Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Sunday, October 15, 2006

1987 Results: ‘50’s Stars Kiner, Pierce, and Minoso Are Hall of Merit Bound!

After 26 attempts, legendary Pirate slugger Ralph Kiner finally made it with his 27th by claiming the top spot for HoM induction this “year.” He earned 39% of all possible points.

Though not as long as Kiner, ace ChiSox pitcher Billy Pierce won the second HoM spot for induction in his 18th year on the ballot with 39% of all possible points.

Like his White Sox teammate, NeL and ML star Minnie Minoso was rewarded with the 3rd spot for induction in also his 18th year of seeing his name on a ballot. He achieved 35% of all possible points.

Breaking the 2-year record by 1, there were 88 candidates who received at least one vote this “year.”

Rounding out the top-ten were: Cupid Childs (is ‘88 finally his “year?”), Ken Boyer (he’ll give Childs a run for his money), Nellie Fox, Jimmy Wynn, Jake Beckley, Dobie Moore, and Quincey Trouppe (first time in the top-ten!.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    3  Ralph Kiner              501   34   5  1  2  4  2  2  3     3  1  5  2  1  1  2
 2    4  Billy Pierce             497   29   4  4  2  3  5     4  3  1     1  1  1      
 3    5  Minnie Minoso            442   32   3  2  1  1  3  1  3  2  2  4  4  2  1  2  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    7  Cupid Childs             437   29      7  2     3  2  1  3  2  2  1  2     3  1
 5    6  Ken Boyer                417   33      2  3  2  2  2  1  3  2  2  2  2  4  4  2
 6    8  Nellie Fox               402   24      4  5  2  2  2  1  2  3  1     1  1      
 7   10  Jimmy Wynn               394   31         5  1  3  1  1  3  1  3  3  3  2  3  2
 8   11  Jake Beckley             359   23   4  3  1  1  2     2  1  1  1  2  2  1  1  1
 9   12  Dobie Moore              346   22   4  2  3  1  1  1     2        1  3     3  1
10   15  Quincy Trouppe           339   22      4  1  3  3  2  1  2  1  1  1     2  1   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   18  Edd Roush                331   23   1  3  1  1  4  1  1  1  1  3  1  2  1     2
12   16  Charlie Keller           320   21   4  1  1  3  1  1  1  1  2  1     1     2  2
13    9  Cannonball Dick Redding  313   22   3  2     1  3     2  2  1        3  3  1  1
14   17  Pete Browning            313   19   2  2  4  1     1  3     2        2  1  1   
15   13  Hugh Duffy               302   20   2     3  1     3  3     3     3  2         
16   19  Charley Jones            299   16   2  5  2  1  1     1  2        1  1         
17   14  Bucky Walters            258   18   4        1  1  2  2  1     1  1  2     1  2
18   20  George Van Haltren       230   16   2     1        3  3  2  1  1  1     1     1
19   21  Gavvy Cravath            219   18   1     1  2  1  1  1        3  1  1  2  2  2
20   22  Bob Johnson              219   15   2     1  1  2  1  2  1     2        1  2   
21   24  Alejandro Oms            192   15   1     1  1     1  1  2  1  2  1  1  1  1  1
22   25  Burleigh Grimes          189   13   1  2     1  1  1  1  1  1     1     2     1
23   23  Roger Bresnahan          182   13   2     1        1  1  1  3     1  1  1  1   
24   30  Norm Cash                166   13         2        4  1     1        1  1  1  2
25   27  Tommy Leach              164   13            4     1     1  3  1     1        2
26  n/e  Bobby Bonds              156   13      1        1  4        1     1  1  1     3
27   28  Orlando Cepeda           144   12         1  2           1  1  2  1  1  1  2   
28   26  Lou Brock                139   11   1  1        1  1     1     1     1  1  2  1
29   29  Mickey Welch             132    9   1  1        2  1  1     1                 2
30   31  Dizzy Dean               129   10      1  1  2              1        1  2  1  1
31   32  Larry Doyle              116    7   1  1     1  1  1           1  1            
32   44  Ben Taylor                99    7      1  1        1        1  1  1           1
33   34  Elston Howard             91    9                        1  2  1  2  1  1     1
34   35  Tommy Bridges             91    7               1  1  1  1  1  1  1            
35   36  Bob Elliott               90    9                        1     2  3  1  2      
36   40  Vic Willis                90    8            1        1  1  1  1  1        1  1
37   33  Wally Schang              89    6   1     1              1     1  1  1         
38   39  Thurman Munson            85    9               1        1  1           3  2  1
39   37  Phil Rizzuto              84    5         2  1              1  1               
40   43  Pie Traynor               83    7   1              1           1  1  1     2   
41   38  John McGraw               83    5      1  1  1     1                          1
42  n/e  Sal Bando                 77    7                  1  1  2              2     1
43   41  Addie Joss                75    5      1           2     1           1         
44   46  Jimmy Ryan                73    7                  1        1  2     2        1
45   55  Chuck Klein               61    5         1  1                       1     1  1
46   42  Carl Mays                 59    5               2              1  1           1
47   47  Sam Rice                  57    5                  1     2              2      
48   52  Rabbit Maranville         56    5   1                                2  1     1
49   51  Dave Bancroft             53    5                  1  1                 3      
50T  49  Bill Monroe               51    4            1              1  2               
50T  60  Dizzy Trout               51    4            1  1           1                 1
52   48  Al Rosen                  46    5                     1           2           2
53   54  Ed Cicotte                45    3         1           1              1         
54   45  Vern Stephens             42    4                        1  1  1              1
55   58  Ernie Lombardi            42    3         1           1                       1
56   53  Frank Howard              41    5                                 2     1  1  1
57   50  Ed Williamson             41    3                  1     2                     
58   59  Luis Aparicio             39    4                     1        1           2   
59   64  Jack Quinn                39    2      1        1                              
60   72T Dutch Leonard             38    3            1        1                    1   
61   61  Frank Chance              34    3            1                    1        1   
62T  56  Tony Mullane              33    3                     1     1              1   
62T  57  Bobby Veach               33    3                        1     1     1         
64   62  Lefty Gomez               28    2            1                 1               
65   68  George J. Burns           25    3                                 1     1  1   
66   63  Urban Shocker             25    2            1                          1      
67   65  Don Newcombe              20    2                           1           1      
68   76  Hack Wilson               18    2                              1           1   
69   79T Herman Long               17    2                                    1  1      
70T  67  Fielder Jones             17    1            1                                 
70T  66  Tony Oliva                17    1            1                                 
72   77T Jim Fregosi               16    2                                 1           1
73T  72T Artie Wilson              16    1               1                              
73T  70T Wilbur Cooper             16    1               1                              
75   70T Sam Leever                15    1                  1                           
76  n/e  Dom DiMaggio              14    2                                       1     1
77T  69  Fred Dunlap               14    1                     1                        
77T  72T Mickey Vernon             14    1                     1                        
79   75  Virgil Trucks             12    1                           1                  
80   82T Kiki Cuyler               11    1                              1               
81   77T Sol White                 10    1                                 1            
82   79T George Kell                8    1                                       1      
83T  82T Harvey Kuenn               7    1                                          1   
83T  79T Vada Pinson                7    1                                          1   
83T n/e  Hilton Smith               7    1                                          1   
83T n/e  Cecil Travis               7    1                                          1   
87T n/e  Wally Berger               6    1                                             1
87T n/e  Heinie Manush              6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Dick Bartell(82T).
Ballots Cast: 53


 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2006 at 08:02 PM | 85 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:03 AM (#2214475)
Congrats to the three inductees!

Cupid, Cupid, Cupid...

HOF-not-HOM through 1987
 
1  Aparicio
Luis
2. Bancroft
Dave
3. Beckley
Jake
4  Bender
Chief
5  Bottomley
Jim
6  Bresnahan
Roger
7  Brock
Lou
8  Chance
Frank
9  Chesbro
Jack
10 Combs
Earle
11 Cuyler
Kiki
12 Dandridge
Ray
13 Dean
Dizzy
14 Duffy
Hugh
15 Evers
Johnny
16 Ferrell
Rick
17 Gomez
Lefty
18 Grimes
Burleigh
19 Hafey
Chick
20 Haines
Jesse
21 Hooper
Harry
22 Hoyt
Waite
23 Hunter
Catfish
24 Jackson
Travis
25 Johnson
Judy
26 Joss
Addie
27 Kell
George
28 Kelly
George
29 Klein
Chuck
30 Lindstrom
Freddie
31 Lombardi
Ernie
32 Manush
Heinie
33 Maranville
Rabbit
34 Marquard
Rube
35 McCarthy
Tommy
36 McGraw
John 
37 Pennock
Herb
38 Rice
Sam
39 Roush
Edd
40 Schalk
Ray
41 Tinker
Joe
42 Traynor
Pie
43 Waner
Lloyd
44 Welch
Mickey
45 Wilson
Hack
46 Youngs
Ross
 
HOM
-not-HOF
 
1  Allen
Dick 
2  Ashburn
Richie
3  Barnes
Ross
4  Beckwith
John
5  Bennett
Charlie
6  Brown
Ray
7  Brown
Willard
8  Bunning
Jim
9  Caruthers
Bob
10 Dahlen
Bill
11 Davis
George
12 Doby
Larry
13 Ferrell
Wes
14 Foster
Willie 
15 Freehan
Bill
16 Glasscock
Jack
17 Gordon
Joe
18 Gore
George
19 Grant
Frank
20 Groh
Heinie
21 Hack
Stan
22 Hill
Pete
23 Hines
Paul
24 Jackson
Joe*
25 JohnsonHome Run
26 Mackey
Biz
27 Magee
Sherry
28 McPhee
Bid
29 McVey
Cal
30 Méndez
José
31 Minoso
Minnie
32 Newhouser
Hal
33 Pearce
Dickey
34 Pierce
Billy
35 Pike
Lip
36 Richardson
Hardy
37 Rogan
Bullet Joe
38 Santo
Ron
39 Santop
Louis
40 Sheckard
Jimmy
41 Start
Joe
42 Stearnes
Turkey
43 Stovey
Harry
44 Suttles
Mule
45 Sutton
Ezra
46 Torre
Joe
47 Torriente
Cristobal
48 Wells
Willie
49 White
Deacon
50 Williams
Smokey Joe
51 Wilson
Jud
 
*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. OCF Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:13 AM (#2214485)
Voters who voted within the last two years but not in 1987: Ken Fischer, Tiboreau, Vaux.

Average consensus score -16.3, a new record. (Old record, -15.4, 1968). Highest possible consensus score: +1.

Howie Menckel: -7
Got Melky: -8
favre: -9
Andrew M.: -9
fra paolo: -9
Juan V: -10
jschmeagol: -10
TomH: -10
...
OCF: -16
mulder & scully: -17
Rick A: -17 (median)
...
John Murphy: -18
...
Thane of Bagarth: -21
Daryn: -21
Jeff M: -21
rawagman: -21
Max Parkinson: -22
jimd: -22
EricC: -23
rico vanian: -23
KJOK: -24
Joe Dimino: -25
karlmagnus: -26
yest: -28

Each time we peel off one layer of the backlog, the result is not to focus voters on some of those remaining in the backlog but rather to scatter the votes ever wider. This election was in doubt right up until the very last voter.
   3. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:18 AM (#2214493)
HOMers sorted by the percentage of available points in the year of election. Players in bold were elected in their first year of eligibility.

Three more backloggers elected, three more players in the Very Split category. No surprise there.


INNER CIRCLE, BABY!

100.0 - Cy Young (1917)
100.0 - Honus Wagner (1923)
100.0 - Walter Johnson (1933)
100.0 - Babe Ruth (1941)
100.0 - Lou Gehrig (1944)
100.0 - Lefty Grove (1947)
100.0 - Joe DiMaggio (1957)
100.0 - Ted Williams (1966)
100.0 - Stan Musial (1969)
100.0 - Mickey Mantle (1974)
100.0 - Willie Mays (1979)
100.0 - Hank Aaron (1982)

NO-BRAINERS (>95)

99.8 - Sam Crawford (1924)
99.7 - Dan Brouthers (1902)
99.5 - Jimmie Foxx (1951)
99.5 - Warren Spahn (1971)
99.4 - Pete Alexander (1936)
99.4 - Josh Gibson (1952)
99.3 - Ty Cobb (1934)
99.2 - Oscar Charleston (1943)
98.9 - Kid Nichols (1911)
98.8 - Nap Lajoie (1922)
98.7 - Bob Gibson (1981)
98.4 - Ed Delahanty (1909)
98.4 - Arky Vaughan (1954)
98.3 - Roy Campanella (1963)
97.9 - Charlie Gehringer (1948)
97.9 - Bob Feller (1962)
97.8 - Eddie Collins (1935)
96.9 - Turkey Stearnes (1946)
96.6 - Satchel Paige (1959)
96.5 - Christy Mathewson (1922)
96.3 - Willie McCovey (1986)
95.8 - Rogers Hornsby (1941)
95.8 - Frank Robinson (1982)
95.7 - George Davis (1915)
95.7 - Carl Hubbell (1949)
95.4 - Eddie Mathews (1974)
95.3 - Paul Waner (1950)
95.3 - Mel Ott (1952)

EASY CHOICES (>85)

94.9 - Jesse Burkett (1912)
94.8 - Smokey Joe Williams (1936)
94.8 - Johnny Mize (1959)
94.7 - Robin Roberts (1972)
94.7 - Ernie Banks (1977)
94.6 - Duke Snider (1970)
94.5 - Yogi Berra (1969)
94.4 - Deacon White (1898)
94.0 - Paul Hines (1898)
94.0 - Jim O'Rourke (1899)
94.0 - Jackie Robinson (1962)
93.7 - Al Simmons (1946)
93.2 - Roger Connor (1903)
93.1 - Roberto Clemente (1978)
92.1 - Gabby Hartnett (1947)
92.0 - Louis Santop (1932)
91.9 - Pop Lloyd (1935)
91.9 - Al Kaline (1980)
91.7 - Luke Appling (1956)
91.5 - Bill Dickey (1953)
90.6 - Harry Heilmann (1937)
90.3 - Buck Leonard (1955)
90.0 - John Clarkson (1900)
89.1 - Billy Hamilton (1907)
89.1 - Hank Greenberg (1953)
88.9 - Bill Dahlen (1915)
88.3 - Mickey Cochrane (1943)
88.2 - Cristobal Torriente (1937)
87.7 - Ron Santo (1980)
87.7 - Harmon Killebrew (1981)
87.2 - Joe Cronin (1951)
86.7 - Frankie Frisch (1944)
85.2 - Cap Anson* (1903)
85.2 - Fred Clarke (1917)

* Six voters boycotted Anson in 1903.

SOMEWHAT DEBATABLE (>70)

84.0 - King Kelly (1899)
83.5 - Ray Brown (1955)
82.9 - Martin Dihigo (1950)
82.6 - Frank Baker (1928)
82.4 - Jack Glasscock (1904)
82.2 - Eddie Plank (1924)
82.0 - Tris Speaker (1934)
81.5 - Goose Goslin (1945)
79.9 - Bullet Rogan (1940)
79.5 - George Gore (1898)
79.1 - Whitey Ford (1973)
78.6 - Hal Newhouser (1960)
78.4 - Willie Wells (1954)
78.2 - Tim Keefe (1901)
76.9 - Zack Wheat (1933)
76.6 - Jud Wilson (1948)
76.2 - George Wright (1901)
75.6 - Ezra Sutton (1908)
75.5 - Hoyt Wilhelm (1978)
74.7 - Buck Ewing (1902)
74.5 - Bid McPhee (1913)
74.4 - Ed Walsh (1920)
74.4 - Joe Jackson (1927)
73.9 - Pud Galvin (1910)
73.5 - John Ward (1900)
73.5 - Cal McVey (1914)
73.4 - Al Spalding (1906)
73.3 - Willie Keeler (1919)
72.5 - Joe Start (1912)
71.7 - Charley Radbourn (1905)
71.3 - Pee Wee Reese (1964)
70.7 - Jimmy Collins (1921)

SPLIT DECISIONS (>50)

69.8 - Amos Rusie (1904)
69.2 - Elmer Flick (1918)
68.9 - Dick Allen (1983)
68.4 - Ross Barnes (1898)
68.3 - Juan Marichal (1980)
68.1 - Joe Kelley (1919)
68.0 - Brooks Robinson (1984)
67.3 - Mule Suttles (1956)
67.1 - Hardy Richardson (1905)
67.1 - Grant Johnson (1925)
66.8 - Mordecai Brown (1925)
66.8 - Ted Lyons (1949)
65.8 - Billy Williams (1983)
65.0 - Bill Foster (1945)
64.9 - Heinie Groh (1938)
63.2 - Harry Stovey (1916)
62.4 - Stan Coveleski (1938)
62.1 - Larry Doby (1965)
61.6 - Jimmy Sheckard (1930)
61.3 - Frank Grant (1926)
61.3 - Monte Irvin (1963)
61.0 - Bobby Wallace (1929)
60.9 - Charlie Bennett (1921)
60.9 - Enos Slaughter (1965)
60.7 - Joe McGinnity (1928)
60.2 - Sherry Magee (1926)
60.0 - Pete Hill (1927)
59.9 - Billy Herman (1958)
59.9 - Joe Torre (1984)
58.0 - John Beckwith (1957)
56.6 - Bob Caruthers (1930)
56.5 - Dazzy Vance (1942)
54.9 - Don Drysdale (1975)
54.6 - Sam Thompson (1929)
54.3 - Sandy Koufax (1972)
53.0 - Dickey Pearce (1931)

VERY SPLIT DECISIONS (<50)

49.1 - Early Wynn (1970)
48.6 - Rube Foster (1932)
48.6 - Stan Hack (1958)
48.5 - Lou Boudreau (1958)
47.0 - José Méndez (1985)
46.3 - Red Faber (1939)
45.6 - Max Carey (1939)
44.9 - Bill Terry (1942)
44.7 - Joe Medwick (1967)
43.0 - Bill Freehan (1985)
41.8 - Joe Gordon (1976)
41.5 - Bob Lemon (1967)
41.3 - Wes Ferrell (1964)
40.5 - Lip Pike (1940)
40.4 - Earl Averill (1961)
39.4 - Ralph Kiner (1987)
39.1 - Billy Pierce (1987)
38.8 - Red Ruffing (1966)
38.7 - Eppa Rixey (1968)
38.2 - George Sisler (1979)
38.1 - Richie Ashburn (1968)
38.1 - Rube Waddell (1986)
37.9 - Willard Brown (1976)
37.7 - Hughie Jennings (1960)
37.7 - Jim Bunning (1977)
36.8 - Cool Papa Bell (1973)
35.4 - Biz Mackey (1975)
34.8 - Joe Sewell (1985)
34.7 - Minnie Minoso (1987)
32.8 - Clark Griffith (1971)
32.8 - Bobby Doerr (1972)
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#2214494)
Each time we peel off one layer of the backlog, the result is not to focus voters on some of those remaining in the backlog but rather to scatter the votes ever wider. This election was in doubt right up until the very last voter.

Kiner had it in the bag for almost the whole election, but Boyer and Fox were slotted at #2 and #3 until today when Pierce surged. Childs then nabbed the third spot and held it until Don and Devin posted their ballots after 7.

Since Minnie was on my ballot, I'm glad that he made it, but after 81 tries, it would have been nice to see Childs make it.
   5. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#2214497)
"This election was in doubt right up until the very last voter."

True. Those two late first-place votes for Minoso proved decisive.
   6. Howie Menckel Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2214502)
all-time 'votes points' thru 1987 - those still eligible in 1988 election are in CAPS. electees not in caps.

Beckley now may need only 3 more years to pass GVH for No. 1... Childs reclaims his No. 6 slot from the now-elected Waddell, and he also passes Griffith to grab a spot in the top 5... Redding passes Ryan to grab a spot in the top 15... CJones grabs 17th.. Bresnahan passes Leach for 19th.. Moore grabs 23rd.. Roush is only a year away from a top 25 spot... Kiner departs with 7746 pts.. Minoso departs with 6131 pts.. Pierce departs with 5215 pts. All three were not in the overall top 25 but in the 'active top 25.' Oms, Fox, Johnson move up.

(no caps for electees, and eliminate non-top 25s and actives)


TOP 25, ALL-TIME
VAN HALTREN 22988.5
BECKLEY 22657
DUFFY 22100.5
BROWNING 19139.5
CHILDS 18024
Griffith 17924
Waddell 17596
Jennings 16976
WELCH 15664
Sisler 13892

Pike 13399
Sewell 12769
Mendez 12555
Thompson 12349
REDDING 12057
RYAN 11878.5
CJONES 11679
Bennett 11503
BRESNAHAN 11296
TLEACH 11284

Rixey 10789
Caruthers 10704
Beckwith 9896
MOORE 9580
H Stovey 9576
Mackey 8930

OTHERS IN THE TOP 25 ACTIVE
(Roush 8811, Doyle 7350, Cravath 6904, Monroe 6432, Grimes 6351, Walters 5894, Williamson 5369, Schang 5364, McGraw 5031, Trouppe 4888, Oms 4552, Fox 4181, BJohnson 4044)

not quite
(Keller 3531, Joss 3514, Willis 3491, McCormick 3148X, Boyer 3619, Chance 2942, Elliott 2906)
   7. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:33 AM (#2214507)
From the Useless Trivia Dept: If Dobie Moore gets elected, he'll become the first (and probably the only) HOMer that's ever dropped off the ballot completely. He failed to score a single point in 1934, remained off the radar in 1935, and clawed his way back onto the ballot in 1936.
   8. Chris Fluit Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:33 AM (#2214508)
Hooray for Billy Pierce! I wasn't his best friend, but he's a big reason why I stopped lurking and started voting (kind of like rawagman and Rube Waddell).

3. Lemon Curry? Posted:
Three more backloggers elected, three more players in the Very Split category. No surprise there.

The only tension in that regard was whether or not the third-place finisher would break Clark Griffith's record for lowest percentage. After seeing how Joe Sewell finished in '85, I actually thought we'd set a new record this time around.
   9. Howie Menckel Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2214513)
Well, Dickey Pearce got only a 15th-place vote in the first 'year.'
Did he get votes every year after that? I don't recall.
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#2214519)
Well, Dickey Pearce got only a 15th-place vote in the first 'year.'
Did he get votes every year after that? I don't recall.


Ahem!

:-D
   11. Lemon Curry? Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#2214521)
"Did [Pearce] get votes every year after that? I don't recall."

Yes, he did. Six points (0.8%) in the inaugural election, 32 points (4.3%) in 1898, 45 points (5.4%) in 1900 - and the rest is history. Still, good for Pearce you guys aren't using Copperstown's five-percent rule, or he'd have faded into obscurity.
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:48 AM (#2214525)
Still, good for Pearce you guys aren't using Copperstown's five-percent rule, or he'd have faded into obscurity.

Pierce is a perfect illustration of why the five-percent rule is silly. We were clueless to how good Pierce was prior to the NA. The only thing most of us knew about him was that he popularized the fair-foul hit.
   13. Rick A. Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:07 AM (#2214535)
Rick A: -17 (median)

Wow! Median vote total. Seems not too long ago, I was nearing the bottom of the consensus scores. Ed Williamson and Vic Willis votes don't have as much power as they used to. :)
   14. Rick A. Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:09 AM (#2214538)
By the way, OCF. Do you know when was the last time I was above or equal to the median? Probably not for a long time since I tend to have a lot of 19th century players on my ballot.
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:10 AM (#2214539)
Glad to see the jumps for Roush and Trouppe, but...

Do you guys reallllllly want to elect Jake Beckley? (I know what Karl thinks, I'm not asking him.) Is Jake Beckley better than, say, Tony Perez? Or Bill Terry? Or George Sisler? Or Keith Hernandez? Or Orlando Cepeda? Or Cal McVey? Because somewhere very near there is where the in/out line is drawn. And given all the questions about Beckley---about his total lack of peak, about Cblau pointing out that Beckley did NOT field very many bunts compared to his true deadball peers, about Beckley almost never (or never?) being a serious MVP candidate, about Beckley rarely being an All-Star at his position---can we honestly say to ourselves that he's one of the ten best candidates remaining?

Is Jake Beckley really more electable as a first baseman than Trouppe, Roush, Cha. Jones, Browning, or Moore are at their positions? One of whom is a top-fifteen player at a position we're lagging on (catcher), another who was a multitime MVP (Roush), two whose hitting was thoroughly dominant for their era (Jones and Browning) and who tore the cover off the ball in every league they played in, and another who was the best SS in the four major leagues of the 1920s (Moore)? For that matter is Beckley more special than Hugh Duffy, another guy with the MVP and All-Star credentials that Beckley lacks?

All the guys I just mentioned are comparable to (as in as-good-as) guys we've already elected. Jake Beckley is not. Jake Beckley never dominated anything. He never showed greatness. He never had a sustained string of anything resembling HOM-level play. His best years are barely better than Dusty Baker's or Jeff Heath's or Gary Matthews' or Del Ennis's, even with the schedule adjustment. He's the Lou Brock of first basemen, AT BEST. And we've got plenty of first basemen hanging in the plaque room, so there's not even a case to be made of his being at a position with short shrift.

Look, I agree Beckley was a productive player with a long career. So was Lou Brock, so was Burleigh Grimes, so was Mickey Vernon, so was Heinie Manush, so was Vada Pinson, so was Cesar Cedeno, so was Harry Hooper, so was Norm Cash, so was Red Schoendienst, so was Luis Aparicio, so was Rusty Staub, so was Lave Cross, so was Bert Campeneris, so was Jerry Koosman, so was Bob Friend, so was Herb Pennock. But we're not going to honor any of those guys, guys who were in the same class of player as Jake Beckley. I don't understand, then, why we should single Beckley out from this group for honor.
   16. karlmagnus Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:14 AM (#2214543)
Because Beckley had a far longer career, played a more difficult defensive position, and had 21 OPS+ points more than Brock, for example. Yawn!
   17. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:18 AM (#2214547)
Karl, I didn't ask you, didn't you read?!

FYI, i also posted it on the 1988 discussion thread, which is probably where I should have put in the first place.
   18. yest Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:32 AM (#2214607)
A list of eligible HoFers
HoMers in bold
all HoFers with significant playing careers are included
1936
Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson
1937
Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, Cy Young , Connie Mack, John McGraw, George Wright
1938
Pete Alexander
1939
George Sisler , Eddie Collins , Willie Keeler , Lou Gehrig, Cap Anson , Charlie Comiskey , Candy Cummings , Buck Ewing , Charles Radbourn , Al Spalding
1942
Rogers Hornsby
1945
Roger Bresnahan , Dan Brouthers , Fred Clarke , Jimmy Collins , Ed Delahanty , Hugh Duffy , Hughie Jennings , King Kelly , Jim O’Rourke , Wilbert Robinson
1946
Jesse Burkett , Frank Chance , Jack Chesbro , Johnny Evers , , Clark Griffith, , Tommy McCarthy , Joe McGinnity , Eddie Plank , Joe Tinker , Rube Waddell , Ed Walsh
1947
Carl Hubbell , Frankie Frisch , Mickey Cochrane , Lefty Grove
1948
Herb Pennock , Pie Traynor
1949
Charlie Gehringer , Mordecai Brown , Kid Nichols
1951
Mel Ott , Jimmie Foxx
1952
Harry Heilmann , Paul Waner
1953
Al Simmons , Dizzy Dean , Chief Bender , Bobby Wallace , Harry Wright
1954
Rabbit Maranville , Bill Dickey , Bill Terry
1955
Joe DiMaggio , Ted Lyons , Dazzy Vance , Gabby Hartnett , Frank Baker , Ray Schalk
1956
Hank Greenberg , Joe Cronin
1957
Sam Crawford
1959
Zack Wheat
1961
Max Carey , Billy Hamilton
1962
Bob Feller , Jackie Robinson , Bill McKechnie , Edd Roush
1963
John Clarkson , Elmer Flick , Sam Rice , Eppa Rixey
1964
Luke Appling , Red Faber , Burleigh Grimes , Miller Huggins , Tim Keefe , Heinie Manush , Monte Ward
1965
Pud Galvin
1966
Ted Williams , Casey Stengel
1967
Red Ruffing , Lloyd Waner
1968
Joe Medwick , Kiki Cuyler , Goose Goslin
1969
Stan Musial, Roy Campanella , Stan Coveleski , , Waite Hoyt,
1970
Lou Boudreau , Earle Combs , Jesse Haines,
1971
Dave Bancroft , Jake Beckley , Chick Hafey , Harry Hooper , Joe Kelley , Rube Marquard , Satchel Paige
1972
Sandy Koufax , Yogi Berra ,Early Wynn, Lefty Gomez , Ross Youngs , Josh Gibson , Buck Leonard
1973
Warren Spahn , George Kelly , Mickey Welch , Monte Irvin , Roberto Clemente
1974
Mickey Mantle , Whitey Ford , Jim Bottomley , Sam Thompson , Cool Papa Bell
1975
Ralph Kiner , Earl Averill , Bucky Harris , Billy Herman , Judy Johnson
1976
Robin Roberts, Bob Lemon , Roger Connor , Freddy Lindstrom , Oscar Charleston
1977
Ernie Banks ,Amos Rusie , Joe Sewell , Al Lopez , Martin Dihigo , Pop Lloyd
1978
Eddie Mathews, Addie Joss
1979
Willie Mays , Hack Wilson
1980
Al Kaline, Duke Snider, Chuck Klein
1981
Bob Gibson, Johnny Mize , Rube Foster
1982
Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Travis Jackson
1983
Brooks Robinson, Juan Marichal, George Kell
1984
Luis Aparicio, Harmon Killebrew, Don Drysdale, Rick Ferrell , Pee Wee Reese
1985
Hoyt Wilhelm, Lou Brock, Enos Slaughter , Arky Vaughan
1986
Willie McCovey, Bobby Doerr, Ernie Lombardi
1987
Billy Williams, Ray Dandridge
1989
Red Schoendienst
1991
Tony Lazzeri
1992
Hal Newhouser
1994
Leo Durocher , Phil Rizzuto
1995
Leon Day , Vic Willis , Richie Ashburn
1996
Jim Bunning, Bill Foster , Ned Hanlon
1997
Nellie Fox, Willie Wells
1998
George Davis , Larry Doby , Joe Rogan
1999
Orlando Cepeda, Joe Williams
2000
Bid McPhee , Turkey Stearnes
2001
Bill Mazeroski , Hilton Smith
2006
Ray Brown, Willard Brown, Andy Cooper, Biz Mackey, Mule Suttles, Cristobal Torriente, Jud Wilson, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Jose Mendez Louis Santop, Ben Taylor, Sol White
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:34 AM (#2214609)
Pierce-Pearce. I get those two mixed up all the time. One of 'em invented the fair-foul hit, anyway. ;-)
   20. OCF Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:20 AM (#2214653)
Rick A: You've been hanging right around the mean for the last three years, and your were one point above the mean in 1981. Your overall record, dating back to 1921, is an average of 2.3 points below the mean.
   21. fra paolo Posted: October 17, 2006 at 08:33 AM (#2214688)
Pierce is a perfect illustration of why the five-percent rule is silly. We were clueless to how good Pierce was prior to the NA. The only thing most of us knew about him was that he popularized the fair-foul hit.

Al contrario, I think your first sentence is invalidated by the next two. The five-percent rule is as good a rule as any for discarding players who don't really have support to sustain their candidacy over the long haul, <u>provided the electorate has enough data on which to base their decision</U>.

The "success" of abandoning the five-percent rule merely reflects the lack of information or understanding available to voters at a given point in past balloting. Nor could it be used in the HoMer system because permanent eligibility allows new information to be discovered, which is fair enough given the nature of the electorate here - people who study these things. But that's doesn't mean the five-percent rule, in and of itself, is bad. I'd suggest that the problem with the HoF system lies not with the system, but with the voters - a common perception of democracy!

I think these last two elections have highlighted the flaws in the HoM balloting system as compared with the HoF one. The HoF one asks a simple question - is this guy a HoFer or not?. This is a great strength. I'm actually dubious about any of the candidates we've elected this year being HoMers, but our system forces us to elect three. For my part, I might prefer to reserve those three places for a year where there might be up to five unquestionable HoMers newly eligible.

I wish to point out that I don't think the HoF system is perfect, nor do I want to change the HoM ballot. We're using what we're using, and that's fine with me nowadays. But I don't think the HoM system is superior to the HoF one - and in fact by allowing the size of the HoF to determine the size of the HoM, you've kind of agreed with me.
   22. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: October 17, 2006 at 10:37 AM (#2214701)
But I don't think the HoM system is superior to the HoF one - and in fact by allowing the size of the HoF to determine the size of the HoM, you've kind of agreed with me.

Well now, I wouldn't say that. The reason they're using the same number of players is so that instead of creating a smaller or bigger Hall, they're creating a Hall of exactly the same size, but with more worthy inductees.

I think a huge advantage this system has over the HOF system is that you don't REALLY need to compare the eligible players to previously established HoM standards. You don't need to figure out what the line is for a HoMer, you just need to figure out who the best players on the ballot are. When you're done, you're more likely to have a collection of the greatest players in history than you are with the HOF system.
   23. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 11:42 AM (#2214709)
No system is perfect, granted. But the HoF and HoM elections finally boil down, regardless of the methodology, to the knowledge and good judgment of the voters. The difference between the HoM and HoF is not that our system is superior. It is that the voters exerecise good judgment.
   24. Rusty Priske Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:33 PM (#2214727)
To answer the question whether we REALLY want to elect Jake Beckley...I can only answer for myself, and the answer is yes.

I also want to elect GVH and Welch, but that doesn't look like it is happening any time soon.
   25. Howie Menckel Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:44 PM (#2214734)
"He's the Lou Brock of first basemen, AT BEST."

seasons as regular, 100 OPS+ minimum
JBeckley: 152 44 38 33 31 28 27 27 26 26 26 24 22 12 12 05 02
LouBrock: 128 26 24 23 19 15 14 12 11 09 08 07 06 01

Wow, they're like Twins - if you've seen the Schwarzenegger/DeVito movie of that name, that is.

Questioning Beckley's HOM-ability is fine, but you just ruined your whole credibility on the issue right there. Fielding is a wash, if you're being kind to Brock, and Brock wouldn't catch up with his steals even if he NEVER got thrown out in his entire career. Beckley also played part of his career in a one-league era.
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 01:39 PM (#2214780)
>Wow, they're like Twins

Lemme guess. Doug Mientkiewicz and Shannon Stewart?
   27. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 02:18 PM (#2214818)
Well now, I wouldn't say that. The reason they're using the same number of players is so that instead of creating a smaller or bigger Hall, they're creating a Hall of exactly the same size, but with more worthy inductees.

I think a huge advantage this system has over the HOF system is that you don't REALLY need to compare the eligible players to previously established HoM standards. You don't need to figure out what the line is for a HoMer, you just need to figure out who the best players on the ballot are. When you're done, you're more likely to have a collection of the greatest players in history than you are with the HOF system.


You're right on the money, Chipper.
   28. DavidFoss Posted: October 17, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2214859)
Pierce-Pearce. I get those two mixed up all the time. One of 'em invented the fair-foul hit, anyway. ;-)

Yeah, and from Dickey's largest supporter too. Everyone has Billy on their mind this year.

I thought it was Barnes who popularized the fair-foul hit. Maybe Dickey invented it, though, I don't know.
   29. ronw Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#2214871)
My favorite part of the project is identifying our "replacements" to the HOF.

30 HOM not HOFers now, including our first pitcher who didn't get in with partial hitting credit. At least 4 more are knocking on the door.

Allen, Dick
Barnes, Ross
Beckwith, John
Bennett, Charlie
Caruthers, Bob
Dahlen, Bill
Ferrell, Wes
Freehan, Bill
Glasscock, Jack
Gordon, Joe
Gore, George
Groh, Heinie
Hack, Stan
Hines, Paul
Jackson, Joe
Johnson, Grant
Magee, Sherry
McVey, Cal
Minoso, Minnie
Pearce, Dickey
Pierce, Billy
Pike, Lip
Richardson, Hardy
Santo, Ron
Sheckard, Jimmy
Start, Joe
Stovey, Harry
Sutton, Ezra
Torre, Joe
White, Deacon
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#2214886)
Yeah, and from Dickey's largest supporter too. Everyone has Billy on their mind this year.

That's what happens when you wind up typing up Billy Pierce's plaque the same day as that post, David. :-)
   31. ronw Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#2214901)
Looking at upcoming candidates who have made the HOF, aside from Fingers and Sutter, I can predict that the remaining HOFers will all receive at least 100 votes or be elected by 2007.

So who do our 30 replace right now?

I give you the dregs of the HOF, the guys with no support in any election, other than a stray vote I can't think of right now (23):

Candy Cummings
Hall of Famer Happy Jack Chesbro
Chief Bender
Rube Marquard
Herb Pennock
Andy Cooper
Jesse Haines
Leon Day
Catfish Hunter
Rick Ferrell
Ray Schalk
Jim Bottomley
George Kelly
Bill Mazeroski
Ray Dandridge
Freddy Lindstrom
Judy Johnson
Travis Jackson
Chick Hafey
Lloyd Waner
Earle Combs
Ross Youngs
Tommy McCarthy

To get to 30, I will give you the guys with no support now, but I remember have gotten sparse support before (7):

Waite Hoyt
Red Schoendienst
Tony Lazzeri
Johnny Evers
Sol White
Joe Tinker
Harry Hooper

And who will our lucky 4 and more likely replace? - Guys who have less than 5 voters supporting them now (9):

Lefty Gomez
Hilton Smith
Ernie Lombardi
Frank Chance
George Kell
Luis Aparicio
Heinie Manush
Hack Wilson
Kiki Cuyler

And finally, guys who have between 5-9 voters supporting them now, who are also likely on the chopping block (11):

Mickey Welch
Vic Willis
Addie Joss
Ben Taylor
John McGraw
Pie Traynor
Phil Rizzuto
Rabbit Maranville
Dave Bancroft
Chuck Klein
Sam Rice

That adds up to 50 eventual HOMers not HOFers at a minimum, 20+ of which will be elected during the next 19-20 years. Keep up the good work everyone.
   32. ronw Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:53 PM (#2214906)
Why not Fingers and Sutter? Because I have no idea how the electorate will receive them. The rest, by order of retirement, are:

Bench - in
Yastrzemski - in
Perry - in
Jenkins - in
Morgan - in
Palmer - in
Carew - in
Fingers - ??
Perez - ??
Seaver - in
Carlton - in
Reggie - in
Niekro - in
Sutton - ??
Sutter - ??
Schmidt - in
Carter - in
Brett - in
Ryan - in
Yount - in
Fisk - in
Puckett - ??
Winfield - in
Ozzie - ??
Murray - in
Sandberg - ??
Eckersley - ??
Molitor - in
Boggs - in

So that is 21 easy ins, and 8 questions. I will likely have all of the 8 questions on my ballot, and I believe that the electorate will probably elect 5-7 of them, and will give more than 100 votes of support to all 8, but I'm being a bit conservative for this post.
   33. ronw Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:56 PM (#2214909)
In my previous posts, that is 100 points not 100 votes. It is my eyeball test of who is still a candidate. (Ben Taylor, almost there)
   34. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2214936)
So basically the BBWAA in the past not quite 20 years has not elected a single obvious mistake? Shocking.
   35. DL from MN Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2214977)
I think Sutter was a mistake.

I'm sure Minoso and Pierce will both appreciate a 'Santo' letter. Both have openly talked about how much of a thrill a HoF selection would be.
   36. jingoist Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#2214978)
Congratulations to Billy, Ralph and Minnie; excellant choices all.
That leaves Edd Roush as (to my way of thinking) the most glaringly obvious candidate still on the outside looking in.
Looks like Jimmy Ryan will never get there; Duffy and GVH have an outside shot, but are certainly not certain of ascension to the hall.

While the Beckley/Brock compaarison was perhaps not ideal, it does illuminate that aspect of having very fine players who were consistently strong contributors and played for a long period not be among the 250 very best all-time.
I believe the Sam Rices, Marranvilles and Manushes all fit that mold.

While I might be tempted to push for Beckley over Brock I have no quarrel with the groups assertion that neither are worthy
   37. Kyle S Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2215007)
Ozzie Smith might not be elected to the HOM? really? Wow.
   38. Dizzypaco Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#2215017)
Since these Beckley debates are fun, and since we are getting into the 1980's, I provide the following numbers:
Beckley: 10,142 PA, 125 OPS+
Dwight Evans: 10,387 PA, 127 OPS+
Tony Perez: 10,703 PA, 122 OPS+
Staub: 10,975 PA, 124 OPS+
Harold Baines: 10,970 PA, 120 OPS+

So, offensively, Beckley was similar with this group. Defensively, I'm sure he had more value than Perez, Staub, and Baines, but I'm not so sure about Dewey.
   39. DavidFoss Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:41 PM (#2215025)
Ozzie Smith might not be elected to the HOM? really? Wow.

Ron's being conservative because we don't have a history of inducting defensive specialists. (see Mazeroski & Maranville) Who knows though. He's not elegible for another 15 years or so and I don't think anyone has done the legwork yet. Once he gets his own thread, I'm sure there will be a thorough look at him.
   40. OCF Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#2215042)
Ozzie Smith might not be elected to the HOM? really? Wow.

Oh, he will be. It's true that the names you would immediately think of in comparison to him haven't fared all that well. Luis Aparicio has very little support, and no really strong supporters. Rabbit Maranville has relatively little support, but does count Chris Cobb as a strong supporter. A number of shorter-career glove-first candidates hover around the outer fringes: Rizzuto, Bancroft, Bartell. The thing is: Ozzie is simply better than Aparicio, offense and defense both. And he's a better offensive player than Maranville. His career length is something that the likes of Rizzuto and Bancroft can't claim. And Nellie Fox, who's a second baseman and only very slightly a better offensive player than Smith is on the verge of election, having very nearly been elected this year. We also elected Brooks Robinson easily - another long-career candidate whose bat by itself wouldn't have done it for us.

His case will depend critically on evaluation of his defensive merit, and the tools for doing that are nowhere near as precise or trustworthy as the tools for measuring offense. But if you ask Chris, for instance, why he supports Maranville but not Aparicio, he'll tell you that doesn't think Aparicio has the defensive merit required for consideration despite his ordinary offensive record. Have you heard anyone seriously suggest that Ozzie's defense deserves that kind of downgrade?
   41. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 17, 2006 at 06:04 PM (#2215057)
Tagging onto what OCF says...

This may be another election where the WARP/WS fielding division comes into play. Of course, both recognize Smith as being the or among the cream of the crop defensively. But it places less weight on defense. WARP places more value on defense, however, its defensive replacement level (and overall replacement level) are really low, so it may overstate the difference. It's going to be interesting to whether the electorate splits down peak/career and WS/WARP lines, or whether a consensus emerges to split the difference on WS and WARP's defensive evaluations.
   42. Kyle S Posted: October 17, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2215226)
Chris Dial's ZR numbers for Ozzie have him as 130 runs above average on defense from 1987 till the end of his career (roughly 9 seasons). He was probably at least as good if not better during the 9 full seasons for which Chris doesn't have data. I assume he was probably close to an average hitter for his position for the entirety of his career. Lets call him 260 runs above average over an 18 year career. Is that gonna get him in?
   43. DL from MN Posted: October 17, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2215235)
It's going to get him in my HoM
   44. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2215304)
Is that gonna get him in?

He'll get in. He wont get the same support that the HOF gave him, but he's not in Bancroft/Maranville/Aparicio trouble here.
   45. Sean Gilman Posted: October 17, 2006 at 08:49 PM (#2215305)
So basically the BBWAA in the past not quite 20 years has not elected a single obvious mistake? Shocking.

I think the consensus is that the BBWAA's mistakes over the last couple decades have been of omission, while the VC has largely been electing the wrong guys.
   46. OCF Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2215324)
I assume he was probably close to an average hitter for his position for the entirety of his career.

"Entirety of his career" gets dragged down by his San Diego years, but In his prime he was a lot better than that. The really good hitting SS - Yount, Trammell, Ripken - were in the other league at the time, but over a span of several years, roughly from the beaning of Dickie Thon to the emergence of Barry Larkin, Ozzie was the best offensive SS in the NL.
   47. Dizzypaco Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:04 PM (#2215325)
I assume he was probably close to an average hitter for his position for the entirety of his career

I don't know why you would assume that. For a good portion of his career, about ten years, he was a well above average hitter for his position. His OPS was often around 100, and that underrates his offense, given that he combined a high on base percentage, a lot of steals, an excellent stolen base percentage, and good base running. I remember several years in the 80's where you could make a good case he was the best offensive shortstop in the National League.

Early in Smith's career, he didn't hit at all, and so his value was somewhat limited, even with the defense. But for the heart of his career, he combined spectacular defense with well above average (for his position) hitting. I think he should go in easily.
   48. OCF Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:30 PM (#2215351)
I think Dizzypaco and I agree.
   49. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:53 PM (#2215375)
When we get to him, one of the questions I have about Ozzie is how did he do it? That is, how did change himself from a non-contributor on offense to an at-least average, maybe better contributor on offense. He raised both his average and his walks pretty much simultaneously and held onto them for a long while. Which, when you think about it, is amazing!

How does a guy who can't hit the ball out of the park draw walks? Why would any pitcher nibble against him when he can't turn the a fastball into a homer? Or for that matter much else? He didn't hit many doubles (only 402 in a 2573 games) and hit hit only 69 triples not exactly a high total for a player of his profile (speedy contact hitter). In fact, his doubles and triples totals aren't among the top 50 for post-WW2 players with 5000 or more PAs: he's 86th in doubles and 83rd in triples among that group.

It's simply amazing that he could undergo such a big transformation in production without developing much (if any) more power.
   50. DavidFoss Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2215382)
We can save some of this great discussion for his thread when he gets one in 10-15 years or so. :-) Hopefully we'll be able to find some of this when that thread comes up. I think Ron was just being conservative and a question mark doesn't imply a rejection.
   51. AJMcCringleberry Posted: October 17, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2215383)
Ozzie is more Brooks Robinson than those other guys. I think he'll get in easily, or at least I hope so.

His OPS was often around 100, and that underrates his offense, given that he combined a high on base percentage, a lot of steals, an excellent stolen base percentage, and good base running.

Yeah, he had a bunch of EQAs in the .270s and .280s topping out at .291.
   52. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 10:10 PM (#2215389)
Interesting assertion that Oz was an "average" hitter by any measure. But for his position--well, yes, maybe he was.

So, too, then, probably were Maranville and Bancroft, who I believe to be the 2nd and 3rd best defenders ever. So I still don't quite understand why they don't get any love and Ozzie does (or will). Aparicio I agree was just a sliver of a cut below on defense, and not the hitter than Bancroft was either.
   53. fra paolo Posted: October 17, 2006 at 10:39 PM (#2215402)
Just today, during my lunch break, I started looking at infielders, especially shortstops, again. (People may remember me talking about them just before Sewell got elected.)

Luis Aparicio has very little support, and no really strong supporters.

I really don't understand his election to the HoF at the moment. He seems to have benefited from being league average with the leather, or better for a long time. It's one of the bigger "mistakes" that the BBWAA has made in "recent" years.

Rabbit Maranville has relatively little support, but does count Chris Cobb as a strong supporter.

Well, I may be joining Chris. I think the electorate may be underrating him, but I haven't firmed up my figures yet.

A number of shorter-career glove-first candidates hover around the outer fringes: Rizzuto, Bancroft, Bartell.

I've soured on Rizzuto somewhat, and Bancroft has received a boost, but Bancroft has got playing time issues for me. (So does Maranville, but in a different way.) I don't think I'm going to turn into a strong supporter of either.

Nellie Fox, who's a second baseman and only very slightly a better offensive player than Smith is on the verge of election, having very nearly been elected this year.

I haven't reviewed his figures yet, but if my memory serves me right he was more like Maranville than Aparicio on my old spreadsheet.

[Ozzie Smith's] case will depend critically on evaluation of his defensive merit, and the tools for doing that are nowhere near as precise or trustworthy as the tools for measuring offense. But if you ask Chris, for instance, why he supports Maranville but not Aparicio, he'll tell you that doesn't think Aparicio has the defensive merit required for consideration despite his ordinary offensive record.

Chris is right about Aparicio. Our tools available for measuring defence are as trustworthy, but they require more work. So far, every time I've looked at a given season's set of regular fielders at catcher or shortstop, individual category totals compared with team and league averages show very clearly who is good and who isn't. But mostly we see a player's individual season stats. In isolation, they don't tell us as much as an individual season's batting statistics do.

whether a consensus emerges to split the difference on WS and WARP's defensive evaluations.

I would recommend ignoring both these regarding defence, and going after the raw data in context.
   54. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 17, 2006 at 11:07 PM (#2215425)
Anyone know how to contact Pierce or Minoso?

Santo never responded. The Torre/Allen/Freehan contacting has kind of stalled as well . . . I was sent Freehan's address, and I let that go, I'll get on it in the next day or two (snail mail tougher than email), my bad there.

I believe Allen can be contacted through Philly PR, right? Howie was trying to help with Torre . . .

Am I forgetting anyone?
   55. DL from MN Posted: October 17, 2006 at 11:14 PM (#2215431)
Can we put up a Veterans Committee ballot thread this week?
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: October 17, 2006 at 11:30 PM (#2215445)
I think the Torre effort happened to come at a bad time; might be more fruitful in November or December.
   57. DL from MN Posted: October 18, 2006 at 12:12 AM (#2215479)
Pierce lives in suburban Chicago and represents the White Sox at various events. Minoso has a statue at US Cellular Field and was in the 2005 WS victory parade. Just send them c/o the White Sox.

From http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/billy_pierce_interview.shtml

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."
   58. jimd Posted: October 18, 2006 at 12:55 AM (#2215563)
Chris Dial's ZR numbers for Ozzie have him as 130 runs above average on defense from 1987 till the end of his career (roughly 9 seasons).

His FRAA is +98 over that span. +160 for 1986 and before.
   59. Chris Cobb Posted: October 18, 2006 at 01:51 AM (#2215736)
It's nice to see Maranville getting some discussion :-).

On the subject of Maranville: does anyone have data on his RCAP? It would be interesting to know in the context of this discussion. If possible, it would also be handy to see the first half of his career: say, through 1922, vs. the second half of his career. He was a bit above average as a hitter most seasons prior to 1923. He was continually below-average after. I think the advent of the lively ball, from which Maranville did not noticeably benefit, had something to do with that, though age and alcohol abuse surely played their roles as well.

On the subject of Ozzie Smith: I agree that he will be elected easily. BP sees him as an average hitter for his career, pitchers included. Without pitchers, he'd be, what, about 5% below average? I'm sure he was an above average hitter for his position during his career.
   60. Mike Webber Posted: October 18, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2215850)
Here is the data from the SBE for Maranville -
I dunno Chirs, I guess you are technically correct that "He was a bit above average as a hitter most seasons prior to 1923" but 1924 and 1925 put him back into red figures.

He was 20 in 1912. So his age 27 season was 1919.

YEAR    TEAM    RC    RCAA    RCAP     OWP
1912    Braves    7    
-9    -5    .188
1913    Braves    65    
-11    2    .437
1914    Braves    64    
-14    -3    .419
1915    Braves    53    
-4    0    .479
1916    Braves    63    
-5    6    .465
1917    Braves    66    7    8    .550
1918    Braves    6    2    2    .706
1919    Braves    61    4    10    .531
1920    Braves    55    
-6    2    .455
1921    Pirates    83    
-7    11    .463
1922    Pirates    93    
-13    1    .440
1923    Pirates    67    
-16    3    .401
1924    Pirates    71    
-21    -33    .384
1925    Cubs    26    
-20    -11    .261
1926    Dodgers    24    
-11    -6    .340
1927    Cardins    2    
-3    -2    .183
1928    Cardins    40    
-17    1    .344
1929    Braves    72    
-21    3    .384
1930    Braves    72    
-26    -1    .362
1931    Braves    61    
-22    -8    .365
1932    Braves    50    
-29    -17    .301
1933    Braves    34    
-28    -16    .248
1935    Braves    2    
-10    -8    .037
    TOTALS    1137    
-280    -61    .401
    LG AVERAGE    1453    0    0    .500
    POS AVERAGE    1222    
-236    0    .420 
   61. Mike Webber Posted: October 18, 2006 at 02:28 AM (#2215867)
Chris, assuming that he is negative -61 offensively, how many runs above average with the glove would he have to be to be HOM worthy? 300?

What do you estimate his defense to be worth?
   62. Adam Schafer Posted: October 18, 2006 at 02:31 AM (#2215875)
Joe, I have a home address for Pierce and Minoso. Pierce has always been good at reading his mail, Minoso usually does a good job. Shoot me an email if you would like them.
   63. Kyle S Posted: October 18, 2006 at 02:52 AM (#2215941)
Hey, all my comments on Smith were meant to express my surprise that he wouldn't be considered a slam dunk. IMHO, the best defensive shortstop in history deserves to be in the hall no matter what; the fact that he was an average or better hitter for his position (bp has him at 30 BRAA for his career) for an 18 year career just makes it easier.

but, i don't vote. i guess other people don't see him to be as much of a slam dunk as i do.
   64. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: October 18, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2216013)
One knock against Ozzie is that defense during his time was not as important in general as it was during Maranville and Bancroft's time because there were more HR, more BB's, and more K's. So he may have been a better fielder but did he provide as much value? I don't know.
   65. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 18, 2006 at 03:18 AM (#2216047)
I'll be shocked if Ozzie isn't elected on the first ballot (without checking who he comes on with).

I've done a comparison of Smith and Trammell (check the BTF archives, it was an article I wrote a few years back), and while I have Trammell a hair ahead of Ozzie, they are very close, and I don't see Trammell having any issues with getting elected. Both are top 10 all-time MLB SS's (at least before we start looking at Jeter/ARod/Tejada).

He might not be unanimous, but he'll surely end up ahead of the backlog, and my guess is that he'll cruise in with 550-750 points (assuming the same # of voters we currently have).
   66. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 18, 2006 at 03:35 AM (#2216112)
Luis Aparicio has very little support, and no really strong supporters.

I really don't understand his election to the HoF at the moment. He seems to have benefited from being league average with the leather, or better for a long time. It's one of the bigger "mistakes" that the BBWAA has made in "recent" years.


IMO Aparicio got in largely for two reasons:

1. He was largely credited with resurrecting the stolen base as an offensive weapon in the American League, shortly before Maury Wills did the same thing in the NL on a far bigger scale. This is almost surely the #1 reason for his election, and also the reason why he got in 13 years before Nellie Fox.

2. He was thought to be the "heart" of the White Sox of his era, a popular and fairly successful team that was built around pitching and speed. And FWIW his range factor was always well above average. He was seen as a classic good field / no hit but nevertheless valuable for his baserunning shortstop. There were few if any really good hitting shortstops from his era once Banks switched to first base, and so his lack of batting skills was more likely to be overlooked.

I agree that he's a marginal pick at best, but I'm pretty sure that the above reasons were what motivated his election. He's a pretty good example of a player who is thought to "transcend statistics," and / or a player who stands out in one easy to appreciate facet of the game. Lou Brock with his 109 OPS+ and to an extent Nolan Ryan with his 112 ERA+ are also pretty good examples of this.
   67. Chris Cobb Posted: October 18, 2006 at 03:57 AM (#2216186)
Mike,

Thanks for the data, and the good questions!

Your question about how many runs with the glove Maranville would have to have to be HoM worthy is not one I can easily answer, since I don't ordinarily use RCAP + FRAA as a measure, since I don't have access to RCAP for all players (I ought to get Sinins' encyclopedia . . . ). I also don't have a metric for valuing runs above average across different career lengths, so I don't know how I would compare Maranville's value above average to players with careers of differing length.

I can say this, however, that, if you look at Maranville from 1913 to 1930 and give him war-credit for 1918, he ends up with this line:

2314 g, -2 RCAP, 227 FRAA (according to BP WARP1)

That's a career of about the same length as Bobby Wallace's, or, more to the point, among eligible candidates, to Nellie Fox's (2367 g, with some coming in 162 g seasons). It's enough career for a middle infielder to be considered a career candidate, and he was 225 RAA. During his prime, 1913-22, he was 44 RCAP and 153 FRAA over 10 years, or about 20 runs per year on average. We could make a direct comparison, by RCAP and FRAA, of Maranville to Fox, and be assured that it was a fair comparison, since it would be over similar numbers of games played.

How would Nellie Fox look, for his career, by RCAP and FRAA (it wouldn't be an entirely fair comparison, because WARP doesn't like Fox's fielding, but we can be generous in moving those values upward)? How would Fox look over his 10-season prime, 1951-60?

A comparison to Fox on these terms would begin to answer the question of whether Maranville still looks like a serious candidate if you totally remove WARP1's FRAR levels from the picture (which I think are fuelling much of the skepticism of Maranville's [and Bancroft's] viability as candidates). I am prepared to rethink my position on Maranville based on the evidence of these comparisons (with suitable grains of salt for WARP1 FRAA for Fox), but if they show Maranville in a favorable light, I hope others will start rethinking Maranville.
   68. Mike Webber Posted: October 18, 2006 at 04:30 AM (#2216223)
How would Nellie Fox look, for his career, by RCAP and FRAA (it wouldn't be an entirely fair comparison, because WARP doesn't like Fox's fielding, but we can be generous in moving those values upward)? How would Fox look over his 10-season prime, 1951-60?


Fox
Career 2367g, 139 RCAP, 62 FRAA
51-60 1532g, 185 RCAP, 76 FRAA

Maranville
Career 2670g, -61 RCAP, 192 FRAA
14-23 1458g, 46 RCAP, 154 FRAA

I just doubled his 1917 and threw out 1918 for a War adjustment.

Sewell - as a candidate that is in, but not a slam dunk.
Career 1903g, 346 RCAP, 110 FRAA

I suppose there is a context arguement to be made, but I am not going to try it tonight. If Rabbit's prime was 4 years earlier when scoring total were really in the tank it might mean something.

What do you think of that Chris, and we should cut and paste all this into Rabbit's thread.
   69. Chris Cobb Posted: October 18, 2006 at 04:52 AM (#2216240)
Done!

Thanks again, Mike, for the RCAP data. It's very helpful. (I'll put substantive cts on the Maranville thread hereafter. . . )
   70. OCF Posted: October 18, 2006 at 04:59 AM (#2216248)
One knock against Ozzie is that defense during his time was not as important in general as it was during Maranville and Bancroft's time because there were more HR, more BB's, and more K's.

Since I've done several posts remembering the Whiteyball Cardinals, it's worth pointing out that those teams at least partly turned back the clock. Blessed with a home ballpark that supressed the HR but allowed other forms of contact to flourish, the Cardinals, more or less by design, deployed a low-BB, low-K pitching staff. The team construction assumed strong defense. It's true that you can't go all the way back to an earlier age, and they only played half of their games in that ballpark, but the tendency was there.
   71. fra paolo Posted: October 18, 2006 at 08:25 AM (#2216327)
[Aparicio] was seen as a classic good field / no hit but nevertheless valuable for his baserunning shortstop.

In fielding terms, he seems to me to have been a man of average height bestriding a field of pygmies during c. 1958-62 (I'm not positive of these endpoints, I've just closed the spreadsheet). I submit his election to the Hall of Fame as evidence for the case that HoF voters don't actually look at statistics, at least not the voters during the middle 1980s.

I fear I've overestimated Maranville's bat. Bancroft now looks the only strong candidate. But this is perhaps not the right thread to carry on this discussion.
   72. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 18, 2006 at 01:05 PM (#2216382)
OCF,

Were the Whitey Cards a good road team? Or did they have a massive home-field advantage?
   73. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 18, 2006 at 01:40 PM (#2216408)
Were the Whitey Cards a good road team?


The records fluctuated quite a bit, but they had more years with large HFAs (1980, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989) than they did with minimal HFAs (although both 1982 and 1987 fall into the latter category).

-- MWE
   74. sunnyday2 Posted: October 18, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#2216431)
They had a pretty big HFA in the '87 WS! But they really stunk on the road!
   75. BDC Posted: October 18, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2216493)
Aparicio's HOF plaque is almost entirely about his defense, with a few remarks about stolen bases near the end of the text. In addition to the reasons that Andy mentions, Aparicio has a couple of other Cooperstown credentials that are irrelevant to the HOM: his perceived contribution to the success of the 1966 Orioles, and the fact that Aparicio is revered in Venezuela (there is an entire urbanización in Maracaibo named after him, and his father was a major figure in Venezuelan baseball). He's not exactly a pioneer (Chico Carrasquel starred earlier for the White Sox), but he's been a pretty important baseball "ambassador" of sorts.

So as so often, not all HOF picks are strictly "errors," given the mission of that Hall. Chick Hafey, Lloyd Waner, Travis Jackson, sure, these are not great ballplayers or great figures in the game either; but Aparicio indeed transcends his statistics.
   76. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 12:37 AM (#2216978)
"Aparicio has a couple of other Cooperstown credentials that are irrelevant to the HOM: his perceived contribution to the success of the 1966 Orioles,"


Not to pick a fight, but I have to ask - why would that particular thing not be relevant to the Hall of Merit?
   77. Cblau Posted: October 19, 2006 at 12:53 AM (#2217003)
From 1982-1989, Herzog's 8 full seasons managing the team, the Cardinals won
an average of .534 times per game. The normal difference in winning average
at home and away for a .534 team, per the 1984 Bill James Baseball Abstract,
is about .105. The Cardinals' winning average at home in those years was
.565, while their road mark was .504, a .061 difference.
   78. Mike Emeigh Posted: October 19, 2006 at 01:40 AM (#2217141)
From 1982-1989, Herzog's 8 full seasons managing the team, the Cardinals won
an average of .534 times per game.


Herzog also managed the team for the entire season in 1981 - although I'll grant that 1981 wasn't a full season :)

-- MWE
   79. BDC Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2217387)
why would that particular thing not be relevant to the Hall of Merit?et

Well, I said "perceived." Aparicio made a holy ton of outs as a leadoff hitter in 1966; he had an on-base percentage of .311 and went just 25-for-36 as a base stealer. What credit he got as the veteran anchor of a championship infield was in large part intangible.
   80. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 19, 2006 at 03:28 AM (#2217466)
That's fine Bob.

Intangibles are fair game to be included if there is evidence that it made a difference in the team actually winning games. I would certainly count something like that at least as a tie-breaker if it came from players that were in the clubhouse, etc.; not if it was just something reporters drudged up because it sounds good. Stargell 1979 is good example of 'veteran leadership' that could have made a difference. Not saying he deserved the MVP, but it isn't all numbers, or at least it shouldn't be.

I definitely agree with you on the Venezuelan pioneer stuff though :-)
   81. Paul Wendt Posted: October 21, 2006 at 02:20 AM (#2220005)
Chris Dial's ZR numbers for Ozzie have him as 130 runs above average on defense from 1987 till the end of his career (roughly 9 seasons). He was probably at least as good if not better during the 9 full seasons for which Chris doesn't have data.

This seems to me a great understatement.

--
Dr. Chaleeko on Ozzie
How does a guy who can't hit the ball out of the park draw walks? Why would any pitcher nibble against him when he can't turn the a fastball into a homer? Or for that matter much else?

Isn't that true of all the famous walking men: Max Bishop and the Eddies (Yost, Joost, and Stanky)?

--
I really don't understand [Aparicio's] election to the HoF at the moment. He seems to have benefited from being league average with the leather, or better for a long time. It's one of the bigger "mistakes" that the BBWAA has made in "recent" years.

1984-1988 was a window of opportunity.

--
sunnyday2
basically the BBWAA in the past not quite 20 years has not elected a single obvious mistake? Shocking.

Catfish?
Maybe you may safely say "not in 20 years" next year.

--
As a very young Orioles fan, and not at all precocious, I wasn't aware that Aparicio was considered an important player.
   82. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 21, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2220050)
Isn't that true of all the famous walking men: Max Bishop and the Eddies (Yost, Joost, and Stanky)?

Bishop and Stanky, right on. Was Yost's power drowned out by Griffith Stadium? His ISO+ was below the league average, but I wouldn't be surprised if the extreme HR suppressive effect of the Grif isn't wholly accounted for by a run-based park effect. In Yost's final four years (2 in DET, 2 in LAA), his ISO+ was +17, -3, -93, and -38 of the league. He totally lost it after age 33 (his second DET season), and so I wonder if the two DET sesaons are at least suggestive that he had average or better power but it was masked by his home park in WAS. But, I shouldn't quibble.

Joost's ISO+ was above the league average for his career (127 vs lg 118); his low SLG being the product of a .239 AVG.

Anyway, Ozzie's transformation is pretty cool.
   83. OCF Posted: October 21, 2006 at 05:06 AM (#2220069)
Anyway, Ozzie's transformation is pretty cool.

One of the tricks to evalauation is that Ozzie has an inverted relationship between OBP and SLG - career OBP higher than career SLG in raw terms. I don't think OPS+ is calibrated very well in that neigborhood - of course part of the effect is larger than the individual. Given a team that already has high OBP, the marginal value of each additional point of team OBP goes up (ever-longer innings); given already high SLG, the marginal value of each additional point of team SLG goes down (a greater fraction of the HR are solo). Things interact.

The inverted relationship - OBP > SLG - is really pretty rare. But as we've pointed out, the 1987 Cardinals were second in the league in runs scored despite a team OPS+ of 94. That team deployed four regulars or semi-regulars (I'm counting Oquendo) with OBP > SLG. And even their one legitimate slugger himself led the league in OBP.
   84. Mike Webber Posted: October 21, 2006 at 05:15 AM (#2220074)
Was Yost's power drowned out by Griffith Stadium?


A quick glance at 1950 thru 1952 shows he hit 3 homers in Griffith and 32 on the road. The league leaders in those 3 years had totals of 37, 33, and 32 so if had been hitting 22 homers a year he would have been considered somewhat of a slugger.
   85. DanG Posted: October 21, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#2220421)
Yost's H-R breakdown for his 139 career HR is 44-95, per the Home Run Encyclopedia by SABR. By year:

48 0-2
49 0-9
50 1-10
51 1-11
52 0-12
53 1-8
54 4-7
55 0-7
56 9-2
57 2-7
58 5-3
59 12-9
60 7-7
61 2-1

Washington is 1948-58; Detroit 59-60; LA Angels 1961.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9780 seconds
49 querie(s) executed