Circle of Greats 1876-77 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 111th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round adds to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes those players born in 1876 and 1877. Rules and lists are after the jump.

The new group of players born in 1876 and 1877, in order to join the eligible list, must, as usual, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers). Additionally, to be eligible, players must also have played at least half their career games since 1901 or compiled 20 WAR since 1901. This new group of candidates born in 1876 and 1877 joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots.

Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. As always, the one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST Thursday, November 5th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Tuesday, November 3rd.

If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1876-77 Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover candidates; additional player columns from the new candidates born in 1876 and 1877 will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The seventeen current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The 1876 and 1877 birth-year players are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.

Holdovers:
Sam Crawford (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Addie Joss (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Satchel Paige (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Willie Randolph (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ed Walsh (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Hoyt Wilhelm (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1876 and 1877, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Tommy Leach
Frank Chance
Danny Murphy
Germany Schaefer
Pat Moran
Harry Steinfeldt
Elmer Flick
Fred Jacklitsch
Ginger Beaumont
George Browne
George Stovall
Wid Conroy
Charlie Hemphill
Charlie Hickman
John Titus
Jimmy Williams
Patsy Dougherty
Sammy Strang
George Stone
Danny Green

Pitchers (born in 1876 and 1877, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Nick Altrock
Bill Donovan
Mordecai Brown
Earl Moore
Harry Howell
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis
Bill Dinneen
Ed Killian

Leave a Reply

141 Comments on "Circle of Greats 1876-77 Balloting"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Bryan O'Connor
Editor

Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:

K. Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
Ferrell 40.1
Walsh 38.6
Tiant 37.5
Willis 37.5
Randolph 36.4
Crawford 36.2
Waddell 35.9
Allen 35.8
Nettles 35.7
Dawson 35.4
Eckersley 34.6
Ashburn 33.9
3F Brown 33.1
Goslin 31.7
Winfield 31.1
Tinker 30.6
Flick 30.6
Wilhelm 28.7
Chance 28.5
Joss 25.2
Paige 5.7

By this measure, the top six on our ballot are all pitchers, and that excludes Waddell, Three Finger, Joss, and both relievers. Waddell, like Walsh, was all black ink. If we’re going to represent this era, these guys make a lot of sense to me.

Kevin Brown, Walsh, Waddell

no statistician but
Guest

# 27: Harry Steinfeldt was joined in 1971 by Joe Torre for this accomplishment.

Richard Chester
Guest

#16: Red Schoendienst

shard
Guest

All right, first to vote.

Sam Crawford – Richie Ashburn – Elmer Flick

Brent
Guest

Crawford, Brown and Goslin

Dr. Doom
Guest

All-pitcher ballot for me:

Kevin Brown, Rube Waddell, Luis Tiant

My next choices would probably be Ed Walsh, Rick Reuschel, and Wes Ferrell, so I don’t know if I’ll be casting any more ballots for positions players on the backlog.

Dr. Doom
Guest

Folks, if you’re voting, “Brown” is not going to cut it. We’ve got two solid candidates with that name, so please specify. Thanks!

oneblankspace
Guest

unless you vote for both of them. There’s a law firm in St Louis of Brown and Brown. One of them wears an eye patch.

Andy
Guest

Sam Crawford, Kevin Brown, Rube Waddell

Andy
Guest

Sam Crawford, Rube Waddell, Kevin Brown

Richard Chester
Guest

#17: Johnny Hopp

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

So hard to rate these older pitchers.
Vic Willis’ 67+ Pitching WAR doesn’t look cheap.
Still learning about him.

Along the way I get distracted by his Beaneater teammate, Kid Nichols (who is not eligible for our exercise.).

Dude had 27 Wins in his first 9 seasons.
What?

Most Wins, first 9 Years:

279 … John Clarkson
276 … Kid Nichols
271 … Old Hoss Radbourn
263 … Tim Keefe
258 … Mickey Welch
____________________

Since 2000:

137 … Roy Oswalt
137 … Justin Verlander
136 … CC Sabathia

Hartvig
Guest
We finally come to Mordecai Peter Centennial “Three Finger” Brown. Great name. Great nickname. Great W-L record. Sixth all-time in ERA, with more innings than anyone ahead of him. The ace of the staff on a team that AVERAGED 100 wins a year over an 8 year period when teams played 154 game schedule. And yet… How could those teams be so good? We know that Tinker to Evers to Chance was far from the Old Timers Committee’s finest moment. We know that not only was there no one on the team who could match up to Ruth or Mays… Read more »
David P
Guest
Hartvig – A few points. As you’ve already noted, hardly anyone had great players during the Cubs period of dominance. The Cubs won 90+ games every year from 1904-1912. During that period Honus Wagner led the NL in WAR among position players with 77.2 WAR, almost as much as the 2nd and 3rd players combined (Magee with 39.4 and Joe Tinker with 38.4). And Wagner was no spring chicken…those were his age 30-38 seasons. Think about how bereft of talent that NL must have been for a player of those ages to completely dominate the league. At the same time,… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest

I admit that my comment about the Old Timer’s Committee select of Tinker to Evers to Chance was overly harsh. While they may not have been in the top tier of players at their respective positions during the games first 50 years they were in the tier right below that. And the reality is that even though the BBWAA got to choose from the cream of the crop between 1945 and 1959 the OTC actually managed to pick fewer real clunkers than the BBWAA during that same time frame.

Jameson
Guest
Mordecai Brown gave up a LOT of unearned runs, 1044 total runs, 725 earned. Among other pitchers with around 3100 innings, I picked Whitey Ford and Orel Hershiser to check two later eras. Whitey gave up 1107 and 967; Orel 1366 and 1211. Earned runs were only 69% of Brown’s total runs allowed, compared to 87% and 89%for Ford and Hershiser. Obviously defense has improved considerably from the aughts to today, but how were errors charged back in the day? More liberally? Or were guys just booting the ball all over the field? Maybe this is something we should consider… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest

Based on a lot of what Bill James has written, I’d say “booting the ball all over the field” is the likelier understanding. The grounds weren’t maintained by professional grounds crews the way they are now. The dirt wasn’t perfectly even. The balls by the end of the game weren’t really even ROUND, since they got so beat up and used a small number of them during one contest. The gloves were small and terrible. It’s really not SURPRISING that players were booting a lot of balls, but I think that’s the gist of it.

Hartvig
Guest
Your comment really got me thinking so I did a little checking. First let’s look at some of Mordecai’s teammates(just during their time in Chicago): Ed Reulback- 76.6% of runs (464/606) were earned Orval Overall- 74.8% (241/322) Jack “The Giant Killer” Pfiester- 64.7% (211/326) and with an even lower career ERA than Brown albeit in far fewer innings Dunno what to make of this. Did Chicago’s vaunted just not play as well when Brown (and Pfiester) were on the mound or was there some other factor in play here? Were more balls being hit on the ground because of the… Read more »
no statistician but
Guest
The answer may be in part because of Brown’s deformity: according to his bio the missing index finger on his throwing hand gave his pitches a lot of movement—I’d guess like a knuckle ball—resulting in more WPs and PBs, plus a lot of ground balls with weird spin and fly balls that faded away. In a quick survey which I won’t document here—trust me—I found that the Cubs generally matched or exceeded league norms in the ratio of earned to unearned runs from 1904-1912, which in itself suggests that Brown’s pitching, or pitches, were the reason for the unearned runs… Read more »
oneblankspace
Guest

I had also heard that the knuckleball came about as full-fingered pitchers tried to reproduce the effects of the pitches of Three-Finger Brown.

e pluribus munu
Guest
I think another factor may have to do with what we mean by a great player. To win 100 games, you want great players that year. Whether they are great over a career is not relevant. Chicago had great players each year, but not necessarily players with careers that rank among the greats. The total number of WAR on those Cubs teams each year seems – after spot-checking – to be within MLB norms for leading teams. (The 1908 team slipped in against a much more dominant NY club, but we all know that story.) As nsb pointed out recently,… Read more »
JEV
Guest

Joss,Three Finger, Willis

brp
Guest

K. Brown
Ashburn
Wilhelm

Richard Chester
Guest

Crawford, Goslin and Ferrell

Richard Chester
Guest

Question #5: Juan Uribe

Paul E
Guest

Allen, Willis, Joss

Paul E
Guest

Allen, Willis, Joss

Dr. Doom
Guest
Here’s a vote update, through 9 votes (Paul E above). So far, I’m counting Brent’s vote for “Brown” as being for Kevin since he voted for him last round, as well. But in the future, if people can disambiguate, that would be helpful. Anyway, here’s what we have so far, in the very early going: 5 – Kevin Brown 4 – Sam Crawford* 3 – Rube Waddell 2 – Richie Ashburn, Goose Goslin*, Addie Joss, Vic Willis 1 – Dick Allen, Three Finger Brown, Wes Ferrell, Elmer Flick, Luis Tiant, Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhelm 0 – Andre Dawson, Dennis Eckersley,… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Sammy Strang’s last season he posted an .094 BA with a .385 OBP.
That’s 23 walks in 80 PA, with 5 hits.

Highest OBP
Minimum 75 PA
BA under .100:

.385 … Strang
.245 … Mickey Lolich
.244 … Cal McLish
.241 … Jon Matlack
.240 … Vida Blue
__________________

!

Hartvig
Guest

I just love this kind of stuff.

Kahuna Tuna
Guest

Related silly stat: I searched batters’ single seasons, 1901 to 2015, with 50+ PA and BB greater than 25% of PA. Strang, 1908, had the second-lowest batting average on the list. The lowest belonged to pitcher Ernie Koob, 1916 Browns, whose 15 walks and one sacrifice in 57 plate appearances left him 41 at-bats. He went 0 for 41.

Fifteen walks?! Next highest walks total for a hitter with a .000 average is seven, by Karl Drews, 1949 Browns.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Ginger Beaumont was the first batter in the first World Series.
And he used a 55 ounce bat.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

I feel that Sam Crawford should definitely be elected.
And both Rube Waddell and Vic Willis deserve a look.

I can’t vote for all of them, though, because I’m stumping for a few pitchers who defy comparisons. I’m letting go of Eck, because I don’t see him getting in. I’ll ride Wes and Hoyt to the end, though.

Vote:

Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
Hoyt Wilhelm

e pluribus munu
Guest

Crawford, Paige, Goslin

Gary Bateman
Guest

Goslin, Ashburn, M. Brown

opal611
Guest

For the 1876/1877 election, I’m voting for:
-Andre Dawson
-Dave Winfield
-Willie Randolph

Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Eckersley
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Brown (Kevin)
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Walsh
-Crawford
-Willis
-Waddell

Stephen
Guest

Ashburn, Crawford, Goslin

Dr. Doom
Guest

Now that Brent’s vote is confirmed as being Kevin Brown, here is an updated tally for your Monday lunchtime, though 14 ballots (Stephen):

6 – Sam Crawford*
5 – Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin*
4 – Richie Ashburn, Rube Waddell
==========25% (4)
2 – Mordecai Brown, Wes Ferrell, Addie Joss, Hoyt Wilhelm, Vic Willis
==========10% (2)
1 – Dick Allen, Andre Dawson, Elmer Flick, Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Luis Tiant, Ed Walsh, Dave Winfield
0 – Dennis Eckersley, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel

Joseph
Guest

Vote: Crawford, Nettles, Randolph

mosc
Guest

I can’t vote for all my horses here. Nettles gets support and won’t win anyway so I’m leaving him off even though to date he has 0 votes. I still can’t believe we let in home run baker before nettles. I voted to redeem Randolph but only because I had to pick 3 people, not really sure he’s good enough.

Paige, Ferrell, Dawson

Hartvig
Guest
I apologize if this ends up being a multiple post but I’m getting some Java script errors messages. As much as a reminder for myself as anything this is the 111th ballot meaning- that before we count on the BBWAA doing the smart thing and providing us with at least a couple more- we have 9 more elections (and that is counting this one) to decide who gets in to the COG. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this. Coming up 1875- Eddie Plank 1874- Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie 1873- Bobby Wallace 1871-72 Iron Man McGinnity,… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest
I think Hartvig’s point is really well taken, so I’m posting this just to reinforce it: the time for voting to keep players on the list whom we really aren’t committed to voting into the CoG is probably over. I agree that we should be testing real support for the best candidates for the few remaining slots. That wouldn’t rule out voting for someone with little support if we feel that player’s really among the best three, but given that only 0-3 of the 16 non-winners this round are realistically going to get in . . . For me, this… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest

I actually thought of that after I posted.

This may BE the time for strategic voting but from a different perspective than has been done in the past.

Dr. Doom
Guest
I, for one, won’t be voting for George Davis, even though I’ve never engaged in “strategic voting” throughout this entire process – 111 rounds, 6 redemptions, and multiple runoffs. It’s just not been my style. But I don’t “get” voting for Davis or Dahlen. The way I see it, they’re “old timers.” My first thought when considering a player is always, “Are his 20th/21st century MLB achievements ALONE enough to merit discussion on this player?” As I understand it, that’s always been the BBWAA’s perspective. Thus, Cy Young gets considered, while Satchel Paige, George Davis, and Bill Dahlen do not… Read more »
Bstar
Guest

Davis isn’t even eligible, is he? I thought you had to have at least 50% of your PAs in the 20th century to qualify. Over 55% of Davis’ plate appearances were in the 1890s.

bstar
Guest

What about Cy Young? It’s close, but he has slightly more IP in the 1890s than in the 20th century. According to the rules set up by birtelcom, I believe he is ineligible as well.

Dr. Doom
Guest

“Additionally, to be eligible, players must also have played at least half their career games since 1901 or compiled 20 WAR since 1901.”

All the above accumulated 20+ WAR after 1900.

e pluribus munu
Guest
As the Doctor has pointed out, these players are indeed eligible. So without trying to change the views of Doom (never sounds promising), let me make a case for considering Davis, Dahlen, and perhaps others whose careers spanned 1900 besides Young. There is good reason, I think, to rule out players whose career value was accrued during baseball’s pioneering days. But I think we sometimes make a mistake in what we take those pioneering days to be. Nothing essential changed in the game of baseball in 1901. A new major league was formed, increasing the number of teams from 8… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
While I admit that getting called closed-minded isn’t the most flattering thing in the world (I like to think I’m assertive and confident – mean the same thing, but sound a lot better than “arrogant,” “standoffish,” “bossy,” “cocky” or your synonym of choice), I must say that, in general, I agree with you. I prefer 1893 as the cutoff point for “modern” baseball. Again, though, I would reiterate that my perspective on this issue is that I would like to honor birtelcom’s original point in this exercise, which was to attempt to mirror the BBWAA’s process. I use 1901 as… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest
Dr. Doom, If I seemed to call you close-minded, my apologies – I didn’t mean to say that (much less the other unflattering adjectives you list). You articulated a clear rationale from the outset, and in saying I wasn’t trying to change your mind, I only meant to indicate that I thought your position reflected a cogent personal viewpoint – and also, I’m afraid, to add a little colorful rhetoric at the expense of your screen name. I’m sure everyone here would agree that your posts are always excellent contributions, and that you are as open to the ideas of… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest

No apology necessary! 🙂 And I never mind a bit of messing with my screen name – that’s what it’s there for!

Hartvig
Guest
I can certainly see your point- I did a very public 180 on Paige for that exact same reason. One thing I would point out however is that in addition to Young the BBWAA also choose to enshrine Wee Willie Keeler as their 11th choice overall, ahead of Eddie Collins & Rogers Hornsby. Keeler did play a little more than half of his games post 1901- at least in part because of the expanded schedule- but according to WAR almost 60% of his value was prior to 1901. Of course it’s equally true that in their fairly brief existence the… Read more »
Chris C
Guest

Eck, Ashburn, Dick Allen

T-Bone
Guest

Reuschel, D. Allen. 3 Finger Brown.

Richard Chester
Guest
First let me say that a problem that I am having on my PC is that recent comments are no longer posting. This is a response to an epm comment in which he referenced my name. I now have to read comments on my Nook on which there is no reply button and with the comments no longer being numbered, my comments currently fall where they may. I find it impossible to pick a single year as a dividing line but I like to use 1901. I prefer it rather than 1893 because the foul strike rule was introduced in… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

I would venture to guess that the balata ball Turkin Test has been explored in this detail on few other internet baseball sites.

billh
Guest

Winfield, Allen, Dawson

Hartvig
Guest

I think that I have made up my mind.

But first I need to point out- just in case there is anyone here who may not already be aware of it- that Germany Schaefer once stole first base.

Not something you see happen every day.

Sam Crawford, Wes Ferrell, Ed Walsh.

At least for now.

e pluribus munu
Guest

Excellent point! And if you add the WAR of Schaefer’s full maneuver (stealing second, first, and second in one at bat, accompanied by various whoops and screeches, prompting a run scored, massive on-field cognitive failure, and a change in the rulebook), the adjustment might bring him into CoG territory.

Dr. Doom
Guest
Through 20 votes (Hartvig), we’re in an interesting place. Everyone’s received at least one vote. It looks like this: 8 – Sam Crawford* 5 – Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin* =====25% 4 – Dick Allen, Wes Ferrell, Rube Waddell 3 – Mordecai Brown, Andre Dawson =====TOP NINE 2 – Addie Joss, Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhlem, Vic Willis, Dave Winfield =====10% 1 – Dennis Eckersley, Elmer Flick, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant Crawford is beginning to pull away from the pack. But as three straight ballots cast with Dick Allen’s name show, when turnout is… Read more »
Jameson
Guest

Voting for:
Crawford
Joss
Walsh

oneblankspace
Guest

Voting for

EWalsh
HWilhelm
SCrawford

Joseph
Guest

It’s hard for me to believe that the guy on this list with I think the second most WAR (I could be wrong, I didn’t check) and the first most in HR’s, at a position that is under-represented (3rd Base), has so little support right now–namely, Nettles. I don’t have the time or energy to do a re-harsh of his qualifications right now–but I think he belongs.

Dr. Doom
Guest

Nettles has 68.0 WAR.

Sam Crawford (75.1) and Kevin Brown (68.5 – pitching only) have more.

Joseph
Guest

Okay–he’s third by .5 WAR. I stand corrected. Thank you.

e pluribus munu
Guest
Joseph, Your post raises a perennial issue: how critical is WAR in ranking players, especially across eras? I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think WAR and other advanced stats were great, and I always look first to WAR, OPS+, and ERA+ in thinking through how to assess players. But Nettles illustrates for me the limits of WAR. An exceptional amount of his WAR value comes from his defense. I remember very well how good Nettles was at third, but I don’t put the same faith in dWAR as I do in offensive calculations. During his playing days, contemporaries just… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest
I have a slight quibble with your statement that third base “was usually assigned to less stellar fielders”. That may have been true from about 1920 until Robinson came along but at least Bill James believed that in the dead-ball era defense was more highly valued at third than at second base. Still, I agree with your overall assessment. In fact there are 2 other players on our holdover list that my questions about- partially fueled by a lack of complete understanding of- defensive WAR lead me to question how they are ranked. The first is Reuschel who- and even… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

You have quibbled successfully, Hartvig. I recall James’ point now.

I also agree with you about Reuschel, and, having been a big fan of Ashburn, I’m sympathetic with your instincts in his case as well (though I don’t see him as being among the 120 best players of all time).

Dr. Doom
Guest
I was interested to check out Rick Reuschel on Fangraphs. What if we removed defense from the equation altogether, and just looked at his HR, BB, and K relative to the other pitchers of his time? According to Baseball-Reference, Reuschel was worth 68.2 WAR. According to Fangraphs, Reuschel was worth… 68.2 WAR. No matter HOW you remove the defense – by ignoring non-HR batted balls altogether OR by adjusting for defense, they arrive at the same number (it’s odd, actually, and he’s probably about the only pitcher over 40 WAR for whom that’s true). I would say that that makes… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest
At this point I’m not certain that it matters altho Ashburn does seem to have a core of supporters & I do have him in my top 5. But had I read what Dr. Doom had to say about Reuschel it’s entirely possible I may have voted for him over Walsh. The reality is that at this point I find it close to impossible to be certain that I’m giving the right weight to a whole range of different factors for players so different in so many ways and yet so close in others. When we’re done with this process-… Read more »
Joseph
Guest
EPM, I would say that your position is well-considered. And Nettles is indeed a rare type of player. When he retired he was the only player to achieve both at least 350 HR’s and exceed 20 dWAR. To me it’s interesting that the only players have have exceed those marks since then played a great deal of 3b also and are all probably better than Nettles (Ripkin, Jones, and Beltre). That probably argues against Nettles. That said–if you go by oWAR–during the 10 years of 1970-1979, Nettles was a top 20 offensive player. And he was 6th in total HRs… Read more »
CursedClevelander
Guest
Minor correction, epm: We haven’t elected Jimmy Collins yet. He’ll be eligible in his 1870 birth year, as he accrued over 20 post-1900 WAR. I’m sure he’ll get support, but he’s weaker than Davis and Dahlen among the 19th century position players who are eligible for our process, so I think he’s a bit of a longshot. I think Baker was a fine choice. He’s the actual best pre-war 3B, as opposed to the popular contemporary choices of Collins and Traynor. I don’t think we need to be slaves to positional distributions, but it would be odd to have zero… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest
Absolutely right about Collins, C.C. I actually went to check the CoG list in writing to Joseph, and I found Collins there – it was, of course, Eddie. I was looking for 3B names and when I saw “Collins,” I forgot to think (and instead seem to have used creative imagination, manufacturing a memory of Collins’ selection and my view of it). I was happy enough with Baker and voted for him on one of my ballots, but to me he’s a borderline call because of his short career, just as I felt that Jackson was problematic on those (and… Read more »
David Horwich
Guest

Crawford, Nettles, Tiant

jajacob
Guest

crawford, Kevin Brown, Nettles

Richard Chester
Guest

#7: Benito Santiago is one.

billh
Guest

I voted yesterday, but my vote doesn’t seem to have posted. 2nd try:

Winfield, Allen, Dawson

Scary Tuna
Guest

Mordecai Brown, Waddell, and Willis.

aweb
Guest

K. Brown
Dawson
Nettles

I can’t see voting for the new old timers unless they really separate themselves from the pack, and I’m not seeing that here.

Hub Kid
Guest

E. Walsh, L. Tiant, G. Nettles

dr-remulak
Guest

Nettles, M. Brown, Waddell.

MJ
Guest

Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Sam Crawford

Dr. Doom
Guest

Another vote update,.through MJ (29 ballots):

13 – Sam Crawford*
8 – Kevin Brown
=======25% (8)
6 – Graig Nettles, Rube Waddell
5 – Richie Ashburn, Mordecai Brown, Goose Goslin*, Ed Walsh
4 – Dick Allen, Andre Dawson, Wes Ferrell
=======TOP NINE
3 – Addie Joss, Luis Tiant, Hoyt Wilhelm, Vic Willis
=======10% (3)
2 – Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Rick Reuschel, Dave Winfield
1 – Dennis Eckersley, Elmer Flick

Holy Graig Nettles!

Also, vote changes have closed, just so you’re all aware – that means ballots are locked in, and we’re just awaiting those voters who check in the last day or two.

Joseph
Guest

Way to go, Nettles supporters!

wpDiscuz