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, February 06, 2006

1970 Ballot Discussion

1970 (February 6)-elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

352 103.6 1948 Duke Snider-CF (living)
283 79.6 1951 Minnie Minoso-LF (living)
248 88.8 1948 Billy Pierce-P (living)
216 58.5 1951 Pete Runnels-2B/1B (1991)
159 64.8 1949 Bobby Shantz-RP (living)
190 50.9 1953 Bill Bruton-CF (1995)
194 42.9 1953 Al Smith-RF/LF (2002)
103 39.8 1955 Sam Jones-P (1971)

HF% Career Name-pos (born) BJ – MVP - All-Star
00% 44-64 Luis Marquez-CF/IF (1925) – 0 – 0*


Players Passing Away in 1969
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

91 1921 Tommy Leach-CF/3b
89 1919 Doc White-P
85 1921 Al Bridwell-SS
84 1926 Eddie Cicotte-P
82 1925 Heinie Zimmerman-3b
82 1925 Larry Cheney-P
77 1933 Jack Tobin-RF
76 1933 Billy Southworth-RF/Mgr
76 1936 Bubbles Hargrave-C
76 1938 Charlie Jamieson-LF
73 1934 Chick Galloway-SS
72 1940 Lefty O’Doul-LF
72 1942 Tom Zachary-P
68 1942 Flint Rhem-P
61 1947 Bill Swift-P
60 1948 Red Rolfe-3B
59 1952 Pinky Higgins-3B
56 1951 Jim Tobin-P
43 1962 Hank Thompson-3B
42 1968 Danny O’Connell-2B
41 1969 Don Hoak-3B

Thanks to the inestimable Dan Greenia and Chris Cobb!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 06, 2006 at 05:53 AM | 77 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 07, 2006 at 02:10 AM (#1852735)
hot topics
   2. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 07, 2006 at 03:15 AM (#1852835)
After we elected Richie Ashburn quickly, I wanted to make sure we don't do the same with Minnie Minoso. It is possible that he is HOM material, but I am not sure he distinguishes himself from the backlog, even with NeL credit.

Case in point, I see very littel difference (in terms of absolute value) between Minoso, Burns, and Brown. In fact I would put Minoso in bewteen those two, Brown/Minoso/Burns. We have taken our time on Brown as well we should, he is a borderline candidate with some holes in his record. We should do the same, I believe, with Minoso. I only say this because his WS numbers are very similar to Ashburn's and I wish we had taken more time on Ashburn.
   3. DavidFoss Posted: February 07, 2006 at 03:18 AM (#1852841)
Babe Watch after 1969:
1    Babe Ruth         714   
2    Willie Mays       600   38
3    Hank Aaron        554   35
4    Mickey Mantle     536   
5    Jimmie Foxx       534   
6    Ted Williams      521   
7    Eddie Mathews     512   
8    Mel Ott           511   
9    Ernie Banks       497   38
10   Lou Gehrig        493   
11   Stan Musial       475   
12   Frank Robinson    450   33
13   Harmon Killebrew  446   33
14   Duke Snider       407 


A few guys have given up the chase in recent years.
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: February 07, 2006 at 04:24 AM (#1852911)
When I was a kid and first a baseball fan the all time HR list was

Ruth 714
Foxx 534
Ott 511
Gehrig 493

Everybody else was below that. Hard to believe. Those were the days.
   5. TomH Posted: February 07, 2006 at 01:05 PM (#1853215)
Can someone please 'splain wy Mr. Wynn finished ahead of Mr. C Griffith last week??

Clark Griffith pitched effectively for 16 yrs, 1891-1905; his W-L record in this time was 237-137
Early Wynn pitched effecitvely for 20 yrs, 1942-1961; his W-L record in this time was 289-224
Griffith pitched well for most of 2 yrs in the PCL; he could easily be given extra credit for this
Wynn missed 1 year during WWII; he could easily be given extra credit for this

Griffith leads Wynn in every measure of 'above average', such as RSAA, ERA+
Wynn leads in every measure of 'above replacement' such as Wins, Win Shares, WARP, & IP

There is strong, almost incontrovertible I would say, evidence that Griffith's value to his team in winning games is much greater than is reflected in any run-based stats. See his thread for a review, but the bottom line is this:
he won many more games than his 'run s allowed' would suggest, AND he specifically is much-quoted that he often 'pitched to the score'; in other words, the records back up the anecdotes.

Griffith's record of 237-137 (1891-1905 only) stands in contrast to his teams' records of 725-703 when he was NOT pitching.
Griffith was 100 games over .500 for a team playing .508 ball; by this measure, he was worth 47.1 wins above team

Wynn's record of 289-224 (1942-1961 only) stands in contrast to his teams' records of 1293-1122 when he was NOT pitching.
Wynn was 65 games over .500 for a team playing .535 ball; by this measure, he was worth 14.3 wins above team

33 MORE WINS; 33 FEWER LOSSES; THIS IS HUGE. That is like a hitter turning 350 of his career singles into 350 home runs!!
We just turned Eddie Murray into Hank Aaron, or Eddie Yost (as a hitter) into Ralph Kiner

I know Wins Above Team is not an end-all measure; it certainly can be unfair those like Drysdale, whose teammates included Koufax. But using Wynn's ERA+ of 106, his expected winning pct on an average team is .528, which again translates to only 15 games over .500 for his entire career.

Timelining? Griffith played in the contracted 1890s. Wynn was in the weaker of the 1950s leagues, and had 2 war-weakened years (43-44).

Strength among contemporaries? Griffith is a consensus 4th-best pitcher of his era; an era in which we have elected TOO FEW players. We don't have a full read on Wynn just yet, since many of his contemps are not eligible, but Istrongly suspect he will be placed lower than 4th.

I am not an enemy of Early; I believe we eventually ought to honor him. Just not b4 Clark.

I understand how a strong career-voter (with a low replacement level) might have Wynn ahead. Guys who vote by this method, such as maybe Joe D or Rob Wood, I understand. I do NOT understand why the majority of voters don't have Griffith clearly ahead. What gives, guys? If I'm off-base, edumacate me, but please take a long look first.
   6. sunnyday2 Posted: February 07, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#1853218)
Tough year. Snider at #1, but haven't looked seriously at Minoso's non-ML record yet. I guess he could be anywhere from #5 to off the ballot.

I don't see Pierce however. 'Course I was initially very skeptical of Wynn and I recanted, though even so he is only about my #7 pitcher and off ballot. But Pierce for now is about #20 among pitchers, more in the Bridges-Walters-Willis territory than Cicotte-Griffith.
   7. Rusty Priske Posted: February 07, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#1853237)
Prelim

PHoM Snider & Wynn

1. Duke Snider
2. George Van Haltren
3. Willard Brown
4. Jake Beckley
5. Biz Mackey
6. Early Wynn
7. Cool Papa Bell
8. Mickey Welch
9. Tommy Leach
10. Dobie Moore
11. Hugh Duffy
12. George Sisler
13. Edd Roush
14. Quincy Trouppe
15. Bobby Doerr

16-20. Ryan, Griffith, Rice, Childs, Redding
21-25. H.Smith, Streeter, White, Willis, Strong
26-30. Gleason, Greene, Doyle, Elliott, Grimes

Minoso is at 46...but I don't know anything about his non-ml record. I'll be watching the thread this week to learn.
   8. Dizzypaco Posted: February 07, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#1853238)
Personally, I believe that Early Wynn has a much stronger case than Clark Griffith does for the HOM, for several reasons.

First, Wynn had a longer peak than Griffith - 10 or 11 years for Wynn, versus 8 for Griffith.
Second, Wynn pitched 1200 more innings than Griffith. Wynn was a workhorse, among the leaders in IP almost every year, which is valuable. Griffith did not pitch many innings, given the context in which he was pitching - it was a hell of a lot easier to throw 300 innings in 1895 than in 1955.
Third, if as many people claim, defense was more important in the 1890's than it was in the 1950's, than by definition, pitching was less important.
Fourth, Wynn stood out from his league far more than Griffith did - Wynn beats Griffith 37 to 11 on the black ink test, and 264 to 131 on the grey ink test, which are huge differences.
Fifth, while you may not want to claim that the 50's had a higher level of play than the 1890's (although I'd disagree), I think its crazy to think that there was more talent in the 1890's than the 1950s, or to discount players from the 50s because of the talent level; I don't care which league they played in. Besides, its not as if Wynn pitched for the Yankees.

Griffith had a relatively short career, was a great pitcher for only one season, and a pretty good one for a few more. Wynn, while not being the best pitcher in the league, was in the next tier down for a pretty long period of time. The only way I think you can legitimately place Griffith over Wynn is if your system puts a massive weight on one season (1898). Because otherwise, he just wasn't that good.

Fire away.
   9. TomH Posted: February 07, 2006 at 02:53 PM (#1853245)
Wynn had a longer peak than Griffith - 10 or 11 years
huh??? define "peak" - are you including his 1957-58 years when he was significantly below average, tossing ERAs over 4 when the league (and his teammates) ERA was under 4? I hope "peak" isn't cherry-picking best years out of a career....

I don't mean to imply that quality was better in 1895; just that it wasn't worse, and we're not being fair to all eras if we treat 1895 the same as the lower-quality league in 1955.

If defense was more important in 1895, we can say Griffith's defenders sure didn't help him much. OTOH, part of the reason Wynn "got better" going from Wash to Cle is that he had good defense behind him in Cleveland - which is part of the reason the Indian staff (as much as the Yankees!) frequently led the AL in ERA. We can't give Wynn all of the "ERA+ credit" when some of it should go to the gloves behind him.

Black and grey ink difference - put Wynn on Clark's team, & vice versa, and see how THAT changes.
   10. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 07, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#1853293)
Without judgment, I'm throwing some info into the confab on CG and EW:

Chris J's RSI:
CG: 108.6
EW: 105.5

Chris J's support-adjusted W-L for each
CG: 233-150 .608 (CG loses 4 wins)
EW: 290-254 .533 (Wynn loses 10, uh, wyns)

Unearned runs:
CG allowed 33 more unearned runs than an average pitcher would have given his same number of RA.
EW allowed two fewer unearned runs than an average pitcher would have given his same number of RA.

OPS/OPS+ for each:
CG: .628/69 --- pitchers averaged a .558 OPS in CG's leagues, so his raw OPS unadjusted for park was 13% better than his fellow pitchers. Per Lee Sinnis, he created 37 runs more than an average pitcher.
EW: .559/54 --- pitchers averaged a .446 OPS in EW's leagues, so his raw OPS unadjusted for park was 25% better than his fellow pitchers. Per Lee Sinnis, he he created 53 runs more than an average pitcher.
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: February 07, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#1853301)
what the heck, this time adding Griffith:

162 IP minimum, listing all 100 ERA+ seasons:
Griffith 190 34 30 29 28 20 19 15 14 09
EarlWynn 154 42 36 35 26 18 15 10 09 03
BiPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03

Griffith top 10 in IP: 3 6
EarlWynn top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 7
BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
(Pierce's 201 ERA+ was not a top-10 IP season; he only started 26 of his 36 games.)

This MUST be noted.
from baseballlibrary.com: "Young Clark claimed it was bad luck to pitch a shutout, and avoided doing so until 1897."
He had one that year, and four in his mega-year of 1898; in effect, he was so good that he couldn't help pitching four shutouts, lol. That also was his first year in Chicago without Cap Anson managing him. Not hard to picture an old-timer like that going along with Griffith's superstition.

One of the things this project requires is a willingness to understand the human element of this game.
Griffith's W-L record is almost impossible to understand given the quality of his teams and the ERA+ of 121.
Let's not be afraid to consider alternatives. Don't forget, the anecdotal evidence of Griffith's pitching to the score long predates ERA+, and his career starting point predates even ERA, IIRC!

Griffith's relative lack of IP, while perhaps managerial preference, nonetheless is relevant. But so is the fact that much of his career was in a one-league era, compared to Wynn pitching for the crappier league in a two-team era. Even if you timeline, you have to give Griffith something back.

I see Wynn and Griffith as very close, and I'd put both of them in eventually.
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 07, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#1853395)
I see Wynn and Griffith as very close, and I'd put both of them in eventually.

They're both going in, so the fans of both just need to bide their time
   13. jingoist Posted: February 07, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#1853436)
John; I trust that your judgement is correct, that both Wynn and Clark Griffith both are elected to the HoM. I think the issue of equating levels of effort and success across the various playing eras has proven to be one of the thorniest ever.
This Griffith vs Wynn debate is mirrored, I believe, by the Duffy/GVH and to some extent Roush vs Ashburn debate that DIDN'T happen.
The electorate is undoubtedly more comfortable with aspects of playing baseball in the 1950s and decades forward based upon real life experiences; we cant possibly feel the same about the guys who played in the 1890s and 1900's. That means we need to rely on first hand observations from those who saw the GVHs and Griffiths play and their reports about prevaling customs of the time to an even greater extent than we would to third party observation of contemporary ballplayers. Especially for those that are on the cusp of election. Decisions to elect the No-brainers are just that, and will always be so. It's the guys who are on the in/out line that cause so much deliberation....and justly so.
   14. Michael Bass Posted: February 07, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#1853525)
I'll get slammed for this, I suspect, but Snider, while an obvious HOMer, does not feel #1-ish to me. His productive career is short, his prime is unexceptionally long, and his peak, while very good, is certainly not inner-circle level (at least by WARP, who, BTW, hates his defense something awful). In fact, I like him less than Wynn, who does not have the peak (close, though), but has the longer prime and career, and is a pitcher, making it tougher to have the longer prime and career.

Pierce is not in Wynn's category either, but has a very strong prime, and will be in competition for a low spot on my ballot (no worse than #20, probably higher).

Minoso will not be on my ballot, even with NL credit, though he's top 50.
   15. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 07, 2006 at 07:13 PM (#1853547)
While I guess I can see hwo someone wouldn't have Snider at #1, it isn't like we have a strong field for competition.
   16. TomH Posted: February 07, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#1853579)
Snider looks less impressive than I thought, but CFers with a 140 OPS+ don't grow on trees.

Minoso's career, when you add in NeL estimates, ought to be close to the Duke's, although he certainly never got near his peak. When you score 1136 runs in MLB after you reach your 28th birthday, you've had a career that rates above our backloggers IMHO.
   17. DavidFoss Posted: February 07, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#1853599)
When you score 1136 runs in MLB after you reach your 28th birthday

That's historically been the key to his case, but didn't it turn out that he was three years younger and doesn't have a ton of NeL credit coming to him? We need to bump his thread back up to the top.
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#1853626)
When you score 1136 runs in MLB after you reach your 28th birthday

More like his 25th birthday, Tom.
   19. Trevor P. Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#1853627)
When you score 1136 runs in MLB after you reach your 28th birthday, you've had a career that rates above our backloggers IMHO.

Which could apply equally to Bob Johnson - and Johnson has a higher OPS+ than Minoso, 138 to 130.

I personally have a hard time separating the two, and their relative ballot placements will probably come down to the amount of NeL credit I decide to assign Minoso.
   20. Trevor P. Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:35 PM (#1853672)
Bob Johnson vs. Minnie Minoso, in terms of OPS+, assuming Minoso gets full NeL credit for 1949 and 1950:

Johnson: 174-155-147-143-141-135-134-130-129-129-127-125-125
Minoso: 155-151-149-140-136-135-133-131-121-116-116-113-99

Bolding for Johnson indicates war years; for Minoso, NeL years.

Johnson seems to have a mild advantage in terms of their two best years.

For prime, Minoso is marginally better in years three, six, and eight; Johnson barely bests him in years four, five, and seven. I'd call prime a draw.

From then on, Johnson easily wins year nine, probably year ten and eleven as well (depending on your war discount), and easily wins year twelve and thirteen.

Minoso then tacks on a 78 and a 43, in 471 total PA, for 1962 and 1963.
   21. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#1853675)
I still think the argument that ERA was less important before the stat was invented is a bunch of garbage. The goal of the pitcher has always been to keep the other team from scoring runs. I'm not saying pitching to the score didn't exist, but it's very hard to know what that should mean for our evaluation of a given pitcher. Should we be discounting hitting stats in this era because they were likely inflated by pitchers taking it easy? Or were the hitters "batting to the score"?
   22. DavidFoss Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:44 PM (#1853689)
Bolding for Johnson indicates war years

Bolding a few too many years there in my opinion. There were a couple of notable exceptions (Greenberg 41-42 & Feller 42) but I really only count 1943-45 as war years as far as baseball is concerned.
   23. andrew siegel Posted: February 07, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#1853735)
(1) Snider (new).
(2) Dobie Moore (3rd)
(3) Oms (4th
(4) Van Haltren (5th)
(5) Wynn (9th)
(6) Roush (6th)
(7) Beckley (7th)
(8) Duffy (8th
(9) Childs (11th)
(10) Gordon (12th)
(11) Trouppe (9th)
(12) Mendez (13th)
(13) Sisler (14th)
(14) Pierce (new)
(15) Elliot (15th)

Next 15: Doerr, Sewell, Schang, Bell, Grimes, Johnson, Minoso (new), Chance, Bridges, Ryan, W. Brown, C. Jones, Kiner, Bresnahan, Griffith.

Pierce looks like a lot of guys who I have in the 20's-50's (Shocker, Mays, Cooper, etc.) but, in the context of his times, is more like a Coveleski, Vance, or Keefe (though not quite as good).

I'm sad to find out that Minoso is not nearly as good as I had always assumed, but those 3 years of age make all the difference. He is very similar to Bob Johnson; both of them will be within 10 spots of the in-out line one way or the other when this project ends.
   24. Mark Donelson Posted: February 07, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#1853769)
1970 prelim:

I've done a major pitching reassessment this "year," leaning more on PRAA and less on WS than I used to (other factors like ERA+ and a bullshirt dump are, of course, also included). Found I was (still) shorting pitchers in general, so I tried to rectify that as well. Also did a bit of a 3B reassessment and a tweak of some other infielders.

1. Duke Snider
2. Dobie Moore
3. José Méndez
4. Rube Waddell
5. Hugh Duffy
6. Cupid Childs
7. Ralph Kiner
8. Dizzy Dean
9. Willard Brown
10. Vic Willis
11. Ed Williamson
12. Clark Griffith
13. Quincy Trouppe
14. Eddie Cicotte
15. Bucky Walters

Other big gainers below this level include Leach, Lyons, Rixey, McGraw, Sewell, and Elliott. Droppers include Dunlap, Grimes, Newcombe, and Carl Mays.
   25. Mark Donelson Posted: February 07, 2006 at 09:31 PM (#1853771)
Oh, and Minoso debuts at 31, Pierce at 41, no one else new in the top 50.
   26. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 07, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1853772)
How would you adjust Johnson's OPS+ numbers for the war (assuming a 10% discount)? I am nto sure that I am smart enough to figure it out only looking at OPS+.

I must say that Minoso's NeL/MiL numbers look very disappointing, quite possibly enough to put him on the other side of the in/out line.

Devin,

I would say that ERA was less important in that era because defense was more important, thus pitcher had less control over there ERA. I don't really put much stock on pitching to the score.
   27. Daryn Posted: February 07, 2006 at 09:36 PM (#1853779)
The Hall of Very Good is packed with guys with a lot more than 1134 runs from their age 25 season onwards. Three recents are Steve Finley, Ken Lofton and Brett Butler, all with more than 1300 runs from that point on. Lofton and Butler might actually get some votes here -- we'll see.

I have Pierce and Minoso in the 35 to 55 range right now.
   28. OCF Posted: February 07, 2006 at 11:05 PM (#1853927)
The Hall of Very Good is packed with guys with a lot more than 1134 runs from their age 25 season onwards.

Jose Cruz (the elder) had "only" 836 runs scored from age 28 onwards, but you've got to take the league scoring levels and the Astrodome park factor into account.
   29. AJMcCringleberry Posted: February 07, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1853944)
Lofton and Butler might actually get some votes here -- we'll see

When I was putting players into a spreadsheet a few months ago (sadly all my stuff was lost when my freakin' computer crashed) I was surprised at how good Butler was; 300 WS, 100 WARP, with a decent peak.
   30. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 08, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#1854008)
Tha allure with Minsos has always been that he had did so well after age 28 AND we generally didn't know that what he was doing prior to age 28. Now that we have discovered that he was not 28 but instead 25 AND it doesn't look like he was too great a player in the NeL's and MiL's (one 22 WS season and a lot of iffy seasons) I think that allure should begin to wear off. I think a lot of people ignored players like Cruz, Finley, Butler, Luis GOnzalez, etc. because they knew what happened in their 20's and Minoso for all we/they knew could have been a monster in his 20's.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#1854021)
Still the fact tht Minoso scored fewer runs after age X than guys who played in the 1990s should not be worth much. Who did it that played in a similar environment?
   32. EricC Posted: February 08, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#1854035)
>When you score 1136 runs in MLB after you reach your 28th birthday

More like his 25th birthday, Tom.


Sam Rice scored 1162 runs after his 32nd birthday.
   33. Howie Menckel Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#1854183)
from Devin:
"The goal of the pitcher has always been to keep the other team from scoring runs."

Actually, the goal of the pitcher has always been TO WIN THE GAME.
It's similar, but not quite the same thing.
It's even more similar now, as pitchers know that their ERA will factor into their paycheck about as much as their W-L record will. And nowadays, it's common for SPs to get a no-decision.

I'll grant that it seems weird that Griffith was superstitious against shutouts (he eventually did throw 22, though). But that's 100 years ago - a far, far different time. He also was said to 'pitch to the score,' relaxing a bit with a lead.
Well, sounds nuts to me, but show me a pitcher with a BETTER W-L record in relationship to his team and to his ERA+. It would be one helluva coincidence if a guy with the wackiest stats, who also happens to have had this reputation, wasn't really doing that. It's not like those commenting 80 years ago ever pictured this project coming along, lol.


Try to picture their being no such thing as ERA. Sure, pitchers tried to pitch well, but it was reflected in their W-L. Slight allowances surely were made to acknowledge a 'tough luck' year, but mainly it was about W-L.

In 1895, Griffith went 26-14 in 353 IP, completing 39 of 41 starts. The rest of the team's pitchers were 46-44.
Each of those games were HIS games to win and lose - and he won a lot of them, with a 129 ERA+.
He had an excellent year, by the standards of his day. And if we are going to judge him fairly, we have to take everything that we can into account.
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:38 AM (#1854193)
>He had an excellent year, by the standards of his day. And if we are going to judge him fairly, we have to take everything that we can into account.

Including his ERA.

I'm with Devin. I mean, when did they invent OPS+? No fair looking at OPS+ before (whenever)?
   35. Howie Menckel Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#1854206)
Well, we could go instead with the "Griffith was the luckiest pitcher in baseball history" approach. That would be an alternative explanation for the remarkable W-L record.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:06 AM (#1854223)
I think there's a thing called pitching to the score, but I just don't buy it for the majority of a pitcher's career. Unless the pitcher has a big lead to work with, it's dangerous to fool around with that strategy within the average game.
   37. Rick A. Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#1854226)
My thoughts on the new candidates.

Snider - Not as dominant as I thought. He's a clear #1 this year, and definately a HOM-PHOM, but his legend just seemed to be slightly exagerrated. I didn't expect him to be Mays or Mantle, but I expected him to be significantly above most other CF's. I've got him rated slightly below Doby.

Minoso - He seems like Medwick or Bob Johnson to me. I've got him rated between the two of them. None are in my PHOM so far (but may go in in the elect 3 years)

Pierce - I also don't see it. Hall Of Very Good. Seems like Tommy Bridges to me, who also doesn't rate too well in my system.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:40 AM (#1854255)
Clark Griffith:

• Pitched to the score

• Was the luckiest pitcher who ever lived

There are apparently no other possible explanations.
   39. Howie Menckel Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#1854263)
Well, sunnyday, as I reread my comment, I see that I wrote the words "AN alternative explanation." That would indicate there are other explanations as well, which appears to be contrary to your understanding of the post.

We have anecdotal evidence for "pitched to the score."
None that I know of so far for "luckiest..."

Am looking forward to your take on the W-L record.

(P.S. I take all this as trial-like banter, each of us taking on a stance and challenging the other guy. On the off-chance that you might see it as hostile, I'd like to make it clear that it isn't mean to be. After years of HOM 'sparring,' I'm pretty sure that's obvious already, though.)
   40. Cblau Posted: February 08, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#1854307)
According to post #10, Griffith got excellent run support. I don't see how an RSI of 108.6 translates to only 4 extra wins. When I do the calculation, I get 15 extra wins. Are the additional unearned runs included in the calculation?
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 05:29 AM (#1854332)
Howie, ditto. I did not think there was any hostility anywhere in this thread.
   42. TomH Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#1854463)
What Howie and sunnyday said. I might make what seems to be a vociferous argument at times, but that's what this project calls for; it ain't like I'm upset at anybody. Maybe I'm totally wrong on C Griffith, but to convince me of that, you'll have tear down the stuff I throw out, be they straw men or houses of bricks, little piggy.
   43. Al Peterson Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#1854467)
Wow, I know Bill James NHBA positional rankings aren't everything but Minoso was ranked #10 at LF. He's taken quite a tumble with this group if the discussion thread means anything.

Couple things of interest on Minnie:

Teams underperformed Pythag record consistently. From 1951-61 he adds up to a -27 games real record vs. Pythag. Now, his teams still went 950-751 (.558) so he wasn't on bad teams.

Was the Hughie Jennings of his time. Led the AL in HBP 10 times!

Overall, I have him below Bob Johnson. Real shocker there for those who know my voting history. Minoso probably goes in the 10-20 range on the ballot. We'll see...
   44. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:35 PM (#1854472)
According to post #10, Griffith got excellent run support. I don't see how an RSI of 108.6 translates to only 4 extra wins. When I do the calculation, I get 15 extra wins. Are the additional unearned runs included in the calculation?

Two things:

1) RSI includes unearned runs in adjusting W/L records,

2) I don't have the info with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure the 108.6 RSI is incorrect. That sounds like his RSI from 1901-onward. When I first posted RSIs here, retrosheet didn't have starters listed for 1871-1900 so that's all I could give. I don't remember off-hand, but I want to say Griffith had an RSI around 105, which was still better than I would have guessed - the Cubs tended to hit better when Griffith pitched for some reason. I could be wrong and the 108 RSI & 4 adjusted wins could be his entire career, but that sounds like just his 1901-onward career marks to me.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#1854477)
Chris J.,

Looking at the RSI data you graciously passed along, it looks like you've got all his seasons accounted for in the single-season RSI listing. When I add up the adjusted wins and losses for individual seasons, I get the same four-win swing as mentioned in post #10, which was taken from the career RSI table. So I think that must be the latest data.

A part of Griff's outstanding run support is his own bat (69 OPS+).
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#1854488)
TomH, who are you calling a little piggy, huh? ;-)
   47. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#1854493)
Looking at the RSI data you graciously passed along, it looks like you've got all his seasons accounted for in the single-season RSI listing.

!

I'll be danged. Still sounds off - especially the 108 RSI. I'll check tonight when I get a look at the info.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#1854501)
I'll be danged. Still sounds off - especially the 108 RSI. I'll check tonight when I get a look at the info.

We would appreciate it, Chris, since it may be important for the coming election.
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#1854519)
Re. Minoso:

1. Clearly the Bill James rating is heavily laced with timeline and bullshit. I mean, Billy Williams has 91 more career WS, 6 more WS for top 3 yers and 9 more WS for top 5 years. Yet Minoso is #10 and Williams #11. Minoso's WS/162 games is 0.63 better. Of course in this particular case the timeline is not a factor but what, then, is? Bullshit.

Ditto Ed Delahanty who is #12 despite ranking far ahead of Minoso on every numerical rating. Ditto Joe Medwick at #13, Jesse Burkett at #14, Goose Goslin at #16., etc. etc.

Now this is not to say that James is necessarily wrong. Bullshit is just his word for intangibles and etc. etc. and who is to say intangibles shouldn't be part of it. But what exactly is the content of the bullshit dump in this case? It would have to be the notion that he was deprived on several seasons in which we woulda/coulda been a solid MLer. The data that we have (and James didn't?) now suggests that he wasn't as clearly ready for prime time as has generally been thought.

2. However.

If anybody has the old Neft & Cohen Encyclopedia of Baseball or other resource that is similarly organized--meaning, year by year with complete stats for each team all on one page--I would urge you to look through it at Minoso's career. Just picking a year at random, and you'll have to trust me that this is absolutely typical of what you will see every year for 8-9 years:

1960: Minoso is 37, White Sox are defending AL champs but fall to 3rd, 10 GB. Their run production actually increases by half a run per game but ERA goes from 3.29 to 3.60. Pretty much the same 5 man rotation (i.e. same distribution of starts, 2 of the 5 are new guys). Mainly Bob Shaw goes from 2.69 to 4.06. Wynn is up .33, Pierce stays steady at about 3.60, Frank Baumann improves on Dick Donovan at the #4 spot, and Herb Score basically replaces Barry Latman at parity. Gerry Staley stays solid in the bullpen but Turk Lown slumps and nobody steps in to replace him.

The real problem, though, is the Yankees who score 5 more runs than the Sox and fashion a 3.62 ERA versus the Sox' 3.60, yet the Yankees beat the Sox by 10 games. Clearly the Sox are not good enough to win, but neither really are the Yankees. Still somebody has to.

Meanwhile, Minoso is brought back from Cleveland. If he had been in Cleveland in '54 and Chicago in '59, instead of vice versa, he's probably be in the HoF today. Basically he replaces a platoon of Jim McAnany and Jim Rivera who combined for 46 RBI in '59.

Minoso Chi 1959 20-105-.311, 89 R, 184 H (leads league), 17 SB, 52 BB (not a lot bu 236 H + BB is 4th in the league behind Mantle, Yost and Runnels).

The AL all-star OF is surely:

Mantle 153 G, 119 R (leads league), 40 (leads league)-94-.275
Maris 136 G, 39-112-.283, .581 SA leads league
And Minnie Minoso, age 37

Next best? Next in RBI is Jim Lemon 38-100-.269, .508 SA, 81 R
Next in R is Jim Landis, Chicago, 89, 10-49-.253, 80 BB
Next in R+RBI is Tito Francona 84 R + 79 RBI, 17-79-.292

I guess my point is this. Minoso's numbers in 1960 are not what you'd call eye-popping. 20-105-.311. But nobody else was any better.

And if you go back through the decade of the 1950s, that's the way it is, year after year after year. Take 1954, the year he had the misfortune not to be in Cleveland. 19-116-.320, 119 R. Mantle is the only other player with 100 R and 100 RBI and even he only hit 27 HR and .300. The all-stars would be Mantle, Doby and either Minoso or T. Williams (Williams was hurt and played 117 games, very very productive games, but still only 117).

1959 when he had the misfortune not to be in Chicago. 21-92-.302, 92 R. Only Jackie Jensen and Harmon Killebrew had both more R and more RBI, and nobody else had more R + RBI. The (post-season) all-star OF? I'd pick Mantle, Jensen and Minoso.

So what is it about the '50s AL, that Minoso was always among the most productive OFers without ever putting up really eye-popping numbers. It has been suggested here that while the NL was better overall (was it?), the AL had better pitching. And Minoso had to hit against the world champs pretty much every single year. Now granted he didn't have to hit against the Indians and White Sox every year, but just one or the other.

Bottom line. Minnie Minoso was one of the top 3 OF in the AL virtually every year from 1951 to 1960. How many players can make a similar claim?
   50. Chris Cobb Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:43 PM (#1854535)
Wow, I know Bill James NHBA positional rankings aren't everything but Minoso was ranked #10 at LF. He's taken quite a tumble with this group if the discussion thread means anything.

James's ranking is based on the assumption that Minoso was 28 when he became a major-league starter, not the 25 it appears he actually was.

Quick takes on the new eligibles:

Snider is not inner-circle, but even WARP, which loves Ashburn, agrees that Snider's career was just as good and his peak was better. Win shares probably overrates Snider's peak a little bit because he played for outstanding teams year after year. There are legitimate reasons not to have Snider #1 this year, but there's no way (and no legiimate reason) that he won't be elected this year.

Billy Pierce is not quite as meritorious as Bob Lemon, because his peak isn't quite as good, but he's close. I hope he's headed for the backlog and eventual election and not for premature burial. I like him better than Bucky Walters ( who is a little underrated) because Pierce had a longer, stronger prime and has no war-time quality questions, though he was in the weaker league. I can see how a strong peak voter would prefer Walters.

Minnie Minoso is a hard case. Those who are worried that he will go in immediately like Ashburn can rest easy, I think. With Snider and Wynn on the ballot, there's stiffer competition at the top than Ashburn had. Equally important, where WARP3 loved Ashburn and amply justified the #1 votes that Ashburn got from voters who use that measure, WARP3 gives Minoso little love, so he will not be getting that boost. We elected Doby quickly despite WARP's lukewarm view of him, but Doby's pre-ML performance was much more impressive than Minoso's.

Pierce and Minoso are both in contention for my bottom-ballot spots, but they may land in the 16-22 range.

Snider will be in my top 5, probably #1.
   51. Mark Donelson Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#1855257)
Billy Pierce is not quite as meritorious as Bob Lemon, because his peak isn't quite as good...

It isn't? I suppose it depends what measure you're using, but on a quick glance, it seems indeterminate, unless you just use WS:

ERA+ top 5 nonconsec:
Pierce: 201-148-141-136-133
Lemon: 144-139-136-134-133

PRAA, ditto:
Pierce: 40-34-28-23-21
Lemon: 27-23-22-22-8

WS, ditto:
Pierce: 24-23-23-22-21
Lemon: 31-26-25-25-24

Am I missing something obvious here?
   52. Michael Bass Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#1855265)
IP in those top 5 ERA+ seasons...

Pierce: 205.2, 271.1, 255.1, 245, 240.1
Lemon: 293.2, 255.1, 258.1, 309.2, 279.2

OPS+
Pierce: 19
Lemon: 82
   53. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 09, 2006 at 05:19 AM (#1855681)
As it turns out, my memory was better than the RSI info I gave out. Clark Griffith had a career RSI of 105.50 and an adjusted W/L record of 233-150. Year-by-year:

Year..RSI..AdjW/L
1891..117
..13-10
1893..115
..1-2
1894..117
..19-16
1895..100
..26-14
1896..98
...24-10
1897..92
...22-17
1898..110
..23-11
1899..124
..19-17
1900..79
...17-10
1901..141
..20-11
1902..106
..14-10
1903..77
...17-8
1904..115
..7-5
1905..77
...10-5
1906..149
..1-3
1909..28
...0-


Apologies for any confusion.
   54. Jeff M Posted: February 09, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#1855888)
Bottom line. Minnie Minoso was one of the top 3 OF in the AL virtually every year from 1951 to 1960. How many players can make a similar claim?

Not many, apparently. Supplementing the raw numbers in Nehf and Cohen, Win Shares shows the following top outfielders in the AL from 1951-1960:

1951: Williams, Doby, Minoso
1952: Doby, Mantle, Bauer (Minoso #5)
1953: Doby, Minoso, Mantle
1954: Mantle, Doby, Minoso
1955: Mantle, Kaline, A.Smith (Minoso #7)
1956: Mantle, Minoso, Kaline
1957: Mantle, Williams, Sievers (Minoso #4)
1958: Mantle, Colavito, Cerv (Minoso #7)
1959: Mantle, Minoso, Colavito
1960: Mantle, Maris, Minoso

That's pretty showy, and I would not have guessed it.

His overall outfield ranks for those years (AL and NL combined):

1951: 7
1952: 13
1953: 5
1954: 5
1955: 16
1956: 4
1957: 7
1958: 11
1959: 4
1960: 7

A couple of glitches there, but considering the 1950s outfield talent (Williams, Mantle, Colavito, Musial, Mays, Snider, Aaron, Ashburn) -- particularly in the NL -- he was a heckuva player.

By the way, what is the reasoning behind the AL being weaker? I'm not arguing whether it was or wasn't. It's just that I'm skeptical when I hear discussions about weaker leagues, because I have yet to see any solid method of making that determination, other than eye-balling it or evaluating whether one league has all the cast-offs of another.

As I've mentioned many times before, it strikes me as impossible to evaluate the leagues based on the league stats. In very general terms: Strong pitching begats weaker hitting. Weak pitching begats stronger hitting. Strong pitching and strong hitting produce average results. Weak pitching and weak hitting produce average results. Only the latter is truly a weak league.
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 09, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#1855906)
Chris J.,

Thanks for the update on Griffith!
   56. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 09, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#1855951)
Prelim ballot

Mild shake up, nothing too weird.

1. Duke Snider: A slam dunk, if not an inner-circle
2. Jose Mendez: When will it finally be Mendez's turn? Will the Hall beat us to him?
3. Leroy Matlock
4. Bucky Walters
5. Quincy Trouppe
6. Charley Jones
7. Billy Pierce: As everyone knows, I like medium-length pitchers with good ERA+s.
8. Early Wynn: Moves up on reconsideration.
9. Hugh Duffy: Moves up one spot.
10. Roger Bresnahan Moves down a spot.
11. Cupid Childs
12. Dobie Moore
13. Willard Brown
14. Biz Mackey
15. Wilbur Cooper

16. Burleigh Grimes
17. George Sisler
18. Pete Browning
19. Ed Williamson
20. GVH
21. Vic Willis
22. Larry Doyle
23. Gavy Cravath
24. George J. Burns
25ish. Minnie Minoso (about as good as Lou Brock or Dave Parker, and that's with credit for 1949 and 1950, turns out he had a normal development curve all along---fancy that), Schang, Long, Doerr/Gordon, Elliot, Rizzuto, Ryan, Leach, Oms, Mullane, Newcombe, Luque, Stivetts, Mays, Warneke, and Dean.
   57. TomH Posted: February 09, 2006 at 04:22 PM (#1855965)
The first analytical study was published in Palmer/Thorn's The Hidden Game in 1983, using Dallas Adams' methods of comparing every player to his previous and succeeding years. It showed, in essence, that guys in the NL declined thru the 50s more than AL guys, and league-swtichers benefited more going to the AL, so the conclusion was that the NL was better.

This of course squares with eye-balling the huge difference in influx of African-American talent in the NL.

BP's methods reach the same general conclusions.

We can argue the amount of difference, but I peg it at half a win per full player-year at its peak (1950s thru mid 1960s), or 1.5 WS per full season. Not enough to make a huge difference (Mantle's peak WS better than Mays'!), but adding 15 WS to a career total, or 20 OPS points (3 OPS+) to his rate, is enough to notice.
   58. TomH Posted: February 09, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#1855967)
{{correcting typo}}
(Mantle's peak WAS better than Mays'!),
   59. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 09, 2006 at 04:33 PM (#1855980)
Also, does anyone know whether or not Sam Jones needs MLEs? I've got some for Al Smith that I'll post too.
   60. jimd Posted: February 09, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1856608)
but I peg it at half a win per full player-year at its peak (1950s thru mid 1960s), or 1.5 WS per full season.

BP has the leagues at about parity from 1946-53, with the NL widening a small gap after that. They would put the delta at about 2WS 1954-60, with the gap narrowing to 1WS after expansion.

IOW, agreement (approximately).
   61. Mark Donelson Posted: February 09, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#1856656)
IP in those top 5 ERA+ seasons...

Pierce: 205.2, 271.1, 255.1, 245, 240.1
Lemon: 293.2, 255.1, 258.1, 309.2, 279.2

OPS+
Pierce: 19
Lemon: 82


Yeah, I was forgetting both those things. But season by season, do they do much more than make Lemon and Pierce's top 5 seasons roughly even, "adjusted" ERA+wise?

I don't think the difference in hitting completely erases the PRAA difference, either.

None of this is to say Lemon doesn't have the better (short) peak—I just don't think it's a complete slam-dunk.
   62. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 03:15 AM (#1857006)
1.5 WS * 8 pos. players * 8 teams = 96 WS, 32 W per season on offense.

Then 32 W for the pitchers too (or are we saying the influx was only hitting?). That's 5.77 WS per 250 IP.

So we are talking 64 wins per season. That's a lot no?

Is this strictly a 'minus' for AL players - if so do NL players get a similar 'plus'? Or is a .75 WS 'minus' for AL players and a .75 WS 'plus' for NL players? .75/-.75 would be the equivalent of a 32 win swing or 4 wins per team (as opposed to 8).

If it's +1.5 for NL, -1.5 for AL, then we are saying the average AL team would have been 69-85 (.448) in the NL during this time. I find that extremely hard to believe. Even 73-81 (.474), if you use the +.75/-.75 adjustment seems to be stretching it.

Am I misinterpreting something?

Also, if you only adjust AL players down and don't adjust NL players up, you are saying the overall era deserves a penalty then.

If anything, I would add 1.5 WS or .75 WS to the NL players and not subtract anything from the AL players, it's fair to say the overall talent level shot up during this time, not that the AL suddenly declined.
   63. KJOK Posted: February 10, 2006 at 03:51 AM (#1857058)
Also, does anyone know whether or not Sam Jones needs MLEs?

It probably won't get him elected, but since he pitched in 1947 for the Cleveland Buckeyes, who were very good, and he was a top pitcher for Wilkes-Barre, who were Eastern League champs, in 1950, it's probable he had pretty good years himself, so that's potentially 4 extra seasons of good performance for him...
   64. Chris Cobb Posted: February 10, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#1857088)
WARP can give us one view of the effect of batting value on a comparison of Pierce's 5 best seasont to Lemon's 5 best:

Mark Donelson provided the following data:

PRAA, ditto:
Pierce: 40-34-28-23-21
Lemon: 27-23-22-22-8


If these are WARP1 PRAA, their evaluation has changed slightly since these numbers were collected. Today I find these as the top 5 PRAA for each:

Pierce: 42, 35, 30, 25, 22
Lemon: 27, 25, 24, 23, 11

Mark suggested that the 19/82 OPS+ difference would not completely erase the PRAA difference.

Here are the BRAA for each pitcher during these five seasons:

Pierce: -8, -9, -14, -15, -6
Lemon: 5, -6, -5, 3, -5

Adding up these lines

Pierce: 34, 26, 16, 10, 16 = 102 RAA
Lemon: 32, 19, 19, 25, 6 = 101 RAA

Pretty close by this way of measuring. In RAR, Lemon pulls ahead a because of greater durability.

Mark's assessment that Lemon, by peak, is not a slam-dunk choice over Pierce seems quite justified by this measure.
   65. TomH Posted: February 10, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#1857466)
I add 1.5 WS for the NL guys, and leave the AL alone...as compared to the 1940ish version of both leagues. 8 fulltime hitters would get 2/3 of the team's WS, so that would be a team total of 18 WS (8 * 1.5 / .667) extra, or 6 extra wins: so a 1958 NL team is 6 wins better than a 1957 AL or 1940 AL team, if this were literally true.
   66. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 05:42 PM (#1857577)
I must say that that seems like a lot of wins. And should the addition be uniform? Shouldn't it bwe like 1.5 for the best players and something like .75 for the worst? Or something along the lines of a 5% boost instead of a certain number of WS?
   67. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 05:46 PM (#1857582)
If Lemon's peak advantage is based on his throwing more innings per seasons as Pierce and this is due solely to Al Lopez' handling of the 1950's Indians pitching staff (I don't really believe this) then couldn't we also argue that Pierce's career advantage is solely attributable to Al Lopez ahdling of his 1950's Indian pitching staff? Maybe Lemon is able to tack on a few more decent years if he isn't worked as hard as he was at his peak.
   68. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 05:50 PM (#1857586)
prelim

1. Snider
2. Childs
3. Duffy
4. Redding
5. Keller
6. Moore
7. Walters
8. Kiner
9. Wynn
10. Gordon
10. Griffith
11. Browning
12. Doerr
13. Trouppe
14. GVH
15. Dean

31. Pierce
34. Minoso

PHOM race between Walters and Kiner
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: February 10, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#1857789)
It's one thing to second-guess managers and GMs who thought a guy wasn't a major league caliber player--e.g. by awarding MLE for MiL play. It's another to second-guess manager who pitched a guy X number of IP instead of more or less. I could just as well say that Joe Blow shoulda had more PAs but for his stupid manager. In fact, I am prepared to say so about Joe Adcock vs. Frank Torre. Not that I really believe it is a valid variable for evaluation.
   70. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 09:01 PM (#1857886)
I tend to agree with you Sunny, especially when there may be tangible benefits to not being pitched so often in a particular season. Just ask Orel Hershiser and Dwight Gooden.
   71. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 10, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1858025)
MLES for Al Smith's early years

YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG   G  PA  AB   H  TB BB ops+ sfws
1947 NL 19  of .248 .324 .377 144 568 511 127 193 57  86  11.2
1948 NL 20  of .268 .347 .354 154 306 273  73  97 33  90   6.8
1949 NL 21  of .272 .350 .378 139 553 493 134 186 59  95  12.8
1950 NL 22  of .235 .336 .377  80 327 284  67 107 43  87   6.6
1951 NL 23  of .257 .330 .375  82 323 291  75 109 32  89   6.6
1952 NL 24  of .259 .322 .439 136 528 483 125 212 45 109  13.9
1953 AL 25  of .286 .373 .474 133 518 455 130 216 63 119  18.8
*1953 is combined MLB/AA 
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 10, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#1858065)
I've completely forgotten about Alonzo Perry, so I'll post his MLEs here while I remember to.

ALONZO PERRY MLES
YEAR LG AGE PO       AVG  OBP  SLG    G   PA   AB    H   TB  BB ops
sfws
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 NL 23  p       .331 .407 .484   28  114  101   33   49  13 152   5.1
1947 NL 24  p       .279 .347 .472   35  137  124   35   59  13 116   4.8
1948 NL 25  p 1b    .313 .384 .440  139  552  492  154  216  58 123  20.2
1949 NL 26  p 1b of .278 .344 .420  107  422  381  106  160  39 104  12.2
1950 NL 27  1b of   .274 .343 .419  144  565  512  140  214  54  99  16.2
1951 NL 28  1b      .326 .398 .527  119  475  424  138  223  51 147  23.4
1952 NL 29  1b      .278 .344 .431  128  502  456  127  196  46 114  15.2
1953 NL 30  1b      .249 .308 .374  154  594  547  136  205  47  77  11.7
1954 NL 31  1b      .258 .322 .374   83  324  296   77  111  28  84   7.0
1955 NL 32  1b      .291 .358 .437  146  574  520  151  227  55 112  18.9
1956 NL 33  1b      .286 .350 .434  143  556  506  145  220  50 110  17.6
1957 NL 34  1b      .293 .349 .396  150  577  532  155  211  46 100  16.1
1958 NL 35  1b      .269 .336 .371  151  590  535  144  199  54  88  13.5
1959 NL 36  1b      .283 .341 .402  134  518  476  134  191  42  98  14.1
1960 NL 37            
1961 NL 38            
1962 NL 39  1b      .260 .327 .380  147  573  521  135  198  52  90  12.9
1963 NL 40  1b      .265 .320 .350  152  582  538  143  188  44  93  11.2
=========================================================================
                    
.281 .345 .412 1961 7655 6960 1954 2866 690 103 220.0 


The big space at ages 37-38 is apparently a matter of great conjecture. He may have done time those two years. Additionally, it's worth noting that Perry played five years in the local Birmingham Industrial leagues during the war. Might mean there's more out there on him. Defensively he is better than this MLE shows, perhaps a win share a year better.

Finally he was a pitcher to begin with, but I haven't translated him as a pitcher. Here's the sketchy info I've got on his pitching:

year lg  tm   g inn      w l   h  r er  b  k  era
-------------------------------------------------
1940 nnl hom          
1946 nal bir          
1946 nnl hom  7  34      2 2  35       22 16 
1947 nal bir  5          1 2      
1948 nal bir 18 120     10 2 145 80 63 35 59 4.73
1949 nal bir 24 133     12 4 124 61 51 31 61 3.45
1950 nal bir  3   9      0 1  18 15  8  9  3 8.00
1951 nal bir  2   3.67   0 1      3  1       2.45
                          
prwl            
1949 prwl may           11 4      
            
pcl            
1949 pcl oak  8  33      0 1  34 20 18 20 20 4.90 
   73. jimd Posted: February 10, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#1858098)
especially when there may be tangible benefits to not being pitched so often in a particular season. Just ask Orel Hershiser and Dwight Gooden.

Does Bobby Shantz fall into this category? Or were his post-1952 problems due to other reasons?
   74. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 11, 2006 at 01:05 AM (#1858192)
TomH is correct, I overestimatd my numbers. I assumed the 1.5 was 'batting' not 'position player'.

OK, so 1.5 * 8 players * 8 teams = 96 WS. Add 48 for pitchers. That's 144 WS, or 6 wins per team, as Tom says. Still seems like a lot to me. That also works out to 1.1 WS for pitchers.

So if you think the typical mid-late 1950s NL team would win 6 extra games per year, add 1.5 WS for position players, and 1.1 WS for every 250 IP. If not, adjust accordingly . . .
   75. jimd Posted: February 11, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#1858207)
I don't have any real problem with those numbers.

The corresponding number for the Federal League is about a factor of 5 higher, or a 30 game margin. IOW, the FL champs would be trying to avoid the basement in the AL or NL, while all of the major league clubs would be contenders (or runaway champs or totally dominant) if placed in the FL. Except for Connie Mack's 1915 A's; with 109 losses in the AL, it might be about .500 in the FL.
   76. TomH Posted: February 12, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#1859340)
well, here I am, snowed in in the mid-Atlantic area today....and I got nuthin coherent to add. Happy shoveling to all :)
   77. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#1859451)
And for those of us who live in, say, Downtown Manhattan where there is no shoveling, happy....walking through piles of ugly slush in two days!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5545 seconds
49 querie(s) executed