Albright's musings

[jalbright]

Competitive Balance is not a proper measure of quality of play

Competitive balance measures a ton of factors which have nothing to do with the quality of play. Try this experiment--take any worthwhile sim and, with the same league of players, first run a bunch of seasons where 1 team drafts its starters, then the next drafts its starters, and so on throughout the league. Once everyone has their starters, the first team gets to fill out its bench and bullpen, then the second, and so on. That league wouldn't be very balanced, would it? Then take the very same league and do an ordinary draft, but make it serpentine, so that if you've got an eight team league, the eighth team gets the 8th, 9th, 24th and 25th picks, the 7th team the 7th, 10th, 23rd and 26th etc. That league should show far more balance when you run a bunch of seasons for it--but the starters for each league would essentially be the same--so what is the difference in quality of play between those two leagues? My answer is there's very, very little, all due to some of the better bench players getting more use in the serpentine league than the strong team/weak team league--but competitive balance measures would not agree.

[jalbright]

Indeed...I hate it...HATE it...when people quote home/road splits and then make sweeping statements like "see...if he hit anywhere else he'd have done X"...that's just a bad practice.

If Ott had hit somewhere else for a living, what makes you sure he wouldn't have found THAT park's weakness and exploited it. It takes a lot of skill to very carefully aim the ball right down the line like that.

I hear what you're saying here, but I think there's a real value in home road splits for guys whose careers were at least allegedly greatly shaped by the park. I'm more interested in the idea of whether a guy showed he was great outside his home park. If it was allegedly a pitcher's paradise, and he was no more than a good mortal at home, but excellent on the road, it supports the argument. If he was also no more than a good mortal on the road, it undercuts the argument he was that badly hurt by the park. If a guy was a monster in his hitter's paradise (Chuck Klein in the Baker Bowl) but rather ordinary outside it, I've got to question the idea he was great since to me greatness means the ability to show excellence in more than one setting. If he's more like Ott, helped by the park but still excellent on the road, then I don't think there's much reason to doubt his greatness.

--------------------------------------------------------

In another thread, I added this:

Big home/road splits can be but aren't always a big issue. I don't start with that issue in mind, because while greatness should be something that can be shown in a variety of circumstances (i.e. on the road), 1) almost everybody has some home edge, and 2) an unusual ability to exploit one's home park can result in very real wins for one's team.

I look at some measures which aren't park adjusted (black and gray ink, HOF standards), and some which are (career win shares, top 3 seasons in win shares, best 5 consecutive seasons in win shares). Generally, those measures line up largely on one side or the other. Obviously, in those cases, I needn't consult home/road splits. Even when the measures split, it often isn't along the park adjusted/not park adjusted axis, so I rarely get into home/road splits then. However, when they split along that particular axis, I will tend to look at home/road splits, particularly if I know a guy played in an extreme park. I'll still tend to go with the result of the way I combine those factors, but in those cases, I find it helpful to my decision to look at those splits.

[jalbright]

Factors for and against improvement in quality of the game, as I see it:

For:

1. Increases in the talent to draw from, such as through integration and internationalization.

2. Improvements in medicine and training has saved careers and thus works to achieve factor #1.

3. Specialization works to get better production out of the players on hand.

4. Strategic improvements, such as recognition of the importance of plate discipline for hitters leads to better instruction and selection of better players.

5. Rules which work toward limiting hoarding of talent, such as the draft and the fact minor leaguers can become free agents.

Against:

1. Expansion. If you have to have more players, you're going to be reaching deeper in the talent pool.

2. Other sports. I'm not sure baseball has lost a great deal of talent to basketball and football, but I'm sure it's lost some. John Elway probably would have been a good pitcher, but he was an even better quarterback. If Elway's specific case doesn't persuade you, it's an example of the kind of thing that can happen.

3. Hoarding of players. I'll talk about the unique case of free agency below, but I think that dedicated farm teams are bad for quality of play because they enable teams to hoard talent. Look at the Yankees from the late thirties to about 1960. They stocked their farm system and held on to a lot of those players, at least delaying artificially their entry into the majors. Before dedicated farm teams, there were independent minor leagues which had pretty much the same interest in developing players as dedicated farm teams do, but the very fact they were independent worked against hoarding.

4. Increased use of more pitchers, by expanding the rotation and the bullpen. This limits the number of hitters that can be kept on rosters, which doesn't help, but more importantly, you've got to go deeper and deeper into the talent pool to keep and use all those pitchers.

Frankly, I don't know how all these factors play out, because they counteract each other, and in any event are hard to accurately measure individually or in the aggregate.

A word on free agency. There are aspects of free agency which help the quality of play, most notably the fact it works against hoarding. Another is the fact teams which lose free agents are compensated with additional draft picks. I don't think the greater salaries are a big factor, at least not any more. They may well have been early on in free agency by encouraging talented players to stay in the game to cash in. However, given the mega-salaries today, I think at least some aging players feel they've gotten their money and that the work to stay in the game at a diminished capacity isn't worth it. I think early in free agency, the system actually worked to some degree against hoarding of talent, especially given the rules cited above. It's by no means certain that in an economic model where some teams are priced out of the market for even second-tier free agents doesn't permit hoarding of talent--and that works against league quality. So to my mind, the economic situation determines if free agency helps or hurts league quality.

Another point about salaries is that for the past 120 years or more, the majors have paid players more than almost every other profession. It has drawn college men when college degreed men were rare. Of course, not all players are as qualified for professions outside of baseball as turn of the century college men--so their chances of getting similar pay in any legal occupation have always been quite slight. I think that state of affairs is a quite powerful economic incentive, and making the game even more lucrative to play is largely icing on the cake.

[jalbright]

It still strikes me as odd that you won't even consider it possible that say, 1910 could be AAA level compared to say, 1975. I look at the 1960's AL vs. NL. During All-Star games during this period, the NL beat the AL 12 games to 1, with 1 tie. Do you think a AAA team in 2006 might be able to take one game out of 14 against a major league team? Probably! And these were contemporaneous leagues, separated only by their degree of integration.

Let me try this one on you. Other than 1944-1945 and the Federal League, can we agree that probably the weakest league in the 60' 6" pitching distance era was the 1901 AL? It was a minor league in 1900, but look at some factors which push it above that level:

1. It was an independent minor league, so it didn't have to give up all its top talent.

2. Related to the first point is the fact that in 1900 the teams were contemplating making the AL a rival to the NL, so they probably not only refused to sell any talent they thought might be useful, they should have tried to quietly stockpile some talent as well.

3. There were only eight major league teams at the time, so those teams should not have been able to tie up as much talent, especially since they were adapting from the contraction of the league from 12 to 8 teams.

4. On top of all that, the AL went out and raided the NL for top talent.

If the 1901 AL isn't minor league, what league other than the FL or WW II years could be?

Using All-star games to determine league quality is using a very small and atypical sample for the job. Yes, the NL had more top talent due to the fact that Afro-American players preferred Jackie's league. But look at the World Series: the AL won 4 series, and 29 out of the 60 games. Their teams averaged 3.3 more wins than the NL team, so this data supports the notion the NL was stronger--but not by anything like the difference between a major and minor league.

Also, if the level of play has improved sufficiently to move another league outside of 1944-1945, the Federal League, and perhaps 1901's AL to the equivalent of minor league status of some other league, wouldn't we expect that either the champion of the minor league would be a fairly poor team unless it was exceptionally dominant? Since we haven't had teams much over .700 since at least 1900 (didn't bother to check back to 1893), I wouldn't call that exceptional dominance in the sense I mean it here. I'm thinking more of .800+ winning percentages, which haven't happened. So which post 1900 league champions beyond the leagues I've already mentioned in this paragraph would have at least 20 more losses than wins in a 154 game schedule or 25 in a 162 game schedule which other league/season?

[jalbright]

Keith Hernandez

His 11 gold gloves would mean a lot more at any other position except pitcher. First is much more an offense first position. My take on Hernandez is that it depends on exactly where you draw the line. He's near the borderline in most aspects. To me, he's usually just a little shy, so that's what I'd go with, but he'd hardly be a disastrous choice if we ignore political correctness concerns.

He was an all-star five times, which is borderline, and his black ink, gray ink and HOF standards scores are all just a little shy (about 20 spots), but not by huge amounts. None of his ten most similar are likely to make the Hall. His peak win shares rank just a little lower among 1B than I'd like to see (23rd for top 3 and 19th for best five consecutive). His career win share mark is just inside where I'd draw the border at 16th among 1B.

His one clear positive is his performance in MVP win shares. I just don't think that's enough to put him over the top.

[jalbright]

Hugh Duffy ELECTED BBF HOF

His black and gray ink numbers are at or above the levels of an average HOFer, as is his HOF standards score. He won a Triple Crown in 1894. His best five consecutive seasons in win shares ranks thirteenth among CF listed in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract, which clearly is yet another HOF-quality marker. He's 20th among CF in the BJHA in career win shares, but his mark is in HOF territory, ranking 179th overall. His best three seasons in win shares is a tad below HOF level, finishing 21st among CF in the BJHA. However, 1 of those 21 is Cy Seymour, who beats him on the strength of a 19th century pitching season. I can't see keeping him out of the BBF HOF for one slightly subpar mark among the six I look at.

There are some other marks you might consider: a .324 career average. the fact he was in the top six in runs seven times, and that he was in the top ten in runs created six times.

[jalbright]

There's a thread which collects thoughts on the issue of measuring league quality. The link to it is: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=34915

[jalbright]

--Nobody I'm aware of thinks Ryan was merely average. He makes most people's top 25 all time, which is very impressive. The bashing is more of some knuckleheads who consider Ryan at or near the very top spot.

I'd second that. To look at some other of Ryan's contemporaries, I think I'd go with Gaylord Perry over Nolan, but Ryan over Phil Niekro (and Blyleven and Sutton):

………........	career	best 3	5consec	……….	MVP	CyYoung.. 	Black	Gray	HOF
………….....	WS	WS	WS	AllStar	shares	shares.....	Ink	Ink	Standards
Ryan.......	334	74	108	8	0.23	1.48.......	84	251	55
Perry......	367	88	134	5	0.55	2.00.......	29	249	57
Niekro.....	375	86	118	5	0.19	0.41.......	43	191	52
Sutton.....	318	67	99	4	0.02	0.43.......	8	240	58
Blyleven...	339	75	114	2	0.09	0.45.......	16	239	50
Carlton....	367	95	111	10	1.36	4.29.......	66	282	58
Seaver....	391	88	142	12	1.39	3.85.......	57	292	66
Palmer.....	313	88	126	6	1.00	3.57.......	41	206	56
Jenkins.....	323	89	135	3	0.69	1.81.......	36	203	53

[jalbright]

There's a thread with a lot of discussion of the merits of putting international players in the HOF here: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41490

[jalbright]

Max Carey ELECTED BBF HOF

Max Carey may not have a great peak, but he was an excellent player for a considerable period of time. He is the 30th best in win shares in the 1910's and was even better in the 20's, finishing 20th. As a result, he's 7th among centerfielders in career win shares, an 88th overall in career win shares. He was good enough to finish 52nd all time in black ink and 86th in gray ink.

To amplify the point about his excellence, this is a man who wasn't feared for his power but was for his speed--yet he was able to walk a lot. He was in the top 10 in walks drawn 12 times, which helped him get into the top 10 in OBP six times and into the top six in runs scored 10 times. He is 49th in career runs scored. He's ninth in career steals behind leading the league in that category 10 times (about half of them in the deadball era), second three more times, and two more times in the top five. He was also in the top ten in runs created seven times.

He also was superb with the leather, winning six Win Shares Gold Gloves. All this was enough for the Baseball Think Factory guys to put him in their "Hall of Merit".

[jalbright]

Elmer Flick ELECTED BBF HOF

He only finishes 27th in career win shares among the RF listed in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract--but 192nd in that same measure among all players. Tells you something about the strength of that position. It's not an overwhelming positive, but it's certainly not a negative.

Beyond that, though, the indicators are quite good: 13th among RF in top 3 seasons in win shares, 10th among RF in best 5 consecutive seasons in win shares, 83rd among hitters in black ink, and 54th among hitters in gray ink. He also had the seventh most win shares in the decade of the 1900's. He's more than good enough to belong.

Another way of looking at his case is by how he did in terms of being among the league leaders, and it's positive IMO. He was in the top ten in average seven times (leading once), in the top eight in OBP eight times, in the top six in slugging percentage seven times (leading once), in the top ten in runs six times, in the top ten in RBI five times (leading once), in the top seven in walks drawn seven times, and in the top ten in steals six times (leading twice).

He won over the guys at Baseball Think Factory, who inducted him into their "Hall of Merit".

I can add this fine 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 position players on his teams in win shares twice: 1900 and 1907. However, during Flick’s Cleveland years, Nap Lajoie was usually led the team’s position players in that category.

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

He led all major league OF in win shares in 1904, and all MLB RF in 1901 and 1907. He led all AL RF in win shares in 1906 as well. He was second among NL OF in win shares in 1900, and third among AL OF in 1905.

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

No. Of the teams Flick was a regular on, the 1906 Cleveland team came closest to winning a pennant, finishing five games out of first place. Cleveland finished half a game out of first in 1908, but Flick played in only 9 games that year.

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

No. However, the end came quickly due to a severe stomach ailment after the 1907 season (he was 31 that year).

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: Kip Selbach, Earle Combs, Ginger Beaumont, Baby Doll Jacobson, Joe Vosmik, Jack Tobin, Elmer Smith, Pete Fox, Cy Seymour, Mike Tiernan. None are in the BBFHOF, and only Combs is in Cooperstown. However, Flick has a lifetime OPS+ of 149. Of the ten players listed, only one player has an OPS+ greater than 126: Tiernan at 138.

Career win shares, RF: Jack Clark 316, Larry Walker 311, Bobby Bonds 302, Ken Singleton 302, Kiki Culyer 292, FLICK 291, Fielder Jones 290, Dixie Walker 278, Bobby Murcer 277, Rocky Colavito 273. This is not BBFHOF territory.

As usual, the win shares from 1900 to 1903 are adjusted to a 154-game schedule. This boosts Flick’s best three seasons from 100 to 105, and his best five consecutive seasons from 152 to 155.

Best three seasons, RF: Mel Ott 110, Reggie Jackson 105, FLICK 105, Tony Gwynn 104, Sam Crawford 104, Pete Rose 103, Paul Waner 102, Dave Parker 101, Bobby Murcer 101, Ken Singleton 101. This is BBFHOF territory.

Best five consecutive seasons, RF: Sam Crawford 159, FLICK 155, Harry Heilmann 154, Paul Waner 154, Ken Singleton 153, Dave Parker 150, Bobby Bonds 149, Reggie Jackson 148, Roberto Clemente 146, Bobby Murcer 146. This is also BBFHOF territory.

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

Flick’s Black Ink score of 23 is 84th all-time; his Gray Ink total of 179 places him at number 55. Both are very good signs for Flick. However, his HOF Standards score is 31.0, only 262nd. Flick’s short career and the deadball era both reduced his total score, though. Flick also earned one Win Share Gold Glove.

Flick is in Cooperstown, the Hall of Merit, and the BBF Timeline HOF.

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

Flick played during the deadball era.

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

I would rate Bobby Bonds ahead of him (partially due to a timeline adjustment). However, by giving more weight than I do to questions 11 and 12, one could argue that he is the best RF outside the BBFHOF; Flick is second on my list among MLB’s right fielders.

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 Flick’s era. However, he was second among all NL position players in win shares in 1900. Flick had five seasons with 30+ win shares (even without any adjustment for season length). That’s a great sign that Flick is worthy of enshrinement. All other MLB position players with at least five MVP-type-seasons are in the BBFHOF.

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?

Although there was no All-Star game during Flick’s career, he had nine seasons of 20+ win shares.

In 1902, Flick had 17 win shares in a 140-game season, which projects to 19 in a 154-game season. However, due to lawsuits resulting from league wars, Flick was prohibited from playing for the Philadelphia Athletics, and missed some time before being transferred to Cleveland. Because these lawsuits meant Flick played only 120 games, he deserves some compensation for the missed time, and that would give him an extra All-Star-type season.

Thus, Flick’s ten All-Star-type seasons are another great sign.

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

Given typical support, I have no doubt; most people who played at Flick’s level over ten years could lead their team into pennant races.

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?

None that I know of.

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

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

CONCLUSION: Yes, Flick had a short career. But we have members of the BBFHOF who have neither five MVP-candidate-type seasons nor ten All-Star-type seasons, and Flick managed to reach both totals. He did enough in his career to merit inclusion on my ballot for the BBFHOF.

[jalbright]

George Van Haltren

If you look at his peak win shares without accounting for the shorter seasons he played in, you might well think he doesn't belong. But if you think about the impact of those shorter seasons when combined with the rest of the package, he deserves a closer look. The fact he has a significant portion of his value as a pitcher complicates matters further.

He's 8th in career win shares among CF, 96th overall. He's 118th among hitters in gray ink, which gives him no credit for the 20 points of gray ink he amassed as a pitcher. He meets over 50 HOF standards, which by definition is above average for a Hall of Famer! He also had the 8th best total of win shares in the decade of the 1890's.

Also, look at his win shares per 162 games--he very nearly averaged being a MVP candidate every year in 14.19 full seasons with a 28.88 mark. He also was in the top eight in runs scored eight times and the top ten in runs created six times. He's either just over or just under the cutoff, and the following from AG2004 has persuaded me he's over:

I recently received a request for a Keltner List for Jimmy Ryan. Since Ryan and Van Haltren were so similar, I decided to create a list for Van Haltren while I was at it.

Haltren's case is complicated by the fact that most of his value in three different seasons came as a pitcher (1887, 1888, and 1890); about 41 of his 344 career win shares came as a pitcher. For those seasons, I did not make my usual schedule adjustment for nineteenth-century position players (140 games prior to 1890; 154 games from 1890 onwards). Instead of 20+ and 30+ win share seasons for the All-Star and MVP-candidate cutoffs, I compared Van Haltren to other pitchers.

Case to Consider: VAN HALTREN, George

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?

Van Haltren led his team’s position players in win shares in 1891, 1892, 1895, and 1898.

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

He led NL left fielders in win shares in 1889, and AA left fielders in 1891. He led all center fielders in win shares in 1898, and was second in 1897. He was sixth among OF in 1893, and seventh in 1894 (when there was just one league). Although he was only eighth among NL outfielders in win shares in 1901, his total would have tied him for second among AL outfielders that year.

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

He had no impact whatsoever; when he was an everyday player, his teams were at least 9 games, and often more, behind the pennant winners.

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

Yes, he was.

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, he’s closest to Fred Clarke, Jimmy Ryan, Jesse Burkett, Joe Kelley, Jim O’Rourke, Willie Keeler, Edd Roush, Hugh Duffy, Kenny Lofton, and Harry Hooper. 8 are in Cooperstown, and 6 are in the BBFHOF. However, only Lofton and Hooper have a career OPS+ lower than Van Haltren’s 121.

Adjusted career win shares, 19th-century CFs: Billy Hamilton 371, VAN HALTREN 371, Paul Hines 364, Jimmy Ryan 341. Later CFs with totals close to 371 include Joe DiMaggio 387 (without war credit), Duke Snider 3523, and Max Carey 351. This is very good company for Van Haltren.

Adjusted peak three seasons, 1800s CF: Pete Browning 98, Jake Stenzel 89, VAN HALTREN 88, Jimmy Ryan 88, Bill Lange 87, Dummy Hoy 86, Mike Griffin 83. Later CFers with similar totals include Kirby Puckett 92, Mike Donlin 91, Vada Pinson 90, Lenny Dykstra 90, Roy Thomas 89, Andy Van Slyke 88, Clyde Milan 88, Chick Stahl 87, Ginger Beaumont 87, Richie Ashburn 86, Amos Otis 85, Max Carey 84, and Earle Combs 84. Van Haltren is on the low side here.

Adjusted WS, five best consecutive seasons: George Gore 146, Pete Browning 143, Jimmy Ryan 135, VAN HALTREN 135, Jake Stenzel 128, Bill Lange 127. Later CFs with similar peaks include Cesar Cedeno 140, Richie Ashburn 137, Vada Pinson 137, Edd Roush 136 (without season adjustments), Kirby Puckett 136, Max Carey 133, Roy Thomas 133, Fred Lynn 131, Clyde Milan 130. Again, Van Haltren is on the low side.

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

His Black Ink is at 7, which is only good for 303rd place. His Gray Ink total of 118 puts him at 165th all-time. That would be a little low until we remember that most of it came while there was just one league; he would have picked up a little more had there been two leagues, with the top players divided between each. He’s at 51.2 (65th) in HOF Standards list, however, and that is a positive. Van Haltren also earned two Win Shares Gold Gloves.

He is in neither Cooperstown nor the Hall of Merit.

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

The 1890s favored hitters, but the Polo Grounds were more pitcher-friendly back then, so the two balance each other.

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

No. George Gore is better among nineteenth-century center fielders. I also see Roush and Poles as better choices for the BBFHOF. However, if you go mainly by total career value, Van Haltren has a case.

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

The MVP award was not given during Van Haltren’s career. His only season with 30+ win shares, adjusting for schedule length, was 1890, but pitching put him over the top there, and that was not a Cy Young Award-type season in 1890. However, Van Haltren comes out to 29 win shares per 154 scheduled games in 1891 and 1898.

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?

Adjusting for season length, he had eleven All-Star-type seasons as a position player (none as a pitcher). Players with that many seasons are usually Hall of Famers.

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

During his peak years, yes.

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 gave up 16 bases on balls in one game in 1887, which is still the major league record. Other than that, I can’t think of any major impact.

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 know.

CONCLUSION: If you go purely by career, Van Haltren has a very good case; he also has eleven All-Star-type seasons, and that is a good sign. His peak value may be a little low, but, given the type of support other players of that caliber have had during their peaks, Van Haltren would have had his team in the thick of the pennant race during his peak years had he been the best position player on his team – he was consistently in the high 20s in win shares during that time when you adjust for season length. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with putting Van Haltren in my queue for the BBFHOF.

[jalbright]

Bobby Doerr ELECTED BBF HOF

You've got to remember he lost one year to military service in WW II, and then what might seem as a close call gets a lot easier in his favor. He got 27 win shares in the seasons on each side of the one he missed, so I don't think it's stretching things to credit him with being likely to get 25 in that missing year.

As it is, his career win shares is 18th best among 2B and 215th overall. However, with 25 more win shares, he moves up about 1 spot (if we give him wartime service, some others should get it too) among 2B, but about 50 spots overall. That puts him in HOF range in this measure. His top 3 in win shares is 23d, which is a little weak, but not terribly so. His best 5 consecutive in win shares is 17th among 2B, again in HOF range. His gray ink is 135th all time, excellent for a second baseman, and he is 134th in HOF standards for hitters, which is also good for a second baseman. He finished 8th in win shares for the 1940's, though he probably would fall from the top 10 if everybody gets reasonable credit for military service. Even so, that's a HOF-caliber achievement. He was an all-star nine times, another HOF-caliber achievement. Overall, I think there's more than enough to conclude he belongs.

Yes, he had some advantages in being among the league leaders by only serving one year in the military in WWII, but that only gives him two "easy" years--and he's a second baseman, don't forget. OK, so Fenway helped him, too. Still, he was in the top ten in slugging seven times (leading once), the top ten in homers seven times, the top ten in RBI eight times, and the top ten in runs created five times.

He has been inducted into the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit"

[jalbright]

Vern Stephens

He's an 8 time all star and despite being a shortstop is 78th in MVP shares. He's had the 10th best total of win shares in the 1940's, and while he didn't lose time to military service, he has no win shares before 1942 to even things out.

He's the 21st best shortstop in career win shares, which is a tad low. However, his best 3 seasons place him 14th among shortstops and his best five consecutive seasons places 17th among shortstops, so he's on a HOF pace there. He is 121st in Black Ink and 108th in gray ink, excellent for a shortstop.

Let's look at some of that ink. Yes, some of those leaderships came in wartime--but he's a shortstop, for goodness sakes. He once led the league in homers, and was in the top four in that category six times. That helped him get into the top 10 in slugging percentage seven times and to lead the league in RBI three times and to place in the top four in that category three more times. He also was in the top ten in runs created six times and the top six in runs scored five times.

I think there's more than enough to conclude he belongs.

[jalbright]

Sal Bando

I think Bando gets a bad rap too for being the captain of the "Swinging A's". In reality, he was about as good a captain as the team could have possibly had. He kept them under control, and kind of served as a spokesman for the team with their owner, Charlie Finley. I said this in another post:

Bando was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. He was the leader of the Oakland A's who won three straight championships 1972-1974 and helped to keep the team together during some of their famed brawls. Reggie Jackson in his autobiography talks at some length about how great Bando was for the team and how he kept everyone focused on their goals-winning the World Series. To quote him:

"Sal Bando was the Godfather. Capo di capo. Boss of all bosses on the Oakland A's. We all had our roles, we all contributed, but Sal was the leader and everyone knew it. He didn't make a big deal out of it, but when something needed to be said, he said it."

Bando was the leader of the team. Without him, the A's wouldn't have been the same. The Baseball Page calls him "the glue that held the A's together".

Where do I rank Bando? For a long time I've had him 8th among 3Bmen, and I haven't seen a great argument for why I should lower him. I think Bando had one hell of a peak, and was one of the greatest intangible players of all time. Probably a HOF caliber player.

Bill James rates him 11th among 3Bmen, which is a HOF type rating, and he's not doing it on his subjective element, rather Bando is a player who a closer look at the evidence by James has elevated him into that rating. In his first Abstract, James didn't even mention Bando in his 3B section. Now he's 11th. Why? Simple, Win Shares, which take into account all things a player does in context have showed Bando to be what he really is-a great player. Here are his top 15 3Bs of all time, ranked according to James' rating system, minus the subjective element:

1.Mike Schmidt 153.87
2.Eddie Mathews 148.97
3.George Brett 141.38
4.Wade Boggs 140.89
5.Frank Baker 139.38
6.Ron Santo 133.26
7.Paul Molitor 129.85
8.Al Rosen 127.66
9.Stan Hack 126.55
10.Sal Bando 124.36
11.Darrell Evans 119.75
12.Brooks Robinson 118.14
13.Ken Boyer 116.77
14.Graig Nettles 113.32
15.Pie Traynor 109.04

To bolster the point about Bando's peak, his top 3 in win shares places him 9th among the third basemen listed in the latest Historical Abstract and his best five consecutive puts him 8th. His career was hardly bad, finishing 17th in that group. Also, he had the 16th most win shares of the 1970's.

I'll add this 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?

I don’t think so.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

No, but being the second-best position player behind Reggie Jackson during the Oakland glory years is nothing to be ashamed of.

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

From 1969 to 1974, he was the best third baseman in baseball. He led AL 3B in win shares in 1969, 1971, 1972, and 1973, and all MLB 3B in 1969 and 1973.

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

He certainly did. When Oakland won its division from 1971-75, and the World Series from 1972-74, Bando was team captain and one of the best players on the squad.

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

Yes.

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, the most similar players to Bando are Todd Zeile, Ron Cey, Robin Ventura, Bobby Murcer, Dusty Baker, Ken Caminiti, Bobby Grich, Ron Fairly, Larry Parrish, and Tim Wallach. None are in Cooperstown; however, Grich is in the BBFHOF.

By lifetime WS among 3B, we have: Stan Hack 318, Home Run Baker 301, Buddy Bell 299, Bob Elliott 287, Toby Harrah 284, BANDO 283, Ron Cey 282, Ken Boyer 280, Lave Cross 275, Jimmy Collins 273, Pie Traynor 271, Heinie Groh 271, Eddie Yost 269, Bobby Bonilla 266. The HOFers he finishes ahead of are all pre-WWII players, so he’s low.

By top 3 seasons, we have Wade Boggs 103, Al Rosen 102, Stan Hack 98, SAL BANDO 96, Heinie Groh 95, Bobby Bonilla 91, Paul Molitor 89, Jimmy Collins 89, Tommy Leach 87, Darrell Evans 87, Ken Boyer 86, Brooks Robinson 85. Bando is certainly in BBFHOF territory here.

By top 5 consecutive seasons, we have George Brett 154, Al Rosen 154, Heinie Groh 147, SAL BANDO 143, Stan Hack 140, Paul Molitor 133, Howard Johnson 133, Bobby Bonilla 132, Ken Boyer 131, Brooks Robinson 130. He’s definitely in BBFHOF territory here; the exceptions are Heinie Groh (who could lose out on a timeline adjustment) and Al Rosen (who had a very short career).

Overall, Bando would be closest to Heinie Groh (a legitimate BBFHOF candidate) and Stan Hack (a BBFHOF member).

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

His black ink total is 6, his gray ink total is 85, and his HOF Standards score is 24.6. All of them are very low. Bando never won a Gold Glove.

Bando is in neither Cooperstown nor the Hall of Merit.

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

Oakland had one of the best pitcher’s parks – perhaps the best pitcher’s park – in the American League during Bando’s glory days.

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

Perhaps he is; there’s a good argument to be made that he’s the best 3B outside the BBFHOF.

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

He was second in the MVP vote in 1971, fourth in 1973, and third in 1974. Bando had two seasons with at least 30 win shares.

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?

Bando played in four All-Star games, which is low for a third baseman. However, he had 9 seasons with 20+ win shares, which is a good sign.

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

Yes, it would be likely that the team could win a few pennants, and be in the thick of the pennant race a few other seasons.

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?

Not that I know of.

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 know.

CONCLUSION: Bando doesn’t do too well on some traditional measures. But the WS peak, his status as the best 3B in baseball, and his high showing in several MVP votes combined to push him onto my ballot.

[jalbright]

Heinie Groh

Another thing that's worth mentioning is that Groh has been inducted to the BTF Hall of Merit.

His HOM plaque reads like this:

"Four-time Stats, Inc. NL Third Baseman (1915, 1917-19). Win Shares NL MVP (1918). Win Shares NL Silver Bat winner (1918). Three-time Win Shares NL Gold Glove winner (1915, 1919-20). Armed with his famous “bottle bat,” the right-handed Groh was the NL’s finest all-around third baseman of the Deadball Era. His keen eye at the plate was instrumental for his standout leadoff skills, while he could deftly drop a bunt or execute a proper hit-and-run for his teams’ cause. One of the most sure-handed at his position in baseball history, he led the NL more times (6) in fielding percentage than any other third baseman; he also led his league in putouts three times and double plays seven times. Member of five pennant winners (1923, 1924, 1927, as well as the world champion 1919 and 1922 teams; he hit .474 in the World Series for the latter team). NL leader for OPS (1919), Games (1915, 1917), Runs (1918), Hits (1917), Doubles (1917-18), Walks (1916), HBP (1914, 1924), OBP (1917-18) and Times on Bases (1917-18). Retired with the major league record for highest fielding percentage for a season (.983 in 1924), as well as the NL record for fewest errors, 140 or more games (7 in 1924)."

Groh had a wonderful peak level performance, finishing 10th among third basemen listed in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in his top three seasons in win shares, and 7th in his best five consecutive seasons in that measure. His career wasn't far off the top 17 for career, either, only 12 shy of that mark.

In addition to the league leading performances listed on the HOM plaque, he was in the top five in OBP five times, the top four in runs four times, and the top ten in runs created five times.

There's also this Keltner list 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?

I don’t think they did.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

He was the best player on the Reds in 1917 and 1918.

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

He was the best 3B in baseball over the period 1915-1921. He led major league 3B in win shares in 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, and 1924. Baseball Magazine named him their top 3B in 1915, 1918, and 1919; however, the only lists of its All-American teams that I have are from the period 1908-1919.

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

Yes. Cincinnati ran away with the 1919 pennant, but Groh had 30 win shares in a 140-game season. He was the best 3B in baseball when the Giants won the 1924 pennant by 1.5 games. He batted .474 in the 1922 World Series, and could have been named Series MVP had the award existed then.

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

Yes, for a few years after 1921.

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

I don’t think so.

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

By similarity scores: Pete Runnels, Milt Stock, Billy Goodman, Willie Kamm, Larry Gardner, Eric Young, Ossie Bluege, Harry Steinfeldt, Charlie Jamieson, and Ezra Sutton. None are in Cooperstown; none are in the BBFHOF. However, Groh’s OPS+ is 118. Sutton’s is 119, while nobody else has one greater than 109. And Sutton is the only one of the ten who is in the Hall of Merit.

By lifetime win shares, 3B: Sal Bando 283, Bob Elliott 287, Toby Harrah 284, Ron Cey 282, Ken Boyer 280, Lave Cross 275, Jimmy Collins 273, Robin Ventura 272, GROH 271, Pie Traynor 271, Eddie Yost 269. It’s a mixed bag, with Collins and Traynor in the BBFHOF, and Bando, Boyer, and Elliott receiving votes.

As usual, I’m adjusting the two peak measures for shortened seasons. In Groh’s case, the 1918 and 1919 numbers will be adjusted to 154-game marks.

Best three seasons: Home Run Baker 113, Eddie Mathews 112, George Brett 106, Ron Santo 105, GROH 104, Wade Boggs 103, Al Rosen 102, Stan Hack 98, Sal Bando 96. Everybody on the list is in the BBFHOF except Rosen and Bando; Groh’s 104 is the highest of any 3B outside the BBFHOF.

Best five consecutive seasons: Wade Boggs 162, GROH 156, George Brett 154, Al Rosen 154. This is BBFHOF territory except for Rosen, who had a very short career.

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

Groh has a black ink score of 14, a gray ink score of 90, and a HOF Standards score of 23.8. The ink scores are acceptable for a pre-1935 third baseman, (or a post-1935 second baseman), however. Groh also won three Win Shares Gold Gloves.

Groh is not in Cooperstown. However, he is in the Hall of Merit.

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

His best years were in the deadball era, and two of them were in the shortened seasons of 1918 and 1919. Furthermore, Crosley Field was a pitcher’s park, so that lowered his raw numbers even more.

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

Possibly. He has the highest peak of any 3B outside the BBFHOF.

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

The MVP Award wasn’t given during Groh’s best years. However, he led all NL position players in win shares in 1918, and was second in 1917. Making adjustments for the shortened 1918 and 1919 seasons, Groh had three seasons with 30+ win shares. That’s a good record; most players with three such seasons are in the BBFHOF.

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 Groh’s era. However, he had six seasons with 20+ win shares, and led all major league 3B in win shares in 1924, with 19. That’s seven such seasons, which is a little low. (He did play at an All-Star level when he finally reported to his team in 1921, though.)

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

During his peak years, yes, provided you didn’t have Hal Chase, the all-time leader in games thrown, on the team roster. Unfortunately, the Reds did have chase in 1917 and 1918.

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?

His .983 fielding average, set in 1924, is still the NL record for best fielding average by a third baseman. He was also partly responsible for the creation of the “bottle bat.”

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

Groh was on baseball’s “permanently banned” for a very short period. In 1921, he refused to report to the Reds due to a contract dispute. In mid-June, Cincinnati worked out a trade with the Giants, but Landis vetoed the deal and ruled that Groh would be banned unless he reported to the Reds. Groh did so within two days, and was removed from the banned list. After the 1921 season, Groh was traded to the Giants, and Landis agreed to the trade.

Otherwise, I haven’t seen anything critical of Groh.

CONCLUSION: The high peak is a plus for Groh, especially when you compare him to players with similar career value. The overall package is impressive. I say Groh belongs in the BBFHOF.

[jalbright]

Bid McPhee

He's already in Cooperstown, the BBF Timeline Project Hall and Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit. He averaged a solid all-star level performance of 23.14 win shares per 162 games in a career which lasted 16.40 full seasons of play. That's another way of saying he played at an all-star level for one heck of a long time, and isn't that one definition of a HOFer?

An analysis of Win Shares doesn't hurt him, despite the fact he's a little handicapped by playing in somewhat shorter seasons. He's 17th among 2B in career win shares, 14th best in his best 5 consecutive years, and 21st in his top 3 years. The reasons for this is his bat was more than adequate for a middle infielder, with a career .570 offensive winning percentage added to defense worthy of seven win shares Gold Gloves.

I'll add this fine analysis by AG2004:

Case to Consider: McPHEE, Bid

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 Cincinnati’s position players in win shares in 1886, 1890, 1892, and 1893.

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

He led all major league second basemen in win shares in 1886, and led AA 2B in 1884. He was second among NL second basemen in win shares in 1892, 1893, 1895, and 1896 – but there was just one major league in those years. In years when there were multiple leagues, he was second among his league’s 2B in win shares in 1887, 1889, and 1890.

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

No. Cincinnati won the pennant by 13 games in 1882. While the team was second in 1885 and 1887, it was more than ten games back each time.

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

Definitely. He was still the Reds’ top second baseman at the age of 39.

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

Not in my opinion, and I’m having trouble seeing him as among the very best players outside the BBFHOF.

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

By similarity scores: Bill Dahlen, Herman Long, Tommy Corcoran, Tommy Leach, Bobby Wallace, Pee Wee Reese, Willie Randolph, John Ward, Omar Vizquel, and George Davis. There are four members of Cooperstown on the list, and three players in the BBFHOF (plus Ward, who was voted in as a contributor). Admittedly, there are many shortstops on this list, but McPhee has a reputation as one of the best defensive second basemen of all time.

Adjusted career win shares, 1800s second basemen: McPHEE 342, Hardy Richardson 288, Cupid Childs 263. Modern second basemen with similar totals are Frankie Frisch 366, Lou Whitaker 351, Ryne Sandberg 346, Bobby Grich 329. This is a great sign for McPhee.

Best three seasons, adjusted win shares, 1800s 2B: Hardy Richardson 86, Fred Dunlap 82, McPHEE 75, Tom Daly 74, Fred Pheffer 70. Modern 2B with similar totals include Bobby Doerr 81, Tony Lazzeri 81, Jim Gilliam 81, Dick McAuliffe 81, Buddy Myer 80, Lou Whitaker 80, Steve Sax 79, Dave Lopes 78, Red Schoenienst 78, Willie Randolph 77, Gil McDougald 75, Del Pratt 75, Danny Murphy 75, Lonnie Frey 74, Pete Runnels 74, Bill Doran 74. This is low for the BBFHOF.

Best five consecutive seasons, 1800s 2B: Hardy Richardson 133, Fred Dunlap 124, McPHEE 116, Fred Pfeffer 103. Comparable moderns include Dick McAuliffe 119, Dave Lopes 118, Johnny Evers 117, Lou Whitaker 116, Gil McDougald 116, Tony Lazzeri 115, Buddy Myer 115, Willie Randolph 114, and Eddie Stanky 113. This is not BBFHOF territory.

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

McPhee’s black ink mark of 6 (329th) and gray ink mark of 64 (378th) are both very low. He’s around the cutoff in HOF Standards at 40.9, though, as it’s good for 137th place. However, McPhee earned seven Win Shares Gold Gloves. According to retrosheet, he led his league’s 2B in double plays 11 times, putouts 8 times, assists 6 times, and fielding percentage 8 times.

McPhee is in both Cooperstown and the Hall of Merit.

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

McPhee’s defensive excellence doesn’t show up in his offensive statistics. Win Shares does consider defensive excellence, but there are two reasons to believe that it underrates McPhee.

*Fielding was much more important in the 1880s and 1890s than it is today, so pitchers might get a little bit more credit and fielders a little less than they deserve.

*When win shares are distributed among batters, pitchers, and fielders, there is a cap on how many of them can go to a team’s fielders. While this is not a problem in the modern eras, there were some teams that did reach the cap before the liveball era. I’m trying to remember where I read this, but apparently some of McPhee’s Cincinnati teams reached this maximum.

Combine the two problems – win shares may underrate fielding in the nineteenth-century a little and some of McPhee’s teams getting the maximum possible credit for their fielding under the system – and McPhee’s win share totals may be a little lower than he may deserve.

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

I would rank Home Run Johnson, Frank Grant, Lou Whitaker, and Ross Barnes higher.

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

McPhee never had an MVP-type season; he tops out at 27 win shares in 1892.

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 such game in McPhee’s time. McPhee recorded nine seasons with 20+ adjusted win shares, which is good; eight is the border area. In addition, McPhee had two more seasons which come out to 19 win shares; given that the win shares method underrates his defensive value, adding those seasons would give us an impressive 11 All-Star-type seasons.

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

If you don’t make an adjustment for the problems noted in the answer to question nine, probably not. If you do take those problems into account, he might have done so during his best years.

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?

McPhee still holds the major league records for most career putouts by a second baseman, most putouts by a second baseman in a single season, and most triple plays by a second baseman. In 1896, when he finally used a glove, he fielded .978; he was the first second baseman to have a single-season fielding percentage over .970.

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

His contemporaries praised McPhee for his sobriety and sportsmanship. During his 18 years playing the game, McPhee was never fined and never ejected.

CONCLUSION: McPhee had the most career value of any 1800s second baseman. His peak is a problem, but win shares may underrate the top defensive players in general, and for additional reasons given above, it does understate McPhee’s value in particular. Keeping this in mind, his peak was most likely in the gray area for the BBFHOF. When I combine this borderline peak with a strong career value and double-digit All-Star-type seasons, I see McPhee worthy of eventual induction into the BBFHOF.

[jalbright]

Herman Long

Herman is in the top 10 position players in Win Shares in the 1890's, and managed to achieve 22.91 win shares per 162 games(solid all-star level) for the 13.40 full seasons in his career. He was a heck of a glove man, and his black plus gray ink is well over what I'd want to see for a shortstop (he had 85, 50 is the cutoff I use).

I'll add this slightly edited (as I disagree with the expressions of the quality of several other early SS contained therein--I don't think that the edits seriously affect the fine points made) version of AG2004's usual fine work.

One of the fun things about doing these lists is that occasionally I come across someone who I hadn't thought of as a Hall of Famer, and hasn't appeared on any ballots for the BBFHOF, but appears worthy of induction into the BBFHOF once I go through everything. When producing my adjusted win shares totals for 19th-century shortstops, I made such a discovery: Herman Long.

.... Long had the misfortune to appear when there were three better players at the position: Davis, Dahlen, and Jennings. Worse yet, most of Long's career came when there was just one major league. ...

Long also had the bad fortune to come up against a glut of great defensive shortstops as well. Glasscock won four win shares gold gloves, but he was just an A- shortstop. Wallace, who won just two such titles, was an A+ shortstop. However, the 1890s also offered A+ shortstops in Bob Allen, Germany Smith, Bill Dahlen, and Hughie Jennings, and an A shortstop in Tommy Corcoran. That's a glut. Having one league made it twice as difficult to win a win shares gold glove.

...

When I finished the Keltner List for Long, however, I concluded that, with the possible exception of Rizzuto, Long was the best major league shortstop outside the BBFHOF. (Rizzuto is the possible exception because giving him credit for military service may move him ahead of Long.) Long was also a leader on one of baseball's dynasties and was still rated highly by sportswriters 40 years after his peak years ended. That's a very good sign that he ought to be a Hall of Famer.

Long's reputation suffers mainly because he played against Davis and Dahlen and Jennings in a one-league era; had he achieved the same record in eras that didn't produce so many deserving shortstops, it would be easier to see that, like Davis and Dahlen and Jennings, he deserves induction into the BBFHOF. ...

Case to Consider: LONG, Herman

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 Boston’s position players in win shares in 1891. He was second among the team’s position players in 1893, but third in the majors.

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

He led major league shortstops in win shares in 1891 and 1893, and AA shortstops in 1889. He was second among NL shortstops, and hence among major league SS, in 1892.

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

He had 29 raw win shares (32 per 154 scheduled games) in 1891, when Boston won the pennant by 3.5 games, so there was a lot of impact there. Long also had 26 win shares (30 per 154 games) in 1893, as the Beaneaters won by five games. Long was just barely at an All-Star level in 1897, when Boston won by two, but he was credited as a team leader. Thus, Long had an impact on several pennant winners.

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

Since he played in 138 games at 35 and 120 games at 36 (both in 140-game seasons), I would have to say yes.

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, Pee Wee Reese, Bid McPhee, Bobby Lowe, Jack Glasscock, Tony Fernandez, Dick Bartell, Ed McKean, Bill Dahlen, and Garry Templeton. We have three members of Cooperstown, and three BBFHOF members (although Ward is in as a contributor).

Adjusted career win shares, 1800s shortstops: Jack Glasscock 308, LONG 289, Ed McKean 240, Hughie Jennings 238. Later shortstops include Rabbit Maranville 302, Luis Aparicio 293, Tony Fernandez 280, Bert Campaneris 280, Lou Boudreau 277, Joe Sewell 277, Dave Concepcion 269, Dave Bancroft 269. This is actually a little below the cutoff area; Maranville’s 302 is the second-highest raw total among shortstops outside the BBFHOF, and Barry Larkin’s 314 is the second-lowest raw total among shortstops in the BBFHOF.

Best three seasons, 1800s SS: Bill Dahlen 95, George Davis 84, Herman Long 90, Jack Glasscock 87. Moderns with similar totals include Ernie Banks 96, Lou Boudreau 96, Vern Stephens 93, Alan Trammell 90, Jim Fregosi 89, Maury Wills 87, Rico Petrocelli 87, Johnny Pesky 87, Pee Wee Reese 85, Joe Sewell 84, Dave Bancroft 84. Long is pretty much at the border here.

Best five consecutive seasons, 1800s SS: George Davis 140, Bill Dahlen 136, Herman Long 131, Frank Fennelly 116. Later shortstops with similar totals include Lou Boudreau 135, Jim Fregosi 135, Pee Wee Reese 134, Alan Trammell 132, Johnny Pesky 130, Vern Stephens 129, Eddie Joost 126, Joe Sewell 125, and Rico Petrocelli 125. Long is right at the border here as well.

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

Long has a score of 7 (304th place) on the Black Ink test and 78 (300th) on the Gray Ink test. Both are low for position players, but good for shortstops in Cooperstown, and Long played most of his career when there was just one major league. Long also has a HOF Standards score of 36.9 (173rd), which is a little low for position players in general, but then again, he was a shortstop. Long also picked up two win share gold gloves.

Long is in neither Cooperstown nor the Hall of Merit.

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

According to the win shares system, Long was an A+ defensive shortstop, and that isn’t reflected in his offensive statistics. On the other hand, Long played in the high-offense 1890s, and the South End Grounds was one of the league’s top hitters’ parks, so that boosts his raw offensive numbers.

Long was also considered one of the Beaneaters’ on-field leaders as they won five pennants in eight years.

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

No. Pearce, Cepeda, and Moore are better, in my opinion. However, one could make the case that Long is the best major league shortstop outside the BBFHOF.

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

Long had two seasons which come out to 30+ win shares per 152 scheduled games. That’s a little low for position players, but the only major league shortstop with multiple 30+ win share seasons who isn’t in the BBFHOF is Vern Stephens, and one of his came in 1944.

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?

Long recorded seven seasons with 20+ win shares per 154 scheduled games; that’s a little low, as eight is the general borderline. However, Long also had two seasons which come out to 19 win shares, and the system may underrate a top defensive player a little; nine All-Star-type seasons would push Long above the borderline.

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

At his peak, yes.

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?

Long holds the major league record for most errors in a career. On the other hand, his 6.4 chances per game is also the record for most per game by a major league shortstop. The two records may be related; Long was involved in a lot of plays most shortstops were not good enough to reach, and the fielding equipment of the 1800s, combined with the fact that seasons were longer in his day than they were earlier, would put him at a disadvantage compared to fielders of similar ability in other eras when it came to the number of errors made in a career.

Also, in 1936 Hall of Fame voting, Long finished eighth in the nineteenth-century vote; he’s the only one in the top ten in that vote who isn’t in the BBFHOF. He finished ahead of, among others, Brouthers, Connor, Dahlen, Davis, Jennings, Burkett, Hamilton, Kelly, Nichols, Clarkson, and Rusie. As far as I know, the 1936 Veterans’ vote was the only such vote performed by the BBWAA.

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

In general, yes.

CONCLUSION: As far as major league shortstops go, Herman Long is right at the current border between “in the BBFHOF” and “outside the BBFHOF.” The leadership he brought to one of baseball’s dynasties and the high regard writers still had about him 40 years after his peak ought to be enough to move him onto my queue.

On the other hand, he was the fourth-best shortstop of his era; among shortstops who came up between 1889 and 1891, Dahlen, Davis, and Jennings were all better. It isn’t that often that we have a glut of players at one position who arrive at around the same time and are all Hall of Famers. Kaline, Aaron, Robinson, and Clemente debuted in 1953-1956, but there aren’t many other gluts.

...Long’s major drawback is an accident of timing; had he appeared in the 1880s or 1920s or 1960s, he would have overshadowed his contemporaries instead of being overshadowed by them. That accident of timing isn’t a good reason to drop him. Long is worthy of the BBFHOF.

[jalbright]

Jack Glasscock

He averaged 24.36 win shares per 162 games in a season in which he played 14.94 full seasons. That level of performance is a solid one for an all-star, and is 12th best among retired shortstops listed in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract. If we exclude Monte Ward's pitching, he's the shortstop with the most Win Shares in the 1880's, and he adds 75 points of black ink plus gray ink, well above the HOF cutoff of 50 I use.

He has been inducted into the Baseball Think Factory "Hall of Merit" as a guy who was good enough to win 4 win shares Gold Gloves and would have gotten a fifth had he not split time between the UA and NL in 1884. He had three seasons where he produced at a pace of 30 or more win shares in a 154 game season (1882, 1886 and 1889).

[jalbright]

Bucky Walters

He's the pitcher with the third most win shares of the 1940's. He was a 6 time all-star who did well in MVP voting, finishing 115th in all-time MVP shares. He's 26th in pitching black ink, behind qualifications like being in the top six in ERA six times (leading twice), being in the top six in wins six times (leading three times), and being in the top five in strikeouts four times, leading once. He's also 42nd in career shutouts.

He's a little shy in gray ink at 90th, and his HOF standards score is poor, at 170th. He also had big years during WWII, which diminishes his shine a little. Even so, when you compare him to contemporaries, I think he comes out looking fine:

Pitcher.....	career	best3	5Consecutive
Newhouser	264	106	157
Feller......	292	98	153
Walters...	251	102	132
Trout......	228	92	126
Leonard...	233	64	79
=========	======	=====	=====
Grove......	391	112	167
Hubbell....	305	102	153
Ruffing....	322	76	116
Lyons......	312	80	111
Dean.......	181	99	145
Gomez.....	185	80	106
Ferrell.....	233	95	129
Warneke..	220	86	125
Harder.....	234	78	111
Bridges....	225	68	106

If you limited the discussion to the 1940's (above the lines), he seems to me to be closer to the two who are in (Feller and Newhouser) than the outs (Trout and Leonard). When you include the 1930's, that opinion is confirmed, especially when you look at Wes Ferrell. I think he belongs.

[jalbright]

Billy Pierce

Pierce has the fourth most win shares of any pitcher in the 1950's, was twice TSN's pitcher of the year, and was an all-star seven times. He was in the top 6 in ERA five times (leading once), in the top 10 in wins eight times (again leading once), in the top 6 in winning percentage four times, in the top 8 in strikeouts eight times (leading once). He had good control, finishing in the top seven in strikeout to walk ratio nine times. He also has more gray ink than the average HOF pitcher (187-185). He's 88th in Black Ink and 93rd in HOF standards, both a little off the pace, but not terribly so. He's 51st in gray ink, which is definitely HOF territory.

I compared him in the three key win share measures (career, top 3 seasons, and best 5 consecutive seasons) to other pitchers of the 50's:

Pitcher....	career	best3	5Consecutive
Spahn.....	412	91	124
Roberts....	339	98	153
E Wynn...	309	76	110
Ford.......	261	69	103
Lemon.....	232	82	126
Pierce.....	248	69	101
Simmons...	210	58	77
Friend.....	207	62	86
Dickson....	204	55	86
============================
Drysdale...	258	78	117
Bunning...	257	83	115
Jackson...	225	68	99

If Win Shares accurately captured Whitey Ford, I'd say Pierce belongs with the "Ins" (those above his name) rather than the "outs" (those below his name). Unfortunately, Ford's value is understated by win shares because it assumes balanced usage, whereas Whitey was used far more heavily against contenders than the also rans. There's just not enough guys from the 50's who are decent candidates to pin down whether the line should go above or below Pierce in my book. File this one for further study.

He is in the BBTF Hall of Merit, but when I dug a little deeper and added the last three names (who are among the top 25 pitchers in IP in 1948-1964 [all of Pierce's career except for 10 IP in 1945]), I think the case is clarified in an unfavorable way for Pierce. The first two additions are HOFers, and Pierce is behind them in all three categories, especially the peak ones. The last guy is Larry Jackson, and while Pierce is definitely better on a career basis, they're darned close on a peak basis. Ultimately, I think Pierce is closer to Jackson than Drysdale or Bunning, and that's enough to call him below the line for me.

[jalbright]

Catfish Hunter

He's a tough case because of all the respect he got from contemporaries: voted into Cooperstown by the BBWAA, a Cy Young Award, the 11th most Cy Young award shares ever, an 8 time all-star.

Add to that he did fairly well in HOF standards (60th among pitchers) and performances at or near the top of the league, he's hard to dismiss: three times top 3 in ERA (leading once); 7 times in top 8 in wins (leading twice); five times in the top 10 in winning percentage; six times in the top 7 in WHIP (leading twice); 7 times in the top 10 in strikeouts, and five times in the top 8 in strikeout to walk ratio. He also is 38th in career shutouts.

On the other hand, he had the help of Oakland Coliseum a lot of years.

I suppose you could define the line so he's just in, but I've defined it such that his contemporary Luis Tiant is out, and I can't justify putting one in and one out. I'll go with no on Catfish as well.

[jalbright]

Sam Rice

It's hard not to put in a guy with a .322 career average and 2987 career hits (it would have been over 3000 if he'd known), and 327 win shares

That said, he's the 18th RF in career win shares, which is good enough. He's 72d among that same group in his top three, and 54th in his top three consecutive. It's not enough.

[jalbright]

Orlando Cepeda

He won a MVP, was a 7 time all-star, and has the 102d most MVP shares despite fighting Willie McCovey and the stacked Giant outfield of his time with the franchise for playing time. He has the 156th most career win shares for all players and pitchers, which is definitely HOF territory. Similarly, his 41st all time finish in gray ink is safely in that territory as well.

He can add to that a nice array of finishes among the league leaders such as: in the top ten in average eight times; in the top ten in slugging percentage nine times; in the top ten in homers nine times (leading once), in the top eight in RBI nine times (leading once); and seven times in the top eight in runs created.

[jalbright]

Red Faber

Two of his best markers are the fact he's 39th among pitchers in career win shares and 40th in career wins. He is near HOF quality in black ink, gray ink and HOF standards (76th, 78th and 83d respectively), and can add the following finishes among the league leaders:
in the top 10 in ERA 7 times (leading twice);
in the top 10 in wins 7 times;
in the top 10 in winning percentage five times;
in the top four in strikeouts four times;
in the top seven in WHIP six times (leading twice); and
in the top ten in strikeout to walk ratio seven times.

Also, consider this Keltner list by AG2004:

Case to Consider: FABER, Urban (Red)

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 White Sox pitchers in win shares in 1920, 1921, and 1922.

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

In both 1921 and 1922, he had more win shares than any other pitcher in major league baseball.

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

No. He was decent in 1917, with 16 win shares, but had only 6 win shares in 1919 (he had arm trouble and the flu). He had 25 win shares in 1920, when the White Sox were in the race until the end of the season. However, he did go 3-1 in the 1917 World Series with a 2.33 ERA. If there had been an MVP Award for the series back then, it probably would have gone to Faber that year.

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

Yes; he was still a regular in the White Sox rotation at the age of 41.

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, he’s most comparable to: Burleigh Grimes, Vic Willis, Jack Quinn, Ted Lyons, Eppa Rixey, Dennis Martinez, George Mullins, Sam Jones, Tony Mullane, and Waite Hoyt. Five are in Cooperstown, but only Lyons is in the BBFHOF. However, Faber’s 118 ERA+ ties Willis’ for the highest of the bunch.

By win shares among contemporaries, we have: Eppa Rixey 315, FABER 292, Burleigh Grimes 286, Wilbur Cooper 266. Faber is actually third on the list (Alexander has 477).

However, early in 1918, Faber joined the Navy, and served as recreation director for the Great Lakes Naval Base, also pitching for the base’s team. With wartime credit, Faber would be at 300+ win shares. This is a case where a pitcher deserves wartime credit, since his military job involved playing baseball.

By win shares in the top three seasons, we have: Dazzy Vance 94, FABER 93, Carl Mays 92, Burleigh Grimes 91, Stan Coveleski 90, Smokey Joe Wood 90. Again, Faber is third among his contemporaries (Alexander is in first by a wide margin), and in solid BBFHOF territory.

By best five consecutive seasons, we have: Jim Bagby 125, Dazzy Vance 124, Burleigh Grimes 122, Dolf Luque 121, Eppa Rixey 118, FABER 118, Claude Hendrix 117, Bob Shawkey 114, Smokey Joe Wood 111. Faber is a little low here. However, if we knew how well he pitched in the Navy in 1918, he might move up a bit.


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

His black ink score is 22 (77th), his gray ink score is 161 (78th), and his HOF Standards score is 37.0 (84th). So he misses out here.

Faber is a member of both Cooperstown and the Hall of Merit. The HOM inducted Faber in his first year of eligibility.

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

All those games for the Chicago White Sox after the Black Sox scandal lowered his W-L percentage.

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

No.

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

He never received a vote in the MVP voting during the 1920s. However, he was the best pitcher in baseball twice. Had there been a Cy Young award in 1921, he might have won the vote, recording the lowest ERA in the American League and going 25-15 for a team that went 62-92 overall.

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?

The 1921 and 1922 seasons were the only ones in which he finished in the top four in win shares among AL pitchers. However, he finished fifth among AL pitchers in 1920, and might have been an All-Star that year. Overall, though, three All-Star seasons is 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?

At his best, it would be likely.

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?

Faber was the last legal spitball pitcher in the American League.

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

After retirement, Faber tried selling cars and real estate, but failed at both. His lack of success was attributed to his being too honest.

CONCLUSION: It’s a close call. Faber certainly has the career value. His peak is decent, and he had back-to-back seasons as the best pitcher in major league baseball. However, he had only three seasons among the best eight pitchers in his league, and that’s low.

To be fair, he may have been able to pick up another top-notch season in 1918; he had 7 win shares in 80.7 innings pitched before he joined the navy. Four good seasons at his peak, a long career, and first-ballot induction into the Hall of Merit put Faber onto my queue for the BBFHOF.