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, April 03, 2006

1974 Ballot Discussion

1974 (April 17)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

565 154.4 1951 Mickey Mantle-CF (1995)
450 130.5 1952 Eddie Mathews-3B (2001)
273 74.3 1956 Rocky Colavito-RF
225 87.6 1955 Larry Jackson-P (1990)
203 63.8 1955 Elston Howard-C (1980)
223 53.7 1957 Roger Maris-RF (1985)
171 43.2 1956 Norm Siebern-1B
110 41.1 1958 Bill Monbouquette-P
132 30.7 1961 Floyd Robinson-RF
087 30.7 1952 Bill Henry-RP

Players Passing Away in 1973

HoMers
Age Elected

74 1944 Frankie Frisch-2B

Candidates
Age Eligible

92 1926 George McBride-SS
86 1929 George Cutshaw-2b
84 1929 Reb Russell-P/RF
83 1933 Jack Fournier-1B
81 1928 Greasy Neale-RF/LF
81 1932 Wilbur Cooper-P
80 1936 George Sisler-1B
79 1934 Vic Aldridge-P
74 1939 Sloppy Thurston-P
70 1943 Chick Hafey-LF
70 1943 Roy Johnson-LF/RF
66 1946 Lyn Lary-SS
60 1960 Al Brazle-RP
46 1964 Herm Wehmeier-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 03, 2006 at 12:08 AM | 228 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 04, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#1935408)
Well, we can take it a little easier this year...
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: April 04, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#1935422)
Actually an interesting group even though the election itself is without suspense. In addition to Colavito and Maris, you could actually make a fair case for Norm Siebern as an MVP one year. Anybody know which year?

And George Sisler's gone. A damn shame we didn't elect him while he was still alive.
   3. Howie Menckel Posted: April 04, 2006 at 01:21 AM (#1935564)
At least Sisler died on the uptick re HOM.
And he had that HOF thing to console him before the big sleep.

Well, Colavito and Howard, at least, deserve scrutiny just as much as if we didn't have the two obvious candidates. We need to reach conclusions on them vs the rest of the runnersup.

This is when I started collecting baseball cards. I still have most of these guys...
   4. Chris Cobb Posted: April 04, 2006 at 02:17 AM (#1935698)
Mantle and Mathews will be #1 and #2 on my ballot this year, obviously.

I don't see any of the others getting onto or even particularly close to my ballot. Colavito, Jackson, Howard, and Maris were all very good players: anybody over 200 win shares with a peak that gets him into MVP consideration to boot is clearly a special player, and all four of these players had that. That said, they are all well behind the candidates who are on the borderline.

The only possible exception to this is Elston Howard, depending on how much MLE credit he merits. One year of credit, which is all I am ready to give him so far, will not be enough to get him onto my ballot. I think he probably needs three full seasons credit.
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: April 04, 2006 at 11:55 AM (#1936533)
Somebody ought to note the end of Frankie Frisch's reign of terror at the Hall of Fame. Not to rejoice in somebody dying but, still, thank goodness for the end of his influence at Cooperstown. It is hard to imagine it being any worse but what if it had continued another decade. I wonder who was next on his list?
   6. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 04, 2006 at 01:14 PM (#1936577)
I wonder who was next on his list?

My guess would be Art Fletcher, George Burns, and Pepper Martin.
   7. DavidFoss Posted: April 04, 2006 at 01:25 PM (#1936595)
I wonder who was next on his list?

I'm going to go with Jim Bottomley, Freddie Lindstrom and Travis Jackson. :-)

It took a few years to get his influence off the committee.
   8. Rusty Priske Posted: April 04, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#1936663)
Prelim

Needless to say, my PHoM matches the elect-me spots on my ballot.

1. Mickey Mantle
2. Eddie Mathews
3. Willard Brown
4. George Van Haltren
5. Biz Mackey
6. Dobie Moore
7. Jake Beckley
8. Mickey Welch
9. George Sisler
10. Nellie Fox
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Tommy Leach
13. Edd Roush
14. Tony Mullane
15. Quincy Trouppe

16-20. Minoso, Redding, Rice, Childs, White
21-25. Smith, Streeter, Grimes, Kiner, Sewell
26-30. Johnson, Ryan, Strong, Gleason, Elliott
   9. DL from MN Posted: April 04, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#1936871)
I have Colavito and Larry Jackson as #24 and #25 on my ballot between Urban Shocker and Rube Waddell. These guys are borderline and should sit in the backlog for a while. I do have Colavito ahead of Sisler. Howard and Maris can't crack the top 50.

Prelim
1 Mantle
2 Mathews
3 Bob Johnson
4 Pierce
5 Kiner
6 Gordon
7 Mackey
8 Minoso
9 Bridges
10 Beckley
11 Trouppe
12 Leonard
13 Keller
14 Trucks
15 Elliott
16-20 Klein, Van Haltren, Sewell, W Brown, Cravath
21-25 F Jones, Lazzeri, Mendez, Shocker, L Jackson
26-31 Colavito, Waddell, Sisler, J Ryan, Trout, Roush
   10. Ardo Posted: April 04, 2006 at 04:07 PM (#1936881)
1974 first try:

1. Mantle
2. Mathews
(chasm)
3. Mendez
4. Gordon
5. Oms
6. Trouppe
7. Pierce
8. Sisler
9. Redding
10. Schang
11. Fox
12. Kiner
13. Minoso
14. Sewell
15. Willis

16-20: Cravath, Leach, Mackey, Joss, Beckley.
21-25: Welch, Doyle, Roush, Jones, Bridges.

I excluded Willard Brown because I suspect that I'm under-rating him. Will a fan of Brown's make a strong case for his inclusion?

Elston Howard (5843, 108, +1 credit) strikes me as similar to Biz Mackey: good O/great D, played for winning teams, over-rated by most historians. Mackey's MLEs indicate more PA for Biz, even with Howard's extra credit. Ellie makes my top 40, just ahead of Ernie Lombardi.
   11. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 04, 2006 at 04:59 PM (#1936977)
i think Howard has a much better peak than Mackey.
   12. Daryn Posted: April 04, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#1937058)
Next year, with Boyer on the ballot, I will have the following players at 17 thru 21 on my ballot: Traynor, Boyer, Leach, Sewell and Gordon. Does anyone else have this throwing infielder glut on/off their ballot. Any ideas on how to distinguish between these guys, all of whom I rate as just about the 220th best player of all-time and therefore definitionally borderline? I know most of this group prefers Gordon to the other four, but as a career voter, I don't see it (even with war credit).
   13. Trevor P. Posted: April 04, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1937093)
I don't, but I am looking forward to the Ken Boyer discussion. Hopefully it will propel the overlooked Bob Elliott back into the spotlight.
   14. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 04, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#1937161)
My rank for those five is

Gordon (on ballot)
Boyer (he will be close)
Sewell (30ish)
Leach (40ish)
Traynor (45ish)

I of course would throw Bob Elliot and Al Rosen into that discussion. Then again I am a peak voter and you are a career voter.
   15. Ardo Posted: April 04, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#1937323)
Next year, with Boyer on the ballot, I will have the following players at 17 thru 21 on my ballot: Traynor, Boyer, Leach, Sewell and Gordon.


If you're a career voter, you shouldn't prefer Gordon to the other four. The case for electing Gordon, in spite of his short career, is twofold:

-He had a great peak for a second baseman, interrupted by the Second World War (he lost his age 29 and 30 seasons, and it's hard to believe that his awful 1946 wasn't somehow war-related)

-As Bill James has written, he was killed by being an RH power hitter in Old Yankee Stadium. His Cleveland years are a fairer measure of his true talent level.

I agree that Sewell, Leach, and Traynor (by my rank) are fairly interchangeable, but don't you have Boyer much, much higher than those three?
   16. Ardo Posted: April 04, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#1937412)
Short career, live ball (IP, ERA+)
Ford (3170, 132)
Pierce (3306, 119)
Walters (3104, 115)
Bridges (2826, 126)


Some kindly fellow (I forget whom) has observed that Emil "Dutch" Leonard (3218, 119) deserves to be part of this list. He makes for an interesting Drysdale-Pappas [high peak vs. high longevity] case study vis-a-vis Bucky Walters.

As for Drysdale himself (3432, 121), he's a better candidate than Pierce, Walters, Leonard, or Bridges.
   17. Daryn Posted: April 04, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#1937517)
I agree that Sewell, Leach, and Traynor (by my rank) are fairly interchangeable, but don't you have Boyer much, much higher than those three?

No, just one spot. What am I missing? What makes Boyer noticeably better than Sewell? 7 points of OPS+? A better glove?
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: April 04, 2006 at 11:57 PM (#1937960)
I, like Daryn, don't see what separates Boyer from Sewell.

However, there remains the question of our overall evaluation of "glove positions." We now have, by my count, 55 1B/OF HoMers and only 46.5 C/2B/3B/SS HoMers. If we were to make up the difference immediately and if we assumed that we have the glove players in the right order, we elect:

Biz Mackey
Joe Gordon
Dobie Moore
Joe Sewell
Cupid Childs
Nellie Fox
Quincy Trouppe
Tommy Leach (.5)
Roger Bresnahan

Our top remaining "glove candidates" after these inductions would be

Bob Elliott
Larry Doyle
Wally Schang
John McGraw
Pie Traynor

Is it imaginable that we should be rebalancing our evaluations to bring gloves and bats to equal representation? If we placed that bit of additional emphasis on fielding, would some lower ranking glove candidates who were the better fielders rise, players like Rizzuto, Long, Maranville, Lave Cross?
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#1938047)
All of the "glove" players that Chris mentions seem to me to be viable candidates, with the possible exception of Wally Schang. I like a little bit of a peak, at least. Hard for me to believe that Dave Bancroft (the first coming of Ozzie Smith) and Dick Lundy and Bill Monroe aren't among out top 15 backlog gloves, however. I would slide those three in ahead of Schang, McGraw and Leach. And of course Ed Williamson would be on my list, but I'm not surprised he's not among the consensus.

I would endorse rebalancing--as soon as we elect Browning and Kiner and W. Brown, anyway ;-)
   20. Ardo Posted: April 05, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#1938122)
What am I missing? What makes Boyer noticeably better than Sewell? 7 points of OPS+? A better glove?

I must have a far steeper timeline than Chris Cobb and Daryn. For me, the difference in league quality between the 1960's NL (integrated and drawing from a large pool of athletes) and the 1920's AL (whites-only and already over-represented in the HoM) is drastic. Two identical players would be 3-4 spots apart on my ballot on that factor alone.

Also, I can level off a 2-3 point difference in OPS+, but Boyer's 7-point edge over Sewell is substantively significant - even more so in such a tightly bunched candidate pool.

However, there remains the question of our overall evaluation of "glove positions."

I certainly agree with the premise. Yet I suggest more nuance. We didn't elect Max Carey for his hitting prowess, and we wouldn't be electing Larry Doyle for his silky-smooth fielding.
   21. jimd Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#1938273)
Boyer's 7-point edge over Sewell is substantively significant

Over a full season, a 1 point difference in OPS+ is approximately one single single. A 7 point difference is 7 singles, or a little more than 1 single per month.

Put another way, it's about 1 Batting Win Share per full season. Playing SS is worth more than that, about 2.5 DWS per season when compared to 3B, assuming both were average at their positions (though both were better than that).

Sewell was a better hitter for his position than Boyer was for his.
   22. jingoist Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#1938371)
Boy o boy, some of you guys really get your pantyhose in a wad over this Frankie Frisch guy.

"Reign of terror".
You'd think he'd committed a venal sin.

He just put placques of some of his old pals into a small building in Cooperstown, NY.....it's the kind of homage that many of us might do for our old pals 30 or 40 years after our great exploits together, if given a similar opportunity.

So he gave a few guys a pass; you'll elect some borderline/questionable types at the HoM before it's all done regardlees of how hard you strive to avoid doing so.

Now then, I don't pretend Frankie's a hero or that he "did the right thing" as Spike Lee would say it, but I think it's understandable.

I find your quest at the HoM an honorable one, but it's an imperfect world with imperfect rules created by imperfect humans and golly gosh, the results will most likely be imperfect as well.
   23. Chris Cobb Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#1938388)
I must have a far steeper timeline than Chris Cobb and Daryn. For me, the difference in league quality between the 1960's NL (integrated and drawing from a large pool of athletes) and the 1920's AL (whites-only and already over-represented in the HoM) is drastic.

On what evidence, aside from intuition, do you base your conclusions about differences in league quality? How do you determine what proper representation of a given league and given era is within the HoM?

I don't have a timeline, as such. I rank players from different eras against each other first based on their ranking within their eras. Since the Negro Leagues were fully functional in the 1920s, I rank Sewell against all of his NeL contemporaries as well as his ML contemporaries, and I think it reasonable that we elect about the same number of players, total, from the 1920s ML/NeL as from the 1960s ML. My theoretical quota for each decade is 20.5.

Sewell places 30th among the 1920s players in my current rankings.
Boyer places 29th among the 1960s players in my current rankings.

Boyer, if my rankings don't change within each decade, will rank a bit higher, possibly 8 places.

If my system, like the HoM electorate as a group, is underrating infielders, these two are being about equally underrated.
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#1938401)
1 pont of OPS+ may be worth a single in one season but over a career, I would think that it is worth about 12-15 singles (or however long one's career happens to be). 15 singles times .43 (run value of a single in MGL's formula if I remember correctly) is about 6 runs. Seven points of OPS+ would be seven times that, or 42 runs or 4.2 wins.

That is probably not a very good calculation. Still 4.2 wins isnt' taht much either I guess.
   25. Chris Cobb Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#1938421)
He just put placques of some of his old pals into a small building in Cooperstown, NY.....it's the kind of homage that many of us might do for our old pals 30 or 40 years after our great exploits together, if given a similar opportunity.

I rather doubt we would. My guess, and it's just a guess, would be that the people who are attracted to the Hall of Merit project are attracted to it precisely because they aren't the sort of people who think the Frischean cronyism is appropriate. It is admirable to have friends, and to treat them well, but to do it this in this fashion was wrong.
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 03:33 AM (#1938554)
And to suggest that George Kelly among other is "borderline"? Compared, say, to Clark Griffith or Cool Papa Bell? I don't get the connection.
   27. KJOK Posted: April 05, 2006 at 04:55 AM (#1938726)
Kelly was definitely NOT borderline. Just a week after Kelly was elected, Bob Burnes wrote an article in The Sporting News titled:

"Does Vet Panel Vote Pals into Shrine?"

'The thought has to be there that cronyism had to exist among some members of the committee who knew him, played with him or against him, or wrote the stories of his day....Perhaps this was evident in the words of some of the members who, in explaining their selection, talked about his powerful arm. For a first baseman, who seldom has to use his arm that much, it is scarcely a recommendation.'
   28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#1939133)
So he gave a few guys a pass; you'll elect some borderline/questionable types at the HoM before it's all done regardlees of how hard you strive to avoid doing so.

It's not the same thing, jingoist, since the vast majority of the players that we have elected were on the field before we were born. If we have made any errors, they were created by faulty analytical systems or relying too heavily on anecdotes, not because we wanted to get our favorite players in (though I think we have to be on the lookout for it now).

As for borderline/questionable types, if we elect anyone of the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy variety, that will end my participation with the HoM. Fortunately, we haven't come remotely close to that level.

While I think Frisch misused his position at the HOF, he wasn't that different from many other ex-players there. He only had the bigger mouth. With that said, he wasn't Hitler or Stalin, either. His "sin" was of rewarding ex-teammates and friends, which I don't consider a terrible evil.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#1939138)
"Does Vet Panel Vote Pals into Shrine?"

Great find, Kevin. Burnes nailed it pefectly.
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 04:53 PM (#1939388)
"Does Vet Panel Vote Pals into Shrine?"

Good find, indeed. So when was it then that so many sportswriters started becoming incredibly annying? Or was Burnes an anomoly in his own time?

I mean what would George Vescey or Buster Olney say about Geo Kelly today?
   31. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#1939405)
Looking for George Kelly comps is kinda fun. Using similarity scores and Win Shares, Bob Watson looks like a decent one, but on second glance, his OPS+ is far too high.

Frank McCormick and Bill White are a bit better, though I would rank both a bit above GK as well.

Jeff Conine is almost a dead ringer for career stats, but to be fair to GK, I'm not sure if he matches his peak.

So, somewhere between Jeff Conine and Bill White is my best estimate.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: April 05, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#1939413)
While I was looking for George Kelly comps, I also thought of all the constructive things that could be done in a discussion week for an election where only two people will be getting elect-me votes.

There was a call a few weeks ago for pitcher evals. Even taking a week off. Well, the "week off" is here. We've got a couple of weeks to kill here, so now would be the time for stuff like that.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#1939511)
A couple quick ways to look at the Geo Kelly comps question.
George Kelly led his position in his league in WS once, 1B 1921, 24 WS.

Here's a little chart of comps. All of these guys led the league at their position once in their career and it was as a 1B (except Conine). Listed are the year they led, the WS that year, their raw career WS, their schedule-war-whatever adjusted WS, career OPS, and career PAs. I've ordered them by career PAs
CAREER  CAREER   CAREEER  CAREER
NAME             YEAR  WS       WS  DR
.C WS      OPS     PAs
------------------------------------------------------------
George Kelley    1921  24      193      203      110    6565

Joe Kuhel        1945  25      243      238      104    9095
Joe Adcock       1960  25      236      245      123    7304
George H Burns   1918  24      200      217      113    7233
Eric Karros      1995  25      183      198      108    7100
Bill White       1964  26      209      212      117    6680
George McQuin    1947  24      173      177      110    6597
Jeff Conine      
----  --      182      193      110    6590
Mo Vaughn        1998  25      201      213      132    6410
Jim Delhanaty    1911  23      149      155      122    4688
Claude Rossman   1908  23       56      N
/A      113    2019 


McQuinn, Conine, and Karros look like the winners to me. Somehow Karros really strikes the right chord for my tastes.
   34. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1939534)
Whoops, I messed up the top line of formatting, but I think it's apparent enough what I'm doing, so I'm not going to rerun it.
   35. Daryn Posted: April 05, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#1939593)
As for borderline/questionable types, if we elect anyone of the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy variety, that will end my participation with the HoM.

That's rather rash -- I like Marquard better than Hughie Jennings, but I didn't take my ball and go home.

I'll just assume it's hyperbole.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 06:48 PM (#1939652)
I'll just assume it's hyperbole.

No, it's not hyperbole, Daryn. I'm very serious about this.

The bottom line is, if I didn't feel this group was serious about their selections or were not knowledgeable about baseball history, what would be the point?

That's rather rash -- I like Marquard better than Hughie Jennings, but I didn't take my ball and go home.

Because you can see a valid reason (I assume) for electing Jennings based on peak, I would assume. In fact, I felt all of the guys that are now HoMers that I didn't have on my ballot had valid reasons for induction, either based on peak, prime, or career.

But the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy group was discarded quickly, as they should have been.

As for Marquard over Jennings, I respectfully don't get that, Daryn.
   37. rawagman Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#1939707)
With a minimum of due respect for Karros, I don't think it's fair to Kelly to make that pairing. Different context of the game. I think Bill White is a much better comp. Still wouldn't vote for Kelley, mind.
   38. yest Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:12 PM (#1939715)
subsitute Frank Grant for Jennings and I agree with Daryn that the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy group is better (in other words the HoM made mistakes worse then the HoF(players only the Manley desicion beat us by a mile))but there were reasons to put him in the HoM (just not good ones simaler to Morgan Buckley after all he was the first president of the NL not that he did anything but...)
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#1939736)
yest, Grant was considered a great second baseman during his own era and had a long career. How is that Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy? The latter five didn't have great peaks by any stretch of the imagination and none of them had longer careers than Grant.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#1939739)
With a minimum of due respect for Karros, I don't think it's fair to Kelly to make that pairing. Different context of the game. I think Bill White is a much better comp.

My gut says you're right, rawagman.
   41. Chris Cobb Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#1939750)
No good comes from talking about the HoM's "mistakes." All we get are bad arguments and bad feelings.

The bottom line is that the HoM's election process has integrity. Therefore, if any one of us happens to disagree with one of the HoM's selections, more of the electorate (and, I expect, more of the careful observers) will disagree with that one of us who says, "This or that guy was a bad mistake" than will agree with him. The only case where this might not be true is where the information about a player has changed since he was elected.
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#1939759)
>subsitute Frank Grant for Jennings and I agree with Daryn that the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy group is better

Cue Minnesota sarcasm now.

N.o. w.a.y. unless you mean all 5 combined. Now two of them could carry Grant's or Jenning's jockstrap.

The HoM may (or may not) have made mistakes, but these 5? Har har.
   43. Daryn Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#1939792)
As for Marquard over Jennings, I respectfully don't get that, Daryn.

Whenever I am challenged on my dislike of Jennings as a peak only candidate I look back at his career stats, adjust them for era, and see that he is not too far off Joe Gordon, for example. It makes me realize that when he got as high as ~34 on my ballot, I wasn't just overcompensating to please the crowd, he really deserved that. Marquard never ranked that high for me -- topping out in the 60s.

So I guess I'm the one guilty of hyperbole.

I supported Grant, but it is possible that yest is right and that Grant's actual performance was not worthy of the HoM. It is the risk we always take when reconstructing the careers of candidates like Pearce, Pike, Grant and Rube Foster.
   44. Chris Fluit Posted: April 05, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#1939840)
Chris Cobb makes an excellent point. Those who defend Frisch by pointing out that the HoM has also made some mistakes along the way are missing the argument. It's granted that the HoM is imperfect. But it's imperfect simply in that it's human nature to disagree. We don't agree on who should be elected, on who shouldn't be elected or on how many electees there should be (the big Hall/small Hall type of argument). So of course some of us are going to feel like the HoM has made some mistakes. But one person's "mistake" is another person's clear-cut HoM'er. After all, each of the electees needed to be on 25 ballots or more and pick up at least a couple of elect-me votes or they wouldn't have been able to get in ahead of the other candidates. The Hall of Merit process has integrity if not unanimity.

The Hall of Fame process has occasionally had integrity but not always. And the Veterans Committee, especially during the '70s under Frisch's leadership, is the prime culprit for the slips in integrity. Until and unless we start trading votes (ie. you help me elect my personal favorite guy this year and I'll help you elect your guy next year) or honoring buddies and pals (or in our case, favorite players) over more deserving candidates, our mistakes will be nowhere near as numerous or egregious as those of the other Hall. There are those among us who probably harbor an excessive amount of hatred and resentment towards Frisch. Admittedly, his improper behavior is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things as John Murphy notes. But that's a very different defense than the one that claims there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#1939853)
So I guess I'm the one guilty of hyperbole.
I supported Grant, but it is possible that yest is right and that Grant's actual performance was not worthy of the HoM. It is the risk we always take when reconstructing the careers of candidates like Pearce, Pike, Grant and Rube Foster.

Good point, Daryn, but you would agree that we have to go with what we know at the time. If statistical evidence is unearthed that suggests that indeed those players were mistakes, that wouldn't mean our analytical process was faulty at the time of their inductions.

Chris, your post #41 was perfect.
   46. yest Posted: April 05, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#1939920)
</i>The bottom line is that the HoM's election process has integrity. <i>

thus the reason why I vote despite the big mistakes (Grant, Sutton, Richordson)
and to get Sisler and Welch in the HoM

But then again Frank Grant is now also a HoF mistake

BTW my complaints against Grant are stated on the old Negroe Leauge thread from before the move
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#1939958)
But then again Frank Grant is now also a HoF mistake

What's your evidence for this, yest?
   48. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#1940008)
Well, Frisch may not be Osama bin Laden. But this project is about honoring great baseball players. Once you confine yourself to that bucket, Frisch is a pretty bad actor. I mean, mistakes are one thing, the BBWAA makes mistakes but they are errors of judgment, not of bad faith and total lack of integrity and of a proactive, premeditated desire to manipulate a process. He sabotaged with malice aforethought the very mission that he had signed up for. That makes him a bad actor. You can look at other "mistakes" (1946) and not find anybody who individually and personally and with motivations that could never have been stated out loud who did as much damage to Coop as Frisch did.
   49. OCF Posted: April 05, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#1940060)
Question that seems appropriate for this year:

Mantle was a good major league player in half a season at the age of 19. At the age of 20, he led the league in OPS+.

Mathews was a good major league player at the age of 20. At the age of 21, he led the league in OPS+.

What does the all-time list look like of the greatest players by established value through the age of 21? I've got to run off to a class now, so I don't have time to look, but I know some of the names that would appear: Foxx, Cobb, maybe Cepeda?

Let's keep it to position players - pitchers raise a whole raft of other concerns.
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#1940123)
Karros and Kelly.

Per the SBE (latest version),

Kelly created 983 runs, 5.49 R/G in a 5.17 league. His park-adjusted figures: +83 RCAA, +1 RCAP, .541 OWP.

He's an average first baseman in a nutshell.

Karros created 923 runs, 4.98 R/G in a 5.10 league. His park adjusted figures: +47 RCAA, -85 RCAP, .518 OWP.

So if anything, Kelly appears to get the better of Eric the Not Red.

Bill White created 959 runs, 5.75 R/G in a 4.49 league. His park adjusted figures: RCAA +161, RCAP +93, .579 OWP.

Clearly, he's not in Bill White's class as a hitter.

George McQuinn looks like Karros in less time, and Conine looks just like Karros and McQuinn. One more

George Burns created 1032 runs, 5.58 R/G in a 4.82 league. His park adjusted figures: 121 RCAA, 23 RCAP, .557 OWP.

Kelly appears in this review to be more like George H. Burns than any other player, though he's not as good a hitter and didn't play as many games as Burns.

Here's one final way to look at Kelly. In my own personal rankings, he's very closely ranked with Lu Blue, Kent Hrbek, Fred Merkle, Boomer Scott, Tino, and Lee May. I've not looked at the RC for any of them very closely, so let's see how they line up.
NAME     DR.C WS    RC RC/G LgRC/G RCAA RCAP  OWP
-------------------------------------------------
Kelly        203   983 5.49   5.17   83    1 .541

Blue         208  1044 6.08   5.45  120  
-24 .555
Hrbek        238  1090 6.24   4.56  262  122 .618
Merkle       206   776 4.62   4.21   83   34 .556
Scott        216  1012 4.66   4.19   46  
-77 .515 
May          226  1023 4.68   4.35   86  
-39 .534
Tino         222  1136 5.59   5.12  112 
-103 .543 

Hmmmmmmm. Merkle's kind of like Burns, only a little better, but not as good as Hrbek or White. The lesser hitters, however are not all that close to Kelly. Blue's the closest of the below average RCAA guys, and he's about as far behind Kelly as Burns is better. That's the best I can do for the moment: Kelly's somewhere above Lu Blue, but he's not quite so good as Burns.
   51. AJMcCringleberry Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#1940150)
What does the all-time list look like of the greatest players by established value through the age of 21?

You could look here.
   52. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#1940165)
He sabotaged with malice aforethought the very mission that he had signed up for. That makes him a bad actor.

Do you really think he had malicious intent? Or did he instead think to himself: "I played on a 100 great teams in my caree between StL and NY, and we wouldn't have all won so many pennants without these guys, they deserve their due."

That would be flawed thinking, no doubt, but is it implausible that he felt that way? Or is it more plausible that he thought "Muahahahahahahah! The keys to the Hall of Fame are in my hands, and I'll induct every last one of my friends until the last left pinch hitter off the bench has a plaque! Muahahahahahahahahaha!!!"
   53. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#1940176)
You could look here.
And if you look under the top OPS+es off all time through age 21, you'll find all the guys you'd figure on seeing plus Fred Carroll.




Fred Carroll!!!???!!!!
   54. yest Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1940227)
One of the main problems I have with Grant is that most of the ######### evidence at the time says he would have made the NL not stared in NL.

Of the few years we have stats for him while they would have been great stats in the majors in the minor league there not as impresive I think its simaler to his namesake Dunlap(who I think was a bit better) in the UA
   55. rawagman Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:48 PM (#1940323)
I was actually looking at Carroll's career the other days when reexamining my catcher rankings.Bill James credits him as being the 2nd best young catcher of all time, behind only Johnny Bench. Unfortuantely, a hand injury ended his big league career after 8 seasons.
But he may be worth a relook. As a catcher, his career OPS+ was 135 in 8 years, that's including his final injury-plagued years OPS+ of 84. 4 years above 145. Also stats out as a decent defensive catcher.
All taken from Bill James, it is also claimed that Carroll didn't like playing in the majors, as he was a Californian, and hated the East. He played minor league ball in the West (dominated) for four more years. Then he retired and died at the age of 40. Can any credit be gleaned from that?

As is, he is in my top 15 of eligible catchers. But that could be 15th place, or 4th place.

If anyone knows a source, I'd love to find out more about him.
   56. rawagman Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1940337)
decent, as in, didn't totally suck. Somewhere between average and replacement
   57. rawagman Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#1940358)
Fred Carroll holds the major league record with 95 passed balls in the 1886 season
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#1940365)
One of the main problems I have with Grant is that most of the ######### evidence at the time says he would have made the NL not stared in NL.

Did you actually say something objectionable there, yest, or did the cybernanny short circuit? :-)
   59. yest Posted: April 05, 2006 at 10:23 PM (#1940419)
Did you actually say something objectionable there, yest, or did the cybernanny short circuit? :-)

the word was contemporary or some variation of it
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: April 05, 2006 at 10:46 PM (#1940451)
If you're gonna look at Fred Carroll, then look at John Clapp.

As to Frisch, yes, I'm saying he had malicious intent. In fact, the way you described, that's malicious intent. It was an intent to enshrine certain guys without stopping to think about whether there were better players out there. Or more likely, he knew there were better players out there and didn't care. But even if he didn't realize there were better players out there, it still qualifies as malicious intent. He wanted to enshrine certain guys no matter what, and he thumbed his nose at the mission of his own committee and at Cooperstown to do it.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 05, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#1940512)
the word was contemporary or some variation of it

LOL

I just saw what you actually typed without the cybernanny behind the scenes. Let's just say that you might get a slap from your mother, wife, or sister if they saw it posted. :-D
   62. Daryn Posted: April 05, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1940531)
Testing

############
   63. Daryn Posted: April 05, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#1940536)
Aha.
   64. jimd Posted: April 05, 2006 at 11:59 PM (#1940757)
I think Bill White is a much better comp.

BP's WARP-1 ratings agree with this. 66.7 to 66.5. They have comparable playing time, though Kelly is spread out over more seasons (more tryouts when young). White was the better hitter (.284 to .276) but BP sees Kelly as the better glove (more FRAA) at a time when the glovework was more important (more FRAR).

The two offset each other, leaving the two as nearly twins (at least until one examines league quality, which is another negative for Kelly).
   65. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 06, 2006 at 04:15 AM (#1942070)
I have herad a stat where if a plyer is established by the age of 22 (during his age 22 season) he has something like a 15-20% chance of making it inot the HOF. So I would think that the list of players who were established by age 21 is pretty damn impressive
   66. rawagman Posted: April 06, 2006 at 11:41 AM (#1942437)
If you're gonna look at Fred Carroll, then look at John Clapp.


I did. Much better defense. Not nearly the hitter, though.
   67. sunnyday2 Posted: April 06, 2006 at 12:32 PM (#1942460)
Nothing said yet a bout Norm Siebern who had one of the flukey seasons... James has him as the #63 1B, between Ferris Fain and Joe Kuhel, and that is fair. He only got 171 career WS. But James also says, "If you could clone him and run his career over again, he might well be in the Hall of Fame." Why does he say that?

Highlights

In 1957, he was MiL PoY. The next year as a 25 year old rookie he batted clean up in game 2 of the World Series, then fifth in game 3, then lead-off in game 4. That was the game where he lost a couple balls in the sun, however, and he became known, unfairly it says, as a weak fielder. He played 120 games in 1959 and ended up in KC.

His OPS+ line: 117/138-36-27-25-14-10 (plus 117-08-07 in 100 game seasons but < BA title eligible). Not bad but not even HoVG, really.

But in 1962 he led the league with 162 games and as a result (well,also as a result of tht 138 OPS+) was able to compile 25 HR-117 RBI and 185 hits, and a .308/.412/.495 with 117 BB. Mantle took the MVP.

Player-G-PA-HR-RBI-BA/OB/SA-OPS+

Mantle 123-499-30-89-.321/.486/.605-198
Siebern 162-710-25-117-.308/.412/.495-138

Sure, 198 vs. 138 is a big advantage but so is 710 PAs vs. 499. And just for the record, the next best offensive year was probably the Rock, though Killebrew led the AL in HR and RBI.

Player-G-PA-HR-RBI-BA/OB/SA-OPS+

Mantle 123-499-30-89-.321/.486/.605-198
Siebern 162-710-25-117-.308/.412/.495-138
Colavito 161-697-37-112-.273/.371/.514-132
Killebrew 155-658-48-126-.243/.366/.545-137

One can't help but wonder if Siebern had still been with the Yankees if the MVP might have been his. Of course when I say the 138 was a fluke, one also has to note the 136 way back in 1958 but in just 134 games. And the fact that he was a 25 year old rookie says something, too. But throw a 136-08-25-27-38-10-14-17-07 career into pinstripes allthe way and somehow it looks different. For that matter, figure he sticks with the Yankees in 1957 after 54 games in 1956... Not quite Moose Skowron but there's a lot more here than Joe Pepitone.
   68. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 06, 2006 at 01:16 PM (#1942499)
I did. Much better defense. Not nearly the hitter, though.

Are you taking NA and (if applicable) pre-NA into account? Clapp's a guy I've struggled with, because a little bit of pre-MLB credit would really help him.

Chris Cobb, do you have any NA shares for him? Or is there any chance you could work some up for him 1872-1875? I'd love to be able to rank him more precisely than I can now.
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: April 06, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#1942546)
The NA was MLB in my book.
   70. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2006 at 02:31 PM (#1942591)
One can't help but wonder if Siebern had still been with the Yankees if the MVP might have been his. Of course when I say the 138 was a fluke, one also has to note the 136 way back in 1958 but in just 134 games.

I think its a bit of a fluke that a 138 OPS+ (bb-ref says 141) would contend for an MVP at a hitter position like 1B. The BBWAA was usually looking for a reason not to vote for Mantle, and despite the fact that Mickey missed a full month, they couldn't come up with another guy to vote for. Almost any other year and that type of season doesn't enter the MVP discussion.

Plus 1962 was the year in KC that the fences were moved in. The RF porch in Yankee Stadium was inviting as well -- but his 1959-68 splits show he liked Fenway more than Yankee Stadium so perhaps he was an opposite field hitter.

Siebern will always be remembered as the guy who was traded for Maris. The Yankees had several options at 1B-LF, but no one with the arm to replace the aging Hank Bauer in RF.

A guy I often confused with Siebern is Sievers. I like him quite a bit better.
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: April 06, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#1942660)
I agree. 1) Sievers was better than Siebern, at least in terms of actual career achievements and value. Whether Siebern was as good or better in terms of skills, as James' remarks suggest, I don't know.

2) Yes, Siebern being an MVP candidate at 138 or 141 is the second sense in which his 1962 was a fluke. In 1961, you had Mantle, Maris, Colavito and Cash all above 180,.

Though of course expansion is assumed to have been a big contributor to those 1961 OPS's. OTOH if expansion was that big of a deal, how likely is it that the effect would be completely washed out of the system in '62?
   72. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#1942718)
Though of course expansion is assumed to have been a big contributor to those 1961 OPS's. OTOH if expansion was that big of a deal, how likely is it that the effect would be completely washed out of the system in '62?

AL - Top 5 OPS+
---------------
1958:188-181-178-159-147
1959:152-150-142-137-137
1960:164-161-151-145-142
1961:206-201-184-167-161
1962:196-141-138-135-132
1963:151-148-147-144-141
1964:177-176-163-153-150
1965:156-148-143-142-140

There are a few other weak years in there as well, both before and after the expansion, but I think 1962 was the weakest especially when you consider that Mantle missed a whole month. A balanced league that is hard to dominate is a plus on one hand, but I think this might also be a measure of how little star power the AL had in this time period. Its not until the Frank Robinson trade that the gap starts to close.
   73. karlmagnus Posted: April 06, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#1942763)
The 148 in 1963 was my man Yastrzemski, for whom I will vote #1 in 1989 even above Ol' Man Beckley (I take it even the HOM constitutional purists have no problem with that!) People didn't think of him as a great player until '67, which proves that 148 isn't all that special but Yaz already was.
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: April 06, 2006 at 04:27 PM (#1942809)
1964-1971

Player A 150-41-35-28-45-34-38-52/median 139.5
Player B 122-54-17-89-68-34-74-12/median 144

Player A career 130
Player B career 128

Yes, or should I say Yaz, of course this is biased as hell, considering player B had another 14 seasons of 100 games or more (11 of them >110) while Player A had 3 more (all >100 <110 after a devastating injury).

But for 7 years Tony Oliva was pretty comparable to Yaz, though more consistent, not the highs or lows. But of course if Tony is not quite the peak/prime player that Yaz was, and is light years behind for career, then even this peak/prime voter can see the difference.

But for 7 years Tony O was one helluva hitter. That's all.
   75. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#1942942)
As a control group, here are the NL numbers:

1958:165-156-153-146-136
1959:181-167-155-155-153
1960:169-165-160-155-145
1961:164-161-160-157-153
1962:174-170-166-148-146
1963:179-175-165-161-147
1964:172-164-162-161-159
1965:185-160-157-154-151
   76. Al Peterson Posted: April 06, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1942945)
Someone up above mentioned this might be the week for pitcher reevaluation so I did just that. I wasn't looking for huge jumps around but wasn't completely set on where things were standing. So here are some some tentative placements for 1974, with their 1973 order in parenthesis. This doesn't include the NeL pitchers - I ballot Redding, Mendez around 20.

6. Waddell (6)
11. Pierce (12)
14. Mullane (15)
19. Mays (50)
23. Shocker (34)
27. Walters (not top 50)
33. Welch (not top 50)
38. Joss (37)
41. Luque (not top 50)
42. Bridges (25)
48. Willis (46)
50. Cicotte (47)

Mays, Shocker, Walters, and Welch get gains, only real loser is Bridges. Urban Shocker? Yeah, don't know about that one but I place 'em where I see 'em. Walters still not enough since I'm not pure peak. Smiling Mickey doesn't have too much to be happy about though at least he now makes my Honorable Mention.
   77. rawagman Posted: April 06, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#1943320)
I did. Much better defense. Not nearly the hitter, though.

Are you taking NA and (if applicable) pre-NA into account? Clapp's a guy I've struggled with, because a little bit of pre-MLB credit would really help him.

Chris Cobb, do you have any NA shares for him? Or is there any chance you could work some up for him 1872-1875? I'd love to be able to rank him more precisely than I can now.

Yes - I am including NA. Nothing pre-1972. Of course, if you can include his earlier playing, I think Carroll's post majors career needs looking into. The minors then were not like the minors now and often said next to, if not absolutely, nothing about a player's ability to play where it mattered. The story goes that he hated playing in the bigs, as he hated the East Coast and always wanted to stay in California. He also continually played winter ball out west while a big leaguer. In 1889, he was possibly the best player in the NL. Led the league in OPS+ while splitting time between playing catcher (moderately good defence that year) and LF/CF (no question but he wasn't so great out there.

Then, at age 26, struggling through a hand injury (we know how hand injuries hurt hitters today) he was moved to the outfield, learned to field at least to league average level, but hit poorly, and went back west for 5 years of California ball. Bill James has some (impressive) stats for him there. I have no clue how to grade that league though, nor exactly how much credit I can give him for it.

It seems to me that if those four years can even earn him 2 years of ML credit, added to 7 of 8 excellent years in the bigs, I have a player that I have to look seriously at ranking highly.
   78. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 06, 2006 at 10:21 PM (#1943752)
Yes - I am including NA. Nothing pre-1972.

Man, than you've created quite a Clapp Trapp! He'll won't even get credit for his big league seasons...

; )
   79. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 06, 2006 at 10:22 PM (#1943760)
Incidentally, while I'm home tonight, I'll see if he has any PCL numbers available, and I'll post them for the group.
   80. DavidFoss Posted: April 06, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#1943788)
I'll see if he has any pre-NA numbers. I doubt it since he didn't play in 1871 and was only 20 in 1872. Its possible, though.

His first team in 1872 was the Middletown (CT) Mansfields with a 21-year old Jim O'Rourke making also making his NA debut. Middletown didn't play a full schedule, so would have to check Nemec to see if they folded or were a mid-season replacement or something else.

Due to O'Rourke's later notoriety, perhaps this Middletown team has been studied. Anyone know where these guys came from? Paul Wendt?
   81. jimd Posted: April 06, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#1943842)
Even worse news was that teams were dropping out because they couldn’t compete: the Washington Olympics in late May, the Nationals in late June, Troy in late July, the Mansfields and Cleveland during August. The Brooklyn teams did not quit, but were not competitive. Initially, everybody was supposed to play each other 5 times, but with so many teams gone, the survivors added more games amongst themselves.

Quoted from the NA season writeup for 1972 that the commish and I prepared years ago. (Shameless plug ;-) See the full version of the master page if you want to find the links and check these out (1871-6). Nemec was a major source for the season writeup, though the schedule analyses and all-star team selections were all ours.

Won't help with the pre-NA days though.
   82. TomH Posted: April 07, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#1944307)
OCF asked
Mantle.....At the age of 20, he led the league in OPS+.
Mathews.... At the age of 21, he led the league in OPS+.
What does the all-time list look like of the greatest players by established value through age 21?

----
This is from a SABR published article. I can send a word doc if anyone wants the whole thing:

General Metric: Win Shares
Specific Metric: "established value" (EV); a weighted average of WS over the most recent 4 years: 40% of the current year, 30% the previous year, 20% of the year before that, and 10% in ‘year minus three’. But many players, did not play in the majors prior to age 20 or 21. A minimum number of WS were assigned to any early missing player-seasons, assuming that if the major league club had called up the player, he would have performed at a certain level. The minimum assigned WS are as follows: 6 at age 18, and 10 at age 19.
Table --- Win Shares By Age For Top Young Stars

......... Age 192021
Aaron, H.. .... 1329
Cobb, T.... 164136
Foxx, J....... 62234
Hornsby, R ...2838
Kaline, A.... 73126
Magee, S.. 112831
Mantle, M.. 133226
Ott, M....... 203128
Rodriguez,A 23422
Ruth, B..........2337
Vaughan, A....2134
Williams, T.....3230

Notes: 10% was added to the WS earned by players in the war-shortened 1918 season (Ruth and Hornsby).

Example: Rogers Hornsby. He did not play MLB at age 18, and earned no WS for his few games at age 19. He is assigned a baseline of 6 and 10 WS respectively for those years.
At age 21, Hornsby was the St. Louis Cardinals full-time shortstop, and led the league in slugging, total bases, OPS, and triples. He earned 37 WS. The year before he had 28.
His EV(21) = .4*37 + .3*28 + .2*10 + .1*6 = 25.8.

Highest EV(21) values are

Cobb 30.5
Hornsby 25.8
Ott 25.0
Ruth 24.3
Williams 24.2
Magee 23.6

The "ages" here are the traditional MLB ages (born before July 1 of season in question). Cobb was actually an 'old' 21. Mel Ott was born in March. He is the best 'younger half of 21' player in this table.

Cobb also topped the list as ages 20, 22, 23, and 24. Mantle wins at 25, Ruth at 26, with the highest EV ever, 49.5.

A-Rod and Pujols have put up the best early-career numbers in the past 40 years.
   83. TomH Posted: April 07, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#1944314)
&*(!@!%@$^ stupid spacing
   84. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 05:44 AM (#1944948)
"Somebody ought to note the end of Frankie Frisch's reign of terror at the Hall of Fame. Not to rejoice in somebody dying but, still, thank goodness for the end of his influence at Cooperstown."

I head up I-95 a fair amount. One of my best friends is from Wilmington, DE (not NC) and lives in Newark, DE (not NJ). Whenever I pass the Elkton exit, I always, without fail think for at least a second, sometimes many more about Frankie Frisch crashing his car there.

I feel really bad about him dying, especially accidentally. But I feel really glad that he couldn't do any more to destroy the Hall of Fame, talk about mixed emotions! They really aren't mixed, of course I feel much more bad about the dying part. Does the shred of the other part make me a bad person?
   85. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:04 AM (#1944993)
Where did Frisch die?

My Mom is from Marshallton (near wilmington) and my aunt used to live in Newark, though she how lives closer to wilmington. Odd, how both joe and I know central, Pa. and Delaware.
   86. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:05 AM (#1944995)
"Kelly was definitely NOT borderline."

You ain't kidding - it would be the equivalent, and I'm not exaggerating, of Derek Jeter heading up the committee in 2040 or so and putting Tino Martinez in. And Jason Giambi (Bottomley) and Chuck Knoblauch (Lindstrom). And Daryl Strawberry (Youngs). And Paul O'Neill (Hafey). And Kenny Rogers (Haines). And David Wells (Marquard).

It's really that ridiculous. There is very little exaggeration there. It's mind-blowing.
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:05 AM (#1944997)
I believe he was heading up I-95 North and crashed near or in Elkton, MD.
   88. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:08 AM (#1945003)
jschmegal my best friend says he's from Wilmington, but really it's Marshallton, the 19808 post office. His parents live in a development called Maplecrest, right around the corner from Liquor World. Ask her if she knows the Walmsleys . . . Incredibly small world!
   89. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:10 AM (#1945006)
Just an addendum, he didn't die on the scene, I believe he died in a hospital in Wilmington about a month later.
   90. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:18 AM (#1945012)
As for the Kelly comps, I'll still put my money on Tino Martinez. The key is that both have the New York 'winner' thing going for them. Both played on multiple pennant winners. The career stats are very comparable once you adjust for era.

Both also have a decent peak. Tino 1997 was a great, but overrated season, much like Kelly 1924.

Both had a rep for being a great glove.

AVG/OBP/SLG vs. League

Kelly +.007/-.006/+.045
Martinez +.002/+.005/+.045

Tino has extended his career a bit, but given the modern salaries, I'm pretty sure with modern conditioning and salary motivation, Kelly could have hung on too.

Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose, Tino was the better player, by a smidge. But really, they are dead-ringers on many levels.
   91. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 07, 2006 at 06:27 AM (#1945017)
BTW, Bill White was too good. Similar power, but he got on base too much. He was significantly better than Kelly/Tino.

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

Clapp and Carroll, two of my all-time favorites. I had them pretty high on the consideration set way back when. I'm almost positive I've voted for Clapp at least once. If you like Addie Joss, or Sandy Koufax, or other short career guys, Carroll certainly deserves a look-see. Clapp had a slightly longer, less high-peak career, but was also a helluva player. Both easily in the Hall of Very Good.

Pretty wild both died within 6 weeks of each other . . . over 101 years ago!
   92. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 07, 2006 at 12:52 PM (#1945142)
No dice on Carroll in the MiL reference books. The PCL books only go back to 1903, and he's not in them. JIC I also tried the IL and AA books, but he didn't appear in them either.
   93. Paul Wendt Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#1945239)
David Foss:
His first team in 1872 was the Middletown (CT) Mansfields with a 21-year old Jim O'Rourke making also making his NA debut. Middletown didn't play a full schedule, so would have to check Nemec to see if they folded or were a mid-season replacement or something else.

Due to O'Rourke's later notoriety, perhaps this Middletown team has been studied. Anyone know where these guys came from? Paul Wendt?


The Mansfield club has been studied because it's Middletown, Connecticut, in the big league!

David Arcidiacono, Middletown Mansfields

I believe that's Murnane on the left, Clapp on the right, on the cover.

Bookfinder.com lists one at $14.95, others ~$45, but you might still get one for $15 postpaid, from the author, via that web article.
   94. Paul Wendt Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:29 PM (#1945260)
This won't be perfect but it will improve upon TomH's arrangement
<u>19 20 21 ......... Age</u>
-- 13 29 Aaron, H.. ....
16 41 36 Cobb, T....
-6 22 34 Foxx, J.......
-- 28 38 Hornsby, R ...
-7 31 26 Kaline, A....
11 28 31 Magee, S..
13 32 26 Mantle, M..
20 31 28 Ott, M.......
-2 34 22 Rodriguez,A
-- 23 37 Ruth, B..........
-- 21 34 Vaughan, A....
-- 32 30 Williams, T.....
   95. Paul Wendt Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#1945265)
The PCL books only go back to 1903

The PCL was established in 1903. It was an "outlaw" league that put some "inlaws" out of business. You need to look for California (State?) League or (Pacific?) Northwest League. Or write to Carlos Bauer.
Carlos Bauer, minor league researcher and author/compiler of one PCL encyclopedia
   96. DavidFoss Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:48 PM (#1945293)
Thanks for the Mansfield info, Paul. I couldn't find my Marshall Wright book last night. I'll look again over the weekend.
   97. Paul Wendt Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:50 PM (#1945297)
.
Carlos Bauer on PCL history, 1-3

Parts 1-3 of 100(?) cover the establishment and first season of the PCL.

Perhaps the PCL or MiLB.com recently purchased pclbaseball.com, because that domain (where I read several of Bauer's articles) simply points to PCL junk(?) at MiLB.com
   98. Paul Wendt Posted: April 07, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#1945301)
I couldn't find my Marshall Wright book [1857-1870]

There is no entry for "Clapp" in the index.
   99. rawagman Posted: April 07, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#1946124)
a bit more on Carroll - James calls the next league he played in the "California" league. Also, James credits Carroll with 23.42 WS per/162. Of his top 100 catchers, only 17 could do any better. This is almost 3 full WS more than Elston Howard managed per 162. I think he gets more intriguing the more I look at him.
   100. Mark Donelson Posted: April 07, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#1946388)
Is it worth starting a separate thread to evaluate Carroll? (Was there ever one?)
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6355 seconds
68 querie(s) executed