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, July 25, 2005

1957 Ballot Discussion

1957 (August 8)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died
)
387 123.9 1936 Joe DiMaggio-CF (1999)
277 100.3 1939 Lou Boudreau-SS (2001)
281 98.3 1937 Bobby Doerr-2B (living)
237 68.2 1935 Wally Moses-RF (1990)
218 67.0 1939 Charlie Keller-LF (1990)
139 46.3 1943 Snuffy Stirnweiss-2B (1958)
145 43.6 1938 Sam Chapman-CF (living)
120 33.3 1943 Jim Russell-LF (1987)
108 36.2 1940 Danny Litwhiler-LF (living)
101 38.1 1935 Ray Mueller-C (1994)
108 31.9 1942 Hank Borowy-P (2004)
094 37.1 1939 Buddy Rosar-C (1994)

1957 (July 31)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

20% 37-55 Buck O’Neil-1B (1911) #4 1b 0 - 1*
16% 38-51 Max Manning-P (1918)2.5 - 1*
00% 42-51 Jim LaMarque-P (1921)2 - 3*
00% 38-53 Lester Lockett-3B/OF (1912) 1 - 3*
00% 33-51 Parnelle Woods-3B (1912) 0- 4*
00% 37-53 Henry Kimbro-CF (1912) 0 - 3*
00% 37-51 Lenny Pearson-OF (1918) 0 - 3*

Players Passing Away in 1956
HoMers
Age Elected

54 1946 Al Simmons-LF/CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

93 1902 Connie Mack-C/Mgr
83 1912 Kip Selbach-LF
82 1914 Jesse Tannehill-P
82 1914 Jimmy Slagle-CF
79 1915 Harry Howell-P
79 1916 Ginger Beaumont-CF
77 1919 Tom Hughes-P
73 1922 Solly Hofman-CF
67 1926 Fred Merkle-1b
65 1926 Buck Weaver-SS/3b
56 1940 John Beckwith-SS/3b

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 25, 2005 at 01:26 PM | 106 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: July 26, 2005 at 12:04 AM (#1497448)
hot topics
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 01:34 AM (#1497743)
1957 Prelim

My #3 (Suttles) and #6 (Appling) got elected both HoM and PHoM. DiMaggio enters at #1, Boudreau takes Appling’s slot, and only my #1 and #2 need to move down a slot. Except that I am re-evaluating everybody from #6 on down, as discussed below. Doerr is a couple-three slots below Gordon.

1. Joe DiMaggio (new, PHoM 1957)

Ya think?

2. Hughie Jennings (1 last year-2-3, PHoM 1927)
3. Dobie Moore (2-3-4, PHoM 1942)

The two great peak SSs move down one notch

4. Joe Medwick (4-6-2, PHoM 1954)
5. George Sisler (5-7-5, PHoM 1938)

The top two pure “hitters” stay where they are.

6. Lou Boudreau (new)

Takes Appling’s slot for starters. Last year my big decision was whether to PHoM Appling, or:

6a. Teddy Lyons,
6b. Harry Stovey,
6c. Willie Wells.

Same thing this year—Boudreau or backlog? Except that I think I will also look at Jose Mendez, John Beckwith and Billy Herman, too.

7. Tommy Bond (7-8-6, PHoM 1929)
8. Rube Waddell (8-9-9, PHoM 1932)
9. Jose Mendez (9-10-10)

My top three pitchers stay where they are for now, but Mendez gets PHoM consideration.

10. John Beckwith (10-11-13)

Could move up or down or into PHoM. This slot already reflects character issues, or rather how his issues might have affected his teams’ abiity to compete and win.

10a. Alejandro Oms (x)

Not to mention, if you had your choice of John Beckwith or Alejandro Oms for your team, which would you choose? I need to decide if Oms should be on ballot, and where.

11. Billy Herman (11-12-11)

I’m sure he’s the best available 2B and I’m sure it’s by a slight margin. Now, where does he fit into the PHoM queue?

12. Edd Roush (12-14-12)

My top CF for maybe 15 years now. In honor of Joe DiMaggio’s eligibility, it’s time to reconsider CF glut. Averill, Bell, Berger, Browning, Duffy, GVH, Oms, Poles, Ryan, Hack Wilson are in CF reconsideration set, anything could happen, or not.

13. Addie Joss (13-x-x)
14. Ed Williamson (14-x-15, PHoM 1924)
15. Joe Gordon (15-new)

Bottom three stay put for now. Could move as a result of PHoM, Oms and/or CFer movement.

Dropped out: None

16. Earl Averill (27)
17. Cool Papa Bell (22)
18. Pete Browning (17)

These three move up preliminarily. If any CF moves up based on the CF reevaluation, I except it to be one of these three but who knows.

19. Bobby Doerr (new)
20. Larry Doyle (16)
21. Charley Jones (18, PHOM 1921)
22. Gavy Cravath (19)
23. Chuck Klein (20)
24. Cupid Childs (21, PHOM 1925)
25. Eppa Rixey (23)
26. Joe Sewell (24)
27. Bill Monroe (25)
28. Clark Griffith (26)
29. Stan Hack (28)
30. Eddie Cicotte (29)
   3. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 26, 2005 at 02:55 AM (#1498042)
Oh, and he didn't make the list above, but this guy is also eligible this year. His career totals might not satisfy everyone, but his rates are off-the-charts.
   4. Rusty Priske Posted: July 26, 2005 at 12:35 PM (#1498749)
Since there are no good new candidates...


Just kidding.


Prelim:
PHoM match my Top 2.

1. Joe DiMaggio
2. Red Ruffing
3. Stan Hack
4. John Beckwith
5. George Van Haltren
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Joe Medwick
8. Jake Beckley
9. Cool Papa Bell
10. Billy Herman
11. Mickey Welch
12. Biz Mackey
13. Tommy Leach
14. Edd Roush
15. George Sisler

16-20. Moore, Duffy, Averill, Rice, Powell
21-25. Childs, Ryan, Mullane, Streeter, H.Smith
26-30. White, Griffith, Sewell, Strong, Gleason
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 01:27 PM (#1498777)
Alopng with re-eval. CFers, I'm also looking at my second PHoM choice pretty closely this year. The consideration set is:

Beckwith
Boudreau
Herman
Lyons
Mendez
Stovey
Wells

On aCWS Wells leads (386), Boudreau trails (268) and everybody else is close: The adj is for WWII and also as below.

Lyons 333.5
Herman 321.5
Stovey 317.5 AA discount but normalize to 154
Beckwith 315

On aPWS, Lyons trails with 189 and everybody else is close--really close. (This is James' 3 and 5 year numbers added together.)

Stovey 229.5
Herman 225
Beckwith 224
Boudreau 222
Wells 210

Stovey and Beckwith are way out ahead on OPS, but Wells (115 dWS) and Boudreau (88) are ahead on defense. Lyons and Mendez pretty much perfectly reflect to two poles among the pitchers--i.e. career versus peak.

I don't s'pose it helps my consensus score to catch up with the HoM by PHoMing somebody like Wells or Lyons, does it?
   6. Jim Sp Posted: July 26, 2005 at 07:27 PM (#1499576)
I’m having second thoughts about dropping Schang and Lombardi, but for now they stay off the ballot. I’m also a little uneasy about how high I have Cool Papa and Mackey as well. 1958 will be quite an election.

I might have Doerr and Gordon in the wrong order, I’ll have to look at the war discounts and credits.

DiMaggio/Boudreau 1 and 2, go into my PHoM. Doerr #9. Keller around #50, great peak but not enough career.

Rixey, Waddell, Cravath, Monroe, Schang, Bresnahan, Griffith, Joss, Jose Mendez, and Welch are in my PHoM but off my ballot.

1)DiMaggio--No doubt.
2)Boudreau--Once again, I love those shortstops who can hit.
3)Beckwith-- A great hitter, 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. He made my PHoM in 1940 over Coveleski and Faber.
4)Averill--Looks like a HoMer to me even without PCL credit, but I do give him some PCL credit as he was obviously major league quality before arriving in the majors. Compare him to Goslin: Averill has a higher OPS+ (133/128), and is an A+ CF vs. a C+ LF. Goslin has career length, mostly because Averill plays in the PCL for a while.
5)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here.
6)Cool Papa Bell--If Max Carey is in, Cool Papa should be too.
7)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.
8)Medwick--
9)Doerr--
10)Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. Usually I'm a WS guy but this time I think Warp has it right.
11)Billy Herman-- I’m still perplexed trying to figure out his career relative to the defensive spectrum shift at 2B. He looks good compared to modern 2B, not so great compared to early lively ball 2B. Gets two years war credit, that helps too.
12)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.
13)Stan Hack--His time will come, I think. I like him better than Groh, who I voted for.
14)Gordon
15)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.

Ruffing#30, he’s HoVG but I don’t like him as much as the consensus.
Hughie Jennings—impressive peak, not enough career.
Ferrell—one of the top 100 pitchers of all time, but not on my ballot currently.
Rixey--#16
   7. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: July 26, 2005 at 07:46 PM (#1499625)
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 08:44 PM (#1499770)
Chris,thanks for the info, this is good news, no, great news. I could agonize over their methodology, etc., etc., but the glass is definitely at least half full here.

There will be a 5 man screening committee, though it does not say how many names they will send forward, or how.

Then a 12 man voting committee which will hold 2 days of discussions (like the old VC), and then 9 of 12 (75%) will be needed to elect. I wonder if their ballot limit will be 10, in which case if the discussions are "successful" they could elect quite a few players. I hope they do.

Thre will actually be two separate slates, one of NeLers and one of pre-NeL blacks.

Input from fans, etc. etc., can be sent to info@baseballhalloffame.org

I would suggest that a formal HoM submission be sent in by a sub-committee of Joe, John, Chris, Doc and David, and Gad and Gary if they want to participate. In keeping with the spirit of this project, it ought to advocate for players in the order of how much support they've had here, but splitting hairs as needed to narrow down the choices and constructing the right data to support those players would be up to the committee.

If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am, the HoM/not HoF consists of:

C- Santop
1B- Suttles
2B- Grant
SS- Johnson
3B- Wilson, probably Beckwith
OF- Hill
P- Brown

I think our other NeL HoMers are in the HoF.

A second tier might be those getting votes, in order after Beckwith: Redding, Mendez, Moore, Monroe, Taylor, Lundy, Poles and Byrd, though I would suggest that we also cross-reference the total votes "ever" and incorporate some of that as well in ranking the second tier.

It is also not clear if there will (ever) be a follow up to the 2006 election. One would hope yes, but it is not a given as far as I can see.
   9. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 26, 2005 at 08:56 PM (#1499802)
OF - Torriente
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 09:00 PM (#1499817)
I can't believe of all the possibilities that Torriente is not already in the HoF. I thought he was!
   11. karlmagnus Posted: July 26, 2005 at 09:28 PM (#1499914)
It will be interesting; presumably the direct memories and friendships that caused them to elect all those 30s players, incluiding some pretty mediocre ones will have finished by now (other then Double Duty Radcliffe?) so they will focus more on the earlier players who were neglected, or those like Wilson and Beckwith whom nobody liked.

I'd elect Wilson, Beckwith, Torriente, Santop and Grant, and then tear up the entrance ramp permanently (ideally chucking out some they've already elected), but in reality I bet they keep electing more every 5-10 years so that eventually all sorts of second tier players make it.
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: July 26, 2005 at 09:37 PM (#1499934)
karl, god only knows there's plenty of second tier white folks.
   13. ronw Posted: July 26, 2005 at 09:54 PM (#1499969)
OK, with Suttles and Brown recently named, we've got the following 26 players who are HOM not HOF:

Ross Barnes, Charlie Bennett, Ray Brown, Bob Caruthers, Bill Dahlen,
Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Frank Grant, Heinie Groh, Pete Hill,
Paul Hines, Joe Jackson, Grant Johnson, Sherry Magee, Cal McVey,
Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Louis Santop, Jimmy Sheckard,
Joe Start, Harry Stovey, Mule Suttles, Ezra Sutton, Cristobal Torriente,
Deacon White.

In 1956, we have 55 HOF not HOM (including managers who are getting support as players)

Earl Averill, Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Cool Papa Bell, Chief Bender,
Jim Bottomley, Roger Bresnahan, Frank Chance, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs,
Kiki Cuyler, Dizzy Dean, Hugh Duffy, Johnny Evers, Rick Ferrell,
Lefty Gomez, Clark Griffith, Burleigh Grimes, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines,
Billy Herman, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Travis Jackson, Hughie Jennings,
Judy Johnson, Addie Joss, George Kelly, Chuck Klein, Tony Lazzeri,
Fred Lindstrom, Ernie Lombardi, Heinie Manush, Rabbit Maranville, Rube Marquard,
Tommy McCarthy, John McGraw, Joe Medwick, Herb Pennock, Sam Rice,
Eppa Rixey, Edd Roush, Red Ruffing, Ray Schalk, Joe Sewell
George Sisler, Hilton Smith, Joe Tinker, Pie Traynor, Rube Waddell,
Lloyd Waner, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis, Hack Wilson, Ross Youngs.

Other HOF coming up (I think):

1957 - Joe DiMaggio, Lou Boudreau, Bobby Doerr
1958 - None
1959 - Satchel Paige, Johnny Mize, Ray Dandridge
1960 - Hal Newhouser, Leon Day
1961 - Ralph Kiner
1962 - Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller, Monte Irvin, Phil Rizzuto
1963 - Roy Campanella, George Kell
1964 - Pee Wee Reese, Bob Lemon
1965 - Larry Doby, Enos Slaughter
1966 - Ted Williams
1967 - None
1968 - Richie Ashburn, Red Schoendienst
1969 - Stan Musial, Yogi Berra, Early Wynn
1970 - Duke Snider
1971 - Warren Spahn, Nellie Fox
1972 - Sandy Koufax, Robin Roberts
1973 - Whitey Ford
1974 - Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews
1975 - Don Drysdale
1976 - None
1977 - Ernie Banks, Jim Bunning
1978 - Roberto Clemente, Hoyt Wilhelm, Bill Mazeroski
1979 - Willie Mays, Luis Aparicio
1980 - Al Kaline, Orlando Cepeda
1981 - Bob Gibson, Harmon Killebrew, Juan Marichal
1982 - Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Billy Williams
1983 - Brooks Robinson
1984 - None
1985 - Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter
1986 - Willie McCovey
1987 - None
1988 - Willie Stargell
1989 - Carl Yastrzemski, Johnny Bench, Gaylord Perry, Ferguson Jenkins
1990 - Joe Morgan, Jim Palmer
1991 - Rod Carew, Rollie Fingers
1992 - Tom Seaver, Tony Perez
1993 - Steve Carlton, Reggie Jackson, Phil Niekro
1994 - Don Sutton
1995 - Mike Schmidt
1996 - None
1997 - None
1998 - Gary Carter
1999 - George Brett, Robin Yount, Nolan Ryan
2000 - Carlton Fisk
2001 - Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett
2002 - Ozzie Smith
2003 - Eddie Murray, Ryne Sandberg
2004 - Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
2005 - Wade Boggs
   14. karlmagnus Posted: July 26, 2005 at 09:55 PM (#1499973)
Yes, but the new Veterans Committee system is aiming to prevent further ones (they've overdone the restrictions, of course.) The problem is that the pool of NEL players is finite and quite small, so eventually they will have elected all the Tommy McCarthys and will be down to the Eddie Gaedels. This isn't the case for white players, because there are always new ones.

You get down to the demographic argument again, but if in 2050 they've elected 50 NEL and pre-NEL players (and only about 350 ML players from 1871-2045) they will have become seriously imbalanced. I really do think there are no more than 5-7 glaring NEL omissions, and at least 3-4 who shouldn't be there.
   15. yest Posted: July 26, 2005 at 10:03 PM (#1499997)
you forgot Jud Wilson
   16. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: July 26, 2005 at 10:06 PM (#1500008)
In 1956, we have 55 HOF not HOM (including managers who are getting support as players)

Joe DiMaggio was in the HoF by '56.

And as for the new HoF committee, not only are most of the guys on it in SABR, but looking at the list of people registered to attend SABR35, I see the names of Dick Clark, & Leslie Heaphy on it. If you really want a HoM subcommittee to submit a proposal, we could have the members of it work themselves to death for a few days, hammer out a brief synopsis of all the ones listed in (or receiving considerable support for induction) to the HoM. In just about any case in life, something hand delievered has a better chance to be noted than something e-mailed, everything else being equal.

I'd recommend just a basic overview of the strengths, weaknesses of the players, and why they were given support, etc.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2005 at 10:59 PM (#1500174)
I would suggest that a formal HoM submission be sent in by a sub-committee of Joe, John, Chris, Doc and David, and Gad and Gary if they want to participate. In keeping with the spirit of this project, it ought to advocate for players in the order of how much support they've had here, but splitting hairs as needed to narrow down the choices and constructing the right data to support those players would be up to the committee.

I would honored to be part of a subcommittee such as that. I do think that Joe and I should be there to give it "executive" weight, but Chris, Gadfly, Doc, Gary, David (if he ever shows up again - is he annoyed with us?) or whoever else should be given the podium. Without them, our knowledge of the NeLers would be greatly diminished. Their insights and discoveries need to be broadcast to the HOF group so that they get it right.

I'll mention it to Joe about setting it up.

In keeping with the spirit of this project, it ought to advocate for players in the order of how much support they've had here, but splitting hairs as needed to narrow down the choices and constructing the right data to support those players would be up to the committee.

Totally agree, Marc. Roughly fifty voters made a decision to elect or ignore each available NeL candidate, so the HOF group should be informed of each candidate's support from us, not each member of the sub-committee's own choices.
   18. Tiboreau Posted: July 26, 2005 at 11:23 PM (#1500249)
David (if he ever shows up again - is he annoyed with us?)

Nah, just really busy:

I'm really sorry for not getting a ballot in guys. I've been super busy this week with SABR-related work, and will be for the next couple of months, so it's going to have to be off and on for awhile for me. ('54 Ballot thread)
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2005 at 11:31 PM (#1500272)
Tiboreau:

So you'll be at the convention?
   20. Tiboreau Posted: July 26, 2005 at 11:37 PM (#1500295)
Huh? No, I won't be--David Jones will. He posted that in the '54 Ballot thread. I expect he'll be around the HoM about as often as Enders for awhile.

Sorry I wasn't clearer, John.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2005 at 11:42 PM (#1500310)
Sorry I wasn't clearer, John.

LOL

I thought you made a mistake with the italics. That's what happens when you're trying to speed read. :-)

Thanks for the info.
   22. DavidFoss Posted: July 26, 2005 at 11:54 PM (#1500357)
Other HOF coming up (I think):

Thanks for the list, Ron. With Jud Wilson counted, HOF-not-HOM currently leads HOM-not-HOF 55-27. The number of HOM-inductees was chosen in such a way so that we would catch up to them. We'll probably end up inducting some HOF-not-HOMers at some point, of course, but the change n the difference between the two lists will remain the same when that happens.

Anyways, I thought it would be fun to see when we'll catch up to them:

1957: -1 (adding to the backlog one more year)
1958: +1
1959: +2
1962: even (four HOF-ers eligible)
1966: +1
1967: +3
1969: +2
1970: +3
1972: +4
1973: +5
1975: +6
1976: +7
1978: +6
1980: +7
1981: +6
1982: +5
1983: +6
1984: +8
1985: +9
1986: +10
1987: +13
1988: +14
1989: +13 (four HOF-ers eligible)
1990: +14
1991: +15
1994: +17
1995: +19
1996: +22
1997: +25
1998: +27
2000: +29
2001: +30
2002: +32
2003: +33
2004: +34
2005: +36

So, we'll start getting a taste of the backlog in the late 60s and 70s but its the late 80s and late 90s when we really start to catch up.
   23. Michael Bass Posted: July 27, 2005 at 01:18 AM (#1500621)
Big fan of the newcomers this week

1. Dimaggio - Not breaking any ground to say he's overrated by history, but he's still an obvious #1

2. Boudreau - OK, I suppose from a pure career perspective, I see why some don't like him so much. And yes, 44-45 need discounting. But this is a guy with a career .290 EQA and a 120 OPS+. Not only that, but he was an incredible fielding shortstop: A+ by Win Shares, an eye-popping 144 FRAA, including 8 consecutive seasons of 10 FRAA or higher. I prefer Appling to him, but it's damn close, and he to me is an exceedingly easy HOMer. Alas, I have the fear that he'll have to wait.

3. Ferrell
4. Jennings

5. Moore - The post where someone compared Boudreau's career to Moore's sealed yet another moving up the list for Dobie on my end. He's Hughie with a slightly lower peak and somewhat longer career. He deserves to be ranked as such.

6. Herman
7. Mendez
8. Beckwith

9. Doerr - Gordon, who I like, with a slightly higher and longer prime.

10. Ruffing
11. Averill
12. Walters
13. Dean
14. Sewell
15. Griffith

Re: Joss vs. Dean... We'll leave aside the ridiculous dead credit for now.

Top 5 WARP1 (no timelining):

Joss: 9.9, 8.3, 7.4, 6.3, 6.3
Dean: 12.0, 10.1, 10.1, 9.2, 7.5

Part of this is hitting...Joss was awful, Dizzy was somewhat less awful. But mostly, as has been pointed out a thousand times, Joss was simply unremarkable in his day. His IP totals were completely unspecial (all of 2 top 10 finishes). His DERA is mediocre (his K finishes were as poor as his IP finishes). Is there any year it's even remotely arguable he was the best pitcher in baseball?

Meanwhile, Dean actually was dominant for an all-too-brief period of time. I have no issue with Dean on being on ballots, he borders on too short even for me. But Joss over Dean boggles my mind, and is either the result in my opinion of either overthinking things or olverreliance on ERA+ in a vaccuum.

And oh, in case you'd rather go with Win Shares...

Joss: 35, 28, 25, 23, 20
Dean: 37, 31, 31, 24, 22
   24. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 27, 2005 at 01:41 AM (#1500708)
I really like the idea of submitting something to the HoF as a group. It does say in the article that there's a formal suggestion process, and they're taking submissions through October. I'd rather spend the extra time and make the best arguments that we can in support of the candidates than rush to get something done by the SABR Convention. It might not be a bad idea to let them know what we plan to submit, so it doesn't get lost in a crowd of entries.

My other thought is that it would be best if we could submit something that as many of the voters as possible (preferably all) would be willing to sign our names to. That might mean just endorsing the NLers that have been inducted into the HoM, and mentioning the other candidates as worthy of looking at. Personally, I'd rather give them six names and say "These men should absolutely be inducted, and here's why." then send in a list of 20 or 25 that have gotten some support. Individual voters can, of course, make their own personal recommendations, but if we're submitting something from the HoM, it should reflect the consensus.

Since I don't know enough about baseball research to know who Gadfly actually is (as some folks apparently do), I was wondering whether he (or Gary) is one of the voters and thus shouldn't be involved in our submission. Of course, right now he's probably out researching Gavvy Cravath's ancestry to see if he could be eligible for consideration. :)
   25. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2005 at 01:47 AM (#1500734)
I too do not know who Gadfly is...other than, well, he's Gadfly, of course. But if he is indeed well known among the in crowd, then I think he would not work as our spokesman. I mean, I can just hear--what is the old story from colonial days about the guy who talked another man into wooing a woman for him, and she says, "Speak for yourself, John." I can just hear something like that if we send somebody who is too well known to the committee.

I agree that a short list is the way to go.
   26. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2005 at 03:10 AM (#1501109)
I'm incredibly excited by this news; wow!

This is EXACTLY the opening that Sunnyday's been talking about for the last couple of months: a time when the HOM can make a difference and get a little wider pool of recognition, including among some experts.

Devin, you raise a good point about not wanting to rush something to the Convention, on the other hand, I think the HOM would be wise to get face time with the members of the committee and have some good talking points for them.

I agree with Devin and Sunnyday that perhaps a short list with a wrap up of why our voters favored these the indivdiuals on said short list would be the best first step. Ideally, we would present that list to the members of the committee at the SABR convention.

We could then follow it up later in the year with a proper submission that features our expanded commentary and offers a little bit of elaboration not only on the previously noted list of five or six but also on why other strong candidates have not yet been elected.

When is the Convention by the way? (I'm a lapsed SABR member, so I'm not sure when it is.) If it's not like tomorrow, perhaps we could decide on our five or six guys, and several of us each take a player and write one or two paragraphs of explanation him, including
-a lively synopsis of the HOM's discussion of his strengths and weaknesses (not a he-said minutes, but rather an overview of the main points of discussion)
-what challenges we faced in assessing him and generally what methods we used to meet those challenges
-how the candidate did in the voting.

We should talk about whether we'd want to include any/all of our translation/projections or save those for the larger document. And most importantly we'd have to clear using those with Chris.

To the player comments we'd attach to some headnotes describing the HOM and end with a concluding statement that mentions
a) that we'll be sending a longer submission in the future that will elaborate our methods, findings, and results and discuss other candidates
b) that we'd invite the committee members to examine our publically available discussions of the candidates
c) to contact us either via email or on the discussion boards if that would be appropriate.

We could do two other things to help the committee with our document:
1) Post it on the main HOM page for them to get easy access to.
2) Burn a CD or two of it that Clark and Heaphy could use to distribute to their fellow committee members.

With so many good writers in the HOM (at least three or four professional writers that I'm aware of), we've got plenty of people to make it happen if all of our schedules will allow it.

What's anyone think? If it's a go, we might need a new thread for it.... ; )
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2005 at 03:15 AM (#1501135)
Just to be clear, the document I laid out in post 26 would be a short one designed to be handed to Clark and Heaphy at the Convention.

The longer full submission would require much more planning. (understatement of the year!) For that document, we might want to take the half-time approach and use the HOM's collective strength to create a really attractive and compelling package for the committee that goes into the kind of detail about the candidates and our conclusion that gives them ample ammunition for the 2-day pow-wow.
   28. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2005 at 03:16 AM (#1501144)
One more thing: wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall for that 2-day discussion???
   29. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 27, 2005 at 04:06 AM (#1501334)
The SABR convention is August 4-7, in Toronto. We've got a week.
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2005 at 04:31 AM (#1501382)
C- Santop
1B- Suttles
2B- Grant
SS- Johnson
3B- Wilson, probably Beckwith
OF- Hill, Torriente
P- Brown

OK, off the top of my head, I'd rank this group this way:

Definitely on the short list:
Brown, Torriente, Wilson
(all these guys are major HOF ommissions)

Probably on the short list:
Santop, Johnson (I wasn't here for Johnson, he could be a definite; Santop was a super star whose career wasn't as well documented as the above)

Less clearly on the short list:
Suttles, Beckwith, Grant, Hill
(Suttles and Hill have several contemporaries whom they resemble, Beckwith has some questions about longevity and the actual height of his peak, and I wasn't here for Grant, but he doesn't seem as sparkly as Johnson.)

What's anyone else think?
   31. Dag Nabbit is a cornucopia of errors Posted: July 27, 2005 at 05:25 AM (#1501491)
We should talk about whether we'd want to include any/all of our translation/projections or save those for the larger document.

If you want a smaller doc at the outset, I'd recommend against too much into the details. Best to mention the main POV of the HoM voters (most though not all members tend to favor statistical based inquries involving sabermetric-esque stats) so they know where the group is coming from, and mention that there have been statistical translations made here for these players. Getting into the numbers themselves might be a little too much. Heck, I have no idea how much interest the committee members have in sabermetric stats anyway.

If nothing else Dimino/Murphy should try to find the voters in Toronto and tell them about the site and the specific player threads for the Negro Leaguers. Also mention that the scope and time/effort that's gone into the HoM - this is no small undertaking.
   32. KJOK Posted: July 27, 2005 at 08:14 AM (#1501628)
But if he is indeed well known among the in crowd, then I think he would not work as our spokesman. I mean, I can just hear--what is the old story from colonial days about the guy who talked another man into wooing a woman for him, and she says, "Speak for yourself, John." I can just hear something like that if we send somebody who is too well known to the committee.

Probably a good point, as I'm 99% certain most of the committee knows Gadfly.

On the other hand, Gary might be a good one to do something like this IF you could convince him to. He has the credibility of being a serious Negro Leagues researcher, and yet I don't think he hasn't really been 'out front' publicly in any highly opinionated way that might impact his role as a representative for the group. But certainly a few of the committee members also know Gary...
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 27, 2005 at 10:34 AM (#1501670)
This new Negro League election is really exciting, wow. I (and John) will definitely try to track these guys down at SABR.

I do not consider myself a Negro League expert obviously. But I will definitely do whatever I can to get the voice of our experts heard on this.

I agree that we should be brief in the early going, then I'd imagine if they like what they see, they'd probably ask us for more.

So what do we do next? Is someone willing to pull key points together on these guys?

I also think we should stick with our top candidates at first, definitely only those elected (and Beckwith). Any other thoughts? We should probably make this a separate thread. I'll do that now.
   34. TomH Posted: July 27, 2005 at 04:05 PM (#1502109)
newbies and reflecting on where I am far from the consensus as of 1956:

Joltin Joe
Ranks eleventh overall on my list to date, and #26 all-time. Grossly overrated by the “style and grace and count the ringzz” group, but very under-rated by pure statheads. Yankee Stadium and WWII killed his numbers, and his impact on pennant races was huge.

Lou Boudreau
A small bonus for the key pennant homer in 1948. Even if was foul (right, karlmagnus?)

guys I am higher on than the group:
Clark Griffith - WAT, baby.
Bucky Walters - I must be more sold on his WS and WARP #s than those who use more traditional stats.
McGraw, Chance, Bresnahan, Bob Johnson - but it ain't worth arguin over guys who are only 12 thru 20 on my list.

guys I am lower on than the group:
Jennings and Medwick - my lack of bonus for peak
Rixey - I 'spose I discount the early NL more than most
Beckwith - the 'character long-term effect on team' thing

after my circumspection, I probably will remain off-center on the above
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2005 at 04:24 PM (#1502156)
Snuffy Stirrnweiss, BTW, is the embodiment of the argument that 5-10-15-20% discount for WWII ain't enough! 50% is more like it based on his case.
   36. Mike Webber Posted: July 27, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1503356)
In addition to the SABR members on the committee, I know Ray Doswell, who is the curator of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City. If an official document is drawn up, I would be happy to drop in and give it to Ray.

Ray has probably learned a fantastic amount about the Negro Leagues, but he is really a museum curator, with a graduate degree and training from the Smithsonian.
   37. Mike Webber Posted: July 27, 2005 at 09:53 PM (#1503360)
Speaking of SABR in Toronto, I'll be there, and I saw Joe Dimino will, any other HOM voters?
   38. Mike Webber Posted: July 27, 2005 at 09:58 PM (#1503373)
Rusty,

is Lou Boudreau not in your top 30, or was that an over site? Been looking at my list trying to figure where Lou belongs, but am leaning towards a top 5 ranking.
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 27, 2005 at 09:59 PM (#1503374)
Speaking of SABR in Toronto, I'll be there, and I saw Joe Dimino will, any other HOM voters?

Chris J., David Jones, Tiboreau (not really - inside joke :-) and myself will be there, Mike.

Knowing Mr. Doswell is definitely a plus. I suspect Dr. Chaleeko would be more than happy to send you the official document to give to him when it's completed shortly. Of course, he may get annoyed with some of our choices... :-)
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2005 at 10:06 PM (#1503390)
Non-Negro League point:

I don't get the love out there for Lou Boudreau.

He's not better than Dobie Moore who gets very little support. He's a peak candidate whose peak isn't nearly as impressive as Hughie Jennings's is. His peak isn't even as high as Childs's.

His peak is a little nicer than Doerr or Gordon, slightly nicer than Doyle's, but his career is comparable to theirs, shorter than some, longer than others. And he gets the wartime discount too.

You could play Marco Polo with Dobie Moore, Hughie Jennings, Bill Monroe, and Larry Doyle and never know which one's Polo.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2005 at 10:07 PM (#1503393)
So far Sweet Lou is everywhere from #2 to below #30, and that's just on 3 ballots. Nobody said his was easy.

I see him like, say, a Dizzy Dean. (Stay with me here.) Meaning: A peak candidate whose peak isn't all that high. (In Dean's case, not that high at all, ever, and in Lou's case, other than one year.)

I think Jennings or Dobie Moore, at their best, were better than Lou, and that's the deal for me.
   42. Rick A. Posted: July 28, 2005 at 01:27 AM (#1503897)
Have to agree with Marc and Doc in regards to Boudreau. I just don't see the appeal. He's a nice player, but I have him below Herman, Childs, Gordon, Jennings and Moore on my prelim ballot (though, as always, that could change with any new info or reevaluation)
   43. Rick A. Posted: July 28, 2005 at 01:45 AM (#1503948)
In regards to the 2006 Negro League election, the only thing I can say is wow! I never thought we'd have the opportunity to influence the HOF at all. Other posters have said that the HOF would pay attention to us and how to go about getting their attention, and I've also joked around about it in the past, but I never seriously thought it was a possibility! Why would the HOF care about the opinions of ~50 baseball stat nerds? I have to say that I'm really glad I was wrong about this. This is just incredible!
   44. Michael Bass Posted: July 28, 2005 at 01:40 PM (#1504581)
Have to agree with Marc and Doc in regards to Boudreau. I just don't see the appeal.

And I honestly can't see the lack of appeal. Yes, 7000 PA is not a particularly long career, and yes, there need's to be a touch of downward adjustment for WWII. But if you could point me in the direction of the A+ defensive SS with anywhere near a 120 OPS+ in anywhere near 7000 career PA, then I will start looking poorly on Lou.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2005 at 02:39 PM (#1504645)
Michael Bass,

I don't think you have to look poorly on Boudreau, I'm just saying he doesn't stand out that much. Two points.

1) That 120 OPS is a little puffy. Lou exceeded 120 in exactly five seasons. Three of them were 1943-1945 (ages 25-27). 1947 and 1948 were the other two (ages 29-30).

I'm not saying that the effect is massive, but it's there, and it has some influence on his peak.

2) A query about your ballot in response to the query on 120 OPS+ SSs with 7,000 PAs...

Joe Sewell had a 109 OPS+. He's near the bottom of your ballot. That's reasonable based on your expressed criteria. But I'd like to know more about your placement of Dobie Moore and John Beckwith? Boudreau had 10 seasons where he exceeded 400 PAs. Moore played 6 full seasons in the NNL before being shot in his seventh season. He also, however, had a lengthy army career of 3-5 seasons (of course there aren't many boxes). Sunnyday2 has argued, and I believe rightly) for crediting Moore with three full seasons. Even if you give him only two, Dobie's at eight full seasons, but with a stronger bat than Boudreau had. So I'm trying to figure out why Moore doesn't make your ballot at all when Sewell (a lesser hitter than both by OPS+) is on it, and when Boudreau (probably a lesser hitter and whose effective career wasn't all that long either) is way high up, and Moore's not on at all.

In addition, Beckwith. Despite Riley's criticism of Boom-Boom's defense, he did play a lot of SS. He is MLEd to a 137 OPS+ in about 8010 PAs, including 14 seasons over 400 PAs. So he's a SS/3B with a much more impressive bat and 1000 more PAs, yet he's below Boudreau on your ballot.

Based only the criteria you mentioned in reference to Boudreau (SS with 120 OPS+ in 7000 PAs), your placement of Moore, Boudreau, and Beckwith seems inconsistent.

(By the way, I'm not trying to pick on you, MichaelBass, and it's true that my placements of various candidates probably don't seem all that consistent either, I'm just querying your slotting logic in hopes of understanding it and perhaps seeing something new in Boudreau and Moore.)
   46. Gary A Posted: July 28, 2005 at 03:39 PM (#1504769)
In addition, Beckwith. Despite Riley's criticism of Boom-Boom's defense, he did play a lot of SS. He is MLEd to a 137 OPS+ in about 8010 PAs, including 14 seasons over 400 PAs. So he's a SS/3B with a much more impressive bat and 1000 more PAs, yet he's below Boudreau on your ballot.

Mention Beckwith, and here I am. Just wanted to point out that Riley doesn't really criticize his defense--he just says he was versatile but didn't excel at any one position (to paraphrase). ALSO--Riley was I believe responsible for the NeL material in the new ESPN encyclopedia. In the little entry on Beckwith he says something like, "Actually he was quite a good shortstop" (paraphrasing again). (Somebody who actually owns the book should check that--I'm remembering from leafing through it in the bookstore!)
   47. andrew siegel Posted: July 28, 2005 at 03:41 PM (#1504776)
I think this is the hardest ballot I've yet faced. Boudreau is very difficult to place. Oms is clamoring for a spot. I've been underrating Sewell and Sisler. Keller deserves some crutiny. And Gordon, Doerr, Hack, and Herman are difficult to sort out.

Right now, I am leaning this way:

(1) Joe D (new)--At least the top spot is easy.

(2) Beckwith (1st)--Has a 17 point OPS+ lead on Boudreau's war-inflated figures and played more games. The evidence that he was a bad enough fielder to give back those advanatges isn't there.

(3) Boudreau (new)-- I could see why career voters have him substantially lower, but he was Joe Cronin with the bat and an A+ defensive SS. The short career and slight war inflation keep him from being an elite player, but he easily makes my prime-heavy PHoM. Without the necessary downward war adjustment, he looks an awful lot like Cal McVey or Elmer Flick or Joe Jackson in value pattern.

(4) Jennings (3rd)-- Guys with seven to ten years as superstars make my HoM easily. Guys who only had five or so worthwhile years largely don't. The one exception is Hughie, who in his time and place was every bit as valuable as Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, or Eddie Collins.

(5) Van Haltren (5th)-- An exception on my peak heavy ballot.

(6) Earl Averill (6th)

(7) Wes Ferrell (7th)

(8) Cupid Childs (10th)--Moves up based on comparisons with Boudreau.

(9) Dobie Moore (11th)-- Him too. Note that he is the only Negro League candidate who I hold back based on my confidence interval. I need more information desperately.

(10) Red Ruffing (8th)

(11) Eppa Rixey (9th)

(12) Billy Herman (13th)-- Like him, don't love him.

(13) Hugh Duffy (14th)--Next three OF's are very close.

(14) Alejandro Oms (new)-- This looks about right.

(15) Joe Medwick (15th)--Hanging on by a thread.

Joe Sewell falls from 12th to 16th, followed by Sisler, Mackey, Roush, Charley Jones, Gordon, Doerr, and Redding, all of whom I find very ballot worthy.

Stan Hack is in the next group after them.

Charlie Keller is someone who I thought I was going to support before the project, but there are just too many great hitting, short career OF-1B out there. Being one of the best of them gets him in my top 40 but not much higher. (I have Kiner rated higher, but I'm not sure if that is #1 higher or #30 higher or somewhere in between.)
   48. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2005 at 03:52 PM (#1504806)
Gary, thanks for the more correct paraphrasing of Rileys comments on Beckwith's defense! I think I was conflating his comments with some of the general concerns previously expressed in the Beckwith thread.
   49. karlmagnus Posted: July 28, 2005 at 03:53 PM (#1504807)
I don't see how Boudreau can be better than Doerr, who had more career, needs a bonus not a discount for the war, and has considerably better raw stats. He'll be on my ballot, though towards the bottom -- nothing remotely like Jackson or McVey, both of whom had OPS+ above 150.
   50. karlmagnus Posted: July 28, 2005 at 03:54 PM (#1504808)
Doerr, not Boudreau will be on my ballot, to be clear.
   51. Mike Webber Posted: July 28, 2005 at 04:19 PM (#1504880)
On my ballot Stan Hack has to be above Lou Boudreau. They have the same flaw, meaning they had big seasons during WW2, but Hack has more career than Boudreau.

I also have Billy Herman ahead of Boudreau, I'm not a Cubs fans BTW :) Again career length, and Lou's peak advantage might mostly be a product of WW2.

Doerr and Gordon is a photo finish, and Boudreau is right there too. I guess I'd go with the shortstop if pushed, but could certainly see an arguement placing any of the three first.
   52. Michael Bass Posted: July 28, 2005 at 05:20 PM (#1505073)
So I'm trying to figure out why Moore doesn't make your ballot at all when Sewell (a lesser hitter than both by OPS+) is on it, and when Boudreau (probably a lesser hitter and whose effective career wasn't all that long either) is way high up, and Moore's not on at all.

Well, I'd respond to this, but first I recommend you take a real close look at #5 of my ballot. ;)

As for Hack and Beckwith, maybe I'm an outlier on defense, but I pretty highly value A+ defense. I especially highly value A+ defense on a shortstop. Hack was not a good defender. The shortstop argument for Beckwith does nothing for me. Chipper Jones was once a shortstop, too. I rate Beckwith about half 3B, half 1B, and about average at both, which I think is about in the middle of the available evidence.

Re: Doerr, he was a great defender. He also played second rather than short, wasn't quite as great as Boudreau on defense, and wasn't as good a hitter as Boudreau. I also fail to see how Doerr needs a bonus for the war; I figure his 1944 (his EQA is 32 points higher than any other year in his career!) needs to be discounted about as much as his 1945 gets creditted. Evens out.
   53. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2005 at 05:28 PM (#1505101)
AAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!

MichaelBass, I'm very sorry about that!!!! Given that he's on the ballot and high up, your ballot is making much more sense to me now. Again, I'm sorry.

I do think Beckwith needs to be compared directly to Boudreau, though. He's got to have been a better SS than Chipper was...and he played the position longer than Chipper did (and as he was undoubtedly a better 3B than Chipper is. Then again, with a week of fielding, I might also be a better 3B than Chipper!)
   54. andrew siegel Posted: July 28, 2005 at 05:41 PM (#1505147)
Karl--

With due respect, I just don't get your comparison of Boudreau and Doerr. Doerr played about 200 more games, so he gets an edge there, but it is a small edge.

On a per game basis, Boudreau is very close on raw offensive stats and beats Doerr by a solid margin with the bat when you factor in park effects, league adjustments, the high value of his OBP, etc. Most comprehensive measures of offensive value have Boudreau ahead by a noticeable margin with the bat (5 points of OPS+, 10 points of EQA, etc.).

Defensively, Doerr was a very good defensive 2B and Boudreau was at least as good a SS (and likely a little better). A very good SS has substantially more defensive value than a very good 2B.

Boudreau's career is short and I could see having him low or off ballot b/c/ of it. But Doerr's is short too--I can't imagine he makes many ballots that simply use career value. Could you come up with an idiosyncratic combination of career value and peak/prime value that has Doerr ahead of Boudreau AND on a 15-person ballot. I suppose so, but it would be very hard.

As for the McVey, Jackson, Flick comment, I stand by it. Boudreau--like them--was a clear All-Star and borderline MVP candidate for a 7-9 year run but then ended his career abruptly. If you take WARP or WS and lay them out season-by-season, there is a lot of fit. OPS+ is a silly way to compare a gold glove SS and a defensively mediocre corner OF.
   55. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: July 29, 2005 at 02:28 AM (#1506639)
Here's the full Riley synopsis on Beckwith from the ESPN book:

"Despite a huge frame, Beckwith was agile enough to play any position, and in fact was a fine defensive shortstop. But defense was just a bonus--he had fantastic power, even though he was a rank pull hitter. Unfortunately, Beckwith also had a temper and didn't play 'inside baseball.'"

I'll be at SABR, but I'm pretty introverted, so I'll probably be keeping a low profile (just like here!). I'd be really easy to pick out of a SABR crowd, though: I'm middle-aged and balding. :-)
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: July 29, 2005 at 07:16 PM (#1508116)
Well, I knew Suttles and Wells had played together for several different teams, but til now never noticed how tight they were!

They played together every year from 1926-39, from St. Louis to Detroit to Chicago (Cole's) to Newark, until Wells left for Mexico and Suttles tried a season with the NY Black Yanks.
The list below doesn't even count 1942, when it seems like Suttles barely played for Newark while Wells returned still a star.

Let me know if I've missed any here; min. 10 G each, and tough to be exact on the Negro Leaguers,' of course:


MOST YEARS AS HOM TEAMMATES
SEVENTEEN
Ott-Hubbell 1928-43

FIFTEEN
Wagner-Clarke 1897-1911
Grove-Foxx 1925-33; 1936-41

FOURTEEN
Wells-Suttles 1926-39

THIRTEEN
R Foster-Hill 1904-16
Crawford-Cobb 1905-17

TWELVE
E Collins-Faber 1915-26
Gehrig-Ruth 1923-34
R Brown-Leonard 1934-45
Lyons-Appling 1931-42
   57. Howie Menckel Posted: July 29, 2005 at 08:05 PM (#1508325)
Thought this might be of interest.
* indicates at least 10 G, but fewer than half his team's games

NL HOMers in the 1920s
1920 (6) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh, Hornsby, Frisch
1921 (6) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh, Hornsby, Frisch
1922 (8) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett*
1923 (8) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett
1924 (9) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett, Terry
1925 (9) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh*, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett, Terry
1926 (11) - Wheat, Alexander, Carey, Groh*, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett, Terry, Waner, Ott*
1927 (10) - Alexander, Carey, Groh*, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett, Terry, Waner, Ott
1928 (10) - Alexander, Carey, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett, Terry, Waner, Ott, Hubbell*
1929 (10) - Alexander*, Carey*, Hornsby, Frisch, Vance, Hartnett*, Terry, Waner, Ott, Hubbell

AL HOMers in the 1920s
1920 (9) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson*, Speaker, Jackson, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski
1921 (10) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Baker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin*
1922 (10) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Baker*, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin
1923 (10) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin, Gehrig*
1924 (12) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin, Gehrig*, Simmons, Lyons
1925 (14) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove
1926 (15) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove, Gehringer
1927 (15) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson*, Speaker, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove, Gehringer, Wheat
1928 (16) - Cobb, ECollins*, Speaker*, Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Covaleski*, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove, Gehringer, Foxx, Dickey*
1929 (13) - Faber, Heilmann, Ruth, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove, Gehringer, Foxx, Cronin, Dickey

Negro League HOMers in the 1920s
1920 (7) - Hill, Lloyd, Santop, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan
1921 (7) - Hill, Lloyd, Santop, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan
1922 (8) - Hill*, Lloyd, Santop, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson*
1923 (11) - Hill*, Lloyd, Santop, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Suttles*
1924 (12) - Hill*, Lloyd, Santop, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Wells, Suttles
1925 (12) - Lloyd, Santop*, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Dihigo, Wells, Suttles
1926 (11) - Lloyd, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Dihigo, Wells, Suttles
1927 (11) - Lloyd, SJWilliams, Torriente, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Dihigo, Wells, Suttles*
1928 (11) - Lloyd, SJWilliams, Torriente*, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Dihigo, Wells, Suttles
1929 (10) - Lloyd, SJWilliams, Charleston, Rogan, JWilson, Stearnes, BFoster, Dihigo, Wells, Suttles
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 29, 2005 at 08:07 PM (#1508328)
"Despite a huge frame, Beckwith was agile enough to play any position, and in fact was a fine defensive shortstop.

Boy, I wished he had stressed the latter in his encyclopedia.

I'd be really easy to pick out of a SABR crowd, though: I'm middle-aged and balding. :-)

LOL

Is forty middle-aged these days? I don't feel like I am, but I'm probably just delusional.

I'll be sporting my new "boot camp" hairstyle for the convention, plus my "legendary" sideburn and mustache ensemble.
   59. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 29, 2005 at 08:50 PM (#1508503)
For the first time in pretty much the whole time I've been voting, I've got a very strong sense of exactly where people are beyond my ballot.

Slow week at work will do that....

So without fu'ther ado

1957 Preliminary Ballot
1 J DiMaggio: And will til you see my brothers play!
2 beckwith: FINALLY!!! Curse Jim Riley's moment of temporary confusion about Beckwith's character and fielding.
3 Duffy
4 Oms: Where's the love, gents. He's for real.
5 Medwick: He's likely to be a '58 Special.
6 Mendez: Get back on the Mendez boat!
7 cravath
8 Matlock: Looks like a short-career stud to me.
9 Walters: Looks like a short-career stud to me
10 Ferrell: Looks like a short-career stud to me--if you think this is fun, just wait for Newhouser and Lemon!
11 burns: reconsideration takes him just north of van h.
12 van haltren: after yet another reconsideration, he's now behind J-Burns
13 Hack: I've had him a little lower than I ought, so he's moved up with some consideration. Should pHOM in about ten years or so.
14 Herman: I've been way to harsh on him, he's Hack's shadow, though I think Reese will ultimately fit in betwen them.
(Lyons)
15 Ruffing: Doesn't have Lyon's peak, but I've reconned him up above the Rixster.


16 rixey
17 jennings: he's right off the bottom.
18 Averill: a smide better than Moore thanks to two whole legs.
19 moore: He's better than Boudreau.
20 roush
(Terry)
21 Poles: MAJOR reconsideration (see his thread) takes him down a lot. Call it a nod to consensus, but it was a long time in coming.
22 childs: This is exactly where he belongs.
23 monroe: The HOVG has been be drawn somewhere between 20 and 25 on my ballot. It's all a matter of how this backlog stacks up against the future.
24 boudreau: Not enough peak, wartime peak, not enough career. I don't see the hype.
25 sisler: Haven't ever been much of a fan, Terry's better.
26 ryan: slight recon moves him above Leach
27 leach: this guy used to be the in/out line. Now he's also-ran.
28 wi cooper: have we forgotten him so soon?
29 willis: have we forgotten him so soon?
30 grimes: the one guy I've probably had the most misgivings about. WS doesn't get him right, nor does WARP, and his various Chris J scores are bizarre. Was he a rotation anchor or an innings eater?
31 doyle
32 fournier: with minor league credit for MLB's dumbassedness he gets close to sisler.
33 cp bell: he's probably the one other guy I've got misgivings about. 424 win shares but a 3-peak under 90? I believe the latter more than the former, making him a Careyite.
34 redding: I think...
35 carey: Matinee idol for all the Rich Ashburns out there. I believe the consensus has made four mistakes: Coveleski, Faber, Terry, and this fellow. I'm glad we didn't add Griffith, Sisler, and Bell to the list.
36 bresnahan: He's hanging around.
37 mackey: The catching version of Bell. I believe the high-80s 3-peak, not the 370-odd WS career total.
38 andy cooper: I think he's underrated by the consensus, but there's not much I can do to prove it at this juncture.
   60. TomH Posted: July 29, 2005 at 10:20 PM (#1508772)
Highest OWP among shortstops from 1900-2003 with at least 6000 PA (only including seasons when they primnarily played SS)
1 Wagner
2 Vaughan
3 Boudreau
4 Larkin
Third! Lou is third! And his glove was among the best ever.
If you expand to only 3000 PA as the minimum, then ARod, Nomah, Jeter, Banks, and George Davis would be added.

I know, career wasn't too long, drop a little for wartime, but the man is one of the best hitting shortstops AND one of the fielding ones. And he's not on some ballots? I won't be the BFOBoudreau, but it sure would be tough to leave him off; 277 win shares and/or 100 WARP3 in a 'short' career ain't too shabby, is it?
   61. OCF Posted: July 29, 2005 at 11:58 PM (#1508936)
**** 1957 absentee ballot ****

I will miss the 1957 balloting period. Would someone please re-post this on the ballot thread?

1957 ballot (OCF).
1. Joe DiMaggio (new)
2. John Beckwith (4, 4, 3, 3, 2) The time has come to finish the debate and elect him.
3. Stan Hack (-, 5, 4, 4, 3) Depending on what you consider Beckwith to be, the second or third best-hitting 3B of the last 60+ years. OBP matters. I'll still say that about Hack after Elliot is a candidate.
4. Red Ruffing (-, 7, 7, 7, 4) Offense-ajdusted RA+ PythPat 282-201, which is too good to ignore.
5. Larry Doyle (5, 6, 5, 5, 5) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time.
6. Ducky Wucky Medwick (--, 6, 6, 6) His value shape is rather unusual. Perhaps Bill Terry? I see those two as pretty close to each other. For three years, he hit like one of the greats, but the rest of his career falls far below that.
7. Lou Boudreau (new) Clearly ahead of Sewell; clearly behind Cronin. One great year standing out from a very good career.
8. George Van Haltren (7, 9, 9, 9, 7) There are those saying we need more 1890's players, but the vote is split. Mine rests with the remaining outfielders.
9. Eppa Rixey (8, 10, 10, 10, 8) A successful long-career inning-eater. No peak.
10. Wes Ferrell (9, 11, 11, 11, 9) Nice early peak, flamed out young as pitcher, stopped hitting as well. The fact that he pitched in the highest average run environment of any ballot-worthy 20th century pitcher puts his 2600 IP in perspective, since high-scoring innings are more stressful
11. Joe Sewell (6, 8, 8, 8, 11) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice.
12. Earl Averill (11, 13, 13, 13, 14) Offense a little behind VH, Ryan, Duffy; defense a little ahead of them. Career length isn't good, but maybe he left a year of it in the PCL.
13. Jake Beckley (12, 14, 14, 14, 13) Not much peak, long career.
14. Biz Mackey (13, 15, 15, 15, 14) Catcher is a tough position, and catchers do tend to grow old early. Even Cochrane and Hartnett didn't have the hitting careers needed for election as a corner player.
15. Jose Mendez (24, 22, 23, 23, 23) Moved him up.

16. Dick Redding (26, 23, 24, 24, 24) Him, too.
17. Hugh Duffy (14, 16, 16, 16, 15)
18. Billy Herman (-, 17, 17, 17, 16) Offensively about the equal of Lazzeri, B+ defense; that's a very good player, but I don't see more than that.
19. Bucky Walters (--, 18, 18, 17) Offense-adjusted RA+ PythPat 197-148, with a peak that nearly rivals Ferrell's.
20 Cupid Childs (15, 18, 19, 19, 18) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
21. Joe Gordon (----, 19) Not much to choose from between him and Herman.
22. Tommy Bridges (16, 19, 20, 20, 20) RA+ PythPat 190-124, which is a record that has to be taken seriously. Ferrell had a higher peak, but Bridges was a terrific pitcher.
23. Cool Papa Bell (17, 20, 21, 21, 21) A legend, of course, with a very long career. He's down here because I'm not sure his peak is any better than Willie Wilson's.
24. Edd Roush (18, 21, 22, 22, 22) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey.
25. George Sisler (19, 24, 25, 25, 25) My peak-heavy offensive evaluation system likes Chance ahead of Sisler, and Sisler ahead of Beckley. The order gets reversed because of playing time.
26. Bobby Doerr (new)
27. Bob Johnson (20, 25, 26, 26, 26) A late bloomer, excellent hitter, steady career. WWII discount keeps him out of the top 15.
28. Frank Chance (22, 27, 28, 28, 28) Huge offensive seasons, discounted for his lack of playing time.
29. Rube Waddell (23, 28, 29, 29, 29) The best one left from his generation. Value crammed into a very few years.
30. Roger Bresnahan (25, 29, 30, 30, 30) Very good offense for a catcher; not enough if we think of him as an outfielder.

I just dropped Traynor out of my top 30.

Charlie Keller is a difficult case. I keep thinking he belongs in my top 30 but I can't find the place for him. The < 1200 game career is the problem; there's no doubt that he out-peaks Bob Johnson, by a lot. Had he declined at a normal rate, he'd be right there with Medwick.
   62. Kelly in SD Posted: July 31, 2005 at 02:13 AM (#1511836)
I was going to do a Walters vote for me post, but I got caught up in comparing eligible pitchers (post-1893). I have not run adjustments for any pitcher other than Walters. Trout, Bridges, Quinn, Ruffing, Warneke could all be discounted for WWII or League. Feller and Newhouser were included because they have just retired and Bob Lemon because his career is over in 1958. I haven’t figured out what to do with WWII for Feller or Newhouser.
I know Newhouser and Lemon have their value almost all after WWII but they are the only pitchers with much of a career that have recently retired other than Feller.

As of the last ballot, the pitchers finished in the following places:

7: Red Ruffing
10: Wes Ferrell
11: Eppa Rixey
13: Clark Griffith
27: Bucky Walters
31: Rube Waddell
35: Burleigh Grimes
37: Dizzy Dean
41: Tommy Bridges
48: Addie Joss
51: Eddie Cicotte
56: Dolf Luque
58: Lefty Gomez
58: Vic Willis

Career win shares: 258 (I reduce the total to 250 for some war discount)
This is 9th or 10th among eligibles:
322: Ruffing
315: Rixey
293: Willis
-- 292: Feller --
287: Quinn (no discount for Fed years)
286: Grimes
273: Griffith
266: Cooper
262: Hoyt
256: Mays (depends on the WWII discount)
258 / 250: Walters
-- 254: Newhouser –
-- 232: Lemon --

Three Year Consecutive Peak: 97 (38, 32, 27)
99: Dean
97: Walters
-- 96: Feller, Newhouser --
94: Waddell
87: Trout
86: Ferrell, Griffith, Warneke, Joss
85: Mays, Cooper
84: Willis, Shocker
-- 82: Lemon --
81: Cicotte
80: Luque
78: Harder
75: Derringer
73: Rixey, Pennock, Rommel, Newsom
72: Grimes
71: Ruffing

Three Year Non-Consecutive Peak: 102 (38, 32, 32. I discount the 1944 year to 27. That is about 15% which is the largest discount which I think is justifiable from the WWII discussion thread. 10% is probably more appropriate.)

102: Walters (unadjusted)
100: Waddell, Willis
99: Dean
-- 98: Feller --
97: Cicotte, Walters (adjusted)
96: Griffith
-- 96: Newhouser --
95: Ferrell, Mays
92: Trout, Grimes
89: Luque
88: Joss
86: Warneke, Cooper
84: Shocker, Adams, Uhle
-- 82: Lemon
81: Shawkey
80: Gomez
78: Harder
76: Rixey
75: Derringer, Ruffing

Seven Year Non-Consecutive: 180 or 172 with a reduction for WWII.
199: Willis
-- 192: Feller --
191: Ferrell
189: Griffith
-- 189: Newhouser --
186: Waddell
182: Mays
181: Grimes
180: Walters (unadjusted)
179: Cooper
-- 176: Lemon --
172: Walters (adjusted), Cicotte
171: Dean
168: Joss
166: Shocker
164: Adams, Rixey
163: Ruffing
162: Warneke

Win Shares per 275 innings: 22.83 or 22.14 with a reduction for WWII
25.30: Dean in 1967 innings
24.43: Ferrell in 2623 innings
-- 23.34: Newhouser in 2993 innings
23.30: Mays in 3021 innings
23.07: Shocker in 2681 innings
23.00: Trout in 2725 innings
22.83: Walters unadjusted in 3104 innings
22.57: Joss in 2327 innings
22.48: Rommel in 2556 innings
-- 22.39: Lemon in 2850 innings
22.31: Adams in 2995 innings
22.29: Waddell in 2961 innings
22.17: Griffith in 3386 innings
22.14: Walters adjusted.
21.89: Bridges in 2826 innings
21.74: Warneke in 2782 innings
21.06: Cicotte in 3225 innings
21.02: Cooper in 3480 innings
-- 20.98: Feller in 3827 innings
20.88: Shawkey in 2937 innings
20.58: Luque in 3220 innings
20.38: Ruffing in 4344 innings
20.36: Uhle in 3119 innings
20.33: Gomez in 2503 innings
20.16: Willis in 3996 innings
20.10: Quinn in 3926 innings
19.91: Leonard in 3218 innings
19.27: Rixey in 4494 innings

Best in league
-- 4: Newhouser --
3: Walters
2: Dean, Gomez, Uhle, Willis
-- 2: Feller --
1: Cicotte, Cooper, Ferrell, Grimes, Harder, Luque, Ruffing, Trout, Waddell
-- 1: Lemon --
0: Griffith, Rixey, Mays, Shawkey, Quinn, Adams, Pennock, Joss, etc.

League All-Star (top 4):
-- 7: Bob Lemon
6: Cooper, Grimes, Ferrell, Rixey
-- 6: Feller, Newhouser
4: Dean, Harder, Mays, Ruffing, Shawkey, Shocker, Waddell, Walters, Willis

Black Ink:
-- 95: Feller
52: Dean
48: Walters
-- 47: Newhouser
46: Waddell, Gomez
-- 44: Lemon
38: Grimes
27: Luque, Cicotte
25: Ferrell, Uhle, Willis
23: Mays
19: Joss
17: Cooper, Warneke, Bridges
16: Trout, Derringer
15: Newsom, Rommel, Shocker
13: Pennock
12: Adams, Root, Shawkey
11: Ruffing, Griffith
10: Quinn, Rixey

Grey Ink:
257: Ruffing
-- 232: Feller
213: Grimes
204: Willis
198: Newsom
185: Hoyt
182: Gomez
180: Bridges
-- 180: Newhouser
179: Shocker
-- 179: Lemon
175: Rixey
174: Derringer
173: Cooper
172: Mays
171: Root
168: Leonard
167: French
164: Warneke
162: Cicotte
158: Waddell
157: Pennock
152: Walters

Wins Above Team (This seems to be a factor with NeL pitchers so I thought I would include it. These figures are from Total Baseball, 1st edition if things have changed.)
46.1: Griffith (a top 15 performance as 1989)
-- 37.5: Feller
35.4: Ferrell (top 25)
31.1: Rommel (top 35)
30.3: Shocker (top 40)
28.7: Joss
27.7: Dean (top 45)
24.7: Pennock (top 55)
22.3: Grimes
22.2: Mays
21.8: Leonard
21.6: Uhle (top 75)
21.4: Walters (top 80)
-- 21.2: Newhouser
20.9: Adams (top 85)
20.5: Warneke (top 90)
19.8: Bridges
19.4: Cooper (top 100)
...
A whole lot of people including
14.3: Lemon
12.0: Gomez
...
8.8: Rixey
...
A whole lot more people
...
3.2: Ruffing

Lastly, seasons with 20, 25, or 30 win shares
30 win share seasons:
-- 4: Feller,
3: Dean, Griffith, Waddell, Walters
-- 3: Newhouser
2: Cicotte, Ferrell, Grimes, Mays, Willis
1: Adams, Cooper, Gomez, Joss, Luque, Quinn, Shocker, Trout, Warneke, Uhle
-- 1: Lemon
0: Rixey, Ruffing, Shawkey, Rommel, Derringer, etc.

25 win share seasons:
6: Ferrell
5: Griffith, Willis
-- 5: Newhouser
4: Adams, Cooper, Grimes, Mays, Waddell, Walters
-- 4: Feller, Lemon
3: Cicotte, Dean, Joss, Shawkey, Shocker, Warneke
2: Derringer, Gomez, Harder, Luque, Newsom, Rixey, Rommel, Ruffing, Trout, Uhle

20 win share seasons:
9: Cooper
8: Mays, Rixey, Willis
7: Griffith, Grimes, Ruffing
-- 7: Lemon
6: Ferrell, Joss, Waddell
-- 6: Feller, Newhouser
5: Adams, Cicotte, Dean, Harder, Hoyt, Newsom, Shocker, Walters
   63. Kelly in SD Posted: July 31, 2005 at 02:22 AM (#1511862)
Some Comments:

I just don't see the love for Ruffing. But I don't understand the voting for Rixey either. I assume the Ruffing voters are the same as the Rixey voters?? Is league quality the difference between their voting results?

I read somewhere, but of course cannot find the source, that there were rumors of Ruffing tanking games to get out of Boston in the 20s. Sort of like Sheffield airmailing throws from third when he wanted out from the Brewers. Any truth to this or has anyone else read this source?

Wow. Bob Lemon shows better than I thought.

Ruffing and Rixey do not have a high enough level of performance for me to vote for them. They were good for a long time, but just a total lack of peak, by how I measure at least.

Time to go spend some time with Retrosheet...
   64. andrew siegel Posted: July 31, 2005 at 12:21 PM (#1512392)
Those lists tell me to go take another look at Cooper (currently in the 50's for me) and Shocker and Mays (both currently between 60 and 75).
   65. karlmagnus Posted: August 01, 2005 at 12:47 AM (#1514064)
Phew, that was close! Not-Grandma would never have let Manny wear a Red Sox cap if he'd left after 4 1/2 years, whereas if he does his full 8 and stays reasonably close to his current level there'll be no argument against (a) putting him in the HOM and (b) giving him a Red Sox cap. Something to look forward to!!!
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2005 at 02:13 AM (#1514174)
Phew, that was close! Not-Grandma would never have let Manny wear a Red Sox cap if he'd left after 4 1/2 years,

Actually, it's a borderline case, karlmagnus. While he did play a little more in Cleveland, it's not by that much. Plus, he's been a better player with the Bosox and has a Beantown ring. I'd probably lean toward the Indians at this point (though I haven't really analyzed his situation), but it's an arguable case at any rate.

Come to think of it, Manny may become Boston's revenge against Cleveland for Tris Speaker. :-)
   67. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2005 at 06:28 AM (#1514604)
I'd probably lean toward the Indians at this point (though I haven't really analyzed his situation), but it's an arguable case at any rate.

Another year or two in Boston is needed in my opinion.

I'm working on a "fractional cap" list. WinShares-weighted. Its a lot of tedious work for something so frivolous. The NeL-ers and pre-NA guys are very hard to do and I admit I can really only guesstimate.

I have Speaker going to Cleveland by about 55% to 41% (3% Was, 1% A's). With this other list, the Red Sox would get partial credit for this one.

I'm only up to 1939 so far. Its about what you'd expect, the top teams all lower in total caps than the normal list. The Braves are retaining more of their caps, though -- clinging to a small half-cap lead, (they were already trailing the Giants by a cap in the normal list). Buffalo is one of the bigger losers -- as they were a short-lived franchise. The big gainer so far is the Dodgers with over +2 on the new list thanks to contributions by Keeler, Kelley, Sheckard & Caruthers.
   68. karlmagnus Posted: August 01, 2005 at 12:34 PM (#1514744)
Be interesting to see how Manny ages. When Clemens was his age in 1995-96 I thought he was HOF (just) but within that nothing special, since like Dan Duquette I assumed he was winding down. Now obviously one knows different. If Manny ages like Clemens, I'm sure the average fan will rate him as better than Speaker (Tris Who?) but since his current rOPS+ is 156 vs. Speaker's career OPS+ of 158, plus Speaker could field, there isn't really a case. Shows you just how good Speaker was though -- Manny Ramirez plus 10-15% and with a long career is one hell of a player.
   69. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 02, 2005 at 02:22 AM (#1516367)
Just a reminder: remember Alejandro Oms!

Last ballot the discussion and information on him came about during the voting period, so some voters didn't have time to fully digest him.

If you aren't sure about him, check out all the posts from June-July on his thread. He's worth the second look.
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2005 at 02:37 AM (#1516384)
Just a reminder: remember Alejandro Oms!

I'll second that, Eric. If you trust Chris' numbers, Oms is at least ballot worthy.
   71. Jeff M Posted: August 02, 2005 at 03:04 AM (#1516415)
If we are considering long-term projects for the HoM, one or more of us might want to start developing a quantitative structure for a steroid discount for current players.

I suggest we call them Genetically Normal Equivalents (GNOMES) or the Biologically Adjusted Discount (BAD), but I'm open to other suggestions.
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2005 at 02:21 PM (#1516808)
If we are considering long-term projects for the HoM, one or more of us might want to start developing a quantitative structure for a steroid discount for current players.

I'm all for a discount if it can be proved that one could not achieve the same results without them. I have no doubts that steroids speed up the process exponetially, but I'm not sure that you still can't get 21-inch biceps without them, especially since there were people like that during the thirties and forties.

The actual Mr. Olympia candidates (Bonds or McGwire wouldn't have any chance at that) might be a different story, however.
   73. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 02, 2005 at 03:06 PM (#1516896)
I think that JeffM's just kidding around in light of the Palmeiro suspension, but I guess I'll go on record as saying that I don't think we should encourage any kind of institutionalized steroid discount. If we do, then we've got to consider greenies, caffeine, bacon, and Paul Waner's daily whiskey regimen as well.

Plus, as John has suggested, there's no definitive proof of what effect they have, nor what degree of effect, nor again who used them and during exactly what part of their careers.
   74. Jeff M Posted: August 02, 2005 at 05:01 PM (#1517149)
Yes I was kidding about the steroids.

Bacon, on the other hand, is no laughing matter.
   75. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2005 at 05:13 PM (#1517164)
Yes I was kidding about the steroids.

I knew you were in jest by your second paragraph :-), but the contents of your first paragraph may have some relevance for some in the future.
   76. yest Posted: August 04, 2005 at 05:46 AM (#1521905)
Howie (post 57) you missed these players
Joe Cronin in 1926 played in 38 games, 1927 in 12 games, 1928 in 63 games
Jimmie Foxx in 1925 played in 10 games, 1926 in 26 games, 1927 in 61 games
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: August 04, 2005 at 01:01 PM (#1522065)
Thanks, yest.

I must have been looking at another list that had only 'full' seasons on it...
   78. TomH Posted: August 04, 2005 at 01:23 PM (#1522085)
I don't remember who has previosuly posted our HoM makeup by position, but by my count we have out of 107 honorees, 24 pitchers, plus partial pitchers Caruthers, Dihigo, Ruth, and Ward. So call it 26/107 or about 24% pitchers.

In last year's election, no pitcher finished higher than 7th, and no new strong pitching candidate is eligible this ballot. It appears that most of our best 'backlog' canidates will be position players unless things change in the next few months.

I for one feel we've gotten a bit out of balance; I urge a bit more consideration for the Ferrell/Ruffing/Rixey/Walters/Griffith/others on our ballots.
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: August 04, 2005 at 02:58 PM (#1522210)
I have that at home, Tom H. But 24 Ps is about right.
I have it broken down by games played, with GDavis being 80 pct SS, 15 pct 3B (or whatever), etc.
SS and 1B are a near dead-heat, more than twice as many of each as C and 3B - no surprises there.

And I was close to making that same point about pitchers. Rixey and Griffith are my boys, but really somebody probably deserves it.

I'll try to get the list up tonight.
   80. DavidFoss Posted: August 04, 2005 at 03:52 PM (#1522355)
I got DanG's list posted to the yahoo groups. Great stuff.

What are the numbers by the NeL-ers in groups 2A and 2B (except for Torriente) for?
   81. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 04, 2005 at 04:03 PM (#1522385)
Paige, Day, and Newhouser come up 1959-1961, so that number could creep up a little bit soon depending on how the electorate likes them. Later in the 1960s Lemon, Newcombe, and Wynn come up. Also, Maglie and Antonelli have weird, fractured careers that might merit a closer look.

Then the pitcher onslaught starts in earnest with Pierce, Drysdale, Koufax, Spahn, Roberts, Wilhelm, Ford, Bunning, Marichal in quick succession through the 1970s (IIRC, though not in that order...).

Additionally, we'll have some tough relievers to work with too: Ellis Kinder, Stu Miller, Lindy McDaniel, guys like that who are historically underrated but were top-notch, valuable relief aces. What we do with relievers will be interesting to say the least.

In addition, we'll probably do a lot of catching up on pitchers in the 1980s thanks to the 300-win generation.
   82. DavidFoss Posted: August 04, 2005 at 04:13 PM (#1522413)
Plus Bob Feller hung it up last 'year'.
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: August 04, 2005 at 04:31 PM (#1522471)
My rule-of-thumb for ratio of pitchers to position players is to treat the #1-#3 starters in a rotation as equivalent to the starting position players, with the #4 and (if applicable) #5 starters as equivalent to the 4th infielder/4th outfielder types.

By this ratio, 3 of 11 HoMers should be pitchers. To fit this ratio, the HoM would need to house 29 pitchers at present. With 26, we are about 10% short on pitchers. Not a drastic underrepresentation, but worth noticing. After 1962, when Paige, Day, Newhouser, and Feller have hit the ballot, the ratio would suggest 32-33 pitchers, so simply inducting these 4 (even if the electorate agrees all are worthy) will not end the HoM pitcher shortage.

I'm going to have 3 pitchers in my top 6 (Griffith, Rixey, Ferrell) in 1957, 5 on my ballot (add Ruffing and Grimes), and 7 in my top 20 (add Mendez and Redding), so my ballots will almost certainly support the election of at least 6 pitchers from 1958 trhough 1962.
   84. DanG Posted: August 04, 2005 at 05:44 PM (#1522819)
I got DanG's list posted to the yahoo groups. Great stuff.

What are the numbers by the NeL-ers in groups 2A and 2B (except for Torriente) for?


I was numbering the NeL stars chronologically, but I haven't updated that part after #8. Another thing, that you probably figured out, is the players in bold are the non-HOFers.

My count has us with 27 pitchers presently.

If anyone finds an error with my HOF Grid I would be thankful if you told me. Also, I would hope that more voter's private research would find its way to the yahoo group.
   85. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 04, 2005 at 07:37 PM (#1523391)
Yeah I forgot that Feller feller. Not to be confused with that Ferrell feller.

I think one of the reasons for the pitcher shortage could be the continuing mystery of the NgL pitchers. With Brown, Paige, Williams, and the Fosters, we've basically got the cream, but guys like Andy Cooper, Jose Mendez, and perhaps Dick Redding are all very good candidates.
   86. Howie Menckel Posted: August 05, 2005 at 12:52 AM (#1524204)
HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct)

C (7.11) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 98, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (12.03) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Connor 88, Leonard 95, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10

2B (8.55) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (5.60) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (12.13) - Pearce 96, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15

OF (31.00) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, Simmons, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10

SP (25.30) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

INF: 45.32
OF: 31.00
P: 25.30

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
   87. Howie Menckel Posted: August 05, 2005 at 12:53 AM (#1524205)
bleh

obviously that's 'GWright' at SS
   88. TomH Posted: August 05, 2005 at 12:30 PM (#1524752)
While Chris Cobb's "rule-of-thumb" for ratio of pitchers to position players {#1-#3 starters to 8 positin players = 3:8} is reasonable, I operate a little differently.

Yes, 4th and 5th SPs could be more like utility guys, but then againa most lineups have at least one platoon, so maybe the ratio should be 3:7? And closers will be in the mix as well.

Baseball is somewhere around 33% pitching, IF we assume about 1/3 of run prevention is defense. So a 1:2 ratio of pitchers:hitters would be reasonable.

What is the HoF's ratio of pitchers to hitters? We should pay some heed to historical precedent.

I'd prefer 28% to 33% of the HoM to be pitchers when all is said and done. I know Win Shares and WARP would not necessarily agree, but I believe that is due to WS and WARP large bonus for showing up at shortstop or catcher for 9 innings.
   89. KJOK Posted: August 05, 2005 at 05:04 PM (#1525193)
Based on Dan's excellent spreadsheet, looks like catching 1880-1920 and 3B 1870-1895 approx. are the positions underrepresented both from a total number and from specific eras:

CATCHING POSSIBILITIES
Bresnahan
McGuire?
Petway

3RD BASE POSSIBILITIES
John McGraw
Denny Lyons
Billy Nash
Ned Williamson
   90. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 06, 2005 at 02:07 AM (#1526605)
I'm trying to put together Quincy Troupe's numbers since he's an upcoming candidate, and especially because he's a catcher.

His record, however, has some holes that need filling in. Does anyone have any information, especially stats, on him for the following leagues or seasons?

a) 1930 (STL, per Riley), 1931 (STL, per Riley), 1932 (Homestead only), 1933 (CAG, per Riley), and 1949 (NY Cubans)
b) Bismark, ND (1933-1936)
c) why he was out of baseball in 1937
d) Puerto Rican Winter League (1941, 1942, 1944, 1945, 1947-1951)
e) Venezuala (1945-1947, 1951, 1952)
f) Provincial League (Drummondville, 1949)
g) Cuban Winter League (1950)
h) International League 1952 with Indy
i) Colombian (1953-1954)

And if anyone has any information beyond batting average for his NgL sesons, I'd be much obliged if you could share. Thank you!
   91. Chris Cobb Posted: August 06, 2005 at 03:42 AM (#1526746)
A few holes . . . yes, it seems you have good data for several of his seasons :-) .

Macmillan has no data for 1930 (it lists him as a P with 0 games played.

The Macmillan 10th ed. line for 1931 and 1932 are as follows:

1931 7 g, 19 ab, 6 hits, 1 2b, 0 3b, 0 hr, 0 sb, .316
1932 40 g, 143 ab, 54 hits, 11 2b, 0 3b, 1 hr, 4 sb, .378
(that includes play for Det, Homestead, and KC)

that's all the useful data Macmillan has to offer.
   92. Brent Posted: August 06, 2005 at 03:44 AM (#1526749)
Quincy Trouppe Cuban record:
Yrs   Team         AB  R   H 2B 3B HR RBI SB  Avg 
44-45 Marianao     63 11  20  2  3  1  14  1 .317
49*   Puerto Rico   9  0   4  1  0  0   3  0 .444
49-50 Marianao    129 18  33  6  2  3  13  2 .256
50-51 Marianao    115 17  25  5  1  1  10  1 .217


Notes:
49* - Caribbean Series - a playoff among the pennant-winners of Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Panama, and Cuba. Double round robin (6 games by each team). Played in February 1949.

Regarding Bismark, I don't any have statistics but there is a nice Web site that gives a lot of anecdotal information. I believe I posted a link to it, either on the Double Duty Radcliffe or Hilton Smith thread.
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 10, 2005 at 05:05 AM (#1534937)
Thanks Chris and Brent! Gadfly, if you're out there, do you have anything on Troupe's PRWL seasons?
   94. KJOK Posted: August 10, 2005 at 06:09 PM (#1536204)
Trouppe's playing record is in "The Negro League Book". I'll post it to the FILES section of the HOM yahoo egroup ASAP.
   95. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 10, 2005 at 07:58 PM (#1536764)
Thanks, KJOK, I just pulled it down. I'm sorry I responded with a question about it by email that went to everybody; I could have just posted it as easily.

Does the top of the next page also contain numbers for him? It appears there's some Canadian/ManDak league info up there for 1953, but I can't tell who the entry is for.

Thanks again KJOK!
   96. KJOK Posted: August 12, 2005 at 06:13 AM (#1541046)
Does the top of the next page also contain numbers for him? It appears there's some Canadian/ManDak league info up there for 1953, but I can't tell who the entry is for.


Sorry forgot to answer this - no, that line is for Robert Turner...
   97. Paul Wendt Posted: August 12, 2005 at 02:12 PM (#1541209)
Chris Cobb:
My rule-of-thumb for ratio of pitchers to position players is to treat the #1-#3 starters in a rotation as equivalent to the starting position players, with the #4 and (if applicable) #5 starters as equivalent to the 4th infielder/4th outfielder types.

By this ratio, 3 of 11 HoMers should be pitchers.


Tom Hanrahan suggested the ratio 3:7 rather than 3:8 because the typical team uses a platoon at one position.

For many years, the typical team used two or three catchers. For purpose of making the point about pitchers, catchers, and other positions, say two catchers thru 1919. Does typical coverage of one position by a staff rather than a regular support electing more people who played that position, or fewer?

Should the answer differ for the recent transition from 4 to 5 starting pitchers, the transition from about 2 to about 4 pitchers in the 1890s, the transition from 2 to 1 catcher in the teens?

--
P.S. I met Chris Jaffe, Max Parkinson, and Secretary John Murphy at the SABR Convention, beside regulars Mike Webber, David Jones, and Joe Dimino. Maybe others --Biff, Spud, Dizzy, and their ilk.
I'll be scarce until September.
   98. sunnyday2 Posted: August 12, 2005 at 02:55 PM (#1541294)
Paul clarifies the question re. pitchers, specifically as we get into the more recent era. As teams use 4 and 5 man rotations, does that mean we should elect 4 and 5 pitchers for every 8 or 9 position players (DH being defined as a position for this purpose)?

Or, as Paul, says should we elect fewer, because each pitcher has less and less personal responsibility, less opportunity, less actual earned value?

If you went strictly by WS, whether peak or career, you would clearly elect fewer, just as you would have elected Tommy Bond way back when.

But I am not saying that's the right answer. I am saying it is a very very difficult question to answer, and I don't know what the answer is. After Clemens and Maddux and, ok, Pedro, are there any HoM pitchers active today?
   99. karlmagnus Posted: August 12, 2005 at 03:18 PM (#1541344)
30% pitchers looks right to me, in which case, we're significantly low. May I recommend Mickey Welch, Eddie Cicotte, Addie Joss, Eppa Rixey, Sam Leever and Clark Griffith for your further consideration.

I'm doing MY part :-)
   100. Chris Cobb Posted: August 12, 2005 at 03:19 PM (#1541349)
After Clemens and Maddux and, ok, Pedro, are there any HoM pitchers active today?

Well, Randy Johnson and Tom Glavine are obviously HoMers if they retire tomorrow. Kevin Brown and Mike Mussina look like very good possibilities. Both of them have over 100 WARP1 at this point, and Brown has a strong peak as well. If current standards are an indication of future standards, that'll be enough to get them elected in 2012 or 2015 or whenever. With another strong season or two, John Smoltz'll be in. David Wells falls just short, I think. So that's 7 HoMer pitchers in the late stages of their career at present.

For everybody else, it's a question of where they go from here. If John Smoltz has a couple more excellent years as a starter, he'll have a case, I think. There's a great crop of young pitchers right now, guys like Halladay, Buehrle, Santana, Willis, Oswalt, Hudson, Mulder, Prior. We can't predict who will get there, but I'd expect there are three or four future HoMers there. But it'll be another decade before we know.

A countervailing issue on pitching value is that, even as pitchers throw fewer innings, their impact on the innings they do throw rises higher and higher. It's been argued that win shares is underrating contemporary pitchers, just as it overrated pre-modern pitchers, because of its fixed apportionment of credit between pitchers and fielders.
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
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9557 seconds
61 querie(s) executed