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 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
   201. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 20, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2533744)
I don't understand at all rating players based on their age. Saberhagen being 43 today is irrelevant. When he was in his prime from 1985-94, most of those other guys were pretty irrelevant or just starting out.


The problem is trying to paint him as a pitcher from an era short of great pitchers, when he is of a generation full of them.

When I do my evaluations, I normally don't care about ages, but Al does bring up a good point.
   202. Al Peterson Posted: September 20, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2533866)
I don't understand at all rating players based on their age. Saberhagen being 43 today is irrelevant. When he was in his prime from 1985-94, most of those other guys were pretty irrelevant or just starting out.


In 1984 Stieb was starting his 6th year in ML ball, Saberhagen his 1st.
In 1989 Saberhagen was starting his 6th year in ML ball. To compare here is how far others were into their career:

6th: Clemens, Hershiser
5th: No one
4th: Maddux, Cone, Chuck Finley, Jamie Moyer
3rd: Glavine, Brown, David Wells
2nd: Johnson, Smoltz, Schilling
1st: Appier, Kenny Rogers
---: Martinez, Mussina

I'm thinking I can throw a bunch of these guys in the same era barrel if others are going to do the same with Stieb and Saberhagen. Hey, not all the players peaks can line up exactly the same but to me most everyone here is in his cohort.
   203. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 20, 2007 at 07:59 PM (#2533957)
The interesting thing is that none of those big guns (Maddux, Glavine, Brown, Unit, Smoltz, Schilling) hit their peaks until the early 90s, by which point Saberhagen's best years were behind him. They were all late bloomers to a certain extent, whereas Saberhagen emerged almost fully formed.
   204. TomH Posted: September 20, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2534018)
comparison of 10th-best ERA+ and IP in MLB for Stieb, Saberhagen, Reuschel, from bb-ref

pitcher........ yrs fulltime IP ERA
Reuschel... 1972-1989 260 134
Stieb......... 1979-1990 246 133
Saberhagen 1984-1999 237 137

not adjusted for strike years or expansion. FWIW. It became a bit easier to put up sparkly ERA+ starting in the early 90s. But (slightly) fewer innings.

ERA+ 10th best by year
79 129
80 131
81 140
82 127
83 130
84 131
85 141
86 127
87 130
88 142
89 130
90 135
91 138
92 142
93 140
94 141
95 137
96 139
97 146
98 139
99 130
   205. Paul Wendt Posted: September 20, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2534131)
199. Joe Dimino Posted: September 20, 2007 at 01:25 PM (#2533726)
I don't understand at all rating players based on their age. Saberhagen being 43 today is irrelevant. When he was in his prime from 1985-94, most of those other guys were pretty irrelevant or just starting out.

But this has been an abiding concern of many voters. Someone raised it regarding Amos Rusie in 1904, the year I arrived here. (Was it OCF, who says that he arrived that year?)

Rusie was only 27 years old when his major league career ended for HOM purposes. He sat out the 1899 and 1900 seasons in dispute with his owner, returned in 1901 but did not play enough to restart his eligibility clock. So he was 33 years old when first eligible (and elected). Perhaps he should he be compared with Joe McGinnity, a late starter in his close age cohort. Or with Cy Young, a typical starter in his approximate age cohort who would not be eligible until age 50, thirteen years later.

Clemens is an outlier today but others --Maddux, Schilling, Johnson-- have been active at a remarkably old age and at about the same time. Unlike Rusie's, nothing about Saberhagen's career timespan is extremely unusual among plausible HOM candidates. Rather it's all of the late eighties to early aughts pitchers who might be overrated if folks look only at eligible pitchers rather than look ahead to Clemens and others at the same time.
   206. OCF Posted: September 21, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2534277)
I did raise it as a concern regarding Rusie. I'm also willing to say, looking back, that Rusie is no mistake - he belongs in the HoM. Of course, the implied comparison was to Young and Nichols and ... and ... who? Well, we did eventually elect Griffith. The difference here is after we peel off the Young and Nichols of this grouping (which is to say, Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez), there will be a lot more than Griffith left.
   207. Howie Menckel Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:41 AM (#2534427)
good time for.... THIS!

;)

HOM Ps, by year, through 2004 election. Must have pitched 1 IP per G or 35 G, or MLE equivalent, and mainly this position to be listed:
1868-76 (1) - Spalding
1877
1878 (1) - Ward
1879 (2) - Ward Galvin
1880 (3) - Ward Galvin Keefe
1881 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1882 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1883 (4) - Ward Galvin Keefe Radbourn
1884 (4) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson
1885 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1886 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1887 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1888 (5) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers
1889 (6) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie
1890 (8) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols
1891 (9) - Galvin Keefe Radbourn Clarkson Caruthers Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1892 (6) - Galvin Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1893 (5) - Keefe Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols
1894 (5) - Clarkson Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1895 (5) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1896 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith Wallace
1897 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1898 (4) - Rusie Young Nichols Griffith
1899 (4) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity
1900 (5) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Waddell
1901 (7) - Young Nichols Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson
1902 (7) - Young Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster
1903 (8) - Young Griffith McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1904 (8) - Young Nichols McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1905 (8) - Young Nichols McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown
1906 (8) - Young McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1907 (8) - Young McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh
1908 (10) - Young McGinnity Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez
1909 (9) - Young Waddell Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez
1910 (9) - Young Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez Williams
1911 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez Williams Alexander
1912 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster Brown Walsh WJohnson Mendez Williams Alexander Rixey
1913 (8) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey
1914 (9) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Mendez Williams Alexander Faber
1915 (10) - Plank Mathewson RFoster TF Brown WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth
1916 (9) - Plank Foster WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1917 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Ruth Covaleski
1918 (3) - WJohnson Williams Covaleski
1919 (6) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1920 (5) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski
1921 (7) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan
1922 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1923 (8) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance
1924 (9) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons
1925 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing
1926 (12) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Covaleski Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster
1927 (11) - WJohnson Williams Alexander Rixey Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1928 (11) - Williams Alexander Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige
1929 (12) - Williams Rixey Faber Rogan Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1930 (11) - Williams Rixey Faber Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell
1931 (10) - Williams Faber Vance Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1932 (11) - Williams Vance Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1933 (9) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1934 (8) - Lyons Ruffing BFoster Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Dihigo
1935 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1936 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Paige Hubbell Ferrell RBrown (Dihigo)
1937 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing BFoster Hubbell Ferrell RBrown
1938 (7) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell Ferrell RBrown Feller
1939 (6) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell RBrown Feller
1940 (6) - Lyons Grove Ruffing Hubbell RBrown Feller
1941 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Feller Newhouser
1942 (7) - Lyons Ruffing Paige Hubbell RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1943 (4) - Paige RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1944 (4) - Paige RBrown Newhouser Wynn
1945 (3) - Paige RBrown Newhouser
1946 (3) - Paige Feller Newhouser
1947 (6) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn
1948 (5) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn
1949 (7) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce
1950 (7) - Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce
1951 (6) - Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce
1952 (9) - Paige Feller Newhouser Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm
1953 (8) - Paige Feller Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1954 (7) - Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1955 (7) - Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1956 (7) - Wynn Lemon Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford
1957 (7) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning
1958 (9) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax
1959 (9) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax
1960 (9) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax
1961 (9) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1962 (11) - Wynn Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1963 (10) - Spahn Roberts Pierce Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson
1964 (10) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry
1965 (11) - Spahn Roberts Wilhelm Ford Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro
1966 (10) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Koufax Marichal Gibson GPerry Jenkins Palmer Sutton
1967 (11) - Wilhelm Drysdale Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Seaver Sutton Carlton
1968 (10) - Wilhelm Drysdale Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Seaver Sutton Carlton
1969 (12) - Wilhelm Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers
1970 (13) - Wilhelm Bunning Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven
1971 (11) - Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven
1972 (13) - Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage
1973 (12) - Marichal Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan
1974 (12) - Gibson GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage
1975 (12) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1976 (12) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1977 (12) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1978 (12) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1979 (12) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1980 (13) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1981 (13) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1982 (11) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Palmer Sutton Carlton Fingers Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1983 (11) - GPerry Niekro Jenkins Seaver Sutton Carlton Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1984 (10) - Niekro Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1985 (10) - Niekro Seaver Sutton Carlton Fingers Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1986 (9) - Niekro Seaver Sutton Carlton Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1987 (6) - Sutton Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1988 (5) - Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1989 (5) - Blyleven Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1990 (4) - Ryan Gossage Eckersley Stieb
1991 (3) - Ryan Gossage Eckersley
1992 (1) - Eckersley
1993 (2) - Gossage Eckersley
1994 (2) - Gossage Eckersley
1995 (1) - Eckersley
1996 (1) - Eckersley
1997 (1) - Eckersley
1998 (1) - Eckersley
Van Haltren would be 1887-88; 1890
Welch would be 1880-91
Willis would be 1898-1910
Redding would be 1911-21, roughly
Grimes would be 1917-31
Dean would be 1932-37
Bridges would be 1931-40; 1942-43
Walters would be 1936-45
Tiant would be 1965-69; 1972-79
John would be 1965-73; 1976-84; 1987-88
   208. TomH Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:09 AM (#2534785)
yes, nice timing and table, sir
   209. Howie Menckel Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:22 AM (#2534814)
keep in mind that the list is basically just "starters" until 1952, and just Wilhelm (mostly) the RP until 1969, then Gossage in 1972, and Eckersley RP from 1987 on.
   210. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: September 24, 2007 at 03:28 AM (#2539629)
The ballot thread will be up soon, and there's something I'd like to mention beforehand. In 2004, Tony Perez had more elect-me votes than Andre Dawson. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I thought that the electorate's opinion on their respective candidacies would range from "Dawson is slightly better" to "Dawson is much better." Most comparisons are largely dependent upon voters' philosophies, but Perez and Dawson are the same type of candidate. Both peaked while playing in the middle of the defensive spectrum and then added value with lots of good but typically not great seasons at more offense-oriented positions. Their hitting records are extremely similar. In all other aspects, however, Dawson is superior. Here are the areas to which I am referring:

1. Baserunning
2. Defensive Position
3. Defensive Value relative to Position
4. Era Adjustment

In order to rank Perez ahead of Dawson, one would need to conclude that cumulatively these areas are not a significant advantage for Dawson. I just don't see how this is possible. Dawson obviously had quite a bit more baserunning value. Perez played 5 seasons at 3B and the rest of his career at 1B, while Dawson played 7 years in CF and the rest of his career in RF. This is another edge to Dawson.

I don't understand how the era adjustment could not also work in Dawson's favor. Perez's top 4 seasons by OPS+ (4 of his top 5 seasons by WARP3) came between 1969 and 1973, or in the immediate aftermath of expansion. The actual and projected standard deviation of that period was 2.95 according to Dan R's work. Compare that to 1980-83, when Dawson had 4 of his top 5 seasons by WARP3 and the actual stdev was 2.73 with 2.79 projected. These numbers suggest that Dawson's league was much more difficult to dominate.

WARP3 would seem to indicate that Perez had a higher peak, but this is largely due to an illogical era adjustment. Perez's 46.1 WARP1 for the period 1969-73 becomes 43.8 WARP2, for a 5.0% decrease. Meanwhile, the league difficulty adjustment brings Dawson's 1980-83 WARP down 9.4% from 37.2 WARP1 to 33.7 WARP2. As a result of these counterintuitive adjustments, Perez leads Dawson by 1.9 WARP3 on 4- and 5-year peak. If you merely change Dawson's league difficulty adjustment to equal that of Perez, the difference in peaks shrinks to .2, and if you straight-line adjust strike-shortened seasons, Dawson leads Perez 39.5 to 38.3 for 4 years and 47.5 to 46.4 for 5 years. Of course, if you more reasonably reverse the original WARP2 adjustments to account for the actual disparity in league difficulty, Dawson's peak lead increases by 1.6 WARP3.

Notice that I haven't even mentioned defensive value relative to position. I believe that WARP is as favorable to Perez in this regard as anything out there, but even taking its major edge to Perez as a given, Dawson is still superior with a realistic perspective on the other areas. Defensive value is the least definitive of the assessments, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind with the information I could provide. If you believe that many of Dawson's Gold Gloves were warranted and Perez was moved to 1B because he was a bad 3B, then I would expect to find Dawson way ahead of Perez in your rankings. If you don't put any faith in perceptions / Gold Gloves and rely exclusively on uberstats for defense, then I'd think you would view Dawson as only somewhat superior to Perez, but I can’t come up with any argument for Perez being better. I would like someone who has Perez higher in his rankings to please make this argument.
   211. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 24, 2007 at 04:50 AM (#2539701)
I just don't see how Pérez can be taken seriously as a candidate. From 1974 onwards he was little better than a league-average first baseman (I have him as 5th in the NL in 1974, 6th in 1975, 3rd in 1976, 5th in 1977, 7th in 1978, and 10th in 1979). And that's not because there was a star glut at the position--the guy was worse than Mike Jorgenson in 1974-5 and than Dan Driessen in 1977-9. His 120 OPS+'s in those years are *not* comparable to, say, Jake Beckley's, who was playing when 1B was a defensive position and contributed major fielding value (and I was no friend of Beckley's). Those seasons might nudge him over the top if he were close, but they are really little more than filler when the proper replacement level is taken into account. The only period he actually was above average for his position was 1968-73. He was an MVP candidate in 1970 (a case could be made for him, McCovey, Billy Williams, or Johnny Bench as MVP that year; I'd take the actual winner Bench), a legitimate All-Star in '68, '69, and '73, and a borderline one in 1972. I don't see how a guy with one MVP-type season and four or five All-Star-type seasons is even in the HoM discussion. There are so many superior career candidates out there--Nettles leaps to mind, Dawson, Tommy Leach even...
   212. sunnyday2 Posted: September 24, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2539833)
>I just don't see how Pérez can be taken seriously as a candidate. From 1974 onwards he was little better than a league-average first baseman...The only period he actually was above average for his position was 1968-73.

Substitue Ernie Banks for Tony Perez and correct the years and this is pretty descriptive of Mr. Cub.

IOW it is not really a particularly damning post, though I personally don't support Doggie.
   213. sunnyday2 Posted: September 24, 2007 at 01:55 PM (#2539839)
Congrats to Chris Cobb, BTW.

And speaking of Ty Cobb (somebody asked if Chris had named his son Tyrus)... the name Ty Cobb popped up like the very next day in the form of an obituary for Tyrus "Ty" W. Cobb, age 95, of Fridley, MN. Retired from Ford Tractor and Implement Company. Preceded in death by his parents, 6 brothers, 2 sisters, infant son and daughter, and 1 granddaughter. Survived by wife of 67 years, 2 daughters, 5 grand-children including Ty. Memorial service 11 a.m. (CST) today, for those of you who might wish to attend.

Ty, aged 95, was born then in 1912. I'd guess his dad was a baseball fan.
   214. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 24, 2007 at 03:49 PM (#2540051)
Sunnyday, the difference is that Ernie Banks didn't have just one MVP-type season or just four or five All Star-type seasons. Banks had four years that were good enough to win an MVP award easily in most seasons (1955, 1958, 1959, and 1960), another that I would describe as an "MVP-type" season similar but superior to Pérez's 1970 (1957), and two more All-Star years on top of that (1956 and 1961). Yes, like Pérez's post-1973 period, Banks's 1B years don't substantially help his case; I completely agree with you that they are quite comparable in that regard. But not only was Banks's peak one year longer (7 straight years to 6), it was so much higher that you can barely mention the two in the same category. Of the top 11 SS seasons between 1937 and 1981, Banks had four: #2 (1959, second only to Petrocelli's 1969), #8, #10, and #11. Banks's 5th-best year was better than Pérez's first. I mean...come on.
   215. sunnyday2 Posted: September 24, 2007 at 04:23 PM (#2540102)
Well, you didn't say that. You only said that his (Perez) 1B years were "above average." I don't disagree that Banks' peak was higher. But it's also true that Banks was elected on the 1st ballot and we're into the deep backlog. Of course, I'm the one who brought up Banks.

But, again, my point was that 10 years as an above average player is probably not a killer-diller for a deep backlog choice. Who doesn't have some of that? The same could be said of contendors Dawson, Oms, Duffy, Reggie Smith. Can't say that (10 years of barely above average) of Kirby Puckett, however. Or Dale Murphy, except in his case the shoulders are below average. There are a few, but just a few, who don't have Doggie's Disease on their resume.
   216. TomH Posted: September 25, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2541726)
A Oms vs B Johnson

not sure why I didn't see this before: two guys, both near election, who may be two of the most similar guys on the ballot.

OFers, decent def, fine hitters, somewhat overlapping era. Oms' stats of coure difficult to verify, but they seem nice, altho he loses votes from some who may feel that he wasn't thought of as highly by NgLg experts. Of course, there are answers for that, but the same is true for Indian Bob; never got much press by his peers. Do either of them have a great peak> Bob no, Oms hard to know. Both played well, seemingly, both early on and late into their careers. Johnson only had 13 yrs, maybe one more minor league year. We'll never know how many years Oms WOULD have played MLB, but if came and went the same time as Johnson did, would that be a shocker? No.

Johnson has low black ink. Oms of course we can't say. Both well-rounded; Johnson probably on the whole a better hitter, Oms the better glove. At least, that seems to be our consensus.

Voters who have one and not the other (points finger at self) may wish to consider why.
   217. sunnyday2 Posted: September 25, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2541759)
Most of the top guys are "hitters" first--Browning, Puckett, B. Johnson, Dawson, Oms, Duffy, Perez, Cravath, R. Smith are 9 of the top 11, before you get to any "glove" type players or even guys who manned "glove" type positions, no matter how well (or poorly) they hit.

Browning--huge numbers in a weak league, apparently terrible defense
Puckett--huge reputation which the numbers don't fully justify, among the better defenders in the group
B. Johnson--nice numbers but no reputation to speak of from an era that is already over-represented
Dawson--the longest career, possibly the most "toolsy" of the bunch though his rates in the end are so-so
Oms--your mileage may vary, also a long career, and also pretty "toolsy" by reputation at least
Duffy--WS loves him but lots of other stuff suggests WS may be over-stating it a bit
Perez--OK peak at 3B and a long productive career, but a lot of it was just filler
Cravath--some nice numbers but without MiL MLEs he's nowhere
R. Smith--nice rates but in-season durability issues

If you take everything at face value and rate them on their strengths, then it's hard to beat Browning and Cravath for peak/prime, or Dawson and Oms for career. If you're a bit of a skeptic and you rate them more on the basis of the absence of obvious weaknesses, then maybe you prefer B. Johnson or Perez. For me, as a peak WS voter who doesn't get too carried away with AA discounts and adjusts everything to 162 games (including the deep, dark years of the 18C) and recognizes a lot of MLE credit, Browning, Dawson, Duffy and Cravath stand out. But while I may recognize a lot of MLE credit Oms rates too low within his cohort pecking order for me. So does B. Johnson. Perez and Smith are HoVG. Puckett is harder for me to place. If I had a World Series to win, he's the guy I would want out there ahead of any of them, but that's not the same as showing that he did it in the real world day after month after year after career.

I don't find any two of these guys to be really similar. I think that voters can reasonably support any of these players and not support any others in any combination. They're backlog and they all have strengths and weaknesses. It's just a question of which of these various strengths and weaknesses you tend to value and/or to disrespect the most.
   218. jimd Posted: September 26, 2007 at 10:02 PM (#2543975)
HOM Pitchers by birth year:

1850 Spalding 54 Radbourn
1855 56 Galvin 57 Keefe
1860 (Ward) 61 Clarkson 64 Caruthers
1865 67 Young 69 Nichols Griffith
1870 71 McGinnity Rusie
1875 Plank 76 Waddell MBrown 79 RFoster
1880 Mathewson 81 Walsh
1885 86 JWilliams 87 Alexander Mendez WJohnson 88 Faber 89 Coveleski Rogan
1890 91 Vance Rixey
1895 (Ruth)
1900 Grove Lyons 03 Hubbell 04 Ruffing BFoster
1905 Dihigo 06 Paige 08 Ferrell RBrown
1910 -
1915 18 Feller
1920 Wynn Lemon 21 Spahn Newhouser 23 Wilhelm
1925 26 Roberts 27 Pierce 28 Ford
1930 31 Bunning
1935 Gibson Koufax 36 Drysdale 37 Marichal 38 Perry 39 Niekro
1940 42 Jenkins 44 Seaver Carlton
1945 Sutton Palmer 46 Fingers 47 Ryan
1950 51 Blyleven Gossage 54 Eckersley
1955 57 Stieb
   219. OCF Posted: September 26, 2007 at 10:36 PM (#2544015)
Hershiser would have been in the 55-59 group had he lasted long enough to make the HoM, but he won't make it. I don't really see anyone else 55-59.

1960-64 will pick up Clemens and Johnson. Saberhagen would also be here, if he were to make it. Gooden would have been here, but doesn't make it.

1965-69 is the crowded group: Maddux, Rivera, and whichever ones we take of Hoffman, Brown, Mussina, Glavine, and Smoltz.
   220. jimd Posted: September 26, 2007 at 11:17 PM (#2544055)
For completeness and/or comparisons:

HOM "Gloves" (C,2B,3B,SS) by birth year:

1835 36 Pearce
1840 -
1845 47 Wright White
1850 Barnes McVey Sutton 54 Bennett
1855 Richardson 59 Glasscock Ewing McPhee
1860 Ward
1865 Grant 67 Childs 69 Jennings
1870 Dahlen JCollins Davis 73 Wallace 74 Wagner GJohnson Lajoie
1875 79 Bresnahan
1880 84 Lloyd
1885 86 Baker 87 ECollins 89 Groh
1890 Santop
1895 Moore 96 Hornsby 97 Mackey 98 Frisch Sewell 99 JWilson
1900 Hartnett 02 Beckwith 03 Cochrane Gehringer
1905 06 Cronin 07 Appling Dickey 08 Wells 09 Herman Hack
1910 11 Gibson 12 Vaughan Trouppe
1915 Gordon 17 Boudreau 18 Doerr Reese 19 JRobinson
1920 21 Campanella
1925 Berra 27 Fox
1930 31 Banks Boyer Mathews
1935 37 BRobinson
1940 Santo Torre 41 Freehan 42 Allen 43 Morgan
1945 Carew 47 DaEvans Bench Fisk 49 Grich Simmons Schmidt
1950 53 Brett 54 Carter Randolph OSmith
1955 Yount 57 Whitaker 58 Trammell 59 Sandberg


HOM "Bats" (DH,1B,LF,RF,CF) by birth year:

1840 42 Start
1845 Pike
1850 CJones O'Rourke 52 Hines Anson
1855 56 Stovey 57 Gore Connor Kelly 58 Brouthers
1860 Thompson
1865 Hamilton 67 Beckley Delahanty 68 Burkett
1870 71 Kelley 72 Keeler Clarke
1875 76 Flick 78 Sheckard
1880 Crawford Hill 84 Magee
1885 86 Cobb 88 Speaker Wheat 89 Jackson
1890 Carey 93 Sisler Roush 94 Heilmann
1895 Ruth Torriente 96 Charleston 98 Terry
1900 Goslin 01 Suttles Stearnes 02 Averill Simmons 03 Waner Bell Gehrig
1905 07 Leonard Foxx 09 Ott
1910 11 Greenberg Medwick 13 Mize 14 DiMaggio
1915 WBrown 16 Slaughter Keller 18 TWilliams 19 Irvin
1920 Musial 22 Kiner 23 Doby
1925 Minoso 26 Snider 27 Ashburn
1930 31 Mays Mantle 34 Aaron Clemente Kaline
1935 FRobinson 36 Killebrew 38 McCovey BWilliams 39 Yastrzemski
1940 Stargell 41 Rose 42 JWynn
1945 46 Jackson
1950 51 Winfield DwEvans 53 Hernandez
1955 56 Murray Molitor
   221. OCF Posted: September 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM (#2544093)
Boggs (58) will be another glove in the 55-59 group - that's a pretty good clump. Ripken was born in 1960 and will begin the next group. Gwynn, Clark, and McGwire are possible bats for the 1960-64 group. (So is Barry Bonds, but that will take a while.)

Of course, we're going to take some longer-term backlog players, adding to some previous rows.
   222. Howie Menckel Posted: September 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2544162)
HOM OFs, by year, through 2004 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1867 (1) - Pike OF-IF
1868 (1) - Pike
1869 (1) - McVey
1870 (1) - McVey
1871 (1) - Pike
1872 (1) - Pike OF-2B
1873 (2) - Pike OF-SS, Hines
1874 (2) - McVey, Hines
1875 (2) - Pike, Hines OF-2B, O'Rourke OF-3B
1876 (4) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke, CJones
1877 (4) - Pike OF-2B, Hines, O'Rourke, CJones
1878 (6) - Pike, Hines, O'Rourke, CJones, Anson, Kelly
1879 (4) - Hines, O'Rourke, cJones, Gore
1880 (6) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-1S, CJones, Kelly OF, Gore, Stovey OF-1B
1881 (5) - Hines, Kelly, Gore, Brouthers OF-1B, Richardson
1882 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Gore
1883 (5) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore
1884 (6) - Hines, O'Rourke, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Ward OF-2B
1885 (56 - Hines, O'Rourke, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Thompson
1886 (9) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Richardson OF-2B, Thompson, Sutton OF-3S2
1887 (6) - Hines, CJones, Kelly OF-2C, Gore, Stovey OF-1B, Thompson
1888 (3) - Hines, O'Rourke, Stovey
1889 (6) - O'Rourke, Kelly, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton
1890 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Richardson, Thompson, Hamilton, Burkett OF-P, GDavis
1891 (7) - O'Rourke, Gore, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty
1892 (7) - O'Rourke, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Caruthers
1893 (7) - O'Rourke, Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Ewing
1894 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1895 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1896 (7) - Thompson, Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1897 (6) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke
1898 (8) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick
1899 (8) - Hamilton, Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick
1900 (9) - Hamilton, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford
1901 (10) - Hamilton, Delahanty OF-1B, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill
1902 (11) - Delahanty, Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Wagner OF-S1, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Bresnahan O-2-3
1903 (8) - Burkett, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Bresnahan
1904 (8) - Burkett, Keeler, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Bresnahan, Magee
1905 (8) - Burkett, Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee
1906 (9) - Kelley, Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1907 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Flick, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1908 (7) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb
1909 (8) - Keeler, Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker
1910 (8) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat
1911 (9) - Clarke, Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1912 (8) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey
1913 (9) - Sheckard, Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1914 (8) - Crawford, Hill, Magee OF-S1, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente
1915 (10) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Roush
1916 (11) - Crawford, Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Charleston
1917 (11) - Hill, Magee, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Charleston
1918 (10) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann OF-1B, Charleston, Ruth OF-P
1919 (9) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Torriente, Roush, Ruth, Charleston
1920 (10) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Jackson, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Ruth, Charleston
1921 (10) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston
1922 (9) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin
1923 (11) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes
1924 (14) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell
1925 (13) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell
1926 (14) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1927 (13) - Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1928 (11) - Cobb, Carey, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott
1929 (11) - Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1930 (9) - Heilmann, Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1931 (11) - Roush, Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo
1932 (8) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1933 (9) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick
1934 (9) - Ruth, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick
1935 (9) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick, Dihigo OF-P
1936 (10) - Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Medwick, Dihigo OF-P, DiMaggio
1937 (9) - Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio
1938 (9) - Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown
1939 (12) - Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF(3B), Averill, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Keller
1940 (12) - Stearnes, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott OF-3B, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Keller, Irvin
1941 (11) - Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Keller, Irvin
1942 (10) - Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Keller, Musial
1943 (7) - Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, WBrown, Keller, Musial
1944 (5) - Bell, PWaner, Ott, Medwick, Musial
1945 (4) - Bell, Ott, Medwick, Greenberg
1946 (9) - Bell, DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Keller, Irvin, Doby, Kiner
1947 (7) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Kiner
1948 (9) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, WBrown, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn
1949 (10) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso
1950 (9) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso
1951 (12) - DiMaggio, Slaughter, TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Irvin OF-1B, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso OF-3B, Mantle, Mays
1952 (8) - Slaughter, Musial OF(1B), Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle
1953 (10) - Slaughter, Irvin, Musial, Doby, JRobinson OF-3B, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle
1954 (12) - TWilliams, Irvin, Musial, Doby, JRobinson OF-3B, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline
1955 (12) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Kiner, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Kaline, Clemente
1956 (12) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Irvin, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson
1957 (13) - Slaughter, TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, Boyer OF-3B, FRobinson
1958 (11) - TWilliams, Doby, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson
1959 (9) - TWilliams, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente
1960 (10) - TWilliams, Musial OF-1B, Ashburn, Snider, Minoso, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente
1961 (11) - Musial, Minoso, Mantle, Berra, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski
1962 (11) - Musial, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey, Killebrew, Yastrzemski
1963 (13) - Musial, Snider, Minoso, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey, Killebrew, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF(1B)
1964 (11) - Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, McCovey OF(1B), Killebrew, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF-1B
1965 (10) - Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell, JWynn
1966 (10) - Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell, JWynn
1967 (9) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell OF-1B, Rose OF(2B), JWynn
1968 (12) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline OF(1), Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell, Rose, Allen, JWynn, RJackson
1969 (11) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski OF(1B), Stargell OF(1B), Rose, JWynn, RJackson
1970 (10) - Mays, Aaron, Kaline OF-1B, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Stargell, Rose, JWynn, RJackson
1971 (10) - Mays OF-1B, Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson OF-1B, BiWilliams, Yastrzemski, Stargell, Rose, JWynn, RJackson
1972 (7) - Kaline, Clemente, FRobinson, BiWilliams, Yastremski OF-1B, Rose, JWynn, RJackson
1973 (7) - Aaron, Kaline OF-1B, BiWilliams, Stargell, Rose, JWynn, RJackson
1974 (7) - Aaron, Stargell, Rose, JWynn, RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield
1975 (5) - JWynn, RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield, GCarter OF-C
1976 (4) - JWynn, RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield
1977 (4) - Yastrzemski, RJackson, DaEvans OF-1B-3B, Winfield
1978 (4) - Yastrzemski OF-1B(DH), RJackson OF(DH), DwEvans, Winfield
1979 (3) - RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield
1980 (3) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield
1981 (3) - RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield
1982 (3) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield
1983 (2) - DwEvans OF(DH), Winfield
1984 (2) - DwEvans, Winfield
1985 (4) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield, Yount
1986 (2) - DwEvans, Winfield, Yount
1987 (2) - Winfield, Yount
1988 (2) - Winfield, DwEvans OF-1B, Yount
1989 (2) - DwEvans OF-DH, Yount
1990 (1) - Yount
1991 (2) - Winfield OF(DH), Yount
1992-93 (1) - Yount
Browning would be 1883 OF-SS, 1885-92
Duffy would be 1888-99, 1901
Van Haltren would be 1889, 1891-01, 1903
Leach would be 1905; 1907; 1909-15
Cravath would be 1908; 1912-18, roughly
Oms would be 1921-35, roughly
Johnson would be 1933-45
Cepeda would be 1960 OF-1B
Brock would be 1962-79
Staub would be 1965-67; 1969-71; 1973-75; 1976 OF-DH
ReSmith would be 1967-74; 1975 OF-1B; 1976-78; 1980
Singleton would be 1971-80; 1981 OF-DH
Dawson would be 1977-92
Puckett would be 1984-95
   223. jimd Posted: September 27, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2544658)
To answer Paul's query, my method estimates the win probability value of the
pitcher's contribution in the game, given how many runs (earned + unearned) he
gave up and how many runs his team scored in the innings he pitched. It explicitly takes into account the ballpark but not the specific opponent.


Rob, does it adjust for the quality of the fielders behind the pitcher?
   224. TomH Posted: September 27, 2007 at 01:08 PM (#2545182)
Rob's method does not, at least in its original form
   225. Rob_Wood Posted: September 27, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2545699)
Tom is correct. My method does not take into account quality of team's fielders.
   226. TomH Posted: September 27, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2545736)
My take on Rob's method is that the most useful comparison is to take his WAA and compare to RSAA from Sinins, or PRAA from BP. Differences could be interpreted as 'clutch pitching wins', or named a better term if you find that one doesn't float your boat.
   227. Chris Cobb Posted: September 27, 2007 at 07:50 PM (#2545765)
Differences could be interpreted as 'clutch pitching wins', or named a better term if you find that one doesn't float your boat.

e.g., luck factor? :-)
   228. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 27, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2545863)
Not if it's sustained over a whole career. Tom Glavine, for example, has always outperformed his DIPS and component ERA's because of his ability to change his approach from the stretch. It's pretty hard to be just plain lucky for two decades.
   229. Chris Cobb Posted: September 27, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2545963)
Dan, I don't dismiss the idea of clutch pitching -- I use win-based analysis myself, in conjunction with WARP's component-stat analysis.

However, if one cares to distinguish between skill and luck, where does one draw the line?

I am curious as to whether, for instance, you attribute clutch pitching skill to pitchers with the profile of Mark Langston or Orel Hershiser, both of whose dW totals in WARP are quite high. WARP sees Glavine as 13 wins better than his component stats, Hershiser as 9, and Langston as 8.

How do you give credit for this?
   230. TomH Posted: September 27, 2007 at 08:55 PM (#2546026)
Bobby Thompson was lucky his HR in Oct 1951 was hit in the Polo Grounds, not Ebbets Field.
Addie Joss was unlucky to die early.

Both count.

Sorry, no deep analysis there, just felt fun to type that.
   231. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 27, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2546141)
Addie Joss was unlucky to die early.


Not that his death would have neccesaarily changed his career shape much, since he had a bum arm.
   232. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 27, 2007 at 10:01 PM (#2546223)
Chris Cobb, you're actually misstating the meaning of BP's statistics here. BP's DW number reflects the gap between the pitcher's actual won-lost record and a Pythagorean-expected record derived from his run support and actual runs allowed (essentially "pitching to the score," what Rob Wood measures in Win Values). The DR number is the gap between the number of runs he actually allowed and the number of runs he would be expected to allow as determined by a run estimator (a measure of effectiveness at stranding runners). And the DH number is the gap between his non-HR hits allowed and the number of non-HR hits he would have allowed had his fielders converted his balls in play into outs at the same rate they did for the whole team. So in Glavine's case, we have:

-57 DH, meaning he has allowed fewer base hits on balls in play than average, after accounting for the effect of his fielders

- 95 DR, meaning he has allowed fewer runs than an average pitcher would have given his hits, walks, HBP, and HR allowed

and + 13 DW, meaning he has won 13 more games than an average pitcher would have given his RA+ and run support.

At 0.85 runs per hit saved, and 0.1 wins per run saved, this suggests that Glavine has won an "extra" 57*.85*.1 = 4.8 games by preventing hits on balls in play, 95*0.1 = 9.5 games by stranding runners, and 13 games by pitching to the score. Based on his DIPS ERA, fielders, and run support, we would thus expect his record to be 303-13-9.5-4.8 = 275.7-225.3, instead of his actual 303-198.

I don't yet have a fully developed quantitative methodology for evaluating pitchers yet as I do for hitters. I just play them by ear. Figuring out the right way to translate innings has proved to be a real b!atch for me.
   233. sunnyday2 Posted: September 27, 2007 at 10:54 PM (#2546386)
McCormick was on my ballot for many years and, trust me, his 207 ERA+ (in 210 IP) in 1884 didn't mean nothing. It meant less than nothing. I mean, he threw 359 IP in the NL that same year (at 110 ERA+) before jumping. Of course, the previous year he threw 342 IP at 171 and before that more than 2300 IP in 4 years though the ERA+ of 103-127-107-118 is no more "out of this world" than Whitney's 124 and 117. (I voted for Whitney a couple times, too.)

For the "very" early years, I prefer Tommy Bond.

(I adjust WS to 162 but give half of them to the fielders, through 1893. And McCormick's UA WS in 1884 are discounted by 65 percent (that's right, only 35 percent value is allowed). But of course it's less than a full season. Discount it 100 percent and you're only deducting another 4-5 WS.)

Bond--8 years ? 10 WS--323 WS in 2779.2 IP at 110 OPS+; peak of 80-63-59 in about 1600 IP

McCormick*--9 years ? 10 WS--276 WS in 4275.2 IP at 117 OPS+; peak 51-42-33 in about 1700 IP, and his peak overlaps chronologically with Bonds'! Betcha didn't know that!

Whitney--9 years ? 10 WS--229 WS in 3496.1 IP at 104 OPS+; peak 47-40-40 ini about a little less than 1500 IP, and his peak overlaps chronologically with McCormick's

(This, again, is with half of the WS being taken away from the pitchers and given to the fielders.) The idea that Bond had an extremely short career is incorrect and, again, his career overlaps with Mac's and Whitney's starts the very year Bond left the ML, so it's not like the conditions had changed 100 percent from Bond to Whitney.

PS. I kind of liked the comparison of Bob Johnson's and Frank Howard's ears. I gotta believe Howard wins that one.
   234. sunnyday2 Posted: September 27, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2546392)
I think Chris' point re. Glavine is that if you use a Win Based System, he is getting credit for all his wins, not just for the ones one would infer from the other numbers. I don't know if you missed the ongoing discussion of Clark Griffith pitching in a pinch but boy has this topic been hashed out.
   235. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 27, 2007 at 11:26 PM (#2546527)
I don't know if you missed the ongoing discussion of Clark Griffith pitching in a pinch but boy has this topic been hashed out.


Was it ever posted here that Griffith was very annoyed about the story that he had a fear about throwing shutouts? I read that in Deadball Stars of the American League.
   236. Jim Sp Posted: September 27, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2546634)
The point was that UA numbers need to be seriously deflated. The bref career numbers include them at face value. "means nothing" was an overstatement.

124 and 117 are Whitney's OPS+, not ERA+ as stated above.

The case for Whitney rests on peak K/W ratio, not ERA+ or Win Shares.

I would argue that K/W ratio is a much more "pure" measure of pitching skill than ERA+ or Win Shares. There are a lot of things we don't know about 1880s baseball, but you can be sure that a 10/1 K/W ratio is a wonderful thing anywhere, anytime. It's not the case that every team had a 10K/W guy throwing for them. ERA+ is muddled by both scoring decisions and defense quality, and the second half of Whitney's career was in front of terrible defenses. I'll concede that Whitney's runs allowed in general though are higher than they "should" be, which might cause me to bump him off ballot next year.

Win Shares are pretty screwed up as a methodology, with a ridiculous replacement level, and for the 19th century they are even worse. When Whitney has a 10/1 K/W ratio, the fielders don't deserve any credit for striking out opposing batters. Giving half to the fielders is just a hack.

If this sounds like a passioinate plea for Whitney, it's really not, I just found room for him at the bottom of my ballot. Bond and McCormick deserve reconsideration now too.
   237. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 12:10 AM (#2546704)
One other thing about Whitney, in KJOK's BP multiyear warp peak spreadsheet (Baseball Prospectus MVPs 1_5 By Year.xls on the yahoo group), Whitney is the only non-HoMer listed as the best player in baseball. He's first in the years surrounding 1883 and second for 1882.
   238. sunnyday2 Posted: September 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM (#2546715)
Well, Whitney got 15 percent of his outs for his career via K, his fielders got the other 85 percent or about 9000 outs. For Bond it's 10 and 90 percent and for McCormick it's 13.3 and 86.7. One point seven percent different than Whitney.

And giving half the defensive credit to fielders worked out really well, IMO, in putting "gloves" on an even footing with pitchers and hitters in terms of their ability to accum credit. As everybody knows, without it pitchers accum too much credit. Relatively speaking the results really felt pretty darn comfortable in terms of the distribution of all-time great players you end up with. You gotta adjust somehow.
   239. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 12:13 AM (#2546719)
Make that first in 1882 and third in 1883, my eyes must have gotten crossed or something.
   240. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2546808)
And Tommy John got 15% of his outs by K, but we don't cut his credit in half.

I fully agree that you have to adjust somewhere, and that there's no perfectly fair way to do it. But the 50% Win Shares chop seems particularly brutal to me. Plus at this point I'm not a Win Shares backer in general, so it feels like a hack on top of a mistake.

Personally I adjust by not projecting the pitching seasons to 162 games, I just use the IP numbers across history. Since the problem is that 1880s pitchers arms fell off after a few years of brutal workloads, it seems reasonable to say that at 1000 IP/year their arms would have just fallen off earlier.

When I do that, the shorter career lengths (in years) balance reasonably against the higher workloads.

This, again, ain't perfect either. The dead ballers come out ok but the pre-expansion live-ballers could use a little boost...maybe that's where I should give it.

At this point also we are arguing over miniscule differences in "merit", each different way of looking at it is bound to give very different ballots. But the consensus results I think are very good, the basic process is well designed.
   241. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 28, 2007 at 03:27 PM (#2547823)
Dan R - I can explain my method for translating IP across era if you'd like - send an email . . . I've explained it here often, but don't have time right now. Do a search and you can probably find it.
   242. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 28, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2547862)
Yeah, the thing is that your method focuses exclusively on the leaders, which means it can't distinguish between eras when it was "really" easier or harder to throw tons of innings versus leagues where there just happened to be either a large or small number of exceptionally durable pitchers. I believe that one of the biggest strengths of my standard deviation adjustments is that because they are regression-based, I can distinguish between seasons that were easy to dominate (say, 1969 NL) and seasons that weren't but just had some truly great individual seasons (say, 1941 AL). I'd like to be able to do the same for innings translation. I don't think I'll be able to do a regression-based model, but I'm attempting to do something similar to what I did for catchers (matching career season length-adjusted games played to an exponential distribution for C and non-C, and then finding the equation to translate between them). I keep finding that the equations that get the leaders right get the middle or bottom of the distribution wrong, and vice versa.
   243. DL from MN Posted: September 28, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2547945)
Maybe focus on IP by the starter per game instead of total innings per season? Position players play in a lot more games so the granularity is better.
   244. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 28, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2547959)
But games started per pitcher also vary by era...
   245. sunnyday2 Posted: September 28, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2547970)
>Personally I adjust by not projecting the pitching seasons to 162 games, I just use the IP numbers across history. Since the problem is that 1880s pitchers arms fell off after a few years of brutal workloads, it seems reasonable to say that at 1000 IP/year their arms would have just fallen off earlier.

Can you rate seasons and peaks that way?

But yes, the pitchers in those days--e.g. Tommy Bond--threw just as many innings as they do now, so you could substitute Bond for Saberhagen and your comment would still be accurate. i.e. so he threw 8 years? There's plenty of bulk there to call it a career.

Bottom line--100 years ago, everybody here agreed that cutting pitcher's value (WS) below the historic norm was needed. I haven't bothered to re-calc any of it since (since, that is, Bond and McCormick and Whitney are never going to get elected). But while WARP may be able to wrap a lot of much bigger words around its method for jiggering 19C pitchers, and mine may be a "hack," I believe my hack is probably just as good of a hack as theirs.
   246. DL from MN Posted: September 28, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2548083)
Does it help to treat them separately? Find the median number of starts for a pitcher and multiply by the typical number of innings. Those should be the two main independent variables into the equation.
   247. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2548097)
sunnyday2,
I wasn't personally attacking your "hack", I thought that was Bill James's hack. Didn't he cut the WS in half pre-1893?

This is all water under the bridge, none of these guys are going in.

Can you rate seasons and peaks that way?

It works more or less. I'll post more details later, I can't do it now. The odd thing is that the IP numbers are superhigh right before the schedules get longer, the peak IPs are much higher in 1884-5 (112 games) than 1888 (140 games). Which argues that projecting IPs to schedule length isn't right, I think.
   248. Esteban Rivera Posted: September 28, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2548128)
It works more or less. I'll post more details later, I can't do it now. The odd thing is that the IP numbers are superhigh right before the schedules get longer, the peak IPs are much higher in 1884-5 (112 games) than 1888 (140 games). Which argues that projecting IPs to schedule length isn't right, I think.


Could this be because with more games in the same time frame, there are less off days in between games for the pitcher to rest? A look at the season schedules might be useful for this.
   249. sunnyday2 Posted: September 28, 2007 at 07:32 PM (#2548183)
No, Bill James rates players on their raw WS--not adjusted for season length--and pitchers and everybody is allocated WS on the same basis in 1876 and is 1976. Then he introduced the expedient of the timeline, otherwise as he admits, the greatest players of all time would all be 19C pitchers. (But instead all 19C non-pitchers end up being basically nobody.) Thus the need for some intelligent adjustments and like I say I think mine are as good as WARP's. To me Tommy Bond's 323 careeer WS passes the smell test. It is a way of placing him into all-time lists without violating the important principle that "a pennant is a pennant" (1876 is just as good as 1976).
   250. jimd Posted: September 28, 2007 at 08:35 PM (#2548270)
I thought that was Bill James's hack. Didn't he cut the WS in half pre-1893?

It is his originally. When rating pitchers for the top-100 in the NBJHA he cut the WS for pre-1893 pitchers in half.
   251. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 10:02 PM (#2548341)
Esteban, my guess is that you are correct, maybe Paul Wendt would know?

I tried loading the seasonal spreadsheet to the yahoo group but it's too big. So I posted one that only uses the career numbers, which illustrates most of the methodology.

The basic idea is based on a hint from TangoTiger that PRAA can be estimated by looking at 13*HR+3*BB-2*K vs. league norms (http://www.tangotiger.net/drspectrum.html).

"So "basic" fielding-independent pitching can be evaluated as
FIP = (13*HR+3*BB-2*K)/IP
for reasons elaborated on in past threads.

If you want to make this number more "meaningful", you can say
runs = (league FIP - player FIP) x IP / 9 "

I assume that "past threads" referenced linear weights or something similar, but I don't know which threads he was referring to.

Anyhow, that works pretty well, I tried it on career numbers from the Lahman database and got reasonable results so I tried it on seasonals. I then tried to set a replacement level that would have the same ratio of runs below replacement to runs above replacement as Dan R's seasonal warp scores for position players. Dividing by 5.8 gave me WARP, dividing BFP by 670 gave me SFrac, from which I used the Dan R's peak salary estimator.

This analysis is incomplete (no park corrections, no adjustment for changing run environments, no leverage index, nothing considered other than K/W/HR, no war credit, batting/fielding contributions, etc.), but it does give "reasonable" result for both 1880s pitchers and modern relievers without any additional corrections. Walter Johnson is #4, Young is #6, Keefe is #24, Galvin is #59, Wilhelm is #47, and Rivera is #48.

So I think it is possible to rate pitchers this way, because pitchers are different from hitters. Unlike hitters, you can't use pitchers more if you cram more games into the snow-free part of the year.

Top 200 by this method below:

clemero02 311549139
johnsra05 280944405
martipe02 259839539
johnswa01 234888423
maddugr01 225134457
youngcy01 221704837
ryanno01 203975533
grovele01 184211324
brownke01 171993513
blylebe01 169505712
schilcu01 164902150
mathech01 156152408
seaveto01 153137642
perryga01 146876626
smoltjo01 141603777
alexape01 138510047
vanceda01 138111855
carltst01 137844291
mussimi01 137657746
suttodo01 128671879
spahnwa01 127776848
gibsobo01 126743288
fellebo01 121240327
keefeti01 120001248
koufasa01 114874542
roberro01 112338780
wadderu01 111433961
eckerde01 111328675
saberbr01 110705358
goodedw01 110443229
nichoki01 109885968
johnto01 108570775
bunniji01 103773118
drysddo01 102880319
derripa01 102716485
leonadu02 102299675
coneda01 101110231
planked01 99620418
jenkife01 96018482
hubbeca01 95682225
newhoha01 94162999
rixeyep01 93626653
appieke01 93496118
fordwh01 93187080
pettian01 91549565
walshed01 91148921
wilheho01 91133857
riverma01 90086846
galvipu01 89344983
guidrro01 88297994
koosmje01 88268413
ruffire01 88193818
reuscri01 88027277
kaatji01 87582544
quinnja01 87493904
wellsda01 85855820
whitnji01 85617999
mcdowsa01 85223909
frienbo01 84070185
adamsba01 83830505
pascuca02 82195337
faberre01 81991090
maricju01 81475931
tananfr01 81455354
lolicmi01 80823392
brownmo01 79072113
pennohe01 78969074
piercbi02 78722552
clarkjo01 78085108
garcimi01 77998562
finlech01 77267888
bluevi01 76822226
hardeme01 75828351
wynnea01 75731078
matlajo01 75509161
radboch01 75238886
glavito02 74931008
mathebo01 74092123
hershor01 73917043
gomezle01 73577202
buffich01 73576815
rusieam01 73176753
palmeji01 73081666
gordoto01 72871726
gossari01 72709832
jonesdo01 72485634
bendech01 72424628
hoytwa01 71975077
chancde01 71728718
lyonste01 71427258
rowesc01 71324669
deandi01 71201962
fingero01 70991678
niekrph01 70719383
simmocu01 70695589
santajo01 70559496
passecl01 70059873
rogerst01 69464123
ramseto01 69219702
rushbo01 68004470
newsobo01 67888242
cicoted01 67712345
covelst01 66883376
oswalro01 66712664
haddiha01 66691404
hoffmtr01 65897965
phillde01 65589702
hallaro01 65583090
richajr01 65581671
wagnebi02 65544498
martide01 65449320
bridgto01 65384296
reussje01 65040166
schmija01 64834923
amesre01 64372271
grimebu01 64198356
griffcl01 64054306
marquru01 64039710
luquedo01 63412402
gubicma01 62742343
reynosh01 62545703
allenjo02 62409625
troutdi01 62382859
morried01 62077493
burkejo03 61903588
rijojo01 61782235
rootch01 61547411
keyji01 61146707
uhlege01 60891429
kingsi01 60792246
tiantlu01 60559388
darwida01 60531751
weyhigu01 60471964
vealebo01 60308381
langsma01 60174674
jacksla01 59366533
brechha01 59121409
mayru01 58799042
nenro01 58369195
maysca01 58096483
valenfe01 57895857
frencla01 57889390
fasseje01 57364588
mcdanli01 57259538
henketo01 57015281
truckvi01 56869863
donohpe01 56658480
lowede01 56504997
hudsoti01 56191427
hahnno01 55737487
millwke01 55715545
reedro01 55670977
singebi01 55353615
coopewi01 55332315
leiteal01 55227564
smithle02 55165381
stiebda01 54934918
violafr01 54868845
candejo01 54048580
tanneje01 53627170
cuellmi01 53330142
woodwi01 53306585
righeda01 52641154
candito01 52432145
millest01 52379167
scottmi03 51848563
burdele01 51331021
welchbo01 51240389
kilroma01 51225270
radkebr01 51190887
ehretre01 51187810
vaughhi01 51102526
morrija02 51016022
peterga01 51010203
gagneer01 50941670
mcdowja01 50884219
blackew01 50863621
whitedo01 50827310
willivi01 50610172
hansoer01 50243504
mullato01 50205460
shantbo01 50037511
hawlepi01 49921451
osteecl01 49752301
vazquja01 49705149
woodjo02 49537205
wittmi01 49433983
coopemo01 49309828
leonadu01 49298060
eichhma01 49132769
odellbi01 49082461
messean01 48999542
leonade01 48978594
swindgr01 48783401
sheetbe01 48630335
rogerke01 48628759
rhodear01 48338145
shockur01 48245750
ruckena01 48124615
hootobu01 48059017
   252. Jim Sp Posted: September 28, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2548350)
Looks like us Mets fans might get to find out the pennant value of having Pedro for a one game playoff.

Unfortunately coming off surgery on short rest. D'oh!
   253. OCF Posted: September 28, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2548397)
The list in #251 seems like a lot of timeline to swallow. Randy Johnson ahead of Walter Johnson? Kevin Brown ahead of Tom Seaver?

Or maybe what it is is an awfully high value being granted to strikeouts. For instance, why does Nolan Ryan rate so high? Ryan has his obvious strengths (the strikouts) and his obvious weaknesses (the walks, the vulnerability to the SB, and so on.) Ryan pitched for an awfully long time, for several different teams. You can consider all of that an experiment in how many runs such a pitcher should actually give up, and it's not a particularly small sample. Based on runs allowed, I see only a tiny difference between Ryan and Sutton; in the chart above at (scaling by some power of 10) 204 while you have Sutton at 129. That difference - 204 to 129 - looks much larger than I percieve the Ryan/Sutton difference to be.

Are strikeouts really worth that much?
   254. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 29, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2548860)
I do not believe you can use FIP as a pure measure of pitcher quality. There is quite a bit of evidence that suggests that pitchers have more to do with fielding than pure DIPS advocates would have you believe.

-- MWE
   255. Jim Sp Posted: September 29, 2007 at 01:21 AM (#2548889)
There are a number of things wrong with these numbers, a few of the things wrong I listed above. Overweighting strikeouts could likely be something wrong as well.

However it is a very simple model which gives ratings across baseball history that are "in the ballpark" without resorting to severe recourses such as chopping the numbers in half. This is evidence that such a rating system is possible, even if the one shown is flawed. I think it is a useful way of looking at things differently, even if it isn't the whole enchilada.

Ryan would be the poster child for a pitcher whose ancillary skills dramatically lower his value. He gave up more runs than he "should" have, by I would think any methodology. BP has him with a career DR of 173, he was a terrible fielder (90E/27DP), threw 277 wild pitches, his career EQA was .035, I'm guessing he didn't hold runners well, etc...

Again, Walter Johnson has a career EQA of .235, that's not here. Any salary system that's not so peak would tend to favor Walter and Seaver over Randy and Brown, I think using the peak salary estimator is obscuring my point here.

On the other hand, given a choice between 1912 Walter and 1999-2001 Randy for a one-game playoff with a DH, Randy is not a terrible choice.
   256. Jim Sp Posted: September 29, 2007 at 01:34 AM (#2548941)
I do not believe you can use FIP as a pure measure of pitcher quality.

I don't believe that either, perhaps I haven't been clear. This is a FIP spreadsheet, just because I haven't been able to calculate other things does not mean that they are not important. They are important, but they are just not in this spreadsheet.

I am trying to demonstrate that it is possible to rate pitchers based on their game impact across eras without resorting to heavy-handed era adjustments. Pitchers are different than position players, if you decide that projecting 1880s pitchers for short seasons is a bad idea, then good things happen. If you do a more correct version of what I'm partially demonstrating, I think it would work. That's all. Short of that, this FIP data is interesting and useful, but incomplete.

a lot of timeline to swallow

Actually I am trying to show what a system could look like that has no timeline whatsoever. When the pitchers have more impact, they get more credit. There is no "if (year < 1893)" in the spreadsheet, that would be a timeline. The pitchers are compared to a replacement level which is derived from league norms. I don't think that's a timeline.
   257. OCF Posted: September 29, 2007 at 01:42 AM (#2548973)
Compared to Sutton, Ryan was personally responsible for a greater portion of the outs recorded, not needing to rely on his defense. But because of his walks, he was also personally responsible for a greater proportion of his opponents' offensive production (with the WP and extra SB adding a little to that.) The defense beind him was less critical for Ryan than it was for Sutton, but that cuts in both directions. There are a lot of things to balance here, a lot of influences. Is there any evidence that this all balances at a similar point for the two pitchers? Well, that's what the RA suggest.
   258. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 29, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2549012)
When the pitchers have more impact, they get more credit.


The problem has to do with the assumption - in your method, and in every other - that pitcher impact on fielding is some constant value - whether that's zero (as the pure DIPS approach suggests), 50% (as James suggests), or 30% (as Davenport suggests). In fact, it appears as though the impact is variable, correlated to some extent with strikeout propensities and to some extent with groundball/flyball propensities. So you don't know whether pitchers who have more impact are getting more credit; it is not necessarily a given that Walter Johnson had the same net effect on his fielders as did Randy Johnson.

-- MWE
   259. Paul Wendt Posted: September 29, 2007 at 02:36 AM (#2549186)
>> It works more or less. I'll post more details later, I can't do it now. > The odd thing is that the IP numbers are superhigh right before the schedules get longer, the peak IPs are much higher in 1884-5 (112 games) than 1888 (140 games). Which argues that projecting IPs to schedule length isn't right, I think.
<<

Could this be because with more games in the same time frame, there are less off days in between games for the pitcher to rest? A look at the season schedules might be useful for this.


1.
From memory. Rules details may be checked at several websites and in some Total Baseball editions.

The major leagues deregulated pitching arm angles in a few stages ending in 1884 (NL) and 1885 with permission of overarm delivery. (Radbourn didn't adopt it --Frederick Ivor-Campbell)

Subsequent government of arm motion has focused on deception, such things as feinting and showing or hiding the ball where there is no reason to suspect any relation with fatigue and injury. But overarm is more strenuous than shoulder is more strenuous than sidearm is more strenuous than underarm. As for the 1893 increase in distance, I believe, there must be some relation with workloads and career patterns. How much and how universal?

2.
A study of championship schedules may be useful but they will not tell us how many games the major league teams played in a season or in a week. We know very little about the numbers of exhibition games (distribution across teams or across months) and there is no systematic data as far as I know. I am fairly sure that leading pitchers worked in exhibition games, like Satchel Paige in the 1930s and unlike the one or two in-season games played by mlb teams today. I imagine that 1880s mlb pitchers and Satchel Paige worked hard when they did pitch.
   260. Paul Wendt Posted: September 29, 2007 at 02:49 AM (#2549271)
246. DL from MN Posted: September 28, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2548083)
Does it help to treat them separately? Find the median number of starts for a pitcher and multiply by the typical number of innings. Those should be the two main independent variables into the equation.

I don't what those variables are.
median number of starts - what population of pitchers?
typical number of innings - per start, I presume; "typical" of games or pitchers and in what sense?

It may be useful to discuss measurement of typical workloads elsewhere.
   261. TomH Posted: October 01, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2553150)
A tale of two players; some amazing similarities between two eligible-for-HoM-ers. It shouldn’t be hard to name these two.

Both born in 1917.

Came up and immediately were placed successfully into fulltime play.

Both got old a bit early; one played fulltime for a 13 yr span, the other 14.

Excellent defensive stars. When discussing best-ever gloves at a position, both are occasionally mentioned.

As hitters, both were good-for-their-position, but not great. Both were consistent as well.

Both lost 3 of their most critical years to WWII.

Both were more table-setters than RBI men.

Both had good speed (lots of top-10 SB finishes), although nobody ran much in the 40s and 50s.



So, what are the differences?

Rizzuto did better in MVP voting. Which most would attribute to the writer’s love for ‘winners’.

DiMaggio’s lost WWII years were likely more crucial. His best years surrounded the war (42 and 46), while Scooter’s best were 49 and 50.

DiMaggio started more all-star games, 4 to 2. Not a big deal.. but I sure would have guessed that Scooter had more than two.

DiMaggio in my eyes was a better CFer than Rizzuto a shortstop – I have Dominic as in the argument for the best ballhawk EVER; if pushed, I’d rank him behind only Mays and Speaker. Phil was a great SS, but not quite THAT great.

OTOH, I believe DanR’s WAR shows Rizzuto was a better hitter compared to a replacement SS than Dominic was for a replacement CFer.

Rizzuto played an extra 262 games, but those were in his decline phase.

Rizzuto’s teams won a lot more. Of course, Phil didn’t exactly shine in World Series play: 52 games played, 8 RBI. Eight.

Win Shares – Phil has 11 more.. in 262 games played.
WARP – By WARP1, DiMaggio looks better. By WARP3, Rizzuto does.

And the biggest difference I see: 14 of us have Rizzuto on our ballots. None of us has DiMaggio. Holy Cow!

I don’t vote for either. I was merely amused that they had so much in common.
   262. sunnyday2 Posted: October 01, 2007 at 06:34 PM (#2553220)
>it is not necessarily a given that Walter Johnson had the same net effect on his fielders as did Randy Johnson.

It is of course stupid traditional thinking--in this case, buttressed by stupid common sense--that sometimes hitters hit the ball harder and sometimes not so hard, and that "good" pitchers induce more BIP that are not hit so hard. The burden of proof, IMO, is on those who don't think there's anything to all of this.
   263. sunnyday2 Posted: October 01, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2553226)
And re. the discussion of guys who lost time to WWII, don't forget a guy who played the same position as one and was a teammate of the other, and whose lost years were also very very critical ones (his best years being '42 and '46 too). Obviously Johnny Pesky.
   264. DL from MN Posted: October 01, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2553228)
The discounting for segregation is something I don't currently do because the effects are nebulous and I don't see that I've had a bigger problem with overrepresentation of eras than the HoM as a whole. As a whole we haven't elected as many from the 40s.

I don't give extra support to 1940's players, but I also don't support discounting them for quality of competition unless you apply that discount to _all_ eras. As far as I can tell, that discount would go against the "pennant is a pennant" maxim. There are tradeoffs all over the place and adjusting for competition levels is currently one I don't choose to make. I am fairly generous with credit.

I have also tried to blend a new ranking system with my old ranking system. If I just go with the new ranking system the top of my ballot becomes all pitchers:

1) Boggs
2) Tiant
3) Bridges
4) Reuschel
5) Saberhagen
6) Bus Clarkson
7) Trucks

I guess my final point is I don't think that electing Bob Johnson is an error. He's better than several other honored bats from his era (Bill Terry, Ducky Medwick, Willard Brown, Earl Averill, Ralph Kiner) that I DON'T have in my top 250 players.
   265. sunnyday2 Posted: October 01, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2553236)
As to Rizzuto's ASG appearances, it has a lot to do with Boudreau, Pesky, Stephens, Joost. Really an extraordinary group. All but Boudreau are underrated IMO and more even than Pesky, Joost has been forgotten. He had a few incredible years.

Don't know than Dom had the same kind of competition in the OF, what with 3 slots to spread around.
   266. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 01, 2007 at 06:57 PM (#2553269)
DL from MN, my interpretation of being "fair to all eras" and "a pennant is a pennant" is that we shouldn't consider the 95th percentile of players in 1880 to be inferior to the 95th percentile of players in 1980. That doesn't mean we should ignore quality of play--on the contrary, it means we have to take it into account. In the single-league 1890s, taking the top 5% of baseball players means we should just take the top 5% of NL players. By contrast, in the 1930s, taking the top 5% of baseball players means we should take probably the top 2% of AL players, the top 2% of NL players, and the top 1% of NgL players. This means that a higher standard deviation-adjusted WARP/WS/OPS+ is necessary to cross the in/out line in 1934 than in 1894. Similarly, in say 1954, taking the top 5% of baseball players probably means taking the top 3% of NL players and the top 2% of AL players, since the best players were disporportionately clustered in the NL. That means that a higher standard deviation-adjusted WARP/WS/OPS+ is necessary to cross the in/out line in the 1954 AL than in the 1954 NL. If you *don't* correct for segregation, then ceteris paribus you should have 50% more HoMers from the 1930s than the 1950s, and 100% more from the 1930s than from the 1890s, just as a function of the number of teams.

I agree with you that Terry, Medwick, Averill, and Kiner are all mistakes (although Kiner came a bit later). That doesn't mean Johnson is the guy to replace them with.
   267. DL from MN Posted: October 01, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2553431)
"In the single-league 1890s, taking the top 5% of baseball players means we should just take the top 5% of NL players. By contrast, in the 1930s, taking the top 5% of baseball players means we should take probably the top 2% of AL players, the top 2% of NL players, and the top 1% of NgL players."

The 1890s weren't segregated?

I guess I'm saying I don't believe I have the ability to judge those league quality differences to a reasonable level.

I also think if the HoM has established the level for an era by inducting five (!) mistakes then if you're significantly above that bar nobody should be complaining that you're the player overrepresenting an era. I have Johnson ahead of _twenty_ inducted outfielders and first basemen. That's about the 75th percentile.
   268. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 01, 2007 at 09:12 PM (#2553507)
The 1890s were segregated, but since the Negro Leagues hadn't really formed yet it's just hard to know how many blacks were playing baseball at an HoM level--the only guy we've taken from that period is Frank Grant.
   269. Cblau Posted: October 01, 2007 at 10:41 PM (#2553617)
By contrast, in the 1930s, taking the top 5% of baseball players means we should take probably the top 2% of AL players, the top 2% of NL players, and the top 1% of NgL players.


Wouldn't that get you less than the top 2% of baseball players?
   270. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 01, 2007 at 11:05 PM (#2553645)
Well, I should have clarified. Instead of taking the top 5% of major league players, I really meant taking the top .0005% or whatever it would be of all "potential" baseball players (men aged 20-40 or thereabouts). If the size of the population from which players are drawn doesn't change, then that would translate to something like the top 5% of NL players in the 1890s and the top 2%-2%-1% of the AL-NL-NgL in the 1930s.
   271. sunnyday2 Posted: October 01, 2007 at 11:39 PM (#2553680)
>That doesn't mean Johnson is the guy to replace them with.

Bingo.

>I also think if the HoM has established the level for an era by inducting five (!) mistakes then if you're significantly above that bar nobody should be complaining that you're the player overrepresenting an era. I have Johnson ahead of _twenty_ inducted outfielders and first basemen. That's about the 75th percentile.

So what? The only question is whether he is the best available candidate. This is the old if...then approach that causes nothing but trouble. Just elect the best candidate and if, indeed, a pennant is a pennant, then I don't see how the 15th best OF of his generation goes ahead of guys who ranked much higher vs. their peers. (Same goes for Oms.)

And another thing! There are way too many hitters queued up. Where's the glove-love?
   272. DL from MN Posted: October 02, 2007 at 01:57 PM (#2555966)
I was commenting on the number of ballot comments that say "we've inducted too many from his era". I think that's a cop-out and borderline unconstitutional.

I agree, too many hitters and way too few pitchers. We're not particularly short on 2B or SS but we could use some 3B.
   273. sunnyday2 Posted: October 02, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2556379)
I take the "too many from his era" comment to mean that he is not near enough to the top among his cohorts, which would not be unconstitutional. I would agree with you that if people meant that literally, then it would constitute strategic voting of sorts. And maybe they do mean it literally, but I doubt it. IOW the people who say that probably never had Bob near their ballots anyway. They're not knocking him down a notch because of that, because he was never high enough to bother knocking down. If you see what I mean.

Similar is the issue that we are electing too many bats. Can I just drop all of the hitters down 2-3 notches and infiltrate IF and pitchers in there because we have too many bats already? I'd like to but I don't know if that sounds exaclty kosher either.
Page 3 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
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1467 seconds
49 querie(s) executed