BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1941

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

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

Voting Criteria: Players are to be evaluated within the context of the era in which they played and the history of the game to that point. Players are not to be held to standards that would materialize at a time beyond the year of the current election. Modern statistical analysis is permitted but must be applied strictly within historical context not to go beyond the year of the current election. Players are to be judged based solely on their playing careers. Other, non-playing contributions may be considered to the extent that they coincided with a player's playing career (such as a player/manager).

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 appear on the next 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.



1941 Guide
There are 37 candidates on the 1941 ballot – 26 holdovers and 11 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1936 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

Newly Eligible (11)
Alvin Crowder
George Earnshaw
Charlie Grimm
Travis Jackson
Mark Koenig
Freddie Lindstrom
Firpo Marberry
Bing Miller
Bill Terry
George Uhle
Tom Zachary

Holdovers (26)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support Average Support
Dave Bancroft 7th 8.82% 28.13% (1936) 8.82% (1940) 20.59%
Lu Blue 4th 8.82% 8.82% (1940) 3.33% (1938) 6.13%
George J. Burns 12th 14.71% 24.00% (1930) 9.09% (1935) 16.53%
Earle Combs 2nd 11.76% 11.76% (1940) 11.76% (1940) 11.76%
Wilbur Cooper 11th 38.24% 58.33% (1932) 33.33% (1935) 45.35%
Larry Gardner 13th 5.88% 15.63% (1931) 5.88% (1940) 8.41%
Burleigh Grimes 3rd 50.00% 56.25% (1939) 50.00% (1940) 53.13%
Harry Hooper 12th 8.82% 34.38% (1931) 8.82% (1940) 20.67%
Joe Judge 3rd 5.88% 5.88% (1940) 3.13% (1939) 4.51%
George Kelly 5th 5.88% 10.00% (1938) 2.94% (1937) 6.27%
Dolf Luque 2nd 8.82% 8.82% (1940) 8.82% (1940) 8.82%
Rabbit Maranville 4th 61.76% 66.67% (1938) 61.76% (1940) 63.64%
Carl Mays 8th 50.00% 56.25% (1937) 45.45% (1935) 50.22%
Lefty O'Doul 3rd 8.82% 12.50% (1939) 8.82% (1940) 10.66%
Herb Pennock 3rd 8.82% 25.00% (1939) 8.82% (1940) 16.91%
Del Pratt 13th 5.88% 20.83% (1932) 5.88% (1940) 12.91%
Sam Rice 3rd 52.94% 53.13% (1939) 52.94% (1940) 53.04%
Eppa Rixey 4th 50.00% 60.00% (1938) 50.00% (1940) 56.46%
Ray Schalk 8th 23.53% 25.00% (1934) 18.18% (1935) 20.69%
Wally Schang 6th 38.24% 38.24% (1940) 32.35% (1937) 34.54%
Joe Sewell 4th 61.67% 68.75% (1939) 61.67% (1940) 64.58%
Urban Shocker 9th 23.53% 35.71% (1933) 15.63% (1939) 27.58%
Riggs Stephenson 3rd 5.88% 6.25% (1939) 5.88% (1940) 6.07%
Bobby Veach 12th 14.71% 39.29% (1934) 14.71% (1940) 29.32%
Hack Wilson 3rd 41.18% 53.13% (1939) 41.18% (1939) 47.16%
Ross Youngs 11th 11.76% 16.67% (1938) 6.25% (1936) 11.23%

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (6)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support Average Support
Johnny Evers End of Eligibility 15 41.67% (1932) 21.21% (1935) 28.69%
Ed Konetchy End of Eligibility 15 20.59% (1940) 8.00% (1929) 12.68%
Rube Marquard Lack of Support 11 28.00% (1930) 2.94% (1940) 15.84%
Jack Quinn Lack of Support 3 6.67% (1938) 2.94% (1940) 5.29%
Hippo Vaughn End of Eligibility 15 21.43% (1934) 10.00% (1938) 15.51%
Cy Williams Lack of Support 6 15.15% (1935) 2.94% (1940) 10.32%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (6)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Rabbit Maranville 61.76% 3
Joe Sewell 61.76% 3
Burleigh Grimes 50.00% 2
Sam Rice 52.94% 2
Carl Mays 50.00% 5
Eppa Rixey 50.00% 3


HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (85)
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 54 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 60 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 65 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 73 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 51 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 73 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 55 47
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Living - Age 54 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 71 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 52 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living – Age 61 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 71 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 55 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 75 52
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906) 43
Red Faber 1940 76.46% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1914-1933 20 Living - Age 53 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 65 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 84 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 52
Clark Griffith* 1940 (VC) 78.57% VC Pitcher Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891, 1893-1909, 1912-1914 20 Living - Age 72 71
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 52 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 47 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 54 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 70 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 67 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 64 63
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 82 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 81 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 72 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 70 35
Babe Ruth 1940 97.06% 1 Right Field/Left Field New York Yankees (AL) 1914-1935 22 Living - Age 46 45
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 48 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 53 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
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 49 48
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Living – Age 75 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 67 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 68 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living – Age 60 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 Deceased (1859-1941) 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 19 Living - Age 53 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 65 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 74 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 (5): Frank Baker, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach, 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 (7): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (25): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Pud Galvin, Clark Griffith, Walter Johnson, Addie Joss, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Dazzy Vance, 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):
1940 (3): Red Faber, Babe Ruth, Dazzy Vance
- 1940 VC (2): Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach

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 (18): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (20): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Tommy Leach, 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 (6): Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Harry Heilmann, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Dazzy Vance

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) (2): Dazzy Vance, Zack Wheat
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (8): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Bill Dahlen, Clark Grifith, George Gore, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan
Chicago White Sox (AL) (3): Eddie Collins, Red Faber, 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) (5): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Tommy Leach, 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: 40
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 26
- Average Regular Election Percentage: 84.90%
- 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: 3.80 Years
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 28
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 11
- Average Electees per Veterans Committee Election: 2.20
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 68.75% - Joe Sewell (1939)
- Highest Average Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 64.58% - 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: 1.90
- 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: 26.62
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 13
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 8
- 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: 16.37 Seasons
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Average Age at Election: 48.46
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 15
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 40
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Jack Glasscock - 84
- Deceased in Past Year: Mickey Welch

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
1940: 34

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 (httphttp://baseball-fever.co/showthread.php?t=86747)
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)
1940 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87800), 1940 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87854)

[DoubleX]

We had a good conversation in the last election regarding the top three shortstops on the ballot (Bancroft, Maranville, Sewell), so maybe we'll see a boost in support for them. As I mentioned last time, it's odd that we've elected 10 shortstops, a pretty generous number, but Honus Wagner is really the only 20th Century representative. So we have 9 from 1871-1905ish, but just one from 905ish-1936. Doesn't make much sense. In general, we've been much more discerning with 20th Century players than we were with 19th Century. Did the quality of play decline? I somehow doubt that. I tend to think with the game experiencing less evolution and change during the 20th century, and a more consistent statistical framework, we aren't as keen to extrapolate and romanticize 20th Century players as we were for their predecessors.

[Ace Venom]

My ballot

1. Dave Bancroft
2. George Burns
3. Larry Gardner
4. Burleigh Grimes
5. Harry Hooper
6. Joe Judge
7. Rabbit Maranville
8. Firpo Marberry
9. Carl Mays
10. Herb Pennock
11. Sam Rice
12. Eppa Rixey
13. Ray Schalk
14. Bill Terry
15. Hack Wilson

[bambambaseball]

Last year we talked about Rabbit Maranville and Joe Sewell a lot and both of them definitely fit our standards. Lets get them elected this year. :gt:hyper::hyper:

[bambambaseball]

These are the people I voted for:

Wilbur Cooper
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Firpo Marberry
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Riggs Stephenson
Bill Terry
George Uhle
Hack Wilson

I see Joe Judge is still on the balott and has a vote already. I guess hes not so questionible after all! ;)

[Senor Octobre]

E Combs
W Cooper
H Hooper
D Luque
R Maranville
C Mays
S Rice
E Rixey
W Schang
J Sewell
U Shocker
B Terry
B Veach
H Wilson

Veach and Hooper are back on the ballot. Added Rice, Wilson and 1st timer Terry. Could be convinced to add Gardner and Pratt before their time is up.

[vtbub]

Maranville
Mays
Sewell
Terry
Wilson

[Ace Venom]

I believe Larry Gardner deserves more consideration. He was a member of four World Series teams: the 1912, 1915 and 1916 Red Sox and the 1920 Indians. He also made pretty good contact with the bat even though he didn't quite get to 2,000 hits. Extra bases certainly weren't a problem (300+ doubles and 100+ triples). He has more career hits than Frank Baker, Ezra Sutton and Heinie Groh. Jimmy Collins has a few more. The only other third baseman we have in our Hall with significantly more hits than Gardner is Leach and we could only get him in on the VC. What exactly is our standard for third basemen?

[jjpm74]

Dave Bancroft
Wilbur Cooper
Larry Gardner
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Firpo Marberry
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Bill Terry
George Uhle
Hack Wilson

Barring some discussion, Dave Bancroft, Larry Gardner, Firpo Marberry, George Uhle probably won't be on my 1942 ballot with all the talent coming up next year.

[DoubleX]

I believe Larry Gardner deserves more consideration. He was a member of four World Series teams: the 1912, 1915 and 1916 Red Sox and the 1920 Indians. He also made pretty good contact with the bat even though he didn't quite get to 2,000 hits. Extra bases certainly weren't a problem (300+ doubles and 100+ triples). He has more career hits than Frank Baker, Ezra Sutton and Heinie Groh. Jimmy Collins has a few more. The only other third baseman we have in our Hall with significantly more hits than Gardner is Leach and we could only get him in on the VC. What exactly is our standard for third basemen?

Our 3B standards have been a point of much discussion in previous elections, first with Sutton way back when, then with Lave Cross (who was not elected), and more recently with Groh. It's a tough position to evaluate, particularly for much of the period we're looking at where defense was highly important at 3B (and I think we've collectively underrated the defensive importance of 3B, particularly during the deadball era). I agree that Gardner deserves a better look and probably more support than he's received, but he's noticeable drop below the players we've elected at the position. So to me the problem might be that perhaps we need to reevaluate our standards at 3B in that we've been too selective in comparison to some other positions. In this respect, Gardner while perhaps not so impressive to our 2009 eyes, did stand out fairly well when measured against 3Bmen to the point in history where he played, though he's still a definite notch below the few we have elected. Electing Groh made me feel a lot better at 3B.

As for the elected 3Bmen you mentioned, here's a simplified case for each of them over Gardner:

Sutton: Has a very strong argument for being the best pure 3Bmen of the 19th Century. He was elected through our VC and I believe much of the impetus of that was there was a feeling that we had completely neglected 3B from the 19th Century. Offensively, he was noticeably better than Gardner, besting him by 10 points in OPS+. Using hits doesn't really tell us much here because Sutton play with significantly shorter schedules for his entire career. If Sutton played with same schedule lengths as Gardner, he'd likely be well past Gardner in most every category. But then again, it also begs the question of well he would have held up with longer schedules. So this is an instance where we really have to assess a player in the context of when he played because the game was pretty different between when Sutton and Gardner played. As I said above, this might be framed in Gardner's favor because he did stand fairly well at 3B for when he played.

Baker: Baker's career was fairly short, but to this point in history, he's easily the best offensive 3Bmen we've ever seen. He really stood out.

Collins: Many to this point in time regard Collins as the greatest 3Bmen ever. I'd prefer Baker's offense, but given the defensive importance of the position when Collins played, his combination of offense and defense are hard to beat. His career was similar in length to Gardner's, but Collins was better both offensively and defensively, and that's why he's in and Gardner isn't.

Groh: Groh was the subject of much discussion. Like Collins, he had a better combination of offense and defense than Gardner. Groh also had about a 4 year stretch where he was in the conversation for best player in the NL. Gardner definitely had some good years, but never a sustained run like Groh did.

EDIT: Any reason you couldn't find room for Sewell on your full ballot?

[STLCards2]

Grimes
Sewell
Rixey
Terry

After being outnubered by those with similar baseball ideologies, I decided to switch in favor of the Grimes camp (for now at least).

I gave Terry the (surely everybody from his era couldn't be that wrong/fame in the context of his time) treatment and let him sneak in... A.K.A "The Traynor Rule." Even Sewell is borderline. Rixey is the only guy I feel very good about.

[DoubleX]

Barring some discussion, Dave Bancroft, Larry Gardner, Firpo Marberry, George Uhle probably won't be on my 1942 ballot with all the talent coming up next year.

I hadn't really noticed before, but you're right, next year is pretty good. We'll have Jim Bottomley, Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, and Pie Traynor. I could see as many as four of those players getting in next year (with Bottomley being the outsider).

In the meantime, hopefully we can get some conversation going regarding some of the stronger holdovers and get one or two of them in. Maranville and Sewell have both averaged over 60% support, so they're definitely within striking range. Cooper, Grimes, Mays, Rice, Rixey, and Wilson could also use some concerted discussion.

[Ace Venom]

Those are good arguments and I certainly do not argue their credentials. As far as fielding stats can be compared, Baker did commit more errors at his position than Gardner did. Sutton committed more errors than Gardner at third base. Tommy Leach had more errors. Groh committed the least errors of the ones we elected and his fielding percentage is the best of the ones we've elected.

EDIT: My omission of Sewell was pretty simple. I didn't have room. If I hadn't decided to start supporting Gardner, I would have placed Sewell on my ballot.

[mwiggins]

Bill Terry
Joe Sewell
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Wally Schang
Ross Youngs
Hack Wilson

[philkid3]

No one added (I would have added Vance if he didn't get in last year), and only Ruth got in.

Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Joe Sewell
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs

Still very close on Bancroft. I'm also close on Terry, but not there yet. I kind've hope he follows the route Red Faber did. Faber was very close to the list, but I couldn't convince myself he was a Hall of Famer. He got in without my vote, though, which, strange as it sounds, I kind've like. I don't mind that he's in, but it stops me from second-guessing myself that I didn't vote for him.

[philkid3]

I hadn't really noticed before, but you're right, next year is pretty good. We'll have Jim Bottomley, Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, and Pie Traynor. I could see as many as four of those players getting in next year (with Bottomley being the outsider).
:eek:

Wow, that is a good class. I consider, Hornsby and Frisch among, at worst, the 40 best players who ever lived (and I still had them all in my last attempt at a top 100 in the 2000s), and Traynor is also easily a Hall of Famer.

I'm not a fan of Bottomley getting in, but that aught to be a class of at least four new comers.

[Cowtipper]

I dropped my support of Lu Blue. Judging by his RF he was pretty good defensively, especially compared to the league, but I really don't think that was enough for him.

My ballot:

George Burns
Earle Combs
Wilbur Cooper
Rabbit Maranville
Firpo Marberry
Del Pratt
Sam Rice
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Bill Terry
Bobby Veach

[Fielding Marshall]

A number of interesting first-timers, though not as interesting as next year. There are a number of borderline candidates I'd like to see some discussion about...

What do people think about Grimm's time as a player/manager (and subsequent success continuing as a manager following his playing career)? Good fielder, but his career OPS+ 95 serves as a testimony to the inconsistency he displayed throughout his career, as his best years were too few and isolated to really indicate he was that type of player. Does his time as a manager push him towards borderline-in? I'm not sure...

We've been really picky about 3B, so I've been thinking about Lindstrom. He seems to have been up there as far as the best 3B of his era, though he had a short career that was a touch off and on. My question is, how good was he at defense? Knowing that would help me decide if he should be borderline-in.

Jackson seems to have displayed unusual power for his position, along with a good glove and average. I'm not a big fan of his OBP, but I've got him penciled in as borderline-in. Agree? Disagree?

Again, I'd like to hear the arguments in favor of Marberry. And Uhle has already received 2 votes. What are the arguments in his favor? I'm not seeing any...

[jalbright]

Wilbur Cooper
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Bill Terry
Hack Wilson

[Fielding Marshall]

I dropped my support of Lu Blue. Judging by his RF he was pretty good defensively, especially compared to the league, but I really don't think that was enough for him.


So I lay down my argument for Lu Blue and all his supporters promptly drop him from their ballot. Was I that bad?

Here's what it was, if you missed it:

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....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.

[jjpm74]

FWIW, here's the defensive comparison of Larry Gardner and the other third basemen we've discussed in the past. I'm also including games played at third base and unadjusted career win shares:

Player DWS CWS G@3B

Tommy Leach A+ 328 955
Frank Baker B 301 1548
Lave Cross A+ 278 1721
Pie Traynor A- 274 1863
Jimmy Collins A+ 274 1683
Heinie Groh A- 272 1299
Larry Gardner B+ 258 1656
Billy Nash A 222 1464
Arlie Latham A- 221 1571
John McGraw B+ 207 782
Fred Lindstrom B 193 809
Bill Bradley B+ 191 1390
Ned Williamson A 173 716
Ezra Sutton B+ 158 880
Ossie Vitt A 99 833

Obviously, this doesn't take into account era, schedule differences or peak so take it with a grain of salt.

Looking at Gardner's career, + his best 3, he seems to fit into the discussion. One player I'm adding to my next VC ballot is Lave Cross after seeing how his defense and career value stack up to who we have elected.

[Fielding Marshall]

Catcher (5): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Buck Ewing, Cal McVey, Deacon White


Only 5 catchers elected and only one played this century. Why isn't there more support for Wally Schang? He's even similar to the most recent inductee, Bresnahan...

[jjpm74]

Those are good arguments and I certainly do not argue their credentials. As far as fielding stats can be compared, Baker did commit more errors at his position than Gardner did. Sutton committed more errors than Gardner at third base. Tommy Leach had more errors. Groh committed the least errors of the ones we elected and his fielding percentage is the best of the ones we've elected.

EDIT: My omission of Sewell was pretty simple. I didn't have room. If I hadn't decided to start supporting Gardner, I would have placed Sewell on my ballot.

Sewell is close to election and your vote could have made a big difference. Why do you support Joe Judge?

[Ace Venom]

Sewell is close to election and your vote could have made a big difference. Why do you support Joe Judge?

I feel Judge is a bit underrated for his position. He did his job well at first base. Offensively, his batting average is a passable .298, but he collected a 965 walks in his career. He managed to get on base and scored 1,184 times in his career. It's worth noting that he batted in 1,034 runs in his career. He also hit 433 doubles and 139 triples. Let's not forget he hit .385 in the 1924 World Series with five walks and four runs scored. I've been supporting Judge for these reasons and did not see a reason to drop him.

[Fielding Marshall]

FWIW, here's the defensive comparison of Larry Gardner and the other third basemen we've discussed in the past. I'm also including games played at third base and unadjusted career win shares:

Player DWS CWS G@3B

Tommy Leach A+ 328 955
Frank Baker B 301 1548
Pie Traynor A- 274 1863
Lave Cross A+ 278 1721
Jimmy Collins A+ 274 1683
Heinie Groh A- 272 1299
Larry Gardner B+ 258 1656
Billy Nash A 222 1464
Arlie Latham A- 221 1571
John McGraw B+ 207 782
Bill Bradley B+ 191 1390
Fred Lindstrom B 193 809
Ned Williamson A 173 716
Ezra Sutton B+ 158 880
Ossie Vitt A 99 833

Obviously, this doesn't take into account era, schedule differences or peak so take it with a grain of salt.

Looking at Gardner's career, + his best 3, he seems to fit into the discussion. One player I'm adding to my next VC ballot is Lave Cross after seeing how his defense and career value stack up to who we have elected.

So a B defense for Lindstrom...

Looking at this list, there's not a lot of quality 3B from this century. If there were more, Lindstrom wouldn't really be in this discussion, but apparently playing 3B well is really hard at this point. Standards for 3B, I think, have been too high and at least Gardner, Cross, and Traynor have to be added.

I still don't know what that means for Lindstrom. Let me think.

[bambambaseball]

So a B defense for Lindstrom...

Looking at this list, there's not a lot of quality 3B from this century. If there were more, Lindstrom wouldn't really be in this discussion, but apparently playing 3B well is really hard at this point. Standards for 3B, I think, have been too high and at least Gardner, Cross, and Traynor have to be added.

I still don't know what that means for Lindstrom. Let me think.

All this discussion about Gardner leads me to believe that he is someone who is borderline but belongs. As for Lindstrom, Im a big hall guy and my hall is bigger then most. Freddie Lindstrom had a short career, no peak and mediocre defense. He had 2 isolated good years and by the looks of it, 3 All Star level seasons. He should hopefully be 1 and done and doesn't belong anywhere near our hall.

[bambambaseball]

I feel Judge is a bit underrated for his position. He did his job well at first base. Offensively, his batting average is a passable .298, but he collected a 965 walks in his career. He managed to get on base and scored 1,184 times in his career. It's worth noting that he batted in 1,034 runs in his career. He also hit 433 doubles and 139 triples. Let's not forget he hit .385 in the 1924 World Series with five walks and four runs scored. I've been supporting Judge for these reasons and did not see a reason to drop him.

But you support Sewell and by not voting for him you are actually blocking him for election because it take 4 yes votes to make up for your 1 no vote. I support Lu Blue and voted for Joe Judge too but I dropped them because they dont have a chance at election. Sewell does. Hopefully youll change your mind and drop some of the weaker guys and add him. He really needs your support!

[Ace Venom]

But you support Sewell and by not voting for him you are actually blocking him for election because it take 4 yes votes to make up for your 1 no vote. I support Lu Blue and voted for Joe Judge too but I dropped them because they dont have a chance at election. Sewell does. Hopefully youll change your mind and drop some of the weaker guys and add him. He really needs your support!

It's not like I'm voting for the President of the United States here. :sigh: Part of what I get out of this exercise is you get to voice opinions for those who aren't in the real Cooperstown. I would certainly like to see a good argument for Wilbur Cooper. I ended up supporting Bancroft because I was convinced it would be a good vote. I have a feeling Sewell will get in this cycle.

[bambambaseball]

It's not like I'm voting for the President of the United States here. :sigh: Part of what I get out of this exercise is you get to voice opinions for those who aren't in the real Cooperstown. I would certainly like to see a good argument for Wilbur Cooper. I ended up supporting Bancroft because I was convinced it would be a good vote. I have a feeling Sewell will get in this cycle.

Believe me, if you look back youll see that Ive done the same thing. I like that youre here and that you are talking about the fringe guys. That is something Ive always been into! If Sewell doesnt make it this year, please think about him for 1943. If he doesnt get in this year, 1943 will be the next time he has a real chance which is why I dont bring up next year! This year, keep talking about the fringe guys. There what makes this activity so much fun!

[Ace Venom]

I like that youre here and that you are talking about the fringe guys. That is something Ive always been into! If Sewell doesnt make it this year, please think about him for 1943. If he doesnt get in this year, 1943 will be the next time he has a real chance which is why I dont bring up next year!

Don't worry. I was able to be convinced to support Bancroft. I think I've generated some support with my discussion of Gardner, so all is not lost. I'll vote for Sewell next time. I've got a feeling spaces in my ballot will clear with certain people getting in.

[Freakshow]

Faber, Ruth and Vance were elected. Evers expired. Quinn was dropped for lack of support. They were replaced by newbie Terry, returnees Burns, Veach and Youngs, and first-timer Rice.

Bancroft
GJ Burns
W. Cooper
Grimes
Hooper
Maranville
Mays
Rice
Rixey
Schang
Sewell
Shocker
Terry
Veach
Youngs

[Freakshow]

In general, we've been much more discerning with 20th Century players than we were with 19th Century. Did the quality of play decline? I somehow doubt that. I tend to think with the game experiencing less evolution and change during the 20th century, and a more consistent statistical framework, we aren't as keen to extrapolate and romanticize 20th Century players as we were for their predecessors.For me, an important element is the fact that so many of the top players of this era aren't on the ballot because they were excluded from MLB. When you consider this, we aren't short on 20th century players at all.

[SavoyBG]

Maranville
Mays
Sewell
Terry

Mike, the playing years for Crowder are listed wrong on the ballot.

[bambambaseball]

Maranville
Mays
Sewell
Terry

Mike, the playing years for Earnshaw and Crowder are listed wrong on the ballot.

Good selections!

Im hoping someone will argue Carl Mays case. Its a strong one but hes struggling. Faber and Vance was elected. Why not Mays!:nod:

[bambambaseball]

For me, an important element is the fact that so many of the top players of this era aren't on the ballot because they were excluded from MLB. When you consider this, we aren't short on 20th century players at all.

You have a very good point here!

Id like to be a part of the Negro Leagues elections however and whenever they are held. The blackball players have always been a very interesting group for me!

[SavoyBG]

Baker: Baker's career was fairly short, but to this point in history, he's easily the best offensive 3Bmen we've ever seen. He really stood out.



The best, perhaps, but not "easily"

John McGraw - OPS+ - 135
Bill Joyce - OPS+ - 144
Frank Baker - OPS+ - 136

McGraw and Joyce each played 500 to 600 less games than Baker, but were both great offensive players.

[Ace Venom]

For me, an important element is the fact that so many of the top players of this era aren't on the ballot because they were excluded from MLB. When you consider this, we aren't short on 20th century players at all.

I certainly agree. We're coming up to around the time when Jackie Robinson breaks the color barrier, so would it be better to do a review of Negro League players sooner or when the color barrier was broken?

[STLCards2]

Good selections!

Im hoping someone will argue Carl Mays case. Its a strong one but hes struggling. Faber and Vance was elected. Why not Mays!:nod:

Faber had a bucket load of more innings than Mays, Vance had 3 or so dominating peak-seasons that Mays didn't (was the best pitcher in baseball at least twice), and neither Mays or Faber had nearly the offensive or defensive support Mays had. Mays scores extremely high in both the all-time offensive support index and on numerous defensive-independent ERA charts. We can argue the merits and pinpoint accuracy of run support indexes and DERA (or the like), but the chance that both show Mays to be a major beneficiary of team help (and it not be true) is extremely unlikely. Nor have I heard a single person try and make a case for Mays not being helped significantly by the team around him. For a guy who is not a sho-in with his base numbers, that team support can be the final straw.

Mays gets some of that back due to his offensive prowness, but not enough to pass over Vance and Faber - who did more on much inferior teams.

Is Mays a HOFer? He just misses my cuttof line - but I won't split hairs over his election either. He wouldn't lower the HOF standards too much.

[bambambaseball]

You make a good argument, STLCards2! Whats your take on Burleigh Grimes, Urban Shocker and Wilbur Cooper? There the other pitchers Ive been supporting but am not convinced on.

[bambambaseball]

Im very surprise Charlie Grimm has no votes. A very good player and proven winner as a manager.

[SavoyBG]

I hadn't really noticed before, but you're right, next year is pretty good. We'll have Jim Bottomley, Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, and Pie Traynor. I could see as many as four of those players getting in next year (with Bottomley being the outsider).

In the meantime, hopefully we can get some conversation going regarding some of the stronger holdovers and get one or two of them in. Maranville and Sewell have both averaged over 60% support, so they're definitely within striking range. Cooper, Grimes, Mays, Rice, Rixey, and Wilson could also use some concerted discussion.

Mike, just a point here:

I don't see our job as being merely to work at inducting as many players as possible here. I think that working hard to keep the undeserving players out is just as important (if not more important) as working hard to insure that the deserving players get inducted.

When outsiders look at ANY hall of fame, usually the first thing they do is look for the undeserving players who were elected. The fewer of them that we elect (hopefully zero), the better credibility that the hall has for the players who are inducted.

Discussion is very important, but not necessarily to get people inducted. Sometimes discussion helps us get a clearer idea on a player who DOESN'T belong.

[SavoyBG]

For me, an important element is the fact that so many of the top players of this era aren't on the ballot because they were excluded from MLB. When you consider this, we aren't short on 20th century players at all.

Good point Freak. If we ever get to the point where Negro Leaguers start getting elected there will end up being lots more players from the teens, twenties and thirties then there are from the 19th century.

Imagine, people talking about inducting Larry Gardner when a much superior player like Judy Johnson (who retired after the 1936 season) is not even eligible.

It's an outrage !!!

[Fielding Marshall]

All this discussion about Gardner leads me to believe that he is someone who is borderline but belongs. As for Lindstrom, Im a big hall guy and my hall is bigger then most. Freddie Lindstrom had a short career, no peak and mediocre defense. He had 2 isolated good years and by the looks of it, 3 All Star level seasons. He should hopefully be 1 and done and doesn't belong anywhere near our hall.

Well, I don't think I can really argue with your assessment of Lindstrom. 3B selections from this century have been sparce, but there are clearly better 3B currently active, like Stan Hack, who should counteract this deficiency; with players like Traynor coming up the pipeline, Lindstrom's era should be accurately represented as an era weak in 3B talent. So he's a no.

The interesting thing is that I look at Lindstrom as having been a clearly better player than Grimm. If Lindstrom is out, Grimm, however valuable his years as a manager, can't get in as a player.

So that's the end of Lindstrom and Grimm; is anyone willing to offer up arguments for Marberry and Uhle?

[Ace Venom]

Imagine, people talking about inducting Larry Gardner when a much superior player like Judy Johnson (who retired after the 1936 season) is not even eligible.

It's an outrage !!!

I certainly don't see anything wrong with my support of Gardner. :sigh: I actually think it's a good idea to open the consideration of Negro League players to the ballot in 1947, the year Robinson broke the color barrier. It's a significant year, but we could go earlier.

[Domenic]

Maranville.
Rice.
Rixey.
Sewell.
Terry.

My vote for Terry does not seem to have registered, though the others did. Could a moderator please add another vote for Terry?

[SavoyBG]

I certainly don't see anything wrong with my support of Gardner. :sigh: I actually think it's a good idea to open the consideration of Negro League players to the ballot in 1947, the year Robinson broke the color barrier. It's a significant year, but we could go earlier.

Who is Robinson?

You talk about 1947 as if it has already passed.

Please lay off the booze.

[Fielding Marshall]

Im very surprise Charlie Grimm has no votes. A very good player and proven winner as a manager.

In what way was he "a very good player"? When I look at his playing career, I see a great deal of inconsistency which implies his best years were more due to luck than skill. Is there something I'm missing here?

[bambambaseball]

Good point Freak. If we ever get to the point where Negro Leaguers start getting elected there will end up being lots more players from the teens, twenties and thirties then there are from the 19th century.

Imagine, people talking about inducting Larry Gardner when a much superior player like Judy Johnson (who retired after the 1936 season) is not even eligible.

It's an outrage !!!

Id like to hear your reasons why! Judy Johnson couldnt hit. Larry Gardner could. Judy Johnson had a shorter career. Larry Gardner had a longish career. Judy Johnson would be the mistake. Not Larry Gardner.

[Fielding Marshall]

Who is Robinson?

You talk about 1947 as if it has already passed.

Please lay off the booze.

Perhaps he's invented time travel. I hear there's this interesting book by H.G. Wells...

[SavoyBG]

Id like to hear your reasons why! Judy Johnson couldnt hit. Larry Gardner could. Judy Johnson had a shorter career. Larry Gardner had a longish career. Judy Johnson would be the mistake. Not Larry Gardner.

Judy Johnson played from 1919-1936 (18 seasons)

Gardner played from 1908 to 1924 (17 seasons), plus he only played 3 games in 1908 and 19 games in 1909.

Don't know where you got the idea that Johnson couldn't hit, but in the stats that we have on him, Johnson hit .303 and slugged .403 in 728 games.

Gardner hit .289 and slugged .384.

[Ace Venom]

Perhaps he's invented time travel. I hear there's this interesting book by H.G. Wells...

Just a time traveling De...:crazy

Yeah. That Robinson guy was a player at UCLA. I vaguely remember reading something about him. Silly me.

They didn't play in the majors because it's segregated. Maybe someone is going to change that.

[SavoyBG]

Just a time traveling De...:crazy

Yeah. That Robinson guy was a player at UCLA. I vaguely remember reading something about him. Silly me.



They had a Negro named Robinson in 1939 who was a football star. He's still there now, but I hear he may be quitting school to take a job somewhere.

[STLCards2]

You make a good argument, STLCards2! Whats your take on Burleigh Grimes, Urban Shocker and Wilbur Cooper? There the other pitchers Ive been supporting but am not convinced on.

I have never supported Grimes in the past, but most of the individuals at BBF who share a similar philosophy in assessing HOF deservedness do. I have looked at his record a lot lately because of this, and think many of them are overlooking the fact that he had a (relatively) poor year every other year and focus on the fact that he was one of the leagues' very best pitchers the 6-7 years he was actually very good. He also received very little help from the teams he was on, so that is a plus in his favor. Right now, I am on the borderline about Grimes.

Shocker is a guy who I always want to put in. He has very similar numbers to Mays at face value, and received much less help from his mates to get there. In fact, Shocker is fighting with Saberhagen as my "next to get in guy" if I ever expanded my HOF line.

Cooper isn't too far off either, but like Mays, got loads of defensive help (Carey, Cuyler, Grimm, Maranville, Schmidt, Traynor, etc.) Like Mays and Grimes, Cooper was a very good hitter for a pitcher, which does make a difference. If a borderline guy to begin with (like Cooper) gets more than his fair share of help from his environment, I am compelled to leave them on the outside looking in.

None of these guys would do much harm to a HOF that already includes Hunter, Haines, Marquard, Chesbro, and Pennock, but they won't do much to help it either.

[PVNICK]

Bancroft
Cooper
Grimes
Maranville
Mays
Rice
Schalk
Schang
Shocker
Terry
Youngs

I went for a ton of guys this year though most are bubble-picks and next year I may just vote for 3.

[Freakshow]

I hadn't really noticed before, but you're right, next year is pretty good. We'll have Jim Bottomley, Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, and Pie Traynor. I could see as many as four of those players getting in next year (with Bottomley being the outsider).A couple notes on non-standard new eligibles for 1942. Babe Herman has been out of MLB for five years and should be eligible. He's still knocking out hits for Hollywood in the PCL (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=herman001flo)(and will come back with the Dodgers as a pinch hitter in 1945).

Also, Buzz Arlett (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=arlett001rus)played his last pro game in 1937. Does he get a shot at the ballot?

[jjpm74]

Also, Buzz Arlett played his last pro game in 1937. Does he get a shot at the ballot?

I think the best way to handle Buzz Arlett would be to include him in the 1945 VC Player's Ballot. This way we could handle him in the same way we handled Dickey Pearce, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Lip Pike and the other pre-major league players.

Arlett should definitely be given special consideration given his legendary batwork in the PCL which was a rival American baseball league. He'll definitely have my support.

[Sockeye]

Here is my ballot

1. Bill Terry
2. Hack Wilson
3. Bobby Veach
4. Sam Rice
5. Burleigh Grimes
6. George J. Burns

[KCGHOST]

Rixey
Sewell
Shocker

To no one's surprise even Babe Ruth didn't get unanimous support to the HoF. That's what lack of moral fiber will do for you.

[MadHatter]

I voted for the full 15:

George J. Burns
Earle Combs
Wilbur Cooper
Larry Gardner
Harry Hooper
Travis Jackson
George Kelly
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Ray Schalk
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Bill Terry
Hack Wilson

[SavoyBG]

Rixey
Sewell
Shocker

To no one's surprise even Babe Ruth didn't get unanimous support to the HoF. That's what lack of moral fiber will do for you.


Please, do I have to go back and analyze all of the players that you ever voted for who had questionable moral fiber?

If it wasn't for Babe Ruth we may not even be here right now.

[SavoyBG]

Interesting story I had forgotten about with Sewell being able to play in the 1920 world series.

He joined the Indians' roster after September 1 in 1920, and normally would not have been eligible to participate in post-season play; but Wilbert Robinson, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, waived the rule because of the circumstances with Chapman.

[Brooklyn]

Rice and Sewell.

I was close on Terry. Haven't seen much conversation here regarding him. Seems his career was a little short for my liking, although his 1927 through 1932 were oustanding.

Anyone care to argue for or against him?

On related note, how did he get as high as 4th in the MVP voting in 1933? Was it purely because he was the best position player on the pennant winner? He missed 30 games, and the counting stats the voters at the time looked at were way down (hits, runs, RBIs, homeruns, doubles, etc.

[SavoyBG]

Rice and Sewell.

I was close on Terry. Haven't seen much conversation here regarding him. Seems his career was a little short for my liking, although his 1927 through 1932 were oustanding.

Anyone care to argue for or against him?

On related note, how did he get as high as 4th in the MVP voting in 1933? Was it purely because he was the best position player on the pennant winner? He missed 30 games, and the counting stats the voters at the time looked at were way down (hits, runs, RBIs, homeruns, doubles, etc.

He was the player-manager of the pennant winning team.

His best year was 1930, by the way.

[Senor Octobre]

Anyone care to argue for or against him?

Well, at this point there are only two First-basemen in our Hall who have played predominantly in the 20th century (Frank Chance & George Sisler). I think he compares favourably to both, even though his offensive numbers may be heavily live-ball influenced. Defensively, he had a good reputation according to the BR Bullpen, I'm not sure about win shares or grades or anything. Besides Gehrig (not eligible until 1944), Terry has a legitimate claim as the best 20th century 1B so far. He definitely gets my vote.

[Fielding Marshall]

Could I get some thoughts on George Kelly? His statistics may not look like much, but he did finish in the top 10 in HR's 7 times, never finishing lower than 6th. There's also this assessment from http://www.jockbio.com/Classic/Kelly/Kelly_bio.html:

Statistics can tell you a lot about a baseball player. In the case of George Kelly, they don’t say nearly enough. The first baseman for the New York Giants when they dominated the National League in the early 1920s, he was a clutch hitter par excellence and an astonishing defensive player. A quick-wristed slasher who could also crank out 400-foot homers, George made the winning play in back-to-back world championships and left a legacy as one of the most admired men in the game.

I'm thinking of voting for him again, but would like to hear input. If he's a yes, he's a borderline yes.

[Domenic]

Wilbur Cooper
Carl Mays

Why Cooper and Mays, but not Eppa Rixey?

By win shares:
Cooper - 266
Mays - 256
Rixey - 315

By win shares above bench (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#wsab):
Cooper - 164
Mays - 168
Rixey - 183

By ERA+:
Cooper - 116
Mays - 120
Rixey - 115

By IP:
Cooper - 3480
Mays - 3021.1
Rixey - 4494.2

The only pitching advantage that I see for Cooper and Mays lay in ERA+ - which is certainly mitigated (if not removed) due to Rixey's tremendous advantage in IP. Further, if Rixey had not missed the entirety of the 1918 season, his WS and WSAB advantages would likely be much greater.

To be sure, Cooper and Mays were much better hitters, which cannot be discounted. At the same time, though, I perceive Rixey's pitching advantages to be overwhelming.

[Fielding Marshall]

The only pitching advantage that I see for Cooper and Mays lay in ERA+ - which is certainly mitigated (if not removed) due to Rixey's tremendous advantage in IP. Further, if Rixey had not missed the entirety of the 1918 season, his WS and WSAB advantages would likely be much greater.

To be sure, Cooper and Mays were much better hitters, which cannot be discounted. At the same time, though, I perceive Rixey's pitching advantages to be overwhelming.

I agree.

One thing that really surprises me is how Rixey's support has been roughly the same as not only Cooper and Mays, but also a guy like Grimes. I'll grant that Grimes had little help from his teams, but I have to wonder who seriously compares the records of Rixey and Grimes and sees pitchers of similar value. Rixey's winning percentage may not be very good, but winning percentage deserves only a fraction of the respect it typically reeceives and Rixey is clearly head and shoulders above Grimes in the other categories.

I didn't vote for Rixey last time because I was out of room and didn't think he would get in last time with or without my vote. This year, I'm definitely giving him my vote.

[Fielding Marshall]

Looking over his stats, it looks like Del Pratt doesn't get the respect he deserves. As a 2B who's above-average defensively, Pratt also finished 3 times in the top 7 in HR leaders, finished 4 times in the top 8 in triples, 8 times in the top 10 in doubles (including 5 times in the top 5), and 6 times in the top 10 in extra-base hits (including 4 times in the top 5). All that and his 233 career sac. hits are up there on the all-time list.

I'll be supporting Pratt this election.

[Senor Octobre]

Wow, I'm actually quite surprised at the lack of support for Rixey thus far.

[Sockeye]

The player I'm surprised isn't getting more support is Burleigh Grimes. The 107 ERA+ isn't anything to write home about but once we look beyond that he was quite a pitcher. A workhorse that led the league in innings 3 times and was 9th or better 10 times in twelve years. Led the league in complete games 4 times and 10th or better 11 times. Top ten in shutouts 8 times. Led the league in wins twice, finished 2nd once, 3rd twice, 4th once, and 5th once. In fact he finished in the top nine in wins 11 times! 8th or better in ERA 6 times. Top 5 in strikeouts 8 times! A couple active pitchers that I would liken him to would be Red Ruffing & Ted Lyons as well as the recently elected Red Faber.

[Fielding Marshall]

The player I'm surprised isn't getting more support is Burleigh Grimes. The 107 ERA+ isn't anything to write home about but once we look beyond that he was quite a pitcher. A workhorse that led the league in innings 3 times and was 9th or better 10 times in twelve years. Led the league in complete games 4 times and 10th or better 11 times. Top ten in shutouts 8 times. Led the league in wins twice, finished 2nd once, 3rd twice, 4th once, and 5th once. In fact he finished in the top nine in wins 11 times! 8th or better in ERA 6 times. Top 5 in strikeouts 8 times! A couple active pitchers that I would liken him to would be Red Ruffing & Ted Lyons as well as the recently elected Red Faber.

Well, I guess this is what happens when I forget to check the leaderboards. Grimes is definitely closer to Rixey than I previously thought, but I would still put Rixey over Grimes by a significant margin.

You have convinced me to consider adding Grimes to a future ballot.

[jalbright]

Could I get some thoughts on George Kelly? His statistics may not look like much, but he did finish in the top 10 in HR's 7 times, never finishing lower than 6th. There's also this assessment from http://www.jockbio.com/Classic/Kelly/Kelly_bio.html:

I'm thinking of voting for him again, but would like to hear input. If he's a yes, he's a borderline yes.


George Kelly, IMHO, is one of the worst selections in Cooperstown's history, and one I sincerely hope we don't repeat here. One thing I have to give him is that in 1924 and 25 he finished 3rd and 6th in MVP voting. That's certainly not a bad thing. You can't get anywhere with All-Star appearances, as that game arrived after Kelly's career ended. After that, though, he's shooting blanks in what I look at:

1) I want a 1B or OF in the top 140 (probably higher, as middle IF and C often are worthy but not in that group) in the inks and HOF standards. Kelly is:

a) 178th in Black ink (if this were the only problem, I could easily overlook it);
b) 295th in Gray ink
c) 531st in HOF standards.

2) I like to see someone in the top 20 (or very close to it) at his position in the win share measures. Kelly is:

a) 68th in career;
b) 59th in top 3 seasons; and
c) 47th in best 5 consecutive.

3) A bit of a tiebreaker can be if a guy averages being All-Star level in win shares per 162 games over his career. The bottom of All-Star level is 20 win shares. Kelly averaged 19.28 win shares per 162 games.

I don't think there's any way I will ever be convinced that Kelly's selection is anything but a terrible mistake brought on by the cronyism that ran rampant in the Frankie Frisch-led VC (and for about 6-7 years after Frankie's death).

[SavoyBG]

Well, I guess this is what happens when I forget to check the leaderboards. Grimes is definitely closer to Rixey than I previously thought, but I would still put Rixey over Grimes by a significant margin.

You have convinced me to consider adding Grimes to a future ballot.

Rixey has the most wins of any National League LHer at this point.

[Brad Harris]

Ed Konetchy has a better case than Kelly and we just saw how this electorate treated him. Kelly can rot in the cellar.

[jalbright]

Looking at George Kelly through a more 1941 lens, here's a list of some 1B who ended their careers by 1941 with OPS+ of 125 or less but more than Kelly's 109, and also had more PA than Kelly's 6565:

George Sisler: 124, 9013
Jake Beckley: 125, 10470
Jim Bottomley: 125, 8375
Ed Konetchy: 122, 8664
Harry Davis: 119, 7379
Jake Daubert: 117, 8742
Joe Judge: 114, 9171
George McQuinn: 110, 6597

Unless you're willing to put all but McQuinn and Davis in, too, I'd suggest leaving Kelly out.

[Fielding Marshall]

George Kelly, IMHO, is one of the worst selections in Cooperstown's history, and one I sincerely hope we don't repeat here. One thing I have to give him is that in 1924 and 25 he finished 3rd and 6th in MVP voting. That's certainly not a bad thing. You can't get anywhere with All-Star appearances, as that game arrived after Kelly's career ended. After that, though, he's shooting blanks in what I look at:

1) I want a 1B or OF in the top 140 (probably higher, as middle IF and C often are worthy but not in that group) in the inks and HOF standards. Kelly is:

a) 178th in Black ink (if this were the only problem, I could easily overlook it);
b) 295th in Gray ink
c) 531st in HOF standards.

2) I like to see someone in the top 20 (or very close to it) at his position in the win share measures. Kelly is:

a) 68th in career;
b) 59th in top 3 seasons; and
c) 47th in best 5 consecutive.

3) A bit of a tiebreaker can be if a guy averages being All-Star level in win shares per 162 games over his career. The bottom of All-Star level is 20 win shares. Kelly averaged 19.28 win shares per 162 games.

I don't think there's any way I will ever be convinced that Kelly's selection is anything but a terrible mistake brought on by the cronyism that ran rampant in the Frankie Frisch-led VC (and for about 6-7 years after Frankie's death).

...except that the argument is not so much whether his general statistical line is worthy (and I agree with you: it definitely isn't), but whether or not he was good enough defensively, good enough as a clutch hitter, and/or significant enough on the leaderboards to sneak into the Hall.

The only element to touch upon is the leaderboards, and while at first glance it looks like you refuted that argument, I suspect the numbers you looked at weren't limited to his era. So I'm going to compare Kelly's numbers to that of all our inducted 1B:

Player Black Ink Gray Ink HOF Standards
Cap Anson 52 358 63.5
Jake Beckley 1 165 50
Dan Brouthers 79 263 54.1
Frank Chance 7 73 24
Roger Connor 31 269 55.8
George Kelly 13 79 22
George Sisler 29 198 44.1
Joe Start 5 102 12

Average 1B 29.14 204 43.36
George Kelly 13 79 22


That does, however, demolish that argument. Now, about his clutch hitting and defense...

[Fielding Marshall]

Player Black Ink Gray Ink HOF Standards
Cap Anson 52 358 63.5
Jake Beckley 1 165 50
Dan Brouthers 79 263 54.1
Frank Chance 7 73 24
Roger Connor 31 269 55.8
George Kelly 13 79 22
George Sisler 29 198 44.1
Joe Start 5 102 12

Average 1B 29.14 204 43.36
George Kelly 13 79 22




Wow, I have difficulty setting up tables...

[mwiggins]

To drop out of 1941 mode, I wonder how big of a Hall we'd be talking about if George Kelly really was "above the line"? 900 players?

A good way to think about it is remember Cecil Cooper. Real nice player, one of the best players in baseball for a short time. But does he ever get brought up by the big Hall guys as a guy who should be a Hall of Famer? Not that I've ever seen. Did any of you while watching him think "that guys a Hall of Famer"? I sure didn't. Yet he had a significantly better career than did George Kelly. That's how far down the line Kelly is from being a HoFer.

And going back into 1941 mode...if you're going to vote for Kelly, then I certainly hope you've been voting for Ross Youngs, as he was a much better player on those great Giants teams.

[Fielding Marshall]

To drop out of 1941 mode, I wonder how big of a Hall we'd be talking about if George Kelly really was "above the line"? 900 players?

A good way to think about it is remember Cecil Cooper. Real nice player, one of the best players in baseball for a short time. But does he ever get brought up by the big Hall guys as a guy who should be a Hall of Famer? Not that I've ever seen. Did any of you while watching him think "that guys a Hall of Famer"? I sure didn't. Yet he had a significantly better career than did George Kelly. That's how far down the line Kelly is from being a HoFer.

And going back into 1941 mode...if you're going to vote for Kelly, then I certainly hope you've been voting for Ross Youngs, as he was a much better player on those great Giants teams.

Again, it's not about whether or not his offensive numbers are Hall-worthy (they aren't), it's about whether Kelly was a good enough clutch hitter or good enough defensively to squeak over the line. Obviously, he'd have to be amazing on both counts...

A big reason why I'm debating Kelly's merits is because I suspect he will be dropped if I don't give him a yes vote. If I didn't think so, I'd be voting for someone else in a heartbeat.

And yes, I support the candidacy of Ross Youngs.

[Fielding Marshall]

Again, it's not about whether or not his offensive numbers are Hall-worthy (they aren't), it's about whether Kelly was a good enough clutch hitter or good enough defensively to squeak over the line. Obviously, he'd have to be amazing on both counts...


Wow, I can't believe I didn't look at this sooner...

Apparently, Kelly only hit .248/.280/.297 in 4 world series, 2 of which he lost.

Kelly's out.

[jjpm74]

Here's the DWS grades of some of the 1st basemen being discussed (someone had asked about them):

Jake Beckley: B
Lu Blue: B-
Jim Bottomley: C+
Harry Davis: B+
Jake Daubert: B+
Jack Fournier: C-
Joe Judge: B-
George Kelly: A-
Ed Konetchy: A-
George McQuinn: A-
George Sisler: C-
Bill Terry: A+

Bill Terry had one of the most explosive peaks of anyone we've looked at to date. The fact that he was also one of the best defensive 1st baseman baseball had ever seen to this point in history is icing on the cake for him. The only other 1st basemen with comparable defensive ability were Patsy Tebeau, John Ganzel, Frank Isbell, and Dave Foutz, all from the Deadball Era and none of whom had anywhere near the kind of offensive ability of Terry. Bill Terry is George Sisler with a better glove, less the padding Sisler had. If Sisler was elected, Terry should follow.

George Kelly was an above average fielder, but has nothing going for him offensively and had a short career. That he's survived on our ballot this long and is still generating discussion is puzzling.

[jjpm74]

Someone else asked about Del Pratt's defensive ability. Bill James assigned him a B for DWS. Pratt was little more than an average 2nd baseman with an above average bat. He is an interesting conversation piece, but he does not deserve to be in our HoF.

[Fielding Marshall]

Dave Bancroft
Lu Blue
Earle Combs
Larry Gardner
Travis Jackson
Joe Judge
Rabbit Maranville
Del Pratt
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Bill Terry
Hack Wilson
Ross Youngs

A few notes...

After taking another look at Earle Combs, I decided that I'd seriously overlooked him; he sure packed a lot of production into his career at the top of Murderer's Row.

Looking at the voting so far, Maranville, Rice, and Sewell are primed for induction, though Rice and Maranville are barely over. Terry needs a couple more votes.

Schang seems to be gaining support, which is good. As I posted before, only 1 of the 5 inducted catchers played in this century (Bresnahan); curiously, a similar player like Schang (who was probably the best of his era) has yet to get in...

Lu Blue is a vote away from being dropped. Anyone?

[Fielding Marshall]

Someone else asked about Del Pratt's defensive ability. Bill James assigned him a B for DWS. Pratt was little more than an average 2nd baseman with an above average bat. He is an interesting conversation piece, but he does not deserve to be in our HoF.

Earlier, I wrote this:

Looking over his stats, it looks like Del Pratt doesn't get the respect he deserves. As a 2B who's above-average defensively, Pratt also finished 3 times in the top 7 in HR leaders, finished 4 times in the top 8 in triples, 8 times in the top 10 in doubles (including 5 times in the top 5), and 6 times in the top 10 in extra-base hits (including 4 times in the top 5). All that and his 233 career sac. hits are up there on the all-time list.


As you seem dismissive of Pratt's offensive abilities, perhaps you should give your idea of what the line is regarding offensively-minded 2B. 2B is historically an offensively weak position and Pratt's abilities (to me) seem Hall-worthy.

[bambambaseball]

Fielding Marshall, where are you getting the idea that Pratt was good defensively? Everything Ive read about his defense points to him being average defensively.

[bambambaseball]

Lu Blue is a vote away from being dropped. Anyone?

Im hoping someone saves him too but if not its not like he will get elected.

[jalbright]

Wow, I have difficulty setting up tables...

If you've got a spreadsheet program, enter the data on that and then cut and paste into the Code tags (the "#" symbol). You may still have to work on alignment, though.

[Brad Harris]

Dave Bancroft
Wilbur Cooper
Larry Gardner
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Wally Schang
Joe Sewell
Urban Shocker
Bill Terry
Bobby Veach
Hack Wilson
Ross Youngs

[Fielding Marshall]

Fielding Marshall, where are you getting the idea that Pratt was good defensively? Everything Ive read about his defense points to him being average defensively.

Basically, I looked up his stats on Baseball-Reference. When looking up defensive stats on B-R, I compare his range factor to league range factor and do the same for fielding percentage to see how he did with what he got to; added weight, of course, goes to the range factor.

Pratt had a 5.42 RFg to a 5.11 lgRFg. His fielding percentage was .960 to .959. I'm never quite sure how much difference is needed to really apply labels, but I took that to mean Pratt wasn't a genius defensively, but he was above-average.

(It feels kind of bad to refer to him as "Pratt," but that is his name.)

[Fielding Marshall]

If you've got a spreadsheet program, enter the data on that and then cut and paste into the Code tags (the "#" symbol). You may still have to work on alignment, though.

Alignment is my problem...it looked fine as I was typing it out, but really bad after I posted...I guess I should use the "Preview Post" option, though I was reluctant to do so since I've been burned by that on other sites (it wouldn't let me make changes afterward). Next time, I suppose...

[jjpm74]

Alignment is my problem...it looked fine as I was typing it out, but really bad after I posted...I guess I should use the "Preview Post" option, though I was reluctant to do so since I've been burned by that on other sites (it wouldn't let me make changes afterward). Next time, I suppose...

I don't have a good spreadsheet program, so what I usually do is align the 1st column as best I as I can, then for additional columns, have a set amount of spaces between the fields. Once I post the table, I open up a second window as reference to see how many spaces forward or backwards I need to move each line to align it.

[Ace Venom]

By the way thinks look, Sewell, Rice and Maranville might go in this round. Terry might go in first round if he gets an extra push.

[jjpm74]

By the way thinks look, Sewell, Rice and Maranville might go in this round. Terry might go in first round if he gets an extra push.

Maranville had 100% his first time on the ballot through 16 votes and still didn't get elected. Sewell, Rice and Maranville have all been at this point before. There's still plenty of time for their detractors to come out of the woodwork.

[Freakshow]

That's the huge pitfall with running vote tallies. Rather than consider candidates on their merits, for some the voting decision is primarily based on how a candidate is faring in the tally. It's why I try to avoid the poll format for these types of elections.

[Ace Venom]

That's the huge pitfall with running vote tallies. Rather than consider candidates on their merits, for some the voting decision is primarily based on how a candidate is faring in the tally. It's why I try to avoid the poll format for these types of elections.

That's part of the reason I tried to start the debate for players not receiving as many votes. It can either help or hurt the cause. It's of no consequence, but I'd hate to see another year where no players were elected. I'm not saying do it just to get people in, but it sends the message that we can't agree on just what a Hall of Famer really is. I've voted full ballot because I thought there were some candidates who probably could use extra consideration, but I will likely not go full ballot next time because some cases just can't be argued.

[jjpm74]

That's part of the reason I tried to start the debate for players not receiving as many votes. It can either help or hurt the cause. It's of no consequence, but I'd hate to see another year where no players were elected. I'm not saying do it just to get people in, but it sends the message that we can't agree on just what a Hall of Famer really is. I've voted full ballot because I thought there were some candidates who probably could use extra consideration, but I will likely not go full ballot next time because some cases just can't be argued.

Both Larry Gardner and Dave Bancroft have seen a slight spike in the number of votes they are getting. In the past, we elected Hughie Jennings, Al Spalding, Roger Bresnahan and lots of others after some discussion and debate. Discussion definitely helps with the fringe candidates.

[Freakshow]

From where we're at right now (26 votes) we can expect about 7 more ballots, assuming a normal turnout. Here is what they need for election:

3 of 7 Sewell
5 of 7 Maranville
5 of 7 Rice
6 of 7 Terry

The only others now above 50%, Rixey, Mays and Wilson, need to be named on the next 18 ballots cast to be elected.

[DoubleX]

Only 5 catchers elected and only one played this century. Why isn't there more support for Wally Schang? He's even similar to the most recent inductee, Bresnahan...

I completely agree. I made a small case for Schang when he first came eligible and also made a case for Deacon McGuire in the VC elections based on the premise that we've neglected catcher and that his durability and productivity made him pretty exceptional as a catcher for his day.

Part of the problem may be that voters may be thinking that we have three or four more catchers soon on the way in Cochrane, Harnett, Dickey, and maybe Lombardi, and thus there's less impetus to really look at catchers. That being said, if we were really trying to evaluate players within the context in which they played and the history of the game to that point (which is what we should be doing), I do believe that Schang (and McGuire before him) has a pretty strong argument.

To conclude, we really haven't elected any modern catchers. Bresnahan maybe, but he caught less than 1000 games and played a good deal in CF. So we're really lacking in 20th Century career catchers.

EDIT: As an aside, I was pleasantly surprised to see Maranville, Sewell, and Rice all making a strong run this time around (in addition to newcomer Terry). It's nice to see players make strides like in the first 25 or so years of this. In the last 15 years or so, most players were either first balloters or too far away to have a real shot, so we haven't had as much good discussion and candidacy building as we did. It's nice to see that return.

[DoubleX]

It's not like I'm voting for the President of the United States here. :sigh: Part of what I get out of this exercise is you get to voice opinions for those who aren't in the real Cooperstown. I would certainly like to see a good argument for Wilbur Cooper. I ended up supporting Bancroft because I was convinced it would be a good vote. I have a feeling Sewell will get in this cycle.

We should try to do our best to proceed as if Cooperstown doesn't exist and that we are the actual Hall of Fame. The standards that guide us aren't Cooperstowns, but the standards we have erected. This is a hard thing to do though and I believe at times our preconceptions which we have forged by viewing someone as say a Cooperstown slight or another as a questionable Cooperstown selection, have biased our voting a little bit. With the former, we could be overly sympathetic, while with the latter, we could be more harsh, even if the two players are similarly deserving based just on our standards. Presently, I think Dave Bancroft is someone who is suffering from our Cooperstown preconceptions.

As for Wilbur Cooper, there was some very good discussion on him during his first couple of years of eligibility. So you might want to look back and see what you think. I was almost persuaded on Cooper at the time but couldn't quite get there, and then the conversation about him suddenly faded as we moved on to other players.

[DoubleX]

A couple notes on non-standard new eligibles for 1942. Babe Herman has been out of MLB for five years and should be eligible. He's still knocking out hits for Hollywood in the PCL (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=herman001flo)(and will come back with the Dodgers as a pinch hitter in 1945).

Also, Buzz Arlett (http://minors.sabrwebs.com/cgi-bin/person.php?milbID=arlett001rus)played his last pro game in 1937. Does he get a shot at the ballot?

Thanks. Herman will be on the ballot.

Arlett is an interesting case. He will not be eligible here, but perhaps on the VC, but I don't think next time.

Some have mentioned considering Negro Leaguers. For those newer to this project, this was something we've discussed at length but not fully resolved. Negro Leaguers will be considered by the VC and I'm thinking we'll convene a special VC. The real issue is the timing, which is a sensitive subject. We want to balance being progressive with historical reality. In that vein, I believe it was determined that considering Negro Leaguers probably wouldn't be realistic until after integration, so we'd be looking at 1950 at the earliest (if we elect them at the same time as other VC players). Some members have advocated a later date, which considering that Cooperstown did not elect it's first Negro Leaguer (not counting Robinson) until early 70s, would be more in line with reality. However, trying to be progressive, I have some point between 1950 and 1960 in my mind to commence Negro League elections.

This all being said, I'd rather not discuss this issue further in this election as we've had extended discussion about it before and I'd rather discussion here continue to focus on the candidacies of currently eligible players. But in a few weeks I will start a thread dedicated to this very issue and we'll hammer everything out there. For now, I just wanted to make some of the newer members updated on where we've been with this subject.

[Senor Octobre]

Thanks. Herman will be on the ballot.

Arlett is an interesting case. He will not be eligible here, but perhaps on the VC, but I don't think next time.

Some have mentioned considering Negro Leaguers. For those newer to this project, this was something we've discussed at length but not fully resolved. Negro Leaguers will be considered by the VC and I'm thinking we'll convene a special VC. The real issue is the timing, which is a sensitive subject. We want to balance being progressive with historical reality. In that vein, I believe it was determined that considering Negro Leaguers probably wouldn't be realistic until after integration, so we'd be looking at 1950 at the earliest (if we elect them at the same time as other VC players). Some members have advocated a later date, which considering that Cooperstown did not elect it's first Negro Leaguer (not counting Robinson) until early 70s, would be more in line with reality. However, trying to be progressive, I have some point between 1950 and 1960 in my mind to commence Negro League elections.

This all being said, I'd rather not discuss this issue further in this election as we've had extended discussion about it before and I'd rather discussion here continue to focus on the candidacies of currently eligible players. But in a few weeks I will start a thread dedicated to this very issue and we'll hammer everything out there. For now, I just wanted to make some of the newer members updated on where we've been with this subject.

Interestingly, a case similar to Herman's will coincide with the Negro League discussion. In 1953 Satchel Paige played the last MLB game he would play for another 12 years (1965). Would that make him eligible for the 1958 election then?

[AstrosFan]

Grimes
Rixey
Terry

[DoubleX]

Interestingly, a case similar to Herman's will coincide with the Negro League discussion. In 1953 Satchel Paige played the last MLB game he would play for another 12 years (1965). Would that make him eligible for the 1958 election then?

To be eligible a player must have either played in 10 MLB seasons or have accumulated at least 1500 IP or 3000 AB. Though simply meeting the qualifications does not guaranteed being listed on the ballot. It's a judgment call and players that barely make the minimum standards will be subject to greater scrutiny. But to ensure fairness, I try to post the forthcoming list of eligible players in the ongoing election and note any players that I may not put on the ballot. Thus voters can make a case for any player to be on the ballot.

As for Paige, he unfortunately does not meet any of the standards. As such, it would be unfair to assess his MLB career against a group of players with much longer careers. Paige will go through whatever process we decide to use for Negro Leaguers, but even then, timing will be a good question. Should we consider him while he's still active in the Majors? Probably not, at least not after his primary run which ended in 1953 (he pitched 3 innings in 1965). So he'd probably first be on the Negro League ballot in 1955 or 1960.

[Senor Octobre]

To be eligible a player must have either played in 10 MLB seasons or have accumulated at least 1500 IP or 3000 AB.

Oops forgot about those small details :crazy

[dgarza]

Dave Bancroft
George J Burns
Earle Combs
Burleigh Grimes
Freddie Lindstrom
Firpo Marberry
Carl Mays
Herb Pennock
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Joe Sewell
Bill Terry
Bobby Veach
Ross Youngs
Hack Wilson

1. Bill Terry
2. Hack Wilson
3. Bobby Veach
4. Sam Rice
5. Firpo Marberry
6. Burleigh Grimes
7. Carl Mays
8. George J Burns
9. Earle Combs
10. Joe Sewell
11. Ross Youngs
12. Eppa Rixey
13. Herb Pennock
14. Dave Bancroft
15. Freddie Lindstrom

[philkid3]

It's seems like a remarkably weird coincidence that EVERY poll, the early voters overwhelmingly vote for Maranville, and the late voters overwhelmingly vote against.

[Fielding Marshall]

It's seems like a remarkably weird coincidence that EVERY poll, the early voters overwhelmingly vote for Maranville, and the late voters overwhelmingly vote against.

That's odd, because I thought Maranville was a fan favorite who made more friends instead of enemies. I guess his opponents have connections...;)

[Fielding Marshall]

15. Freddie Lindstrom

I'm wondering, what makes Lindstrom more appealing than Maranville? I might think that you wanted to add more 3B, but you don't have Gardner on your ballot...

Were you, perchance, trying to keep him on the ballot?

[Fielding Marshall]

Did you hear about the strike on Pearl Harbor? Sounds like we're going to be joining that ugly war in Europe and Asia. Hope it ends soon...

I wonder how much this is going to affect baseball...

[bambambaseball]

From where we're at right now (26 votes) we can expect about 7 more ballots, assuming a normal turnout. Here is what they need for election:

3 of 7 Sewell
5 of 7 Maranville
5 of 7 Rice
6 of 7 Terry

The only others now above 50%, Rixey, Mays and Wilson, need to be named on the next 18 ballots cast to be elected.

It's pathetic that at this post we had 4 guys potentially getting elected and now we're 1 screwball hit and run ballot away from electing nobody. If we elect nobody this year after all the discussions, Im washing my hands of this project permanently. Pathetic!

And the fact that someone voted for Lindstrom but not Maranville is an absolute joke! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Ace Venom]

It's pathetic that at this post we had 4 guys potentially getting elected and now we're 1 screwball hit and run ballot away from electing nobody. If we elect nobody this year after all the discussions, Im washing my hands of this project permanently. Pathetic!

And the fact that someone voted for Lindstrom but not Maranville is an absolute joke! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

So it may come down to me omitting Sewell on my ballot in order to vote for Joe Judge. If Sewell doesn't get in this time, I am dropping my support for Judge to try to give Sewell a push in. It seems we're having a hard time finding some consensus on who is a Hall of Famer on this list. If we don't elect someone this time, we're going to have a crowded ballot in the next round. Not that this is a bad thing, but I wanted to avoid voting full ballot again. :dismay:

[Fielding Marshall]

It's pathetic that at this post we had 4 guys potentially getting elected and now we're 1 screwball hit and run ballot away from electing nobody. If we elect nobody this year after all the discussions, Im washing my hands of this project permanently. Pathetic!



I know, I'm really hoping the current 3 will sneak in. I really need room for my ballot next year. :cry: But don't give up hope...:rainy:

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Synchronized headbanging!

[Ace Venom]

The big problem we have in getting anyone elected in this election is that anyone with a large amount of votes is practically a marginal candidate. Maranville is the weakest of the four leading candidates and may end up being a future Vet's selection. Sewell, even though I support him, is the second weakest of the bunch. Bill Terry and Sam Rice are the two that are moderately marginal candidates. I actually expect them to maintain a large level of support, but Sewell's and Maranville's should drop in the next ballot.

Then we have a number of weaker candidates that enjoy support, which clutters the ballot. A number of these players won't be around after this year and should fall off the ballot after 1942. It's bound to happen. There are going to be a lot of holdovers for 1942 because this isn't the best of ballots.

[SavoyBG]

The big problem we have in getting anyone elected in this election is that anyone with a large amount of votes is practically a marginal candidate. Maranville is the weakest of the four leading candidates and may end up being a future Vet's selection. Sewell, even though I support him, is the second weakest of the bunch. Bill Terry and Sam Rice are the two that are moderately marginal candidates. I actually expect them to maintain a large level of support, but Sewell's and Maranville's should drop in the next ballot.



I beg do differ with your analysis. I say that Sewell is clearly a better candidate than Rice:

All that Rice has over Sewell is a longer career. Sewell has a much better peak, and was the best player in the major leagues at his position over the course of an entire decade (1920s). Rice never had more than 24 win shares in any season.

[Freakshow]

I beg do differ with your analysis. I say that Sewell is clearly a better candidate than Rice:

All that Rice has over Sewell is a longer career. Sewell has a much better peak, and was the best player in the major leagues at his position over the course of an entire decade (1920s). Rice never had more than 24 win shares in any season.The new and improved WARP3 has Sewell miles ahead of Rice. IIUC, WARP now gives more credit to great gloves, less to unimportant positions than before. It also raised the replacement level, so you don't get as much credit just for showing up.

WARP3, Career: Top 5

Sewell 63.2: 7.6-7.4-6.9-6.6-6.3
S Rice 48.2: 5.7-5.5-5.2-4.0-3.8

The BBFHOF and the Hall of Merit both elected Sewell. Rice is far from election in both Halls. Rice was also the 32nd player elected to the Hall of Mistakes (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49821).

[Brad Harris]

To be eligible a player must have either played in 10 MLB seasons or have accumulated at least 1500 IP or 3000 AB. Though simply meeting the qualifications does not guaranteed being listed on the ballot. It's a judgment call and players that barely make the minimum standards will be subject to greater scrutiny. But to ensure fairness, I try to post the forthcoming list of eligible players in the ongoing election and note any players that I may not put on the ballot. Thus voters can make a case for any player to be on the ballot.
Just curious who the most notable players are (to date) who failed to make those min. reqs?

[Ace Venom]

I'm going by yardsticks and Rice clearly surpasses Sewell on that mark. He was also only 13 hits away from 3,000 and two doubles away from 500. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with positions here, but come on.

[mwiggins]

I'm going by yardsticks and Rice clearly surpasses Sewell on that mark. He was also only 13 hits away from 3,000 and two doubles away from 500. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with positions here, but come on.

He also has more hits and doubles than Zack Wheat & George Sisler & Sam Crawford. Is Rice a better HoF candidate than those guys too?

[Ace Venom]

He also has more hits and doubles than Zack Wheat & George Sisler & Sam Crawford. Is Rice a better HoF candidate than those guys too?

Those points are irrelevant to Rice's candidacy. I believe both Sewell and Rice should get in, but I believe Rice is the stronger candidate and I made my points.

[philkid3]

The new and improved WARP3 has Sewell miles ahead of Rice. IIUC, WARP now gives more credit to great gloves, less to unimportant positions than before. It also raised the replacement level, so you don't get as much credit just for showing up.

WARP3, Career: Top 5

Sewell 63.2: 7.6-7.4-6.9-6.6-6.3
S Rice 48.2: 5.7-5.5-5.2-4.0-3.8

The BBFHOF and the Hall of Merit both elected Sewell. Rice is far from election in both Halls. Rice was also the 32nd player elected to the Hall of Mistakes (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49821).
Thank you for pointing out the DT cards finally include the improved WARP. That will be helpful.

[bambambaseball]

All Time hits leaders:

1. Ty Cobb 4189
2. Tris Speaker 3514
3. Cap Anson 3418
4. Honus Wagner 3415
5. Eddie Colins 3315
6. Nap Lajoie 3242
7. Sam Rice 2987
8. Sam Crawford 2961
9. Paul Waner 2956
10. Willie Keeler 2932
11. Jake Beckley 2930
11. Rogers Hornsby 2930
13. Zack Wheat 2884
14. Frankie Frisch 2880
15. Babe Ruth 2873

* Players in bold are still active

Sam Rice is 7th all time in career hits. The only active players near him are Mel Ott and Paul Waner who might or might not pass him. Everyone eligible for our hall above and below him are HOFers.

Same Rice also hit .322 for his career, over 1500 runs, is well over the mark in black ink and gray ink, 327 CWS, topped 20 WS 11 times, had 10 All -Star caliber seasons and was incredibly consistent for a 10 year stretch. Hes a definite HOFer!

[philkid3]

I'm going by yardsticks and Rice clearly surpasses Sewell on that mark. He was also only 13 hits away from 3,000 and two doubles away from 500. I know we're comparing apples to oranges with positions here, but come on.
But the position DOES matter. Sewell played a much more valuable position AND was very good fielder.

[mwiggins]

All Time hits leaders:

1. Ty Cobb 4189
2. Tris Speaker 3514
3. Cap Anson 3418
4. Honus Wagner 3415
5. Eddie Colins 3315
6. Nap Lajoie 3242
7. Sam Rice 2987
8. Sam Crawford 2961
9. Paul Waner 2956
10. Willie Keeler 2932
11. Jake Beckley 2930
11. Rogers Hornsby 2930
13. Zack Wheat 2884
14. Frankie Frisch 2880
15. Babe Ruth 2873

* Players in bold are still active

Sam Rice is 7th all time in career hits. The only active players near him are Mel Ott and Paul Waner who might or might not pass him. Everyone eligible for our hall above and below him are HOFers.

Same Rice also hit .322 for his career, over 1500 runs, is well over the mark in black ink and gray ink, 327 CWS, topped 20 WS 11 times, had 10 All -Star caliber seasons and was incredibly consistent for a 10 year stretch. Hes a definite HOFer!


Also note how Rice's SLG% compares to those other players in the Top 15 for career hits...

15. Babe Ruth 2873 - .690
11. Rogers Hornsby 2930 - .577
1. Ty Cobb 4189 -.512
2. Tris Speaker 3514 - .500
9. Paul Waner 2956 - .473
6. Nap Lajoie 3242 - .467
4. Honus Wagner 3415 - .466
8. Sam Crawford 2961 - .452
13. Zack Wheat 2884 - .450
3. Cap Anson 3418 - .445
11. Jake Beckley 2930 - .435
14. Frankie Frisch 2880 - .432
5. Eddie Colins 3315 - .429
7. Sam Rice 2987 - .427
10. Willie Keeler 2932 - .415

Even without adjusting for the fact that some of those guys played in their prime years in the Deadball era, Rice is still nearly the most punchless of the bunch. Not all hits are created equal, and his were more often of the least effective variety than any of those guys up there, outside of Keeler.

I do think he belongs, too. But he's probably the least deserving of that lot, and most of them were/are far superior candidates. So trying to use the fact that they're all in the Hall to boost his case just makes him look even less worthy, IMO.

Besides, few on this site are going to be convinced by career hit totals. And the people that take those things into account are probably already voting for him anyway.

[Freakshow]

For a table-setter like Rice, Times On Base is a more relevant indicator than hits. Here are the leaders thru 1941.
Cnt Player TOB OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
1 Ty Cobb 5532 167 13072 1905 1928
2 Tris Speaker 4998 158 11988 1907 1928
3 Babe Ruth 4978 207 10616 1914 1935
4 Eddie Collins 4891 141 12037 1906 1930
5 Honus Wagner 4503 150 11739 1897 1917
6 Cap Anson 4433 141 11319 1871 1897
7 Lou Gehrig 4274 179 9660 1923 1939
8 Charlie Gehringer 4056 125 10185 1924 1941
9 Rogers Hornsby 4016 175 9475 1915 1937
10 Paul Waner 3956 135 9917 1926 1941
11 Jesse Burkett 3954 140 9605 1890 1905
12 Jimmie Foxx 3914 167 9053 1925 1941
13 Nap Lajoie 3892 150 10460 1896 1916
14 Max Carey 3782 107 10770 1910 1929
15 Sam Rice 3751 112 10246 1915 1934
16 Mel Ott 3748 156 9083 1926 1941
17 Sam Crawford 3744 144 10594 1899 1917
18 Goose Goslin 3739 128 9822 1921 1938
19 Jake Beckley 3729 125 10470 1888 1907
20 Fred Clarke 3699 132 9819 1894 1915
21 Harry Hooper 3678 114 10244 1909 1925
22 Bill Dahlen 3661 109 10390 1891 1911
23 Frankie Frisch 3639 111 10100 1919 1937
24 Zack Wheat 3611 129 9996 1909 1927
25 George Davis 3605 121 10151 1890 1909
The guy here that Rice is most similar to is Hooper. Why is Rice getting five times his support in the balloting?

Here's their comparison in WARP3:

Career: Top 5

Hooper 56.5: 7.8-6.0-5.5-4.5-4.4
S. Rice 48.2: 5.7-5.5-5.2-4.0-3.8

[SavoyBG]

The guy here that Rice is most similar to is Hooper. Why is Rice getting five times his support in the balloting?



Because no matter how far statistical analysis advances some people just can't help but overvalue batting average.

[bambambaseball]

The guy here that Rice is most similar to is Hooper. Why is Rice getting five times his support in the balloting?


How do you figure that when Rice is listed 6 slots or 24% higher up on that list then Hooper? Thats some really fuzzy math!

[bambambaseball]

Runs Created:

1. Babe Ruth 2719
2. Ty Cobb 2522
3. Lou Gehrig 2233
4. Tris Speaker 2154
5. Jimmie Foxx 2054
6. Rogers Hornsby 2045
7. Honus Wagner 1818
8. Eddie Collins 1804
9. Cap Anson 1790
10. Mel Ott 1728
11. Paul Waner 1703
12. Nap Lajoie 1690
13. Harry Heilmann 1663
14. Ed Delahanty 1572
15. Jesse Burkett 1566
16. Sam Crawford 1566
17. Zack Wheat 1487
18. Sam Rice 1464
19. Frankie Frisch 1460
20. Fred Clarke 1392
21. Jim Bottomley 1381
22. Willie Keeler 1378
23. Heinie Manush 1369
24. Chuck Klein 1364
25. Max Cary 1339
26. George Davis 1329
27. Kiki Cuyler 1302
28. George Van Haltrem 1288
29. Bill Terry 1280
30. Joe Kelley 1275
31. Jim O'Rourke 1266
32. Joe Judge 1242
33. Harry Hooper 1229


Sam Rice is 18th all time here. Harry Hooper is 33rd. Real similar! :nosleep:

[mwiggins]

Runs Created:



Sam Rice is 18th all time here. Harry Hooper is 33rd. Real similar! :nosleep:

Rice also played in a much higher offensive environment than Hooper. Hooper's BB-Ref career AIR rating was 93. Rice's was 106. The parked adjusted league OPS during Hooper's career was .706. During Rice's it was .754. Rice has better raw numbers, but they were actually very close in terms of their offensive value and productivity. And they were both American League RF's who ran very well, fielded very well, didn't have much power, were very good at getting on base, and they both had almost the exact same number of career PA's (10244 for Hopper, 10246 for Rice). Other than the fact that Rice hit a ton of singles, while Hooper drew a ton of walks, they were extremely similar players.

Win Shares actually finds them to be very similar.

Total Win Shares:
Rice - 327
Hooper - 321

Wins Shares/162 Games:
Rice - 22.03
Hooper - 22.53

Best 3 seasons:
Rice - 24,24,24
Hooper - 29,26,24

[DoubleX]

It's pathetic that at this post we had 4 guys potentially getting elected and now we're 1 screwball hit and run ballot away from electing nobody. If we elect nobody this year after all the discussions, Im washing my hands of this project permanently. Pathetic!

On the bright side, I believe we've eventually elected every player that received at least 70% in an election (Addie Joss put that to the test several times though). Right now Rice, Sewell, and Terry are all just above the line, but even if they don't get in this time, they have a strong chance at finishing over 70%, which bodes well for them going forward (maybe not next year which is tight), and shows that we are once again making progress with candidates.

Just curious who the most notable players are (to date) who failed to make those min. reqs?

Chief Meyers might be the most notable. I can't think of anyone else really. Plus, the standards were a little bit lower initially given the shorter careers of very early players.

EDIT: There's been some talk about Sam Rice. I've been voting for him, but recognize he's not a particularly great candidate. I'm voting for him because the Hall isn't just about ranking players based on advanced statistical analysis, but also celebrates simple achievement. Rice's hit totals are impressive, especially considering he didn't play a full season until age 27 and didn't play his second until age 29. As I've said before, no matter what level you're playing the game, from little league to the Majors, the most fundamental and coveted skill of the game is to put bat on ball. Everyone seeks to be proficient at hitting the ball, and it's that act around which the game is played. Celebrating someone who was very proficient at that ability, to a rare degree, is deserving of the Hall, IMO.

[Paul Wendt]

Chief Meyers might be the most notable. I can't think of anyone else really. Plus, the standards were a little bit lower initially given the shorter careers of very early players.
Bill Lange, Socks Seybold, and Chief Meyers are the recent "nine-year men" (or shorter) I recall recommending or asking about. There was never any question about Joss, a nine-year man himself.

[philkid3]

Sam Rice vs. Harry Hooper

Career WARP
Rice: 58.6
Hooper: 67.2

Best Three Seasons Averaged
Rice: 5.8
Hooper: 6.7

Five Year Peak Average
Rice: 4.7
Hooper: 5.8

Average WARP per 600 PA
Rice: 3.4
Hooper: 3.9

Seasons of 2+ (Average)
Rice: 15
Hooper: 13

Seasons of 4+ (All-Star)
Rice: 8
Hooper: 11

Seasons of 6+ (MVP Candidate)
Rice: 2
Hooper: 3

Hooper additionally had one year of 7.7.


Really, they are not only comparable but there's a good argument Hooper has the slight edge. I probably should give him more of a look than I have and might even vote for him.

That said, I've discussed Rice in the past and I'm sure I'm not alone on him. He's borderline at best by the quality numbers, to be certain. But after hearing some discussion about some set backs he had in his career that I'm not going to hold against him, and with his status as a pretty famous figure with a great reputation as a ball player, I'm giving him just the slightest nudge and that's enough for me to vote for him.

[Freakshow]

The guy here that Rice is most similar to is Hooper. Why is Rice getting five times his support in the balloting?
How do you figure that when Rice is listed 6 slots or 24% higher up on that list then Hooper? Thats some really fuzzy math!Well, I won't pretend to speak for Fuzzy. But the latest tally shows Rice with 24 votes and Hooper with 5 votes. :lightbulb:

[DoubleX]

Here's my full list of next year's newly eligible:

Definitely on Ballot
Jim Bottomley
Mickey Cochrane
Frankie Frisch
Chick Hafey
Jesse Haines
Babe Herman
Shanty Hogan
Rogers Hornsby
Pat Malone
Pie Traynor
Rube Walberg

May Not Appear on Ballot
Watty Clark
Ski Melillo
Fred Schulte
Bob Smith
Vic Sorrell
Tommy Thomas

Likely Won't Appear on Ballot
Sheriff Blake
Bobby Burke
Ben Cantwell
Randy Moore
Jeff Rothrock
Billy Urbanski

[mwiggins]

That said, I've discussed Rice in the past and I'm sure I'm not alone on him. He's borderline at best by the quality numbers, to be certain. But after hearing some discussion about some set backs he had in his career that I'm not going to hold against him, and with his status as a pretty famous figure with a great reputation as a ball player, I'm giving him just the slightest nudge and that's enough for me to vote for him.


Don't forget about the time Rice lost to WW1. 1917 & 1919 were two of his very best years, so I think without missing all but 7 games in 1918 and having 1919 be a short season, that he'd have finished with over 350 career Win Shares. Right there with Max Carey and Harry Heilman. Giving him credit for those lost games, and cutting him a little slack for the fact that his career started so late, is just enough for me to put him over the line.

But I did appear to be seriously underrating Hooper. I think next time I'll either be voting for both of them, or neither one. It clearly doesn't make sense to have one in the Hall and one not, unless batting average and hit totals are your main criteria.

[jjpm74]

Here's my full list of next year's newly eligible:

May Not Appear on Ballot
Watty Clark
Ski Melillo
Fred Schulte
Bob Smith
Vic Sorrell
Tommy Thomas


Fred Schulte did enough to enjoy his 1 and done status on a ballot. If it were the 1960s, Vic Sorrell would have his share of fans, particularly from North Carolina, but it's 1941. Ski Melillo was one of the best defensive second basemen of the depression era which should be enough to include him on the ballot.

Given how stacked this pool is, move Fred Schulte and Ski Melillo to the yes group and cut the rest from this list.

[mwiggins]

It's pathetic that at this post we had 4 guys potentially getting elected and now we're 1 screwball hit and run ballot away from electing nobody. If we elect nobody this year after all the discussions, Im washing my hands of this project permanently. Pathetic!

And the fact that someone voted for Lindstrom but not Maranville is an absolute joke! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Don't give up hope yet. We've got a pretty good chance of electing 7 guys in '41 & '42. That's well above our average so far, and much better than we've been doing recently (8 players in the last 6 years, plus 2 VC).

What will be pathetic is if Frisch, Cochrane, and Hornsby aren't elected unanimously next year. Hopefully Mr. "I don't think Ruth is a HoF'er" Crazyhorse is done voting in these elections.

[leecemark]

Thanks. Herman will be on the ballot.

Arlett is an interesting case. He will not be eligible here, but perhaps on the VC, but I don't think next time.

Some have mentioned considering Negro Leaguers. For those newer to this project, this was something we've discussed at length but not fully resolved. Negro Leaguers will be considered by the VC and I'm thinking we'll convene a special VC. The real issue is the timing, which is a sensitive subject. We want to balance being progressive with historical reality. In that vein, I believe it was determined that considering Negro Leaguers probably wouldn't be realistic until after integration, so we'd be looking at 1950 at the earliest (if we elect them at the same time as other VC players). Some members have advocated a later date, which considering that Cooperstown did not elect it's first Negro Leaguer (not counting Robinson) until early 70s, would be more in line with reality. However, trying to be progressive, I have some point between 1950 and 1960 in my mind to commence Negro League elections.

This all being said, I'd rather not discuss this issue further in this election as we've had extended discussion about it before and I'd rather discussion here continue to focus on the candidacies of currently eligible players. But in a few weeks I will start a thread dedicated to this very issue and we'll hammer everything out there. For now, I just wanted to make some of the newer members updated on where we've been with this subject.


--I think a few weeks will serve to delay the timeline on this more than it should be. We've already elected Rube Foster in the contributor side of the VC and there are several other Negro League figures drawing support there. It is inconsistent to open the door on that side of our Hall, but keep the main door closed. I think we ought to have our first Negro league players VC election along side our 1945 regular VC election -or simply make Negro Leaguers eligible for that election.
--Buzz Arlett also came up for discussion in this thread. Jack Dunn is drawing siginificant support in the current VC contributors election - primarilary for his work in the minor leagues. I think Arlett ought to be eligible for the 1945 VC players election under that precedent.

[DoubleX]

--I think a few weeks will serve to delay the timeline on this more than it should be. We've already elected Rube Foster in the contributor side of the VC and there are several other Negro League figures drawing support there. It is inconsistent to open the door on that side of our Hall, but keep the main door closed. I think we ought to have our first Negro league players VC election along side our 1945 regular VC election -or simply make Negro Leaguers eligible for that election.
--Buzz Arlett also came up for discussion in this thread. Jack Dunn is drawing siginificant support in the current VC contributors election - primarilary for his work in the minor leagues. I think Arlett ought to be eligible for the 1945 VC players election under that precedent.

We had a pretty lengthy discussion on the contributors vs. the players election in terms of incorporating Negro Leaguers. I still believe they can be differentiated in that the contributors have no bounds - it seeks to honor anyone who in some way contributed to the game of baseball regardless of league affiliation. The players on the other hand, have been limited to Major Leaguers, the scope is inherently very different. If we are to attempt to follow any sort of realism, as unfortunate as this aspect might be, I just can't envision an impetus for considering Negro Leaguers until at least the game is integrated. Even if we were to start in the 1950s that would still make us two decades more progressive than the actual Hall of Fame.

Additionally, a date like 1945 would appear to be historically arbitrary (though one might point to WWII as an impetus). At least a post 1947 date would be taken into account actual history. If we're to be revisionist, let's at least allow seminal historic events to be the catalyst (in this case, Jackie Robinson).

Lastly, as I said in my last post on this, I would much prefer to not continue this discussion in this election thread. We've had a number of good conversations about several players in this election and I'd rather keep that going. At some point in the not too distant future (I was actually thinking around the 1945 election) I'll start a discussion thread on this very topic, and I'd prefer to save the conversation for then.

[philkid3]

Spent some time while watching the WBC reviewing candidates I've been close on. I'm probably about to close the book on Urban Shocker, but I'm going to start thinking harder about Harry Hooper.

I'm still very close on voting for Dave Bancroft and Bill Terry, and not sure yet if I'm convinced on either one. I'm more likely to vote for Bancroft than Terry.

Catchers are hard to judge, so in part because of his reputation, and the lack of catchers from his time, I'll be adding Wally Schang to my ballot next season.

[philkid3]

Looking at it, it's entirely possible I'll have a 15 player ballot next year. Haven't done that in a long, long time. I'm certainly going to have at least seven it looks like.

[jjpm74]

Some info on Wally Schang and how he compares to Roger Bresnahan:

Player Games Caught DWS CWS Best 3 Best 5 OPS+

Roger Bresnahan 974 C+ 231 83 125 126
Wally Schang 1435 C+ 245 59 96 117


Wally Schang was defensively similar to Roger Bresnahan. He also blows him away in career value, having caught 461 more games than Bresnahan. Roger Bresnahan was better than Schang offensively, having a better OPS+ and much better Best 3 and Best 5. Bresnahan topped 27 WS 3 times in his career. The best Schang could do is 20.

This is Schang vs. Bresnahan in best 5:

Schang: 20-20-19-19-18
Bresnahan: 27-27-29-23-19

Peripherals:

Bresnahan--Popularized the use of a face mask and shin guards (More here (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=1528&bid=958))

Schang--Winning seemed to follow Schang wherever he went. Schang played in 6 World Series with 3 different teams. Each team he went to seemed to improve dramatically once he arrived. He was also highly regarded for his game calling and was the best offensive catcher of the WWI era between Bresnahan and Cochrane.

Wally Schang is a borderline player, but his ability to call games, offense, and career value are enough to keep him on my ballot.

One catcher I will be dropping from my ballot next year is Ray Schalk. While Schalk was an amazing defensive catcher, he had no offense to back it up, managing a paltry 83 OPS+ and Schalk's 191 CWS despite catching 300 more games than Schang is too much to make up. Here's Schalk's best 5 in WS: 20-18-17-17-16

[jjpm74]

Firpo Marberry:

CWS: 177
Best 3: 26-20-20
Games finished: 271
Saves: 101
ERA+: 116

--1st all time in saves and games finished in relief
--1st pitcher to make 50 relief appearances in a season
--1st pitcher to make 300 relief appearances in a career
--1st in single season saves with 15
--In 1924 he played a pivotal role in getting the Senators to the World Series
--Led the league in saves 5 times
--Led the league in games 6 times

The one thing I'm not convinced on is how Marberry would have been viewed in 1941. Would he have been well regarded as a reliever who helped his team win crucial games or seen as a pitcher who wasn't good enough to be a full time starter?

Even though the save as a stat did not exist in 1941, neither did win shares or WARP3 which people have been using all along to evaluate players so I'm comfortable with using his relief stats as a benchmark of his success.

Based on the impact Marberry had as a reliever and his unique standing as the greatest reliever of his era, he will be returning to my ballot in 1942.

[DoubleX]

Based on the impact Marberry had as a reliever and his unique standing as the greatest reliever of his era, he will be returning to my ballot in 1942.

If Marberry's impact was so great, wouldn't more teams have employed pitchers in this way? Marberry seems to be an interesting footnote in the evolution of pitcher usage, but I don't know how much of an impact he had (perhaps much later on, but we wouldn't know that in 1942 - even guys like Joe Page and Ellis Kinder would be about 15 years after Marberry's career ended; Johnny Murphy was somewhat a contemporary of Marberry, but he wasn't really a hybrid starter/reliever like Marberry).

[jjpm74]

If Marberry's impact was so great, wouldn't more teams have employed pitchers in this way? Marberry seems to be an interesting footnote in the evolution of pitcher usage, but I don't know how much of an impact he had (perhaps much later on, but we wouldn't know that in 1942 - even guys like Joe Page and Ellis Kinder would be about 15 years after Marberry's career ended; Johnny Murphy was somewhat a contemporary of Marberry, but he wasn't really a hybrid starter/reliever like Marberry).

By impact, I'm referring to the impact he had as a pitcher helping his teams win games. Not in defining the role of reliever. Marberry's place on my ballot beyond next year is far from safe, but he is guaranteed a place there next year in the hope that he stays on the ballot long enough for us to evaluate him and his career rather than seeing him spin off into oblivion.

[philkid3]

I'm going to be honest: I struggle with understanding the concept of voting for someone if you think there's a chance you'll change your mind.

If you're not sure someone's a Hall of Famer, why would you try and put them in the Hall of Fame? What am I missing?

[DoubleX]

I'm going to be honest: I struggle with understanding the concept of voting for someone if you think there's a chance you'll change your mind.

If you're not sure someone's a Hall of Famer, why would you try and put them in the Hall of Fame? What am I missing?

Giving the benefit of the doubt maybe? Many elections ago I mentioned that a non-vote can be viewed as a vote against, and such is more profound that an actual vote in favor of a player (unless our numbers get really high). So a vote in favor could be considered an acquiescence. If you're unsure about a player but think he has a good case, a vote for a player would actually better allow those who have made up their minds on the player to dictate than if you voted against the player because of the more limited impact of a vote for versus a vote against. Hope that makes some sense.

[philkid3]

Giving the benefit of the doubt maybe? Many elections ago I mentioned that a non-vote can be viewed as a vote against, and such is more profound that an actual vote in favor of a player (unless our numbers get really high). So a vote in favor could be considered an acquiescence. If you're unsure about a player but think he has a good case, a vote for a player would actually better allow those who have made up their minds on the player to dictate than if you voted against the player because of the more limited impact of a vote for versus a vote against. Hope that makes some sense.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't really to me. That vote could be putting the player in to the Hall, and if you don't think he belongs, why would you vote for him?

If the numbers are low enough that your vote won't put him in, you're not keeping him out, either, so it doesn't matter.

I just don't really understand trying to put someone in the Hall of Fame who you don't think belongs. And I do understand keeping someone out until you're sure.

[philkid3]

And it's certainly not a big deal or ruining the process or anything. I'm definitely not complaining, just expressing I really, really don't understand.

[SavoyBG]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't really to me. That vote could be putting the player in to the Hall, and if you don't think he belongs, why would you vote for him?

If the numbers are low enough that your vote won't put him in, you're not keeping him out, either, so it doesn't matter.

I just don't really understand trying to put someone in the Hall of Fame who you don't think belongs. And I do understand keeping someone out until you're sure.

I'm with you Phili. The idea here SHOULD be to "get it right," meaning to discern which players belong and which players don't belong. The idea SHOULD NOT be to induct as many players as possible. In a sense, our job here is more to determine who "doesn't" belong than who does belong. There's no mystery about men like Cobb and Speaker and Ruth and Hornsby and Mathewson and Delahanty, etc... our real job is on deciding upon the candidacy of the second and third tier candidates. And lots of them should not be inducted IMO. Not every man who was a very good player for 10 years in the major leagues, or a good player for 15 years in the major leagues, is a hall of famer IMO.

If a player does not get inducted, there's always next year, or the veteran's committee. There's always some chance that a player may still get in eventually. Once you do induct a player, that is forever, and if it's a mistake, it can never be corrected. That's one reason why I agree with you 100% on not voting for somebody who I don't think is a hall of famer.....even if he's close to being a hall of famer, and he really can use that one vote.

[SavoyBG]

Some info on Wally Schang and how he compares to Roger Bresnahan:

Player Games Caught DWS CWS Best 3 Best 5 OPS+

Roger Bresnahan 974 C+ 231 83 125 126
Wally Schang 1435 C+ 245 59 96 117


Wally Schang was defensively similar to Roger Bresnahan. He also blows him away in career value, having caught 461 more games than Bresnahan. Roger Bresnahan was better than Schang offensively, having a better OPS+ and much better Best 3 and Best 5. Bresnahan topped 27 WS 3 times in his career. The best Schang could do is 20.



Schang does not "blow Bresnahan away in career value"

He's got 14 more career win shares. It took him almost 400 more games played to get those extra 14 win shares. He caught a lot more games than Bresnahan, but much of Bresnahan's value comes in the fact that he was good enough defensively at other positions to keep his 126 OPS+ bat in the lineup on days when he wasn't catching. Take 1906, for instance. Roger caught 82 games, but also played 40 games in the outfield. This versatility allowed him to get enough at bats to lead the league in OBP that year.

"The Duke Of Tralee" was a star. Schang was just a good player for longer than usual for a catcher.

WIN SHARES per 162
Bresnahan - 25.88
Schang - 21.57

I'm pretty sure that Schang's 21.57 would be the lowest WS per 162 of any hall of famer if we induct him. In order for me to consider a player who didn't play at a real high level like this as a hall of famer he needs to have had a very long career (like Maranville) with some extras (like Maranville's extraordinary fielding).

[Fielding Marshall]

Schang does not "blow Bresnahan away in career value"

He's got 14 more career win shares. It took him almost 400 more games played to get those extra 14 win shares. He caught a lot more games than Bresnahan, but much of Bresnahan's value comes in the fact that he was good enough defensively at other positions to keep his 126 OPS+ bat in the lineup on days when he wasn't catching. Take 1906, for instance. Roger caught 82 games, but also played 40 games in the outfield. This versatility allowed him to get enough at bats to lead the league in OBP that year.

"The Duke Of Tralee" was a star. Schang was just a good player for longer than usual for a catcher.

WIN SHARES per 162
Bresnahan - 25.88
Schang - 21.57

I'm pretty sure that Schang's 21.57 would be the lowest WS per 162 of any hall of famer if we induct him. In order for me to consider a player who didn't play at a real high level like this as a hall of famer he needs to have had a very long career (like Maranville) with some extras (like Maranville's extraordinary fielding).

And you are perfectly all right with not inducting a player who was clearly one of the best (if not the best) at his position throughout his career, and don't see the very low number of catchers inducted (with only Bresnahan inducted for this century, whom you've just pointed out wasn't a pure catcher) as a possible sign that current standards for HoF catchers might be a tad low?

[Fielding Marshall]

Oh, and you don't think that offensive levels for players at tougher defensive positions can be lower based upon the tougher defensive positon?

It's all right if these are your standards, but I thought I'd ask to be sure.

[SavoyBG]

And you are perfectly all right with not inducting a player who was clearly one of the best (if not the best) at his position throughout his career, and don't see the very low number of catchers inducted (with only Bresnahan inducted for this century, whom you've just pointed out wasn't a pure catcher) as a possible sign that current standards for HoF catchers might be a tad low?


Yes, I am perfectly alright with not inducting Schang. Yes, offensive levels can be lowered at more important defensive positions, but metrics like win shares put each position on an equal plane.

Schang has 245 win shares. His best in any one season was 20 win shares, which he totaled in two seasons. He does not have all that much career value, and he does not have very good peak value either. His level of play (win shares per 162) is nothing special either.

Except for Bennett, who I think was a colossal mistake, The other catchers who have been inducted all have much better peak value and level of play than Schang. Personally, I don't believe that a player should be inducted merely because he was the best player "at his position" during a particular time period. Here are some other non hall of famers who were the best player at their position for a particular decade, based on win shares in the decade.

Best catcher - 1910-1919 - Chief Myers
Best shortstop - 1910-1919 - Art Fletcher
Best 1Bman - 1920-1929 - Joe Judge

Schang had the most win shares of any catcher from 1920-1929, but his total was only 137 win shares in that decade. That was only the 55th highest total in the decade among all players.

Here are some close win share comps for Schang:

Schang - 245 win shares - 21.57 per 162
Harry Davis - 238 win shares - 21.60 per 162
Del Pratt - 242 win shares - 21.36 per 162

Someone like Joe Tinker has better numbers than Schang:
Tinker - 258 win shares - 23.18 per 162

I don't think that Tinker is a hall of famer, and I certainly don't think that Pratt or Davis are hall of famers. I think it's just random chance that there were no hall of fame catchers after Bresnahan until Cochrane, and then a couple of others (Dickey, Hartnett). I don't believe that there has to always be a hall of famer active at each position in every season. Bresnahan played until 1915. Cochrane started in 1925. So there were 9 seasons where IMO there were no hall of fame catchers playing in the white major leagues. Louis Santop was the best catcher in baseball in the late teens, and 1920s, not Schang. Biz Mackey, who started in 1920, is arguably better than Schang too. Schang should not benefit from the appalling segregation of baseball talent that still disgraces us today.

We should induct people just because they were the best white player at a position with weak talent at a particular time in history?

[Freakshow]

The WARP3 comparison of the three white catchers of the deadball era:

Career: Top 7 Years

Bresna. 51.9: 8.0-7.4-5.3-4.5-4.2-4.0-3.5
Schang 57.6: 7.4-5.5-5.3-4.4-4.2-3.7-3.6
Schalk. 54.1: 6.9-6.4-6.2-6.2-6.2-5.9-5.7

[SavoyBG]

The WARP3 comparison of the three white catchers of the deadball era:

Career: Top 7 Years

Bresna. 51.9: 8.0-7.4-5.3-4.5-4.2-4.0-3.5
Schang 57.6: 7.4-5.5-5.3-4.4-4.2-3.7-3.6
Schalk. 54.1: 6.9-6.4-6.2-6.2-6.2-5.9-5.7


Interesting. Warp3 sees one of Schang's seasons (which one? 1921?) as being close to an MVP type year, differing greatly with win shares and TPR. Schalk has seven seasons better than Schang's second best season. Based on WARP3. Schalk would be the best HOF choice of the three.

Here's how TPR sees them:

Bresnahan - 22.5 - 4.2, 3.8, 3.4, 3.1, 2.3
Schang - 20.4 - 3.1, 2.3, 1.9, 1.8, 1.8
Meyers - 17.2 - 4.0, 3.3, 3.0, 1.9, 1.7
Schalk - 16.1 - 3.0, 3.0, 2.9, 2.8, 2.7

[SavoyBG]

The WARP3 comparison of the three white catchers of the deadball era:



Schang played almost 2/3 of his career after the deadball era was over.

[jjpm74]

Except for Bennett, who I think was a colossal mistake, The other catchers who have been inducted all have much better peak value and level of play than Schang.

You are extremely ignorant of the role of 19th century catchers and Bennett specifically if you think he is a "colossal mistake" and would even attempt to throw him into a discussion about Wally Schang.

[Paul Wendt]

I think it's just random chance that there were no hall of fame catchers after Bresnahan until Cochrane, and then a couple of others (Dickey, Hartnett).

until Hartnett, and then a couple of others (Cochrane, Dickey).

[SavoyBG]

until Hartnett, and then a couple of others (Cochrane, Dickey).

Even better. Less years now where there wasn't an active (white) hall of fame catcher (Hartnett debuted in 1922).

[SavoyBG]

You are extremely ignorant of the role of 19th century catchers and Bennett specifically if you think he is a "colossal mistake" and would even attempt to throw him into a discussion about Wally Schang.

Can we please keep personal insults out of this?

Okay, I agree that "colossal" mistake is a bit overblown, but a mistake nonetheless IMO.

I know exactly what the role of 19th century catchers was, and I have no problem with McVey and White being in the hall of fame.

I think the main problem here is that I just have a higher line in mind for what a hall of famer should be.

Can somebody provide the Warp3 numbers for Bennett?

[Ace Venom]

I haven't been sold on Schang either. There's no need to insult people who don't vote for players you support. Your job is to try to convince them why you think said player has a valid case. What we consider high standards may not be high enough for some others, but that's perfectly fine. We're falling into the realm of opinion here. As a group, if at least 75% of us have the opinion that said person belongs in the Hall, then the person gets in. If he doesn't get the 75% by the end of his eligibility, it doesn't mean your opinion is wrong. It just means that not enough people agreed with you.

[jjpm74]

I haven't been sold on Schang either. There's no need to insult people who don't vote for players you support.

I have no problem with anyone who doesn't vote for Wally Schang or any of the other players on this ballot. I'm actually surprised any are above the line right now, because as was already brought up by several participants, even the best players on this ballot are borderline cases that warrant a great deal of discussion to get over the hump. Schang may not even stay on my ballot beyond next year with the new generation of catchers coming up. I'm tired of seeing Bennett constantly show up in the conversation as a "colossal mistake" and a "terrible pick". I get it. He doesn't think Bennett was a good choice and doesn't adjust for league or era. No need to throw him under the bus every time a conversation about catchers arises. Charlie Bennett was elected in the 1907 election. That's 34 elections ago. At that time, among the comments from users electing him was that he was the "greatest catcher in the history of baseball" among other things and he was elected in his 6th year of eligibility.

As for WARP3 and 19th century catchers, unless it adjusts for the role of a catcher during Bennett's era and takes into consideration durability, and a lack of equipment, it's not a good gauge of Bennett's HOF case and both jalbright and AG2004 have already provided a good argument for Bennett in their stickied threads. Bennett isn't going to get unelected and comes from a different era in the game.

Schang's case rests on how far removed he is from Roger Bresnahan. Not how far above or below in raw win shares and WARP3 he compares to Charlie Bennett.

[Freakshow]

The WARP3 comparison of the three white catchers of the deadball era:

Career: Top 7 Years

Bresna. 51.9: 8.0-7.4-5.3-4.5-4.2-4.0-3.5
Schang 57.6: 7.4-5.5-5.3-4.4-4.2-3.7-3.6
Schalk. 54.1: 6.9-6.4-6.2-6.2-6.2-5.9-5.7A couple more:

J. Kling 47.6: 8.1-7.2-6.9-6.0-5.7-4.6-3.0
Meyers 35.0: 7.1-5.6-4.8-4.7-4.4-3.4-2.7

[jalbright]

As one who wasn't sold on Bresnahan, it's hard to sell me on Schang, either. We don't have to elect guys from a certain position during a certain era. I understand that such a point counts in a guy's favor, but there are occasions when the cupboard at a certain position in a specific era is rather sparsely stocked. Really, if you want the best catcher between Ewing and the Cochrane/Dickey/Hartnett eras, you should look to Louis Santop of the Negro Leagues. IMHO, if he'd have been able to play in the majors in his day, he'd have easily eclipsed Bresnahan, Schalk and Schang. That means that Bresnahan and Schang are fighting over the lesser title of best major league catcher of that era, and that title doesn't carry much weight with me.

On another point, both sides in the support the strong candidates debate have some merits. We need some cooperation to make this a worthwhile project, but we don't want to induct unworthy candidates. As a general electorate voter, I definitely tend toward only supporting candidates I think are worthy. I do cut some slack for guys who got in via the BBWAA, though, as they saw those guys and in many cases I didn't. As a VC voter, I do feel compelled to support at least one candidate in every election, as having a VC is otherwise a pointless exercise. So if the guy I think is the strongest candidate gets enough other votes, he'll make it, regardless of whether or not I consider him worthy.

[jjpm74]

A couple more:

J. Kling 47.6: 8.1-7.2-6.9-6.0-5.7-4.6-3.0
Meyers 35.0: 7.1-5.6-4.8-4.7-4.4-3.4-2.7

Just out of curiosity as both have drawn some support in the VC elections, how do Duke Farrell and Deacon McGuire compare to the 5 catchers you've provided WARP3 data on?

[Freakshow]

Just out of curiosity as both have drawn some support in the VC elections, how do Duke Farrell and Deacon McGuire compare to the 5 catchers you've provided WARP3 data on?

McGuire. 46.1: 8.2-4.4-3.5-3.4-3.3-3.1-2.9
D Farrell. 52.1: 6.1-5.4-5.3-5.3-4.8-4.4-3.8
Clements 44.7: 6.1-6.1-5.9-5.7-4.0-3.6-2.9
C Zimmer 63.1: 7.1-6.7-5.3-5.2-5.0-5.0-5.0

[SavoyBG]

A couple more:

J. Kling 47.6: 8.1-7.2-6.9-6.0-5.7-4.6-3.0
Meyers 35.0: 7.1-5.6-4.8-4.7-4.4-3.4-2.7


Can we get Warp3 on Charlie Bennett?

[SavoyBG]

As a VC voter, I do feel compelled to support at least one candidate in every election, as having a VC is otherwise a pointless exercise. So if the guy I think is the strongest candidate gets enough other votes, he'll make it, regardless of whether or not I consider him worthy.


There is no need to justify the existence of the VC by forcing yourself to vote for the best (but yet still unworthy) candidate in each election. There will be, and should be, VC ballots where there just isn't a candidate that deserves to be elected.

The VC is there as a failsafe for the deserving candidate that somehow was overlooked. Over the years new metrics have emerged, and new info on certain players has surfaced, whereby a candidate who was previously deemed to be unworthy then suddenly looked to have been clearly worthy. This may not happen much at this point, but you never know.

The VC's role in coming years should be to carefully analyze which non major leaguers (Negro Leaguers) should be inducted.

[jalbright]

Savoy,

I understand your position, but I am willing to make a few more concessions to consensus building than you are. There are others who go a good bit further than I do. No one position is inalterably "correct", at least beyond the sensitivities of the individual. I'll stay with my position, and if I don't feel there are any worthies on a VC ballot, I will cast my vote for the player I deem the single best choice. If that helps that one get elected, so be it. If not, I've compromised as much as I'm going to. I will say this: the few times I've followed this concept, the candidate was at least a close call. Maybe if there were no guys I'd even call "gray area" choices, I might choose differently.

[RyanExpress30]

1 Bill Terry
2 Hack Wilson
3 Earle Combs

[SavoyBG]

I guess there's no way to do this, but I think that these votes would be better if nobody could see the running totals. I think within each vote people are influenced by which players are getting votes, and voters who vote near the closing time end up with too much power.

If nobody knew how each candidate was doing I think we'd get better true vote.

[philkid3]

1 Bill Terry
2 Hack Wilson
3 Earle Combs

Well, that probably knocks Sewell out. :cry:

[Ace Venom]

Well, that probably knocks Sewell out. :cry:

That's what I get for not voting for him. I'll vote for him next year, which will knock someone else off my ballot.

[Brad Harris]

Can we get Warp3 on Charlie Bennett?
Do you not know how to access the WARP3 info on www.baseballprospectus.com or are you blocked from pulling up the site? Just follow that link and type in "Charlie Bennett" in the FIND PLAYER box at the top right.

[jjpm74]

Can we get Warp3 on Charlie Bennett?

Charlie Bennett: 70.3: 8.9-8.9-8.6-8.4-6.3-5.7-4.7

Even by this measure, Bennett had 4 MVP level seasons as a catcher and is well ahead of Schang and Bresnahan.

[jjpm74]

That's what I get for not voting for him. I'll vote for him next year, which will knock someone else off my ballot.

You really shouldn't beat yourself up over this. Even if Sewell doesn't make it this year, he will probably get in eventually.

Given the voting trends of the person who votes at the last minute, it looks like we might end up electing just 1 this year in Bill Terry unless a few people come out of the woodwork and vote yes to Sam Rice and Joe Sewell.

[SavoyBG]

Charlie Bennett: 70.3: 8.9-8.9-8.6-8.4-6.3-5.7-4.7

Even by this measure, Bennett had 4 MVP level seasons as a catcher and is well ahead of Schang and Bresnahan.

Okay, so if he's "well ahead" of Schang, perhaps Bennett is a borderline hall of famer and Schang is not a hall of famer at all.

When you thought his numbers might not be good you said that the metric was probaby not a good measure. Now that they help your argument, you embrace them?

The key here is whether you buy into the adjustments to make those early players seem like they were playing much longer seasons.

[jjpm74]

Okay, so if he's "well ahead" of Schang, perhaps Bennett is a borderline hall of famer and Schang is not a hall of famer at all.

When you thought his numbers might not be good you said that the metric was probaby not a good measure. Now that they help your argument, you embrace them?

The key here is whether you buy into the adjustments to make those early players seem like they were playing much longer seasons.

I don't like, use or embrace WARP3. I am not convinced of its accuracy. I listed his WARP3 because you asked for it to be listed.

[SavoyBG]

I don't like, use or embrace WARP3. I am not convinced of its accuracy. I listed his WARP3 because you asked for it to be listed.


Okay, but don't you think that it's possible that when adjustments are made for length of schedules in each player's time, that Bennett is a hall of famer and Schang is not?

Certainly Bennett played in, and caught in, a higher percentage of his team's games BY FAR in his prime then Schang did in his prime.

[jjpm74]

Okay, but don't you think that it's possible that when adjustments are made for length of schedules in each player's time, that Bennett is a hall of famer and Schang is not?


I think that the comparison is Schang to Bresnahan. Bresnahan is currently our LCD. Not Bennett. Bresnahan and Schang are also contemporaries of one another. Not Bennett. Bennett shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Schang's case rests on how similar he is to Bresnahan. Given Bresnahan's support vs. Schang's current support, people are clearly divided almost down the middle on Schang. The discussion/debate should be centered on Schang Vs. Bresnahan and honestly, Schang is not someone I'm gunning for, so I'm not to one to debate with on his case. The only candidate this election who I view as a disappointment in the voting is Rabbit Maranville. I'm not surprised to see Sam Rice and Joe Sewell slip under the line.

[SavoyBG]

I think that the comparison is Schang to Bresnahan. Bresnahan is currently our LCD. Not Bennett. Bresnahan and Schang are also contemporaries of one another. Not Bennett. Bennett shouldn't even be in the conversation.



But he is in the conversation. So I'm asking you, once again...

Don't you think that it's possible that when adjustments are made for length of schedules in each player's time, that Bennett is a hall of famer and Schang is not?

It's a simple question that only requires a yes or no answer.

[jjpm74]

But he is in the conversation. So I'm asking you, once again...

Don't you think that it's possible that when adjustments are made for length of schedules in each player's time, that Bennett is a hall of famer and Schang is not?

It's a simple question that only requires a yes or no answer.

Charlie Bennett is definitely a HOFer and is a level above both Bresnahan and Schang.

I don't see the comparison between him and Schang at all. If you want to compare Bresnahan and Schang, I'm listening. If you want to keep harping on Bennett who was elected 34 years ago and every metric seems to prove is a definite HOFer despite your assertion to the contrary, there's no point in continuing with this discussion.

[Ubiquitous]

Baseball Prospectus' WARP and WARP3 get a little wonky when dealing with those pre 20th century players that played in years of shortened schedules.
I know that WARP3 is supposed to fix it but I don't think it does it very well.

[Ubiquitous]

Charlie Bennett shouldn't be a HoF'er

Jocko Milligan was a better catcher than Charlie and he was a back up catcher.

Jack Clements was just as good as Charlie as well.

Neither are in and neither

Deacon McGuire is another catcher that is better then Bennett.

[AG2004]

Charlie Bennett shouldn't be a HoF'er

Jocko Milligan was a better catcher than Charlie and he was a back up catcher.

Jack Clements was just as good as Charlie as well.

Neither are in and neither

Deacon McGuire is another catcher that is better then Bennett.

I'm not sure how you came up with those evaluations. No member of the Milligan-Clements-McGuire trio comes close to having Bennett's peak. Bennett was considered a stellar defensive catcher, while Clements was slightly above average. Milligan was the top catcher on his team during his Philadelphia years, but he wasn't as good on the field as Bennett; furthermore, Milligan's OPS+ wasn't brought down by a long decline phase.

By the way, here's my ballot.

George J. Burns
Wilbur Cooper
Burleigh Grimes
Rabbit Maranville
Carl Mays
Eppa Rixey
Bill Terry
Hack Wilson

[bambambaseball]

1 out of 5. How sad! :dismay:

[RyanExpress30]

I guess there's no way to do this, but I think that these votes would be better if nobody could see the running totals. I think within each vote people are influenced by which players are getting votes, and voters who vote near the closing time end up with too much power.

If nobody knew how each candidate was doing I think we'd get better true vote.

For what its worth, I, as someone who voted near the end, didn't see how anybody was doing before I voted. I actually didn't think you could see the voting totals before you voted (thought I'd lose my vote if I did - like on the Cannibal Corpse websites :)).

[SavoyBG]

For what its worth, I, as someone who voted near the end, didn't see how anybody was doing before I voted. I actually didn't think you could see the voting totals before you voted (thought I'd lose my vote if I did - like on the Cannibal Corpse websites :)).

Even if you couldn't see the votes, people usually post in the thread as to what votes the borderline candidates need to get in.

[bambambaseball]

For what its worth, I, as someone who voted near the end, didn't see how anybody was doing before I voted. I actually didn't think you could see the voting totals before you voted (thought I'd lose my vote if I did - like on the Cannibal Corpse websites :)).

Is that another baseball site or is it something else? :ooo:

[RyanExpress30]

Even if you couldn't see the votes, people usually post in the thread as to what votes the borderline candidates need to get in.

Gotcha - hadn't noticed.

[RyanExpress30]

Is that another baseball site or is it something else? :ooo:

Something else. Death metal.

[bambambaseball]

Something else. Death metal.

That is that? Is that Poison and Winger and all the other bands who died when Nirvana got good?

[Cowtipper]

That is that? Is that Poison and Winger and all the other bands who died when Nirvana got good?

No, no. Death metal is the music with deep, guttural, noises being screamed or groaned into the mic with loud, rarely melodic music being played in the background. It's the music that graces us with some of the most disturbing lyrics in the history of music. Type "Crispy" and "Skinless" on the Youtube search feature and click the first thing that comes up. You'll see what I mean.

Poison and Winger fall under the category of rock.

Back to baseball...

[RyanExpress30]

No, no. Death metal is the music with deep, guttural, noises being screamed or groaned into the mic with loud, rarely melodic music being played in the background. It's the music that graces us with some of the most disturbing lyrics in the history of music. Type "Crispy" and "Skinless" on the Youtube search feature and click the first thing that comes up. You'll see what I mean.

Poison and Winger fall under the category of rock.

Back to baseball...

What he said . . . more or less . . . :)