Thread for Discussion of AG2004's Keltner Lists

[AG2004]

--I don't think anybody (well nobody who expects to be taken seriously) would argue that Lombardi was as good as Cochrane, Hartnett or Dickey. Those are not the kind of players he is competing with at this point of the voting.

We know that; I'm just saying OPS+ overrates him. But, after looking at who voted for Lombardi last month, I now doubt that OPS+ is a major factor in their decisions. The people who voted for him all have at least five MLB outfielders from the 1920s/1930s on their ballots. I'm thinking that they chose Lombardi because they were overrating players from that era in general.

--I'm also not sure its accurate to say Lombardi had only 2 All Star type seasons. Basically the best 2 catchers in the 8 team leagues and best 3 in expanded leagues could be called legitimate All Star caliber players. Most years there were not that many catchers with 20 WS. That figure might be reasonable at other positions, but a lower baseline might be more appropriate for catchers.
--I'm not arguing that Lombardi should make the BBFHoF. He isn't on my ballot and probably never will be. I am saying that the standards applied to other positions may not be fair to catchers.

I used the 2-catcher and 3-catcher considerations in my lists for Bresnahan and Bennett, since they were both pre-1925 catchers, and catchers weren't as durable back then. However, between 1933 and 1940, we usually had four catchers per year who are played at a 20-WS level (whether in the majors or in the Negro leagues); occasionally we had just three. By the 1930s, we finally had enough durable catchers for 20 win shares to be a good cutoff for an "All-Star-type" season for a catcher.

Ideally, the definition of an "All-Star-type" season shouldn't depend on how many other players are having good seasons that year (I haven't figured out how best to do this for pitchers yet). During the 1970s, the number of catchers having 20+ win shares could be anywhere from two to eight. Sometimes a league has a dearth of good catchers; 14 win shares were good enough to be the second-best AL catcher in 1950, while the fourth-best catcher in the NL that year had 19 win shares.

However, looking at post-1925 catchers, seven seasons with 20+ win shares seems to be the cutoff area, as Freehan, Hartnett, and Ivan Rodriguez all have seven such seasons. This is a slightly lower baseline for catchers, as I've found that eight is the approximate lower limit for other positions.

I haven't posted the Keltner List for Quincy Trouppe yet, but he does have seven seasons with 20+ win shares, and he might have had more if we had statistics from his seasons with Bismarck. From 1939-1943, Trouppe was better than any major league catcher, and there are only three instances in that time span where a MLB catcher had a higher single-season win share total that Trouppe's projected MLE total. However, as we all know, Trouppe wasn't even close to being the best catcher in baseball then.

The competition Lombardi faced for best catcher in the NL (or in the majors) was relatively weak in part because the two best catchers in baseball were prohibited from playing in the major leagues.

[jalbright]

Moved from the Keltner list thread to this thread for discussion of the lists:

AG,
Have you (or would you be inclined to) do this exercise for Bill Dahlen? I'd like to hear your thoughts on his case. Please consider these:

Bill Dahlen and the HOF

Bad Bill Dahlen

[Paul Wendt]

From AG2004's Keltner List #99, Alejandro Oms

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

Given his career length and peak, Oms might be the best position player 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?

We don’t have MVP awards. Cobb projects one MVP-type-season for Oms, in 1922. However, Cobb admits his method evens out the peaks and valleys. Since Oms’ best seasons come out to 30, 29, 29, 28, 27, and 27 WS, and we don’t have projections for 1919 and 1920, Oms probably had around 30 MVP-type-seasons. That’s a very positive sign.

30 MVP-type seasons? I'm for him.
Well, that '30' must be either a '3' or a wanderer from the definition of MVP-type (30 win shares).

Oms is in the Hall of Merit and hence by definition in my high consideration set (now 46). I have considered him the Cuban, Jake Beckley or Dwight Evans of centerfield but "A.G. Keltner" gives him a good peak credit and I believe most people would see him as a good prime candidate, someone who might have been on 8-10 all-star teams in a row.

--
A.G.,
In the Wilbur Cooper #98 best five-year win shares, I believe you prorate 1918-19 for Mays and Cooper but not for Coveleski, Vaughn, and Shocker, although those are two peak win shares seasons for all but Shocker. I have not checked the rest of the five-year list, the rest of #98, or the same pitchers in other lists.

[AG2004]

From AG2004's Keltner List #99, Alejandro Oms


30 MVP-type seasons? I'm for him.
Well, that '30' must be either a '3' or a wanderer from the definition of MVP-type (30 win shares).

--
A.G.,
In the Wilbur Cooper #98 best five-year win shares, I believe you prorate 1918-19 for Mays and Cooper but not for Coveleski, Vaughn, and Shocker, although those are two peak win shares seasons for all but Shocker. I have not checked the rest of the five-year list, the rest of #98, or the same pitchers in other lists.

That 30 was a typo.

I've also made the season-length adjustments for the other pitchers in list #98.

AG,
Have you (or would you be inclined to) do this exercise for Bill Dahlen? I'd like to hear your thoughts on his case.

I see Dahlen as worthy of Cooperstown, and voted for him in BBFHOF elections.

I've received a number of requests, and will be addressing the backlog in this order:

*Tony Oliva
*Ken Singleton
*John Franco
*Bert Campaneris
*Stan Hack
*Bill Dahlen

I'm giving priority to those players who aren't in the BBFHOF, as I started to make these lists with the BBFHOF in mind. For the record, I voted for both Hack and Dahlen before they made the BBFHOF. Still, since neither Hack nor Dahlen are in Cooperstown, I can make lists with that Hall in mind.

[jalbright]

Two requests: your takes on Lip Pike and Bus Clarkson. Thanks.

[Paul Wendt]

I would urge a Keltner List for Leon Day if I knew that it would work reasonably well. I'm not sure the resources are available, however, to do Keltner reasonably well.

(Chris Cobb at the Hall of Merit, who is a marvel, gave Day thumbs down without the full treatment. No one voted for him. In general, I understand, the early Negro Leagues records, "1920s" for short, are more complete and reliable than the later ones. Most or all of those named by others will probably work better than Day.)

Campaneris, Concepcion, and Maranville may be a worthy family. (Maranville plays Baby Bear. AG is Goldilocks.)

[jjpm74]

Two requests: your takes on Lip Pike and Bus Clarkson. Thanks.

Pike's been gaining some momentum recently. Something on Thurman Munson would also be nice.

[Paul Wendt]

From #118 Ken Singleton

Singleton's ink scores are low, I admit. However, the ink scores are based, in part, on what previous voters for Cooperstown have done. A player gets four points for batting average, and three points for total hits. However, no points are given for OBP and times on base, which, according to sabermetrics, are more important.
. . . A player gets two gray ink points for each time in the top ten in walks, but that's it.

I didn't know that the ink scores are based on current Hall of Fame members as the monitors are. Maybe we need hemlock green ink and grass green ink to aggregate league-season rankings by another set of weights. Of course there is a case for sticking with Bill James in the Keltner Test by that name.

The ink tests will underrate a player with high BA and few walks,

should be overrate

[Paul Wendt]

He was the third-best offensive force for Atlantic in 1869, but may slip behind SS Dickey Pearce in overall value to the team when defense is factored in.

Third on the team as a batter/runner is ungenerous.
Before I provide explanation and evidence re the Atlantic offense:
The team did take on Pike at a cost, for a lefty at 2B makes fewer plays than a righty --"makes" tenselessly, in 1869 as in 2008. And Bob Ferguson who moved from 3B to C was a great 3Bman. This was a triple switch(term?) with Pike and three righties:

Pike from the Mutuals -> 2B -> 3B -> C -> Mills to the Mutuals

The four batting/running statistics compiled at the time were Outs, Runs, Hits, and Total Bases. Here are Lip Pike's rates per game and his ranks on team by those rates.

1869 Atlantic, Brooklyn NY ( 40-6-2 inclg 15-6-1 in professional matches )
Pike played 48 of 48 games
Outs: 2.16, 1st (superb)
Runs: 4.02, 3rd
Hits: 3.65, 5th
TBoH: 6.77, 2nd

Here are the ranks on team for Pike, Joe Start, and Jack Chapman by those four per-game rates, plus one derived statistic.

rank on team, same four categories
1 3 5 2 Lip Pike, 2b
4 1 1 1 Joe Start, 1b
2 2 2 3 John Chapman, lf

Runs/Outs: Pike 1.72, Start 1.70, Chapman 1.63

[Italic font marks self-quotation from the Hall of Merit, Charley Jones and Lip Pike. See #66-67.]

Batter-runners make many kinds of outs. (See Buddy Bell's base-stealing record.) Lip Pike's poor showing in outs per game is the main reason why his 1866-68 record is unimpressive. On the other hand he should get full credit when his record is super, here in 1869. The calculation of Runs per Out is one step toward giving credit.

AG's analysis (and almost all of my data and analysis for pre-1871 players at the Hall of Merit) focuses on rank-order measures. Lip Pike's 2.16 outs per games in 1869 is an outlier. Chapman, McDonald, and Start ranked 2-3-4 on the team, all just over 2.5 per game, nearly a tie and not close to Pike, but rank order makes them all simply 1-2-3-4.

Joe Start usually led the Atlantic team in 0uts per game, often with about 2.33. Note, their own annual records alone do not show that Start suffered an "off year" in 1869 or that Pike enjoyed a good one. Teammates compete with each other in making outs. When a few of them all make outs at a low rate each time through the batting order, the team in most games scores more runs and bats around again until the outs sum to 27. And vice versa: when a few make outs at a high rate, everyone bats less and the other team members make fewer outs per game for that reason. IHere there is direct evidence that the Atlantic lineup was stronger in 1869 than in 1868, evidence beginning with the replacement of Charley Mills by Lip Pike (no other change).

[AG2004]

Third on the team as a batter/runner is ungenerous.

I probably should have taken a better look at the outs/game data that I copied down.

However, I do have a question about the way outs were accounted for in the 1860s.

I recently bought a copy of The National Pastime , edited by John Thorn. One of the articles inside is George Bulkley's "The Day the Reds Lost." I'll quote some relevant selections.

Cincinnati was easy in the tenth and the Atlantics were turned back once more by George Wright. With one out McDonald and Pearce singled in succession. Smith lifted a high fly to shortstop; Wright, playing the ball so as to catch it close to the ground, intentionally dropped it, thus forcing the runners to leave their bases. This, of course, was the play whose abuse in later days led to the adoption of the infield-fly rule to protect the helpless baserunners. At that time, there being no infield-fly rule, Wright scooped up the ball and started an easy double play.

After discussing the top of the eleventh inning, Bulkley notes that Charles Smith was the leadoff hitter in the bottom of the eleventh.

Charley Smith, who had batted into the spectacular double play to end the tenth inning, led off for the home team in its last chance at bat. If that sounds a bit peculiar, take a look at the 1870 rules. Rule Three, Section 2, specified that: "Players must strike in regular rotation, and, after the first inning is played, the turn commences with the player who stands on the list next to the one who was the third player out."

Now, while Smith had hit into the double play in the tenth he had not been put out: McDonald and Pearce were the victims of Wright's skullduggery. Pearce was the third player put out, and Smith followed Pearce in the batting order.

This leads to my question.

There are two outs in the inning, and Smith, at first, is the sole baserunner. Jones, the batter, hits the ball. It goes to the shortstop, who tosses it to second, who tags Smith out. Baseball-reference lists this as an out for Jones.

However, given Bulkley's description of what happened in the Reds-Atlantics game, this may have not been the case in the NABBP era. If this happened in the late 1860s, would the scorekeeper have listed this as an out for Smith rather than Jones?

I do know that, in cricket, the baserunner who is thrown out is given the blame for the out; since early baseball statistics were based on cricket statistics, it may have been possible that the baserunner was blamed for the out way back then. If this is the case, we may have to rethink our evaluations, since a team's leadoff hitter will be unfairly penalized by this habit. (Bulkley lists George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for the two clubs on June 14, 1870.)

[Paul Wendt]

However, I do have a question about the way outs were accounted for in the 1860s.

. . .
There are two outs in the inning, and Smith, at first, is the sole baserunner. Jones, the batter, hits the ball. It goes to the shortstop, who tosses it to second, who tags Smith out. Baseball-reference lists this as an out for Jones.

However, given Bulkley's description of what happened in the Reds-Atlantics game, this may have not been the case in the NABBP era. If this happened in the late 1860s, would the scorekeeper have listed this as an out for Smith rather than Jones?

(emphasis mine) Do you mean a bb-ref feature on scoring rules? I don't know it.

Yes to the scoring question.
Runner Smith was put out.
Leadoff batter next inning is whoever follows Smith --Jones or someone else who batted in this inning; anyway Jones bats again next inning.

On the double play in the preceding inning, one out for batter Smith and one for that runner.
Who leads off the next inning depends on the order of the two putouts.

--
Generally we don't have a report of plate appearances or times left on base but there is an identity for every player-game
PA = Outs (Hands Lost) + Left on Base + Runs
because every batter-runner in the inning is either put out or left on base or he scores.
add: In modern baseball we have this identity only for every team-game

I do know that, in cricket, the baserunner who is thrown out is given the blame for the out; since early baseball statistics were based on cricket statistics, it may have been possible that the baserunner was blamed for the out way back then.

I'm unsure about the connotation of blame, but yes that was the only negative statistic they tallied; none for the batter unless also put out as in the double play. Actually HL "hands lost" is "put outs" for baserunners, comparable to PO "put outs" for fielders, where the second baseman gets the putout for catching the shortstop's throw while the shortstop usually deserves most of the credit.

If this is the case, we may have to rethink our evaluations, since a team's leadoff hitter will be unfairly penalized by this habit. (Bulkley lists George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for the two clubs on June 14, 1870.)

I think your point is that leadoff does not bat into many of the modern "6-4, fielders choice" plays, which balance for batters and runner in the aggregate. Leadoff bats with many fewer runners on base and the eight teammates on average bat with slightly more runners on base.

I will be interested to know any of your re-thinking.

Probably we need a bank of play-by-play accounts to analyse this well during the next decade. Fortunately complete play-by-play games are not necessary; complete pbp innings are valuable.

[Paul Wendt]

For 1872 and 1874, the Retrosheet web encyclopedia now includes a lot of game data: box scores, dailies, and splits. For example Joe Start batting third and fielding first in every game for the 1874 Mutuals.

But no play-by-play. There are many complete games and scads of complete innings in the newspapers but it may all be too far short of full season coverage to justify spending Retro-volunteer time. Until a few years ago Retrosheet published data only for practically complete play-by-play seasons.

[AG2004]

If this is the case, we may have to rethink our evaluations, since a team's leadoff hitter will be unfairly penalized by this habit. (Bulkley lists George Wright and Dickey Pearce as the leadoff hitters for the two clubs on June 14, 1870.)

I think your point is that leadoff does not bat into many of the modern "6-4, fielders choice" plays, which balance for batters and runner in the aggregate. Leadoff bats with many fewer runners on base and the eight teammates on average bat with slightly more runners on base.

I will be interested to know any of your re-thinking.

Probably we need a bank of play-by-play accounts to analyse this well during the next decade. Fortunately complete play-by-play games are not necessary; complete pbp innings are valuable.

That was part of my point. From a modern-day perspective, the players who batted into the "6-4, fielders choice" plays more often than others would benefit from the way outs were scored back then. Under modern scoring rules, they would have been assigned more outs than they actually received back then.

On the other hand, those baserunners who were caught in the "6-4, fielders choice" plays don't do so well. While they would not be assigned the out under current rules, they were assigned the out under 1860s rules. This would hurt our evaluation of leadoff hitters, since, being out at second on fielder's choice plays more often than other players, they would get more outs of this type.

The end result? If we were to apply modern scoring rules to these games, the outs recorded by leadoff hitters would tend to decrease, and the outs recorded by other hitters would tend to increase.

Unfortunately, we would need research to determine how much of a difference this would make.

----

Do you mean a bb-ref feature on scoring rules? I don't know it.

Baseball-reference.com uses its own formula to calculate outs in the "special batting" section of a player profile:

Outs = AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF

This calculation is for their own sabermetric purposes, and indicates why a baserunner caught in a fielder's choice play would not be credited with an out in their system; with one AB and one H, the net result is zero.

[Paul Wendt]

A few years ago, an older SABR member told me about some scorecards in his family, from Providence RI in the mid-1880s. He sent digital copies for the Retrosheet vault. The preprinted form was essentially the same as a simple modern one, mainly a grid of squares without subdivisions, at least 9x9 for each team. The simpler system of scoring marked only 1 (run), O, or L (out or left) in every square, using one column for each inning. Slightly more advanced: 1, {O1 O2, O3} for the three outs in sequence, and L. These were scorecards filled by fans and theose systems must have been out of fashion, maintained only by fans who learned it more than a decade earlier.

==

Baseball-reference.com uses its own formula to calculate outs in the "special batting" section of a player profile:

Outs = AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF

This calculation is for their own sabermetric purposes, and indicates why a baserunner caught in a fielder's choice play would not be credited with an out in their system; with one AB and one H, the net result is zero.

OK, the glossary. I know the site very well and send corrections to owner/editor Sean Forman but I haven't looked at that. Nor used the "Outs" myself, although I know of some people who calculate Base:Out ratios.

I agree on all points.

Let me extend the observations:
- This measure counts one for a sacrifice hit, successful or not.
Here it matches the spirit of 1860s scoring, not the modern. The sacrifice bunt was not in use then but anyone who "gave himself up for the team" would have been debited. --including the man who gets in a rundown between first and second while a teammate scores from third, whose out is simply lost today. I prefer the modern. Better we should keep more complete "SH statistics" for batters so that they can be reassigned to the manager by anyone who wishes to do so.
- This measure counts one for reaching first base on error.
Here it matches the modern score-keeping (since the invention of times at bat and batting average) and clashes with the 1860s. First base on error was common, much more common than 1908, not to mention 2008. But even today the 1860s scoring has a lot in its favor.
- This measure counts two for grounding into a double play.
Here it matches the modern and contradicts the 1860s, and the fielding play 6-4-3 is so routine today that we all blame the batter for both outs. Striking out into double play counts one against the batter and one against the runner, which matches the 1860s scoring and modern notions of blame. Why don't we keep track of FIDP. Some ex-ballplayer announcers blame the runner whenever he is doubled up, "you just can't go if the ball doesn't drop". Official scorers could track baserunner outs and make the call whether to give the batter a double play or give the batter a plain out and the baserunner a runout.

Where the 1860s scoring and modern scoring do not match, I prefer the 1860s for BE (base on error) and FIDP (fly into double play); the modern for GIDP and FC (fielders choice, at least grounding into a forceout). Today, I guess, GIDP and FC are more common than FIDP and BE, even if we do split the FC and make some of them runouts. Anyway, I don't support any reform here until we reform by counting all the baserunner outs.

[Paul Wendt]

I probably should have taken a better look at the outs/game data that I copied down.

Marshall Wright's "league history" books are essentially year-by-year compilations of team and player statistics for minor leagues, printed in rather small numbers and priced around $50 in paperback. Even used copies are commonly available for sale at or above list price.

At this moment, however fetchbooks.info cites one copy of NABBP at $10 two weeks ago (that's the teaser) and links to one copy at $20.

Wright, The N.A.B.B.P., 1857-1870 (McFarland 2000) isn't a great departure from the other league books. It covers fewer years and more teams than the others, with fewer and less complete player statistics, usually Games, Outs, and Runs only. It provides game logs (date, opponent, score) for many teams each season, which is worthless or priceless.

[Paul Wendt]

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

Jones is best known for being blacklisted. On September 2, 1880, Jones demanded his pay for the full month of August, as his contract said that the August salary was technically due on August 31. However, Boston was on a road trip, and the practice at the time was to advance small payments on the road, and pay the balance only when the team returned home.

Indeed. Cleveland management followed the practice in 1899 after essentially abandoning the city of Cleveland in August. I checked a Cleveland newspaper for October and found. Instead of the usual Frank has gone home to Detroit, Sam and Harry have joined the Griffith team on tour in the South, . . . it's [list of ten?] players are still in town waiting for paychecks. Some planned a lawsuit but there was some sympathy with the Robisons, too, and no one did sue despite the long delay.

After Boston refused to pay him the full amount, Jones refused to play the next day. Boston then released Jones, and he was expelled from the league. In 1882, Jones was signed by the Cincinnati AA team, but the AA decided to honor the blacklist, and Jones did not play in the AA until 1883.

Jones sued for his 1880 salary and won enough to by a laundromat in Cincinnati. So he returned to his old stomping ground, played semipro or amateur ball, and laundered.

Jones had been in trouble before. In 1877, he left the Cincinnati NL team for Chicago, as he thought his original team was about to declare bankruptcy and fold.

I believe the team did declare bankruptcy and reorganize. The NL officially recognized a new club and afterward approved standings and statistics featuring 5 teams that played 48 games each. The decisions to recognize all Cincinnati games and a 6-team league that played 60 games each, and to treat the two Cincinnati clubs as one, all predate the 1951 Official Encyclopedia. I don't know whether the league or historians acted first.

There’s the further twist: How good was Jones in 1874 and 1875? I don’t know.

Over at the Hall of Merit where I presented much of the 1874-75 information on Jones, I vowed to learn more and compile some of it in more detail. I still hope to do so while I have access to ILL at Harvard U, which probably means this spring after Memorial Day. Last summer I visited Keokuk, Iowa, for one Friday afternoon at the public library. Among other things I wrote down the dates of all baseball coverage in a scrapbook of clippings from the local newspaper.

[Paul Wendt]

"Maranville is in Cooperstown, but he’s not in the BBFHOF."

That should be "not in the Hall of Merit"

In the latest HOM election (2008) Maranville is 70th (tie) with 27 points, which is below the range where the election results provide a plausible guide to what the voters think of the candidates.

[Paul Wendt]

selected from The Baseball Chronology, internet edition at baseballlibrary.com

1877
June 10
The St. Louis Browns and Cincinnati Reds stage a Sunday exhibition game‚ the only Sunday game between NL teams that would be played until 1892.
[at St. Louis]
Lip Pike resigns as Cincinnati captain and is succeeded by Bob Addy.
[today we call them managers - captains of teams without professional managers, not all captains]

June 18
Lacking the funds to start their scheduled eastern trip‚ the Cincinnati club disbands.
[after returning from Chicago, St. Louis, and Louisville]

June 21
Cincinnati stockholders move to reorganize the club. Some trouble could arise if Chicago‚ which has signed Jimmy Hallihan and Charley Jones‚ will not return the players. Hallinan was to have played for the Whites today‚ but he broke a finger in pre-game practice.

June 25
Hard luck continues to dog the Cincinnati club‚ as a heavy windstorm nearly destroys the pavilion at the Cincinnati Base Ball Park.

June 29
Chicago releases Jones back to Cincinnati but retains Hallinan.

June 30
Cincinnati signs P Candy Cummings‚ formerly of the Live Oaks of Lynn. Cummings will join the NL club but will still serve as president of the IA.
[over the hill but I'm sure he cost money]

July 3
The reorganized Cincinnati Red Stockings reappear in action versus the Louisville Grays‚ losing 6-3. Whether or not their games will count in the NL standings will not be resolved until the NL meeting in December.
[still in Cincinnati, having skipped the eastern trip. There are only two eastern teams so the Reds are not far behind in games played.]

August 10
Cincinnati's new owners demonstrate their determination to field a strong team next year by announcing the signing of Cal McVey for 1878.
[mid-season signings were common - McVey will be the captain/manager]

[jjpm74]

Akira Bessho--He seems to have some strong support around here. All I know of him is Jim's write up that provides a projection (I don't fully understand) and mentions that his most similars are all HOFers. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be a lot out there on this guy.

If you could add him to the long list, that'd be great.

[Paul Wendt]

Willie Randolph (no votes)
Five members of the Hall of Merit are not in the BBFHOF and have not been on the verge of my ballot. He is the one where the Keltner perspective would be most welcome.

[AG2004]

Apologies for the delays.

For Bessho (and other Japanese players), my best source of information is Jim Albright. Several people at baseball think factory are providing MLEs for Negro League players, but the MLEs for Japanese players would be coming from Albright's work. I can't do much to add to his arguments; any lists would be largely rearrangements of his data.

I'd also like to do Lists for the remaining HOM players. From a preliminary overview, Randolph's main weakness would be his season-by-season win shares totals. 31-23-23 for his best three seasons is not a good sign, and he had a bad season in 1981, so giving him credit for missed games wouldn't help him. The DH rule hurts his WS marks, but, after looking at baseball-reference, I'm inclined to believe that the real problem was his durability. Randolph was missing too many games each season, and the win share system, unlike the OPS+ calculation, reflects that.

[jalbright]

Not to burden you AG2004, but you can add to the list other than the HOMers not elected by the BBF crowd the following requests from the thread: those in post #54 in this thread except Oliva and Singleton

[Paul Wendt]

Not to burden you AG2004, but if this is the time to take a deep breath and look around . . .

here are the leading candidates for election to the Hall of Merit this fall (Rickey Henderson plus two).

Reggie Smith
Bucky Walters
Tommy Leach
(John McGraw)
(Dick Redding)
(Kirby Puckett)
Bob Johnson

Three are in the BBF HOF (parens). You have covered Leach and Johnson . That leaves Smith and Walters.

I haven't mentioned Smith before because I suppose I know the answer. As you have since explained for Randolph, he played too many 120- and 140-game seasons to compete well in single season win shares which are the materielle for your answers to several questions on the list. I haven't mentioned Walters before because WWII pitchers are not my cup of tea. But my mind can be changed and there are others.

[jalbright]

I see you've voted for Spotswood Poles. I've been close to pulling the trigger on him, but haven't quite been able to bring myself to do so. I'd love to hear your reasoning behind your support for him. Thanks.

[jalbright]

If you're able to shed any light on how to separate Ross Barnes health issues from the effect of the change in the fair/foul rule, your take on him would be appreciated. If not, others still may be interested, but his case really comes down to that issue for me.