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

Saturday, September 08, 2007

2005 Ballot Discussion

2005 (Oct 1)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

394 143.5 1982 Wade Boggs-3B
268 96.4 1983 Tony Phillips-2B/LF
285 84.5 1982 Chili Davis-RF/DH
249 89.9 1982 Gary Gaetti-3B*
252 70.6 1983 Darryl Strawberry-RF
193 90.8 1984 Bret Saberhagen-P*
184 84.9 1984 Mark Langston-P
224 59.8 1982 Willie McGee-CF
158 71.8 1983 Tom Candiotti-P
173 60.9 1987 Terry Steinbach-C
134 57.6 1988 Jeff Montgomery-RP
154 43.4 1987 Jeff Blauser-SS
127 41.7 1984 Otis Nixon-CF
132 37.5 1990 Brian McRae-CF
115 40.4 1989 Jeff King-3B/1B
106 40.5 1988 Mike MacFarlane-C

Players Passing Away in 2004
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

98 1946 Gus Suhr-1B
93 1948 Harry Danning-C
89 1955 Ken Burkhart-RP/Umpire
89 1959 Harry Brecheen-P
88 1957 Hank Borowy-P
83 1962 Andy Seminick-C
81 1966 Ray Boone-3B/SS
81——Lawrence Ritter-Author
80 1965 Bobby Avila-2B
79——Bob Murphy-Broadcaster
76——Joe Falls-Sportswriter
75——Marge Schott-Owner
71 1978 Ted Abernathy-RP
69 1975 Leon Wagner-LF
67 1978 Tom Haller-C
65 1977 Mack Jones-CF/LF
59 1990 Tug McGraw-RP
58 1987 Johnny Oates-C/Mgr
57 1983 Willie Crawford-RF

Upcoming Candidate
41 2007 Ken Caminiti-3B

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 08, 2007 at 07:09 PM | 273 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:02 AM (#2519326)
Boggs, Browning and maybe Saberhagen?
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2519333)
Pete Browning pretty clearly will never be elected to the HoM.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2519340)
Pete Browning pretty clearly will never be elected to the HoM.


He will in 2005.
   4. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2519342)
Well, if he doesn't make it this year, yeah, I have to agree with you. (Of course I'm not particularly rooting for him myself.)
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2519343)
The only way Browning doesn't make it is if some of his supporters don't vote in 2005. Therefore...
   6. mulder & scully Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:37 AM (#2519371)
I'll be voting...

And Boggs is the obvious number 1. But I do need to figure out 3 PHOM spots (1 from 04 and 2 this year.) Do I clear out some of my "backlog?" Or find a couple of more teddy bears?
   7. ronw Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:16 AM (#2519467)
What is Marge Schott doing in the necrology?
   8. Sean Gilman Posted: September 11, 2007 at 08:17 AM (#2519521)
Boggs, Saberhagen and Puckett.

Bresnahan gained over 50 points to leapfrog Browning this year. No reason Puckett won't do the same.
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:58 AM (#2519531)
What is Marge Schott doing in the necrology?


Why not, Ron? She was famous and Dan has always included non-players in the necrology.

Bresnahan gained over 50 points to leapfrog Browning this year. No reason Puckett won't do the same.


It's possible, Sean, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Bresnahan's surge is not the norm.
   10. Sean Gilman Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:06 AM (#2519533)
I dunno, John. Charley Jones gained almost 40 points and four ballots to surge past Browning two "years" ago.
   11. Sean Gilman Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:11 AM (#2519538)
And Stieb gained 43 points and 3 ballots while Browning lost 16 points and one ballot three "years" ago.

It's starting to look like a trend.
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:15 AM (#2519539)
Again, the only way Browning loses, IMO, if his supporters don't show up in '05. But is it a lock? Well, I wouldn't bet money on it, either. :-)
   13. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:47 AM (#2519550)
The smart money is on Kirby Puckett.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 12:08 PM (#2519558)
The real intrigue this year is on the PHoM's however. We are getting pretty deep into the backlog again unless there are some timeliners out there who are going to be lookin' at Tony Phillips.

It's not the first time but it's been fairly rare for me to elect more than one new PHoMer who is off ballot and this year my prelim has 2 PHoMers from off ballot. Last year it was Johnny Pesky at #15. The backlog candidates for PHoM are:

Dale Murphy (16-16-17
Al Rosen (18-38-34)
Dan Quisenberry (19-15-20)
(Roger Bresnahan [20-31-47])
Vern Stephens (22-19-13)
Chuck Klein (23-22-16)
(Alan Trammell [11a-11-new])
Jim Rice (23-18-29)
Dave Parker (27-32-33)
Sal Bando (30-22-28)
Tony Perez (28-21-23)
(Ken Boyer [21a-25a-42a])

Maybe that's overkill. The likelihood is the new PHoMers come from the top 4-5 players listed. You'll note that Bresnahan has been moving up, just not THAT high. And I'm sure I want Rosen ahead of Boyer. Stephens and Trammell are very close. Dale Murphy almost surely beats Klein, Rice and Parker--and Klein, Rice and Parker almost surely beat Tony Perez--but I want to look again.

Compared to the HoM, my PHoM is short 1 catcher, 1 2B and 2 pitchers. I can't quite find a starting pitcher I really want. The top HoM/notPHoM pitcher is Wes Ferrell who is right after Boyer, but I don't quite see it. My PHoM/not HoM pitchers (on ballot or near) are Dean, Newcombe, Bond, Joss and Redding, so I've got plenty of arms on and near my ballot. That leaves Quisenberry as the next pitcher candidate who is not yet PHoM.
   15. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 12:25 PM (#2519564)
Speaking of HoM/not PHoM and PHoM/not HoM, here's where I'm at. Some interesting patterns have emerged recently.

C- HoM: Mackey, Trouppe. Bresnahan. PHoM: E. Howard, Munson. You like the old guys, I like the new guys. I am 1 short.

1B- HoM: Beckley. PHoM: Cepeda, Mattingly. I like the new guys, and I am 1 heavy.

2B- HoM: Whitaker, Randolph. PHoM: Doyle. Here I like the old guy and I am 1 short.

SS- HoM: Sewell, Trammell. PHoM: Rizzuto, Pesky. Here is where the whole WWII issue really comes to roost. You've got a little offense, I've got a little defense.

3B- HoM: Boyer. PHoM: Williamson, Leach. Here again I like the old guys, and I'm 1 heavy. I've got a lot more defense.

LF- HoM: Sheckard. PHoM: F. Howard, Browning. I consider Browning to be a "bat" and therefore a LF. I am 1 heavy. I've got a lot more offense.

CF- HoM: Hill, Bell. PHoM: H. Wright, R. Smith, Puckett, Dawson. Mostly I like the new guys and I'm 2 heavy.

RF- HoM: Dw. Evans. PHoM: Cravath. Not much to choose here.

SP- HoM: Galvin, Ferrell, E. Wynn, Bunning, Pierce, Sutton, Stieb. PHoM: Bond, Joss, Redding, Newcombe, Dean. My guys are less recent, generally, and I'm 2 arms short but I'm not willing to say you've got an advantage. My guys are more peak-y, though, and yours are more career-y.

I have 2 extra bats, 1 extra "hybrid" and I'm 1 glove short.

I have 2 extra guys from 19C and 1 extra deadball era guy. You've got 2 extra guys from the golden age, 1 extra guy from the expansion era, and 3 extra NeLers (who are also included in the era totals).
   16. Rusty Priske Posted: September 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM (#2519585)
Prelim

PHoM: Boggs, Willis, Freehan

1. Wade Boggs
2. Andre Dawson
3. Tony Perez
4. Tommy Leach
5. Reggie Smith
6. George van Haltren
7. Mickey Welch
8. Lou Brock
9. Graig Nettles
10. Rusty Staub
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Ken Singleton
13. Bob Johnson
14. Orlando Cepeda
15. Kirby Puckett

16-20. Cash, Redding, Willis, Browning, Murphy
21-25. Bonds, Streeter, Monroe, Mullane, Strong
26-30. Greene, Doyle, Gleason, McCormick, Grimes

I hope Puckett gets in over Browning, but Pete getting in certainly wouldn't be a travesty.
(Obviously there are others who I support more than either. Dawson, Perez, GVH...)
   17. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2519685)
thots:
OMS is now a top 10 required disclosure. My opinion is that he falls short of Bob Johnson. Johnson has taken hits for playing in an easy-to-dominate league, and also it is argued that we've elected many OFers from his era. However, the same would apply to Oms; I think maybe some miss this because Oms' case is separated from MLB, and so we don't "see" his missing black ink. And we are NOT short of dark-skinned OFers from 1920-1040.

Johnson was probably a much better hitter. Shorter career, but that is because Johnson didn't play MLB until age 27, while we are projecting Oms having "MLEs" much earlier than that, without really knowing if he would have made the majors earlier than Indian Bob. Oms was a good CFer, Johnson a very good RFer. I have Oms around #30.

PUCKETT - the Kirby mahcine is really on a roll. I think we need to look real hard at his road stats and realize he was largely a product of the Metrodome. He was Not That Good in the other 25 MLB parks. Can taking advanatge of your home field qualify you for the Hom?

Oh, and one more time on a favorite theme of mine:
Gavy Cravath finished in our top 15. So if there were a player who
a) hit better than Cravath (higher lifetime OWP)
b) had more MLB PAs
c) was much better defensively at a more important position
d) was miles better as a baserunner
e) was recognized as the great leader on hugely successful teams

... shouldn't he have been easily elected to the HoM by now???
   18. ronw Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:11 PM (#2519712)
Update from last year

After 2004's election, we have a total of 12 spots left (3 per year from 2005-2008).
It looks like the remaining elections will be:

2005 - Boggs, backlog, backlog
2006 - Will Clark, backlog, backlog
2007 - Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire
2008 - Raines, backlog, backlog

McGwire will have some protests, and I could be overestimating support for Will Clark, but I think each of them makes it sometime before we go to yearly voting. That leaves only 7 spots for the backlog.

The current backlog still consists of about 12 individuals (as it has in the past few elections) Essentially, I include everyone who received 200-400 points in the last election). Let's look at how they have done since 2000:

Player  2004   2003   2002   2001   2000
OF Pete Browning  324 307 300 316 286
OF Kirby Puckett  273 253 214 205 n/e
OF Bob Johnson 265 252 250 251 211
OF Andre Dawson   259 274 235 n/e n/e
OF Alejandro Oms  254 215 186 177 185
P Dick Redding 248 228 232 253 289
P Bucky Walters   245 218 210 220 225
OF Hugh Duffy  244 216 222 224 222
1B-3B Tony Perez  238 244 230 196 238
OF Gavy Cravath   234 212 206 204 197
OF Reggie Smith   230 179 140 125 131
3B-OF Tommy Leach 217 207 211 152 163


Wow, a lot of outfielders. Are Boggs and Ripken really our last infielders? Is Eckersley really our last pitcher? Bresnahan our last catcher? Is there anyone else more worthy than another outfielder? Analyzing the numbers for each candidate, I see that:

1. Browning still has steady support, but each year someone leapfrogs the three-time bridesmaid. Roger Bresnahan went from 255 to 252 to 271 to 301 to 376 in his election year. Support for Charley Jones went from 264 to 256 to 270 and finally to 317 in 2004. Dave Stieb was at 267 271 in 2001 and 314 in his election year.

2. Puckett and Johnson are each building up a head of steam, but may not pass Browning in 2005.

3. Bob Johnson gained some supporters in 2005. He'll probably make it before this thing is done. Has Dawson hit a wall?

5. Huge jump for Alejandro Oms. He could actually get in.

6. The gap between Redding and Walters is closing. Will we get one more pitcher?

7. Duffy and Cravath gained a little support, but it may not be enough.

8. Perez is losing supporters.

9. What a jump for Reggie Smith! Can he get a few more supporters to push him to the top?

10. Leach is creeping up, but not gaining fast enough.

Per Howie's list in the "Eligibles" thread, the following 11 individuals could become backloggers:

2005 - UT Tony Phillips, P Bret Saberhagen
2006 - OF Albert Belle, P Orel Hershiser, P Dwight Gooden
2007 - OF-DH Harold Baines, SS Tony Fernandez, OF Paul O'Neill, P David Cone
2008 - P Chuck Finley, P Chuck Knoblauch

None looks like they will beat Browning in 2005.

Revised predictions, based on the above voting trends:

2005 - Boggs, (Browning), (Puckett, Johnson or Dawson)
2006 - Will Clark, (Puckett, Johnson or Dawson), (Puckett, Johnson or Dawson)
2007 - Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire
2008 - Raines, (Oms), (pitcher from Redding, Walters, Saberhagen, Hershiser, Cone)

Once again, check your ballots, we don't have many left. It is unconstitutional to abandon lost causes, but everyone should make sure their ballots accurately reflect their current thinking.
   19. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:27 PM (#2519734)
A case for Alejandro Oms

Let's consider Oms in light of the sudden OF glut. Here's every OF with 200+ points

Browning
Puckett
Johnson
Dawson
Oms
Duffy
Cravath
Smith
Leach

In what ways does Oms stand out?
1) He is an excellent prime/career candidate. This facet of him is somewhat buried in translation. Oms' pro career started at least as early as age 21, but there's little documentation of his abilities before age 26 and what's there is scant. The reality is that he hit the ground running at age 26 and kept going for a good, long time. Players who hit the ground running are not likely MiL at 25 and All-Stars at 26. It's far from unlikely that Alejandro Oms was a some bush leaguer before his age 26 season, meaning that career-oriented voters should take special note of him and consider whether he offers more than they might have considered.

2) He might be an excellent peak/prime candidate too. This is less clear. Oms was obviously an excellent offensive player, how excellent isn't quite known. I have not personally run him through my system, though I may do so before this election runs its course. However, Chris Cobb does admit that his system will tend to flatten out peaks a bit. It's possible that Oms' peak is actually higher than has been estimated, and that part of it could be buried in the pre-age-26 era.

3) Position: Based on his research, Chris Cobb sees him as an A- fielder in the Win Shares vein. There's been much confusion in the past, and Oms has been sometimes miscast as a corner OF. Strangely the defensive discussion for Oms does not appear in his thread, but elsewhere (and I don't remember the source or thread) it was established that Oms was really a CF who sometimes played RF when he was teammates with the equivalent of Willie Mays (Oscar Charleston). And IIRC it wasn't a clear decision to shift him. In this sense he's more like Puckett than anyone else in the glut, with Duffy, and maybe Leach, showing similarities. But this should obviously mark him as having a positional advantage over several of our OF backloggers, a positional advantage that should be beared in mind when you consider his offense.

4) There are no negatives. This is a matter of direct comparison. Most of the OF backlog is surrounded by questions that limit the appeal of the player in question.
-Browning: trouble with durability, booze, league quality, defense
-Puckett: peak is low, career is short
-Johnson: trouble with league quality, difference of uberstat opinion, career isn't long
-Dawson: didn't walk ever, lots of subprime seasons, peak isn't great, played a lot of RF
-Duffy: why does WS love him? didn't play much CF, career isn't long, offensive context
-Cravath: how much extra credit? home park issues, maybe defensive issues
-Smith: serious durability issues, japan?, defense wasn't great
-Leach: offensive production isn't as good as these guys, split career, little baserunning data to elaborate on his cause.

What's the matter with Oms, then?: his pre-age 26 years aren't clear, his stats are MLEs, not MLB data.
-Does this mean that 65% of us don't trust MLE data? That can't be since we've elected plenty of NgLers and some with MiL credits.
-Does this mean that 65% of us think that the lack of documentation of his age 23-25 seasons--- relative to the rest of his career---is that huge an obstacle? That can't be since we've HOMed many others, white or black, on sketchy data: Dobie Moore, HR Johnson, Frank Grant, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, and Joe Start.
-Does this mean 65% of us think he's not very good? Seems unlikely since his MLE batting stats aren't too different than the guys in the glut AND he was a superior fielder to most of them AND had a longer career. 125 OPS+, 330+ documented MLE WS---with a reasonable and precedented credit scenario in play---and an excellent defensive CF.

So there's nothing the matter with Oms, really. And his jump in this past year's election is well warranted. IMO a further jump is further warranted.

Quick chart:
NAME POS  PA  OPS+  FRAA1  FRAA3 
----------------------------------------------------
Oms CF(CoRF)  9508  125 ??? ??? (3.36 WS/1000---don't have these handy for others)

Browning  CF/CoOF   6929  166   - 42   - 82 
Puckett   CF(CoOF)  8117  124  48  46
Johnson   CoOF   8047  138  47  29
Dawson CoOF/CF  11147  120   2   2
Duffy  CoOF/CF   9092  122  93  55 
Cravath   CoOF   5037  150   - 32   - 45   
Smith  CoOF/CF   8097  137   0   - 17
Leach  CF/3B  9717  109 130  78  

All PA are in 162 notation, OPS+ has been reweighted to reflect adjusted PAs 


So he looks like Duffy, but with more time in CF and 500 more PA without credit for his pre-26 years. He's more durable than Smith in-season and careerwise, probably a much better defender, and credit scenarios at worst for Oms wash out (Japan versus undocumented Cuban play). He's a better hitter than Dawson, a better defender than Dawson, and a credit scenario probably gets him very close on the PAs. He's got major pluses on an un-credited Cravath, and most interesting, he's got the same OPS+ as Puckett in 1500 more PA and that's sans consideration for pre-age 26, and his glove is very good.

On the whole, Oms compares very, very well to the glut, and he deserves a second, third, or fourth look.
   20. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2519744)
>PUCKETT - the Kirby mahcine is really on a roll. Can taking advanatge of your home field qualify you for the Hom?

What Kirby machine? Kirby is like Browning. We hear from his detractors except on election day. Not that that has done the job for Pistol Pete.

And as for the second half of the comment. When we start applying this logic to Red Sox OF, then fine. Oh, too late.
   21. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2519759)
umm.. what Sox OFer have we HoMed undeservedly?
   22. Mark Donelson Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:45 PM (#2519762)
2005 prelim.

pHOM will be Boggs, Saberhagen, and a backlogger. Right now that's probably Stieb, but Leach, Frank Howard, Whitaker, and Ashburn are also in the running.

1. Boggs. I have him as the fifth-best 3B all-time, right after Brett. (Sixth-best if you swap out the old 3Bs for old 2Bs.)
2. Saberhagen. Surprised me, but he's got a peak much like Dean's and slightly more prime. I'm currently questioning how much I care about the nonconsecutive aspect of Saberhagen's, so he could drop a bit.
3. Dean
4. Williamson
5. Elston Howard
6. Willis
7. Browning
8. Cravath
9. Tiant
10. Rosen
11. Singleton
12. McGraw
13. Pesky
14. Doyle
15. Trout. It's possible that Oms, Cicotte, or Rizzuto could also claim this last spot (or even the 14 spot--there's some flux at the bottom of the ballot here.
   23. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2519787)
Ditto TomH on Oms, lower ceiling than Bob Johnson and Indian Bob hasn't been considered a high ceiling player. I do like Oms better than Andre Dawson but neither is particularly close to my ballot.

2005 Prelim

1) Wade Boggs - 4th after Schmidt, Mathews, Brett but not much behind Mathews and Brett
2) Reggie Smith - good defender at CF and RF, great bat, long career. Andre Dawson plus walks?
3) Bob Johnson - With minor league credit he has an incredibly long prime
4) Luis Tiant - Best available pitcher. I've detailed why I like him better than Stieb in the previous ballot comments. Compare to Drysdale, Marichal, Pierce and Bunning. I wish DanR had his pitchers completed because he has indicated that Tiant does well.
5) Bus Clarkson - my favorite war/integration era shafted player
6) Tommy Bridges - war era is still short pitching and he's the best available from that era
7) Norm Cash - Best 1B available, very good glove
8) Graig Nettles - Another well rounded player, good glove and good bat
9) John McGraw - Put up huge numbers, a little more playing time in-season and in-career and he wouldn't be around to vote on.
10) Tommy Leach
11) Rick Reuschel
12) Ron Cey
13) Gavy Cravath
14) Bret Saberhagen - Great peak performances, above average in most of his down years. However, he was hurt a lot and just didn't put up that many innings in his career. Makes my PHOM this season but I can't endorse him as the best available pitcher. Much is being made of his postseason success but was he better than Tiant in the playoffs?
15) Ben Taylor - essentially tied with Trucks but I'll give Taylor the benefit of the doubt. Welcome to the ballot. We've elected Keith Hernandez and Jake Beckley, why not Ben Taylor? Are we going to see updated MLEs before the backlog openings disappear?

16-20) Virgil Trucks, Bob Elliott, Lee Smith, Jack Clark, Dick Redding
21-25) Vic Willis, Urban Shocker, Dave Bancroft, Buddy Bell, Pete Browning
26-30) Dutch Leonard, Dizzy Trout, Jim McCormick, Bobby Bonds, Wally Schang

34) Alejandro Oms - ranks behind Bonds, right next to Jose Cruz ahead of Kiki Cuyler. I think Jose Cruz is a good comparable player and Cruz' era isn't represented as well as Oms'.
51) Andre Dawson - I have Fred Lynn ahead of him.
62) Bucky Walters - his pitching is mostly defense
Kirby Puckett - not in top 100, he would have made a great candidate on a career basis if he had played out the potential ending but his actual career is too short. Better than Hugh Duffy though.

Charley Jones beats out Vic Willis for the 3rd slot in my PHoM this year.
   24. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 04:06 PM (#2519801)
Dwight Evans.

And Carl Yaz is certainly vastly overrated, though still comfortably HoMable.

And of course Bobby Doerr is not an OF but his splits are pretty bad. I won't say he is undeserving but he is certainly one of the weaker HoMers.

But the main point is to say that trotting out splits in order to crucify Kirby Puckett is a bit, ah, selective to the HoM process.
   25. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2519823)
"Players who hit the ground running are not likely MiL at 25 and All-Stars at 26."

How could this be true for Oms but not Bob Johnson?
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 04:22 PM (#2519828)
>I have 2 extra bats, 1 extra "hybrid" and I'm 1 glove short. I have 2 extra guys from 19C and 1 extra deadball era guy. You've got 2 extra guys from the golden age, 1 extra guy from the expansion era, and 3 extra NeLers (who are also included in the era totals).

PS I should say I'm happy with my differences from the consensus except Harry Wright. I picked Harry and shortly thereafter someone posted his numbers and they were disappointing. He's a cross between a "pioneer" like Candy Cummings and a player-manager like, oh, Wilbert Robinson, and we rightfully aren't electing that kind of player.

But if anything, I've elected too many consensus guys. I have a little bit of heartburn over low peak guys like Bid McPhee, Bobby Wallace, Teddy Lyons, Earl Averill, Bobby Doerr, Faber and Rixey, Darrell Evans and Nolan Ryan. If I could trade them all now for a bunch of peakers I'd be lookin' at Rosen, Klein, Bando, Willis, Hack Wilson, Wally Berger, maybe even John McGraw. I won't be able to get them all, now.

But looking at the differences, I was most surprised--I had forgotten--that I was 3 NeLers short. I feel like a big supporter of the NeLers. So:

I never quite got Pete Hill. I think there was sort of a rush to judgment there and as a result the debate and discussion ended before I felt like I personally had a feel for him, and so he was sort of forgotten. The other two are both catchers. I was quite sure when they were new that Mackey fell below Bresnahan, and Bresnahan is still in my backlog. High in the backlog but in the backlog. So obviously Mackey has to be further down the list.

And if we feel like black players of the "integration" era need some particular interpretation, I'm all for that. I just felt that Elston Howard and Don Newcombe were vastly better candidates than Trouppe and, say, Bus Clarkson, in representing that era in black ball.
   27. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2519895)
34) Alejandro Oms - ranks behind Bonds, right next to Jose Cruz ahead of Kiki Cuyler. I think Jose Cruz is a good comparable player and Cruz' era isn't represented as well as Oms'.

OMS:
-Longer career than any of the three mentioned
-More important defensive player (CFer), and a good one

How could this be true for Oms but not Bob Johnson?

Seconded.

we are projecting Oms having "MLEs" much earlier than that, without really knowing if he would have made the majors earlier than Indian Bob. Oms was a good CFer, Johnson a very good RFer.

This statement is not considering the precedent set in cases such as Dobie Moore's where Moore's Wreckers time was an important aspect of his case. We could make the same argument about Moore. Or for that matter about virtually ANY black player until the end of the 1960s or so.

One more intersting question. Let's say for the sake of argument that we are going to compare Johnson to all LFs from 1933-1945 and Oms to CFs from 1921-1931 and RF from 1932-1937. How do they compare?

Johnson 1933-1945
AL LF = .292/.365/.439/.804
Johnson = .296/.393/.506/.899

Oms 1921-1931
MLB CF = .304/.365/.433/.797
Oms CF = .343/.404/.492/.897

Oms 1932-1937
MLB RF = .297/.365/.445/.810
Oms RF = .308/.361/.402/.763

So Oms is just as good a hitter relative to his position in what I'm guessing might be his CF prime, but he's a very good to excellent CF instead of a good LF. And remember, Chris in the Oms thread suggests that his method might be underselling Oms's offensive peak. His RF tail-end is below the positional average, indeed, but on the other hand, it's debateable whether Oms would be in the league until 42 (and many voters don't choose to hold late-career fades against players anyway). Still, when you add back in the missing years and you consider that speed ebbs from about age 24 onward, you can guess that Oms was probably missing a good prime chunk and that his CF defense was probably creating more opportunities to save runs than Chris' defensive estimate may have suggested.
   28. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:17 PM (#2519919)
Where are you getting the defensive reputation information? A- in Win Shares is not excellent for a CF.

Cruz played in the majors from 1970 to 1988, ages 22-40. Is Oms career that much longer? I will grant you that Bonds and Cruz didn't play as much CF as Oms but they did play CF in the majors for some period of time. Would Oms have definitely played all CF in the majors or would he have played more corner OF also?
   29. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2519938)
FWIW, according to my sources, Oms pushed Charleston to right field when the two played for Santa Clara (oboy, what a team). Tinti Molina ran that team and he was a pretty astute baseball man. Oms would have played CF in in MLB.
   30. KJOK Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:35 PM (#2519943)
I'm almost certain Oms played some corner OF, which probably means if he were in MLB he would have played more corner OF than CF.

Oms MLE's seemed to come out close to Eric Davis, and for me Eric Davis would not be in my top 15 on this ballot.
   31. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2519947)
Agree that Doerr is one of our weakest HoMies. But the difference between Kirby's home-field advantage and Dwight Evans' (or any other that I know of) is E - nor -muss. I don't intend to be selective; I will equally bash on Gavy Cravath's home-field-driven stats, or anyone else to whom this applies [gee, I should have included that in my post #17!]. I know, its the old value vs ability argument, and there are reasonable disagreements there. but if you are partially an "ability" guy, this oughta be a factor.

Having said all of that, I'm not a sworn enemy of Kirby; he was at the bottom of my ballot last week, in part because I give more post-season credit than most voters.
   32. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2520005)
Speaking of Red Sox and home field; Boggs was somewhat a creation of Fenway. Lifetime road OPS: 782. Think about that; arguably the best hitter of his era, could not even put up an OPS of 800 away from his bandbox where he could plunk the monster with 360 ft flyballs for doubles if you pitched him away, or rifle line drives into RF if you pitched him inside.

He's one of my 100 best ballplayers, but not in my top 50.
   33. Paul Wendt Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2520026)
In a moment I will copy much of this to
Alejandro Oms.

If you care, grant me a moment. I thing you should care. The group has recognized that he is near election and there are still many questions about him. Probably some participants are paying him more attention now. And Eric Chalek says that some past discussion of Oms is practically lost.
   34. ronw Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2520068)
Marc:

I know you've said it for years, but why didn't you get Pete Hill? I have forgotten.

Personally, I voted for Hill because he seemed to be "the" outfielder of the aughts and early teens, the one most remembered who anchored the best teams. Of course, because of the time in which he played, we don't have real stats for him.
   35. OCF Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2520071)
TomH: I'm not a sworn enemy of Kirby; he was at the bottom of my ballot last week, in part because I give more post-season credit than most voters.

But not enough post-season credit to put Brock on your ballot.

The candidate for whom post-season credit might make the largest positive impact is John Smoltz - and there lies one of the reasons ronw asked if Eckersley is really our last pitcher: a whole generation of great and good pitchers born in the 1960's have postponed their eligibility far into the future. Of course we'll take Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, probably Glavine and Smoltz, Rivera, and then we'll be arguing about Hoffman and Mussina and ... but those guys have to retire first! (Kevin Brown will be eligible in 2011, and he's just about first in line.)

My problem as a voter is that I don't like any of the top backloggers as HoMers. I am going to be taking a sharp look at some of the "new backloggers" listed near the bottom of Ron's post.
   36. Paul Wendt Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2520072)
I copied eight articles to
Alejandro Oms
and emphasized passages that pertain to his fielding position and reputation.
Thanks for waiting.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2520074)
Perhaps my favorite factoid ever since discovering Bill James almost 30 years ago: Reggie Jackson has a higher road BA than Yaz. Not OPS, not SA, not OBA, but BA. Anybody who can't chew on that for a few seconds and realize they have a lot to learn about baseball statistics is a moron. When I heard that I thought, wow, I have a lot to learn about baseball statistics. I am not smart about this stuff, but I am not a moron.
   38. Paul Wendt Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2520087)
some younger fans may have grown up with this understanding but
good example, well said
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2520104)
The candidate for whom post-season credit might make the largest positive impact is John Smoltz - and there lies one of the reasons ronw asked if Eckersley is really our last pitcher: a whole generation of great and good pitchers born in the 1960's have postponed their eligibility far into the future. Of course we'll take Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, Martinez, probably Glavine and Smoltz, Rivera, and then we'll be arguing about Hoffman and Mussina and ... but those guys have to retire first! (Kevin Brown will be eligible in 2011, and he's just about first in line.)


Schilling will be in the mix, too.
   40. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: September 11, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2520105)
Because I have it handy, here's the WS/100PA for the other outfielders in the top 12, as I have them (which doesn't match Dr. C's Oms numbers at all):

Browning - 4.233
Puckett - 3.588
Johnson - 3.567
Dawson - 3.157
Oms - 3.754
Duffy - 3.769
Cravath - 4.349 (Only actual MLB at-bats included)
Smith - 4.037
Leach - 3.623

And just to be fair, Perez - 3.213

(And because I can't help myself, Bus Clarkson - 4.058, Dave Concepcion - 2.790. The high in my consideration set seems to be Frank Chance at 4.648, the low Maranville at 2.683
   41. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:12 PM (#2520125)
But not enough post-season credit to put Brock on your ballot.

Touche!

I'll re-think Lou. Boy, if he only could have played a half-decent OF...
   42. Tiboreau Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:22 PM (#2520152)
Alejandro Oms vs. Enos Slaughter. I have been making this comparison since Slaughter's first (and only) year of eligibility. In fact, I included the very same chart below on my '65 ballot. I've been meaning to post it again, but with site changes I'm never sure how it'll work. However, Oms is finally in the top 10, so I don't care if this chart ends up jumbled together, I'm posting it!

(BTW, Alejandro Oms' MLEs were, I believe, based on the 154 game season of that era, and are regressed to smooth any abherrations due to SSS [Small Sample Size] Syndrome.)
<u>  g  tpa  ops+  WS top5 WS/162   ops+  WS   </u>
Oms  2178 9056  125  340  140  25.29  147 144 144  31 29 29
Slaughter  2380 9084  123  323  141  21.99  156 143 141  37 29 29 

First of all, extra credit--time spent outside their established careers. We all know Country Slaughter missed three seasons in his prime due to WWII, but Oms also spent significant uncredited time playing ball. In Chris Cobb's MLEs El Caballero bursts on to the scene at age 26, immediately playing at his peak level. We also know he spent some time in America 4 years before with Pompez's Cuban ball club. So, what did he do during the 3 years in between? It was spent around his home town playing in the Cuban Sugar Leagues, training grounds for viable baseball talent that provided an extra economic source. To me, this is a situation similar to Dobie Moore's. So, after extra credit I have Slaughter (27, 27, 27 = 404) slightly ahead of Oms (7, 15, 22 = 384).

Even with this change their two careers still look similar, very similar in fact. The 2 biggest differences are in Oms' advantage WS/162 (which drops a bit with the addition of the Cuban Sugar Leagues), and Slaughter's flukish peak season. After the peak year, however, Oms' excellent prime more than makes up for Slaughter's '42 season. (Does anyone adjust '42 for wartime competition or was it to early to affect the game?). When you consider regression, which essentially takes a few Win Shares from the top of a player's best year and adds it to their worst, I think you can only conclude that Oms just tops Slaughter on peak/prime.

Enos Slaughter was elected in his first year of eligibility (it was a fairly weak year). Even considering time spent outside organized baseball, Oms compares very favorably, and I encourage, particularly prime, voters to take a good look at him.

BTW, on defense--Alejandro Oms played all 3 outfield positions during his career, but appeared to spend the majority of it in center field. Here's a comment on his defense from a Negro League researcher who used to participate in this project:

As for Oms' fielding, every source I've ever seen pretty much says the same thing: sure-handed, good speed and range, and a weak arm. The one odd thing about Oms fielding is that Oms, who was usually not flamboyant at all, evidently would show off with behind-the-back catches on fly balls if the game was not close. He must have practiced it since I've never come across a reference that said he tried it and missed.
   43. OCF Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:43 PM (#2520187)
Schilling will be in the mix, too.

And he hasn't retired yet, either - which was essentially my point.
   44. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:48 PM (#2520199)
Devin, I straight-line adjusted the PAs to 162 games for comparison's sake, which is prolly why they don't match.
   45. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2520217)
I like the comparison to Slaughter. Still, Enos Slaughter without war credit only gets to around 25 on my ballot. I really can't place Oms higher than that.
   46. JPWF13 Posted: September 11, 2007 at 07:59 PM (#2520221)
Perhaps my favorite factoid ever since discovering Bill James almost 30 years ago: Reggie Jackson has a higher road BA than Yaz. Not OPS, not SA, not OBA, but BA.


Well Reggie ALSO had a higher road OPS, SA, OBP and more ribbies (one less run scored though)
I actually never "got" the adulation of Yaz (too young for 1967, and not a Sox fan) so that one didn't blow me away.

What is funny is that I used to write comments in the margins my copies of the BJ Abstracts when I first got them- I re-read some recently and I can't believe the stupidity of some of my younger self's comments.-

One example concerns the RedSox, James wrote something like this "when every hitter has a good season and you still can't win, you have to wonder if maybe they're just not as good as you think they are" (it was concerning either the 86 or 84 Sox)

I wrote, "It's the pitchers stupid".

What got me was when he listed Fed Lynn's home road splits- up till that point- unlike Yaz, I had been impressed with Lynn- fully expected that any day he'd return to the land of .300. Point of fact Lynn's production with Boston was real- but insofar as moving to another park was concerned it might well have been a mirage- Lynn took unusual advantage of Fenway- outside that park he couldn't sniff .300- he was still a good offensive player when in the lineup- just not as good as in Fenway.
   47. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 11, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2520249)
I like the comparison to Slaughter. Still, Enos Slaughter without war credit only gets to around 25 on my ballot. I really can't place Oms higher than that.

This I don't really get (no offense DL).
-Oms is documented as having been stateside five years before, so he had already been noticed.
-Slaughter wasn't playing baseball in his opaque period (unless he was in the army), Oms was.
-Oms entered the NgL with guns blazing, it's not like he was still in the seasoning phase.
-We have ample precedent for this situation in Dobie Moore as well as in early NgL and MLB players with sketchy records.

Is the suggestion that by finding a few boxscores from a 1919 sugar league game, Oms would suddenly be more viable? I don't see why. Consider it this way: Charley Jones needed blacklist credit AND he needed evidence of pre- and extra 1875 play to push him over. This latter is important because his career was seen as having two teriminuses: 1875 and 1887. The credit for Oms does not occur BEFORE his career or extend it (a la Jones), it occurs during a normal part of a career when many players emerge.

So there's logic, precedent, and documentation (from third party sources noted in his thread and within the context of own record) to strongly suggest credit is reasonable for him. Like Slaughter, on the day Oms was born he was consigned to a generational disadvantage that causes his career to be obscured behind cultural and societal shadows. Slaughter's circumstances are easier to see for what they are and to understand. Oms' circumstances are more subtle, but they are no less the kind of generational issue that Slaughter faced, so why draw the artificial separation between them and give Slaughter war credit and Oms nothing?

KJOK, the Eric Davis comparison falls a little flat for me. Oms is MLE'ed with 9000 PAs. In 17 years, Eric Davis managed about two-thirds that many. In terms of OPS+, yes, 125 is the same, but Eric Davis couldn't stay in the lineup.
   48. Al Peterson Posted: September 11, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2520280)
Quick chart:

NAME POS PA OPS+ FRAA1 FRAA3
----------------------------------------------------
Oms CF(CoRF) 9508 125 ??? ??? (3.36 WS/1000---don't have these handy for others)

Browning CF/CoOF 6929 166 - 42 - 82
Puckett CF(CoOF) 8117 124 48 46
Johnson CoOF 8047 138 47 29
Dawson CoOF/CF 11147 120 2 2
Duffy CoOF/CF 9092 122 93 55
Cravath CoOF 5037 150 - 32 - 45
Smith CoOF/CF 8097 137 0 - 17
Leach CF/3B 9717 109 130 78

All PA are in 162 notation, OPS+ has been reweighted to reflect adjusted PAs


Thanks for the chart Eric. Wanted to note that Bob Johnson's PA don't look to be adjusted to 162, those are his actual career totals.

Then there is the thought thrown around that he be given MiL credit. Say credit for just 1932 where he hits pretty much at his career norms. Then you have Bob Johnson with around 9000 PAs with OPS+ in the 136-137 range.

It surprises me when people say Indian Bob doesn't have a long career. Sure only 13 years in the majors. But he spent 3 1/2 years in the PCL prior to the start of his major league career(from mid-1929 through 1932). Then after WWII and no major league job offers he finds work in the minors, some of it high minor league level, for another 5 years. The career length argument shouldn't be a point against Bob Johnson.
   49. Tiboreau Posted: September 11, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2520281)
What pre code acually works on this site? Do you type "pre" or "code"? Do you type "<" or"["?
   50. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 08:59 PM (#2520291)
Well, for one Oms has been projected to have really good durability which makes me a bit skeptical giving him credit for more than the 9000 PA projected. Is he really a player who would have had 11,000 plate appearances in the majors (3 more seasons)? That's projecting him into the top 40 all time.
   51. ronw Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:09 PM (#2520346)
The main reason we participate in this project.

HOM not HOF through 2004 (49 players):

Allen, Dick
Barnes, Ross
Beckwith, John
Bennett, Charlie
Blyleven, Bert
Boyer, Ken
Caruthers, Bob
Childs, Cupid
Dahlen, Bill
Evans, Darrell
Evans, Dwight
Ferrell, Wes
Freehan, Bill
Glasscock, Jack
Gordon, Joe
Gore, George
Gossage, Rich
Grich, Bobby
Groh, Heinie
Hack, Stan
Hernandez, Keith
Hines, Paul
Jackson, Joe
Johnson, Grant
Jones, Charley
Keller, Charlie
Magee, Sherry
McVey, Cal
Minoso, Minnie
Moore, Dobie
Pearce, Dickey
Pierce, Billy
Pike, Lip
Randolph, Willie
Richardson, Hardy
Rose, Pete
Santo, Ron
Sheckard, Jimmy
Simmons, Ted
Start, Joe
Stovey, Harry
Sutton, Ezra
Torre, Joe
Trammell, Alan
Trouppe, Quincy
Stieb, Dave
White, Deacon
Whitaker, Lou
Wynn, Jimmy

HOF not HOM through 2007 (60 players)

Aparicio, Luis
Bancroft, Dave
Bender, Chief
Boggs, Wade (eligible 2005)
Bottomley, Jim
Brock, Lou
Cepeda, Orlando
Chance, Frank
Chesbro, Jack
Combs, Earle
Cooper, Andy
Cuyler, Kiki
Dandridge, Ray
Day, Leon
Dean, Dizzy
Duffy, Hugh
Evers, Johnny
Ferrell, Rick
Gomez, Lefty
Grimes, Burleigh
Gwynn, Tony (eligible 2007)
Hafey, Chick
Haines, Jesse
Hooper, Harry
Hoyt, Waite
Hunter, Catfish
Jackson, Travis
Johnson, Judy
Joss, Addie
Kell, George
Kelly, George
Klein, Chuck
Lazzeri, Tony
Lindstrom, Freddy
Lombardi, Ernie
Manush, Heinie
Maranville, Rabbit
Marquard, Rube
Mazeroski, Bill
McCarthy, Tommy
McGraw, John
Pennock, Herb
Perez, Tony
Puckett, Kirby
Rice, Sam
Ripken, Cal (eligible 2007)
Rizzuto, Phil
Schalk, Ray
Schoendienst, Red
Smith, Hilton
Sutter, Bruce
Taylor, Ben
Tinker, Joe
Traynor, Pie
Waner, Lloyd
Welch, Mickey
White, Sol
Willis, Vic
Wilson, Hack
Youngs, Ross

Boggs, Gwynn and Ripken are locks to be removed from this list. Based on current voting trends, only Puckett, Duffy, and Perez have a shot at being removed, so right before the 2008 election we should end up with anywhere from 54-57 HOF not HOM and as many as 55 HOM not HOF. (They may not be identical). With 233 players in the HOF as of 2007, we will have changed about 55/233, or almost 24% of the immortals.
   52. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM (#2520362)
What pre code acually works on this site? Do you type "pre" or "code"? Do you type "<" or"["?

code and [

it ends up being a fixed-width font so line it up with courier in another window and avoid tab characters.
   53. Tiboreau Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:47 PM (#2520376)
Well, for one Oms has been projected to have really good durability which makes me a bit skeptical giving him credit for more than the 9000 PA projected. Is he really a player who would have had 11,000 plate appearances in the majors (3 more seasons)? That's projecting him into the top 40 all time.

He was the type of player who would receive a lot of at-bats: high OBP., fleet of foot. Considering his player type--long prime, 20 year career, etc. I don't think it is unlikely at all. Here are six similar players, a couple who were better, a couple approx. equal, a couple who were worse. They've all received a Q&D;adjustment to 162 game seasons. I accounted for WWII in Slaughter's case, but not WWI.

Paul Waner 11300
Zack Wheat 10500
Max Carey 11330
Enos Slaughter 10850
Richie Ashburn 10225
Doc Cramer 10430

That averages out to approx. 10775 plate appearances. In Oms' case there is only one documented situation of injury, the 1931 season. the MLEs reflect that as well as the poorer performance after it. In the Negro Leagues a player of Oms' caliber would've played as much as possible. With a better replacement level, that wouldn't've been quite the case in the MLB. The best way to figure playing time is based on similar career types, which, in a much more sophisticated manner than the little chart above, is what I think Chris Cobb did:

I projected his playing time on the model of major-league outfielders who continued playing to and past the age of 40, primarily Doc Cramer and Enos Slaughter.
   54. Tiboreau Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:50 PM (#2520378)
top 3
<i>  g  tpa  ops+  WS top5 WS/162   ops+  WS   </i>
Oms  2178 9056  125  340  140  25.29  147 144 144  31 29 29
Slaughter  2380 9084  123  323  141  21.99  156 143 141  37 29 29 

Thanks, David!
   55. Tiboreau Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2520381)
Heh, that didn't work; I must've spaced it incorrectly. . . .
   56. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:54 PM (#2520385)
Right, I should have reported Johnson with 8449 PA, thanks!
   57. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2520386)
Agree that Doerr is one of our weakest HoMies. But the difference between Kirby's home-field advantage and Dwight Evans' (or any other that I know of) is E - nor -muss. I don't intend to be selective; I will equally bash on Gavy Cravath's home-field-driven stats, or anyone else to whom this applies [gee, I should have included that in my post #17!]. I know, its the old value vs ability argument, and there are reasonable disagreements there. but if you are partially an "ability" guy, this oughta be a factor.

I'm a Cravath fan, so I've never liked docking a player for H/R splits, but if you do there's a few things to keep in mind.

These splits you've posted aren't park adjusted, though. The Dome's PF was consistently 102-107 for all but the final two years of Puckett's career. And "normal" H/R splits look bigger than the PF would imply due to the half-road-games and no-road-games-at-home adjustments. Plus there's the standard-but-not-fully-explainable "home bonus" that most players tend to enjoy simply due to familiarity, home cookin, etc. So yes, Puckett & Boggs played better at home, but much of the 118/82 tOPS splits at bb-ref are explained by the PF. My back-of-the-envelope guess is that a 118/82 tOPS split implies a career PF of about 108.

Evans just wasn't "tailored" for Fenway. Looks like he was a good road hitter.

Plus, as a long-time fan who watched Puckett a lot growing up. I'm a bit confused as to *how* Kirby took special advantage of the Dome. He was right-handed and the baggy/shortporch is in wrong field (RF). LF is fairly spacious -- not Yankee-spacious, but more spacious than normal. Was it the high-bouncing choppers of the turf? Another reason why I'm not big into H/R splits. They are too hard to explain. When there's a short wall of some kind, sure, but the Metrodome for a RHB?
   58. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 10:58 PM (#2520390)
Name g tpa  ops+  WS   top5  WS/162  top3ops+  top3WS   
Oms  2178 9056  125  340  140   25.29   147 144 144  31 29 29
Slaughter  2380 9084  123  323  141   21.99   156 143 141  37 29 29 
   59. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:00 PM (#2520394)
Name g tpa   opsWS   top5  WS/162  top3ops+  top3WS   
Oms  2178 9056  125  340  140   25.29   147 144 144  31 29 29
Slaughter  2380 9084  123  323  141   21.99   156 143 141  37 29 29 
   60. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:00 PM (#2520395)
Wow... it doesn't work like it used to. very weird. sorry about that. :-)
   61. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:02 PM (#2520398)
Name g tpa   opsWS   top5  WS/162  top3ops+  top3WS  
AO   2178 9056  125  340  140   25.29   147 144 144  31 29 29
ES   2380 9084  123  323  141   21.99   156 143 141  37 29 29 
   62. DavidFoss Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:04 PM (#2520402)
Hmmm... I'll give up for now... I checked in my editor and there were no tab characters. Can't count on code-tags giving a fixed-width format anymore, I guess.
   63. TomH Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2520473)
Puckett & Boggs played better at home, but much of the 118/82 tOPS splits at bb-ref are explained by the PF.

Whoa Nelly!!
I assumed bb-ref's tOPS WERE park adjusted, like OPS+. They AREN'T?? I may have to retract much of what I wrote.
   64. Jim Sp Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM (#2520495)
I noticed something worth mentioning.

Masanori Murakami was the first Japanese player in the major leagues, playing for the Giants in 1964 and 1965.

He only pitched 89 innings, but what I didn't realize is that his K/W performance is unmatched in baseball history: 100 K's to 23 walks. He's the DIPS king, so to speak, even with 10 HR allowed.

According to wikipedia, he went on to pitch 17 more successful years in the Japanese leagues.

I know next to nothing about Japanese baseball, but do we need to look at this guy? He would seem to be eligible, then excluded due to circumstances out of his control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanori_Murakami
   65. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 11, 2007 at 11:47 PM (#2520525)
Prelim:

1) Boggs
2) Clarkson
3) L. Smith
4) Walters
5) Welch
6) Browning
7) Willis
8) Cravath
9) Oms
10) Elliott
11) Duffy
12) Traynor
13) Grimes
14) Bonds
15) R. Smith (he may move up - need to look at his Japanese numbers again)

Strawberry and Saberhagen were great players at their peaks, but not enough career-wise. The rest were just good players.
   66. Howie Menckel Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2520716)
HOM by pct of games at each position in the field or DH, thru 2003

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct at a position, otherwise it's not listed and not tallied)

If 75 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 14 Cs, 15 1Bs, 15 2Bs, 09 3Bs, 13 SSs, 52 OFs, 59 Ps.
If 65 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 16 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 10 3Bs, 19 SSs, 58 OFs, 60 Ps.
If 50 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 18 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 14 3Bs, 21 SSs, 62 OFs, 60 Ps.

C (15.72) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, JGibson 95, Campanella 95, Freehan 90, GCarter 90, Fisk 90, Bennett 88, Berra 87, Mackey 80, Bench 78, TSimmons 77, Santop 75, Bresnahan 71, Trouppe 65, Ewing 47, Torre 41, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (22.17) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, KHernandez 100, Beckley 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, McCovey 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Murray 81, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Carew 50, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stargell 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, DaEvans 32, McVey 31, Rose 27, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Yastrzemski 23, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (19.67) - McPhee 100, Doerr 100, Childs 100, NFox 100, Gehringer 99, Morgan 99, Whitaker 99, Randolph 99, E Collins 98, Gordon 98, Herman 95, Sandberg 93, Grich 86, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Carew 47, Richardson 43, HR Johnson 25, Ward 24, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Rose 18, Molitor 15, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (15.09) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Santo 95, Mathews 93, Schmidt 92, Boyer 90, Groh 79, Sutton 69, Brett 63, DaEvans 54, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Molitor 30, Trouppe 25, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Rose 18, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (19.67) - OSmith 100, Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Trammell 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, Moore 90, GWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 74, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Sewell 65, Davis 58, Yount 52, Banks 45, Ward 39, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10, WBrown 10

OF (59.42) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Keller 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Roush 99, CJones 99, SJJackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, JWynn 97, Kiner 96, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Minoso 93, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Winfield 85, DwEvans 83, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, RJackson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Yastrzemski 63, Charleston 60, Stargell 60, Kelly 47, Yount 43, HRichardson 40, Rose 38, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, Bresnahan 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, McCovey 12, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10, Trouppe 10

DH (1.86) - Molitor 44, RJackson 23, Brett 19, Murray 19, Winfield 14, Yastrzemski 13, TSimmons 12, FRobinson 11, DwEvans 11, BWilliams 10, DaEvans 10

P (59.64) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, Ruffing 100, Rixey 100, Wynn 100, Spahn 100, Roberts 100, Koufax 100, W Ford 100, Drysdale 100, Bunning 100, Wilhelm 100, Marichal 100, Gibson 100, Waddell 100, Pierce 100, GPerry 100, Palmer 100, Jenkins 100, Seaver 100, Carlton 100, Niekro 100, Sutton 100, Blyleven 100, Ryan 100, Gossage 100, Fingers 100, Stieb 100, Eckersley 100, R Foster 99, MBrown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, SJ Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, WJohnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Lemon 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Griffith 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Mendez 90, Radbourn 78, Spalding 80, Caruthers 66, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 25, Ruth 20

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters such as Ward, Ruth, Caruthers, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   67. Howie Menckel Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2520721)
that's thru 2004, of course...
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:12 AM (#2520725)
Thanks, Howie!
   69. Howie Menckel Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:32 AM (#2520748)
'Major league' HOMers per year, minimum 10 G per player to qualify, or equivalent
(NeL in parentheses refers to any non-MLB-credited seasons for non-white players)

1850s - 0/0/0/0/0/0/1/1/1/1............................................ avg 0.4
1860s - 2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8.............................................avg 3.5
1870s - 9/10/12/12/13/13/13/12/13/17............................ avg 12.4
1880s - 18/20/21/21/23/24/25/24/26/26...........................avg 22.8 (with 0.4 NeL)
1890s - 31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24...........................avg 26.8 (with 1.5 NeL)
1900s - 23/27/27/25/27/28/27/28/29/29...........................avg 27.0 (with 3.5 NeL)
1910s - 30/29/28/31/30/30/34/28/25/27...........................avg 29.2 (with 7.2 NeL)
1920s - 29/31/35/37/42/45/48/47/47/44...........................avg 40.5 (with 14.3 NeL)
1930s - 42/44/45/43/41/41/41/42/39/41...........................avg 41.9 (with 13.7 NeL)
1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)
1950s - 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32...........................avg 30.1
1960s - 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/36/37.......................... avg 34.8
1970s - 39/38/41/41/42/41/40/39/37/36...........................avg 39.6
1980s - 38/37/37/35/33/31/29/26/23/19...........................avg 30.5

possible adds from holdovers (200+ pts in last election):
1880s - BROWNING 1882-89, DUFFY 1888-89
1890s - BROWNING 1890-93, DUFFY 1890-99, TLEACH 1899
1900s - DUFFY 1900-01/04-05, TLEACH 1900-09, CRAVATH 1908
1910s - TLEACH 1910-15/18, REDDING 1911-19ish, CRAVATH 1912-18
1920s - REDDING 1920-21ish, OMS 1921-29ish
1930s - OMS 1930-33ish, WALTERS 1932-39, BJOHNSON 1933-39
1940s - WALTERS 1940-47, BJOHNSON 1940-45
1950s - none
1960s - TPEREZ 1965-69, RESMITH 1967-69
1970s - TPEREZ 1970-79, RESMITH 1970-79, DAWSON 1976-79
1980s - TPEREZ 1980-86, RESMITH 1980-92, DAWSON 1980-89, PUCKETT 1984-89

1948-64 is done already, and only Walters and BJohnson from 1934-47 still have a shot.
   70. KJOK Posted: September 12, 2007 at 05:08 AM (#2521008)
I know next to nothing about Japanese baseball, but do we need to look at this guy? He would seem to be eligible, then excluded due to circumstances out of his control.


No, he wasn't all that great in Japan - he only made one all-star team:



Japanese Pitchers - M
   71. KJOK Posted: September 12, 2007 at 05:12 AM (#2521009)
KJOK, the Eric Davis comparison falls a little flat for me. Oms is MLE'ed with 9000 PAs. In 17 years, Eric Davis managed about two-thirds that many. In terms of OPS+, yes, 125 is the same, but Eric Davis couldn't stay in the lineup.


When I evaluate Negro Leaguers, I'm mainly looking for what type of player they were, what their RATE of offense was, and what were their skills. I think Oms, in context, would be very close to an Eric Davis player, who could play some CF, and some corner, have some speed, and hit for some power.
   72. sunnyday2 Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:50 PM (#2521172)
Hitter Backlog 2005

I am mostly a WS voter, though not exclusively, certainly; and I’m also more interested in peak performance (3-5 years) than in performance after the 10th year (career performance). The assumption is that the greatest players have both but in the backlog sometimes you gotta choose.

Anyway, the following may not be of interest to those who don’t like WS. So be it.

Given the shape of the HoM balloting and of my PHoM dilemmas, I wanted to take a fresh look at the hitter backlog, and I’ve included no less than 30 players. The Big Nine, plus everybody in my top 50 and a couple others from the consensus backlog just to get a round number in total. Some of them are HoM/not PHoM. (Lou Brock was the last of the 30, and he turns out not the worst of the lot.)

What I did was construct a series of lists of the top 5 in WS for various periods of time—best year, best 2nd best year, best 2 year cume, most career WS, most years ? 10 WS, and so on for a total of 26 lists. With all of the lists of things like best year, best 2nd best year, best 3rd best year, best 2 year cume, best 3 year cume, etc. etc., I think you’ll agree this is a peak/prime oriented exercise.

All WS are adjusted to 162 games with war credit, MLE credit as appropriate, strike/lock-out credit, AA and war-time discounts, and so on. I’ll start in the middle with this list of how many of the top 5 lists each of the 30 players made.

(Players in parens are HoM/not PHoM.)

1. Duffy 23 of 26
2. (Sheckard 18)
3. Browning 17
4. Singleton 12
H. Wilson 12
6. F. Howard 10
Rosen 10
8. Berger 8
9. D. Murphy 7
10. Cravath 6

11. R. Smith 5
12. Dawson 4
Easter 4
(Dw. Evans 4)
Oms 4
16. Brock 3
Puckett 3
18. Parker 2
19. Bando 1
Estalella 1
McGraw 1
Perez 1
23. Cepeda, Doyle, Johnson, Klein, Mattingly, Oliva, Rice, Stephens—0

This is everybody.
   73. sunnyday2 Posted: September 12, 2007 at 01:52 PM (#2521175)
Here, then, are the 26 lists.

Year 1 (players’ best year by WS)—Rosen 44 Duffy 40 Browning 39 (Dw. Evans 39) Dawson 38 F. Howard 38

Year 2 (players’ 2nd best year by WS)—Browning 35 Duffy 35 (Sheckard 35) Berger 34 F. Howard 34 H. Wilson 34

Year 3—H. Wilson 33 Berger 32 D. Murphy 32 (Sheckard 32) Singleton 32

Year 4—Duffy 31 D. Murphy 31 Browning 30 Parker 29 H. Wilson 29

Year 5—Duffy 30 Browning 29 D. Murphy 29 Cravath 28 Singleton 28

Year 6—Browning 28 D. Murphy 28 Duffy 28 Oms 27 Singleton 27

Year 7—Duffy 27 Cravath 26 Oms 26 McGraw 24 (Sheckard 24) Singleton 24 R. Smith 24

Year 8—Oms 26 Duffy 24 (Sheckard 24) R. Smith 24 F. Howard 23

Year 9—Oms 23 R. Smith 23 (Sheckard 22) Bando 21 Brock 21 Duffy 21 Easter 21 F. Howard 21 Puckett 21

Year 10—(Sheckard 22) Easter 21 Brock 20 Duffy 20 Puckett 20 R. Smith 20

# Additional Years ? 10 WS—Estalella 8 Dawson 6 (Dw. Evans 6) Easter 5 Perez 5 (Sheckard 5) R. Smith 5

Any 3 Years—Rosen 107 Duffy 106 Browning 104 H. Wilson 104 Berger 103 (Sheckard 103)

3 Consecutive—Duffy 106 Rosen 105 F. Howard 102 Parker 101 H. Wilson 100

Any 5 Years—Duffy 167 Browning 163 Rosen 161 H. Wilson 160 Berger 157 D. Murphy 157 (Sheckard 157)

5 Consecutive—Rosen 161 H. Wilson 160 Duffy 158 Berger 157 Cravath 153 Singleton 153

Cumulative (Best to Worst, not Chronological)

Best Year (same as Year 1, above)

Best 2 Years—Rosen 77 Duffy 75 Browning 74 F. Howard 72 Berger 71 (Sheckard 71) H. Wilson 71

Best 3 Years—Rosen 107 Duffy 106 Browning 104 H. Wilson 104 Berger 103 (Sheckard 103)

Best 4 Years—Duffy 137 Rosen 135 Browning 134 H. Wilson 133 (Sheckard 131)

Best 5 Years—Duffy 167 Browning 163 Rosen 161 H. Wilson 160 Berger 157 (Sheckard 157) Singleton 157

Best 6 Years—Duffy 195 Browning 191 D. Murphy 184 Singleton 184 H. Wilson 182

Best 7 Years—Duffy 222 Browning 211 Singleton 208 D. Murphy 206 Cravath 205 (Sheckard 205)

Best 8 Years—Duffy 247 Browning 231 Singleton 230 (Sheckard 229) Cravath 226 F. Howard 226

Best 9 Years—Duffy 267 (Sheckard 251) Browning 249 Singleton 248 F. Howard 247

Best 10 Years—Duffy 287 (Sheckard 273) Browning 265 Cravath 265 F. Howard 265 Singleton 265

Career—Easter 377 (Sheckard 361) (Dw. Evans 360) Dawson 353 Perez 352

And there you have it. Now, what to do with it? Well, I’m sure you could make a lot of different arguments from this—meaning, you can probably use it to justify the guys you already support. You could just pick a list and say, My measure of greatness is a 7-year prime. Great, that would be Duffy, Browning, Singleton, Murphy and Cravath. Or it’s career totals—then why not Easter, Dawson and Perez.

Or, you could look at some combination of all of these lists. I’m looking at all of them in the aggregate for now.
   74. rawagman Posted: September 12, 2007 at 02:07 PM (#2521185)
I am unabashedly Duffy's best friend.
As he shows up so highly in this context, shouldn't his detractors be forced to prove why not instead of merely indicating that the why is not for them? Yes, he is backlog. That goes without saying. But there are very many indications to show that he was among the best of the remaining backlog, if not the very best among them.
I look at the game from the perspective of a manager. Are my player's talented enough that I would not need to micromanage them and work a game plan around them? I want guys I could slot into the lineup and not have to worry about covering a potentially game killing weakness.
That's Hugh Duffy. His offensive game was solid throughout - contact, some power, speed, average, secondary average, baserunning.
His defense seems stellar. I know some metrics disagree, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand the reasoning.
So as his manager, I could put him anywhere in the lineup and rest assured that he would do the job. He would also contribute GG level defense from either CF (his natural position) or one of the corners (just in case I had an all-world CF as well - as Duffy often did have).
So again, I ask: Why not Hugh Duffy?
   75. DavidFoss Posted: September 12, 2007 at 02:32 PM (#2521210)
Whoa Nelly!!
I assumed bb-ref's tOPS WERE park adjusted, like OPS+. They AREN'T?? I may have to retract much of what I wrote.


These splits are new to me as well and I'm constantly clicking the glossary to remember the difference between tOPS and sOPS.

tOPS 100*((split OBP/total OBP) + (split SLG/total SLG) - 1


I did the math and its a straight calculation with no park adjustments.

Park adjustments on H/R splits would require converting the PF into a homePF and roadPF taking out the half-road games-adjustment but leaving in the no-road-games-at-home adjustment. I'm guessing there is a relatively straightforward formula relating PF to homePF/roadPF, but I don't know exactly how to figure that out. :-)

Anyhow, park-adjusted H/R OPS+ and ERA+ would indeed be very cool and would be a great enhancement to bb-ref split pages.
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: September 12, 2007 at 03:16 PM (#2521254)
Well, I am pondering Duffy and it comes down to WS on this side, OPS on that.

The other top backloggers are easier to pigeon-hole, it's true, especially if you don't support them:

Browning--AA
Hack Wilson--short prime/career
Rosen--short prime/career
Cravath--needs to MLEs and not everybody likes them
Dawson--low OPS (of course, same as Duffy)
Dale Murphy--short prime
Puckett--short career
Singleton--how come nobody thought he was great at the time?
F. Howard--no D
Berger--short career
Klein--short prime
Parker--primus interruptus, didn't make good use of the blessings God gave him

Duffy--low OPS

But of course if you support them:

Duffy--great defender, WS loves him
Browning--OPS+ of about a brazillion
Hack Wilson--great peak, huge OPS
Rosen--stratospheric peak
Cravath--huge OPS, nice peak
Dawson--long, productive career, multi-talented
Dale Murphy--nice peak
Singleton--great OPS
F. Howard--even greater OPS
Berger--nice peak
Klein--"there's just too much," did it all, multiple skills
Puckett--won ball games, huge in the clutch
Parker--big big peak

Duffy may be the best of the lot, and he may not be.
   77. TomH Posted: September 12, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2521265)
Thanks David. I read the glossary as well, but I could not decide if this formula meant

a) player split OBP-SLG divided by total (team) OBP-SLG in ALL games, or
b) player split OBP-SLG divided by total (team) OBP-SLG in SPLIT games

IOW, is it player home OBP div by team home OBP, or player home OBP div by team all OBP

checking Todd Helton, to use an easy example of a guy with a huge player & team park advantage, since his tOPS is indeed much higher at home than road, it seems case a) above is the right answer, and tOPS is NOT park adjusted.

If so, this means I would apologize to Kirby (and FOKP), and I would take back those nasty grams I sent.


rawagman: why not Duffy? 'Cause win shares is fibbing. Reggie Smith looks better by other metrics, and he is as 'well rounded' as Hugh.

And where, oh where have Van Haltren's supporters gone into hiding? I expect career voters to be as big backing George as they were with Beckley. How many guys spent most of their time for 3 years pitching, stopped playing full-time after age 35, and ranked 33rd all time in runs scored? If he hadn't started out on the mound, he would have retired with the 2nd-most runs scored ever, behind some guy (Anson) who played until he was 45. yes, I know, peak voters can stay away. I'm just surprised at how much incredibly 'worse' GVH has apparently become in the last 50 'years'.
   78. OCF Posted: September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2521277)
Hey, Tom - I haven't gone anywhere.
   79. TomH Posted: September 12, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2521339)
:)
   80. Mark Donelson Posted: September 12, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2521377)
So again, I ask: Why not Hugh Duffy?

I'm a former Duffy supporter who's backed off (heck, I still have him in my pHOM and in the mid-20s)...it's because, as TomH points out, the argument for him seems to rely almost entirely on WS, and even further, on the way in which WS doles out extra credit to players on teams that exceed their Pythag. Of course, we've been over and over this...I'm not willing to completely dismiss the idea that Duffy deserves that credit, but I'm also less willing than I used to be to trust WS about him, since their results seem to counter most of the other evidence--OPS+, WARP, what have you.

Looking over the rest of Sunny's list (a great exercise--thanks for doing it, Marc!), I see only a few players who do well on the aggregate list who I don't support, or come close to supporting, anyway. There's Wilson and Berger, who have large "easier to excel in era" issues. There's Dale Murphy, who does OK in my system but who tends to do badly when I compare him head to head with other similar players, and who's thus been demoted a bit from his original within-sight-of-ballot location. (I probably need to look at him again though--perhaps I'm not being fair.)

But everyone else in the top 10 is either on my ballot or pretty near it. Which, considering I'm a peak/prime voter myself, makes sense.

As for those below that level, Oms, who's not in the top 10, I've given a slight peak boost because of the tendency of the MLEs to flatten peaks, and that elevated him enough to join the edge-of-ballot crowd.

And I need to look at Reggie Smith again. I've just never seen enough peak there for my tastes, but he does look a lot like Oms from certain angles, I must admit.
   81. DanG Posted: September 12, 2007 at 04:33 PM (#2521380)
No, he wasn't all that great in Japan - he only made one all-star team:

Different guy.

Here is a 13+ years-old bio of Masanori Murakami from BB-Library:

"Murakami is the only native product of the Japanese leagues to play in the major leagues. He was successful in limited use as a reliever for the Giants, but his U.S. career was cut short when the Japanese government, afraid that its country's teams would be decimated should others follow Murakami's path, demanded that he be returned. Since then, only a few veterans whose Japanese careers were nearly over have been allowed to try out for American teams. None have made it to the majors.
His unique status made Murakami the focus of outlandish expectations on the resumption of his Japanese career. The tremendous pressure affected his performance at first. Although he eventually settled down, he never became the superstar that the public expected."
   82. DanG Posted: September 12, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2521383)
Different guy.

Oh, wait. I see him after scrolling down. OK. Thanks.
   83. sunnyday2 Posted: September 12, 2007 at 06:55 PM (#2521630)
Analysis

So, does the raw number of times each player made these lists work as a final ranking, or not?

1. Duffy 23 of 26 lists. (Not HoM/not PHoM) For a WS voter, Duffy says put up or shut up. I mean, WS loves the guy. And I had him on my ballot way back when, until I looked up his OPS+, which completely fails to justify his WS totals. Since then, we’ve learned that his Beaneaters consistently out-performed their pythag and that WS consistently over-rates CF defense. There’s also the question of whether it is reasonable to adjust to 162 games, and expect a player to play, by which I mean to say participate as well as perform, at the same rate. I still believe that one would adjust for these things, and that Duffy is not the best of this lot. Still I would have to decide exactly who is better. Even if I manage to do that, he was #34 on my 2005 prelim, and I think that as a WS voter I’ve got to move him up.

2. (Sheckard 18). (HoM/not PHoM) What can I say? I probably missed the boat with him, though that 120 career OPS+ is a concern. OTOH his 15 qualifying seasons is a lot for his time. I remember one year it came down to Sheckard or Magee for my PHoM. I picked Magee and never looked back. #50c on my prelim, has to move up. Maybe PHoM this year instead of Al Rosen, but that doesn't answer the question of who will go on my active ballot ahead of Duffy.

3. Browning 17. (PHoM/not HoM) His numbers are discounted for the AA but also adjusted to 162 games, and the question I raised with Duffy is germane. Is it reasonable to adjust to 162 games and expect a player to play as often and as well as in 80 or 100 or 120 games? And are my AA discounts sufficient? Well, at zero to 25 percent, I’m happy with my AA discounts. Pete is #13 on my prelim, and I don’t see any reason to move him down. Maybe he moves up. More likely, he’s just right.

4 tie. Singleton 12. (Not PHoM/not HoM) #33 on my prelim, #22 in 2004 voting. 132 OPS+ is < Chuck Klein and Reggie Smith, and 13 qualifying years is OK but not a lot for his time. It helps a lot that he managed to stay on the field a ton. Probably moves up, but why the hell didn't anybody consider him to be a big star when he was active?

4 tie. H. Wilson 12. (Not PHoM/not HoM) Short career (9 qualifying seasons), sure, but us peakers don’t mind that, usually. (See Charley Keller at 8, Hugh Jennings at 6, et al.) And he played a lot of games over his core 5 year peak with a 145 OPS+. #36, probably moves up. Defensively, he’s more of a corner-type but better than…

6 tie. F. Howard 10. (PHoM/hot HoM) OK, no D. But c’mon. A 143 OPS+ in 13 qualifying years. #44 on my prelim is probably too low. #74 in 2004 voting is definitely too low.

6 tie. Rosen 10. (Not PHoM/not HoM) Actually he’s #17 on my prelim, where he would go PHoM in 2005. The whole point of this exercise is to determine if that’s right, and now I’d have to consider Duffy, Sheckard, Singleton and Hack Wilson as possibly better choices. Still, Rosen has the best year and the best 2 and 3 year cumes in the field, plus has more defensive value (per season) than most.

8. Berger 8. (Not PHoM/not HoM) #50 prelim, no votes in 2004 HoM balloting. OPS+ 140, a super peak, #13 in BJ rankings—but Puckett is #8 and Murphy #12. Just one of those guys that always gets overlooked.

9. D. Murphy 7. (Not PHoM/not HoM) Poised to make my ballot for the first time this year, but was he that good? Short prime and a mere 119 career OPS+. But a huge 5-6 year peak. A hard case.

10. Cravath 6. (PHoM/not HoM) This of course is with the maximum MiL/MLE credits posited here. Bottom line is he was grossly under-valued in his time. That 149 OPS+ is just too good to be false.

11. R. Smith 5
12. Dawson 4
Easter 4
(Dw. Evans 4)
Oms 4

Oms seems to be the man of the hour but to me R. Smith and Dawson were better. Oms is posited to have 14 qualifying seasons. Dawson had 16 and Smith 15 (including Japan). Beyond that, of course, Reggie has the 136 OPS+ and Dawson only a 119. Hawk was better at staying on the field, but Reggie had among the very best 7th through 10th seasons. His “durability” was in maintaining a high level of play for many, many years to a greater degree than most. His “decline” meant he needed some rest, not that his production declined. I can see those who prefer Oms to Dawson—they are hugely comparable, IMO, and Oms has a slight edge on OPS+. Neither has an obvious edge. But for those who like a nice high rate, Reggie Smith is your guy.

I am perhaps undervaluing Dewey but OTOH he doesn’t justify a 1st ballot election, IMO. Easter is a little too speculative. He needed to dominate this analysis to make a move.

16. Brock 3
Puckett 3
18. Parker 2
19. Bando 1
Estalella 1
McGraw 1
Perez 1

Estalella has the longest projected career at 18 qualifying years. More than anything, this causes me to question the projected longevity that we get with MLEs. Yes, Estalella and Oms and etc. had the ability to stay on the field, as the MLEs project. But there were only so many jobs available, and in the real world our MLers were subject to that marketplace. IOW their careers were subject to getting cut short when the ability was still there. In MLEs that reality does not intrude. So I cut back on the longevity of the MLE candidates a little bit.

McGraw underwhelms. Even at his best, he is not among the leaders for best season, best 2 years, best 3 years, etc., the things you’d expect him to do well in.

The Pees—Puckett, Parker and Perez—also fare poorly, while the Bees—Brock and Bando—do nothing to move themselves up.

23. Cepeda, Doyle, Johnson, Klein, Mattingly, Oliva, Rice, Stephens—0

Bob Johnson is the other (after Oms) sexy dude of 2005, but totally underwhelms, as do guys like Cepeda, Klein, Mattingly, Oliva. Perhaps no surprise there. I give Doyle and Stephens the benefit of the doubt, however, as WS probably under-estimates their defensive value. Each is the only player from his position in the analysis because each is known for his bat, but they were also included in last year’s look at the “glove” positions and fare quite well in that sort of company (and that analysis also included some different measures).

How this all shakes out will be in my revised prelim ballot.
   84. Paul Wendt Posted: September 12, 2007 at 10:12 PM (#2521912)
42.
Even with this change their two careers still look similar, very similar in fact. The 2 biggest differences are in Oms' advantage WS/162 (which drops a bit with the addition of the Cuban Sugar Leagues), and Slaughter's flukish peak season. After the peak year, however, Oms' excellent prime more than makes up for Slaughter's '42 season. (Does anyone adjust '42 for wartime competition or was it to early to affect the game?).

In my opinion, no one should discount 1942 significantly. As far as I know, no one here does. Some statistical study shows a 1943 decline in quality that is much smaller than I have for years presumed, the common knowledge or conventional wisdom.


45. DL from MN Posted: September 11, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2520217)
I like the comparison to Slaughter. Still, Enos Slaughter without war credit only gets to around 25 on my ballot. I really can't place Oms higher than that.

This is a sharp disagreement with Tiboreau, liking the comparison in a different way, for he finds Oms similar to Slaughter with war credit. FWIW I meant to suggest that Slaughter too, the one elected here.


83. sunnyday2 Posted: September 12, 2007 at 02:55 PM (#2521630)
Analysis

So, does the raw number of times each player made these lists work as a final ranking, or not?


Not very well or only by accident, I think. The systematic variety among the lists ensures that you will not select a figment of arbitrary specifications such as 5-consecutive-season peak that happens to fit.
In effect this is similar to what EricC does mathematically if I understand his brief description and to indifference curve analysis in the economic theory of the consumer. The mathematical function or the indifference curve concerns the combination of two dimensions, essentially height and length of peak or prime or career. (I say "essentially height and length" glossing over distinctions such as per-game versus per-season, which are different approaches to "height".)

On the other hand, all of the lists come down to one or a very few fundamental measurements, such as single-season Win Shares for Marc's lists. Or Win Shares and WS/162 for batters, ERA+ (and innings?) for pitchers in EricC's system.

111. EricC Posted: September 09, 2007 at 07:52 PM (#2517860)
2004 ballot.

My low consensus ranking has been noted and questioned, but my philosophy for rating players is not complicated. I use Win Shares for position players and ERA+ for pitchers, and, roughly speaking, rate primes or careers on a sliding scale where the rate of performance required to achieve the same rating decreases as the total playing time increases, plus there is what is effectively a playing time bonus given to catchers. This helps explain why I have players like Reggie Smith (325 WS, 26.5 WS/162 g) and Jack Clark (316, 25.7) over players such as Andre Dawson (340, 21.0) and Tony Perez (349, 20.4).


So such lists are "all in the family" (Win Shares for Marc) at the same time they vary systematically over a lot of ground in a few dimensions. If Win Shares overrates old-time CF, for example of one possible failing, Duffy ends up overrated on all of the lists.
   85. Paul Wendt Posted: September 12, 2007 at 10:20 PM (#2521916)
The bottom 2/3 of that article all concerns "83. sunnyday2".
"111. Eric C" should be offset as a block quotation (from the 2004 Ballot thread)


> The systematic variety among the lists ensures that
> you will not select a figment of arbitrary specifications
> such as 5-consecutive-season peak
> that happens to fit [one player particularly well or poorly]

Of course, this much is very important.

If you execute this for a few different families such as single-season Win Shares, FRAA, and OPS+ in 26 lists each, then you have a broader base but in principle just as arbitrary specification: why single out these three measures and why give them equal weight?
   86. Chris Fluit Posted: September 13, 2007 at 01:24 AM (#2522298)
Early considerations:

Boggs will be number 1. I expect this will be true for most of us though I see him falling a couple of votes shy of being unanimous.

PHoM: "These Are the Daves I Know, I Know/ These Are the Daves I Know" (Dave Stieb and Dave Concepcion are the other two going in)

Saberhagen compares favorably to contemporaries and to the backlog. He'll make my ballot in the 8-12 range.

Thanks to Bresnahan's surprise election, I get to add a backlogger to the bottom of my ballot. Pie Traynor (who I voted for consistently until a recent reevaluation helped some other players leapfrog him) is next in line.

None of the other newly eligible players interest me all that much. Phillips, Davis and Gaetti don't have much to recommend them, and Strawberry doesn't have enough career, especially for a corner outfielder.

Looking ahead: Bresnahan should get a backlog-PHoM spot in the 2006 election as he was the highest non-PHoM player on my ballot after Concepcion.
   87. Howie Menckel Posted: September 13, 2007 at 02:30 AM (#2522573)
This may help re Post No. 42:
HOMers per year, 10 G minimum:

1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)

Note that 1942 is nearly at the 1940-41 levels, while 1943 - and especially 1944-45 - sink drastically. Even 1946-49 don't restore to former levels.

The 1942-45 numbers there reflect other reviews I've seen of how much disruption each year caused (although it wouldn't have to work out that way).
   88. rawagman Posted: September 13, 2007 at 03:18 AM (#2522665)
Chris - love the Kids in the Hall reference in post 86. I once performed that song line at a benefit gig. I even called up some random guy named Dave from the audience. It was dumb, but a lot of fun.
   89. Brent Posted: September 13, 2007 at 03:55 AM (#2522684)
Singleton 12. (Not PHoM/not HoM) ... Probably moves up, but why the hell didn't anybody consider him to be a big star when he was active?

Because his strengths were invisible with the statistics we used to look at during the pre-sabermetric 70s. OPS? Never heard of it. Could you even find a player's OBP?

What we were looking at then: Singleton hit .300 4 times, but 3 of those were .300, .302, and .304, and the one season he hit .328, Carew went and hit .388. Singleton hit 30 homers once, 100 RBIs three times. Who knew that he was drawing 100 walks a year?

It's not like no one knew he was a good player--he made the top ten in MVP voting four times. But we just didn't know how good he was.
   90. TomH Posted: September 13, 2007 at 03:55 AM (#2522685)
riddle me this, bb-ref fans:

I note tonight that the player pages now incldue OWP. Methinks "super!"; but the ###s don't sem to be correct. Pete Borwning's lifetime OWP is NOT .616; that it way too low. Ted W and Babe R seem about right. What gives?
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: September 13, 2007 at 04:39 AM (#2522717)
Singleton, oddly, was a bit like Kiner.
No one maybe told them how valuable walks were, but clearly they 'got it' from the start.
   92. KJOK Posted: September 13, 2007 at 05:56 AM (#2522748)
riddle me this, bb-ref fans:

I note tonight that the player pages now incldue OWP. Methinks "super!"; but the ###s don't sem to be correct. Pete Borwning's lifetime OWP is NOT .616; that it way too low. Ted W and Babe R seem about right. What gives?


Quote from B-R Glossary:

There are 24 different versions of RC depending on the stats you have and I am using the most basic here. (H + BB) * (TB)/ (AB + BB)

Using the Basic RC formula for 19th century is severally under counting Brownings Runs Created, by about 30%. His OWP% should be around .745.
   93. TomH Posted: September 13, 2007 at 11:28 AM (#2522783)
Thanks Ken. Was too lazy/tired to try to find that last night.

In other words, DO NOT USE the OWP currently on bb-ref, unless for comparing post-1920 hitters with similar GIDP and SB/CS tendencies.
   94. Mike Webber Posted: September 13, 2007 at 02:00 PM (#2522906)
Quote from B-R Glossary:

There are 24 different versions of RC depending on the stats you have and I am using the most basic here. (H + BB) * (TB)/ (AB + BB)

Using the Basic RC formula for 19th century is severally under counting Brownings Runs Created, by about 30%. His OWP% should be around .745.


Could you explain this further? What is the equation missing for Browning? Who is gaining benefit from it?
   95. TomH Posted: September 13, 2007 at 03:42 PM (#2523050)
I'll try: In the 19th century, far more runs were scored than is estimated by the basic RC formula. More errors, people taking extra bases. So, when you estimate RC and compare to league avg ACTUAL runs scored, EVERYBODY will be artificially low. I mean, does anyone believe Cap Anson, who had 16 seasons in the top 10 in OPS+, had a lifetime OWP of .569 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ansonca01.shtml), as opposed to, say, .613 for Lou Brock, or .663 for Rafael Palmeiro?
   96. Paul Wendt Posted: September 13, 2007 at 03:46 PM (#2523057)
If OWP converts Runs Created to wins and losses by reference to the average run scoring then many many 19c runs and many early 20c runs and few runs today are attributed to defense.
Is that the point, contrary to TomH on GIDP and SB/CS?
   97. DavidFoss Posted: September 13, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2523117)
I'll try: In the 19th century, far more runs were scored than is estimated by the basic RC formula. More errors, people taking extra bases. So, when you estimate RC and compare to league avg ACTUAL runs scored, EVERYBODY will be artificially low. I mean, does anyone believe Cap Anson, who had 16 seasons in the top 10 in OPS+, had a lifetime OWP of .569 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ansonca01.shtml), as opposed to, say, .613 for Lou Brock, or .663 for Rafael Palmeiro?

Wow. I suppose that explains why the "translate stats" links work so horribly as well. (Underrating 19th Century hitters and grossly overrating 19th century pitcher.

The effect magnifies the further back you go. Here are some fun OPS+/OWP combinations (post-1871 only):

Start 121/.367
DWhite 126/.439
GWright 125/.376
Pike 155/.434
CJones 149/.511
McVey 152/.489
Meyerle 164/.498
Pearce 78/.125
   98. rawagman Posted: September 13, 2007 at 04:25 PM (#2523119)
2005 Prelim
Lots of rethinking my personal backlog, which coincides with the backend of my ballot. Some surprises.
1)Wade Boggs (PHOM)
2)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
3)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
4)Tommy Bridges (PHOM)
5)Kirby Puckett(PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
8)Dale Murphy (PHOM)
9)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
10)Bob Johnson (PHOM)
11)Bobby Veach (PHOM)
12)Orlando Cepeda (PHOM)
13)Bus Clarkson (PHOM)
14)Tony Oliva (PHOM)
15)Alejandro Oms (PHOM)
Close, but not yet
16)Reggie Smith
((16a)Dwight Evans))
17)Al Oliver
18)Bret Saberhagen
19)Andre Dawson
20)Dizzy Dean
21)Jack Clark
((21a)Darrell Evans))
22)Jim Rice
23)Wally Berger
24)Don Mattingly
25)Dan Quisenberry
26)Lee Smith
27)Bruce Sutter
28)Ernie Lombardi
((28a)Jimmy Wynn))
29)Dick Redding(PHOM)
30)Ron Guidry
   99. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2523313)
Prelim

1. Boggs
2. Dawson
3. Perez
4. Walters
5. Ryan
6. Staub
7. Matlock
8. Murphy
9. Saberhagen
10. Trout
11. Johnson
12. Cravath
13. Puckett
14. Nettles
15. Tanana

64. Phillips
   100. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 13, 2007 at 07:54 PM (#2523427)
Woo! Another Matlock voter!!!!!
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8733 seconds
49 querie(s) executed