Tip O'Neill

[Gee Walker]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

[Paul Wendt]

Yes, he was my Congressman and I voted for him.
What a surprise that was, to go to the polls in the 1980s and find paper ballots with boxes to be checked with a pencil, and a genuine ballot box with a slot in the top.

James Edward Tip O'Neill was the first baseball star from Canada, iirc.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

I voted "yes".

The AA, weaker or not, has been designated a "major league" during the era O'Neill played. If there is a consensus to retroactively withdraw that designation, that's another issue. That's not the case, however, so I'm looking at O'Neill's accomplishments, and they are flat-out impressive.

Black Ink: Batting - 35 (42) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 124 (147) (Average HOFer ≈ 144) Pitching - 9 (1484) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Batting - 32.9 (217) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 112.5 (128) Pitching - 2.0 (1584) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

The Black Ink numbers are what grab me. O'Neill LED his league, and he has MORE Black Ink than the AVERAGE HOFer. In a short career. His lower numbers in Gray Ink and HOF Standards are a function of his short career and the absence of "counting stats".

From 1886-1890 O'Neill was a flat-out league superstar. He had a CAREER OWP of .746, but in those five years, his OWP was approximately .804. Shorter careers were the norm in those days, so O'Neill's short career isn't the issue that it would be for, say, Al Rosen (who IS a guy I advocate for).

I'm a little leery of advocating for 19th century players, but O'Neill was clearly a DOMINANT player. He's a forgotten great, and the HOF exists to keep alive the memories of great players. I would support his induction.

[leecemark]

--Flopped in his first MLB trial at age 25. Moved to the weaker AA the next season year and hit very well, but in a part time role for his first 2 years*. Finally establishes himself as a regular at age 28 and reels off 4 terrific seasons, including one historically great one. Then jumps to the Players League in 1890 and is pretty much as average player. The PL was the best league going in 1890 and maybe better than the competiton he had faced in the AA, but it was still part of a 3 way talent split and he couldn't keep up the pace. Had another good year back in the AA in 1891, but was just another guy in the NL in 1892 and was done after his age 34 season.
--So we have a player who was a regular only 7 seasons and a big star in only 4 - in a weak major league. That is not enough to get my support. There are alot of 19th century players awaiting recognition who are clearly more deserving than O'Neil.
*In fairness O'Neil was pitching as well as playing the OF. He'd have been better off had he just concentrated on what he did best - hitting.

[KCGHOST]

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.

[Freakshow]

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.

It's a LOT more than a half dozen. Among 1880's candidates alone he's running a poor 11th in the balloting - and that's about what he deserves, IMO. Adding in 1860's, 70's and 1890's candidates and I don't see Tip as one of the 20 best 19th century candidates.

[rsuriyop]

Looking at his stats today, I was blown away. I know the two obvious objections - first of all his career would just barely make the minimum ten-year standard, and second, most of his career was in the supposedly weaker AA.

But there's a terrific ballplayer here, much more than the guy who hit .435 one year. In his career, his relative BA/SLG/OBP are 1.22, 1.27, and 1.17 respectively. His career OPS+ is 143 - equal to Chipper Jones, Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew, and others. But O'Neill's peak value is pretty amazing. His career OWP is .746, which puts him above Henry Aaron. Just looking at short career guys, it's still a bit better than Dick Allen, and miles ahead of Albert Belle, Hack Wilson, and Chuck Klein.

Among his contemporaries, he ranks behind Dan Brouthers in OWP, but ahead of Anson, Ewing, Duffy, Delahanty, and Hamilton.

While I wouldn't really vote for O'Neil, I don't think I'd have a problem with him making it in either. IMO, if Rusie could get in with just barely ten years, then O'Neil would have just as equally strong a case for himself. That being said however, I'd rather see someone like Charley Jones get inducted first. If we're talking 19th century sluggers, here's a guy who outperformed O'Neil and did it with a slightly longer career under his belt.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--Flopped in his first MLB trial at age 25. Moved to the weaker AA the next season year and hit very well, but in a part time role for his first 2 years*. Finally establishes himself as a regular at age 28 and reels off 4 terrific seasons, including one historically great one. Then jumps to the Players League in 1890 and is pretty much as average player. The PL was the best league going in 1890 and maybe better than the competiton he had faced in the AA, but it was still part of a 3 way talent split and he couldn't keep up the pace. Had another good year back in the AA in 1891, but was just another guy in the NL in 1892 and was done after his age 34 season.
--So we have a player who was a regular only 7 seasons and a big star in only 4 - in a weak major league. That is not enough to get my support. There are alot of 19th century players awaiting recognition who are clearly more deserving than O'Neil.
*In fairness O'Neil was pitching as well as playing the OF. He'd have been better off had he just concentrated on what he did best - hitting.

The question becomes this: Was the AA a major league or not?

If it was not, then we need to designate as such; a minor league, and stop crediting AA ballplayers with major league service.

If the AA was PERMANENTLY below the NL and the Players League (for as long as it lasted), that's an argument against O'Neill, but it's also an argument against a whole lot of guys. If we stop calling the AA a Major League, how can we say that O'Neill has 10 years of major league service? How many other 19th century candidates would lose credit for 10 years if this designation were retroactively applied?

How did the AA of the 19th century compare to the National League, in terms of talent? What's the modern analogy?

[leecemark]

--I don't suggest calling the AA a minor league. I do believe that it was the weaker of the 2 major leagues - and that is going to represent pretty poor quality at such an early stage in the evolution of MLB. It was perhaps somewhere along the same qualitative standards of the NA or FL? Even if O'Neil had played his entire career in the NL and out up the same numbers he would be a questionable case at best though. He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

[Paul Wendt]

From 1886-1890 O'Neill was a flat-out league superstar. He had a CAREER OWP of .746, but in those five years, his OWP was approximately .804. . . .

Probably '1886-1890' is a mistake here. His big seasons were 4-1/2, 1885-1889. Those were the five stronger AA seasons. A conservative discount (liberal approximate assessment) would be zero, rounding to the nearest 10%. More on that later, maybe.

I can't go with O'Neill for the HoF. He isn't near being the most qualified 19th Century guy who isn't in the HoF. Probably a half-dozen or more guys most of us would rate ahead of him.

A caricature of Bill James (major league baseball begins in 1885) who puts a heavy emphasis on peak seasons would put him in the first dozen, I suppose. Or begin in 1871 and put extreme emphasis on peak seasons. Is Wally Berger your number one Hall of Fame candidate from the classic era, 1901-1960/61? Or number two behind Al Rosen?

Probably there are three dozen whom many people would call better candidates and most people would call greater careers.

It's a LOT more than a half dozen. [Here at BBF,] among 1880's candidates alone he's running a poor 11th in the balloting - and that's about what he deserves, IMO.

The 1880s voting (vote for six of 18), only just begun, seems to be more divided than most. Probably that should be expected; the Hall of Merit inducted nine of them, the most from any decade yet considered here. If you know anything about 1880s ballplayers, learn a little more, and cast a ballot.
(There are internet resources as well as print, including two forums where participants have elected shadow Halls of Fame about the same size as Cooperstown's: the Hall of Merit [google it with the player name] and our Baseball Fever Hall of Fame.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

He had 5 years where his OWP suggest he was a superstar for his day. The rest of the time he was, certainly, above average.

As for career length, I don't believe we can hold the 19th century stars to the same standards of later players. Unless we're going to limit ourselves to only the players from the 19th century that are already enshrined.

[jjpm74]

--I don't suggest calling the AA a minor league. I do believe that it was the weaker of the 2 major leagues - and that is going to represent pretty poor quality at such an early stage in the evolution of MLB. It was perhaps somewhere along the same qualitative standards of the NA or FL? Even if O'Neil had played his entire career in the NL and out up the same numbers he would be a questionable case at best though. He only had 5 years where he was an above average player.

In terms of quality of players, I'd put the AA statistically similar to the MLB during WWII. Not quite minor league, a handful of stars, but not much above it either.

[Paul Wendt]

American Association

The question becomes this: Was the AA a major league or not?
. . .
How did the AA of the 19th century compare to the National League, in terms of talent? What's the modern analogy?

[talent question, see #14]

The institutional answer is that after 1882 the American Association and National League were major leagues like the AL and NL after 1902, perhaps until the abolition of the League offices by Bud Selig. At least like the AL and NL under Frick, Eckert, and Kuhn, when then were partners in sometimes unfriendly competition

The AA and NL with the Northwestern League created organized baseball in 1883. They drafted and signed an agreement to cooperate against other professional ballclubs (in leagues or otherwise) and not to compete much among themselves. They did it with rules that only hint at one practical reality: AA and NL major, NWL minor. In this the analogy breaks down but by 1886(?) they had torn it up and re-started with the AA and NL sharply distinguished from all other parties (ballclub leagues) who would sign up.

The AA-NL agreements (or organized baseball) did not establish a unified champion, so the World Series of 1884-1890 were arranged by the two pennant-winning clubs. That analogy is perfect but it matches only 1903-1904, when Pittsburgh played Boston and New York avoided the same. The AL and NL agreed on arrangements for a postseason championship series in 1905 and the central organization gained strong control of that quickly.

What happened in 1890-1892 is akin to the National League going out of business during the late teens, after taking a heavier hit from the Federal League. That episode would have covered 1914 to something like 1917 or 1919, probably involving the Players' Fraternity, general economic pessimism, and WWI. Imagine government order shutting down pro baseball in summer 1917 instead of 1918. In 1919 the AL resumes business with Cubs, Reds, Pirates, and Giants incorporated in a 12-club "monopoly".

[Paul Wendt]

AA discount, supposed to be conservative

I'm not sure what leecemark means by the NA and FL reference points here, but I guess it is a comparison across one or three decades of baseball history much more eventful than in our times. Can that be useful when there is no agreement about the AA's contemporary NL in relation to those leagues? We need to know what those reference points mean to him.

The stipulated discounted is zero.

Here IMO is a conservative discount for assessment of ballplayers, such as a discount on AA win shares against contemporary NL win [email protected], rounding to the nearest 10%.
(minus, percent) 1882 = 30 20 20* 0 0 0 0 0 20# 20 = 1891
Ten percent greater would be a liberal discount for most seasons, I think.

*1884, the Union Association season. That is 20% against NL1884, itself weakened by UA competition. The AA took the heavier hit by expanding from 8 to 12 teams. I guess the discount might be 10% for the established clubs and 40% for the expansion clubs.

#1890, the Players League season. That is 20% against NL1890, itself weakened by PL competition (and close to the PL) but strengthened by the admission of the two strongest AA clubs. The NL took the heavier hit, losing most of its star players and many others, while the remaining AA clubs lost only a few players to the PL. But the AA lost four clubs and almost all of their players.

@This discount might be appropriate against pitcher wins(?) but not against batting average, runs scored, triples, or strikeouts. The scales for those more basic records would all be different, potentially.

[Gee Walker]

For consistency's sake I hope we're all around here in 2030 or so, downgrading the Hall of Fame chances of David Wright, Albert Pujols, and Jake Peavy because they played in an inferior league.

That's sure what happened to the AA ballplayers. Who among the players who spent their peaks in the AA are in the Hall of Fame? Charlie Comiskey - but he sure wasn't admitted because he was a good ballplayer.

Pete Browning wasn't good enough. Neither was Tony Mullane. No to Harry Stovey, Tip O'Neill, Bob Caruthers, Charley Jones. No to all of them.

Tommy McCarthy, who was clearly not one of the top 30 players in the league, played 4 years in the AA, and Tim Keefe played a couple more. A few other short appearances by Hugh Duffy and Dan Brouthers. But these are all NL guys.

Does anyone know any reason why none of the AA guys have made the Hall of Fame? I can think of a couple of reasons, but help me out here.