BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1933 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1933

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 09:28 AM

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.

1933 Guide
There are 37 candidates on the 1933 ballot – 27 holdovers and 10 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1928 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (10)
Joe Bush
Ty Cobb
Stan Coveleski
Joe Harris
Les Mann
Steve O'Neill
Wally Pipp
Urban Shocker
Tris Speaker
Aaron Ward

Holdovers (27)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Babe Adams 3rd 16.67% 18.75% (1931) 16.67% (1932) 17.71%
Jesse Barnes 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1932) 4.17% (1932) 4.17%
Chief Bender 12th 50.00% 60.00% (1929) 37.50% (1931) 47.75%
George J. Burns 4th 20.83% 24.00% (1930) 18.75% (1931) 21.19%
Wilbur Cooper 3rd 58.33% 58.33% (1932) 40.63% (1931) 49.48%
Gavvy Cravath 9th 20.83% 37.50% (1925) 20.83% (1932) 27.67%
Jake Daubert 5th 12.50% 16.00 (1929) 9.38% (1931) 12.47%
Mike Donlin 15th 8.33% 25.93% (1919) 7.14% (1927) 13.85%
Johnny Evers 8th 41.67% 41.67% (1932) 28.57% (1927) 28.21%
Jack Fournier 2nd 8.33% 8.33% (1932) 8.33% (1932) 8.33%
Larry Gardner 5th 8.33% 15.63% (1931) 8.00% (1930) 10.99%
Heinie Groh 2nd 66.67% 66.67% (1932) 66.67% (1932) 66.67%
Harry Hooper 4th 25.00% 34.38% (1931) 24.00% (1930) 27.79%
Baby Doll Jacobson 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1932) 4.17% (1932) 4.17%
Ed Konetchy 8th 16.67% 16.67% (1932) 8.00% (1929) 11.86%
Tommy Leach 12th 66.67% 66.67% (1931) 33.33% (1925) 46.83%
Rube Marquard 4th 20.83% 28.00% (1930) 20.83% (1932) 23.57%
Stuffy McInnis 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1932) 12.50% (1932) 12.50%
Roger Peckinpaugh 2nd 4.17% 4.17% (1932) 4.17% (1932) 4.17%
Del Pratt 5th 20.83% 20.83% (1932) 15.63% (1931) 17.12%
Ed Reulbach 12th 16.67% 17.24% (1924) 7.69% (1923) 12.92%
Bob Shawkey 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1932) 12.50% (1932) 12.50%
Joe Tinker 13th 33.33% 33.33% (1932) 10.71% (1922) 21.46%
Hippo Vaughn 8th 12.50% 18.52% (1928) 10.71% (1927) 14.60%
Bobby Veach 4th 29.17% 31.25% (1931) 24.00% (1930) 28.14%
Joe Wood 7th 16.67% 35.71% (1927) 16.67 (1932) 27.02%
Ross Youngs 3rd 8.33% 12.50% (1931) 8.33% (1932) 10.42%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (9)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Hooks Dauss Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1932) 3.13% (1931) 3.65%
Art Fletcher Lack of Support 6 12.00% (1929) 0% (1932) 6.21%
Miller Huggins Lack of Support 12 20.83% (1985) 4.17% (1932) 13.25%
Johnny Kling Eligibility Expired 15 26.92% (1920) 9.68% (1921) 18.86%
Dutch Leonard Lack of Support 3 12.50% (1931) 4.17% (1932) 9.56%
Fred Merkle Lack of Support 2 6.25% (1931) 0% (1932) 3.13%
Everett Scott Lack of Support 2 6.25% (1931) 4.17% (1932) 5.21%
Hank Severeid Lack of Support 2 3.13% (1931) 0% (1932) 1.57%
Jimmy Sheckard Eligibility Expired 15 45.83% (1932) 25.00% (1927) 33.04%

Last Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Mike Donlin 25.93% (1919)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (4)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Heinie Groh 66.67% 1
Tommy Leach 66.67% 5
Wilbur Cooper 58.33% 1
Chief Bender 50.00% 5

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (71)
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 47 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 52 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 57 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 65 42
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911) 45
Frank Chance 1932 83.33% 14 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1898-1914 17 Deceased (1876-1924) Deceased
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 65 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 63 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 53 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 63 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 63 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 47 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 67 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 57 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 76 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 52
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Walter Johnson 1932 100% 1 Pitcher Washington Senators (AL) 1907-1927 21 Living - Age 46 45
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 67 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 78 49
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 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 62 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 59 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 74 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 73 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 64 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 62 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 77 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 67 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 59 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 60 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 52 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 74 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 19 Living - Age 45 44
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 86 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 57 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 86 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 66 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 (6): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, 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 (8): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat
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 (20): Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Walter Johnson, 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):
1932 (3): Frank Chance, Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat

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 (19): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, 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 (5): Frank Baker, Larry Doyle, Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee, Zack Wheat

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
Brooklyn Dodgers (fka Robins) (1): Zack Wheat
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (7): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, 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
Washington Senators (AL) (1): Walter Johnson

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 31
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 19
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.04%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 8
- Average Wait Before Election: 4.23 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 19
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 9
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 3
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach - 66.67%
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Heinie Groh - 66.67%
- 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: 2
- 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: 25.36
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 13
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 7
- 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: 15.79 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.27
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 15
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 35
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 86
- Deceased in Past Year: George Gore, Tim Keefe

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
1932: 24

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)
1932 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85850)

mwiggins

01-01-2009, 10:31 AM

Ty Cobb
Tris Speaker
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Wilbur Cooper
Ross Youngs

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 10:43 AM

Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Urban Shocker
Tris Speaker
Bobby Veach

Ty Cobb was a 1st class jerk who would run over his own mother if he thought it would give him an edge. Integrity factors in when voting for someone for the HOF. Cobb lacked integrity so he does not get my vote.

Cowtipper

01-01-2009, 10:53 AM

I decided to switch up my ballot this time around. I'm not going to be voting for Bender, Donlin, Hooper, Leach, Reulbach or Wood anymore.

My votes this time around...

George Burns
Ty Cobb
Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Gavvy Cravath
Urban Shocker
Tris Speaker
Hippo Vaughn
Bobby Veach

Looking at my ballot, I voted for only pitchers and outfielders. Guys I didn't vote for but am will to listen to cases for are Babe Adams, Mike Donlin, Jack Fournier (the best of the first basemen on the ballot, in my opinion), Del Pratt (best second baseman), Joe Tinker (best SS, but not by much), Groh (much better than Gardner), and O'Neill (only C on ballot, so he is by default the best).

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 11:03 AM

I only voted for Cobb and Speaker. This is the first election I am participating in, and I feel that the standards of the voters here have been a bit too low in the past. For me, the hall of fame should only be for the truly great players in history, not for the merely excellent players. I also slant a bit towards pioneers, players and others (like Ross Barnes) from the early years who paved the way for the professional game as we know it to take hold.

Here are the players who have already been inducted here who I would not have voted for:

Catcher: Charlie Bennett

Bennett was never a dominant player, just merely a very good catcher for about 8 seasons, no better than Thurman Munson or Jorge Posada. Not a hall of famer. Bresnahan is borderline, but as an umpire I have to let him in for inventing the shin guards :-)

First Base: Joe Start

Maybe he deserves consideration as a pioneer of how to play defense as a firstbaseman, but strictly as a player there's no way Start should be a hall of famer.

Second Base: Cupid Childs, Larry Doyle, Hardy Richardson

None of these three were great for long enough to be hall of famers in my book. All were excellent players, but not quite hall of famers. McPhee barely gets in with me based on more longevity and other factors (last fielder with no glove).

Third Base: Ezra Sutton

Not near dominant enough to be a hall of famer.

Shortstop: Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Bobby Wallace

Long and Wallace were excellent players, but not hall of famers. Pearce may be the worst choice of anybody that has been inducted so far.

Center Field: Hugh Duffy, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren

All three of these guys are borderline. I don't think I'd put any of them in, but I might have voted for one of them, possibly.

Pitcher: Mickey Welch, Vic Willis

Two excellent pitchers who are not hall of famers for me.

Like I said, I feel the standards have been a bit low here to this point.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 11:13 AM

Welcome to the project! :)

jalbright

01-01-2009, 11:35 AM

Three holdovers and three new names:

Ty Cobb
Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Tris Speaker

Speaker and Cobb should be no-brainers, and Cooper, Groh and Leach were the holdovers.

henrich

01-01-2009, 11:53 AM

My best 15 on the ballot:

SP's
Bender 11,681
Shawkey 10,585
Bush 10,239
Coveleski 10,071
Adams 9581
Reulbach 9572
Marquard 9338

3B
Leach 8773
Gardner 8255
Groh 8060

CF Cobb 20,706
Cf Speaker 15,300

RF Hooper 9776

1B McInnis 9494

2B Evers 7971

dgarza

01-01-2009, 12:44 PM

Chief Bender
George Burns
Ty Cobb
Stan Coveleski
Gavvy Cravath
Mike Donlin
Johnny Evers
Harry Hooper
Rube Marquard
Tris Speaker
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs

1. Ty Cobb
2. Tris Speaker
3. Bobby Veach
4. Stan Coveleski
5. Gavvy Cravath
6. Chief Bender
7. Mike Donlin
8. George Burns
9. Ross Youngs
10. Rube Marquard
11. Harry Hooper
12. Johnny Evers
13. Joe Tinker

mwiggins

01-01-2009, 01:04 PM

When you debate including Coveleski on your ballot, think about how many pitchers that we've seen this century that have a better career ERA+ than he does (with a minimum of 2,000 IP)

I've got:

1. Johnson - 147, 5915 IP
2. Walsh - 146, 2964 IP
3. Joss - 142, 2327 IP
4. Brown - 138, 3172 IP
Young - 138, 7355 IP
6. Alexander - 135, 5190 IP
Matty - 135, 4781 IP
Waddell - 135, 2961 IP
9. Hahn - 132, 2029 IP
10. COVELESKI - 127, 3082 IP

And for dominance and peak performance, he won 2 ERA+ titles, finished 2nd 3 times, and 6th 3 more times.

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 01:28 PM

I'm glad to see Coveleski doing so strongly of the gate. There's still most of this election left to go, but I was afraid that Coveleski might take some discussion/debate.

I'm also glad that after a number of lean years, we elected three players last year, including Frank Chance.

Here's my ballot:

Ty Cobb - Quite possibly the best position player we've seen (others might argue it's Wagner, and more may argue it's Ruth when he becomes eligible). I can understand though if some people would hold Cobb's personality against him.

Stan Coveleski - Not an all time great, but a very solid selection, IMO.

Johnny Evers - Just over the line for me.

Heinie Groh - Depending on how things go, Groh could become my next pet project. We've elected just 3 3Bmen to represent 60+ years of baseball history, so something has got to give. Given our overall standards and the fact that we could use a larger group at that position, I think Groh fits in nicely.

Tommy Leach - He's perhaps benefited from conversation more than anyone, going from someone who was regularly getting around 40% to someone who has a realistic chance at election. His mastery at two important defense positions, coupled with pretty good offense for those positions and a good peak, make him both pretty unique and pretty valuable.

Del Pratt - I'm getting closer to dropping him, but I'm not quite there.

Tris Speaker - Not quite Cobb, but a true all time great. It won't be often we have two players of this ilk coming up simultaneously.

Bobby Veach - Just over the line for me, but I wouldn't really argue his case.

I found myself close on Urban Shocker, which I found also made me close on Hippo Vaughn. I could see myself voting for one or both in the future depending on arguments made for them. I'm also still close on Wilbur Cooper, but I'm still not there yet. Bob Shawkey is closer than I originally thought as well, but probably behind these other three.

Brooklyn

01-01-2009, 01:30 PM

Speaker and Cobb

Cowtipper

01-01-2009, 01:32 PM

I found myself close on Urban Shocker, which I found also made me close on Hippo Vaughn. I could see myself voting for one or both in the future depending on arguments made for them. I'm also still close on Wilbur Cooper, but I'm still not there yet. Bob Shawkey is closer than I originally thought as well, but probably behind these other three.

This is how I rank the pitchers on the ballot:

Coveleski > Shocker > Cooper > Vaughn > Adams > Shawkey > Marquard > Reulbach > Bush > Barnes > Wood > Bender

bambambaseball

01-01-2009, 01:36 PM

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 02:09 PM

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 02:14 PM

I just dont get why we can elect Frank Chance but not Tommy Leach who was a better player as much more defensive positions. Henie Groh is another one. Why do the participants hate third basemen?:nosleep:

Chance was a much better hitter than Leach, with a career OPS+ of 135. Leach was only at 108. It's very difficult to call anybody with a career OPS+ of just 108 a hall of famer, unless it's an unreal fielder at 2B (McPhee) or SS (Maranville, Ozzie, etc...)

The only problem with Chance is his short career. Otherwise he's easily a great player. Excellent offense, great baserunner, and very good fielder at 1B too. Also the manager of one of the great teams of all time, he's clearly a hall of famer one way or another.

mwiggins

01-01-2009, 02:17 PM

I just dont get why we can elect Frank Chance but not Tommy Leach who was a better player as much more defensive positions.

Chance was a significantly better hitter than Leach. During Chance's 6 year "peak" his average OPS+ was 145. The average OPS+ of Leach's best 6 hitting seasons, which were intermingled with a few pedestrian seasons, was 127. And back then first base was more important that it is now, and by all accounts he was an above average defender.

And Chance's best years were also more compacted together. He finished between 4th and 6th in the NL in OWP 5 years in a row. So your looking at stretch of 5 years, from 1903-1907, where Chance was probably the 5th best offensive player in the league and managed his team to 3 straight World Series.

Also, Chance was the manager of one of the greatest dynasty's the game has ever known. That helps make up for his short career.

Leach has more career value, but Chance had a much better peak. But to say he was a better player than Chance seems quite a stretch.

And Chance did MUCH better in the real Hall of Fame voting in the late 30's when he and Leach were on the ballot. Leach got one vote in 1937 and one in 1939. Chance got 5 in 1936, 49 in 1937, 133 in 1938, and 158 in 1939.

henrich

01-01-2009, 02:46 PM

Shocker adn Vaughn were higher than some position players for me, but I tried to balance my pitchers with enough hitters. They were both better than the 3rd basemen that I have on the ballot. I will vote for them as room becomes available.

Vaughn 8956
Shocker 8698

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 02:57 PM

Catcher: Charlie Bennett

Bennett was never a dominant player, just merely a very good catcher for about 8 seasons, no better than Thurman Munson or Jorge Posada. Not a hall of famer. Bresnahan is borderline, but as an umpire I have to let him in for inventing the shin guards :-)

We're trying to approach this as if we have no knowledge of the game's future beyond the year of the election. In the grand scheme of things, Bennett may have been similar to someone like Munson or Posada, but that kind of productivity from a catcher was much rarer in Bennett's time, and within that context, his case is pretty good.

Third Base: Ezra Sutton

Not near dominant enough to be a hall of famer.

If we boot out Sutton then we'd be left with just two Hall of Famers to represent 60+ years of history at 3B. That doesn't seem quite right and would be an indication that perhaps we need to reassess our standards at 3B (and I believe we do need to make that kind of reassessment). If we were to remove Sutton in particular, we would have no representation at 3B from the 19th Century, and that's not right, IMO. Among 3B from that period, Sutton likely has the best combination of peak and longevity and I do think he's a worthy selection.

Shortstop: Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Bobby Wallace

Long and Wallace were excellent players, but not hall of famers. Pearce may be the worst choice of anybody that has been inducted so far.

What are you basing this assessment of Pearce on? He was never on the regular ballot but overwhelmingly elected by our VC (100% I believe), so there was a strong consensus that he belongs. His post 1871 numbers which are available on baseball-reference.com are not particularly impressive, but much of his case rests on his pre-1871 play, when he was a true standout in the fledgling game.

Center Field: Hugh Duffy, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren

All three of these guys are borderline. I don't think I'd put any of them in, but I might have voted for one of them, possibly.

These guys are about as close as three contemporaries at the same position can be. They are three of the weaker selection, IMO, but given their extreme similarity, it seemed to me that you either elected all or none. In this case, we elected Duffy and Van Haltren together, and with those two in it struck me as rather arbitrary to not elect Ryan as well, who was eventually elected by the VC here.

Like I said, I feel the standards have been a bit low here to this point.

Our standards are only as good as we make them. For all intents and purposes, we are the one and only Hall of Fame in this exercise and thus we are to abandon any pre-conceived idea of Hall of Fame standards based on Cooperstown. And personally, I think we've done a much better job than Cooperstown thus far. I believe our standards are better defined, and while that might be larger than some would like, it helps ensure that we capture most, if not all of those worthy players, such as Bill Dahlen and Deacon White, that Cooperstown has missed. The tradeoff is that we've elected some slightly more questionable players, but none I believe really stand out as truly puzzling, unlike Cooperstown which has inducted a number of players that make you scratch your head. I'd rather have our bottom rung be players like Mickey Welch, Jake Beckley, Charlie Bennett, George Van Haltren, Hugh Duffy, Jimmy Ryan, etc, and have them create a pretty identifiable and mostly acceptable bottom standard that ensures we don't miss clearly qualified players, rather than have guys like George Kelly, Tommy McCarthy, Bill Mazeroski, Rick Ferrell, Rube Marquard, and so on create a very puzzling array of bottomers in Cooperstown, which also misses out on a number of clearly qualified players.

EDIT: I also don't think it's surprising we've likely elected more players from the period we've thus far looked at than Cooperstown has. We've been going year by year starting with 1901, meaning we've been looking at these players (as best we can) against their peers and in the context in which they played. Cooperstown on the other hand had to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries in bulk - players spanning decades of play were grouped together rather than looked at within their era. Thus, it's not surprising that some players may have fallen through the cracks with Cooperstown that we've picked up, such as Deacon White, Bill Dahlen, and Sherry Magee. It's also not surprising to me that Cooperstown continues to overlook these players as recently as last month's VC election, because they've now faded in history (whereas someone like Joe Gordon benefited from still having some of his contemporaries alive to push his case before it became too late).

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 03:48 PM

We're trying to approach this as if we have no knowledge of the game's future beyond the year of the election. In the grand scheme of things, Bennett may have been similar to someone like Munson or Posada, but that kind of productivity from a catcher was much rarer in Bennett's time, and within that context, his case is pretty good.

Not to me. He was not any kind of a dominant offensive player. He barely had 500 runs scored or 500 RBIs. Just a real solid catcher, but not a great player. To me, the hall of fame should be for great players, not for real good players.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 03:53 PM

If we boot out Sutton then we'd be left with just two Hall of Famers to represent 60+ years of history at 3B. That doesn't seem quite right and would be an indication that perhaps we need to reassess our standards at 3B (and I believe we do need to make that kind of reassessment). If we were to remove Sutton in particular, we would have no representation at 3B from the 19th Century, and that's not right, IMO. Among 3B from that period, Sutton likely has the best combination of peak and longevity and I do think he's a worthy selection.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. There's no reason why each position needs to be represented in each era. Third base was more of a defensive position in the 19th century, and Sutton is not even close to the best 3Bman of the time. McGraw, Joyce, Cross and Denny Lyons are all CLEARLY better than Sutton. If you want a 19th century 3Bman there's one that you already have inducted but have listed at the wrong position. Deacon White played about twice as many games at 3B as he did at catcher.

Denny Lyons might have gotten my vote, but Sutton is in no way a hall of famer by any standard.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 03:57 PM

What are you basing this assessment of Pearce on? He was never on the regular ballot but overwhelmingly elected by our VC (100% I believe), so there was a strong consensus that he belongs. His post 1871 numbers which are available on baseball-reference.com are not particularly impressive, but much of his case rests on his pre-1871 play, when he was a true standout in the fledgling game.

I'm not in favor of inducting many players because of pre 1871 play. Details are far too sketchy from then, there's no real stats, and real indication of the level of opposition. I think we're already very liberal in treating the 1871-1875 period as if it was major league baseball.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 04:02 PM

These guys are about as close as three contemporaries at the same position can be. They are three of the weaker selection, IMO, but given their extreme similarity, it seemed to me that you either elected all or none. In this case, we elected Duffy and Van Haltren together, and with those two in it struck me as rather arbitrary to not elect Ryan as well, who was eventually elected by the VC here.

I think all three guys are a notch below hall of famers, just real good long time stars, sort of equivelant to modern players like Dwight Evans, who I also would not induct. To me, the hall should be for dominant players, not for excellent players. Some of the guys getting votes this time (Groh, Leach, Cooper, Shocker, Vaughn) should not even be thought about as hall of famers IMO. The standards are just too low here. I think some of the voters just want to be more active, so they find people to vote for rather than just finding the true hall of famers. The idea here should be to keep the membership unique, rather then to bend over backwards to find ways to induct more people.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 04:04 PM

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 04:15 PM

--Went with an uncharacteristicly generous full ballot this year;

George J. Burns, LF (1911-1925) - meets our outfield standard - such as it is
Ty Cobb, CF (1905-1928) - he'd have to be a mass murderer for character questions to outweigh his accomplishments
Wilbur Cooper, SP (1912-1926) - like him better than Joss
Stan Coveleski, SP (1912, 1916-1928) - like him better than Cooper
Gavvy Cravath, RF (1908-1909, 1912-1920) - sneaks over the border this year
Johnny Evers, 2B (1902-1917, 1922) - i go back and forth on him
Jack Fournier, 1B (1912-1918, 1920-1927) - if only born 10 years later...
Heinie Groh, 3B (1912-1927) - 3rd best 3B in history?
Tommy Leach, 3B/CF (1898-1915, 1918) - or is it Tommy?
Del Pratt, 2B (1912-1924) - roughly equal to Evers
Bob Shawkey, SP (1913-1926) - barely edges onto ballot
Urban Shocker, SP (1916-1928) - ditto
Tris Speaker, CF (1907-1928) - unanimous thru my vote
Hippo Vaughn, SP (1908, 1910-1921) - If Shawkey and Shocker....
Bobby Veach, LF (1912-1925) - meets Ryan/Duffy/GVH standard

Are you serious with this ballot? Most of these guys are just long time very good regulars. I know there's a mystique to voting for old timers that you never saw, but most of these guys are nowhere near hall of famers.

George Burns is roughly equal to Frank Howard and George Foster. Do you see them as hall of famers?

Wilbur Cooper is only 38 games over .500 with a career ERA+ of 116. He's about even with someone like Jerry Koosman.

Cravath is about equal with Daryll Strawberry. Are they hall of famers?

Evers is not even as good as Chuck Knoblauch. Are you putting him in?

Pratt is almost dead even with Jim Gilliam.

These guys are all very good major league players, but nowhere near hall of famers.

I implore you to raise your standards some.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 04:24 PM

Our standards are only as good as we make them. For all intents and purposes, we are the one and only Hall of Fame in this exercise and thus we are to abandon any pre-conceived idea of Hall of Fame standards based on Cooperstown. And personally, I think we've done a much better job than Cooperstown thus far.

I'm very happy that you've inducted more of the 19th century players who belong, but I'm not so sure that you've elected fewer unworthy players than the writers have in Cooperstown. Probably the worst selection ever by the writers was Herb Pennock, but he's no worse than Ezra Sutton.

Yes, you guys have inducted several worthy players that the writers missed, like Dahlen and McPhee and Glasscock, but then again if the writers had started in 1901 many of these guys would have gotten in.

If you just look at the players voted in by the writers there are only a couple of outright mistakes.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 04:30 PM

Are you serious with this ballot? Most of these guys are just long time very good regulars. I know there's a mystique to voting for old timers that you never saw, but most of these guys are nowhere near hall of famers.

George Burns is roughly equal to Frank Howard and George Foster. Do you see them as hall of famers?

Wilbur Cooper is only 38 games over .500 with a career ERA+ of 116. He's about even with someone like Jerry Koosman.

Cravath is about equal with Daryll Strawberry. Are they hall of famers?

Evers is not even as good as Chuck Knoblauch. Are you putting him in?

Pratt is almost dead even with Jim Gilliam.

These guys are all very good major league players, but nowhere near hall of famers.

I implore you to raise your standards some.

--I implore you to check the standards already established for a project - in its 33rd edition - before jumping in and telling us what the standards should be. I wouldn't put all these guys in my personal Hall of Fame, but they do meet the standards - or at least are around the standards - we have established for a Hall of Famer in this project.
--I also must tell you that comparing player in this project to future players is strongly discouraged. You are expected to try and view these elections though the lens of a 1933 voters. The history we have established in our voting is relevant. What will happen someday with a museum in upstate New York is not.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 04:56 PM

Are you serious with this ballot? Most of these guys are just long time very good regulars. I know there's a mystique to voting for old timers that you never saw, but most of these guys are nowhere near hall of famers.

George Burns is roughly equal to Frank Howard and George Foster. Do you see them as hall of famers?

Wilbur Cooper is only 38 games over .500 with a career ERA+ of 116. He's about even with someone like Jerry Koosman.

Cravath is about equal with Daryll Strawberry. Are they hall of famers?

Evers is not even as good as Chuck Knoblauch. Are you putting him in?

Pratt is almost dead even with Jim Gilliam.

These guys are all very good major league players, but nowhere near hall of famers.

I implore you to raise your standards some.

You are completely missing the point of this project. Please read through the 1901 thread and look at some of the discussions centered on the borderline guys in the other 32 threads. If you are comparing these players to players who are not even born yet in 1933, you are not playing by the rules of the project. We are also supposed to be going by our standards. Not by some idealized small hall of elite all time greats. If that is what you are looking for, you are not approaching this project correctly.

Edit: and I see that leecemark already stated this. Guess I missed that. :)

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 05:13 PM

I thank Mark and JJPM for chiming in already. I really couldn't have said it better. We've done this now 33 times, and over that span we have created our own universe and it's within that universe that we operate. Comparing players currently on the ballot to someone who may not yet even be born is inappropriate here. As hard as it may be, we are to ignore we what know in 2009 and do our best to put the players we are looking at into the context of their time, which entails comparing them to their peers, comparing them to the standards and expectations that may have been realistic to this point in time, and comparing them to the standards we have thus far adopted with this Hall of Fame. That's not to say we're not to use modern statistical methods, but making an argument that Charlie Bennett doesn't belong because he's like Thurman Munson just doesn't jive here because as far as we know, Munson doesn't exist yet. If you wanted to argue against Bennett the approach would have been to argue that he didn't stand out enough in the context of his time and the history of the game to that point.

Going forward, I'll make sure the opening post describes the objectives of this project so that people who join us midstream are clear.

Also, while many of us have had disagreements here, I am appreciative that most of us have done our best to adhere to the spirit of this project, and I think that's why this has been so interesting to date.

jalbright

01-01-2009, 05:25 PM

Well, to be fair to SavoyBG, there is at least one individual (myself) who has vocally made it clear that I'm not going to unlearn or forget what I've learned to participate in this project. I am still a participant in good standing. By the same token, I've generally tried to accomodate the tone of conversation in eschewing mention of players after the date of the election. I'd love to know how many of the more silent participants don't forget what they already know--but their silence precludes an accurate measure of that issue.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 05:34 PM

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 05:35 PM

--I implore you to check the standards already established for a project - in its 33rd edition - before jumping in and telling us what the standards should be. I wouldn't put all these guys in my personal Hall of Fame, but they do meet the standards - or at least are around the standards - we have established for a Hall of Famer in this project.
--I also must tell you that comparing player in this project to future players is strongly discouraged. You are expected to try and view these elections though the lens of a 1933 voters. The history we have established in our voting is relevant. What will happen someday with a museum in upstate New York is not.

If those are the standards I think the name of the club should be changed to something like "Excellent players in baseball history," rather than "Hall Of Fame."

I understand about not wanting future players mentioned, but I feel that's the best way to make people understand the level of some of these players that they don't really know anything about other than looking at stats.

Once mistakes like Del Pratt are made it opens up the door for there to be 40 secondbasemen in this club by the time you get to 2009.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 05:38 PM

We are also supposed to be going by our standards. Not by some idealized small hall of elite all time greats. If that is what you are looking for, you are not approaching this project correctly.

I am going by my standards, which are tougher then what the real HOF uses. No way I'd be enshrining marginal players like Rizzuto and Reese and Kell and Lindstrom. I'd knock out more than 1/3 of the current Cooperstown hall members if it was up to me.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 05:46 PM

--I agree it does open the door for as many as 40 secondbasemen. Is that the wrong amount? There are no set standards for induction to the Hall of Fame. There are only two possible ways to establish them.
--One is to make them self defining. That would be the players we've already selected establishing the standard for future inductees.
--The other is for each voter to make up their own standards as we go along. Its pretty tough to have a discussion when we are working with dozens of different definitions though.
--I have gone back and forth on which standard - mine or the groups - to use. For this election I went with the group standard. You can argue either. What you shouldn't argue is the (for the purpose of this project) non-existent Cooperstown standard.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 05:48 PM

but making an argument that Charlie Bennett doesn't belong because he's like Thurman Munson just doesn't jive here because as far as we know, Munson doesn't exist yet.

Okay, I thought the Munson/Posada argument would be easier for most here to understand, but I'll refrain from mentioning future players if those are the rules.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 05:53 PM

Okay, I thought the Munson/Posada argument would be easier for most here to understand, but I'll refrain from mentioning future players if those are the rules.

If all you want to do is apply your 2008 standards, regardless of whether or not you mention modern players, this probably isn't the best project for you. Here is a much more appropriate project if your interests lay in the elite area rather than in discussing the marginal candidates and defining a set of standards, and just as much fun, albeit very different from the Progressive HOF Project:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85557

There's nothing wrong with your philosophy. It's just not an appropriate one for this specific project.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 05:54 PM

--If you try comparing him other 19th century catchers you'll find he looks much more impressive. His rates stats are close to the best and he caught more than anyone, so you really can't criticize him on career totals. Buck Ewing and Deacon White were better players who were mostly catchers, but Bennett caught ALOT more than either of them. Bennett was a far superior hitter to anybody who caught anywhere near as many games.

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 06:02 PM

--None of us can "forget" what we know. However, anyone joining the project should be aware that it is not just another version of "who should be in Cooperstown" though. If you are going to join a project midstream you ought to make an effort to know what it is trying to accomplish.

I'll take the blame for that one. I should have made it clearer in the opening post so as to better avoid a situation like this one.

Okay, I thought the Munson/Posada argument would be easier for most here to understand, but I'll refrain from mentioning future players if those are the rules.

I know where you are coming from, but this project is an attempt to recreate these elections as if they are in the present and we don't know what the future holds for the game. When you do that, ignore the future that is and only consider history to that point, the way you view a player could be very different. As I said we are to:

1) Look at the player in the context of when he played;

2) Measure the player against the game's history to that point; and

3) Weigh the player's Hall of Fame worthiness against the standards we've set.

Take Bennett for example, he may have been a similar player to Munson, but that kind of catcher may have had a lot more value in the context of the game at the time because it was very rare for catchers to perform that way, and when we elected Bennett in 1907, we had no idea how catchers would produce down the line or how equipment would improve and alter how catchers would play - all we knew is how catchers had performed to that point and Bennett stood out in that context.

If you think you can adopt this tact, we'd love to have you. But if you're uncomfortable with it, I understand - it's hard to disregard what you know. In that case, as JJPM suggested, another project might suit you better. Here though, if we're trying our best to evaluate a catcher as if it's say 1907, it would be inappropriate to weigh that player against someone a century off such as Jorge Posada.

jalbright

01-01-2009, 06:17 PM

There are no set standards for induction to the Hall of Fame. There are only two possible ways to establish them.
--One is to make them self defining. That would be the players we've already selected establishing the standard for future inductees.
--The other is for each voter to make up their own standards as we go along. Its pretty tough to have a discussion when we are working with dozens of different definitions though.
--I have gone back and forth on which standard - mine or the groups - to use. For this election I went with the group standard. You can argue either. What you shouldn't argue is the (for the purpose of this project) non-existent Cooperstown standard.

I personally use something based off what we do know--that Cooperstown has 220-some (maybe 230+ soon) players at the end of 2008, and that players should at least arguably be among the standards set by the 220-230 MLB and Negro League players retired five years or more to date. Most of our HOF standards are effectively based on this de facto standard, as the discussions about the HOF essentially swirl all around this idea. I think it is deeply ingrained in us precisely because it is the center point of the debates we love to participate in, and thus not really something we can easily revise. Some, like SavoyBG, want a smaller number to the end of 2008 to be the center of the discussion, but others (a like number, from what I've seen in our Fever discussions and elsewhere) favor an even higher number. When all is said and done, I think the center point of the discussion remains around the standard I'm talking about. I cannot prove it, but my feeling is that the voters who are silent on this issue are as a group using something very much like this center point of all other HOF discussions.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 06:19 PM

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 06:22 PM

So, the same concerns that I am expressing now were expressed back when this project started.

Yes, and they were also addressed ad nauseum and redefined in the 31 threads you did not read. ;)

leecemark

01-01-2009, 06:25 PM

--Yes, well we've had 33 "years" to sort things out. Had you been around for that you could have help shape the project. Since you weren't you are stuck with accepting the project as it has developed if you want to participate. We aren't going to go back to the beginning to accomodate a new voter.
Edit: sorry for the tag team. JJ and I were typing basically the same thing at the same time.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 06:26 PM

--Buck Ewing and Deacon White were better players who were mostly catchers,

No, Deacon White was not "mostly" a catcher.

Deacon White played 1560 games in his career, and was only a catcher in 458 games. That's just 29% of the time. Deacon White played 3B a total of 827 games in his career. That's 53% of the time.

I'd like to request that the record keeper move Deacon White out of the catcher list and into the 3B list.

jalbright

01-01-2009, 06:28 PM

If all you want to do is apply your 2008 standards, regardless of whether or not you mention modern players, this probably isn't the best project for you. Here is a much more appropriate project if your interests lay in the elite area rather than in discussing the marginal candidates and defining a set of standards, and just as much fun, albeit very different from the Progressive HOF Project:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85557

There's nothing wrong with your philosophy. It's just not an appropriate one for this specific project.

The Best of Baseball project, though, will not accomodate Savoy BG's idea of the size of the HOF, as it clearly envisions reaching 240 names by the end of the 2010 election. That said, he's welcome to participate there if he so desires. One caveat--the 1937 election ends tomorrow at 11:59:59 PM EST, with the 1938 election to be begun sometime on Saturday, January 3.

leecemark

01-01-2009, 06:28 PM

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 06:29 PM

I personally use something based off what we do know--that Cooperstown has 220-some (maybe 230+ soon) players at the end of 2008, and that players should at least arguably be among the standards set by the 220-230 MLB and Negro League players retired five years or more to date. Most of our HOF standards are effectively based on this de facto standard, as the discussions about the HOF essentially swirl all around this idea. I think it is deeply ingrained in us precisely because it is the center point of the debates we love to participate in, and thus not really something we can easily revise. Some, like SavoyBG, want a smaller number to the end of 2008 to be the center of the discussion, but others (a like number, from what I've seen in our Fever discussions and elsewhere) favor an even higher number. When all is said and done, I think the center point of the discussion remains around the standard I'm talking about. I cannot prove it, but my feeling is that the voters who are silent on this issue are as a group using something very much like this center point of all other HOF discussions.

Jim, I agree with what you're saying. We have preconceived ideas that on a subconscious level cannot be completely dismissed. I think we particularly saw this manifest early on at times as I believe some lower-rung players in Cooperstown had a more difficult time getting in here because we view them as lower-rung in Cooperstown, while similarly qualified players not in Cooperstown sailed in because we view them as having been slighted. I think though, we've become better at this as a group, and while we'll never know what the silent voters are thinking, most voters have been habitually participating in this project, so I would hope by now that at least some of what we're trying to do here as seeped in.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 06:29 PM

jalbright

01-01-2009, 06:32 PM

No, Deacon White was not "mostly" a catcher.

Deacon White played 1560 games in his career, and was only a catcher in 458 games. That's just 29% of the time. Deacon White played 3B a total of 827 games in his career. That's 53% of the time.

I'd like to request that the record keeper move Deacon White out of the catcher list and into the 3B list.

Whether he's a 3B or C depends on how one views the question, IMHO. White played about as many seasons as a C, and when he was at his best, it was as a C. Granted, he played more games at 3rd, but that is largely due to the fact that seasons had more games in them later in his career.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 06:33 PM

--White's best years were all at catcher. The seasons were simply shorter then. This is another issue that was discussed in great detail before you came along. Please try and stick to players on the current ballot.

The best year White ever had was 1877 when he had a league leading OPS+ of 190. He also led that year in batting average and SLG%, hits, triples and RBIs. In that year he played 35 games at 1B, 19 games in RF, and caught just 7 games.

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 06:35 PM

So, the same concerns that I am expressing now were expressed back when this project started.

Yes, but without looking back at that election, I believe the quotes you posted represented the aspirations of one voter, but did not define what our standards in this project would be. The election standards of this project was not defined the outset - the standards were left as something to evolve as we progressed. This is really what is at the heart of this project; the spirit of it as I believe Classic termed it many elections ago. Our standards have been defined collectively as we have progressed, and I don't think when we started this in 1901 anyone could have predicted what our standards would look like come 1933.

Looking back at this juncture, I'd say our standards may have been more lax than some would have hoped (such as whomever made those quotes you posted), but I do think our standards have been fairly consistent and certainly the product of good conversation and debate.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 06:36 PM

The best year White ever had was 1877 when he had a league leading OPS+ of 190. He also led that year in batting average and SLG%, hits, triples and RBIs. In that year he played 35 games at 1B, 19 games in RF, and caught just 7 games.

You've made your point. Can we let this rest and go back to the current thread now, please.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 06:36 PM

jalbright

01-01-2009, 06:37 PM

The best year White ever had was 1877 when he had a league leading OPS+ of 190. He also led that year in batting average and SLG%, hits, triples and RBIs. In that year he played 35 games at 1B, 19 games in RF, and caught just 7 games.

That's one year. Moreover, it ignores the sage advice of a mod: let's focus on what the project is and where it's going, not such minutae as where White is listed.

jjpm74

01-01-2009, 06:38 PM

But you are averaging over 2 players per election since you only started voting in 1901.

We are averaging 1 player per season played. It is to be expected that since the 1901 election covered 30 years of baseball history that there'd be some catching up to do.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 06:41 PM

That's one year. Moreover, it ignores the sage advice of a mod: let's focus on what the project is and where it's going, not such minutae as where White is listed.

Okay, but it's an important point as someone was saying that he wanted Sutton in because otherwise they're would be no 3Bman from the 19th century.

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 06:41 PM

As an interesting sidebar (in 2009 mode now), we have elected 68 players to date. One of them comes out of the pre-1871 era. That means that through 63 years of baseball history (1871-1933), we have elected 67 players and are averaging a player per season played. Projecting this out to 2008, that means we will have elected approximately 135 players. That is a long way from the 400+ some were worried about when this project began 33 weeks ago. :)

I think we will probably end up with somewhere between 150 and 180 MLB players and probably around 20-30 NeLers when all is said and done, so jalbright's figure of 220 is pretty spot on.

That's one way to project, but I think our number will probably be in the 225-250 range. Another way to project is to go by average number we've elected per year, which I believe is 2 (I think we've also elected 71 players to date, I neglected to update that). We'll have up and down periods of course, we're just coming off a very down period, but if we stay at a similar rate, we'll have around 140 by 1964, 210 by 1996, and around 235-240 by 2009.

DoubleX

01-01-2009, 06:51 PM

I'd like to request that the record keeper move Deacon White out of the catcher list and into the 3B list.

I am the "record keeper" and White will not be moved. I actually originally listed him as catcher because my thinking was similar to yours. But after some discussion, I became convinced that catcher was a slightly more appropriate place for White. His raw number of games at 3B is higher than it is at catcher, but as someone mentioned earlier, that's largely due to the fact that the seasons were significantly longer when he moved to 3B. However, he did have 8 seasons where his primary position was clearly catcher without even including his pre-1871 play, and had those seasons been as long as the seasons where he played 3B, he would likely have caught significantly more at catcher. Additionally, the bulk of his best seasons were the seasons where he was primarily a catcher. It's also not surprising that even in seasons where he did play mostly catcher, he would appear at other positions because it just wasn't very realistic at the time for a player to catch on an everyday basis as it is today.

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 07:03 PM

It's also not surprising that even in seasons where he did play mostly catcher, he would appear at other positions because it just wasn't very realistic at the time for a player to catch on an everyday basis as it is today.

I'm not so sure about that. In the days that he was mainly a catcher weren't they pitching underhanded with the catcher standing up, like in a slow pitch softball league?

In those real early days of baseball it was just the regular practice for almost every player to play a bunch of different positions. I think it was considered as part of the sport of the game, for a player to experience as many positions as possible.

brett

01-01-2009, 07:12 PM

The main issue with catchers was that their hands became permanantly damaged and deformed.

Domenic

01-01-2009, 07:14 PM

Cobb
Cooper
Cravath
Leach
Speaker
Wood

SavoyBG

01-01-2009, 07:21 PM

Looks like it's gonna be Cobb, Speaker and Coveleski this time, which is okay with me. I only voted for Peach and Spoke, but if I had to pick a third player from this list it would be Coveleski.

The next player down for me would probably be Groh, although I don't think he's quite a hall of famer.

MAX CAREY IN 1934 !!!

jalbright

01-02-2009, 09:00 AM

The main issue with catchers was that their hands became permanantly damaged and deformed.

Yeah, you've got to keep in mind that during much of the 19th century, guys played barehanded. That would be murder with foul tips on top of the high number of balls a catcher catches compared to every other defensive spot, including 1B. Every swing and a miss, called strike, or ball is one a catcher needs to handle. The next main ballhandler is a 1B, and he only has to catch balls which the hitter put into play in a position where it can be fielded and it's intelligent to throw to a 1B (cutoff plays and doubling up runners included) plus any pickoff attempts. Even so, a 1B is handling the ball a fraction of the time a catcher is.

PVNICK

01-02-2009, 09:31 AM

Bender
Cobb
Evers
Groh
Leach
Shocker
Speaker

DoubleX

01-02-2009, 09:45 AM

Bender
Cobb
Evers
Groh
Leach
Shocker
Speaker

Bender and Shocker but not Coveleski? I think Coveleski has a very strong argument for being the best pitcher on the ballot, perhaps by a good margin (see comparisons below). I also still can't really see a decent case for Bender, which I also believe is supported below:

EDIT: For general consumption, here's how 11 of the 12 pitchers on the ballot compare in various categories (I left out Joe Wood who's a very unique case compared to the other 11). For those interested in Win Shares, scroll to the last few categories:

Career ERA+ (IP in Parentheses)
1) Coveleski - 127 (3082 IP)
2) Shocker - 124 (2682 IP)
3) Reulbach - 123 (2633 IP)
4) Vaughn - 120 (2730 IP)
5) Adams - 117 (2996 IP)
6) Cooper - 116 (3480 IP)
7) Shawkey - 113 (2937 IP)
8) Bender - 112 (3017 IP)
9) Barnes - 105 (2570 IP)
10) Marquard - 103 (3307 IP)
11) Bush - 99 (3088 IP)

Average of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons (Average IP for those Seasons in Parentheses)
1) Reulbach - 157 (247 Avg. IP)
2) Coveleski - 153 (279 Avg. IP)
3) Vaughn - 150 (282 Avg. IP)
4) Adams - 147 (259 Avg. IP)
5) Bender - 139 (235 Avg. IP)
t6) Cooper - 134 (282 Avg. IP)
t6) Shocker - 134 (280 Avg. IP)
t6) Marquard - 134 (260 Avg. IP)
9) Shawkey - 131 (274 Avg. IP)
10) Bush - 120 (263 Avg. IP)
11) Barnes - 118 (270 Avg. IP)

Number of Seasons with At Least 150 ERA+ (Career High in Parentheses)
1) Coveleski - 3 (164 High)
t2) Reulbach - 2 (209 High)
t2) Vaughn - 2 (161 High)
t2) Adams - 2 (153 High)
t5) Marquard - 1 (169 High)
t5) Shawkey - 1 (156 High)
t7) Bender - 0 (149 High)
t7) Shocker - 0 (144 High)
t7) Cooper - 0 (143 High)
t7) Bush - 0 (127 High)
t7) Barnes - 0 (120 High)

Number of Seasons with At Least 125 ERA+
1) Coveleski - 8
2) Vaughn - 7
3) Adams - 6
t4) Reulbach - 5
t4) Bender - 5
t4) Cooper - 5
t7) Marquard - 4
t7) Shocker - 4
9) Shawkey - 3
10) Bush - 1
11) Barnes - 0

Number of Top 2 ERA+ Finishes (Number of League Leading in Parentheses)
1) Coveleski - 5 (2 League Leading)
2) Adams - 3 (1 League Leading (but in just 160 IP))
3) Vaughn - 2 (1 League Leading)
4) Shawkey - 1 (1 League Leading)
t5) Reulbach - 1
t5) Marquard - 1
t7) Cooper - 0
t7) Shocker - 0
t7) Bender - 0
t7) Bush - 0
t7) Barnes - 0

Number of Top 5 ERA+ Finishes
1) Adams - 6
2) Coveleski - 5
t3) Cooper - 4
t3) Vaughn - 4
t3) Reulbach - 4
t6) Shocker - 2
t6) Marquard - 2
t6) Shawkey - 2
9) Bender - 1
t10) Bush - 0
t10) Barnes - 0

Number of Top 10 ERA+ Seasons
1) Coveleski - 8
2) Cooper - 7
t3) Adams - 6
t3) Vaughn - 6
t3) Reulbach - 6
t3) Shocker - 6
7) Bender - 5
8) Marquard - 4
t9) Shawkey - 3
t9) Bush - 3
11) Barnes - 2

Career IP
1) Cooper - 3480
2) Marquard - 3307
3) Bush - 3088
4) Coveleski - 3082
5) Bender - 3017
6) Adams - 2996
7) Shawkey - 2937
8) Vaughn - 2730
9) Shocker - 2682
10) Reulbach - 2633
11) Barnes - 2570

Number of Top 2 IP Finishes (Number of League Leading in Parentheses)
1) Cooper - 3 (1 League Leading)
2) Vaughn - 2 (2 League Leading)
t3) Shocker - 1
t3) Barnes - 1
t5) Coveleski - 0
t5) Shawkey - 0
t5) Adams - 0
t5) Marquard - 0
t5) Bush - 0
t5) Reulbach - 0
t5) Bender - 0

Number of Top 5 IP Finishes
1) Cooper - 7
2) Coveleski - 5
3) Vaughn - 4
4) Shocker - 3
t5) Barnes - 1
t5) Shawkey - 1
t5) Adams - 1
t8) Marquard - 0
t8) Bush - 0
t8) Reulbach - 0
t8) Bender - 0

Number of Top 10 IP Finishes
t1) Cooper - 8
t1) Coveleski - 8
t3) Vaughn - 6
t3) Shocker - 6
t5) Barnes - 5
t5) Marquard - 5
t7) Shawkey - 4
t7) Bush - 4
9) Adams - 3
10) Reulbach - 1
11) Bender - 0

Career Wins
1) Cooper - 216
2) Coveleski - 215
3) Bender - 212
4) Marquard - 201
5) Shawkey - 196
6) Bush - 195
7) Adams - 194
8) Shocker - 187
9) Reulbach - 182
10) Vaughn - 178
11) Barnes - 152

Black Ink Score
1) Vaughn - 27
2) Coveleski - 22
t3) Cooper - 17
t3) Bender - 17
5) Shocker - 15
6) Reulbach - 13
t7) Adams - 12
t7) Shawkey - 12
9) Marquard - 11
10) Barnes - 5
11) Bush - 3

Gray Ink Score
1) Coveleski - 193
2) Shocker - 179
3) Cooper - 173
4) Bender - 158
5) Vaughn - 155
6) Marquard - 150
7) Adams - 145
8) Shawkey - 143
9) Reulbach - 127
10) Bush - 126
11) Barnes - 99

Career Win Shares
1) Cooper - 266
2) Coveleski - 245
3) Adams - 243
4) Bender - 231
5) Shocker - 225
6) Shawkey - 223
7) Marquard - 208
8) Reulbach - 206
9) Vaughn - 205
10) Bush - 195
11) Barnes - 156

Total of Top 3 Win Share Seasons (Peak Win Share Season in Parentheses)
1) Coveleski - 90 (32 High)
2) Cooper - 85 (31 High)
3) Shocker - 84 (30 High)
4) Vaughn - 82 (30 High)
t5) Adams - 81 (29 High)
t5) Shawkey - 81 (27 High)
7) Reulbach - 79 - (29 High)
8) Marquard - 78 (26 High)
9) Bush - 74 (26 High)
10) Bender - 70 (26 High)
11) Barnes - 64 (24 High)

Total of Top 5 Win Share Seasons
1) Coveleski - 142
2) Cooper - 134
t3) Shocker - 128
t3) Vaughn - 128
5) Adams - 127
6) Shawkey - 126
7) Reulbach - 122
8) Bush - 118
9) Marquard - 115
10) Bender - 108
11) Barnes - 98

Number of 20 Win Share Seasons
1) Cooper - 9 (plus 1 more at 19)
2) Coveleski - 7
t3) Vaugnn - 6 (plus 1 more at 19)
t3) Reulbach - 6
t5) Shocker - 5 (plus 2 more at 19)
t5) Adams - 5
t5) Bush - 5
t8) Shawkey - 4 (plus 1 more at 19)
t8) Marquard - 4
t8) Bender - 4
11) Barnes - 2 (plus 1 more at 19)

PVNICK

01-02-2009, 11:15 AM

I don't necessarily make my individual votes so they are coherent with each other. Each player is yes or no with no reference to who else is on the ballot since I stopped putting out a full slate. Bender I've been voting for so I continued. Coveleski I wanted to pause on though I'm not sure why. Shocker I wanted to vote just because I have in other polls and wanted to make sure he got a vote as I don't check that before I vote.

Freakshow

01-02-2009, 12:19 PM

Chance, Johnson and Wheat were elected. Kling and Sheckard expired. They were replaced by newbies Cobb, Coveleski, Shocker and Speaker. Veach returns to my ballot.

Bender
GJ Burns
Cobb
W. Cooper
Coveleski
Cravath
Evers
Groh
Hooper
Konetchy
Leach
Shocker
Speaker
Tinker
Veach

philkid3

01-02-2009, 12:22 PM

Awesome class this year. We have arguably, I think, the best and second best players EVER right here, save maybe for Ruth.

Chief Bender
Ty Cobb
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Tris Speaker
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach

SavoyBG

01-03-2009, 07:50 PM

Awesome class this year. We have arguably, I think, the best and second best players EVER right here, save maybe for Ruth.

I don't know, I don't think any of these guys were better than Wagner.

And what about the Negro leagues? This kid Oscar Charleston may be better than Cobb or Speaker.

AG2004

01-04-2009, 11:50 AM

Well, I just read the 1901 thread, and here's a couple of things that were posted:

1 - Membership in this new Hall of Fame should be limited to the truly great or influential figures in the history of the game. I suggest that we ask three questions of all candidates on the ballot.

First, was the player arguably the best player of his era?

If not, was the player arguably the best of all time at his position?

Finally, if neither answer is "yes," did the player make an important and lasting impact on the development of the game?

If I cannot answer "yes" to any of these questions, such a candidate is not great or important enough for honors.

2 - The United States has existed for 125 years. Our Base Ball Hall of Fame, in contrast, reflects a mere thirty years of history. If we select five shortstops now, and consider that Dahlen and Davis are in mid-career, we may very well have thirty to forty shortshops a century from now. We have to be careful now; otherwise, our Hall will grow so large and cumbersome that membership will have lost its meaning.

If we use the Dahlen/Davis level for shortstops, we shall have approximately ten shortstops enshrined a century from now. Considering all positions on the field, and making possible allowances for multiple pitchers, we would have about 120 or 130 members a century from now, or approximately one honoree per year of base ball history.

The Hall of Fame for Great Americans envisions inducting five new honorees in each subsequent election, with elections held at five-year intervals. An average of one honoree per year of base ball for our Hall seems ideal.

So, the same concerns that I am expressing now were expressed back when this project started.

That was my proposal back in 1901, when our Hall of Fame first opened (I believe that we decided to put it in Brooklyn). However, over 75% of the voters decided that standard was too demanding, and I had to change my standards to reflect the level of player that we were being inducting into Brooklyn.

Since we have been inducting people for a third of a century, it would be drastically unfair to suddenly elevate our standards to the three questions listed above (or, as I envisioned it, later players at the same level as those who had been inducted under those standards).

I had hoped that the initial standard would be Brouthers, Hines, and Keefe. The actual standard turned out to be Richardson and Mullane, and we have to accept it. By looking at who's actually been elected here, I would say that Groh would qualify as a Hall of Famer.

And what about the Negro leagues? This kid Oscar Charleston may be better than Cobb or Speaker.

Charleston is still active, but you have a point. The VC inducted Rube Foster as a contributor just after he died in 1930. Since Foster is in, equity would require that we also open our doors to Negro League players .

AG2004

01-04-2009, 12:43 PM

Chance was a much better hitter than Leach, with a career OPS+ of 135. Leach was only at 108. It's very difficult to call anybody with a career OPS+ of just 108 a hall of famer, unless it's an unreal fielder at 2B (McPhee) or SS (Maranville, Ozzie, etc...)

For most of the game’s history, defense has been more important at 3B than at 2B. Only over the past two decades have the two positions become more equal in defensive value. [OOC – This will change over the next 75 years so that defense at second will be more important than defense at third, but we don’t know that yet.]

Also, the value of defense in center field is about equal to the value of defense at second or third. Leach was an A+ fielder at third base, and an A+ fielder at center field, so that balances out his relatively low OPS+.

One of the things that helped Chance was the fact that we could take into account his managerial contributions during the time that he was a player-manager. Without those contributions, he probably would not have been inducted as a player alone.

Pearce may be the worst choice of anybody that has been inducted so far.

Pearce’s baseball career began in 1856. Many observers of the early and middle 1860s were describing him as the best player in the game. Unlike most other top players of the time, however, Pearce had a long career; he played some games in the NL in 1877, which would give him 22 years at the highest level of baseball available to him. (Isn’t a long career something which helps indicate that one was great at one’s peak? If he didn’t have that high peak, wouldn’t that decline have taken place much earlier? Consider especially that the geographical area producing young players had drastically expanded during that time.)

Furthermore, Pearce invented the bunt, and, much more significantly, turned shortstop from a position where one would stick a poor fielder into the most important defensive position on the field (with the possible exception of catcher). He defined how all future shortstops would play their position. He belongs in our Hall.

Wilbur Cooper is only 38 games over .500 with a career ERA+ of 116. He's about even with someone like Jerry Koosman.

Cravath is about equal with Daryll Strawberry. Are they hall of famers?

Evers is not even as good as Chuck Knoblauch. Are you putting him in?

Pratt is almost dead even with Jim Gilliam.

I haven’t heard of the players you’re comparing the candidates to. [OOC – Not in 1933, anyway.] Cooper was a strong hitter by the standards of pitchers; indeed, he was often used as the number eight hitter in the lineup. That boosts his overall value. Furthermore, Cooper’s Pittsburgh teams were generally bad to mediocre, and that brought his W-L record down. He was dragging his team to more victories than they otherwise deserved.

If you want to compare players across positions, Evers is similar to Dave Bancroft, and Pratt is about even with Ed McKean. (McKean wasn’t a bad defensive shortstop – he was an absolutely terrible one, perhaps the worst ever to have a long career.) I don’t think either Evers or McKean meets our standards.

Cravath has been receiving votes based on all his home run totals. However, in two of those years, he won the title without hitting a single home run on the road. He was lucky to have played in the Baker Bowl.

I think all three guys are a notch below hall of famers, just real good long time stars. . . . Some of the guys getting votes this time (Groh, Leach, Cooper, Shocker, Vaughn) should not even be thought about as hall of famers IMO. The standards are just too low here. I think some of the voters just want to be more active, so they find people to vote for rather than just finding the true hall of famers. The idea here should be to keep the membership unique, rather then to bend over backwards to find ways to induct more people.

I think that Groh, Leach, and Cooper meet the standards of our Hall, as reflected in 32 years of voting. Shocker’s win share peak may look almost as high as Cooper’s, but it came during the early 1920s; Cooper’s peak in the late 1910s was knocked down a bit by the shorter seasons of 1918 and 1919. (Evers and Pratt, however, would lower our standards.)

Using our previously elected players as the definition of a “Hall of Famer,” which players would qualify? Incidentally, do you believe that any of our inductees would be mistake if you were to use “all Hall of Famers except for the player in question” as the standard for the Hall?

philkid3

01-04-2009, 03:04 PM

I don't know, I don't think any of these guys were better than Wagner.

I don't, either, but I won't dismiss the argument.

KCGHOST

01-05-2009, 08:48 AM

Sorry I missed the 1932 election.

Cobb
Speaker
Coveleski
Shocker

DoubleX

01-05-2009, 09:12 AM

jjpm74

01-05-2009, 09:18 AM

George Harper deserves to appear on the ballot once.

DoubleX

01-05-2009, 09:22 AM

George Harper deserves to appear on the ballot once.

Any particular reason? I'll probably include him, but unless I'm missing something, he doesn't impress me at all. His 118 OPS+ looks fairly decent, but less so when you consider it was in less than 4000 PAs, that he was mostly a corner OFer, and was mostly a part time player in his career.

jjpm74

01-05-2009, 09:45 AM

Any particular reason? I'll probably include him, but unless I'm missing something, he doesn't impress me at all. His 118 OPS+ looks fairly decent, but less so when you consider it was in less than 4000 PAs, that he was mostly a corner OFer, and was mostly a part time player in his career.

He's not someone I plan on voting for, but his career seems to be in line with the minimum requirements for inclusion:

*Had one season where he was considered for an MVP award
*Has a 4 year stretch where his OPS+ was 125 or higher and was among the 10 best in the league 2 times during that stretch
*Among the league leaders in batting 3 times
*Had (still has) a long productive career in the minor leagues.

Freakshow

01-05-2009, 09:49 AM

Here's who I got for the next election:

Jimmy Austin
George H. Burns
Max Carey
Pat Collins - Likely won't be on ballot
Bill Doak
Alex Ferguson - Likely won't be on ballot
Wally Gerber
George Harper - May not be on ballot
Carl Mays
Lee Meadows
Johnny Mostil
Art Nehf
Ray Schalk
Jack Scott - Likely won't be on ballot
Jack Smith
Billy Southworth
Elam Vangilder - Likely won't be on ballot
Ken Williams
Ivey Wingo
Larry Woodall - Likely won't be on ballot
Hank Gowdy is eligible by the age rule in 1934. He was the catcher for the Miracle Braves; later, a teammate of Frisch on the Giants. He posted a 104 OPS+ in 17 seasons. Let's see if he can match his BBWAA support:
Year Votes PCT
1937 2 1.0%
1938 8 3.1%
1939 4 1.5%
1942 8 3.4%
1945 3 1.2%
1947 1 0.6%
1948 3 2.5%
1949 10 6.5%
1950 6 3.6%
1951 26 11.5%
1952 34 14.5%
1953 58 22.0%
1954 51 20.2%
1955 90 35.9%
1956 49 25.4%
1958 45 16.9%
1960 38 14.1%

jjpm74

01-05-2009, 09:53 AM

I'm surprised Wally Pipp has zero votes. Has the NY media forgotten him already? It's only been 8 years since Huggins replaced him in the lineup with Lou Gehrig.

jjpm74

01-05-2009, 10:00 AM

Hank Gowdy is eligible by the age rule in 1934. He was the catcher for the Miracle Braves; later, a teammate of Frisch on the Giants. He posted a 104 OPS+ in 17 seasons. Let's see if he can match his BBWAA support:
Year Votes PCT
1937 2 1.0%
1938 8 3.1%
1939 4 1.5%
1942 8 3.4%
1945 3 1.2%
1947 1 0.6%
1948 3 2.5%
1949 10 6.5%
1950 6 3.6%
1951 26 11.5%
1952 34 14.5%
1953 58 22.0%
1954 51 20.2%
1955 90 35.9%
1956 49 25.4%
1958 45 16.9%
1960 38 14.1%

Breaking character, I'm sure that Gowdy's wartime heroics and the fact that he served in both WWI and WWII had a lot to do with that voting pattern. His popularity seemed to increase dramatically during the Korean War years.

KCGHOST

01-05-2009, 01:53 PM

Someone didn't vote for Ty Cobb?? Was that a mistake or a token protest from a Political Correctness advocate?? If so why did you vote for Speaker??

Ubiquitous

01-05-2009, 02:15 PM

A poster thought he was too much of a jerk to vote for.

philkid3

01-05-2009, 02:19 PM

I'm amazed by Coveleski's low turnout.

mwiggins

01-05-2009, 02:38 PM

I'm amazed by Coveleski's low turnout.

Absolutely. He matches up very well with several of our current HoF'ers. Were these guys mistakes, or is there something that puts Coveleski below the line?

Coveleski: 215-142, 127 ERA+, 3082 IP
McGinnity: 246-142, 120 ERA+, 3441 IP
Willis: 249-205, 118 ERA+, 3996 IP
Rusie: 245-174, 129 ERA+, 3769 IP
Waddell: 193-143, 135 ERA+, 2961 IP
Welch: 307-210, 114 ERA+, 4802 IP
Caruthers: 218-99, 123 ERA+, 2829 IP

His innings don't look great compared to some of those guys, but he did pitch in a later era. He was in the top 5 in the league in innings 5 times. Top five in CG's 4 times.

Hopefully he'll pick up some support next time out when there's not two elite players on the ballot.

jjpm74

01-05-2009, 02:58 PM

Absolutely. He matches up very well with several of our current HoF'ers. Were these guys mistakes, or is there something that puts Coveleski below the line?

Coveleski: 215-142, 127 ERA+, 3082 IP
McGinnity: 246-142, 120 ERA+, 3441 IP
Willis: 249-205, 118 ERA+, 3996 IP
Rusie: 245-174, 129 ERA+, 3769 IP
Waddell: 193-143, 135 ERA+, 2961 IP
Welch: 307-210, 114 ERA+, 4802 IP
Caruthers: 218-99, 123 ERA+, 2829 IP

His innings don't look great compared to some of those guys, but he did pitch in a later era. He was in the top 5 in the league in innings 5 times. Top five in CG's 4 times.

Hopefully he'll pick up some support next time out when there's not two elite players on the ballot.

There's still 3 days left to push Coveleski over the hump. I'd be very surprised if he goes more than another year or 2 without being elected.

csh19792001

01-07-2009, 12:04 AM

Someone didn't vote for Ty Cobb?? Was that a mistake or a token protest from a Political Correctness advocate?? If so why did you vote for Speaker??

A token protest from a paricularly salient (yet completely token) poster who came to spread vitriol, mistruths, and really anything else substantive whatsoever.

Man, I wish this forum had higher standards for membership.....

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:06 AM

There's still 3 days left to push Coveleski over the hump. I'd be very surprised if he goes more than another year or 2 without being elected.

Doesn't look like he'll make it this time, but I think I will be voting for him next year, along with Max Carey and Carl Mays.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:14 AM

Here's who I got for the next election:

Jimmy Austin
George H. Burns
Max Carey
Pat Collins - Likely won't be on ballot
Bill Doak
Alex Ferguson - Likely won't be on ballot
Wally Gerber
George Harper - May not be on ballot
Carl Mays
Lee Meadows
Johnny Mostil
Art Nehf
Ray Schalk
Jack Scott - Likely won't be on ballot
Jack Smith
Billy Southworth
Elam Vangilder - Likely won't be on ballot
Ken Williams
Ivey Wingo
Larry Woodall - Likely won't be on ballot

Not a particularly great ballot, but Carey, Mays, and Schalk should at least attract decent support.

What about Ben Taylor from the Negro Leagues, retired after the 1929 season like Carey and Mays?

There's some really great Negro League players who are getting near the end of their careers, as well as some great ones that are already retired. When is this organization going to stop excluding these great players from our regular elections?

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:23 AM

leecemark

01-07-2009, 06:34 AM

A token protest from a paricularly salient (yet completely token) poster who came to spread vitriol, mistruths, and really anything else substantive whatsoever.

Man, I wish this forum had higher standards for membership.....

--The token protest was by jjpm. I believe you are carrying your dislike for a different poster over to this thread, but you are mistaken here.

leecemark

01-07-2009, 06:36 AM

Could one of you gentlemen tell me when the next Veteran's Election is coming up, and who the leading candidates might be?

I assume these include non players?

Has the late Miller Huggins been inducted yet?

--The VC election are every five "years". The next one is 1935. There are separate elections for players and contributors. The VC electorate is a closed group, although the process is public and anyone may comment.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 07:43 AM

--The VC election are every five "years". The next one is 1935. There are separate elections for players and contributors. The VC electorate is a closed group, although the process is public and anyone may comment.

The next VC contributors election will be held in 1936 so that we're not focusing on 3 separate elections and to ease some of the controversy as to who is a contributor and who is a player.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 10:02 AM

The next VC contributors election will be held in 1936 so that we're not focusing on 3 separate elections and to ease some of the controversy as to who is a contributor and who is a player.

That's good, I couldn't remember if we decided on changing the year. Also, was Clark Griffith elected in the last VC election (I could go back and look, but you could save me the time). If he was, I'll likely drop him from the players' ballot just as I did with Charles Comiskey.

Also, I apologize for not including a summary of the elected contributors in my opening thread. About a month ago, it seemed like we might get a sub-forum just for this project. I don't know what the status is on that, but my thinking was that with it's own sub-forum, I could create a great master thread summing everything up, including the contributors. In the meantime, would you mind just having a summary in the opening posts to the contributors elections? I fear the opening posts here are already very cluttered.

What about Ben Taylor from the Negro Leagues, retired after the 1929 season like Carey and Mays?

There's some really great Negro League players who are getting near the end of their careers, as well as some great ones that are already retired. When is this organization going to stop excluding these great players from our regular elections?

At the beginning of this project, we discussed at length how to proceed with electing Negro Leaguers (and perhaps eventually Japanese players as well). It was decided that since this project is proceeding as if we are living in the actual year and know nothing of the future, it would have been unrealistically progressive of us to consider Negro Leaguers early on. No firm date was decided, but if I'm remembering correctly, it was largely felt that post WWII would be a more realistic time, perhaps 1945 at the earliest, but more likely 1950. Such would put us in line with baseball's own progression and also make us more progressive than many other elements of society including the actual Baseball Hall of Fame which didn't elect an African-American player until 1962 when Jackie Robinson was elected and didn't elect it's second African-American player until Satchel Paige was elected in 1971. Additionally, it wasn't until Paige's 1971 election that Cooperstown even began to look back on players who played all or mostly in the Negro Leagues. So if we start looking back on Negro League players in 1950, we'll be two decades more progressive than Cooperstown was. Not that we should be patted on the back for that, but it was unfortunate element of reality that we're acknowledging.

Has the late Miller Huggins been inducted yet?

No. He was on the regular players ballot as recently as last year. He was on the ballot for 12 years but dropped due to lack of support. He will not be eligible for the next players VC election, I'm not sure about the contributors, as I can't remember the eligibility rules offhand. I suspect he'll one day be elected as a contributor.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 10:28 AM

This is who we have elected as contributors and the year they were elected:

Contributor Year Elected
Doc Adams 1925
Alex Cartwright 1925
Henry Chadwick 1925
Charlie Comiskey 1925
Jim Creighton 1925
Rube Foster 1930
William Hulbert 1925
Connie Mack 1930
A.G. Spalding 1930
Harry Wright 1925

Note that Spalding set a precedent in that he was elected as a player and then again as a contributor as per the discussions when establishing the VC rules.

Also note that Rube Foster was elected as a contributor and that he is a negro leaguer. Since contributors are elected for their contributions to the development of the game, contributors from all walks of life are eligible in the contributor's section.

Candidates who meet any one of these requirements are eligible for election as a contributor:

1. Retired from the game
2. Deceased
3. In a state of diminished health
4. Will be at over age 60 by 1936

If Huggins is meets any of those, he is eligible for the 1936 election.

This is the link to the 1930 election:

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

I do ask that you link it in your intro threads so that it doesn't have to be dug out from the trenches very time there is a question. As far as listing the contributors, I can do all that in the VC thread itself to keep your intro from getting too cluttered.

Freakshow

01-07-2009, 12:14 PM

Here's who I got for the next election:

Jimmy AustinAustin was eligible in 1928 by the age rule. He received zero votes. He should not be on the 1934 ballot.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 01:08 PM

Also note that Rube Foster was elected as a contributor and that he is a negro leaguer. Since contributors are elected for their contributions to the development of the game, contributors from all walks of life are eligible in the contributor's section.

I believe I voted for Foster, but had I been paying better attention, I probably would have wanted greater conversation on including him on the ballot at that point (though maybe there was such discussion and I just missed it). That being said, I do think it's more appropriate to include Negro Leaguers on the contributors ballot before the players ballot because the contributors has a wider purview in general. It doesn't look at just one group of people (i.e. just Major League players), it looks at anyone who contributed to development of the game in any capacity. In terms of players, I still believe that it would be unfortunately realistic to consider Negro Leaguers prior to integration.

As for the elected contributors, I'm somewhat surprised Griffith didn't make it. I think be separating the elections, we might better define individuals like Griffith. I'll keep him on the players ballot for the time being.

Austin was eligible in 1928 by the age rule. He received zero votes. He should not be on the 1934 ballot.

Good catch.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:20 PM

I believe I voted for Foster, but had I been paying better attention, I probably would have wanted greater conversation on including him on the ballot at that point (though maybe there was such discussion and I just missed it). That being said, I do think it's more appropriate to include Negro Leaguers on the contributors ballot before the players ballot because the contributors has a wider purview in general. It doesn't look at just one group of people (i.e. just Major League players), it looks at anyone who contributed to development of the game in any capacity. In terms of players, I still believe that it would be unfortunately realistic to consider Negro Leaguers prior to integration.

As for the elected contributors, I'm somewhat surprised Griffith didn't make it. I think be separating the elections, we might better define individuals like Griffith. I'll keep him on the players ballot for the time being.

Good catch.

If Foster was elected then the main ballot should be opened to Negro League players. There's no way that anybody would be elected as a contributor to something whose existence has not even been acknowledged by the association doing the electing.

There's never been a hall of fame anywhere that didn't start with players before electing contributors. If you guys made a mistake by electing Foster too early then he should either be expelled until later years, OR you have to start including the players from the leagues that he "contributed" to.

Otherwise this stance...

"""I do think it's more appropriate to include Negro Leaguers on the contributors ballot before the players ballot because the contributors has a wider purview in general. It doesn't look at just one group of people (i.e. just Major League players), it looks at anyone who contributed to development of the game in any capacity.""""

....is nothing but a copout to cover up an earlier mistake and/or this associations's lack of courage to "do the right thing" despite the fact that major league baseball won't yet.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Because the lords of major league baseball refuse to allow all men to compete is their leagues is not a legitimite reasion for us to take the same stance here with this association.

Is there any voting member of this body that does not feel that the best Negro Leaguers would be stars if they were playing alongside the white players?

Do we want to be leaders, or followers?

leecemark

01-07-2009, 01:21 PM

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:24 PM

Candidates who meet any one of these requirements are eligible for election as a contributor:

1. Retired from the game
2. Deceased
3. In a state of diminished health
4. Will be at over age 60 by 1936

If Huggins is meets any of those, he is eligible for the 1936 election.

Did you somehow already forget Miller's tragic late season death just a few short years ago (September of '29) ?

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 01:29 PM

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 01:31 PM

Did you somehow already forget Miller's tragic late season death just a few short years ago (September of '29) ?

I didn't forget anything. Read the intro post in the 1930 VC Contributor's thread to get a better sense of why he wasn't on the 1930 ballot and what my actual role is in that end of the project. ;)

Here specifically:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1378849&postcount=43

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:35 PM

--Shame about Tommy Leach. He was gaining ground there for awhile, but has slipped back this year. Under 50% in his 12th year on the ballot the odds are stacked against him. His case is a little unusual and maybe he'll fare better with the VC electorate.
--I do encourage everyone to take a hard look at him while he remains on this ballot though. He was an outstanding - best in league - at two key defensive positions, thirdbase and centerfield. He was the second or third best hitter in the Pirates championship teams of of 1901-03 (and amoung the 10 best hitters in the league at his best) and still held that distinction when they won again in 1909. Being ot as good as Honus Wagner - maybe the best player we've ever seen - and first ballot inductee Fred Clarke is not something that should be held against him.

I think you're overdoing it a bit with Leach. He only had 5 seasons where he even cracked a 120 OPS+. A very good player, sure, but not quite a hall of famer. As for your saying he was the best fielder in the league at CF and 3B, a quick look at win shares fielding leaders in seasons during his career show him as clearly a bit below Devlin at 3B and a bit below Roy Thomas and Cy Seymour in CF.

leecemark

01-07-2009, 01:37 PM

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 01:39 PM

I think you're overdoing it a bit with Leach. He only had 5 seasons where he even cracked a 120 OPS+. A very good player, sure, but not quite a hall of famer. As for your saying he was the best fielder in the league at CF and 3B, a quick look at win shares fielding leaders in seasons during his career show him as clearly a bit below Devlin at 3B and a bit below Roy Thomas and Cy Seymour in CF.

Tommy Leach is listed as an A+ in defensive win shares both as a 3B and as a CF. Roy Thomas was an A- and Cy Seymour was an A. Devlin was an A+ but calling him clearly better is a bit of a stretch. You are incorrect here.

Leach was also 2nd or 3rd best in the league several times, despite the fact that this was a league that featured Honus Wagner.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:42 PM

--Inducting Foster did open the door to Negro Leaguers ahead of schedule. We have several choices; Regard him as an anomoly and not consider other Negro Leaguers - on either ballot, Allow more Negro League contributors to be considered, but not players, Allow Negro League players on the VC ballot or Allow Negro League players on the regular ballot.
--I'd be inclined to favor considering them on the VC elections starting with 1935. I don't think we should add anyone to the main ballot who doesn't meet the 10 years MLB service/5 years retired criteria. That position isn't exactly firmly held though. I could easily be swayed and wouldn't mind being out voted even if I didn't change my position.

These guys have been discriminated against all of their lives. There's no reason that we should help continue that. They deserve to be on the main ballot just like the great white players. The Negro Leagues should be declared to be "major leagues," and with that declaration, any player who qualifies with 10 years played in the Negro Leagues, and has been retired for 5 years, should be on any future ballots.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 01:45 PM

These guys have been discriminated against all of their lives. There's no reason that we should help continue that. They deserve to be on the main ballot just like the great white players. The Negro Leagues should be declared to be "major leagues," and with that declaration, any player who qualifies with 10 years played in the Negro Leagues, and has been retired for 5 years, should be on any future ballots.

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing this happen. The only issue I can see is how we would keep track since there are no good easily accessible records for when these players retired like there are for MLB retirees.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:54 PM

Tommy Leach is listed as an A+ in defensive win shares both as a 3B and as a CF. Roy Thomas was an A- and Cy Seymour was an A. Devlin was an A+ but calling him clearly better is a bit of a stretch. You are incorrect here.

Those letter grades are for their careers. The statement made was that Leach was the best CFer in his league. If you check the league leaders in fielding win shares for each year (pages 698-699) in the Win Shares book you will see that Leach was only the top CFer in the NL in one season. He was second to Thomas in 1907, second to Solly Hofman in 1909, first in 1910 and second to Carey in 1912.

Thomas was the top fielding CFer in the NL in 1901, 1905, and 1907.

Seymour was the top fielding CFer in the NL in 1904 and 1906, anmd was second in 1903 and 1908.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 01:55 PM

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing this happen. The only issue I can see is how we would keep track since there are no good easily accessible records for when these players retired like there are for MLB retirees.

I have the years of play for all of the top Negro League players in the catalog for the "Bill James Classic Game." If the committee wants me to, I can provide the info here.

Freakshow

01-07-2009, 02:05 PM

I have the years of play for all of the top Negro League players in the catalog for the "Bill James Classic Game." If the committee wants me to, I can provide the info here.Good start. How about MLE's for everyone?

And as long as we're pursuing this, we should get MLE's for the greats from the Pacific Coast League and the American Association. Why? Because the general level of play in the Negro Major Leagues during their years of existence (1920-51) was closer to that caliber. Sure, the top NeL stars were as good as MLB stars, but the average level of play was not, from what I have learned.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 02:10 PM

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing this happen. The only issue I can see is how we would keep track since there are no good easily accessible records for when these players retired like there are for MLB retirees.

It's a big issue. I think Negro Leaguers would be at a big disadvantage if pitted against Major Leaguers on the regular ballot. We have a much better statistical frame of reference for Major Leaguers, whereas with Negro Leaguers unfortunately require a greater level of supposition. Thus I think Negro Leaguers without the requisite Major League experience, will be a VC matter, though perhaps with an expedited waiting period (and perhaps we will convene a special committee on Negro Leaguers to ensure that we properly address them).

As for the issue of Rube Foster, I wish I had been more attentive at the time. I did mean what I said before in that contributors and players can be discerned due to the much wider purview of contributors, but as SavoyBG said, it was admittedly something of a copout. Nevertheless, we discussed the issue of Negro Leaguers in general at some length when this project started, and I stand by the decision then to adhere to the reality of the time. The sad fact was that baseball at this time was segregated, we can't pretend it wasn't. I still feel that 1950 is a good time to start considering Negro Leaguers. It is after integration, thus following the actual track of the game, yet still much more progressive than Cooperstown which did not start to acknowledge Negro Leaguers until the 1970s.

As for Rube Foster, we could either 1) Except my copout rationale from earlier that his election as a contributor is more understandable given the wider purview of the contributor elections; 2) Pretend it didn't happen; 3) Treat it as an anomaly; or 4) Treat it as an unofficial election, such as a protest vote against segregation, and then automatically induct him when we officially begin to consider Negro Leaguers.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 02:21 PM

As for Rube Foster, we could either 1) Except my copout rationale from earlier that his election as a contributor is more understandable given the wider purview of the contributor elections; 2) Pretend it didn't happen; 3) Treat it as an anomaly; or 4) Treat it as an unofficial election, such as a protest vote against segregation, and then automatically induct him when we officially begin to consider Negro Leaguers.

I prefer option 5:

Call Rube Foster a true pioneer of the game. He was instrumental in developing an established league for black ball players. One doesn't need to accept or reject segregation in the game to justify Foster's pioneering role in baseball.

Edit: Pioneers have never been limited to contributions in the majors by the HOF.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 02:27 PM

I prefer option 5:

Call Rube Foster a true pioneer of the game. He was instrumental in developing an established league for black ball players. One doesn't need to accept or reject segregation in the game to justify Foster's pioneering role in baseball.

I think that falls under my first option, though without calling it a copout. That's the one I'm most in favor of as well. I think it's fair at this juncture to acknowledge his contributions towards providing African-Americans their own viable league, thereby promoting the game of baseball generally. As for the players themselves though, I just can't see us considering players as long as the league is segregated. It's an extremely sad fact, but trying to stay within time context is at the heart of this project.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 02:39 PM

Here's what I have on Negro League Stars.

CATCHER
Josh Gibson - 1930-1946
Bruce Petway - 1906-1925
Double Duty Radcliffe - 1928-1946
Louis Santop - 1909-1931

FIRST BASE
George Giles - 1927-1938
Buck Leonard - 1934-1948
Buck O'Neil - 1937-1950
Mule Suttles - 1923-1944
Ben Taylor - 1910-1929
Jim West - 1930-1947

SECOND BASE
Newt Allen - 1922-1944
Bingo DeMoss - 1910-1929
Bill Monroe - 1896-1914
George Scales - 1921-1945
Frank Warfield - 1916-1932

SHORTSTOP
Pop Lloyd - 1906-1932
Dick Lundy - 1918-1937
Dobie Moore - 1920-1926 (did not play 10 years)
Willie Wells - 1924-1948
Artie Wilson - 1944-1962

THIRD BASE
Ray Dandridge - 1933-1945
Judy Johnson - 1919-1936
Dave Malarcher - 1916-1934
Oliver Marcelle - 1918-1934
Jud Wilson - 1922-1946

LEFT FIELD
Cool Papa Bell - 1922-1946
Joe Green - 1902-1921
Vic Harris - 1923-1945
Pete Hill - 1904-1925
Fats Jenkins - 1920-1938

CENTER FIELD
Chester Brooks- 1918-1933
Oscar Charleston - 1915-1944
Alejandro Oms - 1917-1935
Spotswood poles - 1909-1923
Turkey Stearnes - 1923-1940

RIGHT FIELD
Rap Dixon - 1924-1937
Jelly Gardner - 1919-1933
Chino Smith - 1925-1931 (did not play ten years)
Cistobal Torriente - 1913-1932

RHP
Chet Brewer - 1925-1948
Raymond Brown - 1930-1945
Leon Day - 1934-1950
Martin DiHigo - 1923-1945
Rube Foster - 1902-1917
Jose Mendez - 1908-1926
Dick Redding - 1911-1931
Bullet Joe Rogan - 1920-1938
Smokey Joe Williams - 1910-1932

LHP
Dave Brown - 1920-1925 (did not play ten years)
John Donaldson - 1916-1932
Willie Foster - 1923-1937
Slim Jones - 1932-1938 (did not play ten years)
Sam Streeter - 1920-1936
Nip Winters - 1920-1933

With Satchel Paige I suggest that he becomes eligible in 1958, which is 5 years after his first retirement from the major leagues. He would easily have ten years in combined at that time between the Negro Leagues and the major leagues. And if he somehow does not get elected by 1964, he comes off the ballot when he plays in 1965 and has to wait until 1970.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 02:42 PM

Good start. How about MLE's for everyone?

And as long as we're pursuing this, we should get MLE's for the greats from the Pacific Coast League and the American Association. Why? Because the general level of play in the Negro Major Leagues during their years of existence (1920-51) was closer to that caliber. Sure, the top NeL stars were as good as MLB stars, but the average level of play was not, from what I have learned.

The average level of play in the Negro Legaues right now is likely better than the level of play was in the major leagues of the 1870s, and we don't consider those players to have been playing in a league that was on the level of the PCL or the AA.

If we do start to include the PCL and the AA then the years that certain players become eligible would change, sometimes drastically, as many great players played in those leagues for years after they were done in the major leagues.

jalbright

01-07-2009, 02:56 PM

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 02:57 PM

I think that falls under my first option, though without calling it a copout. That's the one I'm most in favor of as well. I think it's fair at this juncture to acknowledge his contributions towards providing African-Americans their own viable league, thereby promoting the game of baseball generally. As for the players themselves though, I just can't see us considering players as long as the league is segregated. It's an extremely sad fact, but trying to stay within time context is at the heart of this project.

Why would the fact that the American and National Leagues integrate (if they ever do) suddenly make Negro league players from prior years legitimite candidates for the hall of fame?

If they finally integrate in 1975, for instance, why would that suddenly make a great star like Oscar Charleston eligible for this hall of fame?

Either the top Negro League players are as good as major leaguers, or they aren't. They sure hold their own, and more, when they play exhibition games against white major leaguers. Reports are they they win more than half of those games.

The aforementioned Charleston batted .445 in 68 games that I could find box scores for in the 1925 season, playing for the Harrisburg Giants. He swatted 20 HRs in 238 at bats in those 68 games. Pehaps that league was not quite as good as the American or National Leagues were, but I've seen this player a few times, and frankly I think he's as good as any player in the white leagues right now with the possible exception of Ruth, Gehrig and Foxx and maybe Mel Ott and a coupple of others. He's playing 1B now, but was a great CFer for many years when he was younger.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 03:34 PM

Why would the fact that the American and National Leagues integrate (if they ever do) suddenly make Negro league players from prior years legitimite candidates for the hall of fame?

It doesn't change their Hall of Fame worthiness, but it's a sign of times. Again, perhaps this is an issue because you are just now joining this project, but at the very core of this project is trying to proceed year by year as if we're in that year evaluating players. Given the times, including the fact that baseball was segregated at this point it time, it is unlikely that a Hall of Fame would consider minority players at this point. In fact we know this, because the actual Hall of Fame, which started inducting players in 1936, didn't induct a minority player until 1962. Mirroring the times, it would just be unrealistically progressive at this point to consider Negro Leaguers.

No one here is arguing against the quality the best Negro League players, you don't need to convince us of that. We're saying that they wouldn't have been considered in 1933 because of the times, and they weren't considered until the 1970s really. This is essentially a history recreation project, and certain elements of history, as unfortunate as some might be, we have decided will not be ignored. Given that we're acting as if it's 1933, not 2009, it would have been unrealistic to consider Negro Leaguers. Follow?

This is ground we covered in some depth quite a while back, so I doubt you'll be illuminating anything new that hasn't already been considered. It's an unfortunate element, but after discussion, the consensus seemed to be ok with waiting until around of the time of actual integration to readdress this issue, as such would be more in line with reality (and actually still make us progressive in comparison to Cooperstown). As Mark said before, if you're going to join something mid-stream like this, and be extremely vocal about how you think things should be done, you should at the very least apprise yourself of how we've got to this point and what the underlying objectives are of the project.

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 03:46 PM

It doesn't change their Hall of Fame worthiness, but it's a sign of times. Again, perhaps this is an issue because you are just now joining this project, but at the very core of this project is trying to proceed year by year as if we're in that year evaluating players. Given the times, including the fact that baseball was segregated at this point it time, it is unlikely that a Hall of Fame would consider minority players at this point. In fact we know this, because the actual Hall of Fame, which started inducted players in 1936, didn't induct a minority player until 1962. Mirroring the times, it would just be unrealistically progressive at this point to consider Negro Leaguers.

No one here is arguing against the quality the best Negro League players, you don't need to convince us of that. We're saying that they wouldn't have been considered in 1933 because of the times, and they weren't considered until the 1970s really. This is essentially a history recreation project, and certain elements of history, as unfortunate as some might be, we have decided will not be ignored. Given that we're acting as if it's 1933, not 2009, it would have been unrealistic to consider Negro Leaguers. Follow?

It would also be very unrealistic to expect white voters to even know who Rube Foster was in 1933.

It's MUCH MORE UNREALISTIC to let voters in 1933 have access to metrics like ERA+ that did not even exist then, than it would be for an orginization to recognize blacks in 1933 as equal to whites.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 03:52 PM

I realize this is all from a 2008 perspective, but in picking a time at which we can consider Negro League players and still trying to "remain true to the times", I see no alternative to doing so.

If we're really staying within the confines of the day, 1950 is way too early IMHO:

a) there weren't a lot of African-American players yet, as most teams either didn't have any on the roster yet, or, more likely, had a limited number of slots (2-3 at most) on their rosters for those players; and

b) these were the days before Brown vs. Board, the Little Rock events hadn't happened yet, much less the whole civil-disobedience based Civil Rights movement and the 1964 and 1965 legislation derived from those protests--legislation which still took a good deal of wrangling to get passed.

IMHO, if we're true to the times, it's hard to see how we can consider Negro Leaguers before 1965, when those monumental changes had occurred and, presumably, we will have inducted Jackie Robinson--and the de facto quotas limiting the number of African-American players have at least largely disappeared.

I'm willing to go along with whatever you decide, Double X, as that was expressly part and parcel of the original plan, and I have chosen to participate in the project with that understanding. That said, we could be a little more "progressive" in our thinking in this regard and open up the doors to a VC vote in 1950 or even earlier. OTOH, I'd love to see those guys get their due and be considered with their peers, as they are in my project.

I agree with you Jim. The 1960s would probably be a more historically accurate time, and even still slightly ahead of Cooperstown (which as I said above didn't start acknowledging Negro Leaguers until the early '70s). Still, it's hard to ignore our 2009 inclinations, and I do think we have a strong progressive undercurrent and desire to not replicate the sins of the past. The fact we started this in 1901, 35 years before Cooperstown, is in itself a progressive act in comparison to reality.

So in trying to balance realistic expectations with a progressive spirit, I think 1950 seems like a good balance. I agree that it would have been unlikely at that point, but I think if the right group of people came together, it may have been possible, certainly much more possible than pre-World War II. I think with the game starting to integrate in the late 1940s, it might be natural in 1950 to start to wonder about some of the great Negro Leaguers that didn't get a shot. The 1950s in general was a very monumental period in civil rights, and while the seminal events would mostly be later in the decade, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the seeds were there in 1950. And again, in respect to baseball, given recent integration, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the right people group of people could be thinking in that way.

Also, our Hall of Fame is in Brooklyn, home of the team that ushered in integration, the Dodgers, who in 1950 featured African-American stars Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, and Don Newcombe. So having the Hall of Fame be immediately exposed to that could have been very influential on the thinking of the people running the Hall at the time.

AstrosFan

01-07-2009, 03:58 PM

Cobb
Coveleski
Groh
Leach
Speaker

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 04:10 PM

It would also be very unrealistic to expect white voters to even know who Rube Foster was in 1933.

It's MUCH MORE UNREALISTIC to let voters in 1933 have access to metrics like ERA+ that did not even exist then, than it would be for an orginization to recognize blacks in 1933 as equal to whites.

We can't perfectly recreate the times. It's impossible. We can try our best. I admit though, had I been paying better attention, I would have said something about Rube Foster, and now we have to retroactively deal with that.

As for using modern metrics, again this was a topic of great conversation when we started this. You seem to be underestimating us, thinking that we didn't take into account these things. We did. The use of modern metrics was something of a compromise, with the caveat that they be used to put players into historical context, meaning comparing players to their peers and the historical standards to that point in time. We are to ignore players and standards that would arise down the road. We're not deluding ourselves believing we can completely recreate the perspectives and values of many decades ago. It would be impossible. So the compromise is that we can use what we know of player evaluation in 2009, but put into a time context that is limited by the year of the current election. It's basically as if we are in the election year with all the knowledge of statistical evaluation that we have in 2009, but are unaware of what will happen in the game down the road. For instance, in 2009 we have no idea what baseball over the next 100 years will look like. Who will be stars and what kind of numbers they put up. So we're essentially to pretend that 1933 is the present, and thus we have no knowledge of what the next 75 years will hold for baseball, including if and when baseball will integrate. Follow?

If you have this many problems with the project, perhaps you should consider participating in another project? As many of us have mentioned now, we've done this 32 times already, and have gone over in length the most of the issues you're raising. I think this has worked out pretty well for the most part, and it's a little disappointing that this election has been monopolized by issues mostly settled long ago rather than our usual player discussions.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 05:12 PM

Back to the players, I'm surprised Ed Reulbach has managed to linger on the ballot for so many years. He received enough support this year that in all likelihood he will be on the ballot again next year for a 13th time.

I notice that Larry Gardner also manages to linger along with Baby Doll Jacobson and Ross Youngs, while Jake Daubert, after a 5 year stint on the ballot, languishes with 0 votes. It's also fitting that Mike Donlin managed only 1 vote so far on this his 15th and final year on the ballot.

jjpm74

01-07-2009, 05:32 PM

Here's a table listing all players with 5 or less votes and the number of years on the ballot who will probably be on the ballot again in 1934 as per the % and 1st ballot save rules:

Player Yrs Votes Pct

Babe Adams 3 5 17.24%
Hippo Vaughn 8 5 17.24%
George J Burns 4 4 13.79%
Del Pratt 5 4 13.79%
Jack Fournier 2 3 10.34%
Ed Konetchy 8 3 10.34%
Bob Shawkey 2 3 10.34%
Joe Wood 8 3 10.34%
Larry Gardner 5 2 6.90%
Ed Reulbach 12 2 6.90%
Baby Doll Jacobson 2 2 6.90%
Ross Youngs 3 2 6.90%
Joe Bush 1 1 3.45%

Of these players, Joe Wood has languished the most as he's gone from a benchmark of 35.71% all the way down to 10.34%. Those who support these fringe candidates, why do you continue to vote for them? It's already been established that discussion does help candidates gain votes. Maybe some of these players will gain with some discussion. Where have all the Joe Wood supporters gone? That's quite a drop off.

Of the candidates with over 5 votes, Tommy Leach has really slumped from 66.67% all the way down 48.28% and Chief bender has gone from 60% to 37%. What changed?

SavoyBG

01-07-2009, 06:18 PM

If you have this many problems with the project, perhaps you should consider participating in another project? As many of us have mentioned now, we've done this 32 times already, and have gone over in length the most of the issues you're raising. I think this has worked out pretty well for the most part, and it's a little disappointing that this election has been monopolized by issues mostly settled long ago rather than our usual player discussions.

Just like real life, segregation does not change unless people question the establishment. If not for me this problem would still be hiding in the closet, perhaps not to be dealt with until the first black player who played ten years in the white major leagues is inducted. It may not get resolved right now, but you have to start somewhere if it's gonna eventually be changed.

DoubleX

01-07-2009, 06:21 PM

Just like real life, segregation does not change unless people question the establishment. If not for me this problem would still be hiding in the closet, perhaps not to be dealt with until the first black player who played ten years in the white major leagues is inducted. It may not get resolved right now, but you have to start somewhere if it's gonna eventually be changed.

You're right, and I predict change around 1950. If you want though, in this little universe we can pretend that it was your agitating in 1933 that got the ball rolling in that direction. :)

AG2004

01-08-2009, 11:15 AM

Those letter grades are for their careers. The statement made was that Leach was the best CFer in his league. If you check the league leaders in fielding win shares for each year (pages 698-699) in the Win Shares book you will see that Leach was only the top CFer in the NL in one season. He was second to Thomas in 1907, second to Solly Hofman in 1909, first in 1910 and second to Carey in 1912.

Thomas was the top fielding CFer in the NL in 1901, 1905, and 1907.

Seymour was the top fielding CFer in the NL in 1904 and 1906, anmd was second in 1903 and 1908.

[OOC-My computer broke down a couple of days ago, and, due to medical appointments yesterday, I couldn't get down to the local library for internet access until this afternoon. Hence, no vote for 1933.]

The win shares book lists its leaders according to total win shares at the position. There were several seasons when Leach split time between CF and 3B. Since the part-timer at CF was left-handed and the part-timer at 3B was right-handed, or vice versa, Leach' ability to play two positions helped the team by enabling Pittsburgh to institute a platoon split involving two positions.

I don't have the rate stats for those seasons -- Leach may have been more effective at either 3B or CF than the actual Gold Glove winner -- but his playing half-time at both positions would have kept him from winning a Win Shares Gold Glove at either.

AG2004

01-08-2009, 11:27 AM

SavoyBG

01-08-2009, 11:45 AM

[OOC-My computer broke down a couple of days ago, and, due to medical appointments yesterday, I couldn't get down to the local library for internet access until this afternoon. Hence, no vote for 1933.]

The win shares book lists its leaders according to total win shares at the position. There were several seasons when Leach split time between CF and 3B. Since the part-timer at CF was left-handed and the part-timer at 3B was right-handed, or vice versa, Leach' ability to play two positions helped the team by enabling Pittsburgh to institute a platoon split involving two positions.

I don't have the rate stats for those seasons -- Leach may have been more effective at either 3B or CF than the actual Gold Glove winner -- but his playing half-time at both positions would have kept him from winning a Win Shares Gold Glove at either.

The only years where he really split time at 3B and CF were 1905 and 1906. He played 111 games in the OF in 1907 (33 at 3B). He went back to being a full time 3Bman in 1908, and from then on was a regular CFer for the rest of his career as a starter.

Leach was an excellent player at his peak, but he was inconsistent during his career. He was a below average offensive player in 1904 (OPS+ 98) and 1905 (OPS+ 92), and 1910 (OPS+ 92) and was terrible in 1911 (OPS+ 78). He was again below average offensively in 1912 (OPS+ 98) and again in 1915 (OPS+ 85) He did rebound in 1913 and 1914 with two good years for the Cubs, but as a 3Bman-CFer he was just not a good enough hitter to be a hall of famer.
He had some extra value because he could play two important positions with great proficiency, but that isn not enough to make him a hall of famer IMO.

His only high level (25+ win share) seasons would be....

1902 - 27 win shares
1904 - 25 win shares
1907 - 29 win shares
1908 - 31 win shares
1909 - 26 win shares
1914 - 27 win sahres

An excellent overall player, but NOT a hall of famer.

Perhaps if his down years had been better, but along with the above very good years, he also had....

1905 - 17 win shares
1906 - 19 win shares
1910 - 16 win shares
1911 - 10 win shares
1912 - 14 win shares

Maybe if he had still averaged 21 or 22 win shares in these down years, but taking his entire career into account I can't see him as valuable enough to be a hall of famer.

SavoyBG

01-08-2009, 11:52 AM

According to the Introduction of Robert Cottrell's The Best Pitcher in Baseball , there were numerous references at the time to Foster being the best-known black man in America. White sportswriters would certainly have heard of him. Since he died in 1930 -- an election year -- someone, somewhere, probably would have mentioned the idea of putting him on a ballot.

Extremely doubtful, but you're welcome to start hitting the microfilm in the library to see if you can find him mentioned for the hall of fame. I find it very hard to believe that Foster was better known than Paul Robeson or Jack Johnson in 1930.

We do know one thing for sure though. No one in 1930 ever mentioned a pitcher's ERA+ as a reason why he was a hall of famer.

Freakshow

01-08-2009, 12:01 PM

His only high level (25+ win share) seasons would be....

1902 - 27 win shares
1904 - 25 win shares
1907 - 29 win shares
1908 - 31 win shares
1909 - 26 win shares
1914 - 27 win sahres

An excellent overall player, but NOT a hall of famer.

Perhaps if his down years had been better, but along with the above very good years, he also had....

1905 - 17 win shares
1906 - 19 win shares
1910 - 16 win shares
1911 - 10 win shares
1912 - 14 win shares

Maybe if he had still averaged 21 or 22 win shares in these down years, but taking his entire career into account I can't see him as valuable enough to be a hall of famer.Scaling Leach's win shares to a 162-game schedule and rounding off to integers gives us this:

1902 - 31 win shares
1903 - 24 win shares
1904 - 26 win shares
1907 - 31 win shares
1908 - 33 win shares
1909 - 27 win shares
1913 - 25 win shares
1914 - 28 win sahres

Career total 352. Regardless of what you imagine a hall of famer to be, that record is comparable to the mid-level members of Cooperstown's Hall.

leecemark

01-08-2009, 12:03 PM

--SavoyBG, The use of modern meritics in these debates was discussed and agreed upon long before you joined this project. I ask you again to leave off with raising settled issues. If you want to participate in this project you need to accept it for what it developed into for the 32 years prior to your joining. Please try and focus on current issues and the current ballot.

DoubleX

01-08-2009, 12:05 PM

Extremely doubtful, but you're welcome to start hitting the microfilm in the library to see if you can find him mentioned for the hall of fame. I find it very hard to believe that Foster was better known than Paul Robeson or Jack Johnson in 1930.

I don't think he'll find much given that there was no actual Hall of Fame in 1930. I have to agree though, I wouldn't have thought that Rube Foster was the best known African-American in the country at the time. Nonetheless, whether he was the best known or the 50th best known, I agree with AG that I don't think it would have been implausible at all for Foster's name to have come up if there had been an election in 1930, especially given his recent death. Moreover, the concept of our VC election is not just to be a collection of writers, but rather historians of the game. In that respect, Foster's contributions towards creating the first really viable league for a whole segment of the population, would probably have been noted by a group of the game's historians in 1930. The real question to me is not whether they would have known about Foster, it's whether they could get beyond the deep racial prejudices of the time to seriously consider Foster.

EDIT: Mark is right. This time would be better spent on discussing players currently on the ballot, rather than someone elected by the VC. In this respect, let's try to focus on the Tommy Leach discussion, which is very worthwhile, IMO. Leach is pretty unique case, IMO, and thus very deserving of extended discussion.

SavoyBG

01-08-2009, 12:57 PM

Scaling Leach's win shares to a 162-game schedule and rounding off to integers gives us this:

1902 - 31 win shares
1903 - 24 win shares
1904 - 26 win shares
1907 - 31 win shares
1908 - 33 win shares
1909 - 27 win shares
1913 - 25 win shares
1914 - 28 win sahres

Career total 352. Regardless of what you imagine a hall of famer to be, that record is comparable to the mid-level members of Cooperstown's Hall.

But most of those mid-level members got those win shares in 154 (and less) game seasons that were not adjusted upward to refelect what they would have done in 162 game seasons. If you take every mid-level hall of famer and apply the same adjustment that you just did for Leach, he would again be a rung below a hall of famer. Also, most mid-level hall of famers are being elected because of their peak value. Leach had very good career value, but just pretty good peak value.

Besides, what does 162 game seasons have to do with anything? The only leagues that play more games than the current 154 game American and National League schedules are minor leagues such as the PCL. If anything Leach has an advantage over most current membners of our hall of fame as he has played almost his entire career in the era with 154 game schedules, while many players before him were playing 132 game schedules, and even much less than that in the 1870s and 1880s.

SavoyBG

01-08-2009, 01:31 PM

Here's the position players on the current ballot listed in order of "win shares per 162 games played." (Mann and Ward are not listed)

Ty Cobb - 38.55
Tris Speaker - 36.59
Ross Youngs - 27.55
Mike Donlin - 26.87
Heinie Groh - 26.19
George Burns - 25.35
Tommy Leach - 24.72
Jack Fournier - 24.46
Johnny Evers - 24.34
Bobby Veach - 23.56
Joe Tinker - 23.18
Harry Hooper - 22.53
Ed Konetchy - 22.30
Larry Gardner - 21.83
Joe Harris - 21.71
Gavvy Cravath - 21.51
Del Pratt - 21.36
Jake Daubert - 21.15
Baby Doll Jacobsen - 19.59
Roger Peckinpuagh - 19.24
Wally Pipp - 17.57
Stuffy McInnis - 17.28
Steve O'Neill - 15.53

Freakshow

01-08-2009, 01:33 PM

But most of those mid-level members got those win shares in 154 (and less) game seasons that were not adjusted upward to refelect what they would have done in 162 game seasons. If you take every mid-level hall of famer and apply the same adjustment that you just did for Leach, he would again be a rung below a hall of famer. Also, most mid-level hall of famers are being elected because of their peak value. Leach had very good career value, but just pretty good peak value. I don't buy it but it could be so. Any evidence?

Besides, what does 162 game seasons have to do with anything? I have this crystal ball, you see. It gives me quite an advantage over you folks stuck here in the 1930's.