Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, January 24, 2005

1944 Ballot Discussion

Otto, schmotto! Lou! Lou! Lou! Lou! Lou! :-)

Goose wasn’t too bad himself, but I don’t think ‘44 is his “year.” I can’t see him going in before Larrupin’ Lou and the Fordham Flash.

Ferrell was a great player in his prime, but will it be enough to overcome a short career?

Cuyler and Hoyt go in the Very Good, But Not Good Enough category, IMO.

1944 (January 30)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

489 143.0 1925 Lou Gehrig-1B (1941)
355 95.9 1922 Goose Goslin-LF (1971)
292 88.0 1924 Kiki Cuyler-RF/CF (1950)
262 70.0 1919 Waite Hoyt-P (1984)
233 84.7 1929 Wes Ferrell-P (1976)
245 62.0 1918 Jimmy Dykes-3B/2B (1976)
194 65.1 1924 Red Lucas-P/PH (1986)
151 54.0 1928 Ed Brandt-P (1944)
167 43.0 1924 Guy Bush-P (1985)
155 45.9 1927 Woody English-SS (1997)
149 43.6 1929 John Stone-LF/RF (1955)
147 39.6 1931 Ripper Collins-1B (1970)
116 36.3 1928 Joe Stripp-3B (1989)
110 32.8 1927 Ethan Allen-CF (1993)
121 28.2 1928 Mule Haas-CF (1974)
102 26.1 1926 Wild Bill Hallahan-P (1981)

1944 (January 30)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

16% 32-38 Slim Jones-P(1913) 1 - 0*
00% 31-38 CharlieHughes-2b (??) 0 - 0*

Players Passing Away in 1943
HoMers
Age Elected

83 1913 Bid McPhee-2b
73 1921 Jimmy Collins-3b
71 1919 Joe Kelley-LF

Candidates
Age Eligible

85 1897 Art Whitney-3B
84 1891 Bob Emslie-P/Ump
74 1905 Frank Dwyer-P
73 1912 Mike Grady-C
72 1912 Heinie Peitz-C
66 1919 John Titus-RF
65 1917 Bill Bergen-C
58 1921 Steve Evans-RF
40 1943 Pat Malone-P

Thanks to Dan and Chris for the great lists!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2005 at 04:57 AM | 139 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1101503)
Sorry, guys. I actually created this a couple of days ago, but I forgot to post it last night.
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: January 25, 2005 at 05:30 PM (#1101544)
The first prelim? Gotta hurry, hurry....

1. Gehrig--PHoM
2. Frisch--can't keep Frankie out any longer, darn, PHoM

3. Goslin
4. Jennings
5. Sisler
6. Dobie Moore
7. Waddell
8. Bill Foster
9. Tommy Bond
10. Beckwith
11. Williamson
12. Doyle
13. Sewell
14. Traynor
15. Joss

Cuyler strikes me as "just off-ballot," but these days "just" can mean 10-15 slots. I see him as not quite Willie Keeler but clearly better than Sam Rice. Closer actually to Veach and Leach than to Rice. Maybe around #25ish. A definite ballot contender someday.
   3. Jim Sp Posted: January 25, 2005 at 07:26 PM (#1101752)
Hoyt, Ferrell, Dykes. Nice careers, not close to the ballot.


1)Gehrig--
2)Goslin--
3)Frisch--Contemporaries at 2B are good hitters (e.g. Hornsby, Gehringer, Lazzeri, Grantham, Bishop, Myer, Herman), so he doesn’t stand out as much as I expected.
4)Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career.
5)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA. Stands out from the extreme lack of catching candidates recently.
6)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915.
7)Beckwith-- Was Beckwith, in his prime, was the best hitter in the Negro Leagues? He played a considerable amount at the difficult end of the defensive spectrum. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his “unusual circumstances”. His selection as manager indicates to me that his intangibles weren’t all negative. Could be higher. I might regret this, but he made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
8)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production, we’re not talking about Ed Kranepool here.
9)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career.
10)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters.
11)Bill Foster--consensus seems to have him around Coveleski/Faber/Rixey, I’ll yield to those who know more than I. Was #3 on 1943 prelim.
12)Cravath— Great peak, great high minor league play.
13)Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot.
14)Cuyler--I think he’ll be below the in/out line.
15)Bancroft--Better than I thought.
   4. OCF Posted: January 25, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1101781)
Every athlete has two reputations: his reputation as a player, and his reputation as a person. In this project, we are commited to dealing with baseball players as players, be they fine moral role models, exemplary leaders, scoundrels, rogues, or drunkards. But that second reputation is part of the history, too. We have Cobb and Kauff, Donlin and Waddell - all with stories to tell. Even if that plays no direct role in the vote, we become aware of it through this project.

Now: I know that the 1930's press leaned pretty far in the direction of hero-worship. But of all the players we have encountered, does anyone else - even Mathewson - have as shining a reputation as a person as Gehrig?

I remember an elaborate and surreal dying-fantasy scene on some hospital show a few years ago in which the way the character knew he was in heaven was that Lou Gehrig was there. How can you top that?
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2005 at 07:57 PM (#1101808)
But of all the players we have encountered, does anyone else - even Mathewson - have as shining a reputation as a person as Gehrig?

Some have tried to sully his reputation by saying he was cheap (in reality, he was frugal, but could be very generous to friends and strangers alike) and that he wouldn't question authority (not really true, either). To them I say: good try!

I remember an elaborate and surreal dying-fantasy scene on some hospital show a few years ago in which the way the character knew he was in heaven was that Lou Gehrig was there. How can you top that?

You can't, OCF. That's why he's my favorite player of all-time.
   6. karlmagnus Posted: January 25, 2005 at 08:12 PM (#1101825)
It makes me feel very old and cynical to realize that I still prefer Cobb and Williams :-((
   7. andrew siegel Posted: January 25, 2005 at 08:18 PM (#1101835)
Prelim:

(1) Gehrig (new)
(2) Frisch (3rd)
(3) Foster (4th)
(4) Goslin (new)-- Very much in the Wheat/Clarke class, closer to VH and Duffy than to Waner and Simmons.
(5) Jennings (5th)
(6) Duffy (6th)
(7) C. Jones (7th)
(8) Van Haltren (8th)
(9) Beckwith (11th)--More careful study of the projections now has him enough better of a hitter than Moore to climb back over him.
(10) Childs (9th)
(11) Rixey (14th)--Joe convinced me to give war credit, still figuring out how much.
(12) Moore (10th)--Just not comfortable treating the Army years as if they were Negro League seasons. If I did, he'd be at least 7th.
(13) Grimes (13th)--I'm a big fan of his long prime and large number of All-Star type seasons; don't really care about the sub-replacement innings on both ends of the career.
(14) Roush (12th)--Lack of in-season durability hold him back half a dozen spots, but he's still better than Carey.
(15) W. Ferrell (new)--Could move substantially in either direction. When you make all the appropriate adjustments, he has HoM quiality; the only question is whether he has the quantity. 300 IP less and I'd say no; 300 IP more and I'd say yes--where he is, it is awfully close.
   8. mbd1mbd1 Posted: January 25, 2005 at 08:30 PM (#1101863)
1. Gehrig
2. Frisch
3. Goslin

Cuyler will probably show up around 10 or so.
   9. OCF Posted: January 25, 2005 at 08:33 PM (#1101869)
A more technical question about Gehrig: does anyone have month-by-month breakdowns of his 1938 season? There are two possiblilities, and I'd like to know which one is true.

Was he just a little off, all season long? Yeah, still a good player, but just 132 OPS+, not 175-200 like you expect from Lou Gehrig.

Or: was is a season with four months of Lou Gehrig followed by two months of a sick man?
   10. Chokeland Bill Posted: January 25, 2005 at 09:08 PM (#1101950)
Kind of the opposite, he was slumping the first few months and finished in a flurish, according to a bio I have. Probably a combination of age, nagging injuries, lumbago, and the first signs of ALS, but he was able to finish strong. He did not play well in the WS, though.

My favorite player ever.
   11. OCF Posted: January 25, 2005 at 09:55 PM (#1102010)
Thanks, Chokeland Bill.

The question we will (fortunately) not need to answer: who was the best player whose first and middle names were "Henry Louis"?
   12. PhillyBooster Posted: January 25, 2005 at 10:03 PM (#1102035)
In terms of overall impact, my money's on this guy.
   13. OCF Posted: January 25, 2005 at 10:09 PM (#1102050)
He did not play well in the WS, though.

Go ahead and include that in his record, as 4 of his 34 postseason games. Then expand those 34 games out to 154. Remember that this was against the pitching of World Series quality teams:

.361/.477/.731. 195 hits, XBH line of 36-14-45 (394 TB). 136 R, 159 RBI.

If we used 162 G instead of 154, we'd have 205 H, 48 HR, 167 RBI.
   14. Chokeland Bill Posted: January 26, 2005 at 12:02 AM (#1102356)
I was just using it as an example of 1938 only, in context of when his illness might have kicked in, which was what the question was. He hit .280 with 4 singles and 2 walks in the '38 WS, IIRC

Obviously his previous WS stats were amazing.

Wierd season. Slow start, strong finish, subpar postseason.
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: January 26, 2005 at 02:20 AM (#1102589)
1944 Preliminary Ballot

Lou Gehrig, Goose Goslin, Wes Ferrell, Kiki Cuyler, and Waite Hoyt are the new arrivals of note this year.

1. Lou Gehrig (n/e). As in 1943, an all-time great leads the ballot. I have Gehrig at #13 all time, with no competition adjustments for era.
2. Frankie Frisch (3). Gets an elect-me spot this year.
3. Goose Goslin (n/e). A clear HoMer, though not an all-time great. Narrowly edges his team’s owner for the 3-slot on my ballot.
4. Clark Griffith (4). Best candidate available from the underrepresented and underrated 1890s. Without contraction, there’d be no questions about his career length. Pennants added shows him as superior to several elected pitchers by virtually every measure.
5. Eppa Rixey (5). Long, solidly above-average career. Runner-up in 1942 now may have a long wait ahead of him, though election in 1945 is possible. He matches up well with the second-tier pitchers of the 1930s and 1940s, though, so I’m confident he’ll get elected eventually.
6. John Beckwith (6) His status as an eventual HoMer is properly solidifying. I hope this week to get at-bat data from MacMillan 8th & 10th editions and redo MLEs for Beckwith, Lundy, Moore, (and maybe Ben Taylor, Spotswood Poles, and Bruce Petway if MacMillan has sufficient data from the teens) using the sounder regression methods we’ve been working out. I hope that will give the electorate greater confidence in their placements of these serious NeL candidates.
7. Bill Foster (7). A peak-pitcher candidate in the Vance/Coveleski mold. Difficulty of filtering team support out of available pitching statistics for Negro-Leaguers puts considerable guesswork into estimations of peak value, but we have the following indirect indications of his peak value: (1) consensus expert choice as best NeL lefthanded-pitcher of all time, (2) #2 among all Negro-League pitchers in black ink, based on Holway’s stats, with his career falling during the period of Negro-League history with the fullest stats and probably the highest level of competition, (3) his playoff record of 18-9 (including several legendary performances), which indicates he was a great big-game pitcher and thus confirms he had the dominance necessary for a great peak, (4) a documented stretch of 9 seasons as a work-horse starter without injuries. Given the available statistics, I’m not sure _exactly_ how great he was, but I’m sure he was great. I hope to do seasonal estimates for him this week as well.
8. Wes Ferrell (n/e). Much like Foster, as I see it. WARP rates him as a clear HoMer, nearly as valuable as Grove during his 9-year prime. WS rates him less highly. My analysis is closer WARP. Foster has more value outside his 9-year prime than Ferrell does; Ferrell’s peak was slightly higher because his hitting value. Has a decent shot at being the first twentieth-century pitcher not elected to the HoF to be elected to the HoM.
9. Hughie Jennings (8). Would share with Charleston the distinction of being the only players on the ballot who were ever the best player in baseball, except that Charleston peaked at the same time Ruth did. The greatness of his peak will not diminish with time. Would represent 1890s well.
10. George Van Haltren (9). Pennants added should remind the electorate that Van Haltren was a heck of a player. Even if WS overrates centerfielders and VH gets a boost from pitching, he’s a candidate who oughtn’t to be slipping towards oblivion just yet. Van Haltren was in an “elect-me” spot on my 1931 and 1932 ballots. I’ve lowered my view of outfielders in general since then, which caused Jennings to pass him, but everyone from Van Haltren up clearly merits eventual enshrinement, in my view.
11. Edd Roush (10). Very similar in value to VH. Should be getting a bit more support. Missed a lot of games, but when he was on the field in his prime he was top-notch.
12. Tommy Leach (11) Finally getting his due. Won’t have a chance at election until the 1960s, but it looks like he’s more firmly on the radar now.
13. Dick Redding (12). Comparison to Foster indicates that Foster was better, but that Redding is very much in the running for the 4/5 slot among Negro-League pitchers (depending on how one deals with Rogan’s two-way package).
14. Jose Mendez (13). Brilliant at his peak, but it was too short to quite match the primes of Redding and Foster. If I had to win one game and could have any eligible pitcher at his best to throw it, I think I’d take Mendez, though. Someone should make a movie about him.
15. George Sisler (14). Nice peak.

Consensus top-10 returning players not on my ballot.
Joe Sewell – see #34 below
Jake Beckley – see #48 below
   16. Chris Cobb Posted: January 26, 2005 at 02:21 AM (#1102591)
1944 Off-Ballot

16. Larry Doyle (15). Pushed off the ballot this year. I expect he’ll slip back on in 1945, then disappear from the ballot until 1960 or so.
17. Urban Shocker (16)
18. Burleigh Grimes (17).
19. Rabbit Maranville (18).
20. Mickey Welch (19).
21. Spotswood Poles (20)
22. Hugh Duffy (21).
23. Carl Mays (22).
24. Rube Waddell (23) Waddell was a great talent, and he was one of the greatest characters in the history of major-league baseball. He’s thus deserving of his place in the Hall of Fame, but I think his value is just below the threshold for Hall of Merit induction. In the context of his time, just the eighth-best pitcher of the aughts.
25. Jimmy Ryan (24)
26. Roger Bresnahan (25).
27. Wally Schang (26).
28. Buzz Arlett (nr). Arlett enters my rankings this week. This placement is based on Brent’s conversions, without pitching credit, and peak seasons slightly tamped down. I need to think more about pitching credit, and study the conversions more, but I’ve got him in the rankings and I’ll be keeping an eye on him henceforth.
29. Wilbur Cooper (27).
30. Dobie Moore (28).
31. Ben Taylor (29)
32. Kiki Cuyler (n/e). Better than I thought he was. He’s not an obvious HoF mistake of the Chick Hafey sort, but he falls a bit short of what’s needed for election.
33. Dick Lundy</b> (30).
34. Joe Sewell (31). I’ve warmed to Sewell considerably since he first became eligible, but he, like Waddell, is an almost-but-not-quite HoMer. The 1920s infielder on the ballot who stands out for election is John Beckwith.
35. Harry Hooper (32).
36. Cupid Childs (33).
37. Bobby Veach (34)
38. Fielder Jones (35)
39. Dolf Luque (36)
40. Gavvy Cravath (37)
41. Herman Long (38)
42. Tommy Bond (39)
43. George J. Burns (40)
44. Charley Jones (41)
45. Bruce Petway (42)
46. Bill Monroe (43)
47. Babe Adams (44)
48. Jake Beckley (45). Still doesn’t have much peak.
49. Sam Rice (46).
50. Dave Bancroft (47)
51. Mike Tiernan (48)
52. Frank Chance (49)
53. Tony Mullane (50)
54. Ed Konetchy (51)
55. Lave Cross (52)
56. Addie Joss (53)
57. John McGraw (54)

New and Recent Arrivals Worthy of Note and awaiting evaluation

Five pitchers who are candidates for the top 60.

Lefty Andy Cooper. Still not ranked. Part of the great NeL pitcher project still awaiting completion.

William Bell In the same group needing attention as Cooper.

Sam Streeter. Ditto.

George Uhle. Haven’t studied him yet. Might break the top 60. Now that I have Ferrell, who is clearly better, fully analyzed, I’ll try to get to Uhle, the next best-hitting pitcher of their era.

Waite Hoyt. Very good pitcher. Little peak to speak of. WARP1 shows him as having almost exactly the same per-inning value for his career as Eppa Rixey, but in 700 fewer innings. He’s good enough to study, not good enough to bring onto the ballot. He may land in the top 60, or he may not.
   17. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 02:52 AM (#1102650)
Part 1 of my three-part study:

Frankie Frisch- overrated by the electorate.

Chris, here's my reply to posts 4 and 5 in the Goslin thread. Compare Frisch to Joe Sewell and Tommy Leach:

PA OPS+ Fielding
Frisch 10100, 111, A/A+ at 2B
Sewell 8329, 109, A/A+ at SS
Leach 9051, 109, A/A+ at 3B and CF

Frisch maintains a high level of offensive production longer than Sewell, and with timeline/defensive spectrum issues both men have better careers than Leach's, but the gap between the three isn't so wide as many voters think.
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:01 AM (#1102658)
PA OPS+ Fielding
Frisch 10100, 111, A/A+ at 2B
Sewell 8329, 109, A/A+ at SS
Leach 9051, 109, A/A+ at 3B and CF


Frisch was a better baserunner than Sewell (which OPS+ doesn't capture).

As for Leach, if he had stayed a third baseman, he would have been in the HOM a long time ago. But there were too many contemporary centerfielders better than Leach for me to get too excited about him.
   19. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:07 AM (#1102664)
Part 2 of my three-part study:

Eppa Rixey- under-rated by me.

There is a whole cluster of 20's and 30's long-career pitchers before us: Faber, Grimes, Rixey, Lyons, and Ruffing. It's critical that we elect the right men.

Faber snuck into the HoM his first year. Rixey will be elected someday; Grimes seems unlikely to be elected. Lyons and Ruffing are coming soon.

A quick glance:

Wins IP ERA+ Top 5 in ERA+
Faber 254, 4086, 119, 1-1-5
Grimes 270, 4180, 107, 1-3-4-4-5
Rixey 266, 4494, 115, 2-2-3-4-5
Ruffing 273, 4344, 109, 3-4-5-5
Lyons 260, 4161, 118, 1-2-2-3-4-5

From these data, I rank the pitchers (definite HoM) Lyons-Rixey- (doubtful HoM) Faber-Grimes-Ruffing.

So, Red Faber is not an HoM mistake (as I once believed) and Rixey deserves a space on my ballot. I'm surprised by Ruffing; even with postseason credit, he's no better than Grimes.
   20. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:22 AM (#1102680)
Part 3 of my three-part study:

Where does Kiki Cuyler belong on my ballot?

Here's the CF glut, from the 19th and 20th centuries:

PA OPS+ Top 6 Defensive bonus
Ryan 9106, 124, 4-6-6, no
Duffy 7827, 122, 2-4, yes
Van Haltren 8979, 121, none(!), no
-----------
Roush 8516, 126, 1-2-3-3-4-6(!), yes
Cuyler 8098, 125, 3-5, slight
Averill 7225, 133, 2-4-5-6-6, slight

Roush is clearly best on both peak and career, Ryan looks better than both Duffy and Van-H, and Cuyler/Averill both look like eventual HoMers.
   21. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:38 AM (#1102707)
My prelim 1944 ballot:

1. Lou Gehrig [new]
2. Goose Goslin [new]
3. Bill Foster [new-6]
4. Frankie Frisch [new-3]
5. George Sisler [3-1-5]
6. John Beckwith [5-4-3]
7. Edd Roush [off-6-9]
8. Clark Griffith [8-7-7]
9. Joe Sewell [11-8-8]
10. Eppa Rixey [off-off-off]
11. Tommy Leach [9-5-10]
------ PHoM line ------
12. Jose Mendez [off-off-off]: I'm a new-found fan of his.
13. Hugh Duffy [off-off-11]
14. Ned Williamson [off-10-14]
15. Jake Beckley [10-11-12]

16-20: Ryan, Cuyler, Redding, Grimes, Jennings.
   22. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:00 AM (#1102756)
Whoops... forgot about Wes Ferrell:

2623 IP, 117 ERA+, 2-5-5 Top 5 in ERA+ (his peak wasn't as great as it looks), 100 OPS+ in an extreme high-offense era. Without his hitting bonus, he's not HoM material. With it, he will debut at the bottom of my ballot.
   23. jimd Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:10 AM (#1102770)
100 OPS+ in an extreme high-offense era.

OPS+ already accounts for offensive era. Is this double-discounting?
   24. Thane of Bagarth Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:37 AM (#1102816)
1944 Preliminary Ballot:
It almost feels weird to have so many quality candidates…

1) Lou Gehrig
2) Frankie Frisch
3) Goose Goslin
4) Bill Foster
5) Wes Ferrell
6) Dick Redding
7) Ben Taylor
8) John Beckwith
9) Joe Sewell
10) Pete Browning
11) Rube Waddell
12) Jose Mendez
13) Hughie Jennings
14) Dobie Moore
15) Eppa Rixey
--------------------------
16) Bill Monroe
17) Charley Jones
18) Fielder Jones
19) Urban Shocker
20) Clark Griffith
21) Harry Hooper
22) George Van Haltren
23) Spot Poles
24) Ed Cicotte
25) Jack Quinn
26) Jimmy Ryan
27) Hugh Duffy
28) Kiki Cuyler
29) Vic Willis
30) Dick Lundy
   25. Brent Posted: January 26, 2005 at 05:06 AM (#1102879)
In # 19, Ardo wrote:

From these data, I rank the pitchers (definite HoM) Lyons-Rixey- (doubtful HoM) Faber-Grimes-Ruffing.

Don't overlook their hitting.

OPS+
Faber 10
Grimes 58
Rixey 22
Ruffing 81
Lyons 45

I figure that 7 points of OPS+ is worth roughly 1 point of ERA+. (If you think this number is off, please let me know. I think it's close to what jimd and OCF have come up with on the Ferrell thread.) If we take an OPS+ of 40 as our reference point for an "average" pitcher (I admit that I don't know what the actual average for this period was), and adjust each pitcher's ERA+ up or down based on how their OPS+ deviates from 40, this is what I get:

ERA+ adjusted for batting
Faber 115
Grimes 110
Rixey 112
Ruffing 115
Lyons 119

Other factors such as defense also affect the relative rankings as well.
   26. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 07:19 AM (#1103130)
Re: jimd in #23:

It's not double-counting because the marginal value of a successful PA is less in a high-offense era than a low-offense era.

Thus, for Ferrell to maintain a league average OPS+ in the '30s requires more successful PAs and is more "meritious" than for Johnny Kling to maintain a league average OPS+ in the 'aughts (putting aside that Kling was a catcher).
   27. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 26, 2005 at 02:17 PM (#1103383)
I thought that Sewell was an A- fielder. If that would be ture, then we would have Frisch as a better hitter oer a longer career AND a better fielder at his position.

Sewell's advantages would be that he played SS instead of 2B AND that he was the best SS whereas frisch was the 2nd best 2B. Of course Frisch had to deal with an all-time great in Rogers Hornsby. Sewell also played 3B significanly.

That is my bare bones analysis and it alone would be enough to put Frisch comfortably (at least 10-12 spots) ahead of Sewell.

Though, if Sewell really was an A+ fielder he I will take this into consideration as A+ SS's are very valuable.
   28. Rusty Priske Posted: January 26, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1103392)
Prelim:

My PHoM will be Gehrig and Goslin, no question.

1. Lou Gehrig

2. Frankie Frisch
3. Goose Goslin

This is the real race this year. Which one of these will get elected? It almost doesn't matter as they both deserve it and will both be inducted at some point.

4. Bill Foster
5. George Van Haltren
6. Jake Beckley
7. Eppa Rixey
8. Mickey Welch
9. Tommy Leach
10. Edd Roush
11. George Sisler
12. Hugh Duffy
13. Sam Rice
14. Jimmy Ryan
15. Dobie Moore

16-20. Lundy, Sewell, Griffith, Hooper, Powell
21-25. Childs, Doyle, Grimes, Monroe, Cuyler
26-30. Mullane, Streeter, Poles, Burns, White
   29. TomH Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:11 PM (#1103437)
Lou Gehrig - short definition of 'hero'; hard to imagine a greater combination of superb player and nicer guy.

That said, methinks he's somewhat overrated. I have him as 'only' the #11 non-pitcher all time, and I am one of the very few who wouldn't put Gehrig on my all-time team. "WHAT?!" you ask? Well, I prefer the guy who won or finished 2nd in MVP voting 7 times, who is 2nd in career total bases (among other impressive stats), who played more than half of his career after integration, and who, while not normally categorized as a 1Bman, appeared in more games at first base than any other position.
   30. Chris Cobb Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1103472)
On Sewell and Frisch as fielders:

According to Win Shares,

Frisch was an A+ second baseman, 5.42 ws/1000 innings for his career. He also played around 450 games at third base early in his career. He doesn't get a letter-grade for third base, but his ws/1000 innings there is 5.1.

Sewell was an A- shortstop, 5.87 ws/1000 innings, and a B+ third baseman, 4.61 ws/1000 innings.

Frisch was a better fielder for his position, according to win shares. I did some rough calculations and if you average their performances at the two positions, Frisch's career ws/1000 comes out to 5.35, Sewell's 5.44. However, if you drop off Frisch's decline phase to measure his performance in a career equal to Sewell's (only fair since we're looking at rates), his average rises to about 5.50. So in absolute terms, according to win shares, they were about equally valuable defensively.

WARP is even more favorable to Frisch.

WARP1 has Frisch at 182 FRAA, 784 FRAR
WARP1 has Sewell at 101 FRAA, 511 FRAR

WARP2 has Frisch at 151 FRAA, 532 FRAR
WARP2 has Sewell at 87 FRAA, 482 FRAR

According to WARP, Frisch was much better compared to his position, and slightly more valuable even when their defensive performances are adjusted for positional value and league quality.

One other tidbit: Ardo tends to line up players with different career lengths according to rate stats, which can be misleading in many ways. If, as with fielding, you drop off Frisch's decline phase to see how he compared to Sewell in a Sewell-length career, his OPS+ for that stretch is 115. A 115 to 109 OPS+ advanatage isn't huge, but when you consider that Frisch was, on average, that much better every season for 13 seasons, and has two more very good seasons on top of those 13 and has two more mediocre decline seasons, I find the argument that the two are close in value to be pretty shaky.

They are not nearly as close, for example, as Goose Goslin and George Van Haltren, a pair that has been discussed on the Goslin thread.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 03:46 PM (#1103486)
I agree with you that Musial should be considered more a first baseman than a leftfielder, Tom. He also had most of his value there (unlike Ernie Banks who played more games at first than short, but whose only chance at entering the HOF would be if he had bought a ticket based on the former).

Maybe Musial is viewed as the latter normally so that Gehrig would have the #1 spot all to himself?

Of course, if Gehrig hadn't developed ALS, imagine all of the records that he would have had...
   32. DavidFoss Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:26 PM (#1103525)
I agree with you that Musial should be considered more a first baseman than a leftfielder, Tom. He also had most of his value there

"plurality" maybe, but "majority", maybe not...

1B -- 1016
LF -- 943
RF -- 750
CF -- 325

Its tough to fix him on a position, but I don't mind keeping him with the corner outfielders. Its debatable, of course.
   33. DavidFoss Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:36 PM (#1103541)
Of course, if Gehrig hadn't developed ALS, imagine all of the records that he would have had...

This is a fun question, and seems to be the right forum for this type of projection. Anyone have any projections for an ALS-free Gehrig? Most contemporary stars didn't play well into their late 30s (Ruth is the surprising exception) but it seems certain that Gehrig would have broken the RBI record and likely the run record as well.

Also, imagine the mighty 1939 Yankees with their worst regular replaced by a healthy Gehrig. Wow!
   34. jhwinfrey Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1103552)
1944 Preliminary Ballot

1. Lou Gehrig
2. Bill Foster--stays in the #2 slot
3. Frank Frisch
4. Jake Beckley
5. Mickey Welch
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Burleigh Grimes
8. Ben Taylor
9. Tommy Leach
10. Dick Lundy
11. John Beckwith
12. Carl Mays
13. Dick Redding
14. Jose Mendez
15. Jim McCormick

18. Goose Goslin--slots in just behind Edd Roush. Why so low? Goslin just wasn't much of a fielder. He needs a bit more production or a bit longer career to make my ballot. He may join Jimmy Sheckard and Red Faber as guys inducted in years they almost made my ballot. Ok, fire away.

27. Waite Hoyt--good career length, but not outstanding otherwise. Ranks just behind Dolf Luque.

29. Wes Ferrell--A much shorter career, but more production. I rate him very close to Stan Coveleski.

63. Kiki Cuyler--all-hit, no-field, and not enough career to be a ballot threat.

99. Jimmy Dykes--A fairly good player for a long time, but never a league-dominator.

The newcomers push 4 guys out of my top 100:
Larry Doyle
Andy Cooper
Jesse Haines
Jack Fournier
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:47 PM (#1103561)
"plurality" maybe, but "majority", maybe not...

1B -- 1016
LF -- 943
RF -- 750
CF -- 325


Except I don't lump all the outfield positions together, since they're not interchangeable (though I admit they are closer than the infield positions are).
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 04:50 PM (#1103569)
18. Goose Goslin--slots in just behind Edd Roush. Why so low? Goslin just wasn't much of a fielder. He needs a bit more production or a bit longer career to make my ballot. He may join Jimmy Sheckard and Red Faber as guys inducted in years they almost made my ballot. Ok, fire away.

I have to admit that I'm not that crazy about Goslin myself, though he will be on my ballot somewhere. I do like him better than Sheckard and Roush.
   37. karlmagnus Posted: January 26, 2005 at 05:50 PM (#1103701)
What on earth does Ferrell have that mays hasn't got. Mays was 207-126, with an ERA+ of 119 and an OPS+ of 83, Ferrell was 193-128 with an ERA+ of 117 and an OPS+ of 100. IF you regard 7 points of pitcher hitting then Ferrell's ERA+ moves 1/2 point ahead of Mays, but Mays had 400 more IP and a considerably better record. Mays is a little better than Covaleski and considerably better than Vance, Ferrell isn't quite as good as either, though I agree he runs the (IMHO overrated) Vance clsoe.

Rixey could outpitch the lot of them, and will be on my ballot in '44, even above Leever (who was also considerably better than Ferrell.) 60% more career than Ferrell at an ERA+ only 2 points lower.

I like Goslin, he's about #5; not as good as Beckley, though, who's #2.
   38. Buddha Posted: January 26, 2005 at 05:54 PM (#1103708)
"It makes me feel very old and cynical to realize that I still prefer Cobb and Williams :-(("

Me too...

Gehrig is awesome, but I like the rats, scoundrels and ne'er-do-wells.

I always rooted for Darth Vader too.
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 05:57 PM (#1103719)
but Mays had 400 more IP and a considerably better record.

Don't you mean considerably better teammates?

You might be right about Mays being better than Ferrell, but you can not use his record without looking at the supporting players on his team.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1103740)
"It makes me feel very old and cynical to realize that I still prefer Cobb and Williams :-(("

Me too...

Gehrig is awesome, but I like the rats, scoundrels and ne'er-do-wells.


I like Williams myself and is one of my all-time favorites. He wasn't perfect as a person, but I always admired his honesty, candidness and perfectionist tendencies.

I don't even despise Cobb like some do here. I don't think he was anywhere near the raging psychopath or racist that he's usually portrayed.
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 26, 2005 at 06:06 PM (#1103744)
Preliminary ballot posted from the frosty confines of Portsmouth, NH where we hope you like the snow you see around you...it's going to be there until June 15th!

A quick note on a newbie...i've always been partial to Woody English. I don't know why exactly, except that when I was a young lad, I collected baseball cards. The coolest card I had was a 1933 Goudy four-panel card. IIRC, it had Cuyler, Klein, English, and Grimes on it, and the obverse was a puzzle piece of sorts that would create a picture of Frankie Frisch.

Which also reminds me of the 1985 Donruss set with its Lou Gehrig puzzle.... Ah trips down Memory Lane....

1. Gehrig
2. Frisky Frankie Frisch

3. GVH
4. Duffy
5. Goose Goslin (Honk!)
These three are all wicked close. Van Haltren's got the career, Duffy's got the peak, Goslin has the middle ground. Duffy's peak is more impressive than Goslin's career, and I've long prefered GVH to Duffy, so there's how I arrived at my ranking of them.

6. Foster
7. Mendez
8. Rixey
9. Beckwith
10. George Burns
11. Poles
12. Roush
13. Leach
14. Jennings
15. Moore

Now what to do about Wes Ferrell? I'm just not sure. I see he and Cooper as being extremely similar. Neither quite has Vance's dominance, nor Coveleski's innings. Cooper and Ferrell are floating in the ether just below the 15th spot with about 50 other guys like Willis, Griffith, Sewell, Doyle, Monroe, Childs, etc etc etc.

KiKi Cuyler is right around Bobby Veach but with a smaller peak and a little more career. Off the ballot.

Waite Hoyt doesn't spark my plugs, he's not as good as Old Stubblebeard, nor Welch, nor another dozen guys in the ether.

Jimmy Dykes had a Beckleyesque career with no discernable peak and surprising career value (for his position). He was a long-time contributor, but never the core talent on his team. See Corcoran, Tommy.

A couple more of those silly Earl Weaver Baseball nicknames popped into my mind thanks to this crop of candidates. Edd Rash, The Honker (Goslin), Frankie Friskie. I don't really pine away for high school, except when it comes to EWBB....
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: January 26, 2005 at 06:38 PM (#1103818)
Random comments:

1. I rate Musial as a 1B because I do not lump OF positions together. Oh, and I have Musial as the #1 career 1B. Gehrig is however the #1 peak 1B. And overall, then, I do go with Sweet Lou.

2. Congrats to jwinfrey (#34), with whom I don't usually agree very much, on his placement of Goslin at #18. Always good to see some independent thinking. As for me, I am following the crowd so far with the Goose at #3 on my prelim but I have a very nagging doubt about his OPS+ 128 for a corner OF. Yes, a reasonably long career adds up to a pretty favorable WS total, Even his peak WS look pretty good, though not as good as Sisler, Hack Wilson and a bunch of 19C guys. But on OPS+ he is 3 points ahead of Kiki, 2 ahead of roush, 1 ahead of Veach, 1 ahead of DOYLE a middle IF! I dunno.

3. Whenever I find Sewell moving up my ballot (and don't get me wrong, he is ON my ballot) but when I find myself tempted to vault him upward into the top 5-6-8, I always realize I had forgotten he played almost 40 percent of his career at 3B. To say Sewell was "an A- SS" is misleading in the extreme if you infer from that that he was a SS for 13 years. He most certainly was not.

4. And karl (#37) what Ferrell has is very influential friends who clog the blog with thousands of words of accolades for their homeboy every single day. And it's working. Makes me wonder if the White House is paying somebody to plant favorable stories. Chaleeko is a hold-out and is right. Ferrell = Wilbur Cooper. OK, adjust from there. But if you start on the assumption that Ferrell = Grove and then adjust, they got you.
   43. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 26, 2005 at 06:41 PM (#1103825)
While the Corner outfield slots aren't totally interchangable, in practice they can be. It seems that often when a player is signed or traded for he moves to the other outfield corner. Or, more likely, someone moves for him.

Sure there are differences but where Musial is concerned I don't put him at 1B, he is a corner outfielder in my system. Also, I try not to punish player who played before the color barrier was broken.

"Also, imagine the mighty 1939 Yankees with their worst regular replaced by a healthy Gehrig. Wow!"

This reminds me of when mlb.com did a simulated tournament with the 64 'best' teams of all-time a few years back. It was very interesting, but I couldnt' take it seriously because they didn't include the 1939 Yankees!

Their excuse was that they used the 1937 Yankees which featured, for the last time, a healthy Gehrig. That '37 team didn't make it into the final 16 as I recall. The winner was the '27 Yankees over the '75 Reds.

And one more point. There are four teams that I think can lay claim to the best team of all time. '27 Yankees, '39 Yankees, '75 Reds, and '98 Yankees. None of them have HOM level starting pitchers, but all of them had really good pitching staffs. This assumes, of course that Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, and David Cone won't get elected.
   44. karlmagnus Posted: January 26, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1103931)
What about the '04 Red Sox? That list needs revising :-))
   45. Ardo Posted: January 26, 2005 at 09:54 PM (#1104256)
I'm leaving for the weekend (going to Montreal for a Model United Nations conference), but thanks for your constructive criticism.

Part #1: I stand corrected. Frisch is a full step ahead of either Sewell or Leach.

Part #2: Post #25 is a valuable addition; thanks, Brent. Ruffing no longer looks so bad when his OPS+ comes into play.

Part #3: First, I now see that Kiki Cuyler doesn't belong in my top 20.

Second, why, oh why, is Van Haltren so far ahead of Ryan? Ryan was the slightly better hitter in a slightly longer career. Neither were great shakes on defense. Ryan's pitching, at least in ERA+, ought to count as much as VH's pitching does [and neither of them can hold a candle to Sisler ;)]

For now, Goslin drops to #5 (behind Frisch and Sisler), Redding replaces Ned Wm.son at #14, and my just off-ballot spaces 16-25 now read:

Grimes
Ned Wm.son
Ferrell
Ryan
Jennings
Dobie Moore
Van Haltren
Bresnahan
Monroe
Waddell
   46. jonesy Posted: January 27, 2005 at 02:05 AM (#1104702)
Once again we hear from the world's leading baseball historian, Sunnyday2, who says:


"And karl (#37) what Ferrell has is very influential friends who clog the blog with thousands of words of accolades for their homeboy every single day. And it's working. Makes me wonder if the White House is paying somebody to plant favorable stories. Chaleeko is a hold-out and is right. Ferrell = Wilbur Cooper. OK, adjust from there. But if you start on the assumption that Ferrell = Grove and then adjust, they got you."


Actually Sunny to right, it wasn't Grove that Ferrell was most often compared to, it was Christy Mathewson.

Tell me Sunny, can you point out any books or articles you have published? Maybe soem research awards you have won? Whenever I run across such a dynamic researcher and historian, I really enjoying reading all of their work.






Peer Reviews of Wes Ferrell.

1929

Cleveland Coach Grover Hartley (who had caught Matty). "He looks more like Matty than any young pitcher I ever saw."

Connie Mack: "He's the finest looking pitcher I've seen in years."

Ernie Lanigan: "Every expert you see who has visioned Ferrell this year raves about him."

"The finest change of pace in the country, that's what the players say of Wesley Ferrell."

1930

"Al Simmons declares he would rather bat against any other pitcher in the American League.

Connie Mack: "I have said repeatedly that I believe Ferrell is a great pitcher, one of the greatest young pitchers I have ever seen."

1931

Joe Williams: "Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Johnson, Alexander and Wes Ferrell, the great Cleveland right-hander of today had and have great fastballs."

Joe Williams: "They call him the Second Matty."

1932

Max Carey: "Ferrell is another Christy Mathewson. That means he is one of the greatest pitchers I have ever seen..."

Casey Stengel: "Geez that guy gets in my hair. He makes pitching look so easy."

Joe McCarthy: "Why this Ferrell is another Matty..."

1934

Walter Johnson: "Ferrell was a great pitcher, and still is for that matter."

Joe Williams: "Ferrell is still a great pitcher," Walter Johnson told me. "He'd make the Yankees a sure pennant winner.."

1935

The New York World Telegram: "A Flesh and Blood Frank Merriwell - That's Wesley Ferrell..."

Frank Graham: "Ferrell still pitches as Matty did, with no exaggerated motion, no fuss and not effort, but with plenty on the ball."

Lou Gehrig: "He looked like the Ferrell of four years ago. He wouldn't give anyone a fat ball to hit at."

J.G. Taylor Spink: "A really great pitcher, with the perfect pitching psychology..Make 'em hit at the bad ones, is his policy, his secret of success.."


1936: "Another example of Wes' almost hypnotic powers came in the sixth inning when Goose Goslin took successive molasses-slow pitches right through the heart of the plate for second and third strikes. The venerable Goose couldn't have looked sillier."

Post playing days.

Al Simmons: "But that Ferrell was a great pitcher..."

Lefty Grove: "Wes was one of the greatest pitchers and one of the greatest competitors I have ever seen."

Hank Greenberg: "He should be in the Hall of Fame. Why his name has never overlooked I'll never understand."

Mickey Cochrane: "What he had was suberb control, an endless file cabinet in his mind of the likes and dislikes of every batter he ever faced..."
   47. DavidFoss Posted: January 27, 2005 at 02:32 AM (#1104767)
Oh, come on, jonesy. Those are "back of the book jacket" reviews. Flattering tidbits fed to reporters in the clubhouse. You don't "win research awards" with those. You had to expect a bit of a backlash from your Ferrell campaign. We're just questioning everything in order to get closer to the truth, here.

How about posting your Ferrell Game Log or Box Scores to the yahoo group. Other than Ferrell & Grove, do you have any other data on contemporaries? Sounds like you have more than what is published on retrosheet.

Are you going to vote this year?
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 27, 2005 at 02:43 AM (#1104793)
Oh, come on, jonesy. Those are "back of the book jacket" reviews. Flattering tidbits fed to reporters in the clubhouse. You don't "win research awards" with those. You had to expect a bit of a backlash from your Ferrell campaign. We're just questioning everything in order to get closer to the truth, here.

I have to agree with David, jonesy. The tributes to Ferrell are certainly interesting and I have enjoyed reading them, but the only thing that matters is what he did on the mound and at bat.

I've been following baseball for over thirty years and have come to the conclusion that flowery testimonies for certain players need to be taken with a grain of salt.
   49. jonesy Posted: January 27, 2005 at 03:25 AM (#1104870)
You're right. My fingers were faster than my reasoning. My apologies. Sorry, Sunny.
   50. jonesy Posted: January 27, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1104878)
David Foss,

I do have a lot of material. I have most of Gomez's career as well. Very overrated he was. Not all that impressive outsite of Yankee Stadium, but that McCarthy got the best out of his horses.
   51. jimd Posted: January 27, 2005 at 03:43 AM (#1104908)
Ferrell = Wilbur Cooper.

If you insist that ERA+ is everything when measuring pitchers, then you probably will come to that conclusion.

NRA is BP's pitching stat that includes all runs (not just earned runs) and is normalized for league context and park. NRA+ is 4.50/NRA (analogous to ERA+). DERA adjusts NRA for defense (DERA+ is then 4.50/DERA). BDERA+ then adjusts for hitting too (on the 7 points of OPS+ to 1 point of ERA+ discussed elsewhere).

NRA+ -> DERA+ -> BDERA+
114 -> 111 -> 115 Cooper
114 -> 115 -> 125 Ferrell
141 -> 138 -> 135 Grove

As a hitter, Cooper was a bit above average (61 OPS+), but had the good fortune of playing for some Pirate teams that featured a very good defense. The two effects largely cancel each other out.

Ferrell played in front of below average defenses for his career, and was quite the hitter. These are significant bonuses to his NRA+.

Grove also played in front of good defenses, and couldn't hit his way out of a pinata (OPS+ of 6). Both effects impact his gaudy pitching stats, but nowhere near enough to remove him from pending first-ballot status.

Ferrell is about midway between the two, and given the texture of his career (8 year prime with bad comeback attempts) should appeal to those who like a good peak/prime (long career voters may prefer more total).
   52. Paul Wendt Posted: January 27, 2005 at 03:52 AM (#1104924)
Brent #25
I figure that 7 points of OPS+ is worth roughly 1 point of ERA+. (If you think this number is off, please let me know. I think it's close to what jimd and OCF have come up with on the Ferrell thread.)

1:7 is too much credit for the pitcher's batting unless he works as a pinch-hitter. Indeed, 1:10 is too much if he bats ninth and doesn't pinch hit.

The OPS+ scale is comparable to ERA+. A pitcher who bats ninth, completes every game, and is never removed for a pinch-hitter in a game-winning rally at home-- gets 10% of team plate appearances in his games, so 1:10 is about the theoretical extreme.

If the team averages 40 plate appearances (4.44 per man; 4.00 for the ninth spot) and the pitcher averages 3 plate appearances, then 1:13.

Koufax averaged 3 plate appearances in 1965-1966, completing 2/3 of his games in a low run environment. It appears that Gomez averaged 3+ PA in 1936, completing 1/3 in a high run environment.

This model presumes that OPS+ incorporates sacrifice bunting seamlessly, which it doesn't, so the precision is an illusion even if my reasoning is correct.
   53. Paul Wendt Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:08 AM (#1104948)
Oops. Gomez averaged 2.66 PA in 1936. His career average was 3+ PA, completing 1/2 of his games. 3.05 PA per start if 1.00 PA per relief game (3.20 per start if he never batted in 48 relief games). The Yankees averaged about 40 PA, so 1:13 is about right for Gomez.
   54. jimd Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1104953)
The OPS+ scale is comparable to ERA+.

That's not true. A pitcher with a 120 ERA+ gives up 20% less runs than an average pitcher. A batter with a 120 OPS+ has an OPS which is about 10% greater than an average hitter.

The OPS formula is: (BA/LgBA + SP/LgSP)*100 - 100
Somebody who is 10% better at each component would then be:
(1.10+1.10)*100 - 100 = 120.

Adding that factor of two, a 1:14 reduces to 1:7
   55. jimd Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:24 AM (#1104982)
Some more:

NRA+ -> DERA+ -> BDERA+
110 -> 111 -> 110 Rixey
114 -> 111 -> 115 Cooper
113 -> 115 -> 117 Lyons
116 -> 110 -> 117 Mays
123 -> 124 -> 121 Coveleski
114 -> 115 -> 125 Ferrell
123 -> 129 -> 126 Vance
127 -> 129 -> 131 Dean
141 -> 138 -> 135 Grove

Mays' very good hitting is mostly canceled out by his fortunate fielding situation. Vance's poor hitting removes half of his large fielding adjustment. Dean and Lyons gain small positives from both adjustments.
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2005 at 06:50 AM (#1105267)
Most Career Ballot Points, No Votes in 1943

Tiernan 2686
Griffin 1696.5
Mullane 1228
H Wright 878
Whitney 876
O'Neill 791
Long 778.5
S White 297
Meyerle 287
King 280

In Trouble (fewer than 50 pts in 1943)
Williamson 4064 (24)
McCormick 3128 (9)
Joss 2176 (29)
Chance 2066 (13)
Willis 1775 (39)
Hooper 1625 (42)
Poles 1583 (32)
F Jones 1522 (6)
Cravath 1480 (45)
Cicotte 1475 (26)
Veach 1380 (26)
Cross 1221 (24)
Dunlap 1033 (14)
   57. Paul Wendt Posted: January 27, 2005 at 07:05 AM (#1105300)
I wrote,
"The OPS+ scale is comparable to ERA+."

It's true, and it's the rationale for the definition of OPS+.

Pete Palmer chose Adjusted Production [once PRO/A, now OPS+] the sum of relative OnBase and relative Slugging rather than relative (OnBase + Slug) in order to track scoring routhly.

As ERA+ tracks scoring.

So that a team with ERA+ 105 and OPS+ 95, or vice versa, scores about as many runs as it allows.

--
jimd #54
That's not true. A pitcher with a 120 ERA+ gives up 20% less runs than an average pitcher.
[16.7Actually, 100/120 ==> .833 ==> 16.7% less]
A batter with a 120 OPS+ has an OPS which is about 10% greater than an average hitter.


Yes, which produces about 20% more runs.

The OPS formula is: (BA/LgBA + SP/LgSP)*100 - 100
Somebody who is 10% better at each component would then be:
(1.10+1.10)*100 - 100 = 120.


Yes, and would add about 20% more runs to his team offense.
   58. KJOK Posted: January 27, 2005 at 07:28 AM (#1105350)
3. Whenever I find Sewell moving up my ballot (and don't get me wrong, he is ON my ballot) but when I find myself tempted to vault him upward into the top 5-6-8, I always realize I had forgotten he played almost 40 percent of his career at 3B. To say Sewell was "an A- SS" is misleading in the extreme if you infer from that that he was a SS for 13 years. He most certainly was not.

Have to nitpik a little here:

1. Sewell played approx. 34% of his innings in the field at 3B, which leaves 66% at SS.

2. In Sewell's day, playing 3rd was not (ALL) that much different from playing SS - you didn't have many SS/2B guys or 3B/1B guys, but you did have quite a few SS/3B (like Sewell) and 2B/1B (George Grantham, Dots Miller, Lew Fonseca, etc.) because of the demands of playing 3B...
   59. jingoist Posted: January 27, 2005 at 08:27 AM (#1105415)
Where's the love for the Goose?
OPS of .857; 2,735 hits; 3,092 runs+RBI...that's 357 more than his hits total, a strong margin.

OPS+ of 128; the guy is #24 all time in RBIs.

He's top 40 all-time in career hits; total bases, 2Bs, xtra base hits. He's # 22 in 3Bs.

He's not Ted Williams or Barry Bonds as a LF but he's closer to an Al Simmons than he is to Zack Wheat or Heine Manush.
Give it up for the Goose!
   60. TomH Posted: January 27, 2005 at 01:39 PM (#1105541)
new guys:
Goose Goslin - Solid. Won't go in the HoM on his first try, but he simply has to be honored at some point. Most similar to Wheat or Keeler? Will debut on my ballot around #4.

Wes Ferrell - while nothing like Dazzy Vance in style, much like him in value. Short career, great value per year. If you give Ferrell about a .35 edge in ERA for his bat over Vance, they match well. Of course the strict career voters will prefer Roxey, and those who are somewhere in between will come to their senses and vote for Clark Griffith :)

Dick Lundy - Got to admit, I'm surprised at his lack of support. Maybe we're looking at both Lundy and Moore and can't decide who is better so we vote for neither? He's around #20 on my ballot at the moment.
   61. karlmagnus Posted: January 27, 2005 at 01:59 PM (#1105546)
Beckley had 3175 runs+RBI, so he's better than the Goose, who I admit is a good candidate (I have him well ahead of Frisch.)

You invent the new metrics, I'll prove Beckley was better by them (if I understand them, which I quite often don't!)
   62. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 27, 2005 at 03:45 PM (#1105673)
KJOK,

When do you propose that the position shift between 2B and 3B happened? All of Sewell's 3B time was after 1928 and he became a full-time 3B in 1929. I think that date is a little too late to really be giving Sewell extra credit for being a 3B. The dead ball era was part of history and the lively ball era of the late 20's/early 30's was in full swing.

And there are plenty of SS/3B guys today even though we are pretty sure that 2B is the more improtant defensive position. ARod, Ripken, Vinny Castilla, Tony Batista. 2B has as much to do with the ability to tuurn the double play than it does range.
   63. Michael Bass Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:28 PM (#1105739)
My prelim ballot

1. Gehrig (duh)
2. Frisch
3. Ferrell - In my opinion, there's been too much talk about esoteric Welch-esque reasons to add tiny amounts of value to him, and too little talk about how much WARP3 loves him:

- Best *career* WARP3 on the ballot
- Best prime (by any definition I can come up with) WARP3 on the ballot
- Second best peak WARP3 on the ballot (to Charlie Buffinton, who has almost literally nothing outside of his 3 big years; Ferrell has 3 more prime years on top of those)

4. Foster
5. Jennings
6. Mendez
7. Sewell
8. Goslin - Not a whole lotta peak there. But a strong career and enough of a prime of get here
9. Waddell
10. Beckwith
11. Griffith
12. Redding
13. Moore
14. Schang
15. Cross
   64. Michael Bass Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:30 PM (#1105748)
I should note that my Ferrell WARP3 comps are to other pitchers.
   65. jingoist Posted: January 27, 2005 at 04:44 PM (#1105780)
Karlmagnus,
While I am rooting for your man Beckley (I like him as well) I see the issue many voters have with his level of performance compared with his peers. I give the guy huge credit for sustained performance at an OPS+ of 125. That's Eddie Murray consistency.
The guy almost never missed a game for 15 years.
But he ain't the Goose.
Goose got similar career stats(counting stats) as Beckley but did in about 3 less years.
His OBP was better due to 950 BBs versus 615 for Jake and you cant discount 91 points of OPS as Goose was a much better slugger.
I know, we have to allow for different eras as Jake was fighting the deadball for most of his playing days. But Delahanty had Goose-like stats in those days so it was dooable.

Goose and Jake for HoM, just a stronger case for Goose I feel.
   66. Daryn Posted: January 27, 2005 at 06:06 PM (#1105981)
Newbie Placement and ballot changes, for those interested:

1. Lou Gehrig – this guy was almost as good as Cal Ripken.

4. Goose Goslin -- a step above Beckley, closer to Wheat and Heilmann, who I also had higher than Beckley.

Moved up to 11 from 14. Roger Bresnahan – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

Moved down to 12 from 7. Sam Rice – close to Beckley – I’ve dropped him after five years of insisting that he was equal to Beckley and Sisler. I took another look at his OPS+ and some traditional stats and feel comfortable with him here.

21. Wes Ferrell

35. Kiki Cuyler

44. Hoyt -- I'm not sure why Hoyt has no support when all the other pitchers I have around him have some ballot support.
   67. jimd Posted: January 27, 2005 at 07:43 PM (#1106208)
Pete Palmer chose Adjusted Production [once PRO/A, now OPS+] the sum of relative OnBase and relative Slugging rather than relative (OnBase + Slug) in order to track scoring routhly.

Having never done any studies of this, I have to concede that this is most likely true. Playing around with the OPS+ formula, I see that it linearly tracks the following:

(BA * LgSP) + (SP * LgBA)

This certainly looks like a compromise formula between vanilla OPS and James' Runs Created.

I stand corrected, and will reexamine the batting portion of the BDERA+ calculation.
   68. DavidFoss Posted: January 27, 2005 at 08:04 PM (#1106242)
Playing around with the OPS+ formula, I see that it linearly tracks the following:

(BA * LgSP) + (SP * LgBA)

This certainly looks like a compromise formula between vanilla OPS and James' Runs Created.


Its probably a typo, but I think you mean:

OBP*LgSLG + SLG*LgOBP

You're right in that its like RC in that its OBP times SLG. But also note that its fortuitously "lineup-adjusted"... it eliminates some of the batting-yourself-in that can happen with RC with great players.
   69. jimd Posted: January 27, 2005 at 08:09 PM (#1106257)
(BA * LgSP) + (SP * LgBA)
OBP*LgSLG + SLG*LgOBP

Thanks. That's what I meant (though not what I typed).
   70. karlmagnus Posted: January 27, 2005 at 09:36 PM (#1106467)
(65)jingoist, you have to remember that most of Beckley's seasons weren't full length. Adjust him to 154 games and he's over 3100 hits, maybe 3200 (I get confused with all the ties back then). But I also like Goose, and if everybody thought like we do, Beckley would have been in by 1920 and Goose would go in with Lou this year!

It's a pity about Ferrell's W/L record and ERA, because I like his grouchy personality, and feel he's a lot better than several HOF pitchers, just not quite HOM. I have a 1946 book on the 1933-46 mini-renaissance of the Red Sox, and from what I read he and Grove were a real joy together in the clubhouse!
   71. OCF Posted: January 27, 2005 at 10:39 PM (#1106661)
I might as well put up my RA+-equivalent records for the pitchers of the moment. Biggest weakness: none of these are adjusted for defensive support. Offensive support (Chris J.'s bread and butter) is irrelevant, unless generated by the pitcher's own hitting. I did adjust Ferrell for that, against a default assumption that a typical pitcher was a pretty bad hitter, so you can take the others who weren't so bad and adjust them up some. Decisions are based on IP.
Pitcher     W-L    FWP  Big years bonus
Rixie     275-224  202   19
Waddell   200-129  194   58
Adams     201-132  189   40
Hoyt      234-184  182   18
Griffith  216-160  181   43
Cicotte   209-149  181   48
Cooper    220-166  180   23
Powell    263-225  179   26
Ferrell   179-113  176   54  (adjusted for hitting)
Shocker   181-117  173   29
Quinn     237-199  167    1
Luque     203-154  164   33
Joss      161- 98  164   40
Mays      189-146  150   13
Grimes    242-222  147   25

As you can see, that's a pretty tightly bunched pack of pitchers. In the long-career low-peak inning eater category, I'm comfortable putting Rixie at the front, ahead of Hoyt, Cooper, or Powell, and I'm no fan of Grimes. But in a couple of years, Lyons (260-202, 205, 22) may well go ahead of Rixie. I'm also pretty sure that this raw number overrates Adams, mostly because of the missing defensive adjustments. But I'm not so confident of the right way to splice in the shorter-career pitchers.

I've got Ferrell as Shocker, except with a big peak.

Ruffing, Lyons, Bridges, and Warnecke will all fit into the list you see above. Grove and Hubbell will both be well above it. Gomez and Dean both have career-length (total IP) issues. (Dean 136-82, 139, 35).
   72. KJOK Posted: January 28, 2005 at 01:05 AM (#1106947)
KJOK,

When do you propose that the position shift between 2B and 3B happened? All of Sewell's 3B time was after 1928 and he became a full-time 3B in 1929. I think that date is a little too late to really be giving Sewell extra credit for being a 3B. The dead ball era was part of history and the lively ball era of the late 20's/early 30's was in full swing.


1934 was definitely the turning point if you look at batting by position. Sewell was retired by then.

And there are plenty of SS/3B guys today even though we are pretty sure that 2B is the more improtant defensive position. ARod, Ripken, Vinny Castilla, Tony Batista. 2B has as much to do with the ability to tuurn the double play than it does range.

4 guys are not many, but it's true that there are quite a few SS/3B players as the difference between 2B and 3B today may not be as pronounced as in the 1960's, as there's a decline in 3B/1B players...there's still quite a few SS/2B, and there's almost NO 2B/1B guys.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2005 at 02:53 AM (#1107078)
Thanks to D. Foss (#47). And, jonesy, I am no stranger to controversy here. I was once bashed for "advocating" for Al Spalding, and I can assure you I didn't write one word in Spalding's behalf for every 1,000 we've gotten re. Ferrell. This has been a Heisman Trophy style campaign from the beginning. If you could step back and see the big picture, you'd see how out of character with this whole project this campaign has been.

I mean, there's research. And then there's analysis. You have not supplied any analysis. Only research...and advocacy. We are trying to elect the right 220 guys. You want us to elect one guy.

As David says, you gonna vote this year? Do you have a stake in us getting the right 220 guys? I mean, what is your relationship with the Ferrells or Thompsons? I am curious.

No, I don't contribute much in the way of research here. Don't have time. I flatter myself as a knowledgeable consumer of research, though, and fortunately there's a lot of good stuff here. I've certainly learned a lot. My Ph.D. work was in research methodology, and I do market research and analysis for a living. I also do historical research just for fun, my B.A. was in history, and currently I am working on (co-authoring) a history of basketball in Minnesota which is planned/expected to be published by the Minnesota Historical Society. I probably know more about basketball in Minnesota pre-WWII than any three living persons. I don't make the same claim for MLB.

I was reading through some old newspapers the other day, from the early '30s, maybe '32 or '33 (???) and I was surprised to read that the younger, kid brother (16 years old maybe?) of the four baseball playing Ferrell brothers had killed himself by virtue of a gunshot to the head.
   74. Michael Bass Posted: January 28, 2005 at 02:59 AM (#1107095)
I really don't see the need to bash jonesy for this. I wasn't around for Spaulding, but I was around for the last 10 years of Pearce, and I can say with no hesitation that this isn't any different than that was.
   75. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2005 at 02:59 AM (#1107098)
And I know I don't contribute much here whereas without John there would be no HoM...but, John, read your intro to this thread (and maybe check a few of the older ballot discussion threads for comparison). Specifically your comments re. Goose, Hoyt and Cuyler. I don't remember you telling us in your ballot discussion intro's previously quite exactly where newbies should be on our ballots.
   76. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 28, 2005 at 03:29 AM (#1107143)
I don't remember you telling us in your ballot discussion intro's previously quite exactly where newbies should be on our ballots.

I'm not telling anybody who to vote for. I'm only giving my opinion, FWIW. Since York and Childs will be on my ballot forever, I'm hardly Mesmer, Rasputin or Svengali around here with the electorate, so it's not like I'm going to sway anybody with my comments.

The only difference between everyone else commenting on the newbies here and I is that I can be the first one to do so on this thread.

BTW, I have done this a few other times before. Does anyone else have a problem with this? I'm not attacking anyone for thinking differently than me. Joe used to do it every now and then, IIRC.

Looking at my comments above, Goslin was a forecast about when he would be elected. It wasn't a critique about his credentials.

As for Ferrell, it was a question regarding his chances of being elected, not that he wasn't worthy.

Last, but not least, my comments regarding Kuyler and Hoyt are specified as my opinion.

I really don't see the need to bash jonesy for this. I wasn't around for Spaulding, but I was around for the last 10 years of Pearce, and I can say with no hesitation that this isn't any different than that was.

Is this addressed to me or Marc?
   77. Chris Cobb Posted: January 28, 2005 at 03:49 AM (#1107180)
BTW, I have done this a few other times before. Does anyone else have a problem with this? I'm not attacking anyone for thinking differently than me. Joe used to do it every now and then, IIRC.

I don't have a problem with it, in that I agree with you that it has zero infuence on the electorate, but I'd say it's probably better not to do it, or not to the extent of this year's heading. Helps to avoid the appearance of official advocacy for people who may be new to the group or only casually paying attention to it. Noting the probable top candidates is fine, I think; that helps visitors know who's likely to be talked about in the discussion.
   78. Michael Bass Posted: January 28, 2005 at 03:51 AM (#1107184)
I didn't mean it as any sort of insult; I think it's natural human tendency to get involved in things you believe in. I was guilty of it a bit with Rube Foster. I just object to the statement that "advocacy" is something new to the project. A lot of us, as I said myself included, have gotten emotionally attached to people we believe are worthy, and it has gone beyond detached analysis quite a few times.
   79. DavidFoss Posted: January 28, 2005 at 03:57 AM (#1107194)
BTW, I have done this a few other times before. Does anyone else have a problem with this? I'm not attacking anyone for thinking differently than me. Joe used to do it every now and then, IIRC.

I've been noticing some commentary creeping into the thread headers the past few years. Its no big deal, but since its been brought up, I'll weigh in.

It can be a little bit too much sometimes. Maybe say that Cuyler & Hoyt should make some ballots and not that they are in the HOVG. The header to the Cuyler thread is especially partisan. I mean, he's not on my ballot, either, but if I was a FOKC I would probably be a bit annoyed. The header is like "Switzerland", that's the moderator talking. :-) Of course, a bit of commentary in the results thread header is expected, but that's after-the-fact congratulatory stuff.

I do love the non-sequiturs, the running gags, and of course, the prompt and thorough posts. By all means, keep it fun! :-)

Of course, any partisan commentary you have can go in post #1, instead of just "Hot Topics".
   80. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:04 AM (#1107208)
I didn't mean it as any sort of insult; I think it's natural human tendency to get involved in things you believe in. I was guilty of it a bit with Rube Foster. I just object to the statement that "advocacy" is something new to the project. A lot of us, as I said myself included, have gotten emotionally attached to people we believe are worthy, and it has gone beyond detached analysis quite a few times.

I don't think I ever have posted anything that would imply that I was against advocacy, since I have obviously done it on a number of occasions.

I have zero problem with what jonesy has been doing for the past few months. The only problem I had (and it really wasn't a problem) was using testimonials from other people to bolster your case. Is it good to take a look at them? Most definitely. But they only go so far in enlightening the electorate. But if jonesy still wants to do it, I'm not going to ask him to stop. It doesn't bother me at all in any which way.

I don't have a problem with it, in that I agree with you that it has zero infuence on the electorate, but I'd say it's probably better not to do it, or not to the extent of this year's heading. Helps to avoid the appearance of official advocacy for people who may be new to the group or only casually paying attention to it. Noting the probable top candidates is fine, I think; that helps visitors know who's likely to be talked about in the discussion.

Your sentence that I highlighted makes sense to me, Chris. I'll refrain from making any more comments of that type anymore.
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:08 AM (#1107217)
The header to the Cuyler thread is especially partisan. I mean, he's not on my ballot, either, but if I was a FOKC I would probably be a bit annoyed.

Point taken, David.

I do love the non-sequiturs, the running gags, and of course, the prompt and thorough posts. By all means, keep it fun! :-)

Will do!
   82. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:36 AM (#1107258)
OK, this one's for Guapo. Since you went to the trouble to analyze Sewell's Win Shares compared to the rest of his league in arguing for him (and I generally agree with you), let's do the same for Frisch. (I didn't figure out where he ranks if it's below 30th)

1919 - 3 WS
1920 - 15 WS
1921 - 31 WS - Tied for 2nd overall and among position players (Hornsby, Bancroft(T))
1922 - 20 WS - 19th overall (Tie), 13th among position players (Tie) (Wheat, High(T), Johnston(T), Grimes, O'Farrell, Hollocher, Daubert, Duncan, Bancroft, Youngs, Kelly(T), Carey, Bigbee, Maranville, Hornsby)
1923 - 31 WS - 2nd overall, 1st among position players
1924 - 30 WS - 5th overall, 4th among position players (Wheat, Fournier, Hornsby)
1925 - 20 WS - 18th overall (Tie), 14th among position players (Tie) (Bancroft, Burrus, Fournier, Wheat, Roush, Walker, Kelly, Meusel(T), Cuyler, Carey, Traynor, Wright, Hornsby, Bottomley, Blades(T))
1926 - 20 WS - 17th overall (Tie), 12th among position players (Tie) (Bancroft(T), Herman(T), Wilson, Adams, Walker, Roush, Lindstrom(T), P. Waner, Cuyler, Traynor, Bell, Bottomley, O'Farrell, Hornsby)
1927 - 34 WS - 3rd overall and among position players (Hornsby, P. Waner)
1928 - 22 WS - 19th overall (Tie), 13th among position players (Tie) (Hornsby, Bissonette, Wilson, Hartnett, Stephenson, Lindstrom, Terry, Jackson(T), P. Waner, L. Waner, Traynor(T), Bottomley, Hafey, Douthit)
1929 - 20 WS - 25th overall, 19th among position players (Herman, Frederick, Hornsby, Wilson, Stephenson, Cuyler, Ott, Terry, Jackson, O'Doul, Klein, Whitney, P. Waner, L. Waner, Traynor, Douthit, Hafey, Bottomley)
1930 - 25 WS - 13th overall, 12th among position players (Berger, Herman, Wilson, Cuyler, Hartnett, English, Terry, Lindstrom, Ott, Klein, P. Waner)
1931 - 21 WS - 17th overall (Tie), 14th among positon players (Berger, Herman, O'Doul, Cuyler, English, Cuccinello, Terry, Ott, Jackson, Klein, P. Waner, L. Waner, Hafey)
1932 - 14 WS
1933 - 22 WS - 15th overall (Tie), 12th among position players (Tie) (Berger, Moore(T), Warneke, Herman, Hafey, Ott, Klein, Vaughan, P. Waner, Lindstrom, Martin, Medwick)
1934 - 19 WS - 23rd overall (Tie), 15th among position players (Tie) (Berger, Urbanski, Lee, Koenecke, Leslie, Hartnett, Cuyler, Klein(T), Ott, Terry, Moore, Vaughan, P. Waner, Suhr(T), Collins, Medwick)
1935 - 12 WS
1936 - 7 WS
1937 - 0 WS

Given 4 seasons in the top 4 among position players, and 13 out of 14 in the top 20, I think that record's at least as impressive as Sewell's.

Interestingly, Frisch was 1st on his team 6 times (including ties), and in the top 5 14 times, compared to 4 and 9 respectively for Sewell, although Frisch played for much better teams than Sewell did.
   83. Kelly in SD Posted: January 28, 2005 at 10:13 AM (#1107961)
Thought it would be good to see a Goslin post like the Frisch one: (all ranks are for position players only)

1921: 1 WS
1922: 12 WS (6th on team, 3rd outfielder)
1923: 21 WS (3rd on team, Rice and Ruel)(15th in league, 10th among outfielders)(Harris, Collins, Speaker, Sewell, Jamieson, Heilmann, Cobb, Ruth, Witt, K. Williams, Rice, Ruel)
1924: 29 WS (1st on team)(3rd in league, 3rd in outfielders)(Ruth, Heilmann)
1925: 31 WS (1st on team)(2nd in league, 2nd OF)(Simmons)
1926: 33 WS (1st team)(2nd league, 2nd OF)(Ruth)
1927: 28 WS (1st team)(5th league, 4th OF)(Ruth, Gehrig, Heilmann, Combs)
1928: 26 WS (1st team)(5th league, 4th OF)(Ruth, Gehrig, Manush, Combs)
1929: 19 WS (3rd tied team)(Judge, Rice 20, Cronin 19)(21st league, tied 9th OF)
1930: 25 WS (2 teams)(9th tied league, 3rd tied OF)(Reynolds [tied], Morgan, Hodapp [tied], Gehringer, Gehrig, Ruth, Simmons, Foxx, Cochrane, Cronin)
1931: 25 WS (1st team)(8th tied league, 4th tied OF)(Webb [t], Blue, Averill, Ruth, Gehrig, Simmons, Cochrane, Bishop [t], Cronin)
1932: 19 WS (1st team)(17th league, 9th OF)(Averill, Vosmik, Kamm, Gehringer, Stone, Gehrig, Ruth, Lazzeri, Combs, Chapman, Foxx, Cochrane, Simmons, Cronin, Manush, Myer)
1933: 20 WS (6th team, 3rd OF)(20th league, 8th OF)(Appling, Simmons, Averill, Gehringer, Rogell, Gehrig, Ruth, Dickey, Lazzeri, Chapman, Foxx, Cochrane, Higgins, B Johnson, Cronin, Manush, Kuhel, Myer, Schulte)
1934: 22 WS (6th team, 1st OF)(12th tied-league, 3rd tied OF)(Werber, Simmons, Averill, Trosky, Gehringer, Greenberg, Rogell, Cochrane, Owen, Gehrig, Foxx, Bob Johnson [t])
1935: 17 WS (6th team, 2nd OF)(21st tied league, 9th tied OF)
1936: 23 WS (2nd team, 1st OF)(11th tied league, 3rd OF)(Foxx, Appling, Bonura, Averill, Gehringer, Gehrig, Dickey, DiMaggio, Crosetti, Rolfe, Clift [t])
1937: 4 WS
1938: 0 WS despite 57 ABs in 38 games. .158/.262/.316.

So, 5 pennant winners: 1924, 1925, 1933, 1934, 1935
7 times best on team
6 times top 3 OF in AL: 1924, 1925, 1926, 1930, 1934, 1936.
3 times 4th best OF: 1927, 1928, 1931.
5 times top 5 player in AL: 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928.
2 times 6-10th best player in AL: 1930, 1931.
12 times top 20 player in AL.
   84. Kelly in SD Posted: January 28, 2005 at 10:19 AM (#1107970)
1944 prelim ballot:

1. Lou Gehrig: Let’s see: Best career win shares, Best peak, Best prime, Best per season. Only regret is not changing the rules so he could be enshrined while he was still alive. Hell, we let Joe Jackson in and he is still banned from baseball. I think the Hall of Fame made a better decision on this one.

2. Mickey Welch:

3 – 9: My personal outfield glut + Frankie Frisch + Bill Foster. Charley Jones, Pete Browning, Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren, Goose Goslin.
Currently,
3. Jones
4. Browning
5. Duffy
6. Frisch
7. Foster
8. Goslin
9. Van Haltren

Frisch could switch with Duffy, but no higher. Jones’ and Browning’s peaks and primes are just too much larger for Frisch to get ahead of even though he played second base. If I was up-to-date on my PHOM, Frisch or Foster would be my second electee this year.

Foster deserves to be in the HoM, but I am just not sure how high to place him.

Goslin does not stand out from many other outfield candidates in terms of peak, prime, or seasonal adjusted career win shares. Also, 5 times a top-3 outfielder in AL, but only 2 times a top-3 outfielder in the majors. Very good grey ink, but minor black ink score. Good outfield defense, not great. That package does not stand out from the rest.

10 - 15. My secondary outfield glut/ short(er) career middle infielders/ high peak, short(er) career pitchers: George Burns, Edd Roush, Tommy Leach, Spots Poles, Cupid Childs, Hughie Jennings, Dobie Moore, John Beckwith, Dick Redding, Jose Mendez, Wes Ferrell, Vic Willis. Twelve players, 6 spots.
Currently,
10. Spots Poles
11. Cupid Childs
12. Dobie Moore
13. George Burns
14. Edd Roush
15. Wes Ferrell / Redding / Mendez

Moore gets a boost because I am now giving some credit (2.5-3 seasons) for military play. I’ll take him over Jennings and Beckwith. He lasted longer than Jennings and it seems like he has the slightest of edges over Beckwith, but I am going to reread both their threads again. Also, Poles to make sure I am not overvaluing him.

Mendez was overrated by me. Over Foster, and no one even asked... Redding vs. Mendez changes every ballot it seems. I am having a devil of a time trying to decide which of Ferrell, Mendez, Redding deserves to be on the ballot. None have long careers, all have high peaks and primes. Maybe Ferrell b/c of the tough pitching conditions. Remember, of the 100 pitchers in James’ top 100, Ferrell had the highest league ERA for his career. Willis gets reduced because it was easier to pitch more innings when he played, though the deadball era really didn’t start until his career was half over.

Leach doesn’t have quite the peak this election, though he’ll reappear soon enough I think.

If Jennings, Beckwith, or another pitcher gets on, it will be because Roush gets bumped off.

I am trying a slight positional bonus for second, third, and short, and a significant bonus for catchers. I am not sure if the numbers feel “right” enough to use or if I will go back to no bonus except for catcher.

Also, for pitchers I am using a modified 3 year measurement for peak now: one half 3 consecutive years and one half 3 best years.

Off to finish some 1920s-1930s reading in Alexander’s Breaking the Slump, Koppett’s Concise History, and the Sports Encyclopedia Baseball. Try to get a better handle on Frisch and Goslin.

Cuyler: 47th
Hoyt: 92nd - looooowwwww peak and prime, just pitched forever.
Dykes: 109th - ahead of Bing Miller.
   85. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 12:35 PM (#1108039)
I posted this on the pitcher Pennants Added thread, I'll repost it here:

Ferrell came out surprisingly well in Pennants Added and WARP3, both of which account for his hitting. According to RSI, Vance won 21 more while losing 5 fewer games, which is a huge edge. Is that offset by Ferrell creating 144 more runs while using 3 more outs with the bat? It's pretty close I'd say.

I can't see how anyone could support Vance and not Ferrell - they are extremely close. Could go either way IMO.

Hoyt is an interesting case. Clearly doesn't have the peak of the other two, but he's much closer than I thought he'd be.
   86. Howie Menckel Posted: January 28, 2005 at 02:55 PM (#1108111)
Maybe 20 minutes after this thread was born, I wrote a "no big deal, but maybe the tone of the header isn't quite right" message, which have been the first on the list.
For some reason, my work computer wouldn't allow it to post. So I posted it again, again no luck. Tried it one more time the following day. No dice. So I gave up.
And there it is as a topic three days later!

Murph, the Goslin vs Frisch comment I think belonged below the list of players. I'd gently suggest you're on safe ground with "While Gehrig is a lock, Goslin may provide a formidable challenge for Frisch." Or "Is Goslin a first-ballot fellow, or just a piece of the OF glut dressed up in a 1930s-mega-numbers suit? This could be an interesting election." And any Negro Leaguer who by some measure was a serious player is a good addition as well.

I realize you've now already reached the same conclusion, but what the heck, I couldn't resist trying again.
   87. Al Peterson Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:01 PM (#1108200)
1944 Prelim. Iron Horse and the rest of the crew.

1. Lou Gehrig. I was tempted to lower him since he only played 14 full seasons. Then again when your RBI totals look like it should be the hit column you must be doing alright.
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Bill Foster
4. Goose Goslin. Nine years top 10 in the league for Extra Base Hits.
5. Rube Waddell
6. Edd Roush
7. Jimmy Ryan
8. Clark Griffith
9. Dick Redding
10. Pete Browning
11. Hughie Jennings
12. John Beckwith
13. George Van Haltren
14. Hugh Duffy
15. Eppa Rixey

16. John McGraw
17. Spotswood Poles
18. Tommy Leach
19. Jake Beckley
20. Cupid Childs
21. Wes Ferrell. His peak looks pretty good. Done by 30 is not so great. I'm also having a mental block over him having more walks than strikeouts for his career. Have we elected anyone else holding that distinction?
22. Mike Griffin
23. George Sisler
24. Vic Willis
25. Kiki Cuyler. Got sat down at the end of the 1927 season and the World Series; apparently had a run-in with the manager and owner. Good to see clubhouse cancers touch all baseball eras.
26. Tony Mullane
27. Roger Bresnahan
28. Joe Sewell
29. Bobby Veach
30. Jose Mendez
31. Mickey Welch
32. Fred Dunlap
33. Fielder Jones
34. Dobie Moore
35. Carl Mays
36. Charley Jones
37. Urban Shocker
38. Wally Schang
39. Ben Taylor
40. Hack Wilson
41. Frank Chance
42. Burleigh Grimes
43. Dick Lundy
44. Pie Traynor
45. Mike Tiernan
46. Harry Hooper
47. Addie Joss
48. Bill Monroe
49. Gavvy Cravath
50. Eddie Cicotte
   88. Al Peterson Posted: January 28, 2005 at 04:08 PM (#1108213)
As for the lead-in for the 1944 discussion, it doesn't affect my one way or another. I'm just glad someone took the time and effort to put together a complete listing of new eligibles. That's where my eyes wander, not the comments before.

Not to say John's comments aren't enjoyable. They are, but they're not deal breakers when forming a ballot. Like he said, we haven't all exactly jumped on the Tom York bandwagon. In fact that wagon has a complete lack of wheels right now.
   89. PhillyBooster Posted: January 28, 2005 at 05:07 PM (#1108324)
C                     PenAdd WSaR   WS  WARP3
Deacon White (3B)      1.190  331  500   84.8
Cal McVey (1B/3B)       .865  228  320   33.1
Buck Ewing (1B/3B)      .794  229  331   82.9
Mickey Cochrane         .730  209  292   88.6
Roger Bresnahan (CF)    .577  170  249   57.6
Wally Schang            .564  174  262   70.8
Charlie Bennett         .523  154  239   68.4
Deacon McGuire          .394  124  232   46.5


While looking over the "pennants added" charts, I noticed two very sizeable "breaks" in the numbers. There are no catchers in ".600s" and no catchers in the ".400s" either.

The problem, of course, with having Cochrane as the lower bound is that you are going to have a very-small-catcher Hall. For those of us who use "extra catcher credit", are we using enough?

Bresnahan has been on my ballot for years, but Schang has not. Perhaps he is a major oversight? If we were to induct both Bresnahan and Schang, then Schang would still be 43% better (in pennants added) then the next best catcher.

There appears to be no "slippery slope" argument for these two. They are both miles ahead of the next best eligible.

Do we want a HoM with only a dozen catchers? Can you get to your desired level without dipping into the Bresnahan, Schang category?
   90. OCF Posted: January 28, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1108665)
Do we want a HoM with only a dozen catchers? Can you get to your desired level without dipping into the Bresnahan, Schang category?

First of all, a dozen isn't that bad. 220 honorees: how many pitchers? 60-70 pitchers? That leaves 150-160 postion players. Divide that by 8, and you get 19-20 per position. A dozen is low, but within the realm of possible sampling, especially if there were ever periods in which the best baseball players (like Foxx?) were actively steered away from catcher and towards other positions. And in adding up the numbers, don't forget that we've already inducted Santop, that Gibson is a shoo-in, and that we're going to take a good look at Mackey.

It seems that as we get nearer to present times, we have an increasing wealth of not only obvious cases (Bench, Carter, Fisk) but also a much richer supply of arguable cases like Freehan or Simmons.

This may well be a consequence of changes in both protective gear and medical technology making longer careers possible and more games per season possible; how much allowance to make for that I don't know.
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: January 28, 2005 at 07:45 PM (#1108688)
I wrote and jimd replied, in part:
Pete Palmer chose Adjusted Production [once PRO/A, now OPS+] the sum of relative OnBase and relative Slugging rather than relative (OnBase + Slug) in order to track scoring routhly.

Having never done any studies of this, I have to concede that this is most likely true.


I'm not sure it was based on any empirical study of OPS+, only on the empirical result that OnBase*Slug tracks runs better than OnBase+Slug. Hence OPS+ is defined to increase by 10% when OnBase increases by 10% or Slug increases by 10%.
   92. Daryn Posted: January 28, 2005 at 07:49 PM (#1108703)
I'm a relatively big supporter of Bresnahan, put it looks like we can easily hit 15 catchers without him. I see 13 relatively sure things and 5 or so more with a 50/50 chance. I'd like to see Bresnahan in, put his not making it will, in my view, only lead to an underrepresentation of catchers for his time period, rather than an improperly set cutoff for catchers for all-time.
   93. Paul Wendt Posted: January 28, 2005 at 07:51 PM (#1108712)
Excuse me, the additivity of relative differences holds in the limit, as the differences approach zero; as {OnBase+ , Slug+ } approaches {100 , 100}.
   94. ronw Posted: January 28, 2005 at 08:39 PM (#1108820)
Preliminary 1944 ballot:


1. Lou Gehrig
2. Frankie Frisch
3. Goose Goslin

Three solid, future members

4. Bill Foster
5. John Beckwith

A couple of Negro leaguers whom I think belong. Foster stands the better chance in '45.

6. George Van Haltren
7. Jake Beckley
8. Jimmy Ryan

Three long-time 1890's candidates. Our problem with the 1890's as an electorate is that some of us favor the holdover infielders, some of us the outfielders, and a few favor Clark Griffith. Usually, people don't favor all three categories.

9. Eppa Rixey
10. Wes Ferrell
11. Burleigh Grimes

The pitchers. Ferrell definitely belongs on a ballot, but how high? He is pitcher #3 here. I'm not sure why Grimes is receiving such little support. He seems to have similar numbers to electee Red Faber and solid candidate Eppa Rixey.

12. Dobie Moore
13. Dick Lundy
14. Bill Monroe

Negro League infielders seem to have difficulty in our rankings. Are we being too harsh? While outfielders like Torriente and Hill breeze into the HOM, only Lloyd can claim that distinction for infielders so far. Johnson & Grant took some time, although Johnson made it relatively quickly. Coming up soon, we'll have Jud Wilson, Willie Wells, George Scales, Ray Dandridge and Newt Allen, of whom only Wells may be a shoo-in. At 1B, we've got Mule Suttles and Buck Leonard, both of whom should make it.

15. Tommy Leach

I thought of putting another overlooked Negro League infielder, Ben Taylor, at the bottom, but Leach has been overlooked longer.
   95. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 28, 2005 at 09:20 PM (#1108956)
"21. Wes Ferrell. His peak looks pretty good. Done by 30 is not so great. I'm also having a mental block over him having more walks than strikeouts for his career. Have we elected anyone else holding that distinction?"

Not to pick on Al - but, Vance didn't start until 30, did you hold that against him? (I honestly don't know the answer).

As with Vance rolling in, we are seriously overrating strikeouts for pitchers at the dawn of the hitters era. I'm in a Diamond Mind league that started in 1924 and there are several pitchers who had decent careers with strikeout numbers that would blow your mind - the wrong way. Check out Ernie Wingard for example. Or Sloppy Thurston.

It was a different time, one where the walks and HR factors had quite an impact in terms of success (and impact on DIPS). It's arguable that for some reason, pitchers had more of an impact in BIP than they do now. It hasn't been studied yet.

I know Tippett's study said he didn't find any difference back to 1913, but he didn't rigorously study it, and he wasn't looking for that. I saw the presentation and read the report, and basically he said (paraphrasing), "I didn't notice any difference," I think that's because he wasn't looking was hard, not necessarily because it wasn't there.

Also, Ferrell was top 10 in the league in strikeouts 7 times, and 4 times he was top 10 in K/9, so it wasn't like he was a junkballer. He led the league in BB/9 once and finished 10th another time, we're hardly talking Rick Ankiel here. He also played in some pretty awesome hitters parks and didn't give up very many HR.

"The problem, of course, with having Cochrane as the lower bound is that you are going to have a very-small-catcher Hall. For those of us who use "extra catcher credit", are we using enough?"

I agree - that's why I give a 33% boost in terms of the raw numbers to catchers. I think this is very reasonable, maybe too low - for example should an 1800 game catcher be equivalent to a 2400 game position player? That seems a bit low. Bresnahan, of course, had a lot of his value in the OF, so he doesn't get nearly the boost that Schang does.
   96. Paul Wendt Posted: January 28, 2005 at 09:54 PM (#1109075)
I sent this note to Tim Grassey, who presented on Defensive Statistics at a Boston Chapter SABR meeting two weeks ago.
>>
I mentioned Tom Tippett's presentation of his DIPS study at the 2003 SABR Convention and I promised to send you a copy of the handout. Here is something better, a paper published at Diamond-Mind.
Tom Tippett, Can Pitchers Prevent Hits on B.I.P.
The paper includes the handout. In effect it is a revised and polished version of the presentation.

Web search for [tippett mccracken] gets a lot of hits and some of the first ones are reactions to this study.
<<
   97. Rick A. Posted: January 28, 2005 at 10:53 PM (#1109276)
1944 Prelim ballot

1. Gehrig
2. C. Jones
3. Frisch
4. Browning
5. Goslin
6. Beckwith
7. Childs
8. Jennings
9. Rixey
10. Willis
11. Foster
12. Monroe
13. Moore
14. Duffy
15. Roush

16-20 Grimes, Leach, Sisler, Lundy, Cooper
21-25 Schang, Mendez, Redding, McGraw, Williamson
26-30 Ferrell, Waddell, Mays, Taylor, Griffith
31-35 Poles, Tiernan, Bresnahan, Van Haltren, Doyle
36-40 Sewell, Traynor, Chance, Burns, McCormick
41-45 Bancroft, Griffin, F. Jones, Bond, Wilson
46-50 Long, Welch, R. Thomas, Cravath, Fournier
   98. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: January 28, 2005 at 11:28 PM (#1109378)
Ferrell came out surprisingly well in Pennants Added and WARP3, both of which account for his hitting. According to RSI, Vance won 21 more while losing 5 fewer games, which is a huge edge. Is that offset by Ferrell creating 144 more runs while using 3 more outs with the bat? It's pretty close I'd say.

I can't see how anyone could support Vance and not Ferrell - they are extremely close. Could go either way IMO.


Fair enough. One thing I would point out is that the whole MOWP family indicates there was a considerable differnce in quality of opposition that these two faced.
   99. OCF Posted: January 29, 2005 at 12:07 AM (#1109468)
I'm not sure why Grimes is receiving such little support. He seems to have similar numbers to electee Red Faber and solid candidate Eppa Rixey.

Similar numbers? In RA+ (and really also ERA+) I don't see it. He compensates for that with some hitting - maybe I'll see if I can work that in.

As for Vance slipping in quickly - yeah, we might have overrated him a little. But only a little. And Vance's injury-shortened career was longer (in IP) than Ferrell's injury-shortened career.
   100. ronw Posted: January 29, 2005 at 01:33 AM (#1109678)
OCF:

Re your Grimes comment:

Similar numbers? In RA+ (and really also ERA+) I don't see it. He compensates for that with some hitting - maybe I'll see if I can work that in.

I agree with you there. I suppose I was thinking that he had similar:

Pennants Added:
Rixey - .685
Faber - .664
Grimes - .662

But that doesn't take into account league quality.

Career Win Shares
Rixey - 339
Faber - 312
Grimes - 309

Again, no league quality adjustment.

WARP3
Faber - 83.9
Rixey - 79.7
Grimes - 73.5

Here is some league quality.

Grimes is below Faber and Rixey on all three career measurements, but not by much.

What about season by season?

WARP

1912 - Rixey 5.2, Faber 0, Grimes 0
1913 - Rixey 2.5, Faber 0, Grimes 0
1914 - Faber 2.3, Rixey -1.3, Grimes 0
1915 - Faber 4.8, Rixey 2.7, Grimes 0
1916 - Rixey 5.3, Faber 4.5, Grimes .3
1917 - Rixey 4.8, Faber 2.8, Grimes .2
1918 - Grimes 6.2, Faber 1.8, Rixey 0
1919 - Rixey .3, Grimes -.3, Faber -.5

WS

1912 - Rixey 14, Faber 0, Grimes 0
1913 - Rixey 12, Faber 0, Grimes 0
1914 - Faber 12, Rixey 0, Grimes 0
1915 - Faber 21, Rixey 12, Grimes 0
1916 - Rixey 24, Faber 17, Grimes 2
1917 - Rixey 20, Faber 16, Grimes 4
1918 - Grimes 25, Faber 7, Rixey 0
1919 - Faber 6, Grimes 6, Rixey 4


In the deadball era, Grimes is last, but none of these are monster seasons.

The prime of their careers was spent in the 20's

WARP

1920 - Grimes 8.7, Faber 5.9, Rixey 4.2
1921 - Faber 13.9, Grimes 8.7, Rixey 5.5
1922 - Faber 10.5, Rixey 3.8, Grimes 1.8
1923 - Rixey 6.4, Grimes 5.8, Faber 4.9
1924 - Rixey 6.5, Grimes 4.5, Faber 4.0
1925 - Rixey 7.7, Faber 4.0, Grimes 2.0
1926 - Grimes 4.3, Faber 3.5, Rixey 3.1
1927 - Grimes 4.8, Rixey 3.5, Faber 1.5
1928 - Grimes 9.5, Rixey 6.6, Faber 3.2
1929 - Grimes 6.6, Rixey 4.5, Faber 4.3

WS

1920 - Grimes 32, Faber 25, Rixey 18
1921 - Faber 37, Grimes 29, Rixey 22
1922 - Faber 31, Rixey 23, Grimes 11
1923 - Rixey 26, Grimes 21, Faber 16
1924 - Rixey 21, Grimes 21, Faber 9
1925 - Rixey 26, Faber 15, Grimes 9
1926 - Grimes 15, Rixey 14, Faber 13
1927 - Grimes 19, Rixey 15, Faber 5
1928 - Grimes 30, Rixey 22, Faber 13
1929 - Grimes 23, Faber 15, Rixey 14

During these seasons, Grimes more than holds his own.

1930s

WARP

1930 - Grimes 4.5, Faber 3.1, Rixey 2.8
1931 - Faber 4.4, Grimes 3.6, Rixey 1.2
1932 - Faber 3.1, Rixey 2.8, Grimes .6
1933 - Faber 1.8, Rixey 1.6, Grimes .7
1934 - Grimes .5, Faber 0, Rixey 0

WS

1930 - Grimes 16, Faber 10, Rixey 8
1931 - Grimes 15, Faber 11, Rixey 5
1932 - Rixey 9, Faber 6, Grimes 4
1933 - Faber 7, Rixey 6, Grimes 3
1934 - Grimes 1, Faber 0, Rixey 0

In the twilight seasons Grimes had a decent 1930, but nothing really is added to the HOM case of any of the three.

I think that Faber's advantage was a few more deadball seasons, which are partly offset by Grimes' 1918. Rixey of course had even more deadball years, also offset by Grimes' 1918.

All three seem to be HOM-worthy, although not outstanding selections (excepting Faber's 1921-22 seasons.)
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0780 seconds
49 querie(s) executed