BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1915

[DoubleX]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Until further notice, 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 are essentially votes against. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

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 stay on the ballot, with an exception for first-year eligible players, who will need at least 1 vote 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 ABs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.

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


1915 Guide
There are 37 candidates on the 1915 ballot - 26 holdovers and 11 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1910 (unless qualifying under the age rule).

First Timers (10)
Ginger Beaumont
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith – Age Rule
Harry Howell
Addie Joss – 1500 IP Rule
Willie Keeler
Sam Leever
Tully Sparks
George Stone - 3000 AB Rule
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

Holdovers (26)

Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Jake Beckley 4th 73.08% 73.91% (1913)
Cupid Childs 10th 50.00% 56.52% (1913)
Larry Corcoran 15th 15.38% 18.18% (1909)
Lave Cross 4th 19.23% 30.43% (1912)
Bill Dinneen 2nd 3.85% 3.85% (1914)
Hugh Duffy 5th 53.85% 65.22% (1912)
Hughie Jennings 2nd 50.00% 50.00% (1913)
Charley Jones 15th 30.77% 34.78% (1913)
Fielder Jones 3rd 11.54% 11.54% (1914)
Joe Kelley 3rd 50.00% 50.00% (1914)
Herman Long 7th 42.31% 56.52% (1913)
Jim McCormick 15th 23.08% 40.00% (1910)
John McGraw 5th 42.31% 47.83% (1912)
Cal McVey 15th 34.62% 56.52% (1909)
Jack O’Connor 2nd 3.85% 3.85% (1914)
Lip Pike 15th 46.15% 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 15th 69.23% 69.57% (1913)
Claude Ritchey 2nd 3.85% 3.85% (1914)
Jimmy Ryan 8th 34.62% 48.00% (1908)
Al Spalding 15th 73.08% 73.91% (1912)
Joe Start 15th 53.85% 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton 15th 46.15% 62.50% (1905)
Mike Tiernan 11th 26.92% 26.92% (1914)
George Van Haltren 8th 69.23% 69.57% (1912)
Mickey Welch 15th 53.85% 53.85% (1914)
Jimmy Williams 2nd 7.69% 7.69% (1914)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (10)

Player 1912 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Jake Beckley 73.08% 3
Al Spalding 73.08% 10
Hardy Richardson 69.23% 11
George Van Haltren 69.23% 7
Hugh Duffy 53.85% 4
Joe Start 53.85% 10
Mickey Welch 53.85% 2
Cupid Childs 50.00% 5
Hughie Jennings 50.00% 1
Joe Kelley 50.00% 1

Hall of “Almost” - Players Receiving At Least 2/3 Support in an Election But Never Elected (4)

Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Jake Beckley 73.91% (1913) 2
Al Spalding 73.91% (1912) 4
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3
George Van Haltren 69.57% (1912) 3

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (4)

Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support
Kid Gleason Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1913)
Bobby Lowe Lack of Support 3 9.09% (1913)
Deacon McGuire Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1913)
John Warner Lack of Support 2 4.35% (1913)

Last Year of Eligibility (10)

Player High Support
Larry Corcoran 18.18% (1909)
Charley Jones 32.00% (1910, 1911)
Jim McCormick 40.00% (1910)
Cal McVey 56.52% (1909)
Lip Pike 56.52% (1909)
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1913)
Al Spalding 73.91% (1912)
Joe Start 65.22% (1912)
Ezra Sutton 62.50% (1905)
Mickey Welch 52.00% (1910)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (0)


Hall of Famers

Players Elected (32)

Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1871-1897 27
Ross Barnes 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (AL) 1895-1908 14
Roger Conner 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1879-1892 14
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (NL) 1878-1893 16
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (3): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Deacon White
First Base (3): Cap Anson, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (2): Ross Barnes, Bid McPhee
Third Base (1): Jimmy Collins
Shortstop (4): George Davis, Jack Glasscock, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (4): Jesse Burkett, Ed Delahanty, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (4): Pete Browning, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines
Right Field (2): King Kelly, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (9): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Conner, 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

First Balloters (16)

Player Year Elected
Cap Anson 1902
Dan Brouthers 1901
Jesse Burkett 1910
John Clarkson 1901
Jimmy Collins 1913
Roger Conner 1902
George Davis 1914
Ed Delahanty 1908
Buck Ewing 1902
Billy Hamilton 1906
Tim Keefe 1901
Jim O’Rourke 1901
Joe McGinnity 1913
Kid Nichols 1911
Charley Radbourn 1901
Amos Rusie 1906


Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 16
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 8
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: 11 – Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.29
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 27 Players (1908)
- Most Votes Cast: 26 (1903, 1914)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 23.21
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 8
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Buffalo Bisons, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings) - 3
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Ross Barnes – 9 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.44 Seasons
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Jake Beckley, Al Spalding – 73.91%

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

Links to Past Elections (10)
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)

[DoubleX]

Sorry for any confusion with this thread. I had to restart it because I left George Stone out originally.

I've gone full 15 this time given the newcomers:

Jake Beckley
Elmer Flick
Addie Joss - Short career, just 9 years, but all peak and quite an impressive peak at that. It's tough to hold death against a person. Would he really be that much better of a candidate if he was able to play a few more mediocre years?
Willie Keeler - Something tells me that he'll be treated similarly as Beckley. Keeler was though, without question, a bona fide star of his time, and that should be kept in mind.
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Jimmy Ryan
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Rube Waddell
Mickey Welch
Vic Willis

As I mentioned in the 1914 election, I've added Spalding to my ballot. I don't support his candidacy per se, but I don't object either, so with him being in his last year, in deference to his supporters which brought him close, I will remove the obstacle of my non-vote, which is essentially a vote against. That vote would otherwise have gone to Joe Kelley. I also dropped Mike Tiernan and Jimmy Williams from my ballot. I gave Williams a charity vote last time. I gave Clark Griffith a lot of consideration as well.

[Erik Bedard]

Addie Joss

If I'm going to open up my voting standards, it'll have to wait until next year.

[jjpm74]

The guys in italics are all in their last year of eligibility. I'm hoping at least 1 of them makes it this time and that everyone's giving extra consideration to the 15th year guys:

Jake Beckley
Larry Corcoran
Elmer Flick
Charley Jones
Addie Joss
Sam Leever
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
George Stone
Ezra Sutton
Rube Waddell

In my queue and likely to be added in 1916:

Clark Griffith
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley

In my consideration set/will not block on 15th try:

Cupid Childs
Vic Willis

No longer on my ballot:

Cupid Childs
Lave Cross
Bill Dinneen
Herman Long

1st time eligibles on my 1916 consideration list:

Bill Dahlen
Deacon Phillippe
Jesse Tannehill
Cy Young

[jjpm74]

Addie Joss

If I'm going to open up my voting standards, it'll have to wait until next year.

Addie Joss, but not Rube Waddell or Elmer Flick? No consideration for any of the 15th year guys?

[DoubleX]

Addie Joss

If I'm going to open up my voting standards, it'll have to wait until next year.

But not Waddell? This is probably the best collection of players we've had since the first year or two. I find it hard to believe that a voter can find no more than 1 worthy player.

[Windy City Fan]

I'd ask folks to really take a look at some of the old stars who are on their last ballot.

Spalding has consistently been just short of election. He was the best pitcher of his day, a pretty good hitter too, and then there's his off field contributions if you'd like to include those.

Welch is a guy I know a lot of folks have a distaste for thanks to some former voters. However, at the current date of 1915, his wins and IP are still impressive totals. For IP, only Cy Young, Kid Nichols, Tim Keefe, and Pud Galvin are better. For wins he's still 8th overall with Young, Mathewson, Galvin, Nichols, Keefe, Clarkson, and Radbourn ahead of him. Eddie Plank passes him in 1916, but no one else is on the radar to challenge his mark. His ERA+ for his peak isn't unreasonably low. And while he pitched on some good teams, its not like he played for a periennial juggernaught. If you supported Mullane, Caruthers, or McGinnty, I'd ask you to take a last look at Welch before voting.

Joe Start was perhaps the first star of the game. His pro career dates back to the game's origins almost and he had impressive longevity as well - which was really unheard of in his day.

McVey was another 1860's star who played well in the 1870's. He left the game still very much a productive star. He played all over the diamond, at first, third, outfield, catcher, and even pitched some (poorly though). Wikipedia (I know not the best source) implies that the reserve clause rule may have prompted his decision to move out west. In San Francsico he played for Pacific Coast league for a number of years, also managing there (as he had in the majors at the end of career as well). Wikipedia also says he helped organize teams out west too. I'm not sure if he was involved in the Pacific Coast League or not, but it sounds like he was an important figure in establishing baseball out west. Does anyone else have any other information on his involvement in west coast baseball?

Lip Pike's career started in 1866. An interesting story was that Pike and 2 other players for the Athletics were charged with being paid under the table by the National Association of Baseball Players. A hearing was scheduled, but no one showed up (as paying players under the table was an open secret) and it helped pave the way for the first openly professional team.

As a player, Pike played OF mostly, but also did some time in the infield. His hitting numbers speak for themselves. The odd thing about Pike is, after having a pretty solid season in 1878 (137 OPS, though he did finish poorly his last 5 games after being traded), no NL team signed him for 3 years. He came back at 36, but played poorly in a brief appearance (5 games) and was actually banned for playing so poorly. Pike was also a player/manager 3 different years if that sort of thing interests you, though his managerial record wasn't very stellar.

[KCGHOST]

Beckley
Childs
Duffy
Flick
Griffith
Joss
Keeler
J. Kelley
McGraw
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Waddell

[Freakshow]

G. Davis, Duffy and C. Jones are replaced by Flick, Keeler and Waddell.

Beckley
Childs
Flick
Jennings
Keeler
J. Kelley
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren
Waddell

[Erik Bedard]

Missed Waddell. He belongs for sure. I'd request a vote to be added, but I doubt it'll matter. I was kinda in a rush to get to my doctor's appointment (foot surgery) and didn't give it the due diligence. Plus I forgot to vote last time, and I wanted to get my ballot in ASAP. Flick is very, very close as well, but I didn't vote for him. I think I'll loosen my requirements next year, and if Keeler, Flick, or Willis don't get in, they'll all make my ballot next year. I set 1915 as the date after which I will re-examine my procedures, and I'm sticking to that.

[dgarza]

Jake Beckley
Larry Corcoran
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Charley Jones
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Jim McCormick
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
George Van Haltren
Rube Waddell
Mickey Welch
Vic Willis


1. Al Spalding
2. Willie Keeler
3. Hugh Duffy
4. Jim McCormick
5. Mickey Welch
6. Rube Waddell
7. Elmer Flick
8. Cal McVey
9. Vic Willis
10. George Van Haltren
11. Jake Beckley
12. Addie Joss
13. Hardy Richardson
14. Charley Jones
15. Larry Corcoran

[Paul Wendt]

In 1876 and 1877 Hardy Richardson played for the Binghamton NY Crickets, one strong independent club in 1876 (when there were no organizations but the National League and some state associations) and one member of the (National) League Alliance in 1877. The Alliance clubs were affiliated with the National League but did not compete for any pennant. Frank Vaccaro has designated one common lineup for each team, with Richardson batting third and fielding center for Binghamton.

In 1878, Hardy Richardson was a star in the International Association, the National League's rival. Apparently a full schedule would have been 48 games/decisions for each team but three of thirteen did not complete the season. Richardson played 40 games for Utica, "of-2b-c" according to the SABR compiler, and the New York Clipper named him the best fielding centerfielder (in IA?). He ranked second in batting average among 20-game players, fourth among all 10-game players. He finished in ties for second in hits, first in doubles, first in extra bases, and fifth in runs.

No one has compiled data on the IA home ballparks. Three teams yielded less than 3.00 runs per game (home and away), presumably led by their pitchers Fred Goldsmith, Jim Galvin, and Jim McCormick. Hardy Richardson and batting leader John O'Rourke both played for good teams but neither benefited from playing on one of the stingy teams. The IA median team batting average was .219 (NL .259), IA median team runs scored 4.25 per game (NL 5.17)! Richardson batted .324 and scored 30 runs.

Hardy Richardson would be one MVP candidate as many people understand that today, where pitchers have their own award.

--
There are some more notes on Richardson in the "Group 3" discussion thread at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/), especially #58-64, #72-73, #157-59

[BlueBlood]

Davis being elected knocked my ballot down to 11 names which is great because I expected to support four of the newcomers. Unfortunately, I actually support five of the newcomers, skipping over Keeler when I last saw the list. Push comes to shove, I'll give Keeler the vote in the next go-around in order to ensure that the "old-timers" close to election can sneak in.

1. Beckley
2. Childs
3. Duffy
4. Flick
5. Jennings
6. Joss
7. McCormick
8. Pike
9. Richardson
10. Spalding
11. Start
12. Sutton
13. Van Haltren
14. Waddell
15. Willis

Ranked By # of Ballot Appearances:

Fifteen (1901 onward) - Joe Start
Fourteen (1902 onward) - Hardy Richardson
Ten (1906 onward) - Cupid Childs
Ten (1905 and 1907-1914) - Jim McCormick, Ezra Sutton
Nine (1901, 1908-1915) - Al Spalding
Eight (1908 onward) - Lip Pike, George Van Haltren
Five (1911 onward) - Hugh Duffy
Four (1912 onward) - Jake Beckley
Two (1914 onward) - Hughie Jennings
One (1915 onward) - Flick, Waddell, Willis

In my queue: Keeler

[jalbright]

Childs
Duffy
Flick
Keeler
Kelley
Long
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren
Waddell
Willis

I think Griffith belongs, but more as a VC choice.

[leecemark]

--I don't see Joss as anywhere near the best playe or even pitcher on the ballot. The problem is not just his short career, but a lack of in season durability. His quality was high, but not exceptionally so when you compare him only the the primes of other pitching candidates (his high career ERA+ is greatly aided by his lack of decline years - although I'm sure he would have preferred to have had those years regardless of how much it hurt his record). The othe thing is that, even if he had lived, his career was probably not destined to be a long one. He suffered a serious arm injury the year before his death that already threatened his career.

[DoubleX]

--I don't see Joss as anywhere near the best playe or even pitcher on the ballot. The problem is not just his short career, but a lack of in season durability. His quality was high, but not exceptionally so when you compare him only the the primes of other pitching candidates (his high career ERA+ is greatly aided by his lack of decline years - although I'm sure he would have preferred to have had those years regardless of how much it hurt his record). The othe thing is that, even if he had lived, his career was probably not destined to be a long one. He suffered a serious arm injury the year before his death that already threatened his career.

His high career ERA+ is inflated by a short career, but it's hard to deny that a 9 year peak ERA+ of 142 is not Hall of Fame worthy, IMO. Tack on maybe 5 more so-so years and he's still likely at around at least 130 for his career.

[philkid3]

Jake Beckley
Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Hughie Jennings
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Cal McVey
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Rube Waddell
Mickey Welch

[philkid3]

A rare year where there's not enough room on my ballot. Even though most of them were on the back end of my queue, I bumped all the guys on their last year of eligibility (who I had voted for in the past) to the top. That knocked a couple guys who I had higher off.

Beckley was probably the lowest of the guys with eligibility left past this year, but he's been so close I voted for him anyway. I don't want the one year I don't vote for him to be the one year where my vote makes a difference.

I find it interesting that Waddell was near the back of my queue (after last-timers being bumped up) but he's currently the only person who would get in if voting stopped today. I'm amazed Elmer Flick isn't getting more support.

If someone can convince me not to vote for Flick in the future, I invite you to do so. He's at the top of my queue and I want to know what I'm missing that's so damning. I mean, I've been aware in the past that I like him more than others, but still.

I didn't vote for Joss yet. I probably will, but I want to take at least a ballot to think about it and see the arguments.

I'm ver close on Beaumont and Griffith and could be persuaded to vote for them in the future. I would very much like to see anyone else's arguments for them.

[PVNICK]

Beckley
Childs
Cross
Keeler
Long
McGraw
Pike
Richardson
Ryan
Spalding
Start
Tiernan
Van Haltren
Waddell
Welch

I didn't see it with the other 15th year players. I thought about casting a vote for Ritchey rather than Keeler just to keep him on the ballot, but a solid second baseman with good fielding numbers on a "mini-dynasty" was not worht what it would be in another fifty years. At any rate his offense was average at best even if every now and then he was the best 2B in the NL it is nowhere near Hall worthy, even just to keep him in the conversation.

[Brooklyn]

Beckley, Joss, Keeler, Spalding, Welch


I was close on Elmer Flick, Rube Waddell, and Vic Willis. It doesn't look like Waddell is ging to need my support, but may consider voting for any of these three in the next election.

I'm surprised that Joss is getting such little support so far. I'm assuming Koufax will fly through this process. What makes Koufax superier to Joss? Other than the 3 Cy youngs (which weren't around in Joss's day)?

I've been voting Spalding and Welch for 15 years. I'm hopeful for Spalding, but can see that Welch really doesn't have a chance. I know he is viewed as an accumulator, but his totals are still holding up, 15 years later. At least I can stop checking both their names next year, one way or another...

[jalbright]

Addie Joss

However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.

......
I feel that Joss, Waddell, and other pitchers from that era such as Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown and Smokey Joe Wood don't get the credit they deserve. They shouldn't be mentioned quite in the same breath as the Big 4 from that era (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Young), but they are just below them IMO. I may be stretching it with Smokey Joe, but at his peak he was awesome and Walter once said no man alive can throw harder than Smokey Joe.

Well, I'm glad we don't have to debate that at least Walter Johnson, Mathewson and Cy Young are all superior to Joss. Joss finishes 11th among pitchers in the decade 1900-09 behind those three, McGinnity, Waddell, Vic Willis, Plank, Three Finger Brown, Chesbro, Doc White and Jack Powell. I can see putting Joss ahead of White and Powell on peak performance. I look at six categories for guys in this era: Black Ink, Gray ink, HOF standards, career win shares, win share total in his best three seasons, and best win share total in five consecutive seasons. We'll go through the comparison to Chesbro in detail below in a moment. Of the HOFers (thus leaving out White and Powell), Joss can only edge Plank in gray ink, tie Waddell in HOF standards, and get Willis in HOF standards and best five consecutive, at least in that decade. He gets swamped on career wins shares by every one of them and often is significantly behind these guys in at least most of these categories. Even if we cut it down to 8 seasons in the decade like Joss (who only managed 7 more win shares from 1910 on), these guys are still beating him.

The real coup de grace for Joss's case in my mind, though, is the comparison to Jack Chesbro:



…………………...... Chesbro Joss
Black Ink………… 27 19
Gray Ink………… 130 143
HOF standards… 40 47
career WS………. 209 191
WS 1900-09……… 203 184
best 8 WS……….. 195 184
best 3 WS……… 103 88
best 5 consecWS 143 131


I threw in the decade and best 8 seasons figures to try and give Joss a break, but it did no good. There's 130 years of baseball, and we've got 70 major league pitchers or so in the Hall. That works out to about six a decade on average if we leave out the last decade. If you want to push it to 7 or 8 by taking fewer 19th century guys and eliminating duplicates, OK--but we already have 8 from the decade before getting to Joss versus Chesbro. The selection of Chesbro has drawn a lot of flak, but if we're only going to take Chesbro or Joss, I take Chesbro hands down.

I might add that only three of the ten most similar pitchers to Joss are in the HOF, and two of them are Candy Cummings (for his supposed invention of the curve) and Monte Ward (who had about two other HOF caliber careers in baseball, one as a shortstop and another as a executive type).

I'll add this analysis by AG2004:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He led Cleveland’s pitchers in win shares in 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1908.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He never led AL pitchers in win shares, although he finished second in 1908. He was third among major league pitchers in win shares that season, but that was his only year among the top six in win shares among MLB pitchers.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

He had 35 win shares in 1908, when Cleveland lost the pennant by half a game, and pitched a perfect game in the heat of the pennant race. Otherwise, Cleveland wasn’t close to winning the pennant during Joss’ career.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

For Joss, this question is not relevant. He died of meningitis at the age of 31, so we don’t know what his decline would have been like had he lived.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

By similarity scores: John Ward, Larry Corcoran, Deacon Phillippe, Jeff Pfeffer, Noodles Hahn, Hooks Wiltse, Dizzy Dean, Jack Coombs, Candy Cummings, and Fred Toney. Three of the ten are in Cooperstown, but Ward also had a career as a shortstop, and Cummings is in as inventor of the curveball. However, Joss’ lifetime ERA+ of 141 is the best of the bunch; nobody else has one higher than 131. Similarity scores don’t help us here.

Career win shares, contemporary P: Sam Leever 212, Jack Chesbro 209, Deacon Philippe 206, Wild Bill Donovan 202, Bill Dineen 200, JOSS 191, Jack Taylor 183. Chesbro is the only one in Cooperstown, and he’s considered one of the Hall’s mistakes. Otherwise, these aren’t Hall of Famers.

Best three seasons, contemporary P: Vic Willis 101, Clark Griffith 94, Eddie Plank 89, Jack Powell 89, JOSS 88, Jack Taylor 85, Bill Dineen 81, Babe Adams 81, George Mullin 80. This isn’t BBFHOF territory, either.

Best five consecutive seasons: Vic Willis 138, Bill Dineen 134, Eddie Plank 133, JOSS 131, Jack Taylor 124. This isn’t the best company for Joss, as he’s just below the cutoff line.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

His Black Ink score of 19 is only 99th, and his Gray Ink score of 143 is just 102nd. Those are not good marks. However, he does place a decent 42nd in HOF Standards, at 47.0.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Joss pitched in the deadball era, which makes his raw numbers look better. Also, he had no decline phase to lower his career numbers.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. There are many other pitchers better than Joss who aren’t in the BBFHOF. There are pitchers better than Joss who haven’t even received votes in the BBFHOF elections.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

There was no MVP award during Joss’ career. He finished second in win shares among AL pitchers in 1908, however.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

There was no All-Star game in Joss’ era. Baseball Magazine started naming its all-league and all-American teams in 1908. Joss was one of the five pitchers on its all-AL team that season, but failed to make the all-American team that year.

Joss had only two seasons in which he was among the top five AL pitchers in win shares. He was sixth one other year, and seventh two other times. But three or four All-Star-type seasons is very low for a pitcher.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I don’t know. Joss had only two seasons when he was among the top five pitchers in the AL in win shares. However, those were the only seasons when he was among the top ten in the AL in IP and games started. I don’t know why he wasn’t used as often as other leading pitchers in the league.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He pitched a perfect game in 1908. He’s also known as the player Cooperstown waived its ten-year requirement for.

Joss has the best WHIP of any major league pitcher in history, and the second best ERA of any pitcher. He’s twelfth in adjusted ERA+ among major league pitchers.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

As far as I can tell.

CONCLUSION: A player with a career as short as Joss’ needs a huge peak in order to deserve induction into the BBFHOF. Joss had very good rate stats, but suffers in the win shares measures because he usually didn’t pitch as many times per season as his contemporaries. As he doesn’t come close to having the best peak among pitchers of the twentieth century’s first decade - he didn't make Baseball Magazine's list of top five pitchers in 1908, his best season - Joss does not deserve induction into the BBFHOF.

[leecemark]

--Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.

[leecemark]

--Al Spaulding is exactly at 75% in his last year on the ballot. This IS a pitcher with a huge peak. In only 5 seasons as a regular pitcher Splauding was so dominant he compiled so much Black Ink that he is still 13th all time - 130 years later. He won 252 games in those 5 seasons (no wonder his arm gave out!) putting up an ERA+ over 140. He was also a good hitter, putting up a 116 OPS+. Apparently a good fielder too. His fielding percentage was .58 over league and his range factor was 25% better than the league. Obviously a short career, but packing 253 wins into it still gives him some worthy counting stats (and he won all those games in very short schedule seasons).

[DoubleX]

--Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.

Come on, he was better than Rijo. Significantly better ERA+, and was healthier year in and year out than Rijo, and thus pitched a much more respectable amount of innings in his era than Rijo did in his. My support for Joss isn't that strong, so I'll leave it at that.

It will be interesting to see how Spalding plays out.

As a final observation, just glossing over players we've elected, it looks like the bulk of our electees played during the 1880s, which makes me wonder if we're having trouble adjusting our standards to how the game and statistics subsequently changed.

[BlueBlood]

At this point, Spalding is the only man worth discussing. Waddell's in, the rest have no prayer.

For Spalding, take into account that he was one of the most dominant players of his era, and later, one of the most important figures in the game's eventual growth. Nobody would leave him out of their Hall as a contributor, so I urge everyone to vote for him now. He's going to get in anyway in our VC, so why not elect the whole portrait of the man which includes his playing time? Really, he's the only guy that's been consistently close to election that I'm certain will be a shoe-in during his first VC year. Voting against Spalding now is just delaying the process, he's in no matter what, so why block him?

[NineWorldSeries]

I think this is my biggest ballot so far:

Beckley
Duffy
Griffith
Jennings
Joss
Keeler
McCormick
McGraw
Spalding
Van Haltren
Waddell
Welch
Willis

[Brad Harris]

Duffy
Griffith
Jennings
Jones
Keeler
Kelley
McVey
Pike
Richardson
Spalding
Start
Sutton
Van Haltren
Waddell
Willis

[philkid3]

I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.

[BlueBlood]

Spalding's had a nice push today, but all it takes is the next vote to be from a detractor and he slips to 15 of 20, 75%. I think he'll make it over the hurdle this time. Some voters that see a guy over usually decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've also noticed a few on here adding support for Spalding so at least one of our longest holdovers won't need to make their case to the VC.


I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.

Well, Beaumont is at zero votes at the moment so it's not really worth discussing. The rest of the new crop has led him to be in the dust right away.

[jjpm74]

I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.

Ginger Beaumont--one batting title in 1902, a speed demon who topped 100 runs 4 times, had a career .311 BA, 123 OPS+, decent on base percentage. No significant peak to speak of, but a solid contributor during a 12 year career.

Clark Griffith--decent manager, above average pitcher. Playing career + managing career will probably lead to his eventual induction through the VC. His ERA+ of 121 is decent. He also had a decent peak, but a short career.

[philkid3]

I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.

I don't know what everyone else's queue looks like, but after this ballot, if we're keeping things at 15, mine will be wide open next year.

[Brad Harris]

I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.
Easily one of the 10, if not 5, most deserving players on next year's ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

If someone can convince me not to vote for Flick in the future, I invite you to do so. He's at the top of my queue and I want to know what I'm missing that's so damning. I mean, I've been aware in the past that I like him more than others, but still.
. . .
I'm ver close on Beaumont and Griffith and could be persuaded to vote for them in the future. I would very much like to see anyone else's arguments for them.
Regarding this little Hall of Fame, I don't believe there is a good argument against Flick or for Beaumont. Elmer Flick was one of the great batsmen of his time, with Sam Crawford in a class above the centerfielders and not far short of the great Frenchman. Ginger Beaumont was merely one of the better centerfielders during a golden age, not so good as his close contemporaries Roy Thomas and Fielder Jones, maybe not so good as Cy Seymour. I would vote for Beaumont rather than Flick for the sake of providing a good field for comparison next year when we catch our breath and see what a slew of outfielders we have to sort out.

--
Last winter the neighboring "Ultimate Quest for Candidates" considered the best players with major league careers centered in the 19-aughts. (And not in Cooperstown, so Flick, Clarke, and Crawford were not on the ballot.) Beaumont finished 10th but only 6th or 7th among outfielders. Here are the results.

Jimmy Sheckard 82%
Tommy Leach 78% (half-time CF)
Roy Thomas 73% (CF)
Cy Seymour 52% (CF, some pitching)
Mike Donlin 51% (:rolleyes:, some vaudeville)
Fielder Jones 47% (CF)
Harry Davis 36%
Bill Dinneen 25% (p)
Johnny Kling 22%
Ginger Beaumont 21% (CF)

The six winners, Sheckard to Jones, advanced to a second poll where they scored 12, 9, 0, 0, 4, and 2 votes. (That is, led once again by Sheckard who did not play CF.) Three other centerfielders scored Van Haltren 13, Jimmy Ryan 9, Dummy Hoy 3.
--

One point for Roy Thomas over Beaumont and everyone else is his skill at reaching base. Everyone's favorite measure OPS+ is based on the sum of on-base and slugging averages, which is an approximation. Statistical analysis shows that "one point on base" is more valuable than "one point slugging" so Thomas was a superior batsman despite OPS+ equal to Beaumont's. (Thomas +81 points above league on-base average, -10 points below league slugging average. Beaumont +31 and +47.) Thomas was also a great amateur player for several years before he turned pro, first at the University of Pennsylvania and then at the Orange Athletic Club, Orange NJ. In the field Bill James grades them A- and B+ where B+ may be average in centerfield.

One point for Fielder Jones over Beaumont and everyone else is his fielding. He may be the best we have seen, or the best with the batting skill to support a major league career (deferring to Jimmy McAleer). He played four early seasons in rightfield beside Mike Griffin and Dummy Hoy but he still earns the A+ grade from Bill James. Jones was another leadoff batter, a "slap hitter" who specialized in bases on balls. It may be fair to call him the poor man's Roy Thomas as a batsman (+.042 on-base, -.005 slugging).

Of course Jones earned his greatest fame as the leader of Comiskey's Hitless Wonders. For five seasons they won at least 87 games (.576) and finished at least third in the pennant race. In his last season they needed only one more win against the Tigers for a second miracle.

American League 1908
ops+ era+ W L
119 100 : 90 63 Detroit
100 118 : 90 64 Cleveland
_90 104 : 88 64 Chicago

[Paul Wendt]

>>
I would vote for Beaumont rather than Flick for the sake of providing a good field for comparison next year when we catch our breath and see what a slew of outfielders we have to sort out.
<<

I did it, so Beaumont will be there to make Thomas look better next year. :)
My vote was also the first for Fielder Jones whose other supporters have flown the coop. So he will not be there without help.

Should the word 'flick' be a synonym for 'flown': the other supporters have flick the coop? It should be related to fly, flew, flight and flit somehow.

--
It looks like we will have a whole slew of outfielders to sort, with only the older guys Stovey, Browning, and Thompson as low points of reference.

We will not have such a backlog of pitchers and we will have McGinnity and Waddell from our own time "in" with Mullane and Caruthers.

--
The record shows that I dropped Beckley and McGraw for Duffy. Huh? Evidently I voted very quickly. Thank heaven I don't make such mistakes elsewhere.
In the event, it doesn't matter. "Everyone" has 1/3 to 2/3 of the vote.

[TheSlaff]

Jake Beckley
Hugh Duffy
Hughie Jennings
Charley Jones
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
John McGraw
Cal McVey
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Rube Waddell

[jjpm74]

I don't understand how Hardy Richardson has slipped so many spaces in his last year of eligibility when he only fell short 1-2 votes in the past several elections :confused:

[BlueBlood]

I don't understand how Hardy Richardson has slipped so many spaces in his last year of eligibility when he only fell short 1-2 votes in the past several elections :confused:

Easy. Strong freshman crop led some people to drop him in order to whittle their list down to 15 names. I, for example, have Keeler (and now Kelley) in my queue. That's 17 names I support!

[jjpm74]

Easy. Strong freshman crop led some people to drop him in order to whittle their list down to 15 names. I, for example, have Keeler (and now Kelley) in my queue. That's 17 names I support!

Right, but Richardson's not available to vote on again next year. Keeler and Kelley will be.

[BlueBlood]

Which is something a few obviously didn't consider. :banghead:

[DoubleX]

I'll be very interested in how B-F treats Dahlen next round. Not only because of our rumored desire to right what we see as wrongs, but just to see how sure-fire we consider him.

Ideally, we're not trying to right wrongs here, as we're acting as if the real Hal does not exist. The problem is that I think on some level, perhaps just subconciously, that people may have their objectivity clouded by some need to right a wrong, both in terms of inducting players or not voting for lower tier Hall of Famers. In any event, I strongly urge voters to disregard everything they know of the real Hall of Fame and everything they know of baseball history in the years following the election. Try your best to assess players in the context of their time and the context of baseball history at this point. For instance, I feel that some people might not be voting for Jake Beckley because of how they perceive 1B post-Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg, and that should not be here.

[philkid3]

Ideally, we're not trying to right wrongs here, as we're acting as if the real Hal does not exist. The problem is that I think on some level, perhaps just subconciously, that people may have their objectivity clouded by some need to right a wrong, both in terms of inducting players or not voting for lower tier Hall of Famers.
Oh, I agree, it's not what we're openly setting out to do, but as someone (I think you) pointed out, guys who we all see as getting snubbed are going to be given even more support than maybe equal or better players who have not been snubbed. Ron Santo is going to get in on a land slide I'll bet.

It's probably subconcious, but I think we're all going to fall in to the trap. Not that I think it's a big deal, but I think Dahlen will be an interesting early case on the matter.

[leecemark]

Ideally, we're not trying to right wrongs here, as we're acting as if the real Hal does not exist. The problem is that I think on some level, perhaps just subconciously, that people may have their objectivity clouded by some need to right a wrong, both in terms of inducting players or not voting for lower tier Hall of Famers. In any event, I strongly urge voters to disregard everything they know of the real Hall of Fame and everything they know of baseball history in the years following the election. Try your best to assess players in the context of their time and the context of baseball history at this point. For instance, I feel that some people might not be voting for Jake Beckley because of how they perceive 1B post-Gehrig/Foxx/Greenberg, and that should not be here.


--You don't have to look ahead to Gehrig and Foxx to not find Beckley appealing. You can just as easily look back to Anso, Brouthers and Conner. All three are vastly superior to Beckley and that is our current standard at firstbase.

[leecemark]

--Spaulding and Waddell are at 19 of 23 votes. Looks like Albert will finally make it on his last shot and Rube will on his first. They can each survive 2 votes against and still be at 75. Three more voters and one fo them would have to support to get them in.
--Nobody else is even close. 14 votes is next best and that would require 13 more voters all in favor to get them to 75%. Several near misses from the last election have seen their support erode. Not sure if that is a change in who has voted this "year" or a change of mind on the parts of some voters.

[DoubleX]

--You don't have to look ahead to Gehrig and Foxx to not find Beckley appealing. You can just as easily look back to Anso, Brouthers and Conner. All three are vastly superior to Beckley and that is our current standard at firstbase.

Mark, we've had this discussion. In the approximately 50 years between the primes of Anson, Brouthers, and Conner, and then Gehrig, and Foxx, Beckley has a strong argument for being right up there at 1B for that period. That should tell you something about the position during that period. You railing on and on before about how we need better representation from a generation, notably the 1870s, tempering our expectations appropriately to the era, particularly for middle ifers; well in this case, I don't think some people are tempering expectations of Beckley to his era. If you're comparing him to Anson, Brouthers, and Conner, or later to Gehrig and Foxx, it's ignoring how Beckley really stood at 1B like very few others did in that 50 year gap, and ignoring how the expectations of 1B in general were vastly different. If you're going to compare Beckley to Anson et al, then I'm going to go back to comparing Welch to McGinnity and wonder why one gets in on the 1st ballot and one perpetually struggles to get 1/3 of the vote (but I'm tired of that conversation). If we were actually voting in 1915, I find it extremely hard to believe that people would not vote for Beckley (or Welch).

[leecemark]

--I am tired of both discussions, but if you are going to suggest that it takes looking into the future to see Beckley as a less than great 1B its only fair to point out the much greater ones who preceeded him. As voters in 1915 most of us remember the great 19th century firstbasemen - they were active only 20 years ago. Beckley doesn't measure up.

[Windy City Fan]

Beckley being the best first baseman between Anson and Gehrig is an argument for him, but its not necessarily a persuasive one. It is possible that position just didn't have a HOF caliber player for that period of time. Talent isn't distributed perfectly even across eras or positions.

I'm curious where Beckley's counting stats rank all-time in 1915? However, I do think part of his impressive counting stats is him benefiting from being a player with unusual longevity during the time when schedules were expanded. If Beckley had played a generation earlier would he have stood out without an expanded schedule to help pad his counting stats?

[DoubleX]

Here's who I got for eligibility next year:

Bill Bergen - Likely won't be on ballot
Kitty Bransfield
Wid Conroy
Bill Dahlen
Patsy Dougherty
Topsy Hartsel
Charlie Hemphill
Freddy Parent
Deacon Phillippe
Harry Steinfeldt
Jesse Tannehill
Roy Thomas
Cy Young

[henrich]

Mark, we've had this discussion. In the approximately 50 years between the primes of Anson, Brouthers, and Conner, and then Gehrig, and Foxx, Beckley has a strong argument for being right up there at 1B for that period. That should tell you something about the position during that period. You railing on and on before about how we need better representation from a generation, notably the 1870s, tempering our expectations appropriately to the era, particularly for middle ifers; well in this case, I don't think some people are tempering expectations of Beckley to his era. If you're comparing him to Anson, Brouthers, and Conner, or later to Gehrig and Foxx, it's ignoring how Beckley really stood at 1B like very few others did in that 50 year gap, and ignoring how the expectations of 1B in general were vastly different. If you're going to compare Beckley to Anson et al, then I'm going to go back to comparing Welch to McGinnity and wonder why one gets in on the 1st ballot and one perpetually struggles to get 1/3 of the vote (but I'm tired of that conversation). If we were actually voting in 1915, I find it extremely hard to believe that people would not vote for Beckley (or Welch).


I would vote Welch and Beckley in as well. They are both worthy then and even now that I look back at them. They both hit the 10,000 mark.

[DoubleX]

What are Willie Keeler's prospects going forward? He looks to be in pretty good shape for eventual election, but you never know. He was a bona fide star and character in his time, and I fine it hard to believe that an electorate in 1915 wouldn't be extremely eager to induct him. Looking at the real Hall, he was put in all the way back in 1939. I mention this only to illustrate that Keeler was regarded as a true a star, one that people felt should be honored in the Hall upon its grand opening and that should count for quite a bit, IMO.

Anyway, next year's election should be really interesting given how the ballot will be losing a number of players (though it's also gaining a decent number).

[Brad Harris]

Here's who I got for eligibility next year:

Bill Bergen - Likely won't be on ballot
Kitty Bransfield
Wid Conroy
Bill Dahlen
Patsy Dougherty
Topsy Hartsel
Charlie Hemphill
Freddy Parent
Deacon Phillippe
Harry Steinfeldt
Jesse Tannehill
Roy Thomas
Cy Young

Very rarely do we elect more players than we have worthies coming up on the next ballot so I, too often, feel that progress is diminishing on a lot of these more questionable guys. I suppose the 15-year rule will help clear some of this out.

I'm only interested in Dahlen and Young on next year's ballot among noobs.

[leecemark]

--Young and Dahlen are the new guys who will make my ballot also. From my current ballet;
Headed for election: Spaulding and Waddell
Headed for the VC: Sutton, Start, McVey, Pike and Richardson
Definately returning: Flick, Griffith
Probably returning: Jennings (maybe be better suited for the VC)
Probably not returning: Long (Dahlen makes him look less worthy and he was already very fringey)

--Not on my current ballot, but under consideration: Keeler, Kelley, Willis. I'm listening if any of their current supporters want to make a case.

[BlueBlood]

Mine

Headed For Election: Spalding, Waddell
Headed For VC: Sutton, Start, Pike, Richardson

Definitely Returning On My Next Ballot: Beckley, Childs, Duffy, Flick, Jennings Joss, Van Haltren, Willis
Newbies On My Next Ballot: Dahlen, Young
Probably Making It Onto My Next Ballot: Keeler, Kelley

At least now I won't have to shuffle a lot of guys on and off. On the flip side, time to get my debriefings in order and make a case in front of the VC for Ezra Sutton, Joe Start, Lip Pike and Hardy Richardson.

[DoubleX]

Mark, I hadn't realized you were voting for Griffith. I can't quite understand how you could support Griffith but be so eager to dismiss Joss. Is it a player/manager bonus? The extra career value that Griffith has doesn't come close, IMO, to making up the huge gap that Joss has in peak value. Moreover, you mentioned that a knock against Joss was that he wasn't particularly durable during his career, well Griffith was even less durable. Griffith only once finished in top the 5 in IP with a peak of 3rd, and just twice in the top 10. Joss twice finished in the top 5 with a peak of 2nd, which isn't particularly impressive, but it shows that one of the things you hold against Joss is even more against Griffith. Plus, Griffith had more opportunities to finish in among the leaders in IP due to Joss' early and unfortunate death (which you seem to hold against him as well).

As for peak, Griffith can't touch Joss. Here are their top 9 ERA+ seasons (just 9, because Joss died), plus their finishes in ERA+:

Joss: 205, 160, 151, 149, 137, 130, 130, 124, 114
Griffith: 190, 134, 130, 130, 128, 120, 119, 115, 114

Joss 9-Year (Consecutive) Average: 142
Griffith 9-Year (Non-Consecutive) Average: 131

Times in Top 5 in ERA+
Joss: 5
Griffith: 2

Times in Top 10 in ERA+
Joss: 8
Griffith: 5

I can definitely understand not wanting to vote for Joss, but I just can't at all see a justification to vote for Griffith and not Joss. Joss is so far ahead in peak, had his career cut short by DEATH of all things, and Griffith is similarly deficient in an area you hold against Joss. It doesn't make sense unless you're giving a huge bump for player/manager value.

As for your wavering on Keeler, like I said in an earlier post, he was one of the biggest starts of the game when he played, big enough that people thought he should be among those select few included in the Hall upon its grand opening in 1939. I find it extremely hard to believe that people in 1915 would not emphatically support Keeler for the Hall.

[jjpm74]

I can definitely understand not wanting to vote for Joss, but I just can't at all see a justification to vote for Griffith and not Joss. Joss is so far ahead in peak, had his career cut short by DEATH of all things, and Griffith is similarly deficient in an area you hold against Joss. It doesn't make sense unless you're giving a huge bump for player/manager value.


To play Devil's Advocate here, Joss was already in his decline when he died and even when he was healthy was always plagued by injuries. Had he not died, maybe he would have had 3 more 15 win seasons at best.

[leecemark]

--Start I'll definately support for the VC, as a great star of the 1860's whose best years didn't make it onto his record. Pike may also have a claim on that basis, although I'm undecided on him. McVey might have a case there, but I inclined to say no - and I've been a long time supporter. Sutton and Richardson have nothing to add to the records we've already had 15 years to review and passed on. Even though I've supported them in this balloting I doubt I will in the VC. I see the VC not as a place to lower our standards, but as a place to consider things above and beyond the palying record.

[leecemark]

To play Devil's Advocate here, Joss was already in his decline when he died and even when he was healthy was always plagued by injuries. Had he not died, maybe he would have had 3 more 15 win seasons at best.


--Or none even. He did develop a serious sore arm the year before his death. I can't project anything extra for him. Griffith as the career edge and gets player-manager credit. His current support is low enough I expect his best shot will end up being in the VC where he can get full credit for his non-playing contribtuions though.

[DoubleX]

To play Devil's Advocate here, Joss was already in his decline when he died and even when he was healthy was always plagued by injuries. Had he not died, maybe he would have had 3 more 15 win seasons at best.

And my response is - "Ok, so?" He already had a great 9 consecutive year peak, so he'd be entitled to some mediocre year; Griffith definitely had a number of them I'd be interested to see how many pitchers in history have been able to string together 9 consecutive full years with an ERA+ of 142. Joss, IMO, has a Hall of Fame peak, and then some, so why punish him for not being able to live to tack on some mediocre years? It's not like he voluntarily walked away from the game, it's not like injury forced him away, the guy died, and that's the reason he wasn't able to add even some mediocre years. If his peak was only so-so, then yeah, he'd need the longevity, but his peak is pretty darn impressive, IMO, that anything else is just filler. Griffith was not anywhere close to being as good as Joss as a pitcher, so it doesn't make sense to vote for him on account of the fact that he didn't die so he could pitch a number of mediocre years.

As for Joss being in decline, such may have been the case given his arm troubles, but he was just 30, so you never know. He may have had another good year or two in him. Maybe he'd have a couple of years with a league average ERA+ and then a 130 season or something, it happens.

[DoubleX]

--Or none even. He did develop a serious sore arm the year before his death. I can't project anything extra for him. Griffith as the career edge and gets player-manager credit. His current support is low enough I expect his best shot will end up being in the VC where he can get full credit for his non-playing contribtuions though.

Griffith had the career edge because he didn't die. It is extremely bold to say that Joss' career would have been done, because you just don't know that at all, especially given that guys back then all the time pitched through arm troubles. He died Mark, that's a huge thing and there isn't anything that can be done about that. It's completely absurd, IMO, that Joss, with his HUGE peak advantage over Griffith, would somehow be a better candidate if he didn't die and had a number of mediocre years like Griffith. You're holding death against him and presuming a heck of a lot. I hate to say this, but it's reckless and completely unjust.

I might end up supporting Griffith myself, but there is absolutely no way I can buy someone believing that he was a better pitcher than Joss. You're rewarding Griffith for being a much lesser pitcher at peak, with his own questionable durability, and having a number of mediocre years because he didn't die - it doesn't make sense. I can see giving him player/manager credit, but I don't buy that as enough for making up the gap with Joss' peak, and I certainly don't buy Griffith's career value as being enough.

EDIT: I know someone will inevitably bring up win shares here to support Griffith, but I don't find them particularly helpful here, as pitchers in the 1890s during Griffith's peak years, generally pitched more than pitchers during Joss' career a decade later. Thus Griffith was in a position to earn more win shares at peak. This is supported in the fact that Joss actually finished in the top 5 in IP more than Griffith (2 to 1), despite having much less opportunity to do so on account of early death. Thus, the pitchers exhibited similar durability in the context of their era.

EDIT 2: I'm going to post the peak comparisons I made a few posts ago again, because I feel like the statistical information I have been posting, notably with Beckley and Welch, has all too often been ignored, and I don't want that to happen again:

Top 9 ERA+ Years
Joss: 205, 160, 151, 149, 137, 130, 130, 124, 114 (all consecutive for Joss)
Griffith: 190, 134, 130, 130, 128, 120, 119, 115, 114

Joss 9-Year (Consecutive) Average: 142
Griffith 9-Year (Non-Consecutive) Average: 131

Times in Top 5 in ERA+
Joss: 5
Griffith: 2

Times in Top 10 in ERA+
Joss: 8
Griffith: 5

Times in Top 5 in IP:
Joss: 2 (peak of 2nd)
Griffith: 1 (peak of 3rd)

Times in Top 10 in IP:
Joss: 2
Griffith: 2

[jjpm74]

And my response is - "Ok, so?"

And my answer to this is because you emphasized the fact that he died and implied that this somehow entitles him to special consideration.

Addie Joss averaged 30 games a season during his so called impressive peak in a generation where a HOF caliber starter was closer to 45 games a season. He was a part time player during the majority of his career. This is not indicative of a player worthy of consideration due to a high peak but short career.

[leecemark]

--I am not holding Joss's death against him, but I'm not giving him credit for anything he didn't do either. Griffith is a marginal candidate as a player. wouldn''t support him if he didn't have the extra credit and I don't expect him to get elected. I do prefer his case to Joss's though.

[DoubleX]

And my answer to this is because you emphasized the fact that he died and implied that this somehow entitles him to special consideration.

Addie Joss averaged 30 games a season during his so called impressive peak in a generation where a HOF caliber starter was closer to 45 games a season. He was a part time player during the majority of his career. This is not indicative of a player worthy of consideration due to a high peak but short career.

I'm not giving him special consideration, I'm just saying that his death shouldn't be held against him. When someone argues that he had a short career, that's essentially holding his death against him. In this respect, it's make no sense to me that he'd somehow be a better candidate if he had a few extra mediocre years because his peak is on par with most anyone. 9 consecutive years of 142 ERA+, that's pretty impressive to me, and there are few that can boast that. If we don't reward that, then we are punishing him for his early death while possibly rewarding other players with significantly lesser peaks because they were able to be mediocre pitchers for several years.

Moreover, this is all a comparison between Joss and Griffith. If Joss is considered a part time player in his era, then Griffith should probably be accorded the same distinction for his era.

EDIT: To add to this point, Griffith just twice finished in the top 10 in games started, never finishing higher than 8th, and Joss likewise just twice finished in the top 10 in games started, never finishing higher than 6th. In terms of complete games, Joss finished in the top five 2 times and the top 10 6 times, while Griffith was twice in the top five and 5 times in the top ten. So they are very similar in terms of workload relative to their contemporaries.


--I am not holding Joss's death against him, but I'm not giving him credit for anything he didn't do either. Griffith is a marginal candidate as a player. wouldn''t support him if he didn't have the extra credit and I don't expect him to get elected. I do prefer his case to Joss's though.

Like I said, I can more easily understand it if you're giving him player/manager credit. He did win a pennant as a player/manager, but most of his managerial contributions occurred as his playing career significantly wound up. Strictly as players though, I just can't see any argument for Griffith over Joss because Joss is so far ahead in peak and they have very similar IP deficiencies.

[leecemark]

--I think some of Griffith's "lack of durabilty" was his own decison to not pitch as often to concentrate on managing. He did have 5 consectutive 300 IP seasons prior to assuming managerial duties (none after). Joss only reached 300 IP twice in his career. And 300 IP wasn't even the gold standard of durabilty in this period. The real horses went well over that and some were still reaching 400 during Joss's career.

[DoubleX]

--I think some of Griffith's "lack of durabilty" was his own decison to not pitch as often to concentrate on managing. He did have 5 consectutive 300 IP seasons prior to assuming managerial duties (none after). Joss only reached 300 IP twice in his career. And 300 IP wasn't even the gold standard of durabilty in this period. The real horses went well over that and some were still reaching 400 during Joss's career.

I think that may be the case with the later parts of Griffith's career, but Griffith did pitch for 10 years prior to managing. Those were his peak years and it was during that time that he only once finished in the top 5 in IP and just twice in the top 10. In the context of their decades, Griffith and Joss pitched similar amounts in relation to their contemporaries (EDIT: I added a blurb about games started and compete games in my previous post, further emphasizing this point). Plus, I think it's fair that if we are not to give Joss any benefit of the doubt on account of death, Griffith shouldn't deserve any on account of managing. We won't assume anything extra for Joss (even if it's just mediocre), and we won't assume anything extra for Griffith beyond what he actually did while managing.

Also, as for whether Joss would have continued pitching, this is from his NY Times obituary I came across at baseball-almanac.com: (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/deaths/addie_joss_obituary.shtml)


Trainer White of the Cleveland Club treated Joss's arm for several weeks this Winter, and early this Spring pronounced the pitcher in condition to take up his duties in the box.

I'd be very surprised if Joss didn't come back and pitch at all. He may have been a shell of himself, but he'd just be having the mediocre years that almost all pitchers had at some point in their careers. Up until that point, Joss had not had any of those mediocre years, just 9 years of great peak. I agree that there is a legitimate knock in terms of IP, but in the context of comparing him to Griffith, it doesn't really make much of a difference, IMO.

EDIT: It should also be noted that in terms of that subjective star quality in the context of his time, Joss had that. He was regarded as a star of the game, evidenced in the fact that his peers honored him with the first ever All Star game that summer. Here's a link. (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/tsn/addie_joss_benefit_game.shtml) In those days of cumbersome travel, the game attracted the very best of the day, including the likes of Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, Walter Johnson, Frank Baker, and Sam Crawford. That should count for something, IMO.

[philkid3]

Headed For Election: Spalding, Waddell
Headed For VC: Richardson, Sutton, Start, Welch, McVey

Definitely Returning On My Next Ballot: Flick, Jennings, Childs, Duffy, Keeler, Long
Newbies On My Next Ballot: Dahlen, Young
Probably Making It Onto My Next Ballot: Kelley, Tiernan, Beckley, McGraw
Under Heavy Consideration: Joss, Beaumont, Griffith, Phillippe

[Brad Harris]

Headed For Election: Spalding, Waddell
Headed For VC: Richardson, Sutton, Start, Welch, McVey

Definitely Returning On My Next Ballot: Flick, Jennings, Childs, Duffy, Keeler, Long
Newbies On My Next Ballot: Dahlen, Young
Probably Making It Onto My Next Ballot: Kelley, Tiernan, Beckley, McGraw
Under Heavy Consideration: Joss, Beaumont, Griffith, Phillippe

I'm reconsidering Beckley at this point. Trying very hard to think of things as a voter might in 1915.

Thrilled that Spalding is finally going to leave the ballot one way or another. ;)

[AG2004]

My ballot

Cupid Childs
Hugh Duffy
Elmer Flick
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Herman Long
Hardy Richardson
Al Spalding
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
George Van Haltren
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

I'd like to address the choice between Griffith and Joss.


Griffith only once finished in top the 5 in IP with a peak of 3rd, and just twice in the top 10. Joss twice finished in the top 5 with a peak of 2nd, which isn't particularly impressive, but it shows that one of the things you hold against Joss is even more against Griffith. Plus, Griffith had more opportunities to finish in among the leaders in IP due to Joss' early and unfortunate death (which you seem to hold against him as well).

On the other hand, Griffith's peak seasons were from 1894 to 1901. In seven of those eight years, there was just one league. If you finished 12th in the majors in IP, you would make your league's top ten in a two-league era, but not in a one-league era.



As for peak, Griffith can't touch Joss. Here are their top 9 ERA+ seasons (just 9, because Joss died), plus their finishes in ERA+:

Joss: 205, 160, 151, 149, 137, 130, 130, 124, 114
Griffith: 190, 134, 130, 130, 128, 120, 119, 115, 114

Joss 9-Year (Consecutive) Average: 142
Griffith 9-Year (Non-Consecutive) Average: 131



Did you take into account that, during Joss' era, there were 16 major league teams, while Griffith was pitching in a 12-team context for most of his career? Those four extra teams would lower the standard of the average pitcher, hence boosting the ERA+ values for top pitchers.

If you computed an "adjusted ERA+" for Joss, based only on the top 75% of his league's pitchers, what would it be?



Times in Top 5 in ERA+
Joss: 5
Griffith: 2

Times in Top 10 in ERA+
Joss: 8
Griffith: 5

Except that, as noted above, Joss played in a two-league era, so, in the comparisons above, he's competing against only half the pitchers in the majors.

Joss was among the top five in the AL in ERA+ 5 times. How often was he among the top five in the majors in ERA+? Twice. How often was he among the top 10 in the majors in ERA+? Five times.

Also, there's a difference in their offensive contributions. If a pitcher loses a bit in ERA+ but gaines it back in OPS+, what's the difference? The total value will remain the same. How can we adjust for that?


I can definitely understand not wanting to vote for Joss, but I just can't at all see a justification to vote for Griffith and not Joss. Joss is so far ahead in peak, had his career cut short by DEATH of all things, and Griffith is similarly deficient in an area you hold against Joss. It doesn't make sense unless you're giving a huge bump for player/manager value.

Joss had two seasons in which he was among the top five pitchers in the AL in total win shares. Griffith was 4th among NL pitchers in 1895, 6th in '96, 10th in '97, and 4th in '98 -- but that was in the one-league era; that's equivalent to three or four top five finishes in a two-league era. Griffith was also third among AL pitchers in win shares in 1901.

That gives two seasons when Joss was among the top five pitchers in his league in win shares. Griffith did it three times; in a two-league context, he would have done it 4 or 5 times over the course of his career. (Griffith's advantage in batting helps him a bit here.)

In other words, when combining pitching with hitting, Griffith might move ahead of Joss on peak.


EDIT: I know someone will inevitably bring up win shares here to support Griffith, but I don't find them particularly helpful here, as pitchers in the 1890s during Griffith's peak years, generally pitched more than pitchers during Joss' career a decade later. Thus Griffith was in a position to earn more win shares at peak.

On the other hand, with fewer major league teams during Griffith's peak than during Joss' peak, and with the longer schedules for most of Joss' career, Joss was in a position to earn more win shares during his peak.

Why should the number of major league teams be of importance here? Let's say you have sixteen major league teams and a 154-game schedule. That averages out to 77 wins per team (the average team will be 77-77), which gives us 16*77*3 win shares overall.

Now we contract the number of teams down to 12, and keep the 154-game schedule. We now have 12*77*3 win shares overall, or 75% of the previous total available to the remaining players in the league.

The best 75% of available players survived the cut, and the bottom 25% were pushed out of the minor leagues by contraction. However, in the year before contraction, the surviving major leaguers earned more than 75% of the available win shares. The star who earned 26 win shares will survive a contraction, and the below-average starter with 14 win shares will survive a contraction, but the fringe player with 2 win shares will be in the minors after contraction.

In other words, the players in a 12-team league will collectively earn fewer win shares than they would collectively earn in a 16-team major league context. This means that their individual win share totals will be lower in a 12-team league than in an era with two 8-team leagues.

When you compare Griffith to his peers by the win shares method, his level of performance is higher than Joss' when compared to his peers; as noted above, there's more high-level finishes. That's one reason why one can argue for Griffith ahead of Joss.

[DoubleX]

On the other hand, Griffith's peak seasons were from 1894 to 1901. In seven of those eight years, there was just one league. If you finished 12th in the majors in IP, you would make your league's top ten in a two-league era, but not in a one-league era.


Have you looked at whether Griffith finished in the top 12? I haven't looked, and don't have the time right now, but while I get the thrust of this point, it's empty right now. For all we know, Griffith might have finished 18th every year, so what exactly would that prove? If Griffith was consistently in the top 12-14, I'd might come back off my stance a little.


Did you take into account that, during Joss' era, there were 16 major league teams, while Griffith was pitching in a 12-team context for most of his career? Those four extra teams would lower the standard of the average pitcher, hence boosting the ERA+ values for top pitchers.

If you computed an "adjusted ERA+" for Joss, based only on the top 75% of his league's pitchers, what would it be?

Isn't ERA+ only measured against your respective league? Yes, the four extra teams may have overall diluted the pool, but that is somewhat made up for the fact that Joss ERA+ was weighed against the 8 teams of his league, compared to the 12 of Griffith's league. Moreover, I think in just that one decade difference, the depth of talent in baseball increased greatly as interest in the game really took off around the turn of the century and players started to come from a greater area of the country. Just look it this logically, the reason that the game folded into just one league during much of Griffith's career was that the game couldn't support the extra teams in both interest and talent. The advent of the AL was a natural expansive step due to the fact that in just those few years, the talent level and interest could support more teams.

Even if we did adjust Joss' ERA+, I still think he'd have a good margin over Griffith given how wide the gap is.

Finally, you have to deal with the context the player played in, and that's what ERA+ attempts to do. In that respect, Joss was much more dominant in his league than Griffith was in his.


Except that, as noted above, Joss played in a two-league era, so, in the comparisons above, he's competing against only half the pitchers in the majors.

I think I addressed this.


Joss was among the top five in the AL in ERA+ 5 times. How often was he among the top five in the majors in ERA+? Twice. How often was he among the top 10 in the majors in ERA+? Five times.

Now you're doing exactly what you're railing against - you're comparing Joss to 16 teams now. So how is that fair? If I were to accept your previous points, what would I make of this?

Nevertheless, your point only helps to illustrate my point that Joss was better compared to his contemporaries. Out of 16 teams, Joss twice finished in the top 5 in ERA+, and five times in the top 10; yet Griffith out of 12 teams finished twice in the top 5 and five times in the top 10. So when you look at it that way, Joss' feat is actually more impressive because he dealt with the 4 extra teams.

Moreover, I would argue that the top level of pitching talent was better in Joss' day, thus he had more competition for the leaderboards than Griffith. Griffith's heyday was essentially the 1890s, well we've thus far elected two players who's primes matched up to that period, Kid Nichols and Amos Rusier. As for the 1900s, Joss' prime, we've thus far elected two players whose primes match up to Joss', Joe McGinnity and Rube Waddell (likely to be elected this year). We'll almost certainly elect Cy Young next year, whose peak matches up with both, but after that, I don't see us adding any more of Griffith's 1890s rivals. Whereas, we will likely add some more of Joss' rivals, notably Ed Walsh, Christy Mathewson, and Mordecai Brown. We also have Vic Willis on the ballot who I believe stands a decent shot at election. And I think just in general, the best pitchers were better in Joss' day than in Griffith's, as the second tier was better as well.


Also, there's a difference in their offensive contributions. If a pitcher loses a bit in ERA+ but gaines it back in OPS+, what's the difference? The total value will remain the same. How can we adjust for that?

As for the whole win share discussion, I'll admit the difference in schedule length is something I didn't consider and does change my thinking a little. I stick with the assertion though that pitchers pitched overall less in Joss' day than in Griffith's, and that in the context of his day, Joss appears to be just as durable as Griffith was in his.

Overall though, I have been a little uncomfortable with how much win shares seems to be relied upon in these elections. It can be a rough tool because of how rapidly the game changed almost yearly during these first 40 years we're looking at. It wasn't really until the early 1900s, that some stability seemed to be achieved, IMO, that would at least last until the 1920s. Win shares are also much more of a modern convention than most other measurements, and thus I believe removes us further from understanding the players in their times, and instead reducing them to numbers on paper. This should be more than a numbers on paper exercise, and we should endeavor to try to put into context what the player was like when he played. It's a very hard task to do, but numbers on paper don't nearly tell us the whole story - we all watch baseball, and we know this, we know that the players we've watched or are currently watching, are not entirely summed up by numbers on paper. For instance, with Joss, I mentioned how the first All Star game was held in his honor and for his family's benefit, attracting the biggest names in the game at that time. That says a lot to me about how Joss was regarded in his time, and that should count for something in this process.

Or take a guy like Willie Keeler. I think he'll eventually be elected, perhaps next year, but the guy was one of the very biggest stars and characters of the game when he played. I have no doubt that in 1915 people would have been eager to honor him with a Hall of Fame. When the real Hall was built in 1939, people still held such regard for Keeler that they felt he should be among those select few honored inside. Today, we look at his OPS+ on his computer screens and we say, "what's the big deal?" But that's completely ignoring that there was a lot more to Keeler when he played, and if we sit here in 2008 trying to totally sum up Keeler's career with what the numbers on our computer screen show, we're completely ignoring the kind of star Keeler was in his time, and we're defeating the aims of this project, IMO, which is to strive to do our best, as hard as that might be, to look at these elections in the context of the time we're looking at. I don't mind people using modern statistical aids to assist their analysis, but I hope people don't lose sight of the context of the time and what it might have been like to be an observer of the game during that time.

[leecemark]

--Is what voters thought in 1939 something we should consider here? And if so isn't that a point against Joss - who wasn't elected until 1978?

[DoubleX]

--Is what voters thought in 1939 something we should consider here? And if so isn't that a point against Joss - who wasn't elected until 1978?

No it's not something we should consider, and I admit I've gone beyond my own advisory. I took some liberty though to show that Keeler was regarded as a big star of the game, the likes of which people felt should be included among the first induction classes into Cooperstown. I suppose taking it this way, it can be used against Joss, but he was elected, and lots of players from that period or earlier had to wait a long time. I think it speaks more of Keeler's reputation that he was elected so quickly, rather than a point against Joss that he had to wait. But yes, we should ignore this kind of information, it was just an easy way for me to emphasize how highly Keeler was regarded.

Beyond that though, pretty much everything I can remember reading regarding Keeler paints him as a big star when he played. It's to the point where I just can't believe that an elector in 1915 would not be eager to vote for him. I fear that people not voting him are strictly reducing him to numbers and going, "eh, that OPS+ isn't so great," but that's missing something.

EDIT: Anyway, I don't think Keeler is going to need much help. If he's not elected next year, I'd be surprised if he isn't elected in the following years where the new classes are pretty lean. I just think he's a good example to illustrate that I think we need to endeavor to see these players as more than just numbers on paper, as hard as that might be at times.

[AG2004]

Have you looked at whether Griffith finished in the top 12? I haven't looked, and don't have the time right now, but while I get the thrust of this point, it's empty right now. For all we know, Griffith might have finished 18th every year, so what exactly would that prove? If Griffith was consistently in the top 12-14, I'd might come back off my stance a little.

Baseball-reference doesn't list the top twelve in the majors each year, so I didn't look. However, one can check who was in the top 10 in the majors in each category, which how I obtained the by numbers for Joss.


Isn't ERA+ only measured against your respective league? Yes, the four extra teams may have overall diluted the pool, but that is somewhat made up for the fact that Joss ERA+ was weighed against the 8 teams of his league, compared to the 12 of Griffith's league.

Yes, it is measured against the respective league. However, the level of play for the average AL pitcher and the level for the average NL pitcher would be very close, and both would be close to the level of the average major league pitcher. Thus, it would not matter too much whether the talent was evenly split between two 8-team major leagues or lumped together in one 16-team major league. If all the great pitchers were in one league, the split would matter, but that wasn't the case.


Moreover, I think in just that one decade difference, the depth of talent in baseball increased greatly as interest in the game really took off around the turn of the century and players started to come from a greater area of the country. Just look it this logically, the reason that the game folded into just one league during much of Griffith's career was that the game couldn't support the extra teams in both interest and talent. The advent of the AL was a natural expansive step due to the fact that in just those few years, the talent level and interest could support more teams.

At the end of the 1891 season, there were at least 14 healthy major league teams: the eight NL teams, the four teams that jumped from the AA to the NL, and the AA clubs in Boston and Philadelphia. The NL used financial inducements to get Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, and Cleveland to jump leagues; since Boston and Philadelphia had NL clubs, the AA teams in those two cities were left out. The owners of those teams sued the NL over the loss of their property, and the case was settled out of court. This settlement was an acknowledgement on the part of the NL that those teams would have been able to continue playing had the NL not raided the AA.

For the Boston Reds and the Philadelphia Athletics to have survived, they would have needed to find six new teams to make an eight-team league. It was impossible for the game to support 20 major-league teams in 1892, and it was impossible for the game to support 20 major-league teams in 1901. A new league could not have come about until the NL dropped four of its teams to become an eight-team league. It was the NL's anti-competitive raid on the AA that resulted in there being 12 teams in the majors instead of 16.

Baseball teams do not operate within a free market; they operate within a trust system, and the trusts will limit the amount of teams available so as to maximize their own profits. This is what happened in 1891; the NL gave enough bribe money to four AA owners in 1892 so that they could make more money by jumping to the NL and eliminating the AA than by trying to continue a sixteen-team structure.


Even if we did adjust Joss' ERA+, I still think he'd have a good margin over Griffith given how wide the gap is.

Finally, you have to deal with the context the player played in, and that's what ERA+ attempts to do. In that respect, Joss was much more dominant in his league than Griffith was in his.

Joss would still have a gap in career ERA+ -- but what happens when you take offensive contributions into account? Griffith was much better at the plate than Joss was.



Now you're doing exactly what you're railing against - you're comparing Joss to 16 teams now. So how is that fair? If I were to accept your previous points, what would I make of this?

Nevertheless, your point only helps to illustrate my point that Joss was better compared to his contemporaries. Out of 16 teams, Joss twice finished in the top 5 in ERA+, and five times in the top 10; yet Griffith out of 12 teams finished twice in the top 5 and five times in the top 10. So when you look at it that way, Joss' feat is actually more impressive because he dealt with the 4 extra teams.

Let's consider a sudden expansion of the major leagues. With 12 teams in the majors, we have 48 starters. If you expand the majors to 16 teams, without any similiar expansion of the population base available for the majors, you will have 64 starters. However, in that first season, those 16 extra starters will not be among the top ten pitchers overall. Some of them might climb to between 32 and 40, but, since they weren't good enough for the 48-starter field, they won't be in the top ten.

If you had managed to integrate the major leagues while adding those 4 new teams -- which would have happened if the Chief Tokahoma ruse had succeeded -- Joss' feat would have been more impressive, since the 16 new pitchers would have included some capable of finishing in the top ten overall.


As for the whole win share discussion, I'll admit the difference in schedule length is something I didn't consider and does change my thinking a little. I stick with the assertion though that pitchers pitched overall less in Joss' day than in Griffith's, and that in the context of his day, Joss appears to be just as durable as Griffith was in his.

Overall though, I have been a little uncomfortable with how much win shares seems to be relied upon in these elections. It can be a rough tool because of how rapidly the game changed almost yearly during these first 40 years we're looking at. It wasn't really until the early 1900s, that some stability seemed to be achieved, IMO, that would at least last until the 1920s. Win shares are also much more of a modern convention than most other measurements, and thus I believe removes us further from understanding the players in their times, and instead reducing them to numbers on paper. This should be more than a numbers on paper exercise, and we should endeavor to try to put into context what the player was like when he played. It's a very hard task to do, but numbers on paper don't nearly tell us the whole story - we all watch baseball, and we know this, we know that the players we've watched or are currently watching, are not entirely summed up by numbers on paper. For instance, with Joss, I mentioned how the first All Star game was held in his honor and for his family's benefit, attracting the biggest names in the game at that time. That says a lot to me about how Joss was regarded in his time, and that should count for something in this process.

Of course, that game was held as a result of Joss' death. Joss' best season was 1908 - and, while he was on Baseball Magazine's all-AL team that year, he didn't make the All-America team that season. However, Nap Rucker did make the All-America team in 1908, and again in 1911, and once more in 1912. That also says something about how Joss has been regarded in recent times.

[Paul Wendt]

Congratulations

[Freakshow]

Griffith and Joss each enjoyed an eight-year prime, 1894-1901 for Clark, 1902-09 for Addie. Here is their rank in IP in MLB during those years:

CG
94 23rd
95 6th
96 15th
97 3rd
98 12th
99 13th
00 15th
01 33rd
median 14th

AJ
02 27th
03 24th
04 64th
05 26th
06 22nd
07 6th
08 7th
09 31st
median 25th

Joss had stronger defense behind him than Griffith did, so the difference in ERA+ isn't really as large as 142 to 121. Baseball Prospectus shows a career edge in DERA for Joss of 0.15, 3.88 for Addie and 4.03 for Clark. That advantage is obliterated when you factor in Griffith's large hitting edge (OPS+ 69 for CG to 20 for AJ), his better in-season durability, and the fact Griffith's career was 45% longer, more than 1000 IP. It should be even more, but contraction cost Griffith nearly two years off his career, 1892-93.

B-Pro credits Griffith with WARP3 seasons of 10.5, 8.3, 8.1, 7.7, 7.4. That's five years better than Joss' best year of 7.2. This leads to a substantial edge in career value for Griffith 70.9 to 45.6 WARP3. So it's not just win shares seeing Griffith as better.

[DoubleX]

Of course, that game was held as a result of Joss' death. Joss' best season was 1908 - and, while he was on Baseball Magazine's all-AL team that year, he didn't make the All-America team that season. However, Nap Rucker did make the All-America team in 1908, and again in 1911, and once more in 1912. That also says something about how Joss has been regarded in recent times.

I thought Baseball Magazine wasn't published before 1908. If so, this information is a little misleading because it misses the first 6 years of Joss' career.