Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007

1994 Results: The Hall of Merit Makes Way For Niekro, Simmons and Sutton!

In his second year of eligibility, legendary knuckleballer Phil Niekro shined among the candidates with a super 98% of all possible points for induction into the Hall of Merit.

First-year candidate and star catcher Ted Simmons scored an impressive 82% of all possible points to win the second spot for election.

Another newbie, Dodger great Don Sutton, nabbed the third spot for HoM immortality with 49% of all possible points.

95 candidates made it to at least one ballot, breaking the 1991 record by 1.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Quincy Trouppe, Jimmy Wynn, Charlie Keller, Nellie Fox, Edd Roush, Pete Browning and Rollie Fingers.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    4  Phil Niekro             1300   55  52  1     1              1                  
 2  n/e  Ted Simmons             1076   54     27  9  4  4  4  2  1        1        2   
 3  n/e  Don Sutton               647   38      6 10  3  5  3     3     3  1  1  2     1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    5  Quincy Trouppe           390   29         3  2  4  2  1  5  6        1  2  2  1
 5    7  Jimmy Wynn               369   33         1  3     4  2     4  4  1  5  2  3  4
 6    9  Charlie Keller           354   25   1  3  1  3  3  2  2     2     1     2  2  3
 7    6  Nellie Fox               345   25      2  2  3  1  3  1  2  2  2  1  2  2  1  1
 8    8  Edd Roush                324   24      1  1  3  3  5  2  1  1     1  1  1  1  3
 9   12  Pete Browning            305   22      2  3  3     1  2  1     2  1  4        3
10   10  Rollie Fingers           262   20      2  1  1  1  3  2  1  2     1        5  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   11  Cannonball Dick Redding  260   20      1  1  2  1  2  2  1  2  2  2     1  2  1
12   14  Bob Johnson              256   21         1  1  2  3  2     1  1  5  1  3     1
13   13  Jake Beckley             256   19   1  1  2  2  1        4     1     2  2     3
14   18  Charley Jones            253   16      1  5  1  1  1  1     1  2        3      
15   15  Bucky Walters            238   18         1     3  2  3     3  2  2  2         
16   16  Tony Perez               227   15      2  1  3     1  1  2  3  1              1
17   17  Hugh Duffy               222   15      1  1  1  3     3  3     1  2            
18   19  Gavvy Cravath            174   17            1  1  1     1  1     4  2  2  3  1
19   20  Alejandro Oms            174   16            2  1  1     1  1  1  2  1  3  2  1
20   21T George Van Haltren       162   12         1  1  2     2  2  1  1        1     1
21   21T Roger Bresnahan          161   12         2  1     1     1  2  2     2  1      
22   23  Tommy Leach              156   13               2     2  1  2  3  1     2      
23   31  Dizzy Dean               131   10      2     1     1        1        2  2  1   
24  n/e  Graig Nettles            130   12               1     1  3  1  2     1        3
25   25  Rusty Staub              130   10         1     1     2  1  1     3  1         
26   24  Burleigh Grimes          129   11      1           1  1     2  1  2     2     1
27   36  John McGraw              121    9            2  1  1  2        2              1
28   37  Mickey Welch             117    9      1        1  2  1        1  1        1  1
29   26  Luis Tiant               107   11         1     1                 1  2  2  1  3
30   33  Larry Doyle              106    7         1  2  1     2                       1
31   28  Norm Cash                105    9         1        1     2        1  1  2  1   
32   29  Lou Brock                103    9            2        1        2  1     2  1   
33   27  Orlando Cepeda           100    9                     1  1  3  2     1        1
34   35  Bob Elliott               94   10            1              1     1  2  3  1  1
35   46  Reggie Smith              91    8               1     2  1        1  1  1  1   
36   30  Ken Singleton             90    9            1     1        1        2  1  2  1
37   32  Bobby Bonds               90    8                  1     2     2  2        1   
38   38  Elston Howard             89    9                     2     1  1  1  1     1  2
39   39  Phil Rizzuto              89    7         1     1  1           2        1     1
40   41T Vic Willis                83    7               2  1        1        2        1
41  n/e  Dave Concepción           77    5      1     1     1        1     1            
42   34  Tommy Bridges             73    6                     2  1  1  1     1         
43   40  Sal Bando                 71    7               1              2  2        1  1
44   41T Carl Mays                 62    5                     2     1  2               
45   56  Dave Bancroft             61    7                        1        2  1     1  2
46   48T Pie Traynor               61    4   1                 1  1        1            
47   51  Ron Cey                   55    5                        2  1        1  1      
48   43  Ben Taylor                54    4         1              1     1        1      
49   44  Vern Stephens             50    5                           1  1  2        1   
50   50  Addie Joss                49    4            1           1        1  1         
51   61  Chuck Klein               45    3         1     1                          1   
52   52  Bill Monroe               42    4                  1           1  1           1
53T  53  Jimmy Ryan                41    4                     1        1        2      
53T  48T Ed Williamson             41    4               1                    2     1   
55   59T Tony Oliva                41    3            1  1                       1      
56T  62T Lefty Gomez               37    3               1           1        1         
56T  45  Wally Schang              37    3            1                 1     1         
58   57  Fred Dunlap               35    2         1              1                     
59  n/e  Bruce Sutter              34    3            1                 1              1
60   59T Frank Chance              33    3                     1  1                    1
61T  72  Sam Rice                  31    3                  1                 1     1   
61T  66T Al Rosen                  31    3                           1     1  1         
63   55  Jim Kaat                  30    2               1     1                        
64T  54  Ed Cicotte                29    3               1                          1  1
64T  66T Gene Tenace               29    3                  1                       2   
66   47  Thurman Munson            28    3                  1                       1  1
67   58  Frank Howard              26    3                                    2  1      
68T  65  Ernie Lombardi            22    2                           1     1            
68T  62T Dizzy Trout               22    2                        1           1         
70  n/e  Luke Easter               22    1         1                                    
71   74T Bus Clarkson              21    3                                       1  1  1
72T  66T Luis Aparicio             21    2                        1              1      
72T  69  Rabbit Maranville         21    2                        1              1      
74   76T Tony Mullane              20    2                     1                       1
75   70  Don Newcombe              17    2                                 1        1   
76   62T Urban Shocker             16    2                                    1     1   
77   73  Wilbur Cooper             15    1                  1                           
78   74T George J. Burns           14    2                                          2   
79   76T Fielder Jones             14    1                     1                        
80T  79T Artie Wilson              13    1                        1                     
80T  79T Tony Lazzeri              13    1                        1                     
80T  76T Sam Leever                13    1                        1                     
83  n/e  Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
84T  81T Dutch Leonard             10    1                                 1            
84T  81T Cecil Travis              10    1                                 1            
86   85T Kiki Cuyler                9    1                                    1         
87   85T Mickey Vernon              8    1                                       1      
88T n/e  George Kell                7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Herman Long                7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Leroy Matlock              7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Bill Mazeroski             7    1                                          1   
88T n/e  Virgil Trucks              7    1                                          1   
88T  85T Bobby Veach                7    1                                          1   
94T  84  Steve Garvey               6    1                                             1
94T n/e  Bill Madlock               6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Tommy Bond(81T), Jack Quinn(71).
Ballots Cast: 55
John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 11, 2007 at 09:51 PM | 154 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. yest Posted: February 25, 2007 at 07:47 AM (#2303010)
thank Howie for your list in post 71
comparing the HoM to my own pHoM showed something that was quite surprising in some ways even though my system favors players from high offensive eras more then almost evryones here if not all due to it's reliance on traditioanl stats I have steadly have more pHoMers from the mid to late 60's then the group does (maybe it's to being more of a career voter?)

overall
In the 1860's-70's im usually 2 behind due to no Start and Pierce (I give less pre NA especily pre 1869 credit then most) then star to fall slightly till I'm usually between 3-5 behind till the 1888 where I catch up and stay within 1 or 2 either way till 1897 wher I take a 2 persons lead till 1907 where I'm steadly 1 behind or equal till 1915 where I take a lead that can run from 1 to 5 people hitting my peak amount of pHoMers in 1932 with 50 and continue that way till around 1938 wher the HoM takes the lead where I am on average 3-5 behind (due to WWII and expansion era problems) (with a few weird resuls in the middle of WWII due to the war ) till the 50's where it lessens to a 2-3 lead till 1959 where I tie again from where then I mostly hold 1-3 lead till the end (though I fall behind 1 in 1963 and take 5 man lead in 1971 and stay in the 3-5 lead for quite a while)
   102. Howie Menckel Posted: February 27, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2303793)
bump because I had a hard time finding it myself.
   103. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2303795)
yest, out of curiosity, what is your list of HoM-not-pHoM?
   104. yest Posted: February 27, 2007 at 03:49 PM (#2303832)
in general I have less Pre NA, WWII and Negroe leaugers/intgration era players then most here (in other words less artificial credit) which acount for half the diffrances


some may HoM make it later

1. Jim Bunning
2. Bob Caruthers
3. Stan Coveleski
4. Don Drysdale
5. Red Faber
6. Wes Ferrell
7. Willie Foster (Negroe leauger)
8. Ted Lyons
9. José Méndez (Negroe leauger)
10. Billy Pierce
11. Eppa Rixey
12. Red Ruffing (WWII)
13. Charlie Bennett
14. Louis Santop (Negroe leauger)
15. Ted Simmons
16. Richie Allen (was part of the list when I made it made my pHoM yesterday)
17. Joe Start (pre NA problems)
18. Cupid Childs
19. Bobby Doerr (WWII)
20. Joe Gordon (WWII)
21. Frank Grant (Negroe leauger)
22. Bobby Grich
23. Hardy Richardson
24. Jackie Robinson (intgration era)
25. John Beckwith (Negroe leauger)
26. Ken Boyer
27. Heinie Groh
28. Ezra Sutton
29. Lou Boudreau (WWII (discounts))
30. Hughie Jennings
31. Home Run Johnson (Negroe leauger)
32. Dobie Moore (Negroe leauger)
33. Dickey Pearce (Pre NA)
34. Pee Wee Reese (WWII)
35. Bobby Wallace
36. Minnie Minoso (intgration era)
37. Jimmy Sheckard
38. Willard Brown (intgration era)
39. Larry Doby (intgration era)
40. Monte Irvin (intgration era)
41. Cristóbal Torriente (Negroe leauger)
42. Elmer Flick
43. **** ****(gambler, liar, cheat, wouldn't be surprised if he through games)
   105. rawagman Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:11 PM (#2303840)
yest - obviously, your PHOM is your own. But do you really believe that Lloyd Waner was a more meritorious ballplayer than Jackie Robinson? Is Ginger Beaumont better than Larry Doby?
This list obviously shows where your thinking diverges with that of the electorate, and seemingly, the constitution. It is my understanding that we must treat Negro League playing time as real major league playing time. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, to war time ball/service time.
Do you feel, in your heart of hearts, that you have adequately considered older players of colour? I understand the stats are compiled differently, butthey are there. We do have the tools to give them at least a fair shake.
   106. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2303841)
yest, enquiring minds also want to see your PHoM not HoM.

Here are my two lists.

HoM not PHoM
Ezra Sutton--one of the next 4-5 backlog
Pud Galvin--not in top 100
Willie Keeler--one of the next 4-5 backlog
Joe Kelley
Pete Hill
Jimmy Sheckard--I once had him PHoM but found I had enshrined too many and he was the odd man out, never recovered (later I did the same a second time and removed Vic Willis who has also not recovered the glory of being in my PHoM)
Wes Ferrell
Early Wynn
Biz Mackey
Jim Bunning
Cool Papa Bell
Joe Sewell--high in the backlog
Billy Pierce
Ken Boyer--high in the backlog but probably not a PHoMer
Don Sutton--high in thebacklog

PHoM not HoM
Harry Wright--selected before we had seen his numbers, clearly this is a mistake
Charley Jones
Ed Williamson
Tommy Bond
Pete Browning
Addie Joss
Dick Redding
Larry Doyle
Edd Roush
Charley Keller--huge beneficiary of WWII credit plus MLEs
Orlando Cepeda
Frank Howard
Rollie Fingers
Elston Howard--adjustment for dislocations of integration era
Phil Rizzuto--the main beneficiary of WWII credit, the others Doc mentions would make it either way
Gavy Cravath--another major beneficiary of the whole idea (and the implementation) of MLEs

Note that I have never seen any other source who awards MLEs--not Bill James, not WARP, etc. I mean, others have projected NeL records, but not filled in careers disrupted by other oddities. This is a major major accomplishment of the HoM.

yest calls all of this artificial credit. LONG LIVE ARTIFICIAL CREDIT! It is the right thing to do, both morally and pragmatically (that is, if you care to recognize the best ball players, not just the best white boys who didn't serve their country).
   107. yest Posted: February 27, 2007 at 04:47 PM (#2303865)

Charley Keller--huge beneficiary of WWII credit plus MLEs

yest calls all of this artificial credit. LONG LIVE ARTIFICIAL CREDIT! It is the right thing to do, both morally and pragmatically (that is, if you care to recognize the best ball players, not just the best white boys who didn't serve their country).


some how I don't think it's fair to give plyers credit for things that I'm 50% sure would have happend over players who I'm 100% sure what happened


yest, enquiring minds also want to see your PHoM not HoM.
all those pHoM marked on my 1995 ballot are the only who are currantley in my pHoM

It is my understanding that we must treat Negro League playing time as real major league playing time.
Do you feel, in your heart of hearts, that you have adequately considered older players of colour? I understand the stats are compiled differently, butthey are there. We do have the tools to give them at least a fair shake.

I agree with you abought Negroe Leaugers but looking at the stats and contemperory opinion those marked on my list as Negroe leauger (as oppesed to integration era wher ther were a differant set of circumstanceswhich I don't have time to get into right now) I looked at the evidance and decided based on that but as made clear in a number of spots in the past I never bought the MLE here or for that matter in the minors either. what I did was look at the stats and quoutes and anectdodets and made my decision based on that (some time in the furtre if I have I plan to look at the forighan stats again in more detail in case didn't combine them with the regaular Negro Leauge stats)
   108. rawagman Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2303883)
yest - I understand where you're coming from. When we're talking about borderline types (of which your non-PHOM list is largely comprised of) I'm very happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I'm sure many, if not most of the others here would be happy to do.
The problems occur when the median plus HOMers are left behind. In your case, I'm referring to guys like Louis Santop, Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Willie Foster, and maybe a few of the pitchers high on your list.
I guess what intrugues people so much about your voting style is that you do not seem to question yourself even when veering so far away from players who are nearly universally lauded as being worthy of the game's highest honours- and the Hall of Fame, too!
   109. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2303887)
yest, am I reading it right that JACKIE ROBINSON is not in your PHoM??? What do you mean by "integration era"--you *penalize* guys for playing in integrated leagues, when the level of competition was *higher*? Forget about breaking the color line...even if you give him *no* Negro League credit, he's among the handful of greatest players at his position in history...not Hornsby/Morgan/Collins/Lajoie, but such a high peak that he at least has a very strong claim to be #5...does anyone else disagree with me here? Other than that, obviously I agree with the group's judgment over yours, but he's the only one on this list that I think is sooo clearly a no-brainer Hall member that I wonder if you've made a typo.
   110. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2303891)
I was going to mention Santop as well, but if yest thinks the Negro Leagues were a very low level of play, that's his prerogative. Jackie Robinson is the only one on his list whose major league record makes him a no-doubt no-brainer, IMO.
   111. DavidFoss Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2303902)
yest was a strong supporter of Cool Papa Bell, so its not a strict MLB > NeL system that he uses. By "integration era", it means he has trouble with guys have MLB and NeL seasons (with a AAA season or two in between). Note his omission of Monte Irvin.

Now, in 1962, Jackie Robinson was on 48 of 49 ballots (with 46 elect-me votes), but there was surprisingly little discussion about ballot #49. I think many of the electorate has simply agreed to disagree with him.
   112. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2303903)
The Hall of White Boys Who Didn't Serve Their Country, or Ginger Beaumont was better then Jackie Robinson.

2. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
3. Nellie Fox led his league in putouts a record 10 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1971)
4. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles 1 triple crown (made my personal HoM in 1951)

6. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
7. Sam Rice imagine if he would have started earlier (made my personal HoM in 1940)
8. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
9. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
10. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles RBI season record (made my personal HoM in 1940)
11. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
12. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
13. George Kell very good hitter and fielder at important and under elected position (made my personal HoM in 1963)

17. Rollie Fingers best HoF speech ever (made my personal HoM in 1991)
18. Harvey Kuenn led AL shortstops in putouts twice assists once (made my personal HoM in 1972)
19. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1957)
20. Edd Roush 323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)

22. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
23. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
24. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)

26. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
27. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
28. Bill Mazeroski probably saved on average around 90 runs a year (made my personal HoM in 1984)
29. Roy Thomas most times on base 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1984)
30. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)

32. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
33. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
34. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
35. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
36. Steve Garvey 200 hits 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1984)
37. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
38. Levi Meyerle best rate season ever (made my personal HoM in 1975)
39. Eddie Yost most walks 6 times most times on base 3 times (made my personal HoM in 1987)
40. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie moves down do to reading accounts on how his drinking hurt his team more then the numbers show(made my personal HoM in 1939)
41. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)

43. Stuffy McInnis led in fielding% 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1987)
44. Deacon Phillippe best walks/9 IP in the 20th centaury (made my personal HoM in 1988)
45. Babe Adams led in WHIP 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1992)
   113. sunnyday2 Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2303906)
The Hall of White Boys Who Didn't Serve Their Country, or Ginger Beaumont was better than Jackie Robinson

2. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
3. Nellie Fox led his league in putouts a record 10 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1971)
4. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles 1 triple crown (made my personal HoM in 1951)

6. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
7. Sam Rice imagine if he would have started earlier (made my personal HoM in 1940)
8. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
9. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
10. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles RBI season record (made my personal HoM in 1940)
11. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
12. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
13. George Kell very good hitter and fielder at important and under elected position (made my personal HoM in 1963)

17. Rollie Fingers best HoF speech ever (made my personal HoM in 1991)
18. Harvey Kuenn led AL shortstops in putouts twice assists once (made my personal HoM in 1972)
19. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1957)
20. Edd Roush 323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)

22. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
23. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
24. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)

26. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
27. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
28. Bill Mazeroski probably saved on average around 90 runs a year (made my personal HoM in 1984)
29. Roy Thomas most times on base 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1984)
30. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)

32. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
33. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
34. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
35. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
36. Steve Garvey 200 hits 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1984)
37. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
38. Levi Meyerle best rate season ever (made my personal HoM in 1975)
39. Eddie Yost most walks 6 times most times on base 3 times (made my personal HoM in 1987)
40. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie moves down do to reading accounts on how his drinking hurt his team more then the numbers show(made my personal HoM in 1939)
41. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)

43. Stuffy McInnis led in fielding% 6 times (made my personal HoM in 1987)
44. Deacon Phillippe best walks/9 IP in the 20th centaury (made my personal HoM in 1988)
45. Babe Adams led in WHIP 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1992)
   114. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2303915)
An interesting point of comparison is yest's annual ballot to kwarren's 1995 ballot. The former hasn't ever been unconstitutional, the latter has. Kwarren has chosen to sweep away an entire group without consideration. While yest's ballots are, at times, downright inscrutable, he does at least offer some reason for his selections and does not appear to dismiss the credentials of large groups---possible exception, those without lots of putouts. ; )
   115. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 05:54 PM (#2303925)
not a ton...I'm not sure how much comments like "I looked at the evidance and decided based on that" (sic) really contribute to our understanding of his reasoning process. It's all well and good for him to have an unconventional ballot, but I think perhaps more than five words' explanation per head-scratching vote might be in order. And come on, yest...if Jackie Robinson isn't a Hall of Famer, then Bill James isn't a lug nut. ;)
   116. Mark Donelson Posted: February 27, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2303939)
I'm glad this issue came up, as the discovery that I had Tim Keefe tied up outside my pHOM before this election has made me realize I need to go over at least two categories of player particularly carefully as we head toward the finish line:

•Borderline candidates for my pHOM (which I've been doing over the last several elections)
•HOMers not in my pHOM, particularly ones elected before I started voting

That latter group, with the release of Keefe, is now: Willie Foster, Wallace, Lyons, McPhee, Keeler, Carey, Willie Wells, Reese, Ruffing, Lemon, Rixey, Ashburn, Early Wynn, Doerr, Cool Papa Bell, Sewell, Minoso, Boyer, and Don Sutton. Of these guys, I have Minoso, Boyer, and Reese reasonably high in the backlog.

But I'm now going to concentrate on making sure I really don't think Foster, Wallace, McPhee, Keeler, Carey, and Wells, in particular, beat the backlog. (I'm already thinking Foster is as bad an oversight on my part as Keefe, but I need to do a little more investigating.)
   117. DL from MN Posted: February 27, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2303963)
Jackie even won a batting title (to go with his MVP) in 1949! He was top 10 in batting average 6 times and hardly ever struck out. This should play well to yest's requirements but maybe I understand less than I thought.
   118. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2007 at 07:12 PM (#2303982)
Not that it needs reiterating, but he was a scary-dominant player at his peak. By my measure, he should have won four consecutive MVP awards from 1949-52. He hit better than anyone besides Musial and Kiner in his league over that stretch, while playing a stellar second base and owning the basepaths. His shoulder years, 1948 and 1953, were also played at a high All-Star level. Just those six years are nearly comparable to Hughie Jennings after adjusting for standard deviations, and Jennings got in on that alone, while Robinson has his RoY season and three other years as an above-average regular padding his stats. THEN you factor in Negro League and minor league credit, and he fought in the war too, no?--and you're talking about someone who's damn close to the inner circle. Oh yeah, and you might give him an extra tiebreaking nudge for, you know, breaking the color line and all.

yest, you don't *really* think this guy doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Merit...do you?
   119. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2007 at 07:18 PM (#2303987)
I refuse to join in this conversation about yest, since he placed Schmitty #1 on his ballot. :-)
   120. jingoist Posted: February 27, 2007 at 07:36 PM (#2303996)
Ohh, I think old yest just has a slighly different perspective on things.

Maybe he likes red peppers versus green peppers in his stuffed peppers recipe.
Or he's a green bean fan and not a lima bean fan.
I'm willing to bet he'll come around eventually to Jackie and a few others you've collectively mentioned; he'll just have to take his own path to reach that destination.
   121. TomH Posted: February 28, 2007 at 01:25 AM (#2304203)
further adventures in best-friend analysis:

if you voted in the 1994 election, your name appears below. This is a list of my worst- to best- friend, based on the standard similarity score calculation, but adjusted for how far or near the consensus each person is. Thus, for someone like karlmagnus who is an outlier to many, he winds up being one of my closer voting friends; at least, closer in a relative sense. I think this gives a better indicator of who truly is near my way of thinking, and further away.

(begin with worst, end with best)
rawagman - we do not see life thru the same lenses
Eric Chalek
Mike Webber
Sean Gilman
Adam Schafer
Jeff M
mulder & scully
SWW
Mark Donelson
rico vanian
Brent
yest
sunnyday2
Rick A
EricC
Chris Fluit
Got Melky
Rusty Priske
Andrew M
Esteban Rivera
Chris Cobb
Dan Rosenheck
Carl G
dan b
Don F
Tom D
Tiboreau
Patrick W
Jim Sp
Juan V
Mark Shirk
John Murphy
andrew siegel
Howie Menckel
OCF
dzop
Max Parkinson
AJM
Daryn
DanG
Michael Bass
Thane of Bagarth
ronw
karlmagnus
DL from MN
jimd
Al Peterson
Devin McCullen
favre
DavidFoss
Ken Fischer
Trevor P
Rob Wood
KJOK - out of kilter with many, but a near cuz of mine!
   122. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2007 at 01:37 AM (#2304208)
(begin with worst, end with best)
rawagman - we do not see life thru the same lenses
Eric Chalek


What is it, exactly, that you mean by worst???? ; )
   123. yest Posted: February 28, 2007 at 06:51 AM (#2304295)
yest, am I reading it right that JACKIE ROBINSON is not in your PHoM??? What do you mean by "integration era"--you *penalize* guys for playing in integrated leagues, when the level of competition was *higher*? Forget about breaking the color line...even if you give him *no* Negro League credit, he's among the handful of greatest players at his position in history...not Hornsby/Morgan/Collins/Lajoie, but such a high peak that he at least has a very strong claim to be #5...does anyone else disagree with me here? Other than that, obviously I agree with the group's judgment over yours, but he's the only one on this list that I think is sooo clearly a no-brainer Hall member that I wonder if you've made a typo.

even if you give him *no* Negro League credit, he's among the handful of greatest players at his position in history

by a peak only standards yes but going with a prime and career standerds
what I mean in short by intergration era means combining NeL stats with minor leauge stats with major leauge stats


Not that it needs reiterating, but he was a scary-dominant player at his peak. By my measure, he should have won four consecutive MVP awards from 1949-52. He hit better than anyone besides Musial and Kiner in his league over that stretch, while playing a stellar second base and owning the basepaths. His shoulder years, 1948 and 1953, were also played at a high All-Star level. Just those six years are nearly comparable to Hughie Jennings after adjusting for standard deviations, and Jennings got in on that alone, while Robinson has his RoY season and three other years as an above-average regular padding his stats. THEN you factor in Negro League and minor league credit, and he fought in the war too, no?--and you're talking about someone who's damn close to the inner circle. Oh yeah, and you might give him an extra tiebreaking nudge for, you know, breaking the color line and all.

1. I think your way over stating his peak
2. if you would look at my HoM not pHoM list you would notice Hugh Jennings there to and on my pHoM ballot there right next to each other abought 10 off from my pHoM
3. adding his <u>2</u> minor + NeL seasons is part of the problem
4. I refuse to give WWII credit to someone who probley only played baseball because of the war
5. while breaking the color line makes him a sinch for the HoF how exactly is that relavent here
   124. mulder & scully Posted: February 28, 2007 at 09:54 AM (#2304318)
What does "only played baseball because of the war." mean?

I don't why I am doing this, but...

Career games:
Robinson: 1382 and didn't start until age 28
Ginger Beaumont: 1463 and started at 22.
Robinson: 6 top 10s in batting average and the 94th highest for his career.
B: 7
Robinson: 6 top 10s in On Base Percentage (the single most important thing a hitter can do to win games for his team) and 39th all time.
B: 2 times/ not in top 100
Robinson: 6 top 10s in OPS / 84th all time
B: 5 top 10s / not in top 100
Robinson: 7 top 10s in runs scored
B: 5 top 10s
Robinson: 5 top 10s in hits
B: 5 top 10s, but 4 firsts.
Robinson: 4 top 10s in total bases
B: 4 top 10s in total bases
Robinson: 6 top 10s in doubles
B: 2 top 10s
Robinson: 3 top 10s in triples
B: 2 top 10s
Robinson: 9 top 10s in stolen bases with 2 firsts
B: 2 top 10s
Robinson: 1 top 10 in RBI
B: 3 top 10 in RBI
Robinson: 4 top 10s in singles
B: 5 top 10s in singles (4 firsts)
Robinson: 5 tops 10s in OPS+
B: 3 top 10s
Robinson: 5 top 10s in runs created
B: 5 top 10s
Robinson: 7 top 10s in times on base
B: 5 top 10s
Robinson: 4 top 10s in sacrifice hits with 2 firsts
B: 2 top 10s
Robinson: 9 top 10s in power-speed number with 4 firsts
B: 3 top 10s

So Beaumont hits more singles and gets more hits. Robinson does EVERYTHING ELSE BETTER including get on base. Beaumont does this in 12 years and 1463 games vs. Robinson's 10 years and 1382 games. And adding 2 more years to Robinson's career would be part of the problem. Don't bring up the shorter schedules of Beaumont's day either because Beaumont played 154 game schedules in 1899 and 1904 to the end of his career. Robinson's extra 2 years more than beats Beaumont's schedule disadvantage.
Oh, and Robinson plays 1000 of his 1364 games in the field at second or third. Beaumont plays all of his games in the outfield.
   125. OCF Posted: February 28, 2007 at 10:23 AM (#2304320)
Hey - I once cast a vote (a #15) for Ginger Beaumont when he was first eligible in 1916, although I backed off the very next year. Nice leadoff hitters. Scored a lot of runs. Arguably better than Roy Thomas. Important member of a very good team.

Of course, I had Robinson #1 on my 1962 ballot, ahead of Feller, Ruffing, Medwick, Rixey, Mendez, Sewell, Kiner - it's not exactly the same thing.
   126. yest Posted: February 28, 2007 at 10:37 AM (#2304322)
""only played baseball because of the war.""
in the army Jackie heard that the Monacharcs were looking for players and prior to that point it seems he had no active intrist in playing profeshinal baseball

the 2 things in Ginger's favor are that the value of a walk to a hit in the years he played was at an all low

also I think Ginger played in better leauges for most of his career
in 1899-1900 were 1 leauge years and in the early "uots" NL was much better then the AL
Pre Jackie the AL was much better then the NL and by the time the NL passed the AL due to itergation most of Jackie's career was gone with the exeption of the Braves and the Giants Jackie played in a non itergrated game till the end of the 1953 season meanwhile in terms of white stars the AL was clearly supirior.
   127. sunnyday2 Posted: February 28, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2304325)
>y a peak only standards yes but going with a prime and career standerds

So lemme get this straight. You judge Jackie Robinson on prime and career standards and you knock him for playing in a non-integrated league?

As to the first point, you are deliberately going out of your way to judge him on his weakest points, whereas you are perfectly happy to cast Ginger Beaumont in the best possible light. This is an obvious double standard.

And if Jackie played in a non-integrated league, then what about every other player on your PHoM/not HoM list (in #112 above). Which of them played in an integrated league.

Why do you go so far out of your way to apply standards to Jackie Robinson--for the obvious apriori purpose of keeping him out of your PHoM--when you don't apply the same standards to other players? Why did you decide that Jackie Robinson was persona non grata? Because clearly you decided that before you constructed this case against him.
   128. yest Posted: February 28, 2007 at 02:05 PM (#2304333)
keep in mind I think Ginger B. is a borderliner at best my point is that Ginger B. had a harder time sticking out then Jackie R.
   129. rawagman Posted: February 28, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2304340)
rawagman - we do not see life thru the same lenses


Either life is baseball, or you know me much better than I know you!
   130. Daryn Posted: February 28, 2007 at 03:43 PM (#2304366)
Forget about breaking the color line...even if you give him *no* Negro League credit, he's among the handful of greatest players at his position in history...not Hornsby/Morgan/Collins/Lajoie, but such a high peak that he at least has a very strong claim to be #5...does anyone else disagree with me here?

I voted for Jackie #2 in 1962, with the following comment:

2. Jackie Robinson – without the reputation and without pre-1947 credit and without taking into account the circumstances under which he compiled his ML stats, Jackie doesn’t make my ballot. With all those things considered, he should be between 2nd and 4th. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, because a man has few heroes, and Jackie’s one of them.


yest and I are career focused voters. If career is your guideline and you don't count the non-MLB time, Jackie falls well short of the HoM (1500 hits, no great power, come on). Even if you give him only two years of credit, he is not an easy choice. He may be an exemplar of the flaw in career focused voting, but it is what it is.
   131. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2304403)
The new "quote" display is driving me bonkers. I feel like I'm reading Entertainment Weekly.
   132. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2304450)
I feel like I'm reading Entertainment Weekly.

Speaking of career voting, I'm very much hedging on ANS for my Hall of Celebritiness, due to the early end to her career. However, if the tangles over her estate and the paternity of her child continue a few years, I'll probably give death credit and induct her into my pHOC as soon as she is eligible. Meanwhile, I didn't think Britney could improve her peak performance, but the head-shaving incident really bumped her up, and the little she's got is probably equivalent to the Fat-Elvis portion of the The King's career, which has her on the HOC borderline already.
   133. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2304492)
Whoa... that more "In Touch" :-). That stuff is even a bit more low-brow than e-weekly.

Despite its fondness for those annoying quote display tags... which are basically just large "text captions" which allow lazy "readers" to skip the whole article and just look at the pictures... despite all that... e-weekly is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine.

I don't think I could get into "In Touch" though. Just looking at the cover in the supermarket checkout often tells me much more than I want to know.
   134. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 28, 2007 at 07:13 PM (#2304531)
that's more "In Touch" :-).

Ack! Hoisted by my own petards! My ignorance comes back to bite me in the [hoo-hoo]. I assumed that E-Weekly was a celebrity-gossip rag like People or the tabloids. And, of course, I get all my celeb news from the front covers of said rags as I walk by them in the grocery store. Which by the way means that there are only five celebrities in the world: Brad, Jen, Angelina, ANS, and Brittany. No wait, seven, how could I forget Tom and Katie?
   135. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 28, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2304551)
and the little she's got is probably equivalent to the Fat-Elvis portion of the The King's career,

Except Elvis was still able to make some quality music during that time, while Spears has yet to achieve that ever.
   136. DavidFoss Posted: February 28, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2304578)
Ack! Hoisted by my own petards! My ignorance comes back to bite me in the [hoo-hoo]. I assumed that E-Weekly was a celebrity-gossip rag like People or the tabloids.

Eh... sometimes various guilty pleasures are indistinguishable to those who don't appreciate them. :-) As much as I like e-weekly for its colorful coverage of "ainitcool.com" type tv shows and movies, they will occasionally put someone like Justin Timberlake on the cover so I could see how it could get mixed up with the gossip rags.
   137. sunnyday2 Posted: February 28, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2304588)
>Except Elvis was still able to make some quality music during that time, while Spears has yet to achieve that ever.

Agree with second half of statement. Not sold on the first ;-)

But she sure can dance! (Not.)
   138. DL from MN Posted: February 28, 2007 at 09:53 PM (#2304695)
12) Bobo Newsom
13) Tommy Henrich
14) Chuck Klein
15) Bucky Walters

I was botching Rizzuto's war credit. He jumps up to 14 on this list for me and around 70 overall. There will be a little jostling around in other spots but nobody will make my ballot based on it. Browning and Jones do jump up to the 35-40 range.

One thing I noticed in this exercise, Mickey Vernon goes from being a dreadful fielder in Washington to a decent one in Cleveland.
   139. Paul Wendt Posted: February 28, 2007 at 11:24 PM (#2304756)
Dan R
Jackie Robinson is the only one on his list whose major league record makes him a no-doubt no-brainer, IMO.

I agree.

Mark D
I need to go over at least two categories of player particularly carefully as we head toward the finish line:

•Borderline candidates for my pHOM (which I've been doing over the last several elections)
•HOMers not in my pHOM, particularly ones elected before I started voting


There is no urgency, Mark D.
You may correct your own PHOM.
See the precedent set in "Marc Sunnyday v. Marc Sunnyday".

Tom H
further adventures in best-friend analysis:

if you voted in the 1994 election, your name appears below. This is a list of my worst- to best- friend,


As more of you undertake these omphalokneptic adventures in linear algebra?, I am tempted to vote just to be included --and thereby measure my friends.

Eric C quoting Tom H
> (begin with worst, end with best)
> rawagman - we do not see life thru the same lenses
> Eric Chalek

What is it, exactly, that you mean by worst???? ; )


Everyone likes you, but Tom H likes you less.
   140. Paul Wendt Posted: March 01, 2007 at 12:38 AM (#2304808)
the relative best friends of Tom H

Rob Wood
KJOK - out of kilter with many, but a near cuz of mine!


This is intriguing because I think of Rob Wood as a career valuist almost comparable to Joe Dimino and Dan Greenia (near the end of the spectrum), while KJOK is the archetype for the other side. KJOK is outspoken here, who articulates his approach, where Rob Wood "votes his approach" but chiefly leaves it to be inferred from his ballots. While I may have misjudged, I suspect that this demonstrates a principle, if you make up a metric (Tom H) then you will make some interesting measurements.
   141. TomH Posted: March 01, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2304879)
I suspect that this demonstrates a principle, if you make up a metric (Tom H) then you will make some interesting measurements.

There probably is much wisdom here. Like what they taught me in some stats classes, it's easy to do an experiment and find SOMETHING strange (and then get a government grant to study it further, and while doing so, find something ELSE unusual, etc)

However, it is also true that KJOK is a career voter with a very high replacement level, NOT a peak voter; which isn't far from me. OTOH, Rob Wood is a career voter with a more typical replacement level, but he and I might share other small nuances that when totalled bring us more together. Or maybe we Vulcan mind meld way too much.
   142. TomH Posted: March 01, 2007 at 02:52 AM (#2304880)
omphalokneptic??
   143. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 01, 2007 at 04:06 PM (#2305072)
omphalokneptic??

Oh, my aunt was one of those. She could use her mind to make a spoon produce the sound of a tuba!
   144. sunnyday2 Posted: March 01, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2305086)
A very high replacement level is jsut another name for a peak voter! Just a peak that is not necessarily concentrated in a 3-5 year period.
   145. TomH Posted: March 01, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2305173)
Peak vs Career, hi vs low replacement

Look at the four mythcial players I have created below. See which one you think would be most HOM-worthy. Following that is a dicsussion of voter tendencies.

Pretend for this exercise that a pitcher's W-L record accurately reflected his value to his team.
Pretend that typical careers were 4 years long; it makes the ##s a lot easier to swallow in these examples.

records of 4 moundsmen, year by year

UpNDown 20-12 4-6 20-12 4-6 total 48-36
Steady.... 13-9 13-9 12-9 12-9 total 51-36
FlameOut. 5-6 22-9 16-12 ...... total 43-27
Fragile..... .8-3 .8-3 ..8-3 ..7-3 total 31-12

A
career voter with low replacement level ("wins" count. "losses" unimportant; it takes 3 losses cancel out 1 win) sees them this way:

UpNDown 16 .2 16 2 total 36
Steady... 10 10 .9 9 total 38
FlameOut. 3 19 12 . total 34
Fragile..... .7 .7 .7 6 total 27

B
career voter with high replacement level ("wins" count pos, losses" equally negative) sees them this way:

UpNDown .8 -2 8 -2 total 12
Steady.... .4 .4 3 .3 total 14
FlameOut.-1 13 4 .. total 16
Fragile..... .5 .5 .5 4 total 19

C
peak voter with low replacement level (counts best seasons more impt, in 4:3:2:1 ratio) sees them this way:

UpNDown 16 16 2 2 total 118 (16*4+16*3+2*2+2*1)
Steady.... 10 10 9 9 total 97
FlameOut.19 12 3 . total 117
Fragile..... .7 .7 7 6 total 69

D
peak voter with high replacement level (best seasons more impt- 4:3:2:1) sees them this way:

UpNDown .8 8 -2 -2 total 50
Steady.... .4 4 .3 .3 total 37
FlameOut.13 4 -1 .. total 62
Fragile..... .5 5 .5 .4 total 49

A: is like measuring career WARP. Joe D & Rob W might be 80% "A" voters. Jake Beckley and Don Sutton are As.
B: doesn't care about big (high IP or AB) seasons. KJOK fits in here, with love for Chance and Bresnahan.
C: is like taking 3 or 5 best WS seasons, as James did in the Abstract.
D: Mark Donelson may fall into this camp, and Dizzy Dean is his man, altho Mark D and Diz D might fall into "C".

Personally, if I ranked these 4 mythical players, 'UpNDown' comes in last. I certainly canNOT see how he would rank above the others. But it seems that players like UpNDown get a lot of voter action in the HoM.
   146. Brent Posted: March 03, 2007 at 05:03 AM (#2306111)
Personally, if I ranked these 4 mythical players, 'UpNDown' comes in last. I certainly canNOT see how he would rank above the others. But it seems that players like UpNDown get a lot of voter action in the HoM.

I thought these were nice examples. And I'd always pick UpNDown ahead of Steady or Fragile. If UpNDown was your best pitcher, you easily could win a pennant in years 1 and 3. If Steady or Fragile was your best pitcher, you'd never win a pennant.

UpNDown versus Steady looks like the old Drysdale versus Pappas debate from Politics of Glory. (Except that, as we know, Pappas really wasn't a very good match for Drysdale--perhaps a better pairing would have been Wynn versus Pierce or Grimes versus Rixey.) I'll always go with the pitcher who had the big seasons (and I find it hard to comprehend the support for pitchers who lack them).

UpNDown versus Flameout is tougher for me -- I vote for a few of both types.

A minor comment on your examples -- even though I have a high "replacement" level (not really "replacement," because I give only token credit for below average performance), I never would give a player negative credit. Obviously, that helps UpNDown.
   147. TomH Posted: March 03, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2306186)
Aah, but if UpNDown was your 3rd best pitcher, you'd never win a pennant in years 2 and 4. If Steady or Fragile was your 3rd best pitcher, you could win a pennant every year :)
   148. mulder & scully Posted: March 04, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2306339)
yes, but if UpNDown was your 3rd best pitcher, you'd always win a pennant in years 1 and 3 :)

couldn't resist
   149. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 04, 2007 at 01:56 AM (#2306370)
Whoever named these pitchers UpNDown, Steady and Fragile should have their parent privledges revoked. :-)
   150. Juan V Posted: March 04, 2007 at 02:21 AM (#2306378)
You mean, they should have their children taken away? :-)
   151. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 04, 2007 at 03:49 AM (#2306399)
That, too! :-D
   152. yest Posted: March 04, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2306510)
Speaking of career voting, I'm very much hedging on ANS for my Hall of Celebritiness, due to the early end to her career. However, if the tangles over her estate and the paternity of her child continue a few years, I'll probably give death credit and induct her into my pHOC as soon as she is eligible. Meanwhile, I didn't think Britney could improve her peak performance, but the head-shaving incident really bumped her up, and the little she's got is probably equivalent to the Fat-Elvis portion of the The King's career, which has her on the HOC borderline already."

please tell me this is a <u>joke</u>
   153. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 04, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2306530)
please tell me this is a joke

Come on, you don't have a pHOC, yest?
   154. yest Posted: March 04, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2306581)
the whole amount of time I spend on celebirties is the split second it takes for me to turn my head when I pass a newsstand that for some strange reason seems to broadcast that more than real news

I realy don't need to look at the rich and famous (7 times divorced, 20 times <u>caught</u> for drug abuse and can't act, sing ext.) newest emmbaresments to have any enjoyment (not that looking at it would give me any enjoment except for the fact that no matter how bad I get I've still got a long way to go anywhere near them).

I can hardley stand to read Daily News because it has become the Daily tabloids (the Times while elminating most of the trash distorts the facts way to much to suit their adjanda)
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9450 seconds
49 querie(s) executed