Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

Starting with Honus

By Bill James

February 1, 2018

99. 19^th Century Shortstops

Before I moved on to the shortstops, I made a couple of more changes to the method. One is, I’m going to start "counting" the 19^th century points in the totals. The 19^th century is kind of a mess; there will be 6 major league teams one year and then five years later there will be 30. Teams fold in mid-season, and there are players who play all over the field so that a guy may play 80 games at shortstop and pitch 25 games on the mound—all of them complete games, so it will be 225 innings or something—so he may have may have 75% of his games at shortstop but 80% of his value as a pitcher. It’s just a mess, structurally, so that including 19^th century rankings with 20^th century rankings is kind of like mixing sewage water with your drinking water.

But the alternative approach—ignoring 19^th century players, or putting 19^th century players in a separate compartment, has issues, too, since many players played both in the 19^th and the 20^th centuries. I found that I started mixing 19^th century information in with 20^th sort of despite myself, and so I finally decided to abandon the separation entirely, except that I’m not going to go year-by-year through the 19^th century. Also, in order to make this work, I had to make some other compromises and special rules, but I’m not going to get into it because nobody cares.

The other change, relevant a little later, is that I began discounting the scores of the Federal League players in 1914-1915, for obvious reasons. I didn’t think they would pop up near the top of the lists, but they do, so. . .pretty obviously needed to be done.

Although most of the leading shortstops of the 19^th century were still active in 1900, Pebbly Jack Glasscock was the best shortstop purely of the 19^th century.

Rank	First	Last	From	To	1	2	3	4	5	YOPDI
1	Jack	Glasscock	1879	1895	6	2	4	1	1	93
2	Bill	Dahlen	1891	1911	0	6	2	1	0	52
3	Hughie	Jennings	1891	1918	5	0	0	0	0	50
4	Sam	Wise	1881	1893	1	4	1	2	2	48
5	Herman	Long	1889	1904	3	0	2	2	2	44

6	George	Wright	1876	1882	3	1	0	0	0	37
7	Frank	Fennelly	1884	1890	2	0	2	0	1	29
8	Monte	Ward	1878	1894	0	3	0	3	1	28
9	George	Davis	1890	1909	1	1	1	0	0	21
10	Ed	McKean	1887	1899	0	1	1	5	0	21

11	Ross	Barnes	1876	1881	1	1	0	1	1	20
12	John	Peters	1876	1884	0	2	0	2	1	19
13	Arthur	Irwin	1880	1894	1	0	2	0	0	18
14	Sadie	Houck	1879	1887	0	1	2	0	1	16
15	Bill	Gleason	1882	1889	0	1	1	1	1	14

The four Hall of Fame shortstops of the 19^th century all had something to sell other than what is reflected in this chart. Hughie Jennings was a famous manager as well as a dominant shortstop in the 1890s. George Wright was a great player before the National League became the National League in 1876. Monte Ward was a great pitcher as well as a shortstop; he was also a manager, second baseman, third baseman, outfielder, owner, and working baseball executive at various times. George Davis has dominant years at other positions, not counted in this chart, and had outstanding seasons post-1900.

I once had an exchange-of-letters conversation (or debate, or argument) with the late Robert Creamer about Pebbly Jack Glasscock, the greatest shortstop of 1880s. This was before e-mail. Bob had written an article for Sports Illustrated naming the greatest shortstops of all time, and had included Glasscock on the list. I wasn’t persuaded at the time, and we exchanged a couple of letters about it. I wish he was still around so I could tell him he was probably right. I believe Glasscock was called "Pebbly Jack" because he had the habit, between pitches, of picking up pebbles around his area at shortstop and tossing them off the field.

These are the top shortstops of the 19^th century by Peak Value:

Rank	First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	SB	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Peak
1	Hughie	Jennings	1896	0	121	70	.401	.472	.488	.960	35.48
2	George	Davis	1897	10	136	65	.353	.406	.509	.915	28.86
3	Bill	Dahlen	1896	9	74	51	.352	.438	.553	.990	28.09
4	Herman	Long	1891	9	75	60	.282	.377	.407	.785	27.46
5	Jack	Glasscock	1889	7	85	57	.352	.390	.467	.857	26.09

6	Monte	Ward	1890	4	60	63	.337	.394	.428	.822	24.77
7	Frank	Fennelly	1886	6	NA	32	.249	.351	.380	.732	24.54
8	Sam	Wise	1887	9	92	43	.334	.390	.522	.913	24.43
9	Bobby	Wallace	1899	12	108	17	.295	.357	.454	.811	23.53
10	Ollie	Beard	1889	1	77	36	.285	.328	.364	.692	23.53

11	Mike	Moynahan	1883	1	NA	NA	.307	.356	.410	.766	23.05
12	Ed	McKean	1888	6	68	52	.299	.340	.425	.765	23.00
13	Ross	Barnes	1876	1	59	NA	.429	.462	.590	1.052	21.06
14	Jack	Rowe	1886	6	87	12	.303	.340	.425	.765	20.81
15	Candy	Nelson	1884	1	NA	NA	.255	.375	.310	.685	20.68

100. The Honus Wagner Era and a Half

Honus Wagner’s primary position is listed as Center Field in 1897, First Base in 1898, Third Base in 1899 and Right Field in 1900. This enabled Bill Dahlen to be listed as the #1 shortstop in baseball in 1900. In 1901 Wagner moved to short, sort of; he was still playing all over the field, but a few more games at short than anywhere else, so he began his long run as the greatest shortstop in baseball, if not the greatest of all time.

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Bill	Dahlen	1900	1	69	.259	.364	.344	.708	23.40
George	Davis	1900	3	61	.319	.376	.406	.782	23.27

Honus	Wagner	1901	6	126	.353	.416	.494	.910	37.09
George	Davis	1901	7	65	.301	.356	.426	.782	24.52
Bobby	Wallace	1901	2	91	.324	.351	.451	.802	24.27
Bill	Dahlen	1901	4	82	.266	.313	.358	.671	22.59
Freddy	Parent	1901	4	59	.306	.367	.408	.775	20.85

Honus	Wagner	1902	3	91	.330	.394	.463	.857	38.43
George	Davis	1902	3	93	.299	.386	.402	.788	24.60
Freddy	Parent	1902	3	62	.275	.309	.374	.683	24.12
Bill	Dahlen	1902	2	74	.264	.329	.353	.682	23.73
Bobby	Wallace	1902	1	63	.285	.350	.393	.743	23.34

Honus	Wagner	1903	5	101	.355	.414	.518	.931	40.36
Freddy	Parent	1903	4	80	.304	.326	.441	.767	26.31
Bill	Dahlen	1903	1	64	.262	.373	.342	.715	23.91
Kid	Elberfeld	1903	0	64	.301	.365	.383	.747	23.35
Bobby	Wallace	1903	1	54	.266	.309	.341	.650	22.75

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Honus	Wagner	1904	4	75	.349	.423	.520	.944	44.66
George	Davis	1904	1	69	.252	.311	.359	.670	26.07
Freddy	Parent	1904	6	77	.291	.330	.389	.719	24.71
Bill	Dahlen	1904	2	80	.268	.326	.337	.662	24.51
Bobby	Wallace	1904	2	69	.275	.330	.355	.685	23.13

Honus	Wagner	1905	6	101	.363	.427	.505	.932	46.34
George	Davis	1905	1	55	.278	.353	.340	.693	26.74
Bill	Dahlen	1905	7	81	.242	.337	.337	.673	22.42
Bobby	Wallace	1905	1	59	.271	.324	.349	.673	21.95
Kid	Elberfeld	1905	0	53	.262	.329	.318	.647	20.56

Honus	Wagner	1906	2	71	.339	.416	.459	.875	48.33
George	Davis	1906	0	80	.277	.338	.355	.694	27.08
Bobby	Wallace	1906	2	67	.258	.344	.345	.688	22.85
Terry	Turner	1906	2	62	.291	.338	.372	.709	22.21
Kid	Elberfeld	1906	2	31	.306	.378	.384	.763	19.70

Honus	Wagner	1907	6	82	.350	.408	.513	.921	48.55
Bobby	Wallace	1907	0	70	.257	.328	.320	.647	21.01
George	Davis	1907	1	52	.238	.313	.288	.601	20.14
Kid	Elberfeld	1907	0	51	.271	.343	.336	.678	18.59
Joe	Tinker	1907	1	36	.221	.269	.271	.540	18.47

Honus	Wagner	1908	10	109	.354	.415	.542	.957	51.48
Joe	Tinker	1908	6	68	.266	.307	.392	.699	25.84
Bobby	Wallace	1908	1	60	.253	.327	.324	.652	20.93
Al	Bridwell	1908	0	46	.285	.364	.319	.683	20.03
Heinie	Wagner	1908	1	46	.247	.288	.293	.581	17.41

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Honus	Wagner	1909	5	100	.339	.420	.489	.909	43.88
Joe	Tinker	1909	4	57	.256	.280	.372	.652	24.70
Donie	Bush	1909	0	33	.273	.380	.314	.694	24.44
Al	Bridwell	1909	0	55	.294	.386	.338	.724	22.38
Heinie	Wagner	1909	1	49	.256	.316	.333	.649	19.53

Honus	Wagner	1910	4	81	.320	.390	.432	.822	36.02
Joe	Tinker	1910	3	69	.288	.322	.397	.719	23.95
Donie	Bush	1910	3	34	.262	.365	.323	.687	23.33
Heinie	Wagner	1910	1	52	.273	.335	.360	.696	21.21
Al	Bridwell	1910	0	48	.276	.374	.335	.710	21.06

Honus	Wagner	1911	9	89	.334	.423	.507	.930	32.99
Donie	Bush	1911	1	36	.232	.349	.287	.636	22.72
Joe	Tinker	1911	4	69	.278	.327	.390	.717	21.88
Jack	Barry	1911	1	63	.265	.333	.344	.677	20.89
Art	Fletcher	1911	1	37	.319	.400	.429	.829	18.65

Honus	Wagner	1912	7	102	.324	.395	.496	.891	31.28
Donie	Bush	1912	2	38	.231	.377	.301	.679	21.77
Art	Fletcher	1912	1	57	.282	.330	.372	.702	21.37
Jack	Barry	1912	0	55	.261	.335	.337	.673	20.61
Joe	Tinker	1912	0	75	.282	.331	.351	.681	20.34

Honus	Wagner	1913	3	56	.300	.349	.385	.734	24.49
Art	Fletcher	1913	4	71	.297	.345	.390	.735	23.96
Donie	Bush	1913	1	40	.251	.344	.322	.665	21.46
Jack	Barry	1913	3	85	.275	.349	.365	.714	20.57
Joe	Tinker	1913	1	57	.317	.352	.445	.797	19.17

Not wanting to turn this into a Hall of Fame piece, but there are multiple Hall of Fame shortstops of the Honus Wagner era and a half—Joe Tinker, George Davis, Bobby Wallace. From now (1913) forward for almost 50 years there are usually two or three or more active Hall of Fame shortstops.

101. The Era of the Buts

For six years after Honus Wagner finally faded there was a series of one- and two-year leaders. In this era there were a bunch of shortstops who would have been great, but. Charlie Hollocher would have been the king of the position, but he was kind of a nut. Not to be unkind; he just couldn’t handle the pressures associated with being a major league star. Ray Chapman would have been great, but he got killed by a pitch. Buck Weaver would have been great, but he moved to third base and got kicked out of baseball. Rogers Hornsby was great, but he didn’t stay at shortstop. The best were Art Fletcher, Maranville-Maranville, Hornsby-Hornsby, and Roger Peckinpaugh.

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Art	Fletcher	1914	2	79	.286	.332	.379	.711	23.06
Honus	Wagner	1914	1	50	.252	.317	.317	.634	21.51
Rabbit	Maranville	1914	4	78	.246	.306	.326	.632	21.39
George	Perring	1914	2	69	.278	.355	.387	.742	21.15
Jimmy	Esmond	1914	2	49	.295	.344	.404	.748	18.21
Donie	Bush	1914	0	32	.252	.373	.295	.668	16.09
Jack	Barry	1914	0	42	.242	.324	.268	.592	15.73
Mickey	Doolan	1914	1	53	.245	.311	.323	.634	15.65

Rabbit	Maranville	1915	2	43	.244	.308	.324	.632	22.03
Honus	Wagner	1915	6	78	.274	.325	.422	.747	20.45
Art	Fletcher	1915	3	74	.254	.280	.326	.606	20.07
George	Perring	1915	7	67	.259	.327	.363	.690	19.71
Donie	Bush	1915	1	44	.228	.364	.283	.648	18.49
Dave	Bancroft	1915	7	30	.254	.346	.330	.676	18.44
Buck	Weaver	1915	3	49	.268	.316	.355	.671	18.07
Jimmy	Esmond	1915	5	62	.258	.329	.355	.684	17.25

Rabbit	Maranville	1916	4	38	.235	.296	.325	.620	23.81
Art	Fletcher	1916	3	66	.286	.323	.382	.705	21.49
Dave	Bancroft	1916	3	33	.212	.323	.252	.574	19.73
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1916	4	58	.255	.332	.346	.678	19.27
Donie	Bush	1916	0	34	.225	.319	.267	.587	17.96

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Rogers	Hornsby	1917	8	66	.327	.385	.484	.868	31.78
Ray	Chapman	1917	2	36	.302	.370	.409	.779	24.25
Rabbit	Maranville	1917	3	43	.260	.312	.357	.668	21.49
Donie	Bush	1917	0	24	.281	.370	.322	.691	20.83
Art	Fletcher	1917	4	56	.260	.312	.343	.655	20.45

Rogers	Hornsby	1918	5	60	.281	.349	.416	.764	27.64
Ray	Chapman	1918	1	32	.267	.390	.352	.742	23.18
Charlie	Hollocher	1918	2	38	.316	.379	.397	.775	21.66
Buck	Weaver	1918	0	29	.300	.323	.352	.675	20.40
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1918	0	43	.231	.303	.278	.581	19.50

Roger	Peckinpaugh	1919	7	33	.305	.390	.404	.794	23.19
Ray	Chapman	1919	3	53	.300	.351	.420	.772	21.66
Dave	Bancroft	1919	0	25	.272	.333	.352	.686	19.57
Rabbit	Maranville	1919	5	43	.267	.319	.377	.696	18.10
Art	Fletcher	1919	3	54	.277	.300	.357	.656	17.78

102. Dave Bancroft

From 1920 to 1932 there were a series of #1 shortstops, all of whom

a) lasted three or four years on top, and

b) made it to the Hall of Fame.

Dave Bancroft was the first of those. Bancroft was a likeable guy from the Midwest, friendly with reporters and very comfortable in New York. He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1971, by a committee including several of his old buddies. He should not be in the Hall of Fame, but he was a good player. He was the best shortstop in baseball from 1920 to 1922, and remained on the list of the best shortstops in baseball until 1926.

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Dave	Bancroft	1920	0	36	.299	.346	.387	.732	24.92
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1920	8	54	.270	.356	.386	.742	21.41
Ray	Chapman	1920	3	49	.303	.380	.423	.803	18.52
Rabbit	Maranville	1920	1	43	.266	.305	.371	.676	17.43
Charlie	Hollocher	1920	0	22	.319	.406	.389	.795	16.85

Dave	Bancroft	1921	6	67	.318	.389	.441	.830	27.84
Joe	Sewell	1921	4	91	.318	.412	.444	.856	22.47
Rabbit	Maranville	1921	1	70	.294	.347	.379	.727	20.79
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1921	8	71	.288	.380	.397	.777	19.84
Charlie	Hollocher	1921	3	37	.289	.342	.384	.725	16.18

Dave	Bancroft	1922	4	60	.321	.397	.418	.815	26.21
Joe	Sewell	1922	2	83	.299	.386	.385	.771	22.74
Rabbit	Maranville	1922	0	63	.295	.355	.378	.733	20.16
Charlie	Hollocher	1922	3	69	.340	.403	.444	.847	18.02
Chick	Galloway	1922	6	69	.324	.368	.433	.801	17.52

103. The Guy Who Never Struck Out

When Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch in August, 1920, the Cleveland Indians purchased the contract of Joe Sewell to take his place. Sewell made 15 errors in 22 games in 1920, but hit .329, and the Indians surged to the pennant. Called to the majors after September 1, Chapman would not ordinarily have been eligible to play in the World Series, but Brooklyn manager Wilbert Robinson waived the rule, and allowed Chapman to play for the Indians.

Sewell was a small man (5-6, 155 pounds) using a 40-ounce bat, which in modern terms is sort of like a construction beam; reportedly he used only one bat during his entire major league career. The thinking of the time wasn’t "bat speed"; it was "contact". Sewell was the greatest contact guy of all time, striking out only about once every two weeks for his entire career, and much less than that over the second half of his career. He probably wasn’t a GREAT defensive shortstop, but he was a lifetime .312 hitter with an on base percentage close to .400:

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Joe	Sewell	1923	3	109	.353	.456	.479	.935	25.90
Dave	Bancroft	1923	1	31	.304	.391	.399	.789	23.94
Topper	Rigney	1923	1	74	.315	.389	.419	.808	18.75
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1923	2	62	.264	.340	.320	.660	17.63
Rabbit	Maranville	1923	1	41	.277	.327	.346	.673	17.19

Joe	Sewell	1924	4	104	.316	.388	.429	.817	24.05
Glenn	Wright	1924	7	111	.287	.318	.425	.744	19.88
Topper	Rigney	1924	4	93	.289	.410	.407	.817	19.36
Dave	Bancroft	1924	2	21	.279	.356	.339	.694	19.03
Roger	Peckinpaugh	1924	2	73	.272	.360	.340	.700	18.64

Joe	Sewell	1925	1	98	.336	.402	.424	.827	24.65
Glenn	Wright	1925	18	121	.308	.341	.480	.822	22.34
Dave	Bancroft	1925	2	49	.319	.400	.426	.826	21.38
Travis	Jackson	1925	9	59	.285	.327	.397	.724	17.46
Heinie	Sand	1925	3	55	.278	.364	.385	.749	16.60

Joe	Sewell	1926	4	85	.324	.399	.433	.832	25.75
Glenn	Wright	1926	8	77	.308	.335	.459	.794	22.15
Travis	Jackson	1926	8	51	.327	.362	.494	.856	21.08
Dave	Bancroft	1926	1	44	.311	.399	.384	.783	19.11
Heinie	Sand	1926	4	37	.272	.350	.363	.713	17.28

104. Travis Jackson

In the late 1920s the #1 shortstop in baseball was Travis Jackson:

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Travis	Jackson	1927	14	98	.318	.363	.486	.849	23.70
Joe	Sewell	1927	1	92	.316	.382	.424	.805	22.95
Glenn	Wright	1927	9	105	.281	.328	.388	.716	20.43
Marty	McManus	1927	9	69	.268	.332	.431	.763	19.07
Mark	Koenig	1927	3	62	.285	.320	.382	.702	17.92

Travis	Jackson	1928	14	77	.270	.339	.436	.775	22.84
Joe	Sewell	1928	4	70	.323	.391	.418	.809	21.94
Glenn	Wright	1928	8	66	.310	.343	.457	.800	18.03
Mark	Koenig	1928	4	63	.319	.360	.415	.774	17.89
Buddy	Myer	1928	1	44	.313	.379	.390	.769	17.41

Travis	Jackson	1929	21	94	.294	.367	.490	.857	22.80
Joe	Cronin	1929	8	61	.281	.388	.421	.809	20.96
Red	Kress	1929	9	107	.305	.366	.436	.802	19.90
Woody	English	1929	1	52	.276	.352	.339	.691	19.78
Dick	Bartell	1929	2	57	.302	.347	.420	.766	17.99

I have on many occasions decried Jackson’s selection to the Hall of Fame, and honesty compels me to say that I am a little surprised to see that he ranks as the number one player of his era, even if it is only a three-year era. He had a short career—it ended when he was 32—and he was selected to the Hall of Fame because a group of his old friends dominated the committee which was doing the selections. But he was a fine player for a few years.

The name "Travis" is derived from the French word "traverse", meaning to cross over. Back when bridges were in short supply if you needed to take your wagon load of produce to a market you would likely have to cross a river, and you would have to pay a toll to cross the bridge, either to the government or to whoever owned the bridge. Typically the toll was a penny or the lowest coin. The name "Travis" (or "Travers") was given to the toll taker, the guy whose job was to wait by the bridge and collect the pennies. Now there’s a bridge in Seattle that they charge you $6 to cross, and 40,000 people a day cross the bridge, so that’s quite a few pennies.

105. The Joe Cronin Era

From 1930 to 1932 the best shortstop in baseball was Joe Cronin.

First	Last	YEAR	HR	RBI	Avg	OBA	SPct	OPS	Value
Joe	Cronin	1930	13	126	.346	.422	.513	.934	29.37
Woody	English	1930	14	59	.335	.430	.511	.941	23.82
Red	Kress	1930	16	112	.313	.366	.487	.853	20.92
Travis	Jackson	1930	13	82	.339	.386	.529	.915	20.47
Dick	Bartell	1930	4	75	.320	.378	.467	.845	19.34

Joe	Cronin	1931	12	126	.306	.391	.480	.870	32.77
Red	Kress	1931	16	114	.311	.360	.493	.853	22.36
Woody	English	1931	2	53	.319	.391	.413	.804	22.26
Lyn	Lary	1931	10	107	.280	.376	.416	.793	20.42
Travis	Jackson	1931	5	71	.310	.353	.420	.773	19.37

Joe	Cronin	1932	6	116	.318	.393	.492	.885	31.99
Arky	Vaughan	1932	4	61	.318	.375	.412	.787	22.92
Dick	Bartell	1932	1	53	.308	.379	.414	.792	20.76
Eric	McNair	1932	18	95	.285	.323	.478	.801	19.69
Red	Kress	1932	11	66	.275	.336	.425	.761	19.67

Travis Jackson was the #1 shortstop in baseball for three years and Joe Cronin was for three years, so what’s the difference?

Joe Cronin had a lifetime .390 on base percentage, Jackson .337, so that’s a 53-point difference, which is larger than the difference between the best offense in baseball last year (Houston) and the worst (San Diego). Houston had the highest team on-base percentage in baseball and the most runs scored; San Diego had the lowest team on-base percentage in baseball and also the fewest runs scored, as will often happen. The difference between them in on base percentage is 47 points (.346 to .299); between Cronin and Jackson, 53 points.

Cronin had 2,285 hits in his career, Jackson 1,768, so there’s that. Cronin hit 170 homers and Jackson 135, but that understates the real difference in power because Jackson hit more home runs in his "home" parks than Cronin did, 89 to 86; Cronin out homered Jackson almost two to one in road parks. Cronin drove in 100 runs eight times; Jackson once. Cronin scored 100 runs four times; Jackson never did. Jackson’s career OPS was 80 points better than the average shortstop in his era; Cronin’s was 131 points better. Cronin drew more than twice as many walks as Jackson—easily more than twice as many. Cronin hit over 500 doubles; Jackson less than 300. Cronin had more hits than Jackson, more doubles, triples, homers, walks, stolen bases, a higher batting average, on base percentage and slugging percentage.

In the YOPDI score, when we get to that, Jackson will have a YOPDI of 39—three years as the #1 player at the position (30 points) but not much else. Cronin will have a YOPDI score of 75—three years as the #1 player, but five years as the #2 player, plus other years on the chart.

And I would regard Cronin as a kind of a marginal Hall of Famer; maybe not marginal, maybe "marginal" is too harsh a word, but he’s not a strong Hall of Famer, he’s an OK Hall of Famer. And he was President of the American League for fifteen years, although maybe that’s not relevant because he was in the Hall of Fame before he was elected the league president.

The name "Cronin" is a derived from an Irish word "cron", which refers to a flower or an object of that color, which is kind of a yellow/orange. The name was originally given to persons from the region where the flower is common, or to members of a group which had adopted the flower as their emblem. It is not related to the word "crony", which is derived from time (Chronos. Friends of long standing, friends over time.)

COMMENTS (32 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
Dunno about him "searching" for a word .....sometimes that's just the way we express things when we want to convey that it's hard to exactly characterize them.
But I do have to say that it seems that Bill is going a bit against not only the traditional view of Cronin but also how he used to view him. In the New Historical Abstract, he has Cronin as the #8 shortstop, behind Banks and Larkin and Ozzie (as well as the top 4 guys at that time) but ahead of Trammell, Reese, Appling, Boudreau, Aparicio. That sure seemed like better than an "OK" Hall of Famer; not an extraordinary HOF'er but a solid one.
To be clear, I have no position myself at all. All I know is what I've read and heard, and the things I've relied on most strongly have been what Bill has written, so if in fact he has altered his view of Cronin....

From how he expresses it here, it seems he might now put Cronin more like 11th or 12th in the up-to-year-2000 rankings rather than 8th.
12:30 PM Feb 7th

3for3
I think the word Bill was searching for was 'average' in regards to Cronin's HOF worthiness. Being an average HOFer is great. He is within 2 WAR for all 3 measures on JAWS of the average HOFer.

By position, using JAWS, some other average HOFers:

C:Mickey Cochrane
1B: Willie McCovey
2B: Ryne Sandberg
3B: Graig Nettles*
LF: Billy Williams
CF: Carlos Beltran*
RF: Paul Waner/Larry Walker*
P: Tom Glavine
10:25 AM Feb 7th

JohnPontoon
...And now I'm writing after reading all of the comments. Before I posted my first comment, I did a search for the word "typo," finding no instances, although the mistake made isn't actually a typo, more of a brain cramp. Anyhow...

The times I've jumped into the comments simply to say nice things to Bill about what a treasure he is and how wonderful his writing he is, I actually felt a little bit silly about it. Actually, I kind of felt like an ass-kisser, which I very much try not to be. But we all, even the most successful of us by a gigantically enormous factor, like to be appreciated for the work we do, and we all enjoy not being taken for granted. So I guess my point here is this: Bill, you've really got to stop taking my wonderfulness for granted.
5:32 PM Feb 3rd

JohnPontoon
Bill, you have a typo - 2 typos - in the 1st paragraph under #103, wherein you twice say "Chapman" where you intend to say "Sewell." I'm probably bringing this to your attention too late for it to matter, and generally nobody gives a damn about typos here anyhow, because it's the internet. Huh. I shouldn't hit Post.
5:03 PM Feb 3rd

BobGill
That's true about Howard and Brinkman improving so much in 1969. I'm sure the change in the strike zone helped some, but I don't doubt that Williams' preaching about getting a good ball to hit also contributed. Besides howard and Brinkman, I'm pretty sure Mike Epstein and Ken McMullen also set career highs for walks in 1969 -- Epstein, in particular, I remember as a guy with a good eye, but he didn't display it before Williams got to Washington.

In Brinkman's case, Williams (and probably Nellie Fox, who was on the coaching staff) also got him to change his stance dramatically. He moved his feet wide apart in 1969 and didn't really stride at all, just basically picked up his front foot and set it down again. He also choked up on the bat a full two inches. All this was probably designed to keep him from overswinging, and it worked. I'm not looking this up, so no doubt these numbers will be slightly off, but in the days before Williams, Brinkman often finished with something like 20 doubles, 3 triples, 7 homers, 28 walks and 95 strikeouts. In 1969 it was more like 20 doubles, 2 triples, 3 homers, 60 walks and 50 strikeouts. He put the ball in play a lot more, took quite a few more walks, and thus raised his BA and OBP by 40 or 50 points -- that's compared to his better seasons, 1963, '64 and '66. If you compare to '65, '67 and '68 the improvement is much more dramatic than that.

Brinkman's 1970 stats were very similar, but then when he went to Detroit (without Williams to keep him from backsliding) his stats were more along the lines of 1963, '64 and '66 again. But with his fielding -- which was good, not great -- even that level of offense could keep him in the lineup.

3:16 PM Feb 3rd

MarisFan61
P.S. About Brinkman and Frank Howard, and their change when Ted Williams came in:
Since it was from 1968 to 1969, another thing was going on, and it accounted for much of the difference but not nearly all.
Hitting numbers went way up in general, and I see that WALKS (which was a big part of the change for both guys) went up hugely.
But, Brinkman's upward jump was far greater than just that, and Howard's shifts similarly aren't nearly accounted for by the general change.
1:50 PM Feb 3rd

MarisFan61
Main memory about Brinkman, besides just being basically good field-no hit:
It was said, in some parts, that his forward leap in hitting in mid-career (and he did take a forward leap of sorts, from godawful to just mediocre :-) ....actually up to what we could call not-half-bad for a good fielding shortstop) ......that his forward leap in hitting was because of Ted Williams becoming the team's manager. And it does coincide exactly.

Similarly, around that time, Frank Howard 'wrote' an article in SPORT Magazine detailing how Williams helped his hitting.
From his stat page, we could debate whether he actually got better at that moment, but I think it's not highly debatable that we see a change in his approach (which is in line with one of the main things he says in the article, that Williams urged him to 'take' more pitches), unless it was that coincidentally he started getting pitched very differently.
1:25 PM Feb 3rd

BobGill
That's true about Red Kress, and others too. As for me, I'm curious to see if Ed Brinkman will ever turn up on the list.
9:12 PM Feb 2nd

Manushfan
You know what was neat to see-Red Kress listed 4 times or so. Not someone you think of right off the bat.
2:34 PM Feb 2nd

Gfletch
Bill, re: your comment, "These comments are so depressing I am inclined to terminate the series at this point."

Is this because your articles aren't really about rating players? Are you really attempting to measure something about the frequency and duration of dominance by players?

I do notice that no matter what you write about, comments inevitably follow about why is this guy number 3 when I think he should be number 1, and so on.
2:21 PM Feb 2nd

MarisFan61
Bill: I think it's pretty surprising (and I'm genuinely curious) that the comments strike you that way. I don't even get at all what's so negative or different or annoying or whatever about these. Maybe it's just the accumulation from the other articles and you've 'had it up to here,' but I think we'd benefit if you said more.
And actually I can't even tell if you were being amusedly sarcastic rather than serious.

Anyway, at risk of saying stuff that hardly needs to be said and which might be about a thing that wasn't even serious, I think it's very safe to say that everybody here (literally everybody) loves this series, finds the approach novel and interesting, looks forward to each next installment, and can't get enough of it. I hadn't noticed if there's been any change in the ratio of positive to negative comments or in the nature of the comments, but if there are, I think another safe statement is that it's just because the positives are now taken for granted and people don't want to be repeating themselves.
11:27 AM Feb 2nd

raincheck
Thanks for this series, Bill. As Jeff said, you are the only guy who could have done this series. Sabermetrics has gravitated towards the (great work) being done to tryto optimize how the game is played today. Which is great, and practical, and can be monetized and is paid for by teams looking for an edge, and all that.

The other side, this kind of three dimensional look at the past, this kind of exploration of history... well, it isn't as easily monetized and maybe it isn't as broadly marketable. But it is the other thing sabermetrics can do, when it is combined with a knowledge of the history of the game (writ large and in details like the size of players and their bats) and an open and elastic mind and a sense of storytelling.

So enough hot air up your skirt. But I personally love this shtuff, can't get enough, and series like this are big part of why I pay the big money for this site. Thanks.
10:23 AM Feb 2nd

joedimino
For what it's worth, Glasscock, Dahlen, Jennings and Davis all made the Hall of Merit (took awhile for Jennings). Wright and Barnes are also in, but we counted everything even the NA from 1871-75 (Barnes has a whole ton of black ink there and was a favorite of the peak-inclined voters) and some even took into consideration what happened before that (which makes Wright a very easy choice).

Glasscock was a very easy choice for us. He is clearly the best SS of the pre-1900 era and Bill found this too.

Dahlen and Davis had a lot of value after 1899 and will rank much higher on the final list I'm sure. Ward is also in and his pitching value helped.

We started our elections in 1898, so I think Bill's system shows the same cream rising to the top that we found. Herman Long had some support but was ultimately rejected. Wise was discussed some but was never a serious candidate.

Also, from the 3B side, Ezra Sutton shows well in Bill's system, it was great seeing his name ranked highly. He was a pet candidate of mine and didn't have much trouble getting in after a slow start.
9:43 AM Feb 2nd

Manushfan
And if I'm not being clear I think these articles of his are great. More please.
9:28 AM Feb 2nd

Manushfan
So I'm impressed by Cronin, that's all. Not by him being a GM though. Some racist stuff there by the looks.
8:30 AM Feb 2nd

JimPertierra
Bill,
Totally fascinating stuff. This series means so much as a devourer of both verisons of the Historical Abstract, who always hoped for an update.
We current have a Diamond Mind league that is playing a season every 3 weeks starting with 1901. The have just started 1921 and all these names are very fresh to me as if I watched their latest game yesterday.
As your methods have become more and more precise, so has your writing.
Than ks!!
Best/Jim
From the hometown of George Davis
5:29 AM Feb 2nd

Riceman1974
I love these pieces. To me this is the essence of Sabermetrics: the ability to compare players of any era. So much sabermetrics today is about exit velocities and other crap that I personally have zero interest in because it limits the field of study to just today's players. I don't mean to disparage thrse new methods, and obviously these modern techniques help build winning teams, but my favorite part of the game is it's history. All the other major sports bury their histories, or totally ignore their history before a certain event, like pre-Super Bowl NFL or pre-Bird Magic NBA. Only in baseball can guys in their twenties today argue on the internets about the true value of Cupid Childs, or the continual Hall of Fame snub of the immortal Pete Browning. Bill taught me, and countless others, a new and fascinating way to study the history of this great game, and I certainly hope he continues to inspire me to learn more about those players of yesteryear.
3:26 AM Feb 2nd

MattGoodrich
Maybe I've been reading baseball stuff too long. I read this and my first thought was "I wonder what's the busiest bridge in the world?" The internet tells me the George Washington in NY gets the most cars. It's the Howrah Bridge in Kolkata, India if you're counting pedestrians (and cows). The Oakland Bay Bridge pulls in roughly 150,000,000 pennies each day though probably nobody pays with pennies anymore.
1:03 AM Feb 2nd

joedimino
I just want to add to the other recent comments, please don’t stop the series. These are great walks through history. They’ll be a nice resource for years to come. And, there isn’t really anything else like this out there right now in terms of new historical analysis, everything published seems to be geared towards the present.

That being said, in response to jemanji, I don’t think the others were trying to ‘score points’. Pointing out the few misses is good constructive criticism. The weren’t nit picky worthless points and the comments weren’t nasty in tone or anything. Barnes not having played SS in 1876 is something that should be pointed out, now that Bill is aware maybe some systematic issue can easily be fixed, etc.
12:16 AM Feb 2nd

mrbryan
When I was a boy, I wrote to old players asking for autographs. I also asked them questions about how the game was played in the old days. Many players sent back autographs, but only Joe Sewell ever took the time to write back. He told me that he used a 40 ounce bat in the spring, but would drop down to 37 ounces in the hot weather.
He wound up on some remarkable teams. His first manager was Tris Speaker, and his last was Joe McCarthy. He started his career as a teammate not only of Speaker, but of Smokey Joe Wood and his own brother, Luke, and he finished playing alongside of Dickey and Ruth and Gehrig, Gomez, and Ruffing.

Perhaps most remarkably, in his first full season, in 1921, when he struck out 17 times during the course of the season, there were three regulars on the team who struck out fewer times than him. He did lead the team in walks, though.

Thanks for writing these pieces, they move and involve me in the game in a way that brings together the past I never saw with the seasons yet to come.
11:24 PM Feb 1st

jemanji
Along similar lines, the title to 103 -- The Guy Who Never Struck Out -- is a spirited thrust aimed at finding JOY in the game, finding the colorful player who had an under-appreciated ability. And as so often, there's the very pregnant possibility that this skill could wind up impact today's game, or tomorrow's, as you've noted now and again.

Looking around the internet, I see many young sabermetric writers (such as Fangraphs' Jeff Sullivan) who feed off of this example and who consistently aim at seeing baseball as a game that is played at 76 degrees in sunshine. The joy of baseball rubs off a lot also.

Personally would agree that many of the comments below represent a different spirit of baseball "analysis" :- ) but your readership has always loved your writing for just the components that you gave here again.

- J

11:01 PM Feb 1st

jemanji
Alternatively, Bill, you could view them as very uplifting, since it's so important for (some of) your readers to "score points" on you by finding some trifle or other by which they can (however briefly) "compete" with you.

Heard a story about three sportswriters who were allowed to shoot a few baskets at the Forum once, and Jerry West wandered out to shoot a few at the same time.... naturally one of the beat writers would "compete" with West by shooting from any spot West missed one from.

But in a way a lot of the whole sabermetric industry is driven by similar motivations, so ... :- )

.....

When you're gone, there won't be a writer left -- that I know of, anyway -- to provide the "flavor text" to major league baseball from earlier eras. For every one guy trying to "score points" in the comments threads there are dozens or hundreds enjoying the flavor text.

Jeff

10:53 PM Feb 1st

bjames
These comments are so depressing I am inclined to terminate the series at this point.
9:02 PM Feb 1st

W.T.Mons10
Ross Barnes didn't play an inning at SS in 1876; he should be on the 2B list. And I guess these ratings aren't adjusted for season length, or he'd be at the top.
8:48 PM Feb 1st

ventboys
I dunno if he belongs in the Hall of Fame - Hall standards are like subjective horses, none of which I own - but Dave Bancroft's defensive numbers are spectacular. In a league where most of the league's pitchers - no longer allowed to use defaced baseballs - struck out 2-3 men a game while batting averages on balls in play spiked all over the league, Bancroft was making half- to one plays per game that the average shortstops weren't making. I don't know that he was the BEST defensive shortstop ever - I'd still go with Ozzie - but there's an argument that his superior range numbers were the most impressive - and perhaps the most useful.
8:15 PM Feb 1st

Manushfan
If Cronin is 'marginal', which I don't agree with-where does Maranville rate?
3:18 PM Feb 1st

shthar
I'm always disturbed by lists that put shortstops AFTER thirdbase.
1:12 PM Feb 1st

bearbyz
I think ARod's totals will be included with the shortstops, so Bill didn't forget him.
12:43 PM Feb 1st

Robinsong
What is remarkable is how weak the HOF shortstops are compared to 2B or 3B. Significantly lower peaks and worse on YOPDI.
11:23 AM Feb 1st

rwarn17588
Those value numbers Honus put up in the aughts were eye-popping. It's hard enough to get into the 30s, but Honus surpassed 40 several times and even topped 50 once.

Has anyone else hit 50 in season value in the lists so far?
10:11 AM Feb 1st

TJNawrocki
It is interesting to see Hughie Jennings atop the list of 19th century shortstops, because you have attacked his selection to the Hall of Fame in the past. ("...the Hall of Fame had, for the first time, selected a player who clearly had no damn business being there.") Has your assessment of Jennings changed, or do you think he was merely the best of a weak lot and still not worthy of enshrinement?
9:59 AM Feb 1st

rpmcsweeney
Bill, in case you aren't checking comments on the 3rd base wrap up--I think ARod was omitted from the list of greatest 3rd basemen by career. I didn't run his numbers but he has 4 seasons at #1, 2 at #2, and 1 at #3, which I'd guess gives him 50+ YOPDI.
9:34 AM Feb 1st

Starting with Honus

COMMENTS (32 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: