Worthless and Weak

Well, for the first time ever, I voted in a Hall of Merit election. This is my ballot. You've probably never heard of any of them, maybe you can use them the next time you play celeberty or something. Anyway, here is my 15 man ballot. enjoy...


The first three are all people who I think are special, but with caveats.

1. Pud Galvin
2. Charlie Bennet
3. Bid McPhee

First, Pud threw a lot of pitches. A lot. But And won a lot of games. But, because its 19th century, its really hard to pin down exactly how good he was. ERA+ doesn't like him. But his .92 warp3 pennants added leads all canidates. If he played on a better team, he'd probably be in already. Bennet didn't play every game, but played very very good defense in an era when defense was important, at a position where defense was more important than it is today. Somebody said that McPhee was the best defensive player of the 19th century (as compared to other players of his position). If 2nd base had the same relative importance that it does today, he would be 1st or second.

The difference between Pud and Bid is very small, I switched them back and forth for a while, and they could easily be switched around next year should I read a convincing argument on person's behalf.

4. Hugh Duffy. Win shares are Hugh Duffy's friend. Since I like win shares, Duffy gets the next place, until I'm convinced otherwise.
5. Ezra Sutton. An all around good player.
6. Joe Start. He was probably great. But definately good beats probably great, in my book. There are still too many questions for me to rank him any higher.
7. Harry Stovey. Best outfielder on the ballot not named Hugh Duffy. Again, win shares likes him. warp3 Pennants added don't hate him, he hit well, played good defense. All of which lead me put him slightly higher than all the outfielders below him.
8. Sam Thompson. His .81 Pennants (in Warp3) added look awfully good, but its only .6 in win shares.
9. Cal McVey. Great hitter, great player. I feel really bad putting him this low, but I can't see who I would replace him with.
10. Hughie Jennings. I think there are two questions we are measuring when we ask how great a player was. First, is what they did. Second, is what they were, (or how good they could have been). For instance, even if Yastrzemski was still playing today, I still wouldn't rank him above Williams. Anyway, Jennings gets extra points for being really great, even if it was for just a short while.
11. Mike Griffin. Good defense and .76 Pennants added puts him above
12. Mike Tiernan. better offensively than Griffin, worse defensively. WS likes Tiernan, warp3 Griffin. The space between Griffin and Tiernan is very very small.
13. Ned Williamson. Grade A defense at 3rd base and .71 pennants added put him on my ballot, but they don't put him any higher.
14. Cupid Childs. Didn't hit like Richardson, didn't field like McPhee. I really can't see any reason to put him up any higher.
15. Pete Browning. Hit very well, but a mere half a pennant doesn't impress me.

Off the ballot:

16. Dummy Hoy I really would have liked to put him on my ballot, but I've got plenty of outfielders, and he wasn't as good as any of them.
unranked. Jim McCormick and Jim Whitney. I have a hard time figuring out how to rank 19th century pitchers, and I can't say with any amount of certainty that these two belong on over anybody already up there. However, their value is so close, that if one was to make it, the other would too. The next best pitcher, after these two, is Mickey Welch.