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

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

1985 Ballot Discussion

1985 (September 4)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

348 82.4 1962 Lou Brock-LF
263 79.8 1966 Roy White-LF
224 80.3 1963 Mickey Lolich-P
206 77.1 1970 Thurman Munson-C (1979)
206 74.4 1965 Catfish Hunter-P (1999)
216 63.6 1966 George Scott-1B
204 60.3 1961 Tim McCarver-C
209 58.1 1964 Rico Carty-LF/DH
169 57.4 1968 Andy Mesersmith-P
157 56.3 1966 Ken Holtzman-P
159 42.1 1965 Don Kessinger-SS
129 47.5 1967 Joe Coleman-P
130 40.5 1969 Ted Sizemore-2B
121 35.7 1962 Manny Mota-LF/PH
115 37.8 1968 Dock Ellis-P
132 30.3 1963 Ed Kranepool-1B
100 39.3 1966 Darold Knowles-RP
100 37.0 1969 Jim Rooker-P
109 29.8 1969 Merv Rettenmund-RF/LF
111 28.7 1963 Vic Davalillo-CF

Players Passing Away in 1984
HoMers
Age Elected

94 1938 Stan Coveleski-P
77 1951 Joe Cronin-SS

Candidates
Age Eligible

91 1927 Al Schacht-P/Clown
91 1931 Elmer J. Smith-RF
89 1933 Babe Pinelli-3B/Umpire
89 1938 George Kelly-1B
84 1944 Waite Hoyt-P
83 1939 Glenn Wright-SS
79 1947 Spud Davis-C
78 1951 Gus Mancuso-C
77 1951 Debs Garms-LF/3B
77 1952 Joe Kuhel-1B
76 1950 Ival Goodman-RF
72 1942 Walter Alston-1B/HOF Mgr
63 1966 Jim Hegan-C
58 1968 Billy Goodman-2B/1B
50 1973 Charlie Lau-C/Coach
45 1977 Tommie Aaron-1B/LF

Upcoming Candidate
34 1987 Lynn McGlothen-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2006 at 05:30 PM | 280 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: September 06, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#2168533)
Does anybody want threads for McCarver, Scott, and/or Carty?
   2. OCF Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:08 AM (#2168540)
Brock and McCarver aren't quite the last of the '67-'68 Cardinals out there: there's still Lefty.
   3. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2168557)
I tried this almost a year ago and it turned into Joe meeting Howie in CT, but how many NYC HOMies are there? Is there any interest in a meet up?
   4. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2168564)
Live just outside, in Westchester County, jschmeagol. Would love to get together with some voters and drink a beer.
   5. jimd Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:34 AM (#2168581)
With the passing of Stan Coveleski, Bill Terry is now the oldest living HOMer.
Also, Stan got close to the record of being the oldest HOMer ever, but couldn't quite pass Elmer Flick, who had died two days short of his 95th birthday.

Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age 92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; died, age 83)
1972 -- Red Faber (age 83; died, age 88)
1976 -- Stan Coveleski (age 87; died, age 94)
1984 -- Bill Terry (age 85; --)
   6. OCF Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2168585)
I'm three time zones away, myself.

Man, we have names on this year's ballot that bring about associations.

Messersmith: a fateful arbitrator's decision.

Mota, Davalillo: some great years as pinch hitters.

Ellis: should LSD be considered performance-enhancing?

Scott, Carty: hitters with irregular and interrupted careers. The Boomer and - well, bbref lists his nickname as "Beeg Mon." And was it TB that was part of the reason for his odd career shape?

McCarver: to me, a player, a catcher. I'll leave it at that.

Kranepool: so closely associated with all things Mets.
   7. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2168586)
With the elect three returning in 1985, could Jose Mendez finally have his day after all these many years of coming in second?
   8. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#2168595)
Messersmith: a fateful arbitrator's decision.

A damn good pitcher too. Must have been arm problems or something, but he was really pretty awesome in his prime.

well, bbref lists his nickname as "Beeg Mon."

I always thought it was Beeg Boy. Isn't that what the fellow who wrote Seasons in Hell said Carty called himself?

McCarver: to me, a player, a catcher. I'll leave it at that.

I won't. He's an arrogant SOB in the booth. Not only on the air, but also to his coworkers. A friend of mine does production for telecasts and said that McCarver is a royal a*shole to the hard working dudes in the van. And he's the tied for the worst "analyst" in the game. I'll never forget him lighting angrily into Bill James about bullpen by committee in the 2003 season, and stupidly exclaiming "YANKEE STADIUM IS A BANDBOX" during some postseason game. I guess he's not a park factors kind of guy.... He's probably miseducated more baseball fans by number than just about anybody on TV. And while I loathe Joe Buck, at least McCarver isn't paired up with the odiously old school Thom Brenaman. That would be more smug reactionaryism than anyplace in America except Don Rumsfeld's office. (Sorry John, couldn't help it!)
   9. OCF Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:47 AM (#2168602)
Yeah, I also thought it was "Beeg Boy." Maybe what's listed in bbref is a little after-the-fact cleanup of something that might sound embarassing?
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:50 AM (#2168604)
Well, aside from the Pentagon (and, well, I guess big time football), where would you expect more smug reactionaryism?

I'm an AL fan and I really really admired Munson, and the old mustachioed A's (Hunter as part of the pack more than for his own personality). Past the top 6 guys, though, that is a very NL-leaning list, isn't it?

>With the passing of Stan Coveleski, Bill Terry is now the oldest living HOMer.

And with the passing of George Kelly, who is the worst living HoFer?
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: September 06, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2168610)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1984

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct at a position, or it's not listed and not tallied)

NEW this year - I manually adjusted the tallies of Ruth-Caruthers-Ward-Spalding, with each getting slightly increased pitching credit and with their hitting spots declining by a like amount. This helped the P slot by about 'half a player," and cost OF about one-third of one (smaller deductions seen elsewhere).

Big year for 3B, which picked up 1.22 with Robinson/Torre to finally catch the C slot in totals. 2B slump continues.

C (10.11) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Torre 41, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (16.76) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (12.11) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Gordon 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, HR Johnson 25, Ward 24, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (10.11) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Killebrew 33, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (15.68) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Banks 45, Ward 39, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10, WBrown 10

OF (48.67) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10

DH (0.21) - FRobinson 11, BWilliams 10

P (43.74) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 100, Gibson 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 80, Caruthers 66, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 25, Ruth 20

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters Ward, Ruth, Caruthers have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   12. yest Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:18 AM (#2168637)
but how many NYC HOMies are there? Is there any interest in a meet up?

I live in Manhattan

on a different note how many NYC HoMers are there (does any one have a list of HoMers by birthplace)
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:22 AM (#2168645)
Yeah, I'd be interested.
Might be tough with people's schedules; mostly 9 to 6ers?
   14. Chris Fluit Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:33 AM (#2168663)
Now the fun begins. No offense to the 9 most recent inductees, who were all deserving players, but I find these backlog elections to be much more enjoyable.
   15. Howie Menckel Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2168670)
Most HOMers in a league, per season (min 10 G, parttime with asterisk):

AL 1926 (19) - Cobb, ECollins, WJohnson, Speaker, Faber, Ruth, Sisler, Heilmann, Covaleski, Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane, Grove, Foxx*, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin*
AL 1927 (19) - same as 1926, except subtract Covaleski, add Wheat
AL 1928 (18.1) - same as 1927, except add Covaleski and Dickey, subtract WJohnson and Wheat (and Sisler is 0.1)

AL 1937 (18) - Goslin, Gehrig, Simmons, Lyons, Cochrane*, Grove, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Hornsby*, Dickey, Averill, WFerrell, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller*

AL 1940 (18) - Simmons*, Lyons, Grove*, Foxx, Ruffing, Gehringer, Cronin, Dickey, Averill*, Appling, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Feller, Gordon, TWilliams, Boudreau, Doerr, Newhouser*

NL 1956 (18) - Reese, Musial, Spahn, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, Roberts, Irvin, Mays, Mathews, Wilhelm, Banks, Aaron, Koufax*, Clemente, Drysdale*, FRobinson

NL 1961 (18) - Musial, Spahn, Snider*, Ashburn, Roberts*, Mays, Mathews, Banks, Aaron, Koufax, Clemente, Drysdale, FRobinson, Gibson, BWilliams, Santo, Marichal, Torre
NL 1962 (18) - same as 1961
NL 1963 (18) - same as 1962, except add Allen, subtract Ashburn
NL 1964 (18)- same as 1963, except add Bunning, subtract Musial

Negro League peak is:
NeL 1931 (16) - Lloyd, SJWilliams, Charleston, Rogan*, Beckwith, Mackey, JWilson, CPBell, Stearnes, BFoster, Suttles, Wells, Dihigo, Paige, JGibson, RBrown
   16. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#2168705)
I am a graduate student with only night classes and my weekends are free outside of the school work I have to do. I live in Brooklyn but can meet up anywhere in Manhattan if it works with people. If I am not mistaken Bernie and Mark Donelson live in and/or around NYC as well no?

Looking at the top 10 returnees it looks like Mendez, Freehan, and Sewell are the favorites. I like Mendez and believe that he will one day make my PHOM, but he is currently off my ballot and I prefer Rube Waddell. I am a huge Freehan fan, ranked him 2nd in 1984, and will be thrilled to see him get into the HOM.

As for Sewell, I hihgly doubt we will ever dig deep enough into my backog for him ot make my PHOM. I am just not a fan. Last 'year' someone, I believe it was TomH had a number of posts that to me pretty much showed that Sewel is at the top of the heap offensively as far as white backlog SS's go. I think that Rizzuto's defense and war credit push him ahead but let's say that Sewell is the best of this lot. Does that make him a HOMer? Maybe he is slightly better than Fregosi, Rizzuto, Bancroft, Wills, Maranville, Bartell and whomever else I am forgetting. But I wonder if his being so close to these players, few of whome have substantial support, isn't evidence that maybe he isn't deserving? I don't think that it is clear that he was the best (outside of RCAP, which I think is skewed by his weak competition) and even if he was, it isn't by much.

So why is Sewell so much more deserving than Rizzuto, Bancroft, et al? And if we want to elect a SS , how about Dobie Moore? Even without Wreckers credit his peak still looks just that of like Ernie Banks.

As for everyone else in the top 10, I am a huge fan of Childs and Kiner and Waddel is on my ballot. Pierce is only a few spots below Mendez for me and pretty much in the same cateogry (Not voting for him but probalby would if he were on teh ballot long enough) and I am also not a big fan of Minoso fo rmany of teh same reasons I am nto a big fan of Sewell (Why is Minoso any better than Veach, Burns, Johnson, etc.? And if he is, is it by enough to justify election?)

So that is where I stand with out top 10 returnees.
   17. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#2168716)
Also, way off topic, I would like to ask a few of you for some advice. I am in starting the second year of my master's and am thinking seriously about getting my PhD (it would be in Political Science/IR if that matters). I am almost certain I want to at some point but I am not sure if I should go for it now or later. So for those of you who have PhD (I know that Sunny and Chris Cobb do and I think a few others do as well) any advice? How much of a hassle would it be to go in my thirties or later when I may have a house, family, etc. as opposed to my mid to late twenties? When did you guys go do it? Thanks

If this is taing away from the Baseball discussion too much I guess it could be moved over to the 'get to know you' thread or somewhere else, but I wanted to post it where I know it will be read.
   18. jimd Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:21 AM (#2168734)
And with the passing of George Kelly, who is the worst living HoFer?

I'd have to look it up, but I'd bet it was another one of Terry's friends.
   19. Mark Donelson Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:30 AM (#2168746)
Yes, I'm in Manhattan. Maybe about to move to Brooklyn in October, with all the other new parents, but either way I'm happy to try and meet up somewhere in the city.
   20. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:52 AM (#2168775)
I live in Jersey and work in Manhattan. I'd be up for a meetup, but this is one of the times of year when my work gets crazy (basically now until the middle of October). So I'd say everybody else make a plan, and if I can make it, I will.
   21. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:38 AM (#2168898)
I'd have to look it up, but I'd bet it was another one of Terry's friends.

Rick Ferrell was just inducted in 1984.

The 1984 list of living HOF-not-HOM is:

Aparicio, RFerrell, Grimes, Travis Jackson, Judy Johnson, Kell, Kiner, Roush & JSewell.
   22. yest Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:41 AM (#2168902)
And with the passing of George Kelly, who is the worst living HoFer?

He lost that title in 1982 with the election of Travis Jackson and Jackson was userped last year by Hall of Merit brother Rick
   23. mulder & scully Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:11 AM (#2168939)
Quick sketches of the top 10 returnees. These are QUICK sketches - not full blown opinion pieces. If you have a strong feeling about someone, let it be heard. This is a wide open campaign. The best any of the returnees did was make 58% of the ballots. Minoso didn't even make 1 elect-me spot.

Jose Mendez:
Pro: Best peak among eligible pitchers. His run from 1910-1914 of 28, 31, 40, 31, and 35.5 win shares would be bettered by only Walter Johnson and Pete Alexander. His 1923 season is all-star calibre as well. 4 MVP type seasons and 2 all-star seasons. Performed very well against major league white teams whenever he pitched against them.
Con: Very little outside of 1910-14, 1923 years. Not a long career.

Bill Freehan:
Pro: Best catcher of the 1960s. 5 times top 10 among position players in the AL. Excellent defender and teammate. 2 MVP level years and 4 other times a win shares all-star.
Con: I don't know, but I think some voters don't think he hit enough or had a long enough career. Please fill this in.

Joe Sewell:
Pro: Best shortstop by a considerable margin in the AL in the 1920s. 8 time all-star between SS and 3B. Hit much better than a typical SS of his time. Fielded very well to excellent depending on your metric of choice. Didn't strike out.
Con: Dominated the AL at SS because all the rest of the good SS were in the NL and the Negro Leagues. If Dobie Moore, Willie Wells, John Lloyd, George Scales, Dave Bancroft, and Travis Jackson are included than Sewell's career loses some lustre and he doesn't stand out to the same degree.

Ralph Kiner:
Pro: 7 straight home run titles. Excellent peak and prime. Great on-base/OPS+ numbers. 4 MVP level years and 2 more All-Star years.
Con: Short career. Average to poor fielder over the length of his career. "We could finish last without you."

Orestes Minoso:
Pro: 7 times a win shares All-Star in the AL. Walked a lot. Very good defender. Hit for average and power.
Con: Not a great peak/ Never a win shares major league all-star. Not as old as we thought he was so doesn't get as much of a NeL boost to his career numbers. Played in the weaker league during his career.

Billy Pierce:
Pro: ERA+. Faced tougher opponents than pure chance would indicate, though not quite Ford's usage under Stengel. Good bullpen work a bonus. Best pitcher in AL 3 times, 2 times a tie.
Con: Lacks big innings in any particular year so doesn't have a big "absolute" peak (like Robin Roberts). Was he better than Newcombe or Maglie with appropriate credit?

Rube Waddell:
Pro: ERA+. Strikeouts.
Con: Attitude/concentration issues/alcohol/developmental issues/whatever you think it was. Jumped teams early in his career. Lacks the consistent big innings years that every other 1900s pitcher has.

Cupid Childs:
Pro: The best second baseman of the 1890s by far. Took a huge number of walks. All-star 7 times. Excellent peak and prime spent in one league 1890s.
Con: Biggest year was his rookie year in 1890 AA. Short career.

Dobie Moore:
Pro: Ernie Banks' shortstop career without the career padding time at first base. Best shortstop in baseball Black or White in 1921, 1922, 1924, 1925, and second to John Lloyd in 1920 and to Joe Sewell in 1923. Those are his six full seasons. Has 3 to 6 years with the Wreckers before 1920 that have to be accounted for. Tore up the California Winter League like no other.
Con: Short career. I haven't heard any others.

Jake Beckley: Do I dare touch this one with a ten-foot pole?
Pro: Long career at a high level. Best first basemen between Anson, Brouthers, and Connor and Gehrig. Very good power hitter with lots of triples and singles.
Con: No peak and his prime was not very high by any of the advanced metrics. Consistently the second or third best first baseman during his career when there were no other excellent first basemen playing. If he was the best player on his team, they could not win a pennant.
   24. Rusty Priske Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:21 PM (#2168999)
Prelim.

PHoM: Lou Brock, Jimmy Wynn, Joe Sewell

1. Lou Brock
2. Dobie Moore
3. Jake Beckley
4. George Van Haltren
5. Mickey Welch
6. Tommy Leach
7. Edd Roush
8. Nellie Fox
9. Hugh Duffy
10. Quincy Trouppe
11. Jimmy Wynn
12. Norm Cash
13. Cupid Childs
14. Joe Sewell
15. Tony Mullane

16-20. Rice, Cepeda, Minoso, Willis, Kiner
21-25. Johnson, Pierce, Redding, Streeter, Ryan
26-30. Boyer, Strong, Browning, Gleason, McCormick
   25. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:27 PM (#2169008)
26-30. Boyer, Strong, Browning, Gleason, McCormick

Rusty, who is Strong? Do you mean Strang? Or am I forgetting someone? (which is very likely...)
   26. karlmagnus Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:06 PM (#2169032)
OK, I'll try responding to mulder/sculley.

Mendez' peak simply not that good as well as a short career; he's a Dean not a Koufax.

Freehan short career and not as good as Thurman Munson; substantially inferior to Torre, and also to Trouppe.

Sewell I agree with both pro and con; significantly the Doerr/Gordon level.

Kiner better than Keller/Klein/Wilson, his competitors; approximately Manny if Manny had retired last April.

Minoso shortish career once you adjust for later birth.

Pierce I'm swayed a bit by the consensus; he's now just off my ballot.

Waddell is a slam dunk if you give him proper MiL credit for 1898-1900 when the National League's shenanigans would have made anyonne take to drink.

Childs I'm mildly pro but unenthusiastic; short career but a very good one. Depends on quality of league some years and evaluation of 1890s 2B.

Moore is hugely overrated; his backers are giving him credit for playing in military teams of which the quality is entirely unknown. What other players from those teams have we even considered?

Beckley (my fave) has about 3200 hits when you adjust to a modern schedule and with an OPS+ of 125 is above several CF we've enshrined and hugely above the overrated Brooks Robinson. His best years were in a single league; asking him to be the "best player on a pennnant winning team" in say the 8-team 1900 is like asking him to be the best player in an all-star game. I think his 1893 and 1900, when adjusted for tough competition, stand comparison with anybody's single year peaks except the Ruth/Williams level.

I'd cheer for a Beckley enshrinement and slightly less loud for Waddell; be happy with Childs, Kiner and to a lesser extent Pierce, be neutral to negative on Sewell and Minoso and heavily negative on Freehan, Mendez and Moore.
   27. Chris Cobb Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#2169041)
Moore is hugely overrated; his backers are giving him credit for playing in military teams of which the quality is entirely unknown. What other players from those teams have we even considered?

Well, we elected Joe Rogan, who was captain of Moore's team. We took a good look at Heavy Johnson, who like Moore and Rogan, went from the Wreckers to the Monarchs. Such records as survive of the Wreckers team shows that they played against PCL clubs on numerous occasions and did very well against them. Such evidence as we have about _team_ quality indicates that Moore's time with the Wreckers deserves the same level of consideration play in top minor leagues like the PCL. The issue in Moore's case is not the quality of play in general but the quality of Moore's play in particular, about which we have little evidence.
   28. Ardo Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:24 PM (#2169051)
In the spirit of karlmagnus's post:

Jose Mendez has been #1 on my ballot since we elected Aaron and Robinson. He is more Koufax than Dean - take a look at his Cuban League winning percentage.

Bill Freehan hit for more power; Thurman Munson hit for a better average. Freehan is the superior candidate, but I may be over-rating him. Still, he is a clear bottom-tier HoM catcher in my book.

Joe Sewell exceeds our consensual in/out line for middle infielders. I have never not put Sewell in my top 15.

I agree with karl that Kiner is better than his short-career hitting competition. He lies just off my ballot, but I would not complain if he was inducted.

Pierce never pitched a bunch of innings, back when "the CV" cared about IP quantity too much and IP quality too little. His rate and career stats are HoM-worthy.

Waddell is a tough nut for me to crack; his shenanigans shouldn't keep him out, though. Heck, we elected Dick Allen!

I feel strongly that neither Childs nor Moore belongs. My feelings for Moore are analogous to karl's.
   29. Ardo Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2169061)
1985 prelim

<u>Catchers excluded for now!</u> I am sorting the relative merits of five ballot-worthy catchers: Freehan, Munson, Trouppe, Schang, and Ellie Howard.

1. Mendez
2. Pierce
3. Ch. Jones
4. Cash
5. Sewell
6. Boyer
7. Fox
8. Minoso
9. Redding
10. Maranville
11. Roush
12. Kiner
13. Wynn
14. Cepeda
15. Waddell
   30. Mike Webber Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:39 PM (#2169080)
Freehan short career and not as good as Thurman Munson; substantially inferior to Torre, and also to Trouppe.


I wouldn't say Freehan's career was too short he was 10th in career games caught when he reitred:
CAREER GAMES PLAYED:
1876-1976 at Catcer

GAMES G
1 Al Lopez 1918
2 Rick Ferrell 1806
3 Gabby Hartnett 1793
4 Ray Schalk 1727
5 Bill Dickey 1708
6 Yogi Berra 1699
7 Jim Hegan 1629
8 Deacon McGuire 1611
9 Bill Freehan 1581
10 Sherm Lollar 1571
11 Luke Sewell 1562
12 Ernie Lombardi 1544
13 Steve O'Neill 1530
14 Rollie Hemsley 1482
15 Del Crandall 1479
   31. fra paolo Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:42 PM (#2169085)
Freehan... substantially inferior to Torre

I don't agree with that. Freehan played many more games as a catcher, if we mean to include Torre as a catcher. I'd really disregarded Torre as a catcher as a consequence of his averaging only 71 games per season behind the dish during his prime, but I couldn't figure out a way to handle his career before everyone else elected him. I want to call him a DH manqué, but I don't think that's quite right either.

However, my objections to Freehan are largely that he is not as good a candidate as a catcher as Elston Howard. Both had nearly equal primes (Howard 7 v Freehan 8), and Howard accumulated many more FRAA, twice as many. Freehan has a slight batting advantage, 147 BRAA vs. 138, but his value is heavily concentrated in two big years in 1967 and 1968. Even if one applies a slight discount to Howard, who didn't make the 115 games-per-season average for catchers that I want to see, he still has a better RAA than Freehan.

Now, it may be my choice of measure is wrong. When I delved deeply into Luis Aparicio's career last week I was surprised by how his shortcomings got a little less short, while some of his longcomings got shorter. It's possibly time to do the same with Bill Freehan.
   32. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#2169106)
Bill Freehan:
Pro: Best catcher of the 1960s. 5 times top 10 among position players in the AL. Excellent defender and teammate. 2 MVP level years and 4 other times a win shares all-star.
Con: I don't know, but I think some voters don't think he hit enough or had a long enough career. Please fill this in.


I'll bite on the 'Con'. Freehan is mostly forgotten today. He's not in the class of the 50s guys (Berra & Campanella) or the 70s guys (Bench, Fisk, and later Carter). As for the multi-positional guys, he's behind Torre and maybe Simmons (depending on league quality, defense, and career length). Are we really inducting all those catchers? (Maybe, we do have more slots than before) He played in the weaker league. His most similar is Darrell Porter -- and that's not solely due to lack of era adjustment as they ahve the same OPS+. Freehan's got big peak years, but he's got some years mixed in where he couldn't hit a lick that knock down his career rate numbers.

OK. Perhaps a bit of devils advocate mixed in there. I don't truly believe all that. Still, Freehan's induction is sure to raise some eyebrows (Free-who?). Just priming the pump for some discussion as this perhaps the last week to discuss him before we go ahead and induct him.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#2169201)
Joe Sewell exceeds our consensual in/out line for middle infielders.

I think we're all above 16 years of age, right?
   34. DL from MN Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#2169207)
1985 prelim

1) Bob Johnson - gets the #1 spot on my ballot for the first time; I am not giving him minor league credit.
2) Billy Pierce - top pitching career available
3) Jose Mendez - best pitching peak available, the 5 year 1910-1914 peak might not top Koufax but Mendez also has 1908-1909 and 1923 along with some career bulk between 1914 and 1923. I like Mendez better than Koufax but I'm a career voter.
4) Norm Cash - Very good hitter, very good defender. Platoon player but how hard is it to find a RH bat for 1B as a platoon mate? Primary caddy was Bill Freehan. High OBP, High SLG. My only concern is his similarity to Gil Hodges whom I have ranked much lower. The extra 100 walks and the value of the production relative to the environment is the difference.
5) Quincy Trouppe - 119 OPS+, average glove, approx 1700 games played.
6) Jake Beckley
7) Tommy Bridges
8) Dutch Leonard
9) Virgil Trucks - Mine was the only vote? Do people not believe in war credit? War era pitching is underrepresented.
10) Joe Sewell - I hope this is the year
11) Orlando Cepeda
12) Minnie Minoso
13) Ken Boyer
14) Jim Wynn - defensive performance drags him down
15) Dave Bancroft - tons of defensive value
16) Rube Waddell - very close to Bancroft, I may flip flop them on the actual ballot
17) Ralph Kiner
18) Gavy Cravath - Cravath's credit boosts him just slightly over Kiner but I'll give Kiner the benefit of the doubt since his numbers don't require credit
19) Frank Howard - dreadful glove
20) Bob Elliott
21-25) Urban Shocker, Charlie Keller, Luke Easter, Jack Quinn, Edd Roush
26-31) Jimmy Ryan, Dobie Moore, Dick Redding, Cupid Childs, Hilton Smith, Bill Freehan

32-37) Boog Powell, Vic Willis, John Evers, George VanH, Colavito, Bobo Newsom
38) Thurman Munson - not that far from Freehan or Schang (43) or Bresnahan (46). Freehan tops the marginal catchers but I think we have to acknowledge they're all marginal.
51) Lolich
66) Scales
73) Monroe
74) Lou Brock - equivalent career value to Tony Oliva and that passes the smell test
80) Clarkson (assuming avg defense)
84) Marvin Williams (ditto)

Catfish Hunter doesn't make my top 100
   35. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:18 PM (#2169212)
Why does Sewell exceed our consensus in/out line and not Rizzuto or Bancroft? How is he more than a few spots above them if at all?
   36. DanG Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#2169222)
Why must we slavishly follow Chris Cobb? ;-) Found this old post in the New Eligibles thread:

571. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2005 at 01:12 PM (#1755102)

....

Sixteen players on the ballot in four years. Criminy.

And by the end of the 1985 election, we'll have inducted about 12 of them. Here's my prediction.

1980 -- Kaline, Santo, Marichal.
1981 -- Gibson, Killebrew
1982 -- Aaron, F. Robinson
1983 -- Allen, B. Williams
1984 -- B. Robinson, Torre
1985 -- Freehan, Brock ?, +1 other from recent or older backlog

Cepeda, Cash, Wynn, and Pinson will have to contend with the backlog, so that I don't find it possible to predict now whom we'll elect in 1985, but I think the top 12 will all go right in over the backlog, so that we'll be electing some from the backlog again in 1986 and 1987, if not in 1985. Having Elect Three years come around frequently will help to clear out top-candidate jams pretty fast . . .
   37. Juan V Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#2169257)
Except for Miñoso, everyone on karlmagnus´s post is either on my ballot or on the "waiting list" just below it. And I wonder why my consensus score is high :)

Regarding the Sewell/Moore debate, as someone who had Sewell at #1 and Moore waitlisted last "year", maybe you want some my reasoning.

Moore´s MLEs have him at 3478 plate appearances with a 124 OPS+. Sewell´s top 7 seasons by OPS+ combine for a 119, in 4054 plate apperances, which is almost a full season´s worth over Moore. And while Moore had the late release from the army, Sewell had the late callup to replace Chapman included among these seven years. Basically, this means that Sewell had Moore´s career plus a bunch of extra seasons (not only the extra years he played, but the additional effect of having more PAs per season). For a prime/career voter who likes durability, this makes a difference (and yes, I give Moore extra credit for his Wrecker days, but I am also pretty conservative with it). The other thing is that Sewell is known as a pretty good defender, while as for Moore, who knows?
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: September 06, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#2169325)
Moore is said to have had a great arm, and apparently passable at all else. If Sewell was in fact "pretty good," Moore was probably just as good. If Sewell was in fact better than "pretty good," then maybe Sewell was better. But I don't know. Getting bumped to 3B is a sign if we could just interpret it correctly.

Anyway, Moore's offense was so vastly better than Sewell's and Moore was clearly not a BAD defender, so clearly Moore was a more valuable player for the 7 great years he had in the NeL. 600 PAs don't change the character of their play or skills. For a peak voter like me, this is an easy one.
   39. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 05:53 PM (#2169337)
OK, lightning-round, quick association time for our new candidates, first things that come to mind:

Lou Brock: "There's a new stolen base champion" or whatever Rickey said.

Roy White: Better than Jim Rice...or not.

Mickey Lolich: 376 innings...and pounds.

Thurman Munson: Plane crash, angry, rumbled with Reggie.

Catfish Hunter: Overrated by many, pitied by Sparky, I have his autograph, and I have a cookbooklet by him too.

George Scott: Boomer.

Tim McCarver: A8shole...Lefty's traveling pitchback.

Rico Carty: Da Beeg Boy.

Andy Mesersmith: Underremembered for his actual pitching career.

Ken Holtzman: Part of an incredibly good late 1960s Cubs rotation (and team) that went nowhere.

Don Kessinger: Couldn't hit a lick.

Joe Coleman: Nothing...but something tells me that OCF might have one on him.

Ted Sizemore: Traded for Allen; related to Grady?

Manny Mota: PH extraordinaire.

Dock Ellis: Lone Spectacular Day...easily confused with Doc Medich, who was not a doctor, though I think ellis was. Or do i have it backwards?

Ed Kranepool: The longest Met.

Darold Knowles: One great year or two.

Jim Rooker: IIRC, he walked from Philly to Pburgh after saying on the air that if the Phils came back from a 10-1 defecit in the 9th versus the Bucs that he'd walk home. I think the walk benefited a local Pburgh charity, probably Chil'uns Hosptial. Might have him mixed up with another announcer, though.

Merv Rettenmund: Not much, but part of those Earl Williams, Andy Etchebarren, Ellie Rodriguez, John Lowenstein, Terry Crowley, Jose Morales, Gary Roenicke, Jim Dwyer, plug and play kind of guys that Earl Weaver cycled through endlessly and whose names and careers I virtually always get mixed up with one another.

Vic Davalillo: I got nuttin here either, except some fleeting notion that a) he was a snappy gloveman and b) he had relatives that played in various winter and summer leagues in the Carribean whose names I've come across in my NgL travels.
   40. Juan V Posted: September 06, 2006 at 05:57 PM (#2169346)
OK, for Victor Davalillo I think 1500 hits. That´s in the Venezuelan Winter league, of course.
   41. Rusty Priske Posted: September 06, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2169351)
Strong is Ted Strong. He was a Negro Leaguer that became eligible in 1954.

It looks like I need to go over and check out the Lou Brock thread since I thought he was a slam dunk #1 and other people have him off-ballot.
   42. Guapo Posted: September 06, 2006 at 06:04 PM (#2169355)
Dock Ellis: Lone Spectacular Day...easily confused with Doc Medich, who was not a doctor, though I think ellis was. Or do i have it backwards?

Doc Medich was a doctor. Dock Ellis... more of a pharmacist type.
   43. Chris Fluit Posted: September 06, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#2169409)
41. Rusty Priske Posted:
It looks like I need to go over and check out the Lou Brock thread since I thought he was a slam dunk #1 and other people have him off-ballot.

I don't think you have to do that, Rusty. The top four back-loggers are Freehan, Kiner, Mendez and Sewell. Each of those players is going to range from #1 on some ballots to off-ballot for 20 others. There's no reason why the same shouldn't- or won't- be true for Brock. So far, we've heard mainly from the naysayers but I think those who feel Brock is the best candidate should be heard from as well.
   44. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:02 PM (#2169430)
So far, we've heard mainly from the naysayers

I'll weigh in as a naysayer. I'll keep it brief because we've already heard other naysayers. I didn't vote for Carey or Slaughter and I would rank both of those ahead of Brock. I had Billy Williams on the bottom half of the ballot. I'm tough on corner guys. Brock simply didn't hit enough (and he wasn't a good fielder either -- not that that would help him much as a LF candidate).
   45. rawagman Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:05 PM (#2169433)
Lou Brock - not been finalized yet, but my system has him probably at 12th among eligible left fielders. That would be well outside of my top 75. Only a moderate hitter, a seemingly below average defender at LF (meaning below the average glove out there in LF). Too much of his value was in SB. That's similar to saves in a way, isn't it? A glamoroous stat that doesn't tell us too much about the true value of the player.
Thurmon Munson - Unless I get over my infatuation with Fred Carroll, Thurmon becomes my #8 catcher - right between Elston Howard and Walker Cooper - check out the comp between Munson and Cooper.
Top ten, backlog time issues.
Jose Mendez - tough to get a true handle on, but there are enough signs to point to a monster peak. I was convinced by his stellar record against MLB players without the backing of MLB quality teams. (PHOM)
Bill Freehan - I prefer Quincy Trouppe, but Freehan still makes my ballot. World class glove, forgettable stick. (shoudl make PHOM in a few 'years')
Joe Sewell - My system gives him high glove marks. He could also hit, and the complete lack of strike outs is a big bonus. (PHOM)
Ralph Kiner - The monster peak. Low defense score. Short career, but longer than most peaks of his size. Consistently features near the tail of my ballot.
Minnie Minoso - Have had him on the ballot before. Would rather give my vote to Bobby Veach at this time. Nothing much makes Minoso stand out from the pack.
Billy Pierce - Not a big fan. The ERA+ is nice, but not as nice as those of Bridges, Waddell, Gomez and a stack of others. DERA says the same. The Minnie Minoso of pitchers.
Rube Waddell - The career could have been longer. Some of the electorate advocate MiL credit for him. His consistent placement in, or around the elect-me spots is without extra credit. Do not demerit personality quirks. The only eligible pitchers left with a higher ERA+ than Rube's were of even shorter careers (Wood, Joss). Long time member of PHOM.
Cupid Childs - Caught between two extremes (Fox and Doyle). Without nearly the career, or overall quality of Fox (he'll move even higher on this year's ballot) and not the stick of Doyle. I could probably move Childs up about 10 spots, but it wouldn't bring him close enought to ballot yet.
Dobie Moore - My biggest problem is how to credit his play with the Wreckers. I have relloked at him and will move him up my SS list, but not yet convinced enough for Moore to topple Sewell or Stephens.
Jake Beckley - I see the same issue I have with Pierce and Minoso. I just see so many other 1B as better than Beckley. So much of his supposed value comes from longevity and OPS+. I believe there is such a thing as empty OPS+.
   46. OCF Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:12 PM (#2169446)
Joe Coleman: Nothing...but something tells me that OCF might have one on him.

Wrong Coleman. This is not Vince the base stealer. Joe Coleman was an AL pitcher, and as an NL fan, I would barely even have heard of him.

Vic Davalillo: I got nuttin here either, except some fleeting notion that a) he was a snappy gloveman and b) he had relatives that played in various winter and summer leagues in the Carribean whose names I've come across in my NgL travels.

(b) is essentially right - for one thing, he was the brother of the memorably-named Yo-Yo Davalillo. They were ahead of the crowd in being Venezuelan players. But (a) isn't quite the right image. Vic was a bats-left, throws-left outfielder. A little guy, a singles hitter, but with a good average. He played a lot of CF early in his career. Late in his career he was a specialty PH. Note his 1970 line: 199 PA in 111 games, just 54 games in the field. .311 BA. The Cardinal radio announcers were making a very big deal about it being a record for total pinch hits.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2169475)
Wrong Coleman. This is not Vince the base stealer. Joe Coleman was an AL pitcher, and as an NL fan, I would barely even have heard of him.

The Tigers picked him up in the Denny McLain trade. In his first three years for the Tigers, he averaged 284 IP, 21 Wins, 220 K's and a 115 ERA+. After that, it looks like he lost his command for a year and then his arm went dead. Still not a bad pick-up for McLain, though. Denny was basically done at the time of the trade.
   48. karlmagnus Posted: September 06, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#2169479)
rawagman, there is indeed such a thing as empty OPS+ but it occurs in a high HR era, by players such as Kingman (OPS+118) and McGwire (163) Both those players had very high SLG compared to OBP and lots of strikeouts. Thus Kingman was .302OBP/.478SLG/1816 strikeouts (more than his hits) while McGwire was .394/.588/1596 (almost as many as his hits.)

It's not possible for a hitter in the low-HR 1890s to get an OPS+ as lopsided and hence empty as Kingman or McGwire. Beckley was .361/.435 with 270 strikeouts in about half his career for which we have data -- say 700 strikeouts in all, compared with 2930 hits. In addition, Beckley had 243 triples, 4th alltime, and we know his high ratio of triples to HR was due to playing in huge parks -- convert say 100 of those to HR and his OPS+ goes up a couple of points.

Beckley's value also rested on longevity quite exceptional for his era, playing the rough and busy position of 1890s 1B, and having his best years in a single league. However his OPS+, because of the conditions must be "full" compared with a modern power hitter, even though he was high-power by 1890s standards.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: September 06, 2006 at 08:25 PM (#2169584)
You almost sound as if you are making that stuff up karl. McGwire has healthy OBP numbers. Its not just that Beckley's OPS+ is 'empty'. Its that its only 125. That's not a very impressive total for a corner. Especially one with so few peak seasons. His contemporaries who posted higher totals have all been inducted. Duffy & Van Haltren are also waiting on the outside despite similar OPS+.

having his best years in a single league.

His best years were before & after the single league. His mid-career lull is one of the reasons why he hasn't been inducted yet.
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 06, 2006 at 08:29 PM (#2169593)
Since when is .394 an empty OBP? And since when do we care about striekouts (except for yest, no offense). And since when are 1890s strikeouts important when a) the mound had just moved back and the pitchers were still adjusting and b) strikeout rates were extremely low and c) players probably didn't swing as hard in every moment (or cournt) as they do now.
   51. Chris Fluit Posted: September 06, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#2169849)
50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted:
Since when is .394 an empty OBP?

I was wondering the same thing. McGwire's OBP is good enough for 78th all-time. That's not exactly empty.
   52. karlmagnus Posted: September 06, 2006 at 10:49 PM (#2169873)
McGwire's stats are SLG-heavy, thus "empty" compared with a player whose stats were balanced OBP/SLG. Obviously .394 OBP, per se, is excellent, though a little era-inflated. If SLG-heavy is not what "empty" means then what does it mean, other than yet another random insult to the much maligned Jake?

Not striking out is important in an era of high errors, and when sacrifices are important -- every time the ball is put in play the chance of it hitting a rock or someone failing to field it cleanly is created.

Beckley's stats are distorted by variations in competition; his best years were probably the single league years of 1893 and 1900, even though he had a higher OPS+ in 1890. 125's not bad when you (i) take account of exceptional length (ii) adjust marginally for funny park (iii) adjust marginally for single league and (iv) adjust rather more than marginally for greater salience of 1B. Each of the corrections is small, but they add up.
   53. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 06, 2006 at 11:09 PM (#2169879)
........OBP+  SLG+  OPS+
McGwire 119   144   163
Beckley 106   119   125 


McGwire's OBP+ is much better than Beckley. And a higher percentage of Beckley's OPS+ comes from his slugging, so I'm not sure what your point is.
   54. OCF Posted: September 07, 2006 at 12:47 AM (#2169975)
Obviously .394 OBP, per se, is excellent, though a little era-inflated.

And what was possible in Jake's era?

Beckley .361
Keeler .388
Kelley .402
Burkett .415
Davis .361
Dahlen .358
Clarke .386
Lajoie .380
Wagner .391
Roy Thomas .413
Beaumont .362
Fred Tenney .371
Elmer Smith .398
Dan McGann .364

I was looking for that 90's/Oughts overlap; the more time in the 90's and the less afterwards, the higher the run environment.
   55. sunnyday2 Posted: September 07, 2006 at 01:05 AM (#2170009)
Look up oxymoron in the dictionary and it says: "empty OPS+ 163"
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: September 07, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#2170217)
Anybody remember where the Silvio Garcia discussion is? I remember some, at least. And did we ever see his numbers? He's not in the Latino stars thread.
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:11 AM (#2170233)
Rusty, can you shed some light on Ted Strong. I cant' remember much discussion on him.
   58. rawagman Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:57 AM (#2170266)
Why would 100 triples of Beckley's be homers elsewhere? - they could just as easily have been 100 singles.
Who says these triples were flyballs or groundballs?
   59. Brent Posted: September 07, 2006 at 04:05 AM (#2170274)
   60. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 07, 2006 at 05:30 AM (#2170311)
Something I just stumbled on while flipping through Neyer's Lineup book: Ken Boyer has an argument for military service credit. Wikipedia says he was in the army from 1951-53, but I don't know how much actual baseball time he missed. He was still in the minors at that point (those being his age 20-22 years). Granted he was pretty much league average when he came up in 1955, but his development was interrupted. Any thoughts?
   61. mulder & scully Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:27 AM (#2170333)
Park factors for Beckley's home parks from BBRef:

1888 - 92
1889 - 90
1890 - 92
1891 - 98
1892 - 100
1893 - 98
1894 - 99
1895 - 95
1896 - 96 / 97
1897 - 97 / 107
1898 - 107
1899 - 102
1900 - 98
1901 - 93
1902 - 110
1903 - 111
1904 - 96
1905 - 97
1906 - 96

Beckley's parks were generally slightly pitcher favorable. It looks like he was hurt in four years, but he was benefitted by four great years - the first 107 is for the park where he played 85% of his games that year.

On Not Striking Out:
K/9 1888-1906 NL:
1888 - 3.77
1889 - 3.39
1890 - 2.90 (PL)
1891 - 3.36
1892 - 3.33
1893 - 2.17
1894 - 2.17
1895 - 2.36
1896 - 2.30
1897 - 2.40
1898 - 2.40
1899 - 2.19
1900 - 2.45
1901 - 3.83
1902 - 3.52
1903 - 3.44
1904 - 3.53
1905 - 3.65
1906 - 3.77

Very few people struck out much. Beckley struck in 6% of his AB (270 K out of 4493 AB) from 1888 - 1896 (the years BBRef lists batter strikeouts). NL/PL hitters struck in 7.6% of their AB. So, Beckley did strike out less than average. However, Beckley didn't walk as often as the rest of the league did. He walked in 6.35% of his AB+BB vs. league average 8.6%. His K/BB ratio of .885 was worse than the league average of .814. Was the Eagle Eye for his making contact? Because it doesn't look like he took a lot of pitches.

Where did Beckley's team finish in triples and homers?
1888 - 5th, with 49, Chi first at 95, and last
1889 - 3rd, 65, NYG 77, and tied for 5th
1890 - tied for 1st, 113, and 4th
1891 - 6th, 71, Chi 88, and 5th
1892 - 2nd, 108, Bal 111, and 5th
1893 - 1st, 127, and 5th
1894 - 4th, 124, Bal 151, and 6th
1895 - 4th tied, 89, Cin 105, and 11th
1896 - two parks
1897 - two parks
1898 - 1st, 101, and 6th
1899 - 2nd, 105, Pit 122, and 11th
1900 - 2nd, 83, Pit 100, and tied 6th
1901 - 4th, 70, StL 94, and 2nd
1902 - 2nd, 77, Pit 94, and 2nd
1903 - 2nd, 92, Pit 110, and 2nd
1904 - 3rd, 66, Pit 102, and 2nd
1905 - 4th, 84, Cin 101, and 5th
1906 - 3rd, 69, Chi and Cin 71, and last

Conclusion, he played in very good triples parks, but did not lose many homeruns. The only teams that hit a lot of homers at home, consistently, during his career were Chicago and Boston. Beckley hit 86 career homers, 34 at home and 52 on the road. He lost around 20. To say Beckley lost 100 homeruns because of his parks would mean he would have hit 186 career homeruns. Roger Connor held the career record during Beckley's career with 127. I don't 100 homeruns is at all likely.

General / NON-Beckley specific comment about "one-league-difficulty."
As I was finding the above park factors, it struck how bad some of the teams in the one league period were. Here are the teams that had equivalent 100 loss seasons (.383 or worse winning percentage) in those years:
1892: Washington .384 (translates to 62 - 100), St. Louis .373, and Baltimore .313.
1893: Washington .310
1894: Washington .341, Louisville .271 (1 game better than the Tigers in 2003)
1895: Washington .336, St. Louis .298, Louisville .267
1896: St. Louis .308, Louisville .290
1897: St. Louis .221 (5 games worse than the 1962 Mets)
1898: Brooklyn .372, Washington .336, St. Louis .260
1899: Washington .355, Cleveland .130
1900: None as 4 teams were disbanded.

In nine years, there were 3 years where 25% of the teams were 100 loss or worse teams. The equivalent is if from 1998 to 2006, there were 3 years where 7 or 8 teams lost 100 games plus.
In the 12-team era, if you didn't play for the crap teams (Washington or St. Louis generally), then almost one-fifth of your games are against 100 loss teams. So, players faced slightly higher competition because of the consolidation of talent from 1890 to 1892 (24 teams to 12), but there were, on average, 2 teams each year that were like 1-AA college football teams playing with 10 teams from the SEC. I wonder if any player's or pitcher's records were significantly distorted because of those 18-20% of games?
   62. Rusty Priske Posted: September 07, 2006 at 12:39 PM (#2170370)
From pitchblackbaseball.com

Ted Strong

Born: January 2, 1917 in South Bend, IN
Died: Date unknown
Ht:6'-6", Wt: 220
Batted both and threw right.
Positions: outfield, first base, shortstop, third base, second base
Years: 1937-1951
Teams: Indianapolis ABCs, Kansas City Monarchs, Indianapolis Clowns, Chicago American Giants, Minot Mallards
Ted Strong had it all: he was big, strong, and fast, could play virtually any position on the field, and could hit for power and average. Unfortunately, he didn't take care of his health, and never achieved the stardom he should have.

Strong grew up in the basketball hotbed of Indiana, and became such an accomplished hoopster that he was hired to play with the Harlem Globetrotters (in fact, he was captain of the team). But, unlike today, when basketball stars can make millions, basketball players often played the sport to stay in shape for baseball.

Strong was at least as good at baseball as he was basketball, and was playing professionally with the Indianapolis Athletics in 1937 at age 20 and was named to the West's All-Star squad; he homered and singled in four at bats while playing first base. After a year with the ABCs of the same city, and another East-West appearance, Strong signed with the Kansas City Monarchs, for which he starred for a decade. Strong was chosen to play in the East-West game five times with the Monarchs and, to demonstrate his versatility, played shortstop, first base and outfield in those games.

Strong was such an outstanding fielder that he often fielded balls one-handed--something that frowned upon by old-timers. A sportswriter once wrote disparingly of Strong's habit of catching one-handed at first base as being "showboating" and "a trick of vainglory."


Strong was a powerful hitter from both sides of the plate, one of the top switch-hitters in Negro League history and in 1946 led the Negro American League in home runs and RBIs. Over his career, Strong usually batted in the mid-.300s.

Strong's arm was, well, strong! He rivaled Martin Dihigo for outfield throwing skill, and Sam Bankhead for the best throwing shortstop in baseball.

When the Monarchs had a string of Negro American League pennants from 1939-'42, Strong was a key figure in the team's success.

In 1946, the Monarchs again won the pennant and faced the Newark Eagles in the World Series. With the series tied, three games apiece, Strong and Satchel Paige, the scheduled starting pitcher, were both no-shows and the Eagles won the game and series.

Strong's only apparent weakness was alcohol, and it eventually robbed him of his great talent. Some thought Strong was a good prospect to integrated the Major Leagues, but years of substance abuse eroded some of the star's skills. Strong did play a few years of Minor League ball, with limited success, before ending his career playing in the Manitoba-Dakota league in the 1950s.

It's assumed that Strong died in Chicago sometime in the early 1950s, but an obituary has not been found as of yet.
   63. DavidFoss Posted: September 07, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2170485)
Why would 100 triples of Beckley's be homers elsewhere? - they could just as easily have been 100 singles.
Who says these triples were flyballs or groundballs?


They wouldn't. Karl want us to give extra credit to Beckley for every little thing without thinking to see if it makes any sense. There are several rational and vocal voters who are fans of Beckley. Sometimes I think Beckley's candidacy would be better if Karl just deferred to them. Karl's arguments have a way of polarizing people against Beckley.
   64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#2170498)
Sometimes I think Beckley's candidacy would be better if Karl just deferred to them. Karl's arguments have a way of polarizing people against Beckley.

However polarizing or not karlmagnus' advocacy of Beckley can be (I have stated here before that he should reign himself in a little, BTW), taking it out on Beckley is more egregious, IMO. There's zero excuse for that.
   65. Chris Fluit Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#2170534)
64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted:
Sometimes I think Beckley's candidacy would be better if Karl just deferred to them. Karl's arguments have a way of polarizing people against Beckley.

However polarizing or not karlmagnus' advocacy of Beckley can be (I have stated here before that he should reign himself in a little, BTW), taking it out on Beckley is more egregious, IMO. There's zero excuse for that.


It doesn't have to be intentional. Every time karlmagnus overstates the case for Beckley as he has done in this thread, somebody else comes in with a reasonable reply concerning Beckley's deficiencies. The net result is that we receive regular reminders of Beckley's deficiencies and unconvincing arguments concerning his strengths. It's unsurprising that Beckley would lose support this way, considering that the counterarguments seem more convincing. It's not that we're out to intentionally punish Beckley, or even insult him, because of one of his supporters. But we can't help be swayed, even subconsciously, into thinking that the case for Beckley is weak.
   66. DavidFoss Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#2170536)
However polarizing or not karlmagnus' advocacy of Beckley can be (I have stated here before that he should reign himself in a little, BTW), taking it out on Beckley is more egregious, IMO. There's zero excuse for that.

Well, I didn't vote for Slaughter & Carey and I'm not voting for Brock. So, I'm consistent. My only appearance on the low-consenus-score list was the year I didn't vote for Slaughter. My ballots appear to favor glove positions, but that's simply because so many corner guys fly in on the first ballot. When I do vote for backlog corner guys, I like them to have a big bat. I have no personal vendetta against Beckley.

Still, there are a plethora of borderline candidates. Many have said that ballot positions 11-30 are almost interchangeable. There is both positive and negative ballot pressure on all of these guys. If voters are rolling their eyes when they see Beckley's name that can't help. Although, it could be that Karl is smiling right now because his shenanigans are keeping Jake's name in the spotlight and that's not right either.

Where's the discussion of Sewell, Freehan & Mendez who are knocking on the door of the HOM? Where is the discussion of Cupid Childs who is an exact contemporary and is getting more votes?

Anyhow, I hope I didn't word things so strongly as to sound too inflammatory. The whole Karl/Beckley thing has been going on since Caruthers was inducted and Karl needed a new favorite. So this is nothing new. This is just the periodic 'calling out' of Karl. :-)
   67. DavidFoss Posted: September 07, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2170539)
The net result is that we receive regular reminders of Beckley's deficiencies and unconvincing arguments concerning his strengths.

A better description of what I was trying to say. Thanks Chris F.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 07, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2170547)
Believe me, I wasn't charging anyone here of slighting Beckley due to karlmagnus' hyper-advocacy. I wasn't even trying to imply it. I just want everyone to be on guard for it, since it's easy to go down that path.

Personally, when I felt my own advocacy was too strong (though I don't think it ever was as impassioned as the King of the Carolingians' postings sometimes can be :-), I have tried to temper my support for a specific candidate. I didn't want to get to a point that I was harming that candidate instead of helping him.
   69. DavidFoss Posted: September 07, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2170561)
King of the Carolingians

Pedantic nitpick here. Carolingian is not the name of the kingsom but the ruling dynasty -- which was named not for Karl, but Karls granddad Charles Martel -- who was a big Hank Aaron fan. Also, as we all remember from the classic Bubble Boy episode of Seinfield, Charles Martel defeated the Moops at the Battle of Tours in 732.

According Wikipedia, at various times, Karl was King of Neustria, Aquitaine, and the Lombards. Later he would hold greater titles as King of the Franks (Baker, Robinson, Chance, Grant & Howard?) and Holy Roman Emperor.

:-)
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 07, 2006 at 05:25 PM (#2170619)
Thanks, David. ;-) I knew that the Carolingians were the ruling dynasty; I meant to type Franks instead.

I need to revisit that area of history at some time. I'm presently to catch up on Greek and Roman civilization, but I want to be knowledgeable about all eras if I can.
   71. DL from MN Posted: September 07, 2006 at 05:25 PM (#2170620)
> Where's the discussion of Sewell, Freehan & Mendez who are knocking on the door of
> the HOM?

Sewell seems to have been hashed out pretty well and the statistical record is pretty well known. The big knock about Sewell is there were Negro league contemporaries that had better seasons but none put up as many good seasons as Joe did and the Negro leaguer that was better than Joe seems to change every year. I like rewarding consistently great play (I'm voting Bob Johnson #1). I'm not sold on Sewell as one of the top 3 guys available but I am sold from a career standpoint that he's the best SS available and qualified for the HoM so I have no problems with his induction.

I know there are voters still remaining that haven't fully fleshed out Jose Mendez. At this point that's like going to the polls without reading more than the yard signs. Jose Mendez will go in if someone doesn't poke a big hole in his case this week. If you have concerns they need to be voiced now.

I'm having a problem with Freehan right now and I have noted it. I'm not finding Freehan significantly better than Bresnahan, Schang, Munson or Elston Howard. I think he's better but not so much that he should be 3rd and those guys aren't top 15. I also think Freehan was significantly less meritorious than Quincy Trouppe. I'll discuss this in more detail.

Trouppe had an MLE 119 OPS+ in anywhere from 7200 to 8000 equivalent plate appearances. Freehan has a 112 OPS+ in 6900 plate appearances. That's a big gap. I've estimated Trouppe with 475 BRAR and 245 BRAA. Freehan has 357 BRAR and 156 BRAA when you zero out the negative years. Freehan has fewer BRAA than Schang (233), Bresnahan (261) and about the same as Elston Howard if you give Howard some extra credit. Munson is slightly behind at 135 BRAA. WARP may be wrong about defensive value for catchers but it would have to be wrong by a LOT for me to rank Freehan above Trouppe. Freehan has 352 FRAR and 46 FRAA. I gave Trouppe 295 FRAR and 12 FRAA. If I add them up (which I do for C, SS, 2B corner guys get their FR discounted) I have Trouppe with 770 RAR and 257 RAA and Freehan with 709 RAR and 202 RAA. I grant that WARP may be making a mistake, but I'm only comparing catchers to catchers. WARP would need to be making a 50-70 run mistake in assessing Freehan's catching v. other catchers to get him up to the level of Trouppe. WARP may be off but I don't think it's off 100% on Freehan's defensive value. I may be assuming too much for Trouppe but I used Simmons and Torre as comps for his defensive value and they weren't whiz bang catchers.

I've got Freehan as worth inducting, but right on the in/out line (making Bresnahan, Schang, Munson and Howard all out) and behind Trouppe in line. I don't think we're deep enough into the backlog to be electing him and I don't think he's been subjected to all the due diligence. For instance, what makes him that much better than Darrell Porter? Freehan's record for putouts is almost certainly due to an increase in the number of strikeouts during that era. Freehan may have been a very good defensive catcher, but his reputation and WARP numbers are nowhere near Bob Boone and he didn't last long into his 30s which is actually unusual for a good defensive catcher, especially one who can still hit at a 97 OPS+ in his final season and a half. Is there a reason nobody wanted a backup catcher with pop and a good defensive reputation? Did he end his career injured? The guy spent the rest of his life in baseball, I can't imagine he would have retired without a reason.
   72. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 07, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2170638)
Freehan has a FANTASTIC peak and was a better fielder than Trouppe. Trouppe played much of his better years at 3B where most all of Freehan's best years were at catcher. I know that is simplistic, but for a peak voter who cares about in seasons playing time and the effects catcher can have on a peak, Freehan is a good bit ahead of Trouppe. Though I had both over Torre.

Freehan will be #2 on my 1985 ballot, Trouppe will be #12 but he should make my PHOM this year. They are both worthy. Torre would be about #14, Howard, #16 (I think).
   73. Mike Webber Posted: September 07, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#2170677)
I gave Trouppe 295 FRAR and 12 FRAA.


What is this based on?

I'd argue that no catcher who was good defensively since the begining of the lively ball era played as many games defensively in mid-career at 3b and OF as Trouppe is projected to in his thread.

Ok, someone will come up with one, (or someone will argue that Biggio was good defensively) but I'll bet its not more than 3.

And while I will hear the usual objection - "if you never give the guy with an imaginary career a break, we'll never elect an imaginary guy" - if two guys are close and one actually did it, and one might have done it, I'll err on the side of the guy that has hard data to back up his claims.
   74. Mark Donelson Posted: September 07, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2170682)
I pretty much agree with jschmeagol's reasoning (as I so often do, on hitters, at least) in post #72, though I have them Freehan-Howard-Torre-Trouppe. All four of 'em are close to each other, and all four of 'em are in my PHOM. Bresnahan is a little further back (though also in my PHOM). Schang I don't like at all (not enough peak, even for a C); he's not close. Munson won't be too close either, though I'm still figuring out whether he makes my top 50 or not.
   75. DL from MN Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:14 PM (#2170720)
>> I gave Trouppe 295 FRAR and 12 FRAA.

> What is this based on?

>> I may be assuming too much for Trouppe but I used Simmons and Torre as comps for
>> his defensive value and they weren't whiz bang catchers.

Ted Simmons was a 340 -21 that was dragged down by a -16 FRAA his last five years playing 1B. Torre scored a 278 -6. If I drop Trouppe to a 295 -5 he goes from 5th on my ballot to 8th. Freehan is 32nd.
   76. DanG Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#2170721)
Jose Mendez will go in if someone doesn't poke a big hole in his case this week. If you have concerns they need to be voiced now.

My concerns:

As a career voter, my general take on guys like Mendez, Dean and Koufax is that those “big” seasons generate fame, the sort of thing that gets you props for the Coop elections. Value-wise, I’m not convinced that big years add much premium to merit accumulated over a long career. For the HoM, in a close analysis it can make a difference for me, but Mendez has yet to make my ballot.

Mendez’ support jumped in the mid-70’s elections, after he was elected to the Coop (passing Redding, whom he had trailed for decades). I’d hate to think that is the driving impetus to his HoM election.
   77. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2170742)
I would agree that Redding still seems more worthy than Mendez, but instead of Mendez support jumping after his elections I wonder if it doesn't have anything to do with the new numbers that were released. The numbers showed Mendez to be slightly better and Redding to have not been as good after 1920. REdding is my top pitcher and mendez is my 5th. Redding is in my PHOM and Mendez is something like 8th in line, so he will make it.

Also could it have anything to do with an influx of peak voters around that time like Melky and BWilliams. Then again Vaux also started around that time and I am pretty sure he is a career guy.

I keep asking this because I want to start the discussion and I fear it keeps getting lost. WHy is Joe Sewell so much better than Phil Rizzuto? Yes, he was better offensively but Rizzuto was better defensively and deserves war and possily a year or two of MiL credit. Is it because Sewell was better than his peers even though his peers weren't as good as Rizzuto's? Is it because too many people are taking Sewell's good fielding marks in WARP whole hog? Is it because Rizzuto isn't beign given proper War and MiL credit?

I would agree with anyone who wants to argue that Rizzuto's case for the HOM is pretty shaky. I may even allow that Sewell was slightly better (I have Rizzuto about 6 spots higher, neither are in my top 30). And if you are voting for both fair enough. But why is Sewell on the doorstep of the HOM while Rizzuto languishes a number of spots down? I think all the reasons I mentioned above (best in league, WARP fielding numbers, not giving Rizzuto proper/consistent war/MiL credit) aren't very good. So why is it? Convince me.
   78. DanG Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2170745)
The numbers showed Mendez to be slightly better and Redding to have not been as good after 1920.

Is there a thread that shows this comparison?
   79. DL from MN Posted: September 07, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#2170768)
I'm giving Rizzuto 3 full years of war credit and his defensive contribution does check out a little better than Sewell with those 3 years. Unfortunately his bat just isn't there. I like Bancroft enough to ballot him in the next couple years.

Count me as a career voter who likes Mendez. He has an outstanding 5 years and 3 more good years beyond that to push him on the ballot. He also has some more career bulk beyond that. I think Dick Redding has an outstanding 3 years and another 5 good years conversely. The Shades of Glory numbers have Redding falling off a cliff in the early 1920s.
   80. sunnyday2 Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#2170825)
>I'm having a problem with Freehan right now and I have noted it. I'm not finding Freehan significantly better than Bresnahan, Schang, Munson or Elston Howard.

And you have Bob Johnson #1? You're not finding guys who Johnson is not significantly better than?
   81. Al Peterson Posted: September 07, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2170855)
And you have Bob Johnson #1? You're not finding guys who Johnson is not significantly better than?

I'm one of the guilty Indian Bob backers, or at least til last year. Now I've dropped him outside the top 15 but expect him to climb back on ballot. What weighs Bob Johnson down is

1. Late start in the majors, with a playing record saying he could have been in the majors 1-2 years earlier. Minor league credit would show a player similar to the one who walked into the majors 1933 at age 27.

2. Win Share results. His teams consistently did not win, and there is slight effects of that which mute his accomplishments. He's an average defender by WS, probably due the circular logic "A bad team is a bad defensive team which is made of bad defenders, thus Indian Bob gets his share of badness".

On bad teams you are slightly affected by never getting to face that sorry team you're a part of. His teams underperformed Pythag over his career, thus real wins didn't result from expected wins. Also during the 1930's the A's had a nice habit of not getting in their 154 games with either W or L. It's difficult to pick up Win Shares when your team decides to call it a year with 150-151 decisions. 1933-1939 the A's trimmed 20 games which never had a win or loss. If they win a few of those BJ might pick up some tenths here and there.

3. Abrupt End. Given that he looked OK in 1945 he didn't get that last year or two in the majors due to WW II returnees. No number padding there, though we have record of playing PCL which was still a strong league.

I guess I'm saying he's not a bad candidate. I like him as well or better than some others who were elected from the era and it shouldn't be we have to slam the door on him because others have gone before.
   82. jimd Posted: September 07, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#2170865)
WHy is Joe Sewell so much better than Phil Rizzuto?

Umm, let's see.

Offense: Sewell .280, Rizzuto .265 (EQA)
Defense: Sewell 109, Rizzuto 106 (SS Rate)
Peak: Sewell had 6 seasons better than Rizzutto's best (9.9 WARP1)
Career: Sewell 105.7, Rizzuto 68.4 (WARP1)
Give Rizzuto three WWII seasons equal to his fluky best in 1950,
and he still doesn't get there.

Other than that, well, Rizzuto has more rings and was a better announcer.
   83. KJOK Posted: September 07, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#2170888)
I'd argue that no catcher who was good defensively since the begining of the lively ball era played as many games defensively in mid-career at 3b and OF as Trouppe is projected to in his thread.

That may be true for MLB, but in the Negro Leagues, where team's had very short rosters, all it might take for this to happen is for another player on the team to be a catcher, and for Trouppe to be the one talented/athletic enough to play another position, even if he were the better defensive catcher.

I'd say the fact that the Cleveland Indians, pennant contenders, would give Trouppe even a chance AT AGE 39 to be on their major league roster might indicate he was at least good defensively in his prime.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: September 07, 2006 at 11:08 PM (#2170901)
>I guess I'm saying he's not a bad candidate.

Al, I don't have a problem with that. But when one's criteria for some other candidate is that he doesn't rank highly because he isn't significantly better than the field (who in this field is?)...and then a guy who's "not a bad candidate" at #1, it just sounds like different standards for the two different players.

(Yes, I'm mixing quotes from 2 different voters.)
   85. Juan V Posted: September 07, 2006 at 11:56 PM (#2170933)
Well, here´s my prelim.

1) Joe Sewell We have discussed him plenty in this thread. I have little else to add, for now.

2) Ralph Kiner

3) Jose Mendez
I, for one, am convinced by his prime.

4) Alejandro Oms

5) Cupid Childs

6) Ken Boyer
Why B. Robby, but not him?

7) Quincy Trouppe

8) Gavvy Cravath
I took a more in-depth look at his MLEs, and he moved up a few slots as a result

9) Billy Pierce

10) Cannonball Dick Redding

11) Bob Johnson

12) Jimmy Wynn

13) Jimmy Ryan

14) Jim Fregosi

15) <strike>Jim</strike> Rube Waddell


About my 12-15: The outfield Jimmies move from the "waiting list" to the ballot, while Fregosi and Waddell remain in their 84 spots. This is because, while I still think that they deserve to be placed in the mid teens (the ballot borderline) in this class, upon further inspection I believe I goofed their placement relative to the Jimmies. As it probably happens with many voters, the difference between the last couple of spots in the ballot and the waiting list are very small, and such revisions can cause changes.

As for the remaining member of the "knocking on the door of the HOM" threesome, I share the concerns about Freehan´s lenght of career. But what really hurts him, relative to the group that does make the ballot of this prime/career voter, is the short peak.
   86. Mike Webber Posted: September 08, 2006 at 12:32 AM (#2170952)
KJ from OK wrote:
I'd say the fact that the Cleveland Indians, pennant contenders, would give Trouppe even a chance AT AGE 39 to be on their major league roster might indicate he was at least good defensively in his prime.


Arguing just to argue, not because I truly believe it,

But the 2006 Padres, pennant contenders, giving Mike Piazza a chance at AGE 37 to be on their STARTING CATCHER on the major league roster might indicate he was at least good defensively in his prime.

It might indicate it, but It, would be wrong.


Another point here, how old did the Indians think Trouppe was at that time? Anyone with 1953 Register that shows his reported birthdate?

That may be true for MLB, but in the Negro Leagues, where team's had very short rosters, all it might take for this to happen is for another player on the team to be a catcher, and for Trouppe to be the one talented/athletic enough to play another position, even if he were the better defensive catcher.


I'll conceed that point, it might be the simplest explanation.
   87. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 08, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2171030)
But the 2006 Padres, pennant contenders, giving Mike Piazza a chance at AGE 37 to be on their STARTING CATCHER on the major league roster might indicate he was at least good defensively in his prime.

It might indicate it, but It, would be wrong.


Piazza was very good at the non-throwing-basestealers-out aspects of defense.
   88. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 08, 2006 at 02:06 AM (#2171042)
And here's a link to Sean Forman's presentation at SABR this year, Piazza is the best at preventing wild pitches and passed balls.
   89. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 08, 2006 at 02:10 AM (#2171045)
Arguing just to argue, not because I truly believe it,


And I did notice this, I was just pointing it out to people who might believe it.
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: September 08, 2006 at 02:26 AM (#2171061)
1985 Prelim

Major re-evaluation this week for the “backlog years.” But not as much change at the top as expected.

• Several integration (or “lost”) generation players moved up but the best of them only made it to the fringes—Luke Easter #25 and Marvin Williams #27

• Several HoM/not PHoM players move up into serious contention for PHoM during these “backlog years”—Drysdale, Ashburn and others

Three players whom I had been undervaluing go PHoM in 1985. Billy Williams moves from #10 to #2, Don Drysdale from #17 to #6, and Charlie Keller from #22 to #10

Newbies: Brock #34, Munson #78

1. Dobie Moore (1-1-3, PHoM 1942)—still a very mighty peak

2. Rube Waddell (3-4-5, PHoM 1932)—yes, I incorporated Joe’s work on pitchers into my ratings, and Waddell is only 15th in career PA and 5th in peak WAR. But I believe he deserves some MiL credit for stellar work in the IL during the contraction years just before 1900, so he actually moves up

(2a. Billy Williams [10a-11-new, PHoM 1985]—doesn’t matter much whether he is 2nd or 10th, he goes PHoM either way, but I was perhaps underrating him, or else I am just getting soft on peak versus career)

3. Edd Roush (7-8-10, PHoM 1976)—and I’m also gravitating to a more complete player like Roush over the more one-dimensional player like Kiner, but also remember that Roush’ peak of 38-33-30 makes absolutely no apologies to Kiner’s 37-35-30

4. Bill Freehan (5-6-7, PHoM 1984)—career a lot like Larry Doyle’s except for position(s), also a very complete player like Roush

5. Pete Browning (8-10-11, PHoM 1961)—moves ahead of Kiner among the “sluggers”

6. Ralph Kiner (2-3-4, PHoM 1964)—great hitter, and not just SA but OBP too

(6a. Don Drysdale [17a-21a-20a, PHoM 1985]—Joe’s numbers suggested I was seriously undervaluing him, and I was)

7. Larry Doyle (6-7-6-6, PHoM 1975)—same OPS+ as Edd Roush

8. Jose Mendez (11-15-14, PHoM 1957)—this is with no credit at all for his hitting and his SS years

9. Charley Jones (12-9-7, PHoM 1921)—trying to abandon Charley for years, just can’t do it

10. Addie Joss (13-12-12, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available, another lost cause but I can’t kick the habit

11. Charlie Keller (22-19-22, PHoM 1985)—“So, are you a peak voter or not?” “Yes, I am” “So, why the hell aren’t you supporting Charlie Keller?” “Well, I am, now, finally” (Still not as good as Kiner, however)

12. Nellie Fox (9-13-16, PHoM 1971)—one of the most valuable <100 OPS+ players ever

13. Dick Redding (33-30-31, PHoM 1971)—another big gainer

14. Eddie Cicotte (49-55-x)—an even bigger gainer, with no death credit

15. Frank Howard (14-16-13)—virtually interchangeable with Cepeda and Cravath

Dropped Out

17. Orlando Cepeda (15-17-15)

Close

(15a. Richie Ashburn [26a-31a-29a])

16. Gavvy Cravath (42-46-38)—as with Keller, I’ve finally bought into the bizarro-Cravath after all these years

(16a. Stan Hack [13a-17a-16a]

18. Phil Rizzuto (17-21-20)—with WWII adjustment, of course

19. Minnie Minoso (16-18-16, PHoM 1970)—2 NeL MLE seasons though at well below peak level

20. Elston Howard (18-23-29)—with “lost generation” adjustments

(20a. Bobby Doerr [13b-18a-17a]
(20b. Jim Bunning [29a-27a-27a])

Also Pretty Good

21. Norm Cash (24-24-24)
22. Ed Williamson (19-25-23, PHoM 1924)
23. Ken Boyer (30-29-42)
24. Hilton Smith (25-22-18)
25. Luke Easter (x-x-x)—incredible story
(25a. Willie Keeler [47a-48a-50d])
26. Joe Sewell (23-28-27)—wish those final 5 years had been at SS instead of 3B
27. Marvin Williams (x-x-x)—also gets some adjustments as a member of the “lost generation”
28. Alejandro Oms (31-34-28)
(28a. Red Faber [57a-57a-50b])
(28b. Wes Ferrell [46a-50a-50c])
29. Rocky Colavito (73-x-x)
30. Bucky Walters (53-53-x)

31. Don Newcombe (x-x-x)—“lost generation”
32. Hugh Duffy (29-26-26)
33. Dizzy Dean (20-27-34)
34. Lou Brock (new)
35. Cupid Childs (40-40-39, PHoM 1925)
36. Vern Stephens (27-31-40)
37. Tony Oliva (48-49-x)
38. Lefty Gomez (57-57-50)
39. Chuck Klein (36-36-37)
40. Billy Pierce (56-x-x)

41. Vic Willis (34-35-19, PHoM 1977)
42. Bus Clarkson (92-x-x)
43. Tommy Bond (21-20-21, PHoM 1929)
44. Dick Lundy (26-32-36)
45. Jim Wynn (35-42-new)
46. Jake Beckley (72-x-x)
47. Bobby Estalella (32-33-25)
48. Quincy Trouppe (28-43-35)
49. Hack Wilson (38-38-32)
(49a. Early Wynn [60a-60a-xa)
50. Pie Traynor (44-44-47)
(50a. Biz Mackey [45a-45a-45a])

Other big gainers (20 slots or more) but below the top 50: Luque (#58), Scales (59), Tinker (61), Evers (62), Cool Papa Bell (72a)

Other big losers (ditto): Rosen (57), McCormick (65), Welch (70), Leach (80), Veach (82), Lombardi (84)
   91. KJOK Posted: September 08, 2006 at 02:44 AM (#2171078)
Arguing just to argue, not because I truly believe it,

But the 2006 Padres, pennant contenders, giving Mike Piazza a chance at AGE 37 to be on their STARTING CATCHER on the major league roster might indicate he was at least good defensively in his prime.

It might indicate it, but It, would be wrong.


Ha, well, if Trouppe hit like Piazza, we wouldn't be having any argument - he'd already be in the HOM...

So, I guess my point was that for a Catcher with the hitting ability of Trouppe to get any consideration at an advanced age, back in the day when Piazza likely wouldn't have even been allowed to touch a Catcher's mitt, MAY make some statement that he was at least decent defensively at age 39, which MAY mean he might have been pretty good in his prime defensively...
   92. Brent Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:51 AM (#2171133)
Umm, let's see.

Offense: Sewell .280, Rizzuto .265 (EQA)
Defense: Sewell 109, Rizzuto 106 (SS Rate)


One of my great disappointments of this project is a sort of Gresham's Law in which numbers, no matter how serious their flaws, tend to drive out non-quantitative information. This has been illustrated by the blind trust that many voters give to the uberstats for analysis of fielding, and also by the dominant role given to MLEs in the evalation of NeL candidates. While these numbers are useful tools, I'd also like to remind voters that they can be subject to large errors and that reputational information ought to also play an important role.

According to WARP, Sewell had a 5-year run (from 1924-28) in which he was 104 fielding runs above average for shortstops. To place that in context, that is more fielding runs above average than any 5-year period in the careers of HoMers Wagner, Wallace, Cronin, Vaughan, Boudreau, or Reese. It is also better than any 5-year period in the careers of famous defensive shortstops Ozzie Smith, Ripken, Belanger, Aparicio, Marion, Bancroft, Maranville, Tinker, or Everett Scott. Did anyone beat Sewell? With adjustments for season length, several 19th century shortstops were ahead. Among modern shortstops, Ozzie Guillen came close to matching him with a 5-year period with 103 fielding runs above average. And I'm sure I've probably missed someone. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that WARP assesses Sewell's fielding ability during 1924-28 as historically notable.

What about reputation? My understanding is that for the first half of Sewell's career Everett Scott was regarded as the premier defensive shortstop of the AL. This is illustrated in the 1922 MVP vote -- Scott, with an OPS+ of 67, ranked 15th in the vote ahead of Sewell, who ranked 19th with his OPS+ of 101. (Keep in mind, however, that Scott played for the first-place Yankees.) After Scott faded, Sewell and Peckinpaugh were probably considered the best shortstops in the AL, though I don't believe either matched Scott in reputation. In other words, my understanding is that Sewell's reputation was as a very good defensive shortstop, but not historically great. I've not seen descriptions of his fielding abilities that suggested he would have been considered comparable to Marion or Smith.

At the end of Sewell's 5-year period of superb defense (at least according to WARP), he was suddenly moved to third base. I agree with jschmeagol's comment -- if Sewell was as great as WARP claims, this move doesn't pass the sniff test. Jimd has argued that this was a rational move for Cleveland because Tavenner was even a better defensive shortstop than Sewell. This story has a few problems though: a) prior to Cleveland making the switch, WARP does not indicate that Tavenner was better (WARP says he was 34 runs above average over the previous 4 years, compared to 83 for Sewell); b) Tavenner was slightly older than Sewell (31 compared to 30), suggesting that there Cleveland shouldn't have expected him to improve relative to Sewell; c) After Tavenner didn't work out, Cleveland never tried moving Sewell back to shortstop, which seems odd if Sewell was still considered a great shortstop.

Recent developments in analysis of fielding based on batted ball data have emphasized many aspects in which traditional fielding statistics and their derivative uberstats are subject to error. For example:
- There are large differences between teams in proportions of fly balls, ground balls, line drives, and infield flies, which in turn create large differences in fielding opportunities that are not visible in traditional fielding statistics.
- There can be large differences in opportunities based on the zones in which balls are hit -- for example, right side versus left side of the infield.
- There are differences in opportunities for double plays.

Although the uberstats may attempt to control for some of these influences, without batted ball data they can do so very imperfectly. The uberstats do not correlate well with more sophisticated defensive measures that are based on batted ball data. In summary, this line have research has emphasized that WARP and win shares fielding statistics may be subject to significant errors. I believe this emphasizes the need for supplementing the uberstats with reputational information.

Based on reputation I do not believe that Sewell was a better defensive shortstop than Rizzuto. I am concerned that Sewell and possibly other candidates will be elected based on erroneous WARP fielding statistics. We really ought to try to do more to validate fielding evaluations using reputational and other non-quantitative information.
   93. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#2171138)
11. Charlie Keller (22-19-22, PHoM 1985)—“So, are you a peak voter or not?” “Yes, I am” “So, why the hell aren’t you supporting Charlie Keller?” “Well, I am, now, finally” (Still not as good as Kiner, however)

Oh, Marc, you prickly ol' Twins fan, you just brought a smile to my face. :'D
   94. Mike Webber Posted: September 08, 2006 at 04:04 AM (#2171149)
FYI - I'm not going to spent the 1/2 hour adding spaces, but you hopefully can see Win Shares thinks Rizzuto was the far superior defender.
Player:  Sewell, Joe
Year of Birth:   1898
Year        Hit  Field  Pitch     Sum    WS
1920       2.46   1.05   0.00     3.51    4
1921      18.06   8.35   0.00    26.41   26
1922      13.41   7.90   0.00    21.30   21
1923      23.06   6.18   0.00    29.25   29
1924      14.52   7.32   0.00    21.84   22
1925      14.87   9.44   0.00    24.31   24
1926      19.33   9.68   0.00    29.01   29
1927      13.74   6.99   0.00    20.73   21
1928      15.44   7.66   0.00    23.10   23
1929      12.45   8.28   0.00    20.73   21
1930       6.13   3.36   0.00     9.49    9
1931      12.38   3.04   0.00    15.42   15
1932      11.38   5.74   0.00    17.11   17
1933      10.95   4.90   0.00    15.85   16
Totals   188.17  89.89   0.00   278.05  277

Player:  Rizzuto, Phil
Year of Birth:   1917
Year        Hit  Field  Pitch     Sum    WS
1941      11.72   9.29   0.00    21.01   21
1942      13.91  11.28   0.00    25.19   25
1943       0.00   0.00   0.00     0.00    0
1944       0.00   0.00   0.00     0.00    0
1945       0.00   0.00   0.00     0.00    0
1946       5.31   6.25   0.00    11.57   12
1947      14.43  11.11   0.00    25.54   26
1948       7.47   7.36   0.00    14.83   15
1949      13.38   8.92   0.00    22.30   22
1950      23.85  11.32   0.00    35.17   35
1951      14.20   8.77   0.00    22.97   23
1952      11.97   8.69   0.00    20.67   21
1953      11.87   6.06   0.00    17.93   18
1954       0.91   5.24   0.00     6.15    6
1955       3.61   2.01   0.00     5.62    6
1956       0.26   0.87   0.00     1.13    1
Totals   132.89  97.17   0.00   230.06  231
   95. fra paolo Posted: September 08, 2006 at 10:01 AM (#2171246)
<u>The Sewell Debate</u>

Regarding his fielding, I submit the following data, to help people. Using Bill James's rule of thumb that 80% of all infield assists are ground balls, I've got an estimated GB/FB ratio for league and Cleveland during Sewell's shortstop years.
Season  AL IF A     AL OF PO    AL GB/FB ratio    CLE IF A    CLE OF PO   CL GB/FB
1921     7094          7884         1.11              1069        1043       1.02
1922     7130          8061         1.11              1122        1026       1.09
1923     7724          7349         1.05              1195         994       1.20
1924     7697          7365         1.04              1163        1087       1.12
1925     7720          7460         1.03              1164        1122       1.03
1926     7774          7167         1.05              1135        1084       1.08
1927     7979          7322         1.09              1136        1027       1.11
1928     7672          7327         1.05              1203        1021       1.18

So Cleveland's ratio is above the league average in 1923 (by a lot!), 1924, 1926, 1927 and 1928.

When you look at Sewell's ranking among all AL SS at this time, as measured by total assists, he finishes as follows:
1921 3d
1922 7th (!)
1923 2d
1924 1st
1925 1st
1926 3d
1927 1st
1928 1st
So it looks like he got some support for his fielding Win Shares or WARP by being in the right place at the right time. I'd hold his 1923 against him, moreso because Peckinpaugh's ratio was a team 1.17 against a league 1.05.

In Sewell's support, it's worth noting that the fielding percentage for all Cleveland 3b went from bottom of the AL in 1928, to top in 1929, when he was moved there.

On the whole, I'm more suspicious of his uberstats' fielding scores than I was. In fact, the more of this sort of 'granular' research I do on Retrosheet, the less comfortable I am with uberstats. Furthermore, his hitting stats are heavily supported by one season, 1923.

<u>Catchers</u>
See the Freehan thread for some notes about PB and Stolen Bases, related to Freehan and Elston Howard. I've come to the view that Freehan's extra playing time is worth more than I have previously valued it, and that he has a marginally better case than Howard. However, I think these two are much closer in Meritoriousness than their vote tallies indicate.

<u>In or Out?</u>
Hmm, the problem is that the HoM ballot is not designed to answer this question. It's purpose is for voters to rank the players not in the HoM in order of quality/value. The consensus candidate in any given year is automatically elected, regardless of whether a majority of people would vote "yes he's a HoMer" or not. If it was a yes or no vote, I'd leave both Sewell and Freehan and Elston Howard off my ballot.

There's all sorts of other issues that need to come into play apart from what I've discussed here, but I'd say none of the shortstop or catcher candidates deserves to be at or near the top of anybody's ballot. Freehan is better than Sewell, but I can't see ranking Freehan higher than about 6th. I think his total score last time round, 475 points from 31 ballots, pretty accurately reflects his overall value. Is that an elect-me score?

Sewell strikes me, in contrast, as way more overvalued. A ranking that much ahead of Childs? (403 vs 312 points)
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: September 08, 2006 at 10:29 AM (#2171251)
>numbers, no matter how serious their flaws, tend to drive out non-quantitative information. This has been illustrated by the blind trust that many voters give to the uberstats for analysis of fielding, and also by the dominant role given to MLEs in the evalation of NeL candidates.

Of course the election of Cool Papa was a case of anecdotal information driving out the numbers.

And James, I thought somebody might enjoy that ;-)

And I too believe Rizzuto to be a better candidate than Sewell. And while Childs is in my PHoM since the '20s, I sure can't see him above a whole bunch of more recent guys ("Are you a timeliner?" "I certainly am not" "Then why the hell don't you support Cupid Childs?" "Because Pete Browning, Charley Jones and Ed Williamson are all better candidates"
   97. Brent Posted: September 08, 2006 at 11:25 AM (#2171259)
Another factor that probably boosted Sewell's fielding stats is the number of lefties on Cleveland's staff. Cleveland led the AL in IP by lefties for 1924-25 and 27 and was second in 1923 and 26. Lefty groundball pitchers tend to generate a lot of assist opportunities for the shortstop.
   98. Howie Menckel Posted: September 08, 2006 at 11:33 AM (#2171262)
Which defensive stats account for Brent's intriguing information?

And if anyone is voting in Sewell based mostly on stats that DON'T account for such things, feel free to look at OPS+ for a reality check on his hitting. Then consider if he was really such a great fielder after all. And if not, are you about to contribute to a big blunder by the HOM?
   99. karlmagnus Posted: September 08, 2006 at 12:28 PM (#2171267)
I don't know where all this stuff about my Beckley support comes from. I would point out that I do not randomly invent snippets of Beckley-adulation; what happens is someone else comes out with something groosly unfair and slighting about the man, generally using some bizarre sabermetric stat that shouldn't be allowed in polite statistical society, to which I respond. Case in point: the ridiculous and wholly unsupported accusation that his stats were "empty" as if he was some kind of Dave Kingman.

Quite right; Beckley didn't lose 100 extra bases through missing out on HR, the "true" number is in the 20-40 range. Either way, it's a small adjustment, as I said. His main argument is length of career and counting stats; his second isconsistency (incidentally, has anyone ever calculated whether Bill James' Drysdale/Pappas simulation actually applies to hitters? With 8 offensive players rather than 1, I would have thought it may not apply at all, but that consistency, rather than having random holes where 1B ought to be, would be more MERITorious than the odd Cash-like fluke peak season.)
   100. Dizzypaco Posted: September 08, 2006 at 12:55 PM (#2171280)
On the Sewell discussion,

People aren't taking the time to honestly answer an important question - do we take statistics from the 1920's and 1930's at face value or not? We know that if Negro League players were allowed to play in the Major Leagues, the numbers for the other Major Leaguers would not be nearly as impressive. There are two choices:

Either accept all 1920's and 1930's statistics at face value, and accept the fact that there are going to be twice as many people elected from that era as from, say, the 50's and 60's, or...

Discount all statistics from the 1920's and 1930's to address this problem, so there is not such an inbalance.

Personally, I would recommend the second approach. I think there is something wrong with the system if it appears that twice as many people are HOM worthy in before integration than after intergration. And I believe that those who are strongly advocating players such as Sewell at least acknowledge that this issue exists.
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
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9793 seconds
68 querie(s) executed