Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The BBF HoF All-Timeline

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seems the BBF Timeline voters are very similar to our counterparts that vote for the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.Who in their uninformed minds could not vote for Kid Nichols?
    Apparently, someone who doesn't believe Nichols should be with Delahanty or Brouthers. If he did not see Nichols and wishes to add him to the ballot, he may send me a PM, because I was late today. If not... well, we have two All-Pros (can someone give me a better name please? I'm stuck!) and two who fell one vote short (Anson, Nichols) to compare the upcomers to.

    BTW--to avoid future confusion, I've color-coded the eshrinees on the first page eligibles list in red. There has been a slight problem recently with ballots including current members (all instances have been taken care of).
    http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...-showalter.gif

    Comment


    • Just thought I'd mention, people who have not yet, should add Mickey Welch to their ballots. I have not, but will for 1908. I just realized he won 300 games and is the only eligible 300 win club member that we have not voted in (I think). 1908 may be the best time to vote him in since there are no superstars in that are newly eligible.

      Comment


      • JW: If you are looking for a tag for the 100% inductees, how about Baseball Immortals? All-Pros sounds too much like football for me.

        THANKS to all who voted for Harry Stovey and put him over the top!
        Last edited by catcher24; 05-23-2005, 05:16 PM. Reason: Additional Info
        You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Leecemark:
          --Beckley looks like the best of this year's rookies
          Agreed. The only other ones I would even look at with any interest would be Buck Freeman and Bobby Lowe. Freeman had a decent career, but really too short to consider seriously, and Lowe just doesn't quite make it to my queue.
          You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

          Comment


          • Originally posted by leecemark
            [Barnes and Wright] are both close enough, they should be able to get over the hump in 1908.
            I agree. I encourage voters to look past their short careers, and instead consider that they were two of the most dominant players of the 1870s. Barnes in particular was an MVP candidate every year from 1871 to 1876.

            Originally posted by OldSchoolFan
            Just thought I'd mention, people who have not yet, should add Mickey Welch to their ballots... I just realized he won 300 games and is the only eligible 300 win club member that we have not voted in (I think).
            Disagree. Welch won 300 games because he played for the best teams of the era. His ERA+ is only 112. Granted that we elected Pud Galvin with an ERA+ of 108, but Galvin played for mostly bad teams, meaning he had terrible defense behind him, and Galvin had a lot more endurance and longevity than Welch. Welch is still six or seven spots away from my ballot.

            Once again I ask that all voters consider Paul Hines, the only player on my first ballot who hasn't been elected, and the best player currently eligible, in my opinion. If you are voting for Van Haltren or Browning, but not Hines, why not? Hines was a much better fielder than Browning, and Hines was a bigger star in his era than Van Haltren was in his.

            Comment


            • Plea

              We have elected only one player prior to the 1890 mark, Al Spalding.
              I am flabbergasted that George Wright has not already been elected. Given the low quality of the upcoming eligibles, I encourage all to remedy Wright's not being as of yet elected. He was the game's first star.

              Hopefully as well, others who have not joined in, but are watching this thread will catch the 'fever' and join in. More voters means more fun.
              "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. What's that you say Mrs. Robinson? Joltin' Joe has left and gone away. Hey hey hey."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abacab:
                Disagree. Welch won 300 games because he played for the best teams of the era.
                I think Welch deserves induction. He may have played for better teams than Galvin, but most of them weren't great or even very good. For the record, in his twelve seasons (not counting the last one with 5 IP), his teams' record was 712-580, for a .551 winning percentage. Welch's was .594. His teams finished 4th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st, 6th, 3rd. So though they were OK, only three finished first or second. His black ink total is only 6, 350 on the list. However, his grey ink total is 236, or 25th all time. So although he didn't often lead the league, he was a superior pitcher and ranked among the league leaders in several categories on a regular basis. He had the third highest win shares total for the decade of the 1880's, with 332, trailing only Tim Keefe (356) and Old Hoss Radbourn (348). Galvin was fourth with 306. Hines had 182 for the decade.

                I have been voting for Welch and feel he is deserving of election.
                You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

                Comment


                • Originally posted by catcher24
                  However, his grey ink total is 236, or 25th all time. So although he didn't often lead the league, he was a superior pitcher and ranked among the league leaders in several categories on a regular basis. He had the third highest win shares total for the decade of the 1880's, with 332, trailing only Tim Keefe (356) and Old Hoss Radbourn (348). Galvin was fourth with 306. Hines had 182 for the decade.

                  I have been voting for Welch and feel he is deserving of election.
                  We also have to take context into account with the grey ink total. We see that Welch finished in the top ten in ERA nine times. However, he was tenth in ERA - just making the list - on five separate occasions. Furthermore, in 1883, one of those seasons, there were just 14 pitchers who appeared in at least 20 National League games. Finishing tenth in ERA that year, or anytime else in the 1880s, just isn't impressive.

                  During the first half of Welch's career, most teams relied on one or two starters. During the last half, most teams would have two starters pitch a majority of games and one or two more pitchers start the remaining 20% of the team's contests. The bulk of Welch's gray ink comes from when he finished sixth through tenth - which is where a middle-of-the-road pitcher would have finished at that time.

                  Note that, according to baseball-reference, Bobby Mathews has a grey ink total of 274, good for 13th all time. He isn't anywhere near being a hall of famer. A high grey ink total for a pitcher in that era may only indicate that he was good for a long time; it doesn't indicate much about greatness.

                  We also have lifetime win shares for some 1880s pitchers:

                  Keefe 413
                  Galvin 403
                  Mullane 399
                  Clarkson 396
                  Radbourn 391
                  Welch 354
                  Caruthers 337
                  McCormick 334
                  Foutz 292
                  Buffinton 283
                  Whitney 275
                  Terry 273
                  King 263
                  Hecker 259

                  Limiting the win share totals to the 1880s is a nice trick - the decade coincides with Welch's prime. It also eliminates the 1878 and 1879 seasons, when Hines led all position players in win shares. [Hines also led position players in the "real" major leagues - the NL and AA - in 1884.]

                  (Also, pitchers of the era won a lot more win shares than position players. The top ten players in win shares during the 1880s were all pitchers; Monte Ward, a pitcher for half the decade, finished eleventh, and Connor topped the full-time position players on the list at twelfth.)

                  Here are the times that Welch finished in the top five among NL pitchers in win shares:

                  1880: Fourth
                  1884: Fourth
                  1885: Second
                  1888: Fifth
                  1889: Third

                  Again, considering the limited number of pitchers in the league at the time, it seems that Welch was above average, but not quite a hall of famer.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AG2004:
                    Also, pitchers of the era won a lot more win shares than position players
                    Yes, I did notice that during my review of the records. An obvious result of the one or two pitchers for each team situation.


                    We also have lifetime win shares for some 1880s pitchers:

                    Keefe 413
                    Galvin 403
                    Mullane 399
                    Clarkson 396
                    Radbourn 391
                    Welch 354
                    And four of the six have been elected. Mullane is in my queue; Welch is on my ballot. As the pitcher was the most important player on a team during that era, seems like the top six are certainly deserving. Our viewpoints obviously differ on this, but that's OK.
                    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AG2004
                      ...

                      We also have lifetime win shares for some 1880s pitchers:

                      Keefe 413
                      Galvin 403
                      Mullane 399
                      Clarkson 396
                      Radbourn 391
                      Welch 354
                      Caruthers 337
                      McCormick 334
                      Foutz 292
                      Buffinton 283
                      Whitney 275
                      Terry 273
                      King 263
                      Hecker 259

                      ...
                      Another way to look at those pitchers...
                      Pitching Win Shares (only) per 1000 IP
                      1-Caruthers 84,9
                      2-Clarkson 84,7
                      3-Foutz 82,6
                      4-King 79,3
                      5-Radbourn 78,1
                      6-Keefe 77,8
                      7-Mullane 76,8
                      8-Buffinton 74,4
                      9-McCormick 73,6
                      10-Welch 68,7
                      11-Galvin 64,9
                      12-Hecker 64,7
                      13-Terry 64,0
                      14-Whitney 63,6

                      Not listed
                      Nichols 92,5
                      Rusie 75,5
                      Ward 70,8

                      ERA+
                      1-Clarkson 134
                      2-Keefe 125
                      3-Foutz 124
                      4T-Caruthers 123
                      4T-King 123
                      6-Radbourn 120
                      7T-Mullane 118
                      7T-McCormick 118
                      9T-Buffinton 114
                      9T-Hecker 114
                      11-Welch 113
                      12-Galvin 108
                      13-Whitney 105
                      14-Terry 103

                      Not listed
                      Nichols 139
                      Rusie 130
                      Ward 118

                      Pitching Win Shares Only
                      1-Keefe 392,6
                      2-Galvin 389,9
                      3-Clarkson 384,3
                      4-Radbourn 354,2
                      5-Mullane 348,1
                      6-Welch 330,1
                      7-McCormick 314,7
                      8-Buffinton 253,2
                      9-King 253,1
                      10-Caruthers 240,2
                      11-Terry 224,8
                      12-Whitney 222,2
                      13-Hecker 188,0
                      14-Foutz 165,0

                      Not listed
                      Nichols 467,7
                      Rusie 284,7
                      Ward 174,2

                      IP
                      1-Galvin 6003,3
                      2-Keefe 5047,7
                      3-Welch 4802,0
                      4-Clarkson 4536,3
                      5-Radbourn 4535,3
                      6-Mullane 4531,3
                      7-McCormick 4275,7
                      8-Terry 3514,3
                      9-Whitney 3496,3
                      10-Buffinton 3404,0
                      11-King 3190,7
                      12-Hecker 2906,0
                      13-Caruthers 2828,7
                      14-Foutz 1997,3

                      Not listed
                      Nichols 5056,3
                      Rusie 3769,7
                      Ward 2461,7

                      So, if we use your sample of 1880's pitchers, Welch is:
                      -10th: PWS / 1000 IP (13th if we count our 3 other post-NA inductees)
                      -11th: ERA+ (14th if we count our 3 other post-NA inductees)
                      but he is...
                      -6th: Lifetime PWS (7th if we count our 3 other post-NA inductees)
                      -3rd: IP (4th if we count our 3 other post-NA inductees)

                      Is Welch a HOFer?
                      It depends if we give more value to Quantity vs Quality
                      Personally, Welch is far in my Queue.
                      Nos Amours! ... 1969-2004

                      Comment


                      • I have received notification that the omission of Kid Nichols was in fact a typo... and as I have stated, I will accept the change because I was behind myself last weekend. No other typos have been divulged, so the book is now closed on "1907". The web site should be updated this Sunday after "1908" is tabulated.

                        Nichols will join Ed Delahanty and Dan Brouthers in the 100% club. Changes are noted in the "1907" results post.
                        http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...-showalter.gif

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by J W
                          I have received notification that the omission of Kid Nichols was in fact a typo... and as I have stated, I will accept the change because I was behind myself last weekend. No other typos have been divulged, so the book is now closed on "1907". The web site should be updated this Sunday after "1908" is tabulated.

                          Nichols will join Ed Delahanty and Dan Brouthers in the 100% club. Changes are noted in the "1907" results post.
                          My faith has been restored in my buds with a 100% vote for Nichols.

                          Comment


                          • Speaking of 1908 ...

                            That's the year Henry Chadwick, widely called the "Father of Baseball," died. He isn't eligibe for this timeline hall, but I think there ought to be some way to honor him, as well as some others who contributed heavily off the field.

                            Perhaps the timeline HOF could institute a "Harry Wright Memorial Award" in special cases like these, named after the pioneering manager who died in 1895. It could be a one-time vote in the year after a person's death (or perhaps there could be two votes, one in the year after retirement and one in the year after death), with 75% of people having to vote "yes" in order for the honor to be awarded.

                            A vote for this award would not count towards the ten votes each voter has.

                            Does this sound like a good idea? Or does someone has a better idea for such cases?

                            Comment


                            • --I think that is an excellent suggestion. We've already honored Chadwick in the main Hall and if we include or don't include non-playing contributors isn't a big deal to me (although I would be a yes vote for Chadwick). However, this suggestion would help clarify some good player (or simply player)/great contributor issues for me. John McGraw is on my ballot now, but I'd drop him until he was eligible under this rule if it were instituted.

                              Comment


                              • I'm not ready to institute the "Harry Wright Memorial Award" yet, but I can imagine something akin to what the Pro Football HOF used to do with their vets candidates: one per year, yes or no. Exact details (one per couple years? several at once per decade?) I have no strong idea about as of yet. It may take me a couple weeks depending on my schedule to iron it all out, but, I'm willing to try it with enough support from the voters.

                                What does everyone else think?
                                http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploa...-showalter.gif

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X