King Kelly

HoME 2.0 Backlog, Election of 1901

You and I want the same thing in this space – the results of our 1951 and 1956 elections. However, we need to have results from the 50s before we can share them. And until we’re satisfied with the accuracy of segregation penalty, we can’t even vote. We’re going to make sure we get it as right as we can before we proceed.

What I expected to include in this space today was something about COVID at the ballpark, awful announcing, the Cleveland team playing with a name they seem to acknowledge as racist, baseball’s culture of sexual harassment, or Rob Manfred and his merry band of billionaires whining about how they’re losing money – and fans taking their side!

Well, you’ve been saved. A loyal reader, Ryan, recommended that we look at our backlog during this election hiatus. He even recommended a schedule that will give us seven weeks to get our numbers straight. Fingers crossed that we beat that schedule. Thank you Ryan!

So let’s get started with our rather large pre-AL backlog.

Ross Barnes

HoME 1.0 Member? Yes

An offensive superstar with Black Ink all over his Baseball Reference page, Barnes won multiple runs, hits, doubles, triples, walks, batting, on base, slugging, and total base titles. You can understand his hitting greatness, perhaps, by looking at BBREF’s new Rbat+ stat. It’s a player’s batting runs from WAR indexed to league and park. Average is 100, and Barnes clocks in at 147. The slugging second sacker’s greatness can be otherwise seen by comparing him to players who played a similar defensive position. Of all players with at least 25% of their defensive games at 2B and at SS, Barnes was worth a win every 90 plate appearances. Among all players on that list, only Lonny Frey at one every 146 trips to the place produced at even half of Barnes’ rate.

Perhaps you don’t like the odd 2B/SS playing time criterion? Well, in the history of the National Association, Barnes tops everyone with 18.8 WAR. He bests HoMErs George Wright and Deacon White by 4.4 and 8.2 respectively. On top of that, Barnes’ best year was likely 1876, the National League’s first year, when he won his second triple slash triple crown.

Barnes hasn’t received a vote from either of us through ten elections. Hmm, that feels wrong. When we vote again, I think I’ll rectify that problem.

Charlie Buffinton

HoME 1.0 Member? No

Buffinton’s SABR Bio starts off with, perhaps, the definitive statement to describe Buffinton’s career. David Nemec says that while not a truly great pitcher, he was unquestionably a very good one. In one simple sentence, that’s why he’s never become a HoME member.

About a year ago, as acknowledgment that the game Buffinton played was so different from the one played by Dizzy Dean, Larry Jackson, and Jimmy Key, Eric and I decided to separate pre-AL pitchers from the rest of history’s hurlers. Comparing apples to apples, we see where Nemec was coming from. While Buffinton ranks fourth among 19^th century pitchers by my numbers, behind only HoMErs John Clarkson, Old Hoss Radbourn, and Tim Keefe, if we dig a little deeper we see that such a ranking may mean less than it first appears. By WAR, Buffinton’s best season was 1884 when he was worth an incredible 14.9 wins on the mound, which brought with it 10.8 WAA. On the surface, that’s simply amazing. But looking more closely, we see that five of the best ten pitching WAA in history occurred in 1884, the only year the Union Association existed, and one of the ten seasons of the American Association’s tenure as a quasi-major league. The National League lost its sixth and seventh best position players from 1883, Fred Dunlap and Jack Glasscock, to the UA in 1884. It also lost Jack Rowe and Orator Shafer, two of its other top-30 players. In short, it was a weaker league – an easier one to dominate.

While I adjust his career year to just 11.3 WAR on the mound (and another 1.4 with the bat), I’m not at all sure that’s enough of an adjustment. He gets to fourth on my list based on that season, plus a pair of 8-win seasons that his main competitors cannot match. But we’re really looking at about a five-way tie for fourth place with Pud Galvin, Jim McCormick, Bob Caruthers, and Al Spalding. We already have three pitchers from this era in the HoME, and I expect our final number to be either three or four. Assuming it’s a 50-50 question of whether we take a fourth pitcher or not, Buffinton has about a 10% chance of getting into the HoME (or 12.5% since we’ve already eliminated Caruthers from consideration). And like his 1884 WAR, I think those numbers overrate him some.

Fred Dunlap

HoME 1.0 Member? No

Take a guess as to when Dunlap’s best year occurred. Assuming you didn’t skip the Buffinton blurb, I suspect you may have guessed 1884, the year he won the Union Association triple slash triple crown while posting a league high for position players 7.9 WAR in his 101 games played. He was 25 that year, so it’s no shock that he put up his best year by WAR, yet a guy who never otherwise produced more than 4.5 WAR in a season was doubtlessly aided in “value” by the lesser competition.

Like Barnes and one other player on this list, Dunlap was a second baseman. Taking one of these second sackers, I might rank as “likely”. Taking two, I’d call “unlikely”. Taking all three, well, that’s not gonna happen. And since I can’t imagine a situation where we’d take Dunlap over Barnes, the eventual election of Fred Dunlap seems a bit less unlikely.

Pud Galvin

HoME 1.0 Member? Yes

As I expect you know, it’s hard to do a decent job constructing a personal Hall of Fame. I suggest that you know because either you’ve already done it or you’re at least kind of fascinated by those who are truing to do it. It’s one of those two, or you’re just a voracious reader who happened upon us in your quest to gain all of the world’s knowledge. So yeah, it’s one of the first two.

As difficult as putting together your personal Hall may be, it’s harder doing it with a partner. Sure, a partner takes on half of the work, provides a wonderful sounding board, and can point you toward the light when you’re headed in the wrong direction. Of course, a partner also has an opinion. Possibly a very strong opinion. Agreeing on Charlie Gehringer, Roberto Clemente, Bill Madlock, and Jack Morris is pretty easy if you have a decent partner. Agreeing on Galvin, Sal Bando, and Chuck Finley may be another story.

Eric and I both have strong opinions. Very strong opinions. We both also prefer to work in concert rather than in discord. Eric’s a great partner, so he had a few choices when I began voting for Galvin in our first 1926 election. He could go along with me and elect Galvin. He could argue against Galvin. Or he could let things slide for a number of elections, hoping and expecting that our thought processes would come together in the end. The third was clearly the right choice, and that’s the direction he took.

Well, I kept voting for Galvin again and again and again, each and every election through 1981. Then, trying to be a good partner and good thinker myself, I decided I was going to pull back on my votes for Galvin and Red Faber (another guy it took Eric a considerable amount of time to support) because I didn’t want to become entrenched in my position. Galvin fell off my ballot for a mere two elections, Faber for only one. Was that time sufficient to think and make sure I wasn’t entrenched? I’m not sure.

Then in 1986, a funny thing happened. I dropped Galvin from my ballot because I no longer thought he deserved election. For fourteen elections, I didn’t vote for him. However, in 2000, I reboarded the Galvin train, and in 2012, when there wasn’t another player worthy of support from either of us, Eric finally relented. And he basically admitted as much, deciding to trust me on Galvin over Wilbur Cooper and Clark Griffith, two pitchers who he saw, basically, as Galvin’s equals.

I’m guessing that the difference between Galvin and a pitcher he might otherwise support was small enough that just supporting the guy who I wanted was the right things to do. Harmony rather than discord.

Back when we did this the first time, I made two decisions I’m not close to prepared to make today. The first is that I saw enough distance between Galvin and quartet of McCormick, Buffinton, Caruthers, and Spalding. The second is that I wanted four pitchers from Galvin’s era. So here Galvin resides. This may be his home for quite a while.

George Gore

HoME 1.0 Member? No

The same thing that has been said about Buffinton could also be said about Piano Legs Gore; he was a very good player but not a great one. By my conversions, he has four seasons worth at least six wins, but he doesn’t have one worth seven. There are seven center fielders I rank ahead of him who don’t sport as many 6-win seasons, so that’s a plus in his corner even though it’s a sign of very (very) goodness rather than greatness. Then there’s the fact that he’s within four percent of my average HoMEr in terms of peak, prime, consecutive, and career value. In other words, he looks like a borderliner.

But is he really? Everyone above him and the four right below him rank as more than four percent above the line by one of those measures. And there are two other reasons beyond not being elected in our first go ‘round not to like Gore’s chances. The first is that he ranks behind fellow waiting list member Paul Hines at the same position. And the second is that this time through, he’s also clearly behind HoMErs Oscar Charleston, Cristobal Torriente, Turkey Stearns, Alejandro Oms, and Pete Hill at the same position. Plus, he has to deal with Bullet Rogan, Martin Dihigo, Willard Brown, and a version of Monte Irvin that includes his entire career. Gore has a steep hill to climb. Sure, we might decide to move two or three Negro League center fielders to a corner, but I’m not sure that will be enough for Gore.

Paul Hines

HoME 1.0 Member? Yes

And speaking of one of Gore’s problems, Paul Hines sits ten percent above my in/out line. That’s why I’ve been voting for him the last six elections. Eric isn’t in agreement on his ranking vis-à-vis a couple of Negro League greats, so it makes sense that he hasn’t yet earned induction in the HoME 2.0. There are a couple of reasons I believe Hines will earn Eric’s vote. The most obvious is that Hines sits above Eric’s in/out line right now, just not by enough to elect at this early stage in our process. Then there’s the fact that we’re either going to shift a couple of Negro League center fielders to the position we think they’d have played in an integrated MLB, or we’re going to elect a disproportionate number of center fielders.

King Kelly

HoME 1.0 Member? Yes

As the best right fielder before Sam Crawford, Kelly received Eric’s vote from the very first HoME election. It took me just three elections to get on board and make Kelly the tenth player we ever elected. As we fast-forward to 2021, Kelly remains on the outside looking in after ten elections. The reason, it seems to me, is the presence of five guys he didn’t really have to deal with last time. Heavy Johnson wasn’t eligible. Neither were Vladimir Guerrero and Bobby Abreu. Still “active”, Ichiro wasn’t eligible either. And in 2013, we hadn’t yet decided to credit Enos Slaughter for his time missed while serving in the American military. Though I’m not convinced that any one of those players was superior to Kelly, an argument, I think, could be made for each of them. Thus, we have to wait on Kelly.

Like a lot of guys on this list, most of Kelly’s career could be described as “very good” rather than “great”. Sure, by WAR he was the league’s second-best position player in 1886, though he was three times further away from first (0.9) than from sixth (0.3). He also had a very nice 1884 season, placing fifth in the National League in WAR among position players. Of course, we’ve already discussed 1884’s confounding factors. Beyond those two years, I convert Kelly to ten seasons between 2.9 and 5.8 WAR. In other words, we’re looking at the career of Jack Clark or Kip Selbach with an outstanding season and another very good one on top of that. That gives you some perspective both on Kelly and on how close Hall of Very Good types are to becoming HoMErs.

Jim McCormick

HoME 1.0 Member? No

In our first elections of 1931-1946, McCormick received Eric’s support all four times, as Eric basically equated him to Vic Willis, Rube Waddell, and Joe McGinnity at the time. Then, as now, he kept researching, basically determining that 19^th century leagues weren’t as difficult to pitch in as his early numbers suggested. And he correctly pointed out that we had already elected the league’s best three pitchers at this time.

I mean not to criticize Eric’s though process here, nor his McCormick “mistake”. In the same 1951 post mentioned above, I touted Pud Galvin’s win total, something I did for a decent number of elections.

Then, as now, Eric and I are on the same page as to the era’s three best pitchers – John Clarkson, Old Hoss Radbourn, and Tim Keefe in some order. If we take a fourth, as we did last time, McCormick would be very much in the running.

Jim O’Rourke

HoME 1.0 Member? Yes

If you’ve been searching for the first long and low player in the game’s history, search no more. O’Rourke has only a couple of 5-win seasons, which is almost unheard of for a HoMEr. But beyond those two, there are five more above 4.0 and six others above 3.0. Throw in seven more as 1.8 or better, and you see what long and low means.

If you’re asking yourself how I can speak with such precision even though our segregation numbers aren’t on target yet, well, I can’t. I’m just sharing the idea, the flavor behind long and low. The first time around, it took us 36 elections to call O’Rourke’s name. I began voting for him in 1994, and Eric followed suit two years later. It was basically a, “yeah, okay, fine, he can have a vote” sort of thing. Neither one of us is in love with the guy, but he had to get in. The combination of his fight with other pre-integration players and the dearth of Negro League left fielders makes me think that in 30 elections or so, we may be calling his name again. Yes, Ralph Kiner, Willie Stargell, Albert Belle, Ducky Medwick, and Charlie Keller may be sexier. However, I’m not certain any one of them was better. It’s going to be another tough call in left field.

Hardy Richardson

HoME 1.0 Member? No

Old True Blue was a terrific player on both sides of the ball, mostly in the National League, but he played in both the AA and the PL late in his career as well. Richardson’s case now is almost exactly as it was before we determined we needed to adjust value because of segregation. Let’s explore.

Richardson was a plurality second baseman. He played 43% of his games there, 28% in left field, 13% at third base, and 12% in center field. So, yeah, he’s a second baseman, but given his theoretical competition at other positions, he looks somewhat better when compared to just second basemen than he actually was. He’s a little bit like Gene Tenace in that way, I think. But even if we look at him just as a second baseman, he has some real competition in his era.

In terms of his peak, Richardson finished fifth in the NL in bWAR in his best season and ninth in two others. That’s it for top-10 finishes. And remember, such finishes were a lot easier when there were eight teams in all of baseball than such a finish would be today. Back to that competition. Other 19^th century second basemen include Bid McPhee, Cupid Childs, and Fred Dunlap. Childs and Dunlap have the peak edge. For career value, it’s McPhee. Richardson doesn’t stand out anywhere, and there’s not a shot in hell we take four second sackers from the pre-AL days. Taken all together, Richardson rates as a longshot to make it, but he’s still being considered, so that’s something.

Al Spalding

HoME 1.0 Member? No

As the last of our four olde tyme holdover pitchers comes up, this seems like a good time to share where they shake out in regard to CHEWS+ and MAPES+ (admitting that these numbers are likely off some).

                    CHEWS+       MAPES+
Charlie Buffinton   8th,  92.4   4th, 100.1
Bob Caruthers       7th,  91.0   6th,  95.6
Pud Galvin          4th, 100.5   7th,  95.2
Jim McCormick       6th,  98.2   5th,  99.9 
Al Spalding         5th,  99.0   9th,  94.4

I’ve included a fifth player here too, Bob Caruthers. We stopped considering him fairly recently because we both ranked him behind at least two others from the era, and there’s not a shot in the world we take more than one of these guys. With that in mind, Spalding isn’t likely long for our “Still Considering” list; we both place him behind Pud Galvin, and neither one of us loves Galvin.

Ned Williamson

HoME 1.0 Member? No

Williamson has two pretty big things going against him. The first is his ranking among third basemen of his era. Deacon White was a better player. And there’s an argument to be made that either John McGraw or Ezra Sutton could be as well. We’re either going to take one or two third basemen from the 19^th century, so Williamson has to do something to distinguish himself from others in the era.

His other clear negative has to be the 1884 season, safely his best by WAR. The NL lost hurlers Jim McCormick, Dupee Shaw, Hugh Daily, Charlie Sweeney, and a couple of others to the Union Association that year. And Williamson’s home of Lake Front Park was a joke in 1884. The left field foul pole was just 180 feet from home plate, and the left field power alley was only 280 feet away. Balls hit over the fence were previously categorized as ground rule doubles, and Williamson led the league with 49 doubles in 1883. The same bloops were considered homers in 1884, and Williamson led the league with 27 bombs, three times as many as he hit in any other season of his career and setting a single-season home run record that lasted for 35 years – until Babe Ruth hit 29 for the 1919 Red Sox. As you might expect, 25 of Williamson’s 1884 home runs were hit in Chicago.

I credit Williamson with 8.35 WAR for that season. I’m not confident he was nearly that good though.

Next week, assuming our new numbers aren’t completed, we’ll take a look at the holdovers from the 1906 and 1911 elections.

Miller

All-Time HoME Leaders, Right Field – 1-20

Mr. October. It’s one of baseball’s most recognizable nicknames. Thinking ahead to this post, I was considering Reggie Jackson as one of the players MAPES+ might underrate because it doesn’t take post-season performance into account. So then I looked at Reggie’s playoff statistics. He slashed .278/.358/.527 in October compared to .262/.356/.490 in the regular season. Better? Sure. Against stiffer competition? Almost certainly. But there’s not a marked difference, at least not one that’s suggested by the nickname. If you want to call someone Mr. October, someone like Lou Brock, Paul Molitor, Curt Schilling or Bob Gibson (to name four off the top of my head), go for it. But Reggie? I don’t know.

Yes, he won two World Series MVP Awards, and I think he deserved it in 1978 too. And not we’re on to something. In 116 trips to the plate over five World Series, he slashed .357/.457/.755. In my mind “October” is equal to the playoffs. However, if we view “October” as the World Series, which is justifiable, I suppose, Reggie earned that nickname. Now about MAPES+…

Actually, you can read about MAPES, CHEWS, and all posts in this series with the links below.

[MAPES+], [CHEWS+], [1B, 1-20], [1B, 21-40], [2B, 1-20], [2B, 21-40], [3B, 1-20], [3B, 21-40], [SS, 1-20], [SS, 21-40], [C, 1-20], [C, 21-40], [LF, 1-20], [LF, 21-40], [CF, 1-20], [CF, 21-40]

Right Field – 1-20

Where do we project the active player(s) to finish in our rankings?

Ichiro Suzuki

Part of the fun of Ichiro is that he’s kind of like a thought experiment made real: What if we took a star player from roughly 1901–1930 and plopped him into the majors? Now we know! It’s Ichiro! But that’s precisely what’s happened. His game is predicated on a few things:

• Putting the ball in play
• Speed from home to first
• Excellent baserunning
• Excellent fielding
• Cutting down baserunners who take foolish chances.

In the deadball era, grounds keeping wasn’t quite as meticulous as today. Comiskey Park was famously built atop a landfill and old trash popped up through the grass sometimes. The amazing drainage technology that today’s fields have didn’t exist. Freddie Lindstrom became a World Series goat when a ball hit a pebble and bounced over his head. That combined with primitive glove technology increased the reward for simply putting the ball on the ground between the lines and dashing like mad to first base.

Ichiro is something like Harry Hooper combined with George Sisler. Which is basically what Sam Rice was. I wonder whether that kind of player would have been more or less effective in the 1970s and 1980s. Why? Astroturf. Infielders could play back to pick up grounders that might get through at normal depth, but even well-placed grounders would reach fielders faster, reducing Ichiro’s speed advantage. Turf did give speed merchants an advantage on the bases, but the players who took best advantage of turf did so by hitting balls into the gaps and running like crazy. Ichiro’s game is different than that of George Brett, Tim Raines, or Vince Coleman. Turf might also reduce the advantage accrued with Ichiro’s arm because the ball would get to him quicker on singles, reducing the likelihood of his being tested, and extra-base hits would get by him more quickly. Hard tellin’ not knowin’ as they say up here in Maine.—Eric

I projected Ichiro to retire after the 2014 season. Seriously. Over the seven years before this one, he was worth a total of 5.2 WAR. That’s not a guy who you want on your club unless you want to sell tickets or jerseys. Oh, wait, I’ve figured it out. I’m sure there’s more. I bet Ichiro is a good guy, and I suspect his English is better around teammates than reporters, which is just fine by me. As far as where he ends up, that depends on whether or not he decides to play again. He’s just done for the year, not retired. Given an infinite number of chances, he’d play his way out of the HoME. Since I think he’s seen his last game, we will only have to factor in the-0.5 WAR he accrued in 15 games this year. That drops him behind Bobby Bonds for me, and into a virtual tie with Gary Sheffield. We’ll have to see how BBREF rounding works out.—Miller

Where do our rankings diverge the most from the conventional wisdom?

I think I have Winfield and Vlad lower than mainstream folks would. They’re not even on this list. The real divergence may be ranking Clemente third rather than fifth, not that the difference between him, Ott, and Robinson is meaningful at all. The reason for my ranking is pretty clear; it’s Clemente’s consecutive peak. If I removed that factor, Eric and I would have the same top-6. This seems as good a place as any to reiterate why I like the consecutive peak factor in my formula. First, it’s how JAWS began. Though Jaffe did come up with a better conclusion, I don’t think he was completely wrong to start. There is something, not nothing to be said for consecutive greatness. A team really knows what it has. Also, it’s only 11% of my formula, which is to say Clemente, Ott, and Robinson are very close anyway. Sure, I have Clemente third. If you have him fifth, I certainly won’t argue.—Miller

Larry Walker and Harry Hooper. We’ve got Walker among the top dozen right fielders, and he’s having trouble drumming up enough Hall support to make it before his eligibility expires. Lots of people think the Hall made a mistake by electing Harry Hooper. We strongly disagree.—Eric

Where do we disagree with one another the most?

Probably Willie Keeler. Throughout this process, Miller has had Keeler ranked ahead of me. I don’t exactly know why, but over the several iterations of each of our sifting tools, Wee Willie has always managed to look worse in my eyes.—Eric

Is it Clemente? No, I wouldn’t really make an argument that he’s exactly the third best right fielder ever. I’m nearly certain he’s between third and fifth, or maybe sixth. Not exactly third. It’s not like with Aaron. I’m almost certain Aaron is exactly the second best right fielder ever. There aren’t really any major discrepancies here. Even with Keeler. We both see him as 2% above the in/out line for the position.—Miller

Are there any players who MAPES+/CHEWS+ might overrate or underrate? 

So let’s answer that question from the top of the post. Might MAPES+ underrate Reggie? I don’t think so. I call him the eighth best ever at the position. If you want to take him over Waner, I won’t put up a stink.—Miller

Well, neither of our systems take into account the verifiable, proven fact that Paul Waner shares my birthday. That’s a thing, man! But let me now posit a weird idea. Is it possible that Babe Ruth, the player, can be seen as overrated? No statistical system can capture the immensity of Babe Ruth’s contribution to baseball, of course, and we don’t talk about off-the-field stuff here very often. Still, we both had him among our top-three most influential persons in baseball history. But the thing about Babe Ruth is that he was so much better than everyone else. If you run standard deviations on any kind of runs-creation stats in his time, especially the early 1920s, he pulls everything out of whack. You have to seriously consider removing him from the test because by himself he raises the bar so high. But that begets the interesting question of whether Ruth was that good or did the league fail to catch on to his innovation? Some of both, surely, but that latter idea always makes me wonder whether Ruth is actually overrated from a certain, very narrow, point of view. The innovation is the source of his value, so in the most literal sense, it’s a non-question. And yet, it digs at me a little because it’s not entirely a question of talent and performance. There’s this little bit of friction for me about the long window of time before which the rest of MLB got its power together, and the massive advantage Ruth accrued from it. But whatever, he’s the Babe after all!—Eric

***

We round out the offense next week with the second half of right field.

End of the Year HoME Roundup, RF

Today we finish our post-season evaluation of active outfielders with right field. Let’s consider the chances these guys ultimately reach the Hall of Miller and Eric. And please take a look at our analysis of other positions in this series.

FIRST BASE | SECOND BASE | THIRD BASE | SHORTSTOP | LEFT FIELD |CENTER FIELD | RIGHT FIELD | CATCHER | RELIEF PITCHER | LEFT-HANDED PITCHER | RIGHT-HANDED PITCHER

Ichiro Suzuki

2017 BBREF WAR:
-0.3

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 23
Ahead of Bobby Abreu, Vlad Guerrero, and Reggie Smith.
Trailing Sammy Sosa, Dave Winfield, and Harry Hooper.

Eric: 17
Ahead of Gary Sheffield, Dave Winfield, and Harry Hooper
Trailing Bobby Bonds, Willie Keeler, and Sammy Sosa

Current career trajectory:
Will the Fish bring him back? Will anyone?

HoME Outlook:
He’s a made man.
—Eric

Jose Bautista

2017 BBREF WAR:
-1.7

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 47
Ahead of Dixie Walker, Roger Maris, and Darryl Strawberry
Trailing Rusty Staub, Paul O’Neill, and Jose Canseco

Eric: 45
Ahead of Jose Canseco, Paul O’Neill, and Dixie Walker
Trailing Rocky Colavito, Gavvy Cravath, and Ken Singleton

Current career trajectory:
A year ago, I thought Bautista had something left. I guess I was wrong. He turned 36, and his K rate went crazy. The Jays absolutely should decline his option this winter, though I’d give him another shot if I needed a DH and bench bat.

HoME Outlook:
Bautista got a late start and put in a really good run. Trying to make an interesting case, he has as many 5-win seasons as Dave Winfield. On the other hand, Winfield is still above 3 WAR when Bautista is below replacement level. He’s not going to the Hall, but a guy who ranks ahead of Roger Maris, Kirk Gibson, and others certainly can be proud of his career.
—Miller

Shin-Soo Choo

2017 BBREF WAR:
1.1

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 64
Ahead of Reggie Sanders, Juan Gonzalez, and Nelson Cruz.
Trailing Giancarlo Stanton, Tommy Henrich, and Magglio Ordonez.

Eric: 64
Ahead of Rossy Youngs, Tommy Henrich, and Nelson Cruz
Trailing Magglio Ordonez, David Justice, and Roger Maris

Current career trajectory:
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Choo got a late start to his career. He had some very nice years, but he wasn’t quite great enough or anywhere near healthy enough. Sure, Choo was healthy last year, but he’s no longer a plus bat. His power is diminishing little by little, and last year he increased his ground balls. Not a good sign. If he weren’t signed for three years and $62 million, I’d say he’d be in for a reduced role in 2018.

HoME Outlook:
There’s not a shot unless he adopts the Jim O’Rourke or Deacon White path. Yeah, he needs another decade with reasonable production, which absolutely isn’t going to happen.
—Miller

Nelson Cruz

2017 BBREF WAR:
4.1

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 66
Ahead of Ross Youngs, Harold Baines, and Bob Allison.
Trailing Juan Gonzalez, Reggie Sanders, and Shin-Soo Choo.

Eric: 67
Ahead of Bobby Allison, Juan Gonzalez, and Reggie Sanders
Trailing Shin-Shoo Choo, Ross Youngs, and Tommy Henrich

Current career trajectory:
There’s no figuring some guys. Cruz was a failed prospect until he wasn’t. He took the AL by storm at the end of 2008 and became a star in 2009 at the age of 28. By 2011, he seemed done, posting just 4.2 WAR over three seasons. Since then, he’s been excellent for four years, averaging over 4.5 WAR per. He’ll be 37 next year, but I’m not going to count him out. That’s because he increased his fly ball rate in 2017. At the same time he had his career-best full season walk rate, and his whiffs dipped.

HoME Outlook:
Remember back in December of 2014 when the Mariners signed him to a foolish contract of four years and $57 million? Yeah, I thought you’d conveniently forgotten that. I know did. In any case, much like Bautista and Choo, Cruz got started too late. Unlike them, he can still rake. I could see him getting to the Jose Canseco, Paul O’Neill, Rusty Staub level, but not the HoME.
—Miller

Jason Heyward

2017 BBREF WAR:
2.3

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 73
Ahead of Bobby Murcer, Brian Jordan, and John Titus.
Trailing Ken Griffey, Orator Shafer, and Bob Allison.

Eric: 71
Ahead of Bobby Murcer, Riggs Stephenson, and Ken Griffey, Sr.
Trailing Bob Allison, Juan Gonzalez, and Reggie Sanders

Current career trajectory:
Don’t tell anyone, but Jason Heyward can’t hit. He has just 13 Rbat since amassing 32 as a rookie in 2010. He’s good to excellent at everything else, but unless he can find a swing that’s been missing all decade we’re looking at just another guy. On the plus side, he’s cutting those strikeouts. A minus is that he’s cutting the walks too. And he certainly isn’t part of the launch angle revolution. He’s just 28 next season though, so at least there’s time.

HoME Outlook:
Hall of Famers with about Heywards WAR through age-27 include Joe Cronin, Mike Schmidt, Lou Boudreau, Roberto Alomar, and George Sisler. That’s some impressive company. On the other hand, those guys weren’t just so-so from 26 to 27. Still, if he plays until he’s 40 and totals just 2 WAR per year, he’ll retire in league with Dave Parker and Chuck Klein, which isn’t so bad. If he rediscovers All-Star form for three years and then slaps together a bunch of 2-win years, he’s right around Sam Thompson and Enos Slaughter. In other words, he’s just barely out. I want to give him a year or two to see if he can rediscover his bat.
—Miller

Giancarlo Stanton

2017 BBREF WAR:
7.6

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 63
Ahead of Shin-Soo Choo, Reggie Sanders, and Juan Gonzalez.
Trailing Tommy Henrich, Magglio Ordonez, and Roy Cullenbine.

Eric: 58
Ahead of J.D. Drew, Orator Shafer, and Magglio Ordonez
Trailing Carl Furillo, Wally Moses, and Kirk Gibson

Current career trajectory:
He didn’t get to 60 home runs this season, so… More seriously, Stanton showed us what he can do if he’s completely healthy. He’s the same age as Heyward and looking like he’s getting better – walking more and striking out less. But beware the huge spike in grounders. Yep, more grounders. But when he hits it in the air, it goes a long way. There are two things that will direct his career going forward, his health and his home park. While WAR will adjust for park effects, it would be pretty fun to see what he would do in Baltimore or Boston.

HoME Outlook:
He’s still awfully young to feel good about. On the other hand, he’s averaging about 1 WAR every 25 games for the last four years. If he can keep that up for the next four and play 150 games per year, he’ll be above the HoME line. In fact, I’d rank him ahead of four HoME right fielders. I could see a scenario where he finishes ahead of King Kelly as the ninth best RF ever. There’s a long way to go, but it’s totally possible.
—Miller

Bryce Harper

2017 BBREF WAR:
4.7

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 81
Ahead of Jackie Jensen, Chicken Wolf, and Mookie Betts.
Trailing Vic Wertz, Jim Fogerty, and Hank Bauer.

Eric: 79
Ahead of Jim Fogarty, Jackie Jensen, and Tommy McCarthy
Trailing Justin Upton, Hank Bauer, and John Titus

Current career trajectory:
Harper is among the more enigmatic players in the game. Light-tower power, hustle, pretty good glove, can-do attitude, lots of walks. On the other hand, he misses about 35 games a year, and those injuries seem to affect his hitting. The one year it all came together we witnessed a generational talent’s greatest moment. But outside of that, teasing frustration. Still, in all, dude’s got 26 career WAR at age 24. Unless his body completely falls apart, he’s going to have some healthy seasons. But even so, the Larry Walker path to career stardom has its rewards.

HoME Outlook:
How many postwar HoME rightfielders popped out 26 BBREF WAR by age 24? Three: Al Kaline (33.3), Henry Aaron (29.9), and Frank Robinson (29.7). None of them had the inconsistency that Harper has shown on a year-to-year basis, and all of them were somewhat more valuable than Harper. It’s a pretty strong indication, however, of his special talent. His peak is still to come.
—Eric

Justin Upton

2017 BBREF WAR:
5.6

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 77
Ahead of Hank Bauer, Jim Fogerty, and Vic Wertz.
Trailing John Titus, Brian Jordan, and Bobby Murcer.

Eric: 76
Ahead of Hank Bauer, John Titus, and Bryce Harper
Trailing Riggs Stephenson, Ken Griffey, Sr., and Brian Jordan

Current career trajectory:
Who is Justin Upton? The All-Star player with speed, power, and a glove? Or the slightly better than average guy whose early-career performance hasn’t turned into the annual MVP candidate we’d all hoped for? At twenty-nine years old, we can say with some certainty, that he’s a guy who tops out as an All-Star and bottoms out as an average right fielder. That’s a nice player to have on the roster, and it’s a guy who even has a sneak chance at 500 homers and 3000 hits thanks to his early start. His comps include some really solid HoMErs, but also Greg Luzinski and Ruben Sierra. He could have a long career with his broad skill set, but he’s more Tony Perez or Rusty Staub than Yaz or Frank Robinson.

HoME Outlook:
Not nearly as good as you might think given his career totals at age 29.
—Eric

Mookie Betts

2017 BBREF WAR:
6.4

Rank at the position after 2017:
Miller: 84
Ahead of Tommy McCarthy, Frank Schulte, and unranked guys.
Trailing Chicken Wolf, Jackie Jensen, and Bryce Harper.

Eric: 83
Ahead of the rest of right fielding history
Trailing Jim Fogarty, Jackie Jensen, and Tommy McCarthy

Current career trajectory:
Terrible BABIP luck hurt Betts’s batting average this year, and his home run power dipped a bit thanks to some hand and wrist issues. He nonetheless managed 46 doubles, boosted his walk rate by two-thirds, and still ran the bases like prime Willie Mays. Fly balls enter Fenway’s right-field event horizon when they fly over the spot where the infield dirt turns into outfield grass. Everything thereafter is inextricably drawn to the black hole in the pocket of Betts’ glove. Plus he’s got a pretty good arm. All of this means that the Sox have apparently discovered how to combine the DNA of Dwight Evans and Barry Larkin in a single player. Sox fans, treat him well and hope that he loves the town so much he signs a long-term deal.

HoME Outlook:
After something of a dry spell, right field may have entered a glory time. Let’s run a list similar to the one that I mentioned in my commentary on Bryce Harper. This is every rightfielder since the war who earned 20 or more BBREF WAR through age 24:

1. Al Kaline: 33.3
2. Hank Aaron: 29.9
3. Frank Robinson: 29.7 (though he was a left fielder at this time in his career, he ended up playing more games in right field in his career)
4. Bryce Harper 26.0
5. Jason Heyward: 24.6
6. Stan Musial: 24.1 (or you could call him a left fielder…or a first baseman)
7. Mookie Betts: 24.0
8. Giancarlo Stanton: 21.3

That’s it. There’s not a retiree on this list you wouldn’t consider an automatic Hall of Anythinger. Plus three young guys who appear well on their way. Plus Jason Heyward whose inability to continue as a top flight player is as inexplicable as it is frustrating. So Betts’ outlook is pretty damned rosy at this point. For what it’s worth at age 24.
—Eric

We finish up position players on Friday with the catchers.

When Men Were Men and Catchers Were Ground to Bloody Stumps

An x-ray is worth 1,000 words. The one to the right (the left hand of longtime 1800s catcher Deacon McGuire) may lead us to information that support the case of Charlie Bennett for the HoME. Howard has carefully sifted through Bennett’s case and asked me, as Bennett’s advocate: Just how tough was it to catch back then?

We can answer the question through both the statistical record of catchers’ durability and the evolution of a catcher’s suit of armor.  I’ve done a little of my own data digging about durability, and a wonderful SABR article provides a history of catcher’s gear, so let’s fuse them together into one informative timeline.

If catching in Charlie Bennett’s day (1878–1893) was tougher than it is now, we would predict that olde-tyme catchers would play far fewer games compared to their league’s schedule than today’s catchers do. So to explore this, quick and dirty, I took the third-highest finisher for each season in games at catcher (to avoid one-year durability wonders). Then I found the percentage of the league’s schedule that they played. We’ll start the data at 1876 when the league adopted a fixed schedule, meanwhile splicing in pieces of narrative from the article.

Early 1870s: Catchers move closer to batter. Fingerless gloves with little protection.
1876 (70 game schedule): 79% Catcher's mask invented
1877 (60): 88% First "padded" glove, fingerless. Catchers use 2 hands til hinged mitt, 60s.
1878 (60): 88%
1879 (84): 75%
Early 1880s: Foul-tip rule for 3rd strikes. Facemask in wide use. First chest protector.
1880 (84): 80%
1881 (84): 83%
1882 (84): 83%
1883 (98): 76% Bennett wears first outside-the-uniform chest protector.
1884 (112): 71% Overhand pitching allowed.
1885 (112): 61%
1886 (140): 51%
1887 (140): 54%
1888 (140): 56% 
Late 1880s, first well-padded mitts.
1889 (140): 59%
Early 1890s, catchers wrap legs in newspaper or leather (under uniforms)
1890 (140): 76% 
1891 (140): 74%
1892 (154): 71%
1893 (133): 69% Pitching box moved back ten feet to current distance; mound created.
1899: Pillow mitt created
1900 (140): 56%
1901: New rule—catcher must squat within box behind plate 
1907: Bresnahan wears first full suit of catching gear by donning shin guards, heckled.
1910 (154): 76%
1920 (154): 95% Catchers still don’t wear helmets.
1930 (154): 82%
1940 (154): 85%
1950 (154): 84%
1960 (154): 84%
1970 (162): 86%
1980 (162): 91%
1990 (162): 82%
2000 (162): 88%
2012 (162): 83%
================
1876-2012:  80%

The numbers show that catchers were really only able to go about 70–75 games until the very late 1880s and early 1890s. Improvements and inventions such as the pillow mitt, better masks, and wide use of chest protectors didn’t take until after the schedule began to lengthen. So teams had to have two regular backstops and a lot of arnica. That’s why HoMErs Buck Ewing and King Kelly, catchers by trade, spent so much time in right field and elsewhere to keep their bodies fresh and their bats in the game.

Back to Bennett, his heyday was over by the late 1880s/early 1890s. He was in his mid-30s by then and even the rapid pace of catching technology couldn’t take back a decade of pitch-by-pitch pounding. Not to mention spikings by opposing runners. And home-plate collisions. And foul tips to various pieces of the body.

With 130 years of perspective, it’s easy to overstate these advances in catching gear. It was all still primitive, as McGuire’s x-ray suggests. Plus, thanks to the he-man sports culture, adoption may have been sporadic, after all Bresnahan was ridiculed in his full outfit nearly fifteen years after Bennett retired. For that matter, the mandating of batting helmets took decades after Ray Chapman’s beaning. Yet, shortly after Bresnahan’s shinguards debuted, catchers’ games played climbed to the levels we see today and stayed there.

Catching hurt. A lot. It was dangerous work, so dangerous that a backstop could only handle a half a season until equipment became sufficiently protective. And catching hurt so much that eventually pain trumped machismo. This is all to the good, of course. It means we see the I-Rods, Mauers, Piazzas, Benches much more often than fans saw Charlie Bennett.

Will Howard vote for Bennett? We’ll see. But in the meantime, we’ve learned a vital life lesson: Always use protection.

—Eric

1911 HoME Election Results

Congratulations to our third class of inductees: Kid Nichols, Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, King Kelly, and Tim Keefe for gaining entrance to the Hall of Miller and Eric with our 1911 election. The HoME is now populated with eleven of the greatest players in the game’s history.

Per our rules, all five had to be named on both ballots for induction. Let’s look to see how we voted.

Rank	Miller	Eric
1	Kid Nichols	Kid Nichols
2	Ed Delahanty	Ed Delahanty
3	Billy Hamilton	Billy Hamilton
4	King Kelly	Buck Ewing
5	Tim Keefe	King Kelly
6		George Wright
7		Tim Keefe
8		Amos Rusie
9		Old Hoss Radbourn
10		Jesse Burkett
11		Paul Hines
12		Charlie Bennett
13		Ross Barnes

Here’s a brief rationale from each voter for each player.

Miller

Kid Nichols: He and Christy Mathewson vie as the best pitchers the game has seen prior to the existence of the American League who don’t have an award named after them.

Ed Delahanty: Died going over Niagara Falls but lived as, arguably, the best left fielder in the game’s first half century.

Billy Hamilton: The all-time stolen base leader until Lou Brock, Sliding Billy didn’t have to steal his way into the HoME. He’s in on his merits.

King Kelly: A versatile and talented player, Kelly was the best right fielder in the game’s first quarter century.

Tim Keefe: Tenth all time, his 342 wins were too much to deny this time.

Eric

Kid Nichols: Best pitcher we’ve seen so far.

Ed Delahanty: Best LF of 19th C. and probably best before Ted Williams—probably among top half-dozen LFs all-time

Billy Hamilton: Best CF of 19th C. and best before Cobb/Speaker; probably top-10 or better all-time

Buck Ewing: Best C of 19th C. and best before ~1930 (Hartnett)

King Kelly: Best RF of 19th C. and best before Sam Crawford

George Wright: Best player of early game from ~1865 through 1880.

Tim Keefe: There’s no shame in being the 2nd best pitcher of 1880s after John Clarkson

Amos Rusie: Dominant strikeout artist of 1890s, feels to me like the Dazzy Vance or Hal Newhouser of his time

Old Hoss Radbourn: Just a sliver beneath Rusie in terms of value, and conditions for pitching were tougher in 1890s, so Radbourn goes here.

Jesse Burkett: Probably among top dozen or baker’s dozen LFs in history. The Billy Williams of his time.

Paul Hines: Best CF before Hamilton, long career with decent peak

Charlie Bennett: Iron-man catcher of 19th century with top-quality defense, long career (for catcher) and a bat that would have played anywhere. 2nd best catcher before Hartnett.

Ross Barnes: Huge peak, great glove, just enough doubt about quality of play and of opposition (didn’t have to face his own teammates), and fair-foul to push him down a bit this time around.

Please visit our Honorees page to see their plaques and to see more information about the HoME and those who have been elected.

RIP, Players Falling Off the 1906 Ballot

Each election there will be a number of players who we agree won’t ever receive our vote for the HoME. To pay tribute to them and to make our next round of voting easier, we’re going to remove them from intellectual consideration, though not actual consideration. They’ll receive a brief write-up in this column along with a little trivia about their careers or lives.

We started this HoME project with 778 players to consider. After our 1901 and 1906 elections, we’ve inducted 6 players and have put to rest 29 others, as you’ll note here and below. That leaves us with 743 players for our remaining 203 spots in the HoME. In other words, we can only elect 28% of the remaining players we’re considering.

And after each election, I’ll offer the following chart to keep you apprised of our progress.

Year	Carried Over	NewNominees	Considered This Election	Elected	Obituaries	Continuing to Next Election
1901	first election	54	54	3	18	33
1906	33	28	61	3	11	47

In an 1888 game against the Kansas City Cowboys, Ice Box Chamberlain, normally a right handed pitcher, gave up no runs in the last two innings of the game pitching as a lefty. Less flatteringly, he allowed Bobby Lowe to become the first player in Major League history to hit four home runs in a game when he served up all four shots while going the distance in a 20-11 defeat at the hands of Lowe’s Boston Beaneaters.

Some may say that political correctness has gone too far today, others not far enough. Let me just offer that in the last decade of the 19^th century, political correctness and morality lagged a bit behind where we might want them. In a land today where the NBA team in Washington can no longer be known as the Bullets, Frank Dwyer pitched for the Cincinnati Kelly’s Killers in 1891. While the team name had more to do with catcher King Kelly than actual murder, it still wouldn’t be allowed today. Also not allowed today would be the conflict of interest resultant in both playing games for the Cincinnati Reds of the National League in 1899 and umpiring games in that league.

Prior to the NL and AL getting together for autumn games that really meant something, there were exhibitions in the latter part of the 19^th century that were sort of similar to the World Series. One such year was 1890 when the Brooklyn Bridegrooms of the National League took on the American Association’s Louisville Colonels. Hurler Red Ehret participated in that series, but I’m not going to tell you how he did. See, it didn’t matter. The World Series that year ended in a tie. I wonder how Bud Selig’s legacy would have been affected had he been Commissioner then?

By Similarity Score, there’s no pitcher in the game’s history more like Dave Foutz than Hall of Famer Dizzy Dean. You might think that such a comparison would make Foutz at least a candidate to remain in intellectual consideration for the HoME. But with 147 wins in his career and only two seasons with over 2.6 pitching WAR, Foutz was an easy player to drop. We’ll address Dean’s case in the 1946 election.

In one of the most amazing feats in baseball history, Frank Killen led the National League in wins in both 1893 and 1896. Okay, not that amazing, I know. Killen was a bit of a star when he was quite young, began his decline phase at age 26 and was out of the game before he hit 30.

Nolan Ryan has nothing on Matt Kilroy, aside from 180 or so wins and over 4000 strikeouts. But one thing Kilroy has that Ryan doesn’t is the single-season strikeout record. As a 20-year-old rookie for the Baltimore Orioles in 1886, Kilroy fanned 513 batters in 583 innings despite a 29-34 record. Something must have happened because the next season, in one more start, Kilroy managed “only” 217 strikeouts – and a 46-19 mark. At that point, Kilroy flamed out, whiffing as many as 50 only two more times.

Bill Lange played only seven seasons in the majors, all for the Chicago Colts, later the Chicago Orphans, of the National League. He left the sport after his age-28 season, never to return. Rather, he took up a career in real estate and married Grace Anna Giselman. That marriage didn’t last. Neither did his next. And he never returned to the game. To be fair, he never would have gotten into the HoME had he stayed around for another 5-8 seasons.

Tommy McCarthy has little more claim to a spot in Cooperstown than you or I. In fact his 16.2 career WAR isn’t in the top 1000 all time. It’s not even close. John Valentin had roughly twice the value of Tommy McCarthy. Mike Trout will have more career value by the end of the season. Babe Ruth had more value as a pitcher for the Red Sox. And separately, he had more value as a hitter for them too. The HoME got this right our first time out. McCarthy won’t be getting in.

Among players whose careers ended at age 30 or before, Sadie McMahon is the winningest pitcher, aside from Bob Caruthers, in baseball history. Charles F. Faber‘s excellent biography over at the SABR Bio Project tells one of those great old baseball stories about McMahon’s heroics as his Baltimore Orioles fought the Cleveland Spiders for the 1895 pennant and is worth a read.

Fact number one – no player in the history of Major League Baseball committed more errors at second base than Fred Pfeffer. Fact number two – Cap Anson considered Pfeffer the best defensive second baseman of all time. I think that likely says something about errors, Anson, and time. For what it’s worth, Michael Humphries’ DRA puts Pfeffer second on the ballot to Bid McPhee defensively. And interestingly enough, McPhee is second in history in errors at 2B.

Adonis Terry was to Ed Delahanty what Ice Box Chamberlain was to Bobby Lowe, the pitcher who allowed him to hit four home runs in a single game. But Terry did Chamberlain one better in the game he pitched; he came out of it with the win.

Rest in peace, all. Please visit our Honorees page to see the plaques of those who have made it into the HoME, and check back here after the 1911 election for more obituaries.

Miller

1906 HoME Election Results

Congratulations to our second class of inductees, Cap Anson, Roger Connor, and Dan Brouthers for gaining entrance to the Hall of Miller and Eric on our 1906 ballot. The HoME is now populated with six of the greatest players in the game’s history.

Per our rules, all three had to be named on both ballots for induction. Let’s look to see how we voted.

Rank	Miller	Eric
1	Cap Anson	Cap Anson
2	Roger Connor	Roger Connor
3	Dan Brouthers	Dan Brouthers
4		Buck Ewing
5		George Wright
6		King Kelly
7		Paul Hines
8		Ross Barnes
9		Charlie Bennett

Here’s a brief rationale from each voter for each player.

Miller

Cap Anson: To this point, he’s the best player in baseball history.

Roger Connor: At his best, he was great. When he wasn’t his best, he was still very good. He had a very nice peak and a very nice career. Connor is an easy inductee into the HoME

Dan Brouthers: He might be the best power hitter of the 19^th century. And he’s another easy call.

Eric

Cap Anson: Best player we’ve seen so far.

Roger Connor: Second best player we’ve seen so far, by a nose over Brouthers.

Dan Brouthers: Third best player we’ve seen so far.

Buck Ewing: Tremendous defense adding to good offensive profile at tough position.

George Wright: Best player before the NA, probably second best player from 1871-1879, maybe the best depending on how one sees Barnes.

King Kelly: The bad-defense and shorter-career version of Ewing. $10,000 sale reflects his performance and popularity. Strong peak/prime performer, would have been higher but for inability to keep it together after age 33.

Paul Hines: Best centerfielder of the pro-game’s first 15 years. Strong similarity to already-enshrined Deacon White in peak, prime, and career value.

Ross Barnes: Most dominant player of the 1870s by far. Among handful to lead league in WAR 5 times. Was still average after illness/injury that ultimately forced him from game. Probably best 2B before Nap Lajoie/Eddie Collins.

Charlie Bennett: He’s the Carlton Fisk to Buck Ewing’s Johnny Bench in the 1880s. Oddly enough his playing style is kind of like Thurman Munson with an even better glove. Munson is a borderliner, this guy is easily over the line for catchers.

Please visit our Honorees page to see their plaques and to see more information about the HoME and those who have been elected.

1901 HoME Election Results

Congratulations to Jack Glasscock, John Clarkson, and Deacon White for gaining entrance to the Hall of Miller and Eric on our inaugural ballot. Though they’re no Cobb, Johnson, Mathewson, Wagner, and Ruth, they are among the best in the history of the game.

Per our rules, all three had to be named on both ballots for induction. Let’s look to see how we voted.

Rank	Miller	Eric
1	John Clarkson	Jack Glasscock
2	Jack Glasscock	George Wright
3	Deacon White	John Clarkson
4		King Kelly
5		Deacon White
6		Paul Hines
7		Ross Barnes
8		Charlie Bennett

Here’s a brief rationale from each voter for each player.

Miller

John Clarkson: He’s the best pitcher in the first quarter century of the professional game’s history.

Jack Glasscock: How can Cooperstown not have yet acknowledged a player at a critical defensive position whose glove was absolutely great and his bat nearly as good?

Deacon White: He’s the best 3B of his era and had value behind the plate as well.

Eric

Jack Glasscock: Ozzie Smith’s glove + Alan Trammel’s bat = one of the most-overlooked stars in MLB history. Must be the name.

George Wright: The game’s best player in the 1860s, a star on both sides of the ball in the NABBP, NA, and NL.

John Clarkson: Best pitcher before Nichols and Young, easily. Clarkson fetched $10,000 just like Kelly, and for good reason.

King Kelly: $10,000 sale reflects his performance and popularity. Strong peak/prime performer, would have been higher but for inability to keep it together after age 33.

Deacon White: Best player of 1877, best catcher of 1870s before position-switch. Maintained abilities and value deep into career.

Paul Hines: Best centerfielder of the pro-game’s first 15 years. Strong similarity to White in peak, prime, and career value.

Ross Barnes: Most dominant player of the 1870s by far. Among handful to lead league in WAR 5 times. Was still average after illness/injury that forced him from game. Probably best 2B before  Lajoie/Collins.

Charlie Bennett: He’s the Fisk to Ewing’s Bench in the 1880s. Oddly enough his playing style is kind of like Thurman Munson with an even better glove. Munson is a borderliner, this guy is easily over the line for catchers.

Please visit our Honorees page to see the plaques of our first inductees.