Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.


Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever |
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1915

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --I don't see Joss as anywhere near the best playe or even pitcher on the ballot. The problem is not just his short career, but a lack of in season durability. His quality was high, but not exceptionally so when you compare him only the the primes of other pitching candidates (his high career ERA+ is greatly aided by his lack of decline years - although I'm sure he would have preferred to have had those years regardless of how much it hurt his record). The othe thing is that, even if he had lived, his career was probably not destined to be a long one. He suffered a serious arm injury the year before his death that already threatened his career.
    His high career ERA+ is inflated by a short career, but it's hard to deny that a 9 year peak ERA+ of 142 is not Hall of Fame worthy, IMO. Tack on maybe 5 more so-so years and he's still likely at around at least 130 for his career.


    • #17
      My ballot

      Jake Beckley
      Cupid Childs
      Hugh Duffy
      Elmer Flick
      Hughie Jennings
      Willie Keeler
      Joe Kelley
      Herman Long
      Cal McVey
      Hardy Richardson
      Al Spalding
      Joe Start
      Ezra Sutton
      Rube Waddell
      Mickey Welch
      Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.


      • #18
        A rare year where there's not enough room on my ballot. Even though most of them were on the back end of my queue, I bumped all the guys on their last year of eligibility (who I had voted for in the past) to the top. That knocked a couple guys who I had higher off.

        Beckley was probably the lowest of the guys with eligibility left past this year, but he's been so close I voted for him anyway. I don't want the one year I don't vote for him to be the one year where my vote makes a difference.

        I find it interesting that Waddell was near the back of my queue (after last-timers being bumped up) but he's currently the only person who would get in if voting stopped today. I'm amazed Elmer Flick isn't getting more support.

        If someone can convince me not to vote for Flick in the future, I invite you to do so. He's at the top of my queue and I want to know what I'm missing that's so damning. I mean, I've been aware in the past that I like him more than others, but still.

        I didn't vote for Joss yet. I probably will, but I want to take at least a ballot to think about it and see the arguments.

        I'm ver close on Beaumont and Griffith and could be persuaded to vote for them in the future. I would very much like to see anyone else's arguments for them.
        Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.


        • #19
          Van Haltren

          I didn't see it with the other 15th year players. I thought about casting a vote for Ritchey rather than Keeler just to keep him on the ballot, but a solid second baseman with good fielding numbers on a "mini-dynasty" was not worht what it would be in another fifty years. At any rate his offense was average at best even if every now and then he was the best 2B in the NL it is nowhere near Hall worthy, even just to keep him in the conversation.


          • #20
            Beckley, Joss, Keeler, Spalding, Welch

            I was close on Elmer Flick, Rube Waddell, and Vic Willis. It doesn't look like Waddell is ging to need my support, but may consider voting for any of these three in the next election.

            I'm surprised that Joss is getting such little support so far. I'm assuming Koufax will fly through this process. What makes Koufax superier to Joss? Other than the 3 Cy youngs (which weren't around in Joss's day)?

            I've been voting Spalding and Welch for 15 years. I'm hopeful for Spalding, but can see that Welch really doesn't have a chance. I know he is viewed as an accumulator, but his totals are still holding up, 15 years later. At least I can stop checking both their names next year, one way or another...


            • #21
              Addie Joss
              Originally posted by torez77
              However, saying that Joss has no business in the HOF is ridiculous. His 1.89 ERA is 2nd all-time, adjusted ERA+ of 142 is 10th all-time. His 8.7 baserunners per 9 innings happens to be 1st all-time. He had a short career, but it was an excellent one, HOF worthy without question.

              I feel that Joss, Waddell, and other pitchers from that era such as Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown and Smokey Joe Wood don't get the credit they deserve. They shouldn't be mentioned quite in the same breath as the Big 4 from that era (Johnson, Alexander, Mathewson, Young), but they are just below them IMO. I may be stretching it with Smokey Joe, but at his peak he was awesome and Walter once said no man alive can throw harder than Smokey Joe.
              Well, I'm glad we don't have to debate that at least Walter Johnson, Mathewson and Cy Young are all superior to Joss. Joss finishes 11th among pitchers in the decade 1900-09 behind those three, McGinnity, Waddell, Vic Willis, Plank, Three Finger Brown, Chesbro, Doc White and Jack Powell. I can see putting Joss ahead of White and Powell on peak performance. I look at six categories for guys in this era: Black Ink, Gray ink, HOF standards, career win shares, win share total in his best three seasons, and best win share total in five consecutive seasons. We'll go through the comparison to Chesbro in detail below in a moment. Of the HOFers (thus leaving out White and Powell), Joss can only edge Plank in gray ink, tie Waddell in HOF standards, and get Willis in HOF standards and best five consecutive, at least in that decade. He gets swamped on career wins shares by every one of them and often is significantly behind these guys in at least most of these categories. Even if we cut it down to 8 seasons in the decade like Joss (who only managed 7 more win shares from 1910 on), these guys are still beating him.

              The real coup de grace for Joss's case in my mind, though, is the comparison to Jack Chesbro:

              …………………......	Chesbro	Joss
              Black Ink…………	27	19
              Gray Ink…………	130	143
              HOF standards…	40	47
              career WS……….	209	191
              WS 1900-09………	203	184
              best 8 WS………..	195	184
              best 3 WS………	103	88
              best 5 consecWS	143	131
              I threw in the decade and best 8 seasons figures to try and give Joss a break, but it did no good. There's 130 years of baseball, and we've got 70 major league pitchers or so in the Hall. That works out to about six a decade on average if we leave out the last decade. If you want to push it to 7 or 8 by taking fewer 19th century guys and eliminating duplicates, OK--but we already have 8 from the decade before getting to Joss versus Chesbro. The selection of Chesbro has drawn a lot of flak, but if we're only going to take Chesbro or Joss, I take Chesbro hands down.

              I might add that only three of the ten most similar pitchers to Joss are in the HOF, and two of them are Candy Cummings (for his supposed invention of the curve) and Monte Ward (who had about two other HOF caliber careers in baseball, one as a shortstop and another as a executive type).

              I'll add this 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?


              2. Was he the best player on his team?

              He led Cleveland’s pitchers in win shares in 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1908.

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

              He never led AL pitchers in win shares, although he finished second in 1908. He was third among major league pitchers in win shares that season, but that was his only year among the top six in win shares among MLB pitchers.

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

              He had 35 win shares in 1908, when Cleveland lost the pennant by half a game, and pitched a perfect game in the heat of the pennant race. Otherwise, Cleveland wasn’t close to winning the pennant during Joss’ career.

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

              For Joss, this question is not relevant. He died of meningitis at the age of 31, so we don’t know what his decline would have been like had he lived.

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


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

              By similarity scores: John Ward, Larry Corcoran, Deacon Phillippe, Jeff Pfeffer, Noodles Hahn, Hooks Wiltse, Dizzy Dean, Jack Coombs, Candy Cummings, and Fred Toney. Three of the ten are in Cooperstown, but Ward also had a career as a shortstop, and Cummings is in as inventor of the curveball. However, Joss’ lifetime ERA+ of 141 is the best of the bunch; nobody else has one higher than 131. Similarity scores don’t help us here.

              Career win shares, contemporary P: Sam Leever 212, Jack Chesbro 209, Deacon Philippe 206, Wild Bill Donovan 202, Bill Dineen 200, JOSS 191, Jack Taylor 183. Chesbro is the only one in Cooperstown, and he’s considered one of the Hall’s mistakes. Otherwise, these aren’t Hall of Famers.

              Best three seasons, contemporary P: Vic Willis 101, Clark Griffith 94, Eddie Plank 89, Jack Powell 89, JOSS 88, Jack Taylor 85, Bill Dineen 81, Babe Adams 81, George Mullin 80. This isn’t BBFHOF territory, either.

              Best five consecutive seasons: Vic Willis 138, Bill Dineen 134, Eddie Plank 133, JOSS 131, Jack Taylor 124. This isn’t the best company for Joss, as he’s just below the cutoff line.

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

              His Black Ink score of 19 is only 99th, and his Gray Ink score of 143 is just 102nd. Those are not good marks. However, he does place a decent 42nd in HOF Standards, at 47.0.

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

              Joss pitched in the deadball era, which makes his raw numbers look better. Also, he had no decline phase to lower his career numbers.

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

              No. There are many other pitchers better than Joss who aren’t in the BBFHOF. There are pitchers better than Joss who haven’t even received votes in the BBFHOF elections.

              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 Joss’ career. He finished second in win shares among AL pitchers in 1908, however.

              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 Joss’ era. Baseball Magazine started naming its all-league and all-American teams in 1908. Joss was one of the five pitchers on its all-AL team that season, but failed to make the all-American team that year.

              Joss had only two seasons in which he was among the top five AL pitchers in win shares. He was sixth one other year, and seventh two other times. But three or four All-Star-type seasons is very 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?

              I don’t know. Joss had only two seasons when he was among the top five pitchers in the AL in win shares. However, those were the only seasons when he was among the top ten in the AL in IP and games started. I don’t know why he wasn’t used as often as other leading pitchers in the league.

              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 pitched a perfect game in 1908. He’s also known as the player Cooperstown waived its ten-year requirement for.

              Joss has the best WHIP of any major league pitcher in history, and the second best ERA of any pitcher. He’s twelfth in adjusted ERA+ among major league pitchers.

              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: A player with a career as short as Joss’ needs a huge peak in order to deserve induction into the BBFHOF. Joss had very good rate stats, but suffers in the win shares measures because he usually didn’t pitch as many times per season as his contemporaries. As he doesn’t come close to having the best peak among pitchers of the twentieth century’s first decade - he didn't make Baseball Magazine's list of top five pitchers in 1908, his best season - Joss does not deserve induction into the BBFHOF.
              Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
              Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
              A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.


              • #22
                --Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.


                • #23
                  Vote Spaulding!

                  --Al Spaulding is exactly at 75% in his last year on the ballot. This IS a pitcher with a huge peak. In only 5 seasons as a regular pitcher Splauding was so dominant he compiled so much Black Ink that he is still 13th all time - 130 years later. He won 252 games in those 5 seasons (no wonder his arm gave out!) putting up an ERA+ over 140. He was also a good hitter, putting up a 116 OPS+. Apparently a good fielder too. His fielding percentage was .58 over league and his range factor was 25% better than the league. Obviously a short career, but packing 253 wins into it still gives him some worthy counting stats (and he won all those games in very short schedule seasons).


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                    --Joss just didn't pitch enough (and I'm talking about per season not his short career) to match up well with the other great pitchers of his time. He was a guy like Jose Rijo from more recent times who was terrific when he was on the mound, but just couldn't be counted on often enough to join the elite category. If you were the best or very close to it a fair number of times (as Koufax was) and you don't have the career numbers to make up for that then there isn't much to build acase on. ERA+ is a good indicator of quality, but if it is the singular qualifier for someone - as it is for Joss - then that doesn't cut it for me.
                    Come on, he was better than Rijo. Significantly better ERA+, and was healthier year in and year out than Rijo, and thus pitched a much more respectable amount of innings in his era than Rijo did in his. My support for Joss isn't that strong, so I'll leave it at that.

                    It will be interesting to see how Spalding plays out.

                    As a final observation, just glossing over players we've elected, it looks like the bulk of our electees played during the 1880s, which makes me wonder if we're having trouble adjusting our standards to how the game and statistics subsequently changed.


                    • #25
                      At this point, Spalding is the only man worth discussing. Waddell's in, the rest have no prayer.

                      For Spalding, take into account that he was one of the most dominant players of his era, and later, one of the most important figures in the game's eventual growth. Nobody would leave him out of their Hall as a contributor, so I urge everyone to vote for him now. He's going to get in anyway in our VC, so why not elect the whole portrait of the man which includes his playing time? Really, he's the only guy that's been consistently close to election that I'm certain will be a shoe-in during his first VC year. Voting against Spalding now is just delaying the process, he's in no matter what, so why block him?
                      1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                      1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                      1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                      1966 1974 1977 1978

                      1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                      2013 2014

                      1996 2006


                      • #26
                        I think this is my biggest ballot so far:

                        Van Haltren
                        Please check out my collection of vintage baseball recordings:



                        • #27
                          Van Haltren
                          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe


                          • #28
                            I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
                            Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.


                            • #29
                              Spalding's had a nice push today, but all it takes is the next vote to be from a detractor and he slips to 15 of 20, 75%. I think he'll make it over the hurdle this time. Some voters that see a guy over usually decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've also noticed a few on here adding support for Spalding so at least one of our longest holdovers won't need to make their case to the VC.

                              Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                              I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
                              Well, Beaumont is at zero votes at the moment so it's not really worth discussing. The rest of the new crop has led him to be in the dust right away.
                              1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                              1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                              1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                              1966 1974 1977 1978

                              1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                              2013 2014

                              1996 2006


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                                I'm still interested in people's arguments for or against Beaumont or Griffith.
                                Ginger Beaumont--one batting title in 1902, a speed demon who topped 100 runs 4 times, had a career .311 BA, 123 OPS+, decent on base percentage. No significant peak to speak of, but a solid contributor during a 12 year career.

                                Clark Griffith--decent manager, above average pitcher. Playing career + managing career will probably lead to his eventual induction through the VC. His ERA+ of 121 is decent. He also had a decent peak, but a short career.