BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1934

[DoubleX]

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.


1934 Guide
There are 40 candidates on the 1934 ballot – 25 holdovers and 15 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1929 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (15)
George H. Burns
Max Carey
Bill Doak
Wally Gerber
Hank Gowdy (Age Rule)
George Harper
Carl Mays
Lee Meadows
Johnny Mostil
Art Nehf
Ray Schalk
Jack Smith
Billy Southworth
Ken Williams
Ivey Wingo

Holdovers (25)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Babe Adams 4th 17.24% 18.75% (1931) 16.67% (1932) 17.55%
Chief Bender 13th 37.93% 60.00% (1929) 37.50% (1931) 46.93%
George J. Burns 5th 13.79% 24.00% (1930) 13.79% (1933) 19.34%
Joe Bush 2nd 3.45% 3.45% (1933) 3.45% (1933) 3.45%
Wilbur Cooper 4th 44.83% 58.33% (1932) 40.63% (1931) 47.93%
Stan Coveleski 2nd 72.41% 72.41% (1933) 72.41% (1933) 72.41%
Gavvy Cravath 10th 27.59% 37.50% (1925) 20.83% (1932) 27.66%
Johnny Evers 9th 34.48% 41.67% (1932) 28.57% (1927) 28.99%
Jack Fournier 3rd 10.34% 10.34% (1933) 8.33% (1932) 9.34%
Larry Gardner 6th 6.90% 15.63% (1931) 6.90% (1933) 10.17%
Heinie Groh 3rd 55.17% 66.67% (1932) 55.17% (1933) 60.92%
Harry Hooper 5th 20.69% 34.38% (1931) 20.69% (1933) 26.02%
Baby Doll Jacobson 3rd 6.90% 6.90% (1933) 4.17% (1932) 5.54%
Ed Konetchy 9th 10.34% 16.67% (1932) 8.00% (1929) 11.67%
Tommy Leach 13th 48.28% 66.67% (1931) 33.33% (1925) 46.95%
Rube Marquard 5th 20.69% 28.00% (1930) 20.69% (1933) 22.85%
Del Pratt 6th 13.79% 20.83% (1932) 13.79% (1933) 16.45%
Ed Reulbach 13th 6.90% 17.24% (1924) 6.90% (1933) 12.42%
Bob Shawkey 3rd 10.34% 12.50% (1932) 10.34% (1933) 11.42%
Urban Shocker 2nd 31.03% 31.03% (1933) 31.03% (1933) 31.03%
Joe Tinker 14th 20.69% 33.33% (1932) 10.71% (1922) 21.40%
Hippo Vaughn 9th 17.24% 18.52% (1928) 10.71% (1927) 14.93%
Bobby Veach 5th 34.48% 34.48% (1933) 24.00% (1930) 29.73%
Joe Wood 8th 10.34% 35.71% (1927) 10.34% (1933) 24.64%
Ross Youngs 4th 6.90% 12.50% (1931) 6.90% (1933) 9.24%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (5)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Jesse Barnes Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1932) 0% (1933) 2.09%
Jake Daubert Lack of Support 5 16.00% (1929) 0% (1933) 9.98%
Mike Donlin Eligibility Expired 15 25.93% (1919) 3.45% (1933) 13.16%
Stuffy McInnis Lack of Support 2 12.50% (1932) 3.45% (1933) 7.98%
Roger Peckinpaugh Lack of Support 2 4.17% (1932) 3.45% (1933) 3.81%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support
Joe Tinker 33.33% (1932)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (2)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Stan Coveleski 72.41% 1
Heinie Groh 55.17% 2


HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (73)
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 48 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 53 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 58 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 66 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 66 45
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909) 40
Ty Cobb 1933 96.55% 1 Center Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1905-1928 24 Living - Age 48 47
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 64 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 54 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 64 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 64 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 48 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 68 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 58 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 77 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 47 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 68 40
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 79 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 63 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 60 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 75 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 74 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 65 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 63 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
Tris Speaker 1933 100% 1 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1907-1928 22 Living - Age 46 45
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 78 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 68 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 60 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 61 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 53 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 75 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 19 Living - Age 46 44
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 87 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 58 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 87 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 67 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 (10): Pete Browning, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Jimmy Ryan, Tris Speaker, 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
1933 (2): Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker

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 (7): Frank Baker, Ty Cobb, Larry Doyle, Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee, Tris Speaker, 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) (4): Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Tris Speaker
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Detroit Tigers (AL) (2): Ty Cobb, 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, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 33
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 21
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.49%
- 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: 4.13 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 20
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 9
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 3
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Stan Coveleski - 72.41%
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Stan Coveleski - 72.41%
- 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: 25.47
- 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: 15.99 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.19
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 15
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 37
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 87
- Deceased in Past Year:

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
1933: 29

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)
1933 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86054)

[DoubleX]

I went with:

Max Carey: Decent though not great hitter, but it's made up for by his stellar defense in CF and that he was a very prolific base stealer (4th all time to this point). In terms of defense, he led NL in fielding Win Shares among OFers 6 times and finished second 3 more times, and in the top 5 a total of 12 times.

Stan Coveleski: I believe he's clearly the best pitcher on the ballot. I did some comparisons among all the pitchers on the ballot last year (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1390762&postcount=64), and I believe it paints a good picture for Coveleski (it did not include Carl Mays, who is new to the ballot this year). I can understand not wanting to elect Coveleski with Cobb and Speaker, but I would think this should be his year. We've elected everyone who finished at least one election with at least 70% of the vote, so it looks good for Coveleski to get elected at some point.

Johnny Evers: I was persuaded to vote for him a few years back. Great defense and championship pedigree, would like a little better longevity though to enhance his case.

Heinie Groh: Again, we've elected just 3 3Bmen to represent 60+ years of history. That's not right given how many we've elected everywhere else. It's time we took a moment to reconsider what we're expecting at 3B. Groh, IMO, is the best 3Bman we've had that is not in, and I think there's certainly a place for the fourth best at a position from the last 60+ years.

Tommy Leach: He was doing so well but took a big step back last year. I think he'll stand a decent chance with the VC. In the meantime though, I implore voters to consider his defensive mastery of two important defensive positions (particularly in his era), combined with good longevity and pretty decent offense for those positions in his era.

Del Pratt: I am getting closer to dropping him, but I still think he's someone worth giving extra thought to.

Bobby Veach: I think he just edges over our the line given our OF standards.

I'm still close on Cooper but can't quite pull the trigger. I'm also very close on Carl Mays. I'm sure there's a lot of sympathy out there for Mays and could easily be persuaded on him. Shocker and Vaughn are also not too far from my ballot, but suffer due to poorer longevity.

EDIT: I regret that we didn't take a moment in the last election to acknowledge the passing of Tim Keefe at age 76. He was the last living member of our original 1901 class. Our oldest living member is George Wright who is 87. A true living treasure whose career dates back to around the very beginning of the organized game. Deacon White also turns 87 this year. White, along with Paul Hines (age 79) are our longest tenured members, both part of the class of 1904. This year marks the 30th anniversary of their election.

[mwiggins]

Stan Coveleski: I believe he's clearly the best pitcher on the ballot. I did some comparisons among all the pitchers on the ballot last year (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1390762&postcount=64), and I believe it paints a good picture for Coveleski (it did not include Carl Mays, who is new to the ballot this year). I can understand not wanting to elect Coveleski with Cobb and Speaker, but I would think this should be his year. We've elected everyone who finished at least one election with at least 70% of the vote, so it looks good for Coveleski to get elected at some point.



And let's not forget how dominant Coveleski was back in the 1920 Series against Brooklyn. 3 complete game victories in which he allowed on only 2 runs in total.

Stan Coveleski 1920 WS: 27 IP, 15 H, 2 ER, 2 R, 2 BB, 8 K, 0.67 ERA

[jalbright]

Max Carey
Wilbur Cooper
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Carl Mays

[Cowtipper]

George J. Burns
Stan Coveleski
Gavvy Cravath
Carl Mays
Urban Shocker
Hippo Vaughn
Bobby Veach

[mwiggins]

Re: Max Carey - Has there been a better defensive CF not named Tris Speaker? Has there been a better baserunner/stealer not named Ty Cobb? Add to that a better than average hitter who draws a lot of walks (top 12 in BB's 12 times, led NL twice) without the advantage of being a slugger who gets pitched around. And led the NL in steals 10 times, and had extremely good SB%'s in the years we have data for.

[Freakshow]

Cobb and Speaker were elected. They were replaced by newbies Carey and Mays.

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

[DoubleX]

Re: Max Carey - Has there been a better defensive CF not named Tris Speaker? Has there been a better baserunner/stealer not named Ty Cobb? Add to that a better than average hitter who draws a lot of walks (top 12 in BB's 12 times, led NL twice) without the advantage of being a slugger who gets pitched around. And led the NL in steals 10 times, and had extremely good SB%'s in the years we have data for.

I'm surprised Carey isn't doing better at this point. It's very early in this election, but I thought he'd give a good run at being elected. He might require some discussion.

I'm somewhat concerned that we might not elect anyone this year. Coveleski has a good shot, but who knows.

Next year we have a pretty strong new group. Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, and George Sisler are the headliners, plus Dave Bancroft, Bob Meusel, and Cy Williams. Bancroft is someone I've been looking forward to because I think an argument could be made that he meets our SS standards, but I don't expect garner much support.

[leecemark]

--Added two newly eligibles, Max Carey and Ray Schalk. Carey was a great defender and baserunner. Also a solid hitter over a long career. His on base abilities, coupled with his base running made him one of the best leadoff men in history. Schalk's bat is not of Hall Of Fame caliber, but his defense definately was. That together with his unprecedented durability and longevity behind the plate got him on my ballot.
--Top returnees are Stan Covleski, Henie Groh and Tommy Leach. Wilbur Cooper also has my strong endorsement. Rounding out the ballot; Jack Fournier, Johnny Evers, Del Pratt, George J Burns, Gavy Craveth, Bobby Veach, Harry Hooper, Hippo Vaughn and Urban Shocker.

[Cowtipper]

You know, when you factor in defense Ed Konetchy is a lot closer to HOF worthiness than you may think. In fact, I'll probably be voting for him in the next election.

[Paul Wendt]

And let's not forget how dominant Coveleski was back in the 1920 Series against Brooklyn. 3 complete game victories in which he allowed on only 2 runs in total.

Stan Coveleski 1920 WS: 27 IP, 15 H, 2 ER, 2 R, 2 BB, 8 K, 0.67 ERA

But he was no more dominating than the immortal brushback artist Walter Mails!
"Duster" Mails 1920 WS: 15.2 IP, 6 H, 0 ER, 0 R, 6 BB, 6 SO, 0.00 ERA

Mails pitched 6-1/3 shutout inns in relief of Ray Caldwell, game three (Indians lose 2-1 and trail 2-1), then a complete 3-hitter, game six (Indians win 1-0, lead 4-2). The other ace pitcher Jim Bagby was a loser 0-3 then a winner 8-1 in games two and five. In seven games Brooklyn scored 1321100 = 8 runs, including 6 earned (1211100).

P.S. On the other side Sherry Smith coughed up 1 run each in two complete games for Brooklyn. Grimes pitched games 2, 5, and 7 with scores 3-0, 1-8, 0-3. Marquard, Mamaux, and Cadore in different order pitched games one and four, scores 1-3 and 1-5.

[KCGHOST]

Carey
Coveleski
Shocker

[Paul Wendt]

There are 14 pitchers on our ballot this year. They made their major league debuts 1903 to 1916, Chief Bender to Urban Shocker, and their finales 1917 (Ed Reulbach) to 1929. Shocker pitched two innings in 1928, on Memorial Day, and died that year. In contrast Vaughn left the majors with arm injuries in 1921 but he is still pitching somewhere, I suppose.

The measures displayed here support Urban Shocker and Stan Coveleski for the hall of fame and dismiss probably five others. That leaves half the field to be judged partly by other considerations perhaps including other statistics. Shocker and Coveleski stand out; any of the others may need multiple considerations in his favor.

First rank the 14 pitchers by DERA* which is one measure of net pitching-batting rate. Half of the 14 pitched more than 3000 innings (bold), led by Cooper 3480 and Marquard 3307. Adams and Shawkey (grey) topped 2900 major league innings and the others worked more than 2600.

DERA*
122.15 Shocker U
120.76 Coveleski S

114.23 Vaughn J
113.90 Bender C
112.97 Adams B
111.68 Cooper W
109.59 Mays C
109.48 Shawkey B
108.07 Reulbach E

102.33 Nehf A
101.99 Bush J
101.27 Marquard R
101.26 Meadows L
100.61 Doak B


Now rank the same lot by ERA*, a net pitching-batting rate based on official earned runs as the pitching measure. There are four discernible quality groups. The first column gives career innings.

inns ; ERA*
2682 125.55 Shocker U
3021 124.20 Mays C
3082 123.72 Coveleski S

2632 119.93 Reulbach E
2730 118.80 Vaughn J
3480 118.03 Cooper W
2995 117.49 Adams B

3017 113.96 Bender C
2937 112.72 Shawkey B

2708 106.49 Nehf A
3161 104.23 Meadows L
2783 102.63 Doak B
3087 101.64 Bush J
3307 100.60 Marquard R

Differences between the two rank-orders reflect differences among the pitchers in team fielding support as estimated by Clay Davenport or scored by official unearned runs. In particular official scoring gives great credit to Carl Mays and Ed Reulbach whereas Davenport estimates that they enjoyed super team fielding support (relative to official scoring).

Wilbur Cooper is next after Mays and Reulbach; Marquard, Bush, and Bender are closest to the other end of the spectrum; beside the differences of judgment regarding Mays and Reulbach they are barely worth mentioning.

--
By the way Carl Mays worked about 1/3 of his career games in relief. At the other extreme Stan Coveleski worked about 1/7 of his games in relief. That is a narrow range; one way or another "all" good pitchers work a lot of games in relief before they are done.

[Paul Wendt]

dupli-post

[henrich]

My 15
Babe adams
chief bender
joe bush
max carey
stan coveleski
johnny evers
larry gardner
heinie groh
harry hooper
tommy leach
rube marquard
carl mays
ed reulbach
bob shawkey
hippo vaughn

[mwiggins]

Max Carey
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Ross Youngs

[jjpm74]

Urban Shocker compares very favorably to Stan Coveleski. I'm not sure why so many are voting for Coveleski but not Shocker.

It is nice to see Carey picking up some momentum. He should be a no brainer given who we have elected from the outfield to this point.

[henrich]

Carey and Coveleski score over 10,000 for me. Shocker is at 8900 or so. I like him but he's just below the mark for me. If we elect a few closer to him than I could justify that vote.

[bambambaseball]

Carey and Coveleski score over 10,000 for me. Shocker is at 8900 or so. I like him but he's just below the mark for me. If we elect a few closer to him than I could justify that vote.

How does Shawkey do for you? You voted for him but not Shocker which is surprising. Also, how about Ed Reulbach? You also voted for him. I like both of them, but Urban Shocker was a much more dominant pitcher.

[Cowtipper]

How does Shawkey do for you? You voted for him but not Shocker which is surprising. Also, how about Ed Reulbach? You also voted for him. I like both of them, but Urban Shocker was a much more dominant pitcher.

Even though I voted for him a few times, I think Reulbach is no more Hall of Fame worthy than Red Marquard. In fact, I rank Reulbach just slightly behind Marquard.

[DoubleX]

Urban Shocker compares very favorably to Stan Coveleski. I'm not sure why so many are voting for Coveleski but not Shocker.

There are superficial things like:

- Coveleski pitched more innings. Even if it's just 400 more, 3000+ looks a lot better to some people than 2600+.

- Coveleski had about 30 more wins, and like the IP, I think Coveleski' 200+ wins looks better to some people than Shocker's 180+.

- Coveleski has a 3 point lead in OPS+ despite pitching more innings.

In some more intricate categories, Coveleski generally has the edge as well:

Career Win Shares
Coveleski: 245
Shocker: 225

Total of Top 3 Win Share Seasons (Peak Season in Parentheses)
Coveleski: 90 (32 Peak)
Shocker: 84 (30 Peak)

Total of Top 5 Win Share Seasons
Coveleski: 142
Shocker: 128

Number of 20 or More Win Share Seasons
Coveleski: 7
Shocker: 5 (plus 2 more at 19)

Black Ink Score
Coveleski: 22
Shocker: 15

Gray Ink Score
Coveleski: 193
Shocker: 179

Average of Top 5 ERA+ Seasons
Coveleski: 153 (279 Avg. IP)
Shocker: 134 (280 Avg. IP)

Number of Seasons with at Least 150 ERA+ (Career High in Parentheses)
Coveleski: 3 (164 Peak)
Shocker: 0 (144 Peak)

Number of Seasons with at Least 125 ERA+
Coveleski: 8
Shocker: 4

Number of Top 2 ERA+ Finishes (League Leading in Parentheses)
Coveleski: 5 (2 League Leading)
Shocker: 0

Number of Top 5 ERA+ Finishes
Coveleski: 5
Shocker: 2

Number of Top 10 ERA+ Finishes
Coveleski: 8
Shocker: 6

Number of Top 2 IP Finishes (League Leading in Parentheses
Shocker: 1
Coveleski: 0

Number of Top 5 IP Finishes
Coveleski: 5
Socker: 3

Number of Top 10 IP Finishes
Coveleski: 8
Shocker: 6

On the whole, I think Shocker has a pretty decent case, but I think Coveleski is a decided notch ahead.

[jjpm74]

That's a good comparison. DERA has Shocker higher than Coveleski. Otherwise, it looks like Coveleski edges out Shocker. The question is, by how much and does he fall short of our standards?

Coveleski isn't a stretch given our standards. Is Shocker? Cooper? It looks like collectively, the standards for pitchers aren't quite as cut and dry as it has become for outfielders, catchers and middle infielders. We also seem to be struggling with corner infielders. Groh shouldn't be struggling this much for election. Leach is a hard case, but he too seems to fit well within our general guidelines.

[SavoyBG]

I went for Carey, Coveleski and Mays.

I'm surprised that Mays is getting such little support so far. At 208-126 he's got one of the top winning percentages in history at .623, with a career ERA of 2.92 (ERA+ 119) in over 3,000 innings, and a member of 6 pennant winning teams.

I suspect that some of you are holding that freak accident from 1920 against poor Carl. He''s got 256 career win shares, which are more than Waddell, Coveleksi, Shocker or Shawkey, and just about as many as Walsh and McGinnity. He was an outstanding hitter for a pitcher with a career batting average of .268 with 21 triples and an OPS+ of 82.

Great fielder too, with 6 different seasons where he had over 100 assists. He did very well in the world series too, posting a 2.35 ERA in over 57 innings pitched.

That new kid on the ballot, Billy Southworth. Not a great player, but he's got a real good head for the game. I predict he'll make a very good manager some day if he is so inclined to try his hand.

PS - Ken Williams is messed up on the poll. It says that he retired in 1919 rather than 1929.

[leecemark]

--The great winning percentage and playing on 6 pennant winners might be connected in some way;). I don't hold his killing Chapman against him. It was an accident - although Mays did have a bit of a reputation as a head hunter prior to the incident. Its his other negative intangibles that drag him down from a solid gray area guy to a solid no for me. Mays walked out on the Red Sox, leading to his trade to the Yankees. Then with the Yankess Miller Huggins was convinced (although it was never proven) that Mays threw at least one World Series game, leading to his sale to the Reds.

[SavoyBG]

Heinie Groh: Again, we've elected just 3 3Bmen to represent 60+ years of history. That's not right given how many we've elected everywhere else. It's time we took a moment to reconsider what we're expecting at 3B. Groh, IMO, is the best 3Bman we've had that is not in, and I think there's certainly a place for the fourth best at a position from the last 60+ years.


I suppose that Mugsy McGraw did not get elected as a 3Bman due to a short career, but Another great third sacker who might deserve a look from the VC is Long Levi Meyerle, who along with hall of famer Lipman Pike was the leading slugger in the Association. The third guy who may have been missed is Denny Lyons. He averaged 27.31 win shares per every 162 games played, which is better even than Jimmy Collins (25.59). If Lyons had played in this era of 154 game seasons his career total of just 189 win shares would be up around 225. I think he was a better player than Ezra Sutton, although Ezra did play much longer.

There's also George Davis, who we did elect, and who played over 500 games at 3B. Those games can't be ignored just because he played more games at another position. There's also Deacon White, who is listed as a catcher but actually played way more games at 3B than he did behind the plate. Anson was a 3Bman in his early days too. The lack of 3Bman so far is just as much a quirk of sorts for these reasons. There are some pretty good \3Bman who are playing currently (Traynor, Hack, Martin, Dykes, Travis) inclding this rookie Clift on the Browns and the rookie infielder Rolfe on the Yankees who could end up being a full time 3Bman eventually.

[SavoyBG]

Re: Max Carey - Has there been a better defensive CF not named Tris Speaker? Has there been a better baserunner/stealer not named Ty Cobb? Add to that a better than average hitter who draws a lot of walks (top 12 in BB's 12 times, led NL twice) without the advantage of being a slugger who gets pitched around. And led the NL in steals 10 times, and had extremely good SB%'s in the years we have data for.


Carey was clearly a better base stealer than Cobb and may have been a better all around baserunner too. His SB percentages piss all over the percentages that we have for Cobb. They both attempted a steal almost exacatly the same percenatge of the times that they were on first base (about 31% of the time), but Carey was succesful on those attempts a much better percenatge of the time than Cobb was.

When Carey reached base at either first or second he scored a run .388 of the time, Cobb was .381.

[SavoyBG]

Urban Shocker compares very favorably to Stan Coveleski. I'm not sure why so many are voting for Coveleski but not Shocker.



Shocker compares to Coveleski well in rate stats, but once you factor in Shocker's lack of longevity (only 317 starts and less than 2700 innings), he drops down a bit. Yes, I realize that he died tragically at the age of 36, but he had already been released before he took sick.

Shocker had just 225 win shares, Covelski had 245 and was a huge world series hero too.

Shocker is a real borderline case. Might have helped if hadn't gotten lit up in his only two world series appearances. Huggis did not even give him a start in the 1927 sweep of the Pirates, instead going with his top relief pitcher, Wilcy moore, to start game four.

Ironic that neither Urban or Miller even made it to 1930.

[DoubleX]

Coveleski isn't a stretch given our standards. Is Shocker? Cooper? It looks like collectively, the standards for pitchers aren't quite as cut and dry as it has become for outfielders, catchers and middle infielders. We also seem to be struggling with corner infielders. Groh shouldn't be struggling this much for election. Leach is a hard case, but he too seems to fit well within our general guidelines.

I don't think Coveleski is a stretch at all, and I think you're right that our pitching standards are somewhat ambiguous. I think some of that has to do with the rapidly changing nature of the game. Coveleski may look more "modern" than the other pitchers we've elected.

We are definitely struggling with the corner IF positions, though there a number of great 1Bman currently playing, so that might just be a generational thing. 3B though is definitely more of an issue. Just 3 players in 60+ years indicates that we need to reevaluate our standards at 3B, IMO. A good discussion on Groh might help both his case and the position in general. Leach is a very unique case and that's why I think it's hard for some to get on board with him. I think he stands a decent shot with the VC though.

[SavoyBG]

We are definitely struggling with the corner IF positions, though there a number of great 1Bman currently playing, so that might just be a generational thing. 3B though is definitely more of an issue. Just 3 players in 60+ years indicates that we need to reevaluate our standards at 3B, IMO.

I fail to see why their should be some sort of equal representation at each position. It's just as likely, if not more likely, that the lack of 3Bman who have been inducted is merely a function of randomness rather than any indication of us needing to reevaluate anything. It could also actually be a reflection of the game itself. Perhaps it's because of a lack of LH hitters who play the position. Think about it. In order to play 3B you need to throw righthanded, and most most people who throw right handed also bat right handed. I feel that LH hitters have an advantage in the game. That is the biggest reason why 1Bman are much better hitters, on average, than 3Bman. It's not because defense is not important at 1B. Defense is certainly very important at 1B, and a great 1Bman like Chase or Tenney can save his infielders dozens of errors in the course of a season.

The main reason why outfielders and firstbasemen are such better hitters, on average, than infielders, is because LH throwers can not play the infield, and almost every LH thrower also bats LHed, which gives them an advantage since there are so many RH pitchers.

Some people think that it's only because of fielding ability that outfielders and 1Bman hit so much more than infielders, but it's at least as much because of LH throwers not being able to play the infield.

I for one would certainly not be in favor of inducting a 3Bman who was not as great as a player at another position who we did not induct.

[jjpm74]

I fail to see why their should be some sort of equal representation at each position. It's just as likely, if not more likely, that the lack of 3Bman who have been inducted is merely a function of randomness rather than any indication of us needing to reevaluate anything. It could also actually be a reflection of the game itself. Perhaps it's because of a lack of LH hitters who play the position. Think about it. In order to play 3B you need to throw righthanded, and most most people who throw right handed also bat right handed. I feel that LH hitters have an advantage in the game. That is the biggest reason why 1Bman are much better hitters, on average, than 3Bman. It's not because defense is not important at 1B. Defense is certainly very important at 1B, and a great 1Bman like Chase or Tenney can save his infielders dozens of errors in the course of a season.

The main reason why outfielders and firstbasemen are such better hitters, on average, than infielders, is because LH throwers can not play the infield, and almost every LH thrower also bats LHed, which gives them an advantage since there are so many RH pitchers.

Some people think that it's only because of fielding ability that outfielders and 1Bman hit so much more than infielders, but it's at least as much because of LH throwers not being able to play the infield.

I for one would certainly not be in favor of inducting a 3Bman who was not as great as a player at another position who we did not induct.

Are you here to contribute anything or just to shoot down every argument? So far, you have done nothing but complain about the standards of this project, criticize the choices made, and voted against every position player who is not an outfielder or pitcher. You clearly do not like the standards set in this project, and several participants have nicely explained to you why the project is where it is, so why do you continue to criticize every argument/statement/comment that does not favor your small hall ideal? The standards will not all of a sudden change after 33 elections just because someone has made it their mission to force an ideal that is shared by a very small minority on everyone.

[SavoyBG]

Are you here to contribute anything or just to shoot down every argument? So far, you have done nothing but complain about the standards of this project, criticize the choices made, and voted against every position player who is not Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker. What exactly is your purpose here? You clearly do not like the standards set in this project, so why do you continue to criticize every argument/statement/comment that does not favor your small hall ideal?

First off, I have not voted against every position player other than Cobb and Speaker. I voted for one who probably will not even get in this year, Max Carey.

I also don't see why me arguing against lowering standards for 3Bman is "not contributing anything." Another voter proposed that we may need to reevaluate the standards at 3B, and I disagreed, and gave some reasons why. The other members are free to accept my argument or reject it.

The facts are that the diffferent standards in hitting at each position have at least as much to do with players who throw left handed not being able to play 2B, SS or 3B as they do with great hitters who can't field. If someone like Keith Hernadez had been a RH thrower with the same fielding ability he probably would have been an easy hall of famer hitting the way he did as a 2B, SS or 3Bman.

There are plenty of things here that I don't disagree with. Would you like me to make a bunch of "I agree with you" posts?

[jjpm74]

The facts are that the diffferent standards in hitting at each position have at least as much to do with players who throw left handed not being able to play 2B, SS or 3B as they do with great hitters who can't field. If someone like Keith hernadez had been a RH thrower with the same fielding ability he probably would have been an easy hall of famer hitting the way he did as a 2B, SS or 3Bman.

You have answered my question right here. Statements like these are contrary to the spirit of this project and do little more than derail constructive discussions about the relevant candidates. It's bad enough this line of logic which is contrary to the rules of this project already buried the 1933 election. Now you're continuing into the 1934 election. If you don't want to play by the rules, please find a different project to participate in that is more relevant for you.

[SavoyBG]

We are definitely struggling with the corner IF positions, though there a number of great 1Bman currently playing, so that might just be a generational thing. 3B though is definitely more of an issue. Just 3 players in 60+ years indicates that we need to reevaluate our standards at 3B, IMO. A good discussion on Groh might help both his case and the position in general.

I'm gonna give Groh another long look.

Win shares - 271 - he's on the fringe at the bottom of career value for a hall of fame position player, just 2 win shares behind Jimmy Collins though.

Win shares per 162 - 26.19 - An excellent figure that is better than Jimmy Collins (25.59) or Leach (24.72).

Win shares peak - best 3 years - 37, 30, 28 - clearly better than Leach and better than Collins here too.

Win shares peak - best 5 consecutive years - 147 - An outstanding total that puts Collins (129) and Leach (122) away.

Groh also had a super low error rate and is easily the career leader in fielding percentage at 3B at .967. Nobody else is even close. He never made more than 18 errors in a season at 3B, which is incredible considering that Jimmy Collins made over 40 errors in a season several times and even made 50 errors one year. Leach made 60 or more errors at 3B in two different seasons.

POST SEASON
Considering that half of the pitchers were trying to let him hit the ball in the 1919 series, Groh did very badly (5 for 29) and he also didn't do well in 1923 (4 for 22) but he was the star of the 1922 series (9 for 19 with 4 runs scored).

For what it's worth, TPR has Groh at 30.4, which is low end hall of fame level for their system. Collins is only at 23.0 and Leach is really low in their sytem, at 12.0. TPR ranks Groh as the best player in the NL in 1916 and 1918. That 30.0 in TPR makes Groh almost a top 20 position player of all time to this point. I think he's like # 22, and is just a slight bit below Baker for the top 3Bman of all time.

I had forgotten about Groh's incredible error numbers. There is no player in the history of the game to this point who was less error prone for his position than Groh. At 3B Groh fielded .967, Collins fielded .929 and Leach fielded .909. THat's an astounding difference.

I think maybe I was too hasty in not voting for him. Too late for this year, but I think next year he'll be on my ballot. I think he's clearly a better player than Leach, who was too inconsistent from year to year.

[Paul Wendt]

That's a good comparison. DERA has Shocker higher than Coveleski. Otherwise, it looks like Coveleski edges out Shocker.
Coveleski leads Shocker by about the same margin according to DERA+ or ERA+ (indexes of pitching only), three points. Shocker leads Coveleski by about the same margin according to DERA* or ERA* (net pitching-batting), short of two points. Shocker was a good batter and Coveleski a very weak one, worth about +1.5 points and -3 points on the indexes.

By DERA(+)(*) no other pitcher on the ballot is in the same league. Vaughn trails by five(+) or six(*) points. By ERA+ only, Reulbach is in the same class as Coveleski and Shocker. By ERA* only, Mays is in the same class. Mays was a great batter, worth about +4 on the indexes.

It looks like collectively, the standards for pitchers aren't quite as cut and dry as it has become for outfielders, catchers and middle infielders.
Has any of this become straightforward? I have missed paying close attention for about five years so I'll say no more.

[DoubleX]

I fail to see why their should be some sort of equal representation at each position. It's just as likely, if not more likely, that the lack of 3Bman who have been inducted is merely a function of randomness rather than any indication of us needing to reevaluate anything. It could also actually be a reflection of the game itself. Perhaps it's because of a lack of LH hitters who play the position. Think about it. In order to play 3B you need to throw righthanded, and most most people who throw right handed also bat right handed. I feel that LH hitters have an advantage in the game. That is the biggest reason why 1Bman are much better hitters, on average, than 3Bman. It's not because defense is not important at 1B. Defense is certainly very important at 1B, and a great 1Bman like Chase or Tenney can save his infielders dozens of errors in the course of a season.

The main reason why outfielders and firstbasemen are such better hitters, on average, than infielders, is because LH throwers can not play the infield, and almost every LH thrower also bats LHed, which gives them an advantage since there are so many RH pitchers.

Some people think that it's only because of fielding ability that outfielders and 1Bman hit so much more than infielders, but it's at least as much because of LH throwers not being able to play the infield.

I for one would certainly not be in favor of inducting a 3Bman who was not as great as a player at another position who we did not induct.

I'm not arguing in the least that we should have equal representation at each position. You're right that from generation to generation, the amount of Hall of Fame talent will fluctuate from position to position. For example, we had a discussion a few elections ago about a possible surplus of very talented shortstops during the 1890-1905 period, while during the last 15 years or so there has been a relative dearth. Things do fluctuate. However, in respect to 3B, three players over a 60+ year period seems kind of scant. We're looking at the games entire history to this point, so it's kind of hard to believe that so few Hall of Famesque 3Bman have played thus far. That's why I wonder if perhaps we need to reassess our expectations for the position. For instance, the theory you mentioned that offense at 3B might be lower due to a paucity of left-handed hitters, shouldn't be held against the position, but an element to be factored into our assessment of 3B, in that perhaps we should temper our expectations given that knowledge. We shouldn't be comparing 3Bmen to 1Bmen and corner OFers, but to other 3Bmen, and I think we've been struggling to define our standards at 3B. The fact that someone could play 3B and hit at a high level relative to 3Bmen, such as Groh, should be to that players credit, because there is obviously a much greater premium for that kind of player than say a good hitting 1Bman.

[SavoyBG]

I'm not arguing in the least that we should have equal representation at each position. You're right that from generation to generation, the amount of Hall of Fame talent will fluctuate from position to position. For example, we had a discussion a few elections ago about a possible surplus of very talented shortstops during the 1890-1905 period, while during the last 15 years or so there has been a relative dearth. Things do fluctuate. However, in respect to 3B, three players over a 60+ year period seems kind of scant. We're looking at the games entire history to this point, so it's kind of hard to believe that so few Hall of Famesque 3Bman have played thus far. That's why I wonder if perhaps we need to reassess our expectations for the position. For instance, the theory you mentioned that offense at 3B might be lower due to a paucity of left-handed hitters, shouldn't be held against the position, but an element to be factored into our assessment of 3B, in that perhaps we should temper our expectations given that knowledge. We shouldn't be comparing 3Bmen to 1Bmen and corner OFers, but to other 3Bmen, and I think we've been struggling to define our standards at 3B. The fact that someone could play 3B and hit at a high level relative to 3Bmen, such as Groh, should be to that players credit, because there is obviously a much greater premium for that kind of player than say a good hitting 1Bman.

Despite the flaws of TPR, one of things it did was to compare players directly against the league average player AT THAT POSITION, which might be why Groh comes out so much better in TPR than in win shares. The positional adjustment of TPR was a bult in way of letting us know what the value of that "premium" may be.

Don't forget also that if Deacon White was listed as a 3Bman rather than a catcher, all of a sudden we'd have 33% more 3Bman in the hall, and 4 players there, which would not be a very low total at this point.

[SavoyBG]

He led the NL in double plays six times and in fielding percentage five times, both records, and in putouts three times; his .983 fielding average in 1924 is a major league record. He set major league records for career fielding average (.967) and double plays (278), and upon retiring ranked third in NL history in games (1299) and assists (2554) and fourth in putouts (1456) and total chances (4146) at third base.

He was the National League's top third baseman in the late 1910s and early 1920s, and captained championship teams with the 1919 Reds and 1922 Giants.

He made his debut as a second baseman with the Giants in 1912, playing for John McGraw and with star pitcher Christy Mathewson. At 5 feet 8 inches and 158 pounds, he appeared younger than his 23 years; in his first major league at bat, umpire Bill Klem questioned whether McGraw had mistakenly sent a batboy to the plate, but Groh came through with a base hit.

On July 5, 1915, he hit for the cycle against the Chicago Cubs, becoming the only player to do so between 1913 and 1917; no Red has hit for the cycle since then.

[SavoyBG]

The players I voted for this time:

Carey, Coveleski and Mays:

[jalbright]

I know this isn't 1934-oriented, but I think our reluctance to vote in many earlier 3B is a product of our 2009 image of what a 3B HOFer should be--which has been formed by guys like Schmidt, Mathews, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez (if he's a 3B instead of a SS), Killebrew, Brett, Molitor, Brooks Robinson, Boggs and Tony Perez. Maybe some won't consider some of these guys 3B, but of this group, only Brooks Robinson has an OPS+ below 122. Now Groh is "only" at 119, so I don't know that he should clearly be on the "under" side of the HOF line, but he's closer, to be sure--but his 119 OPS+ is not what folks are used to seeing in the traditional stats, because he played so much in the deadball era. Not a lot of early 3B were really very close to as capable offensively as Groh, especially if one throws out short career guys like McGraw--throw in the difficulty some folks have in dealing with deadball hitting stats because they're tied to the traditional numbers, and you've explained much of the generalized lack of votes for early 3B.

[PVNICK]

Bender
Coveleski
Evers
Groh
Leach
Shocker

I made up for overlooking Covelski last time. Vaughn I am close on, Cooper is a liitle behind that with a lower but slightly longer peak or prime (9 seasons - 7 seasons). Mays is in that same general category but a prime from @ 1916-1921 followed up by a few good years in the NL mixed in with some others. Babe Adams was a control specialist the likes of which we may never see again, and had that magnificent 1909 WS where he won 3 games giving up 4 ER, but overall just had too many less than full seasons.

Burns is close but not there. As a leadoff hitter he's superb. He led the league in runs 5x, SB 2x (and BB 5x + OBP 1x). But the career seems a bit short @ 11 full seasons and 7241 AB (8251 PA) and he was a LF. Veach was an RBI version of Burns, I guess, who certainly was not hurt by batting in that high powered Detoit line-up with Cobb, Bush, Crawford and later Heilmann (presumably) batting in front of him.

Pratt is borderline. He was the second best 2B behind Collins with St Louis but tailed off after going to NY. Without being a plus fielder I think 4-5 years as the best 2B in your league after Colllins is not quite enough.

[mwiggins]

I know this isn't 1934-oriented, but I think our reluctance to vote in many earlier 3B is a product of our 2009 image of what a 3B HOFer should be--which has been formed by guys like Schmidt, Mathews, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez (if he's a 3B instead of a SS), Killebrew, Brett, Molitor, Brooks Robinson, Boggs and Tony Perez. Maybe some won't consider some of these guys 3B, but of this group, only Brooks Robinson has an OPS+ below 122. Now Groh is "only" at 119, so I don't know that he should clearly be on the "under" side of the HOF line, but he's closer, to be sure--but his 119 OPS+ is not what folks are used to seeing in the traditional stats, because he played so much in the deadball era. Not a lot of early 3B were really very close to as capable offensively as Groh, especially if one throws out short career guys like McGraw--throw in the difficulty some folks have in dealing with deadball hitting stats because they're tied to the traditional numbers, and you've explained much of the generalized lack of votes for early 3B.

I would totally agree with that. Groh was among the very best offensive players in the NL for a 5 or 6 year stretch, at a premium defensive position. He was a better hitter than Collins, who we've already inducted. And while he didn't have the guady batting averages that Traynor over in Pittsburgh has posted in recent years, Groh was clearly a better all-around hitter.

Heck, we've elected OF's (Jimmy Ryan and Hugh Duffy) who were really not any better than Groh with the bat. You'd think if a 122 OPS+ and 20.0 Batting Wins over 7827 PA's as a CF is good enough for the Hall, then a 119 OPS+ and 19.6 Batting Wins over 7035 PA's would be good enough for a third basemen. A 119 OPS+ from a third basemen is more valuable than a 122 OPS+ from a CF.

Don't get me wrong, Groh would occupy a spot on the outer edge of the Hall. But I think a third basemen who gave you offensive production that nearly matched what we consider HoF level for outfielders, that's a pretty special and valueable player.

[jalbright]

Doing a little more research, the problem with 3B may be even simpler than I thought. Using a database, I figured out how many folks had at least 7000 PA from 1876-1935 (the database doesn't include info before 1876). There were 92 such players. Given that they're all going to be hitters, and there's 8 spots, a relatively even distribution would indicate there should be 11 or 12 guys at each spot. Guys who played third base more than any other spot had seven--and two, Pie Traynor and Jimmy Dykes, were still active. The other five: Lave Cross, Arlie Latham, Larry Gardner, Jimmy Collins and Heinie Groh. We've taken guys with less than 7000 PA, to be sure, but longevity is a legitimate indicator of greatness--and, for whatever reasons, third basemen of those days didn't have it. Furthermore, of the five retirees with over 7000 PA, Groh is the only one with an OPS+ of over 115, at 119. I think it is unreasonable based on this to expect there will be a relatively even distribution of 3B in our picks up to 1935.

[jjpm74]

We've taken guys with less than 7000 PA, to be sure, but longevity is a legitimate indicator of greatness--and, for whatever reasons, third basemen of those days didn't have it.

What might help us is if anyone has an explanation as to why 3B was a position where regulars at the position lacked longevity for so long. Was 3B the DH slot of the deadball era? Was it a defensively demanding position? IIRC, looking at this through 2009 eyes, there are no A+ level defenders from this position for an entire era according to the BJ WS Book and this position was more fragmented and separated out in his book than other positions. Was it that many people who played 3B and were good with the glove were more valuable at another position?

[mwiggins]

I wonder if the lack of 3B with "long" careers during that time has to do with them being usually primarily on the field for their defense, which would naturally decline faster than hitting? Or was it simply the more talented players, the players more likely to be able to remain a good player well into their career, would generally be in a position like CF or SS or pitching?

[Paul Wendt]

Partly it may be that mainly-shortstops as a group spend time at thirdbase. For example, Long played shortstop only; Davis, Dahlen, Wallace, and Wagner played third. (ooc: Ripken and A-Rod).

Is the same true of mainly-CFs and the corner outfields? If it were equally true of all three secondary positions 3B, LF, and RF, the impact in the outfield would be about half in each corner. Centerfielders do not get much electoral boost from their fielding skill, a second reason why they would not seem to dominate the cornerfields.

(OOC: Whatever the truth about thirdbase and cornerfields, something similar may be true of firstbase in relation to catcher, third, left, and right.)

[DoubleX]

I know this isn't 1934-oriented, but I think our reluctance to vote in many earlier 3B is a product of our 2009 image of what a 3B HOFer should be--which has been formed by guys like Schmidt, Mathews, Chipper Jones, Alex Rodriguez (if he's a 3B instead of a SS), Killebrew, Brett, Molitor, Brooks Robinson, Boggs and Tony Perez. Maybe some won't consider some of these guys 3B, but of this group, only Brooks Robinson has an OPS+ below 122. Now Groh is "only" at 119, so I don't know that he should clearly be on the "under" side of the HOF line, but he's closer, to be sure--but his 119 OPS+ is not what folks are used to seeing in the traditional stats, because he played so much in the deadball era. Not a lot of early 3B were really very close to as capable offensively as Groh, especially if one throws out short career guys like McGraw--throw in the difficulty some folks have in dealing with deadball hitting stats because they're tied to the traditional numbers, and you've explained much of the generalized lack of votes for early 3B.

I agree Jim. Most top 10 3B lists are heavily-laden with post-1950 players, and mostly post-1960 players really. So our perception of 3B is probably subconsciously skewed. That's why I've been saying that perhaps we need to reassess what our 3B standards are for the period we've been looking at.

What might help us is if anyone has an explanation as to why 3B was a position where regulars at the position lacked longevity for so long. Was 3B the DH slot of the deadball era? Was it a defensively demanding position? IIRC, looking at this through 2009 eyes, there are no A+ level defenders from this position for an entire era according to the BJ WS Book and this position was more fragmented and separated out in his book than other positions. Was it that many people who played 3B and were good with the glove were more valuable at another position?

I was wondering the same. I do think we generally underrate though how important defense at the corner IF positions (3B in particular) was during the 19th Century and Deadball Era, just because of how the game was played. A lot more choking up, just trying to slap the ball in play, and more bunts as well.

[mwiggins]

I agree Jim. Most top 10 3B lists are heavily-laden with post-1950 players, and mostly post-1960 players really. So our perception of 3B is probably subconsciously skewed. That's why I've been saying that perhaps we need to reassess what our 3B standards are for the period we've been looking at.



I was wondering the same. I do think we generally underrate though how important defense at the corner IF positions (3B in particular) was during the 19th Century and Deadball Era, just because of how the game was played. A lot more choking up, just trying to slap the ball in play, and more bunts as well.


Given how different a position 3B was defensively during the time we've been voting on, and how different the offensive production expectations were, it seems very reasonable and realistic that in 1934 we'd consider third basemen HoF worthty that we would not consider worthy in 2009. From 2009 perpective, I wouldn't put in Traynor or Groh; or consider any of them great third basemen. But I think in 1934, I would probably consider Groh and Traynor great third basemen, and feel they were worthy of the Hall.

And from what I've read, the main thing for a third basemen back then was a strong, accurate arm and the ability to range up and cover bunts. Much like catcher, any offensive production was a bonus. A guy like Chipper or Eddie Mathews or Killebrew would most likely not have been able to play 3B back then.

Same with first base. With much more bunting, they needed a lot more range than first basemen do today. And with smaller gloves, putouts at first were not nearly as "routine" as they became in later years.

[jjpm74]

Same with first base. With much more bunting, they needed a lot more range than first basemen do today. And with smaller gloves, putouts at first were not nearly as "routine" as they became in later years.

Very true and this is also why Jack Fournier's career was as short as it was. He was a big hulking 1B who lacked range and did not fit the typical mold of a 1st baseman at the time. Fournier's career would have been much more productive had he been born about 50 years later.

We really do need to evaluate 1B/3B from this era through much different eyes. It is hard to cast away 2009 biases which is why even the best 3rd basemen from the pre-war era typically do not fare well when putting together all time lists and why we have such a shortage of 1st basemen from the 1900-1930 time frame as well.

Edit: One thing that still puzzles me, however is that we have been able to identify the best catchers from pre-1900 and from the deadball era. Why do we have such a good handle on them when at the same time we struggle in our assessment of the demands of defense on 1B/3B 1871-1930?

[Paul Wendt]

. . . it seems very reasonable and realistic that in 1934 we'd consider third basemen HoF worthy that we would not consider worthy in 2009. From 2009 perspective, I wouldn't put in Traynor or Groh; or consider any of them great third basemen.
Why not? Since 2006(?) the Hall of Merit and the BaseBall-Fever Hall of Fame elected Groh; the BBFHOF elected Traynor too. They were not role-playing 1934. Do you think they must have misjudged?
Same with first base. With much more bunting, they needed a lot more range than first basemen do today. And with smaller gloves, putouts at first were not nearly as "routine" as they became in later years.
No doubt some plays have continued to become "more routine" and the process continues in 2008. On the other hand the 1930s gloves were much improved, in ways that make some routine catches, beyond those of the 1900s. Bill Doak added the web between thumb and forefinger in 1920.

Here in 1934 we are already seeing players who worked with a web glove late in their careers. Lou Gehrig has used one all his baseball life.

Probably the improvements in firstbasemen's gloves have been significant in every generation since Al Spalding first used a glove. The players have freely experimented with different combinations of padding, fingering, lacing, etc.

[DoubleX]

Given how different a position 3B was defensively during the time we've been voting on, and how different the offensive production expectations were, it seems very reasonable and realistic that in 1934 we'd consider third basemen HoF worthty that we would not consider worthy in 2009. From 2009 perpective, I wouldn't put in Traynor or Groh; or consider any of them great third basemen. But I think in 1934, I would probably consider Groh and Traynor great third basemen, and feel they were worthy of the Hall.

I'm very much the same way. I have Groh and Traynor ranked behind a number of post 1960 3Bmen, but I'd likely put both Groh and Traynor in before some of those players because Groh and Traynor stood out more in their time.

Edit: One thing that still puzzles me, however is that we have been able to identify the best catchers from pre-1900 and from the deadball era. Why do we have such a good handle on them when at the same time we struggle in our assessment of the demands of defense on 1B/3B 1871-1930?

It might be because there is a much more distinct understanding to have lower offensive and durability expectations out of catcher. 3B is much more muddled, as is 1B in this era, especially given our 2009 biases.

[Brooklyn]

Max Carey...

[mwiggins]

Why not? Since 2006(?) the Hall of Merit and the BaseBall-Fever Hall of Fame elected Groh; the BBFHOF elected Traynor too. They were not role-playing 1934. Do you think they must have misjudged?



You're right, saying I wouldn't put them in is a bit too harsh. But they're both pretty borderline for me, from a 2009 perspective. I would probably put in about a dozen or 3B into my Hall if I was creating one today. Both those guys would be in the mix. I'd probably put in these guys for sure - Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Molitor, Baker, Santo, Chipper, Collins, and Robinson - and then probably Groh and Hack would also get in. Traynor, Evans, Bando, and K. Boyer would be just out the outside.

[SavoyBG]

I'd probably put in these guys for sure - Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Molitor, Baker, Santo, Chipper, Collins, and Robinson - and then probably Groh and Hack would also get in. Traynor, Evans, Bando, and K. Boyer would be just out the outside.

Not familar with most of those names. Are they Negro Leaguers, or perhaps early players from before the Association started?

[DoubleX]

Doing a little more research, the problem with 3B may be even simpler than I thought. Using a database, I figured out how many folks had at least 7000 PA from 1876-1935 (the database doesn't include info before 1876). There were 92 such players.

I just did a similar exercise but using 6000 PA as my cutoff in the hopes of capturing a few more 19th Century players, and I also stopped at players who retired in 1934 (given that's the current election year). There are 137 such players. For general consumption, here are all the players ordered by position in descending OPS+ order (I apologize if I missed any one). I have listed some players at multiple positions. Players in italics have been elected our Hall of Fame:

Catcher (5)
King Kelly - 138 OPS+ (6455 PA) - Also Listed at RF
Deacon White - 127 OPS+ (6972 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Deacon McGuire - 101 OPS+ (6932 PA)
Duke Farrell - 99 OPS+ (6254 PA)
Ray Schalk - 83 OPS+ (6217 PA)

Of this list, only McGuire, Farrell, and Schalk can definitively be called catchers. I knew catchers had poor longevity, but I didn't realize just how rare 6000 PA has been for a catcher. Notice that the other two primary catchers we've elected, Bresnahan and Bennett aren't even on the list. I'm going to seriously reconsider McGuire and Farrell at the next VC election and give Schalk some extra thought as well.

First Base (25)
Dan Brouthers - 170 OPS+ (7658 PA)
Roger Connor - 153 OPS+ (8837 PA)
Harry Stovey - 143 OPS+ (6832 PA) - Also listed at LF
Jack Fournier - 142 OPS+ (6033 PA)
Cap Anson - 141 OPS+ (11319 PA)
Jake Beckley - 125 OPS+ (10470 PA)
George Sisler - 124 OPS+ (9013 PA)
Ed Konetchy - 122 OPS+ (8664 PA)
Harry Davis - 119 OPS+ (7379 PA)
Jake Daubert - 117 OPS+ (8742 PA)
Dan McGann - 117 OPS+ (6047 PA)
Joe Judge - 114 OPS+ (9171 PA)
John Anderson - 114 OPS+ (6768) - Also Listed at LF
George H. Burns - 113 OPS+ (7233 PA)
Hal Chase - 112 OPS+ (7939 PA)
Fred Tenney - 109 OPS+ (8807 PA)
Lu Blue - 109 OPS+ (7207 PA)
George Kelly - 109 OPS+ (6565 PA)
Fred Merkle - 109 OPS+ (6426 PA)
Stuffy McInnis - 105 OPS+ (8623 PA)
Jack Doyle - 105 OPS+ (6566 PA)
Wally Pipp - 104 OPS+ (7820 PA)
Tommy Tucker - 102 OPS+ (7266 PA)
Dots Miller - 95 OPS+ (6476 PA) - Also Listed at 2B
Charlie Comiskey - 82 OPS+ (6035 PA)

This actually makes me feel a lot better about Jake Beckley's election. After the big three (Anson, Brouthers, and Connor) and Stovey who was really more of an OFer, Beckley seems to stand out both in level of production and longevity. I think this also demonstrates that other than the 1880s when the big three were at it, 1B has not been the offensive-heavy position that it started to become in the 1920s and 1930s.

Second Base (25)
Napoleon Lajoie - 150 OPS+ (10460 PA)
Eddie Collins - 141 OPS+ (12037 PA)
Hardy Richardson - 130 OPS+ (6029 PA) - Also Listed at LF
Larry Doyle - 126 OPS+ (7382 PA)
Cupid Childs - 119 OPS+ (6758 PA)
Jimmy Williams - 115 OPS+ (6112 PA)
Del Pratt - 112 OPS+ (7609 PA)
Miller Huggins - 107 OPS+ (6800 PA)
Tom Daly - 107 OPS+ (6483 PA)
Bid McPhee - 106 OPS+ (9409 PA)
Johnny Evers - 106 OPS+ (7210 PA)
Marty McManus - 102 OPS+ (7563 PA) - Also listed at 3B
Claude Ritchey - 101 OPS+ (6822 PA)
Dots Miller - 95 OPS+ (6476 PA) - Also Listed at 1B
Buck Herzog - 96 OPS+ (6047 PA) - Also Listed at 3B and SS
John Ward - 92 OPS+ (8084 PA) - Also Listed at SS
Fred Pfeffer - 92 OPS+ (7108 PA)
George Cutshaw - 87 OPS+ (6213 PA)
Bobby Lowe - 86 OPS+ (7741 PA)
Bill Hallman - 84 OPS+ (6596 PA)
Sparky Adams - 83 OPS+ (6174 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Lou Bierbauer - 83 OPS+ (6007 PA)
Kid Gleason - 78 OPS+ (8198 PA)
Bill Wambsganss - 78 OPS+ (6097 PA)
Joe Quinn - 76 OPS+ (6879 PA)

So 2B is on par with 1B in terms of frequency of longevity. In respect to Del Pratt, who is currently on the ballot, I think this shows that he's about where I thought he was, around the border.

Third Base (21)
Frank Baker - 135 OPS+ (6660 PA)
Deacon White - 127 OPS+ (6972 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Heinie Groh - 118 OPS+ (7035 PA)
Jimmy Collins - 113 OPS+ (7452 PA)
Tommy Leach - 109 OPS+ (9051 PA)
Joe Sewell - 109 OPS+ (8329 PA) - Also Listed at SS
Larry Gardner - 109 OPS+ (7685 PA)
Bill Bradley - 108 OPS+ (6046 PA)
Billy Nash - 104 OPS+ (6719 PA)
Marty McManus - 102 OPS+ (7563 PA) - Also Listed at 2B
Harry Steinfeldt - 102 OPS+ (6694 PA)
Lave Cross - 100 OPS+ (9710 PA)
Milt Stock - 98 OPS+ (6951 PA)
Buck Herzog - 96 OPS+ (6047 PA) - Also Listed at 2B and SS
Arlie Latham - 92 OPS+ (7502 PA)
Jimmy Austin - 90 OPS+ (6302 PA)
Terry Turner - 89 OPS+ (6658 PA)
Eddie Foster - 89 OPS+ (6317 PA)
Billy Shindle - 88 OPS+ (6326 PA)
Sparky Adams - 83 OPS+ (6174 OPS+) - Also Listed at 2B
Howie Shanks - 82 OPS+ (6414 OPS+) - Also Listed at LF

I think this shows that a combination of longevity and above-average offensive production has been pretty rare at 3B and that perhaps we do need to reassess our expectations here. I think this also helps the cases for Groh, Leach, and Gardner. Not counting White, who played a lot at catcher, Groh looks to be the second best hitting 3Bmen we've seen (given decent longevity), and as others have commented earlier, he was no slouch defensively. Leach and Gardner, at just 109 OPS+, are tied for the fourth highest OPS+ (not counting White and tied with Sewell who really is a SS). Leach also has 1500-3000 more PA than anyone on the list except Lave Cross, though Leach could also be termed a CF (and I believe his defensive mastery of two important defensive positions is to his credit). I think when a 109 OPS+ is tied for the 4th (or 5th if counting White) highest over a 60+ year period among players with decent longevity, it demonstrates that perhaps 3B should be considered more of a defensive position during the time we're looking at. Even 2B has more players with a higher OPS+ and the requisite longevity, with 7 players above 109.

Shortstop (23)
Honus Wagner - 150 OPS+ (11739 PA)
George Davis - 121 OPS+ (10151 PA)
Ed McKean - 114 OPS+ (7610 PA)
Jack Glasscock - 112 OPS+ (7535 PA)
Bill Dahlen - 109 OPS+ (10390 PA)
Joe Sewell - 109 OPS+ (8329 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Bobby Wallace - 105 OPS+ (9612 PA)
Art Fletcher - 105 OPS+ (6039 PA)
Dave Bancroft - 98 OPS+ (8244 PA)
Buck Herzog - 96 OPS+ (6047 PA)
Joe Tinker - 95 OPS+ (7145 PA)
Herman Long - 94 OPS+ (8493 PA)
John Ward - 92 OPS+ (8084 PA) - Also Listed at 2B
Donie Bush - 91 OPS+ (8374 PA)
Terry Turner - 89 OPS+ (6658 PA)
Roger Peckinpaugh - 87 OPS+ (8383 PA)
Monte Cross - 80 OPS+ (6711 PA)
Germany Smith - 75 OPS+ (6995 PA)
Tommy Corcoran - 74 OPS+ (9368 PA)
Ivy Olson - 74 OPS+ (6630 PA)
Mickey Doolan - 72 OPS+ (6598 PA)
Everett Scott - 65 OPS+ (6373 PA)
George McBride - 65 OPS+ (6235 PA)

I don't think there are many surprises here, though frequency of longevity is almost on par with 1B (and 2B). I also think this supports the argument I made earlier that Dave Bancroft, while perhaps not so impressive in a greater historical context, may have stood out more in his time than some better shortstops from earlier generations. I also think we were too quick to dismiss Ed McKean, though his defense is certainly a concern.

Corner OF (33)
Ed Delahanty - 152 OPS+ (8389 PA)
Elmer Flick - 149 OPS+ (6414 PA)
Sam Thompson - 146 OPS+ (6502 PA)
Sam Crawford - 144 OPS+ (6502 PA)
Harry Stovey - 143 OPS+ (6832 PA) - Also Listed at 1B
Billy Hamilton - 141 OPS+ (6268 PA) - Also Listed at CF
Jesse Burkett - 140 OPS+ (9605 PA)
King Kelly - 138 OPS+ (6455 PA) - Also Listed at C
Mike Tiernan - 137 OPS+ (6716 PA)
Sherry Magee - 136 OPS+ (8546 PA)
Jim O'Rourke - 133 OPS+ (9051 PA)
Joe Kelley - 133 OPS+ (8120 PA)
Fred Clarke - 132 OPS+ (9819 PA)
Hardy Richardson - 130 OPS+ (6029 PA) - Also Listed at 2B
Zack Wheat - 129 OPS+ (9996 PA)
Bobby Veach - 127 OPS+ (7557 PA)
Willie Keller - 126 OPS+ (9594 PA)
Jimmy Ryan - 123 OPS+ (9106 PA) - Also Listed at CF
Hugh Duffy - 122 OPS+ (7827 PA) - Also Listed at CF
Kip Selbach - 121 OPS+ (7089 PA)
Jimmy Sheckard - 120 OPS+ (9118 PA)
Bob Meusel - 118 OPS+ (6028 PA)
Harry Hooper - 114 OPS+ (10244 PA)
George J. Burns - 114 OPS+ (8251 PA)
Frank Schulte - 114 OPS+ (7413 PA)
John Anderson - 114 OPS+ (6768 PA)
Sam Rice - 112 OPS+ (10246 PA)
Jack Tobin - 109 OPS+ (6782 PA)
Duffy Lewis - 108 OPS+ (6007 PA)
Charlie Jamieson - 101 OPS+ (7488 PA)
Patsy Donovan - 97 OPS+ (8133 PA)
Shano Collins - 90 OPS+ (7036 PA)
Howie Shanks - 82 OPS+ (6414 PA) - Also Listed at 3B

Since a lot of these guys spent time bouncing around the OF, I thought I'd just group them together as corner OFers. Looking at this, it's not that surprising to me that we've elected a number of players here. There are a lot of players grouped very closely together that makes it difficult to distinguish and create a clear cutoff. Bobby Veach looks to be the line here, but I don't think he's that far removed, if at all from our standards, though he would definitely be near the bottom. Mike Tiernan stands out though. He's the only player among the first 15 players that we haven't elected, and with Bobby Veach, one of only two among the first 19. So Tiernan would appear to be well within our standards, especially when you factor in his baserunning. He might be in line for some extra consideration from the VC.

Center Field (23)
Ty Cobb - 167 OPS+ (13072 PA)
Tris Speaker - 158 OPS+ (11988 PA)
Billy Hamilton - 141 OPS+ (6268 PA) - Also Listed at LF
George Gore - 135 OPS+ (6104 PA)
Paul Hines - 131 OPS+ (7470 PA)
Edd Roush - 126 OPS+ (8156 PA)
Cy Williams - 125 OPS+ (7720 PA)
Jimmy Ryan - 123 OPS+ (9106 PA) - Also Listed at RF
Mike Griffin - 123 OPS+ (6832 PA)
Roy Thomas - 123 OPS+ (6575 PA)
Ginger Beaumont - 123 OPS+ (6281 PA)
Hugh Duffy - 122 OPS+ (7827 PA) - Also Listed at corner OF
George Van Haltren - 121 OPS+ (8979 PA)
Cy Seymour - 119 OPS+ (6204 PA)
Fielder Jones - 111 OPS+ (7894 PA)
Baby Doll Jacobson - 111 OPS+ (6072 PA)
Dummy Hoy - 110 OPS+ (8369 PA)
Tommy Leach - 109 OPS+ (9051 PA)
Clyde Milan - 109 OPS+ (8312 PA)
Dode Paskert - 108 OPS+ (6997 PA)
Max Carey - 107 OPS+ (10770 PA)
Steve Brodie - 102 OPS+ (6314 PA)
Tom Brown - 100 OPS+ (8182 PA)

Looking at this, I can see why it could be argued that Ryan, Duffy, and Van Haltren have noticeably lowered our standards. It isn't like the corner OF positions where there are lots of players grouped together at a higher level. Here, Ryan, Duffy, and Van Haltren all appear to be a noticeable tick below the other inductees. However, I still strongly believe that once Duffy and Van Haltren were elected, we could not leave Ryan out. In respect to Tommy Leach, his offense doesn't stand out as much here as it does at 3B. But he played roughly 1000 games at each position and I do think it's very much to his credit that he played excellent defense at both (giving him extra value in terms of the team's flexibility), that he had good longevity, and that he was a very good hitter by 3B standards, and a pretty decent hitter by CF standards.

[SavoyBG]

I just did a similar exercise but using 6000 PA as my cutoff in the hopes of capturing a few more 19th Century players, and I also stopped at players who retired in 1934 (given that's the current election year). There are 137 such players. For general consumption, here are all the players ordered by position in descending OPS+ order (I apologize if I missed any one). I have listed some players at multiple positions. Players in italics have been elected our Hall of Fame:


Third Base (21)
Frank Baker - 135 OPS+ (6660 PA)
Deacon White - 127 OPS+ (6972 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Heinie Groh - 118 OPS+ (7035 PA)
Jimmy Collins - 113 OPS+ (7452 PA)
Tommy Leach - 109 OPS+ (9051 PA)
Joe Sewell - 109 OPS+ (8329 PA) - Also Listed at SS
Larry Gardner - 109 OPS+ (7685 PA)
Bill Bradley - 108 OPS+ (6046 PA)
Billy Nash - 104 OPS+ (6719 PA)
Marty McManus - 102 OPS+ (7563 PA) - Also Listed at 2B
Harry Steinfeldt - 102 OPS+ (6694 PA)
Lave Cross - 100 OPS+ (9710 PA)
Milt Stock - 98 OPS+ (6951 PA)
Buck Herzog - 96 OPS+ (6047 PA) - Also Listed at 2B and SS
Arlie Latham - 92 OPS+ (7502 PA)
Jimmy Austin - 90 OPS+ (6302 PA)
Terry Turner - 89 OPS+ (6658 PA)
Eddie Foster - 89 OPS+ (6317 PA)
Billy Shindle - 88 OPS+ (6326 PA)
Sparky Adams - 83 OPS+ (6174 OPS+) - Also Listed at 2B
Howie Shanks - 82 OPS+ (6414 OPS+) - Also Listed at LF

I think this shows that a combination of longevity and above-average offensive production has been pretty rare at 3B and that perhaps we do need to reassess our expectations here.


It could very well just mean that just coincidentally, there only happened to be 4 or 5 thirdbasemen who were of hall of fame quality playing between the 1870s and the 1920s. I don't see why that's such a problem. It's not like we have 17 hall of famers at each of the other positions. Right now we only have 5 catchers and 5 RFers. Groh will likely get in eventually. That will make four 3Bmen. If Deacon White were moved to 3B you could end up with five 3Bmen and only four catchers. Sewell will likely go in, but mainly as a SS. One of the positions has to coincidentally end up with the fewest hall of famers, and it just happens to be 3B right now, but the position does not have so many fewer inductess that we should be wondering about it.

I think we are building a good case for Groh and will get him in soon. There's also the arbitrary figure of 6,000 plate appearances. Given how short the seasons were in the 19th century, you don't see as many players from then who have the kind of totals of plate appearances as recent electees like Speaker and Cobb. If you drop the total to 4000 plate appearances you get the following great offensive 3Bmen:

Joyce - 144 OPS+
Lyons - 138 OPS+
McGraw - 135 OPS+

I don't think there's any cause for alarm here, and if groh gets in soon maybe we can drop the worry over 3Bmen.

[philkid3]

Chief Bender
Max Carey
Stan Coveleski
Heinie Groh
Tommy Leach
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach

[AstrosFan]

Carey
Coveleski
Groh
Leach

[jalbright]

I can see reassessing our expectations of offensive production at 3B for the early guys, as the position did seem to emphasize defense more before the lively ball. I don't see why 3B would be so dramatically affected in terms of longevity, though. Catcher, I certainly understand--even in 2009, they don't last as long as other position players, and back then, they had less sophisticated medicine and gear that provided a good deal less protection. If someone can provide some real explanation as to why that should happen, I'll certainly listen, but until I'm convinced there's a reason inherent in the demands of the position, I'm not apt to compromise much on that score. Now, I don't look at 7000 PA as a cutoff in the strictest sense, as a guy with offense like Frank Baker's can certainly overcome his fairly small shortfall in PA--but it is something that requires making up some ground. The bigger question to me is what level of offense should set the same kind of standard for early 3B?

[Paul Wendt]

Catcher (5)
King Kelly - 138 OPS+ (6455 PA) - Also Listed at RF
Deacon White - 127 OPS+ (6972 PA) - Also Listed at 3B
Deacon McGuire - 101 OPS+ (6932 PA)
Duke Farrell - 99 OPS+ (6254 PA)
Ray Schalk - 83 OPS+ (6217 PA)

Of this list, only McGuire, Farrell, and Schalk can definitively be called catchers. I knew catchers had poor longevity, but I didn't realize just how rare 6000 PA has been for a catcher. Notice that the other two primary catchers we've elected, Bresnahan and Bennett aren't even on the list.
(my emphases)

Mike,

I hope you aren't going to revive this old canard.
We can "definitively" call Deacon White a catcher.
We should call him a "primary catcher". He was 34.4 years old when he became a regular 3B spring 1882, with ten games at thirdbase on his resume. White isn't a difficult case like Jim O'Rourke, lacking any regular position when he was in his prime (before he settled finally in leftfield at age 37.7). White was his team's regular catcher in ten of his first eleven professional seasons, 1869-76 and 78-79, spanning ages 21 to 31 except 29.

It's the Same Old Song, over and over, counts of major league "games" or "at bats" or "plate appearances" naively presented as descriptive measures of careers. (not only by Mike)

[DoubleX]

(my emphases)

Mike,

I hope you aren't going to revive this old canard.
We can "definitively" call Deacon White a catcher.
We should call him a "primary catcher". He was 34.4 years old when he became a regular 3B spring 1882, with ten games at thirdbase on his resume. White isn't a difficult case like Jim O'Rourke, lacking any regular position when he was in his prime (before he settled finally in leftfield at age 37.7). White was his team's regular catcher in ten of his first eleven professional seasons, 1869-76 and 78-79, spanning ages 21 to 31 except 29.

It's the Same Old Song, over and over, counts of major league "games" or "at bats" or "plate appearances" naively presented as descriptive measures of careers. (not only by Mike)

Paul, I'm not going to change White's listing. I still believe his primary position is C, but there is enough to say that he isn't a catcher in the same sense that someone like Charlie Bennett was.

[SavoyBG]

Paul, I'm not going to change White's listing. I still believe his primary position is C, but there is enough to say that he isn't a catcher in the same sense that someone like Charlie Bennett was.

Leaving White as a catcher is fine, but just realize that it is a big reason why 3B seems so underrepresented.

That, and just the coinicidence that three great hiting 3Bmen of the 19th century had very short careers, and other great players who played some 3B ended up playing more at other spots.

I can't wait to get Groh in now so we can get past the 3B discussions.

[leecemark]

--White had a pretty full career as a superstar catcher. that was followed by a second career as an okay thirdbaseman. Had he played third instead of catcher in the 1870s he would have been the best 3B of the 18th century - and possibly of all time. He didn't though and is claim to greatness is almost entirely based on his play as a catcher.

[SavoyBG]

--White had a pretty full career as a superstar catcher. that was followed by a second career as an okay thirdbaseman. Had he played third instead of catcher in the 1870s he would have been the best 3B of the 18th century - and possibly of all time. He didn't though and is claim to greatness is almost entirely based on his play as a catcher.


I didn't know there was base ball already in the 18th century. :D

[jjpm74]

I didn't know there was base ball already in the 18th century. :D

I think they were calling it rounders back then. ::dance

[Domenic]

Carey
Cooper
Coveleski
Cravath
Leach
Veach
Wood

[DoubleX]

Bumping up.

[SavoyBG]

Bumping up.


What does "bumping up" mean?

[Captain Cold Nose]

What does "bumping up" mean?

Posting to keep the thread at the top of the queue.

[DoubleX]

Here's who I have eligible for next year:

Pete Alexander
Dave Bancroft
Hal Carlson - May not be on ballot
Eddie Collins
Hank DeBerry - Likely won't be on ballot
Howard Ehmke
Ira Flagstead
Patsy Gharrity - Likely won't be on ballot
Sammy Hale - Likely won't be on ballot
Bubbles Hargrave
Carmen Hill - Likely won't be on ballot
Bob Meusel
Johnny Morrison - May not be on ballot
George Sisler
Earl Smith - May not be on ballot
Homer Summa - Likely won't be on ballot
Curt Walker
Cy Williams

[SavoyBG]

Here's who I have eligible for next year:

Pete Alexander
Dave Bancroft
Eddie Collins
Howard Ehmke
Ira Flagstead
Bubbles Hargrave
Bob Meusel
George Sisler
Curt Walker
Cy Williams

Some good new arrivals, although they could stall the chances of some guys who were close this year, like Groh.

Definites - Alexander, Collins
Probables - Sisler
possibiles - Bancroft, Williams

[jjpm74]

Here's who I have eligible for next year:

Pete Alexander
Dave Bancroft
Hal Carlson - May not be on ballot
Eddie Collins
Hank DeBerry - Likely won't be on ballot
Howard Ehmke
Ira Flagstead
Patsy Gharrity - Likely won't be on ballot
Sammy Hale - Likely won't be on ballot
Bubbles Hargrave
Carmen Hill - Likely won't be on ballot
Bob Meusel
Johnny Morrison - May not be on ballot
George Sisler
Earl Smith - May not be on ballot
Homer Summa - Likely won't be on ballot
Curt Walker
Cy Williams

Of your cut list, Hal Carlson was a good pitcher who was the victim of poor run support. He deserves his 1 and done honors. Sammy Hale was a scrappy 3rd baseman who had excellent range, but also committed a lot of errors. He was a B at 3B in defensive win shares and was an effective hitter. He's very borderline for inclusion, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, it's highly improbably that either one will receive even a token vote.

The rest of the maybes or probably not's I'd cut, giving us this for the very interesting looking class of 1935 candidates:

Pete Alexander
Dave Bancroft
Hal Carlson
Eddie Collins
Howard Ehmke
Ira Flagstead
Sammy Hale
Bubbles Hargrave
Carmen Hill
Bob Meusel
Johnny Morrison
George Sisler
Curt Walker
Cy Williams

Pete Alexander and Eddie Collins are 1st ballot shoe ins. Dave Bancroft, Bob Meusel, George Sisler and Cy Williams also will probably have their share of supporters and might benefit from some discussion about their cases. Now that Babe Ruth has turned baseball upside down with his home runs, will Cy Williams get any extra attention? What do the folks here think of this new emphasis on power and home runs? It's looking like the Babe will no longer be a Yankee when the '35 season rolls in. He's getting old and looks overweight and clumsy. Does he have anything left in the tank?

[DoubleX]

I'd be pretty surprised if Sisler didn't make it. He was held in very high regard at this point in time, and really for decades after.

[mwiggins]

I'd be pretty surprised if Sisler didn't make it. He was held in very high regard at this point in time, and really for decades after.

Up until Gehrig burst on to the scene, has there been a better first basemen this century?

[bambambaseball]

I'd be pretty surprised if Sisler didn't make it. He was held in very high regard at this point in time, and really for decades after.

Didn't Jake Beckley almost not get elected? Isnt George Sisler a similar 1st baseman.

[mwiggins]

Didn't Jake Beckley almost not get elected? Isnt George Sisler a similar 1st baseman.

Sisler was significantly better than Beckley pre-injury/illness. And even taking Sisler's career numbers at face value, and ignoring their peak seasons, he looks to have a better case than Beckley.

Beckley - 10,470 PA's, .635 OWP, 125 OPS+, Black Ink (1), Grey Ink (165)
Sisler - 9013 PA's, .672 OWP, 124 OPS+, Black Ink (29), Grey Ink (198)

[jalbright]

Didn't Jake Beckley almost not get elected? Isnt George Sisler a similar 1st baseman.

Well, Beckley had a better career OPS+ of 125 to Sisler's 124, and he did it in more PA (10,470 to 9013, without any extra credit for playing in the shorter schedules of the 1800's). So, in that sense, you are correct. In fact, if you limit the discussion solely to career, I'd probably go with Beckley, who would look even better with an adjustment for the shorter 19th century seasons.

But there's a huge difference in how they got there. Beckley was quite consistent, only twice achieving an OPS+ of 140 or more in a season of over 75 games (and never over 152 in more than 75 games). He only had a few seasons of over 100 games where he wasn't between 112 and 133 in OPS+. Sisler had a much better peak. From 1916 to 1922, his OPS+ was only below 140 once, at 132, and five times was 155 or better. The flip side is that after he missed 1923 with a sinus infection that affected his vision, he wasn't HOF caliber, to say the least. He was never over 117 in OPS+ after that, and four times he was under 100. For those who consider peak, many see Sisler as more impressive, especially since his decline was illness-related. If you base it solely on peak, there's no comparison.

[bambambaseball]

Thanks for that explanation. I never understood why Beckley always struggles for exceptance but Sisler gets praise. That makes a lot of sense.

[dgarza]

Chief Bender
George Burns
Max Carey
Stan Coveleski
Gavvy Cravath
Johnny Evers
Harry Hooper
Rube Marquard
Carl Mays
Ray Schalk
Joe Tinker
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs
Ken Williams

1. Bobby Veach
2. Stan Coveleski
3. Carl Mays
4. Gavvy Cravath
5. Max Carey
6. Chief Bender
7. Ken Williams
8. George J Burns
9. Ross Youngs
10. Rube Marquard
11. Harry Hooper
12. Johnny Evers
13. Joe Tinker
14. Ray Schalk

[Freakshow]

Here's who I have eligible for next year:

Pete Alexander
Dave Bancroft
Hal Carlson - May not be on ballot
Eddie Collins
Hank DeBerry - Likely won't be on ballot
Howard Ehmke
Ira Flagstead
Patsy Gharrity - Likely won't be on ballot
Sammy Hale - Likely won't be on ballot
Bubbles Hargrave
Carmen Hill - Likely won't be on ballot
Bob Meusel
Johnny Morrison - May not be on ballot
George Sisler
Earl Smith - May not be on ballot
Homer Summa - Likely won't be on ballot
Curt Walker
Cy WilliamsAlso, eligible in 1935 by the age rule is catcher Mike Gonzalez. Of course, I understand if you leave a guy off the ballot who has Kirt Manwaring and Billy Ripken on his "most similar" list.

[DoubleX]

Up until Gehrig burst on to the scene, has there been a better first basemen this century?

Nope. Between the Anson/Brouthers/Connor trio and then Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg (who's in just his second year in 1934), 1B really wasn't that much of an offensive position in those 30 or so years. Sisler, offensively was better than anyone, and he had a very well rounded skillset.

[SavoyBG]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwiggins
Up until Gehrig burst on to the scene, has there been a better first basemen this century?

Nope. Between the Anson/Brouthers/Connor trio and then Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg (who's in just his second year in 1934), 1B really wasn't that much of an offensive position in those 30 or so years. Sisler, offensively was better than anyone, and he had a very well rounded skillset.

Not so sure about that. Sisler's career OPS+ was 124.

You've got three guys who are cleary better (Terry is still playing) and one guy who is even.

Frank Chance - 135
Bill Terry - 137
Jack Fournier - 143
Jim Bottomley - 124

[DoubleX]

Not so sure about that. Sisler's career OPS+ was 124.

You've got three guys who are cleary better (Terry is still playing) and one guy who is even.

Frank Chance - 135
Bill Terry - 137
Jack Fournier - 143
Jim Bottomley - 124

It's pretty easy to differentiate Sisler from this group:

Sisler had:

- 4000 more PA than Chance
- 3000 more PA than Fournier
- 2000 more PA than Terry (who is still active in 1934)
- 700 more PA than Bottomley (who is still active in 1934)

Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).

Sisler was also a better all around player than the rest. Only Chance was better at baserunning and Sisler was the best defender of the group.

[jjpm74]

Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).


I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.

[SavoyBG]

It's pretty easy to differentiate Sisler from this group:

Sisler had:

- 4000 more PA than Chance
- 3000 more PA than Fournier
- 2000 more PA than Terry (who is still active in 1934)
- 700 more PA than Bottomley (who is still active in 1934)

Sisler's 1916-1922 peak was also better than anything anyone else in this group did. During those 7 years, Sisler's average OPS+ was 157. Chance didn't even have 7 seasons where he had at least 400 plate appearances, and only had two seasons higher than Sisler's peak average anyway (and just barely higher). Fournier's average of his best 7 OPS+ seasons comes to 154, but they are not consecutive like Sisler, and in much fewer plate appearances than Sisler. Terry and Bottomley only had one season each in their entire careers where they exceeded Sisler's 7 year peak average (and just barely in each case).

Sisler was also a better all around player than the rest. Only Chance was better at baserunning and Sisler was the best defender of the group.

Yes, Sisler played longer, but it's not like Fournier and Chance were only slightly ahead of him in OPS+ for their careers. We know Sisler had an awesome peak, and then tailed off a lot because of a vision problems, but that's part of his career that has to be taken into account. His peak was also not as great as it seems, once taken into context.

Despite the high OPS+ numbers during his peak, Sisler does not look as great at that time according to win shares, I suppose since it was the 1920s and you needed a lot of runs to win games then, as compared to when Chance and Fournier had their best seasons.

WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
Chance - 35-31-29 = 95
Fournier - 34-29-28 = 91
Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
Terry - 32-32-39 = 90

WIN SHARES BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Chance - 143
Terry - 142
Sisler - 135
Fournier - 127

WIN SHARES per 162
Chance - 29.86
Terry - 26.17
Fournier - 24.46
Sisler - 23.02


Other than the 7 year peak that you speak of, he was a pretty poor hitter for a firstbaseman in his other seasons, also a 7 year stretch.

1924 - OPS+ 90
1925 - OPS+ 109
1926 - OPS+ 84
1927 - OPS+ 100
1928 - OPS+ 112
1929 - OPS+ 98
1930 - OPS+ 82

As far as what you say about Sisler as a defender, hard to believe that he's the best defender of those four players. Sisler's a C- in win shares fielding. Chance is a B and Fournier is also a C-. Terry is an A+. Seems like it's more likely that he's the worst of the four (tied with Fournier) than the best of the four.

Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

Terry - 2.28
Chance - 1.78
Sisler - 1.35
Fournier - 1.34

[SavoyBG]

As for Sisler's extra time over Fournier, Jack still beats him easily in adjusted batting runs, 313 to 250. Chance had 216 in 4,000 less PA, and Terry is already ahead of him with 280 ABR coming into the 1934 season. Unless he somehow has several bad years like Sisler had at the end, Terry will beat George as a career hitter.

[SavoyBG]

Sisler's offensive game was unique for a firstbaseman - high average, didn't walk much, not a ton of power, excellent speed, very good base stealer. More than 75% of his hits were singles.

He was 5'11" and 170 pounds. I think's a pretty safe bet that if he had thrown righthanded instead of lefthanded he would have been playing somewhere else in the infield other than 1B.

[DoubleX]

I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.

Yes, but that wouldn't nearly compensate for the 4000 plate appearances gap. Regardless of schedule, Chance was a part time player for most of his career.

Yes, Sisler played longer, but it's not like Fournier and Chance were only slightly ahead of him in OPS+ for their careers. We know Sisler had an awesome peak, and then tailed off a lot because of a vision problems, but that's part of his career that has to be taken into account. His peak was also not as great as it seems, once taken into context.

I agree that you can't ignore his performance after the vision problems, but you also can't ignore that 1) He had a better and longer peak than the others and 2) That he is way ahead in plate appearances than the others. You can't equate Chance's 5000 plate appearances or Fournier's 6000 to Sisler's 9000. Those are very large gaps. Sisler's career was almost twice as long as Chance's. Chance would have had to play 6-8 more fullish seasons to have as many plate appearances as Sisler. Had he done so, his OPS+ likely would have been significantly lower. This also ignores that Chance and Fournier were part time players for large portions of their careers (the majority in Chance's case), and thus again in shorter sample sizes, had an advantage over Sisler to keep their rate stats inflated. Is Benny Kauff also a better player than Sisler because he had a 149 OPS+ in just 3500 plate appearances? When does the difference in sample size matter? In sum, you just can't ignore the huge disparity in sample size, otherwise you're essentially rewarding the other players for having significantly shorter careers.

EDIT: As mentioned, Chance had just 5000 plate appearances with an OPS+ of 135. In comparison, Sisler through his first 5200 plate appearances had a career OPS+ of 144. Fournier had just 6000 plate appearances with an OPS+ of 142. Sisler through his first approximately 6000 plate appearances had an career OPS+ of 141, almost identical to Fournier, and unlike Fournier came while playing exclusively full time. So are we just going to ignore that through roughly the same amount of plate appearances, Sisler played at the same, if not better level than Chance and Fournier? To hold otherwise would reward Chance and Fournier for significantly shorter careers where they were part time players for several years, and punish Sisler for a much longer career as well as ignore the fact that when pared down to a shorter length, he played at the same level as the other two.

WIN SHARES per 162
Chance - 29.86
Terry - 26.17
Fournier - 24.46
Sisler - 23.02

You make a good point with the other Win Share comparisons though the peak differences aren't much (and I'll have to go back and look at my win shares which are on another computer), but in respect to the last category, again, rate stats here can be misleading because Sisler played significantly longer than the others. Had they played as long as Sisler, their win share rates likely would have been quite lower.

As for your point about defense, I just plain forgot about Terry's defense.

[SavoyBG]

you also can't ignore that 1) He had a better and longer peak than the others and 2) That he is way ahead in plate appearances than the others.

I'm not so sure that he did have a better peak than the others:

It seems like Chance clearly had a better peak, and Terry maybe too.

WIN SHARES BEST THREE SEASONS
Chance - 35-31-29 = 95
Sisler - 33-29-29 = 91
Terry - 32-32-39 = 90

WIN SHARES BEST 5 CONSECUTIVE SEASONS
Chance - 143
Terry - 142
Sisler - 135

And if you stretch it out to seven consecutive seasons:

Terry - 191
Sisler - 189
Chance - 177

Hard to say that he had a longer and better peak than the others when he doesn't win any of the above three peak comps.

[mwiggins]

Don't forget that Sisler had a couple of years in his peak where the AL did not play a full schedule. Only 1939 games in 1919 and 122 in 1918. For example, his 1918 season is clearly better than any of Terry's, but I'm sure because he only played 114 games (out of 122), his WS total doesn't match up to Terry's best years.

Though, on the other hand, whatever win shares he earned in 1920 probably should be discounted somewhat because of his absurd home-away splits that year.

[mwiggins]

A quick little comparison of the 4 National League first basemen that seem to be in the conversation for best of the 20th century. I'll use 6 seasons, since that's how many Chance was a relatively fulltime player. I'll use consecutive years, except for Fournier, who had some "interuptions" in the middle of his career.

Chance (1903-1908): OPS+ (145); OWP (.735); 266 SB's; 4 Top 5's in OPS+; 4 Top 5's in OWP; 4 Top 5's in Batting Wins. Led league in SB's twice.

Sisler (1917-1922): OPS+ (161); OWP (.796); 238 SB's; 4 Top 5's in OPS+; 6 Top 5's in OWP; 5 Top 5's in Batting Wins. Led the league in SB's 3 times, in Batting Wins once.

Terry (1927-1932): OPS+ (145); OWP (.739); 38 SB's; 3 Top 5's in OPS+; 3 Top 5's in OWP; 3 Top 5's in Batting Wins.

Fournier: OPS+ (157); OWP (.747); 73 SB's; 5 Top 5's in OPS+; 4 Top 5's in OWP; 5 Top 5's in Batting Wins.

I think just on peaks, Sisler is the best first basemen in the National League this century, and the best we've seen in all of baseball between the Cap/Brouthers era in the last century and the modern slugging first basemen like Gehrig and Foxx.

Sisler outhit the other three players. Fournier was close to Sisler with the bat, but Sisler had a large baserunning and defensive edge on him. Terry was the best defender of the bunch, and Chance the best baserunner, but Sisler was close in both areas. He certainly was the most complete of the 4 players. His only real weakness was his lack of walks, which I don't have that much of a problem with given his role with the team and the era he played in.

[Paul Wendt]

I am a big fan of Sisler and hope he gets in on the 1st ballot, but to be fair at least in the comparison to Chance (and possibly Fournier??), didn't Sisler play under a consistent 154 game schedule? IIRC, the seasons were much shorter during Chance's playing career.
Not really. He became a regular player in 1903 under the last 140-game schedule. Sisler and almost all regular players of his time played one of those in 1919; Sisler and the majority played through 1918, a season about 10% shorter than that. That is, 1918 and 1919 have as much "shortening" as three 140-game schedules, eg 1901-1903.

Chance debuted in 1898 but played catcher more than any other position (183 games) and he was frequently hurt. In five seasons under two 154-game and three 140-game schedules --not team games played-- he played in 307 games only. . . . In Frank Selee's first season as manager, Frank Chance led the "firstbase staff" with 38 games played, with staffmates at 31-22-19-18-12-3-2. (The sum is 145 player fielding games in 141 team games.) Next season Chance played 121 games teamed with six substitute players 8-6-6-3-2-1. Next season they expanded to 154 games for the third and final time.

[jjpm74]

Thanks for the insights into scheduling from that era, Paul.

[SavoyBG]

I think just on peaks, Sisler is the best first basemen in the National League this century,

Sisler played mainly in the American League.

[SavoyBG]

Terry was the best defender of the bunch, and Chance the best baserunner, but Sisler was close in both areas.

So you are disputing these numbers that suggest that Sisler was not close to Chance as a fielder, and was not even in the same stadium with Terry as a fielder?

Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

Terry - 2.28
Chance - 1.78
Sisler - 1.35
Fournier - 1.34

[PVNICK]

how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.

[SavoyBG]

how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.

Contemporary accounts on fielding have proven to be totally wrong in many cases. I don't want to bring up a certain Yankees SS being that he hasn't been born yet here in 1934, but there are plenty of cases where the public and the press and even the players, managers and coaches (gold gloves) are clearly wrong about a player's fielding.

[jjpm74]

how are they coming up with those fielding win shares for 1B? If contemporary obseervations are taken seriously than it's hard to put much stock in a system that has George Sisler .01 better than Jack Fournier. Sisler was considered one of the best fielders to ever have played to that time and Forunier took years to get and hold a job at least in part becuase of his lack of fielding prowess.

All the sources I read suggest Fournier was held back because of his stature and his inability to charge a bunt. That's not necessarily something that would translate to poor fielding statistics. Someone can lack range, but still be adept at fielding balls they can actually get to. Jake Beckley was guilty of having a weak arm, but he scores relatively well in defensive CWS as well.

[jjpm74]

Contemporary accounts on fielding have proven to be totally wrong in many cases. I don't want to bring up a certain Yankees SS being that he hasn't been born yet here in 1934, but there are plenty of cases where the public and the press and even the players, managers and coaches (gold gloves) are clearly wrong about a player's fielding.

Very true. Someone from this very general time frame that comes to mind is Hal Chase.

[Paul Wendt]

Doing a little more research, the problem with 3B may be even simpler than I thought. Using a database, I figured out how many folks had at least 7000 PA from 1876-1935 (the database doesn't include info before 1876). There were 92 such players.
Beginning in 1871 but defining the problem differently, 122 players have worked at least 10.0 full seasons at one fielding position or at outfield. (The measure is FS equivalent fielding games.)

48 outfield (90)
22 firstbase (33)
17 shortstop (24)
12 secondbase (27)
9 thirdbase (18)
4 catcher (20)
0 pitcher (1) - bobby mathews
---
112 sum, or any one fieldpos (213)

On second thought I have reported the number who surpass 8.0 full seasons in parentheses; there are 213 at all fielding positions.

Here is the same table covering 1871-1905.

22 outfield (36)
7 firstbase (11)
7 shortstop (10)
4 secondbase (12)
4 thirdbase (8)
2 catcher (8)
0 pitcher (1) - bobby mathews
---
46 sum, or any one fieldpos (86)

What about my hoary suggestion to considered SS is "center infield" as CF is "center outfield"?

1871-1935
10 LF (18)
8 CF (20)
6 RF (14)

1871-1905
4 LF (7)
4 CF (10)
3 RF (6)

We see more CFs than LFs and RFs when the scope is restricted to earlier players with longer careers at one position. Otherwise no pattern is clear.

The more important pattern is that we don't see many players with long careers at one fielding position, if we count the outfield as three positions. There is so much mobility among the outfield positions, only about half of the 10-season outfielders also played 10.0 full seasons in a particular outfield.

[DoubleX]

So you are disputing these numbers that suggest that Sisler was not close to Chance as a fielder, and was not even in the same stadium with Terry as a fielder?

Fielding win shares per 1000 innings played:

Terry - 2.28
Chance - 1.78
Sisler - 1.35
Fournier - 1.34

You continue to ignore how rate stats diminish over time. Sisler played significantly longer than the other players in this conversation, it's almost comparing apples to oranges. You're essentially punishing Sisler for playing much longer and rewarding the others for having much shorter careers. It should be to Sisler's credit that he outlasted them by substantial margins. If you want to be more fair in these comparisons, compare Sisler through the same amount of plate appearances that the others had. For instance, compare Sisler's first 5000 plate appearances to Chance's career (which was approximately 5000 plate appearances). When you do this, you'll find that Sisler's rate stats jump up remarkably, and it is a more fair and less misleading comparison. Otherwise, you're essentially equated 5000 plate appearances to 9000, and that's just not right.

[leecemark]

--I don't think anyone who has been at BBF for very long would consider me a Sisler fan, but he does stand out from his contemporaries - or at least his early contemporaries. Sisler had the best peak for a firstbaseman since Brouthers back in the 19th century. His stature has faded some due to the twin factors of his continuing to play after his eye problems turned him into an average player and the arrival of a new breed of slugging firstbaseman during the later part of his career.
--It appears that the expectations for a firstbaseman will be different now that HRs are becoming such a big part of the game. Teams are looking toward big mashers instead of the more athletic men stationed there in the past. Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx and younger sluggers such as Hank Greenberg are the new standard and Sisler doesn't match up well to them. He looked especially puny playing on the same fields as them once his batting skills were dimished. None of this should detract from his greatness at his peak, nor his deservedness of a spot in the Hall of Fame.

[PVNICK]

Contemporary accounts on fielding have proven to be totally wrong in many cases. I don't want to bring up a certain Yankees SS being that he hasn't been born yet here in 1934, but there are plenty of cases where the public and the press and even the players, managers and coaches (gold gloves) are clearly wrong about a player's fielding.

I understand about observers at times being wrong, but I still wonder how you come up with rating for 1B based on the data available, PO, A and PCT? Bill Buckner in his gimpy legged days with the Cubs and Sox would put up huge assist numbers that werr comaparble to Keith Hernandez if not higher but in Buckner's case were mainly flips to a covering pitcher because he could not get to the bag, rather than throws ot other bases or throws to the pitcher due to distance from the bag not slowness of 1B in being able to get to the bag. Looking at lines of type in a book Buckner's assist numebrs dwarf both Mattingly and Hernandez from 1983-1987.
Buckner Hernandez Mattingly
PO A PCT PO A PCT PO A PCT
1547 159 .993 1418 147 .992 278 12 .997
1366 161 .992 1214 142 .994 1107 124 .996
1040 101 .987 1310 139 .997 1318 87 .995
1384 184 .992 1199 149 .996 1377 100 .996
1067 157 .989 1298 149 .993 1239 91 .996

[mwiggins]

All the sources I read suggest Fournier was held back because of his stature and his inability to charge a bunt. That's not necessarily something that would translate to poor fielding statistics. Someone can lack range, but still be adept at fielding balls they can actually get to. Jake Beckley was guilty of having a weak arm, but he scores relatively well in defensive CWS as well.

Not being able to charge a bunt competently would be a rather large deal in the deadball era. Range isn't really a big deal for "modern" first basemen, but it was in the 1910's.

And just the fact that a guy who hit like he did couldn't get on the field tells you he didn't have just minor issues with playing first base. It wasn't until the liveball era was in full swing that he was able to play regularly. And it wasn't just one team that didn't feel he could handle the position.

And even when he did start, he led NL first basemen in errors in 1920 with 25 (7 more than the runner up). And after that he was first in errors in 1921, second in 1922, first in 1923, second in 1924, and second in 1925.

[Paul Wendt]

Bill Doak was one of the spitball pitchers permitted to continue his specialty after 1920. More important, when he ordered from Rawlings for the 1920 season he introduced the web between thumb and forefinger that everyone soon adopted in some form. They say Doak earns "a sizeable income" from the Bill Doak glove to this day.

Hank Gowdy enlisted in 1917 and spent all of the 1918 season in military service. Afterward he split the catcher's role for another seven seasons in the majors. Since then he has remained in the game as a coach for the Braves.

This year I have cast a vote for Chief Bender at last. If 74% of the voters want to honor him as the first native Indian star, I will go along with that.

[jjpm74]

Not being able to charge a bunt competently would be a rather large deal in the deadball era. Range isn't really a big deal for "modern" first basemen, but it was in the 1910's.

And just the fact that a guy who hit like he did couldn't get on the field tells you he didn't have just minor issues with playing first base. It wasn't until the liveball era was in full swing that he was able to play regularly. And it wasn't just one team that didn't feel he could handle the position.

And even when he did start, he led NL first basemen in errors in 1920 with 25 (7 more than the runner up). And after that he was first in errors in 1921, second in 1922, first in 1923, second in 1924, and second in 1925.

I definitely agree with everything you said here. I'm just offering a reason why Fournier's defense doesn't look bad on paper.

[mwiggins]

How does Sisler fair in defensive WS's during his pre-illness peak years? I don't know for sure, but I would expect that his fielding probably suffered as well from his vision problems. Does Win Shares show that? I'm sure most, if not all, of the historical praise of Sisler's fielding were refering to him in his prime.

[mwiggins]

I definitely agree with everything you said here. I'm just offering a reason why Fournier's defense doesn't look bad on paper.

Another big reason would probably be that during the years he was considered too poor a fielder to play full time, he wasn't racking up poor DWS scores because he wasn't playing. Most of his DWS rates are going to be reflecting his time as a regular during the 1920's. But that doesn't change the fact that during the 1910's he was considered very sub-par as a fielder and Sisler was considered a defensive wiz. If Fournier had been playing full time in the 1910's and rating as one of the worst 1B in the league in terms of DWS, his career DWS rates would probably look quite a bit worse.

[SavoyBG]

You continue to ignore how rate stats diminish over time. Sisler played significantly longer than the other players in this conversation, it's almost comparing apples to oranges. You're essentially punishing Sisler for playing much longer and rewarding the others for having much shorter careers. It should be to Sisler's credit that he outlasted them by substantial margins. If you want to be more fair in these comparisons, compare Sisler through the same amount of plate appearances that the others had. For instance, compare Sisler's first 5000 plate appearances to Chance's career (which was approximately 5000 plate appearances). When you do this, you'll find that Sisler's rate stats jump up remarkably, and it is a more fair and less misleading comparison. Otherwise, you're essentially equated 5000 plate appearances to 9000, and that's just not right.

The problem is that the second half of Sisler's career is MUCH WEAKER than would normally be for a player who had a first half of a career like he did.

I've already shown that despite the shorter careers, that Terry +(already by 1933) and Fournier had more career adjusted batting runs than Sisler. Essentially George was a well below average player after 1922. For what it's worth, his TPR after 1922 is NEGATIVE 6.0 games.

And as for his fielding, it's too far below Terry ann even Chance to be chalked up to being cuased merely by playing longer.

Here's some other firstbasemen who played as long or close to as long as Sisler:

PLAYER - INNINGS - WS per 1,000 innings
Pipp - 16063 - 2.17
Konetchy - 18463 - 2.10
Daubert - 17855 - 1.90
McInnis - 17539 - 1.89
Beckley - 20802 - 1.82
Judge - 18188 - 1.69
Sisler - 17575 - 1.35

The anecdotal evidence for Chase is even more compelling than for Sisler. Maybe win shares fielding is totaly wrong on these guys, but I would find it hard to believe that Sisler was the best fielder of this bunch.

[SavoyBG]

How does Sisler fair in defensive WS's during his pre-illness peak years? I don't know for sure, but I would expect that his fielding probably suffered as well from his vision problems. Does Win Shares show that? I'm sure most, if not all, of the historical praise of Sisler's fielding were refering to him in his prime.

Let's see:

The only year when Sisler led his league in fielding win shares was 1918. Otherwise it was Pipp, Gandil, McInnis or Sheely leading during Sisler's peak years. Pipp led 4 times in 6 years between 1915 and 1920.

[DoubleX]

The problem is that the second half of Sisler's career is MUCH WEAKER than would normally be for a player who had a first half of a career like he did.

That's true, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that the other players weren't even playing for that portion of their careers. You're rewarding them for playing substantially less than Sisler did. How is that fair? When you do that, you equate all career lengths. Is it fair to put someone like Benny Kauff on the same footing as someone like Cap Anson? This is an extreme example, but your posts here would seem to imply that yes, Kauff's 149 OPS+ is better than Anson's 141 OPS+, and that the vast difference in length of their careers doesn't matter.

[SavoyBG]

That's true, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that the other players weren't even playing for that portion of their careers. You're rewarding them for playing substantially less than Sisler did. How is that fair? When you do that, you equate all career lengths. Is it fair to put someone like Benny Kauff on the same footing as someone like Cap Anson? This is an extreme example, but your posts here would seem to imply that yes, Kauff's 149 OPS+ is better than Anson's 141 OPS+, and that the vast difference in length of their careers doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, but I hope you''re not saying that the difference between the length of Kauff's career (not to mention his best seasons were in a league that was probably worse than the PCL) and the length of Anson's career are similar to the differences between the length of Sisler's career and the length of Fournier or Terry's career.

Please look at these numbers one more time:

ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
Fournier - 313
Terry - 280 (through 1933)
Sisler - 250
Chance - 216

Sisler may have played longer, but he was arguably hurting his team for much of that time, and Fournier and Terry not only had better rate stats, but also produced many more runs (above average) than Sisler did during their careers.

This all started when somebody suggested that Sisler was definitely the best hitting firstbaseman of the century before Gehrig. I say that this is very debatable, no matter how you want to define "best hitting."

As for the Kauff/Anson comp.....

ADJUSTED BATTING RUNS
Anson - 511
Kauff - 174

If Kauff had more adjusted batting runs than Anson, as Terry and Fournier have more than Sisler, THEN I might say he was a better hitter than Anson.

See the difference?

[DoubleX]

Of course it matters, but I hope you''re not saying that the difference between the length of Kauff's career (not to mention his best seasons were in a league that was probably worse than the PCL) and the length of Anson's career are similar to the differences between the length of Sisler's career and the length of Fournier or Terry's career.

Sisler had around 3000 more plate appearances than Fournier. That's not enough for you? That's like 5 or 6 seasons worth of playing. So of course Fournier has a huge advantage at having higher rate stats. It seems like you'd like Sisler a lot more if he stopped playing after 6000 PA, which as I pointed out before, would give him a 141 OPS+.

I also think you missed my point in using Kauff and Anson. It was meant to be an exaggerated example to illustrate that PA differences mean something.