BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1932 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1932

DoubleX

12-23-2008, 04:00 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.

1932 Guide
There are 46 candidates on the 1932 ballot – 30 holdovers and 16 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1927 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (16)
Jesse Barnes
Jack Fournier
Heinie Groh
Baby Doll Jacobson
Walter Johnson
Stuffy McInnis
Irish Meusel
George Mogridge
Roger Peckinpaugh
Dick Rudolph
Dutch Ruether
Bob Shawkey
Sherry Smith
Frank Snyder
Jack Tobin
Zack Wheat

Holdovers (30)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Babe Adams 2nd 18.75% 18.75% (1931) 18.75% (1931) 18.75%
Chief Bender 11th 37.50% 60.00% (1929) 37.50% (1931) 47.52%
George J. Burns 3rd 18.75% 24.00% (1930) 18.75% (1931) 21.38%
Frank Chance 14th 68.75% 72.00% (1930) 48.28% (1924) 60.97%
Wilbur Cooper 2nd 40.63% 40.63% (1931) 40.63% (1931) 40.63%
Gavvy Cravath 8th 28.13% 37.50% (1925) 24.00% (1930) 28.65%
Jake Daubert 4th 9.38% 16.00 (1929) 9.38% (1931) 12.46%
Hooks Dauss 2nd 3.13% 3.13% (1931) 3.13% (1931) 3.13%
Mike Donlin 14th 9.38% 25.93% (1919) 7.14% (1927) 14.28%
Johnny Evers 7th 25.00% 40.00% (1926) 28.57% (1927) 25.97%
Art Fletcher 6th 6.25% 12.00% (1929) 3.57% (1927) 7.45%
Larry Gardner 4th 15.63% 15.63% (1931) 8.00% (1930) 11.88%
Harry Hooper 3rd 34.38% 34.38% (1931) 24.00% (1930) 29.19%
Miller Huggins 12th 12.50% 20.83% (1925) 7.14% (1922) 14.07%
Johnny Kling 15th 15.63% 26.92% (1920) 9.68% (1921) 18.72%
Ed Konetchy 7th 12.50% 12.50% (1931) 8.00% (1929) 11.05%
Tommy Leach 11th 56.25% 60.00% (1930) 33.33% (1925) 44.84%
Dutch Leonard 3rd 12.50% 12.50% (1931) 12.00% (1930) 12.25%
Rube Marquard 3rd 21.88% 28.00% (1930) 21.88% (1931) 24.94%
Fred Merkle 2nd 6.25% 6.25% (1931) 6.25% (1931) 6.25%
Del Pratt 4th 15.63% 16.00% (1929, 1930) 15.63% (1931) 15.88%
Ed Reulbach 11th 15.63% 17.24% (1924) 7.69% (1923) 12.54%
Everett Scott 2nd 6.25% 6.25% (1931) 6.25% (1931) 6.25%
Hank Severeid 2nd 3.13% 3.13% (1931) 3.13% (1931) 3.13%
Jimmy Sheckard 15th 37.50% 42.31% (1920) 25.00% (1927) 32.13%
Joe Tinker 12th 18.75% 25.00% (1925, 1927) 10.71% (1922) 20.38%
Hippo Vaughn 7th 12.50% 18.52% (1928) 10.71% (1927) 14.96%
Bobby Veach 3rd 31.25% 31.25% (1931) 24.00% (1930) 27.63%
Joe Wood 6th 28.13% 35.71% (1927) 29.63 (1928) 29.09%
Ross Youngs 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1931) 12.50% (1931) 12.50%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Max Flack Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1930) 0% (1931) 2.00%
Casey Stengel Lack of Support 2 4.00% (1930) 3.13% (1931) 3.57%

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

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (2)
Player High Support
Frank Chance 72.00% (1930)
Mike Donlin 25.93% (1919)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (3)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Frank Chance 68.75% 12
Tommy Leach 56.25% 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 46 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 Deceased (1858-1932) 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Living – Age 56 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 64 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 64 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 62 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 52 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 62 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 62 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 46 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 66 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 56 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 75 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 75 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 66 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 77 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 75 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 61 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 58 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 73 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 72 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 63 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 61 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 76 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 66 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 58 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 59 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 51 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 73 61
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 85 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 56 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 85 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 65 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
1931 (0):

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 - 60.97%
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931)
- Average Regular Election Electees Per Year: 1.97
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 47 Players (1932)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 32 (1931)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 25.4
- 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: 35
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 85
- Deceased in Past Year: Dan Brouthers

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
1931: 32

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)
1931 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85681)

BlueBlood

12-23-2008, 04:12 PM

Posting before the poll is up just to say that I did. :nod:

Vote for Wilbur Cooper all you people that are easily swayed and vote early. :clapping

jjpm74

12-23-2008, 04:13 PM

AG's comparison was enough for me to add him to my ballot this year. :D

DoubleX

12-23-2008, 04:37 PM

Glad that we'll almost certainly get back to electing players, hopefully at least 2 this time. As a sidenote, doesn't it seem like we have a lot of questionable players holding over the past few years? I guess with few good candidates, it's natural to throw some support to personal favorites, but 30 holdovers seems like a lot.

AG got me thinking a lot about Johnny Evers. I've always been very borderline with him, but I just haven't thought much about him in recent elections. Anyone want to discuss his case? I think I could be easily swayed here.

I'm still not swayed on Cooper, but I'm more open to his case than I was. AG's argument was well taken, but lost some steam for me when we were discussing relative competition for Bancroft vs. Long. In that conversation, it was argued Bancroft's relative dearth of top competition in relation to the strong competition of Long's era, should be held against Bancroft, and that the fact that Bancroft's play may have been at a greater premium at SS during his era than Long's play at SS during his era, thus perhaps giving Bancroft greater relative value, didn't really matter (though, this is all just hypothetical at this point). I think the same could be said of Cooper. Outside of Johnson and Alexander, and perhaps Cicotte, there wasn't really much standout competition at the top - a number of good pitchers, but no true standouts (Coveleski and Mays would also emerge later in the decade). Unlike the previous decade, from which we've elected 9 pitchers, thus making it more difficult to compete for the top win share rankings. So the question is, how should we balance the premium Cooper provided during his era to the relative dearth of competition at the very top during his era? How much should we consider, if at all, that if he pitched in a different era, he may have faced more competition at the top? I'm sympathetic to giving more in favor of the former - rewarding Cooper for standing out in his era, and thus being valuable in the context of his time; he can't control the quality of competition relative to other eras. But I'm having trouble reconciling a position that would reward Cooper for standing out in a more mediocre era, but punish Bancroft for perhaps doing the same (though, with Bancroft, it is still hypothetical at this point, as I'm not certain at all right now how much Bancroft stood out in his era; there's also the issue that comparing pitchers and shortstops are apples and oranges as there's a lot more competition generally among pitchers).

Anywho, at this point, I'm likely voting for:

Frank Chance - He reached 72% in 1930 and we've elected everyone that received over 70% in at least one election. He has just two shots left, so now is the time to make the push, but he'll face stiff competition from the newbies.

Johnny Evers - As I said, I've been very close on him and would be appreciative of some discussion.

Heinie Groh - I think it will take some good discussion to get him over the hump, but I think it can be done. We've elected just three players to represent 60 years at 3B. That doesn't seem right. I think we really need to take some time to figure out what we expect from 3B during this time period. Not counting some of the shorter career guys from the 19th Century who are on the VC now, I think Groh is as good as any pure 3B candidate not yet elected.

Walter Johnson - Perhaps the best candidate to thus far come before us (though that mantle might only last until next year when Cobb becomes eligible), and certainly the best we've had in a decade. It's about time we got around to electing a bona fide all time, first tier great.

Tommy Leach - He made a nice climb after some good discussion, but he seems to have stagnated now. I was one of those persuaded by arguments pointing to how much value he gave his team as being a great defensive player at two important defensive positions, while also contributing pretty good offense with some great peak years.

Del Pratt - I'm still very much on the fence with Pratt, I'm just not ready to abandon him yet.

Jimmy Sheckard - This is just a tip of the cap given it's his 15th year and I do consider him very close given our standards, close enough that I'm willing to vote for him in deference to his supporters.

Bobby Veach - Given the standards we've set in the OF, Veach is just over the line for me, but I don't feel strongly enough about inducting him to advocate for him.

Zack Wheat - I would think he's a first-balloter given the competition.

jjpm74

12-23-2008, 05:06 PM

Frank Chance--Play/Managerial career, key player on a dynasty

Wilbur Cooper--One of the best pitchers of a generation that was very deep in talent.

Jack Fournier--Short career, but an amazing hitter.

Heinie Groh--We have almost no third basemen in our hall. Groh fits our standards well and is one of the best third basemen through a very long period of professional baseball.

Walter Johnson--The best pitcher in the history of the game and a great gamesman on top of that.

Johnny Kling--One of the best catchers of his generation and a very durable player.

Ed Konetchy--I'm voting for him in the hope that someone will do a comparison between Konetchy and fournier and McInnis.

Tommy Leach--2 position HOFer

Stuffy McInnis--Good fielder, great hitter. Voting for him mainly to keep him on the ballot long enough to remain in the conversation.

Jimmy Sheckard--Fits within our defined standards for an outfielder and an excellent fielder.

Zack Wheat--One of 2 no brainers on this ballot.

jjpm74

12-23-2008, 05:16 PM

As a sidenote, doesn't it seem like we have a lot of questionable players holding over the past few years? I guess with few good candidates, it's natural to throw some support to personal favorites, but 30 holdovers seems like a lot.

I definitely am not opposed to people giving a 1st year pass to some players. I do it myself once in a while with some of the players who seem like an interesting conversation piece, but if they do, they should at least give a reason why. There's really no reason why a catcher who played 5 full seasons and was average defensively should be showing up a second year on the ballot unless the person voting for him has some sort of reason for voting for him (Hank Severeid). The justification doesn't need to be anything more than the guy playing on your favorite team or being nice to the community. People vote for players for reasons like this in real life. At least say something about the person, though.

mwiggins

12-23-2008, 05:26 PM

Frank Chance
Tommy Leach
Wilbur Cooper
Ross Youngs
Walter Johnson
Zack Wheat
Heinie Groh

BlueBlood

12-23-2008, 05:52 PM

Bender
Chance
Cooper
Groh
Johnson
Wheat

jalbright

12-23-2008, 07:09 PM

I've got two holdovers in Leach and Cooper, and three newcomers:

Wilbur Cooper
Heinie Groh
Walter Johnson
Tommy Leach
Zack Wheat

If Johnson doesn't make it this year, it would be so monumentally bad a decision that I'd question the value of continuing in the project. Wheat should make it, probably this year, but he's not the inner circle type candidate that Johnson is. Groh belongs and has received support in other projects here at Fever.

henrich

12-23-2008, 07:12 PM

Pitchers
Babe Adams
Chief Bender
Walter Johnson
Rube Marquard
Ed Reulbach
Bob Shawkey
1B Stuffy McInnis
1B Jake Daubert
2B Johnny Evers
3B Larry Gardner
3B Heinie Groh
3B-CF Tommy Leach
SS Joe Tinker
RF Harry Hooper
LF Zach Wheat

I maxed out this vote, thought we'd try to elect a couple this year. I think Johnson and Wheat are slam dunks, but there are some others here that I find worthy. I think Shawkey is awesome, not sure if underrated, but he scores well for me.

I left Chance and Veach off, but they were the least of the 17 I considered.

Cowtipper

12-23-2008, 08:43 PM

Bender
Chance
Cooper
Cravath
Daubert
Donlin
Hooper
Johnson
Leach
Reulbach
Veach
Wheat
Wood

Although next election I'm going to drop Reulbach, because Babe Adams is better than he is and I'm not voting for Adams.

PVNICK

12-24-2008, 05:50 AM

Bender
Chance
Evers
Groh
Walter Johnson
Kling
Leach
Sheckard

Can't believe I missed Zack Wheat down there on the bottom, though it looks like he won't need my vote anyway.

dgarza

12-24-2008, 01:03 PM

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

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

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 01:23 PM

dgarza, no room for Heinie Groh? We've elected just 3 players at 3B to represent 60 years, so if Groh doesn't cut it, what does?

jalbright

12-24-2008, 01:25 PM

DoubleX

12-24-2008, 02:38 PM

Double X has requested some discussion of Evers, and I'll pass along a thought I've had: Evers in many ways is a middle infield parallel to Addie Joss. Joss has sympathy due to his early death, but Evers can counter with championships. It's a difference, to be sure, but it arguably cancels out. The real similarity to me is: both men were superb ballplayers when they played, but by the standards of the starters of their day at their respective positions, they didn't play a lot. Joss had low IP totals for a starting pitcher of his day, especially a good one. Evers didn't stay in the lineup like stars are expected to. He was only over 130 games 7 times in his career, and only 3 over 143, despite having consistent 154 game seasons to play in. Evers only had over 500 AB three times, and never over 611 PA. To some, this may be an endorsement of Evers, but to me, the missed time is the Achilles heel of both men. Indeed, Evers has less than 11.6 full seasons in his 18 year career, and even discounting the last two "years", when he played in one game each, he averaged playing under 75% of his seasons. That lack of durability hurts his case, to be sure.

Good stuff Jim. I haven't looked at who you've voted for, but based on this, I take it you don't support Evers?

As I said above, I've long been on the fence with Evers. The lack of durability certainly hurts, and the comparison to Joss in this regard is probably a good one. However, I don't feel the quality of production when he did play was as good as Joss'. That being said, the championships and his role on those championships, paired with his great defensive reputation, do much to make up for these shortcomings.

Reflecting on some of the positions I have taken in the past (such as with Joss), I have decided to vote for Evers this time around. I still put him very close to the fence (same with Pratt, whom I've been supporting for different reasons explained in the last election), and would appreciate more conversation on Evers.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 02:47 PM

Heinie Groh has even less votes than Tommy Leach at this point. Both of them are pretty much out of this. So much for electing a pre-WWII third baseman. :shrug:

Domenic

12-24-2008, 02:53 PM

Chance
Cooper
Cravath
Leach
Veach
Wheat
Wood

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 03:00 PM

No on Walter Johnson? Most people consider him the best pitcher in the history of the game.

mwiggins

12-24-2008, 03:00 PM

Chance
Cooper
Cravath
Leach
Veach
Wheat
Wood

I'd love to see the Cooper > Johnson argument...

jalbright

12-24-2008, 04:02 PM

Good stuff Jim. I haven't looked at who you've voted for, but based on this, I take it you don't support Evers?

As I said above, I've long been on the fence with Evers. The lack of durability certainly hurts, and the comparison to Joss in this regard is probably a good one. However, I don't feel the quality of production when he did play was as good as Joss'. That being said, the championships and his role on those championships, paired with his great defensive reputation, do much to make up for these shortcomings.

Reflecting on some of the positions I have taken in the past (such as with Joss), I have decided to vote for Evers this time around. I still put him very close to the fence (same with Pratt, whom I've been supporting for different reasons explained in the last election), and would appreciate more conversation on Evers.

I'm not going to fault someone for supporting Evers (or Joss), but I support neither one in the final analysis. I will say this: if you like Joss, I think you should like Evers. Similarly, if you don't like Joss, you shouldn't like Evers.

I was a supporter of Evers, until win shares forced me to confront the durability issue. It's possible when we get loss shares that I'll go back to that conclusion. Why? Bill James, in his first Historical Abstract, did a nice piece on Evers, essentially arguing his case in the affirmative. A quick summary:

1903: Evers, as a rookie, hits .293 and the Cubs improve by 13 games;
1904: Evers hits 16 points above league average, leads the league in putouts, assists and range factor and the Cubs win 93 games
1905: Though hurt and playing only 99 games, he hits 21 points above league average, has the league's second best range factor, and his team wins 92 games.
1906: plays 154 games the only time in his career, is among the leader in SB, leads the league in putouts, is better than league average by 11 points and the Cubs win 116 games.
1907: Has on offensive winning percentage of .650, is second in SB, leads the league in assists, and the Cubs win 107 games.
1908: He hit .300, 61 points above league average. He was among the leaders in SB, and despite missing 66 games to injury, was third in the league in walks. His offensive winning percentage was .786, which would be suitable for a modern 1B or DH. The Cubs won 99 games, their third consecutive pennant, and the World Series.
1909: He had a .707 offensive winning percentage, and was third in walks despite missing 28 games. The Cubs win 104 games, but finish second.
1910: offensive winning percentage of .663, second in walks, average 7 points above league, Cubs win the pennant.
1911: Lost to a nervous breakdown.
1912: The Cubs win 91, which is only good for 3rd place, but Evers hit .341, 4th best in the league and his slugging pct is 72 points above average.
1913: He was a player/manager and hit .284.
1914: He's now on the Braves, who were 69-82 the year before--and they win the pennant, with Evers the MVP. He's 28 points above league in batting average, 4th in league walks, led the team in runs scored, he led the league in fielding percentage, and the Braves turned more DP than anyone (by 24!) since the turn of the century
1915: He was an injury prone part timer, but still outhit the league by 15 points, playing second for a second place team.

James concludes by noting Evers was at the core of a great team, and more of an offensive force in context than Bobby Doerr, Frankie Frisch, Billy Herman or Tony Lazzeri. (I know, in 1932, some of these guys aren't exactly household names, but if the issue of knowing history after this date bothers you, feel free to ignore it ;)).

Domenic

12-24-2008, 05:07 PM

So... I made a boo-boo.

I completely glossed over Walter Johnson - could a moderator add another vote to Mr. Johnson?

Paul Wendt

12-24-2008, 05:08 PM

I'm still not swayed on Cooper, . . .
Outside of Johnson and Alexander, and perhaps Cicotte, there wasn't really much standout competition at the top - a number of good pitchers, but no true standouts (Coveleski and Mays would also emerge later in the decade).
Later in the 1910s decade than Cooper? That is cutting it fine. One may say that Coveleski and Mays *peaked* late in the decade but Wilbur Cooper didn't peak at the beginning or middle of the decade himself. Hippo Vaughn is another who peaked late in the decade, but really no later than Cooper, and he was in the NL with Cooper, unlike the other three.

Such a detailed look at when a man played, or peaked, is a necessary counterpoint to presentation of his season rankings. When we say of Cooper that he was the third best pitcher in so many seasons and the fourth best pitchers in so many seasons, then it will be important to account for which other pitchers were also "in their primes" --and in Cooper's league if the season rankings are specific to league.

Until then, Wilbur Cooper accomplished so much after the war that it feels odd to consider him anything but a close contemporary of Faber and Shocker, back in the other league again; and a league-mate of Rixey and Grimes and Luque. Some of those pitchers served in the war, which interrupted their careers relatively early. Perhaps they seem to fall into a later generation for that reason.
Unlike the previous decade, from which we've elected 9 pitchers, thus making it more difficult to compete for the top win share rankings.
Maybe. The Iron Man's last prime season was 1904. Joss, Brown, and Walsh didn't arrive in the majors until 1902, 1903, and 1904. Ed Walsh's first great season was 1906 and Walter Johnson arrived in 1907. Waddell and Willis were younger than the Iron Man but their best season roughly coincide with his peak seasons, 1899-1904.

Limiting this to the National League for illustration:
Contrary to the rough classification by decades, Wilbur Cooper faced relatively close "compet[ition] for top win share rankings" from Rixey, Luque, and Grimes; Mordecai Brown probably faced less close competition from McGinnity and Willis, and Noodles Hahn. Ed Walsh in the AL certainly faced less close competition from Rube Waddell.

jjpm74

12-24-2008, 05:32 PM

It has been suggested that adding Cooper would lower our standards. As a counter to that argument, see here.

He [Cooper] 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.

Joss not being able to even manage top 10 in his era in IP suggests he was anything but durable. You are ignoring the era in which each of these pitchers played in this statement.

As another way of looking at it, here are the games started for Addie Joss relative to the other pitchers in his era:

Year GS Top 10?

1902 29 N
1903 31 N
1904 24 N
1905 32 N
1906 31 N
1907 38 Y (4)
1908 35 Y (4)
1909 28 N
1910 12 N

Compare that to Wilbur Cooper:

Year GS Top 10?

1912 4 N
1913 9 N
1914 34 N
1915 21 N
1916 23 N
1917 34 Y (9)
1918 29 Y (8)
1919 32 Y (3)
1920 37 Y (3)
1921 38 Y (1)
1922 37 Y (2)
1923 38 Y (1)
1924 35 Y (2)
1925 26 N
1926 11 N

Wilbur Cooper was among the league leaders in games started 8 times to Joss' 2. Cooper led the league in Games Started 2 times and finished 2nd or 3rd 4 times. The highest Joss could ever manage is 4th.

Here is the year by year breakdown of innings by year for each vs. their era:

Addie Joss:

Year IP Top 10?

1902 269.3 N
1903 283.3 N
1904 192.3 N
1905 286.0 N
1906 282.0 N
1907 338.7 Y (5)
1908 325.0 Y (2)
1909 242.7 N
1910 107.3 N

Compared to Wilbur Cooper:

Year IP Top 10?

1912 38.0 N
1913 93.0 N
1914 266.7 N
1915 185.7 N
1916 246.0 N
1917 297.0 Y (4)
1918 273.0 Y (3)
1919 286.7 Y (3)
1920 327.0 Y (2)
1921 327.0 Y (1)
1922 294.7 Y (2)
1923 294.7 Y (7)
1924 268.7 Y (3)
1925 212.3 N
1926 68.7 N

Cooper lead the league 1 time and was in the top 10 8 times. Joss was in the top 10 2 times and his highest managed was a second place finish. Even giving him a very generous credit for his death, Joss would have had to manage a very unlikely pace for at least 6 more years in his decline years just to catch Cooper in durability.

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

Again, this conveniently ignores the era each pitched in:

ERA+ relative to league for each pitcher:

Addie Joss

Year ERA+ Top 10?

1902 124 Y (7)
1903 130 Y (6)
1904 160 Y (2)
1905 130 Y (7)
1906 151 Y (3)
1907 137 Y (3)
1908 205 Y (1)
1909 149 Y (3)
1910 114 N

Wilbur Cooper:

Year ERA+ Top 10?

1912 197 N
1913 91 N
1914 124 Y (6)
1915 82 N
1916 143 Y (3)
1917 120 Y (9)
1918 136 Y (3)
1919 113 N
1920 135 Y (4)
1921 118 Y (8)
1922 128 Y (4)
1923 112 N
1924 117 N
1925 101 N
1926 68 N

Joss was among the league leaders 8 times. Cooper was among the league leaders 7 times. Joss finished 1st once and 3rd 3 times. Cooper finished 3rd 2 times. That is not a significant separation and again, assuming a death credit for Joss, he would have experienced a decline at some point and being generous, might have been among the team leaders 2 or 3 more times tops.

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.

Who was Joss up against that was so much greater than what Cooper faced?

Here's who I have from 1902-1910:

Mordecai Brown
Jack Chesbro
Jack Coombs
Sam Leever
Christy Matthewson
George Mullins
Joe McGinnity
Ed Reulbach
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Cy Young

1914-1926:

Pete Alexander
Jesse Barnes
Eddie Ciccotte
Burleigh Grimes
Walter Johnson
Carl Mays
Eppa Rixey
Urban Shocker
George Uhle
Dazzy Vance
Hippo Vaughn

What makes Joss' era more difficult than Cooper's era in terms of competition?

Wilbur Cooper pitched a larger amount of innings and was among the best in win shares in his own generation. He definitely belongs given our HOF standards.

jalbright

12-24-2008, 07:14 PM

So... I made a boo-boo.

I completely glossed over Walter Johnson - could a moderator add another vote to Mr. Johnson?

I will do so.

henrich

12-25-2008, 10:52 AM

No on Walter Johnson? Most people consider him the best pitcher in the history of the game.

I can see other arguments for best player overall, but for me he's the one who scores highest of any player for my system, even more than Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb or Bonds. Clemens I rank 2nd (not counting ped's) in the pitching spot. No on Johnson is just weird.

Paul Wendt

12-25-2008, 05:41 PM

As a sidenote, doesn't it seem like we have a lot of questionable players holding over the past few years? I guess with few good candidates, it's natural to throw some support to personal favorites, but 30 holdovers seems like a lot.
Is it my imagination or do we have a lot of new candidates every year? Has their number increased while the average quality has declined with the dearth of first-tier and second-tier newcomers?

The basis for supporting these guys is partly a matter of fortune. Think of them as "less than threes". With fewer than thirty voters, they will get fewer than three votes. Whether they get no votes or one or two is not very closely related to their quality. When we have ten of them rather than five, about twice as many will survive to year two.

bambam remarked on Hooks Dauss last year, which is odd because Dauss was not "one of his". Now I will say a word about Fred Merkle was "one of his".

Fred Merkle enjoyed positive press from Baseball Magazine, the baseball monthly of his day. Maybe long-time editor F.C. Lane admired his play. Beginning about 1911 that may explain a lot, but maybe not, for BBMag enjoyed contributions from dozens of writers every month. What I recall reading certainly dates from that time or just after, when BBMag recognized that Frank Chance and Hal Chase were past their primes. More than one article named Merkle among the best firstbasemen in the game, one of those who would give Stuffy McInnis or Jake Daubert a run for his money if the latter slipped. I remember too that I didn't read much ado about the boner. He was not yet "Merkle of Merkle's boner", at least not yet in 1912 or 1915, not in the pages of Baseball Magazine.

--
Johnny Bassler is not on the ballot. He played in parts of nine seasons almost exclusively at catcher including 114 to 128 games for five seasons running. For 1922 to 1924 he ranked 6-7-5 in the MVP elections and he was the number one catcher in the latter two of those three elections (in the first one, tie Steve O'Neill for second behind Ray Schalk). My memory of the last decade isn't very good and I don't recall Bassler at all. This information is from a cyclopedia.

--
Back to Merkle and others:
We have quite a batch of firstbasemen on the ballot now.
: Chance, the veteran, no longer of this worldly realm
: Jake Daubert, Ed Konetchy, Fred Merkle
: Jack Fournier, Stuffy McInnis, the newcomers

--
For now I have dropped from the ballot Evers, Fletcher, Gardner, Hooper, Huggins (for lack of an I-J, sorry mite), and Kling. That is a bloodletting at C-3B-SS-2B, five cuts. I have added Babe Adams, Wilbur Cooper, Del Pratt and a trio of newcomers Johnson, Wheat, Groh.

Babe Adams (p)
George Burns (of)
Frank Chance (1b)
Wilbur Cooper (p)
Gavy Cravath (of)
Jake Daubert (1b)
Heinie Groh
Walter Johnson (p)
Ed Konetchy (1b)
Tommy Leach
Del Pratt
Jimmy Sheckard (of)
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach (of)
Zack Wheat (of)

Now there is a normal ballot for once, loaded with P and 1B and corner OF.
--and loaded with all six leaders in the standings, for once!

Freakshow

12-25-2008, 09:55 PM

Nobody was elected, again. Nobody expired. Huggins, Veach and Wood were replaced by newbies Groh, Johnson and Wheat.

Bender
GJ Burns
Chance
W. Cooper
Cravath
Evers
Groh
Hooper
Johnson
Kling
Konetchy
Leach
Sheckard
Tinker
Wheat

DoubleX

12-25-2008, 11:14 PM

Joss not being able to even manage top 10 in his era in IP suggests he was anything but durable. You are ignoring the era in which each of these pitchers played in this statement.

And you seem to be ignoring facts, such as that Joss did twice finish in the top 5 in his era in IP. This is something that has been mentioned many times in previous elections. It may not be particularly impressive, but it is still a fact.

Moreover, I haven't ignored era at all, as I addressed it throughout my posts on this topic, wondering what changed so much when the two can pitch similar inning totals just a decade apart, both during the deadball era, yet finish so very differently in the rankings. Jim's explanation regarding the post-deadball era makes a lot of sense, but what was so different between Joss' career and the first half of Cooper's career? I don't know the answer, but one theory I have is that perhaps Joss pitched during a time where there just happened to be more talent at the top. Or perhaps I'm misguided and something quickly changed in strategy. Either way, I'm very curious and no one has yet to offer an explanation.

Wilbur Cooper was among the league leaders in games started 8 times to Joss' 2. Cooper led the league in Games Started 2 times and finished 2nd or 3rd 4 times. The highest Joss could ever manage is 4th.

I understand this point, but I still think Cooper trails Joss considerably in the quality of innings pitched. A 20 point peak gap in ERA+ in approximately the same amount of IP over 5 or 8 years, is a lot to make up. I just don't see how this huge disparity in ERA+ over roughly the same amount of IP can be ignored. AG made a point about Cooper's hitting, and that is something I'll have to go look back on.

And going back to my theoretical point that still hasn't really been addressed, Joss could start 42 games in the deadball era and not finish higher than 6th in IP, yet Cooper could start 38 games, also in the deadball era, and finish 2nd in games started. I've repeatedly asked if anyone can explain how things could change so drastically in a decade, even though conditions were not that different. Could part of the answer possibly be that Joss pitched against better competition, and perhaps significantly so, thus making it harder for a contemporary of Joss to rank high on leaderboards than for a contemporary of Cooper? If that's the case, how much stock should be placed in leaderboards when the competition is lower? I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, I'm just throwing a theory out there, which may be supported in the fact that we've elected 9 pitchers from Joss' era (thereby demonstrating the depth at the top), and thus far no one has really addressed this issue. I think this paragraph also addresses much of your subsequent paragraphs, so forgive me for not quoting them and largely repeating myself.

Who was Joss up against that was so much greater than what Cooper faced?

Your list left out two of Joss' peers we have elected to the Hall - Plank and Willis, which makes me wonder who else you may have left out. The fact is we've elected 8 players whose primes significantly overlapped with Joss'. I highly doubt we'll elect 8 players whose primes significantly overlapped with Cooper's. On the second tier, the competition may have been close, but Joss had a few more bigger names at the top fighting for leaderboard position.

EDIT: Please see my next post, as I feel it does a much better job addressing this issue.

Wilbur Cooper pitched a larger amount of innings and was among the best in win shares in his own generation. He definitely belongs given our HOF standards.

But he didn't really pitch a larger amount of innings, at least at peak. As I posted at least twice in the 1931 thread, Joss and Cooper were very close in total innings pitched at peak, Cooper of course moves ahead in career innings due to not dying. But strictly in terms of raw peak innings pitched, the two were very close and Joss was well ahead in quality. The difference is that Cooper's innings stood out more during his time. My question is why? What changed so much in 10 years that say 280 innings could go from not being among the top 10 to being among the top 5? I understand how the end of the deadball era would have impacted IP totals, but what about the first half of Cooper's career during the deadball era? Why did IP totals fall so much during the 1910s as compared to the 1900s? This is something I'm really curious about.

You also haven't come back to how Jim's post in the 1931 election really offered mixed results at best between the two players, and did not really come anywhere close to making the case clear as you insinuated. Again, three years peak win shares put Joss ahead, the two were extremely close on five year peak win shares, Joss was ahead on black ink (despite a shorter career and my theory that he may have had better competition), Cooper was ahead in grey ink, and Joss was ahead in HoF standards. That all seems pretty darn mixed at best, doesn't it?

In any event, I do think you've made a better argument here, and AG already had me rethinking Cooper (I'll also now have to take a closer look at his hitting, though in terms of a Hall of Fame discussion, I don't think Cooper's hitting, while pretty good for a pitcher, is enough to make much of a difference, and it's biggest effect seems to be to inflate his win shares beyond his pitching prowess, which is what we're really trying to look at, IMO, in terms of Hall of Fame credentials). I still don't think the case is clear cut at all and I still don't think comparing him to Joss is a good argument to make for Cooper on two counts: 1) If Joss is viewed as a mistake, which you seem to now view him as, he does not represent the standards but an outlier, and shouldn't be a definitive measuring stick (though I do believe it can help to say if A is in, so should B, but that will only go so far if you're also arguing that A was a mistake); and 2) I personally believe Joss' case is very unique and extremely hard to compare for reasons I've laid out a number of times now.

So while I have become more open to Cooper's case, I still remain unconvinced that he "definitely" belongs. At this point, I might go so far to say that he "might not be a bad selection" which is a considerable retreat from my position a few days ago. I'll have to give it more thought.

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 12:23 AM

I have a new theory as to why IP and GS totals at the top of the leaderboards may have dipped in the 1910s compared to the 1900s. Perhaps it wasn't simply that there was a deeper crop of pitchers at the top in the 1900s, perhaps Joss was actually a forerunner. Anyone feel free to chime in if you think I'm going down the wrong path here.

For example, if you look at Cooper's IP totals from the portion of his career during the deadball era, they really aren't too different from Joss' raw IP totals. From 1914-1920, Cooper averaged 269 IP. In the seven year period from 1902-1908, Joss averaged 282 IP, and in the seven year period of 1903-1909, averaged 279 IP. This was all during the deadball era, yet Cooper's 269 average netted him four top 5 IP finishes during that 7 year period, whereas Joss' 282 (or 279) IP got him just two top 5 IP finishes. So this goes back to the question I keep repeating - what exactly changed so much in that short decade where Cooper's 269 IP would carry him a lot further in terms of the leaderboards than Joss' 282 would carry him just a decade earlier?

One possible explanation I've been throwing out so far is that perhaps Joss just faced better competition, much in the same way Herman Long played among better peers at SS than Dave Bancroft did. But perhaps there is a different explanation as I mentioned above - perhaps Joss was a forerunner? Perhaps teams noticed how well Joss could pitch with somewhat reduced workloads, and over the next decade, his type of workload became more like the standard? I don't know how true this might be or not, but I think it could be said that Joss got a lot of bang for his buck, meaning he made the most of the innings he did pitch, so perhaps the league took notice?

Also, in terms of leaderboard competition, I've realized it's probably more instructive to actually look at the direct intraleague competition, rather than just spouting off names of active contemporaries in both leagues. In this vein, Joss' prime significantly overlapped with Hall of Famers Cy Young, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, and Eddie Plank. Cooper's regular top intraleague competition who have a good shot for the Hall include: Pete Alexander and Eppa Rixey (whom I've accidentally overlooked until now). Some might throw Dazzy Vance in there as well, but Vance's emergence came mostly as Cooper's career wound down. In terms of the next tier, both players were up against some notable peers that were good to even great for a few seasons, but didn't have enough staying power. I'd actually probably say that on the second tier, Cooper's peers may have been a little stronger on the whole. But at the top, on a yearly basis, Joss had to fight for leaderboard rankings against the likes of Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank, four players that are bona fide Hall of Fame pitchers - they might consist of four of the best 12-15 pitchers we've seen so far. In otherwords, Joss on a near yearly basis was directly up against about 25-33% of the best pitchers we've seen over 60 years. That's pretty stiff competition at the top, IMO. So in many years, three or four spots are already spoken for in many categories, and then there's also those pitchers who would have a few great years and then fade (such as Jack Chesbro or in Cooper's case, someone like Hippo Vaughn). In Cooper's case, however, his competition at the very top was considerably thinner, consisting on a regular basis of just one bona fide Hall of Famer - Pete Alexander; Eppa Rixey has a pretty good argument, IMO, but I don't think it will be easy sailing for him and I don't believe he's particularly close to being on par with the likes of Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank. Imagine how different Cooper's leaderboard appearances may have looked like if he had to deal with a group of 4 pitchers on yearly basis like Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank?

EDIT: If you remove Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank, Joss's IP rankings look a little better. He'd have led the league in IP once, twice in the top 2, four times in the top 10, and seven times in the top 12. Seven times in the top 12 in a 9 year career, including once leading the league and twice in the top 2, doesn't look that bad, and just goes to show you how really great contemporary talent, such as Joss encountered, can skew leaderboard rankings. If Cooper had to face four pitchers of that caliber on a yearly basis, his leaderboard rankings would almost certainly take a noticeable hit (though he'd still be in the top 10 in most years). So I do think there is at least some merit to my theory that Joss pitched during a time that happened to have a deeper pool of talent at the top. I do believe that in the context of his era, Cooper was more durable than Joss, but I do think that a decent argument can be made that Joss faced better competition at the top, and thus his durability wasn't really as bad as some have made out (plus, in a deadball years comparison, Joss' did pitch more innings than Cooper and at a much higher level). What I remain still unsure about is why IP totals dropped off in the 1910s? Was it due to a lesser group of pitchers at the top? Was it due to a change in strategy, perhaps even influenced by Joss' play? Was it a combination? Was it something else? And at the core of this, I still don't believe a case can be clearly made that Cooper is a clearly better choice than Joss, and that this all goes to show that the issue is debatable.

jalbright

12-26-2008, 06:23 AM

Paul Wendt

12-26-2008, 08:04 AM

PVNICK

12-26-2008, 08:39 AM

How much would the WWI shortening of the season(s) skew the averages down?

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 09:06 AM

Well, in 1911 and 1912, there was a spike in offense due to a cork centered ball, which meant more hitting. Pitchers would be able to face a similar number of batters and pitch less innings when there's more hits yielded. In that same vein, 1908 was the absolute nadir of offensive baseball. I suspect a good part of the answer lies there.

What about after 1912? Was the corked ball still in use or was it just for those two seasons? Cooper pitched just 38 innings in 1912, so unless the corked ball stayed around the rest of the decade, I don't know if provides the kind of explanation I'm looking for. If the ball did stick around for the rest of the decade, that might help explain why innings seemed to noticeably drop off in the few years between the end of Joss' career and the beginning of Cooper's career. I suppose it's possible that the effects of the ball, if even just for two years, permanently changed how pitchers were used going forward. But then again, I would think if the ball went back to what it was, what would stop teams from just going back to the previous high usage of pitchers - as I said above, perhaps part of the explanation here is that Joss may have been a forerunner, but I have nothing to support that other than to look at how Joss' IP totals, while not so impressive in his era (though at least partly due to facing a very strong crop at the top), would have been much more representative just a few years later.

Also, why do you suspect 1908 was the absolute nadir?

Probably there were two adaptations underway, independent of the talent distribution of the best pitchers and the material qualities of the baseball. The major leagues raised roster limits and (later?) re-introduced 154 games; in effect, "permanently". Growth & prosperity enabled those changes. I would look at the pattern beginning 1904 rather than focus on so-called decades. For a start note that managers Griffith and McGraw with the two New York teams "led" in relying most heavily on their best pitchers to take up the new workload; Chesbro, McGinnity, and Matty were games and innings leaders in 1904. Beginning 1905 and continuing, they "led" in the use of relief pitchers.

This helps explain the rise of innings during Joss' career, but why then the dip during the 1910s? I still don't understand how 280 innings could seemingly get someone much further up the leaderboard during many years in the 1910s then it could during the 1900s, especially given that in both cases we're still in the deadball era. What caused the change in usage between the end of Joss' career and the beginning of Cooper's career? If that corked ball Jim mentioned was in play past 1912, I think that may be part of the answer.

Paul Wendt

12-26-2008, 09:16 AM

How much would the WWI shortening of the season(s) skew the averages down?
If you mean simple averages by decade in the sense 1900s, 1910s, etc, then effect of WWI is less than the effect of four 140-game schedules 1900-1903.

If you mean the same except 1901-1910 and 1911-1920, then the effect of WWI is about the same as the effect of three 140-game schedules 1901-1903.

Note there were only 19 major league seasons during the 1900s.

jjpm74

12-26-2008, 09:19 AM

And you seem to be ignoring facts, such as that Joss did twice finish in the top 5 in his era in IP. This is something that has been mentioned many times in previous elections. It may not be particularly impressive, but it is still a fact.

I'm not ignoring anything. Joss managed 2 top 10s in IP. That is it for him. How does that make him comparable to Cooper's 8?? Pitchers were used in a different way by Cooper's time. You seem to be okay with punishing Cooper for that while rewarding Joss for just being in the middle of the pack because of a superficial similarity.

jjpm74

12-26-2008, 09:26 AM

EDIT: If you remove Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank, Joss's IP rankings look a little better. He'd have led the league in IP once, twice in the top 2, four times in the top 10, and seven times in the top 12. Seven times in the top 12 in a 9 year career, including once leading the league and twice in the top 2, doesn't look that bad, and just goes to show you how really great contemporary talent, such as Joss encountered, can skew leaderboard rankings. If Cooper had to face four pitchers of that caliber on a yearly basis, his leaderboard rankings would almost certainly take a noticeable hit (though he'd still be in the top 10 in most years). So I do think there is at least some merit to my theory that Joss pitched during a time that happened to have a deeper pool of talent at the top. I do believe that in the context of his era, Cooper was more durable than Joss, but I do think that a decent argument can be made that Joss faced better competition at the top, and thus his durability wasn't really as bad as some have made out (plus, in a deadball years comparison, Joss' did pitch more innings than Cooper and at a much higher level). What I remain still unsure about is why IP totals dropped off in the 1910s? Was it due to a lesser group of pitchers at the top? Was it due to a change in strategy, perhaps even influenced by Joss' play? Was it a combination? Was it something else? And at the core of this, I still don't believe a case can be clearly made that Cooper is a clearly better choice than Joss, and that this all goes to show that the issue is debatable.

And if you remove Cooper's main competition from the equation, who you list as Pete Alexander and Eppa Rixey, it pushes Cooper up in the rankings and gives him more years on the leaderboard. It still pushes Cooper higher up in the rankings than Joss no matter how you slice it.

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 09:28 AM

I'm not ignoring anything. Joss managed 2 top 10s in IP. That is it for him. How does that make him comparable to Cooper's 8?? Pitchers were used in a different way by Cooper's time. You seem to be okay with punishing Cooper for that while rewarding Joss for just being in the middle of the pack because of a superficial similarity.

I may have misread your sentence. I took it as meaning Joss never ranked among the top 10, but I see now that it could have meant that Joss didn't rank in the top 10 cumulatively.

Either way, you still haven't addressed the question I keep asking - what changed in the few years between the end of Joss' career and the beginning of Cooper's career, where in a similar amount of IP (actually Joss would average more in the deadball comparison), why did IP on the leaderboards dropoff so noticeably? Jim and Paul are trying to help me understand this, but I still don't think it's clear.

If you honestly think that Joss' era was that much better than Coopers why don't you go back and take a look at who was pitching during those years instead of criticizing me for actually taking a look at the leader boards? I looked at the wins and ERA+ leaderboards from that era when coming up with those lists. What have you added other than more opinions? I don't see you address it anywhere. Simply stating something does not make it true.

And with this paragraph I am officially done talking with you. It's obvious you haven't either read or internalized anything I've said (such as my entire post based on the big four that Joss would have to compete with almost annually, a group quality that was not nearly present for Cooper). I guess polite and thoughtful conversation is not possible here, and that's ashame. Time and time again, your posts are laden with the type of statements I have bolded, and I'm tired of dealing the incessant condescension, and I take it very much as a disrespect, because I do believe I've thrown a considerable amount of information out there to consider, but it seems to have gone overlooked.

And if you remove Cooper's main competition from the equation, who you list as Pete Alexander and Eppa Rixey, it pushes Cooper up in the rankings and gives him more years on the leaderboard. It still pushes Cooper higher up in the rankings than Joss no matter how you slice it.

Since I just saw this - you're missing the point. Cooper didn't have competition like Joss at the top. Isn't it possible that just like Herman Long was part of an era of more talented shortstops, Joss was part of an era of more talented pitchers? That's what I'm getting at here, and I think I've done a pretty good job at making that case above - Other than Alexander, Cooper did not have anything close to those fourHall of Famers to compete with for leaderboard rankings. Joss was directly up against maybe 25-33% of the best pitchers to have played over the 60 years we have looked at, Cooper can't say that. Four is a pretty considerable number to compete with in terms of leaderboard position.

And that officially will be the very last thing I will say to you.

jjpm74

12-26-2008, 09:30 AM

And with this paragraph I am officially done talking with you. It's obvious you haven't either read or internalized anything I've said (such as my entire post based on the big four that Joss would have to compete with almost annually, a group quality that was not nearly present for Cooper). I guess polite and thoughtful conversation is not possible here, and that's ashame. Time and time again, your posts are laden with the type of statements I have bolded, and I'm tired of dealing the incessant condescension, and I take it very much as a disrespect, because I do believe I've thrown a considerable amount of information out there to consider, but it seems to have gone overlooked.

I went back and read what you added after I wrote that because I did not see your response then edited it away as you were writing this response. You can't expect someone to internalize what is not there. :laugh

Also, please do not preach to me about how to conduct an argument with you unless you are prepared to utilize statistics to back up your assertions. Simply waiting for someone to make a case for someone you do not support then using opinions and conjecture to break it down/dismiss it is not how to change someone's mind. AG2004's statistical comparison of Cooper vs. his contemporaries is what cause me to take a closer look at Cooper and his era. If you recall, I didn't even vote for Cooper in the 1931 election. I was not one of his supporters prior to several statistic based discussions of his career.

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 09:48 AM

Also, please do not preach to me about how to conduct an argument with you unless you are prepared to utilize statistics to back up your assertions. Simply waiting for someone to make a case for someone you do not support then using opinions and conjecture to break it down/dismiss it is not how to change someone's mind. AG2004's statistical comparison of Cooper vs. his contemporaries is what cause me to take a closer look at Cooper and his era. If you recall, I didn't even vote for Cooper in the 1931 election. I was not one of his supporters prior to several statistic based discussions of his career.

I've used statistics at several points in this discussion, if you have decided to ignore them or not value them, that's your choice, but please don't for a moment accuse me of not trying to be thoughtful or trying to support my arguments. I will not for a moment tolerate such insinuations, especially as overt as yours. Now this will be the last I'll say to you on the matter in public, please check your PM, which I hope to be the last I'll say to you on the matter in any form.

jalbright

12-26-2008, 10:17 AM

Also, why do you suspect 1908 was the absolute nadir?

Simple. Look at the runs scored per game. Those figures are the lowest since at least the inception of the 60 feet, six inch rule, if not ever.

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 10:49 AM

Simple. Look at the runs scored per game. Those figures are the lowest since at least the inception of the 60 feet, six inch rule, if not ever.

That's definitely clear evidence, but I'm wondering what explains that. Is it just coincidence? Some year has to be the lowest, and it makes sense for it to be a deadball era year. How does 1908 compare to the rest of the decade and even the following decade? Is it really off from the surrounding years (with 1911 and 1912 being exceptions as you mentioned above)?

jalbright

12-26-2008, 11:13 AM

Here's the OBP for both leagues, 1901-1920 (Source, baseball-reference.com):

Year AL NL
1901 0.333 0.321
1902 0.331 0.313
1903 0.303 0.331
1904 0.295 0.306
1905 0.299 0.315
1906 0.303 0.310
1907 0.302 0.308
1908 0.294 0.299
1909 0.303 0.310
1910 0.308 0.328
1911 0.338 0.335
1912 0.333 0.340
1913 0.325 0.325
1914 0.319 0.317
1915 0.325 0.309
1916 0.321 0.303
1917 0.318 0.305
1918 0.323 0.311
1919 0.333 0.311

1908 is the only year in which the OBP in the NL failed to reach .300, and is also the lowest in the AL. though there are years in the AL where the OBP was below .300. The NL data is more variable. Interestingly, except for 1902, Joss never played in a league in which the OBP exceeded .308--and if pitchers face the same number of batters in a league with a higher OBP, they won't be pitching as many innings--which is why I've moved to OBP rather than runs. By comparison, Cooper only pitched in two seasons where the OBP was .308 or lower, namely, 1916 and 1917. For completeness sake, the NL's OBP from 1920 was only under .337 once, at .322 in 1920. I don't have the impact of the two men's home parks on OBP, but that could certainly further exaggerate the issue (though it might work against it).

Paul Wendt

12-26-2008, 11:37 AM

if pitchers face the same number of batters in a league with a higher OBP, they won't be pitching as many innings --which is why I've moved to OBP rather than runs.
Runs per inning may be better than on-base average as a proxy for pitcher workload per inning. (and also per complete game, if the effect of extra-inning and short-inning games is negligible)

Batters who reach first base on errors do work the pitcher; they may score runs but they count as outs in on-base average.

--
What about the number of innings per game?

There must be more 9-inning ties when run-scoring is low. That suggests more extra-inning games, and more innings per game, when run-scoring is low. On the other hand there were more tie games and short games during the 1900s than in the 1920s, for reasons unrelated to scoring rates. I suppose that new ballparks have been constructed with better drainage systems; that may be one cause.

Does anyone know whether there has been any change in the scheduled starting times? That would have an effect on the number of games called for darkness that is independent of run-scoring.

Does anyone know whether the teams schedule all these doubleheaders early enough to anticipate completion? If not, then the increase in doubleheaders would have another effect on games called for darkness, independent of run-scoring. It would cause more called games and it might counteract or -whelm any effect of earlier starting times.

DoubleX

12-26-2008, 12:18 PM

1908 is the only year in which the OBP in the NL failed to reach .300, and is also the lowest in the AL. though there are years in the AL where the OBP was below .300. The NL data is more variable. Interestingly, except for 1902, Joss never played in a league in which the OBP exceeded .308--and if pitchers face the same number of batters in a league with a higher OBP, they won't be pitching as many innings--which is why I've moved to OBP rather than runs. By comparison, Cooper only pitched in two seasons where the OBP was .308 or lower, namely, 1916 and 1917. For completeness sake, the NL's OBP from 1920 was only under .337 once, at .322 in 1920. I don't have the impact of the two men's home parks on OBP, but that could certainly further exaggerate the issue (though it might work against it).

Thanks Jim, that's exactly the type of information I was looking for. It is pretty clear that even though it was still the deadball era, offense trended up during the 1910s, supporting what you said earlier that greater offense could understandably reduce pitching workloads (and 1911 and 1912 spiked just as you mentioned).

It's still interesting that 1908 seems to be something of an outlier. Was there anything particular going on that year or is just coincidence?

So this might help explain why a pitcher of Joss' durability would rank better among his peers in the 1910s than he would in the 1900s, despite both being in the deadball era. Thank you. I still believe though that Joss encountered deeper competition at the top, in that he had four of the maybe 12-16 best pitchers we've yet seen as direct competition, whereas Cooper had just one such pitcher (Alexander), and the second best (Rixey), was a definite notch lower, and third best and so on, a definite notch lower than that. I don't know if Cooper's rankings would have looked quite as good if he had the same type of competition that Joss had at the top, or vice versa, how much better Joss' rankings would have looked like if he was up against the shallower competition that Cooper faced at the top. Either way, it goes back to the question of pure ability vs. relative value, which is what I was talking about before with AG regarding Long vs. Bancroft (I still need to do some research on Bancroft's relative value). In that case, Long, while likely being a better player than Bancroft, may have had less relative value due to a generational surplus of talented shortstops. Whereas, Bancroft, the likely lesser player on pure ability, may have had more value in his era because of the relative generational dearth of talented shortstops (though there may also be a secondary question as to whether there is something inherent about a particular era that cultivates more talent at one position than normal, or whether it's just coincidence).

I just think it's an interesting way to look at things - how do we balance pure ability with relative value. In the Joss/Cooper conversation, I believe Joss had a lot more pure ability (the ERA+ gap in relatively the same amount of innings over 8 year peak, is heavily in favor of Joss, IMO), but that Cooper perhaps had more relative value (plus career value). So I'm struggling right now with how much to reward Cooper for perhaps being a lesser but more valuable pitcher. This is really the root of the conversation for me.

EDIT: I just looked at the standings right now, and I was surprised to see Chance quite healthily over the line. I think that's good but also surprising given that this is the best class we've had in decade. So after a decade of struggling to elect players, there's a good chance we'll elect three this time. I'm also encouraged by how well Groh is doing, and I think his prospects look pretty good. Cooper's supporters should also feel good about where he is right now.

jalbright

12-26-2008, 12:24 PM

Runs per inning may be better than on-base average as a proxy for pitcher workload per inning. (and also per complete game, if the effect of extra-inning and short-inning games is negligible)

Batters who reach first base on errors do work the pitcher; they may score runs but they count as outs in on-base average..

Over the long term, this may be true. However, baseball does not change its ways rapidly, so one would expect a more incremental change in that regard. Also, unless you're claiming defense got worse as time went by, we know the direction of errors (generally a consitent downward trend, with possible exceptions for war or expansion). Baseball in many ways was slow to react to the Ruthian introduction of home run power. Pitchers had to learn a new way of pitching, and many hitters couldn't easily adapt from years of practice in their mode of hitting to more Ruthian styles. That's one reason I went with OBP. Also, it's a cleaner measure of how many batters are being faced--power can greatly increase scoring (and this will have an impact on pitchers) without dramatically increasing the numbers of batters faced.

However, let's also look at slugging percentage, the other key component of run production (again, source is baseball-reference.com):

Year AL NL
1901 0.371 0.348
1902 0.369 0.319
1903 0.344 0.348
1904 0.321 0.322
1905 0.314 0.332
1906 0.318 0.310
1907 0.309 0.309
1908 0.304 0.306
1909 0.309 0.314
1910 0.313 0.338
1911 0.358 0.356
1912 0.348 0.369
1913 0.336 0.354
1914 0.323 0.334
1915 0.326 0.331
1916 0.324 0.328
1917 0.320 0.328
1918 0.322 0.328
1919 0.323 0.335

Joss only played in two seasons where the league average was over .321 slugging percentage, his first two. Cooper never played in a league with a slugging percentage under .328 (it was .357 in 1920, never under .386 thereafter). So Cooper is facing higher OBPs and slugging percentages, which certainly to me implies a tougher workload.

jalbright

12-26-2008, 12:29 PM

I don't know exactly why 1908 seems to be the low point, with more offense thereafter, except for 1911 and 1912 with the cork ball. 1917 and 1918 would have been influenced by WW I, but otherwise, I don't know all the trends of the day that might have produced this.

Brooklyn

12-26-2008, 01:59 PM

Walter Johnson, Zack wheat

AG2004

12-26-2008, 04:50 PM

What about after 1912? Was the corked ball still in use or was it just for those two seasons? Cooper pitched just 38 innings in 1912, so unless the corked ball stayed around the rest of the decade, I don't know if provides the kind of explanation I'm looking for. If the ball did stick around for the rest of the decade, that might help explain why innings seemed to noticeably drop off in the few years between the end of Joss' career and the beginning of Cooper's career. I suppose it's possible that the effects of the ball, if even just for two years, permanently changed how pitchers were used going forward.

The cork-center ball did stick around for the rest of the decade.

The baseball-reference statistical manual [OOC: baseball-reference.com] has a statistic called "AIR" under "Special Batting." AIR, which indicates how offense in a player's park and league compares to a historical average, tended to hover around the 70s during the oughts. It jumped up to the 90s in 1911, then hovered in the 80s for the rest of the decade before climbing back up in 1919.

Pitchers have been told to keep things a bit easy with nobody on base, and to reserve their best efforts for when a run might score. If more people reached base -- and the cork-center baseball made it easier for hitters to get on base, even if pitchers scuffed the balls beyond recognition -- then pitchers had to expend that high level of effort more often. As a result, they couldn't reach the IP totals of the previous decade.

So this [Albright's data] might help explain why a pitcher of Joss' durability would rank better among his peers in the 1910s than he would in the 1900s, despite both being in the deadball era.

It's the best explanation, I think. If the amount of total effort pitchers can give remains constant, and the amount of time that pitchers have to throw their best stuff increases, they can't glide for as long. In fact, the extra effort has to come from the effort spent from "glide time," reducing the IP totals.

But at the top, on a yearly basis, Joss had to fight for leaderboard rankings against the likes of Young, Walsh, Waddell, and Plank, four players that are bona fide Hall of Fame pitchers - they might consist of four of the best 12-15 pitchers we've seen so far. In otherwords, Joss on a near yearly basis was directly up against about 25-33% of the best pitchers we've seen over 60 years. That's pretty stiff competition at the top, IMO.

In terms of win shares peak, Plank has 89 over his three best seasons, and 133 over his best five-year stretch. Joss is at 88 in his best three seasons, and 131 over his best five-year stretch. However, Plank has a large advantage in career, 360 vs. 191. Young had the drop-off after 1904; for the remaining half of the decade, his single-season peak was 28 win shares.

At any rate, Joss finished among the top eight pitchers in his league in win shares five times. [Hippo Vaughn, who pitched in Cooper's league, was among the top five pitchers in his league five times.] Cooper finished among the top five pitchers in his league in win shares eight times.

For the record, Vic Willis was among the top eight pitchers in his league seven times, and was tenth in 1898 (which would have been another top-eight finish in a 2-league context). Rube Waddell had five top-eight finishes, but he was in the top three four times.

philkid3

12-26-2008, 05:36 PM

Chief Bender
Frank Chance
Heinie Groh
Walter Johnson
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach
Zack Wheat

DoubleX

12-28-2008, 09:51 AM

This is who I have eligible for next year:

Vic Aldridge - Any reason I should put him on?
Joe Bush
Ty Cobb
Stan Coveleski
Chick Galloway - Any reason I should put him on?
Joe Harris
Slim Harriss - Any reason here?
Les Mann
Steve O'Neill
Wally Pipp
Jimmy Ring - Any reason here?
Heinie Sand - Any reason here?
Urban Shocker
Tris Speaker
Aaron Ward

Pretty good class, could be as many as three elected next year (though I have a feeling Coveleski will require some discussion). Shocker is also a very interesting candidate that could make for some good discussion.

Paul Wendt

12-28-2008, 10:21 AM

As far as I know there is nothing to say for the marked four. I will be curious to read why Joe Harris, Les Mann, or Aaron Ward attracts a first-year vote.

DoubleX

12-29-2008, 08:30 AM

bambambaseball, I've noticed for a while now that you seem to vote quite liberally for pitchers. For instance, what exactly attracts you to Jesse Barnes and Hooks Dauss in this election, but not Dutch Leonard or Rube Marquard?

bambambaseball

12-29-2008, 03:34 PM

DoubleX

12-29-2008, 03:46 PM

Cause I ran out of room on my balott. :sorry:

Ok, but why vote for Barnes and Dauss at all? What makes them Hall of Famers to you? I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to vote for 15, you can vote for 0 if you'd like.

bambambaseball

12-29-2008, 04:15 PM

Ok, but why vote for Barnes and Dauss at all? What makes them Hall of Famers to you? I don't know if you realize, but you don't have to vote for 15, you can vote for 0 if you'd like.

I know. Im just trying to vote like a more liberal writer from that period would have voted. I also have a personal HOF size of arounf 400 players.

I voted for Dauss cause hes as good as Marquard who is about the same as Addie Joss. Haines got a 1st year pass from me and I think he is getting shafted by a 2008 mentaly that he is one of the worst mistakes in the HOF. He is not that far off that he deserves to be 1 and done and I may vote for him next year and I hope some others do too!

leecemark

12-29-2008, 07:59 PM

--Jesse Haines is not on the ballot. You voted for Jesse Barnes. He would be the worst player in the Hall, but he is mercifully outside.

AG2004

12-30-2008, 10:07 AM

It's a shame that Jimmy Sheckard is going to be left out of the Hall.

I made a list of comparable outfielders according to win shares. All numbers, career and peak, have undergone my schedule-length adjustments. The numbers inside parenthese indicate seasons with 30+ adjusted win shares and seasons with 20+ adjusted win shares, respectively.

Jimmy Sheckard 349-102-132 (3/11)
Max Carey 357-85-133 (0/11)
Willie Keeler 358-95-145 (1/11)
Joe Kelley 334-103-156 (5/9)
Harry Stovey 314-93-132 (1/9)
Hugh Duffy 325-103-161 (3/9)
Jimmy Ryan 341-88-135 (1/8)
George Van Haltren 371-88-135 (0/11)
George Gore 322-109-146 (3/10)
Zack Wheat 386-95-128 (2/11)

Sheckard is right up there with 7 Hall of Famers, Zack Wheat (who has over 75% of the vote in his debut appearance), and Max Carey, who isn't eligible yet. Sheckard fits comfortably among Hall of Famers, and thus should get in.

I tried to find a comparable oufielder outside the Hall. The best I could do was Harry Hooper, at 329-84-125 (1/9). However, Hooper is below Sheckard in all numbers listed above.

Incidentally, Sheckard set a single-season for walks in 1911 with 147. Since then, he has been surpassed only by Babe Ruth in that category.

-----
My Ballot:

George J. Burns
Frank Chance
Wilbur Cooper
Heinie Groh
Walter Johnson
Tommy Leach
Jimmy Sheckard
Zack Wheat

DoubleX

12-30-2008, 11:47 AM

bambambaseball

12-30-2008, 10:27 PM

Frank Chance made it. Groh and Leach almost made it too!!!! :applaud::dance:highfive::party: