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?

Never. I treat this as a democracy. I vote my "interest" -- 50 others do the same and the result must be right, but doesn't change how I feel.

Good point David. I hsould have looked that up before posting. Still the point stands, Keller missed 1.5 seasons at his peak, Kiner missed a few alright seasons at the most. I still like Keller more.

James N - welcome back . . .

How about Jake Beckley if you need a 1B on your team. Roughly 3000 hits, and with a ton of power for his era to boot . . .

I also agree with you James, that Leach is getting shafted by the group. I've had him on my ballot (or just off of it) for a long-time.

Unfortunately, I think his ship may have sailed - though I tried a few weeks back to bring it in.

The problem is that the Sheckard/Leach comparison needed to be pushed back when Sheckard was near the top of the voting.

************

The problem with the apprearance of our not giving proper WWII credit is that our backlog is so jammed, that if only a few people choose not to give war credit, it's enough to drop the top candidates that deserve below everyone else.

I'm talking about guys like Gordon, Keller, Rizzuto, Bridges, Trucks, Dom DiMaggio, Pesky, and Doerr. I think at least 2 or 3 of those guys should probably be HoMers (Gordon, Rizzuto, Trucks, maybe Bridges); but the refusal of some members to give any war credit, and over many members to give full credit keeps them much lower on the ballot.

When this first started, I thought it was so obvious that it's proper to give full credit for military service, that it wouldn't even have been an issue.

Then we were started putting the constitution together, it became apparent that some people would have an issue. I didn't want to be a dictator, I mean the group is what makes this great, and I tend to try to build consensus as opposed to declaring rules.

But looking back, being that it was my baby . . . at the very beginning I should have said full war credit was mandatory. We should have been just as vigorous and coming up with reasonable estimates, even projecting a peak for players that missed 25-29 age seasons where it seems obvious . . . we should have been just as vigorous as we were with the Negro League projections.

It's slipping my mind who compared career paths and came up with something like a 29-23-18 WS spread for Rizzuto, as opposed to a 23-23-23 type of projection, but that is what should have been done.

Again, we declared it mandatory with regard to Negro Leaguers and everyone went with it. If we'd left Negro Leaguers open to the voter preferences, I'm sure some would have said they didn't play in MLB, so I'm not considering them. But we said no, you have to, and everyone did.

We should have done the same with the wars. It's my biggest regret on the project.

Don't get me wrong, everything here is great, and it's succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. But nothing is perfect, and that's where we as a group missed the boat, and it's mostly my fault. For that I apologize.

It's pretty clear that, when we finish the project and look back on it, one of the main conclusions--maybe THE main conclusion--will be this: If you have a large Hall, then there is going to be considerable debate, even among sabermetrically minded figures who consider it very carefully, about who should be in it. I'm referring to the bottom half of a two hundred Hall, I guess. I mean, we all agree that Babe Ruth should be in and Tommy McCarthy should be out. But for the Hugh Jennings' and Jake Beckley's and Clark Griffith's and Mickey Welch's, we have no real consensus, whether they make the HoM or not. This is obviously not a particularly perceptive conclusion, but it seems worth stating.

Incidentally, I am not using this as a criticism of a large hall. I find close and controversial elections much more interesting than those in which we know who's going in. When it comes to enshrinement, anyway, I'll take debate over consensus every time.

So I don't think you owe any apologies, Joe. The constitution permitted an intelligent and thoughtful electorate to make their own decisions about war credit; it allowed it to be an interesting and inportant element of the discussion. That may have made it harder for some people on your ballot to be elected, but you said yourself you let it happen because you did not want to be a dictator. I think your decision was quite valid, and still a good one. (And I say that as someone who gives full war credit).

Gordon, Keller, Rizzuto, Bridges, Trucks, Dom DiMaggio, Pesky, and Doerr

Here's one voter's take on it. War credit propelled Rizzuto, Pesky, Gordon, and Doerr from top-thirty-five guys to borderliners in my system. Keller advances from a top forty to a top thirtyish. I'm not giving war credit to pitchers because I think the evidence is inconclusive about workload and wear. The thing about war credit is that it's not really appropriate to give age-based peak credit (IMO), so I'm averaging surrounding seasons which mostly aids in the prime and bulk areas but hardly ever produces huge seasons (the Greenbergs and Williams excepted). Therefore a guy like Pesky, who needs the bulk not the peak, jumps more than Doerr who needs the peak, not the bulk. (Doerr also gets docked 10% for his 1943 and 1944 seasons in my system.)

Another name to tack on there is Enos Slaughter. In my system Slaughter has gone from the wrong side of the in/out line (roughly the Dave Parker zone) to just onto the good side of it. And to throw out a couple others helped by war credit: Willard Brown, Larry Doby, Monte Irvin, all of whom have a couple years of it on their dossier as part of the MLEs I've calculated.

So I think war credit has done exactly what it should do: move players up the rankings in proportion to the time they missed. War credit doesn't and shouldn't turn borderliners into slam dunks nor obscurities into borderliners. Others will have different schemes and achieve different results, maybe Doerr instead of Slaughter, or maybe both. Or perhaps Newcombe. But it seems like war credit has done its job.

Thanks for pointing those names out. I was giving Keller some war credit, but I looked in more detail and decided to give him some minor league credit for being stuck in the Yankees system too long. He jumps up to the top of the Klein/Willard Brown/George Van Haltren/Gavy Cravath grouping.

Trucks I had mistakenly neglected to give any war credit to and he will make my ballot next time.

The rest I feel I had fully accounted for.

Chaleeko flip-flops on Leach
HOM stunned by uncharacteristic reversal

Jonesy Screw-Thompson, Associated Press
PORTSMOUTH, NH---In what some are calling a stunning policy reversal, Dr. Chaleeko has announced that Tommy Leach will appear on the Doc's 1972 ballot.

"After studying the matter in more depth, we've decided that Tommy Leach is the eleventh best candidate available to the electorate," read Chaleeko spokesman Mott ScottClellan from a prepared statement.

Critics of Chaleeko see this as evidence that the doctor's unwillingness to admit he's wrong may have taken a hit due to the recent pythaganpat and Minnie Minoso miscalculation controversies.

Hall of Merit voter Sunnyday2 was stunned by the announcement, hearing it after returning from hiking through mountains of papers in North Carolina's research triangle. "I'd just assumed, as a peak voter, that Doc felt as I did that the public should expect more out of a candidate than a few pretty good years and a long career."

Supporters and staffers declined to comment other than to say that the doctor has never been opposed to doing the right thing at the right time and that calls by career voters for reconsideration of Leach's record had not swayed Chaleeko. Other officials noted that "career mongers were playing their usual party politics" in demanding a reconsideration.

Off the record, however, one highly-placed member of Chaleeko's administration noted that in previous briefings on Leach's credentials, the doctor had asked no questions, and that this policy directive may have come from elsewhere in the administration.

Experts disagree on why Chaleeko may have redirected resources toward Leach, but University of North Carolina professor Christopher Cobb speculated by phone that "in a very literal sense, the change appears to result from a shifting of Leach into the infield." Cobb noted that research indicates that adjusting Leach's games to a 162-game season and estimating the division of his value by position could yield the kind of information that might have changed the doctor's mind.

"A very small difference in the interpretation of the data could lead to a significant change in its perception, perhaps even to a ballot-changing event such as this."

Reaction around the Hall of Merit was mixed with Commissioner Joe Dimino promising hearings and a full investigation of the matter, while Leach champion James Newburg called the announcement "a turning point in the campaign to restore Tommy Leach to the prominence he deserves."

Leach has appeared on Dr. Chaleeko's ballot several times, but not in recent years as the backlog has lengthened. Chaleeko has considered him a CF since his first votes in the 1930 election.

I also agree with you James, that Leach is getting shafted by the group. I've had him on my ballot (or just off of it) for a long-time.

Unfortunately, I think his ship may have sailed - though I tried a few weeks back to bring it in.

The problem is that the Sheckard/Leach comparison needed to be pushed back when Sheckard was near the top of the voting.

I suspect that peak value and prime value have become more important to the electorate relative to career value. Peak and prime measures have become more prominent in the discussion relative to career ones.

Leach is a tough nut to crack. I've always had problems with cross-positional guys. He'd be a great 3B candidate, but as an OF I don't care for him much at all. He made the bottom of my ballot back in the weak-ballot 20s, but has slipped as the backlog has gotten deeper.

I was misquoted out of context!

I am with David on this one. I had Leach as high as #6 in the late 30's and early 40's back when I was considering him as a 3B. However, when I started to look at him as an OFer he slipped down into the 20's and is now in the 30's. He is a great 3B candidate and a very ordinary CF one. I have marked which seasons he was at which position in my spreadsheet and while CF is no slouch defensive position (though it wasn't as tough in ELach's day as it is now) he just doesn't look very impressive against other contermporary CF competition from the 1890's trio to guys like Fielder Jones and Roy Thomas.

SO I have split the difference which took me out of his corner and into a middle ground. He isnt' a bad candidate and the ambiguity his candidacy entails means that I wouldn't be as upset with him getting in as some others I have ranked above him because I may have him wrong. But I still dont' advocate for his election.

The problem with Leach is that, when his peers were Jimmy Collins, Art Devlin, Harry Steinfeldt, & Bill Bradley, he compared very favorably.

But when his peers became Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Roy Thomas, Fielder Jones, Mike Donlin, Cy Seymour, Benny Kauff, Ginger Beaumont, Clyde Milan, Chick Stahl, Dode Paskert, Happy Felsch, Amos Strunk & Jimmy Barrett, he looks quite ordinary.

when his peers were Jimmy Collins, Art Devlin, Harry Steinfeldt, & Bill Bradley, he compared very favorably

True, he led all NL 3Bs in WS in 1902, 1903, 1904. Very respectiable.

But when his peers became Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Roy Thomas, Fielder Jones, Mike Donlin, Cy Seymour, Benny Kauff, Ginger Beaumont, Clyde Milan, Chick Stahl, Dode Paskert, Happy Felsch, Amos Strunk & Jimmy Barrett, he looks quite ordinary.

Possibly not as true. First off some of those guys were never his contemporaries as a CF (Stahl, Felsh, Kauff for instance), and most of them are AL guys, which are his secondary comparison points.

-Paskert led NL CFs in WS three times, once during the Leach-CF period (1912) and twice after him (1916, 1918). In 1916 Leach was retired, in 1918 he played 30 token games.
-Roy Thomas never led the NL in CF WS in a year when Leach was a CF.
-Turkey Mike Donlin never led the NL in CF WS in a year when Leach was a CF.
-Cy Seymour never led the NL in CF WS while Leach was a CF.
-Ginger Beaumont never led the NL in CF WS while Leach was a CF.
-Jimmy Barrett never led the NL in CF WS while Leach was a CF.

The guys who did lead the NL in CF WS each year 1907-1914 (except 1908 when Leach played third) were
1907: Leach
1909: Hofman (Leach second by one WS)
1910: Hofman
1911: Bates & Snodgrass
1912: Paskert & O Wilson
1913: Leach
1914: Leach

1914 was Leach's final year as a full-time player, and he left the game after 1915.

That seems like a reasonably strong record to me, especially when coupled with his strong record as a 3B.

Eligible 20th century players with 100 career WARP1:

131.0 R. Maranville
112.7 T. Leach
111.1 D. Bancroft
110.2 E. Roush
106.7 B. Doerr
106.1 H. Hooper
104.2 D. Bartell
102.9 J. Sewell
102.2 B. Johnson
101.1 T. Lazzeri

Possibly not as true. First off some of those guys were never his contemporaries as a CF (Stahl, Felsh, Kauff for instance), and most of them are AL guys, which are his secondary comparison points.

True, but then you have Hill, Poles, and that youngster Charleston as his contemporaries, too.

Why shouldn't we use Leach's AL contemporaries? Especially since it seems that the top CFers during his time in CF were in the AL and not the NL? I also think it helps to look at players before and after his time period in CF as well to get a more well-rounded picture.

That isn't exactly an impressive list of players that he was cometing against in the NL CF picture. Begin better than Snodgrass and Hofman doesn't scream HOM to me. What would is if he had any big yeraars at the position and he does not. If had played no 3B, Leach would be another long career, low peak/prime OFer outside of my top 60. If his whole career were at 3B I would have him as my top 3Bman in the backlog above Elliot and Rosen and he would most likely have a spot on my ballot. His canddiacy, to me, depends upon his yeasr as a 3B. Were there enough of them? Were they truly great? etc.

Why shouldn't we use Leach's AL contemporaries? Especially since it seems that the top CFers during his time in CF were in the AL and not the NL? I also think it helps to look at players before and after his time period in CF as well to get a more well-rounded picture.

I agree and would also include Hill, Poles, and Charleston, too.

John,

I don't think Charelston would have been contemporaneous with Leach. Maybe in Leach's last two years? But definitely Hill and Poles.

jschmeagol,

I wasn't clear about what I meant. I'm saying that Leach should first be judged against his NL contemporaries, then against his AL counterparts. I agree that his CF competition in the NL was clearly inferior to the AL, but he was, in fact, the best of the group, which has some merit. That level of merit needs to be added to his third base merit to add up to a HOM case (as you suggested). Still leading ones position in ones league is often cited as a strong indicator of HOMness, and Leach did it six times.

Only 51 players (by my count) have led their position in WS more often than Leach did. Ten are still active. Of the 41 players eligible for the Hall of Fame among those 51, only three haven't gotten in: Keith Hernandez (7), Larry Doyle (7), Cupid Childs (8). Non-homers also include Ross Youngs (7) and Joe Sewell (9).

33 players have led their position 6 times in WS. Two are currently active or recently retired. Joe Jackson is inelligible. Among the 30 eligible candidates, nine haven't gotten in: Dick Allen, Bob Elliott, Joe Gordon, Bobby Grich, Heinie Groh, Stan Hack, Paul Hines, Ed Konetchy, Tommy Leach, Minnie Minoso, Norm Cash. Non-homers also include Frank Chance, George Sisler and Pie Traynor but exclude Hines, Groh, and Hack.

Anyway, all of this is to say that Leach is in some very good company here. Being among the top 81 guys in terms of leading your position in your league is a very strong indicator. That Leach is en toto borderlin is obvious by now, but it doesn't mean he might not be in.

Possibly not as true. First off some of those guys were never his contemporaries as a CF (Stahl, Felsh, Kauff for instance), and most of them are AL guys, which are his secondary comparison points.

First off, they were in the same "era", so they are "peers" even if not direct "contemporaries", and as far as being "AL guys", why would that matter?

Unless we're going to only look at very direct contemporaries, which I believe we rejected as an electorate already as being too narrow due the the "talent glut/talent barren" at a position arguments (1950's CF'ers/1920's SS's, etc.), OR if there was some very signicant change in the nature of the game between the '00's and the '10's (which I don't believe there was), then these are guys he's competing with for "best" at the position in the era, and he just doesn't stack up.

I don't think Charelston would have been contemporaneous with Leach. Maybe in Leach's last two years?

That what I was thinking in regard to him, Eric, and why I placed him at the end of the list. Obviously, Leach was on his way out, so they weren't real contemporaries at their best.

I wasn't clear about what I meant. I'm saying that Leach should first be judged against his NL contemporaries, then against his AL counterparts.

I don't make any distinctions when comparing players: MLers, NeLers, minor leaguers - if they were among the best at their positions for a given season, then they will be used in the comparison.

Eligible 20th century players with 100 career WARP1:

131.0 R. Maranville
112.7 T. Leach
111.1 D. Bancroft
110.2 E. Roush
106.7 B. Doerr
106.1 H. Hooper
104.2 D. Bartell
102.9 J. Sewell
102.2 B. Johnson
101.1 T. Lazzeri

To add to the list DanG provided.

118.1 J. Tinker
108.7 J. Evers
102.2 D. Pratt
100.9 M. Huggins

Seems like an awful lot of middle infielders get the WARP1 high totals. Somehow I doubt this will breathe life into the Joe Tinker election express. Not that he didn't have a nice little career but if Leach's ship has sailed I think Tinker's boat is already docked in some other port.

I think Tinker's boat has gone into drydock in upstate New York.

To add to the list DanG provided.

Also Roberts, 130.1 ;-)

And adding some other guys who are his 19th Century contemporaries:

131.0 R. Maranville
130.1 R. Roberts
118.1 J. Tinker
117.6 L. Cross
114.7 J. Beckley
114.0 G. VanHaltren
112.7 T. Leach
111.1 D. Bancroft
110.2 E. Roush
109.5 J. Ryan
108.7 J. Evers
107.4 H. Long
106.7 B. Doerr
106.1 H. Hooper
104.2 D. Bartell
103.9 M. Griffin
103.4 C. Childs
103.4 D. Bush
103.1 K. Gleason
103.1 F. Jones
102.9 J. Sewell
102.2 D. Pratt
102.2 B. Johnson
101.1 T. Lazzeri
100.9 M. Huggins
100.3 H. Duffy

Seems like an awful lot of middle infielders get the WARP1 high totals.

That's partly because we've elected all of the OF'ers, or they got omitted as 19th Century guys.

To repeat, this is also a consequence of the shifting balance of fielding and pitching. A lot more errors means that good-fielding pct becomes much more important. Few HR's means that HR prevention is irrelevant. Defense becomes more of a partnership between the fielders and pitchers. Many less balls to the OF means that IF fielding is much more important.

A note on error-percentage. The error rating in Win Shares is ratio-based. Commit twice as many errors as the average and you get no credit; no errors and you get full credit. It's grading on a curve, with little or no relationship to the number of runs prevented or allowed.

To me, this makes as much sense as rating HR's on a ratio. Then Tommy Leach's 6 HR's in 1902 is more impressive than Bond's 73 HR's because the avg position player in 1902 hit about 1 HR, while the avg position player in modern times hits about 20. Ty Cobb might think this is a good way to rate HR's but I think most of us would reject any offensive rating system like that out-of-hand.

IMO, the fielding ratings in Win Shares appear to attempt to translate the stats into a modern setting and evaluate them on a modern scale. They do NOT appear to be evaluating them in the context of the game that was actually being played then.

Regarding Joe Sewell, I am a long-time fan of Sewell having him in the top half of my ballot for many years. However, I see Doerr (and Gordon) to be a step up from Sewell.

I posted my list of similar players to Doerr in my last year's ballot. Here is the list according to my career-value system of players most similar to Joe Sewell:
- Buddy Myers
- Jay Bell
- Dick Bartell
- Jim Fregosi
- Dom DiMaggio

These guys are not near the quality of the players on the list of Doerr. So I'll have Doerr near the top of my ballot and Sewell just off.

Good point on Slaughter Dr. Chaleeko - he's definitely a guy that went from borderline to in with war-credit. I forgot about him.

As far as Brown, Doby and Irvin - I think that since we were already estimating for them, it was very easy for that the be assimilated - I don't think it was treated the same way as war credit for the MLB guys (though I could be wrong).

Glad to hear you are on board with Leach! Why would I be quoted as wanting hearings on the matter??? I support Leach too!

As for Leach - he wasn't made a full-time CF until he was 29 years old. But even then a 136 OPS+ from an excellent defensive CF isn't exactly shabby. Then he goes back to 3B for a year (and turns in a 125 OPS+), before going back to CF, now at 31. He definitely wasn't good from 1910-1912, but don't forget his bounce back to 132 in 1913 at the age of 35.

So we are comparing a player in his 30s to a young Ty Cobb. Or a young Tris Speaker. Or a young Benny Kauff (who would be a HoMer himself if not for his off-field issues). Well, yeah, he's not quite up to snuff. Who is? He's in his 30s at this point, he doesn't have to be as good as them, especially when you look at what he did in his 20s as a 3B.

I don't think being the best player at your position for 15 consecutive years is the standard for electing someone to the Hall of Merit. It seems like some are setting the bar awfully high on Leach.

I wonder how Joe Torre is going to compare to Leach - there are a lot of similarities there. Two historically underrated players, with a mid-career position switch. Should be interesting . . .

Joe,

The problem being that Leach doesn't have a great peak in his 20's so he needs some very good yers in his 30's. Methinks that Ty Cobb would have been a HOMer anyway had he not been successful in either his 20's or his 30's. PLus, you have to remember that CF during Leach's day was not as valuable as it would become when the lively ball era began.

Still, I will take another look at leach and he may even get a small bump from me. Still unlikely he makes my ballot though.

Here's a bizarro note on Del Crandall.

Del Crandall is one of only two players with more than 100 career doubles and homers to retire with exactly the same number of each.



Here's all the players I could find within five doubles of their homers total, asterisks indicate the player is still active:



Uh, yeah, I'm a nerd.

OK, I just posted #131 and it got eaten, even though it's listed to the right. I was composing it on page one of the thread, and when I submitted, it disappeared. Posters take warning...

Hey, it just appeared! Strange. Forget post 132.

As for Leach - he wasn't made a full-time CF until he was 29 years old.

This blurs the fact that he was pretty much half-3B/half-CF at ages 27-28. Those seasons are decent as a 3B, but not that great for a CF.

Fine 3B Seasons (OPS+ Range 120-132):
1902-3, 1908, (plus 98 games in 1901)

Solid CF Seasons (OPS+ Range 132-136):
1907,1913

Filler 3B Season (OPS+ 98-100):
1904 (plus 106 games in 1899)

Multiple-position Seasons (OPS+ 92,107) (mediocre, imho)
1905-6

Filler CF Seasons (OPS+ 112-116)
1909,1914

Weak CF Seasons (OPS+ 78-97)
1910-12 (plus 107 games 1915)

So, really a prime of only 5.75 seasons that are HOM caliber. The peak in there is really only at 3B (130s fill out a prime nicely in the OF, but its not a peak there) and that peak is a bit below guys like JCollins, Groh, Baker and McGraw. Without a better peak, I'd like him to have a longer prime.

That's with the bat, of course. Bring in the glove and I suppose he gets a boost. Still, he's a tough nut to crack. I really don't like comparing apples to oranges and Leach looks a bit like a fruit salad. :-)

Along with re-eval the top pitchers, I also wanted to revisit my PHoM candidae list since we are now electing 3 and going into the backlog. Following are the guys who are at the top of my backlog.

OPS+ (BA title eligible years only*)

*adjusted for one reason or another—e.g. war years played and discounted, war years not played but credited, short seasons including short (WWI) war years, AA discounts, held in MiL too long, etc.

First the IF backlog.

Doyle 126/153-50-40-36-34-32-28-27-14-11-7-(99) in 7350 PA*
Gordon 122/156-36-36-31-24-22-21*-21*-18-13*-9-3 in 7500 PA*
(Hack) 120/143-43-32-28-25-20*-10-7-4-3 in 8400 PA
Doerr 114/149*-32*-29-27-26-15-14-13-12-5-3-1-(86) in 8500 PA*

All had at least vaguely similar peak/prime on OPS+ so the career numbers pretty much tell the story among the “glove” positions. ie. Doyle ranks at the head of the class on OPS+, all things considered, but the 4 are close enough.

Then the "hitter" positions.

(Stovey)134/164*-49*-46*-44*-40*-39*-37-36-36-26-19-11-5 in 8800 PA*
(Averill)132/159-49-47-43-37-34-32*-31-19-19-15-2 in 7800 PA*
Duffy 120/172-37*-25-25-23-23-22-16-6-(93)-(85) in 9300 PA*

Stovey pretty clearly outperforms the other “hitter” positions on OPS+.

Win Shares (James’ numbers, unadjusted)

7. Hack 318/34-33-31/140/26.6
16. Gordon 242/31-28-26/134/21.1
18. Doerr 281/27-27-27/127/22.6
20. Doyle 289/33-29-28/130/26.5

14. Averill 280/33-30-30/143/27.2
20. Duffy 295/33-29-28/144/27.5
39. Stovey 265/28-28-27/121/28.9

Doyle suffers a little to James’ timeline and Stovey a lot to his failure to adjust for season length. And Gordon and Doerr are unadjusted here for WWII. Still Hack looks pretty good. But extend this out with the appropriate adjustments—to 162 games, for war, for Averill sitting in the PCL one year too many, etc. (*).

Stovey* 362/35-35-34-34-32-31-29-28-25-21-18-17-13-10
Duffy* 333/40-37-37-35-30-28-27-26-24-20-11
Hack 312/33-31-30*-26-25-23-23-22-19-19*-17-13-12
Averill 305/33-30-30-27-26-26-26-25*-24-24-22-11
Doerr 303/27-27-27*-25-24-24*-23-22*-21-19-17-16-15-14
Doyle 295/33-29-28-27-25-22*-21-20-19-18-17-16*-16
Gordon 289/31-26-26-25*-25*-25*-25-24-24-19-19-12

All of Stovey and Duffy’s WS totals are adjusted for season length. Others’ are adjusted only the the individual seasons marked with the *. And Duffy’s peak now looks historically very high, and Stovey’s prime exceptionally long and productive. One might question whether it is reasonable to project records in 85 to 130 games all the way out to 162, of course, so a grain of salt is not inappropriate.

Defense

The Win Shares of course include defense. Still here is some defense.

Doerr 91 career defensive WS and A rating
Gordon 84 A
Duffy 67 A+
Hack 66 B-
Averill 61 A+
Doyle 50 C+
Stovey 47 B+

Put it all together and I think I will PHoM the position player backlog as follows:

1. Stovey
2. Gordon
3. Hack
4. Doerr
5. Averill
6. Duffy
7. Doyle

Sunnyday 2, what about Beckley while you're backlogging? Good OPS+, "tweener" position and longer career than any of them.

karl,

No question there are another 25 to 50 players who I will need to re-eval as we get further into the backlog. At 1B, I think that Chance, Beckley and Ben Taylor are guys to consider. Gil Hodges probably ought not to be forgotten either. But of course there are scads of 1B coming up in the final 30 years of this project, too.

But for the moment I'm looking for something of a peak and I think my 7 guys that I'm considering have more of that than the others.

Sunny,

How about Rosen? (I'm probably asking you a question you've already answered.) As pure peaks go, his top three or four years seem like they should blow some of those seven guys away.

Also is Childs already in your pHOM? If not, he seems like a natural for this discussion.

Rosen is in my top 75 but even I look for a bit more prime. Childs, yes, PHoM, though he has slipped down around #25 overall.