BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1940 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1940

DoubleX

02-23-2009, 02:06 PM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes carry great weight. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to stay on the ballot (NOTE: Starting in 1940, this rule also applies to first year eligible players).

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.

1940 Guide
There are 43 candidates on the 1940 ballot – 31 holdovers and 12 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1935 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (12)
Larry Benton
Max Bishop
Earle Combs
Hughie Critz
Sam Jones
Willie Kamm
Dolf Luque
Bob O'Farrell
Babe Ruth
Lefty Stewart
Dazzy Vance
Glenn Wright

Holdovers (31)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Dave Bancroft 6th 18.75% 28.13% (1936) 18.75% (1939) 22.94%
Lu Blue 3rd 6.25% 6.25% (1939) 3.33% (1938) 4.79%
George J. Burns 11th 18.75% 24.00% (1930) 9.09% (1935) 16.71%
Wilbur Cooper 10th 43.75% 58.33% (1932) 33.33% (1935) 46.14%
Johnny Evers 15th 25.00% 41.67% (1932) 21.21% (1935) 28.85%
Red Faber 3rd 68.75% 68.75% (1939) 63.33% (1938) 66.04%
Larry Gardner 12th 6.25% 15.63% (1931) 6.25% (1936, 1939) 8.64%
Burleigh Grimes 2nd 56.25% 56.25% (1939) 56.25% (1935) 56.25%
Harry Hooper 11th 21.88% 34.38% (1931) 15.63% (1936) 21.85%
Joe Judge 2nd 3.13% 3.13% (1939) 3.13% (1939) 3.13%
George Kelly 4th 6.25% 10.00% (1938) 2.94% (1937) 6.40%
Ed Konetchy 15th 12.50% 16.67% (1932) 8.00% (1929) 12.11%
Rabbit Maranville 3rd 62.50% 66.67% (1938) 62.50% (1939) 64.59%
Rube Marquard 11th 18.75% 28.00% (1930) 9.38% (1936) 17.13%
Carl Mays 7th 56.25% 56.25% (1937) 45.45% (1935) 50.25%
Lefty O'Doul 2nd 12.50% 12.50% (1939) 12.50% (1939) 12.50%
Herb Pennock 2nd 25.00% 25.00% (1939) 25.00% (1939) 25.00%
Del Pratt 12th 6.25% 20.83% (1932) 6.25% (1939) 13.55%
Jack Quinn 3rd 6.25% 6.67% (1938) 6.25% (1939) 6.46%
Sam Rice 2nd 53.13% 53.13% (1939) 53.13% (1939) 53.13%
Eppa Rixey 3rd 59.38% 60.00% (1938) 59.38% (1939) 59.69%
Ray Schalk 7th 18.75% 25.00% (1934) 18.18% (1935) 20.21%
Wally Schang 5th 34.38% 34.38% (1936, 1939) 32.35% (1937) 33.61%
Joe Sewell 3rd 68.75% 68.75% (1939) 63.33% (1938) 66.04%
Urban Shocker 8th 26.67% 35.71% (1933) 15.63% (1939) 28.15%
Riggs Stephenson 2nd 6.25% 6.25% (1939) 6.25% (1939) 6.25%
Hippo Vaughn 15th 12.50% 21.43% (1934) 10.00% (1938) 15.14%
Bobby Veach 11th 31.25% 39.29% (1934) 24.00% (1930) 30.78%
Cy Williams 6th 6.25% 15.15% (1935) 6.25% (1938) 11.80%
Hack Wilson 2nd 53.13% 53.13% (1939) 53.13% (1939) 53.13%
Ross Youngs 10th 15.63% 16.67% (1938) 6.25% (1936) 11.17%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (3)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Gavvy Cravath End of Eligibility 15 37.50% (1925) 18.18% (1935) 26.55%
Lew Fonseca Lack of Support 2 3.33% (1938) 0% (1939) 1.67%
Bob Meusel Lack of Support 5 9.09% (1935) 3.13% (1939) 6.24%

Last Year of Eligibility (3)
Player High Support
Johnny Evers 41.67% (1932)
Ed Konetchy 16.67% (1932)
Hippo Vaughn 21.43% (1934)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (8)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Red Faber 68.75% 2
Joe Sewell 68.75% 2
Rabbit Maranville 62.50% 2
Eppa Rixey 59.38% 2
Burleigh Grimes 56.25% 1
Carl Mays 56.25% 4
Sam Rice 53.13% 1
Hack Wilson 53.13% 1

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (80)
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased Age at Election
Pete Alexander 1935 93.94% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1911-1930 20 Living - Age 53 48
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 54 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 59 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 64 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 72 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 50 44
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 72 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 54 47
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Living - Age 53 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 70 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1857-1931) 45
Stan Coveleski 1934 89.29% 2 Pitcher Cleveland Indians (AL) 1912, 1916-1928 14 Living - Age 51 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 60 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 70 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Deceased (1870-1940) 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 54 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 74 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 64 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 83 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 52
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 51 47
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Deceased (1866-1940) 40
Harry Heilmann 1937 91.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Living - Age 46 43
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Deceased (1855-1935) 49
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 53 45
Addie Joss 1929 76.00% 15 Pitcher Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1902-1910 9 Deceased (1880-1911) Deceased
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 69 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 66 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 81 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 80 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 71 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 69 35
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902-1903 18 Deceased (1885-1923) Deceased
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 47 42
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 52 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 Deceased (1856-1937) 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 74 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 66 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 67 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 59 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 81 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 19 Living - Age 52 44
Deacon White^ 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Deceased (1847-1939) 57
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 64 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Deceased (1847-1937) 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 73 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 (7): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, George Sisler, Joe Start
Second Base (7): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (4): Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, 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 (11): Pete Browning, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Jimmy Ryan, Tris Speaker, George Van Haltren
Right Field (6): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (22): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, 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
1934 (2): Max Carey, Stan Coveleski
1935 (3): Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, George Sisler
- 1935 VC (0):
1936 (1): Heinie Groh
1937 (1): Harry Heilmann
1938 (0):
1939 (0):

Players Elected by Primary Decade
1870s (9): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright
1880s (21): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Tony Mullane, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward, Mickey Welch
1890s (17): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (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 (12): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, Sherry Magee, Tris Speaker, Zack Wheat
1920s (3): Stan Coveleski, Harry Heilmann, George Sisler

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) (2): Eddie Collins, Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (3): Heinie Groh, Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (5): Stan Coveleski, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Tris Speaker
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Detroit Tigers (AL) (3): Ty Cobb, Sam Crawford, Harry Heilmann
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) (5): Pete Alexander, Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Sherry Magee, Sam Thompson
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) (4): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Honus Wagner
Providence Grays (NL) (3): Paul Hines, Charley Radbourn, Joe Start
St. Louis Browns (AL) (2): George Sisler, 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: 38
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 25
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.97%
- 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: 3.89 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 25
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 9
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 2.25
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 68.75% - Red Faber (1939), Joe Sewell (1939)
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 66.04% -Red Faber, Joe Sewell
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1938, 1939)
- Average Regular Election Electees Per Year: 1.87
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 47 Players (1932)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 34 (1937)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 26.42
- 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: 16.18 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 47.88
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 15
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 36
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Jack Glasscock - 83
- Deceased in Past Year: George Davis, Billy Hamilton

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
1934: 28
1935: 33
1936: 32
1937: 34
1938: 30
1939: 32

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84636)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)
1928 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85029)
1929 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85206)
1930 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85358), 1930 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85439)
1931 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85681)
1932 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85850)
1933 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86054)
1934 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86291)
1935 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86514), 1935 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86576)
1936 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1408310#post1408310)
1937 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87002)
1938 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87241)
1939 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87501)

DoubleX

02-23-2009, 02:20 PM

Reminder: Starting this year the 5% rule is no longer suspended for first year eligible players. All players must not receive at least 5% to stay on the ballot. I believe the holdovers are becoming too cluttered, so I'm hoping this will help alleviate that.

On the flipside, we have perhaps our deepest pool of holdovers in years. 8 players last year received over 50% support, with three getting over 62%. So there are definitely cases to be made out there. Those 8 players are:

Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Hack Wilson

I definitely think our standards encompass at least some of these players, though we seemed to have become more selective in recent years. At the very least, we should break our two year drought of not electing anyone as Ruth is virtually guaranteed and I would think Dazzy Vance has a good shot as well. I also wouldn't be surprised if Faber and/or Sewell made the leap this year.

KCGHOST

02-23-2009, 02:36 PM

I'm pretty sure that we will elect someone this time, but not unanimously.

Faber
Rixey
Ruth
Sewell
Shocker
Vance

Senor Octobre

02-23-2009, 02:51 PM

E Combs
W Cooper
J Evers
R Faber
E Konetchy
D Luque
R Maranville
C Mays
E Rixey
B Ruth
W Schang
J Sewell
U Shocker
D Vance
H Vaughn

Full ballot again. Some changes. Added Rixey and 1st timers Combs, Luque, Ruth and Vance.

Evers, Konetchy and Vaughn are off the ballot after this year. Ruth should be unanimous ;).

Bancroft, Hooper, O'Doul, Pratt, Quinn, Rice, Schalk, Stephenson, Veach, Williams, Wilson, and Youngs are all fringe candidates to me.

mwiggins

02-23-2009, 02:52 PM

Red Faber
Joe Sewell
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Wally Schang
Ross Youngs
Hack Wilson
Babe Ruth
Dazzy Vance

My largest ballot ever, I believe.

Senor Octobre

02-23-2009, 02:59 PM

I'm pretty sure that we will elect someone this time, but not unanimously.

Ruth for sure will be elected. It should be unanimous but I'm sure someone will find a reason not to vote. Faber, Sewell and Vance also have pretty good chances.

BigRon

02-23-2009, 03:31 PM

I only voted for
Ruth

Several intersting pitchers- I think Vance is the most deserving of the group, but I'll hold off and think about him and others a bit more.

jjpm74

02-23-2009, 03:33 PM

Back to a full ballot this year:

Wilbur Cooper
Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Ed Konetchy
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Babe Ruth
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Dazzy Vance
Hippo Vaughn
Hack Wilson

Ed Konetchy and Hippo Vaughn get the nod this year because both are close for me and they are on their 15th ballot. I'm hoping we elect more than just Babe Ruth this year. The ballot is getting very cluttered and there's 7 people currently on the ballot for more than a year who meet or surpass our previous standards for election: Wilbur Cooper, Red Faber, Burleigh Grimes, Rabbit Maranville, Eppa Rixey, Joe Sewell, Hack Wilson. Besides for them, Dazzy Vance and Babe Ruth should be no brainers.

mwiggins

02-23-2009, 03:46 PM

I only voted for
Ruth

Several intersting pitchers- I think Vance is the most deserving of the group, but I'll hold off and think about him and others a bit more.

Here's an interesting article on just how dominant Vance was.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/printarticle/strike-zone-dominance-in-context-dazzy-and-pedro/

He has the best relative strikeout rate and relative K/BB ratio in history. And his 1924 (1st), 1928 (5th), and 1923 (10th) are three of the 10 best relative strikeout seasons in history.

philkid3

02-23-2009, 03:47 PM

Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Babe Ruth
Joe Sewell
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs

I feel very strongly that Babe Ruth is the greatest player in the history of the game to this point, and I don't really see anyone right now who I expect to challenge him. DiMaggio is a pretty nifty player and he'll be in this group, but I think he might be a tad overrated.

Of course, if Ted Williams reproduces that rookie year. . .

In any case, anything less than 100% for Ruth is a crime. I'm also adding Sam Rice.

Sockeye

02-23-2009, 03:57 PM

Here is my "would be" ballot

1. Babe Ruth
2. Hack Wilson
3. Bobby Veach
4. Sam Rice
5. Burleigh Grimes
6. Dazzy Vance
7. Red Faber
8. George J. Burns

Players just missing the cut are

Harry Hooper
Ed Konetchy
Cy Williams
Eppa Rixey
Earle Combs
Lefty O'Doul

vtbub

02-23-2009, 04:03 PM

Maranville
Mays
Ruth
Vance
Wilson

Brad Harris

02-23-2009, 04:23 PM

Burns
Cooper
Faber
Grimes
Konetchy
Maranville
Mays
Rixey
Ruth
Schang
Sewell
Shocker
Vance
Veach
Wilson

Please deduct one vote for Luque as I accidentally voted for 16. Thanks. ;)

jalbright

02-23-2009, 05:41 PM

Wilbur Cooper
Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Babe Ruth
Joe Sewell
Dazzy Vance
Hack Wilson

Cowtipper

02-23-2009, 07:43 PM

I decided to go crazy this election and vote for 14 people:

Blue
Burns
Combs
Cooper
Faber
Konetchy
Maranville
Mays
Pratt
Rice
Ruth
Sewell
Vance
Veach

jjpm74

02-23-2009, 08:13 PM

Cowtipper--Just curious, what's the main draw to Lu Blue? It's the 3rd year in a row you've voted for him and he doesn't seem to come close to the level of anyone else you typically vote for.

Senor Octobre

02-23-2009, 08:17 PM

Cowtipper--Just curious, what's the main draw to Lu Blue? It's the 3rd year in a row you've voted for him and he doesn't seem to come close to the level of anyone else you typically vote for.

Yeah, I'm puzzled by that also.

Cowtipper

02-23-2009, 08:20 PM

Yeah, I'm puzzled by that also.

His name rhymes.

jjpm74

02-23-2009, 09:39 PM

His name rhymes.

I'm just looking for some kind of insight on him because I don't know that much about Lu Blue and see multiple votes for him. I've voted for some questionable guys in the past as well. No need for a snarky reply. I'm just trying to learn more about the guys we're looking at. If you're not interested in discussing them, why are you even here? :rolleyes:

SavoyBG

02-23-2009, 09:43 PM

Faber
Maranville
Mays
Ruth
Vance

SavoyBG

02-23-2009, 09:46 PM

jjpm74

02-23-2009, 09:46 PM

Faber
Maranville
Mays
Ruth
Vance

Some solid choices. What's your take on Joe Sewell? I've been voting for him but can go either way on him and have been looking for more lines of reasoning on his HOF case.

SavoyBG

02-23-2009, 10:15 PM

Some solid choices. What's your take on Joe Sewell? I've been voting for him but can go either way on him and have been looking for more lines of reasoning on his HOF case.

My take on Sewell is that he was never dominant enough in any one season or any multiyear period, or on a per game basis, for me to consider him a hall of famer over the course of only a 1903 game career.

Sewell was a very good player for 9 seasons (1921 - 1929), but he went immediately down to being a below average player for his final 4 seasons.

He was easily the top SS of the 1920s, but that was more a matter of luck that his 9 season run as a very good player happened to come all in the 1920s than a matter of him being a so much a better player than Bancroft, even though he probably was slightly bettter than Dave.

I see Sewell as having very similar career value to Groh, but Heinie had a much better peak, and was the captain of two different world championship teams.

Of the shortstops that have been inducted so far....

Shortstop (10): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright

I think Sewell is about even with Long, but not as good as any of the others, and I would not have voted for Long. It looks like Sewell will probably get in eventually, and it wouldn't be a terrible selection if he did, but I have him a little below my standard.

Sewell and Wallace are dead even on a per game basis, but Bobby played in almost 500 more games, and also he started as a pitcher for a couple seasons, AND played for a while when they were playing much shorter schedules, and I still may not have even voted for him.

Ace Venom

02-23-2009, 11:46 PM

A full ballot again.

George Burns
Johnny Evers
Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Harry Hooper
Joe Judge
Ed Konetchy
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Herb Pennock
Sam Rice
Babe Ruth
Ray Schalk
Hippo Vaughn
Hack Wilson

Cowtipper

02-24-2009, 04:31 AM

I'm just looking for some kind of insight on him because I don't know that much about Lu Blue and see multiple votes for him. I've voted for some questionable guys in the past as well. No need for a snarky reply. I'm just trying to learn more about the guys we're looking at. If you're not interested in discussing them, why are you even here? :rolleyes:

I wasn't trying to be snarky, sorry if I came across that way. I was just joking around. I vote for Blue because from my (limited) information on player defense, he looks like he might have been good enough on that end to put him over the hump.

PVNICK

02-24-2009, 05:28 AM

Cooper
Evers
Mays
O'Farrell
Ruth
Schalk
Schang
Shocker
Vance
Vaughn

I threw a vote O'Farrell's way who was the best catcher in the NL if not MLB here in there during his long career, which is not far from our line for catchers. In good conscience I could not then omit Schalk and Schang. Whether I keep voting for them remains to be seen.

jjpm74

02-24-2009, 06:33 AM

mwiggins

02-24-2009, 06:50 AM

My take on Sewell is that he was never dominant enough in any one season or any multiyear period, or on a per game basis, for me to consider him a hall of famer over the course of only a 1903 game career.

Sewell was a very good player for 9 seasons (1921 - 1929), but he went immediately down to being a below average player for his final 4 seasons.

He was easily the top SS of the 1920s, but that was more a matter of luck that his 9 season run as a very good player happened to come all in the 1920s than a matter of him being a so much a better player than Bancroft, even though he probably was slightly bettter than Dave.

I see Sewell as having very similar career value to Groh, but Heinie had a much better peak, and was the captain of two different world championship teams.

Of the shortstops that have been inducted so far....

Shortstop (10): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright

I think Sewell is about even with Long, but not as good as any of the others, and I would not have voted for Long. It looks like Sewell will probably get in eventually, and it wouldn't be a terrible selection if he did, but I have him a little below my standard.

Sewell and Wallace are dead even on a per game basis, but Bobby played in almost 500 more games, and also he started as a pitcher for a couple seasons, AND played for a while when they were playing much shorter schedules, and I still may not have even voted for him.

I would say that Sewell was truely a dominant, great player in at least 1923. A good fielding shortstop who played almost every game at put up an OPS+ of 146 (5th in the league) while only striking out 12 times. He also finished 4th in MVP voting that year, for a team that wasn't really in contention even though they finished in third place. To put that 146 OPS+ in context, only one other regular shortstop in the AL had an OPS+ above 80 that year, Topper Rigney's 114. The others had OPS+'s of 78, 80, 75, 55, 51, and 54. The offense he generated from that position was exceptional. His OPS+ that year was over double the average of the rest of the regular shortstops in the AL that season.

And while it wasn't his best year, the fact that he finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1925, while not being among the league leaders in any of the major offensive categories and while playing for a 2nd division team, I think speaks volumes for how his defensive contributions were viewed at the time. In terms of range factor and fielding % he was excellent that year, but I'm not sure how the more advanced fielding measures saw him that season.

Comparing them through age 34 when Sewell left the game, Sewell had an OPS+ of 109 and 12.0 Batting Wins. Maranville had an OPS+ of 87 and a negative 11.2 Batting Wins. Maranville had 3 top 10 MVP finishes, while Sewell had 4. Maranville was certainly the better fielder, but Sewell was no slouch at SS. Maranville did have an advantage on the basepaths as well. Even with Maranville's sizable fielding edge, I'd still say that Sewell was the greater player through age 34, though it's close. If given the choice, I'd have much rather had Sewell from age 21-34 on my team than Maranville.

So to me it comes down to how much credit you want to give Maranville for going down to the minors and then coming back for a few more productive years after age 34.

mwiggins

02-24-2009, 07:13 AM

It's nice to see Rabbit Maranville with 17 votes. Hopefully he can maintain his momentum and ride it into our hall this year.

Vance and Faber are very close right now, but just under the magic number. I always considered both of them definite HOFers. It's surprising to see them struggle. Particularly Faber who has been on the ballot for several years now.

I'm guessing some people are ruling out Vance because of his low innings total, but we've already elected two other similar pitchers - Walsh and Brown - who had great peaks and about 3,000 IP. And since Walsh pitched in a little later era, I'd say his IP total is more impressive than either Walsh or Brown.

And I'd argue his peak was at least as dominant as either of those two greats. Brown has great ERA+ numbers, but he was also helped greatly by the Cubs defense.

Career Defense Adjusted ERA (from BP, 4.50 is average):
Walsh - 3.73
Brown - 4.06
Vance - 3.61

Ave. Top 5 DERA:
Walsh - 3.38
Brown - 3.64
Vance - 3.03

Career ERA+:
Walsh - 145
Brown - 138
Vance - 125

Ave. Top 5 ERA+:
Walsh - 163
Brown - 188
Vance - 163

ERA+ Titles:
Walsh - 2
Brown - 1
Vance - 3

WHIP Titles:
Walsh - 2
Brown - 3
Vance - 3

K/BB Titles:
Walsh - 3
Brown - 0
Vance - 8

Freakshow

02-24-2009, 07:15 AM

Nobody was elected. Cravath expired. Veach was dropped. They were replaced by newbies Ruth and Vance.

Bancroft
W. Cooper
Evers
Faber
Grimes
Hooper
Maranville
Mays
Quinn
Rixey
Ruth
Schang
Sewell
Shocker
Vance

Freakshow

02-24-2009, 07:34 AM

Besdies Ruth, four players on this ballot are members of both the BBF Hall of Fame and the Hall of Merit: Dazzy Vance, Red Faber, Eppa Rixey and Joe Sewell. All are also in Cooperstown's Hall.

Vance
Elected to the Coop: 1955 by the BBWAA
BBFHOF: 23rd election, 126th player
HoM: 1942 - 2nd year eligible, elected with Bill Terry and ahead of 17 others later elected
Collaboration top 500: #128

Faber
Elected to the Coop: 1964 by the VC
BBFHOF: 55th election, 224th player
HoM: 1939 - 1st year eligible, elected with Max Carey and ahead of 16 others later elected
Collaboration top 500: #231

Rixey
Elected to the Coop: 1963 by the VC
BBFHOF: 57th election, 229th player
HoM: 1968 - 30th year eligible, elected with Richie Ashburn and ahead of 23 others later elected
Collaboration top 500: #205

Sewell
Elected to the Coop: 1977 by the VC
BBFHOF: 56th election, 226th player
HoM: 1985 - 47th year eligible, elected with Jose Mendez and Bill Freehan, ahead of 19 others later elected
Collaboration top 500: #273

Dalkowski110

02-24-2009, 07:43 AM

I decided to vote for 15 guys, so...

-Johnny Evers
-Red Faber
-Burleigh Grimes
-Rabbit Maranville
-Carl Mays
-Herb Pennock (he was my 15th vote and I was running out of ideas)
-Sam Rice
-Eppa Rixey
-Babe Ruth
-Ray Schalk
-Joe Sewell
-Urban Shocker
-Dazzy Vance
-Hack Wilson
-Ross Youngs

DoubleX

02-24-2009, 08:58 AM

At least we'll elect someone this year. Maranville is currently also over the line and Faber and Vance are currently one vote shy. Sewell is also in striking distance.

I'm still surprised that we haven't seen more conversation about any of the 8 strong holdovers - Faber, Grimes, Maranville, Mays, Rice, Rixey, Sewell, and Wilson. I believe most of these players could eventually be elected with some good conversation.

SavoyBG

02-24-2009, 09:01 AM

I would say that Sewell was truely a dominant, great player in at least 1923. A good fielding shortstop who played almost every game at put up an OPS+ of 146 (5th in the league) while only striking out 12 times.

I don't know what his low strikeout total means except that he probably hit into more double plays than players who struck out more often.

Yes, his raw stats look impressive in 1923, but he only had 29 win shares. He was tied for the 4th highest total in the AL that year, with three other players.

mwiggins

02-24-2009, 09:18 AM

I don't know what his low strikeout total means except that he probably hit into more double plays than players who struck out more often.

Yes, his raw stats look impressive in 1923, but he only had 29 win shares. He was tied for the 4th highest total in the AL that year, with three other players.

His WS in 1923 would be understated, though, because Cleveland under-performed their Pythagorean win total by 7 games. And 29 is still more WS than Maranville ever had in a season.

Do you have Sewell's WS fielding grade his 1923 season?

jjpm74

02-24-2009, 09:21 AM

I'll try to put something together for Rabbit Maranville when I get the time. Maranville was elected to the BBFHOF when the project was on the down swing but well before the project started to wind down. AG2004 did an extensive Keltner on Maranville FOUND HERE (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1159876&postcount=122). Maranville was elected by the BBWAA on his 14th try; he was not a VC election and many of his nay sayers tend to overlook the fact that he was seen as the one of the best defenders of his generation and that he missed significant play time to service in WWI.

SavoyBG

02-24-2009, 10:22 AM

Do you have Sewell's WS fielding grade his 1923 season?

I don't think they ever did grades for seasons, but they list the top fielding SS for each season in each league, and for the 1923 AL it was Gerber.

DoubleX

02-24-2009, 11:16 AM

I don't know what his low strikeout total means except that he probably hit into more double plays than players who struck out more often.

Not sure about that. He only once hit into more than 9 DPs in a season and was never among the top 10 in the league at hitting into DPs.

SavoyBG

02-24-2009, 11:25 AM

Not sure about that. He only once hit into more than 9 DPs in a season and was never among the top 10 in the league at hitting into DPs.

Where are you getting that info from?

Baseball Reference has no GIDP numbers for Sewell at all.

DoubleX

02-24-2009, 01:28 PM

Where are you getting that info from?

Baseball Reference has no GIDP numbers for Sewell at all.

You're right. In my haste, I mistook the HBP figures for GDP as the two columns are side by side.

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 01:44 PM

Where are you getting that info from?

Baseball Reference has no GIDP numbers for Sewell at all.

Joe Sewell was one of the best contact hitters of all time. Thats got to count for something!

He also played in 1,103 consecutive games, which is 3rd all time in 1940, had 436 doubles, topped 90 Runs in a season 7 times, is 217th all time in career MVP shares, topped .300 BA 10 times and was great defensively at a defensive position. A- career defense!!! Was 6th in the 1920s in win shares where the guys ahead of him were Babe Ruth, Frankie Frisch, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby and Tris Speaker! :eek:

Here is his spread:

4-26-21-29-22-24-29-21-23-21-9-13-11-3-7

That means he was super productive for 9 straight years!

Im surprised so many people are undecided on him. He fits right in with the people already elected!:nod:

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 01:56 PM

mwiggins

02-24-2009, 02:12 PM

Was 6th in the 1920s in win shares where the guys ahead of him were Babe Ruth, Frankie Frisch, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby and Tris Speaker! :eek:

Here is his spread:

4-26-21-29-22-24-29-21-23-21-9-13-11-3-7

Thank's for those, bambambaseball. So he had two seasons that, if adjusted for the 154 game schedule, that topped 30 Win Shares, which is usually considered MVP level.

I still like him a bit better than Maranville, but I've always been more of a peak guy. But both are worthy candidates, IMO. They are both bottom-tier HOF guys, though. As is everyone on this ballot not named Ruth and Vance.

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 02:13 PM

Here is my take on Hack Wilson:

Wilson was much better then his 1 historically great season in 1930 where he had 191 RBIs 146 Runs, .809 Offensive Win %, 56 HRs and a 178 OPS+.

He topped 100 RBIs 6 times, 100 Runs 4 Times, walked a lot, had 20+ HRs 6 times including his 56 HR season. He had a 144 career OPS+ and topped 140 5 times. His black ink is 30 which is over the average HOFers black ink even with a short career. His gray ink is 110. His HOF Monitor is dead center with an average HOFer at 100.

His peak in win shares was amazing:

26-31-28-32-35

His peak was also as impressive as Hughie Jennings who we elected! :bowdown:

Defensively, he was an average C+ but he was an out fielder. Not a SS/C that are important defensively. Hack Wilson deserves to get elected!

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 02:15 PM

These are all raw win shares and are not schedule or league adjusted.

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 02:23 PM

I still like him a bit better than Maranville, but I've always been more of a peak guy. But both are worthy candidates, IMO. They are both bottom-tier HOF guys, though. As is everyone on this ballot not named Ruth and Vance.

I agree with you here. I think all these guys have an uphill battle but I also think we should probably elect most of them eventually.

Also, sorry for the multi-posts, jalbright. Theres something wrong with my computer and it logs me out of this site if I stay on too long and I lose my whole post so I have to be quick when I respond. :cry:

AstrosFan

02-24-2009, 03:12 PM

Faber
Grimes
Rixey
Ruth
Vance

dgarza

02-24-2009, 06:20 PM

duplicate post

dgarza

02-24-2009, 06:22 PM

George J Burns
Earle Combs
Johnny Evers
Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Dazzy Vance
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs
Cy Williams
Hack Wilson

1. Babe Ruth
2. Hack Wilson
3. Bobby Veach
4. Sam Rice
5. Dazzy Vance
6. Burleigh Grimes
7. Carl Mays
8. Cy Williams
9. George J Burns
10. Red Faber
11. Earle Combs
12. Joe Sewell
13. Ross Youngs
14. Eppa Rixey
15. Johnny Evers

jalbright

02-24-2009, 06:25 PM

I agree with you here. I think all these guys have an uphill battle but I also think we should probably elect most of them eventually.

Also, sorry for the multi-posts, jalbright. Theres something wrong with my computer and it logs me out of this site if I stay on too long and I lose my whole post so I have to be quick when I respond. :cry:

No sweat. If you see you have multiple posts, it would be appreciated if you deleted them to save the bandwidth, though. Thanks.

Cowtipper

02-24-2009, 06:34 PM

One guy I'm really surprised hasn't been put in is Carl Mays. Are you guys not voting for him because he beaned and killed a guy? If Greg Maddux had beaned and killed a guy, accidentally, would you not vote for him? Mays pitched in a very offensive era, and yet he had an ERA greater than .50 point better than league average(his: 2.92 lg. average: 3.49). He won over 18 games seven times and ranked in the top five in games won six times.

One way I use to judge a pitcher is I add his ERA+, black ink and grey ink together. If those numbers total 315 or better (which is the average HOFer starting pitcher x .82), I think he's a pretty good candidate for the Hall of Fame. When adding Mays' ERA+, black ink and grey ink, you get 315 exactly. I think he's a Hall of Famer (not just because of that number, obviously).

SavoyBG

02-24-2009, 08:29 PM

Joe Sewell was one of the best contact hitters of all time. Thats got to count for something!

What would you like it to count for?

The team gets every little advantage from a player who doesn't strike out much, and in many cases it becomes a disadvantage when the batter ends up hitting into more double plays. Sewell was most likely a groundball hitter who did not hit the ball very hard, as evidenced by his meager .317 batting average and .420 SLG% when he did not strike out.

By contrast someone like Babe Ruth hit .406 and slugged .819 when he did not strike out. It was much more imperative for the opposing pitcher to strike Ruth out then it was for him to strike Sewell out.

Not striking out probably has a slight bit of positive overall value, but it doesn't really amount to much more than an interesting footnote.

bambambaseball

02-24-2009, 09:05 PM

DoubleX

02-24-2009, 09:14 PM

What would you like it to count for?

The team gets every little advantage from a player who doesn't strike out much, and in many cases it becomes a disadvantage when the batter ends up hitting into more double plays. Sewell was most likely a groundball hitter who did not hit the ball very hard, as evidenced by his meager .317 batting average and .420 SLG% when he did not strike out.

By contrast someone like Babe Ruth hit .406 and slugged .819 when he did not strike out. It was much more imperative for the opposing pitcher to strike Ruth out then it was for him to strike Sewell out.

Not striking out probably has a slight bit of positive overall value, but it doesn't really amount to much more than an interesting footnote.

I think it's a pretty interesting footnote. The most basic skill of the game which every player on every level tries to master is putting bat on ball. Sewell's great ability in excelling at the most fundamental and coveted skill of the game is admirable, IMO. As a place that celebrates achievement in the game, I think Sewell's meager strikeout rate is noteworthy.

Also, without statistics I don't think if we should hold the prospect of hitting into double plays against him. I agree that your logic makes sense, but he could have just as easily been a line drive hitter who was still employing the deadball strategy of choking up and spraying the ball over the infielders' heads. For instance, he was a pretty proficient doubles hitter. He also wasn't particularly fleet of foot and thus wouldn't be particularly well suited to be a ground ball hitter, especially one that hit for average. He also had a knack for hitting sacrifices, which in itself is a positive over striking out.

I also think it's worth noting that we've been pretty generous in electing shortstops, with 10 so far inducted. However, Honus Wagner is really the only one who stood out post 1905. It seems a little inordinate that from 1871-1905ish we deemed 9 shortstops worthy, but from 1905ish-1935 we've so far found just one. Did the play at SS decline so greatly? Why were we so much more generous with 19th Century players (and not just at SS, but pretty much across the board). In Sewell, Maranville, and Bancroft, we quite possibly have the three best shortstops after Wagner from the 1905-1935 period, and we can't find room for even one of them after electing 9 players to represent the previous 35 years at the position?

EDIT: As a general comment to everyone, looking at our election figures, we've most definitely been more discerning with 20th Century players than we were with 19th Century players. The difference is pretty stark at some positions. Why is that? Were the players that much better in the 19th Century? I find that hard to believe, given the evolving nature of the game. And yet, perhaps that inability to quantify that period in the same way we can for more recent decades is why we've elected more players from that the 19th Century - it's easier to give into imagination and supposition and create a romantic view of their careers that we can't do with the same degree once we have a better grasp over statistical achievement. Regardless of the reasoning, I believe it is appropriate to take stock of our standards and start wondering why we've slowed so greatly in electing players.

Brad Harris

02-24-2009, 10:17 PM

Domenic

02-24-2009, 10:18 PM

This Sewell debate is quite intriguing - I cast my vote for Sewell this time around, did not vote for him last time, and am gradually supporting him more and more. His nine All-Star level seasons, incredible plate discipline, plus-fielding, and doubles-power made him an incredibly valuable player, as evidenced by his four top-ten finishes in MVP voting.

An average season for Sewell, at his peak, was around .325/.400/.430, fifty extra-base hits, and good defense - that's damn fine production for a shortstop.

jjpm74

02-24-2009, 11:03 PM

Here is Rabbit Maranvilles win shares spread:

1-17-24-20-27-22-18-14-23-22-16-15-4-5-1-11-17-17-9-11-6=302 and this and the other list is unadjusted and without 1918 which he lost to war service!

Best 3:

27-24-23

Defense:

A+

He looks even better then Joe Sewell and should have been elected already!

Looking at this, it looks like Maranville would have had 7 all-star level seasons (8 if we credit him for his year missed due to WWI which is conservative and reasonable given that this absence occurred during his peak), 1 MVP level season + quite a few DWS Gold Gloves. It also looks like in terms of career value, even giving him zero minor league or military credit, through 1940, he was the #1 shortstop all time in Career Win Shares. That would put him at least on a level playing field with Joe Sewell. However, Maranville also has this going for him over Sewell:

1. Rabbit Maranville had a much longer career than Joe Sewell.

2. Rabbit Maranville was an A+ shortstop which makes him an all-time great defensively at the position whereas Joe Sewell was an excellent defender but not in Maranville's class.

3. Rabbit Maranville's offensive peak, while not at the level of Sewell's still would have produced an 8 Time all-star with 1 MVP caliber season.

One other thing Maranville has going for him that I don't think was covered is that his black ink + gray ink totals puts him in the company of shortstops Bobby Wallace and Herman Long except that Maranville was much better defensively than both of these players.

Rabbit Maranville was an all-time great defensively at a defensive position. As such, win shares undervalue his impact. While this article (http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/article/ozzie_smiths_fielding_win_shares/) focuses on an all-time great defensive player who isn't even born yet in 1940, it does underscore the inherent weakness in Win Shares and defensive value that can and does apply philosophically to this project:

One of the more controversial aspects of Win Shares is the way in which it gives credit to fielders (and pitchers). In a nutshell, Bill James wasn’t sure enough of his system to let it really work. He put boundaries on the overall impact fielding could have for a team, and he also didn’t give fielders any negative fielding claim points.

As a result, it seems that Win Shares doesn’t truly value great fielders. It recognizes them, but doesn’t credit them with enough impact.

If we're willing to look at defensive impact more closely and taking career length, peak, and win shares into consideration, it appears that Rabbit Maranville is the better of the Sewell/Maranville comparison. That said, I support both in this project and feel that both players deserve closer scrutiny and eventual election via the standard election.

SavoyBG

02-25-2009, 01:40 AM

I think it's a pretty interesting footnote. The most basic skill of the game which every player on every level tries to master is putting bat on ball. Sewell's great ability in excelling at the most fundamental and coveted skill of the game is admirable, IMO. As a place that celebrates achievement in the game, I think Sewell's meager strikeout rate is noteworthy.

Also, without statistics I don't think if we should hold the prospect of hitting into double plays against him. I agree that your logic makes sense, but he could have just as easily been a line drive hitter who was still employing the deadball strategy of choking up and spraying the ball over the infielders' heads. For instance, he was a pretty proficient doubles hitter. He also wasn't particularly fleet of foot and thus wouldn't be particularly well suited to be a ground ball hitter, especially one that hit for average. He also had a knack for hitting sacrifices, which in itself is a positive over striking out.

I also think it's worth noting that we've been pretty generous in electing shortstops, with 10 so far inducted. However, Honus Wagner is really the only one who stood out post 1905. It seems a little inordinate that from 1871-1905ish we deemed 9 shortstops worthy, but from 1905ish-1935 we've so far found just one. Did the play at SS decline so greatly? Why were we so much more generous with 19th Century players (and not just at SS, but pretty much across the board). In Sewell, Maranville, and Bancroft, we quite possibly have the three best shortstops after Wagner from the 1905-1935 period, and we can't find room for even one of them after electing 9 players to represent the previous 35 years at the position?

EDIT: As a general comment to everyone, looking at our election figures, we've most definitely been more discerning with 20th Century players than we were with 19th Century players. The difference is pretty stark at some positions. Why is that? Were the players that much better in the 19th Century? I find that hard to believe, given the evolving nature of the game. And yet, perhaps that inability to quantify that period in the same way we can for more recent decades is why we've elected more players from that the 19th Century - it's easier to give into imagination and supposition and create a romantic view of their careers that we can't do with the same degree once we have a better grasp over statistical achievement. Regardless of the reasoning, I believe it is appropriate to take stock of our standards and start wondering why we've slowed so greatly in electing players.

Okay, you guys have convinced me, I'll vote for Sewell next year if he doesn't get in this time. His TPR rating, for what that's worth, is hall of fame level.

As for 19th century players being voted in I think XX is partially right about people romanticising the early players. I wasn't around at that time in this project, but I think that the pioneer players from baseball's real early days should be given extra consideration for their trailblazing careers. There's also the fact that seasons were much shorter for most of the 19th century, so if we adjust for that factor it propels many of the borderline stars from those days across the line into hall of fame territory IMO.

I think that the Cooperstown hall of fame has missed the boat on people like Ross Barnes and Lip Pike and Pete Browning and Bob Caruthers, to name a few. By the time the hall of fame was established there just weren't enough people around who really knew much about players from 50 to 60 years earlier. There also was not good statistical info available on those years at that time, and by the time there was it had been over 100 years since these players had been stars. If the hall of fame had started in 1901, like this project, I have to believe more of the early stars would have been inducted.

Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson and Johnson are five of the biggest names ever in the sport, but they should not have been the first inductees. Three of the five had not even played in the 19th century. That would be like if the rock and roll hall of fame had inducted the Beatles and Stones and Temptations before inducting Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly and Fats Domino.

We're really not far behind with 20th century inductees anyway. There are 38 inductees who were mainly from the 1880s or 1890s, and so far 31 inductees who were mainly from the 1900s and 1910s. If Maranville gets in that will be another player from the 1910s. We also have some good veteran's committee candidates from the 1900s who are just starting to come up, like Leach, who will likely get in at some point. So far the VC has inducted 9 players, all from the 19th century. As the VC moves along and goes through more modern players who did not get elected in the general election, the early 20th century will start to catch up.

As the years go by I am sure that we will have more players inducted from the 1920s then the 9 players we have from the 1870s.

PVNICK

02-25-2009, 05:56 AM

Why is there such a huge disparity between Sewell/Maranville and Dave Bancroft? From what I've seen and read Bancroft fits in between the two as a fielder, and certainly as a batter. For the teens and early 20s he or Maranville would have been 1/2 in the NL. What gives? Does he suffer from being not as exceptional with the glove as Maranville and not as above-average with the stick as Sewell even if he may have been better all-around than either of them? Is it just a backlash against a Frank Frisch electee and if he was out, perversely, he would be nmore popular?

leecemark

02-25-2009, 06:55 AM

--I don't think its unreasonable to prefer players who were great at some aspect of the game over those who were pretty good all around - even if the latter is close in value to the former. Sewell's "hook" is that he was the best hitting SS between Honus Wagner and the group of SS's who came along in the 30s - Cronin, Vaughan and Apppling. That is a good chunk of baseball history (well major league history - Lloyd and Moore of the Negro Leagues were probably better hitters). Maranville is perhaps the best fielding SS of all time - which makes him also perhaps the most valuable defender of all time.
--Dave Bancroft does have a reasonable case and if you think he belongs I encourage you to present it. Being a Better hitter than a guy whose support is based on his glove or a better fielder than a guy who support is based on his bat is not that case though. And why would being a teammate of Frankie Frisch's matter to anyone's case - pro or con;). Frisch will be an easy selection, but its hard to see how he will impact anyone elses chances.

SavoyBG

02-25-2009, 07:39 AM

jjpm74

02-25-2009, 07:58 AM

I'm open to listening to Dave Bancroft's case. He's borderline for me, but I did vote for him in the past. I only dropped him because no one was discussing his case.

Brooklyn

02-25-2009, 08:00 AM

Ruth, Rice, Sewell, Vance

mwiggins

02-25-2009, 08:01 AM

According to TPR Bancroft is a hall of famer with almost the same exact career rating as Sewell, as they see him as an all time great fielder. Win shares sees Bancroft as slightly below Sewell overall.

Does Win Shares grade Bancroft as an A defensively, or an A+?

I think wherever you draw your cutoff for HOF shortstops, there's not much difference between the three of them. And it is odd that he's drawing less support than guys like Burns and Konetchy, much less support than Sewell and Maranville, and almost no discussion.

jjpm74

02-25-2009, 08:10 AM

Does Win Shares grade Bancroft as an A defensively, or an A+?

I think wherever you draw your cutoff for HOF shortstops, there's not much difference between the three of them. And it is odd that he's drawing less support than guys like Burns and Konetchy, much less support than Sewell and Maranville, and almost no discussion.

I'm surprised to see only 2 votes for Bancroft this year. That puts him in the company of Harry Hooper, Lu Blue and Riggs Stephenson. Bancroft was definitely better than Lu Blue and Riggs Stephenson and arguably better than Harry Hooper. What's stranger is that most of the people who voted for these 3 did not vote for Bancroft. :disbelief:

mwiggins

02-25-2009, 08:21 AM

I'm surprised to see only 2 votes for Bancroft this year. That puts him in the company of Harry Hooper, Lu Blue and Riggs Stephenson. Bancroft was definitely better than Lu Blue and Riggs Stephenson and arguably better than Harry Hooper. What's stranger is that most of the people who voted for these 3 did not vote for Bancroft. :disbelief:

Maybe it's his low batting average? Though I still haven't figured out Lu Blue. I can understand Hooper and Stephenson over Bancroft, with Hooper's hit total and his defensive rep and Stephenson's .336 lifetime BA and 130 OPS+, but Blue is still puzzling. Unless it really is that his name rhymes.

SavoyBG

02-25-2009, 08:28 AM

Does Win Shares grade Bancroft as an A defensively, or an A+?

Here's what they have on win shares fielding for the three players:

PLAYER........INNINGS.....WS....WS/1000....GRADE
Maranville....19,191......123.2......6.42......... A+
Bancroft......16,591......102.9......6.20......... A
Sewell.........10,794.......63.4.......5.87....... .A-

Most likely if Sewell had had a longer career at SS he would have dropped to a B+, or maybe even lower. He was moved to 3B in 1929 when Jackie Tavener came over to Cleveland from Detroit. Win shares gives Sewell the gold glove at SS for 1925, 1926 and 1928. Seems odd that Cleveland would move Sewell off of SS after an apparently great fielding season in 1928, but I would presume that "Rabbit" Tavener was seen as a better fielding SS than Sewell by Indians manager Roger Peckinpaugh, who would probably be a good judge of SS play. What's strange is that Tavener only played 92 games at SS in 1929, yet Sewell played every game at 3B that year. Rookie Ray Gardner got most of the remaining time at SS when Tavener was not playing.

jjpm74

02-25-2009, 08:30 AM

Maybe it's his low batting average? Though I still haven't figured out Lu Blue. I can understand Hooper and Stephenson over Bancroft, with Hooper's hit total and his defensive rep and Stephenson's .336 lifetime BA and 130 OPS+, but Blue is still puzzling. Unless it really is that his name rhymes.

I read his SABR Bio and he seems to have some late inning heroics:

http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=1201&bid=1042

But so have many others who were one and done in this project. He did lose 3 years to wartime service, but how much credit can you give to him when his ML debut was in 1921?

Ace Venom

02-25-2009, 08:32 AM

In short, people focus more attention on the merits of Joe Start or Deacon White or Paul Hines because they aren't in, than on Roger Bresnahan or Joe Sewell or Rabbit Maranville because they are.

I'm in agreement with you on Deacon White. He was a league RBI leader three times and batting average twice as a catcher, the sort of things that should make us take second looks at catchers. That the vets haven't let White in yet is a bit disturbing, especially when you consider that Connie Mack is in the Hall of Fame and White isn't. Granted, Mack did have the benefit of duties outside of being a player to push his cause.

Paul Hines probably put up a lot of his numbers with impaired hearing and was probably the greatest center fielder in his time. I certainly haven't seen much support for Joe Start, but a campaign for him could help. There are plenty of pre-1900 players that could have their cases examined. Adonis Terry comes to mind.

SavoyBG

02-25-2009, 08:34 AM

Blue's a head scratcher. I don't have the Win Shares book handy, but I think he is rated an A+ defender, but that is at 1st base.

No, he's a B-

jjpm74

02-25-2009, 08:36 AM

No, he's a B-

Then his case makes even less sense.

mwiggins

02-25-2009, 08:47 AM

Here's what they have on win shares fielding for the three players:

PLAYER........INNINGS.....WS....WS/1000....GRADE
Maranville....19,191......123.2......6.42......... A+
Bancroft......16,591......102.9......6.20......... A
Sewell.........10,794.......63.4.......5.87....... .A-

Most likely if Sewell had had a longer career at SS he would have dropped to a B+, or maybe even lower. He was moved to 3B in 1929 when Jackie Tavener came over to Cleveland from Detroit. Win shares gives Sewell the gold glove at SS for 1925, 1926 and 1928. Seems odd that Cleveland would move Sewell off of SS after an apparently great fielding season in 1928, but I would presume that "Rabbit" Tavener was seen as a better fielding SS than Sewell by Indians manager Roger Peckinpaugh, who would probably be a good judge of SS play. What's strange is that Tavener only played 92 games at SS in 1929, yet Sewell played every game at 3B that year. Rookie Ray Gardner got most of the remaining time at SS when Tavener was not playing.

I've never been able to find a good reason why they moved Sewell off SS. Certainly not one that suggests Peckinpaugh thought he couldn't handle SS anymore. They also moved Hodapp from 3B to 2B that year, and from his FP and range factor, Sewell was a significant upgrade defensively at 3B.

Previous to 1929, Tavener had been one of the best SS's in the league. Sewell played some at 3B in 1928, so maybe that was some sort of trial to see how he adapted to the hotcorner after they'd decided that Hodapp couldn't handle the position. Then after Sewell's performance at 3B, they decided to leave him there and go out and get an established SS.

DoubleX

02-25-2009, 09:15 AM

FWIW, I have a theory. Cooperstown has missed quite a few pre-1900 greats. These are the guys that have been singled out in projects here before as well as other places, like the Hall of Merit. Perhaps in a project like this, we approach it from the start with a little more "caring" about seeing these players get their just due because of their exclusion from Cooperstown. Once we start looking at the deadball players, we're in territory that is well covered by Cooperstown and (minus Tommy McCarthy) very much the beginning of some of the more questionable selections, if not just the obscure ones. In short, people focus more attention on the merits of Joe Start or Deacon White or Paul Hines because they aren't in, than on Roger Bresnahan or Joe Sewell or Rabbit Maranville because they are.

I completely agree and have said this from the beginning. Collectively, we likely have this subconscious need to correct perceived slights by Cooperstown, while also being more reluctant with players who might be similarly deserving but who are actually in Cooperstown. Dave Bancroft is currently a good example. It's hard to abandon our preconceived notions, but I think we've done a fairly decent job on the whole. Though, if I had to point to one deficient area, it's that we do seem to have to fight harder for players that are viewed as a little lower in Cooperstown but decent choices nonetheless, such as Roger Bresnahan or Vic Willis, and now Joe Sewell, Rabbit Maranville, Red Faber, Eppa Rixey, and Sam Rice.

Okay, you guys have convinced me, I'll vote for Sewell next year if he doesn't get in this time. His TPR rating, for what that's worth, is hall of fame level.

As for 19th century players being voted in I think XX is partially right about people romanticising the early players. I wasn't around at that time in this project, but I think that the pioneer players from baseball's real early days should be given extra consideration for their trailblazing careers. There's also the fact that seasons were much shorter for most of the 19th century, so if we adjust for that factor it propels many of the borderline stars from those days across the line into hall of fame territory IMO.

I think that the Cooperstown hall of fame has missed the boat on people like Ross Barnes and Lip Pike and Pete Browning and Bob Caruthers, to name a few. By the time the hall of fame was established there just weren't enough people around who really knew much about players from 50 to 60 years earlier. There also was not good statistical info available on those years at that time, and by the time there was it had been over 100 years since these players had been stars. If the hall of fame had started in 1901, like this project, I have to believe more of the early stars would have been inducted.

I completely agree here also. Players should be given credit for their trailblazing, and I think we've done a good job at that. But on the flipside, as you mention, when we start trying to extrapolate statistics, some borderline players appear to cross over to Hall of Fame territory. This is what I was getting at before when I was talking about the evolving nature and limitations of the game making easier to romanticize players than when we have a better grasp over statistical achievement as we do with subsequent generations.

I think you're also right about in that by starting at 1901, we were able to more thoroughly address the 19th Century than Cooperstown, which had to look back at much larger period of history from a much more distance perspective. We were able to look at 19th Century players more in their context not long after that period, instead of including those players in with 60 or 70 years of baseball history all at once.

EDIT: I also agree with PVNICK in that Dave Bancroft deserves some extra consideration.

Domenic

02-25-2009, 11:24 AM

How does Lefty O'Doul measure up with the glove?

In terms of Win Shares per 648 PA, O'Doul bests Hall of Fame outfielders Joe Kelley, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat, Max Carey, Hugh Duffy, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Jimmy Ryan, George Van Haltren, Willie Keeler, and Sam Thompson. Granted, O'Doul had significantly fewer plate appearances than most - but his peak, which is essentially his career, is extraordinarily high.

In only four full seasons, O'Doul had two top-three finishes in the MVP, amassing 11 points in Black Ink and 77 in Gray Ink. Further, only Cobb, Hornsby (sure to be a Hall of Famer), and Joe Jackson had a higher career batting average than O'Doul. Further, only a dozen players best O'Doul in OPS+.

I did not vote for O'Doul, and I am not quite sure that that will change in the future, mostly due to the brevity of his career. However, I do feel that, like Cravath, O'Doul's case is particularly intriguing and, like Cravath, he deserves a bit more discussion than he has garnered thus far.

SavoyBG

02-25-2009, 11:56 AM

Paul Wendt

02-26-2009, 10:05 AM

I've never been able to find a good reason why they moved Sewell off SS. Certainly not one that suggests Peckinpaugh thought he couldn't handle SS anymore.
Where have you looked?
(Is there a widely available Cleveland newspaper from the mlb era? For example, Cleveland Plaindealer digitized and online?)

Peckinpaugh played shortstop himself and enjoyed a better reputation than Sewell. (I haven't studied this time period at all, but from somewhere I "know" that he was a surprising World Series goat in 1925. Good field, no hit, but he made two errors (eight in the Series) and hit a homerun in game seven.)
Do star players who become managers overtinker at their own fielding positions? overrate their positions? underrate the players at their positions?

They also moved Hodapp from 3B to 2B that year, and from his FP and range factor, Sewell was a significant upgrade defensively at 3B.

Previous to 1929, Tavener had been one of the best SS's in the league. Sewell played some at 3B in 1928, so maybe that was some sort of trial to see how he adapted to the hotcorner after they'd decided that Hodapp couldn't handle the position. Then after Sewell's performance at 3B, they decided to leave him there and go out and get an established SS.
"December 11, 1928: Traded by the Detroit Tigers with Ken Holloway to the Cleveland Indians for George Uhle."

Ouch. Holloway gave 119 ip at ERA+ 147, Tavener 292 pa at OPS+ 50. Both were done in 1930.
. . . In 1930, their ~24-year-old rookie shortstop Jonah Goldman hit 56 in 350 pa; -15 in 70 pa during 1931.
Meanwhile ~25-year-old rookie shortstop Ed Montague played 46 games at the position followed by 64 and 57 games in 1931-32. He hit 73 in 733 pa over the three seasons. He shared the position with Goldman and Johnny Burnett in '31, Burnett in '32.
Burnett was another rookie, 25+ years old in 1930. He hit 92-92-87 in the three seasons, about 1200 pa. At shortstop he played 19-63-103 games.

They released Sewell before the 1931 season (to be replaced at third Willie Kamm at third). That followed 571 pa at OPS+ 87 for Sewell.

The Yankees put Sewell at third for three seasons beside Lyn Lary, then Frankie Crosetti at short.

DoubleX

02-27-2009, 10:15 AM

Looking ahead to next year, here is who I got:

George Blaeholder - May not be on ballot
Jack Burns - Likely won't be on ballot
Alvin Crowder
George Earnshaw
Charlie Grimm
Travis Jackson
Mark Koenig
Freddie Lindstrom
Firpo Marberry
Bing Miller
Glenn Myatt - Likely won't be on ballot
Flint Rhem - May not be on ballot
Bill Terry
George Uhle
Bill Walker - Likely won't be on ballot
George Watkins - Likely won't be on ballot
Tom Zachary

Not too much outside Bill Terry. Travis Jackson and Freddie Lindstrom could get some support, maybe even Firpo Marberry who was utilized in an interesting starter/game finisher type way. Maybe we could call that a closer?

bambambaseball

02-27-2009, 03:16 PM

Bill Terry and George Uhle are definites for my balott next year. Freddie Lindstrom and Travis Jackson Id listen to other opinions on. Marberry I may have on my balott if theres room.

I was thinking of calling Marberry a finisher, but closer is something I like the sound of!:gt

Brad Harris

02-27-2009, 03:25 PM

Where have you looked?
(Is there a widely available Cleveland newspaper from the mlb era? For example, Cleveland Plaindealer digitized and online?)
Sadly, not yet. I spent a good amount of time looking for precisely that kind of resource last fall and as of that date there was no evidence of it even in the pipeline anywhere. :(

philkid3

02-27-2009, 07:59 PM

STLCards2

02-27-2009, 08:35 PM

Faber
Rixey
Vance
Ruth

I am starting to come around on Grimes. Maybe next election after more thought.

Brad Harris

02-27-2009, 09:17 PM

People are going to have to convince me on Bill Terry. I don't think he's too far off, but sizing him up sure isn't that complimentary to me. In terms of one sentence, a first baseman who finished in the top 5 in Batting Wins three times is no eye opener.
That's heads-and-shoulders above the other hitters on this list of newcomers.

jjpm74

02-27-2009, 09:37 PM

I'm a bit disappointed that after all the discussion this year, only Babe Ruth and maybe Dazzy Vance are getting elected. Maybe I was premature a few years ago in suggesting that the regular elections were doing a good job electing candidates. It looks like the VC will have its work cut out for them in the next few decades if things don't start to shift very soon.

Ace Venom

02-28-2009, 09:48 AM

Well, you're looking at a situation where the ones in their 15th year on the ballot will not get in. Some others are coming off the ballot as well. Some of us need to do a better job of arguing for some candidates that need the extra push to get in.

Senor Octobre

02-28-2009, 10:40 AM

I guess someone felt that Babe Ruth isn't amongst the greatest baseball players of all time.

Brad Harris

02-28-2009, 10:42 AM

That the vets haven't let White in yet is a bit disturbing, especially when you consider that Connie Mack is in the Hall of Fame and White isn't. Granted, Mack did have the benefit of duties outside of being a player to push his cause.
I presume you're discussing the real Cooperstown? If so, you should know that Deacon White was widely discussed by the Old-Timers Committee in the mid-Forties and that Mack was elected in 1937 specifically for his many years as a manager and executive, not for his catching career.

Brad Harris

02-28-2009, 10:44 AM

Major revisions coming to the back half of my ballot next year in light of our discussions and further research.

Brad Harris

02-28-2009, 10:46 AM

Ace Venom

02-28-2009, 11:58 AM

I presume you're discussing the real Cooperstown? If so, you should know that Deacon White was widely discussed by the Old-Timers Committee in the mid-Forties and that Mack was elected in 1937 specifically for his many years as a manager and executive, not for his catching career.

I know and that's what I suggested. Without his years as a manager and executive, he never would have sniffed Cooperstown. My whole point is that if you put the two side by side as players, White easily outshines him. That's why I don't see a justification for White not being in.

bambambaseball

02-28-2009, 12:02 PM

I know and that's what I suggested. Without his years as a manager and executive, he never would have sniffed Cooperstown. My whole point is that if you put the two side by side as players, White easily outshines him. That's why I don't see a justification for White not being in.

Am I missing something? Connie Mack is in Cooperstown as a manager not a player. Whites whole case rests on his playing career. Youre comparing an apple to an orange!:ooo:

Ace Venom

02-28-2009, 12:23 PM

Anyone who still has time to vote, I urge you to strongly consider the cases of Dazzy Vance and Red Faber, both of whom are on the fence at this point in time and who's election surpasses our existing standard for Hall pitchers handily. Electing both this year would mean the top three supported candidates in this election won't be clogging the ballot next year for those of you who'll be voting a full ballot in 1941.

It looks like Dazzy Vance will make it. Since I voted for Red Faber, I will argue for him.

W-L: 254-213
ERA: 3.15
K: 1,471
CG: 273
SHO: 29

20+ Win Seasons (4) - 1915, 1920, 1921, 1922
15+ Win Seasons (7) - 1915, 1916, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1926
Sub 2.00 ERA Seasons (2) - 1917, 1918
Sub 3.00 ERA Seasons (8) - 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921
100+ Strikeout Seasons (4) - 1915, 1920, 1921, 1922

Postseason
1917 World Series
W-L: 3-1
ERA: 2.33
K: 9
CG: 2

Highlights
Led AL in ERA (2) - 1921, 1922
Led AL in CG (2) - 1921, 1922
Led AL in IP (1) - 1922
Most decisions in a World Series - Four (1917)
Stole home in the 1917 World Series

Red Faber served in the Navy in for most of 1918 and only recorded nine starts that season. He recorded career lows in everything except for ERA at that point. Faber retired 17th all-time in career wins.

Ace Venom

02-28-2009, 12:28 PM

Am I missing something? Connie Mack is in Cooperstown as a manager not a player. Whites whole case rests on his playing career. Youre comparing an apple to an orange!:ooo:

Yes you are. I said in my original post that Mack's other duties (managing) got him into Cooperstown. He's not in there as a player. My sole point is that if you focus only on the playing career, White should have been in there and Mack never would have sniffed it. I admit I had a poor comparison in Mack, but I think it's a good point. It's hard to argue against White when you have people in there with less numbers than he had.

Senor Octobre

02-28-2009, 01:07 PM

Crazyhorse, what exactly is you're case against Ruth?

jjpm74

02-28-2009, 01:40 PM

Not too much outside Bill Terry. Travis Jackson and Freddie Lindstrom could get some support, maybe even Firpo Marberry who was utilized in an interesting starter/game finisher type way. Maybe we could call that a closer?

George Uhle, Bill Terry and Firpo Marberry will all be on my ballot next year. Bill Terry, who I see as statistically similar to George Sisler, will be a mainstay on my ballot. The other 2 will be there at least for next year. Beyond that, it will take some discussion to keep them from falling off the ballot given how many great players are in the pipeline the next few years:

1942--Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Pie Traynor
1943--Goose Goslin
1944--Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Heinie Manush

I'm really hoping we elect some people next year to make room for all those players. I'm at a full ballot again next year and anticipate being at a full ballot at least until 1946 as even in 1945, there's a player I support (Wally Berger).

On top of the anticipated newcomers, these players are also mainstays on my ballot and have 3+ years left of eligibility:

Wilbur Cooper
Red Faber
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Hack Wilson

Only Scalk is under the 35% threshold and most of those players are over 50%.

Bobby Veach, Dave Bancroft and Carl Mays are close and 3 who I would definitely like to hear more about. Some unfortunate strategic balloting may be necessary in 1942 if no one is elected next year.

Senor Octobre

02-28-2009, 02:11 PM

Evers, Konetchy and Vaughn all expire this year and Ruth will most likely be elected. That leaves at least 4 empty spots on my ballot next year, not to mention Vance and Faber could be elected this year. Veach and Williams will probably return to my ballot and Terry will be on it too.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 04:07 PM

Dave Bancroft, Rabbit Maranville, and Joe Sewell: It's been said that all three are nearly indistinguishable, and while there are similarities, Sewell's batting eye puts him head and shoulders above the rest. Not only is he the toughest strikeout so far in history, but the guy also walked; most hitters would kill to have the batting eye Sewell diplayed in his final season, walking 71 times and striking out only 4. Ridiculously talented player. Not to mention that putting the ball into play so often creates opportunities for errors, hits, and unofficial sacrifices.
Max Bishop: Ridiculous .423 OBP. I'm convinced that all players with at least a .400 OBP would only require reasons to keep them out , and Bishop's 10 years showing off his ridiculous batting eye are good enough for me. I think he also has the highest secondary average among all second basemen.
Wally Schang: Arguably the best catcher of his era.
Larry Gardner: Good batting eye, hit a lot of triples, and drove in quite a bit of runs despite not being a home run hitter. Also played 3rd for 4 world champions. The best third baseman of his era behind Frank Baker and Heinie Groh.
Babe Ruth: Nothing I need to say here.
Johnny Evers: Highly intelligent player with big glove who was a big contributor to 3 world champions whose pitchers stranded quite a bit of runners. Either you induct Ed Reulbach or you induct Tinkers-Evers-Chance (or both).
Hippo Vaughn: Had a dominant stretch of pitching that I think lasted long enough (7 years). Was tough to hit against and had a career 120 ERA+. Also in his last year of eligibility.
Red Faber: Dominant pitcher who meets standards and had a career 119 ERA+ over 20 years. Hopefully will get inducted this time.
Dazzy Vance: From 1922-1932, had arguably the most dominant 10 year stretch we've yet seen based upon relative strikeout totals and relative K/BB. One of the top 20 pitchers of all time thus far, maybe even top 10. The relatively low vote total he has right now is very sad.
Ed Konetchy, Lu Blue, Joe Judge, and George Kelly: As mentioned in a previous election, the low amount of power hitters occupying the corners should lead us to re-evaluate 1B and 3B from this era. Instead of hitting home runs, the really good 1B hit a lot of triples, had good gloves, and had good batting eyes. Ed Konetchy had great defense and hit almost 200 career triples. Joe Judge also had good defense, hit a lot of triples, and had a good batting eye. Lu Blue walked a ton (and had an OBP over .400), hit a lot of triples, had a good glove, and hit in the clutch. George Kelly is easily the weakest of the lot, but I put him in based upon a good glove and an ability to hit in the clutch; I might drop him in a future election.

There are others I would have voted for, but didn't have room. The ballot has gotten ridiculously crowded over the past few years.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

There needs to be clearer standards regarding the more borderline leadoff hitters. I'm really not sure what to do about George Burns and Earle Combs.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 05:11 PM

George Uhle, Bill Terry and Firpo Marberry will all be on my ballot next year.

What exactly is your argument for George Uhle? :confused:

I'm considering voting for Marberry next year as a pioneering type player, but could I hear more arguments about his playing career to really convince me?

philkid3

02-28-2009, 05:36 PM

Y'know, I glossed over Max Bishop, but he might be worth another look.

philkid3

02-28-2009, 05:44 PM

That's heads-and-shoulders above the other hitters on this list of newcomers.

But I'm not voting for them, either.

Paul Wendt

02-28-2009, 06:05 PM

I presume you're discussing the real Cooperstown? If so, you should know that Deacon White was widely discussed by the Old-Timers Committee in the mid-Forties ...
Was he? Did he get some publicity at his death? They didn't invite him to the Centennial Celebration in Cooperstown or anywhere else, or invite him to participate.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 06:32 PM

People are going to have to convince me on Bill Terry. I don't think he's too far off, but sizing him up sure isn't that complimentary to me. In terms of one sentence, a first baseman who finished in the top 5 in Batting Wins three times is no eye opener.

He's got a 136 career OPS+, which I think is the highest so far for a retired 1st baseman that we've yet seen beyond Gehrig. He's also got a .341 career batting average and 6 200 hit seasons. He's also got 112 career triples, including 20 in a season. He also won 3 pennants and a world series title as a player/manager, plus hit .400 in a season.

Personally, I think he's a clear choice for the Hall of Fame. Go for it. :nod:

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 06:42 PM

Y'know, I glossed over Max Bishop, but he might be worth another look.

A .423 OBP is always worth a another look. What a ridiculous batting eye.

Not to push you or anything, but you can always ask to change your ballot...;)

jalbright

02-28-2009, 06:57 PM

He's got a 136 career OPS+, which I think is the highest so far for a retired 1st baseman that we've yet seen beyond Gehrig. He's also got a .341 career batting average and 6 200 hit seasons. He's also got 112 career triples, including 20 in a season. He also won 3 pennants and a world series title as a player/manager, plus hit .400 in a season.

Personally, I think he's a clear choice for the Hall of Fame. Go for it. :nod:

Maybe from the 20th century, but there are 3 from the 19th century who are better:

player..... OPS+ AB
Terry...... 136 6428
Brouthers. 170 6711
Connor.... 153 7784
Anson..... 141 10277

Moreover, those three a) did it in more AB, and b) because of the time they played, had way more playing time as a percentage of AB in their declining years than Terry did.

Terry's a close call in my book. You can't use All-Star selections very well, as the game started in his age 33 season. Even so, he made it three times, which isn't bad at all at that point. The MVP award is better. Granted, it wasn't given for his whole career, but in three of his first four years he didn't play 100 games. More importantly, he's 44th in MVP shares, which is a definite positive. There are two other definite positives: he's 81st in career gray ink, and 15th among 1B in his best 5 consecutive seasons in win shares. There are two marks which don't hurt him, but IMHO, don't advance his cause much, either: a 125th place finish in HOF standards (good if he were a middle IF, but questionable for a 1B), and his best 3 seasons in win shares put him 19th among 1B. The fact he's 192d in black ink isn't a positive, but that's a measure I put less weight on. The one that really hurts is that he's 26th among 1B in career win shares. My bottom line is the positives outweigh that one negative, and that's enough to put him over the top.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 07:43 PM

DoubleX

02-28-2009, 08:03 PM

The one that really hurts is that he's 26th among 1B in career win shares.

In 1940 or 2008?

Freakshow

02-28-2009, 08:33 PM

bambambaseball

02-28-2009, 08:43 PM

Maybe from the 20th century, but there are 3 from the 19th century who are better:

player..... OPS+ AB
Terry...... 136 6428
Brouthers. 170 6711
Connor.... 153 7784
Anson..... 141 10277

Moreover, those three a) did it in more AB, and b) because of the time they played, had way more playing time as a percentage of AB in their declining years than Terry did.

So because three guys 65 years ago were great offensively and happened to be among the top 5 offensively in the Majors, you're going to dismiss Bill Terry who had a better peak then Leach, Wallace and a few other you supported? :disbelief:

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 10:09 PM

In this current climate of slugging first sackers, Terry doesn't bowl me over. Top OPS+, 800 G at 1B 1913-41:
Cnt Player OPS+ RC BA OBP SLG PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
1 Lou Gehrig 179 2233 .340 .447 .632 9660 1923 1939
2 Johnny Mize 171 779 .336 .419 .600 3582 1936 1941
3 Jimmie Foxx 167 2064 .332 .436 .627 9053 1925 1941
4 Hank Greenberg 160 1037 .325 .418 .622 4670 1930 1941
5 Jack Fournier 143 950 .315 .394 .486 5952 1913 1927
6 Dolph Camilli 139 865 .285 .395 .513 5073 1933 1941
7 Bill Terry 136 1280 .341 .393 .506 7111 1923 1936
8 Hal Trosky 135 905 .313 .379 .551 4853 1933 1941
9 Ripper Collins 126 669 .296 .360 .492 4205 1931 1941
10 Jim Bottomley 125 1381 .310 .369 .500 8355 1922 1937
11 George Sisler 124 1468 .340 .379 .468 9013 1915 1930

7th best isn't bad, and while he lacks the power of the top four (never-before-seen power, mind you), he matches up pretty well. 136 OPS+ is nothing to sneeze at.

In the end, it comes down to one question: Did you vote for George Sisler? Bill Terry's clearly better.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 10:12 PM

So because three guys 65 years ago were great offensively and happened to be among the top 5 offensively in the Majors, you're going to dismiss Bill Terry who had a better peak then Leach, Wallace and a few other you supported? :disbelief:

To be fair, he did say he supported Terry in the end...

SavoyBG

02-28-2009, 10:22 PM

Sewell's batting eye puts him head and shoulders above the rest. Not only is he the toughest strikeout so far in history, but the guy also walked; most hitters would kill to have the batting eye Sewell diplayed in his final season, walking 71 times and striking out only 4. Ridiculously talented player. Not to mention that putting the ball into play so often creates opportunities for errors, hits, and unofficial sacrifices.

And GIDP's

Besides, we KNOW how often he got hits when he put the ball in play, and it's not nearly as often as many players who struck out way more often.

SavoyBG

02-28-2009, 10:30 PM

[Dazzy Vance: From 1922-1932, had arguably the most dominant 10 year stretch we've yet seen based upon relative strikeout totals and relative K/BB.

K/BB is a useless stat that tells us nothing.

If young Bob Feller strikes out 280 and walks 200 in 220 innings he has the same K/BB ratio as Jim Whitney striking out 28 and walking 20 in 220 innings, but it's much more valuable to the team to have a guy who doesn't walk anybody.

Walks and strikeouts are not related.

We need to know walks to innings pitched (or to batters faced) and strikeouts to innings pitched (or to batters faced), but there is absolutely no reason for us to want to know the ratio of strikeouts to walks. It's a manufactured stat that means nothing.

SavoyBG

02-28-2009, 10:37 PM

Yes you are. I said in my original post that Mack's other duties (managing) got him into Cooperstown. He's not in there as a player. My sole point is that if you focus only on the playing career, White should have been in there and Mack never would have sniffed it. I admit I had a poor comparison in Mack, but I think it's a good point. It's hard to argue against White when you have people in there with less numbers than he had.

Are we on Candid Camera?

Are we being Punk'd?

Mack's playing career is not relevant to White's candidacy. Mack is not in for his playing career, and nobody thinks that his playing career was very significant.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 11:02 PM

K/BB is a useless stat that tells us nothing.

If young Bob Feller strikes out 280 and walks 200 in 220 innings he has the same K/BB ratio as Jim Whitney striking out 28 and walking 20 in 220 innings, but it's much more valuable to the team to have a guy who doesn't walk anybody.

Walks and strikeouts are not related.

We need to know walks to innings pitched (or to batters faced) and strikeouts to innings pitched (or to batters faced), but there is absolutely no reason for us to want to know the ratio of strikeouts to walks. It's a manufactured stat that means nothing.

It's a measure which tells you how good control a pitcher had in regards to strikeouts. If a pitcher has a high K/BB ratio, he's clearly hitting his spots, maintaining his command, and purposefully striking guys out. In fantasy baseball, K/BB is highly valuable in determining consistent production and in how much a strikeout was actually generated by skillful pitching. In Bob Feller's case, Feller was throwing so fast that batters often couldn't make a proper read; unless Feller made adjustments, batters would eventually catch up to the baseball and hit him harder (curiously, Feller dropped his walks the past year and had the most wins, most strikeouts, and lowest era of his young career). So K/BB actually measures how much of a strikeout is a product of pitching as opposed to throwing, and those with a higher K/BB clearly better dominated the competition. As a matter of fact, Cy Young, Christy Matthewson, and Grover Alexander all dominated their era and all curiously had the best K/BB ratios.

Basically, it's a measure of how often you completely dominated a hitter over how often you screwed up. I think you'd like to know that.

SavoyBG

02-28-2009, 11:10 PM

It's a measure which tells you how good control a pitcher had in regards to strikeouts. If a pitcher has a high K/BB ratio, he's clearly hitting his spots, maintaining his command, and purposefully striking guys out.

Basically, it's a measure of how often you completely dominated a hitter over how often you screwed up. I think you'd like to know that.

So if Feller and Whitney each have a 1.4 strikeout to walk ratio then they are each equally as dominant?

Whitney strikes out 28 and walks 20 in 220 innings.

Feller strikes out 280 and walks 200 in 220 innings.

They each have the same exact strikeout to walk ratio, but they are NOWHERE NEAR similar.

strikeout to walk ratio is an utterly useless stat that tells us NOTHING.

SavoyBG

02-28-2009, 11:13 PM

As a matter of fact, Cy Young, Christy Matthewson, and Grover Alexander all dominated their era and all curiously had the best K/BB ratios.

that.

And Babe Ruth was the best LHer in the A.L. in the teens and his strikeout to walk ratio was just 1.1.

philkid3

02-28-2009, 11:17 PM

He's got a 136 career OPS+, which I think is the highest so far for a retired 1st baseman that we've yet seen beyond Gehrig. He's also got a .341 career batting average and 6 200 hit seasons. He's also got 112 career triples, including 20 in a season. He also won 3 pennants and a world series title as a player/manager, plus hit .400 in a season.
Hm, the OPS+ point is some what interesting, is that confirmable? It's the closest to convinving me, but still: he only had 10 seasons of more than 120 games played and rarely went much higher than that. There were only three seasons where he exceeded three batting wins, including a season of 3.2. I think I need a bit more greatness at his peak, especially when his high career rate isn't due to that big a career.

As far as the batting average and such, I really don't care about that. The player-manager thing is a little bit of a bonus, though.

His career (old)WARP line is 29.6 - 44.3 - 88.0. I'm not seeing a clear-cut case one way or the other at these first glances.

The comparison to first basemen we have in is a bit intriguing, though. Freakshow's chart gives him a little bit better of a case to me.

Personally, I think he's a clear choice for the Hall of Fame. Go for it. :nod:
Yeah, I don't see him clealry out, but I'm having a lot of issues seeing him as a clear choice to go in.

philkid3

02-28-2009, 11:20 PM

A .423 OBP is always worth a another look. What a ridiculous batting eye.

Not to push you or anything, but you can always ask to change your ballot...;)

I'm definitely not going to change my ballot. He deserves another look, that doesn't mean I'm sold on him already. I have plenty of time to decide.

philkid3

02-28-2009, 11:26 PM

In the end, it comes down to one question: Did you vote for George Sisler? Bill Terry's clearly better.
I don't see how Terry is clearly better. For one, Sisler had nearly TWO THOUSAND more plate appearances, and yet an EqA only 6 points worse. That seems to very clearly favor Sisler just on offense.

Bill Terry may have been the better hitter, but I don't see how it's enough to make up for the sample size and all-around game disadvantages. Let alone "clearly" enough.

Sisler is in the back end of my Hall of Fame. It's only a short way down to being out.

Fielding Marshall

02-28-2009, 11:31 PM

And Babe Ruth was the best LHer in the A.L. in the teens and his strikeout to walk ratio was just 1.1.

There were a number of pitchers in that era who were helped by a superior defense...check out this article: http://keith.baseballevolution.com/prewarpitch.html

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 12:01 AM

So if Feller and Whitney each have a 1.4 strikeout to walk ratio then they are each equally as dominant?

Whitney strikes out 28 and walks 20 in 220 innings.

Feller strikes out 280 and walks 200 in 220 innings.

They each have the same exact strikeout to walk ratio, but they are NOWHERE NEAR similar.

strikeout to walk ratio is an utterly useless stat that tells us NOTHING.

While Feller clearly has the better stuff, the bare statistical record says that the level of actual pitching skill was roughly the same. Yes, from a rough statistical standpoint, each were equally dominant.

Think about it in an economic sense: if a big company generates a great deal of revenue but also suffers heavy losses, then they're in the same boat as a small company that generated the same net profit--but with more marketability. Similarly, Feller's approach had roughly the same effect on the hitters, but Feller's better overall stuff allowed more room for mistakes that would be useful as he actually learned to pitch and would keep people interested enough to give him that kind of time;had he maintained the same level of pitching skill he would have flamed out.

Again, though K/BB isn't the only stat that measures this, pitchers with a higher K/BB tend to have a greater level of success. Let's continue to monitor Feller, for instance, and see how long he's able to maintain his success--particularly when his stuff gives out.

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 12:10 AM

I don't see how Terry is clearly better. For one, Sisler had nearly TWO THOUSAND more plate appearances, and yet an EqA only 6 points worse. That seems to very clearly favor Sisler just on offense.

Wow, I really seem to be screwing up today...I guess this is what happens when you tend to evaluate players on peak significantly more than overall numbers.

While I think I regard players with higher batting averages more leniently than you do, I think the comparison with Sisler is good enough to justify you voting for Terry.

Brad Harris

03-01-2009, 12:15 AM

I don't see how Terry is clearly better. For one, Sisler had nearly TWO THOUSAND more plate appearances, and yet an EqA only 6 points worse. That seems to very clearly favor Sisler just on offense.

Bill Terry may have been the better hitter, but I don't see how it's enough to make up for the sample size and all-around game disadvantages. Let alone "clearly" enough.

Sisler is in the back end of my Hall of Fame. It's only a short way down to being out.
IIRC, Sisler was plagued with double vision the rest of his life after that missed 1923 season.

I like Sisler over Terry, but not by a great deal and Terry is the best NL first baseman since Big Ed Konetchy in the teens at this point.

As for the active players, only Gehrig and Foxx have clearly better careers to-date than Terry. Who knows what will happen to the youngsters?

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 12:15 AM

I'm definitely not going to change my ballot. He deserves another look, that doesn't mean I'm sold on him already. I have plenty of time to decide.

Just saying because Bishop's a vote away from being dropped...:sigh:

philkid3

03-01-2009, 12:23 AM

Just saying because Bishop's a vote away from being dropped...:sigh:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I have voted for a couple players in the past to keep them on the ballot.

I won't do that this year, but I'll consider it next.

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 12:31 AM

And GIDP's

Besides, we KNOW how often he got hits when he put the ball in play, and it's not nearly as often as many players who struck out way more often.

It wasn't exactly a question of whether he got hits, but whether he created the opportunity to further the score, which may well have been through hits but also through errors and unofficial sacrifices. It does raise the question of how a team full of players who don't like making outs would fare against a team that creates the most opportunities. One team is taking an active role in this discussion...

And as far as GIDP's go, they would necessarily involve someone already being on base. Do you have a better potential outcome putting the ball in play or striking out? (I've never heard of a 'situational strikeout') The real question, then, is how often a ball in play with a runner on first results in a double play. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

And I wouldn't expect an abnormally high number of GIDP's from Sewell, not with his bat control.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 12:31 AM

While Feller clearly has the better stuff, the bare statistical record says that the level of actual pitching skill was roughly the same. Yes, from a rough statistical standpoint, each were equally dominant.

Think about it in an economic sense: if a big company generates a great deal of revenue but also suffers heavy losses, then they're in the same boat as a small company that generated the same net profit--but with more marketability. Similarly, Feller's approach had roughly the same effect on the hitters, but Feller's better overall stuff allowed more room for mistakes that would be useful as he actually learned to pitch and would keep people interested enough to give him that kind of time;had he maintained the same level of pitching skill he would have flamed out.

Again, though K/BB isn't the only stat that measures this, pitchers with a higher K/BB tend to have a greater level of success. Let's continue to monitor Feller, for instance, and see how long he's able to maintain his success--particularly when his stuff gives out.

For the last time.

Strikeout to walk ratio means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Your example of economics is bogus, because the negative value of a walk is much higher than the positive value of a strikeout. This is why strikeout to walk ratio does not work.

Take two guys who each pitch 200 innings. One guys strikes out 1 and walks 2. That's a strikeout to walk ratio of .5. A second guy strikes out 180 and walks 200. He has a much better strikeout to walk ratio than the first guy, but will be a much less effective pitcher, because the negative value of 200 walks is much worse than the p[ositive value of 180 strikeouts.

What's important is walks to batters faced, and to a lesser extent, strikeouts to batters faced, but there's is no reason that we need to know the ratio of strikeouts to walks. It is nothing but a glamour stat, similar to tracking guys who hit home runs and also steal bases, like Ken Williams in 1922. It's nothing more than trivia.

Two pitchers can have the exact same strikeout to walk ratio and have entirely different rates of effectiveness.

philkid3

03-01-2009, 12:42 AM

I should really be looking at FanGraphs more for than I have been for my statty uses in this project. Because FG is awesome and I know what goes in to their stats.

Anyway, Sisler is only something like 10 more weighted runs above average in his career than Terry. Terry's wOBA and wRAA are pretty nifty, actually.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 12:43 AM

It wasn't exactly a question of whether he got hits, but whether he created the opportunity to further the score, which may well have been through hits but also through errors and unofficial sacrifices. It does raise the question of how a team full of players who don't like making outs would fare against a team that creates the most opportunities. One team is taking an active role in this discussion...

And as far as GIDP's go, they would necessarily involve someone already being on base. Do you have a better potential outcome putting the ball in play or striking out? (I've never heard of a 'situational strikeout') The real question, then, is how often a ball in play with a runner on first results in a double play. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

And I wouldn't expect an abnormally high number of GIDP's from Sewell, not with his bat control.

What "bat control?"

Just because he was able to make contact rather than swing and miss does not in any way indicate that he was capable of placing the ball where he wanted to. More likely he was just happy to hit the ball anywhere rather than strike out, since striking out has such a negative stigma attached to it.
The fact that he only hits .317 when he does not strike out is a strong indicator that he did NOT HAVE good bat control, as most hitters with career averages over .300 will hit closer to .400 when they do not strike out. Sewell made an out over 68% of thge time when he did not strike out. That doesn't sound like somebody who can place the ball where he wants to.

Of course it's better to hit the ball than to strike out, but not anywhere near as much better as you might think. Since we already know how often Sewell gets a hit, the only unknown advantage that he could have is balls that are hit and result in errors, or balls that move a runner up. Research has shown that moving runners up happens much less often than you would think. Unless Sewell only hit into a DP a few times a season, his advanatge of putting the ball in play more often than other players, beyond his hits, is negligible.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 01:04 AM

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 01:40 AM

To step out of 1940 for a second, Mickey Mantle only hit into 113 GIDP's in his career, in 8102 ABs, one every 72 ABs. Mantle struck out in 21% of his ABs.

Tony Gwynn struck out less than 5% of the time, but he had 260 GIDPs in 9288 ABs, one every 36 ABs. So Gwynn put the ball in play 16% more often than Mantle, but he also grounded into a DP twice as often as Mantle.

You'd have to move several runners up a base to equal out the negative of just one GIDP.

I think you're overrating the value of Sewell not striking out. If you compare him to another player with the same OPS+, but the other player strikes out a lot more often, Sewell's value gained by not striking out isd going to be negligible. Less than a run per season, and maybe worse if he grounds into an above average number of DPs.

Fair enough.

I would like to see more examples, even a spreadsheet, but I'd rather not take too much of your time in this discussion (:hissyfit::hissyfit:) and the arguments laid out over the last two posts are convincing enough that I've overrated the value of Sewell not striking out. There probably is a higher in-game value than you give it credit for, but I'll concede it as negligable pending further evidence.

It is still one freaking good batting eye, though.

Fielding Marshall

03-01-2009, 02:24 AM

For the last time.

Strikeout to walk ratio means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Your example of economics is bogus, because the negative value of a walk is much higher than the positive value of a strikeout. This is why strikeout to walk ratio does not work.

Take two guys who each pitch 200 innings. One guys strikes out 1 and walks 2. That's a strikeout to walk ratio of .5. A second guy strikes out 180 and walks 200. He has a much better strikeout to walk ratio than the first guy, but will be a much less effective pitcher, because the negative value of 200 walks is much worse than the p[ositive value of 180 strikeouts.

What's important is walks to batters faced, and to a lesser extent, strikeouts to batters faced, but there's is no reason that we need to know the ratio of strikeouts to walks. It is nothing but a glamour stat, similar to tracking guys who hit home runs and also steal bases, like Ken Williams in 1922. It's nothing more than trivia.

Two pitchers can have the exact same strikeout to walk ratio and have entirely different rates of effectiveness.

Not to wear you thin or anything...

I wasn't making the claim that K/BB was a wonder stat that directly dictated the effectiveness of pitchers; I was, however, arguing that it is not only useful but a direct measurement of how much of a pitcher's skill goes into each strikeout, and that there is a tendency for pitchers with a higher K/BB ratio to experience a greater level of success.

However, there are other elements which figure into a pitcher's effectiveness, such as hits allowed. Take the example you gave me. Pitcher A managed to go 200 innings and only allowed 2 walks with 1 strikeout; here, it doesn't matter that he has a ridiculously low BB/9 ratio because his incredibly busy defense is going to allow quite a bit of runs to cross the plate (one must wonder how he was allowed to pitch 200 innings with only 1 strikeout; either his manager thinks he will learn from the experience, is incredibly desperate, or is a complete idiot). Pitcher B may have suffered through a painful season, but Pitcher A got completely torched and will have to enter therapy. My word, I'd hate to be in his shoes...

The fact of the matter is that all of the evidence I've seen points towards K/BB being useful in determining a pitcher's level of success. Take the Babe Ruth example you presented earlier. Babe Ruth only pitched about 4 and a half years, but in his best year (1916), he curiously finished #10 in AL K/BB ratio for the first and only time in his career. He also had a limited amount of years from which to judge; it's not clear whether he would have maintained the same level of success. Like I said, let's continue to watch the career of Bob Feller; based upon his K/BB, he will soon experience a drop-off from his current level of success and may not be able to pitch much past his prime. Only time will tell, I guess...

jalbright

03-01-2009, 04:59 AM

In 1940 or 2008?

before the 2009 season.

So because three guys 65 years ago were great offensively and happened to be among the top 5 offensively in the Majors, you're going to dismiss Bill Terry who had a better peak then Leach, Wallace and a few other you supported? :disbelief:

Bambam, you have to read the whole post, which, at the very end says:
My bottom line is the positives outweigh that one negative, and that's enough to put him over the top.

Had you read the whole post, you'd realize that the big issue I have with Terry isn't his OPS+ compared to four other 1B, but his relatively low career win share total. That said, I will repeat that I think he sneaks over the bar.

Also, citing Leach and Wallace in reference to Terry is comparing apples and oranges, as they aren't 1B. First basemen are held to higher standards of offensive production, as they don't contribute as much defensively.

NineWorldSeries

03-01-2009, 08:25 AM

Grimes
Mays
Rice
Ruth
Wilson

DoubleX

03-01-2009, 08:28 AM

Grimes
Mays
Rice
Ruth
Wilson

Out of curiosity, why Grimes and Mays but not Faber, Rixey, and Vance?

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 08:45 AM

And as far as GIDP's go, they would necessarily involve someone already being on base. Do you have a better potential outcome putting the ball in play or striking out? (I've never heard of a 'situational strikeout') The real question, then, is how often a ball in play with a runner on first results in a double play. I'd like to see the numbers on that.

And I wouldn't expect an abnormally high number of GIDP's from Sewell, not with his bat control.

Here's a great article on GIDP's

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/beyond-ops-filling-in-the-gaps/

The average modern player grounds into a DP in 11.4% of his oppurtunities (runner on 1B, less than 2 outs).

They happen to have play by play data for 1913, and in that season it was just 6%. Probably a combination of a lot of hit and running and less fielding prowess because of inferior gloves, etc... I think that it's safe to say that the rate during Sewell's career would be higher than 6% but lower than 11.4%.

Most likely Sewell's rate would be higher than league average since those numbers include times where the batter struck out as being part of the percentage where he did not hit into a DP. In fairness though, Sewell did bat LHed, and the numbers also show that LHers ground into less DPs than RHers.

Part of the article shows that Jim Thome, who strikes out a ton, grounds into very few DPs. Makes sense, flyball hitter who strikes out (and walks) a ton, does not hit that many groundballs. The fact that he is really slow does not have all that much bearing on things. The way that he hits the ball (or misses the ball) is the determining factor. It also seems that the biggest GIDP guy these days is Tejada.

jjpm74

03-01-2009, 09:39 AM

Most likely Sewell's rate would be higher than league average since those numbers include times where the batter struck out as being part of the percentage where he did not hit into a DP. In fairness though, Sewell did bat LHed, and the numbers also show that LHers ground into less DPs than RHers.

This is pure speculation and supposes that Sewell was a ground ball hitter, and that there were players on base in front of him.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 10:01 AM

This is pure speculation and supposes that Sewell was a ground ball hitter, and that there were players on base in front of him.

What did you think, that he never batted with a runner on first and less than two outs?

Sewell only had 117 triples and home runs in over 7,000 t bats. I think it's pretty safe to assume that he hit a lot more groundballs than flyballs.

Domenic

03-01-2009, 10:34 AM

Can you add in a vote for Red Faber for me?

For whatever reason, I overlooked him this election. After perusing the entire thread, failing to vote for Faber was a clear oversight on my part.

Ace Venom

03-01-2009, 11:13 AM

I looked over Larry Gardner's stats again and it looks like I'll be adding him to my ballot next year. How did I miss that one? Out of the ones that will be on the ballot next year, Terry will be the only first timer to get my support. His batting average was solid. No one in the National League has hit over .400 in a season since he did back in 1930. He has also been a capable manager, so he has my vote.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 11:50 AM

Here's the info from the 11 games where we have play by play data on Sewell. Seems that what he did most often was hit a groundball to 1B. In 45 plate appearances he grounded out to the 1Bman 7 times (16%). If we take away the 7 times where he walked or was hit by a pitch, he grounds out to 1B in almost 20% of his official at bats. He also had at least one groundball single past 1B. Seems like when he has an official at bat he hits a groundball to 1B about 20% of the time.

In 38 official at bats he hit at least 16 groundballs, and maybe more, depending upoin whether or not some of the other hits were groundballs.

He was 9 for 38, so he had 29 official at bats where he made an out, 15 on groundballs, one by strikeout, 7 on flyballs to the OF and 6 on popups in the IF.

He hit into one GIDP in 38 official AB's This is not much of a sample, but if he kept that ratio for his career that would be 188 GIDPs.

There were two instances where a runner advanced on one of his groundouts, but that is more than negated by the one GIDP and the one time where he hit a groundball to 2B with runners on 2B and 3B and the infield in, the runner from 3B being thrown out at the plate. In those two plate appearances the team would have been better off if he had struck out.

1920 WS - Game 1
singled to CF
flyball CF
strikeout

1920 WS - Game 2
popout SS
groundout P
flyball RF
groundout 1B

1920 WS - Game 3
groundout 1B
walk
groundout 1B

1920 WS - game 4
single to RF
groundball single past 1B
popout 3B
popout SS

1920 WS - game 5
GIDP - 6-4-3
groundout 3B
foul popout 3B
walk

1920 WS - game 6
fielder's choice groundball to 2Bman, runner from 3B out at plate
single to RF
groundout P

1920 WS - game 7
lineout RF
flyball short LF
flyball CF
flyball CF

1932 WS - game 1
foul popout 1B
groundout 1B
walk
groundball force play to 1Bman- runner from 1B out at 2B
single to left center

1932 WS - game 2
walk
groundout 2B
single to LF
groundout 2B

1932 WS - game 3
walk
walk
groundout SS
flyout CF
HBP

1932 WS - game 4
single to RF
groundout 1B
popout SS
double to left center
single to RF
groundout 1B

jjpm74

03-01-2009, 01:01 PM

He hit into one GIDP in 38 official AB's This is not much of a sample, but if he kept that ratio for his career that would be 188 GIDPs.

That's not nearly enough information to draw that kind of conclusion from. That's like saying Wilkin Castillo (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/castiwi01.shtml) will end up with 2109 career hits based on his 2008 totals.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 01:05 PM

That's not nearly enough information to draw that kind of conclusion from.

Maybe you should read what you quoted again. Nobody is drawing any conclusions.

Originally Posted by SavoyBG
He hit into one GIDP in 38 official AB's This is not much of a sample, but if he kept that ratio for his career that would be 188 GIDPs.

jjpm74

03-01-2009, 01:08 PM

Maybe you should read what you quoted again. Nobody is drawing any conclusions.

Originally Posted by SavoyBG
He hit into one GIDP in 38 official AB's This is not much of a, but if he kept that ratio for his career that would be 188 GIDPs.

I did read it. It's not any kind of useful sample size and is a poor manipulation of statistics to support a conclusion that is based on speculation.

SavoyBG

03-01-2009, 01:26 PM

I did read it. It's not any kind of useful sample size and is a poor manipulation of statistics to support a conclusion that is based on speculation.

No conclusion was formed. All that occured was that the info we have on those 45 plate appearances was examined. Nothing was said about this info indicating anything about his entire career, except to say that IF his GIDP ratio had been the same for his career this (188) is how many GIDPs he would have had. Even that calculation was preceeded by me mentioning that this was not much of a sample.

Some data is better than no data.

jalbright

03-01-2009, 01:45 PM

Can you add in a vote for Red Faber for me?

For whatever reason, I overlooked him this election. After perusing the entire thread, failing to vote for Faber was a clear oversight on my part.

It will be done momentarily.

bambambaseball

03-01-2009, 01:47 PM

Some data is better than no data.

My statistics 101 teacher would disagree!:ooo:

DoubleX

03-02-2009, 08:04 AM

Just a reminder that 1st year players now must reach 5% to holdover (Max Bishop, Sam Jones, and Bob O'Farrell stand to be most immediately affected by this).

SavoyBG

03-02-2009, 11:32 AM

Can we take a vote on expelling the clown who did not vote for Ruth?

Ubiquitous

03-02-2009, 11:57 AM

Some people just really like Burleigh Grimes.

Brad Harris

03-02-2009, 12:29 PM

Just for clarification purposes, are we allowed to take non-playing accomplishments (i.e. managing) into account when considering these players candidacies? Thanks.

jjpm74

03-02-2009, 12:36 PM

Just for clarification purposes, are we allowed to take non-playing accomplishments (i.e. managing) into account when considering these players candidacies? Thanks.

Only if it coincided with their playing career (player-manager).

Senor Octobre

03-02-2009, 12:46 PM

Some people just really like Burleigh Grimes.

HAH, my thoughts precisely :laugh