Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, September 18, 2006

1986 Ballot Discussion

1986 (October 2)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

408 101.2 1959 Willie McCovey-1B
233 53.2 1964 Willie Horton-LF
212 57.0 1965 Jose Cardenal-CF/RF
183 58.7 1965 Paul Blair-CF
165 55.3 1970 Dave Cash-2B
157 53.3 1969 Manny Sanguillen-C
146 55.9 1967 John Hiller-RP
141 42.7 1966 Bud Harrelson-SS
142 40.6 1965 Ken Henderson-CF/LF
147 31.7 1970 Ralph Garr-LF
114 46.5 1968 Marty Pattin-P
117 32.9 1970 Bernie Carbo-RF/LF
106 35.6 1973 JR Richard-P

Players Passing Away in 1985
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

95 1928 Joe Wood-P/RF
92 1940 Burleigh Grimes-P
91 1932 Bill Wambsganss-2B
87 1940 Riggs Stephenson-LF
86 1940 George Uhle-P
84 1945 Ossie Bluege-3B
84 1946 Syl Johnson-P
83 1944 Guy Bush-P
81 1948 Sam West-CF
73 1951 Van Mungo-P
70 1956 Kirby Higbe-P
68 1959 Johnny Lindell-CF/LF
58 1968 Bob Nieman-LF
51 1974 Roger Maris-RF
48 1969 Bill Kunkel-RP/Umpire

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 18, 2006 at 08:31 PM | 331 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 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2181144)
Well, we know one of the inductees for '86. :-) Not unanimous, however.
   2. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM (#2181223)
I agree completely, John. Jose Cardenal is a no-brainer.
   3. OCF Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM (#2181225)
Off to orchestra practice tonight. My reminiscences of the the 1985 Cardinals will have to wait for a day or two. But in the meantime - if you don't have the 1986 Baseball Abstract, go find one. Bill James talking about that World Series is being a Royals fanboy all the way, but there's some great stuff in there.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:45 AM (#2181235)
I agree completely, John. Jose Cardenal is a no-brainer.

lol

Bill James talking about that World Series is being a Royals fanboy all the way, but there's some great stuff in there.

I love that article. Yeah, he's a fanboy, but he deserved to give his team that type of tribute.
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2181239)
Off to orchestra practice tonight.

Wearing your Leopold Stokowski wig there, OCF? :-)
   6. DL from MN Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:19 AM (#2181324)
Part of me wants Kiner to go in with McCovey - induct the sluggers.
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2181338)
Very strange (to me) to see Ralph Garr listed below Ken Henderson, Bud Harrelson below Dave Cash, and JR RICHARD BELOW MARTY PATTIN! I would have figured all of those the other way around.

Roger Maris sure died too damn young, one of the saddest baseball deaths that I can remember, but then there's JR, too.
   8. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:28 AM (#2181348)
I guess I should ask the question, after his big jump in '85 are we ready to elect Billy Pierce? Then again I guess we could have the same arguments about Waddell, Kiner, and Minoso as well, but I mention pierce as he just made a big jump.

I have Pierce off ballot, but he is now my top off-ballot pitcher (I think ranked #19)and has a decent shot to make my PHOM someday (he is about 11 in my PHOM backlog), so he isn't like Sewell for me. However, I wouldn't mind a good discussion, if only because I am on the fence about him.

Kiner and Wadell are both on my ballot, Kiner in my PHOM and Waddell in strong contention for that honor this year. Either would be fine additions acording to, well, me. Of course I am a peak voter and I think both have fine peaks, even if they lack career value. Waddell looks a lot like Mendez to me, I even had him above Jose.

As for Minoso, I don't get him like I didn't get Sewell. He doesn't seem much better than Burns, Veach, Johnson, and a few other guys. his peak isn't too great, he doesn't have that much career, his NeL and MiL credit isn't what many of us thought it would be. Why the uberlove? Does any of it have to do with NeL players of his generation being under-represented as we talked about a few 'years' ago? If so, what quantifiable level of credit are voters giving him for this? Is it because he has a decently long prime? If so, what about Goerge Burns? I have Minoso in the 30's, slightly higher than I had Sewell, and I wouldn't mind hearing about him this year.

So I guess I would like to here Pro and Con on Pierce (who I am on the fence about) and Pro on Minoso (why is he better than a lot of other corner OFers?). If you want to go Con on Kiner and Waddell, go ahead though I am probably not the best man to defend either.

Now Charlie Keller on the other hand...
   9. DavidFoss Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:30 AM (#2181354)
106 35.6 1973 JR Richard-P

Wow. I remember this. The first candidate I remember playing. He was having a great year, started the all-star game against Steve Stone (first AS game I remember). The 'dead arm' problems started in mid-June and things progressively got worse from there until the stroke. I was only 9 at the time.

Anyone older have any adult recollections of this?
   10. jimd Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#2181444)
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; )
1985 -- Joe Sewell (elected, age 86)
   11. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:26 AM (#2181473)
1986 Prelim

Second of a series of backlog years. Elect 2 with only Willie McCovey a newbie of HoM quality. So one more backlogger will join the 3 from last year and possibly as many as 3 next year. My #4, #8 and #26 were elected so some little bit of movement. I have not yet identified my second PHoMer. Cicotte is next in line, with F. Howard, Ashburn, Cravath, Hack, Cepeda and Rizzuto behind. I will revisit that whole group before making up my mind,not that several others won't make it next year.

1. Dobie Moore (1-1-1, PHoM 1942)
2. Willie McCovey (new, PHoM 1986)
3. Rube Waddell (2-3-4, PHoM 1932)
4. Edd Roush (3-7-8, PHoM 1976)
5. Pete Browning (5-8-10, PHoM 1961)

6. Ralph Kiner (6-2-3, PHoM 1964)
7. Larry Doyle (7-6-7, PHoM 1975)
8. Charley Jones (9-12-9, PHoM 1921)
9. Addie Joss (10-13-12, PHoM 1967)
10. Charlie Keller (11-22-19, PHoM 1985)

11. Nellie Fox (12-9-13, PHoM 1971)
12. Dick Redding (13-33-30-31, PHoM 1971)
13. Eddie Cicotte (14-49-55)
14. Frank Howard (15-14-16)
(14a. Richie Ashburn [15a-26a-31a])
15. Gavvy Cravath (16-42-46)
(15a. Stan Hack [16a-13a-17a])

16. Orlando Cepeda (17-15-17)
17. Phil Rizzuto (18-17-21)
18. Minnie Minoso (19-16-18, PHoM 1970)
19. Elston Howard (20-18-23)
(19a. Bobby Doerr [20a-13b-18a-17a])
(19b. Jim Bunning [20b-29a-27a])
20. Norm Cash (21-24-24)

21. Ed Williamson (22-19-25, PHoM 1924)
22. Ken Boyer (23-30-29)
23. Hilton Smith (24-25-22)
24. Luke Easter (25-x-x)
(24a. Willie Keeler [24a-47a-48a])
(24b. Joe Sewell (26-23-28)
25. Marvin Williams (27-x-x)

26. Alejandro Oms (28-31-34)
(26a. Red Faber [28a-57a-57a])
(26b. Wes Ferrell [28b-46a-50a])
27. Rocky Colavito (29-73-x)
28. Bucky Walters (30-53-53)
29. Don Newcombe (31-x-x)
30. Hugh Duffy (32-29-26)
   12. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#2181480)
are we ready to elect Billy Pierce?

Yes. Yes, we are.
   13. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#2181481)
jschmeagol,

I'm going to post something within the next few days presenting the "worst case scenario" for Charlie Keller with minor-league and war credit. The main knock on Keller is that his career is too short, but even a "worst case scenario" puts him around 300 Win Shares.
   14. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:54 AM (#2181521)
IMO, I think the more important debate should be b/w Waddell and Pierce-back to back in the last election, both jumped 4 spots.


And frankly, I think Pierce comes off looking very badly in the comparison. Pierce pitched 3306.7 innings in his career; Waddell pitched 2961.3 innings in his career. I look at the career IP leaders, and I see no dramatic overrepresentation of IP leaders from Waddell's era. Pierce needs to win the "career" argument to beat Waddell, since Waddell's peak is clearly superior (hopefully that's not debatable?). With the usual non-MLB credits, Waddell pitched roughly the same amount of innings, with a ERA+ 15 points higher than Pierce.

Are the leverage arguments for Pierce and the (alleged) UER arguments against Waddell sufficient to make up that kind of difference? Even if they're roughly identical in terms of career value, doesn't Waddells vastly superior peak put him over the top for all but the most career-oriented voter?
   15. Chris Cobb Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:26 AM (#2181562)
I look at the career IP leaders, and I see no dramatic overrepresentation of IP leaders from Waddell's era.

How exactly are you measuring this?
   16. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#2181565)
Waddell's peak is clearly superior (hopefully that's not debatable?).

But I don't think that Waddell has a vastly superior peak.

Top five finishes among P Using WS...

Waddell
-------
1902 33 WS--2nd in AL among P
1903 27 WS--t-3rd in AL among P
1904 32 WS--3rd in AL among P
1905 35 WS--1st in AL among P

Pierce
------
1951 19 WS--t-5th in AL among P
1952 23 WS--t-4th in AL among P
1953 24 WS--2nd in AL among P
1955 23 WS--1st in AL among P
1957 18 WS--t-3rd in AL among P
1958 22 WS--t-1st in AL among P

Not only do I disagree that Waddell's peak isn't better than Pierce's, it looks to me like Pierce scores a pretty definitive win over Waddell in terms of dominating his peers. So maybe you don't trust WS? Take a look at Pierce's performances on the leaderboards on his bb-ref page. It's very impressive, just like Waddell's. Waddell's strikeouts give him a pretty strong black ink edge, but Pierce leads Waddell by a decent bulk of gray ink. Waddell's strikeouts are the difference maker here.

And remember too that this is an era where pitchers coast less, make fewer starts, are relieved much more often, and also bat less and less effectively than their moundsman forefathers (among whom Waddell was a pathetic hitter, granted). Pierce's opportunities to rack up the WS are limited by his era, especially as compared to Waddell's.

By the by, it's interesting to note that at least superficially, Pierce's and Waddell's relief records just about even out. Pierce went 11-5, 20 saves in 73 G and 118.3 relief innings in the years he was used as primarily as a starter. Waddell had 59 games, 198.3 innings, 17-8, 5 saves. I'm not really sure if either of them comes out ahead on that one (Joe D should chime in on that one). I think that Mack probably used Bender when the team was ahead (more appearances, more saves, worse record than Waddell) and Waddell when behind (thus the good vulture record for a good team but few saves). Looks like Plank also got more calls with the team leading: more saves, less spectacular vulture record than Waddell, much closer to Bender's record.

It would be well worth knowing how Waddell's and Pierce's relief records differed not only by leverage but also with regard to the relief-usage patterns of their days (for SP that is).
   17. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:55 AM (#2181577)
So maybe you don't trust WS?

No, I very very very very much don't trust Win Shares for pitchers when comparing between the aughts and the fifties.

I also don't find the "black ink"/"grey ink" discussion very relevant; the point of a pitcher is to prevent runs from scoring, right? Waddell did that better, relative to his league, than Pierce did. At least that's what ERA+ is telling us. That's why I'm curious to hear about UER or defensive support, because that gap in ERA+ is damn big and not-so-easily dismissable.
   18. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#2181599)
Raw UER numbers for Waddell are misleading because pitchers of his era generally allowed more UER since fielders were morelikely to make errors with the bumpy fields, small gloves, etc. However, it is still slightly high for his era, just not an outlier. Addie Joss had the same % of UER IIRC and this hasn't been an issue with him (though he is nowhere near election I will admit).

Doc,

Shouldn't we take competition into consideration when comparing the league leaders for Waddell and Pierce? While I may be msitaken the 1900's AL had more top level pitchers than the 1950's AL. Plank/Walsh/Young/etc v. Wynn/Ford/etc. I think that Rube Waddell's peak is definitely better than Pierce's.

The Biggest problem I have with Pierce was his lack of IP per season, even with the relieving. We had this problem with Ford but there doesn't seem to be evidence that Pierce was saved for the top teams in the way that Ford was. Was his relieving that valuable to overcome relatively small in-season IP numbers? I know that Joe's numbers like him but I always thought that Joe's numbers valued relievers a little too highly (I mentioned this on the PA pitchers thread that he made and it wasn't answered).
   19. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:29 AM (#2181605)
I look at the career IP leaders, and I see no dramatic overrepresentation of IP leaders from Waddell's era.

How exactly are you measuring this?


A fair criticism, so I went back and did it somewhat quantitatively.

I looked at each pitcher in the top 100 IP, and looked up their first year as a "regular starter". This was sort of an arbitrary distinction, but its necessary, since lots of pre-war pitchers spent several years on the early side of their career in the pen or bouncing back-and-forth out of the Bigs.

Now, how many of the pitchers fall into each decade?
1870s: 5
1880s: 9
1890s: 10
1900s: 6
1910s: 10
1920s: 10
1930s: 5
1940s: 4
1950s: 5
1960s: 18
1970s: 10
1980s: 7
1990s: 1 (so far)


Note that Pierce's first season as a starter was either 1949 or 1950 ( I counted it as 1950 for this exercise; if you choose 1949, then the 40's have 5 guys on the list and the 50's have 4 guys)

Waddell's first season as a starter was either 1900 or 1901.
   20. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:07 AM (#2181617)
Are the leverage arguments for Pierce and the (alleged) UER arguments against Waddell sufficient to make up that kind of difference?

Two things:

1) This is basically just a word usage pet peeve more than anything substantial but .. . the UER arguements against Waddell aren't alleged. They've been made. One can disagree with or think they're overstated, but they do exist and have been made (most recently in the Mickey Lolich thread, of all places).

2) Re: Pierce's leveraging as a starting pitchers. I just got finished looked at how starting pitchers have been leveraged throughout baseball history. I figure their average opponent winning percentage (GS vs. a team times that team's winning percentage, added up for all teams faced off against in a season, divided by total GS), and their team's average opponent winning percentage (figured out the same way using retrosheet's vs. team splits on a team's main page). Divide A into B, multiply by 100. I've done this for 659 pitchers. Note: all done using GS, never IP. Also, this only looks at starting, and has nothing to do with how a person is leveraged in relief.

The best leveraged starting pitchers in baseball history, ignoring guys who pitched in the 1875 NA, 1884 AA, and 1884 UA (all leagues with wildly screwed up numbers caused by teams collapsing in midseason and overall league overexpansion) HoM candidates in bold(minimum: 150 GS):

1. Ken Heintzelman 105.94
2. Mordecai Brown 104.45
3. Rube Walberg 104.42
4. Fritz Ostermueller 104.05
5. Johnny Klippstein 103.95
6. Clarence Mitchell 103.76
7. Don Mossi 103.72
8. Hal Lanier 103.66
9. Billy Hoeft 103.63
10. Johnny Schmnitz 103.49
11. Thornton Lee 103.35
12. Lloyd Brown 103.04
13. Ray Collins 102.92
14. Carl Hubbell 102.90
15. Billy Pierce 102.89
16. Lefty Gomez 102.86

17. Johnny Niggeling 102.86
18. Preacher Roe 102.70
19. Gerry Staley 102.66
20. Walt Masterson 102.57
21. Mickey McDermott 102.56
22. Sad Sam Jones 102.45
23. Jack Chesbro 102.41

24. Cy Blanton 102.40
25. Christy Mathewson 102.33

Two main types of pitchers here: 1) aces, and 2) lefties. Platoon starting was one of the most common ways to leverage starters. It was especially common in the NL from the 1930s to 1950s for whatever reason. Heintzelman, for instance, had over 25% of his career starts against the Redbirds. And yes, I did write down his number correctly - he's more than a full point over second place. Just missing (with 148 GS) is Reb Russell, who would be second)
How impressive are these numbers? Well, Mordecai had 19% more starts against .500 or better teams and 27% against teams .600 or better than if he'd been used evenly against all comers. That comes out to 4.45% better career average opponent winning percentage.

WRT to Pierce - he's one of the best leveraged starting pitchers of all time. The best leveraged serious candidate out there. Others:

Bucky Walters 102.00
Urban Shocker 101.98
Hippo Vaughn 101.47
Dolf Luque 101.43
Rube Waddell 101.42
Burleigh Grimes 101.37
Catfish Hunter 101.20 (best of any major pitcher in last 40 years)
Waite Hoyt 101.04
Lon Warneke 100.93
Deacon Phillippe 100.92
Addie Joss 100.72
Smokey Joe Wood 100.72
Babe Adams 100.42
George Uhle 100.39
Jack Quinn 100.38
Allie Reynolds 100.33
Rube Marquard 100.03
Sam McDowell 99.92
Vic Willis 99.87
Mickey Lolich 99.84
Dizzy Trout 99.82
Jesse Tannehill 99.81
Mel harder 99.67
Virgil Trucks 99.61
Eddie Cicottee 99.58
Fred Fitzsimons 99.57
Carl Mays 99.51
Mickey Welch 99.50
Sam Leever 99.50
Chief Bender 98.87
Tommy Bridges 98.68
Eddie Rommell 98.63
Jesse Haines 97.59
Johnny Allen 96.90
Paul Minner 95.04

This shold all get written up as a Primate Studies article next year. I also plan to have it as a proposed SABR preseentation which hopefully will be accepted.

Submitted for your thought:
Lefty Grove 101.43
Wes Ferrell 99.16
   21. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:13 AM (#2181622)
In terms of value to their respective teams, what does the difference between Pierce and Waddell represent?
   22. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 08:06 AM (#2181730)
>The main knock on Keller is that his career is too short, but even a "worst case scenario" puts him around 300 Win Shares.

That's obviously not the worst case scenario. Worst case is no or little WWII credit and I think there are some voters who don't give it. And I would guess that most don't give MiL credit, probably not to anybody.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 08:18 AM (#2181733)
Two comments above deserve some emphasis given that Rube Waddell has moved into contention (I'm a FORW).

1. As Dag says, the UER argument against Waddell "has been made," "it's not alleged." Whatever that means. What's been alleged is that Rube is less the pitcher than meets the eye. I'd call that an allegation in the sense of being a hypothesis.

2. As j says, the correct answer to the allegation or hypothesis is his UER numbers look massive when compared to Pierce, say, or any modern pitcher. But for his day they are in the high normal range. It seems that Rube's era is used against him on certain dimensions--e.g. he didn't throw as many innings as X--but then he's taken out of context on other things--i.e. he gave up more UER than Y. Take both in context of his time, or both in an all-time context, but taking the one one way the other the other is high bias.

I'm more of a WS and ERA+ guy, though I have studied Joe's Pennants Added for pitchers--and Waddell does reasonably well among the serious candidates though he's not dominant. I still see Waddell as the best available pitcher. Joss and Waddell are #1-2 on ERA+. You may not emphasize that as much as I do, but still it is a pretty good accomplishment.
   24. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 10:18 AM (#2181743)
1986 Prelim Ballot (as I work out the kinks of my new rating system)

1. Willie McCovey
2. Charlie Keller
3. Minnie Minoso
4. Phil Rizzuto
5. Bucky Walters

6. Nellie Fox
7. Alejandro Oms
8. Quincy Trouppe
9. Lou Brock
10. Jimmy Wynn

11. Gavy Cravath
12. Rube Waddell
13. Dick Redding
14. Don Newcombe
15. Vern Stephens

Next 15
16. George Scales
17. Bob Elliott
18. Orlando Cepeda
19. Frank Howard
20. Bob Johnson

21. Billy Pierce
22. Vic Willis (bye-bye "elect-me" position)
23. Burleigh Grimes
24. Elston Howard
25. Ken Boyer

26. Bus Clarkson
27. Ralph Kiner
28. Wally Berger
29. Hugh Duffy
30. Pie Traynor
   25. Max Parkinson Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:26 AM (#2181754)
Jamey,

Not to nitpick, but when you say that "worst case" for Keller is 300 WS, you realise that there are a number of 300 WS outfielders who don't get a sniff from us, right?

Pinson
Hooper
Brock
etc.

It just seems like you said that to make the point that Keller's worst case is well above some "in/out" line. 300 WS for an outfielder isn't the badge of honour that it seems. And this is coming from someone who has voted for Keller before (I think that he was 16th or 17th last year, so he'll be on my ballot in 86).
   26. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:33 AM (#2181758)
300 WS for an outfielder isn't the badge of honour that it seems.

300 WS is not a "Get Into the HoM" card for infielders, either (Ex: Maranville, Fox)
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:41 AM (#2181759)
The main knock on Keller is that his career is too short, but even a "worst case scenario" puts him around 300 Win Shares.

He has 218 WS. How could he have around 300 with MLE credit? Maybe around 275 if you assume he would be as good as his best season for the time that he missed (I don't, BTW), but that's not that impressive career-wise.
   28. rawagman Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:08 PM (#2181766)
15. Billy Pierce 102.89
16. Lefty Gomez 102.86


Something to promote my man, Lefty?
   29. TomH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:24 PM (#2181775)
Freehan/Munson:

First, I agree Freehan was a little better. Longer career, slightly better D, about as good a bat.

I DO have concern about using Win Shares as we get to guys like Thurman who spent more than half of their career in the DH league. Some adjsutment needed. I note that Freehan does better on both career win shares AND win shares per plate appearance (25.1 to 22.6 per full year of 648 PAs). But some of this is the DH problem, and anyone using WS in their analysis needs to consider correcting for this issue.

---

The HoM voting process is designed to bring us into this swamp in the later years; a glob of impossible-to-distinguish goo.

Pretend you had a room of 50 adults, and had to line them up by height. You pick out the 5 tallest and send them home.
Then 10 more random adults come in and you do it again. And again. Pretty soon you have 200 people who are all 5 feet, 7.2 inches. You may ntoice along the way that someone slumped a bit, someone else had a puffy hairdo that you didn't account for, and another woman's pumps were a bit higher than you first thought, but it becomes REALLY hard to separate them. A quarter-inch difference slides someone down 20 spots.

Well, here we are. I'm not complaining. It's a load of fun, but I'm at the point where I can no longer coherently argue that XX is 30 places better than YY, because the difference in 30 ballot places is measurable only with a micrometer. Happy days to us.

McCovey is #1 this week. I'd like to say I'm comfy with Pierce at #2 and Munson just off the bottom of the ballot. But I'm not. So, like the 04 Pres election, I vote for what I HOPE is the right answer.....
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#2181778)
Bucky Walters 102.00

Walters is not far behind Pierce or Gomez, but I don't remember any leverage arguments for him as he lingers at the 20th spot.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM (#2181779)
John, I think I get 302 for Keller with WWII credit and one year of MiL credit. Like you said, not a free pass but not 218 either. OTOH as I said above, the "worst case" is indeed 218.
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:27 PM (#2181781)
John, I think I get 302 for Keller with WWII credit and one year of MiL credit.

He's getting MiL credit? I didn't realize that.
   33. Howie Menckel Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM (#2181790)
HOM Ps, by year, through 1985 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G, or MLE equivalent, and mainly this position to be listed:

WADDELL YEARS
1899-00 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1901 (6) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson
1902 (6) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904-05 (7) - Young Nichols McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906-07 (7) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (9) - Young McGinnity Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez
1909 (8) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez
1910 (9) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Williams Mendez

PIERCE YEARS
1949-50 (6) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts
1951 (5) - Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts
1952 (8) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Wilhelm
1953 (7) - Paige Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford
1954-56 (6) - Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford
1957 (6) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning
1958-60 (8) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax
1961 (8) - Spahn Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1962 (10) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1963 (9) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
   34. Max Parkinson Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:58 PM (#2181796)
I'm really looking forward to the Waddell/Pierce debate, although at this point I think it's really only going to determine who gets in this year and who waits 'til '87.

The debate that I am really looking forward to is:

Of the hitters, why is Minoso better than Kiner/Keller/Duffy/Beckley?
Of the LFs, is he really better than Kiner/Keller/Burns/Veach/Bob Johnson?

I'll try and add something to the conversation a little later this week.
   35. Max Parkinson Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM (#2181798)
And I forget my two highest rated hitters!

Pete Browning and Charley Jones.
   36. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:38 PM (#2181820)
I hate going up against Chris C because he's smarter and more evenly reasoned than I am, but I'll fight the good fight for my pal Billy.

I think that Rube Waddell's peak is definitely better than Pierce's.

I think everyone (self included) is probably overreaching with "definitely" and "superior" and words like that. I think the truth is much closer to something like: they're peaks are very similar and a reasonable argument can be made for either as better.

The Biggest problem I have with Pierce was his lack of IP per season, even with the relieving.

I kind of wonder if this is related in some fashion to the question of starting pitcher leverage broached by Dag Jaffe. Is this an artifact of Richards or Lopez holding him back a turn or two at a time to face more difficult opposition? Or to face more lefty opposition? Or both? Consider that as an ace-level pitcher AND a lefty, Pierce would naturally be likely held back to face the Yanks more often (esp on the road) and the Tigers in Tiger Stadium (i.e. not hurt as much by the short porch). Doubly true since the Chisox were a strong team throughout the decade and essentially played a four-team championship sked with CLE, NY, and DET while PHI, WAS, STL/BAL moiled near the cellar and BOS had occasional moments of OKness. Utlimately being held back for two or three other teams really should have some impact on his innings in the same way that it did for Whitey Ford who was LESS leveraged than Pierce per the Nabbit's list!

We had this problem with Ford but there doesn't seem to be evidence that Pierce was saved for the top teams in the way that Ford was.

See Jaf's list. Evidence, which you didn't have at the time of your post, of course, suggests strongly otherwise.

And what about the question of the weak/strong league? Well, maybe. Like I said, their peaks are easily seen as very comparable. Waddell in the top five four times, Pierce six times. In a league with one or two more top-flight starters than his own, Pierce isn't suddenly turning into Ed Fitzmorris. He's still his effective self, he's still an ace starter in the league. Common sense suggests that it maybe knocks him out of the top five once or twice, but he's still very likely at least as dominant over the league as Waddell. Pierce is not finishing t-5th in the league every year. He did that once, fourth once, third once, second once, first twice. He's not some trailer, he's the cream. Him and Lemon and Ford and Parnell and Wynn with occasional shout-outs to Garcia and Lary. You want to add Cy Young to his league to win the, uh, Cy Young Award each year? OK. So now he's got five top five finishes. Add two Cys, and he's got four. It doesn't really make any substantial case toward Pierce being less impressive than Waddell. Though it could be used to suggest that their dominance is roughly comparable.
   37. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:51 PM (#2181897)
Howie,

Were you replying to my post about the 1900's AL havingmore great starters than the 1950's AL? I don't know if you were but if so we woudl need to eliminate any NL and NeL pitchers from that list while also taking Wilhelm out of consideration since he wasn't a starter. I guess this leaves Plank/Young/Walsh/early Johnson (where did Nichols play during this time?) vs. Ford/Wynn/Lemon/later career Feller/very late career Paige. Add in Addie Joss, who had a pretty nice peak at aboutthe same time as Waddell (I don't think there are any 1950's AL pitchers in our backlong ) and I woudl take Waddell's contemporaries over Pierce's. However, it is a little closer than I thought.

John,

Yes, Keller does deserve a year of MiL credit. It turns out he had two very valuable years in the minors stuck behind Selkirk and Heinrich (I believe). In an earlier thread, Jamey MLE'ed them out to be worth 30 and 28 WS a piece. Now the first one I guess could be counted but wiping that away as the 'hey, look at me!' year, that still leaves a very valuable MiL season that Keller deserves credit for. So with 2.6-2.75 years of WWII credit and 1 year of MiL credit I don't think it would be unreasonable to add 82 WS to Keller's total (something like 22-23 WS a year when he averaged much more than that before and after the war).

Max,

While 300 WS may not make Keller HOMable in and of itself, those with 300 WS that he aren't electing do not have the peak that Keller had. The major argument against Keller is that he didn't have enough career value, I woudl think that 300 career WS should not be an impediment to making the HOM. The argument against guys like Pinson is that they don't really have enough of a peak/prime to make it.
   38. Guapo Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:59 PM (#2181905)
It may have already been done, but I'd like to see someone do a Rube Waddell/Vic Willis comp, since their careers match up so nicely.
   39. Chris Cobb Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#2181911)
Dr. Chaleeko wrote:

I hate going up against Chris C because he's smarter and more evenly reasoned than I am, but I'll fight the good fight for my pal Billy.

I appreciate the compliment, however undeserved it may be, but the post questioning Pierce's credentials is not mine, but jschmeagol's. I rank Pierce above Waddell, though I believe that both are HoM-worthy pitchers. It looks to me like we will elect them both, and rightly.

In ranking them against one another, I see the following as the crucial distinctions.

Pierce's IP are more valuable in context, he ranks slightly higher against his contemporaries (including in that group all ML and NeL pitchers) than does Waddell, and he had more good seasons.

That said, from 1902-06, I believe Waddell was a better pitcher than Pierce was over any five-year stretch in his career. He wasn't quite as durable in context, but his effectiveness was extraordinary. Waddell's peak isn't so much superior to Pierce's, however, as to outweigh all the other factors that favor Pierce.

Thus, I can see how peak voters would take Waddell over Pierce, though I think Pierce's peak is being underrated by those who question his worthiness for election.
   40. DL from MN Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#2181932)
1986 prelim ballot

1) Willie McCovey
2) Bob Johnson
3) Billy Pierce
4) Norm Cash
5) Jake Beckley
6) Tommy Bridges - I'm one of his best friends. Compares well to Pierce and Waddell with a small amount of war credit. War era pitching is underrepresented.
7) Quincy Trouppe - I like how the discussion of Freehan boosted Trouppe rather than hurting Freehan
8) Dutch Leonard
9) Virgil Trucks
10) Orlando Cepeda
11) Minnie Minoso - Minoso over Bob Johnson must be strictly due to era comparisons
12) Ken Boyer
13) Jim Wynn
14) Rube Waddell
15) Dave Bancroft - makes it on ballot

16) Ralph Kiner - just off ballot this year
17) Gavy Cravath
18) Frank Howard
19) Bob Elliott
20) Urban Shocker
21-25) Charlie Keller, Luke Easter, Jack Quinn, Jimmy Ryan, Edd Roush
26-30) Alejandro Oms, Dobie Moore, Dick Redding, Cupid Childs, Hilton Smith

31-35) Boog Powell, Vic Willis, Johnny Evers, George Van Haltren, Bus Clarkson
36-40) Rocky Colavito, Bobo Newsom, Thurman Munson, Chuck Klein, Dizzy Trout
41-45) Ben Taylor, Wally Schang, Tommy Leach, Pete Browning, Roger Bresnahan

59) Hugh Duffy
92) Nellie Fox - people say Jake Beckley had no peak
John Hiller - out of top 100 but in top 150
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2181942)
Huh. Somehow I missaw who I was about the argue with. Sorry, gentlemen for the confusion. I'm frankly unsure how I even came to the conclusion that one was the other, nor why I didn't recognize the difference in writing styles (which is noticable among many, many of us actually).

Anyhoo, sorry about that!
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#2181944)
>we woudl need to eliminate any NL and NeL pitchers from that list while also taking Wilhelm out of consideration since he wasn't a starter.

I'm a Waddell fan, but why would you leave all those guys out? They're in the pool with Rube and Billy, and with Wilhelm we're just talking about the pool be distributed into roles that didn't exist back in the day....

Still the notion that we have elected LOTS of pitchers from Waddell's era has been put "definitely" to bed ;-)
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:04 PM (#2181946)
>That said, from 1902-06, I believe Waddell was a better pitcher than Pierce was over any five-year stretch in his career. He wasn't quite as durable in context, but his effectiveness was extraordinary.

Taken out of context, of course ;-)

But the truth.
   44. Ardo Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#2181961)
It's odd to submit a ballot w/o Mendez or Sewell. That said, 1986 Prelim:

1) "Stretch"
2) Pierce
3) Schang
4) Ch. Jones
5) Cash
6) Boyer
7) Fox
8) Trouppe
9) Minoso
10) Redding
11) Roush
12) Maranville
13) Wynn
14) Beckley
15) Munson

16-20: Cepeda, Waddell, Browning, Kiner, E. Howard.
   45. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:26 PM (#2181962)
Sunny,

I was responding to a chart that Doc had showing Pierce rankings within his own league vs. Waddell's ranking within his own league. If a chart like that would be used I guess we should look at only those players in each pitchers own league. That was my point.
   46. Juan V Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:31 PM (#2181970)
Freehan got elected, and I found a mistake on my Miñoso ratings that bumps him up quite a bit. High consensus scores, here I go!

Prelim ballot to come later.
   47. DanG Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#2181971)
One of the reasons that I take Pierce over Waddell is his ranking among his peers. By my count, HoMers in Waddell's era outnumber those in Pierce's era 9 to 7:

HoMers with 1400+ IP, 1899-1908
McGinnity
Young
Mathewson
Plank
Griffith
Brown
Nichols
Walsh
also Foster

HoMers with 1200+ IP, 1949-1958
Roberts
Spahn
Wynn
Lemon
Ford
Feller
also Wilhelm
   48. Al Peterson Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2181972)
jschmeagol you mentioned,

Yes, Keller does deserve a year of MiL credit. It turns out he had two very valuable years in the minors stuck behind Selkirk and Heinrich (I believe). In an earlier thread, Jamey MLE'ed them out to be worth 30 and 28 WS a piece. Now the first one I guess could be counted but wiping that away as the 'hey, look at me!' year, that still leaves a very valuable MiL season that Keller deserves credit for. So with 2.6-2.75 years of WWII credit and 1 year of MiL credit I don't think it would be unreasonable to add 82 WS to Keller's total (something like 22-23 WS a year when he averaged much more than that before and after the war).

You're go to want to wipe a year off that WWII credit for Keller. He was gone for 1944 and good chunk of 1945 but was playing in 1943.
   49. Chris Cobb Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#2182001)
Brief notes:

Ch. Jones

Does Charley have any chance of being elected before we have to go to "Cha." to distinguish him from "Chi." Jones?

One of the reasons that I take Pierce over Waddell is his ranking among his peers. By my count, HoMers in Waddell's era outnumber those in Pierce's era 9 to 7:

True, and so do I, but this reasoning does assume that we were right in our choices on HoM pitchers from each era. If Waddell is better than McGinnity and Brown (my view) or McGinnity and Griffith (Joe's view), do we hold it against Waddell? And we may change our minds about Don Newcombe later . . .


On Keller's credit: I am guessing that to get him from 218 to 302 he needs 1 yr. MiL credit at 30 WS, 1.75 yrs. war credit at 54 WS. These amounts are not unreasonable if you accept the MLEs that have been calculated and give full war credit. Keller was consistently above 30 WS a year for the surrounding seasons.
   50. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2182022)
If you want to build in the injury stuff as noted in the WW2 thread, then Keller's WW2 years could be discounted to a total of 46 WS at 15% injury discount or 43 at the more conservative 20% discount. This would leave him at

218 + 30 (MiL) + 46 (war) = 294
or
218 + 30 (MiL) + 43 (war) = 291

Which is essentially the same difference I guess, but worth noting I suppose.

Adding in the injury stuff may be appropriate to Keller's case since he did suffer the chronic back issues. Whether he acquired those issues in the service might color ones outlook, however.
   51. OCF Posted: September 19, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2182101)
One of my context-scaled RCAA charts, for Keller and for Frank Chance. In both cases I included a number of partial seasons but excluded the complete trivialities (Chance's last two seasons, Keller's last one season.)

Chance  78 66 66 52 41 29 27 24 23 12  8  7  4  2
Keller  75 68 65 54 48 47 22 20  7  6  3  1 


I'll be honest - the differences there are not striking, and nowhere near as large as the difference in voting patterns, with Keller receiving some first place votes and Chance on the far outer fringes of candidacy.

The rap against both of them is that they didn't play very many games. Somewhat inconveniently for the explanation of why Keller receives more support, Chance actually played about 120 more games. And this is an offense-only chart. Chance probably had somewhat more defensive value.

Yes, there are reasons why each one didn't play more games. In each case, one explanation is injury - the cumulative effect of beanings for Chance, back trouble for Keller. And each has a second reason.

The second reason for Keller is much discussed: WWII. Keller was out of the lineup for about one and two thirds seasons, in 1944 and 1945. He did have one more high-quality year, in 1946, before the injury ate away the rest of his career. In the listing above 1943 is listed as "54" and 1945 as "22" - both presumably against somewhat depleted competition. There's also been discussion of minor league credit - a tricky argument, as he was part of the Yankee system, not the free or semi-free minors. (In other words, if he has a minor league argument, then so do Wade Boggs and Edgar Martinez.)

The second reason for Chance is more subtle - the possibility that he might have left himself out of the playing lineup in order to concentrate on his managerial duties.

Looking again at Keller's record, how much time did he miss for WWII? I could see filling in 250 games and 1000 PA. That would bring his career totals to 1420 G, 5600 PA. Chance had 1287 G, 5100 PA. And a significant amount of that 500 PA difference is that Keller played in higher scoring times (hence more PA per game) than Chance.
   52. Chris Cobb Posted: September 19, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2182144)
OCF’s chart shows me why I should take another look at Frank Chance, but this modification of the chart, in which I have inserted what I view as reasonable war credit for Keller, shows why I don’t see Chance as truly comparable to Keller

Chance  78 66 66 52 41 29 27 24 23 12  8  7  4  2
Keller  75 68 65 60 60 52 48 47 20  7  6  3  1 


In making this modified view, I converted Keller’s 22 RCAA for 1/3 of a season in 1945 to 60 for a full season with a 10% discount, added a 60 RCAA season for 1944, and reduced 1943 from 54 to 52. In this view, the two have very similar offensive peaks over 4 seasons, but over their primes, Keller is significantly ahead. Even if one handled war credit more conservatively, Keller would still have a stronger offensive prime.
   53. TomH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2182147)
Allow me to mention again (but hey, the first itme in over a month of two...) that Chance would have broken into fulltime play much sooner in most other universes than the one he inhabited.

1898 ? backup catcher for Cubs (Orphans). Completely outplays the starter, but hey, he?s a 20 yr old rookie, whaddaya want.
1899 - Ditto. Can?t get PA, even though he hits well and the starting catcher is poor.
1900 - Ditto again. OBP more than 100 pts above the starting catcher. Plus contraction has caused MLB jobs to shrink
1901 moved to OF, plays almost half-time, despite a .376 OBP, and the rest of the team?s OBP is under .300.
1902 splits time at1B/C. Completely outplays others in those positions.
1903 FINALLY gets a full time job at 1B. Finishes 3rd in league in OBP. Team makes a great leap forward to 82-56 record, mostly gains in offense. Quite a coincidence I'm sure
   54. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#2182161)
Sorry Al, I meant 1.6 -1.75 for the war, that is how I have it in my spreadsheet. I should really do less posting from memory. Still, it doesn't effect my rating of him.

As for OCF's chart, what it doesn't take into effect is value up until average. Keller generally had more in season durability in his prime years than Chance did (a lot of Keller's durabiliy concerns are later in his career in years that don't help his candidacy much anyway). Also, I think the two had roughly equal defensive value, Chance may have been a very god 1B but Keller was no slouch in LF. Kiner or Browning (two players critizized for their defensive play in previous threads) he was not.

I think that WS beras this out pretty well, with war and MiL credit I get:

Seasons over 15 WS
Keller 36,34,33,32,31,30,28,25,23
Chance 37,32,30,26,24,21,15,15

Three year peak is pretty equal but after that Keller really takes the lead. As for WARP I don't have have WARP1 in my spreadsheet (I generally use WARP3 and compare that only between eras as I like their league adjustments but not their timeline adjustments) so that is not readily available for me. OPS+ would have the same problems of playing time that I mentioned earlier.

If you like only value above average then Chance looks much better, but even as a peak voter I like players who play full seasons.

I would also like to say that many baseball players were not just lounging around doing nothing during their time in the military. Most were actually playing baseball and some were even in combat. I do not know which Keller was doing (most likely playing baseball) but whatever he was doing it wouldn't be less stressful on a back then playing baseball was. This is what I don't buy many of the injury arguemnts. PLayers played baseball during their military time and even if they weren't playing 154 games one woudl think that any career ending injuries that we are placing on these guys during this time would have happened while they were playing baseball or while they were seeing combat.

Also,

As for our pitching debate I am not so sure that Waddell v. Pierce is really the one we should be having as both are very likely to get in if we dont' compare them to others. Instead it should be Waddell/Pierce v. Walters/Redding/Dean/Willis/Shocker/etc. That would tell us if we are making a mistake with these two pitchers or not. I for one, have Bucky Walters as my top MLB pitcher and Dick Redding as my top pitcher. I think both have extraordinary peaks, better than those of either Pierce or Waddell.

And,

We haven't had much discussion on Minoso, who will be recieving extra points this year from Juan V. (putting him even coser to induction for 86/87), so I would like to know why Minoso and not Burns/Veach/Johnson/Howard let alone Keller/Kiner/Browning or even Oms/Duffy/GVH. Of the players listed there only Veach and Johnson rank below Minoso for me.
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#2182190)
js---

I'm a Walters guy all the way. Those three big years are really, really big, and I tend to value peak pitching performance over peak offensive performance (relative to the pitchers and hitters that is). Redding, well, none for me thanks. Willis I've supported somewhat recently, and Shocker never. Dean's a fringe guy for me but on the board. I like all but Redding better than Waddell personally.

As for Minoso, I'm not convinced. He's real good, but he's only a bit better than Lou Brock by packing roughly the same value into a shorter period. But not enough value that his peak stands out at all. He's the Dwight Evans of his time, I suppose, and Dewey's not quite HOM caliber I don't think. Minoso and Kiner are just shy of ballot worthy for me. IN the 20s and 30s along with Dean. Burns is right there with them and with Brock. Duffy, Roush, Ryan, Browning all much more attractive candidates for me.
   56. jimd Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#2182242)
Also, I think the two had roughly equal defensive value, Chance may have been a very god 1B but Keller was no slouch in LF.

I think WARP-1 agrees with that. Chance is 104 at 1B, Keller 102 in LF. Chance leads in FRAR by 205 to 142 (.17 FRAR/G to .14); this gives Chance some extra credit for playing Catcher, though not particularly well. Both had 19 career FRAA (Chance played about 20% more games), but measuring relative to position average penalizes Chance for being a sub-par defensive Catcher.

Interpret as you will.
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2182246)
I agree on Minoso. Maybe it is just that I tend to underrate guys that don't stand out in any particular way (i.e. Sewell). Minoso does have a pretty long prime but it isn't as long as those of Kaline or Slaughter, his peak isn't in Kiner/Keller territory and he doens't have an enormous amount of career value either. I mentioned in an earlier thread that he wasn't too dissimilar from Rocky Colavito. Now that was a bit of hyperbole I will admit, but at the same time he does have a very similar peak. I see Minoso as Colavito with a few more prime seasons, definitely a better player but does that make one a HOMer? I, for one, don't think so.

below is a number of corner guys that I see as similar in WS (seasons over 20)

Minoso - 33,30,30,27,27,26,26,25,22,22*,20
Burns - 36,33,32,26,26,25,24,23,23,21,20
Veach - 37,32,30,28,26,23,23,23(19)
Johnson- 30,29^,27,24,23,22,22,20,20,20 (19,18)^
* - MLE year (what are our most updated MLE's for Minoso?)
^ - Year already discounted by 10% because of WWII

Looking at those four Johnson looks worst in terms of peak and prime. However, one could argue that since his teams were sooo bad that he deserves a 1-2 extra WS each year, which gets him close. Veach doesn't have the long prime of Burns and Minoso (Burns and Veach win 3 year prime)) but Veach is also a WARP stud and his case has always rested more on WARP than WS.

But what is the big difference between Minoso and Burns? Burns wins years 1-3, Minoso wins years 4-8, Burns year 9, Minoso year 10 and they tie in year 11. Burns has one more WS over this period and the better 3 and 5 year peaks. Now, I realize that Minoso has more career, but that extra career value comes in the form of a few more substandard years. Is that enough to place him ahead of Minoso?

Minoso does do better than Burns in OPS+, BUT Burns was a leadoff hitter whose OPS+ is a little more OBP heavy and from what I gather he was a better fielder as well. I think that levels out the OPS+ difference somewhat. And even if Minoso is the best of this group is that enough to make him qualified for the HOM?

One more player...

Arlett - 36,32,29,27,26,25,24,24,22

Remember him? These are Gadfly's MLE's (I think) including pitching, so take them for what they are worth but he isn't all that far behind this group either.
   58. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2182247)
I agree on Minoso. Maybe it is just that I tend to underrate guys that don't stand out in any particular way (i.e. Sewell). Minoso does have a pretty long prime but it isn't as long as those of Kaline or Slaughter, his peak isn't in Kiner/Keller territory and he doens't have an enormous amount of career value either. I mentioned in an earlier thread that he wasn't too dissimilar from Rocky Colavito. Now that was a bit of hyperbole I will admit, but at the same time he does have a very similar peak. I see Minoso as Colavito with a few more prime seasons, definitely a better player but does that make one a HOMer? I, for one, don't think so.

below is a number of corner guys that I see as similar in WS (seasons over 20)

Minoso - 33,30,30,27,27,26,26,25,22,22*,20
Burns - 36,33,32,26,26,25,24,23,23,21,20
Veach - 37,32,30,28,26,23,23,23(19)
Johnson- 30,29^,27,24,23,22,22,20,20,20 (19,18)^
* - MLE year (what are our most updated MLE's for Minoso?)
^ - Year already discounted by 10% because of WWII

Looking at those four Johnson looks worst in terms of peak and prime. However, one could argue that since his teams were sooo bad that he deserves a 1-2 extra WS each year, which gets him close. Veach doesn't have the long prime of Burns and Minoso (Burns and Veach win 3 year prime)) but Veach is also a WARP stud and his case has always rested more on WARP than WS.

But what is the big difference between Minoso and Burns? Burns wins years 1-3, Minoso wins years 4-8, Burns year 9, Minoso year 10 and they tie in year 11. Burns has one more WS over this period and the better 3 and 5 year peaks. Now, I realize that Minoso has more career, but that extra career value comes in the form of a few more substandard years. Is that enough to place him ahead of Minoso?

Minoso does do better than Burns in OPS+, BUT Burns was a leadoff hitter whose OPS+ is a little more OBP heavy and from what I gather he was a better fielder as well. I think that levels out the OPS+ difference somewhat. And even if Minoso is the best of this group is that enough to make him qualified for the HOM?

One more player...

Arlett - 36,32,29,27,26,25,24,24,22

Remember him? These are Gadfly's MLE's (I think) including pitching, so take them for what they are worth but he isn't all that far behind this group either.
   59. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#2182249)
I agree on Minoso. Maybe it is just that I tend to underrate guys that don't stand out in any particular way (i.e. Sewell). Minoso does have a pretty long prime but it isn't as long as those of Kaline or Slaughter, his peak isn't in Kiner/Keller territory and he doens't have an enormous amount of career value either. I mentioned in an earlier thread that he wasn't too dissimilar from Rocky Colavito. Now that was a bit of hyperbole I will admit, but at the same time he does have a very similar peak. I see Minoso as Colavito with a few more prime seasons, definitely a better player but does that make one a HOMer? I, for one, don't think so.

below is a number of corner guys that I see as similar in WS (seasons over 20)

Minoso - 33,30,30,27,27,26,26,25,22,22*,20
Burns - 36,33,32,26,26,25,24,23,23,21,20
Veach - 37,32,30,28,26,23,23,23(19)
Johnson- 30,29^,27,24,23,22,22,20,20,20 (19,18)^
* - MLE year (what are our most updated MLE's for Minoso?)
^ - Year already discounted by 10% because of WWII

Looking at those four Johnson looks worst in terms of peak and prime. However, one could argue that since his teams were sooo bad that he deserves a 1-2 extra WS each year, which gets him close. Veach doesn't have the long prime of Burns and Minoso (Burns and Veach win 3 year prime)) but Veach is also a WARP stud and his case has always rested more on WARP than WS.

But what is the big difference between Minoso and Burns? Burns wins years 1-3, Minoso wins years 4-8, Burns year 9, Minoso year 10 and they tie in year 11. Burns has one more WS over this period and the better 3 and 5 year peaks. Now, I realize that Minoso has more career, but that extra career value comes in the form of a few more substandard years. Is that enough to place him ahead of Minoso?

Minoso does do better than Burns in OPS+, BUT Burns was a leadoff hitter whose OPS+ is a little more OBP heavy and from what I gather he was a better fielder as well. I think that levels out the OPS+ difference somewhat. And even if Minoso is the best of this group is that enough to make him qualified for the HOM?

One more player...

Arlett - 36,32,29,27,26,25,24,24,22

Remember him? These are Gadfly's MLE's (I think) including pitching, so take them for what they are worth but he isn't all that far behind this group either.
   60. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2182250)
Sorry for the triple post I guess I just wanted to hammer this point home!

Seriously though it said that it couldn't connect so I thought I needed to try again.
   61. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 09:58 PM (#2182251)
jschemagol,

Just to clarify, I'm not Jamey Newberg who reports on the Rangers (though the name is remarkably similar!). Frankly, I wouldn't be caught dead rooting for Texas (I'm an A's fan).
   62. James Newburg is in awe of Cespedes' CORE STRENGTH Posted: September 19, 2006 at 10:11 PM (#2182264)
And seeing that others have started to discuss Keller in depth, let me add a little something:

I strongly agree with the objections that 290-300 career Win Shares isn't particularly impressive for an outfielder whose candidacy rests on career value (in general, I think that 350-380 Win Shares is generally a good "career" candidate for a bat position). However, the fact that Keller has at least six seasons at the MVP level of 30 Win Shares and is (conservatively) near 300 career Win Shares makes him a very formidable candidate who should be on quite a bit more than 18 ballots.
   63. OCF Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#2182305)
On Waddell:

I've been using a system that relies on RA+, which makes the whole question of Waddell's unearned runs moot - they're included. It does raise to an even sharper degree the question of the quality of the defense the pitcher played in front of.

I'll show you three pitchers - two who are currently candidates and one who was elected long ago. The biggest variable unaccounted for is team defense - except in the case of Willis for whom I did attempt to make such an accounting. (He would look significantly better without that. Consider which way you would adjust either Waddell or McGinnity for team defense.) The second biggest variable unaccounted for is the pitcher's own offense. (Again, in a few places I have adjusted for that - e.g, Ferrell and Ruffing - but not for any of these three.) I'll note that McGinnity (career OPS+ 28), Willis (career OPS+ 18), and Waddell (career OPS+ 25) were all fairly bad hitters - Waddell alone among them had a couple of pretty good years. (Throws left, bats right!)

I've sorted these by year-to-year equivalent FWP from best to worst. Again, Willis has been defense-adjusted but neither of the others have been.

Willis   Waddell    McGinnity
 24
-11    26-11      33-12
 24
-14    229      33-16
 26
-19    27-15      27-13
 21
-13    23-13      23-15
 19
-12    18-13      19-16
 19
-14    149      22-20
 18
-14    17-13      20-18
 18
-16    17-15      116
 18
-16    13-12      17-17
 20
-19    14-14      12-10
 17
-21     53      10-11
 11
-12     10  
 12
-14     12

248
-196  200-129    227-155 


Waddell wasn't the unique high-peak career of his own time - he wasn't McGinnity and he wasn't Walsh. Willis has a steadier profile - more career, more of an "innings-eater" with a lot of value for being a little above average. I can understand the appeal of both Waddell and Willis, and I can even understand how one could have Willis ahead of Waddell. I don't happen to have either of them on my ballot, which I suppose you could call timelining. I prefer to think of it as discounting IP because it was possible to throw so many more innings in a season then.
   64. EricC Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#2182307)
An interesting election. One obviously qualified newbie, and several dozen flawed choices that define the in/out borderline. Here goes with the prelim:

1. McCovey
2. Schang
3. Cepeda
4. Cash
5. Keller
6. Fr. Howard
7. Hodges
8. Dutch Leonard '33-'53
9. Sol White
10. Fox
11. Friend
12. Wynn
13. Berger
14. Bresnahan
15. Pierce
   65. Howie Menckel Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#2182308)
Re post 33, no agenda there - just getting some facts out there.

Funny, everybody seems to do agenda posts, so when I offer compilations, I guess it seems like more agenda. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
   66. EricC Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:17 PM (#2182316)
As for Minoso.... Why the uberlove?

Maybe his 1980 "retirement" is fresh on everybody's minds? :-)

Seriously, he's exactly at the point where a corner OF candidate is borderline, which means that there will be a large number of OF with almost the same value, and thus little things can make a big difference. I have him around #20 now, but he'd be a fine HoM choice if he makes it, as would any of the other borderline candidates. Part of me, however, hopes that he sticks around at least one more year, as I'd like to see how he does against Bobby Bonds, who I see as the best comp.
   67. OCF Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:37 PM (#2182343)
From #37:

...1900's AL having more great starters than the 1950's AL?...I guess this leaves Plank/Young/Walsh/early Johnson (where did Nichols play during this time?)

Nichols pitched for Kansas City in the Western League in 1902 and 1903. I believe he had an ownership stake in the KC team, and was presumably their biggest gate attraction. He was attracted back to the NL to be the player-manager of the Cardinals in 1904, and he pitched quite effectively that year. He got fired as manager in 1905, which led to him being put on waivers. He left the NL after 11 ineffective innings in 1906, at the age of 36. Did he go back to the minors or was that it for him? But in any case, Nichols never had anything to do with the AL - his major league career was strictly NL.

One should not overlook the distinct possibility that Nichols made more money in Kansas City than he would have in Boston, especially with an ownership stake.
   68. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 20, 2006 at 12:29 AM (#2182433)
David Z (B williams doubled to catcher) asked me to post my thoughts and data here on the Pierce vs. Waddell question.

Here are my WARP numbers for both pitchers. (straight-line adjusted for season length; no timeline, leverage, or quality of opposition adjustments; I've ignored their 1897 and 1945 cameos).

Waddell

Year PRAR BRAR WARP AdjRA+
1899   16    0  1.5    109
1900   47   -6  4.3    115
1901   40    5  5.3    107
1902   90    9 11.4    154
1903   85   -9 10.0    152
1904   80  -10  9.0    146
1905   70   -4  8.4    145
1906   47   -1  5.9    127
1907   26   -8  2.2    102
1908   38   -4  4.4    117
1909   35   -8  3.6    128
1910   -3   -1 -0.5     71
TOTAL 570  -38 65.5    129

Pierce
Year PRAR BRAR WARP AdjRA+
1948   -2    2  0.0     78
1949   25    2  2.8    104
1950   48    8  5.6    116
1951   58    5  6.7    129
1952   60    3  7.3    140
1953   60   -2  6.3    128
1954   33    2  4.0    117
1955   59    1  6.6    151
1956   69   -1  7.3    132
1957   60    0  7.0    136
1958   30    4  3.9    106
1959   32    4  3.9    107
1960   34    1  3.6    114
1961   37   -2  3.6    121
1962   21    3  2.4    104
1963    7    0  0.8     96
1964    7    1  0.9    110
TOTAL 639   32 73.2    121



The main thing I take away from this is that league-relative hitting is a pretty decisive factor as far as career value is concerned.

Their career EqA's are very similar (.160 for Pierce, .156 for Waddell), but in Waddell's AL the average pitcher had an EqA around .210, vs. maybe .120-130 in Pierce's. Thus I have their careers even on value pitching-wise, but hitting blows it open: Waddell with 38 batting runs below an average pitcher for his league, Pierce 21 above. That takes Waddell down from 70.2 career WARP to 65.3, and Pierce up from 69.8 to 73.2.

In case anyone is interested where these numbers come from, I'll briefly outline my methodology here. I no longer check the Hall of Merit regularly although I was a regular voter in the 20's and 30's, but if anyone is interested in this data for any post-1890 pitcher feel free to email me at cooberp@gmail.com.

I hope this is useful.

Dan

===
(boring methodology)

1. Take the pitcher's real life True Outcome numbers (BFP, K, BB, HR, HBP)
2. Take the pitcher's BABIP allowed relative to his teammates, apply a five-year weighted moving average to this number to smooth out fluctuations, add this "true talent" BABIP adjustment to league BABIP for that year to calculate defense-independent non-HR hits allowed (this is why Waddell's 02/03 and Pierce's 55/56 are so much closer in my system than in WARP or WS; a lot of the difference between those years was due to BABIP fluctuation)
3. Use BaseRuns (with the ScoreRate multiplier customized for that league-season) to turn these numbers into defense and luck-independent runs allowed
4. Take the gap between pitcher's actual runs allowed and what would be predicted by BaseRuns, apply a five-year weighted moving average to this number to smooth out fluctuations, add this "true talent" runner-stranding adjustment to runs allowed (think Lefty Grove and Whitey Ford)
5. Add the league-average RA in a theoretical team's remaining innings to the pitcher's adjusted runs allowed to get theoretical team RA
6. Add the pitcher's batting stats onto an otherwise league-average team to get theoretical team RS
7. Calculate theoretical team wins using Pythagenport formula
8. Calculate a replacement pitcher's runs allowed in the pitcher's innings by ((1.37*LgRA)-.66)*IP
9. Add the league-average RA in a theoretical team's remaining innings to the replacement pitcher's adjusted runs allowed to get theoretical team with replacement pitcher RA
10. Add league pitcher average batting stats in the picher's plate appearances to an otherwise league-average team to get theoretical team with replacement pitcher RS
11. Calculate theoretical team with replacement player wins using Pythagenport formula
12. Subtract.
   69. Jeff M Posted: September 20, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#2182434)
My problem with black ink/grey ink has always centered around the numbers not being park adjusted.

Here are some park adjusted "ink" numbers, for Pierce and Waddell. I didn't strictly follow the Bill James black ink test, because it has some irrelevant things in there...in my opinion.

150 IP was the minimum to qualify. Park factors are those from Baseballreference.com, which I believe uses Pete Palmer's method.

Wins and Win Pct were calculated using Bill James pythag method (park adjusted ERA and league ERA) and Patriot's custom exponent. Then I added a wrinkle. I calculated the park adjusted pythag and the non-park adjusted pythag to see how the park affected the pythag wins. I took the difference and added it to actual wins. So the win figures retain an element of run support, luck, defense, whatever, but they have a park adjustment. I like it. You may not.

Anyway, here are the numbers. Waddell played for 13 years and 10 of them qualified. Pierce played for 18 years and 14 of them qualified:

                  <u>IP     K     ERA    Wins     WinPct    K/9     H/9    Total</u>
Waddell 
  Black Ink        0     6      2      1         1        8       2      20
  Grey Ink         6    10      7      5         5       10       8      51
Pierce
  Black Ink        1     1      2      0         0        2       0       6
  Grey Ink         6     9      7      6         6        9       7      50
   70. OCF Posted: September 20, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#2182538)
106 35.6 1973 JR Richard-P

Wow. I remember this. The first candidate I remember playing. He was having a great year, started the all-star game against Steve Stone (first AS game I remember). The 'dead arm' problems started in mid-June and things progressively got worse from there until the stroke. I was only 9 at the time.

Anyone older have any adult recollections of this?


J.R. Richard alway loomed large in the imagination of Astro fans and baseball fans everywhere. In part that's because he was large - at 6'8", the tallest player I could remember ever having heard of. He was a propect for years and years before he arrived. He had great stuff and was a terrifying presence, throwing downhill at batter. But part of the reason he was so terrifying was that he was wild - go look at his walk numbers. He was Nolan Ryan with the Mets, Sandy Koufax in Brooklyn. He was Nuke LaLoosh. Now the question always asked about a wild power pitcher with great stuff - will he ever develop? Will he ever put it together and gain command? Of course, mostly they don't ever really develop, but the promise will be such that people will keep giving them chances.

He made his debut in the majors - a very splashy one - in 1971 at the age of 21. (Look at that line: 21 innings, 17 hits, 16 walks, 29 strikeouts! Very LaLoosh-ian.) After that he kept getting chances and he kept getting sent down for more seasoning in the minors. He finally cracked the starting rotation at the age of 25 - and his wildness swallowed his effectiveness (138 BB and 20 WP in 203 IP). But he persisted, and became a good starter the next year. For the next several years, he was the best pitcher on a not-very-good staff (as the management also never figured out how to handle Joaquin Andujar) and he was worked like a mule. Anyone throwing as many pitches per batter as someone with as many K's and BB's as Richard, working 260-290 innings a year - folks, that's a lot of pitches. In 1978 (he was 28 at the time) his strikeout rate jumped upwards, giving him over 300 for the season. In 1979 his walk rate dropped. The pieces had come together - after all those years of development, after all that time of everyone talking about his promise and his potential, he was finally one of the best and most feared pitchers in the league. Someone else will have to tease it out from Retrosheet, but I think his 1979 second half was much better than his first half.

In 1980, the Astros, mediocre for a long time, were a very good team, poised to make a run at the division and the postseason. This was the high point of the Cruz/Cedeno/Puhl outfield, and they had added Joe Morgan - 36 years old, but still and awfully good ballplayer. And for the first half of the the season, Richard was their ace, their intimidator, their threat to thow a no-hitter every time out there.

And then something was wrong with him - some unexplained circulation problem, some strange feeling in his arm. He started asking to be taken out of games - he came out of games after 6 innings, 5 innings, a couple of times in the fourth. And the hue and cry started: it was all in his head. He wasn't tough enough. He - J.R. Richard, who had pitched over 1100 innings in four years and thown God knows how many pitches - was all of a sudden a maligerer. It was ugly. It was worse than that - it was racist ugly.

But the circulation problem was very real. It wasn't just season or career-threatening; it was life-threatening. The most intimidating pitcher in the game, felled by a stroke. And although he attempted a comeback, he never pitched in the majors again.

He won't make it as a candidate for use because he didn't really have a peak: he had a peak "season" (approximately from the 1979 All-Star break to the same point in 1980.) And he wasn't young at the time - but Randy Johnson wasn't young when he finally "arrived," either.
   71. OCF Posted: September 20, 2006 at 01:45 AM (#2182573)
That would look better if I could type the last letter of words: "always" instead of "alway," "an" instead of "and," "us" instead of "use" - but you'll figure it out.
   72. rawagman Posted: September 20, 2006 at 08:51 AM (#2182807)
Getting rid of some of backlog presents me with that dilemma of balloting guys who are borderliner's borderliners.
I think McCovey's peak is overstated by happening in an expansion year, but I'll still give the 3-spot on my ballot. Apt for a 1B, eh?
He and Nellie Fox join my PHOM.

1)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
2)Rube Waddell (PHOM)
3)Willie McCovey (PHOM)
4)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
5)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Edd Roush (PHOM)
8)Nellie Fox (PHOM)
9)Ralph Kiner
10)Quincy Trouppe
((10a)Dick Allen))
((10b)Billy Williams))

11)Vern Stephens
((11a)Bill Freehan))
((11b)Biz Mackey))

12)Bobby Veach
13)Tommy Bridges
14)Orlando Cepeda
15)Ken Boyer

<u>Coming soon, to a ballot near you</u>

16)Minnie Minoso
17)Wally Berger
18)Dizzy Dean
((18a)Juan Marichal))
19)Ernie Lombardi
20)Roger Bresnahan
   73. rawagman Posted: September 20, 2006 at 08:55 AM (#2182808)
Actually, that would be a great foundation for an AL team.
C-Trouppe
1B - McCovey/Taylor
2B - Fox
SS - Stephens
3B - Boyer
RF - Cravath
CF - Duffy (he'll need his range now)
LF - Veach/Kiner
DH - McCovey/Kiner/Cravath

SP - Waddell
SP - Gomez
SP - Bridges
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2006 at 11:35 AM (#2182817)
>10)Quincy Trouppe
((10a)Dick Allen))
((10b)Billy Williams))
11)Vern Stephens
((11a)Bill Freehan))
((11b)Biz Mackey))
12)Bobby Veach
13)Tommy Bridges
14)Orlando Cepeda
15)Ken Boyer

Coming soon, to a ballot near you

16)Minnie Minoso
17)Wally Berger
18)Dizzy Dean
((18a)Juan Marichal))

Wow, you should be on the new veteran's committee! ;-)
   75. Howie Menckel Posted: September 20, 2006 at 11:45 AM (#2182819)
To this day, the J.R. Richard saga is still mentioned in Sports newsrooms whenever someone gets too tempted to call an athlete a 'malingerer.'
He's the textbook case of 'you never know.'
   76. rawagman Posted: September 20, 2006 at 11:48 AM (#2182821)
Wow, you should be on the new veteran's committee! ;-)

Don't forget
5)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
!
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: September 20, 2006 at 12:32 PM (#2182837)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1985

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

(C and 3B continue to inch closer to catching 2B)

C (11.01) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, 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 (10.44) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (16.30) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 74, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Sewell 65, 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 (44.64) - 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, Mendez 90, 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, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   78. TomH Posted: September 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM (#2182838)
Waddell and Pierce vs. their peers
I'll use RSAA and IP, not because they are the best measures, but they are easiest to access and rank on my computer :)

Waddell was 6th in IP during his 11 yrs, and 15th in MLB over a longer period.
Pierce was 4th in IP during his 13 yrs, and 5th in MLB over a longer period.

Waddell was 3rd in RSAA during his 11 yrs, and 6th in MLB over a longer period.
Pierce was 2nd in RSAA during his 13 yrs, and tied for 4th in MLB over a longer period.

These figures tell us that Pierce stood out more relative to his peers. Of course, you need to adjust RSAA for other thigns like team defense, pitcher hitting, unearned runs, leverage, allowing in dark-skinned players, etc. Most of which go toward Billy's advantage.

Waddell's prime, 1899-1909
INNINGS PITCHED IP
1 Cy Young 3714
2 Vic Willis 3474
3 Joe McGinnity 3441
4 Jack Powell 3248.2
5 Christy Mathewson 2966.2
6 Rube Waddell 2914.1
7 Jack Chesbro 2896.2

Including 20 yr period around Waddell's career, 1894-1914
INNINGS PITCHED IP
1 Cy Young 5909
2 Christy Mathewson 4519.2
3 Jack Powell 4388
4 Vic Willis 3997
5 Eddie Plank 3860.2
...
15 Rube Waddell 2961.1

1899-1909 RSAA
1 Cy Young 369
2 Christy Mathewson 279
3 Rube Waddell 256
4 Joe McGinnity 238
5 Three Finger Brown 215
6 Addie Joss 201

1894-1914 RSAA
1 Cy Young 639
2 Kid Nichols 441
3 Christy Mathewson 431
4 Walter Johnson 318
5 Three Finger Brown 282
T6 Ed Walsh 254
T6 Rube Waddell 254
8 Clark Griffith 246
9 Joe McGinnity 238

For Pierce, whose prime was longer, 1949-1962
INNINGS PITCHED IP
1 Warren Spahn 3925
2 Robin Roberts 3784
3 Early Wynn 3244
4 Billy Pierce 3092
5 Bob Friend 2750
6 Lew Burdette 2555

years surrounding his career, 1946 - 1965
INNINGS PITCHED IP
1 Warren Spahn 5229.2
2 Robin Roberts 4577
3 Early Wynn 3851
4 Bob Friend 3481
5 Billy Pierce 3295
6 Curt Simmons 3121
7 Whitey Ford 3054

1949-1962 RSAA
1 Warren Spahn 286
2 Billy Pierce 241
3 Whitey Ford 237
4 Robin Roberts 195
5 Mel Parnell 173

1946-1965 RSAA
1 Warren Spahn 323
2 Whitey Ford 308
3 Robin Roberts 235
T4 Billy Pierce 222
T4 Hoyt Wilhelm 222
6 Don Drysdale 219
7 Mel Parnell 187
   79. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2006 at 12:58 PM (#2182853)
For a peak voter like me it is telling that Waddell saved more runs in 10 years than Pierce in 13. Sure, factor in the different environments, but still. Pierce was 2nd and Waddell 3rd during their respective primes (RSAA) but Waddell still saved more runs. And hey, Waddell trails Young and Matty, and leads HoMers McGinnity and Brown. Pierce trails Spahn and leads HoMers Ford and Roberts. It looks like Waddell had tougher competition, I mean, also considering Mel Parnell comes in #5-7 in Pierce's cohort.

And when you blow the RSAA standings out, well, Waddell only really pitched for 50 percent of those seasons (11 of 21), while Pierce pitched in 70 percent of the seasons covered (14 of 20). Of course he ranks higher for that period, but is still 30 runs behind.

No quibble about the extra 300 innings.

But don't forget ERA+! More runs saved in fewer innings just indicates a pitcher who was more effective when he was on the mound.

And in post #33 we see that there is not a huge glut of HoM pitchers from Waddell's day--4 to 9 per year vs. 5 to 10 for Pierce.
   80. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 20, 2006 at 01:19 PM (#2182859)
To this day, the J.R. Richard saga is still mentioned in Sports newsrooms whenever someone gets too tempted to call an athlete a 'malingerer.'
He's the textbook case of 'you never know.'


Sadly the Boston press, especially Dan Shaughnessey, don't seem to remember this object lesson as it pertains to Manny Ramirez's leg injuries this fall.
   81. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2006 at 01:40 PM (#2182868)
The "Pierce was better relative to his peers" argument is weakened by his weak league and the presence of WWII, which hindered the development of pitchers in his generation (late 40s-early 50s).

Unless you want to demographically balance all eras, races, and positions (which plenty of people are aiming to do to a large extent) then Pierce has to exceed his context by greater than Waddell to be his equal.*


*Timelining aside. But timelining is, as I was told repeatedly, explicitly illegal.
   82. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#2182880)
Also, one more point;

Pierce's prime has been described several times as "longer" than Waddell's. It's not.


From 1902 to 1908, Waddell's "prime", he pitched 2155.1 innings.

With Pierce, treating 1950-1958 as "prime", he pitched 1939.6 IP.

Waddell's prime is just as long, or longer than Pierce's, but its contained in fewer seasons.

No one has really addressed this point to my satisfaction; if it was easier to rack up career IP totals in Waddell's era, why didn't his peers rack up huge career IP totals?

I believe that the evidence indicates that pitchers in Waddell's era pitched a similar number of career innings as those later on (and much less than in the 1960's and 1970's), but distributed into fewer seasons. You can't dismiss Waddell as a short-prime pitcher and embrace Pierce when Waddell threw more innings!
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2006 at 02:21 PM (#2182902)
No one has really addressed this point to my satisfaction; if it was easier to rack up career IP totals in Waddell's era, why didn't his peers rack up huge career IP totals?

They did. From Tom H's post:

Including 20 yr period around Waddell's career, 1894-1914
INNINGS PITCHED IP
1 Cy Young 5909
2 Christy Mathewson 4519.2
3 Jack Powell 4388
4 Vic Willis 3997
5 Eddie Plank 3860.2
...
15 Rube Waddell 2961.1

This examination of the immediate context around Waddell's career shows that many of his contemporaries were indeed putting up very substantial innings pitched totals. The table showing that Waddell pitched in an era in which career IP totals were not higher than in Pierce's era does not provide convincing counterevidence: cdecades, as Tom H's table shows.

1870s: 5
1880s: 9
1890s: 10
1900s: 6
1910s: 10
1920s: 10
1930s: 5
1940s: 4
1950s: 5
1960s: 18
1970s: 10
1980s: 7
1990s: 1 (so far)

The table can only serve as convincing evidence if the fact that the 1890 totals and 1910 decade totals are actually quite high. It doesn't make sense to argue that in the 19 aughts, for some reason, it became harder to put up a lot of career IP than it ahd been in the preceding decade and the following decade, given that many pitchers careers overlapped from these three.

Now, career IP were certainly suppressed for pitchers whose careers began in the 1930s and 1940s by WWII, so Pierce's context is artificially low in career IP leaders, but the fact remains, as Tom H's tables clearly show, that he ranks _more highly_ in relation to his peers in career IP than Waddell does. And I believe Pierce did a stint in the military between his 1945 cup-of-coffee and his return to the majors in 1948, so his development includes the impact of military service that also affects his peers.
   84. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2006 at 02:23 PM (#2182904)
Forgot to copy the label for the second table. That is # of pitchers whose careers began in that decade who place among the top 100 in career IP.
   85. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2006 at 02:42 PM (#2182922)
That's my table....


But it is true. The reason Tom H's post is misleading is because things were very fundamentally different in the mid 1890's than they were in the Aughts. In 1894-1896, league leading IP totals are around 440 IP; by the mid 1900's, we're down to the mid 300's (Chesboro's outlier season aside). Appending the 1890's onto Waddell's career to assess his IP context is like calculating OPS+'s from 1993 based upon a 1992 run context.

Tom H's post is misleading in other aspects as well. It counts 1899 as Waddell's "prime", when he pitched 79 innings that season. Waddell's "prime" definately doesnt start till 1900, and more reasonably, 1902. With Pierce, he makes no such mistakes. It certainly makes Waddell look bad in an IP context when you include years where the league leader pitched 100 more innings than during his prime, and include a year when he doesn't really play.
   86. DL from MN Posted: September 20, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#2182940)
Snippets from a Billy Pierce interview http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/billy_pierce_interview.shtml

ML: Looking back Billy, which year was your best season?

BP: "I’d have to say 1955. I led the league that year in ERA at 1.97. It had been like twenty years since anybody ended a season with an ERA under two. I only went 15-10 that season but I lost four games by the score of 1-0. I think I pitched as well as I did in 1956 when I won twenty games, but I just didn’t get some breaks. I also think that was my best year because in 1954 I was a little sore, so in 1955 the Sox gave me a little most rest between starts."

ML: Billy from talking with you and from everything that I’ve read or heard about you, you are a very modest man. What would it mean to you and your family, for you to get a call from Cooperstown saying you are now in the Hall of Fame?

BP: "It would be a tremendous thrill, the culmination of my life, no question about it. My family and I would appreciate it very much. You have no way of knowing how the people vote, I’m sure all of them have their favorites, so we’ll just have to see."
   87. sunnyday2 Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2182951)
Anybody who gives MiL credit to, well, anybody--Cravath, Keller, whatever--has to consider Waddell's work in 1897-99 between his 2 game trial in '97 and his 79 IP in '99. Consider that in '00 he threw 208 IP at ERA+ 153 in a season with only 8 ML teams. That's virtually 2 years of quality work. Not prime perhaps, but based on '00 there can be no question the guy was ready. I don't have access to his actual numbers, they've been posted here before, I jsut remember them being damn impressive.
   88. Chris Cobb Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#2182969)
Tom H's post is misleading in other aspects as well. It counts 1899 as Waddell's "prime", when he pitched 79 innings that season. Waddell's "prime" definately doesnt start till 1900, and more reasonably, 1902.

OK, here's 1902-09 IP leaders

1. 2597 Christy Mathewson
2. 2589 Vic Willis
3. 2352.3 Cy Young
4. 2350 Joe McGinnity
5. 2250.7 Jack Powell
6. 2099 Rube Waddell

He trails the IP leaders less, but his prime rank relative to his immediate peers is still the same as shown by TomH's table.
   89. DanG Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2182986)
in Waddell's era, why didn't his peers rack up huge career IP totals?

There’s probably no way to create an apples to apples comparison that will please everyone. Starting with Waddell’s and Pierce’s 18 year old seasons and looking at the IP leaders for a 22-year period (their “eras”):

Top 15 IP 1895-1916
5500 C Young
4780 C Mathewson
4388 J Powell
4365 E Plank
3997 V Willis
3687 G Mullin
3441 J McGinnity
3356 C Fraser
3354 A Orth
3172 M Brown
3148 W Johnson
3075 B Dinneen
3041 D White
2971 R Donahue
2961 R Waddell

3682 average

Top 15 IP 1945-1966
5230 W Spahn
4689 R Roberts
3851 E Wynn
3612 B Friend
3305 B Pierce
3232 C Simmons
3127 W Ford
3050 L Burdette
2849 B Lemon
2848 D Drysdale
2811 M Dickson
2756 J Bunning
2756 L Jackson
2584 B Buhl
2576 V Law

3285 average

The simple answer is, despite the shorter schedule, deadball pitchers were working 12% more IP in their careers than post-WW2 pitchers. That’s maybe 30 IP for a full time starter in a season.

There are many reasons in both eras why a pitcher’s career might be foreshortened. Can we assume these factors balance each other?
   90. Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#2182989)
Consider that in '00 he threw 208 IP at ERA+ 153 in a season with only 8 ML teams.

It was a very impressive season, but please note that 42.7% of his runs allowed were unearned. For the rest of the team it was 29.7% UER.
   91. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:54 PM (#2182999)
There’s probably no way to create an apples to apples comparison that will please everyone. Starting with Waddell’s and Pierce’s 18 year old seasons and looking at the IP leaders for a 22-year period (their “eras”):

As I just pointed out in the post above, you can't include the mid 1890's (Waddell's "18 year old season), because 1895-1905 is the precise time where IP comes way down for starters. Waddell wasn't pitching when guys like Young were ringing up big IP totals in the mid 90's.
   92. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2006 at 03:59 PM (#2183006)
As I just pointed out in the post above, you can't include the mid 1890's (Waddell's "18 year old season), because 1895-1905 is the precise time where IP comes way down for starters. Waddell wasn't pitching when guys like Young were ringing up big IP totals in the mid 90's.

I have to agree with this.

If lists are to be made, they should only be compiled from the years that the players actually played and onward, IMO. Whatever happened prior to a player's introduction to a professional league has no bearing on how easy or difficult an era was for that candidate.
   93. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:01 PM (#2183009)
BTW, I like Pierce a little bit better, so I'm not saying this because I favor Waddell.
   94. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2183024)
If lists are to be made, they should only be compiled from the years that the players actually played, IMO.

Its a tricky game though with multiple endpoints. Young is quite an outlier, but so is Spahn. Most of the guys on the early list didn't debut until at least 97. There's no Griffith or Nichols or Rusie on that list and it should be noted that guys like Mathewson, Plank, McGinnity & Willis all ate up more innings than Rube while debuting within a year of him.

Anyhow, with the scoring context shifting so many times and by so much between 1892 & 1915 its really tough to get a handle on what a typical pitching career looked like during this time.

The real debate is not Pierce vs Waddell. They're both going into the HOM at this rate. Should others leapfrog them before we hit the next flood of new eligibles in 1989?
   95. TomH Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2183029)
5th highest IP in MLB by year

1895 369
1896 366
1897 337
1898 362
1899 361
1900 320
1901 351
1902 328 (but 4th was 374!)
1903 336

I could see starting in 1897 instead of 1895. But the differences are not huge.


Waddell still saved more runs
No, he saved more EARNED runs. If I had wanted to slag Waddell, I would have used total runs allowed, which hurts his case.

Waddell's prime is just as long, or longer than Pierce's, but its contained in fewer seasons.
No, it's not. 13 years is longer than 10. Yes, he had more innings, but if we're going to argue the game changed from 1897 to 1900, might we not argue that it changed a teensy bit from 1900 to 1955? If not, let's honor all of the 1880s pitchers, their primes were "longest" :)

Tom H's post is misleading in other aspects as well. It counts 1899 as Waddell's "prime",
I was including all of ther seasons when they were above-average pitchers. I can get rid of 1899 (and 00 and 01), but Waddell would have fewer RSAA. Yes, he might rank better among his peers in the briefer strecth but then we would be comparing an 8 year run versus a 13 year run, and we're quickly getting into apples and oranges.

Given some minor league credit, Rube is a viable candidate. Just seems to me that Pierce is a better one. But maybe the poster was correct who said the real analysis needs to be Pierce and Waddell vs the lower backlog pitchers (go Bucky!! elect some more WWII guys!!).
   96. DL from MN Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#2183030)
> Starting with Waddell’s and Pierce’s 18 year old seasons

I'd say you have to give Waddell the minor league innings to make the comparison logical. That bumps him up between Mordecai Brown and "Iron Man" McGinnity.
   97. DanG Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2183033)
Waddell wasn't pitching when guys like Young were ringing up big IP totals in the mid 90's.

But he was pitching when guys like Walsh were ringing up big IP totals in the mid 00's.

Top 15 Seasons in IP 1902-08 (Waddell’s prime)
464 1908 E Walsh
455 1904 J Chesbro
434 1903 J McGinnity
422 1907 E Walsh
410 1902 V Willis
408 1904 J McGinnity
391 1908 C Mathewson
390 1904 J Powell
389 1902 T Pittinger
385 1902 C Young
383 1904 R Waddell
382 1904 G Mullin
380 1904 C Young
378 1905 I Young
377 1904 O Jones
   98. DavidFoss Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2183034)
Re: Waddell 1900

It was a very impressive season, but please note that 42.7% of his runs allowed were unearned. For the rest of the team it was 29.7% UER.

My back-of-the-envelope adjustment knocks him down to and adjERA+ of 125 for that year. (Assume same RA, adjust ER to match 29.7% UER). Still pretty solid and this was one of Waddell's largest UER% seasons. Plus, that's a strong adjustment as we haven't been discounting other pitcher's ERA+'s. We may only want to scale by Waddell's career UER rates to allow for the same random chance that other pitchers have in their ERA+ lines.

I agree the UER's are high, but we can't throw these seasons out. We should find some systematic way to figure out how valuable he was.
   99. DanG Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:34 PM (#2183044)
If lists are to be made, they should only be compiled from the years that the players actually played and onward, IMO. Whatever happened prior to a player's introduction to a professional league has no bearing on how easy or difficult an era was for that candidate.

We’re comparing era dominance from a career perspective. It is entirely fair to compare Pierce and Waddell during their ages 18-39 seasons (their entire careers).

As I’m fond of saying, I like guys who play and Pierce played more than Waddell, in both in-season durability (for his era) and career longevity.
   100. DL from MN Posted: September 20, 2006 at 04:38 PM (#2183048)
This discussion has driven me to a little research and I'm finally willing to give Rube minor league credit for 1899 when he won 27 games for Columbus. Columbus was in the precursor to the American League and Rube (for once) wasn't there because he left the team on his own accord. That will bump him up to 8th on my ballot from 14th.

Crediting that season would help Rube on a peak-prime voter's ballot even more than it helped on mine. I'm not keen on much more credit than that, he was pitching but he wasn't much help to top professional teams.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.2877 seconds
49 querie(s) executed