Top 10 rates for 1880s players, WARP1
Dunlap 18.86, Radbourn 18.3, Brouthers 17.93, Gore 17.52, Caruthers 17.05, Anson 16.76 (all 1870s seasons), Hines 16.65, Connor 16.63, Richardson 16.51, Ewing 16.16 (Without AA discount, Bid McPhee bumps Ewing for the 10 spot with 16.45).

Top 10 rates for 1880s players, WS (pws heavily modified, fws boosted 30%)
Brouthers 41.56, Connor 40.17, Gore 39.02, Hines 37.9, Kelly 37.59, Ewing 35.66, Anson 35.52, Caruthers 35.25, O'Rourke 35.14, Richardson 34.41

(Browning with AA discount is 33.66, so it's clear that without the discount he'd flip into the top 10 by WS, either just ahead or just behind Hines & Kelly).

Some interesting numbers there, thank Chris.

On face, I'd say it looks like WARP's overrating 2nd basemen, with 2 (or 3) of them in the top 10, but that could just be a fluke. But I'd say that anything that has Fred Dunlap as the best peak of the 80s has got something wrong with it. That, or we really missed something with Sure Shot.

Here's Dunlap vs. Browning with the current WARP1 and WARP3 (for those of you who like intra-Major League competition adjustments):

WARP1:

Dunlap: 19.8, 11.3, 10.5, 10.4, 10.1, 9.6, 7.8, 6.7, 6.0, 5.2, 0.3, 0.2
Browning: 12.3, 10.9, 10.2, 09.6, 09.0, 7.9, 7.7, 6.5, 6.4, 5.9, 3.1, 2.1, 0.0

WARP3:
Dunlap: 13.1, 10.0, 9.8, 8.9, 8.6, 7.2, 6.7, 4.5, 4.5, 3.0, 0.1, 0.0
Browning: 10.4, 09.8, 8.9, 7.4, 7.1, 6.4, 5.9, 4.7, 4.5, 3.9, 3.0, 0.8, 0.0

Note that WARP's 1-3 discount is apparently smaller for 1882 than any other AA year.

Browning goes from:

82: 10.9-9.8
83: 7.9-6.4
84: 9.0-5.9
85: 12.3-10.4
86: 6.4-3.9
87: 10.2-7.4
88: 6.5-4.7
89: 2.1-0.8
90: 9.6-8.9
91: 7.7-7.1
92: 5.9-4.5
93: 3.1-3.0
94: 0-0

I have no idea how to explain that.

Season length I think. Check the Warp-2 numbers.i.e.

1882(warp-1,2,3): 10.9 5.7 9.8
1887: 10.2,6.5 7.4

I don't think that explains it. . . .well, maybe it does.

At least it goes against the apparent consensus here, which is that the 1882 AA is but a minor step up over the UA. Even with WARP's (I think) extreme competition discounts, Browning's 1882 comes out as his 2nd best season, almost a full WARP better than his 1890 Players' League season.

While I've got the WARPs out, here's how Browning stacks up against Willie McCovey with WARP1. No competition adjustment, but also no schedule adjustment.

Browning: 12.3, 10.9, 10.2, 09.6, 09.0, 7.9, 7.7, 6.5, 6.4, 5.9, 3.1, 2.1, 0.0
McCovey: 11.8, 11.3, 09.1, 08.7, 08.6, 8.3, 7.1, 6.6, 5.7, 4.3, 4.2, 4.1, 4.1, 4.1, 3.8, 2.6, 2.6, 1.5, 1.4, 1.4, 0.6

McCovey ends up with a lot more career value, thanks to a long string of mediocre (but still valuable, depending on your reference point) years, but for the first ten seasons, I think you've gotta give the edge to Browning.

Can we get discussion threads for Sal Bando and Bobby Bonds up early? They both could be eligible for elect-me votes from some of us is 2 weeks, and it could be a close election.

>Sal Bando and Bobby Bonds...both could be eligible for elect-me votes from some of us is 2 weeks

• Bando maybe though I would expect even him to be no better than 20-25. He might be better than Boyer--i.e. the best 3B available--but Boyer is only about #20 for me.

• Bonds more like the 30s. He seems to be of a piece with a bunch of OF backloggers who were in the #5-10 range among their cohort/peers.

My druthers right now is to clear some more backlog. But we shall see.

(No objection to threads, of course.)

i think bando is ballot material, especially with the DH thing working for him.

On Bando and Bonds, looking at WARP1 because it's handy:

Boyer is the right comparison for Bando, and WARP1 strongly prefers Boyer, mainly on account of superior defense:

Boyer 2034 g, .284 EQA, 116 OPS+, 113 FRAA, 95.5 WARP1
Bando 2019 g .287 EQA, 119 OPS+, -31 FRAA, 79.7 WARP1

For those adjusting for DH, Bando would need a small boost in offensive value for the second half of his career,
I don't have WS with me just now, but it sees them as much closer in value, although Boyer still has a big fielding edge.

I think the analysis here has to be: very similar career, very similar at the plate, Boyer substantially better with the glove.
Bando gets in line at third base behind Boyer, and possibly behind Elliott, who was similar to Bando with the glove but a better hitter.


In WARP1, Bobby Bonds looks like Jimmy Wynn minus a smidge. Each has 10 seasons above average. Here's how they look, in order:

Wynn -- 11.4, 11.3, 10.8, 10.7, 8.9, 8.4, 8.1, 7.3, 6.6, 5.1
Bonds -- 10.5, 10.1, 9.6, 9.5, 8.2, 8.0, 7.8, 7.5, 6.7, 5.5

For career

Wynn 1920 g, .302 EQA, 128 OPS+, 1 FRAA, 98.4 WARP1
Bonds 1849 g, .297 EQA, 130 OPS+, 44 FRAA, 94.2 WARP1

WARP gives a clear but slender edge to Wynn. I don't remember what WS shows except that they are close there, too. I don't see enough evidence here to conclusively favor Wynn over Bonds, but I think it is quite evident that at the very least Bonds shouldn't be running away from Wynn in the rankings, which means we certainly shouldn't be electing him in 1987.

I concur with sunnyday2 that we should take 2 from the current backlog in 1987, with Bonds and Bando landing in the backlog.

Isn't Bobby Bonds a poor-man's Reggie Smith? Is Reggie Smith going to get elected too? I'd certainly like to see them head to head first.

I'd've said Reggie Smith is a poor man's Bobby Bonds . . .

Smith has a couple more good years, a couple fewer great ones.

Chris,

My take on Wynn/Bonds from the info you have above would put Wynn comfortably ahead of Bonds. Wynn has the seven best seasons according to WARP 1, while his career numbers are similar. For a peak voter that should be enough to put him 25-30 spots ahead in thsi age of crowded backlogs. Wynn is #9 on my ballot, I expect bonds to be top 50, but I am not sure how high. How good he looks vs. Minsos/Burns/Veach/Johnson may decide how high I put him.

On baseballprospectus today, there was mention of something new called the "Secret Sauce Report" written up by Nate Silver.

I am not a subscriber, but that may be an interesting formula which may have an effect the "A pennant is a pennant" argument.

Anyone have any insights?

Newbies 1987-88-89: off the top, no analysis yet

(top 3 type material)

1. Johnny Bench 1989
2. Carl Yastrzemski 1989
3. Gaylord Perry 1989
4. Willie Stargell 1988
5. Ferguson Jenkins 1989--won't be top 3 in '89, best class since '34?

(small gap)

6. Reggie Smith 1988

(big gap)

7. Bobby Bonds 1987
8. Sal Bando 1987
9. Luis Tiant 1988
10. Bert Campaneris 1989
11. Jim Kaat 1989
12. Gene Tenace 1989

The big question for me right now is whether the in/out line is above or below Reggie Smith. It (the in/out line) is clearly below Fergie and (not as clearly) above Bonds and Bando.

The other question is whether I am too hard on modern pitchers. My current ballot is full of guys like Waddell, Joss, Redding and Cicotte with nary a Pierce. Bunning is not PHoM nor is Early Wynn. But then along come guys like Gaylord Perry and Fergie. If they could do it, then why shouldn't Pierce or Bunning or Wynn or Kaat or Tiant be held to a high standard.I'd love to support Jim Kaat (as a Twins fan) but I'm also a peak/prime voter and Kaat's peak really doesn't amount to much. The quintessential Kaat year (throwing out the 1 or 2 outliers) was 13-12.

IOW if all goes according to Hoyle:

1986--McCovey, Pierce
1987--Waddell, Kiner, Minoso (all 3 in my PHoM)
1988--Stargell, Smith OR Childs (Childs in my PHoM though no longer on my ballot)
1989--Bench, Yaz, Perry

1990 backlog now includes Fergie, Bonds, Bando, Tiant, Kaat and maybe Reggie 2, along with maybe Childs, Boyer, Moore, Redding, Fox, Beckley, J. Wynn. In '90 we probably elect Morgan and Palmer and 1 of this backlog (almost surely Fergie), and in '91 we elect Carew and 2 backloggers (the remainder of Childs and Reggie 2 plus who? Kaat?), then avoid tha backlog til '94.

As a Twins fan, Carew and Kaat would be a good pairing, though I can't see voting for Kaat myself.

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.

"Jamey" :-), do you know where your MiL analysis for Keller is? I can't find it on the Keller thread.

sunnyday, Rollie Fingers is also up in 1991, potentially making for two newbies that year and only the one backlogger.

A little more on Waddell/Pierce:

Both of them can be said to have primes of 9 years, 1900-08 for Rube, 1950-58 for Billy.

I ranked the top 100 RSAA seasons for all MLB pitchers in both of those eras. Not that we oughta use RSAA necessarily for our pitcher rankings, but it's a handy tool for compariosn across eras.

Rube's best years rank 4th,10,23,48, and 86 overall in his prime. (his 6th best might be around 130th or so)
Billy's best years rank 11,11,40,48,73, and 94.

Real close, ain't it?

The leaderboards for career RSAA during the periods are

RSAA RSAA
1 Cy Young...... 292
2 Rube Waddell 250
3 C Mathewson 234
4 Joe McGinnity 180
5 Addie Joss..... 179
6 Three F Brown 172
7 Noodles Hahn 144
8 Sam Leever.. 138
9 Eddie Plank... 129
10 Jack Chesbro 118

and

RSAA RSAA
1 Billy Pierce..... 220
2 Warren Spahn.. 201
3 Robin Roberts.. 198
4 Whitey Ford..... 179
5 Frank Sullivan 150
6 Sal Maglie.... 148
7 Early Wynn... 131
8 Ellis Kinder... 124
9 Mel Parnell.... 118
10 John Antonelli 115

For what that is worth.

Outside their primes, Pierce has a 900 IP edge, but Rube should get some MiL league credit. Adding in Pierce's relief usage and league integraiton, and Rube's UNearned runs and poor W-L record, I'm still a Pierce over Waddell voter, but I can see if you dock Billy for weaker AL and give Rube peak credit, I see why many of you prefer him. They both were among some top-of-the-line HoFers as best pitchers on the planet in their days.

Isn't Bobby Bonds a poor-man's Reggie Smith? Is Reggie Smith going to get elected too? I'd certainly like to see them head to head first.

I'm convinced that Smith is better than Bonds and is comparable to Wynn (the latter opinion is for at least the time being - still working on Reggie's numbers).

did anyone else notice the compositite ballot was the exact same as last time

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do any new analysis/research and just regurgitated that same ballot again.

I'd be shocked if the HoM electorate, if they were allowed to set up the HOF Vets' ballot, would present the same, exact candidates every time. With all of the talk about "teddy bears," on the whole, we tend to be constantly tinkering with our systems, which is good.

no Billy Southworth :,O ?????

Hmm...the four pennants are quite impressive, though I'm not sure if he should have been a given to be on the list, since he's only at #47 on the managerial wins list. With that said, he's certainly a better candidate than some who happened to get lucky and find their names there, yest.

congrats, John!

Thank you very much, rawagman.

>sunnyday, Rollie Fingers is also up in 1991,

I gotta remember to look a little further down the list now that we've got relievers in the mix. Though I don't think Rollie will be on my ballot, but I'm not sure about that.

Hmm...the four pennants are quite impressive, though I'm not sure if he should have been a given to be on the list, since he's only at #47 on the managerial wins list. With that said, he's certainly a better candidate than some who happened to get lucky and find their names there, yest.

with most of those managers coming in the expansion era where ther are more manigrial positions and games played per season
and he's 5th in winning% and tied for 11th in wins over 500 not to mention was a prety good player (no I don't think he's even close to being close to a candidte as a player)(suprisngly he's most simaler player is Casey Stengal)

with most of those managers coming in the expansion era where ther are more manigrial positions and games played per season
and he's 5th in winning% and tied for 11th in wins over 500 not to mention was a prety good player (no I don't think he's even close to being close to a candidte as a player)(suprisngly he's most simaler player is Casey Stengal)


Points well taken, yest.

I find Reggie Smith to be an thoroughly unimpressive candidate. If you look at his away stats from his time at Fenway, they're generally pretty brutal. I think that, once adjusting for position, he's a poor man's Bernie Williams, and though I love Bernie and such, Bernie Williams is, at best, on the border of the HoM. Being worse than Bernie puts you distinctly on the "Out" side.

and, I should add now that I've checked, WARP agrees with my assessment, with Bernie at 100 career WARP at Reggie Smith at 92 WARP in a longer career. Smith never cracked 7 WARP while he was with Boston.

dzop/Bernie/Robby,

I for one don't really like to take into account home/away splits above and beyond park factors. If a player could take advantage of his park above and beyond the usual adjustment, more power to him. It is real value. Looking at how someone does away from home is great for projectiosn and decidions on whether or not to trade for a guy, but I aam not sure they should really be used when assessing the value that a player gave to his team.

Of course you point is well taken regarding his lack of peak in WARP, however.

jscmeagol-

To an extent, I agree with you. When a player exploits his home park above-and-beyond his peers, that is certainly something I want to credit. My concern with some of the Fenway splits is that they reflect not a particular expoitation of the home park, but instead a benefit that any player would have gotten playing there. Obviously the problem is less severe with Reggie Smith than any of the pull-hitter-righties that played at Fenway, but I don't want to penalize Bobby Bonds just because he played in a symmetrical park. That seems unfairly contextual to me, and I would imagine that you could adjust for it by arguing that a replacement player with a substantial number of righty at bats at Fenway would also experience a home boost not fully compensated for by the park-factor correction, and so Smith's value-above-replacement is less than his stats would indicate.

Reggie Smith

With-Sox - 4264 PA, OPS+ 130
Post-Sox - 3786 PA, OPS+ 145

Fenway splits are tough to interpret. Park effects for Fenway were fairly severe for this time period. H/R differences are generally scale as twice the Park Factor. Then there is the generic home-player boost on top of that. A random Fenway hitter in the 1960s-70s are going to show a big H/R difference of up to 20-30%. I think this is a case where the park factor is working correctly.

General baseball history question:

The Hardball times contained the following blurb today:

Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano became the second pair of keystone-position teammates in major-league history to post a batting average of .340 or higher in the same season (minimum: 100 games at shortstop and second base, respectively).

But they tantalizingly left out the name of the first pair! Anyhow know? Is it obvious?

Hornsby and who? would be my guess. But no, that's not it.

Arky Vaughan...Eddie Collins...nope. And not Lajoie either. I'm stumped.

Cupid Childs & Ed McKean?

Cupid Childs & Ed McKean?

Wow... nice catch. Are there any others? Many of these factoids are only post-1900, although THT is usually smarter than that.

Looks like that's who they meant. Can't find any others in the post-1900 NL, or at all in the AL. Or even in the Federal League...