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, May 15, 2006

1977 Ballot Discussion

1977 (May 15)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

332 115.0 1954 Ernie Banks-SS/1B
257 90.6 1955 Jim Bunning-P
175 71.3 1954 Camilo Pascual-P
183 51.0 1960 Tony Gonzalez-CF
160 52.9 1955 Clete Boyer-3B
145 49.7 1958 Jim “Mudcat” Grant-P
137 52.0 1960 Jim Maloney-P
148 47.4 1962 Dean Chance-P
134 36.3 1961 Zoilo Versalles-SS (1995)
114 42.0 1958 Stan Williams-P
114 41.8 1960 Dick Ellsworth-P
110 40.8 1955 Dick Hall-RP
123 31.0 1959 Lee Maye-LF/RF (2002)
118 32.1 1961 Chuck Hinton-LF/RF
096 37.4 1960 Clay Dalrymple-C
109 31.3 1962 Mack Jones-CF/LF (2004)
105 24.3 1964 Tony Conigliaro-RF (1990)

Players Passing Away in 1976
HoMers
Age Elected

88 1939 Red Faber-P
86 1939 Max Carey-CF
68 1964 Wes Ferrell-P

Candidates
Age Eligible

89 1930 Larry Gardner-3b
79 1944 Jimmy Dykes-3B/2B
77 1941 Earle Combs-CF
77 1942 Firpo Marberry-RP
76 1942 George Earnshaw-P
75 1950 George Scales-2B
73 1934 Ernie Nevers-RP/NFL HOF
73——Tom Yawkey-HOF Owner
67 1949 Lon Warneke-P
59 1957 Danny Murtaugh-2B/Mgr
59 1962 Jim Konstanty-RP
55 1957 Dan Bankhead-RP

Upcoming Candidates
29 1982 Danny Thompson-SS
29 1982 Bob Moose-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 15, 2006 at 11:05 PM | 178 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 16, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2021348)
Banks is going in, but will Bunning this "year?"
   2. OCF Posted: May 16, 2006 at 12:39 AM (#2021450)
Do you get the feeling that if you could take just one season from each of this year's new eligibles, you could put together quite a good team? You've got Versalles there, with his surprising MVP (although he does play the same position as Banks), and Dean Chance, with his ERA+ 200 year. There are some other nice years in there as well.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 16, 2006 at 12:44 AM (#2021468)
Don't forget Nevers, OCF. ;-)
   4. DavidFoss Posted: May 16, 2006 at 01:18 AM (#2021600)
Ellsworth actually edged Koufax for the 1963 NL-WinShares CYA. That was a heckuva year.
   5. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 16, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2021673)
I must say that Bunning will probably go in, There isn't an awful lot between he and Drysdale by my reckonin' so he should go in against this backlog.
   6. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 16, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#2021776)
Well, you don't have a second baseman, so Zoilo can move there.
   7. Chris Fluit Posted: May 16, 2006 at 02:55 AM (#2021780)
I was surprised at where Ernie Banks ended up after my initial evaluation. He may still end up being my top pick, and he's certainly no lower than three, but I was expecting more of an Eddie Matthews type gap over the backlog based on Ernie's reputation.

And Bunning looks ballot worthy to me as well, though I want to make a closer inspection before deciding exactly where to place him.
   8. Evan Posted: May 16, 2006 at 04:37 AM (#2021849)
Interestingly, with Banks looking to be elected, the Cubs will move into a tie for 1st place in cap standings for the first time since the 1800s, I think. They may have it all to themselves for a bit in 1983-84-85, once Billy Williams goes in, depending on how Cepeda does, and before McCovey is eligible.
   9. Evan Posted: May 16, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#2021850)
Actually, it'll be for the first time ever.
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: May 16, 2006 at 12:27 PM (#2021930)
1977 Prelim

Last year’s #9 and #10 got elected! Willis, Averill, Minoso, Hack, Drysdale, Oms, Bunning and Doerr (currently in that order) all under consideration for PHoM (for one slot, Banks gets the other of course).

Pascual, Grant, Chance and Versalles all make the Twins HoM.

1. Dobie Moore (1 last year-1-3, PHoM 1942)—Still a very mighty peak

2. Ernie Banks (new, PHoM 1977)—Comps are Dobie Moore for peak/prime and George Sisler for career, and since they were #1 and #4 last year, that’s not a bad thing

3. Ralph Kiner (2-2-7, PHoM 1964)—moved up in recent re-eval., based on the same old virtues—not just those 7 HR titles, but all those BB, too

4. Rube Waddell (3-3-5, PHoM 1932)—second highest ERA+ available, and it turns out after all these years that his UER were not outside the norm

5. George Sisler (4-4-4, PHoM 1938)—when people say his peak or prime wasn’t long enough, the truth is that nobody on this ballot peaks for any longer

6. Larry Doyle (5-5-21, PHoM 1975)—15 years of 15+ WS, I don’t see another eligible “glove” who did that, plus same OPS+ as Edd Roush (5 points more than Hugh Duffy). As for his defense, who ya gonna believe—Clay Davenport or John McGraw.

7. Addie Joss (6-6-8, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available

8. Charley Jones (7-7-16, PHoM 1921)—I have added in 2 blacklist years’ worth of MLEs. He made my PHoM without them, but moves up with…

9. Pete Browning (8-8-6, PHoM 1961)—essentially equivalent to Charley Jones if you give Jones the two blacklist years

10. Edd Roush (11-11-29, PHoM 1976)—really belongs ahead of Averill and Duffy, on reconsideration

11. Vic Willis (12-12-x)—how did I miss this guy? Oh, yeah, he came eligible the same year as Waddell and didn’t quite measure up. Great peak (though not consecutive) and a huge workhorse. Check him out!

(11a. Earl Averill [12a-12a-17])

12. Jose Mendez (13-13-10, PHoM 1957)—this is with essentially no credit at all for his hitting and his SS years

13. Minnie Minoso (14-14-13)—I give 2 NeL seasons but at well below peak level

(13a. Stan Hack [14a-14a-19])

(13b. Don Drysdale [15a-15-new])

14. Alejandro Oms (15-16-37)—big winner in recent re-eval.

15. Jim Bunning (new)—somewhere below Drysdale, PHoM eval could drop him off the ballot, which might mean Hugh Duffy sneaks in for the first time since 1908, which would probably be a record for the longest time between appearances. But that and Bunning's fate are still a bit up in the air

(15a. Bobby Doerr [15a-17-18])

Drops out: None

Close but no cigar

16. Hugh Duffy (16-17-19)
17. Phil Rizzuto (17-18-x)—one of the big winners but still not on ballot
18. Nellie Fox (18-19-11)
19. Charlie Keller (19-20-24-21)
20. Joe Sewell (20-21-31)
(20a. Richie Ashburn [20a-21a-x])

21. Jim McCormick (21-22-x)
22. Hack Wilson (22-23-x)
23. Elston Howard (23-24-new)—new #1 catcher until Freehan comes along, much better than I had thought
24. Dick Redding (24-25-14, PHoM 1971)
25. Tommy Bond (25-26-9, PHoM 1929)
26. Wally Berger (26-27-x)
27. Mickey Welch (27-28-x)
28. Ken Boyer (28-29-new)—new #1 3B, not overwhelming however
29. Dizzy Dean (29-30-25)
30. Dick Lundy (30-31-36)

They also ran

31. Chuck Klein (31-32-27)
32. Al Rosen (32-33-x)
33. Frank Chance (33-34-x)
34. Hilton Smith (34-35-x)
35. Pie Traynor (35-36-x)
36. Tony Mullane (36-37-x)
37. Quincy Trouppe (37-38-28)—no longer the best catcher around
38. Ed Williamson (38-39-22, PHoM 1924)
(38a. Early Wynn [38a-39a-39)—HOVG? Heck, HOOK
39. Gavvy Cravath (39-40-30)
40. Vern Stephens (40-41-27)

41. Mike Tiernan (41-42-29)
42. Cupid Childs (42-43-31, PHoM 1925)
43. Bill Monroe (43-44-32)
44. Bob Johnson (44-45-40)--comp is Bobby Estalella
45. Bob Elliott (45-46-41)—all the way down to about here, I still wish I could get all these guys on my ballot. Beginning with Bresnahan, no, not so much
46. Roger Bresnahan (46-47-42)
47. Bucky Walters (47-48-x)
(47a. Biz Mackey [47a-49-y])
(47b. Red Faber [47b-49a-y])
(47c. Wes Ferrell [47c-49b-y])
(47d. Willie Keeler {47d-49c-y])
48. Lefty Gomez (48-50-x)
49. Dave Bancroft (49-51-x)
(49a. Jimmy Sheckard [49a-51a-y])
50. Burleigh Grimes (50-52-x)
(50a. Cool Papa Bell [50a-52b-y])
   11. DL from MN Posted: May 16, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2022027)
Prelim ballot

1) Ernie Banks
gap
2) Billy Pierce
3) Bob Johnson
4) Ralph Kiner
5) Jim Bunning
6) Ken Boyer
gap
7) Tommy Bridges
8) Charlie Keller
9) Virgil Trucks
10) Quincy Trouppe
11) Dutch Leonard
12) Bob Elliott
13) Joe Sewell
14) Minnie Minoso (big drop after giving less NgL credit)
15) Jake Beckley
16-21) Dick Bartell, Chuck Klein, Dobie Moore, Gavy Cravath, Rube Waddell, Jose Mendez
gap
22-25) Urban Shocker, George Sisler, Tommy Leach, Edd Roush
26-30) Wally Berger, Alejandro Oms, Dizzy Trout, Rocky Colavito, Fielder Jones
31-36) Jimmy Ryan, Cupid Childs, Pete Browning, George Van Haltren, Vic Willis, Dick Redding
I can't support anyone below this line
   12. Rusty Priske Posted: May 16, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#2022111)
Prelim

PHoM Banks & Griffith

1. Ernie Banks
2. Jake Beckley
3. Dobie Moore
4. Mickey Welch
5. George Van Haltren
6. George Sisler
7. Nellie Fox
8. Hugh Duffy
9. Tommy Leach
10. Edd Roush
11. Quincy Trouppe
12. Sam Rice
13. Minnie Minoso
14. Cupid Childs
15. Dick Redding

16-20. Grimes, Sewell, Willis, Browning, Ryan
21-25. White, Smith, Streeter, K.Boyer, Elliott
26-30. Kiner, Doyle, Mullane, Strong, Gleason

Bunning currently falls in at #47.
   13. yeager Posted: May 16, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#2022147)
Reading all of your posts on the Hall of Merit has been a source of enjoyment for me. Although I don't have time to vote regularly, I wanted to give a gift of appreciation for being able to "listen in" which I hope will be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

I've assembled lists of Win Shares All-Stars. I got the idea for the list from the Stats All-Time Sourcebook. Sorry for all the separate files -- formatting problems beyond my skill level necessitated them. I hope this can be of some interest and help to you in your deliberations.

Thank you again for the privilege of access to your knowledge and to your research. God bless you.

1876-1885
http://www.savefile.com/files/1137138
1886-1890
http://www.savefile.com/files/5069643
1891-1900
http://www.savefile.com/files/1404828
1901-1906
http://www.savefile.com/files/5843320
1907-1912
http://www.savefile.com/files/5168275
1913-1917
http://www.savefile.com/files/9966961
1918-1923
http://www.savefile.com/files/7892245
1924-1929
http://www.savefile.com/files/9713346
1930-1935
http://www.savefile.com/files/2866212
1936-1941
http://www.savefile.com/files/9390727
1942-1947
http://www.savefile.com/files/3507511
1948-1953
http://www.savefile.com/files/6860739
1954-1959
http://www.savefile.com/files/8275620
1960-1965
http://www.savefile.com/files/8420671
1966-1971
http://www.savefile.com/files/1686350
1972-1976
http://www.savefile.com/files/9630573
1977-1981
http://www.savefile.com/files/2291729
1982-1987
http://www.savefile.com/files/2833741
1988-1992
http://www.savefile.com/files/2301693
1993-1997
http://www.savefile.com/files/3646863
1998-2003
http://www.savefile.com/files/4198034
2004-2005
http://www.savefile.com/files/2349743
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 16, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2022217)
Thank you, yeager. That was very nice of you.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 16, 2006 at 05:07 PM (#2022231)
TOTAL NON-SEQUITOR QUESTION

Does anyone know when the Hall's ten-year eligiblity requirement was instituted? Was it there from day one? Or did was it a later innovation?

Strangely PofG doesn't put a date to it.

Thanks!
   16. rawagman Posted: May 16, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#2022302)
Can someone tell me how to get into the Yahoo group.
Or email it to me - rwagman@gmail.com.

Much appreciated.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 16, 2006 at 06:31 PM (#2022328)
Here you go, rawagman:

Hall of Merit

After you sign up, either Joe or I will confirm it and then you're set.
   18. rawagman Posted: May 16, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#2022578)
Done - thanks, John.
   19. Ardo Posted: May 16, 2006 at 08:38 PM (#2022607)
This "year", I'll have time for the thorough re-evaluation I promised last time around. Ernie Banks is #1, though Jose Mendez nips at his heels for #2. Everything below those two men is open to revision.

Jim Bunning (3760, 114) is essentially Billy Pierce (3306, 119) plus two replacement-level seasons. Both were 7-time All-Stars. Pierce was a better pitcher in his "filler" years. The difference, though, is extremely fine. Both will be on my ballot.
   20. TomH Posted: May 16, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2022631)
I'm not a FO Dizzy Dean, but I am surprised at his lack of support, given how much support Jose Mendez has.

From 1932-39, Dean pitched 1800+ innings with an ERA+ of 134. His record was 146-80 (wpct .646). He won an MVP award, and was second twice. All in three years. There is only ONE pitcher in MLB history with a stronger showing in MVP voting (Hubbell). He did NOT benefit form a great defnese behind him (per BP/Davenport), so the ERA+ is real. He was a workhorse, often leading the league in IP. His Win Shares in consecutive yrs are 24 22 3731 31; sweet.

As I said, his career is too short for me. But can someone with Mendez at/near the top and Dean off ballot 'splain their thinking to me? I don't support Mendez, partly because there are so many guys who seem to put up 6-8 great years (Waddell would be another among our backlog, and of course there are more). If Mendez appears to be distinctly above these other two, I might be more accepting of his candidacy.
   21. jingoist Posted: May 16, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#2022671)
Anybody here remember Tony C?
Those first few years he came up I was in the US Navy, stationed in Newport RI.
Yeah, I know, tough duty but someone had to take the slot.
Anyway, a bunch of us white-hats would regularly drive up to beantown and watch the sox play.

I was sure I was witnessing a young Mickey Mantle again.

Tony Conigliaro, besides being a local boy, was a superstar in the making until the accident.
He was headed to the HoF (and maybe the HoM as well) until......

Truly a sad fate for such a talented player.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 16, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#2022702)
He was headed to the HoF (and maybe the HoM as well) until......

The odds of him eventually making both Halls were favorable. Sad story.
   23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 16, 2006 at 09:40 PM (#2022714)
I think the argument for Mendez over Dean is multifaceted, and there's not necessarily a single huge difference, but several small to medium ones.*

1) HITTING: Dean was an average or better than average hitter; while Mendez was, for a pitcher, excellent.
2) PITCHING: My system sees where
2a) Dean has two total monster years; Mendez has two
2b) Dean has one near-monster year; Mendez has two
2c) Dean has two All-Star-type years; Mendez has two
2d) Dean has one near-All-Star year; Mendez has zero
2e) Dean has zero "regular starter" years; Mendez has two
2f) Dean has two bits 'n scraps years; Mendez has seven
2g) Dean has two token years; Mendez has six

I think the little things add up here. I have Dean as creeping toward my ballot, and he's actually right at the in/out line for pitchers for me, so I'm not even an EODD. They are close, but in this backlog, I see them as seperated by a 20-25 man gulf.

*NOTE: Remember I run my pitchers through a different system than many, one that adjusts, hopefully, for usage levels. Also Mendez comments are based on MLEs then run through the usage-adjuster.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: May 16, 2006 at 09:41 PM (#2022716)
The strange thing for me is that Tony C is actually younger than guys like Graig Nettles, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver. A healthy Tony C would have been playing well into the 1980s.
   25. jingoist Posted: May 16, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2022774)
Your right David.
I think he and Jimmy Foxx were the two youngest guys ever to 100 HRs if I recall.
Probably Pujols has passed them both up by now; he seems to be the next A-Rod/Mantle.

I was gone by '67 when he got beaned.
Many a Sox fan was sure they would have won the WS in 67 had Tony been available.

Like Herb Score he was never the same after being struck by that ball.
Unlike Herb, the rest of Tony's short life was filled with bad health and an untimely death at age 45.
   26. DavidFoss Posted: May 16, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#2022939)
I think he and Jimmy Foxx were the two youngest guys ever to 100 HRs if I recall.

Using the bb-ref lists, it was Ott (86) by a nose over Tony C (84) at "age 21" and Tony C (104)trailed Ott (115), Mathews(112), and A-Rod (106) at "age 22". I'd have to check birthdates to see who was actually the youngest when they crossed the century mark.

Its interesting to see that Tony C managed to comeback and looked to be improving for a couple of seasons, but his vision kept deteriorating and he had to retire.
   27. jimd Posted: May 17, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#2023147)
IIRC, the story in the Boston papers was that he was the youngest ever to reach 100, so I would guess he beat Ott and Mathews by some number of days. His age 22 season was cut short on 8/18 by the beaning.
   28. jimd Posted: May 17, 2006 at 12:45 AM (#2023205)
I don't put a lot of stock in Similarity scores, but, for fun, here's the list of Tony C's top 10 similars at age 22:
1) Frank Robinson, 2) Mickey Mantle, 3) Miguel Cabrera,
4) Andruw Jones, 5) Eddie Mathews, 6) Hank Aaron, 7) Boog Powell,
8) Ken Griffey, Jr, 9) Ruben Sierra, 10) Orlando Cepeda

It's a nice list of top quality stars and some notable "what happened?" guys. Most of these guys operated in a richer offensive environment than Tony C. Boog Powell would be one exception, and you might have to look closely at mid-60's Fenway vs early 50's Milwaukee and New York to see how hitters-park/pitchers-era compared to pitchers-park/hitters-era.
   29. Howie Menckel Posted: May 17, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#2023257)
Oops, had this in the Bunning file, better off here

HOM by pct at position, thru 1976
(I gave Brown 80 for OF and 20 for SS; subject to change)


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

C (9.70) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (13.95) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, Mantle 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (12.13) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Gordon 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

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

SS (15.38) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, WBrown 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10

OF (43.25) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Mantle 88, Hines 82, Torriente 80, WBrown 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, Ward 11, White 10, JRobinson 10

SP (39.18) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

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

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.
   30. jimd Posted: May 17, 2006 at 01:05 AM (#2023308)
I also remember taking James' published Brock2 system (or whatever number it was from one of the 1980's abstracts) and running Tony C through it based on just his age 22 and earlier data (pre-beaning). His HR total went past Ruth but not past Aaron. Now this was based on his numbers posted during the offense-depressed 1960's, so if he had actually developed along the lines of that crude model, and also benefited from the rule changes and MLB expansion of the late 1960's, well, who knows?
   31. DavidFoss Posted: May 17, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2023498)
A little googling:

Ott hit his 100th on July 18, 1931 at age 22 yrs. 4 mo. 16 days
Tony C. hit #100 on July 23, 1967 at age 22 yrs. 6 mo. 16 days.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: May 17, 2006 at 02:04 AM (#2023551)
list of Tony C's top 10 similars at age 22:
1) Frank Robinson, 2) Mickey Mantle, 3) Miguel Cabrera,
4) Andruw Jones, 5) Eddie Mathews, 6) Hank Aaron, 7) Boog Powell,
8) Ken Griffey, Jr, 9) Ruben Sierra, 10) Orlando Cepeda

...

you might have to look closely at mid-60's Fenway vs early 50's Milwaukee and New York to see how hitters-park/pitchers-era compared to pitchers-park/hitters-era.


Looking at the running OPS+ total (have to hand-edit the bb-ref link b/c the missing year breaks things) for those ten guys... Two guys stick out above the rest: Mathews-153 and Mantle-148. Two guys stick out below the rest: AJones-108 and Sierra-102. The other six and Tony C make a nice central group... all between 130 and 138 (Tony C at 133).

The notable thing about many of these young 22-year old "veterans" is that despite the fact that they were all already all-star quality, they often raised their game to an even higher level in their mid-to-late twenties. Tony C hadn't done that yet. Counting 1967, he had two top-ten OPS+ seasons, but no top-five years. It was the promise of something even better that makes the injury so disappointing. It also makes Miguel Cabrera one of the more exciting young careers to watch today.
   33. jimd Posted: May 17, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2023660)
Tony C hadn't done that yet.

He never had the opportunity to do that due to the beaning.

A little googling:

Ott hit his 100th on July 18, 1931 at age 22 yrs. 4 mo. 16 days
Tony C. hit #100 on July 23, 1967 at age 22 yrs. 6 mo. 16 days.


It's possible that my young brain missed a crucial adjective. Perhaps he was the youngest AL player to reach 100. But that's not what I remember being said back then. (Also, just because it was said didn't mean it was accurate. ;-)
   34. Brent Posted: May 17, 2006 at 04:26 AM (#2023874)
My take on Mendez vs. Dean is a bit different than the Doctor's. I support both pitchers, placing Mendez a little ahead of Dean.

Chris's MLEs for Mendez indicate a 7-year peak from 1908 to 1914--1959 IP with an ERA of 2.29 and an ERA+ of 130. His projected ERA+ and IP are similar to those for Dean's best 7 seasons, except that Dean doesn't have quite as many IP. Dean was really only a full-time pitcher for 5-1/2 seasons before his famous injury. On the other hand, if you look at Mendez's actual (not MLE) Cuban League record, it looks like he also may have been experiencing some arm trouble during his 6th season (1913) when he appeared in only 7 of 32 games and went 1-4. However he came back very strong in 1914 with a 10-0 record. So it looks like their pitching peaks consisted of 5-1/2 seasons for Dean vs. 6 for Mendez.

To validate Chris's MLEs, I used the walk and strikeout rates against major league teams that Gary A posted on the Mendez thread. I converted his rates to a FIP (fielding independent pitching) ERA, and came up with 2.33--very similar to the ERA shown in Chris's MLEs. (This FIP ERA compares well to other pitchers of the period; below W Johnson and Ed Walsh, but similar to the other elite pitchers of 1908-13, such as Mathewson, Plank, Young, Brown, and Wood.) On this evidence, Chris's MLEs appear to be remarkably accurate.

Regarding batting, I think there has been a tendency to understate Dean's performance and overstate Mendez's. Dean's OPS+ was 43; my guess is that the average pitcher of the 1930s was about 25. According to Gary A's data, Mendez had an OPS+ of 61 against major league pitching. Mendez hit and fielded well enough that after his arm blew out he was able to work in the Negro leagues as a shortstop from 1915-18, but I don't believe he would have played shortstop in the majors.

Mendez's main advantage relative to Dean is that he worked his way back to the point that he was again a good pitcher during the early 1920s and pitched well for a championship Kansas City Monarchs team. He was never the same pitcher he had been from 1908-14, but he did contribute. I don't give Mendez a lot of credit for the twilight years of his career, but I do give some.

As I said, I support both pitchers and feel that Dean is somewhat underrated by this electorate (particularly considering that they have supported other short-career candidates such as Jennings and Koufax). But for voters who are averse to candidates with very short careers, Mendez does offer a peak that is similar to Dean's along with several additional high-quality seasons.
   35. Kelly in SD Posted: May 17, 2006 at 08:46 AM (#2023962)
1977 Prelim:

My numbers 5 and 15 were elected. I don't know the last time I had both electees in a backlog election.

1. Mickey Welch: The weight of the evidence
2. Charley Jones: The weight of the evidence. A top 10 position player from 1876 to 1885. Please see the Keltner List on his thread.
3. Pete Browning: Hitter
4. Charlie Keller: MVP level play for 6 straight years with 1.75 years of War credit. Only DiMaggio, Williams, and Musial were better in the 1940s before he hurt his back.
5. Hugh Duffy: A key member of the best team of the 1890s. Please see the Keltner List for him. I need to post that to the Duffy thread soon.
6. Quincy Troupe: A great hitting catcher whose nomadic career has done wonders to hide his value. I ask the many voters who trust the MLEs of elected or balloted NeLers to look again at Troupe.
7. Ernie Banks: A great hitting shortstop. A lot of bulk career value at first base. If he put up his whole career at short, he would rank significantly higher.
8. Jose Mendez: From 1910 to 1914, only Johnson and Alexander were better. A gigantic peak.
9. Jim Bunning: I have been looking at his career again. He is eerily similar to Wilbur Cooper - slightly better in K/9, BB/9, and timing his better ERA+ years with his higher IP years. There is very little separating them to me. 3 times the best pitcher in his league (1957, 1960, and 1967). There really wasn't a best pitcher in the 1960 AL. Bunning was the only pitcher with 20 win shares and he had 20.
10. Bucky Walters: Best peak available (tied with Dean) among eligible white players.
11. Alejandro Ohms: Many years of all-star-plus years (over 25 win shares.)
12. Cupid Childs: Best second baseman of 1890s and its not close.
13. Vic Willis: Take another look. 4 times one of the top 2 pitchers in the National League.
14. Dobie Moore: Banks before Banks. I may have to move them closer on the final ballot. My system finds them quite comparable.
15. Tommy Leach: Great defense. Good hitting at two key defensive positions. A key player in one of the best defensive teams ever.

16-20:
Chance: Best peak by a first baseman between Connor and Brouthers and Gehrig.
Redding: Excellent peak but not enough shoulder years.
Burns: Best leadoff hitter of the 1910s NL. Overlooked.
Kiner: Just a hair behind Burns for best LF on my board.
Minoso: Just a hair behind Burns and Minoso for best LF. I can't put all three on the ballot so none of them go.

21-25:
Grimes: Too many ups and downs in his career to get elected, but I think he and Early Wynn are the same guy.
Cooper, Wilbur: He and Bunning are very similar, but Bunning is slightly better in several ways so there is a 13 space gap between them.
Cravath: Man, I wish I could vote for 25 players. The best right fielder on the ballot.
Roush: see Cravath. PHOM for years.
Bresnahan: I have been overlooking him again. Great year in CF is a bonus. Look at how much better he was than other catchers of his era.

26-30
Doyle: Great hitter at second. Defense left something to be desired.
Easter: Could be anywhere between here and the ballot depending on how much credit I'm giving next week.
Long: Another key player on the 1890s Bostonians. Fantastic fielder.
Rosen: What if...
Stephens: Great hitter. More than adequate defense.

31-35
Sisler: His raw numbers are heavily park influenced. Too bad he couldn't walk. His peak is just not high enough, nor is his prime. First base and center field have the highest standards for me. He doesn't meet them.
Van Haltren: Lots of years of 25+ win shares in the 1890s. Too bad the other outfielders were putting up better every year.
Dean: Great peak. Just nothing else there.
Waddell: Does not have as many big years as the other great pitchers of his era.
Fox: He certainly stood out over the other second basemen of his era. Too bad it wasn't that difficult.

36-40:
Schang: I wish he could go higher. I see the arguments.
Tiernan: He had slipped through my net. Much better than I realized.
Fournier: Remember to give him credit for the White Sox screwing up.
Mays: The best supported pitcher, offensively and defensively, other than Spalding.
Monroe, Bill: He impressed the hell out of McGraw

41-45:
Scales: Pretty good player.
McGraw: Just not healthy enough.
Sewell: A good player, but just a little short.
Berger: Not enough prime years for me.
Clarkson: Another good player who was introduced to me through this process.

46-50:
Elliott: I need to review his candidacy
Shocker: A very good pitcher who faced very tough opponents.
Jones, F: Excellent defender. Stats are hard to difficult to understand because fo the context:
Seymour: Hard to analyze career with the giant fluke year and the pitching.
Denny Lyons / Ed Williamson: Two excellent third basemen of a bygone era.

Others:
Boyer: I have him behind Leach, Rosen, Elliott, Clarkson, McGraw, Traynor, Lyons, and Williamson. He is pretty much tied with the latter three, but nowhere near the ballot. Peka and prime were not high enough.
Beckley: 11th best available first baseman. Around 140th among all eligible players. Is not in my all-time top 500.
   36. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 17, 2006 at 12:53 PM (#2023999)
Brent,

Since you mentioned them.... In 1972, I had Mendez probably 2 or 3; I had Koufax at the edge of my ballot; Dean was at that point around 25. Seems like a big spread. But in fact, it's quite small given the compressed nature of the backlog. I did have other pitchers in between them, but not 23 of them. Anyway, it's all to say that all three of these peakeriffic guys are HOMable.
   37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 17, 2006 at 01:12 PM (#2024007)
Using Mendez's MLEs and comparing him to his contemporaries, I don't see what some of you are seeing (same goes with Redding, another top-ten guy).

Of course, those numbers are not carved in stone, so I'm always open to a more correct evaluation.
   38. KJOK Posted: May 17, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#2024252)
As I've said before, I think Mendez is somewhat comparable to Orel Hershiser, if Hershiser had played SS 1990-92 instead of being DL'd/coming back.
   39. Michael Bass Posted: May 17, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#2024323)
My prelim:

1. Banks - Not that he's in danger of not being elected, but some of the comments have been a bit harsh, IMO. World class peak, plenty of augmenting value, amazingly easy #1 on this ballot.
2. Mendez
3. Moore
4. Sewell
5. Boyer
6. Bunning - Worse than Drysdale, better than Pierce. Terrible hitter, terrible senator (I've voted against him twice!), but great pitcher.
7. Walters
8. Minoso
9. Trouppe
10. Sisler
11. Johnson
12. Redding
13. Dunlap
14. Browning
15. Pierce
   40. Ardo Posted: May 17, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2024394)
1977 prelim:

1. Banks
2. Mendez
3. Trouppe
(chasm)
4. Pierce
5. Schang
6. Bunning
7. Boyer
8. Fox
9. Beckley
10. Sewell
11. Redding
12. Sisler
13. Minoso
14. Kiner
15. Oms

New 16-20: C. Jones, Cravath, Leach, Bancroft, Luque
21-25: Duffy, Bridges, Roush, Rizzuto, Lombardi.
   41. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: May 17, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#2024527)
For what it's worth, Jim Bunning owned Ernie Banks (from retrosheet.org):

Banks was 15-for-59 against Bunning with 1 home run. He did not draw a walk, though Bunning hit him twice. Banks' rate stats against Bunning are .254/.279/.339.
   42. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: May 17, 2006 at 07:56 PM (#2024547)
Just because this is fun, Banks' numbers against Sandy Koufax (starting in 1957, which misses Koufax's first two seasons):

21-for-127 with 7 HR, 14 BB (4 of them IBB), 31 SO. The only other extra-base hits are 2 triples.

Per 650 PA, that's 32 HR, 65 BB and 143 SO.

.165/.226/.362

A really interesting battle of the Three True Outcomes.
   43. DavidFoss Posted: May 17, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#2024574)
For what it's worth, Jim Bunning owned Ernie Banks (from retrosheet.org):

I know this is just for fun, but it was only post-injury Banks that faced Bunning in the regular season. Pre-Injury, the only time they faced was one PA in the 1959 All-Star game where Banks doubled.
   44. jimd Posted: May 17, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2024645)
With the passing of Red Faber, Stan Coveleski becomes the oldest "living" HOMer.

Oldest living HOMer (progression)

1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age @92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; died, age 83)
1972 -- Red Faber (age 83; died, age 88)
1976 -- Stan Coveleski (age 87; )
   45. Mike Webber Posted: May 17, 2006 at 10:04 PM (#2024704)
SABR Negro Leagues Conference in Kansas City

Check out this other Primer thread

I'll be there, so will Doc Chaleeko. If Gadfly is who I think he is, he'll be there. Maybe John Murphy?
   46. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 17, 2006 at 10:15 PM (#2024715)
That's right, the good Doctor makes a house call in KC. Mike Weber tells me that they're cooking up a special batch of BBQ for me over at Arthur Bryants'. I'm smelling porky goodnes and a HOM meet up!

In all seriousness, I've got a few HOMely topics on my mind for that weekend (July 6-9), and though I don't have any idea how the show goes, I'll be looking for chances to find out:
-What's the dil-e-o with Leroy Matlock (he said in his best 2003 voice)
-Is there anything out there about QT playing in Bismarkee?
-Is there info on Oms in the sugar leagues?
-Is there info on Easter in the pre-1947 industrial leagues?
-Buzz on when oh when will the newly researched stats come through?
-Hilton Smith: are we wrong about him?
-Andy Cooper: Studtastic starter or lucky lefty?

If as we get closer anyone thinks of something they want me to look out for, I'll be happy to.
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 17, 2006 at 11:33 PM (#2024786)
Maybe John Murphy?

It's not definite yet, Mike, but I'm still hoping to go.
   48. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 17, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#2024838)
John,

If it'll help push you into the yes column, then I'll happily endorse Mike buying your first oat soda.

; )
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 18, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#2024894)
lol
   50. Jeff M Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:17 AM (#2025437)
Seeing Banks on the ballot reminds me of one of the first debates I ever had on the HoM site (before the first election). John Murphy and I debated whether Ernie Banks should be evaluated as a shortstop or first baseman.

I believe I came down on the side of first base. :)
   51. Paul Wendt Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:46 AM (#2025451)
KJOK:
There's a conference you can drive to.
And see you in St Louis for SABR 2007?
--

jingoist:
Anybody here remember Tony C?

I thought he had a great name and I thought I would see lots of guys lead the league with 32 home runs, maybe 29.
I thought Reggie Smith was pretty good.
(I didn't live here and I rooted for the birds, Orioles and Cardinals.)

Those first few years he came up I was in the US Navy, stationed in Newport RI.
Yeah, I know, tough duty but someone had to take the slot.
I was gone by '67 when he got beaned.


still, it was a real tour of duty, not the Texas National Guard.

jimd:
Ott hit his 100th on July 18, 1931 at age 22 yrs. 4 mo. 16 days
Tony C. hit #100 on July 23, 1967 at age 22 yrs. 6 mo. 16 days.

It's possible that my young brain missed a crucial adjective. Perhaps he was the youngest AL player to reach 100. But that's not what I remember being said back then. (Also, just because it was said didn't mean it was accurate. ;-)


jimd, are you still here?

"youngest ever" without qualification. I've read it or heard it several times in twenty-five years, my time in greater Greater Boston. I think it's something everyone knows. I guess I even heard it at the SABR chapter meeting in November, 1975 Red Sox 30th Anniversary Symposium.

"youngest ever" and "alltime record" were probably in print and on the air forty years ago. Pro baseball writers and talkers push a lot of phoney records. Cf somebody walked five times in one game this week.
   52. rawagman Posted: May 18, 2006 at 10:19 AM (#2025488)
Here's my prelim for 1977 - comments excluded:

Barring unexpected changes, my PHoM now includes Ernie Banks and Robin Roberts.....

1)Hugh Duffy
2)Ernie Banks
3)Rube Waddell
4)Gavvy Cravath
5)Joe Sewell
6)Lefty Gomez
((6a) Robin Roberts))
7)George Sisler
((7a)Cool Papa Bell))
8)Jose Mendez
((8a)Willard Brown))
9)Ben Taylor
10)Jake Beckley
11)Vern Stephens
12)Ralph Kiner
13)Edd Roush
14)Quincy Trouppe
((14a)Biz Mackey))
15) Minnie Minoso

Soon, I promise.....

16)Tommy Bridges
((16a)Don Drysdale))
17)Nellie Fox
18)Ken Boyer
19)Wally Berger
20)Dizzy Dean
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 18, 2006 at 11:55 AM (#2025499)
John Murphy and I debated whether Ernie Banks should be evaluated as a shortstop or first baseman.

I believe I came down on the side of first base. :)


I remember, Jeff. :-)

Your position is legitimate based on the number of games he played at each position, of course, but if Banks was a candidate here based on his 1B credentials, he wouldn't be able to smell the HoM. It's his shortstop seasons that make him a viable candidate
   54. sunnyday2 Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:36 PM (#2025530)
As John says elsewhere, hang in there, rawagman, despite all the debate your ballot seems eminently reasonable.

(OK, what's the caveat?)

Except...I consider myself a FOLG, I even had Lefty on my ballot once. But having Gomez ahead of Robin Roberts is a nice test case of the ideas being discussed on the Bunning thread.

ERA+

Gomez 125/191-74-49-35-28-27-22-6-5-(97)
Roberts 113/153-41-36-34-33-27-23-22-21-7-4-(4 seasons below 100)

Not to say ERA+ is the only measure, but on this measure: Gomez has the higher peak, it is true, 3 years that are better on ERA+ alone than Roberts' top 3 years. Roberts then has 8 years that are above average and clearly better than Gomez' next 8 years. Then the big dilemma--how do you account for 4 years when Roberts went 97-96-93-84 but Gomez wasn't pitching in the ML at all? Who was "better" those 4 years? If you rate these guys based on career ERA+, Gomez gets a 125-113 advantage. Basically what you are saying at that point is Gomez was a better pitcher those 4 years when he didn't pitch than Roberts was in those last 4 years when he was below average.

Just for the record, Roberts went 61-71 in those 4 years in 1,044 IP with 68 CG. That has to be more valuable than Gomez not pitching.

As I said on the Bunning thread, this is the trap of relying too much on rate stats. (This is not to say BTW that rawagman is relying solely on rate stats, I do not mean to say that I am representing his method in all of its facets, just my impression of one of those facets, rate stats, on which I may not fully understand how he considers them. If symptoms persist, see your doctor.)

And then just for the record:

WS

Gomez 185/31-29-20-19-17-16-16-13-11-10
Roberts 339/35-32-31-28-27-26-20-16-16-15-15-13-13-13-12-12-12

Here we see that despite Gomez' big edge in ERA+ for his 3 best seasons, Roberts' huge advantage more than negates the effect. Take Lefty's "big" year at ERA+ 191 (1937). He is 21-11 in 278.1 IP with 34 GS, 25 CG and 6 ShO. It is worth 29 WS (not his top year by WS, in 1934 he threw 3 more IP at ERA+ 174 and got 2 more WS, go figure). Roberts' biggest ERA+ year is that 153 in 1953. He was 23-16 in 346.2 IP with 44 GS, 41 CG and 5 ShO. This is worth 35 WS.

I like ERA+ more than most. I like to know if a pitcher was effective, first, and if he was, then the rest becomes relevant. If he wasn't effective, then who cares. But Roberts was a better pitcher in 1953 than Gomez was in 1937. Those 60 extra IP at an effective rate of 153 are worth, well, 6 more WS.

So anyway (conclusion) dross is overrated.
   55. TomH Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:58 PM (#2025548)
responding to jingoists concern from another thread - if I read him correctly, the argument is that George Sisler has been widely perceived for years as a clear, clear HoFer, so maybe it is US who are missing the boat.

I have respect for this argument; maybe there are things in Sisler's record that we, 85 years later, are missing, that those in 1920 saw. The other possibility is, their view was badly flawed. How to tell which it is? I'll break the discussion into offense, defense, and playing conditions.

1. Offense: we have handle on most of these metrics. Sisler was, I believe, considered great in most part due to the over-emphasis on the importance of batting average. I mean, Pie Traynor, the best third sacker ever, simply because he hit .320? Cobb in the HoF ahead of Ruth? Pirates fans in the 27 Series making side bets that the Waners would "out-hit" Ruth and Gehrig; who cares if they won the bet (as measured by batting avg), the Yankee guys generated RUNS!

2. Defense. Sisler was perceievd to be a great glove. Our metrics are not showing this. But, the metrics do show he was much better pre-injury, so the perception probably came from his better years. And maybe we ought to err on the side of perception than tools which have a real challenge to rate first-base defense accuratley.

3. Conditions. Sisler played when batting averages were high. His stats need some air taken out of them. Don't think the people at the time did this enough (hence, Christy Mathewson honored before Pete Alexander?).

My conclusion right now (other discussion most welcome) is that the preception of Sisler by his contemporaries has some merit, but not a huge amount.
   56. Paul Wendt Posted: May 18, 2006 at 02:47 PM (#2025590)
One thing I do for the Boston Chapter is publish a modest permanent record on the web. I have just done it for the Spring 2006 meeting, which is this Saturday, May 20.
Both email notice and "Sabermetric Lineup":
Sabermetrics conference (SABR Boston Chapter meeting)
   57. DL from MN Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#2025651)
I'd go looking for the Redding thread again but since he is a top 10 returnee it is relevant here. Could Dick Redding hit? I've been assuming he was an average hitter for a pitcher (crappy) and have his at an estimated -75 RCAA for his career. If that number ends up closer to zero, he could move up as many as 7 slots into my top 30.
   58. Chris Cobb Posted: May 18, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2025672)
I do not recall having seen any commentary on Redding's quality as a hitter. I have taken that absence of commentary as evidence against Redding being a good hitter for a pitcher, as that is often remarked upon, as is the fact that a pitcher would sometimes play in the field on his off days. As far as I know, that is not part of the lore about Redding, but there are other folks around who know the lore better than I. If I am incorrect about this, I hope that they will correct me.
   59. KJOK Posted: May 18, 2006 at 05:06 PM (#2025721)
Dick Redding Batting

1916
27 PA's
.222/.222/.296

1921
85 PA's
.143/.153/.226

1928
4 PA's
.250/.250/.250

Stats compiled by Gary A.
   60. ronw Posted: May 18, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#2025727)
So I've been looking at pitchers this week, breaking down candidates by 20-year periods, and

using a combination of peak/career pitching-only win shares. Generally, we elect about six per 20 years, with some overlap. Here are the results.

* - HOMer

<u>1860-1870, loosely organized</u>

* - Al Spalding - debated

Other candidates

Bobby Mathews - lots of innings (nearly 5000!) but no peak.

One pitcher from this decade seems right, only because that is generally all teams had

anyway.

<u>1870-1880, the underhand guys</u>

* - Pud Galvin - debated
* - John Ward - lock, but needed hitting

Other candidates

Jim McCormick
Tommy Bond

Smaller staffs, less elected pitchers. Both have gotten some, but not a ton of support. Staffs were much smaller during this

period, so perhaps this is enough.

<u>1880-1890, a time of change</u>

* - John Clarkson - lock
* - Tim Keefe - slightly debated
* - Charley Radbourn - debated
* - Pud Galvin (again) - debated
* - Bob Caruthers - debated

Other candidates

Mickey Welch
Tony Mullane

This period does not really seem overrepresented, but neither Welch nor Mullane can get the support. The beginning of Young, Nichols and Rusie makes this period seem larger than it really is.


<u>1890-1900, new pitching distance</u>

* - Cy Young - lock
* - Kid Nichols - lock
* - Amos Rusie - lock, but still debated
* - Clark Griffith - debated
* - Joe McGinnity - debated

Other candidates

Rube Waddell
Vic Willis

There is strong division in the electorate between Waddell and Willis. Both also belong in the next decade, but they pitched a couple of years in the one-league era.

<u>1900-1910, deadball</u>

* - Cy Young - lock
* - Christy Mathewson - lock
* - Eddie Plank - lock
* - Mordecai Brown - debated
* - Ed Walsh - lock
* - Joe McGinnity - debated
* - Rube Foster - debated

Other candidates

Jose Mendez
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis
Eddie Cicotte

I thought we would have more than six plus an aging Cy Young from this pitching-rich era. However, six appears to be the general consensus for each decade. We've done a good job looking past the raw numbers. Willis and Waddell don't look so good compared to this group.

<u>1910-1920, deadball to rabbit ball</u>

* - Walter Johnson - lock
* - Pete Alexander - lock
* - Joe Williams - lock
* - Eppa Rixey - debated
* - Red Faber - in quickly, but debated
* - Stan Coveleski - in quickly, but slightly debated

Other candidates

Dick Redding
Burleigh Grimes
Eddie Cicotte

Again, about six to seven pitchers from this decade. Redding looks to be elected some day.

<u>1920-1930, a bad time for pitchers</u>

* - Lefty Grove - lock
* - Carl Hubbell - lock
* - Bill Foster - lock
* - Bullet Rogan - lock
* - Ted Lyons - lock
* - Red Ruffing - debated
* - Dazzy Vance - lock
* - Wes Ferrell - debated

Other candidates

Waite Hoyt?
Andy Cooper? It looks like we got them all.

<u>1930-1940, where'd the pitchers go?</u>

* - Satchel Paige - lock
* - Ray Brown - lock
* - Bob Feller - lock
* - Red Ruffing - debated
* - Ted Lyons - lock

Other candidates

Bucky Walters
Tommy Bridges
Dizzy Dean
Dutch Leonard
Bill Byrd?
Hilton Smith?

I threw aging Ruffing and Lyons and a young Feller because they had All-Star seasons in both

the 30's and '40s. I could put Grove and Hubbell here too, but I wanted to illustrate the

lack of dominant pitchers, and Grove and Hubbell weren't dominant for the 40's. We just

can't get a consensus because no one really stood out for long enough. Most of the 30-40's

pitchers were done or nearly done by the war.

<u>1940-1950, war! (good God, y'all)</u>

* - Warren Spahn - lock
* - Bob Feller - lock
* - Hal Newhouser - lock, but debated
* - Early Wynn - debated
* - Bob Lemon - in quickly, but debated
* - Satchel Paige - lock

Other candidates

Dizzy Trout
Virgil Trucks
Dutch Leonard

No more from this period will be elected, and we have six.

<u>1950-1960, I want to be a part of it, New York, New York</u>

* - Robin Roberts
* - Whitey Ford
* - Don Drysdale
* - Sandy Koufax

Other candidates

Hoyt Wilhelm - upcoming
Jim Bunning
Billy Pierce

Surprisingly, Wilhelm graded the highest among pitchers of this period. He should go in

easily in 1978. Bunning should also go in, making six electees. Who knows with Pierce.

<u>1960-1970, expansion!</u>

None elected yet

Candidates

Gaylord Perry
Bob Gibson
Jim Palmer
Ferguson Jenkins
Juan Marichal
Hoyt Wilhelm
Sparky Lyle?
Luis Tiant?
Jim Kaat?
Catfish Hunter?

The top five plus Wilhelm seem like locks, which again is the general pattern for these periods. I haven't gotten past 1984 retirees.
   61. TomH Posted: May 18, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#2025813)
1977 Scatterbox Prelim (exlcuding the no-brainer Banks)

-- “clearly in” ----- “borderline” ------ “HoVGood”

-C --------------------- Breshan Schang/Howard/Lmbrdi
SS Sewell -------------------- Moore/ Rizzuto
2B ---------------- Childs Monroe --- Doyle/Fox
3B ---McGraw/Boyer –-- Traynor/Leach

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

-P – Walters ---- Bunning Mendez Welch/Dean/LJackson
-P – ------- Pierce Redding --- Waddell/Newcombe

C/Inf:. 5 of top 15, 15 of 38
1B/OF: 6 of top 15, 13 of 38
Pitch:.. 4 of top 15, 10 of 38
   62. OCF Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#2026432)
Ron - if you'll just move Wes Ferrell from your 1920-1930 group into the 1930-1940 group where he fits better, the balance will look better.

And Koufax really fits better with your "expansion" or 1960's group - he retired early and we elected him early.
   63. DavidFoss Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2026469)
Cool lists! Ruffing was double-listed which makes the 20-30 group more reasonable. Some of the 60-70 group looks like they'd fit better in 70-80 (Lyle, Hunter, Palmer... probably Jenkins, maybe Perry). That frees up room for Koufax in the 60s. Anyhow, sorry to nitpick, there are always borderline cases with stuff like this.
   64. rawagman Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:39 PM (#2026524)
sunny - Roberts vs. Gomez.

Obviously, I differ from everyone on this one.
Anyway, it's now a moot point as Roberts will be joining my PHoM this week and Gomez will remian on the ballot.

That case was the toughest for my system.
A real peak vs. career question.

I went with the peak.
   65. ronw Posted: May 18, 2006 at 08:49 PM (#2026535)
Hey, comments to respond to. I was pretty literal with the decade. Koufax doesn't go with the 60-70 list because he never pitched in the 70's. In fact, he never pitched after Mound Change II - 1968-1969. Everyone on the 60-70 list did.

I double added people on purpose (like Ruffing) if they had an All-Star season in the appropriate decade. For that reason, Lyle, Hunter, Jenkins and Perry would not fit my 70-80 list. Only Palmer had a decent season after 1979.

There are some weird cases, the most obvious one being Amos Rusie/Joe McGinnity, born the same year (1871) but pitching in very distinct eras. Rusie with Mound Change I and McGinnity with the turn of the century.

Still, they are really eyeball lists, and you can put people where you think they reasonably fit.
   66. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 18, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2026549)
Interesting news on my previous non-sequitor (see #15).

A gentleman from the Coop itself emailed me today that the first year when the 10-year rule was officially inserted into the voting/eligibity rules was 1956.
   67. jimd Posted: May 18, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#2026558)
maybe there are things in Sisler's record that we, 85 years later, are missing, that those in 1920 saw

Or remembered in 1939, when he was elected by the BBWAA, with more votes than Eddie Collins, and Willie Keeler, also both elected that year.

One factor that may have figured in this election is the following. Not surprisingly, during the late 1920's and the 1930's there were a number of runs at the hitting streak record eventually broken by DiMaggio in 1941. IIRC, there were three or four that went 30+, including one in 1938, and each time I'm sure there would be a week or two of publicity that always mentioned the current record holders. We all know that Keeler held the NL record of 44; the AL record-holder was George Sisler with 41 set in 1921(?), breaking Cobb's record of 40.

Maybe it's a coincidence that the two happened to go in together. Maybe the publicity helped in giving them name recognition or in jogging the memory of the writers when it came to digging into the next tier of stars. Or maybe there was a more conscious effort to honor record-holders. We think it's self-evident that the HOF exists to honor great players only, but it didn't have to be that way; it could have evolved to also include significant record-holders, a place where Roger Maris would be a "no-brainer".

Just some thoughts on Sisler's BBWAA election.
   68. Mike Webber Posted: May 18, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2026568)
Hi,

was working on another attempt to garner support for Edd Roush, and so I started making spread sheets of course.

After I input Keller's data, I got to wondering why people are voting for Dobie Moore rather than Charlie Keller? It seems to me that they have the same strengths and weaknesses. But 23 people are voting for Moore, and only 10 for Keller.
Is it just that Moore is a shortstop?

See, to me it is really hard to trump the fact that Keller career was in the AL, and Moore's career was not.

So, Murphy, Sunnyday, Mr Wargo, Mark Donelson, Rusty, Michael Bass, Favre or any other the other guys voting for Moore, I'd just be interested in your thoughts.

Maybe its as simple as Moore is a shortstop, and the best qualified SS in your opinion.

Just curious, Thanks.
   69. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 18, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2026579)
Rawagman,

I think the reason that sunny is so stunned is that Roberts seems to have had a much better peak as well, beating Gomez in WS, and WARP. Gomez only wins in ERA+, that's it. And of course career is not close.
   70. Chris Fluit Posted: May 18, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2026580)
Preliminary Ballot:

1. Ernie Banks, SS (n/e). I could have made the case for Redding or Mendez over Banks but I think that’s looking for flaws that aren’t there. Banks had a great three-year peak from 1958 to ’60, picking up black ink in slugging percentage, total bases, home runs and RBIs. Plus he had some nice shoulder seasons, getting grey ink from 1955 to 1968. Oh, and he has the best career value of any batter on this ballot.

2. Cannonball Dick Redding, P (1). The best pitcher on the ballot, according to his MLEs. I also like that his own winning percentage was better than his team’s by 100 points.

3. Jose Mendez, P (2). His MLEs are slightly lower than Redding’s and slightly better than Pierce’s actual numbers.

4. Nellie Fox, 2B (4). Fox was an outstanding defensive second basemen- winning three gold gloves- and an ideal top of the line-up hitter- routinely landing in top ten lists for Runs (7 times), AVG (8), Hits (10) and Triples (11). Plus he has a long prime during which he was acknowledged as the best at his position, picking up MVP votes in 10 seasons and being named an All-Star 12 times.

5. Quincy Trouppe, C (5). I think he’s the best catcher on the ballot with more great years than anybody else at his position. Not that Mackey was a bad pick, but Trouppe would have been the better one.

6. Billy Pierce, P (6). The best Major League pitcher on the ballot. An All-Star 7 times between 1953 and 1961, TSN named him AL Pitcher of the Year for 1956 and 1957 so he’s got both the peak and the prime. During that prime, Pierce also made the adjustment from being a strikeout pitcher- leading the league in Ks in 1953 and Ks per 9 IP in ’53 and ’55- to an innings eater –leading the league in Complete Games from 1956-’58- demonstrating that he’s smart as well as talented.

7. Minnie Minoso, OF (7). He was an All-Star as soon as he entered the Major Leagues, getting named to the actual team 7 times and picking up MVP votes 8 times. He was routinely among the league leaders, finishing in the top ten eight or nine times each for AVG, OBP, Runs, Hits, Total Bases, 2Bs and Stolen Bases. A little bit of Negro League credit at the beginning of his career gives him the added boost to offset the lack of black ink.

8. Hugh Duffy, OF (8). I’m a big fan of what guys actually do and Duffy’s actual numbers are very impressive. There’s a reason why he was considered one of the best players of the 1890s. He had peak years in 1890, ’91, ’94 and ’97 and was an All-Star caliber player from 1890 to ’97.

9. Ernie Lombardi, C (9). Lombardi was a solid All-Star 8 times between 1936 and 1945 and the MVP in 1938. He was top ten in the league 5 times in Home Runs, 7 times in AVG and 8 times in SLG.

10. George Sisler, 1B (10). His peak isn't quite as long as Duffy's as Sisler was only among the very best for a three-year period from 1920-22. However, he had a longer prime, picking up top ten slots in average, stolen bases, total bases and hits 8, 9, 9 and 11 times. Also, the career numbers aren't as bad as the Hall of Merit discussion led me to believe.

11. Mickey Welch, P (12). Mickey Welch is back on my ballot after dropping off last year. Sure, he was never among the very best in the game and he lacks the black ink that I tend to admire. But he was among the very good for such a long time that he has the best career numbers of anyone on the ballot.

12. Jim Bunning, P (n/e). Career-wise, he looks like a poor version of Drysdale. His winning percentage, comparative ERA and WHIP are all slightly worse. However, Bunning spread out his black ink a little more than Drysdale did giving him a seemingly stronger peak and prime. Splitting the difference, Bunning looks like Drysdale’s equal so I’m dropping him into the same slot, behind Mickey Welch.

13. Ken Boyer, 3B (15). One outstanding season in 1964 was good enough for an MVP. Otherwise, Boyer had a solid prime from 1956 to 1964 picking up top ten finishes routinely in AVG, OBP, SLG, runs, hits, total bases, doubles, triples, home runs and RBIs. Easily the best at his underrepresented position.

14. Ralph Kiner OF (13). Led the league in Home Runs 7 straight seasons and finished fifth one more time. But Kiner was more than just a one-dimensional player. Fans of both OPS and Adjusted OPS+ should be impressed by his league-leading numbers in those categories in 1947, ’49 and ’51.

15. Alejandro Oms, OF (14). I’ve had Oms tied to Kiner for a number of years and really need to get around to evaluating him on his own merits. For now, Oms keeps his bottom of the ballot spot.

Necessary disclosures:
Joe Sewell: Sure, he didn’t strike out a lot and he stayed healthy, but he just didn’t do enough when he actually put the ball into play to get onto my ballot.
Dobie Moore: I find Moore hard to assess. He had the great peak, but by playing for a military team at the beginning of his career and the early end to his career due to getting shot in a domestic dispute, there’s just too much guesswork for me to feel comfortable giving him a ballot spot at this time.
   71. Mark Donelson Posted: May 19, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2026793)
After I input Keller's data, I got to wondering why people are voting for Dobie Moore rather than Charlie Keller?

I'm voting for both of them, actually (I did last time, anyway), though I do have Moore higher on my ballot. The reason for that is, yes, he's a SS, and the best out there (and IMO better than several already in the HOM--Reese, for example). But they are close, and I support both.

OK, got to go back to reeling at the fact that Backlasher thought I wrote that steroids article in the TimesUnion. Like I have time!
   72. Mike Webber Posted: May 19, 2006 at 01:51 AM (#2026874)
Ron Wargo Posted: May 18, 2006 at 01:09 PM (#2025727)
So I've been looking at pitchers this week, breaking down candidates by 20-year periods, and



Thanks for the chart Ron. Very interesting.

My ballot had seemed light on pitchers, in fact I gave Willis my final spot because of it. But to me it seems like we have covered the eras pretty evenly. Maybe we need one more guy from the 1930's to 1940's but it looks about right.
   73. Howie Menckel Posted: May 19, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#2026938)
Since pitching seems the hot topic, from last year's ballot discussion (plus adds Bunning era):

HOM Ps, by year, through 1976 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G to be listed:

1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881-83 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1855-88 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1891 (9) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (5) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1895 (5) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1896 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1897-98 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1899-00 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1901 (6) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (6) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (8) - Young Griffith Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906 (8) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1907 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (8) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1909 (7) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson
1910 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams
1911 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander
1912 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1913 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1914 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF BrownW Johnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber
1915 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth
1916 (9) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1920 (5) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1921 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922-23 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing
1926 (12) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster
1927 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1928 (11) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1929 (12) - Williams Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (12) - Williams Rixey Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (10) - Rixey Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (8) - Lyons Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Grove BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1936 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1937 (9) - Lyons Ruffing Grove BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1938 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Grove Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1939-40 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Grove Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Feller
1941 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Feller Newhouser
1942 (8) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Dihigo Newhouser Wynn
1943-45 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1945 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946 (5) - Paige RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn
1947 (7) - Paige RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1948 (6) - RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon
1949 (7) - RBrown Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1950 (6) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1951 (5) - Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1952 (7) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts
1953 (7) - Paige Feller Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Ford
1954-56 (5) - Wynn Spahn Lemon Roberts Ford
1957 (4) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Drysdale
1958 (6) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1959 (5) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford
1960 (5) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1961 (4) - Spahn Ford Drysdale Koufax
1962 (6) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1963-65 (5) - Spahn Roberts Ford Drysdale Koufax
1966 (2) - Drysdale Koufax
1967 (1) - Drysdale
1968 (1) - Drysdale

Welch would be 1880-91
Van Haltren would be 1887-88 and 1890.
Waddell would be 1900-09
Mendez would be 1908-14, very roughly
Redding would be 1911-30, roughly
Grimes would be 1917-31
Walters would be 1936-45
Pierce would be 1949-63
Bunning would be 1957-67, 1969-70
   74. KJOK Posted: May 19, 2006 at 05:09 AM (#2026989)
KJOK:
There's a conference you can drive to.
And see you in St Louis for SABR 2007?


I'm actually going to Seattle, but not only can I drive to St. Louis, I have a play to stay, in my old bedroom...
   75. sunnyday2 Posted: May 19, 2006 at 12:22 PM (#2027062)
I am considering Vic Willis and Jim Bunning for PHoM, along with several position players.

The comment was made somewhere about, well, I don't know that it was about Willis. It might have been about Waddell, who is of course not yet HoM either. But the comment was, how many pitchers do we want to elect from the decade of the 1900s?

If the subjects are Willis and Waddell vs. Bunning, I don't see any real difference there.

Top 10 Win Shares Pitchers by Decade

1900-1909

1. Young (634 career total)
2. Mathewson 426
3. McGinnity 269
4. Waddell 240
5. Willis 293
6. Plank 361
7. Chesbro 209
8. Doc White 235
9. 3F Brown 296
10. Powell 287

Willis is #5 for the decade and also #5 for career among pitchers whose career was centered in the decade. His 3 biggest years were 1901-1902-1906 and per Howie's chart he would be the 7th, 7th and 9th pitcher elected active in those 3 years.

1960s

1. Marichal 263
2. Gibson 317
3. Drysdale 258
4. Bunning 257
5. Koufax 194
6. L. Jackson 225
7. Wilhelm 256
8. Kaat 268
9. Maloney 137
10. Chance 148

Bunning is #4 for the decade and #5 (same as Willis) for pitchers whose careers are centered in the 1960s. His 3 big years were 1965-66-67. He would be the 6th pitcher elected who was active in 1965 (versus Willis #7 for 1901 and 1902). Right now Bunning would be #3 for 1966 and #2 for 1967, but here are some pitchers who became active in those 3 seasons: G. Perry, P. Niekro, T. John, Carlton, Sutton, Palmer.

To my eye, Bunning rates no more highly among his peers than Willis. Or if you're still deciding on Waddell, he rates no more highly among his peers than Waddell. Probably lower. Waddell and Willis clearly rate behind Young, Matty and Plank and are comparable to Brown and McGinnity. Bunning clearly rates behind Marichal and Gibson and G. Perry and Carlton and Palmer, and maybe behind Niekro, John and Sutton and maybe even Kaat.

So throwing out the "standing among peers argument," it comes down to who was more effective.

Willis ERA+ 118, 303 adjWS (for season length and only to 154), in 3996 IP
Bunning ERA+ 114, 257 WS (mostly in 162 games seasons), in 3760.1 IP

By season:

Willis 167-54-53-30-29-22-11-8-4 (9 seasons > 100, plus 3 years of 98-97-97 of 236-350-342 IP)
Bunning 149-49-42-33-32-28-15-13-4 (10 seasons > 100, plus 3 years at 97-97-93 of 248-219-212 IP)

Bunning had one more season >100 and one more season of >90. The workload is reflected in the WS peaks of Willis 39-37-32 versus Bunning at 30-27-26. Relative to their peers they are about equal: Bunning had a 1st and a 2nd in IP in his 3 best years of '65-'66-'67 while Willis had a 1st and a 3rd among his 3 best years.

And for WS, each wins one WS Cy, Willis in 1901 with 33, Bunning in 1967 with 25 though that is a bit of a fluke as it took 35 and 36 WS to win the NL WS Cy the years before and after.

All in all, not much to choose between Waddell and Willis on the one hand and Bunning on the other, except that their relative standing versus their peers works against Bunning, not for.
   76. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 19, 2006 at 02:31 PM (#2027150)
Hey, Paul,

I'm attending the Boston meeting tomorrow! Any other New England HOMies making the trip?
   77. Chris Cobb Posted: May 19, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#2027236)
To my eye, Bunning rates no more highly among his peers than Willis. Or if you're still deciding on Waddell, he rates no more highly among his peers than Waddell. Probably lower. Waddell and Willis clearly rate behind Young, Matty and Plank and are comparable to Brown and McGinnity. Bunning clearly rates behind Marichal and Gibson and G. Perry and Carlton and Palmer, and maybe behind Niekro, John and Sutton and maybe even Kaat.

Three caveats on this assessment.

1) Bunning's expanded competition pool needs to be taken into account. Gibson and Marichal would not have been in the majors in the aughts! Alternatively, Rube Foster needs to be part of the aughts comparison set.

2) Ed Walsh must be a part of the comparison set for the aughts, and he was surely better than either Waddell or Willis, having both the effectiveness of the former and the innings-eating of the latter, albeit for a shorter time.

3) If G. Perry, Carlton, Palmer, Niekro, etc. are going to be in the comparison set for Bunning, then Walter Johnson, Joe Williams, and Jose Mendez should be in the comparison set for Waddell and Willis. Their primes were beginning as the primes of Waddell and Willlis were ending.

With these caveats, I think that Bunning's standing against his peers is v. similar to those of Waddell and Willis, i.e, it's a little lower in absolute terms, but as it's in a bigger pool, we should expect slightly more HOM-worthy players.

Since I believe that Willis is significantly overrated by win shares, I have Bunning comfortably ahead of Willis. Bunning and Waddell? Don't know yet.
   78. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 19, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#2027243)
1) Bunning's expanded competition pool needs to be taken into account. Gibson and Marichal would not have been in the majors in the aughts! Alternatively, Rube Foster needs to be part of the aughts comparison set

Tagging onto this cavaet, don't forget that the manjors had two or four more total teams for a good part of Bunning's career, so the pool is both deeper and wider.
   79. Paul Wendt Posted: May 19, 2006 at 11:56 PM (#2027748)
Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 19, 2006 at 10:31 AM (#2027150)
Hey, Paul,

I'm attending the Boston meeting tomorrow! Any other New England HOMies making the trip?


New England HOMies?

I know the identities of a score of HOMies only. As far as I know, New Englanders are outnumbered among the voters by Minnesotans. There may be NYC commuters in CT whom I would not count because they would not pass New Haven, maybe not Bridgeport. But Mister High Standards is a mobile guy.

Probably someone will be there but not say so, preserving a secret identity.

CEO Jim Furtado has attended a few Boston and many Southern New England (Providence/Pawtucket) regionals when there is nothing sabermetric on the program, so I half expect him. Of course I think he ought to be there! How can he run thinkfactory if he doesn't keep up with the field on the ground?

Pete Palmer will not be there or he would be on the program. Maybe next year.
He lives in Holllis.

I see you are in Portsmouth (2004-12).
I lived at 250 and then 248 Maplewood Ave, "on" or is it "off" the mill pond.
Any flooding?
   80. TomH Posted: May 20, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2029605)
data from Lee Sinins BB encyc:

since we've having discussion about the problem susing rate stats for guys who have some bad years, I present here infielders stats with their "bad" years removed. Years near avg still included. I might, if anyone thinks this is useful, get to 1B/OFers later this weekend..or if there are others in the infield you'd like to see, let me know.

pos name.... yrs used games OWP
SS Sewell.... 1920-33 ..1903 .549
2B Childs..... 1890-98 ..1129 .653
2B Doyle..... 1908-20 ..1697 .639
2B Fox........ 1951-60 ..1532 .541
3B Elliot...... 1939-51 ..1765 .622
3B Boyer 1956,58-64 ..1234 .598

I item I just learned was that Boyer in 1957 (and only in that year) was mostly a CFer. Maybe his lousy batting year was somewhat related to position switch / defensive difficulties?
   81. rawagman Posted: May 20, 2006 at 08:47 PM (#2029725)
Fairly interesting - one thing your chart shows me: Joe Sewell.
Didn't have a great peak - but his ability was consistently pretty goodfor much longer than everyone else.
Bob Elliot was higher, but different position (SS/3B;3B/RF)

I think Larry Doyle will confuse me for a long time.
   82. andrew siegel Posted: May 21, 2006 at 01:15 PM (#2030302)
TomH's chart needs another line for league average OWP at that position. I'll run the numbers later, but--as a preview--Sewell's .549 was put up in a context where the average AL SS's OWP was under .400. Even more impressive.
   83. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 21, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#2030357)
Of course, some of Childs lack of games played in his good years is due to the fact that his leagues played about 130 games instead of 154. That closes the gap a bit since Childs would have been adding games in his prime. Middle Infielders also had shorter careers in the 1890's due to rough play, can he be faulted for that? As a peak guy, this shows me taht my support for Childs is warranted, oddly enough to some others, it says vastly different things.
   84. rawagman Posted: May 21, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#2030379)
20 games a year (let's say) over 10 years, would bridge the gap by about 200 games. Still a massive difference.
How verifiable is that reason for shorter careers exactly?
   85. sunnyday2 Posted: May 21, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2030438)
For those who like rate stats, Childs 1100+ games certainly represents enough of a sample to validate the .653.
   86. AJMcCringleberry Posted: May 21, 2006 at 06:19 PM (#2030488)
I've reevaluated all players over the last couple of weeks so I have a brand new top 15:

1. Banks
2. Boyer
3. Sewell
4. Ryan
5. Johnson
6. Fox
7. Beckley
8. Van Haltren
9. Minoso
10. Sisler
11. Cravath
12. Duffy
13. Walters
14. Mendez
15. Elliot
   87. ronw Posted: May 21, 2006 at 06:36 PM (#2030533)
Because of the "one draftee per minor league team" rule, shouldn't we be looking at EVERYONE who played in the high minors during this time? Is Cravath really the best of this lot?

Where can we get a comprehensive listing of aught's PCL (and other high minors) stats?
   88. ronw Posted: May 21, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#2030537)
Whoops, thought I was in Cravath thread.
   89. TomH Posted: May 21, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2030598)
similar chart, this one for corner outfielders and our primary 1B backlogger, Sisler

name.... yrs used .......games OWP
Browning 1882-93 (x89) 1097 .759
Minoso..... 1951-61 .......1043 .655
Kiner....... 1946-55 .......1472 .693
Keller...... 1951-60 .......1168 .748
C Jones... 1876-87 ........ 875 .700
Johnson... 1933-45 .......1863 .651

Sisler...... 1917-22 ........ 966 .737
   90. Chris Cobb Posted: May 21, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#2030852)
Keller...... 1951-60 .......1168 .748

The yrs used for Keller look to be incorrectly listed. Should it be 1939-51? That's what the games suggests.
   91. Trevor P. Posted: May 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2030944)
Minoso..... 1951-61 .......1043 .655

I think Minoso's games total might be off, too. Just eyeballing '51-'61 gives me something like 1500 games played.
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: May 22, 2006 at 12:57 AM (#2031228)
BTW, who'da thought Tony Gonzalez would be the next best man (by WS) after Banks and Bunning? In this case, I'd have to say that WARP has it right with my man Camilo next, well ahead of Tony. Not only Camilo but Jim Maloney and Clete Boyer too. That seems right to me. What did Tony Gonzalez ever do?

But then WARP has Zoilo behind Clay Dalrymple, among others. No way.
   93. sunnyday2 Posted: May 22, 2006 at 01:00 AM (#2031236)
And then the dead pool this year makes for interesting reading. I remember Danny Thompson, yet another Twin who died in '76. But Bob Moose? I had no idea he had died, much less that he was the same age as Thompson. What happened to Moose? (Thompson died of Hogkin's disease, if I recall.)
   94. Howie Menckel Posted: May 22, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2031310)
I believe Moose was killed in a car accident, iirc.
Had the no-hitter vs Mets.
   95. TomH Posted: May 22, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#2031359)
silly errors

Keller is 39-51 (and of course he missed 44 and part of 45 in WWII)

Minoso's games is 1643 (can't read my own writing), not 1043.
   96. Howie Menckel Posted: May 22, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#2031477)
just noticed, I still own baseball cards of every one of these guys (actually that's true of the past couple of years now).
   97. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 22, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#2031518)
I am not a rate stat guy, but I think that chart shows that Keller is very underrated by this group. Why Sisler or Kiner and not Keller? It can't be because of their bad years could it?
   98. OCF Posted: May 22, 2006 at 03:50 AM (#2031765)
Because if Keller, then why not Frank Chance? Come to think of it, Chance would be an interesting addition to TomH's chart.

I do generally feel that playing, even if not as a great player, is worth more than not playing.
   99. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 22, 2006 at 02:07 PM (#2031903)
Well, I can answer to 'why not Chance?". He didn't play enough games in season to put up anything close to a string of MVP level seasons, which he would need with his career length. Keller did play enough games in season to put up a string of MVP level seasons AND has some very impressive rate stats. I like Kiner and Sisler (were #'s 5 and 15 on my last ballot, respectively) I just don't see why they have so much more support than Keller, who I believe was superior.
   100. KJOK Posted: May 22, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#2032075)
Well, I can answer to 'why not Chance?". He didn't play enough games in season to put up anything close to a string of MVP level seasons

I would disagree. Well, I agree he wouldn't have won a string of MVP's, but that's because of Honus Wagner, not because he didn't play enough.

If it weren't for Honus, Chance could have conceivably "won" MVP's in 1903, 1904, 1905 & 1906.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0349 seconds
68 querie(s) executed