BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1921 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1921

DoubleX

10-02-2008, 10:20 AM

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.

1921 Guide
There are 32 candidates on the 1921 ballot - 19 holdovers and 13 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1916 (unless qualifying under the age rule). The results of the 1920 VC elections are pending.

First Timers (13)
Mordecai Brown
Bill Donovan (Age Rule)
Red Dooin
Solly Hofman
Miller Huggins
Otto Knabe
Napoleon Lajoie
Christy Mathewson
Nap Rucker
Germany Schaefer (Age Rule)
Fred Snodgrass (3000 AB Rule)
Joe Tinker
Chief Wilson (3000 AB Rule)

Holdovers (19)

Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support
Bill Bradley 2nd 11.54% 11.54% (1920)
Roger Bresnahan 2nd 65.38% 65.38% (1920)
Frank Chance 3rd 65.38% 65.38% (1920)
Lave Cross 10th 38.46% 38.46% (1920)
Mike Donlin 3rd 19.23% 25.93% (1919)
Russ Ford 2nd 3.85% 3.85% (1920)
Clark Griffith 7th 42.31% 52.00% (1917)
Hughie Jennings 8th 65.38% 65.38% (1920)
Fielder Jones 9th 19.23% 19.23% (1920)
Addie Joss 7th 65.38% 74.07% (1919)
Johnny Kling 4th 26.92% 26.92% (1920)
Herman Long 13th 50.00% 56.52% (1913)
John McGraw 11th 38.46% 47.83% (1912)
Jimmy Ryan 14th 65.38% 65.38% (1920)
Cy Seymour 4th 15.38% 15.38% (1920)
Jimmy Sheckard 4th 42.31% 42.31% (1920)
George Stovall 2nd 7.69% 7.69% (1920)
Roy Thomas 6th 19.23% 25.00% (1917)
Hooks Wiltse 2nd 7.69% 7.69% (1920)

Holdovers Dropped from Last Election (0)

Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support

Last Year of Eligibility (0)

Player High Support

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)

Player High Support
Jimmy Ryan 65.38% (1920)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in the Previous Election (6)

Player 1920 Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Roger Bresnahan 65.38% 1
Frank Chance 65.38% 2
Hughie Jennings 65.38% 6
Addie Joss 65.38% 6
Jimmy Ryan 65.38% 4
Herman Long 50.00% 3

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

Player High Support “Almost Years” Last Year on Ballot
Addie Joss 74.07% (1919) 1
Hardy Richardson 69.57% (1912) 3 1915

HALL OF FAMERS

Players Elected (45)

Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1871-1897 27 Living – Age 69
Ross Barnes 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9 Deceased (1850-1915)
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20 Deceased (1867-1918)
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15 Living – Age 67
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field/Left Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905)
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Living – Age 63
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1905 16 Living – Age 53
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911)
Cupid Childs 1920 76.92% 15 Second Base Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1888, 1890-1901 13 Deceased (1867-1912)
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21 Living – Age 49
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909)
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Living – Age 51
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Living – Age 64
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Living – Age 51
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Living – Age 51
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903)
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1901, 1904-1906 17 Living – Age 55
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906)
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 45
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902)
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Living – Age 64
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Living – Age 64
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Living – Age 55
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Living – Age 66
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 64
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19 Living – Age 49
Joe Kelley 1920 84.62% 8 Left Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1906, 1908 17 Living – Age 50
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16 Deceased (1857-1894)
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10 Living – Age 50
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Living – Age 62
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Living – Age 61
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Living – Age 52
Jim O’Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23 Deceased (1850-1919)
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11 Deceased (1854-1897)
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Living – Age 50
Al Spalding 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8 Deceased (1850-1915)
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Living – Age 65
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 15 Living – Age 61
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Living – Age 55
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1914)
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Living – Age 61
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Living – Age 74
George Wright 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Living – Age 74
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living – Age 54
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Living – Age 45

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (3): Charlie Bennett, Buck Ewing, Deacon White
First Base (4): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Roger Conner
Second Base (3): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Bid McPhee
Third Base (1): Jimmy Collins
Shortstop (5): Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (6): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Joe Kelley, Jim O'Rourke, Harry Stovey
Center Field (6): Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Paul Hines, George Van Haltren
Right Field (4): King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Sam Thompson
Pitcher (13): Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Joe McGinnity, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Charley Radbourn, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Rube Waddell, Vic Willis, Cy Young

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger 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
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell
1916 (4): Bill Dahlen, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Cy Young
1917 (2): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke
1918 (2): Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren
1919 (1): Vic Willis
1920 (2): Cupid Childs, Joe Kelley

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Kid Nichols, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 20
- Number of Electees with At Least 90% Support: 11
- Average Election Percentage: 82.60%
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years: 5
- Average Wait Before Election: 4.38 Years
- Most Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907)
- Fewest Electees in One Year: 0 (1912)
- Average Electees Per Year: 2.25
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 27 (1919)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Average Votes Cast: 24.35
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 9
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Boston Braves (fka Beaneaters), Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) - 4
- Electee with Longest Career: Cap Anson – 27 Seasons
- Electee with Shortest Career: Al Spalding – 8 Seasons
- Average Career Length of Electees: 15.76 Seasons
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 31
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Deacon White, George Wright - 74
- Highest Election Percentage Among Players Not Elected: Addie Joss – 74.07% (1919)

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25
1916: 25
1917: 25
1918: 24
1919: 27
1920: 26

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)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665)

PVNICK

10-02-2008, 10:48 AM

Brown
Chance
Cross
Kling
Lajoie
Long
Mathewson
Ryan
Sheckard

I neglected to have Long on my ballot last year after previously having him on. Otherwise same ballot w/o Childs and adding Three Finger, Lajoie and Mathewson.

jjpm74

10-02-2008, 10:58 AM

Bill Bradley--Defensive wiz
Roger Bresnahan--Amazing catcher
Mordecai Brown--no brainer
Frank Chance--as a player/manager
Lave Cross--Amazing amount of career hits
Hughie Jennings--Defensive wiz with a great peak
Addie Joss--Borderline HOF career albeit short
Johnny Kling--Amazing catcher and an integral part of the Cubs dynasty
Nap Lajoie--no brainer
Herman Long--Defensive wiz
Christy Mathewson--No brainer
Jimmy Ryan--Why Van Haltren, Kelly and Duffy but not Ryan?
Jimmy Sheckard--Defensive wiz
Roy Thomas--Why Van Haltren, Kelly and Duffy but not Thomas?

leecemark

10-02-2008, 11:08 AM

Roger Bresnahan, C - best catcher over a 30 year period deserves your vote
Mordecai Brown, SP - great defense makes him overrated, but still worthy
Frank Chance, 1B - best player - and manager - of generations best team
Clark Griffith, SP - at least close as a pitcher and plenty of "extra credit"
Napoleon Lajoie, 2B - best 2nd baseman of all time
Herman Long SS - great, great defense and a good hitter for the position
Christy Mathewson - WAY above our establish pitcher standards
John McGraw, 3B - great peak and some extra credit as player-manager
Jimmy Ryan, CF - justice must be served
Jimmy Sheckard, LF - terrific all around player
Joe Tinker, SS - maybe not quite a Hall of Famer, but he gets a courtesty vote here for his role as a linchpin of the best defense ever assembled

11 man ballot and 4 of them best remembered as members of the great Cubs teams of 1906-1910. Johnny Kling could have been a 5th. He was on my ballot last time, but gets bumped off in favor of Tinker and in deference to Bresnahan this year.

Captain Cold Nose

10-02-2008, 11:36 AM

Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Lave Cross
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Johnny Kling
Nap Lajoie
Herman Long
Christy Mathewson
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard

BlueBlood

10-02-2008, 11:46 AM

1. Bresnahan - The best catching candidate to date

2. Brown - A no-brainer. An easy second-tier pitching HOF-er, barely a step below the greatest.

3. Jennings - Take a look at his PHENOMENAL peak at SS

4. Joss - Killer peak abruptly ended by unfortunate circumstances

5. Lajoie - Best 2B we've come across

6. Matthewson - A strong claim to being the greatest pitcher so far

In summary, the best C/2B/P have all come up on the board along with the best peak from an SS and two other strong pitching candidates with very great runs of brilliance.

leecemark

10-02-2008, 12:10 PM

--I don't think Mathewson's claim to being the best pitcher so far is very strong. He is pretty clearly behind Cy Young and many might prefer Kid Nichols as well. Walter Johnson is still active and going strong so it will be awhile before vote on him, but I think he has also surpassed Mathewson in the lal time ranks.
--Bresnahan is a clear notch below Ewing as the best catcher we've seen. I have him behind Deacon White and Charlie Bennett too. Best so far this century though.
--As for Joss, his peak was not as high as his rates might indicate. He just didn't pitch enough in most seasons to rank amoung the very best.

jalbright

10-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Brown
LaJoie
Long
Mathewson

Paul Wendt

10-02-2008, 12:29 PM

I see that Mordecai Brown is here with most of the supporting staff that did so much for his earned run average.

Brown worked 8+ seasons for the Cubs, 1904-1912.

Jimmy Sheckard, LF 1906-1912
Solly Hofman, CF 1909 to early-1912; utility 1904-1908,
--(rf)

--(3b)
Joe Tinker, SS throughout
--(2b)
Frank Chance, 1B throughout (little playing time after 1910)

Johnny Kling, C pre-1904 to early-1911

Paul Wendt

10-02-2008, 12:39 PM

Here Joe Tinker is the one who most needs discussion, or at least private deliberation.

Was he the best of his generation with the glove?
How does he measure up to Herman Long and Bill Dahlen?

A shortstop is the most likely cornerstone of a great defense.
Was Tinker the cornerstone of the great Cubs? Does that give him a little too much credit or far too much credit?

Freakshow

10-02-2008, 12:43 PM

Kelley and Childs were elected. F. Jones and Seymour are dropped for now. Taking their places are newbies Mathewson, Lajoie, Brown and Tinker.

Bresnahan
M. Brown
Chance
L. Cross
Griffith
Jennings
Joss
Lajoie
Long
Mathewson
McGraw
Ryan
Sheckard
Thomas
Tinker

Phish

10-02-2008, 12:55 PM

Nap
Christy
Joss
Chance
Tinker
Bresnahan

I think this is Joss's year

KCGHOST

10-02-2008, 02:00 PM

Brown
Lajoie
Mathewson
Griffith
Joss
McGraw
Ryan

Someone didn't vote for Mathewson. The guy must be with the BBWAA.

dgarza

10-02-2008, 07:58 PM

Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Frank Chance
Mike Donlin
Hugh Jennings
Addie Joss
Napoleon Lajoie
Christy Mathewson
John McGraw
Jimmy Ryan
Joe Tinker

1. Napoleon Lajoie
2. Christy Mathewson
3. Mordecai Brown
4. Addie Joss
5. Jimmy Ryan
6. Mike Donlin
7. John McGraw
8. Hugh Jennings
9. Roger Bresnahan
10. Joe Tinker
11. Frank Chance

Cowtipper

10-02-2008, 08:46 PM

Brown
Cross
Donlin
Griffith
Joss
LaJoie
Mathewson
Ryan

TheSlaff

10-03-2008, 08:20 AM

Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Frank Chance
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Nap Lajoie
Herman Long
Christy Mathewson
John McGraw
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard

philkid3

10-04-2008, 11:01 AM

Wow, this ballot is absolutely stacked. This doesn't bode well for Jimmy Ryan. I'm very happy to not be voting for Childs anymore, but I still find myself liking middle infielders more than others as I've still got Hughie Jennings near the top of my queue, and I'll bet I put more support behind Tinker and Huggins than others will.

Bill Bradley
Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Frank Chance
Miller Huggins
Hughie Jennings
Nap Lajoie
Herman Long
Christy Mathewson
Jimmy Ryan
Jimmy Sheckard
Joe Tinker

Brooklyn

10-06-2008, 08:20 AM

Brown
Joss
LaJoie
Mathewson

Just looked at the results, and Matthewson wasn't italicized for me. Not sure what happened - I thought I had checked his name - but I can't imagine my vote will make a difference (other than from a historical perspective, asking the question why he wasn't 100%)

DoubleX

10-06-2008, 08:28 AM

MadHatter

10-06-2008, 08:36 AM

Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Mike Donlin
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Fielder Jones
Addie Joss
Napoleon Lajoie
Christy Mathewson
Jimmy Ryan
Hooks Wiltse

Brooklyn

10-06-2008, 09:26 AM

I'll take this as your official vote and add a vote to Mathewson in the poll, though he'll still be 1 vote below of 100%.

great, thanks.

J W

10-06-2008, 10:11 AM

New names in bold; rookies in italics

Roger Bresnahan
Mordecai Brown
Frank Chance
Clark Griffith
Hughie Jennings
Addie Joss
Nap Lajoie
Herman Long
Christy Mathewson
Jimmy Ryan

dropped - none

J W

10-06-2008, 10:22 AM

Offhand, how did Hardy Richardson slip through the electorate while middle infielders like Jack Glasscock, Cupid Childs and Bid McPhee made it? I would think Richardson is our first VC headliner.

On-hand, it still confuses me how George Van Haltren gets so much more support than Jimmy Ryan these days. Ryan played on the level of many of the players we elected later-on in their eligibility.

DoubleX

10-06-2008, 11:06 AM

Offhand, how did Hardy Richardson slip through the electorate while middle infielders like Jack Glasscock, Cupid Childs and Bid McPhee made it? I would think Richardson is our first VC headliner.

Richardson consistently got strong support, but never made the leap as no one ever really made the case for him. I think part of the problem was that our standards were still very much evolving. We've also had trouble electing IFers in general, and the elections of Glasscock, Childs, and McPhee, were each the products of concerted campaigns to get them and more middle IFers in general elected. Richardson as a hybrid OFer/2Bman, didn't get much attention in those discussions.

I think with our standards better defined now, Richardson will have a good chance at election via the VC.

On-hand, it still confuses me how George Van Haltren gets so much more support than Jimmy Ryan these days. Ryan played on the level of many of the players we elected later-on in their eligibility.

This is a question I've been asking for several elections now. For years, both Hugh Duffy and George Van Haltren would receive strong support, while Ryan would struggle to get 50%. The three of them are so closely bunched, IMO, and I think a decent argument could be made for Ryan actually being the best of three. Regardless though, they are so close I just can't understand how two can be elected and one not. Despite many requests that a Van Haltren/Duffy but non-Ryan supporter explain how they made such a distinction, no has yet to offer anything. At this point, with a strong group coming in next year, I don't see Ryan making it via the regular election.

Paul Wendt

10-06-2008, 11:41 AM

Richardson consistently got strong support, but never made the leap as no one ever really made the case for him. I think part of the problem was that our standards were still very much evolving. We've also had trouble electing IFers in general, and the elections of Glasscock, Childs, and McPhee, were each the products of concerted campaigns to get them and more middle IFers in general elected. Richardson as a hybrid OFer/2Bman, didn't get much attention in those discussions.
I don't recall much focus on Glasscock or McPhee either. I focused on throwing infielders and dubbed the shortstop "center infield" as soon as the outfielders as well as the pitchers got off to a big lead. But I didn't focus on individuals, merely informed people that Sutton played pro in 1870 and that Richardson was one of the best in the IA for a season before he joined the NL.
(That will probably continue. I won't make time here to write up much beyond what I know about playing time, ie career paths. Blurbing some also-rans is now my thing, partly because I have engaged in a lot of discussion of leading players at the Hall of Merit and some at the BBF HOF in the last few years.)

In my opinion the primary explanations regarding Hardy Richardson are
- he begins two steps behind McPhee and one step behind Glasscock and Childs because McPhee is a recent HOF member; G and C are on some lists of leading candidates
- he is suspect as a fielder because (a) he moved to the outfield mid-career and (b) 3B was the more demanding position in his day. (The record and available sabrmetrics show that he was an excellent fielder at 2B as well as CF and LF. But the second point is valid
- McPhee and Glasscock enjoyed long mlb careers, partly because they joined the AA and NL as soon as they were good enough to play well there. A few people have noted that Richardson was a star for one season outside the majors, but prior to that he is in shadow. We know next to nothing about pro baseball in 1876 --only the 8 clubs that established the NL-- and much less than we should about 1877.

This is a question I've been asking for several elections now. For years, both Hugh Duffy and George Van Haltren would receive strong support, while Ryan would struggle to get 50%. The three of them are so closely bunched, IMO, and I think a decent argument could be made for Ryan actually being the best of three. Regardless though, they are so close I just can't understand how two can be elected and one not. Despite many requests that a Van Haltren/Duffy but non-Ryan supporter explain how they made such a distinction, no has yet to offer anything. At this point, with a strong group coming in next year, I don't see Ryan making it via the regular election.
Someone replied regarding the peak Ryan didn't have, or regarding his one big season as a fluke (maybe two people, AG and another). But it may be over at BBF HOF that someone half-dismissed his big season as a fluke.

BlueBlood

10-06-2008, 04:18 PM

DoubleX

10-06-2008, 04:52 PM

I had posted regarding how Ryan's big season was an outlier for him. I also showed that if you take away the biggest season from Van Haltren, Duffy & Ryan, Ryan drops even further in the peak value categories. He's also worth much less per season than the other two guys.

I just don't see it. Looking at OPS+, Ryan had four seasons over 140, Van Haltren had none, and Duffy had just two (one if you don't count his one season in the AA). Duffy by far spent the least amount of time in CF, less than 40% of his games, thereby undercutting his value, and all were prolific basestealers. Moreover, Duffy's 172 OPS+ in 1894 is very much an outlier for him, as in no other season in his career did he exceed 129 (save that one AA year). And it's not like the others had some kind of plate appearance gap over Ryan, as they're all fairly equal at peak.

Average Top 5 OPS+
1) Jimmy Ryan: 148 (2924 PAs) - This doesn't count his 131 during a year in the Players League
2) Hugh Duffy: 139 (3053 PAs) - This is counting his 143 during a year in the American Association
3) George Van Hatlren: 137 (2796 PAs) - This is also counting his 139 (career high) during a year in the American Association.

I just don't see how an argument could be made for Ryan being the worst of the three in peak value, or somehow having an outlier when in fact he was the most consistent peak performer. Yes, win shares might tell you something different, but Win Shares are missing something here, and personally I'm pretty troubled by just how prevalent win shares have been in this process, at times being used seemingly at the exclusion of all other information. If that's to be the case, then let's just abandon this project, pick a cutoff number for win shares in Bill James' abstract, and just "induct" any player that meets that number. (NOTE: I'm not levying this against you in particular, just using this as a leaping off point for a rant against over-emphasis on win shares in general).

Cowtipper

10-06-2008, 06:12 PM

How could someone not vote for Nap LaJoie or Christy Mathewson?

Paul Wendt

10-06-2008, 07:21 PM

How could someone not vote for Nap LaJoie or Christy Mathewson?
Maybe there is a Cook County conspiracy at work for Morde Brown. It looks like I may need to join bambam in leaving him off my ballot.

I'm not sure these 92% and 96% failures to take all the votes mean much. Probably many participants know from reading the thread or viewing the intermediate results that, say, Mathewson is one short of 100%. One such person decides to omit Lajoie and make them even. Something like that.

jjpm74

10-06-2008, 08:30 PM

Red Dooin :confused:

Cowtipper

10-06-2008, 09:33 PM

Red Dooin :confused:

Indeed. How is a .240 career hitter with less than 1,000 career hits more deserving than a guy with 373 career wins and a 2.13 ERA?

Paul Wendt

10-06-2008, 09:50 PM

Maybe there is a Cook County conspiracy at work for Morde Brown. It looks like I may need to join bambam in leaving him off my ballot.
Oops, bambam omitted Mathewson too. He must be working against Cook County in favor of Nap Lajoie.

I'm not sure these 92% and 96% failures to take all the votes mean much. Probably many participants know from reading the thread or viewing the intermediate results that, say, Mathewson is one short of 100%. One such person decides to omit Lajoie and make them even. Something like that.
Note that I don't need to change my theory, only it's application. That is a mark of a good theory.

NineWorldSeries

10-07-2008, 11:10 AM

Hmm, it seems I forgot to vote for Griffith. Fortunately, I don't think it will matter either way.

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 11:55 AM

Paul Wendt

10-07-2008, 12:23 PM

bambam is the lone voter for three(?) of them. Of course that may be a rational strategy: vote for everyone you support who is likely to be between 50% and 90%; vote for everyone with no votes you would like to return to the ballot; vote for the sub-50% candidates you support, in order to try and gain attention for them (or the m-word). The very strongest candidates are a very low priority.

bambambaseball

10-07-2008, 02:08 PM

It's possible that bambam's vote for Dooin was a mistake and that he meant to vote for Russ Ford. He voted for Ford in the last election and Dooin and Ford are listed consecutively this time. Either way, it's difficult to understand why he'd vote for either Dooin or Ford and not Brown, Lajoie, Mathewson.

Red Dooin was a mistake. That bote was supposed to be for Clark Griffith. Sorry about that.

I supported 20 guys in this group. I left the big three out cause their getting elected anyway. I also had to leave Fielder Jones off and Joe Tinker off cause I didn't have the space. Ot looks bad for Fielder Jones. I hope he makes it. :(

philkid3

10-07-2008, 02:16 PM

I sometimes feel like we may just be concerning ourselves with how a player hit and not at all about where he played on the field.

BlueBlood

10-07-2008, 03:09 PM

And so this is the part of every election where we twiddle our thumbs and wonder what will happen to the On-The-Bubble candidate.

:pray:

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 03:14 PM

Red Dooin was a mistake. That bote was supposed to be for Clark Griffith. Sorry about that.

I supported 20 guys in this group. I left the big three out cause their getting elected anyway. I also had to leave Fielder Jones off and Joe Tinker off cause I didn't have the space. Ot looks bad for Fielder Jones. I hope he makes it. :(

Thanks for explaining. Strategic voting is definitely an accepted practice here. I also removed your Dooin vote and put it for Griffith. Is that why you voted for Russ Ford last time? Also, feel free to stump for those guys you support, you might help their cases.

Just so everyone knows, I have no problem correcting a vote if you accidentally click on the wrong player. I'm less likely though to add a vote if you just forgot to vote for that player altogether.

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 03:33 PM

I sometimes feel like we may just be concerning ourselves with how a player hit and not at all about where he played on the field.

While I do believe we've extended our standards for OFers while not going so far with other positions, I don't know if it's necessarily been that bad. Not counting the recent VC electees, after this year we will have elected 4 2Bmen, the same as 1B. After next year when Honus Wagner will almost certainly be elected, we will have elected 6 SS, which is the same as we've elected in LF and CF. The only positions that we really seem to be neglecting, IMO, are C and 3B. At C, we haven't elected anyone who has played the majority of their career after 1890. I'm hopeful Bresnahan will change that once the ballot loosens up after next year. On one hand, there really haven't been too many good candidates, but on the other, perhaps there is a reason for that, perhaps were failing to appreciate that maybe there was something about that time that limited catchers and thus we should temper our standards?

The same question could be applied to 3B as well. 3B is a particularly tough position to put into perspective, IMO. 2B, SS, and C, all emphasize defense with offense being gravy. 1B, LF, RF, all emphasize offense with defense being gravy. And CF is a position where you'd like a balance of both. The balance at 3B isn't clear at all. We want both offense and defense, but it's unclear as to what level of each we want. Offensively, we want something more than we'd get at 2B or SS, but how much more, and how much less than at 1B. Defensively, we want something more than we'd get at 1B, but again, how much more, and how much less than at SS and 2B?

And so this is the part of every election where we twiddle our thumbs and wonder what will happen to the On-The-Bubble candidate.

We could be entering new territory for vote totals, as we already have reached our high of 27. My guess is that we'll attract more votes as we get to more modern and familiar players. Anywho, we can count on AG2004 voting on the last day to push us to a new record. I don't believe he's been voting for Joss, but right now Joss can absorb one non-vote and still be elected. After Joss regressed last year, I'm pretty surprised that he's mounting such a fight this year amidst a strong new class.

jjpm74

10-07-2008, 03:40 PM

At C, we haven't elected anyone who has played the majority of their career after 1890. I'm hopeful Bresnahan will change that once the ballot loosens up after next year. On one hand, there really haven't been too many good candidates, but on the other, perhaps there is a reason for that, perhaps were failing to appreciate that maybe there was something about that time that limited catchers and thus we should temper our standards?

The same question could be applied to 3B as well. 3B is a particularly tough position to put into perspective, IMO. 2B, SS, and C, all emphasize defense with offense being gravy. 1B, LF, RF, all emphasize offense with defense being gravy. And CF is a position where you'd like a balance of both. The balance at 3B isn't clear at all. We want both offense and defense, but it's unclear as to what level of each we want. Offensively, we want something more than we'd get at 2B or SS, but how much more, and how much less than at 1B. Defensively, we want something more than we'd get at 1B, but again, how much more, and how much less than at SS and 2B?

I'm not entirely convinced we're giving third basemen a fair shake here, but so far, our standards for catchers have been pretty spot on. Outside of the catchers we've elected, the only others to standout from the rest of the pack are Johnny Kling, Roger Bresnahan, Chief Zimmer and Deacon McGuire. McGuire and Zimmer were solid defensive catchers, but not HOFers, IMO. [breaking 1920s character for more modern focused readers here] A modern equivalent of the two would be Jim Sundberg. Kling has a good argument for inclusion in that he played the majority of his career as a catcher and did so on a significant dynasty as a significant contributor. Bresnahan is a tough case because some of his career value comes at another position, but he too probably belongs.

Maybe catcher was a dumping ground for players who couldn't field early on like what happens in little league? There's not much of a talent pool of catchers out there to this point in history.

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 03:42 PM

Here's who I got eligible for the next election. Let me know if I missed anyone:

Bobby Byrne
Sam Crawford
Harry Davis
Cy Falkenberg
Tommy Leach - Age Rule
Hans Lobert
Mike Mowrey - Probably won't be on ballot
Red Murray
Eddie Plank
Ed Reulbach
Jim Scott
Honus Wagner
Ed Walsh

Chief Meyers does not meet any eligibility requirement as he did not play 10 seasons nor reach 3000 ABs, and thus will not be on ballot.

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 03:49 PM

Maybe catcher was a dumping ground for players who couldn't field early on like what happens in little league? There's not much of a talent pool of catchers out there to this point in history.

Might have been (though that would be reason to give Bresnahan some credit for playing at least 8 games at every other position, including pitcher). I imagine catcher must have been easily the most daunting position to play during this era given the equipment at the time coupled with conditioning and medical treatments of the time. Playing catcher likely placed a lot of strain on a player, undoubtedly undercutting their production and career length.

Also, since I mentioned catching equipment, Bresnahan introduced a number of protective innovations for catchers that have since been a regular part of a catcher's gear. This is something that is part of his playing career and has been instrumental to catchers since, and should be considered in his favor, IMO. Catchers are today better protected in large part due to Bresnahan.

jalbright

10-07-2008, 05:57 PM

Also, since I mentioned catching equipment, Bresnahan introduced a number of protective innovations for catchers that have since been a regular part of a catcher's gear. This is something that is part of his playing career and has been instrumental to catchers since, and should be considered in his favor, IMO. Catchers are today better protected in large part due to Bresnahan.

What did Bresnahan actually invent? My understanding was that he adopted some equipment Negro Leaguers were already using (shin guards come to mind). He might get a small amount of credit as a popularizer of such equipment if my understanding is right, but not much more.

jalbright

10-07-2008, 05:59 PM

DoubleX

10-07-2008, 07:56 PM

What did Bresnahan actually invent? My understanding was that he adopted some equipment Negro Leaguers were already using (shin guards come to mind). He might get a small amount of credit as a popularizer of such equipment if my understanding is right, but not much more.

I didn't say invent, I said introduced, and his use of certain equipment was instrumental in popularizing the use in MLB. Here's a good paragraph on his equipment contributions from the SABR Bio Project: (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=1528&bid=958)

It was during his years with the Giants that Bresnahan made his contributions to the development of playing equipment. After a hospital stay necessitated by a beaning, he experimented in 1905 with the Reach Pneumatic Head Protector, which was essentially a leather football helmet sliced in half to protect the left side of a right-handed hitter's head. More influential were his efforts with shin guards. After discovering in a home-plate collision that Red Dooin of the Phillies wore papier-mâché protectors under his stockings, Bresnahan showed up on Opening Day 1907 wearing a huge pair of shin guards modeled after a cricketer's leg pads. At first Roger's innovation met with ridicule and protest-Pirates manager Fred Clarke insisted the guards posed a danger to sliding runners-but by 1909 a less bulky version was in general use. In another innovation that remains in use to this day, Roger added leather-bound rolls of padding to the circumference of his wire catcher's mask around 1908 to help absorb the shock of foul tips.

The Baseball Library (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Roger_Bresnahan_1879) has a very similar paragraph:

Perhaps his most notable contributions to the game were in protective equipment. In 1905, after being hospitalized for a head injury from a beaning, he experimented with a batting helmet manufactured by the A.J. Reach Company. It was like the leather football helmet of the period sliced vertically: one half for covering the left side of a righthanded batter's head, the other for the lefty hitter. Although beanballs were frequent, the idea did not find favor. Two years later he devised catcher's shin guards. The first ones, evidently modeled after a cricketer's leg pads, were large and bulky, with a knee flap that came up to the thigh. They were greeted with ridicule and protest, but soon caught on. By 1909 they had more utilitarian shape and size, and were in general use. About 1908 he improved the flimsy wire catcher's mask with leather-bound rolls of padding to absorb the shock of foul-tips.

Freakshow

10-07-2008, 08:09 PM

J W

10-09-2008, 12:36 PM

Thanks for explaining. Strategic voting is definitely an accepted practice here. I also removed your Dooin vote and put it for Griffith. Is that why you voted for Russ Ford last time? Also, feel free to stump for those guys you support, you might help their cases.

Just so everyone knows, I have no problem correcting a vote if you accidentally click on the wrong player. I'm less likely though to add a vote if you just forgot to vote for that player altogether.

Ugh, one of the biggest reasons I had for joining the project just took a substantial hit. I can no longer look at the "perfect club" with any accuracy, especially if none of the candidates from next year hit 100%.

Oh well, art imitates life again... I can hear the "well, Nap Lajoie and Christy Mathewson didn't get every vote so why should Player X" arguments now.