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

Sunday, July 09, 2006

1981 Ballot Discussion

1981 (July 24)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

317 117.9 1959 Bob Gibson-P
371 99.2 1955 Harmon Killebrew-1B/3B
321 79.5 1958 Vada Pinson-CF (1995)
205 78.9 1959 Jim Perry-P
201 76.5 1960 Claude Osteen-P
199 69.4 1960 Leo Cardenas-SS
186 69.4 1956 Lindy McDaniel-RP
166 59.4 1962 Sam McDowell-P
168 56.0 1963 Dave McNally-P (2002)
144 53.4 1964 Sonny Siebert-P
159 42.2 1964 Johnny Briggs-LF
161 40.1 1965 Jim Northrup-RF
133 46.1 1966 Bill Hands-P
118 35.0 1962 Ed Brinkman-SS
110 36.2 1965 Ken Berry-CF
111 25.7 1964 Danny Cater-1B

Players Passing Away in 1980
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

93 1931 Rube Marquard-P
90 1933 Bob Shawkey-P
89 1926 Ernie Shore-P
79 1941 Hughie Critz-2B
75 1940 Ed Morgan-1B
74 1943 Jack Rothrock-RF/CF
71 1947 Odell Hale-2B/3B
62 1956 Joe Page-RP
60 1959 Jerry Priddy-2B
56 1965 Bob Porterfield-P
51 1974 Elston Howard-C

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 09, 2006 at 07:07 PM | 219 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 11, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2094637)
Gibson and Killebrew. Any questions?
   2. OCF Posted: July 11, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#2094650)
Nope. No questions, except whether Pinson deserves a place in the CF backlog along with GVH/Duffy/Ryan and Roush. (Personally, I don't think so.)
   3. Mark Donelson Posted: July 11, 2006 at 01:23 AM (#2094772)
I've actually got Pinson, on my first quick look, wedged between GVH and Fielder Jones among CFs. However, from a peakster like myself, that's not a compliment (at least in HOM terms)--I had Van Haltren 50th last election.
   4. Ardo Posted: July 11, 2006 at 02:58 AM (#2094937)
OCF, I now wonder: What do voters think of Edd Roush? He's a hard nut for me to crack.

A glance at OPS+ alone makes me wonder why we didn't elect him 30 votes ago: 1-2-3-3-4 (consecutively 1917-21) -6-9, with A-level centerfield defense. But he did have in-season durability problems, and the NL was the weaker league in his times.

Right now, I have Roush well ahead of GVH/Ryan/Duffy (and Pinson/F. Jones) but just off-ballot. I feel I'm selling him short. Comments?
   5. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 11, 2006 at 04:30 AM (#2095017)
Roush's in season durability issues (whether through injury or holdout) really do hamper his peak, which puts him lower than his rate stats would have him. It isnt' as extreme as Chance/McGraw, but then again Roush also had a long, productive career. I don't think he is a bad choice necessarily, I have him ranked higher than both Bell and Carey, but I don't feel any real need to have him on myt ballot either.
   6. OCF Posted: July 11, 2006 at 05:24 AM (#2095056)
Here's another of my context-scaled RCAA best-to-worst lists, aimed as much at the 1982 election as 1981. The already-elected Kaline is here for the same reason that a geology photograph has a person standing next to the rock formation: so that you know the scale.

H.Aaron 97 86 74 71 70 69 68 62 61 61 60 56 53 52 52 46 43 42 33 20  7 --3
F
.Robby 92 83 76 68 65 60 51 51 49 48 43 42 41 40 39 35 35 25 19 10  0
Kaline  71 62 55 46 45 45 44 39 38 38 35 33 33 24 21 20 17 11  8 
--3-19
BWillms 70 66 54 51 46 44 42 37 32 23 23 23 21 20 13  3  2 
-4
Kllbrew 83 78 59 57 57 48 42 38 38 37 36 35 27 16  3  1 
-----8-10 


This is strictly offense; you need to add your estimates of defensive value to this. But we're looking at four corner outfielders and a multiposition corner infielder. None of them is a Gold Glove CF; none of them is a Luzinski-esque "where can we hide him" guy.

Conclusions:

1. Killebrew wouldn't have to have as much defensive value as Kaline for me to take him ahead of Kaline - and I had Kaline #1 on my 1980 ballot.

2. Billy Williams is a strong candidate: less career than Kaline but still a very strong career with a good peak. He should get no elect-me votes in 1982 but that's not his fault.

3. I cannot see sustaining an extreme-peak argument for Robinson over Aaron. With the career value, the order between those two is clear. They should be unanimous #1 and unanimous #2.
   7. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 11, 2006 at 05:51 AM (#2095076)
I'm warming to Roush Ardo. For the pro-side ask Mike Webber, he'll happily present a good case for him. Maybe Mike will do a Keltner list for him if we ask nicely? Maybe he already did and it slipped my mind?

I don't like Pinson nearly as much as I thought I would. And I'm a career guy.

McDaniel is the #3 reliever we've seen behind Wilhelm and Stu Miller. Unfortunately it's not enough to make my ballot, though he's in my top 100.

I will have Gibson ahead of Killebrew, fairly easily.
   8. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:21 AM (#2095084)
From the all-time positional rankings I had done before I lost my hard drive, I was surprised that I had Killebrew around #15 among first basemen. I think it's because 1) *so much* of his value is in the HR and BB columns, probably more so than any player in the HOM, 2) he had a long, but not *exceptionally* long career by HOM "bat" position standards (1B/LF/RF) - ~9500 PA in 17 seasons - with 3) some in-season durability problems (six seasons from 1959-1972 where he missed at least 15 games), and 4) he had about as little defensive value as a player can have over such a long career and not be a DH.

These are all flaws that take a little bit of shine off of the 573 home runs, 143 OPS+ and 114 OBP+. It doesn't take him out of the HOM by any means, but it does make me look a little closer at a Killer vs. Keller komparison for second place.
   9. sunnyday2 Posted: July 11, 2006 at 11:48 AM (#2095134)
I'm surprised, James, by #4. With the time he spent at 3B, you'd think he would have more defensive value than the career 1Bs. The comparison to Cepeda that was made somewhere is very telling, in my mind. It helped the Twins a ton that they could have an MVP type bat at 3B, keeping LF and 1B open for more hitting. And the Twins weren't gonna win with defense in those days regardless (pitching maybe, but not defense).
   10. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 11, 2006 at 02:50 PM (#2095272)
Since the next two elections will not be very hotly contested now is probably a very good time to run over one's backlong in preparation for the mid-1980's when we will begin to see some weaker classes of new candidates. In that spirit I want to post my rankings by position throughout this week, starting here with catcher in order to get some feedback.

I want to say before I start that I am a peak voter who puts a premium on value over a very high threshold, something like 25 WS and 8 WARP. As you can see this threshold does reward in season durability as much as high rate stats. For prime I tend to use value over 15 WS and 4.5 WARP, these numbers were not chosen to correspond to each other, they are only what worked after trial and error. I also look at top 3/5/7 seasons, years above 15 WS or 4.5 WARP, which I use as average, postion and era rankings (though not very strictly) as well as making a number of adjustments based on biases that I see as well as things like OPS+, Eqa, PA, fielding numbers and reputation, etc. I do look at career numbers but only as a tie breaker. Career guys who may do well in my system are the ones that also have decent primes. So I don't want to hear, "Well what about Jake Beckley?" I know it seems that I rely to a large extent on the uberstats, but it is just that they are the only things for which I have a coherent system, otherwise it is more touch and feel.

Catcher

For catcher I lower my standards a bit (20/12 WS and 7/4 WARP) to reflect the fact that catchers simply dont' paly every game and therefore will not compile as high WS/WARP totals. Those that did catch 150 games in a season will look very good in this system and I am comfortable with that. I see catching as contributing to the end of a player's career in a way not unlike pitching, so I am willing to give credit to those that are real workhorses behind the plate. However, I do use the standard cut-offs for seasons played at other positions. Numbers in parentheses are a player's ranking in my backlog (i.e. without Killer and Gibson). I only rank the top 60 players, so anyone not in my top 60 does not have a ranking.

1. Quincey Trouppe (9)
2. Elston Howard (12) - I see these two as the best two catchers right now and very similar. They were both very good offensive players, with nice peaks who played significantly at other positions but had their best seasons as catchers. I like Trouppe slightly more, 3B instead of OF and I am nto sure how to deal with Howard's time on the bench, but can see this one either way. They are both better than Biz Mackey in my view.

3. Roger Bresnahan (20) - Not far behind the other two, though more of his peak came in the OF instead of at catcher. Close enough to Trouppe and Howard that there coudl be a switch some day though it is unlikely.

4. Wally Schang (53) - Big gap. Schang was an undeniably talented hitter who played for a long time. He had some very impressive in season OPS+ numbers but at the same time he never had a very high peak, most likely because he was never a true 'workhorse' catcher. His candidacy rests on career length and consistent hitting, however I don't think he was ever a real star.

5. Ernie Lamobardi - Similar to Schang but without the career value. I really wanted to vote for him but he was just never great. His peak is similar to Schang's he doesn't have as many good years.

6. Tom Haller
7. Johnny Kling - I run these two through my system and they are good enough not to delete from my consideration set but neither is likely to ever maky my top 60. I don't think there will be any real problems with from the rest of the electorate either.
   11. rawagman Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#2095305)
Catchers are interesting - it's tough to rate their fielding as the %'s only tell a small portion. Where can I find PB comparisons. And if he caught knucklers, that would unfairly scew the stats.


I really do not understand the love for Elston Howard. His rate stats were really nice for a few years and fairly meek for most of his career. Giving him extra credit does not hide the shabbiness.


If you like peak in a catcher, I advise you to check out Fred Carroll.

Then there's Walker Cooper, a poor man's Quincy Trouppe.

If I could be convinced that Schang was better than a crappy catcher, he could really jump up in my rankings.
   12. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#2095314)
Catchers are interesting - it's tough to rate their fielding as the %'s only tell a small portion. Where can I find PB comparisons. And if he caught knucklers, that would unfairly scew the stats.


Take a look at Sean Forman's SABR36 presentation:

Link.

-- MWE
   13. Rusty Priske Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:19 PM (#2095323)
I don't have Gibson at #2, but that is a sign of respect I have for the people ahead of him, rather than a knock on him. I'm actually a big fan of his. I have a signed copy of his book. :)

Prelim:

PHoM: Killebrew & Gibson

1. Harmon Killebrew
2. Jake Beckley
3. George Van Haltren
4. Bob Gibson
5. Vada Pinson
6. Mickey Welch
7. Nellie Fox
8. Dobie Moore
9. Tommy Leach
10. Hugh Duffy
11. Norm Cash
12. Quincy Trouppe
13. Orlando Cepeda
14. Edd Roush
15. Minnie Minoso

16-20. Rice, Sewell, Childs, Kiner, Ryan
21-25. Boyer, White, Johnson, Pierce, Redding
26-30. Mullane, Streeter, F. Howard, Strong, Willis
   14. Rusty Priske Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2095343)
Is there a way to edit a previous post to hide the fact that I am an idiot? :)

I have a signed Feller book, not Gibson. D'oh!
   15. rawagman Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2095359)
Rusty - I'm sure you've mentioned before - but can you provide a brief on how you rank. Just curious....
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: July 11, 2006 at 03:51 PM (#2095381)
j, so far so good. You've got the best 3 catchers, though I personally like Howard, then Trouppe, then Rajah. But who is this guy Lamobardi at #5? Isn't that a football stadium in Green Bay?
   17. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 11, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#2095425)
1B

First, Sunny is a jackass. ;-)

1. Orlando Cepeda (28) - This seems a little low for the top guy at a position but I cant' really justify having him any higher. Certainly not a better hitter than the top Corner outfielders. The only 1B on the board with a better peak is Chance and Cepeda beats him badly in prime and career.

2. Frank Chance (34) - Best peak of any 1B but he really has playing time issues. Played at a very good rate and had he been playing 150+ games a season at his peak he would be in my PHOM and probably the real HOM as well. However, its the palying time in season that has him this low, though it is his lack of anything else that has him slightly below Cepeda. I wonder if he will make it as a manager if we ever decide to go that route later on?

3. Norm Cash (49) - Jack Beckley with one big year is a decent place to start. However, Cash has not just the best season but the two best seasons with two more seasons as good as Beckley's best. When compared to Cepeda, Orlando has teh second, third, and fourth best seasons, then a tie for #5 and Cepeda also has the seventh best season. Cash has a slightly lower peak, even with 1961, and he also has a less impressive prime.

4. Jack Fournier (60) - Nice peak though he has some career issues. His WS numbers are actually very similar to Chance's but I am giving Chance a little boost due to his great rate stats. Probably could have been a HOMer had things worked out different for him.

5. Luke Easter - Talk about players who could have been HOMers had things worked out differently. The problem is that we dont' even have good NeL numbers to go with and he never really played that well in MLB. This may be because he was never given a good chance, but his MLB numbers make up a significant portion of his record. Had there not been integration Easter may be in the HOM. This is a guy I am open to arguments on.

6. Ed Konetchy - Hasnt' gotten a vote in a while and has slid out of my top 60, but still I would much rather see him in the HOM than Jake Beckley, better prime, better peak.

7. Gil Hodges
8. Mickey Vernon
9. Jake Beckley
10. Jim Bottomley
77. George Kelly - None of these guys are very likely to have my support anytime and there isn't much difference between them. Well, except for Kelly who is my pick for the worst HOF that wasn't Ella Manley.
   18. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 11, 2006 at 04:43 PM (#2095444)
Hi all,

I'd be interested in becoming a voter. I've been lurking on BTF for 3 years now, and recently finally started posting, and following the HOM closely for about 40 "years". What do I need to do to join your group??
   19. Daryn Posted: July 11, 2006 at 04:48 PM (#2095449)
I'd be interested in becoming a voter. I've been lurking on BTF for 3 years now, and recently finally started posting, and following the HOM closely for about 40 "years". What do I need to do to join your group??

First, you have to change your handle. It reminds me of Michael Jackson's sexcapades.

Next, post a prelim ballot with reasons.

That's it.

But seriously, the handle.
   20. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#2095450)
I think Rusty has pitching valued way too low.

1981 Prelim ballot
1) Bob Gibson
2) Harmon Killebrew
3) Bob Johnson
4) Billy Pierce
5) Norm Cash (I think I'm his best friend also)
6) Orlando Cepeda
7) Ken Boyer
8) Ralph Kiner
9) Bob Elliott
10) Charlie Keller
11) Tommy Bridges
12) Dutch Leonard
13) Jake Beckley
14) Quincy Trouppe
15) Jose Mendez (makes my ballot for the 1st time)
16) Minnie Minoso
17) Virgil Trucks
18) Joe Sewell
19) Frank Howard
20) Dick Bartell
21-25) Dobie Moore, Chuck Klein, Rube Waddell, Gavy Cravath, Jack Quinn
26-30) Tommy Leach, Urban Shocker, Hilton Smith, Edd Roush, Rocky Colavito
31-40) Newsom, Trout, Hodges, Willis, F Jones, Redding, Childs, J Ryan, Burns, Berger
41-50) Oms, Van Haltren, Browning, Welch, Veach, B Taylor, Bancroft, Friend, Luque, Dean
   21. Ardo Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#2095530)
My oar in the water:

1. Gibson
2. Killebrew
3. Mendez
4. Schang - badly underrated
5. Pierce
6. Cash
7. Ch. Jones
8. Trouppe
9. Boyer
10. Fox
11. Sewell
12. Redding
13. Cepeda
14. Maranville
15. Roush

Beckley falls out of my top 15 - his one-league NL performance (1891-98) is underwhelming.

16-20: Minoso, Browning, Kiner, Luque, E. Howard.
21-25: F. Howard, Doyle, Bridges, Beckley, Waddell.
   22. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#2095542)
jscmeagol - Ben Taylor isn't in your top 10? It's not impossible, I guess, but I find it a little hard to see him behind Jim Bottomley.
   23. karlmagnus Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:22 PM (#2095553)
Ardo, what about Beckley's performance in 1900 -- the toughest environment (8 teams, one league, few rules) ever seen?
   24. rawagman Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2095579)
jschmeagol - exactly what McCullen said - you have to reexamine Ben Taylor. The numbers can be a bit murky - but wading through them is half the fun!
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 11, 2006 at 06:50 PM (#2095584)
First, you have to change your handle. It reminds me of Michael Jackson's sexcapades.

lol
   26. Rusty Priske Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2095599)
Not the first time I've been accused of having pitching too low.
There was also a time I was accused of having pitching too high.


As to my ranking system, I start with Win Shares as a base. I am very much a career voter and give very little regard to peak. (In fact, I am generally confused when people say they don't go by career, as it seems to be that this a career 'award' that we are bestowing...but I've become used to it.)

That is a base only. After that, I read and read and read what other people are saying and trying to become convinced of their argument if they differ from my own beliefs. This leads me to reassess my rankings every year.


Are my pitchers too low currently? Maybe, but these things go in waves. What you WON'T see on my ballot, in general, is a high ranking for a short career. If you want to reward a season, give the guy an MVP. If you want to reward a career, pur him in the Hall.

Your mileage may vary.
   27. DanG Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2095605)
Are my pitchers too low currently? Maybe,

Right now, pitchers are 28% of the HoM (44 out of 157) with Gibson going in next election. After that, I don't think we see a strong pitcher candidate until Tiant in 1988. We may elect Mendez before that. Overall, I think we're pretty well on track with pitchers. YMMV.
   28. OCF Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2095618)
The argument that hasn't happened yet but we can see looming before us: Seaver's easy (an all-time great). But of Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Kaat, and John, exactly how many should we put in the HoM?
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#2095624)
But of Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Kaat, and John, exactly how many should we put in the HoM?

Carlton, Perry, Neikro, and Blyleven. I'm not crazy about the rest, though Ryan is the best of the rest.
   30. DavidFoss Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:41 PM (#2095634)
Jenkins and Palmer are in the mix as well.

Following the theme from the other thread. We may end up inducting more of these guys because we have more slots for this era.
   31. TomH Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#2095635)
sanity check
my 1981 Scatterbox Prelim
deadball (pre 1920) in italics, time in NgLg in bold

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

-C ------------ Bresnahan -- Schang Howard/Lmbrdi
SS Sewell ---------- Moore/Rizzuto/Rabbit/Louie all 4 together
2B ---- Childs ---- Monroe ------- Doyle/Fox
3B McGraw/Boyer -– Traynor/Leach - Elliot

1B -Beckley- Chance Cash ---- Cepeda/Easter
OF ----- VanHaltren DiMaggio Oms
OF ------ Johnson Kiner Browning Cravath
OF -------- Minoso

-P - Walters Redding Waddell Welch Newcombe
-P –--- Pierce – Mendez --------- Dean L Jackson

C/Inf.: 4 of top 10, 18 of top 40
1B/OF: 4 of top 10, 13 of top 40
Pitch..: 2 of top 10, .9 of top 40
   32. karlmagnus Posted: July 11, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#2095647)
Grandma, I'd include Ryan (exceptional length, barely enough quality), but there's also Jenkins, who fits squarely within the 4000/115 group that we've enshrined. Pitcher career length gets easier after 1970 with modern medicine; not sure what we do about that. Palmer is 3948/125, also tough to leave out. Tiant at 3486/114 doesn't make it though. Sutton will have his supporters (300 wins, exceptional career length) but at 108 is another Early Wynn, who may like Bunning have been a mistake, looking at this list.
   33. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#2095709)
I think a 32% pitcher ratio is a bit more appropriate (8 players on a 25 man roster) than a 28% ratio (7/25). 36% might even be more correct. I don't know how many pitchers were typically on a roster throughout baseball history. It would be appropriate to weight % of pitchers in the HoM by era using the same ratio of pitchers on a roster in that era. That would skew more recent electees toward pitching.

1870s 11%
1880s 29% (Welch)
1890s 27%
1900s 38% (Waddell)
1910s 20% (Mendez, Redding)
1920s 38% (Grimes)
1930s 28%
1940s 18% (Walters, Bridges, Leonard, Trucks) and that paltry 18% includes Wynn
1950s 29% (Pierce)
1960s 55% but we're still electing position players
   34. rawagman Posted: July 11, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#2095710)
The fact that a similar player was elected in should never be a good reason for electing in someone else.
   35. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 11, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2095736)
It would be appropriate to weight % of pitchers in the HoM by era using the same ratio of pitchers on a roster in that era.


It might be appropriate to look at this by a percentage, say the number of players it takes to accumulate 80% of PAs vs the number of pitchers it takes to accumulate 80% of IP. In 1900, for example, Brooklyn had four pitchers who pitched 81.5% of the team's innings, and nine position players who accounted for 88.3% of the team's non-pitcher at-bats (I used ABs as a proxy for PAs). If that was a common ratio, then pitchers should be somewhere around 31% of the selections. In 1960, the Dodgers had 10 position players who got 82.3% of the ABs, and six pitchers who got 81.4% of the innings - so pitchers might represent 37.5% of the available selections. By 2000, it took 14 Dodgers to accumulate 81.4% of the non-pitcher ABs, and eight pitchers to accumulate just over 80% of the innings - 36.4% ratio.

Or maybe not.

-- MWE
   36. jingoist Posted: July 11, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2095755)
Well MWE, 36.4% of 250 HoM honorees works out to be an even number 91.
Of course that doesn't work well in future years to come when you keep adding new members beyond the 250.
   37. DL from MN Posted: July 11, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2095834)
It's 62/170 which means we could elect nothing but pitchers for the next 13 selections (through 1986) and still not hit 36.4%. We would be at 33.4% if the next 13 selections were pitchers. That would allow ALL of Welch, Waddell, Mendez, Redding, Grimes, Walters, Bridges, Leonard, Trucks, Pierce and Gibson and we'd still have to elect 2 more pitchers from Jack Quinn, Urban Shocker, Hilton Smith, Dizzy Trout, Dizzy Dean, etc.

If all we elect are Gibson and Jose Mendez in the next 13 selections the % will drop to 27%. I'd like to see Pierce and Waddell also elected just to keep pace.

Don't worry about any pitchers inducted thus far being a "mistake" selection. The bar has been set pretty high. In answer to OCF - all of them and then some.
   38. OCF Posted: July 12, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2095853)
TomH's "sanity check":

-P - Walters Redding Waddell Welch Newcombe
-P –--- Pierce – Mendez --------- Dean L Jackson


Is there a slot for Bridges somewhere on this chart?
   39. Howie Menckel Posted: July 12, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2095902)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1980

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct at a position, or it's not 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 (15.43) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Banks 51, 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 (8.18) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, 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 (15.73) - 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, Banks 45, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10, WBrown 10

OF (46.16) - 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, Clemente 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, Mays 97, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, WBrown 85, Hines 82, Torriente 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

P (42.18) - 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, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 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.

INF: 61.17
OF:: 46.16
P::: 42.18
   40. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#2095949)
"Hi all,

I'd be interested in becoming a voter. I've been lurking on BTF for 3 years now, and recently finally started posting, and following the HOM closely for about 40 "years". What do I need to do to join your group??"


What they said . . . post a preliminary ballot this week with explanations. Explain your philosophy, what you value, etc.. At a minimum make sure you know all there is to know about everyone that received a vote in 1980 as well as the new candidates.

Also, please submit your ballot early - this way if there are any issues we have time to work them out.

I think going forward, in order to avoid the situation like happened with the 1979 ballot, we should require all new voters to have their ballot posted by Wednesday of the election week. This we if there are issues we have time to work them out, and aren't scrambling up against the Monday 8 p.m. deadline . . .

Oh yeah, welcome aboard Melky!
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2095962)
The fact that a similar player was elected in should never be a good reason for electing in someone else.

That's perhaps a little bit of an overstatement. If the similar player is in the middle or upper tiers of the HOM, then it's a very good reason (among others) to elect the player. If the player is in the bottom tiers of the HOM, then it's a very good reason (among others) to examine the player very carefully.
   42. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2095982)
But of Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Kaat, and John, exactly how many should we put in the HoM?

Just thought I'd flesh this out a bit. Here's the 25 highest innings totals from 1959-1989 (from the SBE):
1    Phil Niekro              5404.1   
2    Gaylord Perry            5350.1   
3    Don Sutton               5282.1   
4    Steve Carlton            5217.1   
5    Nolan Ryan               4785.1   
6    Tom Seaver               4782.2   
7    Tommy John               4710.1   
8    Bert Blyleven            4703     
9    Jim Kaat                 4530.1   
10   Ferguson Jenkins         4500.2   
11   Jim Palmer               3948     
12   Bob Gibson               3885     
13   Jerry Koosman            3839.1   
14   Jerry Reuss              3662     
15   Mickey Lolich            3640     
16   Joe Niekro               3584     
17   Juan Marichal            3506     
18   Luis Tiant               3486.1   
19   Claude Osteen            3455.1   
20   Rick Reuschel            3450.2   
21   Catfish Hunter           3449     
22   Frank Tanana             3405.1   
23   Doyle Alexander          3367.2   
24   Vida Blue                3343.1   
25   Jim Perry                3286.1 

Just a guess, but Tiant, Resuchel, Hunter, and maybe Blue might have supporters (Blue with the Lefty Gomez fans, perhaps?)
   43. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2096019)
"But of Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Kaat, and John, exactly how many should we put in the HoM?"

My eyeball reaction says all of them, but I guess we'll have to wait and see exactly how they shake out . . .
   44. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#2096057)
There's a few other intresting names on the 1959-1989 list if you carry it out a few more places...


32 Ken Holtzman 2867.2
33 Steve Rogers 2837.2
34 Mike Cuellar 2807
36 Jack Morris 2793
38 Dave McNally 2730
40 Wilbur Wood 2682
42 Mel Stottlemyre 2662
47 Larry Jackson 2592
54 Dennis Martinez 2485
57 Dave Stieb 2458
60 Ron Guidry 2392
71 Andy Messersmith 2229.2
74 Ray Burris 2188.1

I kept Ray Burris just to note that he's probably got the best pickoff move of any RHP in the retrosheet era.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#2096062)
John, help, I screwed it up again by forgetting to put the in there.
   46. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2096116)
test
   47. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2096121)
It looks like you fixed it yourself Dr. C.
   48. DanG Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:16 AM (#2096429)
The fact that a similar player was elected in should never be a good reason for electing in someone else.

While this is applicable when talking about the Hall in Cooperstown, it does not apply to the HoM at this point. This is because the HOF includes dozens of clunkers among its members--many players who are clearly not among the top 275 in history.

In contrast, the HoM to date includes no clunkers. Everyone who is in now will be seen as belonging. Our weakest selections will come in the latter years of the project, when the number of inductees significantly outnumbers the number of good new candidates. We have not yet approached scraping the bottom of the backlog, like we will later on.

So, IMO, if a candidate can be shown to be of similar value to a player we've elected so far, that is very good reason for electing him.
   49. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:33 AM (#2096435)
"But of Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Kaat, and John, exactly how many should we put in the HoM?"

Speaking as a (non-voting) sample size of one, I'd say Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Niekro, and Blyleven are definite ins, Kaat a definite out, with John and Sutton on the border. I'd give Sutton the nod, and pass on John.

FWIW, I've been figuring Average Opponent Winning Percentage for some 1950s and 1960s pictures and Billy Pierce comes off fantastic based on what I've done so far.
   50. Chris Fluit Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:34 AM (#2096439)
I haven't posted a prelim ballot in a couple of elections so I decided it was about time to do one again.

1. Harmon Killebrew
2. Bob Gibson

I wouldn't mind seeing a little more head-to-head comparisons between the two. Right now, I'm leaning towards Killebrew first instead of Gibson but I may change my mind if I see some compelling reasons why Gibson should be number one.

3. Jose Mendez
4. Dick Redding

These two pitchers have been in my personal Hall of Merit since 1975 (I started voting in '73) though I had them reversed at the time.

5. Nellie Fox
6. Quincy Trouppe

The best second baseman and the best catcher on the ballot respectively. I also prefer them to some recent inductees like Joe Gordon and Biz Mackey.

7. Billy Pierce
8. Orlando Cepeda

Pierce jumped over Cepeda on my ballot for this vote. I decided that Pierce's larger peak advantage was more significant that Cepeda's advantages in longer measurements. Pierce was also pHoM in 1979.

9. Luis Aparicio
10. Don Newcombe

I don't remember the particular thread (possibly the lengthy 1980 discussion) but someone mentioned that we were possibly overlooking integration era players. I took another look based on that statement and I can't believe that the Hall of Merit has passed up on Newcombe (or that I've been doing so for 8 elections). With Korean war credit, his candidacy is stronger than that of Gordon or Keller. And it seems odd to me that Newcombe, who was already playing in the Negro Leagues before entering the Dodgers minor league system, wouldn't get at least some credit for those years as well. I'm pretty generous with the war credit, and more conservative with his early years, but Newcombe now looks like a viable candidate and maybe even better than Billy Pierce.

11. Minnie Minoso
12. Hugh Duffy
13. Ernie Lombardi

I haven't given up on Lombardi as a lost cause but he's fallen several places on my ballot due to new eligibles and new discoveries like Don Newcombe. I'm still a firm supporter of his candidacy.

14. Mickey Welch
15. Ralph Kiner

Two guys that I think should be HoMers and I have a hard time placing them this low. But I think everybody above them is HoMer as well.

16-20: Sewell, Boyer (trading places), Oms, Browning (moving up), Pinson (new guy)
21-25: Grimes, Beckley, Stephens, B. Johnson, Wills
   51. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:36 AM (#2096440)
D'oh! I completely forgot about Ben Taylor, thanks guys! He had even been as high as 25 in my earliest ballots back in the mid to late 30's. I will take another look at him, but right now I would slot him in between Easter and the Vernon/Hodges/Beckley/Bottomley group. Still outside of my top 60. Again, I have peak concerns, but if anyone wants to tell me why I should have him higher I am willing to listen.

As for pitchers and pitcher percentage,

I think we are doing alright, even if we are a little low. I have Redding, Walters, Dean, and Waddell on my ballot (and Gibson of course) and Mendez just off and Pierce in the top 25. I think all but Pierce are certain to make my PHOM and Pierce is currently right on the border. I wonder if we are electing fewer pitchers in part because the metrics we are using are less certain on them causing us to splinter more.

Of the group of 70's guys listed above I think I could support everyone but Sutton, Kaat, and John and may be able to be convinced on Sutton if he is very similar to Early Wynn.

I think it could be argued that instead of electing more pitchers from later eras (since more pitchers were used) we should be elected fewer from later eras since each individual pitcher did not have as large of an impact. In the end, we should probably just elect similar amounts of pitchers from all eras (not equal but similar) methinks.
   52. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:45 AM (#2096446)
Chris,

I believe we have MLE's posted for Newcombe on his thread, you should check them out. As for war credit, an argument has been made that pitchers don't desrve as much war credit sinceteh act of pitching itself can bring about the end of a career. In other words, some feel that pitchers have had their careers extended by taking two or three year breaks in their early to mid 20's.

I am not saying that I agree with this , just something to think about since Newcombe's rating on your ballot hinges on war credit and he was still pretty young at the time. I am not sure we have actually had a case where a pitcher's HOM status has depended on war credit. There must be some, who are we overlooking outside of maybe Newcombe?

I have Newcombe around #30, but I am not impressed with him enough to get him higher than that. However, I would vehemently disagree that he was better than Keller, who had 7 MVP level seasons with MiL and NeL credit, maybe 8. I don't believe Newcombe was ever at that level and if he was it was for a period of time that was not nearly as long.
   53. Chris Fluit Posted: July 12, 2006 at 06:17 AM (#2096488)
jschmeagol, thanks for the response.

I did read the entire Newcombe thread yesterday. He doesn't get a lot in the MLEs for his Negro League career. There were a couple of different shots at it but all of them came out to something like 7-2 or 8-3. He had above average numbers, but he wasn't an outstanding player or even an all-star. Then, after his short stint in the Negro Leagues, he went into the Dodgers minor league system for three years. He stayed there for a full three years because of the Dodgers policy of slow integration of one black player per year. Based on his performance in the Negro Leagues before entering the minors, his performance in the minors for those three years and his performance in the majors in his first year, it's clear that Newcombe was already ready for the Major Leagues. He was again above average, though not necessarily an All-Star or Cy Young candidate. When I look at those early years, I don't give Newcombe any extra credit for peak or prime. But they do add some career value. They're the shoulder seasons he was previously missing. And although I don't usually give out credit for minor leagues, it seems silly to deny Newcombe credit for those three seasons. After all, we'd give him full credit if he had stayed in the Negro Leagues and he had already demonstrated that we was more than capable of playing at that level.

As for war credit, I don't buy the argument at all that pitchers deserve less consideration than position players. And the fact that we've elected several position players in part because of war credit but no pitchers demonstrates the unfairness of that argument. And I was voting for Gordon just not at the top of ballot. But to me, the argument for the position player and the pitcher isn't that different. They either lost seasons out of their peak/prime or they didn't. And if you (or anybody else) can think of other pitchers we've been overlooking in this regard, I'd love to hear about them.

Now, here's the argument for Don Newcombe. From 1949-1951, Newcombe was an above-average to outstanding player. He was an All-Star all three years. He received votes for the MVP award all three years. The Cy Young award was not yet established. If it was, he was clearly a candidate, though not likely a winner. Then he went to fight in the Korean War for two years at ages 26 and 27. When he returned, he had a sub-par year while he re-adjusted. Then, in 1955 and 1956, he had the best two years of his career. He was an All-Star in '55. He finished 7th in MVP voting that same year. Then in 1956, he won both the inaugural Cy Young and the MVP. That gives him five peak years '49-'51 and '55-'56 which are clearly interrupted by military service. If he gets full credit for those two missing years, Newcombe now has an impressive peak of 7 years. 1949-1953 and '55 to '56. And I don't see how anyone can argue that if he had had two good seasons at ages 26 and 27, he wouldn't have had two other great seasons at 29 and 30. It's not like Newcombe had a long career because of time missed due to military service. Due to his off-the-field problems, Newcombe was out of baseball by the age of 34. So even if I buy that theory that two years off helped his career, it certainly didn't do much in terms of lengthening it (and just to anticipate questions or objections: no, I don't give Newcombe credit for the end of his career; he did that to himself and doesn't get compensation for it).

As for the straight comparison between Newcombe and Keller. Each received MVP votes 5 times. Newcombe finished 1st, 7th, 8th, 18th and 22nd. Keller finished 5th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 22nd. Of course, the MVP voters didn't always get things right. Keller's five best OPS+ seasons: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th and 6th. Newcombe's five best ERA+ seasons: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 7th. So that's five years of MVP level quality play plus two years of MVP level war credit for both (really, a year and a half for Keller but that's not that significant). I can see how someone might have Keller ahead, but if he is, it's not by that great a margin.
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 07:14 AM (#2096509)
Chris,

1. I do not deny pitchers war credit, ezpecially since as a peak voter I dont' really care how many seasons a player pitched after his prime. So I agree with you there.

2. I am not sure looking at OPS+ and ERA+ is too valid of a way of deciding MVP level seasons. There are more hitters that would qualify than pitchers, making finishing 1 or 2 more impressive for a hitter, however Keller played an offensive position so it may even out. What were Newcombe IP rankings for those seasons? When I look at the uberstats he doesn't seem to have many MVP level seasons at all and his peak isn't anything demonstrably better than Billy Pierce. Could this be because he didn't pitch a lot of innings in-season? I have no idea. I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't see 5 real (as opposed to war or MiL credit) MVP level (aso opposed to actually being teh best plaeyr in the league) seasons for Newcombe. Maybe one or two.

x-just checked bbref and Newcombe finished in the top 5 in IP in only two of those five years (49-51, 55-56). He finished 5th in 1949, 58 IP behind Warren Spahn, and 4th in 1956, 44.3 IP behind Bob Friend. I don't know what the rest of his totals were as I could only find top 5. However, this makes it more doubtful that he was an MVP level player at his best, he simply didn't pitch enough.

3. I guess that Whitey Ford is the only pitcher whose war credit may have pushed him over the edge, Spahn and Feller were in easily. who else could use it? Maybe Trucks, Walters, or Trout? I am a big Walters fan but his best seasons were righ tbefore the war so only career andmaybe backof prime credit should be given.

4. This isn't so much directed at you, Chris, but I would say to everyone that if you give war credit to pitchers you should do it uniformly. When Chris states Newcombe's off field shenanigans (eeeevil shenanigans!) ending his career early that shouldn't be a reason to give war credit becuase he had a short career anyway. It should either be that you are giving it to pitchers or not. The only discretion I can see if not giving it to young pitchers who may be more likely to blow out their arm but giving to veteran pitchers, say 32 and older, because it would be less likely to really end their careers (and that is iffy ground as well.\). What there even a injury nexus in the 1940's and 50's?
   55. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 12, 2006 at 07:16 AM (#2096510)
1981 Prelim

1. Bob Gibson: over-rated by the mass media, but a clear HOMer nonetheless. He's got the
peak, though except for one year not the highest, and very respectable career-length.
2. Jake Beckley
3. Harmon Killebrew: the only other new candidate on my ballot this year. His peak is only
medium-hight for the most part, but it was very long, and his defense wasn't notably bad, although he's pretty one-dimesnional.
That dimension, however, gave plenty of value.
4. Bob Johnson
5. Minnie Minoso
6. Norm Cash: a tough call in some ways; he sat against some lefties, and there is the
corked-bat thing, but I don't think that could be any more influential than today's thin
handles, which are regarded as just fine. An above-average hitter for his whole career,
which lasted a long time and has a fine, if slightly unspectacular peak. He's somewhat like
Minoso, but with that one incredible year. In some ways, he's like a hitter version of
Gibson. He's definitely a top-15 for me.
7. Charley Jones
8. Ralph Kiner
9. George Van Haltren
10. Ernie Lombardi
11. Jimmy Ryan
12. Dutch Leonard
13. Frank Howard
14. Quiny Trouppe
15. Tommy Bridges

***
The next fifteen:

16. Rube Waddell
17. Orlando Cepeda: what to do with him? His peak years are obviously really good, but he
was in his league's top 10 in OPS+ "only" seven times, and he was a part-timer by age 33.
The good part of his career is good enough that he will probably break into my top fifteen
eventually.
18. Gavy Cravath
19. Sam Rice
20. Burleigh Grimes
21. Wally Schang
22. Bob Elliott
23. Billy Pierce
24. Dizzy Trout: length and success are a nice combination.
25. Jack Quinn: Pitching to that age, especially in that era, is still quite an
accomplishment, and he was very good.
26. Eddie Cicotte: put his seasons in a different order, and he superficially looks better.
But he was never worse than average, often far above, and it seems like knuckleballers are
more prone to having isolated disaster years. Plus, his career ended because he was banned
from the game; he was 36, but wasn't slowing down.
27. Ken Boyer: if he had a little more production or a little more productive length, he'd
be higher. But add his defense, and he was very valuable for a reasonably long time. He
might eventually make it further up.
28. Edd Roush
29. Bucky Walters: further consideration pushes those others ahead of him.
30. Jose Mendez
   56. TomH Posted: July 12, 2006 at 02:21 PM (#2096633)
Is there a slot for Bridges somewhere on this chart?

Yes, there should be, and Shocker ought to be on as well. They are about the same as the Newcombe/Dean/Jackson group at the end, somewhere in my top 45.

-P - Walters Redding Waddell Welch Newcombe/Bridges
-P --- Pierce Mendez --------- Dean/L Jackson/Shocker

I sure don't know where the funny " – " symbols came from in my original post 31....
   57. TomH Posted: July 12, 2006 at 02:25 PM (#2096639)
of course, now when I being attention to them, they don't show up. Maybe a computer issue at my end?
   58. Daryn Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#2096687)
However, I would vehemently disagree that he was better than Keller, who had 7 MVP level seasons with MiL and NeL credit, maybe 8.

I would vehemently disagree with giving Keller any Negro League credit.
   59. rico vanian Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#2096703)
I just dont understand the love for Charlie Keller. I have a real problem making assumptions that he deserves big-time MVP level consideration for his time away in the military. Finishes in the mvp voting of 13,14 and 15 for 1942, 43 and 46? His numbers are not that strong imho.

I compare that to Ralph Kiner, led the league in Homers for 7 straight years and had mvp finishes from 47-51 of 6-7-4-5-10 while playing on horrible teams.

I just don't see how anyone could rate Keller higher than Kiner.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#2096720)
Probably no player in the history of MLB lost his peak more than Newcombe, except for some guy we've never heard of who got killed in WWII but coulda/woulda grown up to be another Ralph Kiner or Al Rosen.

I give WWII credit but never higher than a real peak demonstrated on the field. As a peak voter, I have never felt that that was unfair to any player. Except Newcombe (yes I know it was Korea in his case). Still I haven't extrapolated a higher peak than what he did on the field and with that he cannot possibly make my ballot. He is the one player I feel a little bit queasy about re. this methodology.
   61. sunnyday2 Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#2096726)
I have Kiner ahead of Keller, but I certainly don't find that MVP voting results are a good data point for any analysis.
   62. DavidFoss Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2096732)
I certainly don't find that MVP voting results are a good data point for any analysis

Yeah, 1943 voters had Billy Johnson and Nicke Etten ahead of Bill Dickey and Charlie Keller. Wacko.
   63. rico vanian Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:37 PM (#2096741)
The MVP vote is just another tool. I certainly don't base alot of decision making as a result of it.
One other note... how many good/great players potentially were <u>helped</u> by missing seasons due to the military. Some players could have been injured playing in seasons that they missed due to military service. Maybe Ted Willaims would have had a career ending injury in 1943 or 1944 if he wasn't fighting in WW2. I am sure Tony Conigliaro or Bobby Valentine would have fared better with their baseball careers if they were in the military during the seasons in which their careers were ruined due to injury. Of course, that makes the assumption that they would not have been wounded or killed.
   64. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2096779)
Well in Keller's peak he had a string of 30+ WS seasons which was borken up to almost two years in the military. He also had a string of MiL seasons in which he has about 30 WS after our MLE's. Yes, his candidacy does take some imagination, but not any more than that of Gavvy Cravath or most every NeL player. When I say MVP level I don't mean that he was the best player in the league, but that he was good enough to have been a decent choice, something like 30 WS or 10 WARP in the uberstats. There are probably 4-5 guys in each league (with 8 teams) that play at that level, which is about as many as are in the MVP discussions. Kiner is good and I have him high, but not as good as Keller IMHO. However, I guess I can't create NeL data for him can I?

I really see MVP votes as totally worthless, all you ahve to do is realize how awful today's sportswriters are and then realize that yesterday's had less information at their disposal, not to mention the inability to watch more than one game a day in each league.

2B depth chart

1. Cupid Childs (2) - Best peak at 2B and decent career length for an 1890's MIer. I think he was better than McPhee and the best 2B of the 19th century.

2. Nellie Fox (21)
3. Larry Doyle (24) - My re-evaluation has led to a big jump for Doyle who was in the 40's. These two gusy are really really close and I can see the argumetn for both. Doyle was a historically great hitter for the position and has the nice peak. Fox wins in career and prime with a peak that is surprisingly close. Fox is much better defensively and maybe underrated by WS. Doyle is definitely underrated by WARP, IMHO. They are close but I say advantage Fox.

4. Bill Monroe (43) - He has been as high as #20 and never as low as he is now. He was always one of those guys that someone would complain that he wasnt' getting votes, so I would look over him again and decide that he just missed.

5. George Scales
6. Red Scoendienst - There jsut aren't tha tmany good 2B candidates but I will say that I like these guys better than Evers and DeMoss, who I believe are next on my list. Scales was pretty high originally but newer MLE's made me drop him. Schoendienst is a career I know, but he was also a good fielder at a MI position.

Not a very deep position huh?
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#2096790)
Not very deep but very complex. Well, pretty deep, too.

But as to complex: How do you compare Childs and Fox, not to even mention Childs or Fox versus Monroe or Scales?

6. Doyle--PHoM
17. Fox--PHoM
(20a. Doerr)--not yet PHoM but likely to be
46. Childs--PHoM
47. Monroe
55. Dunlap--seriously underrated by history, very comp to Childs
71. Evers
73. Artie Wilson--I forget now if he was a 2B or a SS but he's part of that "lost generation" and deserves another look
87. Silvio Garcia
92. Schoendienst
96. Sol White
98. Lazzeri
100. Myer

HM. Del Pratt
George Scales--I also need to give a fresh look at Scales

So I think it's a pretty deep field. I think you underrate some of the backlog including Evers and Lazzeri among others, but of course we are talking second 50 there.

PS. You're right about 1B however. We're in a shallow period there. My guys are Cepeda and Cash, and Beckley and Chance. Everybody else is pretty much superfluous. Though, yes, Taylor, Hodges and Vernon are certainly top 100, with Easter, Orr and Fournier holding on by fingernails.
   66. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 12, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2096817)
jsch-an interesting list which reminds me of something.

Here's an historical generalization that I've held for a long time in my head. I wasn't watching baseball in the 1970s, so I'd love for someone who was to tell me if this impression is accurate or not.

It seems like other than the occasional Ken Hunt or Glen Beckert most 1960s and 1970s 2Bs were some variation of the Frank White/Dave Cash/Bobby Richardson default prototype: limited offensive ability, good glove, some speed, very athletic. If they did anything offensively, it was hit for average or run. This is especially true after the first line of talent.

I'm probably overstating my case, but the 1980s seems to have a veritable explosion in different types of 2Bs, including power hitters (Sandberg), all-arounds (Whitaker, later Franco and Alomar), fielders (Hubbard and Gantner), speedsters (Garcia, Wiggins), on-base guys (Randolph, Doran, Sax, maybe Bernazard?), and line-drive hitters (Johnny Ray and Paul Molitor---when he played second). Plus Tommy Herr.

That feels to me more diverse than the 1960s and 1970s. To be fair Lopes, Morgan, Grich, and Carew, Rose certainly didn't fit the prototype, but they were the front-line talent. White, Cash, Stennet, Wills, Remy, Trillo, and many others tended to hew more closely to it than not.

I'd love to know if anyone thinks of it this way too, or if I'm just nuts.
   67. Chris Fluit Posted: July 12, 2006 at 05:15 PM (#2096832)
54. jschmeagol Posted:
2. I am not sure looking at OPS+ and ERA+ is too valid of a way of deciding MVP level seasons.
No problem. I’m not a big fan of OPS+ or ERA+ myself. I’m much more of black ink/gray ink kind of guy. But I know that there are a lot of fans here of those measurements and they are a quick one-stat way of measuring whether or not someone was among the best in the game. That’s all I was trying to do- demonstrate that both Keller and Newcombe were among the best in the game for a similar number of seasons.

What were Newcombe IP rankings for those seasons?
x-just checked bbref and Newcombe finished in the top 5 in IP in only two of those five years (49-51, 55-56). He finished 5th in 1949, 58 IP behind Warren Spahn, and 4th in 1956, 44.3 IP behind Bob Friend. I don't know what the rest of his totals were as I could only find top 5. However, this makes it more doubtful that he was an MVP level player at his best, he simply didn't pitch enough.

He was never an inning-eater but the top 5 cut-off is kind of arbitrary. His other three seasons were 6th, 6th and 7th. So he was never the inning eater of a Robin Roberts or a Warren Spahn, but he wasn’t exactly a lightweight. And the “he didn’t play as much as others” argument can just as easily be leveled at Keller. He only has two seasons in the top ten for games played and none for at-bats or plate appearances. Don’t worry. I don’t put a lot of stock into those categories myself but I wouldn’t discount the one and not the other.

his peak isn't anything demonstrably better than Billy Pierce.
I agree. I still had Pierce ahead of Newcombe. Pierce was 7th, Newcombe 10th.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't see 5 real (as opposed to war or MiL credit) MVP level (aso opposed to actually being teh best plaeyr in the league) seasons for Newcombe. Maybe one or two.
I didn’t see 5 real MVP level seasons for Keller either. Again, maybe one or two. I do see five seasons for each in which they were in the discussion as the best player or the best pitcher in the league.

3. I guess that Whitey Ford is the only pitcher whose war credit may have pushed him over the edge, Spahn and Feller were in easily. who else could use it? Maybe Trucks, Walters, or Trout? I am a big Walters fan but his best seasons were righ tbefore the war so only career andmaybe backof prime credit should be given.
Thanks. I’ll take another look at Trucks, Walters and Trout and see if war credit gives them any boost in my rankings.

4. This isn't so much directed at you, Chris, but I would say to everyone that if you give war credit to pitchers you should do it uniformly. When Chris states Newcombe's off field shenanigans (eeeevil shenanigans!) ending his career early that shouldn't be a reason to give war credit becuase he had a short career anyway. It should either be that you are giving it to pitchers or not.
I agree. I try to give war credit uniformly. And one of the ways that I try to do that is by giving credit to pitchers as well as position players. I’m not giving Newcombe any credit because his career ended early. I would give Newcombe the exact same amount of war credit whether his career ended at 34 or 42. I was simply replying to the stated argument that pitchers don’t deserve as much war credit because the “time off” helps to lengthen their careers. Newcombe’s career wasn’t exactly long to begin with, so he didn’t benefit from the “time off.”

59. rico vanian Posted:
I just dont understand the love for Charlie Keller. I have a real problem making assumptions that he deserves big-time MVP level consideration for his time away in the military. Finishes in the mvp voting of 13,14 and 15 for 1942, 43 and 46? His numbers are not that strong imho.

I compare that to Ralph Kiner, led the league in Homers for 7 straight years and had mvp finishes from 47-51 of 6-7-4-5-10 while playing on horrible teams.

I just don't see how anyone could rate Keller higher than Kiner.<i>
I agree. Jschmeagol’s arguments forced me to take a closer look at Keller. I may move him up in my rankings, but there’s no way he passes Kiner, who I currently have at 15.

60. sunnyday2 Posted:
<i>Probably no player in the history of MLB lost his peak more than Newcombe, except for some guy we've never heard of who got killed in WWII but coulda/woulda grown up to be another Ralph Kiner or Al Rosen.

I give WWII credit but never higher than a real peak demonstrated on the field. As a peak voter, I have never felt that that was unfair to any player. Except Newcombe (yes I know it was Korea in his case). Still I haven't extrapolated a higher peak than what he did on the field and with that he cannot possibly make my ballot. He is the one player I feel a little bit queasy about re. this methodology.

I agree. I never give credit higher than the real peak. Newcombe’s best year was 1956 when he 27-7 with a 3.06 ERA. I don’t postulate any missing seasons that are higher than that. But I do look at his surrounding seasons, in this case ’50 and ’51 and ’55 and ’56. In those four seasons, Newcombe went 19-11, 20-9, 20-5 and 27-7. It’s not unreasonable to guess that his two missing seasons would have fit in with that grouping. So what does Newcombe’s career look like with two more 20-7 seasons? Well, suddenly, we’re talking about a guy who’s 189-104 not 149-90. What does Newcombe look like with two more seasons in the top five for winning percentage, ks/9 and whip? He’s a lot closer to a HoMer once we give him due credit for those missing seasons.

And what if we give Newcombe Negro League credit? His MLE of 8-3 brings him to 197-107. And as I noted earlier, it seems silly to me not give Newcombe credit for the three years that he spent in the minors when we would have given him NeL credit if he had stayed put. Even giving him average numbers for those years, a 12-12 or a 14-10 and we’re looking at a guy who is now a 215-220 game winner. Those shoulder seasons do put Newcombe in the neighborhood of Pierce and Bunning and Drysdale. He’s not clearly ahead of those guys. I never said that he was. But he’s deservedly in that group.

61. sunnyday2 Posted:
I have Kiner ahead of Keller, but I certainly don't find that MVP voting results are a good data point for any analysis.

62. DavidFoss Posted:
Yeah, 1943 voters had Billy Johnson and Nicke Etten ahead of Bill Dickey and Charlie Keller. Wacko.
I agree. Jschmeagol argued that Keller had more MVP level seasons that Newcombe. I disagreed and I used two different measuring points to demonstrate that: actual MVP voting and OPS+ and ERA+. If you don’t like those measurements, that’s fine. I don’t put stock in the actual voting myself, and I don’t give anybody a bonus for winning the award or a penalty for finishing out of the top ten. However, those votes are one indication as to whether a player was at his peak or in his prime. But they’re useless without other measurements to back them up. I used those numbers in this case because jschmeagol raised the particular issue that Keller had more MVP level seasons than Newcombe. Use whatever measurement you like, but both Newcombe and Keller come out with the same number of quality seasons.
   68. OCF Posted: July 12, 2006 at 05:40 PM (#2096865)
To be fair Lopes, Morgan, Grich, and Carew, Rose certainly didn't fit the prototype, but they were the front-line talent.

I don't think you can do that - separate them out and say "but they're different." For one thing, this project is about front-line talent. Of course it's fair to say that so-and-so candidate wasn't the best 2B around but we won't hold that against him becuase he happened to share his times with Joe Morgan and Joe Morgan was a once-in-a-lifetime talent. But we can't just remove all of the best players from the context - they are the context.
   69. Daryn Posted: July 12, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#2096881)
Ralph Kiner, led the league in Homers for 7 straight years

I am a Kiner supporter, so I don't make this post to question his candidacy, but I have often wondered how he would do here if he had three fewer homeruns in his career so placed that he ended up with only 4 homerun titles rather than 7.
   70. sunnyday2 Posted: July 12, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#2096885)
Wouldn't matter to me.

(Signed) OPS+ Lover
   71. DL from MN Posted: July 12, 2006 at 06:06 PM (#2096899)
I disagree. Even with war credit there isn't enough for Newcombe. I wouldn't give him 3 years of Major League credit for his pitching in the minors. That would assume he was a major league average pitcher at age 20. His Negro League years were even younger. You have to make all the assumptions in his favor to make him a 215 game winner including an 8-3 record at age 18. I think he's being evaluated fairly.

The non-sequential ERA+ side by sides (min 160IP):

B Pierce 201 148 141 136 133 124 115 113 108 107 107 105 104 103
Newcombe 130 130 129 128 128 128 120 119 111 89

Two of those 128s are war credit. Without them Newcombe is outpointed by Pierce every time.
   72. sunnyday2 Posted: July 12, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#2096919)
Well, it's not as if every possible favorable judgment isn't made for Gavy Cravath, not that most voters buy it, but I mean by his supporters.

As for Newcombe and those two 128s, those should be as automatic as WWII credit for everybody else. I don't see those as controversial at all. I agree that reasonable people can disagree on giving him the 3 minor league years is another story. But 1-2 of those were almost surely MLE quality years.

The knock on Newc clearly is that 130 as his bestest ever. That's not a lot. But of course there is that incredible consistency. I doubt if we have ever seen a pitcher with 6 years within 2 ERA+ points. And you could argue for another couple 120s from those MiL seasons, for a total of 9 years > 120. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I think that is pretty damn impressive. Still a 130 on the far left of that line does not impress a peak voter.

But as I said before, I think Newc's career was probably affected by externalities more than any player in ML history--well, along with Luke Easter. And his whole generation was very poorly served by the events of the day.
   73. TomH Posted: July 12, 2006 at 07:41 PM (#2096982)
adjusting only 3 points in ERA+ (and the NL vs AL in the 1950s is probably at least that) would put Billy and Don even for years 2 thru 9:
B Pierce.... 201 / 148 141 136 133 124 115 113 108 / 107 107 105 104 103
NewNewkm133 / 133 132 131 131 131 123 122 114 / 90
Newcombe 130 / 130 129 128 128 128 120 119 111 / 89

Pierce is ahead in my book, but it's not THAT far off, especially if you postulate a little minor lg credit.
   74. Chris Fluit Posted: July 12, 2006 at 08:20 PM (#2097027)
73. TomH: Pierce is ahead in my book, but it's not THAT far off, especially if you postulate a little minor lg credit.
I agree, which is why I have Pierce 7th and Newcombe 10th.
   75. andrew siegel Posted: July 12, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#2097029)
If you look at the DERA data at prospectus, Newcombe loses a lot of ground. Though I haven't studied it too careful, it does seem like he was pitching in front of some outstanding defenses.
   76. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: July 12, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#2097040)
Yeah, 1943 voters had Billy Johnson and Nicke Etten ahead of Bill Dickey and Charlie Keller. Wacko.


Marty Marion 1944. .267/.324/.362. Okay, that's from short (and Marty was a good glove) and was good for a 91 OPS+, which is a pretty nice player to have. But what the hell?

Wait, the Cardinals won the World Series, so maybe there was a bonus there?

Stan Musial, in 1944, was second in average, first in OBP, first in slugging, first in OPS and adjusted OPS+, second in runs, first in hits, second in total bases, first in doubles, fourth in triples, seventh in RBI, third in walks, first in Runs Created, first in extra-base hits, first in times on base, and fifth in hit-by-pitches.

So what the hell, man.
   77. DL from MN Posted: July 12, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2097094)
I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Pierce trounces him in top 3 seasons, is essentially even through the next 3 and has 4 additional good seasons (plus one great season in relief) that Newcombe never pitched. I will agree that Newcombe's 7-9 is better than Pierce's 7-9 assuming war credit. It's just that Pierce wins handily in 1-6 and 10-15. Pierce also gets relief leverage credit that probably offsets the NL advantages. I have 70 candidates between Newcombe and Pierce.
   78. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:03 AM (#2097200)
Thanks for letting me in! About me and my HOM's preferences. I'm a peak guy, but not extreme at all. WARP3 is how I take a 30,000 feet view of each man's career, and adjust according to peak. I appreciate the career guys, so long as there's some substance to it. I put premiums towards to more difficult positions. I might be off on some of the NeL'ers here, so feel free to point out any flaws in my logic. I want to be a part of this and learn a few things from it, (and I have learned a TON just from following you guys). So here's my prelim ballot. Flame away!

1. Bob Gibson - Love the peak, had a reasonably long career. Most of the concerns about the era seem to be downgraded by his RA+ and the like.
2. Harmon Killebrew - I don't have him quite as close to Gibson as some, because his peak was sporadic. Still a damn fine ball player and a shoo-in HOM'er. Not much defensive value, but one of the best hitters of his era.
3. Ralph Kiner - Peak guy through and through. Career length the only ? Hard to argue with his age 24 - 28 seasons. Closer to Killebrew than Killer is to Gibson.
4. Jose Mendez - Initial analysis puts him here, due to fantastic peak. Could have been an all-time great if not for the arm troubles. Was a good enough hitter to hold a job as a position guy after the arm injury.
5. Minnie Minoso - I think this is a good spot for a guy who had the best balance of career and peak. Minnie is a guy I'm open to arguments that he should be lower. I might be sentimentally overrating him.
6. Joe Sewell - For a shortstop, tremendous peak for his time. Great glove guy. Not so good after move off of SS. Positional scarcity premium.
7. Billy Pierce - Guy I'm having some trouble with. Odd peak, but that 1955 keeps grabbing my attention.
8. Hugh Duffy - I like his overall profile. Good on-base guy, reasonably good glove. Love that his teams outperformed what they were supposed to do.
9. Ken Boyer - Good peak for a 3B in that era. Fantastic glove guy. Here looks about right.
10. George Van Haltren - Maybe I'm overrating his defense. But another guy who's overall profile I like. More of a career guy, but a decent, if not odd, peak.
11. Rube Waddell - What a peak. Decent career, only knock is he maybe didn't throw as many innings as you might like.
12. Charlie Keller - Basically Ralph Kiner lite. If he had played as many games as Kiner, he'd be right there with him.
13. Cupid Childs - A guy I might be underrating. I love those age 22 - 25 seasons, and it looks like he had a decent glove.
14. Pete Browning - Good peak gets a discount due to competition, but not so much that Pete doesn't get a spot on my ballot. May move up in the future as I look into him more.
15. Charley Jones - Right there with Browning, I just feel Browning did a little more to deserve his spot.
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#2097208)
Looks good, Melky. The anti-timeliners will love you, you're not oblivious to remaining NeL candidates, and you're not ignoring the young turks. The careers guys will be upset (though you throw them a bone with Van Haltren, but them's the breaks. :-)

Welcome!
   80. Trevor P. Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2097219)
Sorry, comrades - I missed a few years there. Buying a car, moving to a new city, starting a new job, and visiting le family two provinces over will do that to a person.

I’m posting a preliminary ballot because I can’t guarantee I’ll remember to post an official one next week. Could someone move this to the ballot thread if I don’t?

All my bracketed positions are from 1977, by the way. And I had Kaline, Santo and Marichal 1-2-3 last year.

1) Bob Gibson (ne). Top five in IP eight times. Great WARP peak.
2) Harmon Killebrew. (ne) Best available hitter.
3) George Van Haltren (2). Consolidated league, long career, scads of win shares, and a pretty decent late-career prime. Don’t be swayed by the latest WARP translations (or, if you are, make sure you vote for Bob Johnson!) - GVH belongs.
4) Jake Beckley (3). 125 OPS+ in over 10,000 adjusted AB is quite a lot of value, even though I've moved slowly towards valuing a 9-year prime over a strict career.
5) Billy Pierce (6). I know it’s in vogue to compare Pierce to Marichal. But we enshrined contemporary Bob Lemon, and Pierce has nearly double (198 to 107) the amount of adjusted PRAA, and wins out in DERA 3.97 to 4.17. Do 220 more total bases at bat really make up that difference? If Lemon belongs, so does Pierce.
6) Quincy Trouppe (4). More appearances per season than Schang, and a much better hitter than Mackey. Probably Hartnett-lite. It's been bandied about on the Negro League induction thread that Trouppe wasn't even nominated for consideration, which unless our evaluations are way off is quite a shame.
7) Cupid Childs (5). Coming into the 1970s, I'd thought I might have been overrating Childs's contributions, but my 2B reevaluation in 1971 underscored how impressive his peak really was.
8) Bob Johnson. (12) Beats Minoso in career EQA, WARP1, WARP3, and OPS+. Probably one of the top five or six OF of the 1930s. Something interesting I noticed awhile ago - Johnson appears to be the only eligible player we haven’t enshrined who, according to BP’s translations, would have hit 500 HRs.
9) Edd Roush (7). Hurt by the discount to WARP3. Comparable to the now-elected Richie Ashburn.
10) Burleigh Grimes (8). Substantial movement in 1976 after comparing his case with Eppa Rixey, whom I had as high as #2. His extreme highs are enough to balance out his scary lows; if he’d grouped them all together, instead of vacillating between the two extremes, we might have the pitching equivalent of George Sisler.
11) Minnie Minoso (ne). Similar to Bob Johnson; placement depends on how much credit you give for his pre-ML play. I can’t fathom how one could have Minoso in an elect-me position and Johnsn off-ballot, though.
12) Bob Elliott (9). After dropping two spots in 1975, jumps back up. Not as good as Stan Hack, but quite similar. Severe lack in quality 3B during Elliott’s era.
13) Dick Redding (10). No longer do I see him as better than Grimes.
14) Jimmy Ryan (15). All the GVH comparisons are valid; I just think Van Haltren’s a tad better.
15) Joe Sewell (ne). Value accrued above contemporaries at his position helps him, just as it does Elliott.

Jose Mendez - Below Koufax, whom I had around #25.
Hugh Duffy - Win Shares might like his fielding, but WARP declares him to be average. His 1894 doesn’t impress me as much when league strength is taken into account.
Ralph Kiner – In a second tier of short-career corner outfielders like Charlie Keller and Pete Browning. He’s the best, though, and is currently just off the ballot.
Rube Waddell - Also not too far from the ballot; similar to Tommy Bridges.
   81. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2097225)
3B Depth Chart

1. Ken Boyer (13) - I know that this may look weird as a peak guys, what with McGraw and Rosen on the board, but I guess this is where I seperate myself from guys liek Mark and Bernie. Some of this is a WS/WARP thing. WARP loves his defense while WS isn't as enamored with him. When it comes to defensive stars I tend to trust WARP as WS seems to always underrate them. His peak is decent, not great but I really like his prime and he does have a nice career. I will admit there is some 3B bonus here, as without it we wouldn't have many more 3B than the HOF has and that would be a shame.

2. Al Rosen (16) - Great peak, but there are some problems. WARP acutally likes Boyer's peak better, at least in my system. This is because of Boyer's defense and that my system rewards sustained peaks. Rosen's WS peak is also buoyed by one big year, whic is fine, he did play well that year, but I am not sure if WS correctly captures it. At his best he was wonderful. In some ways he could be Jennings lite I guess, even shorter peak and not quite as high.

3. John McGraw (25) - Another 'winner' in my re-eval as he moves p about 14 spots or so. Very nice peak and a very good rate player. However, same as with Chance, in season durability is a big concern and it realy hampered his production when he was at his best.

4. Bob Elliot (27) - These four guys are cloesly bunched enough that I could see any one of them at the top, such is the nature of our backlog. Elliot was certainly a better hitter than Boyer but he slides under him for two reasons 1) war dedcutions prime his peak and prime down under Boyer's, and 2) Defense and WARP's take on them 'break the tie', so to speak, and do it pretty loudly.

5. Tommy Leach (43) - I used to relly like him and had him as high as #6 at one point. However, I then went back and looked at his seasons as a CFer and his seasons as a 3B and it turns out a lot of his best yeras were not as a 3B but as a CFer. WS, which I use as my 'system's' base, has the tendendcy to overrate OFers in general and CFers in particular for whatever reason. This forced me to do some juggling and Leach has been out of my top 30 for about 30 'years' now.

6. Traynor (51) - Some of this ranking is about disbelief that he could actually have only been this good. I think his defense is underrated by the uberstats and his offense did come in a time of no offense at 3B. Still, the raw numbers in my system would have him lower than this. Very little peak and an unimpressive prime.

Next group, all out of my top 60
7. Ed Williamson - Most of his peak tends to come in one big year, sorry sunny
8. Jim Gilliam
9. Arlie Latham
10. Hienie Zimmerman - Baseball third best hiney.
   82. sunnyday2 Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:51 AM (#2097283)
3B is even tougher than 2B, what with the peak vs. career issues, offense vs. defense, and era issues that go beyond the usual because of the changing importance of defense. Oddly enough, j's list is pretty peaky and I consider myself to be a peak/prime voter, yet there's not a lot of agreement:

(1a. Hack--not yet PHoM)
1. Williamson--was on my ballot until a decade or so ago, now around #21
2. Boyer--but only #34 overall
3. Rosen--even I like a little more bulk
4. Traynor--enough of an edge on defense to rate
5. Elliott
6. McGraw--another guy lacking in bulk, and we're more than half way to #100 now
7. Leach
(7a. Ezra Sutton)
8. Denny Lyons

HM--Kell, Lave Cross, Judy Johnson, Dandridge
   83. Chris Fluit Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:35 AM (#2097307)
3. I guess that Whitey Ford is the only pitcher whose war credit may have pushed him over the edge, Spahn and Feller were in easily. who else could use it? Maybe Trucks, Walters, or Trout? I am a big Walters fan but his best seasons were righ tbefore the war so only career andmaybe backof prime credit should be given.

jschmeagol, I went ahead and took another look at these three guys.

How does Walters get any war credit? He never missed a complete season. He played full seasons in '43 and '44 which are the years that most players missed. And he still played 2/3 of the season in '45 and '46. Are you sure that the 1/3 of the season that he missed those two years was due to military service? Even if it was, Walters is only getting 1/3 of a year plus 1/3 of a year credit. I'm not going to dismiss him as a candidate as his '39-'41 is pretty impressive but I don't see a lot of war credit going his way.

I have the same questions for Dizzy Trout. He never missed a complete season. Are all of his partial seasons due to military service? Are any of them?

Virgil Trucks I'll give you. He missed all of 1944 and all but one game of 1945. That's two full years of war credit for him. I don't think that's enough to get him onto my ballot as he doesn't have much black ink, but it does get him closer.
   84. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 05:29 AM (#2097324)
Chris,

1. I was just thinking of war era pitchers that may need credit, I hadn't looked at the list very closely. Probably should have done that.

2. On Keller vs. Newcombe, we both seem to be BF's of these two players (well James may be Keller's best firend I am not sure) so we will in the end simply be talking past each other. However, Keller's in season games played isn't as big an issue with me since he is still putting up 30 WS seasons even while missing a few games a year. And IP is different as having a lot of IP in a year is a skill. I guess my problem with Newcombe is that he doesn't have a great peak, even if he may have looked like one of the best pitchers in the league. His ERA+'s at his best aren't great and neither are his IP (I will admit that top 5 in IP was arbitraty, it is just what BBref posted) And besides being among the 4 or 5 best pitchers each year isn't as impressive as being one fo the 4 or 5 best position players since there are twice a many regular postions for the latter (8 vs.4) at this respective time (40's and 50's)

I can concede that Newcombe had as many good or quality years (or at least roughly as many, with a year here or there) as Keller. I just can't see how Keller's years weren't more valuable than Newcombe's. And with Newcombe in my top 30, I count as a friend of his I suppose.

Melky,

Welcome aboard! I take it you are a Yankees fan which is always a plus. On your Keller comment, I would just say that with War and MiL credit Keller does have the bulk that Kiner had, at least where it counts. Kiner's extra years tagged ont eh end can't count for much can they? Also, I would say that OPS+, if you weigh that heavily, will underrate Keller slightly because his OPS+ is weighted more towards OBP than Kiner's. However, I guess I can see Kiner above Keller as they are bothin the top 5 of my backlog. Just wanted to point out that I dont 'think Keller has less bulk than Kiner.

Sunny,

On Childs v. Fox, Cupid has as higher peak and prime (by decent margins) and similar career value in my system ,after scheudle adjustments of course, so I don't see them as particualrly close and therefore didnt' bother comparing them. Yes, CHilds get a deduction for playing 2B whenit was more like a modern 3B (so does Doyle) but at the same time he played it at a time when it was really hazardous to do so, which may make his career value more impressive. I see Nellie Fox as borderline and Childs as easily in the bottom third.
   85. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 08:13 AM (#2097360)
Crazy idea which is probably wrong but what they hey...

You would have to accept that the goal of every baseball team is to win the World Series, or for our purposes, since we haven't put a lot of weight on October play, the Pennant for this to work. You will laos ahve to accept that what I am laying out is truly hypothetical and is only an example.

Now before expansion and the enlargement of the playoff pool, the only route that a team had to the World series was the regular season. In this context it was better to finish 4,1,1,4,5 than 2,2,2,2,2 in terms of pennants won. Therefore it was better for a team to have players playing at a high level for a season or two or three since a lot of second place finishes didn't really mean that much and flags fly forever. In this context a Charlie Keller or an Al Rosen would be worth more than maybe a Bob Johnson or a Rabbit Maranville (these aren't perfect comparisons but my point should be clear, high peak over low peak but more consistent players). Obviously there are other considerations but stay with me here.

Now that we are beginning to evaluate players whose peak and prime fell during the post-1969 era, is it possible that this could change? Assuming that finishing 2nd in 1968 was like winning the division in 1969 and thus getting to the LCS, it would not be more beneficial to finish 2,2,2,2,2 than 4,1,1,4,5 since the first team gets five cracks at the World Series and the second team gets only 2 when before it was 0-2. As the playoffs expand the pressure to finish as the top team in a league means less and less, is it possible that peak value declines and career value becomes more important? For teams it is better to be the 90's Braves than the 2001 Mariners, so superstars are less important.

Of course this rests on a few other assumptions.

1. That the playoffs don't exactly follow the amount of teams in the league. For instance 2 playoff teams in a 16 team league should make peak value just as important as having 1 playoff team in an 8 team league, you still have to finish in the top 12.5% for a shot to win a pennant/WS. A simple look over baseball's playoff formation shows that this isn't the case and since the playoff format has been instituted the percentage of teams playing in the postseason has grown. The only period in which it fell was the 1960's, which may possibly make high peak players more valuable in that decade.

2. That the playoffs give teams a pretty equal shot at advancing, i.e. that finishing first isn't that big of a deal. I think that this is true, I believe that Nate Silver gives the team with home field advantage a 51.3% chance to win a series if the teams are of equal quality and I am not sure any team has more than a 55% chance of winning any series with another playoff caliber team in a seven game series, let alone a 5 game series. This is far less of an advantage than would have over a 154 or 162 game season. The last five WS, for instance, has had a Wild Card team participating.

So assuming that both fo the above are true, I am postulating that peak value was very importnat prior to 1969, more important than most voters may think that it is, because finishing first in the league was paramount, so the added value of a playing having a superstar year is higher than post 1969. However, after 1969, career value (or at least prime value) may become more important because one does not have to finish 1st in the league or in the top 12.5% of teams, hell teams can finish fourth in the league and still have a more than resaonable shot at winning the pennant and the World Series. Just ask baseball fans in Miami, assuming they still exist.

Of course career guys are going to say that peak is overrated and you need plenty of average players to make a team great and the peak guys are going to say that we are only electing the best players ever and that they should be players who were superstars or very clsoe to that level. This could be true but I am not sure that this is what I am getting at. I guess I just want to know if maybe we should elect maybe Keller and Kiner over Johnson and Minoso, Browning over Beckley, etc. but in the future look toward Andre Dawson and Rafael Palmeiro over say, Dale Murphy and Albert Belle because their relative advantages were more or less valuable to their teams depending on the context in which they played.

There, wake up to that!
   86. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 09:10 AM (#2097371)
Why do some people make a huge issue about IP leaders, but I've never heard mentioned of a player's great PA totals?
Or how about TC's.

Am I alone in thinking the issue just a little absurd?
   87. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 09:36 AM (#2097374)
1. Issues are made with in-seasons PA totals, just look at Chance, Roush, McGraw, and Cash

2. one IP is much more valuable than one PA and there seems to be a wider variance in season. A 50 PA difference is probalby the equivalent of what, 10 Innings? We dotn tend to squabble based on 10 IP in a year, The difference between 1 adn 5th is more like 30-40 or more in a season. What is the difference in PA between 1 adn 5th, 25? 30?

3. IP seems to be more of a skill than PA. Obviously not getting hurt is a skill to some degree as is the ability to hit both LHP and RHP (though some dont' think the latter ability really exists), but IP is much more about ability. In a given game you are going to ge tyour 4-5 PA's pretty much no matter what, but you have ot pitch well to get into the 7th, 8th or 9th inning.

4. PA is more context dependent. Playing on a bad team gets you fewer PA, hitting lower in the order gets you fewer PA. you can't always control this season to season (it may even out over a career) But IP for starters generally comes down to a pitcher's endurance and his effectiveness.

5. When we cite OPS+, we do ask if it is in 200 or 400 or 600 PA's, just like we do ERA+. Only for ERA+ we dont' use set numbers of IP because they change depending on the era, so we have to rely a little more on league rankings. An IP+ would acutally be nice in this case.
   88. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 10:12 AM (#2097379)
jschmeagol - I was being a little bit facetious, but my point reminas that I do not put too much stock in IP totals relative to league. What I try to do when looking at starters is compare the starter's IP totals with other starters on his team.
I beleive that different managers have different ways of handling a pitching staff. Livan Hernandez has not been a top pitcher, but always tops the IP list, right?

His manager used him that way.

The other way around - Pedro in the playoffs 3 years ago. That extra inning really hurt him and his team because his manager used him that way.

I think this issue segues nicely into another one I find very important and which (it seems) sets me apart from the electorate. Players can, and do, retire when they no longer feel that they can perform at a level of excellence they have established.

Many stay on for the money - a fact less excusable with every passing year.
Nevertheless, Koufax was still excellent and wanted when he walked.

Lefty Gomez was starting to lose it, so he walked in 1943.

After pitching one game for Washington (he lost) in 1943, Gomez retired, later to hook up with the Wilson sporting goods company as a goodwill ambassador. He was asked on joining Wilson why he had left his last position. Gomez, who never took himself seriously, responded that he left because he couldn't "get the side out."


Yes, it was Lefty Gomez, so I can take it with a grain of salt. The fact remains that he had a shortish career.
He definitely could have pitched through the war, if not beyond.
But he beleived, as do I, that a thoroughbred athlete has to have the pride to know when enough is enough.

I think with his super high peak and short career, anyone who votes for Bucky Walters and/or Dizzy Dean has to look at Lefty Gomez.
   89. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 12:02 PM (#2097389)
Teh problem is that not IP is a very good way to accumulate value and if you not have many of them it doesn't matter how low your ERA is you won't accumulate much value (unles syou are a reliver with a really high LI). There are some managers who have different policies, i.e. Stengel and Houk saving Ford for the top teams in the AL, but all in all their really isn't enough variation to discount IP totals outside of the odd case. Do you have any evidence that Joe McCarthy liked to pull his starters early?

Who would you rate higher a guys with a 150 ERA+ in 200 Innings or a guys iwth a 145 ERA+ in 250 innings, I would say the latter is much more valuable.

As to Livan Hernandez, he has been a very good pitcher in the past but high IP totals year in and year out are a skill that some pitchers have and some do not. Livan should get rewarded for this. And about Pedro, I don't think it was Grady Little use of him that caused him to break down in game seven, but instead Pedro inability to go deep into games (generally past 100-105 pitchers), something that still plagues him. Is there any evidence that Little used his starter's any less than he should have during his tenure with the Red Sox? Was Derek Lowe treated this way? Tim Wakefield?
   90. TomH Posted: July 13, 2006 at 12:25 PM (#2097395)
This only has marginal HoM value, but I found it last night and thot it interesting, so I'll spin it as info on Ralph Kiner.

From the post-WWII era (1946) and the end of 2002, how many hitters had retired with an on-base average higher than Ralph Kiner? Of those, how many hit right-handed?

Kiner's career OBA: .398.

This is the 2nd highest OBA for RH batters, 1946 thru 2002 (excluding those still active in 2002, like Rickey Henderson and Edgar Martinez). Minimum of 5000 career PA. Third best is Eddie Yost's .394.

Who was the only hitter with an OBA over .400 in this period?

I would not have guessed - Jackie Robinson, at .409.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: July 13, 2006 at 12:31 PM (#2097398)
Rawagman,
Most of our HOM hitting contenders have somewhat similar PA totals (Chance, McGraw, Cash and somewhat Roush being exceptions), so it doesn't have to be referenced as often.

But P's IP per season can vary quite a bit. I have Pierce pretty high on my ballot, but it would be disingenuous not to recognize that he wasn't quite the workhorse that others were.
Lots of Ps get hurt every year or totally lose it. Being above-average and among the most-used Ps is more valuable than the hitting counterpart. The very act of throwing a pitch is stressing the arm a lot more than swinging a bat is stressing the body.
I wouldn't object to noting the odd manager who underutilized his star pitcher, but for the most part the best guy pitches the most. And Livan DOES deserve extra credit for being able to pitch fairly well; he just doesn't pitch well enough to get into the HOM.

Also, I'd say Koufax didn't just quit because his arm hurt. He quit because his arm hurt AND he knew he couldn't expect to dominate much longer.
Though I wouldn't assume that for $15 million, he might not have tried. It wasn't worth 100 grand for that kind of pain, however!
   92. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 13, 2006 at 12:57 PM (#2097417)
Welcome aboard! I take it you are a Yankees fan which is always a plus.


Sure am, and I'm glad to be here!


On your Keller comment, I would just say that with War and MiL credit Keller does have the bulk that Kiner had, at least where it counts. Kiner's extra years tagged ont eh end can't count for much can they? Also, I would say that OPS+, if you weigh that heavily, will underrate Keller slightly because his OPS+ is weighted more towards OBP than Kiner's. However, I guess I can see Kiner above Keller as they are bothin the top 5 of my backlog. Just wanted to point out that I dont 'think Keller has less bulk than Kiner.


Fair point, and something I need to look into a bit more before I finalize the ballot. I do like the OBP-heavy OPS+ of Keller, and I'll do some more analysis/comparison of the two before my final ballot. Thanks!
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:24 PM (#2097437)
jschmeagol,

I think your point about playoffs versus straight into the World Series is pretty dang interesting. The thing is you can not only not finish 1 in the league and still make the series, you can finish as low as 6, 7, 8, or 9, in theory. After all, a division winner like the 1987 Twins or 1973 Mets had a worse record than most of the teams in the other division(s), ditto the 1994 Texas Rangers, FW that's W.

So I think the issue becomes looking at divisions and leagues instead of just leagues. OR that to be fair to prior and subsequent eras, you still have to put players into a standings-neutral setting and figure out what their contribution to a hypothetical and historically normal pennant would be. Or something messy like that.
   94. sunnyday2 Posted: July 13, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2097459)
Re. Kiner and Keller. If Kiner's full 100-130-150 game seasons "tagged on the end can't count for much," what then of Keller's 2 years worth of games accumulated in 40-50-60 game chunks. You have to count those to get the same career totals, and yet they clearly don't have the value toward winning a pennant compared to 2 seasons worth of games accumulated in 2 seasons.

Add to that the question of whether Keller should get MiL credit...it is endemic to the game (unlike, say, WWII) that players are evaluated by ML management and have their opportunities constrained by that. A thousand players had the same experience and aren't getting MiL credit. This is a bit selective if you ask me.

Having said that, I have Keller's "line" both with and without the MiL credit and I eyeball it from time to time and ask myself whether it is fair to include it. As a peak voter, of course, the difference is that when I include it he ends up around #18-19 on my ballot and when I don't he is about #21-22.

But I think Kiner's career shape makes his totals a little more valuable (and, yes, a little more value is the difference between #3 and #20).
   95. DL from MN Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#2097474)
Melky, I'd like to see where you place Dick Redding and Dobie Moore. Most peak voters like those guys.
   96. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#2097478)
Who would you rate higher a guys with a 150 ERA+ in 200 Innings or a guys iwth a 145 ERA+ in 250 innings, I would say the latter is much more valuable.


When it's that cut and dried, I'll take pitcher B.

But if pitcher B had an ERA+ of only 130, I would rather have pitcher A.
Like I said, I look at IP on a team by team basis, as opposed to league by league.
   97. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:18 PM (#2097479)
Doc,

Yeah I was afraid of that. It would be really interesting to see but at the same time I know I do not have the time for it. Would be interesting though.

CF depth Chart

1. Hugh Duffy (3) - Rawagman must like this ranking. Duffy has been at the top of my backlog for a while now and I like him better than GVH and Jimmy Ryan based on a superior peak. Truth be told his WS peak is the highest of anyone on the board this year and is in some lofty company, almost as good as Jennings. There are problems with this, however. 1) WS gives him credit for extra wins his team had over both their pythag and their expected pythag, I think this is legitimate to a point. 2) WS loves CFers and especially those from the 1890's when CF wasn't as important a position. 3) WARP disagrees. So he isnt' #1 for me. I guess in order to have him this high you must be willing to accept that he deserves extra credit for his teams' performance, I think that is legit. If you dont' I can understand having him a little lower. Not sure why people dont' like him at all though. Must be OPS+ numbers.

2. Alejandro Oms (17) - I actually liked Oms better than Brown, who I saw as someone who may have failed spectacularly in MLB. Oms was a consistent guy who had many 27-30 WS seasons. I see him as Averill Lite with more career or maybe as GVH with a little more peak. Definitely a decent candidate, just off my ballot. Not as high as Duffy due to Duffy's high peak.

3. George Van Haltren (18) - Before Sunny and Sean have a tizzy, I classify Pete Browning as a corner OFer and no, it doesn't effect his overall ranking. Van Haltren seems like Duffy lite with a little more career. Again WS overrates him and WARP3 definitely underrates him. I think he is an eventual PHOM guy but that will take a while.

4. Wally Berger (23) - Speaking of Earl Averill Lite. Not a very long career but he was good throughout with a nice peak as well. Not much to say but I am kinda looking forward to the day that he will make my ballot, I think he is underrated by the electorate but then I understand not putting on a ballot, too many PHOM/not-HOMers really.

5. Edd Roush (30) - I like him more than Carey so in that sense he looks like a HOMer. I would probably support him more if he didn't have a series of injuries and holdouts that turned him from an MVP type player to a guy just a level below in terms of total value per season. However, his case isnt' as extreme as some. I may be underrating him, but I also have a lot of CFers in my top 30.

6. Hack Wilson (39) - Very nice peak, though there is disagreement between the uberstats, where I think WARP penalizes him a little more for his defense. Still, he would be Charlie Keller lite if Keller had no war or MiL credit, maybe more like Charlie Keller skim.

7. Roy Thomas (41) - A guy I have a bit of a thing for, I think I am the only person to give him a vote since 1925 or so. He had ten very good seasons, all with at least 20 WS and he had a few years at MVP level. Good defense and a very good OBP guy, though he may have struggled in some eras with his complete lack of XBH's. Again, he could be called Earl Averill Lite, there seem to be a bunch of these guys in CF.

8. Jimmy Ryan (44) - In some ways this almost seems indefensible. How can I have Ryan at #44 with Duffy #3 and GVH #18? However, whenever I look over him I try and move him up and usually can only do it a few spots. I just like the guys above him more. Maybe I am penalizing him for being at a pretty deep position. I mean how many CFers can really be in the top 30? Five even seems a little high, let alone 8. I am open here but I doubt that he will move significantly. Does he still have supporters?

9. Fielder Jones - To me he is Roy Thomas Lite, I dont' like his peak as much but he has more career. I guess this comes down to preference really.

I don't think I am missing any major candidates. Max Carey and Cool Papa Bell would be in the Wilson/Thomas/Ryan crowd. I am not big fans of them but they have so much career/prime value I can't really deny them top 50 status. If they weren't elected already that it.
   98. Daryn Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:19 PM (#2097480)
Jschmeagol,

I find some problems with your theory. First, in order to finish first it may NOT be better to have high peak players who will mix in average or below average seasons as well. As many have postulated, it may be easiest to build a first place team around a 25-25-25-25-25-25-25-25 WS player than it is to build a first place team around a 37-15-32-18-22-16-35-25 WS player.

More importantly, however, we would all agree (I think) that a 40 WS season on a last place team is as valuable as a 40 WS season on a first place team (all other things being equal). Your system starts to deal with the ACTUAL value of a season in a certain context and if we go down that road then the actual value of performances for any non-playoff team is zero -- at least in terms of winning the pennant, World Series or making the playoffs. Since we do not believe in assessing value in that way, I think the relevance of how easy it is to get into the playoffs becomes severely limited.
   99. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#2097486)
wags,

Maybe I should say 140ERA+ in 250 innings then. I am jstu not too sure of a team by team bssis unless you have some evidence that the coach really had a historic habit of pulling his pitchers early or of selective use of a certain pitcher i.e. Whitey Ford. I mean there will be 16 guys who look really good on a team by team basis. If not fine, but then you should at least understand why a peak voter like myself isn't even a Gomez fan.

sunny,

Kiner does have more career but as we have both stated the stuff tacked onto the end of a career doesn't really matter to peak voters. I know you dont' like MiL credit so arguing with you there won't really work. I just want to say that it isn't like I am counting every single season. Keller seems to have two ro three seasons at all-star level or higher in the MiLs, take the first one out and you get some very good seasons where any other MLB team but the Yankees would have taken him. Should he be punished for being a Yankee?

Actually, as a Twins fan, maybe you shouldnt' answer that...
   100. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:34 PM (#2097492)
jschmeagol - love the Duffy!
Now, if I can convince you to switch Roush with GVH, everyone will be happy. (everyone being confined to myself).

In other news, I finally got around to grading Gibson in my system. As I suspected, he came out tops for pitchers. But it was closer than I would have thought to Waddell.

I checked my figures, and I was probably undervaluing pitcher ink. Adding a bit more stress to that moves DD, Marichal ad Bunning a little closer to my PHOM. DD might be #1 in my backlog now.
Welch also jumped up a few spots.

Also, kudos on the resuscitation of the Bus Clarkson thread. I was missing out on him. With those figures, he comes ot as 6th among 3B.
MArvin Williams as 10th among 2B.

I also just realized that Tommy Leach was completely neglected by me.
His lowish OPS+ numbers are a bit off-putting, but his defense and flexibility put him at 7th among CF's.

Which brings me to CF #6 - Pete Reiser. ANyone who likes Keller, should love Reiser.
Trade a little of Keller's bat (only a little) for a better glove at a more defensive position. Even more war credit. And 4 times the black ink.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1833 seconds
49 querie(s) executed