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, June 12, 2006

1978 Results: Clemente is a HoMer, While Wilhelm is the First Hall of Merit Relief Pitcher!

Like that other pantheon in Cooperstown did in ‘73, the Hall of Merit easily tagged the late Pittsburgh Pirate right fielder Roberto Clemente for immortaility in his first year of eligibility with a more than healthy 93% of all possible points.

Ageless pitching wonder Hoyt Wilhelm became the first relief pitcher ever inducted to the HoM in also his first year on the ballot with 75% of all possible points.

Rounding out the top-ten were: George Sisler (could next year be his year?), Ralph Kiner (huge jump!), José Méndez, Minnie Minoso , Joe Sewell, Jake Beckley, Hugh Duffy, and Cannonball Dick Redding (tumbles some).

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Roberto Clemente Walker 1028   45  34  7  2                             1  1   
 2  n/e  Hoyt Wilhelm             833   43   8 15  7  2  2  2  1  2        1  2        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3    3  George Sisler            404   30      2     4  3  6     2  2  3  3  2  1  1  1
 4   11  Ralph Kiner              318   26         1  3  3  2  3  1  1  3  1  2  2  3  1
 5    4  José Méndez              307   22   2  1  1  3  3  1  1  1  2  1        2  2  2
 6    6  Minnie Minoso            306   28      1     1  1  1  3  1  2  3  3  4  3  3  2
 7    7  Joe Sewell               302   24      1  2  3     1  3  2  1  3     4  1  2  1
 8    8  Jake Beckley             268   19      3  2     3  2  1        3     2  1     2
 9    9  Hugh Duffy               267   19      2  3  1  2  1  1  2  1     2     3  1   
10    5  Cannonball Dick Redding  260   18      2  3  1     4  1     1     5        1   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   13  Billy Pierce             238   19      1  1  1  2  1  2     4  1     2  1  2  1
12   15  Ken Boyer                233   19      2        2  2  1  2  1  1  2  1  1  1  3
13   12  Cupid Childs             231   20            2  4  1     2  1     2  1  4  1  2
14   16  Rube Waddell             229   17      1  2  2  2     2        4  1     1  2   
15   17  Nellie Fox               228   18         2  1  2  3  1  2  1     1     2  2  1
16   10  Dobie Moore              218   16      2     2  1  1  3  2        1  1     2  1
17   14  George Van Haltren       209   17      1  1  1  1     1  2  2     4  2     1  1
18   19  Charley Jones            197   13   1  1     2  1  1  1  3  2           1      
19   18  Pete Browning            194   15      1  3  1           2  2  2        1  2  1
20   21  Edd Roush                167   13      1  1  1     2  1        3  2           2
21   22  Bucky Walters            165   15      1  1        1  1     2  1  1  1  2  1  3
22T  26  Gavy Cravath             156   12         1     2  1     2  3  1     2         
22T  25  Tommy Leach              156   12         2     1  3  1     1        2  1  1   
24   24  Roger Bresnahan          153   13         2     1     2  1  1     2     1  2  1
25   20  Quincy Trouppe           147   12         1     1  1  3        2  2        2   
26   28  Bob Elliott              140   12                  2  2  3        2     2  1   
27   23  Mickey Welch             130    9         2  2  1        1  1     1  1         
28   32  Burleigh Grimes          128   11         1  1     2           3     2        2
29   27  Bob Johnson              125   11         1  1  1  1        1  1        3     2
30   29  Charlie Keller           114    9      1  1           1     2  1  1     1     1
31   31  Larry Doyle              114    8         1     2     2  1  1  1               
32   33  Wally Schang              80    6   1        1        1           1  1        1
33   35  John McGraw               78    6            2     1     1        1           1
34   30  Alejandro Oms             72    6         1  1           1     1           1  1
35T  36  Tommy Bridges             67    7                        2     1  1        2  1
35T  34  Dizzy Dean                67    7                     1  1           1  3  1   
37   47  Elston Howard             55    7                           1        1  1  2  2
38T  38  Ben Taylor                52    5            1              1  1              2
38T  37  Vic Willis                52    5                  1     1           1  1  1   
40   46  Phil Rizzuto              52    4            1  1                 1  1         
41   49  Ernie Lombardi            51    5                     1        1  1  1     1   
42   44  Pie Traynor               50    4            1        1           1  1         
43   39  Jimmy Ryan                48    5            1              1              1  2
44   41  Bill Monroe               44    4            1                    1  1  1      
45   43  Addie Joss                43    4               1           1        1        1
46   42  Sam Rice                  37    4                        1  1                 2
47   51  Dutch Leonard             37    3               1           1        1         
48   50  Ed Williamson             32    3                        1  1              1   
49   45  Vern Stephens             30    3               1                       1     1
50   40  Carl Mays                 29    3                              1  1     1      
51T  73T Gil Hodges                28    2                  1     1                     
51T  48  Rabbit Maranville         28    2         1                       1            
53   62T Dizzy Trout               27    2                  1        1                  
54   53  Dave Bancroft             26    3                              1        1  1   
55   62T Chuck Klein               26    2                     1     1                  
56   52  Frank Chance              25    2               1                    1         
57   54  Lefty Gomez               23    2                     1              1         
58   55  Ed Cicotte                22    2                     1                 1      
59T  59T Luke Easter               17    1            1                                 
59T  58  Fielder Jones             17    1            1                                 
61   61  Herman Long               14    1                     1                        
62T  71T Dom DiMaggio              13    1                        1                     
62T  57  Tony Mullane              13    1                        1                     
62T  62T Red Schoendienst          13    1                        1                     
65T  65T Artie Wilson              12    1                           1                  
65T n/e  Bill Mazeroski            12    1                           1                  
67T  68T Bus Clarkson              11    1                              1               
67T  73T Wilbur Cooper             11    1                              1               
67T  65T Sam Leever                11    1                              1               
70T  73T Hack Wilson                9    1                                    1         
70T  68T Virgil Trucks              9    1                                    1         
70T  71T Bobby Veach                9    1                                    1         
73   56  Fred Dunlap                8    1                                       1      
74  n/e  Tony Lazzeri               7    1                                          1   
75  n/e  Bobby Estalella            6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Buzz Arlett(68T), Bob Friend(59T), Larry Jackson(76), Curt Simmons(65T).
Ballots Cast: 46

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 12, 2006 at 06:10 PM | 97 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#2061596)
Congratulations to Roberto and Hoyt!

Kalph Riner makes a big leap forward, while the Cannonball is running out of steam (are the newly discovered statitsics the culprit?)
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2061602)
What's with Kiner?

But Sisler also made a big jump, didn't he? I mean, Mendez had been close behind I think.

The next 4 (3 through 6) are all on my ballot, so I expect Sewell, Beckley, Duffy or Redding to make a huge leap into 2nd place.
   3. sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2061605)
PS. Oddly enough, I had just dropped Redding from low ballot to #25-30 in a pitcher re-eval when the new numbers came out.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:26 AM (#2061616)
But Sisler also made a big jump, didn't he? I mean, Mendez had been close behind I think.

Correct, Marc. Sisler only had a 26-point lead over Jose in '77.
   5. OCF Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#2061637)
The electorate was different. There was one new voter (who had Kiner 5th, Sisler 6th, and Redding 13th), and 6 missing voters. I think if you examine the missing voters, you'll find most of the explanations for changes.
   6. Chris Fluit Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#2061642)
The surprising movement could be a factor of who did and who didn't vote this year. 45 ballots seems low. If a couple of the missing voters were big supporters of Mendez and Redding that could explain how the one lost ground to Sisler while the other was leapfrogged by a handful of candidates.
   7. OCF Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#2061645)
Average consensus score -3.8.

Howie Menckel: +5
Chris Fluit: +4
Ardo: +3
Sean Gilman: +3
Andrew M: +2
andrew siegel: +2
...
OCF: 0
...
Max Parkinson: -2
AJM: -2 (medians)
...
John Murphy: -4
...
rico vanian: -5
...
karlmagnus: -9
Joe Dimino: -9
Rusty Priske: -9
yest: -12
Patrick W: -16
Mark Donelson: -18
Rick A: -19
Dr. Chaleeko: -23
   8. yest Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2061655)
A list of eligible HoFers
HoMers in bold
all HoFers with significant playing careers are included
1936
Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson
1937
Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young , Connie Mack, John McGraw, George Wright
1938
Pete Alexander
1939
<u>please let me bold him this year
George Sisler</u>, Eddie Collins , Willie Keeler , Lou Gehrig, Cap Anson , Charlie Comiskey , Candy Cummings , Buck Ewing , Charles Radbourn , Al Spalding
1942
Rogers Hornsby
1945
Roger Bresnahan , Dan Brouthers , Fred Clarke , Jimmy Collins , Ed Delahanty , Hugh Duffy , Hughie Jennings , King Kelly , Jim O’Rourke , Wilbert Robinson
1946
Jesse Burkett , Frank Chance , Jack Chesbro , Johnny Evers , , Clark Griffith, , Tommy McCarthy , Joe McGinnity , Eddie Plank , Joe Tinker , Rube Waddell , Ed Walsh
1947
Carl Hubbell , Frankie Frisch , Mickey Cochrane , Lefty Grove
1948
Herb Pennock , Pie Traynor
1949
Charlie Gehringer , Mordecai Brown , Kid Nichols
1951
Mel Ott , Jimmie Foxx
1952
Harry Heilmann , Paul Waner
1953
Al Simmons , Dizzy Dean , Chief Bender , Bobby Wallace , Harry Wright
1954
Rabbit Maranville , Bill Dickey , Bill Terry
1955
Joe DiMaggio , Ted Lyons , Dazzy Vance , Gabby Hartnett , Frank Baker , Ray Schalk
1956
Hank Greenberg , Joe Cronin
1957
Sam Crawford
1959
Zack Wheat
1961
Max Carey , Billy Hamilton
1962
Bob Feller , Jackie Robinson , Bill McKechnie , Edd Roush
1963
John Clarkson , Elmer Flick , Sam Rice , Eppa Rixey
1964
Luke Appling , Red Faber , Burleigh Grimes , Miller Huggins , Tim Keefe , Heinie Manush , Monte Ward
1965
Pud Galvin
1966
Ted Williams , Casey Stengel
1967
Red Ruffing , Lloyd Waner
1968
Joe Medwick , Kiki Cuyler , Goose Goslin
1969
Stan Musial, Roy Campanella , Stan Coveleski , , Waite Hoyt,
1970
Lou Boudreau , Earle Combs , Jesse Haines,
1971
Dave Bancroft , Jake Beckley , Chick Hafey , Harry Hooper , Joe Kelley , Rube Marquard , Satchel Paige
1972
Sandy Koufax , Yogi Berra ,Early Wynn, Lefty Gomez , Ross Youngs , Josh Gibson , Buck Leonard
1973
Warren Spahn , George Kelly , Mickey Welch , Monte Irvin , Roberto Clemente
1974
Mickey Mantle , Whitey Ford , Jim Bottomley , Sam Thompson , Cool Papa Bell
1975
Ralph Kiner , Earl Averill , Bucky Harris , Billy Herman , Judy Johnson
1976
Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon , Roger Connor , Freddy Lindstrom , Oscar Charleston
1977
Ernie Banks ,Amos Rusie , Joe Sewell , Al Lopez , Martin Dihigo , Pop Lloyd
1978
Eddie Mathews, Addie Joss
1979
Hack Wilson
1980
Duke Snider, Chuck Klein
1981
Johnny Mize , Rube Foster
1982
Travis Jackson
1983
George Kell
1984
Don Drysdale, Rick Ferrell , Pee Wee Reese
1985
Hoyt Wilhelm, Enos Slaughter , Arky Vaughan
1986
Bobby Doerr, Ernie Lombardi
1987
Ray Dandridge
1989
Red Schoendienst
1991
Tony Lazzeri
1992
Hal Newhouser
1994
Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Jim Bunning, Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Joe Williams
2000
Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Bill Mazeroski , Hilton Smith
2006
Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Biz Mackey, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, Jud Wilson, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Jose Mendez Louis Santop, Ben Taylor, Sol White
   9. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:23 AM (#2061672)
Average consensus score -3.8.
Dr. Chaleeko: -23


Wow!!!! I've never been last before (I don't think so anyway). What an honor to claim the Karlmagnus/Yest Hall of Merit Endowed Chair for Lowest Consensusness. I am humbled.

By the way, that's what plunking the two winning candidates into 13th and 16th place on your ballot can do for you!
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#2061680)
Consensusness? Don't you mean Consciousness?

;-)
   11. jimd Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#2061681)
BBWAA Voting for 1978

Name Votes PCT
Eddie Mathews 301 79.42

Enos Slaughter 261 68.87
Duke Snider 254 67.02
Gil Hodges 226 59.63
Don Drysdale 219 57.78
Jim Bunning 181 47.76
Pee Wee Reese 168 44.33
Richie Ashburn 158 41.69
Hoyt Wilhelm 158 41.69
Nellie Fox 149 39.31
Red Schoendienst 130 34.30
Maury Wills 115 30.34
Roger Maris 83 21.90
Lew Burdette 76 20.05
Mickey Vernon 66 17.41
Alvin Dark 60 15.83
Harvey Kuenn 58 15.30
Ted Kluszewski 51 13.46
Don Newcombe 48 12.66
Elston Howard 41 10.82
Don Larsen 32 8.44
Roy Face 27 7.12
Bill Mazeroski 23 6.07
Ken Boyer 18 4.75
Curt Flood 8 2.11
Harvey Haddix 7 1.85
Del Crandall 6 1.58
Vern Law 6 1.58
Bobby Thomson 5 1.32
Vic Wertz 4 1.06
Dick Groat 3 0.79
Jim Maloney 2 0.53
Clete Boyer 1 0.26
Denny McLain 1 0.26
Camilo Pascual 1 0.26
Mudcat Grant 0 0.00
Pedro Ramos 0 0.00
Larry Doby 0 0.00

Reese does not get much of a last-chance bump.
Kell and Cooper were no longer eligible.
   12. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2061684)
That too. But at least I've got conscientiousness.

Though my wife wouldn't agree.

[Ducks as Mrs. Dr. Chaleeko hurls invective and frying pan over CPU...]
   13. OCF Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2061690)
the two winning candidates into 13th and 16th place

For the purposes of the calculation, that's 13th and off - the only thing that matters is what points the candidate got from you. It wouldn't have made that much difference in a wide-open election, but these two got overwhelming support. Rick A had then off and 5th; Mark Donelson 14th and 12th, and Patrick W 1st and 12th (Patrick's ballot had some other issues.)
   14. Chris Fluit Posted: June 13, 2006 at 03:48 AM (#2061809)
yest, did you forget to add Clemente and Wilhelm to that list?
   15. Chris Fluit Posted: June 13, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#2061811)
nevermind about Wilhelm, I saw him now
   16. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: June 13, 2006 at 05:19 AM (#2061845)
Wow! Wilhelm in with a Cap he didn't wear till he was 40!
   17. Ardo Posted: June 13, 2006 at 11:51 AM (#2061900)
Chris Fluit, there were more than 45 ballots cast - two or three people didn't put Clemente on their ballots at all.
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: June 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM (#2061901)
46 ballots, according to the chart, notes Mr. Consensus...
   19. Howie Menckel Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:14 PM (#2061905)
all-time votes pts thru 1978

Beckley just 2 pts shy of the magical 20,000-pt mark... Sisler grabs a top-10 slot, but he may be running out of time soon... Sewell is the 17th to 10,000, and the Leach/Bresnahan twins are close.

TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 21096.5
BECKLEY 19998
DUFFY 19636.5
Griffith 17924
BROWNING 17238.5
Jennings 16976
CHILDS 15214
WADDELL 14875
WELCH 14219
SISLER 13407

Pike 13399
Thompson 12349
Bennett 11503
RYAN 11411.5
Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
SEWELL 10163
TLEACH 9976
BRESNAHAN 9909
Beckwith 9896

H Stovey 9576
CJONES 9513
REDDING 9510
MENDEZ 9315
Mackey 8930

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Moore 7059, Roush 6973, Doyle 6463, Monroe 6051, Cravath 5354,Grimes 5090, Williamson 5004, Schang 4605, McGraw 4376, Kiner 4357)

almost
(Walters 4136, Oms 3415, McCormick 3148X, Joss 3080, Willis 2936, Minoso 2851)
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 12:38 PM (#2061917)
Thank goodness we only had one voter who didn't put Clemente on his ballot versus two or three. I only had Clemente #3 but off-ballot? I don't think so.

I don't know why we had a fairly large number of no-shows this week, and I don't know if possible no-shows will decide this week's election. Maybe not. Based on recent history it is perhaps only a question of Sisler's margin of victory--big if this week's no-shows don't vote again, small but still winning if everybody votes. But it is worrisome that turnout would decide things.

I think we had a turnout issue recent when Joe forgot to vote and his non-vote resulted in maybe Mackey getting elected rather than ??? but I think it was a ??? who was quickly elected.

As a long-time FOGS (and I know some of you think my ballot [or maybe it's my brain] is in a fog), I'm hoping last week's no-shows are still on vacation ;-)

Not really, I hope we have our usual complement of 50+ ballots again.
   21. Daryn Posted: June 13, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#2061953)
I think Sisler was the victim of Joe's missed ballot.
   22. dan b Posted: June 13, 2006 at 02:10 PM (#2061964)
Joe Gordon's induction was delayed a year by Joe's missing ballot.
   23. rico vanian Posted: June 13, 2006 at 02:20 PM (#2061975)
The electorate was different. There was one new voter

Ahem :-)

At least a -5% consensus means I didn't upset the apple cart too much!
   24. Mike Emeigh Posted: June 13, 2006 at 02:26 PM (#2061979)
I don't know why we had a fairly large number of no-shows this week, and I don't know if possible no-shows will decide this week's election.


Summertime, summertime, sum-sum-summertime?

-- MWE
   25. DL from MN Posted: June 13, 2006 at 02:43 PM (#2061990)
> Mackey getting elected rather than

Joe Gordon
   26. Ardo Posted: June 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2062123)
Well, we have a mini-John Murphy Lottery next year with Kaline, Santo, Marichal, Cash, and Cepeda, so the #2 spot in this election matters a lot.
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2062138)
Well, we have a mini-John Murphy Lottery next year with Kaline, Santo, Marichal, Cash, and Cepeda, so the #2 spot in this election matters a lot.

Yeah, my crystal ball is cloudy in regard to that election. :-)

I don't think Cash or Cepeda will be factors, but the two inductess will certainly come from the other three.
   28. DL from MN Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#2062155)
I think it's safe to say I'll lose 5 players on my 1979 ballot in 1980. Mays elected and 4 bumped off.
   29. Daryn Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#2062157)
I agree Cash won't be a factor -- I just don't see what separates him from F. Howard (except he may be slightly better). And, John, I know you are not advocating for Howard.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2062168)
And, John, I know you are not advocating for Howard.

:-)

It's early, but I favor Cash over Howard. But I'll take Cepeda over both of them.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2062172)
rico vanian

Ah, rico, welcome. Good that the Armenians are now ably represented among us. Mrs. Dr. Chaleeko is Armenian and as she is wont to point out, they are the first Christian nation. Welcome and please pass the chorag? And send the keufta down this way too. Thanks.
   32. Esteban Rivera Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2062174)
Isn't 1980 an elect 3 year? If it is, I think John's crystal ball might clear up quick.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#2062175)
I agree John, based on preliminary thinking, I'd also have Cepeda over Cash and Howard. I don't think I'll end up voting for any of the three, however.
   34. Daryn Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:19 PM (#2062196)
I agree John, based on preliminary thinking, I'd also have Cepeda over Cash and Howard. I don't think I'll end up voting for any of the three, however.

I have the same order and same result -- all off ballot. Cepeda seems to have that Fred Lynn what might have been mystique. Though even what was, was pretty darn great, but IMO, probably just on the wrong side of the in/out line.
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#2062202)
Isn't 1980 an elect 3 year? If it is, I think John's crystal ball might clear up quick.

You are correct, Esteban. Kaline, Santo, and Marichal it is in 1980! The order? Cloudiness setting in again...
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2062205)
Cepeda seems to have that Fred Lynn what might have been mystique. Though even what was, was pretty darn great, but IMO, probably just on the wrong side of the in/out line.

Cepeda has a good chance of making my ballot. Don't know where at the present time.
   37. Trevor P. Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2062211)
I'll be voting again in 1978.

I'd planned on submitting a ballot for '77, but then my girlfriend decided to go recieve her Master's degree on Monday morning. She tells me we'd planned this trip for months, but I have my doubts.

Anyways, I had a half-hour window to log on to our friend's computer Sunday night, but I thought that without time to properly assess Wilhelm and Clemente, I might as well just pass instead of submitting a hastily-arranged ballot.
   38. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:41 PM (#2062215)
I'll go on a limb and say Santo, Marichal, Kaline.

But you should also know that I picked the Brewers to finish second this year and the Tigers third.
   39. DL from MN Posted: June 13, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2062228)
> I'll be voting again in 1978.

You're a little late.
   40. Trevor P. Posted: June 13, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2062242)
You clearly aren't familiar with a little device known as the flux capacitor.
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2062245)
1.21 Gigawatts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 08:10 PM (#2062246)
Win Shares

F. Howard 297/38-34-30-28-25-25-23-23-21-13-13-10 (12 years ? 10 WS)
Norm Cash 315/41-27-24-24-23-23-21-21-18-18-18-16-16-15 (14 years)
O. Cepeda 310/34-30-29-29-26-26-23-23-21-20-19-19-17-13 (also 14 years)

Howard has the shorter career but seasons 1 through 9 he is +25 on Cash and +6 on Cepeda. Through their primes Howard appears to have been the more valuable of the three.

OPS+

F. Howard 143/180-73-72-54-51-48-46-38-27-14-5 (11 years ? 100 in 100+ games)
Norm Cash138/198-48-47-41-40-35-34-33-28-27-27-26-24-21 (14 years, all above 120)
O. Cepeda 133/166-66-58-48-35-34-33-32-30-30-26-16-9-7 (14 years)

Again Howard leads in years 2 through 8 (and 1 through 8 vs. Cepeda.

On OPS+, some bedfellows

146-150--Lajoie, Wagner, Cravath, Flick, Heilmann, Kiner, McCovey, Schmidt, Stargell, Sam Thompson
145--Mathews, Hack Wilson
144--Albert Belle
143--Crawford, Howard
142--Eddie Collins, Killebrew
141--Babe Herman, Harry Stovey
140--Berger, Burkett, Reggie Jackson
139--Anson, Hamilton, Bob Johnson
138--Cash, Jack and Will Clark, Al Rosen, Snider
134-137--Doby, Bill Terry, Frank Baker, Reggie Smith, Vaughan, Brett, Chance, Klein, McGraw
133--Cepeda

Hondo is certainly closer to those inner circle guys at the top of this list than Cash or Cepeda are.

Assuming Mays and Sisler get elected, here's an early early prelim for '80:

1. Dobie Moore
2. Kaline
3. Santo
4. Kiner
5. Waddell
6. Doyle
7. Joss
8. C. Jones
9. Browning
10. Cepeda--not sure that the above (WS and OPS) supports him ahead of Howard, but here he is
11. Marichal--I'm not comfortable with Marichal this low, I have to see if I can come up with a rationalization
12. Roush
13. Willis
14. Mendez
15. Howard--not sure he doesn't belong ahead of Cepeda, as well as Cash

21. Cash--those years 2 through 9 just don't do much for me. A man needs a prime.

Then assuming we elect Kaline, Santo and Marichal, in 1981 it's 1. Gibson, 2. Moore, 3. Killebrew, 4. Kiner. And if we elect Gibson and Killebrew, in 1982 it's 1. F. Robby, 2. Moore, 3. Kiner, 4. Waddell, 5. B. Williams, 6. Doyle, 7. Joss, 8. Freehan. In '83 I have Brooksie #4, Torre #5 and Wynn just off-ballot.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#2062250)
1.21 Gigawatts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But Doc, I can't be stuck in 1955!
   44. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 13, 2006 at 08:35 PM (#2062262)
Kaline and Santo will be 1 and 2 for me. Marichal, Cash, and Cepeda will be fighting for spots near the end of the ballot.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 13, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2062293)
Maybe in 1978 you can get a retroactive 1978 HOM ballot at your corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!!!!!!!!
   46. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 13, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2062322)
:-)
   47. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#2062586)
1980: Kaline, Santo, Marichal. By the time we've finished the discussion, it won't be in doubt, but here's my sense of the two key points:

1) Kaline 443 cws, Santo 324 cws. Some peak/prime voters will have Santo ahead and reasonably so, but Kaline's career advantage is HUGE. Through 2001, he was #29 all time in career win shares. Adjusting for season length would drop him down to around 50, but it's still a huge total. Santo has enough to be obviously ahead of the backlog, but no more than that.

2) Marichal is significantly overrated historically. He has a few huge years, but when one digs into his record, he comes out looking not much different from Bunning and Drysdale. He's a HoMer, just like they are, but he's down in the bottom third of the Hall, while Kaline is definitely upper half and Santo is probably middle third. Marichal will go in with a profile pretty similar to Bunning's and Drysdale's, I expect.

It's easier to talk about 1980 than 1979 . . .
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2062657)
Marichal will go in with a profile pretty similar to Bunning's and Drysdale's, I expect.

Possibly lower. I like the other two better, which suprises me.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#2062855)
I'd put Marichal ahead of Bunning/Drysdale. Similar career value (slight edge before the season-length adjustments) with a higher peak? Sure the WPct is inflated by 35 points or so, but I'm not going to overcompensate. "Overrated" just means its quite a bit closer than you'd expect.
   50. Ardo Posted: June 14, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#2063415)
1980: Kaline #1, by virtue of his career advantage. Santo is a clear #2. Marichal is just a hair ahead of Drysdale because of his well-defined peak. He will be #3, ahead of Mendez (I put Drysdale behind Mendez when we elected him).

Cash and Cepeda: Relative to each other, Cash's 139 OPS+ is much more OBP-heavy than Cepeda's 133 OPS+.

In this case, similarity scores help. Cash is truly similar to Frank Howard, who is getting strong support, and Boog Powell, a half-notch worse than Cash on both offense and defense. Cepeda is truly similar to Andres Galarraga and Jim Rice, who played in better offensive climates - but both had the same criticisms (streak hitter, turns it on/off when he wants) that dogged Cepeda.

Cash will be next to Billy Pierce on my 1980 ballot (Cash and Pierce - the One Big Year! duet) in the 6-7 range. Cepeda will be behind Beckley and Minoso; that is, just off-ballot.
   51. Ardo Posted: June 14, 2006 at 12:35 PM (#2063421)
On another note, now that Dobie Moore has fallen to #16, I can say [for the first time ever!] that I support the HoM induction of everyone in last year's Top 15.

Childs, Duffy, and Waddell are off-ballot but in my top 30, and I vote for everyone else.
   52. jingoist Posted: June 14, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2063687)
I must say I was very disappointed that some voters found Clemente worthy of ony a 13th and 14th place on this years ballot.
Not sure what weighting systems those impartial voters are currently employing but I would think whatever factors are being used, they need a bit more scrutiny.

Roberto and Hoyt were overwhelmingly and clearly the creme de la creme of this group of candidates.
They were both elected by huge margins, and I'm very happy to see that occur, but I would have thought they would both be near-unanimous selections.
   53. jimd Posted: June 14, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#2063719)
1) Kaline 443 cws, Santo 324 cws.

Kaline 133.1, Santo 119.1, WARP-3

WARP-3 takes a beating on these threads, but when evaluating players from the 50's and later, the "mysterious" fielding adjustments are almost non-existent, so what's left is the league quality adjustment, which adjusts for AL/NL and for expansion.

IMO, Santo's peak more than overcomes Kaline's small advantage here.

I see Kaline as very similar to Zach Wheat; lots of career bulk in the weaker league, a small number (3) of scattered seasons as a top-16 player, a number of other 2nd/3rd team selections. A clear HOMer, but not upper half.

Marichal is significantly overrated historically. He has a few huge years,

But that's an important part of how I evaluate a pitcher. Marichal has a great peak; he isn't Koufax but he's not that far behind (on the numbers at least; overrated as Marichal might be, Koufax has it all over him as a legend).

I have Santo as a clear #1. Marichal vs Kaline for #2 and #3 on my ballot.

Cash probably makes it onto my ballot, just barely. Cepeda and Howard join Kiner in the zone off my ballot but with a realistic chance of moving on at some point.
   54. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 14, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2063724)
Santo #1. His rank among 3Bs is higher than Kaline's among RFs. At the moment of the 1980 election, Santo will be about the 6th-best 3b in the game's history. At the time of the 1980 election, Kaline will be about the 9th or 10th best RF in the game's history.

That strikes me as a reasonably big point in favor of Santo. The blend of skills needed by a third baseman is a little more difficult to come by than those of a RF.
   55. Mark Donelson Posted: June 14, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#2063730)
Roberto and Hoyt were overwhelmingly and clearly the creme de la creme of this group of candidates.

Just saying it don't make it so. If you're looking for a big peak (which I am), they didn't have it, or at least not as much of it as some others did. Now, you can disagree with my requirement of a big peak--many here do--but given my starting point, there's logic to my placement of both these guys.

Or you could think of it this way: Everyone I had ahead of both of them is in my pHOM already, most of them having been there for quite some time. So in a Mark Donelson–centric world, Wilhelm would have been #1 and Clemente #2 on my ballot this past election. Does that make you feel any better?
   56. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 14, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2063794)
Mark,

You hit that one on the head. I've got a little peakiness to me, and it came out in my ranking of Clemente. He lacked a great peak, but his untimely death also cut off the compensatory career-value kicker. See Al Kaline for what coulda been. Which reminds me....

I've just realized that our friend jingoist's inquiries about Clemente are tripping an uncomfortable-thought wire inside me. Wilhelm's candidacy brought a bunch of new FotHOM into the fold to help us navigate a tricky ballot. But I'm thinking that as we get to Billy Williams and then Lou Brock and then Tony Perez and then Dave Winfield people may come out of the woodwork for these guys. Which brings me to the quetsion of positional balance.

As we get closer to 2007, the pressure to address positional balance is going to grow immensely. It will soon be the elephant in the room. But so too will be the contradictory impulse to vote for corners that we think are HOMers from the modern period because are in the HOF and reached milestones, were said to be HOFy by the press, or had long careers. Big Dave, Dewey, Sweet-Swinging Billy, Hawk, Sosa, Stargell, Brock, Cobra, and others*.

They all share the same shape: OK peak, plenty of career. Ultimately we'll have to answer for ourselves: How many corner guys can we elect and still look ourselves in the mirror? Or maybe put another way, which infielders or pitchers will be on the outside if we satisfy our sweet tooth for cornermen and take "just one more" RF in 2001? Or one more way: What does it say about the HOM's structure, values, whatever, if we elect more corners than INF/C/P?

If a hard rain's a gonna fall, should it fall on Perez, Cepeda, and Winfield? Or on Whitaker, Trammell, Bando, and Bresnahan? I dunno.

I'm being absurdly alarmist about this, but I'm doing so now because Clemente is actually on the in/out line for me among RFs (which trips my internal alarm), because its already 1979(!!!!), and because we've had a sudden (and so far delightful!) surge in lurker interest and participation. Now that we're in the modern era, where everyone is remembered, things are shifting a little, and I'm hoping by initiating an ongoing postional-balance discussion now, we can stay warily ahead of the march of time and not get caught in a last-minute uh-oh-too-many corners trap while also responding capably to the increased external watchfulness (and yet-to-be-characterized incursions of questioning and opinion) that recent players will naturally attract.


*Gochira and Ichiro! That's going to be interesting and potentially ground breaking discussion. Too bad it'll have to wait until 2020 or so....
   57. TomH Posted: June 14, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2063799)
good explanation, Mark - any of us, if we used metrics much different than consensus, could conceivably have had lots of guys in our personal backlogs who would have come out higher than Wilhelm, for example. Not that it would have hurt his election chances, since the guys ahead of him were appraently not getting elected by the mass of voters anyway :)

IOW, some of us will have Mendez and Dean and Moore ahead of that year's newbies, and others will have Maranville and Bancroft and Welch, but it shan't matter. I'm OK with that. After all, I expect to have Frank Chance and John McGraw on my ballot until this project ends, altho in my case I doubt either one will rise to an elect-me spot.
   58. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2006 at 07:59 PM (#2063815)
>Clemente is actually on the in/out line for me among RFs

So of course Santo ranks ahead of Kaline.

>As we get closer to 2007, the pressure to address positional balance is going to grow immensely.

By the new FotHoM whom you mentioned? Or by HoMies? The elephant in the room? I dunno, it's always been there, Howie has continued to document where we're at and I don't see any panic now after 80 years. And how does that play to Santo being #1 or #2?

I'll concede your point that there are a lot of corner/sluggers coming up, but having passed on Kiner I am optimistic that we also may pass on many of the guys you mentioned.

>Big Dave, Dewey, Sweet-Swinging Billy, Hawk, Sosa, Stargell, Brock, Cobra, and others*.

I know I will. And when Chris weighs in on SS defense, that may help. But of course passing on players we admired in our youth might be harder than passing on a loudmouth announcer (so what if in a former life he hit HR and took BB by the bushel basket. We didn't see it, so maybe it didn't happen).

But what will it say if we elect more cornermen than gloves? It will say that if a guy creates enough runs, no glove can possibly have as much value. Which may very well be true.

And it may also say that pitchers just can't accume enough value 6 innings at a time. Pitching might be just as important (same as it ever was, same as it ever was), but individual pitchers aren't. And we're not electing pitching, we're electing pitchers. It won't break my heart of the pct. of pitchers elected declines in future years.

Positional balance, in short, is overrated. I just want the top 225 players. Chips fall where may.
   59. DL from MN Posted: June 14, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#2063821)
> What does it say about the HOM's structure, values, whatever, if we elect more corners than
> INF/C/P?

It says the metrics used for hitting have higher consensus than those used for pitching and fielding.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: June 14, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#2063858)
Or a 150 OPS+ hitter makes more DIFFERENTIAL plays than a GG SS? (Plays that Joe Blow doesn't make.)
   61. Dizzypaco Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:00 PM (#2063860)
I've said this before, but its pretty easy to show that roughly 50% of a team's expected win total comes from the offense, and roughly 50% comes from the pitching plus defense. Obviously, most people agree that pitching is pretty important, which means that the percentage left over for defense is relatively small. Given this, it would be remarkable if the best defensive player saved as many runs as the best offensive players create.
   62. shaftr Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:09 PM (#2063869)
omg, I just accidentally printed this entire thread (18 pages) at work. Luckily I got to the printer and threw everything away before someone could see.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2063891)
omg, I just accidentally printed this entire thread (18 pages) at work. Luckily I got to the printer and threw everything away before someone could see.

Well, at least you didn't copy the "HoMers Gone Wild" section. :-)
   64. jimd Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#2063895)
its pretty easy to show that roughly 50% of a team's expected win total comes from the offense, and roughly 50% comes from the pitching plus defense.

While that's true for a .500 team for one marginal run, it's not true for 100 marginal runs. The defense is worth more than the offense. Adding 100 runs of offense will have less impact than saving 100 runs on defense.
   65. Dizzypaco Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2063911)
While that's true for a .500 team for one marginal run, it's not true for 100 marginal runs. The defense is worth more than the offense. Adding 100 runs of offense will have less impact than saving 100 runs on defense.

Not by enough to make a substantial difference. Teams that lead the league in scoring win just as many pennants as teams that lead the league in least runs given up. There are lots of other ways to show that offense is just as important (or almost as important) as pitching plus defense (I've read a few convincing articles on the subject), but the evidence seems pretty clear.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 14, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2063923)
HOF-not-HOM through 1978

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

HOM
-not-HOF

1  Ashburn
Richie
2  Barnes
Ross
3  Beckwith
John
4  Bennett
Charlie
5  Brown
Ray
6  Brown
Willard
7  Bunning
Jim
8  Caruthers
Bob
9  Dahlen
Bill
10 Davis
George
11 Doby
Larry
12 Doerr
Bobby
13 Drysdale
Don
14 Ferrell
Wes
15 Foster
Rube
16 Foster
Willie 
17 Glasscock
Jack
18 Gordon
Joe
19 Gore
George
20 Grant
Frank
21 Groh
Heinie
22 Hack
Stan
23 Hill
Pete
24 Hines
Paul
25 Jackson
Joe*
26 JohnsonHome Run
27 Magee
Sherry
28 McPhee
Bid
29 McVey
Cal
30 Mize
Johnny
31 Newhouser
Hal
32 Pearce
Dickey
33 Pike
Lip
34 Richardson
Hardy
35 Reese
Pee Wee
36 Rogan
Bullet Joe
37 Santop
Louis
38 Sheckard
Jimmy
39 Slaughter
Enos
40 Snider
Duke
41 Start
Joe
42 Stearnes
Turkey
43 Stovey
Harry
44 Suttles
Mule
45 Sutton
Ezra
46 Torriente
Cristobal
47 Vaughan
Arky
48 Wells
Willie
49 White
Deacon
50 Wilhelm
Hoyt
51 Williams
Smokey Joe
52 Wilson
Jud

*  not eligible for the HOF 
   67. Chris Cobb Posted: June 14, 2006 at 10:08 PM (#2063932)
I've said this before, but its pretty easy to show that roughly 50% of a team's expected win total comes from the offense, and roughly 50% comes from the pitching plus defense.

Say rather, "it's pretty easy to show that roughly 50% of a team's expected win total comes from runs scored, and that roughly 50% comes from runs saved." Then ask, "how exactly should responsibility for runs scored and runs saved be divided up between offensive and defensive actions?" That, I submit, is not so clear. It's convenient to give the offensive players all of the credit for what is on one side of the ledger, and defensive players all the credit for what is on the other side, but is that an accurate representation of the real distribution of responsibility? I don't believe that question has been settled.

DIPS and studies of team defensive efficiency have fairly recently considerably revised the way in which we think about the division of responsibility for runs allowed and saved between pitchers and fielders, but, to my limited knowledge, the implications of DIPS for offensive evaluation have not yet been explored.
   68. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#2063941)
Not by enough to make a substantial difference. Teams that lead the league in scoring win just as many pennants as teams that lead the league in least runs given up. There are lots of other ways to show that offense is just as important (or almost as important) as pitching plus defense (I've read a few convincing articles on the subject), but the evidence seems pretty clear.

I think jimd is referring to a nonlinearity in the Pythagorean formula. Take an .500 in 800 R context. Go to 900RS/800RA and you get a WPct of .559, go to 800RS/700RA and you get a WPct of .566. So, there is a slight advantage for saving a run. Its not much and it might be observable in your pennant winner example, but its in the math and not handwaving. Bill James' 52-48 split of defense/offense WS might be actually defendable.
   69. DavidFoss Posted: June 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#2063943)
it might be observable

Oops... I picked the wrong typo. might NOT be observable is what I meant. Sorry about that.
   70. jimd Posted: June 14, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2064033)
Bill James' 52-48 split of defense/offense WS might be actually defendable.

Tangotiger once recommended a 61-39 split on Pythagorean grounds to even out the effective replacement levels. It should be possible to come up with a formula that keeps the 50-50 for balanced .500 teams but does the right thing for extreme (severely imbalanced or high win/loss) teams. Similar batting lines will be less likely to yield similar results, but that's currently a problem on the defensive side anyway.
   71. EricC Posted: June 14, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#2064109)
Santo #1. His rank among 3Bs is higher than Kaline's among RFs.

Am I the only sabermetrically-minded "analyst" who thinks that Santo is "so underrated that he's overrated"? A HoMer for sure, but near the bottom for me. On close examination, his career suffers from the relatively few numbers of great years (the same kind of downside that players like Banks and Sisler have), plus he's behind Mathews and Allen among his exact contemporaries at 3B. Futhermore, he had hugh amounts of playing time (154+ games for year after year) which is great, but since the commonly used measures such as WS and WARP have their zeroes set below replacement level, they overstate his seasonal values slightly more than for players with more typical amounts of playing time. Positional balancing makes sense to some extent, but there is no way that I see Santo anywhere close to Kaline even though it may be true that his rank among 3B is higher than Kaline's among RF.
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#2064125)
The assumption thus far is that positional balance is helping the fielderly sorts. Another take would be that positional balance recognizes the better hitters at defense-oriented positions (with some input from their fielding), and not merely defensive stars. You could say then that positional balance would, in part, honor hitters at weak hitting positions, and at the "expense" of good hitters at the big-hitting positions where the replacement level is higher.

I'm not advocating strict positional limits, by the way, but just trying to raise the flag about what the trade-offs are around the positional balance issue as we get ready to enter a time of potential squeezing around the edges of the position.
   73. EricC Posted: June 15, 2006 at 12:09 AM (#2064139)
Dr. Chaleeko-

Just out of curiosity, when you make statements such as "Player A is the Nth best at position X", how do you make your rankings? What is your philosophy for a HoM?

Cheers, Eric
   74. jimd Posted: June 15, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#2064288)
they overstate his seasonal values slightly more than for players with more typical amounts of playing time.

If you think about it, this is really a bigger problem for the long career players. Somebody who plays 15-20 extra games in a season earns about one extra "free" Win Share of subreplacment value. Someone who plays 600 extra games in his career earns maybe 30-40 extra "free" Win Shares of subreplacement value.

Extra playing time in a season is good, when you're good. It means less time given to a less valuable player, and more total value for the team. Kaline only played more than 150 games three times in his career (and all before age 27). That hurt's him in my system.
   75. Paul Wendt Posted: June 15, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#2064319)
There are lots of other ways to show that offense is just as important (or almost as important) as pitching plus defense (I've read a few convincing articles on the subject), but the evidence seems pretty clear.

Those articles take logarithms.

--
I wondered "what's the buzz?" about 1978. The answer, of course, is 1980.
   76. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#2064338)
Am I the only sabermetrically-minded "analyst" who thinks that Santo is "so underrated that he's overrated"? A HoMer for sure, but near the bottom for me.

Yeah, there's been such as active campaign to get him into Cooperstown that his case is really being played up. Certainly deserving, but the arguments are intended to be extra persuasive. Same with Blyleven. Near the bottom, though? Isn't Santo better than Hack and Groh? I agree he's definitely far behind Schmidt & Mathews, and also behind Boggs & Brett. Not sure about Baker. Allen played only 38% of his games at 3rd so his baseline has to be raised a bit.

Jumping the gun I suppose. "How good was Santo really?" should be explored when he gets a thread.
   77. Brent Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:29 AM (#2064511)
Looking at this year's results compared to last year, one (ominous) trend is that nearly all the Negro League candidates experienced a drop off in support: Mendez (4th to 5th), Redding (5th to 10th), Moore (10th to 16th), Trouppe (20th to 25th), Oms (30th to 34th). I hope that our newer voters are taking seriously our constitution requirement to give fair consideration to Negro League candidates.
   78. sunnyday2 Posted: June 15, 2006 at 10:46 AM (#2064613)
As noted before re. Ralph Kiner's big jump: I would guess that the dropoff of the NeL candidates was due to a number of regular voters not voting. I don't know if there was any big trend of individual voters downgrading those players, though it's true that Redding may have lost a tad of steam when Cooperstown's results and data came out. As for the others and maybe for Redding too, unless the composition of our voters changes permanently, they'll be back.
   79. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 01:36 PM (#2064666)
The other EricC,

WHen I talk about rankings, I'm specifically talking about my own personal rankings but not trying to be utterly definitive (even though I probably come off that way). I should be better about making that explicit.

Currently my ranking system relies on sked-adj WS over several peak/prime/career intervals. I somewhat favor peak/prime over career, and there's some eyeballing/bullshirt to it where necessary. I don't timeline. But I do sometimes change my mind.
   80. DL from MN Posted: June 15, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#2064713)
I think the certainty in offensive results will also bias taking the best hitters at defensive positions instead of perhaps the most meritorious players at those positions. There is a lot more support for Larry Doyle than there is for Bill Mazeroski.
   81. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#2064793)
There is a lot more support for Larry Doyle than there is for Bill Mazeroski.

I don't think that's just a matter of defensive uncertainty. Let's look at the more MIF friendly WARP1 and WARP3 numbers.


FRAR1 BRAR1 WARP1 FRAR3 BRAR3 WARP3
----------------------------------------------
MAZ 677 157 91.8 700 162 96.1
LAUGHIN' 359 525 96.1 110 454 65.3

And then at the more conservative Win Shares.

FWS BWS WS 162WS
----------------------------
MAZ 112 105 219 260
LAUGHIN' 50 238 289 306

I think there's a couple interesting things here.
1) Remember how we all thought that Rich Ashburn's election was probably influenced by WARP's fielding numbers? Now I'm not as sure about it as before. If WARP's fielding were that influential, then Mazeroski should have garnered substantial support. Especially from anyone who trusts WARP3.
2) It looks like voters trust WS's expression of fielding value more than WARP's in the case of these two second basemen.
3) So there's either a shift in the electorate's use of WARP or the electorate picks and chooses when it trusts WARP or WS.

If you look at Maz's fielding numbers under WARP it's not tough understand why someone might be skeptical of them. In WARP1 and 3, fielding makes up 81% of his FRAR+BRAR. In WS, fielding represents 52% of his value. Meanwhile Doyle's WARP and WS value splits are much more normal looking.

How about BP's FRAA/BRAA?

FRAA1 BRAA1 WARP1 FRAA3 BRAA3 WARP3
----------------------------------------------
MAZ 199 -112 91.8 208 -107 96.1
LAUGHIN' -114 301 96.1 -141 230 65.3

Here Larry's got a big WARP1 lead thanks to his big bat and despite the fact that his glove and Maz's bat are equal. This, I'd bet, strikes most of us as intuitive. Now with the more extreme all-time adjusted numbers, Maz actually pulls ahead a bit. But I'd imagine that there's lots of us in the room who are skeptical of the all-time adjustments, so it's really about the FRAA1/FRAR1 numbers and whether they make sense.

I'm not expressing an opinion except to say that I think Maz's lack of support strongly suggests that many voters disagree with WARP's defensive assessment and are more included toward the somewhat more conservative WS assessment.
   82. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#2064796)
   83. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:41 PM (#2064797)
test
   84. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 15, 2006 at 03:43 PM (#2064798)
I'm not expressing an opinion except to say that I think Maz's lack of support strongly suggests that many voters disagree with WARP's defensive assessment and are more included toward the somewhat more conservative WS assessment.

DL, I think I just proved the point of yours that I was responding skeptically too.... Sorry.
   85. DavidFoss Posted: June 15, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2064826)
It looks like voters trust WS's expression of fielding value more than WARP's in the case of these two second basemen.

Also, remember there are only 8 of us Doyle voters (unfortunately). Sweeping statements about electoral support may not apply when your talking about this level of ballot coverage. (only 17% for Doyle vs 2% for Maz). We've been quite reticent towards electing guys in glove positions with poor fielding reputations (Doyle, Lazzeri, etc). Raise these guys to a 'B' WS grade and they would be much more popular candidates.

As Doyle's best friend, I *wish* the electorate liked Doyle much more. :) I simply don't believe FRAA/FRAR at all -- replacement level players are generally decent fielders (its the hitting that keeps them out of a job generally). BP's FRAR numbers imply that replacement fielders pick up every ball and throw it into the stands. I also don't buy the huge NL discount for the era. Sure, the AL had more superstars, but that comes through without the discount. Why give Collins/Cobb/Speaker a big boost when they already so much better by vs-league measures anyways?

Also, there was a context shift between the eras of Maz & Doyle so a direct comparison is tough to do. 2B was a more offensive position in Doyle's day. Doyle played for great teams and no attempt was made to shift him to another position.
   86. DL from MN Posted: June 15, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#2064919)
I actually thought "Nellie Fox" just after I submitted but he's doing a lot better than Doyle.
   87. Paul Wendt Posted: June 15, 2006 at 10:09 PM (#2065436)
69T Wilbur Cooper 6 1 67T Wilbur Cooper 11 1 x
21 Mickey Welch 186 10 27 Mickey Welch 130 9 down

Once I thought I would do this for 1898, 1918, 1938, 1958, and 1978. But it takes too long, so here is 1958 and 1978 only. Interpretation is easy. At far right in the middle for people on the ballot both 1958 and 1978, 'x' means electoral support about the same; ' ' up; 'dd' down.

1958                                  
Rank Player               Pts  Bal 
-----------------------------------
 
Billy Herman         676   40 ===
 
Stan Hack            548   39 ===
 
Lou Boudreau         547   34 ===
-----------------------------------
 
Joe Medwick          433   31 ===
 
Hughie Jennings      407   23 ===
 
Red Ruffing          398   27 ===
 
Biz Mackey           355   29 ===
 
Wes Ferrell          350   23 ===
 
Earl Averill         338   26 ===
10 Eppa Rixey           293   22 ===     1978
-----------------------------------   Rank Player               Pts  Bal
11 
Clark Griffith       271   19 ===
12   George Sisler        268   19     3   George Sisler        404   30 
13 
Willard Brown        237   19 ===
14   Jake Beckley         234   16     8   Jake Beckley         268   19 
15   George Van Haltren   231   15    17   George Van Haltren   209   17  x
16   Cupid Childs         219   18    13   Cupid Childs         231   20  x
17   Hugh Duffy           219   17     9   Hugh Duffy           267   19 
18   Pete Browning        206   14    19   Pete Browning        194   15  x
19 
Cool Papa Bell       193   14 ===
20 Bobby Doerr          193   13 ===
21   Mickey Welch         186   10    27   Mickey Welch         130    9  dd
22   Joe Sewell           185   15     7   Joe Sewell           302   24 
23   Dobie Moore          176   13    16   Dobie Moore          218   16 
24   CB Dick Redding      171   13    10   CB Dick Redding      260   18 
25   Alejandro Oms        165   12    34   Alejandro Oms         72    6  dd
26   José Méndez          164   14     5   José Méndez          307   22 
27   Bucky Walters        151   11    21   Bucky Walters        165   15  x
28   Charley Jones        136    9    18   Charley Jones        197   13 
29 
Joe Gordon           119   11 ===
30   Gavy Cravath         117    9    22.  Gavy Cravath         156   12 
31   Burleigh Grimes      116    9    28   Burleigh Grimes      128   11  x
32   Rube Waddell         108    9    14   Rube Waddell         229   17 
33   Roger Bresnahan      103    8    24   Roger Bresnahan      153   13 
34   Wally Schang          98    7    32   Wally Schang          80    6  dd 
35   Tommy Leach           92    7    22.  Tommy Leach          156   12 
36   Larry Doyle           78    5    31   Larry Doyle          114    8 
37   Edd Roush             70    7    20   Edd Roush            167   13 
38   Dizzy Dean            70    6    35.  Dizzy Dean            67    7  x
39   Bill Monroe           58    6    44   Bill Monroe           44    4  dd 
40   Bob Johnson           52    5    29   Bob Johnson          125   11 
41   John McGraw           52    4    33   John McGraw           78    6 
42   Charlie Keller        47    4    30   Charlie Keller       114    9 
43   Ernie Lombardi        45    3    41   Ernie Lombardi        51    5  x
44.  Tommy Bridges         43    4    35.  Tommy Bridges         67    7 
44.  Jimmy Ryan            43    4    43   Jimmy Ryan            48    5  x
46   Ben Taylor            38    3    38.  Ben Taylor            52    5 
47   Dizzy Trout           37    3    53   Dizzy Trout           27    2  dd 
48   Quincey Trouppe       36    3    25   Quincy Trouppe       147   12 
49   Ed Williamson         27    3    48   Ed Williamson         32    3  x
50.  Addie Joss            25    2    45   Addie Joss            43    4 
50.  Vic Willis            25    2    38.  Vic Willis            52    5 
52   Chuck Klein           24    2    55   Chuck Klein           26    2  x
53   Sam Rice              22    2    46   Sam Rice              37    4 
54   Pie Traynor           22    1    42   Pie Traynor           50    4 
55 
George JBurns       18    2 ===
56   Dom DiMaggio          17    2    62.  Dom DiMaggio          13    1  x
57   Ed Cicotte            17    1    58   Ed Cicotte            22    2  x
58.
Tommy Bond            16    1 ===
58.  Fielder Jones         16    1    59.  Fielder Jones         17    1  x
60.
Leroy Matlock         15    1 ===
60.  Bobby Veach           15    1    70.  Bobby Veach            9    1  dd 
62.
Dick Lundy            14    2 ===
62.  Hack Wilson           14    2    70.  Hack Wilson            9    1  x
64 
Dolf Luque            14    1 ===
65   Fred Dunlap           11    1    73   Fred Dunlap            8    1  x
66.  Lefty Gomez            9    1    57   Lefty Gomez           23    2 
66.  Sam Leever             9    1    67.  Sam Leever            11    1  x
66.  Carl Mays              9    1    50   Carl Mays             29    3 
69.  Wilbur Cooper          6    1    67.  Wilbur Cooper         11    1  x
69.
Sam Jethroe            6    1 ===
69.  Rabbit Maranville      6    1    51.  Rabbit Maranville     28    2   


                                       1 
Roberto Clemente W1028   45 ==
                                       
Hoyt Wilhelm         833   43 ==
                                      -----------------------------------     
                                       
Ralph Kiner          318   26 ==
                                       
Minnie Minoso        306   28 ==
                                      -----------------------------------     
                                      
11 Billy Pierce         238   19 ==
                                      
12 Ken Boyer            233   19 ==
                                      
15 Nellie Fox           228   18 ==
                                      
26 Bob Elliott          140   12 ==
                                                                      
                                      
37 Elston Howard         55    7 ==
                                      
40 Phil Rizzuto          52    4 ==
                                      
47 Dutch Leonard         37    3 ==
                                      
49 Vern Stephens         30    3 ==
                                      
51.Gil Hodges            28    2 ==
                                      
53 Dizzy Trout           27    2 ==
                            
0         54   Dave Bancroft         26    3      
                            0         56   Frank Chance          25    2      
                                      59.
Luke Easter           17    1 ==
                            
0         61   Herman Long           14    1      
                                      62.  Tony Mullane          13    1      
                                      62.
Red Schoendienst      13    1 ==
                                      
65.Artie Wilson          12    1 ==
                                      
65.Bill Mazeroski        12    1 ==
                                      
67.Bus Clarkson          11    1 ==
                                      
70.Virgil Trucks          9    1 ==
                            
0         74   Tony Lazzeri           7    1      
                            0         75   Bobby Estalella        6    1 
   88. jimd Posted: June 16, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2065573)
many voters disagree with WARP's defensive assessment and are more included toward the somewhat more conservative WS assessment

That doesn't mean that they are correct to do so.

As a part of my ranking system, I've constructed MLB "All-Star" teams for every season through 1975 (top 2xN players, where N is the number of teams). For the 16 team era (1901-1960), there are 2081 player-seasons selected (34.7 per year, more than 32 due to ties). 752 were outfielders, 495 were infielders (SS,3B,2B). One would expect these two totals to split close to 50/50 because there is no reason for outfielders to be more valuable than infielders in any given season.

Can a Win Shares defender explain this highly significant split to me? (Please don't use differences in games played, unless you are prepared to show me that top infielders miss about 20 games per season more, on average, than do top outfielders.)

My explanation is that Win Shares does not give enough fielding credit to the infield positions.
   89. Brent Posted: June 16, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2065736)
One would expect these two totals to split close to 50/50 because there is no reason for outfielders to be more valuable than infielders in any given season.

I can't think of any reason to expect them to split 50/50. They're different roles and could have different average values. (I'm not arguing that win shares has the split right; I'm simply saying I don't find your statement persuasive that it's wrong.)
   90. DL from MN Posted: June 16, 2006 at 12:55 PM (#2065842)
495/2081 = 24% infield
752/2081 = 36% outfield

What percentage were 1B, pitchers and catchers? Of position players, infielders should get about 3/8 of the all-star selections.
   91. DavidFoss Posted: June 16, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#2065960)
They're different roles and could have different average values.

I'm with Brent here. Win Shares is not meant for positional balance. The way to get positional balance is to rank only within position or somehow normalize against a positional average. I don't think the answer is to increase the fielding-vs-hitting split until the positional numbers even out. A guy like Luke Appling was great partly because he hit better than other guys at his position. Appling's increased fielding contribution relative to Corner-OF's does not necessarily make up the difference between his bat and a HOM-Corner Outfielder. Win Shares does not have a bonus for "hitting better than others at your position". If I'm not mistaken, bWS is agnostic to your defensive position.

When you increase the fielding-vs-hitting split for glove positions you are exaggerating the fielding differential between the Gold Glove guys and the more 'serviceable' defenders.
   92. jimd Posted: June 16, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2066332)
How does one calculate fielding value? There are two parts of the problem.

One part calculates how fielders measure relative to their peers, normalizing, adjusting, comparing, etc. to the measured averages at the position. All the uberstats do this in one way or another.

The other part is to establish the value of an average fielder at each position
compared to the value of the average fielder at other positions. The only way that I've ever seen this described in print is using the theory that I label "absence-of-offense".

How much more is average CF defense worth compared to average LF defense?

According to "absence-of-offense", the answer is simple: How much offensive value are managers willing to give up to get it? If it's worth a lot to them, then CF'ers will hit a lot less than LF'ers, as they give up more and more offensive value to get more fielding value. If it's not worth much to them, then CF'ers will hit about the same as LF'ers. (Over a sufficiently large sample of personnel decisions, of course.)

The reason "absence-of-offense" works is because there are no positional distinctions on offense; everybody plays the same position, batter, so all fielding positions have the same opportunity to contribute.

This principle is easily extended to all other fielding positions. Except pitcher, because it's clear that managers are willing to sacrifice all offensive value, and all fielding value too, to get average pitching value. Pitcher is off the chart. So all we can conclude is: an average pitching staff is worth considerably more than 1/9th of the total value of an average team (at least nowadays). James estimates about 1/3rd. WARP ranges post-1893 from about 25% in the 1890's to 45% in the 1970's. (Haven't done later.)

I always thought that "absence-of-offense" was the guiding principle in the choice of the values for the fielding "intrinsic weights" (Win Shares, p. 67). But James never actually says this. He gives no explanation of the "whys" for the "intrinsic weights". Maybe he has a fundamental insight into calculating fielding value that he hasn't published to his book audience, but I'm unaware of it.

Until somebody explains to me a good alternative theory, I'm sticking with "absence-of-offense", and based on that, the "intrinsic weights" in Win Shares appear to be flawed, biased in favor of the outfield when compared to the infield.
   93. jimd Posted: June 16, 2006 at 10:36 PM (#2066333)
Note" I'm taking this discussion over to the uberstats thread, so it doesn't get lost.
   94. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 16, 2006 at 11:45 PM (#2066415)
Until somebody explains to me a good alternative theory, I'm sticking with "absence-of-offense", and based on that, the "intrinsic weights" in Win Shares appear to be flawed, biased in favor of the outfield when compared to the infield.

Other than third base (which both systems fail when it comes to pre-Mathews "hot corner" guys), I think we're pretty balanced when it comes to HoMers so far.
   95. jimd Posted: June 17, 2006 at 12:24 AM (#2066485)
I think we're pretty balanced when it comes to HoMers so far

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about the distribution of HOMers by position. I think the 3B shortage pre-1950 is largely explained by its similarity to SS in its requirements, causing the best athlete-candidates for the SS/3B position to wind up at SS instead of 3B.

This is all about making the case that Win Shares underrates IF defense. Which means that those who rely exclusively on WS may be missing some IF candidates, if they're not compensating.
   96. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 17, 2006 at 01:23 AM (#2066579)
This is all about making the case that Win Shares underrates IF defense. Which means that those who rely exclusively on WS may be missing some IF candidates, if they're not compensating.

As one who uses Win Shares greatly, I totally agree, Jim. IMO, you can't compare an outfielder with an infielder without making some adjustments. Fortunately, I think most of us (consciously or subconsciously) are doing so.
   97. Lemon Curry? Posted: June 25, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#2075101)
HOMers sorted by percentage of available points in year of election. Players in bold were elected in first year of eligibility.

INNER CIRCLE, BABY!

100.0 - Cy Young (1917)
100.0 - Honus Wagner (1923)
100.0 - Walter Johnson (1933)
100.0 - Babe Ruth (1941)
100.0 - Lou Gehrig (1944)
100.0 - Lefty Grove (1947)
100.0 - Joe DiMaggio (1957)
100.0 - Ted Williams (1966)
100.0 - Stan Musial (1969)
100.0 - Mickey Mantle (1974)

NO-BRAINERS (>95)

99.8 - Sam Crawford (1924)
99.7 - Dan Brouthers (1902)
99.5 - Jimmie Foxx (1951)
99.5 - Warren Spahn (1971)
99.4 - Pete Alexander (1936)
99.4 - Josh Gibson (1952)
99.3 - Ty Cobb (1934)
99.2 - Oscar Charleston (1943)
98.9 - Kid Nichols (1911)
98.8 - Nap Lajoie (1922)
98.4 - Ed Delahanty (1909)
98.4 - Arky Vaughan (1954)
98.3 - Roy Campanella (1963)
97.9 - Charlie Gehringer (1948)
97.9 - Bob Feller (1962)
97.8 - Eddie Collins (1935)
96.9 - Turkey Stearnes (1946)
96.6 - Satchel Paige (1959)
96.5 - Christy Mathewson (1922)
95.8 - Rogers Hornsby (1941)
95.7 - George Davis (1915)
95.7 - Carl Hubbell (1949)
95.4 - Eddie Mathews (1974)
95.3 - Paul Waner (1950)
95.3 - Mel Ott (1952)

EASY CHOICES (>85)

94.9 - Jesse Burkett (1912)
94.8 - Smokey Joe Williams (1936)
94.8 - Johnny Mize (1959)
94.7 - Robin Roberts (1972)
94.7 - Ernie Banks (1977)
94.6 - Duke Snider (1970)
94.5 - Yogi Berra (1969)
94.4 - Deacon White (1898)
94.0 - Paul Hines (1898)
94.0 - Jim O'Rourke (1899)
94.0 - Jackie Robinson (1962)
93.7 - Al Simmons (1946)
93.2 - Roger Connor (1903)
93.1 - Roberto Clemente (1978)
92.1 - Gabby Hartnett (1947)
92.0 - Louis Santop (1932)
91.9 - Pop Lloyd (1935)
91.7 - Luke Appling (1956)
91.5 - Bill Dickey (1953)
90.6 - Harry Heilmann (1937)
90.3 - Buck Leonard (1955)
90.0 - John Clarkson (1900)
89.1 - Billy Hamilton (1907)
89.1 - Hank Greenberg (1953)
88.9 - Bill Dahlen (1915)
88.3 - Mickey Cochrane (1943)
88.2 - Cristobal Torriente (1937)
87.2 - Joe Cronin (1951)
86.7 - Frankie Frisch (1944)
85.2 - Cap Anson* (1903)
85.2 - Fred Clarke (1917)

* Six voters boycotted Anson in 1903.

ELECTED BY LARGE MAJORITY (>70)

84.0 - King Kelly (1899)
83.5 - Ray Brown (1955)
82.9 - Martin Dihigo (1950)
82.6 - Frank Baker (1928)
82.4 - Jack Glasscock (1904)
82.2 - Eddie Plank (1924)
82.0 - Tris Speaker (1934)
81.5 - Goose Goslin (1945)
79.9 - Bullet Rogan (1940)
79.5 - George Gore (1898)
79.1 - Whitey Ford (1973)
78.6 - Hal Newhouser (1960)
78.4 - Willie Wells (1954)
78.2 - Tim Keefe (1901)
76.9 - Zack Wheat (1933)
76.6 - Jud Wilson (1948)
76.2 - George Wright (1901)
75.6 - Ezra Sutton (1908)
75.5 - Hoyt Wilhelm (1978)
74.7 - Buck Ewing (1902)
74.5 - Bid McPhee (1913)
74.4 - Ed Walsh (1920)
74.4 - Joe Jackson (1927)
73.9 - Pud Galvin (1910)
73.5 - John Ward (1900)
73.5 - Cal McVey (1914)
73.4 - Al Spalding (1906)
73.3 - Willie Keeler (1919)
72.5 - Joe Start (1912)
71.7 - Charley Radbourn (1905)
71.3 - Pee Wee Reese (1964)
70.7 - Jimmy Collins (1921)

SPLIT DECISIONS (>50)

69.8 - Amos Rusie (1904)
69.2 - Elmer Flick (1918)
68.4 - Ross Barnes (1898)
68.1 - Joe Kelley (1919)
67.3 - Mule Suttles (1956)
67.1 - Hardy Richardson (1905)
67.1 - Grant Johnson (1925)
66.8 - Mordecai Brown (1925)
66.8 - Ted Lyons (1949)
65.0 - Bill Foster (1945)
64.9 - Heinie Groh (1938)
63.2 - Harry Stovey (1916)
62.4 - Stan Coveleski (1938)
62.1 - Larry Doby (1965)
61.6 - Jimmy Sheckard (1930)
61.3 - Frank Grant (1926)
61.3 - Monte Irvin (1963)
61.0 - Bobby Wallace (1929)
60.9 - Charlie Bennett (1921)
60.9 - Enos Slaughter (1965)
60.7 - Joe McGinnity (1928)
60.2 - Sherry Magee (1926)
60.0 - Pete Hill (1927)
59.9 - Billy Herman (1958)
58.0 - John Beckwith (1957)
56.6 - Bob Caruthers (1930)
56.5 - Dazzy Vance (1942)
54.9 - Don Drysdale (1975)
54.6 - Sam Thompson (1929)
54.3 - Sandy Koufax (1972)
53.0 - Dickey Pearce (1931)

VERY SPLIT DECISIONS (<50)

49.1 - Early Wynn (1970)
48.6 - Rube Foster (1932)
48.6 - Stan Hack (1958)
48.5 - Lou Boudreau (1958)
46.3 - Red Faber (1939)
45.6 - Max Carey (1939)
44.9 - Bill Terry (1942)
44.7 - Joe Medwick (1967)
41.8 - Joe Gordon (1976)
41.5 - Bob Lemon (1967)
41.3 - Wes Ferrell (1964)
40.5 - Lip Pike (1940)
40.4 - Earl Averill (1961)
38.8 - Red Ruffing (1966)
38.7 - Eppa Rixey (1968)
38.1 - Richie Ashburn (1968)
37.9 - Willard Brown (1976)
37.7 - Hughie Jennings (1960)
37.7 - Jim Bunning (1977)
36.8 - Cool Papa Bell (1973)
35.4 - Biz Mackey (1975)
32.8 - Clark Griffith (1971)
32.8 - Bobby Doerr (1972)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2349 seconds
49 querie(s) executed