Jack Glasscock
Moving from 1800s second basemen to 1800s shortstops, we arrive at Jack Glasscock.
When we compare Glasscock to his contemporaries, we have two complicating factors. First, Glasscock played one-third of the 1884 season in the Union Association. He recorded 22 win shares in 1884, but 14 of them were in the UA; only 8 of them came in the two-thirds of the season he came in the NL. Using the discount I described in the UA post, Glasscock finishes with 17 adjusted win shares for 1884. If I had ignored the UA play, and based the adjustment only on his NL play that year, Glasscock would have had 15 or 16 adjusted win shares in 1884. I don't see how applying the discount for UA play ends up being unfair to Glasscock.
We also face the problem of Monte Ward, who started out as a pitcher and ended up as a shortstop. Since Ward is already in the BBFHOF as a contributor, I decided to ignore his career WS totals, and based his peak win share totals for these comparisons on his shortstop years only. Since I'm more interested in what players Glasscock was similar to and less interested in his exact ranking, this decision about Ward doesn't impact the overall evaluation that much. Ward would have been just one player among several, and dropping one Hall of Famer from a list of comparables doesn't make too much of a difference overall.
---
As I compiled the adjusted win shares for shortstops, I realized that there were four shortstops in the decade after Glasscock who were better than Glasscock himself. George Davis and Bill Dahlen are in the BBFHOF as players. Hughie Jennings is in as a contributor. Jennings has a total of 238 adjusted win shares over his career. However, his five-year peak was spectacular. Adjusting season length to 154-game schedules, Jennings comes out with a five-year peak of 170, including four MVP-candidate-type seasons and one historic season (his 1896 season comes out to 42 win shares over a 154-game schedule). I didn’t realize he was that good at his best. That’s a big enough peak that Jennings would make my BBFHOF player ballot if he weren’t already enshrined as a contributor. The fourth player was a surprise; I’ll deal with him in the next post.
Case to Consider: GLASSCOCK, Jack
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?
Glasscock led his team’s position players in win shares in 1882, 1885, 1886, 1889, and 1892. However, the 1882 Cleveland team barely reached .500, and the rest of the teams had losing records.
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 1886 (adjusting for season length; he had 22 in a 128-game season, while the AA’s Frank Fennelly had 23 in a 140-game schedule) and 1889, and NL shortstops in 1882 and 1890. He was second among NL shortstops in 1883.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
No; his teams were far out of the pennant race.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes; he was still a regular at the age of 35.
6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
I don’t see it.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
By similarity scores: Deacon White, Buddy Myer, Bobby Low, Larry Doyle, Dave Bancroft, John Ward, Del Pratt, Deacon McGuire, Dick Groat, and Steve Sax. Two are in Cooperstown, but Bancroft is widely considered a mistake; on the other hand, Deacon White is in the BBFHOF.
Adjusted career WS, 1800s shortstops: Bill Dahlen 419, GLASSCOCK 308, Herman Long 289, Ed McKean 240. Later shortstops with around 308 win shares include Alan Trammell 318, Barry Larkin 314, Pee Wee Reese 314 (plus war credit), Rabbit Maranville 302, Luis Aparicio 293, Bert Campaneris 280, Tony Fernandez 280, Lou Boudreau 277, Joe Sewell 277. This is mixed territory, but Glasscock is in fairly good shape. 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.
Top three seasons: Bill Dahlen 95, George Davis 94, Herman Long 90, GLASSCOCK 87, George Wright (NL years only) 80, Monte Ward (shortstop years only) 80. Similar moderns include Alan Trammell 90, Jim Fregosi 89, Maury Wills 87, Johnny Pesky 87, Rico Petrocelli 87, Phil Rizzuto 86, Eddie Joost 87, Pee Wee Reese 85, Joe Sewell 84, Dave Bancroft 84, Ozzie Smith 83. This is a little low for the BBFHOF, but most candidates are in this area.
Top five consecutive seasons: Herman Long 131, Frank Fennelly 116, GLASSCOCK 114, Monte Ward (shortstop years only) 112. 20th-century shortstops with totals in this area include Tony Fernandez 118, Joe Tinker 118, Al Dark 118, Art Fletcher 116, Dave Bancroft 115, Dick Groat 112, Bobby Wallace 112, Dave Concepcion 111, Cecil Travis 111, Johnny Logan 111, and Rabbit Maranville 110. This is not BBFHOF territory.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Glasscock had a Black Ink score of 11 (206th) and a Gray Ink score of 64 (378th). Both are low for position players, but more acceptable for shortstops. His HOF Standards score of 27.9 is 326th all-time; that’s low, but shorter seasons may play a role here. Glasscock also won four win shares Gold Gloves.
While Glasscock is not in Cooperstown, 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?
The shorter seasons at the beginning of his career hampered his counting stats.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
I don’t see it. Just among 19th-century shortstops, Dickey Pearce and Herman Long are ahead of him.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Glasscock had just one season which adjusts to 30 or more win shares; one MVP-type season is low.
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 were no All-Star games in Glasscock’s era. His eight All-Star-type seasons reach the borderline for the Hall of Fame.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Probably not, as he was too inconsistent.
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 can tell.
CONCLUSION: Going by their achievements at shortstop alone, Glasscock is a bit better than his contemporary Ward, but Ward also had two Cy Young Award-type seasons as a pitcher and was the best position player in the 1890 Players League. While Glasscock may be the best shortstop of the 1880s, he is also, at best, the seventh-best shortstop of the nineteenth century; George Wright, Dickey Pearce, and four shortstops of the 1890s all come ahead of Glasscock.
When I look at the categories that don’t involve comparisons with his contemporaries, Glasscock is either borderline or below. He falls short of being BBFHOF-worthy.
Moving from 1800s second basemen to 1800s shortstops, we arrive at Jack Glasscock.
When we compare Glasscock to his contemporaries, we have two complicating factors. First, Glasscock played one-third of the 1884 season in the Union Association. He recorded 22 win shares in 1884, but 14 of them were in the UA; only 8 of them came in the two-thirds of the season he came in the NL. Using the discount I described in the UA post, Glasscock finishes with 17 adjusted win shares for 1884. If I had ignored the UA play, and based the adjustment only on his NL play that year, Glasscock would have had 15 or 16 adjusted win shares in 1884. I don't see how applying the discount for UA play ends up being unfair to Glasscock.
We also face the problem of Monte Ward, who started out as a pitcher and ended up as a shortstop. Since Ward is already in the BBFHOF as a contributor, I decided to ignore his career WS totals, and based his peak win share totals for these comparisons on his shortstop years only. Since I'm more interested in what players Glasscock was similar to and less interested in his exact ranking, this decision about Ward doesn't impact the overall evaluation that much. Ward would have been just one player among several, and dropping one Hall of Famer from a list of comparables doesn't make too much of a difference overall.
---
As I compiled the adjusted win shares for shortstops, I realized that there were four shortstops in the decade after Glasscock who were better than Glasscock himself. George Davis and Bill Dahlen are in the BBFHOF as players. Hughie Jennings is in as a contributor. Jennings has a total of 238 adjusted win shares over his career. However, his five-year peak was spectacular. Adjusting season length to 154-game schedules, Jennings comes out with a five-year peak of 170, including four MVP-candidate-type seasons and one historic season (his 1896 season comes out to 42 win shares over a 154-game schedule). I didn’t realize he was that good at his best. That’s a big enough peak that Jennings would make my BBFHOF player ballot if he weren’t already enshrined as a contributor. The fourth player was a surprise; I’ll deal with him in the next post.
Case to Consider: GLASSCOCK, Jack
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?
Glasscock led his team’s position players in win shares in 1882, 1885, 1886, 1889, and 1892. However, the 1882 Cleveland team barely reached .500, and the rest of the teams had losing records.
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 1886 (adjusting for season length; he had 22 in a 128-game season, while the AA’s Frank Fennelly had 23 in a 140-game schedule) and 1889, and NL shortstops in 1882 and 1890. He was second among NL shortstops in 1883.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
No; his teams were far out of the pennant race.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes; he was still a regular at the age of 35.
6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
I don’t see it.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
By similarity scores: Deacon White, Buddy Myer, Bobby Low, Larry Doyle, Dave Bancroft, John Ward, Del Pratt, Deacon McGuire, Dick Groat, and Steve Sax. Two are in Cooperstown, but Bancroft is widely considered a mistake; on the other hand, Deacon White is in the BBFHOF.
Adjusted career WS, 1800s shortstops: Bill Dahlen 419, GLASSCOCK 308, Herman Long 289, Ed McKean 240. Later shortstops with around 308 win shares include Alan Trammell 318, Barry Larkin 314, Pee Wee Reese 314 (plus war credit), Rabbit Maranville 302, Luis Aparicio 293, Bert Campaneris 280, Tony Fernandez 280, Lou Boudreau 277, Joe Sewell 277. This is mixed territory, but Glasscock is in fairly good shape. 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.
Top three seasons: Bill Dahlen 95, George Davis 94, Herman Long 90, GLASSCOCK 87, George Wright (NL years only) 80, Monte Ward (shortstop years only) 80. Similar moderns include Alan Trammell 90, Jim Fregosi 89, Maury Wills 87, Johnny Pesky 87, Rico Petrocelli 87, Phil Rizzuto 86, Eddie Joost 87, Pee Wee Reese 85, Joe Sewell 84, Dave Bancroft 84, Ozzie Smith 83. This is a little low for the BBFHOF, but most candidates are in this area.
Top five consecutive seasons: Herman Long 131, Frank Fennelly 116, GLASSCOCK 114, Monte Ward (shortstop years only) 112. 20th-century shortstops with totals in this area include Tony Fernandez 118, Joe Tinker 118, Al Dark 118, Art Fletcher 116, Dave Bancroft 115, Dick Groat 112, Bobby Wallace 112, Dave Concepcion 111, Cecil Travis 111, Johnny Logan 111, and Rabbit Maranville 110. This is not BBFHOF territory.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Glasscock had a Black Ink score of 11 (206th) and a Gray Ink score of 64 (378th). Both are low for position players, but more acceptable for shortstops. His HOF Standards score of 27.9 is 326th all-time; that’s low, but shorter seasons may play a role here. Glasscock also won four win shares Gold Gloves.
While Glasscock is not in Cooperstown, 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?
The shorter seasons at the beginning of his career hampered his counting stats.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
I don’t see it. Just among 19th-century shortstops, Dickey Pearce and Herman Long are ahead of him.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Glasscock had just one season which adjusts to 30 or more win shares; one MVP-type season is low.
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 were no All-Star games in Glasscock’s era. His eight All-Star-type seasons reach the borderline for the Hall of Fame.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Probably not, as he was too inconsistent.
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 can tell.
CONCLUSION: Going by their achievements at shortstop alone, Glasscock is a bit better than his contemporary Ward, but Ward also had two Cy Young Award-type seasons as a pitcher and was the best position player in the 1890 Players League. While Glasscock may be the best shortstop of the 1880s, he is also, at best, the seventh-best shortstop of the nineteenth century; George Wright, Dickey Pearce, and four shortstops of the 1890s all come ahead of Glasscock.
When I look at the categories that don’t involve comparisons with his contemporaries, Glasscock is either borderline or below. He falls short of being BBFHOF-worthy.
Comment