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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Daryn Posted: July 13, 2006 at 02:52 PM (#2097501)
Which brings me to CF #6 - Pete Reiser.

Which raises the question -- who is the biggest "what if"? in baseball history. I have always thought it was Reiser. Herb Score is another good candidate. Roy Hobbs?
   102. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2097506)
All those guys who died while active. Pistol Pete was special.
   103. Mike Webber Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:04 PM (#2097509)
Biggest What if?
This Guy would probably be a Hall of Famer considering his start, the Cardinals becoming a strong team shortly after his death, and the fact that a lot of his contemporaries got in.
   104. Daryn Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2097510)
This Guy would probably be a Hall of Famer considering his start, the Cardinals becoming a strong team shortly after his death, and the fact that a lot of his contemporaries got in.

I don't know him, but his most similar player on BBRef is another what if, the Angel Lyman Bostock.
   105. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:07 PM (#2097511)
Question:

Is there any quantitative measure of Pete Browning's defense or baserunning? His reputation is awful (multiple sources). I'm sort of surprised he gets as much support as he does here, given that in everything but hitting (fielding, baserunning, not being drunk for half the games) he scores as low as any candidate I've seen. Is there something I'm missing? I looked over the 1899 thread and the Browning & Stovy thread and there didn't seem to be much discussion, but in the intervening 2 years someone could have posted some info to a discussion thread.
   106. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:24 PM (#2097515)
B-Will,

I think the gliding over of Brownings shortcomings is testament to his tremendous offensive ability. But yes, all of them are reputed poorly and wARP and WS see them somewhat differently. There's just not much out there on baserunning because a) there's no CS and b) there's not play-by-play records.

Mike ed al.,
Another great what-iffer: Morrie Rath.
   107. DanG Posted: July 13, 2006 at 03:41 PM (#2097529)
Regarding baserunning in the 19th century: Back in the teens someone here worked up a stat that showed runs scored per opportunity, or something like that. It showed that Harry Stovey scored a lot more runs than you would expect him to, given has own stats combined with the hitters around him.

I don't remember much more, but it seemed persuasive in getting Stovey over the hump and into the HoM. Does anyone else recall this, or am I hallucinating again?
   108. TomH Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#2097553)
no hallucinations. That WAS a big discussion, and it may just have gotten Harry in.
   109. sunnyday2 Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#2097558)
Walt Bond
   110. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:30 PM (#2097576)
Melky, I'd like to see where you place Dick Redding and Dobie Moore. Most peak voters like those guys.


DL,
I've got Cannonball and Dobie in the 16-20 range right now. I'm not sold that either were more than David Cone-types, though I'm willing to hear other's opinions.
   111. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:36 PM (#2097587)
There's just not much out there on baserunning because a) there's no CS and b) there's not play-by-play records.


and the rules on what constituted a stolen base were different, with the modern rule not being implemented until 1898. I actually would have liked seeing the original rule kept (runners going first-to-third on a single, for example, were credited with a stolen base) because that would have made the SB a better measure of overall baserunning.

-- MWE
   112. Mark Donelson Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:48 PM (#2097595)
Welcome aboard! I take it you are a Yankees fan which is always a plus.

Interesting. Is there something about being a Yankees fan that makes one particularly prone to value peak strongly? We now have jschmeagol, me, and Melky...

I'm not sold that either were more than David Cone-types

I'm assuming "David Cone-type" = just HOVG, and that you're aware Moore was not a pitcher?
   113. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 13, 2006 at 04:59 PM (#2097608)
I'm not sold that either were more than David Cone-types

I'm assuming "David Cone-type" = just HOVG, and that you're aware Moore was not a pitcher?


Poor choice of analogies on my part. Yes, I consider them both just outside the realm of HOM.
   114. DL from MN Posted: July 13, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2097613)
I think David Cone-type means "Guy I would put on my ballot". Cone looks a lot like Tommy Bridges to me.
   115. mulder & scully Posted: July 13, 2006 at 05:10 PM (#2097623)
Browning's fielding -
He was, shall we say, a poor outfielder. But, there were many poorly fielding outfielders during the 1880s. I invite all the voters who like freakshow numbers to look at BBRef's fielding results pages from the 1870s and 1880s. You have a perfect storm of short seasons (so small sample sizes), no or very small gloves, and horrible playing conditions (fields with grass high enough to hide baseballs in, holes, hills, etc.). Browning hit so well he was able to play for a relatively long career despite his fielding lapses.

Something else to consider about early defense. Fielders didn't necesarily play where we imagine them. I have read numerous stories about King Kelly, for example, (not just from the NBJHBA) who, while stationed in rightfield, would come into the infield when expecting a bunt. Other later outfielders, Tris Speaker for example, played much closer to the infield because the ball could not be hit as far as today's balls could.

I believe outfielders of early baseball would often play much closer to the infield then current-day outfielders and some errors were the result of trying to make assists on ground balls that made it through the infield. Some players in the early game had an assist every 2-3 games and an error at the same rate. Totally supposition on my part and these thoughts don't impact my player ratings, just something I think about.
   116. mulder & scully Posted: July 13, 2006 at 05:11 PM (#2097625)
Oh, and Melky welcome to the HoM. Your ballot looks fine to me. Good to have some new blood.
   117. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 13, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2097668)
Interesting. Is there something about being a Yankees fan that makes one particularly prone to value peak strongly? We now have jschmeagol, me, and Melky...

And me, also a huge Yanks fan.

It's the Keller, Maris, and Mattingly flowing through our veins.
   118. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2097686)
It's the Keller, Maris, and Mattingly flowing through our veins.

As opposed to the Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Ford, Dickey, and Berra running through your veins?

Or the White, Williams, Randolph, Nettles, and Posada running through your veins?

But definitely not the Meacham, Pasqua, Azocar, Geren, and Espinoza running through your veins....

(Gentle ribbing from a guy who grew up a Yankee fan in the Hudson Highlands, idolized Mattingly, but ultimately rejected them when someone told me, "But Mr. Chaleeko [I hadn't taken up the "Dr." yet], you say you're verging on socialism, yet you root for the Yankees? That's like rooting for the Bushes on Family Feud." I had to concede this point, and quickly the Yankee rooter inside me withered and died. It's the dilemma of the armchair, northestern liberal writ large.)
   119. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 13, 2006 at 06:46 PM (#2097727)
But definitely not the Meacham, Pasqua, Azocar, Geren, and Espinoza running through your veins....


Dear God, why must you remind me. The mid 80's is when I became a baseball fan. My first exposure to the Yankees that I recall was in 1987, just in time for the really lean years. They won the 96 World Series on my 15th birthday, so the pain i experienced in my early childhood was tempered by my teenage years. But Meacham, Pasqua, Azocar, Geren, Espinoza, along with Andy Hawkins, Dave LaPoint, Steve Trout, among many others, was an awful painful introduction to the game.
   120. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: July 13, 2006 at 06:58 PM (#2097746)
Which raises the question -- who is the biggest "what if"? in baseball history. I have always thought it was Reiser. Herb Score is another good candidate. Roy Hobbs?


Ankiel?
   121. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 13, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#2097748)
But Meacham, Pasqua, Azocar, Geren, Espinoza, along with Andy Hawkins, Dave LaPoint, Steve Trout, among many others, was an awful painful introduction to the game.

Two words. Mel Hall.
   122. Daryn Posted: July 13, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#2097752)
Ankiel?

Steve Dalkowski?
   123. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 13, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2097759)
As opposed to the Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Ford, Dickey, and Berra running through your veins?


Well, to be fair Herr Doktor Chaleeko, Gehrig was felled mid-career (albeit towards the end). Dickey was done at 32-33, Ford never threw the innings of some of the other 60's greats. You could argue that a disproportionate number of Yankee greats had shorter careers than you'd have hoped for (including Mantle and DiMaggio).
   124. DanG Posted: July 13, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#2097773)
no hallucinations. That WAS a big discussion, and it may just have gotten Harry in.

So, Tom, do you know where it is?
   125. TomH Posted: July 13, 2006 at 07:59 PM (#2097808)
errgh, no. I tried the 1899 ballot discussion, but it's not there. Must have occurred 'years' later. I don't see a separate thread for Stovey. Johnny M???
   126. DavidFoss Posted: July 13, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#2097850)
errgh, no. I tried the 1899 ballot discussion, but it's not there. Must have occurred 'years' later. I don't see a separate thread for Stovey. Johnny M???

There's a little bit of Stovey and R vs RC on page 2 of the 1907 discussion. OCF was the poster. Many of the table are clipped unfortunately. Maybe it will jog someone's memory though.
   127. rawagman Posted: July 13, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#2097887)
Interesting. Is there something about being a Yankees fan that makes one particularly prone to value peak strongly? We now have jschmeagol, me, and Melky...


I hate the Yankees. But I love me a peak.
   128. DanG Posted: July 13, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2097894)
There's a little bit of Stovey and R vs RC on page 2 of the 1907 discussion. OCF was the poster. Many of the table are clipped unfortunately.

Yeah, that's it! OCF explains it fully in the 1905 discussion. Unfortunately, the tables have pretty much all been clipped, so hopefully OCF will be kind enough to recreate some of it so we know how Browning rates.
   129. Mark Donelson Posted: July 13, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2098096)
I had to concede this point, and quickly the Yankee rooter inside me withered and died. It's the dilemma of the armchair, northestern liberal writ large.

I've spent years steadfastly resisting this line of argument, usually made to me by friends from up Boston way. Nothing wrong with rooting for U.S. Steel.
   130. OCF Posted: July 13, 2006 at 11:35 PM (#2098109)
Oh man, you want to dredge up that old thing? Yes I did use it to promote the candidacy of Stovey. I have vaguely uneasy feelings about that, because it's very unsophisitcated. All it was was actual runs scored, normalized to league context, but not corrected for everything else. So it has all the flaws of runs scored - it strongly favors leadoff men. It strongly favors people followed in the order by good hitting teammates (see Abner Dalrymple). It's a (seasonal) counting stat. It's not park-adjusted. I did put in some weak adjustments for league strength, but only in the third column of the table.

I found a post I made in the Max Carey thread that had a table in it; the post in the Carey thread didn't have Browning but I can add him. I'll also put in Stovey, Keeler, Brouthers, and Connor.

----

What about actual runs scored? Here's that old gimmick of mine, R*, for some selected players of interest. R* is runs scored normalized so that 100 in a season is a mark of excellence, often among the league leaders. In the list below, the first nmber is career R* (all-time leader so far, Cobb, 2187), the second number is career total of R* over 90 in a season, and the third number is career total of R* over 75 in a season.

Name             Total    >90    >75
Willie Keeler    1497     156    344
George J
Burns  1248     171    317
Harry Stovey     1359     196    312
Billy Hamilton   1273     169    308
Donie Bush       1296     143    277
Jesse Burkett    1400     103    266
Max Carey        1515     115    257
Dan Brouthers    1338     103    244
Abner Dalrymple   966     136    228
Roger Connor     1429      44    196
Hugh Duffy       1168      96    193
Jimmy Ryan       1377      78    192
Roy Thomas        990      81    182
Geo
Van Haltren 1265      56    181
Fielder Jones    1103      54    149
Pete Browning     840      41     88 


I was doing this mostly to look at Carey. He lasted a very long time and was quite good at scoring runs. As a peak rate, he wasn't scoring runs like Burns or Bush. I've got a different offensive measurement that says he was only a little better than Fielder Jones, and well behind Duffy/Ryan/Van Haltren, but he was so much better at scoring runs than Jones that I think that means something. He'll [Carey] probably make my ballot somewhere.

---

So: Browning wasn't a leadoff hitter - he seems to have always batted in the middle of the order. Scoring runs wasn't something he did to any unusual extent.

I stopped doing R* a long time ago, because I don't think we need it to talk about 20th century players. I did it in the first place to have another handle on 19th-century scoring for which errors and aggressive base running mean so much more. But there's nothing comprehensive about it - it's a sliver of data, a hint.
   131. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#2098153)
I've spent years steadfastly resisting this line of argument, usually made to me by friends from up Boston way. Nothing wrong with rooting for U.S. Steel.

Change U.S. Steel to Halliburton and see how you feel now. If you're a liberal who fancies himself socially conscious (like me), it's pretty damning evidence that it's time to find a new team. If you're a strong believer in the oligarchical rule by a select, economically privilaged few, you probably love rooting for the Yankees. If you're somewhere in between, then it's just a matter of time until you choose a metaphor that suits your position. ; )
   132. sunnyday2 Posted: July 14, 2006 at 01:54 AM (#2098259)
Uh oh, we're starting to sound like the newsblog now.

I'm a Twins fan. Draw your own conclusions ;-)
   133. DavidFoss Posted: July 14, 2006 at 02:30 AM (#2098306)
Geez... I just watch the games and end up rooting for one team or another depending on which one has the least annoying players. Same thing goes for historical teams based on what I read about them. Sometimes I find the superteams likeable no matter how 'unfair' it is. Its great to see sustained excellence. Part of being a fan is being irrational about these things. Linking sports to politics would take all the fun out of it for me.

As for Twins fans (I was born in Saint Paul)... generally Minnesotans have a bit of a chip on their shoulders and they feel they aren't getting the national exposure that they deserve compared to the larger markets. They make a *huge* deal when they someone from there gets famous. (same goes for entertainers & politicians) This goes for areas outside of sports as well. Of course with blogs like Gleeman's, Sickels' and perhaps even bat-girl's, the pendulum has swung a bit in the other direction. Twins fans suddenly find themselves extremely represented in the blog community.
   134. Sean Gilman Posted: July 14, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#2098341)
2 things about Browning:

1. His error numbers are indeed really bad, even for the 19th Century, but his raw range factors are generally well above average. And he played a lot more at important defensive positions than you'd expect for a guy with his defensive rep (2B, 3B, CF).

2. His teams were generally really bad. Hitting in the middle of the lineup for a bad team is no way to rack up a lot of runs scored numbers.
   135. DavidFoss Posted: July 14, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2098364)
I don't know if anyone's posted it yet, but Browning's Win Shares letter grade is C+. That's an OF grade, and CF's tend to score higher than corners, so that's grade is a bit worse than it looks.
   136. jingoist Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:24 AM (#2098633)
My vote for biggest "What if": Tony Conigliaro.
He was on his way to the HoM and HoF when he got beaned.
His was a tragic life filled with much suffering.
   137. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM (#2098663)
Or maybe your favorite team just got into your blood when you were 8 or 9 years old, and objective reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with who you root for.

The collision of rational thought and childhood reasoning is particularly traumatic. Like when I saw Spaceballs and Back to School again after 10-15 years, and neither was as funny as I'd remembered...
   138. Daryn Posted: July 14, 2006 at 01:00 PM (#2098666)
Back to School is still hilarious. I don't think Spaceballs ever was.

Some Back to School classics:

Bring us a pitcher of beer every seven minutes until somebody passes out. And then bring one every ten minutes.

Are you fat? When you go jogging, do you leave potholes? When you make love, do you have to give directions? At the zoo, do the elephants throw you peanuts? Do you look at a menu and say 'OK!'?

I'd love to go with you, but I've got a class right now.
Well, why don't you come and see me some time when you have no class.


I think it is a tough call on who is the King of the one liner: Dangerfield or Mason.
   139. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2006 at 01:09 PM (#2098671)
Henny Youngman?
   140. DL from MN Posted: July 14, 2006 at 01:10 PM (#2098673)
This steak still has marks where the jockey was hitting it.
   141. sunnyday2 Posted: July 14, 2006 at 02:09 PM (#2098719)
>The collision of rational thought and childhood reasoning is particularly traumatic.

Can you say Santa Claus?

Easter Bunny?

The president of the United States is wearing clothes?
   142. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2098794)
Sunny,

I'm tempted to snarkily add a couple more items to your list, but I do mean to keep things civil and friendly, and after all John Murphy's role is complicated enough. ; )

I can say Santa Claus! When I was five years old, some neighborhood kid told me there was no Santa...five years old!!! That sent me into convulsive wailing. Then I famously (in our family) pouted to my mom: "Next thing you'll tell me there's nosuch thing as the Tooth Fairy!" Meanwhile, in the same moment (1979-1980), in Kansas, Bill James was telling everyone about the truth behind batting average.... Coincidence? I think so.
   143. sunnyday2 Posted: July 14, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#2098868)
Hey, I experienced all of that (well, except Bill James, but then there was Ball Four) in the '60s (between November 22, 1963, and "Four dead in O-HI-O" including RFK, MLK, Tet, the 1968 Democratic Convention...). No wonder I'm all screwed up.

Kids today have it so much better.
   144. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2006 at 05:12 PM (#2098870)
That's not coming of age---it's coming of RAGE.
   145. mulder & scully Posted: July 14, 2006 at 08:34 PM (#2099162)
Used to be Kelly in SD

1981 Prelim:

1. Bob Gibson: Best pitcher of the 1960s. Third best pitcher since Grove, only Spahn and Roberts are better in my system. Best career of any eligible pitcher. Peak is tied with Walters and Dean for best among eligibles. Prime is tied with Willis for best among eligibles. 6 years over 25 win shares is matched by no one among the eligibles. Yes, there is a slight adjustment for schedule length, but he is the best candidate by far.
2. Mickey Welch:
3. Charley Jones: The weight of the evidence. A top 10 position player from 1876 to 1885. Please see the Keltner List on his thread. All-time, through 1980, Jones ranks in a knot of five left fielders between 8th and 12th all-time. The other four are Simmons, Clarke, Stovey, and Magee.
4. Harmon Killebrew: 11th best first baseman so far. 2nd/3rd best of the 60s. Considering pushing him up to 2nd for the actual ballot. Killebrew could play third or left if needed so I think he is more valuable than one who only plays first. Three true outcomes.
5. Pete Browning: Hitter. Ranks at the top of a group of 5 center fielders between 13th and 17th all-time. Doby, Hill, and Brown are in the HoM, Duffy is not.
6. Charlie Keller: MVP level play for 6 straight years with 1.66 years of War credit. Only DiMaggio, Williams, and Musial were better in the 1940s before he hurt his back. I have him as the 13th best left fielder through 1979.
7. Hugh Duffy: A key member of the best team of the 1890s. Please see the Keltner List for him. I need to post that to the Duffy thread soon. Ranks in a group of 5 center fielders between 13th and 17th all-time. Doby, Hill, and Brown are in the HoM, Browning is not.
8. Quincy Troupe: A great hitting catcher whose nomadic career has done wonders to hide his value. I ask the many voters who trust the MLEs of elected or balloted NeLers to look again at Troupe. 10th best catcher of all time as of 19780.
9. Jose Mendez: From 1910 to 1914, only Johnson and Alexander were better. A gigantic peak.
10. Bucky Walters: Best peak available (tied with Dean) among eligible white pitchers.
11. Cupid Childs: Best second baseman of 1890s and its not close. 11th all-time among second basemen.
12. Vic Willis: Take another look. 4 times one of the top 2 pitchers in the National League.
13. Dobie Moore: Banks before Banks. My system finds them quite comparable. In a knot between 11th and 15th among shortstops through 1980 with Glasscock, Reese, Banks, and Jennings – all HoMers.
14. Tommy Leach: Great defense. Good hitting at two key defensive positions. A key player in one of the best defensive teams ever. 9th best third baseman if all credit for career is at third, 24th best center fielder if all credit is at CF. Split the difference and he is about even with Hack and Sutton (w/o NA credit).
15. Gavy Cravath: Credit for 1909, 1910, 1911. All players, All times. All-Star 5 times by STATS and Win Shares.

16-21:
Alejandro Ohms:
Chance:
Howard: These four players are ranked as the best leftfielders in my system. There is no difference between them.
Burns:
Kiner:
Minoso: Just a hair behind Howard, Burns and Minoso for best LF. I can't put all four on the ballot so none of them go. Will look more closely in the coming elections.

22-27:
Norm Cash:
Redding: Not enough shoulder seasons to go with the big 4 years.
Grimes:
Cooper, Wilbur:
Roush:
Bresnahan:

28-32
Doyle:
Easter:
Long:
Rosen:
Stephens:

33-37
Van Haltren:
Dean:
Cepeda:
Waddell: Does not have as many big years as the other great pitchers of his era.
Fox: He certainly stood out over the other second basemen of his era. Too bad it wasn't that difficult.
Schang:


38-40:
Tiernan:
Fournier: Remember to give him credit for the White Sox screwing up.
Mays:

41-45:
Monroe, Bill:
Scales:
McGraw:
Sewell: A good player, but just a little short.
Berger:

46-50:
Clarkson:
Elliott:
Shocker:
Jones, F:
Denny Lyons / Ed Williamson:

Others:
Pinson: Around 110th
Beckley: 11th best available first baseman. Around 140th among all eligible players.
   146. KJOK Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:04 PM (#2099216)
I don't know if anyone's posted it yet, but Browning's Win Shares letter grade is C+.

His defensive win shares per 1000 innings is 2.5.

In comparison to other 19th century CF'ers:

Curt    Welch    5.1
Pop    Corkhill    4.6
George    Gore    4.4
Steve    Brodie    4.1
Hugh    Duffy    4.0
Mike    Griffin    3.7
Billy    Hamilton    3.6
Paul    Hines    3.4
Bug    Holliday    3.2
Jimmy    Ryan    3.2
Dummy    Hoy    3.2
Jim    McTamany    3.1
George    Van Haltren    2.9
Ned    Hanlon    2.9
Pete    Browning    2.6
Tom    Brown    2.6
Pete    Hotaling    2.5 
   147. Jim Sp Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2099232)
Considering a radical rework of my ballot, focusing on warp and peak.

Why? I've been spending too much time poring over the warp numbers, and I'm now convinced now that warp values great fielders better than win shares. I think some problems in my previous system were due to trying to correct for the limits that win shares puts on fielding value. Schoendienst moves off my ballot which will surely count as a point in favor of the new system, anyhow. Also I believe that warp sets a higher replacement value which is useful for this exercise (identifying the best players).

I became much more aggressive with war credit, maybe too aggressive. Pesky, Travis, and Dom Dimaggio make my ballot now (and Rizuzuto moves up), though I'm likely to temper my enthusiasm by the time the actual ballot is cast. Is anyone else having second thoughts about leaving these guys off the ballot? It looks to me that they each have an excellent case with war credit.

Ray Schalk looks dramatically better through the warp lens, but I haven't fit him in yet. Probably off ballot anyway though.

My PHoM is in shambles if I stick with this revamp...Gibson and Drysdale this year for PHoM. Wes Ferrell, Ross Barnes, then Marichal and Bunning on deck for PHoM.

A bunch of these comments may be out of date but I wanted to throw this out for comment before I actually cast a ballot with the new system in place.

Gibson #1, no doubt. Killebrew #16. Cardenas #40—4 seasons above 9.0 warp3. Pinson #74. McDowell #81. Perry, Osteen very good also.

1) Gibson--#13 pitcher all-time, easy #1.
2) Mendez--PHoM in 1932.
3) Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career. PHoM in 1939. 5 years with WARP3 > 10.0, plus an 8.8 and an 8.5. Easy best Warp peak of the holdovers. PHoM 1939.
4) Ken Boyer--PHoM 1976. highly rated by WARP3.
5) Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. I was a WS guy but here in particular I think Warp has it right—great defense. PHoM in 1970.
6) Rizzuto--Lots of war credit. PHoM 1977.
7) Minoso--I gave full ML credit for two+ years.
8) PeskyWar credit: MVP type seasons in 1942, 1946, 3 years in between missed to war.
9) Hodges--have I lost my mind? Look at his FRAR and FRAA, the Warp3 is very very good. Maybe the writers remember something that we’ve forgotten.
10) Bartell--missed him earlier. Add a little war credit too.
11) Clift--Warp3 loves third basemen, maybe too much…
12) Dick Redding--
13) Dom DimaggioWar credit. More than 2/3 of a HoM career, missing age 26, 27, 28 seasons which should have been his peak. Terrific fielder.
14) Dobie Moore--
15) Cecil TravisWar credit. More than 2/3 of a HoM career by age 27, before going to war. Not the same player after.
16) KinerKeller would be higher with war credit, but wouldn’t Keller have just been hurt earlier if he was playing?
17) Camilli--Missed him earlier. Great from 1936-42. Add a little war credit too.
18) MazeroskiA case of Warp giving full credit for defensive excellence.
19) Fox--The man had 2663 hits (#61 all time) and was a great fielder. PHoM in 1970.
20) KillebrewLots of good not great seasons.
21) Elston Howard--war, segregation, stuck behind Yogi. The peak is there and the obstacles were out of his control. PHoM 1975
22) DeanFinally found the peak. Why so much love for Koufax but not Dean?
23) Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me. Best years by Warp3 10.2, 10.1, 8.9, 8.5, 8.0, 7.8.
24) Elliott--I like him better than Hack. Second greatest 3B before Mathews. PHoM in 1960.
25) Trouppe
   148. Jim Sp Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2099235)
26) Trout
27) Billy Pierce
28) KellerNo war credit, his injury ended his career.
29) Bucky Walterspeak is nice.
30) TraynorOverrated, but became underrated here.
31) Childs—I discounted him too much.
32) Charley Jones
33) Aparicio--Another overrated player who became underrated here.
34) Norm Cash-- missing the peak except for the big year.
35) Shocker--nice peak
36) Schoendienst--PHoM in 1968, which was a mistake. Flawed methodology in my spreadsheet. Still, he was pretty good.
37) Oms--following the consensus on Oms, I’m having a hard time coming up with an independent evaluation.
38) Berger--
39) Ben Taylor--Not a lot of confidence in this placement.
40) Klein--
41) Colavito--
42) Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters. PHoM in 1916, looks like a mistake but again, he was pretty good.
43) Cardenas--4 seasons above 9.0 Warp3, that’s impressive.
44) Cepeda
45) Sain
46) Nicholson
47) Bill Monroe—Riley’s Biographical Encylopedia likes him a lot. PHoM in 1929.
48) Veach
49) Silver King--Now that’s a peak!
50) Keltner
51) Grimes
52) Travis Jackson
53) Rosen
54) Ned Williamson
55) Tommy Bridges—fixed his war credit. 10 top 10 seasons in AL ERA+. PHoM 1975, mistake.
56) Galan
57) Lazzeri
58) Cuyler--I think he’ll be below the in/out line.
59) McGraw—The OBP at 3B is a great combination, but too short a career to move higher.
60) NewsomGood but odd career.
   149. Sean Gilman Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2099237)
How does he rank against 19th Century corner outfielders, KJOK? He played 490 games in center, 477 in left, 35 in right (along with 194 in the infield). Whereas Van Haltren (for example) played 1372 games in center, 313 in right and 147 in left.

I think this is important because WS treats all OFers as one position, so CFs typically have significantly higher WS and avgWS than corner OFs. Comparing a 50% CF against a 75% CF necessarily makes the corner player look worse than he might actually be.
   150. Mark Donelson Posted: July 14, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2099272)
Dr. Chaleeko--

Hate to say it, but I have to admit that I just don't think baseball is as important as, well, real life, so rooting for the Halliburton of MLB doesn't bug me one iota, despite our politics being (I gather) quite similar. Yours and mine, that is, not mine and Halliburton's. :)
   151. Mike Webber Posted: July 15, 2006 at 02:32 AM (#2099571)
Keltner List for Edd Roush

/namedrop

I was eating lunch with Bill James this week and he was telling me about a player in the Red Sox organization that they drafted that he had ranked higher than anyone else on his list on draft day a couple years ago. He suddenly became “his player.” He ends up defending this guy that he wouldn’t recognize had he walked into the room. I of course thought of Edd Roush – “my player”

/endnamedrop

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Much like Duke Snider or Derek Jeter, Edd Roush was usually the third best player at his position during his career.

2. Was he the best player on his team? – Yes, narrowly over Hall of Merit-inductee Heinie Groh

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Speaker and Cobb were the best centerfielders, in baseball. The other great CF in the NL in Edd’s time was Hack Wilson.

From 1917 to 1921 Edd’s NL rank in OPS+ was 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 3rd,4th. Think about that you consecutive peak and peak voters, the gold glove center fielder finishes in the top 4 in the league in OPS+ 5 straight years.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? –
1919 his team makes the World Series and of course wins. He likely would have been the MVP, as the Reds won by 9 games.

In 1926 he played well, but his team was 2nd by 2 games. The shortstops in Cincy killed them. In 1927 with the Giants, his team finishes 3rd, just 2 games out and the 34-year old Roush has a mediocre year. His teams had a couple of other 2nd place finishes, but distant seconds.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

He still played regularly at age 38.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Merit?

Among the back loggers, I think so or I wouldn’t be working through this.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Merit?

According to his Baseball Ref List - he is fairly unique, closest match an 887, as are most players headed to the HOM. 2 of his top 10 are in Joe Kelley and Henie Manush. Pie Traynor and GVH are also on this list. Cuyler (HOF not HOM), is too.

To me Roush belongs in the group with Carey, Ashburn, and CP Bell, and slightly ahead of the Duffy, Van Haltren pairing.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? -

He is a little short on black and gray ink, 14 of 27 and 125 of 144. I think that Crosley Field may be a fairly large factor in this. Crosley consistently depressed offense 3 to 6% during Edd’s career. Edd was in the top ten in the league in OPS+ and Slugging 7 times, in the top 10 in OBA 6 times, and batting average 9 times, but only 4 times in RBI and only twice in runs scored. If the environment was little more neutral, he might have picked up significant gray ink in RBI and Runs Scored.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? His park does hurt him offensively.

To illustrate what Crosley Field did to offense, here are a couple of charts.

First guess how many individual seasons a Red hit more than 20 homers in a season before 1950?

Did you guess more than 10?
Did you guess more than 5?

The answer is 3.

CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1876-1950

HOMERUNS YEAR HR
1 Hank Sauer 1948 35
2 Ival Goodman 1938 30
3 Ted Kluszewski 1950 25

Knowing that, how about this, how many season did a Red have more than 100 RBI between 1900 and 1950?
Just 8 times they had more than 100 RBI, four of them by Frank McCormick.

That environment can make it tough to rack up black and gray ink, or big runs and RBI totals.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Merit?

Yes. The centerfielders that have been getting support in HOM voting are Hugh Duffy and GVH.

OPS + - Edd 126, GVH 121, Duffy 122

OWP – Edd 622, GVH 620, Duffy 623

WS per 600 Plate Apps – Edd 23.10, GVH 20.25, Duffy 22.61
(no pitching win shares for GVH)

I like all 3 of these guys, but Roush is just slightly ahead offensively, and comfortably ahead defensively.

OPS+ - Edd 126, Carey 107, Ashburn 111

OWP – Edd 622, Carey 556, Ashburn 600

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Edd had 3 30+ Win Share seasons, he led the NL in WS in 1919, and would have been the MVP if an award had been given.

In 1924 and 1925 he finished 10th in the award voting. In 1926 (when the Reds narrowly missed a pennant) his teammate Hughie Critz finished 2nd in the MVP voting. Critz was last among Cincy regulars in both slugging and OBA except the horrific shortstops. I would have thought Hargrave and Roush would battle for the team honors, but well if you think MVP award voting is odd now…

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
The All-Star game came after Edd, he had 7 20+ Win Share seasons.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes, and in fact they did.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Does not apply

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes



On a closing note, in Kansas City last week I tried to get Dr. Chaleeko, KJOK and Ken Fischer to take apart Edd Roush, but they were just too damn polite to tell me why I am wrong (ok, its not like any of them were carrying around their Stats All-Time handbook).

I like Roush, and I have grown to have something of a personal attachment to him, but if someone wants to point out what why you are voting for Duffy or Van Haltren or Oms or Berger or Bob Johnson or Tommy Leach or Sam Rice or Jimmy Ryan or Minoso I’d be interested.

Guys like Keller or Kiner are different types of players, though I’d point out Kiner has just one more 30+ win share season than Roush. In fact their top 5 Win Share seasons go:

Kiner – 37, 35, 30, 30, 23
Roush – 33. 33. 30, 28, 23

Thanks for your time.
   152. Brent Posted: July 15, 2006 at 03:23 AM (#2099589)
Much like Duke Snider or Derek Jeter, Edd Roush was usually the third best player at his position during his career.

Speaker and Cobb were the best centerfielders, in baseball.


...and Charleston and Torriente. Oms was also a contemporary, and according to the MLEs was better than Roush in prime and career value, though Roush probably had an advantage in peak.
   153. DavidFoss Posted: July 15, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#2099590)
... and Max Carey is in the HOM as well (though I'm not personally a fan).
   154. TomH Posted: July 15, 2006 at 05:13 AM (#2099639)
OWP – Edd 622, GVH 620, Duffy 623
I like Roush, and I have grown to have something of a personal attachment to him, but if someone wants to point out what why you are voting for Duffy or Van Haltren...


If you adjust for schedule length, Van Haltren has advantages of about 1500 plate appearances, AND 430 innings pitched. That's a big difference when comparing two guys of similar offensive value at the same position.
   155. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 15, 2006 at 10:42 AM (#2099742)
All major-league teams are Halliburton compared to us, though, so that's why I don't feel bad about rooting for any particular one. If anything, look at it this way: The Yankees and Pirates are both make-money-at-all-costs, lie-cheat-and-steal corporations. But the Yankees are at least actively trying to win, which in MLB is the object. The Pirates aren't, so in that sense they're more corrupt and therefore more reprehensible. So the Yankees are like IBM (back in the sixties and seventies,that is!); sort of "evil," sure, but good at what they do. Most other teams are more like the used car dealership that wasn't there anymore when the car you bought fell apart two days later.
   156. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 15, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#2099837)
life doesn't equal baseball?
   157. rawagman Posted: July 15, 2006 at 06:17 PM (#2099934)
life doesn't equal baseball?


I live in Israel. Every day I wake up and hope I'm not called in for army reserve duty.

Life does not equal baseball.
Damn if baseball hasn't tried, though.
   158. mulder & scully Posted: July 15, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2100038)
rawagman -
Stay safe.

Mike Webber -
Nice job. Having written the Jones, Welch, Beckley, Jennings, and Duffy Lists, I know how difficult they are.

Sean -
good point about Browning's almost-even split between Left and Center.
Some left fielders to consider would be Tom York, Abner Dalrymple, Charley Jones, Joe Hornung, George Wood, Pete Gillespie, Jim O'Rourke, Cliff Carroll, Emmett Seery, Maskrey, Sommer, Tip O'Neill.
   159. yest Posted: July 16, 2006 at 04:52 AM (#2100536)
I live in Israel. Every day I wake up and hope I'm not called in for army reserve duty.
what city?
   160. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 16, 2006 at 01:28 PM (#2100606)
Daryn,

good point on my theory way back on teh last page. I would have responded sooner but I was away for the weekend.

Doc,

What team do your to for now? I must say that I feel no guilt by being a Yankee fan. It's baseball, not politics. However, waht I love the most are thoe NE liberals who would castigate those of us who are Yankee fans for liking the 'Halliburton' of baseball and they are well, Red Sox fans. That is like hating Coke but loving Pepsi!

And I think I can burnish my liberal credentials by saying that I am a grad student at The New School, many from New York should recognize that as one of the most liberal schools in the countty.

JimSp,

Why no war credit for Keller? Do you give war credit to anyone else? And what does his back injury have to do with anything, he still had one very good year after returning from the war prior to his problems.
   161. Jeff M Posted: July 16, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#2100676)
Looks good, Melky. The anti-timeliners will love you,...

Well, we'd like him better if he weren't using WARP3 (unless, of course, he skipped WARP2). :)

Melky, I'd like to see where you place Dick Redding... . Most peak voters like [him].

Let me phrase this another way: See if you can figure out why. LOL
   162. rawagman Posted: July 16, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2100681)
Yest - I live in the heart of Tel Aviv.
   163. Jeff M Posted: July 16, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#2100688)
Is there any quantitative measure of Pete Browning's defense or baserunning? His reputation is awful (multiple sources). I'm sort of surprised he gets as much support as he does here, given that in everything but hitting (fielding, baserunning, not being drunk for half the games) he scores as low as any candidate I've seen. Is there something I'm missing?

In addition to what others have said, my answer would be that outfield defense is only so important in the context of everything that happens in a game. He'd have to basically be a statue for poor outfield defense to overcome the fact he was one of the best hitters in the game.

BP thinks his fielding was 241 wins above replacement and only 46 runs below average. That's not so bad. Worst case scenario is 4.6 lost wins over the course of his career relative to an average fielder. In Browning's three best hitting years (WARP1 of 33.2) he earned +1 fielding runs above average...essentially neutral.

James gives him a C+, which again, does not seem like an automatic disqualifier. James has him as earning 2.57 defensive WS per 1000 innings. The average HOF centerfielder has 3.73 per 1000 innings, the average HOF leftfielder has 2.72 and the average HOF rightfielder has 2.54. Using Browning's outfield splits, the average HOF outfielder with the same splits would have 3.20 fielding WS per 1000 innings. Browning lags that significantly at 2.54, but this is where the context comes in. With Browning's estimated 8,868 outfield innings, that amounts to 5.8 win shares that he lags the outfield HOFers on defense. Since you get 3 win shares for every win, that's 1.95 wins that Browning cost his teams, above what your average HOFer would have with the same playing time. A drop in the ocean IMO.

I'm not saying ignore it, but make sure you are giving it the proper weight.

I think the primary resistance to Browning's election (at least originally) was that he performed mostly in the AA and voters were not swayed by his batting title in the Players' League when he emerged from the AA.

P.S. BTW, Can't hold being drunk against him. Otherwise, we'll have to unelect Grover Cleveland Alexander and possibly Mickey Mantle, among others. :)
   164. rico vanian Posted: July 16, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2100733)
After baking in the sun at Wrigley Field the past couple of days (where we Mets fans outnumbered the Cub fans), I am catching up...

Yes on the "Evil Empire"- Steingrabber puts his money where his mouth is and that (along with a good GM) has made the Yankees successful. I compare that to the Cubs, where the Tribune Co treats Wrigley as the world's largest beer garden and couldn't care about anything but revenue. Or the Twins, where a mega billionaire owner cries poverty and threatens to move the team.


Yes on Pete Browning. Given the nature of the game in his era, I don't hold the rep as a bad fielder against him.

rawagman- be safe, I have family in Israel and we are concerned.


And as a Yankee fan... (yes- I root for both NY teams)...I am shocked to find Bobby Meacham is a coach for the Marlins. I though he was tarred and feathered and run out of baseball after stinking up the Yankees during the mid-80's.

Biggest "what-if"?

Moonlight Graham.
   165. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 16, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#2100741)
all kidding aside, i agree with r.a. daddy wags that when it comes down to baseball versus life, the question is obviously settled on life's side. the middle and upper classes in the u.s. are rather insulated in comparison to many other places. one of my nightmares is to wake up and find myself conscripted. stay safe indeed.

jschm---

i don't have any good liberal credentials, other than living in upper NE. it's tempting to root for the sox, but i recognize the same issue with them and i'm not a royal rooter, though i at least keep a passing sense of what they're up to since the radio is filled with them (curiously, we get a clear yankees feed too!). that said, i guess if anything i'm a phils fan. i spent a long time in that area, as everyone knows, and other than horrific mismanagement, I feel like their existence within baseball is pretty much within the bounds of my prefered attitude. someone tell me if not. i don't feel much attachment, however, so it's not like i'm wedded to them and couldn't decide to follow someone else just as quickly. if they started fielding competently assembled winners, my attachment would probably grow.

but there's another curious way i like to look at things. once october arrives, i like to create a pecking order among the eight teams. that pecking order goes from the longest suffering to the most recent victor. The two criteria are 1) longest championship drought and 2) longest time since appearing in the series. [there are some subjective ways of looking too. for example, a 1961 expansion team that's never been could be considered a longer drought than the 1948 Indians, depending on my caprice.] For instance, last year's World Series was awesome because neither team had won a World Series either ever or in 80 years. There are some special circumstances that I observe, however, as you'll see below. If the season ended today, my pecking order would go:

Texas* (Never been to the Series or won it)
Sandy Eggo (Never won the Series)
Detroit (Not won or been since 1984)
Mets (Not won since 1986)
Oakland* (Not won since 1988)
Cincy (Not won since 1990)
Boston (Won in 2004)
Chisox (Won in 2005)
St Louis (Not won since 1982, BUT managed by TLR, which is a special circumstance that allows me to slot them last in any season.)

*currently tied atop AL West

I'd be tempted to move Cincy up above the Mets because of sympathy for the Bowden years and because the Mets and Oakland have both appeared in the Series since the Reds were last in it.

What's the current ideal Octber scenario in my little fantasy underdog world? Assuming that in any given season the Phils aren't in....

Cubs (longest championshipless drought, PLUS sixty year appearance drought.)
Texas (longest never-been tenure.)
Washington (second longest never-been tenure.)
Seattle (third longest never-been tenure.)
Houston (forty years never a champ, but one appearance.)
San Diego (thirty-five years never a champ, but two appearances.)
Cleveland (sixty years without a champ, buth three appearances since.)
Tampa Bay (too recent to merit a higher ranking, only team in AL East that hasn't won a crown within the past twenty-five years.)

HMs
Milwaukee: twenty-five years outside the candy store, never won a WS.
Colorado: I'm kind of spooked by that odd story of them using religion as a player-acquisition criterion, so I'm not jumping on the wagon til I have to, or they end that practice.
SF: Not champs since 1954, but have appeared several times.

It's eccentric, but it's my system and I like it.
   166. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#2101679)
I'm tempted to snarkily add a couple more items to your list, but I do mean to keep things civil and friendly, and after all John Murphy's role is complicated enough. ; )

:-)

Hey, I'm not the Thought Police. I'm not going to censor anybody's post or revoke your voting privileges. Besides, I don't have and don't want that authority. I just feel (actually, I know) that throwing Molotov cocktails at the other side doesn't make for a good Internet environment. As one who knows, BBTF can be a volatile place even without mentioning politics. ;-)

I can say Santa Claus! When I was five years old, some neighborhood kid told me there was no Santa...five years old!!!

I actually figured out there was no Santa Claus from, believe it or not, an Addams Family rerun (circa 1971) when I was six years old. The premise was that there wasn't really a Santa Claus, but are surprised when he shows up at the end of the episode. This made zero sense to me, so I mentioned that I didn't believe in the guy in the red suit any more at the dinner table. Well, the problem was that I had two brothers who did and were old enough to care, so my father brought me away from the table and told me to tell my brothers I was only joking. Which I did and everything was cool. :-)
   167. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:56 AM (#2101827)
My 'other' teams are the Phillies and the Padres. The Padres because they are my brother's team (he used to be a rickey when when he was a kid and woudl change teams with Rickey but finally settled on the Padres, probably the only one in (entral Pa.) and the Phillies because I used to go to many of their games and a number of my friends are Phillies fans.

One reason to root for the Phillies isn't just that they haven't won a title in a while and have only won one since their inception, but because no team in Philly has won anything since 1983. This has got to be worse than Boston prior to 2004, where you had the Patriots and before that, the Celtics, and the Cubs, where you have the White Sox now, and the Bulls in the 90's. If I had to root for one Philly team to do it, I would pick the Phils since I really dislike the Flyers and the Eagles (I am a diehard Giants fan) and coudlnt' care less about the NBA, even if I am a Sixers fan when I do watch.
   168. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:14 PM (#2102124)
and coudlnt' care less about the NBA, even if I am a Sixers fan when I do watch.

The NBA is still operating? What do you know about that.
   169. KJOK Posted: July 17, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#2102557)
On a closing note, in Kansas City last week I tried to get Dr. Chaleeko, KJOK and Ken Fischer to take apart Edd Roush, but they were just too damn polite to tell me why I am wrong (ok, its not like any of them were carrying around their Stats All-Time handbook).

I think I did at least give you some vague answer, like he doesn't stack up all that greatly vs. his near contemporaries in CF, which is close to the answer others are giving above (Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Averill, Hack Wilson, Wally Berger, etc.)

In more modern terms, to me he roughly Amos Otis, good, but not THAT good...
   170. KJOK Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:04 PM (#2102564)
How does he rank against 19th Century corner outfielders, KJOK? He played 490 games in center, 477 in left, 35 in right (along with 194 in the infield). Whereas Van Haltren (for example) played 1372 games in center, 313 in right and 147 in left.

I think this is important because WS treats all OFers as one position, so CFs typically have significantly higher WS and avgWS than corner OFs. Comparing a 50% CF against a 75% CF necessarily makes the corner player look worse than he might actually be.


Browning vs. 19th century corner outfielders Win Shares per 1000 Innings:

Hugh    Nicol    RF    4.4
Tip    O
'Neill    LF    3.8
Abner    Dalrymple    LF    3.6
Joe    Kelley    LF    3.6
Tommy    McCarthy    RF    3.4
Joe    Hornung    LF    3.3
Harry    Stovey    LF    3.2
Orator    Shaffer    RF    3.2
Elmer    Smith    LF    3.1
Walt    Wilmot    LF    3.1
Jimmy    Wolf    RF    3.0
Jesse    Burkett    LF    2.9
Ed    Delahanty    LF    2.8
Cliff    Carroll    LF    2.8
Paul    Radford    RF    2.7
Willie    Keeler    RF    2.7
Charley    Jones    LF    2.7
Jim    O'
Rourke    LF    2.7
George    Wood    LF    2.6
<b>Pete    Browning    CF    2.6</b>
Mike    Tiernan    RF    2.4
Duff    Cooley    LF    2.3
Emmett    Seery    LF    2.3
Sam    Thompson    RF    2.3
Kip    Selbach    LF    2.2
Patsy    Donovan    RF    2.0
Oyster    Burns    RF    2.0
Blondie    Purcell    LF    1.5 
   171. Sean Gilman Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2103671)
Thanks KJOK.

That sounds about right: bad for a center fielder, mediocre for a corner outfielder. I think the point here is that Browning wasn't a historically bad fielder.
   172. Howie Menckel Posted: July 19, 2006 at 01:49 AM (#2104137)
(updated and modified from the Cash discussion)

adj OPS+ seasons by some 1Bs and OFs as a regular, 100 or better (477 PA for 154 games, and 502 for 162 games, like batting title qualifying:
Killebrew 179 74 61 61 58 53 47 45 38 38 38 37
DukSnider 172 70 66 56 42 40 36 23 18 (modest HOMer OF)
RalpKiner 184 84 73 56 46 40 32 21 17
FraHoward 177 77 70 53 46 44 37 27
OrlCepeda 165 64 57 48 35 34 33 31 29 25 17 10 06
BoJohnson 174 55 47 43 41 35 34 30 29 29 27 25 25
Norm-Cash 201 50 48 36 35 34 29 28 28 20
MinMinoso 155 51 49 40 36 35 33 31 21 16 13 08

Kiner had at least 640 PA eight times in a 154-game season. Bonus!
Cash reached that number only twice.
Minoso hit 630 PA 10 times - again, Cash only twice.
Howard averaged a stunning 690 PA in his three monster seasons. Bonus!
Cepeda was never once below 550 PA in a qualifying season. Bonus!
Johnson had 10 600+ PAs in 154-game seasons, bonus - but his best year came in 144 (the other 140+ marks came in the 1930s, however).
Killebrew 640 PA eight times (also a 146 in 479 PA not listed here).


Note that even without that season, Killebrew leads the pack in every season starting with 4th-best, and he's quite competitive in top-3 as well.
   173. Howie Menckel Posted: July 19, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#2104158)
(adapted from the Marichal thread)

ERA+s, must pitch 154 or 162 IP, and at least 100 ERA+
BoGibson 258 64 49 48 39 36 33 32 27 27 26 19 10 05
Marichal 169 66 65 44 32 22 19 16 13 00
Drysdale 154 49 40 29 28 22 18 17 15 13
JBunning 150 49 43 42 34 32 29 14 14 04
BilPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03
EarlWynn 154 42 36 35 26 18 15 10 09 03 (very modest HOMer)
(Pierce's 201 is not a top-10 IP season.)

BoGibson top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 9
Marichal top 10 in IP: 1 1 3 5 5 6 8 8
Drysdale top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 9 9 10
JBunning top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8
BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
EarlWynn top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 7

Drysdale, Koufax, Bunning, Marichal, Seaver, Perry, Jenkins - Gibson kept finishing a bit behind HOMers in IP in a lot of his years. First time I've run across a stat line like that one.
Still, Gibson matches up quite well with the crowd in the top-7 years, depending on your preferences, and he's got some sort of bonus for years 8-12. He's better than all these guys.

I think I'll like him better than Killebew, too.
   174. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:45 PM (#2104473)
[Copied to discussion thread for, uh, discussion.]

JimSp,

Thanks for the explanation. I did see your previous post about trusting WARP, but somehow I didn't remember the rankings associated with it. I guess my questions are these:
1) In the same vein as your saying "who cares about years 14 and 15?" who cares about 1B/RF/LF defense?
2) Why use WARP3 instead of WARP1? The issues with defense in 1 are complicated in 3 by the all-time adjustments which many folks on this board (self included) see problems with, and which, for instance, see Bartell's league as superior to Killebrew's, a proposition any timeliner worth his salt should find dubious.
3) Personal opinion: while James' defense system is conservative, WARP's defense rankings are inflated, and while I use James' myself (because they are more conservative), I suspect the truth is between them, and that can dramatically effect player rankings.

What evidence can I muster in support of this view? According to the SBE, Killebrew created 430 more runs than the average player at his position(s). Bartell created 147 more runs than a player at his position. So Killebrew created 283 more runs above position than Bartell did. In order to be placed ahead of Killebrew, Bartell should logically have at least 283 fielding runs above Killebrew.

Bartell played 13.1 seasons worth of games. If Killebrew had average defense, Bartell would have to be about 21 runs above average per season to catch Harm, which would be highly unlikely since only guys like Ozzie get close to that level. Of course, Killer doesn't, he's below average. WARP1 says he's at -107 FRAA, or 107 below average with the glove. Bartell is credited with 150 FRAA. That's a big swing, 157 runs. It's not enough. In WARP3, the difference is closer: -129 and 143, for a 272 run swing. That's still not enough, there's still a win's worth of difference there.

WARP sees Bartell as a defensive superstar with four seasons where he's worth 10+ WARP1. Because I don't trust how they are going about figuring defensive replacement, I can't say that I agree with them. But I can say that their calculations make Bartell out to be a slightly better and more peak-friendly candidate than Killebrew, which seems like a stretch to me, though I'm not dimissing that result out of hand. If they figured a way to use FRAA somehow to figure WARP (in other words, if they changed how they define defensive replacement), they might come up with a very different result, one where Bartell is likely behind Killebrew. This in addition to the fact that Killebrew is getting heavily penalized for below average performance at positions that don't have much defensive impact (especially in the post-war era), is where my skepticism comes in and lead me to ask in the first place why Bartell (at 104.9 WARP3) is 15 slots ahead of Killebrew (101.4).

[queue my once-monthly argument with Jimd about WARP's valuation of replacment!!!! ; ) ]
   175. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 19, 2006 at 02:38 PM (#2104583)
Corner Outfield Depth Chart

I know it has been a little while since I did one of these but I spent a long weekend in Guangzhou and am just now starting to get back to normal.

I put all corner outifeld guys together for two reasons 1) they tend to profile the same and many played equal amounts of games at either positions, and 2) it is easier for me. There are a few players that some might qualify as CFers, their listing here doesn't effect their ranking it is only logisitical.

1. Charlie Keller (1) - Best peak amongst the backlog. 7-8 MVP level seasons according to WS if you give him 1.5-1.75 years worth of War credit and 1-2 yeras of MiL credit. He was a monster at the plate and was a pretty decent fielder as well, unlike Kiner. OPS+ underrates him a little since his OPS is OBP heavy. On the border between to bottom and middle third of the HOM, I will admit. He is not St. Hughie.

2. Ralph Kiner (5) - Very similar case to Keller. I don't think that he had as many seasons at the top as Keller did and I also tend to prefer OBP types to Slugging types. Still, he is certainly qualified for the HOM and 7 HR titles is imressive no matter how you slice it.

3. Pete Browning (8) - He would be up with Kiner and Keller if I didn't have doubts about league quality. Still, a fantastic hitter and a dominant players at his best.

4. Gavvy Cravath (14) - When I started to give MiL credit Keller shot up over Childs and Cravath rocketed from the high 20's to the edge of my ballot. A very good hitter who should have played his whole career in MLB but the talent evaluators of his time weren't well, talented, enough to agree.

5. Frank Howard (22) - Very good hitter whith a decent peak. More career than the guys above him abut a lower peak. He isnt' getting much love but I happen to think that many people have him in the range that I do, the second 15 so to speak. I could be wrong. Definitely better than Cash and Cepeda.

6. George Burns (32)
7. Minnie Minoso (33)
8. Bobby Veach (35) - These guys are almost indistinguishable from each other. When I started to look at Minoso a few 'years' back to figure out what I was missing, I ended up rediscovering George Burns, who I think was a slightly better player, but its neck and neck. Minoso is hurt vs. sabermetric perception because most still think he was 28 when he started in MLB and isntead he was 25. There is no missing peak and in fact his MiL and NeL years, while helpful, are not enough to push him over the top. Veach is a WARP darling with a nice peak. He got a vote from me once back in the 1940's and I know that Michael Bass used to like him. Is Michael still around?

9. Chuck Klein (45) - Very nice peak per WARP, WS underrates him a little. He has some stellar counting and rate stats if you throw out context. Short career as well. There are probably those in the baseball establishment who see Klein as I see Kiner or Keller, but he was certainly an inferior player to that duo. I like Hack Wilson more among overrated 20/30's peak types.

10. Charley Jones (46) - Someone I am willing to listen some more on. The biggest problem with him is that I am not willing ot give him a lot of credit for hs blacklisted years since a good portion of that incident was his fault. This is vaguely similar to Curt Flood's situation, he may have been fighting the good fight (though not as good as Curt's), but I am not sure a player deserves credit for that. I do have to admit, however, that he was a very fine player who could easily have had a HOM career.

11. Bob Johnson (48) - Very fine player who was very consistent and unlike, say, Beckley, had some seasons where he deserved MVP votes. However, he lacks a peak and it isn't like he has 350 career WS or anything.

12. Rocky Colavito - His peak was as good as Minnie's, but he didn't have the prime or career.
13. Buzz Arlett
14. Kiki Cuyler - These two are very similar players. Arlett was a lot of fun to learn about, a player who played almsot entirely in the Minors but was essentially the same player as a HOF OFer. Talent distribution obviously wasn't equal.

15. Heinie Manush - 2nd best Heinie in baseball history, I like Groh's...I mean Groh...more.
16. Ross YOungs - Could have been a contendah!
17. Sam Rice - No peak at all, below Beckley, believe it or not.
   176. Jim Sp Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#2104731)
[copied from ballot thread]

I think next time I'm going to average my old OPS+/ERA+/WSh system with the new warp3 system. And it is true that warp3 league adjustments--well, I have no idea if they are right or not. I assume they are better than what I could come up with myself.

Baby on the way (2nd daughter due Aug 10) so we'll see what I really get to.

Every system I come up with yields some odd results. Maybe I need to rely less on spreadsheets...however I'm enough of a geek that the spreadsheets are at least half of the fun ;-)

80 years of voting and I know less than what I thought I knew at the start.
   177. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#2104742)
good luck with the baby, jimsp!!!!
   178. fra paolo Posted: July 21, 2006 at 10:34 AM (#2106322)
I've decided to join in. I've posted a preliminary ballot a little late, in part delayed by the down time, and if it attracts too many objections, I won't post a proper ballot. I should note I was guided in my selection by studying the 1981 results to establish who was worth looking at.

I value:

a) A consistent prime. I value players who perform at an above-their-average level for a minimum of four out of five years. I don't like players who slump more than one consecutive season below their average.
b) Being the best at the position during one's prime.
c) High peak during prime. Big seasons help win pennants.
d) Positional balance. Given the way the ballot is structured, I think it is better to try to balance the positions. I try to pick the best starting nine not already HoMers for my first places.
e) Extra credit for the 'skill' positions: catchers, middle infielders and pitchers are the heart of the team, as I know from my amateur playing days. It's hard to win a pennant without a reliable set of players in these positions.


And now to the ballot:

1) Bob Gibson. That 1968. And 13 prime years. And three pennants during them.
2) Harmon Killebrew. 11 years of prime hitting.
3) Edd Roush. He looks the best centrefielder out there, although his peak doesn't measure up to Browning's. He's also, to my mind, the man who beat Duffy into second place on the all-time NL list in 1931. However, durability issues make me wonder if I've got him too high.
4) Charley Jones. the best bat not in the Hall of Merit? And no mean fielder. I was tempted to move him ahead of Roush.
5) Ken Boyer. He might look out of place considering the sluggers listed below him and just above him, but he does well with the leather at a position that's underrepresented in the HoM.
6) Joe Sewell. Best shortstop for his 8 prime years in his league.

While I'm happy with the first six, I don't feel I'm on such solid ground with the next few positions. I find it harder to find comfortable reasons for separating them from their rivals.
7) Cupid Childs. I'm favouring a higher prime with the bat. However, I'm not convinced I've got a good read on statistics from his era.
8) Roger Bresnahan. I started with Schang as my top catcher, but Bresnahan seems better when you look away from Win Shares and WARP. Schang's got a lot more pennants, though. And all my catchers have problems through playing other positions a lot.
9) Nellie Fox. I'm giving him a place up here because of his high Win Shares and WARP, but this is a positioning I'm going to keep under close review. I fear I may be overrating him.
10) Gavy Cravath. High peak, but short career. I'm nervously giving him extra credit for his late start. Like Schang, he started higher, then fell as I looked as his Win Shares and WARP. However, unlike Schang, I think he's got a chance to go up.
11) Orlando Cepeda. He'd be a lot higher if Killebrew weren't on the ballot. However, his prime looks a little short given the length of his career. I also found it worth noting that his WS/season is lower than Sewell's or Boyer's. He's also docked a little credit for being an awkward teammate.

After those five come another group, people I think might get moved off or around the ballot as I get more experience.
12) Hugh Duffy. His prime isn't very high, and his defensive measures don't compare well with other centrefielders, but he was the second-best centrefielder in history when he retired.
13) Rube Waddell. Something of a sentimental choice, half his career was prime material. I wonder how much of his appeal is based on his era, though.
14) Ralph Kiner. He was such a good player in a short career, I'm worried I ranked him too low. I anticipate higher placings on future ballots.
15) Wally Schang. Win Shares and WARP3 made him my first choice at catcher when I started, but his stock has fallen to the point where I'm only giving him an advantage over Elston Howard because he was a slightly better hitter relative to his league during his prime. I'm not at all sure he'll sustain this placing. I find choosing catchers fraught.

Honourable Mentions:
Elston Howard. He grows in my estimation each time I compare him with other non-HoMer catchers. But he hasn't done enough to convince me this time, in part because in his own time he had strong rivals for being the All-Star at his position.
Jake Beckley. His prime doesn't peak as high as Cepeda's or the Killer's, and I'm not having more than two players at the same position on any given ballot.
Pie Traynor. Another sentimental choice, but he hasn't got enough batting prime to convince me this time.
Rabbit Maranville. I need to read in more detail why people think he's better than Sewell. His reputation looks to me like it's propped up by a long career.
Minnie Minoso. Not a high enough peak in his prime at a position with strong alternatives.
Pete Browning. Left off on account of his glove and a certain nervousness about the level of competition he faced.
George van Haltren and Vada Pinson. Lacking high peaks in their prime, these two might gain on a closer inspection, but at the moment look no competition for Duffy and Roush.
Norm Cash and Mickey Welch. Not enough prime.
Negro Leaguers: Mendez, Moore, Redding, Trouppe. They all fell by the wayside for different reasons to do with shortcomings in the statistical record. I'm not inclined to give support to cases based heavily on equivalencies and, apart from Redding, their primes or careers are too short. Redding made the best case, but I thought Waddell's was better.
   179. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 21, 2006 at 11:33 AM (#2106327)
hey fra,

If you like a high peak and someone who was always one of the best at his position why not look at Keller? Besides Williams and Dimaggio he was probably the best AL OFer of the late 30's and early 40's. And if you are willing to give Cravath extra credit, you should look at it for Keller as well.

Also I would suggest that you be a little less rigid in your positional balance and best in era requirements but that is just personal opinion. Looks godo but I know that Joe likes first -time ballots in early so it is up to him obviously for the 1981 election.
   180. TomH Posted: July 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM (#2106330)
welcome, fra!
   181. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 21, 2006 at 01:00 PM (#2106363)
While I'm happy with the first six, I don't feel I'm on such solid ground with the next few positions. I find it harder to find comfortable reasons for separating them from their rivals.

Brother Paul, you learn fast! ; )
   182. karlmagnus Posted: July 21, 2006 at 01:08 PM (#2106368)
Fra, you're very welocme to use a rigid positional balancing but I trust that you will therefore put Beckley on your ballot once Killer's been elected. Much longer career than Cepeda's, particularly when you put it in the context of his contemporaries, who tended to break down earlier, having nothing but a quack with a bottle of leeches when they got injured.
   183. Mike Webber Posted: July 21, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2106381)
having nothing but a quack with a bottle of leeches when they got injured.


They should have soaked those leeches in HGH!
   184. mulder & scully Posted: July 21, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2106490)
Fra Paolo -

Welcome. Ballot looks good. I second jschmeagol's suggestion about looking at Keller. Your voting rationale looks good to me.

A couple of questions for you:
What is your opinion regarding credit for minor league play - Cravath or Fournier?
What is your opinion regarding credit for WWI and WWII - Keller, Rizzuto, etc.?

I encourage looking over Troupe's career again. he started his career in the 1930s when the Negro Leagues were in a state of disarray so he is missing a few years at the start of his career. even missing some early years, there are still 15 documented years, 1938-1952.

Good to have another voter.
   185. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#2106540)
Every time Dimino feels his oats,
another lurker gets his vote.
   186. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:16 PM (#2106545)
And by the by, whoever on the ballot thread (I think) said that the mosquito ad is incredibly awful and just has to go is 100% correct. The annoying little movies are one thing, but the invasive mosquito sound, without any kind of in-ad muting option, is downright invasive and makes my experience here worse. As whoever it was said (Howie?): Jim Furtado, hear us, please, and ask for an alternative ad or else ask the ad people to put a mute feature on it.
   187. DavidFoss Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2106553)
without any kind of in-ad muting option

If you reload the page, it will randomly pick another ad. Still horribly inconvenient, but I can get the buzzing to go away in five seconds instead of waiting for the buzzing to time itself out (which is on the order of a few minutes!).

But yeah, like OCF, I listen to internet classical radio at work and the buzzing is incredibly jarring and grating.
   188. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#2106563)
Here i have nothing good to say about DL's use of the method of descending series so let me preface it all. First, I agree with DL on the bottom line. I don't believe TomH's more reasonable use of the method makes a good case for Newcombe following Pierce very closely on the ballot or into the Hall of Merit. Second, I suppose DL did not say just what he means. (* marks the point where DL would interject if this were a seminar rather than a virtual forum visited once every day or three.)

Tom Hanrahan #73
TomH Posted: July 12, 2006 at 03:41 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


To me that is reasonable punctuation of the two descending series. At the same time, I sympathize with the Billy fan who brackets "years 3 to 9" instead, moving the first "Hanrahan slash" one step to the right. Chris Fluit brackets 4 to 6 which is groundless. He retains the break after year 9, too, so here is his alternative view of the series, punctuated by semicolon and dash in contrast with slash.

B Pierce .... 201 / 148 141 ; 136 133 124 ; 115 113 108 /-- 107 107 105 104 103
NewNewkm 133 / 133 132 ; 131 131 131 ; 123 122 114 /-- 90
*

Can anyone look at these series and see a virtual time period where Pierce "trounces" Newcombe, extending down to their third-best seasons, without also seeing that Newcombe trounces Pierce in their 6th to 9th best seasons? Concerning these series DL grants only that "Newcombe's 7-9 is better than Pierce's 7-9."

6th 7th 8th 9th
124 115 113 108
131 123 122 114

ERA+ 124 and 131 mean the pitchers were credited with yielding runs at rates 80-81% and 76-77% of league-average. Isn't that a "trouncing"? Well I wouldn't say it myself DL trouncing through year three where

3rd
141
132

ERA+ 141 and 132 mean the pitchers were credited with yielding runs at rates 70-71% and 75-76% of league-average.

By the way,

4th
136
131

ERA+ 136 and 131 mean the pitchers were credited with yielding runs at rates 73-74% and 76-77% of league-average.
   189. rawagman Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2106570)
welcome aboard, fra paolo. You're not the only one to go for positional balance in a ballot. Your ballot also fairly represents different eras and seems well thought out. I would second the call to check out Quincy Trouppe again. He can be a challenge to decipher, but seems quite rewarding.
   190. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2106571)
B Pierce .... 201 / 148 141 136 133 124 115 113 108 / 107 107 105 104 103
NewNewkm 133 / 133 132 131 131 131 123 122 114 / 90


By the way, do we owe the method of descending series to Justin Kubatko at baseball survivor, 2001-2002? Or is it older than that? Is OCF the one who introduced it here?

I understand the attraction, and use it some, but I know it is an attractive nuisance, too. The first thing anyone does with a series is punctuate it. Analysis in terms of segments is immensely persuasive, I daresay about the 100 HOM participants as a group, but the punctuation is quite subjective.
   191. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 04:43 PM (#2106583)
Re war credit for Dizzy Trout.
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?


Dizzy Trout is at the top of my subjective list of players who benefited from war. This is from general knowledge; it's something I know everybody knows. So it may be wrong. . . . His wartime seasons look full to me.

Trout, Trucks, Tigers. Maybe there is some mental gravitation at work. Even after looking up their records no one can keep them straight for long.
   192. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#2106605)
jschmeagol #85
wondered aloud about the HOMeaning of division and palyoff expansion.
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.

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 . . .


That was eight days ago, Thu 13.
JoeD has discussed the general issue recently, can it be fewer than 8 days ago?
jschmeagol, el chaleeko, joed:
This can't be a good location for this article so I will post only two paragraphs now, suggesting that anyone who knows a good location quote me and respond there.


Pennants Added is a family of measures. As I understand from JoeD, the original version by Michael Wolverton, yields career ratings that change annually, even for retired players, precisely because there is annually a new batch of pennant races whose characteristics do not match the all-time distribution of races. Current races are generally closer than historical ones, so Pennants Added ratings will generally shift slightly in favor of the "career" and against the "peak" historical careers. Almost every year, Bob Caruthers slips a little relative to George Van Haltren. But the current races (standings top to bottom) need not be closer than the historical average every year. If mlb gives us a year that falls on the other side of the historical norm, Caruthers gains a little on Van Haltren in next winter's revised edition.

There are other ratings in the Pennants Added family. I don't know whether any one differs in the respect outlined here. This much may be implied by the defining idea.
I don't believe anyone else has suggested "moving" PA ratings or HOM ballots in the direction jschmeagol suggests, where flat-career players benefit because they played in a time, league, or division with closer competition --or, practically equivalent, with a championship playoff for a greater share of participating teams.
   193. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 05:17 PM (#2106609)
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?


Not I. But there may be 10 CFs in your top 30 now, after more than 80 years, if the voters have consistently underrated CFs only a little.
   194. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2106620)
and the rules on what constituted a stolen base were different, with the modern rule not being implemented until 1898. I actually would have liked seeing the original rule kept (runners going first-to-third on a single, for example, were credited with a stolen base) because that would have made the SB a better measure of overall baserunning.

-- MWE


at scorer's discretion, so they faced a challenge in order to make it what you wish
   195. Paul Wendt Posted: July 21, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#2106622)
Or maybe your favorite team just got into your blood when you were 8 or 9 years old, and objective reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with who you root for.

Nah...


Nah.

One homeboy has a friend who links socialism or northeasty liberalism with rooting for the Red Sox rather than the Yankees. Another has a friend who thinks there is "somewhere in between" rooting for the Red Sox and the Yankees. Whatever may be disrupting habits of the 8-year old heart, it isn't objective reasoning.
   196. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 21, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2106679)
welcome, fra!

I also welcome fra, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that he has decided to join us. I guess our pros outweigh our cons. :-)

Childs and Brenahan on his ballot? What's not to love about his ballot?! :-D
   197. yest Posted: July 21, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#2106721)
Childs and Brenahan on his ballot? What's not to love about his ballot?! :-D
the fact that Childs and Brenahan are on his ballot
   198. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 21, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2106730)
the fact that Childs and Brenahan are on his ballot

Watch it with the wisecracks, yest. ;-)
   199. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 22, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2107074)
Since there's some cross-thread talk about the first elected HOMer to appear for a team (not the same as the first HOMer to appear for a team)...

c. 2005 teams who have never had a current HOMer on their roster.

Anaheim (F-Rob to be the first)
Arizona (Randy Johnson)
Colorado (None yet I think...Helton?)
Florida (Sheffield or Piazza with Kevin Brown and Bonilla as alternatives)
Milwauke (Aaron)
Montreal/Washington (Pete Rose, with Perez or Staub as earlier but less likely possibilities)
Royals (Killebrew)
San Diego (McCovey)
Seattle (Gy Perry)
Tampa Bay (Boggs)
Texas (probably Jenkins (74) or Perry (75) [same election year], but could be Minoso)
Toronto (Phil Niekro)
   200. Brent Posted: July 22, 2006 at 04:34 AM (#2107298)
fra paolo wrote:

Negro Leaguers: Mendez, Moore, Redding, Trouppe. They all fell by the wayside for different reasons to do with shortcomings in the statistical record. I'm not inclined to give support to cases based heavily on equivalencies

No voter is required to rely on MLEs in evaluating Negro Leaguers; some voters prefer to rely on other evidence such as opinion of Negro League experts. But the HoM Constitution does require that, "Voters shall give serious consideration to “excluded” players such as Negro League stars."

You've listed nine pre-integration white players on your preliminary ballot, but no Negro Leaguers. To assure us that you are, in fact, giving them serious consideration, could I ask who your top 3 Negro League candidates are and what evidence you are using to evaluate them?
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.5889 seconds
49 querie(s) executed