BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1951

[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.

Conduct Policy: Every vote is a voter's opinion on who should be elected to the Hall of Fame. It is our responsibility as voters to be respectful towards each other. Personal attacks should not be tolerated and you should notify a moderator rather than allowing an argument to escalate and further derail discussion of the candidates.

1951 Guide
There are 38 candidates on the 1951 ballot - 30 holdovers and 13 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1946 (unless qualifying under the age or death rule) or were omitted on the ballot in previous years.

Newly Eligible (13)
Dick Bartell
Tommy Bridges
Mace Brown
Ben Chapman
Babe Dahlgren
Curt Davis
Bill Dickey
Vince DiMaggio
Pinky Higgins
Red Kress
Mike Ryba
Hal Schumacher
Hal Trosky

Holdovers (30)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support
Wally Berger 6th 38.24% 53.85% (1947) 38.24% (1950)
Jim Bottomley 10th 20.59% 28.00% (1949) 20.59% (1950)
Harlond Clift 2nd 8.82% 8.82% (1950) 8.82% (1950)
Earle Combs 12th 8.82% 24.14% (1945) 8.82% (1950)
Kiki Cuyler 9th 35.29% 55.17% (1945) 33.33% (1946)
Paul Derringer 2nd 5.88% 5.88% (1950) 5.88% (1950)
Leo Durocher 2nd 11.76% 11.76% (1950) 11.76% (1950)
Wes Ferrell 6th 50.00% 64.00% (1949) 50.00% (1950)
Rick Ferrell 2nd 8.82% 8.82% (1950) 8.82% (1950)
Lefty Gomez 4th 41.18% 41.18% (1950) 38.46 (1948)
Burleigh Grimes 13th 57.06% 60.71% (1947) 47.06% (1950)
Babe Herman 9th 11.76% 20.00% (1943) 11.11% (1943)
Bob Johnson 2nd 26.47% 26.47% (1950) 26.47% (1950)
Chuck Klein 3rd 44.12% 44.12% (1950) 44.00% (1949)
Tony Lazzeri 7th 23.53% 37.93% (1945) 23.53% (1950)
Heinie Manush 7th 23.53% 34.48% (1945) 23.53% (1950)
Rabbit Maranville 14th 62.94% 68.97% (1945) 52.94% (1950)
Pepper Martin 3rd 11.76% 12.00% (1949) 11.76% (1950)
Buddy Myer 6th 11.76% 16.00% (1949) 11.11% (1946)
Sam Rice 13th 55.88% 71.43% (1941) 52.26% (1946)
Eppa Rixey 14th 47.06% 60.00% (1938) 37.04% (1946)
Red Ruffing 2nd 70.59% 70.59% (1950) 70.59% (1950)
Lloyd Waner 2nd 11.76% 11.76% (1950) 11.76% (1950)
Lon Warneke 2nd 8.82% 8.82% (1950) 8.82% (1950)
Hack Wilson 13th 50.00% 57.69% (1948) 40.74% (1944)

Holdovers Dropped From Last Election (2)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support
Wally Schang End of Eligibility 15 42.86% (1941) 32.35% (1937)
Sam West Lack of Support 2 8.00% (1949) 2.94% (1950)

Last Year of Eligibility (0)
Player High Support


Penultimate Year of Eligibility (2)
Player High Support
Rabbit Maranville 68.97% (1945)
Eppa Rixey 60.00% (1938)


Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in Previous Election (5)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Wes Ferrell 50.00% 5
Rabbit Maranville 52.94% 13
Sam Rice 55.88% 12
Red Ruffing 70.59% 1
Hack Wilson 50.00% 8

Hall of Famers
Players Elected - 126
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 49 45
Frank Baker 1927 96.43% 1 Third Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1908-1914, 1916-1919, 1921-1922 13 Living - Age 63 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 49 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 83 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 61 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 55 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 81 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 65 47
Mickey Cochrane 1942 89.19% 1 Catcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1937 13 Living - Age 47 38
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Deceased (1887-1951) 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
Wilbur Cooper* 1950 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1912-1926 15 Living - Age 59 58
Stan Coveleski 1934 89.29% 2 Pitcher Cleveland Indians (AL) 1912, 1916-1928 14 Living - Age 62 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living - Age 71 41
Joe Cronin 1950 88.24% 1 Shortstop Boston Red Sox (AL) 1926-1945 20 Living - Age 45 44
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 42 38
Larry Doyle 1926 76.00% 2 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1907-1920 14 Living - Age 65 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1891, 1904-1906 17 Living - Age 85 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 63 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living - Age 75 40
Willie Foster*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher Chicago American Giants (ANL/NNL) 1923-1938 16 Living - Age 47 43
Jimmie Foxx 1950 100% 1 First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1942, 1945 20 Living - Age 44 43
Frankie Frisch 1942 91.89% 1 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1919-1937 19 Living - Age 52 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 48 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 50 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 81 70
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 62 47
Lefty Grove 1946 100% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1941 17 Living - Age 51 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 51 46
Harry Heilmann 1937 96.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Deceased (1894-1951) 43
Pete Hill*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Center Field Chicago American Giants (I) 1899-1925 27 Deceased (1880-1951) 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 54 45
Carl Hubbell 1948 96.15% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1928-1943 16 Living - Age 49 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 77 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 77 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 74 63
John Henry Lloyd*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Lincoln Giants (I/ECL) 1906-1932 27 Living - Age 67 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 51 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 82 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 64 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 58 54
Edd Roush 1943 76.67% 1 Center Field Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1913-1929, 1931 18 Living - Age 58 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 52 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 49 47
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 57 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 63 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 50 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 52 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 52 42
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 60 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 77 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 78 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living - Age 70 41
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Deceased (1860-1925) 47
Paul Waner 1950 94.12% 1 Right Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1926-1945 20 Living - Age 48 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 63 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 84 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 (9): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, 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 (14): Joe Cronin, 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 (8): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson, Paul Waner
Pitcher (36): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Andy Cooper, Wilbur 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
1950 (3): Joe Cronin, Jimmie Foxx, Paul Waner
- 1950 VC (1): Wilbur Cooper

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 (17): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Wilbur Cooper, 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 (15): Earl Averill, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Cronin, Dizzy Dean, Willie Foster, Jimmie Foxx, Charlie Gehringer, Lou Gehrig, Josh Gibson, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Al Simmons, Turkey Stearnes, Bill Terry, Paul Waner

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) (3): Jimmy Collins, Joe Cronin, 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) (7): Frank Baker, Mickey Cochrane, Jimmie Foxx, 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) (8): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Wilbur Cooper, Tommy Leach, Pie Traynor, Honus Wagner, Paul Waner
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, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 56
- 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: 36
- 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: 55
- Number of Deceased Hall of Famers: 71
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Hugh Duffy - 85
- Deceased in Past Year: Eddie Collins, Harry Heilmann, Pete Hill

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
1950: 34

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)
1950 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90811), 1950 VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90804)

[Ace Venom]

I'd accidentally posted a thread before it was ready. This is the correct thread. I'm handling the contributor's ballot this time, but I won't be posting it until later. I posted a new conduct policy in response to the 1950 thread.

[jalbright]

The mistaken thread has been deleted, so that problem is solved.

As for this ballot:
Dickey
Ferrell
Grimes
Maranville
S. Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
H. Wilson

[Ace Venom]

My ballot

Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Bill Dickey
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing
Lon Warneke
Hack Wilson

I added newcomer Bill Dickey. I once again cast ballots for Berger, W. Ferrell and Maranville. I finally decided to drop Lazzeri and Manush from my ballot and it's not likely that they will return.

[Domenic]

It really bothers me that so many users post thoughtful commentary on prospective Hall of Famers with every single election and that, for the most part, these comments are ignored by the electorate. This certainly has to do with the fact that I believe I have been ignored several times, but the fact stands - I have seen dozens of well-reasoned posts, stating why we should or should not vote for a player, and these are usually ignored. Voters seem to vote for the same players year in and year out, and never let someone change their mind - is this not one of the things that plagues the BBWAA? The fact that few are open to new methods of analysis has kept players like Blyleven, Santo, and Raines out, and allowed several "mistakes" in.

With that, I will post the Berger/Herman/Wilson information that myself and Matt worked out last time around, and hope that someone pays some attention. After that, I am going to seriously consider whether or not voting in this fine project is worth the frustration that seems to come with it.

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.

[jalbright]

It really bothers me that so many users post thoughtful commentary on prospective Hall of Famers with every single election and that, for the most part, these comments are ignored by the electorate. This certainly has to do with the fact that I believe I have been ignored several times, but the fact stands - I have seen dozens of well-reasoned posts, stating why we should or should not vote for a player, and these are usually ignored. Voters seem to vote for the same players year in and year out, and never let someone change their mind - is this not one of the things that plagues the BBWAA? The fact that few are open to new methods of analysis has kept players like Blyleven, Santo, and Raines out, and allowed several "mistakes" in.

With that, I will post the Berger/Herman/Wilson information that myself and Matt worked out last time around, and hope that someone pays some attention. After that, I am going to seriously consider whether or not voting in this fine project is worth the frustration that seems to come with it.

There are a couple of factors involved: first, there's the poll method of voting in the general elections, which I think definitely leads to having some rather uninvolved voters. Second, a lot of us have been through other similar projects, and have heard many of the arguments before. Maybe we shouldn't be that way, but I think it's a factor. Third, which couples with the second, is that if a guy doesn't make it in the general election, there's still the VC. Personally, it's tough for me to get all worked up about these cases in the general election. I pay more attention to those who have done well in the general voting and have an argument made for them in the VC voting, though. It's not an ideal compromise, but I've actually got a life outside this site, and this approach works for me.

[Domenic]

There are a couple of factors involved: first, there's the poll method of voting in the general elections, which I think definitely leads to having some rather uninvolved voters. Second, a lot of us have been through other similar projects, and have heard many of the arguments before. Maybe we shouldn't be that way, but I think it's a factor. Third, which couples with the second, is that if a guy doesn't make it in the general election, there's still the VC. Personally, it's tough for me to get all worked up about these cases in the general election. I pay more attention to those who have done well in the general voting and have an argument made for them in the VC voting, though. It's not an ideal compromise, but I've actually got a life outside this site, and this approach works for me.

I understand all of that, I really do - but I don't have a vote in the VC and, so far as I can tell, votes are cast there immediately, as well. While I've been voting for Berger, I am not personally invested in his getting in. Rather, I am trying to point out an inherent flaw in many voter's ballots - to me, Berger is the bottom tier of Hall of Fame worth CF'ers, and Wilson is a bit below him; it doesn't make sense, to me, to vote for Wilson but not Berger. I could probably be swayed to vote for Wilson, as well.

I would also like to point out that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I will view your "I've actually got a life outside this site" comment as something other than an insult, insinuating that my life somehow revolves around this site. Otherwise, this site would look very poor, in terms of its moderators and a lack of professionalism.

[Ace Venom]

The only time I didn't vote for Berger was in the previous election cycle. I usually vote for both Berger and Wilson. There are a lot of new voters coming in, so they haven't gotten the opportunity to spend time in discussion like we have. Some of these candidates (Maranville, Rixey and Berger) have been almost discussed to death. Do you have any accounts of Berger from newspaper clips or other players? First person accounts of a player are generally pretty helpful to a candidacy.

[jalbright]

I understand all of that, I really do - but I don't have a vote in the VC and, so far as I can tell, votes are cast there immediately, as well. While I've been voting for Berger, I am not personally invested in his getting in. Rather, I am trying to point out an inherent flaw in many voter's ballots - to me, Berger is the bottom tier of Hall of Fame worth CF'ers, and Wilson is a bit below him; it doesn't make sense, to me, to vote for Wilson but not Berger. I could probably be swayed to vote for Wilson, as well.

I would also like to point out that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I will view your "I've actually got a life outside this site" comment as something other than an insult, insinuating that my life somehow revolves around this site. Otherwise, this site would look very poor, in terms of its moderators and a lack of professionalism.

My comment about having a life was only meant to refer to my own limited time. I can't obsess about this site, and so I make compromises. You're reading way too much into what I wrote, quite honestly.

[Domenic]

The only time I didn't vote for Berger was in the previous election cycle. I usually vote for both Berger and Wilson. There are a lot of new voters coming in, so they haven't gotten the opportunity to spend time in discussion like we have. Some of these candidates (Maranville, Rixey and Berger) have been almost discussed to death. Do you have any accounts of Berger from newspaper clips or other players? First person accounts of a player are generally pretty helpful to a candidacy.

I don't mind people not voting for Berger - I more dislike the fact that most posts like mine tend to be ignored (there were a ton of fantastic posts about Maranville, for example). I was using my own post as a reference, of sorts. If someone believes Berger isn't Hall-worthy, that's fine - as I said, he's near the bottom of my list. That being said, I think it's logically inconsistent to not vote for him, but to vote for Herman and Wilson (which many have done). This wasn't a jab at you or anyone in particular.

I don't have any first-hand accounts of Berger. Most of the New York Times materials on-line require a paid account, which I don't have. I do have some tid-bits of note, though:

In his rookie season, "Berger hit two balls out of Braves Field and onto the Boston & Albany Railroad tracks." The Boston Braves, 1948
"His timely hitting beat the third-place Giants by one-run margins five times over the course of the season." Id.
"[O]n May 30, 1931, became one of only five players ever to hit a ball out of Baker Bowl to left field." - Bob Bogart
In 1933, Berger hit 27 of his team's 54 HR, and drove in 106 of 511 R.
Berger started the first two All-Star games, being selected to the first four.

My comment about having a life was only meant to refer to my own limited time. I can't obsess about this site, and so I make compromises. You're reading way too much into what I wrote, quite honestly.

That's fair - I just hope you realize that it could easily be misconstrued in such a way. Statements such as that tend to be made as insults and, your intentions notwithstanding, that is how it came across. Let's move forward amicably, as I don't hold any sort of grudge.

[SavoyBG]

MY BALLOT:

Berger
Dickey
W. Ferrell
Gomez
Grimes
Maranville
Ruffing

Aside from the first year guys I have also added Grimes to my ballot. I took another careful look at some of the borderline guys on the ballot who I was not voting for (Clift, B. Johnson, Rixey, Grimes) and decided that Grimes compares favorably enough with Ruffing where I need to vote for him. He's a bit behind in total career value, but he clearly had a better peak than Ruffing, and although he was so-so in his entire post season career, he was magnificent at 38 years old in helping St. Louis win the 1931 series. Rixey is also about even with Ruffing in career and peak value, but doesn't have the post season pedigree. Perhaps that's not his fault, but I believe that the hall of fame has to be about more than just cut and dried career value. Contributing to championship teams has to mean something, even if it's just a very small factor. Rixey also missed the entire 1918 season during a war, so I'll think about voting for him next year, maybe, in his final year on the ballot.

[STLCards2]

Bridges
Dickey
Ferrell
Rixey
Ruffing

[jalbright]

That's fair - I just hope you realize that it could easily be misconstrued in such a way. Statements such as that tend to be made as insults and, your intentions notwithstanding, that is how it came across. Let's move forward amicably, as I don't hold any sort of grudge.

I have never had an axe to grind in this one, and I'm not going to start now. That said, I'm not going to worry too much about how someone else may misread my own intent, especially if that misreading comes about by reading into a post things that aren't there. If someone has a problem understanding what I wrote, I'll explain it.

[mwiggins]

Bridges
Dickey
W Ferrell
Gomez
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
Ruffing

[JDD]

My Ballot (i think.... I vote for 15 most of the time)


Dick Bartell, SS (1927-1943, 1946) - 1st Year
Jim Bottomley, 1B (1922-1937) - 10th Year
Harlond Clift, 3B (1934-1945) - 2nd Year
Bill Dickey, C (1928-1943, 1946) - 1st Year
Rick Ferrell, C (1929-1945, 1947) - 2nd Year
Lefty Gomez, SP (1930-1943) - 4th Year
Burleigh Grimes, SP (1916-1934) - 13th Year
Babe Herman, RF (1926-1937, 1945) - 10th Year
Bob Johnson, LF (1933-1945) - 2nd Year
Chuck Klein, RF (1928-1944) - 3rd Year
Tony Lazzeri, 2B (1926-1939) - 7th Year
Pepper Martin, CF/RF (1928, 1930-1940, 1944) - 3rd Year
Sam Rice, RF (1915-1935) - 13th Year
Red Ruffing, SP (1924-1942, 1945-1947) - 2nd Year
Hack Wilson, CF (1923-1934) - 13th Year

Some of you still need to look up ol' Harlond's numbers...

[SABR Matt]

So apparently, you're a GIGANTONORMOUSLY-MEGA-HUGE!!!!!! hall guy.

Wow.

[JDD]

And just one vote at that. I am counter-culture, to one which insists the HOF level should be set at something like Ruth or Johnson or Smith.

That bar is tooooo high. It should be set right around Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven, no?

[bambambaseball]

So apparently, you're a GIGANTONORMOUSLY-MEGA-HUGE!!!!!! hall guy.

Wow.

Why dont you learn more about the project that is a year old before making ridiculous comments like that. :rolleyes:

[bambambaseball]

And just one vote at that. I am counter-culture, to one which insists the HOF level should be set at something like Ruth or Johnson or Smith.

That bar is tooooo high. It should be set right around Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven, no?

Your balott is fine, but I notice you didnt vote for Maranville who is better then about 5-6 of the guys you voted for. He could use your support!

[SABR Matt]

And just one vote at that. I am counter-culture, to one which insists the HOF level should be set at something like Ruth or Johnson or Smith.

That bar is tooooo high. It should be set right around Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven, no?

Yes it should...there's just one problem...abotu 11 of your 15 picks are way weaker candidates than Santo and Blyleven.

[SABR Matt]

Why dont you learn more about the project that is a year old before making ridiculous comments like that. :rolleyes:

Right...because I need to know the entire voting history of this project to recognize when someone is voting for 10 guys who have no business near the hall. Yes I know this is a progressive system so we're comparing these guys only to men who came before (and not after)...it turns out I'm not a complete moron and hey...I can even READ THE RULES OF THIS GAME!! Whodathunkit. That doesn't mean I can't think it's ludicrous to vote for such luminaries as Clift, Grimes, Martin, Bartell, Rick Ferrell (LOL!)...

[mwiggins]

And just one vote at that. I am counter-culture, to one which insists the HOF level should be set at something like Ruth or Johnson or Smith.

That bar is tooooo high. It should be set right around Ron Santo and Bert Blyleven, no?

To each his own, but that seems a bit more exclusive than most vote around here. We've elected quite a few 3B that wouldn't fit if the bar was Ron Santo.

Good to see another vote for Rice, though, whatever your standards are.

[SABR Matt]

BTW...for those who don't want to look up what I voted for:

Kiki Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Indian Bob Johnson
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing

[bambambaseball]

Right...because I need to know the entire voting history of this project to recognize when someone is voting for 10 guys who have no business near the hall. Yes I know this is a progressive system so we're comparing these guys only to men who came before (and not after)...it turns out I'm not a complete moron and hey...I can even READ THE RULES OF THIS GAME!! Whodathunkit. That doesn't mean I can't think it's ludicrous to vote for such luminaries as Clift, Grimes, Martin, Bartell, Rick Ferrell (LOL!)...

It means you cant just march into a project and decide that everyone who disagrees with you is a complete idiot. People have different voting strategies in this project. Some people have even left guys like Babe Ruth off their balotts to make room for some other guys who needed some support. OH THE TRAVESTY OF IT ALL!!!! You have some nice things to say, but sometimes, you are just way too mean! Even more mean than me!

[bambambaseball]

BTW...for those who don't want to look up what I voted for:

Kiki Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Indian Bob Johnson
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing

Why do you think Bill Dickey isnt deserving of your balott? :eek:

[bambambaseball]

Yes it should...there's just one problem...abotu 11 of your 15 picks are way weaker candidates than Santo and Blyleven.

Do you have a point? Santo and Blyleven wasnt even alive yet Mr I read the rules!

[SABR Matt]

Why do you think Bill Dickey isnt deserving of your balott? :eek:

Whoops...I voted for Dickey...just didn't write his name down in that post...sorry.

[SABR Matt]

Do you have a point? Santo and Blyleven wasnt even alive yet Mr I read the rules!

HE BROUGHT THEIR NAMES UP...NOT ME...read the post that precipitated that specific reply.

[JDD]

Matt, here is my point.

I think to make the HOF, it HAS to be ok to be closer to Ron Santo in ability than Babe Ruth.

The average pitcher among the next ten starting pitchers to make the HOF will be closer to Bert Blyleven in ability than Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove.

And that HAS to be OK.

And when I vote for Harlond Clift, it is because I think he is good enough, not because he is a hair below Mike Schmidt.

And Rabbit is over-rated by enough other people. He does not need my vote to be over-over-rated.

[SABR Matt]

I agree with you JDD...the problem, as I see it, is that you're either badly underrating Ron Santo when you make these comparisons, or there are a lot of players you're overrating if you think they're on par with Santo...I just don't see how Harlond Clift even remotely compared to Ron Santo.

Yes, I know he's not on the board yet, but JDD is the one making that comparison.

[Sockeye]

Bill Dickey
Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Eppa Rixey
Red Ruffing

Second election in a row that I made a mistake. Please add a vote for Bill Dickey. Forgot the check him on the ballot. Think it's time I get my eyes checked or something. Geesh

[JDD]

Some may over-rate Santo, because he is a SABR darling and it is fashionable to do so.

That said, using as many vague terms as possible, I can state the following:

"Many" think Santo should be in the HOF.

"Some" present HOFers are considered by "some" "experts" to be even less worthy than a player with Santo's resume. Meaning if Santo gets in one day, he won't be the worst non-pitcher there.

If that is the case, and if "some" consider that to be reasonable, then a "few" fans who like doing what we do here at this site may wish to use Santo as some sort benchmark for consideration. The leap some would take is this... if you are close to Santo, you are close to the HOF, because well, he is. It gets tricky if you make the line of dominoes too long because you lose your comps.

I say there are more players close to Santo's ability and record than you think. I don't overrate him. I don't think very many do. I think we have him pegged about right (very good for a decent amount of time and great during those seasons he was leading the league in walks while slugging .500). It is my opinion people talk him up just to join the HOF conversation, and in doing so overrate him in the process.

So if he is borderline, then I maintain if you rate him correctly, then there are a lot more borderline candidates than you think. I choose to vote for almost all of them, because many don't vote for any. They rank Santo too high, and thereby push the actual HOFers even higher. Which is odd because some don't belong in the first place, right?

That's why I vote for 15 in these little polls. Someone has to vote for the borderline candidates. That is what makes them borderline. Some say yea, some nay.

[SavoyBG]

BTW...for those who don't want to look up what I voted for:

Kiki Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Indian Bob Johnson
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing

You can't really think a vote for Grimes is ludicrous if you're voting for Ruffing. They are really pretty equal in career vale, and Grimes definitely had the better peak.

[SavoyBG]

duplicate post, sorry.

[Ace Venom]

I do have a conduct policy here now, so let's stop the negativity that I saw earlier. Don't make me regret taking over this project because I'll put this on hiatus again if I have to. Keep this on baseball discussion and stop with the personal attacks.

There's a decent argument for Harlond Clift and I cast a vote for him. He'll likely lose it once Stan Hack is on the ballot.

[SABR Matt]

You can't really think a vote for Grimes is ludicrous if you're voting for Ruffing. They are really pretty equal in career vale, and Grimes definitely had the better peak.

Grimes' career by PCA:
Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1916 0.77 135 0.281
1917 0.41 581 0.231
1918 4.78 776 0.286
1919 2.01 550 0.260
1920 10.25 893 0.339
1921 10.16 917 0.335
1922 0.39 810 0.228
1923 5.10 989 0.276
1924 2.07 949 0.246
1925 1.22 760 0.240
1926 3.14 670 0.271
1927 4.01 775 0.276
1928 8.16 954 0.310
1929 4.66 687 0.292
1930 4.16 466 0.314
1930 -0.29 159 0.205
1931 2.83 640 0.268
1932 0.08 433 0.225
1933 -0.10 41 0.199
1933 0.37 202 0.242
1934 0.39 20 0.421
1934 0.14 87 0.240
1934 -0.07 56 0.211

Ruffing's career:
Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1924 0.05 73 0.230
1925 2.39 660 0.260
1926 2.42 492 0.273
1927 1.9 472 0.264
1928 4.17 867 0.272
1929 1.06 746 0.238
1930 3.09 595 0.276
1930 0.02 78 0.226
1931 3.82 712 0.278
1932 7.7 756 0.326
1933 5.34 699 0.301
1934 4.87 747 0.289
1935 4.75 634 0.299
1936 6.06 795 0.300
1937 6.69 753 0.313
1938 7.61 738 0.328
1939 3.72 676 0.279
1940 3.82 661 0.282
1941 3.5 543 0.288
1942 3.46 573 0.284
1945 1.84 260 0.295
1946 2.76 166 0.391
1947 -0.12 161 0.216

Ruffing has a career PCA-BA of .287 to Grimes' .275.

Ruffing amassed 102.4 pitching marker points to Grimes' 71.2

Ruffing's peak was a little less impressive at the top but lasted one hell of a lot longer at a high level of performance.

[SavoyBG]

Ruffing has a career PCA-BA of .287 to Grimes' .275.

Ruffing amassed 102.4 pitching marker points to Grimes' 71.2

Ruffing's peak was a little less impressive at the top but lasted one hell of a lot longer at a high level of performance.

I don't see it. Here are each player's really good (or better) years in the order that you prefer:

Grimes
Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1920 10.25 893 0.339
1921 10.16 917 0.335
1928 8.16 954 0.310
1923 5.10 989 0.276
1918 4.78 776 0.286
1929 4.66 687 0.292
1930 4.16 466 0.314
1927 4.01 775 0.276


Ruffing
Ruffing's career:
Yr Wins DIO PCABA
1932 7.7 756 0.326
1938 7.61 738 0.328
1937 6.69 753 0.313
1936 6.06 795 0.300
1933 5.34 699 0.301
1934 4.87 747 0.289
1935 4.75 634 0.299
1928 4.17 867 0.272


Grimes is clearly better in just looking at each player's top 8 seasons. Ruffing wins the PCA battle based on having 9 pretty good years to Grimes only having 4 pretty good years, to go along with each player's reall good years.

Win shares makes both pitchers pretty even as Ruffing has better career value, but Grimes kills Red in peak value.

TOTAL
Ruffing - 322
Grimes - 286

BEST THREE SEASONS
Ruffing - 27, 25, 24
Grimes - 32, 30, 29

You might prefer the extra career value, and even I think that Ruffing was a bit better than Grimes, but I still don't think you can say that it's "ludicrous" to vote for Grimes.

[SABR Matt]

The HOF Marker puts a lot more emphasis on the peak than it does on the string of "pretty good" seasons as you put it. Grimes is getting a lot of value back for having a better peak that Ruffing can't touch...but Ruffing still flat out blows Grimes away in total Marker score...I think it's more important to be a very good player and hold that level for a long time than it is to have a better 3-year peak...even though my system puts extra added emphasis on the peak.

[SavoyBG]

The HOF Marker puts a lot more emphasis on the peak than it does on the string of "pretty good" seasons as you put it. Grimes is getting a lot of value back for having a better peak that Ruffing can't touch...but Ruffing still flat out blows Grimes away in total Marker score...I think it's more important to be a very good player and hold that level for a long time than it is to have a better 3-year peak...even though my system puts extra added emphasis on the peak.

Okay, but I'm sure that you have already voted for some players for this hall of fame whose career mark in PCA is below or not muich above Grimes' score of 71.2.

It's certainly not "ludicrous" to believe that Grimes is a hall of famer. Bill James ranks Grimes above Lefty Gomez, Clark Griffith, Urban Shocker, Addie Joss, Tony Mullane, among others that I don't think you would say were "ludicrous" hall of fame choices.

[SABR Matt]

Bill James' evaluation of pitchers is famously screwed up because he completely failed to consider defense independent evaluation techniques.

BTW...the career values of those pitchers you mentioned:

Gomez: 88.7
Griffith: 92.0
Shocker: 80.0
Joss: 104.9
Mullane: 85.0

I just cannot agree with James on Grimes' position...I was too harsh in my wording however, at least as it refers to Grimes...he shouldn't have been on my "ludicrous" list...there is at least a strong traditional case to be made for his being a HOFer. So I understand his being chosen more than a number of others (Rick Ferrell?? Really?? Did that guy JDD mean Wes just like the idiots on the BBWAA who accidentally voted for the wrong Ferrell?)...but he's not making my cut.

[SavoyBG]

Bill James' evaluation of pitchers is famously screwed up because he completely failed to consider defense independent evaluation techniques.

As I've said in other discussions, I don't have a lot of faith in DIPS, and I think it's vastly overrated, especially in the case of the years when Grimes pitched. It also takes away any ability that a pitcher may or may not have to bear down and get out of jams. ERA is an excellent stat that is negated by DIPS as to now base a pitcher's effectiveness on preventing baserunners rather than preventing runs.



I just cannot agree with James on Grimes' position...I was too harsh in my wording however, at least as it refers to Grimes...he shouldn't have been on my "ludicrous" list...there is at least a strong traditional case to be made for his being a HOFer. So I understand his being chosen more than a number of others (Rick Ferrell?? Really?? Did that guy JDD mean Wes just like the idiots on the BBWAA who accidentally voted for the wrong Ferrell?)...but he's not making my cut.

Thank you, and I agree that a vote for Rick Ferrell would be beyond ludicrous.

[SABR Matt]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates...in other words...like our hundreds of attempts to find clutch hitting...we can't find clutch pitching either...which leads me to believe that is not a repeatable skill or if it is a skill...it's a very small magnitude of influence), team defense, and strength of schedule.

[jalbright]

Lately, if I'm away from this thread about half a day, I'm coming back to see either personal attacks or at least nasty backbiting and squabbling. It doesn't become any of you who participate in it, and if someone irritates you, I strongly suggest use of the "ignore" feature. If this keeps up, I'm soon going to have to start handing out suspensions, and, rest assured, I will do so. I hope that will not be necessary and that this will prove a word to the wise.

[SavoyBG]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates...in other words...like our hundreds of attempts to find clutch hitting...we can't find clutch pitching either...which leads me to believe that is not a repeatable skill or if it is a skill...it's a very small magnitude of influence), team defense, and strength of schedule.


Here's the problem with DIPS in this case. You've got two pitchers who each threw over 4,000 innings:

Ruffing - 4344
Grimes - 4179

with almost the same career ERA+

Ruffing - 109
Grimes - 107

With Grimes having the clearly better peak:

BEST 5 ERA+ YEARS
Ruffing - 149, 149, 137, 132, 131
Grimes - 166, 152, 144, 138, 136

Grimes was a very good hitting pitcher, Ruffing was an excellent hitting pitcher. I've already gone through the win share totals.

You take everything into account I think you have to rank Ruffing ahead of Grimes, but not by all that much, certainly not anywhere near as much as PCA says.

The problem with DIPS is that instead of going by what DID HAPPEN, you are now going by the DIPS speculation of WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

DIPS is telling us that the ERA+ numbers of 109 and 107 are not where each pitcher SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they had had the same environment for their careers. So DIPS is saying that Ruffing, who played for the greatest dynasty in the sport's history, had worse fielding behind him than Grimes, who played for bad teams for most of his career.

Grimes - 270-212 ERA+ 107
Ruffing - 273-225 ERA+ 109

Something has to be wrong with a system that has Ruffing with 50% more career value than Grimes.

[SavoyBG]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates

It doesn't take that high of a rate of getting outs more often in tough situations for a pitcher to cut his ERA by a couple tenths of a run.

I see stats all the time where a pitcher allows a significantly lower batting average (and OBP) with runners in scoring position, even over the course of several seasons. Even if he can get out 70% of the time instead of just 67% of the time, that can prevent a lot of runs over the course of a season.

[SABR Matt]

Here's the problem with DIPS in this case. You've got two pitchers who each threw over 4,000 innings:

Ruffing - 4344
Grimes - 4179

with almost the same career ERA+

Ruffing - 109
Grimes - 107

With Grimes having the clearly better peak:

BEST 5 ERA+ YEARS
Ruffing - 149, 149, 137, 132, 131
Grimes - 166, 152, 144, 138, 136

Grimes was a very good hitting pitcher, Ruffing was an excellent hitting pitcher. I've already gone through the win share totals.

You take everything into account I think you have to rank Ruffing ahead of Grimes, but not by all that much, certainly not anywhere near as much as PCA says.

The problem with DIPS is that instead of going by what DID HAPPEN, you are now going by the DIPS speculation of WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

DIPS is telling us that the ERA+ numbers of 109 and 107 are not where each pitcher SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they had had the same environment for their careers. So DIPS is saying that Ruffing, who played for the greatest dynasty in the sport's history, had worse fielding behind him than Grimes, who played for bad teams for most of his career.

Grimes - 270-212 ERA+ 107
Ruffing - 273-225 ERA+ 109

Something has to be wrong with a system that has Ruffing with 50% more career value than Grimes.

DIPS didn't cause that difference.

You yourself showed that the DIPS-based PCA win totals look very similar to James' win share totals...the system shows Grimes with the superior peak, Ruffing with the superior career win total and slightly superior rate stats (109 to 107 ERA+ is not as insignificant of a difference as you let on in this post...it's close, but not a tie). The career WIN VALUE generated by PCA places Ruffing ahead of Grimes by score of 80.9 pitching wins to 64.6 pitching wins. (Win Shares has the tally at 107 1/3 wins to 98 1/3 wins...so the ratio gap is slightly smaller but not by a huge margin)

The difference in HOF Marker value is caused by PCA's strong emphasis on the need to be above average for as long as possible. If you look at the bottom half of Grimes' career vs. the bottom half of Ruffing's career, you'll see why the ratio between Grimes and Ruffing gets larger...the Marker system is penalizing Grimes for having so many below average seasons, including a few that were EXTREMELY poor...while rewarding Ruffing for having very few such clunkers by comparison.

[JDD]

I do have a conduct policy here now, so let's stop the negativity that I saw earlier. Don't make me regret taking over this project because I'll put this on hiatus again if I have to. Keep this on baseball discussion and stop with the personal attacks.

There's a decent argument for Harlond Clift and I cast a vote for him. He'll likely lose it once Stan Hack is on the ballot.

I am not sure what was offensive. It was good debate with me anyway. These are passionate people.:debate:

And While Hack was probably the better player (where are the homers?), I think there is room for both in the HOF.

If Harlond had played a little longer, it would be a better comp but what else could I ask for when I have same position and same era? Same League? :shrug:

[SABR Matt]

OK...I have to hear this...what is you argument for Clift?

He lasted barely long enough to qualify for the hall, his OPS+ is 116...which would be nice for a guy with a 20 year career, but not for a guy with half that longevity, and his fielding reputation and statistical record are solid but unspectacular. So make your case...I'm eager to listen. It's not like his one lost season in 1944 is going to make much of a difference...

Here's his PCA player card FWIW:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1938 AL 9.29 1.75 14.4 1.7 11.04
1937 AL 8.12 1.91 11.9 1.9 10.03
1940 AL 7.00 2.62 10.0 3.5 9.62
1942 AL 7.12 2.24 10.1 2.8 9.36
1936 AL 8.06 0.50 11.7 -0.8 8.56
1939 AL 6.62 1.39 9.1 1.0 8.01
1941 AL 5.47 2.30 6.5 2.8 7.77
1934 AL 4.53 0.95 4.9 0.1 5.48
1935 AL 4.85 0.61 6.1 -0.4 5.46
1945 AL 3.79 1.15 4.7 1.0 4.94
1943 AL 2.73 1.79 2.5 2.1 4.52

[SavoyBG]

DIPS didn't cause that difference.

You yourself showed that the DIPS-based PCA win totals look very similar to James' win share totals...the system shows Grimes with the superior peak, Ruffing with the superior career win total and slightly superior rate stats (109 to 107 ERA+ is not as insignificant of a difference as you let on in this post...it's close, but not a tie). The career WIN VALUE generated by PCA places Ruffing ahead of Grimes by score of 80.9 pitching wins to 64.6 pitching wins. (Win Shares has the tally at 107 1/3 wins to 98 1/3 wins...so the ratio gap is slightly smaller but not by a huge margin)

The difference in HOF Marker value is caused by PCA's strong emphasis on the need to be above average for as long as possible. If you look at the bottom half of Grimes' career vs. the bottom half of Ruffing's career, you'll see why the ratio between Grimes and Ruffing gets larger...the Marker system is penalizing Grimes for having so many below average seasons, including a few that were EXTREMELY poor...while rewarding Ruffing for having very few such clunkers by comparison.


Okay, so when you say "PCA's strong emphasis," what you actually mean is "SABR Matt's" arbitrary decision to place more importance on being above average for as long as possible. You (not the system) have made a subjective decision to put more weight on that aspect.

And this decision on your part goes against what your system emphasises, which is actual value rather than value in consecutive years, or peak value. If you believe that value in consecutive years is totally irrelevant, than I would think that you would also believe that a value that went something like this...

+ 6.7, + 7.1, - .9, + 8.3, + 4.3, - 2.1

would be just as good as a value that went like this...

+ 3.8, + 4.1, + 2.7, + 4.1 + 4.8 + 3.9

since both groups add up to a value of 23.4

But I am glad that you have now explaned this "HOF marker" thing. Your system actually ranks both players about where they should be, but your totally subjective decision as to how the HOF Marker should work is what makes Ruffing rank so much higher than Grimes.

[JDD]

Duplicate post...

[RyanExpress30]

1 Dickey
2 Johnson
3 Bottomley
4 Cuyler
5 Manush
6 Chapman
7 Berger
8 Lazzeri
9 Wilson
10 Herman
11 Klein
12 Combs
13 Ruffing

[JDD]

I have a very rough checklist for position players. Some may not think much of it, but it serves me well. Some of these items on the list are perhaps questions you may not ask when evaluating a player, but helps me to sort the good from the bad from the ugly. In no particular order, here they are and the questions are easily answered by looking at raw numbers. (more in-depth analysis, or work on my part, will come later if I am really interested in a player's record).

Harlond Clift:

Did he have, or nearly have more hits than games played? Yes 1558 in 1582. His hits exceed his games played prior to his last year when he played as a war-time replacement player.

What percent of his hits went for extra bases? Speed is part of this and I am counting doubles like homers so the deadball guys don't get hurt here. For Clift we are looking at 549/1558 or just over thirty-five percent which is really good when looking across history. Clift's career stats are easy to look at because you are looking at a complete season if you divide everything by ten. So if a corner infielder wants to hit me thirty doubles, hit twenty homers and five triples, he can play for me.

Does he walk as much or more than he strikes out? This is a big YES for Clift.

Did he score runs? All types of hitters should be able to do this. One hundred and seven for every 158 games played (just dividing career stats by ten again).

Playing time. Was he out there a lot? Yes, but only in his twenties. Not so much in thirties.

If playing time is an issue, what is the reason? It was a serious case of the mumps and a horse riding accident. This off the net:

After his trade to the Senators in August of 1943, Clift suffered from an unidentified illness that held him to just eight games. He did not report to the team until July in 1944, after he suffered an injury to his right shoulder when he fell from a horse at his cattle ranch in Yakima, WA. When he did return (after having voluntarily retired) he hit just .159 and was replaced in the lineup after just a few weeks. The Sporting News reported in August that he was contemplating retirement due to the shoulder and a "failure to regain his batting eye." Clift couldn't decide if he wanted to play in 1945, but finally reported in late March and was in the lineup to start the season. After an early show of his old power stroke, Clift nosedived and his batting average was floating around .200 when he was benched in August. He was used sparingly the remainder of the year and retired at the end of the '45 season.

Unusual skills (defense or base stealing): No to the running, some credit for defense, mostly for compiling large numbers in select seasons. No real push forward here.

How many HOF-type seasons did he have (this is pretty important, as it sets the compilers apart from the HOFers): I see four.

How many good seasons did he have apart from those? I see four more.

I stop there if those numbers are small. Eight can be a lot if you look at pre-expansion players. What many forget is the fact that there were only 16 teams for about half of baseball's history. It was very difficult for players to have long careers. So I tend to cut some of these guys a break. 1500 games WAS a long career for anyone who played before 1960.

It has been a while since I looked at his career. His is weak case. The last bit before I look at the Sabermetrics is his place in history. And here is why I vote for so many guys....

Last question....

Was he the best at his position in his league for a decent amount of time? Meaning, would he have been a good candidate for the all-star game if the most deserving players went (not to be confused with the skewed fan vote).

Here is where I fail to have support from my fellow writers. Some might say that has nothing to do with anything. They are probably right, but this subjective analysis is what sets my criteria apart from most others. Call me stubborn because I have to be different. If he was the best Third Baseman in the American League from 1934 to 1942, that's a nine year run and something to brag about.

If a player played in the All-Star era, I start there. Clift did, and he only played in one game. This really hurts my position.

I would have to show that the selections at third base were wrong, and I doubt I can do that to any convincing degree. Here is who went instead:

1934: Foxx (whole game) Dykes, Higgins did not play
1935: Foxx then later Bluege
1936: Higgins then later Foxx
1937: Rolfe (whole game) Clift did not play
1938: Buddy Lewis not for long, then Foxx and Rolfe did not play
1939: Red Rolfe, whole game
1940: Cecil Travis started, everyone's favorite Keltner played later, Rolfe DNP
1941: Cecil Travis whole game, Keltner pinch hit
1942: Ken Keltner played whole game, as did all eight position players.

In this time, the American League often named just one third baseman to the All-Star roster. They cheated and put Foxx over there to allow for Gehrig and Foxx in the same lineup. If the American League was forced to send two real third basemen every year, then I am sure he would have went more than once, even if he was stuck on a bad team.

It has been a long time since I looked at the record and right now I will have to back off of my position on Harlond Clift. I just don't have enough, and his failure to play in his 30s does not allow me any leeway. He's not even in the Sandy Koufax/Joe Jackson category of players (all 20s not enough 30s) because his peak was not high enough. Playing while in his 30s probably would only serve to hurt his rate stats.

I think my impression of Clift as a really good player comes from his high walk totals. While that makes for a good sabermetric line (we love the guys who don't make outs) I don't think that puts him in the Hall of Fame.

Being one of the top forty or fifty hitters in the American League for a nine year run looks as if it puts him in the "good but not great" category of hitters, one who had no decline phase with which to properly rank him.

[Cowtipper]

Berger
Bottomley
Combs
Cuyler
Dickey
W. Ferrell
Grimes
Johnson
Klein
Lazzeri
Manush
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
Wilson

Guys I'll vote for once I get room:

Paul Derringer
Red Ruffing
Lon Warneke
Lefty Gomez

I'm kind of surprised by the amount of support Bartell has received, since only one person voted "yes" for him in the poll I did:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80244&highlight=bartell

[Ace Venom]

Here's who I have coming up for 1952:

Jim Bagby
George Case
Spud Chandler
Roy Cullenbine
Lou Finney
Hank Greenberg
Stan Hack
Mel Harder
Frankie Hayes
Lee Handley
Rollie Hemsley
Billy Herman
Joe Kuhel
Billy Jurges
Chet Laabs
Cookie Lavagetto
Ernie Lombardi
Al Lopez
Johnny Murphy
Mel Ott
Claude Passeau
Cecil Travis

[Paul Wendt]

JDD essentially concluded:
...
It has been a long time since I looked at the record and right now I will have to back off of my position on Harlond Clift. I just don't have enough, ...
good article, good conclusion

JDD> The last bit before I look at the Sabermetrics is his place in history.

Bill James somewhere identified Harlond Clift as the new model thirdbaseman, in my words. [pause] That was in the first BJHBA. "The following comment on Harlond Clift is written primarily by Jim Baker" (p64).
quoting Baker or James:
- one of the new breed of third sackers
- the primeval Mike Schmidt
- the Browns signed him and be became the best thirdbaseman in the major leagues ... no alternative conclusion seems reasonable
[despite the all-star game and TSN all-star team shutout]

[dgarza]

Jim Bottomley
Tommy Bridges
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Bill Dickey
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Babe Herman
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing
Hack Wilson

1. Chuck Klein
2. Bill Dickey
3. Hack Wilson
4. Lefty Gomez
5. Bob Johnson
6. Heinie Manush
7. Red Ruffing
8. Kiki Cuyler
9. Sam Rice
10. Jim Bottomley
11. Burleigh Grimes
12. Tony Lazzeri
13. Babe Herman
14. Tommy Bridges
15. Earle Combs

[dgarza]

I thought Paul Waner was on the ballot, so I thought I voted for him. Instead I voted for Lloyd Waner, who I DID NOT want to vote for.

If it can be changed or noted, I would like to change my Waner vote to a Combs vote.

[SABR Matt]

Okay, so when you say "PCA's strong emphasis," what you actually mean is "SABR Matt's" arbitrary decision to place more importance on being above average for as long as possible. You (not the system) have made a subjective decision to put more weight on that aspect.

And this decision on your part goes against what your system emphasises, which is actual value rather than value in consecutive years, or peak value. If you believe that value in consecutive years is totally irrelevant, than I would think that you would also believe that a value that went something like this...

+ 6.7, + 7.1, - .9, + 8.3, + 4.3, - 2.1

would be just as good as a value that went like this...

+ 3.8, + 4.1, + 2.7, + 4.1 + 4.8 + 3.9

since both groups add up to a value of 23.4

But I am glad that you have now explaned this "HOF marker" thing. Your system actually ranks both players about where they should be, but your totally subjective decision as to how the HOF Marker should work is what makes Ruffing rank so much higher than Grimes.

Order of value doesn't matter...but the nature of that value certainly does. Having below average seasons is a strong indictment of a player's HOF credentials...having a large number of below average seasons is a big reason why voting for Mr. Grimes makes less sense to me than voting for Ruffing.

I understand why you would call it subjective...but it's an objective tool...I place the boundary in the same place for every player and rate all players the same way...you just have to understand what it is that I'm trying to measure and the reasons behind the subjective choices I made in creating the metric that does that job. All attempts to measure HOF credentials or player greatness...they're going to have to be predicated on choices made by the architect of those rankings...I would never deny this. But I think you can agree that of all of the many attempts to rate greatness, mine involves the fewest arbitrary choices and the fewest subjective elements. It's an extremely simple tool...

[SavoyBG]

But I think you can agree that of all of the many attempts to rate greatness, mine involves the fewest arbitrary choices and the fewest subjective elements. It's an extremely simple tool...


I can't agree to that because I don't know enough about your metric or many of the other metrics to discern if it's true or not.

I just know that Grimes had such a superior peak to Ruffing that in my mind it pulls him up to close enough to Red so that I'm voting for him for the hall.

Where do you stand on Rixey?

[SABR Matt]

I've defined the HOF Marker at least 20 times on this forum, and several of them in recent threads.

The metric is spectacularly simple and yet pretty darned effective...all you do is take a player's wins created (you can use any baseline win created metric to do this...I use my own of course) in each season...multiple by two and subtract the league average wins created in that player's playing time for each season separately. The idea being to add a player's total production to his total production above average in each season, thus ensuring the players do receive some credit even if they are average or a little below average, but that players performing at a very high level receive significantly more credit than the mere win totals would suggest.

As for Eppa Rixey:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1924 NL 0.04 0.46 7.42 -0.5 0.7 11.7 7.92
1920 NL -0.24 0.15 6.72 -1.2 0.0 9.5 6.63
1917 NL -0.67 0.53 6.38 -2.0 0.8 8.9 6.24
1921 NL -0.97 0.57 6.46 -2.7 0.9 8.7 6.06
1925 NL -0.39 0.36 5.96 -1.5 0.5 8.0 5.93
1923 NL -0.55 0.55 5.37 -1.9 0.8 6.4 5.37
1916 NL -0.65 0.33 5.41 -2.0 0.4 6.9 5.09
1922 NL -0.37 0.22 4.99 -1.5 0.2 5.6 4.84
1928 NL -0.70 0.25 5.07 -2.1 0.2 6.1 4.62
1927 NL 0.09 0.42 3.32 -0.4 0.7 3.6 3.83
1926 NL -0.20 0.34 3.51 -1.0 0.5 3.9 3.65
1912 NL -0.54 0.04 4.06 -1.4 0.0 5.9 3.56
1929 NL -0.25 0.18 2.72 -1.0 0.2 2.6 2.65
1913 NL -0.36 0.30 2.63 -1.0 0.5 3.1 2.57
1932 NL -0.02 0.12 1.94 -0.3 0.1 2.4 2.04
1930 NL -0.20 0.17 1.32 -0.8 0.2 0.3 1.29
1919 NL -0.42 0.00 1.69 -1.2 -0.2 1.2 1.27
1915 NL -0.27 0.38 1.08 -1.0 0.6 -0.3 1.19
1931 NL -0.33 0.14 1.22 -0.9 0.1 0.7 1.03

Rixey happens to have been one of the better fielder pitchers of his time and when you put that together was a pretty long-held established level of performance, his career is at least borderline for the HOF...his career total pitching marker score is 95.2, which would make him a good solid hall candidate.

[JDD]

I've defined the HOF Marker at least 20 times on this forum, and several of them in recent threads.

The metric is spectacularly simple and yet pretty darned effective...all you do is take a player's wins created (you can use any baseline win created metric to do this...I use my own of course) in each season...multiple by two and subtract the league average wins created in that player's playing time for each season separately. The idea being to add a player's total production to his total production above average in each season, thus ensuring the players do receive some credit even if they are average or a little below average, but that players performing at a very high level receive significantly more credit than the mere win totals would suggest.

This and other similar metrics are further explained in James' book about the Hall of Fame, in the Chapter on Fibonacci Win Points. The other method he uses is wins times winning percentage, but he writes more about the use of pitcher wins plus wins over .500 as a way push guys like Koufax a little ahead. He dumbs down one method to "two points for a win, minus one for a loss".

[SABR Matt]

I actually had not read the simple noodling stuff that James has done with pitching wins...but actually wins times winning percentage is about the same concept...I would think that Fibonacci wins would bias rather extremely toward peak performance...is by Fibonacci you mean 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc replacing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.

I'd have to see how he did that.

[AstrosFan]

I actually had not read the simple noodling stuff that James has done with pitching wins...but actually wins times winning percentage is about the same concept...I would think that Fibonacci wins would bias rather extremely toward peak performance...is by Fibonacci you mean 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc replacing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.

I'd have to see how he did that.

It's just wins times winning percentage plus wins minus losses. So a player whose winning percentage is the golden ratio minus one (about .618034) will have the same number of Fibonacci Win Points as actual wins.

Two pitchers. Pitcher A goes

30-15
27-15
24-15

...

all the way to 0-15. 11 seasons. Pitcher B has 11 straight seasons of 15-15. Same record, 165-165, for each pitcher. On a career basis, each would have 82.5 FWP. But adding them up on a season by season basis, Pitcher B has 82.5 FWP, but Pitcher A has 92.6 FWP. Peak helps, it seems.

[SABR Matt]

I can replicate that concept using only the PCA data by taking PCA wins back to their pythagorean roots, though I'm not convinced that's going to produce results much different than my simpler to calculate method.

Using the pitching wins vs. losses example for the same of comparison, the Fibonacci way credits the first season (30-15) with 35 "marker" points and the HOF Marker would credit it with 30*2 - 22.5 or 37.5 marker points.

[SavoyBG]

Rixey happens to have been one of the better fielder pitchers of his time and when you put that together was a pretty long-held established level of performance, his career is at least borderline for the HOF...his career total pitching marker score is 95.2, which would make him a good solid hall candidate.


Okay, I think I will vote for him next year in his final time on the ballot.

[SABR Matt]

I don't know why I missed his name, honestly...if the project runner could fix it so that I have voted for Rixey, I'd appreciate it.

[bambambaseball]

I don't know why I missed his name, honestly...if the project runner could fix it so that I have voted for Rixey, I'd appreciate it.

Um, if he wasnt obvious to you, maybe he wasnt good enough. In some weird world, maybe Bill Dickey and Eppa Rixey arent HOFers for you. Maybe only Babe Ruth and the expressed 100% majority outrage is enough for you. Maybe your HOF is smaller then you think. Maybe only Babe Ruth is good enough for your HOF since you havent expressed an opinion on anyone else in this projects HOF. :think:

[STLCards2]

Um, if he wasnt obvious to you, maybe he wasnt good enough. In some weird world, maybe Bill Dickey and Eppa Rixey arent HOFers for you. Maybe only Babe Ruth and the expressed 100% majority outrage is enough for you. Maybe your HOF is smaller then you think. Maybe only Babe Ruth is good enough for your HOF since you havent expressed an opinion on anyone else in this projects HOF. :think:

He said that he missed their names - not that he changed his mind. I have accidentaly missed guy's names on these polls all the time. I think you are looking into Matt's though process too much.

[STLCards2]

I don't know why I missed his name, honestly...if the project runner could fix it so that I have voted for Rixey, I'd appreciate it.

Matt - how does PCA see Bridges? I have always though he was treated pretty fairly/evenly by his defenses. I didn't think those Detroit teams were know for their defense. His raw numbers of almost 3,000 IP and a 126 ERA+ fall in line with acceptable HOF territory for most other guys.

[SABR Matt]

He said that he missed their names - not that he changed his mind. I have accidentaly missed guy's names on these polls all the time. I think you are looking into Matt's though process too much.

He's not looking into my thought processes too much...he's just being obnoxious because he's angry with me.

[SABR Matt]

Matt - how does PCA see Bridges? I have always though he was treated pretty fairly/evenly by his defenses. I didn't think those Detroit teams were know for their defense. His raw numbers of almost 3,000 IP and a 126 ERA+ fall in line with acceptable HOF territory for most other guys.

Tommy Bridges is in the same general neighborhood as Eddie Cicotte and Carl Mays when you account for Mays' hitting and defensive skills...in terms of raw statistical accomplishments. An argument could certainly be made for his induction. I did not vote for him this time around but PCA does agree that his statistical line is pretty accurate even at face value (at least the career totals). He may have my vote depending on how some other candidates who I have ahead of him do. Being that this is a progressive poll system, I am more focused on the best pitching candidates...Gomez and Ruffing.

[STLCards2]

He's not looking into my thought processes too much...he's just being obnoxious because he's angry with me.

Didn't know that - I'll gladly stay out of it! :ughh

[STLCards2]

Tommy Bridges is in the same general neighborhood as Eddie Cicotte and Carl Mays when you account for Mays' hitting and defensive skills...in terms of raw statistical accomplishments. An argument could certainly be made for his induction. I did not vote for him this time around but PCA does agree that his statistical line is pretty accurate even at face value (at least the career totals). He may have my vote depending on how some other candidates who I have ahead of him do. Being that this is a progressive poll system, I am more focused on the best pitching candidates...Gomez and Ruffing.

Gomez is generaly considered a borderline HOF guy without considering above-average Yankee defense. He did have the great postseasons and a couple of monster years. Is the quality of defense during his tenure as a Yankee overrated?

[SavoyBG]

I've defined the HOF Marker at least 20 times on this forum, and several of them in recent threads.

The metric is spectacularly simple and yet pretty darned effective...all you do is take a player's wins created (you can use any baseline win created metric to do this...I use my own of course) in each season...multiple by two and subtract the league average wins created in that player's playing time for each season separately. The idea being to add a player's total production to his total production above average in each season, thus ensuring the players do receive some credit even if they are average or a little below average, but that players performing at a very high level receive significantly more credit than the mere win totals would suggest.


Okay, so I gather that you like to reduce everything to a number, rather than looking at the original numbers and then making a subjective, non numerical judgment on whether or not a player is a hall of famer. I also gather that you look strictly at each players individual value, without ANY regard at all for his accomplishments as part of a team's success.

Don't you think that being part of team success means SOMETHING regarding a HALL OF FAME? It's not called the "Hall Of Player Value," it's called the "Hall Of Fame."

[SABR Matt]

Lefty Gomez' career:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1934 AL -0.52 0.02 11.77 -1.8 -0.2 19.8 11.27
1937 AL -0.44 0.20 11.36 -1.6 0.2 18.9 11.12
1931 AL -0.54 -0.01 9.68 -1.7 -0.3 16.1 9.13
1938 AL -0.72 0.51 6.88 -2.1 0.8 10.4 6.67
1933 AL -0.09 0.04 4.81 -0.8 -0.1 6.4 4.76
1935 AL -0.85 0.23 5.01 -2.3 0.2 6.7 4.39
1932 AL -0.58 0.03 4.50 -1.9 -0.1 5.3 3.95
1939 AL -0.33 0.37 3.06 -1.2 0.6 3.5 3.10
1936 AL -0.41 0.24 3.26 -1.3 0.4 3.9 3.09

The reason Gomez is considered borderline is the lack of playing time...he is far and away the best pitcher (in terms of skill) on the current ballot. Although I was looking mostly at the pitching side and didn't notice that he wasn't much of a fielder and he may have been worse than your average pitcher with the bat...that does factor in.

But in 9 full seasons (and smatterings of other service), Gomez quickly racked up 88.9 pitching marker points...I consider that a feat worth early recognition.

[Cowtipper]

Here are threads that were made specifically for some of the players on the ballot if you want to check them out...

Dick Bartell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80244&highlight=bartell)
Wally Berger (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85048&highlight=berger)
Jim Bottomley (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69367&highlight=bottomley)
Tommy Bridges (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72275&highlight=bridges)
Ben Chapman (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84734&highlight=Chapman)
Earle Combs (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=34472&highlight=combs)
Kiki Cuyler (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=18608&highlight=cuyler)
Paul Derringer (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81980&highlight=derringer)
Wes Ferrell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78505&highlight=ferrell)
Rick Ferrell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87925&highlight=ferrell)
Lefty Gomez (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49436&highlight=gomez)
Babe Herman (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69786&highlight=herman)
Pinky Higgins (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83075&highlight=higgins)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69657&highlight=johnson)
Chuck Klein (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=33602&highlight=klein)
Red Kress (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=74875&highlight=kress)
Tony Lazzeri (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58584&highlight=lazzeri)
Heinie Manush (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77737&highlight=manush)
Buddy Myer (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80079&highlight=myer)
Eppa Rixey (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=50460&highlight=rixey)
Hal Trosky (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85096&highlight=trosky)
Lloyd Waner (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79822&highlight=waner)
Lon Warneke (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72043&highlight=warneke)

[SABR Matt]

Okay, so I gather that you like to reduce everything to a number, rather than looking at the original numbers and then making a subjective, non numerical judgment on whether or not a player is a hall of famer. I also gather that you look strictly at each players individual value, without ANY regard at all for his accomplishments as part of a team's success.

Don't you think that being part of team success means SOMETHING regarding a HALL OF FAME? It's not called the "Hall Of Player Value," it's called the "Hall Of Fame."

I think that "being part of a winner" is outside the control of the individual player. I think that accomplishing big things in the post-season certainly will get attention and could be used as something to consider in borderline cases...however I think the cream rises to the top...the best baseball players are the most valuable ones and they're also the ones who do most of the heavy lifting during big games...isn't it funny that good teams seem to have a few of those players? :)

If Bill_Burgess were reading this thread, he'd slap you two ways from Sunday for suggesting I don't listen to the historical perspective. I always *START* with the objective analysis...if you want to make a case for someone that you feel stretches outside the objective, I've listened in the past and changed my numerical rankings around in cases where I thought it was necessary...but don't start your first sentence with the number of world series rings a player had or that one really memorable play they made...that's going to make it a lot harder for me to hear you out. Talk about the great things a player did for his team if you have anecdotes that will enlighten...talk about the secondary accomplishments (things like their successful transition to coaching, their status as clubhouse leader, etc)...like Bill James, I think personality matters in extreme cases when it comes to deciding between a group of borderline candidates for the hall. Unlike James, I have not been alive long enough to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the human side of baseball history, which is why I post here...because I know there are many here who knows things that I do not who will hopefully step up and enlighten me.

However, enlightenment does not begin with snide comments or backbiting...approach me with honest questions and historical contexts for me to consider, the way that Bill has...and you will find my responses quite different.

[STLCards2]

Lefty Gomez' career:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1934 AL -0.52 0.02 11.77 -1.8 -0.2 19.8 11.27
1937 AL -0.44 0.20 11.36 -1.6 0.2 18.9 11.12
1931 AL -0.54 -0.01 9.68 -1.7 -0.3 16.1 9.13
1938 AL -0.72 0.51 6.88 -2.1 0.8 10.4 6.67
1933 AL -0.09 0.04 4.81 -0.8 -0.1 6.4 4.76
1935 AL -0.85 0.23 5.01 -2.3 0.2 6.7 4.39
1932 AL -0.58 0.03 4.50 -1.9 -0.1 5.3 3.95
1939 AL -0.33 0.37 3.06 -1.2 0.6 3.5 3.10
1936 AL -0.41 0.24 3.26 -1.3 0.4 3.9 3.09

The reason Gomez is considered borderline is the lack of playing time...he is far and away the best pitcher (in terms of skill) on the current ballot. Although I was looking mostly at the pitching side and didn't notice that he wasn't much of a fielder and he may have been worse than your average pitcher with the bat...that does factor in.

But in 9 full seasons (and smatterings of other service), Gomez quickly racked up 88.9 pitching marker points...I consider that a feat worth early recognition.

Do you have Dizzy Dean 'in" too?

[SavoyBG]

I think that "being part of a winner" is outside the control of the individual player. I think that accomplishing big things in the post-season certainly will get attention and could be used as something to consider in borderline cases...however I think the cream rises to the top...the best baseball players are the most valuable ones and they're also the ones who do most of the heavy lifting during big games...isn't it funny that good teams seem to have a few of those players? :)



Not really, as many all time great players were pretty much busts in big games (Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Bob Feller, Rogers Hornsby).

While lots of average to pretty good players were great in big games (Jim Leyritz, Mickey Hatcher, Pepper Martin, Jack Billingham).

So you are of the opinion that every player who ever played is wrong when they say that there are "gamers" and "clutch players" and "winners" and all of the other things that they all seem to believe? Essentially all managers seem to believe this too, as well as they believe that some players are not yet ready to bat third in the lineup yet, not because they are not good enough yet, but because they don't believe that the player is mature enough to handle the pressure of being an RBI producer in the major leagues yet. Same thing with closers. Every manager will tell you that the proper mental approach is key to a pitcher being able to be a succesful closer, and that some very good relief pitchers would not be very good as closers.

As with many stats guys, they think that every plate appearance is like a random roll of the dice that is unaffected by any emotional factors.

I mean, haven't you ever watched a batter who is in a slump and is obviously pressing? Or a batter who is just locked in and on fire? Or do you believe that hot streaks and slumps are nothing more than just beating the odds in a random chance scenario, like a roulette table that comes up red in 14 straight spins?

Do you think that players sometimes "choke," or do you believe that a player who fails a lot in big situations is just getting unlucky that he happens to not be coming through in big spots?

[JDD]

Quick, someone post a link to the:

Is there such a thing as Clutch Performance?

thread...

[SABR Matt]

Do you have Dizzy Dean 'in" too?

Yes...Dean is a much easier call that even Gomez. Here's his career:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1934 NL -0.29 0.14 12.12 -1.4 0.0 20.0 11.97
1933 NL 0.12 0.06 7.57 -0.5 -0.1 11.1 7.75
1932 NL 0.25 0.13 7.24 -0.2 0.0 10.5 7.62
1936 NL -0.25 0.00 7.79 -1.3 -0.2 11.2 7.54
1935 NL 0.14 -0.02 7.27 -0.6 -0.3 10.0 7.39
1937 NL 0.03 -0.01 5.65 -0.4 -0.2 8.5 5.67
1938 NL -0.22 0.06 4.88 -0.6 0.1 8.8 4.72
1939 NL -0.24 0.07 2.49 -0.7 0.1 3.7 2.32
1930 NL 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.69

A much better peak than Gomez...a much longer lasting ELP despite the similarly short career, and he was a better hitter than Gomez...a significantly better hitter.

[SABR Matt]

Not really, as many all time great players were pretty much busts in big games (Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Bob Feller, Rogers Hornsby).

While lots of average to pretty good players were great in big games (Jim Leyritz, Mickey Hatcher, Pepper Martin, Jack Billingham).

So you are of the opinion that every player who ever played is wrong when they say that there are "gamers" and "clutch players" and "winners" and all of the other things that they all seem to believe? Essentially all managers seem to believe this too, as well as they believe that some players are not yet ready to bat third in the lineup yet, not because they are not good enough yet, but because they don't believe that the player is mature enough to handle the pressure of being an RBI producer in the major leagues yet. Same thing with closers. Every manager will tell you that the proper mental approach is key to a pitcher being able to be a succesful closer, and that some very good relief pitchers would not be very good as closers.

As with many stats guys, they think that every plate appearance is like a random roll of the dice that is unaffected by any emotional factors.

I mean, haven't you ever watched a batter who is in a slump and is obviously pressing? Or a batter who is just locked in and on fire? Or do you believe that hot streaks and slumps are nothing more than just beating the odds in a random chance scenario, like a roulette table that comes up red in 14 straight spins?

Do you think that players sometimes "choke," or do you believe that a player who fails a lot in big situations is just getting unlucky that he happens to not be coming through in big spots?

I've seen absolutely no convincing evidence that suggests that any of the players you listed "choked" on a consistent basis in big games. I think players develop reputations for being clutch or unclutch based on flashbulb memories that happened to stick in the American consciousness. A-Rod is unclutch because he didn't get the big hit in games 5 or 6 in the 2004 ALCS...and that's the ONLY reason people believe that. Nevermind that A-Rod had most of the big hits in games 1-3 of that same series. Jeter is clutch because of the play where he dove into the stands and the play where he cut off the bad throw and threw out Jeremy Giambi at home to save a game. And no other true reason. Edgar Martinez will live on in the minds of Mariner fans as a Yankee killer and a huge clutch hitter because of his 12 for 25 with 15 RBI in the Ms/Yankees 1995 series (including "the double")...nevermind that he went about 1 for 35 against the Indians the very next series and oh BTW sucked against the Yankees in 2000 AND 2001. That's how it goes...flashbolb memory is powerful and it overrides logic and common sense.

I believe if we go back and look at the full records in big games (that's not just the post-season...that's games where there was a lot at stake including big in-season match-ups between rivals) we're going to find that most of our perceptions about clutch performance are based on one or two big moments and not on the facts.

[SavoyBG]

I believe if we go back and look at the full records in big games (that's not just the post-season...that's games where there was a lot at stake including big in-season match-ups between rivals) we're going to find that most of our perceptions about clutch performance are based on one or two big moments and not on the facts.

Okay, start with Ted Williams in the 7 games of the 1946 world series, the one game playoff with the Indians in 1948, and the final two games of the 1949 season against the Yankees. Unquestionably the ten biggest games of his career.

I agree that all of this "clutch" stuff is vastly overrated, but there is definitely an emotioanl aspect to the game. as Yogi said, "90% of this game is half mental."

I've seen A-Rod in prolonged slumps when he is obviously pressing, over anxious, swinging at balls that he normally would not swing at, etc... and I've seen other guys who were locked in and were hitting almost every ball hard for prolonged periods. That's not just random chance.

You can add Don Newcombe (0-4 8.59 in 5 world series starts) to the list of great players who did not perform well in big games.

As for Jeter, nobody hates the Jeter hype more than me, but you forgot the walk off home run that he hit in the first world series game ever played in November. That's also part of why people believe he's "clutch."

The A-Rod post season failures extended into 2005 and 2006 when he was 3 for 29 with zero RBIs in 9 games as the Yankees lost two first round series.

Do you also believe that there are no "clutch shooters" in the NBA? Are Larry Bird and Michael Jordan not more likely to make a game winning shot at the buzzer than other players?

How about clutch putters? Is Tiger Woods not more likely to sink big pressure putts than other golfers?

George Brett was the best clutch hitter I ever saw, and his post season stats are awesome (.351 with .662 SLG%).

Years ago I saw a study on Koufax as a clutch pitcher where they showed how great he was in close games. When his team gave him one run to work with his career W-L record was 9-9. Of course he doesn;t look all that great when park adjustments, DIPS, and other modern metrics break him down, but any baseball fan who is in his late 50s or older will generally tell you that Koufax was the best they ever saw. Is there anything to that, or are these people just being fooled by the era and ballpark that he pitched in?

[SABR Matt]

In this generation (the one of which I'm a part...that grew up as baseball fans in the 90s)...there will be another Sandy Koufax. In the generation that preceeded my father's...(my father's generation were the Koufax and Carlton believers)...there were other such unquestionable heroes like Lefty Grove...into every generation a sacred calf is born...he alone can be "the greatest there ever was" for he alone was the childhood or early adult hero in the days when we were young and impressionable and given to worshiping ballplayers.

Koufax was a great pitcher...DIPS does nothing to dismantle that...if his career had not ended so abruptly...if his arm hadn't hurt so much...he could have been one of the greatest of all time. Some say he was anyway. But Every generation has those players...it doesn't make them "clutch"...it just makes them great.

Was Koufax unusually gifted in close games? His gamelogs would be the place to start looking...I would tend to doubt that he was statistically significantly more likely to win in a close game than you'd expect for a good pitcher. For teams and for individual starters alike, the better you are, the higher your W% will be in close ballgames.

Felix Hernandez has won 4 games already in which the Mariners scored him but 1 run. He's a great pitcher too...it doesn't make him clutch.

[SavoyBG]

Was Koufax unusually gifted in close games? His gamelogs would be the place to start looking...I would tend to doubt that he was statistically significantly more likely to win in a close game than you'd expect for a good pitcher. For teams and for individual starters alike, the better you are, the higher your W% will be in close ballgames.



Find another pitcher who had a .500 winning percentage for his career when his team scored one run.

I think the Koufax study I read was in one of the Bill James books, maybe one of the abstracts.

As for good teams being better in close games, I'm sure you know that good teams have a much better winning percentage in blowouts than in close games, and many real good teams were under .500 in one run games, as was Bert Blyleven. There was a Padres team that lost over 100 games in one year in the 1970s, but they had a great record in one run games.

The Chicago Bulls in the year that they won 72 games were 1-3 in games decided by two points or less.

[SABR Matt]

Yes I know that winning percentages diverge the larger the score differential (good teams do much better, bad teams do much worse)...but good teams are still generally better in close games than bad teams...and the better the team...the higher probability that they will perform at a high level in close games...the same is true for pitchers.

Your Bulls example is just small sample size noise...4 games is not a sample worth considering.

The same is true for your Koufax example...he was 9-9 in games that his team got him just 1 run...that's impressive but it's only 18 games. I try not to read too much into interesting little factoids like that. What you are REALLY seeking to know is...did Koufax have a higher W% in one-run games (that's games decided by one run...not games in which he got one run of support) than you would statistically expect for a pitcher with his ERA+? And if so...how much higher? Is it a significant difference? That's how you start to objectively unravel a question like clutch...you have to be looking for patterns in the noise..single anecdotes make for great Hollywood scripts and historical richness and color...and that's a wonderful thing...one of the reasons I love this game so much is that its history is a rich tapestry of anecdotes that seem incredible and almost superhuman. But those anecdotes are not a good foundation for building a case that a player had some remarkable and repeatable skill for performing better in critical moments.

[SavoyBG]

Here's some numbers on Koufax, from the 1963 and 1964 seasons:

When his team scored 5 or more runs he was 18-1
When his team scored 4 runs he was 8-2
When his team scored 3 runs he was 9-0
When his team scored 2 runs he was 6-3
When his team scored 1 run he was 3-1
When his team was shutout he was 0-3


In contrast here's what Drysdale did in those two seasons:

When his team scored 5 or more runs he was 22-1
When his team scored 4 runs he was 7-5
When his team scored 3 runs he was 4-6
When his team scored 2 runs he was 3-6
When his team scored 1 run he was 1-8
When his team was shutout he was 0-7

When the Dodgers scored 1, 2, or 3 runs Koufax was 18-4 and Drysdale was 8-20 over the same two seasons.

[SABR Matt]

Of course Drysdale, for all the hype, was not half the pitcher Koufax was sabermetrically, and that's only two seasons of data, not a full career...it is nonetheless interesting fodder. I am still not remotely convinced that it proves anything in particular about Koufax's status as a clutch phenom.

[SavoyBG]

Of course Drysdale, for all the hype, was not half the pitcher Koufax was sabermetrically,

Depends upon the metric.

WIN SHARES
Koufax - 194
Drysdale - 258

TPR
Koufax - 22.3
Drysdale - 32.4

[SABR Matt]

Here's some numbers on Koufax, from the 1963 and 1964 seasons:

When his team scored 5 or more runs he was 18-1
When his team scored 4 runs he was 8-2
When his team scored 3 runs he was 9-0
When his team scored 2 runs he was 6-3
When his team scored 1 run he was 3-1
When his team was shutout he was 0-3


In contrast here's what Drysdale did in those two seasons:

When his team scored 5 or more runs he was 22-1
When his team scored 4 runs he was 7-5
When his team scored 3 runs he was 4-6
When his team scored 2 runs he was 3-6
When his team scored 1 run he was 1-8
When his team was shutout he was 0-7

When the Dodgers scored 1, 2, or 3 runs Koufax was 18-4 and Drysdale was 8-20 over the same two seasons.

Here's something a bit more substantial for a rebuttal. Koufax' ERA in 63 and 64 was 1.83 and Drysdale's was 2.41. Now that may not seem like a huge difference, but in a pythagorean universe, and in games where very few runs were scored on offense, that 0.6 run edge for Koufax SHOULD make a very large difference. PythagenPat winning percentages for Koufax and Drysdale given their ERAs as the runs allowed as a function of runs scored by the Dodgers:
RS Koufax-X Drysdale-X Koufax-P Drysdale-P
1 1.345 1.419 0.307 0.223
2 1.466 1.526 0.533 0.429
3 1.566 1.618 0.684 0.588
4 1.653 1.698 0.785 0.703
5 1.729 1.770 0.850 0.784
6 1.798 1.835 0.894 0.842

So if Koufax had no real skill for preventing runs when his team didn't get him any runs...we'd expect him to win 30% of the time that his team got him just 1 run. I expect that number is higher than you were thinking. But more to the point, with a sample size of 4 games, I can't run a statistical test on this planet that will claim significance at the 95th percentile, even given that 3-1 record.

Let's take his roughly .500 record in 18 decisions and his ERA from 1961-1966 when the bulk of those decision were made (that ERA is 2.17), though. A simple binomial test under the assumption that the pythagorean .254 is the "true" W% tells us that the probability of someone randomly winning half those starts in 18 chances (9 wins instead of the expected 5 in the discrete sample) is 0.0214, which is a relatively small but interesting piece of evidence that Koufax was a bit better in single-run-support games.

[SABR Matt]

Depends upon the metric.

WIN SHARES
Koufax - 194
Drysdale - 258

TPR
Koufax - 22.3
Drysdale - 32.4

That's, at best, disingenuous. That's CAREER value...you know darned well that Drysdale's career lasted waaaaaayyyyy longer than Koufax's career. You provided two years worth of data...during a time when Koufax was the far superior pitcher.

[PVNICK]

Clift
Cuyler
Dickey
Wes Ferrell
Maranville
Myer
Rice

[Freakshow]

Cronin, Foxx and Waner were elected. Schang expired. They were replaced by newbies Dickey and Bridges.

Berger
Bridges
Cuyler
Dickey
Ferrell W
Grimes
Johnson B
Lazzeri
Maranville
Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
Wilson

[mwiggins]

I'd be interested to see a case made for Lazzeri. He's not one I'd really considered as a strong candidate, but he compares pretty favorably to Larry Doyle. Doyle elected in his second election, while Lazzeri has gotten very little support so far. Is Doyle simply considered a mistake by the current electorate, or is he that much better than Lazzeri?

[leecemark]

--Doyle had the good fortune to be the best player in the NL for the 1910s (or have a very good argument for it anyway). Lazzeri was a second tier star not just in the AL, but on his own team. Of course, the NL of the 1910s had nobody remotely comparable to Ruth or Gehrig (or Foxx or Cochrane or perhaps several more AL stars of Lazzeri's time). I made Doyle look better even he really may not be much better.
--Lazzeri finds himself compared to a class of secondbasemen that includes Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby and Gehrigner. Only Lajoie of that group was part of our HOF 2B cohort when Doyle got elected. I don't know that I'd call Doyle a mistake, but I think he would have a much harder time making it if he was onthe ballot now.
--Doyle has one more thing going for him. There has been a definate tendancy to lean towards Cooperstown ommissions such as Doyle over Cooperstown's lesser members such as Lazzeri. That shouldn't be a factor, but I think its tough for those of us who participate in alot of projects here to get past thinking of Lazzeri as a mistake and Doyle as a guy who turns up in discussions as amoung the best 2B outside Cooperstown.

[mwiggins]

--Doyle has one more thing going for him. There has been a definate tendancy to lean towards Cooperstown ommissions such as Doyle over Cooperstown's lesser members such as Lazzeri. That shouldn't be a factor, but I think its tough for those of us who participate in alot of projects here to get past thinking of Lazzeri as a mistake and Doyle as a guy who turns up in discussions as amoung the best 2B outside Cooperstown.

That's kind of what I figured. That's mostly why I never really gave Lazzeri much of a look.

Doyle seems to have the edge offensively, and he had better longevity (he was still a good player when he retired early at age 33, while Lazzeri's last good year was at age 32). Neither was really known for their fielding. Win Shares give Lazzeri a slight edge, while BP shows Lazzeri with a large edge in fielding. And Lazzeri probably played in a better league.

WARP shows Lazzeri with a large career and peak edge, while Win Shares seem to give Doyle the edge in both those areas. Though James did rank Lazzeri one spot higher than Doyle in his last Abstract.

[Paul Wendt]

The same is true for your Koufax example...he was 9-9 in games that his team got him just 1 run...that's impressive but it's only 18 games. I try not to read too much into interesting little factoids like that. What you are REALLY seeking to know is...did Koufax have a higher W% in one-run games (that's games decided by one run...not games in which he got one run of support) than you would statistically expect for a pitcher with his ERA+?
Why ERA+, which is based on earned runs, rather than RA+, all runs?

Let's take his roughly .500 record in 18 decisions and his ERA from 1961-1966 when the bulk of those decision were made (that ERA is 2.17), though. A simple binomial test under the assumption that the pythagorean .254 is the "true" W% tells us that the probability of someone randomly winning half those starts in 18 chances (9 wins instead of the expected 5 in the discrete sample) is 0.0214, which is a relatively small but interesting piece of evidence that Koufax was a bit better in single-run-support games.
Here it seems clear that we should use all runs allowed (RA) rather than earned runs (ERA). His team scored one run, earned or not. How many runs did he permit in those games?

I doubt that the pythagorean model fits this case. The pitcher's team scores one run in every game, rather scoring a variable number of runs with mean one. When the pitcher yields one run the team always loses; the pitcher always gets no decision. The pitcher's W-L record depends entirely on the shares of 0-run and 1-run games in a discrete distribution. Pythagoras doesn't know those shares.

The number of no decision in games with one-run support should be part of the analysis. It's a shame that the people who compiled such records as these, perhaps Koufax fans before Bill James got the night watchman's job, didn't compile or didn't report the numbers of games by run support: 9-9 in how many games?

[SABR Matt]

I used pythag as a best-guess proxy. Technically, since one side of the equation is fixed, it's not the best model, but other models would have taken me significantly more work to establish and Pythag gives you a pretty good estimate of the W%. I thought about using RA instead of ERA...the difference in my larger example would be pretty small (Koufax allowed a grand total of 61 unearned runs in the six seasons in question) but not insignificant. That would change the pythag to .221 instead of .254 and the probability of winning 9 or more games in 18 tries would drop to .017...the conclusion is basically unchanged. It's a small piece of statistical evidence that at least in this situation, Koufax was better than random chance at his normal skill level would suggest.

[Jsquared83]

Dickey
Gomez
Grimes
Manush
Maranville
Rice
Ruffing

[mwiggins]

Here's who I have coming up for 1952:

Jim Bagby
George Case
Spud Chandler
Roy Cullenbine
Lou Finney
Hank Greenberg
Stan Hack
Mel Harder
Frankie Hayes
Lee Handley
Rollie Hemsley
Billy Herman
Joe Kuhel
Billy Jurges
Chet Laabs
Cookie Lavagetto
Ernie Lombardi
Al Lopez
Johnny Murphy
Mel Ott
Claude Passeau
Cecil Travis

That's a really strong class. Two who will for sure be no-brainer first ballot guys, two others who should be no-brainer first ballot guys (but probably won't be), and another guy who might get a lot of support and make it eventually. It will be interesting to see how the voters treat Cecil Travis.

[bambambaseball]

That's a really strong class. Two who will for sure be no-brainer first ballot guys, two others who should be no-brainer first ballot guys (but probably won't be), and another guy who might get a lot of support and make it eventually. It will be interesting to see how the voters treat Cecil Travis.

Ott, Herman and Greenberg are the no brainers. Hack may make it eventually. Who is the other no brainers and why might anyone support Cecil Travis? Spud Chandler, Mel Harder and Ernie Lombardi will get votes possibly, but none of them are gonna be elected.

[SABR Matt]

I don't see how Billy Herman is a lock for the HOF...

Ott and Greenberg are pretty solid yes votes...I like Hack a lot better than I like Herman.

After that, there are guys I'll have to look into before I decide.

[mwiggins]

Ott, Herman and Greenberg are the no brainers. Hack may make it eventually. Who is the other no brainers and why might anyone support Cecil Travis? Spud Chandler, Mel Harder and Ernie Lombardi will get votes possibly, but none of them are gonna be elected.

Hack should be a no-brainer as well. Voters who give credit to players who lost time to WW2 might support Travis. Or voters who support short career guys with strong peaks like Hack Wilson or Wally Berger.

I'll be voting for him, Herman, Ott, Greenberg, and Hack. Not sure about Lombardi yet.

[bambambaseball]

Hack should be a no-brainer as well. Voters who give credit to players who lost time to WW2 might support Travis. Or voters who support short career guys with strong peaks like Hack Wilson or Wally Berger.

I'll be voting for him, Herman, Ott, Greenberg, and Hack. Not sure about Lombardi yet.

I dont think Hack is a lock, but I hope he eventualy gets in.

On Travis, you're right. His career did seem to be on a HOF path before WWII. I'd like to hear more about what happened to him but I am open to voting for the guy.

[Domenic]

Ott, Herman and Greenberg are the no brainers. Hack may make it eventually. Who is the other no brainers and why might anyone support Cecil Travis? Spud Chandler, Mel Harder and Ernie Lombardi will get votes possibly, but none of them are gonna be elected.

What makes Herman a lock?

Based on my initial research, he didn't have much of a peak, wasn't much of a fielder, and didn't have a ton of career value. I see his big 1943 as flukish, due to his prior few seasons and the weakened league, and I don't think his war credit would push him high enough, either.

[mwiggins]

I don't see how Billy Herman is a lock for the HOF...

Ott and Greenberg are pretty solid yes votes...I like Hack a lot better than I like Herman.

After that, there are guys I'll have to look into before I decide.

How does PCA show Herman? I do like Hack better as well.

Herman seems like a guy with very good career value, esp with some credit for missing '44 & '45, and 3 big peak years early on from 1935-1937 where combined a 130 OPS+ with excellent defense.

He did ground into a ton of double plays, though.

[mwiggins]

I dont think Hack is a lock, but I hope he eventualy gets in.

On Travis, you're right. His career did seem to be on a HOF path before WWII. I'd like to hear more about what happened to him but I am open to voting for the guy.

He suffered terrible frostbite on both feet during the Battle of the Bulge. Though he claimed that the injury didn't really affect his play when he returned, but rather he just couldn't get back into playing shape after the long layoff. Who's to say, though. And his one "off year" during his peak run, in 1939, was mostly the result of two cases of the flu that season.

[mwiggins]

What makes Herman a lock?

Based on my initial research, he didn't have much of a peak, wasn't much of a fielder, and didn't have a ton of career value. I see his big 1943 as flukish, due to his prior few seasons and the weakened league, and I don't think his war credit would push him high enough, either.

I've usually seen Herman rated as at least an above-average fielder for his career.. His defensive Win Share grade was a B+, I believe, and he has 75 FRAA for his career.

And his '43 season wasn't out of line with the numbers he put up in 1935-1937, 1939, and 1946. 1943 wasn't even his best year, as he was much better defensively during 1935-1937, and nearly as good with the bat in those years.

His career value isn't great, but it's sizable. With no war credit, he's got 298 Win Shares. Assume maybe another 30 with war credit, that puts him at 328, which isn't too far out of line with our 2nd tier second basemen.

Gehringer - 383
Frisch - 366
Doyle - 289

WARP3 shows him to be nearly equal to Frisch and Gehringer, even with out any war credit, though I do find that hard to buy.

Gehringer - 84.7
Frisch - 83.3
Herman - 77.8
Doyle - 41.7

[Domenic]

I thought Herman was a C+, so I may have to re-evaluate a bit based on that.

His peak wasn't poor, but I see three very good seasons surrounded by two mediocre ones, which seems somewhat lackluster. Further, he was right around average for seven of his thirteen full seasons, which is lackluster, as well.

I see him as very comparable to Joe Sewell, who I did end up voting for. Herman's peak was a bit better, and he should merit some war credit - but I just don't see him as a great candidate. I could be convinced, though.

[SABR Matt]

Here's Herman's PCA card, FWIW:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1936 NL 7.27 5.81 10.0 8.6 13.08
1935 NL 7.54 5.48 10.4 8.0 13.02
1937 NL 7.25 5.10 10.5 7.5 12.35
1932 NL 6.03 5.31 7.5 7.7 11.34
1943 NL 8.97 1.73 13.7 0.7 10.70
1939 NL 7.5 2.30 10.5 1.6 9.80
1942 NL 5.01 4.02 5.9 5.1 9.03
1933 NL 4.36 4.66 4.4 6.4 9.02
1938 NL 3.65 5.06 2.9 7.2 8.71
1946 NL 6.06 1.49 8.9 1.4 7.55
1940 NL 3.83 3.12 3.8 3.6 6.95
1941 NL 4.38 2.49 4.6 2.3 6.87
1934 NL 3.87 2.19 4.6 2.2 6.06
1931 NL 1.31 0.26 1.9 0.0 1.57

He's got a much stronger case than I remembered going into this discussion. I actually have him ranked 15th all time among second basemen, and his defense is a big part of why. WS sees him as a B+ defender...PCA would give him a solid A or maybe even an A+. He was not as good as the McPhee/Mazeroski/Collins fielders, but he was a lot closer than I thought.

Herman, Hack and Ott definitely have my vote. Greenberg's card looks like this:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1938 AL 15.26 2.66 26.2 3.8 17.92
1935 AL 14.8 2.34 25.1 3.2 17.14
1937 AL 13.63 2.28 22.8 3.1 15.91
1940 AL 12.25 1.66 20.2 1.5 13.91
1934 AL 11.85 1.86 19.5 2.2 13.71
1946 AL 8.77 2.99 13.7 4.6 11.76
1939 AL 9.95 1.76 16.1 2.2 11.71
1933 AL 4.14 2.27 5.1 3.4 6.41
1947 NL 5.33 0.7 7.4 0.3 6.03
1945 AL 5.48 0.4 9.0 0.0 5.88
1936 AL 1.25 0.02 2.1 -0.1 1.27

Greenberg was one of the very few baseball men to miss 1941...he was already coming off his peak by 1939 so his WWII credit is not quite as amazing as you might expect, but taking 1939 and 1940 as the starting point (offensive marker exchange rate of 1.64), and 1945-1947 as the end point (marker exchange rate of 1.54) and assuming not-quite-full-time play in the 4 years he missed (41-44) since he'd already shown some signs of injuries in '39 and when he returned, he was hardly a full timer anymore (part of the natural age decline process)...we'll project those four seasons would have netted him 40 offensive wins and a marker score of 40*1.6 or 64 offensive marker points.

On defense, he was an average fielder in his injury marred 39 season but above average in 40 and outstanding in 46...his career defensive marker exchange rate should probably apply to 41-44. (24.1 marker/19.0 W = 1.27)...assuming 7 defensive wins in 41-44 due to slightly shortened playing time, that's 8.9 defensive marker points added.

It's tough to speculate on four consecutive missed seasons, but adding the 72.9 marker points to his career total of 201.4 would give him an adjusted score of 274.3, which ranks him...are you ready for this?...4th! all time by the HOF Marker among first basemen (behind only Gehrig, Foxx, and Frank Thomas). Without War credit, he's 20th! all time.

[SavoyBG]

It's tough to speculate on four consecutive missed seasons, but adding the 72.9 marker points to his career total of 201.4 would give him an adjusted score of 274.3, which ranks him...are you ready for this?...4th! all time by the HOF Marker among first basemen (behind only Gehrig, Foxx, and Frank Thomas). Without War credit, he's 20th! all time.


Not surprising, Greenberg was an awesome hitter who just had a short career, mainly because of the war. he was drafted very early because he he lived in a hotel and was the only draft age male living in that dsitrict, which hardly had any residences.

He was also awesome in 23 world series games (.318/.420/.624) with 17 runs scored and 22 RBI. Seems to have been injured during most of the 1935 series. He had at least one HR in all 4 of the WS he played in. He's 14th in career OPS+ (157)

How does Mize look with war credit? He missed three full years during the war, and he has the same career OPS+ as Greenberg (157)

[BlueBlood]

Bottomley/Gomez (a case of me thinking both are close enough)
Dickey
W Ferrell
Grimes
Klein
Rice
Rixey
Ruffing
Wilson

[SABR Matt]

Johnny Mize:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1939 NL 13.34 1.62 22.4 1.8 14.96
1948 NL 12.90 1.48 21.6 1.5 14.38
1947 NL 13.08 1.02 22.0 0.5 14.10
1940 NL 13.04 1.00 21.9 0.5 14.04
1937 NL 13.15 0.73 22.4 0.0 13.88
1942 NL 11.29 1.85 18.7 2.4 13.14
1946 NL 10.60 1.96 18.4 3.0 12.56
1938 NL 10.37 1.91 16.9 2.4 12.28
1941 NL 8.27 2.00 13.1 2.8 10.27
1936 NL 8.72 0.77 14.5 0.5 9.49
1949 NL 4.08 1.63 5.4 2.3 5.71
1950 AL 4.20 0.68 6.5 0.8 4.88
1951 AL 3.13 0.83 3.9 0.9 3.96
1952 AL 0.99 0.42 1.0 0.6 1.41

Greenberg had the better top performances, but I would submit that Mize had the better overall peak (because he sustained his high performance level longer) in the raw numerical sense. Both players had a giant gaping maw ripped through the heart of the careers by the war.

If we plug the hole left by WWII for Mize, let's take the average win-scoring rate for each skill in '41/'42, '46/'47 (2263 PA, 43.24 wins, 72.2 marker points for offense (exchange of 1.67), 512 EqG, 6.83 wins, 8.7 marker points for defense (exchange of 1.27)) and project 3 typical missing seasons (140 EqG on defense each season, 600 PA each season)...we get:

34.40 offensive wins (57.4 marker points)
5.6 defensive wins (7.1 marker points)

His career total marker score before war credit was 237.2...add 64.5 marker points and that brings his career score to 301.7, which ranks him 3rd behind Gehrig and Foxx and pushes Greenberg down to 5th.

[SavoyBG]

Johnny Mize:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1939 NL 13.34 1.62 22.4 1.8 14.96
1948 NL 12.90 1.48 21.6 1.5 14.38
1947 NL 13.08 1.02 22.0 0.5 14.10
1940 NL 13.04 1.00 21.9 0.5 14.04
1937 NL 13.15 0.73 22.4 0.0 13.88
1942 NL 11.29 1.85 18.7 2.4 13.14
1946 NL 10.60 1.96 18.4 3.0 12.56
1938 NL 10.37 1.91 16.9 2.4 12.28
1941 NL 8.27 2.00 13.1 2.8 10.27
1936 NL 8.72 0.77 14.5 0.5 9.49
1949 NL 4.08 1.63 5.4 2.3 5.71
1950 AL 4.20 0.68 6.5 0.8 4.88
1951 AL 3.13 0.83 3.9 0.9 3.96
1952 AL 0.99 0.42 1.0 0.6 1.41

Greenberg had the better top performances, but I would submit that Mize had the better overall peak (because he sustained his high performance level longer) in the raw numerical sense. Both players had a giant gaping maw ripped through the heart of the careers by the war.

If we plug the hole left by WWII for Mize, let's take the average win-scoring rate for each skill in '41/'42, '46/'47 (2263 PA, 43.24 wins, 72.2 marker points for offense (exchange of 1.67), 512 EqG, 6.83 wins, 8.7 marker points for defense (exchange of 1.27)) and project 3 typical missing seasons (140 EqG on defense each season, 600 PA each season)...we get:

34.40 offensive wins (57.4 marker points)
5.6 defensive wins (7.1 marker points)

His career total marker score before war credit was 237.2...add 64.5 marker points and that brings his career score to 301.7, which ranks him 3rd behind Gehrig and Foxx and pushes Greenberg down to 5th.

Thanks. Did you leave 1953 off of Mize's chart because he was below average that year? Does his 1949 listing include his AL stats from that year?

It's gonna be interesting to see if Pujols can end up being the top 1Bman of all time. So far he's averaging more win shares per 162 than even Gehrig.

Does PCA also see Pujols as having a chance of surpassing Gehrig as the greatest 1Bman ever?

[SABR Matt]

Oh my player cards lop off any season or partial season not worth at least 1 win...the 54 season and the AL stats in 49 don't show up because those records weren't worth a full win. They are, however, included in his total player evaluation.

As for Pujols...here's what we have so far for Albert:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
2003 NL 15.66 1.68 27.0 1.8 17.34
2005 NL 12.79 1.91 21.1 2.2 14.70
2004 NL 12.17 1.36 20.0 1.2 13.53
2001 NL 9.47 2.60 14.7 3.2 12.07
2002 NL 9.20 2.04 14.1 2.4 11.24

Estimates for 2006-2008

06: 12.3 Off-W, 1.8 Def-W, 21.0 Off-Mk, 2.4 Def-Mk
07: 9.3 Off-W, 1.3 Def-W, 14.2 Off-Mk, 1.0 Def-Mk
08: 15.2 Off-W, 2.0 Def-W, 27.3 Off-Mk, 2.6 Def-Mk

Career totals through 2008: 159.3 Offensive Marker, 20.8 Defensive Marker (with the first base linear mark-up...the marker scores for fielding are adjusted to ensure the ratio of offensive marker points (for all players at a given position) to defensive marker points (for that position) is the same as the ratio of offensive to defensive wins created...if you don't make that adjustment, the at the high-offense positions, the offensive markers totally and completely dominate since the possible range of defensive scores doesn't stray as far from average as it does at the more demanding defensive positions).

After that little defensive adjustment and through 2008, Pujols stands at 180.1 marker points, which places him at the same level as John Olerud and Mark Grace...and he got there in just nine seasons. If the second half of his career is worth 161.8 marker points, he'll tie Gehrig. He'll need to age well and that's in doubt because of the whole "at any second he might need surgery that costs him a full season" ticking time bomb...but if he staves off the ravages of time long enough...he's got a shot.

[leecemark]

Greenberg's card looks like this:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1938 AL 15.26 2.66 26.2 3.8 17.92
1935 AL 14.8 2.34 25.1 3.2 17.14
1937 AL 13.63 2.28 22.8 3.1 15.91
1940 AL 12.25 1.66 20.2 1.5 13.91
1934 AL 11.85 1.86 19.5 2.2 13.71
1946 AL 8.77 2.99 13.7 4.6 11.76
1939 AL 9.95 1.76 16.1 2.2 11.71
1933 AL 4.14 2.27 5.1 3.4 6.41
1947 NL 5.33 0.7 7.4 0.3 6.03
1945 AL 5.48 0.4 9.0 0.0 5.88
1936 AL 1.25 0.02 2.1 -0.1 1.27

Greenberg was one of the very few baseball men to miss 1941...he was already coming off his peak by 1939


--I don't think many people would have agreed Greenberg was off his peak when he went to war. He won the MVP in 1940. I am a little suprised he shows as above average defensively that season though. He moved to LF in 1940 - his only year away from 1B - to make room for Rudy York at 1B (York had been a great hit, no field catcher and failed in an attempt to learn 3B). The move was one of the keys to Tigers winning the pennant that year, but I would have guessed it was a full scale offense for defense swap. If Greenberg more than held his own learnign a new position on the fly that is another feather in his cap.

[mwiggins]

How does Dick Bartell only have one more vote than Durocher? Someone needs to do a case for Bartell before he falls off the ballot completely.

[Domenic]

Matt's PCA analysis of Herman made me realize how little I actually knew about Herman, when taken in conjunction with mwiggins' Win Share numbers. It appears that he shall have my vote, as well.

[SABR Matt]

--I don't think many people would have agreed Greenberg was off his peak when he went to war. He won the MVP in 1940. I am a little suprised he shows as above average defensively that season though. He moved to LF in 1940 - his only year away from 1B - to make room for Rudy York at 1B (York had been a great hit, no field catcher and failed in an attempt to learn 3B). The move was one of the keys to Tigers winning the pennant that year, but I would have guessed it was a full scale offense for defense swap. If Greenberg more than held his own learnign a new position on the fly that is another feather in his cap.

Um...he didn't have an above average season, Mark. In 1940 his 1.66 wins in left field were a small step below average, which is why his defensive marker score is lower than 1.66 (1.5). But yes..he held his own on defense...enough that gaining offense in the bat of York was mostly gain and very little defensive loss.

And if Greenberg was not completely off-peak in 1940...he certainly was off-peak in 1945 upon his return...it would be a mistake IMHO to project all 4 seasons at his peak scoring level...so I took what essentially amounts to a second-plateau approach...the assumption being that he would have had a range of performances from his 1940 high to his 1947 exit from the game and that the trend would be down.

[Freakshow]

--Doyle had the good fortune to be the best player in the NL for the 1910s (or have a very good argument for it anyway).That would be Alexander, of course.

Still, assuming you meant position players, it wasn't a very auspicious group:

All NL players, 100+ OPS+, 3500+ PA, 1910-19
Cnt Player OPS+ RC PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
1 Gavvy Cravath 153 664 4187 1912 1919
2 Sherry Magee 135 693 5102 1910 1919
3 Heinie Groh 132 514 4169 1912 1919
4 George Burns 129 572 4632 1911 1919
5 Larry Doyle 127 721 5538 1910 1919
6 Zack Wheat 126 730 5563 1910 1919
7 Honus Wagner 125 560 4275 1910 1917
8 Heinie Zimmerman 122 701 5423 1910 1919
9 Jake Daubert 121 708 5832 1910 1919
10 Ed Konetchy 120 631 5307 1910 1919
11 Red Smith 118 515 4517 1911 1919
12 Frank Schulte 117 533 4395 1910 1917
13 Fred Luderus 114 648 5327 1910 1919
14 Fred Merkle 112 658 5688 1910 1919
15 Dode Paskert 111 607 5462 1910 1919
16 Max Carey 110 591 5358 1910 1919
17 Fred Snodgrass 109 388 3572 1910 1916
18 Chief Wilson 109 456 3855 1910 1916
19 Bob Bescher 107 485 4559 1910 1917
20 Art Fletcher 102 489 4913 1910 1919

[SABR Matt]

How does Dick Bartell only have one more vote than Durocher? Someone needs to do a case for Bartell before he falls off the ballot completely.

Neither Bartell nor Durocher belong in the HOF, but surely Bartell has the stronger case:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1937 NL 6.16 4.38 8.6 6.4 10.54
1934 NL 5.98 4.27 7.6 5.8 10.25
1936 NL 4.49 4.10 5.4 5.6 8.59
1932 NL 5.35 3.03 6.2 3.2 8.38
1938 NL 3.53 3.80 3.6 5.3 7.33
1935 NL 3.94 3.23 4.1 4.0 7.17
1929 NL 3.86 3.11 3.5 3.4 6.97
1933 NL 3.13 2.79 1.9 2.8 5.92
1930 NL 4.01 1.89 4.6 1.5 5.90
1941 NL 4.56 0.78 6.3 0.3 5.34
1943 NL 4.29 0.98 6.1 0.6 5.27
1942 NL 3.30 1.45 4.2 1.8 4.75
1940 AL 1.52 3.06 -0.9 3.6 4.58
1931 NL 2.88 1.08 1.9 -0.3 3.96
1939 NL 2.28 1.45 2.0 1.1 3.73
1928 NL 1.90 1.16 2.1 1.1 3.06

Bartell spent most of his career as an average to slightly below average player...in his prime, he was very solid, but that peak didn't hold for very long and didn't rise too high. He's behind Vern Stephens and in the same family as Jay Bell and Maury Wills.

Leo Durocher:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1935 NL 2.21 3.69 1.0 4.8 5.90
1933 NL 3.02 2.17 3.0 1.8 5.19
1934 NL 0.56 3.72 -2.3 4.8 4.28
1939 NL 1.77 2.27 0.9 2.6 4.04
1936 NL 2.30 1.49 1.1 0.5 3.79
1929 AL 0.46 2.42 -1.5 3.0 2.88
1938 NL 1.27 1.43 -0.8 0.3 2.70
1932 NL 0.49 2.07 -2.2 1.7 2.56
1928 AL 1.19 0.93 0.3 0.3 2.12
1930 NL 0.25 1.53 -1.9 1.1 1.78
1940 NL 0.04 1.31 -1.0 1.8 1.35
1931 NL -0.09 1.25 -2.6 0.6 1.16

This man has no business appearing in a HOF debate. At all. Sorry but he's just not even remotely close to credentialed enough.

[SABR Matt]

How the heck does Hack Wilson - whose career was shortened by his own stupidity and personal negligence - have more HOF votes than Indian Bob Johnson - whose career was shortened by the lack of adequate scouting of the PCL where he flat out DOMINATED his competition at a time when the PCL was a borderline major league?

You folks should read up on Bob Johnson's PCL career and late arrival in the majors...and then realize that even before we start doling out PCL credit, Johnson was a far better overall player

His player card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1944 AL 11.86 1.39 19.8 1.2 13.25
1939 AL 10.83 1.79 17.5 1.8 12.62
1937 AL 8.80 2.19 14.0 2.7 10.99
1942 AL 8.98 1.72 13.9 1.7 10.70
1938 AL 7.83 2.71 11.5 2.9 10.54
1941 AL 7.09 2.97 10.0 4.2 10.06
1936 AL 7.34 2.34 10.5 2.7 9.68
1934 AL 6.37 2.86 8.9 4.1 9.23
1940 AL 6.81 1.13 9.8 0.7 7.94
1935 AL 6.03 1.74 7.8 1.7 7.77
1945 AL 6.21 1.36 8.7 1.1 7.57
1943 AL 4.26 2.55 5.3 3.7 6.81
1933 AL 5.72 0.07 7.5 -1.6 5.79

Now I would tend to knock his 1944 season down a chunk to account for the very weak league that year, but compare that kind of solid ELP and peak to Hack Wilson's 5-season run of glory and career-ending drinking problem and I am baffled as to how Wilson has more supporters than Johnson.

[Captain Cold Nose]

How the heck does Hack Wilson - whose career was shortened by his own stupidity and personal negligence - have more HOF votes than Indian Bob Johnson - whose career was shortened by the lack of adequate scouting of the PCL where he flat out DOMINATED his competition at a time when the PCL was a borderline major league?

You folks should read up on Bob Johnson's PCL career and late arrival in the majors...and then realize that even before we start doling out PCL credit, Johnson was a far better overall player

His player card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1944 AL 11.86 1.39 19.8 1.2 13.25
1939 AL 10.83 1.79 17.5 1.8 12.62
1937 AL 8.80 2.19 14.0 2.7 10.99
1942 AL 8.98 1.72 13.9 1.7 10.70
1938 AL 7.83 2.71 11.5 2.9 10.54
1941 AL 7.09 2.97 10.0 4.2 10.06
1936 AL 7.34 2.34 10.5 2.7 9.68
1934 AL 6.37 2.86 8.9 4.1 9.23
1940 AL 6.81 1.13 9.8 0.7 7.94
1935 AL 6.03 1.74 7.8 1.7 7.77
1945 AL 6.21 1.36 8.7 1.1 7.57
1943 AL 4.26 2.55 5.3 3.7 6.81
1933 AL 5.72 0.07 7.5 -1.6 5.79

Now I would tend to knock his 1944 season down a chunk to account for the very weak league that year, but compare that kind of solid ELP and peak to Hack Wilson's 5-season run of glory and career-ending drinking problem and I am baffled as to how Wilson has more supporters than Johnson.

I voted for both.

[SABR Matt]

Well that's all well and good, but several apparently did not...and Bob Johnson is clearly and identifiably the better player...I'm trying to figure out why Hack Wilson's fan club here is so huge when there are other players far more deserving.

[PVNICK]

I never got the Hack Wilson thing. I know he holds the single season RBI record. But is he really much more than his decades Tommie Davis or George Foster to pull two names out of a hat (sorry for the time traveling reference).

[Cowtipper]

Well that's all well and good, but several apparently did not...and Bob Johnson is clearly and identifiably the better player...I'm trying to figure out why Hack Wilson's fan club here is so huge when there are other players far more deserving.

It's because Hack has such a cool first name.

[Ace Venom]

For me, Hack Wilson's peak seals the deal. I know not everyone likes to use counting stats, which is one of the reasons some people use against Wilson. He's not a slam dunk and it's possible that he might have been had he kept his drinking under control. I don't give him the alcoholic discount. My vote is simply based on who he was at the time when he was a dominant slugger for the Chicago Cubs. He may not have been a good glove, but I don't think they put him out on the field for his glove. Of course, I'm sure they wish his glove had been as good as his bat in the 1929 World Series.

It's because Hack has such a cool first name.

Lewis? :cool:

[mwiggins]

Well that's all well and good, but several apparently did not...and Bob Johnson is clearly and identifiably the better player...I'm trying to figure out why Hack Wilson's fan club here is so huge when there are other players far more deserving.

Hack Wilson has a famous record and led the league in HR 4 times in a 5 year stretch. Bob Johnson has nothing so sexy on his resume. For a lot of us, the fact that Hack Wilson was a superstar, elite player for 4 or 5 years in a row was imprinted on our baseball DNA long before we understood what park effects and era adjustments were.

[Ace Venom]

Bob Johnson is really one of those under appreciated players. People who know about OPS+ would usually take a second look at him. Hack Wilson gets extra credit for his counting stats.

[PVNICK]

It's because Hack has such a cool first name.

and Indian Bob Johnson's not?

[Cowtipper]

Lewis? :cool:
It's so much better than Bob.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well that's all well and good, but several apparently did not...and Bob Johnson is clearly and identifiably the better player...I'm trying to figure out why Hack Wilson's fan club here is so huge when there are other players far more deserving.

Johnson's largely forgotten. He played for non-winning teams and did not produce big numbers. Even on this site, Johnson is one of the most underrecognized players of the 20th Century.

[Ace Venom]

OPS+ may not be the best way to gauge a player, but that metric has him a little above the middle of the pack for the left fielders we've elected.

OPS+
Jesse Burkett: 140
Fred Clarke: 132
Ed Delahanty: 152
Goose Goslin: 128
Joe Kelley: 133
Sherry Magee: 136
Jim O'Rourke: 133
Jimmy Sheckard: 120
Al Simmons: 132
Harry Stovey: 143
Zack Wheat: 129

1. Ed Delahanty: 152
2. Harry Stovey: 143
3. Jesse Burkett: 140
4. Sherry Magee: 136
t5. Joe Kelley: 133
t5. Jim O'Rourke: 133
t7. Fred Clarke: 132
t7. Al Simmons: 132
9. Zack Wheat: 129
10. Goose Goslin: 128
11. Jimmy Sheckard: 120

Mean OPS+: 134.364 (or 134.4)
Range OPS+: 152-120
Bob Johnson OPS+: 138

Other LF VC Holdovers by OPS+
Charley Jones: 150
Bobby Veach: 127
George J. Burns: 114

Also compared are some notable holdovers in the VC elections. The average OPS+ would be about 134.4, which is not a slight to players like Al Simmons or Goose Goslin. Bob Johnson rests about 3.5 points above the average. It's not spectacular, but it puts him in decent company with the people already in there. Bob Johnson isn't someone I'd call a mistake if he got elected, but Charley Jones is probably the player I'll be stumping for the most in the 1955 VC elections.

[DoubleX]

Glad to see this project still thriving. Ace, you've done a fantastic job!

I'll just throw a little something Red Ruffing's way since he's close (and perhaps this has been mentioned). 300 wins might seem arbitrary to some, but for those who put stock in that kind of rare milestone, Ruffing would have a good chance at reaching it if not for WWII, for which he missed 2+ seasons. He also seems to have been a late bloomer, with his rate stats brought down by mediocre seasons from ages 20-26. Something seemed to click at age 27 and he was extremely consistent and durable until leaving for war at 38, fronting (with Lefty Gomez) the staff of some of the best teams ever, particularly that 1939 Yankees team, for which Ruffing may have had his personal best season.

[SABR Matt]

Charley Jones' name appeared and at Ace's request, I'll give my two cents...just for fun.
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1884 AA 9.70 1.63 16.1 1.4 11.33
1885 AA 7.88 2.71 12.5 4.1 10.59
1883 AA 6.57 3.47 10.5 5.4 10.04
1879 NL 7.34 2.23 12.2 3.4 9.57
1886 AA 6.76 1.44 9.9 1.3 8.20
1878 NL 3.71 1.21 5.7 1.6 4.92
1880 NL 4.09 0.22 6.3 -0.4 4.31
1877 NL 3.54 0.54 5.5 0.3 4.08
1887 AA 2.37 1.33 1.9 1.2 3.78
1876 NL 2.54 0.57 3.3 0.1 3.11

In terms of straight value, I wouldn't put Jones up there...but we have competing influences on my decision. 1) How much do you adjust for the short schedules? 2) How much do you adjust for the VERY weak leagues in which he played his best baseball (especially 1884). It's borderline...not the kind of call I'm inclined to make..I treat 19th century players as though they were playing cricket instead of baseball - it was a completely different game back then...

[mwiggins]

Matt, when you get a chance, I'd love to see how PCA scores Cecil Travis' pre-war years. Thanks in advance.

[SABR Matt]

I thought I'd already posted Travis...but if not, here's his player card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1941 AL 10.68 1.78 17.2 0.8 12.46
1937 AL 5.46 2.10 7.2 1.9 7.56
1938 AL 5.10 2.46 6.1 2.2 7.56
1940 AL 5.90 1.12 8.1 0.3 7.02
1935 AL 5.22 1.38 6.7 1.2 6.60
1936 AL 3.82 2.13 4.1 2.3 5.95
1939 AL 3.19 1.62 3.1 1.2 4.81
1934 AL 2.35 1.20 2.0 1.3 3.55
1946 AL 2.21 0.90 1.1 0.0 3.11

One really big year in '41 and an assortment of basically average seasons thereafter.

[SavoyBG]

Charley Jones' name appeared and at Ace's request, I'll give my two cents...just for fun.
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1884 AA 9.70 1.63 16.1 1.4 11.33
1885 AA 7.88 2.71 12.5 4.1 10.59
1883 AA 6.57 3.47 10.5 5.4 10.04
1879 NL 7.34 2.23 12.2 3.4 9.57
1886 AA 6.76 1.44 9.9 1.3 8.20
1878 NL 3.71 1.21 5.7 1.6 4.92
1880 NL 4.09 0.22 6.3 -0.4 4.31
1877 NL 3.54 0.54 5.5 0.3 4.08
1887 AA 2.37 1.33 1.9 1.2 3.78
1876 NL 2.54 0.57 3.3 0.1 3.11

In terms of straight value, I wouldn't put Jones up there...but we have competing influences on my decision. 1) How much do you adjust for the short schedules? 2) How much do you adjust for the VERY weak leagues in which he played his best baseball (especially 1884). It's borderline...not the kind of call I'm inclined to make..I treat 19th century players as though they were playing cricket instead of baseball - it was a completely different game back then...

I've been voting for Jones and will always give extra credit to the players of those days for blazing the trail. If you were to adjust his numbers to 154 game schedules they'd look much better. I don't think you have the right to say that these guys were not playing baseball. They were the best baseball players of their day in the only major league "baseball" that was being played. Holding it against them because the game changed a lot over the subsequent 50 years is like holding it against a deadball player who did not hit a lot of home runs, or like holding it against Bob Cousy because he didn't make any 3 pointers in his career.

All a player can do is be great in his own day.

[SABR Matt]

It's not "holding it against" a player to recognize that they were playing in an inferior league (in terms of talent depth) and playing a game that was so radically different as to make comparisons impossible.

I think 19th century players, unless they have a completely overwhelming resume, should be in the HOF as contributors for their trail-blazing innovations in game play technology and strategy or recognized as greats of a bygone era in a special exhibit, but not in the same hall with guys like Ruth and Bonds and Mays.

[SavoyBG]

It's not "holding it against" a player to recognize that they were playing in an inferior league (in terms of talent depth) and playing a game that was so radically different as to make comparisons impossible.

I think 19th century players, unless they have a completely overwhelming resume, should be in the HOF as contributors for their trail-blazing innovations in game play technology and strategy or recognized as greats of a bygone era in a special exhibit, but not in the same hall with guys like Ruth and Bonds and Mays.

A - Why is the cutoff at "19th century players" rather than at pre-1893 players (when the mound went to 60 feet 6 inches), or at 1920, or at 1947, etc....can you show any evidence that proves that the game all of a sudden got to a better level in the 20th century?

B - Up until full integration in the 1960s all players were playing in inferior leagues.

C - Players should be judged solely for their accomplishments in relation to their peers. Long Charley Jones can't be responsible for the fact that the level of play got better over time any more than Oscar Charleston can be responsible for the fact that he did not play against the best of players of his time.

D - Bonds may not be a hall of famer based on what most of the Cooperstown voters are saying.

E - The game Charley Jones played is not radically different than what baseball is, the game that Ruth, Mays and Bonds eventually played is radically different from what "baseball" was. Holding the way the game was played against early players would be like holding it against Louis Armstrong because his recordings from the 1920s were not done in stereo.

F - Comparisons are onbviously not impossible because most Sabrmetricains rank 19th century players in with latter day players.

[Ace Venom]

Matt, how would you rank Stan Hack? He's a third baseman coming up on the 1952 ballot.

[SABR Matt]

A - Why is the cutoff at "19th century players" rather than at pre-1893 players (when the mound went to 60 feet 6 inches), or at 1920, or at 1947, etc....can you show any evidence that proves that the game all of a sudden got to a better level in the 20th century?

The cutoff is wherever league quality reaches some minimal level of decency and schedules reach some level of regularity and the rules reach some level of consistency of enforcement and commonality with the modern game. The cut point for me is probably 1893...I just say 19th century when I talk about those pre 1893 guys to shorthand it. You have to have demonstrated that you can master the post 1893 league for me to consider you for the HOF.

B - Up until full integration in the 1960s all players were playing in inferior leagues.

This is nonsense. I know there are a lot of people who feel this way, but there's no evidence that league quality took a giant step forward when the color line finally dissolved. The leagues of the 1910s onward are all likely within shouting distance of the present major leagues in terms of league quality though certainly there has been a gradual improvement through much of the modern era until the mid 1980s when league quality peaked and has since been sliding back a bit.

C - Players should be judged solely for their accomplishments in relation to their peers. Long Charley Jones can't be responsible for the fact that the level of play got better over time any more than Oscar Charleston can be responsible for the fact that he did not play against the best of players of his time.

The legitimate question being asked is...would Charley Jones have hit as well in a future league where the pitchers he faced were of higher quality? I don't believe that answer is a clear yes...and I only elect guys who I think could be stars in any modern league.

D - Bonds may not be a hall of famer based on what most of the Cooperstown voters are saying.

Over-emotional rubbish. Even if you literally STOPPED Bonds' career after the 1998 season (a clear overreaction to the steroid thing), he'd STILL be a slam dunk hall of famer and a top-25 ballplayer all time. People saying he shouldn't be in the hall need to take a deep breath, get a hold of themselves, and think with their minds, not with their hearts.

F - Comparisons are onbviously not impossible because most Sabrmetricains rank 19th century players in with latter day players.

I didn't say ranking 19th century ballplayers was impossible...I said any ranking derived form the statistics is going to be subject to a lot of additional speculation so the case needs to be very strong for me to be swayed.

[SABR Matt]

Matt, how would you rank Stan Hack? He's a third baseman coming up on the 1952 ballot.

I have Hack higher than a lot of folks...here's what his card looks like:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1938 NL 9.65 3.40 14.8 5.0 13.05
1945 NL 9.37 3.44 14.3 5.0 12.81
1941 NL 12.3 0.44 20.2 -0.9 12.74
1940 NL 9.07 1.75 13.8 1.7 10.82
1942 NL 8.72 0.6 13.3 -0.5 9.32
1939 NL 7.09 1.5 9.6 1.1 8.59
1943 NL 6.80 1.41 9.6 1.1 8.21
1937 NL 6.05 1.66 7.8 1.4 7.71
1935 NL 5.64 1.19 8.1 0.9 6.83
1946 NL 5.86 0.87 9.1 0.7 6.73
1936 NL 5.87 0.23 7.5 -1.3 6.10
1934 NL 3.45 2.29 4.0 3.5 5.74
1944 NL 3.68 1.20 4.6 1.4 4.88
1947 NL 1.55 1.27 1.3 1.8 2.82
1933 NL 1.33 0.32 2.2 0.4 1.65
1932 NL 0.90 0.72 0.6 0.8 1.62

Career marker totals of 140.8 Off/26.9 Def (167.7 total) and 9th ranked among third basemen (not counting Edgar Martinez and Paul Molitor).

Very consistent hitter with a relatively short but effective HOF peak driven almost entirely by on base percentage. His defense was hit or miss and mostly miss, but it's enough to put him just ahead of Graig Nettles.

[SavoyBG]

You have to have demonstrated that you can master the post 1893 league for me to consider you for the HOF.

Good thing you weren't around voting in the early days of the project and passing on guys like Hines and Kelly and Barnes and Wright and Keefe.


This is nonsense. I know there are a lot of people who feel this way, but there's no evidence that league quality took a giant step forward when the color line finally dissolved. The leagues of the 1910s onward are all likely within shouting distance of the present major leagues in terms of league quality

More chance that what you say is nonsense. Very good chance that most major leaguers from 1910 would not even be good enough to play AAA now, with the talent pool now stretching all over the world. Obviously league quality had to have improved with the influx of a bunch of major black stars into baseball, pushing out the weakest of the white players. It's no accident that the NL MVP was black in 11 out of 14 seasons from 1949 through 1962. If you think that the LQ did not improve dramatically by adding Aaron, Mays, Jackie, Frank, Newcombe, Campanella, Clemente, Banks, Wills, etc... something is wrong.



The legitimate question being asked is...would Charley Jones have hit as well in a future league where the pitchers he faced were of higher quality? I don't believe that answer is a clear yes...and I only elect guys who I think could be stars in any modern league.

No, that's not the question. The question is whether or not a player was one of the great players of his day. It doesn't make George Mikan less of a hall of famer because you don't think he'd be able to dominate against modern NBA players. The quality of play in the NBA clearly improved greatly between the 1950s and the 1980s, certainly much more than the quality of play has improved in baseball in the past 80 years, but you aren't gonna tell us that Mikan is not a hall of famer....are you?


Over-emotional rubbish. Even if you literally STOPPED Bonds' career after the 1998 season (a clear overreaction to the steroid thing), he'd STILL be a slam dunk hall of famer and a top-25 ballplayer all time. People saying he shouldn't be in the hall need to take a deep breath, get a hold of themselves, and think with their minds, not with their hearts.

That's one thing that some of you numbers guys will never get.......this game is being played by human beings with hearts. AND that it's the "HALL OF FAME" not the "HALL OF PLAYER VALUE." It's never just going to be a cut and dried assessment of the player's value.There's lots of other factors, and one factor is whether or not the player respected the integrity of the game. Joe Jackson and Pete Rose had plenty enough "player value" before they did what they did to get disqualified from baseball. Maybe you'd put those two in YOUR HALL, but you are far in the minority on that, and with Bonds you can even be in the majority, but he needs a 75% majority to get elected. I'm not saying that I wouldn't put him in, I'm saying that enough of the guys who have votes have indicated that they will not be voting for any PED guys.

AND baseball is a lot about emotion. If it wasn't an emotional experience to watch baseball and to be a fan, this site wouldn't exist.


I didn't say ranking 19th century ballplayers was impossible

Here is your exact quote:


It's not "holding it against" a player to recognize that they were playing in an inferior league (in terms of talent depth) and playing a game that was so radically different as to make comparisons impossible.

[Ace Venom]

Baseball has changed over the years, but the greats of the 1880's certainly were great in their time just like the greats of the 1930's were great in their time. While I'm not about to say you can't vote a certain way, I only ask that people keep that in mind.

[SavoyBG]

Looks like one of the most famous batteries in the game's history will be going in together this year.

[leecemark]

--I think we did a good job in selecting the best players of the 19th century in the early stages of this project. If we passed on someone when we were focussed on that era - and the subsequent 50 "years" - then I'm not likley to take up their cause now.
--I disagree with Matt that the best players of the early years don't deserve consideration, I just think they are have had through review and discussion and none of the left overs from that period remain in my consideration set. I saw Jones as close, but not quite there, back in the day and 50 additional years of baseball have not changed that opinion.

[leecemark]

--Rabbit Maranville will be entering his last year on the ballot next year. He has been within a vote or two of election several times and I'd like everyone to give his case a good look before his last chance comes to a vote. Maranville is quite possibly the best defensive player in the history of the game. If you've think defense matters then that should be a compelling consideration for you. It certainly was for contemporary observers as he was regualrly amoung the leading vote getters in the MVP race in his prime. Rabbit was never a great hitter, but he was a good hitter for a SS in his prime - and missed a year right in the center of that to WWI. Please give some thought to adding this colorfull character to your next ballot.

[leecemark]

--We've elected Red Ruffing his second year on the ballot while a similar, but superior pitcher heads to his 15th and last with alot of ground to makeup.

Ruffing 4344 IP 109 ERA+
Rixey 4495 IP 115 ERA+

--Rixey has the edge in both quanity and quality. Both missed time due to military service, but that hurt Rixey more than Ruffing. Red lost the tail of his career while Rixey lost a season at his peak - and had the worst year of his career trying to regain his form upon returning. Ruffing makes up some ground with his bat, but his biggest advantage is better luck in teammates. Vote Rixey in 52!

--Burleigh Grimes is pretty close to these two in career value, although I can see how someone would draw the line between the R&R boys are Old Stubblebeard. His best years were the best of the trio, but he had some real clunkers mixed in. He has had my vote for quite a few years now though. He has 2 chances left, so his case ins't quite as urgent as Rixey's but please give him a hard look as well.

[Ace Venom]

There's honestly enough support in the VC to get Maranville elected in 1955 when he first comes up. I could say the same thing about Rice and Rixey. Those are some pretty big holdovers there.

[bambambaseball]

Its gonna be hard to get Maranville and Rixey in next year. Folks will be focusing on voting for Hank Greenberg, Billy Herman, and Mel Ott. Stan Hack will probably be the plyer that gets discussed a bunch. Not Rixey and Maranville.

[KCGHOST]

Bridges
Dickey
Gomez
Rixey
Ruffing

[mwiggins]

Its gonna be hard to get Maranville and Rixey in next year. Folks will be focusing on voting for Hank Greenberg, Billy Herman, and Mel Ott. Stan Hack will probably be the plyer that gets discussed a bunch. Not Rixey and Maranville.

Maranville's got no shot, but there's enough Ruffing voters who didn't vote for Rixey this year to put Eppa over the top. I would think a few of them could be convinced to vote for Rixey.

And there appear to be a few Grimes voters who aren't voting for Rixey. I can understand thinking Grimes is worthy of the Hall, but voting for him and not Rixey is confusing. Rixey pitched more innings (4494 vs. 4180), even without giving him credit for his year-and-a-half lost to WW1, and he posted a better career ERA+ (115 vs. 107). They had similarly dominant peaks. Grimes didn't pitch that well in the postseason, while Rixey hardly pitched at all in the post season.

[bambambaseball]

Maranville's got no shot, but there's enough Ruffing voters who didn't vote for Rixey this year to put Eppa over the top. I would think a few of them could be convinced to vote for Rixey.

I hope so, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. There are a lot of people who are voting for Hack Wilson who do not vote for Wally Berger but they dont ever answer anyone when they are asked why. Its been proven here that Wally Berger was a better player then Hack Wilson has. The only difference is that Wilson is in Cooperstown and Berger isnt.

[Ace Venom]

Its gonna be hard to get Maranville and Rixey in next year. Folks will be focusing on voting for Hank Greenberg, Billy Herman, and Mel Ott. Stan Hack will probably be the plyer that gets discussed a bunch. Not Rixey and Maranville.

I actually plan on voting for Greenberg, Hack, Herman and Ott in their first year of eligibility. The VC should take care of Rixey and Maranville because enough of their supporters are on the VC.

[SABR Matt]

Maranville has my vote in the VC, for one. As does Rixey.

My '52 ballot will include at least:

Mel Ott
Billy Herman
Stan Hack
Hank Greenberg
Kiki Cuyler
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Rabbit Maranville
Lefty Gomez
Bob Johnson
Wes Ferrell

This is a rare moment...you'll probably never see me vote for 11 guys all at once again.

[Ace Venom]

Maranville has my vote in the VC, for one. As does Rixey.

My '52 ballot will include at least:

Mel Ott
Billy Herman
Stan Hack
Hank Greenberg
Kiki Cuyler
Sam Rice
Eppa Rixey
Rabbit Maranville
Lefty Gomez
Bob Johnson
Wes Ferrell

This is a rare moment...you'll probably never see me vote for 11 guys all at once again.

That looks pretty similar to how I'm planning to vote. Obviously Wilson and Klein will keep my support, so a couple of people will be getting trimmed off my ballot.

[mwiggins]

'52 might be the largest ballot I've had yet.

Matt, how good does PCA show Cuyler? He's always been on the bubble for me, but he doesn't seem to have generated any real discussion.

[SavoyBG]

'52 might be the largest ballot I've had yet.

Matt, how good does PCA show Cuyler? He's always been on the bubble for me, but he doesn't seem to have generated any real discussion.

Good question. Cuyler has always been a personal favorite for me, but when he became eligible I thought he was just short of a hall of famer and have not voted for him yet.

James only has him at # 39 among RFers, just below Callison and just above Klein. His win share total is 292, with just one great year and one lower level MVP year. Hie win shares per 162 are within range of some lower level HOFers in RF, but those guys all either had longer careers, or much better peaks. His career TPR is only 13.5, and after his top 7 or 8 years there is a lot of mediocrity.

[SABR Matt]

Kiki Cuyler's PCA card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1925 NL 12.46 3.37 20.5 4.6 15.83
1926 NL 8.47 4.94 12.6 7.4 13.41
1930 NL 9.33 3.50 14.0 4.8 12.83
1929 NL 9.41 1.51 15.0 1.2 10.92
1931 NL 9.78 0.83 15.1 -0.6 10.61
1924 NL 6.98 2.24 10.7 3.1 9.22
1936 NL 7.89 0.85 11.8 -0.3 8.74
1934 NL 6.83 1.35 9.8 0.3 8.18
1928 NL 6.27 1.56 8.9 1.4 7.83
1927 NL 4.01 1.22 5.9 1.2 5.23
1932 NL 4.12 1.03 5.1 0.4 5.15
1935 NL 2.77 0.90 2.8 0.2 3.67
1938 NL 2.97 0.64 4.1 0.5 3.61
1933 NL 2.85 0.50 3.8 0.2 3.35
1937 NL 2.40 0.49 2.0 -0.3 2.89

Career Marker totals of 142.1 Offense/37.5 Defense (179.6 total)

He's actually pretty marginal compared to my normal HOF standards...in the same family as King Kelly, Rocky Colavito and Tim Salmon. I may drop him off my ballot. He's down in 26th rank among career right fielders...now I normally keep more RFers in the HOF because there were so many great ones...

there's no nice "last significant marker rating drop" to key in on here...it's a pretty gentle curve down once you get past the top several guys.

[SavoyBG]

Kiki Cuyler's PCA card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1925 NL 12.46 3.37 20.5 4.6 15.83
1926 NL 8.47 4.94 12.6 7.4 13.41
1930 NL 9.33 3.50 14.0 4.8 12.83
1929 NL 9.41 1.51 15.0 1.2 10.92
1931 NL 9.78 0.83 15.1 -0.6 10.61
1924 NL 6.98 2.24 10.7 3.1 9.22
1936 NL 7.89 0.85 11.8 -0.3 8.74
1934 NL 6.83 1.35 9.8 0.3 8.18
1928 NL 6.27 1.56 8.9 1.4 7.83
1927 NL 4.01 1.22 5.9 1.2 5.23
1932 NL 4.12 1.03 5.1 0.4 5.15
1935 NL 2.77 0.90 2.8 0.2 3.67
1938 NL 2.97 0.64 4.1 0.5 3.61
1933 NL 2.85 0.50 3.8 0.2 3.35
1937 NL 2.40 0.49 2.0 -0.3 2.89

Career Marker totals of 142.1 Offense/37.5 Defense (179.6 total)

He's actually pretty marginal compared to my normal HOF standards...in the same family as King Kelly, Rocky Colavito and Tim Salmon. I may drop him off my ballot. He's down in 26th rank among career right fielders...now I normally keep more RFers in the HOF because there were so many great ones...

there's no nice "last significant marker rating drop" to key in on here...it's a pretty gentle curve down once you get past the top several guys.

I don't see Colavito or Salmon as being particularly close to hall of famers, and YOU can't possible see Kelly as such, according to your own declarations, since he didn't prove anything in the post 1893 era. I see kelly as an easy hall of famer, not only for his adjusted value, but for his other non numerical attributes as well. Maybe those other attributes would have you induct Kelly into your "Non Ruth/Mays/Bonds Wing," but you can't have him in the main hall, can you?

[SABR Matt]

Actually Kelly makes my HOF, Savoy...he didn't prove anything post 1893, but his resume is much stronger than guys like Barnes (who cheated the rules with his foul bunt base hits) and the aforementioned Charley Jones. A pre '93 player has to blow me away to get considered...and Kelly succeeds in that regard.

[bambambaseball]

Barnes (who cheated the rules with his foul bunt base hits) and the aforementioned Charley Jones.

:shrug:

How was he cheating the rules? He was following the rules of his day. Thats not cheating!

[SavoyBG]

Actually Kelly makes my HOF, Savoy...he didn't prove anything post 1893, but his resume is much stronger than guys like Barnes (who cheated the rules with his foul bunt base hits)

Barnes didn't "cheat" anything. He played within the rules of the day. It's no different than outfielders juggling the ball all the way back to the infield in the days when you couldn't leave on a tag up until the ball was caught, rather than just touched, or Bill Russell knocking the ball off of the rim in the days before goal tending and basket interference rules were established.

Barnes was CLEARLY professional baseball's first superstar, the best player in the game for a 6 year period, he was the Lajoie of his day.

[Paul Wendt]

re Kiki Cuyler, classified at RF

...
He's actually pretty marginal compared to my normal HOF standards...in the same family as King Kelly, Rocky Colavito and Tim Salmon. I may drop him off my ballot. He's down in 26th rank among career right fielders...now I normally keep more RFers in the HOF because there were so many great ones...

there's no nice "last significant marker rating drop" to key in on here...it's a pretty gentle curve down once you get past the top several guys.
Surely there is an appealing "rating drop" at some other fielding positions only by fortune or misfortune. All of those gaps should be filled as baseball history continues.

For some of the gaps there must be players who would fill them if reclassified to a fielding position they played nearly as much as where Matt lists them. Cuyler and Reggie Smith, for example, played at CF nearly so much as at RF. (I don't know whether either one would fill a ratings gap at CF.)

[SavoyBG]

Actually Kelly makes my HOF, Savoy...he didn't prove anything post 1893, but his resume is much stronger than guys like Barnes (who cheated the rules with his foul bunt base hits) and the aforementioned Charley Jones. A pre '93 player has to blow me away to get considered...and Kelly succeeds in that regard.


Matt, who among these project hall of famers do you not think belongs?

I had a big problem with Sutton when I first joined the project, but if you adjust his numbers for the shorter schedules of the day he ends up with over 400 win shares. I had to admit that I was totally wrong, Sutton belongs.

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

[SABR Matt]

Matt, who among these project hall of famers do you not think belongs?

I had a big problem with Sutton when I first joined the project, but if you adjust his numbers for the shorter schedules of the day he ends up with over 400 win shares. I had to admit that I was totally wrong, Sutton belongs.

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

Bolded are the players on that list that I think belong in the HOF.

[bambambaseball]

Im surprised you dont think Joe Start, Ezra Sutton and George Wright belong. They get good support around here. The rest of the guys you dont support are controversial only belong depending on how you look at them or what your philosophy is.

[JDD]

Sam Thompson and Pete Browning are among the best hitters in that list....

If you cut them down because of defense, that's a shame considering one ball in ten put in play within a reasonable distance from a fielder went for an error (anyway).

[JDD]

By the way, when is the last time anyone voted in this thread?
:think:

[vtbub]

I dropped Berger this year after having him on the last five. It's clear he isn't going to make it and it will be interesting to see what the VC does with him.

I hope people take a closer look at Maranville his last time up. He seems to be a player that was highly regarded in his time and has a legendary glove to go with it.

I have not voted for Rixey, but will take a closer look for next year as I did for Sam Rice this year.

For the record, Rice was not even close for me as he seems to be a compiler and not one that posted top ten numbers during his career.

[Domenic]

I dropped Berger this year after having him on the last five. It's clear he isn't going to make it and it will be interesting to see what the VC does with him.

I think Berger needs to be talked about more.

He has better numbers than Wilson, who tends to get 15-20% more in the vote. If you factor in his two big seasons in the PCL in 1928 and 1929 (when the PCL was essentially a second major league), he's even further ahead of Wilson.

He may not crack the 75% threshold, but I think he can get fairly close.

[SavoyBG]

I think Berger needs to be talked about more.

He has better numbers than Wilson, who tends to get 15-20% more in the vote.

It's obvious that there are still people who don't care much about modern metrics, and do still care about traditional stats, where Wilson looks like a god for a few seasons. We all grew up hearing about those 56 HRs and those 190 RBIs (now 191).

[SavoyBG]

Bolded are the players on that list that I think belong in the HOF.

1890s Hughie Jennings, Sam Thompson



Why short career Hughie but not short career Sam?

WIN SHARES
Jennings - 214
Thompson - 236

WIN SHARES per 162
Jennings - 26.98
Thompson - 27.17

Jennings best seasons were a little better, maybe you think he's more legit because his entire prime was after 1893?

Thompson two best OPS+ years came after the mound was moved back.

Hard to keep a guy as good of a hitter as Thompson out. He did have about 6500 plate appearances, which would be about 7500 if he was playing 154 game seasons. He also played only in the NL (except for 1906), never in any of the lesser leagues of the 19th century.

I think he needs to be in. But if you don't see him as a HOFer, obviously Long Charley's not a hall of famer, or The Louisville Slugger.

[SavoyBG]

On the 50th anniversary of the project, here is my all time 25 man hall of fame team:


Catcher: Buck Ewing, Josh Gibson
First Base: Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
Second Base: Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Napoleon Lajoie
Third Base: Frank Baker
Shortstop: John Henry Lloyd, Honus Wagner
Left Field: Ed Delahanty
Center Field: Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
Right Field : Babe Ruth
Pitcher: Pete Alexander, John Clarkson, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Walter Johnson, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young

Manager - John McGraw

[SavoyBG]

This new kid the Yankees have, Mantle, looks great at times, but also looks overmatched at times. I just heard that they sent him back down to AAA. Wonder if he'll be back?

[SABR Matt]

Im surprised you dont think Joe Start, Ezra Sutton and George Wright belong. They get good support around here. The rest of the guys you dont support are controversial only belong depending on how you look at them or what your philosophy is.

Joe Start: PCA is highly unimpressed with his fielding and his O{S+ of 121 is the equivalent of a modern-era hitter with an OPS+ of about 108 given the natural variability that existed in the 1870s (it was a lot easier to have a high OPS+ back then).

Ezra Sutton: Seriously? This guy? On defense he was a jack of all trades and master of none at all. On offense, he was even weaker than Start.

George Wright: His qualifications stop at 1876...as the league improved he quickly became completely worthless.

Pete Browning: Among the worst defensive players of all time. PCA accounts for the high error counts of the 19th century so that's not the reason he is rated so poorly on defense. Relative to his peers, he was GOD AWFUL with the glove.

Sam Thompson: very close for me...he did come off the list do to horrible defensive ratings but it's close enough that I'd consider changing my position on him.

[SABR Matt]

On the 50th anniversary of the project, here is my all time 25 man hall of fame team:


Catcher: Buck Ewing, Josh Gibson
First Base: Cap Anson, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
Second Base: Eddie Collins, Rogers Hornsby, Napoleon Lajoie
Third Base: Frank Baker
Shortstop: John Henry Lloyd, Honus Wagner
Left Field: Ed Delahanty
Center Field: Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
Right Field : Babe Ruth
Pitcher: Pete Alexander, John Clarkson, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Walter Johnson, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young

Manager - John McGraw

I sincerely hope those aren't listed in order of your ranking of them. Because of you've got John Henry Lloyd ahead of Honus Wager, Cap Anson ahead of Lou Gehrig, Oscar Charleston ahead of Ty Cobb and Buck Ewing ahead of Josh Gibson, you need your head examined.

[SavoyBG]

Joe Start: PCA is highly unimpressed with his fielding and his O{S+ of 121 is the equivalent of a modern-era hitter with an OPS+ of about 108 given the natural variability that existed in the 1870s (it was a lot easier to have a high OPS+ back then).

Ezra Sutton: Seriously? This guy? On defense he was a jack of all trades and master of none at all. On offense, he was even weaker than Start.

George Wright: His qualifications stop at 1876...as the league improved he quickly became completely worthless.

Pete Browning: Among the worst defensive players of all time. PCA accounts for the high error counts of the 19th century so that's not the reason he is rated so poorly on defense. Relative to his peers, he was GOD AWFUL with the glove.

Sam Thompson: very close for me...he did come off the list do to horrible defensive ratings but it's close enough that I'd consider changing my position on him.

Win shares fielding has Start as a B at 1B, Sutton as a B+ at 3B, Browning as a C+, (he played almost as much CF as LF) and Thompson as a C-

Matt, what excactly do you look at to rate a 1Bman's fielding. All you really have is assists and errors, as putouts can't really tell you very much. It's hard to believe that you could just look at those few numbers and tell whether or not Start was a good fielding 1Bman. Certainly the anecdotal evidence says that he was.

[SavoyBG]

I sincerely hope those aren't listed in order of your ranking of them. Because of you've got John Henry Lloyd ahead of Honus Wagner, Cap Anson ahead of Lou Gehrig, Oscar Charleston ahead of Ty Cobb and Buck Ewing ahead of Josh Gibson, you need your head examined.

They are in alphabetical order, except for Foxx, who was the last position player.

Incidentally, I'll tell Bill James to get his head examined, as he ranks Charleston just ahead of Cobb in the NHA.

The players listed are not necessarilly the highest ranking players for me. As I've said before, it's not the "hall of player value," it's the "hall of fame."

[SABR Matt]

With an OPS+ of 121, Start would have to be a GOD defensively for me to consider him...but the defensive numbers for a first basemen are a little richer than just assists and errors. Like James I make an estimate of the unassisted putouts a first baseman made - and James' estimates have been shown to be pretty darned accurate (to within +/- a few perfect of the real number for guys in the play by play era), I adjust the expected plays against which each first baseman is compared to account for the park and for the left handedness of the pitching staff, and unlike James, Start is taking his defensive claim out of the total win value I attributed to his infield defenses in each season...and that win value is based on how many estimated bases his infields allowed relative to how many plays they made. The estimates are certainly shakier for 19th century players (but so are the estimates made by the win shares methodology) where there are fewer knowns...I'm certainly willing to consider authoritative sources on defense in the 19th century...if you can provide some references wherein Joe Start receives high accolades for his defense from his peers, that's something worth looking at (I do this more for the 19th century guys...in fact PCA isn't all that taken with Buck Ewing, but every reasonable first person and third person account says that Ewing was a superstar on defense so I adjust for that...)

[SABR Matt]

They are in alphabetical order, except for Foxx, who was the last position player.

Incidentally, I'll tell Bill James to get his head examined, as he ranks Charleston just ahead of Cobb in the NHA.

The players listed are not necessarilly the highest ranking players for me. As I've said before, it's not the "hall of player value," it's the "hall of fame."

Yes I know all about James' ranking of Charleston...he was basically the Ichiro of the Negro Leagues, speedy, good defensive outfielder, great contract hitter, line drive/gap power...I find it hard to believe he could really have been a better player than Cobb if they'd gotten to play against each other. James' rankings of Negro Leagues seem to be politically motivated to me...he's got a lot of the Negro League players rated way WAAAYY higher than I do since I approach stories from those leagues with a dose of skepticism.

Ask five different people how many home runs Josh Gibson hit and you'll get five vastly different answers...the record keeping was horribly inconsistent and often non-existent in the negro leagues...leaving a lot of the achievement-based commentary about these guys subject to personal biases...flashbulb memory, romanticism etc. Add to that the undeniable fact that the negro leagues were, at best, AAA-level in terms of talent depth...often worse...(and I mean that relative to the Major Leagues of the same time period)...there were clearly all-time-great ballplayers playing in those leagues, but I believe in being cautious and skeptical when it comes to rating Negro Leaguers.

[SavoyBG]

With an OPS+ of 121, Start would have to be a GOD defensively for me to consider him...but the defensive numbers for a first basemen are a little richer than just assists and errors. Like James I make an estimate of the unassisted putouts a first baseman made - and James' estimates have been shown to be pretty darned accurate (to within +/- a few perfect of the real number for guys in the play by play era), I adjust the expected plays against which each first baseman is compared to account for the park and for the left handedness of the pitching staff, and unlike James, Start is taking his defensive claim out of the total win value I attributed to his infield defenses in each season...and that win value is based on how many estimated bases his infields allowed relative to how many plays they made. The estimates are certainly shakier for 19th century players (but so are the estimates made by the win shares methodology) where there are fewer knowns...I'm certainly willing to consider authoritative sources on defense in the 19th century...if you can provide some references wherein Joe Start receives high accolades for his defense from his peers, that's something worth looking at (I do this more for the 19th century guys...in fact PCA isn't all that taken with Buck Ewing, but every reasonable first person and third person account says that Ewing was a superstar on defense so I adjust for that...)


I'm not a big Start fan. I wouldn't have voted for him if I was around the project at that time. I do see that his OPS+ was 127 in the more competitive NL, and he was 34 years old already by 1976. He had a pretty good career already before 1871. He was still a good player in 1885 when he was 43 years old. Looks like he was a very good player from 1877 through 1882.

Here's some background.

Joseph Start (October 14, 1842 – March 27, 1927), nicknamed "Old Reliable", was one of the biggest stars of baseball's earliest era, and certainly the top first baseman of his time. He started his career before the American Civil War and continued to play professionally until 1886, when he was 43.

Born in New York City, he led the Brooklyn Atlantics, the team he joined in 1862, to undefeated seasons in 1864 and 1865. In 1871, he joined the new National Association's New York Mutuals, hitting a career-high .360 in his first season with the team, when he was age 28. When the National League was formed in 1876, the Mutuals joined, bringing Start with them. After spending 1877 with the Hartford Dark Blues and 1878 with the Chicago White Stockings, he found his next home with the Providence Grays. From 1879 until 1885, when he was 42, Start held down first base for the Grays and continued to hit well. Unfortunately, 1885 was Providence's last season in the NL, so in 1886, he moved to the Washington Nationals for what would be his last season. Start only played 31 games for the Nationals and didn't hit well, even for a 43 year-old.

1878 was probably Start's best season with the bat. He led the league with 100 hits and 125 total bases. He came close to the league lead with his 12 doubles, 5 triples, and a single home run. His 58 runs that year were second in the league. These statistics all came in only 285 at bats, and at the age of 35, long after most players have begun to decline. Start ended his career with 1418 hits, 854 runs, and 544 RBI in National League and National Association play. He had a .299 batting average, a .322 on base percentage, and a .367 slugging percentage. These numbers ignore the first 11 years of his career and, since they were achieved in much shorter seasons than today's professionals play, they only show a portion of his value to his teams. In addition, his career spanned many important rule changes that changed the game in many ways, but Start continued to play at a high level through all of them. Start's 1879 Providence team won the National League, and in 1884 they won a World Series, beating the New York Metropolitans.

Start was also regarded as an excellent fielder, although at 5'9" he was a much smaller player than would later be typical at his position. Some even say that he originated the modern positioning of the first baseman, being the first to play away from the bag. Just like every other player of his time, Start never fielded with a glove, as modern players do, making his fielding contributions more impressive.


Joe Start
1842–1927
By Eric Miklich

JOE START began playing baseball during its organized infancy and retired after the game became big business, 28 years later. He played for 1 amateur team and six professional teams and attained the reputation of a well tempered, well-mannered steady ballplayer.

He played first base for the Enterprise Club of Brooklyn in 1860 and moved to the powerful Atlantic Club of Brooklyn the following year. During the 1864 season, Start hit 11 home runs in 18 games, and led the Atlantic Club to undefeated seasons in 1864 and 1865. On September 6, 1869, Start hit four homerun's in a 45–25 win over the Eckfords of Brooklyn and had seven hits on the day and totaled 21 bases. Against the undefeated Cincinnati Red Stockings on June 14, 1870, at the Capitoline Grounds in Brooklyn, Start hit a long fly ball in the bottom of the eleventh inning, with the Atlantics trailing 7–5. As Cincinnati's right fielder, Cal McVey, caught up with the ball and attempted to coral the ball on the first bound, he was interfered with by an Atlantic supporter. Start ended up on third and Atlantic's third baseman, Charlie Smith who had singled and moved to third on a wild pitch, scored to cut the Red Stockings lead to 7-6. The Atlantics would score two more runs to end the Red Stockings game winning streak. Before leaving the Atlantic Club in 1871, Start would help them to Championships in 1861, 1864–1866 and 1869.


Joe Start and his good friend Bob Ferguson moved to the Mutual Base Ball Club of New York for the 1872 season. Both Ferguson and Start were loyal and honest which was a rarity during the early days of baseball which were surrounded by betting scandals, especially the Mutuals. In 1873, Start managed the New York Mutuals for the final 25 games of the season and the Mutuals were 18–7 in those games but still finished in fourth place. Third baseman John Hatfield began the season as the manager and was 11-17, before being replaced.

Joe Start broke up Brooklyn Atlantic pitcher Tommy Bond's bid to become the first professional pitcher to throw a no-hitter on October 19, 1874. Start, a left-handed batter, doubled to left field with two outs in the top of the ninth inning at Brooklyn's Union Grounds. Brooklyn prevailed 5–0.

On July 21, 1876, he hit three home runs and a triple against the Athletic Club of Philadelphia.


In 1877 he played for the Dark Blue of Hartford, who actually played their home games in Brooklyn at the Union Grounds, and in 1878 he played for the Chicago White Stockings, following Ferguson, who managed both teams. Start was the only player to make 100 hits during the 1878 season. Wanting to return to the east he joined the Providence Grays for the 1879 season, helping to lead them to the National League Whip Pennant.

At age 41 in 1884, he missed 21 games, four in the middle of May due to Malaria, but was able to hit safely 105 times and was third on the team in average and runs scored. On September 26th, he hit his only homerun of the season, a three run home-run in the seventh inning, against his former team the Chicago White Stockings at League Front Park in Chicago, to clinch the Whip Pennant for the Grays. The Grays would win the first "World Series" over the American Association's New York Metropolitans three games to none, with all of the games being played at the Polo Grounds in New York.

He played with Providence until 1885 and at the end of the season married a Rhode Island native. In 1886, he played in only 31 games for the Washington Nationals before retiring at the age of 43.

He returned to Rhode Island and ran the Lakewood Inn in Warwick for several years. The Starts never had any children; his wife, Angeline, died in February of 1927 and Joe Start died one month later at age 84.

During his career the 5'9' Start was reported to be an excellent fielder and may have been the first first baseman to play off of the bag when not receiving a throw, enabling him to increase the area of the infield that he covered. At that time first basemen played close to or on top of the base, waiting to take throws from the infielders.

[SavoyBG]

Yes I know all about James' ranking of Charleston...he was basically the Ichiro of the Negro Leagues, speedy, good defensive outfielder, great contract hitter, line drive/gap power...

The stats that I have on Charleston list him as leading his league in HRs six times, including 5 times in 7 seasons. That doesn't sound like Ichiro to me.

Here's what I have for career numbers:

821 games
2992 AB
1069 Hits
184 doubles
63 triples
151 HRs
153 stolen bases
.357 batting average
.612 SLG%
.255 isolated power

Granted these are only partial stats, but there's no way that a player with that kind of power can be compared to Ichiro. Oscar could really run when he was in his 20s too, leading his league in stolen bases three times, including 34 stolen bases in 60 games in 1921.

For 1925 they have him hitting .445 in 68 games, with 21 doubles, 4 triples, and 20 HRs, for a SLG% of .819.

As BJ said when defending his high ranking of Negro Leaguers, why would it be so hard to believe that there were 10 or 15 or 20 Negro players who were among the greatest players of the teens, 20s and 30s when we know that there were at least that many black players who were among the greatest players of the 1950s and 1960s?

Does anybody believe that black players only started to be great after they came into white baseball?

If you believe that Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Gehrig, Ruth, Foxx, Wagner, Hornsby, etc... were all at least as good as the white superstars of the 1950s and 1960s, then it would stand to reason that the black superstars of the early days were at least as good as Mays, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Jackie Robinson, Bob Gibson, McCovey, Campanella, etc....

[SABR Matt]

One thing about Negro League home run counts...they tend to be inflated compared to comparable counts from other leagues. But I suppose you're right that Charleston had more overall power even though I'm skeptical about the huge SLG he put up according to the partial statistics we have. The quality of pitching was less, the parks were often smaller or poorly maintained increasing extra-base hit rates...it's a little like Japanese leaguers today...they put up some big power numbers in Japan but it rarely translates in full when they shift to the major leagues.

Even Ichiro himself hit for more power in Japan...and to be fair, Ichiro has more power than he himself usually demonstrates in game situations because he plays to his role. He's said in interviews on a number of occasions that if he were a middle of the order hitter, he would be trying to hit for more power (and given the shows he puts on in batting practice, probably succeeding much like Boggs did the one year decided to hit for power).

I read James' ideas which you have correctly brought up regarding the comparison between negro league stars and white stars from the 10s-30s vs 50-60s...as much as I ride James for some of the things I dislike about his decision making process, I still have and treasure both of his big abstracts and a lot of his writings from the 80s and early 90s (which I acquired when I got interested in sabermetrics in the late 90s). He writes very well and he does make some good points, this being one of them. I just prefer to approach things from a skeptical position in the absence of corroborating evidence that passes the tests of a scientist. Negro league records being as unreliable as they are, I have to go with some blend of the scouting reports from his time (things which move him way up in my mind) and a healthy dose of caution regarding his place on my leaderboards. Just because it's unlikely that Negro Leaguers changed in terms of true talent level doesn't mean the best negro leaguer of the 1910-1940 period must automatically be placed on your rank list at the same location as Willie Mays. Willie Mays was a once-in-a-generation talent...the same as Cobb and Bonds.

[leecemark]

--Perhaps it would be more constructive if the discussion here was on players actually on the ballot or coming up on the ballot? If you want to continue the discussion of 19th centruy quality of play and whether the stars of the early years belong in the Hall of Fame another thread should be started. Ditto for the Negro Leaguers. The only possible reason to rehash the qualifications of players already elected in this project would be to compare them to players on the ballot to see if they fall within our established standards.

[leecemark]

--Dizzy Dean breezed to election in his second year on the ballot despite a rather brief career. THere are several contemporary pitchers whose resumes seem quite comparable to his IMO that are not receiving much attention here. Dean did have the best peak of the group and if Fame is an important criteria for you he had that over all of them, but for pure value he may be at the bottom of the list (I did vote for him myself so this is not an anti-Dean post - it is a pro-other 30s pitchers post).

Dizzy Dean 130 ERA+ 1967
Lon Warneke 119 ERA+ 2782 IP
Wes Ferrell 116 ERA+ 2623 IP (and best hitting pitcher of the 20th century)
Lefty Gomez 125 ERA+ 2503 IP (two Triple Crowns)
Tommy Bridges 126 ERA+ 2826 IP

--I am going to focus on the member of this group whose ERA+ was closest to Dean and who pitched the most of anybody in the group, Tommy Bridges. Bridges peak wasn't quite as high as Dean's - mostly because Dizzy was such a huge horse in his best years. He did have a prety darn good peak and more high quality years though.
--Bridges was the ace/workhorse of the Tigers back to back pennant winners in 1934-5. He was even better in 1936. The team collapsed due to age and injuries, but Bridges still led the league in wins and strikeouts - his third 20+ win season in a row. He led in strikeouts again in 1937. Bridges threw hard, but his out pitch was a curve widely considered to be the best of its time.
--By 1940 Bridges was no longer working as many innings but he was still a front line starter as the Tigers won their third pennant in 7 years - interrupting a Yankee dynasty that won 7 of 8. Bridges was still pitching very well when he was called up for duty in WWII. He missed the 43, 44 and most of 45 seasons to military duty or his counting stats would look much better.
--The war effectively ended his MLB career as the Tigers had come up with a very good group of young pitchers (Newhouser, Trout, Truck, Hutchinson, Benton) in the interim and he was unable to reclaim a rotation. He did still have some life left in his arm thoguh and he demonstrated with several good year in the PCL after the Tigers let him go. Had the war not cut his career short he would quite possibly have enjoyed a third act to hsi career as a "Sunday pitcher", the route taken by Ted Lyons and many other aging pitchers saved to work in the double headers teams featured most Sundays. Had that been the case he'd most likley have a plaque in Cooperstown today. It shouldn't prevent him from having one in our Hall.

[SavoyBG]

Willie Mays was a once-in-a-generation talent...the same as Cobb and Bonds.


Yes, and Charleston was from a different generation than Mays, wasn't he?

I agree that we can't say that Charleston definitely belongs in the topp 5 players of all time, but I'm pretty comfortable in saying that he belongs somewhere in the top tier of players, amnong Cobb-Speaker-Mays-Ruth-Williams-Musial-Mantle-Gehrig-Hornsby-Collins-Wagner etc....

The point is that you can't really call someone crazy (head examined) for ranking Charleston ahead of Cobb, and that the Ichiro comp is a poor one. I'm sure Ichiro had some more power in Japan, but not to the extent that he was leading leagues in HRs. From all accounts Charleston is usually described as being like Speaker with more HR power. If that is really true than he could very well have been better than Cobb.

[Paul Wendt]

If you want to continue the discussion of 19th centruy quality of play and whether the stars of the early years belong in the Hall of Fame another thread should be started. Ditto for the Negro Leaguers.
At the same time it would be nice longer items disputing Joe Start and others were at least linked from their threads. Better, discussion that focuses on one of the disputed members (not current candidates) should be used to revive or start threads for them.

Whoa, imagine a name such as "Joe Start" appearing on the forum leader board amid Gus Triandos, Charlie Hough, and Jorge Posada!
;-)

[SavoyBG]

At the same time it would be nice longer items disputing Joe Start and others were at least linked from their threads. Better, discussion that focuses on one of the disputed members (not current candidates) should be used to revive or start threads for them.

Whoa, imagine a name such as "Joe Start" appearing on the forum leader board amid Gus Triandos, Charlie Hough, and Jorge Posada!
;-)


There's an old Joe Start thread in the 19th century forum.

[AG2004]

Why short career Hughie but not short career Sam?

WIN SHARES
Jennings - 214
Thompson - 236

WIN SHARES per 162
Jennings - 26.98
Thompson - 27.17

Jennings best seasons were a little better, maybe you think he's more legit because his entire prime was after 1893?


SABR Matt has his answer above. I'd just like to point out that Jennings' best years were much better than Thompson's.

Using my schedule adjustments,

Career (schedule-length adjusted or SLA) win shares
Thompson 261
Jennings 238

Top three seasons, SLA win shares
Jennings 42, 34, 34
Thompson 33, 32, 26

Top five consecutive seasons, SLA win shares
Jennings 170
Thompson 128.

That's a huge difference in peak performance.

---

Meanwhile, I see SABR Matt would leave Paul Hines outside of the HOF -- and put Jack Glasscock in.

Hines led major league position players in win shares three times -- 1878, 1879, and 1884. (I'm not counting the UA as a real "major league" here; the talent level there was similar to the NWL, which was considered the second-best minor league that year.)

Also, how much of a boost did Glasscock get by playing in the UA? He was outstanding in the UA for the third of a season he had there, but was merely average in the NL in 1884.

[SABR Matt]

Hines' career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1884 NL 8.01 4.42 12.6 6.9 12.39
1879 NL 7.46 2.45 12.3 3.5 9.91
1880 NL 5.52 2.79 8.6 4.1 8.31
1882 NL 6.02 2.17 9.6 3.0 8.19
1883 NL 5.31 2.65 7.7 3.7 7.96
1886 NL 5.93 1.23 8.6 0.4 7.16
1887 NL 6.09 1.05 8.8 -0.1 7.14
1888 NL 5.98 1.01 8.4 -0.3 6.99
1881 NL 4.96 1.46 7.6 1.5 6.42
1878 NL 5.15 1.24 8.7 1.4 6.39
1885 NL 4.36 1.46 6.0 1.2 5.82
1889 NL 4.67 0.46 5.9 -0.4 5.13
1876 NL 2.58 2.30 3.2 3.5 4.88
1877 NL 2.24 0.63 2.8 0.4 2.87
1891 AA 1.65 0.18 1.8 -0.6 1.83
1890 NL 1.39 0.42 0.0 -0.7 1.81

Glasscock's career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1889 NL 7.97 4.22 12.0 6.0 12.11
1890 NL 8.79 2.52 14.0 2.7 11.31
1886 NL 7.07 3.30 10.8 4.4 10.37
1882 NL 5.06 3.03 7.8 4.5 8.09
1888 NL 4.34 3.13 5.7 4.2 7.47
1892 NL 5.07 2.05 6.2 1.5 7.12
1887 NL 3.99 2.88 4.6 3.5 6.87
1893 NL 4.80 2.03 6.2 1.9 6.83
1885 NL 4.20 2.40 5.4 2.7 6.60
1883 NL 2.88 3.68 3.2 5.6 6.56
1884 UA 4.01 1.34 6.9 2.0 5.35
1881 NL 1.77 3.04 1.3 4.4 4.81
1891 NL 2.77 1.00 3.0 0.4 3.77
1884 NL 1.41 2.26 0.9 3.1 3.65
1880 NL 1.53 1.92 1.2 2.4 3.45
1894 NL 1.07 0.96 -0.2 0.3 2.03
1879 NL 0.4 1.11 -1.3 0.7 1.51

Basically, in both Glasscock's case and Jennings' case, the HOF yes is a combination of:

Position scarcity (the standards for getting in at short are not as high as they are at other positions)

and

Peak performance (Glasscock and Jennings both had superior peaks)

[Brad Harris]

It really bothers me that so many users post thoughtful commentary on prospective Hall of Famers with every single election and that, for the most part, these comments are ignored by the electorate. This certainly has to do with the fact that I believe I have been ignored several times, but the fact stands - I have seen dozens of well-reasoned posts, stating why we should or should not vote for a player, and these are usually ignored. Voters seem to vote for the same players year in and year out, and never let someone change their mind - is this not one of the things that plagues the BBWAA? The fact that few are open to new methods of analysis has kept players like Blyleven, Santo, and Raines out, and allowed several "mistakes" in.

Believe it or not, this is an ever bigger frustration in non-sports related discussions. ;) I defintely feel your pain.

With respect to Jim's response, I have to agree. Like others, a lot of this is "old hat" for me and between wildly fluctuating interest from candidate to candidate and argument to argument and the time constraints of my personal and professional life, I find myself unable to make cogent and comprehensive responses to many posts as often as I otherwise would like to.

I hope that's not interpreted as a lack of thought given to the process, the candidates or my responsibilities as a voter.

[Domenic]

Believe it or not, this is an ever bigger frustration in non-sports related discussions. ;) I defintely feel your pain.

:rolleyes:

This sort of thing bugs me in all aspects of life - it's just easier to vent the frustrations here. :atthepc

[Paul Wendt]

Hines' career:

This method of counting Wins simply reflects the number of games in the National League schedule --60 games in 1877-78, etc, increasing to 140 in 1888-91.

That enormous expansion of the schedule during their careers also distorts the career rates such as OPS+ for many players of that time.

[AG2004]

Glasscock's career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1884 UA 4.01 1.34 6.9 2.0 5.35
1884 NL 1.41 2.26 0.9 3.1 3.65


Basically, in both Glasscock's case and Jennings' case, the HOF yes is a combination of:

Position scarcity (the standards for getting in at short are not as high as they are at other positions)

and

Peak performance (Glasscock and Jennings both had superior peaks)

In 1884, Glasscock played 72 games in the NL, a recognized major league. He jumped to the UA for 38 more games. However, the UA was not considered the equivalent of the NL or AA by its contemporaries, and the level of play was probably equal to the minor-league NWL.

With 4.0 marker points from those 72 games, we would expect Glasscock to gather 2.1 more points from 38 more NL games. However, he earned 8.9 marker points from those 38 UA games. That's a difference of 6.8 HOF Marker points.

You had Luis Aparicio as your lowest-rated shortstop, with 134.1 marker points. Glasscock was at 138.0 marker points.

Without the marker points Glasscock gained from playing in the UA - which was basically a good minor league - instead of the NL, Glasscock would have just 131.2 marker points. That's worse than Aparicio's total; it's lower than the cutoff you use.

I asked how much of a boost Glasscock earned by playing in the UA. According to your numbers, it's enough to get him past your cutoff for the Hall of Fame.

[SABR Matt]

Yes, but working in the opposite direction for Glasscock was the short schedule...need to adjust for games played in his case.

The same argument is being used to support Hines.

And you folks are correct that Hines should move up in marker score for that reason, however, he was a corner outfielder and although I keep a lot of corner outfielders because there were just so many quality bats in that group, the threshold for HOF candidcacy is WAY higher there (~200 marker points instead of 135).

[Freakshow]

And you folks are correct that Hines should move up in marker score for that reason, however, he was a corner outfielder and although I keep a lot of corner outfielders because there were just so many quality bats in that group, the threshold for HOF candidcacy is WAY higher there (~200 marker points instead of 135).Hines played the great majority of his career in CF.

[SavoyBG]

And you folks are correct that Hines should move up in marker score for that reason, however, he was a corner outfielder and although I keep a lot of corner outfielders because there were just so many quality bats in that group, the threshold for HOF candidcacy is WAY higher there (~200 marker points instead of 135).


Did the outfield have three corners back then :-)

HINES
LF - 27 games
CF - 1218 games
RF - 7 games

[SABR Matt]

Hines played the great majority of his career in CF.

I have him as being a rather poor defensive center fielder in all but a smattering of seasons...and his being a CF doesn't help his candidacy all that much since the cutoff for CF is still a lot higher than the cutoff for SS.

Apologies for the miscasting...for some reason I thought he was on my RF list...he's on my CF list.

[leecemark]

--This a second request to get back on topic. If you want to discuss players long since elected please start a thread to do so.

[Fielding Marshall]

Due to my recent busy schedule, I've lately just been drive-by voting and reading the comments. However, I can't let this slide. Please, for goodness' sake, read this post:

--Dizzy Dean breezed to election in his second year on the ballot despite a rather brief career. THere are several contemporary pitchers whose resumes seem quite comparable to his IMO that are not receiving much attention here. Dean did have the best peak of the group and if Fame is an important criteria for you he had that over all of them, but for pure value he may be at the bottom of the list (I did vote for him myself so this is not an anti-Dean post - it is a pro-other 30s pitchers post).

Dizzy Dean 130 ERA+ 1967
Lon Warneke 119 ERA+ 2782 IP
Wes Ferrell 116 ERA+ 2623 IP (and best hitting pitcher of the 20th century)
Lefty Gomez 125 ERA+ 2503 IP (two Triple Crowns)
Tommy Bridges 126 ERA+ 2826 IP

--I am going to focus on the member of this group whose ERA+ was closest to Dean and who pitched the most of anybody in the group, Tommy Bridges. Bridges peak wasn't quite as high as Dean's - mostly because Dizzy was such a huge horse in his best years. He did have a prety darn good peak and more high quality years though.
--Bridges was the ace/workhorse of the Tigers back to back pennant winners in 1934-5. He was even better in 1936. The team collapsed due to age and injuries, but Bridges still led the league in wins and strikeouts - his third 20+ win season in a row. He led in strikeouts again in 1937. Bridges threw hard, but his out pitch was a curve widely considered to be the best of its time.
--By 1940 Bridges was no longer working as many innings but he was still a front line starter as the Tigers won their third pennant in 7 years - interrupting a Yankee dynasty that won 7 of 8. Bridges was still pitching very well when he was called up for duty in WWII. He missed the 43, 44 and most of 45 seasons to military duty or his counting stats would look much better.
--The war effectively ended his MLB career as the Tigers had come up with a very good group of young pitchers (Newhouser, Trout, Truck, Hutchinson, Benton) in the interim and he was unable to reclaim a rotation. He did still have some life left in his arm thoguh and he demonstrated with several good year in the PCL after the Tigers let him go. Had the war not cut his career short he would quite possibly have enjoyed a third act to hsi career as a "Sunday pitcher", the route taken by Ted Lyons and many other aging pitchers saved to work in the double headers teams featured most Sundays. Had that been the case he'd most likley have a plaque in Cooperstown today. It shouldn't prevent him from having one in our Hall.

[SABR Matt]

Did you have a specific complaint about that post or are you just enamored with it?

[Fielding Marshall]

More like I'm a little frustrated that someone made a good case for a player, but you guys have seemingly ignored it and are still discussing 19th century players.

And yes, I'm "enamored" with it. I've already printed it out and framed it on my wall.;)

[SABR Matt]

More like I'm a little frustrated that someone made a good case for a player, but you guys have seemingly ignored it and are still discussing 19th century players.

And yes, I'm "enamored" with it. I've already printed it out and framed it on my wall.;)

I can't speak for everyone here...but I read that post, disagreed with it on practical grounds, but opted not to comment as at the time there were other posters asking me for my opinion and/or data.

I do not recall whether I commented on Bridges directly earlier in this thread and I don't feel like sifting through those comments again...but the problem I have with Bridges is the complete and utter lack of a dominant peak. He was just pretty good in a relatively short career without any bells or whistles.
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1933 AL 0.18 0.23 7.67 -0.2 0.2 12.2 8.08
1940 AL -0.48 0.19 7.58 -1.4 0.2 12.5 7.29
1934 AL -0.72 0.10 7.74 -2.2 0.0 11.8 7.12
1936 AL -0.36 0.42 6.69 -1.5 0.6 9.3 6.75
1939 AL -0.18 0.03 6.23 -0.9 -0.1 9.7 6.08
1943 AL 0.18 0.26 4.40 -0.1 0.4 6.2 4.84
1935 AL 0.05 0.14 4.45 -0.6 0.0 5.1 4.64
1941 AL -0.52 0.36 4.75 -1.4 0.6 7.5 4.59
1937 AL -0.34 0.48 4.09 -1.3 0.8 4.7 4.23
1942 AL -1.21 0.29 4.39 -2.9 0.4 6.4 3.47
1932 AL -0.43 0.13 3.49 -1.4 0.1 4.3 3.19
1938 AL -0.36 0.11 2.05 -1.1 0.1 1.9 1.80
1930 AL 0.06 0.01 1.21 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.28
1931 AL -0.37 0.16 1.23 -1.2 0.2 0.0 1.02

Compare that to Dean:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1934 NL -0.29 0.14 12.12 -1.4 0.0 20.0 11.97
1933 NL 0.12 0.06 7.57 -0.5 -0.1 11.1 7.75
1932 NL 0.25 0.13 7.24 -0.2 0.0 10.5 7.62
1936 NL -0.25 0.00 7.79 -1.3 -0.2 11.2 7.54
1935 NL 0.14 -0.02 7.27 -0.6 -0.3 10.0 7.39
1937 NL 0.03 -0.01 5.65 -0.4 -0.2 8.5 5.67
1938 NL -0.22 0.06 4.88 -0.6 0.1 8.8 4.72
1939 NL -0.24 0.07 2.49 -0.7 0.1 3.7 2.32
1930 NL 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.69

Yes, Dean lasted even less time, but here's another example of people abusing the ERA+ * IP as though all 2500 IP, 125 ERA+ pitchers had the same value. They don't and debates shouldn't be won or really even constructed around that kind of logic.

[Fielding Marshall]

Maybe I'm missing something, but looking at your numbers, if you take away 1934 for Dean (and one year fluctuations are fairly common; if you want the true worth of a player, you look at multiple years), an argument can be made that Bridges was the superior pitcher.

In any event, the real question is whether Bridges belongs in the Hall. Now, I'm a big hall person, but I'm also a peak person...I'm wondering, what benchmark would you use to determine a Hall-worthy peak?

[Fielding Marshall]

Yes, Dean lasted even less time, but here's another example of people abusing the ERA+ * IP as though all 2500 IP, 125 ERA+ pitchers had the same value.

Very true, but the 2500 IP, 125 ERA+ pitchers aren't altogether common...you should definitely look at individual seasons for all players, but those kind of pitchers imply a peak of sustained excellence. If you know of that kind of pitcher who isn't at worst borderline-out, please let me know.

[bambambaseball]

The one pitcher on the balott who I think we should be talking about the most if Wes Ferrell. The guy was the best hitting pitcher in the 20th century who stayed a pitcher and 116 ERA+ in 2623 IP is similar to a number of pitchers elected. Are people bothered by the fact that he had 193 games? 'cause its weird that a guy that had a 68 WARP3 as a batter and was as dominant of a pitcher as he was would have troubel getting elected!:think:

[SABR Matt]

I agree that Bridges is, at worst, borderline out...I have him out due to lack of high-peak, but I won't throw a fuss at people voting for him.

As for Wes Ferrell, offensively, he was a very good hitting pitcher, but there have been others who lasted longer and were nearly as accomplished at the plate. Still, the trade up from a typical -20 offensive marker to Ferrell's +9.5 is not something that should be ignored. I have him on the bubble (and voted for him in this election), but he's not getting in just because he was a good hitting pitcher...he's getting in because he had a big peak:
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1935 AL 1.95 0.44 8.07 2.8 0.6 11.7 10.46
1931 AL 1.77 0.60 7.86 2.7 0.9 11.9 10.23
1930 AL 0.78 0.24 9.14 0.7 0.3 14.2 10.16
1936 AL 0.68 0.29 6.60 0.4 0.4 9.0 7.57
1932 AL 0.00 0.50 5.88 -0.9 0.8 7.8 6.38
1929 AL 0.23 0.31 5.23 -0.2 0.4 7.1 5.77
1934 AL 0.85 0.13 4.51 1.1 0.1 6.5 5.49
1933 AL 1.44 0.75 1.52 1.9 1.2 0.3 3.71
1937 AL 0.97 0.27 1.95 1.0 0.3 0.0 3.19

Not to mention the fact that he was a very good fielder.

[bambambaseball]

Wes Ferrell was an excellent all around athlete. The HOF dropped the ball when they elected his brother and not him.

[Ace Venom]

We've elected Bill Dickey in his first year of eligibility with 94.29% of the vote and Red Ruffing in his second year of eligibility with 82.86% of the vote. The Contributor's Committee elected manager Joe McCarthy and Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis. The Negro League Players VC ballot and 1952 ballot will be posted later today.

[JDD]

Finally... after more than 210 posts, we can begin again. (note there were only 35 votes) That was torture.