Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, April 16, 2007

1998 Ballot Discussion

1998 (May 7)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

339 143.6 1970 Bert Blyleven-P
337 117.8 1975 Gary Carter-C
312 108.8 1976 Willie Randolph-2B
316 92.1 1977 Jack Clark-RF/1B
298 89.3 1974 Brian Downing-LF/DH/C
210 88.0 1979 Dave Stieb-P*
244 70.8 1978 Carney Lansford-3B
246 68.7 1980 Pedro Guerrero-1B/RF
166 65.7 1982 Jesse Barfield-RF
163 61.6 1978 Jim Gantner-2B
177 56.2 1982 Von Hayes-RF/1B
168 59.5 1980 Mike Scioscia-C
158 59.3 1976 Mike Flanagan-P
141 50.5 1979 Ken Oberkfell-3B
128 54.5 1977 Floyd Bannister-P
153 41.4 1984 Alvin Davis-1B
120 39.0 1984 Brook Jacoby-3B
116 40.7 1978 Don Robinson-P
106 40.3 1980 Dave Smith-RP
103 40.5 1978 Dennis Lamp-RP

Players Passing Away in 1997
HoMers
Age Elected

90 1955 Buck Leonard-1B
70 1968 Richie Ashburn-CF

Candidates
Age Eligible

98 1938 Joe Hauser-1B
95 1942 Ray Benge-P
91 1944 Woody English-SS
90 1951 Dolph Camilli-1B
90 1954 Thornton Lee-P
88 1953 Billy Jurges-SS
82 1956 Johnny VanderMeer-P
80 1956 Eddie Miller-SS
75 1964 Bobby Adams-3B/2B
69 1971 Dick Donovan-P
68 1972 Roy McMillan-SS
59 1975 Curt Flood-CF

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 16, 2007 at 06:05 PM | 243 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Sean Gilman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:46 AM (#2342799)
Centerfielders
Hugh Duffy 4, PHOM
Alejandro Oms 12, PHOM
George Van Haltren 16
Wally Berger 24
Roy Thomas 39
Jimmy Ryan 46
Hack Wilson 47
Fielder Jones 58


Pete Browning?
   102. Tiboreau Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:01 AM (#2342814)
I'm guessing he has Browning as a lf; probably for much the same reason he doesn't have Gene Tenace as a c.
   103. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:01 AM (#2342817)
I count him as a corner guy.
   104. Sean Gilman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:13 AM (#2342834)
He had more games in Center than anywhere else, though he did have more in Left and Right combined than in Center.

But then, so did Hugh Duffy.
   105. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:18 AM (#2342846)
Post #2

Pitchers

Redding 3
Walters 5
Stieb 6
Dean 10
Fingers 11
Willis 13
Shocker 17
Newcombe 22
Tiant 29
Reuschel 32
Quisenberry 41
Kaat 42
Grimes 61
Gomez 62

Again, another ranking where I bunch the players. I guess when I figure two gusy are nearly equal I put them back to back. I like Reddings peak and I have Walters and Stieb neck and neck. Walter's innings make him a little better but I can be convinced. Fingers is the third best reliever we have had so far. Dean is Koufax Lite, which to me is enough. Willies and Shocker are DERA specials that I had just off my ballot for a while before finding a place for them recently. Newcombe could be higher if all of his What-ifs were good, lower if they were bad. 22 sounds about right to me. Tiant has a decent prime, better than guys who rank above #8 for their era. Joe has convinced me that Rueschel deserves consideation. Quisenberry's peak gets him into my top 50 but no farther, he was a reliver after all. Kaat and Grimes are pretty similar, but I prefer Kitts, better announcer. Finally Gomez peak is decent, which has kept him around. I think I should look again at Tommy Bridges since he has so many other advocates. Oh, and if there is contender that I like less than Jake Beckley, it is certainly Mickey Welch.
   106. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:24 AM (#2342862)
Don't worry Sean, the groups are only for comparison. Pete Browning is #8 on my ballot and that is with three newbies ahead of him.
   107. Tiboreau Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:40 AM (#2342880)
Catcher
Elston Howard 7, PHOM
Roger Bresnahan 14
Thurman Munson 35
Wally Schang 55


Elston Howard 10
Roger Bresnahan 17
Thurman Munson 34
Wally Schang 52

Eerie ...
   108. Sean Gilman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2342883)
Good to know Mark, just trying to keep his name alive for his 100th ballot.
   109. AJMcCringleberry Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:18 AM (#2342910)
Prelim

1. Carter
2. Blyleven
3. Perez
4. Walters
5. Staub
6. Trout
7. Ryan
8. Johnson
9. Beckley
10. Cravath
11. Nettles
12. Bell
13. Singleton
14. Bonds
15. Cedeno

18. Stieb
21. Randolph
22. Howard (took another look at catchers)
39. Clark
47. Tenace
   110. rawagman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 07:06 AM (#2342948)
Mark - I definitely think you should look at Bridges. I just ran the numbers on Stieb and I am pretty confident that Bridges was a better version of him. And I grew up watching Stieb. I still remember where I was when he finally threw that no-hitter.
   111. rawagman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 01:18 PM (#2343015)
1998 prelim - PHOM - Carter, Blyleven and either Randolph or Boyer.

1)Gary Carter (PHOM)
2)Bert Blyleven (PHOM)
3)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
4)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
5)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Charley Jones (PHOM)
8)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
9)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
10)Bob Johnson (PHOM)
11)Willie Randolph
12)Bobby Veach (PHOM)
13)Orlando Cepeda (PHOM)
((13a)Ken Boyer))
14)Al Oliver
15)Tony Oliva
((15a)Dwight Evans))
16)Jack Clark
17)Jim Rice
18)Wally Berger
19)Dizzy Dean
20)Dave Stieb
21)Bus Clarkson
((21a)Darrell Evans))
22)Dan Quisenberry
23)Bruce Sutter
24)Ernie Lombardi
((24a)Jimmy Wynn))
25)Alejandro Oms
26)Reggie Smith
27)Dick Redding (PHOM)
28)Ron Guidry
29)Al Rosen
30)Mickey Welch
((30a)Jim Bunning))
((30b)Billy Pierce))
   112. Dizzypaco Posted: April 23, 2007 at 01:39 PM (#2343024)
Mark - I definitely think you should look at Bridges. I just ran the numbers on Stieb and I am pretty confident that Bridges was a better version of him.

If you take them out of context, I would agree that Bridges is better than Stieb. But there are two other factors that I believe are relevant.

First, Bridges played in an era that is already severely overrepresented in the HOM. As is true with Bob Johnson, if you support Bridges, you must either believe that the 30's deserve far more inductees than any other era, or you must believe that Bridges is more deserving than many players already elected from that era (once again, not just one or two).

Second, Stieb played at a very unusual time in baseball history, in that while his numbers are good but not particularly special, he may have the been the best pitcher in baseball for a little while, and among the top two or three for several years. I'm not a fan of putting quotas for positions within eras, but I think this is different from being, for example, the best third baseman in baseball during a period where there didn't happen to be any great third basemen.

I don't have a problem electing several pitchers from the sixties and seventies, but I do think Stieb is more deserving than Bridges or Tiant or someone else who had relatively similar numbers, but were not among the two or three best pitchers in baseball.
   113. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 02:08 PM (#2343045)
Stieb played at a very unusual time in baseball history, in that while his numbers are good but not particularly special, he may have the been the best pitcher in baseball for a little while, and among the top two or three for several years. I'm not a fan of putting quotas for positions within eras, but I think this is different from being, for example, the best third baseman in baseball during a period where there didn't happen to be any great third basemen.


In other words, the 1980's were the lowest standard deviation era in major league history. A given OPS+ or ERA+ bought more pennants in 1985 than it did in 1969 or 1998.
   114. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 02:34 PM (#2343069)
That is a little eerie huh, tiboreau? Then again, I am pretty sure that you have always been one of my most similar voters.

Continuing with Middle Infielders

Doyle 15/16
Rizzuto 26
Randolph 27
Lundy 33
Bancroft 37
Concepcion 40
Monroe 44
Stephens 46
Wills 57

Doyle is currently fighting for a spot on my ballot with Pedro Guerrero. I love his bat but I do wonder about placing him with this group. While I don't believe that I should put him with the corner OFers, I am not sure he is really a middle infielder in the modern sense of the world. maybe I should look at him as a 3B, is he really better than McGraw? Rizzuto should probably be higher actually, I am just not sure who to put him above. I do like him more than Randolph. Lundy and Sewell are jsut about tied in my system (I dont' have Sewell in my PHOM) and I have Bancroft behind. It's weird, I can see Rizzuto and Bancroft beign neraly equal, but I like Rizzuto more than Sewell and Sewell more than Bancroft. How does this happen?

DanR's advocacy has moved COncepcion up. I by the low standard deviation, but I am nto sure I buy that Davey is a HOMer because the worst guys in his league sucked. He would be in the 70 or 80's if it werent' for Dan though. Monroe is a guy that I like but I relaly can't find enough info to really get behind. Sometimes I wonder what the differenec between Doyle and Stephens is and why I have them so far apart. Anyone care to make that argument? Finally Maury Wills has a few very good seasons, enough to get him into my consideration set and above guys like Maranville, Aparicio, and Campaneris.

I need to take another look at Johnny Pesky and Toby Harrah.

Any thoughts?
   115. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:02 PM (#2343098)
ERA+s, must pitch 154/162 IP, and at least 100 ERA+ that year

DavStieb 171 45 43 38 35 30 24 17 13 11
TBridges 147 44 42 40 40 40 37 34 20 19 19 15 09

DavStieb top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 3 5
TBridges top 10 in IP: 2 2 5 8 10

DavStieb top 10 in adj ERA+: 1 1 2 3 5 6
TBridges top 10 in adj ERA+: 2 2 2 3 4 6 6 10 10 10

Bridges never threw 200 IP or finished in the top 10 in his league in IP past age 30, making some of his ERA+s misleading (technically I even should dump the 134 and 109 ERA+s from above for 148 and 151 IP seasons, respectively).

Bridges does have a five-year "star pitcher" window from 1933-37:
1933 140 ERA+ (2nd), 233 IP (10th)
1934 120 ERA+ (10th), 275 IP (2nd)
1935 119 ERA+ (10th), 274 IP (5th)
1936 137 ERA+ (3rd), 295 IP (2nd)
1937 115 ERA+ (10th), 245 IP (8th)
Wonderful 1936 season, probably 2nd-best in league to Grove. Harder was better in 1933, but Bridges is in the next mix with Grove and Marberry.

Stieb also has a five-year "star pitcher" window from 1981-85:
1981 124 ERA+ (12th), 184 IP (5th, strike year)
1982 138 ERA+ (2nd), 288 IP (1st)
1983 142 ERA+ (3rd), 278 IP (2nd)
1984 145 ERA+ (1st), 267 IP (1st)
1985 171 ERA+ (1st), 265 IP (3rd)
Stieb's latter four years seem to beat or at least match Bridges' best year, don't they?

From Bridges' peak years, we've elected Grove, Ruffing, Lyons, Ferrell, Hubbell, BFoster, Paige, and RBrown (plus hybrid Dihigo), with 3 years of Vance and one each of Faber and Rixey. Walters also is on deck to add 1935-37 to this list.
From Stieb's peak years, we've elected Seaver, Carlton, Niekro, and Sutton, with 3 years each of Palmer, Perry, and Jenkins. Plus we'll have Ryan and Eckersley and Blyleven, and don't forget Morris.
The Bridges cohorts are more in their prime than the Stieb cohorts, it seems.

Bridges is a bit underrated, but I think Stieb will make my ballot and Bridges will not. Interesting pair, though.
   116. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2343131)
Rick A.,

I suppose if you are the Beckley of HOM voters, then I'm the Luke Easter. I was actually around near the beginning when the first discussions took place. But it's hard to exactly tell where I was after that and the oral tradition on my is a little flimsy. Then I slipped back into sight about one third of the way through, and I've been taking my hacks in the seventy years since. I just hope I don't end up being shot in a bank robbery like Lucious Luke was.
   117. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:55 PM (#2343142)
I might be Nellie Fox.
Not the most talented guy on the field, but never seem to miss a game, do some little things well, and hustle enough to remain a regular for a long time.

Least modest scenario might be Cap Anson (without the racist bent, thanks!) - pioneer points, rarely the best but pretty good, and seemed to last forever.
   118. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2343153)
Paul or jimd should correct me, but IIRC, Anson was sort of the face of the game, the fellow that everyone recognized as a spokesplayer for the baseball zeitgeist. If so, then Anson is particularly apt if being the leader in consensus is a similar kind of thing.

This reminds me of two graphs I'd like to see someday.

The first is a graph of voters' CS+ over time. CS+ is adjusted consensus score so that all CSes are plotted against a single average (zero or something). I'm curious whose scores jump all over and whose remain consistent.

The second is a graph of voter participation that simply shows each year a voter partipated in a linear form so we can see over time how people come and go.

I suppose they are the same graph in some ways.... Anyway, not requesting, just suggesting.
   119. sunnyday2 Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2343167)
This navel gazing could be interpreted as a bit of remorse at the coming end of this project. I know it's been my personal start-up/home page for (what?) almost 5 years now? Here's a thought. When we're done, let's start over. Go back, Jack, do it again. See how it might go differently with a slightly different cast of voters and certainly a different body of knowledge at the start.

Okay, no. Some of us have to save our marriages. Just a thought.

As to CS+, I was a pretty low consensus guy originally. I guess I had a different take on the 19C--I always loved the cigarette magnates, you know, Browning and Williamson. And Tommy Bond and Charley Jones. And while we elected Lip Pike and Dickey Pearce, they were worth a few anti-consensus points for a good while.

20C I am more of a consensus guy I guess. My peak orientation is less exclusive. I still like a good peak but I am willing to recognize a good career too. In the 19C it was more a case of peak vs. prime, there weren't that many great careers by 20C standards, and in that scenario a good peak was more to my taste. I still think George Wright was the greatest player of the 19C, and I'm the guy who once voted for Jim Creighton. But like I say, while I've supported C. Keller and other 20C peakers, there are more ballot-worthy careers and so I've supported more of them. Not Lou Brock or Rusty Staub, just yet, however.
   120. Mike Green Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2343168)
Bridges/Stieb is a good comparison. Bridges best ERA+ was at age 35-36 in 1942-43. Some wartime adjustment is probably in order. Bridges did pitch better in the post-season than Stieb.

Personally, I find the peak measures for pitchers a little unsatisfactory. Disentangling pitching from defence is not easy, and the smaller the sample, the more likely it is that the disentanglement will not be accurate. For instance, a careful look at the statistics suggests that Stieb's 1984 season was actually better than his 1985 season, with fewer unearned runs and a lower DER causing 1984's ERA+ to be much lower. Some amalgam of DIPS+ and RA+ is probably a better way of looking at peak performance of pitchers than ERA+.
   121. DL from MN Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2343170)
Mark - Is Bus Clarkson on your 3B list or did you miss him on IF?

I rate Dunlap and Evers pretty highly - both in the 30s. I have them ahead of the old time outfielders (Browning, Jones, Duffy, Van Haltren, Ryan, etc.). If you like Doyle, why not Lazzeri, Scales or Vern Stephens?
   122. DanG Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:22 PM (#2343213)
Here again are the top four unelected finishers in each election. Beckley ranks in the top four in 83 of his 85 elections and the #1 unelected player in 35 elections. Of course, he was never really close to election like GVH was.
1898 Williamson  ONeill      JonesC    Welch
1899 Browning
*   Williamson  ONeill      Dunlap
1900 Browning    Williamson  Mullane
*    Welch
1901 Browning    Williamson  Welch       McCormick
1902 Browning    Williamson  Welch       McCormick
1903 Browning    Williamson  Welch       McCormick
1904 Browning    Griffin
*    Williamson  Welch
1905 Browning    Tiernan
*    Griffin     McCormick
1906 Browning    Tiernan     McCormick   Williamson
1907 Duffy
*      Browning    Tiernan     Griffin
1908 Duffy       Tiernan     Browning    Williamson
1909 Ryan
*       Duffy       Van HaltrenMcCormick
1910 Duffy       Ryan        Van Haltren Browning
1911 Duffy       Ryan        Van Haltren Tiernan
1912 Duffy       Ryan        Van Haltren Tiernan
1913 Duffy       Ryan        Beckley
*    Van Haltren
1914 Duffy       Ryan        Beckley     Van Haltren
1915 Duffy       Ryan        Van Haltren Beckley
1916 Duffy       Ryan        Van Haltren Beckley
1917 Duffy       Van Haltren Beckley     Ryan
1918 Van Haltren Ryan        Beckley     Duffy
1919 Van Haltren Ryan        Beckley     Duffy
1920 Duffy       Van Haltren Beckley     Ryan
1921 Bresnahan
*  Beckley     Duffy       Ryan
1922 Beckley     Bresnahan   Duffy       Van Haltren
1923 Beckley     Ryan        Van Haltren Duffy
1924 Beckley     Ryan        Duffy       Van Haltren
1925 Van Haltren Beckley     Ryan        Bresnahan
1926 Beckley     Van Haltren Ryan        Bresnahan
1927 Beckley     Van Haltren Ryan        Bresnahan
1928 Beckley     Van Haltren Ryan        Bresnahan
1929 Beckley     Van Haltren Ryan        Bresnahan
1930 Van Haltren Beckley     Ryan        Bresnahan
1931 Van Haltren Beckley     Bresnahan   Ryan
1932 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Bresnahan
1933 Van Haltren Beckley     Welch       Duffy
1934 Beckley     Van Haltren Welch       Browning
1935 Beckley     Van Haltren Welch       Browning
1936 Beckley     Van Haltren Welch       Browning
1937 Beckley     Welch       Browning    Van Haltren
1938 Beckley     Welch       Van Haltren Browning
1939 Beckley     Van Haltren Leach       Welch
1940 Beckley     Leach       Van Haltren Duffy
1941 Leach       Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy
1942 Van Haltren Leach       Beckley     Duffy
1943 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Leach
1944 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Leach
1945 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Leach
1946 Beckley     Duffy       Van Haltren Welch
1947 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Welch
1948 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Welch
1949 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Welch
1950 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Welch
1951 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Redding
1952 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Redding
1953 Van Haltren Beckley     Welch       Duffy
1954 Beckley     Van Haltren Redding     Browning
1955 Beckley     Van Haltren Welch       Redding
1956 Beckley     Van Haltren Redding     Duffy
1957 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Welch
1958 Beckley     Van Haltren Duffy       Browning
1959 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Welch
1960 Van Haltren Beckley     Browning    Duffy
1961 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Browning
1962 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Browning
1963 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Browning
1964 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Redding
1965 Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy       Redding
1966 Van Haltren Beckley     Redding     Duffy
1967 Van Haltren Beckley     Redding     Browning
1968 Van Haltren Beckley     Redding     Duffy
1969 Van Haltren Redding     Beckley     Duffy
1970 Van Haltren Redding     Beckley     Browning
1971 Redding     Van Haltren Beckley     Browning
1972 Van Haltren Redding     Beckley     Duffy
1973 Redding     Van Haltren Beckley     Duffy
1974 Redding     Van Haltren Duffy       Beckley
1975 Redding     Duffy       Browning    Van Haltren
1976 Redding     Beckley     Duffy       Van Haltren
1977 Redding     Beckley     Duffy       Van Haltren
1978 Beckley     Duffy       Redding     Van Haltren
1979 Beckley     Redding     Duffy       Van Haltren
1980 Beckley     Duffy       Redding     Jones
C
1981 Redding     Duffy       Beckley     Van Haltren
1982 Duffy       Beckley     Redding     Jones
C
1983 Beckley     Duffy       Redding     Jones
C
1984 Beckley     Redding     Duffy       Jones
C
1985 Beckley     Redding     Duffy       Jones
C
1986 Redding     Beckley     Duffy       Walters
1987 Beckley     Redding     Browning    Duffy
1988 Jones
C    Beckley     Browning    Duffy
1989 Browning    Jones
C    Beckley     Redding
1990 Browning    Beckley     Jones
C    Redding
1991 Fingers     Beckley     Browning    Redding
1992 Browning    Fingers     Beckley     Redding
1993 Fingers     Redding     Browning    Beckley
1994 Browning    Fingers     Redding     Johnson
B
1995 Browning    Beckley     Fingers     Jones
C
1996 Beckley     Browning    Fingers     Perez
1997 Beckley     Walters     Redding     Browning
Count
Beckley
35     +    29     +    15     +    4  =  83
GV Halt
25     +    24     +    11     +   11  =  71
Duffy
:   12     +     7     +    28     +   17  =  64
Browning 13     
+     2     +     8     +   14  =  37
Redding
:  8     +     8     +    11     +    9  =  36 
   123. TomH Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2343231)
http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20070331142356304

interesting article on home field advantage.

Scroll about 85% down toward bottom for a photo of the Baker Bowl (Cravath's home). Wow, a 300 ft power alley (altho it was really tall).
   124. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 07:18 PM (#2343293)
DL,

God questions. I did overlook Clarkson, i haven't done a full re-do of him since the new MLE's. however, I dont' think I will be voting for him. Evers and Lazzeri were at one point in my top 40 players but they have since been pushed out. Neither really has the peak that I like. I do wonder, however, if the reason that I like Doyle and not them is that Doyle did one thing really really well. As for Doyle and Stephens, I wonder that myself.
   125. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2343441)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1997, but this time with who else might be added:

the first figures are current overall totals, then any top 20 backlog returnees, with all partial seasons included as long as they reached at least 10 pct (preceded by their rank in 1997 voting). So "9. Bresnahan 71" means Bresnahan was 9th in last year's voting, and he played 71 pct of his games at C. Finally, some strong upcoming candidates are in parentheses:

C (13.21) - 9. Bresnahan 71 (Carter 90, Fisk 90)
1B (20.36) - 4. Beckley 100; 14. TPerez 68; 20. ReSmith 10 (Brett 17, Mattingly 91, Murray 81, WClark 98, McGwire 96)
2B (15.61) - NONE (Randolph 99, Whitaker 99, Sandberg 93, Molitor 15)
3B (14.11) - 5. Walters 15; 14. TPerez 29; 16. Leach 45; 18. Nettles 96 (Brett 63, Molitor 30, Boggs 93, Ripken 22)
SS (17.20) - 19. Rizzuto 100 (Yount 52, OSmith 100, Trammell 95, Ripken 77)
OF (55.18) - 7. Browning 80; 9. Bresnahan 20; 10. BJohnson 95; 11. CJones 99; 12. Cravath 100; 13. Duffy 97; 15. Van Haltren 80; 16. Leach 51; 17. Oms 95; 20. ReSmith 89; 22. Singleton 76; 23. Brock 100 (Yount 43, Winfield 85, Puckett 95, Gwynn 99)
DH (0.79) - 22. Singleton 24 (Brett 19, Winfield 14, Murray 19, Molitor 44)
P (53.64) - 5. Walters 85; 6. Redding 95; 8. Fingers 100; 15. Van Haltren 15; 21. Grimes 100; 23. MWelch 95 (Blyleven, Stieb, NRyan, JMorris, Gossage, LeSmith, Eckersley)


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

By the second standard, then:
C has 13 plus Carter and Fisk - and Bresnahan?
1B has 16 plus Murray, McGwire - and Beckley, Mattingly, WClark, and/or TPerez?
2B has 15 plus Sandberg - and Randolph and/or Whitaker?
3B has 13 plus Brett, Boggs - and Nettles?
SS has 18 plus Yount, OSmith, Ripken - and Trammell and/or Rizzuto?
OF has 58 plus Winfield, Puckett, Gwynn - and Browning, BJohnson, CJones, Cravath, Duffy, Van Haltren, Leach, Oms, ReSmith, Singleton, and/or Brock?
P has 54 plus Blyleven, NRyan, Gossage, Eckersley - and Walters, Redding, Fingers, Stieb, JMorris, LeSmith, Grimes, and/or MWelch?

It will be a VERY tight finish between OF and P, for better or for worse.
   126. Rick A. Posted: April 24, 2007 at 12:52 AM (#2343649)
I suppose if you are the Beckley of HOM voters, then I'm the Luke Easter.

Eric,

Actually, I have you and Chris Cobb as the Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson of the HOM. Both of you have long careers, and you've both been instrumental in deciphering NeL stats.
   127. DavidFoss Posted: April 24, 2007 at 02:56 AM (#2343817)
We're a history oriented group here. I just thought I would forward the sad news that David Halberstam died today.

BTF Discussion
   128. Paul Wendt Posted: April 24, 2007 at 03:59 AM (#2343847)
DanR #113
In other words, the 1980's were the lowest standard deviation era in major league history. A given OPS+ or ERA+ bought more pennants in 1985 than it did in 1969 or 1998.

This depends chiefly the distribution, eg <u>standard deviation, of team wins</u>, right?


118. Eric Chalek (Dr. Chaleeko) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:04 PM (#2343153)
Paul or jimd should correct me, but IIRC, Anson was sort of the face of the game, the fellow that everyone recognized as a spokesplayer for the baseball zeitgeist.

Yes to the first clause, <u>Anson, face of the game</u>.
not specifically as a player, for he was longtime manager of the White Stockings, a great team for a while and a marquee club anyway.

If so, then Anson is particularly apt if being the leader in consensus is a similar kind of thing.

No I don't think that leader in consensus (HOM or anywhere) is a good analogy.
   129. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 24, 2007 at 05:37 AM (#2343898)
Paul Wendt, well, that's a separate question. But given two leagues where the stdev of *team* wins is the same but the stdev of OPS+ and ERA+ are different, a given OPS+/ERA+ will buy more pennants in the league where the stdev of those categories is lower...unless I blatantly misunderstand this stuff.
   130. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 24, 2007 at 02:30 PM (#2344059)
Alright, last in my little series, it is time for me to go over Corner guys (LF, RF, 1B)

Corners

Browning 8
Cravath 9
C. Jones 21
Singleton 23
F. Howard 28
Burns 30
Cepeda 31
Chance 34
Parker 38
Perez 43
B. Johnson 48
Easter 51
Bonds 52
Cash 54
Taylor 56
Klein 59
Fournier 62

Smith
Beckley
Guerrero

Long list so I will keep this short. I am a peak voter so it should be no surprise who my top few guys are. Browning and Cravath are nearly equal to me. Charley Jones would be up there with them but I am not ready to give him full blacklist credit. Jones was partially responsible for his situation and I see no reason to give credit for trying to chnge the system, no matter how bad the system was. Singleton, Howard, and Cepeda are all pretty even, decent prime, decent peak guys. I like Singleton best. George Burns had a lot of value at his best as a High-OBP guy. Looking over the rest, Bob Johnson's best years were during the war, giving him a pretty low peak. Perez was never able to match up his top defensive value with his top offensive value.

As for the other, I dont' really get Reggie Smith. Anyone want to explain that one to me? Jake Backley is notmy cup of tea for numerous reasons and will probably never make my top 60. I still haven't gotten around to ranking Pedro Guerrero but there is a chance that he will be on my ballot, at worst he will be in my top 20. Minnie Minoso and Dwight Evans are the two guys that I feel we screwed up on since 1935 (when I started here).
   131. TomH Posted: April 24, 2007 at 02:51 PM (#2344081)
I would not expect peak voters who value durability (i.e., most WS in a few seasons) to vote for Reggie.

However, prime voters will note he had OPS+ of 142 over 13 years, almost half of which was as CF, not corner.
   132. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 24, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2344106)
That is a good point, Tom. I wouldn't say that my system is Most WS in a few seasons (more like WS accumulated over 25), but I get your point. However, I will take another look at Reggie. I usually like in season durability but I have begun to open up a bit, i.e. I voted for John McGraw last year for the first time.
   133. OCF Posted: April 24, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2344164)
Mark - we've got another new "corner" in Jack Clark. If you're thinking about Guerrero, you should also think about Clark.
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 24, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2344176)
If you're thinking about Guerrero, you should also think much more about Clark.


That's better. :-)
   135. TomH Posted: April 24, 2007 at 04:47 PM (#2344185)
one more thought experiment about differing voters' systems of peak/prime/etc.

players A and B are both studs who had trouble staying healthy.
-- A tended to get dinged up, & have one DL stint per year
-- B got hurt bad once in a while
player C is a stud who threw in a clunker season on occasion.

Let's say all players perform at rates 0 (bench replacement) thru 10 (Babe). 5 is avg for starting player.

Player A has 8 years of rate 9 playing 80% of the time
Player B has 6 years of rate 9 playing fulltime, with 2 lost injury years in the middle.
Player C has 6 years of rate 10 playing 90%, with 2 years of rate 2 in the middle.

Player A: 6.4 full years, rate 9.0
Player B: 6.0 full years, rate 9.0
Player C: 7.2 full years, rate 8.0

Players B and C will look best by most WS and WARP in their best years.

But player A had more value over the 8 years than either one. Didn't he?
   136. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 24, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2344191)
Didn't he?

That answer depends on whether you are named Joe Dimino, Sunnyday2, or Mark Donelson, doesn't it?
   137. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2344199)
I don't remember but Mark S. must be one of my more comparable voters. I saw a lot of really smart placements in your recap.

>Third Base
John McGraw 18
Al Rosen 19
Tommy Leach 20
Bob Elliot 25
Ron Cey 38
Pie Traynor 50
Sal Bando 53
Graig Nettles 64

Except at 3B. Mark, where oh where is Ed Williamson, whom I have at #6 currently. And I have John McGraw down at #60.

But otherwise we agree fairly well on Leach (16 for me) and Rosen (27) and Elliott (38). I do slide Sal Bando in ahead of Elliott at #29 however. And I have Traynor at #48 and Nettles #65, almost eerie. OTOH Cey at #91.

Mark, take a look at Big Ed!

>Centerfielders
Hugh Duffy 4, PHOM
Alejandro Oms 12, PHOM
George Van Haltren 16
Wally Berger 24
Roy Thomas 39
Jimmy Ryan 46
Hack Wilson 47
Fielder Jones 58

Well, OK, so we don't see eye to eye on CF either. I seem to recall that you have Browning (my #4) and Reggie Smith (8) in the corner which is not unreasonable. And we agree on Leach. But my top clear CF type is Oms at #25. Duffy is #30. But we're pretty close on the Hackster at #44, but not so close on GVH at #55, Berger at #59 and Roy Thomas is not in my top 150. Ryan is #88 and F. Jones is #136.

I think you're missing the boat on some modern CFers, not to say they're ballot-worthy but still. Fred Lynn 61, Cedeno 72, Pinson 79.
   138. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2344202)
>Catcher
Elston Howard 7, PHOM
Roger Bresnahan 14
Thurman Munson 35
Wally Schang 55

Excellent choices, well, in the right order at least. A little too high, maybe. I have Ellie Howard at #15, Bresnahan at 21 and Munson at 43. Schang OTOH trails John Clapp (87), Schnozz (92) at #97.

>Continuing with Middle Infielders

Doyle 15/16
Rizzuto 26
Randolph 27
Lundy 33
Bancroft 37
Concepcion 40
Monroe 44
Stephens 46
Wills 57

It's the reverse here where I have Doyle at #9 and Rizutto #12. Then I have Bus Clarkson at #20 and Pesky 24 so we part company there. But we're within the margin of error on Vern Stephens (#31), Bill Monroe (47), Lundy (49) and Bancroft (58), but not on Randolph (54) and Concepcion (96) or Wills (98).

Take a look at Clarkson and Pesky, though obviously those need some MLE and WWII credits to go anywhere.
   139. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2344214)
>Corners
Browning 8
Cravath 9
C. Jones 21
Singleton 23
F. Howard 28
Burns 30
Cepeda 31
Chance 34
Parker 38
Perez 43
B. Johnson 48
Easter 51
Bonds 52
Cash 54
Taylor 56
Klein 59
Fournier 62

Smith
Beckley
Guerrero

Excellent! Well sort of. We are in general agreement on the top of your list--Browning (my #4), Cravath (7), C. Jones (I'm higher at
#5), Singleton (18), F. Howard (13)--at least in that we both have them all near the top. In this case you have the old-timers Burns (90) and Chance (67) higher while I have the more modern guys higher--Cepeda at #10, Perez #24, Parker #34, Cash #22. We're not so far apart on B. Johnson (41), Easter (56) or even Bonds (though I'm higher at 37).

I have Beckley at #36, so, no, he's not really my cup of tea either, and I haven't slotted Guerrero yet. I'm not even sure he's top 150 material.

That leaves Reggie Smith. I would just say, look at the OPS+ numbers for your top hitters--well, top 20C hitters anyway--Cravath, Singleton, F. Howard, Cepeda, Perez. Reggie is in the ballpark and had vastly more defensive value than any of them other than Tony Perez. That should pretty much cover it. I mean, I see he doesn't have the big WS peak but all the other indicators are there, so maybe WS misses this one. And even if his WS peak is right, by years 6-7-8-9 he's right there with them all and even pulls ahead. so I see him IN this group as a hitter and ahead of the the group when you add in the glove. IOW he is Jimmy Wynn with an extra 5 inches.
   140. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 24, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2344233)
Tom,

Player A is not generally my cup of tea. Player C woudl look best in my system (6 years at a 10 rate and those two extra years have to be worth more than being injured right?) folowed by player B. I dont' really use the total seasons that you do. Pennants are handed out after full seasons, adding in two half seasons doesn't equal a full season.

Sunny,

Thanks for the comments. Right now my list to look over in the next few weeks is:

Ed Williamson
Johnny Pesky
Bus Clarkson
Reggie Smith (though I doubt that he will move too much, I like in season durability)
Pedro Guerrero
Jack Clark

I am acutally pretty comfortable with the guys that I am voting for except maybe Doyle. I do wonder why I had him so far above Vern Stephens, so maybe they should be added to the list above.

If I don't get the time in the next few days does anyone want to do a Stephens/Doyle comparison?
   141. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2344280)
>Player A has 8 years of rate 9 playing 80% of the time
Player B has 6 years of rate 9 playing fulltime, with 2 lost injury years in the middle.
Player C has 6 years of rate 10 playing 90%, with 2 years of rate 2 in the middle.

>Player A: 6.4 full years, rate 9.0
Player B: 6.0 full years, rate 9.0
Player C: 7.2 full years, rate 8.0

>Players B and C will look best by most WS and WARP in their best years.

>But player A had more value over the 8 years than either one. Didn't he?

If a pennant is the true goal--not the accumulation of individual value--then Player A doesn't add up.

A: Rate 9 X 130 games per year. 8 times. But none of that carries over into the successive years.
B: Rate 9 x 162 games, 6 times. That probably leads to more pennants.
C: Rate 10 x 162 games, 6 times. Better yet. The 2 years at rate 2 are approximately as valuable as the 2 years player B missed altogether. The career rate comes down, but who really cares?

I would take C.
   142. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2344283)
I always loved Vern Stephens until I discovered OPS+. That really kills Vern, and then add in the WWII discount in the heart of his career. Still, he had a lot more defensive value than Doyle. But Doyle hit like a corner any way you slice it. Stephens only hit like a corner if RBI are your cup of tea.
   143. Dizzypaco Posted: April 24, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2344289)
If a pennant is the true goal--not the accumulation of individual value--then Player A doesn't add up.

A: Rate 9 X 130 games per year. 8 times. But none of that carries over into the successive years.
B: Rate 9 x 162 games, 6 times. That probably leads to more pennants.
C: Rate 10 x 162 games, 6 times. Better yet. The 2 years at rate 2 are approximately as valuable as the 2 years player B missed altogether. The career rate comes down, but who really cares?

I would take C.


That player B or C would help win more pennants than player A is usually, but not always true. The exception would be teams like the Yankees from 1996 to the present, and the Braves from 1991 to 2005. As long as a Posada or a Jeter give the Yankees at least 130 games of their usual performance, the Yankees will win the division - they don't need 160 games from them, and the Yankees win every year. However, if either of those players missed the entire season, it could prevent them from winning the division. Therefore, the Yankees prefer player A to plyer B or C.

On a team that is not as good, they would likely prefer B or C, in that they need more than 130 games from their best player if they are to have a good shot at winning the division.
   144. TomH Posted: April 24, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2344367)
sunny and dizzy (sounds like a pair of famous twins from, I dunno, never mind)-

wow. I totally disagree that player A would normally win fewer pennants... which I guess is partly why I posted, to see if difference in ballots is more theoretical (value assessment / pennant winning ability) versus technical diffs in who uses OPS+, other tools, etc.

let's say player A adds 5.6 games to his team's win total each year, as opposed to if he were not there. That would be if he was 7 games per full year above whatever else they coudl find, times 80% playing time.

player B adds 7.0 games each year in good years, and nothing otherwise.

I undertstand that you can't simply multiply 5.6 * 8, show that it's bigger than 7 * 6 and claim you've proven the theory.

But how much more valuable can player B's 'concentrated play' be?

Player A played 33% more years.
Player B played 25% more per year.

And player B would win more pennants? Those extra 32 games played in 6 years would push a team over the top more than the missing 130 games would drag them down in the other 2 years? Maybe if you're a desperate franchise that is perenially downtrodden and needs all of the stars to align, but that's the only way I could see it. I think you are postulating far too large of a bonus importance to player B's extra plate appearances in a given season.

Looked at another way, let's say team Z had 4 player As, and team Y had 4 player B's. Work through the combinations, and most times team Z comes out ahead, since on the whole they have more players performing well for a greater portion of the time.

Or maybe I have my analytical hat on backwards?
   145. andrew siegel Posted: April 24, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2344391)
I think as a group we have dramatically underrated the guys with big career values and good rates who don't put up big seasonal numbers b/c/ they tend to miss games. All the studies show that the same quantity and the same quality produce slightly more pennants if put into fewer seasonal units, but the effect is quite small. The problem is that we have a bunch of guys (Reggie Smith, Tommy Bridges, Wally Schang, etc.) who would already have been elected if they put up the same quantity and quality in fewer seasons. They are competing against guys with either LESS career value or a LOWER rate.
   146. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2344396)
>The problem is that we have a bunch of guys (Reggie Smith, Tommy Bridges, Wally Schang, etc.)

Which of these is not like the rest?
   147. andrew siegel Posted: April 24, 2007 at 08:38 PM (#2344412)
Beats me. For a catcher, Wally Schang is over our usual bar in total WS and in rate, but is held back by the lack of "peak" numbers due to playing fewer games but in more seasons. The same is true of Reggie Smith when compared to other OF's. Admittedly, Tommy Bridges is a little low in total career WS, but we have elected most who are around his total with rates as high as his. Plus the metrics that measure against average value or set a higher replacement level have his career value much higher.
   148. sunnyday2 Posted: April 24, 2007 at 09:21 PM (#2344504)
Bridges 225/26-22-20/106/30.5
Schang 245/20-20-19/77/21.6

R. Smith 325/29-29-26/129/26.5

Bridges does have a nice rate and you've gotta have some persistence to get to 245 no more than 20 at a time. And granted Reggie's peak is not exactly of historic proportions. Still....
   149. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 24, 2007 at 09:31 PM (#2344526)
I'll take the bait on Reggie Smith, Mark Shirk. Comparing him to Singleton, his career OPS+ was 5 points higher in about the same amount of games played (and his best, 2nd best, 3rd best, 4th best etc. seasons are all higher than Singleton's). He fielded his position better than Singleton fielded his, at least according to WS/WARP. And he played CF for half his career, while Singleton was mostly a corner and spent the tail end of his career at DH. Plus he has the good Japan year. So I don't really see any argument for taking Singleton ahead of him.
   150. Mark Donelson Posted: April 24, 2007 at 09:44 PM (#2344546)
Oddly enough, since I tend to think of myself as the peakiest of the peaky, I'd probably take player A over player B in TomH's scenario. (I have admittedly modified my peak stance quite a bit of late.) But I'd also take player C over either of them.
   151. andrew siegel Posted: April 24, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2344599)
Others in the high total, high rate, packed into lots of partial seasons category include Roush and Cash.
   152. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 25, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2345569)
Total non sequitor in the vein of What do we do after November?

You know how we have the annual BBWAA and the almost annual VC votes? Well, I'm thinking of another annual vote.

We would vote each year on which active players we think are likely to become HOFers or HOMers, (or both). But we don't exactly use the usual 15-man ballot. Instead, I think we do something like what Jeff Sackman is doing over at THT. We begin by figuring out how many HOMer/HOFers are likely active based on historical precedent. (We can refigure it every year as needed.) That's the length of our ballots. Then we simply list, in order of likelihood, who we think will make it. This includes only active MLB players, but it can be a guy with 1 game or 2000 games. That's part of the fun of it. King Felix has the same opportunity for a ballot slot as King Recliner.

The upshot of this is this. At the HOM we always look backward. This vote gives us an opportunity to use our skills to look forward instead. Discussions would I'm sure include our usual suspects as well as Brock6, PECOTAs, Tango's aging forumulas, whether milestones are changing, variations on aging by typology, comps, sims, all kinds of stuff like that. And ultimately, it will be interesting to see, over time, whether our predictions match the Hall, the HOM, and/or the perceptions of the player's career and post-career. And it will give us chances to look at how greatness develops, and how it fails to. It's turning the HOM process inside out.

This could be a simple three-week process like we have now, or discussion could be broken out by position or pither/position or by category (newer guys, young stars, mid-career, older guys), and it could be a multi-month thing each year. In fact, it might be a cool run-up to the late-autumn HOM vote each year.
   153. DanG Posted: April 25, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2345588)
This could make for a fun little annual vote. It needs a catchy name. The Projection Project?

My only other thought is that I would favor some minimum play qualifiers. Something along the lines of three full years. Say, at least 500 games or 650 innings or 200 games pitched. Otherwise, I think we would waste a lot of time with dozens of young prospects who in a year or two will not be part of the conversation.
   154. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 25, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2345621)
the fHOM? (future HOM)

ooh, ooh, how about HOM Future Stars! What? Topps already has that one? Dang.

Actually, HOM Projection Project (HPP) sounds good to me.

My only other thought is that I would favor some minimum play qualifiers. Something along the lines of three full years. Say, at least 500 games or 650 innings or 200 games pitched. Otherwise, I think we would waste a lot of time with dozens of young prospects who in a year or two will not be part of the conversation.

Dan, I think we'd need to include all players with 1 appearance because in any given year if we follow the actual HOF/HOM percentage. Some portion of future HOM/HOF members are getting brief call-ups each year and comprise a portion of that number. And there's potentially interesting comparisons to make: for instance, Ryan Zimmerman (fewer than 200 games played) versus David Wright and Miguel Cabrera. Or King Felix versus Ching Wang versus Rich Harden versus Jeremy Bonderman. Those are potentially enlightening conversations to have and will be fun to look back on too.

Or, we could simply run the numbers to figure out what percentage of active players who become HOFs are over certain thresholds (x games played or pitched), and cleave the ballot there. Maybe instead of a (say) 40-man listing, it's a 35-man listing. I think the former is more fun because we can all try speculating and change our mind the next year if needed. But it'll be fun to see if we vote for Young Guy Smith, whether we vote for him again and again or whether he stalls out.
   155. DanG Posted: April 25, 2007 at 08:10 PM (#2345653)
Some portion of future HOM/HOF members are getting brief call-ups each year and comprise a portion of that number.
True, but I'm of the notion that it isn't worth it to study these guys really in depth, that it's too much a crap shoot as to who ends up in the HOF from the group. If you're into fantasy leagues, I suppose you already have projection tools that you use to project these guys. I'm not, so I don't find it very interesting to try and model Rich Harden's future.

That said, I'm now thinking of lower qualifying threshholds, maybe 350 G, 450 IP, 150 GP.
   156. TomH Posted: April 25, 2007 at 08:35 PM (#2345677)
There's an article posted in the newsblog, based on an email exchange w/ Bill James on a few 'what-if' careers. Some of our eligible HoMers are discussed.
   157. Howie Menckel Posted: April 26, 2007 at 01:35 AM (#2345981)
I posted a couple of weeks ago that we could do a HOM ballot assuming everyone's career was over.
Maddux, no problem.
A-Rod, no problem.
Pujols - do any career voters flinch?
Johan Santana - do even peak voters flinch?
   158. AJMcCringleberry Posted: April 26, 2007 at 02:59 AM (#2346062)
Pujols - do any career voters flinch?

I have him roughly equal to Norm Cash now, who's 20th on my current ballot. If he has another average Pujols year, he'd be behind only Carter and Blyleven on the current ballot.
   159. Paul Wendt Posted: April 26, 2007 at 03:18 AM (#2346079)
TomH:
Player A has 8 years of rate 9 playing 80% of the time
Player B has 6 years of rate 9 playing fulltime, with 2 lost injury years in the middle.
Player C has 6 years of rate 10 playing 90%, with 2 years of rate 2 in the middle.

Player A: 6.4 full years, rate 9.0
Player B: 6.0 full years, rate 9.0
Player C: 7.2 full years, rate 8.0

Players B and C will look best by most WS and WARP in their best years.

But player A had more value over the 8 years than either one. Didn't he?


At best, there is a subtle argument for this. With replacement level 0, you choose Player A's version of "57.6" rather than Player C's version. Why prefer Player A, is it consistency, dependability, etc? And why call it "value"?
(The peak research and the the Pennants Added measure choose Player C. As Joe Dimino says, a dime is worth more than two nickels, but only a penny more. Well, that's how I say what Joe Dimino says.)
   160. mulder & scully Posted: April 26, 2007 at 08:00 AM (#2346176)
Things sure have quieted down during this second week of discussion. Last week, I posted my top 10 on this year's ballot. Those were the sure fire players. Knowing my biases, see post 49 on the last page, here are my next 15, the contenders for a ballot spot, and the top 10 returnees who won't be on my ballot. These are taking a lot longer so I decided to just post the two I have finished. Forgive me if the posts look ugly, it's one am.


11. George Burns (phom 1938) - Why? Big prime: 8 straight years among the top 9 position players in the NL, top 20 players in majors. Nice peak from 1917-1919 with two 3rds and a 2nd, to go along with being the best position player in the NL in 1914. Even competing with Cobb, Speaker, Ruth, Cravath, and Jackson, Burns was one of the top 3 OF 3 times.

If WS is not your cup of tea, here are some year by year leaderboard appearances: 5 top 10s in OBP. In those years, he was never worse than 2nd in plate appearances. How's that for a nice combination.
He was top 10 in runs scored 11 straight years, with 5 firsts.
If you like hits, 8 straight years in top 9, 6 of those top 5.
How about power? 7 straight years in top 7 in total bases.
How about walks? 9 years out of 10 in top 10, with 5 firsts.
How about stolen bases? 9 years out of 10 in top 10, only 2 below 4th, with 2 firsts. Yes, he was not much over 50%, but we are missing the caught stealing info from his 5 best seasons. And very few stole bases like Carey.
Also, 8 straight years in the top 10 in runs created.

He's not perfect. His career is relatively short, effectively over at 34 and his age 21 and 22 seasons were spent as part of McGraw's "Teach a talented youngster what he needs to know while he sits on the bench" program.
He was not a great fielder, though he was a good left fielder.
Some might criticize the strength of his league. Others might see the teens NL as having a low standard of deviation - a wholly different thing.

12. Don Newcombe (phom) – Lots of innings every year at a top 10 ERA+ rate will do it for me. I give credit for NeL play/MiL play, so Newcombe gets 10 WS for 1947 and 16 for 1948. Also, he gets 3 WS for 1949 – remember he started the year in Montreal.
I give Korean war credit at an average of the surrounding 6 years for 22 WS for 1952 and 23 WS for 1953. Also, I give a slight credit for 1954 readjustment.
In any case, I have Newcombe as the best pitcher in the NL in 1949 (tied with Spahn and Pollet based on 21 WS plus 3) and in 1956. He is in the top 5 in the NL in 1950, 1951, 1955, and 1959. Now, add in 1952 and 1953.
I see an 8 time all-star (6 if you don’t give Korean credit) with 7 years out of 8. If you don’t give the credit, then its 5 years out of the 6 he played.
Also, look at the combination of ERA+ with IP: 1949: 7th ERA+ and 5th IP, 1951: 10th and 6th, 1955: 2nd and 6th, 1956: 3rd and 4th. I think 1952 and 53 would have been similar production.
How about K/W? 8 straight top 10s not including Korea (52-54) with 5 top 3s and only one worse than 6th. Even if you add in 1954, its 8 years out of 9.
How about WHIP? 7 top 10s out of 8, not including Korea, with 6 top 5s and 2 firsts.
Again, a great, extended prime. You will be seeing a familiar pattern.
   161. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM (#2346198)
Player A has 8 years of rate 9 playing 80% of the time
Player C has 6 years of rate 10 playing 90%, with 2 years of rate 2 in the middle.

Player A: 6.4 full years, rate 9.0
Player C: 7.2 full years, rate 8.0

But player A had more value over the 8 years than either one. Didn't he?

At best, there is a subtle argument for this. With replacement level 0, you choose Player A's version of "57.6" rather than Player C's version. Why prefer Player A, is it consistency, dependability, etc? And why call it "value"?


if replacement level is 2 (or 3 or 5) instead of zero (i.e., you're a good club that can trade or sign players to get out of a sinkhole), player A's total value is higher.
   162. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 12:01 PM (#2346200)
thehardballtimes has an article by David Glassko which states that the 'Pennants Added bonus' does not exist; rather, consistency gets at least as many pennants as peak performance. 'Twill be interesting to analzye his approach.
   163. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 12:06 PM (#2346202)
m&s, I have Newcombe somewhere near my ballot, since I value long solid primes like you do.

If he hadn't stunk in so many post-seasons, he'd make my ballot.

--
Anyone know why Newcombe only got one start in the 55 Series?
   164. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2007 at 12:32 PM (#2346214)
If he hadn't stunk in so many post-seasons, he'd make my ballot.


Are 10 crappy innings enough to make that much of a difference to you, Tom?
   165. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2346234)
total WS ERA of 8.59. And even a batting OPS of .000
He cost the Dodgers between 1 and 2 games; they went 1-4, and could have been expected to win 2 or 3 of those, given that they scored 0, 1, 4, 5, and 13 runs.

In the pre-division era, I multiply WS events by about 6 in importance. So I dock Newk a total of 8 career 'wins' for his poor efforts. Actually it's a little less than that, because it wasn't no picnic going against the NYY, and at least they won those 3 pennants. But even cutting off a few wins does drop him a # of spots on my ballot.
   166. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2007 at 01:33 PM (#2346243)
He cost the Dodgers between 1 and 2 games; they went 1-4, and could have been expected to win 2 or 3 of those, given that they scored 0, 1, 4, 5, and 13 runs.


But how was he handled prior to those starts?

I know he was playing tired for the famous playoff game of '51 and still pitched admirably, i.e.
   167. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 26, 2007 at 01:48 PM (#2346250)
The Don Newcombe thread has some interesting things about his postseason woes, BTW.
   168. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 01:56 PM (#2346254)
good point, John. Retrosheet doesn't have pbp for those years, but I do see that in 49 and 56 they won by one game on the last day of the season each year, and in both Newk was the SP. In neither game did he pitch well (scores were 8-6, and 9-7 in extra inn). Last game in 56 was on 2 days rest. He started in the WS on 2 days rest and got hammered. Then he went in G7 with lots of rest and got hammered again.

Maybe if someone showed me he was extra good in 49 and 56 (when they won very close pennants) versus ther main rivals I'd grant him some pennant-clutch bonus. Any pro-Newkies out there wanna hit the books?
   169. Daryn Posted: April 26, 2007 at 02:11 PM (#2346266)
Pujols - do any career voters flinch?

I may be the careerest voter here and Pujols would have to play at a high level through 2008 to sniff my ballot and through 2009 to definitely make my ballot. He'd make it to the top by 2010.

Amazingly, he has never finshed worst than 4th in the MVP balloting.
   170. Paul Wendt Posted: April 26, 2007 at 09:21 PM (#2346602)
TomH
one more thought experiment about differing voters' systems of peak/prime/etc.

players A and B are both studs who had trouble staying healthy.
-- A tended to get dinged up, & have one DL stint per year
-- B got hurt bad once in a while
player C is a stud who threw in a clunker season on occasion.

Let's say all players perform at rates 0 (bench replacement) thru 10 (Babe). 5 is avg for starting player.


TomH continued in #161

Does the argument for player A turn on the point that true replacement level during his annual stint on the DL is greater than zero on a good team, but equal to zero (rather than less than zero) on a bad team?
In other words, does "get out of a sinkhole" refer to the short-term problem when player A "gets dinged"?
   171. Paul Wendt Posted: April 26, 2007 at 09:35 PM (#2346609)
Baseball Magazine selected George Burns one of three All NL outfielders in 1914 and 1917-1919. In each of the latter three seasons, Edd Roush was on the All America team (both leagues), with Cobb-Cobb-Cobb and Speaker-Speaker-Ruth.
Baseball Magazine all stars 1908-1919

Kelly m&s #160 on George Burns
. . .
How about stolen bases? 9 years out of 10 in top 10, only 2 below 4th, with 2 firsts. Yes, he was not much over 50%, but we are missing the caught stealing info from his 5 best seasons. And very few stole bases like Carey.


But if base stealing with 50-60% success rate does not help the team, then Burns steals do not directly constitute any advantage over contemporaries with few attempts, only against those even worse in success rate --those who balance Carey in generating the league average, presuming that Burns is at the average.


Has anyone analysed Retrosheet data for NL 1911, compiled and published as a pilot by the box score project? Maybe it is possible to get at the suspicion that the running game demands an assessment specific to the deadball era.
   172. TomH Posted: April 26, 2007 at 09:54 PM (#2346621)
Does the argument for player A turn on the point that true replacement level during his annual stint on the DL is greater than zero on a good team, but equal to zero (rather than less than zero) on a bad team?

Basically, yes. Not necessarily short-term vs long-term difference, but in general good teams either through their farm system or utility players or $$$$ can come up with better replacement players than bad teams.
   173. Cblau Posted: April 27, 2007 at 02:41 AM (#2346975)
Re: George Burns, #160:

We have caught stealing for him (and the rest of the NL) in 1913. He had 35.

Francis Richter counted them, and the Sporting News (or maybe the Sporting Life) printed the year-end totals.
   174. TomH Posted: April 27, 2007 at 11:58 AM (#2347075)
In the Jack Clark thread, there was a long exchange about Gwynn vs Raines value in 87, and one point made in there about the diff in defense was the newly available play-by-play defensive information that starts coming of age in the late 80s and 90s.

Our estimation of defense prior to this time is pretty much reputation, WS, and BP; all of which is easy to find.

As we get to evaluating players whose primes went past 1987, I am VERY interested in any adjustments we find in a fielders' accomplishments beyond what we already have. Anyone who has pbp info on our newbies, please let it hang out for all to see.
   175. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: April 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM (#2347084)
In low run-scoring environments, the break even SB rate is a lot lower than it is in the modern game. Those managers weren't idiots.

I'd also imagine that large numbers of SB attempts probably would be a good proxy in that timeframe for overall baserunning, in terms of 1st to 3rd and 1st to home, etc..
   176. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 27, 2007 at 03:22 PM (#2347202)
TomH, I have the spreadsheet of Chris Dial's Zone Rating runs saved/cost numbers for 1987-2005. The numbers have to be used with care because they are not park-adjusted (Colorado and Fenway LF, at the very least, require major corrections).

Joe Dimino, it's worth noting, however, that there were plenty of high-scoring years with high SB (and, presumably, high CS) totals--the entire 1890's, 1911-12, etc. And a lot of guys were putting up 17/13 SB/CS totals even in the offensively inflated 1920's. I'm not sure if it's fair to penalize a lot of these players for negative SB/CS runs, though, since I imagine much of the time they were mistakenly sent by their managers.
   177. Mike Green Posted: April 27, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2347220)
Park adjustments for defensive ratings are very important, in my view. It is easier to measure defensive park effects than offensive ones, once retrosheet data is available, as opponent performance over a period of years is a fair marker.
   178. TomH Posted: April 27, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2347255)
DanR, if you or someone would kindly post what you have for each player's Zone Rating runs when his discussion page comes up, I think that would be helpful.
   179. mulder & scully Posted: April 27, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2347284)
Re: Burns and stolen bases. In 1915, the league stole at a .545 clip. Interestingly, the top 6 teams in runs per game are the inverse in stolen base percentage:
Phi: 3.85 and .517
StL: 3.76 and .529
NYG: 3.75 and .530
Bos: 3.71 and .552
Chi: 3.65 and .572
Pit: 3.57 and .621
then
Bro: 3.48 and .510
Cin: 3.23 and .523

Burns stole 27 and was caught 20 times for a .574 percentage. So he was better then his team and the league average.

To reiterate Dan R.'s comments about the low standard deviation in the 1910s NL, the spread among all 8 teams in runs is 74, from StL's 590 to Cin's 516. Every run mattered a huge amount on offense. The spread among runs allowed was more than double though: Phi allowed only 463 runs while NY allowed 628.

I would love to have reached on error information for this era as every team made at least 1.5 errors a game. Maybe once Retrosheet gets into the Deadball Era, we will be able to really see what good baserunning is worth and who did and did not take advantage of the errors.
   180. Paul Wendt Posted: April 27, 2007 at 07:28 PM (#2347451)
Cblau:
Re: George Burns, #160:

We have caught stealing for him (and the rest of the NL) in 1913. He had 35.

Francis Richter counted them, and the Sporting News (or maybe the Sporting Life) printed the year-end totals.


Richter was the owner-editor of Sporting Life.

Counting 1913 at 40sb 35cs brings Burns totals in known seasons to 194sb 174cs.


Joe Dimino #175
In low run-scoring environments, the break even SB rate is a lot lower than it is in the modern game. Those managers weren't idiots.

I'd also imagine that large numbers of SB attempts probably would be a good proxy in that timeframe for overall baserunning, in terms of 1st to 3rd and 1st to home, etc.


May the break-even success rate be less than 50-60% in the deadball era? That seems incredible to me.

quoting myself #171
Has anyone analysed Retrosheet data for NL 1911, compiled and published as a pilot by the box score project? Maybe it is possible to get at the suspicion that the running game demands an assessment specific to the deadball era.

The proxy interpretation is one that we might "get at".

Visit Larry Doyle at Retrosheet for example of what 1911 data is available. Team LOB for every game. With innings, atbats, hits, we have outs on base. Double plays are one class and sacrifices nearly (no error) another class of outs on base. For New York NL (see the 1911 "Daily" for Doyle), we have caught stealing for all but 15 games and first base on error (ROE) for a few more games when the opponents made no error. A lot can be done with this data --not only estimate caught stealing, which should be relatively easy to do.


m&s #179
To reiterate Dan R.'s comments about the low standard deviation in the 1910s NL, the spread among all 8 teams in runs iks 74, from StL's 590 to Cin's 516.

Yes but NL 1915 is a famously balanced league. The Phillies won their only pennant before 1950 with winning percentage less than .600, which never happened in those days. With nearly the same W-L record in 1913 and 1916-1917, they finished 12.5, 2.5 and 10 games behind.
   181. mulder & scully Posted: April 27, 2007 at 10:54 PM (#2347592)
Continuing my haphazard rundown of potential candidates:
Wilbur Cooper:
Again, another player with a great, in this case 9 year, prime.
By win shares, he is a top 5 in league/majors: 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924. 4th/NR, 4th/NR, 5th/NR, 3rd/5th, 2nd/6th, 1st/3rd, 5th/NR, 2nd/5th. Plus a 6th in 1916.
Eight straight years as a top 5 starter in the NL, 4 years a top 6 starter in the majors. He lacks the consistent giant years of Johnson and Alexander or the fluke 2 years of Faber or the sporadic peak of Vance. But if you like consistent, no off years, significantly above average pitching, Cooper gives you that.

If win shares are not your bag, let's look at ERA+. Cooper has 9 straight years with between 112 and 144, with 8 of those years being top 10 innings pitched years also. 6 years out of 7, he was top 3 in IP. In 1917, 18, 20, 21, and 22, he was top 10 in both IP and ERA+. What keeps him from ranking better is the fact that his top 10 years in hits per 9 innings, 5 times, and his top 10 years in walks per 9, 5 times, only have one year in common. Still, he does have 4 years with a top 10 WHIP - and he ranks 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd in IP each year.

Anyway, I'm off work, so this post is finished.
   182. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM (#2347642)
M&S

You said it about Wilbur. Good stuff.
   183. sunnyday2 Posted: April 28, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2347838)
I find Wilbur too similar to Willis--and Willis is so much better--that it's hard to get excited about Wilbur. Not that anything you say about him is wrong. It's just that he's gotta be in line behind Willis.
   184. mulder & scully Posted: April 29, 2007 at 02:02 AM (#2348849)
I do have Willis in front of him. I like both players. Willis has been on my ballot for decades. Cooper has always been top 25.
   185. Paul Wendt Posted: April 29, 2007 at 03:38 AM (#2348973)
While Willis and Wilbur are on the agenda
here they are with five rather similar Pittsburgh staff-mates

born Pitt innings ERA+ W-L : name agedebut-lastgame : PA @ OPS+
_ innings @ ERA+ before final one or two seasons, benefiting Chesbro (note on career span)
'76 '06-09 3996 118 249-205 Willis Victor 22.0-34.5 : 1623 @ 18
_ about 3800 @ 119-120
'92 '12-24 3480 116 216-178 Cooper Wil 20.8-34.5 : 1316 @ 61 (4 non-P games)
_ about 3400 @ 117
'74 '99-02 2896 110 198-132 Chesbro J_ 25.1-35.4 : 1151 @ 44
_ about 2600 @ 115
'74 '97-02 2750 114 197-116 Tannehill J *19.11-36.9 : 1549 @ 89 (148 non-P games: 87 outfield, 61 pinch)
_ about 2650 @ 116 (all but 55 innings, age 23-34)
'82 '07-26 2995 117 194-140 Adams Babe *23.11-44.3 : 1065 @ 50 (0 non-P games)
_ about 2800 @ 119-120 (all but 26 innings, age 27-44; only 72-00-22 innings 1916-18, age 34-36)
'71 '98-10 2660 123 194-100 Leever Sam 26.5-38.9 : 1074 @ 36 (1 non-P game)
_ about 2500 @ 124 (still effective in 111 mixed start/relief innings)
'72 '00-11 2607 120 189-109 Phillippe D 26.11-39.3 : 1064 @ 36 (5 non-P games)
_ about 2600 @ 120 or 121

Tannehill worked 29 innings for Cincinnati at age ~20 (note birth and death in Dayton KY), returned to the majors only three years later. Otherwise everyone but Adams, Tannehill included, put up rather compact major league career. Vic Willis and Wilbur Cooper were younger and they generally pitched more innings; they were "workhorses". Leever, Phillippe, and Adams were rookies at "baseball age" 27.

Adams pitched almost 20 years in Pittsburgh but he is known mainly for his rookie work, three complete game wins in the 1909 World Series. What happened in his mid-30s when he pitched only 94+ innings in three seasons? Maybe his return should be recognized as one of the great comebacks.
Babe Adams at baseball-reference
   186. OCF Posted: April 29, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2349329)
My RA+ equivalent records for the pitchers listed in Pual's post. These are all "raw" with no adustments either for the pitcher's own offense or for the quality of defensive support. The third number, in the brackets, is my "big years" score, the sum of year-by-year FWP in excess of 15 (which does give an unfair advantage to 19th century pitches - e.g., Willis.)

Willis 258-186 [75]
Cooper 220-166 [23]
Chesbro 182-140 [50]
Tannehill 174-132 [28]
Adams 201-132 [40]
Leever 179-117 [29]
Phillippe 171-118 [31]

All of them pitched in front of strong defenses. The only one for whom I've explicitly tried to make a defensive correction is Willis; my defense adjusted record for him is 248-196 [44]. Similar adjustments should be made for the other 6.

The Pirates under Clarke, like the Cubs under Selee and Chance, departed from the norm in pitcher utilization by spreading the load among more pitchers and having their aces throw fewer inning each. That limits their results in any one season (and hence my "big years" score), and the biggest years of Willis and Chesbro came from before and outside that system.
   187. mulder & scully Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:09 AM (#2349816)
prelim:

1. Gary Carter - C
2. Bert Blyleven - SP
3. Charley Jones (change, b/c I looked at my Keltner breakdown, and adjusted for how bad the 1876 Reds were) - LF
4. Mickey Welch - SP
5. Bucky Walters - SP
6. Pete Browning - "CF"
7. Hugh Duffy - CF
8. Tommy Leach - 3b/CF
9. Gavy Cravath - RF
10. Vic Willis - SP
11. George Burns - LF
12. Don Newcombe - SP
13. Wilbur Cooper - SP
14. Roger Bresnahan - C - reanalyzed catchers this weekend
15. Candidates for the final spot:
From the corner OF spots, Ken Singleton and Frank Howard
From CF, Alejandro Ohms
From 1B, Frank Chance, Jack Fournier, Luke Easter
From 2b, Larry Doyle, George Scales (Ok, not really, but he is the second highest ranked at the position and Randolph would be next. I think Randolph is better than Fox, but I think Fox was a horrible choice.)
From 3b, Rosen ahead of a tight knot of McGraw, Williamson, Lyons, Bando, and Elliott
From SS, Bus Clarkson (averaging the second version of the 2nd figuring of MLEs with the first) ahead of a tight knot of Herman Long, Dick Lundy, Vern Stephens, and Phil Rizzuto.
From SP, (do I go with 7 pitchers?), Dave Stieb or Rollie Fingers.
   188. TomH Posted: April 30, 2007 at 11:52 AM (#2349838)
mulder & scully - gutsy prelim.

So, you think our HoM needs 9 more pre-integration members from our backlog (#3 thru #11) before any more guys from post-integration? You might be our biggest 'anti-timeliner' :)
   189. Mike Emeigh Posted: April 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM (#2349846)
What happened in his mid-30s when he pitched only 94+ innings in three seasons?


Adams suffered a shoulder injury in 1916, and was released by the Pirates in August. He pitched in the Western League after that. In 1918, with World War I still raging, the Pirates had one of the largest groups of players in military service and were having some trouble finding players to replace the group in military service. Over-35 players were exempt from the draft, and with Adams now 36 and completely healthy, he became an attractive option and was re-signed in August 1918.

SABR's BioProject has a good Adams biography.

-- MWE
   190. TomH Posted: April 30, 2007 at 06:43 PM (#2350074)
Mark D, who is mainly a peak voter, and makes much use of WS for hitters:

How does Frank Chance compare to Gavy Cravath?

WS for each man's best 6 years, with G played. Last # is Win Shares minus Games*.07, which is a type of "WS above base" measure, using a somewhat higher replacement level.

Cravath
WS... .15 .29 ..28 ..35 .26 ..26
G.....130 147 149 150 137 140
WSAB .6 .19 ..18 ...25 ..16 ..16

Chance
WS... .31 .29 ..25 ..35 .23 ..20
G.....123 124 118 136 111 129
WSAB 22 .20 ..17 ..25 .15 ..11

If Cravath's Minor league credit is a key factor, how about considering that Chance, in the years immediately prior to the peak shown here, was (unjustly) a part-time player, despite showing in limited time every year that he was one of the best players on his team?

Do you dock Gavy any for his truly atypical home/away home run totals, or are you a proponent of "he took advantage of his park, so he gets full credit"?
   191. Mark Donelson Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2350145)
TomH:

To take the last point first: Yeah, I'm an advantage-of-park-is-fine guy.

And yes, minor league credit is a major factor for Cravath in my estimation. What's the argument that Chance was blocked unjustly? I'll go reread his thread (I thought I was pretty familiar with it, but it has been a while...)

I used to be much more of a proponent of Chance--had him just off ballot with guys like Cravath back in the day--but my recent expansion beyond pure peak has hurt guys like him a lot; Cravath, with the minor league credit, has more prime to fall back on. So if there's strong evidence that Chance really was blocked unfairly in the same way I feel Cravath was, I'll certainly consider bumping him back up significantly.
   192. TomH Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2350158)
well, admittedly it's a matter of taste, but here's my take:

1898: OPS+ 102, 147 AB, mostly at catcher
1899: OPS+ 96, 192 AB, mostly at catcher
1900: OPS+ 127, 149 AB, mostly at catcher
1901: OPS+ 118, 149 AB, mostly in OF
1902: OPS+ 139, 241 AB, split 1B and C
finally full-time in 1903.

completely out-played others on the team every year prior to 1903.

Now, is it possible he was injured for some of those years? Sure; I don't know. But it LOOKS like he simply was unable to convince the managers (3 different men) to play him.
   193. Paul Wendt Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2350159)
"big years" score, the sum of year-by-year FWP in excess of 15 (which does give an unfair advantage to 19th century pitches - e.g., Willis.)

Willis was 2-5 years younger than the threepeat staff. He arrived as a regular major league pitcher in 1898, contrast Tannehill 1897 and Leever-Phillippe-Chesbro 1899. (Phillippe with the Dreyfuss/Clarke team in Louisville, the other three in Pittsburgh. My column two gives Pittsburgh dates, which is Dreyfuss & Clarke beginning 1900. I wonder whether the team adopted the broad staff because the numbers were on hand after the merger of the two teams --Phillippe and Waddell being from Louisville.)

OCF is right that the biggest seasons for these pitchers were those Willis and Chesbro put up before and after their Pittsburgh seasons.

Rather than any "19th century effect", a "154 game effect" is a plausible second factor distinguishing these pitchers. Willis later put some very good seasons but he was already at his peak, perhaps enjoying his best two-year span, as a rookie and sophomore, coinciding with the two 154-game schedules of 1898-1899. Tannehill put up a consecutive peak, unlike Willis, but also beginning in those two long seasons. Chesbro's Big Year immediately followed the final adoption of 154 games (and his own adoption of the spitball pitch).
   194. Paul Wendt Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:29 PM (#2350165)
Now, is it possible he was injured for some of those years? Sure; I don't know. But it LOOKS like he simply was unable to convince the managers (3 different men) to play him.

Yes, he was injured (dinged). I have details for 1900-1901 at least. . . .
Maybe SABR Bioproject has details.
Chicago Tribune at least mentioned the injury issue but I don't recall reading any clear statement that he moved to first base because it would keep him in the lineup. He was a physical player, both in the George Brett sense and in the roughneck sense, a style or two that is inconsistent with winning any durability awards.
   195. mulder & scully Posted: April 30, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2350168)
Tom,

I know it's a different ballot. But a couple of things have happened. I have had several PHOM, not-HOM get inducted recently - Keller, Trouppe, Wynn, and Roush. I have voted for every inducted recent player except Sutton, who is PHOM now, Fox and Boyer, overrated IMHO, and Rose.
Second, I rank players by position and time period and all the players 3-11 are above several players at their position who have been inducted AND above several players from their time period.
   196. Paul Wendt Posted: April 30, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2350223)
Now, is it possible he was injured for some of those years? Sure; I don't know. But it LOOKS like he simply was unable to convince the managers (3 different men) to play him.

Yes, he was injured (dinged). I have details for 1900-1901 at least. . . .
Maybe SABR Bioproject has details.
Chicago Tribune at least mentioned the injury issue but I don't recall reading any clear statement that he moved to first base because it would keep him in the lineup. He was a physical player, both in the George Brett sense and in the roughneck sense, a style or two that is inconsistent with winning any durability awards.
   197. mulder & scully Posted: April 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM (#2350309)
To finish my previous post

The group of recent players end up further back among their position player and time period cohorts than the current top of the backlog. Also, because the 70s and especially the 80s are so tightly compact, there is very little separation among many players. I either elevate all the players, which doesn't seem appropriate because there are differences between them, or elevate some and I haven't figured out how to do that to my satisfaction.

Also, the 70s and 80s are difficult because there a number of long career, high peak players that are obvious and a number of long career players who were good to very good, but their peaks weren't great and/or their primes were not that high. Was that because there were so many good players that it was more difficult for them to truly standout? In that case, elect them all. Or was it because there were a lot of very good players who didn't quite make the leap? In that case, elect the obvious great and sort through the rest as thoroughly as possible.

For me to move up players from this era, I am looking for an indepth comparison of, for example, Schmidt to Brett, to Nettles, to Harrah, to Bell, to Cey, to Bando. Schmidt and Brett are obvious. The others all have their positive and negative points.
   198. OCF Posted: April 30, 2007 at 11:07 PM (#2350331)
Mike Scioscia: what is the best way arrange a lineup to utilize a player whose OBP (relative to league norms) is much better than his SLG, and who runs like a catcher?
   199. Paul Wendt Posted: May 01, 2007 at 03:46 AM (#2350678)
Hey, OCF,
John Kruk is the paradigm case!
My answer has always been that John Kruk bats in front of Joe Carter. Perhaps 3rd and 6th if they are the real JK and JC, but 7th and 8th if they are merely relatively good at reaching base and slugging --absolutely below league average on their strong points.

Mike Hargrove may be another in the family.

Perhaps Mike Sciosia is the better pedagogi-case because he is neither a very good nor a very bad batter overall.

You suppose, probably correctly, that we routinely think of the ".400-.400" man running like Brett Butler.
   200. OCF Posted: May 01, 2007 at 05:19 AM (#2350743)
Brian Downing rather famously batted leadoff. He didn't steal bases and he didn't hit triples, but I think his general mobility was OK, so he doesn't really belong to this group (and his SLG was good, as well.) And he had a couple of seasons of > 100 runs scored. He was a good leadoff hitter.

At the extreme good-hitter end of "always on base, doesn't run the bases well," there's Wade Boggs. He wasn't all that slow - he just wasn't a good baserunner.

One circumstance in which it would make sense to have a Scioscia/Kruk/Hargrove type in the front of the lineup: in front of a great slugger who is an extreme fly ball hitter, as evidenced by a very high HR/2B ratio. Sosa. McGwire. Ryan Howard last year had a 58/25 ratio. Mantle had some extreme HR/2B ratios in some of his seasons, and so did Mays. If that's the way the big guy is going to hit, who cares whether the runner on first can run? And such extreme FB hitters don't ground into many DP.

But if you want to get Tommy Davis his RBI's, or Don Mattingly - a high-AVG hitter with more 2B than HR - then you'd better have someone in front of him who can move.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9673 seconds
49 querie(s) executed