Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Sunday, July 23, 2006

1982 Ballot Discussion

1982 (Aug 7)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

643 199.8 1954 Hank Aaron-RF
519 153.3 1956 Frank Robinson-RF/LF
374 115.8 1961 Billy Williams-LF
322 94.6 1961 Willie Davis-CF
267 78.8 1963 Bill Freehan-C
245 63.9 1964 Tony Oliva-RF
205 66.2 1965 Rico Petrocelli-SS/3B
198 56.8 1958 Tony Taylor-2B
207 52.0 1960 Tommy Davis-LF
173 56.0 1964 Mike Cuellar-P
204 47.5 1963 Tommy Harper-LF/RF
178 40.0 1966 Cesar Tovar-CF/LF (1994)
141 39.9 1966 Cleon Jones-LF
121 45.0 1966 Fritz Peterson-P
130 41.1 1960 Ray Sadecki-P
146 35.5 1961 Deron Johnson-1B (1992)
108 39.0 1961 Jim Brewer-RP (1987)
122 28.6 1964 Alex Johnson-LF
114 30.9 1968 Nate Colbert-1B


Players Passing Away in 1981
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

84 1938 Freddy Leach-LF
83 1940 Andy High-3B
78 1944 Wild Bill Hallahan-P
75 1942 Fred Lindstrom-3B/CF
74 1948 Jack Knott-P
73 1951 Gee Walker-LF
70 1952 Sammy Hughes-2B
70 1955 Taffy Wright-RF
62 1958 Pete Reiser-CF
42 1976 Ray Oyler-SS

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 23, 2006 at 09:51 PM | 257 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Dizzypaco Posted: July 26, 2006 at 08:09 PM (#2113578)
Yeah, I was pumped up about their chances back then. But the first national Baseball Abstract put things in perspective for me fairly quickly...

The thing I remember most about Bill James talking about the Mets in the early eighties is when he had a long essay showing that Shea stadium greatly favored power pitchers (which the Mets had none at the time), and that every time they finished over .500 they led the league in pitcher strikeouts.

He ended the essay saying (and I'm paraphrasing based on memory), "That's not why the Mets stink. The Mets stink because they ain't got any good ballplayers. But when they start looking for some, its good to know."

I love the early baseball Abstracts. I think 1983 was my favorite.
   102. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#2113889)
Random question:

When did pitchers begin hurling from the stretch position with runners on? I thought about it in the shower and realized I'd never seen it in print, and never known it to be otherwise. Neyer/James guide appears to be silent on the issue (Mike feel free to correct me!).

Thanks!

eric : )
   103. Cblau Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:07 AM (#2113919)
OCF wrote:
In the long run, you have to grade the Cardinal/Brewer trade as a net talent loss for the Cardinals and a net gain for the Brewers.
Yes, but just barely. In fact, I grade it as the most even trade ever made. See
The Best Trade.
   104. OCF Posted: July 27, 2006 at 01:59 AM (#2114006)
Cblau, how are you counting Lezcano, LaPoint, and Sorenson? As their own values for the entire rest of their careers, whether that was with St. Louis, San Diego, Cleveland, or San Francisco? As just the Cardinal portion of their remaining careers? Or are you dealing with the value of the players they were traded for?

Simmons was far from done, but he suffered a sudden dropoff in 1981, and even though he recovered from that, in the long run it was clear that he had left his best years behind him in St. Louis. Fingers won the MVP in 1981 (subject to all of the usual doubts about whether a 78-inning pitcher can ever really be the MVP), and Vuckovich won the 1982 Cy Young - given Vuckovich's ERA+ of 114, that's one of the most laughable Cy Youngs ever. Vuckovich performed better than Sorenson, but not by much. LaPoint had done nothing yet in the majors at the time of the trade, but he was ready to start contributing by 1982. Green was a disappointment, but even as a disappointment, he had a few years as an average full-time player.
   105. OCF Posted: July 27, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#2114036)
For there to be a stretch, there has to be a rubber, doesn't there? As a guess, the first place I'd look would be the 1893 pitching changes.

This is related to the balk rule - a check on rule books and changes to rule books might shed some light.
   106. DavidFoss Posted: July 27, 2006 at 02:53 AM (#2114148)
When did pitchers begin hurling from the stretch position with runners on?

I remember an old Neyer article where he talked about a 1950s World Series game that they showed at SABR. Evidently Jackie Robinson stole home off of Whitey Ford (must have been 1955/Game1). Anyhow, he was shocked that Ford was in the full wind-up in that situation.
   107. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 27, 2006 at 05:30 AM (#2114327)
Doc,

Langkister is obviously correct as that is how we in langkister have always said it. Screw the english.

Al,

1.75 doesn't have to be taken literally. If he played in 44 games in a 154 game season then what is the amount of time he missed? 1.72? That seems to be nitpicking to me. And of course I downgrade his 1943 as I do all over war seasons for all other players.

Still if you are willing to give any player MiL credit Keller desrves at least a season's worth at a very high level and if you are willing to give any war credit, Keller deserves as much as any player. If you do these two then Keller has a very impressive peak, it not he does not. I can see how Browning and Kiner may be ahead of him, but I would disagree. I honestly think all three are HOM worthy and all three are in the top ten of my backlog and in my PHOM.

Juan,

As for not giving peak/prime seasons for war creidt, I can understand peak but not prime. If you are giving only cursory credit you will systematically underrate war era players. For istance using WS (I don't know how familiar you are with WS, I am only sueing them to denote value) if a player's career looks 32,32,x,x,x,32 (three MVP level seasons) from 41-46, giving him non-prime seasons, say 12-15 WS a piece, would severely underrate him, there is every chance in that the above player would played better. Personally I may give say, an average of 28 or 29 WS over those three seaons with some staggering maybe 30,26,28 or something like that. Those are definitely prime seasons but they are not that player's best seasons and therefore not really his peak. Does that make sense?
   108. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 27, 2006 at 05:32 AM (#2114330)
In other words I don't create peaks, but I see no problem with giving high level seasons to players who already showed a propensity to have them. Especially if they were good both before and after the war.
   109. Al Peterson Posted: July 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM (#2114430)
Al,

1.75 doesn't have to be taken literally. If he played in 44 games in a 154 game season then what is the amount of time he missed? 1.72? That seems to be nitpicking to me. And of course I downgrade his 1943 as I do all over war seasons for all other players.

Still if you are willing to give any player MiL credit Keller desrves at least a season's worth at a very high level and if you are willing to give any war credit, Keller deserves as much as any player. If you do these two then Keller has a very impressive peak, it not he does not. I can see how Browning and Kiner may be ahead of him, but I would disagree. I honestly think all three are HOM worthy and all three are in the top ten of my backlog and in my PHOM.


Yes, maybe nitpicking a little but we don't know Keller played 44 out of 44 games scheduled once returned. To say he was the ironman and was going to play 154 games sounds like a best case scenario.

Regardless, I give Keller the two full seasons of 1944, 1945 for war, for 1938 as MiL credit as a major league quality player. Last ballot I had Browning at 14, Kiner 19 and Keller 22. They are all in the same basket, I've just picked him last.
   110. rawagman Posted: July 27, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2114543)
I'm leaving my spread sheets in the office for the weekend, but I have a preliminary 1982 ballot.

1)Hank Aaron (PHOM)
2)Frank Robinson (PHOM)
3)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
4)Rube Waddell (PHOM)
5)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
6)Joe Sewell (PHOM)
7)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
((7a)Don Drysdale))
8)Jose Mendez
((8a)Willard Brown))
9)Ben Taylor
10)Edd Roush
11)Quincy Trouppe
12)Orlando Cepeda
13)Ralph Kiner
14)Billy Williams
15)Vern Stephens
_________________________________________________________________________________
The close cuts:
16)Bill Freehan
((16a)Biz Mackey))
17) Minnie Minoso
18)Tommy Bridges
19)Nellie Fox
20)Ken Boyer
21)Wally Berger
22)Dizzy Dean
((20)Juan Marichal))
23)Ernie Lombardi
24)Roger Bresnahan
25)Al Rosen

The other notable newbie, Tony Oliva, checks in at 70.
   111. Juan V Posted: July 27, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#2114552)
While I´m still not a big fan of giving prime seasons via war credit, I understand Keller´s case and decided to treat him as an exception to this rule. So, giving him a prime season for 1944 this way puts him basically even with Jimmy Ryan for the last spot in my ballot. I´ve decided to keep him out for now, but he´ll be first in line for when spots open up in the following "years".
   112. Juan V Posted: July 27, 2006 at 03:22 PM (#2114557)
Now, I´ll be looking out for other "Keller-like" career shapes that could be adjusted this way.
   113. rawagman Posted: July 27, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2114571)
Juan - if you a want a "Keller-like", you must check out Gavvy Cravath.
   114. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2006 at 05:49 PM (#2114659)
Is that Keller (MiL credit)-like? Or Keller (WWII credit)-like?
   115. Juan V Posted: July 27, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2114662)
Keller (great seasons with an interruption like WW2 in between) like.
   116. yest Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2114672)
Keller (great seasons with an interruption like WW2 in between) like.

Pesky (great seasons with an interruption like WW2 in between) like.
   117. Juan V Posted: July 27, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2114693)
Him too. Second among my shortstops, but not quite in the ballot.
   118. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2114778)
Pesky (to me) is hurt by the move to 3B. Seems like there's another SS who also moved to 3B after a much bally-hooed trade, can't think of what it was just now, though.
   119. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 27, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2114788)
Pesky (to me) is hurt by the move to 3B. Seems like there's another SS who also moved to 3B after a much bally-hooed trade, can't think of what it was just now, though.


Cal Ripken?
   120. sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2006 at 08:27 PM (#2114810)
I think he moved the other way.

Who is that guy? No, not that Jeter guy, the other guy....
   121. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 27, 2006 at 08:56 PM (#2114834)
I think he moved the other way.

Who is that guy? No, not that Jeter guy, the other guy....


You talkin' about Scotty Brosius? Wasn't he a 3B with Oakland as well?
   122. Jim Sp Posted: July 27, 2006 at 09:13 PM (#2114850)
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) Elliott--PHoM in 1960.
13) Dick Redding--
14) Dobie Moore--
15) Bartell--Add a little war credit too.
16) Elston Howard--war, segregation, stuck behind Yogi. The peak is there and the obstacles were out of his control. PHoM 1975
17) Norm Cash-- missing the peak except for the big year.
18) KinerKeller would be higher with war credit, but wouldn’t Keller have just been hurt earlier if he was playing?
19) KellerNo war credit, his injury ended his career.
20) PeskyWar credit: MVP type seasons in 1942, 1946, 3 years in between missed to war.
   123. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: July 27, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2114868)
The coutnry that gest me is Germany. We say Germany, they say Deutschland (which isnt' hard to say) and the French say Allemagne. Those aren't even close!


Germany, as a unified nation, hasn't been around very long at all. It's a 19th c. creation. The English and French had to call them something before that. They couldn't agree on which of the various tribes to pick as the eponymous one, but then, they never could agree on much, could they?
   124. favre Posted: July 27, 2006 at 10:47 PM (#2114920)
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.
   125. DavidFoss Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#2114947)
Germany, as a unified nation, hasn't been around very long at all. It's a 19th c. creation. The English and French had to call them something before that. They couldn't agree on which of the various tribes to pick as the eponymous one, but then, they never could agree on much, could they?

Ancient Germans did not have a word for themselves, 'Deutsch' comes from an old word for "people" or "folk". Its where the English have obtained the word for "Dutch".

There are five other families of foreign names (exonyms) for Germany. 'Germany' dates back at least as far back as Latin. Fascinating reading is at Wikipedia at "exonym" and "Names_for_Germany" (at least I thought it was).
   126. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#2114958)
Its where the English have obtained the word for "Dutch".


And where Americans came up with the Pennsylvania "Dutch."

It's hard to believe "Ancient Germans" didn't have a word for themselves. I mean, I think each tribe had a name for itself. (Has there ever been a group of people in history that didn't bother to give themselves a name? Even if it was just "the People" in whatever language they spoke?) It's just that there was no "Ancient Germany." They didn't have a word for Germany because there was no such thing. They also didn't have a word for carbuerators or the Internet.
   127. OCF Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#2114964)
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?

Even though there wasn't a country, there was a language - and the language had its "inside" name, which was Deutsch, and various "outside" names such as German or Aleman. The language has variants and dialects, such as Plattdeutsch (Low German).

I think each tribe had a name for itself ... Even if it was just "the People"

For a large group of Indians living in Arizona and New Mexico, I believe that would be "Dine." Except that most of the world knows them by a name assigned to them by outsiders: Navajo. Sometimes you're stuck with what everyone else calls you, whether that's your word or not.
   128. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 27, 2006 at 11:54 PM (#2114968)
Pesky (to me) is hurt by the move to 3B. Seems like there's another SS who also moved to 3B after a much bally-hooed trade, can't think of what it was just now, though.



Cal Ripken?


I think he moved the other way.

Who is that guy? No, not that Jeter guy, the other guy....


Perhaps my sarcasm font isnt working...
   129. EricC Posted: July 28, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#2115052)
1982 prelim

1. Hank Aaron
2. Frank Robinson
3. Wally Schang
4. Bill Freehan- Freehan and Torre (eligible in '83) are well above borderline in my system.
5. Joe Sewell
6. Orlando Cepeda
7. Billy Williams
8. Norm Cash
9. Jose Mendez
10. Charlie Keller
11. Frank Howard
12. Tommy Bridges
13. Lefty Gomez
14. Gil Hodges
15. Sol White

Willie Davis: As with Pinson, not enough meat for a 300+ WS player. Not sure if he deserves credit for Japan, but it wouldn't be enough to get him on my ballot. Jimmy Wynn next year would be a better choice.
   130. Cblau Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#2115082)
OCF,
I evaluated the trades based on what the players did the rest of their careers. For such a big trade, it produced a surprisingly low amount of future value. A lot of the players were disappointments.
   131. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:14 AM (#2115229)
Jim,

I think I have mentioned this before but I think if you are going ot give war credit it should go to everyone, not jsut those that didn't have a serious injury in 1947. Keller injury came AFTER a little less than a season and a quarter of really good baseball. And it isn't like he spent his military duty lounging around all the time. While I don't know what Keller himself did during the war, most MLB guys were either playing baseball or, you know, fighting a war (Is there anyone who did neither and instead was a translator or something?). Neither of those two option is easier on the back than playing baseball.

And yes the war teams generally played fewer scheduled games but there was more travel involved and many other exhibitions fit in around military training and other chores.

In other words I dont' think you can not give someone war credit because he was injured in 1947 because their time in the military was not akin to rest.
   132. Paul Wendt Posted: July 28, 2006 at 05:31 AM (#2115266)
I think that might be because I began reading the Sporting News about '77 or '78 by which time Williams was done, and Stargell was still a huge figure in the game. If you asked me with out looking at any numbers I would have guessed that Stargell was easily better than Williams. I learn stuff every week doing this, which is why I have stuck with it.

What did you think of their both ranking just a scosh above Medwick?

--
I sorta have a pet peeve with that as well, especially with countries. With names, usually the name change comes from the person themselves, which is fine. The coutnry that gest me is Germany. We say Germany, they say Deutschland (which isnt' hard to say) and the French say Allemagne. Those aren't even close!

And the "Dutch" people became the "Huns" all in American? English.

--
americanize Orlando or Zoilo. Aurelio would mean "Goldy" I suppose.

Roland or Rollie.
If Guillermo is Willie.
But such angli- or ameri- zations depend on some knowledge, even research.
It isn't like Wilhelm to William/Willie/Bill.

Aurelio to Goldy may be from a dictionary.
Goldie isn't common and I concede that I don't know of any nick- or given name Goldie (puppies yes, people no). The only one at baseball-reference is joseph aloysius Goldie Rapp.

--
OCF began, nearly,
Whitey Herzog was brought into this in the middle of the 1980 season. Whitey demanded, and got, more authority over the running of the club than nearly anyone had had since the roles of field manager and general manager became differentiated, and certainly more authority than anyone has had since.

how did that happen? Part of it must be that 2-1-1-1-2 across state --where he has what management powers?

The Cardinals played quite well in 1981, with the best record in the division.

Milwaukee, too.
Fingers, dominant.
Simmons and Vuckovich? There were optis and pessis in Milwaukee, I'm sure, and I dareguess that the pessis figured, after 1981, we got Fingers and dead weight.

what will the 1982 season bring?

Winter in Milwaukee, they must know a pennant is possible even if Simmons is done.
Spring brings a .500 record and a change of managers.
Summer brings Harvey Wallbangers?

(For some reason, I was aware during World Series 1985 v Kansas City but not 1982 v Milwaukee that there was some showdown with a personnel history.)
   133. Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: July 28, 2006 at 11:36 AM (#2115334)
Someone in the 1981 results discussion asked about a Keltner Test for Cupid Childs. I had a few minutes at work, so I threw together a quick-and-dirty Keltner Test. I don't have WS numbers here, so keep that in mind.

Anyway, here it is:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No. He was terrific in 1890, but Denny Lyons was probably better. In his other peak season, 1892, Roger Connor and Dan Brouthers were probably better. And that doesn't even consider pitchers in either season.

Was he the best player on his team?
In 1890, yes. In several other very good seasons, he had the "misfortune" of being on the same team as Cy Young.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
Yes, and it's not particularly close.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Not really. Cleveland finished three games back in 1895, but Childs had a subpar year.

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
For a couple of years, yes. 19th century middle infielders tended to have short careers - Childs played in 13 seasons.

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

Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Merit?
Hughie Jennings was fairly similar and is in. Tom Daly is out.

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Merit standards?
Probably.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Once you adjust for era, probably not.

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

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
(I don't have win shares numbers, so I'm eyeballing this.) Two MVP-type seasons: 1890 and 1892. MVP award didn't exist then.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
(Again, no win-shares numbers as I write this.) Childs had at least seven All-Star-type seasons.

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

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

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
As far as I know, yes.
   134. Dan Lee prefers good shortstops to great paintings Posted: July 28, 2006 at 11:40 AM (#2115336)
Just to reiterate - that Childs Keltner Test is mostly meant as a starting point for discussion, not as something definitive.
   135. fra paolo Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:45 PM (#2115357)
I'm having real problems with this ballot. I like to reserve my top votes for people who are "best in their league" quite strictly, but that means Frank Robinson is going to wind up pretty low down. Even in his AL years I'm not certain he was definitively the best at his position in the league. Maybe only in 1966.
   136. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 28, 2006 at 12:53 PM (#2115361)
I'm having real problems with this ballot. I like to reserve my top votes for people who are "best in their league" quite strictly, but that means Frank Robinson is going to wind up pretty low down.

My system has a pretty significant "domination" factor, but Robinson still comes out easily as the #2 canddiate in '82. Besides, if my system said otherwise, I would have just ignored it or worked on my system some more (which I have done numerous times).
   137. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:12 PM (#2115405)
fra,

Is defensive dominance at RF important? Not to say that it's unimportant, but if defense in RF is keeping Robinson down the ballot, it may possibly be because you are overweighting it. just a thought, not a critique.
   138. DavidFoss Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:27 PM (#2115417)
He said 'definitive', not 'defensive'.

Frank has got 2 40+ WS seasons and 4 OPS+ titles. That's plenty of peak.
   139. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:33 PM (#2115421)
F. Robby shoulda been NL MVP in '62 IMO and was clearly deserving in '66. I think you can argue he had a higher peak than Aaron though only for about 3 top years, after that it is all Bad Henry. If you don't think F. Robby was definitively the best in the league, well, that's a mighty high standard--are you sure the guys you might have ahead of him were definitively the best in the league? I would have to wonder. You can't judge him by a higher standard than the other guys.
   140. fra paolo Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2115427)
What I'm querying is, during a NL prime for Robinson of 1960-65, which overlaps with Aaron's 1957-73, who would you pick as the best right fielder in the league? Aaron has a massive lead looking at his peak as a whole. FRobby's AL years are a different story.
   141. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 28, 2006 at 02:57 PM (#2115434)
What I'm querying is, during a NL prime for Robinson of 1960-65, which overlaps with Aaron's 1957-73, who would you pick as the best right fielder in the league?

I have Robinson as the best ML right fielder in 1962 and Aaron taking the rest.

I also have Robinson as the best NL right fielder in 1957, the best ML first baseman in 1959, very close to being the best right fielder in 1970, the best DH for 1973, and the best ML right fielder for 1966 (duh! :-).
   142. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#2115440)
Sorry, I can't believe i saw defensive not defitive. Man once you turn 30, the eyes just go.... ; )
   143. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2115457)
fra, what Mantle and Mays had played in the same league? Does one of them have to be a bum? (Gehrig-Foxx? Anson-Brouthers-Connor?) Ripken-Yount? ARod-Jeter-Garciaparra? Brett-Schmidt? Does one of each matched pair have to be a bum?)
   144. yest Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2115531)
</i>I like to reserve my top votes for people who are "best in their league" quite strictly,
what a bought Chuck Klein 1930-1933
   145. OCF Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#2115537)
I started that "who wasn't quite" bit on the Frank Robinson thread and it's turned into a silly game, but I did have a serious point. You really can't, and shouldn't, hold agains Robins that he can't quite match up to Henry Aaron. It wasn't Robinson's fault that the MVP voters lost their minds over Maury Wills. We elected Al Kaline easily; Robinson just trounces Kaline. I've got Robinson as clearly better than Sam Crawford. Maybe Mel Ott was a little better than Robinson, but you've got to look at that twice to be sure. Robinson was one of the 10 best corner outfielders ever.

Sure, I can see hesitating to put too many corner outfielders high on your ballot - and holding that thought against Billy Williams. I may well wind up with Williams #3 on my ballot but I can understand someone having him a lot lower. But I do not understand having Frank Robinson in any ballot position other than #2.
   146. DavidFoss Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2115542)
How did this page get wide? It's annoying.

Looks like it was rawagman's long line up there. Maybe John can shorten that.
   147. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 28, 2006 at 04:59 PM (#2115558)
Looks like it was rawagman's long line up there. Maybe John can shorten that.

It's back to normal, guys.
   148. Chris Fluit Posted: July 28, 2006 at 05:22 PM (#2115585)
Here's my preliminary look at new eligibles:
Hank Aaron- 1st overall, he's got more black ink than anybody on the ballot, twenty seasons worth of gray ink and he ranks first overall in several career categories
Frank Robinson- 2nd overall, poor Frank would be first most years but he's stuck behind Hank for this election
Billy Williams- currently thinking he'll be 5th behind the big two outfielders and the two Negro League pitchers Mendez and Redding
Willie Davis- won't be that close, I have him behind Vada Pinson who was 20th for me on the last ballot
Bill Freehan- a bit closer than Davis but probably off-ballot, I still prefer Lombardi and with all of the new eligibles, Lombardi has been pushed back to 13th
Tony Oliva- close but not quite, I can't see putting him ahead of Kiner who I had 15th but like Freehan, I can see voting for him down the road
   149. Paul Wendt Posted: July 28, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#2115662)
sunnyday2 Posted: July 27, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#2114778)
Pesky (to me) is hurt by the move to 3B. Seems like there's another SS who also moved to 3B after a much bally-hooed trade, can't think of what it was just now, though.

Not Vern Stephens. Did they move Pesky to third at the end of 1947, his first season playing there? And acquire Stephens because they needed a shortstop?

--
While I don't know what Keller himself did during the war, most MLB guys were either playing baseball or, you know, fighting a war (Is there anyone who did neither and instead was a translator or something?). Neither of those two option is easier on the back than playing baseball.

"fighting a war" is broad indeed

--
fra paolo
I'm having real problems with this ballot. I like to reserve my top votes for people who are "best in their league" quite strictly, but that means Frank Robinson is going to wind up pretty low down.

Fra, How may "top votes" do you try to reserve for that crowd?
(Do I reserve my top votes for them. Maybe. haven't completed a ballot yet.)

--
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Not really. Cleveland finished three games back in 1895, but Childs had a subpar year.


That looks like impact!

By the way, some would rate Jesse Burkett above Childs in some seasons (including 1895 of course).
   150. sunnyday2 Posted: July 28, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2115681)
Paul, Pesky was moved to 3rd when and because they acq. Stephens. Just like the Y decided that Jeter was their SS, the Sox decided Stephens (not Pesky) was theirs.
   151. jingoist Posted: July 28, 2006 at 07:11 PM (#2115704)
What; no blog entries mourning the passing of Taffy Wright? He actually died in 1981 (per bbref) but he's listed on this years ballot.

Also the premature passing of the previuosly mentioned immortal Ray Oyler.

On a happier note, it ooks like the "Hank and Frank" show this year; the only real suspense is where will the voters place Billy Williams (an oft mentioned as over-rated player who I always felt was under-rated).

Good luck voters!
   152. fra paolo Posted: July 28, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2115713)
I have Robinson as the best ML right fielder in 1962 and Aaron taking the rest.

Exactly. However, I'm studying his AL career with interest.

Fra, How may "top votes" do you try to reserve for that crowd?

My ideal ballot would feature one player at each position in the top 9 slots, in each case a player who during his prime was clearly 'the best 3b (or whatever) in his league' for more than one season. However, the ideal in ballots, as in life, is never often met.

Does one of them have to be a bum?

Well, since I am liable to be putting the second-best between them among the 15 ballplayers most deserving of election to the Hall of Merit, I'd argue neither of them would be bums. It's a case of where among the 15 slots am I going to put Frank Robinson. If I don't put him second, will I be banned from the electorate for being too strict with the positional weighting?
   153. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 28, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#2115726)
If I don't put him second, will I be banned from the electorate for being too strict with the positional weighting?

No, you wont be banned, but I'm betting you will be a party of one during the election.
   154. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 28, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2115732)
W/R/T the Childs Keltner test:

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Once you adjust for era, probably not.



Disagree...well, rather, the record is mixed. Bill James awarded Childs his "Yellowstone Park" award for the 1890's, meaning that he was the player most hurt by his home park. But Childs was a lefty-hitter in League Park, which was like 290ft and change in right field (albeit with a 60 foot fence). I'm inclined to think that James thought Childs was a righty hitter, but frankly, I dunno.
   155. Mike Webber Posted: July 28, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2115756)
If I don't put him second, will I be banned from the electorate for being too strict with the positional weighting?

No, you wont be banned, but I'm betting you will be a party of one during the election.


And your skin better be pretty thick. :)

We all have systems we use to help us organize all the data on these players, but every now and then you have to make sure your system isn't spitting out illogical conclusions. Using Win Shares like I do, you have to be careful with 19th century pitchers, George Van Haltren is a guy that I used to have near the top of the ballot before I stuck a correction in for his pitching credit.
   156. Jim Sp Posted: July 28, 2006 at 09:11 PM (#2115850)
Jim,

I think I have mentioned this before but I think if you are going ot give war credit it should go to everyone, not jsut those that didn't have a serious injury in 1947. Keller injury came AFTER a little less than a season and a quarter of really good baseball. And it isn't like he spent his military duty lounging around all the time. While I don't know what Keller himself did during the war, most MLB guys were either playing baseball or, you know, fighting a war (Is there anyone who did neither and instead was a translator or something?). Neither of those two option is easier on the back than playing baseball.

And yes the war teams generally played fewer scheduled games but there was more travel involved and many other exhibitions fit in around military training and other chores.

In other words I dont' think you can not give someone war credit because he was injured in 1947 because their time in the military was not akin to rest.


I don't think you did respond on this point, if so I missed it.

What you're saying makes sense, I think I'm going to conceded the point and give Keller war credit. My original thinking was that he had a desk job but as you point out that is unlikely.
   157. OCF Posted: July 28, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#2115888)
fra paolo:

You didn't vote in 1980, so your opinion on Kaline is not on record, but you did vote in 1981. You had Killebrew 2nd, meaning you had him ahead of every backlogger carried over to the 1982 ballot.

Killebrew didn't play exactly the same positions as Robinson, but there's overlap. Killebrew is credited with 969 games at 1b, 791 at 3b, 470 in LF, 11 at 2b, and 158 as a DH. Robinson had 1281 games in RF, 820 in LF, 99 in CF, 305 at 1b, 13 at 3b, and 321 as a DH. Killebrew played a very slightly more valuable mix of positions, although Robinson's brief time in CF eats into that, but no one said that Killebrew was particularly good defensive third baseman. And Robinson played more total games in the field My point here is that it's not easy to give defensive credit to Killebrew for being better than Robinson, so if you're going to claim that Killebrew was better, you'll have to make that claim based on offense.

Now look at my chart in post #10 of the Robinson thread. I've got an offensive system, based more or less on RCAA, and I've got the two of them lined up best year to worst. Robinson beats Killebrew in every single year on that chart - every single year. For the top 14 years, it's usually 10 of my points or more, with 10 points being worth about one win. Beyond 14 years, Robinson is still a star and Killebrew isn't.

So here's my exercise for you. Leave Henry Aaron out of this, and leave Mays out as well. They're not the issue. Pretend that Killebrew is still eligible. Honestly, which one of Killebrew or Robinson would you put ahead of the other? If you don't like my offensive system, use someone else's. We're comparing 11743 PA of .294/.389/.537 (OPS+ 154) for Robinson to 9831 PA of .256/.376/.509 (OPS+ 143) for Killebrew. It's the same time. Killebrew is all AL, Robinson is half NL, and the NL was tougher. I don't see any way out of concluding that Robinson was a better player and a stronger HoM candidate than Killebrew.

For me, the logical conclusion of that is that you should place Robinson at least as high as you would have placed Killebrew on this ballot. And although we haven't tested Killebrew versus Billy Williams or Bill Freehan, you did already place Killebrew ahead of everyone else on the ballot.
   158. Brent Posted: July 28, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2115891)
It's a case of where among the 15 slots am I going to put Frank Robinson. If I don't put him second, will I be banned from the electorate for being too strict with the positional weighting?


fra paolo,

If you're really convined that another player was better than Robinson, then you certainly should place that player ahead of Robinson. But if you actually think Robinson was the second best player, but you don't want to place him there because it violates some rule you've made regarding positional balance, then I'd strongly recommend that you re-think your rule.

I've been voting for 50+ "years." During that span, a couple of times I've gone ahead and voted against a candidate who was a strong consensus pick because I thought the consensus was wrong. (For example, I placed Speaker ahead of Cobb, which in retrospect I concede was a mistake, and I placed Banks 15th--I still think the consensus had Mr. Cub too high.) But more often, when my ranking system has produced unreasonable results, I've decided that my system was flawed and made a change to it. That's also why it's useful to read these discussions and see how other people are thinking about the issues (unless, that is, all they want to talk about is steroids ;-).

Regarding positional balance, I've never worried about it too much on a year-by-year basis. Sometimes (like this year) we just happen to get a lot of great outfielders; other years it's pitchers or infielders. I do try to monitor my system, however, to make sure that over 10 or 15 year spans that all the positions are appropriately represented.
   159. OCF Posted: July 28, 2006 at 10:44 PM (#2115926)
For example, I placed Speaker ahead of Cobb...

Speaking for myself, I had Collins ahead of Speaker. Really, it was hard to be too far "wrong" that year - we were going to elect all of the top candidates as soon as we could. Consensus scores ranged from +12 to +27, with an average of +21.9. Brent was at +19. That's still a lot of agreement. Brent had the top 6 candidates in order 2-1-3-5-4-6, which isn't exactly a radical departure. (I had them 1-3-2-5-4-6.) yest got his +12 by agreeing completely on the top 4 but putting Smokey Joe Williams 12th and leaving Cristobal Torriente off the ballot.
   160. EricC Posted: July 28, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#2115931)
It's a case of where among the 15 slots am I going to put Frank Robinson. If I don't put him second, will I be banned from the electorate for being too strict with the positional weighting?

Where do you place F. Robinson on your ballot? Suppose that Aaron had played into 1977, and was not yet eligible this year. Then, where would you place Robinson? If your answer to the two questions is significantly different, then, yes, I would say that you are too strict with positional weighting, and should reconsider.
   161. Brent Posted: July 29, 2006 at 01:11 AM (#2116124)
The "class" that became eligible for the HoM in 1934 was, of course, the greatest ever. However, I think this year's class may just be the best one since '34. We have Aaron in the top decile of the HoM, Robinson in the top quartile, Williams in the third quartile, and I think there's a good chance that Freehan will eventually be elected. Oliva, and possibly Willie Davis, will also draw support.

Since 1934, the best classes were:
- 1941 - Ruth, Hornsby, and Vance
- 1943 - Charleston, Cochrane, Frisch, and Foster
- 1946 - Stearnes, Simmons, Averill, and Suttles
- 1950 - Waner, Dihigo, and Cronin
- 1952 - Gibson, Ott, and Dickey
- 1953 - Greenberg, Wells, Herman, Hack, and Ruffing
- 1962 - Robinson, Feller, and Irvin
- 1969 - Musial, Berra, and Wynn

1941 had the best "inner circle" talent and 1953 had the most HoMers. But for a mix of first-tier talent and depth, I think the class of 1982 eligibles is probably the best of these.
   162. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 29, 2006 at 04:52 AM (#2116444)
Prelim ballot

1. Aaron
2. Robinson
3. Keller
4. Childs
5. Freehan - In my system he lookes remarkably like Roy Campanella sans the NeL years. A little less peak a little more prime. Of course he wasn't Campanella as he didn't have a string of decent seasons in the NeLs but he is definitely a HOMer. I dont' understand how any can have Lombardi ahead of him. If you took the top six seasons between them per WS, five are from Freehan and one is from Lombardi. The top 9 seasons include seven from Freehan and two fromLombardi. Freehan has four seasons as good as or better than Lombardi's best. In WARP four of the top five and seven of the top 11 seasons are Freehan's. The only thing Lombardi has an edge in is OPS+ and that ignores Freehan's MONSTROUS defensive advantage as well as teh fact ath Lombardi wasn't terribly durable. This is not even close in my opinion.
6. Williams - I didn't think I would like him that much but he seem very close to Kaline in my system. LIke I mentioned in my Kaline balot entry in 1980, my system, while peak heavy, rewards player who can play just below MVP level for a long time. Thus while Williams doesn't have very good 3 of 5 year WARP/WS/OPS+ numbers he does get credit for having many seasons at around 9 WARP and 27-29 WS. In other words, Williams should go in pretty quickly.
7. Duffy
8. Redding
9. Kiner
10. Moore
11. Walters
12. Browning
13. Trouppe
14. Dean
15. Waddell

16. Howard
17. Boyer
18. Cravath
19. Mendez
20. Rosen

Newbies

W. Davis and Oliva are the only other serious candidates and they aren't in my top 60. In fact I would have to ask anyone who is voting for Davis, Oliva, or Pinson (or has them just off ballot) why they are better than Geroge Burns, Bobby Veach, Alejandro Oms or any of the other backloggers. Personally I think the latter group is far superior to the newer guys.
   163. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 29, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2116458)
1982 Prelim

Sorry for being late with this!

1. Hank Aaron
2. Frank Robinson
3. Jake Beckley
4. Bob Johnson
5. Minnie Minoso
6. Norm Cash
7. Charley Jones
8. Ralph Kiner
9. George Van Haltren
10. Ernie Lombardi
11. Jimmy Ryan
12. Dutch Leonard
13. Frank Howard
14. Quiny Trouppe
15. Tommy Bridges

***
The next fifteen:

16. Billy Williams: he has the long-time very good-ness that I like, and his peak was plenty high.
17. Rube Waddell
18. Orlando Cepeda
19. Gavy Cravath
20. Sam Rice
21. Burleigh Grimes
22. Wally Schang
23. Bob Elliott
24. Billy Pierce
25. Dizzy Trout: length and success are a nice combination.
26. Jack Quinn: Pitching to that age, especially in that era, is still quite an accomplishment, and he was very good.
27. Eddie Cicotte: put his seasons in a different order, and he superficially looks better. But he was never worse than average, often far above, and it seems like knuckleballers are more prone to having isolated disaster years. Plus, his career ended because he was banned from the game; he was 36, but wasn't slowing down.
28. Tony Oliva: an outstanding performer, but "only" for parts of eleven seasons. Two more of his 1973 might push him up a slot. He might have been a little older, but then again, he might not have.
29. Ken Boyer: if he had a little more production or a little more productive length, he'd be higher. But add his defense, and he was very valuable for a reasonably long time. He might eventually make it further up.
30. Edd Roush

Displaced from the top 30 since 1981:

31. Bucky Walters
32. Jose Mendez
   164. mulder & scully Posted: July 29, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#2116916)
B Williams,

Re: the Yellowstone Park Award.

I believe James was referring to the player whose home park hurt his career home run numbers the most. In the 1890s' Yellowstone Park Comment, he compares Bobby Lowe, who played in an excellent home run park, to Childs. Childs hit more career homers on the road than Lowe, 16 to 14. But at home, Lowe outhomered him 57 to 4. If Cleveland had a giant wall in right field, that in combination with the balls they were using in the 1890s would have made it very difficult to get anything over the wall.
   165. yest Posted: July 30, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#2117515)
and leaving Cristobal Torriente off the ballot.
2 years and a HoF induction later I still can't see why he's in.
   166. fra paolo Posted: July 30, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#2118603)
My preliminary ballot:

1) Hank Aaron
2) Frank Robinson: I'm not happy about this position, for reasons discussed earlier in this thread. On his own, he's a great player, but he had the misfortune to share his peak with the man ahead of him on this ballot, which meant he was never the best in his league during the first half of his prime. During his AL prime he is clearly one of the best, but neither he nor his rivals established a conclusive superiority. I'll put him here provided people don't bring this up when Blyleven becomes eligible.
3) Edd Roush. Best centerfielder not yet elected.
4) Ken Boyer. I've still got him as the best eligible 3b out there.
5) Joe Sewell. I've not yet found an eligible ss with the same dominance of his league at his position.
6) Cupid Childs. Great-hitting 2b.
7) Orlando Cepeda. Would have been higher last time round if it hadn't been for Killebrew.
8) Rube Waddell. The most dominant pitcher on my spreadsheet.
9) Ralph Kiner. Would be a lot higher if it hadn't been for the Aaron-Robinson duo at the top. Gave the nod to Robinson ahead of Kiner for having a much longer prime that was almost as peaky.
10) Charley Jones. Very dominant batter, although at a time when it was easy to dominate.
11) Hugh Duffy. I might have him too high, but as with Jones I can't ignore his dominance.
12) Elston Howard. Still holds up in a comparison with Trouppe, largely thanks to his excellent fielding behind the dish.
13) Nellie Fox. Could challenge Childs for the top 2b spot with further study.
14) Bucky Walters. I made a list of guys who had jumped quite a few places on the ballot in 1981, and Bucky Walters impressed me the most. 198 pitching runs in an 8-year prime with a few more innings per season than Billy Pierce.
15) Pie Traynor. Maybe I'm too sentimental about a key player for my team in a 1930 APPBA draft replay, but he pushed Maranville off my ballot this time, thanks to his HoF monitor score.

Other guys.
Jose Mendez. I'm not sold on his credentials yet. I haven't made up my mind how to handle his Cuban League stats.
Quincy Trouppe: After reducing the ten percent penalty I applied in 1981 to his equivalent stats down to five percent, he still didn't beat Howard.
Billy Pierce. Neck and neck with Walters, I gave Walters the nod this time round.
Tony Oliva. No chance with Aaron and Robinson this year, but he's made a bid for a 10-15 spot next time.
Rabbit Maranville. Loads of fielding credentials, but maybe I overrated his bat a little last time.
Gavvy Cravath. Driven off the ballot by the impressive selection of corner outfielders.
Ernie Lombardi. Great bat, held back by his fielding when compared with Howard.
Billy Williams. Not a high enough OPS+ peak to his prime to please me.
   167. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:06 AM (#2118835)
In the interest of sharing just how far and wide the HOM's reputation is traveling, this was posted somewhere out in the rest of BTF.org....

Washington Post: Steroids Scandal On Deck For Baseball Hall Voters
“Next year’s ballot will be a pretty good bellwether about how writers feel about this issue,” said Dale Petrosky, president of the Hall of Fame. “A lot of people believe we are going to know a lot more information [about steroids] in a few years. But until anything is proven, the baseball writers are going to have to look into their souls and ask, ‘Does this guy belong in the Hall or not?’ and, ‘How did he get there?’

“It’s an uncomfortable position for baseball writers to be in—being essentially the judge and jury,” said the Globe’s Edes. “I dread these next few years and having to make those kinds of calls.”


There’s always the Hall of Merit for members of the Hall of Conflicted Writers to consider.
   168. DL from MN Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:51 AM (#2118923)
I was furious when ESPN decided to have an interview during the Negro League induction ceremony today. Jose Mendez and Louis Santop couldn't even get their 2 minutes of attention. Their relatives should be livid. It's an insult to the memory of those Negro Leaguers. They finally get the honor they deserve and ESPN gets bored with it.
   169. Mike Webber Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:59 AM (#2119044)
I was furious when ESPN decided to have an interview during the Negro League induction ceremony today. Jose Mendez and Louis Santop couldn't even get their 2 minutes of attention. Their relatives should be livid. It's an insult to the memory of those Negro Leaguers. They finally get the honor they deserve and ESPN gets bored with it.


I drove around listening to ESPN radio quite a bit today, and never heard them mention any of the Negro League electees individually. Which wass probably caused some combination of these four things 1) None of the hosts knew anything about any of the individual electees 2) They were afraid to single out any one of the Negro League Electees above the others. They stumbled around the "Negro Leagues and Pre-Negro Leagues inductees" phrase all day. 3)The either assumed or were instructed that their listening audience only cared about Sutter 4) There are too many Negro Leaguers in this one class for them to be thought of anything other than a mob.
   170. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:35 AM (#2119166)
I was furious when ESPN decided to have an interview during the Negro League induction ceremony today. Jose Mendez and Louis Santop couldn't even get their 2 minutes of attention. Their relatives should be livid. It's an insult to the memory of those Negro Leaguers. They finally get the honor they deserve and ESPN gets bored with it.
Of course they were to to busy with Effa (wo)manley
   171. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:59 AM (#2119199)
Doc, was the line in bold posted by a BTF guy or was it part of the article?

Also, ESPn is sports for the lowest common denominator as you all most likely know. I am in Hong Kong and wasn't able to see the ceremonies (I would have liked to have seen the undeserving Sutter if only because he is from my home county, his nephew struck me a a few times in high school as well) so I can't say what happened but if you are right I would have been livid. Why does ESPN think that all of its viewers are morons?
   172. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:14 AM (#2119217)
1) None of the hosts knew anything about any of the individual electees

I didn't watch any of the induction, but wasn't Brian Kenny one the hosts? I think he's the best baseball guy on ESPN and I would think he knows something about at least a few of the the electees or would at least be willing to study up on them.

Then again I think the other host was Jeff Brantley and he's dumber than a box of rocks, so ESPN probably didn't want one of the hosts sitting there with a stupid look on his face (well, even more stupid than usual).
   173. rawagman Posted: July 31, 2006 at 08:15 AM (#2119309)
I watched it on MLB tv. I assume it was ESPN coverage. It was truly horrible.
   174. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 12:32 PM (#2119376)
>I drove around listening to ESPN radio quite a bit today, and never heard them mention any of the Negro League electees individually.

This is exactly what I said lo these many months ago. The whole process was fubar from the word go, but hey we're talking Cooperstown here.
   175. karlmagnus Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:06 PM (#2119390)
WaPo had a piece this morning on Jud Wilson, who was a Washington man -- quite nice, though short.
   176. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2119418)
BTW what happened to Ray Oyler that he died so young?
   177. DL from MN Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:41 PM (#2119422)
The ceremony itself wasn't half bad having the various family members read the plaques. All ESPN needed to do was get out of the way. They stayed out of the way until Manley's plaque which led into an in-depth interview with the woman on the committee (where they asked dumb questions). The interview wasn't bad as much as it was completely at the wrong time. It's like interrupting a presidential speech to go to an interview about the speech while it is still happening.

Seaver really butchered the intro to the Frick Award, ironic that he has broadcasting experience.

Ringolsby tried to be magnanimous and came off as patronizing.
   178. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:44 PM (#2119425)
I drove around listening to ESPN radio quite a bit today, and never heard them mention any of the Negro League electees individually. Which wass probably caused some combination of these four things 1) None of the hosts knew anything about any of the individual electees 2) They were afraid to single out any one of the Negro League Electees above the others. They stumbled around the "Negro Leagues and Pre-Negro Leagues inductees" phrase all day. 3)The either assumed or were instructed that their listening audience only cared about Sutter 4) There are too many Negro Leaguers in this one class for them to be thought of anything other than a mob.

In a sad way, this reminds me of the old prohibition for announcers of saying that a black player looked like another black player.

Doc, was the line in bold posted by a BTF guy or was it part of the article?
I think it was posted by Andy who was posting about the Barry roids stuff in the Aaron thread.

Why does ESPN think that all of its viewers are morons?
Because IIRC they are owned by ABC, which brought you such innovative and challenging programming as Full House.
   179. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#2119429)
Why does ESPN think that all of its viewers are morons?
due to the fact that there still getting viewer for "clasic poker"
   180. DavidFoss Posted: July 31, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2119483)
   181. Mike Webber Posted: July 31, 2006 at 03:50 PM (#2119581)
Here is my dream for ESPN - You know how they have ESPN, the Duece, ESPNU, Desportes, CLassic, 360 - and probably a half dozen more? Ho w about this, ESPN SMART.

What would it have? How about broadcast with alternate announcers - no Troy Aikman or Beasley Reece doing foot ball, no McCarver, Brantley or Dibble doing baseball, No Stuart Scott on sports center.

To be honest, fantasy sports would fit in with this station - but not analysis of A-Rod and Peyton Manning.

I think it would work - but the costs would probably be prohibitive compared to showing poker re-runs and employing Brantley.
   182. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#2119636)
What would it have? How about broadcast with alternate announcers - no Troy Aikman or Beasley Reece doing foot ball, no McCarver, Brantley or Dibble doing baseball, No Stuart Scott on sports center.
HOpefully, though, they'd be able to sign Joe Morgan up for this. He's a smart, trenchant, well-informed announcer.

NOT!

I think it would work - but the costs would probably be prohibitive compared to showing poker re-runs and employing Brantley.
I'd work on camera for them for less than $100,000. They should email me pronto.

showing poker re-runs
actually, poker is a pretty smart bit of television. they show the odds that a guy will hit his hand. do you ever see the odds that Ryan Howard will hit into a deuce on screen? or the changing odds that a team will score in a given situation? that would be cool, smart stuff. and it would make a lot of managers and players more accountable to fans (which is why they won't do it, of course).


but what's the fun if no one's yelling at each other????
   183. sunnyday2 Posted: July 31, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#2119740)
ESPN SMART...

Oxymoron.
   184. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#2119792)
Thanks Monty, I haven't really watched much TV since, uh, 1995ish???? Back then Bob Saget was a multi-night-of-the-week TV presence with the Home Videos franchise and all.
   185. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#2119851)
OK, here's another game for us.

What, if any, players are voters most closely associated with either as FO or EO?

For instance, Karlmagnus is most associated with Jake Beckley, Bob Caruthers, and Addie Joss. Possibly Cicotte too.

Sunnyday2 is probably most associated with Ralph Kiner and Dobie Moore.

John Murphy is most associated with Dickey Pearce. Maybe also Cupid Childs or Tom York.

I would guess, though not sure, that I'm most associated with one of Mendez, Trouppe, or Willard Brown.

Mike Webber, of course, is Edd Roush.

Kelly in Some Western City is closely associated with Mickey Welch after considerable Keltnering and many long, impassioned defenses of the Smilin' one.

Gadfly, Gavy Cravath and Monte Irvin.

Chris Cobb may be associated with Clark Griffith.

Someone, it might be OCF is associated with either Frank Chance or John McGraw, or both. Can't recollect just now.

These are all my opinions of course. Who else is associated with a player? Or am I getting some of these wrong?
   186. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 31, 2006 at 06:56 PM (#2119876)
What, if any, players are voters most closely associated with either as FO or EO?

For Joe, I think of Deacon White.
   187. yest Posted: July 31, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#2119884)
John Murphy is most associated with Dickey Pearce. Maybe also Cupid Childs or Tom York.
and Tip O'Neil
Sunnyday2 is probably most associated with Ralph Kiner and Dobie Moore.
Tommy Bond, Harry Wright, Dickey Pearce, and Bob Caruthers

Joe D
for Benny Kauff
   188. OCF Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2120271)
Someone, it might be OCF is associated with either Frank Chance or John McGraw, or both. Can't recollect just now.

Although I have a system that shows both Chance and McGraw very well, I also let myself be influenced by their (lack of) playing time, and I don't currently vote for either. The person who advocates both Chance and McGraw most strongly is probably KJOK. I understand KJOK's reasoning, even if I don't adopt it for myself.

If you want to associate me with anyone, it would be (from the dim and distant past), Harry Stovey. More recently, it's Larry Doyle and Billy Pierce.

There are a few people out there that I may have been the only person ever to vote for. Johnny Evers was one.
   189. OCF Posted: July 31, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#2120282)
Gadfly, Gavy Cravath and Monte Irvin.

Don't forget Luke Easter!
   190. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2120628)
Anybody see Rob Neyer's blog. He asked something like 73 writers if they would vote for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. It's not clear whether all were authorized to actually vote for the HoF, but anyway... 61 said no, 12 said yes.

The commentary was basically that there needs to be *EVIDENCE THAT MCGWIRE DIDN'T USE STEROIDS* before most would vote for him.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
   191. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 01, 2006 at 01:01 AM (#2120745)
The commentary was basically that there needs to be *EVIDENCE THAT MCGWIRE DIDN'T USE STEROIDS* before most would vote for him.

Wow. And they don't know how long he might have used, nor what he might have used, only that he might have. Amazing.
   192. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 01, 2006 at 04:19 AM (#2121069)
There are about 7-10 of us that were big Hughie Jennings fans but I am not sure any of us stood out.

KJOK is Chance/McGraw

Yest is George Sisler

Kelly (mulder and scully now right?) is maybe the EO of Beckley with his keltner test stuff, though there are plenty of others, myself included.

Rawagman has Duffy

I would like to think I have Keller, but James Newburg may beat me there.
   193. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:33 AM (#2121116)
Yest is George Sisler
I think I'm most asosiated with Sisler, Traynor, and Welch and anti Bennett, Frank Grant, and my
<u>1976 PHOM INDUCTEE GEORGE DAVIS</u>
   194. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:41 AM (#2121152)
And you are now associate with L.Waner over B.Williams for better or worse
   195. rawagman Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:52 AM (#2121155)
Rawagman has Duffy


I would like to put in a claim for Rube Waddell as well. If they can clear the backlog, I'll start hyping Lefty Gomez a bit more.
   196. Sean Gilman Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:09 AM (#2121156)
The commentary was basically that there needs to be *EVIDENCE THAT MCGWIRE DIDN'T USE STEROIDS* before most would vote for him.

If McGwire weighs the same as a duck, then he didn't use steroids.
   197. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:58 AM (#2121171)
Wow. And they don't know how long he might have used, nor what he might have used, only that he might have. Amazing.

From his testimony to Congress, I have zero doubt that he used steroids at one time. But as Eric alludes to, how much do you deduct from his career if you're inclined to do so? IMO, this is an extremely difficult question and one that the BBWAA should really examine carefully. But I doubt they will do that.
   198. yest Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:25 AM (#2121173)
But I doubt they will do that.
actualy this is the one time I think they'll do it right
   199. sunnyday2 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:51 AM (#2121179)
Only a HoMie would try to determine what McGwire's record would be without the 'roids. A BBWAA voter, OTOH, would invoke the moral superiority clause and simply keep him out on character.

Bob Feller said that McGwire's election would "really damage the HoF" BTW.

But, more than George Kelly and Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines and Freddy Lindstrom and...?
   200. rawagman Posted: August 01, 2006 at 12:13 PM (#2121189)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the steroids question is obscene.
Until last year, baseball did not outlaw steroids.
You cannot punish a man for not breaking the law.
Many of the BBWAA voters have the unique characteristic of having their feet in the mouths while their heads are firmly up their own a$$holes.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8894 seconds
49 querie(s) executed