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, November 14, 2005

1965 Ballot Discussion

1965 (November 28)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

323 97.2 1938 Enos Slaughter-RF (2002)
296 77.6 1939 Mickey Vernon-1B (living)
268 77.3 1942 Larry Doby-CF (2003)
204 85.5 1942 Murray Dickson-P (1989)
220 68.9 1944 Andy Pafko-CF/RF (living)
217 68.7 1946 Carl Furillo-RF (1989)
233 62.1 1946 Del Ennis-LF (1996)
174 52.3 1945 Hank Sauer-LF (2001)
175 50.2 1950 Bobby Avila-2B (2004)
144 41.2 1948 Granny Hamner-SS/2B (1993)
132 40.4 1950 Chico Carrasquel-SS (living)
125 29.8 1949 Gus Zernial-LF (living)
101 38.8 1947 Jim Hearn-P (1998)
109 35.4 1951 Solly Hemus-SS (living)
104 35.9 1949 Stan Lopata-C (living)
105 35.3 1948 Carl Erskine-P (living)
095 37.0 1948 Bob Porterfield-P (1980)
097 36.0 1949 Alex Kellner-P (1996)

1965 (November 13)—elect 2
HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star

HF 42-59 Larry Doby-OF/2B (1923) – 1 – 2*
00% 40-59 Claude Johnson-P (1922) – 0 – 1*

HoMers
Age Elected

91/92 1925 Grant “Home Run” Johnson-SS/2b
79     1935 Pop Lloyd-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

81 1926 Oscar Stanage-C
80 1923 Bobby Byrne-3b
79 1924 Vean Gregg-P
72 1926 Happy Felsch-CF
69 1932 Carson Bigbee-LF
65 1942 Buzz Arlett-RF
60 1946 Rabbit Warstler-SS
45 1958 Fred Hutchinson-P


For the millionth time, thanks to Dan and Chris!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 14, 2005 at 01:07 AM | 172 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: November 15, 2005 at 02:08 AM (#1732004)
My favorite year! ;-)
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:12 AM (#1732100)
Prelim

1. Dobie Moore
2. Larry Doby--PHoM 1965

Or is it Larry Moore and Dobie Doby?

3. Joe Medwick
4. George Sisler
5. Tommy Bond
6. Pete Browning
7. Ralph Kiner
8. Enos Slaughter--PHoM 1965 (prelim, subject to some more thought--Joss, Willard Brown, Dick Redding, John Beckwith and Stan Hack also could be next, this is a needed time to re-eval all of them along with Bob Lemon)
9. Rube Waddell
10. Jose Mendez
(10a. John Beckwith)

11. Addie Joss
12. Ed Williamson
13. Willard Brown
(13a. Stan Hack)
14. Charley Jones
15. Dick Redding

Drops out: Joe Gordon (was 15).

16-20. Gordon, Stephens, Doyle, Doerr, Keller. This requires some additional thought, too, if we're going to tally 16-20. 21-25. Trouppe, Duffy, Rixey and Cravath will all get serious consideration, and maybe Bob Lemon.

Must re-eval Lemon. Not on ballot last year, nor slotted in below (yet). I think he should probably be somewhere around #25-30 (ERA+ vs. weak league doesn't blow me away; his black ink is re. AL only). Don Newcombe also not slotted in yet though I don't see him above #75 or so, but then I saw today that he missed two years to the Korean War, and I figured I better try to understand the importance of that.

Other newbies: Mickey Vernon is down there at about #65 (slotted). Bobby Avila could rank in the top 50, still thinkin' about his Mexican days (notyet slotted). And there are some sluggers who had some nice peaks but don't make the top 100: Sauer, yes, but mainly Del Ennis. Pafko and Furillo, too. I doubt if our backlog will ever be deeper than it is now. One of my favorite baseball names, John Clapp, all the way down at #100.

Most underrated by consensus--Bobby Estalella, though even he is only about #60 here. I see him as a Minnie Minoso comp. But with the vagaries of slotting in so many comparables, Minoso will be top 25 easy, Estalella #60. Not unlike Country Slaughter (#8 prelim) whom I acknowledge to be comparable to GVH (and yes, Jake Beckley) who are mired down at #73 and #70, respectively. Oh well. This is by far the hardest period right now due to the surfeit of candidates.

21-25. Trouppe, (Stovey), Duffy, Rixey, Cravath, Tiernan, (Averill)
26-30. Cicotte, Childs, Bob Johnson, Dean, Oms
31-35. Monroe, H. Smith, Sewell, Griffith, Roush
36-40. McCormick, Bell, Byrd, Elliott, Bresnahan
41-45. H. Wilson, Klein, Traynor, Berger, (Keeler), Mullane
46-50. Gomez, A. Cooper, Lundy, Mackey, Ruffing, (Faber)
51-55. Bancroft, (Ferrell), Rizzuto, Dunlap, (Sheckard), Welch, Rosen
56-60. McGraw, Matlock, L. Day, Cuyler, W. Cooper
61-65. Estalella, Winters, S. White, Veach, Vernon
66-70. Kell, Dandridge, (P. Hill), Leach, (J. Kelley), S. King, Beckley
71-75. Walters, Poles, Van Haltren, Burns, Lazzeri
76-80. Bridges, S. Rice, Lombardi, Maranville, (Sutton), (Galvin), Tinker
81-85. Evers, Chance, Grimes, Ryan, Taylor
86-90. Mays, Easter, Bottomley, Luque, J. Johnson
91-95. Willis, Bartell, Schang, Whitney, Lyons
96-100. Scales, Seymour, Camilli, Fournier, Clapp

Poles and GVH the lowest rated players who once got a vote from me and who remain in consideration at #72 and #73, along with Jimmy Ryan (#84) and Jim Whitney (#94). Players who once got a vote but now outside the top 100 and outside of consideration: Billy Nash, Harry Wright and Jim Creighton.
   3. Chris Cobb Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:23 AM (#1732117)
Don Newcombe also not slotted in yet though I don't see him above #75 or so, but then I saw today that he missed two years to the Korean War, and I figured I better try to understand the importance of that.

Remember, Newk's not eligible until 1966, so we have some time to work on him. He may also be a candidate from some MLE credit for his play prior to the majors. He definitely will need some study.
   4. jimd Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:25 AM (#1732119)
Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age @92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; --)
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:44 AM (#1732146)
Slaughter just adds to a massive pile of OFs who all bring something to the table - just not overwhelming "HOM-ness."
He's right in there with everyone from Medwick to Van Haltren and all in between.
   6. TomH Posted: November 15, 2005 at 02:13 PM (#1732357)
Slaughter's Win Shares - he is lised at 323 career total, with a career WS rate of 18.5 in the NBJHA. However, much of this is driven by his part-time play at the loonnng end of his career.

Can someone post Slaughter's WS career and rate numbers if we cut his career after 1953, his last prodcutive full season?
   7. Rusty Priske Posted: November 15, 2005 at 02:47 PM (#1732374)
Prelim:

PHoM: Enos Slaughter & Larry Doby

1. Red Ruffing
2. George Van Haltren
3. Enos Slaughter
4. Willard Brown
5. Joe Medwick
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Mickey Welch
8. Cool Papa Bell
9. Jake Beckley
10. Biz Mackey
11. Dobie Moore
12. Tommy Leach
13. Larry Doby
14. George Sisler
15. Hugh Duffy

16-20. Roush, Vernon, Trouppe, Rice, Ryan
21-25. Lemon, Griffith, Powell, Childs, White
26-30. Redding, Streeter, H. Smith, Doerr, Browning
   8. Chris Cobb Posted: November 15, 2005 at 02:49 PM (#1732377)
Enos Slaughter, from 1938 through 1953, earned 285 ws in 1820 games, for a rate of 25.37 ws/162 games

For his career he earned 323 ws in 2380 games, for a career rate of 21.99 ws/162 g (NBJHBA is once again found unreliable on a career rate . . . )

Note that this rate figure for Slaughter's entire career counts a pinch-hittng appearance just like any other game played, so (in my view), this rate stat underrepresents the quality of Slaughter's play in his late career. Not that he was great, but he was being used in a way that minimized his per-game rate.

Finally, if Slaughter is given war credit at the average rate and average games played of the 4 surrounding seasons for his war years, he moves to 364 ws in 2246 games from 1938-1953, for a rate of 26.25 ws/162 g. If his rate for those seasons is set to 90% of the surrounding 4, that gives him 357 ws in 2246 for a 25.75/162 g rate.
   9. TomH Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:03 PM (#1732390)
Thanks Chris.
Seems to me that Slaughter looks good when compared to another fine long-careered OFer, Cool Papa.

1965 Scatterbox Prelim

---- “clearly in” -- “borderline” -- “HoVGood”
-C ----------------- Mackey Bresn/Lmbard/Schang
SS Sewell –----------- Rizzuto –Moore/Stephens
2B –----------- Gordon--4 secondbasemen
3B ----------- McGraw ---------- Traynor/Leach
1B --------------------Chance/Beckley/Sisler
OF -------VanHaltren Brown--Kiner Johnson
OF Slaughter CP Bell - Doby Medwick Cravath/Oms
-P Griffith -Walters-----–--------- Mendez
-P -------- Ruffing Rixey---------- Dean/Welch
-P ------- Lemon------------------- Waddell
   10. TomH Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:04 PM (#1732391)
catcher line didn't format well....

---- “clearly in” -- “borderline” -- “HoVGood”
-C --------------- Mackey Bresn/Lmbard/Schang
   11. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 15, 2005 at 03:52 PM (#1732422)
Basing this off Chris Cobb's post, Slaughter is a 400 WS guy with war credit? Off the top of my head, he should be a fairly easy electee then . . . looks like another year for the backlog to wait.
   12. Daryn Posted: November 15, 2005 at 04:06 PM (#1732438)
There has been a question about Doby's age. Gadfly and other sources say that his recorded age is basically correct -- he was 23 in 1947. If that is the case, I can't see giving him credit for pre-1947 play (I will give him credit ofr a full 1947). And if that is the case, he is a pure peak/prime candidate with about 1650 adjusted hits and a great OPS+. That is not enough for my ballot, and I'm surprised that it is enough for other career-centred voters.
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2005 at 04:30 PM (#1732465)
Doby's peak 3 of 34-33-30 is #12 all-time. His 5 year peak of 152 is better than Ken Griffey Jr., Puckett, Slidin' Billy and Averill, and tied for #7 all-time (tied with Berger and Hack Wilson). His rate of 28+ is #9 (going off of the numbers published in TNBJHBA which may or may not be accurate).

His career total of 268 WS is only about #28-29 but figure a mere 40 NeL MLEs and 308 is about 15th. Even 20 MLE WS (total 288) gets him up to #22, and 60 NeL MLE WS (total 328) gets him to #11. Figure he is somewhere around #15-16 for career and in the top 10 for peak, that easily gets him on my ballot. And as one of only 19 eligible players in the top 100 for two of the following three--OBA, OPS,OPS+--that puts him near the top of the ballot.

As to the NeLs, I'm not sure we aren't subjecting Doby to a double standard. Other players who posted the numbers he did in the NeL got credit for it. The fact that he was 20-21-22-23 doesn't mean he didn't do what he did. Not saying he gets credit for 4-5 years, but he gets some credit (20 WS seems pretty low, 40 more likely, maybe even 60). Of course, for me, as a peak/prime voter, it's not make or break.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 15, 2005 at 04:41 PM (#1732483)
As to the NeLs, I'm not sure we aren't subjecting Doby to a double standard. Other players who posted the numbers he did in the NeL got credit for it. The fact that he was 20-21-22-23 doesn't mean he didn't do what he did. Not saying he gets credit for 4-5 years, but he gets some credit (20 WS seems pretty low, 40 more likely, maybe even 60). Of course, for me, as a peak/prime voter, it's not make or break.

He should get credit for everything beyond the year that would have attracted the majors to promote him, regardless of what Doby's age was, IMO.
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: November 15, 2005 at 04:48 PM (#1732490)
Doby was a great player in 1946-47, whatever his age, probably the best player in the Negro Leagues.

The MLEs show that Doby would have been ready at least for a cup of coffee in the majors in 1942-43. By 1946, he was a star.

Sunnyday2 is absolutely right that it would be a double-standard to deny Doby credit for these years, and I think it's clear that he would have been in the majors by 1945 if there had been no war and no segregation. His case, except for segregation, is exactly the same as Ralph Kiner's.
   16. Paul Wendt Posted: November 15, 2005 at 05:13 PM (#1732522)
> For his career he earned 323 ws in 2380 games,
> for a career rate of 21.99 ws/162 g
> (NBJHBA is once again found unreliable on a career rate . . . )

Note that this rate figure for Slaughter's entire career counts a pinch-hittng appearance just like any other game played, so (in my view), this rate stat underrepresents the quality of Slaughter's play in his late career. Not that he was great, but he was being used in a way that minimized his per-game rate.


Ferrell, Lemon, and Newcombe, too.
Not that Slaughter was exchanged at birth with any of that trio.
   17. Daryn Posted: November 15, 2005 at 05:18 PM (#1732532)
Thanks for that impassioned, but fact-based plea, Marc. If you guys really think he is the type of player that would have got noticed at 19 and been a rookie of the year candidate by 21, that would add about 70 WS for me and make him one of the top 3 hitters on my ballot. That still might not get him on to the upper half of the ballot :)
   18. Rusty Priske Posted: November 15, 2005 at 06:20 PM (#1732636)
I gave him that sort of bonus. It got him on the ballot, but not very high.

This is more because there are a bunch of guys that I think should already be in ahead of him. :)

He does make my PHoM, though, and deserves induction.
   19. DavidFoss Posted: November 15, 2005 at 06:21 PM (#1732639)
Sunny, are those rankings you cited for CF only?
   20. andrew siegel Posted: November 15, 2005 at 06:25 PM (#1732648)
Prelim:

(1) Dobie Moore (1st)
(2) Larry Doby (new)
(3) George Van Haltren (2nd)
(4) Bob Lemon (5th)
(5) Enos Slaughter (new)
(6) Eppa Rixey (6th)
(7) Alejandro Oms (7th)
(8) Red Ruffing (9th)
(9) Quincy Trouppe (8th)
(10) Hugh Duffy (11th)
(11) Cupid Childs (10th)
(12) George Sisler (12th)
(13) Edd Roush (14th)
(14) Joe Medwick (13th)
(15) Joe Gordon (unranked/19th)

I did a reevaluation of the recent mid-length-career candidates and have upped Gordon, Doerr, Johnson, and Elliot about five spots each.

If we are going to 20, my next five are likely to be:

(16) Beckley (unranked/16th)
(17) Doerr (unranked/20th)
(18) Johnson (unranked/19th)
(19) Sewell (unranked/17th)
(20) Ryan (15th)
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2005 at 06:26 PM (#1732652)
David, yes, CF only.

Obviously a pure career voter will see even 320 or so WS in light of GVH's 344 and etc. etc. etc.

As more of a peak/prime voter, to me Doby has that plus he is in career territory that makes him a pretty well rounded candidate.
   22. Mark Donelson Posted: November 15, 2005 at 07:09 PM (#1732725)
As so often happens, I agree entirely with Marc concerning Doby.

Turning to Slaughter: He's not wowing me--my first analysis tossed him in at about the mid-20s range, so not too far from the ballot but not that close either.

It seems to me that if you're not big on career (as I'm not), you have to give Slaughter immense war credit to get him on ballot. Now, I do give war credit, and plenty of it (that's what gets Slaughter as high as he is for me so far). But it seems as if I'd have to presume three more 1942s (his best season by a large margin), or close to it, to get him on ballot. So right now, among outfielders, I have Slaughter above the Berger/Wilson level (I have them both higher than most), but just below Charley Jones and Browning.

Is there anything I'm missing that's not career-based?
   23. Mark Donelson Posted: November 15, 2005 at 07:16 PM (#1732739)
Wow, I used a lot of parentheses there...
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 15, 2005 at 11:01 PM (#1733202)
I have a favor to ask.

In last week's ballot discussion someone mentioned the Old Teddy Bear theory (that there are players we like that we don't keep running through the paces to make sure they deserve to bein our top 5) and I want to go over my ballot andmake sure I am not doing this.

The major one I have found it Cupid Childs, who would be in pole position on my ballot right now. However, I want to make sure I haven't just kept him there without asking questions. My second best IFer is Dobie Moore. So can the CHilds and Moore fans give me any reason to change their rankings or keep them the same. I would like to here others take(s) on these two players, especially CHilds.

Thanks
   25. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2005 at 11:13 PM (#1733225)
Dobie Moore is one of darn few 100-150 (3-5 years) WS players around these days. Larry Doby is in that territory, of course, but who else? Moore was basically Arky Vaughan with a better arm, or Joe Cronin with more power, or Ernie Banks with a better glove. What exactly couldn't Dobie Moore do? Besides mend his broken leg. And who knows if he got decent medical attention, by the way?
   26. OCF Posted: November 15, 2005 at 11:26 PM (#1733246)
Well, although the bulk of Childs's career was in the highly comepetitive 1-league NL, he has a very flashy early year in the 1890 AA. The 1890 AA was an awfully weak league. Here are the top 10 players in that league in OPS+: Denny Lyons, Childs, Chicken Wolf, Spud Johnson, Ed Swartwood, Tommy McCarthy, Perry (Moose) Werden (the last of the 220-lb first basemen for a while?), Sandy Griffin (not the good Griffin), Chief Roseman, Count Campau. Some of these guys barely had careers apart from that one year. You have to make sure that you're not making too much of that one year. And you have to not go too far overboard when you see something like a .475 OBP in 1894 (6th in the league, with Hamilton, Kelley, and Duffy all over .500.) Those were high-scoring times.

He does have a case, of course. I've got him in my top 30 - but I also have him significantly below Larry Doyle.
   27. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2005 at 11:36 PM (#1733273)
I'll tell you who is pretty darn comparable to Childs is Fred Dunlap, right down to the weak league year (UA 1884). I discount his UA year 65 percent and it comes out to about 15 WS, same as all of his surrounding years. Then of course extrapolate to 154 or 162 games. This guy was a monster, more so than Childs at his peak. But Childs played a bit longer though not long by today's standards. If you regard his longevity by the standards of that time (and Dunlap's too) they are contenders. To those who give the namby-pamby pitchers today who can't go 200 IP a break because nobody is doing it, well, give these short-career middle IF of the 1880s and '90s a break, too. Nobody was doing it. (OK Bid McPhee.)
   28. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 16, 2005 at 12:05 AM (#1733307)
With discounts or without, Childs has a big peak. He's starting to climb north again on my ballots because, like you, jsch--, I wanted to know whether I hadn't gotten to calcified in my ranking and voting patterns. Turns out I was, and moving Childs up the ladder was part of the outcome of that re-evaluation. I think Moore and Childs are, essentially, the same guy. A little more of this for one, a little less of the other for the other. They run neck and neck for me.
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 16, 2005 at 04:29 AM (#1733572)
Doesn't Dobie Moore have to be Hughie Jennings good with that short of a career? Was he?
   30. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2005 at 05:08 AM (#1733598)
Hughie Jennings was Hughie Jennings good for 5 years.

Dobie Moore was Dobie Moore good for approx. 9.5 years (6.5 in NeLs, somewhere between 3 and 7 with the Wreckers, we have generally agreed to acknowledge 3). Does he have to be Hughie Jennings good? No, I think being Arky Vaughan, Joe Cronin or Ernie Banks good is pretty much good enough. Or in less anthropomorphic terms, his career .365 in the NeLs is the all-time record, and he was not exactly Mr. Slappy.
   31. Michael Bass Posted: November 16, 2005 at 05:22 PM (#1733909)
Don't forget that he was, both by stats and reputation, a fabulous defender at short as well.

Honestly, I've never thought there was any justification for Hughie to be on top of someone's ballot and Dobie nowhere to be seen. Even if his peak wasn't as high (and it just might have been), it did last longer than Jennings' did.

Dobie will be #1 on my ballot for the first time this year with Ferrell and Hughie finally off.

----------------------------

Doby isn't doing a lot for me right now. This is gonna be another WS/WARP argument, but WARP doesn't think anything of his peak at all. Part of this is the crappy 50s AL (let's avoid the league strength arguments for now ;) ), but a lot is that his defense isn't adding anything to his case and that he only had 3 big years with the bat. And none of those 3 years were *that* huge.

Slaughter has a better case, I think, with more career and a similar WARP peak/prime to Doby, even before war credit. Still not enough peak to get onto the top echelon of my ballot.

I will note that I've not decided exactly how much credit Doby gets for his last two pre-MLB years, and they will help him. But WARP agrees with the anecdotes in the Doby thread that his MLB career was disappointing (certainly not bad, but more HOVG than HOM) given his pre-MLB promise.
   32. andrew siegel Posted: November 16, 2005 at 06:55 PM (#1734095)
Frankly, the WARP data on Doby looks a little fishy to me. He has similar (though slightly better) offensive numbers than Averill on their calculations and similar but ever so-slightly worse defensive numbers than him, but when you add it all up Averill supposedly had a much higher peak even by WARP1. It just doesn't commute for me.

I could see having Doby outside your top ten if you are a straight career voter, but if--like me--you basically try and figure out what kind of player someone was and then apply bonuses or penalties if their careers were particularly long ot particularly short, then he has to be top 5. Here's a guy whose career was long enough to put up over 300 WS if you give him appropriate Negro League credit, who had an OBP-heavy OPS+ in the 140's, and played an average to above-average CF. He is Earl Averill only with one more good year, a tougher post-integration playing environment, and a bat that was a few percentage points better.
   33. DavidFoss Posted: November 16, 2005 at 07:35 PM (#1734187)
Frankly, the WARP data on Doby looks a little fishy to me. He has similar (though slightly better) offensive numbers than Averill on their calculations and similar but ever so-slightly worse defensive numbers than him, but when you add it all up Averill supposedly had a much higher peak even by WARP1. It just doesn't commute for me.

Averill appears to be getting significantly more FRAR for similar FRAA seasons. Averill does have a definite advantage in in-season durability (not a knock on Doby, but Averill was extra durable), but I'm not sure that can make up the difference there.

There may be league strength issues, but that shouldn't be in WARP1.

Anyhow, again its frustrating that BP doesn't show their work enough for us to figure out what's going on.
   34. Jim Sp Posted: November 16, 2005 at 08:24 PM (#1734293)
Doby #1. Slaughter #7. Both go into PHoM. Avila the wild card, waiting for more info.

1)Doby--Better than I thought.
2)Gordon--Fixed my war credit, he and Doerr moved up. PHoM in 1958.
3)Doerr-- PHoM in 1958.
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. PHoM in 1939.
5)Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me.
6)Elliott--I like him better than Hack. Second greatest 3B to date, after Baker. PHoM in 1960.
7)Slaughter--Gets quite a bit of war credit. PHoM in 1965.
8)Medwick-- PHoM in 1960.
9)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. PHoM in 1938.
10)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here. PHoM in 1964.
11)Cool Papa Bell--If Max Carey is in, Cool Papa should be too.
12)Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. Usually I'm a WS guy but this time I think Warp has it right.
13)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. PHoM in 1926.
14)Rizzuto--Lots of war credit.
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. PHoM in 1913.

Ruffing#21.
Bob Lemon #55, ERA+ not very impressive, and played for good teams.
Rixey #16, PHoM in 1939.
Griffith In my PHoM since 1912 but off the ballot at #30.
Van Haltren--#74, good player, part of the old OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
Sisler--#81, I don’t see his case being very strong. His peak was not long enough to merit election, though he certainly was a great hitter for a few years.
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2005 at 09:15 PM (#1734406)
Jim Sp ought to have a ballot in the MVP voting if only to balance the "hitters only" mentality of the BBWAA.
   36. Chris Cobb Posted: November 16, 2005 at 09:33 PM (#1734452)
On the fishiness of WARP data on Doby & the comparison of him to Averill:

The difference comes from changes in fielding replacement level, as WARP1 sees it.

Exhibit A:

1935 Earl Averill, 139 g in cf, 9 FRAA, 35 FRAR.

1952 Larry Doby, 136 g in cf, 2 FRAA, 26 FRAR

In WARP 2, the difference for both players between FRAA and FRAR is 20: Doby is at 2/22, Averill at 8/28.

This means, as I understand it, that the WARP system sees centerfield as a more important defensive position in the 1930s than in the 1950s, and in both cases it is slightly more valuable than cf is in their "all-time context." I expect that the defensive value lost by centerfielders between 1935 and 1952 is being transferred to pitchers. If you compare Bob Lemon to the just-elected Wes Ferrell, you'll see that Lemon gets considerably more PRAR in relation to his PRAA than Ferrell does.

I make no claims about whether this change is justified or not, but it _is_ the case that strikeouts and walks were considerably higher in the early 1950s AL than in the 1930s AL, so there is some statistical ground for some change in the value of centerfield defense.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2005 at 10:07 PM (#1734522)
Averill played 140 or more games in CF 7 times and averaged:
Doby played 140 or more games in CF 4 times and averaged:

Averill 152 G, 389 PO, 11 A, 3 DP
Doby 146 G, 372 PO, 8 A, 3 DP

The successful opportunities per game are about identical. For WARP to have it right you would have to assume that indeed Doby (not Averill) had more opportunities but just didn't convert them. You'd need a UZR analysis to know that. But generally the number of successful chances does not support the inferences one would make based on WARP's treatment of Averill and Doby, does it? Or am I missing something?
   38. Mister High Standards Posted: November 16, 2005 at 10:44 PM (#1734617)

Is there anything I'm missing that's not career-based?


Mark - I think you're missing a couple of things in re: to Country. He was a fantastic baserunner, lauded league wide throughout his career. Which adds some value. I'm not sure exactly how much value, but certainly some value and in the case of Country who was considered to be so good it might be meaningful, as an extreme case.

Also he was a major world series contributor in 46, and in 56.
   39. KJOK Posted: November 16, 2005 at 11:09 PM (#1734667)
Basing this off Chris Cobb's post, Slaughter is a 400 WS guy with war credit? Off the top of my head, he should be a fairly easy electee then

Just playing devil's advocate, but if Cool Papa Bell is a 400+ WS guy, and he's not getting elected easily, not sure why Slaughter should..
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2005 at 11:13 PM (#1734681)
Just playing devil's advocate, but if Cool Papa Bell is a 400+ WS guy, and he's not getting elected easily, not sure why Slaughter should..<i>

I think Bell's career WS were truncated somewhat from that originally high number, Kevin.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2005 at 11:41 PM (#1734758)
Not to mention, best as well can tell Papa was a 100 OPS+ hitter, Slaughter is better than that.
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2005 at 04:44 AM (#1735152)
This struck me as an oddly similar cluster of players...let's see if that's true.

Pafko .285/.350/.449/118 in 6850 H + BB
Furillo .299/.355/.458/112 in 6900 H + BB
Ennis .284/.340/.472/117 in 7850 H + BB
Sauer .266/.347/.496/123 in 5350 H + BB
Zernial .265/.329/.486/115 in 4500 H + BB

(100 games or more/*WWII discount/#WWI XC)

Pafko 118/158-45-23-21-21-16*-15-14-5-(78*)
Furillo 112/146-30-27-13-11-10-10-8-8-4-4-3-(80)
Ennis 117/144-42-40-35-29-25-17-17-5-(98)-(98)-(95)-(67)
Sauer 123/143-40-32#-32#-30-29-27-26-13-9 (no MiL MLE included)
Zernial 115/138-27-16-14-10-4-(99)

Pafko 220/27-25-23/107
Furillo 217/23-23-22/91
Ennis 233/27-26-26/112
Sauer 212#/28-22-19/106#
Zernial 123/21-21-19/82

How the hell does Ennis end up with fewer of those WARPie things than Pafko or Furillo? Well, he did have some seriously off years and those are not his decline phase, they are sprinkled here and there throughout. Both Ennis and Furillo were pretty good hitters in 1946 but both were young enough that without some more evidence I don't see any XC for them. Pafko, Ennis and Furillo were all very productive players for awhile, just not awhile enough, and the same goes roughly for Sauer, too.

Surprised to learn that Zernial didn't do more than he did. He had the power numbers for a few years but it didn't add up to much of an OPS and certainly not much in the way of WS. Do his WS suffer due to bad teams? That is becoming quite the cliche--no, his OBA just wasn't high enough, walking 60-70 times at his best along with that .265. I mean Harmon Killebrew hit .265 but he walked twice as much. Ennis has the next lowest OBA, he didn't walk anymore but his BA was 20 points higher. Furillo walked even less but his BA was another 15 points higher.

And I don't understand this. Pafko hit .285 like Ennis, walked the same (60-70 tops) and his OBA is 10 points higher. Hafta look closer to see what that's about.

But anyway, no HoMers here but the kinds of guys who were journeymen and pinch-hitters when I was a kid. I was surprised later to discover that they had been pretty solid guys, well, except for Furillo who wore the Dodger halo, so I was surprised in his case to find he was no better than Pafko and Ennis, and probably not quite as good, and Sauer of course with his MVP, I knew he had been good, surprised in his case he was not better, though perhaps he was better and just didn't get the shot.

Pafko was with the Cubs 1943-51, traded to Brooklyn about 1/3 of the way into the '51 season, so of course he was with the Dodgers that famous year. Sauer joined the Cubs 1/3 of the way into '49 so he and Pafko were side by side for two years. Only the 1950 full season, however, when Pafko had his big 158 season and Sauer was at 127.

Pafko of course joined Furillo in Brooklyn and they played side by side for 2/3 of 1951 and all of '52. Furillo had a terrible year at 80, Pafko was at 120.

Ennis and Zernial played together in Philly for most of '51 and all of '52, '53 and '54. Both were D+ OF! Wonder what McKechnie thought of them. Anyway Ennis went 105-125-117-98, a very below average four years for him at age 26-27-28-29(!) while Zernial went 127-114-138-98. Somehow the Phillies phinished 4th in '54 with the two D+/98 OPS+ corner OF! Ennis drove in 119 runs at OPS+ 98 as Ashburn and Hamner did most of the run scoring. But they were 7th in runs scored and 3rd in ERA with Roberts and Simmons throwing nearly half their innings both under 3.00.
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2005 at 04:55 AM (#1735158)
Also can't believe Erskine only got 100 some WS. His rep was certainly much bigger than that. He was in the majors for 12 years age 22-33, won 122 games with EAR+ just 101. Started 216 games, relieved 119, he was only really in rotation '52-'56. His ERA+ was only ovr 100 5 of 12 seasons and during his 5 years in rotation it was 135-120-(98)-107-(93).

But of course he was a Dodger so there was post-season opportunity.

1952--1-1, 4.50 in 2 starts + he closed out the 7th game 4-2 loss

1953--1-0 but 5.79 in 3 starts. The bad ERA comes mostly from 4 1st inning runs (knocked out in the 2nd) in game 1. He won game 3 with a CG but gave up 3 runs in the 1st 2 innings of game 6, though the Dodgers came back to tie and Clem Labine got the loss in relief

1955--got hammered in game 4 but again avoided the loss, 3 runs in 3 IP, 9.00, no decisions

1956--0-1, 5.40

All in all, a less than mediocre post-season record. 2-2 but just 2 quality starts out of 7.
   44. Chris Cobb Posted: November 17, 2005 at 05:01 AM (#1735159)
Ennis and Zernial played together in Philly for most of '51 and all of '52, '53 and '54. Both were D+ OF! Wonder what McKechnie thought of them.

I guess it's pretty clear who was taking the discretionary outfield put-outs for the Phils during these years . . .
   45. DanG Posted: November 17, 2005 at 06:54 AM (#1735209)
The Gray Area 1965

This is another of my occasional surveys of the Gray Area, aka the Backlog, the candidates clamoring for attention to rise above the crowd. I’ll look at the top 30 also-rans from 1964, the same 30 guys as in 1963, except Lemon replaces Ferrell. BTW, there were 133 votes spent on players not among these 30, or 2.77 per ballot.

First, organized by tiers, simply divided into five groups of six players each.
1
3.11Red Ruffing
3.27Joe Medwick
3.101Bob Lemon
2.102Biz Mackey
2.61Eppa Rixey
1.81Clark Griffith
2
1.68Geo. Van Haltren
2.43George Sisler
2.98Cool Papa Bell
1.73Jake Beckley
1.59Hugh Duffy
1.44Cupid Childs
3
2.31Can. Dick Redding
1.38Pete Browning
2.26Dobie Moore
3.49Willard Brown
3.84Bobby Doerr
2.11José Méndez
4
2.86Joe Sewell
1.21Mickey Welch
1.17Charley Jones
3.74Joe Gordon
3.31Bucky Walters
3.97Ralph Kiner
5
3.59Alejandro Oms
1.91Rube Waddell
3.62Quincy Trouppe
1.105Tommy Leach
2.58Edd Roush
2.71Burleigh Grimes

The observant reader is wondering what the numbers mean. They indicate era. A “1” became eligible before 1925; a “2” became eligible in the 30’s or 40’s; a “3” became eligible after 1950. There are exactly ten guys in each group; the numerical extension is an approximate chronological ranking within the group. The number in the second column is position, of course.

Tier 1 – Future HoMers.
Ruffing and Medwick have ranked near the top of the backlog since they became eligible a decade ago. The eternal bridesmaids, the electorate is fighting the urge to elect them, as players keep jumping over them. First Hack, then Jennings, then Averill and now Ferrell. Resistance is futile; they’re not fading away.
Lemon is new and it’s too early to say if he’s headed upward or down. Will he be the next one to leapfrog Redduck Ruffwick?
Mackey is in position to make it soon. We need more catchers. He’s the only non-HOFer in the top tier.
Rixey was the leading vote getter among non-HoMers from 1941-52. He’s not going away either. He was 44 points short of election in 1942.
Griffith is now the leading vote getter among Era 1 non-HoMers for the past 26 years, although he trailed Jennings most of those years.

Tier 2 – The Comeback Kids?
Van Haltren has been tailing The Old Fox for a long time. GVH would probably get more 16-20 votes, if we go to that. Missed election by 47 points in 1931.
Sisler may be our toughest 20th century MLB player to rank. Is he really THAT overrated by history?
Bell is a career lover’s delight. Is his value very different from Slaughter’s? His case (and every NeL player below here) depends greatly on the findings in the forthcoming NeL data from the HOF committee.
Beckley needs a new advocate and some fresh evidence. What about that first base defense value? Named on only a third of the ballots in 1964.
Duffy saw six future HoMers trailing him in 1913. Why were we so wrong then?
Childs has revived his candidacy with favorable comparisons to Doerr and Gordon.

Tier 3 – Negro League Sandwich
Redding is the top NeL pitching candidate and he has a great nickname. What more do you need?
Browning is the last of the Big 7 of 1899. A better HOF candidate than HoM. Had 8 top-5 votes in 1964 so he’s unlikely to fade away; equally unlikely to ever be elected.
Moore needs a favorable review from the HOF committee. Elect another shortstop?
Willard Brown needs a more distinctive name. Only 3 top-5 votes in 1964.
Doerr or Childs may be a deserving HoMer, but I’m not sure which one. Doerr is the only HOFer in this tier.
Mendez has had very steady mediocre support in his 33 years on the ballot.

Tier 4 – Can I Get a Break
Sewell was 13 points shy of the HoM in 1940, a seriously over embellished New Toy. Now he’s about done.
Welch is similar to Browning: a strong core following but he’s just playing out the string. The electorate has firmly rejected him.
Chas. Jones is the oldest player in the Gray Area, finishing 16th in the inaugural1898 election. We still need to know where he was playing in the NA years for him to rise in the balloting.
Gordon’s candidacy never got off the ground. Only 4 top-9 votes in 1964.
Walters is a similar story, he was named on only one fourth of the ballots in 1964.
Kiner had no top-5 support in 1964. Favorable comparisons to HoMers would help him, if this were possible.

Tier 5 – Barely Alive
Oms needs a general selling to the electorate. Nobody had heard of him before this project.
Waddell is the negative image of Griffith. Are we that sure that Rube isn’t better than his contemporary? How’d they fare against each other? He finished 10th in 1918-19, ahead of 3 HoMers.
Trouppe is the same as Oms. They need good reviews from the HOF committee.
Leach is My Favorite Teddy Bear. Topped out at #8 in 1941.
Roush never got the bandwagon going. Topped out at #13 in 1945.
Grimes is like Roush, but worse, topping out at #19. Should be closer to Rixey and will likely rise after Eppa is elected.
   46. DanG Posted: November 17, 2005 at 06:57 AM (#1735211)
Someday I'll learn how to make charts look good. Try this.
1
3.1-1-Red Ruffing
3.2-7-Joe Medwick
3.10-1-Bob Lemon
2.10-2-Biz Mackey
2.6-1-Eppa Rixey
1.8-1-Clark Griffith
2
1.6-8-Geo. Van Haltren
2.4-3-George Sisler
2.9-8-Cool Papa Bell
1.7-3-Jake Beckley
1.5-9-Hugh Duffy
1.4-4-Cupid Childs
3
2.3-1-Can. Dick Redding
1.3-8-Pete Browning
2.2-6-Dobie Moore
3.4-9-Willard Brown
3.8-4-Bobby Doerr
2.1-1-José Méndez
4
2.8-6-Joe Sewell
1.2-1-Mickey Welch
1.1-7-Charley Jones
3.7-4-Joe Gordon
3.3-1-Bucky Walters
3.9-7-Ralph Kiner
5
3.5-9-Alejandro Oms
1.9-1-Rube Waddell
3.6-2-Quincy Trouppe
1.10-5-Tommy Leach
2.5-8-Edd Roush
2.7-1-Burleigh Grimes
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2005 at 12:52 PM (#1735265)
In a way I wouldn't be opposed to electing any of these guys, especially given the way Dan manages to make each of them sound so interesting. Forget how they did on the field, how are they doing in HoM voting? They all sound so tragically romantic or romantically tragic or something.

Obviously I like some of them better than others, and I think there's a really good reason Burleigh Grimes is dead last among this group, that is exactly where I would have him. But seriously, Edd Roush and Tommy Leach 28th and 29th? These guys were good.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: November 17, 2005 at 01:56 PM (#1735297)
Nice work, Dan G!
That's an enjoyable read..
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2005 at 02:20 PM (#1735309)
Going from the bottom up, that bottom group of 6 is very intriguing.

I know that the line ends up being drawn somewhere, and I think Heinie Groh was better than Edd Roush. But how much better. I'd say just about this much. If, then.

Oms and Trouppe are very intriguing. I'd invite everybody to review the Mackey and Trouppe MLEs. I think Trouppe was better.

Waddell has been on my ballot for years. I think our ability to evaluate the impact of his character on his numbers and his team's numbers about 100 years after the fact is pretty limited. But never mind, I realize that is a cold case.

That leaves Leach who I think is also a cold case, another of the many many players who start out on my ballot at #15 and end up #75.

From this group I would have to commend Roush and Trouppe to everyone (knowing that Waddell has been discussed to death and everybody has made up their mind. Maybe somebody hasn't really looked closely at Trouppe and [less likely] Roush.) Not that either is on my ballot right now but Roush has been and Trouppe is lurking in the high teens.
   50. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 17, 2005 at 04:57 PM (#1735479)
I have Trouppe lurking too sunny. I have Mackey 21 and Trouppe 31. I'll give it another flyby to see if I should adjust them.
   51. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 17, 2005 at 04:58 PM (#1735481)
And I also have Schang at 27. I don't see a ton of difference between the three of them.
   52. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2005 at 05:49 PM (#1735546)
Joe, I thought you were going to bed!
   53. Jim Sp Posted: November 17, 2005 at 09:17 PM (#1735968)
Jim Sp ought to have a ballot in the MVP voting if only to balance the "hitters only" mentality of the BBWAA.

Yup, though this year I would go with Lee and ARod.

I am questioning whether my support of middle infielders and catchers has gone too far...or maybe I'm giving too much war credit. On the other hand the only big hitter off my ballot is Sisler, and I just don't think his peak is long enough. Keller and Kiner are #20 and #21, so I don't feel like I'm totally ignoring the high peak hitters. Mostly I'm dropping pitchers for the fielders, maybe I need stronger era adjustments by position. The distinctions are pretty fine right now, that's for sure. It wouldn't take a big tweak to rearrange things quite a bit.
   54. Evan Posted: November 18, 2005 at 05:38 PM (#1737136)
For the ballot-talliers:

There is now a new version of the ballot counter in the Yahoo group, called IcosaBallot Counter. It will do the same thing as the regular counter, but will do it for 20 person ballots (it assumes the scoring for 16-20 runs 5,4,3,2,1). It also removes the ability to score the last place as a tie. Let me know if anything's broken or anything else.
   55. Jim Sp Posted: November 18, 2005 at 08:47 PM (#1737476)
I'll be out of town for a while so if I don't post a ballot please count my prelim above.
   56. OCF Posted: November 18, 2005 at 10:25 PM (#1737681)
This will be a year of rearrangement on my ballot. Sometime a new candidate forces a new look at some old candidates. In this case it comes in three forms: Doby forces a new look at the GVH/Duffy/Ryan cluster (I think I have Doby ahead of them, but I'm not sure of that yet), Vernon forces a new look at Beckley (which has the potential to drag Beckley to a different spot on my ballot), and Slaughter forces a new look at Medwick. I'm not there yet in terms of deciding all this, although on first glance, Slaughter looks pretty good.
   57. jimd Posted: November 18, 2005 at 10:33 PM (#1737693)
This means, as I understand it, that the WARP system sees centerfield as a more important defensive position in the 1930s than in the 1950s, and in both cases it is slightly more valuable than cf is in their "all-time context." I expect that the defensive value lost by centerfielders between 1935 and 1952 is being transferred to pitchers.

Agree with Chris here.

In 1924, K's accounted for 10% of the outs, in 2004 25% of the outs. HR's are up by almost a factor of 4. The direct impact of the pitcher on run prevention has increased enormously, which makes them more valuable. And this increase in value comes at the expense of the fielders. During the 1950's, we are part way through this transformation. BB's are also at historic levels (10% higher than today and 1924), so pitchers are also responsible for more baserunners while fielders are responsible for less - error rates are steadily declining.

As we get closer to the present, I think that WARPs overall view of fielding will tend to converge towards that of Win Shares (though there will still be differences). WARP will still retain the view that defense is more important than Win Shares will give credit, but the complaints about being overvalued will tend to shift from the fielders to the pitchers.
   58. Chris Cobb Posted: November 18, 2005 at 10:49 PM (#1737714)
Here's a thought on Bob Lemon's ranking.

Although I think that Lemon should be an eventual HoMer, I would suggest that the electorate is overvaluing him a bit, and that the reason might be that he is the first of the really strong 1950s pitching candidates to become eligible, so his value hasn't been fully contextualized yet. As I see it there are about 10 pitchers with much of their value in the 1950s deserving of serious consideration for the HoM. They fall into 3 groups:

1) Shoo-ins
Warren Spahn
Robin Roberts

2) Probables
Early Wynn
Hoyt Wilhelm
Whitey Ford
Bob Lemon

3) Doubtfuls
Billy Pierce
Virgil Trucks
Don Newcombe
Murry Dickson

My sense is that these pitchers rank in about this order overall.

While Lemon gets ranked only against eligibles, where he ranks against his peers should figure in to his ballot ranking. While I'd say that Lemon has the third best peak among 1950s pitchers after Roberts and Spahn, his career value is less impressive, ranking behind all the pitchers above him on the list plus Pierce below him.

How exactly each voter would sort out this list of 1950s pitchers, I would urge you to think about how Lemon compares to his top contemporaries. If we elect Lemon before Wynn, Ford, Roberts, or Spahn becomes eligible (we're _very_ likely to elect him before Wilhelm becomes eligible, of course), I hope we will do so with some consideration of how he compares to this group of pitchers.
   59. sunnyday2 Posted: November 18, 2005 at 11:19 PM (#1737760)
>jimd Posted: November 18, 2005 at 04:33 PM (#1737693)
This means, as I understand it, that the WARP system sees centerfield as a more important defensive position in the 1930s than in the 1950s, and in both cases it is slightly more valuable than cf is in their "all-time context." I expect that the defensive value lost by centerfielders between 1935 and 1952 is being transferred to pitchers.

No response to #37 so must ask again. But why in this case? The value is just being transferred to pitchers as a general principle? You'd think it would be because CFers are handling fewer balls,but no...

>>sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2005 at 04:07 PM (#1734522)
Averill played 140 or more games in CF 7 times and averaged:
Doby played 140 or more games in CF 4 times and averaged:

Averill 152 G, 389 PO, 11 A, 3 DP
Doby 146 G, 372 PO, 8 A, 3 DP

The successful opportunities per game are about identical. For WARP to have it right you would have to assume that indeed Doby (not Averill) had more opportunities but just didn't convert them. You'd need a UZR analysis to know that. But generally the number of successful chances does not support the inferences one would make based on WARP's treatment of Averill and Doby, does it? Or am I missing something?
   60. jimd Posted: November 19, 2005 at 12:50 AM (#1737949)
There's a number of different factors that go into these defensive analyses: team K rates, groundball/flyball tendencies, overall quality of the team defense (maybe others I haven't dreamed of). These all affect the expected number of chances.

Win Shares takes these factors into account (though not always in ways that I agree with) but does not change the "intrinsic value" of a CF over time like WARP does. Doby has 45.9 DWS; he would have 49.4 if he played as many defensive games as Averill. Earl has 54.5 DWS, so Win Shares also sees Doby's performance as less valuable when the team context is considered.

WARP's adjustment is about twice the size of Win Share's. How much of that is a different interpretation of the scale of the effects of the common factors (WS tends to be conservative with caps, etc., but not always; WARP usually lets it rip), and how much can be attributed to WARP's additional considerations, I don't know.
   61. Howie Menckel Posted: November 19, 2005 at 01:58 AM (#1738062)
Chris Cobb,
I agree that I was much more comfortable seeing Ferrell - whose contemporaries all have reached the ballot - get in over Lemon, whose career value is somewhat similar.
We know fully where Ferrell ranked against his peers. We can know the same about Lemon, but as an early guy to the balloting, it's preferable to ensure that he doesn't get a bonus for that. He's not an obvious HOMer, but he may well be one. I hope his candidacy incorporates his full peer group, to give us full perspective.
   62. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 19, 2005 at 03:57 AM (#1738155)
There is now a new version of the ballot counter in the Yahoo group, called IcosaBallot Counter. It will do the same thing as the regular counter, but will do it for 20 person ballots (it assumes the scoring for 16-20 runs 5,4,3,2,1). It also removes the ability to score the last place as a tie. Let me know if anything's broken or anything else.

Thanks, Evan!

I'll be out of town for a while so if I don't post a ballot please count my prelim above.

Will do, Jim.
   63. Paul Wendt Posted: November 19, 2005 at 04:58 AM (#1738207)
Marc:
Surprised to learn that Zernial didn't do more than he did.

Only a guy who remembers Zernial would report such "surprise" as this to the group. But "Andy" has also surpassed fifty seasons as a fan --apparently an established fan in 1956, suffering that "wait 'til next year" frustration of Yankee fans in the mid-1950s.


DanG:
Tier 3 – Negro League Sandwich

Moore needs a favorable review from the HOF committee. Elect another shortstop?

Willard Brown needs a more distinctive name. Only 3 top-5 votes in 1964.

Tier 5 – Barely Alive

Oms needs a general selling to the electorate. Nobody had heard of him before
this project.

Trouppe is the same as Oms. They need good reviews from the HOF committee.


I suppose all four were unknown relative to Redding and Mendez, not to mention Mackey and Bell. Has it been a decisive obstacle, never overcome? If one-third of the voters have never opened their threads and one-third have only skimmed, leaving only one-third who have studied . . . liberally multiply their electoral scores by three . . .
   64. ronw Posted: November 19, 2005 at 06:02 AM (#1738242)
sunnyday2 wrote

Ennis and Zernial played together in Philly for most of '51 and all of '52, '53 and '54. Both were D+ OF! Wonder what McKechnie thought of them. ... Somehow the Phillies phinished 4th in '54 with the two D+/98 OPS+ corner OF!

Um, they played together in Philly all right, but Zernial was with the A's while Ennis was with the Phils.
   65. Brent Posted: November 19, 2005 at 06:16 AM (#1738254)
Responding to Chris Cobb # 58:

It's hard for me to see Wynn ahead of Ford. Ford was just sooo consistent; never had a bad year until the very end. Ok, his career was "only" 3200 IP (though with 2 years of military credit, he'd be up to 3600). And he doesn't have the giant peak of a Newhouser or a Koufax. On the other hand, the uberstats don't take account of how Stengel saved him to pitch against top opponents. He didd have a lot of help from the other Yankees, but on the other hand he was a big part of what made the Yankees so dominant. I see Ford as a shoo-in.

Wynn, on the other hand, looks in some ways like Ruffing or Grimes with a mix of really good and not-so-good seasons. If you just string together his best seasons, he looks really, really good. Over his 9 best seasons he averaged 20-11, 257 IP, 117 DERA+ -- pretty close to Lemon's best 9. (Of course they were teammates during many of those seasons.) On the other hand, over the rest of his career he posted journeyman numbers -- 122-143, 94 DERA+. And there were a couple of really awful seasons -- 8-19, 77 DERA+; 10-16, 81 DERA+. I think Wynn was better than Ruffing or Grimes, and I can see him ahead of Lemon, but not ahead of Ford.

Also, if I were assigning Wilhelm to a decade, it would be the 1960s.

I see Spahn, Roberts, Ford, and probably Wynn as all first-ballot HoMers. (Probably Wilhelm too, though we'll have to see how the relief issue plays itself out.) So Lemon isn't behind any borderline candidates, at least in my mind. If you add the 1940s pitchers to the comparison set, Lemon is behind only Feller and Newhouser. So (excluding Wilhelm), Lemon is probably the 7th best pitcher of a two-decade period. In my book, that's a HoMer.
   66. Kelly in SD Posted: November 19, 2005 at 08:06 AM (#1738311)
I have start by start info about Ford under Stengal's management and he was definitely held back in the rotation to face the Indians and White Sox (they were usually the top 2 challengers for the Yankees). In one year he started 28 or 29 games and 14 were against the other top 2 teams. The other years are not much different.

He was used in a unique manner that must be taken account of when looking at his career and seasonal totals.
   67. Chris Cobb Posted: November 19, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1738464)
Re Wynn vs. Ford: I'm open to persuasion in this case as I learn more about Ford.

The question for now that really matters is Wynn vs. Lemon, and the upshot is that he has a peak that is close to Lemon's in height and length (though he wasn't as consistently good), and 1700 more ip in his career. Plus he lost a season to WWII.

I see Spahn, Roberts, Ford, and probably Wynn as all first-ballot HoMers.

Spahn and Roberts, yes.

Ford, maybe.

Wynn, no. The fact that he'll be entering the ballot with Musial and Berra means that even if he is, qualitatively, "a first-ballot HoMer," he won't be elected in his first year of eligibility. He may go in easily, but the electorate has taken its time with the pitching career candidates, as the examples of Ruffing, Rixey, and Grimes certainly show. Ruffing and Rixey will probably be elected before Wynn becomes eligible, so if the electorate sees Wynn as superior to that pair he may go in quickly, but Grimes will probably not be even a serious contender when Wynn hits the ballot. Perhaps Wynn's appearance will lead to a Grimes revival? (Though Wynn is clearly better than Grimes.)

I'm not arguing against Wynn's merit in saying this, just examining the typical treatment of this type of candidate by the electorate.
   68. Chris Cobb Posted: November 19, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1738467)
Oms needs a general selling to the electorate. Nobody had heard of him before
this project.


There will be one. We're not quite far enough into the backlog to justify making a sustained case for Oms, but when we get to the point where it's readily demonstrable to voters with several different sets of priorities that Oms is better than players who are approaching election, rest assured that a vigorous case will be made for him!
   69. karlmagnus Posted: November 19, 2005 at 03:31 PM (#1738469)
Wynn's clearly better than Grimes but equally clearly not as good as Rixey, who with 1918/19 extra credit would be very close to Wynn in wins and IP, and well ahead of him on ERA+. I'd be surprised if he shot in fast, though he'll probably make the bottom of my ballot.
   70. sunnyday2 Posted: November 19, 2005 at 04:00 PM (#1738483)
>the electorate has taken its time with the pitching career candidates, as the examples of Ruffing, Rixey, and Grimes certainly show.

And we're taking our time with the peak pitching candidates, too.

No wonder we are short of pitchers.

And given the whispering campaign against Whitey Ford, by the time he is eligible he will be already be tainted goods if he is not today. Well...no wonder we are short of pitchers.
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: November 19, 2005 at 04:04 PM (#1738486)
FYI, I'm vigorously disputing on the Vernon thread the notion that Vernon is anywhere close to Beckley; now I've tossed in the name of a beloved Yankee as well.
Join the party!
   72. sunnyday2 Posted: November 19, 2005 at 04:42 PM (#1738507)
PS. I stand corrected re. Zernial and Ennis. Good catch. I knew it too. Brain lock.
   73. Brent Posted: November 19, 2005 at 05:12 PM (#1738526)
Ford becomes eligible in 1973, when the other new candidates are Dick Groat, Curt Simmons, Lew Burdette, Vern Law, Moose Skowron, and Smoky Burgess. 1972 is an elect-3 year with new candidates Robin Roberts, Sandy Koufax, Jim Gilliam, Joe Adcock, Harvey Kuenn, Bob Friend, and Del Crandall.

Ford will be elected on his first ballot.
   74. Brent Posted: November 19, 2005 at 05:22 PM (#1738534)
I agree that Wynn will be stuck behind Musial and Berra in 1969. In 1970 the top new candidates will be Snider and Minoso; whether Wynn goes in that year depends on how much credit Minoso gets for non-U.S. play; I suspect that it won't be enough. If Wynn doesn't make it in 1970, I predict he'll be elected in 1971 when he'll be behind Spahn and ahead of Nellie Fox.
   75. Brent Posted: November 20, 2005 at 12:52 AM (#1738890)
Taking stock, 1965.

About twenty elections ago, Devin McCullen posted (on the Goose Goslin thread) a list of HoMers organized by the decade in which each player’s career was “centered.” About ten elections ago (on the 1955 Ballot Discussion thread) I updated the list. Since we are now near the end of assessing the players of the 1940s and just starting on the 50s, I thought it would be interesting to again update the list.

Assigning each player to a single decade can, of course, be a bit misleading since the careers of many of these players span two (or sometimes more) decades. Nevertheless, I think the simplicity of this approach can help us get a rough idea of how we are doing with respect to treating all eras fairly.

I’ve also included parenthetical lists of the viable candidates by decade (defined as players who received at least 100 points in the last election, with the top 10 candidates—including the top two newcomers—shown in italics). At the end I’ve also presented a table counting HoMers classified by position and decade.

1860s - 1 (Pearce)

1870s - 9 (Anson, Barnes, McVey, Pike, Spalding, Start, Sutton, White, Wright)

1880s - 17 (Bennett, Brouthers, Caruthers, Clarkson, Connor, Ewing, Galvin, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, Keefe, Kelly, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Richardson, Stovey, Ward)
{Candidates – Browning, Welch, C Jones}

1890s - 14 (Burkett, Dahlen, Davis, Delahanty, Grant, Hamilton, Jennings, Keeler, Kelley, McPhee, Nichols, Rusie, Thompson, Young)
{Candidates – Griffith, Van Haltren, Beckley, Duffy, Childs}

1900s - 16 (M Brown, Clarke, J Collins, Crawford, Flick, R Foster, Hill, G Johnson, Lajoie, Mathewson, McGinnity, Plank, Sheckard, Wagner, Wallace, Walsh)
{Candidates – Waddell, Leach}

1910s - 15 (Alexander, Baker, Carey, Cobb, E Collins, Groh, Jackson, W Johnson, Lloyd, Magee, Santop, Speaker, Torriente, Wheat, Williams)
{Candidates – Redding, Méndez}

1920s - 13 (Beckwith, Charleston, Coveleski, Faber, W Foster, Frisch, Goslin, Heilmann, Hornsby, Rogan, Ruth, Vance, Wilson)
{Candidates – Mackey, Rixey, Sisler, Moore, Sewell, Oms, Roush, Grimes}

1930s - 26 (Averill, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Ott, Paige, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells)
{Candidates – Ruffing, Medwick, Bell}

1940s – 11 (Appling, Boudreau, DiMaggio, Feller, Hack, Irvin, Leonard, Mize, Newhouser, Reese, Robinson)
{Candidates – Slaughter, W Brown, Doerr, Gordon, Walters, Trouppe; Not yet eligible – Williams}.

1950s – 1 (Campanella)
{Candidates – Doby, Lemon, Kiner}

The 1930s have continued to move ahead of all other decades in number of HoMers. With Ruffing and Medwick leading the backlog, it appears likely that we will end up with 28 or 29 HoMers from the decade. On the other hand, most of the leading backlog candidates other than Ruffing and Medwick are now from less represented decades – especially from the 1920s and 1890s. If candidates from those decades are elected, it will move toward equalizing the representation by era.

Even after Williams and (perhaps) Slaughter are elected, the 1940s will remain underrepresented. Is that an inevitable consequence of WWII and of the disruptions caused by integration? Or will voters eventually give more attention to 1940s candidates like Brown, Doerr, Gordon, and Walters?

HoMers by position and decade
Decade   P   C  1B  2B  3B  SS  LF  CF  RF Total
1860s                        1                 1
1870s    1   2   2   1   1   1       1         9
1880s    5   2   2   1       2   2   2   1    17
1890s    3           2       3   3   1   2    14
1900s    6           1   1   3   2   1   2    16
1910s    3   1       1   2   1   2   4   1    15
1920s    5           2   2       1   1   2    13
1930s    7   4   5   2       3   1   2   2    26
1940s    2       2   1   1   3       2        11
1950s        1                                 1
        32  10  11  11   7  17  11  14  10   123



Comments?
   76. yest Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:36 AM (#1739024)
I think mabee some 30's candidets would have been 40' candites if it wasn't for WWII (Greenberg-
Dickey) and a few mistakes (Gibson-Lyons-Cochrane) plus a few who will be elected changes the 30s and 40's a bit though not enough to erase the diffrence
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:46 AM (#1739031)
HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct)

C (8.03) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (13.49) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (10.15) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (7.23) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (15.18) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10

OF (33.85) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Simmons 99, 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, Irvin 75, 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, JRobinson 10

SP (29.26) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, 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: 54.08
OF: 33.85
P: 29.26

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.
   78. Howie Menckel Posted: November 20, 2005 at 04:48 AM (#1739077)
Not sure if this will format well, but this is "HOMers per year, minimum 10 G"

Notes: After trouncing the AL in 1901, the NL can't claim bragging rights again until 1942 (if we count Mize as an NL guy but not an AL one), 1944 (brutal war year), 1947 (integration!), or 1953 (when they begin the early running lead for a half-decade).
The Negro Leagues lead the NL every year from 1920 to 1931, and 1936, 1939, 1944-45.
The Negro Leagues topped the AL only in 1923-24 and 1945.
So 1945 is the lone year where the Negro Leagues lead both leagues (with 8 of the 16 HOMers).

The HOMers per year from 1901-22 are remarkably consistent (with a 1916 outlier), but 1925-36 rules the HOM day by far.
Will the late 1940s ever get to the mid-20s in total HOMers? Some of their best have yet to be eligible.

YEAR - NL/AL/NeL - TOT
1901 - 16/5/2 --- 23
1902 - 10/10/3 - 23
1903 - 8/10/4 --- 22
1904 - 10/11/3 - 24
1905 - 10/12/3 - 25
1906 - 9/11/4 --- 24
1907 - 8/13/4 -- 25
1908 - 9/13/4 -- 26
1909 - 8/14/4 -- 26
1910 - 8/13/6 -- 27
1911 - 10/11/6 - 27
1912 - 9/10/6 -- 25
1913 - 9/11/7 -- 27
1914 - 7/12/6 -- 27**
1915 - 8/9/7 --- 23*
1916 - 9/14/8 -- 31
1917 - 7/12/6 -- 25
1918 - 6/10/6 -- 22
1919 - 7/10/6 -- 23
1920 - 6/9/8 --- 23
1921 - 6/10/8 -- 24
1922 - 8/10/9 -- 27
1923 - 8/10/12 - 30
1924 - 9/12/13 - 34
1925 - 9/15/13 - 37
1926 - 11/17/13 - 41
1927 - 10/17/13 - 43
1928 - 10/17/13 - 43
1929 - 10/15/12 - 37
1930 - 9/14/13 - 36
1931 - 9/15/14 - 38
1932 - 12/15/11 - 38
1933 - 11/15/9 - 35
1934 - 10/16/10 - 36
1935 - 11/15/10 - 36
1936 - 10/15/11 - 36
1937 - 9/17/8 -- 34
1938 - 8/15/7 -- 30
1939 - 8/13/9 -- 30
1940 - 9/14/8 -- 31
1941 - 9/12/7 -- 28
1942 - 9/8/7 --- 22
1943 - 6/6/5 --- 17
1944 - 4/3/5 --- 12
1945 - 3/5/8 --- 16
1946 - 5/7/5 --- 17
1947 - 7/5/4 --- 16
1948 - 5/6/3 --- 14
1949 - 5/6 ------ 11
1950 - 4/6 ----- 10
1951 - 4/6 ------ 10
1952 - 4/4 ------- 8
1953 - 4/3 ------- 7
1954 - 4/2 ------- 6
1955 - 4/1 ------- 5
1956 - 4/1 ------- 5
1957 - 2/0 ------- 2
1958 - 1/0 ------- 1

* - one for each Federal Leaguer
   79. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 06:00 AM (#1739122)
Prelim ballot, as of now Redding and Lemon make my PHOM

1. Childs
2. Medwick
3. Duffy
4. Redding
5. Lemon
6. Charlie Keller
7. Dobie Moore (moved up a few slots, but I still like Cupid more. It is close though. Thanks for your opinions.)
8. Walters
9. Doby
10. Kiner
11. Griffith
12. Trouppe
13. Gordon
14. Browning
15. Rixey

16. Doerr
17. Rosen
18. Dean
19. Slaughter
20. GVH
   80. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:17 PM (#1739419)
Wow, those 1930s numbers are a bit disturbing. Though if you take out the 7 Negro Leaguers, it's only 19, which doesn't stick out like such a sore thumb. Although 5 of our 1920s guys are also Negro Leaguers. The only one that I'd consier a 'mistake' is Averill (maybe Terry too), it's not like we've got Frankie's boys all over the place.

Sure looks like the 1920s got the short shrift (is that a word?) here, although a few of the 1910s guys bled into the 20s and a few of the 30s guys had big years in the 20s. But we've only got 8 white players including borderline guys like Coveleski and Faber. But only 8 HoMers, the entire decade? Maybe guys like Schang, Shocker, Grimes, Mays, Wilbur Cooper, Luque, Mackey, Rixey, Bancroft, Sisler (I'd consider him teens, but he's fringy) even Pie Traynor and Herb Pennock need a second look?

What about Ken Williams? Was he a late bloomer? Why did he only have 274 PA and no major league job before age 29?

Why Averill as opposed to Edd Roush? What about Kiki Cuyler? Late bloomer, or blocked until age 25? What makes Averill or Terry so much better?

Ross Youngs died, or he would have been a HoMer, very likely the same for Shocker - so maybe this decade should be a touch short. But only 8 white HoMers? Something seems fishy.

20s, 40s, hmmmn, could WWI and WWII be the likely culprits? For the 40s, I'd say, "absolutely". For the 20s, maybe. Rixey and Moore would look better with their time in the military and on the Army team. Who knows how many would be MLers never got a chance. Maybe it's just a random fluke, that guys like Sisler and Sewell ended up being done a bit too early.

Maybe the depression kept the 30s stars in the game longer? Maybe the shift from speed to power truncated the early 20s stars career length on the back end and the late 20s stars on the front end of their careers?

The 1920s All-Star team from the 1st HBA:

Traynor, Sewell, Grimes and Pennock are the only non-HoMers. That's 4/12.

Looking at the 1890s, Zimmer, Childs, McGraw, or 3/11.

1900s: Bresnahan, Chance, Donlin 3/11.

Teens: Schang, McInnis, Vaughn 3/12.

1930s: Clift, Klein, Dean, Gomez 4/12.

1940s: Wa.Cooper, Gordon, Elliott, M.Cooper, Chandler, Page 6/13.

Which of those years is not like the others? Are we shortchanging anyone? Bob Elliott maybe, a darned good hitter for a 3B in that time. Joe Gordon, almost defintely.

Why didn't Spud Chandler show up until 1937? Is there a minor league credit thing we are missing?

Walker Cooper sure could hit - does giving him back 1945 a year where he'd probably've posted a 120 or so OPS+ help him enough?

Bucky Walters and now Bob Lemon are the only 3-time Cy Young winners (would have been if the award existed) outside right now, and Lemon's candidacy looks strong. Why don't the peak guys like Walters? He faced tough competition as his team's ace, etc. And he could hit.

I don't know, but I think we need to be taking a closer look here. Seems awfully coincidental that 3 years are missing and the stars of that decade just seem to come up short. Maybe it was just a fluke.

For the 1950s, we are likely going to elect every single All-Star, except Clem Labine, the relief ace. 1/13 out.

For the 1960s, we are going to elect everyone except Elston Howard, Maury Wills and maybe Koufax (though I think he'll make it easily) 2/13 out.

1970s, all but Campaneris, Rice(?), Otis (?), Hunter and Fingers (?), 2 to 5/14 out (he adds a 'U' that year).
   81. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:27 PM (#1739422)
Howie's list is less glaring regarding the 1920s. The bump coincides with the Negro Leagues taking off. But there is still a huge bump from 1925-37 among the AL/NL lists.

Could they be timelining out the 1920s guys and long-careering out the 1940s guys because of the war? Were we just overly imporessed with the big hitting?

Maybe it's nothing, but I think we should look at it at least.
   82. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:34 PM (#1739423)
Howie's list is glaring for C and 3B. I think the positional imbalance is worse than the chronological one.

My theory about the '20s is that paradigms were shifting and managers didn't really know what kind of players they wanted--old-time defensive and slappy players, or new-fangled power hitters. So they tried different players and moved guys around more than when the paradigms are more solid. I did a study of SSs bridging 1910-1930 (bridging 1920) and found less longevity than in other periods.

Probably cannot extrapolate that the same thing was happening at other positions, though it seems logical that all of the IF positions including C might have seen this as well.
   83. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 03:47 PM (#1739425)
That's a good point Marc. The 3B thing is tough to get a handle on. Were those managers wrong? Or was it a tougher position defensively with bad gloves and faster runners hauling down the line? I'm starting to lean more towards the latter. We may be all seriously underrating a guy like Traynor and to a lesser extent Sewell (for his move to 3B). Same for Tommy Leach, Milt Stock and Larry Gardner - heck, maybe even Ed Williamson and Lave Cross.

I still don't see how Ferrell is in and Shocker is not even on the radar. Shocker could hit some, and was definitely a better pitcher. Ferrell's peak/hitting might push him past Shocker, but it shouldn't be a cakewalk. It's like all of the 20s borderline guys fell off a cliff.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2005 at 04:48 PM (#1739461)
Joe, don't get me started on Ferrell, ok?

Ferrell and Galvin...Galvin and Ferrell...

But for the record my HoM not PHoM now includes:

Sutton
Galvin
Stovey*
Keeler*
Kelley
Pete Hill (see, if I just said Hill you wouldn't know who I meant!)
Sheckard
Faber
Beckwith*
Hack*
Averill*
Ferrell

The * are guys who are at least on the radar and could go PHoM someday--Hack first, then probably Beckwith, Stovey, Averill and Keeler (a darkhorse, down in the 40s right now). The others are unlikely.

PHoM not HoM

Harry Wright, whom I acknowledge as a mistake (we got his actual batting data later)
Charly Horse Jones (23rd)
Ed Williamson (46th)
Childs (14th)
Tommy Bond (63rd)
Waddell (28th)
Sisler (10th)
Dobie Moore (17th)
Medwick (4th)
Mendez (20th)
Browning (16th)
Kiner (26th)

All but Williamson and Bond are on at least 10 ballots and I think have at least a snowball's chance of HoMing someday. So my PHoM/HoM discrepancies may shrink rather than grow. But Galvin, Faber and Ferrell are not going to make mine and Bond is not gonna make yours. And Mendez and Waddell is are on the lower part of my list of PHoMers who have that snowball's chance.

I think we would all agree that pitchers are tough to evaluate. I wonder if it would be possible to figure out consensus scores for pitchers versus position players???
   85. yest Posted: November 20, 2005 at 05:05 PM (#1739481)
Charly Horse Jones (23rd)
Ed Williamson (46th)
Childs (14th)
Tommy Bond (63rd)
Waddell (28th)
Sisler (10th)
Dobie Moore (17th)
Medwick (4th)
Mendez (20th)
Browning (16th)
Kiner (26th)

I never thought we had so many players in common
with the exeption of the Negroe Leaguers (which I will probobly add a bunch when the HoF findings are annonced) and Charly Horse Jones evrey one of those players is either in my Phom or has a chance of getting there. (in case anyone was wondering i'm closing in on the point where a few of the HoMers I didn't vote for are getting very close to my pHoM notibly Davis, Collins, Maggee, Covelsky, Carey, and Glasscock)
   86. Paul Wendt Posted: November 20, 2005 at 05:26 PM (#1739492)
I have added two columns covering the white majors thru the 1930s. My implied, errorprone count is 19 "Negro Leaguers" from the 1900s-1930s.

HoMers by position and decade                     white majors
Decade   P   C  1B  2B  3B  SS  LF  CF  RF Total  total  p
1860s                        1                 1      1
1870s    1   2   2   1   1   1       1         9      9  1
1880s    5   2   2   1       2   2   2   1    17     17  5 
1890s    3           2       3   3   1   2    14     14  3 
1900s    6           1   1   3   2   1   2    16     13  5
1910s    3   1       1   2   1   2   4   1    15     11  2
1920s    5           2   2       1   1   2    13      8  3
1930s    7   4   5   2       3   1   2   2    26     19  5
1940s    2       2   1   1   3       2        11  (11 includes Leonard, Robinson, Irvin)
1950s        1                                 1
        32  10  11  11   7  17  11  14  10   123

By this measure, the 1920s trough is more impressive than anything about 1940s.

Yest makes a good general point about the crude classification by decade. Howie partly fills the need for a more refined count and no one should take this table too seriously without noting the smoothing effect of his approach on the overall Total.
   87. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1739526)
Given the randomness of outliers (HoMers are outliers) I don't really see a trough in the '20s. I mean, how many standard deviations is that?

I might reconsider players on my ballot from the '30s, howsomever, though Medwick is the only one. (In the HoM not PHoM of course such thinking would back Stan Hack down my list.)

For those who _do_ see a trough in the '20s, may I commend for your consideration Mr. Dobie Moore and Mr. George Sisler? Moore and Sisler would fill in blanks in the left (detail) side of Brent/Paul's chart that are now, well, blank.

From 1870 to 1940s there are 16 blanks (position x decade) that I can see.

1870s corner OFs (2)
1880s 3B
1890s C, 1B, 3B
1900s C, 1B
1910s 1B
1920s C, 1B, SS
1930s 3B
1940s LF, RF

The really obvious choices to me are:

1870s corner OFs (2)
1880s 3B Ed Williamson
1890s C, 1B, 3B oh, all right, Jake Beckley
1900s C, 1B or Beckley here
1910s 1B George Sisler
1920s C, 1B, SS George Sisler, Dobie Moore
1930s 3B doesn't Stan Hack go here?
1940s LF, RF we're gonna get Ted Williams and probably Enos Slaughter and probably others... How about Willard Brown? Ralph Kiner?
   88. Trevor P. Posted: November 20, 2005 at 06:26 PM (#1739560)
"We may be all seriously underrating a guy like Traynor and to a lesser extent Sewell (for his move to 3B). Same for Tommy Leach, Milt Stock and Larry Gardner - heck, maybe even Ed Williamson and Lave Cross."

And Bob Elliott.

Lave Cross and Tommy Leach are two players I think I'll re-examine over the next two elections.
   89. DavidFoss Posted: November 20, 2005 at 08:01 PM (#1739663)
Only a guy who remembers Zernial would report such "surprise" as this to the group.

My dads big Gus Zernial memory is his 1952 Topps baseball card with the balls stuck to the bat.
   90. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 09:41 PM (#1739723)
Trevor, the only reason I left Elliott out was that he wasn't a 3B in the speed era, which is what I was getting at. But yeah, Elliott should certainly get another look.
   91. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2005 at 09:48 PM (#1739725)
Marc, I don't know that I agree that every position in every decade should be represented. Not sure that you were saying that, since you left some others blank, but just wanted to state my thoughts on that, so I am not misinterpreted above.

But yeah, all of your choices are reasonable.
   92. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 12:29 AM (#1739845)
As for a 1940's dearth I have a few explanations...

1. It is only 1965, so the 1940's are the last decade we have really finished up with. There should be many candidates on the edges right now and some still coming up like Slaughter.

2. The problem with WWII credit is that I hate to extrapolate a peak. This means that we are invariably missing some players peaks but we aren't making the mistake of picking imagined peaks for the wrong players. This leads to a generation of plaers whose peaks aren't quite as strong and end up with about 15-20 fewer WS among those that would have had the peak years.

Also, I am a peak guy who does like Bucky Walters, so I dont get it either.
   93. Brent Posted: November 21, 2005 at 01:13 AM (#1739905)
jschmeagol,

I agree and will add a third reason. A number of young players who may have developed HoM careers suffered some loss in ability, whether due to injury, lack of practice, or some other reason. An article by Bill James in TNBJHBA mentions Cecil Travis, Dick Wakefield, Sam Chapman, Buddy Lewis, Barney McCosky, and Wally Judnich; doubtless there were others in that category who we can't identify because they were still in the minors when they went into the service. Obvioiusly not all of them would have had HoM careers absent the war, but a few of them probably would have.
   94. yest Posted: November 21, 2005 at 05:38 AM (#1740225)
I might also add a few players who were at the minor leauge level in 1941 who would have been HoMers got injured in the war.
   95. Paul Wendt Posted: November 21, 2005 at 06:33 AM (#1740265)
I don't really see a trough in the '20s.

1880s             1930s
   17 14 13 11  8 19

There is a trough. The wave isn't symmetric. From the 1920s standpoint, there is a strong undertow and 1930s is one big breaker.

--
A few hours ago at a Hot Stove gathering in Harvard Square (small and informal but sponsored by the Boston Chapter of SABR), the one new person asked chapter chair Seamus Kearney whether he is a Phillies fan (implied by something he just said, well known to others). He said yes and, essentially, "I saw the Phillies and the Athletics at Shibe Park. I saw Gus Zernial." No prompting from me. I think there was been no earlier discussion of Philadelphia bb or 1950s bb.

I now imagine that Gus Zernial was Boog Powell ten years before and one hundred miles north of Boog Powell. Big and popular, like a Saint Bernard.

Hm, BBRef doesn't know Zernial's height.

--
Speaking of Boog, I'm worried. Do you think last year was a fluke? I thought he had really arrived.
   96. Paul Wendt Posted: November 21, 2005 at 06:38 AM (#1740270)
was been
blech. Never change tenses in midstream.

BTW, Boog Powell looks better than Joe Medwick to me!
   97. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2005 at 01:04 PM (#1740383)
Paul,

Boob Powell is just a was-been ;-)
   98. karlmagnus Posted: November 21, 2005 at 02:54 PM (#1740427)
I think we're undervaluing some 20s players just as we did 90s -- the main problem may be that in the 1890s we had very few slots, in the 1920s we had a glut of NELers and no extra slots. I think also not having Rixey, Sisler and Sewell may be an collective eccentricity on our part. However, there's also the 1920 washout of a number of great players; Chapman might well have made it, Jackson might have ended up a 20s player (born in 1891, and if he'd gone on as long as Ruth would have retired in 1932) and Cicotte as a knuckler could also have extended his career pretty well through the decade (1920 after all is part of the 20s and he was pretty good then.) These effects combined may be enough to make the difference.
   99. karlmagnus Posted: November 21, 2005 at 03:01 PM (#1740434)
Isn't Schang 20s too? -- another borderline case.
   100. Daryn Posted: November 21, 2005 at 03:08 PM (#1740446)
I'd just like to remind everyone that our goal each ballot is to rank the best 15 eligible players. I'm not suggesting that anyone above is thinking of employing quotas or affirmative action of the chronological or positional variety, I'm just suggesting that it should not be done. I know there is a fine line between affirmative action and readjusting a potentially flawed system, but we should all be careful not to cross it.
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
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8797 seconds
49 querie(s) executed