Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, July 31, 2006

1982 Ballot

New candidates: Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Billy Williams, Bill Freehan, Tony Oliva, Willie Davis, Rico Petrocelli, Tommy Davis, and Tommy Harper.

Top-ten returnees: José Méndez, Joe Sewell, Minnie Minoso, Ralph Kiner, Billy Pierce, Cannonball Dick Redding, Cupid Childs, and Hugh Duffy

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:39 AM | 213 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 31, 2006 at 11:53 AM (#2119356)
I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I am integrating the conclusions made by DERA with Win Shares for all pitchers.

I do place (to a certain degree) domination at one's position during the player's era. That doesn't mean that domination-by-default will necessarily help you though (Gil Hodges may have been the best first baseman of his era, but he wont make my ballot).

1) Hank Aaron-RF/LF/CF/1B/DH (n/e): Oh, Henry! Best ML right fielder for 1956, 1957, (close in 1958), 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1965. Best NL right fielder for 1958 and 1969. Best ML first baseman for 1971.

2) Frank Robinson-RF/LF/DH/1B (n/e): Huge chasm between Robby and #3 on my ballot. Best ML right fielder for 1962 and 1966. Best NL left fielder for 1956 and 1957. Best ML first baseman for 1959. Best DH in 1973.

3) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (4): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

4) Cupid Childs-2B (5): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1897.

The most dominating backlogger for his position 99.9% of the time for each election.

5) Billy Williams-LF/DH (n/e): Durable and a quality player, I don't see him close to being inner-circle, but a HoMer, nevertheless. Best ML left fielder for 1972.

6) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (5): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league right fielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

7) Bob Elliott-3B/RF (6): Why Kell, but not Elliott? He could hit, field, and didn't have a short career. Best ML third baseman for 1943, 1944, 1947, 1948, and close in 1950.Best NL third baseman for 1949 and 1950.

8) Pie Traynor-3B (7): Best white third baseman of his time (though J. Wilson and Beckwith was better). Best major league third baseman for 1923 (Beckwith was better), 1925, 1927, 1929 (Beckwith was better) and 1932.

9) Alejandro Oms-CF (8): Thanks to Chris' work, another gem has been uncovered. He should gather more and more support over the next few "years."

10) Minnie Minoso-LF/3B (9): Probably the best ML left fielder of the fifties, though only because Teddy Ballgame was in Korea and Stan the Man played considerably at other positions. Best ML left fielder for 1956 and 1959. Best AL of 1953.
   2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:54 AM (#2119357)
11) Burleigh Grimes-P (10): Pitched for a long time behind crappy teams and defenses. Not a bad peak, too Best NL pitcher for 1921 and 1929.

12) Mickey Welch-P (11): Yeah, pitching was different back then, but he still distinguished himself regardless. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

13) Bucky Walters-P (12): The guy had a nice peak, fairly long career, and could hit. Best ML pitcher of 1939 (extremely close in 1940). Best NL pitcher of 1940 and 1944.

14) Vic Willis-P (13): Willis pitched a ton of innings at an above-average rate for a long enough time for his era. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

15) Dobie Moore-SS (14): Terrific peak; wished he had a little more career. I give him credit for his pre-NeL seasons. Probably would have been the best shortstop in the majors in 1919, 1921, 1922, and 1924.

Kiner, Redding, Mendez, Sewell, and Pierce all exist in my top-35, but they just fall short.
   3. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 11:57 AM (#2119358)
1982 ballot
Aaron and Robinson make my PHOM this year

1. Hank Aaron (makes my personal HoM this year)
2. Frank Robinson (makes my personal HoM this year)
3. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
4. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
5. Nellie Fox led his league in putouts a record 10 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1971)
6. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles 1 triple crown (made my personal HoM in 1951)
7. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
8. Sam Rice if he got 13 more hits would he make the HoM? (made my personal HoM in 1940)
9. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
10. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
11. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
12. Tony Oliva most hits 5 times
13. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles RBI season record (made my personal HoM in 1940)
14. Ralph Kiner 7 HR titles (made my personal HoM in 1961)
15. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
16. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
17. George Kell very good hitter and fielder at important and under elected position (made my personal HoM in 1963)
18. Harvey Kuenn led AL shortsops in putouts twice assists once (made my personal HoM in 1972)
19. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1957)
20. Bill Freehan great fielder and good power
21. Edd Roush 323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
22. Hilton Smith see his thread (made my personal HoM in 1964)
23. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
24. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
25. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
26. Luis Aparicio being a better offensive player then Rabbit puts him here (made my personal HoM in 1979)
27. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
28. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
29. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
30. Bill Mazeroski probably saved on average around 90 runs a year
31. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)
32. Roy Thomas most times on base 6 times
33. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
34. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
35. Billy Williams much worse then I expected
36. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
37. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
38. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
39. Levi Meyerle best rate season ever (made my personal HoM in 1975)
40. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
41. Orlando Cepada 297 batting avg 379 HRs

explanation for players not on my ballot
Dick Redding, Dobie Moore and Jose Mendez barring new evidence not one will make my ballot (the HoF vote has absolutely no bearing on my vote )
Minnie Minoso would have been on my ballot with the addition of a few good seasons which his Negroe League stats seem to show he lacked
Billy Pierce not good enough long enough
   4. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:03 PM (#2119362)
Best ML right fielder for 1956, 1957, close in 1958, 1959
John who was better in 1959? (BTW I give Aaron the 59 MVP)
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:43 PM (#2119380)
Pick any 2 voters at random. What are the odds that, other than Aaron and Frobby, their common votes are Duffy, Traynor and Welch?
   6. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:56 PM (#2119384)
Why did only hitters retire this year? Aaron and Robinson are no-brainers; there’s a case for Robby above Hank (more than Hornsby/Ruth) but not quite a convincing one. B. Williams a tough one; he’s Medwick plus or Clemente minus. I had Medwick around #40 (discount for war years) and Clemente #3 – I’ll put B. Williams between Lombardi and Schang; he may move up or down a bit in future years. Willie Davis long career but well below HOM level; adding 2 Japanese years doesn’t change much. Don’t agree that Freehan’s underrated; short career and nowhere near as good as Lombardi, Schang or Trouppe – start him at #48, next to McGuire and above Clements. Oliva short career and several notches below Killer on quality – just off the bottom of consideration set. Petrocelli short career, plus injuries, not there – pity.

1. (N/A) Hank Aaron Just a touch better than Frank Robinson, and slightly longer career. 3771 hits at OPS+155. TB+BB/PA .592, TB+BB/Outs .904.

2. (N/A) Frank Robinson. From the 1971 Oriole commentators (my first exposure to MLB) I thought Brooks not Frank was the true superstar on the Orioles. Underrated at the time, and decent manager with the Expos/Nats – very important figure, perhaps more so than Mays/Aaron. However, just barely #2 as a player. 2943 hits at OPS+ of 154. TB+BB .578, TB+BB/Outs .902. Walked more than Hank.

3. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1-2-6-4-4-2-1-1-1-3-
1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-3-1-1-1-1-2-1-3-1-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-2-1-2-1-1-3-1-1-1
-2-2-2-2) Jake Beckley. Better than Sisler (1 point OPS+, 118 hits, more dangerous/difficult fielding position) and we’ve just elected Sisler. Paul Waner is a very close comp (it was 37 years till we found one) and it thus makes no sense to have Waner far above Beckley. Significantly longer career than Clemente when you adjust the schedule, much longer relative to his contemporaries (he was #2 in AB when he retired, and #5 20 years after he retired.) Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, above Babe, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (now 10 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (now 8 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals. Should have been elected 40 “years” ago.

4. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-
2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2-4-2-3-3-2-2-4-3-2-2-3-3-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-
3-2-2-3-2-2-4-2-3-2-2-4-2-2-2-4-3-3-3) Mickey Welch. 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the 1920s and 1930s pitcher glut – 7 more wins than Lefty Grove! 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802 IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was far better than most of the 00s and 20s pitchers under consideration, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Alex) got near 300 wins, and many of whom had ERA+s little better than Welch.

5. (N/A-11-14-N/A-15-13-14-12-12-13-14-13-9-9) Rube Waddell. Up again on further reexamination of the minor league credit question. Only 193-143, and only 2961 IP but 134 ERA+, and UER were high but not exceptional. If you give minor league credit, he goes to say 3300-3400IP, and is clearly a HOMer.

6. (N/A-7-7-6-8-6-6-7-7-6-7-7-7-9-8-7-7-4-5-3-3-3-5-4-4-4) Addie Joss. I’m now even more convinced I missed him earlier, and that adjusting innings down for dead ball pitchers is illegitimate. 2327 IP at an ERA+ of 142. 160-97 by age 30. If you assume the rest of his career would have been 1800 IP, 120-90 with an ERA+ of 110 (somewhat conservative, assuming you boost his last sick season, though pitchers didn’t last as long as they did later) then 50% credit would put him at 3227IP, 220-142, with ERA+ of 130. 25% credit puts him at 2777 IP, 190-120, with ERA+ of 136. Substantially better than Koufax.

7. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6-5-4-6-7-6-5-5-6-7-5-5-4-
4-5-4-6-4-4-5-4-4-5-4-4-6-5-5-5-6-7-5-5-6-7-6-5-5) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity – Newhouser a close comp, but Cicotte had a longer career. Successfully cursed Red Sox AND White Sox for over 8 decades!

8. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5-7-5-6-7-6-6-7-8-7-6-6-7-8-6-6-5-
5-6-5-7-5-5-6-6-5-6-5-5-7-6-6-6-7-8-6-6-7-8-7-6-6) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

9. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11-12-10-12-11-9-8-9-10-10-9-
8-9-10-9-8-7-9-9-8-10-9-8-10-9-8-9-8-8-10-9-8-8-8-9-7-7-8-9-8-7-7) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF.

10. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13-11-10-11-12-12-11-11-11-
12-12-11-11-12-13-12-15-14-12-14-11-10-11-11-10-12-11-10-9-9-
10-8-8-9-10-9-8-8) Sam Leever. Pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.
   7. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:56 PM (#2119385)
11. (N/A-10-9-8-10-11-10-13-12-14-N/A-15-14-13-12-11-10-10-11-9-9
-10-11-10-10-10) Ernie Lombardi. Up a bit when compared with the closely comparable Berra. 2137 hits, normalized to a 130 game season, and an OPS+ of 125 makes him a little better than Schang, but some of it was during the war years and he fielded badly. TB+BB/PA .492, TB+BB/Outs .719., the ratio between the two very low because of strikeouts, I assume. Plus a great nickname!

12. Billy Williams. Longish career, highish quality; not Beckley, not Clemente/Kaline, but better than Kiner/F. Howard because lasted longer. TB+BB/PA .536, TB+BB/Outs.810

13. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9-8-7-8-11-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-11-12-
11-14-13-11-13-13-13-13-12-11-14-13-12-11-11-12-10-10-11-12-11
-11-11) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.

14. (N/A-8-7-8-14-13-14-13-9-9-10-11-9-11-10-13-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-
15-N/A-15-15-14-13-N/A-15-14-13-12-13-11-11-12-13-12-13-13) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B.

15. (N/A-14-15-14-13-14-15-14-15-14) Vern Stephens. Short career – only 1859 hits, but comparing him to Reese he was much better, and not far short of Doerr. TB+BB/PA .508, TB+BB/Outs .756. OPS+ 119 Best season 1944, however.

OFF BALLOT

16. (N/A-15-N/A-15) Frank Howard Very slightly better than Kiner – significantly longer career. Underrated by history. OPS+ 142 for 1774 hits. TB+BB/PA .546, TB+BB/Outs .805 in a pitchers’ park and era.

17. (N/A-10-12-N/A-15-N/A-15-14-15-N/A-15-14-N/A) Ralph Kiner Only 1451 hits, but an OPS+ of 149. Doesn’t really deserve war years bonus (too young.) TB+BB/PA .617, TB+BB/Outs .991. Closest comp is Hack Wilson, but Kiner was a little better. Down a bit because of short career.

18. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14-14-14-N/A-15-15-15-N/A-14-15-15-15-N/A-
14-N/A-15-15-N/A-15-N/A) Hack Wilson TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144. (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore. OPS+ slightly below Jones, so here he goes.

19. (N/A) Quincy Trouppe. Not quite as good as Lombardi or Schang, but will be on ballot in quiet years. OPS+118, about 1900 adjusted hits. Much better than Mackey.

20. (N/A-14-14-N/A) Chuck Klein. Shortish career but very good one. Similar player to Beckwith, beats Hack on career length, but Hack was better. TB+BB/PA .575, TB+BB/Outs .909, but only 2076 hits. OPS+137.

21. Indian Bob Johnson. Very similar career to Klein but infinitesimally less good. TB+BB/PA .569, TB+BB/Outs .890., only 2051 hits. OPS+138

22. (N/A-15-N/A) Alejandro Oms. New MLE OPS+ of 125 moves him down a bit. Shorter career than Beckley, and not quite as valuable, but he was a darn good player nonetheless.

23. Minnie Minoso. Even if you add extra years, he’s a shorter career than Oms, and not as good as Johnson. 1963 ML hits at OPS+ of 130, TB+BB/PA .498 , TB+BB/Outs .759

24. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15-15-15-N/A) Carl Mays

25. Ben Taylor. Not all that far below Beckley and better than Van Haltren.
26. Orlando Cepeda
27. Norm Cash
28. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-
N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Hugh Duffy. Up a little after looking at Ashburn
29. (N/A-12-12-14-N/A) Tony Lazzeri
30. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice
31. (N/A) Mickey Vernon
32. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis
33. Billy Pierce.
34. Sal Maglie.
35. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes.
36. (N/A) Heinie Manush
37. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan
38. (N/A-11-12-15-14-N/A) Joe Sewell. Down a bit on Gordon comparison.
39. Bob Elliott
40. Ken Boyer. Just a hair short of Elliott, so slots here.
41. (N/A) Dick Lundy
42. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle.
43. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
44. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
45. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A) George van Haltren.
46. Kiki Cuyler
47. Deacon McGuire
48. Bill Freehan. Much shorter career than McGuire, and only slightly better. 1591 hits at OPS+112 (1636 adjusted to 130 game season.) TB+BB/PA .453, TB+BB/Outs .653.
49. Jack Quinn
50. Tony Mullane
51. Pye Traynor
52. Jim McCormick
53. Dick Redding. My punt is 3200 innings at 114 ERA+ for a record of 207-159, i.e. same quality as Chris but a little shorter. About here looks right – a little below Grimes (longer career) and Maglie (better quality.)
54. Joe Judge
55. Edd Roush
56. Spotswood Poles.
57. Larry Doyle
58. Curt Simmons
59. Roger Bresnahan.
60. Wayte Hoyt.
61. Harry Hooper.
62. Vada Pinson
63. Gil Hodges
64. Jules Thomas.
65. Wilbur Cooper
66. Bruce Petway.
67. Jack Clements
68. Bill Monroe
69. Jose Mendez
70. Herb Pennock
71. Chief Bender
72. Ed Konetchy
73. Jesse Tannehill
74. Bobby Veach
75. Lave Cross
76. Tommy Leach.
77. Tom York
   8. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:07 PM (#2119392)
1)Hank Aaron (PHOM) - I will train my children to bat cross handed
2)Frank Robinson (PHOM) - For the man, for the ballplayer. Not so much for the manager. John McGraw in reverse.
3)Hugh Duffy - Super peak, wonderful prime. Amazing bat, super glove. (PHOM)
4)Rube Waddell - Nothing in his resume tells me he wasn't a dominant pitcher (PHOM)
5)Gavvy Cravath - No longer the worst fielder in my top 120 candidates (Frank Howard). No longer the best hitter in that group, either (See the top two guys). (PHOM)
6)Joe Sewell - Hard to argue with contact. (PHOM)
7)Lefty Gomez - looking at him in any single way hurts him. Looking at him kaleidoscopically has him behind only Waddell as far as pitchers go in my eyes (PHOM)
((7a)Don Drysdale - I took a closer look at your ink - you were good - top the backlog))
8)Jose Mendez - too bad ESPN didn't show his plaque yesteday.
((8a)Willard Brown - I had been underestimating him severely. His reputation enhances his already wonderful numbers.))
9)Ben Taylor - Reevaluation gets him on the ballot. Can't find the peak, but a better prime and glove than Beckley. This ranking may be an understatement.
10)Edd Roush - I found it in me (and Edd's numbers) to move him up a bit in the list. An exceptional hitter and fielder.
11)Quincy Trouppe - Not an easy call, but I think he's the best available catcher. Moving up a few slots this week.
12)Orlando Cepeda
13)Ralph Kiner - So much black ink, so little time. Super Peak!
14)Billy Williams - Quite the sweet swing he had. His career with Kiner's peak would look something like Frank Robinson.
15)Vern Stephens - Will we look at Nomar down the road like we look at Vern now? Great bat, good glove.
16)Bill Freehan - Most of this is defense.
((16a)Biz Mackey - I was really underestimating both his offense and his reputation))
17)Tommy Bridges - He was really very good.
18)Minnie Minoso - still very good. Maybe a wee bit overrated.
19)Nellie Fox - Low OPS+, but he is an exception to that measurement. SLG is negligible for him, he did quite well with the rest.
20)Ken Boyer - so close. Still my highest ranking 3B. At least for now.
21)Wally Berger - super-underrated
22)Dizzy Dean - Diet Sandy Koufax. 0 calories (career), no sugar (prime).
((20)Juan Marichal))
23)Ernie Lombardi - defense was below average, but not quite horrible
24)Roger Bresnahan
25)Al Rosen - One more season in prime, and he is top 10
((25a)Jim Bunning - He had merits, but not enough for balloting. Benefits from my re-examination of ink.))
26)Dick Redding - One of the toughest for me to accurately place (PHOM)
27)Chuck Klein
((27a)Joe Gordon - neither here nor there. War credit obviously helps him, but not enough for me.))
28)Billy Pierce - don't see him as being better than Bridges
29)Addie Joss - ERA/+ and WHIP are great, but why so little black ink?
30)Pete Browning
31)Charley Jones - he got the shaft - but I am not convinced as to what extent.
32)Fred Carroll - I give him around 1.5 seasons prime MiL credit
33)Cupid Childs
34)Phil Rizzuto
35)Charlie Keller - 3rd all time in extra credit
36)Norm Cash - Too much in one year - and that was not the best year for an everlasting peak, for a number of reasons.
37)John McGraw
38)Jimmy Ryan
39)Alejandro Oms
40)Jake Beckley - Always very good. No peak, all prime. Defense is overrated. I have read about his arm being so weak (and erratic) that runners were able to take the extra base on him. Not sure how that works at 1B, but worth noting.
41)Luke Easter
42)Johnny Evers
43)Pete Reiser - The biggest "what-if" on my ballot. If you like Keller, look at the Pistol.
44)George Kell
45)Bobby Veach
46)Bob Elliott
47)Bucky Walters
48)Ray Chapman - I think his case deserves some credit.
49)Fred Dunlap
50)Jim Bottomley
51)Bob Johnson
52)Joe Wood - If he had one more really good year as a pitcher, he'd be balloted
53)Dobie Moore - Peak too short, not enough (not anything) surrounding it.
54)Bill Mazeroski - I need to revise my scoring regarding peak and all things offensive for prue "Glove" positions. Mazeroski would probably benefit from that, but not enough to ballot.
55)Tommy Leach - I had missed him until now - I don't see the great love for him, though.
56)Tony Lazerri
57)Dolf Camilli
58)Walker Cooper - some days, he reminds me of Quincey Trouppe
59)Johnny Pesky
60)Hippo Vaughn
61)Bus Clarkson - A newcomer to the consideration set. More shades of Quincy.
62)Vada Pinson - The ink really threw me for a twist. He looks like a good all-round CF, not great. But he amassed hefty ink totals for his generation. This may be a safe ranking.
63)Tip O'Neill
64)Rocky Colavito
65)Denny Lyons
66)Cecil Travis - 2nd all-time for most war credit (Ted Williams). 4 years is a lot of credit.
67)George Van Haltren - a nice player, but there were always others who were better. Much better.
68)Lon Warneke
69)Don Newcombe
70)Tony Oliva
71)Jack Clements
72)Cy Williams
73)Roger Maris
74)Pie Traynor
75)Frank Chance
   9. Rusty Priske Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:11 PM (#2119394)
My PHoM picks are pretty obvious.


1. Hank Aaron (new)

He hit a few dingers.

2. Frank Robinson (new)

He hit a couple, himself.

3. Billy Williams (new)

Is this the best year for newcomers we have had in a while?

4. George Van Haltren (3,5,2)

Poor George.

5. Willie Davis (new)

I am starting to believe I have overrated him. :)

6. Jake Beckley (2,2,3)

7. Tommy Leach (9,13,10)

8. Mickey Welch (6,3,4)

9. Dobie Moore (8,10,7)

10. Hugh Duffy (10,8,8)

11. Nellie Fox (7,7,5)

12. Edd Roush (14,12,9)

13. Orlando Cepeda (13,9,x)

14. Norm Cash (11,6,x)

15. Quincy Trouppe (12,11,13)

16-20. Minoso, Childs, Rice, Sewell, Boyer
21-25. Kiner, Pierce, Redding, Ryan, Streeter
26-30. Willis, Johnson, Strong, F. Howard, Gleason
   10. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:13 PM (#2119399)

2)Frank Robinson (PHOM) - For the man, for the ballplayer. Not so much for the manager. John McGraw in reverse.
37)John McGraw

you over rate Frank as a manager
   11. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:43 PM (#2119424)
karlmagnus - Jose Mendez has been a consensus top ten for a while - care to enlighten some of us why you have him down at 69?
   12. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:20 PM (#2119455)
yest - I was being a little facetious.
   13. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#2119468)
You're quite right about Mendez; I hadn't picked up the need to comment as he crept into the top 10 about 20 "years" ago. However, I stick with what I wrote in 1934; even I9 has him below 200 wins, and Chris has him at an ERA+ of 121. Since I think the projections are optimistic anyway (especially I9s) I'll pass, thanks. I think we already have too many NgL players, by any actuarial standard, and I wouldn't elect any more other than possibly Trouppe. Mendez in particular would be a mistake, but we've made several already in this area.

Will put that comment on my '83 ballot so I'm rule-compliant.
   14. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#2119473)
so was I
   15. DL from MN Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:44 PM (#2119481)
I gave all the catchers an 8% bonus for reduced playing time. I also gave 2B and SS a little more glove bonus based on feedback. Quincy Trouppe made it back on the ballot and Dick Bartell inched ever closer. Bartell is the most well-rounded infield candidate available, good hitter, great glove, long career. Lots of hidden value in defense and OBP.

1982 Ballot
1) Henry Aaron - My favorite player. I have him tied with Musial in value.
2) Frank Robinson - Would be #1 most years. Equivalent in value to Mantle.
3) Billy Williams - Well rounded outfielder. The rich man's version of...
4) Bob Johnson
5) Billy Pierce - best pitcher available
6) Norm Cash - glove separates him from Frank Howard
7) Orlando Cepeda - Better hitter than Cash
8) Ken Boyer - I've tried to reward complete ballplayers
9) Ralph Kiner - but pure sluggers can make a ballot if they hit this good
10) Bob Elliott - One of the top RH bats of the war era
11) Quincy Trouppe - catcher bonus gets him back up here
12) Charlie Keller
13) Tommy Bridges
14) Dutch Leonard
15) Jake Beckley
16) Minnie Minoso
17) Joe Sewell
18) Dick Bartell
19) Jose Mendez
20) Virgil Trucks
21-25) Frank Howard, Dobie Moore, Chuck Klein, Rube Waddell, Gavy Cravath
26-30) Jack Quinn, Tommy Leach, Urban Shocker, Hilton Smith, Edd Roush
31) Bill Freehan - catcher bonus helped him a bunch
Dick Redding - 42
Cupid Childs - Moves up to 37, Schang moved up to 36
Willie Davis - #52 with Japan credit
Tony Oliva - #71 not enough bulk
Hugh Duffy - #87, way below contemporaries Van Haltren, Browning and Ryan - too few good seasons, 1894 must count multiple times in some people's systems
   16. ronw Posted: July 31, 2006 at 03:14 PM (#2119515)
1982 Ballot –I use a little of WS, WARP, RCAA, OPS+, and traditional stats, as well as reputation. I’m putting bWS/700PA and pWS/300IP, plus my broad All-Star candidates, and MVP/Cy Young candidates for fun.

1. Hank Aaron 28.8 bWS/700PA, 15 MVP, 19 AS. That was easy.

2. Frank Robinson 27.9 bWS/700PA, 6 MVP, 18 AS. So was that.

3. Hugh Duffy 20.9 bWS/700PA, 5 MVP, 10 AS. (1894 does not count multiple times.) This guy jumped in my rankings. I didn’t realize how dominant he was during the early 1890’s.

4. Billy Williams – 21.9 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 12 AS. Zack Wheat redux. A fine selection, just not this year.

5. Dick Redding I think his teens peak is higher than we realize. However, those ‘20’s numbers are looming large. Seems like he could be similar to Juan Marichal as far as overall value and highish peak.

6. Pete Browning 26.1 bWS/700 PA, 5 MVP, 8 AS. There were two better hitters through the 1880’s, Brouthers and Connor. There were many better fielders.

7. Dobie Moore 22.1 bWS/700 PA. Such a high peak that less PT may not really be an issue. Similar to Jennings for me.

8. Joe Sewell 15.8 bWS/700 PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS. My fraternity brother really received a boost in my rankings.

9. Tommy Leach 18.0 bWS/700 PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS. A good player from an underrepresented period.

10. Bill Freehan – 17.8 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 10 AS. Outstanding, underrated player. Supplants Bresnahan as the best unelected catcher. Not higher because even with better equipment and longer schedule, he would have the lowest PA among our elected catchers, other than 19th century guys.

11. Roger Bresnahan 22.7 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 11 AS. Yes, the MVP was as a CF, but still a very valuable player for his time.

12. Jose Mendez I think that I can’t ignore Mendez, who was probably the pitcher that Ferrell was, and may have been as good a hitter.

13. George Van Haltren 20.0 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 13 AS. Has gotten an elect-me vote on my ballot before.

14. Bill Monroe The ultimate overlooked candidate.

15. Vic Willis 22.0 pWS/300IP, 3 CY, 8 AS. I think we are underrating his early career peak.

16. Ralph Kiner 24.2 bWS/700PA, 4 MVP, 8 AS. Not quite enough for this ballot.

17. Minnie Minoso 21.8 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS (including Negro Leagues). Really neck-and-neck with Kiner.

LAST YEAR TOP TEN/NEW NOTABLES


Missing top 10


Billy Pierce – 22.1 pWS/300IP, 2 CY, 7 AS. The best remaining pitcher from the ‘50’s. I don’t think he has quite enough. He needs a higher peak based on his relatively short # of All-Star seasons.

Cupid Childs – 18.6 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 9 AS. On my ballot until very recently. Will get there again.

New Notables

Tony Oliva – 22.1 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 8 AS. Not quite enough peak or career.

Willie Davis – 17.3 bWS/700PA, 0 MVP, 9 AS. Not really a peak to speak of.

Rico Petrocelli – 15.5 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 5 AS. Put his early career with Eddie Joost’s late career, and you’d have a HOMer.

Tommy Davis – 16.4 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 2 AS. When he was good, he was very, very good. It just wasn’t long enough. Go Seattle Pilots!

Tommy Harper - 16.1 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 4 AS. Go Pilots again!
   17. Mark Donelson Posted: July 31, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2119540)
I’m an extreme peak voter; career numbers matter very little to me, except as a tiebreaker. I rely heavily on WS for hitters, with OPS+ and some WARP thrown in as well. For starting pitchers, it’s PRAA, with some WS and ERA+ adjustments for good measure. For relievers, I’ve adopted a mix of career total PRAA and year-by-year peak PRAA, with an emphasis on the latter, which seems to produce the most sensible results I can come up with.

pHOM: Aaron & Robinson, duh.

Inspired by jschmeagol’s lists, I did a complete re-evaluation of each position this time around. It resulted in a lot of moving around, including some shifts in who's on and off ballot. One realization was how much injustice I’ve been doing to Enos Slaughter, who’ll go into my pHOM soon. Other big winners in the re-evaluation included Cravath, Gomez, Roush, Pesky, Trout, Dunlap, and the already-elected Faber. Losers were Bresnahan, Minoso, Poles, Welch, and the already-elected Reese, Ford, Doerr, and Ashburn.

1982 ballot:

1. Hank Aaron (pHOM 1982). I thought he might be another Spahn—the career that impresses even the peakster enough to make him #1. But as it turns out, he’s clearly #1 on peak, prime, or career—you name it.

2. Frank Robinson (pHOM 1982). Just as clearly #2.

3. José Méndez (pHOM 1960). Comparable with some of the best ML pitchers of his era, and those are some pretty shiny names.

4. Rube Waddell (pHOM 1919). He's as good as Iron Man McGinnity! Seriously, with the revelation that the UER data aren't as damning as they seemed, he should be on every peak-heavy voter's ballot.

5. Dobie Moore (pHOM 1932). Just enough to satisfy my (admittedly small) minimum requirements. Fantastic peak, even if it’s not quite what we thought before the new MLEs—in fact, I’d demoted him too much, and he swaps places with Duffy this “year.”

6. Hugh Duffy (pHOM 1930). I’ve read all the pro and con arguments, and I have to say I keep ending up in the same place on Duffy: He belongs, at least for anyone with as much of a peak emphasis as I have.

7. Cupid Childs (pHOM 1938). I’m convinced he was the class of his position at his time, dominant for long enough to get my vote.

8. Ralph Kiner (pHOM 1964). He still looks pretty good to a peak voter. He beats out Keller only because of the uncertainty surrounding how much war credit to give the latter.

9. Dizzy Dean (pHOM 1967). He’s risen with each reevaluation I’ve done. It’s a really short peak (which is why he’s not even higher), but he was inarguably dominant during it.

10. Charlie Keller (pHOM 1973). A peak I just couldn’t argue around anymore.

11. Eddie Cicotte (pHOM 1972). Clear enough dominance for long enough, in my book. My re-evaluation swaps him and Willis.

12. Ed Williamson (pHOM 1931). A lost cause, but still the best of the backlog 3Bs, for my taste.

13. Bill Freehan. Nearly identical to Elston Howard, but the slightly better five-year peak edges out Howard’s possibly slightly better defense.

14. Vic Willis (pHOM 1961). Not the most dominant pitcher of his era, perhaps, but he presents an awfully appealing peak.

[14a. Enos Slaughter. Looking again at his numbers alongside those of Clemente and Kaline made me realize I’d done Country wrong.]

15. Elston Howard (pHOM 1976). After my reconsideration, I found I’d been underrating Howard and overrating Trouppe very slightly. They don’t exactly swap places, but Howard grabs the last ballot spot, and Trouppe drops off.
   18. Mark Donelson Posted: July 31, 2006 at 03:34 PM (#2119549)
16-20: Rosen (1968), C. Jones (1976), Trouppe (1967), Browning (1979), Walters (1968)
21-25: Cravath, Pierce, Fox, Gomez, Bresnahan (1973)
26-30: Berger, [Faber], F. Howard, McGraw, H. Smith, Roush
31-35: Pesky, B. Williams, Redding (1975), Trout, Boyer
36-40: Joss, [Reese], H. Wilson, [Lyons], Leach, [Wynn], Oms, [W. Ford], McCormick
41-45: Doyle, Minoso, Chance, J. Ryan, Elliott
46-50: Cepeda, [Lemon], G. Burns, Colavito, Rizzuto, Dunlap

Required Explanations and Newbies:

•Sewell. There’s just not remotely enough peak here for me. In my re-evaluation, Stephens jumps over him again, and he drops just outside my top 50.

•Minoso. Kind of the rich man’s Van Haltren: very good for a long time, but he doesn’t really have the kind of peak I’m looking for. He drops in my re-evaluation, and so is likely to become another HOM/not pHOM. At #41.

•Pierce. Not quite the peak of my favorite nonelected eligible pitchers (other than that one year), but I think he’s still one of the best of his era—better than Ford, in fact. He’s at #22 now, and very close to my pHOM.

•Redding. I finally had time to fully look over his numbers again, and he takes a big hit—just not the peak I remembered. Drops to #33.

•Billy Williams. Another of the solid-prime players who don’t float my boat, HOM-wise. He’s not quite as good as the likes of Kaline/Clemente, and in this tight pack that drops him quite a bit. Better than Minoso, though. He starts at #32; he could move up (or down) slightly in future.

•Willie Davis. I’m even more confused by the votes he’s getting than by the ones given to Norm Cash. I guess I can see it if you’re a pure career voter...barely. To me, though, he doesn’t look all that much better than, say, Curt Flood, who didn’t exactly thrill the electorate. Not close to my top 50.

•Oliva. Sort of the anti-Aaron: not quite the peak, prime, OR career to appeal to many of us, I fear. Certainly not close for me: He’s not as good as Chuck Klein, who doesn’t make my top 50 either.

•Petrocelli. One great (and underappreciated—only seventh in MVP voting?) year, but that’s not really enough even for me. Did he remind anyone else of Heinie Zimmerman (aside from the latter’s whole fixing-games thing)? Not in my top 50.

•Tommy Davis. Another guy who had a peak, but it was just too short. Not in my top 50.
   19. Mike Webber Posted: July 31, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2119593)
In the catagory of not know whether to laugh or cry:
Yest wrote:

34. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
35. Billy Williams much worse then I expected
   20. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2119622)
1982 ballot
1. Hank Aaron. A one-tool player: hammer.

2. Frank Robinson. Aaron had a hammer. Does this guy have a socket wrench? A coping saw? A dremmell? How about a dado?

3. Jose Mendez: Dominant peak/prime with less career.

4. Bucky Walters: Dominant peak, good prime, pretty good career. I like peak in my pitchers.

5. Quincy Trouppe: Best catcher available.

6. Charley Jones: Best left fielder available. A dominant batter in the 1870s and 1880s with a three-year vacation based on unfair labor practices. A continuous career would already have him in the HOM.

7. Bill Freehan: Outstanding catcher of the 1960s, and a clear HOMer in my book. His peak, prime, and career are all plenty strong for his position, and are more impressive than the ballyhooed tandem of Lombardi and Schang. In comparison to the Duke of Trallee, his peak is very slightly lower, but his prime and career slightly higher. Given Duke’s OF work, I prefer Freehan.

8. Roger Bresnahan: Outstanding catcher-hybrid candidate. Good peak, especially for the position, and a robust offensive game. Bresnahan nq Freehan.

9. Billy Pierce: Wonderful 1950s ace pitcher. The innings may seem low, but I believe it is, in some part, due to his frequent use as a fireman. Lots o’ leverage there, plus he was an excellently effective moundsman.

10. Tony Mullane: Again with the unfair labor practice guys! Mullane racked up great seasons in the 1880s, got a one-year booting, continued racking up great seasons, pitched well in the 1890s NL, and looks a heckuva lot better than Mickey Welch to me.

11. Wilbur Cooper: One of those lefties that Jimmy Sheckard probably had trouble with. If only we had the PbP data to know! Dominant NL portsider of the 1910s-early 1920s.

12. Cupid Childs: Best second baseman available. Shaped like a hydrant, hit like a monster with some indication that park killed power. Absolutely dominant at his position throughout the 1890s.

13. Ned Williamson: Outstanding third baseman and a potent hitter of the 1880s. Probably the best 3B over the span 1878-1885, and then among the best SS in the game for a couple years after that.

14. Hugh Duffy: Best centerfielder available (sorry Mike!!!). His combo of peak/prime is very good and he’s got enough career to stave off the Ryan/GVH/Roush gang.

15. Elston Howard: Another catcher, yes, but catchers are in somewhat short supply. Great five-year run that saw him win an MVP and probably deserve it. His career’s a mess due to the color line and in particular the Yanks’ unwillingness to commit to black players. They were glad they finally did with him.


Backlogging

Joe Sewell: In the 20s. Fun stuff with Sewell and the SBE…

If he’d played his career in the AL of 1969-1982 with the same averages relative to his league as in his own time, he would have hit about

.277/.354/.384

The league average of the 1969-1982 period (excluding pitchers) was

.259/.326/.384

Relative to the league average, his ratios versus the league are

107/109/100 for avg/obp/slg

What players in both leagues of the period came close?
1969-1982
NAME               G  AVG  OBA  SLG    
------------------------------------
Pat Kelly       1365  103  109   99   
Steve Braun     1197  105  114   97   
Al Bumbry       1185  108  106   99   
Carlos May      1148  107  110  105   
Bruce Bochte    1128  109  111  103   
Ron LeFlore     1099  110  105  101   
John Grubb      1063  106  110  104   
Cesar Tovar     1015  111  104   98   
Jerry Mumphrey   885  109  105   98   
Gene Richards    844  110  109   99   
Terry Puhl       748  105  104   98 


That’s very interesting stuff. Not one of these guys can approach Sewell’s durability. But more interestingly, he’s statistically comparable to a bunch of corner outfielders who are average or below for their position. Not one infielder on the list. Now that’s somewhat because the NL of the period boasted awful shortstops, but it’s still interesting that no infielder makes the list. Who is the most comparable infielder of the period?

Sewell again is at 107/109/100 for avg/obp/slg

At shortstop in this period

Rick Burleson 1151 105/100/93
Roy Smalley 986 99/105/99
Toby Harrah 836 102/106/102

At second base in this period

Dave Cash 1422 107/101/93
Davey Lopes 1335 98/104/97
Willie Randolph 964 103/113/91
Bump Wills 831 100/102/91

Third base in this period

Sal Bando 1799 98/109/109
Buddy Bell 1391 110/104/106
Don Money 1069 101/100/106
Toby Harrah 872 103/116/108
Roy Howell 870 100/99/102

I’m not getting much here. He still looks the most like Pat Kelly, Steve Braun, or Al Bumbry as a batter to me. It’s interesting that he most resembles American League players, and it’s also interesting that the most comparable guys are all outfielders or corners. An artifact of his era? Or a shift in positional expectations? And what’s it mean to be as good as a mediocre corner?

No idea. The muddle leaves me puzzled.


Ralph Kiner: Not impressed. I mean I am, but I’m not. How’s he much better than Minnie Minoso?

Minnie Minoso: How’s he much better than Ralph Kiner? He’s Dwight Evans and that’s probably not enough for my tastes. His MiL credit and NgL credit are ultimately helpful but not case-making information. They only take him one slot above Lou Brock, and that’s not good enough.

Dick Redding: I’ve pretty much soured on Redding. The 1920s stats give me a picture of him that suggests he had a 10-year prime and then fell apart. I’m probably wrong, and it’s just an interpretation.

Newbies

Believe it or not, in my current all-time rankings, Rico, Tony, and Willie all fall at the 46th slot at their respective positions. Or you might say they're in Beckleyville.
   21. Ardo Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#2119658)
Dr. Chaleeko, I found your Sewell charts to be very helpful, and not at all a muddle.

Basically, Sewell's offensive contributions are roughly equal to Buddy Bell or Toby Harrah - borderline 3B candidates for the HoM - except with 3/4 of his career at shortstop. I rank Sewell about 10th right now, and your chart confirms his ranking for me.
   22. Mike Webber Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#2119671)
Dr. C
Billy Williams?
   23. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#2119680)
Yest - can you please explain in detail how you could have Lloyd Waner over Billy Williams?
   24. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:59 PM (#2119690)
Thanks Mike!

Duhhhhhh on the Doc. He was my number 15 guy, right ahead of Howard...therefore

ATTENTION BALLOT COUNTERS, USE THIS BALLOT INSTEAD FOR THE DOCTOR

1. Hank Aaron
2. Frank Robinson
3. Jose Mendez
4. Bucky Walters
5. Quincy Trouppe
6. Charley Jones
7. Bill Freehan
8. Roger Bresnahan
9. Billy Pierce
10. Tony Mullane
11. Wilbur Cooper
12. Cupid Childs
13. Ned Williamson
14. Hugh Duffy
15. Billy Williams
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2119695)
Yest - can you please explain in detail how you could have Lloyd Waner over Billy Williams?

Batting average, batting average, and batting average.
   26. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#2119706)
Basically, Sewell's offensive contributions are roughly equal to Buddy Bell or Toby Harrah -
No, not exactly. I'm saying that those are his closest comps by rate in this period, but that only takes the 14 years mentioned into account. Their compelete careers are something else.

I rank Sewell about 10th right now, and your chart confirms his ranking for me.
Well, I'm not sold on this POV. You can see the information that way if you choose to, but I'm not sure it's apt. He's less comparable to the 3Bmen than he is to the OFs. And the OFs aren't terribly impressive hitters. Which is to say that the information cuts both ways. You can use it to support or not support how you feel about it. Since I'm neither hot nor cold on him, it doesn't give me the smoking gun I'd like to have.

Now then, I chose 1982 as my end date for obvious reasons, but I did look a little further into the future too. Tony Fernandez appears to be the best contemporary comp for Sewell at SS. Take that for what you will (or don't since it may not be constitutional to do so).
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:10 PM (#2119710)
Best ML right fielder for 1956, 1957, close in 1958, 1959
John who was better in 1959? (BTW I give Aaron the 59 MVP)


I'm not following you, yest, since I have Aaron as the best RF in '59 and it appears that you concur. Do you mean '58 (I have Rocky Colavito as slightly ahead of Aaron for the majors, though Hank is still the best in the NL).
   28. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#2119716)
How so? Waner hit .316 vs. a .286 league, Williams, .290 vs. a .267 league.

So 7 points of batting average makes up for . . .

Williams have a 28-7 point advantage in relative OBP and 95 to (-13) point advantage in relative SLG? In 2200 more PA?

Waner was a slightly above average defensive CF (+22 FRAA), Williams was a very good (+75 FRAA) corner OF. Sure he has a slight defensive edge, but not big enough to make up for all of that offense.
   29. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:15 PM (#2119719)
Batting average, batting average, and batting average.
Defense Defense Defense Defense
I see Waner as a historicly great fielder
   30. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2119731)
I can see Joe Sewell as a slightly glorified Roy Smalley, Jr.

And I can see Lloyd Waner ahead of Billy Williams...in your dreams.
   31. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2119747)
How so? Waner hit .316 vs. a .286 league, Williams, .290 vs. a .267 league.
As I stated in eirlier threads the Dave Kingman, Rob Deer, ext. type hitters who couldn't care less abought their average brought down the leauge average making it easier to exell higher above the leauge
   32. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#2119751)
I'm not following you, yest, since I have Aaron as the best RF in '59 and it appears that you concur. Do you mean '58 (I have Rocky Colavito as slightly ahead of Aaron for the majors, though Hank is still the best in the NL).
I thaught you meant Aaron was close to being the best RF in 59 but I'm assuming you meant MR. X is close to him
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:33 PM (#2119761)
How so? Waner hit .316 vs. a .286 league, Williams, .290 vs. a .267 league.

I absolutely agree about the context, Joe, but it appears yest doesn't.

As I stated in eirlier threads the Dave Kingman, Rob Deer, ext. type hitters who couldn't care less abought their average brought down the leauge average making it easier to exell higher above the leauge

But there hasn't been a .400 hitter in 65 years. Are you saying that Sisler, Cobb, Hornsby, etc. could still hit .400+ today? If you are, I'm not buying that today, tomorrow, or forever.
   34. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2119782)
As I stated in eirlier threads the Dave Kingman, Rob Deer, ext. type hitters who couldn't care less abought their average brought down the leauge average making it easier to exell higher above the leauge
what I mean is they bring down the leauge so that just compairing points above avrage would drasticly underrate the player from an era when there were no such player so Waner would hit around 300 today

But there hasn't been a .400 hitter in 65 years. Are you saying that Sisler, Cobb, Hornsby, etc. could still hit .400+ today? If you are, I'm not buying that today, tomorrow, or forever.
maybe Boggs hit 400 for a season's worth of games (he just made the mistake of picking the wrong day to start)

in 1912 Cobb 409 and the leauge averaged 269
   35. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:59 PM (#2119789)
Lloyd Waner: 34 RCAA, -94 RCAP
Billy Williams: 454 RCAA, 273 RCAP
source: Lee Sinnis's SBE

So Williams' bat is worth 420 more RCAA than Waner's and 367 more RCAP than Waner's.

OK, yest, prove to me that Waner's defense was worth something like 365 to 420 more runs than Williams' and I'll conced the point.

And show your work.

Just to get you started, here's where I'm coming from...

Williams (OF only): 2088 G, 3562 POs, 143 A, 101 E, 24 DP, 3705 TC, 1.77 RF, 1.82 lgRF
Waner (OF only): 1818 G, 4860 POs, 151 A, 87 E, 30 DP, 5011 TC, 2.76 RF, 2.29 lg RF

An average fielder in their respective eras would have produced the following in the same number of games:

Williams: 2088 G, 3800 TC, 91 E, 1.82 RF, .976 FPCT
Waner: 1818 G, 4163 TC, 108 E, 2.29 RF, .974 FPCT

None of these are park adjusted, but I'm forging ahead nonetheless....

Williams cost his teams 10 errors and lost about 6 A and 89 PO versus average.
Waner saved his teams 21 errors, and added about 26 more A and 874 PO versus average.

Let's say that the various components of fielding are analogous to aspects of Jim Furtado's extrapolated runs, a linear-weighted run estimator: PO = outs (.09 runs each), A = doubles (.72 runs each, since you're gunning down runners: this could be higher), E = singles (.5 runs each, this could be higher too). We can change these around if we want later. So sum it all up:

Williams
-8.01 R on PO
-4.32 R on A
-5.00 R on E
------
-13.33 total runs cost vs average

Waner
+79.00 R on PO
+18.72 R on A
+10.50 R on E
------
+108.22 R saved vs average

Adding them together...a 121.55 run swing to Waner. Maybe if we fiddle with the coefficients, it goes up to 150 Runs. Which is like a third of the difference between their batting. And remember, that's without considering park effects, which probably help Williams (Wrigley played lots of day games, possibly making LF more difficult vs other places in the league, and more HR meaning fewer opps for PO) and hurt Waner (Forbes was gigantic, giving him more opps to run down fly balls.) Additionally, this is not team adjusted for GB/FB pitchers, nor for their flanking outfielders' abilities.

So, yest, how are you going to make up the 200-300 runs beyond what I've estimated above? If your system has a different way to calculate it, I'd like to see how your system evaluates them. It might help me with Willie Davis or Waner or Ashburn or someone of that nature.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:03 PM (#2119793)
in 1912 Cobb 409 and the leauge averaged 269

But it was far easier to do so back then. The standard deviation for batting average was far greater back then (which dispels your argument that it's easier to hit for average today).
   37. DavidFoss Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:04 PM (#2119794)
I'm not following you, yest, since I have Aaron as the best RF in '59 and it appears that you concur. Do you mean '58 (I have Rocky Colavito as slightly ahead of Aaron for the majors, though Hank is still the best in the NL).

Its the placement of your commas. I was fooled too. "1957, close in 1958, 1959" is open to some interpretation. Adding some parentheses like so "1957, (close in 1958), 1959" would eliminate the confusion.

No big deal of course. :-)
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:12 PM (#2119805)
Here's favre's ballot:

I'm going to be away next week, so I'd appreciate it if someone would post this ballot when we have a thread.

I consider myself a prime voter, using a combination of OPS+/PA, ERA+/IP, and WS on a season-by-season basis. I also give weight to underrepresented eras and positions.

1. Hank Aaron
2. Frank Robinson
3. Billy Williams

Williams has eight seasons with at least a 130 OPS+ in 650 PA, and another three years of 119, 120, and 122 OPS, which is an excellent prime. He obviously wasn’t Hank or Frank, but good enough to reach the top of the backlog.

4. Charley Jones
5. Rube Waddell
6. Jake Beckley

From 1876-1880 Charley Jones posted OPS+ seasons of 183, 169, 158, 156, and 154. He was the best LF of the 1870s, and one the top 3 outfielders of that decade—and that does NOT include his two blacklisted years of 1881-2. I had basically ignored him for years, which was a big mistake on my part. Take a look at him again if it’s been a while.

Waddell has eight seasons with an ERA+ above 120, with a top four seasons of 179, 179, 165, and 153--and he was striking out between seven and eight guys per nine as he was posting those. Sisler’s election means we have narrowed down the 1B gap from thirty to twenty years, 1897 until 1915. Beckley’s thirteen seasons with an OPS+ above 122 keeps him in the top five.

7. Dobie Moore
8. Billy Pierce

I’ve dropped Moore some as Chris’ new numbers have sunk in, but I still think he’s the best shortstop on the ballot, and (Ernie Banks notwithstanding) has been for a while. He is very comparable to Banks without the mediocre years at 1B. I will take Moore’s 1921-5 seasons over Joe Sewell’s best five; if you give Moore credit for his Wrecker days, then I don’t see how you could put Sewell ahead.

We are very short on pitchers from 1941-55. Pierce is the best pitcher left from the 1950s, posting five seasons with an ERA+ over 130: 201, 148, 141, 136, 133, and a sixth season at 124. That’s a great prime for a pitcher, though he did play for a lot of teams with excellent defenses.

9. Ralph Kiner
10. Orestes Minoso

Minoso is similar to Beckley, in some respects; very good defense, not a particularly high peak but a long prime. In fact, if you add in Dr. C’s MLE’s, Minoso’s career stats start looking a lot like Beckley’s 125 OPS+ in 10, 470 plate appearances. It doesn’t make much sense to me to have a lot of distance between the two; I’m glad to see the electorate is beginning to agree. By my definition, anyway, Kiner’s prime is only one year shorter than Minoso’s, and his peak is a lot higher, with OPS+ seasons of 184, 184, and 173.

11. Vic Willis
12. Nellie Fox
13. Bucky Walters

We only have five pitchers in from 1896-1900. Willis pitched from 1898-00, so he’d give us another hurler in that era. More importantly, he had 4000 IP with an ERA+ of 118 (and seasons of 167, 155, and 154), so we’ve elected most of the guys like him.

So far we only have five infielders from the 1950s (Robinson, Resse, Mathews, Banks, and Musial). We also have no 2B after 1952, when Jackie moved to LF; Carew began his career in 1967, so that would be about a fifteen year gap. Fox’s career—over 2600 hits and 300 WS—gets him on the ballot. Walters prime from ‘39-46 (particularly his ’39-40 peak) earns him a spot. Although it is not a reason I’m voting for him, it would be good to have an HoM rep from the 39-40 Reds pennant winners.

14. Roger Bresnahan
15. Bob Elliott

It was a tough battle between Bresnahan and Bill Freehan for a ballot spot, as I have them about even in my system. Bresnahan was, hands down, the best catcher between 1891-1910, while Freehan was a contemporary of Torre and overlapped Bench, so I’m giving Roger the edge. Bresnahan could also fill (a possible) gap at CF from 1901-5, depending on what position you assign Pete Hill.

Elliott and Boyer drop some as a bunch of guys who played some third—Santo, Killebrew, Allen, Brooksie, Torre—arrive onto our ballots. Still, Ken and Bob were good players. Elliott was a better hitter and had a little longer prime, which gives him the edge over Boyer’s defense. Boyer would give us another 1950s infielder.

16-20: Ken Boyer, Gavvy Cravath, Jose Mendez, Cupid Childs, Bill Freehan

Jose Mendez: Has been in my pHoM for years, and is still comfortably in my top twenty. I would welcome his induction, although I think there are several pitchers with better cases in front of him.

Cupid Childs: I like Fox more, and we have twice as many infielders from the 1890s than we do from the 1950s. But I have nothing bad to say about Childs, who has been in my top twenty for a long time.

Hugh Duffy: Only one big year, and I question his WS A+ fielding grade. There is also no dearth of centerfielders in the Hall of Merit.

Joe Sewell: See Moore comment. Sewell does not stack up well with other SS in the HoM.

Dick Redding: He and Smokey Joe Williams were considered the best the best Nel pitchers of the teens, which gives me pause in keeping him off the ballot. His projections aren’t that impressive, however, and I like Mendez more. The fact that the HoF committee did not pick him doesn’t encourage me to move him up.
   39. DavidFoss Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:13 PM (#2119811)
Eh... I think we're making too much of LWaner vs BWilliams on yest's ballot. He says he like Waner's fielding so a CF/LF comparison starts becoming more of an apples to oranges comparison. (Of course then you can question his Cuyler-29 and Oliva-12 vs BWilliams.) I don't really understand either of those either.

Also, this is way down in his 30s. That's pretty far down his radar and the microscope of player N vs Player N+1 for me doesn't really come into play until the upper teens. I think BWilliams may get left off a few other ballots this week as well with perhaps similar mid-30s placement.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2119813)
Its the placement of your commas. I was fooled too. "1957, close in 1958, 1959" is open to some interpretation. Adding some parentheses like so "1957, (close in 1958), 1959" would eliminate the confusion.

For the future I'll do so, David.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2119814)
1982

Newbies Aaron, F. Robby, B. Williams, Freehan, Oliva

1. Bad Henry Aaron (new, PHoM 1982)
2. Bad Frank Robinson (new, PHoM 1982)--Duh

3. Dobie Moore (2 last year-2-2, PHoM 1942)—still a very mighty peak

4. Ralph Kiner (3-3-4, PHoM 1964)—there’s not just those 7 HR titles, but all those BB, too

5. Rube Waddell (5-4-5, PHoM 1932)—second highest ERA+ available, and it turns out after all these years that his UER were not outside the norm; plus some super MiL pitching in the ‘90s

6. Larry Doyle (6-6-7, PHoM 1975)—15 years of 15+ WS, I don’t see another eligible “glove” who did that, plus same OPS+ as Edd Roush and 5 points more than Hugh Duffy

7. Bill Freehan (new)—Freehan becomes, far and away, the best available catcher and, given our catcher shortage, he goes here; if I were building a team ca. early 1960s, I’d take Freehan over Billy Williams

8. Billy Williams (new)—a little bit overrated by history, a borderline BBWAA HoF choice, more of a VC type choice IMO

9. Charley Jones (7-7-8, PHoM 1921)—probably should be ahead of Williams but what the hell

10. Edd Roush (8-8-11, PHoM 1976)—really belongs ahead of Averill and Duffy, on reconsideration

11. Pete Browning (9-12-10, PHoM 1961)—essentially equivalent to Charley Jones but you gotta split that hair somehow

12. Addie Joss (10-9-9, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available

13. Frank Howard (13-11-x)—monster OPS+, better than Cash through prime years

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

15. Orlando Cepeda (14-x)—better than Cash through prime years

Drops out:

18. Hilton Smith (15-15-35)—moves up based on new NeL numbers, the pitcher I wanted Redding to be?

Close

16. Nellie Fox (17-19-17, PHoM 1971)
(16a. Stan Hack [16a-13a-14a])
17. Minnie Minoso (16-13-14, PHoM 1970)—I give 2 NeL seasons though at well below peak level
(17a. Bobby Doerr [20a-19b-17a])
18. H. Smith
19. Vic Willis (18-17-12, PHoM 1977)
20. Phil Rizzuto (20-20-19)—you want defense? Here’s your guy
(20a. Don Drysdale [23a-19a-14b])

21. Tommy Bond (19-27-26, PHoM 1929)—the ultimate peak only candidate (among pitchers)
22. Charlie Keller (22-21-20)— the ultimate peak only candidate (among position players)
23. Ed Williamson (21-39-38, PHoM 1924)—still the best 3B available after all these years
24. Norm Cash (24-x)—underrated, for sure, until now

25. Bobby Estalella (23-14-15)—if his skin was either lighter or darker, he would have had a more conventional career (MLs or NeLs) and might be a PHoMer by now; as it is his career is very hard to get a handle on, but the ability was there
26. Hugh Duffy (26-18-18)—up and down, up and down, just not much peak after that one big year
27. Joe Sewell (25-22-21-20)—wish those final 5 years had been at SS instead of 3B
(27a. Jim Bunning (23c-19c-17b)—somewhere below Drysdale)
28. Alejandro Oms (27-16-16)—another guy I can’t get a handle on
29. Elston Howard (29-25-24)—much better than I had thought
(29a. Richie Ashburn [25a-22a-21a])
30. Jim McCormick (30-23-22)

They also ran

31. Dick Redding (28-26-25, PHoM 1971)
32. Hack Wilson (31-24-23)
33. Wally Berger (32-28-27)
34. Dizzy Dean (35-30-29)
35. Quincy Trouppe (42-38-37)—no longer the best catcher around
36. Dick Lundy (36-31-30)
37. Chuck Klein (37-32-31)
38. Gavvy Cravath (43-40-39)
39. Cupid Childs (46-43-42, PHoM 1925)
40. Vern Stephens (44-41-40)

41. Mickey Welch (33-29-28)
42. Ken Boyer (34-30-29)
43. Al Rosen (38-33-32)
44. Frank Chance (39-34-33)
45. Bob Elliott (49-46-45)
46. Bob Johnson (48-45-44)
47. Pie Traynor (40-36-35)
48. Roger Bresnahan (50-47-46)
49. Dave Bancroft (x-50-49)
50. Lefty Gomez (x-49-48)—all the way down to about here, I still wish I could get all these guys on my ballot
(50a. Biz Mackey [50a-48a-47a])
(50b. Red Faber [50b-48b-47b])
(50c. Wes Ferrell [50c-48c-47c])
(50d. Willie Keeler [50d-48d-47d])
(50e. Jimmy Sheckard [x-50a-49a])

Really Dropped Out

xx. Tony Mullane (41-37-36)
(xxa. Early Wynn [42a-39a-38a)
xx. Mike Tiernan (45-42-41)
xx. Bill Monroe (47-44-43)
xx. Bucky Walters (x-48-47-47)

Newbies

Tony Oliva and Willie Davis are in the top 100, but not close even to the top 50

Required

Billy Pierce is the only required disclosure not in my top 50, he’s somewhere in the 70s-80s I guess

Must Take Another Look...

...at the "lost generation" of black players of the early integration period: Newk, Artie Wilson, Marvin Williams, Bus Clarkson

Thought Experiment

Say we go 10 deep on the backlog in the '80s: I would be PHoMing B. Williams, Freehan, Cepeda, F. Howard, H. Smith, Hack, Doerr, Rizzuto, Drysdale and Keller; but not Cash, Sewell, Estalella, Duffy, Bunning, Oms, Howard, McCormick, Ashburn and H. Wilson, among others. Some interesting tradeoffs: Hack vs. Hack, both Cubs; Drysdale or Bunning; Freehan or E. Howard; F. Howard or E. Howard; Rizzuto vs. Sewell; Keller vs. Hack Wilson; Cepeda vs. Oms; etc. etc.
   42. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#2119817)
For the future I'll do so, David.

In fact, I have been doing so with Childs and Walters, so that was just an oversight on my part.
   43. OCF Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2119831)
1982 Ballot. I moved to Austin this year, teaching at UT. Barton Springs is a lovely pool, but that water is just too cold.

1. Henry Aaron (new) Like trying to sneak dawn past a rooster.
2. Frank Robinson (new) As fierce a competitor as they come.
3. Billy Williams (new) How much of a quota on corner outfielders should there be? With the two on the top of this ballot, we will have certainly elected more than their share already. The problem is that when I sort by my system, Williams isn't marginal - he sorts into the middle of the pack of the ones we've already elected, the same territory as Clarke, Slaughter, Magee, and Simmons. I haven't built a length-of-season discount into my system and I probably should - but that still leaves Williams looking good.
4. Billy Pierce (2, 2, 2, 3, 3) Underappreciated by both the HoF and (so far) us.
5. Larry Doyle (5, 5, 3, 5, 4) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time. And no, I don't try to understand WARP.
6. José Méndez (6, 6, 4, 6, 5) Maybe Koufax isn't the right comparison, but maybe Coveleski?
7. Bill Freehan (new) The tricky part is comparing a mostly-catcher candidate like Freehan to our part-catcher candidates: Bresnahan, Schang, Trouppe, and (coming soon), Torre. A terrific two-year peak, a solid career. The best catcher we've seen since Berra.
8. Quincy Trouppe (7, 7, 5, 7, 6) As with all Negro Leaguers, a lot of this is guesswork.
9. Orlando Cepeda (---, 9, 8) The Baby Bull. Cha-Cha. There are plenty of places to find fault: indifference to defense, selfishness about his role with the Giants, injury history, early decline. But the early decline sticks out because the start was so good. And his NL was a strong league. Let's put Bill Terry back on the ballot - I would take Cepeda over him.
10. George Van Haltren (8, 8, 6, 10, 9) He did accomplish quite a bit in his career.
11. Norm Cash (---, 11, 10) One year does not make a peak (or a prime). But oh, what a year. Actually, he's on my ballot as a career candidate, although missing games in each year whittles away at his career value.
12. Bucky Walters (9, 9, 7, 8, 7) Offense-adjusted RA+ PythPat 197-148. I've been overrating him, especially compared to Bridges.
13. Joe Sewell (10, 10, 8, 12, 11) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice.
14. Tommy Bridges (15, 15, 15, 19, 18) RA+ PythPat 190-124. Walters had a higher peak, but Bridges was a terrific pitcher.
15. Ralph Kiner (4, 4, 9, 13, 12) His career may not have lasted very long, but during it he played every day and he hit a LOT of home runs.
16. Frank Howard (--, 10, 14, 13) Instead of talking about what he might have accomplished in another time and place, I'll talk about the value of what he did do in run-scarce circumstances.
17. Orestes Miñoso (12, 12, 11, 15, 14) This presumes at least a little pre-MLB value. Not the offensive value of the big HR hitters, but more mobile on defense.
18. Ken Boyer (16, 16, 12, 16, 15) Compared to Elliott, less bat, more glove, tougher league.
19. Bob Elliott (14, 14, 13, 17, 16) Roughly the equivalent of Dixie Walker as a hitter, plus 1300+ games of pretty good 3B.
20. Jake Beckley (13, 13, 14, 18, 17) Not much peak, long career. Was he really better than Vernon? Maybe defense, maybe a position-scarcity argument. Offensively, I don't see it.
21. Dick Redding (11, 11, 16, 20, 19) There seems to be more uncertainty around him lately.
22. Luis Aparicio (--, 17, 21, 20) More games at SS than anyone else, 500 SB with a good percentage.
23. Hugh Duffy (17, 17, 18, 22, 21) Nothing new to say after all these years.
24. Rabbit Maranville (--, 19, 23, 22) Glove and career length.
25. Mickey Vernon (18, 18, 20, 24, 23) Another loooong career 1st baseman, searching for a peak.
26. Nellie Fox (19, 19, 21, 25, 24) I'll be a supporter of Ozzie Smith when the time comes, and Fox has some of the same virtues. Nearly 2300 games at 2B, with extreme in-season durability. When I run his adjusted RCAA, a 10-year stretch in the middle of his career outshines his career as a whole, and even that 10-year stretch is only in the neighborhood of Stanky, Huggins, and Myer. All he really has over the likes of Doerr, Gordon, and Rizzuto is career length.
27. Phil Rizzuto (20, 20, 22, 26, 25) A glove-first SS candidate. Not a great offensive player, but at least useful on offense in an OBP-first shape, with good baserunning. But even with war credit, his career's not particularly long.
28. Cupid Childs (21, 21, 23, 27, 26) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
29. Edd Roush (22, 22, 24, 24, 27) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey.
30. Vern Stephens (24, 24, 26, 29, 28)
31. Dobie Moore (25, 25, 25, 27, 30, 29) Short career, high peak.

Willie Davis: comparable to Pinson and loses the comparison, with Pinson outside of my top 30.

Tommie Davis: the great ones are the ones who don't get hurt, or if they do get hurt, it isn't that often and they recover quickly and fully. That's not a description of Davis. His startling 1962 RBI total has a lot to do with Maury Wills and Junior Gilliom.

Tony Oliva: Better than Tommie Davis, but not so healthy himself. Comparables include Colavito, Klein, Bob Johnson and Sam Thompson.

Mike Cuellar: Equivalent record 167-144, which isn't as good as his actual record.
   44. Juan V Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:32 PM (#2119838)
Final ballot. I have done some slight reevaluations. I came up with the same 15 guys, but in a slightly different order.

1) Hank Aaron: He was good.

2) Frank Robinson: Him, too.

3) Joe Sewell: Compares quite well to his SS peers. I like his shape of production (with good AVGs and OBPs), good defense.. a very complete package.

4) Billy Williams: Third best offensive player in the ballot (no prizes for guessing which two are on top). Positional value puts Sewell ahead.

5) Jose Mendez: Great peak-prime, more career would´ve put him in contention for the third spot.

6) Ralph Kiner: See above.

7) Cupid Childs: See above.

8) Alejandro Oms: Nice combination of career and prime.

9) Quincy Trouppe: I have him well ahead of the other catchers elegible.

10) Billy Pierce: Give Dizzy Dean career value, and flatten his peak/prime years, and you got Billy Pierce. At least, that´s what my sistems say.

11) Cannonball Dick Redding: Remarkably similar to Pierce.

12) Bob Johnson: Would be higher if it weren´t for the deflated quality of wartime leagues.

13) Rube Waddell: Not quite Mendez, but similar in the "great peak-prime, little career" sense.

14) Ken Boyer: His glove puts him here. His bat prevents him from being higher.

15) Jimmy Ryan: Best of the 19th century outfielders, IMO. More plate apperances at a higher OPS+ than Van Haltren or Duffy, and his prime is comparable to those two.

Others (within each group, players are listed alphabetically)

16-20) Jake Beckley, Charlie Keller, Chuck Klein, Minnie Miñoso, George Van Haltren
21-25) Dizzy Dean, Frank Howard, Johnny Pesky, Ben Taylor, Pie Traynor
26-30) Bob Elliott, Nellie Fox, Bill Freehan, Lefty Gomez, Vern Stephens
31-35) Dick Bartell, Pete Browning, Rico Petrocelli, Edd Roush, Vic Willis
36-40) Luis Aparicio, Norm Cash, Orlando Cepeda, Addie Joss, Dobie Moore
   45. Ardo Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:16 PM (#2119925)
yest, I'm on your side.

I'm 99% sure, based on the weight of the evidence, that Billy Williams was more valuable to his teams than Lloyd Waner. But that is one person's opinion.

For example, I think John Murphy's placement of Roger Bresnahan at #3 is nuts. I have Bresnahan around #40 with several catchers ranked higher. Will I ever ask John to defend, in detail, his evaluation of Bresnahan? No way; he prefers certain candidates, and I prefer others. That's why - without disparaging Joe Dimino's devotion to the HoM - I give posts #19 and #23 a big thumbs-down.
   46. Juan V Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2119963)
Now that I look at my post, I forgot about Duffy on my others group!

I´d put him in the 26-30 group.
   47. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2119997)
(Forbes was gigantic, giving him more opps to run down fly balls.)

also making for more costly results if you didn't

But it was far easier to do so back then. The standard deviation for batting average was far greater back then (which dispels your argument that it's easier to hit for average today).

John if players in the 20's and 30's would have sacraficed average for power like the 50's and on wouldn't that make the Average BA go down while having no effect on the induvidual player that would be in my mind aboght a 10 point differance on average
   48. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2120008)
I'm 99% sure, based on the weight of the evidence, that Billy Williams was more valuable to his teams than Lloyd Waner. But that is one person's opinion.

That's why I want to know how the conclusion comes up. Because if I'm thinking wrongly about it, then it's my rankings that are the problem, and I need to fix them. Maybe yest's system shows me something i don't know. So asking him to explain an admittedly startling idea is a way to see if there's some input that I'm not factoring in. By demonstrating my method up front, I am indeed challenging his point of view, but also offering him a chance to show his point of differentation and to point out places where he might do it differently.
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2120067)
Doc, a better use of your time is to advocate for Clarkson. M. Williams, Artie Wilson, et al, from the lost generation. Tht too is one person's opinion.
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2120073)
For example, I think John Murphy's placement of Roger Bresnahan at #3 is nuts.

(counts to ten)

Thanks for sharing, Ardo.

I didn't ask yest to defend his ballot in regard to placing Waner over Williams. I question his reliance on batting average without context.

But if you think I'm nuts for taking the more dominating catcher over the left fielder in an era where we will have elected a ton of outfielders, that's your right.
   51. Sean Gilman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#2120097)
1982

1. Hank Aaron (-)--He’s good, but how good would he have been without the ‘roids?

2. Frank Robinson (-)--He also was good.

3. Billy Williams (-)--The Minoso comparison is appropriate, he’s just a bit better.

4. Pete Browning (3)--If he played in the PCL in the 00s or the Negro Leagues in the 30s, would he be a HOMer by now? Same as with the Negro Leaguers, the league translations inordinately underrate his peak. Besides, it isn’t like the AA wasn’t a major league. A better gladiator than Russell Crowe. (1927)

5. Charley Jones (4)--Jones, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me. (1929)

6. Cupid Childs (5)--Where has the love for Cupid gone? (1938)

7. Tommy Leach (6)--May be the most underrated candidate out there. Great career value, fine peak and played two premium defensive positions. (1942)

8. Minnie Minoso (7)--Comparison with Clemente showed I’d been underrating his nice balance of career and peak in favor of more one-sided candidates. (1979)

9. Larry Doyle (8)--Another underrated infielder. Sisler-esque peak , according to win shares.(1945)

10. Bill Freehan (-)--Good career value and an excellent peak for a catcher. Is he tremendously underrated by history, or am I just overrating him?

11. Edd Roush (9)--Another beneficiary of the Clemente Comparison. A good all-around outfielder who somehow got lost in the rush to induct every OF from the 30s.

12. Ken Boyer (10)--The borderline infielders are a mess. Elliott, Boyer, Sewell, Doyle, Gordon, Doerr, Fox, Sisler, they are all essentially the same, all are about equally deserving of being in or out of the HOM. I think Boyer’s defense trumps Elliott’s bat. (1975)

13. Joe Sewell (11)--From almost elected to weirdly underrated, but he'll get in eventually. (1976)

14. Hugh Duffy (12)--High peak, medium length career, the best of a large group of borderline OF candidates. (1964)

15. George Van Haltren (13)--Almost a HOMer not too long ago, will make it eventually. (1966)

16. Jose Mendez (14) (1972)
17. Carl Mays (15) (1968)
(Max Carey)
18. Alejandro Oms (16)
(Richie Ashburn)
(Sam Thompson)
19. Ralph Kiner (17)
20. Nellie Fox (18)
(Joe Medwick)
(Earl Averill)
21. Frank Howard (19)
(Joe Gordon)
(Bobby Doerr)
22. Quincy Trouppe (20)
(Red Faber)
23. Bob Elliott (21)
(Red Ruffing)
24. Bucky Walters (22)
25. Wally Berger (23)
(Ted Lyons)
26. Dick Redding (24)
27. Ed Williamson (25)
28. Dobie Moore (26)
29. Norm Cash (27)
30. Vada Pinson (28)
31. Orlando Cepeda (29)
(Bob Lemon)
32. Billy Pierce (30)
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2120121)
John if players in the 20's and 30's would have sacraficed average for power like the 50's and on wouldn't that make the Average BA go down while having no effect on the induvidual player that would be in my mind aboght a 10 point differance on average

To an extent, averages did go down due to what you describe, but certainly not to the point that a .400 average from the Twenties translates to a .400 average today. Cobb, Hornsby, Heilmann, and Terry would not be, on average, miles ahead of any batting champion of today. OTOH, Boggs and Gwynn would have had multiple .400+ seasons at the beginning of the Live Ball Era, IMO.
   53. Daryn Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#2120188)
That's why - without disparaging Joe Dimino's devotion to the HoM - I give posts #19 and #23 a big thumbs-down.

Especially 19 -- those posts always seem to be directed at yest or karlmagnus, when many other posters have had incredibly unusual placings unquestioned or politely questioned.
   54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#2120210)
Another thing: the Deadball hitters would have had a more contemporary batting style. Cobb wouldn't have had a split-handed grip today, which would have caused him to have less bat control, strike out more, and lower his batting average. His power numbers would be more impressive, however.
   55. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2120259)
These posts are directed at yest and I because we are consistently among the lowest consensus scores. By making everybody else think "What is this fruitcake up to?" we expand the universe of possible outcomes and thereby make the Delphi method work! Both of us also have the courage of our convictions, foolish though others may think them.
   56. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#2120266)
These posts are directed at yest and I because we are consistently among the lowest consensus scores. By making everybody else think "What is this fruitcake up to?" we expand the universe of possible outcomes and thereby make the Delphi method work! Both of us also have the courage of our convictions, foolish though others may think them.
   57. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:42 PM (#2120339)
These posts are directed at yest and karl because certain specific pairings on your ballots pop out and scream, "WTF!?" Which of course follows from the low consensus score. If some other voter had The Other Waner ahead of The Other Williams, they would have gotten the same question.

Having said that, it is good for the project that there are different POV and, besides, somebody has to be lowest. Better them than me.
   58. Jim Sp Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:23 AM (#2120638)
Aaron, Robinson PHoM, #1, #2. Williams #3, Petrocelli #33, Freehan #56, Oliva #74, Davis
#102.

Billy Williams, Wes Ferrell, Ross Barnes, then Marichal and Bunning on deck for PHoM.

1) Aaron--
2) F. Robinson--
3) B. Williams--tough election if he’s #3.
4) Mendez--PHoM in 1932.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) Fox--The man had 2663 hits (#61 all time) and was a great fielder. PHoM in 1970.
8) Ken Boyer--PHoM 1976. 4 years above 10.0 warp3.
9) Minoso--I gave full ML credit for two+ years.
10) Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me. Best years by Warp3 10.2, 10.1, 8.9, 8.5, 8.0, 7.8.
11) Rizzuto--Lots of war credit. PHoM 1977.
12) KellerAdded back the war credit.
13) Elliott--PHoM in 1960.
14) Dick Redding--
15) Dobie Moore--
   59. Rob_Wood Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#2120837)
1982 ballot from this highly career voter (slight reshuffling after greater scrutiny):

1. Hank Aaron - 7th greatest player ever (maybe 6th)
2. Frank Robinson - would be number one most years
3. Jake Beckley - luv the career
4. Cupid Childs - dominating second baseman during the 1890s
5. George Van Haltren - star of the underrepresented 1890s
6. Ken Boyer - solid hitter and great defender in superior NL
7. Bob Johnson - solid hitter, solid career
8. Ralph Kiner - great peak with homers and walks
9. Dobie Moore - great all-around shortstop
10. Nellie Fox - very good second baseman
11. Tommy Bridges - luv the strikeouts & win pct with minor league and wwii credit
12. Bob Elliott - mired with woeful Pirates and Braves
13. Edd Roush - very good center fielder and solid hitter
14. Joe Sewell - very good shortstop, best (white) SS of his era
15. Jose Mendez - very, very good negro league pitcher
-----
16-20. Minoso, Traynor, Klein, Keller, Waddell

Not voting for: Billy Pierce (around 50), Hugh Duffy (not anywhere near my ballot) and Dick Redding (around 50).
   60. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#2120955)
To an extent, averages did go down due to what you describe, but certainly not to the point that a .400 average from the Twenties translates to a .400 average today. Cobb, Hornsby, Heilmann, and Terry would not be, on average, miles ahead of any batting champion of today. OTOH, Boggs and Gwynn would have had multiple .400+ seasons at the beginning of the Live Ball Era, IMO.

I have a feeling Cobb would hit 400 more then he did then today, Hornsby might have done it but probobly would have went for power bring down his average instead Heilman might have done it also and Terry (1930 )would probobly be 360 hitter in the NL in 2005

Also I think certian players today could hit 400 if they played in the dead ball style
Boggs (a lot of his out were by 1 or 2 steps and didn't fly out much) with speed and agresivness of someone like Rose one player who's agresiness matched the dead ball era), Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby ext hits has achance of hitting 400 in 1983, 1985 1987-88

if Gwynn dosn't lose his speed he hits it in 1994

If Rod carew (1977) was playing in 2000 he hits 400

if Mantle didn't have injuries, get drunk, or sacrafise his BA for power (which he admited was what he felt was one the biggest mistakes of his career) he might have hit it in 1956-57

in sum it was much eiser to hit 400 then but it's still posiblle today and I think if you would put them in a time macheine and tranport them to now (and give them time to study pitchers) I think some of those seasons would have been still been 400 seasons especily Cobb)
   61. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 03:27 AM (#2121012)
or sacrafise his BA for power

You talk about this like its a bad thing. Players do what it takes to win ballgames. The object of the game is to outscore your opponent, not have a higher batting average that your opponent. Having a lot of power is one way you can do the first while failing at the latter.

If scientific hitting still won ballgames you'd see more of it today.
   62. OCF Posted: August 01, 2006 at 03:49 AM (#2121036)
Rob Wood: if you're a "highly career" voter, what happened to Billy Williams and his 18 year, 2488 game, 132 OPS+ career? Of course he's not Aaron or Robinson, but is he Beckley, Van Haltren, or Bob Johnson?

Or ... hmmm ... Childs, Moore (!), Kiner, Mendez ... are you really all that "highly career"?

----

If either Boggs or Gwynn had had their seasonal luck break a little differently, they could have hit .400. Had Mike Piazza at his peak played in Denver, he might have hit .400. (Those of you who like to translate statistics, try translating Piazza 1997 to Colorado, 1997, conditions - doesn't it come out as BA ~.400 with about 60 HR?)

None of which convinces me to give any consideration whatsoever to Lloyd Waner, of course.
   63. OCF Posted: August 01, 2006 at 03:57 AM (#2121047)
Oh, and Jim Sp: that ballot is not nearly as, er, um, entertaining as your ballot last year. Welcome back to the mainstream, I guess. (That will almost certainly be a consensus score that is in neither the top nor the bottom group.)
   64. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 04:09 AM (#2121062)
By the way when I say power I'm not talking abought doubles (didn't ajust for park effect due to trying to figure out how runs are scored are not park ajusted)
BA leads to more runs here are the leaders in runs in the AL from 1981-1990 and where they finished in HRs and BA
-------------------place in-----place in
--------team--------BA-----------HRs
1981--BOS---------1st-----------5th
1982--MIL----------2nd----------1st
1983--CHW--------9th-----------3rd
1984--DET---------4th-----------1st
1985--NYY---------3rd-----------3rd
1986--CLE---------1st-----------10th
1987--DET---------4th-----------1st
1988--BOS---------1st-----------tied for 10th
1989--BOS---------1st-----------12th
1990--TOR---------5th-----------2nd
   65. Rob_Wood Posted: August 01, 2006 at 04:29 AM (#2121079)
REVISED 1982 ballot from this highly career voter* (slight reshuffling after greater scrutiny):
[career value means everything to me]

1. Hank Aaron - 7th greatest player ever (maybe 6th)
2. Frank Robinson - would be number one most years
3. Jake Beckley - luv the career
4. Billy Williams - very good hitter for a long time (sorry I neglected to list him on my earlier ballot)
5. Cupid Childs - dominating second baseman during the 1890s
6. George Van Haltren - star of the underrepresented 1890s
7. Ken Boyer - solid hitter and great defender in superior NL
8. Bob Johnson - solid hitter, solid career
9. Ralph Kiner - great peak with homers and walks
10. Dobie Moore - great all-around shortstop
11. Nellie Fox - very good second baseman
12. Tommy Bridges - luv the strikeouts & win pct with minor league and wwii credit
13. Bob Elliott - mired with woeful Pirates and Braves
14. Edd Roush - very good center fielder and solid hitter
15. Joe Sewell - very good shortstop, best (white) SS of his era
-----
16-20. Mendez, Minoso, Traynor, Klein, Waddell

Not voting for: Billy Pierce (around 50), Hugh Duffy (not anywhere near my ballot) and Dick Redding (around 50).
   66. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 04:57 AM (#2121104)
By the way when I say power I'm not talking abought doubles (didn't ajust for park effect due to trying to figure out how runs are scored are not park ajusted)
BA leads to more runs here are the leaders in runs in the AL from 1981-1990 and where they finished in HRs and BA


*I* didn't say that power only meant HR's. You are changing the subject with your AVG vs HR lists. We have a very good idea about how runs are created... its mainly OBP and SLG. Why cling to AVG? And why compare to HR to defend yourself?

You've mentioned that you're not impressed by Billy Williams' 23 pt edge over lgAVG because of all of the all-or-nothing sluggers that are weighing down the league averages. Why would managers play those guys if they didn't score runs for them?

Scientific hitting also means fewer doubles and a lower SLG in general. The idea that guys like Mickey Mantle or Eddie Mathews would have been better hitters if they poked more bloopers over the SS's head is crazy.
   67. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:16 AM (#2121113)
You've mentioned that you're not impressed by Billy Williams' 23 pt edge over lgAVG because of all of the all-or-nothing sluggers that are weighing down the league averages. Why would managers play those guys if they didn't score runs for them
I didn't say that I said I'm more impressed by Waner's 30 points then if Billy Williams would have had 30 points

Scientific hitting also means fewer doubles and a lower SLG in general. The idea that guys like Mickey Mantle or Eddie Mathews would have been better hitters if they poked more bloopers over the SS's head is crazy.
since 1975 the 4 most scintific hitters would be Ichiro, Boggs, Gwynn, and Carew of them only Ichiro was wasn't a very good doubles hitter

Also I do think that Billy Williams was a better Overall hitter by a lot (400 HRs would do that to someone(': ) but my average theory and ranking BA higher then most makes me think that Waner was a much better hitter (all star level) then his 99 ops+ would lead some to think add that to a historic (though not at the Carey Ashburn level) glove is why I rank him so high
   68. rawagman Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:06 PM (#2121186)
While Waner Little is nowhere near my ballot, I'm sure Fred Carroll (my 32) is nowhere near the ballots of others.
I think the issue here is that yest is not providing an explanation so much as he is talking in a circular holding pattern which is opening his ideas up to intense scrutiny.
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:15 PM (#2121190)
I have said that Billy Williams is overrated--of course, I have him at #9 on my ballot. But it's interesting to see somebody take my ideas (that Billy Williams is overrated) and *really* put them into action. ;-)

But then I think that Rod Carew is overrated, too.
   70. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:53 PM (#2121228)
1982 ballot

PHOM: Bad Henry and FRobby (Freehan and Williams are on deck followed by Trouppe and Doerr)


1. Hank Aaron (x, PHOM) – duh. Bad Henry is soooooo much cooler than Hammerin' Hank

2. Frank Robinson (x, PHOM) – Not quite as duh, but still…duh.

3. Charlie Keller (2, PHOM) – Best peak on the board (besides Robby and Henry obviously). If you give him WWII and MiL credit he could have up to 7 MVP level seasons (30+ WS) and two solid All-star level seasons. That’s almost a decade of high level performance, only Joe D, Teddy Ballgame, and Stan the Man were better during his era.

4. Bill Freehan (x) – My system has him about even with Roy Campanella sans the NeL years. A little less peak, a little more prime. Of course, Freehan wasn’t as good as Campy because he didn’t have a number of solid years prior to making the majors, but this should tell you why I have him so high. The talk of him not being as good as Lombardi is ridiculous.

5. Cupid Childs (3, PHOM) – I am pretty sure that Childs has been in my top five every years since sometime in the 1940’s. He had a great peak and decent career length for a MIer of his era. Best 2B of the 19th century in my opinion.

6. Billy Williams (x) – Unlike other peak voters, my peak system measures value over a certain lofty point, i.e. 25 WS, instead of Best 3 or Best 5. Because of this Williams’ peak is actually pretty good since he had a number of 27-29 WS years, just below MVP level but still an upper tier All-Star. He is just below Al Kaline for me.

7. Hugh Duffy (4, PHOM) – Best of the 1890’s CF trio based on his superior peak. I agree with WS that Duffy deserves some credit for his team over performing not only their pythag but also their RS and RA projections.

8. Dick Redding (5, PHOM) – 2nd best NeL pitcher of the dead ball era after Smokey Joe Williams and that ain’t bad. I like his peak as much as Mendez’ and he had more career. Seems to be our best backlog pitcher.

9. Ralph Kiner (6¸ PHOM) – Seven straight HR titles is impressive no matter what the context. Kiner has a great peak, however I prefer Keller’s combination of OBP and decent defense to Kiner’s power.

10. Dobie Moore (7, PHOM) – I had him slightly higher until new numbers showed that he more Ernie Banks without the decline phase than Hughie Jennings. Still, that is worthy of the HOM. Slightly better than Sisler in the peak department and I give Gorgeous George little credit for his post 1922 years.

11. Bucky Walters (8, PHOM) – Very good pitcher with a nice peak. He was baseball’s best pitcher in 1939 and 1940, could hit a little too.

12. Pete Browning (9, PHOM) – Quite possibly the best hitter on the board right now. However, concerns about the quality of the 1880’s AA keep him below Keller and Kiner for me.

13. Quincey Trouppe (10) – We elected the wrong NeL catcher, it is that simple. Trouppe was a better hitter and was a better player at his best than Mackey was.

14. Dizzy Dean (11) – High peak pitcher who I view as Koufax Lite. His peak wasn’t quite as good, he had a little less career, and may have even been a worse hitter. Still HOM worthy, however.

15. Rube Waddell (12) – I have him about even with Mendez but a little ahead based partly on a 15 point advantage in career ERA+ for Rube. However, he is the best player ever to leave an MLB game in order to chase a fire truck in all of baseball history.

16-20 E. Howard, Boyer, Cravath, Mendez, Rosen
21-25 Oms, GVH, Pierce, Bresnahan, Fox
26-30 F.Howard, Berger, Doyle, McGraw, Willis
31-35 Rizzuto, Shocker, Elliot, Cepeda, Newcombe
36-40 Roush, Burns, Minoso, Chance, Veach
41-45 Sewell, Lundy, Wilson, Bancroft, R.Thomas
46-50 Monroe, Leach, Ryan, Klein, C. Jones

Required Disclosures
Mendez – Just off ballot and roughly equal to #15 Rube Waddell
Fox – Has moved up a little, of the great field and little hit MIers, he seems to be my favorite
Minoso – Very good player, but I just don’t see him as that different from a host of other corner outfield candidates like George Burns, Bobby Veach, and even Bob Johnson. If his NeL and MiL numbers were better he would have my support.
Sewell – Again I don’t’ see anything special. Being the best AL SS of the 1920’s does not make one better than Phil Rizzuto.
Beckley – Not even close, he was never one of his league’s top 10 players.
Pierce - Not enough peak for me (IP in season are low) but at #23 he isn't out of contention to make my ballot.

Newbies

None of the other notable Newbies (Davis, Oliva, Davis, Harper) make my top 60. I guess I like Oliva the most, but he certainly isn’t better than Chuck Klein. Willie Davis doesn’t have much of a peak so he is probably next but outside my top 80.
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:04 PM (#2121239)
>I prefer Keller’s combination of OBP and decent defense to Kiner’s power.

Generalization alert!

OBP (seasons of ?100 games)

Keller .410/.447-..417-.416-.411-.405-.396
Kiner .398/.452-.432-.417-.408-.391-.391-.384-.371-.367-.345

Take the top 6 years head-to-head and you've got a dead heat. Keller's next biggest season for PAs saw a .372 in 83 games; Kiner's .345 was his rookie year and he bounced right up to .417 in his second season.

SLG

Keller .518/.580-.533-.525-.513-.508-.500
Kiner .548/.658-.639-.627-..590-.533-.512-.500-.487-.452-.430

Short version: Kiner didn't just hit for power, and his advantage in SA is much much larger than Keller's advantage in OBP. (Insert context, of course, but the point remains.)
   72. Dizzypaco Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:38 PM (#2121271)
Regarding the Yest debate...

Arguments and ratings can be placed in four categories. Those that I agree with, those that I disagree with, but which I can easily see the other side, those that I strongly disagree with, but in which at least a reasonable case can be made for the other side, and those that I am 100% certain are wrong. If someone argued that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays didn't deserve to go in, it would go in the last column.

Very, very few arguments and ratings go in the last category - I can see a case for almost everyone that people advocate for the HOM. Once in a long while, someone makes an argument that falls into the last category - that which I believe no reasonable case can be made. Lloyd Waner being more deserving than Billy Williams is one of those cases.

Jake Beckley is a good example. I wouldn't vote for him (if I were voting), but I think a very reasonable case can be made that he deserves to go in. Its when people claim that Beckley is more deserving than, say, Yogi Berra, that it starts to move into that last category.
   73. DL from MN Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:02 PM (#2121287)
> Also I think certian players today could hit 400 if they played in the dead ball style

If this was true, Ichiro would hit .400 regularly. I think the reason why people don't hit .400 today is simple: better fielding. That's a combination of gloves, groundskeeping, lighting, training and talent.
   74. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:07 PM (#2121291)
Maybe better pitching too. More guys whol throw really, really hard all the time. Also facing a fresh pitcher more often during a game.

DL, you hit a big one with lighting. I don't remember actual numbers, but IIRC correctly, averages of all sorts dip considerably between day and night games.

One more: foul territory. I've always wondered if those cozy urban parks of the past, often nestleed within neighborhoods had smaller foul territories as a general rule.

Anyway, regardless, as Tim McCarver might say, there's probably 400 reasons why it's more difficult now to hit .400.
   75. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:35 PM (#2121325)
Sunny,

Of course when you only use seasons with 100 games you are leaving out about three seasons of war/MiL credit that Keller deserves. We, of course, have no idea what his OBP's were during the war BUT I would presume that if he is getting full credit for those years (1.7 years but the .3 of a year in 1945 was left out of any study using only 100 game seasons) one would presume it would be based on his talents, which were OBP heavy. As for his MiL year, we have MLE's that give him a hefty OBP. Now how would it look in the top nine seasons with those seasons included? Looking at Kiner's years 7-9 it looks like Keller comes out ahead in terms of OBP, even if it is reasonably close. Of course Kiner wins in Slugging but Keller was the better fielder. In some ways it could be constured as even, but I prefer Keller's skill set to Kiner's.

Plus, its only just a comment, Keller is above Kiner because I think his peak was better.
   76. Adam Schafer Posted: August 01, 2006 at 02:40 PM (#2121335)
1. Hank Aaron - who else?

2. Frank Robinson - yep, he was awful darn good. #1 pick most any other year

3. Mickey Welch - 300 wins should not be an automatic stat to get you in. Everyone says wins were easier to come by back then. Pitchers were used more, and thus able to win more. I guess the pitchers back then weren't aware of this since not many of them won 300 games. Welch may have pitched against worse teams...wasn't Welch and Keefe (who got elected) on the same team, pitching against the same teams for quite awhile? Top 10 pitcher in almost all major pitching categories from 1880-1889. Was never "the" best, but was consistently one of the best over and over.

4. Bill Freehan - yes, I'm taking him over Billy Williams. Great catcher, very underrated IMO. Granted he's not Berra, or Gibson, or Cochrane but he is still one of the more elite catchers of all time.

5. Jake Beckley - not quite the peak, but plenty of career.

6. Burleigh Grimes - Between 1918-1931 he was pretty durable. A couple bad seasons mixed in, but all in all a dependable pitcher and I'm a career type of guy for the most part.

7. Joe Sewell - You couldn't strike the guy out! I absolutely love that about his career.

8. Nellie Fox - very close to Sewell in my rankings

9. Billy Williams - I never thought I'd have Billy so low, and nothing against him, he's a clear HOMer IMO, but so are the others I have ahead of him.

10. Sam Rice - Top 10 in hits 12 of the years between 1917 and 1930, 8 times top 10 in Batting Average.

11. Gavvy Cravath - I looked long and hard at him, and decided I really needed to put more stock into his minor league years. With proper minor league credit now given, Gavvy has enough career to merit a spot on my ballot.

12. George Van Haltren - I welcome George back to my ballot after a long time away.

13. Pie Traynor - I can understand why everyone didn't fall head over heals for him, but I didn't imagine that he would recieve so little support.

14. Minnie Minoso - Initially thought he'd crack my top 10, then reading some discussion I didn't think he'd be top 30, but I've finally settled on him here. He still has plenty of room to move on my ballot though. Spots 14-20 are all easily exchangeable on my ballot.

15. Roger Bresnahan - if he had only caught more games, I'd have him a lot higher.

16. Wally Schang - Lots of extra credit for being a durable catcher.

17. Dick Redding - Finally has some room to move into my top 20.

18. Ernie Lombardi - I've said it before, I'll say it again, I love catchers, especially one with good career value. Ernie even has some peak to mix in. He didn't strike out, he hit for average, and SOMEHOW he got 27 triples in his career!

19. Bucky Walters - Been iffy on him for awhile. He has been more of a favorite for the peak voters, and not so much for the career voters, but another look at him shows me that he had a bit more career value than I was giving him credit for. Moving him up this high on my ballot is going to help Kiner out on mine too when there is room.

20. Ralph Kiner - Kiner finally breaks into the lower ranks of my ballot. If he could've had 2 more good (not even necassarily great) years, he could've moved up to the top 3 or 4 spots on my ballot. As is, not enough career value for me.
   77. Daryn Posted: August 01, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#2121522)
I value career over peak, but can be entranced by a great prime. I look at traditional statistics, ERA+, OPS+, Win Shares and Ink. Equally importantly, I read everything on this board and incorporate all that work into my analysis, whether it is RSI, MLEs, PenAdds, simple comparisons of candidates or anything else.

I have instituted a Grade ranking of my candidates. As and Bs would make my version of a Smaller Hall. B minuses and C plusses are borderline. Cs and below, including the 4 on my ballot, are not worthy.

I have Sewell, Minoso and Duffy at 21, 23 and 31. Pierce is in the 40s. Childs isn’t: when I see Childs I see 8 good seasons, 11 total, only once (maybe twice) among the top 5 hitters in the league. As a career voter, he is lacking for me. It doesn’t surprise me that his bbref most similar player is Jennings, who never cracked the top 30 for me.

1. Hank Aaron (A+) -- damn you David Aardsma. Before him, I thought the Baseball Encyclopedia listed players in order of ability.

2. Frank Robinson (A+) -- as some have mentioned on his thread, he is a prime candidate (and my choice) for the greatest baseball career ever.

3. Mickey Welch (A-) – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his dominating record against HoMers.

4. Billy Williams – What’s not to like? 1400 runs? Check. 1400 rbi? Check. 130 career OPS+? Check. 30th all-time in total bases? Check. Only Baines and Dawson are eligible non-HOFers with more total bases than Billy.

5. Burleigh Grimes (B+) – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between Rixey and Faber (both now elected) and Grimes.

6. Jake Beckley (B+) -- ~3000 hits but no peak at all. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (HOMer) are two of his three most similars. 3200+ hits adjusted to 162 games. After voting for him at the very top of my ballot for 50 years, I have come to realize that his peakless career is rarer than I thought and also less deserving. He doesn’t need defensive bonus points to rate this high in my opinion.

7. Dick Redding (B) – probably the 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind the Fosters and Brown), and that is good enough for me.

8. Nellie Fox (B) -- I like the great defense, the 12 all star appearances, the MVP and the 2600 hits from a fielding position.

9. Ralph Kiner (B-)– He is my highest peak/prime only candidate. I cannot ignore seven consecutive home run titles and a 149 career OPS+.

10. Rube Waddell (B-) -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+, the .574 winning percentage, the 46 black ink points, and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown).

11. Addie Joss (C+) – I don’t like short careers much, but I cannot ignore the best WHIP of all-time, the second best all-time ERA, the 12th best ERA+ and the nice winning percentage.

12. Orlando Cepeda (C) – He is a very difficult choice for me because he isn’t significantly better than Howard, Colavito and Cash, but the slight difference means more than 30 spaces on this ballot.

13. Jose Mendez (C) – His hitting makes a difference for me. Looks like he was the 7th best blackball pitcher. He is barely better than (this is an unordered list) Pierce, Harder, Warneke, Smith, Bridges, Gomez, Hoyt, Dean, Luque, Pennock, Trucks, Matthews, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Walters, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane (highest WS of any non-candidate by far), Byrd and Mullin, the best of whom is at 26 on my ballot.

14. Roger Bresnahan (C) – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

15. George Van Haltren (C) – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.
   78. Jim Sp Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:18 PM (#2121572)
Oh, and Jim Sp: that ballot is not nearly as, er, um, entertaining as your ballot last year. Welcome back to the mainstream, I guess. (That will almost certainly be a consensus score that is in neither the top nor the bottom group.)

I don't know, life in the mainstream is kind of boring. If I put Felix Millan on my ballot next year would that lower my consensus score?
   79. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#2121594)
If I put Felix Millan on my ballot next year would that lower my consensus score?

Sounds like a good idea. I'd vote for Felix myself, but I'd fear that we'd form a consensus. I got dibs on Cookie Rojas! :-)
   80. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:35 PM (#2121681)
1&2) Hank & Frank. In that order.

3)Charlie Keller-Criminally underrated. To me, the only question is whether or not his back would have gone out on him sooner if he hadn't served.

4)Dizzy Dean-For 3 years, best NL pitcher behind Hubbell. As a bonus, his team won the WS during one of those years.

5)Jose Mendez-Not as good as I thought he was a month ago, but still a fine, fine pitcher.

6)Rube Waddell-A 2 year peak, but oh, what a peak. Best pitcher in the majors after Mathewson at his best. I could see bumping him past Dean and Mendez next election.

7)Gavvy Cravath-I give him credit for missed seasons in his "true" prime; I don't buy the "not good enough for the bigs" argument. It would be shocking for a player with his post-prime not to have a HOM worthy prime

8)Al Rosen-Highest winshare season of any 3B. Was blocked on the front end of his brief career.

9)Cupid Childs-It's a great peak, and the 1890's NL was reasonably strong league. He gets positional points, but not as many as I first thought as an 1890's 2B. I think he was probably a better player than McGraw, who's the other peak-guy from that generation who hasn't made the HoM. I worry that he beenfitted substanitally from League Park, but don't know of any way to quantify this effect.

10)Bucky Walters-It's really only 2 great years, but those 2 great years are better than (for instance) Grimes's 2 great years. Similar to Dean, but w/o the T.T.O. style of pitching. I compared him to Billy Pierce, and IMO, Walters comes out favorably. If Pierce had been pitching in the NL, I'd rank him ahead, but Walters is my lowest MLB pitcher on ballot.

11)Billy Williams-Did not double to catcher. Best MLB player in 1972, but that year was somehwat fluky. If he had one more year like '72, he'd be a no-brainer elect me, but from a peak POV one has to reserve judgement and compare against some other great outfielders like Berger or Klein or Kiner etc....

12)Ken Boyer-He's not Rosen, but that's no disqualification. Great all-around player. Probably even stronger from a career-value POV.

13)Bill Freehan- IMO, the two most underrated players from 1960 onwards are Freehan and Murcer. Both have 2 year peaks, but during those peaks they were one of the 5 best players in the world.

14) Dobie Moore- Moore is basically an unknown whom I'm largely going with on reputation. However, I'd rather vote for guys who may have been really great rather than someone who I'm fairly confident wasn't great. The trend to increasingly question Moore's stats leads me to keep him low on the ballot.

15) Elston Howard- Similar to Al Rosen, except more so. I'm inclined to believe that a guy who was one of the fiveish best players in the league from age 31-35 would have been one of the fiveish best players in the league from 26-30 as well, if he hadn't been mucked up by the Yankees.


Not on Ballot:
--Joe Sewell: Not good a candidate as Vern Stephens
--Hugh Duffy: Roush was better, and he's not on ballot. Requires defensive credit to be electable, credit that I don't feel comfortable giving. Not a great offensive player.
--Minnie Minoso: Now that I've "adjusted" his age, I don't give him any credit for a peak that he missed. Without that credit, he becomes largely a prime/career candidate, and fares poorly in my peak-centric system.
--Dick Redding: Borderline as is, what if the next revision reduces his value even further?
   81. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#2121696)
Whoa, wait a second, it seems I goofed and left Kiner off my ballot.

PLEASE USE THIS BALLOT

1) Aaron
2) F. Robinson
3) Keller
4) Kiner
5) Dean
6) Mendez
7) Waddell
8) Cravath
9) Rosen
10)Childs
11)Walters
12)Bi.Williams
13)K. Boyer
14)Freehan
15)Moore
   82. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#2121707)
A tough week for tabulators!
   83. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2121789)
I did say that they wouldn't hit 400 as much as then But I think a few of them might make a crack at it and get it
think of it this way let's say there are 10 players per era who have the abilty to hit 400 in the 20's enviorment if all 10 try for average they'll have a much higher percentage chance then if half of those sacrifce their average for HRs

DL, you hit a big one with lighting. I don't remember actual numbers, but IIRC correctly, averages of all sorts dip considerably between day and night games.
that's the other main reason why I think averages go down not that effected Billy Williams to much
   84. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2121818)
that's the other main reason why I think averages go down not that affected Billy Williams too much

Billy played a full third of his games at night.

Day .303/.370/.520 in 1658 G (1116 in Wrigley)
Night .264/.345/.433 in 830 G

Some of that is due to the friendly confines, of course.

Home .302/.374/.525 in 1248 G (1116 in Wrigley)
Road .278/.349/.459 in 1240 G

Not sure what any of that means, but I had fun looking it up.
   85. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:44 PM (#2121851)
that's the other main reason why I think averages go down not that affected Billy Williams too much
What I meant was as much as other players of his era thanks to wrigley
   86. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:50 PM (#2121859)
"That's why - without disparaging Joe Dimino's devotion to the HoM - I give posts #19 and #23 a big thumbs-down.

Especially 19 -- those posts always seem to be directed at yest or karlmagnus, when many other posters have had incredibly unusual placings unquestioned or politely questioned."


Sorry guys, but they aren't going to go away.

One of the major requirements of this whole thing is being able to defend your decisions and explain your thinking when asked. If anything, comments like these are going to be coming more often as we move forward, not less.

If someone wants to ask John why he has Bresnahan #3 or ask me why I have Jack Quinn on my ballot at all, fire away - that type of thing should be encouraged, not discouraged.

I didn't take a sour tone or anything, I simply asked yest how he could have Waner above Williams, which blew me away.

Dizzypace in #72 puts it best:

Arguments and ratings can be placed in four categories. Those that I agree with, those that I disagree with, but which I can easily see the other side, those that I strongly disagree with, but in which at least a reasonable case can be made for the other side, and those that I am 100% certain are wrong. If someone argued that Babe Ruth or Willie Mays didn't deserve to go in, it would go in the last column.

Very, very few arguments and ratings go in the last category - I can see a case for almost everyone that people advocate for the HOM. Once in a long while, someone makes an argument that falls into the last category - that which I believe no reasonable case can be made. Lloyd Waner being more deserving than Billy Williams is one of those cases.


And as I see them I will continue to point things from the last category out. As should everyone.
   87. DavidFoss Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#2121872)
What I meant was as much as other players of his era thanks to wrigley

That does get incorporated into the Wrigley context. Cub hitters face steep park factors -- and rightfully so.
   88. OCF Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#2121903)
Billy played a full third of his games at night.

Day .303/.370/.520 in 1658 G (1116 in Wrigley)
Night .264/.345/.433 in 830 G


A very Retrosheet-ish comment to make. Just for the heck of it, Willie McCovey:

Day .280/.383/.545 in 1241 G
Night .260/.367/.488 in 1347 G
   89. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2121962)
not that this means much due to the fact that this is the exeption but Tony Gwynn's splits

---------G---AB-----R---H---2B--3B--HR-RBI--BB--IBB--SO--HBP--SH--SF-XI--ROE--GDP--SB--CS---AVG--OBP--SLG
Day---769-2896--414-966-160-22--40--365-249--63---151---7----13--25--0---45----91----95--44---.334--.385--.445
Night-1671-6392-969-2175-383-63-95--773-541--140--283--17---32--60--0---106--170---224-81---.340--.390--.464
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#2122008)
If someone wants to ask John why he has Bresnahan #3 or ask me why I have Jack Quinn on my ballot at all, fire away - that type of thing should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Definitely, Joe. We have three years of ballot threads to show that we haven't shied away from responding to a valid criticism or question.

But when I'm told that I'm nuts...
   91. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2122107)
think of it this way let's say there are 10 players per era who have the abilty to hit 400 in the 20's enviorment if all 10 try for average they'll have a much higher percentage chance then if half of those sacrifce their average for HRs

How many times did Hornsby and Heilmann hit .400? They both had good power. Do you think they could hit .400 still in our era? Maybe even hitting .450 if they just "hit 'em where they aint?" If you do, then one has to conclude that players were better back then in the majors than they are today, despite the lack of African-American players pre-1947. There's not that many people who are going to swallow that here.
   92. yest Posted: August 02, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#2122379)
How many times did Hornsby and Heilmann hit .400? They both had good power. Do you think they could hit .400 still in our era? Maybe even hitting .450 if they just "hit 'em where they aint?" If you do, then one has to conclude that players were better back then in the majors than they are today, despite the lack of African-American players pre-1947. There's not that many people who are going to swallow that here.
their power was more a Wade Boggs line drive type then a high flying Reggie Jackson type it's the high flying type that really eats away at their BA

think of it this way let's say there are 10 players per era who have the abilty to hit 400 in the 20's enviorment if all 10 try for average they'll have a much higher percentage chance then if half of those sacrifce their average for HRs
What I mean is after tranport all their players from recent game and put them in the 20's game the 20's game would have more 400 hitters due to the above stated reasons
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 02, 2006 at 12:51 AM (#2122444)
their power was more a Wade Boggs line drive type then a high flying Reggie Jackson type it's the high flying type that really eats away at their BA

They might not have had Reggie Jackson power, but they definitely didn't have Wade Boggs' slugging skill. Look at their homers and triples and compare them to Boggs.

What I mean is after tranport all their players from recent game and put them in the 20's game the 20's game would have more 400 hitters due to the above stated reasons

I respectfully still don't buy it.
   94. yest Posted: August 02, 2006 at 01:06 AM (#2122496)
They might not have had Reggie Jackson power, but they definitely didn't have Wade Boggs' slugging skill. Look at their doubles and triples and compare them to Boggs.
I'm not talking a bought talent I'm talking a bought style (my compartion is more on Heilman then Hornsby)


I respectfully still don't buy it.
the only doubt I have on that is the effect of intigration
   95. sunnyday2 Posted: August 02, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#2122589)
If all it took to hit .400 was style, well, Boggs or Carew or Suzuki would do it. It also takes a ton of talent, of course, but Boggs and Carew and Gwynn and, well, not so much Suzuki IMO, have that, too. But more to the point it takes an environment that is conducive to it. Boggs had the style and the talent, he didn't have an environment that was conducive to it--too many night games, too many PAs against fresh hard-throwing relievers--all of which would have depressed Cobb and Hornsby and all those guys, too, if they had faced them.
   96. yest Posted: August 02, 2006 at 01:43 AM (#2122636)
too many night games, too many PAs against fresh hard-throwing relievers
agree with point one but not the relievers bit

all of which would have depressed Cobb and Hornsby and all those guys, too, if they had faced them.
depressed them but I wouldn't put it past them to still hit 400 (though I would't be surprised if Cobb would have only been a 390 hitter but I think he might have topped 400 once) espechily Cobb(who hit like Boggs but had the speed to beat out what Boggs would have been out on)
   97. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 02, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#2122798)
Why don't you buy the bit about fresh hard throwing relievers?
   98. yest Posted: August 02, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2122815)
Why don't you buy the bit about fresh hard throwing relievers?
relievers tend to have only 1 spechilty pich and play to the percentages which is never a smart thing to play to a scintific hitter
   99. Ardo Posted: August 02, 2006 at 03:17 AM (#2122829)
If Gwynn could hit .394 and Brett .390 in partial seasons under modern conditions in integrated leagues, Cobb and Hornsby could exceed .400.

John Murphy, Bresnahan caught 974 games and had only one season of 100+ games caught (1908). Compare to some other MLB catching candidates:

Deacon McGuire: 1611/3
Wally Schang: 1475/5
Ernie Lombardi: 1544/8
Bill Freehan: 1581/10

Clearly, "one of these things is not like the others".
   100. mulder & scully Posted: August 02, 2006 at 06:11 AM (#2122935)
bump
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
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.6015 seconds
49 querie(s) executed