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

Sunday, March 05, 2006

1972 Ballot Discussion

1972 (March 20)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

339 134.2 1948 Robin Roberts-P
207 87.4 1951 Bob Friend-P
247 65.6 1953 Jim Gilliam-2B/3B (1978)
236 69.1 1950 Joe Adcock-1B (1999)
223 55.8 1953 Harvey Kuenn-SS/RF (1988)
194 68.9 1955 Sandy Koufax-P
179 70.0 1949 Del Crandall-C
172 64.1 1951 Roy McMillan-SS (1997)
147 57.9 1952 Joe Nuxhall-P
162 50.7 1952 Jim Piersall-CF
147 50.3 1953 Bob Buhl-P (2001)
141 49.6 1954 Frank Bolling-2B
135 42.4 1956 Frank Malzone-3B
122 49.2 1954 Bob Purkey-P
140 37.3 1956 Don Blasingame-2B
137 37.3 1954 Bob Skinner-LF
136 33.1 1955 Hector Lopez-LF/3B
125 33.3 1960 Jim Gentile-1B
105 40.1 1952 Billy Hoeft-P
103 40.7 1953 Ray Herbert-P
105 30.0 1957 Ralph Terry-P
104 29.2 1956 Wes Covington-LF
120 22.3 1957 Bobby Richardson-2B
114 21.1 1958 Dick Stuart-1B (2002)

Players Passing Away in 1971

HoMers
Age Elected

94 1918 Elmer Flick-RF
70 1945 Goose Goslin-LF
65 1950 Martin Dihigo-RF/P

Candidates
Age Eligible

90 1923 Chief Meyers-C
87——Will Harridge-HOF AL President
79 1935 Carl Mays-P
72 1939 Nip Winters-P
69 1939 Harry Rice-CF/RF
69 1945 Heinie Manush-LF
63 1951 Myril Hoag-RF/CF
54 1955 Wally Judnich-CF
50 1963 Ron Northey-RF
45 1970 Sam Jones-P

Dan and Chris, thanks!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 05, 2006 at 10:32 PM | 139 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 07, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#1886235)
Looks like a fun election coming up...
   2. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#1886353)
Our oldest "living" HOMer, Elmer Flick, has just passed away, Jan 9, 1971, two days shy of his 95th birthday. Zach Wheat is now the oldest.

Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age @92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; )
   3. Chris Cobb Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:50 AM (#1886454)
1972 Preliminary Ballot for our 75th election! (it'll be my 70th entry)

1. Robin Roberts -- Easy #1. Great peak AND very strong career.
2. Dick Redding -- a little behind Roberts on both counts. First time in an elect-me slot on my ballot.
3. Willard Brown -- Best outfielder available. First time in an elect-me slot on my ballot, too.
4. Joe Gordon -- Best infielder available.
5. Jose Mendez -- Pitched a lot like Koufax, plus he could hit and play defense.
6. Bobby Doerr -- A shade behind Gordon.
7. Alejandro Oms -- A shade behind Brown. Complete player
8. Minnie Minoso -- A player in the mold of Oms.
9. Gavvy Cravath -- Great power hitter in an era that couldn't appreciate his talent.
10. Sandy Koufax -- All-time greatness on peak makes up for least career value of any likely electee.
11. Ralph Kiner -- Argument similar to Koufax, and there's just no way to take five years of Kiner peak over five years of Koufax peak . . .
12. Biz Mackey -- First of the defensive trio
13. Rabbit Maranville -- He could catch the ball, and he was a funny guy.
14. Herman Long -- He could catch the ball.
15. Burleigh Grimes -- Most career value among modern pitchers after Roberts and good peak, but bad years, too.

16-20. Pierce, Newsom, Fox, Van Haltren, Waddell (I'd elect these five, too, but not before anyone actually on my ballot)
   4. dan b Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:04 AM (#1886472)
Preliminary ballot:

1. Roberts
2. Koufax

No one else is close.
   5. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:28 AM (#1886529)
A question on the Doerr-Gordon issue. It's basically accepted that the main reason Doerr does so much better than Gordon in WARP is that Gordon's defense gets knocked down a fairly ridiculous amount after he goes to Cleveland. That's a reason to think WARP is underrating Gordon. But is there a reason to think that WARP is overrating Doerr? If there isn't, then I think his record looks pretty good for induction.
   6. Chris Cobb Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:47 AM (#1886542)
There are two cautions, I think, to sound on Doerr re WARP:

1) Was his defense really _that_ good? There's no doubt, I think, that Doerr was a great defensive second baseman, but WARP has him far ahead of both Gordon (as you note, Devin) and Fox. WS puts Fox well ahead of Doerr, and Gordon nearly equal with Doerr.

2) Does WARP overrate second-base defense? I think the system does. To pick one possibly unrepresentative but inflammatory example, in 1943, WARP credits a second baseman, Doerr in fact, with earning 38 more FRAR than his FRAA. That is, for a full season, a second baseman's defensive value is his fielding runs above or below average plus 38. In the same season, WARP credits the Boston shortstops with 36 more FRAR than FRAA. This indicates that shortstop was a slightly less valuable defensive position than second base. I don't think I've ever heard a case seriously argued that second base was more valuable defensively than shortstop, at any time in baseball history. I don't know of any other examples of second base being valued above short in WARP, but since this case happens to apply to Doerr, it is pertinent, and I think it is suggestive of a tendency in WARP to overrate second-base defense. Third base, btw, got a mere 23 more FRAR than FRAA for Boston in 1943.

I like Doerr, and I think we should elect him soon, but I think it's pretty likely that he is being overrated by WARP1 just a bit.
   7. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#1886738)
Nothing to do with the HOM...yet...but an interesting note on Kirby Puckett's passing to file away for 2001.

Per the NY Times, when the paperwork for him was being done yesterday, it was discovered that he was a year older than listed in the encyclopedias. That means he was 25 not 24 when he reached Minnesota and retired at 36, not 35.
   8. Al Peterson Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:00 PM (#1886774)
An elect 3 year? It's like Christmas came early - so at least one backlog player goes in plus Koufax has a better chance of gaining enough support.

Let me stump for a player high on my list - Dick Redding. He missed the HOF election but that doesn't strike me as a point against him. Most likely it's due to the fact the research done by the group seems to fill out 1920's NeL material. That is the back half of Redding's career, not showing peak performance.

Looking at the Redding thread I assume a lost war year (or thereabouts) between 1918-19 as he fought overseas in the Big One. That would push up his projected IP totals, could also be part of his peak since he was under age 30 at the time.

Also only minimal pitching in 1913 - any ideas why?

Overall his resume looks mighty fine to me. Cannonball in '72! Better than Nixon at least...
   9. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#1886792)
I agree with Al, though I would like to see Childs or Duffy get in first (fat chance!).
   10. Rusty Priske Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:30 PM (#1886803)
I am a career voter. I am so much a career voter that it seems obvious to me that a Hall of Fame is a career award and compares career accomplishments.

Not everyone agrees. That's cool.


Then we reach Sandy Koufax.

Here is a case where his career numbers do not reflect the player. Still, we are not awarding what might have been (except war-time players), we are awarding what was.

I gave Koufax a BIG bump from where his numbers slot him. THat still only puts him at #14 on my ballot.

I get divergence from my real ballot and my PHoM selections as I compare only to other eligible players, which is a different list for each body.

Prelim:

PHoM: Robin Roberts, Bobby Doerr, Sam Streeter

HoM

1. Willard Brown (3,3,4)
2. Robin Roberts (new)
3. George Van Haltren (2,2,3)
4. Biz Mackey (5,5,7)
5. Cool Papa Bell (4,7,6)
6. Jake Beckley (6,4,5)
7. Dobie Moore (7,10,9)
8. Mickey Welch (8,8,8)
9. George Sisler (9,12,10)
10. Hugh Duffy (11,11,11)
11. Edd Roush (13,13,14)
12. Nellie Fox (12,x,x)
13. Tommy Leach (10,9,12)
14. Sandy Koufax (new)
15. Bobby Doerr (15,15,x)

16-20. Minoso, Trouppe, Childs, Redding, Ryan
21-25. Kiner, White, Smith, Streeter, Mullane
26-30. Strong, Gleason, Sewell, Elliott, Greene
   11. DavidFoss Posted: March 07, 2006 at 04:50 PM (#1886823)
Sam Streeter

Yes, it is indeed odd that he makes your PHOM over Koufax while being slotted ten places below him on your public ballot.

What's even more weird is that until just now I had never heard of him. I googled him and there is was... pitcher for the Pittsburgh Crawfords and in the Cuban League... I'm embarrassed to have completely missed him. :-)

Do we need a thread for him? I couldn't find one.
   12. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1886865)
Prelim ballot

Roberts
mendez
walters
trouppe
c jones
pierce
w brown
duffy
bresnahan
mullane
browning
cooper
grimes
willis
childs

mackey
williamson
oms
redding
newcombe

latham
gvh
koufax

I need more time with Koufax. My system does see the big three-year peak, of course, but it also sees not much else that's all that different in the best other three years than a lot of guys on the docket. Then it sees nothing for a long time, while, say, Rixey racks up value. Currently I see him as on the edge of the pitcher bubble. In, but real close to the line. He is manifestly the better candidate among Joss, Dean, or Wood, but I don't think he's Ed Walsh. Then again, I think he's a LOT better than Griffith whom I don't care for as a candidate, 12-team league or not.

To answer another question, I like Jennings a little better than Koufax. To answer yet another question: I do not vote for Pujols if he only got one PA for the next five years, but I do if he hits around the league average for that duration.

Now I get to ask one: Al Rosen versus Sandy Koufax?
   13. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#1886887)
Here's MLEs for Jim Gilliams' NgL career and MiL career. He started very young.

YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG   G  PA  AB   H  TB BB opssfws
---------------------------------------------------------------
1946 NL 17  2b .103 .150 .091   8  30  28   3   3  2 -31 -0.3
1947 NL 18  2b .231 .325 .304 129 520 457 105 139 64  68  9.6
1948 NL 19  2b .252 .351 .345 131 535 465 117 160 71  89 13.5
1949 NL 20  2b .265 .365 .386 132 541 467 124 180 74 102 16.8
1950 NL 21  2b .232 .329 .324 101 410 359  83 116 52  72  8.5
1951 NL 22  2b .278 .379 .367 152 627 540 150 198 88 102 19.3
1952 NL 23  2b .276 .376 .393 151 622 536 148 211 86 114 20.7 
   14. Gadfly Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#1886932)
8. Al Peterson-
Redding had a sore arm in 1913 (actually, he hurt his arm in Cuba during the 1912-13 winter season). He came back and had one of his best years in 1914. He did also serve in the military in 1918.

7 & 13. Doc-
There is a bit of evidence that Gilliam, like Puckett, was one year older than he is listed as being. I don't see him (Gilliam, that is) as a Hall of Fame or Merit guy in any case.
   15. TomH Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#1886947)
Q: Al Rosen versus Sandy Koufax

A: a LOT closer than most media/fnas would tell you (Al who?), but Sandy has small edges; slightly better peak, pennant and W.S. bonus. Koufax's bonus filler yrs approx evened out by Rosen's military/ minor league time.
   16. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#1886958)
I Will have Koufax at #2 and Rosen at #17, so I guess I prefer Koufax. However, I am one of Rosen's best friends (I believe he receives one vote a year from Mark Donelson). he has been on teh edge of my ballot but a part of me just cant' pull the trigger. That said, he should make an apperaance as we grind through the backlog in the 1970's.

Doc,

What is Pujols had one more great year and four insignificant years? That would make it six great years and four year in which he was a zero. Does that change things? If Albert Pujols suffered a tragic accident that ended his career He was be a STRONG ballot contender for me. I only say contedner because I am not sure how good he has actually been the last five seasons.
   17. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#1887062)
This indicates that shortstop was a slightly less valuable defensive position than second base.

The average offensive difference between 2B and SS was very slim during the 1930's and 1940's. It's clear that a new model for 2B defense was taking hold during the 1930's, and is the basis for James' assertion that the defensive spectrum shifted then. The gap between SS and 2B begins to widen again during the 1950's.

It may be that managers in the 1940's are overreacting to the new model, getting the latest at too high an offensive cost. Or maybe it's a wartime talent shortage issue. In any case, it's clear that the number of runs between replacement and average is a reflection of the low amount of offense being generated at 2B on average.
   18. jimd Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#1887082)
It also should be pointed out that whatever benefit Doerr gets from a higher amount of runs between replacement and average, Gordon benefits equally (as long as he's getting playing time) as does any other 2B-man of the period (such as Herman and Fox).
   19. Mike Webber Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#1887086)
Hey Doc C,

If you have already answered this, please excuse me for asking again, Does the new SOG book give you any new insights on Cool Papa Bell? Or is it about the same?

Thanks
   20. Daryn Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#1887088)
I have decided on Roberts at 2 and Koufax at 13. Sandy is a really special case, given how rare it is to be unreal for 6 years with nothing else on your resume. Theoretically, he sets a bad precedent for my idea of the HoM -- in reality few if anyone will match his career.

Bob Buhl is eligible this year. He is the answer to one of my favourite trivia questions -- who has the record for the worst seasonal oh-fer? He was O for 70 in 1962, racking up an impressive -74 OPS+.

Frank Bolling is featured in Roger Angell's essay Three for the Tigers.

A lot of big names on the list this year -- Piersall, Richardson, Stuart.
   21. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#1887100)
Daryn, are you saying that Robin Roberts wasn't as good as Mickey Welch? I would love to hear why.
   22. Jim Sp Posted: March 07, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#1887101)
This indicates that shortstop was a slightly less valuable defensive position than second base.

My system treats them as equally valuable in post-war baseball, if that's wrong then that would explain my overly high evaluations of the second basemen. However then it's hard to explain how Don Blasingame, Julian Javier, and Bobby Richardson kept their jobs for so long.
   23. Rusty Priske Posted: March 07, 2006 at 08:26 PM (#1887204)
Streeter is the biggest anomaly since I started this process. When I evaluate players, I do it compared to the other players available. I assume this is normal for most of us.

I do the same with my PHoM. The thing is, when I look at something like 'the best power hitter' or 'best defensive player' or "win shares' or whatever, they can finish quite a bit differently. I have had some occurences where a player slots in ahead of someone I am voting for in the HoM.

I have never had someone slot THIS far ahead of the HoM voting spot.

Since it only affects me (the P in PHoM :) ), I'm not screwing with it.
   24. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1887396)
Mike,

Yes, CP comes out about the same. In fact, in querying Chris, his MLEs came very close to replicating the walk rates Bell posted in the NgL. Bell's AVG and SLG are reported as .317/.425, and he had 144 SB in 865 games. Incidentally the power appears to very much be leg power: 158 doubles, 53 triples, 36 homers.

One guy whose hitting really surprised me, however, was Bullet Rogan. I recollect our discussions suggesting that he was a better than average hitter with speed, .338/.515 I do think there's a lot of leg power there though. Toss in 243 walks in 2022 AB and 104 steals and he's pretty awesome. If you straight up translate that at .87/.77, you get .294/.390; .90/.81 you're at .304/.417 with walks and speed.

But the best thing about Rogan is that his ledger includes games in 1933-1935, years for which i haven't been able to locate data on the Monarchs and especially not on Andy Cooper. So I wonder if this data bolsters Coop's case for the Coop and pushed him over the top for the committee?
   25. Mark Donelson Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#1887510)
However, I am one of Rosen's best friends (I believe he receives one vote a year from Mark Donelson).

Yeah, he used to, but my pitcher and 2B reassessments in recent years pushed him down a bit. Now he's right off the edge of the ballot, pretty much where you have him.

Not like this will surprise anyone, but Koufax will be my #2 this year as well.
   26. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#1887513)
More on why Koufax won't be in an elect-me spot on my ballot.

Al        Dean         Koufax
BEST        BEST         BEST
OPS
+ (rankERA+ (rank)  ERA+ (rank)
-------------------------------------
180  (1)    159 (3)      190  (1)
159  (3)    148 (2)      187  (1)
147  (4)    135 (3)      161  (2)
144  (3)    124 (6)      160  (3)
124 (16)    119 (9)      143  (3


Koufax takes it, but Rosen is closer than one might imagine. And so is Dean, perhaps. Rosen probably betters Dean, but I could see that argument going either way. Still the reason I bring up the comparison is to reinforce the point that Koufax is a borderline candidate not a slam dunk.

Rosen hasn't been supported at all by this electorate, nor Dean, but I read a lot about putting Sandy in an elect-me slot. I know the backlog is bunched up tightly, but is it so tight that Koufax earns elect-me votes while other peaksters get no support? I just don't see it. Down-ballot and mid-ballot support, of course, but caution is the watchword of the day when it comes to the top of this ballot.

Since we've now read a lot of positive "little things" like character, post-season, pitching in pain, etc... Let me throw out three small things that go against Koufax:

1. bbr reports a -26 OPS+ (!!!) and the SBE credits him with 14 RC, 0.50 RC/27, and a -20 RCAP.

2. Chris J. reports an RSI of 104.8 that he actually deflated by being in the lineup. Chris J. estimates the effect is worth five wins and losses to his record: 160-92 (.635) adjusted for RSI, 165-87 (.655)unadjusted.

3. He was terrible at holding runners. 61 runners stole against him, 32 were caught, and he picked off 2. I estimate that's worth about 6.9 runs* to Koufax. Sounds good, right? In fact, he's way below average at holding runners in the retrosheet era (1960-now). I've got a dataset that includes 181 pitchers, of whom 64 are lefties. The set includes any pitcher who hurled 3000 innnings in his career and pitched at any point after 1959, plus Koufax. He's the worst lefty starter at holding runnrs with more than 1000 innings (Haddix has 600 some innings accounted for and is the worst). The average lefty in the group saved 40.77 runs, so Sandy is 34 runs below average.
[*I used the same calculation as Michael Wolverton used for the Golden Gun articles and modified it to include pickoffs:
.16*SB - .49*(CS + PKO)]

I'll grant you that it's not a lot, but it's just little pieces of the puzzle and probably worth noting. But as a contrarian I felt obliged to put some prickholes in Sandy's mystique.
   27. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#1887550)
3. He was terrible at holding runners. 61 runners stole against him, 32 were caught, and he picked off 2. I estimate that's worth about 6.9 runs* to Koufax.

Wouldn't that already be part of his runs allowed though? It reminds me of Jim Kaat's fielding - if you give him extra credit for it, aren't you just double counting because his fielding should already impact his ERA & RA?
   28. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#1887554)
jschmeagol,

To answer your Pujols query. He's played five seasons and currently has 180 WS (32, 29, 41, 40, 38). His peak is a match for Dick Allen's. In my system. As I currently see it, Pujols needs to finish his career as the 18th best 1B ever. Will Clark occupies that spot now (sniggers...). Pujols's peak already exceeds Clark's by a little bit, but he's about 120 WS behind in the career side. Given the one-year/one-PA scenario, he would not be a HOF/HOM guy for me.

Now the next scenario. One more great year, then one-year/one-PA. Averaging his WS you get 36, so he pastes the league for another such year. That gives him 216. That's not going to do it for me.

I think he needs two more big years and then one 5-10 WS year before he gets over my in/out line. Or he can string along five 15 WS years. to make it.
   29. DavidFoss Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#1887558)
He was terrible at holding runners.

Isn't this already incorporated into his ERA? How many baserunners did he have actually? I'm on board with revealing the truth and debunking the mystique, but I'm not sure I care about this one.

#1 and #2 are informative, though.
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#1887562)
Chris, you're probably right about that. Still, it at least seems interesting to know about it.
   31. DavidFoss Posted: March 07, 2006 at 10:59 PM (#1887566)
Oh, Chris J. beat me to that point. :-)
   32. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 08, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#1887792)
David,

I estimate 1370 baserunners at first, 93 attempts, 2 picks. His rate of catching runners expressed as either a per opportunity ratio or per nine ratio is still at the bottom of the barrell. Floyd Bannister is worse per opportunity by .004 runs.

Just because I like this stuff... Steve Carlton and Greg Swindells are the greatest pickoff artists in the era in question. Carlton leads the group with 142 pickoffs, no one else is over 100. Lefty saved more career SB runs than anyone. Swindell despite many fewer innings has a better per opportunity rate of nabbing guys. Ray Burris appears to be the most effective righty at holding runners on.
   33. Daryn Posted: March 08, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#1887859)
Daryn, are you saying that Robin Roberts wasn't as good as Mickey Welch? I would love to hear why.

No, Welch is 3, Bell is 1. I project Bell to 3200 hits, which is very good in my career based system, even at a 100 OPS plus. Plus, I hear he was fast and could play a mean centerfield.
   34. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:04 AM (#1887881)
two pitchers elected last time, and 3 of last 4 have been hurlers. have we 'caught up?'
you be the judge...

HOM by pct at position, thru 1971 voting


HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct to be listed)

C (8.90) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (13.84) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

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

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

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

OF (40.62) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, Ward 11, White 10, JRobinson 10

SP (35.18) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

INF:: 55.20
OF::: 40.62
P:::: 35.18

1B + OF:::: 54.46

C-2B-3B-SS: 41.46
P + C:::::: 44.08

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

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.

Realistically, pitchers are a little shortchanged by treating games at any positions as equivalent (Griffith, for example, only gets a 95 because he played 25 games at other positions to 453 P appearances).

And to answer an earlier question, that 'missing 5 pct' for Griffith doesn't have any weight on the totals (it would be 4 pct OF, if anyone cares).
   35. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:40 AM (#1887907)
(updates with Wynn, Spahn, Griffith to a 1969 post)


Looking at my lists of regulars (154+ IP, or equivalent) per year, for Ps:
1880s - 3 to 6 HOM regular Ps per year, rising slowly.
1890-91 - 8 to 9 HOM Ps (basically a merging of the old guard and new).
1892-1900 - steady slide down to 4 HOM regular Ps from 1896-1900 (Griffith boosts this from 3 in each of those years).
1901-17 - steady climb, with 7 to 9 in all but one year from 1904-17.
1918-21 - WW I knocks us down to 3 in 1918, then we start climbing back.
1922-24 - back to 8 or 9 HOM regular Ps per year.
1925-32 - 10 to 12 HOM Ps hurling each season - the golden era?
1933-42 - steady slide, but maintaining 6 to 8 from 1935-42.
1943-46 - quick WW II drop is in play here, with 4-4-3-3 in these years.
1947-53 - Wynn and Spahn boost us to 5 or 6 in these years, except only 4 in 1951.
1954-56 - Wynn and Spahn join Lemon so far.
Everything else is too new to have even 3 yet.

We mostly had 3 to 6 from 1880 to 1900.
Then mostly 7 to 9 from 1901 to 1924.*
Then we had 10 to 12 from 1925 to 1932.
Then mostly 6 to 8 from 1933 to 1946.**
Then mostly 5 or 6 from 1947 to 1953 so far.

I'm ignoring the war years and their borders here, as that pretty much accounts for the troughs in each case.

The only returning top 10 P is Dick Redding, and Jose Mendez is the only other returning hurler with 200 vote-pts last year.
If both got in, they'd help boost 1911-16 to the 10 or 11 mark each of those years, with Redding also boosting the weak 1918-20 time frame.
1933-46 seems done - only Bucky Walters from that era drew 100 vote pts last year - so that group came up short compared to the first three decades of the 20th century (barely short so far in the earlier piece of that span, but moreso if Mendez and Redding get in).
Which isn't necessarily a cause for concern, of course.

Roberts is about to boost the 1949-53 part, but Whitey Ford would help only in the 1953 season if elected.
It will be interesting to see if we happen to settle into a pattern where there tend to be 6 to 8 HOMer SPs most years hence, or if we ever climb back to double digits.
   36. Chris Cobb Posted: March 08, 2006 at 04:50 AM (#1887987)
It will be interesting to see if we happen to settle into a pattern where there tend to be 6 to 8 HOMer SPs most years hence, or if we ever climb back to double digits.

It's virtually certain that we will reach double digits sometime in the late 1960s and continue through sometime in the late 1970s.

Active 1970-72: Seaver, Carlton, Perry, Niekro, Jenkins, Blyleven, Ryan, Palmer, Gibson, Marichal, Wilhelm, Bunning, Sutton, Kaat, John, Tiant.

Some of those guys are questionable, but no way we elect fewer than 10 of this 16, and given the forwards and backwards reach of their careers, we probably stay at 10 or more pitchers in the HoM from about 1963 to at least 1978.
   37. Howie Menckel Posted: March 08, 2006 at 02:50 PM (#1888305)
Well, Wilhelm and Bunning would only make it onto this list in 1970, and Ryan only in 1972, for instance - minimum 162 IP or 35 G. And there might be an injury year here or there as well.

But the basic point stands.
   38. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 08, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#1888451)
I don't know if I agree that Koufax is borderline, I would say 'barely safely in'. Or maybe 'bottom third'. Either way one reason he is going to be #2 on my ballot is that almost everyone else, even those in my PHOM, are also bottom third guys and some of them are borderliners. It isn't like I believe Cupid Childs, Hugh Duffy, and Dick Redding to be top tier HOFers.

As we churn through the backlog we should see more new guys finish in elect me spots simply because the backlog gets weaker and weaker. Therefore I am not so sure that it is going to be constructive to talk about how fast such players are elected when compared to similar players we were voting on in teh 30's and 40's.
   39. DL from MN Posted: March 08, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#1888794)
> 1933-42 - steady slide, but maintaining 6 to 8 from 1935-42.

I'm a bigger friend of Tommy Bridges than most. There is support for Bucky Walters (116 ERA+, 3100 IP, 6 top10 AdjERA+) in the results thread. I think we need another look at Bridges (126 ERA+ 2800 IP, 10 top10 AdjERA+) to help bump up this number.

There is an AL/NL difference between the Walters and Bridges but the biggest difference appears to be that Bridges got maybe one extra peak season out of the war while Walters got an extra 3. I guess what I'm asking is for someone to try to convince me Walters was better than Bridges when my look at the numbers doesn't agree.

Can someone finish the chart?

P 3 5 10 15 career
--------------------------
BW 102 149 216 249 250
BP 78 127 217 272 277
RR 100 157 260 333 362
SK 96 141 192 192 192
TB

I agree that Billy Pierce is underrated. He had 7 all star caliber seasons and 2 TSN pitcher of the year awards. Still I see peak voters turned off. What does it take to have a "peak"?
   40. Michael Bass Posted: March 08, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#1888826)
Not that he's in any way an HOMer, but I wanted to make mention of Del Crandall, who hasn't gotten much mention. He surprised me in my evaluation of him, with a decent career and prime (with appropriate catcher bonus). From 1953-1960, he was an above average hitter and a pretty nice defender, according to FRAA1. Definate top 100 player (on this ballot I mean), and deserving of mention at least, though not votes.
   41. Trevor P. Posted: March 08, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#1888885)
I'll admit that I'm just not feeling the Koufax love. I see three seasons where he was likely the best pitcher in baseball (1963, 1965, 1966) or, at worst, top three. I then see a 187 ERA+ in 223 innings - twenty less than the NL's tenth-ranked pitcher - and a 143 ERA+ in 184.1 innings.

I then see 1961, where Koufax was above average but hardly spectacular, and then a bunch of pretty uninspiring partial 100 ERA+ seasons. DERA suggests even that is marginally boosted by defense. Yes, there's also the postseason record, but philosophically I'm against giving Koufax any credit for that.

Hal Newhouser was a peak pitcher I could get behind. Koufax to me is Newhouser-lite with zero trans fats and flavoured with aspartame.
   42. TomH Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#1888973)
Koufax, by Win Shares, was tied for the best MLB pitcher in 1963 with Dick Ellsworth, both way ahead of all others.

1964: 5th in MLB.
1965: first by 3 WS over Marichal.
1966: first by 2 WS over Marichal.

Sandy won 3 MLB Cy Youngs, ALL of them unanimously. I attempted to award Cy Youngs by one-award-only in the modern era; my guess is that Roger would have the most with 5, Carlton 4. But as far as unanimous ones, I give Maddux 2 and Pedro either 1 or 2. Very clearly, nobody else would have had 3.

Snady won the MVP in 63, and finished in close 2nd in both 65 and 66. No other pitcher can claim as good a mark.

I can see why peak/prime lovers will have Koufax #2. Even though I won't.
   43. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#1889002)
Sure thing, it's my chart, and it's my adjustment scenario, so I should do it.
3   5  10  15 career
--------------------------
BW 102 149 216 249 250 
BP  78 127 217 272 277 
RR 100 157 260 333 362
SK  96 141 192 192 192 
TB  67 105 185 220 220 


My system sees Bridges putting up OK totals despite his excellent ERA+. In fact, it tends to reward innings leaders because they build up more win shares and he wasn't known for that. Anyway, Bridges' gets very little help from my all-time adjustments. At the beginning of his era, the league's best starters tended to pile up the WS, during his prime that trend eased a bit, then at the end of his career it started to return to the same pattern. So mostly I adjust him down but not by big amounts (he ends up 5 pts beneath his raw WS total of 225).

Koufax, for instance, sees a different pattern. In the beginning of his career, leading pitchers tended to accumulate fewer WS than their historical peers, so I adjust his WS upward until 1963, sometimes by as much as 15%. But starting in 1963, my adjustment plummets into discount range as the leading NL hurlers accumulated more and more WS. All told he loses two off his career.

Roberts (and Spahn), obviously benefits by my system. His massive innings totals and his effectiveness in them makes him very special within his era. He gets a lot of upward adjusting from my system, going from 339 to 362 (about 7% total upward) by being a somewhat unique pitcher in a time and league that de-emphasized the workhorse starter.

Looking at Walters (since he's been mentioned), on the whole he loses 8 WS from me, including a couple off his natty peak. On the whole his career coincided with a time when the NL's leading pitchers were accumulating more WS than their historical peers, presumably due to increased workload or higher concentration of innings in the top starters on a team.

On the other hand, if we looked forward to Dave Stieb, my system love, love, loves him. He adjusts upward 20% from 210 to 252. In fact, 1980s-2000s pitchers and pre-1920 pitchers are the whole reason I invented this system: because I felt like I needed a better idea of how these guys compared despite the illusions created by their workloads. So when I tell you that my system cranks out 252 for Stieb and has Welch at 199, I do mean to create direct comparisons between them based on the adjusted totals.

Hope that explains it. (he said and ran away.)
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#1889008)
Koufax, by Win Shares, was tied for the best MLB pitcher in 1963 with Dick Ellsworth, both way ahead of all others.

Since Ellsworth's WS/162 was higher, one would have to conclude that Win Shares sees him as the Cy Young, not Koufax.

Sandy won 3 MLB Cy Youngs, ALL of them unanimously.

Dodger Stadium helped him there in that department, of course.
   45. KJOK Posted: March 08, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#1889012)
Koufax certainly has 4 great seasons, but the problem is that from season #5 thru 15 or 20 he gives all of that extra value back in comparision with many other good pitchers.

I have him slotted just behind Tony Mullane, and just off ballot right now.
   46. DL from MN Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#1889153)
From 1933-1937 Bridges was consistently among the top 10 in innings pitched, ERA+, strikeouts, shutouts and complete games. I assume he was injured in 1938 but he had another outstanding season in 1939. I'm just puzzled why that isn't showing up in your 5 year peak numbers. He was a great pitcher _and_ a workhorse for 5 seasons. He was simply a great pitcher outside of those 5 years.

Looking at all-time adjustments, it appears that his era is underrepresented. I'm picking Bridges over Walters.
   47. DL from MN Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1889165)
> we looked forward to Dave Stieb, my system love, love, loves him

Which is ironic because the most similar pitcher to Tommy Bridges is Dave Stieb.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 08, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#1889204)
Looking at all-time adjustments, it appears that his era is underrepresented. I'm picking Bridges over Walters.

DL, are you factoring in Walter's offense and early playing career at third?

I don't have Bridges far behind Walters, but I think Bucky has the edge, even with WWII credit for Tommy. Of course, I had Bridges, but not Walters, on my ballot for quite a while until recently, so what do I know? :-)
   49. DL from MN Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:12 PM (#1889312)
Bucky Walters was a borderline replacement level hitter so his time at 3B doesn't really help him at all. I have Walters ranked at 36. FWIW I give deductions to pitchers based on how bad their bat is, Walters simply doesn't get any deductions.
   50. DL from MN Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1889352)
Bucky Walters was a borderline replacement level hitter so his time at 3B doesn't really help him at all. I have Walters ranked at 36. FWIW I give deductions to pitchers based on how bad their bat is, Walters simply doesn't get any deductions.
   51. Kelly in SD Posted: March 08, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#1889458)
To recap my balloting:
Career totals adjusted for season length, WWI and II, minor leagues (rare), and blacklisting. Peak totals - 3 straight years for hitters and a 50/50 combo of 3 straight and best any 3 years for pitchers. Prime totals - best any 7 years. Seasonal average - per 648 PA for hitters and 275 innings for pitchers. Bonus for being a league all-star by STATS or Win Shares. Bonus for being the best pitcher in a league. Positional bonus for catcher. These numbers are weighted, combined and compared to theoretical maximums. Pitchers are adjusted for changes in the game (Pre 60', pre-Lively Ball, and current - the system actually is very fair to post-1980 pitchers.) I try to have a fair mix of positions and time periods on my ballots.

I'm a nerd.

1972 Prelim:

PHOM Inductees: Robin Roberts, Sandy Koufax, and someone from the following: Redding, Wilbur Cooper, Medwick, Slaughter, Beckwith, Chance, Kiner, Boudreau, or Hack.

1. Robin Roberts: Only Warren Spahn (412) and Lefty Grove (391) have better career totals among post-Dead Ball pitchers (339).
Any 3 year Peak of 98 is bettered by Grove (112), Hubbell (102), Koufax (100) and Dean (99) for post-Dead Ballers. Bucky Walters has a 102 but I dock his 1944 season 5 WS for WWII.
7 year Prime of 199 is bettered by Grove (225) (and Bob Gibson's 202).
Best pitcher in NL (including ties) from 1950 to 1955. Best pitcher in Majors in 5 of those years - he missed in 1952 to Bobby Shantz by a hair.

2. Mickey Welch - Wrongfully ignored at the beginning of balloting. The weight of the evidence.

3. Charley Jones - Fantastic hitter from 1876-1885. I believe some voters are not taking into account that he was blacklisted for 2.16 seasons. Other voters may not be taking into account how bad his 1876 team was. His team that year was only a .138 team. It was one of the few teams that would be below anyone's replacement level.

4. Pete Browning - Fantastic hitter.

5. Hugh Duffy - Very good hitter and fantastic defender.

Yes, I have my Olde-Timey Teddy Bears.
But Jones ranks ahead of the following HoMer LFs in my system: Stovey, Magee, Kelley, Sheckard, Goslin, Wheat, Medwick, and Irvin.
Browning ranks ahead of the following HoMer CFs: Averill, Doby, and Ashburn and is comparable in peak, prime, and seasonal to Gore, Snider, Hines, and Hamilton.
Duffy is right behind Browning and I feel people have disregarded the fact his A+ outfield grade is made from less than half time in CF.

6. Charlie Keller - Great power and on-base skills. Credit for WWII - 1.75 seasons. 6 years where only Williams, DiMaggio, and Musial were better. Better than Kelley, Sheckard, Goslin, Wheat, Medwick, and Irvin. One of the biggest surprises in this whole experiment.

7. Quincy Troupe - Good hitting catcher who took walks and played forever at a high level. James says he was an All-Star in 23 different leagues, but gives no source. Cut that in half and that is still 11.5 times. Wow.

8. Bucky Walters - Moved down a spot because I am having trouble ranking Walters, Mendez, Willis, and Koufax. All four on my ballot with no Bull$hit dump and all four would be in the bottom half.
They are difficult to compare. Willis at the end of the one-league era and start of the two league era; Mendez in Cuba in leagues lacking great documentation; Walters played for a team without much historical oomph and without a long career and during a war; Koufax lacked much of any career, played in a great pitcher's park in part of great pitcher's era.
Walters Black Ink/Grey Ink: 48 / 152. Koufax: 78 / 151. Both had great defensive support by Chris J.’s measure. Koufax had significantly better run support: 104.76 to 100.06 run support index.

9. Alejandro Ohms

10. Cupid Childs - Dominant second baseman of the 1890s. There is no real competition. He was better than HoMer Bid McPhee most every year. There were very few infielders to do well with WS in the 1890s, but Childs did.

11 – 13. Vic Willis, Sandy Koufax, and Jose Mendez. Willis – best pitcher in Majors in 1899, best in NL in 1901, 2nd best in NL in 1902, 1906 and 4 other top 10 years. Koufax – best pitcher in Majors in 1963 (tie w/ Ellsworth), 1965, 1966. Tied for 3rd in NL in 1961. Tied for 4th in NL in 1964. Mendez had a Koufax-ian peak 5 years from 1910 to 1914 with his performances against white teams as a bonus. Walters – best pitcher in majors 1939, best in NL in 1940, 1944, 2nd best in NL in 1941. 5th in NL in 1942.
I am thinking of ranking them Mendez, Koufax/Walters, Willis and they would be between 8 and 13.

14. Willard Brown.

15. Tommy Leach. 5 times in the top 4 players in NL, plus 2 others in top 7. If you like defense and you believe 3rd base was more important of a defensive position in the Dead-Ball Era, I urge to take a look at him. Also, he was an excellent defensive CF’er. A key, along with Fred Clarke and Honus Wagner to Pittsburgh’s great teams in the first 15 years of the century.
   52. Jim Sp Posted: March 09, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#1889691)
Congratulations Kelly in SD!
   53. Tiboreau Posted: March 09, 2006 at 05:29 AM (#1889984)
Very preliminary ballot . . .

Robin Roberts
Dobie Moore
Sandy Koufax - very close to Moore, may switch the two
Hugh Duffy
Jose Mendez - becoming more comfortable with his peak
Cupid Childs
Alejandro Oms - Vote for the black Enos Slaughter!
Bucky Walters
Willard Brown
Joe Gordon
Dizzy Dean - Koufax, and another look at Mendez, raises Dean by association
Bobby Doerr - too similar to Gordon for the gap I had between them
Edd Roush - Don't forget the shortened WWI seasons!
George Sisler - see Roush
Billy Pierce - still evaluating, may be Waddell instead

And congratulations to Clark Griffith!
   54. Paul Wendt Posted: March 09, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#1890117)
Bob Buhl

But oh those bases on balls (5). Hank Aguirre hit 2 for 75 that year but achieved OPS+ -81 thanks to taking only one freebie. Unfortunately, he developed his batting eye in the next few years (the big strike zone new in 1963 didn't hurt these guys) and then hit 3 for 12 with a triple in his last four seasons, tying Buhl at career OPS+ -38.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aguirha01.shtml
   55. Howie Menckel Posted: March 09, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#1890213)
162 IP minimum, listing all 100 ERA+ seasons:

SKoufax 190 87 61 60 43 24 02

Roberts 152 41 36 36 35 27 23 23 22 21 07 06

BPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03

Walters 168 52 46 40 27 23

BoLemon 144 39 36 34 33 13 12 08 03 01

Ferrell 146 35 33 30 26 24 24 06

EpRixey 144 43 42 39 36 29 24 15 15 13 10 09 09

BGrimes 152 44 38 36 31 23 08 08 08 03

EarWynn 154 42 36 35 26 18 15 10 09 03

SKoufax top 10 in IP: 1 1 3 4
Roberts top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 7 9
BPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
Walters top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 4 6 6 8 8
BoLemon top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 10
Ferrell top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 3 4
EpRixey top 10 in IP: 1 3 3 3 4 7 8 8 9 9
BGrimes top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 3 3 4 7 9 9 9
EarWynn top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 7

Wynn misses ages 25 season, probably deserves a 'bonus 103' or so.
Lemon 82 OPS+, Walters 69, Wynn 54, Koufax -26 (!)

I was a leader of the Rixey parade, so Roberts' superiority on both fronts is a big plus.
I think this also bodes well for Koufax in my book. He has the four of the top 6 ERA+s on the chart, two of them by a ridiculous margin. His IP numbers are weak, but not so far behind a guy like Ferrell.
Walters fares pretty well here; he has his 140 ERA+ in war-weakened 1945 in only 168 IP, but he also does not get credit for 1946 (151 IP, 131 ERA+). I don't like the Lemon-Ferrell types much; I prefer the Rixey model, but if you did like those, Walters maybe has a case.
Pierce blows most of these guys away; you have to deduct for a lack of 'workhorseness,' but he was a helluva pitcher - up there with Roberts except for the (major) innings discrepancy.

A different chart
162 IP minimum, listing all 100 ERA+ seasons:

Koufax 190 87 61 60 43 24 02
AdJoss 205 60 51 49 41 37 30 30 24
DiDean 159 48 35 24 19 14

Koufax top 10 in IP: 1 1 3 4
AdJoss top 10 in IP: 2 5
DiDean top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 3

Koufax is just the right blend of some workhorse IP seasons like Dean and incredible ERA+s like Joss - better than each. I have no problem enshrining Koufax but not the other two.

I'm somewhat of a prime/career guy (Beckley is my top holdover for years), but Koufax crushes many of our HOM pitchers. I agree that he has no business in a "top 10 all-time pitchers" conversation as the average fan might believe, but he's a HOMer.

I realize an ERA+/top 10 IP combo is not all-encompassing. But it is a good filter to help see if we're missing anyone.
   56. DL from MN Posted: March 09, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#1890246)
I'll throw my favorite toy in the list since I try to vote prime also

162 IP minimum, listing all 100 ERA+ seasons:
TBridges 147 44 42 40 40 40 37 20 19 15
(Also a 134 in 148IP, 109 in 151IP and 92 in 173IP)

top 10 in IP: 2 2 5 8 10
   57. Brent Posted: March 11, 2006 at 05:49 AM (#1893326)
I’ve periodically updated a list of HoMers organized by the decade in which each player’s career was “centered.” (I owe the idea to a post by Devin McCullen on the Goose Goslin thread about 30 elections ago.)

I acknowledge that assigning each player to a single decade may not be appropriate for all purposes, since the careers of many of these players span two or more decades. Nevertheless, the simplicity of this approach can help us get a rough snapshot of how we are doing with respect to treating all eras fairly.

I’ve included parenthetical lists of the viable candidates (defined as players who received at least 100 points in the last election, with the top 10 candidates shown in italics).

1860s - 1 (Pearce)

1870s - 9 (Anson, Barnes, McVey, Pike, Spalding, Start, Sutton, White, Wright) (P, C-2, 1B-2, 2B, 3B, SS, CF)

1880s - 17 (Bennett, Brouthers, Caruthers, Clarkson, Connor, Ewing, Galvin, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, Keefe, Kelly, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Richardson, Stovey, Ward) (P-5, C-2, 1B-2, 2B, SS-2, LF-2, CF-2, RF)
{Candidates – Browning, Welch, C Jones}

1890s - 15 (Burkett, Dahlen, Davis, Delahanty, Grant, Griffith, Hamilton, Jennings, Keeler, Kelley, McPhee, Nichols, Rusie, Thompson, Young) (P-4, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Van Haltren, Beckley, Duffy, Childs}

1900s - 16 (M Brown, Clarke, J Collins, Crawford, Flick, R Foster, Hill, G Johnson, Lajoie, Mathewson, McGinnity, Plank, Sheckard, Wagner, Wallace, Walsh) (P-6, 2B, 3B, SS-3, LF-2, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Waddell, Bresnahan, Leach}

1910s - 15 (Alexander, Baker, Carey, Cobb, E Collins, Groh, Jackson, W Johnson, Lloyd, Magee, Santop, Speaker, Torriente, Wheat, Williams) (P-3, C, 2B, 3B-2, SS, LF-2, CF-4, RF)
{Candidates – Redding, Méndez, Cravath, Doyle}

1920s - 14 (Beckwith, Charleston, Coveleski, Faber, W Foster, Frisch, Goslin, Heilmann, Hornsby, Rixey, Rogan, Ruth, Vance, Wilson) (P-6, 2B-2, 3B-2, LF, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Mackey, Sisler, Moore, Sewell, Oms, Roush, Grimes}

1930s - 28 (Averill, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Medwick Ott, Paige, Ruffing, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells) (P-8, C-4, 1B-5, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-2, CF-2, RF-2)
{Candidates – Bell, B Johnson}

1940s – 14 (Appling, Boudreau, DiMaggio, Feller, Hack, Irvin, Leonard, Mize, Musial, Newhouser, Reese, Robinson, Slaughter, Williams) (P-2, 1B-2, 2B, 3B, SS-3, LF-2, CF-2, RF)
{Candidates – Doerr, W Brown, Gordon, Walters, Trouppe, Elliott}.

1950s – 8 (Ashburn, Berra, Campanella, Doby, Lemon, Snider, Spahn, Wynn) (P-3, C-2, CF-3)
{Candidates – Kiner, Minoso, Pierce, Fox; Newly eligible or not yet eligible – Roberts, Ford, Mantle, Mathews, Banks}

We've noted in the past the overrepresentation of the 1930s. The news this time is that the 1950s appear to be on track to be the lowest represented decade since the 1870s. From the 1950s, so far 8 HoMers have been honored and I’ve listed 5 strong candidates who will be eligible soon; if all are elected, the decade will be represented by 13 HoMers. Have I missed anyone? (Mays and Wilhelm will be counted in the 1960s by this method.) Furthermore, none of the 1950s candidates in the backlog were in the top 10 last election (though Kiner and Minoso were in the top 15).

When combined with the low number of HoMers from the 1940s, it appears that the two most recent decades will be underrepresented.
   58. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 11, 2006 at 07:09 AM (#1893382)
I don't know if the 1940's and 50's will be underrepresented as much as teh 1930 overrepresented. You have 15 in the 10's, 14 in the 20', 28 in the 30's, 14 in the 40's and a projection of 13 in the 1950's. To me the 1930's seems like the anamoly.

Of course overrpresented isn't really the right term. As I look at that list, 26 of those 28 are in my PHOM. Ruffing will never get there but Bill Terry is actually pretty close. I think that while we should think about if we have reached a limit with that decade (I don't know if any plaeyr is in my top 20, assuming Walters is a 40's guy) I am nt sure we made that many msitakes. It just seems to have been a very plentiful decade for talent. Maybe the 1930's, and not the 1950's, should be called the golden age of MLB baseball.
   59. favre Posted: March 11, 2006 at 11:36 AM (#1893469)
I’m not sure if anyone has talked about this before—I did mention this on the last ballot—but Chris’s projections for Alejandro Oms are very close to career numbers of George Van Haltren:

Career WS

Oms (projected): 340
Van Haltren: 344

Career OPS+/PA
Oms (projected): 125/9056
Van Haltren: 122/8979

Van Haltren’s WS numbers are unadjusted to schedule, which would give him more, of course. OTOH, my understanding—such as it is—is that WS gives too much credit to 19th Cent. pitchers. I must admit, seven hundred innings of slightly below averge pitching doesn’t particularly excite me. Forty of Van Haltren’s WS come from pitching, which puts him at 304; with schedule adjustments, he’s probably close to Oms 340 without the pitching.

The similarity in numbers makes sense, of course, because they were similar type of players. Both were good rather than great fielders (Van Haltren has a B+ rating by WS; the discussion thread puts Oms at an A-/B+). Neither had a real high peak, so their argument rests on being very good players for a long time. Oms had a little more power, Van Haltren had more stolen bases.

Haltren’s tops OPS+ is 139. That was in the 1891 AA, but he also had seasons of 138 and 136 in the 1896-97 NL. Chris projects Oms to four OPS+ seasons in the 140s ( 147, 144, 144, 141); Dr. C’s projections give him a couple of seasons over 150.

Van Haltren was on 21 ballots in the last election; Oms was on 12. I imagine one reason for that would be the eras: Van Haltren played in an underrepresented era in a very high quality league which was the best available. Oms era is probably overrepresented, and while the Cuban leagues were excellent, I don’t know if anyone would argue that they were better than the majors.

I myself had Oms 9th in the last election, and Van Haltren 21st. I give Oms a boost for his peak, and I’m not enthralled with Van Haltren’s pitching. So I can see having a little bit of distance between the two. Still, if you are a Van Haltren voter, you might want to take another look at Alejandro.
   60. favre Posted: March 11, 2006 at 01:38 PM (#1893474)
Correction: Based on Brent's list, Oms era--the 1920s--is not overrepresented.
   61. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 11, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#1893567)
I wonder how many people were like, Favre. With schedule adjustments (which makes his peak look better as well) I have GVH slightly above Oms. However, GVH was 14th on my ballot in 1971 and Oms was 19th, so they are very close.
   62. Paul Wendt Posted: March 11, 2006 at 05:15 PM (#1893581)
From the 1950s, so far 8 HoMers have been honored and I’ve listed 5 strong candidates who will be eligible soon; if all are elected, the decade will be represented by 13 HoMers. Have I missed anyone? (Mays and Wilhelm will be counted in the 1960s by this method.)

Brent, I don't think this count by decade adds anything to the annual count by OCF(?).

I don't know the career "center" concept. I would have guessed Ernie Banks 1960s. Anyway, the coincidence of Williams and Musial 1940s, Mays Wilhelm Aaron and maybe Banks 1960s, underlies any 1950s shortage.

If the eight italic candidates go in, the count by decade will be
1; 9-17-16;
16-16-16-29-16;
13
with Kiner, Minoso, Pierce and Fox the leading 1950s candidates.
   63. OCF Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#1893851)
...the annual count by OCF(?).

Not me. Try Howie Menckel. His post #35 in this thead is a pitchers-only version.
   64. Brent Posted: March 12, 2006 at 04:06 AM (#1893916)
jschmeagol wrote:

I don't know if the 1940's and 50's will be underrepresented as much as teh 1930 overrepresented.

Yes, the most prominent feature of these data is that the number of HoMers from the 1930s is unusually large. That point has been noted before, whereas the small number from the 1950s, as far as I am aware, hasn't yet been noted. By comparison, many voters repeatedly noted that the 1890s were short on HoMers (until the recent elections of Jennings and Griffith worked to correct the imbalance). Yet, assuming that all 5 1950s candidates are elected, the 1950s will have as few HoMers as the 1890s had prior to the inductions of Jennings and Griffith. Like the 1890s, the 1950s were a period of contraction with the decline and ultimate disappearance of the Negro Leagues.

Paul Wendt wrote:

Brent, I don't think this count by decade adds anything to the annual count by OCF(?).

The intention is not to add, but to subtract, to simplify. Hopefully by simplifying we are eliminating more noise than signal, thereby making it easier to see patterns. At a minimum, patterns may become evident sooner - with Howie Menckel's comprehensive approach, we'd need to wait at least 10-15 more elections before there'd be enough information on the 1950s to decide whether the decade might be underrepresented.

The "center" concept is pretty simple; I simply ask the question, in which decade did the player have the most value? For 90 percent of players, the answer is unambiguous. Banks was an exception; win shares shows him with 163 during the 1950s, 164 during the 60s. I decided to use his peak (1955-59) as the tie-breaker, figuring that his 1950s seasons at shortstop would be more important to his HoM case than the seasons at 1B, but I could be persuaded to go the other way.

This presentation is not intended to prove anything, merely to serve as a diagnostic in asking whether we're truly being fair to all eras.

You're right that many players from other decades were particularly strong in the 50s (Williams and Musial from the 40s, Mays, Wilhelm, and Aaron from the 60s). But every decade has overlap with the stars of adjacent decades. Were the 1950s that different from, say the 1920s, when Cobb, Speaker, Johnson, Collins, and Alexander were important in the first half of the decade, while Gehrig, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, and Waner were important in the last half?

Another way to look at it that is less dependent on the dividing lines is to look at pairs of adjacent decades. Here are the totals from the above list:

1870s-80s: 26
1880s-90s: 32
1890s-00s: 31
1900s-10s: 31
1910s-20s: 29
1920s-30s: 42
1930s-40s: 42
1940s-50s: 27 (assuming 5 more 1950s electees)

Again, the period centered in the 1930s stands out with very high totals, and the 1940s-50s appear somewhat underrepresented--the smallest number since the 1870s-80s.
   65. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 12, 2006 at 06:35 AM (#1894119)
However, I don't know of any other candidates that we are really underrating in the 1950's. Maybe Pierce, maybe Minoso, maybe Fox, but who else? Colavito? Hodges? Gilliam? Mcdougal? Rizzuto?

I guess there are two explanations...

1) The 1950's was a decade with fewer great players

or

2) The 1950's, being an era of contraction, was the stronger era than any surrounding decade and thus it was harder to stand out in that time period.

Of course, it will be interesting to know what the 1950-60's #'s look like but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a little of both. It was a decade of contraction and maybe this is something we need to take into account. It's entirely possible that this depresses the numbers of a player like Minoso or maybe even a Rizzuto or Fox. However, it also looks like it is merely a period with fewer great players, even if the level of league strength was no weaker than before.

Isn't this also the same time period that professional football begins to take hold? Could that have anything to do with this? Of course the two sports require different skill sets, but some things are the same. Is it possible that while there was contraction, there were also young athletes playing for the Browns, Giants, and Colts that would have been playing baseball. This is something I thought of as I was about to hit submit and something that I am only bringing up as a discussion topic, not something I am really willing to argue strongly for. However, we are about to hit a period where baseball actually has some strong contenders for the top sport in the country.
   66. yest Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:21 AM (#1894146)
another reason which I mentioned on previos threads with the same discucion is WWII
   67. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: March 12, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#1894243)
What's the difference between the following two players?

Batting (career line adjusted to .267/.334/.427 league average)
Player A: .269/.343/.452 109 OPS+
Player B: .272/.375/.460 120 OPS+ (OBP-heavy)

A: 9051 PA
B: 9118 PA

Run Differential (Career R - (SLOB x Career PA))
A: 1355 - 1139 = 216
B: 1296 - 1292 = 4

Offensively, B has an edge on A, at least at the plate. Total career value is similar given their closeness in career length. A would appear to be the more valuable base runner.

Win Shares Career
A: 328 - 24.65/162 G - 23.56/650 PA
B: 339 - 25.88/162 G - 24.17/650 PA

Win Shares Peak/Prime (non-consecutive 3/5/7/10, consecutive 3/5/7/10)
A: 87/139/189/246
B: 96/146/192/257

A: 86/122/169/228
B: 91/127/171/232

Win Shares sees these two players as pretty close, with B an eyelash better.

WARP3 Career
A: 78.9 - 5.93/162 G - 5.67/650 PA
B: 89.1 - 6.80/162 G - 6.35/650 PA

WARP3 Peak/Prime (non-consecutive 3/5/7/10, consecutive 3/5/7/10)
A: 22.1/35.4/47.6/60.0
B: 28.5/41.7/53.5/69.7

A: 19.9/29.5/39.8/52.6
B: 24.5/35.4/44.7/58.6

WARP3 sees B as clearly the better player, so value is in the eye of the beholder (the metric that you choose).

However, on defense, A has more value as a Gold Glove-caliber defender on the right side of the defensive spectrum, while B is a Gold Glove-caliber defender on the far left of the spectrum. Credit goes to A for putting up his career stats for offensive and total value given that he played more difficult defensive positions.

Both players are from the Dead Ball Era, which places a greater premium on their defense. Both players are direct contemporaries and appear as each other's most similar player.

Player A languishes well off of the ballot. Player B made the HOM on his 12th vote. Why?
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#1894272)
1930s - 28 (Averill, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Medwick Ott, Paige, Ruffing, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells) (P-8, C-4, 1B-5, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-2, CF-2, RF-2)
{Candidates – Bell, B Johnson
}

It's arguable that Greenberg may have wound up in the 1940s section if WWII hadn't intervened.

As for Hartnett, it's surprising to see that he was more productive in his thirties than he was in his twenties. Not your typical player of that time.
   69. Brent Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#1894284)
jschmeagol and yest,

I agree that WWII had important effects on career development of the 1940s-50s generation, though I'm not sure we fully understand yet who was most affected. (My guess is that the most affected age groups were those who were still developing as ballplayers, i.e., those who were ages 18-24 during the war. But that's just an hypothesis.)

On the other hand, I doubt football had much impact on the supply of players - baseball still payed much better than football. However, television (and to a lesser extent, football) certainly cut into baseball attendance.

James,

I think you've answered your own question:

Win Shares sees these two players as pretty close, with B [Sheckard] an eyelash better [than Leach].

WARP3 sees B as clearly the better player,...
   70. Brent Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#1894287)
payed

Dang, I'm going to have to start running this stuff through a spell-check first.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:33 PM (#1894290)
What's the difference between the following two players?

None, AFAIK, since both players never made my ballot, James. ;-)

BTW, I didn't mind trying to figure out who the players were as I was reading your post, but it would have been nice if you had added their names at the very end. I only have so many hours in the day to deal with, you know. :-)
   72. Howie Menckel Posted: March 12, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#1894301)
I had Sheckard 10th when he was elected in 1930, and Leach 13th.
So don't look at me, lol.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#1894308)
I wrote elsewhere that we seem NOT, in the end, to have made any particular allowances for the generation of players who fought in WWII. Anybody want to claim that we did? I mean, what player if any who was NOT a HoMer based on his actual record, is or is likely to become a HoMer because of credit for years missed to the war? I can't think of one.
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#1894310)
Oh, and as a P.S.

What's the difference between these two pitchers? One generated 134 posts in the week he became eligible, the other 12?

In most cases, I would assume Mr. 134 was a HoMer and Mr. 12 was not.
   75. DavidFoss Posted: March 12, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#1894332)
In most cases, I would assume Mr. 134 was a HoMer and Mr. 12 was not.
Page 1 of 1 pages


I would assume there was some issue with the 134 post guy that needed discussion. Perhaps our busiest thread was the Biz Mackey thread and he's not even in yet.

The 12 post guy is either a total shoo-in or completely off ballot. (In terms of ballot comments, its the inner circle guys that get the least press there.) That's too bad, because as good of a candidate as Roberts is, I don't know that much about him.
   76. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 12, 2006 at 05:24 PM (#1894352)
David's explanation is spot on.
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: March 12, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1894372)
Roberts has gotten some ink on the Koufaxian threads. But since almost everyone seems to agree that Roberts was better, it's hard to have a one-sided debate.
   78. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 12, 2006 at 05:57 PM (#1894377)
John, James, whomever you are,

I do want to point out that Lecah spent half of his career at a position that wasn't as importnat today and may even be considered teh left side of teh defensive spectrum (depends on if you think deadball era 2B was more important than dead ball era CF). Defeinitely in teh middle. Throw in how that WS tends to overrated inside baseball era CFers a tad and leach does look a little less impressive.

In both circumstances, Sheckard had the higher peak and he has the higher peak in my peak system (WS gained over 25 in any seasons) as well. So there are those of us that are peak centered would have preferred Sheckard, the two careers being roughly equal.

However, your point stands. Maybe we should take another look at Leach. Once upon a time (in my days as a high consensus voter) I had Leach as high as #6. However, when I adjusted his number to fit the fact that he split his time between 3B and CF he fell down a bit and is now in the 30's (plenty of new candidtes above him as well, he didn't take that much of a tumble). So I will look over him again, but I am not sure that I am really going to give him much of a boost.

Brent,

You are probably right at this point in time. Thing is by the time that football and basketball may be taking talented players from baseball, the pool of players has reached a size where the overall talent of MLB hasnt' really changed. The 1950's (few latinos, not fully integrated, etc.) may have been the only decade where football ascent and a less efficient player development system collided. So if it ever happens, I think it would happen in the 1950's and maybe soem through the 1960's.
   79. Paul Wendt Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#1894453)
> Brent, I don't think this count by decade adds anything to
> the annual count by OCF(?).

The intention is not to add, but to subtract, to simplify. Hopefully by simplifying we are eliminating more noise than signal, thereby making it easier to see patterns.


I believe that allocating players to decades adds noise.

. . .
You're right that many players from other decades were particularly strong in the 50s (Williams and Musial from the 40s, Mays, Wilhelm, and Aaron from the 60s). But every decade has overlap with the stars of adjacent decades. Were the 1950s that different from, say the 1920s, when Cobb, Speaker, Johnson, Collins, and Alexander were important in the first half of the decade, while Gehrig, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, and Waner were important in the last half?


The annual count eliminates this class of stumpers (questions that stumps the experts).
   80. Daryn Posted: March 12, 2006 at 07:23 PM (#1894471)
I had Sheckard 10th when he was elected in 1930, and Leach 13th.
So don't look at me, lol.


I had Sheckard 7 and Leach 8 in 1930, both behind Bresnahan, who is 15th on this year's ballot. I have Leach in my mid-20s now. They are similar value players.
   81. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 13, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#1895340)
I think it's possible that NgLs play a big part in the lack of electees from the 1940s. The fracturing effect of integration probably has the made the careers of some NgL players look less meritorious than they might have been. Bus Clarkson, Willard Brown, Marvin Williams, Luke Easter, Dave Barnhill, Max Manning, Hilton Smith, Minnie Minoso, Artie Wilson, Hank Thompson, and Leon Day are only some of the guys whose perceptions may have been changed or at least obscured by the helter-skelter nature of integration.

What do I mean by this? Well, a couple things.

1) Many of these guys didn't get a clean shot at the majors, so we don't have any data about them against big-league competition.

2) Many of these guys got un-clean shots at the majors and didn't produce in very short stints or in situations where they were unlikely to stick, successful or not.

3) Many of these guys hopped around various minor and international leagues to make their living, following the best offer. The lack of continuity increases the level of doubt we have in their translations because some of the leagues were low-level or were of unknown quality or don't have available league-wide averages.

4) The NgLs of the time were themselves of varying quality due to the draft, the lure of lucre in the Carribean, let alone due to the talent drain from white baseball.

5) Entering high-level white baseball, which played a slightly more down-tempo and a much more race-unfriendly version of baseball probably required a big adjustment (see Doby's 1947, Avila's 1948-1950, Minoso's 1948-1950, etc). This probably dampens some portion of the first season for every black player entering whiteball. Add to this that blackball had a very loose discipline and contractural structure, and you've got the real possibility of culture shock.

Put all this together with the general uncertainty out there about how to evaluate Negro League baseball players and their stats, and I think it's a pretty reasonable reason for the lack of 1940s inductees. Strangely, the same is true for the 1910s in a way. Dick Redding and Jose Mendez have certainly not been helped by the lack of data and the lack of certainty about the available data. Toss WW1 on top of that, and you've got a recipe for non-election. Spot Poles' candidacy may also have been killed off by this factor.
   82. karlmagnus Posted: March 13, 2006 at 01:23 AM (#1895668)
I would argue in reverse; the NgL's are the primary reason for our overrepresentation of the 1930s. It's no good throwing out the demographic argument that there should be about 15 NgL HOMers and then wondering why the demographics are uneven; if you have 30 NgL Homers, mostly from the 1930s, the 1930s will be overrepresented.

As for underrepresentation, it's the 1950s that are underrepresented not the 1940s, so the NgLs have nothing to do with it. I would argue that we can correct for WW2 as much as we like; there is a generation of players who were 17-20 at the outbreak of WW2 and who never had a baseball career because they were killed/severely injured/traumatised in it. Those guys would have been 1950s stars, and no amount of "correcting" will bring them back.
   83. sunnyday2 Posted: March 13, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#1895692)
It's possible that '30s MLers are over-represented, not the NeLers.

I also agree that WWII has suppressed representation of the cohort that fought in it, whether they were '40s or '50s guys.

But I also agree that the transition from NeL to full integration that took place 1945-1960 negatively affected some black players of great ability.

Who is under or over-represented cannot really be determined. I mean, the '30s, yes. And the '40s and '50s under-represented, yes. But what specific demographic group or what specific players does that refer to? No way to tell.

I'd have no trouble eliminating a couple ML HoFers from the '30s and a couple NeL HoFers from the '30s, then adding a couple guys (one black, one white) from the '40s and a couple (one black, one white) from the '50s. This feels right to me, conceptually. But it comes down to players, guys with names and records, I would have to think about it for awhile.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 13, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#1895695)
I would argue in reverse; the NgL's are the primary reason for our overrepresentation of the 1930s.

Ray Brown, Martin Dihigo, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, and Willie Wells are the players from the 1930's. I know you weren't crazy about Suttles (I wasn't either, for that matter), but the other guys look prett solid, don't you think?
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 13, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#1895696)
It's possible that '30s MLers are over-represented, not the NeLers.

That appears to be more the case, Marc.
   86. karlmagnus Posted: March 13, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#1895725)
There were more than that NgLs from the 30s, weren't there? I had Dihigo and Wells on the cusp, also Beckwith, who's surely 30s. Plus we're inevitably going to elect Mackey and Bell, neither of whom I think should be anywhere near the place.

I think the same effect of fattening the totals artificially happens for the 1910s and 1920s, where it's disgusied by us maybe being a ML player or two short -- I would argue for Sisler and Cicotte.
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 13, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#1895742)
I had Dihigo and Wells on the cusp, also Beckwith, who's surely 30s.

Beckwith was surely 1920's, since he had his best years and more of them during the Roaring Twenties.

Plus we're inevitably going to elect Mackey and Bell, neither of whom I think should be anywhere near the place.

For the most part, I don't disagree with that point (though we're certainly not talking horrible choices here, either).

Looking over both MLers and NeLers, I see more of the former that I would rather "remove" than the latter. Mackey and Bell would balance that out, however.
   88. Tiboreau Posted: March 13, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#1895799)
Ray Brown, Martin Dihigo, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, and Willie Wells ate the players from the 1930's.

Mmm, tasty!

There were more than that NgLs from the 30s, weren't there? I had Dihigo and Wells on the cusp, also Beckwith, who's surely 30s. Plus we're inevitably going to elect Mackey and Bell, neither of whom I think should be anywhere near the place.

Beckwith only played in the early half of the '30s, and was definitely on the downslope by then. Mackey's credited with playing through the majority of both the '20s & '30s, but was only a shadow of his former self in the '30s (although depression-inspired contraction makes it look steeper than it probably is).

Jud Wilson is an example of the problems with decade-by-decade comparisons, I think. Playing in both the '20s & '30s, Boojum is credited with 199 WS in the former decade and 176 in the latter. I guess he'd be considered from the '20s (his five-year consecutive peak was 1925 - 29), but he had several good seasons in the '30s as well.
   89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 13, 2006 at 02:52 AM (#1895845)
Mmm, tasty!

lol

I'll correct that shortly.

Mackey's credited with playing through the majority of both the '20s & '30s, but was only a shadow of his former self in the '30s (although depression-inspired contraction makes it look steeper than it probably is).

That's true. He's definitely a '20s guy.

Jud Wilson is an example of the problems with decade-by-decade comparisons, I think. Playing in both the '20s & '30s, Boojum is credited with 199 WS in the former decade and 176 in the latter. I guess he'd be considered from the '20s (his five-year consecutive peak was 1925 - 29), but he had several good seasons in the '30s as well.

Wilson also created his Win Shares from the twenties in less seasons, so I definitely would slot him for that decade, Tiboreau.
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 13, 2006 at 02:54 AM (#1895848)
BTW, spurred on by Jeff M, I have listed on our Important Links page a link to Hall of Merit voters past or present at the BTF Wiki site.
   91. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: March 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM (#1896620)
It's been a while since I've voted, but I finally think I have a handle on my ballot. Basically, I am now trying to approach this exercise as if I am picking a 25-man roster. What this means is that I have positional quotas: 5 OF, 3 CI, 3 MI, 2 C, 2 UT, 10 P. I am a peak/prime voter for hitters using Win Shares. For pitchers, it's a bit trickier. To start, I look at the careers of the eligible pitchers and compare them to the pitchers in the HOM. Bob Lemon is my personal in/out line -- a pitcher has to be better than Lemon to get a place on my ballot. Lemon and the above-average, long-career family of Faber, Keefe, Ruffing and Rixey represent the bottom rung of legitimate HOM pitchers. For Negro Leaguers, I consider the posted stats and MLEs, as well as the subjective opinions of the players. Also, I give full credit to players who missed time because of World War II. Also, there are a lot a "matched pairs" on my ballot: Mendez/Redding, Fox/Leach, Pierce/Leonard.

1972 PRELIMINARY BALLOT

1. Robin Roberts - Easy HOM pick as a pitcher. Ranks tenth all-time among major league pitchers to date.
2. Charlie Keller - With war credit, "King Kong" had six straight MVP-caliber seasons with two more All-Star level seasons to start his career. Ranks seventh all-time among major league left fielders to date, which puts him ahead of nine other HOMers at the position.
3. Sandy Koufax - Comparable to Ed Walsh for career shape and high peak. Ranks around the middle of the group of major league HOM pitchers.
4. Minnie Minoso - Ranks this high because of greater confidence in his career record than the other Negro Leaguers.
5. Dobie Moore - Absolute monster at shortstop. Value comparable to Hughie Jennings, who I liked, but better.

6. Jose Mendez - Mendez and Redding are certifiable HOMers, though I like Mendez's peak a bit more.
7. Dick Redding - Gets bumped up a bit based on subjective opinion, but still a strong candidate.
8. Quincy Trouppe - Love, love, love the MLEs. A catcher who could absolutely rake.
9. Willard Brown - He gets bumped down to this spot because his lack of plate discipline makes projecting career value a bit uncertain.
10. Cool Papa Bell - MLEs and subjective opinion are totally divergent. I just couldn't imagine leaving him off of the ballot.

11. Nellie Fox - Very closely linked to Leach in terms of value. Both players are underrated by the electorate because they were not eye-popping in any one facet of the game. Edge goes to Fox because of his peak seasons.
12. Tommy Leach - Criminally underrated by the electorate. Sixth-greatest major league third baseman of all-time to date.
13. Biz Mackey - As high as I can place him given his spotty hitting record.
14. Billy Pierce - Pierce and Leonard are very, very similar. I have them just above Faber, Keefe, Ruffing and Rixey.
15. Dutch Leonard - Pitching for bad teams made his W/L record look pedestrian, but still had a great career.

16. Joe Gordon - Off by a hair.
17. Alejandro Oms
18. Tommy Bridges
19. Hugh Duffy
20. Ralph Kiner

21. Rube Waddell
22. Lefty Gomez
23. Dizzy Trout
24. George Sisler - Peak is hugely overrated and didn't really do much with the stick compared to the other greats at the position. Only ranks this high because my team needs a first baseman. (My system has him just behind Albert Pujols.)
25. Bob Elliott

Other contenders:
Bobby Doerr - Not really close to making my "team." He'd probably be in the bottom 10 percent of the HOM if he ever got voted in. Closer to Doyle and Childs than he is to Gordon.
George Van Haltren - In an OF backlog with Roush, Cravath, Berger and Veach.
   92. TomH Posted: March 13, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#1896683)
Images. We're getting close to electing Bobby Doerr, and I wonder if some of his support is based more on image than fact.

If you had played 'word association' with me before this project started, here may have been my responses to the following:

Bobby Doerr - "slugging 2Bman for the 1940s Red Sox, also a fine fielder, HoFer but probably borderline as to whether he deserved it"

Joe Sewell - "who?"

--
Now I'm a bit wiser. I still hold the same views on Doerr, and am educated on Sewell, a great leadoff shortstop of the 1920s. But still the image remains. If you ask most of us today, "who was the better hitter, Doerr or Sewell?", without going to check a pile of numbers, what would your answer be?

Well, the answer, according to the "best" (advanced, well-received, sabermetrically proven, home field adjusted) methods we have...it's a dead heat.
OWP has Sewell ahead, EqA has them essentially tied. Career length difference negligible.

There are many good reasons for putting Doerr in the HoM. However, IF you are intending to elect Doerr, justifying it by his fine bat, that justification IMHO is erroneous. Doyle, Childs, Gordon, probably Dunlap were better hitters. And Joe Sewell, a grade A- shortstop, was as good.
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 13, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#1896690)
TomH,

I'm with you on Doerr. I see him as just beyond the in/out line, just like Sewell, Jimmy Ryan, Joe Gordon, Phil Rizzuto, Vern STephens, Dizzy Dean, Bob Elliott, Bob Johnson, or Wally Schang (to name a few).
   94. kthejoker Posted: March 13, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#1896693)
I have a serious question/consideration for all of you HOM voters now in the year 1972, with some almost 80 "years" of HOM voting under your belts:

At what point do you begin to acclimate your voting and ballots towards the idea of what a HOMer should be based on the current electorate of the HOM? I say this because many of the Hall of Fame debates that occur today come up in the context of "Well, Player A was a Hall of Famer, and Player B is better than Player A", or "How does Player A stack up against the people in the Hall?"

And to some extent, these arguments take place here to some degree, but a lot of the arguments here center around contemporaries more than historically similar players. I guess I'm asking at what point can HOM baselines be drawn that can counteract any naysayers simply by saying, "Well, Player A is at least in the middle of all first baseman in the HOM, so why haven't we elected him yet?" Or "Clearly we've agreed that Player A forms the in/out line for shorstops in the HOM. Is Player B above or below that line?"
   95. Paul Wendt Posted: March 13, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#1896740)
Paul Wendt #79
> > > Brent, I don't think this count by decade adds anything to
> > > the annual count by OCF(?).
> >
> > The intention is not to add, but to subtract, to simplify.
> > Hopefully by simplifying we are eliminating more noise than signal,
> > thereby making it easier to see patterns.
>
> I believe that allocating players to decades adds noise.

and what follows #79 shows it to be an attractive nuisance,
brain candy

P.S.
Without listing any black stars allocated to the 1910s or 1930s, Brent singled out the 1920s as another decade whose count may be a significant downward distortion.
the 1920s, when Cobb, Speaker, Johnson, Collins, and Alexander were important in the first half of the decade, while Gehrig, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, and Waner were important in the last half?
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: March 13, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#1896750)
Joker, not entirely sure what you're asking, but:

>At what point do you begin to acclimate your voting and ballots towards the idea of what a HOMer should be based on the current electorate of the HOM?

I don't. And I think most voters here are sticking to their own criteria rather than fine tuning their system to get closer to the norm ("current electorate," if that is what you are asking).

For me, the elected HoM does not enter in. I just take those who are eligible and try to pick the best players who are on the outside. I have a very clear idea of how the ranking should be by position. My comparisons across positions keep shifting....
   97. DavidFoss Posted: March 13, 2006 at 04:43 PM (#1896766)
I guess I'm asking at what point can HOM baselines be drawn that can counteract any naysayers simply by saying, "Well, Player A is at least in the middle of all first baseman in the HOM, so why haven't we elected him yet?" Or "Clearly we've agreed that Player A forms the in/out line for shorstops in the HOM. Is Player B above or below that line?"

I've never liked these types of arguments. In my ideal world, the people who are in are in and gone from consideration and we argue over which of the eligible candidates to vote for. But, as the backlog is growing in size and cross-era diversity, comparsions to previous borderline inductees end up occuring. "Pitcher X looks like Coveleski and Vance" while people forget that there was large discussions at the time to try and distinguish Coveleski/Vance with similar pitchers that were eligible at the same time (Mays, Luque, Shocker, Cicotte, Bridges, Warneke, etc). Similar to Coveleski & Vance may indeed be way off ballot because the number of borderline players builds up over time. I've been guilty of it as well, it makes for a persuasive argument and its quick and easy, but it doesn't necessarily help us rank the eligible players against each other.
   98. jingoist Posted: March 13, 2006 at 05:51 PM (#1896843)
#91 James;

How does Keller figure so high in your ballot?
You claim to be a peak/prime voter based on win shares; if you were to pick from the options available I'd have to argue for Kiner over Keller unless you think Keller deserves a huge WWII adjustment for 44 and 45 and you give Kiner no WWII adjustment.

The numbers as they exist tell the story for Kiner and against Keller.
   99. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 13, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#1896913)
jingoist,

I agree with James on this and I am a peak/prime voter. Keller peak is more impressive (higher OBP, MUCH better fielding outweighs Kiner power advantage) than Kiner's and I dont' think that Kiner deserves much war credit. His career began in 1947, the second season back from the war with a team that was pretty awful at the time (and of course continued to be awful throughout his career. So therefore it isnt' like you could argue that he was ready for the majors in 1944 because if he was he would have been in the majors at some point earlier. I am pretty sure that we covered this in the Kiner thread and found that any war credit being given to Kiner would do nothing but simply add to his career totals, no peak or prime there. For Keller, the story is different, he missed a year and a half during his peak.

That said, they are both in my PHOM and I support either's induction and can see why Kiner may be prefered. I just think that Keller was better and is one of the player's most overlooked by the electorate. To which I say, good to have you back James!

k,

I think that our voting system precludes most of the discussions that you are talking about. Instead of trying to figure out if Player A is a HOMer or not, our job is merely to rank the players and let the top two or three go in. Of course it is helpful to look back and make sure that we aren't ontinuously ranking the top SS left on the board, but overall those discussions aren't as helpful to us. I also must agree with David that I never liked them. It forces voters to try and figure out what a 'HOFer' is and if player A is such a player, even though that definition is not clearly defined. I mean we could elect 1000 players if Tommy McCarthy and George Kelly are the baseline. This way the voter doesn't have to make that distinctiion, instead asking, "How good is player A?" and proceeding from there.
   100. DavidFoss Posted: March 13, 2006 at 06:52 PM (#1896920)
His career began in 1947

Kiner's rookie year was 1946. It wasn't a great year for him, but he did win the NL HR title that year.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
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 0.7482 seconds
49 querie(s) executed