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, June 18, 2007

2001 Ballot Discussion

2001 (Jul 9)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

415 128.6 1973 Dave Winfield-RF
351 122.1 1978 Lou Whitaker-2B
281 88.4 1984 Kirby Puckett-CF (2006)
263 85.5 1983 Don Mattingly-1B
248 86.5 1978 Lance Parrish-C
231 74.1 1983 Andy Van Slyke-CF
218 68.9 1980 Kirk Gibson-LF/RF
194 55.8 1982 Howard Johnson-3B
141 63.1 1981 Dave Stewart-P
140 59.8 1984 Tom Henke-RP
133 61.1 1982 Mike Moore-P
137 59.4 1981 Dave Righetti-RP
156 51.1 1986 John Kruk-1B
148 53.7 1983 Scott Fletcher-SS/2B
132 56.9 1984 Jose Rijo-P*
148 40.2 1983 Kevin Bass-RF
122 47.7 1983 Spike Owen-SS
119 44.8 1982 Steve Bedrosian-RP
115 45.3 1982 Bud Black-P
108 48.2 1981 Greg A. Harris-RP
106 45.3 1984 Ron Darling-P
116 40.8 1985 Steve Buechele-3B

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 18, 2007 at 02:35 AM | 194 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: June 19, 2007 at 02:07 AM (#2408874)
Don't have the necrology from Dan yet.

Any other players that you feel need a player thread?
   2. Daryn Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2408904)
Henke could use a thread. He is probably the first of the Eck-type closers. I'd say he is superior to Sutter.
   3. Juan V Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2408906)
Winfield, Whitaker and Randolph?
   4. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:33 AM (#2408946)
Winfield & Whitaker for sure. 3rd place is up for grabs again.
   5. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:44 AM (#2408958)
You mean the 1987 NL Cy Young Award winner can't even buy a thread? What kind of low standards for excellence does this joint have, anyway?????
   6. DavidFoss Posted: June 19, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2408967)
132 56.9 1984 Jose Rijo-P*

Another comeback player. What a career this guy could've had if he could have stayed healthy. At least he got a WS-MVP for us to remember his peak by.
   7. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 03:33 AM (#2409026)
Does anybody have component HR park factors going back to 1920 or so?
   8. DL from MN Posted: June 19, 2007 at 06:23 AM (#2409120)
2001 prelim

I'll list 16 not knowing if Randolph is eligible or elected.

1) Dave Winfield - slightly below the HoM median, not quite Clemente
2) Luis Tiant
3) Bus Clarkson
4) Lou Whitaker - Whitaker and Clarkson score within 0.3% on the spreadsheet. I'm inclined to give the slot to Lou since there's no guesswork to his numbers.
5) Bob Johnson
6) Tommy Bridges
7) Willie Randolph
8) Norm Cash
9) Graig Nettles
10) Tony Perez
11) Buddy Bell
12) Ron Cey
13) Rick Reuschel
14) Reggie Smith
15) Rusty Staub
16) Virgil Trucks
17-20) Gavy Cravath, Bob Elliott, Ben Taylor, Jack Clark

I'm anxiously awaiting a new MLE for Ben Taylor. Any upwards adjustment would probably place him on ballot.

62) Lance Parrish
81) Kirby Puckett - ahead of Hugh Duffy at 92. It really pains me not to vote for Kirby. Kirby is a lot of the reason I pay this much attention to baseball. It's ironic to have Winfield at the top and Puckett this far down. Winfield is the local boy, the Gopher, the incredible athlete and there isn't anyone in the state who would rather have Dave Winfield than Kirby Puckett on their team.
96) Don Mattingly
   9. mulder & scully Posted: June 19, 2007 at 06:59 AM (#2409134)
Chris Cobb,

I was hoping you might have the time to rerun George Scales MLEs in light of the new numbers from the HoF study. It shows him with about 10 more points of average and slugging. Also, it shows that the valleys of the mid-30s were not as low as once thought. Lastly, it shows him being a good player in the Negro Leagues through age 43. I have run some numbers based on the formulas used to revise Clarkson's and would like to compare mine with yours.

Thanks,
m&s
   10. CraigK Posted: June 19, 2007 at 07:21 AM (#2409137)
Jose Rijo: Only player to appear in a major-league game after getting a HoF vote since, oh I dunno, Minoso, right?
   11. mulder & scully Posted: June 19, 2007 at 07:45 AM (#2409142)
Prelim: My ballot may be quite a bit different, but here are my factors by how much weight I give them

1. 7 year prime
2. 3 years consecutive peak
3. rank within era and position
4. career
5. per season of 648 PA - benefits players like Chance, hurts those who played in high offense eras like the 1890s
I give bonus for being an all-star by win shares or STATS
I include time missed for WWI and II in most cases.
I include time in high minors if a player is blocked because of when he played - independent minors.
I include time for some suspensions: Charley Jones - yes, Joe Jackson - no
I believe in MLEs for skin color.

1. Charley Jones
2. Mickey Welch
3. Pete Browning
4. Bucky Walters
5. Dave Winfield - An obvious HoMer, I just think the other 4 are more obvious. I think Jones, Browning, and Walters are further above the established norms for their positions than Winfield is (remember I am not a career voter) and Welch was unfairly ignored/idiosyncratic vote.
6. Bus Clarkson
7. Hugh Duffy
8. Tommy Leach
9. Vic Willis
10. Gavy Cravath
11. George Burns
12. Don Newcombe
13. Wilbur Cooper
14. Lou Whitaker
15. George Scales - I think he could be this good, but will wait to talk to Chris before showing my revised MLEs. Even without the revision, he and Whitaker are my top 2 second basemen who could actually field the position.
16. Roger Bresnahan
17. Rollie Fingers
18. Ken Singleton
19. Frank Chance
20. Burleigh Grimes

Don Mattingly - like him even less than DL - about 110th. First basemen have very high standards. The descriptions of Sisler or Terry lite ring true to me. Neither Terry nor Sisler are in my PHOM yet.
Kirby Puckett - about the same as DL - about 75th. I'll look at the defense again, but the peak wasn't historic and neither was the prime; neither STATS nor win shares have him as an all-star often; and despite not having a decline phase, his seasonal totals are not great.
Lance Parrish - about 50th, 4th best catcher available after Bresnhan (only played 68% of games at catcher), Schang, and Elston Howard.
Willie Randolph is behind Whitaker, Scales, Doyle, Lazzeri, Monroe, and Evers for me. But more deserving than Fox by far.
Dick Redding is 4 big years with no shoulder seasons and his 1920s numbers from the HoF study add nothing to his candidacy.
Tony Perez - First basemen have high standards and he is not close for peak or prime performance.

Stieb, Nettles, and Ohms have outside chances as well to make the ballot.

Willing to be convinced by arguments that my placement for new players is wrong. I don't have much time anymore with the two jobs and small child, but I'll be reading the threads.
If I don't post again, please use this as my ballot. If I have forgotten any top 10ers I'll post them in soon.
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: June 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM (#2409189)
Wow! So it comes down to this. Willie Randolph was a better ballplayer than Kirby Puckett. So says the HoM. Wow.
   13. TomH Posted: June 19, 2007 at 12:05 PM (#2409195)
Not better. More valuable. Pete Reiser was 'better' than both of them :)
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: June 19, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2409231)
Mulder & Scully:

Re George Scales MLEs:

I am sorry that I didn't answer your e-mail about this off-line, but I tried to reply directly to the message and the e-mail address didn't work (a familiar theme of late :-/). I have been crazy busy, so I let the matter drop. Again, my apologies.

I would like to run Scales' MLEs again, and it's on my agenda, but it's my third project down after (1) finishing the Moran MLES and (2) finishing MLEs for Ben Taylor. I hope by next week to have time to start working on MLEs again, and I'll get as far as I can. But you could post your own data for discussion, or if you want feedback on methodology, send it to me from an e-mail address I can respond to, and I will take a look.
   15. Mark Donelson Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2409457)
Wow! So it comes down to this. Willie Randolph was a better ballplayer than Kirby Puckett. So says the HoM. Wow.

Now you know how yest feels every year, Sunny. :)

(For the record, I won't have either of them in my pHOM.)
   16. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2409473)
Wow! So it comes down to this. Willie Randolph was a better ballplayer than Kirby Puckett. So says the HoM. Wow.


At first glance, I don't see it myself, Marc. I might change my mind later on after I do a more thorough analysis, but Puckett looks like the better player to me.
   17. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 19, 2007 at 04:53 PM (#2409497)
Roughly equivalent players with Randolph representing long and well above average and Puckett representing a near perfect iamge of a prime candidate. Neither quite makes it into my pHOM or my ballot, but both are nearly players I could vote for. I'm essentially disinterested overall, but could see either argument. Since I'm not sold on Randolph, I believe the electorate overvalues him, and I suspect the electorate to be just as divided on Puckett given that he has the following tough-to-unknot things:
-career shortened by sudden injury (two if you think about it), so possible lingering sense of unfinishedness
-tweener: enough time to be a verifiable prime guy, not just a peak guy, though not enough peak to get in on it alone; but not enough length to be a career guy
-consistent all-star but not all-world performance
-very good (possibly better?) defensive player, which is our squishiest area of player evaluation sometimes
-plenty of reputation for clutchiness and had good postseason resume
-and appeals to our vocal and relatively populous Minnesota sector! ; )

Anyway, some will like all of them, or none of them, or some of them. He'll be interesting.
-popular and smiley (even if brought down by subsequent scandal)
-contemporary to nearly all of our baseball-watching lives and recent enough for strong memories
   18. TomH Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2409524)
Mattingly: a poor man's Keith Hernandez or a poor man's Puckett. Unless you really weigh consecutive peak very heavy.

Kirrrrrbeee Puckett (man, I miss that call...) - best match might be Bob Johnson. Simialr guys - career length, consistently strong

From BP translated stats, taking away Johnsons' 1945.

player ...yrs PA OBA SLG SB CS def
BJohnson 12 549 376 559 .9 .5 LF 103 rating
KPuckett 12 609 372 524 11 .6 CF 103 rating

Kirby wins on durability, and position. Johnson a much better slugger, plus he has minor league credit and the 1945 year that was OK. Kirby has the nice post-season moments.

Puckett was thought of much more highly when he played; but I attribute that more to team success, lack of accouting for Homerdome-itis, and lack of accounting for his disdain for the base on balls, than reality; a;lthough there is truth to the point that Puckett's league was more challenging to dominate.

Puckett drew a HUGE advantage for his home park; MUCH more than the typical home field advantage.
----------- career splits
I Split G .....PA .. R ... H .. 2B 3B . HR RBI BB . BA . OBP SLG OPS Split
Home 914 4014 626 1269 239 38 113 601 247 .344 .388 .521 .909 Home
Away 869 3817 445 1035 175 19 .94 .484 203 .291 .331 .430 .761 Away

I'd beg to differ with those who don't rank them as reasonably close to each other.
   19. Rusty Priske Posted: June 19, 2007 at 05:19 PM (#2409542)
Prelim...assuming Randolph gets in this year. If not he would be #4, between Perez and GVH.

PHoM: Top 2 plus someone from my backlog. Ted Strong maybe.


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

16-20. Cepeda, Bonds, Browning, Willis, Murphy
21-25. Doyle, S.Rice, Streeter, Strong, McCormick
26-30. Greene, Gleason, Robinson, W.Davis, Monroe
   20. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 19, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2409647)
Seriously, I really need HR park factors--I only have them from about 1965 on. Can anyone help me?? Does this data even exist? It must...
   21. Paul Wendt Posted: June 19, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2409800)
Dan,
KJOK Kevin Johnson did not vote this yesterday so I guess he is out of town or very busy. I believe he has home run park factors; anyway he can probably tell you which ballpark-seasons are available where. If you are a member of the SABR ballparks committee or the baseball-databank yahoo group, it may be worth checking their Files to see what he has uploaded. Among HallofMerit files one may be worth examining, perhaps reengineering, but really I think you should wait.
application/vnd.ms-excel KJOK_Leagues_Parks_Stats_Converter_v3.xls
Converts Batter and Pitcher stats from one league to equiv. stats in another lge
   22. Juan V Posted: June 20, 2007 at 03:46 PM (#2410773)
So, even though we are discussing other important things, how about my first impressions about the newbies:

Yeah, I'll have the Ws 1-2, with a clear but not huge margin over the backlog. The distance between my top backlogger, Gavy Cravath, and them is about the same as the distance between them and a guy like Gary Carter. I'm leaning towards Whitaker 1st.

Mattingly has the best short peak, and I expect that to get him into some ballots. However, after that.... He comes across as similar to Parker, which to me isn't good.

I might even have Parrish over Puckett. For a prime guy, Puckett's prime isn't that impressive really. Comp in ranking would be Pete Browning, even though he is completely different as a player.
   23. Chris Cobb Posted: June 20, 2007 at 03:55 PM (#2410784)
Mattingly/Parrish/Puckett and even Whitaker present a set of eminently arguable cases that merit thorough discussion.

I raised Parrish v. Munson on the Parrish thread.

We're looking at Whitaker v. Randolph on the Whitaker thread (DL has added a good post on platoon splits recently)

Puckett v. Murphy has been mentioned. What about Puckett v. other modern, high-backlog outfielders, e.g. Bobby Bonds, Reggie Smith, and Ken Singleton?
   24. Juan V Posted: June 20, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2410801)
Rats. I forgot to make the adjustment for Parrish's SLG-heavy OPS. I'll go change things on him.
   25. Mark Donelson Posted: June 20, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2410825)
Assuming we ever get to the 2001 election, it's looking like it'll be a rough year for my consensus score—I'm less excited than many are about most of the newbies. For the moment, I'm leaving Randolph and Fingers in the mix (which for me only matters in terms of Fingers, about whom I'm finally convinced, thanks to cblau).

2001 prelim

1. Dean
2. Williamson
3. E. Howard
4. Willis
5. Browning
6. Cravath
7. Tiant
8. C. Jones
9. Rosen
10. Singleton
11. Winfield
12. Duffy
13. McGraw
14. Fingers
15. Doyle

At present, my pHOM inductees would be Winfield, Fingers, and Minoso.

As for the other newbies: Whitaker looks a lot like Bobby Doerr to me, which makes sense--Doerr is in the HOM but not my pHOM. Puckett is somewhere around Dale Murphy. Both of them look to be in the 30-40 range for me right now. Mattingly might sneak into the top 50, but only barely if so--Sisler Lite isn't going to get him any further than that. I like Parrish slightly better than Darrell Porter, but that's not enough to be close. Henke drops in among relievers between Hiller and Radatz in my system, which places him outside my top 50.
   26. TomH Posted: June 20, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2410833)
post18: Kirby = Bob Johnson

But again, check out his career road stats. 760 OPS. 760! Barely above league avg. The man was a superstud in the Twin Cities, and a useful ballplayer in 13 other parks. That makes me pause and wonder if he belongs on my ballot.
   27. Juan V Posted: June 20, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2410891)
Okay, so the funniest thing happened. When I was going to re-run Parrish's numbers, I found out I had made another mistake on him. The thing was, both mistakes cancelled each other out, so my earlier results were the "correct" ones.
   28. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 20, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2410893)
Okay, so the funniest thing happened. When I was going to re-run Parrish's numbers, I found out I had made another mistake on him. The thing was, both mistakes cancelled each other out, so my earlier results were the "correct" ones.

I love it when a plan comes together.
   29. DavidFoss Posted: June 20, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2410900)
But again, check out his career road stats. 760 OPS. 760! Barely above league avg. The man was a superstud in the Twin Cities, and a useful ballplayer in 13 other parks. That makes me pause and wonder if he belongs on my ballot.

I never understood penalizing players for home/road splits. The Twins played half their games in the Metrodome and those games counted just as much as the road games. This goes for guys like JRice, Ott, Kiner, Whitaker as well as Puckett.
   30. OCF Posted: June 20, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2410908)
What David just said also applies to Jimmy Wynn. The fact that the Astrodome didn't seem to hurt him doesn't change the fact that what he accomplished had value there. I haven't had a chance to look at Puckett yet - I do have several people I want to line him up next to, certainly including Wynn and Murphy.
   31. DavidFoss Posted: June 21, 2007 at 01:56 PM (#2411873)
It's the value vs. ability argument. Certain players might be really hurt or really helped by particular parks, and certain voters might want to reward talented players, even if circumstances diminished their value at times during their careers. Or vice versa. I understand the thinking, though it can only be taken so far.

Yeah, I guess I do "understand" it. Thanks. I guess I'm just weighing in that I'm pro-"value" as far as the HOM is concerned. The same with postseason awards. "Ability" certainly is important when doing projections.
   32. TomH Posted: June 21, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2411904)
while I'm more of a mix of 'value' and ability', hence my lukewarm support 100 years ago for Ross 'fair-foul-bunt' Barnes, and current lack of luv for G Cravath.

speaking of curious home park stats, most of us are aware of Ed Williamson's power surge for the 1884 Cubs; he led the league with 27 home runs. I just looked up the Cubs stats at bb-ref, and Williamson was only 3rd on the team in RBI that year. Also, he scored 84 runs ,which ain't much considering FIVE teammates scored oevr 100! That year the Cubs hit 146 home runs. The other 7 NL teams averaged 26.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 21, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2411936)
Hey, everyone,

The crisis is over, but there's work yet to be done to finish the job. Please see post 337 in the Constitution thread. Thanks.
   34. DL from MN Posted: June 21, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2412129)
Sorry to be a pest but I want to get Ben Taylor "right" before the project ends. Can someone re-do the MLE with the new information? I'm not really familiar with the process or I'd do it myself.
   35. Chris Cobb Posted: June 21, 2007 at 07:48 PM (#2412291)
Ben Taylor is next on my to-do list, after I finish Carlos Moran. I will have Moran's revised MLEs finished by early next week, at the latest. I'll start on Taylor directly after.
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 21, 2007 at 11:40 PM (#2412557)
KJOK Kevin Johnson did not vote this yesterday so I guess he is out of town or very busy.


He actually responded to my reminder e-mail on Monday, though he never actually stated if he was going to vote or not.
   37. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2007 at 12:38 AM (#2412594)
This is my definitive 2001 ballot, as I'm out for 2 weeks from 27th. Please could some kind soul post it on the ballot thread when that appears. I don't think I'm particularly controversial on the newbies anyway.

Winfield, even more than Paul Waner is a clone of Jake Beckley and so ranks top. Whitaker when you correct by about 20 OPS+ points for fielding position (2B and good at it) is 2367 hits @137, clearly the right side of line, below Stephens but above Schang. Puckett’s low in consideration set; about 10 OPS+ points short of ballot – if you add a mythical tail to his career, his lifetime OPS+ goes down.
Mattingley: if your best player was Don Mattingley, could you win the pennant? Yankee fans 1982-95 found the answer was no.
Parrish just off bottom of consideration set, but close. Van Slyke and Gibson (not all that good even at his peak) well off the bottom.


1. (N/A) Dave Winfield. At last we have found a Beckley clone, when you add a little for Beckley’s fielding position and shorter seasons. 3110 hits @129. TB+BB/PA .513, TB+BB/Outs .752

2. (N/A-7-7-6-8-6-6-7-7-6-7-7-7-9-8-7-7-4-5-3-3-3-5-4-4-4-6-4-4-4-5-2-2
-4-4-3-3-5-4-3-2-2-3-5-2) Addie Joss. I’m now even more convinced I missed him earlier, and that adjusting innings down for dead ball pitchers is illegitimate. 2327 IP at an ERA+ of 142. 160-97 by age 30. If you assume the rest of his career would have been 1800 IP, 120-90 with an ERA+ of 110 (somewhat conservative, assuming you boost his last sick season, though pitchers didn’t last as long as they did later) then 50% credit would put him at 3227IP, 220-142, with ERA+ of 130. 25% credit puts him at 2777 IP, 190-120, with ERA+ of 136. Substantially better than Koufax. OPS+20. Electorate needs to take him more seriously.

3. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6-5-4-6-7-6-5-5-6-7-5-5-4-
4-5-4-6-4-4-5-4-4-5-4-4-6-5-5-5-6-7-5-5-6-7-6-5-5-7-5-5-5-6-3-4-7-6-4-4-6-5-4-3-3-4-6-3) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity – Newhouser a close comp, but Cicotte had a longer career. Successfully cursed Red Sox AND White Sox for over 8 decades!

4. (N/A-10-9-8-10-11-10-13-12-14-N/A-15-14-13-12-11-10-10-11-9-9
-10-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-10-7-8-11-10-8-8-10-9-5-4-4-5-7-4) Ernie Lombardi. Up a bit more; we’re forgetting him. Berra closely comparable Berra. 2137 hits, normalized to a 130 game season, and an OPS+ of 125 makes him a little better than Schang, but some of it was during the war years and he fielded badly. TB+BB/PA .492, TB+BB/Outs .719., the ratio between the two very low because of strikeouts, I assume. Plus a great nickname!

5. (N/A-14-15-14-13-14-15-14-15-14-15-15-13-12-13-10-11-13-12-10-
11-12-11-6-5-5-6-8-5) Vern Stephens. Short career – only 1859 hits, but comparing him to Reese he was much better, and not far short of Doerr. TB+BB/PA .508, TB+BB/Outs .756. OPS+ 119 Best season 1944, however. Sliding up ballot.

6. (N/A) Lou Whitaker 2369 hits at 117, TB+BB/PA.486 TB+BB/Outs.735 Correct him for being a 2B and he’s clearly a little better than Schang on career length but not quite Stephens, though one could go either way on that. Definitely short of Lombardi, though.

7. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9-8-7-8-11-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-11-12-
11-14-13-11-13-13-13-13-12-11-14-13-12-11-11-12-10-10-11-12-11
-11-11-13-13-11-10-11-8-9-12-11-9-10-11-12-8-7-7-9-10-6) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.

8. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11-12-10-12-11-9-8-9-10-10-9-
8-9-10-9-8-7-9-9-8-10-9-8-10-9-8-9-8-8-10-9-8-8-8-9-7-7-8-9-8-7-7-9-9-8-7-8-5-6-9-8-6-6-8-7-9-8-8-10-11-7) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season. But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF. Down, but just above Browning

9. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5-7-5-6-7-6-6-7-8-7-6-6-7-8-6-6-5-
5-6-5-7-5-5-6-6-5-6-5-5-7-6-6-6-7-8-6-6-7-8-7-6-6-8-6-6-6-7-4-5-8-7-5-5-7-6-10-9-9-11-12-8) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA. Also discount for not playing full seasons; the normalized hits should thus be about 1900, so drop him to just above Hondo.

10. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13-11-10-11-12-12-11-11-11-
12-12-11-11-12-13-12-15-14-12-14-11-10-11-11-10-12-11-10-9-9-
10-8-8-9-10-9-8-8-10-10-9-8-9-6-7-10-9-7-7-9-8-7-6-6-8-9-9) Sam Leever. Pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.
   38. karlmagnus Posted: June 22, 2007 at 12:39 AM (#2412596)
Ballot part 2

11. (N/A-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-13-14-11-12-14-13-11-13-14-13-11-10-10-12-13-10) Frank Howard Very slightly better than Kiner – significantly longer career. Underrated by history. OPS+ 142 for 1774 hits. TB+BB/PA .546, TB+BB/Outs .805 in a pitchers’ park and era.

12. (N/A-12-11-11-13-14-11) Tommy John 288-231, 4710IP@111. Infinitesimally below Sutton, better than Kaat.

13. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A-15-15-N/A-14-N/A-15-13-12-14-15-12) George van Haltren. Had slipped too far at #44; we need more 90s stars.

14. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15-15-15-N/A-15-N/A-13) Carl Mays Had slipped down too far. 3021 innings at 119, 207-126 and 83 OPS+ Others should look at him more closely.

15. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-
N/A-14-13-15-N/A-14) Hugh Duffy. Back on ballot after more than 60 years; we don’t have enough Beaneaters!

OFF BALLOT

16. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-
2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2-4-2-3-3-2-2-4-3-2-2-3-3-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-
3-2-2-3-2-2-4-2-3-2-2-4-2-2-2-4-3-3-3-4-2-2-2-2-N/A-15) Mickey Welch. UER were 43.37% of total runs allowed for Mickey, compared to about 40% with all his HOM contemporaries except Galvin (who started earlier, anyway.) Hence his ERA+, his weakness anyway, overstates his value; in spite of 307-210 he was primarily an innings-eater. 4802IP. Will now be on and off ballot.

17. (N/A-15-N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Rusty Staub. 2716 hits at OPS+124. TB+BB/PA .484, TB+BB/Outs .724. Not quite as good as Beckley, for not quite as long.

18. (N/A-12-N/A) Fred Lynn. Underrated, considerably better than Rice or Hernandez. 1960 hits at 130, but bonus for playing CF. TB+BB/PA .531, TB+BB/Outs .791. Lovely player to watch, and absolutely top-drawer at his best.

19. Reggie Smith
20. (N/A-14-N/A-15-13-15-N/A-15-N/A) Luis Tiant 229-172. 3486 IP at 114. ERA+ a little low, but W/L good. He’s not top tier, but just a little better than Pierce. Big psychic plus for Red Sox affiliation. Looking at Reuschel, a little overplaced so have slipped him down.

21. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis Had slipped too far.

22. Gavvy Cravath 1134 hits@150. Add 50% to career and deduct 5 points for more years in early career makes him 1699 hits @145, still a very short career, but comparable to Hack. TB+BB/PA .527, TB+BB/Outs .835.

23. Dave Stieb 176-137 very unimpressive but 122 ERA+ for 2895 innings more so. Moved up a little as I don’t think he’s far below Gossage.

24. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14-14-14-N/A-15-15-15-N/A-14-15-15-15-N/A-
14-N/A-15-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-15-14-N/A) Hack Wilson. TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144. (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore.

25. Rick Reuschel. 214-191, 3548IP@114. Tough to put him far from Tiant, who had a better W/L, but I now realized I was overvaluing Tiant a bit because of Red Sox affiliation.

26. (N/A-15-N/A) Alejandro Oms. New MLE OPS+ of 125 moves him down a bit. Shorter career than Beckley, and not quite as valuable, but he was a darn good player nonetheless.

27. (N/A-14-14-N/A) Chuck Klein. Shortish career but very good one. Similar player to Beckwith, beats Hack on career length, but Hack was better. TB+BB/PA .575, TB+BB/Outs .909, but only 2076 hits. OPS+137.

28. Indian Bob Johnson. Very similar career to Klein but infinitesimally less good. TB+BB/PA .569, TB+BB/Outs .890., only 2051 hits. OPS+138

29. Brian Downing. 2099 hits at 122 plus he caught about 1/3 of his games. TB+BB/PA.487 TB+BB/Outs.741

30. Roger Bresnahan. Moves up on re-examination, but not close enough to see the ballot because even with a catcher bonus his career is short 1252 hits @126, maybe 1500 with catcher bonus, since he played OF in a lot of his catcher seasons. About 2/3 catcher takes him to 140-142 but 1500 @140-142 is close but no cigar, given Klein and Johnson. TB+BB/PA .447, TB+BB/Outs .719. Lombardi and Schang very clearly better.

31. Tony Perez. Up a little, closer to Staub. 2732 hits at 122. TB+BB/PA .502, TB+BB/Outs .731.
32. Bill Madlock.
33. Toby Harrah
34. Ben Taylor.
35. Jim Kaat
36. Orlando Cepeda
37. Norm Cash
38. Jim Rice
39. (N/A-12-12-14-N/A) Tony Lazzeri
40. Cesar Cedeno
41. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice
42. Lou Brock
43. Mickey Vernon
44. Thurmon Munson
45. Sal Maglie.
46. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes.
47. (N/A) Heinie Manush
48. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan
49. Bob Elliott
50. (N/A) Dick Lundy
51. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle.
52. Jack Clark. As good as Reggie Smith but not for as long. 1826 hits@137OPS+, TB+BB .529, TB+BB/Outs .845
53. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
54. Dave Parker.
55. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
56. Gene Tenace
57. Kiki Cuyler
58. Deacon McGuire
59. Jerry Koosman.
60. Boog Powell
61. Ken Singleton.
62. Bucky Walters 198-160, 3104IP at 115 certainly doesn’t make the ballot, but should be on the consideration set, so here he is. Less than Tiant or Reuschel..
63. Sal Bando.
64. Jim Fregosi.
65. Jack Quinn
66. Tony Mullane
67. Ron Cey
68. Pie Traynor
69. Jim McCormick
70. Dick Redding. My punt is 3200 innings at 114 ERA+ for a record of 207-159, i.e. same quality as Chris but a little shorter. About here looks right – a little below Grimes (longer career) and Maglie (better quality.)
71. Joe Judge
72. Spotswood Poles.
73. Buddy Bell.
74. Larry Doyle
75. Willie Randolph Somewhat better than contemporary Nettles, adjusting for positional difference, so about here. 2210 hits at 104 TB+BB/PA.429 TB+BB/Outs.646
76. Kirby Puckett 2304 hits @124. TB+BB/PA .498 TB+BB/Outs .738 Overrated badly by the HOF; 5 adjusted OPS+ points short of Cepeda, who’s below the ballot.
77. Curt Simmons
78. Waite Hoyt.
79. Harry Hooper.
80. Vada Pinson
81. Gil Hodges
82. Jules Thomas.
83. Rico Carty.
84. Wilbur Cooper
85. Bruce Petway.
86. Jack Clements
87. Frank Tanana
88. Graig Nettles.
89. Don Mattingley. 2153 hits@127. TB+BB/PA TB+BB/Outs. Just below Puckett because no positional adjustment. Overrated by Yankee fans; there’s a reason his career coincided with the drought.
90. Bill Monroe
91. Herb Pennock
92. Chief Bender
93. Ed Konetchy
94. Al Oliver
95. Jesse Tannehill
96. Bobby Veach
97. Chet Lemon.
98. Lave Cross
99. Tommy Leach.
100. Tom York
   39. OCF Posted: June 22, 2007 at 01:02 AM (#2412607)
Dave Winfield. At last we have found a Beckley clone, when you add a little for Beckley’s fielding position and shorter seasons.

In my favorite offensive system:

Beckley  38 36 34 29 29 27 24 20 20 20 19 19 15 15 13 10  8  4 -8-11
Winfield 69 61 52 44 43 33 30 28 27 24 21 20 19 15 15  9  8  8  0 
--4-12 


Well, I see the levels as a different, and Winfield as a better candidate than Beckley - but Karl is on to a little something here. Winfield's best offensive years were widely and haphazardly scattered, and many other "bats" (LF/RF/1B) have hitting peaks that stick out above the best of Winfield. But Winfield lasted soooo long as a good player. I'm not a pure career voter - no one here really is - but I respond reasonably well to career cases, more so than the average voter. Winfield is a career case.

Mattingley: if your best player was Don Mattingley, could you win the pennant? Yankee fans 1982-95 found the answer was no.

I'd just like to point out that there were a few years in there (notably including 1985) in which the Yankees' best player was Rickey Henderson.
   40. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 22, 2007 at 01:10 AM (#2412611)
I'd just like to point out that there were a few years in there (notably including 1985) in which the Yankees' best player was Rickey Henderson.

The central irony and tragedy of the Yankees and Mattingly is that in his era those other few years included leader years by (1991-1993) Barfield, Sax, Tartabull, and Stanley, before O'Neill and Bernie ushered in the new era of dominance in 94 and 95.
   41. Chris Cobb Posted: June 22, 2007 at 02:30 AM (#2412643)
2001 Preliminary Ballot

Mattingly, Parrish, Puckett, Whitaker, Winfield is a stronger set of candidates than I had realized. Not much moving up for the backlog this year, I think.

1. Winfield -- Not inner circle, but an obvious HoMer. As has been noted, he's a career candidate, though he did have a few great seasons.
2. Whitaker -- With Randolph a returning runner up, it's pretty clear that Whitaker should go in this year. #2 second baseman of the 1980s after Sandberg.
3. Bancroft -- Good career length, great glove, good bat. We should be electing more players from the high-defense positions.
4. Oms -- Some voters are simply not crediting him for his accomplishments, I fear. As good as or better than Roush, whom we elected.
5. Randolph -- Hope he gets in this year! I expect he will. Fingers got a bump from direct comparison to Gossage, and I think Whitaker comparisons will pull Randolph up a bit, as we're already seeing in numbers like OCF's RC that they were quite close in value. A vote from Joe won't hurt, either . . .
6. Leach -- Very similar career to Randolph.
7. John -- The Jake Beckley of pitchers. Very underrated by the electorate. Has a legitimate, though not outstanding peak after his surgery, and he was very good for a long time: all those seasons of 200-220 ip with an above average ERA+ were highly valuable, above average performances.
8. Maranville -- A decent hitter in the deadbball era, an all-time great with the glove.
9. Bell
10. Nettles -- Two more long-career, good-hit, great-field infield candidates.
11. Parrish -- Hasn't been getting a lot of attention, but he was a good-hitting, great-fielding catcher for a long time. He's Bill Freehan with a bit less peak and a bit more career. Not a candidate to set the world on fire, but he's deserving, I think. I'm starting him a little bit lower than my system places him, partly because there have been anecdotal arguments against his defense that might have validity. I'm hoping some fielding assessments based on PBP data will show up to make the case clearer.
12. Bus Clarkson -- A forgotten man. A hitter with plate discipline and pop who could play SS and 3B. Played everywhere in a long career.
13. Stieb -- His peak is as good as anybody's, and he adds more to it in the rest of his career than do Walters, Gomez, Dean, et al.
14. Charley Jones -- I'm moving him ahead of Bonds this year. As time goes on, we're seeing more and more OF candidates from the 1970s and 1980s whose case is about like Bonds's. Jones stands out much more against his (admittedly weaker) peers. I'm seeing Jones as more like Jimmy Wynn in relative quality.
15. Bobby Bonds -- Like Wynn, but a bit less peak.

16. Grimes -- Almost on ballot. One of the great workhorses of all time. More impressive than Morris in this respect. Mixed bad years with good ones, but had strong peak value, and was a very good hitter. A messy package, spitball and all, but a worthy one, in my view.
17. Puckett -- Very very similar to Bonds. A bit lower peak, a bit less career (for the obvious reason), better defense, equal offense. Hard to sort out. I definitely prefer him to Murphy, and I definitely prefer Jimmy Wynn, but between those two there would be 12 ballot spots, and I don't know where to place Puckett in that gap. This is a conservative opening, as I watch for more analysis.
18. Perez
19. Cash
20. Murphy
21. Staub
22. Cravath
23. Tiant
24. Tinker
25. Johnson
26. Reggie Smith
27. D. Dimaggio
28. Ryan
29. Long
30. Redding

Carlos Moran might well break the top 30 when I have final numbers for him.

Don Mattingly is farther back, just outside my top 60. Great peak, but just not enough to go with it. His peak rate is #10 or #12 among 1980s position players (WS & WARP, respectively), which would make him electable by that measure. His total value above average is down around 22, which is borderline at best, and his career is well outside the top 30. He has a case, but to be elected on a five-year peak alone, you have to be the best player in baseball, and Mattingly wasn’t quite that good.
   42. TomH Posted: June 22, 2007 at 11:58 AM (#2412783)
Two new top-10ers I will have to comment on next week, because they will not be making my ballot:

Charley Jones - best comp to me (great power, 12-15 year career) is Orlando Cepeda, if you cut off Cepeda's last few years. I have Cepeda ahead, and he doesn't make my ballot, either.

Tony Perez – in the competition of the Mr. HoM contest of June 2007, Doggie has been accused of stuffing his suit with pedestrian performances in 1981-86, to make his, um, overall features stand out more. Do not be deceived. Reggie Smith, Van Haltren, Bob Johnson, Mattingly, B Bonds, all have fine figures without the phony enhancements.
   43. TomH Posted: June 22, 2007 at 02:37 PM (#2412883)
Very busy 2 weeks upcoming. Here's prelim ballot. Please move to ballot thread if I don't post by 24 hrs pior to deadline.
----
2001 Ballot
Review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like RCAP adjusted for defense and league strength, or WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 11 per year adjusted for league quality. Small credit for pitcher “peak”, none for hitters. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place. I rank the long primes higher than most of us.

(x) indicates where I voted for them last ballot
[y] indicates their consensus rank from last ballot

1- Dave Winfield {new}
Most years leading MLB in seagull kills
2- Lou Whitaker {new}
Sweet!
3- John McGraw (3) [22]
Dominant 9 year prime. Provided huge advantage over every other MLB team at third base.
4- Willie Randolph (4) [4]
Many years as a fine overall performer.
5- Roger Bresnahan (5) [9]
Best MLB catcher of his era, the era before, & the era after. Position flexibility not a minus.
6- Bob Johnson (6) [13]
Very good long prime; clearly better over a dozen year stretch than our other backlog OFers. One very good MinorLg year of credit also.
7- Reggie Smith (7) [21]
Too fragile for peak (big seasons) voters, not long enough career for career voters. But guys, he won lots of games for his teams. Lots. More than all of the men below him.
8- Bucky Walters (8) [11]
Faced strong opponents, pitched real well, hit real well too.
9- George Van Haltren (9) [16]
Speed and on-base skills made him very valuable in his day. Add in a long career, including pitching, and you get a HoMer.
10- Frank Chance (10) [70]
A great player on great teams. <u>Better hitter than Gavy Cravath AND Charley Jones.</u>.
11- Kirrrrbeeeeee PUCKETT! {new}
In another park besides the HHHdome, he was only very good, not great at all. However, post-season credit gets him on my ballot.
12- Bill Monroe (13) [51]
Dominant in his day.
13- Dick Redding (12) [5]
Great pitcher according to the anecdotes. Less great by MLEs. I split the difference.
14- Luis Tiant (14) [26]
Small bonuses for few unearned runs and great post-season stats.
15- Dave Stieb (15) [7]
Best at a time when it was tough to dominate.

Other Newbies
Don Mattingly = Bobby Bonds with a better brief peak. Almost, but not quite.
Lance Parrish = Thurman Munson. HoVG. In my top 80.

Returning top 10 disclosure:
Pete Browning – cover up his seasons before age 25, when he was in a very weak AA, and he looks like Babe Herman.
   44. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 22, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2412981)
Chris Cobb,

I'm thrilled to see the shortstops on your ballot, but perplexed by the ranking...Maranville above Rizzuto and Concepción? I have him below Pesky (who is only half a SS) and Campaneris as well.
   45. Chris Cobb Posted: June 22, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2413009)
I'm certainly continuing to review and revise my rankings, so the ranking here may change.

Some reasons why my evaluation may differ from yours on shortstops are as follows:

1) My system places more weight on career and less on peak than yours does, and Maranville certainly has much more career than the other shortstops you mention. I believe you described the latter part of Maranville's career as "worthless" on your ballot. I don't see it that way, at least not until 1930. After that, I agree that his value above replacement was negligible.

2) I don't fully subscribe to a value-based assessment of merit based on freely-available talent levels. I think the extremely low replacement levels for shorstops during the 1970s may be a combination of a quirk in talent at the position and a systematic (and misguided) managerial strategy of steering anyone who could hit away from the shortstop position. So I see Concepcion and Campaneris as both overrated a bit by your method.

3) War credit figures prominently in the cases of Maranville, Rizzuto, and Pesky, so if we handle war credit differently, that may cause our assessments to diverge.

4) I rank players first against his peers. Maranville played (and peaked) in an era that was unusually thin on star players, so that may boost his ranking a bit, though I have downgraded him somewhat from where my system's numbers place him.
   46. Paul Wendt Posted: June 23, 2007 at 05:19 AM (#2413854)
I was perplexed by DanR's ranking of Maranville given his other proclivities. I asked about his assessment of Rabbit's defense and evoked the "worthless" comment regarding . . . is it after Boston and Pittsburgh, 1913-24? But from the details DanR provided I infer that Rabbit suffers in the system because he is not considered an all-time great fielder at the same time he peaked as a batter-baserunner. If you start with "Rabbit Maranville, all-time great fielding shortstop" and look at his offense, you assign him one of the highest salaries in the game for 1920.
   47. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 01:44 PM (#2413927)
Well, this is interesting. I'm going to put up charts for all of them--and one radically different player for comparison's sake--then discuss.

Glossary

BWAA/Yr: Batting wins above average, expressed as a rate per season
BRWAA/Yr: Baserunning wins above average, expressed as a rate per season
FWAA/Yr: Fielding wins above positional average, expressed as a rate per season
W1AA/Yr: Total wins above average, expressed as a rate per season (BWAA/Yr + BRWAA/Yr + FWAA/Yr)
LgAdj: Ratio of the 2005 MLB league standard deviation to the regression-projected standard deviation for the league in question
W2AA/Yr: Total standard deviation-adjusted wins above average, expressed as a rate per season (W1AA/Yr * LgAdj)
Rep: Standard deviation-adjusted wins above average of a replacement player at the position, expressed as a rate per season
WARP2/Yr: Standard deviation-adjusted wins above replacement, expressed as a rate per season (W2AA/Yr - Rep)
SFrac: Percentage of the league average plate appearances per lineup slot
WARP1: Wins above replacement (WARP2/Yr * SFrac / LgAdj)
WARP2: Standard deviation-adjusted wins above replacement (WARP2/Yr * SFrac)
Salary: How much the 2005 free agent market would have paid for this performance (SFrac*((($212,730*WARP2/Yr)^2)+($402,530*WARP2/Yr)))

David Concepción

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1970   6    
-2.2      0.2    -0.7    -2.8  .901    -2.5 -3.8      1.3   .43   0.6   0.5     $357,745
1971   6    
-5.5      0.0    -0.7    -6.2  .946    -5.8 -3.9     -1.9   .51  -1.0  -1.0           $0
1972   6    
-3.6      0.6     0.6    -2.4  .938    -2.2 -3.9      1.7   .64   1.1   1.1     $804,464
1973   6     2.0      0.7     1.4     4.0  .936     3.8 
-4.0      7.7   .52   4.3   4.0   $8,246,827
1974   6     0.8      0.7     1.9     3.3  .947     3.1 
-4.0      7.1   .95   7.1   6.7  $12,855,799
1975   6    
-1.0      0.5     2.6     2.1  .952     2.0 -3.9      5.9   .81   5.0   4.8   $7,980,580
1976   6     1.2     
-0.1     2.3     3.4  .951     3.2 -4.0      7.2   .94   7.1   6.7  $12,959,421
1977   6    
-1.0      0.4     2.5     1.9  .942     1.7 -4.0      5.8   .91   5.6   5.3   $8,595,192
1978   6     1.7     
-0.1     1.0     2.7  .979     2.6 -4.0      6.6   .93   6.2   6.1  $11,030,919
1979   6     1.4      0.2     1.7     3.3  .963     3.2 
-3.9      7.1   .97   7.2   6.9  $13,135,805
1980   6    
-1.6      0.2     0.7    -0.6  .975    -0.6 -3.9      3.3   .98   3.3   3.3   $3,598,010
1981   6     2.0     
-0.3     1.3     3.0  .986     3.0 -3.9      6.9  1.04   7.3   7.2  $13,567,665
1982   6     0.1     
-0.6     1.8     1.4  .969     1.3 -3.8      5.2   .92   4.9   4.7   $7,079,868
1983   6    
-3.2      0.0     0.5    -2.6  .970    -2.5 -3.8      1.2   .87   1.1   1.1     $713,820
1984   6    
-1.3     -0.3    -0.9    -2.5  .969    -2.5 -3.7      1.2   .88   1.1   1.1     $708,814
1985   6    
-1.9     -0.5    -0.7    -3.1  .965    -3.0 -3.5      0.6   .91   0.5   0.5     $269,191
1986   6    
-1.8      0.6    -0.1    -1.3  .951    -1.3 -3.5      2.2   .50   1.2   1.1     $974,855
1987   4     0.5     
-0.3    -0.1     0.1  .936     0.1 -1.5      1.7   .45   0.8   0.8     $576,847
1988   4    
-5.1      0.0     0.2    -5.0  .971    -4.8 -1.7     -3.1   .32  -1.0  -1.0           $0
TOTAL       
-0.6      0.1     1.0     0.4  .958     0.4 -3.7      4.1 14.49  62.4  59.9 $103,455,820 
   48. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2413944)
Phil Rizzuto (totals line only includes war credit for WARP2/Yr, WARP2, and Salary)

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1941   6     0.2      0.1     2.4     2.7  .962     2.6 
-3.8      6.4   .81   5.4   5.2   $9,192,452
1942   6     1.0      0.2     2.7     3.8  .986     3.7 
-3.6      7.4   .93   7.0   6.9  $13,617,534
1943 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      5.6   .87         4.8   $7,622,425
1944 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      5.6   .87         4.8   $7,622,425
1945 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      5.6   .87         4.8   $7,622,425
1946   6    
-1.8      0.1     0.4    -1.2  .964    -1.2 -3.3      2.1   .79   1.7   1.7   $1,431,993
1947   6     0.8     
-0.1     2.4     3.0  .993     3.0 -3.3      6.3   .94   6.0   6.0  $10,391,068
1948   6    
-1.0     -0.2     0.3    -0.9  .961    -0.9 -3.2      2.3   .80   1.9   1.8   $1,651,374
1949   6    
-0.3      0.0     1.2     0.9  .960     0.9 -3.3      4.1  1.04   4.5   4.3   $5,543,717
1950   6     3.0     
-0.2     2.1     4.8  .940     4.6 -3.4      7.9  1.07   9.0   8.5  $17,594,732
1951   6     0.1      0.2     1.6     1.8  .966     1.8 
-3.4      5.2   .91   4.9   4.7   $7,152,841
1952   6     0.4      0.0     1.3     1.7  .975     1.6 
-3.2      5.0   .99   5.1   5.0   $7,365,204
1953   6     1.4     
-0.1     0.4     1.7  .975     1.7 -3.4      4.9   .75   3.7   3.6   $5,236,025
1954   6    
-3.5     -0.1     0.2    -3.4  .982    -3.4 -3.4      0.0   .54   0.0   0.0       $5,239
1955   6     0.2      0.3    
-1.8    -1.3  .952    -1.2 -3.4      2.2   .26   0.6   0.6     $484,430
1956   6    
-3.8      0.7    -0.1    -3.3  .930    -3.1 -3.4      0.3   .09   0.0   0.0      $14,408
TOTAL        0.2      0.0     1.4     1.5  .968     1.5 
-3.4      5.0  9.92  49.8  62.7 $102,548,293 
   49. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 03:16 PM (#2413952)
Johnny Pesky (totals line only includes war credit for WARP2/Yr, WARP2, and Salary)

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1942   6     2.5      0.0     1.8     4.3  .986     4.2 
-3.6      7.9  1.03   8.2   8.1  $16,851,667
1943 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      6.5  1.02         6.6  $11,836,373
1944 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      6.5  1.02         6.6  $11,836,373
1945 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      6.5  1.02         6.6  $11,836,373
1946   6     3.1      0.0     1.8     4.9  .964     4.7 
-3.3      8.0  1.06   8.8   8.5  $17,958,399
1947   6     2.0     
-0.2    -0.5     1.4  .993     1.3 -3.3      4.7  1.09   5.1   5.1   $7,104,307
1948   5     0.9     
-0.2     0.7     1.4  .961     1.4 -1.4      2.8  1.01   2.9   2.8   $2,777,211
1949   5     1.4     
-0.1     1.8     3.1  .960     3.0 -1.4      4.4  1.07   4.9   4.7   $6,268,777
1950   5     1.6      0.0     0.9     2.5  .940     2.4 
-1.2      3.5   .90   3.4   3.2   $3,663,900
1951   6     2.0     
-0.1    -0.1     1.8  .966     1.8 -3.4      5.2   .86   4.6   4.5   $6,715,376
1952   6    
-0.2     -0.6    -2.0    -2.8  .975    -2.7 -3.2      0.7   .46   0.3   0.3     $167,679
1953   4     0.8     
-0.6    -1.2    -1.1  .975    -1.1 -2.5      1.4   .52   0.7   0.7     $504,545
1954   4    
-2.0     -0.1    -0.8    -2.8  .982    -2.8 -2.4     -0.4   .29  -0.1  -0.1           $0
TOTAL        1.6     
-0.1     0.6     2.1  .969     2.0 -2.6      5.1  8.29 38.8   57.7  $97,520,981 


NOTE: Pesky needs to be discounted a bit for the extremely high PA totals he was able to accumulate by playing for the high-octane Red Sox in that era.
   50. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2413963)
Dave Bancroft

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1915   6     1.2      0.1     0.3     1.6  .965     1.5 
-3.3      4.8  1.04   5.1   5.0   $7,027,638
1916   6    
-1.2      0.1     2.5     1.4  .959     1.4 -3.2      4.6   .90   4.3   4.2   $5,771,175
1917   6    
-0.2      0.1     1.8     1.8  .953     1.7 -3.2      4.9   .84   4.3   4.1   $6,005,471
1918   6     0.1      0.0     0.7     0.9  .965     0.8 
-3.2      4.1  1.09   4.6   4.4   $5,646,810
1919   6     0.4      0.1    
-0.3     0.2  .972     0.1 -3.3      3.5   .66   2.3   2.3   $2,597,883
1920   6     1.3      0.0     2.0     3.2  .970     3.1 
-3.4      6.5  1.04   7.0   6.8  $12,072,459
1921   6     2.6      0.0     1.0     3.6  .927     3.4 
-3.4      6.7  1.07   7.8   7.2  $13,240,906
1922   6     2.0      0.0     0.6     2.6  .911     2.3 
-3.4      5.8  1.13   7.2   6.5  $10,649,875
1923   6     1.9      0.0     0.9     2.8  .913     2.5 
-3.5      6.0   .78   5.1   4.7   $7,834,526
1924   6     0.0      0.0    
-0.5    -0.5  .930    -0.5 -3.6      3.1   .56   1.9   1.7   $1,847,017
1925   6     2.9      0.0     2.0     4.8  .924     4.5 
-3.6      8.1   .84   7.4   6.8  $14,500,372
1926   6     2.9      0.0    
-0.2     2.7  .941     2.6 -3.6      6.2   .82   5.4   5.1   $8,717,622
1927   6    
-1.4      0.0     0.3    -1.1  .931    -1.0 -3.7      2.7   .66   1.9   1.8   $1,697,620
1928   6    
-2.3      0.0     0.4    -2.0  .921    -1.8 -3.6      1.8   .89   1.7   1.6   $1,247,566
1929   6    
-2.5      0.0    -0.5    -3.0  .908    -2.8 -3.7      1.0   .59   0.6   0.6     $353,050
TOTAL        0.7      0.0     0.8     1.5  .940     1.4 
-3.4      4.9 12.91  66.6  62.8  $99,209,990 
   51. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2413977)
Rabbit Maranville (totals line only includes war credit for WARP2/Yr, WARP2, and Salary)

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1912   6     
-4.7     0.0    -0.6    -5.3  .895    -4.7 -3.2     -1.5   .15  -0.3  -0.2           $0
1913   6     
-1.0     0.2     0.7    -0.1  .924    -0.1 -3.0      2.9  1.02   3.2   3.0   $3,065,141
1914   6     
-0.7     0.3     3.0     2.6  .947     2.5 -3.1      5.6  1.02   6.1   5.8   $9,241,079
1915   6      0.0     0.2     1.9     2.1  .965     2.0 
-3.3      5.3   .90   4.9   4.7   $7,182,018
1916   6     
-0.2     0.3     1.8     2.0  .959     1.9 -3.2      5.1  1.06   5.7   5.4   $8,120,076
1917   6      1.2     0.3     1.1     2.6  .953     2.5 
-3.2      5.7   .97   5.8   5.6   $9,048,513
1918 
---------------------------WAR-------------------------      4.9   .95         4.6   $6,632,005
1919   6      1.4     0.1     0.7     2.2  .972     2.1 
-3.3      5.4   .93   5.2   5.0   $7,830,971
1920   6     
-0.1     0.1     0.0     0.0  .970     0.0 -3.4      3.3   .82   2.8   2.8   $3,075,764
1921   6     
-0.3     0.1     1.9     1.8  .927     1.7 -3.4      5.0  1.05   5.7   5.3   $7,762,795
1922   6     
-0.3     0.1     1.5     1.3  .911     1.2 -3.4      4.6  1.13   5.7   5.2   $7,240,882
1923   6     
-1.8     0.0     1.5    -0.2  .913    -0.2 -3.5      3.3   .96   3.5   3.2   $3,496,802
1924   4     
-1.2     0.1     1.1     0.0  .930     0.0 -2.3      2.3   .99   2.5   2.3   $2,054,953
1925   6     
-3.8     0.0    -0.8    -4.5  .924    -4.2 -3.6     -0.6   .46  -0.3  -0.3           $0
1926   6     
-2.3     0.1     0.2    -1.9  .941    -1.8 -3.6      1.8   .41   0.8   0.7     $579,372
1928   6     
-2.4     0.0     2.3    -0.2  .921    -0.2 -3.6      3.4   .63   2.3   2.1   $2,393,647
1929   6     
-1.2     0.0     2.0     0.8  .908     0.8 -3.7      4.5   .93   4.6   4.2   $5,718,926
1930   6     
-1.7     0.0     0.9    -0.8  .882    -0.7 -3.5      2.8   .92   2.9   2.6   $2,541,114
1931   6     
-1.2     0.0    -1.9    -3.1  .954    -3.0 -3.5      0.5   .96   0.5   0.5     $270,849
1932   4     
-3.0     0.0     0.9    -2.1  .958    -2.0 -2.6      0.6   .95   0.6   0.5     $270,927
1933   4     
-2.9     0.0    -1.2    -4.2 1.003    -4.2 -2.6     -1.6   .81  -1.3  -1.3           $0
1935   4     
-8.8     0.0    -1.7   -10.5  .929    -9.7 -2.4     -7.3   .11  -0.8  -0.8           $0
TOTAL        
-1.1     0.1     1.0     0.1  .939     0.1 -3.2          17.18  60.1  60.9  $86,525,834 
   52. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2413990)
Dagoberto Campaneris

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1964   6    
-0.6      0.2     -1.1   -1.4  .922    -1.3 -3.1      1.8   .42   0.8   0.8     $599,547
1965   6     1.2      0.0     
-1.4   -0.3  .937    -0.3 -3.1      2.8   .94   2.9   2.7   $2,696,191
1966   6     0.3      0.6     
-0.7    0.3  .955     0.2 -3.4      3.6   .91   3.4   3.3   $3,837,035
1967   6    
-0.2      0.3     -0.8   -0.7  .945    -0.6 -3.5      2.9   .97   2.9   2.8   $2,823,059
1968   6     2.4      0.1      0.6    3.2  .970     3.1 
-3.5      6.6  1.06   7.2   7.0  $12,638,250
1969   6    
-1.6      1.0      0.1   -0.5  .931    -0.4 -3.8      3.3   .86   3.1   2.9   $3,174,030
1970   6     2.1      0.3      1.0    3.5  .921     3.2 
-3.8      7.0   .95   7.2   6.6  $12,483,708
1971   6    
-1.3      0.4      0.3   -0.6  .951    -0.6 -3.9      3.3   .91   3.2   3.0   $3,393,152
1972   6    
-0.9      1.0      1.6    1.8  .966     1.7 -3.9      5.6  1.05   6.0   5.8   $9,281,093
1973   6    
-1.3      0.4      1.9    1.0  .988     1.0 -4.6      5.6   .97   5.4   5.4   $8,519,908
1974   6     1.4      0.4      0.9    2.7 1.017     2.7 
-4.6      7.3   .85   6.1   6.2  $12,078,937
1975   6    
-0.2      0.2     -0.2   -0.2  .984    -0.2 -4.5      4.3   .84   3.7   3.6   $4,789,919
1976   6     0.1      0.5      0.5    1.1 1.019     1.1 
-4.6      5.7   .91   5.1   5.2   $8,398,779
1977   6    
-1.2     -0.1      1.9    0.6  .931     0.6 -4.6      5.2   .89   5.0   4.7   $7,068,479
1978   6    
-5.3      0.7     -0.5   -5.1  .972    -5.0 -4.6     -0.4   .44  -0.2  -0.2           $0
1979   6    
-3.9     -0.3      1.1   -3.1  .948    -3.0 -4.5      1.5   .40   0.7   0.6     $453,582
1980   6    
-1.8     -0.2     -1.3   -3.3  .966    -3.2 -4.5      1.3   .33   0.4   0.4     $294,821
1981   5    
-0.1      0.2     -3.4   -3.3  .996    -3.3 -2.1     -1.2   .20  -0.2  -0.2           $0
1983   4     0.5     
-1.8      0.8   -2.1  .985    -2.1 -2.6      0.6   .22   0.1   0.1      $65,848
TOTAL       
-0.3      0.3      0.3    0.4  .962     0.4 -3.9      4.3 14.12  62.8  60.7  $92,596,338 


NOTE: I only have non-SB baserunning runs starting in 1972, so this probably sells Campaneris short. He was an outstanding non-SB baserunner from '72 onwards, so it's overwhelmingly likely he was before as well. If I estimate his non-SB baserunning runs for the missing years, he goes up to $98.25M. Also, the abrupt change in replacement level from 1972-73 is of course the DH adjustment.
   53. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2414009)
Harmon Killebrew

NOTE: (I am including double play propensity in the baserunning column, rather than in the batting column as I did for the previous players, for illustrative purposes.)

Year Pos BWAA/Yr BRWAA/Yr FWAA/Yr W1AA/Yr LgAdj W2AA/Yr  Rep WARP2/Yr SFrac WARP1 WARP2       Salary
1955   5    
-1.9      0.0    -2.2    -4.1  .952    -3.9 -1.1     -2.8   .14  -0.4  -0.4           $0
1956   5    
-1.5      0.0    -1.4    -2.8  .930    -2.6 -1.3     -1.3   .17  -0.2  -0.2           $0
1959   5     3.7     
-0.1    -1.3     2.3  .961     2.2 -1.4      3.6  1.00   3.7   3.6   $4,156,525
1960   3     4.5      0.3    
-0.2     4.7  .957     4.5 -0.2      4.7   .79   3.9   3.7   $5,241,336
1961   3     5.6      0.1    
-0.4     5.2  .911     4.7 -0.2      4.9   .96   5.2   4.7   $6,879,216
1962   7     3.8      0.0    
-0.9     2.9  .934     2.7 -0.8      3.4   .97   3.6   3.3   $3,773,244
1963   7     4.7     
-0.4    -0.2     4.1  .934     3.8 -0.7      4.6   .88   4.3   4.0   $5,504,722
1964   7     5.4     
-0.1    -1.0     4.3  .922     4.0 -0.7      4.7  1.00   5.1   4.7   $6,541,198
1965   3     4.6     
-0.1    -0.2     4.3  .937     4.0 -0.2      4.2   .71   3.2   3.0   $3,958,178
1966   5     5.4      0.1    
-0.6     4.9  .955     4.7 -1.2      5.9  1.02   6.3   6.0   $9,835,214
1967   3     6.8     
-0.2     0.5     7.0  .945     6.6 -0.1      6.8  1.03   7.4   7.0  $12,916,221
1968   3     3.9     
-0.6     0.2     3.4  .970     3.3 -0.1      3.4   .56   2.0   1.9   $2,146,032
1969   5     7.2     
-0.1    -1.4     5.7  .931     5.4 -0.9      6.3  1.04   7.0   6.6  $11,434,709
1970   5     6.1     
-1.1    -1.5     3.5  .921     3.2 -1.0      4.2   .98   4.5   4.2   $5,427,708
1971   3     4.4     
-0.3    -0.2     3.9  .951     3.7  0.0      3.7   .94   3.6   3.4   $4,091,057
1972   3     4.2     
-0.3     0.4     4.2  .966     4.1  0.0      4.0   .84   3.5   3.4   $4,248,629
1973   3    
-0.2     -0.3    -0.1    -0.6  .988    -0.6 -0.5     -0.1   .42   0.0   0.0           $0
1974  10    
-0.5     -0.2     0.0    -0.7 1.017    -0.7  0.0     -0.7   .56  -0.4  -0.4           $0
1975  10    
-0.5     -0.6     0.0    -1.1  .984    -1.1  0.0     -1.1   .55  -0.6  -0.6           $0
TOTAL        4.4     
-0.2    -0.5     3.7  .947     3.4 -0.5      4.0 14.56  61.7  57.9  $86,153,989 
   54. EricC Posted: June 23, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2414021)
If past voting is a guide to future trends, and if Win Shares is an accurate reflection of a player's merits, then:

Whitaker and Winfield will be elected.

Mattingly won't.

Puckett will be contentious, and could go either way.

Parrish is below the Torre/Freehan level. His career is more impressive than his peak. It's difficult to judge if he has any chance. He makes my catcher-heavy ballot, but I can't imagine that the consensus would elect him without a lot of counterarguments.

Anybody see things differently?

2001 prelim:

1. Whitaker
2. Winfield
3. Schang
4. Tommy John
5. Randolph
6. Downing
7. Jack Clark
8. Staub
9. Cash
10. Cepeda
11. Parrish (the catcher one)
12. E. Howard
13. Reg. Smith
14. Vernon
15. Singleton
   55. EricC Posted: June 23, 2007 at 05:57 PM (#2414023)
Puckett is 17th on my prelim.
   56. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 23, 2007 at 06:16 PM (#2414035)
Wow, that took way longer than I expected. But now to the analysis.

First, the big picture: why I think all of these shortstops are more Meritorious than Harmon Killebrew. There's no doubting Killer could mash. However:

1. He played in a very friendly park.
2. He grounded into double plays at a well above average rate.
3. He played very easy positions, in the pre-DH era where good-hit-no-field guys were less valuable than they are today (see how close replacement players at his positions were to league average offense).
4. He managed to play those easy positions terribly.
5. He played in the weaker league over two expansion cycles, making his leagues extremely easy to dominate. (Why do you think he had two of his top three offensive years in 1969 and 70? Everyone else did, too--McCovey, Wynn, Staub, Petrocelli, Reggie, Frank Howard...)
6. He was injury-prone.

Harmon Killebrew and Dagoberto Campaneris played at roughly the same time in the same league, and played similar numbers of games. Killebrew's career OBP/SLG are .376/.509, while Campaneris's are .311/.342. But when you add up all of these little factors, Campaneris added more pennants to his teams than Killebrew did. Campaneris was not even a league-average hitter, but he was an exceptional baserunner, a plus fielder, spent time in some extremely difficult-to-dominate leagues, stayed out of double plays, stayed on the field, and provided offense at a position where no other team could find it. I won't get into semantics about who was the better player in some abstract, absolute sense. But if you were a GM in the 60's and someone offered you Dagoberto Campaneris for Harmon Killebrew, you'd be well-advised to take it. This is why my ballot is full of shortstops. All of the above SS besides Maranville are in my PHoM.

As for the ranking among the shortstops, I think Concepción, Rizzuto, Pesky, Bancroft, and Campaneris (with extra pre-'72 baserunning credit) are all virtually identical, and all of them make my PHoM. Bancroft has the most career value, but I dock him for an easy-to-dominate league. Pesky had the heart ripped out of his peak by the war; his '42 and '46 were good enough for an MVP most years (the only player in the AL more valuable in those years was the guy who stood behind him on defense). If you credit him for the war years at his '42-'46 average (which I don't), he's got an otherwordly peak and is a no-brainer. Not much career, though. Concepción and Campaneris's cases both of course depend on the rock-bottom SS replacement level and difficulty of domination of their leagues. Rizzuto seems to have something for everyone--the monster MVP year, a nice extended prime (with war credit), all-world defense, a fistful of rings. As for Maranville, he has the same stdev-adjusted career value as all the rest (all are around 60 total WARP2 with war credit), but he did so over 18 full seasons' worth of play, while Pesky packed nearly as much value into just over 11. For the pure career voter, Bancroft has to be ahead of Maranville (unless you use a realllly low replacement level), and if you care at all about peak, Maranville quickly falls to the back of the pack--he's the only one without a 6 WARP2 or $10M season. The others were all near league average hitters or better and had numerous seasons with substantial offensive value; Maranville's career high OPS+ was 112.
   57. OCF Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:10 PM (#2415331)
I just ran Parrish through my RC-based offensive system. He doesn't look like Lombardi in that system - he looks like Ferrell. Lots of below average years, and none of the above average years are all that impressive. He does have considerable longevity at catcher - but so does Ferrell.
   58. Chris Cobb Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2415517)
OCF, does your system make any adjustment for the DH?

That makes a considerable difference in the offensive profiles of a player.

Parrish is certainly closer to Ferrell than to Lombardi offensively.

By EQA, it's

Parrish .263
Ferrell .267
Lombardi .295

But adjusting for the DH (and league quality) it's

Ferrell .262
Parrish .271
Lombardi .296

Then there's defense:

Ferrell B- by Win shares, 25 FRAA for career
Parrish A by Win shares, 96 FRAA for career
Lombardi D+ by Win shares, =118 FRAA for career

If Ferrell had been excellent defensively instead of average defensively, would he have been a serious candidate? If Lombardi had been average defensively rather than significantly below average, he would definitely have been a serious candidate.

To add some other points of reference:

Freehan had a career .276 EQA2. Better than Parrish, but not by a whole lot, though his peak was quite high, too. His defense was not quite as good as Parrish's: almost as good according to win shares, quite a bit weaker according to WARP.

Joe Torre had a career .298 EQA2. He was 2 FRAA above average for career (He's Lombardi with average defense . . . and ordinary nose & foot-speed)

Ted Simmons had a career .284 EQA2. He was -19 FRAA (-2 at catcher). Simmons is another interesting comp. He's definitely a better hitter, definitely a worse fielder. He caught 1677.6 adj. games to Parrish's 1698.7. But while Parrish had about 1 season's worth of additional play, mostly as a DH/PH, Simmons has another 660 games, mostly at DH and 1B.

BP estimates that Simmons had 1090 EQR (EQA .291) as a catcher, and 339 FRAR
BP estimates that Parrish had 960 EQR (EQA .272) as a catcher, and 450 FRAR

So, as a catcher, putting offense and defense together, Parrish is very close to Ted Simmons without the DH/1B career tail.

I think it's clear that Parrish bears comparison to the post-1960, non-all-time-great catchers whom we have elected. He's not quite as good, though he might be as good as Freehan, depending upon who you believe about Freehan's defense and how you value peak vs. career.

Is that enough to merit election in 2001? I think it ought to be close -- I hope we'll place Parrish somewhere in the high backlog.
   59. Chris Cobb Posted: June 24, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2415522)
That should be -118 FRAA for Lomardi, not =118 FRAA
   60. OCF Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM (#2416448)
Dave Stewart: Kicked around for a long time, for multiple teams, before suddenly emerging as a star at the age of 30. Had a 4-year run in which he won 20 every year. By RA+ Pythpat, I have those 4 years as 16-13, 17-14, 16-12, 19-11. He was, at least, an innings-eating workhorse during that time. Once, uncharacteristically, led the league in balks. If you just saw a picture of him, you could imagine him as having that Bob Gibson intimidating face thing going; if you ever heard him speak, the high-pitched voice ruined the effect.

I have his career RA+ equivalent record as 149-143, a rather large gap apart from his actual 168-129. Compare Bob Forsch at 153-157 (actual 168-136) and I didn't correct Forsch for his own hitting; doing that would probably move him above .500 equivalent.

Chris: I do have a DL adjustment, although apparently not as large as the EQA/EQA2 adjustment.
   61. OCF Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM (#2416449)
DH, not DL.
   62. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM (#2416455)
DH, not DL.

Drat! I had at the ready a comment about him being crippled by the DL adjustment.... Shucks.
   63. TomH Posted: June 25, 2007 at 07:41 PM (#2416870)
Wow. Chris Cobb made a case for Parrish, who wasn't anywhere close to my ballot, so I figured I'd better check what he was seeing that I wasn't.

Comparing Parrish to Simmons, it seems clear Simmons has a big edge. They each had 13 prime years, plus some fluff afterwards.

Simmons was basically a 7-8 WARP guy for 13 years, with one stinker year.
Parrish was a 7 WARP guy in good years, and a 4 WARP guy in others. Peak/prime/career, all to Ted.

Simmons racked up 287 Win Shares in 13 years. Parrish, 227. That's 20 wins.

Of course, he still may come out higher than Munson and E Howard, our other modern backloggers; he doesn't have to be Ted Simmons to get elected.

Still, given our distribution of catchers and third basemen in the HoM, I'd prefer if it's close to go with the pre-WWII guys from those positions.
   64. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 25, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2416918)
Tom, are you looking at Simmons and Parrish with a DH adjustment? That will narrow the gap somewhat given how much time each spent in DH leagues (or non-dH leagues).
   65. TomH Posted: June 25, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2417031)
Good call; I did not, which would affect win shares. I was using WARP3, so no adj needed there.
   66. Paul Wendt Posted: June 26, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2418393)
29. DavidFoss Posted: June 20, 2007 at 01:17 PM (#2410900)
>> But again, check out his career road stats. 760 OPS. 760! Barely above league avg. The man was a superstud in the Twin Cities, and a useful ballplayer in 13 other parks. That makes me pause and wonder if he belongs on my ballot.
<<

I never understood penalizing players for home/road splits. The Twins played half their games in the Metrodome and those games counted just as much as the road games. This goes for guys like JRice, Ott, Kiner, Whitaker as well as Puckett.


This isn't simply a matter of value v ability all over again.
It depends on the measure you favor. If it's a measure that tends to follow playing time measured by plate appearances, a player's performance home and away may be weighted 55:45 or 45:55 depending on ballpark (mainly the park factor for run-scoring) and on team quality (mainly the 8-1/2 inning effect). If the player's performance home and away is about equal, the maybe unequal weighting in your favorite measure doesn't matter. On the other hand, on the contrary.
   67. Howie Menckel Posted: June 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM (#2419478)
This is a "top 60 all-time SPs" effort elsewhere on the site:

Numbers 60-51
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-top-60-starters-51-60.html

Numbers 50-41:
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-top-60-starters-41-50.html

I think it's updated weekly.

Lots of our also-rans here, naturally.
   68. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 27, 2007 at 03:12 PM (#2419626)
prelim ballot

Sorry if I have been absent recently from most of the disucssion but I am shuttling back and forth from two palces for work and in one I do not internet access. Therefore, I have to make do with what I got.

1. Dave Winfield - not an all-time great but definitely above the backlog
2. Lou Whitaker - I see him as more similar in overall value to Bobby Grich than Joe Gordon or Bobby Doerr, so he tops my ballot instead of beign a few spots lower.
3. Dick Redding
4. Hugh Duffy
5. Dave Stieb
6. Buck Walters
7. Elston Howard
8. Pete Browning
9. Gavvy Cravath
10. Don Mattingly - This is roughly where I had Hernandez and where I would have Sisler as well. I see these three as very similar, though my peak orientation is probably what makes Mattingly and Hernandez closer for me than for others. Still, I see little difference between these three players. Let's also remember that Mattingly has two unseen advantages on Sisler (played in a DH league and in a low-SD environemnt) and Hernandez (DH league) when it comes to WS analysis.
11. Vic Willis
12. Dizzy Dean
13. Larry Doyle
14. George Van Haltren
15. Roger Bresnahan

Winfield, Mattingly, and Whitaker make my PHOM.

Puckett - I expected him to make my ballot but his peak isn't as impressive as I had thought. I acutally believe he is more similar to Wally Berger (#25) than PHOMers Doby, Wynn, and Averill.

Parrish - Another player I expected to be higher. However, I prefer Howard and Bresnahan to him. He is better than my next group of catchers, guys liek Munson, Lombardi, and Schang. He is a few spots lower than Pucker and somehwere around #28.

Kruk - One of my all-time favorite players, I love guys with career .400 OBP's. If you construct an All-time team for the Philadelphia Phillies and acutally follow where players payed for the team, Kruk has to be the best 1Bman right? I mean yearh, Dick Allen was better and coudl easily have played 1B (he palyed 3B for the Phillies a lot), but as real 1B go, Kruk beats out Thome (too short a stay), Rose (past his prime), and Howard (to early to tell, but probably the guy in a few years). This is why, btw, I think it si ridiculous to limit plyers to the positions that they played. Are you telling me that if you were coaching an all-time team of phillies you wouldn't put Dick Allen at 1B instead of letting him sit on the bench behind Schmidt? Ridiculous.
   69. Paul Wendt Posted: June 27, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2419701)
Brouthers, Delahanty, and Lajoie split first base in 1896. Brouthers was "too short a stay", half of that season. Lajoie was the regular at first in 1897, Delahanty in 1900 and half of 1901.
   70. Paul Wendt Posted: June 27, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2419707)
I'm surprised to see the Phillies are seventh in caps.
Shouldn't they have more pennants?
   71. Al Peterson Posted: June 27, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2420001)
Haven't done a prelim in awhile so let me throw it out there

2001 Prelim

1. Lou Whitaker
2. Dave Winfield
When the backlog is thinned out it is very hard not to put the newbies up top if you think they deserve it. Trying to avoid the shiny new toy but qualifications come first. Whitaker gets the best of Winfield - hadn't figured on that but it's how it comes out.

3. Dick Redding
4. Norm Cash
5. Tommy Leach
6. Bobby Bonds
7. Reggie Smith
8. Tony Mullane
9. Bob Johnson
Here's the guy who probably gets a short stick based on Win Share analysis. Along about 40 years ago some comparions were made for Indian Bob against people like Medwick, Averill, and Sisler. When looking at timespans for 10 year primes and career totals he stayed with them all in most metrics except of batting Win Shares. For the 10 years he came up about 20 batting Win Shares behind. A product of his bad teammates more than anything. Fold in this shortage and you develop a better peak and prime for Johnson, areas he is usually cited for as lacking.

Add in a year of minor league credit (where he performed at a rate in line with career norms) from his 3+ year stay in the PCL and you have someone who makes a nice candidate.

10. Pete Browning
11. Roger Bresnahan
12. Mickey Welch
13. Alejandro Oms
14. Bucky Walters
15. Willie Randolph
Slick Willie remains better than most other 2Bmen but Whitaker is ahead of him.

Others from the new class: Parrish (#17), Puckett (#45), Mattingly (#80-90).
Others people probably want to know about: Stieb (#26), Charley Jones (#19), Perez (#33), Duffy (#31).
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 27, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2420034)
1. Lou Whitaker
2. Dave Winfield
When the backlog is thinned out it is very hard not to put the newbies up top if you think they deserve it. Trying to avoid the shiny new toy but qualifications come first. Whitaker gets the best of Winfield - hadn't figured on that but it's how it comes out.


I might also have it that way when I finish my analysis, Al.
   73. DavidFoss Posted: June 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM (#2420148)
I'm surprised to see the Phillies are seventh in caps.
Shouldn't they have more pennants?


They have four. Through 1990, that's one more than the Indians who are way up in 3rd place in the cap standings with three more caps. Its funny how the caps and pennants line up sometimes. Roster depth can be as important as star power. Plus, there's timing issues -- some eras are easier to win pennants in than others due to the presence or abscence of super teams.
   74. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM (#2420341)
The Phillies are always searching for another way to scorch the collective consciousness of their fans. This is just another in a long series of ways in which the Phillies lard their losing ways with disappointment in how provincially or penuriously their organization has been run over the years.

So says a Phils fan.
   75. AJMcCringleberry Posted: June 28, 2007 at 12:43 AM (#2420533)
Numbers 50-41:
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-top-60-starters-41-50.html


I have never heard of Jack Powell. After looking him up, I can't imagine how he makes the top 50.
   76. OCF Posted: June 28, 2007 at 01:01 AM (#2420574)
Powell is nearly an exact contemporary of Vic Willis, and like Willis, he was an innings-eating workhorse. I didn't try to adjust my RA+ equivalent records for Powell for defensive support, as I did with Willis.

I have Powell at an equivalent record of 263-225, with his best five years at equivalent 25-17, 17-8, 22-16, 18-11, 24-19.

After a severe defensive-support adjustment, I have Willis 248-196, with best five years of 24-11, 24-14, 26-19, 21-13, 19-12.

("Raw", or without the adjustment, Willis would be 258-186, with best five years 28-10, 24-11, 24-10, 27-19, 20-12.)

Powell is so directly comparable to Willis, and so clearly inferior to him, that you pretty much have to decide where you'll put Willis before slotting Powell in somewhere further back. Now, Willis does have his supporters and still lingers in the backlog. But we've already picked 50 pitchers haven't we? Which pretty much makes Willis not top 50 with us (although he might be top 100).

So I agree that Powell's not top 50. But he was good.
   77. OCF Posted: June 28, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2420596)
His 51-60 makes for an interesting exercise: can you identify this candidate with his biggest booster in the HoM electorate? Or have we already elected him?

60. Dave Stieb (.561 NW%, 120 ARA, +28 WAA, +68 WAR)
59. Jack Quinn (.526, 109, +18, +73)
58. Addie Joss (.616, 133, +33, +65)
57. Sandy Koufax (.633, 130, +33, +65)
56. Tommy Bridges (.570, 122, +29, +68)
55. Urban Shocker (.609, 126, +31, +68)
54. Waite Hoyt (.531, 111, +22, +74)
53. Rick Reuschel (.547, 114, +23, +73)
52. Wilbur Cooper (.551, 115, +25, +73)
51. Babe Adams (.567, 121, +29, +71)
   78. Paul Wendt Posted: June 28, 2007 at 01:32 AM (#2420641)
practically,
Joe Dimino has been the biggest booster of Quinn, Bridges, Shocker, Reuschel
but he may be the "best friend" of Quinn only, having influenced or alerted others who are now better friends of Bridges, Shocker, Reuschel

Joss - karlmagnus
Hoyt - yest
Cooper - el chaleeko
Adams - No one is boosting him but I may qualify as his biggest booster!

Koufax - elected
Stieb - call it a many-way tie
   79. OCF Posted: June 28, 2007 at 01:44 AM (#2420659)
Adams - No one is boosting him but I may qualify as his biggest booster!

While they're not exact contemporaries, their time did overlap - a group of pitchers I associate with the Pirate:. Willis, Phillippe, Leever, Adams. karlmagnus has adopted a different member of that grouping as his cause.
   80. jimd Posted: June 28, 2007 at 02:00 AM (#2420678)
Preliminary Ballot for 2001

I will be away on vacation next week starting Saturday. I should be back in time to cast a final ballot on Monday, July 9, but just in case of the unforeseen, this ballot can be used if I don't post the final one.

Read previous ballots if you want more depth on my reasons for all but the latest eligibles.

I am a peak/prime/career voter. Prime tends to dominate the ballot as Career has had an easier time of it in HOM elections, and short Peaks don't get too far in my system.

I am reexamining my ballot carefully as we go deep into the backlog.

1) L. WHITAKER -- These two are extremely close in my rating system. Prime 1979-93. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1983; WARP adds 1982. Other star seasons include 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993. Honorable Mention in 1979 and 1988.

2) D. WINFIELD -- Overrated but still an easy HOMer. Prime 1975-88. Best player by WARP in 1979, candidate by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1979. Other star seasons include 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1992. WS adds 1981 and 1983 in LF. Honorable mention in 1975, 1986, 1987, plus 1982 in LF.

3) D. STIEB -- The lack of support here is surprising to me. Best pitcher of the early 1980's. Prime 1980-85. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985; WARP adds 1981. Other star seasons include 1980, 1988, and 1989.

4) B. WALTERS -- Best of the backlog. Prime 1939-44. Best player in 1939; candidate in 1940 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1939, 1941, 1944; WS adds 1940. Other star seasons include 1936 and 1942.

5) K. PUCKETT -- Joins the backlog near the top. Prime 1985-1995. Best player candidate in 1988 and 1992 by WARP. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1986 and 1988 by WS; 1992 by WARP. Other star seasons include 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994. HM in 1985, 1993, and 1995.

6) F. TANANA -- More good seasons than Gossage. Poster-child for pitcher abuse. Still has the peak and also has the career. Prime 1974-77. Best player candidate in 1976 and 1977 by WARP. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1976; WARP adds 1975, 1977. Other star seasons include 1974, 1984. Honorable mention in 1987.

7) K. SINGLETON -- Better peak than Bonds; not quite as much prime as Wynn. Prime 1973-81. Best player candidate 1977, WS adds 1979. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1975 and 1977. Other star seasons include 1973, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981; also 1976 in LF.

8) D. CONCEPCION -- His best 7 seasons are very close to Ozzie's best 7, though Ozzie is clearly superior in peak, shoulder seasons, and career value. Prime 1974-82. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) in 1974; WARP adds 1976 and 1979; WS adds 1978 and 1981. Other star seasons include 1982. HM in 1975 and 1977.

9) J. KAAT -- Belongs. 14 HOM "bats" were born 1893-1903 (Sisler, Heilmann, Ruth, Torriente, Charleston, Terry, Goslin, Suttles, Stearnes, Averill, Simmons, Waner, Bell, Gehrig); don't tell me that 10 pitchers born 1938-48 are too many.Prime 1961-1975. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1962; WS adds 1966. Other star seasons include 1974 and 1975. HM in 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971.

10) L. TIANT -- Pitching candidate very close to the in/out line. Win Shares does not like him. Tended to alternate good years (even) and off years (odd). Prime 1966-1978. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) in 1968, 1974; WS adds 1976. Other star seasons include 1972 and 1973. Honorable Mention in 1966 and 1978.

11) F. JONES -- Still an all-star player when he walked away. I still think he rates ahead of Ashburn, but it's close. Prime 1900-08. 1st-team MLB All-Star (CF) in 1908; WARP adds 1902 and 1907. Other star seasons include 1900, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906.

12) F. DUNLAP -- Great two-way player; bypassed for some reason. Amibidextrous, too. Reportedly could catch and throw equally well with either hand. Useful in this era before modern fielding gloves forced a player to choose one hand for each. Prime 1880-86. Best Player candidate 1880-81 (WARP). 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) in 1880, 1881; WARP adds 1882, 1883, and 1885. 1884 in the UA is hard to evaluate but may also be #1. Other star seasons include 1886. May be eligible for MiL credit pre-1880.

13) D. DEAN -- High peak candidate. Prime 1932-36. Candidate for best player in MLB baseball, 1934. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SP) 1934, 1935, 1936; WARP adds 1932. Other star seasons include 1933.

14) W. RANDOLPH -- No peak. Long low prime with a good career. Prime 1976-80, 1984-89. 1st team MLB All-Star (2b) by WS in 1980. Other star seasons include 1976, 1978, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989. HM in 1977, 1982, 1986.

15) B. BONDS -- Very nice prime; marginal on career. Those who go to extreme either way will miss him. Prime 1969-77. Best player candidate 1970 by WS. 1st-team MLB All-Star (RF) in 1970; WARP adds 1971 and 1973. Other star seasons include 1969, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978. HM in 1979.

16) D. REDDING -- Long career candidate. Falls off due to influx of new candidates.

17) R. CEY -- Important component of the late 70's Dodgers. Prime 1973-1981. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1978 by WARP. Other star seasons include 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1980, and 1981. HM in 1973 and 1977.

18) T. PEREZ -- Better 3B than expected. Important component of the Reds prior to the arrival of Joe Morgan. Prime 1967-1975. Best player candidate 1970 by Win Shares. 1st-team MLB All-Star (3B) in 1970; WS adds 1973 at 1B. Other star seasons include 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971 (3B), and 1972 at 1B. HM in 1974, 1975, 1977 (1B).

19) D. BANCROFT -- Boost due to DanR's replacement level work. Prime 1916-22. 1st-team MLB All-Star (SS) 1920 and 1921; WS adds 1922. Other star seasons include 1916, 1917, 1918, 1925, 1926.

20) B. MAZEROSKI -- Prime 1957-66. 1st-team MLB All-Star (2B) 1960 and 1964; WARP adds 1958. Other star seasons include 1962, 1963, 1966. HM in 1957, 1961, 1965.

Just missing the cut are:
21-23) Don Mattingly, Frank Viola, Pie Traynor,
24-26) Rabbit Maranville, Ron Guidry, Thurman Munson,
24-29) Elston Howard, Lance Parrish, Dizzy Trout,
27-32) Jim McCormick, Bobby Veach, Norm Cash,
30-35) Jim Whitney, Jack Morris, Vida Blue,
34-38) Graig Nettles, Roger Bresnahan, Urban Shocker,
37-42) Dale Murphy, Charley Jones, Bob Johnson, Hugh Duffy,

I trust that those who say, in their defense of Pete Browning, that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to discounting players in weak leagues, are giving Fred Dunlap the benefit of the same doubt when it comes to 1884.
   81. jimd Posted: June 28, 2007 at 02:14 AM (#2420694)
But we've already picked 50 pitchers haven't we?

Somewhere between 57 and 59, depending on whether you count Rogan and Dihigo.
That count includes 3 relievers.
   82. DL from MN Posted: June 28, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2421011)
I don't see Negro Leaguers in his 41-60, probably none in the top 40 either. Jack Powell is a mistake but I'd still like to see this guy's perspective here.
   83. Juan V Posted: June 28, 2007 at 04:16 PM (#2421074)
Since all the cool kids are doing it.... Prelim:

1-Whitaker
2-Winfield

They're not up to the level of no-brainers in the past, but there's no one left in the backlog to challenge them.

3-Cravath
4-Clarkson
5-Tiant
6-Randolph
7-Ch. Jones
8-Bresnahan
9-Oms
10-Lazzeri
11-Concepción
12-V. Willis
13-B. Taylor
14-Perez
15-Murphy

Puckett and Parrish are in the 30s, Mattingly in the 70s
   84. Jim Sp Posted: June 28, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2421152)
Prelim: Whitaker #1, Winfield #2, Puckett #7, Parrish #16, Mattingly #54, Van Slyke #110

1) Whitaker--
2) Winfield--
3) Bob Johnson-- WinShares says C fielder, warp thinks he’s considerably better than that. Very high assist totals from LF. Played CF for a terrible 1938 A’s team, also a little bit of 2B and 3B. On the whole I think the record indicates that he was actually a good defensive player. I also suspect that his WinShares suffer from playing on some horrible teams. May have struggled trying to get a break, tough to grab playing time on the great A’s teams earlier in his career. Never did anything but mash despite late ML start at age 27. 1934-1942 is a HoM worth prime in my view. PHoM in 1970.
4) StiebThe dominant pitcher during a tough time to dominate. Lack of support made his dominance hard to see. Great year for example in 1985 (171 ERA+, 265 IP), and went 14-13. 1982-1985 each year was top 3 in both IP and ERA+. 1981-1985 warp3: 8.5, 9.9, 9.1, 9.7, 9.4.
5) RandolphTremendously underrated. Lifetime OBP of .373 plus great defense and longevity looks good to me. Funny how someone could be so good for so long in NY and get so little credit.
6) Rizzuto--The man lost his age 25, 26, and 27 seasons to the war, right after a very good season in 1942. One of the best fielding shortstops of all time. A 93 career OPS+ is strong for a grade A shortstop, not weak. Great peak season in 1950 (11.4 warp3). PHoM 1977.
7) Puckett--
8) Concepcion--Grade A+ shortstop and could hit some too. Weak hitting at the beginning and end, but above average during prime 1973-1982. Warp3 prime: 10.7, 10.2, 10.2, 9.7, 8.8, 8.7, 8.3, 8.0. Note that Win Shares is conservative in assigning fielding credit to the great fielders. PHoM 1994.
9) Nettles--Great fielder with quite a bit of pop in his bat. Best Warp3: 10.7, 10.2, 8.9, 8.4, 8.2. PHoM 1995.
10) Perez--Interesting, most people like his career, but wait a minute…he was playing third base from 1967-1971…there’s a peak there. PHoM 1997.
11) Charley Jones--A masher whose prime was destroyed by the blacklist.
12) John McGraw--Dominant player when healthy.
13) Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me. Best years by Warp3 10.2, 10.1, 8.9, 8.5, 8.0, 7.8. Another player short on career length, but I like the prime.
14) Bobby Bonds--PHoM 1986. 1969 -75, 77 are all very good to MVP candidate seasons. Career 130 OPS+ plus good speed, a good enough fielder to play some CF. Is only lacking longevity.
15) Cey--I’ll take the plunge on Cey. I like Elliott, so indeed Cey shows up on my ballot. Power, walks, and defense at 3rd…wish the Mets didn’t spend 40 years looking for that. He didn’t look like a ballplayer but he was a good one. Best Warp3 10.5, 9.6, 9.2, 9.1, 9.0, 8.9. Interesting that Hack and Groh are in while Elliott and Cey are out, I have them in the same bunch. PHoM 1997.
16) Lance Parrish
17) Elliott--PHoM in 1960. The hitting for a 3B in his era is outstanding. Best years by warp3: 10.9, 9.4, 9.2, 8.7, 7.7, 7.3, 7.0. Strong prime trumps an early decline in my view.
18) Buddy Bell--The number of other 3b candidates should not be held against him. Compare him to the average starting 3b of the era and clearly he was a superior player. Compare Bell’s 108 OPS+ to say Ray Knight (99), Phil Garner (99), Enos Cabell (93)—none of whom were good fielders at 3rd. It’s a tough position. Apparently I’m doomed to end this exercise with 10 third baseman on my ballot.
19) Munson--PHoM 1991. I like Munson more than Freehan because of the peak. 1970, 73 and 75-77 were big seasons for a catcher.
20) Dick Redding--PHoM 1985.
   85. jimd Posted: June 28, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2421486)
But we've already picked 50 pitchers haven't we?

My count shows us with 8 NeL pitchers:
Foster, Williams, Rogan, Foster, Dihigo, Brown, Paige, Mendez

3 Relievers: Wilhelm, Gossage, Fingers

And 49 MLB starting pitchers:
Clarkson, Keefe, Rusie, Radbourn, Spalding, Galvin, Nichols,
Young, Walsh, Mathewson, Plank, Brown, McGinnity, Caruthers,
Johnson, Alexander, Coveleski, Faber, Vance, Grove, Hubbell,
Lyons, Newhouser, Feller, Ferrell, Ruffing, Lemon, Rixey,
Wynn, Spahn, Griffith, Roberts, Koufax, Ford, Drysdale,
Bunning, Marichal, Gibson, Waddell, Pierce, Perry, Palmer,
Jenkins, Seaver, Carlton, Niekro, Sutton, Blyleven, Ryan
   86. Paul Wendt Posted: June 28, 2007 at 08:59 PM (#2421506)
And there is Ward.
Palmer's measuring above average makes his value about 2/3 pitching.
Davenport makes it about 20-20-60 pitch-bat-field; adjustment for length of schedule would shift that toward pitching.
JTM gives him a Giants cap which plunks for his infield career.

How do various measures classify Rogan, Dihigo and others from Negro Leagues?
By the way, I suppose I should include a few fields of playing data in my HOM supplement to the lahman5.4 Baseball Database. One or more of them, and perhaps most important, is something about fielding position.
   87. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 28, 2007 at 10:18 PM (#2421568)
Jim Sp, I like your ballot. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Bancroft, since you recognize the Merit of Rizzuto and Concepción. Also, take a look at Johnny Pesky--like Keller, he lost his peak to the war, but it was a dandy.
   88. Howie Menckel Posted: June 29, 2007 at 12:29 AM (#2421662)
from the "top 60 pitchers" site:
"I’ve limited myself to career major leaguers in who pitched primarily post-1900, and there happen to be 49 pitchers of this category currently in the Hall of Fame. There are a number of historically great pitchers currently in the game, and by the time they retire and move in to the Hall, there could well be 60. 50 would be too restrictive, as it wouldn’t cover all of the pitchers worthy of HOF induction."

more explanation here
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-top-60-starters-intro.html

also, no Negro Leaguers, no minor leagues credit, no war credit.
peak not a big boost
   89. Mike Green Posted: June 29, 2007 at 03:43 PM (#2422117)
DanR, perhaps this has been discussed in Maranville's thread, but I am wondering how confident you are of the fielding ratings in the pre-Retrosheet era. From 1931-33, you have him as a below average fielder, and he was obviously a terrible hitter. Yet, the Braves' pitching did seem to fare better than their talent would suggest, and the MVP voters thought enough of him to put him in the top 20 each year.

I might add that Maranville's late peak in 1928-29 is very unusual for a shortstop, and I thought that there was a consensus that he was at all ages a significantly better defender than Bancroft. It would be interesting to stand up Maranville side-by-side with Mark Belanger.
   90. Jim Sp Posted: June 29, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2422200)
Dan R,
I had one ballot with Cecil Travis and Johnny Pesky on it, I almost got laughed off the message boards. Though that ballot I also had Killebrew low (which you would agree with). If you fill in 1943-5 for Pesky based on 1942 and 1946 then he's Jennings-like.

Oddly my spreadsheet has Bartell high and Bancroft around #60, but I kind of suspect I screwed up somewhere, I need to look at that again.
   91. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 29, 2007 at 04:44 PM (#2422207)
I don't completely ignore defensive reputation, but if there is any type of player where the writers'/fans' consensus is virtually always wrong, it's former fielding greats long past their prime. MGL has shown that most fielders lose about 1.5 runs a year past the age of 25, and I suspect that aging curve was even steeper in previous eras. It's taken this long for people to wise up to Griffey's defensive decline that started years ago. Maranville was 40 in those years. How many shortstops in history have been above-average fielders at the age of 40?? I'd be stunned if he were anything better than mediocre at that stage.

I don't put as much credence in pre-Retrosheet fielding metrics as I do in current ones, of course, and if there's a real case where FWS/FRAA conflict with the overwhelming consensus *and* common sense *and* there's a plausible reason why the stats might be misleading (pitching staff characteristics, ballpark, etc.), I'm more than happy to make subjective adjustments. But as far as Maranville is concerned, I just don't see it. It seems entirely plausible/probable to me that Maranville had a better defensive reputation than Bancroft because Bancroft was a better hitter, and so his fans had more than one strength to tout.
   92. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: June 29, 2007 at 04:53 PM (#2422220)
That's exactly what I think about Pesky, he's a Jennings-type candidate with a lower peak but more prime. Travis's '41 is one of the all-time great seasons by a shortstop, but even with war credit there's just not enough outside of the big year. Put Pesky back on your ballot! 'zop likes Pesky too.

Bancroft is totally in the same class as Rizzuto and Concepción and far superior to Bartell. You must have a typo somewhere. Another sleeper is Campaneris, if you credit him for being an outstanding non-SB baserunner (which he was), use an appropriate DH adjustment, and recognize the difficulty of his leagues to dominate and the low replacement level for SS in his era. Stephens should fall well back when you dock him for wartime competition, no?

Nice to have a kindred soul in the electorate.
   93. Juan V Posted: June 29, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2422295)
Well, I'm waiting to clear a couple of spots from my backlog so I can vote for Campaneris :-)
   94. DL from MN Posted: June 29, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2422299)
Maranville was also a flashy player who demanded the spotlight. All eyes were on the Rabbit when he was on the field because he was a famous cut-up. Ozzie Smith was legitimately great but would anyone have noticed without the backflips?

I like Bancroft as the best SS available not named Buster and I think he's just over the in-out line but I can't fit him on the ballot at this time.
   95. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 29, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2422304)
I might add that Maranville's late peak in 1928-29 is very unusual for a shortstop

PEDs. I bet he used Asprin, or maybe caffeine.

if you credit him for being an outstanding non-SB baserunner

Here to me is one of the brilliant things about Dan's system. He makes use of the latest data on baserunners, data which is pbp based and really compelling.
   96. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: June 29, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2422641)
The difference between Keller and Pesky is that Keller had more seasons at an MVP level in the majors than did Pesky. In other words while Keller needs WWI credit to be a candidate, one coudl give him credit at a notch below his established peak and he would still be a great candidate (for those of us who like him I mean). But for Pesky, you really have ot give him peak years for the War, and I don't usually do that. I give just below peak at best and that isn't enough for him.
   97. Mike Green Posted: June 29, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2422712)
Ozzie received much less MVP support than Maranville in his late 30s despite being a far superior hitter. In 1933, Maranville was moved to second base and hit terribly, yet still received more support than Bill Mazeroski did almost every year.

Personally, I find it hard to understand why Maranville might have had a better reputation than Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski. That does not mean, of course, that he has a good case. Even if he is neck and neck with Ozzie as the best defensive shortstop ever, he gives back at least half of it with the bat.
   98. Paul Wendt Posted: June 29, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2422735)
Personally, I find it hard to understand why Maranville might have had a better reputation than Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski. That does not mean, of course, that he has a good case. Even if he is neck and neck with Ozzie as the best defensive shortstop ever, he gives back at least half of it with the bat.

??
Presuming the second sentence is related to the first, this is confusing.
Do you mean hard to believe why he might have had a better reputation if he wasn't a great fielder?
   99. Mike Green Posted: June 29, 2007 at 09:40 PM (#2422748)
Sorry, that was unclear. The suggestion was made that Maranville did well in the MVP voting in late career due to his defensive reputation/flash in #94, but that does not seem to me to be consistent with the MVP voting in late career for Smith or Mazeroski. I infer from the Maranville voting that it is reasonably possible that Maranville was neck-and-neck with Ozzie as the best defensive shortstop ever, but that does not mean that he has a good case for the HOF or HOM.
   100. Juan V Posted: June 30, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2423814)
Prelim 2.0

1-Whitaker
2-Winfield
3-Cravath
4-Clarkson
5-Tiant
6-Randolph
7-Jones
8-Bresnahan
9-Oms
10-Lazzeri
11-Concepción
12-Willis
13-Taylor
14-Levi Meyerle: Pretty nice hitter for a 19th Century third baseman. Yeah, he gave back a bunch of it with the glove
15-Mike Tiernan: WARP doesn't like him for some reason, but I dig the OPS+ peak
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
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1150 seconds
68 querie(s) executed