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, May 06, 2007

1999 Ballot Discussion

1999 (May 28)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

432 133.2 1974 George Brett-3B
423 131.9 1974 Robin Yount-SS/CF
334 141.6 1968 Nolan Ryan-P
368 114.9 1972 Carlton Fisk-C
294 91.8 1977 Dale Murphy-CF/RF
241 110.0 1974 Frank Tanana-P
198 64.0 1982 Steve Sax-2B*
182 69.8 1975 John Candelaria-P
193 60.6 1983 Bill Doran-2B
171 48.4 1981 George Bell-LF
132 59.5 1983 Mike Boddicker-P
138 55.2 1980 Charlie Leibrandt-P
147 50.4 1980 Dickie Thon-SS
141 52.2 1983 Pete O’Brien-1B
134 45.0 1979 Alfredo Griffin-SS
132 42.2 1985 Glenn Davis-1B
117 46.6 1981 Mike Witt-P
118 39.8 1985 Rob Deer-RF*
104 44.9 1981 Bob Ojeda-P*
114 39.3 1984 Dan Gladden-LF

Players Passing Away in 1998
HoMers
Age Elected

77 1960 Hal Newhouser-P

Candidates
Age Eligible

91——Gene Autry-Owner
86 1954 Denny Galehouse-P
83——Harry Caray-Broadcaster
82——Jack Brickhouse-Broadcaster
81 1949 Al Campanis-2B/GM
77 1965 Jim Hearn-P
77 1967 Elmer Valo-RF
69 1969 Bill Tuttle-CF
54 1988 Mark Belanger-SS
45 1996 Dan Quisenberry-RP

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 06, 2007 at 05:34 PM | 252 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:06 AM (#2357866)
There will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth amongst the backloggers this election.
   2. Chris Cobb Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:11 AM (#2357877)
Preliminary Ballot:

1. Brett
2. Fisk
3. Ryan
4. Yount

A bunch of other guys

Dale Murphy will probably be in the 15-30 range, Tanana in the 30-50 range. But I've got plenty of time to get them sorted out.
   3. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2357879)
Hey, they've got a fresh new example of how persistence and steady work can eventually pay off. (Okay, Williamson, Van Haltren and Duffy can make with the weeping and gnashing.)
   4. AJMcCringleberry Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2357886)
I may have six newcomers on the ballot, when was the last time that happened?
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2357891)
I may have six newcomers on the ballot, when was the last time that happened?


I had 15 one year. ;-)
   6. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2357894)
1. Brett
2. Yount
3. Fisk

9. Ryan

21. Murphy

Tanana in the 125 range.

I see that a couple of old Twins died--Valo and Tuttle. And of course Quiz. And Autry, Caray, Brickhouse and Campanis--big cohort for the non-uniformed wing. I had forgotten that Mark Belanger died. What happened?
   7. Chris Cobb Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:25 AM (#2357897)
Well, in 1934, the top 7 slots on my ballot were newcomers: Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Lloyd, Williams, Torriente, and Coveleski. I can't find any other year with more than 4 newcomers on my ballot, though.
   8. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2357908)
What happened?

Well, as Yul Brynyr (sp?) once said: "don't smoke."
   9. Paul Wendt Posted: May 08, 2007 at 04:38 AM (#2358043)
Mark Belanger died. What happened?

chain smoking
He was the top player representative for a while, I think.

It's hard for me to believe those guys have been gone for almost ten years.
   10. ronw Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:21 AM (#2358076)
Also RIP Harry Caray. We all remember him as the lovable Cubs homer, but he was a pretty good announcer, especially in his younger days. I'm listening to the 1957 All-Star Game, and Caray more than holds his own when paired with the legendary Bob Neal. (Of course by paired I mean that they switched in the middle of the 5th innning. They weren't on air at the same time.)

BTW, those old broadcasts (complete with commercials!) are a great way to pass the time. I have a perfect 20-minute commute, not too long to miss something, not too short that I need to wait in the car at work/home to hear something.
   11. OCF Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:38 AM (#2358081)
Also RIP Harry Caray. We all remember him as the lovable Cubs homer, but ...

Leave me out of that word "all." Let me remind you that the first team I was ever deeply attached to as a fan was the 1967 Cardinals. I lived in northeastern Oklahoma, with some local radio stations that participated in the Cardinal network at least some of the time, and within easy nighttime ionospheric-skip range of KMOX itself. I'll say this about Harry: he made me a baseball fan.
   12. mulder & scully Posted: May 08, 2007 at 06:06 AM (#2358083)
1999 Prelim:

1. Yount: Based on my system's numbers only. Counted as a SS only, 4th best behind Wagner, Lloyd, and Vaughan. Counted as a CF only, 13th behind Cobb, Mantle, Mays, Charleston, Speaker, DiMaggio, Torriente, Stearnes, Hamilton, Snider, Hines, and Gore. Wow.

2. Brett: 5th best 3rd basemen after Schmidt, Mathews, Baker, Boggs.

3. Fisk: Roughly 10th best catcher after Gibson, Berra, Bench, Cochrane, Santop, Dickey, Hartnett, Campanella, Carter, and tied around Ewing. McVey is ahead of him too, but that includes NA play.

4. Jones
5. Welch
6. Walters
7. Browning
8. Duffy
9. Leach
10. Cravath
11. Willis
12. Burns
13. Newcombe
14. Cooper, Wilbur
15. Clarkson or Bresnahan or Stieb or Ohms or Fingers or Chance or Howard, Elson or Grimes.

Murphy slots in between 22 and 30 preliminary.
Ryan slots in around Murphy. His All-Star apps for me: 1972, tied for 5th in AL with Hunter, 1973, tied for 3rd in AL with Palmer, 1974, tied for 8th in AL with Grimsley and Kaat, 1977, tied for 3rd in AL with Goltz, 1981, 4th in NL, and a tied for 8th in the AL in 1989.
So: 2 thirds (actually 3rd/4ths)
1 fourth
1 fifth (tied 5th/6th)
2 eighths (tied at 7th/8th/9th)(tied at 7th through 10th)
Those are rankings just among pitchers by league, not majors. I don't care about the strikeouts or the no-hitters. He gets his position on the basis of an okay peak and a great career. His prime just wasn't that high. (Yes, I adjust for the strikes). Don Sutton wasn't on my ballot either.
   13. TomH Posted: May 08, 2007 at 12:19 PM (#2358121)
completely from my previous knowledge, without even peaking at the numbers:

1- George Brett
hut
2- Robin Yount
two
3- Carlton Fisk
three
4- Nolan Ryan
four
....if it matters much I'll study the data again, but surely these four will all go in.

Dale Murphy and Frank Tanana at first glance do not look like they will even be close to the ballot.
   14. Rusty Priske Posted: May 08, 2007 at 01:20 PM (#2358171)
Prelim

PHoM matches 1-3

1. George Brett
2. Robin Yount
3. Carlton Fisk
4. Tony Perez
5. George Van Haltren
6. Nolan Ryan
7. Tommy Leach
8. Willie Randolph
9. Mickey Welch
10. Rusty Staub
11. Lou Brock
12. Hugh Duffy
13. Ken Singleton
14. Graig Nettles
15. Reggie Smith

16-20. Cash, B.Johnson, Willis, Cepeda, Browning
21-25. Doyle, Bonds, Downing, S.Rice, Clark
26-30. Redding, Streeter, F.Howard, McCormick, Murphy
   15. Chris Fluit Posted: May 08, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2358194)
I knew that some voters were going to be excessively harsh with Ryan but this is ridiculous. mulder & scully, Ryan doesn't even earn an All-Star nod for 1987 despite leading the league in ERA, ERA+, finishing 3rd in WHiP and doing that in 200+ innings? What are you and Mark Belanger smoking?
   16. Guapo Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:38 PM (#2358277)
I gotta say, if Randolph finishes ahead of Dale Murphy... y'all are gonna have to explain that one to me.
   17. DL from MN Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:41 PM (#2358281)
1999 prelim

1) George Brett - top 50 player, behind Schmidt and Mathews
2) Nolan Ryan - 7th all time in PRAR, there's a ridiculous amount of career value here. Just ahead of Robin Roberts in the all-time rankings, behind Carlton, Perry, Blyleven and Niekro.
3) Carlton Fisk - catcher bonus bumps him up. Gibson, Dickey, Carter, Ewing, FISK, Santop, Campanella
4) Robin Yount - slots behind Ernie Banks, his SS peak was lower and his time in CF was comparable to Banks' time at 1B. Why did he move to CF so young?
5) Luis Tiant
6) Bus Clarkson
7) Bob Johnson
8) Tommy Bridges
9) Willie Randolph
10) Norm Cash
11) Graig Nettles
12) Tony Perez
13) Buddy Bell
14) Ron Cey (wow, that's 6 guys who played 3B at their best!)
15) Rick Reuschel

16-20) Reggie Smith, Rusty Staub, Virgil Trucks, Gavy Cravath, Bob Elliott
21-25) Jack Clark, Tommy John, Ben Taylor, Orlando Cepeda, FRANK TANANA
26-30) Dutch Leonard, Dave Bancroft, Tommy Leach, Bobby Bonds, Thurman Munson
31-35) Dick Redding, Jack Quinn, Vic Willis, Ken Singleton, Urban Shocker
36-40) Johnny Evers, Luke Easter, Rollie Fingers, Dizzy Trout, Fred Dunlap
41-45) Darrell Porter, Hilton Smith, Lave Cross, Frank Howard, Alejandro Oms
46-50) Charley Jones, Pete Browning, Tony Lazzeri, Roger Bresnahan, Jim McCormick

100) Dale Murphy - ahead of Fred Lynn, behind Hugh Duffy
   18. Daryn Posted: May 08, 2007 at 02:48 PM (#2358288)
Brett Ryan Yount Fisk for me.
   19. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 08, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2358327)
DL: Shoulder injury is the reason I'd always heard for Yount's move. It sure wasn't Dale Sveum....
   20. DanG Posted: May 08, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2358373)
Robin Yount - Why did he move to CF so young?

From BB Library:
Shoulder surgery after the 1984 season threatened to end Yount's career before his 30th birthday, but he held on, moving to center field to put a little less pressure on his throwing arm. Though he adapted well to the outfield, Yount's power was significantly reduced, but it wasn't long until he was his old self again.
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2358413)
>4) Robin Yount - slots behind Ernie Banks, his SS peak was lower and his time in CF was comparable to Banks' time at 1B. Why did he move to CF so young?

He got hurt.

But as to Banks. Maybe the games played in CF are comparable to Banks' games at 1B. The quality of play in the corresponding periods bear no comparison whatever.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2358418)
But as to Banks. Maybe the games played in CF are comparable to Banks' games at 1B. The quality of play in the corresponding periods bear no comparison whatever.


Yount had great years as a center fielder, while Banks was lucky to have average years at first base.
   23. OCF Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2358493)
I'll put my reply to #17 through #23 over on the Yount thread.
   24. DL from MN Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2358494)
> Yount had great years as a center fielder

According to WARP he had 2 of them, 1988 and 1989. The rest of the time his glove really held him back. He was never the best CF in his league during the time he was in CF. There were some really fantastic CF at this time - Rickey Henderson, Kirby Puckett, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Andy Van Slyke, Ken Griffey Jr. There is a reason he stopped being named to all-star games after he moved from SS.

Banks WARP1 as a 1B: 41.9
Yount WARP1 as a CF: 44.4
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 05:57 PM (#2358504)
There were some really fantastic CF at this time - Rickey Henderson, Kirby Puckett, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Andy Van Slyke, Ken Griffey Jr. There is a reason he stopped being named to all-star games after he moved from SS.


Only Rickey and Kirby apply here, since the rest didn't play in the AL. Griffey started played when Yount was almost ready to go.

Banks WARP1 as a 1B: 41.9
Yount WARP1 as a CF: 44.4


You can't use WAPR1 for players at different positions, because it doesn't deal with difficulty. Try WARP2 instead.
   26. Rusty Priske Posted: May 08, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2358557)
Hey, I'm no Ryan fanboy (I have him 6th, below Perez and GVH, as well as the three big newcomers), but I am having trouble with this statement:

I don't care about the strikeouts or the no-hitters.


How can you just disregrad those sorts of things? They are a pretty good indication of dominance (though hardly the only indication, I'll readily admit). I will take WS & ERA+ over strikeouts, but No-hitters?
   27. DavidFoss Posted: May 08, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2358558)
Only Rickey and Kirby apply here, since the rest didn't play in the AL. Griffey started played when Yount was almost ready to go.

Yount's MVP year was Griffey's rookie season (1989). Yount's decline was in full force starting the next season when Griffey started to click into gear. Fair enough, but Yount was only 34 years old and his early decline is a strike against him. (at least on this tough 1999 ballot :-)).
   28. DavidFoss Posted: May 08, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2358566)
I will take WS & ERA+ over strikeouts, but No-hitters?

I would have been the other way around. I don't think I'd take K's *over* ERA+ but its a really nice supplement. Its defense-independent outs.

The no hitters? That's just seven games out of 773 starts. That's an amazing achievement, but its like Joe Dimaggio's streak... not really a whole lot of value in itself (other than the shutout). Now 61 shutouts... that's getting to be a higher proportion of the games that he pitched.
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2358567)
I said somewhere else that the trouble with Ks and no-hitters is that, well, like Ryan they're over-rated. But the point is how they're over-rated. I mean, I'm a peak voter, but 3 pitches as a peak? 9 innings? Sure Ryan could dominate an at-bat, and he could dominate 9 innings. Remember when Johnny Vander Meer used to get HoF votes? Well, no, of course you don't. But he did. 18 innings as a peak? No. Ryan might have thrown a couple no-no's and struck out 325, but if he went 15-14 with a 3.25 ERA and wasn't even in the Cy discussion, then, no, the Ks and no-no's just don't add up.
   30. KJOK Posted: May 08, 2007 at 07:09 PM (#2358572)
I lived in northeastern Oklahoma, with some local radio stations that participated in the Cardinal network at least some of the time, and within easy nighttime ionospheric-skip range of KMOX itself. I'll say this about Harry: he made me a baseball fan.


And today, those of us Cardinal fans living in NE Oklahoma don't have a local affiliate, and the Cardinals are no longer on KMOX but some short-range FM station...
   31. DL from MN Posted: May 08, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2358577)
I meant "Gibson, Bench, Berra, Dickey, Carter, Ewing, FISK, Santop, Campanella" above.

I'll grant that Yount's time in CF was worth more than Banks' time at 1B. I think Vince Coleman would be more comparable to Banks at 1B and Yount was better than that. Still, Yount was around the 5th-7th best CF during that time which is below All-Star level. Of course Yount wasn't the best SS in baseball either although he was an All-Star.

Can I compare WARP1 as a SS?

Banks: 79.3 best 5 years 13.7, 12.5, 11.2, 10.8, 9.7
Yount: 66.4 best 5 years 11.6, 9.3, 8.5, 7.4, 6.4

At the end of the day they're really comparable players.
   32. mulder & scully Posted: May 08, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2358616)
Wow, people actually read my ballot posts. Last year about so many pre-integration players and now Ryan.

Honestly, I'd forgotten about 1987 for Ryan. Thinking back on it, I remember that no one in the NL deserved a Cy Young that year. I turned 15 and had been reading the Abstracts for 4 years and I remember noticing Ryan's unique year. Heck, it was so unique that I think SI in their baseball column talked about at some point. When I put together I year-by-year spreadsheet of top 30 players in each league, years were just numbers so Ryan's year didn't ring a bell. I'll go back and look at the underlying numbers/Retrosheet before I post my ballot.

Of course, if I adjust his 1987 season a upwards a little, it still won't put him on the ballot. I still see him as similar to Don Sutton. Sutton didn't make my ballot - he was around 23rd or something. It is funny - no one mentioned a thing about Sutton being low on my ballot.

Also, about Ryan. He had lots of strikeouts, very few hits allowed, and only one year in the top 10 in allowing homers. But his ERA+ was only 112 for his career, and in his 22 years over 152 innings, he only has 6 years over 120 ERA+. Another problem for me is that of his 9 years in the top 10 for WHIP, he was in the top 10 for IP only 3 times. His two years as an ERA+ champ? Not in the top in IP and 9th.

He made highlight films, but what were the results on the field.
   33. Chris Fluit Posted: May 08, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2358656)
Nolan Ryan is overrated but like a few other overrated players such as Banks, Clemente and Rose, he's still more than qualified for the Hall of Merit.

Ryan is overrated in part due to the no-hitters. Ryan had 7 no-hitters but does that make Ryan a better pitcher than, for example, Dave Stieb. Stieb was notorious for taking no-hitters into the 8th or 9th inning and then giving up that one late hit. Are Ryan's 7 no-hitters better than Stieb's 7 one-hitters (not the exact figure, by the way)? Subjectively, they certainly seem to be, but objectively there isn't much of a difference. It's a difference of only 7 batters. Furthermore, Ryan had no-hitters not perfect games. He was usually giving up 1 or 2 walks during those outings so Ryan and Stieb gave up about the same number of baserunners. Objectively, Ryan's no-hitters are worth about the same as Stieb's one-hitters.

Ryan is also overrated due to his high number of strikeouts. The Ks are worth something. As David Foss notes, they're defense-independent outs. But they're also flashy. Ryan's K record is like Rose's hits record. It's nice, but it doesn't make either one the best ever. Plus, Ryan's strikeouts are offset by his high number of walks and wild pitches. Some of us do look at Ks or Ks per 9 innings, but in Ryan's case it's more important to look at his Ks to BB walk ratio. Even so, Ryan finished in the top ten 8 times in Ks to BB including leading the league in 1987. The only eligible pitcher who does better in that particular category is Lefty Gomez though Joss and Bridges are close.

But, ignoring the no-hitters and the strikeouts, Ryan is still eminently qualified.

top ten finishes in ERA+
Ryan: 1, 1, 3, 5, 7, 7, 10

Bridges: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 10, 10, 10
Gomez: 2, 2, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9
Grimes: 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7
Joss: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 7
Stieb: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Tiant: 1, 1, 6, 6, 7, 10, 10
Walters: 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Willis: 1, 1, 4, 7, 9

Bridges beats Ryan in length of prime. Stieb and Walters clearly beat Ryan in terms of peak, though the difference isn't as great as some are suggesting. It's basically a 3rd through 6th best of 2-3-5-6 and 2-4-5-6 over 3-5-7-7. A few may prefer Joss' numbers to Ryan's, but otherwise Ryan has the third best peak on the board.

But then, Ryan also has those huge career numbers. He's not in the ballpark of Grove or Johnson or Spahn. However, his most similar pitchers are Robin Roberts and Bert Blyleven. Ryan has WS and Warp3 of 334 and 141.6. Roberts was at 339 and 134.2, Blyleven at 339 and 143.6. The guy right below Ryan would be Fergie Jenkins with 323 WS and 121.4 Warp3. Those super-peak candidates of Walters and Stieb? They're well below with 251/87.1 for Walters and 250/88.0 for Stieb. There's no way that Walters or Stieb's slight edge in peak is worth more than Ryan's huge edge in career numbers (80 WS and 50 Warp3).

We're talking about a pitcher with an ERA+ peak that's close to Walters or Stieb and the career WS and WARP numbers that are similar to Blyleven and Roberts. What more does Ryan need?
   34. jimd Posted: May 08, 2007 at 09:11 PM (#2358673)
You can't use WAPR1 for players at different positions, because it doesn't deal with difficulty.

Win Shares suffers from similar limitations, for similar reasons.
   35. Juan V Posted: May 08, 2007 at 09:14 PM (#2358676)
Very prelim ballot

Yount
Brett
Fisk
Ryan
A bunch of other guys
   36. Chris Fluit Posted: May 08, 2007 at 09:29 PM (#2358692)
I still see him as similar to Don Sutton. Sutton didn't make my ballot - he was around 23rd or something. It is funny - no one mentioned a thing about Sutton being low on my ballot.

I supported Sutton -I had him high on my ballot- yet I could see why peak voters weren't enamored with him, even to the point of leaving him off of their ballot. But Ryan is not the second coming of Sutton. Ryan has a clearly better peak. Sliding Sutton into my earlier chart of top ten in ERA+, Sutton has 2, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 10. And Ryan clearly has the better career with the WS/Warp advantage of 334/141.6 to 319/117.9.

Ranking the '70s pitchers by career WS and Warp: 1: Seaver, 2: Niekro, 3: Perry, 4: Carlton, 5: Blyleven, 6: Ryan, 7: Jenkins, 8: Sutton, 9: Palmer
   37. OCF Posted: May 08, 2007 at 09:56 PM (#2358712)
One thing about guys who pitched for a bazillion years across multiple teams and leagues - their hitting isn't very likely to have been an asset. A quick glance at a few such pitchers:

Blyleven: 517 PA, .131/.144/.146, OPS+: -19
Carlton: 1877 PA, .201/.223/.259, OPS+: +33
John: 761 PA, .157/.187/.188, OPS+: +7
Kaat: 1004 PA, .185/.227/.267, OPS+: +37
Niekro: 1707 PA, .169/.183/.211, OPS+: +8
Perry: 1220 PA, .131/.153/.164, OPS+: -10
Ryan: 957 PA, .110/.148/.134, OPS+: -18
Sutton: 1559 PA, .144/.183/.157, OPS+: -2

Even in that company, Ryan's line isn't pretty. Kaat seems to have had a little bit of pop.
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2358728)
Win Shares suffers from similar limitations, for similar reasons.


It wasn't meant to be a swipe at WARP, Jim :-), only that WARP2 does a better job at comparing players from different positions than WARP1 does.

As for Win Shares, since I try to compare each player to his contemporaries at each position he played, that limitation is not a problem for me.

Ryan? I don't know where he belongs yet, but he's definitely going to be the lowest of the top-1999 four. I do think he's a notch or two higher than Sutton due to his peak and will make my ballot somewhere. But we're still not talking about an inner-circle HoMer here.
   39. mulder & scully Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:21 PM (#2358735)
Ryan's rank in IP in his top 10 ERA+ years:

1981: 1st, No Ranking
1987: 1st, 9th
1977: 3rd, 3rd
1973: 5th, 3rd
1991: 7th, No Ranking
1972: 7th, 6th
1989: 10th, 8th

That is good, but not a standout combination.

I would rank the 70s - using Prime/peak considerations, then career numbers: Seaver, Niekro, Carlton, Palmer, Perry, Blyleven, Jenkins, Ryan, Sutton. (I think. This is from memory. I am at work.)
   40. KJOK Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:21 PM (#2358736)
It wasn't meant to be a swipe at WARP, Jim :-), only that WARP2 does a better job at comparing players from different positions than WARP1 does.


I don't believe this is correct. The only thing that WARP2 is supposedly better than WARP1 at is correcting for 'league difficulty', including adjusting for DH leagues. I don't see where it would have any impact on comparing different positions - WARP1 should be just fine for that.
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:26 PM (#2358742)
I don't believe this is correct. The only thing that WARP2 is supposedly better than WARP1 at is correcting for 'league difficulty', including adjusting for DH leagues. I don't see where it would have any impact on comparing different positions - WARP1 should be just fine for that.


Well, if that's the case, than I do have a problem with WARP's assessment of Yount's and Bank's post-shortstop years.
   42. Chris Cobb Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2358748)
On Yount vs. Banks: I'll take Yount. Peak is slightly less strong, but prime and career are notably better.

Twentieth-Century players whom my system sees as closest in contextual merit to Robin Yount: Luke Appling, Paul Waner, Frankie Frisch, Fred Clarke.
Twentieth-Century players whom my system sees as closest in contextual merit to Ernie Banks: Ron Santo, Roberto Clemente, Bobby Grich, Paul Molitor, Al Simmons, Cristobal Torriente.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:33 PM (#2358755)
Can I compare WARP1 as a SS?

Banks: 79.3 best 5 years 13.7, 12.5, 11.2, 10.8, 9.7
Yount: 66.4 best 5 years 11.6, 9.3, 8.5, 7.4, 6.4

At the end of the day they're really comparable players.


I just don't see it. Banks might have been the better shortstop, but his first base years don't add much at all to his resume. Yount was a terrific shortstop in his own right, plus had MVP years in center.
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: May 08, 2007 at 10:53 PM (#2358786)
>Twentieth-Century players whom my system sees as closest in contextual merit to Robin Yount: Luke Appling, Paul Waner, Frankie Frisch, Fred Clarke.
Twentieth-Century players whom my system sees as closest in contextual merit to Ernie Banks: Ron Santo, Roberto Clemente, Bobby Grich, Paul Molitor, Al Simmons, Cristobal Torriente.

Except Yount was better than all of his (these) comps. Well, Banks, too.
   45. jimd Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2358797)
only that WARP2 does a better job at comparing players from different positions than WARP1 does

WARP2 does three things. On the batting, it incorporates an "all-time league quality" adjustment that adjusts for relative league quality in any given year (eg AL vs NL, DH vs non-DH), and it also adjusts for changes in league quality over time relative to a historical timeline (eg, expansions, contractions, wars). Fielding and pitching incorporate an additional third adjustment which maps the variable fielding/pitching split of the different eras onto a one-size-fits-all "all-time" fielding/pitching split. IOW, it makes WARP much more like Win Shares which also has a one-size-fits all approach to fielding/pitching split and the fielding positions (ps I know about the minor adjustment for K's).

I use primarily WARP1 because I think it does the best job of comparing players from different positions from different eras. The Win Shares values do not balance "gloves" and "bats" (and "arms") to my satisfaction, always favoring "bats" year in and year out at a level of bias which I've demonstrated to be statistically significant (and published on the uber-stats thread).
   46. DL from MN Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:09 PM (#2358805)
> had MVP years in center

Which ones? I don't think he was better than Canseco, Clemens, Boggs, Viola, Puckett or Mike Greenwell in 1988. In 1989 Boggs, Clemens, Puckett, Ruben Sierra and McGriff were right with him but I suppose Yount comes out on top until you consider Bret Saberhagen. Those are the only years worth considering as MVP caliber for Yount in CF.
   47. jimd Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:18 PM (#2358808)
I do have a problem with WARP's assessment of Yount's and Bank's post-shortstop years.

Examining Banks' career in WARP1->WARP2, what I see is a small boost in both his batting and fielding numbers for 1961 and before, and a small debit off of both for 1962 and after (larger again in 1969). This of course corresponds to the NL expansion in 1962 and follows from a "league quality" adjustment. By coincidence, Banks moved from SS to 1B between 1961 and 1962 so that his SS years are pre-expansion and his 1B years are post-expansion. Maybe that plays a role in the "problem" with WARP1 vis-a-vis WARP2?
   48. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:21 PM (#2358811)
What happened?

Well, as Yul Brynyr (sp?) once said: "don't smoke."


Belanger wasn't the only one who entered the big ballpark in the sky in '99 with tobacco problems. Bill Tuttle was a chewer and, while I don't think that he did PSAs like Brynner, he went on public speaking tours speaking about the evils of snuff and other smokeless tobacco products.
   49. DavidFoss Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:33 PM (#2358824)
Which ones? I don't think he was better than Canseco, Clemens, Boggs, Viola, Puckett or Mike Greenwell in 1988. In 1989 Boggs, Clemens, Puckett, Ruben Sierra and McGriff were right with him but I suppose Yount comes out on top until you consider Bret Saberhagen. Those are the only years worth considering as MVP caliber for Yount in CF.

WS has Yount tied for 3rd in the AL in 1988 at 31. Well behind Canseco (39), just behind Puckett (32) and tied with Boggs and Winfield. Greenwell at 30, Viola at 25, Clemens at 22.

In 1989, WS has Yount tied for the lead with Sierra (percentage points behind actually) with 34. Franco and Henderson were the runners up at 30. Saberhagen is listed at 28.

I think both years could be called "MVP caliber". The 1989 MVP victory looks fair enough. Its tough comparing pitchers to position players with WS, Saberhagen did have an amazing year but James' system doesn't think starting pitchers had the impact that they had in earlier eras.

Getting back to John's original point. I think he was using the position shift as a distinguishing feature in the comparison. Banks & Yount may have indeed had similar value, but Banks had more before the position shift and less after.
   50. Michael Bass Posted: May 08, 2007 at 11:40 PM (#2358830)
1. Brett
2. Yount - These two are close, Brett eases out Young. I was honestly a bit disappointed by Brett, he was great, but not to the level I had the impression of him at. Yount was about as expected.

3. Ryan
4. Fisk - These two also close, a slightly larger catcher bonus would have gotten Fisk into 3rd. Ryan, despite claims to the contrary, does have a peak, in his Angel years. He's basically Tanana+++, and I sorta like Tanana (see below).

Murphy is just off ballot, into the POM mix once we get back to backlog; unlikely to ever make my actual ballot, however.

I believe Tanana will either make my ballot or be in the 16-18 range; he had a nice little peak with the Angels to go with his obviously long slightly above average career.

----------------------------

For the record, I'd take Banks over Yount or, in fact, anyone on this ballot. No his 1B years didn't add alot, but his was a truly historic peak, something no one on this ballot even approaches. In fact, the way I see it, you could take the best 5 years from *any* of the top 6 guys on this ballot (all of whom are either obvious HOMers, or well into the discussion range), pick and choose as you like, and they wouldn't be as good as Banks' best 5 years; that's how great I see his peak.
   51. Chris Cobb Posted: May 09, 2007 at 12:15 AM (#2358865)
Except Yount was better than all of his (these) comps. Well, Banks, too.

Well, I didn't undertake to say who was _better_. These are the players that, in the context of their eras, were closer to Yount in merit than any other players. However, I don't see that, in context, Yount is clearly better than the players I have listed as his closest comps. What measure do you use to rate him ahead?

Here's a simple look: career win-shares, adj. to 162 g seasons, top 5 adj. seasons, seasons above 20 adj. ws

Yount 433 cws, 39, 34, 33, 31, 30 (10)
Appling 397 cws, 42, 31, 31, 29, 29 (12) [+ war credit]
Waner 435 cws, 38, 36, 34, 34, 32 (12)
Frisch 385 cws, 36, 33, 33, 32, 26 (13)
Clarke 442 cws, 37, 34, 33, 32, 31 (14)

Yount looks like he is in a group of very similar players, at least. Win shares underrates defensive value, especially for infielders, for which my system compensates, so both Appling and Frisch it sees as quite a bit better than WS allows. Yount gets some infield boost, but not as much, because he was there for only half of his career, and he was not as outstanding defensively. These guys all have similar peaks and career values. If they all about equal by win shares, then Yount should rank ahead due to competition quality, yes? Yes, if that were true, but Yount has a downside that is hard to show succinctly, but the lower # of seasons above 20 win shares hints at the story. He accumulated a lot of his career value in seasons where he was a pretty ordinary player, while the other four had longer primes and more value above average, overall.

YMMV, but I think that a cross-check of my system against some basic measures suggests that it identifies players whose value profile in context was quite close.
   52. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 09, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2358982)
The usual stray slack

George Brett-I met a nice Kanscitian who told me that in the 1970s he once gave George Brett a ride home from a KC bar wherein George had gotten Royally tanked. Well, I guess that's good enough for me, Number One on my ballot.

Robin Yount-There are four things that mark yount's career in my mind
1) He was a regular at 18
2) He almost gave baseball up for pro golf (supposedly)
3) He was the first of the mold-busting big, powerful SS of the modern era
4) He is one of a few players who have a pretty neat division of their careers between two distinct defensive assignments (that is MI then corner guy or MI then OF, not 3B/1B or RF-LF/1B). Banks, of course is one. Tommy Leach is another. Molitor, Killebrew, and Rose played too many to count and weren't really half-and-half careers.

Nolan Ryan-Was in the service in some capacity in the late 1960s during his early Mets years. Did it slow him at all? One other thought: he must have thrown more pitches than anyone since the war.

Carlton Fisk-I really don't know the answer here---was he "Pudge" because of baby fat or lack of it? I've never understood why I-Rod is Pudge when he's never been pudgy.

Dale Murphy-He was all I knew about Mormonism until Jim McMahon came along.... the bad news is that in like 1982 Ronald, a kid in the neighborhood, conned me out of my 1981 Topps Murphy card with the old 7-commons-for-1-All-Star trade. I even believed him when he told me how Tim Stoddard was an All-Star kind of pitcher. Mmm hmmm.

Frank Tanana-I'm going to say that he's actually better than Morris. More innings, 1 pt advantage on ERA+, better peak years. Although, frankly, his moustache is no where near as cool as Morris' broom.

Steve Sax-First Sasser, then Sax, then Knoblauch. Sax wore a path between the 2B and 1B when I listened to him on the radio during his Yankee days. I remember him as being a bit erratic as a baserunner and sometimes he'd make some strange decision to throw to the wrong base (when he could throw, that is). The deal to Chicago was a great one for Stick Michael, bringing back Melido Perez, Bob Wickman, and Domingo Jean. Perez was a very good starter for some bad yankee teams, Wickman we know, and Jean, well, he was the starting pitcher in the Reggie Jackson day game I attended. Like me, he was stuck in traffic on the GWB. He got out of the cab he was in and ran the rest of the way to the park to arrive on time. I missed the start of the game with my car, he made the start with his legs. Then he washed out of the league....

John Candelaria-Remember that writer from the Post-Gazette would rather have this guy than Bert Blyleven....

Bill Doran-Another favorite BJ 2B from the 1980s. This one kind of the opposite of the other. White could really field and he hit with occassional power but not much average or walks. Doran was a decent fielder but had little power to go with a good average and walks. You know the Astros have developed some very good middle infielders. Doran, Biggio (he counts as developed...), Julio Lugo. If only Andujar Cedeno had worked out....

George Bell-
1) He wasn't a great MVP choice.
2) Bell, Moseby, Barfield is one hell of an outfield.
3) Can you imagine how good the Phils could have been if they'd known what they were doing? In rapid succession they gave up Bell (rule 5), Franco (the Hayes deal), and Sandberg (for Ivan DeJesus). Bell immediately produced for Toronto, Franco took over for Cleveland right away, Sandberg was a star in two years. In other words, these guys were all close, and the Phils couldn't see it. Sigh. Shirk, I clink your virtual beer mug in sad-eyed commisery.

Mike Boddicker-I always liked what John Sterling used to say about Boddicker: "A comfortable oh fer four." He's another of those Pat Dobson/Wayne Garland/Mike Flanagan/Scott McGregor/Steve Stone guys for the O's who had that one 20 win season....

Charlie Leibrandt-Talk about your good taste in teammates. In his first four years, Charlie was with the end of the Big Red Machine. Then he goes over to those excellent KC teams of the mid-1980s. Then the first three years of the Braves dynasty. Not bad for a lefty with old-lefty stuff who aged well.

Dickie Thon-Shame about Dickie Thon, he was awesome, getting awesomer. Ages 23-25 OPS+s: 96, 110, 126. That's what you like to see in your young SS.

Pete O’Brien-The thing i really remember about O'Brien was that he had some torrid Aprils; he always seemed to get off to a great start. Indeed, looking it up, he was an .806 OPS in April, and never above .800 in any other month. I must be remebering 1986. He went .394/.467/.758. Nice. He did it again in 1988: .437/.512/.690. And 1989: .400/.462/.575. On the other hand, he had a couple big stinkers in April too, batting under .200. Still his hot starts (and subsequent cool downs) made an impression on me.

Alfredo Griffin-I think he once walked five times...in a season.

Glenn Davis-Worst trade ever? In terms of the talent exchanaged and what all the guys had in the tank, it's got to be up there. Harnish, Schilling, Finley were all still basically rookies or minor leaguers. Wow. What's even weirder, however, is that of these guys, none was a long-time Astro. Harnish was there four years, two very good, two not very good. Finley stayed four years ((two good years and two so-so ones) and was dealt in part of a blockbuster with SD. Schilling went to Philly for Jason Grimsely (zoiks!).

Mike Witt-Too bad about his elbow being completely shredded.

Rob Deer-3TO. Were the early 1990s Tigers awesome or what? All kinds of 3TO guys and a total inability to come up with any pitchers worth a salt.

Bob Ojeda-A friend of mine likes to point out that everyone who grew up during the 1980s and who was a baseball fan says that they were at the 33.33 inning game in 1981 that featured Boggs, Hurst, Cal, and Ojeda. When of course only like 8,000 people were actually there.

Dan Gladden-Serious mulletude.
   53. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 09, 2007 at 01:46 PM (#2359262)
You missed something about Bell, Doc. He was a MONSTER in RBI baseball. That AL All-star team with Bell, Mattingly, and Canseco and a side arming Bret Saberhagen was unstoppable. Of course that is only if you weren't playing against my brother and the 1987 cardinals. With all of that speed my bro (who was always better than me at video games) would hit a single and then either get in rundowns or steal his way home. A base hit by Coleman, Smith, Herr, MacGee, et al meant a home run 80% of the time.

So my only hope was a big power day by George, or Jorge on some baseball cards, Bell.
   54. TomH Posted: May 09, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2359558)
FWIW, I'll be mostly away from this site for the next 3 weeks. Any queries not answered are not being intentionally ignored. Lookin forward to the 2000 ballot class tho!
   55. OCF Posted: May 09, 2007 at 11:13 PM (#2359764)
Alfredo Griffin-I think he once walked five times...in a season.

At one point I was walking around calling a whole class of players "Rafaels" in honor of Santana, Belliard, and Ramirez - but those guys all had certain uses. The type specimen for what I really meant was Alfredo Griffin. Griffin truly represents the triumph of image over substance. He was a slick-fielding shortstop who hit .280 and stole bases - what more could you ask for? Well, you could ask for that to be a fair representation. He hit .280 exactly twice in a very long career - his true BA was nowhere near that high. And BA was all you got - he had a lifetime secondary average of .148, and that includes all those SB. He stole bases like you'd wish he wouldn't - a career SB/CS of 192-134. And besides the CS, he as also prone to, shall we say, adventures on the basepaths. And by the time he was in his mid-30's, how much did you want his glove?

In 1990, starting at SS for the Dodgers, he hit .210/.258/.254 (OPS+ 44). He did, at least, usually bat 8th, so of his 29 walks that year, 11 of them were intentional.

In the same year, a 21-year-old Jose Offerman batted .326/.416/.410 in Albuquerque with a 60-19 SB/CS record. Sure, that has to be discounted becase
(1) That's AAA, not the majors,
(2) In particular, that's Albuquerque, a notorious hitters park in a hitters leagues, and
(3) This is Jose Offerman we're talking about - there was always question as to whether he was really a shortstop.

Still - if I'd been running the Dodgers, I would have just stuck Offerman into the lineup to see what would happen.

Rob Deer-3TO. Were the early 1990s Tigers awesome or what? All kinds of 3TO guys and a total inability to come up with any pitchers worth a salt.

1991 is a good example. The Tigers were dead last in the AL in BA, .247 in a .260 league. They led the league in BB by over 50; they led the league in SO by over 100. Their 209 HR led the leage by over 30 (an average team hit about 140 HR.) They did steal about as many bases as most teams did (a lot of that was Milt Cuyler). Tony Phillips had no regular position but got 655 PA anyway, and hit .284/.371/.438. Deer, Incaviglia, Tettleton, Fielder - yowie! But the team was 2nd in the league in runs - 5.04 in a 4.49 league. Deer himself had a pretty ugly line that year: .179/.317/.386. I aways thought of Deer as the new but not improved version of Gorman Thomas. By the way, the ERA+ leader among the SP on that 1991 team was ... (wait for it) ... Frank Tanana!
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2359773)
The quirky "baseball years without any HOMers as a regular at any given position" list.

"Missing years" by position (since 1876, through 1979):

C - 1893-1909; 1918-19; 1962

1B - 1907-10; 1912-14; 1952-54

2B - 1878; 1880-81; 1905

3B - 1889; 1906; 1947; 1949-51

SS - 1962-71; 1973-79+

We've got regulars at every spot in:
1876-77; 1879; 1882-88; 1890-92
1911; 1915-17; 1920-46; 1948; 1955-61; 1972*

* - Grich was an SS-2B in 1972, but qualfied as a regular. If we don't count that, SS is missing from 1962-current.
The only decade or longer stretch without a miss so far is 1920-46.
   57. Howie Menckel Posted: May 10, 2007 at 12:16 AM (#2359806)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1998, tried a new format this time

If 65 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 14 Cs, 15 1Bs, 16 2Bs, 10 3Bs, 17 SSs, 56 OFs, 55 Ps.
If 50 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 14 Cs, 17 1Bs, 16 2Bs, 13 3Bs, 18 SSs, 60 OFs, 55 Ps.

C (14.11)
90+ pct for (7) Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, JGibson, Campanella, Freehan, Carter
65-89 pct for (7) Bennett, Berra, Mackey, Bench, TSimmons, Santop, Trouppe
50-64 pct for (0) none
25-49 pct for (5) Ewing, Torre, KKelly, McVey, DWhite
10-24 pct for (1) O'Rourke

1B (21.36)
90+ pct for (9) Start, Gehrig, Mize, KHernandez, Beckley, Terry, Brouthers, Sisler, Leonard
65-89 pct for (6) Connor, McCovey, Foxx, Anson, Greenberg, Suttles
50-64 pct for (2) Banks, Carew
25-49 pct for (13) DAllen, JWilson, Killebrew, Stargell, Stovey, Torre, Charleston, Musial, DaEvans, McVey, Rose, Jennings, Lloyd
10-24 pct for (14) Yastrzemski, Heilmann, Ewing, Kelley, Delahanty, Hines, Lajoie, Mantle, FRobinson, Spalding, O'Rourke, Dihigo, JRobinson, Irvin

2B (16.61)
90+ pct for (9) McPhee, Doerr, Childs, Fox, Gehringer, Morgan, ECollins, Gordon, BiHerman
65-89 pct for (7) Grich, Lajoie, Frisch, Hornsby, Grant, Barnes, JRobinson
50-64 pct for (0) none
25-49 pct for (3) Carew, HRichardson, HRJohnson
10-24 pct for (8) Ward, Groh, PHill, Pike, Rose, Dihigo, GWright, JWilson

3B (14.11)
90+ pct for (8) Baker, BRobinson, JCollins, Hack, Santo, Mathews, Schmidt, Boyer
65-89 pct for (2) Groh, ESutton
50-64 pct for (3) DaEvans, DWhite, Beckwith
25-49 pct for (4) JWilson, DAllen, Sewell, Killebrew
10-24 pct for (12) Torre, GDavis, Frisch, Trouppe, Rose, Wallace, Dihigo, JRobinson, McVey, HRichardson, Vaughan, Ott


SS (17.20)
90+ pct for (8) Pearce, Boudreau, Reese, Glasscock, Appling, Cronin, WWells, DMoore
65-89 pct for (9) GWright, Dahlen, Vaughan, Wallace, Jennings, HRJohnson, Lloyd, Wagner, Sewell
50-64 pct for (1) GDavis
25-49 pct for (4) Banks, JWard, Beckwith, Barnes
10-24 pct for (6) Grant, Sutton, Hornsby, Dihigo, Irvin, WBrown

OF (57.00)
90+ pct for (36) Carey, Clarke, Hamilton, Thompson, Wheat, Goslin, DiMaggio, Averill, Doby, Slaughter, TWilliams, Ashburn, Snider, Clemente, Keller, ASimmons, Burkett, Cobb, Flick, Gore, Sheckard, Speaker, Medwick, Roush, SJJackson, Stearnes, Keeler, PWaner, Mays, JWynn, Kiner, CPBell, Crawford, Minoso, SMagee, Ott
65-89 pct for (20) Kaline, Mantle, Aaron, BWilliams, WBrown, DwEvans, Hines, Torriente, Kelley, Ruth, Heilmann, FRobinson, RJackson, Irvin, Pike, Delahanty, PHill, O'Rourke, Rogan, Musial
50-64 pct for (4) Stovey, Yastrzemski, Charleston, Stargell
25-49 pct for (5) KKelly, HRichardson, Rose, Caruthers, Suttles
10-24 pct for (16) Killebrew, Santop, Dihigo, McVey, Ewing, Greenberg, DAllen, Trouppe, GDavis, Wagner, Berra, McCovey, Spalding, JWard, DWhite, JRobinson

DH (0.90)
90+ pct (0) none
65-89 pct (0) none
50-64 pct (0) none
25-49 pct (0) none
10-24 pct (7) RJackson, Yastrzemski, TSimmons, FRobinson, DwEvans, BWilliams, DaEvans


P (54.64)
90+ pct (52) GAlexander, Covaleski, Faber, Plank, Vance, Grove, Hubbell, Lyons, Newhouser, Feller, Ruffing, Rixey, EWynn, Spahn, Roberts, Koufax, WFord, Drysdale, Bunning, Wilhelm, Marichal, Gibson, Waddell, BPierce, GPerry, Palmer, Jenkins, Seaver, Carlton, PNiekro, DSutton, Blyleven, RFoster, TFBrown, Mathewson, Walsh, SJWilliams, Young, BFoster, Paige, WJohnson, McGinnity, WFerrell, Lemon, Keefe, Nichols, Rusie, RBrown, Griffith, Clarkson, Galvin, Mendez
65-89 pct (3) Spalding, Radbourn, Caruthers
50-64 pct (0) none
25-49 pct (3) Rogan, Dihigo, JWard
10-24 pct (1) Ruth


Notice that in most cases, just adding up the 65 pct+ players is pretty close to the 'actual total.' But at 3B and especially 1B, there are a lot of guys who usually played elsewhere but also spent a slice of time at those spots.
   58. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 10, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2359834)
Couple thoughts on the borderline candidates:

Dale Murphy: If you think of him as a CF with strong corner tendencies, then I think his case may be substantially similar to Hack Wilson's and Wally Berger's. You're talking about a power-hitting guy with a very, very nice but not necessarily HOM-screaming 6-7 year prime, where he was primarily known as a hitter. In fact, I would put Murphy in a matrix like this to show the typology I'm talking about:

Browning/Wynn
---------------
Murphy, Berger, Wilson
---------------
Stan Spence

Of course those lines are arbitarily drawn and the players are closer than that.

Frank Tanana: I've already beaten a few dead horses about Tanana and Morris. So what's another view point? Let's look for long career lefties (3500+ innings), with ERA+ between 100 and 110.

.
 
NAME      INN   W-L   ERA+
---------------------------
[b]Tanana    4188 240-236 106[/b]
Koosman   3839 222
-209 110
Kaat      4530 283
-237 107
Pennock   3571 240
-162 106
Lolich    3638 217
-191 104
Reuss     3670 220
-191 100
Whitehill 3564 218
-185 100

Wells     3313 231
-149 109*
Moyer     3392 219-168 107*
*
Pretty closeso I figured I'd throw them in. 


So that's your peer group if you're Frank Tanana. Them and Jack Morris. ; )
   59. The Wilpons Must Go (Tom D) Posted: May 10, 2007 at 02:01 AM (#2359881)
Franco (the Hayes deal)

That was quite a long time ago. And we are quite a ways away from Julio being eligible for the HOM. With a semi-regular DH job 1998-2001, Franco would be making a run at 3000 hits.

I could never understand the relative value of
   60. The Wilpons Must Go (Tom D) Posted: May 10, 2007 at 02:17 AM (#2359894)
...the rookie cards of Ryan and Seaver. Ryan spent a good portion of his career as being other than the best pitcher on his own staff. That being said, he will be #3 on my ballot after Brett and Yount.

Alfredo Griffin. Griffin truly represents the triumph of image over substance.

No argument there. In the Abstracts, I remember Bill James rightfully blasting Griffin. In the Historical Abstract, the emphasis is placed on Griffin's fantastic baserunning. Bill seemed to forget that Alfredo was rarely on base.

The deal to Chicago was a great one for Stick Michael, bringing back Melido Perez, Bob Wickman, and Domingo Jean.

I can still hear Suzyn Waldman raving about Domingo Jean. That was an important deal for the Yankees since it represented a shift away from being compulsive exporters of young talent.

There are two guys eligible this year who were traded for Curt Schilling.

I am a big Bobby Ojeda fan. In 1986, he pitched in about six of the ten Mets games I saw that season. Years later, I visited camden yards and he came into IIRC his first game post boating accident.
   61. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 10, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2360178)
Hey, everyone, just a heads up, I'll be off-board until next Thursday or Friday. My twice-a-year business trip. Don't go electing any low-peak, 100-year candidates on me while I'm gone. ; )
   62. rawagman Posted: May 10, 2007 at 07:43 PM (#2360192)
1999 prelim

1)George Brett (PHOM)
2)Robin Yount (PHOM)
3)Nolan Ryan (PHOM)
4)Carlton Fisk
5)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
6)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
7)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
8)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
9)Charley Jones (PHOM)
10)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
11)Dale Murphy
12)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
13)Bob Johnson (PHOM)
14)Willie Randolph
15)Bobby Veach (PHOM)
16)Orlando Cepeda (PHOM)
17)Dave Stieb
18)Al Oliver
19)Tony Oliva
((19a)Dwight Evans))
20)Jack Clark
21)Jim Rice
22)Wally Berger
23)Dizzy Dean
24)Bus Clarkson
((24a)Darrell Evans))
25)Dan Quisenberry
26)Bruce Sutter
27)Ernie Lombardi
((27a)Jimmy Wynn))
28)Alejandro Oms
29)Reggie Smith
30)Dick Redding - (PHOM)
   63. Paul Wendt Posted: May 10, 2007 at 10:32 PM (#2360355)
23. OCF Posted: May 08, 2007 at 01:42 PM (#2358493)
I'll put my reply to #17 through #23 over on the Yount thread.

another muckraker


Remember when Johnny Vander Meer used to get HoF votes? Well, no, of course you don't. But he did. 18 innings as a peak? No.

sure i do.
and Don Larsen, for 9 innings.
and Lew Burdette, chiefly for three big games.


And today, those of us Cardinal fans living in NE Oklahoma don't have a local affiliate, and the Cardinals are no longer on KMOX but some short-range FM station...

I can jog to Fenway Park, or walk five minutes and take one city bus. Beginning this year, the Red Sox radiocast is on a station that doesn't tune in clearly.


61. Howie Menckel Posted: May 09, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2359806)
HOM by pct at position, thru 1998, tried a new format this time

Great!
In each row the players are ordered by share of games played at position, I suppose
   64. KJOK Posted: May 11, 2007 at 12:25 AM (#2360433)

"Missing years" by position (since 1876, through 1979):

C - 1893-1909; 1918-19; 1962

1B - 1907-10; 1912-14; 1952-54

2B - 1878; 1880-81; 1905

3B - 1889; 1906; 1947; 1949-51

SS - 1962-71; 1973-79+


A 3 year gap doesn't worry me, but C 1893-1909, 1B 1907-1914, 3B 1947-51, and SS 1962-1979 maybe need to be closely looked at?


My Updated Suggestions:

C - Bresnahan!!!!!!! (No one else even close)
1B- Chance (No one close here either)
3B - Bob Elliott or Al Rosen?
SS - Concepcion or Fregosi?
   65. Howie Menckel Posted: May 11, 2007 at 12:35 AM (#2360439)
"In each row the players are ordered by share of games played at position, I suppose."

Yes, so Kaline is listed first in "65 to 89 pct" for OFs because he was 89 pct, and so on...
   66. yest Posted: May 11, 2007 at 12:57 AM (#2360461)
Bresnahan!!!!!!! (No one else even close)

granted I'm usialy in the minority on these but I have Johnny Kling over Bresnahan
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 11, 2007 at 01:04 AM (#2360468)
C- Bresnahan, yes.
1B-Abstain.
3B-Abstain.
SS-Yount will cover 1974-1979; Bobby Grich is primarily a SS from 1970-1972 (though not always in lots of games), so that gap could just be 1962-1970, which is the time of almost-HOM-quality SS led by Fregosi, McAuliffe, Campeneris, Wills, and Aparicio.
   68. sunnyday2 Posted: May 11, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2360476)
Bresnahan is clearly the #1 option for those who hate gaps. After that, gotta love Rosen's peak though obviously he is not for everyone but which of them is? Heck, I'm not sure Campaneris isn't the best option at SS but it don't matter much to me.
   69. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 11, 2007 at 01:40 AM (#2360486)
THE BACKLOGGER'S SADDEST OF WORDS

These are the saddest of backlogger words:
"Brett and Yount and Fisk."
Trio of newbies, besting the hoardes,
Brett and Yount and Fisk.
Greedily hoarding elect-me positions
Giving the backlog fits of conniption --
Names they wished were merely a fiction:
"Brett and Yount and Fisk."
   70. Howie Menckel Posted: May 11, 2007 at 02:07 AM (#2360506)
Ok, I have it at 43 "Hall of Merit players not in Hall of Fame."

Top 25 non-Hall of Fame candidates for Hall of Merit, with 1998 HOM voting rank in parentheses: Dick Redding (4th), Willie Randolph (5th), Pete Browning (6th), Bucky Walters (7th), Bob Johnson (10th), Gavvy Cravath (12th), Charley Jones (13th), Dave Stieb (15th), Alejandro Oms (16th), Tommy Leach (17th), George Van Haltren (18th), Ken Singleton (19th), Graig Nettles (23rd), Norm Cash (25th), Larry Doyle (26th), Bus Clarkson (28th), Reggie Smith (29th), Rusty Staub (30th), Bobby Bonds (31st), Tommy Bridges (34th), Bob Elliott (35th), Luis Tiant (36th), Elston Howard (37th), Vern Stephens (40th), Tommy John (41st).

The top 4 backloggers seem to have a good shot eventually. And 8 others in the top 20 overall still will hope for a final push as we run out of ballots.
Also, don't forget Gossage, Whitaker, and Trammell, who head a group of quality 'not-eligible yet non-HOMers' who will be formidable. We should clear the 50 mark for this category.
..................

And what of "Hall of Fame, but thus far denied by the Hall of Merit"
I count 56.

Top 20 Hall of Fame candidates for Hall of Merit, 1998 HOM voting rank in parentheses: Rollie Fingers (8th), Roger Bresnahan (9th), Hugh Duffy (11th), Tony Perez (14th), Burleigh Grimes (20th), Mickey Welch (21st), Lou Brock (22nd), Phil Rizzuto (24th), Vic Willis (27th), Dizzy Dean (32nd), John McGraw (33rd), Orlando Cepeda (37th), Ben Taylor (39th), Pie Traynor (42nd), Dave Bancroft (44th), Chuck Klein (46th), Addie Joss (48th), Sam Rice (56th), Frank Chance (60th), Rabbit Maranville (64th).

A weaker bunch, to be sure. Will any of them get in?
Then there's Puckett. Does he join this category?
   71. Howie Menckel Posted: May 11, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2360580)
A little 19th-century action:

We're done with the 1856-70 period.
HOMers by year (10 G minimum or equivalent): 1/1/1/1/2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8/9
In order of appearance: Pearce, Start, GWright, Pike, Barnes, Spalding, DWhite, McVey, ESutton
................

The National Association era of 1871-75 also is done (unless we elect CJones, who had 13 G in 1875):
HOMers by year: 10/12/12/12/12
Same 9 as above, and introducing Anson, Hines, O'Rourke
.................

HOMers by year, 1876-81, NL the only league and only Jones can add to this: 12/11/12/16/17/20
Welcome KKelly,JWard, Bennett, Gore, Brouthers, Glasscock, Richardson, Galvin, Keefe, Ewing, Connor, Stovey, Radbourn - and say goodbye to most of the pioneers.
.................

HOMers per year, 1882-89, NL plus AA plus Negro league pioneer: 21/20/22/23/24/23/26/26
Say hello to NLers Clarkson, Thompson, Delahanty, Beckley, and Rusie - and McPhee, Stovey, Caruthers, and Hamilton from AA, and Grant the pioneer.
...................

HOMers in 1890: 15 Players League, 14 NL, 1 AA, 1 pioneer
New entrants include Nichols, Burkett, GDavis, Young.
.................

HOMers in 1891: 27 NL, 5 AA, 1 pioneer
Say hello to Childs, Dahlen, Kelley.
.................

HOMers in 1892-94: 32/29/24, includes Grant
Keeler, Jennings, and Clarke join the mix.
.................

HOMers in 1895-99: 25/24/23/23/24
Welcome JCollins, Wallace, Lajoie, Wagner, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, McGinnity, and Waddell as they herald the new NL era, while HR Johnson joins the pioneer group.
..............

Browning would be an 1882-89 AA guy (ironic, uh?), plus another 1890 PL guy, and NL 1891-93.
Duffy would be 1888-89 NL, another 1890 PL guy, and NL 1891-99.
CJones would be NA 1875, NL 1876-80, and AA 1883-87.
Leach would be NL 1899.
Van Haltren would be 1887-89 NL, another 1890 PL guy, 1891 AA, and NL 1892-99.
...........

If we don't elect any of these, the tally for 1856-99 would be:
1/1/1/1/2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8/9/10/12/12/12/12/12/11/12/16/17/20/21/20/22/23/24/23/26/26/31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24



(Can you tell my wife's out of town? :) )
   72. DL from MN Posted: May 11, 2007 at 01:54 PM (#2360709)
> 3B 1947-51

Bus Clarkson

> 1B - 1907-10; 1912-14

Ben Taylor
   73. KJOK Posted: May 11, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2360957)
3B 1947-51

Bus Clarkson

> 1B - 1907-10; 1912-14

Ben Taylor


Yes, I should have added Clarkson to Elliott and Rosen.

Taylor didn't become a full-time 1B until 1913 I think, so although I like his candidacy, he was still playing regularly in 1928, which somewhat puts him in a different era from Chance...
   74. Cblau Posted: May 13, 2007 at 01:59 AM (#2362173)
HOMers in 1890: 15 Players League, 14 NL, 1 AA, 1 pioneer
Alright, I give. Who was the HOMer playing in the AA in 1890?
   75. Chris Cobb Posted: May 13, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2362187)
The HoMer in the AA in 1890 is Cupid Childs.
   76. Howie Menckel Posted: May 13, 2007 at 03:12 AM (#2362200)
Major League HOMers by year since 1900, min 10 G:

1900s: 21/24/23/20/23/24/22/23/23/23, avg 22.6, plus NeL 3.5, total 26.1
1910s: 22/21/20/22/23/19/26/22/18/20, avg 21.3, plus NeL 7.2, total 28.5
1920s: 18/20/22/21/25/29/33/32/32/30, avg 26.2, plus NeL 14.3, total 40.5
1930s: 27/28/31/31/28/28/27/28/27/27, avg 28.2, plus NeL 13.7, total 41.9
1940s: 30/29/27/18/11/11/23/27/28/28, avg 23.2, plus NeL 9.4, total 32.6
1950s: 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32, avg 30.1............... total 30.1
1960s: 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/35/36, avg 34.5................total 34.5
1970s: 37/35/37/35/35/33/31/27/23/23, avg 31.6................total 31.6
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: May 13, 2007 at 03:39 AM (#2362212)
aside from 1943-46, the MLB avg for the 1940s is 28.2, same as the 1930s, fwiw.
   78. Paul Wendt Posted: May 13, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2362403)
11/23 in '45-46 is easy to understand but
19/26 in '15-16 is not. Do you not count the Federal League. Even so, 19/26/22 is a curiosity.
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: May 13, 2007 at 06:17 PM (#2362518)
Good catch, Paul:

1914 was 8 NL, 12 AL, 2 FL - 22
1915 was 9 NL, 10 AL, 3 FL - 22

So it SHOULD be 1910s: 1910s: 22/21/20/22/22/22/26/22/18/20, avg 21.5, plus NeL 7.2, total 28.5
I had added the 3 FL to the 1914 total, and... well, at project's end all of this will be thoroughly reviewed. Probably 95 pct right, but not 100 to be sure.

1916 saw the adds of Heilmann and Covaleski, a one-year comeback by Wallace, etc. Mathewson and Brown were done between 1916-17, etc.
Then you have WW I with some impact in 1918-19.
   80. Howie Menckel Posted: May 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2362521)
avg 21.5, plus NeL 7.2, total 28.7
well, you get the general picture.
I've gotta run, will look closer later.
   81. Mike Webber Posted: May 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM (#2362885)
Signerd Picture of Andy Cooper

Just in case anyone is curious what Cooper looked like pitching, or has a couple thousand extra bucks around and needs something new for their den wall.
   82. Juan V Posted: May 14, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2363511)
I'm still rejiggering the pitcher rankings (right now, I'm giving a bit more weight to the uberstats for them). Also, I am now considering the outfield corners to have the same offensive baseline, which changes the ranking for those guys.

So, TEH PRELIMZZZ

1) Robin Yount
2) George Brett
3) Carlton Fisk
4) Nolan Ryan
5) Gavvy Cravath
6) Bus Clarkson
7) Luis Tiant
8) Willie Randolph
9) Charley Jones
10) Roger Bresnahan
11) Ale Oms
12) Tony Lazzeri
13) David Concepción
14) Vic Willis
15) Ben Taylor

Dale Murphy is very close to the ballot, about 18th.
   83. DL from MN Posted: May 14, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2363563)
I think it is a bit troubling that the participation level is waning as we get closer to modern times. I think the commish should send out e-mails to everyone who ever participated asking if they want a final say in the process before it ends. There's 7-10 backlog players to elect and I want a wide range of opinion to elect them. Also, I'd encourage people to post a prelim with the instruction that it be counted if they're going to be out the week of the election on vacation. That gives a 3 week window to vote.
   84. Sean Gilman Posted: May 14, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2363616)
I blame the 3 week cycle. It's a momentum killer.
   85. TomH Posted: May 14, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2363629)
Agree with Sean. It looks like after missing 4 days of discussion, I've missed very very little. I know that with an extra week, I can afford to not check in often, so I don't sometimes. Would prefer going back to voting every 2 weeks.
   86. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 14, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2363659)
There's obviously going to be less discussion with the newer guys because most of us remember them when they when they played. IOW, if we working with the 19th century and NeL guys with the 3-week cycle, I doubt we would have any less posts than we actually had and most likely would have had more.
   87. DanG Posted: May 14, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2363664)
I blame the 3 week cycle.

Classic Harold Hill, casting the newest thing as the hoodoo.

It's natural dissipation. There's been a creeping malaise here for decades which is best counteracted by the infusion of fresh energy, new people, innovative changes. Our tendency has been to shun such things, resulting in us grinding to an end rather than sprinting to a successful culmination.

Rather than a conservative tack of turning back the clock, we should be seeking a progressive way forward. (Sorry if that carries political undertones for some.)
   88. Chris Cobb Posted: May 14, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2363686)
It's natural dissipation. There's been a creeping malaise here for decades which is best counteracted by the infusion of fresh energy, new people, innovative changes. Our tendency has been to shun such things, resulting in us grinding to an end rather than sprinting to a successful culmination.

I think it's mostly that it's spring and there's a group of shoo-ins on the ballot. There's a fairly high percentage of academics (students, profs) in the group, I think, so end-of-semester puts a damper on many, plus now there's baseball to watch, gardens to put in, and so on.

That said, I agree with Dan G that the group has become less responsive to new ideas and approaches. Dan R's data deserves more attention than it has been getting. Brent's work on Carlos Moran deserves more attention (how many people will take it into account for their next ballot?).

Part of the difficulty, of course, is that any change to an evaluation system now needs to be applied to a group of 100+ players, which is quite labor-intensive, especially for those of us who are not database-enabled. (I shudder to think about what I would do if I hadn't at least become conversant with spreadsheets during the course of the project.)

But part of it is that those of us who have been through 50-100 elections together know where each of us stands on a whole lot of things: we're past the point of needing to discuss to understand what's going on. In some ways our steadiness serves the goals of the project: our evaluative criteria are clearly defined and consistently applied over many elections. But in terms of making the electorate and its discussions lively and exciting, steadiness is not so valuable.

I don't despair, though, since metadiscussions can still get us going :-), even during a slow year.
   89. Sean Gilman Posted: May 14, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2363699)
Classic Harold Hill, casting the newest thing as the hoodoo.

It's natural dissipation. There's been a creeping malaise here for decades which is best counteracted by the infusion of fresh energy, new people, innovative changes. Our tendency has been to shun such things, resulting in us grinding to an end rather than sprinting to a successful culmination.

Rather than a conservative tack of turning back the clock, we should be seeking a progressive way forward. (Sorry if that carries political undertones for some.


I was going to respond to this, but I guess I don't have to for another week or two.
   90. Juan V Posted: May 14, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2363728)
Except for 1998, the participation in the actual voting hasn't really declined (or so I percieve). So, maybe the thing is that we already know plenty about each other. Some new blood would be nice. Lurkers, come in!!!
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: May 14, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2363747)
So I only need to come up with a Top 11, eh?
Maybe that feature is worth promoting in that email to lapsed voters: ease your back when the burden is low!
   92. mulder & scully Posted: May 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2363801)
I have been doing some research about Ryan in 1987. I am not finished yet (the whole two jobs and daddy daycare thing), but I have found some interesting stuff. This is all from Retrosheet. Some things to remember: 1987 was the little year of the hitter; the Astros allowed only a 2.88 ERA at home, but a 4.89 ERA on the road; Ryan only a little better than his teammates at home (2.21 vs 2.88), but much better on the road (
   93. mulder & scully Posted: May 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2363802)
dammn, i hit submit way too early.
   94. TDF, situational idiot Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:06 PM (#2363821)
Lurkers, come in!!!


I'll give it a shot. I've stated in previous lurking posts that I'm not 100% comfortable comparing non-supergreat players across eras and especially across leagues, but I read alot of the ballot threads.

I probably won't come up with any earthshattering insight, but who knows?
   95. sunnyday2 Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:10 PM (#2363826)
What's the evidence of malaise?

Hypothesis A: Not much discussion this week (of course, it's Monday, but assuming it continues like today). And I mean, this week. Last week there was a ton of discussion. Look at the Nolan Ryan thread, FC. For years, we had one week of discussion, now we have two. It's pretty much all been said. No malaise here, just 2 pounds of stuff and, now, all of a sudden we've got an actual 2 pound bag.

Hypthesis B: Fewer ballots the past couple weeks. No idea if there's a malaise. Who didn't vote? Do we know why in any case? Are they coming back? Do they hate our guts? As for the project as a whole, if we stay above 45 ballots, nobody will question the results.

Hypothesis C: Failure to debate Carlos Moran and SDs. Well, I looked at Moran and sure he's an interesting find. Ballot worthy? That's a stretch. As for SDs, I'm still trying to understand how anyone knows what direction causation is flowing.
   96. mulder & scully Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM (#2363841)
I have been doing some research about Ryan in 1987. I am not finished yet (the whole two jobs and daddy daycare thing), but I have found some interesting stuff. This is all from Retrosheet. Some things to remember: 1987 was the little year of the hitter; the Astros allowed only a 2.88 ERA at home, but a 4.89 ERA on the road; Ryan only a little better than his teammates at home (2.21 vs 2.88), but much better on the road (3.41 vs 4.89); the Astros offense had little difference in runs at home or away (4.1 at home and 3.9 on the road). The Astros had a massive home field advantage: 47-34 at home vs. 29-52 on the road.

Ryan's game log that year:
date / home or away / IP / astros runs when Ryan is in / Ryan's runs allowed / Ryan's result
4-08: home, 7, 7, 3, W (all Astros runs in 7th)
4-13: away, 6, 1, 3, L
4-18: away, 4.2, 0, 1, L (bullpen gave up 6 runs, Astros never scored)
4-25: home, 8, 0, 0, ND (Cin scored 3 in top 10th off reliever, Astros never scored)

5-01: road, 6.2, 10, 1, W
5-06: road, 6, 2, 2, ND (Astros won in 9th)
5-11: home, 7, 5, 3, ND (bullpen gave up 4 runs in 8th)
5-16: home, 6, 1, 2, L (Jamie Moyer was opposing starter)
5-22: home, 6.2, 1, 3, L (Astros scored 4 runs after Ryan left. Astros bullpen gave up 4 runs too)
5-27: home, 6, 1, 2, ND (Astros scored 4 runs in bottom 7th)

I have to do real work now, but so far Ryan and his opponent are pitching equally well (except for Atlanta). Neither gives up many hits and Ryan strikes out more, but baserunners are scarce for both teams. So far, Houston is not hitting poorly with RISP, they just are not hitting. That happens some years for pitchers. Post more later.
   97. OCF Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:28 PM (#2363874)
In 1998, Ken Singleton appeared on 13 ballots, including one "elect-me" vote, and got 136 points. Jack Clark appeared on 5 ballots for 59 points. Frank Howard appeared on 6 ballots for 48 points.

Singleton appeared in 2082 games in 15 seasons, and had 8558 PA with a career OPS+ of 132. He had excellent in-season durability, with 12 consecutive year of 142+ games (or the strike-adjusted equivalent.). He played about 1550 games in the outfield, mostly in right field, settling at DH for his last three seasons ad part of the previous year. He never played 1B. He played for 10 years in DH leagues.

Clark appeared in 1994 games in 18 seasons, and had 8225 PA with a career OPS+ of 137. He was notoriously injury-prone, with numerous seasons of 135 games or fewer. He played about 1050 games in the outfield, mostly in right field, then moved to 1B for 581 games, and finished with 311 games of DH. He played for 3 years in DH leagues.

Howard appeared in 1895 games in 16 seasons. A little bit of that was in 154-game seasons but he wasn't really an everyday player until the 162 game season arrived. He had 7353 PA with a career OPS+ of 142. He played about 1450 games in the outfield, with more LF than RF, followed by 334 games at 1B and 76 at DH. He played one partial season in a DH league. It looks like he had good in-season durability, once he actually won a full-time job. He played for 1 partial season in a DH league.

On my 1998 ballot, I had Clark > Howard > Singleton. I probably need to reexamine that to some extent. Here's my context-adjusted RCAA system:

Clark 76 58 49 44 43 37 34 33 31 25 25 19 14 11 2 -1 -1 -4
Singleton 68 63 55 47 46 43 30 25 19 17 15 11 2 2-25
Howard 72 71 63 46 41 40 36 35 25 12 12 8 3 0 -1 -1[\pre]

And Clark looks very good on that. But there are three problems.

1. By working against average, the system has always been too friendly to players with playing time issues. Frank Chance and John McGraw look terrific in this system; I've always shied away from them over playing time issues. Clark does have at least parts of 18 seasons, and he has more good RCAA seasons then the others, but I don't think I penalized him enough for the time he missed during seasons.

2. I think I wound up taking sums in a way to excessively penalize Singleton for that -25, his dreadful final season. I should pay less attention to that.

3. I'm not comfortable with the adjustment I'm making for DH leagues. I am making an adjustment - I'm just not sure it's big enough. That's why I recorded the number of seasons in DH leagues - if I were to increase the size of the adjustment, that would adjust Singleton upward compared to the other two.

Ultimately, probably none of the three is a HoMer. They're here for their bats, not their gloves. Clark probably had the best mobility of the three when he was young, although that was gone by the end of his career. Howard was probably the worst fielder of the three.

Upon staring at this and thinking about playing time issues, I'm inclined to adjust my order. I don't really have a problem with Singleton drawing the best support of this group, and I think from now on I'll go Singleton > Clark > Howard.
   98. OCF Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2363882)
Ack - where's the edit button? Don't we get an edit button now?
   99. OCF Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:30 PM (#2363888)
stuff 


Did that work?
   100. OCF Posted: May 14, 2007 at 11:31 PM (#2363895)
Clark     76 58 49 44 43 37 34 33 31 25 25 19 14 11  2 ---4
Singleton 68 63 55 47 46 43 30 25 19 17 15 11  2  2
-25
Howard    72 71 63 46 41 40 36 35 25 12 12  8  3  0 
--


?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7188 seconds
49 querie(s) executed