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, December 18, 2006

1992 Ballot (Elect Two)

Prominent new candidates: Tom Seaver, Pete Rose, Bobby Grich, Tony Perez, Cesar Cedeno, Toby Harrah, George Foster, and Vida Blue.

Top-ten returnees: Nellie Fox, Jimmy Wynn, Quincey Trouppe, Edd Roush, Charlie Keller, Rollie Fingers, and Jake Beckley.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 18, 2006 at 02:29 PM | 192 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 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Ken Fischer Posted: December 21, 2006 at 04:52 PM (#2266391)
1992 Ballot

Early ballot (for me). I’m driving off to California (from Norman, OK) in a few minutes.

1-Tom Seaver 388 WS
Class act. IMHO…one of top ten starting pitchers of all time…a no brainer.

2-Pete Rose 547 WS
A career value vote. Too much of a showman for me…but you can’t ignore the volume of his work…and all the great teams he made better. I respect anyone withholding a vote on Pete this time. He did dishonor the game.

3-Dick Redding
He is ranked by many as one of the top pitchers of the pre-Negro League days.

4-Bobby Grich 329 WS
One of the most underrated players of all time. Gold Gloves…some good OPS numbers…and played on some outstanding O’s & Angels teams.

5-George Van Haltren 344 WS
His numbers deserve the high ranking.

6-Mickey Welch 354 WS
How can we forget that 1885 season!

7-Carl Mays 256 WS
256 win shares in an offense dominated era is impressive.

8-Vern Stephens 265 WS
His comps are Doerr & Lazzeri but I believe he was better. A forerunner of the modern power hitting shortstop.

9-Wally Schang 245 WS
He played for several flag winners. Schang had great plate discipline. At the age of 39 he led the AL in HBP.

10-Rollie Fingers 188 WS
Best reliever to come on the ballot in awhile. Hard to judge…he may move up next time.

11-Bob Johnson 287 WS
A raw deal…Indian Bob will forever be hurt by playing for mostly bad teams and the overlapping eras he played in (Live Ball & War Years). A solid performer year after year…he’s deserves a good look.

12-Jake Beckley 318 WS
Like his career value. Connor, Crawford and O’Rourke and Clarke are all comps.

13-Edd Roush 314 WS
McGraw didn’t get along with him but liked the way he played.

14-Luis Tiant 256 WS

15-Pete Browning 225 WS
Pete’s back on my ballot after many years. The Players League year shows he was the real deal.


My loyalty and belief in Van Haltren, Welch, Johnson, Schang & Stephens keep Fox & Wynn out of my top 15. I’m still missing something on Charlie Keller…he has less than 4000 at bats and was pushed out of the Yankees outfield by guys like Woodling & Bauer. I’m surprised by his strong support.

Quincy Trouppe and Keller will require further study after New Year's.

16-Lou Brock 348 WS
17-Tony Mullane 399 WS
18-Burleigh Grimes 286 WS
19-Nellie Fox 304 WS
20-Jim Wynn
21-Gil Hodges 263 WS
22-Tony Perez 349 WS
23-Dick Lundy
24-Curt Flood 221 WS
25-Jim Kaat 268 WS
   102. DavidFoss Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:21 PM (#2266416)
The mathematicians and scientists team isn't doing so well

I'm on vacation and my slacker relatives are not awake yet so I was motivated to give this one a go:

1B-Ben Taylor (would have doen well in the series)
2B-Harold Reynolds
SS-Felix Fermi(n)
3B-Brook Jacoby
LF-Bob Watson (No crick-et for him!)
CF-Billy Hamilton (classic batting mechanics!)
RF-Shawn Green
SP-Carl Hubbell
SP-Eddie Plan(c)k

For bats, they would have used the Liouville Slugger :-)

I thought I would find a Newton or a Stokes, but not much from those two names.

I left out "Henry" (magnetic inductance unit named after him) because that would have made things too easy. I could have included names like Bell and Rosen and more obscure scientists (I found an Eckersley while I was hunting). Hmmm... no catcher yet, but people are finally waking up and I gotta go. :-)
   103. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:50 PM (#2266444)
To be fair aobut the scientists team, though, it should be split up into a scientists league with teams representing each discipline.

That way, the physicists of the scientist league can be fairly compared to the Roman emperors of the autocrats league.

; )
   104. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#2266454)
1991 ballot

Seaver and Grich make my PHOM with Rose, Dean and Oms on deck. I did a re-evaluation of the backlog this year and while my ballot hasn’t changed too much (I am pretty comfortable with my top 11 players) there were some winners and losers. Al Rosen has fallen out of PHOM consideration for at least a few years, GVH is back on my ballot while Vic Willis is in a place to challenge Dean as my top non-PHOM pitcher and there was a big jump (from 45 to 23) for Tommy Leach.

1. Tom Seaver – (x, PHOM0 Best pitcher of his generation and that is really saying something considering how stacked his generation was. I also have him as the best Post-WWII right hander along with Roger Clemens, just better than Greg Maddux. Easy No.1.

2. Charlie Keller (2, PHOM) – Best peak on the board (outside of McCovey). If you give him WWII and MiL credit he could have up to 7 MVP level seasons (30+ WS) and two solid All-star level seasons. That’s almost a decade of high level performance, only Joe D, Teddy Ballgame, and Stan the Man were better during his era.

3. Bobby Grich (x, PHOM) – He isn’t Morgan or Carew but that is no shame in my book. I have him as similar to but slightly better than Joe Gordon and Bobby Doerr, both of whom are in my PHOM and would be top 10 if they were still eligible. Grich vs. Childs is even closer and would be an interesting comparison.

4. Hugh Duffy (3, PHOM) – Best of the 1890’s CF trio based on his superior peak. I agree with WS that Duffy deserves some credit for his team over performing not only their pythag but also their RS and RA projections.

5. Dick Redding (4, PHOM) – 2nd best NeL pitcher of the dead ball era after Smokey Joe Williams and that ain’t bad. I like his peak as much as Mendez’ and he had more career. Seems to be our best backlog pitcher.

6. Bucky Walters (5, PHOM) – Very good pitcher with a nice peak. He was baseball’s best pitcher in 1939 and 1940, could hit a little too. I am looking over how his defense may have artificially raised his IP numbers, but I am still pretty sure that I like him more than my next few pitchers.

7. Jimmy Wynn (7, PHOM) – Very similar to guys like Doby, Averill, and Berger. That’s two HOMers and a guy in my top 25. Very nice peak and a decent prime, not much career, but then again I am not too worried about filler seasons. Underrated historically in large part due to his home park, the Astrodome. I wonder how he would have looked in an era where a lower replacement level meant great players had more great seasons.

8. Quincey Trouppe (8, PHOM) – We elected the wrong NeL catcher, it is that simple. Trouppe was a better hitter and was a better player at his best than Biz Mackey was.

9. Elston Howard (9, PHOM) – The more I look at him the more he looks like Quincey Trouppe. Both were good hitting catchers with nice peaks who played decent portions of their careers at other positions. However, I prefer Quincey’s time at 3B to Elston’s time in the OF and Quincey played more baseball while Elston sat behind Yogi Berra.

10. Pete Browning (11, PHOM) – Quite possibly the best hitter on the board right now. However, concerns about the quality of the 1880’s AA keep him below Keller and Kiner for me. Our recent discussion on Charley Jones has made me realize that Browning has many of the same problems Jones does and so he falls a few spots.

11. Gavvy Cravath (12, PHOM) – Finally coming around on him. Great peak in the Majors and he definitely deserves MiL credit.

12. Dizzy Dean (13) – High peak pitcher who I view as Koufax Lite. His peak wasn’t quite as good, he had a little less career, and he wasn’t even has bad of a hitter. Still ballot worthy, however.

13. Alejandro Oms (14) – First time on my ballot as he vaults over Al Rosen. I see him as similar to, but slightly better than, George Van Haltren. I also prefere Oms to HOMers Willard Brown.

14. George Van Haltren (17, PHOM) – Back on my ballot after another look. To many GVH is a career candidate, but he has an excellent, long prime and a peak that holds its own. Probably my favorite ‘career’ position player. Of the backlog variety of course.

15. Rollie Fingers (15) – Not 100% sure what to do with him. Out of the relievers we have seen thus far I would have to agree that he is second to Wilhelm. Out of the relievers that we can look at I only prefer Wilhelm and Gossage. If he isn’t elected this year, I could seem him moving wildly as we look at more relievers.

16. Al Rosen (16) – Only the third time he has been on my ballot, he doesn’t get many votes, from me or from any one else. However, he has a great peak and some MiL credit to help with his career. He has consistently been just off my ballot and is very close to the next few players after him. If I went only by his peak he would be higher, but there are other concerns.


16-20 Willis, Bresnahan, Doyle, Fox, Shocker
21-25 Rosen, Roush, Leach, McGraw, C. Jones
26-30 Berger, Elliot, Kaat, Newcombe, Rizzuto
31-35 Howard, Bando, Tiant, Burns, Cepeda
36-40 Singleton, Chance, Munson, Tenace, Veach
41-45 Lundy, H.Wilson, Bancroft, Thomas, Perez
46-50 Monroe, Ryan, Klein, Stephens, B. Johnson

Required Disclosures:
Fox – I haven’t voted for him yet, but his current spot (#19) is about as high as he has been. In the same boat as Pierce when it comes to my PHOM. I guess my biggest concern is his lack of a bat.

Beckley – Not in my top 60 (I stop ranking players at that point) and most likely not in my top 75. I think that HOMers should have spent at least some of their career as one of the best in baseball and Beckley is not even in the top 10 in any season. His best years came not in the 10 team NL but before and after and a team with him as their best player is highly unlikely to win a pennant. Need I continue?

Roush – Good player, but I think not playing full seasons for whatever reason really hurts his peak. Has moved up a little in my re-eval. Better than Carey, Bell, and Minoso, however.

C. Jones – I do not give Jones full credit for his missing years as I believe that he was not some innocent that was done in by the big, bad man. There is a chance that he acted the way he did in order to sever ties with Boston, in which case the league had some reason for acting the way that it did. However, I do give him one full season of credit (which in my system is better than two half seasons)because he wasn’t the only guilty party. Even with credit there are many other questions like league strength, deviations from the mean, and extrapolating 60-80 game seasons into 162 game seasons. All of these cause some downward pressure on Jones best seasons (as well as some upward pressure on some of his worst) and pull him down a bit. I have to say that I can see no way in which he is better than Charlie Keller, Jimmy Wynn, or even Gavvy Cravath. Not the worst choice we will have made, but I think he gets a boost because he was hard done by and that really isn’t fair to other players.

Newbies:

Perez – In the same boat as Staub, though I like him a little more. He lacks the type of peak that I am looking for in a candidate and his prime isn’t that impressive either. Top 50 material but not much better.

Rose – I am boycotting him for the obvious reasons. A part of me hopes that he gets in so that I never have to vote for him. Another part of me hopes that he doesn’t to act as a form of punishment that, while small, is the most severe that this institution can dole out.

Harrah – Interesting player, better than I thought, but not really top 50 material. I think he is of the same type as Vern Stephens but I much prefer Stephens. However, he is an unheralded HOVG type.
   105. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 21, 2006 at 05:59 PM (#2266455)
'zop - didn't you once (not too long ago) place Hugh Duffy a grudging 8th on your ballot. Now Duffy is gone, and Jimmy Wynn is a grudging 15th. Care to explain your grudging changes of heart?

Sure. I was overrating Duffy's defense. Without the defensive boost, I'm happier with Wynn on my ballot.

Hopefully, by next "year", I'll have fully implemented my Career Ideal Salary system, and I'll revamp my ballot. I'll take another look at Duffy, of course, when I do so.
   106. andrew siegel Posted: December 22, 2006 at 01:12 PM (#2267014)
(1) Seaver (new)--An All-Time Top 10 pitcher.

(2) Rose (new)--First the boycott issue: Why bother? He was an ass; so was Ty Cobb; so is Jim Bunning. If we ranked the HoMers on a moral scale, he'd be in the bottom 10% but not at the very bottom. He didn't throw games, so just let it go. Second, his playing ability: To say that he was peakless is silly. At his peak, he was every bit the equal of such middle of the HoM guys as Clemente, Heilmann, and Crawford. Plus, his career was much longer. Somewhere around 60 or 70 All-Time.

(3) Grich (new)--WS has him around Gordon and Doerr; every other advanced metric has him much higher. I think the difference is somewhere in between. Probably about number 100 All-Time.

(4) Keller (2nd)--Identical to Allen offensively. Better defense and lack of issues make up for the playing time gap (which is only 900 plate appearances if you adjust for schedule length and give war credit plus one year of MiL credit). The only position player on the ballot who played consistently at the level of a Grade A Hall of Famer from the day he came up to the day he hung it up. With appropriate credits has an 8 year-run at the level that guys like Kiner and Berger, only reached for 4 or 5.

(5) Roush (3rd)--Higher on the All-Time list at his position than anyone except the new guys and the third basemen. A star in his own time--a decent fielding CF always near the league lead in OBP.

(6) Bob Johnson (4th)--Doesn't jump out at you, but no knocks on his resume--highest OWP of any long-career OF still on the board, over 300 WS with proper minor leaue credit even playing for bad teams, great consistency, excellent fielder for his position.

(7) Bridges (5th)--Like Cash, Schang, Ted Lyons, Roush, etc., he's underrated by our tendency to focus on seasonal numbers. Put up lots of quality and sufficient quantity.

(8) Cash (6th)--Similar in career length, offensive value, and defensive value to Wynn but a smidge higher on all three according to WARP and more consistent to boot.

(9) Trouppe (7th)--Jumped back onto the ballot after I decided to treat him like a pre-Negro League candidate and focus on his demonstrated skills rather than his MLE's. The biggest surprise of this whole project.

(10) Wynn (8th)--Seven or eight top half of the HoM-type seasons sprinkled among a bunch of clunkers.

(11) Leach (9th)--If you subtract Brooks Robinson's final useless seasons and project Leach's years out to 162 games, Robinson and Leach have almost identical EQA's and defensive rates in a very similar number of games. The only difference is that half of Leach's games were in CF rather than 3B. Hard to imagine that keeping him out of the HoM. Downgraded the value of his CF seasons a tad last week.

(12) Elliot (11th)--My tools aren't good enough to distinguish between him and Boyer.

(13) Oms (12th)--The contemporaries thought he was an All-Time great and the numbers (as thin as they are) back them up.

(14) Cravath (13th)--I've got no problem giving minor league credit and that brings him on ballot. Looking at the total package he offered, however, my personal jury is still out. A great hitter, but so where Jones, Browning, Fournier, Tiernan, Frank Howard, etc. He feels like one of those. Career length comparison to those others gets him on the ballot, but it is tenuous.

(15) Reggie Smith (nr/21st)--Moves up after further review. He has very high offensive rate stats and solid defensive value and did it all for long enough to rack up 325 WS. His peak quality is quite high, but his peak numbers look low b/c/ h always missed a few games here and there.

Jake Beckley is a strong 16th, moving up based on comparisons to Perez and Staub, both of whom put up similar offensive numbers over similar career lengths but played when 1B was less important (though Perez gets most of that back for playing 3B and Staub gets some of that back for his OF days) and didn't rank nearly as highly among their contemporaries at their positions.

Shocker and Fingers fall off the ballot to 17th and 18th through no fault of their own. Perez debuts at 19th.

There are arguments for Fox; I just wish he had a little more offense and, therefore, like others better (he's in the low 30's).

The rest of the new guys were good, but not good enough to crack the top 50. Foster may have been the most overrated player of his era.
   107. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 22, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#2267352)
If we ranked the HoMers on a moral scale, he'd be in the bottom 10% but not at the very bottom. He didn't throw games, so just let it go.

Again, the protest non-vote is meant as a response to his actions against baseball, not as a statement on his moral fiber. If you don't think what he did was a big deal, that's fine, but many of us do.

As for throwing games, we don't know either way. What we do know is that his managing is suspect in regard to how he handled his pitching staff, even if it was to win a particular game that he was betting on.
   108. Patrick W Posted: December 22, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2267388)
Blue, Foster & Cedeno all fall just a bit shy of the ballot, but all will be in consideration for a good while.

1. Tom Seaver (n/a), N.Y. – Cinc. (N) SP (’67-’86) (1992) – Tom was just a little more terrific than Pete, mostly by virtue of a higher peak.
2. Pete Rose (n/a), Cinc. (N), 1B / 2B / OF (’63-’86) (1992) – I’d prefer to let his election slip by without comment.
3. Bobby Grich (n/a), Cal – Balt. (A), 2B (’72-’86) – Looks to be a close comp for Ryno. I had no idea he was this good.
4. Rollie Fingers (2), Oak. (A) – S.D. (N) RP (’70-’84) (1991) – 33% bonus on his pitching runs to account for leverage. This could be low, but I don’t think I can support using a higher multiplier.
5. Tony Perez (n/a), Cinc. (N), 1B / 3B (’65-’86) – Completely different BA/OB/SG breakdown, but the sum of his offensive and defensive value to a team makes him look like a twin of Willie Keeler to me.
6. Luis Tiant (3), Bost. – Clev. (A) SP (’64-’80) (1988) – Right there with Drysdale, Ford and Marichal. Not a slam dunk, but the ballot’s not strong enough to hold him down.
7. Jim Kaat (4), Minn. (A) SP (’61-’83) (1991) – Kaat would probably be in the Hall today if his ’62-’66-’74-’75 had instead occurred consecutively. His best seasons don’t seem to coincide with Minnesota’s best as a team in the ‘60s either. Value is value in my system, and this is where he deserves to rank.
8. Rusty Staub (5), Hou. – N.Y. (N), RF (’63-’81) – In my system, I have to take 9400 AB’s of 0.295 EQA over 6400 AB’s at 0.301. Wynn has the bigger peak, but Staub has 5 more seasons to his career.
9. Jimmy Wynn (7), Hou. (N), CF (’63-’76) (1985) – Hitting the ballot the same year as Allen doesn’t make for a favorable comparison. Good hitter - but not as good as Richie – with a relatively short career. Close in overall value in CF as another Richie – Ashburn.
10. Dutch Leonard (8), Wash. (A) SP (’34-’53) (1972) – Amazing how valuable he was before and after the war, the lost time to injury in ’42 and the apparent effects of recovery in ’43-’44 keep him from the 15-18 votes that all his equals seem to be getting. Penalize one guy for playing too good during the war, penalize another for not playing good enough...
11. Dizzy Trout (9), Detr. (A) SP (’39-’52) (1967) – Bob Lemon was better than Dizzy Trout, but Lemon on the cusp while Trout isn’t even the best Dizzy according to the voters is too steep a drop IMO. It would take a war discount of close to 50% to drop him from my ballot, which is about 35-40% below what the quality drop-off actually was. Don’t penalize the players for being in their prime in ’42-’45.
12. Norm Cash (10), Detr. (A), 1B (’60-’74) (1985) – Ben Taylor appears to be the comp, but Cash ranks so close to Dizzy in the total value column that I have raised Taylor 5 spots instead of starting Norm at 14.
13. Alejandro Oms (11), Cuba (--), CF (‘21-‘37) (1965) – I’m not enough of a Cuban baseball expert to be Oms’ biggest fan. On top of the fact that I don’t like the slippery slope his election might lead to.
14. George Van Haltren (12), NY(N), CF / LF (’87-’03) (1926) – Would already be in but for the fluke scheduling quirk in ’31. Here’s hoping it won’t take much longer.
15. Ben Taylor (13), Ind. (--), 1B (’10-’26) (1938) – I am comfortable being Ben’s 2nd-3rd biggest fan.

Nellie Fox – Not the best glove man missing from the ballot.
Quincy Trouppe – I think I spent the first half overrating catchers, and now apparently I underrate them relative to the group. To my recollection, I have not changed my methodology regarding backstops in a long while, so I’m blaming you guys.
Edd Roush – I can’t even tell if career voters or peak voters should be voting for Roush. Near the bottom of the OF consideration set.
Charlie Keller – DiMaggio, Ryan and Hooper rank above him among the OF’s. I know each of them has previously appeared on my ballot, so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve given Keller a few votes over the years. A 23% bonus for war credit still leaves him short of 5,000 AB’s; it’ll be a hard sell to make the ballot again.
Jake Beckley – PHOM, but not good enough this year.

Five players were in last year’s top ten, but not in my top 15 this year.
   109. SWW Posted: December 22, 2006 at 10:38 PM (#2267495)
So. The final Elect 2 ballot. It’s the end of an era, people. Bring me a figgy pudding.

<u>1992 Ballot</u>
1) George Thomas Seaver – “Tom Terrific”
This probably doesn’t mean much, but Seaver’s Win Shares put him in the company of guys like Tony Mullane and Mickey Welch. Given the usual era discrepancies, I think that says a lot about how good Seaver was. 28th on SABR Top 100. 31st on McGuire & Gormley Top 100. 32nd on Sporting News Top 100. 38th on Bill James Top 100. 78th on Ken Shouler Top 100. 35th on Maury Allen Top 100. New York Times Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
2) Burleigh Arland Grimes – “Ol’ Stubblebeard”
A successful pitcher with both a dead ball and a live one. Frequently one of the best pitchers in the league, and often the best pitcher on his team. Many comparisons to Early Wynn, whom we did elect, and most similar to Red Faber, whom we also elected. And he’s Top 20! Whoo hoo! 54th on Maury Allen Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
3) Peter Edward Rose – “Charlie Hustle”
Pete, Pete, Pete. My favorite player growing up. And coincidentally, by my numerical reckoning, the person who should rank first on my ballot. Nevertheless, he did break the one rule the game holds above all others, and the bylaws of this little venture mandate that I take this into account during his first year of eligibility. However, omitting him from the ballot entirely seems inappropriate to me. After wracking my brain, I have decided that his punishment should take the form of a demotion. I am dropping him to the highest rank he can receive without obtaining the bonus points that accompany the so-called “elect me” spots. For this election, that means third place. And may the gods have pity on his dark, dark soul. 15th on Ken Shouler Top 100. 25th on Sporting News Top 100. 33rd on Bill James Top 100. 48th on SABR Top 100. 57th on McGuire & Gormley Top 100. 25th on Maury Allen Top 100. New York Times Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
4) Jacob Nelson Fox – “Nellie”
A uniquely successful second baseman for his era, with our without a chunk of tobacco in his cheek. Six Top 10 WS appearances and very good Standards and Monitor scores. And speaking of second basemen…
5) Robert Anthony Grich
Grich has a slight edge over Fox on both career and prime WS. Nellie surprisingly trounces him on black & grey ink. In the final measurement, they come out remarkably even, and my placing Grich behind Fox may have as much to do with fear of the Shiny New Toy as anything. They both deserve election, and will probably stay this close to each other for as long as they’re both on my ballot.
6) Orlando Manuel Cepeda Pennes – “Baby Bull”
7) Atanasio Perez Rigal – “Tony”
Another similar pair. Once again, the new guy has the edge in Win Shares. Once again, the returning candidate shows a greater impact compared to his team and his league. And once again, I defer to the old guy, out of concern that I’m overrating something new. Perez is 74th on Ken Shouler Top 100.
8) Carl William Mays
I have long considered Mays to be underrated, with better seasons and more milestones than more beloved candidates, like Luis Tiant and Billy Pierce. I think another review of pitchers may be in order, but I still believe that the pitchers of this era get short shrift.
9) Louis Clark Brock
Reaffirming my status as a career voter. He does well in Black and Gray Ink (owing, no doubt, to his prowess on the basepaths), and his prime WS and Top 10 WS seasons are notable. He’s hanging in there. 42nd on Ken Shouler Top 100. 58th on Sporting News Top 100. 73rd on SABR Top 100. 77th on McGuire & Gormley Top 100. 44th on Maury Allen Top 100. New York Times Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
10) Roland Glen Fingers
As we sort out relief pitchers, factors like post-season success, seasonal awards, and black/grey ink take on added importance. I rank him second to Wilhelm among relievers we’ve seen so far. Also, DanG calls him “the Grimes of RP’s”, which seems almost calculated to get my attention. 76th on SABR Top 100. 82nd on McGuire & Gormley Top 100. 97th on Sporting News Top 100. New York Times Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
11) Richard Redding – “Cannonball Dick”
Definitely the best remaining Negro League pitcher. That in and of itself may not merit his election. Hanging in there thanks to my support for Mays, who has a strikingly similar arc.
12) Daniel Joseph “Rusty” Staub – “Le Grand Orange”
I‘m moving him up, because his career numbers actually stand out more than I realized. 358 WS is nothing to sneeze at, but his 5-year prime of 145 WS is also a standout. Imagine if he’d spent his career with one great team. 96th on SABR Top 100. 97th on Ken Shouler Top 100. 93rd on Maury Allen Top 100. Ritter & Honig Top 100.
13) Edd J Roush
I took a fresh look at center fielders this time around, and I’m not overwhelmingly in favor of any of them. I knocked Hugh Duffy down several spots because of my concerns about his one great season. Roush has more consistency, so he hangs in there.
14) Edgar Charles Rice – “Sam”
An impressive career considering his late start. Not much in the way of peak, but considering how few Win Shares the Senators had to divvy up, he did pretty well.
15) James Sherman Wynn – “The Toy Cannon”
Ballot debut. He benefited greatly from a fresh look. The 6 Top 10 WS finishes and solid career numbers carry a lot of weight with me, and he compares favorably with Roush. I remain troubled by his relative lack of contemporary acclaim.

<u>Other Top 10 Finishers</u>
Quincy Thomas Trouppe
He is very close to the ballot, especially after making a brief appearance in my Top 15 a couple years back. An unusually varied career, but particularly successful behind the plate. If we clear out the backlog some, he will probably return in coming years.
Charles Ernest Keller
An enormous peak and the obvious need for war credit are in his favor. But I’m honestly not convinced that his peaks were as strong as those of guys like Kiner and Klein, who each just barely made it onto the bottom of my ballot. Like Dobie Moore, whose election I did not endorse, a career unfairly abbreviated.
Jacob Peter Beckley – “Eagle Eye”
I favor career numbers, so he’s still hovering close to the ballot. However, his career is so utterly peakless, his seasonal performances are so completely without contributions above the norm, I’m hard pressed to call him a great. Ironically, instead of Cepeda and Perez pulling him up, he tends to make me think I have them too high. The battle rages on.
   110. Daryn Posted: December 22, 2006 at 10:55 PM (#2267506)
SWW, you are not allowed to do that re Rose. You gotta pick.
   111. SWW Posted: December 22, 2006 at 11:16 PM (#2267527)
From the Constitution:

A player’s “personality” is to be considered only to the extent that it affected the outcomes of the player’s games (e.g., via his positive or negative effect on his teammates). In rare and extreme cases, a voter may opt to exclude a player on “personality” grounds on the first ballot on which the player appears. If that player does not get elected on his first ballot, the voter shall give the player full consideration in all subsequent ballots, regardless of the “personality” factors.

Allegations (proven or otherwise) about throwing baseball games may be especially troubling to some voters. It would be appropriate for such a voter to discount such a player’s accomplishments to some degree. In rare and extreme cases, it may even be appropriate for such a voter to choose not to vote for an otherwise worthy candidate.


The emphasis is mine.

I have discounted Pete Rose's accomplishments to the degree that I feel appropriate, and in accordance with the rules of this project. I stand by my ballot.
   112. Daryn Posted: December 22, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#2267531)
You appear to be right. I believe someone else wanted to do that and John told him no.
   113. KJOK Posted: December 23, 2006 at 01:18 AM (#2267564)
Using OWP w/playing time, Player Overall Wins Score, and defense (Win Shares/BP/Fielding Runs) for position players, applied to .500 baseline. Using Runs Saved Above Average, Player Overall WInsScore and Support Neutral Fibonacci Wins for Pitchers. For Position Players AND Pitchers, heavily weight comparison vs. contemporaries, and lightly look at WARP1 and Win Shares.

1. TOM SEAVER, P.49 POW, 388 Win Shares, 149 WARP1, 404 RSAA, 297 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 127 ERA+ in 4,783 innings. Right up there with Spahn & Mathewson.

2. PETE ROSE, OF/1B/2B/3B. 24 POW, 547 Win Shares, 166 WARP1, 385 RCAP & .607 OWP in 15,861 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Durability moved him past Grich.

3. BOBBY GRICH, 2B. 52 POW (!), 329 Win Shares, 115 WARP1, 355 RCAP & .614 OWP in 8,220 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT. Combo of near-Mazeroski on defense plus near-Gehringer on offense hard to beat.

4. ROGER BRESNAHAN, C. 23 POW, 231 Win Shares, 75 WARP1, 282 RCAP & .651 OWP in 5,373 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. He’s no Berra, but was best Catcher from 1880s – 1915.

5. JOHN McGRAW, 3B. 20 POW, 78 WARP1, 459 RCAP & .727 OWP in 4,909 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Was CAREER ALL-TIME OBP% leader until Ruth qualifies in 1923, EVEN adjusting for League, and is STILL #3 behind Williams and Ruth. AND he played 3B, where offensive output was generally very low. Plus led his team to 3 consecutive championships. Oh, AND at least 2nd best 3B between 1875-1900!

6. BOB JOHNSON, LF. 36 POW, 287 Win Shares, 102 WARP1, 319 RCAP & .651 OWP in 8,047 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Many many very very good seasons. Best OF candidate not already elected (except Rose).

7. GENE TENACE, C/1B. 26 POW, 231 Win Shares, 73 WARP1, 244 RCAP & .670 OWP in 5,525 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Highly underrated, and very close to Bresnahan in performance.

8. REGGIE SMITH, CF/RF. 32 POW, 325 Win Shares, 99 WARP1, 281 RCAP & .653 OWP in 8,050 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Hit like a 1st baseman, yet could play multiple defensive positions well.

9. FRANK CHANCE, 1B. 23 POW, 237 Win Shares, 72 WARP1, 308 RCAP & .720 OWP in 5,099 PAs. Def: VERY GOOD. Excellent hitter and good fielder back when 1st base was MUCH more important defensively. Top seasons better than Beckley’s best. Deadball era offensive stars continue to get no respect….

10. QUINCY TROUPPE, C. Estimated 115 OPS+ over 8,462 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Comp looks to be Gary Carter. He could hit for a catcher, and seems to have been AT LEAST average defensively. One of the best major league teams was willing to give him a chance at age 39, which I think says something about his talent.

11. BEN TAYLOR, 1B. Estimated 138 OPS+ over 9,091 PA’s. Def: FAIR. Comps are Fred McGriff and Mule Suttles. Too bad his best years were pre-live ball, pre-Negro Leagues, but we do have his 1921 stats that show his greatness. He’s Bill Terry plus about 3 more Bill Terry type seasons.

12. DAVE BANCROFT, SS. 36 POW, 269 Win Shares, 111 WARP1, 157 RCAP & .498 OWP in 8,244 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT. Similar to Bobby Wallace and Ozzie Smith, so surprised he’s not getting more votes.

13. NORM CASH, 1B. 31 POW, 315 Win Shares, 102 WARP1, 295 RCAP & .671 OWP in 7,910 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Obviously underrated player who just needs more in-season PT to make a high ballot slot.

14. DICK REDDING, P. 183 MLE Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 114 MLE ERA+ in 3,556 innings. Was the 2nd best Negro League Pitcher in his era, behind only Williams.

15. JIMMY WYNN, CF. 30 POW, 305 Win Shares, 98 WARP1, 202 RCAP & .634 OWP in 8,010 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Better than Kiner overall.

LEFT OFF THE BALLOT:

NEWBIES OF NOTE:

CESAR CEDENO, CF. 22 POW, 296 Win Shares, 96 WARP1, 202 RCAP & .606 OWP in 8,133 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Started off like a HOM career, but didn’t sustain it.

TOBBY HARRAH, 3B/SS. 19 POW, 287 Win Shares, 80 WARP1, 283 RCAP & .579 OWP in 8,766 PAs. Def: POOR. How bad fielding does a good hitting infielder have to be to field too poorly for the HOM? Tobby Harrah bad….

TONY PEREZ, 1B/3B. 10 POW, 349 Win Shares, 113 WARP1, 146 RCAP & .582 OWP in 10,861 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. I don’t see the love – had a few years at 3B that were not quite Rosen-esque, then became Beckley-lite. Perhaps most over-rated player ever.

RETURNEES:

NELLIE FOX, 2B. 14 POW, 93 WARP1, 129 RCAP & .483 OWP in 10,349 PAs. Def: EXCELLENT. Would rank Monroe ahead of him.

EDD ROUSH, CF. 10 POW, 110 WARP1, 205 RCAP & .622 OWP in 8,156 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Edge of playing CF not enough to overcome Bob Johnson’s edge in offense.

CHARLIE KELLER, LF. 22 POW, 67 WARP1, 291 RCAP & .748 OWP in 4,604 PAs. Def: AVERAGE He was very good when he played, but McGraw & Chance were even better ‘short career’ choices relative to position, peers, etc.

ROLLIE FINGERS, RP. 23 POW, 188 Win Shares, 80 WARP1, 103 RSAA, & 119 ERA+ in 1,701 innings. Even with post season and leverage, can’t match up to starters with that ERA+.

JAKE BECKLEY, 1B. 23 POW, 115 WARP1, 245 RCAP & .596 OWP in 10,492 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. A very good for a long time player. Possibly best first baseman from 1880 – 1920, but I’m not 100% sold he was better than Chance or even Taylor.

PETE BROWNING, CF/LF. 28 POW, 95 WARP1, 478 RCAP & .745 OWP in 5,315 PAs. Def: POOR. Baseball’s premier hitter in the 1880’s. Much better hitter than any eligible outfielder, but only around 6th best CF in 30 year period.

CHARLIE JONES, LF. 19 POW, 71 WARP1, 245 RCAP & .697 OWP in 3,958 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Not a lot of PAs due to short schedules and suspension, but lots of offensive production.

BUCKY WALTERS, P.25 POW, 89 WARP1, 161 RSAA, 166 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 115 ERA+ in 3,104 innings. Hitting helps him, but doesn’t quite stack up to other pitchers.

HUGH DUFFY, CF/LF. 5 POW, 95 WARP1, 154 RCAP & .623 OWP in 7,838 PAs. Def: AVERAGE. Just not in the elite OF class offensively, and fielding runs doesn’t even like his defense (-31).

GEORGE VAN HALTREN, CF. 12 POW, 118 WARP1, 167 RCAP & .620 OWP in 8,992 PAs. Def: FAIR. He wasn’t that far above position offensively, and wasn’t that good defensively.

ALEJANDRO OMS, CF/RF. Estimated 126 OPS+ over 5,152 PA’s. Def: AVERAGE. Comp is possibly Eric Davis. That won’t cut it in this crowd.

BURLEIGH GRIMES, P. 129 RSAA, 175 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 107 ERA+ in 4,180 innings. Less value than even Quinn.

TOMMY LEACH, CF/3B. .552 OWP, 121 RCAP, 9,051 PA’s. Def: EXCELLENT – 3B, VERY GOOD – CF. Just slightly below Collins defensively, and he played longer. Basically did everything well, but doesn’t have the one outstanding area to get noticed.

TONY MULLANE, P.30 POW, 399 Win Shares, 89 WARP1, 241 RSAA, 240 Neut_Fibonacci_Wins, and 118 ERA+ in 4,531(!) innings. He could hit a little too. Had a very good career AND some really good individual seasons. AA discount keeps him from being a TOP 5 ballot player.
   114. Paul Wendt Posted: December 23, 2006 at 04:12 AM (#2267619)
5. Tony Perez (n/a), Cinc. (N), 1B / 3B (’65-’86) – Completely different BA/OB/SG breakdown, but the sum of his offensive and defensive value to a team makes him look like a twin of Willie Keeler to me.

Is this a two-dimensional measure, as is {career batting win shares, career fielding win shares}. In only two dimensions there must be dozens of players who look like twins.

I am near KJ's end of the spectrum. Tony Perez not George Foster was maybe the most overrated player of the 1970s. Sponsor his page at baseball-reference for $55. I wonder how many HOFers (or HOMers) lack sponsors. Probably some of the HOMers are available cheap.
   115. Mike Webber Posted: December 23, 2006 at 05:47 AM (#2267647)
KJOK Posted: December 22, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2267564)
Using OWP w/playing time, Player Overall Wins Score, and defense (Win Shares/BP/Fielding Runs) for position players, applied to .500 baseline.


KJ's ballot's always look so weird to me, and it is because he uses POW - or TPI if you're a person that used the old Total Baseball like me.

I am glad that someone in our group uses Pete Palmer as his primary mathmatics guru. Pete is a very nice guy, I guess any of you who have ever chatted with him at a SABR event would agree.

It must be frustrating though to be the only one looking at some players (Bob Johnson for example) with an tool that so obviously shows someone as a HOMer while the rest of the electorate ignores him.
   116. Brent Posted: December 23, 2006 at 06:47 AM (#2267662)
1992 Ballot:

1. Pete Rose – For me, the memory of Rose that first comes to mind is of the talented, energetic young second baseman. I’ve never boycotted anyone; my ratings have sometimes included penalties for behavior that hurt a player’s team, but in the case of Rose, the arguments that he hurt his team involve his decisions as a manager, which our constitution forbids us from considering. (PHoM 1992)

2. Tom Seaver – The finest pitcher of an era when superb pitchers were abundant. Over 15 seasons (1967-78, 81, 84-85) he averaged 18-10, 4.2 wins above team, 259 IP, 132 DERA+, 207 SO, 72 BB. CYA for 1969, 73, 75; MVP runner up for 1969. (PHoM 1992)

3. Bobby Grich – My system actually ranks him ahead of Carew. I don’t know whether I believe that, but it’s a good thing that they didn’t appear on the same ballot so I don’t have to make the choice.

4. Phil Rizzuto – The player who is most underrated by this group. (PHoM 1967)

5. Ken Singleton – (PHoM 1991)
6. Hugh Duffy – (PHoM 1931)
7. Bobby Bonds – (PHoM 1987)
8. Alejandro Oms – (PHoM 1967)
9. Jimmy Wynn – (PHoM 1985)
A cluster of outfielders who didn’t have super-high peaks or super-long careers, but each of them put up many seasons at the all-star level.

10. Tony Pérez – He had a lot of empty seasons on either side, but from 1967-78 he was right up there too.

11. Sal Bando – See my comparison of Bando and Childs. I’ll take him ahead of Fingers. (PHoM 1987)

12. Bucky Walters – Over 7 seasons (1936, 39-42, 44-45) he averaged 18-13, 2.0 wins above team, 270 IP, 123 DERA+, 72 OPS+. MVP for 1939. (PHoM 1958)

13. Gavy Cravath – Among the pure hitters, he has the strongest credentials. (PHoM 1976)

14. Dizzy Dean – Over 6 seasons (1932-37) he averaged 22-13, 3.6 wins above team, 288 IP, 129 DERA+, 182 SO, 67 BB. MVP for 1934, runner up in 1935 and ‘36. (PHoM 1958)

15. Elston Howard – An outstanding peak from 1961-64 and a bit of extra credit for delays in integration. (PHoM 1977)

Near misses:

16–20. Fox (PHoM 1979), Welch (PHoM 1966), Redding (PHoM 1976), Grimes (PHoM 1940), Bresnahan
21–25. Keller, F Howard, Newcombe, Leach (PHoM 1932), Cepeda
26–30. R Smith, Brock, Van Haltren, Arlett, Easter

Other consensus top 10:

Nellie Fox – # 16, just misses.

Quincy Trouppe – With little information available on his fielding skills, I don’t see how to distinguish him from catchers like Schang and Lombardi, who were good with the stick but not impressive defensively. I’ve ranked him behind Elston Howard, whose defensive excellence was clear.

Edd Roush – He had only 5 seasons in which he played 90 percent of his team’s games. In a field this tight, that's enough to knock him out of the running.

Charlie Keller – # 21. I used to say that I was a peak voter, but lately this electorate has gotten to be even more peak-oriented than I’m comfortable with. I guess I’ll call myself a prime voter.

Rollie Fingers – I see him as part of a cluster of fine relievers who don’t quite rise to the ballot cutoff.

Jake Beckley – I expected him to be the first player elected while appearing on a minority of the ballots, but Moore beat him to it.

Other new arrivals:

César Cedeño # 72 and George Foster # 73 – very different talents and career patterns, but they both wound up a little short. If you could’ve just appended Foster’s ages 27-37 to Cedeño’s ages 19-26, you’d have had quite the player – a 9-time all-star, MVP, .283, 433 HR, 411 SB, 130 OPS+ in 11,000 PA, 415 WS with five seasons of 30+, 131 WARP3. Foster’s another example of a player whose HoM chances were killed by spending too many of his developmental seasons on the bench of a great team.

Toby Harrah and Vida Blue were fine players who just missed my top 100.
   117. OCF Posted: December 23, 2006 at 10:29 AM (#2267693)
If you could’ve just appended Foster’s ages 27-37 to Cedeño’s ages 19-26, you’d have had quite the player ...

It doesn't work for this ballot, of course, but you want to play that game, why not stay with the Astros and pair the young Cedeño with the old Jose Cruz?
   118. Chris Cobb Posted: December 23, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2267804)
1992 Ballot

Review of my ranking methodology. I base my rankings on three measures: career, total value above average, and peak rate, which I calculate in both WARP1 and WS, adjusting WS in various ways for pre-1930 players. Giving equal weight to each system, I rank players against their immediate contemporaries (grouped by the decade in which they had the most value). I then calculate percentage value above or below the approximate in-out line for that decade (which is set based on number of ML and NeL teams and population factors) and use that percentage to integrate the decade-by-decade rankings. Then I make subjective adjustments.

Since 1987, I have been more swayed in my subjective adjustments than I have in the past by issues of positional balance. That has become a second tie-breaking factor, along with peak talent, in arranging the candidates whom my system sees as just about equal. So I have brought more infielders on to my ballot.

(#) = Last year’s ranking
% = percentage above below approximate in-out line value for the player’s decade.

1. Tom Seaver (n/e). % = 1.6014. The top pitcher of the 1970s and the top right-hander since Pete Alexander tops my ballot this year. Pete Rose sans gambling issues and general jerkitude would have a case to rank ahead of Seaver, but he is a bit overrated by both the comprehensive metrics, so I am comfortable concluding that Seaver should rank ahead of Rose when only their relative merits as players are considered.
2. Pete Rose (n/e). % = 1.6120. I have no great love for him, but even giving him no credit for play after 1982, this is where he rates. An outstanding leadoff hitter, an excellent defensive outfielder, a competent infielder, played every day, maintained a high level of performance through his late 30s.
3. Bobby Grich (n/e). % = 1.2560. It’d be rather sweet for him to be elected ahead of the overrated Rose. Second-best second baseman of the 1970s, after Morgan. My system sees him an eyelash behind Rod Carew, but, considered as second basemen, Grich gets the nod. Significantly ahead of the backlog.
4. Quincy Trouppe (2). % = 1.0453. Discussion of the anecdotal record solidifies Trouppe’s case for me. I think he is disadvantaged in NeL lore because he was not slick behind the plate. The comment cited from one former NeL player that Trouppe was a great athlete who could have played other positions, but he was only an ok catcher strongly suggests that the oral history underrates Trouppe for the same reason it has overrated players like Oliver Marcelle and Judy Johnson.
5. Edd Roush (3). % = 1.0667. Arguments for credit for hold-out seasons were persuasive with me.
6. Charlie Keller (4). % = 1.0589. Both WARP and win shares show him as having an excellent peak (no war credit included) and, with appropriate war credit, respectable career value.
7. Rollie Fingers (5) % = 1.0632. Fingers shows up comfortably above the in/out line in my system. He was not as lights-out as we have come to expect the modern closer to be, but he was still highly effective, extremely durable, and highly leveraged. If I gave credit for post-season performance, I would rank Fingers higher, but I don’t. He has an argument to rank higher than this, but I want to see more discussion before I decide to trust fully my system’s handling of relievers. I’m sure it’s not seriously overrating them, as other top relievers of the 1970s so far eligible have fallen short: Hiller, Marshall, McGraw, and Lyle all are headed for my Hall of Very Good. So the fact that Fingers looks significantly better than they do seems significant.
8. Dave Bancroft (6). % = 1.0476. If he could have stayed in the lineup more, we’d have elected him long ago, as he was a slightly better ballplayer than Sewell with a longer career. But having few seasons of 145+ games hurts him. Someone asked how Nellie Fox was better than Bancroft. A pertinent question, since they were equal offensive players, and Bancroft was a top defender at a more important position. Fox definitely enjoys an edge in seasonal-durability, but I prefer Bancroft’s defensive edge.
9. Alejandro Oms (7) % = 1.0410. As in the case of Roush, I was wrong to be ignoring the evidence of his quality.
10. Tommy Leach (8). % = 1.0394. Outstanding player for a long time.
11. Jimmy Wynn (9). % = 1.0386. I was overrating him a bit, not sure why.
12. Jake Beckley (10). % = 1.0250. Gradually rising as the backlog clears. Staub’s record and his are not so different as to make it outrageous to look at them together, but Beckley’s defensive performance was consistently superior, giving him the edge over Le Grand Orange, who was never outstanding defensively, and who had very little defensive value at all over the second half of his career.
13. Rabbit Maranville (11) % = 1.1502. An all-time great defensive shortstop, and hit enough in his prime to play at a consistent, all-star level. Current leader among eligible players in career WARP1 even without war credit for 1918 (which he also merits), he is the only long-career shortstop between Wagner and Appling. RCAP study suggests I was overvaluing him, but he still has a strong career argument.
14. Luis Tiant (12). % = 1.0229. Best backlog starting pitcher available. I see him as having about the same overall value as Jim Bunning: a little less than Billy Pierce. His prime was broken up by arm injuries, but he was excellent on either side of his injury years. Much better than Hunter and Lolich.
15. Bus Clarkson (14). % = 1.00. Strong hitter; versatile defender. I decided to do a more thorough workup of Clarkson this year, as it looked like it would come down to him or Perez for the last ballot spot. He’s a hard player to evaluate, of course, because he played in so many different leagues, he lost three peak years (ages 28-30) to WWII, his defensive value is uncertain, and his profile as a hitter changed over the course of his career. Having done new MLEs for him (which I’ll post sometime soon), I find that his career profile reminds me a lot of Darrell Evans, with a little more defense a little less offensive peak (though with regression it’s hard to judge peak). Both he and Evans were very good hitters all through their 30s because they really developed their “old player skills” of plate discipline and power in ways that offset their decline in other areas. It’s also the case, of course, that he’s similar to Perez, another power hitter who shifted from 3B to 1B in the course of his career. Perez shifted over at 30, though, while Evans made the shift at around 35, and Clarkson would have shifted over at 35-37. His fielding, then, gives him the edge over Perez, and the last ballot spot this year.
   119. Chris Cobb Posted: December 23, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2267805)
1992 Off-Ballot, Sitting on the All-Time in-out Line

16. Tony Perez. (n/e). % = 1.0783. In a tightly bunched group of long career hitters with Beckley, Cash, and Staub, and also comparable to “prime” hitter candidates Wynn and. Bonds. Overall, he placed in the middle of this tightly bunched group. An excellent hitter for a few years, a very good hitter for many years. Helped by being a decent third baseman for a while, and being good defensively at first. (Win shares has him at B-, just above average, at each position. He never won a WS gold glove at first, but he was among the top 5 in fws at first every season during the 1970s.) It’s his defense, surprisingly enough, that pushes him ahead of Staub, who was a little better with the bat. It’s durability that pushes him ahead of Cash. His 12-year prime and Bonds’ 12-year prime were almost identical in value; Perez’s decline phase gives him the nod over Bonds. Win shares _hugely_ overrates this tail period, which is why I have adjusted him downward from his rank according to my system (I haven’t had time to make a comprehensive adjustment to the system yet). However, he did have some value, which is more than Bonds did when he wasn’t playing.
17. Bobby Bonds (15) % = 1.0184. Similar to Jimmy Wynn, but not as strong a peak. Pushed off by the new arrivals at the top of the ballot.
18. Charley Jones (16). % = 1.00. This year I prefer Bobby Bonds.
19. Norm Cash. (17) % = 1.0098. A dark-horse candidate. Below Boyer and Bonds on league-strength considerations.
20. Nellie Fox (21). % = 1.00. I thought he wasn’t going to make my ballot before he was elected. Now, maybe he will. I support his eventual election, but I see him as the weakest “should elect” infielder now eligible. Average bat, excellent glove, excellent durability at a position where durability was difficult make for an excellent second-base package, but it doesn’t match what Bancroft, Maranville, and Boyer have to offer.
21. Rusty Staub</b> % = 1.0646. My system argues for a higher placement than I have given Staub, but few players that I have ranked have added more career value in a series of below-average seasons, so I believe my system overrates him. He was legitimately outstanding during his peak in Montreal, however, so he should be in the mix. A career-slice approach suggests that the contemporary “bat” players to whom he is closest in value are Bonds and Norm Cash, so I am starting him just a little below the two of them. His profile is also a lot like Jimmy Ryan’s, actually, which provides another justification for ranking him about here, just a half dozen spots ahead of the best outfielder from the 1890s still eligible.
22. Gavvy Cravath (20). % = 1.00. Not as well-rounded as Roush, Oms, Minoso, and Wynn, not as strong on peak as Keller, Kiner, or Jones. But still a tremendous hitter whose value has been overlooked. Slips a little bit as a result of recent discussions, which have made me fairly certain that he does not have a hidden peak in his AA years, but was a pretty similar player then to what he was in Philadelphia. I am therefore having a harder time seeing what makes him better than Bob Johnson.
23. Joe Tinker (21). % = 1.00. Looks like Ozzie Smith, but with only 3/4 of Ozzie’s career.
24. Herman Long (22). % = 1.0192. His case is of the same sort as Maranville’s, but he was not as brilliant a fielder and had a shorter career, so when Maranville drops to where Long was, Long drops to the all-time in-out line or thereabouts.
25. Bob Johnson (23). % = 1.00. Back on my radar
26. Dom Dimaggio (24). % = 1.00. Likewise
27. Jimmy Ryan (25). % = 1.00. Likewise
28. Dick Redding (26). % = 1.00. None of the additional, reliable data provided by Gary A. shows Redding to be pitching at a level that looks worthy of the HoM. None of the years reputed to be his best are part of this additional documentation, but the more data that shows him looking like a pitcher who was a bit above average in the NeL and, therefore, about average in the ML, the more his case is weakened, in my view. I’m not dropping him out of the picture altogether, but I’m putting him, for the moment at the bottom of the borderline-in group of players. It seems probable to me now that, unless the trend in evidence turns, he will drop further. It’s very hard for me right now, for instance, to accept that he was probably better than Burleigh Grimes.

------------- Below the Line by no more than 5% ----------------

29. Reggie Smith .9923
30. Bill Monroe .9922
31. Don Newcombe .9886
32. Urban Shocker .9867
33. Jim Kaat. .9846.
34. Burleigh Grimes .9845
35. George Burns .9879
36. Willie Davis .9896
37. Ken Singleton .9823
38. Johnny Evers .9779
39. Fielder Jones .9778
40. Lave Cross .9709
41. Hugh Duffy .9686
42. Johnny Pesky .9676
43. Ben Taylor .9667
44. Cy Seymour .9665
45. Dick Bartell .9653
46. George Van Haltren .9538
47. Larry Doyle .9614
48. Bobby Veach .9609
49. Buzz Arlett .9602
50. Vada Pinson .9599
51.George Foster .9578 (n/e). He was an excellent player for 7 years, with three truly great seasons in 1977, 1978, and 1981. But that’s not quite enough. WARP1 sees him as a borderline candidate: for some reason it loves his defense. Win shares shows him as a very good corner outfielder in his prime, but not Hugh-Duffy good. Hurt by lack of durability throughout his career. Was he being platooned at times?
52. Cesar Cedeno .9577 (n/e). Brilliant talent early in his career. Wasn’t outstanding for quite long enough to have a HoM career.
53. Leroy Matlock .9544
54. Tommy Bond .9511


Returning top 10 not on my ballot:

Nellie Fox. See #20 above

Charley Jones. See #18 above.

Pete Browning. % = .8920. Yes, he was an outstanding hitter, but his eye-popping years were all in the weakest major leagues of all time (excepting the UA), he was not an asset on defense, he was not durable within seasons, and his career was short. He is not near my top 50 eligibles. My system sees him as having a case similar to Frank Howard and Rocky Colavito. They have arguments, but they are nevertheless clearly on the outside looking in.

Dick Redding. See #28 above.

New Arrivals worthy of note but outside Top 50 eligible:

Toby Harrah. .8838. Fine hitter, but terrible defensively at both 3rd and short.

Vida Blue. .8801. A couple of great years, and a solid peak in the late 1970s, but not HoM material. Among eligilble 1970s pitchers, I have him ahead of Hunter and Koosman, about even with Hiller and Lolich, a bit behind Wilbur Wood, and well behind Tiant and Fingers, who are the lowest-ranked pitchers of the decade who look electable to me. How adversely did cocaine affect his career?
   120. Rob_Wood Posted: December 23, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#2267840)
1992 ballot from this highly career voter (with a fairly low replacement level):

1. Tom Seaver - all-time great pitcher and gentleman (similar to Christy Mathewson)
2. Pete Rose - simultaneously over- and under-rated
3. Jake Beckley - luv the career, though peakless
4. Bobby Grich - HOM was created for guys like Grich
5. George Van Haltren - deserving star of the underrepresented 1890s
6. Bob Johnson - solid hitter, solid career (w/minor lg credit)
7. Bobby Bonds - good combo of peak and career (where's the luv?)
8. Nellie Fox - very good second baseman for a long time
9. Tony Perez - good career though he was only an adequate 3B defensively
10. Rusty Staub - good peak + good career (similar to Perez)
11. Tommy Bridges - luv the strikeouts & win pct with minor league and wwii credit
12. Bob Elliott - mired with woeful Pirates and Braves
13. Jimmy Wynn - tremendously underrated player
14. Charlie Keller - slowly inching his way up my ballot
15. Edd Roush - very good center fielder and solid hitter (with holdout credit)
---
16-20. CJones, RSmith, Klein, Maranville, Aparicio

Not voting for Trouppe (around 100th) and Fingers (around 50th).
Cedeno and Harrah near the fringes of the ballot.
   121. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 23, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#2267849)
1. Tom Seaver - Best RHP since WWII - at least until Clemens comes around in 2050 or so.
2. Bobby Grich - Had a higher peak than Rose, and infinitely more defensive value. May be the most underrated player ever.
3. Pete Rose - Not a knock on him being here - he's essentially tied with Grich in my system - Grich's defensive value and higher peak put him on top.
4. Pete Browning - I'm convinced he was the 1880's Dick Allen.
5. Hugh Duffy - I like Browning better after looking closer, but his glove pushes him above Keller this time around.
6. Charlie Keller - Poor man's Kiner. Close with war credit, but Kiner's huge peak was real.
7. Thurman Munson - I'm warming up to the idea that he was very similar to Freehan.
8. Bucky Walters - How did I miss him for so long? An egregious oversight on my part.
9. Rusty Staub - A mix of peak/prime career. I like him better than Beckley, but not near as much as Duffy/Browning.
10. Alejandro Oms - I was missing a lot on him for a while. Nice player.
11. Frank Howard - Now comes the fun part. As a peak guy (even though I count career as well, I lean peak), I couldn't rationalize him so low, especially behind Beckley.
12. Norm Cash - Raw numbers better than Howard, but Cash was platooned.
13. Chuck Klein - Similar to Howard, but how much of it was the Baker Bowl?
14. Rollie Fingers - I'm not sold on the peak/prime. Wilhelm was better, and Marshall is close. Still one of the top 3 relievers we've seen
15. Tony Perez - Edges out Beckley, as Tony had a peak.

16-20: Beckley, Taylor, Tiant, GVH, Roy White

Disclosures:

Fox - Grich was his equal with the glove, and had 100X the offensive value - anyone putting Fox above Grich needs to check theyselves
Wynn - Not a believer in him - down in the 30's.
Roush - Have him nearly equal to Wynn
Beckley - At 16, been on my ballot for a few years now.
Trouppe - In the low 20's, I like Munson better.

Newbies:
Cedeno/Harrah/Foster - All missing something - all in the 40's.
Blue - Wow, thought we has better than that - In Catfish Hunter territory.
   122. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 01:13 AM (#2267896)
You appear to be right. I believe someone else wanted to do that and John told him no.

I don't think that was Joe's intentions, however. We have had cases where the Constitition didn't jibe with the Commish's stated goals, so it was later amended. IOW, Joe needs to make a ruling on this as soon as possible.
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 01:22 AM (#2267897)
but in the case of Rose, the arguments that he hurt his team involve his decisions as a manager, which our constitution forbids us from considering. (PHoM 1992)

Again, this is incorrect. I was there when we formulated the rule, which was made specifically for Rose and Jackson, regardless of what the Constitution actually says (BTW, this isn't a knock on Rob Wood, who should be commended for contributing his time and efforts).
   124. sunnyday2 Posted: December 24, 2006 at 03:01 AM (#2267919)
Those were decisions he made as a manager, sure, but they were decisions that directly affected his record as a player. It is that record as a player that is getting discounted. It's hard for me to see how that is illegitimate.
   125. jhwinfrey Posted: December 24, 2006 at 04:38 AM (#2267955)
1992 Ballot

Seaver and Perez are my PHoM inductees this year.

1. Tom Seaver: The clear #1 (1992)
2. Burleigh Grimes: Ol' Stubblebeard does well in my system--long career, great ink scores. (1940)
3. Orlando Cepeda: A great hitter at a low-value position. He gets lost in the shuffle, I think. (1985)
4. Jake Beckley: Good enough for long enough for my vote. (1927)
5. Charley Jones: Peak enough to overcome his short career. (1958)
6. Dick Redding: Best unelected Negro Leaguer. (1961)
7. Edd Roush: A thick bat and a good one. (1962)
8. Quincy Trouppe: Best unelected catcher. (1964)
9. Pete Browning: Like Jones, just enough peak to overcome his short career. (1967)
10. Alejandro Oms: A great player, and worthy of election. (1991)
11. Nellie Fox: A great glove for a long time, and a team leader when that meant something. (1971)
12. Tony Perez: Fox spent more time at a key defensive position, otherwise, these two are very close. (1992)
13. Rollie Fingers: Best reliever on the ballot. (1991)
14. Reggie Smith: A very good hitter for a lengthy career. (1988)
15. George Foster: Very similar to Reggie Smith, I don't see how you can vote for one but not the other.

Not on my ballot:

20. Bobby Grich: Lacks the ink scores of Nellie Fox, they're very close, but Grich scores slightly lower for me.
27. Jimmy Wynn: Hall of Very Good player.
66. Charlie Keller: Not my idea of a HoMer. Too short of a career, too little production to merit induction.
NR. Pete Rose: boycotted.

Merry Christmas to all!
   126. rawagman Posted: December 24, 2006 at 05:45 AM (#2267985)
John - I beleive a member of the electorate asked that his ballot be posted for him this year. This should be found in the 1992 discussion thread.
   127. Chris Cobb Posted: December 24, 2006 at 06:00 AM (#2267992)
Fox - Grich was his equal with the glove, and had 100X the offensive value - anyone putting Fox above Grich needs to check theyselves

I agree.

20. Bobby Grich: Lacks the ink scores of Nellie Fox, they're very close, but Grich scores slightly lower for me.

And Fox's "ink scores" make him better than Grich exactly how?

Let me note:

1) Fox was competing in an 8-team league, Grich in a 12 or 14-team league, so ink is harder to come by.
2) A lot of Fox's ink is for accomplishments that aren't all that indicative of merit, e.g. 34 points of gray ink for placing in the top 10 in games 11 times, at bats 12 times, and triples 11 times. This tells us that Fox was durable (in his favor) batted leadoff (neutral), didn't take walks (a minus), and had decent speed (in his favor), but does the fact that Grich gets only 5 points of gray ink from these categories tell us _anything_ meaningful about their real relative merits?
3) It's _obvious_ that Grich was a much more valuable offensive player than Fox: 1072 RC in 5454 outs for Grich to 1144 RC in 7080 outs for Fox. That's a huge, whopping, advantage for Grich.
If you look at outs made vs. runs created, on-base percentage, OPS+, EQA, etc., in comparing Grich to Fox, you see that Grich was much more productive offensively. Grich's offensive value lies in areas that ink either ignores or weights less heavily than much less important measures, e.g. slugging less important than batting average, on-base percentage not counted. Fox leads Grich in career triples, 112 to 47. Fox gets 11 points of gray ink for his triples. Grich leads Fox 224 to 35 in home runs. Grich gets 8 points of gray ink for his home runs.

It just pains me to see Bobby Grich getting ranked below Nellie Fox and getting left off ballots. The man has a good argument to be as good as Rod Carew, who was practically a unanimous #1 pick last year. I know we are going to elect him easily within a few years, so he's going to get a much fairer shake from us than from the HoF, but I wish we could at least have consensus that he was one of the great players of his time. I can understand why some voters are boycotting Pete Rose, although I don't agree with it. I can't understand why some voters are leaving Grich off of their ballots.
   128. Rob_Wood Posted: December 24, 2006 at 07:44 AM (#2268027)
John, Don't worry about hurting my feelings regarding the drafting of the Constitution. With
guidance from Joe, I tried to reflect the purpose and methodology the HOM would be following.
Part of this was to try to capture the group's views on several controversial issues. Our
Constitution is a living document that is modified/clarified on occasion.

If memory serves, I believe the group agreed that contributions a player made as manager
after he retired as a player would not be included in the evaluation of "merit". However,
there was less agreement regarding player-managers. The initial draft did not adequately
capture the group's views and Joe subsequently modified/clarified that issue in the Constitution.

My reading of the current wording is that nobody should give any weight (positive or negative)
to a player-manager's managerial contributions. Voters should give full weight (pos or neg) to
the player-manager's playing contributions. That is, we should "pretend" that the player's
manager is someone else, who happens to have the same name.

Pete Rose is a unique case. He has the gambling stuff, the player-manager stuff, and the
weird personality stuff. I believe he is a legitimate candidate for a one-year boycott;
but that his managerial decisions should not be used against him ... unless you really think
that he was trying to lose games (or otherwise make decisions not in the team's best interests).

One of the guiding lights of the HOM is to fairly evaluate a player's on-field accomplishments,
without delving into the off-field stuff or personality issues. Rose definitely puts us to the
test.
   129. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#2268050)
John - I beleive a member of the electorate asked that his ballot be posted for him this year. This should be found in the 1992 discussion thread.

Are you referring to jimd, Ryan? His ballot was only supposed to be posted if he couldn't do so by 12/26. Were you referring to someone else?
   130. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 02:30 PM (#2268051)
Pete Rose is a unique case. He has the gambling stuff, the player-manager stuff, and the
weird personality stuff. I believe he is a legitimate candidate for a one-year boycott;
but that his managerial decisions should not be used against him ... unless you really think
that he was trying to lose games (or otherwise make decisions not in the team's best interests).


I agree with your interpretation, Rob, and wouldn't deduct anything off of his career if he were still on the ballot in '93. Of course, those last few years hardly do anything for him in my system anyway.

And Fox's "ink scores" make him better than Grich exactly how?

Since we're overwhelmingly sabermetrically inclined as a group, why are we bothering to use black and gray ink anyway? They were created as a way to guess what a HOF voter looked for in a candidate, which for that purpose it succeeds. But for the HoM? Does it have anything for OPS+? OBP? ERA+? Park effects? For our purposes, it just doesn't do the job well and should be discarded, IMO.
   131. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 02:43 PM (#2268053)
It just pains me to see Bobby Grich getting ranked below Nellie Fox and getting left off ballots.

Since Grich was a world-class fielder and was far superior to Fox as a offensive player, I have to agree, Chris. Fox's only real plus was his durability, but Grich was able to create as much career value in far fewer PA (over 2,000 less), which made it much more valuable in the end. IOW, Fox is really not close to Grich.
   132. Daryn Posted: December 24, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2268069)
It just pains me to see Bobby Grich getting ranked below Nellie Fox and getting left off ballots.

I hate to cause you pain Chris, as I respect you as a voter perhaps more than anyone else. But like Oprah, I have Fox mid-ballot and Grich just off. We careerist voters perhaps undervalue the cost of all those extra outs made as a hitter, but those who support Grich and other similar length career middle infielders over Fox seem to ignore the fact that Fox also made many more fielding outs than Grich -- 3 years worth of extra fielding when you take into account length of career and in-season durability. To me, length of career takes on even more importance in glove first positions.

With respect to the offence, clearly Grich wins on rate stats and Fox wins on most counting stats. The difference between real careerists and the rest of the electorate is the relative weight we put on counting stats v. rate stats.

It is only happenstance for me that Fox is on ballot and Grich is off -- they are immensely close in my rankings and if he hadn't come on in the same year as Seaver and Rose, Grich would have only missed my ballot by 1 spot. If that has happened, I would have taken a second look to see if there were a way I could logically get him on ballot.


Notably, Gordon, Boyer and Doerr also never made my ballot.
   133. sunnyday2 Posted: December 24, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#2268080)
Daryn, Fox is on my ballot but it sure sounds me like you vote in part based on number of years played, as distinguished from what the player did during those years. I mean, if a guy has more value in 15 than another guy has in 18, is 18 really > than 15?

I know this is a straw version of your system, but I'm just saying how it sounds.
   134. Brent Posted: December 24, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#2268117)
Rob's comments clarified what I was trying to say in my ballot comment. I already had mentioned that I wasn't boycotting him, and that other than a possible boycott, the Constitution doesn't allow consideration of managerial contributions. BTW, Rob is right that the sentence on managerial contributions was added by Joe later, shortly after I joined the project (during the 1930s elections), after someone listed a player's managerial achievements as a rationale for voting for a player.

>>>> Those were decisions he made as a manager, sure, but they were decisions that directly affected his record as a player. It is that record as a player that is getting discounted. It's hard for me to see how that is illegitimate.

I agree. For my ballot it didn't make any difference, since my system gives Rose, the player, only trivial credit for his play after 1981. But if Rose's decision as manager to give himself additional playing time had been a deciding factor, I would have discounted it.
   135. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 24, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2268133)
Placing Fox higher than Grich is almost as bad as Rose being placed 12th. There's just no logical argument for it.
   136. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2268138)
Placing Fox higher than Grich is almost as bad as Rose being placed 12th. There's just no logical argument for it.

I understand the logic, Melky. I just don't agree with it, since it's based on black and gray ink scores (at least in jwinfrey's case) which have huge problems as formulated now. Which begs the question: has anyone concocted an updated version of black and gray ink scores?
   137. rawagman Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:16 PM (#2268152)
Melky - your view in this matter is very exclusive. There are several arguments that can be made in Fox's favour over Grich. I do have Fox (just) over Grich right now and I can be persuaded to change that. While both were excellent fielders, I am giving (perhaps subjectively) a slight nod to Fox per season. Fox has 25% more career in which to continue adding defensive value.
I also look at ink - not as a deciding factor, but as a potential flag raiser. Grich has very marginal grey ink, which does give me some pause for concern.
Finally - I try to account for some contemporary opinion. Grich has 4 Gold Gloves, to Fox's 3 - but Gold Gloves only started after Fox was already earning them. Let's call that even. Fox was sent to 12 All Star games. Not a deciding factor - but very nice.
Finally, and most importantly for me - in season durability. Fox was one of the best ever as a 2B. Grich was nowhere close. Nellie Fox had 12 seasons with over 600 PA. Bobby Grich amassed 6. Fox with 13 over 570 PA, Grich with 9.
All that being said, Grich is still the next man in line for PHOM status.
   138. rawagman Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:18 PM (#2268155)
john - I was referring to jimd - I couldn't find the quote, so I didn't remember what his cut-off date was.
   139. Rob_Wood Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:38 PM (#2268159)
To chime in on Grich vs Fox, as a confirmed career voter I can admit to testing my rankings with the
following counterfactual argument. If player A (Fox) had a longer career than player B (Grich), while
player B had better rate stats, I try to estimate the "stub" end-of-career stats (e.g., OPS+) that player
B would have had to achieve in order to match the career stats of player A.

For example, if it takes three 100 OPS+ seasons to be appended to Grich's career to equal Fox's career,
then I think it would be clear that Fox would be rated higher by most everybody due to his good defense.
However, if it takes three 50 OPS+ seasons, then I think it would be clear to most that Grich would rightly
be rated higher since the extra seasons would have negative (less than replacement) value.

By my back of the envelope calculations, I estimate that Grich would have had to play for three more seasons
at an OPS+ of -30 to yield Fox's career OPS. By this simple method, it appears that Grich is the better
player insofar as Fox's extra seasons are not very valuable -- in fact have significant negative value.

I have both Fox and Grich on my ballot, but Grich near the top and Fox near the middle. In fact their
relatively close rankings disguise how far apart I think they really are.
   140. Sean Gilman Posted: December 24, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2268171)
I do have Fox (just) over Grich right now and I can be persuaded to change that. While both were excellent fielders, I am giving (perhaps subjectively) a slight nod to Fox per season. Fox has 25% more career in which to continue adding defensive value.

Players' defensive ability follows the same patterns as the rest of their abilities does it not? Do we think that Fox at the tail of his career was as good as Fox in his prime? Just how valuable were those last few seasons, defensively?
   141. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: December 24, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#2268214)
Melky - your view in this matter is very exclusive. There are several arguments that can be made in Fox's favour over Grich. I do have Fox (just) over Grich right now and I can be persuaded to change that. While both were excellent fielders, I am giving (perhaps subjectively) a slight nod to Fox per season. Fox has 25% more career in which to continue adding defensive value.


Really? Several arguments? Seems to me there's only one, and an awfully misguided one at that - specifically the length of Fox's career, which in turn (with league size a mitigating factor), contributes to the ink scores. To echo Sean Gilman's thought, are you really sure that Fox was as good with the glove in the twilight of his career as he was in his prime? That seems silly to me. For Fox, with his OPS + in the 90's, to be considered in the same galaxy offensively as Grich, there needs to be some sort of ink other than longevity/durability ink I'm missing here. And in their respective peaks/primes, Grich was every bit Fox's equal with the leather. I can see how career voters may have the two close, but blind faith in ink scores is really the only justification for having Fox above Grich.
   142. Chris Cobb Posted: December 24, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2268222)
Players' defensive ability follows the same patterns as the rest of their abilities does it not? Do we think that Fox at the tail of his career was as good as Fox in his prime? Just how valuable were those last few seasons, defensively?

In defense of Fox's defense, both WARP and win shares agree that Fox continued to be good defensively right up to the end of his career: he earns strong fws totals through 1964, and WARP sees him as an average defensive second basemen, overall, 1961-64. The problem is that he was only slightly above replacement level as a hitter.

And that, I think, is the argument against Fox's career being more valuable because it was longer. I take account of career value in my system, but I do so by means of comprehensive metrics, not counting stats or secondary counting stats like ink scores. By both WARP and win shares, Grich has more career value than Fox, even though he didn't play as many games. Fox's durability and longevity are pluses for him, but they don't actually make him as good as Grich.

Rob Wood's OPS analysis does a great job of illustrating the heart of the issue: those who are ranking Fox ahead of Grich seem not to be considering the possibility that Grich was so much better offensively than Fox that he had considerably more offensive value even though his career was notably shorter, but that is in fact the case. Fox had 4.5 seasons, 1949-50, 1961-63, in which he had almost no offensive value above replacement. If he had performed as a hitter during those 4.5 seasons at a level close to his prime, then he would have a serious career argument against Grich, but he didn't. He had fielding value (WS and WARP differ as to how much), but his batting value was very low (OPS+ scores of 77, 75, 72, 69, and 58).

To try to put sunnyday2's point in a slightly less strawman fashion: I have no objection to voters stressing career value. I have in fact recently argued that the electorate as a whole is not as attentive to career value as they should be. I am, however, concerned when it looks to me that career voters are determining career merit in ways that do not correspond reasonably closely to career _value_. I do not see any evidence to suggest that Fox had more career value than Grich.
   143. Howie Menckel Posted: December 24, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2268224)
I handle this right in line with Rob Wood's thinking, including their relative ranks.
   144. OCF Posted: December 25, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#2268241)
Strictly offense, in my system, which is based on RCAA and makes allowances for context. Comparing Fox, Grich, and for something completely different, George Foster. (jhwinfrey, whose ballot started this argument, is the only one so far to have Foster on his ballot):

Fox    45 31 22 20 19  9  7  5  3  0  0 ----9-11-15-23-24
Grich  39 38 37 36 34 33 33 23 22 19 16 10  6  4  2  2 
-5
Foster 58 46 45 40 37 32 30 21 11  7  4  2  1 
----8-13 


Fox did have a very nice peak as an offensive player, including a single year (1957) that I rank as better offensively than any single year of Grich's. But Grich had a very flat-topped peak, in which it is difficult to pick out his best years. Grich was a productive offensive player for his entire career; Fox has an "anti-peak," a substantial number of years in which he was far below an average offensive player. And Foster? Yes he did have a 5-year offensive peak to surpass the second basemen (of course, as a left fielder, he'd better have something to show there). But out in the second 5 years, Grich was the better hitter. And to the extent that Foster had career value, he was padding with some rather weak stuff at the end.

---

An oddity in the voting: it's too early to tally it up yet, as we still have over a dozen ballots yet to be cast, but Grich's average ranking is lower among boycotters than among non-boycotters even though boycotters have an extra space available at the top.
   145. OCF Posted: December 25, 2006 at 12:59 AM (#2268249)
I have another component of that RCAA-based system in which I compare not to average but to 75% of average. That makes it something closer to a counting stat. Several second basemen, career, in this "above 75%" system (scaled by a factor of 10 from the previous post):

Hornsby: 126
Collins: 126
Morgan: 110
Carew: 87 (but not all at 2B)
Gehringer: 65
Doyle: 59
Frisch: 59
Grich: 58
J. Robinson: 52 (so you can pile this up even in a short career if the peak is high enough)
Herman: 52
Lazzeri: 50
Gordon: 50
Evers: 49 (!)
Doerr: 48
Childs: 47
Huggins: 39
Fox: 38
Stanky: 33
Schoendienst: 31

Some 3B and 3B/hybrids:

Hack: 65 (adjust down slightly for war conditions)
Santo: 64
Elliott: 57
Bando: 55
B. Robinson: 53 (eliminating the years he was below 75%)
Harrah: 52
Leach: 51
B. Robinson: 50 (counting everything)
McGraw: 50
Boyer: 48
Traynor: 41
J. Collins 39
   146. yest Posted: December 25, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2268386)
things that separate Fox from Grich

1. Grich never had a season like 1959
2. Fox was a much better defender outside of Grich's defensive peak
   147. Esteban Rivera Posted: December 25, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#2268415)
1992 Ballot:
Merry Christmas to all! (Rose gets the cold shoulder for this year.)

1. Tom Seaver – Tops this year’s ballot. Just an amazing pitcher. Definite top ten of all-time.

2. Pete Browning - Was a heck of a hitter and did it under tremendous duress. I buy the "greatness can't take full advantage off lower competition" idea. Proved he could hold his own in the Player's League.

3. Bobby Grich - Underated during his playing days. Worthy of induction.

4. Hugh Duffy - His credentials are that he was for a time one of the best players and he produced during the 90's. Was an outstanding defensive outfielder.

5. Edd Roush – Appears to be an error of omission. With considerations for hold out credit.

6. Jake Beckley - The career man. What he accomplished during his career is enough to offset the lack of peak, so to speak.

7. Tony Perez - See him similar to Beckley in terms of value. His prime/career value is pretty good. Starts of here.

8. Charley Jones – Fantastic hitter from the 19th century. Gets some credit for blacklisting from me.

9. Mickey Welch - The 300 game winner. The discussion of the past couple of “years” has made me realize that Welch should be a HOMer. Is not that far behind Keefe.

10. Bill Monroe - Seems to be one of the best second basemen of his time.

11. Roger Bresnahan - I believe his versatility is a major plus in his case. I can understand not giving him credit if you think his playing time at other positions was worthless but when he was an outfielder he was one of the best ones in the league.

12. Nellie Fox – Outstanding defense and hitting production for a good length of time.

13. Bob Johnson – Have been overlooking Indian Bob. PCL credit counterbalances any war discounts.

14. Rollie Fingers – Given some post-season credit. His career taken all together, is around the bubble.

15. Vic Willis – Jumps into the top 20. Blame the cohort analysis for making me take another look at Vic.

16. Burleigh Grimes - Has enough big seasons and career bulk to edge him over other similar candidates.

17. Pie Traynor - I'll agree that he is not as great as the praises make him out to be but he still has a worthy resume.

18. Quincey Trouppe – All evidence points to him being a good to great hitter for his position and a solid if not good catcher. Works for me

19. Gavvy Cravath – One of the enigmas in terms of career interpretation. His career in the majors combined with my interpretation of the other information places him here.

20. Tony Lazzeri – Agree with others that he has been somewhat overlooked by the electorate. Given credit for time in the PCL.

Not on ballot but made Top 10:

Jimmy Wynn – In my top 30.

Charlie Keller – Gets some credit but not enough to overcome the playing time issues to get him on my ballot. In my top 25.
   148. Jeff M Posted: December 25, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2268447)
1992 Ballot

1. Seaver, Tom – I thought the battle with Rose would be closer, but it’s actually a cakewalk. I’m sorry I didn’t get to see him pitch during his prime, because he put up some serious numbers.

2. Rose, Pete – My least favorite player of all time, but that’s not factored in. Nor is his gambling. You could pencil him into the top 10 each year in hits, doubles and runs, but some of that was dependent on batting order and the studs hitting behind him. A guy like this should have walked more, though.

3. Oms, Alejandro – His closest comps appear to be Manush, Sisler and Wheat. All are already in the HoM and Oms played a more important defensive position than Sisler.

4. Jones, Charley – With all the extra credit given for minor league seasons, military service, etc., I finally broke down and gave Jones conservative credit for blacklisted seasons. He has been on my ballot every year even without the extra credit, and the extra credit didn’t change his ranking much.

5. Browning, Pete – He proved in the PL that he was no fluke. I don’t understand the arguments about his defense, since defense in the outfield really contributes little to the overall picture. Has been in my PHoM for most of the life of this project. How is it that Browning and Jones are only on 1/3 of the ballots?

6. Roush, Edd - 300+ WS; 100+ WARP1; normalized .322/.368/.444; good grey ink; and an above average defender in the outfield.

7. Wilson, Artie – A fine defensive shortstop who outhits the average hitter by about 20% has to be on the ballot.

8. Duffy, Hugh – A very good outfielder who hit approximately 40% better than the rest of the league. Duffy’s grey ink dips when you park adjust, but he still fares well overall. Not as good offensively as Billy Williams, but not as far behind as I would have thought. Given his position in the outfield, I rank him higher than Williams.

9. Dean, Dizzy -- Hard to get this high a ballot position with only five or so seasons, but Dean is the exception.

10. Fingers, Rollie – One of the few relief pitchers from this era that arguably deserves a spot in the HoM. One of the first consistently good relievers used as a true closer.

11. Cuyler, Kiki – Talk about under the radar. Take another look at Kiki. Most of his comps are HoMers. I’ve got him around.316/.380/.463 even after normalizing away some of those high league run scoring years.

12. Long, Herman – From the dustbin, a 300+ aWS & 130+ aWARP1 shortstop.

13. Maranville, Rabbit –Evidence that my system might treat Ozzie Smith right.

14. Traynor, Pie – Numbers wouldn’t qualify at 3b today, but at the time he was a very good player. Not at HoM level, in my opinion.

15. McGraw, John -- Has always lingered near the bottom of the ballot because of that OBP.

Required Disclosure(s):

Trouppe, Quincy – Give me a break! He goes from #11 to #6 without any more discussion? It’s been five months since anyone added anything to the Trouppe thread. And the only real discussion in last year’s “Ballot Discussion” was from DL, who said about Clarkson “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.” Did any of this get resolved when I wasn't looking, or is it just "I like Trouppe"?

Wynn, Jimmy – Barely in my consideration set. Can’t give him much credit for being a centerfielder because he probably shouldn’t have been there. He seems like a candidate only for extreme peak voters, and even then it seems a stretch to consider him as a truly great player, even as a backlogger.

Fox, Nellie – Been on and off the ballot. He was pretty much tied with Boyer in my system. If Boyer's in, then Fox is too.

Keller, Charlie – Barely off of this ballot. Another solid year and he’s in the middle of the ballot. I certainly don’t doubt his abilities. He's much better than Wynn, even with the shortened career.

Beckley, Jake – Good long career numbers, but not cream of the crop.
   149. Andrew M Posted: December 25, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2268475)
1991 Ballot

Happy holidays, everyone.

1. (new) Tom Seaver. One of the best.

2. (new) Pete Rose. I’d just as soon elect him as soon as possible and move on.

3. (new) Bobby Grich. Given my placement of Fox and Doyle, I couldn’t put him any lower. Even if I give Doyle a slight edge in hitting and Fox an edge in career length and (maybe) fielding, Grich was the better all around player.

4. (3) Nellie Fox. Durable (never had fewer than 600 ABs between 1951-1962), consistent, got on base a lot, and was excellent fielder at an important defensive position for more than 2300 games. 94 OPS+ is OBP heavy and dragged down by some poor years at the very beginning and end of his career.

5. (4) Larry Doyle. Career OPS+ of 126, and he was consistently in the NL top 10 in HRs and slugging pct. He also won an MVP award and was an 8-time STATS NL all-star. Best offensive player on the best offensive team in the league 1911-1913. By all accounts played extremely hard and captained the team for several years. I’m not convinced that his defense was as bad as BP suggests.

6. (5) Edd Roush. There are some peculiar things about his career—holdouts, the Federal League, etc. To me his 5 year peak between 1917-1921 where he was in the top 4 in OPS+ and playing A-level CF (according to Win Shares—WARP thinks less of his fielding) impresses me more than the other guys who have careers of comparable length.

7. (6) Charlie Keller. Only 4600 plate appearances. His rate stats benefit from not having a real decline phase, but there aren’t many guys who hit like he did through age 30.

8. (7) Dick Redding. Long career, decent peak. I’m not completely sold on him, but I don’t think he’s far off Jenkins.

9. (8) Tommy Bridges. Like Billy Pierce, he’s not really a peak or career candidate. His top ERA+ season is 147, but he had six seasons between 140 and 147—and ten seasons in which he was in the top 10 in the AL. And while he wasn’t much of a workhorse, he did finish in the top 10 in innings five times.

10. (9) Bob Johnson. Career OPS+ 138, 10 times in AL top 10. Comparable to Medwick and Averill in the lower tier of HoM OFs.

11. (11) Jimmy Wynn. Another unusual, relatively brief, career, but he got on base a ton, hit for power, seems to have been a decent fielder, and had one of the best of all nicknames.

12. (12) Quincy Trouppe. I don’t have much of a sense of his defense, but assuming he was at least average, his hitting ability is enough to make him the highest rated catcher on my ballot.

13. (13) Tommie Leach. Long career, excellent fielder at both CF and 3B. Hit enough for 3B.

14. (14) George J. Burns. Arguably the best NL OF of the 1910s. Rarely missed a game, had 3 MVP caliber seasons (1914, 1917, 1919) and averaged close to 27 Win Shares a season for a decade.

15. (15) Dave Bancroft. Another guy I’ve looked at again and found ballot-worthy. Sort of a lesser version of Nellie Fox--Great glove at SS, league average hitter, walked a lot. Not as durable as Fox.

Next 15 (not necessarily in order)
Bob Elliott
Luis Tiant
Phil Rizzuto
Bucky Walters
Ken Singleton
Rollie Fingers
Alejandro Oms
George Van Haltren
Jimmy Ryan
Reggie Smith
Vern Stephens
Bobby Bonds
Herman Long
Tony Perez
Jake Beckley

Required Disclosures:
Rollie Fingers—Not sold on him yet
Jake Beckley—Around 25-30 for me. Not that I dislike him, there are just a bunch of guys I like better. Comparisions with Rose and Perez are interesting.
   150. DCW3 Posted: December 25, 2006 at 08:18 PM (#2268479)
1. Grich never had a season like 1959

Well, he never had a season *exactly* like Fox's 1959, true. But he probably had ten seasons that were as good or better.
   151. rawagman Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:31 PM (#2268805)
45 ballots are in - who still hasn't voted?
   152. OCF Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:52 PM (#2268808)
I have 44 ballots in, not 45.

Last year's voters not in yet: dan b, Devin McCullen, jimd, Joe Dimino, Max Parkinson, Michael Bass, mulder & scully, Pedro Feliz Navidad, Tom D, Trevor P. Also 1990 voters Craig K, fra paolo, rdfc, and Tiboreau, and 1989 voter Ardo.
   153. karlmagnus Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#2268811)
Jeff M, what about Grich? And isn't Grich a "required disclosure?"
   154. Howie Menckel Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#2268818)
Grich is not technically required, but really he should be at least mentioned.
   155. sunnyday2 Posted: December 26, 2006 at 05:03 PM (#2268821)
A newbie actually *cannot* be a required disclosure by definition, as required disclosures are defined by their position in last year's results.
   156. OCF Posted: December 26, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#2268823)
Jeff M, re Rose: A guy like this should have walked more, though.

Huh? Seven times in the top 10 in the league in walks drawn, (plus plenty of HBP), all without being a home run hitter. He was .042 above league in BA and .044 above league in OBP. Not sure what you're looking for. (Of course, Jeff placed Rose second anyway, so it's a throwaway comment - just an odd one.)

And yeah, while we're at it, what about Grich?
   157. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:23 PM (#2268861)
Grich is not technically required, but really he should be at least mentioned.

Yeah, a comment as to why he was left off would be nice.
   158. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:31 PM (#2268863)
2. Fox was a much better defender outside of Grich's defensive peak

Not nearly as much as Grich dominated Fox offensively.
   159. Howie Menckel Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2268865)
I'm looking for a pithy Grich/Grinch comment from the Christmas ballot, whether he gets elected or not :)
   160. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2268867)
I have 44 ballots in, not 45.

Same here, OCF.

An oddity in the voting: it's too early to tally it up yet, as we still have over a dozen ballots yet to be cast, but Grich's average ranking is lower among boycotters than among non-boycotters even though boycotters have an extra space available at the top.

I would have to chalk that up to just mere coincidence.
   161. Arrieta, Gentile Arrieta Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:48 PM (#2268871)
Happy Boxing Day, all! Here we go:



John Dowd was the featured speaker at the Bob Davids SABR chapter regional meeting a few years ago. He said, I believe in response to a question, that they did have some evidence of Rose’s betting on the game while still a player. That’d be enough by itself for me to boycott Rose, but there’s so much more. I know what Daffy Duck would call him. :-)

1992 ballot:

1. Tom Seaver. sp: This is inner-circle stuff. Three Cys, 13 prime seasons, 3rd-best modern warp3, 6th-best modern WS, 300 wins, etc., etc. He’d be first regardless of boycott. (eligible 1992, PHOM)

2. Bobby Grich, 2b: 5 STATS AS, 10 prime seasons, grade A fielder. I have him 6th at his position to date. (eligible 1992, PHOM)

3. Rollie Fingers, rp: 2nd or 3rd best reliever to date, either just ahead or just behind the still-active Gossage. Fingers is the all-time saves leader, but Jeff Reardon is closing in. The ace reliever has evolved into the closer, but is this an intelligent design? ;-) (eligible 1991, PHOM)

4. Roger Bresnahan, c: Great player whose versatility illustrates his quality. (eligible 1921, PHOM 1929)

5. Nellie Fox, 2b: 94 OPS+ is a little off-putting, but he was a top-notch defender, durable, very valuable to the White Sox offensively and defensively. 8 all-star caliber seasons. (eligible 1971, PHOM 1977)

6. Burleigh Grimes, sp: 270 wins, .560 W%, Retro-Cy, 5 STATS AS, 9 all-star quality seasons. (eligible 1940, PHOM 1942)

7. Carl Mays, sp: Good peak candidate, pretty good hitter. (eligible 1935, PHOM 1986)

8. Pie Traynor, 3b: Largely forgotten here, but had 11 quality seasons and was a 6-time STATS all-star. (eligible 1941, PHOM 1987)

9. Orlando Cepeda, 1b: Has the peak/prime edge over Perez and Cash, MVP (whether deserved or not). (eligible 1980)

10. Bobby Bonds, rf: I hadn’t really looked closely at him at first. I’m more impressed with him than Wynn, so I’m slotting him around where Jimmy had been. (eligible 1987)

11. Lefty Gomez, sp: Low innings total, but a terrific peak, more career than Dean, good black & gray ink, HOFS, HOFM, W-L, ERA+. Yes, he pitched for a lot of good teams. I think he had something to do with them being good. (eligible 1948)

12. Bob Johnson, lf: The career isn’t overly long, the peak isn’t outstanding, but he was one of the top outfielders in his league almost every year. 6 STATS all-star teams, 11 quality seasons. If we discount 10% for wartime performance, it’s 5.9 and 10.8 respectively. ;-) (eligible 1951)

13. Vern Stephens, ss: Positional balance puts him on -- I’ve been neglecting shortstops somehow, and he looks like the best of that field. (eligible 1961)

14. Pete Browning, cf: Monster hitter, pretty monstrous on defense. 1876-1991, he’s 33rd all-time in RCAA, 32nd in RCAP. This in a relatively short career. This also with no adjustments up for schedule or down for league quality. (eligible 1899, PHOM 1927)

15. Tony Perez, 1b/3b: Less peak than Cepeda or Cash, more than you-know-who. Bonus for versatility -- four all-star quality seasons at 3b, maybe a tougher position than 1890s 1b (if such a thing is possible). :-) (eligible 1992)

Required comments:
Edd Roush: One reason for his resurgence seems to be giving him credit for his mini-, midi- and maxi-holdouts. .I’m not inclined in that direction, so I see in-season durability issues and him hurting his team by his absences. I’m also not wowed by his numbers in context of the time.
Charlie Keller: Even if I credit ~240 games of good performance in ’44-’45 (my what-ifs for wartime don’t go so far as imagining a peak), he comes up short on career value. Only 7 full-time seasons including those, and a precipitous decline after WW2. No credit pre-1939 -- lots of people are “blocked” at ages 20-21.
Jimmy Wynn: Pretty good peak, career, but I’m not as impressed as others, and think the home-park business is overstated. His home/road numbers don’t seem to support it.
Quincy Trouppe: His total absence from the HOF consideration set is most bothersome to me. As others have pointed out, there’s more speculation involved in his MLEs than in those of other players we’ve considered.
Jake Beckley: Very good for a long time. He went into my PHOM in ’26, but I’ve cooled off on him since.
   162. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2268877)
I know what Daffy Duck would call him. :-)

I also know that Rose would have a face full of spit when Daffy said it to him. :-)
   163. mulder & scully Posted: December 26, 2006 at 08:51 PM (#2268900)
1. Tom Seaver (PHOM 1992) – best pitcher of his generation, a top 10 of all time

2. Bobby Grich (PHOM 1992) – A top 10 second baseman when he retired. I like him better than Carew.

3. Mickey Welch (PHOM 1901): The weight of the evidence.

4. Charley Jones (PHOM 1906): The weight of the evidence. A top 10 position player from 1876 to 1885. Please see the Keltner List on his thread.

5. Charlie Keller (PHOM 1957): MVP level play for 6 straight years with 1.66 years of War credit. Only DiMaggio, Williams, and Musial were better in the 1940s before he hurt his back. I have him as the 13th best left fielder

6. Quincy Troupe (PHOM 1960): A great hitting catcher whose nomadic career has done wonders to hide his value. I ask the many voters who trust the MLEs of elected or balloted NeLers to look again at Troupe. 10th best catcher of all time as of 1980.

7. Pete Browning (PHOM 1921): Hitter. Ranks at the top of a group of 5 center fielders between 13th and 17th all-time.

8. Hugh Duffy (PHOM 1919): A key member of the best team of the 1890s. Please see the Keltner List for him.

9. Bucky Walters (PHOM 1958): Best peak available (tied with Dean) among eligible white pitchers.

10. Tommy Leach (PHOM 1966): Great defense. Good hitting at two key defensive positions. A key player in one of the best defensive teams ever.

11. Gavy Cravath (PHOM 1979): Credit for 1909, 1910, 1911. All players, All times. All-Star 5 times by STATS and Win Shares. A top 10 player in either league from 1909-1911 while with Minneapolis.

12. Vic Willis (PHOM 1942): Take another look. 4 times one of the top 2 pitchers in the National League. Best in NL in 1899 and 1901, 2nd in 1902 and 1906.

13. Dobie Moore (PHOM 1967): Banks before Banks. My system finds them quite comparable. In a knot between 11th and 15th among shortstops through 1980 with Glasscock, Reese, Banks, and Jennings – all HoMers.

14. Jimmy Wynn (PHOM 1984): 4 times a top 6 player in the stronger NL, 4 times top 7 in majors. Best centerfielder eligible from Mays until ... Dale Murphy?

15. George Burns (PHOM 1938): Best leadoff hitter of the 1910s NL. Overlooked.
   164. mulder & scully Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2268907)
16. Edd Roush (PHOM 1940)
17. Alejandro Ohms (PHOM 1964):
18. Rollie Fingers: I’m still not sure about him. Without him, the A’s don’t win at least one World Series. He was very durable for a very long time. He didn’t have the peak of a Gossage or a Hiller or a Sutter. Could move up or down in near future.
19. Frank Chance (PHOM 1985):
20: Cooper, Wilbur (PHOM 1985):
21: Burleigh Grimes (PHOM 1961):
22. Don Newcombe:
23. Roger Bresnahan (PHOM 1987):
24. Larry Doyle (PHOM 1987):
25. Jack Fournier:
26. Frank Howard:
27. Luke Easter:
28. Herman Long:
29. Dick Redding (PHOM 1975):
30. Al Rosen:
31. Ken Singleton:
32: Tony Perez: Peak not high enough, Prime not high enough, seasonal not high enough and not enough time at a key defensive position to counter-balance the above.
32. Orlando Cepeda:
33. Vern Stephens:
34. Elston Howard:
35. Sal Bando:
36. Dizzy Dean:
37. Wally Berger:
38. John McGraw:
39. Norm Cash:
40. Nellie Fox: He certainly stood out over the other second basemen of his era. Too bad it wasn't that difficult.
Top 10 in league in 1952, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 (11th in 1951, 1953): .
Rank in league/majors: 10th t/24th t, 8th t/14th t, 5th/14th t, 3rd/6th, 10th t/17th t, 1st t/5th t, 9th t/22nd t,
Best 2b in league in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960. In majors in 1955, 1957, 1959, 1960 t.

41. Wally Schang:
42. Bob Elliott:
43. Jack Stivetts:
44. George Van Haltren (PHOM 1939):
45. Mike Tiernan:
46. Luis Tiant:
47. Sal Maglie:
48. Carl Mays:
49. Monroe, Bill:
50. George Scales:
51. Hippo Vaughn:
52. Thurman Munson:
53. Gene Tenace:
54. Lon Warneke:
55. Bus Clarkson:
56. Urban Shocker:
57. Fielder Jones:
58. Denny Lyons:
59. Ed Williamson:
60: Bobby Bonds:

Others:
Jake Beckley: No, for all the reasons I've said before.

Newbies:
Pete Rose: Protest or he'd fight it out with Grich.
Cesar Cedeno: Not enough career to go with the great early start.
Toby Harrah: Not a good enough player. Peak/prime/career/or a good fielder
George Foster: Not enough career or prime to go with his few great years.
Vida Blue: A great year then he seems to have lost his strikeout pitch and his ability to dominate. Good for many years.
   165. OCF Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:26 PM (#2268915)
mulder & scully: We elected Dobie Moore. How should we count 13/14/15 on your ballot - as Wynn/Burns/Roush ?
   166. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2268922)
Unless he pops in, here's jimd's ballot:

The plan is to be back in time to cast a full ballot on 12/26.
Should events cause that to not be the case, this ballot may be used in its stead.

01) Tom Seaver -- terrific
02) Bobby Grich -- nearly a Frankie Frisch equivalent in my system
[Pete Rose -- boycott for obvious reasons; I agree with John Murphy here]
03) Bucky Walters
04) Jimmy Wynn
05) Ken Singleton
06) Jim Kaat
07) Fielder Jones
08) Bobby Bonds
09) Fred Dunlap
10) Pie Traynor
11) Luis Tiant
12) Elston Howard
13) Thurman Munson
14) Tony Perez -- not surprising that he was a good fielder at 1b; most conversions from third are
15) Dave Bancroft

Foster and Blue both have cases that might make them ballot-worthy on a more peak-oriented ballot than mine is.
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2268926)
BTW, all ballots need to be in no later than 8 PM EDT. At this point, I wont accept any past that point, since the battle for the second spot is intensifying.
   168. jimd Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#2268934)
I'm back and here's my 1992 ballot, slightly revised. (Fingers on, Bancroft off.)

Ballot for 1992 (cast)

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

I am a peak/prime/career voter. Prime tends to dominate the ballot as Career has an easier time of it in HOM elections, and short Peaks don't get too far in my system.

1) T. SEAVER -- ! Prime 1967-78. Best player candidate by WARP in 1971. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1967, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975; WS adds 1969, 1977, 1981. Other star seasons include 1968, 1972, 1976, 1978, 1985. Honarable Mention (HM) in 1974.

2) B. GRICH -- Great two-way player; bypassed for some reason by the HOF. Overshadowed by Joe Morgan early in his career. Prime 1972-85. Best player candidate by WARP in 1981. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1979 and 1981; WARP adds 1980. Other star seasons include 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985; also 1972 at SS.

[ p. rose ] -- boycotted. In no season was he ever a WS/WARP consensus "best-player in MLB at his position". Prime 1965-1981. Best player candidate by WS in 1969. 1st-team MLB All-Star by WS only in 1966 (2B), 1972 (LF), 1975 and 1978 (3B). Other star seasons include 1965 (2B), 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 (RF), 1967, 1973, 1974 (LF), 1976, 1977 (3B), 1979, 1981 (1B).

3) B. WALTERS -- Best of the backlog. Prime 1939-44. Best player in 1939; candidate in 1940 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1939, 1941, 1944; WS adds 1940. Other star seasons include 1936 and 1942.

4) J. WYNN -- Splitting hairs between him and Singleton. Prime 1965-1975. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1968, 1969, 1974, plus 1972 in RF; WARP adds 1970, WS adds 1967. Other star seasons include 1965, 1975.

5) K. SINGLETON -- Better peak than Bonds; not quite as much prime as Wynn. Prime 1973-81. Best player candidate 1977, WS adds 1979. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1975 and 1977. Other star seasons include 1973, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981; also 1976 in LF.

6) J. KAAT -- Belongs. 14 HOM "bats" were born 1893-1903 (Sisler, Heilmann, Ruth, Torriente, Charleston, Terry, Goslin, Suttles, Stearnes, Averill, Simmons, Waner, Bell, Gehrig); don't tell me that 10 pitchers born 1938-48 are too many.Prime 1961-1975. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1962; WS adds 1966. Other star seasons include 1968, 1974, 1975. HM in 1961, 1969, 1971.

7) F. JONES -- Still an all-star player when he walked away. I still think he rates ahead of Ashburn, but it's close. Prime 1900-08. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1908; WARP adds 1902 and 1907. Other star seasons include 1900, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906.

8) B. BONDS -- Scored much higher than I thought he would. Very nice prime; marginal on career. Those who go to extreme either way will miss him. Prime 1969-77. Best player candidate 1970 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1970; WARP adds 1971 and 1973. Other star seasons include 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978. HM in 1979.

9) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; bypassed for some reason. Amibidextrous, too. Reportedly could catch and throw equally well with either hand. Useful in this era before modern fielding gloves forced a player to choose one hand for each. Prime 1880-86. Best Player candidate 1880-81 (WARP). 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1880, 1881; WARP adds 1882, 1883, and 1885. 1884 in the UA is hard to evaluate but may also be #1. Other star seasons include 1886. May be eligible for MiL credit pre-1880.

10) P. TRAYNOR -- I see the HOM as being somewhat heavy on "bats" (OF/1B) and went to a system organized around position groups (arms/bats/gloves). Traynor was the major beneficiary of the reorg. Prime 1923-33. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1923, 1925, 1927, 1931; WS adds 1929, 1932, 1933. Other star seasons include 1926. HM in 1928 and 1930.

11) L. TIANT -- Pitching candidate very close to the in/out line. Win Shares does not like him. Tended to alternate good years (even) and off years (odd). Prime 1966-1978. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1968, 1974; WS adds 1976. Other star seasons include 1972 and 1973. Honorable Mention in 1966 and 1978.

12) E. HOWARD -- It's close, but I have him ahead of Freehan. Prime 19??-64. 1st-team MLB All-Star (Ca) in 1961, 1963, 1964. Other star seasons include 1962. HM in 1958.

13) T. MUNSON -- Close to Howard and Freehan. Don't understand the lack of support. Prime 1970-78. 1st-team MLB All-Star (Ca) 1976; WARP adds 1973. Other star seasons include 1970, 1975, 1977. HM in 1971, 1972, 1978.

14) T. PEREZ -- Better 3B than expected. Important component of the Reds prior to the arrival of Joe Morgan. Prime 1967-1975. Best player candidate 1970 by Win Shares. 1st-team MLB All-Start (3B) in 1970; WS adds 1973 at 1B. Other star seasons include 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971 (3B), and 1972 at 1B. HM in 1974, 1975, 1977 (1B).

15) R. FINGERS -- Doesn't score well in my system, but that's because relievers have problems in both WS and WARP, on which my All-Star system is based. I had similar problems with Wilhelm. Tentative placement, based on the work of Joe Dimino and Chris Cobb.

16) D. BANCROFT -- See Traynor. Prime 1916-22. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) 1920 and 1921; WS adds 1922. Other star seasons include 1916, 1917, 1918, 1925, 1926.

17) B. VEACH -- Good peak relative to great competition. Prime 1914-22. 1st-team MLB All-Star (LF) in 1915; WARP adds 1916, 1917. Other star seasons include 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922. HM in 1914 and 1918.

18) B. MAZEROSKI -- Prime 1957-66. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) 1960 and 1964; WARP adds 1958. Other star seasons include 1962, 1963, 1966. HM in 1957, 1961, 1965.

19) R. MARANVILLE -- Better WARP career than Beckley. Where's the luv from the career voters? Prime 1913-22. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) in 1914 and 1916 by WS. Other star seasons include 1913, 1915, 1917, 1919, 1921, 1922, and 1929. WWI service in 1918.

20) N. FOX -- Prime 1951-60. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1957 and 1958; WS adds 1955 and 1960. Other star seasons include 1951, 1952, 1954, 1958. HM in 1953.

Just missing the cut are:
21-22) Dizzy Dean, Dizzy Trout,
23-24) Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk,
25-26) Quincy Trouppe, Hugh Duffy,
27-28) Norm Cash, Jake Beckley,
29-30) Dick Redding, Wilbur Wood,
31-32) Bob Johnson, Jim McCormick,
33-34) Edd Roush, Charley Jones,

Keller: peak is not high enough, career is not long enough, when compared to other marginal OFers.

I trust that those who say, in their defense of Pete Browning, that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to discounting players in weak leagues, are giving Fred Dunlap the benefit of the same doubt when it comes to 1884.
   169. Michael Bass Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:48 PM (#2268946)
I use WARP3 as my primary tool, with mental adjustments to downgrade (not eliminate, but downgrade) the timeline. I prefer gloves with moderate bats to bats with terrible gloves; both Stargell and Killebrew are not in my PHOM, though they're in the queue. I'm peak-oriented, but my system is much more friendly to long career candidates than it once was, when those long careers stand out, or have an extended prime, if not an outstanding peaks.

PHOM this year is Seaver and Rose.


1. Tom Seaver (PHOM 1992) - Comfortably #1, closer than you'd think on career value to Rose, and the higher you set your replacement level, the closer he gets. Blows Rose away in peak/prime value. For post-WW2 pitchers, only Clemens and Spahn are better, I think; Maddux is a virtual tie.

2. Pete Rose (PHOM 1992) - Overrated by history of course due to the hits record, but he is probably around 50-60 on the alltime list. I stand by my claim of peakless, primarily because I can't think of one other player I'd put in my top 100 that had more % of his value in his pure career than Rose. What makes his case is his consistency, a ridiculous number of years where he churned out quality (though not standout) value. Farther ahead of Grich than I would have thought going in.

3. Bobby Grich - Easy #3, well behind Rose, well ahead of the backlog. I actually have him rated nearly identical in "score" to Carew, though that and a half-sharing of position are the only things similar about them. I'd classify him as a prime candidate, and he has more peak than Rose. Rose kills him on career, though.

4. Fred Dunlap (PHOM 1926) - I'm close to alone on this one. My case for him is simple, he was one of baseball's best players for 6 straight years. Win shares underrates him, just as it overrates pitchers from the era. Very good hitter, great fielder from an era when fielding meant more.

5. Bob Elliot (PHOM 1968) - Never understood the lack of love for him. I have always viewed him as very close, just short of Stan Hack. This time around, I liked Hack a lot, so Elliot slots in very highly, as we're real deep into the backlog at this point.

6. Bob Johnson (PHOM 1971) - Maybe the foremost all-prime career. Gets no minor league credit despite his late start (it was investigated at the time, he was just a late bloomer). Like Elliot takes a slight minus from his raw stats for the inflated 44-45 years when they were playing with a bunch of AA guys. Clockwork hitter for 12 of his 13 years.

7. Phil Rizzuto (PHOM 1972) - Scooter is the first pure glove man on my ballot; and outstanding shortstop with an average bat (MVP level the year he was more than an average bat). Add in 3 years of war credit (which came right in the middle of his best years), and you get him to this spot.

8. Quincy Trouppe (PHOM 1973) - All evidence points to a very strong bat for a catcher. He would have to be a horrible fielder to not make my ballot given what I believe of his bat, and there's no evidence he was horrible; probably a solid C.

9. Rabbit Maranville (PHOM 1976) - Rizzuto for an earlier generation. Longer career (gets nearly a year of war credit), doesn't have the one year peak of Rizzuto, and was a moderately worse hitter. But an amazing fielder forever. I'll be a big Ozzie supporter, and this guy was Ozzie-lite.

10. Bucky Walters (PHOM 1979) - Had a very nice peak just before the war, and some shoulder seasons before that and during the war.

11. Dick Redding (PHOM 1981) - Had a nice career length, and the numbers indicate a strong peak as well. Not long enough career or high enough peak to go higher than this, but enough of both to land here.

12. Urban Shocker (PHOM 1942) - Nice prime, nice 1920-1923 peak, all in the strong league at the time.

13. Burleigh Grimes (PHOM 1986) - Long career, wrong league, but some nice seasons along the way. He's in my view what Eppa Rixey (who I didn't like) was to most other people. Not overly enthused by him, or anyone else on this portion of the ballot (after Trouppe I'd say), but we're deep into the backlog, both for PHOM purposes and for my ballot.

14. Dave Bancroft (PHOM 1987) - Rizzuto-esque candidate. A little more consistent bat, not quite the glove, though still real good with it. Long career, plenty of prime.

15. Bill Monroe (PHOM 1930) - Largely forgotten 2B from the first documented days of the Negro Leagues, was a solid glove a pretty good bat for a long time. In retrospect, wish we'd centered on him, rather than Grant, about whom there was very little evidence and a whole lot of guesswork.


16. Thurman Munson (PHOM 1987) - Plenty of defense, plenty of hitting, durable.
17. Jake Beckley (PHOM 1931) - Yeah, I'll never hear the end of this one, but his career stands out for the era, even if he's still peakless.
18. Dizzy Dean (PHOM 1988) - I wonder how many ballots have Beckley and Dean side by side. Anyway, all peak, obviously.
19. Lave Cross (PHOM 1988) - Back to the career, plus a touch of catching credit (even when not catching, he played a tough position and played it well).
20. Tony Perez - Slightly better hitter than Staub, and quite a bit more fielding value. If he'd stayed at 3B another 5 years, he'd be an obvious HOMer; and honestly it's hard to see why they moved him, he was good there.


Other top 10 returnees

22. Nellie Fox - Basically Rizzuto, but at 2B rather than SS, and the difference hurts on a ballot this bunched up.
21. Jimmy Wynn - Nice hitter, career's a little short considering he's an outfielder, and his fielding is not a plus (or a minus, but he needs the help).
NR. Edd Roush - Consistently missing games, in the weak league, not a good fielder, not a great hitter. Pass.
34. Charlie Keller - Missed some games at his peak which kept it from being high enough to overcome his very short career. Only 1.5 years of war credit.
26. Rollie Fingers - Might squeeze into my PHOM one day, but I believe the importance of relievers is vastly overblown by baseball men, and I don't feel compelled to go along with it too much. If pressed on it, I'd say Wilhelm, Gossage, and Rivera were the only HOM relievers, with a couple others (including Fingers) right on the borderline.
73. Pete Browning - Not in love, no fielding, career is short for an OF.
63. Charley Jones - Better than Browning, no league quality questions. I don't give blacklist credit.

Other newcomers


39. George Foster - Excellent prime, just nothing outside of it. Too bad, especially as I'm a Met fan, and the end of his prime coincided with his arrival in Shea.

52. Vida Blue
56. Toby Harrah
57. Cesar Cedeno

Nearly identical in my system to Staub (53); Foster's just a touch ahead. Blue had some nice years, but needed 2-3 more. Harrah demonstrates the Doyle principle that a nice bat at a glove position isn't enough when you stink at that position. Cedeno is Foster minus one extra prime season.
   170. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#2268947)
Of late I've been much more hands on in rating the pitchers than the position players. I'm very confident in my pitcher rankings. My position player rankings I'm less confident in, but there are only so many hours in the day, and because of that you'll see more position players moving around from week to week than pitchers.

Here goes:

1. Tom Seaver SP (n/e) - I've got him as the #6 SP of all-time among the eligibles. The best pitcher of his generation, and his generation was a great one for starting pitchers.

2. Bobby Grich 2B (n/e) - You've got a GG caliber 2B, who hit as well (I'd say better, but I'll concede a tie for argument's sake) as Jeff Kent. He probably should have been the AL MVP in 1981, when he finished 14th, despite leading the AL in OPS+ while playing 2B. He was the real deal. His in-season durability is a detriment after 1974, but he was so good it's not a deal-breaker.

3. Gavy Cravath RF (2) - Either he was a freak of nature, or there's a lot missing. I vote for the latter. Check out his thread for deeper discussion of the specifics, including a great analysis from Gadfly. He's the kind of guy we were hoping to catch when we started this project.

4. Rollie Fingers RP (3) - Very easily the number 3 reliever we've seen through 1990, behind only Wilhelm and Gossage, way ahead of Sutter. He's the best I've found at preventing inherited runners from scoring. He was as leveraged as high as just about anyone. His peak is only beaten by Gossage (and Hiller if you call 1-year a peak). ERA+ severely understates how much he prevented runs from scoring, when I adjust for everything, I get his DRA+ at 124. His career was as long as any reliever except for Wilhelm. He's a laughably easy choice IMO, unless you think we should only have 1 or 2 relievers.

5. Jack Quinn SP (4) - I'm giving him credit for 1916-18 where he was pitching (quite well) in the PCL after the Federal League went belly-up. He gets a big leverage bonus for his nearly 800 IP of relief work at a LI of 1.26. Without any PCL credit I still have him between Bridges and Grimes.

6. Charley Jones LF (5) - A superstar of the early NL/AA. I give full credit for his contract debacle / blacklisting, which I consider a product of his timeframe, and not something that would hinder any modern player.

7. Urban Shocker SP (6) - Vaulted in 1981, with 1918 war credit (he was having a great year), and an adjustment for the AL being much better than the NL during his time. He was a great pitcher, peak guys should really look closer at him. He'd be a no brainer without his illness, which should not impact a peak vote.

8. Tommy Bridges SP (7) - Unspectacular peak (although he would have won the 1936 AL Cy Young Award if it had been invented), but a lot of career value. War credit helps nudge him above Trout and Leonard. He could obviously still pitch when he left for the war, and was still good when he returned for a short time. I give him 2 years of credit at his 1941-43 level.

9. Jake Beckley 1B (8) - I still fully endorse his election. A smidge below Rafael Palmeiro, they were basically the same player, though Palmeiro was a little bit better with the stick, 1B was much tougher in Beckley's day. The average 1B had just a .531 OWP during his career, Beckley was .596, played good, though not great defense (+67 FRAA according to WARP) and played for nearly 20 years. The Ted Lyons, Red Faber or Red Ruffing of 1B. There's just so much career value here. Too much to ignore.

10. Charlie Keller LF (9) - Gave him minor league credit for 1938, when he was clearly major league quality, and I threw in war credit. He comes out way ahead of Kiner once I do this.

11. Thurman Munson C (10) - Better than I realized - just a hair behind Freehan. Better career D, better career O, but Freehan played more and had the higher peak. Very, very close.

12. Wally Schang C (11) - Basically the best MLB catcher between Bennett and Cochrane/Hartnett. As valuable a hitter as Campanella or Bennett. Defense was questionable.

13. Ben Taylor 1B (12) - Consider me convinced that he was really was a great hitter. I was underrating him.

14. Pie Traynor 3B (13) - The more I look, the more I think we missed on this one. He gets another bump this week. I don't agree with rating Boyer above him. Traynor far outhit his 3B peers relative to Boyer and his.

15. Dave Bancroft SS (14) - Let's see. You've got a SS with a .498 OWP, during an era where the average SS has a .414 OWP. He's also one of the 15 most valuable defensive shortstops in history to this point. He had a reasonably long career as well, though his in-season durability wasn't great. Think that's a valuable player? I do.

Honorable Mention:

16. Jim Fregosi SS (15) - I like middle infielders that can hit.

17. Burleigh Grimes SP (16) - Faced pretty steep competition (.520 RSI), so his 256-226 RSI and 107 ERA+ understates his record somewhat. I wouldn't be against his election at this point - his hitting puts him over the top. Did very well with my re-tooled system.

18. Norm Cash 1B (17) - Wow, history books, where have you been hiding this guy? .671 career OWP! +109 fielding runs! That puts his defense at a level with Roger Connor, George Kelly and Frank McCormick among the all-time greats. He has more FRAA than Vic Power, for example.

19. Roger Bresnahan C/OF (19) - Great hitter / catcher = tough combination to overlook.

20. Quincy Trouppe C (20) - Convince me that I should have him higher than Bresnahan . . . not being sarcastic.

21. Phil Rizzuto SS (21) - Lost 3 prime years to WWII. Great defense, and a huge year in 1950 also.

22. Rusty Staub RF (22) - Could push him higher, I like career candidates with nice peaks, and from 1967-71 Staub was one of the best players in baseball.

23. Don Newcombe SP (23) - Gets color-line and Korea credit.

24. Cecil Travis SS (24) - Career destroyed by WWII. I'm comfortable with projecting his 1942-45 at a high enough level to get him here.

25. Nellie Fox 2B (33) - Long solid career at a key position.

26. Tony Lazzeri 2B (25) - Great hitter for a 2B. Short career and fielding keep him from being higher.

27. Waite Hoyt SP (26) - Peak is nothing special, but good pitcher for a long time.

28. Bucky Walters SP (27) - Big years, good hitter for a pitcher, career kind of short though.

29. Bob Johnson LF (28) - Overlooked star, not much difference between Johnson and Medwick.

30. Jimmy Wynn CF (29) - I thought I'd have him higher. Man this ballot is jammed with great players.

31. Bert Campaneris SS (30) - He would be much higher if I only compared him to his peers. SS didn't hit at all when he played (average OWP for SS during his career was .370). I split the difference and here is where he ends up. I could see moving him higher.

32. Toby Harrah 3B/SS (n/e) - This guy could flat hit. If he wasn't so bad with the glove, I could see myself endorsing him for election - he was clearly a good enough hitter for the positions he played. But I can't get him past Lazzeri. He's also under 9000 PA, and I just can't get him past HoVG. But he was a much better player than I realized as an 11 year old watching him on the 1984 Yankees . . .

33. Ken Singleton RF (31) - I've got him as very similar to Henrich. Singleton lasted longer (ever after accounting for the war), but Henrich was a much better fielder. Henrich had more power and Singleton more OBP. But when you add it all up, their overall value was quite similar.

34. Tommy Henrich RF (32) - Very underrated, gets a ton of war credit.

35. Luis Tiant SP (34) - Very nice career. Could see ranking him a little higher.

36. Gene Tenace C/1B (36) - Could go higher than this, just a machine as a hitter, and 900 games caught. Kind of a poor man's Joe Torre.

37. Alejandro Oms OF (37) - Pretty good hitter, conservative ranking, I really don't have a handle on him.

38. Reggie Smith OF (38) - Very good player, but missed a lot of time in his good years. Only played 150 games 3 times.

39. Dick Redding SP (39) - I'm just not seeing what everyone else does for some reason.

40. Dutch Leonard SP (40) - Pretty good pitcher at his best. Never had the one huge year, but had a bunch of very good ones.

41. John McGraw 3B (41) - If only he could have stayed in the lineup more.

Edd Roush - He's every close to this ballot, and I can't argue with guys that vote for him.

Tony Perez - Not on the ballot - I've got him around Ed Konetchy. Beckley was a better hitter (.596 OWP vs. .582, .290 vs. .289 EQA, 125 vs. 122 OPS+). His career was longer. He was a better fielder and played 1B at a time when his counterparts around the league didn't hit as well. Perez had a better peak, but not so much better as to push him up to Beckley on my ballot.

Cesar Cedeno - Great player in his early 20s, then regressed. Kind of like the Ruben Sierra of the 1970s in that respect.

Vida Blue - Very nice career, but not quite HoM worthy - a tad behind Steve Rogers on my list of 1970s pitchers.

George Foster - Very nice player from 1975-81 (great in 1976-77), and a better fielder than I realized too. But he got off to a late start and had a quick delcine, so he's HoVG. I could see a peak voter liking him a lot.

Pete Rose - I'm boycotting him this year for his banishment from the game for betting on baseball. I still think he should be in the Hall of Fame and Hall of Merit, but I also think he deserves the 1-year boycott.
   171. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#2268949)
I have to disagree with Michael Bass on calling Rose peakless . . . the guy had 6 years with a WARP1 over 10 - that's nearly as good of a peak as Charlie Keller - and even if WARP1 overrates Rose's peak a little there's plenty of room for error. Rose would be a HoMer if his career ended after 1976, largely because of his peak.
   172. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#2268956)
Merry Christmas, or Boxing Day if you insist. Nothing too exciting this year. I did get a book on unusual deaths of baseball players, but that was it for baseball things. As for the election, also not too exciting. Seaver and Rose make my PHoM.

1. Tom Seaver (new) One of the best pitchers ever. The greatest Met ever, and it ain’t close (although hopefully Jose & David will change that). Makes my PHoM this year.

2. Pete Rose (new) I haven’t boycotted before, and Rose’s sins don’t rise as high as Jackson’s. But I’m not at all upset that he isn’t in the HoF – I agree with Bill James – that’s where you end his rehabilitation. For people who feel the Hall of Fame is demeaned because Rose isn’t in there, I just don’t get that. Makes my PHoM this year.

3. Bobby Grich (new) Among the candidates, the guys who could hit like him couldn’t field like him, and vice versa. Clearly a step ahead of the rest of the ballot.

4. Jimmy Wynn (2) I do sort of worry that I'm just voting for the uber-stats, but the more I've looked at him, the more I like him. Out of all the “pure” CF candidates currently out there, his OPS+ beats everyone but Wally Berger, who has other issues. Made my PHoM in 1985.

5. Bill Monroe (3) A good player at an important defensive position, with a great reputation for his fielding. People like to promote the 1890s as underrepresented, but that doesn't mean the 00s and 10s are overrepresented. Anybody who wants to vote for Marvin Williams should look at Monroe as well. And honestly, outside of having the statistics, I don’t know of any particular advantage Nellie Fox has over him. Made my PHoM in 1939.

6. Quincy Trouppe (4) I don’t quite credit him with all the At-Bats that the MLEs do, but a 22-year career of mostly catching goes a long way, and all the evidence says that he was very good. A better hitter than Mackey, and had a more substantial career. Catcher defense is important, but not enough to make up for everything else. Made my PHoM in 1961.

7. George Van Haltren (5) A very good player for a long time, even if he was never truly great. I can't see how people can have Beckley ahead of him when you compare them season-by-season. Made my PHoM in 1972.

8. Dick Redding (7) After reading Chris's interpretation of the HoF numbers, it does appear I need to pull him back a bit. Seems to have a pretty good peak, and also has somewhat of a career argument. I still tend to think he’s close enough to Mendez that they both should be in or out. Made my PHoM in 1973.

9. Gavvy Cravath (8) With the basic 07, 09-11 additions, this is where I have him. A better peak than Johnson, but less consistent. WARP isn't as fond of him as WS, but he compares well to Kiner & Keller. Made my PHoM in 1987.

10. Jake Beckley. (9) I still think his typical season was pretty weak for a HoM candidate, but he has a ton of career value, and was more consistent than Cash and especially Cepeda. Made my PHoM in 1987.

11. Bob Johnson (10) I'm impressed by his consistency, he was an above-average player every year for 13 seasons. The more I look at him compared to the other corner OF candidates, the more impressed I am. Made my PHoM last year.

12. Tommy Leach (11) Dropped because I had to admit that Robinson was a better 3B candidate, and I wasn’t all that crazy about his argument either. I may have been overrating 3Bmen in general. Excellent fielder at important positions, OK hitter. One of the most complete players on the ballot. Made my PHoM in 1940.

13. Edd Roush (13) I can surprise myself sometimes. I am still leery about giving out holdout credit, but even with the missed time, he does have a pretty good peak by WS. He’s pretty similar to Wynn, and I like Wynn a lot. (But Mike, Heinie Groh was better.) Made my PHoM last year.

14. Bus Clarkson (14) Parallels Elliot’s career, but with war credit he comes out ahead, and he presumably had more defensive value. Still a high ranking for a relatively unknown player IMO. I really need to decide whether I’m going to accept the MLEs and put him in my PHoM, or don’t do so and drop him down.

(14A Biz Mackey, 14B Clark Griffith)

15. Reggie Smith (15) For now, I think he’s the best of the 70’s OF glut. Very similar to Medwick/Johnson, but the lack of a peak holds him back. Win Shares really likes him.

16. Norm Cash (16) A lot of good years, but I really think he's the Beckley of the 60s, with a shorter career (although that's not really much of a criticism).
17. Luis Tiant (17) After the deluge of 1970s-era pitchers, he’ll have to be reevaluated, but he could move up.
18. Phil Rizzuto (18) He does come out as comparable to Sewell in total value, but it’s very defense-heavy, and even if it’s unfair, I’m less certain about that.
19. Charlie Keller (19) I see him as distinctly better than Kiner. If Keller had been the biggest star on the Pirates and Kiner was the second banana on the Yankees, King Kong would probably be in the HoF. (Especially because DiMaggio et.al. wouldn’t have put up with Ralph’s pursuit of fame.)
20. Tony Perez (new) This may be too low, but right now I think he’s just behind Cash. Perez (and maybe Concepcion and Puckett) may have an issue in that they’re guys I’ve argued against in HoF arguments since I got into sabermetrics, because the BBWAA (or, for Davey, Joe Morgan) was picking them instead of better candidates like Blyleven, Gossage and Trammell. So it seems instinctively wrong for me to think of them as, effectively “Hall of Fame-worthy”. Something I need to watch out for.
21. Nellie Fox (20) Not quite up to the standard of Doerr/Gordon/Childs, and the HoM is not notably short on 2Bmen.
22. Alejandro Oms (21) A reasonable candidate, but doesn’t stand out for me in any particular manner.
23. Bobby Bonds (22) On further review, I was a bit too bullish on him, but he is quite good.
24. Sal Bando (23) A good hitter for a 3Bman, but doesn’t have the peak or all-around value of Boyer.
(24A Rube Foster, 24B Cool Papa Bell, 24C Max Carey)
25. Bucky Walters (24) I guess I am sort of light on pitchers, but for now I can’t put him any higher due to wartime.
26. Rusty Staub (25) A career candidate with some peak value, but also picked up WS by just hanging around. Definitely behind Perez.
(26A Ralph Kiner, 26B Sam Thompson, 26C Richie Ashburn)
27. Vern Stephens (26) Close to Rizzuto, but with the wartime discount and the sudden dropoff after 1950, not quite there.
28. Ken Singleton (27) Another stinkin' 70s OF candidate. Close in value to Bonds, although a very different type of player.
29. Dizzy Dean (28) All of a sudden, this just felt right. I am due to take another long look at the pitching candidates again.
30. Ben Taylor (29) A good player, especially with the pitching, but not quite there. If we included off-field accomplishments, could very well be a different story.

31. Elston Howard (30) Not really sure how much credit to give him for being blocked by Berra – has a bit of a “Bob Feller” issue with that.
32. Bob Elliott
33. Charley Jones
34. Orlando Cepeda
(34A Hughie Jennings, 34B George Sisler)
35. Lou Brock
36. Rollie Fingers (35) First, I’m not convinced he’s really ahead of all the other reliever candidates, and second, I’m not convinced that he would be worth induction even if he was.
37. Dave Bancroft
38. Pete Browning
39. Tony Lazzeri
40. Don Newcombe
   173. dan b Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#2268961)
PHoM 1992 – Seaver, Grich

1. Seaver One of the best.
2. Keller PHoM 1967. 1989 re-evaluation moves him ahead of Duffy in my backlog. Now giving him 20 WS for 1938, 32 WS for 1944 and 1945. James puts just ahead of Kiner, and he may be right. I think we are shortchanging the WWII generation.
3. Grich Close to Carew.


4. Dean PHoM 1976. 1975 reevaluation of great pitching peaks put Diz on my ballot for the first time.
5. Roush PHoM 1942. Better than Ashburn
6. Walters PHoM 1968. Nice peak.
7. Duffy PHoM 1912. I’ve been looking at how players on the ballot compare with the median level of already enshrined HoMers whose credentials are post 1893 MLB using WS. Duffy would be in the top half using 5 consecutive seasons, 10 consecutive seasons and 8 best seasons.
8. Wynn, J PHoM 1986. NHBA #10 CF.
9. Fox, N PHoM 1987.If Maz could hit like Nellie, the 1960 WS hero would have been elected by now.
10. Bando Close to Boyer, James has him ahead and may be right. Expect he will be a PhoMer. NHBA #11.
11. Singleton Can’t see WS users having him way off ballot while voting for Bonds.
12. Bresnahan PHoM 1928. SABR Dead ball era committee has him #1. No major league catchers between Ewing and Hartnett is not being fair to all eras.
13. Howard, F I’ll take Hondo’s peak over Bobby Bonds, but ….
14. Bonds, Bo … Barry’s dad was pretty good.
15. Leach PHoM 1926.
16. Cravath PHoM 1967. mle credit where credit is due.
17. Howard, E
18. Munson
19. Cooper, W PHoM 1942.
20. Burns, G. Came close to making PHoM during the 1929-1932 trough. Probably should have. His 10-consective year peak is above the HoM median.
21. Berger
22. Perez
23. Staub
24. Cepeda
25. Tiant
26. Browning PHoM 1912.
27. Cash, N
28. Rizzuto Could move up.
29. Willis, V PHoM 1941.
30. Mays, C
31. Doyle PHoM 1930.
32. Chance, F PHoM 1921.
33. Jones, C – I have voted for him (4) times – 1898 thru 1901. When I dropped him in ’02, he received only 2 votes. Ed Williamson was on 18 ballots; Arlie Latham drew more support with 3 votes. My 1898 ballot comment – “9. Jones. Two-year hold out probably costs him a couple places”. Nobody was giving credit for not playing back then, as we hadn’t tackled issues like war and mil credit yet. If as many voters had treated his hold out years like he was an all-star back then as are doing so now, he may have been elected by 1920. His 1988 top-10 finish pushed me to re-evaluate for 1989 and give him holdout credit. A reconstructed PHoM based on if I thought then like I think now, would have put him in my PHoM during the trough years of 1929-32 if not 1921.
34. Grimes
35. Ryan
36. Van Haltren Do 3 years of slightly below average pitching really merit Van Haltren this much more support than Jimmy Ryan?
37. Redding Fared well in the Cool Papa’s survey, as did Spots Poles and Dobie Moore.
38. Elliott
39. Brock not enough peak to be higher
40. Pinson
41. Smith, Reg less peak and less career than Brock
42. Rosen If Moore, why not Rosen? If a great 5 consecutive season peak were the only measure we considered, Rosen would have been elected in 1964.
43. Arlett
44. Traynor
45. Cicotte Better character and a couple more good years made possible by better character would have made him a HoFer if not a HoMer.
46. Gomez More peak than Tiant.
47. Murcer
48. Mazeroski
49. Newcombe If one of Newk’s supporters will tell me how much NeL credit to give him, he could move up. I am giving him (2) 20 WS seasons of military service credit to get him this high.
50. Fingers

If Rose isn't elected this year, I may sit out 1993.
   174. sunnyday2 Posted: December 26, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#2268967)
Well, that makes two, eh?
   175. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#2268973)
Since dan b just mentioned that he might also sit out 1993 if Rose is still on the ballot, let me ask: If you were here, did you do that when Joe Jackson was on the ballot for a second year? Because I can't see any way you can compare the two and conclude that Rose ranks lower on a moral equivalency scale.
   176. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2268981)
Since dan b just mentioned that he might also sit out 1993 if Rose is still on the ballot, let me ask: If you were here, did you do that when Joe Jackson was on the ballot for a second year? Because I can't see any way you can compare the two and conclude that Rose ranks lower on a moral equivalency scale.

I tend to agree, Devin. While I feel Rose's character is far inferior than Jackson's was, the latter's transgression toward baseball was far worse (from what we know at the present time, that is) than The Hustler's.

With that said, if yest and Dan don't want to vote for Rose, I'll back their right to do so 100%.
   177. sunnyday2 Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:31 AM (#2268985)
>With that said, if yest and Dan don't want to vote for Rose, I'll back their right to do so 100%.

Meaning, by not submitting a ballot, I presume. As opposed to voting and boycotting again, e.g.
   178. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:41 AM (#2268991)
Meaning, by not submitting a ballot, I presume. As opposed to voting and boycotting again, e.g.

The former is the only option, Marc.
   179. DavidFoss Posted: December 27, 2006 at 12:52 AM (#2268996)
I have to disagree with Michael Bass on calling Rose peakless . . . the guy had 6 years with a WARP1 over 10 - that's nearly as good of a peak as Charlie Keller - and even if WARP1 overrates Rose's peak a little there's plenty of room for error. Rose would be a HoMer if his career ended after 1976, largely because of his peak.

I'll concur (although I'm wondering if there is a 162G/154G, leadoff-batter boost that Rose is likely getting there).

Still his Win Shares NL leaderboard positions compared with another contemporary durable leadoff batter are

Rose: 2-3-3-T3-T4-T5-6-T6-T7-T8-11
Brock: 5-7-8

So, although he may not have dominated like Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Williams, Musial... or even Morgan or Schmidt... he certainly was one of the better players -- in the better league -- many times.

(Unfortuntately, you cannot compare him to players from other generations that have been accused of being 'peakless' because pitchers dominate the leaderboards in earlier eras.)
   180. Chris Cobb Posted: December 27, 2006 at 01:02 AM (#2268999)
Re Rose and peak and overrating:

In win shares, Rose is getting two big boosts that (in my opinion) inflate his peak. One is the low zero point in win shares, which causes durable players to be overrated. The other is the lack of normalization for PA opportunities, which overrates leadoff hitters (normalization should be made, imo, because lead-off PAs are less leveraged).

WARP1 has a much higher batting replacement level and does normalize PAs, so Rose's offense is not overrated in WARP1. However, WARP1's fielding replacement level is much lower than WS's, so durable players tend to be somewhat overrated in WARP's frar.

In sum, I don't believe that Rose's peak was quite as strong as the comprehensive metrics show it to be, because both are overrating Rose's durability. However, descriptions of Rose "peakless" also miss the mark. During his prime, he was a very good (not great) hitter for a corner outfielder, and he was an excellent defensive outfielder/adequate defensive infielder, and he was extremely durable. That combination makes, overall, for an excellent peak.
   181. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2006 at 01:31 AM (#2269011)
For those who may have been confused, the website program accidentally posted another 1992 Results thread. Fortunately, it didn't post my headline (which may be subject to change, depending on what happens in the next half an hour...).

That faux thread has been deleted.
   182. Max Parkinson Posted: December 27, 2006 at 01:33 AM (#2269013)
1992 ballot (MP HoM in bold, Seaver and Grich are this year's electees):

I hope that everyone had a safe and happy holiday! Sorry that I wasn't around to make this point earlier, but I'll be boycotting Rose this year. I am persuaded that he bet on baseball, and that's enough for a one-year holdover. In addition, I am persuaded that he bet on his own team, and I am very nearly persuaded that he bet against his own team.

I tend towards the peak/prime end of this group, with about half of the value players can earn in my system afforded to their best 7-9 or less years. My basic valuations are based on how well a player performs relative to his competition, although I also make allowances for offensive position - I like to have leadoff hitters, and power hitters, and basestealers, and glove guys. One significant way in which I may deviate from the consensus here is that I prefer guys who excel in one (but certainly more is good) facet of the game, where people here like to root for the all-rounders, possibly because they've been influenced by James, and believe that those guys are not sufficiently represented in the Coop.

Being the best Hitter, or Power Hitter, or a superlative glove man means something to me that being pretty good at everything doesn't. Hence I don't see Jimmy Wynn as very worthy, but apparently enough of you all do.

I am pretty confident in my rankings of hitters against other hitters, and pitchers against other pitchers, and then try my best to fit them together...

Oh, and I don't give war credit - to this point, it's kept only Pee Wee Reese and Joe Gordon out of my Hall of Merit relative to the group's inductees.

1. Tom Seaver

I have him as the 11th-best pitcher to date. He is behind (in order) Johnson, Young, Williams, Alexander, Mathewson, Nichols, Grove, R. Brown, Spahn and Clarkson.

2. Pete Browning

I am now convinced that he would have been one of (if not THE) the best hitters in the ‘80s even if there was only one league. I have therefore minimized his AA penalty.

3. Charley Jones

I’ve been giving him credit for his “lost” years due to blacklisting, and he vaults up the list.

4. Dizzy Dean

Dean moved up for me when I realized that I was underrating peaks in pitchers. When Sandy Koufax can’t sniff my ballot, something’s wrong. The changes I incorporated helped Dean as well as Mendez.

5. Bobby Grich

I see him as the 10th -best 2B to date, just edging out Bid McPhee and Hardy Richardson.

6. Dick Redding
7. John McGraw

If we were factoring in managerial success, he would have been in this hall as early as the ‘Coop. Alas, it’s looking tough for him here on playing alone. Not for me, though.

8. Gavvy Cravath

Another adjustment. Was the best RF in the game for a good 6 year stretch, with MVP-calibre seasons thrown in. I have resisted adding too much credit for MiL performance, but I couldn’t keep him from the ballot any longer.

9. (N)Ed Williamson

Between McGraw and Williamson, we could shore up the 3B drought pretty quick.

10. Ben Taylor

I think of him as the best 1B between the ABC crew (not counting other hitter's sojourns at the position) and Gehrig.

11. Charlie Keller

He's been just off and just on my ballot for a while, but I've just hopscotched him over Burns and Veach, because at the end of it all - this is pretty darn close to the borderline of the MP Hall of Merit, and I'm more convinced that he should be in than either of them.

12. Rollie Fingers

Just borderline of my Hall right now. At this point, he's either the third or fourth greatest reliever of all time, but this Eckersley guy is doing really good things....and how many relievers will I want to enshrine at the end of the day? He'll probably make it in, but caution is the word for now.

13. George Burns

The more that I look at Oms, the more that I wonder if he would have been as good as the second-tier OF of the ‘10s and ‘20s (Burns, Veach, Roush). Maybe even the third tier (Hooper, Rice, Manush, Ken Williams). Incidentally, one of the aspects of my system that I'm currently looking at is why Burns is here and Roush is 29 or so. To be honest, this isn't that far apart, but in many ways I see them as very similar - great LF vs. good CF (almost interchangeable, as what position one plays has as much to do with their teammates as their abilities), leadoff hitter types who ran well.

14. Bobby Veach

There's not a lot of shame in being the 3rd best OF in your league for a couple of years when the better two have the last names of Cobb and Speaker. If he had just one or two more REALLY GOOD or GREAT years, he would have been in a while ago.

15. Tony Perez


Previous Top 10s and others of note:
Fox – 71.
Roush – 29. He’s recently moved up about 10 spots.
Beckley – 64.
Wynn – 44.

I just don’t see any of these as particularly electable. I’m closest with Roush, but I fear that the gap between my HoM and the general one will grow once we get past the 89-92 rush.
   183. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:00 AM (#2269024)
The election is now over. Results will be posted shortly (hopefully they are right, unlike in '91 :-)

BTW, Wow!
   184. jimd Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:01 AM (#2269026)
I count 52 ballots and 16 boycotters.
   185. jimd Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:05 AM (#2269027)
I imagine that a recount is ongoing as this is very (single-digit) close.
   186. sunnyday2 Posted: December 27, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#2269034)
Chris, how about Pete and Ichiro?
   187. Chris Fluit Posted: December 27, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2269067)
49. Newcombe If one of Newk’s supporters will tell me how much NeL credit to give him, he could move up. I am giving him (2) 20 WS seasons of military service credit to get him this high.

Our previous discussions about Newcombe generally centered on other measurements such as ERA+. Could you tell me what Newcombe gets in the way of Win Shares for the seasons he did play, and then I could let you know what I think would be reasonable credit for his other years?
   188. sunnyday2 Posted: December 27, 2006 at 06:09 AM (#2269164)
I just bumped up the Newcombe thread. It is all there.
   189. dan b Posted: December 27, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2269463)
Since dan b just mentioned that he might also sit out 1993 if Rose is still on the ballot, let me ask: If you were here, did you do that when Joe Jackson was on the ballot for a second year? Because I can't see any way you can compare the two and conclude that Rose ranks lower on a moral equivalency scale.


1. Since I have only missed one election, I will probably hold my nose and vote for Rose.

2. I was around for the Joe Jackson elections and did not boycott him either time. IMO he showed sufficient remorse for his actions to merit my forgiveness. Since the only thing Pete is sorry for is that he got caught and was punished, I would say Rose ranks lower on a moral equivalency scale. Neither one belongs in the HOF.
   190. rawagman Posted: December 27, 2006 at 08:00 PM (#2269477)
Devin - I think I have that book, too. He missed a few and had a couple of glaring errors that his editors failed to catch.
   191. karlmagnus Posted: December 27, 2006 at 10:34 PM (#2269583)
Comiskey's in the HOF, so why shouldn't Shoeless Joe be? Comiskey had a lot more responsibility for the Black Sox debacle than the shoeless one. Moreover, my reserach at the "time" (mostly, the Rothstein bio) indicated quite strongly that the 1914 and 1917 Series were pretty gamey too, not just 1919. I think Jackson and Cicotte were railroaded; they decided to enforce the rules differently their year. My ballot, with Cicotte around #6 for several decades, is constructed accordingly.

I haven't boycotted Rose, I just don't think he was all that good, when you deduct for all the pointless out-creating hustling.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.7301 seconds
68 querie(s) executed