I support Campaneris and not Tinker, but Dagoberto wasn't close to Tinker's equal with the glove. Tinker was an extraordinary defensive shortstop--I have him with 16.7 standard deviation-adjusted fielding wins above average for his career, and that's excluding his Federal League years. That's better than Marty Marion (15.5) and Mark Belanger (12.1), to toss two names out there. Tinker is really in the fielding pantheon. Campaneris was only slightly above average for his career (3.9 fielding wins above average), although his defense was very peaky--he was Ozzie-good for the World Champion 1972 and 1973 A's (and the forgettable 1977 Rangers, for that matter), well above average for the rest of his prime, and distinctly bad at the beginning and end of his career. Campaneris' case rests on his superlative baserunning, which was particularly valuable in his run environment--worth literally over a full win per season in his best years--the horrific production of contemporaneous shortstops, and the difficulty of domination of his leagues.

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

That is so cool. I'm sure I read that before, but I don't remember it at all.

imdb claims he was Pete's cousin, wikipedia says uncle, Encyclopedia Britannica Online says he was Pete's son. SABR says uncle, I'd go with them. Tod was born two years before the AA started, and ran away from Louisville at age 16 to join a circus two years after Pete retired.

I think it's safe to say the Brownings of Louisville were an odd family.

One of us, one of us.

Measuring fielding and baserunning in the pre-Retrosheet era beyond broad categories- very good/excellent, above average, average, below average, horrid- is pretty dicey business.

We really have no idea about Tinker's baserunning. If you don't even have caught stealing data and you do know that he was one of the top 10 in stolen bases in 4 years, how can you tell? He might have been great, and he might have been terrible.

It makes sense to credit Campaneris for having a somewhat longer career than Tinker, but giving him credit for not having Honus Wagner to compete with at the position seems to me to be crediting luck. Tinker actually did a smidge better offensively (save for baserunning) vis a vis the league than Campy did. I understand that Lee Sinins has disavowed the use of Runs Created Above Position for reasons similar to mine.

I think it's safe to say the Brownings of Louisville were an odd family.

You mean they were "freaks," Sean? ;-)

"freely available SS when Campaneris played often posted OPS+ of 50 or below"

Is this akin to giving Campaneris extra credit for expansion? Expansion isn't going to redistribute talent immediately and some teams will be stuck with worse replacements than others.

Is this akin to giving Campaneris extra credit for expansion? Expansion isn't going to redistribute talent immediately and some teams will be stuck with worse replacements than others.

I'd guess Dan considers this via the standard deviation adjustment.

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

I prefer Dracula

I prefer Dracula

I own the Dracula Legacy collection, which collects all of the Universal Drac movies, include the Spanish version (which is actually more creepier and atmospheric, though the lead isn't half as charismatic as Bela Lugosi was).

My maternal grandparents actually saw the original Broadway play with Lugosi in the late Twenties.

I'm not a big Tod Browning fan, his contemporary James Whale is much more interesting to me (Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein, The Old Dark House). But in general, I prefer the Val Lewton horror films of the 40s to the Universal of the 30s. Especially the ones directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People and I Walked With A Zombie).

I own the Dracula Legacy collection, which collects all of the Universal Drac movies, include the Spanish version (which is actually more creepier and atmospheric, though the lead isn't half as charismatic as Bela Lugosi was).


I didn't like the Spanish version though it was better then House of Dracula

my favrote non Lugosi Dracula movie outside of the origanal is Draculas Daughter (though if you could throw in spoofs Abbot and Costello meet Frankinstein which tops them all))

I like the Murnau and Herzog Nosferatu movies quite a bit. And Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers. And even Coppola's Dracula film.

Mike Green--I couldn't agree with you more about not docking Tinker for playing in the same league as Wagner. That is precisely why my WARP measure players against their positional replacement level rather than their positional average--to prevent penalizing Derek Jeter for playing the same position in the same league at the same time as A-Rod and Nomar. When I talk about context in Campaneris' and Tinkers' cases, I am comparing them to the moving average of the worst 3/8 of starting SS in the major leagues. The presence or absence of other star SS, or average SS for that matter, has no effect on their results.

DL from MN--no, because I define freely available in relation to the worst 3/8 of regulars, no matter what the league size is. So I take the worst 6 SS (3 from each league) as the baseline from 1901-1960, and the worst 11.25 SS (the worst 6 in the NL, and the worst 5.25 in the AL, with the 6th-worst weighted at 1/4 of the other 5) from 1998 to the present. If you're talking about the immediate first years after expansion, then yes, Juan V. is correct--expansion has a major effect on the standard deviation of the league, and that is corrected for in the WARP2 (so a 50 OPS+ post-expansion might equate to a 60 pre-expansion).

I like the Murnau and Herzog Nosferatu movies quite a bit. And Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers. And even Coppola's Dracula film.

I like them all, too, but Keanu Reeves annoys the heck out of me in the latter.

my favrote non Lugosi Dracula movie outside of the origanal is Draculas Daughter (though if you could throw in spoofs Abbot and Costello meet Frankinstein which tops them all))

Heh. I'm a huge A & C fan, too. :-D

I'm not a big Tod Browning fan, his contemporary James Whale is much more interesting to me (Frankenstein, Bride Of Frankenstein, The Old Dark House). But in general, I prefer the Val Lewton horror films of the 40s to the Universal of the 30s. Especially the ones directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People and I Walked With A Zombie).

I agree Whales was much better. The Old Dark House is kinda creaky, though.

My favorite Val Lewton film is The Body Snatcher. Isle of the Dead and The Leopard Man are quite good, too.

Keanu Reeves is hilarious in Dracula. It may very well be his worst performance ever, and that's saying something.

Haven't seen The Body Snatcher or Isle of the Dead, but I was underwhelmed by The Leopard Man. That may have been a consequence of watching it right after Cat People and I Walked With A Zombie.

The Old Dark House does creak a bit, sure, but the shadowy look is really great.

Haven't seen The Body Snatcher or Isle of the Dead, but I was underwhelmed by The Leopard Man. That may have been a consequence of watching it right after Cat People and I Walked With A Zombie.

It is inferior compared to the latter two.

The Old Dark House does creak a bit, sure, but the shadowy look is really great.

...and anything with Karloff is always a plus.

Keanu Reeves is hilarious in Dracula. It may very well be his worst performance ever, and that's saying something.

He's pretty atrocious in The Devil's Advocate, too. Liked him in the Bill & D and Matrix movies, though.

I've never liked Dracula or Superman. I enjoy Twilight Zone and Spiderman though. There's probably a psychological reason underlying this.

BTW, I'm headed out later this weekend for a special vacation - 25h wedding anniversary - to Glacier National Park in northern Montana. First big trip without the kids :) :) :) Be back in 10 days.

Congrats, Tom!

I've never liked Dracula or Superman. I enjoy Twilight Zone and Spiderman though. There's probably a psychological reason underlying this.

I like them all, so I have no idea what that means. They all pale next to Batman, though.

I've never liked Dracula or Superman. I enjoy Twilight Zone and Spiderman though. There's probably a psychological reason underlying this.

I like them all, so I have no idea what that means. They all pale next to Batman, though.

I rate them I like them all (though I can't figure how comic mixes with horror)
Superman-Spiderman-Dracula-Batman (I never saw the twilght zone movie)

Tom, Congratulations! have fun.

Keanu,

Your worst role was actually in Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. The cardboardiest villain I've ever seen. Yuck.

tonight at Shea stadium, Joel Hanrahan makes his MLB debut!

Your worst role was actually in Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing. The cardboardiest villain I've ever seen. Yuck.

Yeah, he's truly awful in that.

He's actually really good in My Own Private Idaho, though.

"I've never liked Dracula or Superman. I enjoy Twilight Zone and Spiderman though."

ditto

So the discussion thread has devolved into a Keanu Reeves analysis? There's only one thing I can say to that.

Whoa.

I've never liked Dracula or Superman. I enjoy Twilight Zone and Spiderman

Jaws was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars.
I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman,
All I wanna do is Bicycle.

Whoa.

Oh great, now it's going to turn into a Joey Lawrence thread too....

NEW new veterans committee.

They snuck this in under the radar during Hall of Fame weekend, the announcement that the Veterans Committee has been reformed.

This part is particularly interesting:

Additionally, the Veterans Committee will review the candidacies of all players who played in at least 10 major league seasons, whose careers began in 1942 or earlier, who are not on Major League Baseball's ineligible list, are eligible for election. Beginning in 2009, they will have their careers reviewed every five years by a committee of 12 Hall of Famers, historians and writers, to be appointed by the Board of Directors.

Depending on how they define "major league seasons" there are 23 HoMers who will be on their list:

Dickey Pearce
Joe Start
Lip Pike
Ross Barnes
Cal McVey
Deacon White
Ezra Sutton
Hardy Richardson
Paul Hines
George Gore

Harry Stovey
Charlie Bennett
Jack Glasscock
Bob Caruthers
Cupid Childs
Bill Dahlen
Jimmy Sheckard
Sherry Magee
Heinie Groh
Wes Ferrell

Stan Hack
Joe Gordon
Charlie Keller

And Browning, of course. Wanna bet they'll ignore everyone above Dahlen?

Wanna bet they'll ignore everyone above Dahlen?

Not me, Dan.

Pierce has no chance. Pike's "ML" career is too short. Barnes and McVey had a huge chunk of their success in the NA, which is not considered a major league. Start needs what he did prior to 1876 to get him inducted. White will be considered a third baseman instead of a catcher (again, his NA stats will be dismissed). Ezra who?

Some of the others might have a shot, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

The problem is this:

Beginning in 2009, they will have their careers reviewed every five years by a committee of 12 Hall of Famers, historians and writers, to be appointed by the Board of Directors.

The HOFs and the BBWAA guys don't know the 19th century, were barely alive before WW2, or are now about 60-90 years old anyway. And they don't list the proportions in which the three constituencies will appear. In addition, historian could end up being a euphamism for 60-90-year=old BBWAA guy (think Holtzman), so we're not necessarily talking about a SABR-studded comittee of 19th/Deadball experts here. I'll wait until I see who is on the committee to reserve final judgment, but based on most of the Hall's history (but not all...Lee Allen, Lester/Clark...) I'm skeptical about whether we'll get a committee that knows the difference between .300 in 1930, .300 in 1910, .300 in 1894, and .300 in 1882.

One would hope there will be at least one historian on the committee who knows enough to pound the table for Dahlen.

But then again, probably not.

The problem is also this:

a committee of 12 Hall of Famers, historians and writers
It should include only the second group, historians. A person would have to be more than 70 years old to have a clear image of even the most recent candidates in their prime. To have any concern that voters should have a living memory of the candidates only invites more useless scrutiny over a group that has already been thoroughly rejected by the Hall of Famers and writers.

Some of these guys are:

Mickey Vernon* 1939-60
Dizzy Trout 1939-57
Bob Elliott 1939-53
Charlie Keller 1939-52
Walker Cooper 1940-57
Dom DiMaggio* 1940-53
Marty Marion* 1940-53
Virgil Trucks* 1941-58
Vern Stephens 1941-55
Johnny Sain 1942-55
Johnny Pesky* 1942-54
Allie Reynolds 1942-54

* = living candidate

These are the cronies of the older Hall of Famers and writers, some of them still living. We don’t need to invite those sorts of influences back into a place of prominence. We need a committee that has a wide historical focus, to review nine decades worth of professional baseball’s earliest stars.

If my initial skim didn't miss anything, they still have the living Hall of Famers voting for the players whose careers started 1943 or later, which is not good for guys like Torre, Santo and Freehan. I'd rather have a group of former GMs vote - they have a better idea of who valuable players are than former players do.

They specifically denote 'veteran writer' and 'historian' so I'm hoping the 'historians' are guys like Pete Palmer, John Thorn, Bill James etc. - assuming any would want the job.

And they still haven't fixed the goofy 5% rule.

But, this is definitely progress. Rome was not built in a day.

If my initial skim didn't miss anything, they still have the living Hall of Famers voting for the players whose careers started 1943 or later, which is not good for guys like Torre, Santo and Freehan. I'd rather have a group of former GMs vote - they have a better idea of who valuable players are than former players do.

They specifically denote 'veteran writer' and 'historian' so I'm hoping the 'historians' are guys like Pete Palmer, John Thorn, Bill James etc. - assuming any would want the job.

And they still haven't fixed the goofy 5% rule.

But, this is definitely progress. Rome was not built in a day.