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, July 09, 2007

2002 Ballot Discussion

2002 (July 30)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

325 138.7 1978 Ozzie Smith-SS
318 121.5 1978 Alan Trammell-SS
340 108.0 1977 Andre Dawson-CF/RF
248 90.5 1981 Tim Wallach-3B
201 70.5 1985 Lenny Dykstra-CF
188 55.3 1986 Danny Tartabull-RF*
141 66.6 1984 Mark Gubicza-P*
155 53.1 1986 Robby Thompson-2B
146 54.0 1987 Mike Greenwell-LF
138 53.4 1978 Scot Sanderson-P
130 51.9 1978 Rick Honeycutt-P*
117 53.0 1984 Sid Fernandez-P*
116 44.3 1984 Dick Schofield-SS
138 35.4 1985 Vince Coleman-LF*
104 44.1 1983 Jeff Russell-RP

Players Passing Away in 2001
HoMers
Age Elected

84 1958 Lou Boudreau-SS
69 1974 Eddie Mathews-3B
61 1988 Willie Stargell-LF/1B

Candidates
Age Eligible

92 1947 Jo-Jo Moore-LF
87——Hank Soar-Umpire
84 1958 Sam Jethroe-CF
84 1965 Hank Sauer-LF
83 1959 Bill Rigney-2B/Mgr
80 1961 Ferris Fain-1B
78 1968 Gene Woodling-LF
75——Phil Collier-Sportswriter
72 1972 Bob Buhl-P
64 1975 Bo Belinsky-P
58 1979 Tommie Agee-CF
57 1978 Curt Blefary-LF

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 09, 2007 at 11:16 PM | 235 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. jimd Posted: July 13, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2439148)
ba-ba-bump
   102. Paul Wendt Posted: July 13, 2007 at 02:33 AM (#2439642)
El Chaleeko's rejoinder

OZ 159 159 158 158 158 156 155 153 153 150 143 141 140 132 124 110 98 82 44
AL 157 151 151 149 146 146 142 142 139 139 128 121 112 105 101 76 74 66 29 19

How much convincing do you need that Trammell is significantly less durable?


Significantly less durable, yes. But your opening statement put the difference at 23 games per season (142:119), a difference Smith achieves only in seasons 13-19 as displayed by this favorite tool.
The revised difference of 18 games per season (142:124) he achieves in seasons 12-19.
   103. Paul Wendt Posted: July 13, 2007 at 03:12 AM (#2439679)
23. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 10, 2007 at 01:15 PM (#2435756)
No, my sheet doesn't automatically update when new BP WARP come in. Sorry.

DanR,
Did you collect all WARP (WARPn by Davenport) for some very long list of players approximately "at one time"?
   104. Jim Sp Posted: July 13, 2007 at 05:28 AM (#2439735)
Diving into Dan R's latest WARP spreadsheet, I checked the career leaders for combined baserunning and fielding.

Using his warp2 version of baserunning wins above average and fielding runs above average, I found an alltime top ten of:

Ozzie Smith, 36.3
Honus Wagner, 25.7
Willie Wilson, 23.5
Mazeroski, 23.3
Brooks Robinson, 23.1
Tris Speaker, 22.1
Max Carey, 21.5
Bill Dahlen, 21.3
Rickey Henderson, 20.8
Eddie Collins, 20.1

Now, that is a bit of a junk stat, but karl I think that explains most of why the electorate rates Smith high. Ozzie is more than 40% ahead of the #2 candidate, there's really no one like him in combining fielding and baserunning value.
   105. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2007 at 11:59 AM (#2439772)
Paul,

I figured their average annual games by simply finding the percentage of the total scheduled or team games (scheduled for 162, team for strike years). 141 and 119 was what came out, what can I tell you. I checked my spreadsheet and the math is right.
   106. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 13, 2007 at 01:39 PM (#2439823)
Paul Wendt--yes, the same day. Actually, DavidFoss collected it in one day and sent it to me.

Jim Sp--That's interesting, and looks like a pretty good and intuitive list. One very minor caveat about that (and my system in general) is that it has a bit of an Achilles' heel with multi-position players. I just used the Win Shares primary position list, so guys who played 82 games at one position and 80 at another will be considered 100% at the 82. This usually is not much of a problem, as the inevitable over- or under-rating of FWAA that would be caused by comparing a player's Fielding Win Shares at one position to the positional average of another position is counteracted by the application of a replacement level moving in the opposite direction--when I go in to correct it manually, the difference is very rarely more than 0.2 wins, 0.3 would be a *lot*. But if you isolate out the FWAA component, you'll find that guys who played something like 90 games at corner OF and 70 at CF, or 90 games at 3B and 70 games at SS, will have far more FWAA than they should, since their Fielding WS are inflated by the time at the tougher position but compared to the positional average of the weaker position. This is definitely the case with the early Willie Wilson years, where he is listed as a corner OF but has Fielding WS totals more appropriate for a CF. He's probably closer to 22 BRWAA + FWAA than 23.5. Not that it matters. (Also note that you're using the WARP2 version of baserunning wins above average and fielding *wins* above average, not fielding *runs* above average).

Again, the point about Smith is that his defensive peak was maintained for literally twice as long as any other "glove" in history. His peak seasons are no better than Concepción's or Bancroft's and not as good as Pesky's or Rizzuto's, but if you care an iota about longevity/prime/career he leaves them all in the dust.
   107. DavidFoss Posted: July 13, 2007 at 03:16 PM (#2439907)
Paul Wendt--yes, the same day. Actually, DavidFoss collected it in one day and sent it to me.

Yeah, see post 49 on the Dan Rosenheck data thread. If you know all the BP playerids you can dump their entire "dt" directory to your local machine, takes about a half hour with a workplace-caliber network connection. Its not a bad way to take snapshots of their data as they do seem to be perpetually tweaking their formulas.

I don't have it 100% automated. The BP playerids don't line up exactly with lahman or bb-ref so there were a couple of dozen players that we had to do by hand. It worked great as a one time thing, but in order for it to be useful as a periodic snapshot tool, it would really need to be 100% automated. An archive of the pages preserves the state of the BP website, but it really helps to convert their data to CSV. For that tool, I used private inhouse software, but I'm sure there are other ways to extra raw text from HTML and parse it. (perl?)

Anyhow, this type of remote data dump is becoming more common among baseball analysts. (Sean Forman at bb-ref sometimes alludes to it when he mentions that format tweaks to his pages often give the remote-data-grabbers fits as they have to modify their scripts.) Perhaps someone has a tutorial out there somewhere.
   108. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2007 at 03:18 PM (#2439911)
OK, I decided to dig a little deeper on Ozzie v. Tram.

So taking those same average-year numbers as before, but this time making a second line for Trammell that removes his 19 game cuppajoe.

NAME    G  AB   H 2B 3B HR BB  K SB CS SH SF IBB HPB GDP   xr
--------------------------------------------------------------
OZZIE 141 515 135 22  4  2 58 32 32  8 11  3   4   2  10  62.8
ALAN1 119 430 123 21  3 10 44 46 12  6  7  4   2   2   8  63.1
ALAN2 124 449 128 22  3 10 46 47 13  6  7  4   2   2   8  65.7 


But this time around, I decided to look at them versus average. I like doing the mechanics myself sometimes, so I used the SBE to generate each guy's league SS total and generated an average SS line for his career, corrected for his actual outs. Then I figured XR for the league's SS and truncated it into the same outs as our stat lines above (I didn't subtract Oz and Tram, maybe I should have?). Finally, I park adjusted the league's SS's XR using the bb-ref pfs for each of his stadiums: XR * PF. Then I figured out how many runs our dueling SS were above average.

XR  outs lgSSXR XRAA
-------------------------
OZ 62.8  405  49.0  13.8 
T1 63.1  326  42.8  20.3
T2 65.7  340  44.7  21.0 


Karl is right that Trammell's a better hitter, we know that. On a per-out basis he far outpaces Ozzie. Ozzie simply has more opporutnities.

Meantime, I took DanR's eqBR spreadsheet and added up the eqBR totals. I believe eqBR is already an above-average type stat, so I should simply be able to tack it onto the XRAA I've just generated. Trammell was a better baserunner than I figured, Ozzie a little worse than I figured. Both were well above average. Finally, I recalibrated the FRAA I previously mentioned. Last time I talked about it, I didn't place it in the actual context of these guys' games played, I expressed it per 162. Sorry for the apples/oranges, and the corrected figures are below:

XRAA EQBR FRAA TOTAL
------------------------------
OZ 13.8 2.85 14.8 =  31.4  
T1 20.3 
2.22 3.58 =  26.1
T2 21.0 
2.31 3.73 =  27.0 


Smith comes out ahead thanks to durability, glove, and a teensy bit better baserunning (XR includes his high-volume/percentage steals, too). Actually, he comes out nearly a half-a-win ahead.

Again, this is a career mark, not a peak/prime. If I don't get to it, I hope someone else will take a look at peak and prime to see if there's a monstrous difference between them on that basis that's worth noting as we construct ballots.
   109. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2439976)
OK, here's the peak/prime stuff. I took Oz and Al's tope ten years as identified by WARP1, and i broke them out similarly to how I did above. Here's what I get
OZZIE  RAA
-----------
1987  69.4
1985  57.0
1992  50.4
1988  43.1
1991  41.5
1980  38.3
1982  38.3
1984  36.3
1983  29.2
1978  28.1 


ALAN   RAA
-----------
1987  71.8
1984  56.1
1983  49.8
1986  48.0
1990  44.2
1982  35.6
1980  35.1
1988  34.1
1981  27.8
1985  25.5 


Difference TOP Ten Seasons
YR    Ozzie  Alan  diff  to whom
?
------------------------------
 
1     69.4  71.8   2.4     A
 2     57.0  56.1   0.9     O
 3     50.4  49.8   0.6     O
 4     43.1  48.0   4.9     A
 5     41.5  44.2   2.8     A
 6     38.3  35.6   2.7     O
 7     38.3  35.1   3.2     O
 8     36.3  34.1   2.2     O
 9     29.2  27.8   1.4     O
10     28.1  25.5   2.7     O
==============================
5 yrs 261.3 269.8   8.5     A
10yrs 431.5 427.9   3.6     O 


Trammell has a slight 8.5 run advantage on short peak, Ozzie makes it all up, then some over the 10 year prime. Huh. I definitely thought Trammell would show a little more separation ont the 5-year increment and still take Ozzie on the full prime. Guess not.

So now it's congitive dissonance time...system says Trammell by a nose...more research says Ozzie by a nose. What to do???????????? How about i just disclaim FRAA and stick with my system! ; )
   110. Jim Sp Posted: July 13, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2440025)
Dan R,
So for example Gene Tenace is overrated in your system?
   111. Mike Green Posted: July 13, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2440040)
If you wanted, you could take Trammell's superior post-season performance into account, all 51 at-bats of it.:)

Trammell and Smith are both great ballplayers. You can't go wrong.
   112. TomH Posted: July 13, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2440093)
from post #91
Populations of MLB cities in 1882 (from the US Census of 1880).

AA: 2 Million
Phi 847K, StL 350K, Bal 332K, Cin 255K, Pit 156K, Lou 124K

NL: 1.5 Million
Chi 503K, Bos 363K, Cle 160K, Buf 155K, Det 116K, Prv 104K, Wor 58K, Troy 57K

Only 6 teams, and the AA market is still 33% bigger than the 8-team NL market. Long term, the NL is in trouble unless it can change this (or the AA messes up).


Plus, I think the AA drew more fans because they played baseball (HORRORS!) on Sunday, served lots of beer, and tickets were 25c instead of 50c.
   113. Jim Sp Posted: July 13, 2007 at 06:33 PM (#2440106)
A cheap beer league, that's an idea that should never go out of style. I just paid $8.50 for my beer at Petco the other night.
   114. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 13, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2440148)
Jim Sp--Yes, Tenace would be another guy affected by this. I think I checked him out once though and it basically cancelled out--some years he was 0.2-0.3 wins too low, some years he was too high. If he's in your consideration set I'd be happy to go into the file manually and correct him season-for-season, it would only take me 10-15 minutes or so. Kiki Cuyler and Toby Harrah also require adjustments, but again they even out over the course of their careers--they never moved more than about $2M in my salary estimator due to those changes. The only way this factor could ever be large enough to really make a difference is if someone literally played 82 games at one position and 80 at another every year for their whole career, which in practice never happens. I only mentioned it because the reason *why* the effect isn't large is that the error on replacement level and the error on fielding wins tend to cancel each other out. Since you were looking at fielding wins above average, without the countervailing replacement level effect, Willie Wilson probably was coming out 1-2 wins better than he should have (and better than he does in the full WARP system, which does account for replcement level).

I very much appreciate your interest in my work. Let me know if there's any other way I can be helpful.
   115. jimd Posted: July 13, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2440188)
They weren't called the "Beer and Whiskey League" for nothing.
   116. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 13, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2440192)
So Tony Phillips could be a fun one for you, Dan?
   117. jimd Posted: July 13, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2440199)
Both the players and the crowds were pretty rowdy.
The NL of the 90's had its antecedents in 1880's AA play.
IIRC, the HBP rule was introduced by the AA to discourage head-hunting.
   118. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 13, 2007 at 09:02 PM (#2440230)
ugh, I haven't even thought about Phillips. I'll do him by hand and see how much he moves.
   119. Paul Wendt Posted: July 14, 2007 at 01:43 AM (#2440716)
105. Eric Chalek (Dr. Chaleeko) Posted: July 13, 2007 at 07:59 AM (#2439772)
Paul,
I figured their average annual games by simply finding the percentage of the total scheduled or team games (scheduled for 162, team for strike years). 141 and 119 was what came out, what can I tell you. I checked my spreadsheet and the math is right.


I didn't mean to question the arithmetic, only to call you on a low blow like Karl's on Rich Gossage's ERA+.
That 22-game arithmetic mean difference (23 was my clerical error) is one that occurred only in seasons number 13 to 17 as ordered by that favorite tool (13-17 of 19 Smith and 20 Trammell). That makes it a grossly misleading statistic. You retracted significantly by dropping Trammell's 20th season (his debut stint), recalculating on the basis of 19 seasons and 19 calendar years for both. The revised 17-game difference is one that occurred in seasons number 12 to 17.

For what it's worth, I would toss the favorite tool ordering of the whole careers in favor of some restricted focus on the prime seasons. . . .
Defined by playing time, Smith enjoyed a 16-season prime to Trammell's 13. Both careers are clean in that Smith put up his three lowest game played in his final three calendar years; Trammell his six lowest games played (after prorating 1981) in his final six calendar years --the non-prime year for both players.
Here it seems natural to interpret the difference between 16 and 13 seasons as one of longevity and that between playing time in their best 13 calendar years as one of durability.

El Chaleeko's rejoinder

OZ 159 159 158 158 158 156 155 153 153 150 143 141 140 132 124 110=>162 98 82 44
AL 157 151 151 149 146 146 142 142 139 139 128 121 112 105=>156 101 76 74 66 29 (19)

How much convincing do you need that Trammell is significantly less durable?
   120. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2007 at 02:01 AM (#2440749)
Paul,

Note in post 109 I deal with their ten top seasons which should provide the counterbalance you're looking for.
   121. Paul Wendt Posted: July 14, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2440765)
The focal seasons are represented in italics.

Italic in parentheses is Trammell's debut stint, his "20th" season that we have both dismissed.

Italic and underlined is the 1981 strike season, which I have prorated to 162 team games played (=>).
The twelve numerals in plain font/face, plus that one prorated, represent Trammell's 13 prime years and ipso facto the first 13 of Smith's 16 prime years.

Here is the obvious :-) re-presentation.

OZ 162 159 159 158 158 158 156 155 153 153 143 140 124 ; 150 141 132 98 82 44
AL 157 156 151 151 149 146 146 142 142 139 139 128 121 ; 112 101 29 76 74 66 (19)

The difference is 8-1/2 games per season during the 13-year shared prime, 1978-1990 with 1981 prorated. Plus 181 games in three seasons that I have reinterpreted as a longevity rather than a durability difference. Plus 10 games in the 3-year shared denouement.
Yes, Smith was significantly more durable, playing 95% of team games to Trammell's 90%. But the cumulative effect in 13 years is only 2/3 of the difference achieved in those merely three years when Smith was still in his prime and Trammell was past, 1991-1993.
(Note, if you go half way with me and drop only the last three years when they were over the hill together (bold), the measured difference increases a bit; it is 18+ games over Smith's 16-year prime iicc.)
   122. Paul Wendt Posted: July 14, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2440774)
#120. We crossed in the "mail".
Yes, but it's not every day longevity and durability (differences) can be distinguished analytically. Very neat matching careers. It happens only in fiction. And of course in Detroit with Trammell and Whitaker. What a trio.

#119.
The last six lines, including two blank, should be marked as quotation.

Good night.
   123. KJOK Posted: July 14, 2007 at 05:22 AM (#2440893)
Now it's off subject, but found this, so once more back to Coleman and the tarp:

"Coleman had trotted in from the
outfield on his way to the dugout, then
turned to throw his glove to a teammate
when the mechanism was raised from
below ground level on the first-base side
of homeplate. The metal cylinder
apparently rolled up behind Coleman
while he wasn't looking, knocked him
down and ran up his left leg, causing
scrapes and bruises."
   124. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 14, 2007 at 01:48 PM (#2440952)
So the tarp malfunctioned, right? Or was there human error?
   125. KJOK Posted: July 15, 2007 at 05:26 AM (#2441614)
The Groundscrew turned the tarp on, so I would say human error.
   126. TomH Posted: July 15, 2007 at 12:08 PM (#2441658)
"Groundscrew".
That's a funny word, if indeed it's a compound.
   127. DL from MN Posted: July 16, 2007 at 09:44 PM (#2442874)
I've been playing around with the standard deviation information and have a few insights that I didn't have before.

1) STDEVs like Roger Bresnahan. A lot. My standard catcher bonus doesn't begin to compensate for how bad catchers were in that era. I'm moving him up, though not to the top of the ballot like stdevs would want.

2) I'm overrating Buddy Bell. I thought this was true before but I've confirmed it now and am sliding him down.

3) I'm overrating Tony Perez and Rusty Staub - will slide down also, bats have a high threshold in the 70s.

4) Stdevs more or less agree with me Norm Cash, Reggie Smith, Bob Johnson, Gavy Cravath and Jack Clark were good. Also agrees with me that Cepeda wasn't.

5) Graig Nettles should be getting some of the love given to Willie Randolph.
   128. Juan V Posted: July 16, 2007 at 10:16 PM (#2442889)
So.... I found a number of errors in my PHoM spreadsheet (which is different from my HoM one), and correcting them will take down Meyerle and Tiernan. On the other hand, Fred Dunlap moves in the opposite direction.

But, enough of poor-supported 19th Century guys :-) About the newbies.... Trammell and Ozzie will be 1-2, in that order. Dawson surprised me, I thought he could challenge for a spot on the lower half of my ballot, but is found wanting. He is about equal to Browning on my rankings. Wallach doesn't seem to even make my consideration set. I haven't completed Dykstra yet.
   129. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 17, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2443624)
1914-1926 NL is the shortest span in which all of the teams in a league win a pennant.


This is one record which we can reasonably say will never be matched :)

-- MWE
   130. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2007 at 03:16 PM (#2443736)
1914-1926 NL is the shortest span in which all of the teams in a league win a pennant.

Very cool. There's a four-peat in there extending things as well. 1914-19 was six teams in six years.
   131. Delorians Posted: July 17, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2443750)
1914-19 was six teams in six years.

1998-2005 NL was 8 teams in 8 years.
   132. Mark Donelson Posted: July 17, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2443939)
</i>1998-2005 NL was 8 teams in 8 years.</i>

Ditto 1981-1988 AL. Of course, more teams makes that easier. More impressive (perhaps) is the six different teams winning the AL East from 1981-1986 (everyone but the poor Indians).
   133. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2443972)
More impressive (perhaps) is the six different teams winning the AL East from 1981-1986 (everyone but the poor Indians).

Sports Illustrated thought it would happen:

Cover

... but they ended up losing 101 games. :-)
   134. TomH Posted: July 17, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2444029)
Yes, I remember that one well. The Tribe had a league-leading offense and a league-trailing ERA in 86, but won 84 games. SI turned the 'good pitching beats good hitting' mantra on its head, decided that the Indians power bats were gonna get even better would score the most runs in the AL (not sure why; they were lousy in 85, so 86 sure could have been a fluke, based somewhat on clutch hitting, and indeed it was) ergo they would win the most games. Turns out the power bats didn't know the strike zone (hello, solo home runs! Cory Snyder banged 33 dingers that year, while scoring 74 runs and driving in 82. Now THAT is an empty piece of production!), and the pitching was so bad that they could have scored a run per game more than any other team and still not have won the tough AL (b)East.

It was at least 'bold' prediction :), but anybody with unsmeared glasses on could've seen how dumb it was.
   135. Juan V Posted: July 18, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2445087)
Prelim:

1) Trammell
2) Ozzie
3) Cravath
4) Clarkson
5) Tiant
6) Ch. Jones
7) Bresnahan
8) Oms
9) Lazzeri
10) Concepcion
11) V. Willis
12) Fred Dunlap
13) Taylor
14) Perez
15) Schang

There's a good chance my PHoM will be up to date by election week, and since I'm using it as an opportunity to recalibrate my relative rankings of pitchers and position players, there may be some movement here.
   136. jimd Posted: July 19, 2007 at 01:04 AM (#2445626)
1914-1926 NL is the shortest span in which all of the teams in a league win a pennant.

This is one record which we can reasonably say will never be matched :)

I think we can normalize the metric so that modern leagues can compete on a fair basis. That was 13 years for 8 teams, so 26 years for 16 teams should be a fair equivalent target for the modern NL. Or 22 years for 14 teams for the AL (maybe 23, if you're generous).

The old-time AL record was 27 seasons for 8 teams from 1918-1944. Which would translate to 47 years for the modern 14 team AL.

The NL has another relatively short cycle from 1945-1961.

It's interesting to note that for both the 8-team NL and AL, the first cycle completed remained the shortest one.

The post-expansion leagues have yet to compete even one span. Houston finally got its first pennant, but other NL teams are still waiting (Montreal/Washington, Colorado, Milwaukee). In the AL its Washington/Texas, Seattle, and Tampa Bay.
   137. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2007 at 12:31 PM (#2446183)
Milwaukee won the 1982 AL pennant, does that count?
   138. fra paolo Posted: July 19, 2007 at 01:52 PM (#2446235)
I slightly prefer peak to career value. I also believe strongly in positional balance on the ballot, although I'll break with it to put strong candidates in appropriate slots. I start ranking players by +5 WARP3 seasons, then go on from thereby studying traditional stats. I also value being the best in the league at one's position for an extended period (preferably four years running).

1) Alan Trammell Trammell gets ahead of Ozzie on the basis of four +10 WARP3 seasons. There's no question that these two are the class of the new candidates.

2 Ozzie Smith

3 Bill Mazeroski Maz's Win Shares credentials may look unimpressive, but where WARP is concerned he's a champion. He's certainly got a better case than inductee Nellie Fox, and not far behind inductee Bobby Doerr.

4 Tony Perez Maybe Dave Concepcion offers a little more career value than Perez, but Perez has a better prime.

5 Dave Concepcion Concepcion stands out at his position and has more career value than anyone else except the two shortstops above him.

6 Kirby Puckett Every one of Puckett's 12 seasons was +5 WARP3. I find him and Dawson to be very close, and for the preliminary I'm giving Puckett the first

7 Bob Johnson I like him for his 12 +5 WARP3 seasons.

8 Luis Tiant I don't much like any of the pitchers remaining, but Tiant has the most valuable prime, albeit mainly by virtue of its length.

9 Pie Traynor A very good 3b for a long time.

10 Thurman Munson Depending on where you bookend Freehan's prime, Munson is better or almost as good. His career value is almost equal. Why isn't he attacting more votes?

11 Alejandro Oms My leading right-field candidate at the moment.

12 Andre Dawson He and Puckett are close, but for the moment I prefer Puckett’s more intense achievements.

13 Tommy Bridges Bridges hasn't got the same career value as Dave Stieb, but he's got more +5 WARP3 seasons and fractionally more peak.

14 Dave Stieb One of the things I’ll be looking at between now and posting my final ballot is whether Grimes ought to be here instead.

15 Norm Cash He’s got the best prime of positional players not already on my ballot.

Top tens not on ballot.
Cannonball Dick Redding has too short a peak for me, and not enough of what I’d call a prime.
Browning, Duffy, Jones, Bresnahan all fall short on length of prime, although Jones mounts a strong case.

New Guys
Tim Wallach I was surprised to find he is a very good candidate, going head-to-head with Bando for number two on my 3b rankings which are all very close anyways. May yet get a ballot spot.

Omissions
Phil Rizzuto falls off with two better SS candidates this year.
George Van Haltren doesn’t seem quite as strong as Dawson.
   139. jimd Posted: July 19, 2007 at 06:38 PM (#2446568)
Milwaukee won the 1982 AL pennant, does that count?

It does in the AL.
   140. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 19, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2446571)
Prelim

1. Smith
2. Trammell
3. Dawson
4. Perez
5. Walters
6. Staub
7. Murphy
8. Trout
9. Ryan
10. Stieb
11. Johnson
12. Cravath
13. Puckett
14. Nettles
15. Tanana
   141. OCF Posted: July 19, 2007 at 06:45 PM (#2446581)
3. Dawson

AJM, that's far enough from what I'm going to guess Dawson's consensus placement will be that I'd like to see you make an affirmative argument for him.

On the other hand ... Perez 4th, Staub 5th, Murphy 7th, Puckett 13th. I guess you like recent OF/1B candidates - with a mixture of career (Perez), prime (Puckett), and peak (Murphy) cases.
   142. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 20, 2007 at 12:10 AM (#2447009)
AJM, that's far enough from what I'm going to guess Dawson's consensus placement will be that I'd like to see you make an affirmative argument for him.

Sure.

119 OPS+, 314 steals, over 10000 PAs, excellent defender in center. 350 Win Shares, 110 WARP3, his peak in centerfield was excellent.

Basically I see him as Perez or Staub, but with more defensive and baserunning value.
   143. DL from MN Posted: July 20, 2007 at 10:23 PM (#2448625)
Not too busy this Friday so I've spent a little time figuring out my PHoM. These are my eligible players who are IN:

Smith, Ozzie
Trammell, Alan
Clarkson, Bus
Tiant, Luis
Johnson, Bob
Cash, Norm
Bridges, Tommy
Nettles, Graig
Reuschel, Rick
Cey, Ron
Smith, Reggie
Bell, Buddy
Staub, Rusty
Perez, Tony
Trucks, Virgil
Cravath, Gavy
Elliott, Bob
Taylor, Ben
Clark, Jack
John, Tommy
Bresnahan, Roger
Bancroft, Dave

Here's who is OUT
Terry, Bill
Thompson, Sam
Minoso, Minnie
Jennings, Hugh
Kelly, King
Keller, Charlie
Ashburn, Richie
Foster, Rube
Fingers, Rollie
Mackey, Biz
Bell, Cool Papa
Kiner, Ralph
Brown, Mordecai
Freehan, Bill
Averill, Earl
McGinnity, Joe
Jackson, Joe
Brown, Willard
Sisler, George
Lemon, Bob
Fox, Nellie
Ferrell, Wes

I'm fairly certain if I re-created it chronologically some of the more modern players wouldn't be in yet and others would probably be elected. I ignored reviewing all the 1870s guys on purpose. That's close though and I would still have some of the OUT guys high in the backlog. If the HoM reflected my PHoM, my current ballot would look something like this:

1) Ozzie Smith
2) Alan Trammell
3) Jack Clark
4) Frank Tanana
5) Darrell Porter
6) Orlando Cepeda
7) Bill Terry
8) Sam Thompson
9) Minnie Minoso
10) Hugh Jennings
11) Tommy Leach
12) King Kelly
13) Charlie Keller
14) Richie Ashburn
15) Bobby Bonds
16-20) Thurman Munson, Dick Redding, Johnny Evers, Jack Quinn, Vic Willis
21-25) Alejandro Oms, Rube Foster, Rollie Fingers, Urban Shocker, Luke Easter
26-30) Dizzy Trout, Biz Mackey, Lave Cross, Cool Papa Bell, Mordecai Brown

I still wouldn't have Dave Stieb, Pete Browning, Charley Jones, Hugh Duffy or Bucky Walters in the top 30. I might have Browning or Jones in ahead of Joe Start, Lip Pike or George Gore but I don't have the 1870s figured out by a long shot.
   144. yest Posted: July 22, 2007 at 03:27 AM (#2450272)
Milwaukee won the 1982 AL pennant, does that count?

I once saw a cross word puzzle that basicly asked (I don't remember the axact quistion)
only player who has more NL hits than Tony Gwynn besides Willie Mays, Pete Rose, Robin Yount Hank Aaron, and Stan Musial
   145. Juan V Posted: July 22, 2007 at 05:08 AM (#2450332)
No King Kelly or Three Finger Brown?

I also completed my PHoM (yayy!). I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me right now, but IIRC I ended up with 15-20 PHoM-not-HoMers, and viceversa (not counting this year's new eligibles).
   146. Paul Wendt Posted: July 22, 2007 at 10:54 PM (#2450924)
136. jimd Posted: July 18, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2445626)
> > 1914-1926 NL is the shortest span in which all of the teams in a league win a pennant.

> This is one record which we can reasonably say will never be matched :)

I think we can normalize the metric so that modern leagues can compete on a fair basis. That was 13 years for 8 teams, so 26 years for 16 teams should be a fair equivalent target for the modern NL. Or 22 years for 14 teams for the AL (maybe 23, if you're generous).


Regarding what is "fair" I suspect that several people here can quickly simulate a probability model or three.

Alternatively one can largely even the field by comparing the 6- and 7-team divisions of 1969-93 with the traditional 8-team leagues. Even looking forward and counting Texas '94, Cleveland '95, Seattle '95 (yet smaller divisions), that 1914-1926 "cycle" is not routinely matched by modern major league/divisions.

Other metrics may be based on the annual numbers of seasons
(a) back to the winner's preceding win: '1' is a successful defense, '2' is a repeat after missing one season, etc
(b) back or forward to the winner's closest win: '1' is the first or second win in a consecutive repeat, etc.
   147. Howie Menckel Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2451129)
This has dueling reporters and editors picking a "baseball Mount Rushmore" - the 4 greatest players, basically:

http://northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMTImZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcxNzI2NjcmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Thoughts?
   148. Juan V Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2451161)
For what it's worth, the top 4 players in my system:

1) Ruth
2) Johnson
3) Williams
4) Gibson (hopefully Dial doesn't see this :-))
   149. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2451176)
Before timelining (but accounting for standard deviations), the greatest major league position players look like this in my system:

1. Ruth
2. TWilliams
3. Bonds (although 2007 will push him past Williams)

big

dropoff

4. Wagner
5. Cobb

big

dropoff

6. Speaker
7. Mays
8. Hornsby

smaller dropoff

9. Musial
10. Collins
11. Mantle
12. Aaron
13. Lajoie
14. Morgan
15. Schmidt
16. Gehrig

smaller dropoff

17. Rickey
18. A-Rod (yes, already)
19. Ott
20. Ripken
21. Vaughan
22. Foxx
23. F. Robinson
24. DiMaggio

end of inner circle
   150. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 23, 2007 at 03:05 AM (#2451210)
My top 10:

1. Ruth
2. Bonds (Could possibly move past Ruth after next year)
3. Cobb
4. Johnson
5. Wagner
6. Mays
7. Aaron
8. Speaker
9. Musial
10. Clemens
   151. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 03:12 AM (#2451215)
With all due respect, how could anyone leave Teddy Ballgame out of their all-time top 10? With anything resembling war credit, he's a candidate for greatest player *ever*....
   152. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 23, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2451218)
He's 11th. I don't give war credit.
   153. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2451335)
At the present time, I'm not able to create the ballot thread, so I have no idea when it will be posted.
   154. TomH Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2451336)
Lots of people would leave Teddy out; all of those who feel his lack-of-D & lack-of-WS wins (especially those close losses that hurt) damage his cause. I don't agree fully, but it's a defensible posiiton.

1 Ruth
2 Bonds * based solely on accomplishments, and tentatively. VERY hard to rank active guys (like the Rocket) without the perspective of ease-of-dominance-in-era that 5-10 yrs after retirement will bring
3 Wagner
4 Mays
5 Johnson
6 Williams
7 Aaron
8 Gibson (not Bob!)
Musial, Cobb, Mantle
   155. TomH Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:18 PM (#2451337)
of course, baeball's Mount Rushmore might be devoted to more than career value. I understand sentiment for Jackie, but that opens the door for Henry Chadwick, Bill James :), etc

BTW, the story of how Teddy R got his bust on the big mountain with the other three is a good one....
   156. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 01:39 PM (#2451350)
TomH, it's a defensible position if you are trying to answer the question, "who was the most well-rounded player of all time who had success in the postseason?," I suppose. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the question is "Which player contributed the most pennants to his teams," any short list without Teddy Ballgame reeks either of amnesia or Nazi/Chinese propaganda.

PS We did fight the Chinese in the Korean War...right?
PPS IT'S A JOKE. AJM, I'm not actually calling you a Nazi. But I definitely don't see how Williams or DiMaggio are less great because they served their country bravely in wartime.
   157. TomH Posted: July 23, 2007 at 02:10 PM (#2451385)
Funny.. I often wind up defending Williams when others knock him. But if the Q is "Which player contributed the most pennants to his teams", and people point out that that the very talented 40s Sox won merely one pennant, and lost two others on the seasons' last day while Ted didn't produce, I concede they have a SMALL point. They often disreagrd/forget how he DID produce in the games leading up to those crucial losses, but again it is part of the record.
   158. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 02:27 PM (#2451404)
1. They were playing in the same league as the Yank-deez
2. Yeah, they never would have been in those pennant races to begin with without Williams. Why is a hit on the last day of the season worth more than a hit on the first one? All the games count the same....
   159. TomH Posted: July 23, 2007 at 03:04 PM (#2451455)
1. Yes, but of the two real close races, half (1948) were lost to the Indians
2. Agree.
   160. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2451604)
In terms of wins contributed, both WS and WARP both agree that Williams provided fewer wins than any of the guys I have ahead of him (not counting the pitchers).

And it's not like I have him in the mid 30's. He's 11th, behind some pretty good players.
   161. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2451609)
AJM--WS and WARP agree that he provided fewer wins *with no war credit*! He wasn't just twiddling his thumbs in '43, '44, '45, '52, and '53 (and check out how well he was hitting when he DID play in '53)--he was serving his country! Do you actually think he would have been a greater baseball player if he had stayed home? Did he even have a choice? I imagine he was drafted, at least for WWII...unless you want to argue that dodging the draft would somehow help his credentials in baseball's pantheon, then you have to pencil in at LEAST a 200 OPS+ for each of '43-'45 (he was 235-217-215-205 for '41-'42-'46-47) and at LEAST a 160 for '52 and the missing part of '53 (he was 168-164-201-209 for '50-'51-'54-'55), in which case he should leap over everyone except Ruth and Bonds (in my opinion), or *maybe* Cobb and Wagner too if you're *really* skimpy with the credit.
   162. TomH Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2451611)
I reiterate, if anyone has pbp / zone rating / other defense info for Dawson, please post. His potnetial spot on my ballot is really up in the air.
   163. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 23, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2451616)
TomH, there's only Zone Rating for the very tail end of Dawson's career: -1 in 1987, -1 in 1988, 3 in 1989, -5 in 1990, 3 in 1991, 2 in 1992, -12 in 1995, -2 in 1996. Defensive Regression Analysis states that Dawson was "only OK" as a centerfielder but doesn't give year-by-year results, although you could probably email Michael Humphreys to get them.
   164. Paul Wendt Posted: July 24, 2007 at 06:01 AM (#2452738)
There is really no good place for this but this but I will quote it and answer it here.
Mike Webber in "2002 Ballot"
20. Mike Webber Posted: July 23, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2451771)
I’ll be in St. Louis this weekend at the SABR Convention, and I know Dimino will be too. Hope to see some of you guys this weekend.


Paul Wendt will be thoroughly exhausted by the weekend, for he will arrive early tomorrow (Wed) afternoon and immediately begin to convene. He expects to meet Kevin Johnson there and to see Mike Webber again. He will be there Sunday evening and night and wonders who else will still be around.
   165. Paul Wendt Posted: July 24, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2453116)
SABR37 continued
37. mulder & scully Posted: July 24, 2007 at 03:56 AM (#2452761)
PS: See y'all in a week. Anyone else making it to the Con?

Webber, Dimino, Wendt, Johnson (KJOK) are real names.

mulder & scully = Kelly at San Diego = whatname in St Louis?

Wendt will not be on any list prepared in advance by SABR or any of the Hotels, but easily recognizable by constant companionship with paper and pencil, constant height and hair (tall and curly), typical dress in tie-dye or other deco shirt.
   166. TomH Posted: July 24, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2453304)
*disclaimer*
I do NOT wish to start a team-based / fanboy flame war
*disclaimer*

But I notice in the update of the HoM plaque room that the Yankees have fewer HoMies than a some other franchises, despite the obvious largest amount of team success over most of 100 years. Any coherent thoughts on this?
   167. Juan V Posted: July 24, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2453344)
I guess the NL franchises are ahead simply by virtue of being older. And, maybe (I haven't taken an intensive look at it) the Yanks' success is partly due to an ability to obtain HoVG talent at most positions, complemented with the occasional inner-circle guy? I'm thinking of the 1998 team, although players in that one aren't eligible yet.
   168. Esteban Rivera Posted: July 24, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2453361)
I remember the running gag we had about the Yankees being the last of the 1901 franchises to receive a cap. There is that first quarter century where they had no one that could be "capped". Truth be told, they've had an impressive climb considering that Ruth was their first cap, 40 years in.
   169. DL from MN Posted: July 24, 2007 at 09:39 PM (#2453473)
Winfield and Reggie Jackson got caps for other teams. Boggs, Raines and Rickey will also. Graig Nettles, Thurman Munson, Tony Lazzeri, Phil Rizzuto and Elston Howard are borderline. There's a bunch of HoVG players also - Roy White, Roger Maris, Sparky Lyle, Tommy Henrich, Don Mattingly, Waite Hoyt, Ron Guidry, Lefty Gomez, Bobby Murcer.

It also doesn't hurt to have inner circle players at RF, C, 1B and 2 in CF.
   170. DavidFoss Posted: July 24, 2007 at 10:11 PM (#2453518)
I remember the running gag we had about the Yankees being the last of the 1901 franchises to receive a cap. There is that first quarter century where they had no one that could be "capped". Truth be told, they've had an impressive climb considering that Ruth was their first cap, 40 years in.

Exactly. Since we somehow took a blind eye to Happy Jack Chesbro :-). The Yankees indeed got a very late start in the cap game.

Another issue is dynasties (and mini-overlapping dynasties). The Yankees have been very efficient at winning championships in bunches with the same core of players. The Indians won a championship in 1948 with several HOM-ers (Boudreau, Feller, Doby, Lemon) and then the Yankees follow with 14 pennants and 9 rings in the next 16 years with (Berra, Ford, Mantle and DiMaggio). The Indians did win another pennant in 1954 (Boudreau out/Wynn in) but that's a large descrepancy of success with the roughly the same number of caps.

Lastly, the Yankees have usually had very deep teams with excellent HOVG casts and also very good role players. Guys like Reynolds, Raschi, McDougald, Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Rolfe, Henrich, Woodling, Pennock, Combs, Meusel, Bauer, Maris, etc etc. When the Yankee Juggernaut was rolling there weren't many holes in the lineup.
   171. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 24, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2453541)
I guess the NL franchises are ahead simply by virtue of being older.


Of course. They had a 20-25 year headstart over the Yankees. Which doesn't explain the Indians, of course.
   172. yest Posted: July 25, 2007 at 08:43 AM (#2454487)
2. Yeah, they never would have been in those pennant races to begin with without Williams. Why is a hit on the last day of the season worth more than a hit on the first one? All the games count the same....

no they don't the last 2 game of the 1949 season counted more then most games due to the fact that they were playing the Yankees so assuming they won those 2 games but lost 2 other games to other teams the Redsox would have won the pennant with a
96-58
95-59 (record by the yankees)

as opposed to the actual record of
97-57 (Yankees)
96-58 (Red Sox)




on a sligtly off topic quistion for some reason my computer doesn't show an icon of open document on the taskbar any more. making it that I can't open minimized files (by clicking on the link (which is not there) on the task bar) if someone knows how to fix that please let me know
I'd tremedosly aprichate if someone could help with this thank in advance
   173. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 02:13 PM (#2454597)
The same could be said of any two games they played against the Yankees over the whole season, yest.
   174. DavidFoss Posted: July 25, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2454605)
on a sligtly off topic quistion for some reason my computer doesn't show an icon of open document on the taskbar any more. making it that I can't open minimized files (by clicking on the link (which is not there) on the task bar) if someone knows how to fix that please let me know
I'd tremedosly aprichate if someone could help with this thank in advance


Ahhh... the ShowDesktop icon has disappeared from your QuickLaunch bar? Sounds like that is what the problem is. Is the quick launch bar there at all? Right-click the bottom bar and then click properties and then make sure that "Show Quick Launch" is checked.

Is the ShowDesktop icon still not there? I've had that happen before and its not obvious how to get that back. Create a new text file on your desktop. Fill the textfile with the following text:

[Shell]
Command=2
IconFile=explorer.exe,3
[Taskbar]
Command=ToggleDesktop

Rename the textfile to be "ShowDesktop.scf". Then drag it to the Quick Launch area.

Also, it should be mentioned that even if your ShowDesktop icon is missing you should be able to manually reopen windows by clicking their icons on the bottom bar. If the bottom bar is missing, check to see if it pops up only when moving your mouse down there... someone may have switched the "auto-hide" option on. If so, uncheck that option in taskbar->rightclick->properties. If its still not there, the WindowsKey (between Control and Alt with windows logo on it) brings up the start menu. In the process of bringing up the start menu, it makes sure that the taskbar is not missing (by restarting explorer.exe).

Still not working? Don't fret. These things are impossible to debug on message boards. :-) Call one of your computer savvy friends and he/she can walk you through it. Its often just a little bit of hunting around that is impossible to describe in text. :-)
   175. Mike Green Posted: July 25, 2007 at 03:50 PM (#2454703)
Offensive production for the average shortstop varies through the ages, but is generally very low. There are two ways to look at this. You could say that the defensive demands are so great that they act as a significant barrier to entry for offensive shortstops. Alternatively, you could say that it is very easy to convert marginal defensive shortstops, such as Mike Schmidt, to easier defensive positions and thereby increase their offensive potential. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle or more accurately reflects both aspects of the position.

The defensive standards required of shortstops by clubs, and the offensive expectations for them, do wax and wane, particularly as the runs and balls in play context changes. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with the actual reality on the field but pure fashion. What we do know is that over 3/4 of the shortstop's plays are at him or up the middle. These are on balance no more difficult than a second baseman's workload (harder on the at him ball which shortstops convert about 95% of the time anyway and easier on the ball up the middle).

Giving some credit for runs created above position, or positional scarcity, if you like, is reasonable, but giving full credit is probably unrealistic.
   176. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2454727)
Mike - I believe artificial turf was the biggest reason for the huge drop in offense for the up the middle positions in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Artificial turf puts a premium on defense - you have to have plus range or the ball is by you. I don't think it was a just that no one realized you could but a big guy at SS. I don't think many of the big guys could have played SS in that era. Ripken was in a grass park in the grass league and he's kind of an exception (he came up as a 3B and Weaver just tried him there on a whim and it worked out). Vern Stephens was 5' 10" 185 (Miguel Tejada is listed at 5' 10" 170, for comparison). Honus Wagner was as strong as anyone in the game. Ernie Banks was 6' 1" 180.

But on turf, you can't have marginal defenders at SS/2B/CF or you'll get killed. It was a different game. Once they went back to the old grass ballparks the players you could put there changed as well.
   177. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2454731)
That's one of the reasons I really like Campaneris BTW, compared to his peers, he a great offensive player, and he was a plus defender as well, with a long career.
   178. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:13 PM (#2454736)
Also on Ripken, it's not like all of the sudden everyone else started using big SS. There weren't any others in the 1980s. It wasn't until the 1990s when the game changed that it was wide-scale. Ripken was just a freak, which is one of the reasons he is one of the 3-4 best SS ever.
   179. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2454748)
Joe Dimino, nice to see another Campaneris friend. I like him a ton, he's close to my ballot, but I do see him at the tail end of a long line of unelected Meritorious shortstops (Concepción, Rizzuto, Bancroft, and Pesky). I presume Pesky doesn't have enough career for you.
   180. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2454765)
Yeah, I'm not big on Pesky. He was good, but it's a short career with war credit, and a fair amount of it is as 3B.

I rank them Concepcion, Campaneris, Bancroft, Fregosi, Rizzuto. I wouldn't have an issue with electing any/all of them.
   181. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2454772)
That should say "even" with war credit. As anyone who is familiar with me knows, I definitely consider war credit as valuable as any other kind.
   182. DL from MN Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2454783)
Campaneris? I'm not seeing it. Average hitter, average fielder for a SS isn't doing it for me. What does he have over Dick Bartell?
   183. DL from MN Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:44 PM (#2454793)
Joe, you appear to be a friend of the SS. What is preventing you from pulling the trigger on Bus Clarkson?

Also I have issues with this statement from your ballot "Traynor far outhit his 3B peers relative to Boyer and his"

You have to ignore Beckwith, Dihigo and Jud Wilson (and to a lesser extent Judy Johnson and Oliver Marcelle) to make this statement. I'd consider them his peers.
   184. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 25, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2454800)
You have to ignore Beckwith, Dihigo and Jud Wilson (and to a lesser extent Judy Johnson and Oliver Marcelle) to make this statement. I'd consider them his peers.


I do, too. That's why Pie finds himself near the bottom of my ballot.
   185. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2454828)
Right, I'm attracted to Pesky by the monster peak seasons bordering the war--I see him as a Kelleresque candidate.

What he has over Bartell is context. Bartell played in easier-to-dominate leagues with better replacement level shortstops--in his day, a freely available SS would typically have an OPS+ around 60, in a league where the leader was usually around 180. By contrast, freely available SS when Campaneris played often posted OPS+ of 50 or below, in a league where the leader generally had only a 160 (who knew that Reggie Jackson lead the AL in OPS+ his one year in Baltimore with a line of .277/.351/.502?). The contextual difference adds up to about 10 wins over the course of their careers.
   186. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2454837)
I don't. They weren't his peers. They had their own peers in the Negro Leagues. I'm not a big fan of cross league comparisons between the Negro Leagues and MLB. I'm more of a take the best of both leagues type.

For one, I'm not sure defensive position translates well between NeL and NL/AL. I just look at the best from each. Traynor was by far the best 3B in the majors during his time. We are deep into the backlog now, and I think he's worth voting for.
   187. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 05:19 PM (#2454851)
I know I've said this before, but it bears reiterating: the candidacies of Traynor and Concepción could not be more different. Sure, on a Keltner test, Traynor was the best 3B of the 20s, and Concepción the best 3B of the 70s. But no 3B really distinguished himself from the pack in Traynor's day--he had 115 OPS+'s in a league where replacement 3B's were 75-80 and numerous guys were over 160 every year. Traynor is the proverbial unMeritorious "best of a bad lot"--separating oneself from one's peers was easy to do in his league, and he just happened to be atop a closely packed clump of mediocrity. By contrast, Concepción rang up 110 OPS+'s with All-World defense and excellent baserunning in a league where replacement shortstops were often below 50 with poor fielding and a 160 OPS+ was good enough to lead the league. In an era where separating oneself from one's peers was hard to do, he positively blew away the rest of the field. That's how you win pennants for your club.
   188. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2454860)
Objection! Traynor was not "by far" the best 3B in the majors during his time! He was *slightly* the best 3B in the majors during his time! Bernie Friberg, Willie Kamm, Freddie Lindstrom, and Pinky Whitney all played as well or better as Traynor at various points. And none of them were particularly distinguished--Traynor was only some 30-35 points of OPS+ better than a freely available 3B, in an easy-to-dominate era when one point of OPS+ wasn't worth nearly as much as it would be in the 70s.
   189. DL from MN Posted: July 25, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2454875)
I'd still like to know more about how you feel about Bus Clarkson. You like war credit, minor league credit and infielders who can hit. Clarkson should be right up your alley. The MLEs have him at or near the caliber of Trammell, Whitaker, Darrell Evans, Randolph - guys we're electing quickly.
   190. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 06:02 PM (#2454914)
DL from MN, I thought you were asking Joe Dimino that, not me. The basic answer is that the more I learn about MLE's, the less I trust them. I remember that in Oscar Charleston's best year, when he had a 1.200+ OPS, an anonymous teammate of his posted a similar line, while numerous other guys on the team were at .600 or below (what's the standard deviation of that league??). Since virtually no one played in both the Negro Leagues and the majors (until the very end) to provide before-and-after stats, the league difficulty conversion factors to use are basically all speculation. I certainly think MLE's are a useful exercise, but I bring a large dose of skepticism to them where they are *completely* uncorroborated by reputation, as in Clarkson's case. My basic question is: if this guy was so damn good, why hadn't anyone ever heard of him before?
   191. DL from MN Posted: July 25, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2454987)
I was asking Joe that but thanks for your perspective anyway.

I wouldn't say _completely_ uncorroborated by reputation. He outhit Willard Brown in the Texas League. He was named to two NgL All-Star teams, once when he was pretty young. He played in the high minors until he was 41. He certainly isn't one of the guys the old-timers bring up but neither was Quincy Trouppe.
   192. Mike Green Posted: July 25, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2455050)
Joe,

re 176, there's more to the decline in SS offence than the arrival of turf. In the AL of the late 60s/early 70s of Campy, there was no artificial turf until KC moved to to Royals Stadium in 1973. Turf was definitely a National League phenomenon predominantly until much much later.

So, if you look at the regular shortstops of the AL of 72, you have Campy, Fred Patek, a 34 year old Gene Michael, Danny Thompson, a 33 year old Leo Cardenas, a 22 year old Rick Auerbarch, a 23 year old Toby Harrah, a 38 year old Luis Aparicio, Mark Belanger, Frank Duffy and Rich Morales. It's a sorry collection of hitters. The one thing you could say is that run-scoring was down (3.47 runs per game), and that was part of the reason Belanger (and perhaps several of the others) had a job.
   193. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: July 25, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2455100)
Or was run scoring down *because* they had jobs? I suppose it's chicken-and-egg, isn't it.
   194. yest Posted: July 25, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2455344)
Also, it should be mentioned that even if your ShowDesktop icon is missing you should be able to manually reopen windows by clicking their icons on the bottom bar. If the bottom bar is missing, check to see if it pops up only when moving your mouse down there... someone may have switched the "auto-hide" option on. If so, uncheck that option in taskbar->rightclick->properties. If its still not there, the WindowsKey (between Control and Alt with windows logo on it) brings up the start menu. In the process of bringing up the start menu, it makes sure that the taskbar is not missing (by restarting explorer.exe).



the problem is that there are no icons (of open files) appearing in the bottom bar despite the fact that the files are open
though the all the other functions of the bar at the bottom seem to be working (addrass, links desktop, the star menue quick launch the clock) just that where there should be open file icons on the bottom bar is gone.
   195. yest Posted: July 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM (#2455363)
to put it simpiley the tasks the computer is curruntly doing dosn't show up on the task bar

I like to apolagize to anyone who dosn't like reading about computer trobele on a baseball site
   196. yest Posted: July 26, 2007 at 11:21 AM (#2456001)
Ahhh... the ShowDesktop icon has disappeared from your QuickLaunch bar? Sounds like that is what the problem is. Is the quick launch bar there at all?

the ShowDesktop icon is still there
   197. DavidFoss Posted: July 26, 2007 at 02:01 PM (#2456110)
How about alt-Tab. People who hate the mouse use that screen to switch from window to window using only the keyboard.

Otherwise. I think you may have to bring your most computer savvy friend over to look at it in person. There's often a link trial-and-error tinkering done to get to the bottom of stuff like that.
   198. DL from MN Posted: July 26, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2456314)
Time for threads on Eddie Murray and Ryno?
   199. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 26, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2456391)
Time for threads on Eddie Murray and Ryno?


Not until Sunday, DL.

BTW, I found out that famed director Tod Browning was "The Gladiator's" nephew. As a fan of horror films, that's a nice merging of two of my hobbies.
   200. Mike Green Posted: July 26, 2007 at 06:08 PM (#2456482)
DanR,

I don't know exactly what happened in the AL of 1972. HRs were off over 15% from 1971. You can take a look at any of the teams, and you'll see numbers that look really strange- age 27 Graig Nettles in Cleveland, age 31 Yaz in Boston. The only thing that happened was baseball left Washington and came back to Milwaukee. The park and pitching were no more favourable though.

I suppose that one could chart positional variances for each position against runs/game rates across the decades.

Campaneris did have an interesting career. His last good season was at age 33. I decided to check his BBRef comparables at that point (http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=campabe01:Bert+Campaneris&st=int&compage=33&age=33). The names are some that you might expect (Maranville, Aparicio, Vizquel), some you might not (Willie Randolph) and one very, very close comp (Joe Tinker). Tinker of course played at the same time, and in the same league, as Honus Wagner, and so naturally he did not dominate the shortstops, offensively, as Campaneris did. If a Honus Wagner had come along in the AL in 1964, would he have remained at shortstop? Well, the closest things were Tom Tresh and Jim Fregosi and they basically did remain, but for one reason or another were not valuable offensive players in the early 70s. Rico Petrocelli was moved to third, but I see no reason why his situation in Campaneris' time would have been any different than it would have been in Tinker's time.

Anyways, Campaneris did have 2 useful seasons after age 33, and Tinker did not, so you'd probably want to rate Campy ahead of Tinker leaving aside questions of the offensive standards of the shortstops of their time (assuming that you thought that their defence was about equal).
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.4199 seconds
49 querie(s) executed