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, May 28, 2007

2000 Ballot Discussion

2000 (Jun 18)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

233 95.3 1973 Charlie Hough-P
225 90.2 1978 Jack Morris-P
223 89.9 1972 Rich Gossage-RP
230 80.7 1982 Kent Hrbek-1B
237 75.7 1978 Willie Wilson-CF
187 76.8 1982 Frank Viola-P*
188 75.6 1978 Bob Welch-P
202 59.4 1983 Kevin McReynolds-LF
190 58.6 1980 Lonnie Smith-LF
175 62.4 1982 Tom Brunansky-RF
157 61.1 1980 Jeff Reardon-RP
153 57.4 1979 Rick Sutcliffe-P
144 60.0 1982 Bruce Hurst-P
160 51.0 1981 Dave Henderson-CF
149 40.5 1981 Hubie Brooks-RF/3B
126 45.9 1980 Bill Gullickson-P
123 47.1 1985 Harold Reynolds-2B
120 36.2 1983 Gary Redus-LF
100 44.1 1985 Teddy Higuera-P

HoMers
Age Elected

84 1957 Joe DiMaggio-CF
81 1964 Pee Wee Reese-SS
79 1969 Early Wynn-P

Candidates
Age Eligible

91 1951 Whit Wyatt-P
86 1958 Birdie Tebbets-C
82 1956 Harry Walker-CF
82 1959 Eddie Stanky-2B
81 1955 Whitey Kurowski-3B
81 1959 Pat Mullin-RF/LF
71 1972 Joe Adcock-1B
68 1968 Vinegar Bend Mizell-P
63——Cal Ripken, Sr.-Manager
53 1985 Catfish Hunter-P

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 28, 2007 at 12:07 AM | 135 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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2383748)
Ryan and Gossage will easily go in, as they should. I guess Randolph will be the third inductee.
   2. karlmagnus Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2383794)
Gossage's ERA+ was only 125; he's not Mariano by a long chalk, let alone Wilhelm. Hoffman too is at 149. For me, he's just off the ballot -- not quite as dominant as one remembers him. Yes, I think I'm happy with very few relievers in the HOM -- nothing between Wilhelm and Rivera/Hoffman, though Gossage is certainly borderline.
   3. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:26 AM (#2383851)
Gossage's ERA+ was only 125; he's not Mariano by a long chalk, let alone Wilhelm. Hoffman too is at 149.


I'll agree, he's no Rivera, but Hoffman? That 149 ERA+ of Hoffman's has come in a little over 900 innings. Through 1983, Gossage had thrown over 1200 innings at ~165. It's not close, by those metrics anyway.

Throw out the one season in which he was misused as a starter (how would Hoffman's or Rivera's ERA+ suffer if used for 225 innings as a starter?), and he's in Rivera territory; 1000 innings at 181.
   4. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:37 AM (#2383883)
Yeah, I like ERA+, but that's a blatant misuse of it if I've ever seen one.

These 1990s-2000s 'closers' better bring a tidy ERA+, only having to pitch 1 IP and leaving runners stranded whenever they lose games.

Gossage's job was WAY tougher than theirs.
Doesn't mean they can't overcome it, value-wise, but let's keep it all in perspective.
   5. OCF Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:48 AM (#2383923)
My RA+ system was never meant to apply to relievers. For Gossage, it gives a career equivalent record of 124-77. Wilhelm was 158-92. Some starters, just for the sake of calibration: Dean 136-82, Newcombe (adjusted for his hitting) 143-97. Maglie 117-75. Oh, and Firpo Marberry 134-96. For 1975-1979, his year-by-year equivalent record was 12-3, 12-13, 12-2, 10-5. I understand that it makes things neater to take that 12-13 (1976) out if his record, but I regard it as a slight positive and would rather leave it in. I haven't done this for Hoffman or Rivera.
   6. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:08 AM (#2384109)
Yes, coming to you now, for a 3-week engagement, at a website near you, the Hall of Merit is proud to present: Are We Really Going To Elect Willie Randolph?

Really? Are we?
   7. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:47 AM (#2384129)
We did elect Nellie Fox...who is inferior to his positional peer Randolph in just about everything. Then again, he's also inferior to everyone else in nearly everything...I know, I know, I'm a sore loser. I just can't stop harping.
   8. CraigK Posted: May 30, 2007 at 05:00 AM (#2384134)
I might start voting again here; this is the time I really started getting into baseball and the like.

(Sue me, I was 12.)


Lessee... Jack Morris because he just knew how to win, and a write in vote for David Eckstein.

(kidding. I haven't yet looked over who I'll vote for.)

On another note, Hough threw an average of 192 IP with a pretty much league average ERA+ for the 7 seasons he pitched from 40 on.

Even for a knuckleballer, that's pretty cool.
   9. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: May 30, 2007 at 12:13 PM (#2384214)
As an ardent supporter of Pete Browning, I wouldn't be upset if he sneaks in over Willie - but Dan R's point is a good one. Now Fox did have to wait approx. 40 yrs, though. All I know is if anyone has Fingers over Gossage, I'm going to scream bloody murder, like I did when a few had Fox over Grich.
   10. Howie Menckel Posted: May 30, 2007 at 01:01 PM (#2384237)
I have Fingers higher than most, but Gossage likely will be higher still.
   11. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 30, 2007 at 01:49 PM (#2384271)
(Sue me, I was 12.)

Does that make you currently a 19-20 year old or a 30 year old? (couldn't tell if you were referring to 2000 or the Jack Morris era.
   12. DL from MN Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2384305)
2000 Prelim ballot

1) Nolan Ryan
2) Luis Tiant
3) Goose Gossage

Tiant and Gossage are very close in the spreadsheet. I'm pretty sure I'll flip-flop them on the final ballot. Tiant has the career bulk of guys like John, Kaat and Tanana and the top seasons that they don't have. Conversely he has the all-star seasons to rival Reuschel, Bridges, Redding and Walters but more career bulk. He doesn't have the peak of Stieb or Dean but those guys don't have anything outside of their peak.

4) Bus Clarkson
5) Bob Johnson
6) Tommy Bridges
7) Willie Randolph - put him in
8) Norm Cash - Cepeda + defense
9) Graig Nettles - Very similar to Randolph
10) Tony Perez
11) Buddy Bell
12) Ron Cey
13) Rick Reuschel
14) Reggie Smith
15) Rusty Staub
16-20) Virgil Trucks, Gavy Cravath, Bob Elliott, Ben Taylor, Jack Clark
21-25) Tommy John, Orlando Cepeda, Frank Tanana, Dutch Leonard, Dave Bancroft
26-30) Tommy Leach, Bobby Bonds, Thurman Munson, Dick Redding, Johnny Evers
31-35) Jack Quinn, Vic Willis, Ken Singleton, Urban Shocker, Luke Easter
36-40) Rollie Fingers, Dizzy Trout, Lave Cross, Fred Dunlap, Carlos Moran
41-45) Darrell Porter, Hilton Smith, Frank Howard, Alejandro Oms, Charley Jones
46-50) Pete Browning, Tony Lazzeri, Roger Bresnahan, Jerry Koosman, Jim McCormick

120) Charlie Hough
141) Jack Morris
   13. rawagman Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2384315)
John wrote teh other day about the possibility about putting up a few more threads for other various candidates - in the interest of added discussion with minimal sidebar clutter, how about a joint thread for Mrs' Viola, Welch, Sutcliffe and possible Reardon?
All solid pitchers who had some BIG years but probably not enough all-round to be serious candidates.
   14. Juan V Posted: May 30, 2007 at 02:41 PM (#2384332)
Wow. A pretty long career (at least by reliever standard) and a redonkulous peak for Goose. Might be #1.
   15. rawagman Posted: May 30, 2007 at 03:07 PM (#2384375)
2000 prelim - I had Ryan ahead of Fisk last year, so Fisk joins the PHOM, as do Gossage and Dale Murphy.
1)Nolan Ryan (PHOM)
((1a)Carlton Fisk)) (PHOM)
2)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
3)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
4)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
5)Rich Gossage (PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Charley Jones (PHOM)
8)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
9)Dale Murphy (PHOM)
10)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
11)Bob Johnson (PHOM)
12)Willie Randolph
13)Bobby Veach (PHOM)
14)Orlando Cepeda (PHOM)
15)Dave Stieb
The super scrubs
16)Al Oliver
17)Tony Oliva
((17a)Dwight Evans))
18)Jack Clark
19)Jim Rice
20)Wally Berger
21)Dizzy Dean
22)Bus Clarkson
((22a)Darrell Evans))
23)Dan Quisenberry
24)Bruce Sutter
25)Ernie Lombardi
((25a)Jimmy Wynn))
26)Alejandro Oms
27)Reggie Smith
28)Dick Redding (PHOM)
29)Ron Guidry
30)Al Rosen
   16. DL from MN Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2384437)
I like the idea of a Viola, Welch, Sutcliffe combined thread.

Now we're getting to names I remember really well: Viola, Brunansky, Reardon, Hrbek, Jack Morris. The A's were big rivals then so Welch and Dave Henderson ring a bell also.
   17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2384445)
I like the idea of a Viola, Welch, Sutcliffe combined thread.


Sounds good to me. I'll set it up sometime today.
   18. Juan V Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2384452)
Morris and Hough don't look like they will make my ballot, so... Pre-Prelim:

1) Goose
2) Ryan
3) Cravath
4) Clarkson
5) Tiant
6) Randolph
7) Jones
8) Bresnahan
9) Oms
10) Lazzeri
11) Concepción
12) V. Willis
13) Taylor
14) Perez
15) Fingers
   19. DL from MN Posted: May 30, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2384468)
Stieb's in the top 10 now, so I'll dive in. I don't see enough career value there. He was very good for several years but not much outside of that. I have him 53rd and in order to move up you'd have to convince me that a PRAA was worth more in 1980 than at any other time in history. Even then that's going to help Reuschel, Tanana, John and Fingers who I have ranked higher among contemporaries.

I think Dick Redding was better (higher peak) in a comparable length career but Stieb is a LOT better choice than Bucky Walters. He's got better numbers than Walters and put them up against tougher competition. Stieb at 191 points and Walters at 199 is basically a tie. Overall I'd consider Stieb a marginal choice but not a mistake. Jack Morris has nothing but playing time on Stieb.

BTW - Nolan Ryan should get strike credit for his fantastic 1981.
   20. mulder & scully Posted: May 30, 2007 at 07:35 PM (#2384711)
Thought I would respond to DL's questions about Welch over in the current year's thread.

Welch is an anomaly in my system. Before I voted in the HoM, I did some research about three players whose performance was lower than I expected: Joss, Beckley, and Mickey Welch. Beckley made my first few ballots before I developed my current formula. I broke down the careers of Joss and Welch game by game using Retrosheet. Joss never made my ballot because he lacked the durability that pitchers of his era had. When I looked at Welch, I had a huge surprise. Against HoM pitchers (Radbourn, Galvin, Clarkson, Rusie, Ward, Caruthers, Nichols), he finished 62-38. I stopped doing game-by-game breakdowns when I got into grad school, but these were the records I accumulated:

Brown: 19-13
Clarkson: 33-30
Coveleski: 14-13
Faber: 9-20
Galvin: 42-52
Griffith: 12-19
Joss: 18-16
Keefe: 42-40
McCormick: 42-47
McGinnity: 8-13
Radbourn: 41-39
Rixey (incomplete, based on 1912-15, 1917-25): 5-9
Rusie: 19-26
Shocker: 14-13
Waddell: 15-15
Walsh: 14-7
Willis: 13-19

Welch had an overall winning record whether his opponent's team finished higher than New York or lower.

Next, I looked at Welch, his defense, and his ERA+ which is lower than his compatriots. Some will argue pitching was less important pre-1893 and that a person's success was dependent upon his defense. Caruthers, Radbourn, and Clarkson had wonderful defenses behind them most every year. Galvin didn't. Keefe's teams when he was not pitching for the NY NL club were very good. Welch's and Keefe's while on the "Giants" were not usually up to the level of Chicago and Boston and Providence. To me it made sense then if Welch had generally poorer defensive support, then his ERA+ would be lower.

Anyway, looking at how Welch did against other HoMers and at the defensive advantages other pitchers had, I didn't see a large enough gap between those pitchers who had been elected and Welch for Welch not to be elected. Then I worked up mock ballots back to 1898 and Welch would have made his way to the top of my personal backlog rather soon.

So, yes, I agree that he doesn't fit the big prime I usually espouse, but when a player does that well, that often against HoMers I think there is something there that numbers don't catch.
   21. CraigK Posted: May 30, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2384736)
(Sue me, I was 12.)

Does that make you currently a 19-20 year old or a 30 year old? (couldn't tell if you were referring to 2000 or the Jack Morris era.


20 right now.
   22. OCF Posted: May 30, 2007 at 08:59 PM (#2384830)
Three starting pitchers from three different generations have worked themselves near enough to the top of the backlog that their election may be imminent: Stieb, Walters, and Redding. Perhaps it's time to remind ourselves about what the arguments for and against each of these men are. (And where newbies like Morris and Hough should be placed in comparison.) Similarly, with Gossage on the agenda, is there anything new to say about Fingers?
   23. Chris Fluit Posted: May 30, 2007 at 09:37 PM (#2384865)
17. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM (#2384445)

I like the idea of a Viola, Welch, Sutcliffe combined thread.

Sounds good to me. I'll set it up sometime today.

Thanks.
   24. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2385283)
Players Passing Away in 1999
HoMers


This section is missing from the header.
   25. jimd Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2385290)
Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age 92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; died, age 83)
1972 -- Red Faber (age 83; died, age 88)
1976 -- Stan Coveleski (age 87; died, age 94)
1984 -- Bill Terry (age 85)
1985 -- Joe Sewell (elected, age 86; died, age 91)
1990 -- Charlie Gehringer (age 86; died, age 89)
1993 -- Buck Leonard (age 86; died, age 90)
1997 -- Joe DiMaggio (age 83; died, age 84)
1999 -- Enos Slaughter (age 82; )
   26. Cblau Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:32 AM (#2385573)
This thing with Welch's W-L record against HoM pitchers I also don't get. How is it relevant? That just means that his record against non-HoM pitchers is worse than expected. Does beating John Clarkson and then losing games against guys like Al Mays and Billy Mountjoy somehow help your team win a pennant?
   27. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2385591)
I'll admit it, part of my objection to Randolph's election is that it doesn't "feel" right. He seems like too borderline a candidate to go in so quickly. I realize the backlog has been worn down, but we're comparing him to Nellie Fox, and Fox took a long time to go in.

Another thing is, the 2 people who get pegged most for comparisons to Randolph are Beckley and Fox. But both of those guys had legitimate positional scarcity arguments. Randolph does not - he's got Morgan and Grich at the start of his career, Whitaker at the same time, and Alomar and Biggio overlapping at the end. I know most people reject positional scarcity arguments, but that is a distinct difference between the candidacies.

I just killed an hour doing this, so I'm posting it. For the first 5 regular seasons of Randolph's Career (1976-80), I totaled up the games/position by HoMers (including the assumed HoMers of Henderson, Molitor, Murray, Smith, Trammell, Whitaker and Winfield). Here's what I got (anybody with <20 games isn't listed, but is included in the total.

C - 2653 (Carter 645, Simmons 641, Bench 601, Fisk 592, Freehan 174)
1B - 3756 (Hernandez 743, Carew 657, Murray 510, Stargell 445, McCovey 400, Rose 323, Yastrzemski 218, Da. Evans 160, Allen 135, Torre 94, Simmons 30)
2B - 1977 (Morgan 659, Grich 583, Whitaker 414, Molitor 304) (Randolph has 696, nothing elsewhere)
SS - 1753 (Yount 721, Smith 472, Trammell 444, Molitor 53, Grich 52)
3B - 2513 (Schmidt 754, Brett 681, Da. Evans 501, Rose 476, B. Robinson 86)
LF - 791 (Yastrzemski 322, Henderson 219, Wynn 96, Da. Evans 81, Simmons 35)
CF - 249 (Winfield 114, Wynn 50, Henderson 33, Dw. Evans 26)
RF - 1958 (Winfield 706, Dw. Evans 627, Jackson 561, Carter 34)
DH - 753 (Yastrzemski 148, Murray 115, Jackson 113, B. Williams 106, Aaron 74, Fisk 49, Carew 39, Wynn 30)

The total for the "fielders" (C, 2b, SS, 3B) is 8896.

The total for the "hitters" (1b, OF, DH) is 7507. That actually doesn't look as bad as I expected, because I forgot how many 1B there were at this time. But it is obvious that if there is a lack here, it's outfielders. Not that this is news.

Again, positional scarcity issues may not mean much to people. But I do think that at this point, we'd be better served selecting a 70's OF than Randolph. (I suspect a fair amount of people agree with me, just not so much on which 70's OF.) I mean, looking at the list, over a 5-year period, you basically have 4 1/2 OF - Reggie, Dwight, Yaz, Winfield and some Rickey, while Randolph would make it 4 1/2 2Bmen. I know that's over-simplified, because Stargell had moved to first, Rose had moved back to the infield, you've got a few hundred games from other guys. I know that C and 3B are also well-stocked, but all the catchers are not borderline, and the strength at 3B is illustrated by 5 decent candidates who aren't inducted. The next best 2B after Randolph is Davey Lopes, who isn't bad, but is behind Nettles, Bando, Cey, etc.

Sorry if this was a bit unfocused, I just feel tired tonight. And I know it's not that rigorous, but it's like I said at the top, I do understand the argument for Randolph, but I just don't feel right about it. So my argument's going to be a little loose.
   28. rawagman Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:16 AM (#2385695)
That CF does look light - are people not taking the extended peak/prime of Dale Murphy seriously enough? Was Murphy all that different from Jimmy Wynn?
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: May 31, 2007 at 10:55 AM (#2385792)
Well, was Reggie Smith all that different from Jimmy Wynn? Hopefully we're not going to elect everybody who comps Jimmy Wynn!
   30. Rusty Priske Posted: May 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM (#2385840)
Prelim

PHoM: Ryan, Randolph, B.Johnson

1. Ryan
2. Perez
3. Randolph
4. Van Haltren
5. Brock
6. Leach
7. Staub
8. Welch
9. Duffy
10. Nettles
11. Cash
12. R.Smith
13. Singleton
14. B.Johnson
15. Redding

16-20. Cepeda, Bonds, Browning, Doyle, Willis
21-25. Murphy, Grimes, S.Rice, Clark, Streeter
26-30. McCormick, Strong, Greene, Gleason, W.Davis

Obviously I am not a big advocate of Goose. Really I'm not a big advocate of relievers. This extends to the current day where I find closers are very overrated. Gossage slots in at about 55, which is much higher than Fingers.
   31. DL from MN Posted: May 31, 2007 at 02:13 PM (#2385927)
Did Mickey Welch pitch better against better competition than he did against weaker competition (pitch to the score)? Was his ERA better than normal or did he just play for better teams than the other top pitchers? Did he sober up for the top teams?

It looks like the argument for Mickey Welch comes down to Wins. If you look at his ERA and his rank among contemporaries he's clearly above average but it doesn't scream HoM. I think the 1880s are pretty well represented for pitching and I'm more interested in the 1980s right now.

I think these rankings in my spreadsheet make sense:

134) Jack Morris
139) Mickey Welch
   32. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 05:47 PM (#2386293)
Devin #27 on 1976-1980 games played by HOMers
The total for the "fielders" (C, 2b, SS, 3B) is 8896.

The total for the "hitters" (1b, OF, DH) is 7507. That actually doesn't look as bad as I expected, because I forgot how many 1B there were at this time. But it is obvious that if there is a lack here, it's outfielders. Not that this is news.

Again, positional scarcity issues may not mean much to people. But I do think that at this point, we'd be better served selecting a 70's OF than Randolph.
[. . .]
28. rawagman Posted: May 31, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2385695)
That CF does look light - are people not taking the extended peak/prime of Dale Murphy seriously enough? Was Murphy all that different from Jimmy Wynn?


It's a five year span, much too short to take seriously.

(No, Murphy doesn't look all that worse than Jimmy Wynn. Nor does he add much to the 1976-80 centerfielders, only one season.)
   33. mulder & scully Posted: May 31, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2386309)
DL, most of those questions are discussed on the Mickey Welch thread available in the 19th century threads.

But, I copied something that may be of interest

Records by opponent position
finish Clarkson Keefe Radbourn Welch Galvin
1st      26
-20  30-38   27-35  22-30 29-58
         .565   .441    .435   .423   .333
2nd      32
-32  29-44   25-29  27-29 34-55
         .500   .397    .463   .482   .382
3rd      24
-23  33-21   36-27  48-23 36-29
         .511   .611    .571   .676   .554
4th      46
-20  34-24   32-31  34-25 42-43
         .697   .586    .508   .576   .495
5th      42
-17  39-24   34-18  32-30 44-36
         .712   .619    .654   .516   .550
6th      41
-19  54-23   46-20  39-20 52-31
         .683   .701    .697   .661   .627
7th      41
-22  52-20   52-17  51-21 49-24
         .651   .722    .754   .708   .671
8th      54
-11  50-25   51-14  59-14 65-26
         .831   .667    .785   .808   .714
9
-12     24-10  27-9                  6-5
         .706   .750                  .545 


The following numbers are from Chris J.'s site (which is no longer active, but his files are available at the Yahoo site):
Run Support Index:
John Clarkson 109.46
Tim Keefe 107.16
Ol' Hoss Radbourn 106.83
Mickey Welch 102.79
Pud Galvin 102.11

Defensive Support Index:
John Clarkson +29.9
Radbourn +15.7
Tim Keefe +15.1
Mickey Welch +5.4
Pud Galvin -7.3
Clarkson, Radbourn, and Keefe are in the top 12 all-time, while Welch is #84. Galvin's is one of the worst all-time.

In terms of over/under achieving based on the support they have been given:
Mickey Welch overachieved by 13 wins
John Clarkson underachieved by 2
Ol'Hoss Radbourn underachieved by 5
Tim Keefe underachieved by 18.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 31, 2007 at 08:33 PM (#2386460)
No, Murphy doesn't look all that worse than Jimmy Wynn


This Murphy does.
   35. Paul Wendt Posted: May 31, 2007 at 10:41 PM (#2386554)
Kelly m&s #20 comparing M Welch with contemporary HOM pitchers.
Keefe's teams when he was not pitching for the NY NL club were very good. Welch's and Keefe's while on the "Giants" were not usually up to the level of Chicago and Boston and Providence.

Note, Keefe and Welch were teammates in Troy 1880-82 as well as in New York.


DL #19
BTW - Nolan Ryan should get strike credit for his fantastic 1981.

Some, yes, but it is also a strong case for regression. More than Fingers and fielders because as many have observed Ryan did not combine his best rate seasons (or season, 1981) and biggest workloads.
Maybe the mid-1981 rest helped him. Beside the merely 110-team-game season, Ryan also pitched fewer innings per team-game in 1981 (1.35 or 220 per 162) than in any of his ten full seasons 1971-82. About two innings per game at his 1972-74 overall peak.
(BTW, Jack Morris 1981 worked at career-high innings rate.)
   36. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 01, 2007 at 07:01 PM (#2387425)
Tight-lipped thoughts from a Loose-lipped Notebook

-Charlie Hough: Looked old, pitched old. Not on Rich Gedman's Christmas Card list.

-Jack Morris: Great facial hair, whisk-broom-moustache division. He's one of the first starting pitchers that I remember as a child throwing a splitter, or as it was still called then, the split fingered fastball. I remember the winter of 1986 primarily for the Yankees' failure to sign Morris or Raines. I was then a passionate 10-year-old Yankee rooter, and I was flabergasted and dismayed by it. Considering the problems they had in subsequent years patching together rotations and getting innings from starters, it's interesting to imagine how different the late 1980s might have been for their fortunes with the uberdurable Morris in tow.

-Rich Gossage: Great facial hair, fu-manch-chu-moustache division. My everlasting memory of his is not the pine tar game or the other Brett bomb, or him in the Padres' taco uniform, or of him drifting around the majors at the end. Rather my great memory of him will be riding in from the bullpen in a pinstriped Chrylser LeBaron....

-Kent Hrbek: Sunny, I was wrong about the belt tug. That's memory getting the best of me. But I remember watching with a friend and thinking there was no way that whatever it was could be legal. Anyway, my friend forever refered to him as just "The Cheater" thereafter. Which would have a totally different connotation today, wouldn't it? But you got to like Hrbek: a kind of porky SABRtype hitter who knew when to leave the game before it left him. A sort of slightly more effective Matt Stairs kind of guy.

-Willie Wilson: This guy was made for powder blue. I don't know what that means, it just seemed like something a rock-crit type would trot out. Anyhow, Wilson, Otis, and whoever is a pretty damned good outfield, flycatching wise. Lot of speed out there. OK, Lonnie Smith might not be the one you want in RF, despite the speed....

-Frank Viola: Another good moustache, but this one in the SOS-pad division. As noted elsewhere, Viola has a face screaming out for a handlebar moustache, and in fact he looks the part of an 1880s pitcher OR 1880s Wild West bad guy in black, tying the hero's paramor to the train tracks. I always saw him as the anti-Guidry/Key: he had a very awkward sort of sense about him, kind of storky or something. He seemed tall and gawky, his motion was fluid, but it wasn't smooth somehow. His follow through is perhaps his most distinguishing feature, his left arm nearly tucked under his right armpit, as his left shoulder kept hurtling plateward. But man did it work. That circle change of his was just deadly (or OK changeup as it as alternately called back in the day). A funny recollection. I remember seeing a highlight reel of the weirdest wild pitch ever. Viola essentially threw a 90 degree wild pitch, pretty much into the opponent's dugout. I guess he must have fumbled his grip on the circle change, and it all went wrong. Anyway, very, very funny.

-Bob Welch: I read an article, proabaly in Street and Smith's or TSN annual after Welch won the CYA. It quoted Scioscia as recollecting how Welch was a bit...unfocused. He went to the mound once and found Welch with a kind of blank stare. Paraphrasing the confab, Scioscia says, "What are you thinking about?" Welch answers, "I'm thinking that I might sail the Catilina's this fall." Maybe Duncan and LaRussa were able to help him zone in a little more? As someone else said (OCF?), quietest 211 wins you ever didn't see.

-Kevin McReynolds: Lots of tools, not much enthusiasm, got kind of plump, career ended. I always liked McReynolds as a young NY Sports fan. I thought he could do an awful lot of things very well, a la Dewey but less walks and more steals. But man, he was dour. No Calvin Coolidge was dour, this guy was downright glum. I watched a LOT of WWOR broadcasts (McCarver, Zabriski, Kiner, and Staub), and I never really saw McReynolds break a smile. He did things with minimal exertion, but that could be either style or lethargy or unwillingness. Probably style.

-Lonnie Smith: Wow, lots of Royals outfielders on the dockett. Here's a question, which player would you rather have at the beginning of their respective careers: Willie Wilson or Lonnie Smith? Assuming no coke. Kind of a toss-up I think. Wilson doesn't hit much, but he's a good outfielder and he's reasonably durable. Smith isn't terribly durable, he's a rotten outfielder, his baserunning is, well, iffy, but his offensive game is pretty robust, and he can hit near the top of the order.

-Tom Brunansky: He was the perpetrator of some kind of hijinx during the WS one year. I want to say that he faked falling down and getting injured and bluffed out the whole press corps, but I'm not totally certain.

-Jeff Reardon: He'd be one of the worst players to hold a major career record in contemporary times except the save probably shouldn't be considered major. I believe at the end of his career that he tried to add the knuckler to his repertoire, perhaps when he was with Atlanta, Cincy, or the Yanks. N/J pitchers book would probably say for sure, but it's six point five miles away right now. In my own mind, Reardon is a central figure in one of the most exciting walk-off moments I ever heard. (Warning: this recollection is unconfirmed by retrosheet.)

I was cutting the grass, and the Red Sox clung to a lead in the ninth in NY during another moribund Yankee season of the early 1990s. Call it 1991-1993 somewhere. The Sox were struggling to keep in the pennant chase, and were lately taking the express elevator to the subbasement. The Yanks put a guy on, and Reardon came in. The first guy whistled a shot that just about took Reardon's ear off. Sterling remarked about how hard it was and wondered if Reardon had his good stuff that day. He didn't. Mel Hall turned around a bp fastball and launched it into the black for the game winner. This was back before John Sterling became a parody of himself, and his call was electric, so dramatic, at the very top of his range, just pure adrenalin. You could practically hear drinks and nachos spilling as everyone in the Stadium bolted up to follow the ball's flight path. Meanwhile, Joe Angel (in his one-year Yankee stint) was actually screaming "get out! get out!" in a sort-of verbal version of the Fisk wave. But Hall had crushed it, and the crowd went absolutely bonkers over a game that meant nothing but a little salve for the sub-.500 blues. WABC replayed the clip countless times during the next couple of weeks to advertise upcoming games, and each time it was just as sweet as when I'd been outside, mowing, and had left our dirty old Lawn Boy to idle and belch blue smoke while I repeatedly pumped my fists on one knee. I hope the neighbhors weren't watching.

-Rick Sutcliffe: I was once nearly run over by Sutcliffe who was pulling out of the player parking lot at Camden Yards when I was walking by it looking for the main entrance. I think the incident was my fault. He was driving what I think was a copper-colored, early model Z, like maybe mid 1980s.

-Bruce Hurst: Underrated lefty, and very fine pitcher. Couldn't keep his health. Consider this front three in 1986: Clemens, Hurst, Boyd. All products of the Sox drafting or development system, all three All-Star caliber pitchers. They knew what they were doing in Boston.

-Dave Henderson: Interesting that the enthusiastic Hendu hadn't been much of a name player, then when Oakland plopped him in CF and left him there, he turned in some wonderful seasons for them and became a little more recognized. OK, let me back up a sec. He was clearly well-known for the famous homer, but was he someone who was known as an All-Star type everyday player? I don't remember it that way, but I was young. He became that guy in Oakland for a short stretch, though the narrative is not so simple as I'm making it to be. My favorite thing about his famous homer: the 360 degree spin-jump he did afterward. You know, I've tried that move since then, and it's not easy to jump and spin all the way around and still keep your footing and not look very, very dumb doing it.

-Hubie Brooks: A figure I always saw as shrouded in myth because he recently antedated the intense scrutiny of my early fandom. He was traded for Carter just before I really started following the Mets, and the press seemed to either laud him or was glad he was going, I was never sure which (I lived in NY at that time, after all). He went to Montreal and stopped playing in the infield, except that one half year when he was awesome. He participated in the famous ball-caught-in-the-thing-hanging-on-the-outfield-wall play later. Was that a g-r double? I can't remember now. Anyway, it was weird. But I always felt vaguely disappointed by him, like I thought he was an All-Star but I found out that he was just another guy.

-Bill Gullickson: Strikes out 18 in his rookie year, then he's essentially washed up for a couple years, then he's back with Detroit winning 20 games. When he won 20, I remember everyone getting all worked up about the 3.90 ERA, how it was so close to 4.00, and that's so weird because you can't win 20 and give up those kinds of runs totals.

-Harold Reynolds: Huggie bear was actually a pretty dang good player for a while there. Probably the best AL 2B for little bit. Early decline after the move to Balto. I seem to remember somewhere reading that he'd had a bad shoulder injury to contributed to his retirement, though I don't know if that's true or not. A product of the absolutely fabulous Seattle farm system of the 1980s and early 1990s. Here's an All-Star Team
C: Dave Valle
1B: Alvin Davis (or Tino)
2B: Harold Reynolds
3B: Jim Presley
SS: A-Rod (or Omar)
RF: Ivan Calderon (or Hendu)
CF: Ken Griffey Jr.
LF: Phil Bradley
DH: Edgard Martinez (or Danny Tartabull)
UT: Spike Owen
SP: Mark Langston
SP: Mike Moore
SP: Erik Hanson
Swingman: Billy Swift
RP: Mike Schooler

That's a pretty awesome team of homegrown guys.

-Gary Redus: Coulda been Phil Bradley. All he needed was about 20 points of average to do it. Does anyone know if he's related to Frog Redus?

-Teddy Higuera: I always liked Higuera, and I was sorry when injury screwed him out of a career. I always remember comparisons to Fernando: Mexican, lefty, scroogie. More important, he was wicked effective, and he was durable until the arm gave out. Check out the ERA+ from 1986-1988: 156 120 162 all in more than 225 innnigs. Nice. He got a late start, not sure why, and he ended early. I'd love to have seen what 10 healthy years might have looked like. He was the jewel among the Wegman, Higuer, Bosio, Nieves group of young Brewer starters, all of whom experienced career interuptions, and among whom only Higuera had seasons that could be fairly called outstanding. Then Cal Eldred would take up the same theme in the next generation. Did the Brewers work the kids too hard? Or this just the law of pitchers getting injured taking over?
   37. DavidFoss Posted: June 01, 2007 at 07:46 PM (#2387459)
But you got to like Hrbek: a kind of porky SABRtype hitter who knew when to leave the game before it left him. A sort of slightly more effective Matt Stairs kind of guy.

Maybe this is the Twins fan in me, but *slightly*? Hrbek should be nowhere near anyone's ballot, but Hrbek is a legitimate HOVG type of guy. His bb-ref comp list only has one major era-induced mismatch (Karros). The other nine guys (Luzinski, Kluszewski, Wertz, Salmon, Sievers, Justice, Adcock, York, and MVaughn) are all within six OPS+ points of Hrbek's 127.
   38. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 01, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2387462)
Sorry Twins fans, I'll gladly do without the slightly.
   39. Sean Gilman Posted: June 01, 2007 at 08:49 PM (#2387563)
That's a pretty awesome team of homegrown guys.

Not to mention Mike Hampton, Derek Lowe, Jason Varitek, Jeff Nelson, Jose Cruz Jr, Bret Boone, Raul Ibanez and David Ortiz.
   40. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 01, 2007 at 09:18 PM (#2387613)
Lots of tools, not much enthusiasm, got kind of plump, career ended. I always liked McReynolds as a young NY Sports fan.


My glove is a Kevin McReynolds model, purchased in 1990 (I lost my Jim Rice one, which was my very first "real"* glove).

* I actually had another one that I purchased for $2, but it was an old piece of crap.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: June 01, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2387625)
Doc, yeah, what Hrbie did was slap a hard tag on Gant and maintain the tag. Gant just lost his balance so it looked as if Hrbie had pushed him off the bag. Like he pushed Gant's entire body just by maintaining pressure with the wrist. That is Gant's problem. He was out.

Hrbie was possibly the best fielding 1B the Twins ever had, with the obvious exception of Vic Power.

As to slightly porky, this is the tragedy of Kent Hrbek. He was not porky as a young guy, just a big kid. He got porky, though, no question. A Twin Cities sportswriter, Pat Reusse, picks the Turkey of the Year every Thanksgiving, and has for 30 years or more. It is a rogue's gallery from Les Steckel to Norm Green and Carl Pohlad. He once picked Hrbie for manifestly failing to keep himself in fighting trim.

Bill James has him at #40n between Bill White and Roy Sievers. He has a higher 5 year peak than Cecil Fielder, same 3 year as Ron Fairly, a lot more either way than Bill Buckner.
   42. Paul Wendt Posted: June 01, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2387630)
Bruce Hurst: Underrated lefty, and very fine pitcher. Couldn't keep his health. Consider this front three in 1986: Clemens, Hurst, Boyd. All products of the Sox drafting or development system, all three All-Star caliber pitchers. They knew what they were doing in Boston.

And
Bobby Ojeda, first year with the Mets, 18-5 217.3 138
John Tudor, second year with the Cardinals, following his super '85 with darn good 13-7 219.0 125
   43. KJOK Posted: June 01, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2387699)
-Gary Redus: Coulda been Phil Bradley. All he needed was about 20 points of average to do it. Does anyone know if he's related to Frog Redus?


They are not related - at least not in a direct way (Grandfather - Grandson, etc.)
   44. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 01, 2007 at 11:56 PM (#2387896)
Prelim:

1. N. Ryan
2. Perez
3. Walters
4. Staub
5. Gossage
6. Murphy
7. Trout
8. J. Ryan
9. Stieb
10. Johnson
11. Cravath
12. Nettles
13. Tanana
14. Bell
15. Singleton

Hough and Morris are about equal, ranked around 70.
   45. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 02, 2007 at 12:51 PM (#2388766)
My glove is a Kevin McReynolds model, purchased in 1990 (I lost my Jim Rice one, which was my very first "real"* glove).

In order my junior gloves went:

Bruce Sutter
Bob Bailor
Mike Schmidt (hand me down from Dad)
George Brett

What I've never understood about them was (a) a pitcher's glove??? (b) who thought it was a good idea to put BOB BAILOR on a glove? "Gentlemen, as you know Wayne Nordenhagen's already signed with Mizuno and Luis Aguayo's now with Rawlings, I recommend we aggressively pursue Bob Bailor lest the same happen again."
   46. Howie Menckel Posted: June 02, 2007 at 02:10 PM (#2388819)
My gloves were nameless, but I still have my Cleon Jones bat around somewhere.

And that Chris Speier half-black, half-white bat was all the rage for a time. But we were getting bigger, so that one someone broke after getting jammed.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: June 02, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2388932)
(a) a pitcher's glove???

I had a Vida Blue model. Pitchers gloves were a little smaller so they fit better on my 10-year-old fingers. (yes they made smaller versions of OF/3B gloves, but at that age I wanted an older glove :)) Plus, pitchers gloves had that tightly woven mesh between the thumb and forefingers for hiding the grip while the hand was in there.

I guess none of this makes sense today, but remember liking my pitcher's glove when I was younger. As I got older I switched to my dad's Graig Nettles model.
   48. Paul Wendt Posted: June 02, 2007 at 06:16 PM (#2389083)
My first baseball glove was endorsed by a pitcher who was out of the majors for more than a year. Maybe my parents bought it on sale. Bullet Bob Turley.
   49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 02, 2007 at 06:30 PM (#2389096)
Mike Schmidt (hand me down from Dad)

As I got older I switched to my dad's Graig Nettles model.


Boy, talk about making me feel ancient. :-(

(b) who thought it was a good idea to put BOB BAILOR on a glove?


That had to have been when he was with the Mets.

I liked him when he played. He was good utility guy and I respected him for that.

My gloves were nameless, but I still have my Cleon Jones bat around somewhere.


I had an aluminum bat as a kid (still have it), but it didn't have a signature.

My first and only wood bat (which I still use) is a Bake McBride model. Must have been the only one available, since this Met fan wasn't a big fan of his.
   50. Tiboreau Posted: June 03, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2390139)
That's a pretty awesome team of homegrown guys.

Not to mention Mike Hampton, Derek Lowe, Jason Varitek, Jeff Nelson, Jose Cruz Jr, Bret Boone, Raul Ibanez and David Ortiz.


Or, as he was known back in those days, David Arias.
   51. DavidFoss Posted: June 03, 2007 at 09:18 PM (#2390590)
As I got older I switched to my dad's Graig Nettles model.

Don't feel old because of me. My dad got the glove the same time I got mine. Nettles was one of my favorite players growing up. :)
   52. jingoist Posted: June 04, 2007 at 12:17 AM (#2390749)
Can anyone tell me what happened to Harold Reynolds as it elates to his disappearence from Baseball Tonight on ESPN. Was there some sort of scandal? I faintly remember reading something but I was out of the country during all the noise and I basically missed the story.
I grew to like Harold on BBT and his chemistry with gammons and the studio host was pretty good as I remember.
   53. Howie Menckel Posted: June 04, 2007 at 01:54 AM (#2391038)
Well, it was a sexual harrassment allegation, I believe.
A little googling will take you the rest of the way home..
   54. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 04, 2007 at 01:46 PM (#2391955)
I suspect the phrase "inappropriate hug" when coupled with "Harold Reynolds" will give you a direct hit.
   55. DL from MN Posted: June 04, 2007 at 02:07 PM (#2391970)
I don't remember the first glove but my first bat was a George Brett wood Slugger. I had Rickey Henderson and Fernando Valenzuela signature gloves at separate times and always thought it was weird since I'm righthanded.
   56. rawagman Posted: June 04, 2007 at 02:17 PM (#2391978)
I don't think I ever had a MLB player model glove, but my first bat, which I probably got around the age of 6 was a Jim Rice model Louisville Slugger. Every child should have something like that.
   57. Mark Donelson Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2392166)
Mel Hall turned around a bp fastball and launched it into the black for the game winner.

I remember that game vividly myself. I was in college in Boston in those years, so I got the local TV guys on NESN, not old-time Sterling. (Like you, I also took a really absurd amount of pleasure from the game, which I imagine Red Sox fans don't even remember today.)

Now that I think about it, that may be the only single game I remember well from the really bad years of the early '90s. Of course, I may be saying that about last night's game and this season someday.

Oh, wait, there was the Andy Hawkins no-hitter. But that's not a good memory...
   58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2392169)
BTW, do the Yankees get two caps this election (the Angels get their second)?
   59. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:25 PM (#2392218)
Are you asking whether Gossage gets a Yankees cap?
As good as he was for a season, I can't see giving Gossage a Pirates cap.

I think you have set a precedent for playing merit rather than calendar time or playing time as the criterion. See Deacon White and Carlton Fisk. So Gossage is Yankees.

But its Rollie Hemond (with Chisox affiliation) out there hitting the streets, campaigning for Gossage. Does that count for something?
   60. DavidFoss Posted: June 04, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2392248)
Nolan Ryan's cap is a good question. Angels over Astros, I suppose.

I think John's other question was whether Randolph and Gossage get inducted this year... not which cap they would get (gotta be Yankees for both).

Randolph would be an interesting induction. Yankee fans might wonder why we're picking him over the likes of Rizzuto or Lazzeri or even guys like Nettles. Not that Randolph voters didn't do their homework and this his the HOM and not the HOF... but it will raise some eyebrows seeing his name up there. He's not traditionally championed as an HOF snub either like Grich or even Whitaker, but we do have more slots for modern eras. Just thinking out loud. ;-)
   61. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2392277)
I'm almost positive that Mel Hall game was Memorial Day Monday 1992.

My first glove was a Tommy John replica. I know it's still around somewhere, either at my mom's or in a box somewhere. It looks like a Ty Cobb version on my hand at this point (since I got it when I was 7).
   62. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2392278)
I think John's other question was whether Randolph and Gossage get inducted this year... not which cap they would get (gotta be Yankees for both).


Right, David.
   63. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:11 PM (#2392280)
I think of Nolan Ryan as an Astro - but of course I started following baseball in 1980!

When I get back to the room tonight, I'll pull up my spreadsheet of his value year by year and see if the totals suggest an obvious answer . . . If we ever get 'pictures' on a HoM website, I'd like to have an Astros rainbow jersey on there, good God they have to bring those back, these new ones are so cookie-cutter . . .
   64. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:19 PM (#2392294)
I think of Nolan Ryan as an Astro - but of course I started following baseball in 1980!


He was certainly great with the Astros, but the Angel years are really the standout ones, IMO (and I remember both eras :-). It's really not close, even if you give Ryan credit for '81.
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2392307)
If we ever get 'pictures' on a HoM website, I'd like to have an Astros rainbow jersey on there, good God they have to bring those back, these new ones are so cookie-cutter . . .


I hated the 1970's Astro uniform. I also hated the pullover shirts from that era for all of the teams, too.
   66. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2392317)
Those uni's had character, now they all look the same. Just like the ballparks . . .
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2392318)
Now that I think about it, that may be the only single game I remember well from the really bad years of the early '90s. Of course, I may be saying that about last night's game and this season someday.

The other game or, more accurately play, that I remember was the one where Jesse Barfield threw one into the stands in Texas, scoring (I think) Palmeiro to seal another Yankee loss....

I'm almost positive that Mel Hall game was Memorial Day Monday 1992.

I would have sworn it was much later in the year than that, but everyone else's memory is better than mine. OK, I'll retrosheet it... [pauses for restrosheeting] Wow, you got it, man! May 28th, 1991. Hall hit a two-run bomb in the 7th inning (off Danny Darwin) to draw the team closer at 5-3. My memory can't be trusted so here's the retrosheet-approved version:

Reardon started the inning, replacing Jeff Gray. Bam-Bam Meulens singled innocently to left. Mass singled (this is the one I remember going through the middle, I think). Hall homered---ballgame.

I looked around a bit for audio, but I didn't see it. If anyone has a link, I'd love to hear it again and see if my rememory of how I felt about the call then matches up to how I feel about it now.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2392323)
Those uni's had character, now they all look the same. Just like the ballparks . . .


I liked the A's colors from the '70's, so I did like some of the new "softball" colors.

As for the ballparks, I prefer the new ones over the old ones, on average.
   69. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 04, 2007 at 08:57 PM (#2392336)
The wikipedia has this to say about Sterling:

The phrase [Theeeeeeeeeee Yankees win!] evolved from Sterling's call of Yankee Mel Hall's game-winning three-run homer in the ninth inning on Memorial Day, May 27, 1991, to give the club a win over the archrival Boston Red Sox. "The Yankees win! The Yankees win!" shouted Sterling.
   70. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:11 PM (#2392352)
Yeah John, I like the new ballparks better too, was just joking, but they are all starting to look the same again.

As for the uni's, I didn't mind the Braves or Phillies, who had boring uniforms, changing to retro. Bet then everyone did it, and it homogenized the who thing. The A's, Astros, Blue Jays, Mariners (pitchfork hats!) could have at least stayed the same.

And most of all the Padres have to go back to the Fudge Bomb uni's (and of course the Buccaneers back to the Creamsickles).
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: June 04, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2392355)
2000 (elect 3)

I'm basically a WS, OPS+/ERA+ voter with a heavy peak/prime orientation.

Goose Gossage, Nolan Ryan and either Joe Kelley or Jimmy Sheckard go PHoM, unless and until I change my mind. Pesky, Singleton, Clarkson, Oms and Trouppe are the next 5 candidates as of today, followed by Willis, Rosen, Dewey Evans, Quisenberry and Dunlap.

1. Goose Gossage (new, PHoM 2000)—well, I’ve got Fingers in an elect-me spot, and Goose was so much better it’s just ridiculous. Can I just leave #2 and #3 blank?

2. Rollie Fingers (3-2-3, PHoM 1991)—drops down from the #3 reliever of all-time to #4 as of right now, but that’s still plenty good for the HoM

3. Ed Williamson (5-6-7, PHoM 1924)—more peak and more glove than than almost any other IF

4. Pete Browning (6-4-3, PHoM 1961)

5. Addie Joss (7-7-4, PHoM 1967)—say what you will about Joss and Ryan—i.e. Joss not a workhorse, but no way was Ryan as effective except in the occasional 9 inning increment

6. Charley Jones (8-5-6, PHoM 1921)—Browning and Jones are a matched pair, both have the numbers even with AA discount

7. Nolan Ryan (9-new, PHoM 2000)—the Ks and no-hitters made him a superstar, but they don’t translate into the things I value. IOW his peak is defined as basically 9 innings where I like 3 to 5 years. So he is only a mid-level career candidate (that is to say, he goes toward the middle of the ballot) on WS and ERA+, not a peak candidate at all, and I’m not a career voter.

8. Larry Doyle (10-9-10, PHoM 1975)—same OPS+ as Ed Roush, maybe his defensive value is more like that of a corner, but he hit better than the backlog corners that remain from his day

9. Frank Howard (11-13-12, PHoM 1987)—comps on this ballot are Cepeda and Cravath

10. Don Newcombe (12-14-15, PHoM 1997)—lost more opportunities than just about anybody since Bill Monroe, I see him basically as a guy who coulda been Robin Roberts

11. Gavvy Cravath (13-16-11, PHoM 1995)—see F. Howard

12. Dick Redding (14-11-13, PHoM 1971)—one of the rare peak/career candidates with no real prime

13. Phil Rizzuto (15-12-9, PHoM 1995)—306 career WS with war credit; yeah, why Willie Randolph and not Phil Rizzuto?

14. Reggie Smith (16-8-5, PHoM 1988)—cannot quite see how he’s not better than Jim Wynn

15. Elston Howard (17-15-16, PHoM 1994)—see first part of Newcombe comment

Close—i.e. right around in/out line, as I think we will elect another 10-11 or so backloggers before we’re done

16. Orlando Cepeda (18-10-8, PHoM 1987)—pretty interchangeable with F. Howard and Cravath
17. Tommy Leach (19-17-17, PHoM 1998)
(17a. Joe Kelley [19a-17a-23a, PHoM 2000])
18. Johnny Pesky (20-19-28)
19. Ken Singleton (21-18-18)
20. Bus Clarkson (22-20-24)
(20a. Jimmy Sheckard [22a-20a-21a])

21. Alejandro Oms (24-21-25)
(21a. Quincy Trouppe [24a-21a-17a])
22. Vic Willis (25-25-22)
23. Al Rosen (26-22-23)
(23a. Dewey Evans [26a-22a-19])
24. Dan Quisenberry (27-23-20)
25. Fred Dunlap (28-26-46)

HoVVG

(25a. Joe Sewell [28a-26a-31a])
26. Vern Stephens (29-27-45)
27. Roger Bresnahan (30-28-27)
28. Sal Bando (31-32-30)
29. Norm Cash (32-24-21)
30. Hugh Duffy (33-33-35)
(30a. Jim Bunning [33a-33a-30a])

31. Burleigh Grimes (34-29-26)
32. Eddie Cicotte (35-30-31)
33. Tony Perez (36-31-29)
34. Chuck Klein (37-34-42)
35. Bruce Sutter (38-38-34)
(35a. Don Sutton [38a-38a-36a])
(35b. Ken Boyer [38b-38b-35a])
(35c. Jake Beckley [39-39-36])
36. Ben Taylor (40-35-33)
37. Bob Johnson (40-36-41)
38. Bobby Bonds (42-40-37)
39. Bob Elliott (43-41-39)
40. Dale Murphy (59-new)

41. Jack Clark (44-66-new)
42. Dizzy Dean (45-45-60)
43. Thurman Munson (46-46-43)
44. Hack Wilson (47-47-44)
45. Bucky Walters (48-48-52)
46. Dave Steib (49-42-new)
47. Lefty Gomez (50-43-38)
48. Rusty Staub (51-75-51)
49. Dick Lundy (52- 50-55)
50. Tommy Bond (53-52-64, PHoM 1929)

51. Hilton Smith (54-53-59)
52. Pie Traynor (55-54-56)
53. Jack Morris (new)
54. Bobby Avila (56-51-101)
55. Luis Tiant (57-44-40)
(55a. Cool Papa Bell [58a-48a-47a])
56. Dave Parker (58-37-32)
57. Bill Monroe (60-49-53)
58. Luke Easter (61-58-48)
59. Jim McCormick (62-59-67)
60. Dave Bancroft (63-60-62)

61. Tommy Bridges (64-55-50)
62. Willie Randolph (65-56-new)
63. George Van Haltren (66-57-47)
64. Wally Berger (67-61-66)
65. John McGraw (68-62-65)
66. Bobby Estalella (69-63-69)
67. Graig Nettles (70-67-54)
68. Tommy John (71-68-81)
69. Frank Chance (72-69-57)
(69a. Wes Ferrell [72a-69a-57a])
70. Wilbur Cooper (73-71-77)
(70a. Pete Hill [73a-71a-59a])

HoVG

71. Pedro Guerrero (74-64-new)
72. Mickey Welch (75-65-75)
73. Jim Rice (76-70-49)
74. Lou Brock (77-72-58)
(74a. Biz Mackey [77a-75a-69a])
75. Tony Mullane (78-76-83)
76. Gene Tenace (79-77-70)
77. Andy Cooper (80-78-110)
78. Mike Tiernan (81-73-92)
79. Cesar Cedeno (82-74-68)
80. Vada Pinson (83-81-72)

81. Pancho Coimbre (84-82-120)
82. Kiki Cuyler (85-83-63)
83. Tony Oliva (86-79-71)
84. Bill Byrd (87-80-118)
85. Rocky Colavito (88-87-73)
86. Fred Lynn (89-84-61)
87. Marvin Williams (90-88-76)
88. Gil Hodges (91-89-106-)
89. John Clapp (92-90-78)
(89a. Billy Pierce (92a-90a-78a)
(89b. Early Wynn [92b-90b-78b)
90. Leroy Matlock (93-91-133)

91. Jimmy Ryan (94-92-79)
92. George Burns (95-93-82)
93. Dolf Luque (96-95-85)
94. Herman Long (97-96-86)
95. Urban Shocker (98-97-87)
96. Jim Fregosi (99-98-80)
97. Red Schoendienst (100-86-91)
98. Ron Cey (101-94-84)
99. Mickey Vernon (102-95-111)
100. Boog Powell (103-100-90)

Honorable Mention

101. Artie Wilson (104-104-95)
102. Bobby Veach (105-105-96)
103. Ernie Lombardi (106-99-86)
104. Dave Concepcion (107-102-88)
105. Tony Lazz1eri (108-103-94)
106. Frank Tanana (109-new)
107. Carl Mays (110-110-102)
108. Bert Campaneris (111-101-89)
109. Luis Aparicio (112-112-93)
110. Steve Garvey (113-113-105)

111. Rabbit Maranville (111-114-107)
112. Joe Tinker (115-115-108)
113. Johnny Evers (116-116-109)
114. Wally Schang (117-106-97)
115. Jim Kaat (118-111-103)
116. Bobby Murcer (119-108-99)
117. Buddy Bell (120-109-100)
118. Jake Fournier (121-121-116)
119. Lon Warneke (122-122-117)
120. Ellis Kinder (123-123-104)

121. Amos Otis (124-124-121)
122. Spot Poles (125-117-112)
123. Al Oliver (126-118-113)
124. Cecil Travis (127-119-114)
125. Billy Nash (128-120-115)
126. Silvio Garcia (129-126-123)
127. Sol White (130-130-119)
128. Charlie Hough (new)
129. Maury Wills (131-107-98)
130. Hippo Vaughan (132-127-124)

131. Denny Lyons (133-128-125)
132. Brian Downing (134-129-new)
133. George Scales (135-135-131)
134. Sam Rice (136-136-132)
135. Vida Blue (137-137-134)
(135a. Pud Galvin [137a-137a-134a])
136. Catfish Hunter (138-125-122)
137. Fielder Jones (139-139-136)
138. Dave Orr (140-140-126)
139. Jim Whitney (141-141-138)
140. Roy White (142-131-127)

141. Roger Maris (143-132-128)
142. Lave Cross (144-133-129)
143. Silver King (145-138-135)
144. Virgil Trucks (146-142-139)
145. Jim Creighton (147-143-140)
146. Ron Guidry (148-144-141)
147. Davey Lopes (149-145-137)
148. Kent Hrbek (new)
149. Ray Dandridge (150-150-143)
150. Jose Cruz (NR- 134-130)
   72. Paul Wendt Posted: June 04, 2007 at 10:19 PM (#2392389)
I like the splashy uniforms of the Orioles, Athletics, Royals, Pirates, Astros (and probably Blue Jays and Mariners, whose 1970s I overlooked). And the Cavaliers when they were in the semifinals.

And I firmly believe that if you call your team Padres you wear all brown.

--
Marc,
How many Very Very Good players are there? (Very Good and Honorable - I won't go there.)

I think Bill James once said you should have 1000 players if you include so-and-so popular HOF candidate. (Maybe Phil Rizzuto; if so, he has reconsidered that estimate.) And he was probably giving short shrift to the 19c and Negro Leagues. Let's see . . . how many pitchers should I have if I include Sam Leever or Wilbur Cooper?

--
Why Pete Browning and Charley Jones are not a matched pair.
Jones was 32 years old when the AA organized, Browning not quite 21. The AA reversed early plans and honored the NL blacklist in 1882, so there was no job for Jones until age 33. On the other hand, there was a job for Jones at age 26 when the NL organized six years earlier. Despite the late start and the interruption, Jones played essentially 4.8 full seasons in the NL (until the 1880 dispute) and four full seasons in the AA. On the other hand, Browning played only six seasons so full as those (1882-1887, age 21-26); include 1890 and call it seven full seasons.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: June 05, 2007 at 12:42 AM (#2392514)
My HoVVG = what most people call HoVG. HoVVG are worthy candidates, my HoVG are not really candidates. Honorable Mention are just HoVG but below #100. My HoVG--non-candidates but guys who were or coulda been top 50 back in the early days of this project--now requires me to go 150 deep and I have a growing list of guys beyond there who have been in the top 150 since I went there about 8 years ago.

You prefer Jones to Browning, is that what I should understand? I would say, sure, different careers but clones with the bat.
   74. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2392876)
The breakdown in my system for Nolan Ryan:

Mets 3.7%
Angels 41.2%
Astros 36.0%
Rangers 19.1%

Of his top 8 seasons:

#1 8.0 WAR 1981 - Astros
#2 6.8 WAR 1977 - Angels
#3 6.4 WAR 1973 - Angels
#4 6.1 WAR 1987 - Astros
#5 5.7 WAR 1972 - Angels
#6 5.3 WAR 1991 - Rangers
#7 5.3 WAR 1974 - Angels
#8 5.2 WAR 1989 - Rangers

6 of his 7 post-season starts were as an Astro though. 4 of 5 if you don't count the 1981 split-season division series.

I guess he's an Angel, but it's pretty close. I still think of him as an Astro.
   75. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 03:40 AM (#2392878)
BTW - that % breakdown is Pennants Added, so it does already account for the fact that more of his peak was as an Angel.
   76. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: June 05, 2007 at 03:43 AM (#2392884)
His translated innings:

Mets: 468.3 (8.6%)
Angels: 2003.0 (36.9%)
Astros: 2037.3 (37.5%)
Rangers: 917.7 (16.9%)
   77. Paul Wendt Posted: June 05, 2007 at 03:47 PM (#2393626)
Marc s rebutted
You prefer Jones to Browning, is that what I should understand? I would say, sure, different careers but clones with the bat.

Yes, from what I wrote you should understand that and some reason why if clone with bat then Jones meritier ;-)

But I have copied this exchange to the Jones & Pike thread and continued there. It is a good short thread, mainly on Jones. (Threads on early players commonly followed years or decades of primary Discussion while they were eligible. Pike got more early attention than Jones.)
Charley Jones here at hall of merit
   78. Howie Menckel Posted: June 10, 2007 at 12:59 AM (#2398867)
ERA+ over 100, minimum 1 IP per G
BWalters 168 52 46 40 27 23 07
ViWillis 167 54 53 30 29 21 10 07 04
DavStieb 171 45 43 38 35 30 24 17 13 11
FraViola 161 55 49 41 31 23 07 06
BobWelch 151 36 26 23 23 07 06 04 03
LuiTiant 184 69 32 28 25 20 19 05 02 02 00
TommJohn 154 38 38 37 25 20 19 19 16 14 11 10 09 09 06 03 00
Reuschel 158 57 32 31 19 17 16 16 14 11 05 03
TBridges 147 44 42 40 40 40 37 34 20 19 19 15 09
BuGrimes 153 44 38 36 31 23 08 08 08 03
JaMorris 133 27 26 24 24 22 17 09 02 01

BWalters top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 4 6 6 8 8
ViWillis top 10 in IP: 1 2 3 5 5 6 8 8 10
DavStieb top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 3 5
FraViola top 10 in IP: 1 5 6 7 8 9 10
BobWelch top 10 in IP: 2 3 9 10
LuiTiant top 10 in IP: 6 7 8
TommJohn top 10 in IP: 2 5 8 10
Reuschel top 10 in IP: 4 7 7 7 8 9
TBridges top 10 in IP: 2 2 5 8 10
BuGrimes top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 3 3 4 7 9 9 9
JaMorris top 10 in IP: 1 2 2 3 3 3 5 6 10

I listed Grimes next to Morris, and well, Grimes is near the bottom of my ballot if at all. Someone convince me Morris was better than that.

I listed Viola and Welch next to Stieb and also Tiant, whose No. 2 season is in only 179 IP. Stieb has an extra pair of good seasons, basically, on Viola and also a bit more peak durability. Tiant vs Viola is interesting, but I don't generally vote for Tiant. Welch's two big-IP years were 126 and 123 ERA+s. He's not close, while Hough doesn't even belong on the chart.

P.S. As I've noted before, 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). He may confound these first-look charts more than anyone else.
   79. Juan V Posted: June 10, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2398880)
I think an ERA+/RA+ voter would have Viola ahead of both Morris and Hough, depending on how much he likes peak. My RA+ system shows him ahead of those two, and with an almost identical score to Dizzy Dean. Still not likely to go into my ballot though...
   80. Chris Fluit Posted: June 10, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2399558)

I listed Grimes next to Morris, and well, Grimes is near the bottom of my ballot if at all. Someone convince me Morris was better than that.


No, I think you're right. Morris is very similar to- though not quite as good as- Grimes. I think it would be very hard to justify having Morris ahead of Grimes.
   81. Howie Menckel Posted: June 11, 2007 at 12:47 AM (#2399778)
Well, not to debate myself, but someone may come along with a "tougher to dominate" metric.
Unfortunately, in a way that may not help Morris enough until we are done with catching up.

That is, until the rest of Morris's contemporaries come along and maybe show me that Morris' 'dominance' is pretty strong for the era, I'd be wary of voting for him over Grimes.
   82. TomH Posted: June 11, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2400545)
Pete Browning diatribe incoming.....

We all agree that
1. Browning played in what was essentially a high-level minor league from age 21 to 24.
2. And that he absolutely crushed his competition.
3. Then the AA became basically a full-quality major league, and he hit much less well, but still hit very very well.
4. He played in the PL in 90, and had a great year.
5. He is essentially a bat-only candidate, with a medium-length career. He thus falls into a profile with guys like Hack Wilson, Chuck Klein, Roger Maris, Charley Jones, Gavy Cravath.

What separates him from the others mentioned above?

I think Pete is benefitting from an effect of the argument "hey, he did fine in 1890, so his 1882-85 years must count a lot too; his 1890 shows that maybe he was a victim of the 'superstar can't take full advantage of a lower league' syndrome".

This argument has some basic flaws.

Yes, Browning had a great 1890. It might have been the best year of his career. But his other best years were all 1882-1885. He was a non-HoFer from 1886 on, EXCEPT FOR the one year 1890. How much can we put on merely one season? What if a negro leaguer came to the majors and at once had one super year, and then fell off? Would that one season make us think he had been a stud in the other league? Maybe.... but if the MLEs later showed he wasn't all that special, we would adjust, wouldn't we?

Compare Browning to George Van Haltren. GVH is obviously NOT the bat that PB was. But if you take their careers from age 25 onward, Van Haltren had MORE RCAA than Browning. Yes, part of this is GVH lasted longer; he wasn't as good per AB, but his total hitting value was as high. Plus, GVH was clearly more valuable in the field, so his total value was clearly HIGHER. So we're going to maybe elect Browning, solely based on his pre-age 25 play when the AA was a minor league?

Again, why Browning, and not Hack Wilson, Chuck Klein, Roger Maris, Gavy Cravath, Jim Rice, Norm Cash, Ken Singleton, Jack Clark, Frank Howard, etc? Those guys have offensive rate stats almost as good, without the needed discounts.

The Louisville Slugger might be the most DIFFERENT out of this group, but I really don't think he is the BEST. IMHO, we're on the verge of electing a guy based on 'one of these things is not like the other'.
   83. Sean Gilman Posted: June 11, 2007 at 08:29 PM (#2400557)
We've elected dozens of players based on their play in "minor" leagues.

Browning's 1887 was arguably better than his 1890, at least WARP1 thinks it is.

I bet there's a lot of borderline players where if you choose to ignore a third of their career, they don't look very good.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: June 11, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2400601)
Indeed. The backlog is not made up of guys without warts.
   85. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 11, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2400606)
Indeed. The backlog is not made up of guys without warts.


The guys I support have frozen them off.
   86. TomH Posted: June 11, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2400639)
Agree with posts 83-85. I'm not saying Browning is a slug; I have him in my top 70, and frankly anything between 15 and 100 isn't all that big. I simply believe there maybe some voters with Pete in 'elect me' spots who are under-(dis)counting the league quality factor in his case. In order to put Browning in my top 3 this week, I would have to assess that in his age 21-24 seasons he was much better than any other 4-year stretch of his career. And I am not willing to do that.
   87. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 11, 2007 at 10:38 PM (#2400651)
Agree with posts 83-85.


Even #85, Tom? ;-)
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: June 11, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2400696)
Well, post #84 was saying that, sure, you can raise good, valid objections to Pete Browning, but that you can raise them against everybody in the backlog, not just Pistol Pete. Despite the objections, Pete ranks highly on my ballot. And you want more than a 35 percent discount for 1882? My discounts go 35-25-15-10-5-0 and then start going up again. There is of course no discount for 1890. 1890 BTW does not "prove" anything about what Pete did in other years, it just adds up.

But Goose Gossage was better BTW.
   89. Thane of Bagarth Posted: June 12, 2007 at 12:57 AM (#2400731)
After my last ballot ranked Tanana kind of high, Paul asked "Does anyone know how about many eligible pitchers have higher ratings?"

I honestly wasn't able to keep up to see if anybody else answered, but here's what I've got for career WARP1/3 and top 5s among currently eligible or soon to be eligible pitchers:

First    Last    WARP1    WARP3    top5 W1    top5 W3
Nolan    Ryan    139.0    138.7    50.8    49.4
Frank    Tanana    112.5    111.3    47.7    46.8
Tommy    John    110.6    108.7    36.2    35.2
Luis    Tiant    101.1    98.2    46.5    45.3
Jim    Kaat    100.0    96.3    44.7    43.2
Rick    Reuschel95.7    97.0    42.3    42
Charlie    Hough    94.6    94.8    40    39.7
Jack    Quinn    92.9    84.9    36.7    33.9
Tony    Mullane    90.4    57.2    52.8    36.5
BurleighGrimes    89.9    82.6    45.7    42.8
Dizzy    Trout    89.3    87.9    49.4    48.6
Jerry    Koosman    89.3    88.3    39.1    38.3
Jack    Morris    89.3    89.8    40.2    39.9
Dutch    Leonard    89.2    89.2    40.3    41.0
Goose    Gossage    88.7    89.5    43.9    43.3
Dave    Stieb    88.4    89.0    46.2    46.7
Dennis    Martinez87.7    90.9    34.4    37.0
Mickey    Lolich    87.2    83.7    43.9    42.1
   90. Thane of Bagarth Posted: June 12, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2400735)
...and there you see why I rarely try to post tables.

Anyhow, since I actually have a spare 5 minutes for the first time in months I'll throw out my to 50 for the 2000 election:

1 Nolan Ryan
2 Tony Perez
3 Rusty Staub
4 Frank Tanana
5 Willie Randolph
6 Bucky Walters
7 Ben Taylor
8 Bob Johnson
9 Dick Redding
10 Bobby Bonds
11 Graig Nettles
12 Ken Singleton
13 George Van Haltren
14 Dale Murphy
15 Luis Tiant
16 Bill Monroe
17 Jimmy Ryan
18 Gavy Cravath
19 Dizzy Trout
20 Tommy John
21 Buddy Bell
22 Charley Jones
23 Sam Rice
24 Tommy Leach
25 Bus Clarkson
26 Rabbit Maranville
27 Norm Cash
28 Jim Kaat
29 Dave Parker
30 Reggie Smith
31 Rich "Goose" Gossage
32 Jack Clark
33 Buzz Arlett
34 Burleigh Grimes
35 Jack Quinn
36 Bob Elliott
37 Jose Cruz
38 Harry Hooper
39 Dave Concepcion
40 Ron Cey
41 Vada Pinson
42 Phil Rizzuto
43 Alejandro Oms
44 Hugh Duffy
45 Rick Reuschel
46 Cesar Cedeno
47 Orlando Cepeda
48 Dick Lundy
49 Jim Rice
50 Lou Brock
   91. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:07 AM (#2401003)
from the 2000 ballot thread:

<quote>I'm sure someone can use BB-Ref and find out where Gossage's ERA+ ranks among relievers during his career.</quote>

using a 10-games pitched minimum:

1975 AL

Gossage: 212 ERA+ in 141.7 IP
Jim Brewer: 196 in 34.7
John Hiller: 186 in 70.7
Dave LaRoche: 173 in 82.3
Jim Palmer (SP): 169 in 323

1976: Gossage used as a starting pitcher

1977 NL

Bruce Sutter: 327 ERA+ in 107.3 IP
Gossage: 246 in 133.0
Elias Sosa: 194 in 63.7
Gary Lavelle: 191 in 118.3
Gene Garber: 176 in 103.3
John Candeleria (SP): 171 in 230.7

1978 AL

Victor Cruz: 230 in 47.3
Bill Castro: 209 in 49.7
Ron Guidry (SP): 208 in 273.7
Gossage: 180 in 134.3
Jon Matlack (SP): 167 in 270.0
John Hiller: 166 in 92.3

1979 AL: Gossage 156 in 58.3, not among league leaders

1980 AL

Mike Willis: 253 in 26.3
Doug Corbett: 220 in 136.3
Tom Burgmeieer: 212 in 99.0
Jerry Garvin: 189 in 82.7
Gossage: 173 in 99.0

1981 AL (strike shortened season)

Gossage: 465 in 46.7
Rollie Fingers: 332 in 78.0
Kevin Saucier: 228 in 49.0
George Frazier: 221 in 27.7
John Butcher: 214 in 27.7

1982 AL

Tom Burgmeier: 189 in 102.3
Bill Caudill: 181 in 95.7
Gossage: 180 in 93.0
Ed VandenBerg: 179 in 76.0
Bob Stoddard: 176 in 67.3

1983 AL

Victor Cruz: 280 in 25.0
Dan Quisenberry: 210 in 139.0
Dave Stewart: 189 in 59.0
Don Hood: 180 in 47.7
Gossage: 173 in 87.3

1984 NL: Gossage 123 in 102.3, not among league leaders

1985 NL

Dwight Gooden (SP): 226 in 276.7
Gossage: 192 in 79.0
Jeff Lahti: 191 in 68.3
John Tudor (SP): 183 in 275.0
Don Carman: 178 in 86.3

Quick run-down:
1975: best reliever in AL
1977: 2nd best reliever in NL behind Bruce Sutter
1978: best reliever in AL (two ahead of him in ERA+ had 85 fewer IP) (Guidry had better ERA+ as a starter)
1980: 4th best reliever in AL
1981: best reliever in AL
1982: 3rd best reliever in AL behind Burgmeier and Caudill
1983: 2nd best reliever in AL behind Dan Quisenberry (5th in ERA+ but significant advantage in IP over other 3)
1985: best reliever in NL (Gooden had better ERA+ as a starter)
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: June 12, 2007 at 11:32 AM (#2401051)
BTW note Tony Mullane of the AA rated highly among the pitchers by Wins Above Replacement1. Granted he takes a hit on 3 but is that the AA or just the timeline?
   93. TomH Posted: June 12, 2007 at 11:46 AM (#2401057)
mostly the AA.

Mullane
years WARP1 WARP3
... all .. 90 ...... 57
81-85 . 32 ...... 10
86-94 . 58 ...... 47
   94. Paul Wendt Posted: June 12, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2401240)
Thane presumably gleaned this table from DT cards

First Last WARP1 WARP3 top5 W1 top5 W3
Nolan Ryan 139.0 138.7 50.8 49.4
Frank Tanana 112.5 111.3 47.7 46.8
Tommy John 110.6 108.7 36.2 35.2
Luis Tiant 101.1 98.2 46.5 45.3
Jim Kaat 100.0 96.3 44.7 43.2
Rick Reuschel95.7 97.0 42.3 42
Charlie Hough 94.6 94.8 40 39.7
Jack Quinn 92.9 84.9 36.7 33.9
Tony Mullane 90.4 57.2 52.8 36.5
Burleigh Grimes 89.9 82.6 45.7 42.8
Dizzy Trout 89.3 87.9 49.4 48.6
Jerry Koosman 89.3 88.3 39.1 38.3
Jack Morris 89.3 89.8 40.2 39.9
Dutch Leonard 89.2 89.2 40.3 41.0
Goose Gossage 88.7 89.5 43.9 43.3
Dave Stieb 88.4 89.0 46.2 46.7
Dennis Martinez 87.7 90.9 34.4 37.0
Mickey Lolich 87.2 83.7 43.9 42.1 


After Ryan the WARP1 ratings are roughly equal so let me take simple differences by hand and eye rather than ratios. Here is the difference WARP3 - WARP1, which indicates the Davenport estimates of league quality.

+3 Martinez [not yet eligible]
+1 Reuschel, Gossage, Stieb
+0 Morris, Hough, Leonard, Ryan
-1 Trout, Koosman, Tanana
-2 John
-3 Tiant
-4 Kaat, Lolich
-7 Grimes
-8 Quinn
-33 Mullane [would be -17 using conversion rate for 1886-1894]

Except the old-timers (bold), Martinez isn't much "younger" than the others, so I suppose he changed leagues at the right times, on the whole, through WARP glasses.
   95. Paul Wendt Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2401369)
TomH
We all agree that
1. Browning played in what was essentially a high-level minor league from age 21 to 24.


I suspect there is consensus for a big difference in quality 1882-1884, age 21 to 23 for Browning.
(--where the difference in quality between the major leagues in the mid-20th century is merely "small". The discussion occasionally implies a big difference but I believe the voting shows that the consensus is no big differences.)

Anyway,
>>
92. sunnyday2 Posted: June 12, 2007 at 07:32 AM (#2401051)
BTW note Tony Mullane of the AA rated highly among the pitchers by Wins Above Replacement1. Granted he takes a hit on 3 but is that the AA or just the timeline?
93. TomH Posted: June 12, 2007 at 07:46 AM (#2401057)
mostly the AA.

Mullane
years WARP1 WARP3
... all .. 90 ...... 57
81-85 . 32 ...... 10
86-94 . 58 ...... 47
<<

Tony Mullane was on the blacklist in 1885 and did not play in the majors. That '81-85' is about 50 innings in NL 1881, 1500 innings in AA 1882-84, and none in 1885. No doubt his small sample 1881 record understates and his big sample 1882 record overstates his skills at age 22/23.

Mullane was born in Cork which puts this in another light . . .

--
I should no longer ask such questions but answer them. Ignoring all 23 candidates who are not in the lahman5.4 database (although I have birth data for some of them),

Birth Country, 404 HOM candidates (appeared on a ballot through 1999) in lahman5.4 database (Jan 2007)
1 unknown (Charlie Buffinton)
1 Panama [1]
1 England
1 Holland [1]
2 Ireland
2 Scotland
2 Canada [1]
2 Venezuela
2 Dominican Republic [1]
3 Puerto Rico [1]
8 Cuba [4]
379 United States [195]

The six "Europeans" are Bert Blyleven and five who debuted before 1882. From another perspective the six are four pitchers, pitcher-cf-manager Harry Wright, and flukester Hugh Nicol.

There are three HOMers among the 23 uncounted candidates: Grant Johnson, John Beckwith, Dobie Moore --all born in the United States?
   96. Paul Wendt Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2401393)
Buffinton is third games and first in innings among mlb players with no Birth Country listed in lahman5.4. The two who lead him are 20th century USA collegians with complete birthdates, must be either clerical errors or birth country USA is never entered without more specific information.

John Murphy --neither "Grandma" nor "Soldier Boy"-- is 10th in innings among the men from nowhere. Murphy pitched 33 games, Buffinton 586.
   97. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2401411)
Go Tip O'Neill and Fergie Jenkins! Way to represent the Great White North! (I'd say the Maple Leaf but it wasn't yet the national symbol back in Tip's day).
   98. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2401416)
By the way, what's the listing for George Stovey?
   99. Paul Wendt Posted: June 12, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2401603)
Stovey, 1866- - , Williamsport PA, USA

In a moment there will be an overview of missing standard biographical data at "HOM Elections History ..."
   100. Paul Wendt Posted: June 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM (#2402986)
Seeing the vote for Dizzy Trout and near-vote for Virgil Trucks, I realized that I conflated these two players. So I looked them up. Poor Trucks, goes to war and team wins pennant. Lucky Trucks, works only last game of season, then two games in World Series.

Back to #89 and #94, I was mildly surprised a few days ago that Dizzy Trout loses only 1.4 wins in translation from WARP1 to WARP3. The difference is now 2.0 (numbers revised since Thane worked), but still the big 1944 season is discounted less than one win, down merely from +15.9 to +15.1 (this is not a typo).
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7007 seconds
49 querie(s) executed