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 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2287202)
1960s NL HOMers, at least 3 '1960s seasons' (30) - Musial, SPAHN, Snider, Ashburn, ROBERTS, Mays, Mathews, Banks, Aaron, KOUFAX, Clemente, Boyer, BUNNING*, DRYSDALE, FRobinson*, GIBSON, BWilliams, McCovey, Santo, MARICHAL, Torre, Stargell, GPERRY, Allen, Rose, Morgan, JENKINS, Bench, SEAVER, CARLTON

1960s AL HOMers, at least 3 '1960s seasons' (15) - EWYNN, Berra, FORD, Mantle, Minoso, Kaline, WILHELM, BUNNING*, Killebrew, FRobinson*, BRobinson, Yastrzemski, Freehan, PALMER, Carew

(double-count of Bunning and FRobinson) (pitchers in CAPS)

NL 1960s backloggers who would qualify: PNiekro, JWynn, (Sutton fits here?), TPerez, Staub, Cepeda, Brock, FHoward*
AL 1960s backloggers who would qualify: Fox, Tiant, (TJohn fits here?), Cash, EHoward, Bando, RSmith, Munson, Kaat, FHoward*, Oliva, Aparicio

6 of the top 9 '1960s' backloggers are from the NL. Fox is the only AL qualifier left who is in the top 25 of the backlog, while four NLers reside there (presumably 5 if we include Sutton - no idea where TJohn will rank).

We're almost done with the 1960s (Niekro definitely, Wynn and Sutton and Fox are pretty likely), and the NL will win it by about a 2 to 1 margin....
   102. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2287211)
1950s NL HOMers, at least 3 '1950s seasons' (21) - Slaughter*, Reese, Musial, Kiner, SPAHN, JRobinson, Snider, Campanella, Ashburn, ROBERTS, Irvin, Mays, Mathews, WILHELM, Banks, Aaron, KOUFAX, Clemente, Boyer, DRYSDALE, FRobinson

1950s AL HOMers, at least 3 '1950s seasons' (18) - PAIGE, DiMaggio, FELLER, Mize, TWilliams, NEWHOUSER, WYNN, LEMON, Doby, Berra, PIERCE, FORD, Mantle, Minoso, Kaline, Slaughter*, Killebrew, BRobinson

(Slaughter double-counted) (pitchers in CAPS)

NL 1950s backloggers who would qualify: Elliott, Newcombe
AL 1950s backloggers who would qualify: Fox, EHoward, Rizzuto, Stephens, Aparicio, Rosen, Vernon

wow. Only Fox has more than 67 vote pts in the last election. Only Elliott from 1950s NL still gets more than one vote (he got 7).
Ol' Nellie will close our books on this evenly-matched decade.
   103. Howie Menckel Posted: January 27, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2287236)
Indulge me to send out a perhaps more digestible version....

HOMers who played at least 3 NL seasons in the 1950s (21)
Ps (5) - Spahn, Roberts, Drysdale, Koufax, Wilhelm
INFs (7) - C Campanella, 1B-OF Musial, 2B-3B JRobinson, 3B Mathews, 3B Boyer, SS Reese, SS Banks
OFs (9) - Ashburn, Mays, Aaron, Snider, Clemente, FRobinson, Slaughter*, Kiner, Irvin

HOMers who played at least 3 NL seasons in the 1960s (30)
Ps (11) - Spahn, Roberts, Drysdale, Koufax, Bunning*, Gibson, Marichal, GPerry, Jenkins, Seaver, Carlton (and soon comes Niekro - and Sutton?)
INFs (10) - C Bench, C-1B Torre, 1B Banks, 1B McCovey, 2B-OF Rose, 2B Morgan, 3B Mathews, 3B Boyer, 3B Santo, 3B Allen
OFs (9) - Ashburn, Mays, Aaron, Snider, Clemente, FRobinson*, Musial, BWilliams, Stargell (and JWynn?)

...............................................................................................

HOMers who played at least 3 AL seasons in the 1950s (18)
Ps (7) - EWynn, Ford, Paige, Feller, Newhouser, Lemon, Pierce
INFs (4) - C Berra, 1B Mize, 3B Killebrew, 3B BRobinson (and Fox?)
OFs (7) - Mantle, Minoso, Kaline, DiMaggio, TWilliams, Doby, Slaughter*

HOMers who played at least AL 3 seasons in the 1960s (15)
Ps (5) - EWynn, Ford, Wilhelm, Bunning, Palmer
INFs (4) - C Freehan, OF-1B-3B Killebrew, 2B Carew, 3B BRobinson (and Fox?)
OFs (6) - Mantle, Minoso, Kaline, FRobinson, Yastrzemski, OF-C Berra
   104. Juan V Posted: January 27, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2287248)
First prelim ballot:

1) Phil Niekro
2) Ted Simmons. Possibly the best hitter among the newbies, pretty impressive for a catcher.
3) Quincy Trouppe
4) Ale Oms
5) Gavvy Cravath
6) Jimmy Wynn
7) Jimmy Ryan. I decided to flip-flop the Jimmies one more time.
8) Tony Lazzeri
9) Ron Cey
10) John McGraw. After reviewing him, I'll make a preliminary request for admission at the John McGraw bandwagon. Still not done with him, though.
11) Bob Johnson
12) Luis Tiant
13) Charley Jones
14) Gene Tenace
15) Don Sutton. I knew all about his overratedness, but I thought he would be higher. As said before, the lack of anything resembling a peak hurts him.
   105. Juan V Posted: January 27, 2007 at 08:43 PM (#2287286)
The other newbies, ordered in distance separating them from my ballot:

Concepción, Nettles, Sutter, Guidry, Cruz....
   106. kwarren Posted: January 27, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2287301)
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.

Dave Stieb.........9.9, 9.8, 9.4, 9.1, 8.5 (46.7)......87.4
Jack Morris........8.8, 8.3, 8.1, 7.6, 7.1 (39.9)......89.8
Dennis Martinez... 8.4, 7.5, 7.5, 7.1, 6.5 (37.0)......90.9

EricC,

What does you system pickup that other evaluations don't? How do you get him to be better than Stieb? Stieb actually has five separate seasons that were better than Martinez's best and a peak value that is 26.2% better than Martinez's.
   107. kwarren Posted: January 27, 2007 at 09:53 PM (#2287311)
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.)

Here is some sorting out using WARP3:

Robbie Alomar.....12.5, 11.7, 11.6, 10.7, 9.9 (56.4)...131.7
Alan Trammell.....13.1, 10.5, 10.3, 10.2, 9.7 (53.8)...123.3
Craig Biggio......13.2, 11.0, 10.2, 9.8, 9.2 (53.4)...123.5
Barry Larkin......11.2, 10.9, 10.8, 10.7, 9.2 (52.8)...122.2
Lou Whitaker.......9.7, 9.2, 8.9, 8.4, 8.1 (45.3)...123.9
Jeff Kent.........12.2, 10.6, 10.4, 8.5, 7.8 (49.5)...103.9
Derek Jeter.......12.1, 11.8, 11.1, 9.3, 8.2 (51.5)....91.8
Chuck Knoblauch...12.5, 10.6, 8.7, 8.4, 8.4 (48.6)....80.0
Miguel Tejada.....13.0, 10.7, 10.5, 8.5, 7.7 (50.4)....72.4
Nomar Garciaparra.11.5, 11.3, 10.2, 9.4, 9.2 (51.6)....70.8
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM (#2287357)
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.

Right, Brent.
   109. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2007 at 02:11 AM (#2287399)
Prelim 1994 (elect 3)

Big shake-up this year. Mainly the pitchers. My borderline backlog (#15-30) is especially getting a thorough review since we’ll all be moving a bunch of buys who have historically been off-ballot on-ballot in the next few years. Tommy Leach, Al Rosen and Luke Easter move into the top 25 and into position for serious consideration of moving on-ballot someday soon.

1. Phil Niekro (5-new, PHoM 1994)—better than I thought, a completely different ballpark than Don Sutton, e.g.

2. Edd Roush (4-6-10, PHoM 1976)—nice peak of 38*-33-30 (*short WWI season adjusted to 154), very well-rounded skills.

3. Ted Simmons (new, PHoM 1994)—I suppose you could characterize him as borderline, but then you’d really have to say “high borderline;” really dominates the other catcher candidates and there are a bunch of good ones.

4. Charlie Keller (6-9-8, PHoM 1985)—the all-peakers all-peak candidate.

5. Larry Doyle (15-5-5, PHoM 1975)—best of the “3B.”

6. Rollie Fingers (7-3-3, PHoM 1991)—there’s no uber-stat that says Fingers is ballot-worthy, but I go back to Chris Cobb’s old test—who do you want in the HoM? And on that simple basis, subjective as it is, I want the #3 reliever of all-time in our knowledge base through 1991.

7. Elston Howard (12-15-15, PHoM 1994)—never really thought of him as a HoM or HoF or PHoM type of player, but I now see him as one of those few players whose opportunities were least commensurate to his ability.

8. Addie Joss (9-6-6, PHoM 1967)—best ERA+ available among those with a real career’s worth of IP.

9. Orlando Cepeda (16-13-9, PHoM 1987)—pretty interchangeable with F. Howard, Cravath and (now) Tony Perez, but the best of the group.

10. Phil Rizzuto (22-17-17)—moves up, we’ve elected all the great hitters, how about the great gloves?

11. Dick Redding (26-25-25, PHoM 1971)—moves back up, as I’m trying to get back to looking for that great peak.

12. Nellie Fox (8-4-4, PHoM 1971)—I’ve decided I like Rizzuto a bit better, two very very comparable players.

13. Reggie Smith (17-10-11, PHoM 1988)—still underrated.

14. Ed Williamson (13-11-13, PHoM 1924)—Ed is like a bad habit I just can’t shake.

15. Pete Browning (10-7-7, PHoM 1961)—Browning & Williamson—don’t they make cigarettes?

Drops Out

34. Tommy Bond (11-12-12, PHoM 1929)
36. Dizzy Dean (14-23-23, PHoM 1994)—cannot make up my mind about these guys, they are such extreme peak cases, yet both fall short on ERA+.

Close—i.e. right around in/out line, as I think we will elect another dozen backloggers before we’re done

16. Tommy Leach (29-48-47)
17. Charley Jones (30-16-16, PHoM 1921)
18. Al Rosen (37-40-39)
19. Tony Perez (18-new)

20. Don Sutton (new)—higher than I expected him to be.

21. Gavvy Cravath (21-14-14)
22. Don Newcombe (20-22-21)
(22a. Ken Boyer [22a-22b-22])
23. Frank Howard (27-19-18)
24. Eddie Cicotte (29-29-28)
(24a. Willie Keeler [30a-22a-21a])
25. Luke Easter (60-54-54)

HoVVG

26. Dick Lundy (23-28-27)
27. Bucky Walters (25-20-19)
28. Hack Wilson (39-34-33)
29. Sal Bando (49-60-61)
30. Chuck Klein (24-24-24)
(30a. Joe Sewell [28b-21a-20a])
(30b. Jim Bunning [28a-37a-36a])
   110. Juan V Posted: January 28, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2287411)
I know the answer is based around "You're a Win Shares guy", but: If Rizzuto and Fox, why not Concepcion?
   111. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 28, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2287448)
Sunny,

You mention that Dizzy Dean is a PHOM choice for the upcoming election and yet ot drop him 13 spots to #36. Shouldn't you elect someone on or near your ballot like Tommy Leach? Or is that just a misprint? BTW, I am wrestling with Putting Dean, Fingers, or Oms in my PHOM this 'year'.
   112. rawagman Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:34 AM (#2287489)
MArk - I think it's a misprint - he already has Niekro, Simmons and E. Howard typed up as PHOM 1994.
   113. EricC Posted: January 28, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2287573)
What does you system pickup that other evaluations don't? How do you get him to be better than Stieb? Stieb actually has five separate seasons that were better than Martinez's best and a peak value that is 26.2% better than Martinez's.

kwarren- My nonlinear, ERA+ based, system views El Presidente's career more favorably than WARP does and it's enough to overcome Stieb's peak advantage.
   114. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2007 at 04:33 PM (#2287577)
Mark,

rawagman is right. Niekro, Simmons and E. Howard are my PHoMers.

Dean is probably the toughest player for me to rate that there has ever been. My #1 number for pitchers is ERA+ (ok, along with WS). And when I start to really focus on ERA+ Diz drops down around #36. When I look at a lot of other factors he moves up. I have been re-rating the pitchers and had Dean as high as #6 during the past week, on a pre-prelim ballot and he was at one time my pre-prelim PHoM choice. But then in my final final look I just felt I couldn't support that, but missed the obvious edit.

In my very final re-eval, Niekro and Sutton moved up, BTW, while as you can see Dean and Bond dropped. So while I consider myself a peak voter, there's a limit, I guess, and especially when ERA+ isn't there. Though OTOH Don Newcombe is the exception to the rule. His ERA+ isn't that great. But like Ellie Howard his career was very very heavily disrupted and I MLE for that.

I should add that Rizzuto benefits a lot from war credit, too. I will take another final final look at Concepcion in light of Rizzuto and Fox but, yes, I'm a WS guy. But aside from WS, Rizzuto and Fox won MVP awards that they were generally thought to deserve, while Concepcion was never ever considered to be that kind of player.

As I've said, I've got guys as low as #60 or so now who have been on my ballot, and buys as low as the 50s who were once among my PHoM consideration set of maybe 5-6 final candidates for PHoM in a given backlog year. It pains me to see guys that were once on my ballot now down in the 30s-40s-50s-60s, and now and again I grab one of those guys and push 'em back into the top 25-30 or so. But usually they drop back again. Sentimentality is all it is, usually. Tommy Leach OTOH has never been on my ballot but suddenly he is the guy this week that I just can't seem to place down in the 50s and 60s. We'll see if it lasts.

Along with Leach, Rosen and Easter and Bando moved up quite a bit. The current discussion on the Graig Nettles thread is certainly not favorable to Rosen. I am still considering whether I have the 3Bs in the right order, but I'm pretty darned sure that Bando beats Nettles. Where Leach and Rosen fit in depends very much on your criteria. And on my ballot I describe Larry Doyle as the best of the 3Bs, for obvious reasons, that is the spectrum shift. Doyle and Leach, being (very) rough contemporaries are an interesting pair.

Anyway, I have never understood you guys who have your ballot down pat and nobody ever moves relative to one another. How do you do that?
   115. sunnyday2 Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2287610)
On further review, Concepcion is to Fox and Rizzuto as John is to Niekro and Sutton. Arguably in the same cluster, but clearly below on every measure.

Career WS: Rizzuto 306 (adj), Fox 304, Concepcion 269.

Peak WS: Rizzuto and Fox have 3 years between them in the 30s, and 10 and 9 years in the 20s. Concepcion has 0 and 5.

OPS+: Rizzuto and Fox are at least in the 90s, Concepcion is at 88.

So he just comes up short across the board though by small margins.
   116. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2287626)
I don't think you are actually talking to me here but I want to say that I have tons of movement between 12-40 or 50 or so. However, righ tnow my top ten is pretty set outside of the newbies that get slotted in each year. It just seems that every time I look at them I realize why I put them in that spot. There are reasons why I would move say, Jimmy Wynn, up or down, but it seems that below Bucky Walters and above Quincey Trouppe is the best spot I can put him in.

This hasn't always been the case, there was a time that I have Charlie Keller below Duffy, Redding, and Walters as well as Kiner, Childs, and Moore. That changed and now Keller is my #1 backlogger and the only one that I feel HAS to be in the HOM. Maybe my top 11 are pretty much set because I make sure to run a player through the paces if they are on the cusp of my PHOM.

Prelim

1. Niekro - easy choice, he was only slightly behind Carlton last year
2. Keller - The one guy that I really, really, really want to see in the HOM before we are done. Very nice, long peak.
3. Hugh Duffy - Rates so highly because I am willing, as WS is, to give him some credit for his teams out playing not only their RS and RA but their component record as well. One argument for peak voting is that great seasons help win pennants and since the Red Stocking won so much, that credit has to go somewhere. Maybe the manger? I am willing to listen.
4. Dick Redding - 2nd best NeL pitcher of the dead ball era, better than Mendez IMO.
5. Bucky Walters - He has Dean's peak (almost) with more valuable seasons around it.
6. Jimmy Wynn - Nice peak in a era (60-93?) where great peaks were harder to come by. Underrated due to his ear and park
7. Ted Simmons - His catchers bonus isnt' very big as he played full seasons with time at 1B and in the OF. I have him as slightly better than Torre and the best catcher on the board. Definite HOMer though.
8. Quincey Trouppe - Very nice peak, very good hitter for a catcher. Better than Mackey IMO.
9. Elston Howard - very similar to Trouppe except he played OF instead of 3B and he spent time not playing vs. spent time in the MxL. I am rethinking whether or not that last one should count for anything.
10. Pete Browning - Great hitter who would be higher if not for an AA discount.
11. Gavvy Cravath - Virtually tied with Browning in my rankings

12. Dizzy Dean - Koufax Lite
13. Rollie Fingers - 3rd best reliever that we know of in 1994?

These two are currently fighting it out for my third PHOM spot (Simmons and Niekro got the first two). Everyone above them is in.

14. Alejandro Oms - I like him slightly more than GVH but can be convinced otherwise. Long, high prime.
(Pierce, W.Brown)
15. Vic Willis - First time on my ballot. I have always liked him but he hadn't gotten through enough backlog for me to place him on my ballot. Moved up some recently over OF candidates like Berger, Howard, and GVH.

16. Sutton - Still not sure what to do with him. Chances are he will make my PHOM before we are done. I have him essentially tied with Rixey (who is in my PHOM) but I am nto sure that Rizey would be higher than 14 on this ballot. I may have been hasty with his induction.

17. Bresnahan
18. Doyle
19. GVH
20. Fox
21. Shocker
22. Rosen
23. Roush
(Ashburn)
24. Leach
25. McGraw

I coudl still see myself one day voting for these three

26. Charley Jones
27. Wally Berger
29. Bob Elliot

None of the newbies not ranked are really in my consideration set. Sutter is not my type, though he is a local boy from LAncaster County, Pa. In fact his nephew (Ryan, I believe) struck me out in Varsity one time. This was no great achievement, however, as I wasn't very good. Nettles and Concepcion are interesting, in fact Davey is around #45 but not really my cup of tea, I like a higher peak.

If we elect twelve backloggers after 1994 that would mean everyone through Shocker would be in my PHOM. Obviously the next five guys are really close as well.
   117. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:15 AM (#2287785)
If any of you are confused about a Dickey Pearce thread posted more than 60 "years" after he was inducted :-), let me explain. I'm going to be posting new threads for every player who never received one and will have some discussion links attached to them. BTW, each player thread, new or old, will now be accessible at the top of the Plaque Room (thanks to friend-of-the-HoM Dave Johnson for thinking that up for us!)
   118. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2288188)
One issue about Elston Howard. In order to get him on the ballot, as far as I can tell, you need to give him credit for 1)the slow pace of integration, and 2)being stuck behind Berra for several years. I don't really have a problem with the first part, but I'm not sure the second part is accurate. We've all heard the arguments about whether Bob Feller would have gotten to 300 wins if not for World War II - did the years off from pitching hold off an inevitable breakdown given the workload he was given before the war?

Given the short lifespan that catchers often suffer from, I'm not sure that you couldn't make a similar argument for Howard. If he was signed by another team and put in the lineup from day one, would he have lasted until the mid-60s, or would it be a case of putting his great early 60s seasons into the 50s, but not a great deal more than that when it's all done? I guess I'm just reluctant to give credit to someone for playing catcher when they weren't actually doing that, and I'd be interested to know what other people think.
   119. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 29, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2288217)
I think the case for Howard relies on different variables than you've suggested, Devin. Howard missed Korea time, which undoubtedly pushed him back a couple years. Prior to the war, he played three years with the Monarchs, then jumped to the Central League (which, I think, was a lower-to-middle level minor league). He hit well there. Then the two war years. When he returned, he played two years at AAA, the first pretty good (shaking the rust off, I guess) in the IL, the second, with KC of the AA was excellent and precipitated his promotion to the majors. (Note, I could have the order of IL/AA wrong, I'm working off memory). Regardless of whether the Yanks played him or not, the meat of the discussion is how to deal with the two war years and the five or six years he logged between the NgLs and the MiLs.

I don't like to go down the line of figuring out whether slow integration practices by the Yanks should be credited. I mean he hit well in year one with them, poorly the next two years, and those two poor years could have been why he didn't play much, not because of color. You'd have to ask Casey Stengel. But the stuff before he hits the majors, that's where we may have more room for assessment.

That said, his MLB career is close enough to get him into the lower rungs of HOMable catchers for me.
   120. Mark Donelson Posted: January 29, 2007 at 07:30 PM (#2288326)
That said, his MLB career is close enough to get him into the lower rungs of HOMable catchers for me.

I know you don't embrace the appellation entirely, but it's always nice to see your inner peak voter, um, peeking out. :)
   121. sunnyday2 Posted: January 29, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2288347)
As a peak voter, Howard is clearly in the consideration set, and then what Doc said. The NeL career, Korea, the slow pace of integration. If Howard had played earlier and spent an entire career in the NeL, there is no doubt in my mind that he was and would have appeared better than Biz Mackey. If he had come along a decade later, he would have been Bill Freehan. But as it is, his career suffered more interruptions than is fair. His WS peak of 32-29-28 says it all. As it is, his 4th best season was a 20. Under anything approaching normality, there would have been a couple-three more seasons between 28 and 20.

In 1964 at the age of 35 he played 150 games and hit .313/.371/.455 (OPS+ 127) with 15 HR and 84 RBI and 172 hits. And that's not his MVP year. In fact he had more RBI twice and a higher OPS+ twice. He was an A- glove compared to Lombardi at D+, Bresnahan C+, Munson B-, Tenace C, Schang C+ among the consideration set for the position. Only Tenace among them clearly out-hit him.

I am leaving Simmons out of this BTW as he is so clearly the top catcher for the moment, I expect him to move out from among the eligibles ex post haste.
   122. jimd Posted: January 29, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2288400)
Reprinted from the Elston Howard thread:

He was backup to Yogi Berra, who still caught a lot of games those years. 1959 was Yogi's last great season as a catcher. 1960 was a transitional year (and Stengel's last as manager).

In 1961 the job appears to have been Howard's (don't know what role, if any, the managerial change played in this), and begins Howard's streak of 4 great seasons. Howard was only 4 years younger than Yogi, so it's not too surprising that the run wasn't longer.

These were better seasons than Yogi had had at the same age (though it must be noted that Elston also had had a lot less wear-and-tear due to his prolonged understudy role). In fact, those might be the best 4 seasons that any catcher has had aged 32-35. At that age, White was playing 3rd, Ewing 1st, Bennett was in a backup role. Bresnahan was player-managing, Cochrane was beaned around 32-33, Dickey and Carter and Piazza's last great season was at 32, Bench at 31.

Stack those 4 seasons against Josh Gibson's MLE's at the same age and you get:
Howard: 29, 20, 28, 32
Gibson: 31, 28, 29, deceased
Hartnett: 21, 24, 26, 18, (25)

It's a highly unusual career. One which makes you wonder if a truly great player was forced to play an understudy role to another truly great player because the player had no real options and the team had no compelling need to either play him or trade him.

Note: Just want to point out that I'm not suggesting that Howard might have been Josh Gibson if he'd only had a chance to play. (I think the Yankees would have noticed that.)
   123. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM (#2288485)
Hey guys, I just posted some really interesting information on Quincy Trouppe that Strat-O Fan was kind enough to pass along to me. Thank you Strat-O Fan!

The basic gist of it is this: Trouppe hit the snot out of the ball; the league quality was so-so but his team was very good and beat a lot of top touring teams; Trouppe did an excellent job shutting down the running game and appears overall to have done a good job on defense.

Most important to me, however, is this: I've been hammering for years on this one note that we should be treating his Bismark play more seriously, that it merits full credit. Now we have some real sense of the first year he was there, right after he jumped from the NgLs. Prior to this, Trouppe was an afterthought in accounts of Bismark, if he's ever mentioned, but now we have hard data showing that the man was making an impact there. The 1933-1936 period in his career is coming into sharper focus, and those seasons, which will be especially important to career voters, need to be considered more fully.
   124. DavidFoss Posted: January 31, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2289216)
bump... test...
   125. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 31, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2289233)
Is it rolling, Bob?
   126. TomH Posted: January 31, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2289284)
In the years 1893 to 1901, John McGraw scored 937 runs. While only playing in 908 games.
Yes, it was a high-offense era. Still, only two other guys (550 game minimum over these 9 yrs) accomplished the same:
1 Billy Hamilton, who was truly an all-time great (1119 runs in 1024 games)
2 Willie Keeler (1139 runs in 1084 games), whose OWP in this time was much lower than McGraw's (.685 to .748). And we elected him to the HoM.

And of course, both of those guys were outfielders. McGraw played third base, which was more like today's second base.

Not a bad 9 year prime, eh? That's what a .470 OBP will do fer ya.
   127. TomH Posted: January 31, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2289299)
A tale of two ballplayers
(no, neither of them are named McGraw)

according to Win Shares, by season ordered best to worst for each player

A 35 33 32 24 20 15 09 09 07 06 03 01
B 35 31 29 25 23 20 14 14 13 09 07 07 05 04 01
diff 0 2.. 3. -1 -3. -5 -5 -5. -6 -3. -4 -6. -5 -4. -1

Player A made MLB's all-century team. While many HoM voters consider him overrated, we still elected him easily.

Player B, OTOH, would get ZERO votes from this group if KJOK and I disappeared.

Yes, I know, Win Shares aren't perfect, different times/places, blah blah, but this comparison sure makes B look like a more valuable player than A, unless your criterion is best 4 or fewer seasons.
   128. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 31, 2007 at 07:09 PM (#2289330)
Tom, I know Chance is (b), which hurts him since there's lots of dudes at 1B with superior peaks and careers. Since (a) isn't Sam Thompson (wrong century), I think you should let us know if he's at the same end of the defensive spectrum....
   129. DavidFoss Posted: January 31, 2007 at 07:13 PM (#2289335)
B is Chance.

Looks like A is Koufax.

That's an odd comparison.
   130. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 31, 2007 at 07:33 PM (#2289355)
Looks like A is Koufax.

Wrong end of the spectrum.... ; )
   131. DL from MN Posted: January 31, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2289384)
Here's my top 25 "pre-Ruth" player rankings. Frank Chance is at the bottom. McGraw would make my ballot but right at the cutoff.

1 Jake Beckley
2 Gavy Cravath
3 Vic Willis
4 Johnny Evers
5 Tommy Leach
6 Fred Dunlap
7 Lave Cross
8 Jim McCormick
9 Jimmy Ryan
10 Roger Bresnahan
11 Pete Browning
12 George Van Haltren
13 Ed Konetchy
14 Charley Jones
15 John McGraw
16 Joe Tinker
17 Spots Poles
18 Ed Cicotte
19 Hugh Duffy
20 Larry Doyle
21 Bill Monroe
22 Tony Mullane
23 Fielder Jones
24 Frank Chance
25 Addie Joss
26-28 Mickey Welch, Herman Long, Mike Griffin
   132. KJOK Posted: January 31, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2289396)
Tom, I know Chance is (b), which hurts him since there's lots of dudes at 1B with superior peaks and careers

There are NOT, however, a lot of 'dudes' in the 1900-1920 time period with superior peaks and careers...
   133. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 31, 2007 at 08:54 PM (#2289433)
Koufax is an odd comparison because pitchers workloads thorughout time have created different WS totals dependent on era. While I use WS extensively, I rearely do direct comparisons of pitchers from different eras, let alone pitchers and position players from different eras.

Chance's peak in my system is very good, even for a 1B, but he doesn't have a great prime for a player at his position and his career totals are pretty low. McGraw ranks higher among 3B than Chance does amongst 1B. Of course Chance's contemporaries at 1B weren't that great either, which gives him a boost. If Chance had played about 10-20 more games per season in seasons 3-9 of his career (or so, I dont' have GP and WS in front of me), he would be on my ballot. But a lack of prime seasons at a position with players filled with them, brings him down some IMO.
   134. Rob_Wood Posted: January 31, 2007 at 09:07 PM (#2289439)
My view is that if Koufax was a position player then we would not have elected him.
Pitchers are a special case insofar as they can dominate a World Series. Sandy
Koufax (or, say, Bob Gibson) at his best gave his team a very high probability of
winning a World Series game, and by extension the World Series.

A position player generally does not have the same amount of influence on a
World Series as an ace starting pitcher. For one, if a hitter is red-hot he can
be pitched around.

Anyway, I appreciate Tom's advocacy of Frank Chance. I have reviewed Chance
many times and every time I move him up a bit. However, as a career-value voter,
Chance remains just off my ballot. I definitely encourage everyone to give
him another look.
   135. DL from MN Posted: January 31, 2007 at 09:23 PM (#2289447)
I do find it interesting that Tinker, Evers and Chance are among the best players of their era that we haven't inducted. Everyone assumes they were a big mistake who were only inducted because someone wrote a nifty poem about them. If the size of the hall were just a little bit bigger than it is you would pretty much have to induct them.
   136. DL from MN Posted: January 31, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2289449)
I do find it interesting that Tinker, Evers and Chance are among the best players of their era that we haven't inducted. Everyone assumes they were a big mistake who were only inducted because someone wrote a nifty poem about them. If the size of the hall were just a little bit bigger than it is you would pretty much have to induct them.
   137. djrelays Posted: January 31, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2289480)
A few notes on Elston Howard:

He became the (most) regular Yankees catcher in 1960 when he caught 91 games and Berra caught 63. In 1957-59, Howard caught 32, 67 and 43 games respectively, but despite catching only 20-40 percent of Yankees games, he was selected as a third catcher for the All-Star game in each case. Yankees manager Casey Stengel was the AL manager all three times, so there was the possibility of giving his own guy the nod. But three times in a row? Stengel must have known something. Also, Stengel had not carried three catchers for the AS game until Howard came into the picture.

On the other hand, Howard made the '59 team for the second game (this was the first year of two AS games per year) only as a replacement for Gus Triandos, who was injured between the two games.

Now for some less salient but still interesting items.

Berra was on the AS team all three years as Howard, with the other spot going to either Triandos or Sherm Lollar. Lollar came up with Cleveland in '46, then was traded to the Yankees for '47 and '48 as their #4 catcher, but wasn't going to get past the Yankees' #2 catcher, Berra. Lollar then was traded to the St. Louis Browns.

A few years later, Triandos came up with the Yankees, and also did a two-year stint, '53-54 as the #4 catcher. But in '54 Berra has just won the second of his three MVPs, and the Yankees decided to bring up Howard for '55 and shuffled Triandos off to the former Browns, now the Baltimore Orioles.

in the seven-year run from '54-60, the AL all-star catchers were Berra (each year), plus Lollar, Howard and Triandos in various years. That's three all-star catchers the Yankees had aside from Berra, and the guy they ultimately chose to replace Berra was Howard, who wasn't even the youngest. (Triandos was born 1930, Howard '29, Berra '25, Lollar '24.)

Berra's string of years as the team's #1 catcher coincided exactly with Stengel's years as manager, '49-60. The #3 Yankees catcher in Lollar's two years through the first of Triandos's two years was Stengel's successor, Ralph Houk.
   138. TomH Posted: January 31, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2289509)
....and obviously (I hope), I didn't mean to imply that I would take Frank Chance over Sandy Koufax.
   139. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 31, 2007 at 10:56 PM (#2289511)
My system, FWIW, sees Evers as the closest to the HOM, and he's just below the cut. The other two are both top 30ish at their position among MLBs, but not real threats for election.
   140. djrelays Posted: January 31, 2007 at 11:23 PM (#2289535)
One damning aspect of the election of Tinker, Evers and Chance is that they all walked through the Coop doors together in 1946. It's as if the VC asked, "how can we put in one without the others?" The three picks might at least have given the appearance of having been thought through if they'd gone in in different years.
   141. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 31, 2007 at 11:46 PM (#2289550)
Upcoming Candidates
31 1998 Tim Crews-RP
27 1998 Steve Olin-RP


Wow, it'd been a while since I thought about them.
   142. OCF Posted: February 01, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2289617)
Monty - to be honest, that sells Joe Tinker short. He's a shortsop, and shortstops don't have to get black ink. (And how are you supposed to get offensive black ink sharing a league with Honus Wagner?) And the perception that Tinker was a top-notch defensive shortstop was correct. Tinker and Evers both had ~1800 game careers and Chance had ~1300 games. Harry Steinfeldt had ~1650 games, with not all of it at 3B. It's definitely lack of bulk that's standing in Chance's way; with all three (or four) one must take care to properly correct for the extremely run-scarce environment they played in at their peaks. Tinker was quite a good hitter, for a shortstop.

The team won. Not many dynasties have done much better. And they did it in part with fungible pitchers who only looked great when they pitched for the Cubs. (Modecai Brown was far from fungible, but they weren't asking him for 400 innnings a year.) In past HoM elections, I have had Chance on my ballot, and I had Evers on my ballot briefly. The biggest problem with voting for Tinker is that I can't see having him ahead of Herman Long, as long as Long is on the outside. Neither Chance nor Evers is particularly close to my ballot now, as 70 or 80 years worth of new worthy candidates have inserted themselves into the queue - but if we had happened to elect either a long time ago, it wouldn't have been our worst mistake.

Not long ago we had a little game of naming the best infield without a HoFer, with varying results. If the question were what the best infield without a HoMer is, I think that Steinfeldt/Tinker/Evers/Chance would be very, very hard to top.
   143. DavidFoss Posted: February 01, 2007 at 01:42 AM (#2289624)
Re:1906-1910 Cubs

Kling was a great catcher as well, but like Chief Meyers he just didn't play long enough be a good HOM candidate. (Similarly, Bresnahan played long enough to be a candidate, but not long enough to get inducted yet)

Many of the 1906-1910 Cubs all peaked at the same time. Brown & Sheckard were the only ones who had a long enough prime to get inducted here (and ironically, Sheckard's best years were not 1906-1910).
   144. jimd Posted: February 01, 2007 at 03:11 AM (#2289650)
One damning aspect of the election of Tinker, Evers and Chance is that they all walked through the Coop doors together in 1946. It's as if the VC asked, "how can we put in one without the others?"

Whatever you think of the merits of their respective cases, the fact is that both Chance and Evers were high vote-getters in the BBWAA elections of 1945-46. Chance led the ballot in both 1945 and 1946, missing election by 7 and 8 votes (72% and 71%). Evers was 4th then 2nd at 54% and 64%. Tinker was back in the pack, 18th and 13th with 20% and 27%. The VC probably did get too cute adding him to the election group in 1946, but everybody ahead of him on those BBWAA ballots, and many behind him (top 33 and 28, everybody ahead of Johnny Kling) would eventually make the HOF.
   145. Daryn Posted: February 01, 2007 at 03:19 PM (#2289886)
I'm not sure if it has been raised here, but someone on the Ryan thread pointed out that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.
   146. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 01, 2007 at 06:08 PM (#2290019)
I'm not sure if it has been raised here, but someone on the Ryan thread pointed out that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

The longevity he shows in piling up those totals is great, but the comparison falls apart after that...

NAME       K/9  lgK/9  K/9+
============================
Johnson   5.34   3.53  152

Ryan      9.55   5.31  180
Unit
*    10.95   6.27  175
Pedro
*   10.25   6.43  159 
Clemens
*  8.61   6.00  144
Carlton   7.13   5.44  131
Blyleven  6.70   5.24  128
Tanana    5.96   5.17  115  
Sutton    6.09   5.41  113
G Perry   5.94   5.35  111
J Morris  5.83   5.28  110
P Niekro  5.57   5.41  103
*thru 2005
source
the SBE 
   147. DavidFoss Posted: February 01, 2007 at 07:59 PM (#2290105)
How significant can it be that Joe Tinker was in the top 10 in Sacrifice Hits six times? He was the eighth-oldest player in 1916 -- big deal!

You don't get black or grey ink for those things. His grey ink total is not impressive, but he got it by showing up on the leaderboard for standard stats (20 pts for Avg/HR/RBI, 6 pts for SLG, 10 pts for 2B/SB and 5 pts for G/3B).

It not a fair measure for him though. None of the monitors are park or era adjusted. (though he does get some nice points for being a starting shortstop on WS teams).
   148. DavidFoss Posted: February 01, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2290109)
Not that I support Tinker... just that black/grey ink is harsh on glove-men and monitors are not park & era adjusted... so those measures are unnecessarily harsh on him.
   149. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 01, 2007 at 08:54 PM (#2290168)
I'm not sure if it has been raised here, but someone on the Ryan thread pointed out that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

The longevity he shows in piling up those totals is great, but the comparison falls apart after that...


NAME K/9 lgK/9 K/9+
============================
Johnson 5.34 3.53 152

Ryan 9.55 5.31 180
Unit* 10.95 6.27 175
Pedro* 10.25 6.43 159
Clemens* 8.61 6.00 144
Carlton 7.13 5.44 131
Blyleven 6.70 5.24 128
Tanana 5.96 5.17 115
Sutton 6.09 5.41 113
G Perry 5.94 5.35 111
J Morris 5.83 5.28 110
P Niekro 5.57 5.41 103
*thru 2005
source, the SBE


Johnson also walked fewer men compared to his contempoaries than Sutton did.

If Johnson has started his career in 1966, I'm sure that Johnson's K totals would destroy Suttons, while his BB totals would be significantly less.
   150. KJOK Posted: February 01, 2007 at 09:23 PM (#2290193)
Re:1906-1910 Cubs

Kling was a great catcher as well, but like Chief Meyers he just didn't play long enough be a good HOM candidate. (Similarly, Bresnahan played long enough to be a candidate, but not long enough to get inducted yet)


"didn't play long enough" only if you erronously apply current day standards to deadball players.

Here's a chart of PT for Catchers who had careers 1900-1920:

<pre>
CAREER
1900-1920
C

AT BATS AB
1 Roger Bresnahan 4465
2 Johnny Kling 4238
3 Red Dooin 4004
4 George Gibson 3776
5 Billy Sullivan 3583
6 Oscar Stanage 3498
7 Ray Schalk 3315
8 Steve O'Neill 3125
9 Bill Bergen 3028
10 Bill Killefer 3017

GAMES G
1 Roger Bresnahan 1440
2 Red Dooin 1286
3 Johnny Kling 1260
4 George Gibson 1213
5 Billy Sullivan 1124
6 Oscar Stanage 1091
7 Ray Schalk 1080
8 Steve O'Neill 1009
9 Chief Meyers 992
10 Bill Killefer 990 </RPE>
   151. OCF Posted: February 01, 2007 at 09:40 PM (#2290207)
If Johnson had started his career in 1966, I'm sure that Johnson's K totals would destroy Suttons, while his BB totals would be significantly less.

The only thing that means is that you just can't effectively use Walter Johnson as a comparison point in a Hall of Merit debate. How can you use him as a comparison point at all? Pete Alexander wasn't Johnson, but he could stand alongside Johnson in the same time and place without looking too shabby. Joe Williams - well it all depends on the quality of the data and the MLE interpretations, but maybe he was sort of kind of like Johnson - well, maybe not Johnson, but maybe Alexander or Mathewson. You want to argue across the timeline? Let's argue Seaver versus Johnson. Or Clemens versus Johnson. But none of those work in an HoM debate, just because they're moot: Alexander, Williams, Seaver, and Clemens are such shoo-ins that they don't need debate.

I am going to support Sutton for the HoM. It's a career case, and it's bolstered slightly by the fact that he looks a little better in RA+ than in ERA+. I'm not going to argue that he's the equal of the likes of Niekro and Carlton, but that he's closer to them than he is to the likes of Kaat and John. In another thread in another part of BTF, someone called Nolan Ryan "Don Sutton with no-hitters." Yes, exactly. I think Sutton and Ryan are both in, and I don't see a lot of difference betwen them. But those are my comparison points: Niekro, Carlton, Kaat, John, Ryan (and Early Wynn and Red Ruffing). Let's leave Johnson (and Seaver) out of it.
   152. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 01, 2007 at 09:46 PM (#2290213)
The only thing that means is that you just can't effectively use Walter Johnson as a comparison point in a Hall of Merit debate.

Exactly, OCF. There are not too many pitchers who can be compared to Johnson favorably, even HoMers elected with high percentages of all possible points.
   153. jimd Posted: February 01, 2007 at 11:09 PM (#2290284)
that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

And Dave Concepcion hit more career HRs than Cap Anson.

The game changes over time.
   154. DavidFoss Posted: February 01, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2290297)
Just for fun, I thought I would check to see where Roger Connor's career HR mark of 138 -- that stood for twenty five years -- was in the current rankings.

According to Wikipedia, he's currently tied for 448th with Jose Cardenal, Bill Mazeroski, Raul Ibanez, Matt Lawton and Earl Williams.
   155. jimd Posted: February 01, 2007 at 11:27 PM (#2290305)
that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

Even better...

And Dave Concepcion and Honus Wagner have the same number of career HRs.
   156. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 02, 2007 at 12:55 AM (#2290356)
There are not too many pitchers who can be compared to Johnson favorably

This isn't really relevant, but is there any argument besides timeline against the Big Train as the greatest pitcher evar?
   157. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 02, 2007 at 01:08 AM (#2290362)
This isn't really relevant, but is there any argument besides timeline against the Big Train as the greatest pitcher evar?

There are always arguments, Dan. Hell, in the past, I have given them. :-) But Johnson looks like Numero Uno to me. The only exception I would offer is Clemens, but only since I haven't fully analyzed and compared his career to Barney's yet.
   158. OCF Posted: February 02, 2007 at 01:15 AM (#2290367)
This isn't really relevant, but is there any argument besides timeline against the Big Train as the greatest pitcher evar?

There is the guy on the other side of him in the timeline, as a career case: Cy Young. I think I'd take Johnson, but it would be possible to argue on the other side.
   159. rlopahle Posted: February 02, 2007 at 02:00 AM (#2290402)
Hello! I'm new to the site but excited to start participating and voting on the candidates. We're getting close to the year when I started following the Hall of Fame votes in REAL LIFE, so I think it'll be fun and interesting to jump in. I've tried to skim through some of the already posted articles, but with years and years of ballots already voted on, it's a little daunting. Would it be possible for somebody (the moderator?) to email me and let me know exactly what I need to do to get started? Do I just look at the most recent ballot posted (looks like 1994) and decide on my selections? Do I post them on the site or email to the moderator? If I'm reading some of the posts correctly, we our to rank our 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc....but the in any given year there are a set number that will be elected. Correct? Okay, if there's anything else I should know before I get started, please let me know. I look forward to joining the ranks of the voters!

Thanks!

Ryan L. Opahle
(rlopahle@gmail.com)
   160. Daryn Posted: February 02, 2007 at 04:14 AM (#2290497)
that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

Even better...

And Dave Concepcion and Honus Wagner have the same number of career HRs.


That's just childish. The two comparisons are not comparable. And I wasn't saying that Sutton was comparable to Johnson, I was just saying the guy racked up the 7th all time amoumt of strikeouts and had a better K/BB ratio than an all time great. That is not comparing Concepcion to Wagner, its comparing Rose to Cobb, or Palmeiro to Foxx. I don't think Palmeiro's comparable to Foxx, I just think racking up that many homeruns is not too shabby.

I also wasn't trying to be persuasive. I don't think there is any doubt that Sutton will make it in next week. I was just saying look at this guy -- 3rd most starts ever. That's not too shabby.
   161. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 02, 2007 at 04:38 AM (#2290505)
I think there may also be an argument for Lefty Grove being better than Johnson based on his extra years in Baltimore. Bill James tried to make that argument at one point, but decided that Johnson was still better in the NBJHBA.

If I had one guy that I would have pitch for one game, I may still choose late 90's, early 00's Pedro. Maybe it is because I was still a teenager, but I rembmer looking at bax scores adn thinking, "Damn, they got 3 runs on Pedro? They rocked him!" in an era where teams usually scored about 5. But it is more of an impression of dominance and not anything statistical.

rlopahle,

You can post a sample ballto on this thread. Make sure to give reasons why a number of players are or aren't on your ballot. Using out listing form the 1993 elections is a good start.

And I may as well ask it now...what do you think of Charlie Keller? If he isn't on you ballot I know that I would like to hear why. Others will choose Jake Beckley, Nellie Fox, etc.

Good luck!
   162. Mike Webber Posted: February 02, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2290506)
Paper of Record is now free

Might be a useful research tool, has the Sporting News, plus a bunch of Mexican newspapers, surely one of them has Mexican league stats for the Pasquel borther era wouldn't you think?

Oh and it is FREE!
   163. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 02, 2007 at 07:18 AM (#2290549)
Welcome aboard Ryan O.! Where to begin?

Well, start by going to this thread, which has links to many of the important threads over the years. The "Something Better" article there was the kickoff so to speak. The Constitution explains the rules. There's also a history of the voting, etc..

To begin voting, you should at a minimum be aware of everyone that received a vote last election and what the positives/negatives are for their respective cases.

We really want voters that can look at a player from 1878 the same way they look at 1978. Charley Jones or Jim Rice, for example . . .

To get started post a preliminary ballot on this thread - make sure to explain each of your choices (why you like them, etc.). You should also be able to explain why you aren't voting for anyone who was in the 1993 top-10.

You'll rank your top 15 candidates. This year we are electing 3, but that shouldn't change your ballot any.

We'll all look it over, to make sure it passes the 'smell test', shows you are considering all eras, etc.. We'll probably offer some constructive criticism, don't take it personally, one of the best things about this group is that we challenge each other when we see something we disagree with. Don't take anything personally.

Assuming that part goes well, you can then post a ballot to the ballot thread when it's posted next week.

Again, welcome aboard, and let us know if you have more questions.
   164. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 02, 2007 at 02:51 PM (#2290597)
OCF--I certainly have Young as no. 2 alltime (Clemens no. 3). For a pure career voter with no timeline, Young vs. Walter could indeed be close. But if there is any consideration of rate or peak rate, Johnson is definitively ahead.

What an entertaining idea about Grove. But he's not even in Walter Johnson's ballpark--I have him below Clemens, Mathewson, and Alexander as well, in Greg Maddux territory, and I don't think that a few minor league years could make it up.

The guy who always seems overrated to me is Seaver--he pitched forever at a very high rate and had some great peak years, but he certainly didn't *dominate* for an extended period like the modern quartet of Randy, Pedro, Clemens, and Maddux. I know that nobody did when Seaver pitched (although Bob Gibson's 1968-70 peak certainly counts, particularly if his hitting is included), so maybe with consideration of the standard deviation of ERA+ Seaver might move up, but that seems like a debatable argument to me.

And of course, Pedro's 1999-2000 were, on a pitch-for-pitch basis, the greatest seasons ever by a starting pitcher and no one is even close (aside from maybe Maddux's strike years). But he only threw 217 innings those years, so they didn't have a greater win value than the best seasons by the other greats.
   165. DavidFoss Posted: February 02, 2007 at 03:51 PM (#2290624)
The guy who always seems overrated to me is Seaver--he pitched forever at a very high rate and had some great peak years, but he certainly didn't *dominate* for an extended period like the modern quartet of Randy, Pedro, Clemens, and Maddux. I know that nobody did when Seaver pitched (although Bob Gibson's 1968-70 peak certainly counts, particularly if his hitting is included), so maybe with consideration of the standard deviation of ERA+ Seaver might move up, but that seems like a debatable argument to me.

Only Pierce, Gibson, Guidry and Gooden can top his 193 ERA+ in 1971 post-war/pre-1990. His long decline hurts his rate stats, but his career ERA+ was over 140 as late as age 32.

Most of the "greatest pitcher since WWII" accolades that Seaver has gotten were given to him at earlier points in Randy/Clemens/Maddux and Pedro's careers. He's still got a legitimite argument as the best pitcher between Grove and Clemens which is not too shabby.
   166. Juan V Posted: February 02, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2290653)
Welcome rlopahle

Besides what the guys already said, you could give a small explaination for your ranking methodology.
   167. Mike Green Posted: February 02, 2007 at 05:22 PM (#2290672)
The argument that Clemens was a better pitcher than Johnson runs something like this, and "timeline" might be a shortform for it. Johnson reached his peak in 1912-13 (and it was an astonishing peak- higher than Clemens' by quite a bit if one accounts for his significant contribution with the bat) in an environment which heavily favoured pitchers. In such an environment, pitching statistics are decentralized in the same way that hitting statistics are decentralized in a hitter's era (hence Hack Wilson's 56 homers in 1930). Very good and excellent pitchers are more able to take advantages of the characteristics of the era by saving their stuff.

Johnson's return to earth when the lively ball era arrived can be construed one of two ways. Either that he had simply worn down some due to all the innings he had logged in his 20s, or that he was not quite as great as he had appeared to be. Probably, it was a little of both. In any event, Clemens' ability to thrive in his 30s in a high run-scoring environment is awfully impressive, and contrasts with Johnson's decline.

Statistically, if one adjusts Johnson's innings for the standards of the time, he and Clemens are very close. One or the other has been the best pitcher ever, but you can make reasonable cases for both.
   168. jhwinfrey Posted: February 02, 2007 at 05:49 PM (#2290695)
Here's my early preliminary ballot:
1. Niekro
2. Simmons
3. Sutton
4. Grimes
5. Cepeda
6. Beckley
7. C. Jones
8. Redding
9. Roush
10. Trouppe
11. Garvey
12. Browning
13. Oms
14. Fox
15. Perez

38. Graig Nettles
53. Bruce Sutter
71. Jose Cruz
The rest don't make it in above the Dizzy Dean line.
   169. OCF Posted: February 02, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2290700)
Johnson's return to earth when the lively ball era arrived ...

If it was earth he returned to, it was a pretty high altitiude region of it. Back when this was a hot topic I tried something with my system, which was slicing Johnson in two halfway through the 1915 season. That point was picked so the front half would match the career length of Addie Joss. And that front half was otherworldly - an equivalent record of 198-92, not comparable to anyone (or anyone before Pedro). The back half, from mid-1915 on, registered at an equivalent 228-139. That's what Mordecai Brown's whole career would look like before we took a downward defensive adjustment on Brown. That compares favoably to Feller's whole-career 254-171, or to Ford's 218-154. (That's a dead ringer for Cy Young in the American League.)

If you split a little later, you get Johnson 1920-1927 at an equivalent 119-84, with a three year stretch of 17-12, 21-10, 16-9. That's not a whole HoM career by itself but it is Mel Parnell or Smokey Joe Wood. And he did win an MVP (League Award).
   170. Mike Green Posted: February 02, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2290713)
I'm guessing that if you did the same thing with Clemens, and divided his career at age 30, you would end up with 2 careers about equivalent to Sandy Koufax', and perhaps a little better. Koufax' peak was arguably higher.
   171. Chris Cobb Posted: February 02, 2007 at 06:27 PM (#2290717)
Re Johnson returning to earth: he also experienced an arm injury in 1920, so his performance thereafter was affected by the injury, as well as by aging and by the lively ball.

He was still one of the best pitchers in the American League from 1921 to 1925 at the age of 33-37, just not the no-doubt best pitcher in baseball, which he had been for the previous decade.

Among league leaders, he was

He was 9-6-x-2-5 in ERA+
He was x-6-8-6-x in IP
   172. DL from MN Posted: February 02, 2007 at 06:32 PM (#2290723)
> 11. Garvey

You're kind of on your own here. I have Garvey between Joe Adcock and Ron Fairly at 1B. Explanation?
   173. DavidFoss Posted: February 02, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2290746)
Its looking a lot like Niekro/Simmons/Sutton in 1994.

Is that OK with everyone? Now is the time to speak up and argue that Trouppe-Fox-Wynn-Roush-Keller-Fingers-Redding-Browning-Beckley-BJohnson are more worthy.
   174. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 02, 2007 at 06:54 PM (#2290750)
Is that OK with everyone?

Well, the first two I'm certainly okay with. I could even handle Sutton if he were forced to run the gauntlet with the other borderliners.
   175. DL from MN Posted: February 02, 2007 at 07:13 PM (#2290771)
I like Sutton a lot better than Rollie Fingers or Dick Redding and that's his positional competition.

I'd be angry if Niekro didn't make it.

Simmons is worthy so no problems there either. He's a little better than Trouppe and a lot more certain.
   176. OCF Posted: February 02, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2290814)
I'd be angry if Niekro didn't make it.

In our history, a handful of candidates have achieved vote totals that look like Niekro's last year: overwhelming support, near-unanimous placement in the top n candidates, where n is a very small number that is still larger than the number of election slots. We've never reneged on our support for a candidate with that level of support, and we won't renege on Niekro. I would expect Niekro to finsh #1 in this year's totals, with Simmons #2.

Sutton won't have overwhelming support, but the odds are in his favor, under the Bill Terry rule: the odds favor a reasonably good newcomer competing with a deeply divided backlog.
   177. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 02, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2290864)
I'd be angry if Niekro didn't make it.

Anger wouldn't be the feeling I would be having, but puzzlement and bemusement would sure be at the top.
   178. DavidFoss Posted: February 02, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2290890)
under the Bill Terry rule: the odds favor a reasonably good newcomer competing with a deeply divided backlog.

People were a bit shocked by Terry though because that was one of the first cases of that effect happening.

Opponents of Niekro/Simmons/Sutton should not be shocked and this is their time to toss in their two cents. :-)
   179. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 02, 2007 at 09:47 PM (#2290896)
Not surprisingly, since I see Trouppe and Simmons as having very similar value and because Sutton doesn't do well in my system and goes against most of my prejudices...er, I mean preferences, I'd prefer to see Niekro/Simmons/Trouppe myself. In fact, I'm still not sure whether Sutton will appear on my ballot.
   180. rawagman Posted: February 02, 2007 at 10:11 PM (#2290917)
Sutton definitely will not be on my ballot. Very Beckley-esque, with a pitcher's glove. In some senses, a stronger case than Beckley as a career of that length and breadth is much harder to come by with pitchers. A winning pitcher. A perm!
On the downside, there were simply too many poor years to really merit too much hoopla in my system. For example, he pitched in 7 seasons (160 IP min.) with ERA+'s under 100. There were only 6 seasons in which he had an ERA+ of 120 or more.
So Sutton's definitely an outlier. I don't have anyone else on the consideration sets (any position) with whome he can truly be compared to. He's 36th right now. I can see myself bumping him up a miximum of 10 spots through various twistings and turnings of my own system. Any more than that would require a serious overhaul.
   181. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 02, 2007 at 10:31 PM (#2290933)
Opponents of Niekro/Simmons/Sutton should not be shocked and this is their time to toss in their two cents. :-)

I did, David, but I can't 100% prove my assertion that pitchers from his era had a career advantage in length. Of course, nobody here can 100% disprove it, either. :-)
   182. dan b Posted: February 02, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2290945)
As the best friend of Dizzy Dean and Sandy Koufax, I will have Don Sutton in an elect me spot on my ballot. Clearly he does not have the kind of peak I normally look for from a HoM pitcher, but I like the shutouts. That he is just 5 short of being tied with Spahn for the most career shutouts post-deadball era impresses me. Call it a different kind of peak, to pitch that many CG where a single run is all you need to win the game. On a game to game basis, you can't ask for more from your pitcher.
   183. Chris Cobb Posted: February 02, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2290946)
On the downside, there were simply too many poor years to really merit too much hoopla in my system. For example, he pitched in 7 seasons (160 IP min.) with ERA+'s under 100.

Hm. That means he had 15 seasons (counting 1981 at 158 ip) with ERA+s over 100 and 160+ IP.
Gaylord Perry had 16. Steve Carlton had 16. Fergie Jenkins had 14.

Also of interest, HoMer Early Wynn had 8 seasons (160 IP min) with ERA+'s under 100. HoMer Red Ruffing had 6 such seasons.

In most of Sutton's below 100 ERA+ seasons, he was only slightly below 100 ERA+ (99, 97, 95, 94, 92, 92). If he had been _bad_, he probably wouldn't have thrown 160+ innings.

There were only 6 seasons in which he had an ERA+ of 120 or more.

Lefty Gomez only pitched 7 seasons in which he had an ERA+ of 120 or more, only 8 in which he had an ERA+ over 100 in 160+ IP.
   184. kwarren Posted: February 02, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2290963)
I certainly have Young as no. 2 alltime (Clemens no. 3). For a pure career voter with no timeline, Young vs. Walter could indeed be close. But if there is any consideration of rate or peak rate, Johnson is definitively ahead.


Here are the comparisons using WARP3 which incorporates the timeline:

Walter Johnson....18.1, 16.3, 14.6, 14.2, 14.1 (77.3).....200.9
Roger Clemens.....15.0, 12.4, 12.3, 11.9, 11.5 (63.1).....199.6
Cy Young..........13.3, 12.9, 12.8, 11.6, 11.3 (61.9).....178.3

WARP1 which doesn't

Walter Johnson....18.8, 17.2, 15.4, 14.9, 14.6 (80.9).....210.7
Cy Young..........14.3, 14.1, 14.1, 12.8, 12.3 (69.6).....194.5
Roger Clemens.....14.9, 12.4, 12.3, 11.9, 11.3 (62.8).....197.0

Walter Johnson would seem to be the best pitcher who has ever pitched using WARP analysis and comparising only to other players in the league, timeline or no timeline. Without the timeline Young is clearly superior to Clemens at peak value, but with the timelime the nod goes to Clemens on the basis of total career value.

It seems to me that it is very difficult to compare players who played before integration to those that played afterwards. Up until 1947 the only players who played in the majors were "white Americans", and during the war years even a lot of them were not available. Currently most of the best players in the world end up in the majors. The competition is inordinately more difficult today encompassing all the black players who were barred until 1947 as well as the best players from Canada, Central America, South America, and Eastern Asia. The player pool from which major league baseball drew it's particpants in Johnson's and Cy Young's time was miniscule compared to what it is now. To accurately compare Clemens to these two guys seems like a virtual impossibility. Imagine how Clemens would do in a league that had no black players and no players from outside the USA. He could conceivebly do a lot better than Walter Johnson or Cy Young did, but it's all speculative.
   185. jimd Posted: February 03, 2007 at 12:14 AM (#2290980)
that Sutton's career K and BB totals are almost identical to Walter Johnson's. That's not too shabby.

Even better...

And Dave Concepcion and Honus Wagner have the same number of career HRs.

That's just childish. The two comparisons are not comparable. And I wasn't saying that Sutton was comparable to Johnson, I was just saying the guy racked up the 7th all time amoumt of strikeouts and had a better K/BB ratio than an all time great. That is not comparing Concepcion to Wagner, its comparing Rose to Cobb, or Palmeiro to Foxx.


Daryn, I did not intend to offend, so I apologize for the tone of my remark.

However, I still don't think much of the comparison. K/BB ratios also change dramatically over time. See below.

Also, as a strong career voter, you may not think much of Concepcion when compared to Sutton, but as a peak/prime/career voter, I will have Concepcion ahead of Sutton on my ballot, so I think that Sutton:Johnson is closer to Concepcion:Wagner than Rose:Cobb as the analogies go.

***

Johnson also walked fewer men compared to his contempoaries than Sutton did.

If Johnson has started his career in 1966, I'm sure that Johnson's K totals would destroy Suttons, while his BB totals would be significantly less.


BP has a toy method "Translated Statistics" whose methodology I'm unsure of, but whose results seem to make some sense, at least for some statistics. It attempts to translate the entire line -- pitching or batting -- into a historically neutral environment, apparently similar to today's.

The translation of the Sutton and Johnson career lines is interesting. It shows that both were similar in their ability to prevent walks over the course of their careers. Their walk totals and career rates are essentially comparable, before and after translation, though Johnson had a higher variance (wild early and not as sharp late in his career).

Strikeouts are a different story. K's were much more difficult to come by during Johnson's career, and he gets a 30% boost relative to Sutton in this stat, which results in a difference of nearly 1000 K's over their careers. A significant difference in K levels invalidating the K:BB ratio comparisons.

Similarly, Concepcion and Wagner both hit 101 career HR's. But in the translated stats, Concepcion moves up to 164 HR's and Wagner to 601. Again a significant difference due to the historical context under which the stats were compiled. That was my original point.
   186. Chris Fluit Posted: February 03, 2007 at 12:26 AM (#2290989)
177. DavidFoss Posted: February 02, 2007 at 12:50 PM (#2290746)
Its looking a lot like Niekro/Simmons/Sutton in 1994.

Is that OK with everyone? Now is the time to speak up and argue that Trouppe-Fox-Wynn-Roush-Keller-Fingers-Redding-Browning-Beckley-BJohnson are more worthy.


I can't speak for everyone but I'll have Niekro, Sutton and Simmons all going PHoM in 1994 as well.
   187. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 01:21 AM (#2291013)
"Statistically, if one adjusts Johnson's innings for the standards of the time, he and Clemens are very close. One or the other has been the best pitcher ever, but you can make reasonable cases for both."


Hey, that's what I do . . . I ran Clemens for fun, even though it isn't time yet . . .

I do have them 1-2, though I haven't ran everyone yet. Johnson still has a significant lead, 2.487 PA to 2.194. Clemens would need about 2 1/4 seasons like 2005 to pass him.

In terms of translated IP accounting for era norms, I get Clemens at 5399.3, Johnson at 5577.3.

In terms of rate, I have (after adjusting for league quality - within the season, not timeline - defense, etc.) Clemens at a DRA+ of 144, Johnson also at 144.

Cy Young (1.983/5727.0/132) and Pete Alexander (1.945/5186.0/135) are the only ones close, even giving Grove (1.697/4684.0/138) credit for 3 years with the Orioles.

I have Seaver (1.586/4805.7/127) after Spahn (1.657/5268.7/121) on that list (#7 counting Clemens). Feller (1.518/4962.3/121) with conservative war credit is #8, and then it's a huge dropoff to Mathewson, Carlton and Niekro.

I haven't run Maddux, RJ or Pedro yet.
   188. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2291020)
The one thing that is wild about Johnson/Clemens is that they have a ton of innings - they are among only 11 pitchers I have with over 5000 tIP . . . but they also have, except for Koufax the highest DRA+ at 144.

Only Koufax at 153 has a higher career rate, and I've run about 300 guys. That's just mind blowing. You'd think someone with 1000 or 2000 fewer innings could have put up a better rate for their career, but no one did. I'd guess Pedro probably has a higher rate, but I'd doubt Maddux or RJ would.

Even among the relievers I've run (not the modern closers, except for Rivera) only Tom Henke has a higher rate (154). Rivera is off the charts at 201, but I haven't run any of his counterparts other than John Franco (121).
   189. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2291030)
kwarren - I'm not as worried about the pre/post integration comparisons as most. You had a lot of things come along to offset the talent boost from integration - other sports, wars (the kids who died 1941-45 that we never heard of would have been in their primes during integration), expansion, etc.. After 1961, the expansion effect is huge. Baseball expanded by 50% from 1961-69.

It's not like all of the sudden everyone who was good before 1947 started to put up craptastic numbers because of this massive influx of talent.

I think the integration boom has been vastly overstated by most. By the time it was really in full gear in the early 1960s baseball expanded by 25% in 2 years, more than enough to offset it.
   190. TomH Posted: February 03, 2007 at 03:14 AM (#2291066)
I have the Big Train as #1.

But if I were to argue for the Rocket or Grove, I would point out that Johnson took unusually large advantage of his home field and the deadball era. If you break out his post-1920 stats in road games, he looks very mortal. Apparently his style of fastball-over-the-plate would have allowed a lot of long hits in the modern era in most parks. But there were few long hits before 1920, and in the Washington park there were very few even after it. (data is on my other computer).
   191. Daryn Posted: February 03, 2007 at 03:57 AM (#2291096)
Daryn, I did not intend to offend, so I apologize for the tone of my remark.

Thanks for the apology and the explanation of the point of your Concepcion/Wagner comp.

I'm a sucker for long career guys like Sutton.
   192. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 03, 2007 at 04:40 AM (#2291127)
but I like the shutouts. That he is just 5 short of being tied with Spahn for the most career shutouts post-deadball era impresses me. Call it a different kind of peak, to pitch that many CG where a single run is all you need to win the game. On a game to game basis, you can't ask for more from your pitcher.

I'm asking a question to which I have neither much of an opinion, much of an answer, nor much of an agenda other than connecting two dots.

Elsewhere I noted that Sutton's average PF was well below average. His career ERA+ is below 110. He threw a ton of shutouts. Is it likely that his number of shutouts is influenced by his home parks? He threw 39 at home and 19 away.

The comparison to Blyleven started out this line of thinking, I think, and Bly was 26/34 H/R in shutouts. Is Blyleven the unsual one, or Sutton? Or are shutouts just random?
   193. Rob_Wood Posted: February 03, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2291143)
Here is my list of estimated pitchers' strikeout to walk ratios, adjusted for eras. I list pitchers better than average (100 = era average):

DAZZY VANCE* 243
WALTER JOHNSON* 235
CHRISTY MATHEWSON* 231
PEDRO_J. MARTINEZ 225
CURT SCHILLING 225
DEACON PHILLIPPE 222
LEFTY GROVE* 213
DIZZY DEAN* 211
CARL HUBBELL* 207
DOUG JONES 207
BRET SABERHAGEN 203
BILLY WAGNER 201
TOM HENKE 199
MIKE MUSSINA 199
TREVOR HOFFMAN 198
DENNIS ECKERSLEY 196
ROY OSWALT 194
JON LIEBER 192
RUBE WADDELL* 192
NOODLES HAHN 191
PETE ALEXANDER* 188
MARIANO RIVERA 188
BABE ADAMS 187
FERGUSON JENKINS* 187
JOHAN SANTANA 186
CY YOUNG* 186
LARRY JANSEN 184
ED WALSH* 184
BRYAN HARVEY 183
BRAD RADKE 180
ROBIN ROBERTS* 180
JOHN WETTELAND 180
PAUL DERRINGER 178
RANDY JOHNSON 178
DAVID WELLS 178
PREACHER ROE 177
ROD BECK 176
HARVEY HADDIX 175
GREG MADDUX 175
JOE WOOD 174
JUAN MARICHAL* 173
RICK AGUILERA 172
SYL JOHNSON 172
SHANE REYNOLDS 172
SCHOOLBOY ROWE 172
JOHN CANDELARIA 171
DON NEWCOMBE 171
BRUCE SUTTER 170
GREG SWINDELL 170
KID NICHOLS* 170
BERT BLYLEVEN 169
ROGER CLEMENS 169
JIM BUNNING* 168
URBAN SHOCKER 167
DUTCH_H. LEONARD 166
ERNIE BONHAM 165
MORDECAI BROWN* 164
ROLLIE FINGERS* 164
KEN RAFFENSBERGER 164
RON GUIDRY 163
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ 163
JOHNNY ALLEN 161
CHIEF BENDER* 160
ADDIE JOSS* 160
SANDY KOUFAX* 160
HARRY BRECHEEN 159
DON DRYSDALE* 157
HOOKS WILTSE 157
ROBB NEN 156
MORT COOPER 155
JOHN SMOLTZ 155
DON SUTTON* 155
KEVIN TAPANI 155
TOM SEAVER* 154
JESSE TANNEHILL 154
BOB FELLER* 153
MICKEY LOLICH 153
TOMMY BRIDGES 152
SCOTT SANDERSON 152
RUBE MARQUARD* 151
EDDIE PLANK* 151
CHARLIE ROOT 150
KEVIN BROWN 149
ELROY FACE 149
MIKE GARCIA 149
LEFTY GOMEZ* 149
LEE SMITH 149
JON MATLACK 148
JEFF MONTGOMERY 148
HAL NEWHOUSER* 148
ELLIS KINDER 147
TROY PERCIVAL 147
GAYLORD PERRY* 147
PAUL ASSENMACHER 146
JACK QUINN 146
DICK RUDOLPH 146
AMOS RUSIE* 146
RALPH TERRY 145
TIM KEEFE* 145
ROY HALLADAY 144
TED HIGUERA 144
BILL MONBOUQUETTE 144
HERB PENNOCK* 144
BILLY PIERCE 143
DAN PLESAC 143
DICK RADATZ 143
JEFF REARDON 143
RED RUFFING* 143
DUANE WARD 143
STEVE GROMEK 142
CLAUDE PASSEAU 142
ALEJANDRO PENA 142
FRITZ PETERSON 142
EWELL BLACKWELL 141
PETE DONOHUE 141
DUTCH_E. LEONARD 141
PAT MALONE 141
NAP RUCKER 141
MARK EICHHORN 140
KEVIN MILLWOOD 140
RON REED 140
JOHN SMILEY 139
JIM KAAT 138
JOHNNY SAIN 138
VIRGIL TRUCKS 138
LARRY ANDERSEN 137
UGUETH URBINA 136
ALEX FERNANDEZ 135
SID FERNANDEZ 135
DWIGHT GOODEN 135
JIMMY KEY 135
FRANK LARY 135
FIRPO MARBERRY 135
JOHN BURKETT 134
STEVE CARLTON* 134
CHRIS CARPENTER 134
DAVID CONE 134
WILLIE HERNANDEZ 134
VIC RASCHI 134
MIKE SCOTT 134
LON WARNEKE 134
TODD WORRELL 134
SPUD CHANDLER 133
EDDIE CICOTTE 133
ED LOPAT 133
DAN QUISENBERRY 133
HOYT WILHELM* 133
STAN COVELESKI* 132
JOSE RIJO 132
BOBBY SHANTZ 132
BOB SHAWKEY 132
MARIO SOTO 132
GENE GARBER 131
BILL HANDS 131
DENNIS LEONARD 131
FRANK TANANA 131
DOC WHITE 131
CURT DAVIS 130
SAM GRAY 130
JACK MCDOWELL 130
GARY NOLAN 130
CAMILO PASCUAL 130
RICK REUSCHEL 130
LUIS TIANT 130
BOB EWING 129
DENNY MCLAIN 129
ANDY PETTITTE 129
JEFF WEAVER 129
RED AMES 128
MARK BUEHRLE 128
WHITEY FORD* 128
BRUCE HURST 128
JERRY KOOSMAN 128
MATT MORRIS 128
WARREN SPAHN* 128
GEORGE UHLE 128
HIPPO VAUGHN 128
DANNY DARWIN 127
GEORGE EARNSHAW 127
BOB GIBSON* 127
JAY HOWELL 127
SONNY SIEBERT 127
JACK CHESBRO* 126
LARRY FRENCH 126
CATFISH HUNTER* 126
LINDY MCDANIEL 126
BOB RUSH 126
PAT DOBSON 125
CARL ERSKINE 125
GEORGE MOGRIDGE 125
VAN MUNGO 125
CHARLES NAGY 125
BOBO NEWSOM 125
ARMANDO BENITEZ 124
DICK DONOVAN 124
RICH GOSSAGE 124
ORLANDO HERNANDEZ 124
MAX LANIER 124
ANDY MESSERSMITH 124
RANDY MYERS 124
DIZZY TROUT 124
KEVIN APPIER 123
JIM BREWER 123
BOB FRIEND 123
JOE NATHAN 123
DENNY NEAGLE 123
ART NEHF 123
JACK POWELL 123
J.R. RICHARD 123
NOLAN RYAN* 123
BILL SHERDEL 123
FRANK VIOLA 123
WILBUR WOOD 123
NELSON BRILES 122
WILBUR COOPER 122
JOE DOBSON 122
DOUG DRABEK 122
CLAUDE HENDRIX 122
JOEL HORLEN 122
WAITE HOYT* 122
ESTEBAN LOAIZA 122
SAL MAGLIE 122
JOHNNY ANTONELLI 121
DENNY GALEHOUSE 121
BILL GULLICKSON 121
JOHN HILLER 121
RED LUCAS 121
DOLF LUQUE 121
MARTY PATTIN 121
PEDRO RAMOS 121
BARTOLO COLON 120
FREDDY GARCIA 120
MIKE JACKSON 120
THORNTON LEE 120
SAM LEEVER 120
JOHNNY PODRES 120
JIM SCOTT 120
DONTRELLE WILLIS 120
FLOYD BANNISTER 119
DEAN CHANCE 119
LARRY DIERKER 119
RED FABER* 119
JEFF FASSERO 119
MIKE HENNEMAN 119
MILT PAPPAS 119
RUBE WALBERG 119
RICK WISE 119
PEDRO ASTACIO 118
RAY CALDWELL 118
MIKE CUELLAR 118
STEVE FARR 118
ROBERTO HERNANDEZ 118
DEREK LOWE 118
JOE MCGINNITY* 118
STU MILLER 118
JESSE OROSCO 118
JOHN TUDOR 118
TIM HUDSON 117
CARL MAYS 117
JAMIE MOYER 117
CHUCK STOBBS 117
EARLY WYNN* 117
ANDY BENES 116
FRANK CASTILLO 116
CY FALKENBERG 116
RAY FISHER 116
STEVE ROGERS 116
JASON SCHMIDT 116
VIDA BLUE 115
TOM GORDON 115
BURT HOOTON 115
LARRY JACKSON 115
VERNON LAW 115
SLIM SALLEE 115
MIKE STANTON 115
TOMMY THOMAS 115
HOWIE CAMNITZ 114
DON GULLET 114
MIKE KRUKOW 114
RUDY MAY 114
TUG MCGRAW 114
JEFF PFEFFER 114
HOWIE POLLET 114
ALLIE REYNOLDS 114
BILL SINGER 114
BOB WELCH 114
VIC WILLIS* 114
DON WILSON 114
ANDY ASHBY 113
TIM BURKE 113
SPARKY LYLE 113
GARY PETERS 113
GERRY STALEY 113
GEORGE DAUSS 112
BOB GROOM 112
MARK LANGSTON 112
JOE NUXHALL 112
DON ROBINSON 112
CC SABATHIA 112
JEFF TESREAU 112
CHUCK FINLEY 111
JUAN GUZMAN 111
JESSE HAINES* 111
MEL HARDER 111
OREL HERSHISER 111
DAVE LAROCHE 111
DAVE SMITH 111
TODD STOTTLEMYRE 111
JESSE BARNES 110
KEN FORSCH 110
DAVE GIUSTI 110
MIKE WITT 110
HAL CARLSON 109
GENERAL CROWDER 109
HOWARD EHMKE 109
DAVE GOLTZ 109
BURLEIGH GRIMES* 109
HIDEO NOMO 109
EPPA RIXEY* 109
JOHN VANDERMEER 109
TOM BROWNING 108
TOM CANDIOTTI 108
RAY KREMER 108
MIKE MARSHALL 108
MARK MULDER 108
PHIL NIEKRO* 108
BILL CAMPBELL 107
TERRY FORSTER 107
SI JOHNSON 107
GARY LAVELLE 107
JIM LONBORG 107
TED LYONS* 107
RICK RHODEN 107
DAVE RIGHETTI 107
TULLY SPARKS 107
EARL WHITEHILL 107
MIKE BODDICKER 106
LEW BURDETTE 106
JOE BUSH 106
JOHN FRANCO 106
TODD JONES 106
SAM MCDOWELL 106
DAVE MCNALLY 106
CURT SIMMONS 106
RUBE BENTON 105
JEFF BRANTLEY 105
REGGIE CLEVELAND 105
MURRY DICKSON 105
WES FERRELL 105
WOODY FRYMAN 105
MARK GARDNER 105
LONG_TOM HUGHES 105
TOMMY JOHN 105
DENNIS MARTINEZ 105
JACK MORRIS 105
CHRIS SHORT 105
JOE_H. COLEMAN 104
JIM PALMER* 104
BABE RUTH 104
FRANK_NIG SMITH 104
DICK TIDROW 104
ED WHITSON 104
HUGH CASEY 103
DOCK ELLIS 103
HARRY HOWELL 103
BIG_BILL LEE 103
TERRY MULHOLLAND 103
GREGG OLSON 103
ED REULBACH 103
JERRY REUSS 103
FERNANDO VALENZUELA 103
EARL WILSON 103
AL BRAZLE 102
AL DOWNING 102
DICK ELLSWORTH 102
MARK GUBICZA 102
PETE HARNISCH 102
KEN HOLTZMAN 102
JIM O'TOOLE 102
JIM BARR 101
TIM BELCHER 101
AL BENTON 101
ED BRANDT 101
RON DARLING 101
BUMP HADLEY 101
BOB KNEPPER 101
BILLY KOCH 101
CLEM LABINE 101
SCOTT MCGREGOR 101
JUAN PIZARRO 101
BOB WICKMAN 101
BILL DINNEEN 100
LIVAN HERNANDEZ 100
JASON ISRINGHAUSEN 100
BOB LEMON* 100
FRED NORMAN 100
BOB VEALE 100

Walter Johnson trails only Dazzy Vance according to my estimates.
   194. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 09:32 AM (#2291218)
how weird is it that Mike Mussina may end up the greatest Yankees pitcher of them all?

I have always had an interest is playing the greatest ever from a franchise against another, but I feel that while the Yankes have won like three times as many World Series as anyone else, they would be nomore than the '95 indiands in such a league.
   195. rawagman Posted: February 03, 2007 at 12:33 PM (#2291233)
Chris (Cobb) - one of the aspects of my system (also an aspect that I am comfortable in maintaining, while admitting that I may need to refine it at times) is that I value consistency at an above average rate more than I value simple longevity. Sutton is by no means a simple case. A very long career at slightly above average production. Some very good/excellent seasons. Some seasons not measuring up to average, but close enough that average is within sight.
I am Lefty Gomez's biggest fan. A pitcher with a short career. A pitcher who admittedly retired because he stated that he was no longer dominant. Although I beleive that he could have put up at least average nunbers for the duration of the war, I don't credit him as such, because he simply retired. So he lacks a decline phase.
Sutton, OTOH, is not brought down by his decline phase, but more by his slow(ish) development.
Like I said, his spot in the late 30's is open to change. But I would rather have that extra time to mull it over. I would be happier if Niekro and Simmons were joined by someone from our high backlog - Fox Trouppe or Jones would all meet my distinct approval. I have no real hope of Hugh Duffy joining the hallowed ranks at this time - maybe in a few "years".
   196. EricC Posted: February 03, 2007 at 01:18 PM (#2291236)
1994 prelim.

1. P. Niekro
2. D. Sutton
3. T. Simmoms
4. Schang
5. Keller
6. N. Fox
7. Staub
8. Cash
9. Cepeda
10. E. Howard
11. R. Smith
12. Singleton
13. Vernon
14. Tenace
15. J. Wynn

Simmons came out even better than I expected. If Torre and Freehan went in, then there's an excellent case for Simmons. Schang is nearly the same level, taking into account that C were used less per season during his time. Concepcion is #17 and could make my ballot soon. Cruz Sr. is #29; Nettles #50. Nettles had the kind of long, decent hitting, excellent glove, impact on a number of pennant races, career that would have given him a reasonable shot at the HoF if Brett and Schmidt hadn't come along. Baylor has been the best DH so far, but 262/71.7 doesn't cut it. Sutter was one of the first RP used almost exclusively in save situations, but his performance itself doesn't look much different to me than that of several previous RP, such as Hiller and Perransoki who have zero chance of the HoM or HoF.
   197. TomH Posted: February 03, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2291258)
bump
   198. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2291262)
Good article from Neyer on WARP over at ESPN Insider . . .

I never realized VORP didn't bother with defense (other than adjusting for position).

I think I might use VORP+FRAA as a foundation for running a hitter type spreadsheet similar to my pitching one. I realize VORP only goes back to 1959 on the website (according to Neyer's article), I'll have to come up with something else pre-1959, but I'll let you guys know how it works out . . . any deficiences I should be made aware of before starting?
   199. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 03, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2291264)
Guess I need to add a post to have mine appear - why does that happen every once in awhile?
   200. DavidFoss Posted: February 03, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2291290)
why does that happen every once in awhile?

Its the "page turn". When there are exactly an even 100 (or maybe an even 100 plus 1) posts then the thread is in a weird state of limbo where goes straight to an empty next page and the page links aren't quite right yet. Its might be a bit weirder than that but we've gotten used to just bumping the thread around each "page turn" until its normal.
Page 2 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
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1495 seconds
49 querie(s) executed