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 17, 2006

1975 Ballot Discussion

1975 (April 17)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

279 94.7 1955 Ken Boyer-3B (1982)
258 101.9 1956 Don Drysdale-P (1993)
221 68.4 1958 Curt Flood-CF (1997)
209 62.6 1956 Bill White-1B
139 59.0 1953 Roy Face-RP
153 48.9 1957 Woodie Held-SS/CF
160 42.0 1962 Tom Tresh-LF/SS
155 36.7 1958 Leon Wagner-LF (2004)
124 52.1 1957 Turk Farrell-RP (1977)
123 48.9 1955 Pedro Ramos-P
116 41.1 1958 Gary Bell-P
106 42.6 1953 Al Worthington-RP
108 33.3 1962 Ed Charles-3B
095 35.5 1960 Ken Johnson-P
084 33.9 1962 Dick Radatz-RP (2005)

Players Passing Away in 1974

HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

87 1926 Larry Doyle-2b
87 1931 Harry Hooper-RF
86 1922 Fred Snodgrass-CF
86 1936 Cy Williams-CF
84 1940 Sam Rice-RF
81 1934 Joe Bush-P
74 1941 Lefty Stewart-P
70 1944 Mule Haas-CF
70 1947 Buddy Myer-2B
69 1943 Lloyd Brown-P
69 1948 Pete Appleton-RP
64 1946 Dizzy Dean-P
53 1962 Howie Pollet-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 17, 2006 at 06:01 PM | 259 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 18, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#1969656)
Probably Sisler and Drysdale in '75.
   2. OCF Posted: April 18, 2006 at 12:45 AM (#1969847)
Of course the great milestone of 1974 was Henry Aaron's 715th HR. But that story was over and done right at the beginning of the season, and there was never any real suspense, not after Aaron's big 1973 season.

But I was a Cardinal fan, and I was watching a different record chase: Lou Brock and the single-season SB record, set at 104 by Maury Wills in 1962. Brock had had a remarkably steady career as a base stealer for a long time - he had stolen between 51 and 74 each year for 9 consecutive years. But stolen bases are a young man's business, aren't they? Brock was 35 years old in 1974. He was a somewhat different hitter than he'd been when he was younger - the home runs had largely vanished, he drew a few more walks than he used to. The strikeouts, while still high for someone who wasn't a power hitter (and people commented on that), were down a little.

To set a stolen base record is in part a matter of intent. You have to adopt a "total war" plan, committing yourself to the steal nearly every time - and your manager and your teammates have to let you do that. You can argue about the value of the approach. Ted Sizemore, stuck with the thankless task of batting behind Brock, recorded the lowest BA and lowest SLG of his career up to that point. (His walks were, understandably, up a little, but not enough to compensate). Brock's 105 runs scored don't stand out from his own nearby years, and was only 5th in the league.

But it was exciting. Nearly everyone I talked to that year was extremely skeptical about Brock's chances at Wills's record; I wasn't. I kept doing a linear extrapolation based on team games played; that extrapolation was stuck, nearly unwaveringly, at very close to 120. Precisely because it was in part a matter of intent. it was possible for him to continue on that pace.

And he did it. 118 SB on the season, 118-33. And by pushing his career total past 750, he opened up the possibility of a run on Ty Cobb's career record of 892.

(No one at the time ever mentioned 19th century records - except that all of Cy Young's wins were counted. When Brock did approach Cobb a couple of years later, I suddenly started hearing, "But what about Billy Hamilton?" First I'd ever heard of Hamilton, and it felt like the goal posts were being moved.)

This was all in the context of a tight divisional title race - admitedly, in a bad division - between the Cardinals and the Pirates, which the Pirates pulled out in the end.
   3. Howie Menckel Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#1969986)
Man, this is WIDE open!

I'd recommend that any backers of Sisler/Mackey/Mendez/Redding/Brown/Gordon/Minoso/Kiner/Van Haltren/Moore Duffy should reprise their best stuff this year - and that backers of Drysdale and Boyer shouldn't be shy, either.

Gentlemen, let the games begin....
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#1970001)
I should add that the top 2 runnersup in 1975 will be favored to get in with the 1976 crop, which is useless for newbies.
All the more reason to push for your favorite now.

Should we anoint PR people for each top candidate or something?
   5. TomH Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#1970129)
along with a corresponding 'enemy of' for each :)
   6. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#1970150)
Well, my top five in 1975 will most likely consist of Childs, Duffy, Drysdale, Redding, and Keller (tentative order, Drysdale may move up or down). I would be happy to take any of those five.

Keller has no chance of getting elected and Drysdale has his own discussion this week. I could take any of the other three and since I will be Childs best friend, I may be the best candidate to do his.

As an enemy, I have Mackey the lowest of that group, but I feel that others will have him lower than me (#31). Of the others, Minoso may be the guy I like least as all of the rest are in my top 25.

I would definitely be happy to do a pro-Childs writeup, however.
   7. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#1970180)
prelim

1. Childs
2. Duffy
3. Drysdale - I have him slotted where I had Ford. I actually think that Drysdale was slightly better than Whitey, but I am not so sure there was a big difference after war and usage credit for Ford. Nice peak for Drysdale.
4. Redding
5. Keller
6. Moore
7. Kiner
8. Walters
9. Browning - He and Drysdale are my prelim PHOM inductees
10. Gordon
11. Sisler
12. Boyer - In WS he and Elliot (prelim #29) are really tight. However, WARP likes Boyer much more. They are close, showing you how different my ballto could look.
13. Trouppe
14. Dean
15. Howard - A reconsideration has me thinking that there is littel difference between Trouppe and Howard (and Bresnahan for that matter, he is at #21). This means a bump up for Howard (at Al Rosen' expense, I am not sure I quite believe the peak that WS gives him, WARP disagrees and his other nubers are THAT impressive) and a slight bump down for Trouppe from #11 to #13.

If we get a good discussion going there could be more changes.
   8. Ardo Posted: April 18, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#1970212)
Leading career back-loggers by WARP-3:
-old new-
90.0 100.4 Dick Bartell
91.6 96.4 Bob Johnson
92.3 95.8 Billy Pierce
90.3 88.8 Dutch Leonard

Are shortstops getting the short end of the stick? Bartell, Bancroft, Maranville, Rizzuto, Long, Lundy: none of these candidates have serious support.

Keep in mind that many "best SS ever" lists include players with several years at less demanding positions (A-Rod, Yount). I would be interested in a list of Runs Created adjusted to approx. playing time at shortstop.
   9. Ardo Posted: April 18, 2006 at 03:09 AM (#1970289)
1975 first try:

1. Mendez (was 3)
2. Gordon (4)
3. Trouppe (5)
4. Drysdale (new)
5. Boyer (new)
6. Oms (7)
7. Redding (8)
8. Pierce (6) - a closer look, in the context of evaluating Drysdale, hurt him ever so slightly.
9. Schang (9)
10. Sisler (11)
11. Kiner (12)
12. Fox (10) - 2B is not as difficult as SS.
13. Minoso (14)
14. Mackey (15)
15. Sewell (13) - never had to play against his strong NeL contemporaries.

16-20: Cravath, Willis, Beckley, Rizzuto, Leach.
21-25: Brown, Welch, Howard, Roush, Bancroft.

I don't know much about Willard Brown, so I repeat last year's plea: Will a fan of Brown's make a strong case for his inclusion?

Even more deserving of re-inspection is Adolfo "Dolf" Luque. I haven't ranked him for lack of data. But what was he doing before he got a fair shot in MLB at age 27? Was he better than Mendez?!
   10. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#1970575)
1975 PRELIMINARY BALLOT
(For my method for evaluating pitchers, look at posts #27 and #30 in the Drysdale discussion.)


I try to approach this exercise as if I am picking a 25-man roster. What this means is that I have positional quotas: 5 OF, 3 CI, 3 MI, 2 C, 3 UT, 9 P. I am a peak/prime voter for hitters using Win Shares. For Negro Leaguers, I consider the posted stats and MLEs, as well as the subjective opinions of the players. Also, I give full credit to players who missed time because of World War II.

I am in the process of reevaluating pitchers using a measure that is a combination of marginal runs saved and runs saved above average. (EDIT: This is about finished; my system also takes into account pitcher's hitting and postseason performance.)

1975 HOM Ballot
1. Don Drysdale - Great power pitcher who gets a bad rap for his pennant race performance. Excellent hitter and pitched well in the World Series. 25th-ranked MLB pitcher of all-time, behind Smoltz and ahead of Plank.
2. Charlie Keller - With war credit, "King Kong" had six straight MVP-caliber seasons with two more All-Star level seasons to start his career. Ranks seventh all-time among major league left fielders to date, which puts him ahead of nine other HOMers at the position.
3. Minnie Minoso - Ranks this high because of greater confidence in his career record than the other Negro Leaguers.
4. Dobie Moore - Absolute monster at shortstop. Value comparable to Hughie Jennings, who I liked, but better.
5. Jose Mendez - Mendez and Redding are certifiable HOMers, though I like Mendez's peak a bit more.

6. Dick Redding - Gets bumped up a bit based on subjective opinion, but still a strong candidate.
7. Dizzy Dean - High peak with lots of innings, pitched well in the postseason, very good hitter. 49th all-time, behind Vance and ahead of Fingers.
8. Quincy Trouppe - Love, love, love the MLEs. A catcher who could absolutely rake.
9. Billy Pierce - Poor man's Whitey Ford. 56th all-time, behind Ferrell and ahead of Tiant.
10. Willard Brown - He gets bumped down to this spot because his lack of plate discipline makes projecting career value a bit uncertain.

11. Rube Waddell - A strikeout pitcher nonpareil. 60th all-time, the peak/prime meat between two slices of career bread, Lyons and John.
12. Nellie Fox - Very closely linked to Leach in terms of value. Both players are underrated by the electorate because they were not eye-popping in any one facet of the game. Edge goes to Fox because of his peak seasons.
13. Tommy Leach - Criminally underrated by the electorate. Seventh-greatest major league third baseman of all-time to date.
14. Tommy Bridges - Not a workhorse, but very effective. 63rd all-time, behind Saberhagen and ahead of the next guy.
15. Carl Mays - Hitting and postseason pitching worth about six ERA+ points. 64th all-time, ahead of Caruthers.

The Next Ten
16. Urban Shocker - Underrated; stays pegged here as a borderline ballot candidate. 66th all-time, behind Caruthers and ahead of Hunter.
17. Biz Mackey - As high as I can place him given his spotty hitting record. Still would be a good HOM selection, though.
18. Joe Gordon - Can't cram his way into the ballot sausagefest. He's absolutely a HOMer in my eyes.
19. Hugh Duffy - He's the type of player I love to root for: great all-around, no holes in any one facet of his game, kind of like Bobby Abreu.
20. Ralph Kiner - Two-dimensional player (power and walks) whose peak is somewhat overrated. You have to be historically great to crack the ballot with a ten-year career.

21. Bucky Walters - Good pitcher and hitter, gets dinged a little bit for World War II. 71st all-time between Finley and Stieb.
22. Virgil Trucks - Gets WWII credit from me. 73rd all-time, behind Stieb and ahead of Lee Smith.
23. Alejandro Oms - The last HOM-caliber player in my consideration set.
24. Ken Boyer - Nice peak/prime. Can't see him making my ballot, though. Very similar to Sisler in career value.
25. George Sisler - Peak is hugely overrated and didn't really do much with the stick compared to the other greats at the position. Only ranks this high because my team needs a first baseman. But if I think Sisler is one of the biggest HOM mistakes, we're probably doing pretty good. He wasn't peanuts (though my system has him just behind Albert Pujols.)

Other Top 10 Returnees:
George Van Haltren - In an OF backlog with Roush, Cravath, Berger and Veach.
   11. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:43 AM (#1970577)
Now it's time to drive about 25 miles to file an extension for my taxes. The heck of it is, I'm staying in San Jose for the entire drive from my house to the post office!
   12. rawagman Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:26 AM (#1970678)
preliminary ballot - subject to change
1)Hugh Duffy (3)
2)Rube Waddell (7) - I was undervaluing pitching a bit
3)Gavvy Cravath (5)
4)Joe Sewell (6)
5)Lefty Gomez (8) - see Waddell
6)George Sisler (4) - still very worthy, but I had him a touch too high
7)Jose Mendez (14) - another worthy pitcher
8)Minnie Minoso (9)
9)Jake Beckley (10) - if I get another ballot to look at this, he may top Sisler
10)Vern Stephens (11)
11)Don Drysdale(new) - this rank could raise as high as 6 or drop off the ballot
12)Ralph Kiner (12)
13)Edd Roush (13)
14)Quincy Trouppe (offballot) - he was very close last time. I think his bat/glove combo made a better whole catcher than the other catcher candidates
15)Dizzy Dean (offballot) - The Ralph Kiner of pitchers
   13. Chris Fluit Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:45 AM (#1970687)
preliminary ballot:

1. Dick Redding, P (was 3 last ballot)
2. Jose Mendez, P (was 5)
3. Willard Brown, OF (4)
4. Nellie Fox, 2B (6)
5. Quincy Trouppe, C (8)
6. Billy Pierce, P (7)
7. Minnie Minoso, OF (9)
8. Hugh Duffy, OF (10)
9. Ernie Lombardi, C (14)
10. Biz Mackey, C (15)
11. George Sisler, 1B (11)
12. Joe Gordon, 2B (12)
13. Mickey Welch, P (not on last ballot; was 15 before that)
14. Don Drysdale, P (new eligible)
15. Vern Stephens, SS (n/a)

16. Burleigh Grimes, P
17. Bob Johnson, OF
18. Ken Boyer, 3B (new eligible)
19. Jake Beckley, 1B
20. Ralph Kiner, OF (13)

explaining the changes from last ballot: I further integrated the positional bonuses that I started on my last ballot which resulted in a slight nudge for Trouppe (who passed Pierce) and surprisingly big jumps for the other catchers Lombardi and Mackey. Drysdale's arrival caused me to take a second look at some other pitchers which resulted in small jumps for a few, notably Welch (back on my ballot after a one year absence) and Grimes (though still just off-ballot). And the combination of integrating positional bonus and reassessing career value dropped Kiner quite a few spots and right off the ballot.
   14. TomH Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:43 AM (#1970702)
1975 Scatterbox Prelim

......."clearly in” ......“borderline” ......“HoVGood”

-C --------- Mackey ---- Brshan/Howard/Schang/Lmbrdi
SS –------ Sewell ---------- Rizzuto/Moore
2B – Gordon --------- Childs/Monroe
3B --Boyer------- McGraw –Leach/Traynor

1B ------------- Beckley/Chance/Sisler ----- Easter
OF VanHaltrn ----- Kiner/Johnson/DiMaggio
OF -------Brown/Minoso --- Oms/Browning – Cravath

-P Walters -- Pierce--–----- Redding/Newk/Dean/Welch
-P –-- Drysdale ------------- Mendez/Waddell/Jackson

C/Inf: 4 of top 10, 15 of 38
1B/OF:3 of top 10, 13 of 38
Pitch: 3 of top 10, 10 of 38
   15. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM (#1970723)
Speaking of Dick Radatz, if you look up mercurial in the dictionary I think his picture is next to it. Less than 100 WS!

I remember an all-star game when Radatz was at his prime. He gave up something like 3 runs, and finally managed the third out with the bases loaded or something. As it happens all 3 outs came on Ks, and the announcer went to the commercial break by sexclaiming that he had struck out the side and "made believers of these NL hitters" (presumably meaning believers in the Radatz legend or whatever).

This has always been one of my all-time favorite "stupid-things-baseball-play-by-play-announcers-say."

And wasn't Leon Wagner the original "Big Daddy" or something like that? (The equivalent of Big Papi before Spanish became MLB's mother tongue?)
   16. Howie Menckel Posted: April 18, 2006 at 12:41 PM (#1970735)
Ah, Ed Charles.
If you were a kid in the NY market, you'd always hear announcer Bob Murphy warn, "Never throw a slider to The Glider, Ed Charles" and think he was one dangerous hitter.

21 HRs in 861 ABs as a Met, alas. Although he was a pretty good player for them in 1968.

One of the all-time great smiles in baseball, too.
   17. Rusty Priske Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:13 PM (#1970754)
My initial ranking has Drysdale at #50.

Obviously I am going to look at this further throughout the week.

Is this a case of people disregarding the importance of career or am I missing something?

I can't see him making my ballot, but I want to be sure.

PHoM are likely to be Minnie Minoso & Bill Terry. My 'elect-me' spots are going to be Willard Brown & George Van Haltren.
   18. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#1970765)
Electorate, can we talk about Jose Mendez?

I know you like him, you really like him. In fact, electorate, I think you want to be his best friend, but you're just not sure.

Best friends are hard to come by, you've got to be able to trust them in important situations. Like that Negro World Series game where, even though Jose's arm was falling off, he went the distance for a big win.

Best friends should make you feel good about yourself. Like all those big wins Mendez delivered in Cuba, where the pride of the nation and of all dark-skinned people of that era was buoyed by his consistently outstanding performances against big league players...in the face of a discriminatory zeitgeist that suggested dark-skinned people were "inferior" to white people.

Best friends are the best because when they're around you, you feel like you could scale the highest peak. Jose Mendez has a fabulous peak.

Best friends give you a shoulder to cry on, and Mendez has more shoulder seasons than a lot of peak-only candidates.

Best friends are the ones you do everything with. Like play shortstop and hit, in addition to pitching.

Electorate, sometimes when we ask other smart folks about the people we want to make our best friend, we see something about a friend that we didn't see before. The 12 people on the HOF's Negro League selection committee elected Jose Mendez, not because he was a popular or sentimental choice, not because he had a loud chorus of supporters, and not because he was the first anything to be elected. They honored him because he was great. That group of twelve super scholars on the Negro Leagues knows as much or more than we do, and their opinion, while not final, should be worth strongly considering.

Electorate, I think you like Jose Mendez, and I think you want to make him your best friend. But I think you might be scared to because he's a peak pitcher with difficult translation issues. Chris Cobb, his translator, suggests that Mendez's current MLEs, performed under a previous iteration of the process and with previously available information, might underrepresent him just a little.

Electorate, you don't even have to choose between Mendez and Redding---if that's your dillemma. You can have both, they are both good best friends to have. The Hall of Merit is filled with peak/prime and career pitchers.

Electorate, Jose Mendez is my best friend, and I don't mind sharing my best friend with you at all. I hope you'll make him your best friend too.
   19. DavidFoss Posted: April 18, 2006 at 02:44 PM (#1970829)
Are shortstops getting the short end of the stick? Bartell, Bancroft, Maranville, Rizzuto, Long, Lundy: none of these candidates have serious support.

We have 17 shortstops in the HOM, more than any other position besides pitcher and centerfield. I think we're doing OK here. What we do with the post-Banks/pre-Yount shortstops will be interesting.
   20. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1970835)
I've been re-doing the spreadsheet after someone mentioned they recalculated WARP because I want those factors based on the same formula and I noticed a few things.

1) War players moved up in hitting
2) Defense got adjusted. I'm not sure how, I like the numbers better now. I think replacement value went down and average value went up slightly.
3) George Van Haltren got the raw end of it. It's enough to drop him off my ballot. He's never done well in rate stats or Win Shares per season either so I'm going with the WARP flow and sliding him down at least 10 slots. When the ballot is bunched this tight things like that happen.

People are going to slide all over my ballot but that is mainly due to how close they were to begin with rather than a large change in actual value. Small adjustments can mean 8 ballot slots. I have to redo my fudge factors after this is done also.
   21. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 18, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#1970848)
I think replacement value went down and average value went up slightly.

(Sighs, groans, and makes parenthetical post.)
   22. jingoist Posted: April 18, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#1970858)
Leon Wagner....Daddy Wags!
The last I had heard about Leon (before he passed on) was that he was playing in Mexico where his highly suspect glove wasn't keeping him out of the lineup. He hit a bunch of 'taters in the early 60's for the Halos and the Tribe; I remember they hid him in LF as his bat was too valuable not to be in the lineup but he was a liability with a glove.
   23. DavidFoss Posted: April 18, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#1970889)
I think replacement value went down and average value went up slightly.

So (FRAA - FRAR) is now even larger?!

I thought that big gap was WARP's biggest flaw! Scratching my head here.
   24. Chris Fluit Posted: April 18, 2006 at 03:54 PM (#1970945)
Howard Menckel:If you were a kid in the NY market, you'd always hear announcer Bob Murphy warn, "Never throw a slider to The Glider, Ed Charles" and think he was one dangerous hitter.

21 HRs in 861 ABs as a Met, alas.

They must not have thrown him very many sliders.

Dr. Chaleeko: Electorate, you don't even have to choose between Mendez and Redding
I agree. I have them 1 and 2 on my prelim and though I may make some changes in the latter half of the ballot, they'll still be 1 and 2 for next week's election (and presumably the election after that).
   25. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#1971177)
Prelim Ballot

This is what I have with the new WARP. I'll include the position with the old WARP after the player.

1. Don Drysdale (2)
2. Billy Pierce (5) these guys are very close now
3. Bob Johnson (1)
4. Ralph Kiner (3) two matched pairs at the top
5. Ken Boyer (4)
6. Tommy Bridges (9) he goes up, Walters goes down in new WARP
7. Charlie Keller (14) - WARP defensive boost
8. Minnie Minoso (8)
9. Biz Mackey (6) - didn't adjust numbers much, got bumped down by Drysdale and Boyer mostly
10. Bob Elliott (12)
11. Joe Sewell (18) - Joe goes up a lot in the new WARP
12. Quincy Trouppe (11)
13. Joe Gordon (7) - Hurt defensively by new WARP, I have a BS check on this placement or he would fall off ballot.
14. Dutch Leonard (15)
15. Virgil Trucks (17)
16. Chuck Klein (13)
17. Jake Beckley (10) - Numbers didn't change much, got jumped over
18. Rube Waddell (25) - boost for Waddell
19. Gavy Cravath (21) - boost for Cravath
20. Jose Mendez (24) - BS numbers but gave him the same boost as Waddell
21. Willard Brown (20)
22. Rocky Colavito (28) - WARP loves his defense now - interesting comp for Brown
23. Urban Shocker (23)
24. Tommy Leach (32) - getting closer to ballot, WARP also loves his defense
25. Edd Roush (31) - small boost up
26. Fielder Jones (22)
27. Dizzy Trout (26)
28. Dobie Moore (34)
29. George Sisler (30)
30. Alejandro Oms (36)
31. George Van Haltren (16) Big drop in value
32. Jimmy Ryan (29) I like Roush, Jones, Oms, Van Haltren, Ryan order. I'm still not a Duffy fan.
33. Bob Friend (33)
34. George Burns (40)
35. Pete Browning (41) Penalizes defense less
36. Vic Willis (44)
37. Dick Redding (45) Moved with Willis, BS numbers
38. Cupid Childs (46) Moves Up
39. Bobby Veach (38)
40. Dizzy Dean (50) Moves Up
41. Mickey Welch (56) I use WARP1, WARP3 is even lower now
42. Tony Lazzeri (19) HUGE move down
43. Hack Wilson (35) Clear move down
44. Gil Hodges (43)
45. Mickey Vernon (47)
46. Dom Dimaggio (39) Pre-war years value of average defender went up, DiMaggio suffers
47. Larry Jackson (27) This looks more reasonable
48. Dave Bancroft (NR) first placement
49. Sam Rice (58) - big move up
50. Dolf Luque (51)
51. John McGraw (37) - not helped at all
52. Lefty Gomez (61) Big move up

Defensive replacement was adjusted across the board and went down in most cases. Average defensive value didn't move as much and went down in some cases, up in others. The gap did get larger but mainly due to replacement level falling.

I still need to slot Ben Taylor and Bill Monroe. When are the NGL numbers coming out that helped elect Taylor and Suttles?
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 06:17 PM (#1971256)
Timeline alert.

I take it this is WARP 3. Please be aware that there is a BS check on all conversions from WARP 1 to WARP 3.
   27. karlmagnus Posted: April 18, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#1971270)
Yes, DL from your list it looks as though WARP's timeline got still steeper and more unjustified. Electors really need to correct for that, otherwise the timeliners are effectively disfranchising the older players and their supporters, who are attempting to vote on a level playing vfield, as the HOM constitution mandates.
   28. yest Posted: April 18, 2006 at 06:52 PM (#1971345)
We have 17 shortstops in the HOM, more than any other position besides pitcher and centerfield. I think we're doing OK here. What we do with the post-Banks/pre-Yount shortstops will be interesting.

as long as Mark Belinger stays miles away from the HoM were not in that much truoble
   29. Chris Fluit Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:16 PM (#1971408)
Mark Belanger or Clay Bellinger?
   30. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:24 PM (#1971424)
Yeah, I agree. There is no question that from 1850 to the present, a disproportionate number of the best athletes end up at SS. Sky's the limit on SSs!

This is not to say that I am not bothered (double negative alert) by the shortage at other positions (C, 3B) but this is relative to "hitters," not SSs.
   31. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#1971492)
Haha, Clay Bellinger is even the player that is used as an example of a voter not taking his ballot seriously enough. He's got more rings than Bonds, Yaz, Williams, Cobb, and Banks combined!
   32. DL from MN Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:53 PM (#1971507)
I don't know about a strict timeline. WWII era players did worse, some deadball players did better.

Larry Jackson fell but Rube Waddell rose.

Charlie Keller, Cupid Childs, Tommy Leach and Pete Browning look a lot better; George Van Haltren, Hack Wilson and Tony Lazzeri look a lot worse.

Edd Roush went up and Dom DiMaggio went down.

If anything the pitching timeline looks less harsh for the 60'6" crowd. Bob Elliott got closer to Boyer. The odd one is Bridges going up and Walters going down.
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:15 PM (#1971582)
as long as Mark Belinger stays miles away from the HoM were not in that much truoble

I'll go out on a limb and proclaim he will never receive a vote, yest. :-)
   34. TomH Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#1971608)
Overall leaders in WARP3*

BRuth...... 229
BBonds.... 226
WMays.... 215
HAaron... 204
WJohnson 201

None of which screams unfair timeline.

* at least as of 3pm EDT, 18 Apr 2006 :)
   35. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#1971625)
Dl, the point is not whether they rose or fell relative to the previous version. The point is where they ended up. And for 3 years now, WARP3 has stuck it to the old timers. Unfairly. WARP's "all-time" adjustments are based on the assumption (whether true or not is irrelevant AFAIAC) that players today are better than players of previous eras. I say it is irrelevant because, if you are interested in a player's value, and if value is measured by the player's contribution toward his teams' efforts to win a pennant, and if a pennant in 1906 is just as coveted as one in 2006, then ability is not the point. Value is.

So looking at your list, you gotta go all the way down to #11 to find anybody from the '20s, #17-18-19 to find anybody from the deadball era, and #31 for a 19C ballplayer. Rocky Colavito rates ahead of George Sisler, Ken Boyer 30 slots ahead of Tommy Leach, Don Drysdale 17 slots ahead of Rube Waddell and 50 slots ahead of Lefty Gomez.

This is what we call a timeline. Don't care who moved where and how much. As cohorts, they didn't move at all.
   36. sunnyday2 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 09:46 PM (#1971830)
>BRuth...... 229
BBonds.... 226
WMays.... 215
HAaron... 204
WJohnson 201

>None of which screams unfair timeline.

Small sample?
   37. karlmagnus Posted: April 18, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#1971927)
If Cobb and Honus aren't in the top 5, you're timelining.
   38. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1971965)
I'm with Ardo, especially on Bancroft. He slipped of my radar, guilty as charged - and I was, specifically charged on the ballot thread last week.

Why exactly would any vote for Sewell before Bancroft, for example? I know Sewell hit a little bit better (108 vs. 98 OPS+). But Bancroft was a historically great defensive SS who played the position for 15 years. Sewell was a very good SS for 8 years and then moved to 3B.

I think Bancroft is going to be very close to Rizzuto on my next ballot. Rizzuto was 9th last time for me.
   39. AJMcCringleberry Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#1972100)
It appears Boyer will top my ballot. Drysdale will be on it, just not sure where.
   40. TomH Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:34 PM (#1972139)
If Cobb and Honus aren't in the top 5, you're timelining.
While I technically agree, and yes they ARE timelining, what I tried to point out above was that it seems to be a REASONABLE timeline (I know, yes, small sample). Because if you don't timeline at all, Ruth and Johnson and Young and Cobb and Wagner probably ARE the top 5, and I doubt most of us would begin postulating that all white guys pre-1940 were the best ever.
   41. Howie Menckel Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#1972182)
HOMer Parisian Bob alert:

On Mets game last night, they're talking about Pedro winning 200 games now with the fewest losses except for Ford, Grove (maybe one other guy), and.... 'Bob CARUTHERS!"

I thought of all you BC lovers immediately...
   42. TomH Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:49 PM (#1972202)
Why exactly would any vote for Sewell before Bancroft, for example? I know Sewell hit a little bit better (108 vs. 98 OPS+).
--
I can think of a lot of reasons why I vote for Sewell.

Joe Sewell career RCAA +124
Dave Bancroft caeer RCAA -4
difference of 128 runs. Not a little.

And the AL (Sewell) was likely a lot stronger than the NL (Bancroft, same years).

Sewell played 2/3rds of the games at short that Bancroft did; measuring the difference in 'years' masks the huge durability difference. Joe S played only 30 fewer games in 13 years than Dave S did in 15.

BP has Sewell with as many FRAA as Bancroft. Even if that's not correct, how much difference is there really? Is a 'great' SS worth more than 5 runs a year more than a 'very good' one? If we say yes, the difference between great and poor must be huge!
   43. Chris Cobb Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#1972205)
Why exactly would any vote for Sewell before Bancroft, for example? I know Sewell hit a little bit better (108 vs. 98 OPS+). But Bancroft was a historically great defensive SS who played the position for 15 years. Sewell was a very good SS for 8 years and then moved to 3B.

Four reasons people might prefer Sewell to Bancroft:

1) In-season durability. Sewell played 150+ games 9 seasons running; Bancroft played 150+ games 3 times total. To give Bancroft credit for "15 years" at SS and Sewell only 8 is to overlook the fact that Sewell played virtually the same number of games as Bancroft.
2) 10 points of OPS+ is a lot, esp. since Sewell's OPS+ is OBP heavy. WARP makes it 12 points of EQA and about 10 wins over the course of their careers. Bancroft has to be much better with the glove to make up the hitting difference.
3) WARP's fielding assessment: it sees Sewell's defense as just as good as Bancroft's.
4) Bancroft's play in the weaker league.

I don't have either on my ballot at the moment, but it doesn't seem to me to be particularly hard to come up with reasons to prefer Joe Sewell. There are also reasons to prefer Bancroft, too, but it's not a case of "what were we thinking???" that Sewell has been ranked ahead of Bancroft over the years.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:53 PM (#1972227)
I thought of all you BC lovers immediately...

From MLB.com:

Only three pitchers in Major League history had less than 84 losses at the time of their 200th victory: Lefty Grove (83), Whitey Ford (79) and 1800s pitcher Bob Caruthers (74).
   45. karlmagnus Posted: April 19, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#1972324)
Yay, Parisian Bob for Hall of Fame. Better than Pedro as a pitcher, better than Jeter as a hitter!
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 19, 2006 at 12:26 AM (#1972381)
Yay, Parisian Bob for Hall of Fame. Better than Pedro as a pitcher, better than Jeter as a hitter!

Better than Teddy Roosevelt as a dead person!
   47. jimd Posted: April 19, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#1972481)
There is no question that from 1850 to the present, a disproportionate number of the best athletes end up at SS.

To me, if a SS had a good enough bat that he would have been a HOMer if he'd have played at 1B or RF, then I don't really count him as a SS. His team was just maximizing his team value by playing him there when he could have played anywhere. All other players are shifted away from SS because their value is maximized by giving them a position they can field at least adequately.
   48. sunnyday2 Posted: April 19, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#1972583)
A good hitting SS is not automatically a lousy fielder, just as the occasional pitcher comes along who can hit the ball. A lot more good hitting SS can field, though, than good pitchers can hit. My point was that great athletes can do both, and great athletes often play SS.
   49. jimd Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#1972707)
I'm agreeing with you, sunnyday2. I didn't make my point clear. The best SS's could have played any everyday position, so naturally they played the most demanding one in the field (that didn't damage their hitting; catching is out).

I wouldn't count those guys as SS's in any positional quota. The quota guys need the "SS bonus" to make the HOM. "They hit pretty good, for a SS".
   50. sunnyday2 Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#1972721)
Gotcha.

Interesting concept. Maybe we should count all the NBs or inner circle guys as NBs or inner circle guys, and then tabulate our positional numbers after that....
   51. jimd Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:24 AM (#1972930)
I don't think there's too many guys who qualify for this exemption. Definitely Wagner, Lloyd, and Wright. ARod? Maybe Davis, Dahlen, and Vaughan.
   52. Andrew M Posted: April 19, 2006 at 03:47 AM (#1973106)
Good news for the seven of us casting hopeless ballots for Larry Doyle--his defense is improving! The new BP numbers seem to have adjusted his career FRAA from -194 to -140 and his Rate2 from 90 to 92. A few more similar adjustments and perhaps his defense will no longer be an issue....
   53. sunnyday2 Posted: April 19, 2006 at 03:58 AM (#1973138)
If the criterion is SSs who hit well enough to be HoMers even if they played a corner (other than 3), I'd say Wagner for sure, Wright, Jennings, Lloyd, Dobie Moore, Cronin, Vaughan, Banks, Yount and Ripken. Oh. yeah, and ARod probably (probably in the sense that I don't eval active players).
   54. Jim Sp Posted: April 19, 2006 at 04:17 AM (#1973189)
Good news for the seven of us casting hopeless ballots for Larry Doyle

Sweet, Larry must be laughing now. WARP is like the weather, if you don't like what it tells you just wait till it changes.
   55. OCF Posted: April 19, 2006 at 07:12 AM (#1973339)
If the criterion is SSs who hit well enough to be HoMers even if they played a corner (other than 3), I'd say Wagner for sure, Wright, Jennings, Lloyd, Dobie Moore, Cronin, Vaughan,

Oh, really? Jennings hit well enough to be elected as a corner? Then why haven't we elected Mike Donlin? My system has Donlin as a better offensive player than Jennings. Sisler was twice the hitter Jennings was - we might elect him pretty soon, but we haven't so far and it's been a very long time.

The argument that got Jennings elected was that his combined offensive and defensive value over five years, including extremely high defensive value, even for a shortstop, gave him a peak so high as to overcome the brevity of his productive career. I was a little skeptical of that defensive value, and didn't vote for him.

And some of the others on that list ... Cronin was a fine, fine hitter - for a shortstop. Had he been a first baseman, I'd rate him between Gil Hodges and Ed Konetchy. Wright was before my time, so I'll leave him out. Did Vaughan have enough bat to be elected as a corner? Yes, but I'd have him kicking around in the Terry/Medwick range, which is good enough but not overwhelming.
   56. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 19, 2006 at 07:45 AM (#1973355)
My post (#71) in the Drysdale thread:

The case for Don Drysdale, point by point:

1. What is the value of Drysdale's hitting? As far as hitting goes, it is instructive to look at career RCAP. Bill James makes the argument that, as baseball has evolved, good-hitting pitchers have become rarer. For Drysdale, this explains why he was able to create 35 runs above position (a high total for a pitcher) despite a 45 OPS+. Take those 35 runs off of his career ER and his ERA goes from 2.95 to 2.86. His ERA+ jumps from 121 to 125, a modest and accurate credit for a pitcher of his hitting talents.

2. How does Drysdale compare to leading contemporary candidates? Drysdale's 125 ERA+ is seven points behind 1973's first-place inductee, Whitey Ford. However, Drysdale has about a 250 inning advantage (3432 to 3170) and accumulated that advantage in two fewer seasons. Just looking at the actual career IP and number of seasons played (14 for Drysdale, 16 for Ford), Drysdale averaged 245 IP per season, Ford 198.

In comparison to Pierce (with -4 RCAP for Pierce), Drysdale has a six-point advantage in ERA+, 125 to 119. He also has 125 innings on Pierce (3432 to 3307) in four fewer seasons. Drysdale has his 245 IP per season, but Pierce has just 184, about seven complete games per season.

Let's tilt the scales as much as we can in favor of Pierce. We'll remove his cups of coffee in Detroit and his last two years in San Francisco, giving him exactly 14 seasons. Coincidentially, he qualified for the ERA title in all 14 of those seasons. This raises his average seasonal IP to 221. However, Drysdale's career IP advantage grows to 339 (3432 to 3093).

If we take off the first and last seasons of Drysdale's career in the same manner, the career IP advantage drops to 177 (3270 to 3093), but the seasonal IP advantage rises to 52 (273 to 221).

To summarize, Drysdale was the more effective pitcher for more innings in his career and significantly more innings per season while pitching in the stronger of the two leagues.

3. What about Drysdale's clutch performance? To go back to Drysdale v. Ford, if the electorate decides to use "clutch performance" in pennant races as a demerit for Drysdale's candidacy, I would ask that they use it systematically for all players they evaluate. However, if they decide to look at World Series play, they would see that Drysdale matched his career ERA in 40 IP. Ford, postseason clutch hero that he is considered to be, obviously had more opportunities on that stage. His ERA is .04 lower than his career mark, hardly better than Drysdale.

4. Who are Drysdale's comparables and how have they fared in HOM voting?
Per the Sabermetric Encyclopedia, this is a list of pitchers with minimum 3400 IP and 100 ERA+ (not park-adjusted). There are 74 pitchers that meet these parameters:

(I only have the Encyclopedia through the 2003 season. This explains any discreapancies for active players.)

ERA                             RATE   PLAYER   LEAGUE   
1    Walter Johnson              149     2.17     3.24   
2    Lefty Grove                 144     3.06     4.42   
3    Greg Maddux                 140     2.89     4.05   
4    Roger Clemens               138     3.19     4.39   
5    Christy Mathewson           137     2.13     2.91   
6    Cy Young                    135     2.63     3.54   
7    Carl Hubbell                133     2.98     3.96   
8    Grover C Alexander          133     2.56     3.39   
9    Amos Rusie                  132     3.07     4.06   
10   Kid Nichols                 132     2.95     3.89   
11   Jim Palmer                  130     2.86     3.72   
12   Bob Feller                  128     3.25     4.16   
13   Tom Seaver                  128     2.86     3.66   
14   Tim Keefe                   127     2.62     3.34   
15   Warren Spahn                126     3.08     3.89   
16   John Clarkson               126     2.81     3.54
  
17   Don Drysdale                124     2.95     3.65
   
18   Juan Marichal               123     2.89     3.56   
19   Bob Gibson                  123     2.91     3.59   
20   Eddie Plank                 123     2.35     2.88   
21   Will White                  122     2.28     2.78   
22   Old Hoss Radbourn           122     2.67     3.26   
23   Red Faber                   120     3.15     3.79   
24   Tom Glavine                 119     3.43     4.07   
25   Ted Lyons                   118     3.67     4.34   
26   Jim McCormick               118     2.43     2.88   
27   Joe McGinnity               118     2.66     3.14   
28   Gaylord Perry               117     3.11     3.63   
29   Nolan Ryan                  116     3.19     3.72   
30   Eppa Rixey                  116     3.15     3.64   
31   Tony Mullane                116     3.05     3.53   
32   Bert Blyleven               115     3.31     3.81   
33   Wilbur Cooper               115     2.89     3.32   
34   Robin Roberts               115     3.40     3.91   
35   Red Ruffing                 115     3.80     4.36   
36   Mickey Welch                115     2.71     3.11   
37   Vic Willis                  114     2.63     3.01   
38   Charlie Buffinton           114     2.96     3.38   
39   Waite Hoyt                  114     3.59     4.08   
40   Don Sutton                  114     3.26     3.71   
41   Mel Harder                  113     3.80     4.30   
42   Jim Bunning                 113     3.27     3.70   
43   Steve Carlton               113     3.22     3.63   
44   Tommy John                  112     3.34     3.76   
45   Jack Quinn                  112     3.28     3.66   
46   Jerry Koosman               110     3.36     3.71   
47   Herb Pennock                110     3.61     3.97   
48   Phil Niekro                 110     3.35     3.68   
49   Ferguson Jenkins            110     3.34     3.66   
50   Early Wynn                  110     3.54     3.88   
51   Paul Derringer              109     3.46     3.78   
52   Luis Tiant                  109     3.30     3.61   
53   Catfish Hunter              109     3.26     3.55   
54   Claude Osteen               109     3.30     3.59   
55   Rick Reuschel               108     3.37     3.65   
56   Frank Tanana                108     3.66     3.96   
57   Pud Galvin                  108     2.87     3.11   
58   Dennis Martinez             108     3.70     3.99   
59   Burleigh Grimes             107     3.52     3.78   
60   Charlie Hough               107     3.75     3.99   
61   Bob Friend                  107     3.58     3.82   
62   Jack Powell                 106     2.97     3.15   
63   Jack Morris                 105     3.90     4.09   
64   Sad Sam Jones               105     3.84     4.02   
65   Jim Whitney                 105     2.97     3.11   
66   Jim Kaat                    104     3.45     3.60   
67   Bobo Newsom                 104     3.98     4.15   
68   Adonis Terry                103     3.72     3.82   
69   Gus Weyhing                 102     3.89     3.97   
70   Mickey Lolich               102     3.44     3.51   
71   Jerry Reuss                 101     3.64     3.68   
72   Joe Niekro                  101     3.59     3.64   
73   Earl Whitehill              100     4.36     4.38   
74   George Mullin               100     2.82     2.81   


In short, we have elected or will elect every single pitcher eligible with a similar career record to Don Drysdale, with the exception of noted 1880s American Association star Will "Whoop-La" White. In the face of all of this evidence, it boggles my mind to read that Drysdale is "just off [of the ballot] in the 16-20 range", "definitely trailing Waddell and Gomez", "around the bottom of my ballot", "off my ballot", "could drop off the ballot", "Drysdale at #50". As far as pitchers go, Drysdale is the clear #1 hurler on this year's ballot. He'll be #1 overall on mine.
   57. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#1973443)
WARP is like the weather, if you don't like what it tells you just wait till it changes.

Spoken like a true New Englander. Or a true Pac Northwesterner.
   58. DL from MN Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:54 PM (#1973486)
I don't look at my ballot as timelining. I think the standard deviation in talent is lower in the 60s and I won't penalize those players for playing in a strong league. I'm not as concerned about who put up the most runs above average as I am concerned about who the outliers are in the distribution. I think we've elected most of the outliers from previous years. I was a big supporter of Clark Griffith but I don't see Mickey Welch as an outlier. I have a built-in adjustment from WARP1 to WARP3 and have adjusted for shorter seasons already in the numbers above.

I don't think "fair to all eras" means all eras have to be in your top 15 every year.
   59. DavidFoss Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#1973555)
we have elected or will elect every single pitcher eligible with a similar career record to Don Drysdale

You've made a very convincing point, but I'm a little bit worried that you've set the IP cutoff too close to Drysdale's career total of 3432 IP. Do any other non-HOMers sneak onto the list if you drop the threshhold? Say from 3400 to 3000?
   60. DavidFoss Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:53 PM (#1973607)
Wright was before my time, so I'll leave him out.

I'd leave George Wright in. His 1867-70 batting numbers are simply jaw-dropping.

Even Banks/Yount/Ripken have fairly pedestrian numbers when viewed with corner-outfielder-glasses on. Hard to guess where to rank them as their OF-contemporaries are not yet eligible, but they would be in the Sisler/Slaughter camp if they went in and in the Staub/Baines camp if they didn't go in.
   61. Mike Webber Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#1973618)
I’d like to introduce you to my best friend Edd Roush.

Edd stacks up well in Win Shares among the back loggers.
GeorgeVan Haltren 344
TommyLeach         328
SamRice                327
HarryHooper          321
JakeBeckley           318
JimmyRyan            316
EddRoush              314
NellieFox               304
RabbitMaranville    302
MickeyVernon        296
HughDuffy             295
GeorgeSisler         292 


What separates Roush from the other outfielders on this list, is his big seasons. He has three seasons of 30+ MVP Type Win Share seasons (33,33,30). Duffy also had a similar peak, but the others don’t really have a similar string of MVP type seasons.

What about WARP?

Leading career back-loggers by WARP-1:
-old new-
131.0130.4 Rabbit Maranville
117.6117.4 Lave Cross
118.1114.6 Joe Tinker
112.7115.9 Tommy Leach
114.7115.4 Jake Beckley
111.1112.6 Davy Bancroft
109.5109.5 Jimmy Ryan
107.4109.2 Herman Long
104.2109.2 Dick Bartell
108.7108.4 Johnny Evers
110.2107.9 Edd Roush 


This list is middle infielder heavy, with Leach still ahead of Roush (I like Leach too!) plus Beckley and Ryan depending on which week’s version of WARP you use.

One more list: Top 30 centerfielders by RCAA per the Sinnins encyclopedia

CAREER
CF

RCAARCAA
1    Ty Cobb            1107
2    Tris Speaker      1054
3    Mickey Mantle    1009
4    Willie Mays         1008
5    Joe DiMaggio        672
6    Ken Griffey Jr
.      579
7    Billy Hamilton       533
8    Duke Snider         406
9    Earl Averill           394
10  Jim Edmonds         393
11  Larry Doby            369
12  George Gore          361
13  Bernie Williams       344
14  Hack Wilson            332
15  Edd Roush               302
16  Mike Griffin              286
T17 Fred Lynn               285
T17 Jimmy Wynn           285
19   Richie Ashburn        282
T20 George Van Haltren 274
T20 Paul Hines               274
22   Pete Browning         268
23   Earle Combs           254
T24 Roy Thomas            250
T24 Jimmy Ryan            250
26  Cesar Cedeno          244
27  Jake Stenzel             239
28  Wally Berger            229
T29 Lenny Dykstra         223
T29 Hugh Duffy              223 


Roush isn’t in the group with the top 10, but he is ahead of Ashburn, Van Haltren, Ryan, Berger and Duffy.

Defensively Roush is an A- centerfielder, with 5 win shares gold gloves.

What are the arguments against Roush?
1.Weak League – No argument about the two Federal League seasons, but I will disagree about the NL of the period. I don’t see any reason to believe that the NL was top to bottom worse than the American League of the same period. Sure the Phillies were terrible, but the Braves of the period weren’t consistently poor. I think maybe the fact that there were many different NL representatives in the World Series leads makes some people think that the league was weak. Was the AL weak in the 1980’s? WARP3 unfairly penalizes Roush for this misperception – at least this week.
2.Missed a lot of games – Yes he held out a lot, and if he didn’t he would be around 350 win shares and a slam dunk. Roush admitted to playing baseball for money first, not a surprise for an athlete of today, but not openly admitted by many then. He was a child of the Federal Leagues era, where competition created a brief spike in salaries, which then shrank up. I won’t argue that his missed time is similar to the Negro Leaguers or War Credit, but even holding out he was a heck of a player whether he was home in Oakland City or in New York putting up with McGraw’s crap. He does deserve a small bump in 1918, he played 113 of his teams 128 games, netting 22 win shares – he led the league in OPS+ that season – a season not shortened by the war could have easily been another 30 win share season.
3.We have a lot of outfielders – True, but I think Roush is clearly a step ahead of backlog, none of them have the combination of his career length sprinkled with MVP type seasons of peak. Roush belongs in the group with Carey, Ashburn, and Bell.
4.Black and Grey Ink – Edd has 14 Black Ink points, 125 Gray Ink, while the averages are 27 and 144. I think that Crosley Field may be a fairly large factor in this. Crosley consistently depressed offense 3 to 6% during Edd’s career. Edd was in the top ten in the league in OPS+ and Slugging 7 times, in the top 10 in OBA 6 times, and batting average 9 times, but only 4 times in RBI and only twice in runs scored. If the environment was little more neutral, he might have picked up significant gray ink in RBI and Runs Scored.

I know Edd is a long way from being elected, but this is what I am asking you to consider. Are you giving votes to Van Haltren, Ryan, Berger or Duffy? Could you compare my buddy Edd to you centerfielder, and see if there if maybe he is equally if not more meritous?

Are you giving votes to Willard Brown? Did the HOF election of Brown cement your thinking? Hey Edd is a Hall of Famer too. And even if you think the NL of his period was weak, it was still a stronger league than any Brown ever played in except the American League – where Brown hit .179. My argument is Edd was a dominant centerfielder in the majors, and Brown might have been.

So rally around the flag of Old Double D!
Help this overlooked Hoosier take advantage of the brief window of opportunity all back loggers have to become a member of the Hall of Merit.

This message paid for by Friends of Double D, Pat Moran – Treasurer.
   62. Mike Webber Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#1973623)
Isn't the preview thing great? Does it ever actually ####-ing work? Or am I just especially lucky?
   63. DavidFoss Posted: April 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#1973636)
Isn't the preview thing great? Does it ever actually ####-ing work? Or am I just especially lucky?

Its gotten to where you should NOT even look at the preview. When you are posting correctly, the preview will actually look bad. Its very frustrating.

Its gotten to the point where we almost need a 'sandbox' thread so that we can try out our formatted tables and repeatedly re-post them there until they look nice and then post the final table into the appropriate discussion thread.
   64. Mike Webber Posted: April 19, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#1973639)
Its gotten to the point where we almost need a 'sandbox' thread so that we can try out our formatted tables and repeatedly re-post them there until they look nice and then post the final table into the appropriate discussion thread.

Now that is a good idea! I will remember that next time I spend an hour writing a post.
   65. DavidFoss Posted: April 19, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#1973688)
Yeah, long posts should actually be written somewhere else (like wordpad). I've learned that the hard way because sometimes the board burps -- *especially* if its been an hour between page loads. Composing in wordpad also has the added bonus of not having a 'Live Preview' to mislead you. :-)
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 19, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#1974008)
Isn't the preview thing great? Does it ever actually ####-ing work? Or am I just especially lucky?

Mike, don't use <>, use [] instead.

I'll fix your post for you.
   67. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 19, 2006 at 05:42 PM (#1974081)
Well, it's better than it was before. :-)
   68. Cblau Posted: April 20, 2006 at 02:33 AM (#1975830)
Re: post #15,
You may be thinking of the 1964 game. Radatz started the bottom of the 7th, struck out 4 of the 6 batters he faced the next two innings. The announcer must have made the comment then. The 9th ended with 2 outs (only 1 a K) when Johnny Callison hit a 3-run HR.

In the 1963 game, he gave up a run in the 8th on two singles while striking out the side. Maybe you are conflating the two.

And Dr. C, I loved #18!
   69. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:51 AM (#1976067)
Back to Sewell/Bancroft:

I don't believe FRAA actually says Sewell was Bancroft's equal defensively. Heck, Keith Hernandez had more FRAA than either of them.

Don't FRAA only compare you to others at your position? I'm pretty sure that's the case. And if that's the case, 35% of Sewell's career wasn't at SS. Bancroft played all but 19 years of his career at SS. So FRAA isn't a tool that can be used to compare them, unless you know what number to use to deflate from SS to 3B.

I do agree that I overstated the career difference by using years because Sewell was durable and Bancroft wasn't. That wasn't intentional.

But I still see a SS who was a great defender with a .268 EQA or 98 OPS+ as an incredibly valuable player. A Gold Glove SS that hits league average or better is a star.

I see that as more valuable than a 2/3 SS, 1/3 3B with a .280 EQA, who wasn't as good of a SS defensively. At worst they are extremely close, and there's no way that if Sewell is in the top 15, Bancroft should be getting one 15th place vote. I think he's clearly slipped through the cracks. I still urge everyone to reconsider him this week.

And if offense is so important at SS, where is Vern Stephens and his .284 EQA? Why did he only get 5 votes?

I think we are electing the SS's that are obvious, but the borderline guys have completely dropped off the radar. I would think we would obviously have more SS's than any other position, because like sunnyday said, that's where the best athletes start.

I agree that looking at it proportionally, it might make sense to remove the 'no brainers' at all positions (long career + high peak) and then see where we've been electing the borderline guys.
   70. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 20, 2006 at 05:11 AM (#1976112)
Removing the no-brainers (my opinion on what is or isn't a no brainer):

P (11): Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, Stan Coveleski, Wes Ferrell, Clark Griffith, Sandy Koufax, Bob Lemon, Joe McGinnity, Eppa Rixey, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding.

C (2): Charlie Bennett, Cal McVey

1B (1): Bill Terry

2B (3): Bobby Doerr, Frank Grant, Hardy Richardson

3B (3): John Beckwith, Heinie Groh, Stan Hack

SS (2): Lou Boudreau, Hughie Jennings

LF (4): Sherry Magee, Joe Medwick, Jimmy Sheckard, Harry Stovey

CF (6): Richie Ashburn, Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Max Carey, Larry Doby, Lip Pike

RF (2): Elmer Flick, Sam Thompson

Hmmmnnnnn . . . I think we've been way friendly in the OF, with 12 borderline players. Just 9 infielders and that's for 4 positions, not 3. You'd expect 7 more infielders with 12 outfielders.

Or if you want to look at it as OF/1B with C/INF and pitchers, you'd have 13-10-11, which may be more reasonable.

I think if you are looking to maintain a relatively even mix on the fringe of the HoM, you could nudge a guy like Sisler or Beckley forward, or some of the INFs, like Rizzuto, Bancroft, Sewell, or Stephens. Or Nellie Fox or Joe Gordon.

But really, the SS's and catchers, with just 4 marginal players in are being overlooked.

Maybe I'm drawing the line wrong in a few spots and that would change things?
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: April 20, 2006 at 09:56 AM (#1976297)
Blacks in the HoF by decade of birth.

An interesting table compiled by my friend Alan Holst and reproduced here with his permission. What Alan wants to show you is that "modern" players (born since WWII, played since expansion) have been treated much more harshly than players of earlier eras. This holds true for white MLers as well as black.

But what this particular table also shows is that blacks born in the 1920s, whose playing careers were interrupted (so to speak) by integration, are also underrepresented. He lists some players born during that time period who are or would be (under more stable circumstances) candidates--Jim Gilliam, Elston Howard, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, Don Newcombe, Vic
Power, Al Smith, Artie Wilson.

I don't think there can be any question that in the grand scheme of things there was as much black talent from the 1920s cohort as from the 1910s and the 1930s. I think that this particular cohort deserves a longer look than what they've had so far, with the possible exception of Minoso, who is getting due consideration (maybe).

born 1980-1989

HALL OF FAME 0

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Albert Pujols, Francisco Rodriguez, Dontrelle Willis

born 1970-1979

HALL OF FAME 0

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Carlos Delgado, Vladimir Guerrero, Derek Jeter, Andruw Jones, Pedro
Martinez, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Johan Santana, Alfonso
Soriano, Miguel Tejada

born 1960-1969

HALL OF FAME 1
Kirby Puckett

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Roberto Alomar, Moises Alou, Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Joe Carter, Juan
Gonzalez, Dwight Gooden, Ken Griffey Jr., Tony Gwynn, Barry Larkin, Fred
McGriff, Kevin Mitchell, Terry Pendleton, Mariano Rivera, Gary Sheffield,
Sammy Sosa, Darryl Strawberry, Frank Thomas, Bernie Williams

born 1950-1959

HALL OF FAME 3
Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith, Dave Winfield

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Harold Baines, George Bell, Andre Dawson, Julio Franco, Ken Griffey, Pedro
Guerrero, Rickey Henderson, Willie Hernandez, Bill Madlock, Willie McGee,
Dave Parker, Willie Randolph, Tim Raines, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Lou Whitaker,
Frank White

born 1940-1949

HALL OF FAME 6
Rod Carew, Reggie Jackson, Ferguson Jenkins, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Willie
Stargell

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Dick Allen, Don Baylor, Vida Blue, Bobby Bonds, Bert Campaneris, Jose Cruz,
George Foster, Hal McRae, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Ken Singleton, Reggie
Smith, Luis Tiant, Jimmy Wynn

born 1930-1939

HALL OF FAME 11
Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, Lou Brock, Orlando Cepeda, Roberto Clemente, Bob
Gibson, Juan Marichal, Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Frank Robinson, Billy
Williams

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Felipe Alou, Matty Alou, Earl Battey, Leo Cardenas, Rico Carty, Curt Flood,
Vada Pinson, Bill White, Maury Wills

born 1920-1929

HALL OF FAME 2
Roy Campanella, Larry Doby

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Jim Gilliam, Elston Howard, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, Don Newcombe, Vic
Power, Al Smith, Artie Wilson

born 1910-1919

HALL OF FAME 6
Willard Brown, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Josh Gibson, Monte Irvin, Jackie
Robinson

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Sam Bankhead, Dave Barnhill, Gene Benson, Pee Wee Butts, Jimmie Crutchfield,
Piper Davis, Luke Easter, Sammy Hughes, Sam Jethroe, Slim Jones, Max
Manning, Buck O‚Neil, Quincy Trouppe, Bill Wright

born 1900-1909

HALL OF FAME 10
Cool Papa Bell, Ray Brown, Martin Dihigo, Bill Foster, Buck Leonard, Satchel
Paige, Hilton Smith, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Willie Wells

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Newt Allen, John Beckwith, Chet Brewer, Bill Byrd, Perucho Cepeda, Rap
Dixon, Vic Harris, Alex Radcliffe, Double Duty Radcliffe, George Scales,
Chino Smith, Luis Tiant

born 1890-1899

HALL OF FAME 7
Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, Judy Johnson, Biz Mackey, Louis Santop,
Cristobal Torriente, Jud Wilson

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Bill Bell, Dave Brown, Dizzy Dismukes, John Donaldson, Fats Jenkins, Dick
Lundy, Dave Malarcher, Oliver Marcelle, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms, Roy
Parnell, Dick Redding, Nip Winters

born 1880-1889

HALL OF FAME 6
Pete Hill, Pop Lloyd, Jose Mendez, Bullet Rogan, Ben Taylor, Joe Williams

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Pelayo Chacon, Bingo DeMoss, Bruce Petway, Spot Poles

born 1870-1879

HALL OF FAME 1
Rube Foster

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Walter Ball, Pat Dougherty, Home Run Johnson, Bill Monroe

born 1860-1869

HALL OF FAME 2
Frank Grant, Sol White

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Charlie Grant, George Stovey

born 1850-1859

HALL OF FAME 0

NOT IN HALL OF FAME
Moses Fleetwood Walker

born 1840-1849

HALL OF FAME 0

NOT HALL OF FAME
Bud Fowler
   72. kthejoker Posted: April 20, 2006 at 01:07 PM (#1976365)
Joe:

Just to nitpick a bit on your (I think) very fair breakdown of no-brainers versus borderline:

Sandy Koufax was a first-year electee by this group. He may not have been a unanimous selection, but achieving 54% of all possible points in Year 1 seems to me that he was more of a no-brainer than a borderline candidate.

Along the same lines, Richie Ashburn qualifies as something above borderline, considering the votes he received here.
   73. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 20, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#1976443)
Sandy Koufax was a first-year electee by this group. He may not have been a unanimous selection, but achieving 54% of all possible points in Year 1 seems to me that he was more of a no-brainer than a borderline candidate.

He's certainly a no-brainer on the peak scale.
   74. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 20, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#1976490)
Shouldn't Luke Appling and Billy Herman be put on that list. I realize that Appling whent in quickly but that doesn't really mean anything. And if Hack is not a no-brainer than why is Herman?
   75. Chris Cobb Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:09 PM (#1976642)
I've noticed that, although we've had a great discussion of the newly eligible candidates Drysdale and Boyer, we've said virtually nothing about the player who has jumped to the top of the returning candidate pool: George Sisler.

Are we ready to elect him?

My own view of Sisler has changed over the course of his time on the ballot, going up and then back down. He's hard to assess because his career is split into two such different parts, and because the value of first-base defense prior to the lively ball is so uncertain, and because of his little pitching bonus early in his career.

Basically what Sisler candidacy is riding on is

1) a great seven-year peak/prime 1916-1922.
2) a decent career value over 2000 or so games.
3) reputation as a great all-around player during his prime. (I say reputation because the value of his pitching is arguable and his fielding numbers in the comprehensive metrics don't match his reputation on the field.)
4) playing at a position that is weakly represented in the HoM during his prime, if not his whole career.

I want to reexamine Sisler on each of these claims, so I am going to try to answer, and I encourage others to answer as well, the following questions (a modified Keltner list?)

1) Is Sisler the best hitter available for seven-year consecutive prime? If he is not the best, how close is he to the top?
2) Where does Sisler rank, over a 2000-game career or part career? Is his career value a plus, or does he have to rank purely as a peak/prime candidate, even though his career is not short?
3) Is Sisler the best first baseman of his time? Is he the best first baseman available? How does he compare to the other major contenders for these designations?
4) How good was Sisler's defense during his prime? Is first base defense underrated during his prime by the comprehensive metrics? (We've discussed the latter question in depth for Beckley, 1890-1910, but not so much for 1915-25)?
5) How does Sisler compare to the other remaining candidates who were his contemporaries, i.e. players in their prime between 1910 and 1935? Is he the best available candidate from this period? (A partial list of unelected contemporaries would include Roush, Oms, Cravath, Doyle, Sewell, Mackey, Moore, Bancroft, Lundy, Taylor, Lazzeri, Veach, Burns, Schang, Hooper, Rice, Fournier, Traynor, Redding, Mendez, Grimes, Shocker, Mays, Cicotte, Cooper, Luque.) Does he rank higher overall against his contemporaries, (both elected and unelected) than do any other eligible candidates?

I'd like to see how the electorate would answer these questions!
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#1976649)
The problem for Sisler is of course the two part career. The irony is that there are any number of players that we have elected who have, at one level, the same record Sisler has. That is, about 7.5 years of stellar play and about a similar number of seasons win which he was an average to below average player but still a full time regular.

The difference being that some of the latter spread the ups and downs out over a longer period of time. I give you Early Wynn. How was he one iota better than Sisler? He had just as many average to below average years.

To conceptualize the methodology that has kept Sisler out of the HoM, it is this: Look at his total career record, then discount it.

Or conversely, look at his 7 good years and ignore the rest.

Do we do these things to "normal" careers?
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:18 PM (#1976654)
The difference being that some of the latter spread the ups and downs out over a longer period of time. I give you Early Wynn. How was he one iota better than Sisler? He had just as many average to below average years.

Though Sisler barely will miss my ballot at #16 in '75, I think he's a better choice than Wynn, IMO.
   78. KJOK Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#1976657)
The difference being that some of the latter spread the ups and downs out over a longer period of time. I give you Early Wynn. How was he one iota better than Sisler? He had just as many average to below average years.

The difference here is that Wynn is a PITCHER, and it's not that unusual for even HOM calibre pitchers to have several 'down' years. For HITTERS, it's very unusual to have seasons as good as Sisler had and also have seasons as poor as he had (relative to his position) within the same career. Ezra Sutton is about the only HOM'er I can see right away that had a similar type of career.
   79. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#1976697)
Sisler's candidacy does mostly rest on his great 7 year run. Here is a comparison of Win Shares, best seasons in descending order, between George S and another first baseman.

G. Sisler 33 29 29 27 25 24 22
Other 1B 35 31 29 25 23 20 14

Pretty even "peak", isn't it? Sisler is better around the 'shoulder'.
Now take into account that the other 1Bman missed a lot of time; 130 more games than Sisler in this period, where even a replacement level first sacker would have gained another WS or 2 each year.

George Sisler does not stand out from (you guessed it) Frank Chance, who is currently getting a scant 3 votes out of 45 each election, for me to endorse his election.
   80. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 04:40 PM (#1976706)
I should note that for the above 7 year comparisons, both are made of consecutive years, re-ordered to be in descending value. Sisler right prior to his injury, Chance 1903-09.
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 20, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#1976744)
For HITTERS, it's very unusual to have seasons as good as Sisler had and also have seasons as poor as he had (relative to his position) within the same career. Ezra Sutton is about the only HOM'er I can see right away that had a similar type of career.

Except, over their careers, Sutton was far more dominating at his position than Sisler was.
   82. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 20, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#1976745)
Sisler's peak does look a little better in WARP, though much of that is one big year that is out of step with the rest of the seven year period.

For seven year peak/primes I can't see how Keller and Kiner aren't better. Keller has 5 MVP level seasons and Kiner has those seven HR titles, none of which was a particularly bad year.

I have Sisler on my ballot but I am thinking of dropping him a little. I think his candidacy tends to rest on his being the best backlog 1Bman and teh best 1B between 1895 and 1925 or so.
   83. Mark Donelson Posted: April 20, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#1976763)
I have Sisler behind a lot of the other folks mentioned here as well, and just off-ballot, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see him elected. He's been in my PHOM for some time now.
   84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 20, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#1976764)
I have Sisler behind a lot of the other folks mentioned here as well, and just off-ballot, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see him elected.

Nor would I, based on his peak.
   85. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 20, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1976959)
1975 PRELIMINARY BALLOT
(For my methodology on evaluating pitchers, look at my posts #27 and #30 in the Drysdale discussion.)

I try to approach this exercise as if I am picking a 25-man roster. What this means is that I have positional quotas: 5 OF, 3 CI, 3 MI, 2 C, 3 UT, 9 P. I am a peak/prime voter for hitters using Win Shares. For Negro Leaguers, I consider the posted stats and MLEs, as well as the subjective opinions of the players. Also, I give full credit to players who missed time because of World War II.

I am in the process of reevaluating pitchers using a measure that is a combination of marginal runs saved and runs saved above average. (EDIT: This is about finished; my system also takes into account pitcher's hitting and postseason performance.)

1975 HOM Ballot
1. Don Drysdale - Great power pitcher who gets a bad rap for his pennant race performance. Excellent hitter and pitched well in the World Series. 25th-ranked MLB pitcher of all-time, behind Smoltz and ahead of Plank.
2. Charlie Keller - With war credit, "King Kong" had six straight MVP-caliber seasons with two more All-Star level seasons to start his career. Ranks seventh all-time among major league left fielders to date, which puts him ahead of nine other HOMers at the position.
3. Minnie Minoso - Ranks this high because of greater confidence in his career record than the other Negro Leaguers.
4. Dobie Moore - Absolute monster at shortstop. Value comparable to Hughie Jennings, who I liked, but better.
5. Dick Redding - NeL pitchers are fully integrated into my all-time pitching rankings (results below). Redding is 50th, behind Bunning and ahead of Newhouser. Easy HOMer.

6. Dizzy Dean - High peak with lots of innings, pitched well in the postseason, very good hitter. 54th all-time, behind Vance and ahead of Fingers.
7. Jose Mendez - 61st all-time between Mordecai Brown and Ferrell.
8. Quincy Trouppe - Love, love, love the MLEs. A catcher who could absolutely rake.
9. Billy Pierce - Poor man's Whitey Ford. 63th all-time, behind Ferrell and ahead of Tiant.
10. Willard Brown - He gets bumped down to this spot because his lack of plate discipline makes projecting career value a bit uncertain.

11. Rube Waddell - A strikeout pitcher nonpareil. 67th all-time, the peak/prime meat between two slices of career bread, Lyons and John.
12. Nellie Fox - Very closely linked to Leach in terms of value. Both players are underrated by the electorate because they were not eye-popping in any one facet of the game. Edge goes to Fox because of his peak seasons.
13. Tommy Leach - Criminally underrated by the electorate. Seventh-greatest major league third baseman of all-time to date.
14. Carl Mays - Hitting and postseason pitching worth about six ERA+ points. 70th all-time, behind Saberhagen and ahead of the next guy.
15. Tommy Bridges - Not a workhorse, but very effective. 71st all-time, ahead of Caruthers.

The Next Ten
16. Urban Shocker - Underrated; stays pegged here as a borderline ballot candidate. 73rd all-time, behind Caruthers and ahead of Hunter.
17. Biz Mackey - As high as I can place him given his spotty hitting record. Still would be a good HOM selection, though.
18. Joe Gordon - Can't cram his way into the ballot sausagefest. He's absolutely a HOMer in my eyes.
19. Hugh Duffy - He's the type of player I love to root for: great all-around, no holes in any one facet of his game, kind of like Bobby Abreu.
20. Ralph Kiner - Two-dimensional player (power and walks) whose peak is somewhat overrated. You have to be historically great to crack the ballot with a ten-year career.

21. Bucky Walters - Good pitcher and hitter, gets dinged a little bit for World War II. 71st all-time between Finley and Stieb.
22. Virgil Trucks - Gets WWII credit from me. 73rd all-time, behind Stieb and ahead of Lee Smith.
23. Alejandro Oms - The last HOM-caliber player in my consideration set.
24. Ken Boyer - Nice peak/prime. Can't see him making my ballot, though. Very similar to Sisler in career value.
25. George Sisler - Peak is hugely overrated and didn't really do much with the stick compared to the other greats at the position. Only ranks this high because my team needs a first baseman. But if I think Sisler is one of the biggest HOM mistakes, we're probably doing pretty good. He wasn't peanuts (though my system has him just behind Albert Pujols.)

Other Top 10 Returnees:
George Van Haltren - In an OF backlog with Roush, Cravath, Berger and Veach.

For what it's worth, here's how the Negro League pitchers rank in my Top 100 (parentheses are the pitchers one spot in front and in back of the pitcher):

5. Satchel Paige (Grove, Mathewson)
9. Joe Williams (Alexander, Spahn)
28. Rube Foster (Drysdale, Plank)
37. Ray Brown (Koufax, Jenkins)
50. Dick Redding (Bunning, Newhouser)
56. Willie Foster (Fingers, Coveleski)
61. Jose Mendez (T.F. Brown, Ferrell)

Hilton Smith, Nip Winters, Bill Byrd, Leroy Matlock and Leon Day are in the 110-140 range. I have not ranked Rogan, Dihigo or Andy Cooper.
   86. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 20, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#1976962)
Walters and Trucks are 78th and 80th, respectively.
   87. Paul Wendt Posted: April 20, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#1977062)
3b-ss-2b listed by DL from MN:
5. Ken Boyer (4)
10. Bob Elliott (12)
11. Joe Sewell (18) - Joe goes up a lot in the new WARP
13. Joe Gordon (7) - Hurt defensively by new WARP, I have a BS check on this placement or he would fall off ballot.
24. Tommy Leach (32) - getting closer to ballot, WARP also loves his defense
38. Cupid Childs (46) Moves Up
42. Tony Lazzeri (19) HUGE move down
48. Dave Bancroft (NR) first placement


Here I don't see the expected effect of a decrease in replacement level fielding (reported by DL) or that of an increase in time discount (inferred by others).

James Newburg:
4. Who are Drysdale's comparables and how have they fared in HOM voting?
Per the Sabermetric Encyclopedia, this is a list of pitchers with minimum 3400 IP and 100 ERA+ (not park-adjusted). There are 74 pitchers that meet these parameters:

(I only have the Encyclopedia through the 2003 season. This explains any discrepancies for active players.)


Don't worry about them. It's only 1975. (Except for the trio active in 2005, everyone on the list is at least a five-year veteran --or my oversight.)

In short, we have elected or will elect every single pitcher eligible with a similar career record to Don Drysdale, with the exception of noted 1880s American Association star Will "Whoop-La" White.

Since Drysdale pitched 3432 innings, I suggest selecting pitchers with 3032-3832 innings pitched, for example, rather than 3400 or more.

Regarding the adjustment of ERA+ from 121 to 124 or 125 for superior batting: Maybe some other 3032-inning pitchers merit big adjustments up. Not McGinnity, Perry, Ryan, Rixey.

Oddly, that ERA+ distribution is no more dense in the low 120s than in the low 130s
   88. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#1977086)
James, many thanks for your clarifying, transparent comments. Of course, that makes you more of a open target :)

I see you have Mendez, for example, ranked 61st among pitchers. Is this "61st to date (retired as of 1970)", or 61st through April of 2006? Where would 61 fall among all players? 200th?
   89. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: April 20, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#1977234)
TomH,

To the first question, all of these pitcher rankings are through today, April 2006. To the second, I am operating under two assumptions:

1) that we are determining (approximately) the top 225 players of all-time for the purpose of election into the HOM and

2) the composition of the HOM should reasonably represent that of a 25-man roster

Taking the second assumption first, a 25-man roster would have 9 or 10 pitchers -- let's go with nine. If we choose to give proportional representation to the HOM, this means we would end up with about 81 pitchers. For the purpose of ranking pitchers against position players, I extend the assumption of proportional representation to this task. That is to say, the top 25 players in history would be an all-star team of five outfielders, three corner infielders, three middle infielders, two catchers, nine pitchers and two other players. Under this framework, Jose Mendez, as the 61st-ranked pitcher, would fall in the 151-175 range among all players. This would put him around the bottom third of the HOM.
   90. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 20, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#1977295)
5) How does Sisler compare to the other remaining candidates who were his contemporaries, i.e. players in their prime between 1910 and 1935? Is he the best available candidate from this period? (A partial list of unelected contemporaries would include Roush, Oms, Cravath, Doyle, Sewell, Mackey, Moore, Bancroft, Lundy, Taylor, Lazzeri, Veach, Burns, Schang, Hooper, Rice, Fournier, Traynor, Redding, Mendez, Grimes, Shocker, Mays, Cicotte, Cooper, Luque.) Does he rank higher overall against his contemporaries, (both elected and unelected) than do any other eligible candidates?

I'll take on this one. Sisler compares well to all but one of these guys.

I vastly prefer Jose Mendez and his more impressive seven year peak than Sisler and his admittedly impressive seven year peak.

After that I like Sisler a little better than Roush, around the same as Oms, a smidge more than Doyle, a wee bit less than Mackey, around the same as Grimes, not quite as much as Cooper, better than everyone else on the list.

He's a borderliner's borderliner coming in around the very edge of first-basemen. I like him a little more than Terry, but I didn't like Terry at all.

So my solution is to vote for Mendez, Trouppe, Mackey, Pierce, Duffy, and Jones before I vote for Sisler.
   91. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 07:59 PM (#1977297)
Thanks James. Under your working arrangement, you will be more hurler-heavy than most of us, so you can expect flak (um, I mean, friendly constructive criticism) over such things as, you have my guy Gordon off ballot, even though he's 10th your among non-pitchers.
I would prefer 8 of 25 to be pitchers myself, but best of luck defending your method :)
   92. Chris Cobb Posted: April 20, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#1977316)
Let's do five things with the 7-year peak win share comparison of Sisler to Chance TomH presented:

G. Sisler 33 29 29 27 25 24 22
Other 1B 35 31 29 25 23 20 14


1) add them up, and calculate a rate

G. Sisler 189 ws / 966 g = 30.13 ws/154 g
Chance 177 ws / 836 g = 32.61 ws/154 g

Sisler is 4 wins better
Chance is 2.5 ws better per 154 games

1) adjust Sisler's 1918 and 1919 seasons to 154 games:

G. Sisler 33 29 29 27 26 26 25 = 195
Chance 35 31 29 25 23 20 14 = 177

Sisler is 6 wins better, rates would be about the same

2) Look at the same seasons in WARP, again with Sisler's WWI seasons adjusted:

Sisler 12.2, 10.9, 10.1, 8.9, 8.7, 8.4, 7.9 = 67.1 67.1 / 992 g = 10.42 w/154 g
Chance 10.7, 9.5, 8.3, 7.5, 7.4 6.4, 4.0 = 53.8 53.8 / 836 g = 9.9 w/154 g

Sisler is 13.3 wins better
Sisler is .5 wins better per 154 g

3) Look at these seasons by batting rates, EQA and OPS+

EQA
Sisler .347, .339, .328, .322, ,318, .312, .288
Chance .338, .331, .330, .321, .310, .290, .282

Sisler's batting rates are better

OPS+
Sisler 181, 170, 161, 157, 154, 140, 132
Chance 159, 158, 154, 150, 131, 120, 111

Sisler's batting rates are better, again

4) Look at fielding

Sisler was 25 FRAA over these 7 seasons
Chance was 40 FRAA over these 7 seasons

Sisler earned 12.5 fws
Chance earned 13.4 fws

Chance's fielding was better by 1-1.5 wins.


In reviewing all of these comparisons, it appears to me that the win shares assessment of Chance as having a prime that is as good as Sisler's (better by rate, nearly as good by volume) is anomalous. WARP sees Sisler as better on a per game basis, as do batting rate measures. WARP and win shares agree that Chance was better as a fielder, but his superiority there is insufficent to account for his rate advantage in win shares. I suspect Chance is benefiting by this measure from the Cubs of this era being a very high winning percentage team.

Based on this evidence, I'm willing to accept that Sisler has the best peak/prime of any eligible first baseman.
   93. rawagman Posted: April 20, 2006 at 08:32 PM (#1977392)
Vote for Hugh and your dreams will come true.
Rube for VP
   94. jimd Posted: April 20, 2006 at 11:14 PM (#1977767)
But I still see a SS [Bancroft] who was a great defender with a .268 EQA ... I see that as more valuable than [Sewell] a 2/3 SS, 1/3 3B with a .280 EQA, who wasn't as good of a SS defensively.

Let's dig deeper here. Extract from Bancroft's career the period from 1916-1925, 1259 GP, 1234 at SS. This is his prime, his best fielding years at SS, as measured by WARP. Compare it to Sewell from 1920-1928, 1252 GP, 1216 at SS, his entire SS career. [It was fortuitous that they came out so close in isze.]

Over this period Bancroft has 115 FRAA (109 Fielding Rating), Sewell 102 FRAA (108 Fielding Rating). Yes, Bancroft was the better fielder. However, Sewell had 159 BRAA, Bancroft 92 BRAA over this stretch. It doesn't come close to covering the batting difference.

Also note that Sewell's span is 8 full seasons (only two games missed from 1921-1928, both in 1922) plus a 22 game callup in 1920. Bancroft's is spread over 10 seasons; he had problems staying in the lineup.

The rest of their careers:

Sewell had 5 additional seasons, spent at 3B, on the decline in both hitting and fielding, though still good enough to play 3 years with the Yankees, bridging the gap between Dugan and Rolfe, and collecting a ring in 1932 (going 3/6 with 2 RBI in the clincher).

Bancroft has 5 additional seasons at SS, his rookie season (1916), and 4 after the selection (1926-29), also on the decline in both hitting and fielding (1926 was arguably his best with the bat, but the hitting drops off quickly after that), plus a token in 1930 (those 10 games account for Bancroft's 10 extra games in total career length).

SS is more valuable than 3B. Spending the extra seasons at SS allow Bancroft to catch up and move somewhat past Sewell in total career value (112.6 vs 104.5 in WARP-1). But this does not take into account the quality difference betweeen the AL and NL of that time. IMO, Sewell moves ahead after discounting.

Sewell also has a large advantage in peak value. He has 5 seasons over 10.0 WARP, compared with 2 for Bancroft. Bancroft was the best MLB SS in 1920 and 1921 by both WARP and WS; WS gives him 1922 also. Sewell was the best in 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1928 by both sytems. (Travis Jackson wins 1927, both systems) WS also has Sewell as tied for the best 3B-man of 1929 with Traynor and Pinky Whitney, and has Sewell as the the best fielding 3B-man in MLB (WARP selects Whitney as best glove and best at 3b).

To me it's no contest, Sewell over Bancroft by peak and prime and career.
   95. jimd Posted: April 20, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1977777)
his rookie season (1916),

typo alert!

his rookie season (1915),
   96. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#1977784)
Chris, I pretty much agree with your analysis.

But let's also look at season OWP

Sisler 789 779 746 742 741 696 627
Chance 826 800 790 752 717 617 612

Chance's OPS+ is way OBP heavy, and his speed may be more suited to the deadball era; the RC formulae change before 1919, and I suspect they are more accurate than EqA for that period. It might be this, and not Chance's great team wpct, that causes Win Shares to favor Frank over George. Of course, with George's playing time advantage, he is still ahead.

I would conclude that their primes are close.

And when you get to the 'rest of the story', Chance played another 450 games (including many years stuck as a second-string catcher even though he was a fine player) and achieved another 64 RCAP in those games. Sisler played another 1089 games, during which time his offense was MINUS 125 RCAP. He was below average in every season besides his best 7.

I think it's a tough call. I don't say this necessarily to dis Sisler, who I would favor honoring as we slowly make our way through the backlog. In fact, if anything, maybe I ought to cheer him on next week, as he would if elected be a permanent marker for we ought to honor the Peerless Leader as well.
   97. TomH Posted: April 20, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#1977791)
oh, good English, Tom. Geezz..
   98. Jim Sp Posted: April 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM (#1977850)
I haven't played this game yet, so my turn. it's an easy one.

Obviously Sisler will get in on 7 year peak hitting, right?

OPS+
181-70-61-57-54-40-32 Sisler
172-64-61-60-45-43-35 Player B

Hint on player B: played in PCL mid-career. what the hell were the ML clubs thinking?
   99. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 21, 2006 at 02:11 AM (#1978251)
If one votes for Sisler based on a very good seven year peak/prime why not vote for Charlie Keller (5 or 6 MVP level seasons, depending on how much war credit you give, and a few very good seasons to boot) and Ralph Kiner (very good seven year prime as well). Is anyone, yest not included, voting for Sisler because of his post 1922 seasons? If not, then there are other position players with more impressive 7 year runs on the ballot.
   100. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 21, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#1978374)
Jim - that's fine - if you buy WARPs fielding scores for them. I don't necessarily.

Win Shares give Bancroft 103.4 fWS, Sewell 89.9.

For the years mentioned . . .

1916-25 Bancroft: 74.7 fWS. Doesn't include his 4th best fielding year, 1915.

1920-28 Sewell: 64.7 fWS.

Outside of those years, Bancroft 28.7 fWS, Sewell 25.2 fWS.

So FRAA gives Bancroft a 13 run advantage, WS sees it more like 33 runs (if you consider 3 WS = 10 runs).

I am not convinced the AL of the 20s was that much better than the NL, this is basically the decade where the NL caught up, after the White Sox were torn apart. After 1920 I don't think there was any difference in the leagues. WARP1 had Bancroft ahead by 7.8%, and that with an understated (IMO) fielding difference. There's no way the leagues were that far apart.

I agree Sewell had the bigger peak. I think the fielding difference is bigger than WARP says it is, and I think the reputations back up that WS is closer to being correct here than WARP.

I will back off that I think Bancroft should be 'clearly' rated higher. However I think the two should be rated very close to each other, and a career voter would have Bancroft ahead, a peak voter could easily defend having Sewell ahead.
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
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.3080 seconds
68 querie(s) executed