Albright's musings

[jalbright]

Steve Garvey

Some folks like him for the HOF, but even with his off the field issues aside, I can't see it. If a guy is in the top 20 at his position (except pitcher), that essentially translates to the top 240 of all time (8 position players and 4 pitchers per team equals 12, then 20 * 12 = 240) Thus, even the 20th guy at a position is at best in the gray area for the HOF, since they haven't honored that many yet. What does this have to do with Steve Garvey? Well, look at where he ranks in various Win Shares categories: 26th in career WS among first basemen listed in the latest Historical Baseball Abstract, 44th for the total of his best 3 seasons, 30th for his best 5 consecutive, and 63rd for his WS/162. The best he can do is 26th, which is well below where the gray area should be--and he does significantly worse than that overall.

Another way to look at it is how many of the most similar players to him have made the hall. Baseball-reference.com has such a list, and Garvey's has precisely one-Orlando Cepeda, and he's only the 7th most similar. I'd definitely prefer the Baby Bull.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

I'll first list the Japanese position players I'm certain I'd vote into Cooperstown in my order of preference, and then do the same for the starting pitchers. We can add Yutaka Enatsu to the pitching queue, as a reliever, though his career is the Japanese version of Eckersley.

Position players:
1B-----Sadaharu Oh
C------Katsuya Nomura
3B-----Shigeo Nagashima
LF-----Isao Harimoto
1B-3B--Hiromitsu Ochiai

Starting pitchers:
Masaichi Kaneda
Victor Starffin
Kazuhisa Inao
Akira Bessho
Masaaki Koyama

All but two pitchers (Koyama and Enatsu) are guys I rated among the top dozen Japanese players ever--and they're ranked among the top ten Japanese pitchers ever. Enatsu ranks lower primarily because he spent the second half of his career as a closer, and the system I use isn't particularly kind to them.

[jalbright]

Here's a superb article from the Baseball analyst website:

Only The Lonely
By Rich Lederer
The Hall of Fame Trials and Tribulations of Bert Blyleven

.... I would like to review the candidacy of a Hall of Fame-worthy player who is on the ballot for the seventh time. With that in mind, ladies and gentlemen of the selection jury, I hereby introduce Exhibit One in The Case For Bert Blyleven.

CAREER STRIKEOUTS

1	Nolan Ryan………...	5714
2	Steve Carlton……..	4136
3	Roger Clemens…..	4099
4	Randy Johnson…..	3871
5	Bert Blyleven…….	3701
6	Tom Seaver………...	3640
7	Don Sutton………...	3574
8	Gaylord Perry…….	3534
9	Walter Johnson….	3509
10	Phil Niekro………....	3342
11	Ferguson Jenkins	3192
12	Bob Gibson………...	3117

Every pitcher with 3,000 or more strikeouts who is eligible is in the Hall of Fame except for one pitcher. His name? Well, for those of you who may be color blind, the lone exception is none other than Rik Aalbert Blyleven. As shown, the Holland-born righthander ranks fifth all time in strikeouts. Other than Mr. Blyleven, there are only two pitchers--Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson--on the above list who are not in the Hall, and both will surely be inducted on the first ballot. Bert Blyleven, Only The Lonely.

Maybe strikeouts are not all that important as a standalone measure, you say? Well, you may be right. The object of the game is to shut down the opposing team no matter how you get them out, correct? With that understanding, ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present Exhibit Two for your consideration.

CAREER SHUTOUTS

1	Walter Johnson…..	110
2	Grover Alexander..	90
3	Christy Mathewson	79
4	Cy Young…………....	76
5	Eddie Plank………....	69
6	Warren Spahn……..	63
T7	Tom Seaver………...	61
T7	Nolan Ryan………....	61
9	Bert Blyleven……..	60
10	Don Sutton………...	58
11	Ed Walsh…………....	57
T12	Three Finger Brown	56
T12	Pud Galvin……….....	56
T12	Bob Gibson………....	56
15	Steve Carlton…….	55
T16	Jim Palmer……….....	53
T16	Gaylord Perry…….	53
18	Juan Marichal…….	52
T19	Rube Waddell……...	50
T19	Vic Willis………….....	50

Bert Blyleven ranks ninth in career shutouts. Other than Mr. Blyleven, every pitcher with 50 or more shutouts has been enshrined in Cooperstown. Nineteen pitchers on the inside, one pitcher on the outside. Bert Blyleven, Only the Lonely.

Still not convinced, ehh? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce into evidence Exhibit Three. Runs Saved Above Average (RSAA) represent the number of runs that a pitcher saved his team versus what an average pitcher would have allowed, adjusted for ballpark effects.

ALL-TIME RUNS SAVED ABOVE AVERAGE

1	Cy Young…………....	813
2	Kid Nichols………....	678
3	Lefty Grove………...	668
4	Walter Johnson…..	643
5	Roger Clemens…..	613
6	Greg Maddux……....	540
7	Grover Alexander..	524
8	John Clarkson…….	508
9	Randy Johnson…...	461
10	Pedro Martinez…..	453
11	Christy Mathewson	405
12	Tom Seaver………...	404
13	Tim Keefe…………...	377
14	Amos Rusie………....	370
15	Carl Hubbell………...	355
16	Bob Gibson………....	350
17	Bert Blyleven……..	344
18	Phil Niekro……….....	322
19	Whitey Ford………..	321
20	Warren Spahn……..	319

Every pitcher in the top 20 who is eligible for the Hall is in with one exception. And who might that pitcher be? Once again, it's none other than the Only The Lonely man himself, Bert Blyleven.

What about ERA? Well, thank you for asking. Ladies and gentlemen, I take this opportunity to introduce Exhibit Four.

ERA VS. LEAGUE AVERAGE (MINIMUM 4,000 IP)

Place	Name…………….......	Diff	Player	League
1	Roger Clemens…..	1.20	3.19	4.39
2	Walter Johnson…..	1.07	2.17	3.24
3	Kid Nichols………....	0.94	2.95	3.89
4	Cy Young…………....	0.92	2.63	3.54
5	Grover Alexander..	0.83	2.56	3.39
6	Warren Spahn……..	0.81	3.08	3.89
7	Tom Seaver………...	0.79	2.86	3.66
8	Christy Mathewson	0.78	2.13	2.91
9	John Clarkson……...	0.73	2.81	3.54
10	Tim Keefe…………...	0.71	2.62	3.34
11	Ted Lyons……….....	0.68	3.67	4.34
12	Red Faber……….....	0.64	3.15	3.79
13	Old Hoss Radbourn	0.59	2.67	3.26
14	Red Ruffing………....	0.56	3.80	4.36
15	Gaylord Perry…….	0.53	3.11	3.63
16	Eddie Plank………....	0.53	2.35	2.88
17	Nolan Ryan………....	0.53	3.19	3.72
18	Robin Roberts…….	0.51	3.40	3.91
19	Bert Blyleven……..	0.50	3.31	3.81
20	Eppa Rixey………....	0.50	3.15	3.64

Nineteen of the top 20 pitchers have had their day in upstate New York or, in the case of Clemens, have already made reservations. The omission this time? You got it. Bert Blyleven, Only The Lonely.

For those of you who still need more information, I would like to present Exhibit Five. Neutral Wins is a statistic that projects the number of victories the pitcher would have if he was given average run support, considering his total number of decisions.

NEUTRAL WINS

1	Cy Young…………....	533
2	Walter Johnson…...	470
3	Grover Alexander...	374
4	Kid Nichols………....	373
5	Christy Mathewson	361
6	Pud Galvin……….....	359
7	Warren Spahn……..	353
8	Tim Keefe…………...	346
9	Phil Niekro……….....	337
T10	Gaylord Perry……...	336
T10	Nolan Ryan………....	336
12	Steve Carlton……..	327
13	John Clarkson……...	323
14	Bert Blyleven……...	313
15	Tom Seaver………...	312
16	Eddie Plank………...	311
17	Don Sutton………...	310
18	Roger Clemens…....	306
19	Old Hoss Radbourn	300
20	Lefty Grove………...	298

Please excuse Mr. Blyleven for feeling a little paranoid at this time but, as you can see, he is the only pitcher in the top 20 in Neutral Wins who is eligible for baseball's highest honor but has not yet been voted in. Only The Lonely.

Think the above stat is a little too theoretical? Well, members of the selection committee, let's take a look at Exhibit Six. Actual wins. Nice and simple, just the way you guys and gals like it.

CAREER WINS

1	Cy Young………......	511
2	Walter Johnson…...	417
3T	Christy Mathewson	373
3T	Grover Alexander...	373
5	Warren Spahn……..	363
6	Kid Nichols………....	361
7	Pud Galvin……….....	360
8	Tim Keefe…………...	341
9	Steve Carlton……..	329
10	John Clarkson……...	328
11	Eddie Plank………....	326
T12	Nolan Ryan………....	324
T12	Don Sutton………...	324
14	Phil Niekro……….....	318
15	Gaylord Perry……...	314
16	Tom Seaver………...	311
17	Roger Clemens…....	310
T18	Mickey Welch……...	309
T18	Old Hoss Radbourn	309
T20	Early Wynn………....	300
T20	Lefty Grove………...	300
22	Greg Maddux……....	289
23	Tommy John……....	288
24	Bert Blyleven……...	287
25	Robin Roberts……...	286
T26	Ferguson Jenkins...	284

Although the number of wins is not the end all for evaluating pitchers, I am proud to say that our man once again finds himself in the company of nothing but Hall of Famers with just one other exception. Furthermore, there are dozens of pitchers who have won fewer games, yet you have found reason to induct each and every one of them.

Who would some of those fortunate souls be? None other than famous oldtimers such as Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown (239), Bob Feller (266), Carl Hubbell (253), and Joe McGinnity (246); greats from the '50s and '60s like Jim Bunning (224), Don Drysdale (209), Whitey Ford (236), Bob Gibson (251), Sandy Koufax (165), Juan Marichal (243), and Robin Roberts (286); and more decorated contemporaries over the first half of Mr. Blyleven's tenure such as Catfish Hunter (224), Ferguson Jenkins (284), and Jim Palmer (268).

Speaking of Mr. Blyleven's peers, I thought it might be instructive to compare how he ranks in RSAA over the course of his career. I would like to offer Exhibit Seven for your review.

RUNS SAVED ABOVE AVERAGE, 1970-1992

1	Bert Blyleven……...	344
2	Roger Clemens…....	329
3	Tom Seaver………...	321
4	Jim Palmer……….....	289
5T	Dave Stieb………....	241
5T	Phil Niekro……….....	241
7	Steve Carlton……..	239
8	Gaylord Perry……...	228
9	Nolan Ryan………....	215
10	Dennis Eckersley...	204

Not only is Mr. Blyleven number one but he is the only pitcher on this list who has come before you and not been so honored. I recognize that the time period chosen favors our man because it conveniently covers his entire career. Nonetheless, if you run the same screen ten times using the various career lengths for each of the above moundsmen, the pitcher ranked first in every sort is in the HOF or will be in the HOF (in the case of Clemens, who is #1 over his playing days as well as Dave Stieb's career).
Want a "cleaner" period like the decade of the 1970s instead? Ladies and gentlemen, I provide you with Exhibit Eight.

RUNS SAVED ABOVE AVERAGE, 1970-1979

1	Tom Seaver………...	281
2	Jim Palmer……….....	280
3	Bert Blyleven……...	261
4	Phil Niekro……….....	248
5	Gaylord Perry……...	237
6	Ferguson Jenkins	195
7	Steve Carlton……..	176

The top seven are all in the HOF except for the fellow with the initials "BB", who ranks third. The two hurlers ahead of him--Tom Seaver and Palmer--are multiple Cy Young Award winners and first-ballot HOF inductees. Bert Blyleven. Only The Lonely (Know How I Feel).

Bert Blyleven also ranks in the top ten for the decade of the 1980s, and he is second for the ten-year period (1975-1984) overlapping these two decades--behind only Steve Carlton, who is also a multiple Cy Young Award winner and first-ballot HOF inductee.

In addition to the above qualifications, Mr. Blyleven meets or exceeds three of the four Hall of Fame measures established by Bill James, one of baseball's foremost analysts. Only 21 pitchers in the history of the game have met all four standards, including just nine who began their careers after World War II. I present Exhibit Nine for your consideration.

Black Ink: Pitching - 16 (128) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 239 (22) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (36) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (65) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Furthermore, as displayed in Exhibit Ten, eight of the most similar pitchers according to Baseball-Reference.com (one of the most widely used and highly respected baseball statistical sources) are in the Hall of Fame.

SIMILAR PITCHERS

Don Sutton (914) *
Gaylord Perry (909) *
Ferguson Jenkins (890) *
Tommy John (889)
Robin Roberts (876) *
Tom Seaver (864) *
Jim Kaat (854)
Early Wynn (844) *
Phil Niekro (844) *
Steve Carlton (840) *

*Denotes Hall of Famer.

The two pitchers not in the HOF are most similar to Mr. Blyleven in terms of their number of wins, but neither ranks among the top 20 in any of the other Exhibits that I have presented before you. Seven of the remaining eight show up not only on the career wins table alongside my client but at least once more. As such, I would contend that the following seven pitchers (Hall of Famers all) are the most statistically comparable to Mr. Blyleven:

Steve Carlton
Ferguson Jenkins
Phil Niekro
Gaylord Perry
Robin Roberts
Tom Seaver
Don Sutton

Herewith is Exhibit Eleven in The Case For Bert Blyleven.

Name…………	IP	H	ER	BB	SO	HR	ERA	W	L	pct
Blyleven………	4970	4632	1830	1322	3701	430	3.31	287	250	0.534
Group average	5032	4577	1800	1379	3396	448	3.22	316	239	0.569

As detailed, Bert Blyleven's stats are roughly in line with the average of these seven pitchers across the board with the possible exception of wins, losses, and winning percentage. However, as shown in Exhibit Twelve below, his rate stats for the three areas controlled by the pitcher are actually better than this exclusive group.

Name…………	BB/9	SO/9	HR/9
Blyleven………	2.36	6.70	0.78
Group average	2.47	6.07	0.80

How was it possible that Mr. Blyleven could have better rate stats yet have 22 fewer wins and five more losses than the group average? Well, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the difference in my client's won-loss record was nothing more than being a victim of poor support. For example, do you realize that his team scored just 18 runs in his 15 losses in 1971? In fact, I would argue that Mr. Blyleven is one of the "unluckiest" pitchers in the history of baseball.

To compare "apples to apples", I hereby offer Exhibit Thirteen, which reveals the won-loss records of Mr. Blyleven and the group average by equalizing the run support for my client and the same seven starters, all of whom are among the elite group of pitchers in the Hall of Fame.

Name…………	NW	NL	pct
Blyleven………	313	224	0.583
Group average	316	239	0.569

Neutral Wins and Losses prove my point that the only differences in Bert Blyleven's actual won-loss totals and winning percentage are a function of run support (or lack thereof). Recall that Mr. Blyleven broke in with the Minnesota Twins after the franchise's hey day in the second half of the 1960s, then played for the Texas Rangers, Pittsburgh Pirates, Cleveland Indians, the Twins again, and the California Angels.

Sources: Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia and Baseball-Reference.com

[jalbright]

My personal ten worst HOF pitchers, ignoring Candy Cummings and possibly Hilton Smith are:

1. Jesse Haines
2. Rube Marquard
3. Catfish Hunter
4. Addie Joss
5T Herb Pennock
5T Chief Bender
7 Rollie Fingers
8. Lefty Gomez
9. Dizzy Dean
10. Waite Hoyt

I'm big on career value, which certainly hurts Dean and Joss. Really, the only two I'd clearly choose to eliminate from the hall are the first two. Catfish through Gomez are marginal, but decent arguments can be made for them.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

One way to look at who probably doesn't belong in the HOF is to see who hasn't met certain standards. I've talked about the idea that a player should be in the top 15-20 at his position in Win Shares type measurements. Another way to look at it is an everyday player has to be among the top 140 or so major leaguers. This helps bring measures like HOF standards or sums of black ink and gray ink into play. The breakpoint for HOF standards is around the 30 point mark.

Career win shares reach 200th place around 280, so that's another measure--and this one can be applied to all players

I prefer to add black ink and gray ink because while black ink is useful, the totals are often so low as to have little meaning. However, I think being a league leader is an especially important HOF qualification and deserves recognition. Also, if a guy is a little below the gray ink mark but makes it up in black ink, I think it's better to see him as on the plus than the minus side.

Overall, black ink plus gray ink reaches the breakpoint at about 140 points for everyday players. We'll wind up using this level for OF/1B/DH types. This is a harsh standard for the middle infielders and catchers, and slightly tough on third basemen. For them, I will propose a standard between the third and fourth worst HOFers at their position. The results are: catchers and shortstops, 50; second basemen 95, and third basemen, 135. Certainly, good glovemen at any spot can move up a bit and poor ones drop, but the further they are from these standards, the more difference their defense has to make to change their status.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Gil Hodges

I doubt the supporters of Hodges like the verdict of the win share system, but the verdict they give clearly supports declining to induct Hodges.

We all know the HOF has made its mistakes, but the number of inductees can provide a nice guideline. That means a guy has to be among the top 140 or so position players from the MLB or at least in the top 20 at his position. Hodges is 33rd in career win shares among the first basemen listed in the latest historical abstract. His career win share total is 266th among all players per the Win Share book. His total win shares for his best three years of 80 ranks 37th among that same list of first basemen. His five year peak of 129 ranks 26th among those first basemen. He doesn't come close to cracking the top 20 first basemen, which IMO is a must.

Don't like win shares? He comes in 336th in MVP award shares. In Black Ink (league leaderships) he's 571st. He is right on the borderline with gray ink at 138th place all time--and that's his only arguable positive in the things I give significant weight to yet. In HOF standards, he's 247th. Additionally, none of the ten most similar players to him as determined by baseball-reference.com are in the Hall. Overall, he's short of the mark, and managing the miracle Mets and his untimely death don't make up for it IMO.

With respect to the argument Hodges misses out because of his military service in WW II: Generally, I have limited patience for what-ifs, except for guys who were prevented by business decisions of baseball (Japanese players, Lefty Grove), the color line, or military service from playing in the majors. Those things all come from forces outside the player's control and have nothing to do with the player's ability or desire to play in the majors. Hodges may be able to make the argument about military service, but because he didn't produce like a major leaguer until 1949, this argument must be especially carefully developed and documented to be persuasive. We've got to know what the circumstances were for Gil's call-up in 1943, what he was doing in 1946, and what finally helped him become productive in 1949. I don't have any information saying he was injured during his military service, so I'm not willing to give him a break if all that happened was physical or emotional maturation. I don't see the military being a hindrance in that case. On the other hand, if, for example, he needed to learn to hit a curve and had two to four years away from the game while he was serving in the military, there's much more reason to give him a break--and the difference in longevity between Hodges and Perez is about two season's worth.

[jalbright]

Spottswood Poles

The Baseball Think Factory guys came up with 310 career win shares, 89 for his best three seasons and 141 for his best 5 consecutive. I think that puts him a hair behind Jimmy Wynn and Edd Roush.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Bingo DeMoss:

The Baseball Think Factory guys call him a "poor man's Bill Mazeroski". I think that's accurate, and since I don't think Maz is a legitimate HOFer for reasons which appear in this thread . . . .

Oliver Marcelle

Maybe 220 Win Shares for his career per the Baseball Think Factory guys. About as valuable as Judy Johnson, and since I've dissed Johnson below . . . .

Ben Taylor

I don't see him as HOF quality. The Baseball Think Factory guys' Win Shares estimates for him are 326 career, 80 for his best three seasons, and 115 for his best five consecutive. I'd put those marks below Keith Hernandez and Norm Cash.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Judy Johnson

The evidence at hand is over his career, Judy Johnson didn't walk much, had little or no power, and hit for at best a mediocre average. The evidence supports his fine defensive reputation, but that's not a great player in my book.

Probably more valuable than Marcelle because his career was longer.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

I looked into the percentage of team games by the average of the 3 most games by a player whose primary position is catcher over history. There are a couple of distinct periods, with significantly varying percentages of play.

Begin-End	% of avg team games	
1876-1883	88.0	
1884-1889	65.0	
1890-1913	75.0	
1914-1972	87.5	
1973-date	90.0

I'd guess that the low number of games, pitching rules, and perhaps movement from catching to other positions is why the first period is so much higher than the second. The numbers go up and down over those years, but the figures I've chosen are fairly representative.

If you want to adjust for the fact a guy is primarily a catcher, first of all, I'd insist he be primarily a catcher in the season in question to avoid giving the Joe Torres an unfair advantage. The method I used breaks down to:
Win Shares times Team games adjustment divided by catcher adjustment

Win Shares is self-explanatory. The Team games adjustment is one for seasons from 1904 on. Up to 1903, the figure is the greater of 1 or 154 divided by Team games (watching out for teams that folded or were in-season additions). The catcher adjustment is one if the player did not play more games at catcher than any other positon (outfield counts as one spot). If he played more games at catcher than any other position, use the greater figure of the table two posts above or his games played divided by team games.

If you want to do this for 1871-1875 catchers, use the 1876-1883 adjustment figure and also make sure the team played a fairly standard number of games, because the schedules for that time are quite unbalanced.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Joe Torre and Roger Bresnahan are really tough cases because they played significant time at other spots, most importantly first for Torre and outfield for Bresnahan. I figured if I was going to allow them more playing time because they were catchers and my method allowed more playing time for seasons when they were primarily catchers but played significant time at other spots, they should also bear a proportional share of the higher HOF standards for outfielders/1B/DH players. Doing so was enough to keep them out of my queue as players.

I might add that of the ten most similar players to each of these guys, only two of Torre's and one of Bresnahan's are in the Hall of Fame--and Bresnahan's one is Bucky Harris, who's in as a manager. Probably the most serious demerit for Bresnahan in my mind, though, is the brevity of his career (4481 AB). He almost can overcome it for me, but not quite.

[jalbright]

Chino Smith

I can't go for him because of his very short career. I know his career was shortened by causes well beyond his control--but I take the same stance on Ross Youngs and Ray Chapman and may on Addie Joss. If we give all those guys the benefit of the doubt on such what-ifs, then we've got to deal with Tony Conigliaro and Dicky Thon and Herb Score and at least a dozen other guys I can't think of right now. Smith's performance was quite impressive in the time he had--but for me to go with a guy who had such a short career, he'd have had to be the best player in all of baseball each of those six years. I don't think he makes that harsh standard.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Deacon White ELECTED BBF HOF

He averaged 23.70 Win Shares in the majors (post National Association) per 162 games for 13.18 whole seasons. That's sold all-star territory on average throughout his career. He added to that 3.97 whole seasons in the National Association at a fine 3.1 games above average in TPR. That type of performance has landed him in Baseball Think Factory's "Hall of Merit" and our own Timeline's Hall.

He twice led the league in average, three times in RBI, led the league in runs created once and was third twice more in that category. In Black Ink, he amassed 28 points, good for 62nd best of all time, and in Gray Ink, he scores 178 points, good for 55th best all time. All data in this paragraph is from Baseball-reference.com.

[jalbright]

Tony Mullane, Pitcher

9th in wins all time
9th in innings pitched all time
9th in strikeouts all time
7th in games started all time
8th in complete games all time
7th in Win Shares all time for pitching
45th in Total Win Shares all time (this includes his pitching, batting and fielding WS)
Black Ink 55th all time
Grey Ink 42nd all time
HOF Standards 40th all time

Also a decent hitter, with a career OPS+ of 87.

Seven of the ten most similar pitchers to him (as determined by baseball-reference.com) are in the HOF.

OK, so Mullane's league, the American Association was weaker. However, let's compare him to his contemporaries:

Pitcher....	career	best3	5Consecutive
Radbourn..	391	199	270
Clarkson..	396	173	248
Keefe......	413	159	236
Galvin.....	403	155	187
Welch.....	354	145	193
Mullane....	399	159	229
Caruthers	335	162	254
McCormick	334	136	196
Whitney...	275	139	200
Hecker....	259	155	221

His career value matches up well with everybody from his time, and he stands up well to Galvin and Keefe, though Galvin would look better without having to include one bad year in his 5 consecutive. We've included Caruthers in the BBF HOF, and their top 3 are a good match, but Mullane has the much better career mark and Caruthers the much better consecutive five year mark. With my preference for the career, you should know that means I prefer Mullane, but others wouldn't share that sentiment. However, Mullane is clearly superior to one HOFer on the list (Welch, who is receiving more support in BBF HOF voting as I write) and the other non-HOFers (McCormick, Whitney, Hecker). He belongs.

[jalbright]

Pud Galvin ELECTED BBF HOF OCTOBER 2005

Bill James' dismissal of 19th century play in general led him to leave this guy out of his top 100 pitchers in his latest Historical Abstract. I can't see any other reason for it:

364 career wins, 5th best all time
over 6000 IP
2.86 ERA
402 career win shares after 1875, second most of anyone born before 1860 and 43rd best all time per the Win Share book.
won 46 games in a season--twice
twice led the league in shutouts and had the 11th most for his career
led the league in strikeouts 4 times, second once and fourth once
248 Gray ink points, 21st among pitchers

Cooperstown, The Hall of Merit and Timeline guys agree with me, putting him in their Halls. Also, 8 of the ten most similar pitchers as determined by baseball-reference.com are in Cooperstown.

[jalbright]

King Kelly ELECTED BBF HOF OCTOBER 2005

This man averaged 30.95 win shares per 162 games for 13.44 whole seasons. That's borderline MVP level each and every one of those 13.44 whole years! That alone is a HOF qualification. He's in Cooperstown, the Timeline group's Hall, and the Baseball Think Factory Hall of Merit.

From Baseball-reference.com:
Won 2 batting titles, third two other times
led in runs scored 3 times, 5 other times in top 4
6 times in top 5 in RBI
led once in runs created, third three other times

23 black ink points, 83rd all-time among hitters
221 gray ink points, 31st all-time among hitters

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Sherry Magee ELECTED BBF HOF

He's in the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit". Here's a few reasons why:

354 career win shares, 13th among LF listed in latest BJHA and 84th best all time among all players per the Win Share book;
His best five consecutive win shares given in BJHA is also 13th among LF in that book;
Discounting Elmer E. Smith's pitching, his best three seasons are 5th best among LF in the BJHA

From Baseball-reference.com:
4 time RBI champ, second once and fourth two other times;
6 times in top 5 in steals;
twice led league in runs created and in top five four other times;


35 Black Ink points, 42nd all-time among hitters; and
210 Gray Ink points, 33rd all-time among hitters.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Fred Clarke ELECTED BBF HOF OCTOBER 2005

In Cooperstown, the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit" and our own Timeline project's hall. He has 400 win shares, 6th among left fielders listed in the BJHA and 44th best all time among all players in the Win Shares book. He also had 160 gray ink points, good for 70th among hitters. He accomplished this while spending the vast majority of his career as a player/manager. I might add that 8 of his 10 most similar players listed by baseball-reference.com are in Cooperstown.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Early Wynn ELECTED BBF HOF

Won the 1959 Cy Young Award, and averaged 24.64 win shares (solid all-star level) per season during his career.

From Baseball-reference.com:
in top 4 in ERA five times;
led league in wins twice, in top 4 six other seasons;
21st in career wins with 300;
twice led league in strikeouts and in top 4 in seven other seasons;
21st in career shutouts;

37 Black Ink points, 39th among pitchers; and
264 Gray Ink points, 14th among pitchers.

His career win share total of 309 is 157th best among all players all time in the Win Shares book, and he had the third most win shares of any pitcher in the 1950's, behind only Spahn and Roberts.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Joe McGinnity ELECTED BBF HOF

This guy is 22d among pitchers in the latest BJHA in career win shares, 12th for the total of his best 3 seasons, and 16th for his best 5 consecutive total. Perhaps as impressive or even moreso is that in the 1900s, he had the 8th most win shares of all players, and third most of pitchers, behind only Cy Young and Mathewson.

He comes out at 29.52 win shares per season, which is near-MVP levels each year. His career winning percentage of .634 is 44th best all time

He has 64 Black Ink points, which is 17th all-time among pitchers
He also has 190 Gray Ink points, which is 48th all-time among pitchers.

Six of his ten most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame, but most importantly, 4 of his top 5 most similar are in the Hall.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Ross Barnes:

Look at the ten most similar to him in baseball-reference.com:

Cal McVey (898)
George Wright (856) *
Bill Keister (856)
Fresco Thompson (829)
Levi Meyerle (827)
Fred Carroll (827)
Lip Pike (821)
Johnny Hodapp (817)
Michael Young (810)
Heinie Reitz (806)

Only one HOFer in the bunch, and Wright had six or seven fine years before the National Association got going--so that comparison simply isn't a very good one. IMO, Wright's the only one who deserves the honor.

Let's look at a thumbnail sketch of Ross Barnes' career:

1) He was an everyday player (Note: pitchers with short careers still might pitch 2500 innings, especially in the 19th century, while everyday guys might get 320 games, 1700 AB in six seasons like Barnes) with a

2) short career containing a

3) moderate (6 year) period of excellence

4) against competition weaker than than in a normal 20th century major league season

5) while playing an unbalanced, abbreviated schedule.

6) Furthermore, his excellence in those years was in some part due to exploiting a rule (fair-foul hits) which his contemporaries deemed unworthy to allow to continue.

7) Coincidentally or not, when the aforementioned rule changed, his excellent performance evaporated.

8) In fairness, he had injury/illness issues after 1876.

9) The fact remains that after the rule change, he played only three seasons

10) in which he was mediocre at best.

I think it is fair to say that the sum of the argument for his greatness rests on 320 or so games, about 1700 at bats over six years in a fledgling major league with an unbalanced schedule. Give him more games and AB or even more years or a stronger, more organized league, I might be willing to listen. As it is, I feel there is too little evidence to support the argument that he is a truly great player. One has to project too much based on too little data in the face of too many questions to see him as a great player, at least in my book.

================================================== ======
More discussion on Barnes followed in another thread, and I think it appropriate to include here:

Exactly how did Barnes exploit the fair/foul rule? Was it by what we would call a bunt, or was it by pulling a ground ball fair then foul before the third base bag. One of Paul's comments (#9) in the discussion on him at BBTF here would indicate the latter.

The old rule enabled Barnes to hit many safe "fair-foul" balls back past 3B.

If you smacked a foul grounder past third, I would think that's a double. I don't know how you could consistently bunt for doubles. One of the key elements Barnes lost in 1877 was his isolated power. If it was a bunt-type move, I could soften my stance. But if he's gaining an advantage by smacking them down the 3B line and past that bag, the loss of the fair/foul rule may be at least a key reason for his 1877 decline.

I'm not going to dismiss his ability to take advantage of a rule, but greatness is also about being able to adapt. If he was that much of a one-trick pony, I don't have any qualms about failing to vote for him. So, how much of a one trick pony was he?


One reason I think it's important to understand what he's doing is to understand what the defense had to do to try to deal with him that they wouldn't have to under the 1877 and after rule. If you're bunting, I think that especially a righty would want to bunt to the first base side. If he runs up in foul territory, he can make it a nasty throw for whoever fields the bunt. If you're smacking them up the lines landing short of the bag fair then going foul, that's tough for the infield to deal with effectively--and if they try to, they're almost sure to leave significantly larger holes toward the middle of the field. Also, a guy could shoot them up the lines by pulling them early or pushing them late--and if it was/became a habitual swing, it wouldn't be easy to get away from to deal with the new realities.

That said, a truly great player at age 27 (which is what Barnes was when the new rule came in in 1877) should be able to adapt far more effectively than he did. I understand that injuries could be a part of if (maybe even most of it)--but if we can't reasonably determine that the bulk of the difference wasn't due to the rule change, I think that it's best to hold off on Barnes. If we can eventually adequately demonstrate it was almost all injury, we can induct him then. If we can't, it's a shame we can't figure out that complex question--but I still feel leaving him out in that scenario is better than letting him in if we later could demonstrate that he was largely a product of a rule and couldn't adapt when it changed.

AG2004 did a nice analysis of Barnes' defense after 1876, and it too showed a marked decline, certainly supporting the notion that illness was an issue in Barnes' decline on the offensive side as well.

His triple and home run rates dropped precipituously in 1877. I wouldn't associate them ordinarily with a rule like the fair/foul hit, but it's clear Barnes was a small man (145 pounds), yet hit a lot of extra base hits. Could the fair/foul hit, with other conditions of the time, enabled him to get his extra base hits?. Homers isn't that huge a deal, as we're talking less than 3 HR (more like 2.7) lost from 1877 on in the NL. Triples, though, are more significant, with a loss of about 15 triples in his NL career from 1877 on (in 710 AB). His doubles are just under half (24 instead of about 50) his pre 1877 rate per AB, but we don't know how many doubles may have been fair/foul hits. If fair/foul doubles were a very small portion (say under 10%) of his total doubles, I'd have to say injury/illness was the culprit for all but his average, and maybe a good bit of that. If half his pre 1877 doubles were fair/foul jobs, well, it gets hard to buy the injury/illness as an answer. There's a continuum between those two extremes, obviously. Finally, has anybody even figured out how many of Barnes' hits were of the fair/foul variety? I mean, guys are noted for things that only happen 20 or so times in a 162 game season (OF assists and triples are two examples that come to mind), so it isn't out of the question that we're talking 10-12 hits in the short seasons he's playing, maybe 20-30 in the 710 NL AB starting in 1877. He lost about 91 hits from his pre 1877 rates, and if no more than a third of them were fair/foul jobs, it would then be clear injury/illness is the main culprit in his decline. Even if we had the data from one season from 1871-1876, it might be quite helpful, and if we had two such seasons of data , I think we could reasonably be expected to come up with solid answers.

[jalbright]

Ted Williams versus Willie Mays

Category...........	Ted	Willie
career WS.........	555	642
best 3 WS..........	139	124
best 5 consec WS	220	197
Black Ink............	122	57
Gray Ink.............	326	357
HOF Standards....	73.0	75.9

There's one more thing I look at carefully, and that's wartime service/time lost to the color bar/etc. This one's a bit subjective, and while Mays lost almost 2 full years in the Army, Ted lost almost 5 in the Air Force. I can't give Willie any extra credit for time lost to the color line, since he was young and needed a chance to gain some traction in the majors when he came up.

Ted would probably lead in career win shares but for those extra three years, and he's already so close in HOF standards that another three years would probably push him ahead there as well. He wouldn't have lost anything in his best 3 or best five consecutive win shares, IMO, nor in black ink. I suspect he'd have also bested Willie in gray ink with those extra three years. Regardless, once you give Ted those extra three years, I can't see anywhere where Willie would have a big edge, and Ted has significant edges already in Black Ink and the two peak win share measures. I've got to go with Ted, though I'll concede it's possible this approach works somewhat against Willie because it underestimates defense. I just don't think the amount of underestimation can be large enough to overcome Ted's advantages.

[jalbright]

Enos Slaughter ELECTED BBF HOF

He missed time to WWII, yet had almost 2400 hits and a .300 career average, was a 10 time all-star, won 2.10 MVP shares and managed to get more gray ink than the average HOF batter (161 vs 144). Those 2.10 MVP shares is 78th best all time. His career win share total is 124th best all time among all players as it is. Give him those years in his prime (ages 27 to 29), and he'd look even better. If you give him any reasonable credit for those three years, he'd have enough win shares to crack the top 75 all time, which he's only 38 below. That's not much for a three year starter, much less Slaughter in his prime. He's also easily over 2800 hits (probably 2900) with a .300+ average. There's no one with at least 2800 hits and a .300 career average who's not in Cooperstown. Harold Baines has 2866 hits, but not a .300 average (he also isn't eligible yet IIRC) Baines, who spent a lot of time as a DH, has to be rated behind Slaughter defensively, and though he has a twelve point edge in slugging, he's behind by twenty-six points in the even more important on base percentage. Al Oliver is the closest man to 2800 hits with a .300 average at 2743. However, I think most people would prefer Slaughter's defense, and while their averages and slugging percentages are close (AO .303 and .451, ES .300 and .453), Slaughter's on base percentage is quite a bit better, .382 to .344.

Forgetting the wartime service issue, his performance in terms being among the league leaders was racked up in valuable categories: 8 times in the top ten in average; 6 times in the top 10 in OBP; 6 times in the top 10 in slugging percentage; 6 times in the top 10 in runs; 5 times in the top ten in walks; six times in the top 10 in RBI (he led once); and 6 times in the top 7 in runs created (again, he led once).

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Joe Judge
I look at seven categories in determining a player's HOF worthiness, and Judge doesn't do very well in any of them. He doesn't appear to have lost any time due to military service, which isn't unique. His HOF standards score is about 233rd best among hitters, which is far too low for a HOF-caliber first baseman. He only got 1 Black Ink point, which is again quite poor for a HOF-caliber first baseman. He only got 48 Gray Ink points, which is 499th best all-time among hitters. Given that the Hall has 140 or so major league hitters and first basemen never have had the defensive importance of catchers or middle infielders, that's really enough to disqualify him from consideration right there.

He's 29th in career win shares among first basemen in the latest BJHA, but since 20 is about the limit, that's not good enough either. The other win share categories get worse: 92nd for his top 3 seasons, and 73rd for his best five consecutive seasons.

For a capper, only one of the top ten of his most similar batters as determined by Baseball-reference.com is in the HOF, and that one a) is the less than overwhelming Edd Roush, and, more importantly, 2) is the tenth of those ten players (i.e. the least similar). I would definitely rather have Roush, who was a centerfielder rather than a first baseman, and slugged .446 versus Judge's .420. Judge walked more, so he actually led in OBP by 9 points despite having a 25 point lower average. Roush had 24 more career hits, so their career length is close.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Paul Hines ELECTED BBF HOF

He was a top-notch fielder in centerfield during the early days of baseball, as Win Shares fielding wins indicates he deserved seven Gold gloves. He won a Triple Crown in 1878 and led position players in win shares three times. He was among the top five among position players in his league three more years. He led his league in average twice and in runs created twice.

His black ink total of 30 is 59th best all-time, and his gray ink score of 186 is 48th best all-time. He averaged 27.23 win shares per 162 games in his post National Association career, which ran for 14.73 complete seasons. Twenty-seven win shares is a high all-star quality of play, though not quite MVP caliber. He was rather good (if not exactly great) in the National Association as well, with a TPR of 1.6 per 162 games.

All these factors led to his selection to the BBF Timeline Hall as well as to Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit. It's time for him to join the BBF HOF as well.

Jim Albright