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, March 25, 2007

1997 Ballot Discussion

1997 (April 9)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

347 112.9 1973 Dwight Evans-RF
327 86.9 1973 Dave Parker-RF
259 71.3 1974 Ken Griffey-RF/LF
209 73.1 1976 Garry Templeton-SS
176 54.6 1977 Terry Puhl-RF
170 55.2 1980 Tom Herr-2B
177 51.5 1980 Lloyd Moseby-CF
158 55.1 1974 Rick Dempsey-C*
151 47.4 1981 Mookie Wilson-CF
150 46.5 1979 Terry Kennedy-C
128 49.8 1977 Jim Clancy-P
126 45.6 1980 Ernie Whitt-C
108 43.5 1979 Dan Petry-P
111 38.8 1977 Warren Cromartie-LF/RF
107 38.2 1978 Ed Whitson-P
115 34.5 1979 Ron Hassey-C

Players Passing Away in 1996
HoMers
Age Elected

81 1976 Willard Brown-CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

100 1940 Milt Gaston-P
84 1952 Babe Dahlgren-1B
83——Mel Allen-Broadcaster
81 1959 Bill Nicholson-RF
79 1959 Barney McCosky-CF/LF
77——Charles O. Finley-Owner
75 1959 Connie Ryan-2B
74 1959 Ewell Blackwell-P
71 1965 Alex Kellner-P
70 1965 Del Ennis-LF
69 1968 Jim Busby-CF
59 1983 Joe Hoerner-RP

Upcoming Candidate
34 1999 Mike Sharperson-3B/2B

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 25, 2007 at 09:51 PM | 319 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 27, 2007 at 12:23 AM (#2318470)
Evans and Parker are the only ones with a chance, but they are not definites by a long shot for induction in '97.
   2. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM (#2318476)
Oh god, another backlog election. Calgon, take the consensus away....

Dave Parker gives me fits. My system loves him, really loves him because of his period of 1970s dominance---best player in the NL for a little while, etc.... Then it gets a little derailed by his putting up a bunch of not-so great 1980s seasons that aren't very good for a RF. It's one where i just don't trust the system completely, and where I suspect positional replacement levels are important to the case.
   3. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2318497)
If Hernandez waltzed in, I'm 99 and 44/100% sure that Evans will too.

Parker will be very interesting.
   4. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:20 AM (#2318515)
A trip down memory lane....

Dwight Evans-He had a really exaggerated batting stance; he kind of rocked himself back and forth in the box and his front foot was sort-of ding toed and on point. He crouched some too, I think. As a then-11-year-old Mets fan, my enduring memory is Len Dykstra's line drive ticking off Evans's outstretched glove and into the seats in the 1986 World Series. Pretty sure it happened that way, I could be misremembering.

Dave Parker-I remember against the mets one time that Parker doubled and came into second in a pop-up slide. When he sprang up, he fived the nearest mets infielder.... I think it's obvious to say that some combo of snow and the Chuck Tanner Workout System(TM) turned Parker from an almost surefire HOFer into a low-borderliner. Like Daryl Strawberry only better at his best moments and without the suspensions and rehabs and cancers and stuff. His offensive profile reminds me of Willie Stargell with Daryl Strawberry's athleticism.

Ken Griffey-I wish he'd taken better care of his hamstrings. Ha ha. I wonder if Griffey was platooned a lot after age 30 (his last 600 PA season). He had only to 500 PA seasons thereafter. His OPS career vs. LHP was below the league average, so I figure that must have been the case. He walked about 9% of the time hit for doubles power (25-30 with 8-12 dingers too), had some speed, and could play the OF. BB-ref reports that his platoon PAs are pretty normal around 350/120 until 1987, then his PA vs LHP drop under 100 for the first time int he decade, and he really struggles against them. from then on he's a platoon guy. But from 1981-1986 he isn't, he's just not in the lineup. His game totals in that period are 101 (good for 1981), 127, 118, 120, 127, 139. Looks brittle to me since his playing time is normal versus both paws. Given his broad range of skills, it's interesting to speculate whether a healthier Griffey could have done enough to be a borderline HOF/HOM candidate.

Garry Templeton-OCF has given a lot of info about Templeton's time with St Louis. I always thought he was reallllllly laid back, but maybe it was something else. Anyway, he wore his cap beneath his helmet, I think, the way Raines and others did. I don't see that as often today, or it least it seems that way during the few times I actually see a game on TV. Another could've been for the 1997 class.

Terry Puhl-Good player with a couple superb seasons in the Astroduomo. Quiet, I don't have much of a memory of his except as a lefty line drive hitter with surprising speed and a good glove.

Tom Herr-Another PA Dutch country son. I had a friend who attended the Ambler Church of the Brethren in Ambler, PA, which is not in Dutch country. I think I remember that friend saying that Tommy Herr was a member of the Brethren sect and did charity work throughout Eastern PA for the church. Anyway, Herr was a disappointment for the Twins and Phils (except 1989) after he was a cog in the Whitey machine. But then the Phils of the late 1980s had much worse problems than Tommy Herr.

Lloyd Moseby-Moseby, Lemon, and Mike Cameron are all kind of the same guy to me. Good players all. Not quite great.

Rick Dempsey-
Sliding on wet tarps
Shirt stuffed like the Bambino
Popular always

Mookie Wilson-Something about somebody's legs.... Mookie was fast, and he never saw a pitch he didn't like. Well, he had exuberance, and that made him the Kirby Puckett of Mets, except that he couldn't hit so good, and he couldn't quite hold centerfield in the presence of a better outfielder. But that's your early 1980s Mets, isn't it?

Terry Kennedy-I can't think of anything to say about him. He seemed really boring to me, just a guy who for a few years hit with good power for a catcher and played most every game. Before and after, however, he was only moderately valuable.

Jim Clancy-Didn't he almost electrocute some announcer? Was it McCarver? Did McCarver deserve it?

Ernie Whitt-Now what would the Red Sox need with a good-hitting, decent fielding catcher in the 1980s?

Dan Petry-Or Petrydish as I prefer.

Warren Cromartie-Who will break out his NPB numbers? Is there anything in them that we should know about that would suggest anything HOMish at all?

Ed Whitson-Then Kenny Rogers...is Carl Pavano next? Find out April 2nd!!!!

Ron Hassey-I liked Hassey a lot in 1986, almost his best season. I mimicked his lazy-looking bat twirl in my backyard imaginary Mets vs. Yanks slugfests. Sadly for Hassey in most seasons he flashed the wrong combo of skills for a hitter: he didn't hit the ball all that far and he couldn't beat a limping octogenarian to first. So he had to rely on walks since he hit around the league average. In that, however, he did have some success with 80 points of 'isolated obp.' And the great 1980 season was awesome. Anyway, the Yanks seemed stoopit to get rid of him in the Tolleson/Skinner/Kittle deal since they had lots of catching problems throughout the mid-late 1980s.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:39 AM (#2318526)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1996

If 65 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 13 Cs, 14 1Bs, 15 2Bs, 10 3Bs, 17 SSs, 54 OFs, 54 Ps.
If 50 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 13 Cs, 16 1Bs, 15 2Bs, 13 3Bs, 18 SSs, 58 OFs, 54 Ps.

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

C (13.21) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, JGibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Bench 78, TSimmons 77, Santop 75, Trouppe 65, Ewing 47, Torre 41, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (20.36) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, KHernandez 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, McCovey 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Carew 50, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stargell 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, DaEvans 32, McVey 31, Rose 27, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Yastrzemski 23, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

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

3B (14.11) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Mathews 93, Schmidt 92, Boyer 90, Groh 79, Sutton 69, DaEvans 54, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Trouppe 20, Rose 18, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

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

OF (55.18) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Keller 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, SJJackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, JWynn 97, Kiner 96, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Minoso 93, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, RJackson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Yastrzemski 63, Charleston 60, Stargell 60, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Rose 38, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Trouppe 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, McCovey 12, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10

DH (0.79) - RJackson 23, Yastrzemski 13, TSimmons 12, FRobinson 11, BWilliams 10, DaEvans 10

P (53.64) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 100, Gibson 100, Waddell 100, Pierce 100, GPerry 100, Palmer 100, Jenkins 100, Seaver 100, Carlton 100, Niekro 100, Sutton 100, R Foster 99, MBrown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, WJohnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Mendez 90, Radbourn 78, Spalding 80, Caruthers 66, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 25, Ruth 20

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters such as Ward, Ruth, Caruthers, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   6. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2318536)
On the Dave Parker Case. Here's three guys, consecutive seasons of 200 or more PA

A 108 149 132 144 166 141 116 106 113  97 103 148 117  92 103 111 118  80
B  97 103 148 117  92 103 111 118  80 108 149 132 144 166 141 116 106 113
C  92 113 117 144 148 149 166 141 132 116 118 111 106 108 103 103  97  80 


A, of course, is Parker, and most of his value is frontloaded. B's is a late bloomer whose value is all backloaded. He's also a corner outfielder. C's value is more normally distributed. Does any of them look more appealing?

Well, you've guessed by now, that all of them are Dave Parker, and that I've just rearranged his OPS+s to look different or more normal. But that said, there's no hiding that Parker wasn't hitting to much after age 28, whole lotta 110s goin' on. In fact, from age 29 onward, Parker played 1588 games and Lee Sinnis shows him at 4.71 RC/G and a .508 OWP. he's better than the league, but the league's RFs were at 4.89 RC/G and a .534 OWP. In the good phase of his career (ages 23-28), he's at 7.06 rc/g and a 681 OWP, while the position is 5.44 rc/g and a .573 OWP. Wow.
   7. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:55 AM (#2318541)
Also, I've got Dewey about 10 slots away from the in/out line. But here's something to chew on:

Here's another mystery player:

108 149 132 144 166 141 163 149 106 147 124 131 156 136 137 103 119

Love that peak, love the long, graceful decline. The player is Dewvy Parkvans.
   8. Chris Cobb Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2318549)
If Hernandez waltzed in, I'm 99 and 44/100% sure that Evans will too.

I agree. It will be very hard to argue that Evans wasn't better than Tony Perez -- similar career length, better career offensive value, better career defensive value. It's very hard to see how voters would rank him below Perez. If he ranks even a little bit above Perez consistently on everybody's ballots, then he'll be very close to election. The #3 returning candidate -- Jake Beckley -- is only 34 points ahead of Perez.
   9. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2318553)
I'm not trying to snark here, I'm just wondering. Now that we've elected Jennings, Moore, Kiner and Keller (& I agree with some of those), who are the big-peak fans supporting?
   10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2318564)
Prelim:

1) Bresnahan
2) C. Jones
3) Walters
4) Welch
5) Browning
6) Willis
7) Cravath
8) Oms
9) Elliott
10) Duffy
11) Traynor
12) Grimes
13) Bonds
14) Nash
15) R. Smith

Parker and Evans are close, but I don't see them truly worthy.
   11. Rick A. Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2318574)
who are the big-peak fans supporting?

Dean, Jones, Browning, Cravath
   12. Chris Cobb Posted: March 27, 2007 at 03:45 AM (#2318602)
Now that we've elected Jennings, Moore, Kiner and Keller (& I agree with [three] of those)

It's time to elect some career candidates! My ballot is gettig d*mned crowded with them.

1997 Prelim:

1. Roush
2. Fingers
3. Bancroft
4. Oms
5. Leach
6. Beckley
7. Evans
8. Maranville
9. Clarkson
10. Perez
11. Bonds
12. Jones
13. Tiant
14. Nettles
15. Bell

16. Cash
17. Fox
18. Staub
19. Cravath
20. Tinker
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: March 27, 2007 at 03:49 AM (#2318603)
>who are the big-peak fans supporting?

Depends on if you really mean high peak, or do you mean peak only?
   14. AJMcCringleberry Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:02 AM (#2318610)
Early prelim

1/2. Perez/Evans
3. Walters
4. Staub
5. Trout
6. Ryan
7. Johnson
8. Fox
9. Beckley
10. Cravath
11. Nettles
12. Bell

13. Singleton
14. Bonds
15. Cedeno
16. Pinson

Parker is somewhere in the 13-17 range.
   15. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:06 AM (#2318611)
Depends on if you really mean high peak, or do you mean peak only?

I'm not totally sure. I think I mean peak only. I really wasn't that aware of a difference. I have to say, I don't think of Jones and Cravath as "peak only" candidates - I think they have credit issues that people weigh differently. I hadn't specifically thought of Browning as just a peak candidate, but yeah, he pretty much is. And I knew Dean was, but he isn't really getting much support. (Just checked - #22, a little higher than I would have guessed, but not in danger of being elected anytime soon.)

I guess I view peak-only voters as a little more of a bloc than other parts of the electorate (not on purpose, it just seems to work that way), and with Keller in, wasn't sure who they might be promoting now.
   16. Dag is a salt water fish in fresh water world Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2318613)
Milt Gaston? Did I ever RSI him and if not why not? Best player not nicknamed Double Duty to live to age 100?

Evans and Parker? I remember Evans throwing the ball home in an ASG, and the guy on third not even trying to run. The announcer compared it to an incident involving Dave Parker years earlier.

Tommy Herr. I remember he big first half he had in '85. Sandberg may have been reigning MVP, but Herr was the starting in the ASG that year. Earlier today I spoke with Anthony Giacalone. A few years ago he attended a minor league game (A ball) and the guy sitting next to him was an 80 year old scout. The scout signed Tommy Herr.

Garry Templeton. I didn't make it to Wrigley until relatively late. My first game there was in 1990. I saw the Cubs beat the Pads. The Pads had the 1984 All Star Team that year - Templeton, Fred Lynn -- it felt like Tony Gwynn was one of their kids.

Occassionally there are great assemblages of evil in the world. The signing of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The prisoners in the dock at the Nuremberg trials. And of course, August 25, 1985. It's amazing how my players I disliked from my childhood set foot on the field in one game. And there's no kind of player you dislike like one you dislike from your childhood. The bastard the plunked Dawson. The bastard that ordered that bastard to plunk Dawson. Captain Middle Finger. The druggie who always beat the Cubs. The druggie who beat his wife. The minor league manager who beat his wife. The guy who was referred to as a throw back to the days "when they loved the game" so much that I wanted to wretch because his existance seemed designed to make old-timers of all ages denigrate the modern player. The backstop who tried so hard to seem like Mr Wonderful that he ended up looking like Steve Garvey with dinged up knees. A druggie who had a teflon image in the press. And, of course, Evil Incarnate. Also, I never cared for George Foster very much.

It's the only game I know of where Gooden faced off against Show while both Bowa and Garvey played in it. The rest is just gravy, but my goodness what a lot of gravy.

Best of all: it took place in Shea Stadium 37,350 past, current, and future convicted felons.

Tell ya what, it's a fun game to play: find the game where more players you disliked appeared in than any other. That's mine.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:20 AM (#2318621)
I had Keller #2, so....

Very high peak: Browning, C. Jones--both in top 10 on current ballot

Very high peak and peak only: Rosen--#23 last year

Peak only: Hack Wilson--#24

Prime only: Addie Joss--#5; Quiz?--#22

IOW, there's no obvious successor to Kong.
   18. KJOK Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2318627)
who are the big-peak fans supporting?


McGraw I hope!
   19. sunnyday2 Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2318647)
My pre pre prelim:

1. Roush
2. Fingers
3. Dewey Evans--PHoM obviously

(16a. Keith Hernandez--PHoM)
17. Tony Perez or Don Newcombe or Tommy Leach--one of whom goes PHoM
   20. DavidFoss Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:32 AM (#2318648)
Love that peak, love the long, graceful decline. The player is Dewvy Parkvans.

Fun!

Thru Age 28:

DParker-142 OPS+, 3500 AB+BB, 217 RCAA
DwEvans-114 OPS+, 3800 AB+BB, 59 RCAA

Age 29-on

DParker-109 OPS+, 6500 AB+BB, 25 RCAA
DwEvans-135 OPS+, 6600 AB+BB, 319 RCAA

Total:

DParker-121 OPS+, 10000 AB+BB, 242 RCAA
DwEvans-127 OPS+, 10400 AB+BB, 378 RCAA

"Twins" - (if Ivan Reitman could work his magic)

"Ahnuld"-138 OPS+, 10100 AB+BB, 536 RCAA
"Devito"-111 OPS+, 10300 AB+BB, 84 RCAA
   21. OCF Posted: March 27, 2007 at 06:43 AM (#2318677)
Templeton on the ballot reminds me that I wanted to do something on shortstops of this generation. Good thing we're on three-week cycles now, because that isn't happening in the next few days.
   22. mulder & scully Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:09 AM (#2318685)
Prelim thoughts:
My 3, 10, and 11 were elected.

1. Mickey Welch
2. Charley Jones
3. Bucky Walters
4. Pete Browning
5. Hugh Duffy
6. Tommy Leach
7. Gavy Cravath
8. Vic Willis
9. George Burns
10. Edd Roush
11. Alejandro Ohms
12. Rollie Fingers

Who am I kidding? I really want to rethink how I am integrating 70s players into my top 60/PHOM after reading a lot of Dan R's information. Also, I realized my ballot was too heavy with OF again. I need some infielders and (maybe) a catcher. Vic Willis and above, you guys are safe. Everyone else, down to Bobby Bonds/Rusty Staub down in the mid-60s are open to evaluation.
Looking at Elston Howard and Roger Bresnahan at C,
Luke Easter, Ben Taylor and Frank Chance at first,
Larry Doyle, Bill Monroe, and George Scales at second,
Rosen, Bando, Nettles, McGraw at third,
Herman Long and Dick Lundy at SS,
Burns and Frank Howard at LF
Edd Roush and Alejandro Ohms at CF
Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Bobby Bonds, Rusty Staub, and Ken Singleton at RF
Rollie Fingers, Wilbur Cooper, Burleigh Grimes, Don Newcombe, and Dick Redding at P.

And karl: Those of us who do not vote for Beckley are not "sad, sad people" (post 300 on the 1996 Ballot Discussion Thread)... If that was meant as a joke, please add a smiley or other emoticon because your passion for Beckley makes it difficult to tell if you are joking.

I hope this sure-to-be-close election brings everyone's best arguments and that everyone looks closely at their ballot. Name calling has no place.
   23. TomH Posted: March 27, 2007 at 11:34 AM (#2318719)
Go ahead, toss some rotten tomatoes!

Here’s your chance; it’s open season on Tom’s rankings as we get to a key backlog year. I decided it would be good to get outside sanity checks on my top 50. Obviously, every one has different criteria, but IF you would dare to put on my particular tinted glasses, would these rankings make sense? I rank careers+primes; total value above slightly-below-average. Some peak bonus for pitchers. WS, WARP, OWP+def mushed together.

So, feel free to ask me “how can you have XX higher than YY?”, or other questions that the table below brings to mind.

-- C ----- SS ----- 2B ----- 3B ----- 1B -----------OF ----------------- P --------------
…………………………………………McGraw Beckley ……{Evans}……………… Walters
Bresnahan ………………………………….. Chance Johnson VanHaltren Tiant
……………………… Monroe … Elliot ……………………….Smith …………Fingers Grimes Redding
……………………… Fox ……………… Perez ………. Bonds DiMaggio
………… Concepcion Traynor Nettles Cash Cepeda …………………….. Shocker
Schang ….……………………….Leach …………………Browning .. Oms ….. Dean
Munson ….……………………….Cey …………………Brock …………………….. Newcombe
…………… Rizzuto ………... Bando …………………………..…………………….. Welch
Lombardi Aparicio ………………………………………………………………….…. Bridges
………. Maranville Doyle . …………………………Roush …………………………. Mays
Howard .. Fregosi ……………………. Easter …. CJones Duffy ……. John .. Sutter
   24. TomH Posted: March 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM (#2318732)
I am befuddled by the strong support of Tony Perez.
Quite obviously, Jake Beckley had a better career.
Quite obviously, many guys had better peaks.
If you're into a long sustained prime, Bob Johnson got it all over Tony P.

what up?
   25. Rusty Priske Posted: March 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM (#2318736)
Prelim

PHoM: Evans, Parker, Singleton

1. Tony Perez
2. Dwight Evans
3. Rusty Staub
4. Edd Roush
5. Jake Beckley
6. George Van Haltren
7. Dave Parker
8. Nellie Fox
9. Tommy Leach
10. Lou Brock
11. Graig Nettles
12. Mickey Welch
13. Hugh Duffy
14. Reggie Smith
15. Bobby Bonds

16-20. Cash, Cepeda, Singleton, Johnson, Willis
21-25. Redding, Browning, Monroe, Streeter, F. Howard
26-30. Grimes, Doyle, Strong, McCormick, Greene
   26. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:20 PM (#2318758)
I agree. It will be very hard to argue that Evans wasn't better than Tony Perez

I really don't see why we should love Dwight Evans so much. If he's as good as Perez, then he's not HOM quality in my mind. Here's how my system ranks out some guys

At 1B
N Cash 18th
in/out line
M Vernon 19th-t
O Cepeda 19th-t
T Perez 19th-t
B Taylor 23rd
L Easter 24th (w/ credit from age 25 on)
E Konetchy 25th-t
J Beckley 25th-t

At RF
K Singleton 12th
G Cravath 13th (with 1907-onward credit)
B Bonds 15th
in/out line
B Murcer 23rd
T Oliva 24th-t
K Cuyler 24th-t
D Walker 24th-t
R Smith 27th
Dw Evans 28th
H Hooper 29th
R Colavito 30th-t
R Staub 30th-t

LF
G Burns 15th-t
in/out line
A Galan 18th-t (with war discount)
F Howard 18th-t
C Jones 20th (with blacklist credit)
L Brock 22nd
C Keller 23rd
R White 24th
B Veach 25th-t
J Cruz 25th-t
B Estalella 25th-t
T York 29th-t
J Rice 29th-t
G Foster 31st-t
B Johnson 33rd-t

Now I'm a WS voter, so Johnson, for instance, might well be a little higher up.

Anyway, I'm not a peak or career voter at this time, I'm a prime voter. I've got plenty of Prime-time candidates on my ballot: Oms, Leach, Cooper, Singleton, Roush guys like that. My system likes dominance of all forms (and can overrate a Parker) but it also likes Tommy Leach who wasn't much of a dominator. Even Jake Beckley scores a lot better in my current system than my old one. Use to be below 40, now he's 25 at position. All of which is to say that I see Dwight Evans as below the line.

Dewey's HOVG at a position that historically is very, very strong (though not so strong as LF). RFs after the 1890s just got better and better and were very much middle-order bombardiers by the era of Flick and Crawford, continuing through Joe Jackson/Gavy Cravath, then taking it up a notch in the Paul Waner/Babe Ruth era. Anyway, Evans faces big historical names, and he doesn't clear them. I see Willie Keeler (ranked 18th) as straddling the borderline. Evans isn't all that close to him. The "score" my system spits out is 35 for Keeler and 24 for Dewey. It's hard to come up with ten points in my system, you'd have to have a combination of All-Star/MVP appearances, position- and league-domaninant performances and stuff. At Evans' level of performance, he's probably two-three more prime/peak years from catching up to Keeler. Though to be fair he played in more difficult leagues---but the timeline would need to be pretty steep to catch up quickly.

Now I don't need to tell you my system isn't perfect. It sees Clemente as below the in/out line---though I saw him that way during his election too---and Slaughter too (with w.c.), but it sees both of them above Evans. It also sees Parker as comparable to Singleton, but as I've said before, I think it's wrong there...and so it could wrong anywhere. I think Parker, with his higher peak than Evans and Dewey are very similar cases. Almost half of Dewey's career is at or below RF replacement batting, the same for Parker. The other parts are great, with Evans a little longer but maybe not quite as peaky. But I'm not confident that one is much better than the other or that either is a good HOM candidate, and so I'm wondering why everyone's going to steam roll Dewey in unless it's some reaction like Let's Put in the SABRmetric Favorite!!!! (which isn't par for the course around here).
   27. TomH Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:20 PM (#2318760)
Tony Perez had a great 'career' partly because he padded his numebrs wiht a lot fo fluff seasons.

Tony Perez played 1964-66 and 1981-86, and in that time got 1839 ABs, 47 HR, 277 RBI; and gave virtually no real value to his team, since his hitting was well below avg. Take away those years, and would his career numbers look less worthy? (down from 21st in career RBI to about 70th, etc). Yes. And suddenly he looks like (or worse than) Reggie Smith or Bob Johnson.
   28. TomH Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2318762)
btw (in case anyone cares), I just dropped my sponsorship of bb-ref's Wes Ferrell page; it's open for $15. I'm gonna pick up Kid Nichols.
   29. rawagman Posted: March 27, 2007 at 01:38 PM (#2318774)
I want to reiterate something pointed out by Max Parkinson in his recent ballot.
Why Keith Hernandez and not Ben Taylor? Ben Taylor was known as the greatest defensive 1B in Negro League history. He seemingly was able to mash both dead balls and live ones. His MLE's give him a career OPS+ of 138. Through 15 full (I think) seasons. He also pitched some.
With Hernandez coasting to immortality and Beckley and Perez both seemingly on the fringes, please do yourselves a favour and check out Old Reliable, Ben Taylor.
IIRC, Chris Cobb has promised to go over his candidacy with the HOF numbers.
   30. Guapo Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:11 PM (#2318796)
My question is why the peak voters haven't glommed on to Orlando Cepeda.
   31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:24 PM (#2318804)
My question is why the peak voters haven't glommed on to Orlando Cepeda.


I'm more of a prime voter, but I have Cepeda at #16. He has a good chance of making my ballot in the future.
   32. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:35 PM (#2318810)
Before becoming the Manager of the Lancaster Barnstormers, Tom Herr was a coach at Hempfield High School who we played every year. He was an assh*le. Complete pr*ck. His son was playing there at the time and was incredibly overrated. One time while playing them he went 0-4 with a few harmless flyballs after which he would swear and make it known to everyone that he wasn't happy about it. Our Shortstop, who was hitting like .150 that year, had two hits and a few great plays on defense. Making this all the better was that Scholastic Sports America was at the game doing a profile on Aaron Herr. This, of course, got us singing Oh-Ver-Rat-Ted whenever Herr got up to bat and we made sure that everyone knew that Nick Martin, our mediocre SS, was having a better game. Fun times. Oh, and we lost like 11-4, they were a powerhouse team.

I think that Aaron Herr was a supplemental 1st round pick by the Braves in 2000 but he never amounted to anything. Still, I will always remember that and the fact that everyone and their mother thought hat Tom Herr was a d*ck to those of us not good enough to have graced Major League Baseball.

Also, I dont' understand the early love for Dwight Evans. Only four seasons with at least 25 WS? Pass. He does have a lot of career and deserves a bit of a DH bump for WS voters, but there is no way that his peak is anywhere near HOM worthy.
   33. Mark Donelson Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:38 PM (#2318813)
My question is why the peak voters haven't glommed on to Orlando Cepeda.

Well, frankly, his peak isn't all that great. He's among my top first basemen, sure, but he's not terribly close to my ballot.
   34. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2318817)
Rusty Priske - no pitching post Burleigh Grimes?
   35. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 03:07 PM (#2318830)
1) Dwight Evans - should be no surprise since I'm a big supporter of Bob Johnson. Dewey is Bob Johnson plus some 800 games played.
2) Luis Tiant
3) Bob Johnson
4) Norm Cash
5) Tommy Bridges
6) Tony Perez
7) Jake Beckley
8) Rick Reuschel - added a little credit for his excellent fielding
9) Reggie Smith
10) Bus Clarkson
11) Rusty Staub
12) Gavy Cravath
13) Graig Nettles
14) Virgil Trucks
15) Buddy Bell

16) Edd Roush - I think he'll make the ballot instead of Buddy Bell. The system isn't perfect and they're really close in value. I'll proably go with the HoM and HoF consensus and give Edd a vote.
17) Ben Taylor - I looked at who I was supporting (Hernandez, Cash, Perez, Beckley) and took another look at Ben Taylor. I had underestimated his bat significantly. Could climb higher with new calculations from Chris.
18) Thurman Munson
19) Ken Singleton
20) Bobby Bonds
21-25) Bob Elliott, Orlando Cepeda, Dutch Leonard, Ron Cey, Dick Redding
26-30) Jack Quinn, Darrell Porter, Vic Willis, Rollie Fingers, Dave Bancroft
31-35) Urban Shocker, Johnny Evers, Luke Easter, Tommy John, Dizzy Trout
36-40) Hilton Smith, Frank Howard, Alejandro Oms, Charley Jones, Pete Browning
   36. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 03:29 PM (#2318859)
Aaron Herr reminds me that my friend Brett pitched for Lancaster Mennonite HS in the early 1990s. (He once lost four games in a weekend.) And if remember correctly he pitched against Gene Garber's son, who was drafted. Maybe the Braves too. Never did anything. Anyway, east-central PA, the hotbed of baseball!!!!
   37. Juan V Posted: March 27, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2318867)
I'll try to defend Tony Perez.

One of Bob Johnson's supporters (sorry, can't remember who) notes how he doesn't have an extremely good career, but it was still significantly better than the Kellers; and he also doesn't have an extremely good peak, but still significantly better than the Beckleys. I believe Perez is similar. His peak isn't half bad when you consider that he was a 3B during a good chunk of it (for a single season, check out 1970). He's a bit like Beckley, only trading a few of his good-not-great years for a peak.
   38. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2318895)
And I'll try to pull it apart. I just finished a rereading of POG...

One of Bob Johnson's supporters (sorry, can't remember who) notes how he doesn't have an extremely good career, but it was still significantly better than the Kellers; and he also doesn't have an extremely good peak, but still significantly better than the Beckleys. I believe Perez is similar.

Two objections:
1) I think this is a form of what James refers to as the common-to-the-type argument. You pretty much ignore the weaknesses and you compare against guys who aren't comparable. Essentially you start with the idea that Johnson is a prime guy, then compare his career to a peak guy. Then flip that argument the other way. You need to compare him to other prime guys, not to Beckley or to Keller. Perez being in the same camp needs, in this line of thinking, to be compared first to other prime candidates at the corners, so how does he compare to Johnson, Dw Evans, Bonds, GJ Burns, Cash, Cravath, Jim Rice, guys like that. And then compared to prime-guy HOMers like Hernandez, Terry, etc.

2) This assumes that one thinks that Keller and Beckley are a good standard. They are not. Keller and Beckley will be among the lowest of the low elected to the HOM (should Beckley be elected that is). They are not a reasonable point in his favor, they are the minimum threshold or worse. If you tell me that Perez and Terry are equally good candidates and you can support it, then maybe I'm buying because Terry is above the in/out line (for me) and represents a more effective point of argument. Better yet, tell that Perez is defensibly similar to not only Terry but five to six other HOMers, then we're talking.

His peak isn't half bad when you consider that he was a 3B during a good chunk of it (for a single season, check out 1970).

This is a point in Perez's favor: he had his best years at a more difficult defensive position. But it totally ignores the point that TomH made above: that Perez was simply awful in about eight seasons of his career, during which time he played a serious hitting position and was below replacement. And he was (almost?) never superb at 1B anyway. I have Perez as being among the league's best 3B in his time there and that helps him in my book, but the 1B years are really iffy.

He's a bit like Beckley, only trading a few of his good-not-great years for a peak.

Again, this is an argument against Perez, not for him. If Beckley is the standard, you're not making a convincing argument. You'd have to show that Perez has markers that place him in the middle of some thicket of HOM 1Bs or corner hitters, not merely better than a guy that about 60% of the electorate thinks isn't so swell. I mean you'd never argue that Sam Thompson is the standard for a corner, why would you then use Beckley?

To me there's three different arguments that need to be made:
1) Tony Perez is the best available player/first baseman/corner guy we have.
2) Tony Perez is comparable to people in the HOM and meets its stanadards.
3) We should elect another 1B (since it's our most populous position)

The first could be true and the second and/or third untrue.

I like Cash at 1B. I guess I'm wowed by 1961 or something. He's right above the in/out line for me. I mean right above it. But if Chris comes back with a new Taylor MLE that shows a better player than before, then it's likely Taylor moves up and Cash is no longer electabe for me. I'm saying this because I think we're looking at the wrong position. I think Howie's list suggests that 3B, C, and maybe 2B are the positions we should be really be talking about.

Regardless of which we should concentrate on, we should definitely have more discussion on the corners because we have two or three 1Bs in queue right now, and Eddie Murray has just retired and Bagwell and Thomas are thumping their little hearts out. So too Palmeiro. We are threatening to tip the balance toward 1B and away from some other skill positions with worthy candidates.
   39. DanG Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2318909)
Milt Gaston? Did I ever RSI him and if not why not? Best player not nicknamed Double Duty to live to age 100?

I'm pretty sure that Gaston holds the post-1892 record for lowest career Win Percentage for players with 200 decisions, .372 (97-164). Terrible support, of course. Yes, it would be interesting to see his RSI.

I also see he was part of trades for two outstanding players: Gaston was one of three guys the Yankees traded to the Browns for Urban Shocker. Four years later he was one of five guys the Senators traded to the Bosox for Buddy Myer.
   40. OCF Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2318913)
Eddie Murray has just retired and Bagwell and Thomas are thumping their little hearts out. So too Palmeiro.

Let's not forget a couple of people whose offensive peaks may be a little obscured by the late 80's-early 90's offensive downturn: Fred McGriff and Will Clark. And McGwire might have looked like toast a couple of years ago, but he just hit 52 HR in 130 games, and his OPS+ for the last two years has been 200 and 203.

(Any use of the word "little" in a sentence containing Frank Thomas simply doesn't compute.)
   41. Juan V Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2318923)
I guess I was writing more with TomH's #24 in my mind. He is on my ballot, which these days isn't that much of a statement of HOMability, but I don't see him as that different from Terry, Beckley, Hernandez et al, based on the strenght of his 3B years (had he been a 1B the whole way, he would be a definite out). I'll save a better argument for when I can organize it, but at first sight Perez, Hernandez and Beckley are very similar on offense. Then, of course, are their respective positional and defensive values...

As for positional balance, are we really that short in C and 3B? We have Carter, Fisk, Brett, Boggs and (if you want to consider him) Molitor in the queue. However, I agree that we might end up having a bit too much first basemen. With Hernandez in, Will Clark must like his chances of induction, adding to your list. So far it looks like the Nineties could end up as an interesting time for the position (imagine if Mattingly's back hadn't gone away), and I think this could be the best argument against Perez.
   42. OCF Posted: March 27, 2007 at 04:40 PM (#2318925)
...3B, C, and maybe 2B are the positions we should be really be talking about.

For the second time in the last five years, a 3B (Caminiti) has just come from nowhere to win the NL MVP, as Pendleton did in 1991. Of course, neither Pendleton nor Caminiti exactly have great careers. Second on the NL MVP vote this year was Mike Piazza - he still seems to be improving. Of course, we now look back in wonder at the great 3B glut of the 80's: the end of Schmidt's career, and Brett and Boggs. (And what position are we going to call Molitor, anyway?)
   43. Chris Fluit Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:27 PM (#2318963)
Molitor: Games Played Per Position

DH 1174
3B 791
2B 400
1B 197
SS 57
OF 50
   44. Dizzypaco Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2318967)
Position glut is not the only type of glut that exists. More serious, IMO, is the decade glut -there is an inbalance toward players that played in the 30s, if I remember correctly. Which is why I would give serious consideration to whether people should be voting for more, such as Bob Johnson.

To me there's three different arguments that need to be made:
1) Tony Perez is the best available player/first baseman/corner guy we have.
2) Tony Perez is comparable to people in the HOM and meets its stanadards.
3) We should elect another 1B (since it's our most populous position)


I believe only the first argument is necessary. In any given ballot, players aren't compared with those already in, they are compared with each other. If Tony Perez is the best player not yet elected, that's all that is relevant. None of the backlog guys should be comparable to guys already in the HOM, if the voters have been doing their jobs.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2318976)
DH 1174
3B 791
2B 400
1B 197
SS 57
OF 50


Or

DH 1174
Fielder 1459

Seems strange to call a guy a career DH when he fielded in the majority of his games.

Which is how I rationalize him as a 3B.
   46. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2318977)
"Howie's list suggests that 3B, C, and maybe 2B are the positions we should be really be talking about"

I've been looking through my rankings and determined I'm short of 3B. I'll be adjusting accordingly. It looks like we are currently in the golden age of 3B so I'll have to curb that enthusiasm. I treat SS and 2B as pretty much the same and if anything I'd rather have 1 or 2 more SS than 2B when I'm finished.

1) Dwight Evans - should be no surprise since I'm a big supporter of Bob Johnson. Dewey is Bob Johnson plus some 800 games played.
2) Luis Tiant
3) Bob Johnson
4) BUS CLARKSON
5) Norm Cash
6) Tommy Bridges
7) GRAIG NETTLES
8) Tony Perez
9) Jake Beckley
10) RON CEY
11) Rick Reuschel
12) Reggie Smith
13) Rusty Staub
14) Gavy Cravath
15) Virgil Trucks
16) BOB ELLIOTT
17) Edd Roush
18) BUDDY BELL - Was he really Brooks with the glove?
19) Ben Taylor
20) TOMMY LEACH - back again
21-25) Thurman Munson, Ken Singleton, Bobby Bonds, Orlando Cepeda, Dutch Leonard
26-30) Dick Redding, Jack Quinn, Darrell Porter, Vic Willis, Rollie Fingers
31-35) Dave Bancroft, Urban Shocker, Johnny Evers, Luke Easter, Tommy John
36-40) Dizzy Trout, Hilton Smith, LAVE CROSS, Frank Howard, Alejandro Oms
41-43) Charley Jones, Pete Browning, Roger Bresnahan
   47. DanG Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:49 PM (#2318983)
None of the backlog guys should be comparable to guys already in the HOM, if the voters have been doing their jobs.

Not so.

comparable: having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison.

After the 2008 election there will be 30 HoMers that are practically indistinguishable in quality from 30 guys we didn’t elect.

To a large degree this is already the case. So players on the outside are "comparable" to some HoMers.
   48. Dizzypaco Posted: March 27, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2318992)
After the 2008 election there will be 30 HoMers that are practically indistinguishable in quality from 30 guys we didn’t elect.

Possibly, but if the guys who are in are indistinguishable from those who aren't, why even vote?

Anyway, its irrelevant. Each vote is conducted only among players who are not in the HOM. How does it make more sense to compare candidates with players who are already in than with those who are not?

It actually makes far more sense in Hall of Fame voting than Hall of Merit voting. In Hall of Fame voting, if no player is comparable to those already in, than you don't have to vote for anyone. But in a system where the number of players is fixed, and you have to rank players not already in, the only relevant criteria revolves around the relative merits of the candidates.
   49. OCF Posted: March 27, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2318997)
Start with Perez and trade away some of his offense for more time at 3B. Can we see Wallach or Gaetti from there?
   50. Juan V Posted: March 27, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2319020)
Perez: 10861 PAs + time lost in '72 and '81, 122 OPS+
Wallach 8908 PAs + time lost in '81 and '94-'95, 102 OPS+
Gaetti: 9817 PAs + time lost in '94-'95, 96 OPS+

That's a lot of offense you're trading away, specially considering Perez had, by far, the best peak.
   51. sunnyday2 Posted: March 27, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2319041)
Re post #26, just remember that Doc is a low-consensus voter, so you don't have to follow his recommendations ;-)

Seriously, this whole discussion says to me that, yes, we're into the backlog. And while Dewey is newey, he's pretty much of a backlogger in terms of his record, his case. And there are plenty of guys to choose from at the corners. I hope everybody takes mulder & scully's advice (post #22) and re-thinks the integration of the more recent backlog (including Dewey) into the older backlog. I don't dismiss Perez or Cash or Ben Taylor or any of the guys mentioned above, and I think sometimes we tend to slot the newbies in at the head of the pack when they really belong somewhere *in* the pack. Though I also agree with #30--Orlando Cepeda really belongs at the head of that particular pack. I also agree with, well, me--Frank Howard belongs at the head of his particular pack, however you define his pack.

As recently as 1996 (which would be yesterday) I thought we were over-rating Keith, but now in 1997 (that would be today) I'm thinking he might make my PHoM. So this is all hair-splitting. Well, guess, what, we're in the hair-splitting business now. And I won't really be disappointed if we fail to split them any more than we've already done--i.e. if we elect the top 3 backloggers, Roush, Fox and Beckley. Roush and Fox are already PHoM and Beckley, well, then we can stop talking about him ;-) Or Browning or Fingers would be good, too, they're also PHoM. And Perez is close and Redding is PHoM. (No wonder I'm not near the bottom of the consensus scores anymore.)

But, OTOH, I will be disappointed if the top 10 just move up. I agree with whoever said recently that he doesn't understand people's ballots where nobody ever moves. What's the fun of that?
   52. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2319046)
I feel like I'm bringing this up once every few years, but here it goes again.

Positional Balance/Decadal Balance is erroneous. Wrong, incorrect, bad, a fallacy. Insert your word here.

That's slightly overstating the point. To a limited extent, it matters; you don't want triple the HOMers coming from one position as you want from the others. But given that:
a)there's no guarantee that the best players are equally distributed amongst positions- (for example, the best player on most HS teams plays SS)
b)similarly, there's no reason why the most valuble player should be distributed among all decades, especially if you're not accounting for Dan R.'s standard-deviation work
c)even if an ideal random distribution of talent amonst positions and eras existed, random variation would still result in substantial inequitites in the amount of HOM players amongst positions and decades.

People who use era/positional balance, as presently constructed, to influence their voting are doing it wrong. Their ballots are in error. It's not a value judgement; its a statement of fact.

To properly use era/positional balance, you have to estimate the random variability in HOMers per position/decade, and show that any observed inequity is probably NOT random variation. Then, and only then, should it influence your voting. To my knowledge, no one has yet made such a study.
   53. TomH Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:28 PM (#2319057)
Agree with 'zop's main point, and I say that even as I have advocated for balance at times.
The kind of balance I think we DO need, within reasonable bounds of random variability, is larger-scale. When I think of era, it's not decade, but 25 or more years. When considering position, it's not 1B vs 3B, but 1B/OF vs C/IF vs Pitchers.

Using actual numbers, if we were to elect 85 players of one type out of 255 (from one long era, or 'all defensive position players'), the standard deviation of that number is 7.5. We should be OK with +or- 10 (between 75 & 95) without getting too out of shape.
However.. if your system shows that the 50th best OFer is better than the 40th best 2B/SS/3B, AND the 60th OF>50th IFer, 80th OFer>70th IFer, 100th OFer>85 IFer, etc; at that point it can't be true that randomness occurred in one area. It says your 'system' is not properly accounting for the differences in how second basemen hit versus first basemen.
   54. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2319062)
Here's every year over 400 PA for five post-ruth 1Bs
tp  nc  kh   bt  gs   first      worst
---------------------------------------
163 201 152 158 181   cash     hernandez
159 150 148 156 170   sisler   hernandez 
145 148 143 149 161   sisler   hernandez
140 142 142 141 157   sisler   perez
125 141 141 137 154   sisler   perez
124 136 131 136 140   sisler   perez
122 135 130 131 132   cash     perez
121 134 127 129 110   cash     sisler
120 129 127 125 110   cash     sisler
119 128 126 119 101   cash     sisler
118 128 120      98   cash     sisler
117 126 108      91   cash     sisler
109 126          85   cash     sisler
104 120          81   cash     sisler
 98 


I should note that Perez has several decent OPS+s in years between 200-400 PAs, where the others mostly have one or two.

You could award points roto-style, lowest score wins:

Cash 22
Terry 30
Sisler 38
Hernandez 39
Perez 50

In years where they all compete against each other:

Cash 18
Sisler 24
Terry 30
Hernandez 34
Perez 40

So far the modern 1B on the outside who looks like he's better than the guys inside is Norm Cash, not Tony Perez. Especially considering that Cash has a more OBP-saturated OPS+ than Perez does.

How about compared to positional peers?
At 1B, Cash had a .672 OWP, compared to a league positional average of .556.
At 1B only, Perez had a .562 OWP, compared to a league positional average of .543.
At 1B, Keith Hernandez had a .644 OWP, compared to a league positional average of .542.
At 1B, Memphis Bill Terry had a .674 OWP, compared to a league positional average of .561.
At 1B, George Sisler had a .611 OWP, compared to a league positional average of .544.

Again, Cash stands out as being as good or better than the other four guys, and Perez is clearly the worst---as 1Bs. As a 3B Perez has this:
.629 OWP versus .516 league positional OWP, but it's in 3383 PA or less than a third of his career.

That's comparable to the 1Bs. Now adding them together...
In total, Tony Perez has a .582 OWP versus a league average OWP at his positions of .535.

By the way this is from the SBE and Lee Sinnis park adjusts OWP.

Let's put that into a ratio:
Perez (3B only) 122
Cash 121
Terry 120
Hernandez 119
Sisler 112
Perez (total) 108
Perez (1B only) 103

Two reasonable metrics both saying pretty much the same thing.

There's two issues i'm raising
1) Tony Perez shouldn't be a HOMer. He's well beneath the standard set by the lowest rung of 1Bs, and there's plenty of 1Bs in the HOM already with good/great ones on the way.

2) Norm Cash is a better candidate, and if we want to elect a more modern 1B, he's a reasonable possibility and should see more attention.

There's relatively little more I'm going to say about Perez right now, but I do recognize there are reasonable points against Cash.
a) played in the weaker league
b) best year in an expansion year
c) played in a league weakened by expansion a couple different times.

On the other hand Cash was supposed to be an above average glove, which helps, and he was a frequent All-Star and was often the best 1B in his league over long stretches of time. Those things still count, and I can't imagine the discount on the AL would be so great that Cash and Perez would be equal hitters. Personally, I think the line probably begins behind Cash, and even then, I'm not sure that we should take any more backlog 1Bs.

YMMV, but this stuff is well worth chewing on the next two-three weeks.
   55. Dizzypaco Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:37 PM (#2319064)
I agree that there's nothing wrong with positional imbalance. Its very possible that there are more HOM worthy first basemen than third basemen.

With era related imbalance, you are missing the point. The reason that there is more people elected from the 1930's than the 1950's is not that there was more "talent" in the 1930's, or random variation, but simply more teams and more leagues. With more teams and more leagues, there will be more apparent HOM worthy statistics.

Its different from the later expansion era in that later expansion was generally tied to increases in the population, while the large number of teams in the 1930's is solely a result of segregation.
   56. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2319070)
> you don't want triple the HOMers coming from one position as you want from the others

Which is where I was regarding 3B v. SS so I adjusted 3B accordingly. Now it's more like double SS in the top 90 elected with the 3B catching up in slots 91-180. It didn't make sense to only have 3 3B in my top 100 players when I have 12 SS, 10 2B and 10 C. Now I have 7 3B in my top 100 (along with 25 P, 11 1B and 25 OF). This passes the smell test.
   57. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2319082)
I've been voting Cash as the best 1B for years now.
   58. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 27, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2319085)
DL, the "smell test" is not a satisfactory measure of statistical significance.

Lets take the following top 100 ballot distribution:
12    SS
10    2B
10    C
3    3B
13    LF
14    CF
12    RF
12    1B
14    P 


That 3 really sticks out in this ballot, right? Doesn't seem to "pass the smell test". But the standard deviation of players-per-position for this ballot is nearly 3.5, so 3 is only 2 standard deviation below the mean...in other words, its very possible that, considering that you have 10 positions in your group, one of them will be 2 standard deviations below the mean, and the 3 represents random variation!

(Note: this isn't entirely accurate, because the group of 3 is itself partially defining the standard deviation....but the larger point still stands)
   59. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 27, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2319093)
Ah...I addumed a mean of 10 rather than 11 (duh!)Thus, its a tad more than 2 stdev below the mean, maybe 2.5. Still, with a 10-category group, thats a substantial chance of random variation...
   60. DL from MN Posted: March 27, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2319107)
> the "smell test" is not a satisfactory measure of statistical significance

Nothing else in my spreadsheet meets 95% statistical significance either. 2 stdev below the mean is pretty bad when it's only one position. I've never set up my spreadsheet to be mathematically consistent, just reasonable.
   61. Chris Fluit Posted: March 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM (#2319192)
I feel like I'm bringing this up once every few years, but here it goes again.

Positional Balance/Decadal Balance is erroneous. Wrong, incorrect, bad, a fallacy. Insert your word here.

That's slightly overstating the point. To a limited extent, it matters; you don't want triple the HOMers coming from one position as you want from the others. But given that:
a)there's no guarantee that the best players are equally distributed amongst positions- (for example, the best player on most HS teams plays SS)
b)similarly, there's no reason why the most valuble player should be distributed among all decades, especially if you're not accounting for Dan R.'s standard-deviation work
c)even if an ideal random distribution of talent amonst positions and eras existed, random variation would still result in substantial inequitites in the amount of HOM players amongst positions and decades.

People who use era/positional balance, as presently constructed, to influence their voting are doing it wrong. Their ballots are in error. It's not a value judgement; its a statement of fact.

To properly use era/positional balance, you have to estimate the random variability in HOMers per position/decade, and show that any observed inequity is probably NOT random variation. Then, and only then, should it influence your voting. To my knowledge, no one has yet made such a study.


I'm glad that you admitted you're "overstating the point." I think that the assumption that every imbalance is due to statistical randomness is itself a faulty assumption. There is some randomness, to be sure, especially when we're looking at small sample sizes. But not every imbalance is due to statistical randomness.

We shouldn't be too concerned if we have 4 shortstops from one decade (as will likely be the case with the 1980s quartet of Ripken, Smith, Trammell and Yount) and no shortstops from the previous decade (as will likely be the case unless we induct Concepcion). We shouldn't be overly concerned with having 3 second basemen from the 1890s (as is the case with Childs, Grant and McPhee) and only 1 from each of the surrounding decades. And we shouldn't be concerned with every imbalance between positions such as 3 shortstops from the 1900s compared to only 1 third basemen. These imbalances tend to sort themselves out over time.

But we should pay attention if we consistently have the same imbalances. We should ask ourselves if it is indeed due to random variations, or if there is a problem in our collective methodology. If the number of catchers lags well behind the other positions, is it actually due to random distribution of talent or is it because some of us are not giving fair consideration to a defensive position? If one era is underrepresented, do we assume that random distribution resulted in fewer great players or are we at fault in some way? For example, the 1890s have been underrepresented in the past and some would argue that the decade is still underrepresented now. Is it because fewer great players played in that decade? Or is it because some voters are underestimating the difficulty in putting up outstanding numbers during a one-league era? Maybe the answer is random deviation and fewer great players. But I think it's fair to at least ask the question.

Furthermore, the only way to answer those kinds of questions is to have information at our disposal. It seems like every time that Howie posts the positional chart or I post the decade chart, they're ridiculed as irrelevant. I'll admit that they're simplistic. But the solution should be more information, not less. Maybe the information will point us to random deviations. It's also possible that the information will show us a flaw in our methodology.

Are we short of third basemen because less great players played that position? Or are we short of third basemen because we haven't considered the wear and tear that position has on a player, resulting in great third basemen having shorter careers than players at other positions? Here's another one: we have 6-8 pitchers from every decade from the '20s through the '70s with the exception of the 1940s. Do we have less pitchers from the 1940s because of standard deviation? Or is it because we're not taking into consideration the impact of the war on that generation? I've taken a long look at the WWII-era pitchers like Walters and Trucks. I actually think that the answer is "randomness" and "fewer deserving pitchers from that era." I'd rather vote in another '30s pitcher like Bridges or Gomez than one of the '40s pitchers just to fill a quota. But I'm glad that I had the information telling me to look at that era and I can understand that other voters will answer the "why" question differently than I did.
   62. OCF Posted: March 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM (#2319207)
Dewvy Parkvans

For a really weird splice, there's always Londale Smurphy: Lonnie Smith beginning and end, Dale Murphy in the middle.
   63. Howie Menckel Posted: March 28, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2319226)
FYI, I don't post the lists to advocate for any sort of "balance." They are what they are, and people can play with them as they wish.
   64. Chris Fluit Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2319237)
And thanks for that, Howie. I always saw what you were doing as "providing potentially pertinent information" more than "advocating a specific approach." It's much appreciated.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2319239)
Your post #61 was a good one and I agree with it's sentiments, Chris.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2319249)
DH 1174
3B 791
2B 400
1B 197
SS 57
OF 50

Or

DH 1174
Fielder 1459

Seems strange to call a guy a career DH when he fielded in the majority of his games.

Which is how I rationalize him as a 3B.


However, I'm going to have to slot him at DH in the Plaque Room. He just had much more value there than any of the other positions that he played. He'll be our first DH. Yes, I'm surprised at that.
   67. Daryn Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:40 AM (#2319261)
The first ballot full of Blue Jays -- Moseby, Whitt, Clancy and Mookie. They all had their moments but Moseby was the only one who looked like he could have had a HoM career, Johnny Damon style. I'm surprised he only managed 177 WS.

Mookie sure did look fast when he ran. Moseby was super-fast.
   68. Howie Menckel Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:53 AM (#2319316)
Yes, Molitor will get 41 pct credit in my slottings as well, and boost 3Bs by almost a third.
Rose and a few early guys don't meet any of the '65 pct/50 pct' criteria I've listed recently...
   69. rawagman Posted: March 28, 2007 at 10:45 AM (#2319398)
You learn interesting things in this project, chapter # 37654872.
Garry Templeton was a two time NL Silver Slugger award winner (1980 & 1984)
His selection in 1980 is justifiable- he hit .319/.342/.417, OPS+ 109. 31 SB, 83 runs scored.

Then came 1984. Even George Orwell may not have been able to foresee the day when the following line would be worthy enough to win a Silver Slugger award. Templeton's winning line: .258/.312/.320 OPS+ 79. 8 SB, 40 runs scored. Was that the best the NL could do?
   70. rawagman Posted: March 28, 2007 at 10:53 AM (#2319400)
Which brings me to his nearest competitors that year.
1) Craig Reynolds: .260/.286/.364, OPS+ 88. 6 HR, 61 RBI, 60 runs scored.
2) Ozzie Smith (how ironic!): .257/.347/.337, OPS+ 96. 35 SB, 53 runs scored. In 124 games.

That's basically it. The Expos' starting SS had an OPS+ of 9 in 1984 (Angel Salazar). I guess Templeton earned (!?!?) it, if you can excuse them for overlooking a guy who missed nearly 25% of the season.
   71. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:21 PM (#2319430)
rawagman--now you see why I vote for Dave Concepción!
   72. rawagman Posted: March 28, 2007 at 01:59 PM (#2319458)
Dan - I understand the reasoning - I just don't absolutely agree with it.
   73. OCF Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:12 PM (#2319468)
You guys are creeping up on the territory of that shortstops-of-the-generation project that i haven't had time to do you. But a memory-jogger: rawagman was focusing on 1984. Now tell me: what young NL shortstop had an OPS+ of 126 in 1983 - and 17 AB in 1984?
   74. Dizzypaco Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:19 PM (#2319471)
But a memory-jogger: rawagman was focusing on 1984. Now tell me: what young NL shortstop had an OPS+ of 126 in 1983 - and 17 AB in 1984?

That's an easy question for anyone who was reading Bill James in the early 80's. Dickie Thon was hit by a Mike Torrez pitch in April of 1984 and was never the same afterwards. James was big on Thon.
   75. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2319472)
Dickie Thon.
   76. rawagman Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:24 PM (#2319475)
Poor, poor Dickie Thon. The funny thing was that, with Craig Reynolds, the Astros still had one of the 3,4 best shortstops in the NL in 84.
   77. TDF, situational idiot Posted: March 28, 2007 at 02:24 PM (#2319476)
Which is where I was regarding 3B v. SS so I adjusted 3B accordingly. Now it's more like double SS in the top 90 elected with the 3B catching up in slots 91-180. It didn't make sense to only have 3 3B in my top 100 players when I have 12 SS, 10 2B and 10 C. Now I have 7 3B in my top 100 (along with 25 P, 11 1B and 25 OF). This passes the smell test.

Question: Is (or was) there a positional bias in baseball at work? I've often thought there was.

Do (did) teams move good hitters away from 3B because it's such a physically demanding position? Is a kid who can hit often moved to RF (where his good arm will still be used) so that he's in the lineup more often? Is a kid who can hit but not field as well quickly moved to LF or 1B? Does this happen even before players hit pro ball?

Great 3B have been so rare that I've often wondered. And if it's true, is a positional imbalance in the HOM/F so out of line?
   78. Mike Emeigh Posted: March 28, 2007 at 03:43 PM (#2319525)
Do (did) teams move good hitters away from 3B because it's such a physically demanding position?


3B was without question a defense-first position until the early 1950s, and is something of a hybrid position now - you can't really put a "good hit no field" player there as you can at 1B and (to a lesser extent) LF. I do think that the combination of skills needed to handle 3B defensively makes it more likely that teams (even now) will sacrifice offensive for defense there.

-- MWE
   79. Chris Fluit Posted: March 28, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2319539)
Yes. There is a positional bias in baseball. Good hitters are moved away from 3B and C. Sometimes, it's because of defensive inabilities. Sometimes, it's because the team wants the player's bat in the line-up more often with less risk of injury. There are plenty of examples of players who started at 3B and were moved to other positions: recent candidates such as Darrell Evans and Tony Perez, recent major leaguers such as Bobby Bonilla, and current major leaguers such as Albert Pujols. The reasons for why these players were moved may not all be the same, but they were all moved from 3B to 1B, LF or DH. The same thing happens to catchers. Joe Torre was moved to 3B, Craig Biggio to 2B, Phil Nevin to 3B then to 1B, Mike Sweeney to 1B.

So, no, a small positional imbalance in the HOM/F isn't out of line. However, I would argue that it should be a small imbalance not a large one. One, some of those players who are moved away from the more demanding positions do spend enough time there to qualify at that position for our purposes: Darrell Evans is listed as a 3B, Joe Torre as a C. Two, the fact that these positions are so demanding means that we should pay extra attention to those who are able to play those particular positions at a high level of play for a long time. Three, the positional switching sometimes goes in the opposite direction. For example, Mike Piazza wasn't drafted as a catcher but he was turned into one while in the major leagues and the list of catchers turned third basemen is pretty long (Torre, Nevin and even Detroit Tiger Brandon Inge).

Going back to the example of DL from MN's ballot. He has 11 1B and 7 3B in his top 100. That is a positional imbalance, but it's not an unreasonable one. I don't think anyone's arguing that we have to have exactly the same number of players per position (or per era).
   80. andrew siegel Posted: March 28, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2319597)
Dr. C:

How does Cepeda fit in to your charts on 1B above?
   81. OCF Posted: March 28, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2319605)
Which brings me to his nearest competitors that year.
1) Craig Reynolds: .260/.286/.364, OPS+ 88. 6 HR, 61 RBI, 60 runs scored.
2) Ozzie Smith (how ironic!): .257/.347/.337, OPS+ 96. 35 SB, 53 runs scored. In 124 games.

That's basically it. The Expos' starting SS had an OPS+ of 9 in 1984 (Angel Salazar). I guess Templeton earned (!?!?) it, if you can excuse them for overlooking a guy who missed nearly 25% of the season.


It's pretty obvious who the "Silver Slugger" should have been, even with the playing time issues. In fact, Ozzie Smith was the best-hitting SS in the NL for four years - from the beaning of Thon at the beginning of the '84 season to the emergence of Barry Larkin in '88. The only real competition was Hubie Brooks. (In 1984, Brooks wasn't a SS. In 1985, I have no trouble taking Smith's OBP-heavy 102 plus baserunning over Brooks's SLG-heavy 106, in 1986, Brooks hit .340 but only played 80 games.)

Of course, Smith's hitting in that period wouldn't have ranked as high in the AL, which included Yount, Ripken, and Trammell.
   82. TDF, situational idiot Posted: March 28, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2319634)
Good hitters are moved away from 3B and C. Sometimes, it's because of defensive inabilities. Sometimes, it's because the team wants the player's bat in the line-up more often with less risk of injury.

But teams stick with poor fielding Cs (Piazza, V. Martinez), while poor-fielding 3Bs seem to get moved quickly. It just seems to me that 3Bs who hit well were moved to keep their bats in the lineup, those who fielded well weren't good enough hitters to worry about, and generally what's left is guys who didn't fit anywhere.

Joe Torre was moved to 3B, Craig Biggio to 2B, Phil Nevin to 3B then to 1B, Mike Sweeney to 1B.

Imagine Sweeney's back if he'd stayed!

Two, the fact that these positions are so demanding means that we should pay extra attention to those who are able to play those particular positions at a high level of play for a long time.

I think you (as a voting group) already are. Of 107 1st ballot HOM honorees only 5 are 3B, and Evans played only 54% of his games there. That means (1) there has been a lack of great players there (no other position has fewer than 7 1st ballot inductees), (2) very good players are already being given extra consideration, or (3) some combination of both.
   83. OCF Posted: March 28, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2319635)
What does the relative ranking of 1980's centerfielders William Hayward Wilson and Willie James Wilson look like? My gut instinct is to put Willie ahead of Mookie, but I'll admit that I haven't really looked at it yet.
   84. DL from MN Posted: March 28, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2319654)
> poor-fielding 3Bs seem to get moved quickly

Tell that to Glaus and Chipper. I think the key is if they're mediocre 3B but above average in the outfield, they get moved. I can't imagine Glaus in the outfield and moving him to 1B probably wouldn't make him a better fielder. If you have the bat to carry any position, they'll usually move you to the one you play the best.

I don't think Pujols would have necessarily been moved without Rolen being added.
   85. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 28, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2319668)
andrew, check out the Evans thread for more on Cepeda, I just did a big chart with him in there.

He had a .639 OWP versus positional average of .551.
   86. Mike Emeigh Posted: March 28, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2319681)
Neither Glaus nor Larry Jones was bad defensively when they were younger and healthy; both played a significant amount of shortstop (Chipper wasn't converted to 3B until he reached the majors).

-- MWE
   87. TomH Posted: March 28, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2319712)
general interest question / divergent topic:

I just found out that Sports Illustrated had an issue last fall in which they (or some 'experts') created some kind of all-time team.
I went to my Library, but the article was 'not released for view online', nor did they have hard copy.

Anyone read this? Got a quick summary, or a place on the net I can find it?
   88. DCW3 Posted: March 28, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2319738)
I don't think Pujols would have necessarily been moved without Rolen being added.

Pujols had already been mostly moved off third in favor of Placido Polanco by the time the Cardinals picked up Rolen. He'd only started 32 of the team's 102 games at third before Rolen arrived in 2002.
   89. TomH Posted: March 28, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2319767)
The SI issue was Oct 9 2006
   90. Paul Wendt Posted: March 28, 2007 at 10:21 PM (#2319881)
Eric Chalek
LF
G Burns 15th-t
in/out line
A Galan 18th-t (with war discount)
F Howard 18th-t
C Jones 20th (with blacklist credit)


er, wow.
Put Dave Parker on the back burner, my friend, and focus your system-tuning attention on Augie Galan. Seriously, I never understood the love for George Burns, just above the in/out line. Can you find it in your heart to give Augie Galan a #15 vote instead. (I didn't realize that he was close to anyone's ballot, but some people would say that of Billy Nash or Wally Berger, maybe even Rick Reuschel!)

On the other hand, you make some good points on Norm Cash. And Norm is only a little light on playing time, not ultra-light. Boog Powell was more famous but Norm Cash was more valuable. Beside longevity (and Beckley is number one if you buy that), what Perez has going for him, with Cepeda and against Cash, is the "strong league" argument. Suppose JoeD is right in measuring a difference about 0.10 on the ERA scale. What is that on the OPS+ scale?

Also regarding the interleague question, someone asked about DwEvans(?) and Albert Belle as measured by Clay Davenport's WARP. There I suppose the difference is that Evans and other AL players of his generation gets knocked for playing in a weak league, and moderately for Albert Belle.


Phil C-----
Lets take the following top 100 ballot distribution:
12 SS
10 2B
10 C
3 3B
13 LF
14 CF
12 RF
12 1B
14 P


PC says "ten positions" but that is only nine. At a glance, what strikes me is "14 P". At a calculation, it is notable that C3S2 sums to 35 and LCR1 sums to 51. But at this mature stage, no one's ballot should be interpreted in isolation from the "inlog" that now numbers 200 (next year, after the 100th election). If the group has elected 30% pitchers and some personally puts only 25% pitchers among the Meritorious, that someone will now have a ballot (probably) and a top one hundred (certainly) that is short on pitchers.
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: March 28, 2007 at 10:26 PM (#2319882)
Try again. Regarding WARP, I suppose that Evans and other AL players of his generation lose points for playing in a weak league, but moderately vice versa for Albert Belle and other AL players of his generation.
   92. OCF Posted: March 28, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2319922)
I see Tommie Herr as an eligible candidate. Already 25 when he "arrived," done at 35, better and worse offensive years scattered arround sort of haphazardly - in his prime he was a good player, a useful player, an important part of good teams, but there's not the kind of peak or career there that would put him in anyone's consideration set. But I have a couple of comments and a serious question.

One of the key questions about the behavior of GM's, managers, and organizations is how they deal with the Casey Kotchmans and James Loneys of the world: players who are essentially done with the minors and sitting on the edge of the majors. What do you do? Use them as major league bench players, leaving their playing time mostly up to chance and injury? Send them back to the minors so they'll at least play? Use them as trade bait? Fiddle around with them for years, changing your mind frequently, never quite clarifying things? Or do something to clear a space and plant them in the lineup? In the early 80's, Whitey Herzog was de facto both manager and GM of the Cardinals - few, if any, since then have been granted quite that much control. He inherited three players that fit the description of what I'm thinking of here: Terry Kennedy, Leon Durham, and Tom Herr. Now, Whitey did not like to use this kind of player as his bench: he preferred veteran role-players, like Steve Braun or Gene Tenace. What he did was "fish or cut bait" - he decided which ones he wanted, and then he made it happen. Kennedy had been blocked behind Simmons, and although Herzog and Simmons were headed for a blowup, Whitey also (possibly irrationally) really wanted his guy: Darrell Porter. And Kennedy was really no use as anything but a catcher - so he bundled him off in trade, for Rollie Fingers. What about Leon Durham? Could hit for power, but Whitey really wanted speed in his outfield, and Durham wasn't fast enough to be Whitey's kind of outfielder. And as a first baseman (his natural position), he just wasn't going to take Hernandez's job. So off to the Cubs he went, traded for Bruce Sutter.

But Herr? Herr was Whitey's kind of player, and Whitey made sure he had a job by including the highly regarded (OK, overrated) Ken Reitz in the Sutter trade so he could move Oberkfell from 2B to 3B and open up 2B as Herr's job.

It should be said that the traits of managers are no more fixed than those of players, and Whitey's decisiveness in 1980-81 constrasts with his long-term indecision in the late 80's over Jose Oquendo, Luis Alicea, and Geronimo Pena - in other words, with the question of how to replace Herr.

My second comment is about the essential weirdness of Herr's 1985 offensive line. It was a good year for Herr, .302/.379/.416, OPS+ 124, but he was batting 3rd in the order and that's just not your classic #3 hitter's line. Even though it was Herr's high season for HR, it was still only 8 dingers. But he had 110 RBI! If a singles hitter is going to get a whole lot of RBI, he needs not just runners on base in front of him, but runners in scoring position. Or lets put it another way: if you're a singles hitter and you want to rack up ribbies, it really helps to have a big-time basestealer somewhere in front of you. Coleman had his 110 SB, and McGee had 26 doubles, 18 triples, and 56 SB. (For another case of someone with a lot of RBI, fewer HR than usually go with that, and a basestealer in the mix, see T. Davis, 1962.)

Now for the serious question, one that I'm too close to to really answer. In his prime, how good was Herr with the glove? I know he turned a DP pivot pretty well, but how was his overall defensive game? Part of what might be at stake: where does the 1982 Cardinal infield rank, all-time, as a defensive infield? They had two all-time defensive greats there in Smith and Hernandez, so how were Herr and Oberkfell holding up their ends of the deal? (By the time you get to 1985, you replace Oberkfell with Pendleton, which is probably an improvement, but trading Hernandez for Clark is a bigger downgrade.)
   93. jimd Posted: March 29, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2319973)
the list of catchers turned third basemen is pretty long

Goes back to Deacon White at least.
   94. jimd Posted: March 29, 2007 at 01:21 AM (#2319978)
Regarding WARP, I suppose that Evans and other AL players of his generation lose points for playing in a weak league

A little bit, but the DH factor is much larger, so WARP sees most AL players as much better than NL players with a comparable number of Win Shares. Win Shares has Dewey with a career 20 WS lead over Parker, while WARP3 has him 26 WARP (equivalent to 78 WS) ahead.
   95. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 29, 2007 at 02:21 AM (#2319992)
Could someone please summarize the case for MLE credit for Johnny Pesky and show me the evidence?
   96. sunnyday2 Posted: March 29, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2320000)
The case for Pesky is for WWII credit. The evidence is his performance before and after the war--doesn't particularly matter if you're into WS or WARP or Whatever. What matters is whether you believe in giving WWII credit. If so, he racks up a lot of credit because his '42 and '46 are damn good.
   97. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 29, 2007 at 04:28 AM (#2320061)
I thought I had heard he had an argument for minor league credit as well...
   98. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: March 29, 2007 at 04:54 AM (#2320077)
Also, are there any 1870's/1880's position player candidates that people are still supporting, or are Beckley and Van Haltren the earliest guys still showing up on ballots? Did anyone ever vote for Jim Creighton, for that matter, or did he simply die too soon to be a candidate?
   99. mulder & scully Posted: March 29, 2007 at 05:00 AM (#2320081)
Dan R,

RE: Pesky and MLEs. I forget which voter did it, but they were using a 1941 MLE to create an additional data point to better estimate WWII credit for Pesky.
RE: 70's/80's players. Also, Charley Jones, currently 11th.

Oh, and the Evans analysis was very good.

Kelly
   100. Sean Gilman Posted: March 29, 2007 at 06:31 AM (#2320100)
Also, are there any 1870's/1880's position player candidates that people are still supporting, or are Beckley and Van Haltren the earliest guys still showing up on ballots? Did anyone ever vote for Jim Creighton, for that matter, or did he simply die too soon to be a candidate?


Pete Browning and Charley Jones get the most support. Fred Dunlap gets a couple votes. Ned Williamson's hanging around. I don't think anyone's voting for Meyerle anymore. Creighton got a few votes back in the day, IIRC.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1489 seconds
68 querie(s) executed