Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, January 09, 2006

1968 Ballot Discussion

1968 (January 18)-elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

329 106.0 1948 Richie Ashburn-CF (1997)
262 85.6 1945 Red Schoendienst-2B (living)
267 65.4 1647 Eddie Yost-3B (living)
228 63.5 1946 Gene Woodling-LF (2001)
175 46.2 1950 Gus Bell-CF/RF (1995)
170 42.5 1948 Billy Goodman-2B/1B (1984)
142 36.2 1947 Dave Philley-RF/CF (living)
134 35.2 1952 Bob Nieman-LF (1985)
107 36.0 1950 Danny O’Connell-2B (1969)
112 29.5 1951 Jim Busby-CF (1996)

Players Passing Away in 1967
HoMers
Age Elected

77 1940 Bullet Joe Rogan-P
59 1951 Jimmie Foxx-1B

Candidates
Age Eligible

87 1915 Bob Rhoads-P
86 1923 George Gibson-C
83 1924 Rollie Zeider-2B/3B
79 1927 Ray Caldwell-P
77 1931 Tommy Griffith-RF
77 1932 Jimmy Johnston-3B/RF
76 1925 Vic Saier-1b
72 1940 Ray Kolp-P
61 1943 Shanty Hogan-C
49 1958 Joe Haynes-P

Upcoming Candidate
29 1971 Walt Bond-RF/1B

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 09, 2006 at 03:21 PM | 250 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 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#1813486)
Do we elect two more from the backlog?
   2. TomH Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#1813488)
Richie will likely be my #1. Red will be off ballot, slightly below other 2Bman Childs Doyle Monroe
   3. DavidFoss Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:18 AM (#1813498)
Yay! Back to the HOM!
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#1813656)
I think it's two from the backlog. To me, Ashburn and Schoendienst are very comparable at their peak. But I agree with Tom, Schoendienst just doesn't rise above the 2B backlog.

Surprising to me that Woodling is better than Gus Bell (down there in the third 100).
   5. dan b Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:00 AM (#1813666)
I can't see Ashburn sailing in with Roush drawing almost no support.
   6. Cblau Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#1813714)
I expect to see Ashburn finish around 10th. Not sure which way he'll go after that. He's a very Carey type player. It may be that his supporters will be able to convince a few people to vote their way, or he could become a lost cause like Roush.
   7. Chris Cobb Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#1813715)
My initial take on Ashburn is that he should be elected to the HoM eventually, but that he is not one of the best candidates available this year. I like both of the top returning candidates -- Rixey and Mackey -- better. Ashburn looks like he will debut around 10th on my ballot.

I think a searching discussion of the eligible centerfielders is certainly in order this year!
   8. jimd Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:49 AM (#1813761)
My initial take on Ashburn is that he should be elected to the HoM eventually

A very interesting comp to Richie Ashburn is Fielder Jones. They are similar as hitters (.286 EQA for Jones, .288 for Ashburn), and both were top-shelf center-fielders by reputation. WS rates them both A+. WARP is less impressed by Ashburn (101, but with both good and bad seasons mixed in) but finds Jones to be the real deal (111).

Ashburn does have a longer career (about 400 games), but Jones lost about 100 games due to the short seasons from 1896-1903. Jones also didn't arrive in the NL until he was nearly 25. When he walked away after an all-star quality year due to a dispute with Comiskey, he was older than Ashburn at Richie's retirement. He also might be due some minor league credit due to the inefficiency of major league scouting during the 1890's; not being a great hitter, it might take longer for stories of his speed to have been noticed.
   9. jimd Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:50 AM (#1813764)
If you are an Ashburn fan, you should reexamine Fielder Jones.
   10. Brent Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:11 AM (#1813794)
As others have noted, integration should have made the 1950s more competitive as the Negro Leagues (similar to a third major league) were contracted out of existence. Shouldn't that lead to grant a premium for 1950s performance relative to prior decades? If so, how large?
   11. Chris Cobb Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:51 AM (#1813843)
As others have noted, integration should have made the 1950s more competitive as the Negro Leagues (similar to a third major league) were contracted out of existence. Shouldn't that lead to grant a premium for 1950s performance relative to prior decades? If so, how large?

WARP doesn't seem to find a substantial increase in league quality in the 1950s, though a careful study of the matter might well find that WARP posits a small increase in the NL (certainly not in the AL). I would suggest that "inefficiencies" in the talent selection system and abundant non-baseball economic opportunities in the post-war era prevented the contraction bump in quality from being as steep as we would expect given the disappearance of the Negro Leagues.

If that bump isn't found, to what extent does that support the cases of black players who never got a chance in the majors, esp. players like Bus Clarkson and Marvin Williams?

I'm not insisting on either of these claims, but I'm not convinced yet that the expected bump in competition quality is actually there.
   12. DavidFoss Posted: January 10, 2006 at 08:02 AM (#1813934)
Surprising to me that Woodling is better than Gus Bell (down there in the third 100).

Its not really close, either. He's got of better career than Hank Bauer, too.

No one is going to vote for Woodling (and they shouldn't due to the late start, mid-career slump and platooning) but he's always been one of my favorite lesser-known historical players.

Best known as the lefty-platoon LF-er during the Yankee five-peat. Yankee stadium is a great park for a LH batter which added to his value. He hit well against the Indians and Dodgers which added even more value. His career World Series line is .318/.442/.529 which was heavily weighted toward the road (.373/.515/.706) which is unusual for a LH-er. He loved hitting in Ebbetts. (Yes, I know its a small sample, too).

He was involved in many trades. Early on, he was traded for and aging Al Lopez whom he would later play for when Lopez was managing the Indians. Sent by the Pirates to the San Francisco Seals of the PCL as a player to be named later (!). Part of the blockbuster 17-player deal between the Yankees and Orioles that brought Turley & Larson to New York. Part of the deal that brought Larry Doby back to Cleveland. Selected by the new Senators in the expansion draft and got the first hit in the new franchise's history. He finished his career back with Stengel on the '62 Mets.

His hitting numbers are quite good. In the minors he won four batting titles. In the majors, a 123 OPS+ in 6600 PA is pretty darn good for a role player who bounced around as much as he did. His peak OPS line is a respectable 154-148-145-137-134-129-127.

Here is a neat Woodling bio I found: link
   13. TomH Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#1814021)
A very interesting comp to Richie Ashburn is Fielder Jones. They are similar as hitters (.286 EQA for Jones, .288 for Ashburn),

OWP has the difference larger (about +.030 for Ashburn). If we give Jones some credit for pre-age-25 play (minor league inefficiency in scouting?) to bring him up to Ashburn's csreer length, surely that would then lower his overall rate stats for his career.

Fielder did toil in RF until age 27, which suggests he may not have been a historic defensive CFer.

Then there is the league quality. 1950s NL I give a nice-size bonus. Fielder's 1901 AL is deeply discounted.

Max Carey is another good comp for Ashburn, but again Carey's OWP is even lower than Fielder's, altho if we chop off his last few years as fluff it gets a little closer. If Richie put up the same stats as Max did in 1920, I'd rate them about even, so I have to give the nod to Mr. Ashburn between the two of them.
   14. TomH Posted: January 10, 2006 at 02:53 PM (#1814033)
1968 Scatterbox Prelim

---- “clearly in” ... “borderline” . “HoVGood”
-C ------------ Mackey Bresn/Lmbard/Schang
SS Sewell –-------------- Rizzuto Moore
2B –--------- Gordon—Monroe/Childs/Doerr
3B ----------- McGraw -------- Traynor/Leach
1B --------------- Chance/Beckley/Sisler
OF -----VanHaltrn Brown—Johnson/Browning
OF Ashburn Bell ------Kiner- Cravath/Oms
-P Griffith -Walters-----–---- Mendez/Waddell
-P --------- Rixey---------- Dean/Welch
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 10, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#1814083)
Some CF food for thought.

Purely based on my own personal Win-Shares-based ranking of CFs, Ashburn comes in at #24 historically, which would make him a tolerable if not prefered selection (IMO).

Here's the ten guys who I see as surrounding Ashburn. Those not yet eligible are asterisked.

19. Van Haltren, G
20. Roush, E
21. Ryan, Ji
22. Leach, T
23. Wynn, J*
24. Ashburn, R
25. Bell, C P
26. Carey, M
27. Thomas, R
28. Berger, W
29. Jones, F

Your ranking might differ based on taste and criteria, and Bell could go higher or lower. Still, I think this group says quite a lot about Ashburn's standing. At best he's a borderline HOMer, but morelikely, he's HOVG---that is unless Win Shares has all 11 of these guys all wrong.

Furthermore, for anyone considering ranking Ashburn as the leading CF candidate:

13. Duffy, H
15. Brown, W
16. Browning, P

Anyway, just one voter's way of looking at it.
   16. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#1814138)
Woodling was also part of the 1944 Great Lakes Naval team that went something like 47-2 with a great record against MLB competition. Woodling himself said it was the best team he was ever on, though I doubt that was true. It was full of MLB players but none like Berra, Ford, or Mantle.
   17. TomH Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#1814143)
I agree with the gist of Dr. C's post: Ashburn was no more valuable in his day than many other non-merited CFers were in theirs. I surmise that by the time our election reaches the year 2000, by far the loudest arguments are not going to be about peak vs career or WS vs WARP vs OPS+...but they will be all about league quality.
   18. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2006 at 04:45 PM (#1814169)
I've never voted before so I thought I'd try out a test ballot. My primary source of information is the discussions here which ought to make my consensus score high. I don't think I'll actually participate until I've formalized a methodology. Anyway, first stab:

1. Biz Mackey
2. Clark Griffith
3. Dick Redding
4. Dobie Moore
5. Cool Papa Bell
6. Eppa Rixey
7. Alejandro Oms
8. Richie Ashburn
9. Jake Beckley
10. Joe Sewell
11. Quincy Trouppe
12. Mickey Welch
13. Joe Gordon
14. Bob Johnson
15. George Van Haltren
16. Hugh Duffy
17. Pete Browning
18. George Sisler
19. Jose Mendez
20. Gavy Cravath

Where is the best location for Win Shares, RCAA, VORP data?
   19. Daryn Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#1814303)
I have Ashburn 14th on my ballot, behind Bell (2) and GVH (11), slightly ahead of Ryan, Roush and Leach (all of whom are in my top 35). About where Carey would be.
   20. DavidFoss Posted: January 10, 2006 at 05:47 PM (#1814311)
Anyway, first stab

Welcome, DL! Sunnday2 and myself are thrilled to have another Minnesota native on the board.

A couple of notes about your prelim. We prefer to have a comment associated with each player on your ballot. Just a quick sentence or two, but possibly more if you have something interesting to say about a guy. I think its meant to show a certain level of research and thought has been put into the ballot. A short blurb about who has been left off your ballot from last year's top ten is also required. We have a diverse electorate, so you don't have to get too defensive there, just a quick note that you didn't simply forget the person (which does happen). All of this can also lead to productive discussion.

Win Shares I get from the book (digital or paperback, I have both). We used to post some stuff on the yahoo group, but I think we've gotten out of that habit and it would be an enormous about of work to catch up. RCAA is available from Lee Sinin's Sabermetric Encyclopedia which you have to pay for (a few people own it here, but its certainly not a requirement or anything). I don't know where to get VORP. WARP is free from baseballprospectus's website.

Again, welcome!
   21. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1814364)
I guess for comments I try to place a high value pitching and defense by adjusting pitchers and defensive players higher. I think people in general underestimate how difficult middle infield and catching is. I believe in timelining but try to balance that by having representatives from each era. This is a time consuming but rewarding task and I'm just getting started. I someone could post their spreadsheet somewhere I'd appreciate it.
   22. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#1814389)
WS are also available from Total Baseball if you have that. It is much easier to use than the book, as the book is really not set up very well.

I want to voice a bit of concern over Biz Mackey being one fo the leaders coming into this week. I have him as the third best catcher on the board behind Trouppe and Bresnahan. Our MLE's give Mackey a long career, I feel it is unlikely he would have had that long of a career in MLB, and don't really show him to have been much of a star. I see him as Wally Schang with a bit more defense and Schang is out of my top 60.

If we are going to elect an NeL catcher I would much rather we elect Trouppe.
   23. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 10, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#1814410)
Here are my current CF rankings, though I hope to take the time to revise them this week or next. Number in parentheses is where they rank on my ballot.

Duffy (2)
GVH (16)
Ashburn (18)
Oms (19)
Berger (22)
Roush (30)
CPB (31)
R. Thomas (41)
Wilson (44)
Ryan (50)
F. Jones (60)

Guys whom I have at corner OF but could be CFers

Browning (9)
Brown (26)
C. Jones (54)

Jimmy Ryan may be too low, but everytime I try and move him up I just can't do it. Hugh Duffy is wildly underrated right now by the electorate and should be the first CF we elect out of this group. Better player than Averill or Carey.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: January 10, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#1814470)
I guess for comments I try to place a high value pitching and defense by adjusting pitchers and defensive players higher. I think people in general underestimate how difficult middle infield and catching is. I believe in timelining but try to balance that by having representatives from each era. This is a time consuming but rewarding task and I'm just getting started.

For comments, check the ballot threads. A short blurb about each player. I don't mean to be too much of a stickler, but as we are reaching more modern players -- and especially after the all-BTF thread -- that we'll get a lot of quickly tossed together ballots by people just trying to vote for their boyhood heros and not the same level of analysis we've had in the past.

Don't worry, the first ballot is the toughest. After that, its a matter of inserting new candidates into the ballot. (with reevaluations due to discussion not being uncommon)
   25. Jim Sp Posted: January 10, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#1814599)
Schoendienst #9, Ashburn #14. Yost, Goodman and Woodling interesting but not close. Schoendienst and Newhouser PHoM.

Reevaluating Oms is my project for this ballot.

1)Gordon--Fixed my war credit, he and Doerr moved up. PHoM in 1958.
2)Doerr-- PHoM in 1958.
3)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.
4)Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me.
5)Elliott--I like him better than Hack. Second greatest 3B to date, after Baker. PHoM in 1960.
6)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.
7)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here. PHoM in 1964.
8)Cool Papa Bell--If Max Carey is in, Cool Papa should be too. PHoM in 1966.
9)Schoendienst--PHoM in 1968. In case you’re wondering, the modern (retired) 2Bs that I’m planning to take are Morgan, Grich, Alomar, Whitaker, Sandberg, Randolph, and Fox. The modern SSs would be Ripken, Larkin, Trammell, Ozzie, and Concepcion. I’ll have to think about Tony Fernandez and Fregosi . (Yount, Banks, Rose, etc. I count as multiposition).
10)Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. Usually I'm a WS guy but this time I think Warp has it right.
11)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.
12)Tommy Bridges—fixed his war credit
13)Rizzuto--Lots of war credit.
14)Ashburn--
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.
16)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career. PHoM in 1939.
17)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters. PHoM in 1916.
18)Lombardi-- A long career as a catcher with a big bat. I see 15 obvious catching electees: Gibson, Bench, Fisk, Carter, Hartnett, Dickey, Piazza, Berra, Simmons, Ewing, Cochrane, Campanella, Parrish, Rodriguez, Santop. I’m an advocate for what I see as the next tier: Freehan, Munson, and Porter will get strong consideration on my ballot too. You can’t have a baseball team without a catcher. Almost 2000 games caught including PCL.
19)Keller
20)Kiner

Griffith In my PHoM since 1912 but off the ballot at #28.
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.
Van Haltren--#73, good player, part of the old OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
Redding--#39.
Childs--Steep discount for his domination of the 1890 AA, otherwise he would be higher. #52.
Moore--#32, I didn’t vote for Jennings either.
Willard Brown--Not convinced yet on him.
   26. Paul Wendt Posted: January 10, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#1814635)
Fielder did toil in RF until age 27, which suggests he may not have been a historic defensive CFer.

He was on the wrong team to get a shot at center. Mike Griffin was the acknowledged master. In 1901, Dummy Hoy (good reputation that does not hold up) was the incumbent on a championship team.

JimSp
9)Schoendienst--PHoM in 1968.

best friend?
What has the world missed in the Schoenmeister?
   27. karlmagnus Posted: January 10, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#1814718)
Looking at Dummy Hoy, he's a pretty near miss, actually. He didn't get started till 26, but should surely get extra credit for the difficulties of being deaf, then he spent a year outside the majors on an Al minor league champion Chicago team in 1900, because Louisville had been contracted at the end of 1899. Over 2000 hits at an OPS+ of 109, with some good years missing, mostly in a single league system, is not that far off. Oh, and his worst year was 1893, for a 40-82 Washington team -- can it be nobody told the poor bloke the pitchers had starting throwing from 60 feet?
   28. jimd Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#1814733)
OWP has the difference larger (about +.030 for Ashburn). If we give Jones some credit for pre-age-25 play (minor league inefficiency in scouting?) to bring him up to Ashburn's csreer length, surely that would then lower his overall rate stats for his career.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Jones' best offensive seasons are during the short seasons 1903 and before. Is your OWP stat weighted by real PA's or short-season adjusted PA's?

Fielder did toil in RF until age 27, which suggests he may not have been a historic defensive CFer.

Brooklyn OF's from 1896-99 (Jones was rookie in 1896).

1896 McCarthy - Griffin - Jones
1897 Anderson - Griffin - Jones
1898 Sheckard - Griffin - Jones
1899 Kelley - Jones - Keeler (NL champs)
1900 Kelley - Jones - Keeler (NL champs)

Mike Griffin retired at the age of 33 after the 1898 season, and Jones was given the job. Griffin was still an excellent CF, even though VanHaltren and Lange were winning the retroactive Gold Gloves.

Fielder's 1901 AL is deeply discounted.

The only season in which Jones played in the weaker league. The rest of his career is spent in the stronger league, either the 12 team NL 96-99, contraction year of 1900, and the dominant post-war AL of 1902 onwards.
   29. jimd Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:05 PM (#1814736)
Didn't see your comment until later, Paul.
   30. Jim Sp Posted: January 10, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#1814857)
JimSp
9)Schoendienst--PHoM in 1968.

best friend?
What has the world missed in the Schoenmeister?


He is in the Hall of Fame, it's not like the world missed him.

"A" fielder at 2B, long career, a better hitter than Ozzie Smith. There aren't too many of those guys, apparently I value them more than the electorate though. Randolph and Fox may not do too well with this group either. You can't win if you can't turn two. Mazeroski is below my line though, there's a big difference between an 84 OPS+ and Schoendist's 93.
   31. OCF Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1814944)
He [Schoendienst] is in the Hall of Fame, it's not like the world missed him.

I'll remind you (from my own fanboy position) that right now (the '67-'68 offseason) is a very big time for Red. He's celebrating his first pennant and first (and, as it will turn out, only) World Series victory as a manager. That it's also his first year for HoF/HoM eligibility - that's a mere sideshow.

The HoF does not clearly distinguish between value as a player and value as a manager. You can see his HoF case as something like that of Frank Chance: a very good player, good enough to at least get mentioned and argued about as a player alone, but perhaps not quite good enough to be elected. Add to that a good run as a manager - certainly not an inner-circle manager, but worth something. (I'm leaving McGraw out of this becuase he is an inner-circle manager.) Not that there's any real equivalence to their records. The playing records are utterly different in character. As manager, Chance experienced more success, but I give Schoendienst a little more credit for team-building: that '67 club was quite a bit different from the '64 Cardinals. Neither Chance nor Schoendienst managed to come up with a second successful team after the first one moved on.

Schoendienst got elected by the VC in 1989. By then, he was apparently already safely retired as a manager, with his last gig being an interim month or so in 1980 while Whitey Herzog was consolidating his grip on the club. (Not anticipated: another interim month after Whitey got fired, bridging between him and Joe Torre.)

Of course, his managerial record is irrelvant to his HoM case.
   32. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1814971)
Not to pile on to you, Jim Sp, but I don't see it either. Now, I'll grant you that I also would not induct Ozzie Smith into the Hall of Fame either, but Red's not acknowledged as the greatest defensive player at his position (deserved or not).

I see Red as on the same plane as Larry Gardner, Rocky Colavito, or Ed McKean overall. As a 2B I've got him a pinch ahead of Randolph, and just as far behind Buddy Myer. He's not Lazzeri or Evers or Gordon or Doerr or Childs. But that's only my opinion, and I don't mean to enforce group think or anything.
   33. OCF Posted: January 10, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1814991)
1967 batting order, as I remember it:

Versus RHP:
1. LF Brock
2. CF Flood
3. RF Maris
4. 1B Cepeda
5. C McCarver
6. 3B Shannon
7. 2B Javier
8. SS Maxvill
9. P

Versus LHP:
1. LF Brock
2. 2B Javier
3. CF Flood
4. 1B Cepeda
5. 3B Shannon
6. C McCarver
7. RF Johnson or Maris
8. SS Maxvill
9. P

Not exactly a platoon, but a platoon order shuffle. What I don't remember: if Tolan started in CF instead of Flood, did he take Flood's spot in the order?

If behind in the late innings, pinch hit (Tolan, Johnson, Ricketts, Gagliano) for Maxvill, bring in Bressoud to finish game at SS.

Rotation: unsettled and injury-wracked; only Larry Jaster lasted the whole year in the rotation. Both Nelson Briles and Dick Hughes stepped forward from long-relief/spot start positions to do good work in the rotation, especially during the time Gibson spent on the DL with a broken leg. (But, come October, Gibson was The Man.)

Relief: #1 ace (LH) - Joe Hoerner. #2 ace (RH) - Ron Willis. (bbref lists Hoerner as the "closer." Never heard of the concept.)
   34. KJOK Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:58 AM (#1815343)
OCF - you nailed the lineups.

Tolan batted 2nd most of the time when he played CF vs. RH pitchers.
   35. Brent Posted: January 11, 2006 at 04:13 AM (#1815494)
Chris Cobb wrote:

WARP doesn't seem to find a substantial increase in league quality in the 1950s, though a careful study of the matter might well find that WARP posits a small increase in the NL (certainly not in the AL). I would suggest that "inefficiencies" in the talent selection system and abundant non-baseball economic opportunities in the post-war era prevented the contraction bump in quality from being as steep as we would expect given the disappearance of the Negro Leagues.

I'm skeptical when it comes to WARP's estimates of league quality.

I want to make sure that everyone recognizes that the voter who bases his ballot on fixed statistical criteria that aren't adjusted for the 1950s reduction in playing opportunities will tend to find, all else equal, about one-third fewer players from the 1950s meeting their standard than from the prior 3 or 4 decades. It's possible, as Chris has suggested, that there may have been a real diminution in the quality of talent entering baseball during that period, but I would certainly like to see some strong evidence put forward before accepting that argument. My prior belief is that the distribution of talent was about the same as in prior decades; if that's true, then the presumption that players of the 1950s faced tougher competition would require some modification of the statistical standards.

A related issue is how much league quality varied between the two leagues during the 1950s and 60s. By the mid 1950s, the NL was much richer in talented black players than the AL, a difference that persisted for at least another decade. Steve Treder wrote an article for Hardball Times on the differences between the leagues.

Dr. Chaleeko wrote:

Purely based on my own personal Win-Shares-based ranking of CFs, Ashburn comes in at #24 historically, which would make him a tolerable if not prefered selection (IMO).

Eric, just out of curiosity, how many of your top 29 center fielders are from the post-WWII era? I ask because I noticed that only 2 of the 14 names you've listed are post-WWII. (I've interpreted your statement as referring to a ranking that covers all eras.)
   36. OCF Posted: January 11, 2006 at 04:48 AM (#1815514)
Odd accomplishments that don't come along every year: in 1967, Lou Brock had 200+ hits without batting .300.

206/689 = .299.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:35 AM (#1815552)
I'd say more like 90.

Schoendienst I mean.

Nellie Fox may very well have a hard time with this electorate, but I love Nellie Fox, much more than the Redhead. The shape is all different but I see Nellie's total career value as comparable to Lou Boudreau.
   38. DavidFoss Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:41 AM (#1815554)
Odd accomplishments that don't come along every year: in 1967, Lou Brock had 200+ hits without batting .300.

Indeed. Its only happened seven times:

SEASON
HITS 
>= 200

AVERAGE                       YEAR     AVG       H     
1    Jo
-Jo Moore              1935     .295      201   
2    Matty Alou               1970     .297      201   
3    Buddy Bell               1979     .299      200   
4    Bill Buckner             1985     .299      201   
5    Lou Brock                1967     .299      206   
6    Maury Wills              1962     .299      208   
7    Ralph Garr               1973     .299      200 
   39. DavidFoss Posted: January 11, 2006 at 05:44 AM (#1815558)
The table above is short enough that its still readable, but for future reference, how do I get the fixed-width font again?
   40. TomH Posted: January 11, 2006 at 01:20 PM (#1815688)
OWP has the difference larger (about +.030 for Ashburn).

Possibly, but not necessarily. Jones' best offensive seasons are during the short seasons 1903 and before. Is your OWP stat weighted by real PA's or short-season adjusted PA's?


You are correct, I did not adjust for season length, and that would bump Jones up. Longer calc than I wanted to do last night, but I don't think it would move his career OWP more than a few pts.

---

The more I look, Jones is a good type comp for Richie; great OBP, good CFer. A few bonuses for Ashburn tho--

OFers hit better in F Jones day - CF was a more impt position in 1955. About .012 OWP difference in avg player.

Relative to league outifleders, Ashburn stood out more

player Jones .....Ashburn
years 1896-1908 1948-1960
OWP... 25th .........16th
RCAP.. 27th .........10th

And Ashburn was VERY durable. 10 times in top 8 in games played, a whole lot of black ink in hits, walks, times on base, etc. Rate stats like OWP don't show this. Overall runs created, Ashburn was 5th in the majors in his day.
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#1815788)
The table above is short enough that its still readable, but for future reference, how do I get the fixed-width font again?

You used the wrong backslash, David. I corrected it.
   42. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 11, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#1815823)
Brent,

Post WW2 CFs ahead of Ashburn on my list include:
Mantle
Mays
Snider
Doby
Griffey
Wynn

Also parts of DiMaggio's career.

Among active players, those coming up behind Ashburn are Bernie Williams and Jim Edmonds. I don't think Bernie will overtake Ashburn, but Edmonds could with a couple more big years (how likely that is at his age, I'm not sure).

Andruw Jones is down list but would appear to have a great chance of cracking the top 25.

In the interest of full disclosure, here's a breakdown of how the eras fall out based on a quick-n-dirty sense of what decade the player's peak falls

1880s-3
1890s-4
1900s-1
1910s-3
1920s-2
1930s-2
1940s-2
1950s-4
1960s-2
1970s-0
1980s-0
1990s-1

So it does look like my rankings are slanted a bit away from the contemporary eras. On the other hand, the nearest group of post 1950s CFs to Ashburn in my rankings are Dale Murphy, Williams, Edmonds, Pinson, Puckett, Cedeno, Lynn, Butler, Jethroe, and Davis, among whom only Murphy, Williams, and Edmonds impress me enough to think they could be top-25 material.

In fact, to do a little meta-talk here, I think it's a positional fluke. Most other positions have a much higher concentration of modern players in my top 25. Here's the number of 1960-2005 era players at each of the other hitter's positions:
C 12
1 13
2 10
3 14
s 5
L 7
Cf 3
R 12
Dh (cough)
   43. DavidFoss Posted: January 11, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#1815968)
You used the wrong backslash, David. I corrected it.

Thanks!
   44. jimd Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#1816339)
i>OFers hit better in F Jones day -</i>

My stats find the hitting levels of both OF and CF to be essentially indistinguishable between 1890's vs 1950's. But, RF'ers during the 1900's were better hitters than their 50's counterparts. OTOH, these players were CF'ers.

a whole lot of black ink

Black ink is heavily influenced by park effects. Ashburn spent most of his career in Shibe/Connie Mack which was a very mild pitchers park; it had an avg OPF for Ashburn's career of 99. Jones spent most of his career in South Side Park (home of the hitless wonders, 06 White Sox), which had an avg OPF for Jones career of 97.

Both players had a career OPS+ of 111.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#1816375)
Black ink is heavily influenced by park effects.

One-league environments also hurt players such as Duffy and Childs when it comes to black ink, while helping players such as Ashburn.
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 11, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#1816409)
I just wanted everyone to know that I have changed my e-mail address. You can access it if you click on my name.
   47. Mark Donelson Posted: January 11, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#1816773)
It's not terribly surprising that I'd end up in the jschmeagol/sunnyday camp on Ashburn, since that's pretty much where I always reside, but for the record, here's where the eligible, unelected CFs in my top 50 are falling at the last tally:

4. Duffy
8. W. Brown
20. Browning
23. Berger
24. H. Wilson
25. Oms
27. Poles
29. Leach
33. Ashburn
35. Roush
37. Ryan
42. Van Haltren

Fielder Jones would be at about 52, Cool Papa Bell at about 57 (pending the discussion on him on his thread right now--if I feel confident his Mexican League years should give him a higher peak than I'd been giving him, he'll rise, possibly quite a bit).

I find the argument about the '50s quality of play being higher than that of other eras somewhat compelling, but the evidence so far seems circumstantial at best. I'll consider it further before my final vote, though.
   48. sunnyday2 Posted: January 11, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1816791)
>I find the argument about the '50s quality of play being higher than that of other eras somewhat compelling, but the evidence so far seems circumstantial at best.

I think the "evidence" is theoretical rather than circumstantial. Sorry about the semantics. But what would be compelling (either way) is if he had been the best CFer of the decade.
   49. TomH Posted: January 11, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#1816904)
from the Sinins encyclopedia - pos avg OWP during each player's career; I believe it is weighted by the main pos he played each year:

Ashburn .539
Roush .531
Van Haltren .574
Duffy .579
F Jones .548
   50. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 11, 2006 at 11:33 PM (#1816967)
Can we really punish Ashburn fro nto being as good as Willie, Mickey, or The Duke?
   51. DavidFoss Posted: January 12, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#1817067)
Can we really punish Ashburn fro nto being as good as Willie, Mickey, or The Duke?

Its not like its a close 4th. He's light years behind those three and I'm not even a huge Snider fan. Ashburn is behind Doby, too. I'm not initially impressed and that's without considering the W-M-D's (there's a Today Show punchline I could add there, but I bite my tongue :-) )

With only 111 OPS+ in a career that is only 15 years long he's going to have to score very well on the secondary numbers to warrant induction.

He's does have quite a bit of those secondary skills. He's got great in-season durability. He's an A+ CF-er. His OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Is that enough to make up for the low OPS+? I don't know. But its not just the inner-circle contemporaries that are weighing him down.
   52. jimd Posted: January 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#1817114)
from the Sinins encyclopedia - pos avg OWP during each player's career;

Unfortunately, I do not possess this book, so I have no clue how they calculate this stat (in detail).

What I calculated early on in this project is OPS by position by decade. There is little difference between avg CF OPS during the 1890's, 1900's, 1920's, 1940's and 1950's, and all those decades were stronger than the overall average at the position. The 1910's were very strong (Roush is calculated as NL only?). 1870's, 1880's, 1930's, 1960's and 1970's were weaker.

Modern day CFers (1980s'/1990's, big stadia, turf, etc.) are weaker still. I think it can be argued that CF has become almost a different position, much more fielding oriented than it was in the old days. The only comparable OPS deltas relative to their overall positional average are 1900's catchers and 1970's SS's. More extreme still are 1870's 1B-men when they fielded bare-handed and ran-down fair/foul hits, and 1870's/1880's RF'ers who were often expected to be backup pitchers/catchers/utility-fielders also.
   53. sunnyday2 Posted: January 12, 2006 at 02:54 AM (#1817365)
>Can we really punish Ashburn fro nto being as good as Willie, Mickey, or The Duke?

This is like the Will Clark (7th best 1B of his era) is = Bill Terry (4th best 1B of his era) debate: The '50s are tougher than the '90s or 1915-1925, ergo Ashburn is better than Duffy or Roush. No, it comes down to cases. I think Duffy did more to help his team win pennants than Ashburn did. Reasonable people can disagree about that of course.
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 12, 2006 at 04:04 AM (#1817459)
I will have Ashburn off ballot and Duffy at #2. I was just asying that not being the best at your position when three of those guys are in the top 10 ever at that position (with the possible two best ever, I woudl rank them #'s 1 and 3) shouldn't really be something to throw in someone's face.

I see what you are saying here Sunnyday. I would add that a lot of it depends on the depth at your position during your era. Terry and Clark played during the two realtive golden ages of 1B, though Clark could be said to not have been a contemporary of Bags, Hurt, McGwire, et al. During his peak he was the best 1b in baseball, though his peak doesn't really coincide with Murray/Mattingly/Hernandez or the aforementioned three.
   55. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: January 12, 2006 at 04:59 AM (#1817510)
For anyone that voted in the Count the Rings Best Teams Ever Thread -- the Results thread has morphed into a runoff vote for people to pick their favorite teams from the various dynasties that are in (1910-1 A's, 1929-31 A's, 1953/55 Dodgers, 1969-71 O's, 1972-4 A's, 1976-8 Yanks, 1988-90 A's, 1993/5/8/9 Braves). Just so youz knowz.
   56. Daryn Posted: January 12, 2006 at 05:48 AM (#1817542)
Our fearless leader, Joe, posted this in the Sutter election thread (emphasis added):

Chief Bender, Jim Bottomley, Jack Chesbro, Earle Combs, Kiki Cuyler, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Dizzy Dean, Johnny Evers, Rick Ferrell, Lefty Gomez, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Harry Hooper, Waite Hoyt, Travis Jackson, Judy Johnson, Addie Joss, George Kell, George Kelly, Tony Lazzeri, Freddie Lindstrom, Heinie Manush, Rube Marquard, Bill Mazeroski, Tommy McCarthy, Herb Pennock, Sam Rice, Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner, Hack Wilson and Ross Youngs.

That's the bottom of the barrel, the mistakes no one would argue with (except for Dean).


I have to say it momentarily made me want to quit this project. I won't because I enjoy it immensely, so no need to encourage me to stay. But, it appears to me to display a shocking lack of respect for the voters in this project, several of whom who have voted for or pHoMed the players in bold (or in Mazeroski's case, likely will vote for). Do some of us have such unworthy ballots that we support the induction of players whose election to the Hall of Fame was a "mistake no one would argue with"?

Just wondering.
   57. yest Posted: January 12, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#1817781)
Daryn you missed George Kell, Heinie Manush Lloyd Waner, and Hack Wilson who are all in my pHoM

and I'm pretty sure I saw Dizzy Dean, Joe Tinker and Harry Hooper (back in the 1930's) in some pHoMs
   58. Rusty Priske Posted: January 12, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#1817783)
Prelim

PHoM: Richie Ashburn & Cupid Childs

1. Richie Ashburn
2. Willard Brown
3. Eppa Rixey
4. Jake Beckley
5. George Van Haltren
6. Biz Mackey
7. Dobie Moore
8. Mickey Welch
9. Cool Papa Bell
10. George Sisler
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Tommy Leach
13. Edd Roush
14. Cupid Childs
15. Quincy Trouppe
16. Sam Rice
17. Clark Griffith
18. Bobby Doerr
19. Hilton Smith
20. Sam Streeter

21-25. White, Browning, Ryan, Doyle, Strong
26-30. Gleason, Grimes, Redding, Willis, Greene
31-35. Kiner, Sewell, McCormick, Robinson, Elliott
   59. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 12, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#1817840)
Well, most of BTF are small hall types so maybe Joe was just tailoring what he said to his audience.

I will have Dean on my ballot again (he fell off some yeras ago), however I would say that none of those other guys are really in danger of ever getting to my ballot so I would agree with him. Except maybe the part about the players no one would argue with since there are people arguing with him here.
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2006 at 04:09 PM (#1817887)
I think Joe was thinking consensus-wise, Daryn. The players that you (and yest) pointed out are on life support - the odds of them ever making the HoM are about zero.

However, I understand how you feel. HOFer Burleigh Grimes is not exactly in place to be elected soon, though I have had him on my ballot for eons. I wouldn't feel that great if he had been included with the others. Maybe Chance or Traynor are better examples, though they reside near the bottom of my ballot.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#1817891)
Except maybe the part about the players no one would argue with since there are people arguing with him here.

Yeah, that was probably the red flag to Daryn's bull (the animal, that is :-). That definitely could have been phrased better.
   62. DanG Posted: January 12, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#1817955)
This reminds me. Over on Baseball Fever I run a little play-time project called The Hall of Mistakes. We elect a player every week.

The mission is "isolate the players that don’t reach the HOF’s minimum standards, so that they will not be used as examples for arguing that a similar player deserves enshrinement." Voting is based on HOF criteria, not HoM.

These are the first 14 dishonorees:

1.Lindstrom
2.G. Kelly
3.T. McCarthy
4.Marquard
5.Haines
6.L. Waner
7.T. Jackson
8.Ferrell
9.Youngs
10.Bender
11.Hafey
12.Pennock
13.Combs
14.Chesbro
   63. Jim Sp Posted: January 12, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#1818024)
Regarding the "mistakes no one would argue about", guess the author below (from the 1918 ballot)...

7. Addie Joss (7) - Like Rob Wood, I'm dumbfounded at his lack of support. A truly great pitcher, in the Koufax/Dean mold. It takes a lot to get me on board with a 'peak only' candidate, but Addie's got the goods. He never had a year where he wasn't at least a very good pitcher, and if it wasn't for his death, he'd be talked about with greatest of the great. He doesn't get any extra credit for dying young or anything, just saying that he was a truly great pitcher.
   64. ronw Posted: January 12, 2006 at 05:30 PM (#1818043)
Obligatory Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro quote:

"Hey! I won! Yay for me!"
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 12, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#1818054)
These are the first 14 dishonorees:

1.Lindstrom
2.G. Kelly
3.T. McCarthy
4.Marquard
5.Haines
6.L. Waner
7.T. Jackson
8.Ferrell
9.Youngs
10.Bender
11.Hafey
12.Pennock
13.Combs
14.Chesbro


Lindstrom was #1? I would have had him more in the middle of that pack. Not that I disagree about his lack of merit.
   66. Happy Jack Chesbro Posted: January 12, 2006 at 05:47 PM (#1818070)
"Hey! I won! Yay for me!"

You took the words right out of my mouth!
   67. OCF Posted: January 12, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#1818108)
8.Ferrell

Rick, the catcher, of course. Over here, we had the Ferrell brothers swap places.

The sticking point on DanG's list in #62 comes down the road a ways, as the list starts to grind to a stop. Maybe this guy is the worst HoF member left after we've taken out all of the more obvious mistakes, but just maybe he belongs anyway?

Over on the wrap-up of our mock-HoF excercise I wrote about Joe's idea of the standards of the existing Hall of Fame without its mistakes. The tricky bit is deciding who you mean by mistakes. I cited Terry, Puckett, and Chance, not because they obviously are or aren't mistakes, but precisely becuase they aren't obvious.
   68. yest Posted: January 12, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#1818172)
here are some more of Joe's ballots

from the 1945 ballot
1. Goose Goslin
2. Eppa Rixey
3. Charley Jones
4. Hughie Jennings
5. Clark Griffith
6. Bill Monroe
7. Gavy Cravath
8. Jake Beckley
9. Wes Ferrell
10. Bill Foster
11. Tony Lazzeri
12. Mike Griffin
13. George Van Haltren
14. Tommy Leach
15. Dobie Moore


from the 1925 ballot
22. Joe Tinker (22) - Another one that's kind of tough. I believe he was a historically great defensive player, along the lines of Ozzie Smith. His offensive was very good for a shortstop (better than Ozzie's). His career was short, or it wouldn't be a question. If it's March 1898, and I know in advance that I can have either Chance or Tinker I think I'd take Tinker. I could easily be convinced to flip-flop there, but for now I'm going with Tinker slightly ahead.

23. Johnny Evers (23) - Man these poem guys were good, it's amazing that none of them had a long career. All 3 had high enough peaks to warrant a spot near the top (Evers had 6 WARP1's over 9.0), but they just didn't play long enough.
   69. DanG Posted: January 12, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1818211)
The sticking point on DanG's list in #62 comes down the road a ways, as the list starts to grind to a stop. Maybe this guy is the worst HoF member left after we've taken out all of the more obvious mistakes, but just maybe he belongs anyway?

Right. In the Hall of Mistakes project, we're dealing mainly in the realm of "obvious" mistakes. The plan is to ultimately dismiss 15% of the Hall's 213 players (196 MLB + 17 NeL), a total of 32 (or 33 if the Black baseball committee elects at least four players). I think the HoM will end up leaving out more HOFers than this number. Maybe when we get up to date we could have our voters here rank the HOFers we leave out.

Lindstrom was #1? I would have had him more in the middle of that pack.

My own first ballot had Haines #1 and Lindstrom #2. I didn't labor too hard over the early ballot rankings, knowing they would all be sent packing soon. Things are getting more interesting, as we're seeing more sightings of that deadly beast "ballot fragmentation". It would also be nice to get a few more than our usual 5-6 guys to vote.
   70. Daryn Posted: January 12, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#1818246)
Candy Cummings (inventor or the curveball or not) would be near the top of my list of non-deservers. I'm surprised he hasn't made DanG's list yet.
   71. DanG Posted: January 12, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#1818258)
Cummings is not eligible, as the HOF does not classify him as a player but as a Pioneer.
   72. Daryn Posted: January 12, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#1818362)
That makes more sense. I looked at his plaque and it didn't look like the other pioneer plaques, so I wasn't sure.
   73. jimd Posted: January 12, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#1818633)
Joe's list, in chronological order by induction date:

Jack Chesbro, (VC, 1946)
Johnny Evers, (VC 1946)
Tommy McCarthy, (VC, 1946)
Joe Tinker, (VC 1946)
Herb Pennock, (BBWAA, 1948)
Dizzy Dean, (BBWAA, 1953)
Chief Bender, (VC, 1953)
Ray Schalk, (VC, 1955)

Sam Rice, (VC, 1963)
Heinie Manush, (VC, 1964)

Lloyd Waner, (VC, 1967)
Kiki Cuyler, (VC 1968)
Waite Hoyt, (VC, 1969)
Earle Combs, (VC 1970)
Jesse Haines, (VC, 1970)
Chick Hafey, (VC, 1971)
Harry Hooper, (VC, 1971)
Rube Marquard, (VC, 1971)
Lefty Gomez, (VC, 1972)
Ross Youngs. (VC, 1972)
George Kelly, (VC, 1973)
Jim Bottomley, (VC, 1974)
Judy Johnson, (NL, 1975)
Freddie Lindstrom, (VC, 1976)

Addie Joss, (VC, 1978)
Hack Wilson, (VC, 1979)
Travis Jackson, (VC, 1982)
George Kell, (VC, 1983)
Rick Ferrell, (VC, 1984)

Ray Dandridge, (VC, 1987)
Tony Lazzeri, (VC, 1991)
Leon Day, (VC, 1995)

Bill Mazeroski, (VC, 2001)

The breaks are by decades: 1936-45, 1946-55, etc. The height of the insanity is from 1970-72, 7 mistakes in 3 years, and from 1967-76, it's an annual event.
   74. DavidFoss Posted: January 12, 2006 at 10:59 PM (#1818721)
I'm more interested in the HOF-not-HOM list. (with the obvious caveat that there's still hope for some of those guys).
   75. ronw Posted: January 13, 2006 at 01:46 AM (#1819053)
Ask and ye shall receive (well, don't ask for a million dollars, you won't receive that.

HOF-not-HOM through 1968

1Ashburn, Richie
2Bancroft, Dave
3Beckley, Jake
4Bell, Cool Papa
5Bender, Chief
6Bottomley, Jim
7Bresnahan, Roger
8Chance, Frank
9Chesbro, Jack
10Combs, Earle
11Cuyler, Kiki
12Dandridge, Ray
13Day, Leon
14Dean, Dizzy
15Doerr, Bobby
16Duffy, Hugh
17Evers, Johnny
18Ferrell, Rick
19Gomez, Lefty
20Griffith, Clark
21Grimes, Burleigh
22Hafey, Chick
23Haines, Jesse
24Hooper, Harry
25Hoyt, Waite
26Jackson, Travis
27Johnson, Judy
28Joss, Addie
29Kell, George
30Kelly, George
31Kiner, Ralph
32Klein, Chuck
33Lazzeri, Tony
34Lindstrom, Freddy
35Lombardi, Ernie
36Manush, Heinie
37Maranville, Rabbit
38Marquard, Rube
39McCarthy, Tommy
40McGraw, John
41Pennock, Herb
42Rice, Sam
43Rixey, Eppa
44Rizzuto, Phil
45Roush, Edd
46Schalk, Ray
47Schoendienst, Red
48Sewell, Joe
49Sisler, George
50Smith, Hilton
51Tinker, Joe
52Traynor, Pie
53Waddell, Rube
54Waner, Lloyd
55Welch, Mickey
56Willis, Vic
57Wilson, Hack
58Youngs, Ross
   76. ronw Posted: January 13, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#1819055)
And HOM not-HOF

1Barnes, Ross
2Beckwith, John
3Bennett, Charlie
4Brown, Ray
5Caruthers, Bob
6Dahlen, Bill
7Ferrell, Wes
8Glasscock, Jack
9Gore, George
10Grant, Frank
11Groh, Heinie
12Hack, Stan
13Hill, Pete
14Hines, Paul
15Jackson, Joe
16Johnson, Grant
17Magee, Sherry
18McVey, Cal
19Pearce, Dickey
20Pike, Lip
21Richardson, Hardy
22Santop, Louis
23Sheckard, Jimmy
24Start, Joe
25Stovey, Harry
26Suttles, Mule
27Sutton, Ezra
28Torriente, Christobal
29White, Deacon
30Wilson, Jud
   77. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 04:44 AM (#1819282)
Thanks Ron! :)
   78. yest Posted: January 13, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#1819290)
am I the only one who thinks the a team made up of the best players in post 75 can beat post 76's team made up of the worst players
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:14 AM (#1819303)
am I the only one who thinks the a team made up of the best players in post 75 can beat post 76's team made up of the worst players

Well, the guys in post 75 do have 28 more players. ;-)
   80. sunnyday2 Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:35 AM (#1819313)
>am I the only one who thinks the a team made up of the best players in post 75 can beat post 76's team made up of the worst players

Yes.
   81. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 06:22 AM (#1819337)
Here are the line-ups head to head!

On the right is the best of the HOF-not-HOM (apologies if I left off your favorite guy).

On the right is the full HOM-not-HOF
C  Bresnahan/Lombardi       --- Bennett/McVey/Santop/White
1B 
Beckley/Sisler/Chance    --- Start/Suttles
2B 
Doerr/Lazzeri/Schndnst   --- Barnes/Grant/Richardson
SS 
Sewell/Rizzuto           --- Dahlen/Glasscock/Johnson/Pearce
3B 
Traynor/McGraw/Dandridge --- Beckwith/Groh/Hack/Sutton/Wilson
LF 
Kiner                    --- Hill/Magee/Sheckard/Stovey
CF 
Ashburn/Bell/Duffy/Roush --- Gore/Hines/Pike/Torriente
RF 
Klein/Hooper/Rice/Cuyler --- JJackson
P  
Dean/Griffith/Grimes/    --- RBrown/Caruthers/WFerrell
     Joss
/Rixey/Waddell/Welch 
   82. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#1819351)
Most of the differences are due to era. In many cases, the HOM-er was inducted before the HOF-er became eligible. That's true at C, 2B, SS, LF, and even RF.

1B: Beckley & Sisler get quite a bit of support and are likely to get inducted eventually. Start inducted the year before Beckley's entered the backlog at #8.

3B: I think we made the right call on the between-war 3B-men. I vote for McGraw every year, but the rest of the electorate has career-length issues with him.

CF: Torriente/Pike won the vote over Duffy/Roush for induction.

P: Caruthers & Ferrell got assists from their bats. Rixey likely to make it soon followed by Griffith in perhaps ten years. Many other HOF-ers here have loyal fans here, though.
   83. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 06:52 AM (#1819357)
Correction, Bennett was inducted the year Bresnahan became eligible (inital slot #12). So, we did have a choice there.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: January 13, 2006 at 12:47 PM (#1819482)
I will say this. The HoF/not HoM has a better pitching staff. If the two teams had to play a 154 or 162 game season the HoM/not HoF's arms would be falling off.

But who are the absolute studs on these lists? For my money the HoM/not HoF has it all over the other guys with Santop, Jud Wilson, Torriente and Joe Jackson. Granted the advantage 1) rests on a technicality in Shoeless Joe, and 2) is likely to be completely wiped out by the new NeL committee.

Still these lists suggest we've got some work to do on the mound. I mean, if 75 percent of the game is really half pitching or whatever.
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2006 at 02:25 PM (#1819523)
I will say this. The HoF/not HoM has a better pitching staff.

I think the HoM could use a few more pitchers, though the HOF has a few more than necessary, IMO.
   86. Daryn Posted: January 13, 2006 at 02:45 PM (#1819532)
Once you take the 8 or so people off list 75 who will eventually be elected, the HoF/not HoM team becomes much weaker. I don't think Jackson and Rose should be counted at the end of the day when these comparisons are made.
   87. yest Posted: January 13, 2006 at 03:23 PM (#1819556)
I didn't include shoeless joe, Ashburn, or Schoendienst in to be fair to both sides
   88. Chris Cobb Posted: January 13, 2006 at 03:54 PM (#1819567)
The two things that could keep the HoF-not-HoM team on the field against the HoM-not-HoF team are

(1) pitching: as noted above, the HoF team may be losing some of its best members to the HoM draft soon, but they won't be joining the HoM-not-HoF squad, so it still needs a couple more members of the rotation. Dick Redding and Billy Pierce might be the next two with a good shot at joining, unless the Cooperstown committee drafts Redding before we do.

and

(2) peak. At their peak, Bresnahan at catcher, Chance/Sisler at first, McGraw at third, and Kiner in left look as good or better as the weaker (and in some cases, the stronger) of their HoM counterparts.

If you could pick these players for the team in their very best, healthiest seasons, the HoF team would be quite competitive. But the GM doesn't generally get to decide that.
   89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#1819571)
Using Ron's lists (thanks, Ron), here are the Halls witheir respective ensrinees as of 1968, FWIW:

<order>HOF-not-HOM through 1968

1 Bender, Chief
2 Bresnahan, Roger
3 Chance, Frank
4 Chesbro, Jack
5 Cuyler, Kiki
6 Duffy, Hugh
7 Evers, Johnny
8 Griffith, Clark (elected primarily for his management credentials)
9 Grimes, Burleigh
10 Manush, Heinie
11 Maranville, Rabbit
12 McCarthy, Tommy
13 McGraw, John (elected primarily for his management credentials)
14 Pennock, Herb
15 Rice, Sam
16 Rixey, Eppa
17 Roush, Edd
18 Schalk, Ray
19 Tinker, Joe
20 Traynor, Pie
21 Waddell, Rube
22 Waner, Lloyd

And HOM not-HOF

1 Barnes, Ross
2 Beckwith, John
3 Bennett, Charlie
4 Brown, Ray
5 Caruthers, Bob
6 Dahlen, Bill
7 Ferrell, Wes
8 Glasscock, Jack
9 Gore, George
10 Grant, Frank
11 Groh, Heinie
12 Hack, Stan
13 Hill, Pete
14 Hines, Paul
15 Jackson, Joe
16 Johnson, Grant
17 Magee, Sherry
18 McVey, Cal
19 Pearce, Dickey
20 Pike, Lip
21 Richardson, Hardy
22 Santop, Louis
23 Sheckard, Jimmy
24 Start, Joe
25 Stovey, Harry
26 Suttles, Mule
27 Sutton, Ezra
28 Torriente, Christobal
29 White, Deacon
30 Wilson, Jud </order>

The former group doesn't stand out as much anymore.
   90. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#1819586)
(1) pitching: as noted above, the HoF team may be losing some of its best members to the HoM draft soon, but they won't be joining the HoM-not-HoF squad, so it still needs a couple more members of the rotation.

Also remember the nature of these lists. A HOM-not-HOF player notes what we think is a "mistake of omission" on the HOF's part. It could very well be that the HOF hasn't made as many of those in RF and especially P. It doesn't necessary imply that the HOM needs more pitchers. The HOM has 34 pitchers out of 129 players or about 26%. We should be asking if that is low. Maybe it is, but we shouldn't favor guys like Redding/Pierce over Rixey/Griffith just to make these lists look nicer. Some may favor them anyways of course, but I hope not for that reason.
   91. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#1819596)
Also, yest's original challenge was indeed a strong one. Its not enough that the HOM-not-HOF list is better as a whole. If there is any case where any HOF-not-HOM guy is better than any of the HOM-not-HOF guys than that implies we may have made a mistake. That's a very strong standard, though. With era differences and candidate eligibility its often a tough comparison to make.

Call me optimistic, but I still think we're doing a bang-up job here. It is interesting that the consensus picked Pike over Duffy/Roush and Ferrell over all of those pitchers, but that's how my ballot looked, too, so I can't complain. :)
   92. yest Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#1819652)
The former group doesn't stand out as much anymore.

once you eliminate Jackson (who wasn't illiagal officaly but was still illiagal to put in) and the Negroe Leugers its a lot closer also you missed Sisler
   93. sunnyday2 Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1819682)
>-not-HOF guys than that implies we may have made a mistake.

As was pointed out above, many of the differentials reflect our taste in 19th century players, and 1) our taste in 19th century players in infinitely better than the HoFs and 2) one of the reasons I wanted to be part of the HoM myself was to recognize the right 19th century players.

If now (in 1968) we look back and decide that a Kiner-Roush-Klein OF is better than Stovey-Gore-Hines (say) that doesn't make it a mistake. Certainly not a mistake of commission since we simply voted according to the rules. We never voted that Stovey was better than Kiner. If there is a mistake it is in our philosophical approach, but I would absolutely say our philosophical approach was not a mistake but a great achievement.

By 2006 our H will be better than their H, bearing out that our philosophy was the right one. And of course right now our team is better except on the mound.
   94. DL from MN Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1819684)
I'd still appreciate a list of elected HoM and current candidates in Excel format. If you have the WARP, Win Share and RCAA data available to populate it I'd appreciate it but I can fill it in myself if necessary.
   95. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#1819686)
once you eliminate Jackson (who wasn't illiagal officaly but was still illiagal to put in) and the Negroe Leugers its a lot closer also you missed Sisler

I agree with Jackson and the mistakenly excised Sisler, but not the Negro Leaguers. There is no reason that they should have been omitted.
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#1819694)
one of the reasons I wanted to be part of the HoM myself was to recognize the right 19th century players.

I agree and I would include the Negro Leaguers as another big reason that I wanted to be part of this project, too.

We never voted that Stovey was better than Kiner.

For his era, I think Stovey was greater.
   97. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#1819704)
If there is a mistake it is in our philosophical approach, but I would absolutely say our philosophical approach was not a mistake but a great achievement.

That's what I meant to say with my comment on candidate eligibility. It is odd for us to see comparisons like Doerr vs HRichardson or JSewell vs Glasscock or Sutton vs Traynor because they were indeed never compared here. The 19th century guy was inducted long before the 20th century counterpart was inducted. Sorry, if that was not more clear (rereading my post, it was not).
   98. DavidFoss Posted: January 13, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1819708)
... counterpart was <strike>inducted</strike>eligible.

Sorry... nasty little 'typo'. :-)
   99. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 13, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1819741)
DL,
I don't have a sheet with everything on it, but for the current candidates, you can simply cut and paste the names on the 1967 results tally sheet. There's around 70 guys on that list, and it is probably enough to get you started.
   100. yest Posted: January 13, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#1819756)
I agree with Jackson and the mistakenly excised Sisler, but not the Negro Leaguers. There is no reason that they should have been omitted.

my point was as of 1968 they were not able to be elected to the hall of fame so we can't fault them for not electing them yet though then we would have to add George Davis, Bid McPhee, Pee Wee Reece, Lou Boudrou, Sam Thompson, Roger Connor, Amos Rusie, Joe Kelley, Arky Vaughan, Billy Herman, Johnny Mize, Hal Newhouser, Roy Campanella, Bob Lemon, and Enos Slaughter to the HoM not HoF list (I'm probobly missing someone) due to them not being in the Hall of Fame yet
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9937 seconds
49 querie(s) executed