Until Frankie Frisch and the Veteran’s Committee came along. 
And speaking of Frisch (and his bizarre MVP in 1931), you make a valid point, Hawkeye, but I’m hard-pressed to see a single way in which Grich was not a better second baseman than Frisch was.
Cy Young cannot be ignored. His numbers are head and shoulders above anyone else.
I do not necessarily ascribe to the idea that baseball players of today are better athletes. They may be bigger and stronger due to nutritional advantages. That does not necessarily make them better athletes. Someone want to say Jim Thorp wasn’t a great athlete because it was a long time ago?
I think defense is over rated. Ozzie lovers talk about his prowess. Was Yount standing there watching ground balls roll past him? Did he not have great range and a strong arm. How about the defense of Trammell ,Arod, Ripken etc. They all could play great defense. Was Ozzie better. Maybe, but not by a big enough difference to justify a higher rating.
Arguing about Nettles and Brooks is similar. The difference defensively is small and mostly opinion. The real distinguishing factor would be offense.
That’s not a half bad idea but in the context of the way the SDMB works it’s problematic. It’s logistically impossible to conduct a vote for every viable candidate individually - it’d take a year. HAving a big list will make it hard for any one player to hit 75%, since it’ll be hard to focus on the candidates. It’s also inherently self-selecting, which I think, although I can’t quite explain it, is more of a problem for that style of vote than a straight firs-ten-past-the-post system.
What I’m leaning towards **but it depends how the first rounds shake out ** is allowing you guys to select from a list of era-defined candidates; my basic plan is to cull through the players who were not selected but received some support, organize them according to eras weighted for the support that era received and the extent of major league baseball at the time, and then conduct ballots similar to our current process.
The drawback to that is that it forces a certain number of players from a certain time frame. The reason I wanted to start with positional votes is that we’d end up with a balance of the two; by voting both my position AND time period we give a chance for different eras and positions to demonstrate strength; if people think there are more HoF shortstops than catchers, or more great players from the 1970s than the 1940s, both preferences can be allowed. Holding positions votes also gets the no-brainers out of the way with relative ease; we all know Willie Mays is going to be elected. However, it puts me in the driver’s seat of deciding precisely how many players will be elected, and I’m not totally cool with that. Your idea would solve that - if the voters want 25 wild cards, they get 25, and if they want 50 they get 50. (I do think 75% is too high a number.)
Suggestions for how to work the wild cards? Always appreciated.
What Exit?, a vote for managers, hell, why not? We’ll elect ten.
How do you know?
Turn of the century was not the flipping of a lightswitch at 1900. It represents the sort of baseball played previous and slightly after 1900. It represents the bridge from beginning baseball til the modern game. Baseball in 1900 did not differ from 1901 or 2. It was the dead ball era but not early baseball.
Where do you place the dividing line between the deadball era and early baseball?
Smeared from 1918 to 1920. Ruth won the HR title with 11 in 1918. Then 29 in 1919. Then 54 in 1920, Somewhere in that time frame the game changed.
Wait…so early baseball, for you, came after the dead ball era? Weird.
I do not really count the very earl baseball. The 1878 Reds played 60 games. Then in 1879 they played 80. Wil White the pitcher tossed 75 complete games in 1879. These are indicative of a different game completely. Most complete games in a year .
75 White in 1879
73 Old Hoss Rathbun 1884
The top 20 were all from the 1870s til 1890s.
Then the next 60 went from then to 1904. Cheseboro had 48 in 1904. Then the numbers start to become more relatable.
Gonzomax, it’s all baseball. Why not discount post-1998 HR numbers–McGwire, Sosa and Bonds put up HR numbers never approached before! It’s all a madhouse! Let’s throw it all away!!! Help me, please!!!
Why do starting pitchers have no ability to complete games anymore? From Lefty zGroive to Lefty Koosman pitchers were completing over half their games routinely, and throwing shutouts 10, 12, 16 times season–now you can lead the league with a couple of shutouts and a handful of complete games! These numbers don’t mean anything any more! How can we compare these pitcher and batters to previous batters and pitchers?
And now the post-season numbers have gone wild, what witih all these new fangled multiple chances to play October baseball. All the sacred records of Babe Ruth and Yogi Berra that stood for ages now are threatened by utility infielders ! Has the whole world gone insane???
That last one is easy though, they still seperate WS records from the others. You can compare it either way you like.
I discount championships. The idea that a player gets a boost playing for a winner implies a great played playing for a loser is somehow responsible for their losing. Some organizations are so mismanaged that any player indentured to their team will rarely get playoff opportunities.
At the same time a great series like Brooks o0r Nettles had will elevate a player in the mind of viewers. Reggie Jackson gets huge points for series and even all star performances. Doing it on the big stage is elevating.
I discount championships. The idea that a player gets a boost playing for a winner implies a great played playing for a loser is somehow responsible for their losing. Some organizations are so mismanaged that any player indentured to their team will rarely get playoff opportunities.
At the same time a great series like Brooks or Nettles had, will elevate a player in the mind of viewers. Reggie Jackson gets huge points for series and even all star performances. Doing it on the big stage is a great way to enhance your rep.
And that means that the Yankees will have a stranglehold on WS records forever, since we’ll never return to the days when a Yankee could appear in the series year after year because his team had only to beat out seven clubs, four or five of whom were hopeless losers from day one.
OTOH, with three rounds of playoffs every year now, some post-season records will be broken regularly.
Have you checked those WS records lately. The only players that have broken into the old time records are a few by the Yankee players of the 90s from the three rounds of play. As to the post season records, they are currently dominated by Yanks of every generation.
Bumping this as Round 8, Left Fielders, is up:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10158361#post10158361