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, January 22, 2007

1994 Ballot Discussion

1994 (January 22)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

319 117.9 1966 Don Sutton-P
321 105.2 1969 Graig Nettles-3B
315 97.2 1970 Ted Simmons-C
313 94.9 1971 Jose Cruz-LF
269 105.8 1970 Dave Concepcion-SS
262 71.7 1972 Don Baylor-DH/LF
237 71.3 1971 George Hendrick-RF/CF
174 75.2 1976 Ron Guidry-P
195 62.7 1975 Phil Garner-2B/3B
189 65.2 1967 Joe Niekro-P
168 58.1 1976 Bruce Sutter-RP
160 58.1 1973 Gene Garber-RP
160 50.9 1976 Jerry Mumphrey-CF
176 43.9 1975 Larry Parrish-3B
136 48.0 1976 Butch Wynegar-C
140 43.6 1978 Bob Horner-3B
130 38.8 1976 Larry Herndon-LF
123 36.5 1977 Ray Knight-3B
109 37.7 1977 Mario Soto-P

Players Passing Away in 1993
HoMers
Age Elected

89 1948 Charlie Gehringer-2B
86 1953 Bill Dickey-C
80 1959 Johnny Mize-1B
71 1963 Roy Campanella-C
56 1975 Don Drysdale-P

Candidates
Age Eligible

89 1944 Ethan Allen-CF
88 1942 Mark Koenig-SS
85 1951 Vern Kennedy-P
84 1951 Ben Chapman-CF/RF
82 1948 Hank Leiber-CF
82 1952 Hal Schumacher-P
81 1955 Augie Galan-LF
80 1958 Quincy Trouppe-C
77 1955 Tex Hughson-P
66 1965 Granny Hamner-SS/2B
54 1980 Bob Miller-RP

Upcoming Candidates
31 1998 Tim Crews-RP
27 1998 Steve Olin-RP

Thanks, Dan!

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 22, 2007 at 03:29 AM | 281 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 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2284879)
Hey! Let's be careful with these new candidates. :-)
   2. jimd Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:26 AM (#2284888)
Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age 92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; died, age 83)
1972 -- Red Faber (age 83; died, age 88)
1976 -- Stan Coveleski (age 87; died, age 94)
1984 -- Bill Terry (age 85)
1985 -- Joe Sewell (elected, age 86; died, age 91)
1990 -- Charlie Gehringer (age 86; died age 89)
1993 -- Buck Leonard (age 86; )
   3. sunnyday2 Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2284891)
Yes, absolutely.

Among and within the newbies, I'd say:

1. Simmons--great numbers for a C
2. Sutton--too much career to ignore, even though as a peak voter, I'd like to
3. Concepcion--WARP values defense more appropriately, I think--at least middle IF defense
4. Sutter--with reliever bonus (not the same as leverage though that would be hair-splitting, I suppose)
5. Nettles--could be as high as #2...but isn't
6. Cruz--under-rated (doh)
7. Guidry--if I'm not a peak voter, he's not in the consideration set at all

Even this is not easy with some very close calls--or rather, some very tricky trade-offs. Now, all I've gotta do is figure out where the hell they go within the big list.

I'm thinkin' Simmons on ballot. Clearly the best C available, and I've already got Howard on and Munson close.

The rest come up short, I think. Early Wynn is not PHoM and is only in the 40s, so that's my drift on Sutton. Concepcion could be in Rizzuto territory and he's in the 20s, so I have to justify that (i.e. Rizzuto ahead of Wynn, Sutton ahead of Concepcion, Rizzuto and Concepcion and Wynn and Sutton kinda comp; where's MC Escher when you need him). Sutter is no Fingers, much less a Gossage. Nettles is behind too many rough contemporaries. Cruz likewise. Guidry is interesting but not better than Lefty Gomez who is in the 50s.

My HoVG goes down to the 60s now so all of these guys qualify. But other than Simmons, they're 2-3-4 slots or more short of the ballot at their own positions.
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:39 AM (#2284893)
I'll be running Sutton through the Rixey-Faber type prism, as well as comparing to Jenkins - a middlin' HOMer. I tend to like the long-career SPs, as long as they can put up the 110-120 ERA+s with solid IP totals.

Hmm, at a glance I love 1972-73 and like 1980, but this is one of those weird Early Wynn careers. Will take a little time to put in context....
   5. Chris Cobb Posted: January 23, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2284934)
Things that I am clear about for 1994:

1) The top 3 spots on my ballot: Niekro, Sutton, Simmons, in that order

2) Ron Guidry and Jose Cruz won't make my ballot, probably won't make the top 30, and may not make the top 50.

Things that I am not clear about:

1) Concepcion. WARP shows Concepcion as a borderline HoMer in my system; WS shows him as not even close. If I take the average, he's on the outside looking in, but the two views are _so_ far apart that I must dig farther.

2) Nettles. WARP and WS both show Nettles as right on the border in my system, which puts him provisionally between 14 and 28 in my rankings. That's a large gray area to figure out.

3) Sutter. I haven't run any numbers yet. His career WARP1 total makes him look like he will be well off ballot. That's where Joe's PA has him, and my system usually agrees fairly closely with his, but it all depends on how much WARP is underestimating Sutter's leverage.

I have no intention of revisiting the order of the backlog, but if Eric comes up with more reliable MxL conversion rates, I will want to review Quincy Trouppe and Bus Clarkson in light of them.
   6. Chris Fluit Posted: January 23, 2007 at 07:41 AM (#2285028)
quick look at the new guys:

Don Sutton: I was prepared to dislike Sutton. I have a friend who absolutely detests him and often decries him as one of the worst HoF selections ever. But when I looked at the numbers, I was fairly impressed. He's certainly at the back end of the '70s pitchers trailing Seaver, Carlton, Niekro, Palmer and Jenkins but he's well above Tiant and Kaat and the backlog from other decades. Right now, Sutton seems like a clear #2 behind Niekro.

Graig Nettles: Just as I was prepared to dislike Sutton and ended up liking him, I was prepared to like Nettles and ended up not being all that impressed. Third base was a pretty deep position for his era and not only does he trail the big guys like Brett and Schmidt, I also think he's well behind the next group down of Bando and Cey. Won't get close to my ballot.

Ted Simmons: I dispute sunnyday's assertion that Simmons is the best catcher available. I still think that Trouppe is better. However, I remember being impressed by Simmons a number of years ago when I looked at Gary Carter for the BBWAA ballot and Thurman Munson for the VC ballot. And I was impressed by Simmons again. He's certainly ballot-worthy and will probably end up around 10th.

Bruce Sutter: Whether or not you support Sutter depends a lot on how many relievers you think should be in the Hall. If you're a 3-4 guy, then Sutter's going to be out. If you're a 7-8 guy, Sutter is in. I'm not sure where I am on that question. But I do know that Sutter isn't as good as Fingers and I only had Fingers at 15th. Sutter will be off-ballot but with a chance of making it some day.

Haven't looked closely at Concepcion, Cruz or Guidry yet.
   7. AJMcCringleberry Posted: January 23, 2007 at 08:07 AM (#2285039)
1. Niekro

2-4. Perez, Simmons, and Sutton in some order.

Nettles could sneak on the bottom of the ballot.

Concepcion and Cruz are in the 25-35 range.

Sutter: Was he better than Mike Marshall? I like Fingers better and I don't have Fingers near the ballot. Maybe I'm being too tough on relivers, I don't know.
   8. rawagman Posted: January 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM (#2285052)
Didn't Joe Niekro recently pass away?
   9. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:53 PM (#2285077)
I have Concepcion no better than 50 at this point. Sutton, Nettles and Simmons will all make the ballot...somewhere. I'll post an early prelim shortly.
   10. Rusty Priske Posted: January 23, 2007 at 02:56 PM (#2285079)
Early Prelim:

PHoM: Grich, Nettles, Sutton

1. Phil Niekro
2. Tony Perez
3. Rusty Staub
4. Jake Beckley
5. Edd Roush
6. Nellie Fox
7. Graig Nettles
8. George Van Haltren
9. Tommy Leach
10. Don Sutton
11. Lou Brock
12. Jimmy Wynn
13. Quincy Trouppe
14. Ted Simmons
15. Mickey Welch

16-20. Cruz, Duffy, Cepeda, Cash, Singleton
21-25. R.Smith, Bonds, Johnson, Redding, Ryan
26-30. Browning, Cedeno, Grimes, Doyle, McCormick
   11. Howie Menckel Posted: January 23, 2007 at 03:04 PM (#2285085)
Yes, Joe Niekro is a (2006). Excellent pitcher.
   12. DL from MN Posted: January 23, 2007 at 04:06 PM (#2285130)
1994 Prelim

1) Phil Niekro - top 5 or top 7 measures are kind of irrelevant to a person with this kind of longevity
2) Don Sutton - I have him between Dazzy Vance and Hoyt Wilhelm
3) Luis Tiant - Three elect-me spots for pitchers
4) Bob Johnson - I downgraded outfielders a little more this week to get better balance of infielders, he's still the best outfielder in the backlog
5) Norm Cash
6) Tommy Bridges
7) Ted Simmons - Tentatively placed here, it wouldn't take much to move him up to 4th. I have to zero out the negative years and make sure my catching credit is correct
8) Quincy Trouppe - looks a lot like Ted Simmons
9) Jake Beckley
10) Rusty Staub
11) Reggie Smith
12) Tony Perez
13) Gavy Cravath
14) Virgil Trucks
15) Bus Clarkson

Clarkson and Bancroft benefit from my adjustments for positional balance

16-20) Jim Wynn, Dave Bancroft, Edd Roush, Dutch Leonard, Orlando Cepeda
21-25) Ron Cey, Bob Elliott, Charlie Keller, Jack Quinn, Dick Redding

Low bar of HoM standards is about here

26-30) Vic Willis, Urban Shocker, Jerry Koosman, Johnny Evers, Luke Easter
31-35) Hilton Smith, Dizzy Trout, Frank Howard, Bobby Bonds, Alejandro Oms
44) Graig Nettles
50) Jose Cruz
86) Ron Guidry
110) Dave Concepcion - better than Fregosi, Dick Lundy or Rizzuto; not quite Dick Bartell
>150) Bruce Sutter - indistinguishable from other top relievers (Kinder, Hiller, Tekulve, Lyle)
   13. TomH Posted: January 23, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2285145)
prelim, slotting in newbies
1- Phil Niekro
2- Ted Simmons .......Joe Torre redux. A little more time catching. You'd think the HoF might see basic numbers like 8-time all-star and 1389 RBI and decide he might be worthy of election.
Jake Beckley John McGraw Bucky Walters Bob Johnson
Frank Chance Dick Redding George Van Haltren
Charlie Keller Louis Tiant Rollie Fingers
13- Don Sutton
Steady Eddy. That’s a whole lotta Wins in one career, ain’t it? But I prefer a peak/prime a little more in my pitchers; it sure is needful to have an ace in the post-season. Can't put him ahead of Beckley or GVH, two other long-career guys.

Nettles is near many other 3B backloggers, around #30

Concepcion is near many other 3B backloggers, around #40
   14. rawagman Posted: January 23, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2285155)
Some very interesting decisions to be made in this election. I'm making some tweaking to refine the measurements on "career as regular". It will take me a while to get to a prelim, but I think it's fairly safe to say that Niekro will top my ballot.
I am not impressed with Sutton so much. I kind of thought I would be. He is similar to Beckley as a pitcher. I think he's better ultimately, but I am doubting he will make my ballot. I value peak in pitchers more than I do for hitters, so I might have Sutter ranked higher (at least among releivers) than most of you. Not sure abotu his placement yet.
Most importantly, some have brought up the case of Guidry being another Lefty Gomez.
Being Lefty's best friend, I want a crack at this one.
Their careers have very similar lengths and career rate stats. I beleive that Lefty shaped his career differently and had a more sustained peak period and lower curve end points, while Guidry's arc was not quite as pronounced. I will be holding that against Guidry. I think he'll end up placed in the mid-20's.
   15. Juan V Posted: January 23, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2285232)
This is not 1993, but a very strong class none the less. Simmons and Sutton will get in, and Concepción and Nettles deserve serious consideration. I haven´t looked at the pitchers yet (my impression on Sutton is based on your comments).
   16. Jim Sp Posted: January 23, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2285253)
Simmons I think is easily qualified and goes to the top of the ballot with Niekro. The last spot is completely up for grabs.

I think we'll have pretty wide agreement that Guidry and Cruz were not quite HoM material, somewhere in the 25 to 60 range in the backlog.

Those of us who value fielding highly will have Concepcion and Nettles on ballot, but based on recent history I don't think we'll prevail. Career voters will like Sutton, peak voters will hate him. He's an upgrade on Eppa Rixey so the career voters look likely to prevail.

I have no idea what the group will do with Sutter. I have him below Fingers, but we'll see.
   17. Juan V Posted: January 23, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2285294)
Wow... Sutton makes Beckley look peaky. Sure, 115.3 WARP3 is nice, but with such a flat career I might have trouble placing him in the top half of my ballot, never mind the elect-me spots.
   18. rawagman Posted: January 23, 2007 at 10:24 PM (#2285302)
Place him where he belongs, Juan V - not where a preconceived notion of him resides. I thought he was better, too. Not that he wasn't good. But this wasn't what I had in mind. Not this week.
   19. Daryn Posted: January 23, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2285304)
If you're a 3-4 guy, then Sutter's going to be out. If you're a 7-8 guy, Sutter is in. I'm not sure where I am on that question.

I'm a 7 or 8 guy (2007-wise) but Sutter is not in my top 8 (or at best is 7 or 8).

I have Simmons as a strong #2 -- 315 WS for a catcher is hard to do. All of his counting stats are fantastic. I'm not sure I'd say he is inner-circle, but I'd put him at about the halfway mark of the catchers we have already enshrined.

Nettles will be close to my ballot, but might not sneak on. He is definitely, in my view, inferior to Robinson and I think he is superior to Cey and Bando. I'm having trouble comparing him to the earlier thirdbasemen.
   20. Juan V Posted: January 23, 2007 at 11:02 PM (#2285322)
#18. Of course. I just want to share first impressions, and make sure I'm not missing stuff.
   21. jingoist Posted: January 23, 2007 at 11:08 PM (#2285325)
Sutton looks to be Early Wynn 20 years later.
I was never a big EW fan; doubt I'll be a big Sutton fan. Then again you guys elected Rixey and Wynn without too much trouble so I expect Sutton will go in as well.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 12:54 AM (#2285370)
Place him where he belongs, Juan V - not where a preconceived notion of him resides. I thought he was better, too. Not that he wasn't good. But this wasn't what I had in mind. Not this week.

Sutton is actually better than I originally thought he would be in my system. With that said, he still falls short (though not by much).

There are just too many guys who had their formative years pitching in the Lively Deadball Era and wound up with long careers. I still don't think it was a coincidence, though I realize others here disagree.
   23. jimd Posted: January 24, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2285373)
I still don't think it was a coincidence, though I realize others here disagree.

Oh, I don't think it's a coincidence either. But I do think that the base ratio for this era should be 8:4 between position players and starting pitchers. Which means that if we're going to elect about 30 players from that era, then 10 pitchers is no problem. And we can go higher if we decide that there really is a pitcher's talent stack in the 1970's, like the 1b stacks of the 1880's and 1930's, the LF stack in the 1890's, the impending 3b stack in the 1970's/80's, etc.
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: January 24, 2007 at 02:31 PM (#2285562)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1993

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

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

1B (19.04) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, McCovey 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Carew 50, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stargell 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, McVey 31, Rose 27, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Yastrzemski 23, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (15.61) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Childs 100, Gehringer 99, Morgan 99, E Collins 98, Gordon 98, Herman 95, Grich 86, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Carew 47, Richardson 43, HR Johnson 25, Ward 24, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Rose 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (12.45) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Mathews 93, Boyer 90, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Rose 18, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (17.20) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, Moore 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 74, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Sewell 65, Davis 58, Banks 45, Ward 39, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10, WBrown 10

OF (53.06) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, SJJackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, Kiner 96, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Minoso 93, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, RJackson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Yastrzemski 63, Charleston 60, Stargell 60, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Rose 38, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, McCovey 12, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10

DH (0.57) - RJackson 23, Yastrzemski 13, FRobinson 11, BWilliams 10

P (51.64) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 100, Gibson 100, Waddell 100, Pierce 100, GPerry 100, Palmer 100, Jenkins 100, Seaver 100, Carlton 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Mendez 90, Radbourn 78, Spalding 80, Caruthers 66, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 25, Ruth 20

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters such as Ward, Ruth, Caruthers, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 03:20 PM (#2285580)
Oh, I don't think it's a coincidence either. But I do think that the base ratio for this era should be 8:4 between position players and starting pitchers. Which means that if we're going to elect about 30 players from that era, then 10 pitchers is no problem

I'll keep that in mind, Jim, though I lean closer to more psition players to be honored than you do. BTW, thanks for the list at the top of this thread!

Thanks also for your lists, Howie!
   26. DL from MN Posted: January 24, 2007 at 03:48 PM (#2285593)
I think Sutton is a shade better than Wynn, Rixey, Bunning and Ruffing. I have him around the 40th-50th percentile. Slightly worse than the average HoM pitcher is a pretty easy "yes" decision for me.
   27. Dizzypaco Posted: January 24, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2285615)
If you're going to set some kind of cap on the number of pitchers elected from one era, shouldn't there be some kind of floor as well? Not a formal ceiling or floor, but even an informal one, in making rankings? I bring this up after taking a look at the pitcher who made their debut between 1959 and 1970 (a 12 year period), and then those that made their debut between 1971 and 1982 (also a 12 year period).

Pitchers with 200 or more wins that made their debut between 59 and 70: Carlton, Ryan, Sutton, Niekro, Perry, Seaver, John, Blyleven, Jenkins, Kaat, Palmer, Gibson, Marichal, Tiant, Hunter, Koosman, other Niekro, Reuss, Lolich, Hough, other Perry, and Blue.

Pitchers with 200 or more wins that made their debut between 71 and 82: Morris, D. Martinez, Tanana, Reuschel, and Welch. Hershiser had a cup of coffee in 83 if you want to extend it a year.

Quite a difference, no?

So again, if you think it was relatively easy to put up impressive career numbers in the first group (not an unreasonable opinion), and want to place Sutton lower on your ballot because of the excess of the elected pitchers from that era, what do you do about the fact that may have been zero HOM worthy pitchers in the second group?
   28. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2285624)
Well, Dave Stieb and Goose Gossage will get plenty of support. When did Eckersly start his career? Then again in the mid to late 80's we get Clemens, Gooden (who won't make it but certainly had the talent), Maddux, Cone, Brown, and Johnson.

I have no problem with electing a guy like Sutton from this generation, it is the guys like Luis Tiant that I think we need to be careful about.
   29. Dizzypaco Posted: January 24, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2285633)
Well, Dave Stieb and Goose Gossage will get plenty of support. When did Eckersly start his career? Then again in the mid to late 80's we get Clemens, Gooden (who won't make it but certainly had the talent), Maddux, Cone, Brown, and Johnson.

There were a few impressive relievers that began their careers between 71 and 83, but virtually no starters - Stieb maybe the best candidate, and his numbers pale in comparison to many other worthy candidates from other eras. Eckersly wouldn't look so impressive without the bullpen years.

And you're right - starting in 84, very good to great starters began to come into the league again. From 84 to 95 (again 12 years), you've got Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, Cone, Brown, Moyer, and more.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2285641)
I don't think you can just create a quota for each era. Despite what I have posted about the guys who came to the majors during the Sixties, there still appears to have been more quality pitchers than from other generations. Sometimes that happens.
   31. DL from MN Posted: January 24, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2285647)
Eck and Lee Smith both debuted between 71 and 83. I didn't realize until you mentioned it that Eckersley has a good argument as the best pitcher of his generation.
   32. Paul Wendt Posted: January 24, 2007 at 07:45 PM (#2285750)
It's a short generation!

Bert Blyleven debuted just after his 19th birthday, which makes the gap between them look longer.
Bly 1970-92
Eck 1975-98 (12 seasons each as a starter and a reliever); tying Ty Cobb

Nolan Ryan debuted in September 1966 as an old 19-year old (7 years older than Eckersley) and then
Ryan 1968-93
   33. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2285755)
Bert Blyleven debuted just after his 19th birthday, which makes the gap between them look longer.
Bly 1970-92


I don't really consider Blyleven as part of the Seaver/Carlton/Palmer generation for this reason: he didn't start his career during the much easier 1962-68 years. Also, for a few years after that time, innings were still high despite the tougher conditions (not to mention the early DH years).
   34. Chris Cobb Posted: January 24, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2285769)
John,

Were the conditions really so much more difficult in the early 1970s than in the 1960s? Sure, there were changes in 1969 re strike zone and mound height, but after a short spike runs per game dropped back down to mid-60s levels in both leagues, and average innings pitched reached a post-1920 high in the early 1970s.

NL r/g 1963-76
1963 3.81
1964 4.01
1965 4.03
1966 4.09
1967 3.84
1968 3.43
1969 4.05
1970 4.52
1971 3.91
1972 3.91
1973 4.15
1974 4.15
1975 4.13
1976 3.98

AL r/g
1963 4.05
1964 4.06
1965 3.94
1966 3.89
1967 3.70
1968 3.41
1969 4.09
1970 4.17
1971 3.87
1972 3.47
1973 4.28
1974 4.10
1975 4.30
1976 4.01

What do you take as the key indicator of tougher conditions?
   35. Dizzypaco Posted: January 24, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2285775)
average innings pitched reached a post-1920 high in the early 1970s.

It is this reason why I do consider Blyleven part of the Seaver/Carlton/Palmer generation - he benefited from the high IP totals of the early 70s just as they did. If Blyleven came up six or seven years later, he never would have pitched the numbers of innings he did in the early 70's.

Also, I really don't see what the huge benefit was Seaver or Palmer received pitching a couple of years in the 60's that Blyleven missed out on by starting out in 1970. I'm not saying there isn't something there - I just don't see what it could be.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2285786)
Were the conditions really so much more difficult in the early 1970s than in the 1960s?

For young pitchers between 20-25, I think they were, Chris.

If they had cut back on the IP to more manageable levels right away, then maybe the youngsters could have avoided the problems that 1962-1968 youngsters were able to. But they didn't.

Read Craig Wright's The Diamond Appraised for a better explanation of the phenomena.
   37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2285791)
Also, I really don't see what the huge benefit was Seaver or Palmer received pitching a couple of years in the 60's that Blyleven missed out on by starting out in 1970. I'm not saying there isn't something there - I just don't see what it could be.

It's a matter of the stress on your arm at a young age (20-25) so that you can avoid impingement syndrome. What was the last great era for 300-winners? The Deadball Era. As with the mid-Sixties, less pitches per game are just more advantageous for a maturing arm.
   38. DL from MN Posted: January 24, 2007 at 08:53 PM (#2285793)
> Pitchers with 200 or more wins that made their debut between 71 and 82: Morris, D. Martinez,
> Tanana, Reuschel, and Welch.

Tanana is the big "what if?" in that list in regards to workload. Martinez is a small "what if he was sober?".
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2285799)
Tanana is the big "what if?" in that list in regards to workload.

Tanana was one of the guys highlighted by Wright. What a great pitcher he was when he first started out. Fans getting a first glimpse of him during the 1980s really weren't seeing the real deal.
   40. Dizzypaco Posted: January 24, 2007 at 09:09 PM (#2285802)
For young pitchers between 20-25, I think they were, Chris.

If they had cut back on the IP to more manageable levels right away, then maybe the youngsters could have avoided the problems that 1962-1968 youngsters were able to. But they didn't.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory is that pitchers who came up in the early 70's were forced to throw too many innings, which led to injuries or ineffectiveness, and put them at a disadvantage compared to pitchers who came up in the 60's, and were allowed to mature being asked to throw lots of innings in the 70's.

A few things:

First, This doesn't address why no great pitchers came up in the late 70's and early 80's, when pitchers weren't being asked to do any more than they did in the 60's.

Second, most of the pitchers throwing lots of innings in the early 70s were the guys who came up in the 60's - there weren't that many new pitchers throwing lots of innings.

Third, most of the young pitchers who did throw lots of innings in the early 70s weren't the type of strikeout pitchers that you would expect to have long careers. I looked at the innings pitched leaders for individual seasons in the early 70s, and in addition to the older pitchers, the lists included Vida Blue, Carl Morton, Randy Jones, Ross Grimsley, Steve Busby, Jim Colburn, Jack Billingham, and Joe Coleman. How many of these guys would have 280 or more games if they weren't asked to throw a lot of innings? My guess is very few. I question how talented these guys were in the first place.

I'm not opposed to the concept that something happened in the 60's that led to the development of a lot of great pitchers; I just haven't heard a convincing argument of what that is. And unless someone can better explain the advantage shared by the '60s generation, I don't think Don Sutton should be penalized for coming up as part of that generation.
   41. Dizzypaco Posted: January 24, 2007 at 09:11 PM (#2285804)
To me, Tanana is the exception, not the rule. There weren't a lot of young pitchers putting up Tanana's numbers in the early 70's. Vida Blue, perhaps.
   42. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 24, 2007 at 11:23 PM (#2285860)
I don't have Craig Wright's book with me at work, but I'll post either tonight or tomorrow the numbers that he had that convinced me that the workload per game affected which generations of pitchers.

If someone else has the book and wants to post the data, I wouldn't be too offended, either. ;-)
   43. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 24, 2007 at 11:32 PM (#2285866)
To me, Tanana is the exception, not the rule. There weren't a lot of young pitchers putting up Tanana's numbers in the early 70's. Vida Blue, perhaps.


Vida Blue's 1971 is a hell of a season. I remember when I was just getting into baseball and I was scrolling a list of past MVP winners and saw his name. "Vida Blue? Who the hell is that? Bet it was some mistake vote."

So I go to B-R and look.

312 innings, 183 ERA+, 301 strikeouts, 0.952 WHIP.

That shut me up real quick.
   44. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM (#2285869)
Speaking of which, what are some more of those "hidden" great seasons that you guys didn't know about and later discovered? Stuff like Blue's 1971, or Jimmy Wynn's 1969, that kind of thing.
   45. OCF Posted: January 25, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2285912)
I don't think of Blue's 1971 season as "hidden" - it was a very big deal at the time. I think it's luster dimmed over the years because Blue didn't turn out to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer after all. That, and Oakland fans are as ubiquitous as the Mets fans who keep alive the memory of Gooden '85. If you want a "hidden" great season, check out Gaylord Perry 1972.

The fact that some pitchers whose careers began in the 60's prospered for a very long time does not mean that the forces that chew up young pitchers somehow ceased to exist. If I show you a young rookie pitcher who threw 227 innings at an ERA+ of 145 and led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, would you want a piece of his action? (Oh, and when I say "young" I actually mean 19 years old.) Say hello to Gary Nolan. And by the time he was 27, his K/9 rate was down to about 3.
   46. Mark Donelson Posted: January 25, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2285915)
1994 prelim

1. Niekro
2. Dean
3. Keller
4. Simmons (pHOM)--I never had any idea he was this good when I was a kid!
5. Williamson
[5a. Grich (pHOM)]
6. Willis
7. E. Howard
8. Rosen
9. Browning
10. Trouppe
11. Cravath
12. Tiant
13. C. Jones
14. Fox
15. Cicotte--Reassessed a bit, decided I had Eddie too high--peak even shorter than Dean's. He still hangs around, though.

My third pHOMer this time around is (drum roll)...Billy Williams.

Sutton #36 (very little peak, but a consistency that's enough to get him right on the eventual-pHOM bubble); Nettles #32 (kind of the same thing, but in his case it's the defense that gets him this far); Sutter #38 (a bit behind Fingers, very slightly ahead of Marshall); Cruz, Guidry, and Concepcion in the consideration set but well outside the top 50. No one else even that close.
   47. kwarren Posted: January 25, 2007 at 01:58 AM (#2285955)
Well if we're picking three it would have to be Sutton, Nettles, and Concepcion.....although only Sutton rates as a sure fire Hall of Famer.

Sutter in the Hall of Fame. These player comparison show what a mockery of the institiution and the induction process his selection really is. Should we also be inducting utility players who often win close games in the late innings. Using leverage arguments that will soon be getting Gossage into the Hall of Fame we could easily conclude that Tony Phillips' performance was equivalent to 10,000 AB with a 150+ OPS. Actually Phillips is not such a bad candidate...career WARP3 of 102.0 with peak seasons of 10.3, 9.6, 9.1, 8.9, and 8.7. It would be nice if Gossage or Sutter were anywhere near this productive.

Let's hope the Hall of Merit voters "get it". Of course leverage arguments can certainly take our attention away merit/talent/skill/longevity arguments...and relievers are people too.

From reading some of the postings, one thing I don't get at all is the way longevity is treated as a negative by many and is used as a reason not to vote for Sutton.
   48. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2285962)
From reading some of the postings, one thing I don't get at all is the way longevity is treated as a negative by many and is used as a reason not to vote for Sutton.

If a player gets more hits because it's easier to do so in his era, shouldn't his numbers then be normalized? Well, the same goes for pitchers who may have had an advantage that other pitchers didn't have to be able to extend their careers. That's all I'm saying.

Now, whether or not something was actually going on or that generation just happened to be one hell of an outlier, that's a totally different story. I'm very open to different opinions on this subject.

I don't think of Blue's 1971 season as "hidden" - it was a very big deal at the time. I think it's luster dimmed over the years because Blue didn't turn out to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer after all. That, and Oakland fans are as ubiquitous as the Mets fans who keep alive the memory of Gooden '85. If you want a "hidden" great season, check out Gaylord Perry 1972.

As a kid growing up in the '70s, Blue's season was considered one of the great ones.

I agree with OCF's assessment of the lost luster it has now, as well as Perry's unknown great year.

The fact that some pitchers whose careers began in the 60's prospered for a very long time does not mean that the forces that chew up young pitchers somehow ceased to exist. If I show you a young rookie pitcher who threw 227 innings at an ERA+ of 145 and led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, would you want a piece of his action? (Oh, and when I say "young" I actually mean 19 years old.) Say hello to Gary Nolan. And by the time he was 27, his K/9 rate was down to about 3.

I agree. Favorable conditions don't mean perfect conditions.
   49. OCF Posted: January 25, 2007 at 02:26 AM (#2285967)
That should have been "Oakland fans aren't as ubiquitous as the Mets fans ... " And "its," not "it's" in the previous sentence. I do know how to write, just not proofread.
   50. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: January 25, 2007 at 07:32 AM (#2286085)
I agree with OCF's assessment of the lost luster it has now, as well as Perry's unknown great year.


Perry's a good one, I'd forgotten that (appropriately enough). That damn Steve Carlton just had to put up a 183 ERA+ in 346 innings in the very same year.
   51. sunnyday2 Posted: January 25, 2007 at 12:52 PM (#2286111)
k,

There are some voters here who rely heavily on rate stats, and obviously a players' rates go down in a decline phase. So your comment is not wrong.

Many of us old-timers remember Pete Palmer's LWTs measure (later TPR and later yet some other acronym, I forget what it is), but anyway, it revolves around zero (zero being the average) and so players' accumulated positive value would also decline in his, er, decline phase. I remember talking to Pete at SABR right when Ryne Sandberg retired the first time and the question in the hallways was whether he had hurt his HoF chances. Pete said that he had probably helped them by retiring, by avoiding a decline phase. In the end of course Ryno had the worst of both worlds and still made it.

I am guessing the number of voters for whom either of these hold true is pretty small, however, and even then to characterize it as "penalizing" longevity is not quite conceptually accurate. It's just a question of rating a player by virtue of his rates, it's not quite the same as a penalty for longevity. But it's an interesting question whether rating players by their rates makes sense from that perspective or not.

I've always said that us peak voters have no real problem with that. We neither penalize nor reward decline.
   52. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2007 at 02:03 PM (#2286120)
There are some voters here who rely heavily on rate stats, and obviously a players' rates go down in a decline phase. So your comment is not wrong.

I don't rely heavily on rate stats and don't dole out negative value for subpar seasons (though a terrible season would wind up as practically worthless in my system), FWIW.
   53. DavidFoss Posted: January 25, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2286164)
The fact that some pitchers whose careers began in the 60's prospered for a very long time does not mean that the forces that chew up young pitchers somehow ceased to exist. If I show you a young rookie pitcher who threw 227 innings at an ERA+ of 145 and led the league in strikeouts per 9 innings, would you want a piece of his action? (Oh, and when I say "young" I actually mean 19 years old.) Say hello to Gary Nolan. And by the time he was 27, his K/9 rate was down to about 3.

Yup. Also, don't forget that one of the "success stories" often mentioned in this thread is Jim Palmer. In 1966, at age 20, he become the youngest pitcher to throw a complete game shutout in the World Series (over Sandy Koufax no less). He missed much of 1967 and all of 1968 with arm, back and shoulder problems. He was left unprotected in the expansion draft and there were no takers. He appeared to have made a miracle comeback in early 1969, but then went to the DL again and missed 42 days in mid-season.

Shockingly, he made a miracle comeback again and no-hit the A's his second game back from the DL and went on the to HOF packing a ton of value into a relatively short prime. Jim Palmer had a great career, but he is certainly not a poster boy for successful young pitcher development.
   54. Juan V Posted: January 25, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2286175)
Well, I use rate stats such as OPS+ heavily. But I combine them with playing time, and consider each season separately, so longevity is a plus, rather than a minus, here. Just in case.
   55. Chris Cobb Posted: January 25, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2286213)
Jim Palmer had a great career, but he is certainly not a poster boy for successful young pitcher development.

I would like to see Mark Prior find the Jim Palmer path.
   56. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 05:37 PM (#2286236)
IMO, one of the primary advantages that pitchers who came up in the 60's had were the workloads of the early 70's. Not all pitchers survived the workloads, but the ones that did often were able to accumulate impressive statistics in a relatively short period of time. A lot of these guys were winning 20 games a year during this period, and when they weren't winning 20, they were winning 17 or 18 or 19 games. Similarly, from a sabermetric standpoint, their RA rates look more valuable and impressive given all the innings they were throwing. Blyleven benefited from this trend almost as much as anyone that came up in the 60's.

If these pitchers were pitching 210 innings from the year, from the late 60's through the mid 70's, winning 15 games per year, and ending up with 240 career wins, with the same RA rates, would people have been as impressed? Would Fergie Jenkins have been a Hall of famer if his peak occurred at any other time? Would he have been in the Hall of merit if he had been pitching 220 innings a year rather than 320 during his prime?

Don Sutton, by the way, did not receive as much of an advantage from this as many of the others from the 60s generation. He was not among the pitchers throwing 300+ innings per year in the early 70s, and he continued to throw a good number of innings with better than average results long after this period was over.
   57. JPWF13 Posted: January 25, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2286246)
He was not among the pitchers throwing 300+ innings per year in the early 70s, and he continued to throw a good number of innings with better than average results long after this period was over.


which some will no doubt attribute to his not throwing 320 ip in the early 70s
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2007 at 06:14 PM (#2286260)
which some will no doubt attribute to his not throwing 320 ip in the early 70s

It sure didn't hurt him. :-)

Would he have been in the Hall of merit if he had been pitching 220 innings a year rather than 320 during his prime?

Well, most likely his rate stats would have been that much more impressive, so he might have gone in just as fast, Diz.
   59. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2286269)
Well, most likely his rate stats would have been that much more impressive, so he might have gone in just as fast, Diz.

I don't agree, John. The RAs being put up by pitchers throwing lots of innings in the early 70s were no lower than the RA rates in other eras when pitchers were throwing fewer innings. Not everyone was able to handle the large work loads, but some were - and I don't see any reason to think that those who were able to handle the work loads were more ineffective on a per inning basis than they would have been throwing less innings.
   60. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 25, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2286278)
I don't agree, John. The RAs being put up by pitchers throwing lots of innings in the early 70s were no lower than the RA rates in other eras when pitchers were throwing fewer innings. Not everyone was able to handle the large work loads, but some were - and I don't see any reason to think that those who were able to handle the work loads were more ineffective on a per inning basis than they would have been throwing less innings.

It depends. If Jenkins was pitching when he was tired, removing him an inning earlier on average would have been beneficial to his ERA+ and K rates. But if he were just pitching less games, but with the same pitch counts as he had during the early 1970's, than he wouldn't have been as valuable a pitcher as he actually was, IMO.

But each pitcher is different. Trying to work out alternate careers based on different pitching schedules would be a nightmare. :-)
   61. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2286296)
It depends. If Jenkins was pitching when he was tired, removing him an inning earlier on average would have been beneficial to his ERA+ and K rates. But if he were just pitching less games, but with the same pitch counts as he had during the early 1970's, than he wouldn't have been as valuable a pitcher as he actually was, IMO.

Thanks to the wonders of Baseball reference, we can actually look these things up. If Jenkins was negatively effected by the workload, one of two things should stand out: Either he should have worn down as the game went on, and not pitched as effectively in the 7th through 9th innings as he did in the early innings, or he should have worn down as the season went on, and not pitch as effectively in August and September as he did early in the season.

As far as I can tell, neither trend happened. Overall, Jenkins was as effective late in games as he was early in games, and he was as effective late in the season as he was early in the season. Based on the numbers, I don't think you can assume that he would have been a better pitcher on a per inning basis at his peak if he had been pitching less innings.

There's a separate issue of whether Jenkins was negatively affected long term, that he would have had a longer career if his workload was more manageable in the early 70's. This is possible. But Jenkins did pitch for a long time, and didn't have an unusual decline phase, so I don't believe its the case.
   62. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 25, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2286305)
Based on the numbers, I don't think you can assume that he would have been a better pitcher on a per inning basis at his peak if he had been pitching less innings.

Maybe, but this data is self-selective and won't include games where he wasn't effective enough to hang in for the last two innings, making it appear as though Jenkins were more effective than he might really have been had he always pitched into the late innings.

I think the proof for John's pudding is in guys like Billy Pierce, Dave Stieb, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, and David Cone, who came before or after and maintained excellent rate stats throughout their careers, but whose innings don't give them the same durability value.
   63. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 07:07 PM (#2286308)
Bringing this back to the HOM voting, lets say a pitcher had the following characteristics:
1. He began his career prior to the early 70's.
2. He peaked in the early 70's.
3. One of the reasons his peak looks impressive is the number of innings he was pitching
4. His performance in those peak years is important to his HOM case

I would adjust in some way for this issue. Sutton does not fit these criteria as well as several other pitchers of his generation. It fits Blyleven, the darling of statheads everywhere, very well.
   64. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 25, 2007 at 07:39 PM (#2286327)
Sutton does not fit these criteria as well as several other pitchers of his generation.

But fit them he does.

1. He began his career prior to the early 70's.

Debuted 1966.

2. He peaked in the early 70's.

Best five year run of ERA+s is 1971-1975: 127 161 142 106 119.

3. One of the reasons his peak looks impressive is the number of innings he was pitching

Top ten in IP: 1967, 1969, 1970, 1972-1975. Top total 293 during period. His career innings total is big point in his favor, and he threw 270 or more 3 times, 250 or more 4 times. 225 every year but 1968 between 1966-1979. 200 a year (extrapolated for strikes) every year 1966-1986. His durability is a big portion of his case.

4. His performance in those peak years is important to his HOM case
Sutton doesn't have much peak, but here's his ERA+s with the 1971-1975 peak ERA+, then without them and replaced by a 110 ERA+, except for the 109, replaced by a 100:

Real: 161 159 142 127 126 121 119 112 111 110 110 107 106 101 101 99 97 95 94 92 92 83 79
/Real: 159 126 121 112 111 110 110 110 110 110 110 107 101 101 100 99 97 95 94 92 92 83 79

Without those peak years, he's getting really close to the not-peaky-enough-for-the-HOM line. I mean he's already got guys in the electorate balking due to his lack of peak, any reduction in it would be a major blow to his candidacy. Morris, De Martinez, and Tanana would probably all have superior peaks than a sans-peak Sutton (though none would have the career length, of course). Which is to say, it's there, and it helps him as much as it can.

So I don't really know why Sutton would be exempted.
   65. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2286344)
I'm not suggesting to take out the peak years if they were between 71 and 75. Instead, the question might be, if you replaced the innings Sutton (or some other pitcher) pitched between the late 60s and mid 70s, and replaced them with 210 to 230 innings per year, would it greatly effect his HOM case? I agree it would affect Sutton, but not as much as other candidates, because 1) his case is based more on career value than peak value, 2) he pitched a lot of innings, but the only time he pitched over 280 innings his ERA+ was below 100 anyway, and 3) his career numbers would be impressive even if he started 50 less games during his career.

Compare this to Jenkins, who pitched far more innings in the early 70's than Sutton did, had a shorter career, and whose case is more based on peak value than Sutton's was. Sutton generally pitched 250 to 270 innings during his peak in the early 70's, which isn't that much more than is historically normal. Jenkins and Perry regularly threw well over 300 innings, which is unusual, and therefore requires a greater adjustment.
   66. TomH Posted: January 25, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2286347)
I'm surprised at how low Jose Cruz grades out for me. A guy who today would be a .300 hitter with some power and speed, and a good OFer. With a 17 year career. Stats killed by the Dome. Compares to Lou Brock if you cut off Lou's last 3 years; less speed, obviously, but more run production in other areas and better D. He's not in my top 40, and I doubt even our heavy-career voters will go for him, depsite 300+ WS and almost 100 WARP3. Maybe his closest comp is Van Haltren without GVH's pitching?
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 25, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2286355)
LFs my system sees as having similar HOM credentials to Jose Cruz:

Roy White
Bobby Veach
Tom York
Jim Rice

In other words, around 25-30th best at the position, which is not meant as a sneer.
   68. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2286363)
LFs my system sees as having similar HOM credentials to Jose Cruz:

Roy White
Bobby Veach
Tom York
Jim Rice


Good call - I think Cruz's credentials are very similar to White, Veach, and Rice. All four had a period of about 10 to 12 years where they were very solid ballplayers, and not much before or after that period. Brock really isn't comparable - I don't think he was as good as any of them were in their peaks, but had a longer career.
   69. OCF Posted: January 25, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2286364)
From Dizzypaco, #65

Instead, the question might be, if you replaced the innings Sutton (or some other pitcher) pitched between the late 60s and mid 70s, and replaced them with 210 to 230 innings per year, would it greatly effect his HOM case?

That's actually something I can do with my system. So here's an experiment: take Sutton's seasons, and cap his IP at 225 - that is, credit him with the minimum of his actual IP and 225. Then assume his winning percentage is what the RA+ PythPat system says it should be, but only in the number of decisions he corresponding to that cap of 225 IP (making a cap of 25 equivalent decisions per year.) Oh, and instead of just doing that to Sutton, do it to everyone in my system since Ford and Koufax. The result is the following table - I apologize in advance for the near-random order; copy it and sort it yourself if you want to. The first set of numbers is the RA+ equivalent record that I have in my system (defense-adjusted, in the case of Palmer), with the number in brackets being the equivalent FWP; the second set is the same with IP capped at 225 per year.


Pitcher    "Actual"         IP-capped
Sutton     320
-267 [229]    295-247 [209]
Koufax     163
95 [171]    13884 [140]
Pierce     218
-150 [197]    204-142 [182]
Ford       218
-134 [218]    204-126 [205]
Drysdale   209
-157 [170]    171-129 [139]
Bunning    238
-180 [194]    205-159 [160]
Pappas     195
-159 [144]    191-156 [141]
Marichal   226
-164 [194]    186-139 [154]
Gibson     265
-166 [262]    224-145 [215]
Wood       163
-136 [116]    127-109 [ 87]
Hunter     206
-178 [138]    172-154 [108]
Tiant      224
-164 [189]    204-152 [170]
Perry      337
-258 [268]    275-217 [211]
Jenkins    287
-213 [240]    238-180 [194]
Kaat       262
-241 [158]    236-221 [137]
Palmer     260
-179 [235]    217-154 [190]
Koosman    233
-193 [168]    218-182 [154]
Seaver     330
-201 [333]    288-180 [285]
Niekro     334
-226 [253]    283-230 [210]
Carlton    328
-252 [261]    279-220 [216]
Ryan       326
-273 [231]    296-250 [206]
Blyleven   322
-230 [279]    279-203 [237]
John       281
-244 [187]    270-236 [179]
Morris     226
-199 [148]    205-182 [132]
Guidry     158
-108 [145]    149-103 [134] 


I really don't have many substantial comments to make about this. There's a fundamental silliness about this procedure, which often sucks out of a record the very thing that makes it valuable. Note that in the IP-capped world, there are no more 300-equivalent-game winners, but Sutton at 295 is one of the two closest.
   70. Dizzypaco Posted: January 25, 2007 at 09:17 PM (#2286369)
There's a fundamental silliness about this procedure, which often sucks out of a record the very thing that makes it valuable.

I don't completely disagree, but its probably worth noting what led to this discussion (which I am largely responsible for), are a couple of comments by John that got me thinking. Namely,

There are just too many guys who had their formative years pitching in the Lively Deadball Era and wound up with long careers. I still don't think it was a coincidence, though I realize others here disagree.

If a player gets more hits because it's easier to do so in his era, shouldn't his numbers then be normalized? Well, the same goes for pitchers who may have had an advantage that other pitchers didn't have to be able to extend their careers. That's all I'm saying.

One of the reasons this generation was able to put up these career numbers were the number of innings they pitched during the 70s, so it has an impact on whether any normalization needs to be done. For this reason, I find OCF's list to be very interesting. Compare Perry to Sutton, for example.
   71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2007 at 12:34 AM (#2286431)
I think the proof for John's pudding is in guys like Billy Pierce, Dave Stieb, Ron Guidry, Bret Saberhagen, and David Cone, who came before or after and maintained excellent rate stats throughout their careers, but whose innings don't give them the same durability value.

I'm also more concerned with what a pitcher does between the age of 20 and 25, when the arm is still maturing. A pitcher can handle a greater workload after that age frame. If some of the noted burnouts of baseball history had had their careers start at age 25 under the same conditions and workload they actually had, they may have been able to have had long careers despite their advanced age at their debuts. Of course, the best of all worlds is to get the star prospect innings before that time, but it should be gradual and monitored.
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2007 at 12:43 AM (#2286435)
BTW, I appreciate the civil and thoughtful tone of this discussion so far.
   73. kwarren Posted: January 26, 2007 at 12:56 AM (#2286440)
I am guessing the number of voters for whom either of these hold true is pretty small, however, and even then to characterize it as "penalizing" longevity is not quite conceptually accurate. It's just a question of rating a player by virtue of his rates, it's not quite the same as a penalty for longevity. But it's an interesting question whether rating players by their rates makes sense from that perspective or not.

Comparing rate stats over different lengths of careers clearly penalizes players with long careers, even if you are not doing it consciously. It's a totally unfair way to compare players who had different length careers. Using Win Shares or WARP3 eliminates this issue. When comparing the peak of two players then this type of comparison is quite useful quite.

When comparing Koufax to Blyeven is it at all useful to compare career ERA+, or K/IP. This type of comparison rewards Koufax for retiring early and by definition penalizes Blyeven. I'm quite sure the Dodgers would have been happy to suffer with Koufax for a few more seasons even though his career rate would surely decline substantially.
   74. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2007 at 01:31 AM (#2286471)
Comparing rate stats over different lengths of careers clearly penalizes players with long careers, even if you are not doing it consciously. It's a totally unfair way to compare players who had different length careers.

I agree. The amount of IP per season and for a pitcher's career is just as important as their rate stats, IMO, and needs to be given equal weight.
   75. jingoist Posted: January 26, 2007 at 01:43 AM (#2286483)
Chris Cobb wishes Mark Prior has a Palmer-like career rebound.
I couldn't agree more.
Except I can't quite equate Rameriz, Cedeno, Walker and Lee with Brooksie, The Blade, Davey Johnson/Bobby Grich and Boog. I gotta believe those guys saved many a run and many a win for all Baltimore pitchers for many years.
Fact of the matter is, Prior better be a better pitcher that Cakes if he wants to end up with a similar record.
Unfortunately, it looks like Kerry Wood, the next Roger Clemens, is toast at age 29.
   76. kwarren Posted: January 26, 2007 at 01:50 AM (#2286489)
Here is a more detailed WARP3 comparison of some of the pitchers being discussed in this thread:


Bert Blyleven.....12.3, 10.0, 9.9, 9.3, 9.2 (50.7).....140.5
Ferguson Jenkins..12.7, 10.4, 10.3, 9.2, 8.8 (51.4).....124.2
Jim Palmer........11.5, 9.8, 9.7, 9.3, 9.3 (49.6).....104.0
Don Sutton.........8.2, 7.6, 7.3, 6.2, 6.0 (35.3).....114.1
Dave Stieb.........9.9, 9.8, 9.4, 9.1, 8.5 (46.7)......87.4
Sandy Koufax......12.4, 11.2, 11.0, 8.8, 7.2 (50.6)......70.9
Goose Gossage.....10.5, 10.5, 7.8, 7.4, 7.1 (43.3)......89.5
Jack Morris........8.8, 8.3, 8.1, 7.6, 7.1 (39.9)......89.8
Ron Guidry........12.5, 9.0, 8.1, 7.4, 7.3 (44.3)......75.4
Bruce Sutter.......9.0, 8.2, 8.1, 6.1, 5.1 (36.5)......58.1






One thing that rarely gets mentioned with regard to Koufax is the fact that he spent his whole career in a very pitching friendly home stadium. His peak seasons are not really as good as legend would have us believe.

The people who argue that Blyleven doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame really have no logical argument at all to back their case. This is one snub I don't get at all.

Wow, Sutton's peak seasons, to use the term usely, are really bad but he did manage to accumulate 324 wins and 5,282 IP and that is very impressive in it's own right.

Why is it that Jack Morris gets so much more HOF consideration that Dave Stieb? Is playing in Toronto that big a negative? And if so, how much is that going to hurt Robbie Alomar's legacy?
   77. OCF Posted: January 26, 2007 at 02:03 AM (#2286497)
One thing that rarely gets mentioned with regard to Koufax ...

Haven't read our Koufax thread (and the related election-discussion and election threads) lately, have you?
   78. OCF Posted: January 26, 2007 at 02:25 AM (#2286505)
With respect to some of kwarren's other comments, for HoM use, I have Blyleven as definitely in, Morris as definitely out, and Stieb as someone whose case I haven't worked on yet. And Alomar/Biggio/Knoblauch/Trammell/Whitaker as a group I haven't entirely sorted out except that Barry Larkin is probably at the head of the line (pending how I resolve the issues of his in-season durability.)
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2007 at 03:40 PM (#2286692)
With respect to some of kwarren's other comments, for HoM use, I have Blyleven as definitely in, Morris as definitely out, and Stieb as someone whose case I haven't worked on yet.

I also have Blyleven as a definite in. Not sure about Morris, though I'm not optimistic about him. I am positive that he'll be lower than Stieb in my system.
   80. Dizzypaco Posted: January 26, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2286701)
Keep in mind that if you don't have Morris or Stieb in, you may have a case where you have no one from an entire generation of starting pitchers as being HOM worthy (depending how you classify Eckersley). Not that I think that's necessarily a problem, just as I don't think its a problem that several pitchers from the 59 to 70 generation should go in (including Sutton IMO).
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 26, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2286711)
Not that I think that's necessarily a problem, just as I don't think its a problem that several pitchers from the 59 to 70 generation should go in (including Sutton IMO).

Keep in mind that if you don't have Morris or Stieb in, you may have a case where you have no one from an entire generation of starting pitchers as being HOM worthy (depending how you classify Eckersley).

Since I'll have more pitchers from the Seventies on my ballot than any other era, I don't disagre with your sentiment, Diz. It still doesn't mean that Sutton is a HoMer, though. If he had pitched for average offensive teams, he'd be lumped with Kaat and John, IMO.

Eck will be going in and deservedly so, IMO.
   82. DavidFoss Posted: January 26, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2286856)
Keep in mind that if you don't have Morris or Stieb in, you may have a case where you have no one from an entire generation of starting pitchers as being HOM worthy (depending how you classify Eckersley). Not that I think that's necessarily a problem, just as I don't think its a problem that several pitchers from the 59 to 70 generation should go in (including Sutton IMO).

I don't think its a big problem either. We have to be wary of multiple endpoints types of issues here. If we draw the 12 year intervals from 53-64, 65-76, 77-88 (instead of 59-70, 71-82, 83-94) then the big dip smooths quite a bit.
   83. Dizzypaco Posted: January 26, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2286866)
I don't think its a big problem either. We have to be wary of multiple endpoints types of issues here. If we draw the 12 year intervals from 53-64, 65-76, 77-88 (instead of 59-70, 71-82, 83-94) then the big dip smooths quite a bit.

Normally, I'd agree with you. Its why I'm not a fan of looking at the leaders by decade - decade is just an arbitrary point in time.

In this case, however, I disagree, because I don't think 1970 is arbitrary. There was a clear trend, that ended abruptly around 1970. From 1959 to 1970, pitchers were making their debut almost every year that would go onto to have long and impressive careers. In total, there were an astonishing number of them. And then, around 1970, it just... stopped. There was no change in trend around 1965, so there's no reason to use 1965 as a cut off.

Its like using 1993 or 1994 as a cutoff - the game went through a dramatic change at this point in terms of hitting levels, so it makes sense to look at offensive numbers before and after this period differently. It does not make sense to use 1990 as a cut off.

Finally, 12 years is not a short period of time, no matter how you define it. For there to be a possibility that not a single starting pitcher debuted that is worthy of HOM over a 12 year period is simply remarkable.

1984, by the way, is the endpoint only because of Roger Clemens. It wasn't until the late 80's that a whole bunch of potential candidates started to enter the league.
   84. JPWF13 Posted: January 26, 2007 at 09:54 PM (#2286907)
Why is it that Jack Morris gets so much more HOF consideration that Dave Stieb? Is playing in Toronto that big a negative? And if so, how much is that going to hurt Robbie Alomar's legacy?


1: The W-L records
2: The 20 win seasons
3: Morris had one huge stunningly visible game/moment late in his career.

WRT Stieb-
Using the gamelog function on BBREF
I figured out Stieb's W-L records when his team gavce him -0- runs, 1 run etc
Games- Run support- W- L- no decision- winning pct

Games    Team Runs    W    L    ND    wp
20    0    0    17    3    .000
43    1    4    35    6    .103
59    2    15    35    9    .300
66    3    17    24    25    .415
53    4    24    18    11    .571
52    5    27    4    21    .871
49    6    27    1    21    .964
40    7    25    2    13    .926
21    8    14    2    5    .875
13    9    9    0    4    1.000
26    10
+    14    1    11    .933
442        176    139    129    .559 
   85. Juan V Posted: January 26, 2007 at 10:05 PM (#2286916)
Keep in mind that if you don't have Morris or Stieb in, you may have a case where you have no one from an entire generation of starting pitchers as being HOM worthy (depending how you classify Eckersley). Not that I think that's necessarily a problem, just as I don't think its a problem that several pitchers from the 59 to 70 generation should go in (including Sutton IMO).


What about Saberhagen? I haven't looked at him "completely", just for the mock HOF vote, but he scores well enough to deserve some consideration.
   86. Juan V Posted: January 26, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2286917)
Ooops, never mind. Sabes debuted in '84, with Clemens
   87. KJOK Posted: January 26, 2007 at 11:26 PM (#2286955)
In this case, however, I disagree, because I don't think 1970 is arbitrary. There was a clear trend, that ended abruptly around 1970. From 1959 to 1970, pitchers were making their debut almost every year that would go onto to have long and impressive careers. In total, there were an astonishing number of them. And then, around 1970, it just... stopped.

I just want to point out that these 2 things are somewhat related. Those guys that came up in the 1960's were STILL PITCHING in the 70's, in some cases effectively, so there were fewer 'slots' available for new talent, plus relatively speaking even the best 'newbies' were then competing against a pretty tough group to stand out from.

In other words, if guys like Seaver, Gibson, Sutton, Palmer, Niekro, Carlton, Ryan, Jenkins, etc. had short careers, blown their arms out, etc. then the 'average' pitching talent in the 1970 + period would have been less, and the performances of guys like Reuschel, Guidry, Rogers, Hooten, Matlack, Hough, Tanana, etc. would have have 'looked' even better.
   88. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 27, 2007 at 12:01 AM (#2286977)
When was teh draft put inot place, mid to late 60's right? So the first fruits of teh draft wouldn't really start until the late 60's early 70's right? Could that have anything to do with it? Teams figuring out the best way to pick and bring up talent in a new system? Were there more flameouts (David Clyde comesto mind but that is only one)? I really have no idea, just asking.
   89. jimd Posted: January 27, 2007 at 01:06 AM (#2287003)
So the first fruits of teh draft wouldn't really start until the late 60's early 70's right? Could that have anything to do with it?

Might be something to that.

Under new draft system, the best prospects go to the worst teams, often bad organizations with a greater likelihood of ruining the prospect.

Under old bonus system, the best prospects went to the highest bidder, often the good organizations with the surplus bucks.
   90. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:19 AM (#2287070)
We now have 24 1964 NL HOMers (min. 10 G, part-timers with asterisks), most in that league since 1893.
AL's all-time highs are 20 in 1926-27.
AL's last lead, head-to-head, vs NL so far is 1951 (15 to 12).

NL 1964 (24) - Spahn, Snider*, Pierce*, Mays, Mathews, Banks, Aaron, Koufax, Clemente, Boyer, Bunning, Drysdale, FRobinson, Gibson, BWilliams, McCovey, Santo, Marichal, Torre, Stargell, GPerry, Allen, Rose, Morgan*

NL 1893 (27) - Anson, O'Rourke, Kelly*, Ward, Bennett*, Brouthers, Glasscock, Keefe, Ewing, Connor, Stovey, Clarkson, Thompson, Delahanty, Rusie, Hamilton, Nichols, Burkett, McPhee, GDavis, Young, Caruthers*, Childs, Dahlen, Kelley, Keeler, Jennings*

NL had fewer than 15 HOMers from 1902-53, but already have 15+ from 1954-73. AL so far hasn't had 15 HOMers since 1958.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:31 AM (#2287074)
Some talk of how many 1960s Ps we eventually elect, so a snapshot of post-WW II so far

1946--- (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1947--- (6) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn
1948--- (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn
1949-50 (7) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce
1951--- (6) - Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce
1952--- (9) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm
1953--- (8) - Paige Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1954-56 (7) - Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1957--- (7) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning
1958-60 (9) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax
1961--- (9) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1962--- (11) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1963--- (10) - Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1964-65 (10) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry
1966--- (9) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Palmer
1967--- (9) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Seaver Carlton
1968--- (8) - Wilhelm Drysdale Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Seaver Carlton
1969-70 (9) - Wilhelm Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Palmer Seaver Carlton
1971-73 (7) - Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Palmer Seaver Carlton
1974--- (6) - Gibson GPerry Jenkins Palmer Seaver Carlton
   92. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2287079)
To add to what jimd said, while there was a rebound in pitching talent, it may have just taken teams a little whiel to figure out how to use the draft to foster top level pitching talent. Or it could merely be a gap in talent.
   93. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:49 AM (#2287082)
HOM OFs, 1946-71

1946--- (8) - Bell, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Kiner
1947--- (7) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Kiner
1948--- (9) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn
1949-- (10) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso
1950--- (9) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso
1951-- (12) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Irvin OF-1B, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso OF-3B, Mantle, Mays
1952-- (8) - Slaughter, Musial OF(1B), Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle
1953--- (10) - Slaughter, Irvin, Musial, Doby, JRobinson OF-3B, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle
1954-- (12) - TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, JRobinson OF-3B, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline
1955-- (12) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Kaline, Clemente
1956-- (12) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson
1957-- (13) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, Boyer OF-3B, FRobinson
1958 --(11) - TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson
1959--- (9) - TWilliams, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente
1960-- (10) - TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente
1961---(11) - Musial, Minoso, Mantle, Berra, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski
1962-- (11) - Musial, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey, Killebrew, Yastrzemski
1963-- (13) - Musial, Snider, Minoso, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey, Killebrew, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF(1B)
1964-- (11) - Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey OF(1B), Killebrew, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF-1B
1965-66 (9) - Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell
1967--- (8) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF-1B
1968-- (10) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline OF(1), Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell, Allen, RJackson
1969--- (9) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski OF(1B), Stargell OF(1B), RJackson
1970--- (8) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline OF-1B, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Stargell, RJackson
1971--- (8) - Mays OF-1B, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson OF-1B, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell
   94. Brent Posted: January 27, 2007 at 05:09 AM (#2287095)
So the first fruits of teh draft wouldn't really start until the late 60's early 70's right? Could that have anything to do with it?

Another factor that might be worth looking at is the growth in the number of players with college experience. My impression is that the number of prospects with college experience picked up quite a bit between 1965-75 (draft deferments?). It's possible that collegiate managers may not have been as protective of young arms.
   95. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 27, 2007 at 06:10 AM (#2287108)
I agree with the fact that Stieb is severely underrated. I get him about equal to Pierce, with some pretty big years, especially for the 1980s. There's no doubt he was the best pitcher in the AL between Palmer in the mid/late-70s and Clemens in the mid-80s. Carlton is probably the only pitcher in the NL during that timeframe that was better 'overall'.

That park he pitched in was quite a hitter's paradise too . . .
   96. kwarren Posted: January 27, 2007 at 08:11 AM (#2287131)
One thing that rarely gets mentioned with regard to Koufax ...

Haven't read our Koufax thread (and the related election-discussion and election threads) lately, have you?


No, I haven't. Any links to point me in the right direction?
   97. rawagman Posted: January 27, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2287159)
Finally, I have a prelim for 1994.I realized that over the course of my inclusion in this project, my idea of what value entails has changed. Maybe not drastically, but noticeably. It was time I made adjustments to my system to account for that. The main thing I stressed in these adjustments was in-season durability. The biggest significances of this change is that I have jumped on the bandwagon of two key members of our backlog. Congratulations to Charley Jones and Bob Johnson - debuting on my ballot this week.
Joining my PHOM - Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich and Charley Jones.
New guys who placed, but outside my top 30: Sutton (36) and Nettles (57).

1)Phil Niekro (PHOM)
2)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
3)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
4)Edd Roush (PHOM)
5)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
6)Nellie Fox (PHOM)
7)Ted Simmons (PHOM)
8)Quincy Trouppe (PHOM)
((8a)Bobby Grich)) (PHOM)
9)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
10)Charley Jones (PHOM)
11)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
12)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
((12a)Bill Freehan))
13)Bob Johnson
((13a)Biz Mackey))
14)Bobby Veach
((14a)Willie Stargell))
15)Orlando Cepeda
((15a)Ken Boyer))
16)Al Oliver
17)Tony Oliva
18)Wally Berger
19)Dizzy Dean
((19a)Juan Marichal))
20)Bus Clarkson
21)Bruce Sutter
22)Ernie Lombardi
23)Ron Guidry
24)Al Rosen
25)Mickey Welch
((25a)Jim Bunning ))
((25b)Billy Pierce))

26)Sparky Lyle
27)Dick Redding (PHOM)
28)Ron Cey
29)Reggie Smith
30)Norm Cash
((30a)Joe Gordon))
((30b)Dobie Moore))
   98. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2287176)
kwarren,

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/sandy_koufax

you can find at by clicking "important links" on the main page, then "selected 20th century players," then him. or note the form of this link and repeat for others.

also usually good is the discussion page for that first "year" the guy is eligible, and sometimes the year before that, and also check the "ballot" page for the vote year, and the "election results" for that year.

Koufax got in on his first try, but not without taking a relative beating from some quarters. He's considered both great and overrated 'round these parts.
   99. Brent Posted: January 27, 2007 at 03:40 PM (#2287181)
also usually good is the discussion page for that first "year" the guy is eligible, and sometimes the year before that, and also check the "ballot" page for the vote year, and the "election results" for that year.

Actually, my recollection is that Koufax's case had been debated repeatedly for many "years" before he became eligible -- every time a short-career peak pitcher became eligible.
   100. EricC Posted: January 27, 2007 at 04:51 PM (#2287198)
On the 1980s pitcher drought.

1. The drought is real, and it's not just a 70s vs. 80s issue. Looking at pitchers by year of birth, there was a steady stream of great pitchers for decades prior to yob 1952, a drought from 1952-1961, and then the steady stream picks up again.

2. Looking at pitchers who pitched 20+ seasons, there is no drought. The long career pitchers born between 1952 and 1961 either: pitched lots of innings, with uneven results (Tanana, Dennis Martinez), couldn't maintain a steady workload (Darwin, Mike Morgan), did the starter to reliever thing (Eckersley, Honeycutt, Darwin was back and forth), or were career relievers (Orosco, Franco).

3. Of all the pitchers from this era, Stieb and Morris, included, Dennis Martinez comes up tops in my system, in spite of his strange career arc with those terrible seasons in the middle, and is most likely to make my ballot. A greater pitcher than his career 106 ERA+ would indicate.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0926 seconds
68 querie(s) executed