Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame - 1915 Elections

[dt35456884]

Pitchers
1901-1915

Unless there are objections, these are the pitchers who will be eligible to be nominated for the first Hall of Fame ballot. The names below represent pitchers who hung up their Tigers uniforms for the final time by the end of the 1915 season, and who logged at least 200 innings during their time with Detroit.

Between these names and the position players below, let's agree upon a list of 10-12 players which will make up the inaugural ballot.

Player YR From To W L WL% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+
George Mullin 12 1902 1913 209 179 0.539 2.76 435 395 36 336 34 6 3394.0 3206 1480 1042 37 1106 1380 102
Ed Willett 8 1906 1913 96 80 0.545 2.89 230 179 37 127 12 3 1545.7 1450 704 497 17 491 508 99
Ed Killian 7 1904 1910 99 74 0.572 2.38 204 172 29 142 19 6 1536.7 1402 561 406 8 469 498 109
Ed Siever 5 1901 1908 60 54 0.526 2.61 143 123 19 93 11 2 1036.0 1070 460 301 15 207 303 121
Ed Summers 5 1908 1912 68 45 0.602 2.42 138 112 22 79 9 3 999.0 930 404 269 19 221 362 111
Frank Kitson 3 1903 1905 35 43 0.449 3.02 90 79 11 68 5 2 683.0 718 332 229 18 133 249 91
Roscoe Miller 2 1901 1902 29 25 0.537 3.18 58 54 3 50 4 2 480.7 497 253 170 4 155 118 119
Ralph Works 4 1909 1912 23 22 0.511 3.68 91 45 38 27 4 4 474.0 493 260 194 5 189 199 85
Joe Yeager 3 1901 1903 18 24 0.429 3.54 46 41 5 37 2 1 348.7 395 202 137 9 87 67 106
Joe Lake 2 1912 1913 17 18 0.486 3.18 54 26 22 17 0 2 299.7 339 159 106 6 63 121 98
Win Mercer 1 1902 1902 15 18 0.455 3.04 35 33 2 28 4 1 281.7 282 129 95 5 80 40 120
Marc Hall 2 1913 1914 14 18 0.438 3.07 55 29 19 9 1 0 255.3 242 117 87 2 106 87 94
Red Donahue 1 1906 1906 13 14 0.481 2.73 28 28 0 26 3 0 241.0 260 96 73 1 54 82 102
Jack Cronin 2 1901 1902 13 15 0.464 4.29 34 28 6 21 1 0 237.0 287 168 113 7 50 67 89
John Eubank 3 1905 1907 8 13 0.381 3.12 42 22 19 11 2 2 233.3 248 121 81 0 58 56 87
Pug Cavet 3 1911 1915 11 9 0.550 2.98 49 22 18 8 1 3 226.3 218 105 75 3 67 78 97


EDIT: Increased minimum IP from 100 to 200.


Position Players
1901-1915

Unless there are objections, these are the position players who will be eligible to be nominated for the first Hall of Fame ballot. The names below represent hitters who hung up their Tigers uniforms for the final time by the end of the 1915 season, and who logged at least 1,000 at-bats during their time with Detroit.

Between these names and the pitchers above, let's agree upon a list of 10-12 players which will make up the inaugural ballot.

Player YR From To G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
Matty McIntyre 7 1904 1910 795 2997 412 783 109 54 3 211 331 0 .261 .338 .337 89 0 112
Charley O'Leary 9 1904 1912 833 2825 284 642 89 13 3 182 144 0 .227 .272 .271 71 0 68
George Moriarty 7 1909 1915 772 2666 272 670 112 19 5 283 178 59 .251 .307 .313 190 16 83
Jimmy Barrett 5 1901 1905 589 2259 383 660 59 30 10 174 309 0 .292 .382 .358 92 0 118
Germany Schaefer5 1905 1909 626 2236 279 558 75 25 8 195 158 0 .250 .300 .316 123 0 94
Bill Coughlin 5 1904 1908 593 2117 236 500 56 14 2 190 133 0 .236 .291 .279 73 0 79
Boss Schmidt 6 1906 1911 477 1480 137 360 41 22 3 124 36 0 .243 .270 .307 23 0 79
George Mullin* 12 1902 1913 554 1423 148 372 65 20 3 116 107 1 .261 .315 .342 17 0 99
Claude Rossman 3 1907 1909 373 1382 121 387 62 24 2 179 73 0 .280 .318 .364 38 0 115
Jim Delahanty 4 1909 1912 375 1336 213 409 70 18 6 200 158 0 .306 .394 .399 48 0 129
Doc Casey 2 1901 1902 260 1060 174 295 34 16 5 101 76 0 .278 .337 .355 56 0 89
Kid Elberfeld 3 1901 1903 286 1052 175 305 43 20 4 159 123 0 .290 .376 .380 48 0 110


*Mullin qualifies as a hitter as well as a pitcher.

EDIT: Final 1915 nominees as chosen by voting committee appear in blue.

[estrepe1]

The list (of pitchers)that should be on there to me is:

George Mullin (no question)
Ed Willett
Ed Killian
Ed Siever
Ed Summers
Roscoe Miller

[dt35456884]

Lots of Eds back then.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Estrepe, that would be my six candidates as well, Miller being the weakest.

[estrepe1]

He may get knocked off when I look over the hitters.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Roscoe Miller was sort of "The Bird" of 1902, looking at his season breakdown: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/millero01.shtml

That "rookie" 1901 season was excellent, by any measure. He must have gotten injured?
1902: 23-13, 332 IP, 2.95 ERA, 130+, 1.316 WHIP. WHIP was 9th in the league, ERA 8th.

If we vote for The Bird .... ???
OK I'm exaggerating, I see Mark's ERA+ was much higher.

Wonder if Miller was in other leagues before 1901?

[estrepe1]

My initial total list:

Pitchers:
George Mullin
Ed Willett
Ed Killian
Ed Siever
Ed Summers


Position Players:

Matty McIntyre
Jimmy Barrett
Jim Delahanty
Kid Elberfeld
George Moriarty

Roscoe Miller was sort of "The Bird" of 1902, looking at his season breakdown: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/millero01.shtml

That rookie 1902 season was incredible, by any measure. He must have gotten injured?

Impossible. Pitchers were never injured back then. We just make up injuries today because the pitchers are big babies.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I feel that Germany Schaefer deserves nomination, as he brought fans to the park during the franchise's infancy. His stats are mediocre though.

[DTroppens]

I will add up the totals if people want to PM them to me. I'll give people a few days to send their PMs and if they don't I'll PM them warning them of their fatal mistake.

[DTroppens]

Germany deserves it just for the personality he brought to the team. From what I've read even Ty Cobb enjoyed Germany Schaefer.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Ya, pitchers were indestructible in 1902. They put broken glass on their oatmeal. They had to walk six miles to the ballpark, uphill both ways .... :cheeky:

[estrepe1]

I will add up the totals if people want to PM them to me. I'll give people a few days to send their PMs and if they don't I'll PM them warning them of their fatal mistake.

I thought the first decision was who would be on the ballot. Followed by the vote for players that make the ballot.

Are we doing that the ballot by PM as well? I thought we could have an open discussion/debate about that part.

If not I will PM who I would put on the ballot to you and delete the previous posts.

[estrepe1]

Germany deserves it just for the personality he brought to the team. From what I've read even Ty Cobb enjoyed Germany Schaefer.

I am willing to listen on this one. Any good places to read on this?

[dt35456884]

I'd go with 11 nominees.

George Mullin
Ed Willett
Ed Killian
Ed Siever
Ed Summers
Roscoe Miller
Matty McIntyre
Jimmy Barrett
Germany Schaefer
Claude Rossman
Jim Delahanty

[tiger337]

Boss Schmidt beat the crap out of Ty Cobb a couple of times. Anybody with that many balls deserves something.

[dt35456884]

I thought the first decision was who would be on the ballot....I thought we could have an open discussion/debate about that part.

This was my feeling as well. I'm sure we can all agree on about 12 names.

[DTroppens]

I have 11 if I can go that high.

Jennings (he played in a handful of games so I can get away with this)
McIntryre
Schaefer
Barrett
Schmidt
Delahanty
Mullin
Willett
Killian
Siever
Summers

The one off if I can only go 10 is Jennings of course.

[DTroppens]

We can not forget Wild Bill Donovan and Davy Jones in the next election. As RedShark noted already to me they only played a few games a few seasons after this era for the Tigers. Those are two major players. And actually works out well they will be on the next list.

[dt35456884]

Jennings (he played in a handful of games so I can get away with this)

Jennings appeared in one game for the Tigers in 1918, so he wouldn't be eligible here.

Have we decided that managers are eligible? Or can Jennings only be elected as a player?

[DTroppens]

tiger337,
That's a key reason he's on my list. Schmidt and Schaefer deserve to be on there just for the great stories.

[DaYooperASBDT]

DT, is it fairly easy to add positions played to your tables? I would learn this anyway in the research, but it helps to know the positions when first weeding guys out, I'm thinking?

[dt35456884]

We can not forget Wild Bill Donovan and Davy Jones in the next election. As RedShark noted already to me they only played a few games a few seasons after this era for the Tigers. Those are two major players. And actually works out well they will be on the next list.

I've got a whole spreadsheet sorted by last year appearing with the Tigers. So they will not be left out.

[tiger337]

I think the nominations should be done as a group here. There might a player who does not initially look like he belongs on the list but actually belongs more than somebody else. There might be a story about one of the borderline players that not everyone knows about. Schaefer is a good example here.

[dt35456884]

DT, is it fairly easy to add positions played to your tables? I would learn this anyway in the research, but it helps to know the positions when first weeding guys out, I'm thinking?

It wouldn't be very easy, unfortunately.

[DTroppens]

dt,
I didn't realize he played that late into his season. I kind of put that there to be a know it all and got burned. Good job keeping me in check. :classic:

I would imagine he could go on the nomination list as a player but he probably wouldn't garner enough votes.

Darn, I thought I was being clever.

[DTroppens]

Tiger337,
That's why I almost think going with a large list of just about anyone is a better choice. They'll weed themselves very quickly with each vote. I do love dt's graphics though. I say he's in charge of that.

[tiger337]

I have 11 if I can go that high.

Jennings (he played in a handful of games so I can get away with this)
McIntryre
Schaefer
Barrett
Schmidt
Delahanty
Mullin
Willett
Killian
Siever
Summers

The one off if I can only go 10 is Jennings of course.


Jennings definately belongs

[DTroppens]

So are we only going with committee members having votes? Or are we looking for a few people on the board yet?

[DaYooperASBDT]

We all seem to have our "pet" guys, so why not use 10 as a guideline, but if we want to list 15, why not? You still only get 5 votes max.

Dave, how about we set the voting window, then post a notice, maybe with a sticky, asking for three "at-large volunteers" to vote along with us this week?

[Edman85]

I move for Jennings to wait, being that as of 1915, he was still manager and contributing in that way. His playing days weren't numerous. There doesn't seem to be too much missing in those ballots though.

[redshark63]

And remember, if you are a voter, you do not have to use all 5 votes if you do not consider 5 players "worthy".

[DaYooperASBDT]

Are we remembering that we are voting for a 15-season span? I'm comfortable with 12 or 13 names here easily.

Second to tabling the Jennings nomination.

[dt35456884]

Tiger337,
That's why I almost think going with a large list of just about anyone is a better choice. They'll weed themselves very quickly with each vote. I do love dt's graphics though. I say he's in charge of that.

I'll disagree with this. Throwing 60 or 70 names out for discussion every time is just going to be a mess. Let's have a simple cut to weed out the Steve Colyers of the world. I think this thread is already proving that a manageable list of potential nominees goes a long way toward good discussion.

[DTroppens]

DaYooper,
We'll do it. If I recounted right that's what we need - three people.

I will contact everyone on the committee that hasn't posted in awhile to make their decisions. How about Feb. 9 to make decisions. That gives us a few days to get three other voters and give them time to make their picks. We will simply draw the three people in order, giving posters a chance for every 1,000 posts. I would like to get people that have been here a long time but still give others a shot.

[estrepe1]

I move for Jennings to wait, being that as of 1915, he was still manager and contributing in that way. His playing days weren't numerous. There doesn't seem to be too much missing in those ballots though.

Agreed. Jennings should wait until the next ballot.

I'll disagree with this. Throwing 60 or 70 names out for discussion every time is just going to be a mess. Let's have a simple cut to weed out the Steve Colyers of the world. I think this thread is already proving that a manageable list of potential nominees goes a long way toward good discussion.

This is my feeling as well. If there are potential nominees not on the list someone can bring them up for further discussion.

I don't want to have to vote down the Herm Merritt's of the world. I would rather look over a pared down list that creates good discussions.

[DTroppens]

dt,
But here's the point. We won't discuss most of them. We just vote for them. We won't be doing any discussions while voting.


The lists are going to get smaller too. I bet there are some eras that will have a tough time finding 10 quality retired players. 1945 will have a lot of names but probably very few worthy candidates.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dave, Feb. 9 at midnight? Announce totals on Feb. 10? Works for me!
More questions:

1. Move to expand this list to 13 players (1901-1915)
2. What happens if we don't get 20 voters?

[DTroppens]

We will. I hope. If not we have 17 and we could go with 12 for 17 or 13 for 17. Hopefully we won't have to worry about that mess. 13 would be more than 75%

[estrepe1]

dt,
But here's the point. We won't discuss most of them. We just vote for them. We won't be doing any discussions while voting.


The lists are going to get smaller too. I bet there are some eras that will have a tough time finding 10 quality retired players. 1945 will have a lot of names but probably very few worthy candidates.

But this part isn't the voting. Plus I think the discussion of who should be on the ballot is fun.

If we didn't have this discussion there is no way I vote for Germany Schaefer, but I am actually going to think about it after hearing the reasons behind having him on the ballot.

[tiger337]

That's a good point about Jennings. We'll save him for a later ballot.

[dt35456884]

dt,
But here's the point. We won't discuss most of them. We just vote for them. We won't be doing any discussions while voting.

We already are discussing them, though. We are trying to cobble together a group of 10-12 nominees. And it's just convenient to already have a list of players that contributed to the club in a meaningful way. Otherwise, by the end of this thing I'll have posted the career statlines of all 2,000+ players who have ever been Tigers.

The lists are going to get smaller too. I bet there are some eras that will have a tough time finding 10 quality retired players. 1945 will have a lot of names but probably very few worthy candidates.

All the more reason to have a reasonable weeding metric. It will help keep perspective in those lean years rather than try to expand the scope of who really contributed.

Just my $0.02.

[Edman85]

Put a poll on the Tigers board and prorate it down to three votes? Might be messy, but it's not too bad with Excel.

[DTroppens]

I have no problems with any names mentioned. And Jennings can clearly wait. I was having fun with that.

I am making a post in the Tiger forum that will ask people interested in voting to post their names in the thread. They have until tomorrow night to do so. I will then post the three that won the honor of voting, and keep a list of alternates. If I don't get the others votes in time (a date a few days before our deadline), I'll ask the alternates to vote. I want to make sure we have enough.

[DTroppens]

dt,
don't worry about it. We got it going.

There are a few books people may want to look at including The Detroit Tigers which was published in 1945. I can't recall the author right off but it is at the Detroit Library. I copied the entire thing at work about 8 years back. Good reading about many of these players.

There are a ton of books including any Richard Bak book. They are very good.

[Edman85]

Random question, I know he's not on the ballot yet... But what off-the field standard should we use? In the case of Cobb, do we view a racist rapist in the as somebody in the 1920's or as somebody in 2007? Or is that up to us? I'm just curious.

Also, what about guys only on the team for a year that contribute to a title. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but if Sean Casey would have hit a World Series winning homerun, he'd at least have to be considered, even though he's not likely to reach 1000 AB's.

[DTroppens]

I am going for now. I have no problems with any of the people suggested thus far. I think the nominations are in good hands so if a few of you want to make the list with what we've have here, I will definitely support it.

[DTroppens]

Edman,
Totally up to you. But I suggest that you look at the times as well. Comparing Cobb for his antics back then to what is known as being "right" today isn't totally fair either. Cobb was a racist without a doubt, but so were many other people probably back then on the team and it's not known. I'm sure many people on the team were against having minorities on the team for example. The Tigers did play a Cuban team a few times though and actually Donie Bush had an team in Indianapolis that played a Negro League squad during the off season as well for a few years.

[Edman85]

Crazy idea for one of the remaining committee members... We try to get ahold of Ernie Harwell. He may have better things to do, but who better to do this? Plus it would get pretty awkward on the 2005 ballot when he's eligible and would be voted on unanimously.

[chasfh]

The five pitchers on the ballot should be:

Siever
Mullin
Summers
Killian
Willett

With hitters, I'm struggling. I see only two I would put on the ballot: Barrett and McIntyre. My struggle with Delahanty and Schmidt is that they were each here such a short time with few at bats, and my struggle with Schaeffer (and Schmidt for that matter) is that they weren't very good. I'm not struggling with O'Leary or Moriarty -- they downright sucked.

[chasfh]

Crazy idea for one of the remaining committee members... We try to get ahold of Ernie Harwell.

I have Ernie's email address. Who wants to write him?

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/26/Barret.jpg
Jimmy Barrett
Outfielder, 1901-05

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtual/t207/t207-043.jpg
Jim Delahanty
Second/Third Baseman, 1909-1912

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Kid_Elberfeld_Baseball_Card.jpg/180px-Kid_Elberfeld_Baseball_Card.jpg
Kid Elberfeld
Shorstop, 1901-1903

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/detroit/Killian.jpg
Ed Killian
Pitcher, 1904-1910

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/dressed_to_the_nines/pictures/timeline_1904.jpg
Matty McIntyre
Outfielder, 1904-1910

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0546/s054611.jpg
George Mullin
Pitcher, 1902-1913

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0077/s007728.jpg
Claude Rossman
First Baseman, 1907-1909

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0029/s002979.jpg
Germany Schaefer
Second Baseman, 1905-1909

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtual/t205/t205-169.jpg
Boss Schmidt
Catcher, 1906-1911

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/photos/headshots/Siever_Ed.gif
Ed Siever
Pitcher, 1901-1908

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0545/s054565.jpg
Ed Summers
Pitcher, 1908-1912

[dt35456884]

1915 Detroit Tigers Hall of Fame Nominee

http://memory.loc.gov/ndlpcoop/ichicdn/s0089/s008938.jpg
Ed Willett
Pitcher, 1906-1913

[Edman85]

I have Ernie's email address. Who wants to write him?

I'd be willing to, pending the approval of the rest of the committee.

[dt35456884]

There you have it. The nominees for our first ballot:

Barrett
Delahanty
Elberfeld
Killian
McIntyre
Mullin
Rossman
Schaefer
Schmidt
Siever
Summers
Willett

Schmidt made the list by popular demand. I looked at Elberfeld and Roscoe Miller as being on the bubble (putting it nicely), but Elberfeld's extra season with the team puts him over the top.

We'll plan on voting on this group unless there are serious objections.

[estrepe1]

I wouldn't mind Ernie being a part of this at all. It would be pretty cool. I know troppens didn't want to let people outside of the board in on this though...

[billfer]

I'd be willing to, pending the approval of the rest of the committee.

It's okay by me.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Edman, sounds good to me.

DT, nice job on the lists & photos!

[estrepe1]

I think I am ready to vote. I am not going to use up all of my votes this time around. There just isn't 5 players that I feel are worthy of voting for.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Ed Delahanty - was clearly on steroids in 1911 !!
Jimmy Barrett - Da Catalyst !!! (the original Richie)

And what's up with 1908? Were ALL their bats corked ???? :cheeky:

Also find it interesting how much player movement there was back
then.

Don't think I will be able to find five HOF's from this bunch.

[dt35456884]

Killian's 1907 season (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/killied01.shtml) was just flat-out sick.

[Edman85]

Interesting Comparison, using OPS+ to adjust for Eras. While Delahanty was only a Tiger for 3+ seasons, consider whether or not you would consider Carlos Guillen a Tigers HoFer...

Guillen: (OPS+)
2004- 141
2005- 115
2006- 137

Delahanty (OPS+)
1910- 128
1911- 139
1912- 116

Considering how slim the offense was in those years, I'm inclined to give these hitters a bit more credit than they are getting. At this points, the merits of Delahanty and Guillen are about the same. Would Carlos Guillen be a hall of famer if he was traded tommorow? Will Jim Delahanty?

[estrepe1]

I think it is questionable whether I would vote for Guillen at this point if he was traded away tomorrow.

[Edman85]

More interesting tidbits... Ed Summers in 1908 was the first of two rookies to start a postseason game for the Tigers.

[dt35456884]

At first glance I did not think this was an impressive class. By the time I compiled my ballot I found myself wishing for a sixth vote.

Tonight I went about sorting out all of the HOF classes from 1915 to 2005. This class is actually right around average to above average (to be fair, this one does have the benefit of 10 extra years).

[Edman85]

Well, I've settled on two players. There were several others that were considered. A lot of average players on this ballot who weren't on the team long enough for me to vote for them.

[squid]

I agree, I can only justify 2, maybe 3 players that I will vote for.
Tough to pick guys that played 100yrs ago.

[estrepe1]

I ended up settling for a number under the maximum votes allowed. I took into consideration the era along with the raw numbers. But just couldn't find a lot there.

[tiger337]

I'd really like to vote for several of these guys because I'm a little worried this thing will be biased in favor of modern players. Right now, I can only see two who I think are deserving though. I'll take one more look tomorrow.

[squid]

337
I agree that this will be biased towards modern players, unfortunately that's how it is, we mostly only have offensive stats to work with. The Ozzie Smith of the early 1900's clearly won't make it in.

[estrepe1]

I'd really like to vote for several of these guys because I'm a little worried this thing will be biased in favor of modern players. Right now, I can only see two who I think are deserving though. I'll take one more look tomorrow.

I struggled with that as well. But I wanted to be fair with the lines that I would draw the rest of the way.

[tiger337]

I struggled with that as well. But I wanted to be fair with the lines that I would draw the rest of the way.

The big problem with this group is career length and number of years with Tigers.

[estrepe1]

The big problem with this group is career length and number of years with Tigers.

I agree. There are players I would have voted for if they had a couple more seasons with the Tigers.

[dt35456884]

I'd really like to vote for several of these guys because I'm a little worried this thing will be biased in favor of modern players.

That's one reason I used all my votes. I didn't see any harm in keeping some of the toss-up guys on the ballot for now. In subsequent votes, the worst thing that can happen is that we'll find these players have no business being on the ballot and they'll be voted off eventually. In other cases we may find that these largely unknown players contributed to the organization in more significant ways than we originally thought.

Food for thought: Goose Goslin himself logged less than 2,000 at-bats as a Tiger. Not even four full seasons in Detroit.

[estrepe1]

As much as I like that Goose was a part of our history and as much as he is one of the best players in the history of the game I will have a hard time voting for him when his turn comes up. I haven't made that decision yet because we are awhile from that point.

However I am forming certain limits for amount of time spent with the team. And Goose would fall short if I stick to that limit.

I know that he had the game winning hit in the bottom of the 9th for the Tigers first WS victory and that should be remembered in some way if they were to build a Hall of Fame for the Tigers.

However there are players with amazing moments that are in the Hall without that player having a plaque to themselves.

An example I can think of happened in recent times with Magglio. His bat has been sent to Cooperstown because of the series winning homerun he hit. Great moment in the history of baseball that is to be honored there. But is Magglio ever going to be in the HOF? I don't think his career will stack up for entry.

[dt35456884]

I myself will vote Goslin in, but that's what's fun about this stuff. Everybody has their own criteria. And it will be interesting to see how different factors, like moments of great heroism in Tigers history, recent memories, etc., will affect the vote. Goslin is one of those guys who is otherwise on the fringes of Detroit Tiger greatness, but who can also lay claim to the greatest moment in franchise history.

By the way, after compiling the potential nominees for each of our future votes, I can honestly say that we are in for some true gut-wrenchers (in addition to some boring votes). And Bobby Higginson was better than your remember him.

This will be fun.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I'm learning a lot about the thinking of HOF voters, through my participation in this process. Putting yourself in their shoes, you really gain an understanding of how some don't get 100%, and how some "marginal" types get in.

I'm currently at 3 selections, and two of those are shaky at best.

DT, if you look at "peak years", a lot of guys are going to merit consideration, like Higgy. I bet we vote in at least 50-60 players by the end of this process.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should avoid looking at career stats, vs. Tiger stats only. A good example is Delahanty, who did little before his time in Detroit.

Yes, this is getting really fun. Glad I had the opportunity.

[DTroppens]

Most likely I'm going to select at least four on every ballot unless it gets terrible.

These players are not the longest of tenure but there are some people that were on those 1907-09 teams. And remember folks 1908 was one of the greatest pitcher seasons of all time. Offensive numbers are going to be down (although something like OPS+ does take this into consideration).

I am going to try to vote based on that generation. Try to put myself in those people's shoes and vote on many of the things they would've voted on.

I was going through my 1908 and 1909 Tiger baseball game cards trying to make some breakdowns. While I'm about 80% sure who I will select, I'm going to give it some time.

This is going to be a ton of fun.

[DTroppens]

P.S. If we can get Ernie Harwell, I'd love to have him on the ballot. That would bring some legitimacy to it.

Maybe we should have people that are outsiders that can enhance this things legitimacy.

[NATE]

As a SABR member, I occasionally get publications on the history of the game. In today's mail, I received, "Deadball Stars of the American League".

With all of the posting going on, I forgot if we decided on how we are going to vote. I assume it is via a private message to someone?

[DTroppens]

Nate,
Send the PM to me.

There are a few really good deadball sites on the internet. Well I hope they are still there. About eight years ago I printed all the player bios from one site and put them in a notebook.


TO ALL: We should send these results to someone in the Tiger organization so maybe they get the bug and do something like this. Maybe we can get ourselves some publicity or on the board if the Tigers ever do something like this. Maybe Email the radio stations and and any organization SABR our results. See if we can get some publicity.

[DaYooperASBDT]

The big problem with this group is career length and number of years with Tigers.
Same thought here. Must have been a lot of "team-jumping" in the early years of the league. I'll look it up, curious now when the "Reserve Clause" was instituted?

[dt35456884]

I'm beginning to wonder if I should avoid looking at career stats, vs. Tiger stats only.

I tend to believe that what a player does with other teams does not really have anything to do with his legacy as a Tiger.

By the way, the statistics on the front page of this thread are (and always will be) each players' stats with Detroit, not their total career stats. In case that wasn't clear on first glance.

[redshark63]

Same thought here. Must have been a lot of "team-jumping" in the early years of the league. I'll look it up, curious now when the "Reserve Clause" was instituted?

Actually it was 1903 as part of the AL/NL settlement.
When the AL officially declared itself a "major league" in 1901, it ignored the "reserve" rule and encouraged contract jumping. It was very crazy in 1901 & 1902. In a well known story, Napoleon Lajoie jumped from Philadelphia Phillies to the Philadelphia AL team in 1901 and the state of Pennsylvania was eventually able to obtain an injunction against him not permitting him to play games in Pennsylvania. This is why he ended up being sent to Cleveland in 1902.
http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/baseball.asp
http://www.businessofbaseball.com/1903alnlagreement.htm

The "reserve" rule has a long history prior to that - going back to 1879.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Reserve_clause

[DaYooperASBDT]

I tend to believe that what a player does with other teams does not really have anything to do with his legacy as a Tiger.
Agreed. I'm just thinking that my judgement is getting clouded by looking at the other years, from other teams.

Redshark, thanks for the info.

[Tigercub33]

I love the idea of Ernie being involved.

Nice work on this by dt#s.

[tiger337]

Same thought here. Must have been a lot of "team-jumping" in the early years of the league. I'll look it up, curious now when the "Reserve Clause" was instituted?

Some of it could have been because the minor leagues were independent of the Majors and sometimes minor league teams would hold onto players rather than sell them to MLB teams. Thus, players would often start their careers later. That might explain some of the shorter careers although I did not notice anyone in particular who would have fallen into that category.

I don't think there was more player movement back then. There were a lot more trades but no free agency.

[redshark63]

Some of it could have been because the minor leagues were independent of the Majors and sometimes minor league teams would hold onto players rather than sell them to MLB teams. Thus, players would often start their careers later. That might explain some of the shorter careers although I did not notice anyone in particular who would have fallen into that category.

I don't think there was more player movement back then. There were a lot more trades but no free agency.

Lee,

True to some extent. Many NL teams owned minor league teams too and did farm out and recall players. Not quite the same amount of player movement.

Yes, there definitely was players being held back (Buzz Arlett in the '30's comes to mind), but not too much, really.

Also, keep in mind that some of the players we are looking at started at or near the beginning of the AL. Some of these players played in the pre-AL Western League. So we are not really seeing their complete career. Also, with the advent of a new "major" league, there was a fair amount of weeding out as established NL jumpers were battling w/ players coming out of the top minor leagues - Western and Eastern Leagues. More positions, more opportunity, more competition, more trials.

[NATE]

The SABR publication has a summary for each team. One major item I did not know was the Detroit franchise was scheduled to move to Pittsburgh in 1903 due to poor attendance. The AL and NL got together to discuss players jumping leagues and owners considering moving their franchises. Part of the agreement was the AL, and therefore Detroit staying out of Pittsburgh. Oh yeah, the Tigers got to keep a player who jumped from Cincinnati named Sam Crawford. The Tigers struggled for a few more years, then spent less than $1000 to buy some ball player from Georgia.

[tiger337]

Lee,

True to some extent. Many NL teams owned minor league teams too and did farm out and recall players. Not quite the same amount of player movement.

Yes, there definitely was players being held back (Buzz Arlett in the '30's comes to mind), but not too much, really.

Also, keep in mind that some of the players we are looking at started at or near the beginning of the AL. Some of these players played in the pre-AL Western League. So we are not really seeing their complete career. Also, with the advent of a new "major" league, there was a fair amount of weeding out as established NL jumpers were battling w/ players coming out of the top minor leagues - Western and Eastern Leagues. More positions, more opportunity, more competition, more trials.

Good info Red Shark. That transition period might explain some of the spotty careers of a lot of players in this group.

[estrepe1]

The SABR publication has a summary for each team. One major item I did not know was the Detroit franchise was scheduled to move to Pittsburgh in 1903 due to poor attendance. The AL and NL got together to discuss players jumping leagues and owners considering moving their franchises. Part of the agreement was the AL, and therefore Detroit staying out of Pittsburgh. Oh yeah, the Tigers got to keep a player who jumped from Cincinnati named Sam Crawford. The Tigers struggled for a few more years, then spent less than $1000 to buy some ball player from Georgia.

This is some great historical information. I love reading this kind of stuff.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I noticed that a couple of guys are missing a season, around 1905 IIRC. Wonder where they played that season, if at all? Holdout?

[redshark63]

Good info Red Shark. That transition period might explain some of the spotty careers of a lot of players in this group.

Just to add to this briefly, here are some of the AL Tiger players who played on the 1900 AL Tigers (the Western League renamed itself the American League in 1900, though still considered a "minor" league):

Doc Casey (.260, 115 g)
Kid Elberfield (.262, 109 g) (1899 as well)

Ed Siever (6-5,12 gs)
Joe Yeager (19-12, 31 gs)
Roscoe Miller (19-9, 27 gs)
Jack Cronin (19-22, 40 gs)

Jimmy Barrett actually played for Detroit in 1899, before joining Cincinnati later in the season. He hit .331 in 121 games for Detroit that year.

[DaYooperASBDT]

So Roscoe Miller may make another ballot, if we decide to have a section for the 19th century, then?
I guess we aren't supposed to discuss candidates once the voting starts, but I
am really on the fence, regarding three players. So far I've only voted for two.

[DTroppens]

I don't think there's anything wrong with talking with each other about candidates.

The Detroit papers actually covered the pre-1901 Detroit team fairly well. I've seen them on microfilm.

NATE,
You need to get a historical book on the Tigers. I think you'd like one.

[DTroppens]

BTW,
I'm getting a ton of PMs. I'm not opening any of them until I make my decisions. So if one of you are PMing me about something besides your selections, please make a note of that in the PM title.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I titled my PM, "1915 Ballot" - perhaps a standard title like that would help Dave out?

[whitecapwendy]

Keep discussing the players. Fascinating stuff--I am learning a lot. You are discussing them without actually saying who you are voting for, so I think the discussion is positive. Looking forward to seeing who comes out on top.

[Edman85]

How possible would it be to change the baseline at bats to 750? Just thinking about it... 200 IP is roughly a full season for a starter, while 1000 AB is 2-3 seasons for a starter. It's a relatively minor change, but it gives us a few more guys who may make the ballot.

Never mind... probably not necessary.

I was just working backwards, and I want to say that the 1995 ballot will be tough to keep to 5. I find 8-9 guys I would vote for who left the Tigers between 1990-1995. I think we need to allow more than five votes to avoid games played (like not voting for Gibson and Whitaker to keep Petry or Henneman on the ballot, for example). This could leave some guys out of strong eras.

Case in point:
Morris, Gibson, Lemon, Whitaker, Anderson, Henneman, Tettleton, Phillips, Tanana, and Petry are all guys I would vote for. Some of those guys are borderline, and would have gotten automatically voted in had they retired in 1996, but they may not make 20% of the ballots because they came out of a strong era.

[dt35456884]

I was just working backwards, and I want to say that the 1995 ballot will be tough to keep to 5. I find 8-9 guys I would vote for who left the Tigers between 1990-1995. I think we need to allow more than five votes to avoid games played (like not voting for Gibson and Whitaker to keep Petry or Henneman on the ballot, for example). This could leave some guys out of strong eras.

Case in point:
Morris, Gibson, Lemon, Whitaker, Anderson, Henneman, Tettleton, Phillips, Tanana, and Petry are all guys I would vote for. Some of those guys are borderline, and would have gotten automatically voted in had they retired in 1996, but they may not make 20% of the ballots because they came out of a strong era.

I was looking at the same thing, and the '95 class is indeed tremendous. On the other hand, some of the potentially bubble guys like Phillips, Tettleton, and Tanana only need to pick up three votes (we agreed on a 15% cutoff) to remain on the ballot. I'm confident that they would get those votes. And the following class in 2000 is terribly weak. I think they'll get their shot, even if they have to wait.

I for one am in favor for keeping the five-vote limit. Some years it is going to feel like too few votes to go around. But a little hand-wringing and controversy isn't such a bad thing. Adds a little drama to this whole thing.

[dt35456884]

Anyway, we'll have time later to discuss future classes. On with the class of '15.

[tiger337]

I was just working backwards, and I want to say that the 1995 ballot will be tough to keep to 5. I find 8-9 guys I would vote for who left the Tigers between 1990-1995. I think we need to allow more than five votes to avoid games played (like not voting for Gibson and Whitaker to keep Petry or Henneman on the ballot, for example). This could leave some guys out of strong eras.

Case in point:
Morris, Gibson, Lemon, Whitaker, Anderson, Henneman, Tettleton, Phillips, Tanana, and Petry are all guys I would vote for. Some of those guys are borderline, and would have gotten automatically voted in had they retired in 1996, but they may not make 20% of the ballots because they came out of a strong era.

Maybe we should do the managers separately like dtroppens suggested. That would knock out Anderson. That's an interesting group. I think we should leave it at 5 though. If there are 9 guys making it from one era and maybe just 1 or 2 guys from an era when they won 3 pennants, then maybe we aren't looking at this the right way. Just a thought.

[Edman85]

I'd still rather have a fair process than some debate... If everybody votes for the same five in 1995 (for example) then those deserving guys may not get the 3 votes necessary.

I just think it's something that should be addressed before we run into it.

[estrepe1]

Maybe we should do the managers separately like dtroppens suggested. That would knock out Anderson. That's an interesting group. I think we should leave it at 5 though. If there are 9 guys making it from one era and maybe just 1 or 2 guys from an era when they won 3 pennants, then maybe we aren't looking at this the right way. Just a thought.

Well there is a different value for winning a pennant when there were only 8 teams in the American League.

But I don't know that people are going to be left off anyway. Some players that show up in 1995 will likely not have enough votes to win but will have enough votes to stay on the ballot.

To be honest one case I was looking ahead to was Mickey Cochrane. If I go straight by my limits of time with the Tigers, he MIGHT be left off. But then you add on the managerial record and I think he has to go on (even though he was a player/manager). The question then becomes do I vote for him as a manager but not as a player or do we just combine the two and look at him as a total figure?

Anyway, we'll have time later to discuss future classes. On with the class of '15.

Good idea. I hope I didn't leave a player out of my vote in terms of this class. I really had to battle my vote on this one to make sure I was fair to the era that we are dealing with.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I think the limit of five votes per person will work fine. IIRC, we are going to go every five years, so things may shake out just fine.

Perhaps once we have gone through all the eras, we can have a Veterans Committee, to make sure nobody was overlooked ?? (ducks)

Would also like to see separate voting for managers, executives, broadcasters, scouts, etc.

Negro Leagues - suggest a subcommittee of some sort, as that will require a ton of research. Don't think we'd have the benefit of stats like OPS+ for comparisons?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Germany Schaefer was definitely the leading "flake" of his era, as I-Bert's thread details:
http://www.motownsports.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33715

EDIT: Totally unrelated - I ended up voting for 4 players, with one of those being somewhat of a "mercy" vote.

[rhino]

If I have a particular player that I would like to see put in can I lobby for him in these threads and by PM, kind of like a political action commitee?

[estrepe1]

I think you can lobby in here. Just as a point of discussion. When there are players from this era I feel like there is a lot of the story we are missing which is why I find the history threads to be useful for this endeavor.

[Edman85]

I'm willing to listen. I was on the border for a few guys and it might be enough to push me into voting for them in the 1920 Elections.

[estrepe1]

I'm willing to listen. I was on the border for a few guys and it might be enough to push me into voting for them in the 1920 Elections.

I took a sneak peek at the 1920 elections. I have 3 guys that are definites in that election and a few more that I could see.

Its going to be tough to get someone from 1915 voted in, in a 1920 election.

[DTroppens]

Let's remember even if we only vote a few 1907-09 Tigers here, we will be nominating others later (Ty Cobb may make it eventually).

Any lobbying is okay with me. Do it!

Does everyone want to see everyone's votes later (maybe in a PM to each other) or should I just present the numbers and keep everyone guessing. Of course once it's over I guess we can all volunteer who we voted for. I will probably do that anyway.

[Edman85]

I say post totals and if people want to divulge who they voted for, let them. How many ballots have you gotten?

[DTroppens]

My PMs say 10 messages I haven't read. I think two of them are duplicates. So that means eight.

[Mudman]

I wouldn't mind Ernie being a part of this at all. It would be pretty cool. I know troppens didn't want to let people outside of the board in on this though...
I would be thrilled to contact Ernie. I have met him many times. In fact he contributed a poem for the inside cover of my Mud Hens book.

[Mudman]

I truly enjoy the research of different eras and uncovering new (to me) things about the oldtimers. I guess I am an alternate voter...cool. Here are a few of the oddball facts I found...maybe these were mentioned in a thread I missed. Ed Killian was the hardest pitcher to homer against in AL history. Deadball era or not his career average was one every 178 innings pitched including zero in a stretch of 1,001 consecutive innings. He won both sides of a double header to clinch the '07 pennant.
George Mullin was used as a pitch hitter 101 times in his career and threw a no-hitter vs. the Browns on his birthday July 4, 1912.
I have a ton more but hate typing.

[DTroppens]

George Mullin was a very good hitting pitcher.

[Edman85]

George Mullin was a very good hitting pitcher, and that is the reason why I vo... I mean... might have voted for him. Being a solid all-around player for that long for the Tigers back then is a plus in my book.

I was torn on the Eds, Killian and Siever stood out among them. I did not know the role Killian had in clinching the 1907 pennant prior to voting though... something I wish I would have known.

[Tigercub33]

I used all 5 of my votes. I know that hitting was different during that ERA, but only 1-2 guys stood out to me. I feel pretty good about my choices.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I can definitely picture some lobbying going on betwixt the real HOF voters, perhaps, dare I say it, actual horse-trading of votes!

Dave, I voted twice, so please disregard the first ballot, that was a panic vote! :nervous: Intially was only going to vote 2 guys, up to 4 guys now.

I ask that you all take a close look at Jimmy Barrett, Twilight Ed Killian, and .....

Germany Schaeffer (not for stats, but for drawing fans to the park and helping to keep the team in Detroit. I can't prove it, but I view a vote for Germany as a nod to our "Tiger Pioneers")

Killian was the original "crafty left-hander".

Barrett was clearly "Da Catalyst" in those early years. With a better lineup behind him, he would have scored even more runs than he did.

My prediction for this vote - Mullin gets in unanimously.

[tiger337]

I chose 4 players. I was only going to choose 2 but then I looked at the 1907-1909 seasons a little more carefully and added a couple more.

[estrepe1]

Barrett was a borderline case for me. Not around all that long and his seasons weren't extremely strong. They were good but not extremely strong. If he had played 1-2 more seasons I might have been more inclined to say he was a definite.

Schaefer is one that I had a tough time with. He wasn't around all that long and his stats aren't all that great. However he was a very important figure in Tiger history.

[DTroppens]

You all have about a week! Take your time if you'd like!
I'm picking five even if I'm not sure five deserve it. I don't think they all will make it but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt if others think they should be in or get additional consideration.

[estrepe1]

You all have about a week! Take your time if you'd like!
I'm picking five even if I'm not sure five deserve it. I don't think they all will make it but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt if others think they should be in or get additional consideration.

I am only going to vote for those I feel are worthy. But I do think that everyone should vote along the lines of what they consider to be worthy.

[whitecapwendy]

Wow!!! this is a lot of work!!! I am taking a break. The Delahanty I found did not appear to play for Detroit??? but I am going to go through this thread. I think I remember something being said about him.

One thing that has kind of impressed me on Rossman is his 07 World Series with a .474/.476/.579. I am not going to make up my mind until I see all of the numbers of all of the others.

edit: never mind --I was looking at the wrong Delahanty

[Doctor Detroit]

Good thread and project here.

I know some stuff about this era because I play some SIM leagues and do drafts so I crunch a lot of numbers.

Of the group of hitters from this era Sam Crawford, Bobby Veach, and Ty Cobb were all above average to Cobb being the best of his generation if not ever. Eberfeld had some good seasons an above average OBP, OPS, and SLG for a SS. Donnie Bush also was a fine SS and was consistently an above average fielder and OPS guy. Bob Wood was a solid catcher and above average fielder and arm while Boss Schmidt also had good numbers and was a decent catcher of the era.

The pitching is a different story. Mullin was the best of the bunch because he was a great hitter also. He is 19th all-time among pitchers for SLG % and had a career .264 average. Not too bad for the deadball era. He wasn't as good as a pitcher though, his OAV was always above the league average and his WHIP for that era was less than stellar. His best ever WHIP was 1.11 in 1909 which was statistically his best season. Ed Siever was great in 1902 and is ERA+ numbers were off the chart.

If you look back it was pitching that stopped the Tigers from winning a bunch of WS when Cobb was playing. They had power, they had speed, and they had some above average fielders. There pitching was fairly atrocious however and they couldn't beat Three Fingers Brown in the WS.

[estrepe1]

Doctor we are running this with a new class every 5 years including people that retired in the stretches. Sam Crawford will show up on the 1920 ballot.

Just so you know that we haven't forgotten the greats like him.

[Doctor Detroit]

Doctor we are running this with a new class every 5 years including people that retired in the stretches. Sam Crawford will show up on the 1920 ballot.

Just so you know that we haven't forgotten the greats like him.

Cool I figured he wasn't forgotten, but I just mentioned him because I think he's one of the most underrated players of his generation. I'll try to keep an eye out for the next one so I can lend a hand. I particularly like this era of Tigers history and the stretch between 1930 and 1950. I just look back at some of those teams and find it hard to believe they didn't win more championships. Those late zeros and 19 teens teams should have won three to five championships. Anyway if you think of it next time, shoot me a pm when you guys are doing this. TIA.

[estrepe1]

Since you seem to be so knowledgable about this stuff I think you should be allowed to vote as well. Although I don't have the final say in the matter.

[Doctor Detroit]

Ed Killian was an above average pitcher and he was particularly adept at not giving up dingers. He pitched almost 700 innings in 1904 and 1905 without allowing one HR. Now this was the deadball era, but some of the fields didn't have fences while others had strange dimensions. Killian like most other Tiger pitchers of this era had terrible OAV numbers for a #1 starter but he had very good ERA+ numbers including a 143 in 1907 and 144 in 1909. To me he is the best of this group but Mullin offered a lot in the hitting department and he was a Tiger for 10 years vice seven. Mullin also won three WS games and pitched a few dandies (game 5 of 05' WS) but lost. Guy pitched a complete game in game 6 of the 09' series and then came out of the pen for game seven. Killian did not win a WS game.

[Just Some Dude]

I am only going to vote for those I feel are worthy. But I do think that everyone should vote along the lines of what they consider to be worthy.

Exactly, I only voted for 3. I just couldn't justify voting for anyone else.

[Doctor Detroit]

Wow!!! this is a lot of work!!! I am taking a break. The Delahanty I found did not appear to play for Detroit??? but I am going to go through this thread. I think I remember something being said about him.

One thing that has kind of impressed me on Rossman is his 07 World Series with a .474/.476/.579. I am not going to make up my mind until I see all of the numbers of all of the others.

edit: never mind --I was looking at the wrong Delahanty

HOFer ED>>>>>Jim

We had the wrong Delahanty brother.

[Mudman]

Exactly, I only voted for 3. I just couldn't justify voting for anyone else.
Same here. I had the intention of cutting the list down to the five best IMO but ended up with only three.

[HeyAbbott]

I need to vote. Mullin gets it for being a solid pitcher. When looking at his batting average, the league (AL) averaged about .240 for 1907-1909. At .264, and when condiering his oterh offensive stats based on the period numbers, he was cleary an amazing pitcher. Killian does as well.

One other interesting note, the unearned run average for the entire league was over 1 run per game for 1907-1909. Today, a typical season, would be an average of .40 to .45 unearned runs per game , league average per team.

This sheds some light on several things. One it makes it understanding how some old clippings rant and rave about Honus Wagner's fielding prowess in the same period.

How good of a fielder was Eberfield by 1907-1909 standards ?

[HeyAbbott]

How do I Vote ?

[estrepe1]

How do I Vote ?

If volunteered in the sign up threads and are a part of the committee send a PM to DTroppens.

[Doctor Detroit]

How good of a fielder was Eberfield by 1907-1909 standards ?

His career FP at SS was .920 while the league average was .924. He was a D fielder but did have good range. His fielding range numbers were above average almost every year and in 1901 he was nearly a full point above average which is amazing. In 1901 he also beat the league fielding average for SS but that average was .898! At .907 he was probably a top five SS in the AL in fielding. These guys were playing with a piece of leather more like a patch than a glove with a heavier ball. A D fielding rating with A range is decent in this era and Elberfield was a fine player in his three years in Detroit.

[estrepe1]

I just don't think Elberfield's career with the Tigers was long enough. He only had 1101 at bats on the Tigers.

It wasn't even a full 3 seasons. He was traded to the NY Highlanders in 1903.

[Doctor Detroit]

I just don't think Elberfield's career with the Tigers was long enough.
I'd like to know why the Tigers traded him in 03'. He had a .412 OBP and a .341 average and a .932 fielding average. Wonder what they got.

[estrepe1]

I'd like to know why the Tigers traded him in 03'. He had a .412 OBP and a .341 average and a .932 fielding average. Wonder what they got.

They received Herman Long and Ernie Courtney.

Herman Long (The Flying Dutchman): http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/longhe01.shtml
Ernie Courtney:http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/courter01.shtml


Courtney was then traded in October of 1903 with Rube Kisinger, Sport McAllister, and either Yeager or Lush to the Buffalo (Eastern) for Cy Ferry and Matty McIntyre.

Cy Ferry: http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/ferrycy01.shtml
Matty McIntyre: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcintma01.shtml

[whitecapwendy]

I voted for four.

[Doctor Detroit]

They received Herman Long and Ernie Courtney.

Herman Long (The Flying Dutchman): http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/longhe01.shtml
Ernie Courtney:http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/courter01.shtml


Courtney was then traded in October of 1903 with Rube Kisinger, Sport McAllister, and either Yeager or Lush to the Buffalo (Eastern) for Cy Ferry and Matty McIntyre.

Cy Ferry: http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/ferrycy01.shtml
Matty McIntyre: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcintma01.shtml
That was not one of the better trades in Tiger history. Getting McIntyre later was wise though.

[Mudman]

I'd like to know why the Tigers traded him in 03'.
To my understanding he was traded following a suspension in Detroit for "abusing" an umpire! Also, that spring, Elberfeld had also been accused by Tiger manager Ed Barrow of throwing games because he wanted to be traded.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Wendy, glad you decided to join up. I think we are up to 28 members then?

Wendy, easy to mix up the Delahantys. There were five brothers, all five saw time in the major leagues. Frank and Ed were probably the best known. Jim had a couple good years for the Tigers, but I decided not to vote for him.

Doctor D, agree with your assessments on several players. Elberfield was a near miss for me. Wahoo Sam seems like a slam dunk, when his name comes up. Killian put up some nice numbers, very nice numbers.

[DaYooperASBDT]

To my understanding he was traded following a suspension in Detroit for "abusing" an umpire! Also, that spring, Elberfeld had also been accused by Tiger manager Ed Barrow of throwing games because he wanted to be traded.That illustrates the dangers of looking at players that had short tenures with Detroit. Sometimes those short tenures occurred for a reason!! :ermm:

[whitecapwendy]

Wendy, glad you decided to join up. I think we are up to 28 members then?

Wendy, easy to mix up the Delahantys. There were five brothers, all five saw time in the major leagues. Frank and Ed were probably the best known. Jim had a couple good years for the Tigers, but I decided not to vote for him.

Doctor D, agree with your assessments on several players. Elberfield was a near miss for me. Wahoo Sam seems like a slam dunk, when his name comes up. Killian put up some nice numbers, very nice numbers.
DTroppens told me I was voting so I figured I had better get busy studying. I just hope my votes are somewhat similar to others, or I am going to feel really silly in here. I used average stats for the years each of the guys were Tigers, and looking for things to distinguish the guys. I wanted to vote for Schaffer for his antics, but decided his numbers just didn't give reason enough. He must have been fun to watch though.

[DTroppens]

These are all legit votes. Some better than others of course, but I wouldn't worry about making a "wrong" pick. In actual political elections I made votes for people I knew wouldn't get 1% of the vote and didn't worry about it being the "wrong" vote.

[whitecapwendy]

Will there be a list for 1920 like there was for 1915? Or is there a site to find the rosters of various years? I searched Tigers History on the web, but mostly found timelines and summaries of various seasons. I can tell you this much, Ty Cobb will have my vote (I believe that will be for the 1930) Even if he did tend to be scum of the earth personally, his many batting titles (9 consecutive and then only missed one year) is too good to throw aside.

[Edman85]

http://www.baseballreference.com

[estrepe1]

Will there be a list for 1920 like there was for 1915? Or is there a site to find the rosters of various years? I searched Tigers History on the web, but mostly found timelines and summaries of various seasons. I can tell you this much, Ty Cobb will have my vote (I believe that will be for the 1930) Even if he did tend to be scum of the earth personally, his many batting titles (9 consecutive and then only missed one year) is too good to throw aside.

I know that some may view this as trying to influence voters but if the best player in the history of the franchise doesn't make it first ballot I feel like this project loses all validity.

[dt35456884]

A couple of Ed Summers highlights to chew on:

His 1.64 ERA [in '08] remains the Tigers' single season record.

September 25, 1908:
Detroit's Ed Summers pitches two complete-game wins over the A's, winning the opener 7-2 The 2nd game is a 10-inning battle with another rookie Biff Schlitzer that ends 1-0 on a Claude Rossman drive for an inside-the-park home run. Summers allows just two hits. With the White Sox idle, the Tigers move to a half-game out of first.

July 16, 1909:
At Bennett Field, Detroit and Washington play the longest scoreless game in American League history—18 innings. Ed Summers pitches the complete game, holding the Nationals to seven hits, two walks (one intentional), while fanning 10. The Nationals' 30-year-old rookie, Bill "Dolly" Gray, allows only one hit before leaving with an injury after eight innings. He is replaced by Bob Groom. Gray will put another entry in the record books next month when he walks seven straight batters.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/S/Summers_Ed.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Summers

[DaYooperASBDT]

I have given Summers a look - that 1908 year was unreal. Generally, I'm looking for at least 3 outstanding seasons. That will jump up and bite me when Fidrych comes up, unless I can justify his impacts on fan interest, etc.

[estrepe1]

I have given Summers a look - that 1908 year was unreal. Generally, I'm looking for at least 3 outstanding seasons. That will jump up and bite me when Fidrych comes up, unless I can justify his impacts on fan interest, etc.

I will have a hard time deciding on Fidrych. That bridge has to be crossed at that time but he just didn't have that long of a career.

Again I am viewing this as a hall of fame voting that would involve the same type of criterion as the regular Hall. With looser rules on the statistics, but the principal of extended excellence is the same.

The special moments would have to be honored in another way.

[cruzer1]

Is this the Hall of Fame, or the Hall of one year wonders?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Cruzer, excellent question. My current hypothesis on a lot of these "rookie" wonders - the kids were overworked. Pitcher abuse was rampant, with guys regularly going over 300+ innings, right off the sandlot.

I can't bring myself to vote for a kid who had one or two great years, then simply broke down. His fault? Probably not. But I am trying to avoid sympathy votes.

I'm gaining a lot of appreciation for any kid that lasted five years back then, less alone ten or more like Mullin did. Of course, injuries are still frequent today, but baseball has learned a lot in the last 100 years! :wink:

Some call it coddling a young arm, to have pitch counts and innings limits. But what happened to Summers and a couple others on this ballot, that gives me pause.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Estrepe, I suspect many voters will have a lower standard than the real HOF, especially since we are only looking at the "Tigers slice" of their careers. I would be fine with voting in about 60, maybe 70 players. IIRC, the Reds HOF had even more than that?

[estrepe1]

Estrepe, I suspect many voters will have a lower standard than the real HOF, especially since we are only looking at the "Tigers slice" of their careers. I would be fine with voting in about 60, maybe 70 players. IIRC, the Reds HOF had even more than that?

I think you need to have more than a slice of your career with the Tigers. I have longevity standards for how long a player needed to be with the Tigers and I am going to stick with that.

I won't tell others how to vote. But I want this to be a prestigous group of players that had good careers WITH the Tigers. What they did with other teams won't mean a thing for my voting.

[whitecapwendy]

I have been going heavily on stats during Tiger years. I appreciate hearing what criteria others are using as they evaluate players. Keep talking please.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I think you need to have more than a slice of your career with the Tigers. I have longevity standards for how long a player needed to be with the Tigers and I am going to stick with that.

I won't tell others how to vote. But I want this to be a prestigous group of players that had good careers WITH the Tigers. What they did with other teams won't mean a thing for my voting."Slice" was a poor word choice, I meant the "Tigers segment" of their careers.

As someone mentioned before (DT?), Eddie Matthews was HOF, but certainly not with Detroit. By logical extension, we should go the other direction as well. Your mediocrity for other clubs should not take away from your "shining years" in Detroit. I'm actually trying to avoid looking at overall career stats, and "non-Tiger" seasons, unless I really need a specific context for a "borderline" player (end of career, rookie season, etc)

[estrepe1]

"Slice" was a poor word choice, I meant the "Tigers segment" of their careers.

As someone mentioned before (DT?), Eddie Matthews was HOF, but certainly not with Detroit. By logical extension, we should go the other direction as well. Your mediocrity for other clubs should not take away from your "shining years" in Detroit. I'm actually trying to avoid looking at overall career stats, and "non-Tiger" seasons, unless I really need a specific context for a "borderline" player (end of career, rookie season, etc)

Agreed completely.

Although I think it will lead to some controversial votes later in this exercise. There are certain legends I have looked back at that simply were not with the Tigers long enough. There are others that people talk up that simply were not good.

But again I am going to discuss that stuff when it comes up.

[Edman85]

Say what you will, but I plan on voting for Cesar Guitierrez. Also, if we do a ballot after the season, Neifi's got my vote.

[dt35456884]

I think you'll find that Summers' career is more impressive than some of the Tigers "legends" that are likely to be first-ballot HOFers here; guys like Auker, Goslin, etc.

I have struggled with the longevity versus effectiveness debate. I think in the end I'm willing to give a guy who came in and was highly effective for a shorter period of time (i.e. a Carlos Guillen type) more credit than I will for someone who had a long but fairly pedestrian career in Detroit (i.e. Mickey Stanley).

[estrepe1]

For most of his career Stanley wasn't just pedestrian. He was downright bad.

[dt35456884]

For most of his career Stanley wasn't just pedestrian. He was downright bad.

Even so, I suspect he'll get some heavy support because he was a longtime Tiger and because he was part of the '68 team. To say nothing of the folklore surrounding his move to shortstop in the '68 Series.

[whitecapwendy]

"Slice" was a poor word choice, I meant the "Tigers segment" of their careers.

As someone mentioned before (DT?), Eddie Matthews was HOF, but certainly not with Detroit. By logical extension, we should go the other direction as well. Your mediocrity for other clubs should not take away from your "shining years" in Detroit. I'm actually trying to avoid looking at overall career stats, and "non-Tiger" seasons, unless I really need a specific context for a "borderline" player (end of career, rookie season, etc)
It is a lot of work, but I have been taking the stats--primarily BA, OPS (I am adding SLG and OBP), Steals walks and strikeouts (mainly for reference) and averaging for the years they have been with the Tigers. Oh also looking at Fielding percentage, and if they were all stars and/or in WS (for the Tiger years that is and how they personally did). So far I have seen nothing on All stars (baseball dummy question alert)--when did the All star games start?

For Pitchers primarily ERA, W-L, WHiP, SO/BB. I compare these with the others on teams in that era rather than by standards today.

If a player has played all but two of their 14-15 years with the Tigers, I will go ahead and look at the career averages (getting lazy on those guys) and take note as to whether the two years not with the Tigers are similar or have extreme highs/lows.

Thanks for the link to the baseball reference site. That is a treasure chest.

[dt35456884]

It is a lot of work, but I have been taking the stats--primarily BA, OPS (I am adding SLG and OBP), Steals walks and strikeouts (mainly for reference) and averaging for the years they have been with the Tigers. Oh also looking at Fielding percentage, and if they were all stars and/or in WS (for the Tiger years that is and how they personally did). So far I have seen nothing on All stars (baseball dummy question alert)--when did the All star games start?

For Pitchers primarily ERA, W-L, WHiP, SO/BB. I compare these with the others on teams in that era rather than by standards today.

If a player has played all but two of their 14-15 years with the Tigers, I will go ahead and look at the career averages (getting lazy on those guys) and take note as to whether the two years not with the Tigers are similar or have extreme highs/lows.

Thanks for the link to the baseball reference site. That is a treasure chest.

Nice to see. Hopefully others are doing some number-crunching as well.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dang Wendy, they are turning you into a Saber, be careful, young Jedi !!!!!!!!!!! :cheeky:

If you get time, please post some of your hard work.

Wendy, first All-Star game, I think it was 1933. Also keep in mind, not much for awards in 1915, either.

I like how Baseball-Reference notes whether a player ranked in the Top 10 in certain stat categories, I find that feature (toward bottom of each player page) helpful.

[tiger337]

Even so, I suspect he'll get some heavy support because he was a longtime Tiger and because he was part of the '68 team. To say nothing of the folklore surrounding his move to shortstop in the '68 Series.

Even his move to shortstop in the World Series, although unusual, was not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. He played 9 games at shortstop in 1968 and 59 in 1969 during the regular season. It's not like they took someone like Granderson and suddenly decided to make him a shortstop in the World Series. It was more like taking your starting shortstop, moving him to first base and putting the worst hitter in the league at shortstop.

[whitecapwendy]

Barrett--average .286.6 OPS, .749.5 fielding pct. .957, average of 23 SB, never all star never World series

Elberfeld average .284, OPS .661, fielding .913, SB 21, All star n WS ??

Killian ERA 2.43, WHiP 1.229, record 95-71, HR 6, BB 442, SO 278

Mullin ERA 2.82, WHiP 1.27, record 208-177, HR 38, BB ave 99, SO ave 116,

Rossman AVE 285.5, OPS 704, SB ave 14, f% 981, 2 WS 07--474/476/579

Schaefer ave 257, OPS 625, f% about 955, SB ave 28, couple interesting stories

Siever 2.6 ERA, 1.23 WhiP, Record 83-83, BB 44, SO 64, 07-WS record 0-1

Ed Summers ERA 2.42, Whip 1.14, record 68-45, SO 72, BB 44, struggled in two WS
Here are my chicken scratchings. I understood last night exactly what I was looking for as I made my notes on wordpad. Not sure I could answer questions about some of them now. I did not make notes on all on the list, some were obvious to me (for my purposes) without having to go through all the calculations. Being on this list or not being on this list does not indicate whether or not I voted for them. Hope some of this helps.
I apologize that all of this comes out as chicken scratchings. I had done it for comparison purposes and not for publishing purposes. For the 1920 election, I will try to make it more understandable.

[Mudman]

I am certainly not interested in considering anyone merely for their longivity with the Tigers. I have always felt that there are far too many players in Cooperstown that were not great but had long (and good) careers. Their numbers are therefore a reflection of length of career not dominance.
I have approached this attempting to determine who does not belong and why as opposed to who does and pare the list accordingly. I do not know if I will ever use the maximum five votes allowed. I am afraid that I will look back when we have covered a few decades and be second guessing myself.

[estrepe1]

I am certainly not interested in considering anyone merely for their longivity with the Tigers. I have always felt that there are far too many players in Cooperstown that were not great but had long (and good) careers. Their numbers are therefore a reflection of length of career not dominance.
I have approached this attempting to determine who does not belong and why as opposed to who does and pare the list accordingly. I do not know if I will ever use the maximum five votes allowed. I am afraid that I will look back when we have covered a few decades and be second guessing myself.

I was not suggesting that longevity is the most important criterion. But to me it should be a part of the decision. If one player has an amazing season but his career is only 2 seasons long and another player has 8 above average seasons but not that one season where he is amazing. I would give the nod to the 8 season player before the 2 season player.

[Mudman]

I was not suggesting that longevity is the most important criterion. But to me it should be a part of the decision. If one player has an amazing season but his career is only 2 seasons long and another player has 8 above average seasons but not that one season where he is amazing. I would give the nod to the 8 season player before the 2 season player.
I guess I am looking at it more like the MVP award which is intended to recognize the player who has contributed the most to the success of the player's team, in this case the Tigers. Granted we are looking at Tiger careers vs. a season. If a two year Tiger contributed more in those two seasons to Detroits' success than another did in eight then that player deserves my vote IMO.

[estrepe1]

I guess I am looking at it more like the MVP award which is intended to recognize the player who has contributed the most to the success of the player's team, in this case the Tigers. Granted we are looking at Tiger careers vs. a season. If a two year Tiger contributed more in those two seasons to Detroits' success than another did in eight then that player deserves my vote IMO.

How much has that player contributed to the success of the team if they weren't successful as an individual?

I am going to vote based on two factors. First is performance. Performance stands above all it doesn't matter if the player performs during a pennant run or during a 90 loss season. The player can't control the team that is around him. Team success won't be a huge issue for the Tigers because they didn't go through too many terrible stretches until the 1994 - 2005 stretch.

Second will be longevity with the Tigers. I consider this a weaker part of the formula but it is a part of the formula. I am not going to vote for someone that was with the team for 2 or fewer seasons.

I will admit right now I will probably be more critical than most voters. Its unlikely I will use all of my votes in every year. If I vote the way I am leaning on a couple of players in the future I have a feeling it will be a bit controversial.

[whitecapwendy]

I guess I am looking at it more like the MVP award which is intended to recognize the player who has contributed the most to the success of the player's team, in this case the Tigers. Granted we are looking at Tiger careers vs. a season. If a two year Tiger contributed more in those two seasons to Detroits' success than another did in eight then that player deserves my vote IMO.
I see what both of you are saying. If I had two votes left I would probably vote for both. However if I had to choose between the two, and the 8 year veteran was a steady workhorse helping the team most of those 8 years, I would choose him. there is something to be said about someone who has a .285-.290 with OPS of high.700-.800 for several years over someone who for one year puts up a .325/.480/.600 season (yes all made up numbers--not referring to a player). The help long term helps the team overall. I did not throw out players who put up really good numbers who were just with the team a couple years, but made sure they were compared with all the others. Longevity did have an influence if they were basically an above average player.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Wendy, are you averaging averages? (OPS, WHIP, etc)
Your results will be off unless you add up the component statistics first, then figure the averages.

Example:
I bat .300 in 400 at-bats (120/400)
I bat .350 in 200 at-bats (70/200)
I bat .250 in 400 at-bats (100/400)

If I average .300, .350, .250, that equals .300

But actually over the 3 years I was (290/1000),
so my true BA for that period was .290

Just making sure you were not making a very common math error (apologies - I was a math major) :wink:

[whitecapwendy]

Wendy, are you averaging averages? (OPS, WHIP, etc)
Your results will be off unless you add up the component statistics first, then figure the averages.

Example:
I bat .300 in 400 at-bats (120/400)
I bat .350 in 200 at-bats (70/200)
I bat .250 in 400 at-bats (100/400)

If I average .300, .350, .250, that equals .300

But actually over the 3 years I was (290/1000),
so my true BA for that period was .290

Just making sure you were not making a very common math error (apologies - I was a math major) :wink:
I was doing it incorrectly, and I realize that it is not totally accurate. I was looking at the list of averages and wondering what the average of those were. Since figuring all of those out with the original components would take a lot more time I have (I work for a living among other things :laugh: ). I was just trying to get an idea of approximately how the guy was doing over the seasons in order to compare him with the others. I suppose I should be doing it the correct way, but..........

When we get the lists of 10-15, I am wondering if others would be interested in several of us taking 2-3 of the guys and figuring these things out the right way. That would make average stats for the Tigers available to all on the committee (accurately) and it wouldn't be as time consuming since the labor would be spread out. Any others interested?? Probably starting with the 1920 vote at this point. If we had 4-6 of us doing it, it would only be maybe 2-3 we would each end up doing.

[estrepe1]

You could run a weighted average. It won't be perfect but take the average stats and multiply each component by the at bats/innings. Then divide by their total number of at bats/innings in their career.

For example lets take Player A:

100 AB 125 OPS +
400 AB 140 OPS +
426 AB 110 OPS +


Take the number of at bats and add them up to get 926 at bats.

Multiply each component and add the products:

125 * 100 + 400 * 140 + 426 * 110 = 115360

So a crude average would be 115360 / 926 = 124.579

Like I said its not a perfect result and isn't statistically right on since you aren't using the exact components. However it should give you a decent idea of the actual average stat over their career
with the Tigers.

Just taking a straight average wouldn't make much difference in my example. But it could in other examples.

So I guess you can go with straight averages. However it could create a problem if a player has a 100 at bat season with a stat that is a lot higher than the others.

[DaYooperASBDT]

(placing a call to Chas) ...... :classic:

If someone like Chas could simply run some database queries, that would save tons of work.

If that's not possible, I may look at setting up a spreadsheet, copying stats into that, and letting the spreadsheet formulas do the hard work. I'll try to whip something up.

[estrepe1]

(placing a call to Chas) ...... :classic:


Oh it definitely would be best to calculate every statistic yourself. I plan on doing so. However if someone doesn't want to take the time or doesn't understand the higher level statistics I think the weighted average method would work at least on some level.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Hang on guys, I think I found the numbers we need ....
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/bat.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/pitch.shtml

[estrepe1]

Nice find. BTW I think that DT is providing the Tigers stats at the start of this thread. I am sure that will continue for the 1920 class and so on.

[whitecapwendy]

You could run a weighted average. It won't be perfect but take the average stats and multiply each component by the at bats/innings. Then divide by their total number of at bats/innings in their career.

For example lets take Player A:

100 AB 125 OPS +
400 AB 140 OPS +
426 AB 110 OPS +


Take the number of at bats and add them up to get 926 at bats.

Multiply each component and add the products:

125 * 100 + 400 * 140 + 426 * 110 = 115360

So a crude average would be 115360 / 926 = 124.579

Like I said its not a perfect result and isn't statistically right on since you aren't using the exact components. However it should give you a decent idea of the actual average stat over their career
with the Tigers.

Just taking a straight average wouldn't make much difference in my example. But it could in other examples.

So I guess you can go with straight averages. However it could create a problem if a player has a 100 at bat season with a stat that is a lot higher than the others.
For the most part, when I have been averaging averages the way I was doing it, if there was a season or two that were really light (anything less than about 80-90 games), I have been dropping those seasons off, because those stats would not have been a good indicator anyway. (unless the average was pretty similar to other years). Like on the fielding percentages if a player had a 1.000 average over 15-20 games in another position, I just dropped that percentage off. I tried to average similar seasons gamewise together--because I knew that I would not be getting a fair reading on the lighter seasons.

BTW, my first glance at your method had a reaction of "huh??" but then I worked through it--it is do-able.

[whitecapwendy]

Hang on guys, I think I found the numbers we need ....
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/bat.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/DET/pitch.shtml
Yeah, I found that today as I was trying to research the 1920 vote. So far in my clicking on names, I have found one guy I am voting for in the 1920. I will have to go 1915 and earlier to find players who retired on or before 1920. I love that site. (I may not need my chicken scratchings). baseball-reference.com is now on my list of favorites.

[One Man's Fool]

Sorry.

[estrepe1]

I don't think people have finished voting yet OMF. You should probably avoid sharing your ballot until the time is up.

[dt35456884]

Yes, can we please not reveal our ballots until the results are in?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Those pages on Baseball-Reference, I think that might be also where DT found the numbers he used in Post #1, now that I look at it more closely!

Another quick dirty method I have used for hitters:

Divide the total Detroit at-bats by, say, 462, to determine the "number of full seasons"
(154 games X 3 at-bats per game = 462)
Example: Barrett had 2259 at-bats, so 2259/462 would equals about 4.89 "full seasons".

Then just divide all the totals by 4.89 to obtain Barrett's "average season stats"

Barrett
462 AB's
78.3 Runs
135 Hits
12 Doubles
6.13 Triples
2.04 Home Runs
35.58 RBI
63.2 Walks
18.8 SB
.292/.382/.358
118 OPS+

(Just have to remember to tweak this once you reach the years with a 162-game schedule)

PS - If you want greater accuracy, use plate appearances, find the number needed to quality for the batting title, and divide Total PA's by that figure, to find the number of "full seasons".

[whitecapwendy]

Those pages on Baseball-Reference, I think that might be also where DT found the numbers he used in Post #1, now that I look at it more closely!

Another quick dirty method I have used for hitters:

Divide the total Detroit at-bats by, say, 462, to determine the "number of full seasons"
(154 games X 3 at-bats per game = 462)
Example: Barrett had 2259 at-bats, so 2259/462 would equals about 4.89 "full seasons".

Then just divide all the totals by 4.89 to obtain Barrett's "average season stats"

Barrett
462 AB's
78.3 Runs
135 Hits
12 Doubles
6.13 Triples
2.04 Home Runs
35.58 RBI
63.2 Walks
18.8 SB
.292/.382/.358
118 OPS+


(Just have to remember to tweak this once you reach the years with a 162-game schedule)

PS - If you want greater accuracy, use plate appearances, find the number needed to quality for the batting title, and divide Total PA's by that figure, to find the number of "full seasons".

OKay, that is an easy way to figure and keep it accurate. Question--explain to me what the OPS+ is and why it is so much lower than a regular OPS. While you are at it. What would be considered an average/poor/excellent OPS+ so I can use that stat effectively.

[estrepe1]

OPS + is a regulated OPS that is based around 100. 100 is an average player.

It takes into account both the park they played in and the era.

[whitecapwendy]

OPS + is a regulated OPS that is based around 100. 100 is an average player.

It takes into account both the park they played in and the era.
okay thanks

[estrepe1]

To me 118 is slightly above average. For comparisons sake Cobb's peak OPS + year was 209. His career average was 167.

For comparisons sake Neifi Perez has a career average 63 for an OPS +.

[whitecapwendy]

To me 118 is slightly above average. For comparisons sake Cobb's peak OPS + year was 209. His career average was 167.

For comparisons sake Neifi Perez has a career average 63 for an OPS +.
Yeah, I was figuring in my head today "over" .600 OPS seems to be about average, so I thought perhaps .118 would be maybe .650-.700 as we would look at it generally --good, but not like a .900 or over 1.000.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I like OPS+ as it helps to compare across eras and is a quick measure of "above average seasons". Of course no stat is perfect, so I try to look at as many as time allows.

[estrepe1]

Yeah, I was figuring in my head today "over" .600 OPS seems to be about average, so I thought perhaps .118 would be maybe .650-.700 as we would look at it generally --good, but not like a .900 or over 1.000.


Today over .600 ops is well below average. What is average and not average depends on position.

The average ops in the AL last season was .776.

.650 - .700 would be considered quite bad in this age as well.

In 1915 though the average AL OPS was .651. So back then .650 - .700 would be viewed as an average player.

[whitecapwendy]

Today over .600 ops is well below average. What is average and not average depends on position.

The average ops in the AL last season was .776.

.650 - .700 would be considered quite bad in this age as well.

In 1915 though the average AL OPS was .651. So back then .650 - .700 would be viewed as an average player.
okay, thinking adjusted (just once I heard someone make a comment on a sub-.600 OPS and didn't realize at the time how bad the criticism was :shocked:

[whitecapwendy]

I like OPS+ as it helps to compare across eras and is a quick measure of "above average seasons". Of course no stat is perfect, so I try to look at as many as time allows.
That is why I chose 5-6 stats and made them as differing as possible to try to achieve somewhat of a balance. I figure average and OPS+ cover a pretty good range. SB gives somewhat of an idea of speed and base instinct--although it would be nice to have CS on there as well. throw in BB/SO comparison and you get somewhat of an idea of patience at the plate and fielding % tells a little, but would love to have fielding opportunities and range thrown in there to get a better feel (ie B.Inge).

[DaYooperASBDT]

Don't forget voters, the deadline cometh !!
Voters who are selected must vote by: Feb. 7, 6 p.m.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Keep pouring over those stats, Wendy. It's good to keep in mind that we are still in the "deadball" era, when the ball was more like a tightly covered beanbag, than today's golf ball.

So the style of play in 1901-1920 reflected that, as did the stats. Less strikeouts, more bunting/stealing, and as you have seen, FAR fewer extra base hits.

Fielding, what a trip. Guys would often have 60-80 errors back then. The fields and twi-light games, plus the lousy equipment, those were all factors I suppose.

Have I warned you of the perils of stat addiction?
:cheeky: I wasted most of my childhood on them !! (And much of my adulthood - wifey would confirm that!)

It can lead to unsavory activities, such as Fantasy Baseball .... :classic:

[tiger337]

OPS+ is OPS compared to league average after adjusting for league, era and ballpark. OPS+=100 is average. OPS+=110 is 10% above average. OPS+=95 is 5% below average. It's good because it allows us to better compare players from