Great stuff. I assume that Fox got in because of the MVP, as you said, but also because he made the All-Star team in 12 different seasons, got MVP votes in 10 seasons and led the league in hits 4 times plus was second 4 times (in part because he regularly led the league in games played, at bats and plate appearances). Plus, he only stopped playing in the mid-60s, so he was familiar to the voters. Schoendienst also made a lot of All-Star teams (10), received MVP votes in 10 different seasons and stopped playing in the early '60s. And he led the NL in fielding percentage six times, something the voters likely cared about back then. Plus, he held the record for consecutive chances without an error until it was broken by Ryne Sandberg in 1986. And although he was elected as a player, it probably did not hurt his chances that he managed the Cardinals to two pennants and one World Series. Myer, on the other hand, was only an All-Star twice -- of course, in part, because there was no All-Star game until 1933, his 8th season in the majors -- and received MVP votes 4 times. Plus, Myer was not immortalized in a poem (unlike, of course, Evers). I am in no way saying that Fox and Schoendienst were in any way more deserving of induction than Myer but I think this explains the likely reasons why they -- at least Fox and Schoendienst -- were inducted and Myer was not.
Hey Paul - You got me again with Buddy Myer who I barely knew if at all. Great point that the other HOF 2B on the list had little on Buddy. The Joe Adcock - Mickey Rivers thing I am not as with the idea that 'Mick the Quick' was an equal. Mainly because Adcock was a feared hitter in the Braves' lineup and I don't think any team ever had fear when it came to pitching to Rivers. The impact of a tough hitter in the line up is a hard thing to quantify I realize. But an interesting comparison!
Also I’m pitching a comedy sketch called “Highbrow Saloon” where the two cowboys inch toward their revolvers as one snarls “Are you referring to me as disingenuous?”
While I certainly don’t mean to argue against Negro Leagues being Major Leagues, and I realize that this is a MacGuffin to highlight Artie Wilson, his (and Willard Brown’s) numbers are not “full season” batting averages. We have stats for 29 and 46 games, respectively, out of a 94-game season. Brett, Carew, Gwynn, and Williams himself (and I am sure others) all had 46+ game stretches where they hit over .400.
I’d be amenable if there were enough stats to get them close to (94*3.2 =) 300 PAs, but this is a disingenuous statement IMO.
You'll have to take up your argument with Major League Baseball.
As for claiming I'm being "disingenuous" because I happen to take official MLB stats as official MLB stats, I'd have to argue that you don't appear to know what that word means.
I think it’s disingenuous to cite stats from 29 games out of 94 played as proof that the guy hit .400 *for a full season.* Sure, it’s in the record book, but it’s only 30% of the season. Isn’t it subject to change if/when research finds more box scores?
The truth is, we don’t know what Artie Wilson and Willard Brown batted *for the full season* in 1948. We only know what they batted in the games for which we have a record. For someone who otherwise spends a lot of time putting stats into context, to not at least mention that these are partial-season numbers seems a bit out of character.
Got it. All of my past mentions of the incomplete status of Negro Leagues records isn't sufficient to demonstrate my good faith efforts to paint an accurate picture of the limitations we have in making projections about their accomplishments. I have to make note of those gaps in the records EVERY SINGLE TIME I mention a Negro Leaguer in order to avoid the appearance of being disingenuous.
Noted, thanks for the input. I will give it all the weight it deserves.
I’m not sure why you need to be smarmy about this. Perhaps this is the first article of yours that someone reads. Do you expect them to go back through all your paid content to understand the implicit context?
Last spring I ran the first 11 miles of a marathon in 1:44. That projects to a 3:56 finish time. Did I finish under four hours? No, I did not come particularly close to doing that. But if my watch had stopped recording at that point, do you think I should be able to claim it?
Okay, so that was smarmy. You don’t like to be questioned. Got it.
Questioning something I wrote, or a point of view I assert, is perfectly okay. In fact in was done by another commenter on this exact edition and I have no problem with that at all. What you did is assert that I intentionally misled my readers by withholding information they needed, despite my fairly lengthy track record on the issue of Negro Leagues stats, and despite linking to Artie Wilson's full record so they could see it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying that it would be disingenuous to note Ted Williams' .406 average in 1941 without also noting that we are statistically limited by the fact that sacrifice flies weren't tracked before then, and therefore no accurate batting averages exist in the pre-1954 era. That is undeniably true, and yet would be pedantic in the extreme to note that statistical gap EVERY SINGLE TIME a pre-1954 batting average was cited.
If you've always inserted that sort of caveat when noting those early batting averages, then kudos for at least being intellectually consistent. If you haven't, then you may want to consider why that hasn't been a concern for you while the accuracy of Negro Leagues batting averages apparently are.
So not counting sacrifice flies in batting average is the equivalent to not counting 70% of a team’s games in presenting “full season” statistics? I disagree. Notwithstanding that accounting for sac flies would actually increase Williams’ batting average. Those aren’t going to have the potential impact on BA than including 65 missing games in the record. I was actually very disappointed to go to BR and see how few games were actually in record for him that year.
You stated that Wilson batted .433 for a full season. He almost certainly did not. Maybe he hit .400, we don’t know. Maybe he hit .500, we don’t know. It wouldn’t bother me in the least to learn that he, Willard Brown, anybody else hit .400 after Williams. But we don’t know what he actually hit.
The entirety of Wilson’s statistical record on B-R is 541 plate appearances, which is fewer than Williams had in 1941. He was undeniably a talented hitter, all star every year. I’d love to see the whole picture. We don’t have it. That’s a shame. I still think your statement warrants a qualifier. YMOV.
Great stuff. I assume that Fox got in because of the MVP, as you said, but also because he made the All-Star team in 12 different seasons, got MVP votes in 10 seasons and led the league in hits 4 times plus was second 4 times (in part because he regularly led the league in games played, at bats and plate appearances). Plus, he only stopped playing in the mid-60s, so he was familiar to the voters. Schoendienst also made a lot of All-Star teams (10), received MVP votes in 10 different seasons and stopped playing in the early '60s. And he led the NL in fielding percentage six times, something the voters likely cared about back then. Plus, he held the record for consecutive chances without an error until it was broken by Ryne Sandberg in 1986. And although he was elected as a player, it probably did not hurt his chances that he managed the Cardinals to two pennants and one World Series. Myer, on the other hand, was only an All-Star twice -- of course, in part, because there was no All-Star game until 1933, his 8th season in the majors -- and received MVP votes 4 times. Plus, Myer was not immortalized in a poem (unlike, of course, Evers). I am in no way saying that Fox and Schoendienst were in any way more deserving of induction than Myer but I think this explains the likely reasons why they -- at least Fox and Schoendienst -- were inducted and Myer was not.
Hey Paul - You got me again with Buddy Myer who I barely knew if at all. Great point that the other HOF 2B on the list had little on Buddy. The Joe Adcock - Mickey Rivers thing I am not as with the idea that 'Mick the Quick' was an equal. Mainly because Adcock was a feared hitter in the Braves' lineup and I don't think any team ever had fear when it came to pitching to Rivers. The impact of a tough hitter in the line up is a hard thing to quantify I realize. But an interesting comparison!
I love these Friday joints. They’re such thoughtful and meaningful discursions.
Also I’m pitching a comedy sketch called “Highbrow Saloon” where the two cowboys inch toward their revolvers as one snarls “Are you referring to me as disingenuous?”
While I certainly don’t mean to argue against Negro Leagues being Major Leagues, and I realize that this is a MacGuffin to highlight Artie Wilson, his (and Willard Brown’s) numbers are not “full season” batting averages. We have stats for 29 and 46 games, respectively, out of a 94-game season. Brett, Carew, Gwynn, and Williams himself (and I am sure others) all had 46+ game stretches where they hit over .400.
I’d be amenable if there were enough stats to get them close to (94*3.2 =) 300 PAs, but this is a disingenuous statement IMO.
You'll have to take up your argument with Major League Baseball.
As for claiming I'm being "disingenuous" because I happen to take official MLB stats as official MLB stats, I'd have to argue that you don't appear to know what that word means.
I think it’s disingenuous to cite stats from 29 games out of 94 played as proof that the guy hit .400 *for a full season.* Sure, it’s in the record book, but it’s only 30% of the season. Isn’t it subject to change if/when research finds more box scores?
The truth is, we don’t know what Artie Wilson and Willard Brown batted *for the full season* in 1948. We only know what they batted in the games for which we have a record. For someone who otherwise spends a lot of time putting stats into context, to not at least mention that these are partial-season numbers seems a bit out of character.
Got it. All of my past mentions of the incomplete status of Negro Leagues records isn't sufficient to demonstrate my good faith efforts to paint an accurate picture of the limitations we have in making projections about their accomplishments. I have to make note of those gaps in the records EVERY SINGLE TIME I mention a Negro Leaguer in order to avoid the appearance of being disingenuous.
Noted, thanks for the input. I will give it all the weight it deserves.
I’m not sure why you need to be smarmy about this. Perhaps this is the first article of yours that someone reads. Do you expect them to go back through all your paid content to understand the implicit context?
Last spring I ran the first 11 miles of a marathon in 1:44. That projects to a 3:56 finish time. Did I finish under four hours? No, I did not come particularly close to doing that. But if my watch had stopped recording at that point, do you think I should be able to claim it?
Okay, so that was smarmy. You don’t like to be questioned. Got it.
Questioning something I wrote, or a point of view I assert, is perfectly okay. In fact in was done by another commenter on this exact edition and I have no problem with that at all. What you did is assert that I intentionally misled my readers by withholding information they needed, despite my fairly lengthy track record on the issue of Negro Leagues stats, and despite linking to Artie Wilson's full record so they could see it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of saying that it would be disingenuous to note Ted Williams' .406 average in 1941 without also noting that we are statistically limited by the fact that sacrifice flies weren't tracked before then, and therefore no accurate batting averages exist in the pre-1954 era. That is undeniably true, and yet would be pedantic in the extreme to note that statistical gap EVERY SINGLE TIME a pre-1954 batting average was cited.
If you've always inserted that sort of caveat when noting those early batting averages, then kudos for at least being intellectually consistent. If you haven't, then you may want to consider why that hasn't been a concern for you while the accuracy of Negro Leagues batting averages apparently are.
So not counting sacrifice flies in batting average is the equivalent to not counting 70% of a team’s games in presenting “full season” statistics? I disagree. Notwithstanding that accounting for sac flies would actually increase Williams’ batting average. Those aren’t going to have the potential impact on BA than including 65 missing games in the record. I was actually very disappointed to go to BR and see how few games were actually in record for him that year.
You stated that Wilson batted .433 for a full season. He almost certainly did not. Maybe he hit .400, we don’t know. Maybe he hit .500, we don’t know. It wouldn’t bother me in the least to learn that he, Willard Brown, anybody else hit .400 after Williams. But we don’t know what he actually hit.
The entirety of Wilson’s statistical record on B-R is 541 plate appearances, which is fewer than Williams had in 1941. He was undeniably a talented hitter, all star every year. I’d love to see the whole picture. We don’t have it. That’s a shame. I still think your statement warrants a qualifier. YMOV.