Announcement

Collapse

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.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Kid Nichols - How Good Was He?

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

  • Kid Nichols - How Good Was He?

    It seems that in the greatest pitcher threads on Fever, Kid Nichols typically doesn't show up in the top ten....or the top fifteen judging by the most recent thread. I'm guessing that while there are a fair number of posters that have him in the top ten, there are plenty that don't rank him highly at all dropping him down to about #20 overall. Bill James had him at #9 in his 2001 Abstract.

    Granted, 2001 was 8 years ago and I'd expect people like Maddux, Clemens, Pedro and Unit would be higher now than then. But it still seems that Nichols is held in a bit lower regard here than on James' list. I'm wondering why? Perhaps because 19th century pitchers fare well on Win Shares, thus inflating him in James' system? Or a bias against 19th century players in general on Fever?

    How good was the Kid? Any modern-day comps?

  • #2
    Seems to me like Nichols is almost always in the top 13 or so when we do those polls.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's something I wrote about Nichols elsewhere on this site:

      Kid Nichols

      This guy is a vastly underappreciated great. He was

      in the top five in ERA 9 times;
      7th in career wins;
      3 time leader and ten times in the top 10 in wins;
      42d in win loss percentage;
      in the top 10 in win-loss percentage 9 times;
      14th in career ERA+;
      led the league in ERA+ twice and was in the top 10 twelve times;
      41st among pitchers in black ink;
      9th among pitchers in gray ink; and
      8th among pitchers in HOF standards.

      If that doesn't convince you, let's look at his win share scores against his top contemporaries:

      Code:
      Pitcher....	career	best3	5Consecutive
      Radbourn..	391	199	270
      Clarkson..	396	173	248
      Rusieā€¦....	293	137	205
      Nichols....	479	135	208
      Young.....	635	127	200
      Willis.......	293	101	138
      Mathewson..	426	115	161
      McGinnity..	269	117	162
      Griffith.....	273	96	143
      Plank......	360	89	133
      Waddell....	240	100	145
      Chesbro....	209	103	143
      Nichols beats everybody but Cy Young on the career level, and gives serious ground to Radbourn and Clarkson on the peak measures (he does get edged by Rusie, but his career advantage is so huge it overcomes that) that you can at least argue for those two over him. That still puts him ahead of HOFers like Willis, Mathewson (!), McGinnity, Griffith (though he has other credits), Plank, Waddell and Chesbro.

      Nichols is difficult to compare, though, because he's one of the rare ones to make it through the transition to the 60 feet, 6 inches pitching distance.
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        I've got Nichols ranked #10, between Seaver and Martinez.

        Comment


        • #5
          Behind only Young from 1890 to 1905.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's a shame that Nichols left the majors to own and manage Kansas City in 1902 and 1903. He very likely would have 400 career wins had he not done so, and would consequently get more love.

            He was also amazingly consistent, and out Younged Cy Young in the 1890s- seven 30 win seasons is more than anyone else ever had.
            "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
              Seems to me like Nichols is almost always in the top 13 or so when we do those polls.
              In the most recent "greatest player by position" thread, Nichols did not crack the top 15. And I believe in a recent "greatest pitchers" thread, he also did not make the top 15 and while getting some support, did not appear to be a lock to make the top 20 had that thread not died. I've got him around #10 - maybe that's a slot or two too high, but not making the top 15 or top 20 just seems too low to me. He pitched during a high offensive era in which many pitchers gave up a lot of runs. And, as was already mentioned, he pitched very well when the pitching mound was 50 feet from home and as well (or better if using ERA+) when it was moved to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893. I get the impression he would have been a great pitcher in any era. I get the sense that he is a bit of a victim from a 19th century bias.

              Comment


              • #8
                who ranks Nichols where?

                The Hall of Merit ranks Nichols number six among pitchers who worked primarily 1893 to 1923, behind Johnson, Young, Alexander, Williams, and Mathewson. Ranking all 63 member pitchers is one matter for this fall, with discussion now open and election probably next month. (Pitchers Combined Ballot Discussion)


                The Top 100 Pitchers project, last year in the Hall of Fame forum, selected pitchers in ten tiers of size twenty. There was no ranking within tiers but the numbers of votes for election to the first tier shows two clear gaps, one between 15 and 16, another between 17 and 18.

                Nichols and Sandy Koufax are the two who evidently rank 16 and 17 in some order. Here are the fifteen clearly ahead of them. (Choosing Tier 1, closed)


                Top 15 inferred from Top 100 Pitchers, tier 1
                Young, Mathewson, Johnson, Alexander
                Grove, Paige, Feller, Spahn
                Gibson, Seaver, Carlton
                Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez


                Nichols was the 13th pitcher named by the "Collaboration" to rank at least 500 players, underway in the Hall of Fame forum. There he follows twelve of the "Top 15 inferred" above and he precedes three: Feller, Gibson, and Carlton. (Collaboration, ranking now in the low 200s)


                Almost ten years ago Bill James in the New BJHBA named Nichols number nine in the major leagues. He did not consider the Negro Leagues (Paige) or the whole careers of Clemens and younger pitchers. Otherwise he put Nichols ahead of Feller and Carlton among the fifteen named above.


                add:
                In this forum last week about twenty readers voted Kid Nichols "15th Greatest Pitcher". Thus he follows fourteen of the "Top 15 inferred" above and he precedes one: Carlton. Numbers one to fifteen have been named by a continuing series of five-man rank-order ballots; the "16th" is now underway. (16th Greatest Pitcher)
                Last edited by Paul Wendt; 09-24-2009, 12:02 PM. Reason: add "15th Greatest Pitcher" poll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Buzzaldrin View Post
                  It's a shame that Nichols left the majors to own and manage Kansas City in 1902 and 1903. He very likely would have 400 career wins had he not done so, and would consequently get more love.
                  And had he got more than 94% of average run support, compared with Matty's and Spahn's 108%.
                  I have him at about ninth
                  Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                  Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CTaka View Post
                    In the most recent "greatest player by position" thread, Nichols did not crack the top 15. And I believe in a recent "greatest pitchers" thread, he also did not make the top 15 and while getting some support, did not appear to be a lock to make the top 20 had that thread not died. I've got him around #10 - maybe that's a slot or two too high, but not making the top 15 or top 20 just seems too low to me. He pitched during a high offensive era in which many pitchers gave up a lot of runs. And, as was already mentioned, he pitched very well when the pitching mound was 50 feet from home and as well (or better if using ERA+) when it was moved to 60 feet, 6 inches in 1893. I get the impression he would have been a great pitcher in any era. I get the sense that he is a bit of a victim from a 19th century bias.
                    Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?
                    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
                      Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?
                      BBFers are
                      trying to tag him
                      as an irrelevant old-timer
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
                        BBFers are
                        trying to tag him
                        as an irrelevant old-timer
                        Could be, but it sems to me like a lot of the most vocal massive LQ adjusters have been around less, not more lately.
                        1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                        1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                        1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                        The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                        The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
                          Well, he had been running near 13- 15 in past years. I wonder why he is sliding?
                          Maybe because he hasn't had a great season in the past couple of years?

                          I think part of it is a bias against 19th century players. Some have a feeling of "it was a different game then, different conditions, so since I don't know how to account for that, I'll just rate them low."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CTaka View Post
                            Maybe because he hasn't had a great season in the past couple of years?

                            I think part of it is a bias against 19th century players. Some have a feeling of "it was a different game then, different conditions, so since I don't know how to account for that, I'll just rate them low."
                            Oh come on, there are just as many if not more guys around here who glamorize/idolize old players and come up with any reason possible to make current players look bad. Many completely ignore LQ all together including integration, etc. which is way more laughable than putting Nichols down a few slots.

                            The biases run both ways.
                            1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                            1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                            1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                            The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                            The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by STLCards2 View Post
                              Oh come on, there are just as many if not more guys around here who glamorize/idolize old players and come up with any reason possible to make current players look bad. Many completely ignore LQ all together including integration, etc. which is way more laughable than putting Nichols down a few slots.

                              The biases run both ways.
                              I think the "glamorization", if it is there, starts with the deadball era. I disagree that 19th century players have been "glamorized/idolized" - to the contrary, I think they are more often dismissed as "irrelevant".

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X