BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1950

[Ace Venom]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

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

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

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

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to appear on the next ballot.

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 Major League seasons . If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 PAs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.
- Death Exception: For players who meet the criteria for consideration, but die before their first year of eligibility can have the five year waiting period waived and placed on the ballot the year of death.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

1950 Guide
There are 49 candidates on the 1950 ballot - 18 holdovers and 31 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1945 (unless qualifying under the age or death rule) or were omitted on the ballot in previous years.

Newly Eligible (31)
Frenchy Bordagaray
Max Butcher
Dolph Camilli
Harlond Clift
Doc Cramer
Joe Cronin
Tony Cuccinello
Paul Derringer
Leo Durocher
Pete Fox
Jimmie Foxx
Debs Garms
Joe Heving
Myril Hoag
Bob Johnson
Vern Kennedy
Mike Kreevich
Gus Mancuso
Gene Moore
Johnny Moore
Van Mungo
Jake Powell
Red Ruffing
Dick Siebert
Al Smith
Lloyd Waner
Paul Waner
Lon Warneke
Whit Wyatt
Pep Young

Holdovers (18)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support
Wally Berger 6th 48.00% 53.85% (1947) 46.43% (1947)
Jim Bottomley 9th 28.00% 28.00% (1949) 22.22% (1946)
Earle Combs 11th 20.00% 24.14% (1945) 11.76% (1940)
Kiki Cuyler 8th 48.00% 55.17% (1945) 33.33% (1946)
Wes Ferrell 5th 64.00% 64.00% (1949) 51.85% (1946)
Lefty Gomez 3rd 40.00% 40.00% (1949) 38.46 (1948)
Burleigh Grimes 12th 52.00% 60.71% (1947) 48.15% (1946)
Babe Herman 9th 12.00% 20.00% (1943) 11.11% (1943)
Chuck Klein 2nd 44.00% 44.00% (1949) 44.00% (1949)
Tony Lazzeri 6th 28.00% 37.93% (1945) 25.00% (1947)
Heinie Manush 6th 28.00% 34.48% (1945) 25.00% (1947)
Rabbit Maranville 13th 60.00% 68.97% (1945) 56.76% (1942)
Pepper Martin 2nd 12.00% 12.00% (1949) 12.00% (1949)
Buddy Myer 5th 16.00% 16.00% (1949) 11.11% (1946)
Sam Rice 12th 68.00% 71.43% (1941) 52.26% (1946)
Eppa Rixey 13th 52.00% 60.00% (1938) 37.04% (1946)
Wally Schang 15th 32.00% 42.86% (1941) 32.35% (1937)
Hack Wilson 12th 56.00% 57.69% (1948) 40.74% (1944)

Holdovers Dropped From Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support
Dave Bancroft End of Eligibility 15 28.13% (1936)

Last Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Wally Schang 42.86% (1941)


Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in Previous Election (6)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Wes Ferrell 64.00% 4
Burleigh Grimes 52.00% 8
Rabbit Maranville 60.00% 12
Sam Rice 68.00% 11
Eppa Rixey 52.00% 8
Hack Wilson 56.00% 7

Hall of Famers
Players Elected - 122
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased Age at Election
Pete Alexander 1935 93.94% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1911-1930 20 Deceased (1887-1950) 48
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1871-1897 27 Deceased (1852-1922) 50
Earl Averill 1947 82.14% 2 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1929-1941 13 Living - Age 48 45
Frank Baker 1927 96.43% 1 Third Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1908-1914, 1916-1919, 1921-1922 13 Living - Age 62 41
Ross Barnes^ 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9 Deceased (1850-1915) 61
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20 Deceased (1867-1918) 50
John Beckwith*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Third Base Chicago Giants (NNL) 1916-1938 19 Living - Age 48 45
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15 Deceased (1854-1927) 53
Roger Bresnahan 1925 79.17% 6 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1897, 1900-1915 17 Deceased (1879-1944) 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Deceased (1858-1932) 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Deceased (1876-1948) 45
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Left Field/Center Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905) Deceased
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left Field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1895 16 Living - Age 82 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 60 44
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911) 45
Frank Chance 1932 83.33% 14 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1898-1914 17 Deceased (1876-1924) Deceased
Oscar Charleston*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Center Field Indianapolis ABCs (I/NNL) 1915-1941 27 Living - Age 54 51
Cupid Childs 1920 76.92% 15 Second Base Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1888, 1890-1901 13 Deceased (1867-1912) Deceased
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21 Living - Age 80 45
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909) 40
Ty Cobb 1933 96.55% 1 Center Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1905-1928 24 Living - Age 64 47
Mickey Cochrane 1942 89.19% 1 Catcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1937 13 Living - Age 46 38
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Living - Age 62 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Deceased (1870-1943) 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1857-1931) 45
Andy Cooper*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL/NAL) 1920-1941 22 Deceased (1898-1941) Deceased
Stan Coveleski 1934 89.29% 2 Pitcher Cleveland Indians (AL) 1912, 1916-1928 14 Living - Age 61 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living - Age 70 41
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Deceased (1870-1950) 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Deceased (1870-1940) 44
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903) Deceased
Dizzy Dean 1948 80.77% 3 Pitcher St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 1930, 1932-1941, 1947 12 Living - Age 41 38
Larry Doyle 1926 76.00% 2 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1907-1920 14 Living - Age 64 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1891, 1904-1906 17 Living - Age 84 52
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906) 43
Red Faber 1940 76.46% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1914-1933 20 Living - Age 62 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living - Age 74 40
Willie Foster*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher Chicago American Giants (ANL/NNL) 1923-1938 16 Living - Age 46 43
Frankie Frisch 1942 91.89% 1 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1919-1937 19 Living - Age 51 43
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902) Deceased
Lou Gehrig 1944 100% 1 First Base New York Yankees (AL) 1923-1939 17 Deceased (1903-1941) Deceased
Charlie Gehringer 1947 100% 1 Second Base Detroit Tigers (AL) 1924-1942 19 Living - Age 47 44
Josh Gibson*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Catcher Homestead Grays (ANL/NNL) 1929-1946 18 Deceased (1911-1947) Deceased
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Deceased (1857-1947) 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1867-1933) 52
Goose Goslin 1943 93.33% 1 Left Field Washington Senators (NL) 1921-1938 18 Living - Age 49 42
Frank Grant*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Second Base Cuban Giants (I/MSL) 1886-1905 20 Deceased (1865-1937) Deceased
Clark Griffith* 1940 (VC) 78.57% VC Pitcher Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891, 1893-1909, 1912-1914 20 Living - Age 80 70
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 61 47
Lefty Grove 1946 100% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1941 17 Living - Age 50 46
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Deceased (1866-1940) 40
Gabby Hartnett 1946 96.30% 1 Catcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1922-1941 20 Living - Age 50 46
Harry Heilmann 1937 96.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Living - Age 55 43
Pete Hill*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Center Field Chicago American Giants (I) 1899-1925 27 Living - Age 70 67
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Deceased (1855-1935) 49
Rogers Hornsby 1942 97.30% 1 Second Base St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 1915-1937 23 Living - Age 53 45
Carl Hubbell 1948 96.15% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1928-1943 16 Living - Age 48 45
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Grant Johnson*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Royal Giants (I) 1895-1916 22 Living - Age 76 73
Walter Johnson 1932 100% 1 Pitcher Washington Senators (AL) 1907-1927 21 Deceased (1887-1946) 45
Addie Joss 1926 76.00% 15 Pitcher Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1902-1910 9 Deceased (1880-1911) Deceased
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 44
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19 Deceased (1872-1923) 44
Joe Kelley 1920 84.62% 8 Left Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1906, 1908 17 Deceased (1871-1943) 49
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16 Deceased (1857-1894) Deceased
Napoleon Lajoie 1921 96.77% 1 Second Base Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1896-1916 21 Living - Age 76 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 73 63
John Henry Lloyd*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Lincoln Giants (I/ECL) 1906-1932 27 Living - Age 66 63
Herman Long* 1925 (VC) 75.00% VC Shortstop Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1889-1904 16 Deceased (1866-1909) Deceased
Ted Lyons 1949 80.00% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1928-1942, 1946 16 Living - Age 50 49
Sherry Magee 1924 86.21% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1904-1919 16 Deceased (1884-1929) 40
Christy Mathewson 1922 93.55% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1900-1916 17 Deceased (1880-1925) 41
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10 Deceased (1871-1929) 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Deceased (1859-1943) 42
Cal McVey*^ 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Catcher/First Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879 9 Deceased (1849-1926) 71
Jose Mendez*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL) 1908-1926 19 Deceased (1887-1928) Deceased
Bill Monroe*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Second Base Brooklyn Royal Giants (I) 1896-1914 19 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Deceased (1859-1944) 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living - Age 81 42
Jim O'Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23 Deceased (1850-1919) 51
Alejandro Oms*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Cuban Stars (East) (ECL/ANL) 1917-1935 19 Deceased (1895-1946) Deceased
Dickey Pearce*^ 1920 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) 1871-1877 6 Deceased (1836-1908) Deceased
Lip Pike*^ 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Baltimore Canaries (NA) 1871-1878, 1881, 1887 10 Deceased (1845-1926) Deceased
Eddie Plank 1922 92.86% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1901-1917 17 Deceased (1875-1926) 47
Spotswood Poles*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Center Field Lincoln Stars (I) 1909-1923 15 Living - Age 63 60
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11 Deceased (1854-1897) Deceased
Dick Redding*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Pitcher Brooklyn Royal Giants (I/ECL) 1911-1938 18 Deceased (1891-1948) 56
Hardy Richardson* 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC Second Base/Left Field Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1855-1931) 65
Bullet Rogan*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL/NAL) 1917-1938 22 Living - Age 57 54
Edd Roush 1943 76.67% 1 Center Field Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1913-1929, 1931 18 Living - Age 57 49
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Deceased (1871-1942) 35
Babe Ruth 1940 97.06% 1 Right Field/Left Field New York Yankees (AL) 1914-1935 22 Deceased (1895-1948) 45
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902, 1903 18 Deceased (1863-1923) Deceased
Louis Santop*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Catcher Hilldale Daises (I) 1909-1926 18 Deceased (1890-1942) Deceased
Joe Sewell 1942 75.68% 5 Shortstop/Third Base Cleveland Indians (AL) 1920-1933 14 Living - Age 51 43
Jimmy Sheckard* 1945 (VC) 83.33% VC Left Field Chicago Cubs (NL) 1897-1913 17 Deceased (1878-1947) 67
Al Simmons 1949 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1924-1944 21 Living - Age 48 47
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 56 42
Al Spalding^ 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8 Deceased (1850-1915) Deceased
Tris Speaker 1933 100% 1 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1907-1928 22 Living - Age 62 45
Joe Start*^ 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC First Base Providence Grays (NL) 1871-1886 16 Deceased (1842-1927) 78
Turkey Stearnes*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Center Field Detroit Stars (NNL/NAL) 1923-1942 20 Living - Age 49 46
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1856-1931) 51
Ezra Sutton* 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Third Base Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1871-1888 18 Deceased (1850-1907) Deceased
Bill Terry 1941 80.00% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1923-1936 14 Living - Age 51 43
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 14 Deceased (1860-1922) 47
Cristobal Torriente*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Center Field Chicago American Giants (NNL) 1913-1928 16 Deceased (1893-1938) Deceased
Pie Traynor 1942 83.78% 1 Third Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1920-1937 18 Living - Age 51 42
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 59 48
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Deceased (1866-1945) 52
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Honus Wagner 1922 92.86% 1 Shortstop Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1897-1917 21 Living - Age 76 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 77 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living - Age 69 41
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Deceased (1860-1925) 47
Mickey Welch* 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1892 13 Deceased (1859-1941) 61
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 10 Living - Age 62 44
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Deceased (1847-1939) 57
Smokey Joe Williams*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Pitcher Homestead Grays (I/ANL) 1905-1932 28 Deceased (1895-1946) Deceased
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1947) 43
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Deceased (1847-1937) 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living - Age 83 49

* = Elected by Veterans Committee
^ = Played Significantly Prior to 1871
` = Played in the Negro Leagues

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (9): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Mickey Cochrane, Buck Ewing, Josh Gibson, Gabby Hartnett, Cal McVey, Louis Santop, Deacon White
First Base (8): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, Lou Gehrig, George Sisler, Joe Start, Bill Terry
Second Base (12): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Frank Grant, Rogers Hornsby, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Bill Monroe, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (7): Frank Baker, John Beckwith, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, Tommy Leach, Ezra Sutton, Pie Traynor
Shortstop (13): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie
Jennings, Grant Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Joe Sewell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (11): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Jimmy Sheckard, Al Simmons, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat
Center Field (19): Earl Averill, Pete Browning, Max Carey, Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Pete Hill, Paul Hines, Alejandro Oms, Lip Pike, Spotswood Poles, Edd Roush, Jimmy Ryan, Tris Speaker, Turkey Stearnes, Cristobal Torriente, George Van Haltren
Right Field (7): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (35): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Andy Cooper, Stan Coveleski, Dizzy Dean, Red Faber, Willie Foster, Pud Galvin, Clark Griffith, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Walter Johnson, Addie Joss, Tim Keefe, Ted Lyons, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jose Mendez, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Mickey Welch, Smokey Joe Williams, Vic Willis, Cy Young

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Connor, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White
1905 (1): Bid McPhee
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols
1912 (0):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity
1914 (1): George Davis
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell
1916 (4): Bill Dahlen, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Cy Young
1917 (2): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke
1918 (2): Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren
1919 (1): Vic Willis
1920 (2): Cupid Childs, Joe Kelley
- 1920 VC (7): Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Mickey Welch
1921 (3): Mordecai Brown, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1922 (4): Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, Ed Walsh
1923 (0):
1924 (1): Sherry Magee
1925 (2): Roger Bresnahan, Bobby Wallace
- 1925 VC (1): Herman Long
1926 (1): Larry Doyle
1927 (2): Frank Baker, Hughie Jennings
1928 (0):
1929 (1): Addie Joss
1930 (0):
- 1930 VC (1): Jimmy Ryan
1931 (0):
1932 (3): Frank Chance, Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat
1933 (2): Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
1934 (2): Max Carey, Stan Coveleski
1935 (3): Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, George Sisler
- 1935 VC (0):
1936 (1): Heinie Groh
1937 (1): Harry Heilmann
1938 (0):
1939 (0):
1940 (3): Red Faber, Babe Ruth, Dazzy Vance
- 1940 VC (2): Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach
1941 (1): Bill Terry
1942 (5): Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Sewell, Pie Traynor
1943 (2): Goose Goslin, Edd Roush
1944 (1): Lou Gehrig
1945 (0):
- 1945 VC (1): Jimmy Sheckard
1946 (2): Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett
1947 (2): Earl Averill, Charlie Gehringer
- 1947 Negro League Players VC (19): John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, Willie Foster, Josh Gibson, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Jose Mendez, Bill Monroe, Alejandro Oms, Spotswood Poles, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Louis Santop, Turkey Stearnes, Cristobal Torriente, Smokey Joe Williams
1948 (2): Dizzy Dean, Carl Hubbell
1949 (2): Ted Lyons, Al Simmons

Players Elected by Primary Decade
1870s (9): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright
1880s (21): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Tony Mullane, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward, Mickey Welch
1890s (19): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Frank Grant, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (24): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson, Addie Joss, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Tommy Leach, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Bill Monroe, Eddie Plank, Jimmy Sheckard, Rube Waddell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (16): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Sherry Magee, Jose Mendez, Spotswood Poles, Louis Santop, Tris Speaker, Zack Wheat, Smokey Joe Williams
1920s (19): John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Frankie Frisch, Goose Goslin, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Alejandro Oms, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Edd Roush, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Joe Sewell, Cristobal Torriente, Pie Traynor, Dazzy Vance
1930s (12): Earl Averill, Mickey Cochrane, Dizzy Dean, Willie Foster, Charlie Gehringer, Lou Gehrig, Josh Gibson, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Al Simmons, Turkey Stearnes, Bill Terry

Players Elected by Primary Organization
Baltimore Canaries (NA) (1): Lip Pike
Baltimore Orioles (NL) (3): Hughie Jennings, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley
Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters) (NL) (6): John Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Herman Long, Kid Nichols, Ezra Sutton, Vic Willis
Boston Red Sox (fka Americans) (AL) (2): Jimmy Collins, Cy Young
Boston Red Stockings (NA) (4): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright
Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) (1): Dickey Pearce
Brooklyn Dodgers (fka Robins) (2): Dazzy Vance, Zack Wheat
Brooklyn Royal Giants (I/ECL/NNL) (3): Grant Johnson, Bill Monroe, Dick Redding
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago American Giants (I/NNL/NSL/NAL) (3): Willie Foster, Pete Hill, Cristobal Torriente
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (10): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Bill Dahlen, Clark Griffith, George Gore, Gabby Hartnett, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan, Jimmy Sheckard
Chicago Giants (NNL) (1): John Beckwith
Chicago White Sox (AL) (4): Eddie Collins, Red Faber, Ted Lyons, Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (4): Heinie Groh, Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane, Edd Roush
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (7): Earl Averill, Stan Coveleski, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Joe Sewell, Tris Speaker
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Cuban Giants (I/MSL) (1): Frank Grant
Cuban Stars (East) (ECL/ANL) (1): Alejandro Oms
Detroit Stars (I/NNL/NAL) (1): Turkey Stearnes
Detroit Tigers (AL) (4): Ty Cobb, Sam Crawford, Charlie Gehringer, Harry Heilmann
Detroit Wolverines (NL) (1): Charlie Bennett
Hilldale Daises (fka Darby Daises) (I/ECL/ANL/EWL) (1): Louis Santop
Homestead Grays (I/ANL/NNL) (2): Josh Gibson, Smokey Joe Williams
Indianapolis ABCs (I/NNL/NSL/NAL) (1): Oscar Charleston
Kansas City Monarchs (I/NNL/NAL) (3): Willie Foster, Jose Mendez, Bullet Rogan
Lincoln Giants (I/ECL/ANL) (1): John Henry Lloyd
Lincoln Stars (I) (1): Spotswood Poles
Louisville Colonels (NL, AA) (1): Pete Browning
New York Giants (NL) (15): Roger Bresnahan, Roger Connor, George Davis, Larry Doyle, Buck Ewing, Frankie Frisch, Carl Hubbell, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jim O’Rourke, Amos Rusie, George Van Haltren, John Ward, Mickey Welch
New York Yankees (AL) (2): Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth
Philadelphia Athletics (AA) (1): Harry Stovey
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (6): Frank Baker, Mickey Cochrane, Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Al Simmons, Rube Waddell
Philadelphia Phillies (NL) (5): Pete Alexander, Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Sherry Magee, Sam Thompson
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) (6): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Tommy Leach, Pie Traynor, Honus Wagner
Providence Grays (NL) (3): Paul Hines, Charley Radbourn, Joe Start
St. Louis Browns (AL) (2): George Sisler, Bobby Wallace
St. Louis Cardinals (fka Browns) (NL, AA) (3): Bob Caruthers, Dizzy Dean, Rogers Hornsby
Washington Senators (AL) (2): Goose Goslin, Walter Johnson

Hall of Fame Contributors Wing
Contributors Elected - 20
Contributor Year Elected
Doc Adams (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=639&pid=16943) 1925
Ed Barrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Barrow) 1941
Alex Cartwright (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbaseball.htm) 1925
Henry Chadwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Chadwick_(writer)) 1925
Charlie Comiskey (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/blacksox/comiskeybio.html)1925
Jim Creighton (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&bid=770&pid=0) 1925
Rube Foster (http://www.nlbpa.com/foster__andrew_-_rube.html) 1930
Miller Huggins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Huggins) 1941
William Hulbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hulbert) 1925
Ned Hanlon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Hanlon_(baseball)) 1936
Ban Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Johnson) 1936
Bill Klem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Klem) 1941
Connie Mack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Mack_(baseball)) 1930
John McGraw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McGraw_(baseball)) 1936
Al Reach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Reach) 1946
Francis Richter (http://www.uga.edu/juro/2003/shaw.htm) 1941
Branch Rickey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Rickey) 1946
Frank Selee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Selee) 1936
AG Spalding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Spalding) 1930
Harry Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Wright) 1925

Contributors Elected by Year
1925: Doc Adams, Alex Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, Harry Wright, William Hulbert, Charlie Comiskey, Jim Creighton
1930: Rube Foster, Connie Mack, AG Spalding
1936: Ned Hanlon, Ban Johnson, John McGraw, Frank Selee
1941: Miller Huggins, Bill Klem, Francis Richter, Ed Barrow
1946: Al Reach, Branch Rickey

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 53
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 8
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 35
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 31
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 74.07% - Earl Averill (1946)
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907, 1942)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1938, 1939, 1945)
- Most Veterans Committee Electees in One Year: 19 (1947)
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 49 Players (1950)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 37 (1942)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 15
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 10
- Electee with Longest Post-1871 Career: Smokey Joe Williams - 28
- Electee with Shortest Post-1871 Career: Dickey Pearce – 8 Seasons
- Members Elected as Both Players and Contributors: Al Spalding
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 25
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 54
- Number of Deceased Hall of Famers: 68
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Hugh Duffy - 84
- Deceased in Past Year: Pete Alexander, Bill Dahlen

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25
1916: 25
1917: 25
1918: 24
1919: 27
1920: 26
1921: 31
1922: 28
1923: 25
1924: 29
1925: 24
1926: 25
1927: 28
1928: 27
1929: 25
1930: 25
1931: 32
1932: 24
1933: 29
1934: 28
1935: 33
1936: 32
1937: 34
1938: 30
1939: 32
1940: 34
1941: 35
1942: 37
1943: 30
1944: 27
1945: 29
1946: 27
1947: 28
1948: 26
1949: 25

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=84636), 1925 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83852)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)
1928 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85029)
1929 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85206)
1930 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85358), 1930 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=85439), 1930 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84578)
1931 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85681)
1932 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85850)
1933 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86054)
1934 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86291)
1935 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86514), 1935 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=86576)
1936 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86747), 1936 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85051)
1937 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87002)
1938 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87241)
1939 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87501)
1940 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87800), 1940 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=87854)
1941 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88041), 1941 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87881)
1942 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88297)
1943 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89063)
1944 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89394)
1945 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89744), 1945 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89707)
1946 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89923), 1946 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89916)
1947 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90195), 1947 Negro League Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90109)
1948 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90391)
1949 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90572)

[Ace Venom]

Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Joe Cronin
Kiki Cuyler
Jimmie Foxx
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing
Paul Waner
Lon Warneke
Hack Wilson

[PVNICK]

Clift
Cronin
Wes Ferrell
Foxx
Maranville
Myer
Schang
Paul Waner

I was going to vote for Derringer and Warnecke but not Ruffing, whose W-L is more aproduct of the team as he seems to be at about the level of whatever team he is with. However Ruffing has more IP Derringer @ the same ERA+ so Derringer is off the list and Waernecke despite a 119 ERA+ vs 109 for those two just had too short a run with 2700 IP. Camilli also had only ten full years and really didn't rise quite high enough or long enough to make the grade for me. Clift I gave a vote but I think it may be some subliminal Bill James "brainwashing" effect.

[SavoyBG]

Berger
Cronin
W. Ferrell
Foxx
Gomez
Maranville
Ruffing
P. Waner
Warneke

[Cowtipper]

Berger
Bottomley
Cronin
Cuyler
W. Ferrell
Foxx
Grimes
Klein
Lazzeri
Manush
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
P. Waner
Wilson

I bumped Earle Combs off my ballot to make room for Waner.

Guys I plan on voting for once room opens up:

Earle Combs
Bob Johnson
Paul Derringer
Red Ruffing
Lon Warneke
Lefty Gomez

[jalbright]

Cronin
Ferrell
Foxx
Grimes
Maranville
S. Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
P. Waner
H. Wilson

[Jsquared83]

Cronin
Cuyler
Foxx
Gomez
Grimes
Manush
Maranville
Rice
Ruffing
Paul Waner

[Cowtipper]

I'd just like to point out that in a poll I did for Bob Johnson, 25% of the voters said he should be in the Hall of Fame, and 30% said maybe (which means a potential of up to 55% of the voters might vote for him to the Hall). And yet he has only a little more than 7% of the votes so far. This is interesting.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69657&highlight=johnson

[Ace Venom]

This is also one of the largest ballots we've had with three no brainers.

[SavoyBG]

I'd like to know why Jaxxr and Vtbub did not vote for Paul Waner.

[dgarza]

Jim Bottomley
Joe Cronin
Kiki Cuyler
Jimmie Foxx
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Babe Herman
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing
Paul Waner
Hack Wilson

1. Jimmie Foxx
2. Paul Waner
3. Chuck Klein
4. Joe Cronin
5. Hack Wilson
6. Lefty Gomez
7. Bob Johnson
8. Heinie Manush
9. Red Ruffing
10. Kiki Cuyler
11. Sam Rice
12. Jim Bottomley
13. Burleigh Grimes
14. Tony Lazzeri
15. Babe Herman

[Ace Venom]

Some minor errors to clear up from my poll. Paul Waner's final year was 1945 and Sam West is a second year candidate.

[bambambaseball]

The only good players for next year are Bill Dickey, Hal Trosky and Pinky Higgins. We might as well close this year down, put Bill Dickey in autimatecly then go to 1952.

[Ace Venom]

No. I'm never skipping years. I'm not automatically putting anyone in. You forget that Greenberg and Ott are sure things for 1952. Should I just skip to 1953? I shouldn't. Those who deserve a fair shot get a fair shot. That's how it works.

[vtbub]

I'd like to know why Jaxxr and Vtbub did not vote for Paul Waner.

Oversight on my part.

[Domenic]

5. Hack Wilson
15. Babe Herman

How can you vote for both Wilson and Herman, but not Berger? I believe I've posted something very similar in response to your voting in the last several elections (and you've never responded), but I will continue to do so, as I believe that Berger is getting the shaft in favor of equal or lesser players.

Wilson and Herman both have slightly better offensive resumes than Berger - but I stress the word slightly.

By OPS+:
Wilson - 144
Herman - 140
Berger - 137

By EQA:
Wilson - .308
Herman - .307
Berger - .308

By RCAA:
Wilson - 367
Herman - 391
Berger - 362

Herman separates himself a bit from the pack in RCAA, but not significantly so. In factoring in defense, it is Berger that separates himself from the pack.

By WS Grade:
Wilson - C (CF)
Herman - D (RF)
Berger - A- (CF)

And when we look at each player under a totality of the circumstances, Berger separates himself from the pack once more.

By WARP3:
Wilson - 42.8
Herman - 43.8
Berger - 51.8

[jalbright]

The only good players for next year are Bill Dickey, Hal Trosky and Pinky Higgins. We might as well close this year down, put Bill Dickey in autimatecly then go to 1952.

It is reasonable to think the results will be as you predict, but if it's one thing I've learned in a lifetime of dealing with people is that at least every once in a while they will do something to surprise you. Maybe we'll get a flood of poorly informed or Yankee hater votes that frustrate Dickey. Maybe somebody currently at 58+% will find the votes to get over the 75% barrier (Ferrell, Ruffing?). Probably the single most likely scenario is the one you suggest, but I'll bet there's at least a 25-30% chance that there will be something different than that single outcome. Kind of like why they play the games on the field rather than on paper.

[SABR Matt]

How can you vote for both Wilson and Herman, but not Berger? I believe I've posted something very similar in response to your voting in the last several elections (and you've never responded), but I will continue to do so, as I believe that Berger is getting the shaft in favor of equal or lesser players.

Wilson and Herman both have slightly better offensive resumes than Berger - but I stress the word slightly.

By OPS+:
Wilson - 144
Herman - 140
Berger - 137

By EQA:
Wilson - .308
Herman - .307
Berger - .308

By RCAA:
Wilson - 367
Herman - 391
Berger - 362

Herman separates himself a bit from the pack in RCAA, but not significantly so. In factoring in defense, it is Berger that separates himself from the pack.

By WS Grade:
Wilson - C (CF)
Herman - D (RF)
Berger - A- (CF)

And when we look at each player under a totality of the circumstances, Berger separates himself from the pack once more.

By WARP3:
Wilson - 42.8
Herman - 43.8
Berger - 51.8

To add PCA to this discussion...HOF Marker values by player:

Wally Berger: 127.1 MP (100.5 Off/26.6 Def)
Babe Herman: 123.9 MP (118.6 Off/5.3 Def)
Hack Wilson: 123.3 MP (113.9 Off/9.4 Def)

Herman and Wilson were both HORRID fielders...Berger was quite solid (PCA-BA of .273 for his career in CF).

That is ROUTINELY overlooked by folks when they make their rankings after you get past the top 10 or 15 players at any given position...people get lazy and just start looking at OPS+...you're going to look silly when you start doing that.

Nice catch Domenic.

[AstrosFan]

To add PCA to this discussion...HOF Marker values by player:

Wally Berger: 127.1 MP (100.5 Off/26.6 Def)
Babe Herman: 123.9 MP (118.6 Off/5.3 Def)
Hack Wilson: 123.3 MP (113.9 Off/9.4 Def)

Herman and Wilson were both HORRID fielders...Berger was quite solid (PCA-BA of .273 for his career in CF).

That is ROUTINELY overlooked by folks when they make their rankings after you get past the top 10 or 15 players at any given position...people get lazy and just start looking at OPS+...you're going to look silly when you start doing that.

Nice catch Domenic.

What are your thoughts on Berger's HOF credentials, Matt? I'm right with you on the OPS+ thing, and have mentioned it a number of times. Same with him being better than Wilson and Herman, the former whom I believe is a Hall mistake, and the latter I do not support. But even with him ahead of those guys, I've never quite been able to convince myself he belongs in the Hall.

[SABR Matt]

Oh none of those three belong anywhere near the HOF...exciting peaks, but they just didn't last long enough to matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the HOF.

To give you a general idea...the HOF margin seems to be around the 150 marker point score for post positions (140 at short and third base, 170 at first base and the corner outfield positions)

[mwiggins]

Oh none of those three belong anywhere near the HOF...exciting peaks, but they just didn't last long enough to matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the HOF.

To give you a general idea...the HOF margin seems to be around the 150 marker point score for post positions (140 at short and third base, 170 at first base and the corner outfield positions)

How do you think Berger compares with some of the CF's we've already elected? Guys like Averill, Van Haltren, Roush, Duffy, and Carey.

[SABR Matt]

Max Carey: 270.7 Marker Points (139.6 Off/131.1 Def)
Hugh Duffy: 205.2 MP (152.2 / 53.0)
Edd Roush: 169.9 MP (136.0 / 33.9)
George Val Haltren: 166.9 MP (145.7 / 21.2)
Earl Averill: 150.6 MP (124.1 / 24.5)

Looking back now that history is done, Only the first two are HOFers for me...if you stopped play in 1950, though, there's a good chance all five of those guys deserved to be enshrined...it has gotten progressively easier to have a long career these days even though the leagues have gotten tougher (better medicine, better training, better player development, more money) so the very best players tend to stay productive longer and get called up earlier.

[AstrosFan]

Max Carey: 270.7 Marker Points (139.6 Off/131.1 Def)
Hugh Duffy: 205.2 MP (152.2 / 53.0)
Edd Roush: 169.9 MP (136.0 / 33.9)
George Val Haltren: 166.9 MP (145.7 / 21.2)
Earl Averill: 150.6 MP (124.1 / 24.5)

Looking back now that history is done, Only the first two are HOFers for me...if you stopped play in 1950, though, there's a good chance all five of those guys deserved to be enshrined...it has gotten progressively easier to have a long career these days even though the leagues have gotten tougher (better medicine, better training, better player development, more money) so the very best players tend to stay productive longer and get called up earlier.

Wow. Knew you had Carey high ... long career and astounding defense goes a long way, but I wasn't expecting Duffy to score that well. I know he was an excellent fielder and hit well, but it still took me by surprise.

[AstrosFan]

Cronin
Foxx
W. Ferrell
Grimes
Rixey
Waner

Also Ruffing, missed him on the ballot.

[SABR Matt]

Wow. Knew you had Carey high ... long career and astounding defense goes a long way, but I wasn't expecting Duffy to score that well. I know he was an excellent fielder and hit well, but it still took me by surprise.

The funny part is..it took ME by surprise too...I was not expecting to see Duffy in my top 20 let alone two slots below Ken Griffey Jr....he was a good solid fielder and a huge on base machine for his time. That seems to have gone a long way.

[Ace Venom]

I don't know why I've listed Buddy Myer as a third baseman all this time. This was another error I didn't bother to correct. His correct position is second base.

[RyanExpress30]

1 Foxx
2 Johnson
3 Paul Waner
4 Bottomley
5 Cuyler
6 Cronin
7 Manush
8 Berger
9 Lazzeri
10 Wilson
11 Herman
12 Klein
13 Combs
14 Ruffing

[bambambaseball]

I don't know why I've listed Buddy Myer as a third baseman all this time. This was another error I didn't bother to correct. His correct position is second base.

No one else noticed so dont feel bad. Youre doing a good job running the project!:thumbsup:

[Freakshow]

Lyons and Simmons were elected. Bancroft expired. They were replaced by newbies Cronin, Foxx, Johnson, Ruffing and Waner.

Berger
Cronin
Cuyler
Ferrell W
Foxx
Grimes
Johnson B
Lazzeri
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
Schang
Waner P
Wilson

[jjpm74]

I'm a little surprised to see Red Ruffing struggle here. Ruffing pitched 22 seasons, completely missed 1943 and 1944 to war service, but still ended up with 273 wins, and a career 109 ERA+ which is very good for a pitcher who played as long as Ruffing. His OPS+ of 81 is also very good and makes him valuable offensively. He also was a 6 time All Star and his 257 gray ink is 19th all-time.

[JDD]

Anyone not voting for Harlond Clift needs to look up his record and perhaps reconsider.


Jim Bottomley, 1B (1922-1937) - 9th Year
Harlond Clift, 3B (1934-1945) - 1st Year
Earle Combs, CF (1924-1935) - 11th Year
Joe Cronin, SS (1926-1945) - 1st Year
Jimmie Foxx, 1B (1925-1942, 1944-1945) - 1st Year
Lefty Gomez, SP (1930-1943) - 3rd Year
Burleigh Grimes, SP (1916-1934) - 12th Year
Babe Herman, RF (1926-1937, 1945) - 9th Year
Bob Johnson, LF (1933-1945) - 1st Year
Chuck Klein, RF (1928-1944) - 2nd Year
Tony Lazzeri, 2B (1926-1939) - 6th Year
Pepper Martin, CF/RF (1928, 1930-1940, 1944) - 2nd Year
Red Ruffing, SP (1924-1942, 1945-1947) - 1st Year
Paul Waner, RF (1926-1944) - 1st Year
Hack Wilson, CF (1923-1934) - 12th Year


I THINK those are the 15 I chose.

[Domenic]

Babe Herman, RF (1926-1937, 1945) - 9th Year
Hack Wilson, CF (1923-1934) - 12th Year


I THINK those are the 15 I chose.

I think you should look back at my post and SABR Matt's posts. Wally Berger is a better candidate than either Herman or Wilson (and it really isn't terribly close). To be fair, though, I'm not sure that any belong in the HoF.

[STLCards2]

Cronin
Foxx
Rixey
Ruffing
Ferrell
P.Waner

Could be swayed into selecting Grimes or B.Johnson. Still looking into just how good defensively Maranville is.

[Ace Venom]

Could be swayed into selecting Grimes or B.Johnson. Still looking into just how good defensively Maranville is.

RF/G is one metric that's favorable for Maranville. I dropped him from my ballot, but I'll pick him up again. Grimes looks great when you examine his Black Ink and Gray Ink scores despite the 107 ERA+. That put him from my no list to a borderline candidate that I kept supporting. I will pick up Bob Johnson on the next ballot. He has a career 138 OPS+ and I think there was a thread on him a while back.

[SABR Matt]

Every time someone uses range factor or any derivative thereof and pretends they have any reliability for judging defense, an angel gets its wings clipped and is run over by a car.

[Ace Venom]

Every time someone uses range factor or any derivative thereof and pretends they have any reliability for judging defense, an angel gets its wings clipped and is run over by a car.

That's uncalled for and adds nothing to the discussion. If you have something to add to the discussion, then do it. If you have your own metrics you like to use, post the data. If you're going to criticize, you have to offer something to back your criticism. That attitude won't convince me that you're right. I'm a scientist and I'm going to respect numbers a lot more than that comment.

[jjpm74]

That's uncalled for and adds nothing to the discussion. If you have something to add to the discussion, then do it. If you have your own metrics you like to use, post the data. If you're going to criticize, you have to offer something to back your criticism. If you can't do that, that attitude won't convince me that you're right. I'm a scientist and I'm going to respect numbers a lot more than that comment.

It was an obvious joke. I wouldn't take it to heart. Everyone has their quirks and looking at SABRMatt's ballot, it's obvious that he paid attention to the parameters of this project and voted accordingly

[Ace Venom]

It was an obvious joke. I wouldn't take it to heart. Everyone has their quirks and looking at SABRMatt's ballot, it's obvious that he paid attention to the parameters of this project and vote accordingly.

He has. I never have a problem with how people vote. If what he posted was a joke, I apologize for the reaction. The joke wasn't funny.

[SABR Matt]

It was meant to be a humorous exaggerated criticism. I do believe it's a bad idea to change your mind about a player based on a deeply flawed and unreliable defensive metric that has been widely refuted by just about every sabermetric eye that has looked at it closely.

I've already contributed my defensive assessment of Maranville...earlier in this same thread...so...I didn't think repeating them would be needed.

[SABR Matt]

Who was the nutball who did not vote for Babe Ruth, BTW? Freakin' BABE RUTH did not get a unanimous yes vote...but by god, Bullet Joe Rogan did.

[Ace Venom]

Matt, your assessment was for center fielders only and did not include the shortstop position.

It was meant to be a humorous exaggerated criticism. I do believe it's a bad idea to change your mind about a player based on a deeply flawed and unreliable defensive metric that has been widely refuted by just about every sabermetric eye that has looked at it closely.

I didn't change my mind about Maranville. I bumped him off my ballot this year, but will pick him up again.

[SABR Matt]

Sorry...the Maranville vs. Bancroft comparison happened in the Mistakes thread...you can find it there.

[BlueBlood]

I fully support Joe Cronin and skipped over his name. Sorry about that, but no need to adjust the results - he's in.

Bottomley
Ferrell
Foxx
Gomez
Grimes
Klein
Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
Waner
Wilson

[Ace Venom]

Who knew? 1951 marks the "50th anniversary" of the project. I doubt if I'll do anything special here apart from some new stuff in the first post.

[KCGHOST]

Cronin
Foxx
Gomez
Ruffing
Waner

[Sockeye]

Joe Cronin
Jimmie Foxx
Burleigh Grimes
Chuck Klein
Eppa Rixey
Red Ruffing
Paul Waner

EDIT: Just noticed I forgot to check Joe Cronin. He should be on my ballot. Please add a vote for him.

[Ace Venom]

If the vote isn't modified in the poll, I'll be sure to add your vote to my final tally.

[SavoyBG]

Red Ruffing has 322 win shares. Now that Leach and Sheckard are in, I believe there is only one other eligible player (Sam Rice) AT ANY POSITION with that many win shares who has not been inducted yet.

There are just 12 eligible pitchers who have more than 322 career win shares (not counting Monte Ward), and all of them have been inducted here.

Ruffing was also lights out in the post season (7-2 2.63), besides being a very good hitter too.

The top starting pitcher on the greatest dynasty of all time (1936-1939 Yankees) deserves a little bonus towards his candidacy anyway, as it looks like Lefty Gomez is going to struggle here.

Yes, his early years with Boston make his career rate stats look less than awesome, but the guy pitched over 4300 innings, and missed two seasons in WW2. The hall of fame is not just about ranking the best players, it's also about each player's standing as part of the history of the game.

Consider adding Red Ruffing to your ballot next year if you did not vote for him this time.

[Ace Venom]

Rice was only a couple of votes away from election back in 1941. I've been a Rice supporter for years and I do agree about Ruffing. Lefty Gomez's struggles are a bit nonsensical to me and I'm surprised he hasn't been getting more support. Granted, we have a lot of holdover pitchers and with the election of Wilbur Cooper by the VC, we have enshrined 36 pitchers. You have to imagine that it's going to be harder for pitchers to get in now.

[mwiggins]

Who knew? 1951 marks the "50th anniversary" of the project. I doubt if I'll do anything special here apart from some new stuff in the first post.

Maybe have everyone post their "50th Anniversary All-Time HOF Team" next ballot. Who do we think the elite in the Hall are at this point in time.

[mwiggins]

Rice was only a couple of votes away from election back in 1941. I've been a Rice supporter for years and I do agree about Ruffing. Lefty Gomez's struggles are a bit nonsensical to me and I'm surprised he hasn't been getting more support. Granted, we have a lot of holdover pitchers and with the election of Wilbur Cooper by the VC, we have enshrined 36 pitchers. You have to imagine that it's going to be harder for pitchers to get in now.

Gomez doesn't have 200 wins, and a low IP total, and Ruffing has a low ERA+. There's probably a number of voters who rule them out simply for those reasons.

I'd be curious to see a comparison of Gomez to Dizzy Dean and Dazzy Vance. Gomez appears to have gotten more defensive help than Dean or Vance, but on the surface his career seems fairly similar.

[Ace Venom]

Gomez doesn't have 200 wins, and a low IP total, and Ruffing has a low ERA+. There's probably a number of voters who rule them out simply for those reasons.

Well, it's not the Hall of Wins or Hall of Most IP. I can understand not voting for Ruffing, but there's a workable case for Gomez. Of course, having Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey and Joe D as teammates doesn't always help your cause if you're a pitcher.

[PVNICK]

Gomez doesn't have 200 wins, and a low IP total, and Ruffing has a low ERA+. There's probably a number of voters who rule them out simply for those reasons.

I'd be curious to see a comparison of Gomez to Dizzy Dean and Dazzy Vance. Gomez appears to have gotten more defensive help than Dean or Vance, but on the surface his career seems fairly similar.

Gomez suffers from not having his best seasons concentrated and no mitigating circumstances (Dean had the injury and Vance didn't get started in MLB until his
30s).

[SABR Matt]

I really fail to understand why people obsess about players having their best seasons consecutively. Leecemark has attempt to make the case for this being beneficial to a franchise, but I heard his argument and countered with the position that peak value will be utilized by someone, whether or not it comes in predictable sequences (which it so RARELY ever does) and that when you require greatness to be consecutive you HAVE to pick an arbitrary period over which that greatness must be continuous and you end up making a whole bunch of bizarre choices as a result.

To me, the issue of consecutive greatness is a huge red flag that causes people to make very irrational decisions.

[SavoyBG]

Rice was only a couple of votes away from election back in 1941. I've been a Rice supporter for years and I do agree about Ruffing. Lefty Gomez's struggles are a bit nonsensical to me and I'm surprised he hasn't been getting more support. Granted, we have a lot of holdover pitchers and with the election of Wilbur Cooper by the VC, we have enshrined 36 pitchers. You have to imagine that it's going to be harder for pitchers to get in now.


I am not a Rice supporter AT ALL. He does not have Ruffing's pedigree as a part of multiple championship teams, and he never even had one season that was even near MVP level.


WIN SHARES TOP SEASONS
Rice - 24, 24, 24
Ruffing - 27, 25, 24

Rice finished 4th in the real MVP voting in 1926, and Ruffing finished in the top 5 twice and also 8th one time. He also would most likely have won the 1938 AL Cy Young award if there had been one then.

I think both guys are slightly below the line just based on their raw numbers, but when you add in Ruffing's standing as the ace pitcher of a legendary team, his post season numbers, and war credit for the two years he missed, I think he gets in.

[SavoyBG]

I really fail to understand why people obsess about players having their best seasons consecutively. Leecemark has attempt to make the case for this being beneficial to a franchise, but I heard his argument and countered with the position that peak value will be utilized by someone, whether or not it comes in predictable sequences (which it so RARELY ever does) and that when you require greatness to be consecutive you HAVE to pick an arbitrary period over which that greatness must be continuous and you end up making a whole bunch of bizarre choices as a result.

To me, the issue of consecutive greatness is a huge red flag that causes people to make very irrational decisions.


Consecutive greatness matters. Think about being a GM and giving that huge 5 year deal to a free agent who is just entering his prime. You need him to be at his career best over the next 5 years, not in year 2, year 5, and then year 7, and not ever being as good as the year prior to when you got him.

I agree that it doesn't matter as much as some people seem to think, but it does matter. You want to be able to pencil in a certain level of play out of a superstar, and it just kills your team when he severely underperforms.

[mwiggins]

Gomez suffers from not having his best seasons concentrated and no mitigating circumstances (Dean had the injury and Vance didn't get started in MLB until his
30s).

Arm injuries were mostly responsible for the dip in performance between his two Triple Crown years, as well as his early career end. He didn't really have the catastophic injury that derailed his career in one fell swoop like Dean did, though, which probably makes it harder for some to vote for him.

[PVNICK]

Matt is it the consecutive you have an issue with or just that it leads to arbitrary selection of x years? I thought concentrating "a peak" would be prefereable in that it is more likely to be "true" than just a perfect storm season here and there.

[jjpm74]

Sam Rice:

Sam Rice will be heading into his 13th year on the ballot next year. In 1941, he came within 1 vote of election, yet has faltered ever since.

We elected Jake Beckley who's career was not as good as Sam Rice's. Rice had a late start to his career, but despite that was a hitting machine, ending with 2987 career hits in an era where 3000 hits was not seen as a milestone. His career BA of .322 ranks 43rd all time. His WARP3 is 50.5 and he had 7 All-Star caliber seasons by that measure. His CWS is one of the highest all time for someone we haven't elected. Sam Rice fits into the parameters of this project's HOF well. He also stands no chance of election via the VC as there are just enough detractors on that committee to keep him out. Sam Rice's best chance at election in this project is in years 13-15 on the ballot.

[jjpm74]

Consecutive greatness matters. Think about being a GM and giving that huge 5 year deal to a free agent who is just entering his prime. You need him to be at his career best over the next 5 years, not in year 2, year 5, and then year 7, and not ever being as good as the year prior to when you got him.

I agree that it doesn't matter as much as some people seem to think, but it does matter. You want to be able to pencil in a certain level of play out of a superstar, and it just kills your team when he severely underperforms.

When looking at a player and judging their career and whether or not it is hall worthy, consecutive years at peak are meaningless. If a player scores 6-37-41-14-39-12-38-31-27-27-18-19-24-19-12-17-8-10-2-10 are you going to keep them out of the HOF because of 2 subpar years in the middle of a HOF caliber peak?

[SavoyBG]

When looking at a player and judging their career and whether or not it is hall worthy, consecutive years at peak are meaningless. If a player scores 6-37-41-14-39-12-38-31-27-27-18-19-24-19-12-17-8-10-2-10 are you going to keep them out of the HOF because of 2 subpar years in the middle of a HOF caliber peak?

No, I would not keep that player out, because he had 4 all time great seasons mixed in with a very strong overall career, but I don't agree that consecutive year peak is meaningless, for the reasons I described already in my last post.

[SavoyBG]

Sam Rice:

We elected Jake Beckley who's career was not as good as Sam Rice's.

I have to disagee strongly here.

CAREER WIN SHARES
Beckley - 318
Rice - 327

Beckley played more than half of his career before the 154 game schedule. If we adjust for that he would have played about 200 more games in his career and would have ended up with about 27 more career win shares, putting him at 345 for his career.

Their respective peaks are about the same after adjusting for the shorter seasons when Beckley played.

Beckley (OPS+ 126) was a much better offensive player than Rice (OPS+ 113), and at he was at least as good defensively at his position as Rice was at his position (Beckley is a B, Rice a B- in win shares fielding).

In almost the same exact number of games played, Beckley scored 100 more runs and had 500 more RBIs than Rice.

I'm willing to bet that Beckely's win% would be clearly better than Rice's if loss shares were listed along with each player's win share totals.

Beckley also holds the career record for most games played at first base, and he is a couple of hundred games ahead of the second place guy (Gehrig).

Warp 3 - Career
Beckley - 67.3
Rice - 50.5

Warp 3 - Best 5 seasons
Beckley - 6.0, 5.3, 5.2, 4.9, 4.9
Rice - 5.7, 5.3, 5.1, 4.4, 4.2

I don't see anything that would make me believe that Rice had a better career than Beckley.

[jalbright]

I'm with Savoy on the consecutive seasons thing. The fact you could count on someone turning in great performances during a certain period, especially with pitchers, who are more likely to be up and down due to injury than every day guys, is meaningful. It probably isn't as important with position players, but pitchers often get in on the strength of what they could be counted on to do at their peak--and the easiest way to know what someone could be counted on to do is to take a stretch like five years and use that as the measure. I'll say this: if you're a borderliner on the HOF line and don't have that good five year stretch, it's probably the final nail in the coffin of your chances of induction.

[mwiggins]

When looking at a player and judging their career and whether or not it is hall worthy, consecutive years at peak are meaningless. If a player scores 6-37-41-14-39-12-38-31-27-27-18-19-24-19-12-17-8-10-2-10 are you going to keep them out of the HOF because of 2 subpar years in the middle of a HOF caliber peak?

No, of course not. But not consistently performing at a high level during a players peak years does diminish the greatness of that peak.

[SABR Matt]

No it doesn't...except in so much as those off-peak years amid the peak seasons are lost opportunities to generate peak production values.

A player with ten 12 win seasons and 5 2 win seasons by PCA has the same value whether his 12-win seasons came consecutively or whether the 5 weak seasons were scattered throughout his career.

[SABR Matt]

Matt is it the consecutive you have an issue with or just that it leads to arbitrary selection of x years? I thought concentrating "a peak" would be prefereable in that it is more likely to be "true" than just a perfect storm season here and there.

Both.

Concentrating peak performance has value to any one particular franchise that can count on you to produce wins at a predictably high level while they own you...but in the grand scheme of things...wins produced are wins produced...it does not matter whether they concentrate so that one particular franchise can maximize its gains by owning you. That only matters if you're team-building...greatness is not expressed as how good you were FOR A SPECIFIC TEAM...it's an overall evaluation of your achievements as a player.

The consecutivity of greatness is no less arbitrary than the selection of the arbitrary range of years wherein you held that consecutively high performance rate. They're both BS constructs that people like to use because it feels nice to see a group of seasons all in a row that are good...it makes things seem more orderly and impressive.

[SavoyBG]

No it doesn't...except in so much as those off-peak years amid the peak seasons are lost opportunities to generate peak production values.

A player with ten 12 win seasons and 5 2 win seasons by PCA has the same value whether his 12-win seasons came consecutively or whether the 5 weak seasons were scattered throughout his career.


Matt, can you quote what you are responding to, please?

We understand that you put no value in peak years coming consecutively, but many of us disagree with that assessment.

If I'm gonna commit a large part of my budget to a superstar player, he better have great seasons every year during his prime playing age, barring a major injury.

[Cowtipper]

No it doesn't...except in so much as those off-peak years amid the peak seasons are lost opportunities to generate peak production values.

A player with ten 12 win seasons and 5 2 win seasons by PCA has the same value whether his 12-win seasons came consecutively or whether the 5 weak seasons were scattered throughout his career.

And that's where numbers and real life leave each other. Just because PCA, or whatever "says so" doesn't mean it's true.

What would a team prefer? A guy who can give five great seasons in a row, or one great season followed by a bad one, over and over? I'm sure any team would take the former.

[SavoyBG]

Both.

Concentrating peak performance has value to any one particular franchise that can count on you to produce wins at a predictably high level while they own you...but in the grand scheme of things...wins produced are wins produced...it does not matter whether they concentrate so that one particular franchise can maximize its gains by owning you. That only matters if you're team-building...greatness is not expressed as how good you were FOR A SPECIFIC TEAM...it's an overall evaluation of your achievements as a player.



Every team is ALWAYS team building.

The idea of baseball is to win as a team.

The Pirates would still have finished last without Kiner's 47 HRs.

[SABR Matt]

And that's where numbers and real life leave each other. Just because PCA, or whatever "says so" doesn't mean it's true.

What would a team prefer? A guy who can give five great seasons in a row, or one great season followed by a bad one, over and over? I'm sure any team would take the former.

Aaaaaaand I already addressed that point so I won't address it again. Read the rest of my posts on this topic.

[SABR Matt]

Every team is ALWAYS team building.

The idea of baseball is to win as a team.

The Pirates would still have finished last without Kiner's 47 HRs.

Does that mean you believe Kiner's 47 HRs were valueless...because you have departed the land of reality with that comment if that's what you're insinuating.

Every team is always team building...but that doesn't mean just because a player ACTUALLY was consistent in his peak that the teams PLANNED on his being consistent...and it doesn't mean that if he was NOT consistent, OTHER teams didn't reap value from seasons he had that were outside your arbitrarily selected peak range. Think about it this way:

If a player has a few good years in a row, followed by a bad season...the bad year reduces the cost to own him in future contracts...if he then goes on to have great value again thereafter...the next team probably got that value at less cost to THEIR team building strategy.

The point is...when you play for 15 years, you're usually helping out more than just one team in the modern era where contract values are determined by performance (in the old days the order of your good seasons didn't matter because your franchise owned your ass anyway and you played all 15 years with them...so they'd get value from you when they could...regardless of what order it arrived)...and if your production is going to multiple causes...then what value you lose in franchise one...gets picked back up by franchise two.

Framing the question as "which would you rather have...5 straight years of HOF goodness or mixed bad years?" is a false framing...because greatness is not about how you helped any one specific team...it's about how you helped ALL of the teams for which you played.

[mwiggins]

No it doesn't...except in so much as those off-peak years amid the peak seasons are lost opportunities to generate peak production values.

A player with ten 12 win seasons and 5 2 win seasons by PCA has the same value whether his 12-win seasons came consecutively or whether the 5 weak seasons were scattered throughout his career.

I agree that both pitchers would be just as valuable. But the first player is more likely the better player, if the only weak seasons he had were during his decline phase or early in his career. It's one thing to be dominant occasionally throughout your career, like say Clemens, it's another thing to be consistently dominant every year, like Greg Maddux. Doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other, though.

[SavoyBG]

Does that mean you believe Kiner's 47 HRs were valueless...because you have departed the land of reality with that comment if that's what you're insinuating.


What I'm insinuating is that it's a different thing to have a great season for a team that is under pressure of being in contention to win something than it is to have a great season for a last place team.

If you've ever played, (or umpired) in big games (at any level), they have an entirely different feel to them than a game between two second division teams playing in August does.

Some players (and umpires) don't handle pressure well, and don't come up big in important games. Granted, this is less a factor at the major league level, where players (and umpires) have already proven that they can handle pressure to some degree, or they wouldn't have gotten there, but it is a factor nonetheless.

I think that it's more than just a coincidence that Kiner's performance fell off a lot when he finally got to a contending team in 1955.

Matt, have you ever been in the pit?

I have, many times, as an umpire, and it's a lot harder to relax and just do things normally when you are working in a county final, or a state championship game than it is to just work a regular season game with no pressure. And it's the same for players. These are human beings out there, Matt, not robots who just always perform to their ability over the course of time.

[Ace Venom]

Rice had a late start to his career, but despite that was a hitting machine, ending with 2987 career hits in an era where 3000 hits was not seen as a milestone.

I think he would have been elected by now if he just had thirteen more hits. Ask yourself this if you are not voting for him. Would you vote for him if he had thirteen more hits?

[SavoyBG]

I think he would have been elected by now if he just had thirteen more hits. Ask yourself this if you are not voting for him. Would you vote for him if he had thirteen more hits?

No, I wouldn't.

Rice is the typical player who was vastly overrated by people who only knew traditional stats (hits, batting average), but who is exposed as not being all that great when modern stats are applied properly.

A career OPS+ of 113 for a corner outfielder is nothing special. He had 2271 singles in his career. Did not walk very much, and had little power (Isolated power is just .105).

He's not a real winning player, and for what it's worth, his career TPR of 8.2 shows pretty much what I think of his career. A guy who was a bit above average for a very long time, without an outstanding peak. If he goes into this hall of fame I think he would then be the player with the weakest best season (24 win shares) of any member of the hall whose career took place entirely during the era of 154 game schedules.

Would you put Doc Cramer in the hall of fame if he had 295 more hits?

[Ace Venom]

It's a red herring, but I'll bite. Doc Cramer would have had to have been a much better player than he was to get to 3,000 hits. He was a career 87 OPS+ guy and was rarely above 100 OPS+ a season. Sam Rice had an OPS+ over 100 for the majority of the career. He hit a lot more than he walked and should have gotten to 3,000 hits.

Thirteen more hits wouldn't have been a huge hit against Rice's OPS+ had he managed to get those. A lot of people like that particular milestone, but look negatively at Rice's OPS+ and the fact that he wasn't a power hitting right fielder. Part of the reason I asked people if they would vote for Rice if he had 3,000 hits is to make them question the reasons they weren't voting for him. Would Rice be viewed as a better player if he had thirteen more hits? There's no question in my mind that he would.

[leecemark]

--Cramer didn't need to be a better player to get 3,000 hits. He could have easily got those extra hits had he simply signed with another team. He couldn't crack the Athletics lineup until he was 27 and the dynasty that won pennants from 29-31 had been broken up. Had he signed with a lesser team he was probably could have been starting a couple years earlier and would have got those 3,000 hits. That still wouldn't make him a Hall of Famer though.

[Ace Venom]

I don't think anyone would argue that Doc Cramer was a Hall of Famer, 3,000 hits or no. I just don't think he would have gotten there even with an earlier start. I don't think that would have been a problem for Sam Rice. I will say that his hits total is not my sole reason for voting for him year after year.

[bambambaseball]

No, I wouldn't.

Rice is the typical player who was vastly overrated by people who only knew traditional stats (hits, batting average), but who is exposed as not being all that great when modern stats are applied properly.

He is undervalued by guys who desperately want to find a player with 3000 hits who does not deserve to be a HOFer. Anyone who can hit for average and constantly lead the league in both hits, topping 200 hits 6 times and runs, finishing 49th all time deserves to be in this hall. He also is over the HOF Monitor Mark by a lot and over the grey area mark and standards mark. He is a HOFer. It's the people who want to ignore the fact that he was seen by his peers as a great hitter and dont like the fact that their fancy metrics dont work on him who dismiss his ability. BTW, he's 14th ALL TIME IN TRIPLES and and 50th ALL TIME IN DOUBLES!!!!! Don't belittle that fact by claiming he was just a slap hitter who compiled singles!!! He also stole over 300 bases and drove in over 1000 RBIs. Sam Rice also only struck out 275 times in his entire career. What more did you want him to do? He played on sucky teams.

[Paul Wendt]

One class of argument against Matt is that merit is different from value. He is right about value but wrong about merit, which is the point at hand. Here it might be merit as a candidate for the Progressive shadow hall.

Let me set that line aside. What else is there?

Both.

Concentrating peak performance has value to any one particular franchise that can count on you to produce wins at a predictably high level while they own you...but in the grand scheme of things...wins produced are wins produced...it does not matter whether they concentrate so that one particular franchise can maximize its gains by owning you. That only matters if you're team-building...greatness is not expressed as how good you were FOR A SPECIFIC TEAM...it's an overall evaluation of your achievements as a player.

The consecutivity of greatness is no less arbitrary than the selection of the arbitrary range of years wherein you held that consecutively high performance rate. They're both BS constructs that people like to use because it feels nice to see a group of seasons all in a row that are good...it makes things seem more orderly and impressive.
In the first paragraph I have highlighted two truisms that no one should gainsay (if so, why?). The whole paragraph is at least reasonable, and so is this.
[SABRMatt]
A player with ten 12 win seasons and 5 2 win seasons by PCA has the same value whether his 12-win seasons came consecutively or whether the 5 weak seasons were scattered throughout his career.
(I assume that the "2 win seasons" are weaker but still valuable.)

In contrast consider these two twelve-year careers.
A: 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -3 -3 -3 -3 (sum 60)
B: 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 (sum 60)

There is a statistical argument that team A should have released player A, or retired him from regular play, a few years ago. So it is reasonable to "blame management" and "excuse the player". Some rating systems do that and many people do it informally.

In contrast team B is vindicated regarding player B, who is and always has been a valuable player in prospect. Player B hurt the team in some of his seasons, but that is in retrospect. For that it would be unreasonable to blame management, unreasonable to excuse the player.

So Matt's second paragraph is really overstated --hyperbolous and caricatic.

==
I haven't studied Matt's rating system.
I wonder how his remarks about consecutive peak or prime (above) fit with this from the discussion of shortstops --fielding, I think.
[SABRMatt]
Scott was not CONSISTENTLY good either...the key to rating as a great shortstop by PCA and the marker system (well any position really, not just short) is not having weaker years mixed in with the good ones.

[SavoyBG]

He is undervalued by guys who desperately want to find a player with 3000 hits who does not deserve to be a HOFer. Anyone who can hit for average and constantly lead the league in both hits, topping 200 hits 6 times and runs, finishing 49th all time deserves to be in this hall. He also is over the HOF Monitor Mark by a lot and over the grey area mark and standards mark. He is a HOFer. It's the people who want to ignore the fact that he was seen by his peers as a great hitter and dont like the fact that their fancy metrics dont work on him who dismiss his ability. BTW, he's 14th ALL TIME IN TRIPLES and and 50th ALL TIME IN DOUBLES!!!!! Don't belittle that fact by claiming he was just a slap hitter who compiled singles!!! He also stole over 300 bases and drove in over 1000 RBIs. Sam Rice also only struck out 275 times in his entire career. What more did you want him to do? He played on sucky teams.


Why are you impressed with a high batting average? We all know that batting average is a poor measurement of a player's overall offensive value.

As for "constantly" leading the league in hits, he did that twice, and as for "constantly" leading the league in runs, he NEVER did that, never even came close to doing that. He never even came within 20 runs of the league leader in ANY one season. If he actually had "constantly" led the league in runs scored, then I would think he was a hall of famer.

As for the "hall of fame monitor," I would hope that you realize that is a measurement that was created to guage the hall of fame candidacy of a player based SOLELY on what criteria that the morons who vote for the real hall of fame use to elect players. It has no basis in measuring a player's actual value, it just attempts to predict which players will likely get elected to Cooperstown by the BBWAA.

OPS+ 113 for a corner outfielder = NOT A HALL OF FAMER

[bambambaseball]

Why are you impressed with a high batting average? We all know that batting average is a poor measurement of a player's overall offensive value.

As for "constantly" leading the league in hits, he did that twice, and as for "constantly" leading the league in runs, he NEVER did that, never even came close to doing that. He never even came within 20 runs of the league leader in ANY one season. If he actually had "constantly" led the league in runs scored, then I would think he was a hall of famer.

As for the "hall of fame monitor," I would hope that you realize that is a measurement that was created to guage the hall of fame candidacy of a player based SOLELY on what criteria that the morons who vote for the real hall of fame use to elect players. It has no basis in measuring a player's actual value, it just attempts to predict which players will likely get elected to Cooperstown by the BBWAA.


You like to dismiss arguments and ignore facts. Fact: he is 14th all time in triples. fact: he is 50th all time in doubles. Fact: he is among the all time greats in BA, Runs, RBIs, SO/PA and several other categories. But go on ignoring them and distorting the truth to suit whatever your reality is. 60-70% of this community knows you are wrong. :waving


A career OPS+ of 113 for a corner outfielder is nothing special. He had 2271 singles in his career. Did not walk very much, and had little power (Isolated power is just .105).


GREAT DISTORTION OF THE FACTS THERE!!!

[Ace Venom]

Why are you impressed with a high batting average? We all know that batting average is a poor measurement of a player's overall offensive value.

As for "constantly" leading the league in hits, he did that twice, and as for "constantly" leading the league in runs, he NEVER did that, never even came close to doing that. He never even came within 20 runs of the league leader in ANY one season. If he actually had "constantly" led the league in runs scored, then I would think he was a hall of famer.

There has to be something said for a guy who was among the top ten in league leaders in certain categories for years. Batting average a poor offensive metric? I wouldn't say it's the best one, but to say it's poor is selling batting average short. You don't have to have a batting average over .300 to be a Hall of Famer, but it could help your case.

[Paul Wendt]

Matt, can you quote what you are responding to, please?
It will be great if people quote specifically. If you are responding to one out of five paragraphs, delete the other four from the quotation.

[mwiggins]

Rice is the classic player who was both great, but not exceptionally valuable as we understand value today. You can't judge him strickly on what modern metrics say about how valuable he was.

Plus, don't forget to account for his lost season at age 28 to WW1. That would put him at about 350 Win Shares. Which, despite his lack of a great peak, is pretty exceptional when you consider he only played two full seasons prior to age 30. Which also hurts his rate stats, given that his OPS+ was about 12 pts better prior to the beginning of the live ball era.

[SavoyBG]

You like to dismiss arguments and ignore facts. Fact: he is 14th all time in triples. fact: he is 50th all time in doubles. Fact: he is among the all time greats in BA, Runs, RBIs, SO/PA and several other categories. But go on ignoring them and distorting the truth to suit whatever your reality is. 60-70% of this community knows you are wrong. :waving



GREAT DISTORTION OF THE FACTS THERE!!!


What facts did I distort? His isolated power is .105, which means had very little power.

You seem very impressed by the fact that Rice is 14th all time in triples. Maranville is 19th all time in triples with just 7 less triples than Rice, does that mean that Maranville had power?

Bill Buckner is tied with Rice in doubles. Is he a hall of famer too?

Rice is 59th in runs scored. Kenny Lofton is 55th in runs scored. Is he a hall of famer too?

[Ace Venom]

Rice is the classic player who was both great, but not exceptionally valuable as we understand value today. You can't judge him strickly on what modern metrics say about how valuable he was.

Plus, don't forget to account for his lost season at age 28 to WW1. That would put him at about 350 Win Shares. Which, despite his lack of a great peak, is pretty exceptional when you consider he only played two full seasons prior to age 30. Which also hurts his rate stats, given that his OPS+ was about 12 pts better prior to the beginning of the live ball era.

That's a really good point. I think there comes a point where modern metrics can't tell you how good he was. If anything, many underrate him. We've been willing to give people war discounts before.

“Day in and day out, Rice was the most consistent of the Washington hitters in the happy years of 1924 and 1925. Plaudits went to Goose Goslin and Bucky Harris and Walter Johnson and Joe Judge, but Sam was quietly lining out his base hits, stealing when it was appropriate and, during his and the Senators' heyday, scoring 100 runs a year.”
— Star-News sports columnist, Francis Stann

[SavoyBG]

There has to be something said for a guy who was among the top ten in league leaders in certain categories for years. Batting average a poor offensive metric? I wouldn't say it's the best one, but to say it's poor is selling batting average short. You don't have to have a batting average over .300 to be a Hall of Famer, but it could help your case.


Batting average is a poor offensive metric when compared to SLG%, OBP, OPS, OPS+, and sveeral other more advanced offensive measurements. All batting average tells us is how often a player got a hit in his official at bats. It tells us nothing about those hits (singles, doubles triples, or HRs) and tells us nothing about how often the batter got on base in ALL of his plate appearances.

There are plenty of players who have hit .300 for a season and were still below average offensive players, and also plenty of players who have hit .240 for a season and were well above average offensive players.

Sam Rice never had an OPS+ over 125 for any season other than 7 games in 1918. He was incredibly consistent as being a little bit above average for a very long time. If that's your idea of a hall of famer, that's fine, but it's not mine. For me to consider a player a hall of famer he either needs to be dominant for a stretch of several seasons, or he needs to be a lot above average for a long time.

If Rice had been real good fielding infielder, or a great fielding CFer who was also a great base stealer like Max Carey, THEN I would see him as a hall of famer, but as a corner outfielder he needs to do more than be 13% above average for a long time.

[mwiggins]

A career OPS+ of 113 for a corner outfielder is nothing special. He had 2271 singles in his career. Did not walk very much, and had little power (Isolated power is just .105).



The league average ISO during his career was just .114. He had below average power, but not "little power". Actually, he had very little home run hitting ability (though he did also play in Griffith Stadium), but he did have very good gap power. Top 10 in triples 8 times (including at age 40!) and top 10 in doubles 3 times. He was consistently a guy who hit about 35 doubles and 10-15 triples all the way into his early 40's.

[SavoyBG]

“Day in and day out, Rice was the most consistent of the Washington hitters in the happy years of 1924 and 1925. Plaudits went to Goose Goslin and Bucky Harris and Walter Johnson and Joe Judge, but Sam was quietly lining out his base hits, stealing when it was appropriate and, during his and the Senators' heyday, scoring 100 runs a year.”
— Star-News sports columnist, Francis Stann


Did Francis notice that Rice hit .290 in 14 world series games in those two seasons, with a whopping 7 runs scored, 3 walks, 4 RBI, and ZERO extra base hits. Most of his good play came in the 1925 series, which they lost. In 1924 he went 6 for 29 (.207) with 2 runs scored and one RBI in 7 games. The Nats won the series despite his poor play.

[Ace Venom]

Okay. I get it. You don't think Rice is a Hall of Famer and I'll never convince you otherwise. The problem is, you're not going to convince me that he's not.

[SavoyBG]

The league average ISO during his career was just .114. He had below average power, but not "little power". Actually, he had very little home run hitting ability (though he did also play in Griffith Stadium), but he did have very good gap power. Top 10 in triples 8 times (including at age 40!) and top 10 in doubles 3 times. He was consistently a guy who hit about 35 doubles and 10-15 triples all the way into his early 40's.

35 doubles is nothing special for a guy who was over 600 at bats in almost every season.

What was the average isolated power figure for a corner outfielder during Sam's career?

Like I said, if he had been a valuable defensive player at a more important defensive poistion, he'd be a hall of famer, but as a RFer, he's just not.

[bambambaseball]

What facts did I distort? His isolated power is .105, which means had very little power.

You seem very impressed by the fact that Rice is 14th all time in triples. Maranville is 19th all time in triples with just 7 less triples than Rice, does that mean that Maranville had power?

Bill Buckner is tied with Rice in doubles. Is he a hall of famer too?

Rice is 59th in runs scored. Kenny Lofton is 55th in runs scored. Is he a hall of famer too?

Are any of those players among the all time leaders in almost every offensive state that is not home runs? You made it sound like Rice was just a singles hitter with no value. That is far from he truth and a major distortion of the facts. Quit harping on it because you are clearly, definitely wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SavoyBG]

Okay. I get it. You don't think Rice is a Hall of Famer and I'll never convince you otherwise. The problem is, you're not going to convince me that he's not.


Okay, do you still think that Klein is a HOFer?

[bambambaseball]

35 doubles is nothing special for a guy who was over 600 at bats in almost every season.


So you you're dismissing him because he managed to stay healthy and play every day. Okay! :crazy:crazy:crazy

[SABR Matt]

I agree that both pitchers would be just as valuable. But the first player is more likely the better player, if the only weak seasons he had were during his decline phase or early in his career. It's one thing to be dominant occasionally throughout your career, like say Clemens, it's another thing to be consistently dominant every year, like Greg Maddux. Doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other, though.

I'm not sure you can claim that the first pitcher is better...the second pitcher was amazing in his ability to pitch very well even as he aged.

[bambambaseball]

Batting average is a poor offensive metric when compared to SLG%, OBP, OPS, OPS+, and sveeral other more advanced offensive measurements. All batting average tells us is how often a player got a hit in his official at bats. It tells us nothing about those hits (singles, doubles triples, or HRs) and tells us nothing about how often the batter got on base in ALL of his plate appearances.

There are plenty of players who have hit .300 for a season and were still below average offensive players, and also plenty of players who have hit .240 for a season and were well above average offensive players.

How many of them hit .322 for their entire career? :crazy:crazy:crazy

[Ace Venom]

Let's all settle down here.

[bambambaseball]

Did Francis notice that Rice hit .290 in 14 world series games in those two seasons, with a whopping 7 runs scored, 3 walks, 4 RBI, and ZERO extra base hits. Most of his good play came in the 1925 series, which they lost. In 1924 he went 6 for 29 (.207) with 2 runs scored and one RBI in 7 games. The Nats won the series despite his poor play.

Did you also notice that he hit .362 in one of those World Series. :crazy:crazy:crazy

[Ace Venom]

Okay, do you still think that Klein is a HOFer?

Why are you stuck on this? You've been calling out people for using stuff like the HoF Monitor or the ink scores, saying that's the stuff that morons use. Yes, I think Klein belongs in this Hall. Does my view on whether or not Klein should be in affect my opinion about Rice?

[SavoyBG]

Are any of those players among the all time leaders in almost every offensive state that is not home runs? You made it sound like Rice was just a singles hitter with no value.

He had value, just not hall of fame value.

Rice is nowhere near the all time leaders in RBI's, walks, OBP, SLG%, OPS, OPS+, runs created, or stolen bases.

Even in your favorite stat, batting average, Rice is not even close to being among the top ten of his era. Manush is # 10 for the 1921-1942 era, at .330.

[Ace Venom]

Quit harping on it because you are clearly, definitely wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shouting doesn't help anything.

[mwiggins]

Like I said, if he had been a valuable defensive player at a more important defensive poistion, he'd be a hall of famer, but as a RFer, he's just not.

It would certainly make it easier if he was a slick fielding CF or a 3B. I have to hold my nose a little every time I vote for him, but ultimately the time he lost in his 20's puts him over the top. At some point, if you're a guy who probably should be pushing 400 win shares if things would have gone a little better for him early in his career, your lack of great peak ceases to be a deal breaker for me.

[SavoyBG]

So you you're dismissing him because he managed to stay healthy and play every day. Okay! :crazy:crazy:crazy


No, I'm saying exatcly what I said, that 35 doubles is not a real high total for a player who had over 600 official at bats. He's getting a double about once every 17 at bats.

[bambambaseball]

He had value, just not hall of fame value.

Rice is nowhere near the all time leaders in RBI's, walks, OBP, SLG%, OPS, OPS+, runs created, or stolen bases.

Even in your favorite stat, batting average, Rice is not even close to being among the top ten of his era. Manush is # 10 for the 1921-1942 era, at .330.

Show me ONE PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL with better traditional numbers then Sam Rice that is not in the HOF. OH WAIT. THERE ARENT ANY! Whatever, Im done wasting my time here and your just trying to push buttons. Go on with your comparisons to inferior players like Buckner who wasnt even alive when Rice played. I dont care that you dont like Rice because you are in the minority. :rip:

[Ace Venom]

I dont care that you dont like Rice because you are in the minority.

According to the results on this ballot, that's a pretty big minority.

[SavoyBG]

Why are you stuck on this? You've been calling out people for using stuff like the HoF Monitor or the ink scores, saying that's the stuff that morons use.

That's not what I said at all.

I said that the hall of fame monitor has no basis in evaluating whether or not a player is a hall of famer. All that the hall of fame monitor does is to predict whether or not the moron sportswriters who actually vote for the real hall of fame will see a player as a hall of famer. The voters don't usde the hall of fame monitor. Most have never heard of the hall of fame monitor, or black ink, or gray ink.

I know several hall of fame voters in this area (NJ-NY). The criteria they use to determine whether or not a player is a hall of famer is moronic. None of the guys who I know (about 5 in all) can even tell you what OPS+ is.

[bambambaseball]

That's not what I said at all.

I said that the hall of fame monitor has no basis in evaluating whether or not a player is a hall of famer. All that the hall of fame monitor does is to predict whether or not the moron sportswriters who actually vote for the real hall of fame will see a player as a hall of famer. The voters don't usde the hall of fame monitor. Most have never heard of the hall of fame monitor, or black ink, or gray ink.

I know several hall of fame voters in this area (NJ-NY). The criteria they use to determine whether or not a player is a hall of famer is moronic. None of the guys who I know (about 5 in all) can even tell you what OPS+ is.

You dont use it. Good for you. Us morons out there do.:hyper:

[SABR Matt]

One class of argument against Matt is that merit is different from value. He is right about value but wrong about merit, which is the point at hand. Here it might be merit as a candidate for the Progressive shadow hall.

Let me set that line aside. What else is there?


In the first paragraph I have highlighted two truisms that no one should gainsay (if so, why?). The whole paragraph is at least reasonable, and so is this.

(I assume that the "2 win seasons" are weaker but still valuable.)

In contrast consider these two twelve-year careers.
A: 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -3 -3 -3 -3 (sum 60)
B: 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 9 -3 9 (sum 60)

There is a statistical argument that team A should have released player A, or retired him from regular play, a few years ago. So it is reasonable to "blame management" and "excuse the player". Some rating systems do that and many people do it informally.

In contrast team B is vindicated regarding player B, who is and always has been a valuable player in prospect. Player B hurt the team in some of his seasons, but that is in retrospect. For that it would be unreasonable to blame management, unreasonable to excuse the player.

So Matt's second paragraph is really overstated --hyperbolous and caricatic.

==
I haven't studied Matt's rating system.
I wonder how his remarks about consecutive peak or prime (above) fit with this from the discussion of shortstops --fielding, I think.

I have dealt with the whole "blame management, excuse the player" thing before...players can decide whether they want to play. If you are inferior, you should resign...it's more the fault of the player for sticking around than it is the fault of management for hoping he would recover some of his former value.

However, it should be noted that the way the HOF Marker system works, you don't lose credit for your bad seasons, no matter where they fall...at the top of your career...at the bottom...or scattered around...unless you were worse than half of the average production rate and even then the subtractions are small. You GAIN credit if you can hold you job most of the time. You just gain a heck of a lot more credit if you are well above average.

The consecutivity of your good years does not matter...it's about accumulating value efficiently, and for a long enough period of time to have achieved something that few other players can claim to have achieved...and the same is true about the fielding comments to which you are referring. The reason the transcendent fielders are far above the "merely good" ones is not because the transcendent fielders were consecutively great...it's because they were consistently great for enough years to far "out-accumulate" players who have some bad years mixed in that are worth way less...the point in those comments was to call attention to the fact that there is a steep penalty in fielding skill if you are not at your best...and it takes a truly phenomenal hitter to suffer the slings and arrows of a long MLB career without falling off of his top form...a career with 10 5-win seasons and 5 2-win seasons on defense at short will be as valuable no matter where the 2-win seasons happened...but there's a huge difference in value between that transcendent fielder who could actually produce 10 50win seasons and the many more who produced only 3 of them and then had a lot of other seasons at lesser scores between the 5 and the 2. It's common good fielding that produces careers with defensive win totals like: 2.5, 2.8, 5.4, 5.8, 5.0, 2.3, 3.2, 5.0, 2.1, 1.6, 3.0, 1.1...I see lines like that all the time. It's a rare player who can be Ozzie Smith and run: 2.5, 2.8, 5.2, 5.8, 5.2, 5.4, 6.0, 5.3, 5.0, 4.4, 4.8, 5.0, 4.1, 1.8...where when they got hurt or had a lesser year they were still amazingly good.

Consecutivity is arbitrary. Most players aren't consecutively great...and when they are, it's more the luck of the draw that they did not get hurt than any identifiable great skill. ANd the arbitrary nature of it is made all the greater when you have to start picking arbitrary windows of time that you want to look at to see that consecutive peak. It is a better approach to look at the totality of a player's career and measure how well they accumulated value and how strongly they dominated their competition.

[Ace Venom]

This is project leader stepping in. I've been trying really hard to keep the peace in this thread and all I'm going to say is drop this issue right now. I run this project in my spare time and believe me when I say that it takes up a bit of time that I could be using for other things. I've continued this project out of respect for what DoubleX started and I'd hate it if I have to start posting a conduct policy in the first post. I'm a little guilty, but we're grown men here and need to act like it.

[SavoyBG]

Show me ONE PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL with better traditional numbers then Sam Rice that is not in the HOF.

This project was created because those "traditional numbers" and the Cooperstown hall of fame have not done a very good job at identifying the great players in history. Most of the folks around here have advanced way past "traditional numbers" and are much better informed than the guys who vote for Cooperstown.

Earle Combs has an even higher batting average than Rice, and so does Manush, but they aren't getting into this hall of fame any time soon.

[Ace Venom]

Well, to be fair, Combs and Manush are generally regarded as mistakes around these parts.

[SavoyBG]

This is project leader stepping in. I've been trying really hard to keep the peace in this thread and all I'm going to say is drop this issue right now. I run this project in my spare time and believe me when I say that it takes up a bit of time that I could be using for other things. I've continued this project out of respect for what DoubleX started and I'd hate it if I have to start posting a conduct policy in the first post. I'm a little guilty, but we're grown men here and need to act like it.


I don't know who you are acusing of not acting like a grown man, but I haven't gotten personal with anybody here during this discussion. I have simply pointed out why I don't see Sam Rice as a hall of famer.

[jjpm74]

This project was created because those "traditional numbers" and the Cooperstown hall of fame have not done a very good job at identifying the great players in history. Most of the folks around here have advanced way past "traditional numbers" and are much better informed than the guys who vote for Cooperstown.

That's not at all why this project was created. You don't know what you're talking about.

This back and forth between you and bambambaseball who is just as guilty here is exactly why DoubleX walked away from this project. It is now responsible for me walking away as well. I'm sorry I brought up Sam Rice. I will not be posting in future polls in this project. I am also stepping down as the gatekeeper of the contributor's VC and will not be running that end of this project anymore. About the extent of participation in this project from here forward from me will be casting a ballot. Otherwise, I'm done here.

[SavoyBG]

Well, to be fair, Combs and Manush are generally regarded as mistakes around these parts.

But both players had CLEARLY much better peaks than Rice.

BEST THREE SEASONS - WIN SHARES
Rice - 24, 24, 24
Manush - 35, 28, 27
Combs - 31, 28, 25


I see Rice as a mistake, and I always have.

[Ace Venom]

Savoy, you do come across as a bit rude in your discussions, but this wasn't just directed at you. I'm not happy with the shouting done by bambam in this thread and I've already made a comment about that. I don't have a problem at all with how you voted in the sense that I respect you make informed opinions. You're consistent, which is good. I may not agree with you on some points and I may agree with you on other points. That's not the issue. This project can't survive if we can't respect the votes even while we disagree with them.

That said, I'm curious about some of your opinions on upcoming candidates in the next few years. Even though I disagree with you on a few things, I do listen to what you have to say.

[leecemark]

--Rice isn't?. Manush and Combs were both greater players than Rice at their best. Rice has more career value than they do because he sustained his level of play longer. For me you HAVE to have been a great player at some point in your career to get my vote. Rice never rose above good.

[Ace Venom]

This back and forth between you and bambambaseball who is just as guilty here is exactly why DoubleX walked away from this project. It is now responsible for me walking away as well. I'm sorry I brought up Sam Rice. I will not be posting in future polls in this project. I am also stepping down as the gatekeeper of the contributor's VC and will not be running that end of this project anymore. About the extent of participation in this project from here forward from me will be casting a ballot. Otherwise, I'm done here.

I beg you to reconsider this.

[SavoyBG]

That's not at all why this project was created. You don't know what you're talking about.

This back and forth between you and bambambaseball who is just as guilty here is exactly why DoubleX walked away from this project. It is now responsible for me walking away as well. I'm sorry I brought up Sam Rice. I will not be posting in future polls in this project. I am also stepping down as the gatekeeper of the contributor's VC and will not be running that end of this project anymore. About the extent of participation in this project from here forward from me will be casting a ballot. Otherwise, I'm done here.

Before you go, do you still think that Rice had a better career than Beckley?

[SavoyBG]

That said, I'm curious about some of your opinions on upcoming candidates in the next few years. Even though I disagree with you on a few things, I do listen to what you have to say.

Which candidates are you curious about?

[SavoyBG]

--Rice isn't?. Manush and Combs were both greater players than Rice at their best. Rice has more career value than they do because he sustained his level of play longer. For me you HAVE to have been a great player at some point in your career to get my vote. Rice never rose above good.

Exactly how I feel, thank you.

Rice was never a great player, not even for one season.

[Ace Venom]

Which candidates are you curious about?

Since they're coming up pretty soon, I'd have to say Stan Hack and Dixie Walker have popped up in my mind.

[jjpm74]

Before you go, do you still think that Rice had a better career than Beckley?

I honestly don't give a crap either way.

[SABR Matt]

This is project leader stepping in. I've been trying really hard to keep the peace in this thread and all I'm going to say is drop this issue right now. I run this project in my spare time and believe me when I say that it takes up a bit of time that I could be using for other things. I've continued this project out of respect for what DoubleX started and I'd hate it if I have to start posting a conduct policy in the first post. I'm a little guilty, but we're grown men here and need to act like it.

Did I say something offensive Ace? I was just debating...I don't believe anything I said was directed negatively at any poster.

[Ace Venom]

Matt, you haven't. This was directed at a couple of posters and not you.

[jjpm74]

Did I say something offensive Ace? I was just debating...I don't believe anything I said was directed negatively at any poster.

You haven't said anything remotely out of line in this thread.

[SavoyBG]

I honestly don't give a crap either way.

You seemed to care when you matter of factly stated that Rice had a better career than Beckley earlier today.

I think I presented pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

But if you really don't care then it's probably better that you do leave the project.

[Ace Venom]

You seemed to care when you matter of factly stated that Rice had a better career than Beckley earlier today.

I think I presented pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

But if you really don't care then it's probably better that you do leave the project.

That's not the reason he said he was leaving the project. We need a serious cool down here.

[jjpm74]

You seemed to care when you matter of factly stated that Rice had a better career than Beckley earlier today.

I think I presented pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

But if you really don't care then it's probably better that you do leave the project.

When you make a post, do you realize that the guy on the other end is also a living, breathing human being? Do you not know how to read between the lines? You are annoying me to no end. That is why I don't give a crap and also is why I strongly suggest you shut your trap. I do not care if I am offending you or over the line here. Drop it now!

[SavoyBG]

Since they're coming up pretty soon, I'd have to say Stan Hack and Dixie Walker have popped up in my mind.

Stan Hack is clearly a hall of famer, and is probably the second greatest ever at his position to this point, after Home Run Baker. Because of the fascination that many fans have with batting average, most people seem to rank Traynor above Hack as the greatest NL 3Bman to this point, but I have to believe that the cognoscenti realize that Hack was a better player than Traynor.

Dixie Walker is not a hall of famer. He's probably somewhere around as good a candidate as Cuyler, maybe slightly better, maybe a bit worse. Walker gets no war credit at all as he played in all of those seasons. In fact, he probably should be dropped a bit since his greatest season came in a severely depleted league right in the middle of the war (1944). I'd take Cuyler over Walker for their careers. And if anybody sees Walker as borderline, you'd have to leave him off of your ballot just because of the petition he tried to circulate to keep Jackie Robinson off of the Dodgers.

[Ace Venom]

This has gotten out of hand. I cannot run this project efficiently if respect falls apart. SavoyBG and bambambaseball are the #1 contributors here. Now there is a respected and long time member of this project leaving. I cannot see this continuing without doing something about it. Starting with the 1951 ballot, I will be posting a conduct policy even though I should not have to do it. I am also removing SavoyBG and bambambaseball from all VC projects, at least temporarily. I shouldn't have to do this, but I'm tired of having to deal with this.

[SavoyBG]

I am also removing SavoyBG and bambambaseball from all VC projects, at least temporarily. I shouldn't have to do this, but I'm tired of having to deal with this.

That's totally unfair. I haven't done anything wrong here, and I'm one of the most reliable voters in the VC projects. You are barely even getting 12 voters right now in those projects. Don't blame me if Bambam is getting all emotional about Sam Rice.

[bambambaseball]

Whatever. I only wanted to vote in the Negro League elections anyway!

[Ace Venom]

That's totally unfair. I haven't done anything wrong here, and I'm one of the most reliable voters in the VC projects. You are barely even getting 12 voters right now in those projects. Don't blame me if Bambam is getting all emotional about Sam Rice.

This has nothing to do about the reliability of your votes. The point is that neither you nor bambam would drop the argument when it ceased being civil. Given that a lot of this is almost identical to what drove DoubleX away from the project and seeing what happened with jjpm, I'd rather put you both on probation with the VC until I've seen that you can both be civil. I can't stop you from voting in the regular election.

[SavoyBG]

This has nothing to do about the reliability of your votes. The point is that neither you nor bambam would drop the argument when it ceased being civil. Given that a lot of this is almost identical to what drove DoubleX away from the project and seeing what happened with jjpm, I'd rather put you both on probation with the VC until I've seen that you can both be civil. I can't stop you from voting in the regular election.

I'd like you point out anything I posted towards bambam that wasn't civil.

[Ace Venom]

I'd like you point out anything I posted towards bambam that wasn't civil.

You didn't have to be right in that argument and you probably should have dropped it because all it served to do was get him more agitated. The back and forth between you two was really my whole problem. It's not always important to be right. I can also bring up other direct instances where you weren't exactly using the most tact ways to communicating your point, but I'd have to sift through posts in the previous thread where you didn't exactly like the fact that I supported Klein. The fact is, I'm tired and have to wake up in the morning. I've already lost enough time from my evening trying to keep this from getting out of hand.

[SavoyBG]

You didn't have to be right in that argument and you probably should have dropped it because all it served to do was get him more agitated. The back and forth between you two was really my whole problem.


So now I'm responsible for the behavior of bambam?

Go through my posts. All I did was calmly present evidence as to why I don't see Rice as a hall of famer. It's not my fault if another poster reacts immaturely to losing a debate.

[leecemark]

--Please take any further discussion of this issue to PM. Discussion in the thread needs to get back to baseball and off personalities. This applies to all involved.

[Ace Venom]

So...1951 is just around the corner.

[SavoyBG]

So...1951 is just around the corner.

Yes, so what are you thinking about Hack and Dixie Walker?

[Ace Venom]

I support Hack, but not Walker. Hack was one of the best players on that Cubs team.

[SavoyBG]

I support Hack, but not Walker. Hack was one of the best players on that Cubs team.

Hack was one of the best players in the league from 1935 through 1945.

For that 11 year period Hack averaged 24.5 win shares per season. Think about that. Hack's average season, for an 11 year period, was better than Sam Rice's best season.

[Ace Venom]

Hack was one of the best players in the league from 1935 through 1945.

Excellent point.

For that 11 year period Hack averaged 24.5 win shares per season. Think about that. Hack's average season, for an 11 year period, was better than Sam Rice's best season.

Then again, that's comparing a third baseman to a corner outfielder in a different league. It would probably be more appropriate to compare him to other players in his league.

[SavoyBG]

Excellent point.



Then again, that's comparing a third baseman to a corner outfielder in a different league. It would probably be more appropriate to compare him to other players in his league.

Just trying to give some perspective on how good Hack was (and on how overrated Rice is by some here).

I don't see anything wrong with comparing a player at 3B to a player at RF. That's what win shares and other metrics are designed for....to put all players on equal footing in terms of measuring value.

The only NL players who were CLEARLY better than Hack during that 11 year period (1935-1945) were Mel Ott and Arky Vaughan. Billy Herman and Joe Medwick may have been better, but they were not around for the last couple of years in the string.

[Ace Venom]

Hack's going to be sharing the ballot with Ott and Greenberg. Vaughn's not making his appearance on the ballot until 1953.

[SABR Matt]

PCA between Hack Wilson and Sam Rice:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1930 NL 13.62 1.37 22.8 0.1 14.99
1927 NL 11.30 2.86 18.5 3.3 14.16
1929 NL 9.80 2.21 15.4 2.0 12.01
1928 NL 10.26 1.29 16.6 0.2 11.55
1926 NL 7.44 2.61 11.0 2.8 10.05
1932 NL 6.66 0.33 9.9 -0.8 6.99
1924 NL 5.07 0.50 7.4 -0.6 5.57
1931 NL 4.26 0.90 5.6 0.4 5.16
1933 NL 3.68 0.31 4.7 -0.5 3.99
1934 NL 1.24 0.41 1.0 0.4 1.65
1925 NL 1.28 0.15 1.3 -0.3 1.43

I think it's important to realize that with Hack WIlson you have 5 consecutive seasons where he was an all-star...and the rest of the time he was a complete frickin' dud. I also find it interesting that Wilson's defense was better when he was hitting and worse when he wasn't.

Now...compare that to Sam Rice:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1924 AL 6.37 4.96 8.2 7.7 11.33
1920 AL 6.80 4.43 9.3 6.3 11.23
1921 AL 6.41 4.30 8.8 6.3 10.71
1930 AL 6.22 4.19 8.2 6.5 10.41
1925 AL 6.32 3.84 8.2 5.5 10.16
1923 AL 7.61 2.32 11.0 2.7 9.93
1929 AL 6.75 2.46 9.1 3.0 9.21
1917 AL 8.06 0.91 12.0 -0.3 8.97
1926 AL 6.74 2.19 9.0 2.2 8.93
1922 AL 6.41 2.51 8.5 2.4 8.92
1919 AL 6.09 2.29 8.3 2.7 8.38
1927 AL 4.77 1.76 5.4 1.7 6.53
1928 AL 5.55 0.69 6.8 -0.6 6.24
1931 AL 3.75 2.01 4.6 2.7 5.76
1932 AL 3.42 1.12 4.8 1.5 4.54
1916 AL 1.92 0.92 2.5 1.3 3.17
1934 AL 1.85 0.34 1.4 -0.3 2.19
1933 AL 0.58 0.43 0.6 0.7 1.01

Rice may not be the "sexiest" HOF choice...his peak was pretty mushy. But the man was a fountain of consistency both offensively and defensively. And defensively, he was a star corner outfielder (instead of a very poor center fielder).

His ELP is a little soft for the HOF, but the duration he held that ELP blows away most pre-1950 players.

BTW, it's not like Hack Wilson's peak was leaps and bounds better than Sam Rice's ELP. In their five best seasons, Rice was worth 53.8 wins and Wilson was worth 62.8 wins.

Yes, I'd rather see Rice with a HOF peak...but you can be a great player without being dominant if you were very good for a very long time.

Total marker scores:

Hack Wilson: 123.3
Sam Rice: 208.7

Supporting Wilson and not Rice is folly.

[SavoyBG]

PCA between Hack Wilson and Sam Rice:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1930 NL 13.62 1.37 22.8 0.1 14.99
1927 NL 11.30 2.86 18.5 3.3 14.16
1929 NL 9.80 2.21 15.4 2.0 12.01
1928 NL 10.26 1.29 16.6 0.2 11.55
1926 NL 7.44 2.61 11.0 2.8 10.05
1932 NL 6.66 0.33 9.9 -0.8 6.99
1924 NL 5.07 0.50 7.4 -0.6 5.57
1931 NL 4.26 0.90 5.6 0.4 5.16
1933 NL 3.68 0.31 4.7 -0.5 3.99
1934 NL 1.24 0.41 1.0 0.4 1.65
1925 NL 1.28 0.15 1.3 -0.3 1.43

I think it's important to realize that with Hack WIlson you have 5 consecutive seasons where he was an all-star...and the rest of the time he was a complete frickin' dud. I also find it interesting that Wilson's defense was better when he was hitting and worse when he wasn't.

Now...compare that to Sam Rice:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1924 AL 6.37 4.96 8.2 7.7 11.33
1920 AL 6.80 4.43 9.3 6.3 11.23
1921 AL 6.41 4.30 8.8 6.3 10.71
1930 AL 6.22 4.19 8.2 6.5 10.41
1925 AL 6.32 3.84 8.2 5.5 10.16
1923 AL 7.61 2.32 11.0 2.7 9.93
1929 AL 6.75 2.46 9.1 3.0 9.21
1917 AL 8.06 0.91 12.0 -0.3 8.97
1926 AL 6.74 2.19 9.0 2.2 8.93
1922 AL 6.41 2.51 8.5 2.4 8.92
1919 AL 6.09 2.29 8.3 2.7 8.38
1927 AL 4.77 1.76 5.4 1.7 6.53
1928 AL 5.55 0.69 6.8 -0.6 6.24
1931 AL 3.75 2.01 4.6 2.7 5.76
1932 AL 3.42 1.12 4.8 1.5 4.54
1916 AL 1.92 0.92 2.5 1.3 3.17
1934 AL 1.85 0.34 1.4 -0.3 2.19
1933 AL 0.58 0.43 0.6 0.7 1.01




Matt, when I look at a players' numbers, whether it's in traditional form, or in metrics like your stats, I want to see the seasons listed in chronological order. EVERY other system I've ever seen will present their numbers that way. For some reason you want to present your numbers in order of highest rated season to lowest rated season. Why is that?

[mwiggins]

Interesting that Rice scores significantly better on PCA than either Averill or Roush, both of whom we elected pretty easily. That makes me feel better about continuing to support him.

[leecemark]

--Thats a good arguement against Wilson anyway :). It is not surprising to me that Wilson's offensive and defensive goood years match up pretty well. He was a boozer and had conditioning issues. It appears he pulled it together for a time, but backslid - or perhaps just couldn't get away with burning the candle at both ends as he got older.
--Rice is basically just a matter of taste. If you are a career voter then he probably gets over the line for you. He was good for a long time and piled up fairly impressive countign numbers. If you are a peak vote - or wieght peak much at all - then he is probably going to be under the line for you. He was never a great player.

[jalbright]

There's been plenty of personal stuff going around here in the past twelve hours or so, and as the mod of the forum, I'm going to put in my two cents.

1) It's Ace's project, and if he chooses to alter the VC, that's his prerogative, especially with respect to the kind of personal backbiting that I've seen from last night into today.

2) That personal back and forth from bambam and jjpm (the post where he indicates he may be over the line, but he's going to do it anyway), and the at a bare minimum highly rude commentary from Savoy BG (especially the dismissive post toward jjpm) are all out of line and will stop, or consequences will follow. If you have problems with that characterization, PM me about it.

3) As leecemark said, this site is for baseball discussion, not personal axe-grinding. Keep the discussion to the former.

[SavoyBG]

Interesting that Rice scores significantly better on PCA than either Averill or Roush, both of whom we elected pretty easily. That makes me feel better about continuing to support him.


Both Roush and Averill score significantly better than Rice in win shares measurements regarding level of play and peak.

WIN SHARES per 162
Averill - 27.17
Roush - 25.86
Rice - 22.03

BEST THREE SEASONS
Roush - 33, 33, 30
Averill - 33, 30, 30
Rice - 24, 24, 24

Accordingly Bill James ranks Averill and Roush at # 14 and # 15 among CFers, and Rice at # 33 among RFers.

Ranking Rice ahead of Roush is sort of like ranking Jim Kaat ahead of Bob Gibson because Katt had more career wins.

I am officially starting KROOTH if anybody wants to join.

Keep Rice Out Of The Hall

[mwiggins]

I wouldn't agree that he was never a great player. At his best he was a great player who didn't walk a lot or hit any home runs, neither of which he was expected to do. Not doing those things made him never a hugely valuable player, but in every other phase of the game he was either above average or excellent for a LONG period of time.

Especially when you consider his main strenghts - contact hitting, defense, baserunning/stealing - are normally areas that players are better at in their 20's, which he missed most of for various reasons.

[leecemark]

--What phase of the game was he excellent at? His signature skill was hitting for average and he never led the league or came particularly close. He was good at it, even very good at his best, but never great. He was perhaps a GG quality RFer, but excellent outfielders generally play CF. He wasn't even shoved over due the the presence o a great CF in Washington. He was far from an all time greta basestealer.

[SavoyBG]

I wouldn't agree that he was never a great player.


When do you see him as a great player?

I don't see how somebody with 24 win shares can be termed as "great."

If a 24 win share season makes you great then the following players were all great at one time:

Jim Lefebvre
Jimmie Hall
Ken McMullen
Jim Ray Hart
Pete Ward
Solly Hemus
Stan Lopata
Vince DiMaggio
Elmer Riddle
Johnny Lindell
Hank Leiber
Johnny Frederick
Frank Demaree
George Mogridge
Jimmy Johnston
Bubbles Hargrave
Art Wilson
Bill Rariden

[Paul Wendt]

I think it's important to realize that with Hack WIlson you have 5 consecutive seasons where he was an all-star...and the rest of the time he was a complete frickin' dud. I also find it interesting that Wilson's defense was better when he was hitting and worse when he wasn't.
what leecemark said and more

Paul Waner is more famous for drinking and for playing with a hangover or drunk. If it hastened his decline, one kind of dissipation, that was long delayed and slow.

Hack Wilson is one of the players most famous for dissipation, some would say wasting his talent, and one of the famous players most freely called alcoholic.

Rice may not be the "sexiest" HOF choice...his peak was pretty mushy. But the man was a fountain of consistency both offensively and defensively. And defensively, he was a star corner outfielder (instead of a very poor center fielder).
Writing about teammate Goose Goslin, it is said that left field in Griffith Stadium was a second center. I have wondered about that. Does it imply that the Senators management considered Goslin a better fielder than Rice?

BTW, it's not like Hack Wilson's peak was leaps and bounds better than Sam Rice's ELP. In their five best seasons, Rice was worth 53.8 wins and Wilson was worth 62.8 wins.
This is a big revision, if I gauge opinion correctly.
iigoc :)

Matt, when I look at a players' numbers, whether it's in traditional form, or in metrics like your stats, I want to see the seasons listed in chronological order. EVERY other system I've ever seen will present their numbers that way. For some reason you want to present your numbers in order of highest rated season to lowest rated season. Why is that?
Matt's organization helps the reader appreciate best seasons and to compare best seasons of different players. Chronological organization helps the reader appreciate and compare consecutive seasons.

[Paul Wendt]

Ranking Rice ahead of Roush is sort of like ranking Jim Kaat ahead of Bob Gibson because Katt had more career wins.
more like Jim Kaat ahead of Jim Bunning

[mwiggins]

--What phase of the game was he excellent at? His signature skill was hitting for average and he never led the league or came particularly close. He was good at it, even very good at his best, but never great. He was perhaps a GG quality RFer, but excellent outfielders generally play CF. He wasn't even shoved over due the the presence o a great CF in Washington. He was far from an all time greta basestealer.

I was say he was an excellent contact hitter. He was consistenly among the top 10 in batting average, even during his late 30's and early 40's when he would have lost some of his speed. And he was consistently among the top 2 or 3 hardest players in the AL to strike out for almost his whole career.

And he was playing in an era full of contact hitters, so the fact that he never led the league in BA or came close doesn't disqualify him as great in that area IMO.

And sure Rice was just a RF, but he did play well in CF when given the chance, other than 1922. And that season he showed up overweight and out of shape and had a bad season in general. Even in his 30's he had the range and speed to cover what was a large CF in Griffith Stadium. And he did have a very strong arm, which would normally cause a player to be steered toward RF even if they had the range to handle CF.

[SABR Matt]

--Thats a good arguement against Wilson anyway :). It is not surprising to me that Wilson's offensive and defensive goood years match up pretty well. He was a boozer and had conditioning issues. It appears he pulled it together for a time, but backslid - or perhaps just couldn't get away with burning the candle at both ends as he got older.
--Rice is basically just a matter of taste. If you are a career voter then he probably gets over the line for you. He was good for a long time and piled up fairly impressive counting numbers. If you are a peak vote - or wieght peak much at all - then he is probably going to be under the line for you. He was never a great player.

Well when you're a guy who weighs both relatively equally (look at my rank lists and you'll see a healthy mix of great peaks and long careers in there)...he's a bottom-half HOF lock (IOW...he's not a bubble candidate, though his name doesn't appear at the top of any list...he's a solid lower teens rank in right field).

The RF ranks:

1) Babe Ruth (581.4)
2) Henry Aaron (432.1)
3) Frank Robinson (357.5)
4) Mel Ott (332.1 - only 4 defensive marker points...wow)
5) Al Kaline (319.5)
6) Reggie Jackson (280.1)
7) Paul Waner (279.8)
8) Roberto Clemente (263.1)
9) Tony Gwynn (254.3)
10) Gary Sheffield (251.1)
11) Sam Crawford (229.9)
12) Dave Winfield (221.6)
13) Larry Walker (219.6)
14) Harry Heilmann (216.6)
15) Willie Keeler (214.9)
16) Reggie Smith (212.7)
17) Dwight Evans (208.6)
18) San Rice (208.2)
19) Andre Dawson (207.9)
20) Sammy Sosa (205.6)*
21) Harry Hooper (203.6)
22) Bobby Bonds (200.4)
23) Enos Slaughter (194.3)
and the last significant drop occurs...
24) Rusty Staub (188.6)

My HOF stops at Slaughter.

[SABR Matt]

what leecemark said and more

Paul Waner is more famous for drinking and for playing with a hangover or drunk. If it hastened his decline, one kind of dissipation, that was long delayed and slow.

Hack Wilson is one of the players most famous for dissipation, some would say wasting his talent, and one of the famous players most freely called alcoholic.

I'm certain this is true...and once again, a historical perspective lends credence to my statistical analysis...which is cool whenever I observe it. :)

Writing about teammate Goose Goslin, it is said that left field in Griffith Stadium was a second center. I have wondered about that. Does it imply that the Senators management considered Goslin a better fielder than Rice?

Goslin does rate as a fairly strong defensive outfielder...stronger than Rice numerically despite playing on a harder side of his outfield. If RF was short, that would be an argument against counting Rice among the great defensive corner outfielders. Mark's comment that great defenders play center is generally true, but not universally. Ichiro, Rickey Henderson, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, etc were all primarily corner outfielders even without the presence of a great defensive center fielder and not because their managers didn't think they could play center.

This is a big revision, if I gauge opinion correctly.
iigoc :)

How so?

Matt's organization helps the reader appreciate best seasons and to compare best seasons of different players. Chronological organization helps the reader appreciate and compare consecutive seasons.

I list in order of seasonal rating because I think chronological order, though more common, distorts the picture of a player's value - for the same reason I dislike consecutive X year metrics, I dislike any attempt to treat a player as though the temporal distribution of his performances matters in the slightest. I prefer that people focus on what that player did when he was at his best and then read down the list to see how long it takes for the numbers to start becoming unimpressive.

[Jsquared83]

Well when you're a guy who weighs both relatively equally (look at my rank lists and you'll see a healthy mix of great peaks and long careers in there)...he's a bottom-half HOF lock (IOW...he's not a bubble candidate, though his name doesn't appear at the top of any list...he's a solid lower teens rank in right field).

The RF ranks:

1) Babe Ruth (581.4)
2) Henry Aaron (432.1)
3) Frank Robinson (357.5)
4) Mel Ott (332.1 - only 4 defensive marker points...wow)
5) Al Kaline (319.5)
6) Reggie Jackson (280.1)
7) Paul Waner (279.8)
8) Roberto Clemente (263.1)
9) Tony Gwynn (254.3)
10) Gary Sheffield (251.1)
11) Sam Crawford (229.9)
12) Dave Winfield (221.6)
13) Larry Walker (219.6)
14) Harry Heilmann (216.6)
15) Willie Keeler (214.9)
16) Reggie Smith (212.7)
17) Dwight Evans (208.6)
18) San Rice (208.2)
19) Andre Dawson (207.9)
20) Sammy Sosa (205.6)*
21) Harry Hooper (203.6)
22) Bobby Bonds (200.4)
23) Enos Slaughter (194.3)
and the last significant drop occurs...
24) Rusty Staub (188.6)

My HOF stops at Slaughter.

Surprised to see Sheffield so high and Reggie Jackson over Waner. How does Jackson rate purely on defense compared to the rest of these guys?

[SABR Matt]

more like Jim Kaat ahead of Jim Bunning

Just for fun...here's Roush's career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1920 NL 10.87 4.06 17.6 5.6 14.93
1919 NL 8.19 4.85 12.8 7.4 13.04
1917 NL 10.44 1.53 17.3 0.8 11.97
1918 NL 8.19 2.07 13.3 2.2 10.26
1915 FL 6.99 1.91 10.1 1.3 8.90
1923 NL 7.37 1.41 11.0 0.5 8.78
1925 NL 6.04 2.28 8.3 2.3 8.32
1921 NL 5.66 2.28 8.4 2.7 7.94
1926 NL 6.77 0.78 9.6 -0.8 7.55
1924 NL 5.06 1.12 6.8 0.2 6.18
1927 NL 4.26 1.02 4.6 -0.3 5.28
1929 NL 4.30 0.72 5.4 -0.3 5.02
1916 NL 3.00 1.43 3.7 1.4 4.43
1922 NL 2.84 0.52 4.5 0.4 3.36
1914 FL 1.81 0.91 2.4 1.3 2.72
1931 NL 1.47 0.95 0.4 0.8 2.42
1928 NL 0.62 0.59 0.1 0.5 1.21

Trying pretty hard to see how my taking Sam Rice ahead of Roush is comparable to taking Kaat over Bunning even...let alone Gibson. I see a four-year peak followed by an even softer ELP than Rice had (and a shorter one too)...and his 4-year peak wasn't even that peaky! He was a slightly better player at his best than Rice...but not leaps and bounds...

[SavoyBG]

Ichiro, Rickey Henderson, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, etc were all primarily right fielders even without the presence of a great defensive center fielder and not because their managers didn't think they could play center.



Rickey Henderson was a RFer?

[Paul Wendt]

Ranking Rice ahead of Roush is sort of like ranking Jim Kaat ahead of Bob Gibson because Katt had more career wins.
more like Jim Kaat ahead of Jim Perry

[SABR Matt]

Surprised to see Sheffield so high and Reggie Jackson over Waner. How does Jackson rate purely on defense compared to the rest of these guys?

Jackson was a pretty solid fielder in his youth and then stopped caring about it when he got older. His defensive career:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
RF 1972 42 1.22 0.339
RF 1981 51 1.35 0.328
RF 1974 123 3.2 0.326
RF 1971 135 2.88 0.305
RF 1976 109 1.91 0.288
RF 1970 88 1.48 0.285
RF 1975 143 2.34 0.283
RF 1973 131 1.92 0.276
RF 1977 115 1.65 0.274
RF 1985 55 0.72 0.269
CF 1970 34 0.56 0.269
CF 1972 85 1.15 0.258
RF 1968 142 1.42 0.256
RF 1969 141 1.12 0.246
RF 1978 96 0.71 0.244
RF 1980 85 0.44 0.234
RF 1979 126 0.65 0.234
RF 1983 34 0.17 0.233
RF 1982 109 0.20 0.220

Basically an average to somewhat above average corner outfielder and occasional center fielder after 1969 and until about 1977, and then a HORRIBLE outfielder thereafter. Pretty typical defensive career evolution for a cocky jerk of a slugger...LOL Hard to like the man's personality...but he was a good contributor with the leather in his youth.

Anyway...his career marker score for defense is 39.9, which is a bit low compared to the rest of the top 10 aside from Ott and his 4.5 marker point extravaganza.

Ruth (51.6)
Aaron (75.0)
Robinson (62.4)
Ott (4.5)
Kaline (98.5)
Jackson (39.9)
Waner (76.7)
Clemente (99.3)
Gwynn (62.5)
Sheffield (16.0)

As you can see, Sheffield gets into the top 10 entirely on his bat...I'm not surprised to see him in the top ten...he only gets knocked down if you want to discount his later seasons some due to possible PED use. I put an asterisk on Sosa's score for that reason...I could asterisk Sheffield as well.

[SABR Matt]

Rickey Henderson was a RFer?

That should have read corner outfielders...I'll correct it.

[PVNICK]

Matt, Ott was at 4 defensively? I thought he had this great arm. Superficially, you would think he was put at 3B a lot it was because he was good not bad (Bobby Bonilla notwithstanding). Did 3B drag him down? and thanks for all the neat info.

[SABR Matt]

Ott was bad wherever he played. Great arm notwithstanding, he had basically zero range in the outfield...but here are the defensive numbers for you to chew on:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
RF 1929 149 2.31 0.279
RF 1930 145 2.19 0.278
RF 1935 140 1.87 0.270
RF 1931 74 0.80 0.259
RF 1932 154 1.38 0.251
RF 1936 148 1.28 0.250
RF 1928 97 0.77 0.246
RF 1933 126 0.95 0.245
RF 1938 35 0.23 0.241
RF 1937 90 0.61 0.241
RF 1942 150 0.88 0.237
RF 1934 138 0.77 0.236
RF 1944 94 0.51 0.236
RF 1939 94 0.49 0.235
CF 1931 73 0.54 0.235
RF 1945 113 0.56 0.233
RF 1943 109 0.40 0.228
RF 1941 148 0.43 0.224
3B 1940 41 0.17 0.222
3B 1938 114 0.45 0.221
RF 1940 110 0.16 0.218
3B 1937 57 -0.19 0.179

Pretty consistently among the worst outfielders of all time with significant (>1000 EqG) playing time...maybe there was something about his home field that was disadvantaging him? A historical perspective would help me...but I don't think the Polo Grounds would have been THAT harsh on a right fielder...

[AG2004]

Trying pretty hard to see how my taking Sam Rice ahead of Roush is comparable to taking Kaat over Bunning even...let alone Gibson. I see a four-year peak followed by an even softer ELP than Rice had (and a shorter one too)...and his 4-year peak wasn't even that peaky! He was a slightly better player at his best than Rice...but not leaps and bounds...

The win shares system has Roush as an A- defensive outfielder, and Rice as a B- defensive outfielder. Roush has five outfield win shares gold gloves to Rice's one.

The HOF Marker system has Roush's offensive peak as higher than Rice's, which we might expect from OPS+. However, the system also has Rice's defensive peak as being higher than Roush's.

In fielding evaluations, does the system limit comparisons of RF to other RF, CF to other CF, SS to other SS, and so forth?

[SABR Matt]

Yes. Win Shares makes the leap that all outfielders should be cross-compared defensively...I split them by position. But compensating for that, center fielders have more opportunity to accrue value than right fielders do...so the results aren't as RF favorable as you might assume. Once again though...James' method makes center fielders about TWICE as valuable as corner outfielders...a supposition that is not supported by free-flowing defensive analysis...I have the ratio as being roughly 2.5 to 1.9...not 2.5 to 1.5 or less. o all corner outfielders look like crap by the Win SHares system because he forces it to look like that by the way he engineers the system.

[mwiggins]

Do you plan to vote for Rice next time Matt? You've certainly presented the best case for him so far.

[SABR Matt]

Yes...Rice probably has my vote...he had my vote this time too, I thought.

[AG2004]

Yes. Win Shares makes the leap that all outfielders should be cross-compared defensively...I split them by position. But compensating for that, center fielders have more opportunity to accrue value than right fielders do...so the results aren't as RF favorable as you might assume. Once again though...James' method makes center fielders about TWICE as valuable as corner outfielders...a supposition that is not supported by free-flowing defensive analysis...I have the ratio as being roughly 2.5 to 1.9...not 2.5 to 1.5 or less. o all corner outfielders look like crap by the Win SHares system because he forces it to look like that by the way he engineers the system.

James made it that way because the statistics available don't indicate how many assists, putouts, or errors came at each outfield position. In 1920, Babe Ruth had 299 chances in the outfield, with 259 putouts, 21 assists, and 19 errors. He played 36 games at left, 20 in center, and 85 in right. How many of those chances came while he was playing center? How many errors did he make in right field?

The data don't tell us.

Thus, he has to consider all outfielders as a group. There are corner outfielders who managed to obtain a letter grade of "A" for their defense - Jimmy Sheckard and Al Simmons are examples. Hack Wilson, a center fielder, had a grade of just C+. That's worse than Sam Rice earned.

----

I also did a comparison of Rice's defense with that of Rabbit Maranville under the PCA system. Rice has 41.67 defensive wins; Maranville, 55.08. Rice played 2270 games in the outfield, and 9 as pitcher; Maranville, 2670 games as an infielder.

Under the PCA system, Rice comes out to 1.83 defensive wins per 100 games; Maranville, 2.06 defensive wins per 100 games. I doubt that the value of defense in right is that close to the value of defense at shortstop.

Rice has 52.0 marker points on defense; Maranville, 61.6. I don't see how it should be that close, either.

[SABR Matt]

I approached the RF/CF/LF problem by making a linear estimate of plays made at each position...the best I could do...I do understand that argument though...I think, however, that the defensive ratings at the corner outfield positions are quite in line with expectations.

BTW, the way to look at the positions relative to each other is to look at the average win scoring rates...not at the extremes. Outfielders have a larger standard deviation of win scoring rates than shortstops...the best outfielders score closer to the best shortstops than the average outfielders do relative to the average shortstops.

[Domenic]

As you can see, Sheffield gets into the top 10 entirely on his bat...I'm not surprised to see him in the top ten...he only gets knocked down if you want to discount his later seasons some due to possible PED use. I put an asterisk on Sosa's score for that reason...I could asterisk Sheffield as well.

If you asterisk and/or discount Sosa then you must do the same with Sheffield. The evidence with Sosa is mostly speculative, regardless of how adamant that speculation is - Sheffield, on the other hand, has been incontrovertibly linked to BALCO, Greg Anderson, and Barry Bonds.

[SABR Matt]

True, Domenic...

Legalistically, Sosa should get the benefit of the doubt...I just personally have very strong doubts about him. The only players in the sluggers guild that I do not doubt from the 1990s are Ken Griffey Jr. and Jim Thome. Those two are squeaky SQUEAKY clean and I can't find any sign that they were ever involved.

[Domenic]

I wasn't even speaking from my legal pedestal there - were I to choose a player most likely to have used, without any implications beyond speculation, Sosa would be it. That being said, I think it is counterintuitive to your methodology to dock Sosa and not Sheffield.

[SABR Matt]

That's fair. I don't think Sheffield and Sosa were clean...they should both have a note of caution attached to their achievements in the game...though it should be noted that I didn't "dock" Sosa...I listed his full value as obtained by PCA...I just put an asterisk there in case people wanted to make an issue of the PEDs or the bat corking or whatever.

[Ace Venom]

That's fair. I don't think Sheffield and Sosa were clean...they should both have a note of caution attached to their achievements in the game...though it should be noted that I didn't "dock" Sosa...I listed his full value as obtained by PCA...I just put an asterisk there in case people wanted to make an issue of the PEDs or the bat corking or whatever.

I'm one of those that doesn't care either way. The prevalence of PEDs was a bit like game fixing back in the day. You don't know how many people were doing it, but you know people were doing it. Obviously, throwing games to me is more offensive than taking pharmaceuticals. At least people taking pharmaceuticals were trying to win. Was it right? Probably not. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of calling for a retroactive policing of a sport that didn't bother policing itself until Jose Canseco decided to take a second career as a snitch. If you want to place asterisks, that's fine. I'll just ignore them.

[SABR Matt]

That's cool...the asterisk isn't going to change where I rank a player...it's to cal attention to the doubt in case someone wants to yell at me for daring to not consider the PED thing...to which my usual response is "I'm a sabermetrician...my job is to learn about and report on what happens on the field...your job is to decide how to use my numbers"...i.e. it's not my job to move guys around based on whether or not I think they did PEDs.

[SABR Steve]

Ty Cobb once said that Sam Rice belongs in the real Hall of Fame--'nuff said.

[SavoyBG]

Ty Cobb once said that Sam Rice belongs in the real Hall of Fame--'nuff said.

Ty Cobb also thought that Hal Chase was better than Lou Gehrig.