a position.

If one or two of the shortstops ahead of Long weren't Hall-worthy, then his being the fourth-best shortstop of his era would have been a weakness. But Dahlen, Davis, and Jennings are all in the Hall, so we need ways to compare Long to contemporaries who didn't play shortstop, and ways to compare him to shortstops of other eras, to see if he has a good case otherwise. I see Long as better than Glasscock and Bancroft. If Joe Sewell were to retire today -- or even if he were to retire at the end of 1932 -- I'd put him behind Long as well.

I don't see how this matters. If Long is 4th best out of 8 or 4th best out of 12 or 4th best out of 16, all are facts either way you slice it. The percentage reflects where Long ranked in respect to the size of the league he played in, we can't just ignore the size of the competition.

Long's early years came during a period of contraction. In 1891, there were 16 major league teams (considering Milwaukee to be a continuation of Cincinnati); in 1892, there were 12. The AA teams in Boston and Philadelphia were capable of surviving past 1891, and they would have had it not been for four AA teams jumping to the NL. Should we penalize Long just because some owners decided to form a one-league trust, eliminating competition in the process?

The country could have supported 16 teams; businessmen colluded to keep the number of teams down to 12. Once the NL became an 8-team league, it was possible for another 8-team league to form, giving us 16 major league teams again.

Moreover, how do you know adding four more teams and thus four more player would not have affected Long's ranking? Perhaps some previously obscured bench player would have been given an opportunity and made the most if there were 4 extra teams. Perhaps the extra scouting that would have come from a larger league would have uncovered a previously undiscovered talent.

There were 4 extra teams in 1891 that weren't there in 1892. The players who ceased to be regulars weren't close to being among the top 4 at their position. I doubt that they would have been there in 1892, 1893, or 1894.

Also, consider the example of the UA. There were only five players who made their debut in the UA in 1884 and managed to stick in the majors afterwards: Joe Quinn, Jack Clements, Germany Smith, Emmett Seery, and Henry Boyle. Only two of these five were regulars in 1885: Smith (shortstop) and Boyle (pitcher). Neither was a star.

We also had a huge number of new regulars appear in the three major leagues in 1914, when the FL was established. Very few of them were regulars in 1916. For every Max Flack or Frank Snyder, there were plenty of people like Vin Campbell, Al Wickland, George Perring, and Cozy Dolan.

It's possible that the extra teams would have uncovered a new star, but experience indicates that the odds would have been highly against it.

Perhaps the extra travel would have more greatly fatigued Long. Perhaps a player would have been playing in a different and much more favorable park and put up better statistics. You really don't know how 4 extra teams would have affected the rankings or not.

True, but it is highly unlikely that the extra teams would have produced an additional player capable of reaching 20 win shares per 154 scheduled games on a regular basis, year-in and year-out. It's even less likely if you require that player to be a shortstop.

I don't know how big of a difference it is either, but you seem to think the 1.5 difference you mentioned between Long and Pratt is considerable.

Well, that difference comes out to 15 win shares over 10 seasons.

Let's say there's a margin of error of +/- 1 win share per season. If there's a margin of error of x per year, then, over n years, the margin of error becomes

[n*(x^2)]^0.5

This gives us a margin of error of 3.16 over 10 seasons; call it 4. If the difference over a ten-year span is greater than 4, it's significant; otherwise, it could just be rounding or measurement error.

*Herman Long was recognized as a key leader for Boston, and those Boston teams won pennants in 1891, 1892, 1893, 1897, and 1898. The Win Shares system does not account for team leadership. Because of this factor, Long may have been worth a little more to his teams than the statistics say. One could thus be justified in prefering Long to Smith in 1892, Long to DeMontreville in 1897, and Long to Cross or Davis in 1898. (In contrast, the Yankees traded Pratt away after the 1920 season because he was an important part of the team's anti-Miller Huggins group that year.)
Are you considering something other than Win Shares here? This won't fly when we revamp the process into an all Win Shares process.

All systems have their limitations. Since the formula for the Win Shares system has been made public, we are able to get a good idea where the weaknesses and limitations are. It has been pointed out that the system slightly underrates the defensive contributions of top fielders -- the A+ fielders, for example. It also underrates the contributions of pre-1900 fielders, and overrates the contributions of pre-1900 pitchers; one can adjust for this.

Furthermore, leadership and disruptive behavior have consequences, even if they aren't recorded (or can't show up) in the statistical record. Hal Chase wasn't as valuable as his statistics indicate. Why? Well, Chase threw games, but you can't tell that from his record. Long, on the other hand, provided leadership for several teams that won close pennant races. That doesn't show up in Long's individual record, but the leadership helped the team to win games.

I consider the Win Shares system to be the best statistical tool available, but it is necessary to take its limitations into account.

I don't have my win shares in front of me, but I feel pretty confident in saying that any advantage Long has in peak, which can't be much more than single digits over 3-5 years, does not make up for Wallace's big advantage in career value. If you prefer peak over career, that's fine, but this seems to place a ton of emphasis on peak, especially when the disparity isn't that great.

The five-year peak, after schedule length adjustments, comes out to 131 for Long, as against 117 for Wallace. (Yes, Wallace does get a bump here.) I also put a premium on seasons with 30+ win shares (after the schedule length adjustment). Long has two; Wallace, zero. Overall, Wallace is close to Long, but I give Long a slight edge.

That [win share line] still doesn't show how Bancroft compared annually to his peers in comparison to how Long compared to his peers. That's the information I'm really looking for here (same with Pratt).

Well, I'd say Pratt was the third-best 2B of his era, behind Collins and Doyle, as Evans was almost finished when Pratt's career started. Bancroft is probably the second-best major league shortstop of his time, behind Sewell. However, we need a method to compare players across eras and/or positions, since -- and this should be obvious -- the distribution of the very best players by position and era is not uniform.

Furthermore, where were the Dahlens and the Jenningses of the 1920s? There weren't any shortstops of their caliber in the major leagues. Moore was impressive, and Wells also looks good, but they competed in the Negro Leagues. Such a method will make Bancroft look better than he really was.
And this goes right back to your point about Wilbur Cooper. Shouldn't his relative dearth of competition diminish his win share standings? It seems you're using a double standard.

I was making a point about segregated major leagues. Bancroft may have been the second-best major league shortstop of his time, but Moore was better than Bancroft. Given the length of his career, one could consider Lloyd a contemporary of Bancroft, even though Lloyd's peak years only go through the first half of Bancroft's career. So Bancroft would be the fourth-best shortstop of his time.

However, by your method, Bancroft would rank second, not fourth. Why? Simply because the Lloyds and Moores were kept out of the majors because of skin color. With Rube Foster's induction as a contributor, perhaps we should be opening up our Hall to Negro League players as well.

Anywho, I'm leaving this conversation now, at least in respect to Long. I don't see the sense in debating Long anymore, he's elected, and I'll admit you've done enough to persuade me that he wasn't as bad a selection as I had thought he was. Nevertheless, I'm also tired of having a conversation premised almost entirely on win shares. As I've said, I'm a little troubled when the evaluation process is reduced to nothing but win shares (or any one measure for that matter). Though, I would still very much like to see how Bancroft annually stood among his peers in comparison to Long, keeping in mind though that Long faced better competition as you pointed out.

I like win shares, because they are easy to use in a manner of different ways. With pitchers, for example, I haven't figured out how to balance ERA+ and IP. Position players are harder to work with, since OPS+ and games played don't indicate defensive value. Also, if I want to calculate ERA+ or OPS+ over a multi-year stretch, I either need to go through a complicated series of calculations or settle for a rough approximation. With win shares, all I need is simple addition. WARP-3 is simple to use, but, since the formula is kept secret, nobody has any idea what its flaws are, and there's no way to compensate for hidden flaws.

Bancroft did lead major league shortstops in win shares in 1920, 1921, and 1922. However, according to Chris Cobb's analysis, John Henry Lloyd was the game's best shortstop in 1920, and Dobie Moore was the game's top shortstop in 1922. Bancroft had nine seasons with 20+ win shares; Long had seven (after season length adjustments), with two more seasons coming out to 19 WS over a 152-game schedule. However, Long beats Bancroft, 2-1, in seasons with 30+ win shares (again, with season length adjustments).

We know that Long could play a 154-game schedule, since he appeared in 151 of Boston's 152 games in 1892. Furthermore, a 132-game or 140-game schedule isn't that much shorter than a 154-game schedule, so adjusting to 154 scheduled games isn't too much of a stretch.

DoubleX

12-23-2008, 08:43 AM

The peers include all other position players, not just other players at the same position. Let's take 1896 as an example. We have 12 teams and seven everyday positions (catcher wasn't quite an everyday position yet), for 84 regular position players. Long was tied for 16th. That put him in the top 20% of position players.

I don't want to talk about Long anymore, but I will darnit! I see what you're saying among all positional players, but I'm just talking about what kind of premium the player had at his position during his era. Granted, if it's a more competitive era at that position, there's no shame in being 4th, but in many years, Long was behind many players that history has easily obscured. Long, however, much to his credit, had better staying power.

But I don't think premium should be totally dismissed. For instance, later you said that you regard Dave Bancroft as a lesser player to Long. I'd probably agree with that. However, you also said that Bancroft may have been the 2nd best SS of his era. So in the context of his era, which was 16 team league, Bancroft's SS play had a much greater premium than Long say being on the whole, the 4th best of 12 of his era. Competition is not something a player can control, but it impacts the value a player has in the context of his time, and Bancroft being the second best available SS of his time is something that goes to his value that should be considered, IMO, particularly in a larger league. It should be counterbalanced against the relative dearth of competition he had, but it shouldn't be totally dismissed.

Again, this seems to be the argument you were putting forth for Wilbur Cooper, in that his yearly win shares rankings at pitcher for his era merit induction, even if his competition wasn't all that great at the top (at least compared to the previous decade). As I said, a player can't control his competition, but the value he gives should be put into context of his time - if there is a greater premium for what he adds, than that should be to his credit and not dismissed. Plus, there might be some aspect of a particular era, that we might not even be able to put our finger on, that facilitates a number of players excelling at one position or not.

Should we penalize Long just because some owners decided to form a one-league trust, eliminating competition in the process?

The question isn't too dissimilar from asking should we penalize Bancroft from having less competition at SS during his day? You have to deal with what is, because that's all we have to go on, anything else is just supposition. We have no idea what Long's career would have looked like in a larger league, how he would have performed under changed circumstances and what his competition would have looked like. The dynamics of the league would have been very different, and who knows on a daily basis what kind of impact that would have had. Perhaps an errant fastball from a pitcher that wouldn't have otherwise been in the league would have ended Long's career, making this conversation moot? We just can't assume what Long would have done in a larger league, we can only deal with what he did do in the league he played in.

Well, that difference comes out to 15 win shares over 10 seasons.

Point taken.

I consider the Win Shares system to be the best statistical tool available, but it is necessary to take its limitations into account.

I think it's a good tool, especially to compare value of players. Though, I do think from year to year, what a certain win share mark represents, say 30, can fluctuate, and thus it can be difficult to just use win shares to compare players across eras without first putting a figure into the context it was achieved in. I also don't believe win shares should be stressed above all else in a Hall of Fame conversation. I'll grant it to you in a conversation strictly ranking players, but a Hall of Fame conversation is not identical to a rankings conversation. I'm also not comfortable with how it measures defense, which is something I think historically is difficult to get a handle on. Also the fact that it puts a lot of stock in playing time, while something that is good for measuring value, could obscure which player might actually be the better player. Player A could have more win shares than Player B by virtue of playing more games, but Player B might actually be the better player. Player A would be more valuable over the season due to his extra durability, and win shares is good for accounting for that value, but value and ability are not always the same conversation.

The five-year peak, after schedule length adjustments, comes out to 131 for Long, as against 117 for Wallace. (Yes, Wallace does get a bump here.) I also put a premium on seasons with 30+ win shares (after the schedule length adjustment). Long has two; Wallace, zero. Overall, Wallace is close to Long, but I give Long a slight edge.

This seems almost as arbitrary as saying putting a ton of stock in 300 wins. I'm sure you don't mean to oversimplify it in this way, but your statement could be taken as to say that a player who say reaches 31 win shares twice and never again topped 25, was better than a player that reached 29 win shares 4 times. If you want to put Long ahead based on peak, that's fine, but I think the difference isn't enough to make up for Wallace's big career advantage.

Well, I'd say Pratt was the third-best 2B of his era, behind Collins and Doyle, as Evans was almost finished when Pratt's career started. Bancroft is probably the second-best major league shortstop of his time, behind Sewell. However, we need a method to compare players across eras and/or positions, since -- and this should be obvious -- the distribution of the very best players by position and era is not uniform.

I addressed this in my first paragraph above. I think Joe Sewell an interesting player when he's eligible.

I was making a point about segregated major leagues. Bancroft may have been the second-best major league shortstop of his time, but Moore was better than Bancroft. Given the length of his career, one could consider Lloyd a contemporary of Bancroft, even though Lloyd's peak years only go through the first half of Bancroft's career. So Bancroft would be the fourth-best shortstop of his time.

However, by your method, Bancroft would rank second, not fourth. Why? Simply because the Lloyds and Moores were kept out of the majors because of skin color. With Rube Foster's induction as a contributor, perhaps we should be opening up our Hall to Negro League players as well.

Bancroft did lead major league shortstops in win shares in 1920, 1921, and 1922. However, according to Chris Cobb's analysis, John Henry Lloyd was the game's best shortstop in 1920, and Dobie Moore was the game's top shortstop in 1922. Bancroft had nine seasons with 20+ win shares; Long had seven (after season length adjustments), with two more seasons coming out to 19 WS over a 152-game schedule. However, Long beats Bancroft, 2-1, in seasons with 30+ win shares (again, with season length adjustments).

So are we just to ignore then that there may have been a number of very qualified African-American players during Long's era that never got a chance due to segregation as well? Moreover, African-Americans didn't even really have much of their own professional league to play in during that time as Lloyd and Moore would during Bancroft's era. Yes, we can actually identify two African-American peers of Bancroft's, but if you're going to open that door, it is extremely fair to reason and suppose that there would have been some very qualified African-American players in Long's era had they been raised in a different, more embracing society, and been afforded an opportunity (or even just a better opportunity to compete in an all-African American league as existed during Bancroft's era), may have ranked ahead of Long as well. In sum, if you're going to go into the Negro Leagues of Bancroft's era, than you have to acknowledge that there very well could have been African-American players better than Long during his era as well that never even got a chance. You can't just dismiss that unfortunate aspect of history.

We know that Long could play a 154-game schedule, since he appeared in 151 of Boston's 152 games in 1892. Furthermore, a 132-game or 140-game schedule isn't that much shorter than a 154-game schedule, so adjusting to 154 scheduled games isn't too much of a stretch.

That's true, but again, you never know what could happen with extra games. Injuries, fatigue, who knows. But on the whole, I think it's ok to make the adjustment.

AG2004

12-23-2008, 08:53 AM

As for Pratt vs. Evers: I am close on Evers, and I have to admit that I've been lazy in doing due diligence on Evers. But, if you can believe it, I'm actually not dogmatically using win shares to determine who to vote for. Outside of a couple of flukish seasons for Evers, Pratt was a better hitter, and given that I'm dubious about how well we can assess defense from way back then (or even the present), Pratt's offensive advantage makes the slight difference for me. I also think Pratt's counting numbers are more representative of the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't put much emphasis in counting numbers when strictly ranking players, but when discussing the Hall of Fame, counting numbers are something I consider to some degree as I believe part of what the Hall of Fame celebrates are certain measurable achievements. In this regard, I'm much more comfortable with Pratt's 1996 hits than Evers' 1659 hits (at the end of the day, the most fundamental skill the game is based on is putting bat on ball, and that's why I think in a Hall of Fame context it is fair to celebrate someone who more prolifically excelled at that fundamental skill).

I think "putting bat on ball" may be a tad simplistic. Which would you rather have a hitter do -- avoid putting the bat on the ball and getting to first on a walk, or putting the bat on the ball and hitting into a double play?

Well, if you're the pitcher, you'd rather have the second. But if you're supporting the team that's hitting, you'd rather have the choice which avoids having the bat hit the ball.

Evers reached first on hits or walks 2437 times; Pratt, 2509. However, Pratt's last few years came in the early 1920s, when the practice of keeping fresh balls in play made it easier to get hits. (Once the bat hit the ball, the fresher ball could go farther, and that made it easier for the hitter/runner to get to first base before the ball did.)

Evers won the Chalmers Award in 1914, with his leadership of the Miracle Braves playing a key role in the vote. As I mentioned earlier, Pratt was traded away from the New York Yankees after the 1920 season, as he was a leader in the anti-Huggins faction on the team, and hence a disruptive force.

I might add that Evers' knowledge of the rulebook directly led to the Cubs winning the 1908 pennant. In a game against Pittsburgh, Evers told umpire Hank O'Day that the winning run should not have counted. Since the Pirates' Warren Gill had failed to touch second, Rule 59 meant that the force out there at the end of the game would nullify the run. O'Day said that he didn't know whether Gill had touched second. However, he publicly announced that he would be keeping Rule 59 in mind in later games.

So, on September 23, 1908, the Cubs met the Giants, with Hank O'Day as umpire. We all know the story -- Merkle didn't bother to touch second at the end of the game, the Cubs threw the ball to second, and O'Day declared Merkle out and nullified the Giants' winning run. When the game was replayed, the Cubs won.

Had it not been for Evers' conversation in Pittsburgh, O'Day wouldn't have kept Rule 59 in mind, and thus wouldn't have paid attention to second base. The Giants would have won the September 23 game, and hence won the pennant instead of the Cubs.

The statistical record doesn't show that Evers' brains won the pennant for the Cubs in 1908. Thus, it doesn't show up in the win shares totals. But Evers deserves credit for that action. Although Evers and shortstop Bancroft have similar win share lines, Evers' leadership in 1914 and intelligence in 1908 makes it easy for me to rank him ahead of Bancroft.

As for Evers vs. Pratt on defense? Well, those Chicago Cubs won a lot of games during the late oughts, and the Cubs' pitchers generally performed better with the Cubs than they did when they played for other teams. Infield defense had a lot to do with both facts, and Evers was on that Cubs defense. Evers was probably a pretty good defensive second baseman.

That's a commentary on the Evers-Pratt comparison which, aside from a short comment about Evers vs. Bancroft, refrains from using win shares. I don't need to use win shares, but it makes my analysis much easier when I do. [OOC from 2008 - the Keltner Lists provide a lot of ways to approach the issue of Hall of Fame worthiness. It's easier for me to use win shares than to balance OPS+, games played, and defensive numbers, and, unlike WARP-3, the knowledge of win shares' specific limitations means I can make adjustments for them if needed.]

I can accept systems which don't use win shares. However, due to my experiences with Sockeye, I do have a problem when people use different systems with different players, or when they try to avoid questions about their systems altogether. In those cases, it just looks like someone's using a complicated method to reach a preordained conclusion. [OOC - Making my Keltner Lists have made me change my mind about a few candidates. Also, If I had reason to believe that the win shares system overrated Jimmy Wynn's value or that he was just lucky to play in the Astrodome, I would have dropped him from my BBFHOF ballot.]

I also have some problem with inconsistencies. If Long is unfit for the Hall because that would mean four shortstops from the 1890s made it in, then Ed McKean, who wasn't as good as Davis, Dahlen, or Jennings, should also be unfit. If one criticizes the Long enshrinement on that ground, then one shouldn't be voting for McKean. There are ways to argue that McKean belongs in the HOF while insisting that Long's enshrinement was a mistake, but, when there's an internal contradiction within the argument, I have reason to protest.

DoubleX

12-23-2008, 10:29 AM

I think "putting bat on ball" may be a tad simplistic. Which would you rather have a hitter do -- avoid putting the bat on the ball and getting to first on a walk, or putting the bat on the ball and hitting into a double play?

You're talking strategy and value again, I'm simply talking skill. The most fundamental skill that everyone who ever picks up a bat to play baseball on any level from t-ball to the Majors, strives to master, is putting bat on ball. The game is premised on putting throwing a ball and trying to hit, and it is from those very rudimentary aspects that all other nuances of the game spawned. So I think it's ok for the Hall of Fame to consider honoring excelling in that fundamental skill.

I can accept systems which don't use win shares. However, due to my experiences with Sockeye, I do have a problem when people use different systems with different players, or when they try to avoid questions about their systems altogether.

Are you lumping me in with Sockeye here?

I also have some problem with inconsistencies. If Long is unfit for the Hall because that would mean four shortstops from the 1890s made it in, then Ed McKean, who wasn't as good as Davis, Dahlen, or Jennings, should also be unfit. If one criticizes the Long enshrinement on that ground, then one shouldn't be voting for McKean. There are ways to argue that McKean belongs in the HOF while insisting that Long's enshrinement was a mistake, but, when there's an internal contradiction within the argument, I have reason to protest.

I believe I discussed my rationale for voting for McKean above. I'm guessing you either didn't read it or didn't accept it. I did admit that this conversation will get me to rethink McKean going forward, but with Long and McKean close in my mind, I voted for McKean, as I am now with Pratt (and not Evers), because I felt McKean at least deserved extra scrutiny, and with little support, he could use my support to keep him on the ballot for that extra scrutiny. I also liked McKean's offense more, same with Pratt over Evers, and that's my prerogative.

As for problems with evaluation methods, I think I've made quite clear that when discussing the Hall of Fame, I have a problem with seemingly reducing it to one measure, in this case win shares. Doing so cannot encapsulate everything what it means to be a Hall of Famer, IMO, which does include some subjective elements that Win Shares does not capture (and such as you mentioned in your post). It's a balancing act between many things, and the balance itself is a subjective process. When you adhere to nothing but win shares, you're looking too much for right and wrong, but it's not nearly that black and white, IMO. It also defeats much of this process and would render it little more than an exercise of consulting Bill James' abstract and assigning some cutoff number.

EDIT: I also don't see where there is a contradiction here. There is only a contradiction because it doesn't jive with your heavily-driven win shares method. That's fine, but that's not my method. Again, there seems to an underlying assumption in your posts that your way, driven by win shares, is the only way. It is possible that other intelligent and thoughtful people, using other factors to guide them, can come to different conclusions yet sound conclusions, even if it would seemingly contradict what your win shares method tells you. My use of win shares in this conversation is done merely to humor you, and is not a reflection of my entire evaluation process.

On that note, I'm done with this conversation for real this time. I think it's clear where we stand in relation to the perspective of the other, so I'm just going to end my part of the futility.

PVNICK

12-23-2008, 10:50 AM

As for Evers vs. Pratt on defense? Well, those Chicago Cubs won a lot of games during the late oughts, and the Cubs' pitchers generally performed better with the Cubs than they did when they played for other teams. Infield defense had a lot to do with both facts, and Evers was on that Cubs defense. Evers was probably a pretty good defensive second baseman. I think Matt's defensive rankings have Evers as #3 all time behind McPhee and Lajoie, though of course all I have is some crumbled printout so I can't link you, much less elaborate. But it's probably safe to say he was the best of his generation. The defense plus being above-average at the plate with a high baseball IQ makes him a HOF player in my book.

AG2004

12-23-2008, 08:29 PM

Again, this seems to be the argument you were putting forth for Wilbur Cooper, in that his yearly win shares rankings at pitcher for his era merit induction, even if his competition wasn't all that great at the top (at least compared to the previous decade). As I said, a player can't control his competition, but the value he gives should be put into context of his time - if there is a greater premium for what he adds, than that should be to his credit and not dismissed. Plus, there might be some aspect of a particular era, that we might not even be able to put our finger on, that facilitates a number of players excelling at one position or not.

Earlier this year, I was saying that perhaps Cooper wouldn't lower our standards. It was a response to someone who stated that Cooper was in the same class as Adams, Bender, Dauss, Leonard, Marquard, Vaughn, and Wood. I don't disagree with that assessment, I would say that Cooper is roughly equal to Mays and Coveleski. Mays and Coveleski had slightly higher peaks, but Cooper was able to maintain his peak for longer, which meant that he had slightly more career value. That trio forms the next step down from Alexander and Johnson.

The question isn't too dissimilar from asking should we penalize Bancroft from having less competition at SS during his day? You have to deal with what is, because that's all we have to go on, anything else is just supposition. We have no idea what Long's career would have looked like in a larger league, how he would have performed under changed circumstances and what his competition would have looked like. The dynamics of the league would have been very different, and who knows on a daily basis what kind of impact that would have had. Perhaps an errant fastball from a pitcher that wouldn't have otherwise been in the league would have ended Long's career, making this conversation moot? We just can't assume what Long would have done in a larger league, we can only deal with what he did do in the league he played in.

We know what Long did, and we know what Bancroft did. If we expand the definition of "peers" from shortstops to position players, we reduce the impact of your initial question; the distribution of top players by era would be more even than the distribution by both players and era, and hence widening "peers" to contemporary position players is better. But, even after we do that, we're still need a way to compare Long's performance with Bancroft's.

I also don't believe win shares should be stressed above all else in a Hall of Fame conversation. I'll grant it to you in a conversation strictly ranking players, but a Hall of Fame conversation is not identical to a rankings conversation.

After three decades here, we have some idea where the Hall of Fame cutoff line lies. If someone ranks above the cutoff players, or is equivalent to people (players) in the Hall, that's an argument for induction. If someone ranks below the worst players in the Hall, that's an argument against induction. If you believe that A belongs in the Hall, according to the standards set forth by the electorate, and if you believe that B is better than A, then B belongs in the Hall.

I'm also not comfortable with how it measures defense, which is something I think historically is difficult to get a handle on. Also the fact that it puts a lot of stock in playing time, while something that is good for measuring value, could obscure which player might actually be the better player. Player A could have more win shares than Player B by virtue of playing more games, but Player B might actually be the better player. Player A would be more valuable over the season due to his extra durability, and win shares is good for accounting for that value, but value and ability are not always the same conversation.

It is difficult to get a handle on defense. If you can convince me that you have a better method than win shares, please try. If I believe your method is better, I'll adopt it. However, I'm the type of person who needs some type of method.

Also, as you noted above, durability is of importance when rating players. I haven't figured out how to balance OPS+ and games played. The questions I use [OOC-In 2008, I'll call them "Keltner List" questions] can be answered in a variety of ways, and contemporary opinion does carry some weight. But there may be widely held misconceptions, and the win shares method provide a counterbalance.

This seems almost as arbitrary as saying putting a ton of stock in 300 wins. I'm sure you don't mean to oversimplify it in this way, but your statement could be taken as to say that a player who say reaches 31 win shares twice and never again topped 25, was better than a player that reached 29 win shares 4 times. If you want to put Long ahead based on peak, that's fine, but I think the difference isn't enough to make up for Wallace's big career advantage.

Well, I do take 29-win share seasons into account when dealing with MVP-candidate-type seasons, due to rounding error. Also, if we have someone with ten seasons in the 26-29 range, but none with 30 win shares, that person will be able to lead a team into the thick of the pennant race on a regular basis if he's the team's best player. That's not the case with someone who reached 31 win shares twice, but never topped 25 again; that would be a mark against the candidate in question.

Unfortunately, even with schedule-length adjustments, Wallace topped 25 win shares just once (he hit 25 in two other seasons), and that works against Wallace. If Wallace had hit the upper 20s a few more times, that would balance Long's two MVP-candidate-type seasons.

You're talking strategy and value again, I'm simply talking skill. The most fundamental skill that everyone who ever picks up a bat to play baseball on any level from t-ball to the Majors, strives to master, is putting bat on ball. The game is premised on putting throwing a ball and trying to hit, and it is from those very rudimentary aspects that all other nuances of the game spawned.

Well, I'd think getting to a base before the ball gets there is important. The pitcher isn't the only person who throws; the fielders throw the ball to the bases. That makes running another important part of the game. The other important premise on offense would be scoring runs/not getting out, and not getting out is a skill.

Are you lumping me in with Sockeye here?

No. You're honest, fair, and answer questions.

I believe I discussed my rationale for voting for McKean above. I'm guessing you either didn't read it or didn't accept it. I did admit that this conversation will get me to rethink McKean going forward, but with Long and McKean close in my mind, I voted for McKean, as I am now with Pratt (and not Evers), because I felt McKean at least deserved extra scrutiny, and with little support, he could use my support to keep him on the ballot for that extra scrutiny. I also liked McKean's offense more, same with Pratt over Evers, and that's my prerogative.

Fair enough. I can accept that someone ranks McKean ahead of Long.

However, I may have misinterpreted part of your argument against Long. At the time, you seemed to be saying that being the fourth-best shortstop out of twelve was a good reason for keeping someone out of the Hall. If that was the case, then voting for another shortstop from the 1890s was inconsistent, since McKean wasn't as good as Dahlen, Davis, or Jennings.

On the other hand, if you believe that inducting four shortstops from the 1890s is acceptable, due to the distribution of talent, then a vote for McKean is consistent with what the beliefs you hold.

If my interpretation was wrong, I apologize for accusing you of inconsistency.

As for problems with evaluation methods, I think I've made quite clear that when discussing the Hall of Fame, I have a problem with seemingly reducing it to one measure, in this case win shares. Doing so cannot encapsulate everything what it means to be a Hall of Famer, IMO, which does include some subjective elements that Win Shares does not capture (and such as you mentioned in your post). It's a balancing act between many things, and the balance itself is a subjective process. When you adhere to nothing but win shares, you're looking too much for right and wrong, but it's not nearly that black and white, IMO.

I, too, have a problem with reducing a Hall of Fame case to one measure; that's why I use a variety of questions to judge a Hall of Fame case. The way I balance the questions is subjective. Jim Albright uses win shares a lot, but he doesn't use them the same way I do. However, for many of the questions -- but not all -- I believe that win shares are the best available measure for producing answers. Furthermore, one of the questions involves ways that the statistical record may be distorted. This means I have to take the limitations of the win shares method into account.

[OOC from 2008 - Things would be much simpler if I could reduce everything to one number. Do you realize how long those Keltner Lists are?]

I also don't see where there is a contradiction here. There is only a contradiction because it doesn't jive with your heavily-driven win shares method. That's fine, but that's not my method. Again, there seems to an underlying assumption in your posts that your way, driven by win shares, is the only way. It is possible that other intelligent and thoughtful people, using other factors to guide them, can come to different conclusions yet sound conclusions, even if it would seemingly contradict what your win shares method tells you.

I'm in complete agreement that other people can use non-win-shares based methods, and I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Sometimes I may wonder at the conclusions, and ask about the reasoning. I did this here, and I'm satisfied with your answers, even if I don't agree with the process. (Sockeye gave me headaches because he didn't answer the questions I asked; you have.)

Important final note:

The only contradiction I saw had nothing to do with whether or not win shares were used. It was in seeming to argue that four shortstops from the 1890s were too much for the Hall, and then voting for McKean anyway.

If someone had changed the names -- that is, they argued against McKean with the premise that four shortstops from the decade were too many for the Hall, and then voted for Long -- I'd still have a problem with the behavior, due to the seeming inconsistency. I'd also say the inconsistency was worth criticizing.

Again, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologize.

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 07:20 AM

Earlier this year, I was saying that perhaps Cooper wouldn't lower our standards. It was a response to someone who stated that Cooper was in the same class as Adams, Bender, Dauss, Leonard, Marquard, Vaughn, and Wood. I don't disagree with that assessment, I would say that Cooper is roughly equal to Mays and Coveleski. Mays and Coveleski had slightly higher peaks, but Cooper was able to maintain his peak for longer, which meant that he had slightly more career value. That trio forms the next step down from Alexander and Johnson.

I think Cooper probably would lower our standards, though I'm not sure by how much. I know you're probably uncomfortable with Joss' election, and he probably represents the bottom of our standards, but I also feel he's a pretty unique case given the abrupt end to his career due to death (which I do not equate to injury or walking away) and that the innings he did pitch were of extremely high quality. So even if you regard Joss as the bottom, I think it's hard to use him as a comparison for other players on the outside because of the uniqueness of his case.

Mays and Coveleski will be interesting when eligible. I will support Coveleski and generally feel he's one of the more underrated good pitchers. I'm on the fence with Mays but could be persuaded. You've also got me considering Cooper more than I had before, but I'm not there yet.

We know what Long did, and we know what Bancroft did. If we expand the definition of "peers" from shortstops to position players, we reduce the impact of your initial question; the distribution of top players by era would be more even than the distribution by both players and era, and hence widening "peers" to contemporary position players is better. But, even after we do that, we're still need a way to compare Long's performance with Bancroft's.

I still don't understand why we should expand to all position players. Perhaps if we were dealing with a less difficult position, but SS is a difficult position to play - it says something about a player if he can play SS and play it well, and thus I think it's more appropriate to compare Long and Bancroft to their SS peers. I'll admit that Long is probably the better player, but I'd still like to see where Bancroft stood in the context of his generation. If he could make a decent argument for being say among the 2 best of his time at the position, I think that alone makes for a decent Hall of Fame argument because that would have made him pretty valuable during his time, even if he would have been less valuable in another generation. A player can't control the play of their contemporaries, and as I said earlier, perhaps there is something about a particular generation which engenders a surplus of good players at one position or another.

I'm in complete agreement that other people can use non-win-shares based methods, and I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. Sometimes I may wonder at the conclusions, and ask about the reasoning. I did this here, and I'm satisfied with your answers, even if I don't agree with the process. (Sockeye gave me headaches because he didn't answer the questions I asked; you have.)

As long as you're not lumping me in with Sockeye, we're fine. The way your post was going, I thought you were insinuating that I was falling into that category.

The only contradiction I saw had nothing to do with whether or not win shares were used. It was in seeming to argue that four shortstops from the 1890s were too much for the Hall, and then voting for McKean anyway.

This is clearer to me now. I had thought you were arguing that one can't argue for McKean because win shares show Long was probably better. Yes, I agree, saying that four players from an era shouldn't be elected would be contradictory when voting for McKean. Looking back on this conversation, I can see how you may have thought that was my reasoning. As I mentioned above though, I was throwing out the rankings, in terms of win shares, as food for thought.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 09:29 AM

I think Cooper probably would lower our standards, though I'm not sure by how much. I know you're probably uncomfortable with Joss' election, and he probably represents the bottom of our standards, but I also feel he's a pretty unique case given the abrupt end to his career due to death (which I do not equate to injury or walking away) and that the innings he did pitch were of extremely high quality. So even if you regard Joss as the bottom, I think it's hard to use him as a comparison for other players on the outside because of the uniqueness of his case.

Cooper was a lot better than Joss and much more valuable. You don't need win shares to see that.

AG2004

12-24-2008, 10:38 AM

.
This is clearer to me now. I had thought you were arguing that one can't argue for McKean because win shares show Long was probably better. Yes, I agree, saying that four players from an era shouldn't be elected would be contradictory when voting for McKean. Looking back on this conversation, I can see how you may have thought that was my reasoning. As I mentioned above though, I was throwing out the rankings, in terms of win shares, as food for thought.

Good. I'm happy we cleared up our misunderstanding.

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 01:20 PM

Cooper was a lot better than Joss and much more valuable. You don't need win shares to see that.

I don't think that's clear in the least. Certainly, Cooper has more career value, but I think Joss has a distinct edge in peak. If you look at their 8 peak years, which comprises almost all of Joss' career but isn't a small sample in terms of peak, you get the following for ERA+ and IP:

Cooper: 128 ERA+ in 2298 IP
Joss: 149 ERA+ in 2200 IP

Cooper's extra 78 innings don't come close to making up the 21 points in ERA+. Granted, Cooper may have had more value in relation to his peers than Joss because there were lower IP expectations and his competition for the top of the rankings wasn't as strong as it was a decade earlier when Joss played (thus making it easier to rank higher for Cooper), but inning for inning, Joss was pitching a much higher level than Cooper at peak and much deeper competition with which to compete for leaderboard positioning.

Yes, Cooper moves ahead on career value, but an 8 year peak of 149 ERA+ is really nothing to sneeze at, and like I've said, I don't treat an early end to a career due to death the same as I would treat a career ending due to injury or walking away - when you die, you don't even have the luxury to be injured or to choose to walk away.

Also, like I've said before, I think Joss is a pretty unique player and tough to compare others to because: 1) His early death; 2) The very high quality he pitched for 9 years; balanced with 3) The fact that compared to his peers, Joss left some innings out there; balanced with 4) The fact that Joss' peers were a very strong group that ate innings at a rate that hasn't been seen since, or even a decade later when Cooper pitched.

jalbright

12-24-2008, 01:32 PM

I have to disagree that the group Joss pitched against were especially durable. They had an advantage: they could coast due to the absence of the threat of the home run. A guy who got a 5 run lead was expected to coast home and finish--but be ready for a dogfight the next turn. So, he took it easy unless there was a scoring threat. Do that today, and suddenly that five run lead is two because you've given up a three run jack and you're back in a fight. In short, the conditions made it easier to pitch those IP totals we stare at in amazement today. That's why Joss' IP totals don't impress me in the least.

jalbright

12-24-2008, 01:41 PM

More on Joss versus Cooper:

Pitcher.... career best 3 5consec bl ink gr ink HOF stds
Joss........ 191 88 131 19 143 47
Cooper.... 266 85 133 17 173 33

I think that the peak win share measures (best 3 and best 5 consecutive) are a wash. Joss has a small edge in black ink and a nice edge in HOF standards, but I think those are outweighed by Cooper's clearly better showings in career win shares and gray ink. Double X gives Joss a break due to his death, I don't, preferring to view it as an extreme career-ending injury.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 01:54 PM

I don't think that's clear in the least. Certainly, Cooper has more career value, but I think Joss has a distinct edge in peak. If you look at their 8 peak years, which comprises almost all of Joss' career but isn't a small sample in terms of peak, you get the following for ERA+ and IP:

Cooper: 128 ERA+ in 2298 IP
Joss: 149 ERA+ in 2200 IP

Cooper's extra 78 innings don't come close to making up the 21 points in ERA+. Granted, Cooper may have had more value in relation to his peers than Joss because there were lower IP expectations and his competition for the top of the rankings wasn't as strong as it was a decade earlier when Joss played (thus making it easier to rank higher for Cooper), but inning for inning, Joss was pitching a much higher level than Cooper at peak and much deeper competition with which to compete for leaderboard positioning.

Yes, Cooper moves ahead on career value, but an 8 year peak of 149 ERA+ is really nothing to sneeze at, and like I've said, I don't treat an early end to a career due to death the same as I would treat a career ending due to injury or walking away - when you die, you don't even have the luxury to be injured or to choose to walk away.

Also, like I've said before, I think Joss is a pretty unique player and tough to compare others to because: 1) His early death; 2) The very high quality he pitched for 9 years; balanced with 3) The fact that compared to his peers, Joss left some innings out there; balanced with 4) The fact that Joss' peers were a very strong group that ate innings at a rate that hasn't been seen since, or even a decade later when Cooper pitched.

For clarity on why Cooper was a better pitcher than Joss, see jalbright's excellent comparison in the 2 posts above this post. I agree with it 100%. Your entire argument in Joss' favor seems to rest solely on ERA+ which is ironic given how vehemently you criticize others who rely on one measure (win shares).

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 02:21 PM

For clarity on why Cooper was a better pitcher than Joss, see jalbright's excellent comparison in the 2 posts above this post. I agree with it 100%. Your entire argument in Joss' favor seems to rest solely on ERA+ which is ironic given how vehemently you criticize others who rely on one measure (win shares).

How exactly does jalbright's post definitively make the case for Cooper? First, I never said the group that Joss pitched against were especially durable, I said on the whole as a group they seemed to pitch more innings than really any generation since, including Cooper's era a decade later. The rationale for this could very well be in what Jim posted, though that wouldn't much explain why IP totals seemed to take a noticeable dip a decade later when Cooper was pitching - the home run was still not much a of a threat during the first half of Cooper's career, yet we see lower IP totals on the leaderboards. There were three occasions where Joss pitched over 280 innings and didn't even crack the top 10 in IP, yet just a decade later Cooper could pitch 273 innings and finish 3rd. So how do we explain this change in IP totals in just a decade and before the end of the deadball era?

In Jim's next post, Joss is actually ahead in peak win shares (though behind in career, and I already conceded on career value), just two away from Cooper based on best five consecutive years, ahead in both Hall of Fame standards and black ink despite an abbreviated career, but behind in gray ink. In respect to gray ink (and blank ink) that can be explained in two ways: 1) His abbreviated career; and 2) Joss faced a deeper pool of competition at the top for leaderboard rankings than Cooper. We've elected 9 pitchers from the 1900s, it is highly doubtful we'll elect 9 or even close to 9 peers of Cooper's (maybe 4, plus Cicotte). So in a given year during Joss' career, you have a number of Hall of Fame pitchers competing for leaderboard rankings, in addition to a number of good pitchers that weren't able to sustain their productivity for long enough to merit Hall of Fame induction, and thus ink points were likely harder to come by for Joss than for Cooper. Taken this into account, I think it's pretty amazing actually that Joss comes ahead of Cooper in black ink despite the abbreviated career and deeper competition at the top.

In sum, how exactly does Jim's second post make clear that Cooper was better? I think it's far from clear. The difference between Jim and I on Joss seems to be how we treat his death (I don't think death should be treated as an injury because injury is a product of being alive), and that's perfectly understandable and fine, but otherwise, I really don't see how a case has been clearly made for Cooper other than on career value, and that difference may again be affected on how one chooses to view Joss' death.

Additionally, you said, "Cooper was a lot better than Joss and much more valuable. You don't need win shares to see that." Thus, I used OPS+ to show you how one non-win shares measure can be construed to be in favor of Joss, and thus the case isn't so clear-cut.

Why don't you share exactly why the case for Cooper over Joss is so cut and dry in your mind? So far you've offered one very blanketed and unsupported statement, of which I responded to directly, followed by essentially saying "see what he said," even though that information offers mixed results as well. Before you criticize someone else, I very strongly suggest you offer an argument of your own beyond a very generalized and unsupported comment. Thank you.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 02:42 PM

How exactly does jalbright's post definitively make the case for Cooper? First, I never said the group that Joss pitched against were especially durable, I said on the whole as a group they seemed to pitch more innings than really any generation since, including Cooper's era a decade later. The rationale for this could very well be in what Jim posted, though that wouldn't explain why IP totals seemed to take a noticeable dip a decade later when Cooper was pitching - the home run was still not much a of a threat during that era, yet we see lower IP totals on the leaderboards. There were three occasions where Joss pitched over 280 innings and didn't even crack the top 10 in IP, yet just a decade later Cooper could pitch 273 innings and finish 3rd. So how do we explain this change in IP totals in just a decade?

In Jim's next post, Joss is actually ahead in peak win shares (though behind in career, and I already conceded on career value), just two away from Cooper based on best five consecutive years, ahead in both Hall of Fame standards and black ink despite an abbreviated career, but behind in gray ink. However, in respect to gray ink that can be explained in two ways: 1) His abbreviated career; 2) Joss faced a deeper pool of competition at the top for leaderboard rankings than Cooper. We've elected 9 pitchers from the 1900s, it is highly doubtful we'll elect 9 or even close to 9 peers of Cooper's (maybe 4, plus Cicotte). So in a given year during Joss' career, you have a number of Hall of Fame pitchers competing for leaderboard rankings, in addition to a number of good pitchers that weren't able to sustain their productivity for long enough to merit Hall of Fame induction, and thus gray ink points were likely harder to come by for Joss than for Cooper.

In sum, how exactly does Jim's second post make clear that Cooper was better? I think it's far from clear.

Additionally, you said, "Cooper was a lot better than Joss and much more valuable. You don't need win shares to see that." Thus, I used OPS+ to show you how one non-win shares measure can be construed to be in favor of Cooper.

Why don't you share exactly why the case for Cooper over Joss is so cut and dry in your mind? So far you've offered one very blanketed and unsupported statement, of which I responded to directly, followed by essentially saying "see what he said," even though that information offers mixed results as well. Before you criticize someone else, I very strongly suggest you offer an argument of your own beyond a very generalized and unsupported comment. Thank you.

1. Joss is 2 WS ahead of Cooper in 3 year peak and Cooper is 3 WS ahead of Joss in 5 year hence the wash. That is not an accurate statement on your part.

2. Cooper is far ahead of Joss in Gray ink and Cooper was a top 5 WS in his era 4X as often as Joss.

3. Cooper pitched in a much more competitive era than Joss. Joss pitched in the deadball era.

4. You have offered quite a few blanketed unsupported statements such as the one where you state that Cooper would clearly lower our standard but offer absolutely zero evidence to back that statement up.

5. Cooper was more durable than Joss and more consistent.

6. Your death credit for Joss has been repeated about 25 times. Are you trying to convince us or yourself on that one?

7. Joss was already in decline when he passed away yet you conveniently overlook this when emphasizing his inflated ERA+.

8. Cooper topped 20 wins 4 times and did so on mediocre teams. Joss did so 4 times, butonly managed 2 other years where he could be considered more than an average pitcher to 5 other years where Cooper was better than an average pitcher.

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 03:05 PM

1. Joss is 2 WS ahead of Cooper in 3 year peak and Cooper is 3 WS ahead of Joss in 5 year hence the wash. That is not an accurate statement on your part.

How exactly is my statement not accurate? I'll repeat it - "Joss is actually ahead in peak win shares (though behind in career, and I already conceded on career value), just two away from Cooper based on best five consecutive years" Would you have preferred I added the word "three" in front of peak win shares. I thought it went without saying given that I covered both the three year and five year in my post. Nitpicking is not a good way to build a strong argument.

2. Cooper is far ahead of Joss in Gray ink and Cooper was a top 5 WS in his era 4X as often as Joss.

Have you not even bothered to read the explanation I offered for this? The fact that it may have been harder to compete for ink in Joss time due to deeper competition at the top among pitchers combined with the fact that Joss had an abbreviated career? I've already seen exactly what you've posted before, as posted by others, and have responded directly to it. So why not offer something new, perhaps respond to what I've said? I'm actually curious to see what others think about this position, but so far no one's really addressed it. I might be offbase.

3. Cooper pitched in a much more competitive era than Joss. Joss pitched in the deadball era.

The first half of Cooper's career was in the deadball era, and again, until someone finally says otherwise, I believe Joss had a more talented pool among pitchers on a yearly basis to fight for position on the leaderboards.

4. You have offered quite a few blanketed unsupported statements such as the one where you state that Cooper would clearly lower our standard but offer absolutely zero evidence to back that statement up.

That definitely makes clear why you think Cooper is clearly better. Thank you for another not-so subtle jab.

Regardless, I've actually since retreated from that statement, saying on at least a few occasions that I'm more open now to Cooper than I was due to my conversation with AG, and I definitely think I've been thoughtful on where I stand on Cooper in this conversation.

5. Cooper was more durable than Joss and more consistent.

He was more durable in that he didn't die, but purely in terms of IP, they were actually pretty close. The difference is that 280 IP during Joss' career would not evern get him in the top 10, whereas during Cooper's career, it could get him in the top 5 in some years, and this includes during the first half of his career during the deadball era. So again I ask, what changed so much between the end of Joss career and a few years later during the first half of Cooper's career during the deadball era, that 280 IP seemed to chart so much higher on the leaderboards? Strategy perhaps? Quality of pitchers maybe? I don't know, but I'd be curious to hear someone offer some insight (Jim's post deadball explanation makes complete sense though).

Moreover, as I posted above, in their 8 peak years (which was consecutive for Joss but not for Cooper, and I believe that is also in Joss' favor), Cooper was just 72 innings ahead of Joss, that's pretty close in durability over an 8 year period, but the difference, IMO, is that Joss' pitched at a much higher level during that time. I understand that picking 8 years is somewhat arbitrary, but it's not a short peak period to look at, and it's pretty much all we got for Joss. If you want to look at 5 year peak, you get:

Cooper: 133 ERA+ in 1406 IP
Joss: 161 ERA+ in 1379 IP

Like I said, peak durability in terms of IP, is pretty even, and Joss moves well ahead in ERA+. Again, the difference is that Cooper's innings stood out more than Joss' due to their respective competition, even though three of Cooper's five peak seasons were also during the deadball era.

6. Your death credit for Joss has been repeated about 25 times. Are you trying to convince us or yourself on that one?

Yet another very productive statement on topic. Thank you again.

7. Joss was already in decline when he passed away yet you conveniently overlook this when emphasizing his inflated ERA+.

How can we know that? You have no idea how Joss would have performed had he lived. His second to last year, coming at age 29, was down from this third to last year, but higher than his fourth to last year. So what exact trend is there to be garnished from that? He was injured his last year, but by accounts (which I have posted in previous elections), was ready to come back the following year. Need more proof it's a stretch to discern a trend here and predict decline, look at Wilbur Cooper at age 29. He dipped from the prior year, but was higher than the year before that. It's the exact same pattern as Joss had in his three years leading up to age 29. In Cooper's case, he improved the next year. So how do you know Joss couldn't have done that also? To be fair, you could say Joss' injury in his last year would have made it more difficult for him, but he wouldn't have been at all the first to come back and pitch at least decently after injury.

Moreover, this still doesn't change the fact that when you compare Joss and Cooper on peak, they are fairly close in IP, but Joss opens up about a 20 point lead in OPS+. You seem to conveniently over look this fact, as well as pretty much everything else I've said in this conversation.

Finally, even though is ERA+ is inflated by the shorter career, even with some years of decline, Joss would have almost certainly ended with an ERA+ well above Cooper's career 116.

8. Cooper topped 20 wins 4 times and did so on mediocre teams. Joss did so 4 times, butonly managed 2 other years where he could be considered more than an average pitcher to 5 other years where Cooper was better than an average pitcher.

And what exactly are you considering an average pitcher here? You seem to imply that winning 20 games makes one an above average pitchers? So now wins/losses are definitive?

Cooper also had more opportunities. Again, this goes back to how one views Joss' death. I view death as very drastic and not like a career-ending injury, and that's my prerogative and that's why I view Joss' case as pretty unique and not a good one to measure most other pitchers against.

EDIT: Now when you can actually muster a post that is not condescending and that actually attempts to demonstrate that you're trying to have a polite and thoughtful conversation that actually addresses the points made by others, then perhaps I'll continue this conversation with you. Until then, I've said all I have to say on this topic.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 03:22 PM

For reply, see other thread.

AG2004

12-24-2008, 09:19 PM

DoubleX

12-25-2008, 11:31 PM

Joss' career OPS+ was 20, while Cooper's OPS+ between 1917 and 1924 -- the eight years he finished among the top five NL pitchers in win shares -- was 71. That would close the gap a little more, or even eliminate it entirely. Remember, pitchers go to the plate, too.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons Cooper does better in win shares than in ERA+ is because Cooper was a very good hitter (by the standards of pitchers in general).

That's a good point that I didn't consider before and definitely goes in Cooper's favor. I don't think it closes the ERA+ gap though as I don't think a 71 OPS+ in around 110 PAs makes that much of an impact. It gives Cooper an additional source of value, but by far and away, a pitcher's value comes from pitching, and that's why I don't think it makes up the pretty large ERA+ gap. I also don't think Cooper's hitting, while pretty good for a pitcher, makes a serious dent into his Hall case. Again, the overall impact isn't that great, it's just decent relative to pitchers. In the end, a pitcher's Hall candidacy is based on their pitching, as that's where the vast majority of their impact occurs, thus I might be more interested in just seeing the win shares totals from pitching and exclude whatever else was added for hitting (and that's something I'll try to remember to do tomorrow - it might not amount to much anyway). Nonetheless, if a pitcher is borderline, and I might well come to that conclusion with Cooper, than the hitting might be an added factor that can push them over.

As I've been trying to say to JJPM, you've definitely got me thinking more about Cooper and I've definitely retreated from my original position that he was clearly on the outside. I'm starting to see that perhaps he would not be such a bad pick, but I'm not convinced yet he definitely belongs and I don't think comparing him to Joss makes a particularly strong argument, but that's just me - if you're able to convince others that way, great - whatever works.

Paul Wendt

12-26-2008, 09:08 AM

That's a good point that I didn't consider before and definitely goes in Cooper's favor. I don't think it closes the ERA+ gap though as I don't think a 71 OPS+ in around 110 PAs makes that much of an impact. . . Nonetheless, if a pitcher is borderline, and I might well come to that conclusion with Cooper, than the hitting might be an added factor that can push them over.
Most all of these pitchers, even the good batters, were completing most of their games, batting ninth, and otherwise sitting on the bench. So their plate appearances and innings pitched were roughly proportional; so were their plate appearances and batters faced, presumably with a higher correlation.

Red Lucas (OPS+ 107) played 511 games where he did not pitch, only 18 in the field. George Uhle (OPS+ 86) played 209 games where he did not pitch, not one in the field. "Down" at OPS+ 70 with Wilbur Cooper in his prime (career rate only OPS+ 61), there were no calls to pinch-hit. So OPS+ or another rate measure of batting may be paired with ERA+ or another rate measure of pitching, and they may be compared with the two rates for another pitcher without attention to plate appearances. There is more noise in a summary of pitching workload by one number --starts, innings, or batters-- than there is in a presumption that batting responsibilities are proportional. At least that is true across twenty years time, as from Addie in the aughts to the latter part of Cooper's career in the twenties; across a historical gap such as that, the later pitchers worked more batters per inning and fewer innings per game with lower completion rate.

For a team, the ninth batting position gets 1/10 of the batting workload, so a pitcher takes 1/10 of team batting workload if he completes every game both on the mound and at the plate. Routinely I use 1/12 which fits the full-time starting pitcher who completes many games and essentially always pitches deep in the game; he bats twice in his bad games at the home ballpark, and they are not many.

On the same scale with his career ERA+ 116 or his careeer DERA+ about 110,
: Wilbur Cooper's career batting rate OPS+ 61 is worth about two points (+2); his prime rate 71 is worth about +3 points.
(Here my reference point is OPS+ 40. Pete Alexander OPS+ 43 and Bob Shawkey OPS+ 37 were about average batters among the good career pitchers of their day. Probably the league average pitchers were worse than that but they were also replaced by pinch-batters a lot more than Alexander and Shawkey.)

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 09:19 AM

I completely agree with what you're saying Paul, it's a value argument, and it's appropriate that something like Win Shares factors that in. However, for me at least, weighing a Hall of Fame case is not strictly an exercise of ranking players based on value or ability. For me, a pitcher's Hall of Fame case is based on his pitching, that's what he does, that's his claim to fame. Being a terrible hitter at worse, or a mediocre hitter at best over maybe 100 or so plate appearances a season, really doesn't do much for me when evaluating a pitcher for the Hall. An exception being if a pitcher is very borderline and good hitting could make a difference (and it may be possible for me to get there with Cooper). So in this regard I think overall win shares can be a little misleading because they are tacking on (or perhaps even subtracting) an element that I don't really care about in terms of Hall of Fame discussion - to me the question is really how well did the guy pitch, his offense for me gets thrown into that barrel of subjective other information to consider.