Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, November 13, 2006

1991 Ballot Discussion

1991 (December 11)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

384 124.5 1967 Rod Carew-2B/1B
358 102.3 1963 Rusty Staub-RF
305 81.5 1969 Al Oliver-CF/1B
240 87.9 1968 Jerry Koosman-P
188 81.1 1969 Rollie Fingers-RP
212 68.9 1974 Mike Hargrove-1B
219 60.4 1969 Richie Hebner-3B
203 63.0 1972 Garry Maddox-CF*
182 66.1 1973 Steve Rogers-P
179 63.8 1970 Larry Bowa-SS
196 47.1 1971 Jeff Burroughs-RF/LF
164 59.5 1972 Burt Hooton-P
177 48.7 1970 Oscar Gamble-RF/DH
159 53.3 1975 Sixto Lezcano-RF
169 49.8 1973 Al Bumbry-CF
125 45.2 1970 Larry Gura-P
141 35.2 1966 Jay Johnstone-RF/CF
107 48.0 1971 Tim Foli-SS
111 38.8 1974 Geoff Zahn-P
121 33.3 1971 Steve Braun-LF/3B

Players Passing Away in 1990
HoMers
Age Elected

91 1939 Joe Sewell-SS/3B

Candidates
Age Eligible

85 1946 Jack Russell-RP
85 1953 Doc Cramer-CF
83 1952 Chet Brewer-P
82 1953 Spud Chandler-P
80 1957 Wally Moses-RF
79 1955 Nels Potter-P
77 1953 Cookie Lavagetto-3B
77 1953 Nick Etten-1B
74 1958 Phil Masi-C
73 1957 Charlie Keller-LF
66 1967 Earl Torgeson-1B
59 1974 Larry Jackson-P
45 1977 Tony Conigliaro-RF

Upcoming Candidate
37 1995 Bo Diaz-C

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2006 at 10:23 PM | 321 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 19, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#2241563)
I agree with Rawagman, I don't see why it matters if teams expected their 1B to be the best players on their team. What does matter is if voters belive that HOMers should have been teh best players on their team. I, as a peak voter, do belive that they should. Now I think that an extra WS coudl be added to the peak years of these 1B and that may change some things. Still, if 1B aren't very good in a certain period, then they don't deserve to be in the HOM.

And this isnt' exactly anti-Beckley either. I made the same argument about George Sisler, that we shouldn't elect him simply because 1B weren't very good from ABC to Gehrig/Foxx.
   102. mulder & scully Posted: November 20, 2006 at 08:03 AM (#2242053)
Re: First basemen and expectations:

My point was that after the performances of first basemen from 1881 to 1892, if I was following or involved in baseball in the 1890s, I would have expected some first baseman to have put up excellent numbers/to be the best position player on their team in the 1890s because so many of them had been doing so in the immediate past.
Instead we get the performances of the 1890s and forward. Would teams have been disappointed? Yes. And they would have had to have changed their expectations.

This is my personal belief, that many teams had a reasonable expectation that would receive/would need great performances from their first basemen, that first basemen were often expected to be the best position player on their team.

If there was more media back then, I believe there would have been several "Where have all the great first basemen gone?" articles.
   103. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 20, 2006 at 01:48 PM (#2242080)
What does matter is if voters belive that HOMers should have been teh best players on their team. I, as a peak voter, do belive that they should.


My question then becomes this: How are you being fair to all positions in all eras if you disqualify players for not being the best player on the team, when they play a position during an era in which players at that position weren't expected to be the best player on the team?

-- MWE
   104. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2006 at 02:16 PM (#2242094)
And how can you be fair to Bench and Morgan?
   105. Daryn Posted: November 20, 2006 at 02:23 PM (#2242103)
Or Scottie Pippen?
   106. rawagman Posted: November 20, 2006 at 02:37 PM (#2242113)
It shouldn't be about being the best on a team. The player did not participate in creating the team.
The question is/should be about the overall level of value of the player.
Our individual measuring systems will tell us how to measure this.
   107. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 20, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2242129)
Wow, I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant then. Sorry about that.

Bench and Morgan need not have any problem, both of them were good enough to have been the best player on a championship level team. I don't mean that a player HAS to be the best player on his team, but he must be good enough to be the best player on a team that can win a championship. Those examples really don't apply to what I am talking about and I thought that would be pretty obvious. Guess it wasn't.

Mike,

I am not sure that what you are talking about is necessarily fair to al players in all eras. If you want to elect the top two or three 1B from the 1890's or 1900's, then how is that fair to better players who were playing other positions? Should you take the best 1B even if he wasnt' as good a player as the 3rd or 4th best SS? I would think the latter is a better candidate for the HOM. Fair to all eras and positions does not mean equal numbers and it isn't like 1B hasn't been good enough at other points in history (1880's, 1930's, 1990's) to produce multiple studs. It just wasn't during this period, kinda like SS in the 1920's or CF in the 1970's.

If the expectation of a player was not to be the best on the team because he played a position that teams didnt' think was as important, then why should we elect him to the HOM? We aren't electing any middle relievers or pinch hitters. Obviously Jake Beckley (who this discussion is really about) is more way worthy than even the best middle reliever, but if he was playing a position that teams never expected to produce their best player, not sure why that is a point in his favor. To me it says the opposite. I want players who were good enough to have been the best player on a championship level team for more than a year or two (and with a 5-10% chance at that) to be in the HOM, not someone who gets in via turn of the century 1B affirmative action (not saying that Beckley voters are necessarily doing this, I understand the career argument, just saying that if someone is I don't buy that resoning at all).
   108. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#2242138)
I was really intrigued by the proximity of two guys on the ballot--by virtue of similar WS and WARP values, with alliteration thrown in for good measure. I have always been an AL fan more than NL, yet I wouldn't have said Hargrove was better than Hebner, but I'm not sure he wasn't either.

Win Shares

45 (1B). Hargrove 212/25-25-24/110/20.6--just below Kent Hrbek and Joe Adcock, just above Lee May and Ed Konetchy (and Mo Vaughan and Jake Beckley)
56 (3B). Hebner 220/22-22-21/97/18.7--just below Don Money, just above Frank Malzone and Clete Boyer

Hargrove 212/25-25-24-22-20-20-16-16-15-14 (10 yrs ? 10 WS @ 19.7 per year)
Hebner 220/22-22-21-20-16-16-16-16-14-12-12 (11 yrs @ 18.7)

Well, certainly Hargrove was a more valuable player (by WS) than Hebner was on a day to day, week to week, year to year basis, but Hebner played 18 years, 12 @ ? 100 games while Hargrove only played 12 years total, 11 of them @ ? 100 games.

Oddly, however, Hebner played 75 percent of his games at 3B (> 1200) yet his defensive WS are only 14 percent of the total (same as George Scott), for a total of about 31 dWS. His rating is a D+, so there ya go. Hargrove played well over 75 percent of his games at 1B and so only 10 percent of his WS are defensive--or a lousy 21 dWS. His rating is only a C+. So most of the value is on offense.

OPS/OPS+

And yet neither was what you'd call "feared." Hargrove played in the DH AL 1974-1985. Hebner played in the DHless NL 1968-1979, then in the AL 1979-82 and the NL again 1982-85, though only about 375 games in his final 5 seasons (1981-85).

Hargrove .290/.396/.391/121
Hebner .276/.352/.438/120

How embarrassing, the 1B with the lower SA--lower than his own OBA for that matter. Some traditional stats just for perspective:

Hargrove just over 6500 PAs: 80-686-.290, about 1600 H, about 800 R
Hebner just over 6800 PAs: 203-890-.276, about 1700 H, about 850 R

By year, best to worst:

Hargrove 121/152-43-41-32-38-27-9-7-0-0 (10 yrs ? 100 @ ? 100 games, he also had a 143 in 94 games)
Hebner 120/155-32-31-30-30-27-25-23-23-9 (10 yrs, no great partials)

Hargrove was Ferris Fain without the glove, Hebner was Bill Madlock without the bat. I don't remember now why Hargrove was done at 35 while Hebner stuck around to 38. (IOW did Hargrove get hurt?) I suppose it was the alleged ability to play 3B (he played mostly 3B again at the tail end of his career after playing mostly 1B for 6 years) and also his power (he slugged around .400 in part-time roles even after 1981) while Hargrove slugged about .350 for his last 4 years of (full time) play.

But anyway, OPS+ says they're equal for one year, Hargrove is better for 4 years, then they're equal again for one year, and Hebner is better for 4 years. Not much to pick though I like the impact of years 2-3-4-5 better than years 7 through 10, and all else IS equal. Still, not much to pick. And so, it turns out, Hargrove's WS edge is not based on higher day to day value, but higher year to year value. Hargrove twice played 160 games, thrice more 150 and twice more 145. Hebner twice played 146 and 144 games, otherwise never more than 137.

So you've got a clear case of accumulated career value vs. higher year-to-year values, and a clear case of a little more offense vs.a little (very little) more defense, and a clear case of OBA vs. SA, and a clear case of WARP vs. WS. Not that it matters a lot, neither of these guys is a HoMer.

But I thought I would test my methods, which generally are to focus on WS (including WS defense) and OPS. I also note that Hebner does better in WARP, the raw career total of which we always get in the player lists that kick off each "year." I appreciate that, by the way, but I don't put any stock in WARP because it keeps changing. Today's value could flip flop tomorrow, so, hell, eat drink and be merry. (I assume BTW that Hebner's edge in WARP is completely due to defense, but I obviously don't KNOW that.)

Here I would pretty clearly side with James in preferring Hargrove's higher year to year value to the hangin' around value of Hebner's part-time years. It's not so much that I prefer OBA to SA, or that I prefer mediocre defense at 1B to really mediocre defense at 3B. It's really just that Hargrove stayed in the lineup for 8 years, while Hebner's accumulated value was more spread out--less pennant value in those 130 games than in Hargrove's 150.

And I feel pretty good, finally, about being able to make those calls from WS and OPS.
   109. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#2242139)
Oops. my mistake. WARP prefers Hargrove, too.
   110. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 20, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2242161)
I want players who were good enough to have been the best player on a championship level team for more than a year or two (and with a 5-10% chance at that) to be in the HOM


Well, you can't win a championship without a first baseman, in any era.

The way that I see what you are saying is this: It's OK to ignore contributions at a less-valuable position that are significantly above the norm for that position in that era, while valuing contributions that are less above the norm at a different, more valuable position because the *position itself* is more valuable. IOW, a player who contributes 23 WS at a position that typically contributes 12 is less valuable (and less *meritorious*) than a player who contributes 30 WS at a position that typically contributes 20.

The question then becomes this: If the typical value contribution from position *x* is less than that at position *y*, is it because the players who play position *x* are really less valuable than those at position *x* - or is it that they were selected to play position *x* because there's some component of their value that is large enough to override the total value, in the minds of baseball team constructors?

So when you make the comment that:

it isn't like 1B hasn't been good enough at other points in history (1880's, 1930's, 1990's) to produce multiple studs. It just wasn't during this period, kinda like SS in the 1920's or CF in the 1970's.


I think that you should investigate whether there are reasons *why* the position wasn't producing multiple studs during the period in question (other than just the quality of the players) before dismissing the best players at those positions from your consideration set. If teams were selecting players for a position mostly for a specific *component* of their overall value, then I think you do the best players at that position a disservice by not considering anything *but* their overall value.

-- MWE
   111. rawagman Posted: November 20, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#2242164)
I think there is all together too much focusing on defensive positioning in regards to batting prowess. A player's value with the bat is not an element of their defensive position.
   112. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 20, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2242388)
Sunny,

Nice write up on Hargrove and Hebner, but I must say that I dont' see how Hargrove ranks above Jake Beckley, as much as I may not be a fan of the latter. Their peaks seem similar and Beckley has more career. Or were you only referring to WS/162. If that is the case, then ignore what I just said.

Mike,

In a sense, yes that is what I am saying. I think that a 30 WS player playing at a position that averages 20 WS (such a position really doesn't exist of course, 20 WS is a borderline all-star caliber season according to James) is more HOMable than a 23 WS player at a position that averages 12 WS. The former is playing at an MVP level and could have been the best player on about 50+% of allpennant winners, the latter is most likely an all-star but isn't really the lynchpin for a true pennant contender. OF course their value above average is virtually the same anyways, so it isn't like the former is giving anything away in that regard.

Also, I am not sure I am ready to give players credit for being played at a position that did not maximize their value, which is what you are getting at in your x and y example right? If a player is placed at a position because of a certain component of his value made him more attractive at that position and he has less value than other players tha tmeans that his value was not likely to have been maximized correct? Maybe Jae Beckley would have been better served as a 2B, but should I give him credit for that? I do not give credit to Pie Traynor for being kept at 3B when he probably could have played SS in his early years and I won't do the same for Alex Rodriguez. That is getting very theoretical and forgetting that playing at a position that doesn't maximize ability may actually help the player by gettin ghim playing time he would not have recieved otherwise.

As asking why about dearths in talent across eras, yes I do this. I think the post 1960's CF dearth is largely related to the position becoming much more defensively demanding and many of the best hitters being pushed to the corners after only a few years in CF. However, I also think that any part of a dearth is also random chance. HOMers are outliers and they will not always line up perfectly at certain positions. So even if CF in the 1970's was of roughly equal overall value to CF in the 1950's, the very top players may not have been.

One thing I wouldn't seeing is what the average in say, WS, was for 1B in the 1890's vs. say, SS's or 2B in the same period. I doubt that the difference is any more than 3 WS while the differences at the top are much greater than that, maybe 7-10 WS. This would mean that 1B was of roughly equal value overall but the top players simply weren't good enough to be HOMers. Remember HOMers are outliers, there will not be an euqal distriubtion of them across position or eras. That is my hypothesis anyway.

I guess all of which is to say that there is a difference between saying that all the players at a certain position are less valuable and the best players at a ceratin position are more HOM worthy.
   113. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 20, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#2242417)
Oh, with one exception. Catchers obivously will not accumulate quite as much value as positin players because of the wear and tear of catching. I do make an adjustment there. Otherwise, we would be electing very few of them.
   114. sunnyday2 Posted: November 20, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2242465)
Hargrove is ahead of Beckley on James' own ranking. That would be the timeline talking.
   115. jimd Posted: November 20, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#2242490)
A player's value with the bat is not an element of their defensive position.

True.

I think there is all together too much focusing on defensive positioning in regards to batting prowess.

Because there is no established way to determine the value of average fielding at each position relative to the other positions, except through "absence of offense" (that I know of, at least). IOW, how much offensive value is a manager willing to give up to get an average defender there at each position. If SS and 1B had equivalent defensive value, then SS's would hit as well as 1b-men because managers would be unwilling to sacrifice any offense to get a good glove there. Because SS's hit much less, it indicates that managers are willing to sacrifice that much offense to get a decent fielding SS out there. The amount of offense given up indicates the value of the defense rendered.
   116. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#2242575)
1991 prelim

1) Rod Carew - clearly ahead of everyone
2) Bob Johnson
3) Luis Tiant

4) Norm Cash
5) Jake Beckley
6) Rusty Staub - won't move up, could move down
7) Quincy Trouppe - if he was just a little better than average behind the plate I should have him ranked ahead of Beckley
8) Reggie Smith
9) Tommy Bridges
10) Jim Wynn
11) Ken Boyer
12) Virgil Trucks
13) Edd Roush
14) Orlando Cepeda
15) Bob Elliott - I'd rather give him the ballot spot instead of Dutch Leonard
16-20) Dutch Leonard, Jack Quinn, Bus Clarkson (could move up), Charlie Keller, Luke Easter
21-25) Dick Redding, Vic Willis, Dave Bancroft, Urban Shocker, Jerry Koosman (surprise)
26-30) Frank Howard, Bobby Bonds, Gavy Cravath, Hilton Smith, Alejandro Oms
31-34) Johnny Evers, Dizzy Trout, Ken Singleton, Ben Taylor

55) Rollie Fingers - I don't treat relievers as a special position. Best reliever we've seen since Wilhelm, nobody else has made the top 100.
92) Al Oliver
   117. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2242631)
Getting back to Fingers for a bit, I was just looking over Bill James's bit on him near the end of the NBJHBA. I'll quote the highlights:

<quote>"I don't really see what is uniquely wonderful about Rollie Fingers' career.... Fingers' proponents used the argument that Fingers was remarkably consistent for a relief ace. But for a relief ace, an ERA a full run better than the league is a basic standard of competence. Fingers met that standard only six times in his career, and pitched all of his career in pitcher's parks. Gossage met that standard 11 seasons, seven straight seasons, and pitched as many innings per year in tougher parks while doing it. Quisenberry met that standard his first nine seasons in the league, ten overall, also pitching more innings in tougher parks.

Fingers' ERA, adjusted for the parks he played in, was 16% better than league. Quisenberry's ERA was 31% better than league, Gossage's 20% better, Sutter's 26% better, Wilhelm's 31% better.... Fingers is more in a class with Jeff Reardon (17%), Ron Perranoski (18%), Gene Garber (15%), and Don McMahon (16%).

What lifted Fingers out of that class, I believe, was simply that he had exceptionally good taste in teammates."</quote>

I know much of the other side of this argument involves leverage, which James appears to take into no account at all. I'm just not sure the leverage advantage is the be-all, end-all here. In most other departments, Fingers doesn't quite have the peak I'd like to see, and while he gets Wilhelm points for very good relieving for a decent amount of time, he doesn't get nearly as many of them as Wilhelm, who of course was something of a special case. Of Fingers' contemporaries, I know I prefer Gossage, of course, and I may prefer the shorter-but-higher peak guys as well, guys like Sutter and perhaps Quisenberry.

But I'm still very much up in the air here; Fingers could end up anywhere from the low teens to below 50th right now for me. Curious to hear what others (beyond the comments from the Commish and Chris Cobb, all of which I am most definitely taking into strong account) have to say here, especially others from the peak camp.
   118. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#2242633)
Whoops, coding didn't work there. Sorry, forgot not to use the pointy ones again....
   119. DL from MN Posted: November 21, 2006 at 02:19 PM (#2242842)
John Franco is already well on his way to another Rollie Fingers type career in 1990.
   120. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 21, 2006 at 04:37 PM (#2242945)
Two things:

1) Joe, does your system make any accounting of the natural tendency of relievers to perform something like 20-25% (IIRC) better than starters in the run-prevention department? (Steve Treder lately addressed this point of comnventional wisdom in an article over on THT this summer.) If so, nevermind. If not, it seems like a potential problem when you compare relievers to starting pitchers.

2) Sculder and Mulley: congrats!!!!
   121. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2243168)
1991 Prelim

I just posted my 1990 ballot today but I had already revised it somewhat for 1991 so here is that.

1. Rod Carew (new, PHoM 1991)—overrated, to be sure, but #1 against this backlog

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

3. Rollie Fingers (new, PHoM 1991)—I have a hot 100 with Rollie down around #80 and I have this one with him at #3. With a reliever with his record, I don't see how you could have him #15 or #25 or #40. He is either a top 10er or down near the bottom of the top 100 (or even off the top 100 altogether), it is all in which facet happens to catch your eye. He is surely no Hoyt Wilhelm or Goose Gossage, and I could easily argue that Hoyt and Goose are the only HoM relievers ever (my definition of "ever" means retired, with a "whole entire career" to review, just so you know ;-). But if there is a 3rd, well, and just maybe a 4th, it is Rollie and it is Eck. I looooove Quiz, but he is #5 and unfortunately a distant #5 and not a HoMer. But in short, I've decided that there should be relievers in the HoM, and therefore there should be more than one, and therefore Rollie should be one of them. Just don't ask me to justify him relative to the top half dozen starting pitchers on my list.

4. Edd Roush (5-6-3, PHoM 1976)—no apologies for peak of 38-33-30

5. Nellie Fox (9-10-7, PHoM 1971)—one of the most valuable <100 OPS+ players ever

6. Larry Doyle (6-8-5, PHoM 1975)—same OPS+ as Edd Roush

7. Addie Joss (8-9-6, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available, another lost cause but I can’t kick the habit

8. Pete Browning (7-7-4, PHoM 1961)--right now I'm thinkin' we have enough hitters and so the hitters move down a tad, but once I get going there are plenty of pretty good hitters

9. Charley Jones (10-11-8, PHoM 1921)—trying to abandon Charley for years, just can’t do it

10. Charlie Keller (11-12-9, PHoM 1985)—“So, are you a peak voter or not?” “Yes, I am” “So, why the hell aren’t you supporting Charlie Keller?” “Well, I am, now, finally”

11. Orlando Cepeda (12-14-11, PHoM 1987)—pretty interchangeable with F. Howard and Cravath

12. Ed Williamson (17-19-18, PHoM 1924)—the more I look at the other candidates, the more flaws I see; the more I look at Ed, the more complete of a resume he has

13. Reggie Smith (14-13-10, PHoM 1988)—underrated

14. Tommy Bond (20-24-29, PHoM 1929)—see Williamson, Ed, though I wouldn't say Bond has a "complete" resume, just a great, great peak

(14a. Bobby Doerr [15a-16a-13a, PHoM 1991]--this [PHoM] is still prelim, but you'll notice that he jumped ahead of Rizzuto, and that is after taking a loooong look; I figured I had enough hitters and I couldn't find a pitcher I really cared about)

15. Gavvy Cravath (15-16-13)

Drops Out

16. Phil Rizzuto (13-15-12)

Close--Under Consideration for PHoM

17. Frank Howard (16-17-14)--are Cravath, Rizzuto and F. Howard the next three PHoMers?; maybe, but E. Howard, Bucky Walters, Cash, Sewell, Newcombe and others can make a pretty good case, too.
18. Elston Howard (22-23-17)
19. Bucky Walters (25-26-20)
20. Norm Cash (30-30-30)--definitely below Cravath and F. Howard
(20a. Joe Sewell [19a-19a-16a]—no Bobby Doerr; no Phil Rizzuto either, I think, maybe

21. Don Newcombe (18-20-19)
(21a. Willie Keeler [22a-27a-27a]—similar to Carew, actually, but clearly a tier or two below; and definitely below Cravath and F. Howard among the hitting specialistas)
22. Ken Boyer (29-29-29)--no Bobby Doerr but might be as good as Joe Sewell
23. Dizzy Dean (26-27-21)--a cut below Walters and Newk
24. Chuck Klein (40-35-24)--definitely no F. Howard or Cravath or Cash or even Keeler
25. Dick Redding (21-22-16, PHoM 1971

26. Thurman Munson (38-55-61)--moving up, but no Ellie Howard
27. Dick Lundy (19-21-42)--not quite in Rizzuto's or Sewell's class but interchangeable with Beauty Bancroft
28. Eddie Cicotte (24-18-15)--dropped down; I just don't want him in my PHoM, I decided; and so as an expedient I had to discount 1919 and 1920
29. Dave Bancroft (28-42-53)
30. Vern Stephens (33-38-31)

Also Pretty Good but Don't Look Like PHoMers to Me

31. Tony Oliva (55-54-39)
32. Bobby Estalella (31-33-48)
33. Hack Wilson (47-45-33)
34. Jim McCormick (51-60-65)
(34a. Ezra Sutton [49a-64a-74a])
35. Hugh Duffy (43-43-36)
36. Jim Wynn (23-25-43)
(36a. Jim Bunning [34a-34a-29a])
37. Roger Bresnahan (34-34-51)
38. Alejandro Oms (35-28-28)
39. Al Rosen (37-51-54)
40. Mickey Welch (66-75-72)

41. Hilton Smith (36-36-25)
42. Marvin Williams (32-32-26)
43. Vic Willis (27-41-42)
44. Bobby Bonds (41-37-30)
45. Pie Traynor (45-44-35)
46. Wally Berger (50-50-49)
47. Tommy Leach (54-57-77)
(48a. Early Wynn [52a-48a-48a)
49. Lou Brock (63-53-38)
50. John Clapp (84-93-85)

51. Bill Monroe (42-41-52)
(51a. Jimmy Sheckard [58a-63a-55b])
52. Quincy Trouppe (44-49-47)
53. Rocky Colavito (49-47-34)
54. Luke Easter (46-40-27)
55. Jake Beckley (39-39-44)
56. Fred Dunlap (61-61-66)
57. Bob Johnson (57-56-50)
58. Bob Elliott (59-59-60)
(59a. Wes Ferrell [39a-39a-34a])
60. George Van Haltren (58-62-75)

61. Sal Bando (53-52-40)
(61a. Joe Kelley [62a-68a-68a])
(61b. Biz Mackey [61a-63a-55a])
62. Lefty Gomez (52-48-37)
(62a. Billy Pierce (43a-43a-40a)
63. Bus Clarkson (48-46-46)
64. Luis Aparicio (97-89-70)
65. Tony Mullane (77-79-73)
66. Rusty Staub (new)
67. Burleigh Grimes (79-76-68)
68. Mike Tiernan (64-64-56)
69. George Burns (85-94-86)
70. Ben Taylor (62-67-67)

71. Ken Singleton (56-new)
72. Kiki Cuyler (91-82-93)
73. Joe Tinker (73-71-59)
74. Johnny Evers (74-72-62)
75. Frank Chance (75-73-63)
76. Vada Pinson (80-77-80)
77. Gene Tenace (68-85-new)
78. Al Oliver (new)
(78a. Pete Hill [87a-93a-85a])
79. Bobby Veach (92-87-91)
80. Luis Tiant (60-58-new)

81. Rabbit Maranville (83-88-84)
82. Amos Otis (71-new)
83. Bert Campaneris (67-66-new)
84. Mickey Vernon (96-96-95)
85. Johnny Pesky (87-92-99)
(85a. Cool Papa Bell [68a-69a-69a])
86. Ernie Lombardi (95-87-83)
87. Dolf Luque (73-63-55)
88. John McGraw (65-69-74)
89. Carl Mays (94-90-78)
90. Tommy Bridges (78-74-63)

91. Jimmy Ryan (88-97-100)
92. George Scales (69-65-57)
93. Urban Shocker (70-68-58)
94. Jim Fregosi (86-80-79)
95. Silvio Garcia (89-84-92)
96. Andy Cooper (82-78-69)
97. Pancho Coimbre (72-70-71)
98. Gil Hodges (98-95-91)
99. Artie Wilson (90-81-81)
100. Jim Kaat (81-83-new)

Honorable Mention

Bill Byrd (93-86-76)
Silver King (99-98-87)
Jim Whitney (100-99-90)
Denny Lyons (HM-100-94)
Tony Lazzeri (HM-HM-88)
Red Schoendienst (HM-HM-89)
Sol White (HM-HM-96)
Wilbur Cooper (HM-HM-97)
Jake Fournier (HM-HM-98)
Spot Poles (x-x-x)
   122. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2243192)
I don't really get from your explanation, Sunny, precisely why you feel Fingers is so clearly the #3 retired reliever ever. You just seem to kind of assume it, and then postulate that this is all just a question of whether we take 2, 3, or more relievers.

I'm not so sure, for the reasons mentioned above, that he's the third-best (I'm not sure he's not, either)--viewed one way, he can easily fall into the George Van Haltren Memorial Quite Good for an Extended Period Club, behind some peakier relievers. Heck, I'm not even 100% positive he's better than Mike Marshall.
   123. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 21, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#2243313)
If you had any more doubts about the value of the WARP-based fielding stats at BP...

Joe Sheehan just wrote this in his daily column:

"Gonzalez, however, is one of the top defensive shortstops in the game. While his numbers in Clay Davenport's system don't look good, Gonzalez consistently ranks among the top glove men in play-by-play systems or zone-based ones, such as the work of Mitchel Lichtman or Chris Dial. With the PBP systems largely in agreement on his value, I take those numbers more seriously than the Davenport ones."
   124. Mark Donelson Posted: November 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM (#2243318)
Just to toss some honey in with that vinegar, Sunny...I love seeing the return of Ed Williamson to your ballot, even a prelim! :)
   125. sunnyday2 Posted: November 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#2243357)
Mark,

Where's the love for Tommy Bond?

(As Leonard Cohen wrote/sang, Why not ask for more?)
   126. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 22, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2243917)
Just tossing some info out there on the bigger deals in this election.

What do my two systems (WS intervals and Keltner-based) say about these guys?

Carew: I put him at 2B for our purposes. By Keltner, he's sixth among eligibles (Biggio has gone ahead among all-timers). He's in a cluster with Rose, Grich, and Gehringer. In the intervals, he's 10th, 11th when Robinson's ex-cred is factored in. Call it seventh or eighth, and he's probably where he should be. Easy HOMer.

Staub: Keltner has him 27th amond among MLB RFs (through 1991), tied with Harry Hooper, right behind Dewey and Reggie Smith. Feels intuitively correct. Intervals has him 25th. So agreement there that he is not quite HOMworthy.

Oliver: Like 50-60th in both systems among CFs. Seems about right.

Koosman: Around 85-90 in the old system (which is similar to being 27-30th for position players). New system around 125th. Split the diff at 110. Seems about right.

Rollie Fingers (aka Rollie Findars): No idea yet. Still working out the relievers. Here's some preliminary stuff based on WS (which isn't the ideal measuring stick for RPs, granted).
a: How often was he an All-Star? Fingers is a three-time all-star by WS. Who, by 1991, is tied or ahead of him?
Wilhelm (5)
Quis (5)
Sutter (4)
Gossage (4)
Smith (4)
Marshall (4)
Kinder (3)
Face (3)
McDaniel (3)
Radatz (3)
Fingers (3)

b: How often was he the best relief pitcher in his league (using my three-year scores which I've previously detailed)? Fingers was never the best RP in his league per WS. He was three times within 10% of being the best RP in his league. Just taking the guys above, the parentheses indicate how often each was the best RP for a three-year span, then within 5% of the leader, then within 10%:
Wilhelm (6, 1, 3)
Sutter (6, 1, 0)
Smith (5, 1, 3)
Quis (5, 0, 0)
Gossage (4, 1, 1)
Face (3, 0, 1)
Marshall (3, 0, 0)
Radatz (2, 0, 0)
McDaniel (1, 0, 0)
Kinder (1, 0, 0)
Fingers (0, 0, 3)

c: How many Cy Young type seasons did he have (finishing among top five pitchers by WS)? Rollie Fingers had one, 1981. The others:
Quis (3)
Sutter (3)
Gossage (2)
Marshall (2)
Radatz (2)
Kinder (1)
McDaniel (1)
Wilhelm (1)
Fingers (1)
Face (0)
Smith (0)

Now, I'm not going to claim this as conclusive in any way, but by one system at least, Fingers is not a stand-out candidate among retired or near-retired candidates. By WS, Wilhelm, Quis, Sutter, Gossage, and Marshall are all more impressive candidates overall, with Lee Smith being pretty close, probably a bit behind. Like I said, it's just WS POV, and I'm not sure that it is the most accurate for assessing relievers. But it's food for thought.

Steve Rogers: Intervals has him 5-10 slots behind Koos, Keltner has him one or two ahead. Again, this feels about right. He had a couple great, high impact seasons and a few good seasons, but not tons of career value and not enough big wow-wows to get on the ballot.
   127. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2006 at 05:16 PM (#2243990)
by one system at least, Fingers is not a stand-out candidate among retired or near-retired candidates.

My system for relievers--which uses PRAA rather than WS--comes to a similar conclusion for the most part, with the same group of guys edging (or in several cases surging) ahead of Fingers. I suspect our general agreement that dominance is what we're after is fueling this, of course.

Did you run Stu Miller, John Hiller, and Tug McGraw through those lists, Eric? Curious to see where they'd end up. (I suppose I can just do it myself....)
   128. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2006 at 05:39 PM (#2244018)
I overcame my laziness. (I can't do Eric's three-year system offhand, since I'm not remembering the precise details, but here's the other two.)

McGraw: All-star twice, top-five among pitchers in WS once.
Hiller: All-star once, top-five among pitchers in WS once.
Miller: All-star once, top-five among pitchers in WS once.

So none of the three do particularly well in this system either, or at least two-thirds of it.
   129. sunnyday2 Posted: November 22, 2006 at 06:19 PM (#2244051)
I'm a peak voter but even I don't use Black Ink. All-star seasons often work...but when a guy is an all-star once or twice, well, we're just looking at too narrow of a slice of a career at that point. How often a reliever is among the top 5 pitchers by WS, ditto. And if WS isn't an ideal measuring stick for relievers, then WS all-star seasons are even less so.

I'd like to see the PRAA data, howsomever.
   130. DL from MN Posted: November 22, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2244081)
I've been going over Bus Clarkson some more. His bat is really really good (2nd in HR several times to players like Gibson and Buck Leonard) for an infielder, enough to get him into the top 30 if he was a butcher in the field. Defensively we have no evidence, even anecdotal, of his career other than his status as a utility player who played everywhere on the diamond. My guess is his glove ranges somewhere between Bill Hall (off ballot) and Placido Polanco (elect-me!).

There are a lot of parallels to Quincy Trouppe - spotty data, missing time to military service, time spent in foreign minor leagues (Canada, Mexico), evidence of a superior bat especially for position, little evidence at all on glove work and a tendency to be spotted where needed, time spent in declining Negro Leagues, only major league data comes at an advanced age. Luke Easter is in the same category. I'm going to place Clarkson on the ballot this year. He has a translated line of .285/.370/.439 in 8000 PAs. If his glove was decent, he deserves votes.
   131. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 22, 2006 at 07:09 PM (#2244128)
Yes, Mark, I do seek dominance, and it's not Fingers's long suit. Which theoretically is problematic since RPs are by nature supposed to be dominant. But that's another discussion.

Your three and a few others who are pretty much done by 1991, added on to the previous post's guys in tabular format, sorted by this critera: BEST/A-S/CYA/Alpha. For some reason I'm not seeing McGraw's CYA-type year, which year is it? (NOte: I'm probably the one that's wrong!!!)

NAME       A-S  CYA   BEST
------------------------------
Wilhelm     5    1   613
Sutter      4    3   6
10
L Smith     4    0   5
13
Quis        5    3   5
00
Gossage     4    2   4
11
Hiller      3    1   3
01
Face        3    0   3
01
Marshall    4    2   3
00
Perranoski  2    0   2
21
Abernathy   2    1   2
01
Radatz      3    2   2
00
Lyle        1    0   2
00
McGraw      2    0   1
1
Campbell    2    1   1
01
Carroll     1    0   1
01
Minton      1    0   1
01
Kinder      3    1   1
00
McDaniel    3    1   1
00
Burke       2    1   1
00
Hrabosky    1    0   1
00
Righetti    1    0   1
00
Fingers     3    1   0
03
Miller      2    1   0
20
Hernandez   1    1   0
10
Tekulve     2    0   0
01
Garber      2    1   0
00
Stanley     2    1   0
00
Kern        1    1   0
00
McMahon     0    0   0
00
D
Smith    0    0   00


More food for thought.

OK, but let's test this to see if it meets our perceptions of relievrs whose careers come after this time. Here's a dozen or so of the best guys whose RP careers come substantially after this juncture:


NAME          A-S  CYA   BEST
--------------------------------
Rivera         7    1   611
Hoffman        4    0   4
01
Wetteland      4    1   3
12
Montgomery     3    2   3
00
Eck            2    0   2
20
Wagner         4    0   2
00
D Jones        3    0   2
00
Mesa           2    0   2
00
Shaw           1    0   1
11
Myers          1    0   1
00
Nen            3    0   0
23
Franco         4    1   0
22
Ward           3    0   0
11
Henke          1    0   0
10
Percival       0    0   0
10
R Hernandez    1    0   0
01
Thigpen        1    1   0
00
Urbina         1    0   0
00
Beck           1    0   0
00
Aguilera       0    0   0
0


Think that Rivera guy is pretty good?

I think that's a mostly reasonable ranking. Up top are the heavies (though Montgomery is a bit surprising), then a bunch of HOVG career or peak type guys, then the not as greats I added to the list as controls. You could certainly choose to reorder here and there, but in terms of the tiers of relievers we're talking about, it's clear this prism is a reasonable one for viewing these guys.

That said, I'm now wary about mixing closer-era guys and 1970s-era guys, even with this sort of braod-based, contextualized battery of questions. The CYA seasons for more modern closers are significantly rarer than for the relief-ace model pitcher of the 1960s and 1970s. Also worth noting is how Eck finishes up. Despite his incredible ERA+s, he doesn't do all that well. I don't think it's as much a function of his split career (he actually has four other WS All-Stars and a CYA season as a starter), but rather of his innings. It will be interesting to see (at the appropriate moment) whether his innings are in-line or below other RPs from his era.
   132. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2006 at 07:38 PM (#2244193)
I'd like to see the PRAA data, howsomever.

Ask, and you shall receive. I've only listed years in which the pitcher in question was primarily a relief pitcher, and I list the career total PRAA (including years as a starter) after the slash. The victims are, in order: Marshall, Hiller, Radatz (the peaky guys first), then Fingers, McGraw, Miller, McDaniel, Perranoski, Kinder, Face, and Lyle, plus Wilhelm at the end just for reference. I'm not doing the nonretired guys yet.

MM41-39-31-26-22-9-5-4-0-(2)-(3)-(3)-(5)-(6)-(8)-(10)/128
JH
56-36-27-19-18-14-11-7-6-4-2-0-(1)-(5)-(8)/186
DR
49-45-36-8-1-0-(1)-(5)-(8)-(11)/112

RF
37-28-23-21-20-14-14-14-10-9-5-2-(2)-(5)-(6)-(13)-(15)/156
TM
32-30-29-13-10-10-9-8-3-0-0-0-0-(1)-(3)-(12)-(19)/102
SM
36-23-23-19-15-10-10-4-3-(2)-(3)-(3)-(9)-(12)-(12)-(12)/104
LM
41-26-18-16-15-13-10-10-2-1-0-0-0-(2)-(3)-(5)-(5)-(5)-(6)-(24)/90
RP
34-31-20-15-15-15-12-3-0-0-(1)-(2)-(7)-(12)-(25)/99
EK
33-27-17-13-10-6-5-1/157
RF
33-24-17-14-11-10-10-9-5-4-4-2-1-0-(6)-(10)-(15)/111
SL
26-25-22-20-14-11-10-10-6-5-3-1-1-0-(4)-(6)-(7)-(8)/128

HW
25-25-24-22-19-17-17-16-15-13-11-11-11-8-8-7-5-2-0-(1)-(2)-(2)-(3)-(5)-(6)/283 


So Fingers is somewhere the great-but-short-peak guys and the lesser-peak-longer-career guys. If you put him among the latter, he's clearly the best so far after Wilhelm, with a better peak but not the duration of our only elected reliever.

But when you compare him to Marshall, or even Hiller, the five-year peak seems a bit thin. And elevating Fingers past these guys (in this particular measure, anyway) seems to rely on valuing a few good-not-great seasons very heavily, which I, as a peak voter, like to avoid. Perhaps a five-year peak, which is generally enough for me, is too small for a reliever, but I'm inclined not to think so--five years of relief dominance seems enough to show you're not a fluke.

Also, I don't think PRAA takes leverage into account at all, so that needs to be figured in somehow--but it would take my weighing leverage quite a lot to get Fingers to my ballot at this point. At least, that's what I'm thinking today.
   133. Mark Donelson Posted: November 22, 2006 at 07:45 PM (#2244203)
For some reason I'm not seeing McGraw's CYA-type year, which year is it? (NOte: I'm probably the one that's wrong!!!)

I was thinking it was 1972, when I believe he was tied with half the league with 22 per the WS book.

Officially that puts him in a seven-way tie for fourth place (behind Carlton, Gibson, and Sutton, and tied with Niekro, Jenkins, Osteen, Marshall, Matlack, and Seaver), so it's admittedly a gray area as far as qualifying for this.
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2006 at 01:20 AM (#2244519)
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving!
   135. Chris Cobb Posted: November 23, 2006 at 02:37 AM (#2244551)
Also, I don't think PRAA takes leverage into account at all, so that needs to be figured in somehow.

PRAA doesn't take leverage as such into account, but it is based on adjusted innings pitched (xip), not on raw innings pitched, and the formula for adjusted innings pitched includes components that boost a relief pitchers' innings. As the BP glossary puts it:

"Innings are redistributed among the members of the team to favor those who took part in more decisions (wins, losses, and saves) than their innings alone would lead you to expect. The main incentive was to do a better job recognizing the value of closers than a simple runs above average approach would permit."

For post-1990 closers, this system does a pretty good job of making xip for the relief pitcher pretty close to what their leveraged IP would be, if you multiplied raw IP by the pitcher's leverage index. For 1970s firemen, the formula tends to increase raw IP less than adjusting by leverage would. So there is some adjustment here, but not enough. So, if you use PRAA as a measure for relief pitchers, you should be aware that there has been some messing with raw IP already.

Commenting on Mark's assessment of the PRAA numbers he posted above, I would note that Fingers' leverage was notably higher, overall, than Marshall's and Hiller's. I'm on the road for Thanksgiving, so I don't have the data with me and can't give specifics now, but of that much I am certain.

xip increases Hiller ip by 20%, Marshall's by 34%, and Fingers' by 36%.

I am pretty sure that, if one makes a further adjustment of xip for leverage, Fingers' peak rises past Marshall's. Hiller's very best seasons top Fingers' best, but after that top 1 or 2 seasons, Fingers was generally better than Hiller.
   136. Mark Donelson Posted: November 23, 2006 at 05:29 AM (#2244608)
I am pretty sure that, if one makes a further adjustment of xip for leverage, Fingers' peak rises past Marshall's.

I had a feeling that would be the case--but how much? Marshall makes my top 50, but just barely, so again, I don't see Fingers getting much higher than the 30 slot even with an adjusted-upward PRAA peak. Unless we're talking a lot more adjustment than I'm thinking, anyway.

I agree that even by these numbers, Fingers comes off looking better than Hiller, since it's really just those couple of amazing years for the latter, which isn't enough to establish him at that high level even for me....
   137. OCF Posted: November 23, 2006 at 06:12 AM (#2244623)
My initial take:

Carew: Go ahead and call him a first baseman - he's got enough bat to be elected. I'd put his offensive value as similar to Billy Williams. He'll be #1 on my 1991 ballot.

Staub: Put him on the "extreme career candidate" list along with Beckley, Brock, and Mickey Vernon. Frankly, out of that group I like Staub the best. I need to resolve his placement relative to Cepeda and Cash, but he will be on my ballot somewhere.

Oliver: Left too soon, given what he'd accomplished. It's just not enough for me. Veach would be a good value match.

Burroughs: He's a Long Beach story, so I worked him up. Let's limit this just to "bat" positions: what is the worst career value you can think of among players who have won an MVP?* In his case, even the MVP year is only a "57" on my offensive scale, and it sticks up from the rest of his career. I haven't done Don Baylor yet - that might be an interesting comparison.

When I saw a 12-year-old Sean Burroughs (superstar pitcher that he was at the time) I remember thinking that if he'd have a pro career, it would be as his father, as a "bat." Didn't exactly turn out that way.

* (It's too soon to tell for Justin Morneau, of course.)
   138. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2006 at 09:39 AM (#2244650)
Regarding Fingers . . . ERA+ seriously understates his effectiveness.

Among eligible relievers he is far and away the leader in inherited runners prevented.

Bill James is misleading when he says that an ERA a run below the league average was a 'basic standard of competence' for a reliever. That's like saying the basic standard of competence for a #1 starter is a 125 ERA+. We've elected plenty of starters that didn't have 6 years of ERA+ over 125, for example.

Also that might be the standard level of competence now, but it wasn't in 1973. Steve Treder's articles discuss this. Same for Tango's study - it applies to 2005, not 1975. Especially not pitching in Oakland in say 1974 when an average pitcher would have posted an ERA of 3.34. at 2.34 his ERA+ would have been 143 which would have been in the top half of the league for aces, and way above the norm for 'relievers'.

That's correct, you need to compare relief aces to all relievers, not just other aces when adjusting for the "ERA advantage". With starters, we don't compare them to the ERA of #1 starters. We compare them to the ERA of all pitchers.

I think the ERA advantage for relievers stems from the fact that they pitch a much higher percentage of partial innings than starters - I do adjust for this by using the Prospectus statistic 'Bequeathed Runners Prevented' (by the reliever's relievers). This figure is positive (sometimes extremely so) for nearly all relievers, especially for lefties (who pitch partial innings more than anyone). Tom Burgmeier and Darrold Knowles, for example, are the all-time kings so far (through 1990 retirees) - losing 55.9 and 62.4 runs in my system because of this.

I've only found 4 relievers who were negative in this category - Stu Miller (-1.6), Clem Labine (-1.4), Al McBean (-.2), and Rawly Eastwick (-1.5) - those guys were extremely unlucky in this respect - meaning their 'reliever advantage' really didn't exist at all.

So I'm very confident that I've accounted for it - and I think the effect has been overstated by the studies that have been done. I don't agree with the methodology (comparing the same pitchers when starting and relieving) at all - and I told Steve T. (vehemently) at the time when he wrote his articles.

I also think that even if the differences were as extreme as Steve and Tango suggest, that it isn't something to be used against the reliever. The manager believes that the trade off in throwing this pitcher at a higher level of effectiveness for fewer but higher leveraged innings is worthwhile. So I don't see why you dock him for pitching fewer innings (even with the leverage bonus), and then dock him again for pitching at a higher level of effectiveness than he would if he were starting. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

But back to Fingers - my main points for him are:

1) He threw a ton of innings for a relief ace (#3 all time to this point)

2) He was hugely leveraged compared to other aces

3) He was much more effective than his ERA+ suggests. I think his 'true ERA+' (what I call DRA+ should be 124, not 114.

4) His peak/prime was outstanding - his best year is the 3rd best season I've found for a relief ace. Only 7 relief aces had a better 2nd best season. Only 3 had a better 3 best season. Only Goose Gossage had a better 4th and 5th best season.

He's a no-brainer candidate for me.
   139. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2006 at 10:08 AM (#2244653)
Here's my reliever chart. I'm missing Willie Hernandez - and Lee Smith's entire career is included, but other than that, it's pretty much a complete list of relief aces who were finished by 1990. I only gave the full treatment for the top 15. For the others I listed their vitals and any peak seasons over 5.0 WAR.

RK Pitcher             PA  DRA  DRAtIP    WAR RSAR BRAR InRP BrP  LI   LIP    Ladj   Def   1   2   3   4   5  Top3 Top5
1  Hoyt Wilhelm      0.886 3.45 130 2905.7 67.2  642 
-12  10.0 18.7 1.4 1871.0  0.07  0.05  7.6 6.2 5.6 5.1 4.7 14.8 29.2
2  Goose Gossage     0.881 3.42 132 2565.3 63.7  609   0   1.6 18.2 1.5 1556.7  0.07 
-0.01 10.7 7.7 6.4 6.2 5.6 20.6 36.6
3  Rollie Fingers    0.786 3.62 124 2566.3 57.7  552   2  33.1 22.4 1.6 1505.7  0.08 
-0.01  9.3 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.2 17.8 32.3
4  Lee Smith         0.718 3.30 136 2161.7 55.0  526  
-2  18.1 15.7 1.7 1252.3 -0.01  0.00  6.2 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.6 14.8 25.3
5  Bruce Sutter      0.626 3.46 130 1881.7 45.0  430   0  11.5 16.0 1.8 1042.0 
-0.02  0.07  8.4 7.6 7.1 5.3 4.5 19.6 33.1
6  Stu Miller        0.617 3.62 124 2087.3 45.8  438  
-2  27.0 -1.6 1.4 1103.3  0.01  0.01  8.1 7.3 5.6 4.7 4.2 15.9 29.8
7  Tug McGraw        0.588 3.78 119 2021.3 43.9  419   3  11.2 12.7 1.4 1301.3  0.01  0.10  7.4 7.3 6.4 4.0 3.4 16.9 28.5
8  Lindy McDaniel    0.588 4.08 110 2590.7 44.5  425  
-3   2.5 16.5 1.3 1672.7  0.00  0.06  7.6 6.6 5.4 3.7 3.7 13.8 27.1
9  Kent Tekulve      0.564 3.62 124 1972.0 43.0  411  
-2  24.8 39.1 1.4 1436.7 -0.02  0.04  6.9 5.7 5.4 4.1 3.7 14.2 25.7
10 John Hiller       0.543 3.39 133 1603.3 39.0  373  
-2  16.1 14.2 1.4  963.0  0.12  0.04 12.0 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.1 20.4 29.5
11 Roy Face          0.523 3.69 122 1894.0 40.1  383  
-3  18.8 11.6 1.4 1186.3 -0.06 -0.08  5.9 5.4 5.2 5.2 3.1 14.3 24.8
12 Mike Marshall     0.499 3.89 116 1882.7 36.6  349   7   9.9 23.5 1.4 1259.3  0.05  0.05  7.7 6.6 6.2 5.1 4.9 20.5 30.5
13 Dan Quisenberry   0.470 3.41 132 1379.7 34.9  333   0 
-27.5 13.4 1.3 1043.3  0.09  0.07  6.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 17.3 27.9
14 Bob Stanley       0.435 4.14 109 2097.3 33.2  317   0 
-12.5 21.7 1.3 1159.0  0.11 -0.05  7.3 5.7 3.2 3.2 2.9 14.7 22.4
15 Ron Perranoski    0.408 3.93 115 1562.0 30.8  295  
-4   0.3 28.3 1.4 1170.7  0.02 -0.11  6.2 5.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 12.1 23.9
16 Sparky Lyle       0.398 4.07 111 1794.7
--------------------------------------------------6.1
17 Don McMahon       0.393 3.84 117 1543.3
18 Gary Lavelle      0.393 3.83 117 1578.3
--------------------------------------------------6.9
19 Gene Garber       0.384 4.24 106 1957.7
--------------------------------------------------5.7 5.6
20 Jim Brewer        0.370 3.80 118 1331.3
--------------------------------------------------6.6
21 Clay Carroll      0.358 4.04 111 1570.3
22 Dick Hall         0.353 4.07 111 1498.7
23 Johnny Murphy     0.351 4.15 108 1806.0
24 Dick Radatz       0.346 3.42 132  952.7
--------------------------------------------------8.0 7.4 5.3
25 Jim Kern          0.343 3.71 121 1074.3
--------------------------------------------------8.5 5.6
26 Terry Forster     0.339 4.02 112 1406.7
--------------------------------------------------5.4
27 Bill Campbell     0.337 4.02 112 1476.7
--------------------------------------------------7.7
28 Dave Giusti       0.322 4.40 102 1891.3
29 Hugh Casey        0.319 4.21 107 1491.7
30 Tom Burgmeier     0.296 4.35 103 1357.0
--------------------------------------------------5.8
31 Al Worthington    0.293 4.13 109 1470.7
32 Clem Labine       0.272 4.17 108 1449.3
33 Jim Konstanty     0.262 4.13 109 1303.7
--------------------------------------------------7.1
34 Mace Brown        0.258 4.16 108 1406.7
35 Eddie Fisher      0.255 4.57  98 1633.7
--------------------------------------------------6.0
36 Al McBean         0.244 4.06 111 1097.3
--------------------------------------------------5.0
37 Ted Abernathy     0.241 4.45 101 1330.7
--------------------------------------------------5.5
38 Darold Knowles    0.230 4.60  98 1462.0
39 Johnny Klippstein 0.229 4.77  94 1980.7
40 Joe Page          0.227 4.42 102 1137.3
--------------------------------------------------7.0
41 Bill Henry        0.226 4.15 108 1042.7
--------------------------------------------------5.4
42 Bob Miller        0.221 4.51 100 1463.7
43 Phil Regan        0.217 4.57  98 1522.7
--------------------------------------------------7.0
44 Marv Grissom      0.214 4.06 111  972.0
--------------------------------------------------6.4
45 Joe Heving        0.194 4.53  99 1243.0
46 Frank Linzy       0.193 4.34 104 1052.7
47 Ken Sanders       0.190 3.84 117  707.3
--------------------------------------------------6.4
48 Turk Lown         0.174 4.55  99 1237.3
49 Bob Lee           0.154 3.85 117  597.3
--------------------------------------------------5.0
50 John Wyatt        0.151 4.31 104  900.3
51 Ray Narleski      0.150 4.52 100  809.0
52 Bob Grim          0.150 4.51 100  979.7
--------------------------------------------------5.4
53 Hal Woodeshick    0.149 4.86  93  950.0
54 Jack Aker         0.149 4.65  97  951.0
--------------------------------------------------6.1
55 Larry Sherry      0.144 4.61  98  928.0
56 Rawly Eastwick    0.120 4.16 108  610.0
57 Ryne Duren        0.120 4.53  99  705.7
58 Luis Arroyo       0.103 4.65  97  653.3
59 Wayne Granger     0.084 4.94  91  798.0
60 Jack Baldschun    0.068 5.29  85  737.7 



PA - Pennants Added; DRA - my version of Defense adjusted runs allowed, which uses PythaganPat exponents, and the Baseball Prospectus adjustments from NRA to DERA, 4.50 is league average; DRA+ - DRA on an ERA+ type scale; tIP - my version of translated IP, which accounts for leverage of relief innings, and adjusts starters based on era norms based on the league leaders IP and the size of the league; WAR - my wins above replacement, using DRA, tIP and accounting for pitcher hitting; RSAR - my version of runs saved above replacement (includes pitching and batting); BRAR - my version of batting runs above replacement, which uses the average pitcher that season as a baseline, but also includes hitting and fielding while not pitching; PSup - starting pitcher bullpen support, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (negative means good support); InRP - Inherited Runs Prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive is good); BRP - bequeathed runs prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive means good support); LI - Leverage Index, 1960-2005, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus, 1871-1959 estimated based on Pete Palmer's formula, the only difference being that I cap it at 3.00, not 2.00; LIP - Leveraged innings pitched; Ladj - League Adjustment to aDRA, adjusts for things like expansion and weaker leagues in-season, but it is NOT a timeline adjustment; the higher the number the weaker the league; Def - Defensive adjustment, applied directly to DRA (negative means pitcher had bad defensive support); 1 - pitcher's best season WAR; 2 - pitcher's second best season WAR; 3,4,5 - figure it out, you are smart; Top3 - pitcher's top 3 consecutive seasons of WAR; Top5 - pitcher's top 5 individual WAR seasons.
   140. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2006 at 10:17 AM (#2244655)
I removed the starting pitcher bullpen support column since it's largely irrelevant here (although Fingers also takes the biggest hit of any ace reliever here also his bullpens cost him 7.6 runs when he was starting). I needed the space, as once I get to too many characters across the row overlaps.
   141. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 23, 2006 at 01:14 PM (#2244661)
Carew: Go ahead and call him a first baseman - he's got enough bat to be elected.

I'm designating him as a second baseman because he had more value there, though it's very close.
   142. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 23, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#2244703)
Two more things:

1) Joe, thanks for the explication!

2) Happy thanksgiving to everyone!!!!!
   143. OCF Posted: November 23, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#2244742)
John - let me explain a little more clearly what I meant. Hypothetically, if we were to consider Carew as if he were entirely a first baseman, then his offensive contributions would be sufficient to elect him, easily. Since he has positional value above and beyond that in that he could arguably be considered a second baseman, then that merely makes his election even easier.
   144. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 23, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#2244744)
Oliver: Left too soon, given what he'd accomplished.


If this is your primary criterion for leaving him off the ballot, then I think you need to consider the possibility (which Oliver himself has raised) that he was pushed out.

In Game 7 of the 1985 ALCS, the Royals started Bret Saberhagen, but pulled him in favor of lefty Charlie Leibrandt after three innings (supposedly due to an injury). In the bottom of the fifth, with the Royals leading 2-1 and Willie Upshaw on second, Bobby Cox sent Cliff Johnson to pinch-hit for Oliver (he had been platooning the two of them at DH all year). Johnson struck out to end the inning. As it turned out, it didn't make much difference, after Jim Sundberg's bases-loaded triple put the game out of reach a half-inning later, but Oliver - knowing that Dan Quisenberry was likely to make a late-inning appearance in a close game - was furious about being removed at the time, and apparently let Cox have it in no uncertain terms. When he became a free agent after the season, not one team offered him even a ST invite, and Oliver blamed Cox for blackballing him.

If "leaving too soon" makes a difference to you, and if Oliver really was pushed out, then you might want to reconsider his credentials. Now, to be fair about it, Oliver had not performed well in 1985, and he was 39. He'd been in decline ever since winning the batting title three years earlier, and it was a pretty steep decline; what power he had went away almost literally overnight. I personally can't imagine that another year or so would have added anything to his HoM case.

-- MWE
   145. OCF Posted: November 23, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2244833)
Perhaps another way for me to phrase that would be that for a career candidate, Oliver doesn't quite have enough career value. The only real issue in my mind is the extent to which 1/3 of his career games in CF makes him a centerfielder - I've been comparing him to a list of corner outfielders. But even as a CF, I don't see him displacing Van Haltren, Duffy, Ryan, or Roush.
   146. Paul Wendt Posted: November 25, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#2245565)
Oliver had not performed well in 1985, and he was 39. He'd been in decline ever since winning the batting title three years earlier, and it was a pretty steep decline; what power he had went away almost literally overnight. I personally can't imagine that another year or so would have added anything to his HoM case.

I agree. I recall hearing him interviewed on radio some time after his candidacy was killed by the BBWAA. He seemed bitter and that surprised me, because I didn't think of him as a remote candidate on the record in the books and I recalled his severe decline which had disappointed me. By the way, I recall a generally degraded reputation, probably through the lens of the weekly Notes column by Peter Gammons --once a good person and good glove, in the mid-1980s a surly? or selfish? statue.

Earlier he was a mainstay of the hated, deadly Pirates lineup, whom I considered the left-handed Clemente, hard-hitting with extrabase power across the board --contrast Bob Robertson and Willie Stargell. The contrast holds up; today I can add "not many bases on balls" to the Clemente parallel. But with 1971-1977 OPS+ merely 123, alternating below and above 120, he falls about as far below a vaguely remembered high-pitch as any batter of that time
(my teens, when I missed the usual pattern of growing out of baseball and into girls. Although unusually bright and avid, I was not the most perceptive fan in Phillie-land. I remember Robertson and Oliver as a half-platoon at 1B, but the record shows that BR was at first with AO in the outfield against many rhps. And I remember Cash and Stennett as a platoon at 2B, but the encyclopedia says they both batted from the right side.)
   147. Paul Wendt Posted: November 25, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#2245568)
his severe decline which had disappointed me.

Even then I found myself rooting for all the stars of my relative youth, in their declining days, whether they had been bad guys (Oliver) or good guys in their heydays.
   148. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2246128)
HOM FIVE-YEAR COHORTS

I did this about fifteen "years" ago; I finally have a little time to update them. Just a couple of reminders:

b) I list players at the position at which they played the most games during that season, except for pitchers who played a lot of outfield, at which point I just did what made the most sense to me. Bob Caruthers is a pitcher until 1891; Babe Ruth is listed as pitcher only until 1917, even though he pitched a fair amount in’18-19. For Negro Leaguers I used Holway , i9s, and guesswork. Trying to give a year by year position for Dihigo made me cry, but I did it to the best of my ability.
c)I use prime years, rather than entire career, since that is my voting method. This means I eliminate down years and injuries. When I see someone listed in a cohort, I know he was having a good year (though not necessarily a peak or dominant year) at that position. I use primarily Win Shares to determine prime, with 20 WS being a prime year in a 162 game season, but it was not an absolute tool; in some cases I disagreed with WS, and went with my own opinion. For Negro Leaguers I was entirely reliant on the projections Chris Cobb, Dr. Chaleeko, David Foss, i9’s, and John Holway. There is obviously plenty of room to criticize my choices of prime years, and I welcome feedback if you have it. But I was not so concerned about getting the primes exactly right, as much I was looking at patterns.

Without further ado...

THE BEGINNINGS OF ORGANIZED BASEBALL, 1871-1880

1871-1875

C C McVey (’71, ’73), D White (’71-75)

1B AC Anson (‘73-75), C McVey (’75), J O’Rourke (’73-74), J Start (’71, 74-75)

2B R Barnes (‘71-75)

3B AC Anson (‘71-72), E Sutton (’71-73, 75)

SS R Pearce (’74-75), G Wright (’71-75)

LF

CF P Hines (’75), J O’Rourke (’75), L Pike (’74-75)

RF C McVey (’74), L Pike (’71-73)

P AG Spalding (’71-5)

Total HoM’rs: 12


1876-1880

C C McVey (’77), D White (’76,’78-79)

1B AC Anson (‘80), C McVey (’76, ’79), J Start (’77-80), E Sutton (’76), D White (’77)

2B R Barnes (‘76)

3B AC Anson (‘76-77), R Connor (’80), M Kelly (’79), C McVey (’78), AH Richardson (’79-80)

SS E Sutton (’77), G Wright (’76, 79)

LF AC Anson (‘78)

CF G Gore (’80), P Hines (’76, ’78-80), J O’Rourke (’76-77), L Pike (’76-78), H Stovey (’80)
RF M Kelly (’80), J O’Rourke (’78-80)

P J Galvin (’79), AG Spalding (‘76), JM Ward (’78-80)

Total HoMrs: 15
   149. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:21 PM (#2246133)
19TH CENTURY BASEBALL, 1881-1900


1881-1885

C C Bennett (‘81-85), W Ewing (’83-85)

1B AC Anson (‘81-85), D Brouthers (‘81-85), R Connor (’82-83, 85), J Start (’81-82), H Stovey (’82-85), D White (’81)
2B R Connor (’84), J McPhee (’84), AH Richardson (’82-85)

3B W Ewing (’82), J O’Rourke (‘81), E Sutton (’83-85), D White (’84)

SS J Glasscock (’82-85), M Kelly (’82)

LF J O’Rourke (’83-84)

CF G Gore (’81-85), P Hines (’81-83, ‘85), J O’Rourke (’85), AH Richardson (’81)

RF M Kelly (’81, ’84-85)

P R Caruthers (’85), J Clarkson (’85), J Galvin (’81, ’83-84), T Keefe (’82-85), C Radbourne (’82-85), JM Ward (’81)

Total HoMrs: 23



1886-1890

C C Bennett (‘86, ‘88), W Ewing (’86, ’88-90), M Kelly (’88, ’90)

1B AC Anson (‘86-90), D Brouthers (‘86-90), R Connor (’86-90)

2B C Childs (’90), F Grant (’86-90), J McPhee (’86-87), AH Richardson (’87, ’89)

3B W Ewing (’87), D White (’87)

SS J Glasscock (’86-87, 89-90), JM Ward (’87, ’90)

LF G Gore (’90), W Hamilton (’90), J O’Rourke (’86, ’88-89), AH Richardson (’86, ’90), H Stovey (’87-89)
CF G Gore (’86, ’89), P Hines (’86-88), H Stovey (’86)

RF W Hamilton (’89), M Kelly (’86-87, 89), J O’Rourke (’90), H Stovey (’90), S Thompson (’86-87, 89-90)
P R Caruthers (’86-89), J Clarkson (’86-89), J Galvin (’86-87), T Keefe (’86-90), C Nichols (’90), C Radbourne (’89-90), A Rusie (’90)

Total HoMrs: 28



1891-1895

C

1B AC Anson (‘91), D Brouthers (‘91-2, ‘94), R Connor (’91-93), W Ewing (’92)

2B C Childs (’91-’94), F Grant (’91-’95), J McPhee (’91-95), JM Ward (’92-93)

3B W Dahlen (’91), G Davis (’93-95)

SS W Dahlen (’92-94), J Glasscock (’92-93), H Jennings (’94-95)

LF J Burkett (’92-95), E Delahanty (’93-95), W Hamilton (’91-’92), J Kelley (’94-95)

CF E Delahanty (’92), G Gore (’91), W Hamilton (’93-’95), J Kelley (’93)

RF R Caruthers (’92), W Ewing (’93), W Keeler (’94-95), H Stovey (’91), S Thompson (’91-95)
P R Caruthers (’91), J Clarkson (’91-93), J Galvin (’91), C Griffith (’94-95), T Keefe (’92), C Nichols (’91-95), A Rusie (’91-95), RJ Wallace (’95), DT Young (’91-95)

Total HoMrs: 29



1896-1900

C

1B N Lajoie (’97)

2B C Childs (’96-97), F Grant (’96-97), N Lajoie (’98, ’00)

3B J Collins (’97-00), G Davis (’96), H Wagner (’99), RJ Wallace (’97-98)

SS W Dahlen (’96, ’98-99), G Davis (’97-00), H Jennings (’96-98), G Johnson (’99-00), RJ Wallace (’99)
LF J Burkett (’96-00), F Clarke (’96-99), E Delahanty (’96-00), J Kelley (’96-00)

CF W Hamilton (’96-98, 00)

RF E Flick (’98-00), W Keeler (’96-00), H Wagner (’00)

P C Griffith (’96-00), J McGinnity (’99-00), C Nichols (’96-00), A Rusie (’96-98), G Waddell (’00), DT Young (’96-00)

Total HoMrs: 23
   150. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#2246134)
THE DEADBALL ERA, 1901-20

1901-1905

C

1B J Kelley (’01)

2B N Lajoie (’01-04)

3B J Collins (’01-05)

SS W Dahlen (’02-05), G Davis (’01-02, ‘04-05), G Johnson (’01-05), H Wagner (’01-05), RJ Wallace (’01-02, ’04-05)

LF J Burkett (’01-04), F Clarke (’01-03, ’05), E Delahanty (’01-02), P Hill (’04-05), S Magee (’05), SJ Sheckard (’01-03, ’05)

CF

RF S Crawford (’01-05), E Flick (’01, ’03-05), W Keeler (’01-02, ’04),

P M Brown (‘03-05), A Foster (’03-05), C Griffith (‘01, 03), C Mathewson (’01-05), J McGinnity (’01-04), C Nichols (’01, ’04), E Plank (’01-05), G Waddell (’02-’05), DT Young (’01-05)

Total HoMrs: 26


1906-1910

C

1B

2B E Collins (’09-10), N Lajoie (’06-10), JH Lloyd (’06-08)

3B F Baker (‘09-10)

SS W Dahlen (’06), G Johnson (’06-10), JH Loyd (’09-10), H Wagner (’06-10), RJ Wallace (’06-’08, 10)

LF F Clarke (’06-09), P Hill (’06-10), S Magee (’06-10), SJ Sheckard (’06-07,’09-10)

CF T Cobb (’10), S Crawford (’07-09), E Flick (’06), T Speaker (’09-10)

RF T Cobb (’07-09), S Crawford (’06,’10), E Flick (’07)

P M Brown (‘06-10), A Foster (’06-08, ’10), W Johnson (’08, 10), C Mathewson (’07-10), J McGinnity (’06), J Mendez (’09-10), E Plank (’06-10), G Waddell (’06-08), E Walsh (’06-10), DT Young (’07-08)

Total HoMrs: 26


1911-1915
C L Santop (’11-15)

1B P Hill (’13-14)

2B E Collins (’11-15), H Groh (’14), N Lajoie (’12-13)

3B F Baker (‘11-14), H Groh (’15)

SS G Johnson (’11-12), JH Lloyd (’11-15), H Wagner (’11-12, 15)

LF F Clarke (’11), P Hill (’12), S Magee (’11, ’13-14), SJ Sheckard (’11), Z Wheat (’14)

CF M Carey (’12-13), T Cobb (’11-15), S Magee (’15), T Speaker (’11-15), C Torriente (’14-15)

RF S Crawford (’11-15), J Jackson (’11-15)

P GCAlexander (‘11-15), M Brown (‘11), UC Faber (’15), W Johnson (’11-15), C Mathewson (’11-13), J Mendez (’11-14), E Plank (’11-12, 15), E Walsh (’11-12), J Williams (’13-15)

Total HoMr’s: 29


1916-1920

C L Santop (’16-17, 20)

1B G Sisler (’16-20)

2B E Collins (’16-20), R Hornsby (’20), JH Lloyd (’20)

3B F Baker (‘17-19), H Groh (’16-20), R Hornsby (’16, ’19), R. Mackey (‘20)

SS R Hornsby (’17-18), JH Lloyd (’16, ’18)

LF O Charleston (’17, ‘20), J Jackson (’16-17, ’19-20), GH Ruth (’18-19), Z Wheat (‘16-20)

CF M Carey (’16-18, ‘20), O Charleston (’18-19), T Cobb (’16-20), T Speaker (’16-20), C Torriente (’16-20)

RF H Heilmann (’19), GH Ruth (’20)

P G.C. Alexander (‘16-17, ‘19-20), S Coveleski (’17-20), UC Faber (’16-17, ’20), W Johnson (’16-19), E Plank (’16), E Rixey (’16, 17), W Rogan (’20), GH Ruth (’16-17), J Williams (’16-20)

Total HoMr’s: 25
   151. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#2246135)
ROARING TWENTIES AND DEPRESSION, 1921-40

1921-1925

C C Hartnett (‘24-25), R Mackey (’23, ’25) L Santop (’21)

1B G Sisler (’21-22), G Suttles (’25), J Wilson (’23-25)

2B E Collins (’21-25), F Frisch (’22-25), R Hornsby (’21-25), JH Lloyd (’21-23), R Mackey (’22)

3B J Beckwith (‘21-2, ‘24-5), F Frisch (’21)

SS J Beckwith (‘23), R Mackey (’24), J Sewell (’21-25)

LF L Goslin (’24-25), GH Ruth (’21-22), N Stearnes (’24), Z Wheat (’21-22, ’24-25)

CF J Bell (‘25), M Carey (’21-25), O Charleston (’21-25), T Cobb (’21-25), A Simmons (’25), T Speaker (’21-25), N Stearnes (’23, ’25), C Torriente (’21, 23)

RF H Heilmann (’21-25), GH Ruth (’23-24)

P GC Alexander (‘21-23, ‘25), S Coveleski (’21-23, ’25), UC Faber (’21-23), W Johnson (’21-22, 24-25), T Lyons (’25), J Mendez (’23), E Rixey (’21-25), W Rogan (’21-25), C Vance (’24-25), J Williams (’21-24)

Total HoMrs: 34


1926-1930

C GS Cochrane (’27-30), W Dickey (’29-30), C Hartnett (27-28, ’30), R Mackey (’26, ’28, ’30)

1B O Charleston (’29), J Foxx (’29-30), HL Gehrig (’26-30), G Suttles (’26-30), W Terry (’27-30), J Wilson (’29)

2B M Dihigo (’27, ’28), F Frisch (’26-30), C Gehringer (’27-30), R Hornsby (’26-29), J Wilson (’28)

3B J Beckwith (‘28), M Dihigo (’26, ’30), J Foxx (’28), J Sewell (’29), J Wilson (’26-27, 30)

SS J Beckwith (‘26-7, ‘29), J Cronin (’30), J Sewell (’26-28), W Wells (‘26-30)

LF M Dihigo (’29), L Goslin (’26-28, ’30), GH Ruth (’26), A Simmons (’28-30), N Stearnes (’30)

CF HE Averill (‘29-30), J Bell (‘26), O Charleston (’26-28), A Simmons (’26-27), T Speaker (’26), N Stearnes (’26-29)

RF T Cobb (’27), H Heilmann (’26-30), M Ott (’28-30), GH Ruth (’27-30), P Waner (’26-30)

P GC Alexander (‘26-28), S Coveleski (’26), W Ferrell (’29-30), W Foster (’26-30), R Grove (’26-30), C Hubbell (’29-30), T Lyons (’26-27, 30), L Paige (’28, ’30), E Rixey (’26-29), W Rogan (’26-28), C Vance (’27-30), J Williams, (’26-27, 29)

Total HoMrs: 43


1931-1935

C GS Cochrane (’31-35), W Dickey (’31-35), J Gibson (’31-35), G Hartnett (’33-35), R Mackey (’31)

1B O Charleston (’31-33), J Foxx (’31-35), HL Gehrig (’31-35), H Greenberg (’34-35)
W Leonard (’34), G Suttles (’32-35), W Terry (’31-35), J Wilson (’34-35)

2B F Frisch (’31, 33), C Gehringer (’32-35), W Herman (’32, ’35), R Hornsby (’31)

3B J Beckwith (‘31), S Hack (’35), J Wilson (’31-33)

SS L Appling (‘33, ‘35), J Cronin (’31-33), A Vaughan (’32-35), W Wells (’31-33)

LF J Bell (‘35), L Goslin (’31-32), J Medwick (’33-35), A Simmons (’31-34), G Suttles (’31)

CF HE Averill (‘31-35), J Bell (‘31-34), M Ott (’31), N Stearnes (’31-35)

RF M Ott (’32-35), GH Ruth (’31-34), P Waner (’31-35)

P R Brown (‘34-5), M Dihigo (’35), W Ferrell (’31-32, ’34-35), W Foster (’31-32), R Grove (’31-33, ‘35), C Hubbell (’31-35), T Lyons (’32, 35), L Paige (’32-35), C Ruffing (’31, 35), J Williams (’31)

Total HoMr’s: 42


1936-1940

C W Dickey (’36-39), J Gibson (’36-40), G Hartnett (’37)

1B M Dihigo (’37), J Foxx (’36-40), HL Gehrig (’36-38), H Greenberg (’37-40), W Leonard (‘36-40), J Mize (’36-40), G Suttles (’36), J Wilson (’36)

2B R Doerr (’40), C Gehringer (’36-40), J Gordon (’38-40), W Herman (’36-37, ’39)

3B S Hack (’36-40), M Ott (’38)

SS L Appling (‘36-37, ‘39-40), L Boudreau (‘40), W Brown (’36-37), J Cronin (’36-40), M Irvin (’40), A Vaughan (’36-40), W Wells (’38-40)

LF J DiMaggio (’36), L Goslin (’36), J Medwick (’36-39), G Suttles (’37), T Williams (’40)

CF HE Averill (‘36-38), J Bell (’37-38, ‘40), W Brown (’38), J DiMaggio (’37-40), N Stearnes (’36-37)

RF M Ott (’35-37, 39-40), E Slaughter (’39-40), N Stearnes (’38), P Waner (’36-37), T Williams (’39)

P R Brown (‘36, ‘38-40), M Dihigo (’36, 38), R Feller (’38-40), R Grove (’36-39), C Hubbell (’36-38), T Lyons (’37-40), L Paige (’36-37), C Ruffing (‘36-40)

Total HoMrs: 41
   152. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#2246137)
WAR AND POSTWAR, 1941-1960

1941-1945

C R Campanella (’44-5), J Gibson (’41-45)

1B J Foxx (’41), W Leonard (’41,’43-45), J Mize (’41-42)

2B R Doerr (’42-44), J Gordon (’41-43), W Herman (’41, ’43), J Robinson (‘45)

3B S Hack (’41-43, ’45)

SS L Appling (‘41-3), L Boudreau (‘41-5), J Cronin (’41), H Reese (’42), A Vaughan (’43), W Wells (’41-42)

LF W Brown (’42), M Irvin (’41-2), J Medwick (’41, ’44), S Musial (’42-44), T Williams (’41-42)

CF J Bell (‘42), W Brown (’41, ’43-45), J DiMaggio (’41-42)

RF M Ott (’41-45), E Slaughter (’41-42)

P R Brown (‘42-3), R Feller (’41), T Lyons (’42), H Newhouser (’42-45), L Paige (’41)

Total HoMrs: 30


1946-1950

C L Berra (‘48-50), R Campanella (’47-50), J Gibson (’46)

1B H Greenberg (’46), W Leonard (’46-48), J Mize (’46-48), S Musial (’46-47)

2B R Doerr (’46, ’48-50), J Gordon (’47-48), J Robinson (’48-50)

3B W Herman (’46)

SS L Appling (‘46-9), L Boudreau (‘46-8), M Irvin (’46), H Reese (’46-50), J Robinson (’46)

LF W Brown (’46), M Irvin (’48, ‘50), R Kiner (’47-50), J Medwick (’46), S Musial (’48-50), E Slaughter (’48-49), T Williams (’46-49)

CF DR Ashburn (‘48, ‘50), W Brown (’47-48), J DiMaggio (’46-48, ’50), L Doby (’46-50), E Snider (’49-50)

RF E Slaughter (’46)

P R Feller (’46-48, ’50), R Lemon (’48-50), H Newhouser (’46-49), R Roberts (’50), W Spahn (’47, 49-50), E Wynn (’50)

Total HoMrs: 30


1951-1955

C L Berra (‘51-55), R Campanella (’51-3, ’55)

1B S Musial (’55)

2B J Robinson (’51-52)

3B E Mathews (‘53-5)

SS H Reese (’51-55), E Banks (’55)

LF M Irvin (‘51, ‘53), R Kiner (’51-53), O Minoso (’51-54), S Musial (’51-54), J Robinson (’53-54), T Williams (’51, ’54-55)

CF DR Ashburn (‘51-5 ), L Doby (’51-55), M. Mantle (‘52-5), W Mays (’54-5), E Snider (’51-55)

RF H Aaron (’55), E Slaughter (’52), A Kaline (’55)

P R Feller (’51), EC Ford (’53-55), R Lemon (’52-55), W Pierce (’51-53, 55), R Roberts (’51-55), W Spahn (’51-55), JH Wilhelm (’52-54), E Wynn (’51-52, ’54-55)

Total HoMrs: 27


1956-1960

C L Berra (‘56-59)

1B H Killebrew (’60), S Musial (’56-58), F Robinson (’59-60)

2B

3B H Killebrew (’59), E Mathews (‘56-60), B Robinson (’60)

SS E Banks (’56-60)

LF O Minoso (’56-60), F Robinson (’56-58), T Williams (’56-58)

CF DR Ashburn (‘56-8, ‘60), L Doby (’56), A Kaline (’59), M Mantle (‘56-60), W Mays (’56-60) E Snider (’56-7)

RF H Aaron (’56-60), R Clemente (’60), A Kaline (’56-58)

P J Bunning (’57-58, ’60), D Drysdale (’57, ’59-60), EC Ford (’56, ‘58-60), R Lemon (’56), W Pierce (’56-58), R Roberts (’58), W Spahn (’56-59), H Wilhelm (’58-59), E Wynn (’56, ’59-60)

Total HoMrs: 26
   153. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#2246138)
EXPANSION ERA, 1961-80

1961-1965

C W Freehan (’64), J Torre (’63-65)

1B H Killebrew (’61, 65), W McCovey (’65)

2B

3B R Allen (’64-65), E. Mathews (‘61-65), B Robinson (’62, ’64-65), R Santo (’61, 63-65)

SS E Banks (’61)

LF H Killebrew (’62-64), W McCovey (’63), F Robinson (’63), W Stargell (’65), B Williams (’63-64), C Yastzremski (’63-65)

CF H Aaron (’62), R Ashburn (‘61), A Kaline (’65), M Mantle (‘61-2, 64), W Mays (’61-65)

RF H Aaron (’61, ’63-65), R Clemente (’61, ’63-65), A Kaline (’61-64), F Robinson (’61-62, ’64-65), B Williams (’65)

P J Bunning (’61-62, ’64-65), D Drysdale (’61-65) EC Ford (’61-64), R Gibson (’61-62, ’64-65) S Koufax (’61-65), R Marichal (’62-65), G Perry (’64), R Roberts (’62, ’64-65), W Spahn (’61-3), JH Wilhelm (’61-65)

Total HoMrs: 29


1966-1970

C J Bench (’69-70), W Freehan (’67-68), J Torre (’66-67, ’70)

1B R Allen (’69-70), H Killebrew (’67), W McCovey (’66-70), M Mantle (‘67-68), J Torre (’69), C Yastzremski (’70)

2B

3B R Allen (’66-67), H Killebrew (’66, ‘69-70), B Robinson (’66-68, ’70), R Santo (’66-70)

SS

LF W Stargell (’66-67, ’69), B Williams (’67-70), C Yastzremski (’67-69)_

CF W Mays (’66, ’68, ’70), A Kaline (’66)

RF H Aaron (’66-70), R Clemente (’66-70), A Kaline (’67, 70), F Robinson (’66-70), B Williams (’66)

P J Bunning (’66), D Drysdale (’67-68), R Gibson (’66, ’68-70), S Koufax (’66), J F Marichal (’66-69),G Perry (’66-70), JH Wilhelm (’66-69)

Total HoMrs: 24


1971-1975

C J Bench (’72-75), W Freehan (’71-72)

1B H Aaron (’71-72), R Allen (’72, 74), W Freehan (’74), H Killebrew (’71-72), W McCovey (’73-74), W Stargell (’72, ’75), C Yastzremski (’73-74)

2B

3B R Allen (’71), B Robinson (’71, 74), R Santo (’72), J Torre (’71-72)

SS

LF H Aaron (’73), W Stargell (’71, ’73-74), B Williams (’71-73)

CF W Mays (’71)

RF R Clemente (’71), A Kaline (’71), F Robinson (’71)

DH F Robinson (’73-74)

P R Gibson, (’71-73), J Marichal (’71), G Perry (’71-75)

Total HoM’rs: 20


1976-1980

C J Bench (’77-79)

1B W McCovey (’77), W Stargell (’78-79)

2B

3B

SS

LF C Yastzremski (’77)

CF

RF

DH

P G Perry (’78)

Total HoMrs: 5
   154. favre Posted: November 26, 2006 at 08:42 PM (#2246143)
Here are a few gaps identified in the five-year cohorts. The constitution asks us to be fair to all eras and postions, but obviously it’s up to you to decide whether these gaps mean anything for voting. I myself give them some weight.

Catcher—Big twenty year gap from 1891-1910, between Ewing and Santop. There is not a single all-star season logged by an HoM’r at catcher during those years. Bresnahan is obviously a candidate here.

First base—Another big twenty year gap between 1896-1915, between Anson/Brouthers/Connor and Sisler. Nap Lajoie (!!) and Joe Kelley each had one all-star season at first base during this period, and Pete Hill had two at the end of his career. Jake Beckley and Frank Chance are viable candidates. There is another gap of “natural” first basemen between 1949-58, although Musial had some good years at first from ’55 onward.

Second base—Brief gap from 1877-81. No second baseman since Jackie moved to LF in '53, Morgan's imminent election narrows the gap from 1953-64. Nellie Fox is a viable candidate.

Third base—Two relatively brief gaps from 1886-93 and 1946-52. Ned Williamson had a good season in 1887 and a great season in ‘88; Bob Elliott was a great player from 1947-51.

Shortstop—Nobody after Banks ’61 season.

Left field—Only one all-star season at LF between 1871-1883 (Cap Anson, 1878), when Jim O’Rourke moved to that position. It’s probably not appropriate to talk about “gaps” in the 1870s, particularly in the outfield. Still, please allow me to make a plug for my favourite backlog player, left fielder Charley Jones…

Center Field—There’s a gap of sorts from 1901-09. Flick played a season at CF in ’06. Crawford played CF and Cobb RF from ’07-09—pretty fascinating, really; did the manager think that little of young Ty’s fielding? Pete Hill played during this time as well; although he’s listed as a LF, we can question how accurate that is. Bresnahan played CF in ,03-04, which means he helps fill two gaps, one large and one small.

Right Field—Brief gaps from 1916-19 and 1947-54, although there were some pretty serious outfielders playing during those years. Gavvy Cravath did have two great seasons in ’16-17.

Pitcher—The fewest pitchers are in the 1941-5 cohort (five) and the 1896-00 cohort (six). The war messed up the former; may I offer Vic Willis to give another name to the latter?
   155. Paul Wendt Posted: November 26, 2006 at 10:12 PM (#2246164)
Here are a few gaps identified in the five-year cohorts.

I think 20-year gaps are worth attention, not to say that they make a prima facie case for anyone's election. And I think 5-year gaps are nonsense.

Crawford played CF and Cobb RF from ’07-09—pretty fascinating, really; did the manager think that little of young Ty’s fielding?

Yes, fascinating: '07-'09, the three pennants. And it appears that Crawford was little more than adequate in CF.

Much has been written about Cobb and his teammates, especially the outfield mates, to no firm conculsion as far as I know. The supposed Cobb-Crawford feud is best known and I am not sure there is much to it. Bill James fingers Jimmy Barrett as the anti-Cobb ringleader but he has no citation (private communication) and I believe that is a case of mistaken identity.

Reading Cobb in his autobiography, Crawford in The Glory of Their Times, and other sources in my DeadballStars/BioProject on Barrett, it seems clear to me that Matty McIntyre was the one. He was the regular LF 1904-1909, except during his long 1907 injury. In 1905-1906, Cobb played CF more than anywhere else, but only 94 games total (McIntyre 263 games in left). In 1907, Hugh Jennings was the new manager, and I am inclined to believe that he acted to separate Cobb and enemy. That has been said of Cobb and Crawford, I believe, but that makes no sense as they played CF-RF or RF-CF essentially throughout their career together (Cobb 20 LF games 1905-1906, Crawford one LF game 1916).

There are some holes here. With McIntyre injured most of 1907, Davy Jones in LF, Cobb remained in right. And Cobb returned to center in 1910 before Jones finally replaced McIntyre. McI and Cobb played at least 14 games together in LF and CF.
Detroit 1910 (linked to 1909-1908-etc)
   156. favre Posted: November 27, 2006 at 09:41 AM (#2246365)
“I think 20-year gaps are worth attention, not to say that they make a prima facie case for anyone's election.”

Agreed. I don’t advocate electing Deacon McGuire to give us an 1890s catcher, or Gil Hodges for a 1950s first baseman, or Bert Campaneris for a 1970s shortstop. However, if a player has a *legitimate* case, then I give this a certain weight. This is particularly true for big gaps.

“And I think 5-year gaps are nonsense.”

I’m not suggesting that we should lie in bed at night furiously thinking how to plug holes. I was pointing at some areas where there are gaps in players and eras. Of course I would give a five year gap much less consideration than a twenty-year one.

OTOH, there’s Bob Elliott. I advocate Elliott’s election because I don’t understand the difference between him and Ken Boyer, who is thirty ballot spots ahead. But there happens to be a small gap of third basemen from 1946-1953, or almost exactly Elliott’s prime. This doesn’t make his candidacy, but it does add to his case—he was the best 3B of his er. Vic Willis is on my ballot because he pitched 4000 innings with an ERA+ of 1188. Two of his best years came in 1898 and 1900, an era with few pitchers. Comparing players to their contemporaries at the position is a legtimate evaluative tool.
   157. DL from MN Posted: November 27, 2006 at 03:26 PM (#2246468)
> There is another gap of “natural” first basemen between 1949-58

Luke Easter

I would agree that we are short on middle infielders post 1950. Either we have value pegged incorrectly or the managers at the time did.
   158. favre Posted: November 27, 2006 at 03:29 PM (#2246471)
Post 156: should read best 3B of his era (which is probably not the best word; best 3B of his time is better).
   159. rawagman Posted: November 27, 2006 at 04:24 PM (#2246517)
I think Ben Taylor should be looked at as a great 1B candidate for the 1910s.
   160. DavidFoss Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:11 AM (#2247126)
bump
   161. Howie Menckel Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:34 PM (#2247294)
I have us with 56 current Hall of Famers whom we could already have elected to the Hall of Merit thru 1990, but haven't.
And I have us with 31 Hall of Merit electees who, even as of 2006, are not in the Hall of Fame.

However, most of our favorite backloggers are not in the Hall of Fame - of the top dozen leftovers (about how deep we'll reach?), 9 of those are not HOFers. Five of the top 6 are not in the HOF.


Top 20 non-Hall of Fame candidates for Hall of Merit, 1990 voting rank in parentheses: Ken Boyer (4th), Jimmy Wynn (5th), Dobie Moore (7th), Pete Browning (8th), Charlie Keller (9th), Quincy Trouppe (11th), Charley Jones (13th), Dick Redding (14th), Bucky Walters (15th), Bob Johnson (17th), Gavvy Cravath (18th), George Van Haltren (19th), Alejandro Oms (21st), Tommy Leach (22nd), Luis Tiant (27th), Norm Cash (28th), Barry Bonds (30th), Larry Doyle (31st), Ken Singleton (32nd), Reggie Smith (34th).

Top 10 Hall of Fame candidates for Hall of Merit, 1990 rank in parentheses: Nellie Fox (6th), Edd Roush (10th), Jake Beckley (12th), Hugh Duffy (16th), Roger Bresnahan (20th), Orlando Cepeda (23rd), Burleigh Grimes (24th), Dizzy Dean (25th), Lou Brock (26th), Mickey Welch (29th).
   162. fra paolo Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:44 PM (#2247310)
Top 10 Hall of Fame candidates for Hall of Merit, 1990 rank in parentheses: Nellie Fox (6th), Edd Roush (10th), Jake Beckley (12th), Hugh Duffy (16th), Roger Bresnahan (20th), Orlando Cepeda (23rd), Burleigh Grimes (24th), Dizzy Dean (25th), Lou Brock (26th), Mickey Welch (29th).

The only ones I'm pretty confident I'd vote to include on a yes/no basis are Fox and Roush.

I'm unlikely to vote for Dean.

The rest I'm not sure about. Cepeda and Brock have featured on my HoM ballot regularly.

But I'm an extremely small Hall voter.
   163. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:47 PM (#2247314)
I have (non-HoFers) Moore, Browning, Keller, C. Jones, Redding, Doyle and R. Smith in PHoM.

I have (HoFers) Fox, Roush and Cepeda in PHoM.

7-3 non-HoFers, but it's not yet half-time.
   164. Howie Menckel Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#2247333)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1990

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

C (11.79) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Bench 78, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Torre 41, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (18.27) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, McCovey 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stargell 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Yastrzemski 23, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (14.10) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Childs 100, Gehringer 99, Morgan 99, E Collins 98, Gordon 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, HR Johnson 25, Ward 24, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (10.44) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (16.30) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 74, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Sewell 65, Davis 58, Banks 45, Ward 39, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10, WBrown 10

OF (51.91) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, Kiner 96, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Minoso 93, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Yastrzemski 63, Charleston 60, Stargell 60, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, McCovey 12, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10

DH (0.34) - Yastrzemski 13, FRobinson 11, BWilliams 10

P (49.64) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 100, Gibson 100, Waddell 100, Pierce 100, GPerry 100, Palmer 100, Jenkins 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Mendez 90, Radbourn 78, Spalding 80, Caruthers 66, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 25, Ruth 20

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters such as Ward, Ruth, Caruthers, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   165. Rusty Priske Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#2247354)
Prelim

I like to think my support for Staub has more to do with the fact that I consider the Hall a reward for a career rather than a handful of years, than just the fact that he has such a great name. :)

PHoM: Carew, Staub, Oliver

Prelim ballot:

1. Rod Carew
2. Rusty Staub
3. Jake Beckley
4. George Van Haltren
5. Tommy Leach
6. Nellie Fox
7. Dobie Moore
8. Lou Brock
9. Jimmy Wynn
10. Edd Roush
11. Quincy Trouppe
12. Mickey Welch
13. Orlando Cepeda
14. Norm Cash
15. Hugh Duffy

16-20. R.Smith, Oliver, Bonds, Boyer, Singleton
21-25. Browning, Johnson, Ryan, Willis, Redding
26-30. Rice, Grimes, Streeter, Doyle, McCormick

Fingers currently slots in at about #60, so I will be watching this site cloesly over the next week to see what people like so much about him.
   166. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2247362)
Which of these is not like the other ;-)

>1. Rod Carew
2. Rusty Staub
3. Jake Beckley
4. George Van Haltren
5. Tommy Leach
6. Nellie Fox
7. Dobie Moore
8. Lou Brock
   167. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2247375)
For this election Wynn v. Fox looks to be an important discussion. I think Carew is a lock and Boyer probably has enough ballot support to make it. I don't think Fingers or Staub will get enough support this ballot to top the list but they will stick around and probably make top 10 returnees.

Neither Fox nor Wynn is overrepresenting anything so that's not a worry.
   168. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#2247377)
> 7. Dobie Moore

How did that get in there
   169. jhwinfrey Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:56 PM (#2247405)
Here's my preliminary 1991 ballot:

1. Rod Carew: A clear HoMer.
2. Burleigh Grimes: My top holdover. His combination of career and peak, WS and even range factor fit perfectly into my ranking system.
3. Jake Beckley
4. Orlando Cepeda: I've had Beckley and Cepeda very close together. I give Beckley a slight edge this year since he has a shot at election.
5. Charley Jones: Too much peak for this career voter to ignore.
6. Dick Redding: Best unelected Negro Leaguer, in my opinion.
7. Edd Roush: Like Grimes, he has the qualities that my system rewards.
8. Quincy Trouppe: Definitely deserves election.
9. Pete Browning: A higher peak than Jones, but not quite as much career production. Still a great player.
10. Alejandro Oms: Keeps moving up my ballot as I become more confident about his merit.
11. Nellie Fox: One of those players that are the reason I'm a career voter. Longevity is a key component of greatness.
12. Rollie Fingers: It looks like I might have him a little lower than the consensus. I gave him full credit for his peak ERA+ seasons and threw in a positional bonus (about half of what I give to catchers) as well. We'll see how well that technique works for upcoming relievers.
13. Reggie Smith: A shorter career than Lou Brock's, but more productive and valuable to his team, I believe.
14. Jim Kaat
15. Bucky Walters: Kaat for career length, Walters for league dominance. The next pitcher in my queue is Carl Mays.

Other newly eligibles:
27. Al Oliver: A notch below Jimmy Wynn
31. Rusty Staub: A notch below Jimmy Ryan
50. Jerry Koosman: A notch below Mickey Welch. I was surprised by how well Kossman ranked.
   170. TomH Posted: November 28, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#2247438)
Neither Fox nor Wynn is overrepresenting anything so that's not a worry.

Wynn is not overrepresenting outfielders?
   171. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#2247440)
Yes, 2 backloggers look like they'll go in. Which 2? Note that we are short of C and 3B.

C- Trouppe is 8th in the backlog but Bresnahan (20th overall), E. Howard (43), Schang (44), Munson (49), Lombardi (56) and Tenace (60) are all bleeding votes away. None of them has the feel of a HoMer though I would take E. Howard if I had to take somebody.

1B-Some guy named Jake is 9th in the backlog, with Cepeda next at 23rd overall. In this case, I don't think the other 1Bs are taking votes from Jake. "Catchers" is all one niche, but 1B splinters into different niches. In fact, I would say that Beckley's competition is GVH (19) and Leach (22) as long-career '90s/deadball candidates. Cash (28), Taylor (39) and Chance (60) are the rest of a weak backlog at 1B. Well of course the backlog is weak, we've elected everybody.

2B-Fox is 3rd in the backlog and the next 2B is only #31 (Larry Doyle). Then there's only Monroe (53) among the top 60. I like Fox over Wynn. I could crunch some numbers but for me it comes down to 2 things: the MVP, and the team success. Sure, the White Sox were better than the Astros largely based on pitching, but Fox (and Aparicio) were a big part of that success.

SS-Dobie Moore is 4th in the backlog, followed by Bancroft (36 overall). Hey, where did all the SS go? Well, again, we've elected a bunch. Rizzuto is 44 and Stephens 48 are also among the top 60.

3B-Should be happy for Boyer, given we need 3Bs (#1 among backlog). But I personally prefer Ed Williamson (55 overall). There's also Leach (22), Traynor (40), Elliott (41), McGraw (46), Bando (50) and Rosen (51), but this doesn't seem to be hurting Boyer.

LF-Keller is #6 and C. Jones #10 among the backlog, both are in my PHoM. They're followed by Bob Johnson (17 overall), Brock (24) and Veach (58). I saw that Bobby Estalella died this year. To me, he is the great discovery of this whole project. His numbers, checkered as they are, make him out to be Bob Johnson IMO, and that is without any real consideration of what if he had had a stable environment, if he hadn't been adjusting to new circumstances every year. IOW a conservative eval.

CF-Jim Wynn is #2 among the backlog. I vastly prefer Browning (#5) and Edd Roush (#7). And there's more: Duffy (16 overall), GVH (19), Oms (21), half of Leach (22), Reggie2 (34) and Ryan (47). Still the big glut.

RF-Cravath is 18th overall at a weak position. Then there's Bonds (30), Singleton (32), Klein (42) and Oliva (54).

Thre are no pitchers in the top 10 backloggers--Redding is #11, Walters #12 and then Grimes is 24th overall and Dean 25th.

Among the top 10 backloggers I prefer Moore and Keller for their peak, Browning, his clone C. Jones, and Roush for their primes, and Fox for his career. I don't see how Ken Boyer beats Nellie Fox and I don't see how Jimmy Wynn can compete with Roush, just to mention guys who are similar in very general ways. As a peaker, of course, I would be going for Moore anyway. Carew and Fingers will be PHoMers and since Moore already is, in reality Bobby Doerr will be my 3rd PHoMer. And like I say, if I was a lot more concerned about positional balance, then Ed Williamson and Elston Howard would be the ones I would give a boost.
   172. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:02 PM (#2247538)
> Wynn is not overrepresenting outfielders?

Not in his era, the only CF elected from the late 60s is Mays. There aren't any elected CF from the 1970s. Wynn has bested in the voting everyone but Amos Otis, Cesar Cedeno and Fred Lynn. I don't think there's a slippery slope argument.

> > I don't see how Ken Boyer beats Nellie Fox

He could hit.
   173. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:21 PM (#2247557)
Win Shares

15 (among 2B). Fox 304/32-30-26/128/20.8
12 (among 3B). Boyer 280/31-28-27/131/22.3

Fox 304/32-30-26-25-22-22-22-21-21-19-16-13-12-11
Boyer 280/31-28-27-24-24-23-23-22-18-17-16-14-13

Fox had 14 yrs ? 10, 6 yrs better than Boyer head-to-head, 12 more WS in yrs ? 10 and 12 more WS hanging around.
Boyer 13 yrs ? 10, 7 yrs better than Fox head-to-head

Fox on offense 63 percent of his value = 192 WS, defense 37 percent = 112
Boyer on offense 75 percent = 210, defense 25 percent = 70

So, Boyer could hit and Fox couldn't (by inference). Well, actually Boyer could hit or miss (over 1000 Ks to 216 for Nellie). Boyer's OBA is 1 point higher. Fox has 500 more hits and almost 100 more 2Bs and 3Bs.

>>I don't see how Ken Boyer beats Nellie Fox
>He could hit.

Bottom line: If we're counting "tools," that's one thing, but while it's close, Fox had more total value to his teams, both over his career and at his peak.
   174. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:23 PM (#2247558)
PS. The WS numbers above are not adjusted, they are Bill James raw numbers, which means Boyer's peak came in 162 games, Fox's in 154. And even then, Boyer is "close" but trails Fox on most uber-measures.
   175. DL from MN Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2247566)
> trails Fox on most uber-measures

I think replacement level is set too low on the uber measures which helps Boyer more than it helps Nellie Fox.
   176. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2247579)
Win Shares

10. Wynn 305/36-32-32/141/25.7
15. Roush 314/33-33-30/136/25.9

These of course are James' numbers. Keep in mind Roush's are not adjusted to 162, and one of those 33s came in the short 1919 (WWI) season and adjusts to 38 WS just for 154 games. Even with James' numbers, they're very close. The ranking is very largely the timeline.

Adjusted by Season

Wynn 305/36-32-32-31-28-28-27-21-18-16-14
Roush 326*/38-33-30-29-28-23-22-21-20-18-16-15-10

*This is merely adjusted to 154 (2 WWII years) while Wynn's are in 162.

Roush has 13 yrs ? 10 for a total of 303, without any adjustment for holdouts, etc., or (again) beyond 154 games. OTOH the 22 was in the FL and should be discounted. I figure 35 percent, a loss of 7 WS, down to 15. But I also figure adjusting from 154 to 162 is 5 percent of the remainder (304 or 15). So if I wanted to get picky I could easily argue about 334 WS for Roush (again, adjust FL down, WWI years up, and to 162 games. Nothing for holdouts).

Wynn had 11 yrs ? 10 for a total of 283.

Roush wins 7 years head-to-head, Wynn 4. Wynn is +1 for the 5 best years, and +11 for the top 7. Roush is plus, well, a lot for the next 5 years, but I can see how you might prefer Wynn's peak, and you might say Wynn faced better competition. But again, this is with no adjust to 162 for Roush and with no credit for missed time to holdouts (as opposed to injuries).

And among these WS (using Roush's too-low number of 314):

Offense

Wynn 259
Roush 254

Defense

Wynn 45
Roush 60

Comps on offense, Roush more valuable on D.

And on OPS+

Roush 126 with peaks of 162-53-49-47-45-42 (none from FL)
Wynn 129 with peaks of 168-58-54-47-46-43

Comparable. Very. And Roush the better defender.

I guess that's my take.
   177. Al Peterson Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#2247605)
Another look at Fox:

Win Shares

15 (among 2B). Fox 304/32-30-26/128/20.8
12 (among 3B). Boyer 280/31-28-27/131/22.3

Fox 304/32-30-26-25-22-22-22-21-21-19-16-13-12-11
Boyer 280/31-28-27-24-24-23-23-22-18-17-16-14-13

Fox had 14 yrs ? 10, 6 yrs better than Boyer head-to-head, 12 more WS in yrs ? 10 and 12 more WS hanging around.
Boyer 13 yrs ? 10, 7 yrs better than Fox head-to-head


Excellent presentation of numbers for full seasons. Note that 10 WS seasons is a pretty low bar, especially when you play everyday.

Fox on offense 63 percent of his value = 192 WS, defense 37 percent = 112
Boyer on offense 75 percent = 210, defense 25 percent = 70


So Fox had more value tied to the shakier part of the Win Share system. Is that a good thing?

So, Boyer could hit and Fox couldn't (by inference). Well, actually Boyer could hit or miss (over 1000 Ks to 216 for Nellie). Boyer's OBA is 1 point higher. Fox has 500 more hits and almost 100 more 2Bs and 3Bs.

Boyer's OBA league environment was 4 points lower than Fox's. Fox has 500 more hits in oh, some 1700+ more ABs. And to have 100 more doubles and triples in that many opportunities is not a glowing endorsement.

Bottom line: If we're counting "tools," that's one thing, but while it's close, Fox had more total value to his teams, both over his career and at his peak.

To me Fox had more total value to himself, not necessarily to his teams. By playing everyday and batting 2nd he had plenty of opportunities to collect Win Shares, and to a large extent he collected Win Shares, just sometimes at a replacement level or *just* above. For the talk of 2600 hits lets not forget his 7000+ outs.

Give me Larry Doyle if you want a "winner" with an MVP award.
   178. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:25 PM (#2247627)
Boyer and Fox are clsoe for me, Boyer is in the bottom third of my ballot and in my PHOM while Fox is usually in my top 20-22. I rank Boyer higher based on two things 1) WARP puts his fielding at a much higher level than WS, especially compared to other 3B, and 2) I think that Boyer ranks higher among 3B than Fox among 2B (I would rank Fox lower than James does). I guess all of which is to say that our lack of 3B in the HOM puts Boyer slightly higher in my opinion.
   179. TomH Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2247633)
If Boyer & Fox are close, league strength gives an edge to Ken over Nellie. Add about .5 or 1 WS per year when doing a direct comparison.

Best seasons by WARP3
Boyer 11.2 10.8 10.5 10.3 10.0 9.9 8.4 7.0
Fox....12.0 ..9.8 ...8.8 ..8.4 ...8.0 7.6 .7.1 6.2

WS vs WARP; it always seems one of them is fibbin, doesn't it?
   180. Howie Menckel Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:42 PM (#2247639)
What do other people think of Wynn defense vs Roush defense, via stats or anecdotes?
   181. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#2247671)
>Fox on offense 63 percent of his value = 192 WS, defense 37 percent = 112
Boyer on offense 75 percent = 210, defense 25 percent = 70

>So Fox had more value tied to the shakier part of the Win Share system. Is that a good thing?

Well, does shaky mean throw it out? A 112-70 differential is not exactly cutting it close.

And somehow WARP is not shaky, other than the fact that it was different last week and it will be different again next?
   182. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#2247689)
1991 prelim ballot

Carew, Cravath, and Mendez make my PHOM

1. Carew
2. Keller - I can't beleive that he is in the top 10!
3. Duffy
4. Redding
5. Moore
6. Walters
7. Wynn
8. Trouppe
9. Howard
10. Boyer
11. Browning
12. Cravath - current PHOM line with this election included
13. Dean
14. Fingers - very tentative. I don't see him getting too much higher as I am not sure he is PHOM material at the moment, but further discussion this week could persuade me.
15. Alejandro Oms - vaults over Al Rosen for now, could change by ballot time.
16. Rosen
17. Bresnahan
18. GVH
19. Fox
20. Doyle
24. Roush
75ish. Beckley
   183. Al Peterson Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:34 PM (#2247690)
No, don't throw out the 112-70 difference in defensive win shares. Know it comes from a couple of factors. You have extra playing time for Fox which can be mitigated by Boyer serving in the military, thus hindering his advancement and delaying his debut. And Fox gets the Win Share phenomenon that good defensive team value filters down to the individual level.

WARP has its own issues, why not try and find a compromise/consensus between them and other factors like contemporary opinion? And for all the changes in WARP the general picture of a player doesn't get greatly affected.
   184. mulder & scully Posted: November 28, 2006 at 09:13 PM (#2247719)
From post 169:

3. Jake Beckley
4. Orlando Cepeda: I've had Beckley and Cepeda very close together. I give Beckley a slight edge this year since he has a shot at election.

Isn't this strategic voting and isn't this prohibited? I didn't think voters were supposed to order their ballots by who has a better chance to be elected, rather by who they feel is most deserving. I remember we had discussions about this many, many elections ago.
If I am wrong, I apologize jh.
   185. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 09:17 PM (#2247722)
Sorry, Al, I gave up trying to keep track of WARP decades ago (in HoM time).

But tell me about Boyer's mil record, I don't make any allowances for that, I musta missed it. Does he deserve a year or two of credit for that? Obviously he is in the range where it matters. (He did start out OPS+ 94-123-94 at age 24+, so that's a problem in terms of any extra credit). All in all, I just see a 7 year prime bracketed by a 94 and a 90, so I dunno. But again, I missed that discussion and certainly will think about it if you can provide the details.
   186. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2247729)
>From post 169:

3. Jake Beckley
4. Orlando Cepeda: I've had Beckley and Cepeda very close together. I give Beckley a slight edge this year since he has a shot at election.

Isn't this strategic voting and isn't this prohibited?

I'm with Kelly on this one, he is absolutely right. Though, if it was an elect 2 year (1 point difference) I wouldn't worry about it, but here we're talking about the 4 point bonus plus the 1 point.

I don't think we can make jhw change his ballot, or can we? Did he have Cepeda 3 and Beckley 4 last year? But at a minimum this offending langage should have to change.
   187. Al Peterson Posted: November 28, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#2247771)
But tell me about Boyer's mil record, I don't make any allowances for that, I musta missed it. Does he deserve a year or two of credit for that?

It might have been in HOM discussions or somewhere else I've seen Boyer listed as served in the military 1951-1953. Now he didn't debut til 1955 so maybe I should strike the thought of minor league credit since I can't find any 1954 numbers to back up that assertion.

Of interest is what happened in 1957. Boyer has 2 years of 3B playing, then that year gets to play CF for the Cards. Does anyone know if he had played that position in the minors? If not, where did that idea come from? Did someone say, "well he picks it at third lets give him a shot in the outfield."? I assume they wanted to break in someone else but that doesn't help your hitting to switch positions.
   188. OCF Posted: November 28, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2247811)
Well, on my 1990 ballot, I had Boyer 13th, Sal Bando 15th, Bob Elliott 16th, and Fox all the way down at 28th. I haven't placed all the new candidates yet, but it seems likely that all three of these 3rd basemen will be on my 1991 ballot. Among the 3rd baseman, Boyer is probably the 3rd best hitter; I have him where he out of a combination of defense and league strength. But I have these three close together. (And to the Al Rosen supporters: no, I'm not an extreme peak voter.)

Now, can I justify putting all of Boyer, Bando, and Elliott ahead of Fox? Hmm... haven't thought about that for a while. Let me get back to you on that one.
   189. sunnyday2 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#2247813)
The Cardinals had been THE NL power in the 1940s but the rise of the Dodgers and their own decline changed that in the '50s. Their last pennant had been in '46, though after that they finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd. But in the new decade it was 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and then 7th in 1955 when Boyer came on. In '56 it was back up to 4th but with massive mid-season changes:

Coming on board in '56 by in-season trades--SS Al Dark, DF Bobby Del Greco, also Whitey Lockman, Bobby Morgan, Ray Katt, Grady Haton, Chuck Harmon, Murry Dickson, Herm Wehmeier, Jinm Konstanty, Don Liddle, Dick Littlefield, Max Surkont

Leaving in '56 all by in-season trades--Bill Sarni, Red Schoendienst, Jackie Brandt, Bill Virdon, Joe Frazier, Alex Grammas, Solly Hemus, Ellis Kinder, Harvey Haddix, Ben Flowers, Stu Miller and Paul LaPalme

The big trade was Dark for Schoendienst though they also sent Virdon to Pittsburgh for Del Greco, among many others.

There was hope for '57 in other words, and the Cards surged to 2nd place, 8 GB Milwaukee (who by then had Schoendiesnt at 2B). Cards lineup in '57 seeing more changes from late '56 though Musial returned at 1B, Blasingame and Dark in the middle, Hal Smith at C, Wally Moon moving from RF to LF, Mizell in the rotation. But big changes elsewhere:

Eddie Kasko at 3B replaced Del Greco CF in the lineup with Boyer making the shift from 3B to CF. Del Ennis came over from the Phillies (for Rip Repulski) and moved from LF to RF where he replaced Repulski (was LF). The rotation changed dramatically from a very set approach (5 pitchers getting 129 starts in '56) to a free-for-all (well, that's how it looks on paper--7 pitchers getting 13 or more starts, even Lindy McDaniel, and nobody getting more than McDaniel's 26). ERA only came down from 3.97 to 3.78, a difference of maybe 35 ER. Meanwhile the offense scored an extra 59 runs.

Boyer, however, slipped from 26-98-.306 to 19-62-.265. On balance the move was a plus however, because Del Greco had hit .215 (Virdon had started out at .211) while Kasko hit .273 (though with only 1 HR all year long).

So in '58 Boyer went back to 3B, Kasko to SS, Dark was traded away, and Curt Flood moved into CF. Boyer rebounded handsomely but the team scored more than 100 fewer runs. Kasko didn't hit and Moon and Ennis slumped. The ERA went back to 4.12. Basically everything that could go wrong did go wrong--except Boyer. The Cards finished 6th. Then 7th, 3rd, 5th, 6th...

...but then 2nd in '63. Boyer and Flood were the only 2 regulars left from '58 by then, though Musial played 124 games and hit .255, compared to .330 at age 41 the previous year. So he didn't make it to '64, while Boyer and Flood did. On he mound there was nobody left from '58. The fact is the pieces were pretty much put together by '61 however, as the Cards had the best ERA in the league with Sadecki, Gibson and Simmons #1-2-4 in IP (the same 3 were 1-2-3 in '64). And by '61 White and Javier had joined Boyer and Flood as stable regulars. Of course, it remained to bring Groat and Brock in to finish the puzzle.

Anyway it was a long time from '46 to '64 and Boyer and Flood were the first pieces to getting it back together again.
   190. Daryn Posted: November 29, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#2248021)
I give Beckley a slight edge this year since he has a shot at election.

Beckley has no shot at election this year.
   191. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:34 AM (#2248117)
3. Jake Beckley
4. Orlando Cepeda: I've had Beckley and Cepeda very close together. I give Beckley a slight edge this year since he has a shot at election.

Isn't this strategic voting and isn't this prohibited? I didn't think voters were supposed to order their ballots by who has a better chance to be elected, rather by who they feel is most deserving. I remember we had discussions about this many, many elections ago.
If I am wrong, I apologize jh.


Depends, Kelly. If he has both candidates as virtually interchangeable, then I don't see a problem. However, if he has Cepeda significantly higher than Beckley in his system, then Eagle Eye over the Baby Bull would be prohibited.

Beckley has no shot at election this year.

Not even close.
   192. DanG Posted: November 29, 2006 at 05:41 AM (#2248205)
But tell me about Boyer's mil record, I don't make any allowances for that, I musta missed it. Does he deserve a year or two of credit for that?

Check in the url=http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1985_ballot_discussion/P100/]1985 Ballot Discussion thread[/url] posts #138-143.

I give Boyer a year or so of military credit, tipping him onto my ballot.
   193. DanG Posted: November 29, 2006 at 05:42 AM (#2248206)
Check in the 1985 Ballot Discussion thread posts #138-143.
   194. Raoul Duke Posted: November 29, 2006 at 06:07 AM (#2248216)
As far as TV shows . . .
WKRP In Cincinnati
Greatest show ever.

I think Carew and Fingers are definite HoMers, but that and $.79 will get you a cuppa joe at Hardee's . . .
   195. TomH Posted: November 29, 2006 at 05:01 PM (#2248470)
Mi no comprendo mucho amore for Nellie Fox

Nellie Fox was a fine player; great glove, decent bat, pretty long career. But I cannot get him near my ballot, given the competition. Can someone please explain to me, given the following infielders, how Fox is at the top of this pile, and/or in the top half of your ballot? Seems like the other guys listed here are either better hitters or better defenders (and I'll leave off NgLgers Dobie Moore and Bill Monroe), and so no matter how much I weight defense vs offense, peak vs career, Nellie seems to fall in the middle middle at best:

Dave Bancroft
Phil Rizzuto
Ken Boyer
Bob Elliot
Tommy Leach
Larry Doyle
Nellie Fox
   196. DL from MN Posted: November 29, 2006 at 05:14 PM (#2248476)
Others I have ahead of Nellie Fox:
Bus Clarkson, Tinker, Evers

close enough to call it tied
Dick Bartell, Marvin Williams, Vern Stephens, Pie Traynor
   197. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 30, 2006 at 10:07 PM (#2248581)
Yes, we're back online. :-D

As for Fox and Boyer, I'm not crazy about either one, but if one has to go in next week, I hope it's Fox.
   198. DavidFoss Posted: November 30, 2006 at 10:38 PM (#2248597)
Yikes... I can't tell you how many times I absent-mindedly went to the HOM bookmark forgetting that it just went to spam page with some flowers.

Welcome Back HOM!
   199. rawagman Posted: November 30, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#2248650)
I want to enter my prelim before heading to the airport for a long weekend in Prague.
Carew, Bridges and Stephens go PHOM. The full ballot will include more detailed comments.


1)Rod Carew (PHOM)
2)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
3)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
4)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
5)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
6)Edd Roush (PHOM)
7)Nellie Fox (PHOM)
8)Quincy Trouppe (PHOM)
9)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
10)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
((10a)Bill Freehan
((10b)Biz Mackey ))

11)Bobby Veach
((11a)Willie Stargell))
12)Orlando Cepeda
13)Ken Boyer
14)Al Oliver
15)Wally Berger
16)Reggie Smith
17)Dizzy Dean
((17a)Juan Marichal))
18)Bus Clarkson
19)Ernie Lombardi
20)Roger Bresnahan
21)Al Rosen
22)Mickey Welch
((22a)Jim Bunning))
((22b)Billy Pierce))

23)Dick Redding (PHOM)
24)Chuck Klein
25)Tony Oliva
26)Charley Jones
27)Jim Bottomley
((27a)Joe Gordon))
28)Dobie Moore
29)Addie Joss
((29a)Cupid Childs))
30)Pete Browning
   200. jingoist Posted: November 30, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#2248656)
Howie Menckle......you still have not added Eddie Matthews to your group of 3B-men. He's about
90%+ as a 3B-man.
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(11 - 2:37pm, Dec 21)
Last: bjhanke

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(106 - 12:02pm, Dec 21)
Last: Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant

Herman Long
(10 - 7:54pm, Dec 20)
Last: The District Attorney

2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(93 - 1:16pm, Dec 19)
Last: DL from MN

Most Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Ben Taylor
(81 - 11:04am, Dec 15)
Last: DL from MN

New Eligibles Year by Year
(962 - 10:09am, Dec 15)
Last: Chris Fluit

Cristóbal Torriente
(82 - 11:34pm, Dec 14)
Last: Brent

Brian Giles
(59 - 4:08pm, Dec 14)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(38 - 12:16pm, Dec 13)
Last: lieiam

Larry Doby
(95 - 10:00pm, Dec 12)
Last: Howie Menckel

Pedro Martinez
(159 - 6:44am, Dec 11)
Last: bjhanke

Most Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(25 - 2:12pm, Dec 09)
Last: DL from MN

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Results
(7 - 9:24pm, Dec 05)
Last: Chris Fluit

Most Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(29 - 4:20pm, Dec 05)
Last: DL from MN

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2637 seconds
43 querie(s) executed