Circle of Greats 1878-79 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 110th 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 1878 and 1879. Rules and lists are after the jump.

The new group of players born in 1878 and 1879, 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 1878 and 1879 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 EDT Tuesday, October 27th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, October 25th.

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 1878-79 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 1881 and 1882 will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The fifteen 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 1878 and 1879 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:
Shoeless Joe Jackson (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Sam Crawford (eligibility guaranteed for 2 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)
Addie Joss (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Satchel Paige (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 1878 and 1879, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Jimmy Austin
Roger Bresnahan
Jimmy Sheckard
Red Dooin
Bill Bradley
Jim Delahanty
Miller Huggins
Mike Donlin
Bill Bergen
Tom Needham
Ed Phelps
Shad Barry
Art Devlin

Pitchers (born in 1878 and 1879, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Tom Hughes
Doc White
Cy Falkenberg
Hooks Wiltse
Frank Smith
Otto Hess
Cy Morgan
Noodles Hahn

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#18, lowest OPS by a Braves player with 300+ PA: Luis Gomez, 1980, .451, six XBH (all doubles) in 307 PA. That’s a 26 OPS+, folks. He was also thrown out all four times he attempted to steal.

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
8 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Oh man, I should´ve known that. 😉

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Luis Gomez

I was thinking of you, hermano. (-;þ

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#3 is Max Bishop, I believe.

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#9–is it Rickey Henderson & George Kell?

brp
brp
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#2 – Wade Boggs, 1983-89

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#12 Red Dooin question. Answer is Bob Boone.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#11: Heine Peitz and Frank Bowerman

Brent
Brent
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

I think #21 is Kershaw.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Brent

I think this question is for retired players only in which case it would be Johan Santana.

Brent
Brent
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#20 is Billy Grabarkewitz in 1970 with 6.5 WAR, a .289 BA, 17 HRs while playing 3rd base for the Dodgers.

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Brent

The 1970 season has long fascinated me. The position players who posted their best offensive numbers that season include some guys who had very mediocre career numbers but had a genuinely good season at the plate—for instance, Joe Keough, Ted Savage, Danny Walton, Cito Gaston, Jim Hickman; even the 36-year-old Luis Aparició posted the only above-100 OPS+ season of his career in 1970. A few years back I set up a spreadsheet to determine who the biggest “surprise” players were for the seasons 1967 to 1974, taking into account 1) season OPS+ vs. career OPS+, 2) season OPS+ vs. OPS+… Read more »

Paul E
Paul E
8 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Kahuna Tuna,
If you go on baseball-reference and enter players of that era into the Runs Per Game scenario simulator at the bottom of the player batting statistics page, the counting stats of those players of that era are hardly altered for 1970 when you enter a steroid era season (1994-2006). Yes, somehow we went from 1968 and the second dead-ball era to 1970 which was as high a run-scoring environment as the National League of the 1950’s and 1990’s

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

That’s some strange stuff, Paul. If what you say is true (and I’ve never used the RPG scenario simulator), it sure seems to me that they’ve distorted the magnitude of the increased offense of 1970. True, MLB runs-per-game averages and OPSs for 1970 look wildly inflated in comparison with 1968, but they are below average for the live-ball era up to 1970. 1970 MLB R/G is exactly average for the period 1901-70; 1970 MLB OPS is slightly above the 1901-70 average. MLB R/G, 1950-59: 4.45. OPS: .723. MLB R/G, 1990-99: 4.68. OPS: .743. MLB R/G, 1901-2015: 4.40. OPS: .714. MLB… Read more »

Paul E
Paul E
8 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Tuna, Doug,
My fault ….Waaaaay off there. From ~ 1963 – 1993, three seasons stand out as more offense oriented: 1970, 1977, and 1987. In 1977 MLB switched from a softer Spalding product to the “Rawlings Rocket”. As for 1970 and 1987, I have no idea what happened.
As for my comparison of 1970 to the steroid era, not even close. Mea culpa, mea culpa. Maybe younger fans will have a greater appreciation of the slugging talents of the earlier generation
Thanks

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Paul, I hate seeing a fellow poster beat a hasty retreat . . . and even more feeling responsible for causing it! As you can tell, I have my own (eccentric) reasons for liking the 1970 offensive uptick, one of them being how very temporary it was. By 1972 offensive numbers (especially in the AL) had sunk again nearly to 1968 levels, prompting AL owners to introduce the designated hitter. Wherefore AL R/G has exceeded NL R/G every season since 1974. Please don’t feel too chastened. I may have hammered my point too forcefully. If you have seasons under your… Read more »

Paul E
Paul E
8 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Tuna,
No apology necessary. In the words of Arthur Fonzarelli, “I was wrrrr, wrrrr, wrrrong”. Way off. But, yeah, I do use that BR runs/game scenario tool often. It’s great to see what guys from the 1960’s (the heroes of thy youth) would do if they played in the 20-30’s or the steroid era. Guys like Fregosi and Willie Davis turning into Barry Larkin and Brady Anderson….

Brent
Brent
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Took me a while to figure out Games Finished means games finished that don’t include complete games. In that case, the obvious and correct answer to #15 is Lefty Grove

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

13. Doc White – I think the answer you’re looking for is the trio of Gary Peters, Joe Horlen, and Frank Baumann. They worked together from 1961-1965. Though if I’m right, your question is wrong, because Baumann didn’t lead the league in WHIP in his 1960 season.

bstar
bstar
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

I guess I’ll swoop in and pick up Doc’s leftovers: Billy Pierce led the AL in those three categories in 1955 and was a teammate of Peters and Horlen in 1961.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

If I understand question 37 correctly I found Mike Moore with .589 for the A’s and .442 elsewhere for a differential of .147. Howard Ehmke had a differential of .143.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

How about Barry Zito with a differential of .177.

bstar
bstar
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

14. Jim Delahanty question: Chase Utley had 6 XBH (5 HR, 1 2B) in the 2009 World Series.

bstar
bstar
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

17. Frank Smith question: Steve Carlton in his seminal 1972 season. Lefty gave up the most hits in the NL (257) despite a H/9 of 6.7. How did he do it? His 346.1 IP were 57 more than 2nd-place finisher Fergie Jenkins.

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

1. Jimmy Sheckard question: Eddie Yost in 1959.

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#1…..Eddie Yost in 1959

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#4………Jack Scott (1920 Braves, 1927 Phillies)

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

4. Tom Hughes question: Jack Scott.

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#6…….off the top of my head, is it Manny Sanguillen?

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#19…..gonna take a big stab…….either Larry Walker or McGwire?

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  John Nacca

#19…..or it could be Matt Holliday?

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#10: Ed Charles

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago

I don’t think it is Charles……..technically he debuted about 16 days short of his 29th birthday, and I believe he played only about 950 games at 3B……he was the first guy I thought of, and I checked his BBref page last night, which is why I am close with these numbers…….

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  John Nacca

Charles’ first year was 1962. At the start of the season he was 28 but turned 29 prior to June 30. BR uses the June 30 age as the player’s age for the season and that’s what Doug uses. Also I don’t think Doug meant that the player had to actually play at least 1000 games at 3B. He had to play enough games at 3B to be considered a third-baseman, which is true for Charles. If the answer is not Charles it cannot be anyone else.

Doug
Doug
8 years ago
Reply to  John Nacca

Charles is correct. Debuted in his age 29 season, was a 3rd baseman, had a 1000 game career.

brp
brp
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#16 – Joaquin Andujar, 6-16 in 1983 in exactly 225.0 innings.

Side note, Cliff Lee was 6-9 in 211 innings in 2012 and Shelby Miller went 6-17 this year in 205.1 innings.

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#10 I was thinking either Rich Amaral or Randy Velarde. Checking….
Neither one of those. I´m gonna keep looking.

Doug
Doug
8 years ago
Reply to  Luis Gomez

Richard has the answer with Ed Charles.

John Nacca
John Nacca
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#6………..is it Tony Pena?

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Then it’s George Stovall. Look at that 1909 season: 595 PA, 25 SB, and six walks.

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#8: Ben Cantwell, 20-10 for the 1933 Braves. He was a combined 56-98 in all other seasons, including 4-25 for the infamous 1935 Braves.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#5: Moises Alou

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

The other half is Dan Brouthers.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

If you had included “and peed on his hands,” I would’ve figured out that it was Alou. 🙂

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#19: Greg Jefferies

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
8 years ago

Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:

Brown 43.3
Jackson 41.0
Walsh 38.6
Tiant 37.5
Crawford 36.2
Allen 35.8
Nettles 35.7
Dawson 35.4
Eckersley 34.6
Ashburn 33.9
Goslin 31.7
Winfield 31.1
Tinker 30.6
Hahn 30.5
Wilhelm 28.7
Joss 25.2
Bresnahan 24.3
Paige 5.7

I love me some Noodles Hahn, but I can’t quite go there.

Brown, Jackson, Walsh

JEV
JEV
8 years ago

Joss, Jackson, Walsh

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago

My ballot: Kevin Brown Luis Tiant Shoeless Joe Jackson No one wants to hear about my voting for Brown or Tiant again; I’ve done that enough. But this IS my first ballot with Jackson, so I think I’ll share a little. It really came down to him or Sam Crawford for the final spot on my ballot. As things SO often go for me, I went with the player who had more peak value, per baseball-reference WAR. There was a good point brought up not that long ago, as to whether Crawford was being given enough credit for his fielding… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom, You make a strong case for Jackson over Crawford. Let me suggest a perspective that would lean things a bit the other way. Jackson’s career was very short: 13 years total, with one year largely lost due to World War I (although he managed to find a way out of military service). Even if you believe that his lifetime ban was unjust, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Jackson was an initial participant in the Series fix, and consequently, his abbreviated career was a product of his own actions, so there is no reason to compensate for… Read more »

no statistician but
no statistician but
8 years ago

This looks likes Shoeless Joe’s round. In the previous round newcomer Wahoo Sam outpolled him but thus far (Andy’s vote below) has only one vote. Dr. Doom and epm above give some arguments pro and con, but what I find interesting is how Crawford has suddenly disappeared from consideration, despite being virtually equivalent to Jackson, long career/short career-wise. JAWS ranks them 12 (Sam) and 13 (Joe) among RFs, Crawford’s Black and Gray ink inundate Jackson’s, and while the point is minor, Crawford went on to post big numbers in the PCL after his big league days were done. He carries… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago

I would guess that SOME of the failure of Crawford to secure votes is that it’s just too early – we have less than 1/4 of what our total final votes will be. If two or three people in a row name him, he’ll be near the top again. The other thing to keep in mind is that his support last round was artificially high – it always is for first-timers, unless they’re no-doubt, slam-dunk guys who just came on in a tough round. I suspect people are more suspicious of Crawford than that. And in regards to Black Ink,… Read more »

no statistician but
no statistician but
8 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom: From 1911-14 Jackson finished second, second, second, and fourth in BA. From 1902-1906, Crawford finished 2nd, 2nd, nought, 4th, and 2nd. Part of the reason why the latter’s performance flies under the radar is that the earlier decade was much more pitcher dominated with fewer runs scored. Jackson’s really outstanding season was 1913, when he led in a number of statistical categories, even though the league had dropped to 3.9 runs/game. If, as you well might, want to argue that BA is an overrated stat, then the point has to apply to both Jackson and Crawford. At a similar… Read more »

David P
David P
8 years ago

EPM – I think you’re being just a wee bit unfair to Jackson. First of all, there still remains substantial doubt about his involvement in the fix. There are people who have studied the issue in depth and concluded that he had zero involvement. Secondly, his early years in baseball aren’t quite how you’ve portrayed them. For one thing, conclusions should never be made based on 41 plate appearances. More importantly, there’s no evidence that he couldn’t have been a capable major league player at an early age. The problem is that he was a poor southern boy from rural… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago
Reply to  David P

Maybe I’m being hard on Jackson, David, but I don’t think unfair. You’re right about the story of Jackson’s failed tryouts with the Athletics. But I think the reasons are not relevant to the issue. I don’t deny that he had the raw talent, but he simply couldn’t produce – Mack saw the talent too, but he had to give up on Jackson (and it’s a good thing for Jackson that he did). You’re correct that we should not infer much from 41 PA, but it’s also true that Mack inferred enough to rule out additional PAs and to send… Read more »

David P
David P
8 years ago

EPM: 1) It’s unfair to compare one of the best hitters in the history of the game to one of the worst hitters in the history of the game, based on 41 at bats. Here’s a small list of great hitters who also started their careers at a young age and struggled in their initial 40 or so PAs but did much better over the rest of the season: Ken Griffey, Alex Rodriguez, Willie Mays, Mike Trout, Mickey Mantle. I’m sure there are others. 2) It’s unfair to say that Mack saw enough in 41 PAs to rule out additional… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago

David, You make good points, but I think there are some problems with your arguments. #1 is, of course, true, but it’s not relevant, in my view. The issue isn’t whether other players did or didn’t have slow starts, it’s how we’re to view Jackson’s short career when compared to Crawford’s long one. Moreover, the problem isn’t that Jackson’s season ended without him having the opportunity to go beyond his initial 41 PAs, as those other players did, it’s that his 41 PAs and the poor performance they reflect, included two seasons. As you say below, he didn’t want to… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago

One further detail: I just realized that Bris Lord, the one Cleveland player who had played in New Orleans (of those who appeared in 20+ games in the field – I didn’t check the fringe players, many of whom might not have been around when Jackson was), was not with the Naps when Jackson arrived: he’d gone back to the Athletics as part of the trade that brought Jackson to to the Naps. I really don’t know what to make of Fleitz’s claim.

Paul E
Paul E
8 years ago

Allen, Joss , Walsh

Chris C
Chris C
8 years ago

Jackson, Allen, Eck

T-Bone
T-Bone
8 years ago

D. Allen, Wilhelm, Shoeless Joe.

BillH
BillH
8 years ago

Allen, Walsh, Winfield

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
8 years ago

Jackson, Goslin, Ashburn

Andy
Andy
8 years ago

Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ed Walsh, Sam Crawford

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago

I’ve made arguments for Crawford above, and at length for Paige a month or two ago. I think Jackson’s case is fatally flawed by two factors: the short length of his career, which was due to his own poor choices, and the nature of those choices. Jackson was clearly far, far more talented than Goslin – whom I’m voting for, though I think he does not really belong in the CoG, any more than do the other holdovers, all top players, besides Crawford and Paige – yet Goslin compiled more WAR than Jackson due to Jackson’s poor choices. If we… Read more »

brp
brp
8 years ago

Vote:
Wilhelm
Ashburn
K. Brown

Stephen
Stephen
8 years ago

Ashburn, Joss, Nettles

mosc
mosc
8 years ago

Paige, Nettles, Dawson

Hartvig
Hartvig
8 years ago

Lots of interesting characters & some great nicknames among the newcomers. If you haven’t looked at Bill Bergen’s B-R page you really owe it to yourself to do so. Full of things to wonder & amaze. On the other end of the spectrum I think that Roger Bresnahan actually has a case for the COG. I don’t think he quite makes it but I think outside of Pudge Rodriguez he may just be next in line at catcher. First time in I don’t know how long- maybe ever- that there’s no one on the ballot that I am absolutely certain… Read more »

Brent
Brent
8 years ago

My take on Crawford is that when a guy has as many XBH as him (but not homers) and he played in the dead ball era, I suspect he is probably the most likely candidate for his stats being harmed by the era in which he played. I suspect that if he had been born 20 years later, he would have very much looked like Heilmann and maybe even Hornsby, offensively.

Anyway, Crawford, Goslin and Brown.

no statistician but
no statistician but
8 years ago
Reply to  Brent

Brent:

Bill James used a formula in the NBJHBA to push Crawford’s career stats forward so that they started at the beginning of the live ball era, 1919. I won’t go into the lengthy explanation James provides, but the significant career results are these (with his actual totals in parentheses):

Runs: 1743 (1391)
Hits: 2936 (2961)
Doubles: 590 (458)
Triples: 101 (309)
HRs: 494 (97)
RBIs: 1931 (1525)
BA: .308 (.309)

For what it’s worth.

Brent
Brent
8 years ago

Thanks, kind of what I expected. I think one reason we don’t think of Crawford as a power hitter is that we correlate triples to speed, but in the dead ball era, triples were much more a function of power.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago

Very early returns – only 15 voters. All holdovers have received votes. Here are the results so far:

========50% (8)
7 – Shoeless Joe Jackson
5 – Ed Walsh
4 – Dick Allen, Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown, Sam Crawford
========25% (4)
3 – Goose Goslin, Addie Joss
2 – Graig Nettles, Satchel Paige, Luis Tiant, Hoyt Wilhelm
========10% (2)
1 – Andre Dawson, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Winfield

Hub Kid
Hub Kid
8 years ago

Shoeless Joe, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant

koma
koma
8 years ago

Shoeless Joe Jackson, Dennis Eckersley, Satchel Paige

Kirk
Kirk
8 years ago

Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhelm and Shoeless Joe Jackson

Shard
Shard
8 years ago

Sam Crawford – Richie Ashburn – Shoeless Joe Jackson

dr-remulak
dr-remulak
8 years ago

Nettles, Winfield, Jackson.

Voomo Zanzibar
8 years ago

Vote:

Sam Crawford
Dennis Eckersley
Hoyt Wilhelm

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
8 years ago

Jackson, Crawford, Goslin

David Horwich
David Horwich
8 years ago

Crawford, Nettles, Tiant

Jameson
Jameson
8 years ago

“Wahoo” Sam Crawford
“Big” Ed Walsh
Adrian Joss

oneblankspace
8 years ago

One of the claims the gamblers made to the 1919 Sox about fixing the Series is that it had been done before. Some researchers claim that the 1918 Cubs threw their series against the BoSox. Comparing Jackson’s numbers in the three games the Sox won in 1919 against the five the Reds won, it is unclear which side he was on. I am willing to let Jackson’s lifetime ban expire with his life.

(S)J Jackson
H Wilhelm
E Walsh

no statistician but
no statistician but
8 years ago

For no reason in particular, I’d like to comment on the inversion of interest factor in these ballots. It’s been noted here several times that one possible reason for the declining number of voters in the elections is the lack of empathy for, knowledge of, or interest in the players of a century ago felt by many people who take part in the process. I. paradoxically, find the earlier players more compelling, not less, partly because my ongoing interest is baseball history and partly because the records of these players are fixed and immutable, their times are chronicled without so… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago

You and I are of a vintage, nsb, and perhaps that’s why I feel as you do. Some of the other things early players had to deal with were multi-day train rides between series, working at regular jobs throughout the non-season months in order to get by, little medical help for injuries, and, for the era we are now voting on, low social status to go with their low pay. (The one that really gets me is the trains – I’ve logged several hot summer overnights in noisy, un-airconditioned trains and slept not one minute during any of them.) I… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
8 years ago

I can understand what you are saying as well- I remember going to the outhouse or getting water from the well when we visited my grandmother on my dad’s side, piling hay bales around the foundation and up the north wall to brace for North Dakota winters on my grandparents on my mom’s side, the old crank phone in our kitchen & the operator placing our calls- I can even show you where she lived & remember where the old switch board was. And I too love the games history. On my book shelves- along side the Historical Baseball Abstracts… Read more »

Bryan O'Connor
Editor
8 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

I’m late to the party, but this is a great thread. To nsb’s point, baseball players of the distant past are certainly worthy of this type of discussion and research, which often reveals facts and anecdotes that are wildly entertaining. Without access to the modern amenities all of you have named, it was more impressive, in a way, when a Miller Huggins or a Mike Donlin made a career for himself as a major league baseball player, battling strenuous travel conditions, long stretches away from family, and injuries that couldn’t be healed the way they can be today. Those players… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
8 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

Bryan, I’m in agreement with your general argument. But Hispanic players who weren’t black were not prohibited from play in the early 20th century. Armando Marsans (came up in 1911) and Dolf Luque (from 1914) are examples. That there were not more like them may mostly be due to the fact that Latino populations in the US were then low, Cuba was exceptional in being largely under US control, and scouting in Latin America was largely unknown till the 1930s (at which point, Latin players began to be recruited in small but significant numbers, without the color line being considered… Read more »

bells
bells
8 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

That’s actually a fascinating way to present it, Bryan, and one I haven’t thought of before. That would be quite a stark contrast in comparing past eras to present. I’d love to see something like the top players (WAR is easiest ranking I suppose) since something like 1975 vs the 40-year period before integration, with a similar layout. That kind of comparison might reframe the way I think about those older players; say, if I thought about the 20th-best player from now who would have been allowed to play in the 1930s vs. the 20th-best player who did play in… Read more »

no statistician but
no statistician but
8 years ago
Reply to  Bryan O'Connor

Bryan: Just to clarify a point—When I wrote that I ‘d “take those players” over current ones, I wasn’t indicating that I thought they were better, just that their individuality, their lives, times, struggles, were compelling in a way that 21st Century players’ are not. A secondary point: A century ago there was really only one professional sport, and so I would posit that far more of the available athletic talent went into baseball than does now. How that impacts on your position I’m not sure. A third point: Leaving Black players aside for a moment, professional baseball in its… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
8 years ago

Totals through 25 ballots (thru oneblankspace’s ballot):

14 – Jackson*
============50% (13)
9 – Crawford*
8 – Walsh
============25% (7)
5 – Allen, Ashburn, Wilhelm
4 – Brown, Goslin*, Joss, Nettles, Tiant
3 – Eckersley, Paige
============10% (3)
2 – Winfield
1 – Dawson

MJ
MJ
8 years ago

Kevin Brown, Sam Crawford, Luis Tiant

Joseph
Joseph
8 years ago

Nettles, Jackson, Crawford

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
8 years ago

Jackson, Winfield, Joss.

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
8 years ago

Doom, NSB, David P, EPM: Good back and forth above re: Crawford and Shoeless Joe, I’ll add my 2 cents: When looking at Crawford, some voters seem suspicious of his numbers as a major star of the dead-ball era. At the time of his retirement (1917), Wahoo Sam was 4th all-time in hits with 2961. Here is the list: 1. Anson 3435 2. Wagner 3420 3. LaJoie 3243 4. Crawford 2961 5. Beckley 2934 6. Keeler 2932 7. Burkett 2850 8. Clarke 2678 9. G. Davis 2665 10. Lave Cross 2651 Anson, Beckley and Burkett were mainly 19th century. Keeler/Clarke/Davis/Cross… Read more »

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
8 years ago

Paige, Nettles, Dawson

mosc
mosc
8 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

HA! mosc approved! I think it’s just you and me though…

Luis Gomez
Luis Gomez
8 years ago

Joe Jackson, Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield.

opal611
opal611
8 years ago

For the 1878/1879 election, I’m voting for:
-Andre Dawson
-Dave Winfield
-Dennis Eckersley

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

Brendan Bingham
Brendan Bingham
8 years ago

Vote: Eckersley, Tiant, Wilhelm

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
8 years ago

Crawford, K. Brown, Dawson

The Hawk has been lagging a bit…

David Horwich
David Horwich
8 years ago

Through 33 ballots (Dave Humbert):

17 – Jackson*
============50% (17)
12 – Crawford*
============25% (9)
8 – Walsh
7 – Tiant
6 – Brown, Nettles, Wilhelm
5 – Allen, Ashburn, Eckersley, Joss, Winfield
4 – Dawson, Goslin*, Paige
============10% (4)

So everyone’s safe, unless there are 8 more ballots by the end of the day.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
8 years ago

– Sam Crawford (FTW)
– Luis Tiant (extra round)
– Goose Goslin (stay above 10%)

Sorry I haven’t been more active in discussions the last few weeks; after next week I should have more spare time.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
8 years ago

All-time vote update: Craig Biggio – 763 Eddie Murray – 731 Roberto Alomar – 725 John Smoltz – 658 Kenny Lofton – 608 Ryne Sandberg – 607 Harmon Killebrew – 585 *Kevin Brown – 522 Edgar Martinez – 507 Lou Whitaker – 493 *Dennis Eckersley – 406 *Dave Winfield – 405 Roy Campanella – 396 Whitey Ford – 382 Bobby Grich – 376 Sandy Koufax – 375 Tony Gwynn – 346 Willie McCovey – 336 *Luis Tiant – 329 #Minnie Minoso – 309 *Rick Reuschel – 292 Juan Marichal – 268 Tom Glavine – 262 Alan Trammell – 239 *Graig… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
8 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Randolph has never been redeemed before, so it looks like the only votes he’s received inthe regular rounds of voting were in the 1954 election (4 votes). Here are all the winners of the redemption rounds. + means subsequently elected to the CoG; * means currently on the ballot: 1: Brown*, Lofton+ 2: Lofton+, E Martinez+ 3: Reuschel*, Winfield* 4: Killebrew+, Murray+ 5: Alomar+, Brown*, Eckersley* 6: Reuschel*, Tiant*, Winfield* 7: Ashburn*, Cone, Drysdale, Dw Evans, Nettles* 8: Ashburn*, Cone, Dw Evans, Edmonds, Wilhelm* 9: Allen*, Dawson*, Drysdale, Paige* 10: Ferrell*, Randolph*, Reuschel* Organized another way: in the CoG: Alomar,… Read more »