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
This round’s tidbits. Answers in red.
1. Jimmy Sheckard’s 77 stolen bases at age 20 in 1899 make him the youngest league leader (since matched only by Ty Cobb and Mike Trout), and remains the highest steal total for a player so young. Sheckard exceeded 120 walks in 1911 and 1912, making him the only player with two such campaigns but no others with 90 walks. In that 1911 season, Sheckard recorded fewer than 150 hits but led his league in walks, runs and OBP, the only player to do so in a 700 PA season. Which other player did the same in a 650 PA season? Eddie Yost (1959)
2. Bill Bradley’s 1193 games at third base for the Indians is second only to Ken Keltner. Bradley’s 23 home runs, 146 OPS+ and 20.4 WAR for 1902-04 easily led all third basemen for those seasons, with the latter mark placing him third among all players, bested only by HOFers Honus Wagner and Nap Lajoie. Who is the only third baseman to better Bradley’s streak of 3 consecutive seasons with 6 WAR, a .300 BA and 90 runs scored? Wade Boggs
3. Miller Huggins is one of four second basemen since 1901 to walk in 14% of 3000+ career PA. Who is the only one to do so playing in the AL? Max Bishop
4. Tom Hughes is one of 6 pitchers since 1901 to record two seasons with both 10 or fewer wins and 20 or more losses. Which of the other five, like Hughes, posted those two seasons for different teams? Jack Scott
5. Mike Donlin posted a .300 BA and .800 OPS in 200+ career PA for each of 6 different franchises. Which 19th century player did the same for 7 franchises; and which live ball era player posted that BA and OPS for his career, while recording a .280 BA and .800 OPS in 200+ career PA for each of 6 franchises? Dan Brouthers, Moises Alou
6. Bill Bergen’s 6.1 career dWAR for Brooklyn has been exceeded only by Paul Lo Duca and Russell Martin, among catchers with fewer than 1000 games for the Dodgers. Bergen’s 2.7% walk rate is the lowest since 1901 in a 3000+ PA career. Who has the lowest walk rate since 1901 in a 5000+ PA career? George Stovall
7. Cy Morgan posted a .578 W-L% for the A’s but only .394 everywhere else, the widest gap among 19 starting pitchers with 150 decisions in a 1000 IP career, including a .550 W-L% in 50 decisions and 500 IP for the A’s. Which of those pitchers has the widest gap in the live ball era? Barry Zito
8. Otto Hess won 20 games for the 1906 Indians and posted a .438 career W-L%. Who is the only live ball era pitcher with a 20 win season and a lower career W-L% in 150 decisions and 1000 IP? Ben Cantwell
9. Shad Barry recorded four 350 PA seasons (and five with 300 PA) that were each split between two or more teams, tied with four other players since 1901 for the most such seasons in a career. Which two of those players are in the HOF? Rickey Henderson, George Kell
10. Jimmy Austin’s 1580 career games are the most among third basemen debuting aged 29+. Who is the other such third baseman with 1000+ career games? Ed Charles
11. Roger Bresnahan retired after the 1915 season as the last active player who had played for the original AL Baltimore Orioles. Bresnahan played all 9 positions in his career, the only player to do so while catching 800 or more games. Which two such catchers also pitched and played every infield position in their careers? Heinie Peitz, Frank Bowerman
12. Red Dooin’s 1219 games caught for the Phillies is the franchise high. Which player caught 1000 games for the Phillies and 1000 more for other teams? Bob Boone
13. Doc White led the AL in 1906 in ERA, ERA+ and WHIP, and was a teammate in 1912-13 of Eddie Cicotte and Ed Walsh, who also posted (or would post) seasons for the White Sox leading the AL in those categories. Which is the last White Sox team with three such pitchers? 1961 Billy Pierce, Joe Horlen, Gary Peters
14. Jim Delahanty’s 5 doubles in the 1909 World Series remains the record for second basemen. Who is the only second baseman to exceed Delahanty’s total of 5 extra-base hits in a World Series? Chase Utley (2009)
15. Hooks Wiltse posted a career .600 W-L% while reaching both 100 Wins and 100 Games Finished. Who is the only other left-hander to do this? Lefty Grove
16. Cy Falkenberg recorded 233 IP in 1907 and posted a 6-17 (.261) record. Who is the only pitcher with a better W-L% in a 225 IP season with as few wins? Joaquin Andujar (1983)
17. Frank Smith’s 278 hits allowed were the most in his league in 1909, despite a H/9 ratio below 7.0. Who is the only expansion era pitcher with such a season? Steve Carlton (1972)
18. Tom Needham posted .472 OPS in 1906. Which player recorded the only lower OPS score by a Brave in a 300 PA season? Luis Gomez (1980)
19. Ed Phelps posted a typical 7.8% career walk rate that was atypically comprised of walks in almost 11% of PAs for the Cardinals, but in only 6.2% of PAs everywhere else. Which player had a 2000+ PA career with a walk rate almost identical to Phelps’ and, like him, walked in over 10% of 500+ PA for the Redbirds? Greg Jefferies
20. Art Devlin’s 285 career steals are the most among players with 1000 games at third base, as are his six seasons with 25 stolen bases and more RBI. Devlin’s 8.0 WAR season in 1906 is the best by an NL third baseman batting under .300 with fewer than 20 home runs. Who is second on that list? Billy Grabarkewitz (1970)
21. Noodles Hahn’s 45.9 WAR leads all Reds’ pitchers since 1893. Who is the only starting pitcher with fewer IP than Hahn and a higher WAR total? Johan Santana
#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.
Oh man, I should´ve known that. 😉
I was thinking of you, hermano. (-;þ
Gomez’s career -98.2 Rbat trails only exact contemporary Mario Mendoza (-104.8) and Ray Berres (-98.3) in careers of less than 1500 PA. Gomez is one of 8 players since 1901 with -7 Rbat per 100 PA in a 1000 PA career, a list headed by Bill Bergen’s -8.6 score, more than -1.0 Rbat worse than any of the other seven.
#3 is Max Bishop, I believe.
#9–is it Rickey Henderson & George Kell?
#2 – Wade Boggs, 1983-89
#12 Red Dooin question. Answer is Bob Boone.
#11: Heine Peitz and Frank Bowerman
I think #21 is Kershaw.
I think this question is for retired players only in which case it would be Johan Santana.
Santana is the one I was looking for. I expect there could be several pitchers who exceeded Hahn’s WAR total over the same number of innings to start their careers.
#20 is Billy Grabarkewitz in 1970 with 6.5 WAR, a .289 BA, 17 HRs while playing 3rd base for the Dodgers.
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+ in the player’s second-best-OPS+ season, and 3) number of plate appearances (the more PA, the bigger “surprise” the season was). I only looked at player-seasons of 100 or more plate appearances.
Billy Grabarkewitz was the #1 “surprise” hitter of 1970, with an OPS+ 33% higher than career, 41% higher than his next-best season, and 640 plate appearances. (In fact, Grabarkewitz’s 1970 “surprise” score was the highest of any player in the eight seasons I looked at.) The second- through fifth-highest “surprise” scores of 1970 belonged to Aurelio Rodríguez, Aparició, Walton, and Tommy Harper (31 HR and 38 steals). The new expansion teams had eight of the fifteen 1970 player-seasons for guys who put up OPS+s more than 25% higher than both their career and next-best OPS+: three Brewers (Harper, Savage, Walton), three Padres (Tommy Dean, Gaston, Ed Spiezio), one Royal (Keough) and one Expo (John Boccabella).
By this method, the biggest “surprise” seasons (offensive) for the seasons 1967-74 are as follows: 1967, Randy Hundley, Cubs; 1968, Ted Uhlaender, Twins; 1969, Mike Fiore, Royals (138 OPS+ compared to a next-best season of 30); 1970, Grabarkewitz, Dodgers; 1971, Alan Gallagher, Giants; 1972, Johnny Bench, Reds (32% better than career, 16% better than next-best season); 1973, Fred Kendall, Padres; 1974, Ralph Garr, Braves. Bench’s and Garr’s “surprise” scores wouldn’t have made the top 10 of 1970.
Hmm.
Sounds like an idea for a future post!
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
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 R/G, 1901-70: 4.33. OPS: .697.
MLB R/G, 1920-70: 4.48. OPS: .717.
MLB R/G, 1970: 4.34. OPS: .711.
Granted, runs per game increased 27% between 1968 and 1970 (3.42 to 4.34) and OPS increased 11% (.639 to .711). But the overall 1970 MLB OPS of .711 represents only the 65th highest OPS figure for the 115 seasons from 1901 to 2015, and only the 35th highest for the 70 seasons from 1901 to 1970. In no sense did the offensive surge of 1970 reach the levels of the 1994-2006 period.
Definitely concur with your assessment, Kahuna.
Case in point is Grabarkewitz’s season. Sure haven’t been many recent 6 oWAR seasons with just 17 home runs and a .289 BA.
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
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 belt and gray in your hair (goodness knows I do), keep giving us the benefit of your opinions. I for one want to know what you know.
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….
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
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.
You’ve got two of the three pitchers correct.
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.
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.
There’s someone with a bigger differential than Moore’s.
How about Barry Zito with a differential of .177.
14. Jim Delahanty question: Chase Utley had 6 XBH (5 HR, 1 2B) in the 2009 World Series.
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.
1. Jimmy Sheckard question: Eddie Yost in 1959.
#1…..Eddie Yost in 1959
#4………Jack Scott (1920 Braves, 1927 Phillies)
4. Tom Hughes question: Jack Scott.
#6…….off the top of my head, is it Manny Sanguillen?
Not Sanguillen who posted a 4.14% career walk rate, more than 1% higher than our man.
A.J. Pierzynski, Shawon Dunston and Ozzie Guillen (among others) all have lower career walk rates than Sanguillen.
#19…..gonna take a big stab…….either Larry Walker or McGwire?
#19…..or it could be Matt Holliday?
No, none of those.
It’s someone relatively recent. Certainly a name most HHS readers would recognize.
#10: Ed Charles
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…….
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.
Charles is correct. Debuted in his age 29 season, was a 3rd baseman, had a 1000 game career.
#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.
#10 I was thinking either Rich Amaral or Randy Velarde. Checking….
Neither one of those. I´m gonna keep looking.
Richard has the answer with Ed Charles.
#6………..is it Tony Pena?
It’s not Pena.
Here’s a hint. Our mystery player and Red Dooin (on this ballot) are two of the players who share the record of three qualified seasons having a stolen base total under 20 that was not exceeded by the player’s walk total.
Then it’s George Stovall. Look at that 1909 season: 595 PA, 25 SB, and six walks.
Art Fletcher (6 walks in 602 PA in 1915) has the only walk rate lower than Stovall’s 1909 mark, in a qualified (modern definition) season.
Stovall’s first season with 20 walks (he had 21) came in his 8th season, at age 33 in 1911. Stovall’s 79 OPS+ that year was his lowest to that point of his career, but his matching 79 RBI was his career high.
#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.
Cantwell made 24 starts in that 1935 season, the most (by 8 starts) by a pitcher with more losses than starts.
#5: Moises Alou
That’s half of the answer
The other half is Dan Brouthers.
If you had included “and peed on his hands,” I would’ve figured out that it was Alou. 🙂
#19: Greg Jefferies
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
Joss, Jackson, Walsh
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 (a concept long brought up with Dave Winfield, as well). The thing I would argue about it is this: even from that early era of baseball, the numbers seem to pretty much match the reputation… except not quite so much in Crawford’s case. So is it possible that his prowess was overstated? Perhaps not; even so, I don’t see how he can overcome the large gap in their hitting, especially if you give Jackson any credit for being forced out of the majors.
Whether you want to do that or not is up to you. What I see is a guy with a 170 OPS+ playing “good enough” defense. I also see a guy who topped 7 WAR five times – to Crawford’s 0. I see a guy who, over a FOUR-YEAR-SPAN, OBP’d .461 – an almost Bondsian number. His worst slash-line was a .301/.375/.429 – good enough for a 143 OPS+. That’s to say that his WORST season was an OPS+ basically equal to Crawford’s CAREER number (144). Shoeless Joe’s lifetime OPS+ was 170… even in his best seasons, Crawford never reached that number, even once.
Look, if you believe that Jackson was involved in throwing the World Series and you want to deny him for that reason, fine. Go for it. If you believe that Crawford’s defensive WAR number is low, adjust it upward. Even making all the adjustments I can, for my money, I see Jackson as the more COG-worthy.
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 the brevity of his career – you could more reasonably argue that the 1920 season was an unearned bonus, since he was eligible only because the fix had not come to light.
Let’s even the playing field by limiting Crawford’s career to his initial 13 years – removing any trace of “compiling” – and, in fact, to compensate for Jackson’s “war year,” let’s make it 12. How do the two compare?
There’s no question that Jackson was more productive in terms of averages, and his WAR advantage is a substantial 62.3 to 49.6. But how do the two compare offensively on traditional compilation stats over those periods (Crawford 1899-1910; Jackson 1908-1920):
………… R / H / 2B / 3B / HR / SB / BB
Crawford …921 / 1886 / 292 / 193 / 63 / 216 / 429
Jackson ….873 / 1772 / 307 / 168 / 54 / 202 / 517
Crawford had substantially more plate appearances (6783 vs. 5695), chiefly because he was productive from the outset, while Jackson was a washout in his initial years. If we gave the 20 and 21 year-old Jackson qualifying PAs instead of cups of coffee, his productivity might well have been at the .150 BA / 1 OPS+ level he actually earned, and would, we might suppose, have gone a long way to bringing his 62.3 WAR down towards Crawford’s 49.6 12-year total (I estimate a decrease of about -7.0, based on Bill Bergen’s greatest hits, but it might have been more, since Bergen was a catcher with super D and that je ne sais quoi [because, after all, who knows how he stuck for over a decade despite those ghastly stats?]).
So, yes, Jackson looks like a no-brainer if you’re looking at peak years (42% of his career-positive WAR is due to 1911-13), and his OPS+ when he was playing was great. But when he wasn’t playing early it was because his OPS+ would have been awful, and when he wasn’t playing late it was because of his own actions – and during years comparable to those, starting earlier than Jackson and continuing later, Crawford was chugging away doing dependably excellent work in the end earning 75.1 WAR to Jackson’s 62.3.
And, of course, Crawford did not conspire to throw the Series.
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 no baggage, either.
I don’t get it. They’re obviously very close.
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, I think we can give Jackson a little bit of a break on the low number. In 1911, for example, he batted .408, had a 1.058 OPS, had 337 total bases, stole 41, and scored 126… and he led the league in NOTHING. He had batting averages of .373, .382, .395, and .408, and he NEVER won a batting title. I don’t think we should diminish his accomplishments just because he had the audacity to finish second a bunch of times (three seconds, two thirds, two fourths – and you’ll note that his gray ink score is REMARKABLY high for someone with a career length as short as his).
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 age, at any rate, the two in question were more or less the second best batters in their leagues.
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 South Carolina and was overwhelmed by Philadelphia. His minor league manager actually had to accompany him on the train ride to Philly. He was homesick and actually left the A’s twice during his first season, the first time three days after arriving in Philly! He was also teased mercilessly by his teammates for being illiterate and unsophisticated. He didn’t find his rhythm until he was traded to Cleveland, a smaller city and a team that had lots of players with Southern connections.
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 him to the lower minors. I don’t deny that the issue could have been personal immaturity as much as baseball immaturity, but the results are the same, and the point is that this was not true for Crawford.
Moreover, while there’s no reason not to believe the stories about Jackson’s shyness and his hazing with the A’s, it’s also true that you could hardly ask for a more ideal manager for him than Mack, and his emergence in Cleveland after Mack unloaded him seems to me a lot more likely due to his having had a year to play minor league ball at the A-level for the first time than because of the size of the city. (I’m not sure the effect of a city of 1.5 million on a country boy would be much different from the effect of a city of 500,000, and it’s not true that the 1910 Naps had lots of players with Southern connections.) One way or another, Jackson got his shot in ’08 and ’09 and just wasn’t ready.
Jackson’s a sympathetic figure because he faced the handicaps of poverty and illiteracy. I’m aware that there are people who believe he was wholly innocent of the charges against him, but I am not one of them. I have no doubt that a courtroom case can be made for reasonable doubt, but we’re not talking about criminal punishment, and I believe the preponderance of evidence goes substantially against Jackson. He claimed that he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix, but failed – what that says to me is that, if true, then by his own admission he knew about the fix, and that he declined to tell anyone but Comiskey, including Kid Gleason, his manager. I don’t see the story holding together, and I’m not prepared to agree that on the basis of doubt about further involvement we should treat Jackson as a wholly innocent party whose career was cut short because of circumstances beyond his control.
It’s too bad that Comiskey’s behavior, degrees of player involvement, and personal circumstances could not have figured into the penalties Landis meted out, but given the predicament baseball faced at the time, the uniform lifetime ban was a reasonable response.
Jackson’s story is a poignant one, and I don’t see any reason not to be generous in judgments we might make about him as a person. But I don’t think that should have any bearing on the CoG or an argument about his worthiness relative to others.
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 playing time and send him to the low minors. It’s simply not true.
In 1908, Jackson was brought up near the end of the year and then kept leaving the team to go back to South Carolina. Hard to get PAs under those circumstances.
How did Mack respond to Jackson’s first season? He put him on the suspended list, deciding that if he couldn’t have Jackson, no one else could have him either!
The following spring Jackson came back to Philly and hit .350. So why did Mack send him to the minors, when he was desperate for young players on an aging team? Because Jackson didn’t want to be in Philly and was begging to be sent to Savannah, GA. Which is where Mack eventually sent him. The same thing happened the following year. Jackson was sent to New Orleans because he was begging to go there. Jackson wanted to be in the South and that’s where Mack sent him.
3) It’s unfair to say that Jackson got his shot in ’08 and ’09 and wasn’t ready. There’s simply no evidence to that. Not based on 41 PAs. That’s not even close to a shot.
4) It’s unfair to draw conclusions about a player without taking into account his circumstances. Here are some of the issues that Jackson was dealing with in Philly. a) Philadelphia was 100x larger than Jackson’s hometown of Greenville, SC. b) Jackson had never been away from home before. c) He really didn’t want to go to Philly and the A’s basically had to kidnap him several times to bring him there. d) The A’s were one of the best educated teams in the league and had several college graduates on the team. Meanwhile, Jackson was illiterate and never went to school for one single day. e) Jackson was a southerner, on a team filled with northerners (and not that long removed from the Civil War). f) When Jackson left the A’s due to homesickness, the fans and media turned on him. And Philly has always had a reputation for some of the most ruthless fans and media. g) The older players on the team saw him as a threat to their future so did everything they could to undermine him (remember, no guaranteed contracts back them).
So yeah, Jackson had a LOT to overcome than most players and certainly much more than Crawford.
5) I will also assert that your view re: Jackson’s involvement in the WS fix is unfair. None of us were there. None of us were in Jackson’s shoes.
We have no idea what happened or what Jackson could or should have done.
BTW, as for Southern players on Cleveland, the following quote is from Jackson’s bio by David Fleitz: “It is also true that the Naps had several southerners on the team, and many of the northerners had come to the Naps by way of New Orleans. They had experienced southern life first hand, and so Jackson did not seem so strange to his new teammates as he had to the college men on the A’s”.
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 play in the majors, he wanted to be in the South – that was his right: his performance reflects that and I don’t see how he earns any credit beyond what his performance shows.
#2 Jackson did not return to Philly in 1909 and hit .350. He returned and hit .176.
#3 If Jackson was ready in 1908-9, six singles and a walk in 41 PAs is a strange way to show it. I think you’re saying that he had plenty of talent. True. But for the reasons you describe in #4 he did not have the personal maturity to turn his talent to account in the big leagues.
#4 I grant you everything you write here. Players have different types of challenges to overcome, based on their personal characteristics, and Jackson had more than most (not, I think, more than Cobb, however). But I still don’t see matters of personal maturity as related to the issue of his performance as a player. I don’t know what to make of the claim that the A’s made life hard for him. Cobb claimed that the Tigers made life hard for him, but Crawford’s account was that Cobb failed to understand the normal hazing that all rookies received. I expect that if we heard from Jackson’s A’s teammates, we’d hear a similar story. (You’re certainly right, though: Philly always had a reputation as a tough crowd to play for.)
#5 I don’t like passing judgment on individuals, but Jackson admitted he was aware of the fix and he did not tell his manager, deciding that waiting an hour to attempt to tell Comiskey was enough of an effort. That is his own account, not mine, and the fact that none of us were there or in Jackson’s shoes isn’t relevant. By 1919, Jackson was all grown up, a 31 year-old longtime star who watched his teammates lose the World Series on purpose and did nothing to stop it. That seems to me a significant problem in the world of baseball, and it seems to me obvious that his lifetime ban was a reasonable response, which is why I think that he must be deemed responsible for his early career end, not Judge Landis. Perhaps you or I might have behaved as Jackson said he did; if so, we too would have borne the responsibility for our careers’ early end. And, of course, Jackson may also have agreed to accept money – the part we don’t know about is what he may have done beyond what he admitted to.
BTW I’ve always heard that the Naps had lots of Southerners too, so I looked it up. Of the 27 players other than Jackson who played 20+ games in the field or 10+ games on the mound, only six were from Southern states, three from border states and three from the Deep South. That’s why I said there were not “lots of Southerners” on the Naps. As for Fleitz’s comment that many had played at New Orleans, it seems not to be true: of the same 27, only one, Bris Lord, played in N.O., for one season. A couple of others played a season in the South, but this is true for members of the 1908-9 A’s as well. And it’s also true that the reputation of the A’s for being “college men” is overblown: of the starting eight, only two had gone to college, one more than the 1910 Naps (both teams had 3 SPs who had gone to college).
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.
Allen, Joss , Walsh
Jackson, Allen, Eck
D. Allen, Wilhelm, Shoeless Joe.
Allen, Walsh, Winfield
Jackson, Goslin, Ashburn
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ed Walsh, Sam Crawford
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 were voting on a Circle of Talented, Jackson would be among my top choices. I think there’s more to greatness than talent.
Crawford, Paige, Goslin
Vote:
Wilhelm
Ashburn
K. Brown
Ashburn, Joss, Nettles
Paige, Nettles, Dawson
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 belong in the COG. If I’m figuring correctly we have 11 spots remaining plus whatever this upcoming election adds. I see 7 slam dunks on the horizon plus maybe another handful or so that might join our holdovers.
Crawford, Tiant, Ashburn
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.
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.
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.
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
Shoeless Joe, Dick Allen, Luis Tiant
Shoeless Joe Jackson, Dennis Eckersley, Satchel Paige
Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhelm and Shoeless Joe Jackson
Sam Crawford – Richie Ashburn – Shoeless Joe Jackson
Nettles, Winfield, Jackson.
Vote:
Sam Crawford
Dennis Eckersley
Hoyt Wilhelm
Jackson, Crawford, Goslin
Crawford, Nettles, Tiant
“Wahoo” Sam Crawford
“Big” Ed Walsh
Adrian Joss
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
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 much heat of partisanship, and their lives and experiences are NOT known in blow-by-blow detail.
Further, I think those who denigrate the abilities of earlier players very often have no idea of the difficulties most of those players had just growing up, much less training for a sport. They were expected, most of them, to get out and earn a living in their teens. That’s why, for instance, players like Chuck Klein and Earl Averill and even Pete Alexander were relatively late starters in the game. This is one of the seldom noted differences between then and now—that promising players, since at least the 1950s when I was growing up, have had organized help from grade school age onward in grooming them to a professional career.
The more we go back in time, too, the more the commonplaces and amenities we take for granted—air conditioning, for one example—cease to be commonplace or even available, making life from day to day and moment to moment a greater burden on everyone, true, but on the players of the game for certain. Getting to and from the park?
Traveling home to see family? Spending nights in hotels in 90 degree weather? Having a limited number of bats, balls, gloves—and those of indifferent quality at best?
Wahoo Sam, Shoeless Joe, and Big Ed; Mike Donlin, Del Pratt, Larry Gardner; Miller Huggins, Harry Steinfelt, Roy Thomas; Noodles Hahn, Doc White, Frank Smith—I’ll take these players over the current lineup of the Mets and most of the teams of the past twenty years, just because they weren’t handed everything in a box and don’t have cookie cutter-like careers.
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 also find the early guys most interesting, and as some of these names go by, I’m tempted to point out things that make the non-CoG candidates stand out apart from their WAR: Turkey Mike’s Broadway pretensions, Roger Bresnahan’s temper and shin guards – everyone should love them some Noodles Hahn, like Bryan does, and why aren’t we following up on Bill James’s speculations about how Bill Bergen stayed in the majors, year after year?
But when it comes to today’s players, I’m not sure there’s any real superiority either way. Today’s pampered players have to meet astoundingly high performance standards, and most of them follow training regimes that would have made old-timers turn pale – I don’t think a player on the 1878-79 list could earn a point of WAR matched against today’s players (though perhaps they could train up). The opportunity to get medical care also creates long, painful surgery/rehab periods that test today’s players’ strength of will. Those from other countries, particularly Latin America, overcome major obstacles of language and culture as they live and perform in a spotlight more intense than even Babe Ruth could have imagined. And the best of them, richly rewarded, often devote major time and money to charity work – some actively involved in their own foundations. There’s plenty of room for character, even if there are far fewer characters.
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 & the Glory of Their Times & Koppet’s Concise History of Major League Baseball & Kahn’s The Boys of Summer and many others are also Biographies of the Babe & Walter Johnson & Old Hoss & Speaker & Hornsby & Buck O’Neill & oh so many more.
And all that said I still think it fair that when trying to compare 2 players who couldn’t be more unalike- pitcher vs. position player, the very-good-at-everything vs. the great-at-a-few, peak vs. career, dead ball era vs. the 1990’s, integration, expansion, war and every thing else to take into consideration that especially prior to the teens baseball was in many ways a very different game and one of the ways in which it was different might have been the overall quality of competition.
I might pick on poor Bill Bergen a little but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t one of my favorites along with guys like Roy Thomas and Rube Waddell and many other of the wonderful characters from that era.
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 should be celebrated.
At the same time, most of those hardships were common to most, if not all, players of their time. While it’s tempting (and perhaps reasonable) to project eight more great seasons at the end of Addie Joss’s career if he had access to modern medicine, I have a hard time giving players from that day extra credit for obstacles they overcame if the players against whom they competed played amid similar conditions. We should honor the best players (or most valuable or most successful or whatever you think makes a “great”) of each generation.
I prefer to honor more players from more recent generations simply because there are more players. Not only has the US population nearly quadrupled since 1900, but the game has been opened to black and Latin Americans, Dominicans, Venezuelans, Japanese, Cubans, and Andruws Jones. Today’s players are coddled in many ways, granted access to skilled coaches, training equipment, medical advantages, and strong competition from an early age, but so are the players against whom they’re competing for WAR.
Whether a 27-year-old Shoeless Joe Jackson could step on a big league field today and hit a 98-mph fastball under the lights is largely irrelevant- give him the same training and access as his peers and maybe he could. I’m more interested in whether the margin by which he dominated his peers is so great that he still would have stood out in an era with six or seven times the eligible population, so many of whom had the same advantages we’re granting the hypothetical Joe.
Just for fun, here are the players with the most WAR since 2000. White Americans, who would have been eligible and able to play in MLB in the first half of the 20th century, are in caps.
Albert Pujols
Alex Rodriguez
Adrian Beltre
Miguel Cabrera
Barry Bonds
ROY HALLADAY
Carlos Beltran
CHASE UTLEY
C.C. Sabathia
CHIPPER JONES
Ichiro Suzuki
LANCE BERKMAN
I’m glad we’ll never have a chance to find out, but what kind of WAR do you think Halladay, Utley, and Chipper could have put up if none of those other guys were allowed to play? Isn’t there a chance they’d look a little like Young, Cobb, and Wagner?
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 crossed). Of course, a larger reason may be de facto, rather than de jure prejudice.
This doesn’t affect your basic point about diversity in baseball and its challenge to talent, but I think that most of the white Latino players you list – and especially a US citizen like A-Rod – would have made a roster, given their talent, though surely subjected to the same racial riding that Luque was. And, of course, great black Latino players like Martin Dehigo were barred, and had to play in the Negro Leagues if they came to the US.
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 the 1930s, it might be an interesting comp (and unflattering for the earlier player). I might follow up on that myself if I have some time…
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 earlier years—I’ve seen figures on this somewhere, but it was years ago—followed the waves of recent immigrants in terms of the ethnic background of its players. Why? Because when “no Irish need apply” and other prejudicial attitudes were the norm for advancement in many areas, they weren’t in baseball. The fact that Latinos are now heavily represented in the sport may be in part an expression of the same phenomenon. The more career choices, the more educational opportunities—the less likely it is that someone will devote his attention to a career in which success is so problematical and that can at best last until age forty.
In any case, I don’t think the evolution of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the game is quite as simple as your interpretation of population growth makes it seem. Look at the thing backwards: Some part, though minor, of the reason that there is a smaller percentage of white players in the league now may be because a smaller percentage have the pressing need to try for success in sport that they did in earlier times.
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
Kevin Brown, Sam Crawford, Luis Tiant
Nettles, Jackson, Crawford
Jackson, Winfield, Joss.
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 were 1890-1910. Wagner and LaJoie should coast into the COG. Crawford seems in good company.
Who was active in 1917 that would eventually pass him? Cobb (4189), Speaker (3514), Collins (3315), S. Rice (2987). The first 3 would do so in the early 1920’s, Rice in 1934. Ten years after retiring, Wahoo Sam was still 7th all-time in hits. He “only” ranks 31st in 2015 (and we’re picking 80-90 position players?). Crawford was a product of the dead-ball era 1900-1920. His 309 triples are still the most ever, and were a true indicator of hitting prowess before the HR became king in 1920. He did hit 97 HR for his career, led the National League in 1901 with 16, then the American League in 1908 with 7 (only man to lead in HR in both leagues at that time). Not bad work in his 19 years.
Jackson’s .356 career BA and high OPS foreshadow greatness as a liveball player. In 13 years he had 1772 H, extending the career to 20 years would be 2726 (likely 3000 range with liveball). The potential was there. But he did not play out those extra years, Crawford did. Jackson’s 52 HR, 168 triples and 202 SB are good, but Crawford’s 97 HR, 309 triples and 367 SB were even better. Cobb and Crawford were masters of the double steal in those days.
I guess it boils down to peak vs career. If you are inclined to favor high peaks and what could-have-been, Shoeless Joe is appealing. The full career numbers seem to favor Crawford (likely the Eddie Murray of his era – consistent but not flashy like Cobb). I just don’t see why some voters consider Shoeless Joe as “much” more deserving for the COG. He did not get to play out the rest of his career by his own actions. As far as the competition level, Crawford played in days where the star player was likely much better than average, but so did Shoeless Joe. They could only play against whoever was in the league at the time. We should not sell Wahoo Sam short – he’s far from a “weak” choice.
Paige, Nettles, Dawson
HA! mosc approved! I think it’s just you and me though…
Joe Jackson, Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield.
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
Vote: Eckersley, Tiant, Wilhelm
Crawford, K. Brown, Dawson
The Hawk has been lagging a bit…
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.
– 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.
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 Nettles – 234
Mike Mussina – 233
Curt Schilling – 224
Nolan Ryan – 220
Ron Santo – 217
Lou Boudreau – 216
*Richie Ashburn – 215
Tim Raines – 213
Larry Walker – 197
Barry Larkin – 188
Frank Thomas – 181
Gabby Hartnett – 165
*Goose Goslin – 159
*Hoyt Wilhelm – 159
*Dick Allen – 156
Paul Molitor – 152
Bob Gibson – 147
Gaylord Perry – 142
Paul Waner – 140
Jim Palmer – 133
Al Kaline – 132
Duke Snider – 130
Carl Hubbell – 126
Joe Gordon – 126
Ernie Banks – 119
*Wes Ferrell – 116
Eddie Mathews – 115
Pete Alexander – 111
#Dwight Evans – 100
1. The other holdovers: Andre Dawson (66), Satchel Paige (64), Sam Crawford (25), Ed Walsh (22), Addie Joss (10), Willie Randolph (4)*. Rick Reuschel’s and Wes Ferrell’s # have been changed to *, since they are now back on the ballot.
*I’m not actually sure on Willie Randolph’s vote total. I could only find his initial round. I’m not sure if he’s been redeemed before. If so, could someone tell me when so that I can try to update his total? Thanks!
2. No one fell off the ballot this year, and no one joined. Same ol’, same ol’.
3. Shoeless Joe failed to make 100 lifetime votes, ending at 92.
4. Goose Goslin and Hoyt Wilhelm are now tied with 159 total votes, and Dick Allen is just behind them at 156. Dennis Eckersley remains one vote ahead of Dave Winfield. There have been other minor passings on the ballot, but none significant enough to merit mention here.
5. With the re-introduction of Rick Reuschel and Wes Ferrell to the ballot, every player who has received 101 votes or more has either been elected or is currently on the ballot, with the exception of Minnie Minoso (309 votes).
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, Killebrew, Lofton, E Martinez, Murray
still on the ballot: Allen, Ashburn, Brown, Eckersley, Ferrell, Nettles, Paige, Randolph, Reuschel, Tiant, Wilhelm, Winfield
off the ballot: Cone, Drysdale, Edmonds, Dw Evans