Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, March 20, 2006

1972 Results: Roberts, Koufax, and Doerr are the Latest of the Greatest Now in the Hall!

In his first year of eligibility, “Whiz Kid” Robin Roberts scored 95% of all possible points to win induction to the Hall of Merit.

Another newbie, Dodger great Sandy Koufax, also achieved immortality by earning 54% of all possible points.

The last inductee, BoSox star second baseman Bobby Doerr, finally gained admission to the HoM in his 16th year of eligibility. He earned 33% of all possible points.

Our first election with 50 ballots since the 1950s!

Rounding out the top-ten were: Biz Mackey, Cool Papa Bell, Willard Brown, George Van Haltren, George Sisler, Joe Gordon, and Cannonball Dick Redding.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Robin Roberts           1136   50  42  3  1                 1     1     1  1   
 2  n/e  Sandy Koufax             652   39   2  9  7  2  2  1  2  2  2  1  3  1  1  2  2
 3    4  Bobby Doerr              394   29      2  5  3  1  3  1           1  6  2  2  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    3  Biz Mackey               383   30      2  1  1  2  2  3  3  5  3     1  4  3   
 5    6  Cool Papa Bell           369   25   1  4  1  2  3  2  1  1  2  1  1  3  1     2
 6    5  Willard Brown            354   25   1  2  3        3  2  2  3  3  2  1  1  1  1
 7    9  George Van Haltren       341   23      1  7     1  1     3     2  3  3  1  1   
 8    7  George Sisler            326   25   1     1  4  2     4  1  2  1  4  1  1  1  2
 9   10  Joe Gordon               316   27      1     3  3  2  1  1  3  1  2  2  1  2  5
10    8  Cannonball Dick Redding  308   22      3  1  2  2  3  2     1     2  2  1  2  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   14  Minnie Minoso            287   25            2  2  1  2  3  2  1  2  5  4  1   
12   13  Dobie Moore              272   17      2  4  1  1  3  2  1                 1  2
13   15  Jake Beckley             263   17   1  3  2     2  2  1           1  1  3  1   
14   12  José Méndez              262   19      1  1  2  3  1  1  1  4  1  1  1  1  1   
15   18  Hugh Duffy               258   18      1  1  3  3  1  1  2  1  2  1     1  1   
16   11  Ralph Kiner              250   20            1  2  5  1  3  1  2  1  1     2  1
17T  19  Cupid Childs             223   17         2  1  1  2  2  1  2  1  1     3     1
17T  17  Joe Sewell               223   17         1  2  4     2  1  1  2        1  2  1
19   16  Pete Browning            206   14      1  2  3     1           4  2  1         
20   21  Billy Pierce             185   17            1  2  1     2  2     2  1  1  4  1
21   22  Bucky Walters            185   14         1  1  1  2     3  2  1  1  1     1   
22   23  Mickey Welch             181   12      3  1  1     1  1  1     1           2  1
23   20  Rube Waddell             168   14            1  3  1  1  1  1     1  2  1  1  1
24   34  Tommy Leach              162   14         2  1  1        1  1  1     1  1  2  3
25   26  Nellie Fox               160   13   1              2     2  1  3  2  1        1
26   24  Charley Jones            153   10      1  2     1     1  2  1  1           1   
27   28  Quincy Trouppe           150   13            2     1  2  2        1  1  2     2
28   30  Edd Roush                148   10      2     1  1  1  2           1     2      
29T  27  Gavy Cravath             139   11   1     1        1  1  1     1  2     1     2
29T  25  Alejandro Oms            139   11            2  1  1  2        1  2  1        1
31   29  Roger Bresnahan          135   11      2              1     2  2     1  1     2
32   31  Bob Elliott              112   11                  1  1  2  1        1  2  2  1
33   35  Larry Doyle              111    7      2     1  1  1                 1  1      
34   33  Bob Johnson              107    9            1  2  1           1  1     1  2   
35   32  Burleigh Grimes           97    8      1     1        1     1        2     1  1
36   36  Wally Schang              82    7      1              1        1  1  1  1  1   
37   37  Charlie Keller            67    4      1           2  1                        
38   38  John McGraw               66    4         1  1        1  1                     
39   39  Dizzy Dean                57    6                           1  2  1        1  1
40   43T Pie Traynor               51    4         1                    2           1   
41   40T Dizzy Trout               42    4                     2                 1     1
42   45  Fielder Jones             40    3               1        1     1               
43   43T Luke Easter               39    2         1  1                                 
44   40T Addie Joss                35    4                     1                 1  1  1
45   49  Phil Rizzuto              35    3                        1  1     1            
46   50  Ben Taylor                35    2      1                    1                  
47T  48  Bill Monroe               34    3            1                    1        1   
47T  55T Jimmy Ryan                34    3                  1              1  1         
49   52  Ernie Lombardi            34    2      1                       1               
50T  47  Tommy Bridges             33    3                     1  1                    1
50T  51  Frank Chance              33    3            1                          2      
52   53  Chuck Klein               31    3                        1  1                 1
53   42  Vic Willis                30    3                        1        1        1   
54   46  Vern Stephens             29    2               1        1                     
55   55T Ed Williamson             27    3                              1     1     1   
56   54  Carl Mays                 26    3                           1           1     1
57   58T Tony Mullane              25    2                     1        1               
58   68T Dutch Leonard             23    3                              1              2
59   55T Sam Rice                  23    2                           1  1               
60   60  Ed Cicotte                22    2               1                             1
61   58T Gil Hodges                19    2                                 1  1         
62   61  Rabbit Maranville         18    2                                 1     1      
63T  73T Dom DiMaggio              17    2                                    1  1      
63T  62  Fred Dunlap               17    2                              1              1
65   63  Johnny Pesky              17    1            1                                 
66   73T Lefty Gomez               15    2                                       1  1   
67   66T Tetelo Vargas             14    1                     1                        
68   71  Tommy Bond                13    1                        1                     
69T  68T Sam Leever                12    1                           1                  
69T  66T Bobby Veach               12    1                           1                  
71   64T Red Schoendienst          11    1                              1               
72   68T Artie Wilson              10    1                                 1            
73T  64T Bus Clarkson               9    1                                    1         
73T  72  Wilbur Cooper              9    1                                    1         
73T n/e  Bob Friend                 9    1                                    1         
76   75T Virgil Trucks              8    1                                       1      
77T  75T Herman Long                7    1                                          1   
77T  75T Spot Poles                 7    1                                          1   
79T n/e  Dave Bancroft              6    1                                             1
79T  75T Hack Wilson                6    1                                             1
79T  75T Mickey Vernon              6    1                                             1
Ballots Cast: 50

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 20, 2006 at 03:34 AM | 75 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:03 AM (#1909185)
Congratulations to all three candidates!

Boy, was Doerr lucky! But since he allowed me to have two candidates on my ballot to be enshrined for this election, I'm not complaining. :-)
   2. DavidFoss Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#1909195)
Boy, was Doerr lucky!

Because it was the elect-me-bonus-at-#3 that made the difference?

Congrats to the three inductees.
   3. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#1909204)
Top 3 returnees now all are Negro Leaguers..
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:14 AM (#1909206)
Because it was the elect-me-bonus-at-#3 that made the difference?

No, David. Our new voter rawagman was the difference. If he hadn't jonied us, Doerr would have lost to Mackey by two points!
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:19 AM (#1909216)
Top 3 returnees now all are Negro Leaguers..

I would also include Van Haltren since has those 7 third place votes to work with.
   6. OCF Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:21 AM (#1909220)
The average consensus score was -6.7 and the best possible +9. I don't have time now to do the full analysis - maybe later tonight or tommorrow.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:51 AM (#1909291)
HOF-not-HOM through 1972

1. Bancroft
Dave
2. Beckley
Jake
3  Bender
Chief
4  Bresnahan
Roger
5  Chance
Frank
6  Chesbro
Jack
7  Combs
Earle
8  Cuyler
Kiki
9  Dean
Dizzy
10 Duffy
Hugh
11 Evers
Johnny
12 Gomez
Lefty
13 Grimes
Burleigh
14 Hafey
Chick
15 Haines
Jesse
16 Hooper
Harry
17 Hoyt
Waite
18 Manush
Heinie
19 Maranville
Rabbit
20 Marquard
Rube
21 McCarthy
Tommy
22 McGraw
John 
23 Pennock
Herb
24 Rice
Sam
25 Roush
Edd
26 Schalk
Ray
27 Sisler
George
28 Tinker
Joe
29 Traynor
Pie
30 Waddell
Rube
31 Waner
Lloyd
32 Youngs
Ross

And HOM not-HOF

1  Ashburn
Richie
2  Averill
Earl
3  Barnes
Ross
4  Beckwith
John
5  Bennett
Charlie
6  Brown
Ray
7  Caruthers
Bob
8  Charleston
Oscar
9  Connor
Roger
10 Dahlen
Bill
11 Davis
George
12 Dihigo
Martin
13 Doby
Larry
14 Doerr
Bobby
15 Ferrell
Wes
16 Foster
Rube
17 Foster
Willie 
18 Glasscock
Jack
19 Gore
George
20 Grant
Frank
21 Groh
Heinie
22 Hack
Stan
23 Herman
Billy
24 Hill
Pete
25 Hines
Paul
26 Irvin
Monte
27 Jackson
Joe*
28 JohnsonHome Run
29 Lemon
Bob
30 Lloyd
John Henry
31 Magee
Sherry
32 McPhee
Bid
33 McVey
Cal
34 Mize
Johnny
35 Newhouser
Hal
36 Pearce
Dickey
37 Pike
Lip
38 Richardson
Hardy
39 Reese
Pee Wee
40 Roberts
Robin
41 Rogan
Bullet Joe
42 Rusie
Amos
43 Santop
Louis
44 Sheckard
Jimmy
45 Slaughter
Enos
46 Snider
Duke
47 Spahn
Warren
48 Start
Joe
49 Stearnes
Turkey
50 Stovey
Harry
51 Suttles
Mule
52 Sutton
Ezra
53 Thompson
Sam
54 Torriente
Cristobal
55 Vaughan
Arky
56 Wells
Willie
57 White
Deacon
58 Williams
Smokey Joe
59 Wilson
Jud

not eligible for the HOF 
   8. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#1909326)
FINALLY, another Red Sox! Yippee! Probably the next one will be Yaz, fun though it would be to elect Pesky. Also weird, I must have a negative consensus since Waddell appeared on my ballot for the first time since 1933 and dropped 3 places!
   9. Cblau Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#1909331)
Mackey's third year as first-runnerup. What's it going to take to get him elected?
   10. jimd Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:42 AM (#1909422)
Mackey is not the first to have problems getting the last few votes. Medwick and McGinnity (to name two) were in the same situation in the past, expecting to be elected, but watching someone come from behind and take that place, multiple times.
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:44 AM (#1909429)
All-time 'vote points totals' leaders, through 1972. Active for 1973 vote in CAPS

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 19447.5
BECKLEY 18327
Griffith 17924
DUFFY 17910.5
Jennings 16976
BROWNING 15779.5
CHILDS 13714
WADDELL 13500
Pike 13399
WELCH 13168

Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 11101.5
SISLER 10937
Rixey 10826
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9896
H Stovey 9576
TLEACH 8971
BRESNAHAN 8970

CJONES 8409
Start 8378.5
SEWELL 8360
McGinnity 8232
Pearce 8073

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Mackey 7749, Redding 7463, Mendez 7051, CP Bell 6517, Roush 5925, Monroe 5796, Doyle 5740, Moore 5296, Williamson 4816, Cravath 4435, Grimes 4323, Schang 4044)

ALMOST
(McGraw 3905, WBrown 3680)
   12. DL from MN Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#1910298)
I guess my Tommy Bridges campaign didn't help much.
   13. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:46 PM (#1910351)
Top 3 returnees now all are Negro Leaguers.

But amazingly none of them is Jose Mendez, who is stuck in the teens.

Get on the bus with the FOJM!!!!
   14. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#1910363)
I just hope that one day Gordon is elected. Electing Doerr without electing Gordon is placing a lot of weight on either a) WARP's fielding metrics or b) not giving war credit/deductions. They are nearly inseperable players, though I have Gordon slightly ahead based on peal.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#1910388)
Here's a question about Mendez framed a little differently.

Koufax 652 points on 39 ballots.
Redding 308 points on 22 ballots.
Mendez 262 points on 19 ballots.

The HOM just elected a pitcher, Sandy Koufax, who looks a LOT like Jose Mendez. BIG peak/prime, with little pitching outside of it. But Mendez had more good shoulder years and also has a bat plus played as a utility infielder a few years. Post-season? Mendez has that in spades given his amazing performance in the NgLWS where his arm was in roughly the same condition as Koufax's was in 1966.

I think that some folks may be held back by a lack of documentation for Mendez. In which case I would remind everyone that the documentation for Mendez has increased since his candidacy started 35 years ago. Gary A's careful research of several years worth of Cuban records for Mendez has revealed that Mendez pitched extremely well against MLB guys in Cuba, in addition to utterly dominating the island. And of course, he did very well in his stateside barnstorming trips as well.

I'm not saying that the Hall of Fame's election alone should sway a voter, but it only adds to the luster of Mendez, and it lends credence to the idea that Mendez was a HOM-level pitcher. Anyone who votes for Dick Redding and Sandy Koufax should be voting for Jose Mendez because Mendez has Koufax's peak and he has better documentation, especially against big-leaguers, than Redding does. For that matter he is documented to have pitched better than Redding who, though he suffered from poor support, was still pegged at a lower DERA/win pct than Mendez. In fact, I would encourage anyone who voted for Koufax and not Mendez to strongly consider a vote for Jose.
   16. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#1910430)
I had all 3 of Koufax, Mendez and Redding off ballot but in my consideration set, so I was not inconsistent about them. I would suggest however that there remain notably better pitchers, such as Welch, Cicotte, Joss, Leever and probably Waddell. I'm happy to argue the case for any of those 5 over Koufax/Mendez/Redding.
   17. Dizzypaco Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#1910472)
I'm not an expert on the Negro Leagues. Was there ever a pitcher, in the history of the Negro Leagues, who was pretty clearly better than Mendez in his prime? If the answer is yes, and you can find someone else who was probably better, then Mendez is not comparable to Koufax. If the answer is no, than he is comparable.

I say this, because I believe Koufax was probably as good as any pitcher who has ever pitched in the Major Leagues, when in his prime. And I would guess that most people who voted him in the top two would agree with me.
   18. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#1910555)
Dizzypaco, what about Satchel Paige? Smokey Joe Williams must be up there, too.
   19. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#1910564)
Diz,

Elsewhere you said that, in your opinion, Johnson and Grove had equally great peak/primes to Koufax. Just for a little extra leavening, perhaps one of Maddux, Clemens, RJ, or Pedro may have had a similarly outstanding peak/prime.

The greatest pitchers in the Negro Leagues are Foster, Foster, Williams, Paige, Brown in no particular order (and I'm sure I'm missing someone, this is off the top of my head). As I rank them (based on Chris's MLEs and adjusted for usage in a similar way I adjust all SP), I see their peaks as

Brown
.
Mendez
Williams/Paige
R Foster/Rogan
.
B Foster/Redding

So I see him as the second-best peak pitcher in Negro League history but closer to third than first. Given the presence of Wes Ferrell and other peak/prime guys in combination with Koufax, Mendez needn't be the greatest ever in peak/prime to be a HOMer.

Koufax went in very easily, Doerr just slipped in. If Mendez's peak is relatively comparable to Koufax's, or to Ferrell's, then he should go in easily between Doerr and Koufax. The distance between Doerr's and Koufax's support is pretty wide (10 ballots), so even having a peak/prime that's substantially similar but not quite as good as Koufax's would be strongly suggestive that Mendez should be HOMed.
   20. jimd Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#1910681)
1972 BBWAA voting

Name Votes PCT
Sandy Koufax 344 86.87
Yogi Berra 339 85.61
Early Wynn 301 76.01

Ralph Kiner 235 59.34
Gil Hodges 161 40.66
Johnny Mize 157 39.65
Enos Slaughter 149 37.63
Pee Wee Reese 129 32.58
Marty Marion 120 30.30
Bob Lemon 117 29.55
George Kell 115 29.04
Allie Reynolds 105 26.52
Red Schoendienst 104 26.26
Phil Rizzuto 103 26.01
Hal Newhouser 92 23.23
Duke Snider 84 21.21
Nellie Fox 64 16.16
Phil Cavarretta 61 15.40
Alvin Dark 55 13.89
Dom DiMaggio 36 9.09
Bobo Newsom 31 7.83
Charlie Keller 24 6.06
Johnny Sain 21 5.30
Mickey Vernon 12 3.03
Richie Ashburn 11 2.78
Ted Kluszewski 10 2.53
Bobby Thomson 10 2.53
Harvey Haddix 9 2.27
Roy McMillan 9 2.27
Bobby Shantz 9 2.27
Walker Cooper 8 2.02
Bobby Richardson 8 2.02
Don Newcombe 7 1.77
Harry Brecheen 5 1.26
Dutch Leonard 5 1.26
Carl Erskine 4 1.01
Gil McDougald 4 1.01
Billy Pierce 4 1.01
Vic Raschi 4 1.01
Vic Wertz 4 1.01
Vic Power 3 0.76
Roy Sievers 3 0.76
Carl Furillo 2 0.51
Ed Lopat 2 0.51
Preacher Roe 2 0.51
Jackie Jensen 1 0.25
Larry Doby 0 0.00

HOMers in bold.

Robin Roberts must not have been eligible in 1972 for BBWAA.
He got 56% of the vote in 1973.

Johnny Vander Meer and Bobby Doerr were retired to the VC after 1971.
   21. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:45 PM (#1911009)
I'm just wondering - how does Doerr get elected, yet Vern Stephens is only named on two ballots.

Stephens hit just as well (if not better) than Doerr and played SS, not 2B.

I know Doerr's career was about 3 years longer, but still I would think SS vs. 2B in terms of defense would make up for 3 for about 1400 extra PA (which gives Doerr a full season of war credit).

I've got them #18 and #19 on my ballot, I don't see how our group has such a wide disparity between them.
   22. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#1911025)
Might as well throw Sewell in that Gordon, Stephens, and Doerr stew. And Nellie Fox. And Dobie Moore. And Phil Rizzuto. And maybe Johnny Pesky too. And Cupid Childs. Am I forgetting anyone? Bancroft maybe?
   23. karlmagnus Posted: March 21, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#1911044)
Childs yes, but Fox and Rizzutto were nothing like the hitters the others were. Nor, really, were Pesky and Sewell (there are 3 classes,quite distinct, Childs/Gordon/Stephens/Doerr, Sewell/Pesky, Rizzuto/Fox and if you like a 4th still lower class with Maranville.) Sewell and Fox had longer careers, of course, but Ghilds/Gordon/Stephens are really the class. I had them in the order Childs/Doerr/Stephens/Gordon, with Gordon perhaps more below the others than he should have been -- should not be below Sewell.
   24. DL from MN Posted: March 21, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#1911046)
You forgot Lazzeri, Schoendienst and Doyle
   25. OCF Posted: March 21, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#1911053)
My own 1972 extended ballot:

21. Rizzuto
23. Gordon
27. Stephens
28. Doerr

Yes, I do think plucking Doerr out of that group and electing him was a mistake.
   26. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 21, 2006 at 10:59 PM (#1911347)
I did forget Doyle. (not as keen on Laz and Red.)
   27. DavidFoss Posted: March 21, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#1911380)
I had Doerr off-ballot and behind Doyle, Childs & Gordon. I had him better than Rizzuto & Stephens.

Anyone else in the top ten who hasn't been inducted that anyone feels strongly against? Anyone out there who compares favorably to Mackey, CPBell, WBrown, Van Haltren, etc who really should be getting more support? These arguments work better before the election is over.
   28. sunnyday2 Posted: March 21, 2006 at 11:59 PM (#1911425)
Bell was an average player for a long time and with one great anecdotal strength--faster than the speed of light. One nichey little strength does not make a HoMer for me.
   29. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 22, 2006 at 12:33 AM (#1911456)
I agree with Sunnyday on Bell. I think he was vastly overrated, I am not willing ot give him credit for his years as a switch hitter and he needs them.

I think that Trouppe was the better player than Mackey, though I must admit I dont' know if Mackey was a HOMer or not.

I think that Duffy is superior to GVH, much better peak and no slouch on career either (though GVH is on my ballot)

I have owrries about Brown's ability to hit in MLB (had he been white) because he displayed so little patience and think that his fielding was probably only average at best. I would rather see Kiner, Keller, or Browning make it as hitters.

Sisler is on my ballot and my top 1B and Redding in in my PHOM AND my top backlog pitcher. Gordon was slightly better than Doerr, I believe, though I can see it either way. My top MIer is Cupid Childs, then Dobie Moore.

Those are my arguments.
   30. TomH Posted: March 22, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#1911482)
I could argue with myself all day, so it ain't much use persuading others. Do we want to honor 3 MORE outfielders (Bell, Brown, VanHaltren) real soon? OTOH, they each have strong arguments. I admit some of Bell's is rep, but he was NOT an 'average player'. He was an average hitter, but if you figure Rickey/Coleman/Cobb like stealing ability, and then add Mays/Speaker/Flood-like CF ability, he is at least as good as Max Carey (which to some is not a positive statement, I know...). GVH has almost 350 WS mostly in the 1890s combined league.

We're short of 3Bmen. Leach would help, Sewell is 1/4th 3B, McGraw is both a 3B guy AND an under-represented 1890s guy.

Not sure I understand the placement of Redding over Mendez. Maybe the Redding supporters are quieter? I thought Mendez support would rise last week as a Koufax compariosn. But it didn't. Not sure why.

I believe we are underrating live ball pitchers in general. Can someone post a % chart (pitcher, C/infield, 1B/OF inductees) for those whose primes/careers were primarily 1920 onward? I believe it will be instructive. Especially because our top backlogger in this category is 20th, which means many will put only Whitey Ford, if even him, as a liveball hurler next week.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 01:11 AM (#1911484)
Especially because our top backlogger in this category is 20th, which means many will put only Whitey Ford, if even him, as a liveball hurler next week.

Ford, Grimes, and Walters will be on my ballot next week.
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: March 22, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#1911541)
TomH, not exactly what you wanted, but it's a start.
What would you like from other positions?
I try not to post a mountain of stuff too often, but the pitching discussions seem to make this one ok at this time.

HOM Ps, by year, through 1972 election, since 1920. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G and mainly this position to be listed (occasionally a guy about an inning short gets listed anyway):
1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1891 (9) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (5) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1895 (5) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1896 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1897-98 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1899-00 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1901 (6) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (6) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906-07 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams
1911 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander
1912 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1913 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1914 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF BrownW Johnson Williams Alexander Faber
1915 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth
1916 (9) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski

1920 (5) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1921 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-23 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing
1926 (12) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster
1927 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1928 (11) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1929 (12) - Williams Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (10) - Williams Faber Vance Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (11) - Williams Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (9) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (8) - Lyons Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1936 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1937 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1938 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Feller
1939-40 (6) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell RBrown Feller
1941 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Feller Newhouser
1942 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1943-44 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1945 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946 (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1947 (6) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1948 (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1949-50 (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1951 (5) - Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1952 (7) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1953 (6) - Paige Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1954 (4) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1955 (4) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1956 (4) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1957 (3) - Wynn Spahn Roberts
1958 (4) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Koufax
1959 (4) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Koufax
1960 (4) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Koufax
1961 (2) - Spahn Koufax
1962 (3) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Koufax
1963 (3) - Spahn Roberts Koufax
1964 (3) - Spahn Roberts Koufax
1965 (2) - Spahn Roberts Koufax
1966 (1) - Koufax

Van Haltren would be 1887-88; 1890
Welch would be 1880-91
Waddell would be 1900-09
Mendez would be 1908-14, very roughly
Redding would be 1911-30, roughly
Grimes would be 1917-31
Walters would be 1936-45
Pierce would be 1949-62

Redding is our only pure P among the top 10 returnees.
The other Ps in the top returning 35 are ranked 11 (Mendez), 17-20 (Pierce, Walters, Welch, Waddell), and 32 (Grimes).
   33. Howie Menckel Posted: March 22, 2006 at 02:22 AM (#1911546)
.. and delete "since 1920" from the first sentence..
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#1911564)
The dips that I can see are in the 1890s and I think we know why that is, but there is nobody competitive to fill that gap. Then 1918-20 or so and we know why that (WWI, primarily, the switch to the lively ball doesn't seem to have had any real impact at first). Redding or Grimes could fill that gap.

Then from 1935 on and I'm not sure we know why that is. Obviously WWII saw a big drop and there's nothing we can do about that, though if you included pitchers who are getting WWII XC in those years the gap would probably go away. But beginning in 1954 we are in a serious hurtbag and it's hard to believe that Pierce is our only salvation. Well, that does not include some guys still coming eligible like Whitey "Mudball" Ford.

Is there a pitcher from the '90s yet that anybody wants to advocate for?

I will advocate for Redding, he is in my PHoM. Who besides "Ol' Stubblebeard" is there?

I will certainly advocate for "Ol' Mudball," but who besides Pierce is there?

The next guys on our list are Dean, Trout, Joss, Willis, Bridges, Mays, Mullane, Leonard, Gomez, Bond. Not all of course address our gaps.
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#1911566)
Here's an idea. What if we had a special thread and held an off-week vote for "arms," 15 to a ballot, just to see what would happen and if somebody would be able to make a case that hasn't been heard before? Not to elect anybody but just to shine the spotlight on some guys who are now down in the backlog a bit. Not this week, it's too late, but how about after the 1973 vote?
   36. OCF Posted: March 22, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1911572)
The consensus report:

One new voter - rawagman. Two voters returning from more than 5 years absence: James Newburg and Tiboreau. Two 1971 voters didn't vote in 1972: Max Parkinson and caspian 88.

It's clear that we're gone to have a number of wide-open backlog elections with razor-thin margins; the question of exactly who does and doesn't vote is likely to be decisive in some cases.

Average consensus score: -6.7, which makes it just another year.

Howie Menckel: 0
DanG: 0
TomH: 0
Rob Wood: -1
Rusty Priske: -1
Brent: -1
Pedro Feliz Navidad: -1
Ken Fischer: -1
...
Chris Cobb: -3
...
sunnyday2: -5
jimd: -5
Daryn: -6
(median)
Sean Gilman: -6
rawagman: -6
Mark Donelson: -6
...
OCF: -7
...
Dolf Lucky: -12
John Murphy: -13
Dr. Chaleeko: -13
Joe Dimino: -15
karlmagnus: -17
Gadfly: -17
KJOK: -18
Jim Sp: -19
yest: -19
   37. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:45 AM (#1911613)
Wow, I guess Cravath, Charley Jones, Pierce and Rizzuto are starting to destroy my consensus score . . .

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

Hmmn sunnyday - not sure about the taking a week off to discuss pitchers idea. I'm open to be convinced either way, if someone thinks there is a need.

I think we've done a pretty good job of electing the second tier position players, guys like Doerr . . . but I think we've done a terrible job with getting a few extra non-no-brainer pitchers, guys like Pierce and Walters.

Basically, if didn't throw 4500 innings, you need to have been arguably the best pitcher in baseball for a few years or you don't get in. That's an awfully high standard - one that guys like Doerr, Terry, Hack, Reese, Wheat and a few others haven't been held to.

I'm not saying I disagree with all of those selections or anything, but I can't think of any similar type pitchers, maybe Griffith and Coveleski, but that'd be about it. Ferrell is more of a short career high peak type.

What we're missing are the 2800-3500 IP pitchers who were consistently very good, without being great type of pitchers. I don't see why they are any less valuable than the 7000-8500 PA hitters who were never strong MVP candidates for a 3-year stretch.
   38. TomH Posted: March 22, 2006 at 04:03 AM (#1911631)
Great table, Howie. Many thanks. It reinforces my take on Pierce and Walters (much higher on my ballot than typical ballot). I'm OK with without needing a week off to discuss arms; our pace of only introducing an avg of 1 candidate per year who isn't obviously "in" or "out" is not too taxing. It's up to each of us to police adverse trends we see...
   39. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 04:44 AM (#1911678)
Joe, you just made my argument for me.

>I think we've done a pretty good job of electing the second tier position players, guys like Doerr . . . but I think we've done a terrible job with getting a few extra non-no-brainer pitchers, guys like Pierce and Walters.

I see this little excursion (an off-week "demonstration election" with ballots consisting entirely of pitchers but no one gets actually elected) as an opportunity to build consensus if that is possible. I mean, neither Walters nor Pierce has been on my ballot. If filling out a ballot with 15 pitchers makes me re-look at them, great.
   40. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:42 AM (#1911756)
What we're missing are the 2800-3500 IP pitchers who were consistently very good, without being great type of pitchers. I don't see why they are any less valuable than the 7000-8500 PA hitters who were never strong MVP candidates for a 3-year stretch.

What low-peak hitters with less than 8500 PA are we inducting that aren't 2B-SS-C types?

I count 54 pitchers between 1890 and 1967 who have between 2800-3500 IP.

HOM-ers (8):
EWalsh, TFBrown, Coveleski, Vance, Newhouser, Lemon, Griffith, McGinnity

Active Candidates (4):
Pierce, Walters, Waddell, Ford

Also Getting Votes (5):
Bridges, CMays, DLeonard, Ciccotte, WCooper

Future Strong Candidates (2) :
Drysdale, Bunning

ThreadWorthy (4):
Luque, BAdams, MHarder, CSimmons (at least this week)

Notable HOF-but-not-HOM-ers (4) :
Bender, Haines, Chesbro, Marquard

Off-the-radar (27):
DocWhite, Sallee, Shawkey, French, Fitzsimmons, Root, Zachary, Ames, LJackson,
Hawley, Breitenstein, BLee, Dickson, Kennedy, Burdette, Donovan, Hadley, Uhle, Ehmke, Dineen, Dauss, Meadows, Bush, Orth, Weyhing, Donahue, CFraser
   41. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:11 AM (#1911776)
"What low-peak hitters with less than 8500 PA are we inducting that aren't 2B-SS-C types?"

I wouldn't call Pierce and Walters low peak at all. Walters has a heckuva peak, especially when you throw in his hitting.

But by the way these guys are being judged low peak means, not the best or arguably best player/pitcher in baseball for a 3-year stretch (that's the only definition one could have of Pierce or Walters that would be considered low peak).

So to answer the question:

Bill Terry
Heinie Groh
Earl Averill
Sam Thompson
Larry Doby

Adding in the SS/2B (not sure why they should be excluded)

Bobby Doerr
Hardy Richardson
Lou Boudreau

There aren't any catchers that would qualify under this definition - we haven't elected a catcher that didn't have a huge peak or a long career for a catcher.

That's 8 position players under the medium career length - medium peak strength mold.

The only pitchers I can see that fit that are Stan Coveleski and Clark Griffith.

If we are calling guys like Terry, Averill, Doby and Groh peak candidates and electing them based on that peak, I think we need to lower our standards just a notch on what peak is required of pitchers of a similar career length.
   42. Chris Cobb Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:19 PM (#1911932)
I share David's skepticism that we are being inconsistent in our handling of medium-peak, medium-career pitchers, but let me review Joe's evidence to see if that skepticism is misplaced.

David asked:

"What low-peak hitters with less than 8500 PA are we inducting that aren't 2B-SS-C types?"

Joe responded:

I wouldn't call Pierce and Walters low peak at all. Walters has a heckuva peak, especially when you throw in his hitting. But by the way these guys are being judged low peak means, not the best or arguably best player/pitcher in baseball for a 3-year stretch (that's the only definition one could have of Pierce or Walters that would be considered low peak).

I find the statements about Walters confusing. I think Walters was clearly the best pitcher in the National League from 1939-1941. In the AL, Feller may have been better. If Waltrs is not making it, there may be other reasons for it.

Joe then provides a list of players who fit the medium-peak, no more than 8500 AB category:

So to answer the question:

Bill Terry
Heinie Groh
Earl Averill
Sam Thompson
Larry Doby

Adding in the SS/2B (not sure why they should be excluded)

Bobby Doerr
Hardy Richardson
Lou Boudreau

There aren't any catchers that would qualify under this definition - we haven't elected a catcher that didn't have a huge peak or a long career for a catcher.

That's 8 position players under the medium career length - medium peak strength mold.

The only pitchers I can see that fit that are Stan Coveleski and Clark Griffith.


If there are 8 position players elected with this profile, then the number of pitchers who share this profile in the HoM depends in part on what one thinks the ratio of pitchers to position players should be, a point on which the electorate is not in agreement. Someone who sees that the number of "Arms" should equal the number of "Bats" and the number of "Gloves" would say we are two pitchers short, and I don't think anyone is saying we would have more pitchers than that. So to be two pitchers short at this point in history does not suggest to me that we have done a "terrible job" with this group of pitchers.

Also, I think even the definition of medium-peak, medium-career barely holds most of the position players in it. Here's a survey:

Bill Terry -- the shoe fits, though counting stat voters may see a great peak, not a medium one.
Heinie Groh -- arguably the best player in the National league 1917-19. He has a really great peak in those three years.
Earl Averill -- with 2 seasons MiL credit and adjusted to 162 game seasons, he's over 8500 PA
Sam Thompson -- the shoe fits, though counting-stat voters may argue that he is great-peak player, not a medium-peak
Larry Doby -- with NeL and war credit, he will be around 8000 PA, and he has an argument to have been the best player in the AL in the early 1950s, before Mantle reached his prime and while Williams was injured or at war.
Bobby Doerr -- with war credit, he tops 8500 PA
Hardy Richardson -- with his seasons expanded to 162 games, he tops 8500 PA
Lou Boudreau -- had several truly great seasons, they were just not consecutive.

Insofar as these players form a group, most of them are barely in it. The two who, in my view, are unquestionably members of this group -- Bill Terry and Sam Thompson -- are the only two "pure bat" position players in the group and the only two players currently in the HoM who I view as definite mistakes. I can't see this list of 8 players as evidence that we are truly holding pitchers to a more difficult standard than position players.

I think the supporters of Pierce and Walters should keep arguing on their behalf: Walters had a great peak! Pierce had a great prime! As long as it is arguable that they aren't really medium-career, medium-peak players, even if they more-or-less fit that category, they have a good case.
   43. Gaelan Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#1911942)
</blockquote>I had all 3 of Koufax, Mendez and Redding off ballot but in my consideration set, so I was not inconsistent about them. I would suggest however that there remain notably better pitchers, such as Welch, Cicotte, Joss, Leever and probably Waddell. I'm happy to argue the case for any of those 5 over Koufax/Mendez/Redding.<blockquote>

Ok, I'll bite. How in the world is Addie Joss, to pick a player with a similar career pattern as Koufax and who certainly had the best peak of the guys you mentioned, better than Koufax. I don't see how you can adjust the numbers to make Joss come out ahead.

I think Pierce is a good candidate but when Koufax is left off some ballots then a guys like Pierce doesn't have a chance.
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#1911958)
Ok, I'll bite. How in the world is Addie Joss, to pick a player with a similar career pattern as Koufax and who certainly had the best peak of the guys you mentioned, better than Koufax. I don't see how you can adjust the numbers to make Joss come out ahead.

You can only have Joss ahead if you think he was as durable as Koufax was, which is an incorrect assumption when you compare them to the other pitchers from their eras.
   45. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:46 PM (#1911966)
Joss pitched the same number of innings as Koufax with a 11 point better ERA+. Sometimes the simplest answers are the best!
   46. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:50 PM (#1911970)
To expand a little, I philosophically disagree with the innings adjustments for dead ball era pitchers. Once the distance was 60 foot 6, an inning is an inning. I know the deadball pitchers pitched more innings per annum, but they also blew out their arms quicker -- it was not a period of 5,000 inning pitching careers. In a later era, Joss might have pitched fewer innings per annum, but he might also have lived longer.
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#1911972)
Joss pitched the same number of innings as Koufax with a 11 point better ERA+. Sometimes the simplest answers are the best!

Well, I agree the answer is simple. ;-)

Seriously, do you think that Ed Walsh would have been pitching 464 IP during the 1960s? That's basically what you're implying when you state that Joss and Koufax pitched the same amount of IP. It just doesn't make any sense.
   48. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#1912010)
Grandma, when you look at careers, this is nonsense, and indeed may have warped our voting for the past several decades. Of the top 20 innings pitched careers, TEN were active at some point in the 1960s (Niekro, Ryan, Perry, Sutton, Spahn, Carlton, Blyleven, Seaver, John and Roberts.) One (Clemens) postdates that era. Four pitched primarily before the distance lengthened (Galvin, Keefe, Mathews and Welch.) Only five of the 20 had their career primes in 1893-1920 (Young, Johnson, Nichols, Alexander, Mathewson.) There should possibly be an upward adjustment of innings picthed for careers centered in 1920-59, when modern medicine hadn't happened and the lively ball had. However, there is NO justification for adjusting Joss's innings pitched downwards against Koufax, none at all.

Guys, having now done this modest research, I have to say that in this area WE'VE BEEN DOING IT ALL WRONG!

In terms of practical results, we took too long to elect Griffith, but we've done it now and I don't see anyone else obvious from the 1890s. Grimes should probably get a boost for exceptional longevity, and Dean lose some of his demerits for short career -- not really much shorter than Koufax's, when you compare the eras. Waddell should also be looked at again -- quite a long career, if you don't adjust down the IP figures.
   49. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#1912020)
Sorry, Blyleven debuted in 1970 and so joins Clemens. Doesn't change the point.
   50. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1912040)
I wouldn't call Pierce and Walters low peak at all. Walters has a heckuva peak, especially when you throw in his hitting.

I was responding to your initial comment about "2800-3500 IP pitchers who were consistently very good, without being great type of pitchers". If you think Walters had a great peak, add that to his resume use it to lobby for him. (Basically what Chris C said). I just didn't understand the affection for very-good-but-not-great players who didn't have long careers. I mean, why not vote for the guys who were better or played longer?
   51. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 05:03 PM (#1912069)
I am absolutely with karl on this. Joss and Koufax pitched the same number of innings. Downgrading Joss because others pitched more at that time is unfair.

The reason is, as karl says, that those contemporaries who pitched more innings than Joss generally blew their arms out. They pitched more per year but fewer years. To say that a pitcher should be downgraded because he (or more properly, his manager) had a more enlightened, longer-term approach to using his pitchers is wrong.

When giving out Cy Young awards, fine, if a guy is 150 ERA+ in 350 IP, god bless 'im. But when it comes to the HoM, that pitcher more than likely followed up with an injury year and 3-4 90-110 ERA+ years and was done. Meanwhile, Joss or whomever keeps plugging away at 150 ERA+ and 250 IP for 10 years. The fact that he wasn't the Cy Young award winner along the way shouldn't be held too much against him when the Cy Young winners are guys like Joe Wood, etc., who just couldn't keep it going (I know I'm kind of mixing eras).

I also know that the Joss situation is complicated by his early death.

Still I think the idea that guys have to be among the IP leaders is a bit of a red herring sometimes.
   52. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#1912074)
>I mean, why not vote for the guys who were better or played longer?

Don't know if you're referring to Joss, but the point is other guys played longer (or more within the season) but not better.
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#1912078)
Grandma, when you look at careers, this is nonsense, and indeed may have warped our voting for the past several decades. Of the top 20 innings pitched careers, TEN were active at some point in the 1960s (Niekro, Ryan, Perry, Sutton, Spahn, Carlton, Blyleven, Seaver, John and Roberts.) One (Clemens) postdates that era. Four pitched primarily before the distance lengthened (Galvin, Keefe, Mathews and Welch.) Only five of the 20 had their career primes in 1893-1920 (Young, Johnson, Nichols, Alexander, Mathewson.) There should possibly be an upward adjustment of innings picthed for careers centered in 1920-59, when modern medicine hadn't happened and the lively ball had. However, there is NO justification for adjusting Joss's innings pitched downwards against Koufax, none at all.

If you're evaluating peak, you absolutely have to adjust for it.

As for the pitchers that you mentioned above from the 1960s and 1970s, I also agree that you have to adjust their numbers, but mostly on the career side, instead of the peak side.
   54. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2006 at 05:25 PM (#1912102)
Don't know if you're referring to Joss, but the point is other guys played longer (or more within the season) but not better.

Nope. That referred to the discussion way up in #37-41. Joss's rate stats wouldn't put him in the group I was talking about.

Joss's best shot was in the 1920s. I remember heated debates at the time. The electorate preferred McGinnity's workhorseness. Not sure how well those threads have survived.
   55. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1912110)
I was on the other side in the 1920s. Mea culpa. However only when we went through decade after deacde of pitchers with much shorter careers, including Dean and Koufax, did it really become obvious that we'd done Joss an injustice. Also, I wasn't aware until later how extraordinary his ERA+ was in the overall scheme of things; a career OPS+ of 142 for a hitter would be 64th all time, whereas Joss's ERA+ was 10th. The standards are very very different, and one only learns that by working through the data year by year.
   56. Gaelan Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:24 PM (#1912192)
If you want to say that Joss should be in, well then fine, I don't disagree with that. But if you want to say that Joss is better than Koufax that's simply wrong. Here are my reasons . . .

1) ERA+ is a bad way to evaluate pitchers
2) Even if you use ERA+ Koufax has a better one if you don't count his first four seasons. I'm not picking and choosing here. When talking about great someone was career rate stats are horrible because they get diluted disproportionately by time spent learning how to play at the beginning of their careers and by hang around time at the end. Those portions of players careers are irrelevant to their cases.
3) Time-line adjustment.

The simple answer is usually the wrong one.
   57. sunnyday2 Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1912199)
Joss has been on my ballot since even before he was on karl's :-)

I did not say he was better than Koufax.

Koufax got elected to the HoM on the first ballot (and to my PHoM).

This is my final mention of Koufax.
   58. dan b Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#1912215)
I also know that the Joss situation is complicated by his early death.

Further complicating the Joss situation is that he pitched his last game on July 11 - missing the last 11 weeks of his last season with an arm injury.
   59. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 22, 2006 at 06:56 PM (#1912239)
Jeez, a guy has good years in the 1960s, is nice---affable even---retires young, and he's all anyone can talk about. Why does Koufax engender such a combination of hero worship and devil's advocacy? Why do passionate flames run so bloody high for him but not for others? And why are most of those passions coming from people who don't regularly post on the HOM?

Is baseball's version of the Kobain/Morrison/Hendrix/Holliday effect that strong? If so where were the Johnny Fredrick, Willard Hershberger, Ken Hubbs, Austin McHenry, Herb Score, Earle Combs, Pete Reiser (and Frank Chance?) stumpers all this time with superheated defenses of their guy(s)? Addie Joss's defense is downright tepid in comparison to the outporing of Koufaxian vitrol from the lurker crowd (Karl, I'm not suggesting you ramp it up to that level either).
   60. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:04 PM (#1912256)
Since Joss died in 1910, my support for him is limited to a little light ragtime rather than the real Jimi Hendrix heavy metal! :-)
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#1912262)
Why do passionate flames run so bloody high for him but not for others? And why are most of those passions coming from people who don't regularly post on the HOM?

For the same reason that our overall dismissing of Dizzy Dean hasn't received that much, if any, criticism - his non-contextual numbers,

I would bet everything in my bank account that if Koufax had started his career in '48 and in a neutral park, he would be even less well known than Robin Roberts is today, which is sad when you think about it.
   62. DavidFoss Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#1912266)
But if you want to say that Joss is better than Koufax

Only four people voted for Joss and only one of those had him above Koufax. You are pretty much preaching to the choir here.

And why are most of those passions coming from people who don't regularly post on the HOM?

Some of those guys might not have been around for previous discussions. We pick apart almost *everyone*'s career here. Check the old threads, even guys like Mathewson and Grove took some shots in our analysis. Don't worry, everybody goes under the microscope. Its part of the analytic process.
   63. karlmagnus Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:23 PM (#1912300)
If the HOM had been voting in 1976 instead of 2006 we might have got a lot more heat about Dean. His playing career is now more or less beyond living memory.
   64. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#1912306)
i agree fully with John on Joss v. Koufax. They had equal careers IP, but if you look at peak, you must adjust for in season IP.

Maybe we have trouble electintg so many middle tier pitchers because we understand pitching less than we understand postiion players. Therefore, there is less consensus, and each voter picks out a pitcher that impresses them in a different way. With position players we are better able to trust our metrics and have more consensus on what exactly makes a great hitter, etc.

The idea of a week off to vote on pitchers only sounds like fun, but I am not sure it is needed.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 22, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#1912317)
If the HOM had been voting in 1976 instead of 2006 we might have got a lot more heat about Dean. His playing career is now more or less beyond living memory.

There's a lot of truth in what you say, karlmagnus. However, I think what hurts him is his ERA. 3.02? What's so special about that for such a short career (and don't even talk about Wes Ferrell! :-)
   66. Paul Wendt Posted: March 22, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#1912536)
According to charlemagne,
TEN [of 20] were active at some point in the 1960s (Niekro, Ryan, Perry, Sutton, Spahn, Carlton, Blyleven, Seaver, John and Roberts.) One (Clemens) postdates that era. Four pitched primarily before the distance lengthened (Galvin, Keefe, Mathews and Welch.) Only five of the 20 had their career primes in 1893-1920 (Young, Johnson, Nichols, Alexander, Mathewson.) There should possibly be an upward adjustment of innings picthed for careers centered in 1920-59, when modern medicine hadn't happened and the lively ball had.
. . .
Sorry, Blyleven debuted in 1970 and so joins Clemens. Doesn't change the point.


Absolutely true. Eight of the ten may be called one generation in a fairly narrow sense (Spahn and Roberts deleted).
Niekro, Ryan, Perry, Sutton, Carlton, Blyleven, Seaver, John

Not so for the deadball quintet. Alexander made his major debut in Cy Young's 22nd and last season. MLB debut years 1890, 1890, 1900, 1907, 1911. Alex and Cy about three years older than Kid, Matty, and the Big Train.

--
JoeD answered a question from David Foss:
Bill Terry
Heinie Groh
Earl Averill
Sam Thompson
Larry Doby

Adding in the SS/2B (not sure why they should be excluded)

Bobby Doerr
Hardy Richardson
Lou Boudreau

There aren't any catchers that would qualify under this definition - we haven't elected a catcher that didn't have a huge peak or a long career for a catcher.

That's 8 position players under the medium career length - medium peak strength mold.

The only pitchers I can see that fit that are Stan Coveleski and Clark Griffith.


Chris Cobb commented.
Here I don't do much but quote him and write "right" after each paragraph.

If there are 8 position players elected with this profile, then the number of pitchers who share this profile in the HoM depends in part on what one thinks the ratio of pitchers to position players should be, a point on which the electorate is not in agreement. Someone who sees that the number of "Arms" should equal the number of "Bats" and the number of "Gloves" would say we are two pitchers short, and I don't think anyone is saying we would have more pitchers than that. So to be two pitchers short at this point in history does not suggest to me that we have done a "terrible job" with this group of pitchers.

Right. Ten is a tiny population and 8:2 is only one off the desired or expected 7:3 distribution.

Also, I think even the definition of medium-peak, medium-career barely holds most of the position players in it. Here's a survey:
. . .
Insofar as these players form a group, most of them are barely in it. The two who, in my view, are unquestionably members of this group -- Bill Terry and Sam Thompson -- are the only two "pure bat" position players in the group and the only two players currently in the HoM who I view as definite mistakes. I can't see this list of 8 players as evidence that we are truly holding pitchers to a more difficult standard than position players.


Right.

I think the supporters of Pierce and Walters should keep arguing on their behalf: Walters had a great peak! Pierce had a great prime! As long as it is arguable that they aren't really medium-career, medium-peak players, even if they more-or-less fit that category, they have a good case.

Right.
   67. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 23, 2006 at 12:25 PM (#1913403)
Fair enough Chris - but 8500 doesn't necessarily equate 3000 IP - it was just a number I tossed out there. My point was there are two pitchers in the Hall of Merit that had neither an extremely long career, nor an extreme 3-year peak.

I still think my point is valid, though I've bounced around a bit in making it (which I could see leads to confusion). I was referring to 'best in baseball' not 'best in league' specifically (AL or NL). I think that matters too.

Forgetting 8500 as the hard requirement (again, just a number I plucked out of the air), batters without an extremely long-career, or extremely high peak that I would add to the list:

*Bill Terry
*Bobby Doerr
*Hardy Richardson
*Heinie Groh (I'm disagreeing on the spike of his peak being extreme - and even if it was somewhat high, it wasn't higher than Walters/Pierce, which is the main arguement)
*Stan Hack
*Lou Boudreau
*Pee Wee Reese
*Joe Kelley
*Harry Stovey
*Jimmy Sheckard
*Richie Ashburn
*Earl Averill (even with minor league credit)
*Larry Doby (peak wasn't that high)
*Sam Thompson

None of them had extremely long Ruffing like careers (equivalent to 4500+ IP) careers, or insane peaks like Caruthers, Rusie, Walsh and Koufax.

Pitchers:

Clark Griffith
Stan Coveleski

others that could maybe be described this way?
Bob Lemon?

That 14 to 2 or 3. 10 of the 14 went in with relatively little resistance. It took Griffith about 70 years.

Among those close in the last election that would fit:

4. Biz Mackey
9. Joe Gordon (pretty high peak actually, significantly higher than Doerr's IMO)
17T. Cupid Childs
17T. Joe Sewell

Then finally Billy Pierce and Bucky Walters at 20 and 21. So it's likely going to be 17 or 18 before we get our 3rd or 4th pitcher in the group of tweeners.

In electing 220 or so players, we are going to have our share of tweeners - I think it's blatantly obvious, that we've been a lot more friendly to the position players than the pitchers, and the trend is getting worse, not better.
   68. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 23, 2006 at 12:28 PM (#1913405)
And yeah, Walters is probably a high-peak guy, at least if Lemon is considered one. That makes it even worse, meaning that Pierce is the only one in queue.

I still don't see how one could like Lemon significantly more than Walters. Is it just that the 1950s Indians are fresher in some of our minds than the late 30's Reds?

The Indians are close enough that at least our parents remember them and may have told stories. But Walters is a whole 'nother generation back. It's the only thing I can think of. It's probably one of our most arbitrary decisions to date.
   69. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 23, 2006 at 12:33 PM (#1913406)
The reason I keep wavering on Walters as peak vs. tweener is because he really only had the one huge year, despite the fact that he was the best pitcher in the NL in the late 1930s and early 1940s. I mean Dave Stieb was the best pitcher in baseball during the 80s (if you penalize Clemens for only being great for 1/2 the decade) and he's not a high peak guy.

That's the same reason I don't consider Doby a high peak guy. He's a good peak, career long-enough guy. High peak guys to me are Kiner, Arky Vaughn, Hughie Jennings, Albert Belle. Perennial MVP candidates for a decade that end up with short careers for one reason or another. When I say peak, I guess it's what some of you call prime. I don't consider a guy with a 3-year peak and nothing else to be a 'peak-candidate' to me, he's a 'non-candidate' (though I'll still review and rank him, it's rare for a guy like that mak my top 20), so I guess that's caused some of the confusion too.
   70. Chris Cobb Posted: March 23, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1913445)
I certainly see Three Finger Brown as a member of the Griffith/Coveleski group, as is Bob Lemon, if you are say that a pitcher had to have a claim to be the best in baseball. Then we're up to 4 vs. 14, which is about 1 pitcher short of where we should be, as I see it. The statement that "it's blatantly obvious that we've been a lot friendlier to the postion players than to the pitchers" seems like hyperbole to me.

Also, as I would say the electorate as a whole believes that peak value is a bit more important for pitchers, is there a case to be made that a short-career, high peak pitcher gets a better reception from the HoM than a short-career high-peak position player?

Joe lists Kiner as a high-peak guy: he hasn't set the voters on fire. It took Hughie Jennings 50 years to get elected. Wes Ferrell and Sandy Koufax are both on the inside, as is Al Spalding and Amos Rusie. How many position players with less than 10 years of full-time play have we given the time of day?

On Lemon vs. Walters: I agree there is a problem of consistency here, though I see it as much that Lemon was overrated as that Walters is underrated. I certainly found the ease with which Lemon was elected to be surprising. I believe that he benefited somewhat from being in the Hall of Fame. Since the sabermetric community has never raised a fuss about his being in that Hall, I believe that voters were more likely to look at his record expecting to see something good, and therefore finding it. I think this sort of status has benefited several players. Walters and Pierce don't have that advantage, and Walters has the additional disadvantage of war-time discounts. Lemon's reputation as a hitter is better established than Walters', and was pushed much more in the arguments that led to his election. I still think many voters are not taking Walters' batting into account.


Another big factor in Walters vs. Lemon is WARP. Even though their careers overlapped, and their peaks were separated by only a decade, WARP sees a very significant change in the distribution of value between pitchers and fielders as taking place right at the start of Lemon's career, when walks and home runs both jump up:

Player -- xIP -- DERA -- PRAR
Walters -- 3138 -- 4.07 -- 804
Lemon -- 2899 -- 4.16 -- 850

Walters was the more effective pitcher in more innings, but Lemon was more valuable?
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: March 23, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#1913450)
Yes, I was not a big Lemon supporter (he was mid-ballot), so my lower ranking of Walters has left him off for now.

I don't begrudge Walters his 1939-42, but it bothers me that he was lousy in 1943 and then was excellent in 1944 - a brutal war year. Then he pitches well - but a lot less often - in 1945 and 1946, then he's toast.

It's debatable, but he doesn't quite cut it with me.
   72. yest Posted: March 24, 2006 at 08:27 AM (#1915733)
A list of eligible HoFers
HoMers in bold
all HoFers with significant playing careers are included
1936
Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson
1937
Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young , Connie Mack, John McGraw, George Wright
1938
Pete Alexander
1939
George Sisler, Eddie Collins , Willie Keeler , Lou Gehrig, Cap Anson , Charlie Comiskey , Candy Cummings , Buck Ewing , Charles Radbourn , Al Spalding
1942
Rogers Hornsby
1945
Roger Bresnahan , Dan Brouthers , Fred Clarke , Jimmy Collins , Ed Delahanty , Hugh Duffy , Hughie Jennings , King Kelly , Jim O’Rourke , Wilbert Robinson
1946
Jesse Burkett , Frank Chance , Jack Chesbro , Johnny Evers , , Clark Griffith, , Tommy McCarthy , Joe McGinnity , Eddie Plank , Joe Tinker , Rube Waddell , Ed Walsh
1947
Carl Hubbell , Frankie Frisch , Mickey Cochrane , Lefty Grove
1948
Herb Pennock , Pie Traynor
1949
Charlie Gehringer , Mordecai Brown , Kid Nichols
1951
Mel Ott , Jimmie Foxx
1952
Harry Heilmann , Paul Waner
1953
Al Simmons , Dizzy Dean , Chief Bender , Bobby Wallace , Harry Wright
1954
Rabbit Maranville , Bill Dickey , Bill Terry
1955
Joe DiMaggio , Ted Lyons , Dazzy Vance , Gabby Hartnett , Frank Baker , Ray Schalk
1956
Hank Greenberg , Joe Cronin
1957
Sam Crawford
1959
Zack Wheat
1961
Max Carey , Billy Hamilton
1962
Bob Feller , Jackie Robinson , Bill McKechnie , Edd Roush
1963
John Clarkson , Elmer Flick , Sam Rice , Eppa Rixey
1964
Luke Appling , Red Faber , Burleigh Grimes , Miller Huggins , Tim Keefe , Heinie Manush , Monte Ward
1965
Pud Galvin
1966
Ted Williams , Casey Stengel
1967
Red Ruffing , Lloyd Waner
1968
Joe Medwick , Kiki Cuyler , Goose Goslin
1969
Stan Musial Roy Campanella , Stan Coveleski , , Waite Hoyt,
1970
Lou Boudreau , Earle Combs , Jesse Haines,
1971
Dave Bancroft , Jake Beckley , Chick Hafey , Harry Hooper , Joe Kelley , Rube Marquard , Satchel Paige
1972
Sandy Koufax Yogi Berra ,Early Wynn, Lefty Gomez , Ross Youngs , Josh Gibson , Buck Leonard
1973
, Warren Spahn, , George Kelly , Mickey Welch , Monte Irvin
1974
Jim Bottomley , Sam Thompson , Cool Papa Bell
1975
Ralph Kiner , Earl Averill , Bucky Harris , Billy Herman , Judy Johnson
1976
Robin Roberts Bob Lemon , Roger Connor , Freddy Lindstrom , Oscar Charleston
1977
Amos Rusie , Joe Sewell , Al Lopez , Martin Dihigo , Pop Lloyd
1978
Addie Joss
1979
Hack Wilson
1980
Duke Snider, Chuck Klein
1981
Johnny Mize , Rube Foster
1982
Travis Jackson
1983
George Kell
1984
Rick Ferrell , Pee Wee Reese
1985
Enos Slaughter , Arky Vaughan
1986
Bobby Doerr, Ernie Lombardi
1987
Ray Dandridge
1989
Red Schoendienst
1991
Tony Lazzeri
1992
Hal Newhouser
1994
Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Joe Williams
2000
Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Hilton Smith
2006
Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Biz Mackey, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, Jud Wilson, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Jose Mendez Louis Santop, Ben Taylor, Sol White
   73. jimd Posted: March 25, 2006 at 01:47 AM (#1916973)
but it bothers me that he was lousy in 1943 and then was excellent in 1944 - a brutal war year.

A lot of pitchers have alternating good years and bad years. The drop on talent wasn't enough to make him look good in the off-year.

I have Walters rated about even with Dean; not quite as good a peak, better career. He's just on (14) and Dean is just off (21). And Trout is pretty similar.

I see Lemon as having a longer prime than these guys. They were all good for 5-6 years, except Lemon for 8-9. Made a big difference to me, even if it doesn't in Joe's system. YMMV.
   74. Howie Menckel Posted: March 25, 2006 at 03:41 AM (#1917156)
jimd,
I agree that with Walters the correlation with the weak war year is definite, but the cause and effect is not.
This is the same dilemma I have with Bob Johnson (and that I had with Doerr).
If it's just happenstance that '44 was a big one, then I'm being unfair.
But if they couldn't have done it against a full complement of players, then others are being too kind.

It's a tough call, and it matters with all three, I think.
   75. Tiboreau Posted: March 25, 2006 at 06:49 AM (#1917439)
That is why I'm not in favor of any more than a blanket discount of, say, 10%--you can't know how well they would have done with stiffer competition. And, of course, the pennants were just as valuable from '43 to '45 as they were before and after. So, Dizzy Trout receives the same discount for his '44 season that everyone else does--like Walters, Doerr, and Johnson.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.9455 seconds
49 querie(s) executed