Hall of Fame Early Baseball Committee
 

Looks like the Early Days committee won't meet for another year: https://www.mlb.com/news/hall-of-fam...eduled-to-2021. Who do folks think are most deserving? I'd vote for Dahlen, Glasscock, and Caruthers, in no particular order. It seems like whoever gets in will see a significant bounce in card value.

Those three are at the top of my list as well.

If I am correct the early baseball committee is 1950 and prior. If I am correct here are my two off the wall picks that seem just crazy until you consider them ( and in all honesty are probably still crazy) These are two players who were so far ahead of their times that they were not even considered stars but would probably be considered two of the best players in the league if they played today

1. Fred Firpo Marberry - the first great relief pitcher. Retroactively lead the league in saves four times and per Bill James was the second most valuable pitcher of his era after Lefty Grove

2. Max Bishop - . 423 on base from 1924-35, new the value of a walk before Billy Bean

Do yourselves a favor and look these guys up on baseball reference

Ross Barnes

My issue with Barnes is that he basically hit over 400 because he was good at hit the ball so it first hit in play and then spun foul. Under the rules he was playing that was considered a live ball. When the NL was established and considered this to a foul ball, Barnes who was still just 29 hit 260

Caruthers had a few years of utter dominance and his WAR numbers are off the charts: https://www.thebaseballgauge.com/pla...erID=carutbo01. He'd be like the baseball equivalent of Terrell Davis (who, incidentally, I think totally warrants Canton membership).

It is time to finally right the wrong in Harry Stovey's exclusion. There was no finer player in his time and he is the prototype for all modern day sluggers. It is criminal he's not in, and before anyone mentions the AA as a set back, it's not like the NL was the only standard of the time. It just survived.

My Vote
 

Is for Red Murray even though his 7 year career was tragically cut short by a bolt of Lightning while making the final out in a 21-inning contest in 1914.

No black ink on Max Bishop... great OBP, but no power and even though the best thing he did was walk a lot, only led the league in walks once.

I'd vote for Bob Caruthers (possibly the highest winning percentage of any pitcher ever, depending on what source you believe), and George Van Haltren.

I have two
 

I agree with Bill Dahlen. Even more so I would also say Jim McCormick. No player from his era has a higher WAR and is on the outside of the Hall looking in. Plenty of black inK too....

On Caruthers, is he even eligible for the Hall of Fame?

The rules stipulate you had to be in the big leagues for 10 years. He only had nine years as a pitcher (1884-1892), but he played a 10th season in 1893, hitting .275 as an outfielder.

He would be inducted as a pitcher (he's the only pitcher who has more than 100 wins more than losses (218-99) who's not in the HOF (except Andy Pettitte).

Steve

Yes.

Among the Negro Leaguers, who also fall within the Early Baseball Committee's purview, I think that I would support, in no particular order, Grant Johnson, Dick Lundy, John Beckwith, John Donaldson and Oliver Marcelle. No problem with Dahlen, McCormick, Caruthers or Stovey. I would probably add Tony Mullane and Bobby Matthews to my list of people to be looked at.

Great discussion folks! One point about Caruthers is that he crammed in many extra years of pitching in terms of innings pitched because of the way Comiskey used/abused him. Even if he probably deserves to be in based on pitching alone, his batting was legitimate: he finished second in average and first in on-base percentage in one of the years he played.

I think the only somewhat serious argument against Caruthers--and it also applies to Stovey--is that the American Association was too weak. But there are pretty good arguments against that belief, and in any event even if it were sometimes true for some years, you'd have to discount the league an extraordinary amount to knock out Caruthers.

Caruthers didn't really pitch all that much. 2828 innings, even though it was the 19th century. Roy Halladay is the poster child for short career HOFer (Koufax is a special case). Roy pitched 2750 innings, but they were better innings. His ERA+ (ERA adjusted for the park he plays in, and then compared to league average) is 131, Caruthers' is 122. That Caruthers was also a good batter is also a good point. He seems like a borderline case to me, but of course it shouldn't be surprising that it's borderline cases that we've got left, considering how many opportunities we've had to induct these guys.

Bill Dahlen is a real oversight. He compares favorably to Alan Trammell, who really should have been inducted right away, but at least he made it eventually.

I could get behind Ross Barnes too, but he didn't play in enough seasons to qualify. The hall has waived the requirement before, but I doubt they'd do it for a guy who has been dead for 105 years.

I agree that Halladay deserves to be in, but I'd still compare Caruthers favorably to him. You're totally right about ERA+, it's just that I probably give more weight to Caruthers' ridiculous five-year WAR run that gives him some credit for his consistency and effectiveness even while being overused.

I know his career was shortened significantly, but I’dlove to see Smoky Joe Wood get some consideration. In 7 seasons as a pitcher he averaged 16 wins/year and has a lifetime ERA of 2. I know he falls short in other categories, but so don't plenty of other guys who are already in.

Can we get Buck O'Neil in the Hall? Please?

William Bell (124 Wins, Negro Leagues)

Bob Carruthers (1886 World Series, 218 Wins)

Eddie Cicotte (1917 World Series, 208 Wins, Black Sox Scandal)

Bill Dahlen (1905 World Series, .272 AVG, 2,400+ Hits)

Jake Daubert (1913 Chalmers Award, 1919 World Series, .303 AVG, 2,300+ Hits)

Shoeless Joe Jackson (1917 World Series, .356 AVG, 1,700+ Hits, Black Sox Scandal)

Sherry Magee (1919 World Series, .291 AVG, 2,100+ Hits)

Carl Mays (1915, 1916, 1918, 1923 World Series, 207 Wins, threw pitch that killed Ray Chapman)

Stuffy McInnis (1911, 1913, 1918, 1925 World Series, .307 AVG, 2,400+ Hits, A's $100,000 infield)

Tony Mullane (284 Wins, ambidextrous pitcher)

George Mullin (228 Wins)

Smoky Joe Wood (1912, 1915, 1920 World Series, 117 Wins, 34-5 Record in 1912)

In terms of players, Dahlen (50%) and Stovey (50%) came closest last time. Stovey had some surprisingly impressive home run numbers, finishing first 5 times, second 3 times and third once. He also led the league in steals twice. He would have been a fantasy baseball #1 overall pick!

I'm not a fan of all of this looking way-far-back stuff. No one's alive who even saw the players play and the people who did see them play (or played alongside them) didn't think they were worthy enough at the time the Hall opened (yes, I know that's a VERY generalized comment), so it feels strange. Basing inclusion on theoretical stats misses the point IMHO.

Put it into modern context. Jeff Kent was a monster run producer at second base of all places. We all saw him play. Why the heck wasn't he a first-balloter? He gets absolutely no love (some say because of his personality?) and will eventually be dropped from the ballot, but some guy from the 1800's who might have a decent WAR stat is being considered??

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

Surprise Doc Adams is getting no love in this thread. I think if anyone makes it, it would be him, as a contributor. The baseball community has learned so much about his contributions to the invention of the game in the last decade this was previously unknown. Would be surprised to see any new players, outside negro leaguers, get in next year-especially if Joe Morgan and Bert Blyleven are back on the committee. Still remember that Blyleven was on last committee and boasted that he did all his research-on Wikipedia.

I agree with Matthews, if you credit his NA time and victories. Otherwise, I think Dahlen, Mullane and Van Haltren all are worthy. I'm surprised Spottswood Poles hasn't gotten more support as a Negro League star (plus being a WW1 hero).

Agreed. He might not have had eye-popping Negro League accolades but his overall body of work and him being an ambassador of the sport definitely warrants inclusion.

I definitely want to see Buck "officially" in the Hall, but with that said, He has a HOF award named after him and a statue at the hall, so in my mind he IS a Hall of Famer and will always be represented as such in my collection.

He would not be eligible to be inducted as part of this committee but I would love to see Buck and Lefty O'Doul go in together for their contributions to baseball.

Agree: Doc Adams

They can put Barnes in as a Pioneer to get around the 10 year rule.

War
 

As mentioned, measurements of stats like WAR are not theoretical. WAR also helps to put stats and achievements in historical context that have taken place over different time periods.

In your example, Jeff Kent is not (in part) a first ballot HOFer because his WAR is 55.4 - good enough for 240th all time (right in between Chet Lemon and Ian Kinsler). Jim McCormick is 74th all-time in WAR, just above Hoss Radbourn. Dahlen is similar and ranks 78th all-time (and 7th all time for shortstops). They have about 20 more WAR than Kent. WAR allows us to take a look at players we could never see with our own eyes and there's still a few (but not many) that have been overlooked by the Hall.

32nd post in this thread...and FINALLY...

Dummy Hoy is mentioned!


Very Deserving!!

.

"Dummy Hoy" -Way overdue
Imagine anyone playing with his handicaps,in the 1800s?

I never thought of Hoy all a hall of famer but when I looked at his stats I discovered that when he retired he held a number of important outfield records and was second all time in walks. That sure sounds like a hofer to me

It doesn't have to be as a player either. I know it's often debunked or explained in some other way but the story goes we owe balls and strikes and safe and out signals to him.

It is theoretical. It is a made up stat. bWAR is not the same as fWAR and there can be a large difference between the two. If you are going to say someone is a Hofer because their WAR is above a certain number, then you are saying one person should choose who belongs in the HOF, either baseball reference or fangraphs without any, without any transparency.

WAR isn't theoretical but it IS subjective. There is no set definition of WAR and it gives you weird variations. Ex: Barry Bonds with a WAR of 11.9 in 2001 and Roger Clemens with a 12.1 in 1997. Does anybody REALLY think Clemens had a better year in 1997 than Barry did in 2001?

Why would you even dignify with a response someone who doesn't know what theoretical means? Might as well be arguing that batting average is theoretical.

I mean, all stats are made up in some sense. So are the stats that were readily available in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether newer stats more accurately capture a player's value in a way that wasn't apparent to Hall voters a long time ago. Using the best stats from yesteryear and today, we can get a pretty good idea of who should be in the Hall who wasn't enshrined originally. I like Carothers and Dahlen, and from this thread I now appreciate Harry Stovey, but I don't think we should reject more nuanced stats as "theoretical."

They could divide the 19th century into a couple/few categories that include players and "pioneers". Pioneers would be those that were around in the earliest phases of the game that had no way of fulfilling the 10 year rule. If they started around the mid 1880s, then they at least had a good chance to reach the 10 year criteria.

What's also tough is that there will be SABRist that will indicate the AA was not as competitive as the NL, which would then remove Caruthers from possible consideration because 175 of his 218 wins were wile playing in the AA.

Pioneer:
Ross Barnes (how could they exclude him? Had 9 years but most ABs in any season was < 400).
Mathews (combo of pioneer and player with 10 years, 297 Ws)

Players:
Caruthers (ya know, Pedro Martinez could have also had over 200 Ws and less than 100 Ls if he had not come back for that last season where he was 5-1 for Philly)
Stovey - he led the leagues in so many statistical categories during his playing days (5 x HR, 2 x SB, 4 x R, 4 x 3B)
VanHaltren - didn't lead the league in many yearly categories, but 12 x 100 run seasons is fairly impressive.

Probably many more arguably very deserving.

Two players come to mind that had (5) really good years and a few not so statistically relevant years:
Corcoran
Orr

+1 for William Ellsworth Hoy. Selected stats for his 14-year career (1 year in the Am. Assn.):
1,787 games - 2,048 hits - .288 batting average - 1,006 walks (vs. 345 Ks) - 134 hit by pitches - .386 on-base % - 596 stolen bases - 1,429 runs (avg. 102 runs per year) - 32.6 WAR.

Someone (hi Leon) says all threads (or is it all posts?) should include a pic of a card:

Good idea. Here's a Stovey:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e96ac47afc.jpg

[Deleting a double post]

"Not Bad for a Beer League" (see p. 55 of this link: http://research.sabr.org/journals/fi...Pastime-15.pdf) does a nice job of presenting some evidence suggesting that the AA was pretty competitive. Here's the takeaway:

"All of the available evidence--championship series, exhibition games, incidence of bushers and the experience of transferred players--suggests that relative parity was achieved between the two leagues between 1886-1889. Partial evidence (exhibition wins, percent of bushers, a tied championship series) supports the theory that this state of parity was achieved as early as 1885. (Indeed, even the Spalding Guide of 1886 admitted that the American Association clubs had shown 'marked improvement in the strength of their teams' in 1885.)

How about
 

Jimmy Ryan? 2500H 118 HR and .308 average. Not too shabby.

Would love to see Mathews and Stovey too

Ryan was a player. No doubt. Hard for me to argue that he is much different from Van Haltren. Both good ballplayers in the day.

Agree 100%

Yes! My 2nd grade class just read this last week. (I may or may not have talked about Old Judge cards for a bit as well.) :-)

https://target.scene7.com/is/image/T...=488&fmt=pjpeg

While I think WAR is a great stat it is a Theory. It is not an objective measurement like batting average or era. It is a formula that attempts to predict value based on a combination of objective measurements and subjective weights applied to those measurements. It produces a value that cannot yet actually be confirmed. If that is not a theory I don’t know what is

fWAR (the version you'll find on Fangraphs) and bWAR (the version on baseball-reference) are two different statistics, that measure different things. Despite the fact that they both talk about "wins above replacement" it's probably best not to think of them as rival accounts of a single value.

There are several differences between them, but the biggest one is in how they deal with pitching. Pitching values in fWAR are based on the pitchers' strikeout rate, walk rate, and homerun allowed rate, since these figures together predict future ERA better than does a pitcher's past ERA. In bWAR, pitcher value is based on runs allowed, which does a less-good job at predicting future ERA, but, of course, does a better job at capturing, you know, the runs that the pitcher actually allowed.

One way to think about the difference between the two is that they are answers to two different questions. fWAR is an answer to the question "if this player were to play for a randomly selected team, how many more (or fewer) games should we expect that team to win in the future?", whereas bWAR is an answer to the question "if this player were to have played for a randomly selected team, how many more (or fewer) games should we expect them to have won?". I think that, for hall of fame purposes, bWAR is the one that you want to look at. The hall of fame is a retrospective thing, and it's bWAR that's the retrospective one.

(In fact, there are, IMHO, pretty limited uses for fWAR. If you are trying to predict future performance, you usually won't want to strip out context in the way that fWAR does. You'll probably want to predict performance of the player if he's playing for some specific team, not a randomly chosen one.)

There's nothing subjective about either WAR measure, they're just algorithms that take events that actually happened and spits out a number. Just like ERA and batting average.

Very briefly, here's the general idea. WAR calculations are based on something called "linear weights". The idea behind linear weights is that each event that happens on a baseball field (a batter hitting a single, for example), has a run value. The run value of an event is how many more or fewer runs a team scores, on average, after an event of that kind. Run values are derived historically - you get them by adding up all of the runs that actually scored after someone hit a single (for example), above or below the average number of runs scored in an otherwise similar situation, and dividing by the number of singles that were actually hit. (You can use all of baseball history for this if you want, but it makes more sense to use a limited range of years, since the run value of an event will vary over time.) By adding up the run values of everything that a player did, you get the number of runs he produced. You then divide that number by the number of runs that will, on average, win a game for a team. (About 10 in recent years - note, this isn't runs scored, it's runs scored PLUS runs that you prevented the other team from scoring.) That gives you the number of wins a player produced. You then find the wins produced by "replacement level" players. A replacement level player is the last guy on the roster, the kind of guy who every team has stashed in AAA, the kind of guy who is barely (or almost) a major leaguer. That kind of guy. And then you subtract replacement level wins from the wins that your player produced to get his wins above replacement.

That's the general idea. There are lots of complications involved in, for example, adjusting for the park that a player plays in. But all of these extra adjustments (that I'm skipping over for the sake of this short post) are also derived from historical data. That is, they, just like the linear weights calculations, reflect what actually happened on the baseball field.