BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1903

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
For the sake of simplification, convenience, and continuity, we will adopt the rules currently employed by the BBWAA and apply them throughout, with the exception of modifications made for first five elections (and perhaps longer if necessary):

Voting Rules: For at least the first five elections, voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates (the number will be eventually be cut to 10). A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. 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.

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. For the first five elections, a player must receive at least one vote to appear on the next ballot, though extra considerations may be made for players not receiving a vote in the first election. After the first five elections, players will need at least 5% support to stay on the 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. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote.
- Early Election Modifications: To be eligible for the first election, players must have played at least 7 seasons between 1871 and 1896. The next four elections will have an 8 year rule. Players from before this period, or who do not meet the 7 year requirement, or who are no longer eligible for the current election, will be eligible for the Veterans/Pioneers Committee, provided their last appearance was no later than 1883. Players eligible in the first election will be eligible for 15 years, regardless of when they retired, and provided they meet the minimum support requirements. The 5% rule is not in effect for the first five elections. During this time, players need to receive at least one vote to remain on the ballot (or at least one vote in the first two elections to make the third).

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


1903 Guide
There are 48 candidates on the 1903 ballot. First time eligible players last played in 1898.

First Timers (14)
Lou Bierbauer
Jack Boyle
Tom Brown
Red Ehret
Mike Griffin
Bug Holliday
Bill Joyce
Matt Kilroy
Billy Nash
Billy Shindle
Germany Smith
Ed Stein
Sam Thompson
Walt Wilmot

Holdovers (34)

Player Year of Eligibility High Support Previous Year’s Support
Ross Barnes 3rd 58.33% 58.33%
Charlie Bennett 3rd 45.00% 33.33%
Pete Browning 3rd 40.00% 37.50%
Oyster Burns 3rd 4.17% 4.17%
Bob Caruthers 3rd 30.00% 29.17%
Charlie Comiskey 3rd 5.00% 4.17%
Larry Corcoran 3rd 5.00% 4.17%
Bob Ferguson 3rd 8.33% 8.33%
Pud Galvin 3rd 70.83% 70.83%
Jack Glasscock 3rd 25.00% 20.83%
George Gore 3rd 45.00% 37.50%
Ned Hanlon 3rd 5.00% 4.17%
Paul Hines 3rd 65.00% 54.17%
Charley Jones 3rd 4.17% 4.17%
Denny Lyons 3rd 4.17% 4.17%
Bobby Mathews 3rd 5.00% 4.17%
Tommy McCarthy* 3rd 5.00% 0.00%
Jim McCormick 3rd 5.00% 4.17%
Cal McVey 3rd 20.00% 12.50%
Levi Meyerle 3rd 4.17% 4.17%
Tony Mullane 3rd 45.00% 33.33%
Tip O’Neill 3rd 8.33% 8.33%
Dave Orr 3rd 8.33% 8.33%
Lip Pike 3rd 12.50% 12.50%
Hardy Richardson 3rd 20.83% 20.83%
Al Spalding 3rd 37.50% 37.50%
Joe Start 3rd 35.00% 33.00%
Harry Stovey 3rd 50.00% 45.83%
Ezra Sutton 3rd 37.50% 37.50%
John Ward 3rd 62.50% 62.50%
Mickey Welch 3rd 25.00% 20.83%
Deacon White 3rd 62.50% 62.50%
Will White 3rd 4.17% 4.17%
George Wright 3rd 45.00% 41.67%

* = Player on ballot due to receiving a vote in 1901

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (5)

Player 1902 Support
Pud Galvin 70.83%
John Ward 62.50%
Deacon White 62.50%
Ross Barnes 58.33%
Paul Hines 54.17%

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (9)

Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1

Players Elected by Position
Catcher (1): Buck Ewing
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (0):
Third Base (0):
Shortstop (0):
Left Field (1): Jim O'Rourke
Center Field (0):
Right Field (1): King Kelly
Pitcher (3): John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Charley Radbourn

Players Elected by Year

Year Player
1901 Dan Brouthers
John Clarkson
Tim Keefe
Jim O’Rourke
Charley Radbourn
1902 Cap Anson
Roger Conner
Buck Ewing
King Kelly

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)

[DoubleX]

I made a slight modification to the rules, in that I kept Tommy McCarthy on the ballot even though he did not receive a vote in the last election, but because he received a vote in the first election. I figured anyone who received a vote in 1901 but not 1902, deserved an extra year, and McCarthy was the only one. If he doesn't get a vote this year, he'll be gone, same with anyone who doesn't get a vote this year.

My Ballot:

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Hardy Richardson
Tony Mullane
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Mickey Welch
Deacon White

Bob Caruthers just missed.

[Brad Harris]

Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Charley Jones
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White

[Sockeye]

Pud Galvin
Mickey Welch

[1905 Giants]

My Ballot:

Browning
Caruthers
Galvin
Spalding
Thompson
Ward
Welch

[leecemark]

Pud Galvin
Mickey Welch

--Garry, I am having a hard time deciding whether you really don't get what constituted a Hall of Fame caliber player in the 19th century or if you are just being obstructionist here. Do you really believe that it is reasonable to induct only 1 position player (I believe you've only voted for Anson) from the first 25 years of major league baseball? I don't understand that position and all and would really like you to explain why you believe that. I don't mean that in a hostile way. I truely don't understand your reasoning here and would appreciate a little more info on how yu reached this conclusion.
Thanks, Mark

[leecemark]

Barnes - best 19th century 2B and best player of the NA
Bennett - best full time catcher of the 19th century
Caruthers - outstanding pitcher and very good hitter
Galvin - all time wins leader
Gore - 3rd best 19th century CFer and probably top 5 OFer
Hines - best CFer of the 70s/80s, best player a few years
McVey - big bat who could play most anywhere
Mullane - best pitcher of the AA
Spaudlng - best pitcher of the 1870s and a good hitter
Start -best player of the 60s, good player for VERY long time
Stovey - amoung the top half dozen sluggers of 19th century
Sutton - best 19th century 3B
Ward - good pitcher, good SS, major contributor
White (Deacon) - best catcher of 70s and oneof best 19th century careers
Wright - best SS of the 70s and one of leading figures of that decade

[AG2004]

Pud Galvin
Mickey Welch

No position players?

Jim O'Rourke was in the inaugural class in 1901. Paul Hines is a fairly good match for him. O'Rourke edges Hines in OPS+, 133 to 131, but O'Rourke was a corner outfielder, while Hines was a top-notch defensive CF during his prime. O'Rourke has a bit more career value than Hines, but Hines played twenty years in the NA and the NL, so he did have longevity as well.

Also, Hines led major league position players in win shares in 1878 and 1879, and was tied for the lead in win shares among non-UA position players in 1884. (With the exception of St. Louis, the UA was on a par with the Northwest League in 1884.)

---

Note that OPS+ tends to underrate players of the 1870s and 1880s, and especially those with long careers. Since the length of the season increased as time went by, a late season can have twice the weight as an earlier season. This means that a player's late seasons and decline phase have a greater impact than a player's prime seasons, and hence, by giving more weight to those later seasons, the OPS+ understates a players' general performance. Since season lengths since 1888 have hovered between 132 games and 154 games per year, this isn't as much of a problem with players of the 1890s.

---

Also - and this is the third year I've asked this - what is your standard for position players, Sockeye? So far, you've said that Anson is the only position player you consider worthy of the hall. You've noted that other players weren't as good as Anson, but, except for that statement, you've never made an argument that they were unworthy of your vote. However, Mickey Welch wasn't as good as John Clarkson, but that hasn't stopped you from voting for Mickey Welch. So why is it different for position players?

[jalbright]

My ballot (14 players):

Bennett
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
D. White
G. Wright

[Sockeye]

--Garry, I am having a hard time deciding whether you really don't get what constituted a Hall of Fame caliber player in the 19th century or if you are just being obstructionist here. Do you really believe that it is reasonable to induct only 1 position player (I believe you've only voted for Anson) from the first 25 years of major league baseball? I don't understand that position and all and would really like you to explain why you believe that. I don't mean that in a hostile way. I truely don't understand your reasoning here and would appreciate a little more info on how yu reached this conclusion.
Thanks, Mark

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry

[jjpm74]

My Ballot:

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Tony Mullane
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Ward
Deacon White

Pud Galvin, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright are all guys I'll add when there's room if any of them don't get elected this time around.

[jjpm74]

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry

If you're going to be stingy, at least pick 2 strong candidates.

[Brad Harris]

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry

That's woefully inconsistent with your ballots.

[AG2004]

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry

So what you're saying is that Dan Brouthers, who held the records for best career OPS+ and the best career slugging average when he first appeared on the ballot in 1901, is not among the best players in base ball history. You're also saying that Roger Connor, who holds the career records for both triples and home runs, is not among the best players in base ball history.

However, Mickey Welch, whose only league leadership in anything important was in W-L % in 1885 (saves are not important when you can lead the league with just two of them), is, according to you, one of the best players in the game's history AND better than either Brouthers or Connor.

Could you explain why this is so? I'm curious.

[AG2004]

--Garry, I am having a hard time deciding whether you really don't get what constituted a Hall of Fame caliber player in the 19th century or if you are just being obstructionist here.

OOC - The thought that Sockeye is just being obstructionist has never crossed my mind. My impression has always been that Sockeye's knowledge of 19th-century base ball is extremely limited. As he has been interpreting the available statistics according the standards of 21st-century baseball, his conclusions leave something to be desired.


Responses to Sockeye include:


If you're going to be stingy, at least pick 2 strong candidates.


That's woefully inconsistent with your ballots.

I think Sockeye actually believes that Galvin and Welch are the two best candidates available. I don't want to be mean to him. I'm asking him questions to discover what his impressions of 19th-century baseball are in order to find out what misconceptions he has about the game, and, as best I can, correct them. Unfortunately, my phrasing has not been ideal.

Can anyone recommend some good books on 19th-century baseball to him? The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract and the Hall of Merit archives at baseballthinkfactory could help him, but I'm trying to think of something more specific than the abstract and more introductory than the HOM discussion.

[1905 Giants]

Anybody think of just leaving Sockeye alone and letting him vote for who he's going to vote for?

I mean, its just as easy to pick on someone who chooses a lot of candidates by saying "Are you really that loose about who gets into the Hall?"

[soberdennis]

Glasscock
Ward
Welsh
Thompson
Burns
Browning
Galvin
Hanlon
O'Neill

[Brad Harris]

I mean, its just as easy to pick on someone who chooses a lot of candidates by saying "Are you really that loose about who gets into the Hall?"

If a fifteen-man ballot is permitted then it's hardly "loose" to vote for the maximum permissible.

Given that two elections have already taken place in which a number of 19th century position players have been elected, the electorate as a whole has collectively agreed on some rudimentary standards to begin with. No one faults Sockeye for being selective or for wanting the Hall to be exclusive, but it's time for him to reconsider whether or not his standards are higher than those the group has already established and decide how to proceed accordingly. While Sockeye certainly has the right to vote for just two candidates on the third election, it's easy to see his opinion is an outlier and not consistent with the "actual" standards being applied.

[Freakshow]

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry
"Playing the role"? So, you're being disingenuous? Are you even bothering to study the candidates, or is it just role playing?:hp

[BlueBlood]

Barnes
Bennett
Browning
Caruthers
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Mullane
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Thompson
White
Wright

[AG2004]

Given that two elections have already taken place in which a number of 19th century position players have been elected, the electorate as a whole has collectively agreed on some rudimentary standards to begin with. No one faults Sockeye for being selective or for wanting the Hall to be exclusive, but it's time for him to reconsider whether or not his standards are higher than those the group has already established and decide how to proceed accordingly. While Sockeye certainly has the right to vote for just two candidates on the third election, it's easy to see his opinion is an outlier and not consistent with the "actual" standards being applied.


(OOC)
When Sockeye made his "Top 1000" list last year, I asked him how Dave Kingman, who failed to make the top 500, managed to make it onto his BBFHOF ballot. He replied that anyone who had 3000 hits, 400 home runs, or 300 wins should gain automatic induction into the Hall of Fame.

It appears to me that he has been using these cutoffs to determine who the very best players are. Only one 19th-century position player managed to reach any of these benchmarks, and he's the one position player Sockeye has voted for. The shorter seasons of the time meant that 3000 hits was a nearly impossible standard to reach, and the 400 home run level is simply unrealistic for players of that era.

Sockeye is trying, to the best of his ability, to play the role of a stingy sportswriter. However, he doesn't have anywhere near the contextual knowledge that a 1903 sportswriter with two decade's experience on the job would have had. Thus, he's using his 21st-century standards to determine who makes his limited ballot.

I'm also beginning to think that he's afraid of admitting that he doesn't know much about the era in question. That would explain why he hasn't answered my questions about what his standards for position players are. That would also explain why he compared Brouthers and Connor to Anson in the 1902 thread - it was the only way he could think of to back up his claim that Brouthers and Connor were not worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, in trying to hide this, he's coming across as obstructionist or disingenuous.

If anyone can recommend some resources that would help people learn about 19th-century baseball, please do so. I believe that, if Sockeye were to look at them, he would change his ballot. I've mentioned the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract as an introduction to the game's history, and I've mentioned the Hall of Merit discussions at Baseball Think Factory, but someone might come up with better ideas.

[Erik Bedard]

SABR bios are, IMO, the best way of learning about a player. I never thought Steve Blass was so interesting! Unfortunately, not many of them are done yet.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Cal McVey
Tony Mullane
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
Sam Thompson
John Montgomery Ward
Deacon White

[DoubleX]

It appears to me that he has been using these cutoffs to determine who the very best players are. Only one 19th-century position player managed to reach any of these benchmarks, and he's the one position player Sockeye has voted for. The shorter seasons of the time meant that 3000 hits was a nearly impossible standard to reach, and the 400 home run level is simply unrealistic for players of that era.

Sockeye is trying, to the best of his ability, to play the role of a stingy sportswriter. However, he doesn't have anywhere near the contextual knowledge that a 1903 sportswriter with two decade's experience on the job would have had. Thus, he's using his 21st-century standards to determine who makes his limited ballot.

That's the thing, from a 1903 perspective, what do any of these benchmarks mean given the limited history and perspective? To apply 3000 hits, 300 wins, 500 homeruns, and so on as the standard then, as it is now, is not right, because those standards did not nearly resonate as they do now. Back then, 2000 hits was almost as elusive as 3000 hits has become.

I have no problem with people applying different perspectives, as that's part of us forming a consensus, but Sockeye, come on. You can't apply the benchmarks of today to players from that era, you have to judge them within the context of that era, which means these benchmarks don't mean much.

[Freakshow]

At this time, I believe that Runs scored are the counting statistic most often used in establishing benchmarks of excellence. Career leaders through 1903:

1996 Anson
1728 O'Rourke
1690 Hamilton (eligible 1906)
1678 McPhee (eligible 1904)
1642 Ryan (active)
1639 Van Haltren (active)
1620 Connor
1599 Delahanty (eligible 1908)
1570 Burkett (active)
1535 Duffy (active)
1523 Brouthers

In 105 years all of these players will still rank in the top 55 in history.

[Freakshow]

1903 Ballot

Barnes
Bennett
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
McVey
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Ward
D.White
Wright

[DoubleX]

Mark,

Lets just say I'm playing the role of the stingiest of sportswriters. Believing that election on the first few times on the ballot should be reserved for only the best players. Garry

That's fine by me, but I think even the stingiest of sportswriters in 1903 would acknowledge that Dan Brouthers was either the best of very close to being the best player the game had seen to that point. Applying benchmarks that mean something now to back then, isn't right, because those benchmarks didn't mean much back then given the brief history of the game. Who would know in 1903 that 100 years later something like 3000 hits would be special? Back then, it was pretty darn special if someone were to get 3000 hits.

If you want to use benchmarks, that's fine, but do it in such away that shows you're taking in the context of the time into account and not applying standards from 100 years in the future that mean little at an earlier time. As we go, standards will change, but right now, holding things like 3000 hits, 300 wins, 500 homeruns, and so on, just doesn't reflect the reality of the era we're looking at, and you're doing a great injustice to a number of bona fide superstar players.

[Paul Wendt]

Pud Galvin, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright are all guys I'll add when there's room if any of them don't get elected this time around.
Last year I cast a strategic vote for Galvin, as I don't consider him one of the 15 best 15 candidates. I thought that might clear another ballot spot. McVey, Spalding, Wright, no matter --no way any of them will depart or the bottom of the standings this year.

My vote will be close to several others which seem very close to each other.

[DoubleX]

Pud Galvin, Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright are all guys I'll add when there's room if any of them don't get elected this time around.

It's kind of interesting - we went with expanded voting for the first five elections to facilitate electing players, but it is very conceivable that we might not elect anyone this year. Right now, Galvin is over the line, but I believe he was at this point in the last election as well, so he could fall again. Bennett, Glasscock, Ward and White are all one vote away from 75% at this juncture, so there is hope for electing multiple players.

Still, I wonder how obstinate voters are and how hard it will be for players to build up support over time to get over 75%.

[jjpm74]

It's kind of interesting - we went with expanded voting for the first five elections to facilitate electing players, but it is very conceivable that we might not elect anyone this year. Right now, Galvin is over the line, but I believe he was at this point in the last election as well, so he could fall again. Bennett, Glasscock, Ward and White are all one vote away from 75% at this juncture, so there is hope for electing multiple players.

Still, I wonder how obstinate voters are and how hard it will be for players to build up support over time to get over 75%.

I think that will depend on whether or not we see a lot of short ballots cast. If the core group of voters continue to support the strongest candidates as opposed to being obstructionists, we should see Ward, White, Galvin, Bennet, Glasscock possibly Start get elected in this election at the very least which would clear the way for the remaining viable candidates. How many of next year's class are legitimate HOFers? If the numbers are like this year, there will be more spots freed up in 1904 for guys like me who are carrying a full ballot to add a couple of players if some of the current crop are elected. Either way, I do plan to look at who the front runners are in this election who don't make it who I do support and will in all likelihood shift in a few of them in the next election. Hopefully others will do the same.

On a side note, am I the only one who finds the fact that we have elected 0 Center Fielders, second basemen, third basemen or short stops but have elected 3 first basemen problematic?

[leecemark]

--It is flukish situation, but Anson,. Brouthers and Conner are arguably the 3 best players - almost certainly the 3 best hitters - to have appeared on our ballots. I am votiing for at least one player from every position except RF now though.

[Brad Harris]

It's supposed to be 1903 and we're supposed to be honoring the greatest players of the 19th century by induction into the Hall of Fame? I think it's preposterous to not induct at least one player at each position under such a scenario.

[leecemark]

It's supposed to be 1903 and we're supposed to be honoring the greatest players of the 19th century by induction into the Hall of Fame? I think it's preposterous to not induct at least one player at each position under such a scenario.

--Ezra Sutton made my ballot mostly based on that premise;


C: White (Deacon) - best catcher of 70s and oneof best 19th century careers
C: Bennett - best full time catcher of the 19th century
--Ewing already elected
1B: Start -best player of the 60s, good player for VERY long time
--With ABC already in, Start is near the bottom of my ballot
2B: Barnes - best 19th century 2B and best player of the NA
3B: Sutton - best 19th century 3B
SS: Ward - good pitcher, good SS, major contributor
SS: Wright - best SS of the 70s and one of leading figures of that decade
LF: Stovey - amoung the top half dozen sluggers of 19th century
--O'Rourke already in
CF: Gore - 3rd best 19th century CFer and probably top 5 OFer
CF: Hines - best CFer of the 70s/80s, best player a few years
Utl: McVey - big bat who could play most anywhere
P: Caruthers - outstanding pitcher and very good hitter
P; Galvin - all time wins leader (actually Young passed him this year)
P; Mullane - best pitcher of the AA
P: Spaudlng - best pitcher of the 1870s and a good hitter
--Clarkson, Keefe and Radbourne already elcted

[Paul Wendt]

>>On a side note, am I the only one who finds the fact that we have elected 0 Center Fielders, second basemen, third basemen or short stops but have elected 3 first basemen problematic?<<

Anson, Brouthers, and Connor belong a helluva lot higher on the list than Clarkson, Keefe, and Radbourn.
O'Rourke and Kelly were versatile players, not well-served by simply labeling them LF and RF. Kelly played more than five full seasons of games at catcher and O'Rourke is a left-fielder mainly because he played forever and the schedules were much longer when he finally rested in left.

. . . Yes we should elect someone at every fielding position not as a matter of principle but because I think 3B Ezra Sutton deserves to be elected. And there is Bob Ferguson 3B-2B-captain/manager-NA president-umpire. Oh, no credit as umpire here.

[DoubleX]

On a side note, am I the only one who finds the fact that we have elected 0 Center Fielders, second basemen, third basemen or short stops but have elected 3 first basemen problematic?

Not really. We've only had two elections and I think we've done a pretty good job of electing the true elite so far. Like Mark said, the arguably three best position players all played 1B, that's just the way it worked out so far.

[jjpm74]

Not really. We've only had two elections and I think we've done a pretty good job of electing the true elite so far. Like Mark said, the arguably three best position players all played 1B, that's just the way it worked out so far.

I didn't mean to imply that there's an issue with who's been elected so far. I rank the five best players in the 19th century as follows:

Dan Brouthers
Roger Connor
Cap Anson
King Kelly
Buck Ewing

I'm trying to see who's supporting players at other positions. I currently support 2-3 catchers depending on where you place White, Bennet and McVey. At short stop, Jack Glasscock impressed me even more than the great George Wright. The one player I'm suprised to see so far under the radar to this point is Ross Barnes who is arguably the best second baseman in the history of the game; although Cupid Childs is a strong second baseman and there's Bid McPhee who had an impressive career. I'm also very impressed by a rookie by the name of Evers. He is something to watch! Ezra Sutton was a great third baseman, but is he better than Jimmy Collins? Only time will tell. George Gore and Paul Hines were incredible out fielders with great bats. I hope they gain some support.

[Brooklyn]

Browning, Galvin, Hines, Mullane, Spalding, Thompson, Welch, White

[Paul Wendt]

That slate would make 17 members including 7 pure pitchers (Ward and Caruthers being "impure"). I guess we might get about 7 pretty quickly, although I believe that would be Caruthers and/or Ward, not Spalding.

[TheSlaff]

Barnes
Caruthers
Galvin
Gore
Hines
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Start
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Ward
D. White
Wright

[Paul Wendt]

Ross Barnes who is arguably the best second baseman in the history of the game; although Cupid Childs is a strong second baseman and there's Bid McPhee who had an impressive career. I'm also very impressed by a rookie by the name of Evers. He is something to watch! Ezra Sutton was a great third baseman, but is he better than Jimmy Collins?
Having watched Sutton, Billy Nash, and Collins for thirty years I can tell you Sutton was no Jimmy Collins on the thirdbase line (who was or is?). And he was no Billy Nash. But yes, we should elect Sutton as our first thirdbaseman. He was a stronger batter than Nash and he played much longer. Really we have been blessed at third here in Boston. Only John McGraw was a greater one and it looks like he is done. Maybe he played too hard.

It looks like Selee is building another winner in Chicago. With Johnny Kling in place, Frank Chance will be mainly at first base, maybe he will play a full season. And Joe Tinker looks like the real deal, maybe as good as Dahlen or Corcoran at short, where the glove is the thing. But I'm not sure about Evers. He may be too small and gaunt. If he does not sicken first, a big man running down to second will take him out of the game one day.

[DoubleX]

Galvin is looking pretty good at this point. Deacon White looks to be the only other player with a realistic shot at this juncture as he's one vote shy of 75%.

Anyone care to state the case for Deacon White in the hopes that you might get him over the hump this time around?

Also, if and when White is electing, my preference is to officially list him as a 3Bman. Anyone feel he should be a catcher?

[dgarza]

Anyone feel he should be a catcher?Either list him as a 3B or list him as both. But I do not suggest listing him only as a catcher.

[leecemark]

--It is White's years as a catcher that gets him my vote. White the thirdbaseman was nothing special.

[BlueBlood]

It looks like Selee is building another winner in Chicago. With Johnny Kling in place, Frank Chance will be mainly at first base, maybe he will play a full season. And Joe Tinker looks like the real deal, maybe as good as Dahlen or Corcoran at short, where the glove is the thing. But I'm not sure about Evers. He may be too small and gaunt. If he does not sicken first, a big man running down to second will take him out of the game one day.

Come on! Now you're just cheating. :laugh

[dgarza]

--It is White's years as a catcher that gets him my vote. White the thirdbaseman was nothing special.

I would say the same thing about John Ward, but he should still be both P & SS, not just P.

White's career is what I'm looking at. If his C career alone does it for you, fine.
But I would hope the unique, subjective interpretations of 1 person does not influence how this Hall documents objective numbers and facts.

[DoubleX]

Here's a tentative list of players to be added for the 1904 election (last played 1899). Should I add anyone?

Frank Dwyer
John Grim
Arlie Latham
Ed McKean
Bid McPhee
Billy Rhines
Jake Stenzel
Jake Stivetts
Jack Taylor
Mike Tiernan
Tommy Tucker
Farmer Vaughn

Keep in mind that my standards are fairly low right now due the era. A guy like John Grim, who had less than 300 plate appearances, made the list by virtue of being a catcher.

[AG2004]

Galvin is looking pretty good at this point. Deacon White looks to be the only other player with a realistic shot at this juncture as he's one vote shy of 75%.

Anyone care to state the case for Deacon White in the hopes that you might get him over the hump this time around?

Also, if and when White is electing, my preference is to officially list him as a 3Bman. Anyone feel he should be a catcher?

White was a catcher during the first half of his career, including the 1869 and 1870 seasons with Forest City (the one in Cleveland, not the one in Rockford) that aren't listed at baseball-reference. He didn't become a 3B until 1882, when he was 34. White had more seasons at C than at 3B - but, because the schedules were longer in the 1880s, he had more games at 3B than C. I would list him a C/3B.

[Brad Harris]

Keep in mind that my standards are fairly low right now due the era. A guy like John Grim, who had less than 300 plate appearances, made the list by virtue of being a catcher.

Why should that matter when some voters won't even consider a catcher because he's not as sparkling and shiny as Cap Anson?

[leecemark]

Here's a tentative list of players to be added for the 1904 election (last played 1899). Should I add anyone?

Frank Dwyer
John Grim
Arlie Latham
Ed McKean
Bid McPhee
Billy Rhines
Jake Stenzel
Jake Stivetts
Jack Taylor
Mike Tiernan
Tommy Tucker
Farmer Vaughn

Keep in mind that my standards are fairly low right now due the era. A guy like John Grim, who had less than 300 plate appearances, made the list by virtue of being a catcher.


--Including a player with less than one full season's worth of work is pretty low indeed. Far be it from me to recommend anyone lower. McPhee is the only guy who will ever make my ballot, although there are a couple other guys I think are likley to get somebody's vote.

[KCGHOST]

Browning
Galvin
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Mullane
Richardson
Spalding
Stovey
Thompson
Ward
Wright

Looks like the Pud stands alone.

[DoubleX]

--Including a player with less than one full season's worth of work is pretty low indeed. Far be it from me to recommend anyone lower. McPhee is the only guy who will ever make my ballot, although there are a couple other guys I think are likley to get somebody's vote.

Not sure who you're talking about. Grim? He was a fulltime catcher for six or seven years, which is fairly impressive for back then, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if we left him off the ballot. One of the key things I'm looking for at this point in time is relative longevity. By modern standards, Grim would almost certainly not even get consideration, same with a few of these other players, but sticking around and playing at a decent level back then was no small feat, you can only find about 12-15 players retiring each year that could even manage to hang around long enough to put up a decent career.

What do people think about Ed McKean? He was a very good offensive SS for his day and put up pretty good counting totals for the era, particularly for a SS.

EDIT: As a sidenote, the 20th vote has come in and it doesn't look good for White being elected this time, but Galvin looks pretty safe. White would have to be named on the next four ballots to get to 75%. Probably not happening.

[Paul Wendt]

You should list White as a catcher, anywhere that it matters. That was his primary position.
On the technical point about the number of games, see what I wrote this noon at Ultimate Quest 1870s-1880s.
See also the discussion around the recent catchers poll at the Hall of Merit where some newcomers questioned including him. (No time now for links.)

Here's a tentative list of players to be added for the 1904 election (last played 1899). Should I add anyone?

Frank Dwyer
John Grim
Arlie Latham
Ed McKean
Bid McPhee
Billy Rhines
Jake Stenzel
Jake Stivetts
Jack Taylor
Mike Tiernan
Tommy Tucker
Farmer Vaughn

Keep in mind that my standards are fairly low right now due the era. A guy like John Grim, who had less than 300 plate appearances, made the list by virtue of being a catcher.

'300' should be '3000'
Vaughn and Grim played between 4.5 and 5.0 full-season-equivalent games at catcher. That's fine.
For the purpose here, my FSE statistic will not pick up pitchers (Dwyer, Rhines, Stivetts) and it will not pick up anyone whose late appearance such as Sam Thompson 1906 "does not count".

Here are the leaders by FSE fielding games who last played in 1899.

16.40 Bid McPhee
12.10 Tommy Tucker
12.01 Ed McKean
10.72 Mike Tiernan
7.20 Farmer Vaughn (c)
5.88 Bill Lange
5.74 John Grim (c)
5.52 Jake Stenzel
5.26 Heinie Reitz (2b)

You should add Bill Lange. He will get some votes.

Jack Taylor (Brewery Jack) - you should specify the nickname to be sure that no one confuses him with Selee's great star.

[Paul Wendt]

15 including "first votes" for McVey and Richardson.

Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Ferguson
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Mike Griffin
Paul Hines
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
John Ward
Deacon White
George Wright

bold: remaining from the ten obvious candidates in 1901 - that is, my own ten-deep ballot before we repeated the cycle with fifteen
We have elected Brouthers, Clarkson, Kelly, O'Rourke; Rad and Keefe didn't make the cut.

[DoubleX]

You should add Bill Lange. He will get some votes.

Lange didn't make the 8 year cutoff. He played just 7 seasons.

[leecemark]

Not sure who you're talking about. Grim? He was a fulltime catcher for six or seven years, which is fairly impressive for back then, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if we left him off the ballot. One of the key things I'm looking for at this point in time is relative longevity. By modern standards, Grim would almost certainly not even get consideration, same with a few of these other players, but sticking around and playing at a decent level back then was no small feat, you can only find about 12-15 players retiring each year that could even manage to hang around long enough to put up a decent career.

What do people think about Ed McKean? He was a very good offensive SS for his day and put up pretty good counting totals for the era, particularly for a SS.

EDIT: As a sidenote, the 20th vote has come in and it doesn't look good for White being elected this time, but Galvin looks pretty safe. White would have to be named on the next four ballots to get to 75%. Probably not happening.

--You said 300 PA for Grim and I didn't bother to look him up myself - nor had I ever heard of him. Nor can I imagine he will get any votes, but it won't hurt anything to give him an appearanc eon the ballot. This brief discussion is probably the first mention of that gentleman (outside his friends and family) in about a century:D.

[DoubleX]

--You said 300 PA for Grim and I didn't bother to look him up myself - nor had I ever heard of him. Nor can I imagine he will get any votes, but it won't hurt anything to give him an appearanc eon the ballot. This brief discussion is probably the first mention of that gentleman (outside his friends and family) in about a century:D.

My bad, I didn't realize that I only typed 300. Though you should give me more credit than to want to include a guy with such a small career.

[jjpm74]

If you guys are referring to John Grim, he did an interview in the late 1950s about catching in the 19th century. I think it appeared in Sporting News, but it may have been Baseball Digest. Whether or not he'll get any votes is irrelevant. he fit the eligibility requirements and should appear on a ballot.

[AG2004]

My Ballot

Ross Barnes
Bob Ferguson
Paul Hines
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Deacon White
George Wright

[DoubleX]

Pud Galvin is the only one to gain enshrinement from this election, though we had a number of players finishing over 50%.

I find it interesting that we decided to expand the ballot to 15 votes in order to facilitate election, yet now we've elected just one player. Nevertheless, I think we've pretty much taken care of all the bona fide, no doubt Hall of Famers. There are a number of strong candidates out there, but I think there is at least some decent debate for most of them depending on how big you envision the Hall.

Personally, I'd like to see more stumping for some of these guys that are close and might get over the hump with a strong argument.

[leecemark]

--Barnes reeceived 62% of the ballot this time around so he is definately a viable candidate. He is one of the few (only?) players to have been the best in baseball over a period of several years and be inducted into Cooperstown. His short career may give some pause, but he was a star before the "official Major leagues" came into being. Although only 21 when the NA was formed Barnes was already a well known player and posted a 187 OPS+ in the league's debut season. Further, despite his short career, Barnes is 17th all time in Black Ink! Basically Barnes was to the NA/NL of the early-mid 1870s what Rogers Hornsby was to the NL of th e1920s - except Barnes was a much better fielder.

[leecemark]

--Hines was at 69% of the ballot this time so he only needs a few more supporters. He was the best player in the majors 3 times in his career by Win Shares. An outstanding hitter (59th Black/49th Grey Ink) and excellent defensive CFer, Hines was one of the truely elite players of the 1870-80s. His 20 year career is one of the longest and most distinguished of the 19th century.

[jjpm74]

Deacon White was another that fell just short. He was one of the best multi-position players of his generation.

To him, add:

Jack Glasscock SS
Joe Start 1B
Harry Stovey OF
George Gore OF

along with Barnes and Hines and you have a great HOF with benchmark players for other generations.

If Barnes does not get elected, can any 2B player ever get elected? He is far ahead of Childs, Richardson and the rest of the pack.

[DoubleX]

I hate to be a thorn in the side, but I can't bring myself to vote for Barnes at this time. I really see him more as a pioneer, playing a game that was in its extreme infancy both professionally and even in its general development. I realize that such is the case for a number of these players, but for me, I have to draw the line somewhere, and a player that mostly excelled in the 1860s or 1870s, when the game was different in many regards from what it would become just 15-25 years later (when many of these other players played), is on the wrong side of the line for me. This is why I also won't be voting for guys like Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright (I have to admit though, I am a little torn on Joe Start, and could vote for him as I am impressed by the relative length of his career for his era).

However, and this will be a general personal rule - if a player is on the cusp of election and my vote would put him over, I will vote for that player. I figure if the consensus believes the player belongs, who am I to stand in the way. Barnes is not yet at that level though.

[leecemark]

--If you are looking at this from a 1903 perspective I doubt the gap between the 1870s and 1890s looms very large. That is akin to a VC voter today boycotting all pre-segregation players, in terms of the evolution of the game.
--Heck, Barnes was a teammate of Anson's - and the better player - and Cap was the most easily elected player we've had. True Anson had the MUCH longer career and we all got to see him play, while Barnes pre-dates some of us but still saying that Barnes career was too early is quite a logical strech. If I could only pick one of them then Anson's longevity and career records would make him the choice, but we don't have to choose between them. Until Lajoie came on the scene Barnes was clearly the best ever at his position and Nap will have to play a long time to clearly overtake him. That sure seems like a Hall of Famer to me.

[Paul Wendt]

I hate to be a thorn in the side, but I can't bring myself to vote for Barnes at this time. I really see him more as a pioneer, playing a game that was in its extreme infancy both professionally and even in its general development.
Extreme infancy? In 1845 a New York newspaper published a base ball box score and the Knickerbockers codified their game. In 1853 the Eagles and Gothams joined the Knicks in agreeing common rules. Sixteen clubs convened in spring 1857 and next year formalized their National Association with annual meetings. Their were named clubs and teams in many cities and towns far from the metropolis and hundreds of thousands probably watched their games among other entertainments every July Fourth.

The infancy of the game was before 1857, the infancy of its organization and commercialization during the next decade, and the infancy of professional baseball in 1869 and 1870 when the association permitted professional clubs. The professional Forest Citys from Rockford IL visited Marshallton IA in 1870 and met Cap Anson there --and he was not yet eligible for our first election!

[Freakshow]

I hate to be a thorn in the side, but I can't bring myself to vote for Barnes at this time. I really see him more as a pioneer, playing a game that was in its extreme infancy both professionally and even in its general development. I realize that such is the case for a number of these players, but for me, I have to draw the line somewhere, and a player that mostly excelled in the 1860s or 1870s, when the game was different in many regards from what it would become just 15-25 years later (when many of these other players played), is on the wrong side of the line for me. This is why I also won't be voting for guys like Cal McVey, Al Spalding, George Wright.
In essence, you're penalizing these players for having been born too soon. OK, you have to draw a line, here's a suggestion: draw it at the beginning of professional play, not some arbitrary midpoint. Players began getting paid in the early 1860's: there is some controversy about this, whether it was Creighton or Pearce or Start or Reach or Pike. In any case, there seems little doubt that following the Civil War, the best players were for hire.

The War Between the States also saw an explosion in the game's popularity, to a more national scale. The first professional teams were organized in 1869; that's about the latest "beginning" that I could see reasonably adopted. Most of the top players were playing for professional teams from that point on.

The game has always been evolving, even to this day. Witness such a major change as the foul strike rule, adopted by the AL only this year. If anything, the great players who successfully adapted to a changing environment should be given extra credit, not dismissed wholesale for playing an "undeveloped" game. As was said, the game continues to evolve; are people in 100 years going to dismiss the great Wagner or Young because they played an "undeveloped" game? Let's hope they're not so chrono-centric, that they give the greats of every era of the game their due.

Even Mr. Anson himself will tell you that Barnes and Wright and their fellows were players of the highest caliber the game has ever seen. In this Hall of Fame we should seek to honor the greats from throughout the history of the professional game, rather than trying to wipe out their memory through some personal prejudice.

[Paul Wendt]

Personally, I'd like to see more stumping for some of these guys that are close and might get over the hump with a strong argument.
I don't think I can do more in favor of Deacon White and Paul Hines than I have done here and elsewhere in this forum, recently in the Ultimate Quest for Candidates 1870s-1880s (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77176). (See #7, 18, 23 --and the poll that closes tomorrow.) This winter I drafted them to the "Suburbs of Cooperstown" (leecemark's baby) in the first two rounds, 7th and 14th overall selections. Here their election is now three years overdue.

Let me also refer you to
"Group 3" discussion at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_the_hall_of_merit_players/) covering all eligible players with debuts before 1943. In the subsequent election
White and Hines finished 2nd and 3rd (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/election_results_group_3_favorites_are_19th_centur y_studs_dahlen_white_and_/) behind Bill Dahlen.

I agree with the Hall of Merit consensus that several other early players "merit" election to the Hall of Fame (see those election results below Hines for some idea whom). But to advance the cause of anyone else now would only reduce the impact of emphasizing White and Hines.

[Paul Wendt]

We have 18 candidates with 12 or more votes,
none with 8-11 votes,
merely 7,7,5,3,deuces,aces.

Total 307 votes or 11.8 per voter.
I guess that people who posted their votes cast more than 11.8 on average but I haven't checked.

[jjpm74]

However, and this will be a general personal rule - if a player is on the cusp of election and my vote would put him over, I will vote for that player. I figure if the consensus believes the player belongs, who am I to stand in the way. Barnes is not yet at that level though.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're talking about votes, he was 2 votes shy of election this past election. I'm not sure how much closer he needs to be than that unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[DoubleX]

Perhaps I will reconsider Barnes, but right now I see him as a pioneer because his career is completely encapsulated in the very early days of eligibility here, while others mentioned, such as Anson or White, had impressive longevity for the era, that extended much later into the development of the game. If we had pioneer/VC elections, I'd have no problem voting for Barnes.

[Freakshow]

The first 14 players elected to the Hall of Merit should be no-brainers for election here.

1898
White D
Hines P
Gore G
Barnes R
1899
O'Rourke J
Kelly K
1900
Clarkson J
Ward J
1901
Keefe T
Wright G
1902
Brouthers D
Ewing B
1903
Connor R
Anson C

In addition is the UQFC poll that Paul mentions, where White, Barnes and Hines are lapping the field.