That list is good looking for Wally Berger, the latest inclusion in my backlog riddled ballot.

He's always been close to my ballot. He might pop up someday.

Prelim:

1) Ralph Kiner
2) Cupid Childs
3) Alejandro Oms
4) Quincy Trouppe
5) Gavvy Cravath
6) Ken Boyer
7) Billy Pierce
8) Jimmy Wynn
9) Jimmy Ryan
10) Bob Johnson
11) Jim Fregosi
12) Dobie Moore
13) Jake Beckley
14) Cannonball Dick Redding (Takes quite a hit when I incorporate ERA+)
15) Charlie Keller

Papa Bonds and Bando look like they´ll end in the Twenties. Marshall goes below that.

adding 10 fielding runs a year would change a player's OWP from .560 to .623, putting him very close in OWP and PA (adj for 162 game sched) to... Jimmy Wynn!

True, but there is no decline phase in Dom's record, which is why I added PA's to all these guys.

rawagman Posted: October 06, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#2200789)
That list is good looking for Wally Berger, the latest inclusion in my backlog riddled ballot.

Speaking of PA's, and no decline phase :)

If Tom is adding 100 runs for FRAA, will you be subtracting 53 runs from Berger per BP card?
Wally Berger's BP Player Card

And what the heck as long as I'm in the Fun House of BP numbers

Name WARP1
Roush 107.7
Wynn 98.4
Berger 75.6
D DiMaggio 73.4

so the Fun House of BP numbers agrees that with WWII creidt, DiMaggio = Wynn I guess

so the Fun House of BP numbers agrees that with WWII creidt, DiMaggio = Wynn I guess

Sure, I'd agree with that

Wynn = D.DiMaggio + WW2 Credit = X

And

Roush > X

:)

Pennant Winning Teams without a HOMer, through 1968:

1871 Philadelphia Athletics (NA), best candidate: Levi Meyerle
1884 St. Louis Maroons (UA), best candidate: none
1888 St. Louis Browns (NA), best candidate: Tip O'Neill
1890 Louisville Colonels (NA), best candidate: none
1914 Boston Braves, best candidate: Rabbit Maranville
1914 Indianapolis Hoosiers (FL), best candidate: none
1917 New York Giants, best candidate: none
1918 Chicago Cubs, best candidate: none
1926 Atlantic City Bacharach Giants, best candidates: Lundy, Marcelle
1927 Atlantic City Bacharach Giants, best candidates: Lundy, Marcelle
1932 Baltimore Black Sox, best candidate: Dick Lundy
1938 Memphis Red Sox, best candidate: none
1939 Cincinnati Reds, best candidates: Lombardi, Walters
1940 Cincinnati Reds, best candidates: Lombardi, Walters
1943 Birmingham Black Barons, best candidate: Artie Wilson
1944 Birmingham Black Barons, best candidate: Artie Wilson
1944 St. Louis Browns, best candidate: Vern Stephens
1945 Cleveland Buckeyes, best candidate: Quincy Trouppe
1946 Cleveland Buckeyes (contested), best candidate: Quincy Trouppe
1947 Cleveland Buckeyes, best candidate: Quincy Trouppe
1947 New York Cubans, best candidate: none
1948 Birminghand Black Barons, best candidate: Artie Wilson
1949 Baltimore Elite Giants, best candidate: Leon Day
1950 Indianapolis Clowns, best candidate: none

I just thought this was an interesting list and decided to share it. A couple of different types of teams seem to make the list.

First off, you have some early franchises, particularly those from the third major league, whether it's the UA or the FL. There's also a couple of one-shot NA winners like the original Athletics and the later Colonels. The Browns actually won four pennants in a row but they had Bob Caruthers around for the first three.

Second up, you have an apparently weak decade in the National League. The Braves, Giants and Cubs all win solo pennants during the teens. The strongest candidate for any of those franchises is Rabbit Maranville of the 1914 Braves.

The third category seems to be eastern Negro League teams of the late '20s/early '30s. The Atlantic City Bacharach Giants won a couple of pennants before the Baltimore Black Sox raided most of their best players. The Black Sox then went on to win a couple more pennants, several with HOMer Jud Wilson on board but at least one without.

The fourth category seems to be western Negro League teams of the '40s. The Black Barons won three pennants but have yet to send a player to the Hall of Merit. The Cleveland Buckeyes won two or three, but likewise have yet to be represented. Plus, there are a few solo winners like the '38 Memphis Red Sox and the '49 Baltimore Elite Giants. However, considering the cases of NL teams from the teens, it's not too surprising that some of the solo teams wouldn't have representation.

When taken together, the third and fourth categories do seem to lend weight to the candidacies of Dick Lundy, Artie Wilson and Quincy Trouppe.

However, perhaps the biggest surprise is that of the 1939 and 1940 Cincinnati Reds. They have none of the usual strikes against them. They weren't playing against wartime competition (such as the 1944 St. Louis Browns). They weren't from an inferior league like the NA, UA, FL or NAL. And they won multiple pennants (two in a row as a matter of fact). That makes the '39/'40 Reds an exceptional entry. I would think this should only strengthen the case for Ernie Lombardi and especially Bucky Walters.

1917 New York Giants, best candidate: none

I was about to say, "What about Larry Doyle?" But before I posted that, I did go look - and whaddaya know, in 1917, Doyle was playing for the Cubs.

I'd list the best candidate (other than for the manager's wing) of the '17 Giants as George Burns - he does draw a few votes.

Did I say that Doyle was with the Cubs? The very next team on your list is the '18 Cubs. But in 1918, Doyle was back with the Giants.

Larry Doyle - the Alex Rodriguez of the teens? Perfect timing for when to leave.

Of course Wynn = D. Dimaggio if you don't worry at all about peak. According to WARP1, Wynn has four seasons of at least 10 WARP1 while D. Dimaggio has 1. You would have to be giving some REALLY generous war credit for Dimaggio to catch up to Wynn on peak, even if their career totals are similar.

Larry Doyle - the Alex Rodriguez of the teens? Perfect timing for when to leave.

Late teens. Doyle was part of the 1911-13 Giant pennant dynasty. He was voted MVP in 1912 and had an even better year in 1911.

The Cubs got Lefty Tyler for Doyle in the off-season in 1918. Tyler had a fine year up as #2 starter behind triple crown winner Hippo Vaughn. It helped make up for the loss of HOM-er Pete Alexander to the draft after three starts that year. (I take it Pete's 26 IP didn't keep the Cubs from qualifying for this list).

1917 New York Giants, best candidate: none

Fun topic. The Giants had pennant dynasties from 1911-13 and 1921-24. The 1917 team is often listed as an example of McGraw's managing/GM ability. He patched together a champion in the transition between the two dynasties. (I suppose most mananger/GM's wish they had the problem of having a gap between two dynasties to fill).

Pennant Winning Teams without a HOMer, through 1968:

I suppose divisional play complicates things but some later teams include:

1976 Yankees (a boatload of HOVG types - Munson, Nettles, Hunter, White)
1981 Dodgers (another HOVG heavy squad - Valenzuela, Garvey, Cey, Welch, Stewart)

The 1988 Dodgers are eliminated only because of 5th starter Sutton. The 1989 Giants had Gossage in the pen. The 1991 Twins are a possibility if we don't induct Puckett.

(another HOVG heavy squad - Valenzuela, Garvey, Cey, Welch, Stewart)

Don't forget Pedro Guerrero!

Are we ready for 3 backloggers joining? Do we want to?

PRELIM

1. Ralph Kiner: Tremendous hitter. Seven home run titles! Easy number 1. I hope he gets in this "year".
2. Dobie Moore: I'm a believer, and I think that he belongs even without Wreckers credit.
3. Hugh Duffy: 16.72 RC/27 in his best season. That's freakin awesome. Good glove, made his teams better. I like him a lot.
4. Ken Boyer: Brooks Robinson-lite, but with a peak.
5. Billy Pierce: Excellent peak for a pitcher of his day.
6. Charlie Keller: Poor man's Kiner. Close with war credit, but Kiner's huge peak was real.
7. Pete Browning: He could rake. Perhaps an early-day Dick Allen?
8. Thurman Munson: I'm beginning to feel like he's closer to Freehan than I've been giving him credit for. One of my "Teddy Bears".
9. Alejandro Oms: I was missing a lot on him for a while. Nice player.
10. Jake Beckley: Took a closer look at him, and moved him here. I wasn't giving him enough credit for the glove. Some sort of a peak, and he'd be top 5.
11. Minnie Minoso: Still don't know what to make of him.
12. Cupid Childs: For a second baseman, he could hit. Pretty solid with the glove too. Him being at 12 is a complement to the ballot at large.
13. GVH: Profiles similar to Beckley, Beckley's defense the edge.
14. Norm Cash: Peaktacular, but I don't like that he was platooned.
15. Chuck Klein: He's very close to Kiner until you adjust for park.

16-20: Frank Howard, Lou Brock, Ben Taylor, Roy White, Mickey Lolich
21-40: Dick Redding, Addie Joss, Nellie Fox, Charley Jones, Dizzy Dean, Gavvy Cravath, Roger Bresnahan, Quincy Trouppe, Sam Rice, Pie Traynor, Mike Marshall, Vada Pinson, Jimmy Wynn, Orlando Cepeda, Catfish Hunter, Bob Johnson, John McGraw, Wally Schang, Bobby Bonds, Sal Bando

Marshall - 72-74 might be the best three year relief peak I've seen. Not enough else to justify him higher
Bonds - Similar, but lesser than, Jimmy Wynn
Bando - Nice player, but he is not better than McGraw or Traynor

1884 St. Louis Maroons (UA), best candidate: none

I think Fred Dunlap has gotten some votes, or at least been in some consideration lists.

1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 09, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#2204955)

Not a serious candidate, but a fun player to watch.
2. kthejoker Posted: October 09, 2006 at 03:50 PM (#2204970)

Wasn't he already made eligible in '86?

You're right, joker. For some reason, I thought I saw his name on the list.

That doppleganger has been deleted.

There are at least a couple of voters who urge us to ignore Ralph Kiner's overall contributions and vote for him because of his 7 consecutive home run titles. I didn't realize until yesterday that Gavvy Cravath came within 1 home run of doing the same thing. How many ballot positions is one home run worth?

Cblau,

I think some of those who mention Kiner's seven home run totals are doing so as a comment on a ballot which is not necessarily that voter's comprehensive thought on a candidate. I think the bigger problem is that ballot comments have become stale and a space jsut to say something good about a player instead of trying to enlighten readers as to why that player belongs in that certain spot. I am even guilty of this.

By the way Kiner is #5 for me and Cravath is #14, so maybe a HR is worth 9 ballot position...;-)

There are at least a couple of voters who urge us to ignore Ralph Kiner's overall contributions and vote for him because of his 7 consecutive home run titles. I didn't realize until yesterday that Gavvy Cravath came within 1 home run of doing the same thing. How many ballot positions is one home run worth?

I vote for Kiner, but I have also pointed out that if you take away 5 of his homeruns, he could lose 4 homerun titles.

1871-1975, years where there is no HOMer at a position that year
(standard is playing in half a team's games, and listed at the main one)

C - 1880; 1893-1909; 1918-19; 1962; 1974
1B - 1899; 1903 and 1905-10 and 1912-14; 1952-54
2B - 1878 and 1880-81; 1905; 1953-75
3B - 1889; 1906; 1947 and 1949-51
SS - 1962-75

That catcher gap is pretty brutal. That's one of the reasons why I've looked again at Roger Bresnahan recently, even going so far as to move him up to third among catchers in my ranking. But even if we elect Bresnahan someday, we still only take out '01 and '05-'09. That would leave a significant catcher gap of 1893-1900 as well as the smaller 1, 2 and 3 year gaps.

Beckley supporters should be happy to know that Beckley would knock out four of those years for first basemen (barely making it in 1906).

However, to me, the really big gap is the double middle-infield gap of 2B from 1953-75 and SS from 1962-75.

We'll fill half the second-base gap as soon as Joe Morgan becomes eligible, and it looks like Nellie Fox is fairly likely to cover the rest, eventually.

The shortstop hole looks much less likely to be filled: we'll most likely have a gap from 1962-73 when we reach the present, between Ernie Banks' shift to first base and Robin Yount's debut season.

FWIW, Holway lists Santop at catcher with the Brooklyn Royal Giants in 1918 and 1919.

C - 1880; 1893-1909; 1918-19; 1962; 1974
1B - 1899; 1903 and 1905-10 and 1912-14; 1952-54
2B - 1878 and 1880-81; 1905; 1953-75
3B - 1889; 1906; 1947 and 1949-51
SS - 1962-75

And the answers are:

C- Bresnahan
1B-Chance
2B-Morgan
3B-Elliott
SS-Fregosi (????)

Gary, Santop played those years, but was it regularly?
I've seen conflicting info....

I have no idea. Holway just lists him as the catcher. What conflicting info do you have?

Never mind, I see: Riley says he missed most of 1918-19 "due to Navy service during World War I." Sorry, forgot about that.

SS-Fregosi (????)

Personally, I think it's Aparicio.

Well, there's already an answer at 2B without waiting around for Morgan. I mean that you can vote for now! Instant gratification! That would be Nellie Fox.

>And the answers are:

C- Bresnahan
1B-Chance
2B-Morgan
3B-Elliott
SS-Fregosi (????)

Well, there's already an answer at 2B without waiting around for Morgan. I mean that you can vote for now! Instant gratification! That would be Nellie Fox.

Of course, if you want a guy who packed almost as much value for his career (in far fewer seasons) as Fox did, then it's the guy from the Cleveland Spiders. ;-)

But the question was who can fill the chronological gaps....

But the question was who can fill the chronological gaps....

No, I understand, Marc. Just wanted to give a plug for my boy, regardless. :-)

Trivia Question relevant to this year (2006) and this year's ballot

Who holds the Yankees' record for longest 0-fer in the regular season?

Hint: It is a tie.

Uh...Murcer and Paul Zuvella?

Uh...Murcer and Paul Zuvella?

No and No.

A Rod, obviously, is one....

A Rod

No -- someone even clutchier.

Who holds the Yankees' record for longest 0-fer in the regular season?

Jeter and Bobby Bonds

Jeter and Bobby Bonds

Yes and No. Jeter did it in early 2004: 0 fer 32, broken off by a leadoff homer. The other guy is on our ballot, but not new this year.

Thurman Munson?

Thurman Munson?

No. Want a hint? He's not known as a Yankee.

No. Want a hint? He's not known as a Yankee.

Buhner?

Probably Jimmy Wynn - didn't do a whole lot as a Yankee. I could see him going into a big slump.

Indeed -- Jimmy Wynn, who was abysmal as a Yankee. He went 0 for 32 and something like 1 for 50 in his last at bats with the Yanks. He was released and picked up by the Brewers, where he improved slightly, almost hitting the Mendoza line.

I have to say I do not get the Jimmy Wynn support. I understand context, but a lifetime .250 hitter, no ink, no contemporary accolades, no long career.

Just a word for the memory of Cory Lidle. Not someone who should be garnering any consideration, but someone who shouldn't be eligible as early as he now will be.
RIP

Just a word for the memory of Cory Lidle. Not someone who should be garnering any consideration, but someone who shouldn't be eligible as early as he now will be.

I hear you and agree, but it's a moot point in regard to him. It's the borderline guys that you have to "worry" about.

Damn shame about Lidle...

does any one else find it ironic that Munson was mentioned a few lines earlier

I just heard today on a radio show that the first time Mantle saw his plaque he said what am I doing next to Rube Marquid

I just heard today on a radio show that the first time Mantle saw his plaque he said what am I doing next to Rube Marquid

I don't blame him.

I don't know if this is still true, but I think Zuvella had the longest ohfer to begin a yankee career when he joined the team in, what, 1985, 1986? He was like 0-28 (working from memory here) as the solution to the ongoing mid80s yankee SS problem.

It was 0 for 28 for Zuvella, 10 for 82 for his NYY career.

Nice. I was 11 and it was 20 years ago when that ohfer happened, but I can still remember the lowlights like they were yesterday!

As for Wynn, batting average does not capture his skills at all. He is a secondary average stud (lots of walksa nd power) and played CF for most of his career or at least most of his peak. Speaking of peak he has a very nice one. One shoudl be able to see why he doesn't have much ink when looked at in context.

Also, a shame about Lidle. My mom actually called me last evening thinking the lidle crash was a terrorist act. I am not sure she quite understands New York geography (I live in southern brooklyn and go to school in the village). Anyways, I was very surprised to here that it was Lidle's plane that crashed.

Win Shares

8. Puckett 281/32-31-29/136/25.5 with no decline
10. Wynn 305/36-32-32/141/25.7 with decline

So what is the point of the numbers if their inventor just overrides them willy nilly?

Puckett 281/32-31-29-27-26-22-21-20-20-19-18-16 (13 yrs > 10)
Wynn 305/36-32-32-31-28-28-27-21-18-16-14 (12 yrs > 10)

Actually Puck leads 281-280 on years > 10 while Wynn picks up another 24 in seasons of < 10. But Wynn leads by 17 for 12 years, and by 26 for best 7 years.

Puckett is an A+ defender by WS, while Wynn is a B- (pretty horrible for a mostly CF).

OPS+

Puckett 123/158-38-37-31-30-30-29-19-19-18 (10 yrs > 100)
Wynn 129/168-58-54-47-46-43-39-35-18-7-6 (11 yrs > 100)

Some Traditional Numbers

Puckett 12 yrs 1783G 7244 AB 450 BB (~7700 PAs) 2304H (~2750 times on base) 207HR-1085RBI-.318/360/.477 .989 FA
Wynn 15 yrs 6653 AB 1920G 1224 BB (~7900 PAs) 1665H (~2900 times on base) 291-964-.250/.366/.436 .981 FA

Similar OBP derived quite differently. About the same # of PAs also derived differently, and similar times on base arrived at differently. Two guys built similarly (5-8, 210 versus 5-9/170, well, both short anyway) but with vastly different games and very similar value. Well, ok, you might argue that. But despite all that extra value per year for Wynn, James rates Puckett more highly. Why is that? (Bullshirt.)

It comes down to whether, like the good SABRmetricians that we are, we prefer a guy who takes a BB, or if like the unwashed masses (including BBWAA) we kinda like a guy who swings the frickin' bat (and drives in an extra 120 runs in 200 fewer PAs).

Of course, there's still the little matter of parks....

So what is the point of the numbers if their inventor just overrides them willy nilly?

He doesn't override them "willy nilly"; he acknowledges that - like ANY numbers - they are an imperfect representation of a player's value, and that it's legitimate to make subjective adjustments based on other, non-quantifiable evidence that you have.

It comes down to whether, like the good SABRmetricians that we are, we prefer a guy who takes a BB, or if like the unwashed masses (including BBWAA) we kinda like a guy who swings the frickin' bat (and drives in an extra 120 runs in 200 fewer PAs).

I've never understood why the shape of a player's performance is important, when the primary purpose of this exercise is to identify players that provide the most value to the team. If one player produces 25 units of value in a season while hitting .350, and another player produces 25 units of value while hitting .250, haven't the two players been equally valuable? You may have other reasons for choosing player B over player A - it may be true, for example, that in the particular contexts in which A and B performed, walks and power were more valuable than an equivalent number of extra singles were, and that therefore B's skills were, in context, more valuable than A's, and that's a legitimate approach if we have the evidence to support the argument. But if we've done all of that adjusting, and we still can't distinguish between A and B, there's no particular sabermetric reason to prefer one set of skills over a different, equal-value set of skills.

-- MWE

Talking about Wynn and Puckett's relative defensive prowess, their distribution of OF appearances:



So Wynn's defensive value in WS should be lower due simply to his more frequent appearances in the side pastures.

How many years did each spend in CF?

Puckett played CF for 9 full years and one year in which he played 95 in CF and 47 in RF. Then two years in RF. In every season, except his last, his RgFs were above average. His career RgF was 2.67 in a 2.08 league, 28% above the league. (I know RgFs aren't great, but I just thought I'd include them as a thumbnail. Both guys were clearly above-average defenders.)

WS Gold Glove finishes for Puckett:
1984 (GG, 9.2 FWS, 2.4 more than Moseby)
1985 (GG, 6.5 FWS, tied with Moseby)
1987 (4th, 4.8 FWS, trailing W. Wilson by 1.1)
1988 (2nd, 6.0 FWS, trailing Yount by 2.2)
1989 (2nd, 5.8 FWS, trailing D. White by .4)
1991 (3rd, 6.9 FWS, trailing D. White by 4.6)
1992 (t-2nd, 6.3 FWS, trailing McRae by .1)

Wynn played 7 full CF years, one year of where he played 93 in CF and 56 in LF; one with 87 in CF and 66 in LF; one of 48 in CF, 72 in RF; two in RF; one of 90 in LF and 50 in CF. In every season his RgFs were above average. His career RgF was 2.24 in a 1.87 league, 20% above the league.

WS Gold Glove finishes for Wynn:
1974 (3rd, 5.7 FWS, trailing McBride by .5)
1975 (5th, 4.4 FWS, trailing Oliver by 1.7)
1976 (2nd among LFs, 3.9 FWS, trialing Buckner by .3)

For whatever reason, WS sees his defensive peak (relative to the league) as coming late. So does FRAA, speaking of which....

FRAA? Well, since we're mostly comparing the same positions, I guess we can use it safely. Here's their best seasons lined up



So there's a lot of bounce in FRAA, and I don't really know what to think about it. Generally, I think WS does seem to characterize the gap between them well (A vs B-), but at the same time, without his decline phase, Puckett's numbers are more difficult to see for what they may be. And further, given the improvement Wynn showed defensively in the 1970s, it's hard to quite make sense of the comparison....

One other point on Puckett v. Wynn. There's also the DH question.

If we adjust both players for the DH league (call it 5% up since I don't remember the number anyone ended up agreeing on), their OPS+es now look like this:



And if you want to compare apples to apples, here's puckett's career plus Wynn's first 12 seasons:



Wynn had 6669 PA in his first 12 years, Puckett had 7831 total in his career. Adjusting the PAs to reflect a single run environment and smooth out the deep R/G valley in Wynn's career and the spikes and valleys in Pucketts would probably do some good here since it's pretty close.

1B-OFs returnees with 200+ votes

adj OPS+ seasons, 100 or better
RalKiner 184 84 73 56 46 40 32 21 17
ChKeller 168 63 62 60 59 55 44 41
FrHoward 177 77 70 53 49 46 44 37 27 11 07

Browning 222 90 77 77 73 69 63 54 38 32
ChaJones 183 68 68 58 57 56 54 47 32 06
HugDuffy 177 47 27 26 25 25 23 09 07

BJohnson 174 55 47 43 41 35 34 30 29 29 27 25 25
JBeckley 152 44 38 33 31 28 27 27 26 26 26 24 22 12 12 05 02
NormCash 201 50 48 42 36 35 34 29 28 28 26 20
JimmWynn 167 57 51 46 43 41 37 33 16 08
OrCepeda 165 64 57 48 35 34 33 31 29 25 17 10 06
EddRoush 159 53 48 47 43 41 34 24 24 23 08
MiMinoso 155 51 49 40 36 35 33 31 21 16 13 08

Notes:
Keller credited with a 160 and 155 of war credit.
I gave Howard a 459 PA at 149 and a 487 PA at 107.
Browning had his 169 in the 1890 PL, the best league, at age 29.
No credit here for ChJones holdouts, but you may want to give some.
Duffy's 147 is in a weak 1891 AA season.

Johnson's 174 is in a weak 1944 season.
I gave Cash a 142 at 458 PA and a 126 at 452 PA, but not a 141 at 428 PA or a 126 at 420 PA.
I gave Wynn a 116 in 466 PA.
I gave Minoso one 108 bonus for Negro League play.

Throwing in Bobby Bonds:

BobBonds 153 46 43 36 35 33 32 23 19 17

On offense only, a little shy of the Roush-Minoso type by this measure.
461 SBs, 73 pct success rate as well.

Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 12, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#2208675)
Do you consider Edd’s two seasons where he missed significant time while battling for a fair contract similar to the problems Charley Jones faced? If not why? This isn’t something anyone really goes through anymore in MLB, you occasionally see it in the NFL though.

A fabulously interesting question. A lot of this question may have been subsumed by a somewhat offhanded remark that appeared in the BJNHBA (i think) in which Bill says that Edd didn't like spring training or some such notion of mild malingering. Perhaps he's quoting someone at that moment. Anyway, the substance of those comments has perhaps colored our view of that situation, but the question still stands. Isn't it realistically the same thing as Charley Jones? Or Tony Mullane? Or Home Run Baker? I think it likely is.

OK, so the question for Mike is, what years did he hold out, and for how many regular season games did the holdout last? That's the jubber meets the road. Put a number to it for each year, and let's see how many Shares that potentially cost him.

Gee, I’m glad you asked. ;)

I have a whole bio about Edd - but it barely covers his life post 1919. Wish it had more, so I may have to dig around.

Years that Edd could have some additional Credit:

War Years –
1918 played 113 of 129 team games. Missed the final four games of the season when his father fell off a telephone pole, the injuries would eventually kill him. Incidentally Roush missed a batting title by 2 points, and missed the final series of the season in St. Louis, the Cards led the league in hits allowed that year.

1919 played 133 of 140 team games.

Holdouts
1922 – Signed July 23. Played just 49 games. Did not start a game until Aug 10. Played 43 of the team’s final 46.
1930 – Sat out season when he refused to take a pay cut from Giants

Injuries
1928 – Tore a stomach muscle

Unknown to Me, but at least partially injury
1921 – played just 112 games. Missed 1st 15 games, then missed 2 weeks in late Aug early Sept, followed by 10 more games in September. I would be reluctant to give him hold out credit for those first two weeks. I am sure there are many players that had that circumstance.

So here is the four season where he should get some credits.

WS Credit
Year - Actual – Phantom - Total
1918 – 22 – 4 – 26
1919 – 33 – 3 – 36
1922 - 9 – 16 – 25
1930 – 0 – 15 – 15

Career – 314 – 38 – 352


1922 is a guess. In 1923, at age 30, he had 28 win shares. I won’t argue with you if you think 25 is too many. I won’t argue with you if you say the partial season he did play extrapolates out to 30.

1930 – His sequence starting at age 34 in 1927 - 16, 3,15, 0, 5. The three is the stomach muscle tear season.

The Giants played two RH hitters in CF in 1930, Wally Roettger OPS+ 72, and Ethan Allen OPS+ 90. The Giants missed the pennant by five games, I doubt Edd could have saved them. Cincy had Evar Swanson with an OPS+ of 80. I think a 37 Roush could have had a nice average season.

So what does this all mean?

Well if you are a peak guy Roush top 3 seasons go from 33, 33, 30 to 36, 33, 30. Which pretty much makes him a ringer for Wally Berger’s 36, 33, 31. Is there anyone voting for Berger that isn’t for Roush? I doubt it. But it might help him on someone’s spreadsheet.

So what about career? Roush has 314 Win Shares, tied with Dickey and Pee Wee for 147th all time. No adjustment for season length on that list. 314 is good company, but there are guys around there who aren’t in or won’t be.

Now if you move up the list to 352, well 352 is Duke Snider, number 87 lifetime. One ahead of Max Carey, and Lou Whitaker. I think you could say 350 is the in/out line. There is only one guy above 350 that likely won’t make it, Rusty Staub. Just below 350 are Lou Brock, Tony Perez and Dewey Evans (all 162 game schedule guys with long careers).

Hey, a question for somebody:

On the Newsblog there's a Bookmark button next to the Comment button. Every now and then I accidentally hit the Bookmark button and the item in question goes on my right hand column above the Hot Topics.

How do you get rid of the damn things?

Mike,

Thanks for the background. Roush also played very few games in 1916, after coming back from the Fed. I juiced up his numbers from 1916 and 1922 (at the same rates) to 145 games - what I felt was reasonable.

Under that scenario, Roush would move up on my ballot from 45 to 31.

Still unlikely that he'll make my ballot, but youneverknow depending on how deep we go with the elect-3 years.

Wanted you to know that you weren't shouting into the dark.....

Hey, a question for somebody:

Since we're asking questions...

What happened to the Localization Settings? They've been disabled for almost a year now. I had the misfortune of being on vacation at the time, so they got locked in my vacation time zone -- which I don't live in. Even if they plan on keeping them locked for good, could someone change mine back to Pacific?

Its not a life or death request, but it would be nice. :-)

I don't know if this will get a conversation going or not but...

There seems to be a consensus that when a player misses time due to no fault of his own, and it is likely he would have had value if he played, that player should get some form of credit for the missed time. Correct?

Lets say a player plays center field, and plays it well. Lets say that a team moves him to left or right, due to no fault of his own, while he can still probably play center. The person now has less defensive value as a left fielder, but shouldn't he be given extra credit? Or if a shortstop is moved to another position, while he's still reasonably good at the position, shouldn't he be given extra credit? If not, why not?

There are other examples of players playing in suboptimal ways (for the player) - less playing time than they deserve, batting low in the order which costs them plate appearances, etc. Why would you only give extra credit for not playing at all, rather than for playing part of the time?

dizzy - some people did give Joe Sewell SS credit for his whole career, time at 3B notwithstanding.

If anyone checked my defensive research on the 1890's OF trio (specifically Duffy) I also advocate giving Duffy several extra years credit as a CF instead of a cornerman.

Lets say a player plays center field, and plays it well. Lets say that a team moves him to left or right, due to no fault of his own, while he can still probably play center. The person now has less defensive value as a left fielder, but shouldn't he be given extra credit? Or if a shortstop is moved to another position, while he's still reasonably good at the position, shouldn't he be given extra credit? If not, why not?

Because there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of this. Trying to ascertain whether or not a player deserved to be moved or not would be just too time consuming with a lot of guess work, IMO. Same goes for pitchers destroyed by their managers: do we start extrapolating whole careers for phenoms who shot across the sky like meteors? Pass.

As for Roush, if he had a choice to stay with his team but decided against it as a way to get a bigger salary, then I can't give him credit beyond WWI. All players had an argument that they were underpaid back then. I don't see it the same way as Charley Jones' predicament, for example.

Hey, a question for somebody:

On the Newsblog there's a Bookmark button next to the Comment button. Every now and then I accidentally hit the Bookmark button and the item in question goes on my right hand column above the Hot Topics.

How do you get rid of the damn things?

Hit DEL next to the thread in question, Marc.

Since we're asking questions...

What happened to the Localization Settings? They've been disabled for almost a year now. I had the misfortune of being on vacation at the time, so they got locked in my vacation time zone -- which I don't live in. Even if they plan on keeping them locked for good, could someone change mine back to Pacific?

Its not a life or death request, but it would be nice. :-)

You need to address that to Jim Furatdo or Dan Symborski, David.

Jeez. I thought DEL was the last guy to post.

As for Roush, if he had a choice to stay with his team but decided against it as a way to get a bigger salary, then I can't give him credit beyond WWI. All players had an argument that they were underpaid back then. I don't see it the same way as Charley Jones' predicament, for example.

Why, John? If Roush is one of a very small handful of guys (like Baker IIRC) who are willing to go balls to the walls in a legal fashion (i.e., doesn't throw games) because the unfairly suppressed talent market reduces their earning potential, why should he be penalized? We all do make value judgements in this process. This particular value judgement suggests that Roush's decision was not grounded in a point of view you are valuing, i.e., he should roll over and play for what he can get...despite the fact that the owners dictate the limits for his compensation in a closed market. When we prorate strike-shortened seasons, we are saying that it's OK to ask for more, to seek just compensation, and to take a stand for employee rights. Why isn't it OK for Roush?

Jeez. I thought DEL was the last guy to post.

:-D

This particular value judgement suggests that Roush's decision was not grounded in a point of view you are valuing, i.e., he should roll over and play for what he can get...despite the fact that the owners dictate the limits for his compensation in a closed market. When we prorate strike-shortened seasons, we are saying that it's OK to ask for more, to seek just compensation, and to take a stand for employee rights. Why isn't it OK for Roush?


For one thing, Eric, it's not my view that Roush or any player should have rolled over and play for whatever they got. The system prior to free agency was, without doubt, unfair and I'm glad that it's buried and long gone. But I still question giving credit for holdouts, though i understand people here who differ with my opinion and I have no problem with them giving credit for it.

When we prorate strike-shortened seasons, we are saying that it's OK to ask for more, to seek just compensation, and to take a stand for employee rights. Why isn't it OK for Roush?

I wont be giving credit for '82 and '94-'95 either, though I was on the players' side for both actions.

However, I promise that I will think about this issue some more, Eric.

Jeez. I thought DEL was the last guy to post.

When this feature was first introduced, someone changed his handle to DEL just for confusion's sake.

>When this feature was first introduced

I suppose this was a year or two ago... Doh.

I suppose this was a year or two ago... Doh.

The advancing years will do that to you, Marc. ;-)

When this feature was first introduced, someone changed his handle to DEL just for confusion's sake.

lol

bump

Speaking of guys holding out, you may want to include Mike Griffin. He had signed a contract to be the Dodgers' player-manager in 1899, but after the syndicate swap with Baltimore, the owners wanted Ned Hanlon to manage instead. Griffin refused to take a new player-only contract for less money, and got traded twice but still refused to play. He sued the Dodgers and eventually won, but since he wasn't playing baseball, he went into business (I don't know what) and never returned to the game.

Griffin used to get some votes, back in the day; he and Tiernan ultimately were steamrolled by the GVH-Duffy-Ryan troika (and even Ryan fell off all ballots for several years before making a very modest comeback in recent years).

and thanks for the bump here, sunnyday - I meant to do that earlier today..