1943 Best of Baseball Election [Archive]

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:47 PM

Rules

1) All BBF users in good standing may participate. However, if there is more than one vote being cast from any one computer or IP, it must be cleared in advance, or only the first vote will be counted. I only anticipate exceptions for family members living in the same home, but I will entertain requests on other bases. Please note that I and the other mods who participate in the project have the capability of determining the IP from which posts come, and I for one intend to monitor same. I have had to deal with a single user manipulating a project with multiple votes, and I don't intend to repeat the experience.

2) Elections will require a 10 voter quorum. If we do not get ten voters and there are candidate(s) who would be elected no matter what the voters needed to make a quorum did, those candidate(s) will be inducted. Otherwise, no one will be inducted. Further, if we fail to meet a quorum in two of any four consecutive elections, the project will end. If, for instance, we're doing fine on the player end but not the contributor end, I would drop the contributor end under this rule.

3) We will start in 1936, just as Cooperstown did. For the first election (1936), voters will rank their top 20, taking 10. After that we will go to having voters rank their top 12 players. Points awarded 12-11-10, etc. We will take the top five through 1940, then top three players per year elected until 2010, then two per year. If a voter does not number his selections, I will try to get him/her to do so. If they do not do so before the end of the election period, I may in my sole discretion invalidate the ballot. I have included this provision in order to ease the process of recording the votes. On another point, I know, the 1936 backlog is huge--but that was a historical issue they couldn't avoid, so neither will we.

4) We will also have a contributor ballot, which will elect one a year through 1985, then one every three (3) years. Contributors will be ranked 1 through 5, with points awarded 5-4-3-2-1. Voters may choose to participate in either one of the ballots or both.

5) It is permissible to vote for a candidate on both the contributor and player lists.

6) You are allowed to change your ballot at any time the ballot is open. However, I request that you PM me (jalbright) to ensure that I am aware of the change(s) or make a separate posting in the voting thread. You must let me know the players involved in the changes at a minimum, but it would also help if you added their rankings (before and after). I cannot agree to be responsible for monitoring the thread for any changes voters might make. If I catch them, fine, but if I don't and am not notified, the official count will be what I have been notified of, not what is on the thread.

7) Players are eligible at the later of age 45 or the first year thereafter in which the player does not play. If the birthdate is not known, add five years to the first time the player misses a season and has less than 10 games the next season. There is an exception for early death, in which case the year of death plus two will be used if that yields an earlier date.

8) Contributors become eligible at age 65 or in the year of death plus two. whichever comes first.

9) Each election will run for two weeks unless expressly altered by the project manager, contributors and players done simultaneously.

10) No one is ineligible, nor are players from any league ineligible. If there are players who returned to the Negro Leagues or Japan after going to the majors, the departure from the majors will be their career end date for purposes of this project. Candidates will not lose eligiblity after becoming eligible except by being elected as either a contributor or player.

11) The standard for including a player on one's ballot is that the player must in the voter's opinion be among the very best eligible players (preferably the number voted on, but if a voter wishes to support someone they feel is 15th in a 12 person ballot instead of one of the top 12, it's too close for anyone to reasonably object. On the other hand, supporting the 25th best eligible candidate on a 12 person ballot is probably beyond the pale). I reserve the power to invalidate ballots which I do not feel are a reasonably knowledgeable, good faith effort to rank the players. One issue I am quite concerned about is that I do not want to see what clearly appear to be attempts to manipulate the ballot so as to elect a candidate. In isolation, I probably could live with this, but if it became a widely used tactic, the project would devolve into something I have no desire to be associated with. Moreover, I think that this position asks everyone else to cast legitimate votes so that you can manipulate the system to favor your pet candidates. I cannot accept that, as it strikes me as unfair to other voters. For example, you can't expect to favor even a legitimate HOF candidate like Bill Dahlen over Babe Ruth to get Dahlen elected without being asked to provide a reasonable justification for ranking Dahlen over Ruth. If you can provide a reasonable justification in that scenario, the ballot will stand. If not, you will be asked to make a change. Certainly, a reasonable justification does not indicate in essence simply that you want Dahlen elected. Furthermore, if I invalidate multiple ballots by the same individual as failing to meet this rule, that individual will forever lose the right to have his/her ballots counted. Voters are encouraged to consider character, sportsmanship, and compliance with the rules and spirit of baseball in their rankings of players.

12) I will post lists of eligible players and contributors before each election. If you have a question about the eligibility of a candidate, please ask. I will provide a list of future eligibility dates as well.

13) My eligibility lists come from all persons in the BBF HOF, BBTF Hall of Merit, and Cooperstown, plus all persons getting a vote in a BBF HOF election in the past year and a half or in a BBWAA election. This is a relatively comprehensive list, and thus I must request that if you want another candidate included, you provide some justification for why said candidate is worthy of getting a vote in this project. The main area I think this might come into play is if a voter supports a person who was eligible for the final selections from the recent pre WWII or Negro League committees but not on my master list. That fact alone would serve as ample justification for putting said candidate on the list. We may learn more about Cuban ball or what have you and thus include others after a case is made for them, however. The contributor list is undoubtedly not as comprehensive, and this fact will be taken into consideration.

14) Other than the sportsmanship and character issues, players are to be evaluated solely upon their play. I would prefer that if a player is qualified by his play standing alone that he be elected on that basis. However, a candidate may only be elected either as a contributor or a player, but not both. Contributors are the area where the entire body of work during his career in the sport, including his play, managing, scouting, executive, writing, broadcasting or other work in the sport is relevant. Contributors are to be ranked based on who the voter thinks is most worthy of induction into the Contributor group in this project.

15) Any ballot with two (2) or more spots unfilled with eligible candidates is invalid. In the event of the listing of ineligible names, I will try to notify the voter so that he/she can correct the ballot before the end of the voting period. If the change is made timely, it will count. If not, and there are two or more invalid names, the ballot will not be considered valid. If there is only one, the ineligible name will be stricken and all names after it on the affected ballot will be moved up one spot.

16) Any players listed beyond the 12th place for any ballot but the first (in which case it is 20th place) will be ignored. If more than one person is listed as tied for the last available place and the ballot is oversize, all names will be dropped, which may lead to the invalidation of the ballot.

17) Ties are not permitted in ballot listings. I reserve the right to invalidate ballots for use of ties in the rankings, be it within a single ballot or over the course of several ballots. If the voter does not correct such a listing voluntarily, except in the case of an oversize ballot tie for the last eligible place, if do not invalidate the ballot, I will choose the placement of the two "tied" candidates, generally preferring the candidate preferred by the other voters.

18) For any ties between candidates straddling the in/out line of selections, the first thing considered is the ranking of the candidates by the ballots cast. If there are more than two candidates tied, use a 3-2-1 or whatever is appropriate system. Once one person separates from the tied group, restart with the remaining candidates until there are only as many candidates as the rules call for being elected. If they remain tied after this process, take those with the most #1 votes as the next step, then the most #2 votes and so on to see if that breaks the tie. If not, we will induct all candidates who remain tied at that point.

19) One thing we're going to have to be aware of is the timeline in the case of at least a few contributors. Two which jump out at me are Buck O'Neill, 1976, and Branch Rickey, 1946. I intend to eventually vote for both men, but in 1946, Jackie Robinson was still in Montreal. Really, Branch should wait until at least 1947 after Jackie's success in the majors to get credit for that move. If you think Rickey belongs in the top 5 in 1946 without his role in breaking the color line, that's fine--but he shouldn't get credit for that important success until it actually happened. Buck O'Neill did some important things up until 1976, but after that he was in Ken Burns' Baseball and he was instrumental in the establishment of the Negro Leagues Hall of Fame (both occurred in or around 1994). If you think he belongs based on accomplishments before those two things, that's perfectly acceptable, but please don't credit him with them before they actually happened.

20) I reserve the right to hold both 19th century and Negro League special elections in 2000 if we don't have a sufficient number in those categories by then. These elections probably will be limited to voters I feel are appropriately versed on the group of players to be considered. I do wish to only use this as a last resort, however, and only to ensure that those groups received what I regard as at least adequate bare minimum representation. I do not plan on sharing with you what I consider to meet those bare minimum standards, but I think that the numbers I am thinking of are well below the number of candidates that well informed observers believe are well qualified candidates from each group.

21) I will maintain a thread of the project's history and rules which will provide a listing of all elected candidates.

22) Feel free to ask questions by either sending jalbright a PM, or by posting a question in voting thread

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:50 PM

The players who become eligible in 1943 are:

Cooper , Andy
Cuyler , Kiki
Frisch , Frankie
Gehrig , Lou
Grimm , Charlie
Jackman , Will
Lundy , Dick
Marberry , Firpo
Sewell , Joe
Stephenson , Riggs
Terry , Bill
Traynor , Pie
Uhle , George

The contributors who become eligible in 1943 are:

Caylor , O. P.
Cooper , Andy
Dinneen , Bill
Doubleday , Abner
Foster , John B.
Fullerton , Hugh
Hillerich , John
Jennings , Hughie
Mills , A. G.
Navin, Frank
Ruppert , Jacob
Stallings , George
Wilkinson , J. L.

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:52 PM

The 1942 player candidates who were not elected had these results in the 1942 election:

player……………… votes points
White , Deacon 15 117
Wright , George 16 116
Santop , Louis 16 114
Hines , Paul 11 75
Rusie , Amos 13 74
Barnes , Ross 10 66
Sisler , George 11 63
Ward , John M. 9 63
Jackson , Joe 6 55
Clarke , Fred 11 53
Collins , Jimmy 11 52
Magee , Sherry 8 34
Wheat , Zack 5 32
Bennett , C 4 22
Radbourn , C 6 22
Start , Joe 3 20
Sutton , Ezra 2 20
Carey , Max 3 18
Thompson , Sam 3 18
Johnson , HR 3 15
Keeler , Willie 3 13
Caruthers , B 2 11
Galvin , Pud 2 10
Grant , Frank 1 10
Stovey , Harry 3 9
Vance , Dazzy 2 7
Flick , Elmer 2 6
Hill , Pete 2 6
Waddell , Rube 2 6
Roush , Edd 2 5
Spalding , Al 1 5
Browning , Pete 2 4
Pennock, Herb 1 3
Coveleski , S 1 2
Bresnahan , R 1 1
Duffy , Hugh 1 1
Gore , George 1 1
Maranville , R 1 1
McPhee , Bid 1 1

The 1942 contributor candidates who were not elected had these results in the 1942 election:

contributor……. votes points
Spalding , Al 18 53
Hulbert , W 16 52
Cartwright , A 10 40
Creighton , Jim 9 27
Landis , K 6 15
Richter , F 7 12
Klem, Bill.. 5 10
Taylor , C. I. 1 4
Pearce, Dickey 1 3
Reach , A. J. 1 3
Clarke , Fred 1 2
Conlan , C 1 2
Spink, Albert 1 2
Hanlon , Ned 1 1

I strongly suggest that you pay attention to this list, as the leaders of the holdovers are likely to join any strong newcomer candidates as the leaders for winning induction.

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:53 PM

Members of the Best of Baseball Hall:

Players

Pete Alexander
Cap Anson
Frank Baker
Dan Brouthers
Mordecai Brown
Jesse Burkett
Oscar Charleston
John Clarkson
Ty Cobb
Eddie Collins
Roger Connor
Sam Crawford
Bill Dahlen
George Davis
Ed Delahanty
Buck Ewing
Billy Hamilton
Harry Heilmann
Rogers Hornsby
Walter Johnson
Tim Keefe
King Kelly
Nap LaJoie
Pop Lloyd
Christy Mathewson
Kid Nichols
Jim O'Rourke
Eddie Plank
Bullet Joe Rogan
Babe Ruth
Tris Speaker
Cristobal Torriente
Honus Wagner
Ed Walsh
Smoky Joe Williams
Cy Young

Contributors

Doc Adams
Henry Chadwick
Rube Foster
Ban Johnson
Connie Mack
John McGraw
Harry Wright

These folks are no longer eligible for any elections.

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:54 PM

The complete list of eligible players:

Adams , Babe
Adams , Sparky
Altrock , Nick
Archer , Jimmy
Austin , Jimmy
Bancroft , Dave
Barnes , Ross
Barry , Jack
Battin , Joe
Beaumont , Ginger
Beckley , Jake
Bender , Chief
Bennett , Charlie
Benton , Larry
Bergen , Marty
Bigbee , Carson
Blades , Ray
Blue , Lu
Bodie , Ping
Boley , Joe
Bond , Tommy
Bradley , Bill
Breitenstein , Ted
Bresnahan , Roger
Browning , Pete
Burns , George J.
Bush , Joe
Bush , Donie
Cadore , Leon
Camnitz , Howie
Carey , Max
Carrigan , Bill
Caruthers , Bob
Chance , Frank
Chapman , Ray
Chase , Hal
Chesbro , Jack
Childs , Cupid
Cicotte , Eddie
Clarke , Fred
Coakley , Andy
Collins , Jimmy
Collins , Shano
Conroy , Wid
Coombs , Jack
Cooper , Andy
Cooper , Wilbur
Coveleski , Stan
Crandall , Doc
Cravath , Gavvy
Creighton , Jim
Criger , Lou
Cross , Lave
Cruise , Walt
Cummings , Candy
Cuyler , Kiki
Daubert , Jake
Davis , Harry
Dinneen , Bill
Doak , Bill
Donlin , Mike
Donovan , Bill
Dooin , Red
Doyle , Jack
Doyle , Larry
Duffy , Hugh
Dugan , Joe
Dunlap , Fred
Dykes , Jimmy
Ehmke , Howard
Elberfeld , Kid
Ens , Jewel
Evers , Johnny
Faber , Red
Falkenberg , Cy
Fletcher , Art
Flick , Elmer
Foster , Eddie
Fraser , Chick
Frisch , Frankie
Galvin , Pud
Gehrig , Lou
Glasscock , Jack
Gleason , Kid
Gonzalez , Mike
Gore , George
Gowdy , Hank
Grant , Eddie
Grant , Frank
Griffith , Clark
Grimes , Burleigh
Grimm , Charlie
Groh , Heinie
Hahn , Noodles
Haines , Jesse
Hargrave , Bubbles
Harris , Bucky
Herzog , Buck
Hill , Pete
Hinchman , Bill
Hines , Paul
Hooper , Harry
Huggins , Miller
Irwin , Charlie
Jackman , Will
Jackson , Joe
Jennings , Hughie
Johnson , Home Run
Jones , Charley
Jones , Fielder
Jones , Sam P.
Jordan , Tim
Joss , Addie
Judge , Joe
Keeler , Willie
Kelley , Joe
Kerr , Dickie
Killefer , Bill
Kilroy , Matt
Kling , Johnny
Knabe , Otto
Kremer , Ray
Lange , Bill
Larkin , Henry
Latham , Arlie
Leach , Freddy
Leach , Tommy
Leever , Sam
Lewis , Duffy
Lobert , Hans
Long , Herman
Lowe , Bobby
Lundy , Dick
Luque , Dolf
Lyons , Denny
Magee , Sherry
Maranville , Rabbit
Marberry , Firpo
Marquard , Rube
Mathews , Bobby
Mays , Carl
McAleer , Jimmy
McCarthy , Tommy
McCormick , Jim
McGinnity , Joe
McGowan , Bill
McInnis , Stuffy
McLean , Larry
McPhee , Bid
McVey , Cal
Meadows , Lee
Mendez , Jose
Meusel , Bob
Milan , Clyde
Miller , Bing
Miller , Dots
Miller , Hack
Moore , Dobie
Moran , Pat
Mostil , Johnny
Mullane , Tony
Murphy , Danny
Murray , Red
Nehf , Art
O'Doul , Lefty
Oeschger , Joe
O'Farrell , Bob
O'Leary , Charlie
Oms , Alejandro
O'Neill , Steve
O'Neill , Tip
Orr , Dave
Pabor , Charlie
Paskert , Dode
Pearce , Dickey
Peckinpaugh , Roger
Peitz , Heinie
Pennock , Herb
Perdue , Hub
Perkins , Cy
Phillippe , Deacon
Pike , Lip
Pipp , Wally
Poles , Spotswood
Quinn , Jack
Radbourn , Charlie
Raymond , Bugs
Redding , Dick
Remsen , Jack
Rice , Sam
Richardson , Hardy
Ring , Jimmy
Ritchey , Claude
Rixey , Eppa
Robertson , Dave
Rommel , Eddie
Roush , Edd
Rucker , Nap
Rudolph , Dick
Ruel , Muddy
Rusie , Amos
Ryan , Jimmy
Santop , Louis
Schacht , Al
Schaefer , Germany
Schalk , Ray
Schang , Wally
Schreckengost , Ossie
Schulte , Frank
Scott , Everett
Scott , Jack
Severeid , Hank
Sewell , Joe
Seymour , Cy
Sheckard , Jimmy
Sherdel , Bill
Shocker , Urban
Sisler , George
Smith , Earl
Smith , Sherry
Sparks , Tully
Spaulding , Al
Stahl , Jake
Start , Joe
Steinfeldt , Harry
Stephenson , Riggs
Stovey , Harry
Street , Gabby
Sutton , Ezra
Sweeney , Bill
Tannehill , Jesse
Taylor , Ben
Tenney , Fred
Terry , Bill
Thomas , Ira
Thompson , Sam
Tiernan , Mike
Tinker , Joe
Toney , Fred
Traynor , Pie
Turner , Terry
Uhle , George
Van Haltren , George
Vance , Dazzy
Veach , Bobby
Waddell , Rube
Walberg , Rube
Wallace , Bobby
Wambsganss , Bill
Ward , John M.
Warfield , Frank
Welch , Mickey
Wheat , Zack
White , Deacon
White , Sol
White , Will
Williams , Cy
Williams , Ken
Williamson , Ned
Willis , Vic
Witt , Whitey
Wood , Joe
Wright , George
Yerkes , Steve
Youngs , Ross
Zachary , Tom
Zimmer , Chief

The complete list of eligible contributors:

Abe , Iso
Adams , Doc
Bancroft , Frank
Barrow , Ed
Bulkely , Morgan
Cartwright , Alexander
Caylor , O. P.
Chance , Frank
Clarke , Fred
Commiskey , Charlie
Conlan , Charles
Connolly , Tom
Cooper , Andy
Creighton , Jim
Cummings , Candy
Dinneen , Bill
Doubleday , Abner
Dreyfuss , Barney
Dunn , Jack
Elias , Al Munro
Foster , John B.
Fullerton , Hugh
Gleason , Kid
Griffith , Clark
Hanlon , Ned
Hillerich , John
Huggins , Miller
Hulbert , William
Jennings , Hughie
Klem , Bill
Landis , Kenesaw
Lardner , Ring
Leavitt, Jr. , Charles W.
McCarthy , Tommy
Mendez , Jose
Mills , A. G.
Moran , Pat
Mutrie , Jim
Navin , Frank
Osborn , Frank
Reach , A. J.
Richter , Francis
Robinson , Wilbert
Ruppert , Jacob
Selee , Frank
Shibe , Ben
Spalding , Al
Spink, Albert
Stallings , George
Taylor , C. I.
Thayer , Ernest
Ward , John M.
Warfield , Frank
White , Sol
Wilkinson , J. L.
Wilson , Horace
Wright , George

jalbright

03-13-2009, 02:54 PM

My ballot:

Players
1. Lou Gehrig
2. John M. Ward
3. Frankie Frisch
4. Amos Rusie
5. Deacon White
6. Louis Santop
7. Sherry Magee
8. Zack Wheat
9. Paul Hines
10. Fred Clarke
11. George Wright
12. Dazzy Vance

Contributors
1. William Hulbert
2. Jim Creighton
3. Al Spalding
4. Kennesaw Landis
5. J. L. Wilkinson

jalbright

03-14-2009, 08:11 AM

The 1943 voting thread is now open and ready for business.

jjpm74

03-14-2009, 08:18 AM

Players:

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Ezra Sutton
3. Ross Barnes
4. Joe Start
5. Jimmy Collins
6. Frankie Frisch
7. Deacon White
8. Paul Hines
9. Edd Roush
10. Charlie Bennett
11. George Wright
12. Rabbit Maranville

Contributors:

1. Jim Creighton
2. C. I. Taylor
3. Al Spalding
4. William Hulbert
5. Bill Klem

Not yet on my ballot, but high in my consideration set:

Roger Bresnahan
Fred Clarke
Pud Galvin
George Gore
Heinie Groh
Bill Jackman
Sherry Magee
Bid McPhee
Amos Rusie
Louis Santop
George Sisler
Dazzy Vance
Zach Wheat

Brad Harris

03-14-2009, 08:28 AM

Players
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Deacon White
3. Louis Santop
4. Paul Hines
5. George Wright
6. Frankie Frisch
7. Sherry Magee
8. Fred Clarke
9. Pete Hill
10. Jimmy Collins
11. George Sisler
12. Amos Rusie

Contributors
1. William Hulbert
2. A.G. Spalding
3. Francis Richter
4. Bill Klem
5. Ed Barrow

Took Judge Landis off the list. The more I think about it, the more his sole contribution to Organized Baseball seems to me something the existing power structure was entirely capable of doing in his absence. Landis, on the other hand, spent the bulk of his tenure retarding the growth of the sport. As a federal judge, his poor legal decisions may have made him famous, but he really did baseball an injustice by refusing to rule in the Federal League case. In my opinion, if Morgan Bulkeley had been a bully who had stuck around twenty years, he'd have been a Landis precursor. I'm not saying I'll never be willing to add him again, but I just can't place enough weight on the net balance of his contributions to move him past a fair number of men who made far more significant contributions to the game.

I don't see anything that could entice me to vote for Alexander Cartwright, Jim Creighton or Dickey Pearce as contributors at this point. What exactly is the proof of their off-field accomplishments? Cartwright is a far smaller version of Doc Adams and the other two, great amateur players that they may have been aren't really contributor material IMHO.

jjpm74

03-14-2009, 08:38 AM

I don't see anything that could entice me to vote for Alexander Cartwright, Jim Creighton or Dickey Pearce as contributors at this point. What exactly is the proof of their off-field accomplishments? Cartwright is a far smaller version of Doc Adams and the other two, great amateur players that they may have been aren't really contributor material IMHO.

For both Jim Creighton and Dickey Pearce, it's their impact on the early game as players that get them support as contributors. Both helped define the roles of specific positions (Pearce--SS, Creighton--Pitcher), and both were among the first players to be paid for their talent.

I put together Creighton's case here:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1335193&postcount=428

Jim Creighton literally defined the role of a pitcher. Before Creighton, pitchers simply tossed the ball in where a player wanted it and were seen as a 9th fielder rather than a pitcher. Creighton invented several pitches and was the game's first superstar. No player had a greater impact on the early game than him.

Dickey Pearce helped in establishing the role of short stop. He also is one of the only players to play during all of baseball's forms of organization from amateur to the NA to the NL. Because of the time frame in which he played, he fits better on the pioneer side of the fence.

Paul Wendt

03-14-2009, 08:56 AM

The Hall of Merit ranks Dahlen and Burkett sixth at shortstop and leftfield. From that perspective electing them is a big step, a big cut in the backlog. Who are the highest ranking players who remain on the board?

on the board here
#8, Fred Clarke lf
#9, George Wright ss
10, Heinie Groh 3b, Frank Frisch 2b
11, Deacon White c, Jimmy Collins 3b, Ross Barnes 2b

Five of their eight "rank 12" players are on our ballots (Santop, Sutton, McPhee, Magee, Hines).

Bill Dahlen, our 41st member is our first from outside the Hall of Fame. He overtook Deacon White during the last few elections and on the later ballots. He is in the Hall of Merit, of course; everyone named on all our ballots has been elected there or in Cooperstown. Who are the players with highest rank at the Hall of Merit but not on any ballot here?

no votes here
10, Heinie Groh 3b
13, Jimmy Sheckard lf
15, Hardy Richardson 2b

This report is prone to clerical error, primarily regarding who is eligible here.
(Moments ago I rewrote this without Jud Wilson, who is 48 years old but still playing for the Homestead Grays.)

--
Comment.
The "slow" election of Jesse Burkett and slow progress of Clarke, Magee, and Sheckard certainly represents judgment that leftfield is relatively weak. Kelly and Heilmann waltzed in; at the HOM they rank 12 and 14 at rightfield.

The same is true at thirdbase where we have "HOMers" #10, 11, and 12 on the board. At the same time there is sharp disagreement with the Hall of Merit expressed here, without a single mention of their #10 Groh while Collins progresses to election and Sutton is near the top of a couple of ballots.

Brad Harris

03-14-2009, 09:02 AM

Taking the Eligible Contributors list and breaking it down. I tried to put these individuals in the category where they made their most notable contributions. Since we only vote for 5, this sub-categorization might help some people rank their queues a little more.

Executives
Frank Bancroft (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Frank_C_Bancroft_1846)
Ed Barrow (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492554)
Morgan Bulkeley (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492556)
O.P. Caylor (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=OP_Caylor_1849)
Charles Comiskey (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1723&pid=2708)
Barney Dreyfuss (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1385&pid=18142)
Jack Dunn (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Jack_Dunn_1872)
Clark Griffith (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1727&pid=5494)
William Hulbert (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492572)
Judge Kenesaw M. Landis (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492574)
Abraham G. Mills (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=741&pid=16947)
Frank Navin (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1765&pid=16916)
Alfred J. Reach (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Al_Reach_1840)
Jacob Ruppert (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Jake_Ruppert)
Ben Shibe (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1778&pid=16927)
Albert Goodwill Spalding (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1274&pid=13395)
C.I. Taylor (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=CI_Taylor)
John Montgomery Ward (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=John_Montgomery_Ward_1860)
J.L. Wilkinson (http://www.nlbpa.com/wilkinson_jl.html)
George Wright (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=124597)

Managers
Frank Chance (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=904&pid=2327)
Fred Clarke (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=893&pid=2513)
Andy Cooper (http://www.nlbpa.com/cooper_andy.html)
Kid Gleason (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=247&pid=5188)
Ned Hanlon (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=923&pid=5784)
Miller Huggins (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=116275)
Hughie Jennings (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1769&pid=6943)
Jose Mendez (http://www.nlbpa.com/mendez_jose.html)
Pat Moran (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=944&pid=9942)
Jim Mutrie (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=424&pid=10225)
Wilbert Robinson (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=933&pid=12082)
Frank Selee (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492582)
George Stallings (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=884&pid=13501)
Frank Warfield (http://www.nlbpa.com/warfield__frank.html)

Others
Charles M. Conlon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_M._Conlon)
Bud Hillerich (http://www.sluggermuseum.org/sluggerhistory.aspx)
Charles W. Leavitt Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wellford_Leavitt)
Frank Osborn (http://www.rpi.edu/about/hof/osborn.html)
Ernest Thayer (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Ernest_L_Thayer)

Pioneers
Isoo Abe (http://english.baseball-museum.or.jp/baseball_hallo/detail/detail_004.html)
Alexander Cartwright (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=727&pid=2205)
Jim Creighton (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=770&pid=16900)
Candy Cummings (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1276&pid=3130)
Abner Doubleday (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Abner_Doubleday)
Tommy McCarthy (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=118554)
Horace Wilson (http://english.baseball-museum.or.jp/baseball_hallo/detail/detail_148.html)

Sportswriters
Al Munro Elias (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Al_Munro_Elias)
John B. Foster (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=John_B_Foster)
Hugh Fullerton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Fullerton)
Ring Lardner (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Ring_Lardner)
Francis Richter (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Francis_C_Richter)
Alfred H. Spink (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Alfred_H_Spink)
Sol White (http://www.nlbpa.com/white_sol.html)

Umpires
Tom Connolly (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1224&pid=2755)
Bill Dinneen (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1752&pid=3614)
Bill Klem (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=1221&pid=7595)

Brad Harris

03-14-2009, 09:10 AM

no votes here
#6, Jud Wilson 3b
10, Heinie Groh 3b
13, Jimmy Sheckard lf
15, Hardy Richardson 2b
All four are (or will be) in my queue (pending eligibility).

For both Jim Creighton and Dickey Pearce, it's their impact on the early game as players that get them support as contributors. Both helped define the roles of specific positions (Pearce--SS, Creighton--Pitcher), and both were among the first players to be paid for their talent.

Jim Creighton literally defined the role of a pitcher. Before Creighton, pitchers simply tossed the ball in where a player wanted it and were seen as a 9th fielder rather than a pitcher. Creighton invented several pitches and was the game's first superstar. No player had a greater impact on the early game than him.

Dickey Pearce helped in establishing the role of short stop. He also is one of the only players to play during all of baseball's forms of organization from amateur to the NA to the NL. Because of the time frame in which he played, he fits better on the pioneer side of the fence.
I'm torn. At what point is this sort of thing too much? So Pearce popularized the bunt? Do we also induct the guy who popularized the hit-and-run, the double steal, the head-first slide? Cummings allegedly invented the curveball. Do we also elect the inventor of the knuckleball, the screwball, the slider, etc.? If Creighton and Pearce were the greatest players of the 1860s then let's elect them, but as players. Their contributions appear to me to be on-field developments wholly related to their play (i.e. innovations that helped their team win games when they were on-the-field.) To me, that's precisely the kind of "contribution" that adds to their case as players. Why is Ross Barnes a player candidate but Dickey Pearce is not? (And why isn't Pearce listed as an eligible contributor anyway?) Tommy McCarthy would easily fall under this same category for me. If his "contributions" were an innovation in play, then he was helping his team win when he was on the field. King Kelly, Roger Bresnahan and a host of other early stars all fall neatly into that same grouping. None of them are here as contributors. A lack of statistics or a lack of "major league" play is not a lack of evidence or a lack of a record that an individual was one of the greatest players of his era. I disagree that playing both amateur and professional ball is some kind of "accomplishment" any more than simply playing professional ball is so these guys get no credit from me on that point. It seems rather cut-and-dried that these two were the biggest stars of the pre-NAPBBP era and, therefore, belong as players. If we elect them as contributors, where do we draw the line on those kinds of accomplishments (as I mentioned above)?

jjpm74

03-14-2009, 10:12 AM

The problem with trying to elect Jim Creighton as a player is that his entire career was centered in a time we have no statistical information on and that his actual career was very short. In his case, I'm more in favor of recognizing him as an early pioneer of the game rather than as a player. We can say the same for Doc Adams. His big draw is that he was one of many founders of the first baseball club and that he invented the short stop position. Why should he get elected as a pioneer but not Creighton?

Dickey Pearce was a player first and foremost and as such, I'm more comfortable listing him as a player when I get to him in my queue.

Paul Wendt

03-14-2009, 10:30 AM

All four are (or will be) in my queue (pending eligibility).
While you were queueing pending, I was rewriting without Jud Wilson who is not yet eligible.

At the moment Jud Wilson is born February 28, 1894 at wikipedia and the NBHOFM website, 1897 at Baseball-Reference, 1899 in the print Biographical Encyclopedia. So he turns 48, 45, or 43 in 1942. "The grizzled veteran past his prime and [doesn't] play full time" according to one observer --Riley on 1940-45 with the Homestead Grays.

If Creighton and Pearce were the greatest players of the 1860s then let's elect them, but [i]as players. Their contributions appear to me to be on-field developments wholly related to their play (i.e. innovations that helped their team win games when they were on-the-field.) To me, that's precisely the kind of "contribution" that adds to their case as players.
I agree that they are appropriate players.

Innovators do something more and other than help their teams win. They may not help their teams win at all, if followers adopt innovations quickly enough, capably enough. More likely the impact of their innovations on team wins and losses is severely limited; there is a change in the game with small net playing advantage to the teams that change first. This is equally true of innovations by players, field managers, and club presidents.

mwiggins

03-14-2009, 11:48 AM

Players:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. George Sisler
3. Frankie Frisch
4. Joe Jackson
5. Deacon White
6. George Wright
7. Fred Clarke
8. Louis Santop
9. Rube Waddell
10. Dazzy Vance
11. Sherry Magee
12. Ezra Sutton

Contributors:
1. William Hulbert
2. Al Spalding
3. Ed Barrow
4. Jim Creighton
5. Alexander Cartwright

Sockeye

03-14-2009, 01:37 PM

Players
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Joe Jackson
3. Fred Clarke
4. Zack Wheat
5. Sherry Magee
6. Willie Keeler
7. Sam Thompson
8. Elmer Flick
9. Bill Terry
10. Harry Stovey
11. Pete Browning
12. George Sisler

Contributors
1. A. Spalding
2. W. Hulbert
3. A. Cartwright
4. J. Creighton
5. K. Landis

Domenic

03-14-2009, 04:03 PM

Players
01. Lou Gehrig
02. Joe Jackson
03. Fred Clarke
04. Zack Wheat
05. Frankie Frisch
06. Willie Keeler
07. Sam Thompson
08. Dazzy Vance
09. Deacon White
10. Harry Stovey
11. Pete Browning
12. George Wright

Contributors
01. A. Spalding
02. W. Hulbert
03. A. Cartwright
04. J. Creighton
05. E. Barrow

Paul Wendt

03-14-2009, 04:47 PM

leecemark

03-14-2009, 05:01 PM

1) George Wright
2) Lou Gehrig
3) Ross Barnes
4) Luis Santop
5) Deacon White
6) John Ward
7) Paul Hines
8) Fred Clarke
9) Amos Rusie
10) Jimmy Collins
11) Charlie Bennett
12) Frank Frisch

1) Wiliam Hulbert
2) Alexander Cartwright
3) Al Spaulding
4) Francis Richter
5) Dickey Pearce

Dogdaze

03-14-2009, 07:34 PM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Louis Santop
3. George Wright
4. Deacon White
5. Frankie Frisch
6. John M. Ward
7. Jimmy Collins
8. Ross Barnes
9. Amos Rusie
10. George Sisler
11. Sam Thompson
12. Old Hoss Radbourn

Contributors:

1. William Hulbert
2. Al Spalding
3. Francis Richter
4. Jim Creighton
5. C. I. Taylor

jalbright

03-14-2009, 08:16 PM

jalbright

03-14-2009, 08:30 PM

While you were queueing pending, I was rewriting without Jud Wilson who is not yet eligible.

At the moment Jud Wilson is born February 28, 1894 at wikipedia and the NBHOFM website, 1897 at Baseball-Reference, 1899 in the print Biographical Encyclopedia. So he turns 48, 45, or 43 in 1942. "The grizzled veteran [is] past his prime and [doesn't] play full time" according to one observer --Riley on 1940-45 with the Homestead Grays.

Wilson becomes eligible in 1946, when he ceases playing for at least one full season (1946). My version of Riley's Negro League Biographical Encyclopedia has born in 1899--but the fact he was still playing would trump the usual age 45 eligibility date, regardless of which birthyear he had so long as it preceded 1900. See #7 in post #2 (The Rules).

AstrosFan

03-14-2009, 09:31 PM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Jimmy Collins
4. John M. Ward
5. Max Carey
6. Louis Santop
7. Dazzy Vance
8. Fred Clarke
9. Paul Hines
10. Sherry Magee
11. Amos Rusie
12. George Sisler

Contributors:

1. Alexander Cartwright
2. William Hulbert
3. Francis Richter
4. Al Spalding
5. Jim Creighton

dgarza

03-15-2009, 03:13 PM

Players

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Sam Thompson
3. Joe Jackson
4. Ross Barnes
5. George Sisler
6. Amos Rusie
7. Al Spalding
8. Harry Stovey
9. Willie Keeler
10. Bill Terry
11. Charley Radbourn
12. Frankie Frisch

Contributors
1. Al Spalding
2. Kenesaw Landis
3. Alexander Cartwright
4. Abner Doubleday
5. Charles Conlon

Sockeye

03-15-2009, 03:20 PM

3. Jesse Burkett

He has already been elected

PVNICK

03-16-2009, 06:07 AM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frank Frisch
3. George Sisler
4. Monte Ward
5. Amos Rusie
6. Pie Traynor
7. Hoss Radbourne
8. Bob Caruthers
9. George Wright
10. Jimmy Collins
11. Louis Santop
12. Joe Jackson

1. Jim Creghton
2. Al Spalding
3. AJ Reach
4. Albert Spink
5. William Hulbert

Captain Cold Nose

03-16-2009, 06:24 AM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frank Frisch
3. George Wright
4. John Montgomery Ward
5. Louis Santop
6. Deacon White
7. George Sisler
8. Amos Rusie
9. Willie Keeler
10. Charles Radbourne
11. Jimmy Collins
12. Paul Hines

Contributors

1. Alexander Cartwright
2. Al Spalding
3. William Hulbert
4. Ned Hanlon
5. Bill Klem

jjpm74

03-16-2009, 06:43 AM

3. Alexander Cartwright
4. Abner Doubleday

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind these two. Particularly Abner Doubleday who had no proven relationship to baseball whatsoever. If Doubleday, why not Roy Hobbs and Mighty Casey?

Captain Cold Nose

03-16-2009, 06:47 AM

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind these two. Particularly Abner Doubleday who had no proven relationship to baseball whatsoever. If Doubleday, why not Roy Hobbs and Mighty Casey?

Neither were wounded at Gettysburg.

Brad Harris

03-16-2009, 12:50 PM

Neither were wounded at Gettysburg.
Or had been personally acquainted with a member of the Mills Commission in a non-baseball related association.

jalbright

03-16-2009, 01:43 PM

We have quorums in both the contributor and player ballots.

Also, I have added some explanation to what constitutes a "reasonable ballot" in rule #11 (see post #2).

Ubiquitous

03-16-2009, 08:15 PM

1 Lou Gehrig
2 Frankie Frisch
3 Sherry Magee
4 Pie Traynoe
5 Heinie Groh
6 Max Carey
7 Frank Chance
8 Rabbit Marranville
9 Bid McPhee
10 Joe Tinker
11 Johnny Evers
12 Johnny Kling

1 Al Spalding
2 Charlie Comiskey
3 Ed Barrow
4 Jack Dunn
5 Bill Klem

Ubiquitous

03-16-2009, 08:21 PM

jjpm74

03-16-2009, 09:45 PM

I don't campaign but it really is shocking that Al Spalding has not gone in as a contributor. The man is a huge part of the reason the NL exists and through his sport stores helped make baseball tremendously popular. Spalding had his fingers in everything about baseball. From playing, to managing, to forming leagues, to making equipment, to publishing books, to touring the word. He did everything he could to make this game the greatest and most popular game in the world.

Looking at the voting trends of this project and the nature of its setup, it's safe to say that Spalding will be elected either this year or next year. That will put him in as the 8th or 9th elected. What's so shocking about that? What makes Spalding's case so much stronger that it's shocking he didn't get in ahead of the 7 already elected?

It'd be hard to mount a convincing argument that would place Spalding ahead of these contributors:

Doc Adams
Henry Chadwick
Rube Foster
Ban Johnson
Connie Mack
John McGraw
Harry Wright

+ maybe Hulbert.

Ubiquitous

03-16-2009, 10:19 PM

Without Spalding most of those guys attempt at doing anything amounts to nothing.

McGraw, Mack, Johnson, and Foster come into a world that Spalding had a huge influence creating. Wright operated in an era in which Spalding helped make baseball the national game. It was Spalding who gave Chadwick a voice in the late 1800's. Spalding's presence is felt in virtually every part of 18th century baseball and the attempt to make Major League baseball the game.

BlueBlood

03-17-2009, 03:08 AM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Amos Rusie
4. George Wright
5. Deacon White
6. Charlie Bennett
7. Paul Hines
8. Zack Wheat
9. Pud Galvin
10. Jimmy Collins
11. Rube Waddell
12. Ross Barnes

1. Alexander Cartwright
2. Jim Creighton
3. William Hulbert
4. Al Spalding
5. Bill Klem

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 05:43 AM

Or had been personally acquainted with a member of the Mills Commission in a non-baseball related association.

The good General (depending on whom you were talking to) knew nothing of it. Not his fault.

Speaking of Spalding, though . . .

J W

03-17-2009, 07:56 AM

Players

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Joe Jackson
3. Frank Grant
4. Frankie Frisch
5. Louis Santop
6. George Sisler
7. Rube Waddell
8. Amos Rusie
9. Sherry Magee
10. Stan Coveleski
11. Charlie Radbourn
12. Fred Clarke

Contributors

1. William Hulbert
2. Alexander Cartwright
3. Fred Clarke
4. Bill Klem
5. Francis Richter

J W

03-17-2009, 07:58 AM

Deep crop of newcomers this season. I think I added six players to my queue.

jalbright

03-17-2009, 08:36 AM

I don't campaign but it really is shocking that Al Spalding has not gone in as a contributor. The man is a huge part of the reason the NL exists and through his sport stores helped make baseball tremendously popular. Spalding had his fingers in everything about baseball. From playing, to managing, to forming leagues, to making equipment, to publishing books, to touring the word. He did everything he could to make this game the greatest and most popular game in the world.

Welcome, Ubi. Feel free to campaign--if you think someone is overdue, it's the best way to get them some attention. If you convince folks you're on to something, it's apt to get that candidate elected. One thing I will point out is that Spalding is complicated by having at least arguably a HOF-caliber playing career. I have stated a preference to elect guys as players in this project. That could well have slowed Spalding, who isn't in the Cobb/Ruth/Wagner class of player over the course of his career, at least not in most minds. People may have waited to see if he'd gain traction after we cleared the first 25-30 candidates from the 1936 backlog to see if Spalding had much of a chance to get in as a player in the near term. As they've concluded (probably correctly) that it would be an extended wait to get him in as a player, they've gravitated toward voting him in as a contributor.

Brad Harris

03-17-2009, 08:48 AM

The good General (depending on whom you were talking to) knew nothing of it. Not his fault.

Speaking of Spalding, though . . .
Doubleday died a decade before the Mills Commission, but he and Abraham Mills were acquainted from their Army days.

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 09:59 AM

Doubleday died a decade before the Mills Commission, but he and Abraham Mills were acquainted from their Army days.

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately, Doubleday takes a lot of heat based on a committee's decision that he himself had zero to do with.

You do hear a range of things regarding what Doubleday had to do with baseball, from zilch to codifying some rules and early promotion. No one really knows for sure, but it seems he himself gets outright condemned by some because someone spoke up for him for unknown reasons.

jjpm74

03-17-2009, 11:01 AM

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately, Doubleday takes a lot of heat based on a committee's decision that he himself had zero to do with.

You do hear a range of things regarding what Doubleday had to do with baseball, from zilch to codifying some rules and early promotion. No one really knows for sure, but it seems he himself gets outright condemned by some because someone spoke up for him for unknown reasons.

No one condemns Doubleday the man. They dismiss the mythical tie to baseball in the same way that people dismiss the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. Doubleday kept extensive journals/memoirs but never mentioned baseball or anything that can be construed as a game related to baseball in any of them. He was also proven to be in West Point, NY the year he was supposedly playing baseball in a pasture in Cooperstown. He was an important Civil War figure, but has no ties to baseball whatsoever.

If someone has actual evidence; not speculative what ifs to the contrary, I'd like to hear their argument. Otherwise, Doubleday's only argument for inclusion in the HOF is the same as that of Roy Hobbs and Mighty Casey: as popular folklore and an interesting story with no basis in reality.

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 11:59 AM

No one condemns Doubleday the man. They dismiss the mythical tie to baseball in the same way that people dismiss the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree. Doubleday kept extensive journals/memoirs but never mentioned baseball or anything that can be construed as a game related to baseball in any of them. He was also proven to be in West Point, NY the year he was supposedly playing baseball in a pasture in Cooperstown. He was an important Civil War figure, but has no ties to baseball whatsoever.

If someone has actual evidence; not speculative what ifs to the contrary, I'd like to hear their argument. Otherwise, Doubleday's only argument for inclusion in the HOF is the same as that of Roy Hobbs and Mighty Casey: as popular folklore and an interesting story with no basis in reality.

I'd love to see it, as well. In no way, shape or form am I endorsing his candidacy. But I have seen treatment of him as if he were the one perpetuating the myth. No one here, mind you, but I have seen it. And never anything conclusive either way. He didn't write about it in his journals. There may well be a reason for that. Apocrapha doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing but a myth there.

Brad Harris

03-17-2009, 12:20 PM

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 12:38 PM

While that's true, I believe it's incumbent upon a person's supporters to produce some kind of "proof." In the absence of any such thing, there is absolutely no reason to have Doubleday on the ballot, much less for anyone to ever give him a vote.

The Mills Commission findings are responsible for erroneous reporting of baseball "history" in a grievous way. It goes beyond irresponsible. They weren't just making things up; they were making things up in the face of evidence to the contrary! Spalding, Mills and the others had plenty of information available to them - both first- and second-hand - that credited Daniel Adams as the father of baseball. They could have easily discredited the letter they received by doing some basic fact checking.

Because of the Mills' "findings" (and in spite of Chadwick's dissenting opinion included with their release), the most prominent Hall of Fame in the world is located in the most inaccessible place for no reason other than the people of that community wanted a reason to attract tourists during the Great Depression and they leveraged their town's "claim" to having been the birthplace of baseball...a claim that would never have been entertained by any fan had the Mills Commission not said it was so.

The United States Government issued a postage stamp commemorating the event in 1939.

The promotion of the Doubleday myth retarded serious historical investigation of baseball's roots because Albert Goodwill Spalding was willing to actively promote a myth than to accept facts known at the time. How evolving from the other forms of town ball played in the early United States made baseball any less "American" is anyone's guess, but apparently Mr. Spalding felt it was so.

I would assert that Spalding, Mills and the rest of that commission intentionally defrauded the public with their marketing campaign and the result was damaging both to baseball and its study.

None of which, of course, can be blamed on Gen. Doubleday.

Hey, Paul Bunyan Days can be fun.

Mr. Spalding and co. did a disservice to history in general. His own role in it had already been established. How exactly one man's active imagination came to be so widely accepted is something I've never understood. Now, I have read Gettysburg scholarship that does make mention of Doubleday indeed having an interest in the sport, and from there a flight of fancy might have arose. He had a long military career that saw plenty of engagement (he distinguished himself in the Mexico campaigns about a quarter of a century before the Civil War, as so many Civil War officers had) but was not a large enough figure that so much was truly known about him. He had his memoirs. From Chancellorsville to Gettysburg is a quite interesting read if you're into that sort of thing. He is by no means a seminal Civil War or military figure. But he did enough to be a recognizable figure.

Should Spalding take a hit for really putting the myth out there? I've been voting for him for a while here, he's No. 2 on my ballot, but if the Cooperstown/Doubleday myth is such a fraud and damaging to baseball, why doesn't he get thrown in with the Comiskeys and Ansons of the baseball world who get downgraded because of glaring black marks?

Ubiquitous

03-17-2009, 12:43 PM

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 12:48 PM

How is Doubleday damaging to baseball?

Baseball was very popular in the 19th century and is still very popular nowadays, to say nothing of what it was in the first parts of the 20th century. If Spalding damaged the game by giving it a fable then I wish someone would damage my business in a similar manner. I could use the money and cusstomers.

Well, you yourself have made entirely valid complaints about the actual HOF building and location. Without the myth, sleepytown would remain such 24/7/365.

Ubiquitous

03-17-2009, 12:54 PM

Captain Cold Nose

03-17-2009, 01:11 PM

Cooperstown has the HoF because of their rich patrons the Clarks. The baseball was an excuse.

The creation of the hall and the musuem is an extremely good thing. The location was bad but you have to credit the Clarks for doing it. My issue is with baseball which failed to take a good idea and use it effectively. Something they have done repeatedly.

Would the Clarks have done it without the myth? Would they even have reason to have been patrons without it?

Really, I personally don't have a problem with Cooperstown, myself. Or Spalding. Or the myth, it's a rather plesant one. And ultimately harmless despite the ultimately bad location for a museum or large-scale interest.

Ubiquitous

03-17-2009, 01:24 PM

jjpm74

03-17-2009, 02:53 PM

Maybe, maybe not. The whole ball as an impetus for the musuem has always smelled fishy to me. The Clarks were searching around for something to draw people to the area. A ball was found and presto we have a hall.

Maybe it wouldn't have been Cooperstown but it is unlikely that the place would have been in any convenient locale since small towns all across America were trying to find ways of attracting money to their area. If they hadn't pick Doubleday they would picked some other guy from some other rural area, since America was basically rural in those days, to be the founder of baseball.

Maybe. By the time of the HOF's inception, trains, automobiles and steamboats were a reality, the NYC subway system was fully operational, and people were traveling all over the place.

It would have been nice to see a place like Elysian Fields become the location and one would think that it's close proximity to NYC would have made it a major draw and potential moneymaker, however.

Paul Wendt

03-18-2009, 10:59 AM

Maybe it wouldn't have been Cooperstown but it is unlikely that the place would have been in any convenient locale since small towns all across America were trying to find ways of attracting money to their area.
The episode fits US American history in some ways but I don't see the inevi that ubiqui sees.

Captain Cold Nose

03-18-2009, 11:17 AM

The episode fits US American history in some ways but I don't see the inevi that ubiqui sees.

It fits, though. The Basketball HOF is in Springfield, Massachusetts, site of the Naismith YMCA game. The Football HOF is in Canton, Ohio, birthplace of the NFL. Baseball set the standard for HOFs trying to be located where there is beginning history. There are, of course, exceptions (boxing, for one.) but whichever city the Mills Commission would have chosen would probably have been heavily bandied about. It could have been Hoboken. It could have been anywhere from 1700's Colonial America with a record of bat and ball games. It could have been Cincinnati, even, which had quite the population at the turn of the 20th Century.

I don't think the decision of where to place it would have necessarily led to a rural setting, the Industrial Revolution had taken place by this time, cities were growing, transit was ever-growing as the Wrights were moving well past the 1903 Kitty Hawk model into more practicable planes and the auto industry was advancing toward mass production. But in terms of all the poetic waxing we hear about baseball's pastoral beginnings, etc. you'd think it would go to a small town as easily if not more so than a large urban center.

Ubiquitous

03-18-2009, 11:35 AM

In the early 1800's most of America was rural so the odds are thjat whatever town they find to have a connection to baseball was and would be rural.

But the musuem never needed to be that way. It is just that for a long time nobody viewed baseball in that manner. It was something to watch or do. It wasn't really until the robber barons got old and needed to atone for their sins and then the Depression with its work programs that the musuems we take for granted nowadays sprang up.

Paul Wendt

03-18-2009, 01:03 PM

As I said in a neighboring thread I do not see the inevitability that ubiqui sees in history. The invention of baseball in a small town is all-American in some ways but not inevitable. I have no confidence that another semirural conception would have been invented if not Cooperstown.

The Mills Commission fraud is all-American partly in its disdain for history. The Commission was historically "irresponsible" and it damaged the "study of baseball" (Brad's words quoted). But Americans generally disdain historical and other scholarly values and many take pride in that disdain. They are proud that America is a go-go place where the point of life is to grow your business, not encumbered with the past like the Old World. They don't generally agree that responsibility and irresponsibility pertain to the study of the past. Except for wasting taxpayer-funded support there is no such thing as irresponsibility in historical study. (Except for harming human health there isn't much scope for irresponsibility in any research.)

Perhaps several members of the Mills Commission knew better in some sense but they didn't value doing better. Al Reach and George Wright were partly competing partly cooperating sporting businessman with backgrounds quite different from Spalding's, more urban and cosmopolitan, including early immersion in a sporting world shared by cricket and baseball. Yet we may suppose that they were all-American in the one sense I have indicated here, content that growing the business would be the guiding value of a historical project.

Chadwick was not the only critic, nor the critic who was a distinguished baseball writer. Will Rankin was another. What distinguished Chadwick was his business relationship with Spalding. He was the editor of Spalding's Official Base Ball Guide, and we may suppose he was the author of most of its prose, in contrast to documents such as the official Playing Rules. Spalding and Chadwick had debated the origin of baseball, openly and partly in print. As far as I know Spalding the publisher did not interfere with Chadwick the editor after hiring him to take over the Guide. Perhaps the Mills Commission, very late in their relationship, may be understood as a kind of interference, or as Spalding's alternative to pointed directions from publisher to editor. A panel of experts might be able to settle the dispute favorably in a way that he could never do in one-one argument with Chadwick.

--
Chadwick died in 1908.
Did he edit Spalding's Guide for that year?
Harvard University stopped (Hollis catalog online (http://lib.harvard.edu/catalogs/hollis.html)) maybe purchased the guide annually during the 19th century, then ceased. I find three items from their collection in the catalog, bound together or microfilmed on one reel: 1878-79, 1880-96, 1897-1900. I don't find anything after 1900.

Freakshow

03-18-2009, 02:32 PM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frankie Frisch
3. George Wright
4. Louis Santop
5. Deacon White
6. Paul Hines
7. Amos Rusie
8. Ross Barnes
9. Fred Clarke
10. Joe Start
11. John M. Ward
12. Jimmy Collins

Paul Wendt

03-18-2009, 02:57 PM

I don't campaign but it really is shocking that Al Spalding has not gone in as a contributor.
It really is shocking to see one loud "NO" cast for all of the top ten players in the backlog.

For the most part you have not supported candidates from the middle of the backlog either. It's Gehrig, Frisch, Sherry Magee and nine men with little or no support to this point.

Sherry Magee, alone among the ... Top 16 !?
(This is subject to clerical error. I apologize for any such error.)

For example the four bearcubs Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Kling are newcomers to our collective ballot; you are the first to vote for any of them.

Under the circumstances I think it is appropriate to "campaign" by saying something for some of them.

Ubiquitous

03-18-2009, 03:12 PM

Four important cogs to the greatest team in the history of MLB, I don't think one needs to campaign very hard for that.

Freakshow

03-18-2009, 04:15 PM

Four important cogs to the greatest team in the history of MLB, I don't think one needs to campaign very hard for that.If that were actually true you would have a legitimate argument.

bambambaseball

03-18-2009, 05:01 PM

Four important cogs to the greatest team in the history of MLB, I don't think one needs to campaign very hard for that.

Oh, please. At least admit that youre trying to manipulate the results. Your balott is a joke. You "stirred" the other project right into the ground and now your bored and doing the same thing here. :crazy

I will post a balott if his is disallowed or he gives a legitimate explanation as to how the bottom half of his balott is better then the frontrunners getting support in this project. If not, this is project #2 I want nothing to do with.

jalbright

03-18-2009, 05:55 PM

Oh, please. At least admit that youre trying to manipulate the results. Your balott is a joke. You "stirred" the other project right into the ground and now your bored and doing the same thing here. :crazy

I will post a balott if his is disallowed or he gives a legitimate explanation as to how the bottom half of his balott is better then the frontrunners getting support in this project. If not, this is project #2 I want nothing to do with.

bambam:

As this project does not have a 75% voting requirement, instead electing the top three (currently) point getters based on participant rankings, Ubi's votes for the 1906 Cubs have virtually no impact. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation from him why he thinks all the rest of us are missing the boat, but if he's trying to manipulate this project, he's choosing an incredibly foolish means of doing so. I can't stop you from leaving the project over this issue as it is your choice--but understand you're leaving because you don't particularly like Ubi and his ballot, not because the votes you have complained of have much impact at all.

Ubiquitous

03-18-2009, 06:21 PM

Oh, please. At least admit that youre trying to manipulate the results. Your balott is a joke. You "stirred" the other project right into the ground and now your bored and doing the same thing here.

Why you wish to make this personal despite the fact that I don't know you and you don't know me is beyond me. For all the scorn you heap on me I have yet to go personal with you. I suggest you treat your fellow posters with at least a modicum of decorum.

If that were actually true you would have a legitimate argument.

Why is my opinion not legitimate yet others are legit?

My votes are questionable because I don't follow group think yet plopping down Joe Start is a perfectly legitimate choice. Or Louis Santop, or Fred Clarke, or John Ward.

Ubi's votes for the 1906 Cubs have virtually no impact. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation from him why he thinks all the rest of us are missing the boat

I don't think anybody is missing anything. Like I said, I don't like to campaign a lot. I understand that everybody has their views, evidence, beliefs, and opinions. I've been on this board now for 7 years and in all of that time I have been pretty adamant and consistent in my view of the Cubs teams of the aughts. Secondly I have been consistent in all of those years on my views of baseball and baseball players. My votes have stayed true to my beliefs.

For everybody:
I don't tell you what to vote for and I don't accuse you of an agenda even though it is quite clear some people do in fact have an agenda when it comes to these things. For some reason some people take these things so seriously that they want everybody to vote like they do and recognize the wisdom of their choices. Well, that is great, I'm happy for you but as our forefathers once said, don't tread on me. I'm a big defender of individual liberties and allowing everybody on this site to enjoy themselves but I am also a big defender against people trying to force their ways on others. Many of you vote for certain players and I think you are silly for doing so, sometimes naive or ignorant, and yes sometimes downright dumb for making your selections. But I don't sit there and sit on stump and grimace at you and tell you you are evil. Because at the end of the day this is all meaningless and we are all supposedly here to enjoy ourselves. What can you possibly gain by picking a fight with me? Now having said all that let us keep it rhetorical. Some of you in various threads have said your thing and now I have said my thing. Nothing more will be accomplished by trying to show me how right you are in arguing with me about my opinion just like I realize that trying to explain myself will accomplish very little in changing your opinion about me.

So if you truly want to talk baseball and not strike strawman you will simply move along and continue talking baseball. If you don't I guess I'll know for sure what you are truly interested in.

jjpm74

03-18-2009, 06:36 PM

My votes are questionable because I don't follow group think yet plopping down Joe Start is a perfectly legitimate choice. Or Louis Santop, or Fred Clarke, or John Ward.

People are curious because your choice of the 4 Cubbies is a curious one. I think they want an explanation so they can see what your line of thinking is and more to the point, possibly learn something in the process. If that's not your goal or prerogative in projects like these, where learning and debating the merits of players is central to the enjoyment of the project, why are you participating?

I happen to be someone who has Johnny Kling in my possible voting queue and have supported him in other projects. That view, however, is a minority view, so the onus is on me to convince others that he is worth HOF consideration. Not the other way around. Why is that so hard for you to do and why are you getting defensive? Your view is clearly a minority view, so you should expect that there would be some criticism of it. Particularly when you vehemently protested Al Spalding's lack of prior support after posting such a ballot.;)

Ubiquitous

03-18-2009, 06:51 PM

why are you participating

Well, I don't consider myself an active participant for starters. I enjoyed the time it took to put my ballot together and I enjoyed recalling some of the players and touching upon some of the players I didn't really know. Posting my ballot it was basically the end result of all that. Something I could put down and look at later. Others may not view this project in the same way, others may view this project as a way to discuss players. As for me the way I look at it as basically; how many 100 posts arguments does one have in them in which at the end of it a group of people or person think you are nefarious, a fool, or decide to go personal on you? I'm not really willing to do that unless there is something in it for me. Arguing whether Ross Barnes should be 9th on a list or 14th doesn't seem worth it to me. Others many and I leave it to them to enjoy those discussions. I don't get my rocks off covering ground I have already been over, I enjoy covering new ground and that is when you will find me in the discussion.

As for Kling my view is, best catcher and on the best team of the era. Do I consider him inner circle HoF? No. Do I consider him a HoF'er? No but out of the pool of available people to vote on I consider him 12th. Does that mean he is absolutely 12th? No, because after about the 4th or 5th spot on the ballot all of the guys are basically interchangeable.

jjpm74

03-18-2009, 09:56 PM

Well, I don't consider myself an active participant for starters.

For someone claiming to not be an active participant, you sure do post and participate a lot (and this is not a criticism of any kind). ;)

Whether or not you consider your arguments old, they are not by any means for 80% of the members of this site. Sharing your insights helps others who are newer to this formulate their own arguments and opinions. It doesn't take much effort to post an argument (certainly much less time than the time you invested to this point in waxing philosophical in this forum over the past week and change).

This is just a suggestion. I'm not going to expand on this unless you ask me to since we're straying from baseball talk and into the human psyche.

jalbright

03-19-2009, 07:10 AM

For everybody:
I don't tell you what to vote for and I don't accuse you of an agenda even though it is quite clear some people do in fact have an agenda when it comes to these things. For some reason some people take these things so seriously that they want everybody to vote like they do and recognize the wisdom of their choices. Well, that is great, I'm happy for you but as our forefathers once said, don't tread on me. I'm a big defender of individual liberties and allowing everybody on this site to enjoy themselves but I am also a big defender against people trying to force their ways on others. Many of you vote for certain players and I think you are silly for doing so, sometimes naive or ignorant, and yes sometimes downright dumb for making your selections. But I don't sit there and sit on stump and grimace at you and tell you you are evil. Because at the end of the day this is all meaningless and we are all supposedly here to enjoy ourselves. What can you possibly gain by picking a fight with me? Now having said all that let us keep it rhetorical. Some of you in various threads have said your thing and now I have said my thing. Nothing more will be accomplished by trying to show me how right you are in arguing with me about my opinion just like I realize that trying to explain myself will accomplish very little in changing your opinion about me.

So if you truly want to talk baseball and not strike strawman you will simply move along and continue talking baseball. If you don't I guess I'll know for sure what you are truly interested in.

In some ways I fully understand what you're talking about here and agree with it. However, I think you underestimate a key element of these projects: they do not work without a significant degree of consensus. Some of what you have written above sounds absolutely dismissive of that concept. This project doesn't require the kind of consensus necessary in a project where a candidate can only be elected with the approval of 75% of the participants, but it is structured so the candidates with consensus support do better, and hopefully such that it will be always be difficult at best for a candidate who isn't acceptable to at least a majority of the participants to be elected. Campaigning shows a respect for that consensus-building aspect of these projects, as do ballots which do not have so many choices backed at this point by you and you alone. You're certainly smart enough to understand this, and, as I assume your motives are honorable, to at least adapt in time to this reality if you continue to be involved here. I hope you do so.

I've seen more than a few cases where people come on very strong intially--and my experience is that they either adapt in the manner described above, become frustrated that no one shares their high opinions of themselves enough to follow them, causing them to leave, or, worst of all, betray the fact their motives involved disrupting the project and got themselves booted out of the project over it.

Freakshow

03-19-2009, 08:18 AM

If that were actually true you would have a legitimate argument.

Why is my opinion not legitimate yet others are legit?"Legitimate" in this sense: in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical.

And this: not spurious or unjustified; genuine.

I agree that it's legitimately your opinion. However, I question the legitimacy of the argument justifying players' greatness because they were part of a dynasty. The assumption behind the opinion that the Cubs of Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Kling are "the greatest team in the history of MLB" as of 1942 has not been legitimized. The A's, Giants and Pirates of that very same era have comparable or better arguments as those Cubs, as do many other teams since then and before then.

Paul Wendt

03-19-2009, 08:22 AM

It fits, though. The Basketball HOF is in Springfield, Massachusetts, site of the Naismith YMCA game. The Football HOF is in Canton, Ohio, birthplace of the NFL. Baseball set the standard for HOFs trying to be located where there is beginning history. There are, of course, exceptions (boxing, for one.) but whichever city the Mills Commission would have chosen would probably have been heavily bandied about.
I agree that any locale identified by Commission as the birthplace of baseball would have been a candidate for locating a baseball museum, if there would be one. The inevitability of a small town birthplace for baseball is what I question.

The role of the WPA, I am curious to know more about that. Did WPA assist private nonprofit construction efforts?

A national baseball library or a hall of fame (smaller more focused museum) might have been placed elsewhere, most likely in New York City. If they had correctly identified Manhattan Square and Elysian Fields as crucial birthplaces, ...
I'm not sure what might have been. Were there three high-level offices in NYC then: NL, AL, and Landis? NYC is full of libraries and historical societies of this kind and that. Spalding left papers --his and Chadwick's that he inherited?-- to the NYPL.

But in terms of all the poetic waxing we hear about baseball's pastoral beginnings, etc. you'd think it would go to a small town as easily if not more so than a large urban center.
The question is whether we would hear that poetic waxing without the Cooperstown story. America also waxes about the melting pot. With a New York City finding, and clever American adaptation of Old World heritage by trial and error as the theme, we could easily have just as much wax, but different wax.

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 08:26 AM

When I voted I simply looked at the list of available candidates. I did not look at who other people are voting for. I did not see the point of that. I don't really agree with the whole "well, everybody else is voting for them therfore I should too" line of thinking. Once I got criticized for my votes I went back and looked and I see that plenty of players get barely any support but get voted on by one or two voters. So it seems to me to be an acceptable practice to not force anyone to conform to the group view. I also looked at who was getting support and again found some of the choices and omissions to be silly. But that is people's perogative. You are right though if someone campaigns for somebody then they get more attention. For instance if someone had campaigned for Groh would he have gotten votes before this election? The answer is probably. The problem is I am not the one who is going to do the campaigning. These little projects are as much about campaigning as anything else. But that isn't my thing I am more than happy to let others campaign others but frankly I know what the arguments are going to be and they don't interest me. This player has this WARP, this player is loved by John McGraw, this player is better than this player already in, this player had to deal with this, this player got this so that player is better, so on and so on. The arguments are the same but the names mearly change. And again I am okay with that, if people enjoy doing that then I am fine with that but it isn't for me and I would hope others would let me get my enjoyment from the project without having to accuse me of some nefarious doings. Does that mean nobody can ask questions of me? Definitely not but it does mean I am unlikely to get into some detailed discussion that last 100 posts across dozens of these project threads.

For someone claiming to not be an active participant, you sure do post and participate a lot (and this is not a criticism of any kind).

I meant in these projects.

Whether or not you consider your arguments old, they are not by any means for 80% of the members of this site. Sharing your insights helps others who are newer to this formulate their own arguments and opinions. It doesn't take much effort to post an argument (certainly much less time than the time you invested to this point in waxing philosophical in this forum over the past week and change).
Don't think you are wrong on this in fact you are right. Discussion is a good thing but on this topic it just isn't my thing. As for my philosophies hopefully the participants of this project will read my posts and move on after this so these kind of discussions don't have to pop up in every thread.

I agree with you I think we have all said what we needed to say on this issue and hopefully someone will post their ballot and everyone can go back to discussing players. Here. I'll even put a good faith step in there for you guys.

Bid McPhee.

Widely considered the best second basemen of the 19th century. Helped turn the spot in the position it is today defensively, Played almost his entire career without a glove and was still the top defensive (2B) player of his day. Managed to be the oldest player in the league two years in a row at an age and era that being that old and still being productive is amazing. In a more modern schedule environment he surely would have had 3,000 hits and if he would had played in a more modern defensive equipment era would be remembered for great defense.

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 08:36 AM

I agree that it's legitimately your opinion. However, I question the legitimacy of the argument justifying players' greatness because they were part of a dynasty. The assumption behind the opinion that the Cubs of Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Kling are "the greatest team in the history of MLB" as of 1942 has not been legitimized. The A's, Giants and Pirates of that very same era have comparable or better arguments as those Cubs, as do many other teams since then and before then.

Here is a trivia question for you and it applies all the way up to 2008 and not just 1942.

Which team owns the single season record for wins (and even winning %)? Which team owns the record for wins in two consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in three consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in four consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in five consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in six consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in seven consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in eight consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in nine consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in ten consecutive years?

Yes a franchise like the Giants are a more successful franchise at this point but that isn't what I was arguing. No other singular team with basically the same core of player had any kind of success like the Cubs did of that era. Secondly those Giants and Pirates team's players are getting votes. I voted for Frisch and Groh, I believe you voted for Clarke and I am pretty sure Wagner and Christy Mathewson are already in. I'm also pretty sure Frank Baker and Eddie Collins are in as well.

And I will also say you are right there are plenty of players that have comparable arguments which is my view as well. AFter about the 5th spot my view is that almost all of the guys are interchangeable. You went with tomato and I went with tomata.

jjpm74

03-19-2009, 09:02 AM

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 09:23 AM

Then you didn't read the rules and parameters of this project. No one expects you or anyone else to vote for frontrunners. You are, however, expected to consider the merits of all the eligible candidates and then assign them a loose ranking in your queue and add accordingly. Not just glance at newly eligible candidates and fill holes. If you're not willing to do that, why do you insist on participating?

No I did you didn't understand my post. I looked at the list Jim provided that had the names of all] the eligible candidates. If I didn't then how could I have voted for Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Kling?

jjpm74

03-19-2009, 09:28 AM

No I did you didn't understand my post. I looked at the list Jim provided that had the names of all] the eligible candidates. If I didn't then how could I have voted for Tinker, Evers, Chance, and Kling?

Fair enough.

FWIW, while I don't agree with the key player on a dynasty argument, it is nevertheless a valid justification for adding the 4 players you added, IMO.

Freakshow

03-19-2009, 10:44 AM

Here is a trivia question for you and it applies all the way up to 2008 and not just 1942.

Which team owns the single season record for wins (and even winning %)? Which team owns the record for wins in two consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in three consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in four consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in five consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in six consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in seven consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in eight consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in nine consecutive years?
Which team owns the record for wins in ten consecutive years?

Yes a franchise like the Giants are a more successful franchise at this point but that isn't what I was arguing. No other singular team with basically the same core of player had any kind of success like the Cubs did of that era. Secondly those Giants and Pirates team's players are getting votes. I voted for Frisch and Groh, I believe you voted for Clarke and I am pretty sure Wagner and Christy Mathewson are already in. I'm also pretty sure Frank Baker and Eddie Collins are in as well.

And I will also say you are right there are plenty of players that have comparable arguments which is my view as well. AFter about the 5th spot my view is that almost all of the guys are interchangeable. You went with tomato and I went with tomata.My comment actually was that many other teams, rather than players, have a comparable argument as the greatest in history. Wins over a period of years is one way to measure that. But a lot of that depends on the overall league quality at the time. The NL was soundly defeated in the war with the AL, being left with three sound franchises who enjoyed beating up the lesser clubs. The NL was the lesser of the two leagues for roughly the next two decades.

Another popular way to measure a dynasty is by championships. Those Cubs won four pennants and two rings, a record matched or exceeded by many other dynasties.

And it's not simply a tomato/tomata. Most of us are trying to make the fine distinctions between players of similar qualifications; you're grinding up the whole tomato plant and throwing it in the pot. The thing that made those Cubs teams great was not that they had a premier blue-chipper or two like the Pirates and Giants did. Rather, it's that Selee built an ensemble team without a weakness. Brown, Tinker, Evers and Chance may have stood at the top, but they weren't in the same class as Frisch and Groh, much less Wagner, Mathewson, etc. They needed a deep cast of support from Kling, Sheckard, Steinfeldt, Hofman, Schulte, Reulbach, Overall, Slagle, Pfiester and Moran.

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 11:46 AM

I'm not talking dynasties. By their very definition dynasties involve many different teams within a franchise. And I would not argue nor have I tried to argue that the Cubs were a great dynasty. They weren't but they were a great team while together and their reign was extremely long.

As for AL and NL the NL was not soundly beaten during the era of the Cubs. From 1905 to 1914 the NL won 5 World Series and the AL won 5 World Series. In that time the Cubs went to 4 World Series and won 2 of them.
As for only three teams in the NL that may well be true but no one can make an argument that there were 8 real teams in the AL in the Cubs era of dominance either.

My comment actually was that many other teams, rather than players, have a comparable argument as the greatest in history.

Totally in agreement with this view. Greatest is an opinion and it is my opinion that the Cubs were the greatest. If I thought the Giants were the greatest then I would be arguing for the inclusion of George Kelly and George Burns.

you're grinding up the whole tomato plant and throwing it in the pot

That is where we disagree. I don't view the players I voted for to be support players. They would be starters in any era we have covered so far. They would be premier players in any era we have covered as well. But secondly virtually all players get boosts because of teammates and what their teammates do. Would Rabbit Maranville be a bigger name, would he have gotten in a long time ago if he had the good fortune of playing on the Giants team or the Athletics team or the Yankees team for his career instead of say the lowly also ran the Boston Braves for most of his career?

Freakshow

03-19-2009, 12:46 PM

To clarify a couple points.

In baseball, a dynasty is a team at the top of the league, frequently the pennant winner, over a period of successive seasons. The Cub dynasty we are discussing reigned from 1906-10. Under a looser definition, of being a top contender for a period of successive seasons, their dynasty spanned 1903-13. The Giants dynasty over that same period won five pennants. Anyway, that's irrelevant; we're ranking players, not teams. We're assessing players on their individual quality, not on their surrounding teammates.

When I wrote that the NL was soundly defeated in the war with the AL, I was referring to the war between the two leagues 1901-03. Ban Johnson had planned well, and when the NL finally sued for peace, it was after most of the game's stars had jumped to the AL. The AL was also quicker to make inroads into the southern states to procure talent (Cobb, Speaker, Baker, Jackson, Veach, Pratt, Milan, Chapman, etc). Baseball-Prospectus recognizes the superiority of the AL in this period by heavily docking NL players in their league quality adjustment in the translation to WARP3. (The opposite happens in the 1950's-60's).

That is where we disagree. I don't view the players I voted for to be support players.Who said they were? Well, I did list Kling with the support players. :ooo: The point is that, individually, Tinker, Evers and Chance are of lesser value, lower quality, than the top 15 players in this project. That their team was a great dynasty is as much due to the assembled supporting cast as to any of their individual greatness.

Listing Tinker-Evers-Kling at 10-12 on the ballot means you see them as having virtually the same worth and that there are no other candidates in there between them. How is that possible?

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 02:25 PM

How is that possible?

Because it is my opinion that is why. Just like it is your opinion that Clarke, Start, and Ward belong down there.

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 02:32 PM

As for the wars, if you believe the goal of the NL was to destroy the AL then yes they were soundly defeated. If you believe the goal of the AL was to simply be another major league then they won as well.

Secondly BP docks everybodies WARP numbers from that era pretty heavily not just NL'ers and really when we get down to it the quality of the majors at this point in time is pretty poor.

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 02:37 PM

Johnny Kling's Sabrbio:

Arguably one of the most overlooked star players of the Dead Ball Era, catcher Johnny Kling was key part of the great Chicago Cubs Dynasty of 1906-10. . . .

During the Dead Ball Era a strong defensive catcher was a key component of any great team, due to the emphasis on bunting and base stealing. Kling was the dominant defensive catcher during the first ten years of the twentieth century. . . .

His contemporaries, team mates and opponents alike, marveled at his ability to defend, handle pitchers and take part in the psychological warfare which was baseball in the early twentieth century.

Freakshow

03-19-2009, 02:41 PM

Because it is my opinion that is why. Just like it is your opinion that Clarke, Start, and Ward belong down there.No, seriously. Your best analysis has these three players that happened to be teammates rated virtually the same? What analaysis leads you to that conclusion? :disbelief: Is it quantified in any way?

Ubiquitous

03-19-2009, 02:54 PM

Again, pretty much everybody on the list of candidates outside of say 5 players are either interchangeable or obviously not qualified to be on this list. At this point picking any of them comes down to preferences, opinions, and the evidence one has of the players and of their times. That is it. If you truly think you can quantify and absolutely rank these players based on some metric or metric, well then, we are going to disagree.

Again, you got Ward, Clarke, and Start. I got Tinker, Evers, and Kling. I could drop a few emoticons down on the page as well but it doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. You have your opinion of who is 8th or 10th or 12th best of the posted list and I have my opinion of who is at those spots.

Does this issue really need to keep getting hammered on? Have I changed my message at all? For future reference when you wish to question the wisdom of my choices just remember that my answer is going to be "because it is my opinion" and that will be shorthand for after many many years of researching baseball as a hobby, after many many hours of digging through newspaper clipping, books, magazines, video, and the HoF archives I have arrived at this conclusion about the topic at hand. I'm not claiming it makes me right, I am very much aware I can be wrong.

If it helps just view me as an ignorant 14 year old who doesn't know better and continue on with your discussion with more learned folks.

jalbright

03-19-2009, 08:16 PM

Ubi,

The standard we've operated on in this forum is that we give a deeper explanation for our picks than "it's my opinion". Of course it is--but why?? That's what people are interested in. If you're on to something, you'll get credit for that. If you're unconvincing, you'll have to deal with the consequences. Your approach shows little conviction in your beliefs, at least to those of us who are used to the usual way of doing business in this forum.

Freakshow

03-20-2009, 01:58 PM

Kling was the dominant defensive catcher during the first ten years of the twentieth century. . . .

From Bill Bergen's SABR Bio:
The caption beneath Bill Bergen's image in a 1908 issue of The Sporting News stated that he "ranks with the best receivers in modern baseball. He is an intelligent student of the points of a batsman, a true and fast thrower and is without a peer in judging and capturing foul flies."
Also:
Despite playing part-time, Bergen earned a reputation for the strongest throwing arm in the National League, so strong that his mere presence behind the plate was enough to intimidate base runners. Notes in newspapers of the day often remarked on his lightning release and ability to throw to second base on a line while standing flatfooted.

On August 23, 1909, Bergen gunned down six St. Louis Cardinals attempting to steal (for years it was reported that he threw out seven on that date, but recent research confirmed that the number was six). Despite catching only 941 games, Bergen ranks in the Top 20 for career assists by a catcher. And while only five of the 13 catchers in the Hall of Fame ever amassed as many as 100 assists in a single season, Bergen accomplished that feat in nine of his 11 major- league campaigns, failing only in 1903 and 1907, the two seasons he caught fewer than 60 games. He reached a high of 202 assists in 1909, making him one of only a handful of backstops ever to accumulate more than 200 in a season. And it wasn't just in throwing that Bergen excelled. His lifetime fielding average exceeded the league average for catchers, .972 vs. .969, and he caught two no-hitters.
From Ossee Schreckengost's SABR Bio:
He also established himself as one of the best defensive catchers in the game. "Schreck could do more with his glove than any catcher that ever stood behind the plate," said Connie Mack, his manager at Philadelphia and a former big league catcher himself. "He caught 99.99 per cent of balls thrown to him with one hand, his glove hand. He used his glove hand like a shortstop." Schreck held the major league catcher's record for single season putouts for nearly 50 years.
Also:
His throwing also received praise, with Francis Richter of Sporting Life declaring, "Schrecongost's throwing is about as quick and accurate as that of any catcher now working in either League."
From Billy Sullivan's SABR Bio:
his Deadball Era contemporaries believed that Billy Sullivan's "brilliant performances behind the bat ... more than offset his weak hitting." Although his paltry .213 lifetime batting average is the second worst all-time (next to Bill Bergen) among players with at least 3,000 at bats, Sullivan developed a reputation as a brainy backstop with an uncanny ability to handle pitchers. Described by Ty Cobb as the best catcher "ever to wear shoe leather," Sullivan was "the best man throwing to bases in the American League," and "no man in the business [knew] more about getting the best work from a pitcher and holding an infield together."
From George Gibson's SABR Bio:
Gibson was generally regarded as one of the NL's premier catchers because of his stellar defensive skills and his deadly, accurate throwing arm.
From Lou Criger's SABR Bio:
Feisty, slender and packing a strong, accurate throwing arm, the smarts to call pitches for the winningest pitcher of all-time, and the resiliency to last despite facing many physical ailments, catcher Lou Criger was regarded by his peers as one of the best backstops of the Deadball Era...
But looks can deceive, as Criger proved by using his arm and his cunning as weapons worthy of journalist praise. Wrote Boston writer and former player Tim Murnane, "Criger is the man who can turn back the fleetest base runner, a man who can nip the boys at first and third unless they are ever on the alert. Criger is the backstop that never drops a ball that he can reach, and who can throw harder and quicker to second than any catcher in the profession....I would like to see some one pick out the equal of Criger."
The point is this: In that era you had to be great defensively just to play. You can find glowing anecdotal evidence regarding many deadball era catchers. If Kling really was "the dominant defensive catcher" of his time, it wasn't by much.

Ubiquitous

03-20-2009, 02:18 PM

And none of them could hit as well as Kling or play as much as Kling or hit as long as them.

Freakshow

03-20-2009, 02:28 PM

And none of them could hit as well as Kling or play as much as Kling or hit as long as them.Even a great defensive catcher needs more than league average hitting (100 OPS+) and a 1260 game career to start a serious hall of fame discussion.

Ubiquitous

03-20-2009, 02:49 PM

Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith say hello.

Johnny Kling played in an era where defensive skills were much more inconsistent between players and because of the environment good or great defense was very important. It was also a period in time in which catchers got the dark stuff beat out of them and amassing over 1000 games behind the plate was a rare feat. From 0 to 1920 Kling was 6th all time in games caught. When he retired he was 4th all time.

Kling gave the Cubs great defense at a position that was extremely difficult to man and hit rather well from that spot. Out of all full time catchers from that decade he has the highest OPS+. Bresnahan was a better hitter but he didn't become a full time catcher until 1905 and he doesn't have the great defensive reputation that Kling has.

Mr. Red

03-20-2009, 04:30 PM

Players:

1. Lou Gehrigh
2. Monte Ward
3. Frankie Frisch
4. Louis Santop
5. Charlie Radbourn
6. Harry Stovey
7. George Gore
8. Bob Caruthers
9. Hugh Duffy
10. Zack Wheat
11. Sherry Magee
12. Paul Hines

Contributors:

1. Al Spalding
2. Jim Creighton
3. Alexander Cartwright
4. Monte Ward
5. William Hulbert

bambambaseball

03-20-2009, 05:01 PM

Players:

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Charlie Bennett
3. Jimmy Collins
4. Ezra Sutton
5. Ross Barnes
6. Deacon White
7. George Sisler
8. Bob Caruthers
9. George Wright
10. Louis Santop
11. Frankie Frisch
12. Roger Bresnahan

Contributers:

1. Jim Creighton
2. Bill Klem
3. Francis Richter
4. Al Spalding
5. O.P. Caylor

jalbright

03-20-2009, 08:34 PM

Freakshow

03-20-2009, 10:48 PM

Are any of these catchers serious candidates for the HOF? Or the BBFHOF? Or the Hall of Merit?

Players with 1000+ games at C, from 4250-7000 PA, and OPS+ from 95-107
Cnt Player RC OPS+ PA From To Ages G
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+----+
1 Deacon McGuire 799 101 6932 1884 1912 20-48 1781
2 Sherm Lollar 765 104 6218 1946 1963 21-38 1752
3 Tim McCarver 732 102 6206 1959 1980 17-38 1909
4 Duke Farrell 729 99 6254 1888 1905 21-38 1563
5 Terry Steinbach 706 101 5896 1986 1999 24-37 1546
6 Jason Varitek 675 100 5041 1997 2008 25-36 1330
7 Mike Lieberthal 629 101 4695 1994 2007 22-35 1212
8 Frankie Hayes 620 100 5121 1933 1947 18-32 1364
9 Manny Sanguillen 617 102 5380 1967 1980 23-36 1448
10 Del Crandall 611 96 5581 1949 1966 19-36 1573
11 Terry Kennedy 589 96 5421 1978 1991 22-35 1491
12 Bob O'Farrell 580 98 4742 1915 1935 18-38 1492
13 Andy Seminick 562 107 4571 1943 1957 22-36 1304
14 Todd Hundley 559 102 4305 1990 2003 21-34 1225
15 Chief Zimmer 557 95 5076 1884 1903 23-42 1280
16 Mike Scioscia 556 99 5056 1980 1992 21-33 1441
17 Don Slaught 555 104 4502 1982 1997 23-38 1327
18 Charles Johnson 550 97 4385 1994 2005 22-33 1188
19 Ramon Hernandez 540 96 4439 1999 2008 23-32 1188
20 Ernie Whitt 500 99 4271 1976 1991 24-39 1328
21 Johnny Kling 483 100 4640 1900 1913 24-37 1260

Ubiquitous

03-20-2009, 11:06 PM

Freakshow

03-21-2009, 07:13 AM

Yes, Deacon McGuire, Johnny Kling, possibly Sherm Lollar.

Or do you not see a difference between a 19th century and first decade of the 20th century catchers and a bunch of catchers playing a relatively modern game?

I'd like to see fragile Lieberthal catch 1200 games in the first decade of the 20th century.Looking at voting results for the three Halls shows McGuire, Kling and Lollar being scarcely considered for election.

Yes, Kling was one of the top catchers for his decade, but that's only a small chit in a hall of fame case. For his era, he was a top-hitting catcher. His longevity, catching 1168 games, is not exceptional in any era.

In The Ultimate Quest for Candidates voting he came in as the 9th best candidates whose career centered in the decade of the 1900's. In the Collaboration Game he is listed #38 among catchers. Both rankings show a consensus opinion that puts him far from serious consideration for the Hall.

Ubiquitous

03-21-2009, 08:17 AM

And your point is?

Tell you what, why don't you just PM me before every vote who I should vote for and I'll vote for those guys. Otherwise I'll simply vote for the people I think deserve it and we wouldn't want that now would we?

His longevity, catching 1168 games, is not exceptional in any era.

It wasn't? From 1895 to 1920 only two other catchers caught more games than Kling. Kling had 1168 games caught and the leader had 1195 games caught and Kling was a much better hitter

Freakshow

03-21-2009, 09:04 AM

His longevity, catching 1168 games, is not exceptional in any era.It wasn't? From 1895 to 1920 only two other catchers caught more games than Kling. Kling had 1168 games caught and the leader had 1195 games caught and Kling was a much better hitterEh. Set the years right and you can make a lot of guys #3 in their era. Here's a view of Kling's era, together with the preceding era.

Players with 1100+ games at catcher 1888-1920

1449 D. McGuire
1215 C. Zimmer
1196 M. Kittridge
1195 R. Dooin
1194 G. Gibson
1188 W. Robinson
1168 J. Kling
1120 B. Sullivan

Kling is right in the bunch. McGuire is the only one that could reasonably termed a catcher with "exceptional longevity". In any case, having exceptional longevity for your "era", however you define it, is not the same as having exceptional longevity on a historic level.

Ubiquitous

03-21-2009, 09:17 AM

And the difference between number 2 and Kling is 47 games.

Kling is right in the bunch. McGuire is the only one that could reasonably termed a catcher with "exceptional longevity". In any case, having exceptional longevity for your "era", however you define it, is not the same as having exceptional longevity on a historic level.

Eh, actually yes it does.

If the average WWI pilot has a life expectancy of 5 sorties and a pilot makes it to 12 that is amazing. It is still amazing if the life expectancy of a Dessert Storm pilot is 200 sorties.

There is a reason why catchers and players in general didn't rack up a lot of official league games in those days. And that reason is because baseball and life was really hard on the body back then. Much harder then it is now and to be able to play at the major league level and play well as a catcher was extremely difficult back then, anyone who could do that made tremendous contributions to their team.

Freakshow

03-21-2009, 04:33 PM

There is a reason why catchers and players in general didn't rack up a lot of official league games in those days. And that reason is because baseball and life was really hard on the body back then. Much harder then it is now and to be able to play at the major league level and play well as a catcher was extremely difficult back then, anyone who could do that made tremendous contributions to their team.OK, so you're granting Kling a subjective durability adjustment to boost him up to HOF status. To give us a better understanding of how you assess Kling, can you indicate some catchers since WW2 that you assess as having similar value?

Ubiquitous

03-21-2009, 04:56 PM

I'm not "granting" Kling anything and everything is "subjective". Kling played in an era when defense was very important and he happened to be a great defensive catcher. Playing in a home run era and being a home run hitter makes you have tons of value. The flipside would be someone like Gavvy Cravath who was a home run hitter that didn't play in a home run era.

Post WWII is a different era than 1905. Equipment was better, the fields were better, and the ball was better. Defense in the newer eras was not as important as defense in the older eras.

Paul Wendt

03-21-2009, 07:26 PM

When he retired in 1913 Johnny Kling ranked number nine on the list of catchers by full seasons equivalent game (career FSE). Deacon McGuire ranked #1 with a 30% margin above #4 Chief Zimmer and a 50% margin above Kling. This table gives the top ten in eleven lines with two listings for Deacon White, one counting his professional career from 1869 and one his league career from 1871.

This measure of playing time (FSE) is derived from player fielding games and team games. Playing every game in one team-season counts 1.0 fse and playing one-half of team games counts 0.5 fse regardless of the number of team games.

FSE* debut (*)full seasons equivalent games fielding catcher or catcher fielding games, only
11.67 1884 Deacon McGuire
10.78 1873 Pop Snyder
9.72 1886 Wilbert Robinson
8.96 1884 Chief Zimmer
8.92 1869 Deacon White
8.61 1878 Charlie Bennett
8.57 1875 Silver Flint
8.40 1890 Malachi Kittridge
8.14 1884 Jack Clements
7.73 1900 Johnny Kling
7.42 1871 Deacon White

The "close behinds" were John Clapp 1872, Duke Farrell 1888, and three more or less active catchers: Red Dooin, George Gibson, Billy Sullivan.

Today McGuire, Snyder, Robinson, and Zimmer or White rank in the top 10, 20, 30, and 40 catchers by full seasons; Dooin, Kling, and Gibson rank about 70. Through 2006 there were 93 catchers with 7 full seasons fielding the position.

When did they make their debuts? With Kling at rank 71 it seems attractive to cover the top 70 through 2006.

Top 70 by full seasons fielding catcher, by debut year
(1860s - Deacon White if we count 1869 and 1870)
1870: Snyder, Flint, Bennett
1880: Zimmer, McGuire, Clements, Robinson
1890: Kittridge
1900: Dooin
1910: Severeid, Wingo, O'Neill, Schalk, Snyder, Schang, O'Farrell, Ruel
1920: Sewell, Hartnett, Wilson, Cochrane, Hemsley, Mancuso, Lopez, Dickey, Davis, Ferrell
1930: Lombardi, Hayes
1940: Cooper, Hegan, Seminick, Rice, Berra, Lollar, Crandall
1950: Roseboro, McCarver
1960: Freehan, Edwards, Grote, Bench, Simmons, Dempsey, Munson, Fisk
1970: Porter, Boone, Ashby, Carter, Sundberg, Cerone, Wynegar, Whitt, Parrish, Kennedy
1980: Sciosia, Pena, Slaught, Santiago, Steinbach, Alomar, Girardi
1990: Rodriguez, Piazza, Wilson, Lopez, Ausmus, Matheny, Kendall
2000:

Bold represents at least 10.0 full seasons fielding catcher, the top 26 of the 70 catchers listed here.

Freakshow

03-21-2009, 08:53 PM

Post WWII is a different era than 1905. Equipment was better, the fields were better, and the ball was better. Defense in the newer eras was not as important as defense in the older eras.No question. So, naturally, a catcher with similar value to Kling in the modern game would have a different balance of offense and defense. Who do you think is similar in total value in the modern game as Kling was in his era? You mentioned Sherm Lollar; can we assume you think he is similar in worth to Kling, that in your estimation they are about equally worthy of being in the HOF? Who else is similar? Would you rank Kling ahead of Bob Boone? Darrell Porter? Lance Parrish?

Ubiquitous

03-21-2009, 09:04 PM

Again, it was a different game. You are basically asking if I would rank Tom Glavine ahead of or behind Joe Montana.

Freakshow

03-21-2009, 09:28 PM

Again, it was a different game. You are basically asking if I would rank Tom Glavine ahead of or behind Joe Montana.Not really. I'm trying to give us all a better idea of who you consider as serious candidates for the hall of fame. Earlier in this discussion you mentioned "Deacon McGuire, Johnny Kling, possibly Sherm Lollar" as serious candidates for the Hall. So, if it's not possible to compare value of catchers from diverse eras, instead can you compare HOF worthiness? That's what this project and so many others we've done here is aiming to know. Surely, in all your years of investigations, you've developed pretty firm opinions on which catchers, like Kling, are in the HOF circle?

Ubiquitous

03-21-2009, 09:57 PM

Deacon McGuire
Buck Ewing
Johnny Kling
Roger Bresnahan
Mickey Cochrane
Gabby Hartnett
Roy Campanella
Yogi Berra
Johnny Bench
Carlton Fisk
Ivan Rodriquez
Mike Piazza
Bill Dickey
Ernie Lombardi

Somewhere around the fringe
Gary Carter
Ted Simmons
Ray Schalk
Jorge Posada
Wally Schang

jalbright

03-22-2009, 07:14 AM

Inside of a week to go, and five folks who voted last time have yet to vote this time: Tiboreau, philkid3, Paul Wendt, Henrich and AG2004. Those from that list who haven't voted by tonight or tomorrow will probably get a PM reminder from me that the election ends Friday night.

The new candidates for 1944 are a comparatively weak crop. The only "addition" on the contributor side is Jack Norworth. He'll draw some votes, I'd guess, but I doubt he'll every seriously contend for induction.
The players who become eligible in 1944 are:

Arlett , Buzz
Bishop , Max
Combs , Earle
Crowder , Al
Fonseca , Lew
Hoyt , Waite
Root , Charlie
Whitehill , Earl

Combs and Hoyt are enshrined in Cooperstown, but are not highly regarded by our forum. Arlett's an interesting case, but a borderline HOF candidate as best I can figure. However, 1945 will have a deep crop headed by Lefty Grove, so 1944 is a year to clear out some of the backlog.

Paul Wendt

03-22-2009, 03:24 PM

(quoting myself from last night, just above)
Moments ago I added the explanatory illustrations of FSE that are quoted bold here, along with the preceding explanation of two listings for Deacon White.

When he retired in 1913 Johnny Kling ranked number nine on the list of catchers by full seasons equivalent game (career FSE). Deacon McGuire ranked #1 with a 30% margin above #4 Chief Zimmer and a 50% margin above Kling. This table gives the top ten in eleven lines with two listings for Deacon White, one counting his professional career from 1869 and one his league career from 1871.

This measure of playing time (FSE) is derived from player fielding games and team games. Playing every game in one team-season counts 1.0 fse and playing one-half of team games counts 0.5 fse regardless of the number of team games.

FSE* debut (*)full seasons equivalent games fielding catcher or catcher fielding games, only, to 1913
11.67 1884 Deacon McGuire
10.78 1873 Pop Snyder
9.72 1886 Wilbert Robinson
8.96 1884 Chief Zimmer
8.92 1869 Deacon White
That number for Deacon White is an estimate counting 1.50 seasons for 1869 and 1870. More important, White and Zimmer are/were near nine full seasons and the distribution of career playing time was already fairly thick below nine seasons. There were sixteen pitchers at seven or more seasons including the whole careers of Kling and his close contemporaries Sullivan, Dooin, and Gibson.

Later in the same article I displayed the chronological distribution of major debuts for the 70 catchers who rank above Johnny Kling by playing time today (career FSE fielding games 1871-2006). That table shows concentration of "long career" catchers in the 1920s and since the 1960s. I recognize that that leaves open a maybe interesting, maybe important related question: how much are the long careers at other fielding positions also concentrated in the same time periods? In other words, how much is the distinctive pattern in timing long catcher careers specific to catchers and how much is general? After all, one may safely presume that World War curtailed major league careers at all fielding positions --by this or any measure of playing time rather than calendar time. That alone must explain some of the trough in numbers of long careers for 1930s and 1940s debuts; comparison with other fielding positions may help show how much.

Looking backward from the "Hall of Fame generation" the trough is even deeper. Among seventy catchers who now lead Kling by full seasons fielding, only two debuted during the 1890s and 1900s, Malachi Kittridge 1890 and Red Dooin 1902. (chronologically next: Severeid and Wingo 1911)
I feel certain that the development of better protective equipment explains part of the difference between the 1890s-aughts and the 1910s-20s debuts. At the same time, a few catchers several years older than Kittridge did play much longer, led by McGuire. McGuire and Zimmer played mainly and Wilbert Robinson played entirely after the increase of league seasons to 132 or more games, and they played with protective equipment even less adequate than Dooin, Kling, and cohort suffered.

Tiboreau

03-22-2009, 09:28 PM

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Deacon White
3. Amos Rusie
4. Paul Hines
5. Dazzy Vance
6. Ross Barnes
7. Grant "Home Run" Johnson
8. George Wright
9. Elmer Flick
10. Stan Coveleski
11. Hughie Jennings
12. Frankie Frisch

J W

03-23-2009, 06:17 AM

Hey guys -- I'm beginning to notice how outstanding my vote for Frank Grant is beginning to look. What is the problem with him? Insufficient data for when he played, or what leagues he played in?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/frank_grant

Some meat on the bones for Frank Grant. Of course, we will not have the complete picture, but we can interpolate reasonably. . .

Career length: 1886-1903, 18 years, longer than any of the newly eligible players

Year by year, from the beginning:

1886 (age 18): Started with Meridien of the Eastern League. Hit .316 in 177 at bats. Jumped to Buffalo in the International League. Hit .344 in 177 at bats. The league leader (Jon Morrison) his .346. Morrison was 26, and had a short, bad major league career.

1887 (age 19): Full season with Buffalo. Hit .353 in 459 at bats, with 87 runs, 162 hits, 26 doubles, 10 triples, and 11 homers. The 11 homers led the league. The league leader (Ed Crane) hit .428, but he was 25 and had a poor major league career in the years on either side of his IL stint.

1888 (age 20): Full season with Buffalo. Hit .346 in 347 at bats. The league leader (Patsy Donovan) hit .359. Donovan, a year older than Grant, would hit .301 in his major league career and earn 200 win shares.

Note on quality of the International League: In 1890, four IL teams joined the ?majors.? Buffalo went to the Players? League and Syracuse, Toledo and Rochester went to the AA. Buffalo finished in last, bu the AA teams were competitive, finishing collectively at around .500. I think it is reasonable to consider IL play comparable to average AA level play in one of the AA?s low year. Consider that against comparable competition, newly eligible Jack Ryan was hitting .217 in 1890 against AA teams at age 21. Bid McPhee was hitting .228 against the weak AA as a 22 year old in 1882. Compare the quality of Grant?s play to any other 18-20 year old, and see if there is anything close to comparable short of Cap Anson. Hardly anyone breaks .300 before age 24, let alone age 20. The ones who do are stars.

1889 (age 21): No more black players in the IL. Grant goes to the Trenton Cuban Giants in the Middle States League. Hits .313 leading the Giants to a 55-17 record, but those 17 included some forfeits for playing with a non-regulation ball. The forfeits dropped Trenton into second place belong Harrisburg, a ?white team?.

1890 (age 22): Perhaps considering their pennant to close a call in 1889, Harrisburg signs Grant to play for their white team. He hits .333 in 439 at bats, with 99 runs, 146 hits, 29 doubles, 8 triples, and 5 homers.

1891 - 1901 (age 23-33): Unfortunately, the big gap in the historical record is right in the middle of his career, so we have to interpolate a lot. Sol White, a great early black player and manager, considered Frank Grant the best black ballplayer of his time. In 1891, Grant joined the independent NY Big Gorhams and the Cuban Giants. He went 5 for 13 in the Connecticut League before the league folded. Many black teams folded and re-formed in the mid-1890's due to general economic conditions, which were bad. General, he continued to play for the Cuban Giants in the years and parts of years that they existed until 1897, alternating between second base and shortstop. In 1898 and 1899 he switched to the Cuban X-Giants, and in 1900 and 1901 played 2B for the Genuine Cuban Giants. Each of these teams were considered to be among the top two or three black teams in the years that Grant played with them.

1902 (age 34): In 1902, Sol White (who was black) and Walter Schlichter (who was white) put together a team of the great black ballplayers of the time. Frank Grant was one of the Philadelphia Giants? first pick-ups. No individual stats are available, but the team itself went 81-43-2 in its first year. The team them challenged the AL champion Philadelphia A?s, but lost to them 8-3 and 12-9. A respectable showing against some of the best major league baseball players.

1903 (age 35): The Philadelphia Giants improve to 89-37-4. Both the Giants and X-Giants claim the pennant and a play-off is played. The X-Giants beat Grant and company 5 games to 2. Grant is a disappointing 6 for 27 (.222) in the contest and hangs up the shin guards after the series, not knowing that the next year the Giants would pick up star pitcher Rube Foster and coast to the next four (and 5 of the next six) championships.

Conclusions:

1. Regular player from ages 18 to 35, always in the highest league available for play. That?s equal to Bid McPhee, 4 years longer than Hardy Richardson, and 7 longer than Fred Dunlap.

2. Hit over .300 right out of the box consistently in a league that was better in relative terms to AAA today, at least comparable to the lower half of the AA then. This is a feat not matched by any but the best.

3. Had a reputation for his defense.

4. But what about the missing years where we have very few numbers, and only qualitative second hand sources that he was the best or among the best? To the naysayers, a challenge: Name one major league player who (1) played an important defensive position; (2) had a MLE of at least .280 each year between ages 18-20, or even ages 20 and 22 [that?s his lowest average ? 1886 composite ? discounted 15% for International League league quality]; (3) did not flame out, so was still playing in his mid-30's (say, a career of 15+ years); and (4) is not a top-tier HoM candidate.

5. Try to find a comp that fits his curve, recognizing that IL numbers are real, major league transferable numbers. The worst players who come anywhere close at all are Dick Bartell and Tony Fernandez (about 100 WARP each). The best I could find are Arky Vaughn and Frankie Frisch (about 130 WARP each). All four are HoMers in my book, and I don?t think I am required to assume ? given the extrinsic evidence ? that Grant followed the worst possible career path. Among contemporaries, Glasscock and McPhee are the only reasonable equivalents for longevity, and the numbers available offensively are better for Grant.

If anything I would certainly rank him ahead of Grant Johnson, who has garnered multiple votes. Frank Grant may have been the best middle infielder in the world that played the majority of his career in the 19th century. Or perhaps I've been duped...

jalbright

03-23-2009, 07:46 AM

JW,

I will eventually vote for both Frank Grant and Home Run Johnson, but the records difficulties for both of them make it hard for me to push them this far above the borderline category. We've got much the same makeup of voters as the BBF HOF project did, and neither of those guys got in early. I would like to think they'll get their chance, but their time doesn't seem to be now.

Brad Harris

03-23-2009, 03:55 PM

He's in my queue too (as is Johnson). With all the extrapolating and guesswork, however, I'm not confident enough to bump him up higher than he already is. No Nineteenth Century second basemen is slated to hit my top twelve in the very near future despite having at least four in my queue.

Paul Wendt

03-23-2009, 04:57 PM

... One thing I will point out is that Spalding is complicated by having at least arguably a HOF-caliber playing career. I have stated a preference to elect guys as players in this project. That could well have slowed Spalding, who isn't in the Cobb/Ruth/Wagner class of player over the course of his career, at least not in most minds. People may have waited to see if he'd gain traction after we cleared the first 25-30 candidates from the 1936 backlog to see if Spalding had much of a chance to get in as a player in the near term. As they've concluded (probably correctly) that it would be an extended wait to get him in as a player, they've gravitated toward voting him in as a contributor.
I have considered this regarding both A.G. Spalding and J.M. Ward. At our ballot box Ward is a stronger player candidate than Spalding but he isn't terribly close to election and it isn't clear that he will ever make it. In 1941 he was on my player ballot and on the verge of my contributor ballot; maybe I will add him this year.

Recall, I am not sure it is crucial that he was good for baseball or good for the major league players. When I do think that way, he deserves a vote only if it is clear that his impact was good, then I question many other Contributor candidates, including the big name not yet on my ballot, Landis.

henrich

03-23-2009, 06:42 PM

01 Lou Gehrig
02 Frankie Frisch
03 Bill Terry
04 Ross Barnes
05 George Sisler
06 Zach Wheat
07 Sherry Magee
08 Pud Galvin
09 Harry Stovey
10 Herb Pennock
11 Fred Clarke
12 Willie Keeler

Contributor's Ballot
01 Landis
02 Spalding
03 Cartwright
04 Hulbert
05 Creighton

jalbright

03-23-2009, 07:27 PM

I have considered this regarding both A.G. Spalding and J.M. Ward. At our ballot box Ward is a stronger player candidate than Spalding but he isn't terribly close to election and it isn't clear that he will ever make it.

I agree it's not clear he will ever make it, but the fact he's going he's running in seventh spot right now means he could be very close indeed. 1944, remember, has a weak class, so it's likely no one from that class will pass Ward. We'll take Gehrig, Frisch and one from the top three holdovers from the 1942 election in 1943. We'll likely get the other two top 1942 holdovers in 1944, plus one more, and Ward could contend strongly for that final spot in 1944. He might stall, too, but I doubt he'll never make it if he can make it to the top holdover spot in the 1940s. He'll have 60+ more tries to get over the top, and I'd say he'll eventually make it.

jalbright

03-25-2009, 05:44 PM

just a little over two days before the voting closes, and three folks who voted last time yet to vote.

Paul Wendt

03-26-2009, 12:17 PM

My "last place" votes for Spalding and Ward must be premature, and I don't feel committed to repeating them even once, which may be my only opportunity. On the other hand, they both seem to me overdue, overall. Maybe this will help draw them a little more attention from other voters next year.

Contributors
1. Spalding
2. Hulbert
3. Richter
4. Klem
5. Ward

Players
1. Gehrig
2. Wright
3. White
4. Clarke
5. Hines
6. Ward
7. Barnes
8. Santop
9. Johnson G
10. Frisch
11. Gore
12. Spalding

Paul Wendt

03-26-2009, 12:23 PM

I agree it's not clear [Ward] will ever make it, but the fact he's going he's running in seventh spot right now means he could be very close indeed. 1944, remember, has a weak class, so it's likely no one from that class will pass Ward.
I agree. He may rank as high as third in the backlog that carries over to next year, behind two of Wright, White, and Santop.

I tend to anticipate a lot of strong Negro Leagues candidates as well as the familiar whites from the Golden Age, but the Negro Leaguers continue to surprise me by arriving slowly. I haven't internalized the effects of their tendency to play forever, at least as part-time players and managers or coaches.

Paul Wendt

03-26-2009, 12:45 PM

Johnny Kling is our first candidate to score points who is not in the Hall of Fame or the Hall of Merit. He did garner more votes than several hofers

Rather suddenly we have numerous scoring candidates who are not in the Hall of Merit: Kling, Tinker, Evers, Chance, Duffy, Pennock, Maranville, and Traynor.

Of course we have several scoring candidates who are not in the Hall of Fame. A couple years ago we elected one, Bill Dahlen, and another may be elected this year, Deacon White. Dahlen and White finished one-two by a good margin over Paul Hines, in a Hall of Merit special election covering everyone who would be eligible for Cooperstown's "pre-1943" veterans committee ballot. Last fall those two were both on the pre-1943 ballot, where White fared well and Dahlen poorly. Most of the Hall of Merit favorites, such as Hines, did not advance that far.

AstrosFan

03-26-2009, 12:51 PM

Somewhere around the fringe
Gary Carter

Am I reading this correctly? You consider a player who had a 115 OPS+ in over 9,000 PA, caught over 2,000 games, and is one of the greatest defensive catchers in the history of baseball, a "fringe" Hall of Famer?

AG2004

03-27-2009, 09:50 PM

My ballot

PLAYERS
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Paul Hines
3. Frankie Frisch
4. Joe Start
5. Home Run Johnson
6. Hoss Radbourn
7. George Wright
8. Louis Santop
9. Fred Clarke
10. John Ward
11. Amos Rusie
12. Dickey Pearce

CONTRIBUTORS
1. Al Spalding
2. Dickey Pearce
3. Jim Creighton
4. William Hulbert
5. Al Reach

AG2004

03-27-2009, 10:50 PM

I can see the argument for Pearce as a player, and perhaps I can come around to buying it. It won't be for a long time, though, as I have issues that are laid out in my musings thread entry on him (basically, he was usually in the latter half of offensive performers on his own teams as best I can tell from the limited data available, sometimes as low as 7th).

The problem with the runs-per-out ratio is that it has a bias against leadoff hitters. Pearce was the primary leadoff hitter for the Atlantics during the late 1860s; the lineups I have for the legendary Cincinnati-Atlantics game of 1870 have George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for their respective clubs.

There are three quirks which contribute to this bias.

*First, any out on the base paths was credited to the runner who was out. Suppose we have Smith at bat and Jones at first. Smith hits the ball to the second baseman, who throws it to second to get Jones out. The out becomes part of Jones' total.

In modern baseball, this is recorded as an AB for Smith; as a result, Smith's batting average goes down. Jones' offensive statistics are not affected by getting thrown out at second. In the runs per out ratio, Smith gets off scot-free, and Jones suffers.

Why were the totals recorded that way? Baseball's early statisticians used cricket as their model, and runs and outs were the two key stats in cricket. The runner who got thrown out, even though he wasn't hitting, deserved the out. Cricketers had (and still have) the option not to run after the ball is hit. In baseball, however, when the ball is hit into the infield, the runner on first does not have the option to stay there. He has to run.

A team's leadoff hitter is less likely to benefit from this method of record-keeping than his teammates; because he hits with the bases empty more often than other players, he's going to have less instances where the ball gets thrown to second (to get the runner out) instead of first, thus increasing his outs total. Furthermore, his numbers also more likely to be harmed by this method, since he's more likely to be thrown out at second on a fielder's choice than his teammates are.

*Second, at the time, there was a rule that stated that the first hitter in an inning would be the next person in the order after the person who had the last out in the previous inning. It didn't say it was the next person in the order after the person who batted last, as it does now.

Let's go back to our previous example. Smith is batting, Jones is at first, and Brown is next in the order. There are two outs, and Smith hits the ball, which gets thrown to second. Jones is tagged for out number three.

According to our rules, Brown will be the leadoff hitter in the next inning. According to the rules of the 1860s, Smith would be the leadoff hitter in the next inning. Jones was the last person out -- they got him at second -- and Smith is the person after Jones in the batting order, so Smith leads off the next inning.

Jones' runs-per-out ratio goes down. However, Smith gets a second chance at bat. Once teams started to record hits in addition to runs and outs, the statistical record becomes more distorted. In effect, if Smith hit into a fielder's choice to end the last inning, not only did he not get the out, he got a second chance at the start of the next inning to get a hit to add to his record. If Smith failed to get a hit again, it's as if he only had one failed at-bat instead of two.

*Finally, there was no infield fly rule at the time.

Towards the end of the 1860s, some people realized that it would be a good thing if they failed to catch an infield fly with a runner on first. If they caught it, that would be just one out. If they failed to catch it, there would be the possibility of a double play.

If there were runners on first and second, a shortstop just might let the ball drop. He would then pick up the ball, tag out the runner who had to run from second to third, and then make an easy toss to second to get the double play. Since the outs became part of the baserunners' records . . . it doesn't take much imagination to see how a lead-off hitter's statistics would suffer. (The records of the Cincinnati-Atlantics game indicate that Pearce was a victim of a deliberately muffed infield fly during the tenth inning of that contest.)

If Pearce had not been a leadoff hitter, then the point Jim made in his musings thread would have been a very good one. However, Pearce was a leadoff hitter, and thus his runs-to-outs ratio, when compared to those of his teammates, would make him seem worse than he actually was.

AG2004

03-27-2009, 11:46 PM

I'm torn. At what point is this sort of thing too much? So Pearce popularized the bunt? Do we also induct the guy who popularized the hit-and-run, the double steal, the head-first slide? Cummings allegedly invented the curveball. Do we also elect the inventor of the knuckleball, the screwball, the slider, etc.? If Creighton and Pearce were the greatest players of the 1860s then let's elect them, but as players. Their contributions appear to me to be on-field developments wholly related to their play (i.e. innovations that helped their team win games when they were on-the-field.) To me, that's precisely the kind of "contribution" that adds to their case as players. Why is Ross Barnes a player candidate but Dickey Pearce is not? (And why isn't Pearce listed as an eligible contributor anyway?) Tommy McCarthy would easily fall under this same category for me. If his "contributions" were an innovation in play, then he was helping his team win when he was on the field. King Kelly, Roger Bresnahan and a host of other early stars all fall neatly into that same grouping. None of them are here as contributors. A lack of statistics or a lack of "major league" play is not a lack of evidence or a lack of a record that an individual was one of the greatest players of his era. I disagree that playing both amateur and professional ball is some kind of "accomplishment" any more than simply playing professional ball is so these guys get no credit from me on that point. It seems rather cut-and-dried that these two were the biggest stars of the pre-NAPBBP era and, therefore, belong as players. If we elect them as contributors, where do we draw the line on those kinds of accomplishments (as I mentioned above)?

Some innovations are much more important than others. Quoting John Thorn's SABR biography of Creighton,

The 1850s did produce some pitchers who tried to deceive batters with "headwork"-which meant changing arcs and speeds, and sometimes bowling wide ones until the frustrated batter lunged at a pitch. (The latter tactic produced such incredible, documented pitch totals as that in the second Atlantic-Excelsior game of 1860, when the Atlantics' Matty O'Brien threw 325 pitches in nine innings, Creighton 280 in seven.) On balance, however, the pioneer pitcher and batter were collaborators in putting the ball in play rather than the mortal adversaries they have been ever since Creighton added an illegal but imperceptible wrist snap to his swooping low release.

The impact of Creighton's wrist snap was qualitatively different than that of Cummings' curveball. The curveball gave pitchers an advantage over batters, but it didn't change the fundamental nature of the game. The wrist snap made the hitter-pitcher matchup the core of the game; fielding was no longer the most important aspect of the baseball, as it had been during the 1850s.

Yes, Pearce did invent the bunt, but that wasn't his most important contribution. The bunt gave hitters an advantage against pitchers, and it led to new offensive and defensive strategies, but the impact of bunting is dwarfed by the impact of Pearce's play at shortstop.

When Pearce began play, back before the first NA was formed, shortstop was not an important defensive position. If you had a lousy fielder, you wouldn't put him at first base or right field; you would hide him at shortstop. Pearce came up with new ways for the shortstop to get involved in a team's defense. Shortstop is now the most important position on the defensive spectrum, and Dickey Pearce is the main reason for that.

Moving a position from one end of the defensive spectrum to the other is a gigantic change in the nature of baseball.

One could ask the question, "How much did a player's innovations change the game of baseball itself?" From this viewpoint, the three biggest innovations would be Creighton's wrist snap, Pearce's defensive play (and positioning) at shortstop, and Ruth's home-run swing; I can't think of anything else that comes close to their impact.

Creighton, who died young, didn't have the career needed for induction as a player, but he had a major impact on the game anyway, and thus merits induction as a contributor. One may have questions about Pearce's merits as a player, but he did change the defensive spectrum. If making defense at shortstop an important part of the game isn't worthy of honor, what contribution is worthy?