Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, December 26, 2005

2006 BTF Hall of Fame Ballot Discussion

We’ll have one week of discussion and then the ballot thread will be posted next Monday (the election will end on Jan. 9).

The eligible candiates are: Rick Aguilera*, Albert Belle*, Bert Blyleven, Will Clark*, Dave Concepcion, Andre Dawson, Gary DiSarcina*, Alex Fernandez*, Gary Gaetti*, Steve Garvey, Dwight Gooden*, Rich Gossage, Ozzie Guillen*, Orel Hershiser*, Gregg Jeffries*, Tommy John, Doug Jones*, Don Mattingly, Willie McGee, Hal Morris*, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell, Walt Weiss*, and John Wetteland*.

Just to make sure everyone knows the rules, as we did last year, each ballot should follow BBWAA rules. That means you can have up to 10 players on your ballot in no particular order. Write-in’s are acceptable to add to your ballot, but as in reality, they wont count.

* 1st-year candidates.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 26, 2005 at 05:46 PM | 147 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2005 at 02:07 AM (#1795071)
hot topics
   2. yest Posted: December 27, 2005 at 06:58 AM (#1795349)
each year I like to pick out the player least worthy of being on the ballot this years winner is Gary DiSarcina

previous winners
Tom Candiotti
Jim Eisenreich
Mitch Williams
Jeff Russell
Jim Deshaies
   3. OCF Posted: December 27, 2005 at 07:19 AM (#1795369)
Six years ago, I did my own version of an all-decade team for the 90's and picked Wetteland as the #1 releiver.

I know: artificial endpoints, and plenty of competition. But I thought I'd mention it.

And Albert Belle was in the starting outfield of that team: Griffey in center, and Bonds and Belle in the two corners - you pick which one goes where.
   4. Kelly in SD Posted: December 27, 2005 at 09:35 AM (#1795444)
Is it okay to follow the BBWAA custom of writers doing write-in votes for players they think should be on the ballot but aren't? In the real world, that would be Pete Rose. In HoM world, I would like to vote for players who the BBWAA was stupid enough to not vote for. Specifically, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Dewey Evans, Darrell Evans, Ron Santo, and Ted Simmons, or are we just allowed to vote for the players listed. Last year, we allowed write-ins. Thanks.
   5. Sean Gilman Posted: December 27, 2005 at 11:25 AM (#1795498)
Will Clark vs. Jim Rice:

Win Shares:

career:

clark: 339*
rice: 282

top 7:

clark: 44, 37, 34, 28, 27*, 25, 25
rice: 36, 28, 28, 26, 24, 21, 20



WARP3:

career:

clark: 104.2*
rice: 89.6

top 7:

clark: 12.4, 11.3, 9.9, 8.8*, 8.7, 7.9, 7.4
rice: 10.5, 9.4, 8.9, 8.3, 7.5, 7.4, 7.0


* = adjusted for 1994 strike



And here's some comparables using Win Shares:

Mark McGwire:

career: 342
top 7: 41, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 27

Tony Gwynn:

career: 398
top 7: 39, 35, 30, 29, 29, 24, 23

Kirby Puckett:

career: 281
top 7: 32, 31, 29, 28, 27, 26, 22

Fred McGriff (through 2001):

career: 316
top 7: 31, 30, 27, 26, 25, 24, 24
   6. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 27, 2005 at 01:50 PM (#1795513)
Without researching other candidates, I'd vote for John, Bert, Goose, and Sutter.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT OTHER CANDIDATES.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 27, 2005 at 03:22 PM (#1795541)
Here's my prelim:

Goose Gossage
Bert Blyleven
Alan Trammell
Will Clark

I think the first three are comfortably over the line for enshrinement.

Clark is a hard guy to peg. Terrific peak and a long enough career (the quality declined a little more quickly then I expected it to at the time), but he played during a harvest of quality first basemen. The trick is to see if the number of outstanding first basemen was just a coincidence or if something caused it? At the moment, I'm going with the former, so the Thrill should make it onto to my official ballot.

Belle is Ralph Kiner reincarnated (I know, Ralph is still with us. :-). If Kiner is on your HoM ballot, most likely Belle will make it onto this one.

Gooden, Gooden, Gooden... :-(

Nobody pronounced Rick Aguilera's surname like Bob Murphy used to do on the radio. I miss both of them.

If Hershiser had been more durable, he would make my ballot. Unfortunately for him, he served under Lasorda, which made durability a little harder to achieve.

Murphy, Dawson, Rice, Concepcion, Mattingly and Parker are close, but no cigar. Garvey and John not as much.

Wetteland was pretty good, I must say, but not enough career for me. This is Sutter's problem, too (I like the latter better, though). Smith, OTOH, has a peak problem.

I guess Jeffries didn't have that HOF career that all Mets fans were promised. :-)

No offense to McGee, but how is he still on the ballot and the Strawman got knocked off in his debut last year? I don't think Straw is a HOFer, but he's a lot closer than Willie is.

Fernandez? Morris? Guillen? Gaetti? Weiss? DiSarcina, for Pete's sake?!! Please!!!
   8. sptaylor Posted: December 27, 2005 at 05:35 PM (#1795655)
The BBWAA has elected nine 1Bmen to the HOF (Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Killebrew, McCovey, Murray, Perez, Sisler, Terry). At 1B, the current candidates on the ballot are Clark, Garvey, Mattingly, and Parker. Here's a comparison of the medians for some HOF-worthy indicators for those already enshrined to the four current candidates:

Games - 2317 vs. Clark (1976), Garvey (2332), Mattingly (1785), Parker (2466)
Career Win Shares - 371 vs. Clark (330), Garvey (279), Mattingly (263), Parker (327)
Best five consecutive seasons - 144 vs. Clark (168), Garvey (124), Mattingly (146), Parker (150)
Best three seasons - 101 vs. Clark (115), Garvey (78), Mattingly (95), Parker (101)
Bill James objective function* - 131 vs. Clark (144), Garvey (111), Mattingly (127), Parker (129)
Kevin Harlow objective function** - 90 vs. Clark (97), Garvey (82), Mattingly (89), Parker (90)

Clark and Parker look most like the 1Bmen already elected to the HOF by the BBWAA.

As for Lou Whitaker, the BBWAA has elected nine 2Bmen to the HOF (Carew, Collins, Frisch, Gehringer, Hornsby, Lajoie, Morgan, Robinson, Sandberg). The same comparisons:

Games - 2469 vs. 2390 for Whitaker
Career Win Shares - 384 vs. 351 for Whitaker
Best five consecutive seasons - 162 vs. 116 for Whitaker
Best three seasons - 109 vs. 80 for Whitaker
BJ OBJ - 138 vs. 119 for Whitaker
KH OBJ - 92 vs. 88 for Whitaker

Whitaker compares unfavorably to existing BBWAA 2Bmen in the HOF.

At shortstop, the BBWAA has elected nine to the HOF (Aparicio, Appling, Banks, Boudreau, Cronin, Maranville, Smith, Wagner, Yount). The same comparison as above for Alan Trammell:

Games - 2573 vs. 2293 for Trammell
Career WS - 332 vs. 318 for Trammell
Best five consecutive seasons - 141 vs. 132 for Trammell
Best three seasons - 96 vs. 93 for Trammell
BJ OBJ - 124 vs. 124 for Trammell
KH OBJ - 83 vs. 89 for Trammell

Alan Trammell compares favorably to the existing BBWAA HOF SSs.

For Jim Rice and Albert Belle: The BBWAA has elected nine LFers to the HOF (Brock, Kiner, Medwick, Musial, Simmons, Stargell, Billy Williams, Ted Williams, Yaz).

Games - 2215 vs. Belle (1539) and Rice (2089)
Career WS - 374 vs. Belle (243) and Rice (282)
Best five consecutive seasons - 155 vs. Belle (140) and Rice (127)
Best three seasons - 104 vs. Belle (98) and Rice (92)
BJ OBJ - 133 vs. Belle (128) and Rice (120)
KH OBJ - 89 vs. Belle (90) and Rice (86).

Belle sort of compares favorably to the BBWAA choices for his peak, but not for his career. Rice does not compare favorably to the BBWAA choices.

And finally for Blyleven, Hershiser, and John. The BBWAA has elected 33 pitchers to the HOF (only three relievers, so this comparison is not as meaningful for Gossage and Sutter). Their median values compared to Blyleven's, Hershiser's, and John's:

Innings pitched - 3948 vs. Blyleven (4970), Hershiser (3130), John (4710)
Career WS - 312 vs. Blyleven (339), Hershiser (210), John (289)
Best five consecutive seasons - 126 vs. Blyleven (114), Hershiser (102), John (86)
Best three seasons - 91 vs. Blyleven (75), Hershiser (69), John (61)
BJ OBJ - 178 vs. Blyleven (191), Hershiser (180), John (168)
KH OBJ - 113 vs. Blyleven (111), Hershiser (105), John (101)

Blyleven compares favorably to the existing BBWAA choices. Hershiser compares mostly unfavorably. John compares unfavorably.

*BJ OBJ = 2/(1/25 + 10/CarWS) + B3/3 + C5/5 + WSPerSeason + (YearBorn–1800)/10
**KH OBJ = 2/(1/25 + 10/CarWS) + [B3/3 + C5/5 + WSPerSeason]/3 + (YearBorn–1800)/5 + 3*Catch (tends to de-emphasize peak seasons compared to BJ OBJ)
   9. karlmagnus Posted: December 27, 2005 at 07:28 PM (#1795823)
OK, I'm a simple minded man. Double the innings for relievers and subtract 5 from the ERA+, then slot them in among the starters. Then rank position players and pitchers separately. Then interleave them, approximately on the basis used in HOM voting. This gives Top 10 as follows:

1. Blyleven 4970 innings, 118 ERA+

2. Will Clark 2176 hits at 138, OF.

3. Gossage 1809 hits at 126 ERA+ translates to 3618 at 121 ERA+

4. Parker 2712 hits at 121, OF (surprisingly high)

5. Belle 1726 hits at 143, OF (ditto)

6. Rice 2452 hits at 128, OF (4-6 are close)

7. Trammell, 2365 hits at 110, SS -- he's Sewell

8. John 4710 innings at 111 ERA+

9. Dawson 2774 hits at 119 OPS+, OF

10. Sutter 1042 innings at 136 translates to 2100 at 131.

Reserves: Smith (very close to Sutter) Mattingley, Garvey, Murphy, Hersheiser.


Gaps between 6/7 and 8/9, also between each of top
4. In/Out line probably just below John, but I could also live with just above Trammell.

OK guys, you know a huge amount more than I do, feel free to shoot holes!
   10. karlmagnus Posted: December 27, 2005 at 07:31 PM (#1795830)
Gossage had innings not hits. Doh!
   11. Taverna Posted: December 27, 2005 at 08:34 PM (#1795935)
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: December 27, 2005 at 08:49 PM (#1795970)
As I said last year, my first and foremost decision is to vote for 10. I mean I could vote for 20 and not get down to a guy who isn't better than the worst HoFer. To put it more fully:

Yes, the BBWAA has done a pretty good job over the years. A few sins of commission, a few of omission, but overall pretty good.

Then there's the VC which has inducted a good 2 dozen obvious mistakes, and another 2 dozen who, while not obvious mistakes, are not obviously better than another 2 dozen who are not in. Nevertheless, this gray zone--above and not including the 2 dozen obvious mistakes--is the true and real and actual HoF standard. I propose simply to observe the existing and true and real and actual standard which the HoF represents.

Of course it is OK for the BBWAA to continue to enforce the same standard as always, which is what it appears to be doing. And it would be OK in a larger sense if the VC did the same--enforced the same standard as always. But the VC seems hell bent to establish a new and much higher standard. This is completely unfair to modern players--that they should be subjected to a new and higher standard than the old-timers.

So, lacking confidence that the VC will honor the guys who by traditional practice they should honor, I propose therefore to relax the BBWAA standard--at least in my hypothetical little ballot. (My HoF personally is a small hall, about the size of the BBWAA selections alone. But THE HoF in Cooperstown is not a small hall it is a big ####### hall. So...)

So I will vote for 10.

Which 10? Stay tuned.
   13. jingoist Posted: December 27, 2005 at 09:04 PM (#1795989)
I'm a bit curious sptaylor: how does Dave Parker ever get included in a 1B player comparison?
He palyed RF for the first 15 years of his career and DH for the last 4 or so years.

I'd like to see how the Cobra did against fellow RF'ers (Ruth, Aaron and Frank Robbie will make it tough for him to measure up) if you are so inclined.

If he could have stayed away from cocaine he could have been among the very best.....as it is I have him in the "Hall of the Very Good" with Dewey Evans, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson.

I must admit surprise with how well Wil Clark compares....I had no idea he was that proficient.
   14. Rusty Priske Posted: December 27, 2005 at 09:48 PM (#1796067)
This would be my ballot right now:

Andre Dawson
Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Dave Parker
Alan Trammell
Dale Murphy
Tommy John
Jim Rice
Steve Garvey
Dave Concepcion

The hardest decision for me is whether to remove Garvey and/or Concepcion for Gossage and/or Mattingly.
   15. Evan Posted: December 27, 2005 at 10:04 PM (#1796102)
belle
blyleven
clark
dawson
gossage
sutter
trammel
   16. Answer Guy Posted: December 27, 2005 at 10:40 PM (#1796200)
In alpha order:
Blyleven
Dawson
Gossage
John
Smith
Trammell
(The triumvirate of Rice, Murphy, and Parker are close calls, as is Sutter. I guess Albert Belle is too, but I don't think he was good for long enough.)
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: December 27, 2005 at 10:43 PM (#1796208)
1. Blyleven
2. Rice
3. Gossage
4. Dawson
5. Sutter
6. Belle
7. Trammell
8. Parker
9. Mattingly
10. Murphy

Close but no cigar: Smith, Morris, John, Garvey
   18. sptaylor Posted: December 27, 2005 at 11:40 PM (#1796300)
jingoist,
Parker was rated among 1Bmen because the only clear memories I have of seeing him play were a few games at the end of his career, and I didn't check BBRef for his actual position.

So, Dave Parker redux: The BBWAA has elected eleven RFers to the HOF (Aaron, Clemente, Heilmann, Jackson, Kaline, Keeler, Ott, Robinson, Ruth, Waner, Winfield). Their medians for the aforementioned standards vs. Parker's scores and his rank among the BBWAA HOF RFers:

Games - 2769 vs. 2466 for Parker, 9th
Career WS - 444 vs. 327 for Parker, 12th
Best five consecutive seasons - 154 vs. 150 for Parker, 7th (leads Clemente, Jackson, Kaline, Keeler, and Winfield)
Best three seasons - 104 vs. 101 for Parker, 7th (leads Clemente, Heilmann, Kaline, Keeler, and Winfield)
BJ OBJ - 135 vs. 129 for Parker, 9th (leads Kaline, Keeler, and Winfield)
KH OBJ - 92 vs. 90 for Parker, 7th (leads Clemente, Heilmann, Kaline, Keeler, and Waner)

So Parker compares reasonably well to the BBWAA RF choices for the HOF.
   19. Daryn Posted: December 27, 2005 at 11:49 PM (#1796309)
Blyleven gossage smith belle rice. i'm still thinking about sutter, dawson, clark, parker and trammell.
   20. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 28, 2005 at 01:23 AM (#1796374)
I would like to ask why garvey and not Mattingly? Is it counting stats? I couldn't fathom putting Garvey above dinnie baseball.

Are we also doing a ballot thread or is this just our ballots?

If so my prelim is

Gossage
Blyleven
Mattingly
Clark
Trammell
Belle (just in, could go either way)

Whitaker, Grich, and Da. Evans are my write-ins.

Hoewver, I haven't had anytime to go over everyone and will post a real ballot soon enough.
   21. J. Michael Neal Posted: December 28, 2005 at 01:36 AM (#1796385)
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell

That's it.
   22. ronw Posted: December 28, 2005 at 01:44 AM (#1796388)
Blyleven
Clark
Gossage
Trammell
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 28, 2005 at 02:14 AM (#1796401)
I would like to ask why garvey and not Mattingly? Is it counting stats? I couldn't fathom putting Garvey above dinnie baseball.

Same here, Mark. Mattingly was the more significant player.

Are we also doing a ballot thread or is this just our ballots?

A ballot thread will appear Monday.
   24. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 28, 2005 at 04:08 AM (#1796452)
Sorry John, I should learn to read the intros.

JMN,

Your small hall wouldn't make you a very happy HOM voter, we elect two every year (three by the time we reach 2005) not three over a ten you period. ;-)
   25. sptaylor Posted: December 28, 2005 at 04:09 AM (#1796453)
Blyleven, Gossage, Sutter, Clark, Trammell, Parker
   26. sunnyday2 Posted: December 28, 2005 at 05:30 AM (#1796498)
>JMN,

>Your small hall wouldn't make you a very happy HOM voter, we elect two every year (three by the time we reach 2005) not three over a ten you period.

Well, my PHoF is a small hall, would have about 120 in it now.

And I've been voting in the HoM for 3 flippin' years.

We'll be right back after this message with...

...more psychoanalysis!
   27. J. Michael Neal Posted: December 28, 2005 at 06:59 AM (#1796549)
JMN,

Your small hall wouldn't make you a very happy HOM voter, we elect two every year (three by the time we reach 2005) not three over a ten you period. ;-)


It's a down year. Some years, I'd vote for as many as five candidates.
   28. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: December 28, 2005 at 02:06 PM (#1796657)
As I've pointed out before, Whitaker was just as good, if not better, than media darling Ryne Sandberg. And if Ryno's in...

Trammell? No-brainer.

Morris? Naah.

Belle? Only if Fernando Vina votes for him first.
   29. sunnyday2 Posted: December 28, 2005 at 03:49 PM (#1796712)
Don't agree that Whitaker was as good, much less better, than Sandberg. But he doesn't have to be as good as Sandberg to be a HoFer. Whitaker would be one of the weaker HoFers of the fourth quarter of the 20th century, but he surely is better than Evers or Lazzeri or Schoendienst, and therefore ought to be in the Cooperstown HoF.

My small HoF would include only Sandberg among those mentioned above.
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: December 28, 2005 at 05:09 PM (#1796801)
As I noted in some earlier thread a few weeks back:

Gossage
Blyleven
Trammell
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: December 28, 2005 at 05:29 PM (#1796841)
Howie, the problem with your ballot is this.

If yours was the only ballot, I'd say great. But (assuming you were one of the BBWAA voters), your ballot becomes part of the groundswell to keep other deserving players out. Do you really want to submit a protest ballot against the Modern Ballplayer?
   32. Jim Sp Posted: December 28, 2005 at 06:24 PM (#1796909)
Bert Blyleven
Dave Concepcion
Andre Dawson
Rich Gossage
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Jim Rice
Alan Trammell

Blyleven, Gossage, and Trammell are clearly in, the others are on the border.
   33. Buddha Posted: December 28, 2005 at 07:31 PM (#1797050)
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell
   34. Boof Bonser Tree Posted: December 28, 2005 at 08:51 PM (#1797226)
Blyleven
Gossage
Clark
Mattingly
   35. BreakOut Posted: December 28, 2005 at 09:27 PM (#1797306)
Blyleven was the pivot on which the 1979 Series turned in Pittsburgh's favor. A sweet memory!
   36. Howie Menckel Posted: December 28, 2005 at 10:35 PM (#1797407)
sunnyday,
I can't take the Hall of Fame all that seriously, given the dozens of undeserving players in there.
But I don't choose to weaken my 'ballot', either. The mistakes can't be undone.

I get your point, though.
   37. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 28, 2005 at 11:26 PM (#1797502)
My problem, if I really have one, with small HOF ballots is that if those players are then elected, the ballot the next year would look really really small. By 2005 we will be electing 3-4 players a year to the HOM, so a three man ballot of holdovers from previous years seems very small. Would those with three man ballots be voting for other players next year if those three happened to get in? Isn't this really saying that you dont' think the modern ballplayer is that good?

My thinking with a HOF ballot is, "Who would I support for the HOM?" The two are roughly the same size (or will be) so they should have the same in/out line for modern players. That the HOF has screwed this up by electing so many bad players from the 20's and 30's especially, shouldnt' really change the line for modern players.

However, I do understand that we cannot vote for guys that are too old to be on the ballot (who knows 2005 may be the lucky day for Cupid Childs or Frank Chance) or players the BBWAA has mistakenly kicked off the ballot(grich, whitaker, etc.). Therefore an 8-10 man ballot isn't a must, but I would think that there should be at least 5-6 players on this ballot that will one day be HOMers.

so my prelim is
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammel

plus,
Mattingly
Clark
Belle

However, I can see career guys liking say, Dawson, Concepcion, and John or something like that.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: December 29, 2005 at 12:11 AM (#1797597)
Howie, I understand. We are just a bunch of hypotheticals and even if we had a real vote--even if we 50 or so had the only HoF votes--we still couldn't fix it, so....

Here's the sorry truth about the Cooperstown HoF (the chicken #### Coop):

It cannot honor anybody. It is so screwed up that when it calls Cal Ripken and Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn up there, it does not honor them. They are who they are and what they are, the Coop does not make them any different. They honor the Coop by showing up. And that is what the Coop is all about, it exists to honor itself, not the players.
   39. Steve Jeltz 4 HOF Posted: December 29, 2005 at 01:05 AM (#1797705)
Albert Belle
Bert Blyleven
Will Clark
Andre Dawson
Steve Garvey
Orel Hershiser
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Jack Morris
Jim Rice
   40. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 29, 2005 at 06:28 AM (#1798073)
Hey Jeltzy!

I must admit that I love your handle, I have a #30 Jeltz jersey (powder blue away) that I waer to every Phillies game I go to. Though I now live in NY so I don't wear it as much as I used to.
   41. Chris Dial Posted: December 29, 2005 at 06:37 AM (#1798084)
sptaylor,
thanks for some very informative analysis.
   42. sunnyday2 Posted: December 29, 2005 at 02:18 PM (#1798373)
BTW if we had an open ballot (except leaving the NeLers to that committee) with a limit of 10 I would be voting for:

Pete Rose
Bill Dahlen
Ron Santo
Goose Gossage
Bert Blyleven
Dick Allen
Bob Caruthers
Minnie Minoso
Jim Rice
Deacon White

Close and obvious HoFers but not this year:

Dan Quizenberry
Bruce Sutter
Tommy Bond
Andre Dawson
Albert Belle
Sherry Magee
Tony Oliva
Bobby Grich
Joe Gordon
   43. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 29, 2005 at 05:18 PM (#1798554)
I would love to pick apart your list sunny, but it is such a huge project, the ten best players not in the HOF, that I can't get my head around it right now.

But Jim Rice? You are one voter that I feel I am fairly similar with, but may I ask why Rice is not only a HOfer to you but one of the ten best not in the HOF? I think he may become the biggest mistake the writer's have made for decades if he is elected in the next few years.
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: December 29, 2005 at 05:50 PM (#1798626)
To me Jim Rice is a guy who doesn't blow anybody away in any particular analysis that you want to do, but he is not terribly weak in any particular category of analysis either. I tend to look across a lot of measures and he just doesn't crash and burn anywhere. Among LFers, again, looking across a bunch of measures, I find him to be pretty comparable to such widely varied players as Jim O'Rourke, Rock Raines and Minnie Minoso. These are not the greatest comps in the world, but in a big hall they are also not bad.

Billy Williams, Willie Stargell and Goose Goslin are comp if you want to look at peak value and this clearly moves him up a rung or two. And, in fact on Hall of Fame Monitor and Black and Gray Ink (not in reference to peak value) he is better than any of them.

Expanding out to include CF and RF and 1B, I find him comparable to Kirby Puckett, Enos Slaughter and Bill Terry, again not the greatest comps but not bad.

I also remember that during his prime he was feared in the way that David Ortiz is feared today and Rice has an MVP award which Ortiz does not.

Rice is no Dick Allen but he is a solid C HoFer for an institution that has made room for D rated players not even including their obvious mistakes who I refer to as their F grade selections. IOW among LFers Rice is among those C and D HoFers like Brock and Kelley, well above Manush who is a D- or F and well above Hafey who is an obvious F. Among CF and RF he is among the Cs and Ds like Carey, Wilson, Ashburn, Klein, Flick, Cuyler and Rice, not to mention the obvious mistakes (Fs) like Youngs, Hooper, McCarthy, Combs and Waner.

So I'm not gonna say he's an obvious choice. But again, in an institution that has made ample room for D players, he is as good or better than many who are not generally regarded as mistakes. If it came down to Rice or Oliva or Parker or even Dawson or Mattingly or Garvey among the borderliners, Rice is the clear choice.
   45. Steve Jeltz 4 HOF Posted: December 29, 2005 at 06:45 PM (#1798747)
Hey Jeltzy!
I must admit that I love your handle, I have a #30 Jeltz jersey (powder blue away) that I waer to every Phillies game I go to. Though I now live in NY so I don't wear it as much as I used to.


Hey man, it was either him or Rod Booker. Funny thing is that Jeltz was a player i liked and then when you saw his stats, you were like "Whoa" When your career slugging % is .268 thats pretty bad. He was part of the team that I loved that had all that speed with Samuel, Jeff Stone, and Von Hayes led by John Felske as manager LOL
   46. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 29, 2005 at 06:58 PM (#1798771)
Sunnyday,

How about Stieb and Pierce?

Prelim: Much of my analysis is ranking based for hitters. With pitchers, I just don't have as good a grip on things.

Relievers (the analysis of which I am far from certain about)
Gossage: Best available reliever

L Smith: Close to best avaailble reliever

Sutter: Best NL reliever of his time.

Starters
Blyleven: He's a no-duh HOFer/HOMer, perhaps the best pitcher not in.

Hershiser: Suffers by not being a 300-win pitcher, as well as by being in the five-man rotation. His huge 1988 season is extremely impressive in context, especially when his post-season is factored in. Also above-average hitter for a pitcher.

Infielders
Will Clark: Perhaps the best player in the NL for five years from 1987-1991, best at position numerous times, foreshortened strike years give the appearance of durability issues late in career, but it's not as dire as at first glance. I rank him right around Sisler and ahead of Terry in the 1B queue.

Alan Trammell: Ranks just ahead of my in/out line, at about number 18 among shortstops. Merited the MVP in 1987, was an All-Star numerous times. Overshadowed by Ripken and Yount, but was a legitimately great player. Extraordinarily similar to Barry Larkin.

Outfielders
Zero: They are all beyond my personal in/out line (top 18 at each fielding position) and my personal tolerance line (top 25 at each position), coming in between 25-30 at their respective positions.

10 guys I'd vote for if allowed in no order
Ron Santo
Dave Stieb
Bill Dahlen
Deacon White
Ezra Sutton
Paul Hines
Dick Allen
Heinie Groh
Wes Ferrell
George Gore

Second ten if allowed....
Bobby Grich
Joe Torre
Hardy Richardson
Darrell Evans
Bob Caruthers
Stan Hack
Sherry Magee
Tony Mullane
Billy Pierce
Bill Freehan
   47. DavidFoss Posted: December 29, 2005 at 07:26 PM (#1798820)
Billy Williams, Willie Stargell and Goose Goslin are comp if you want to look at peak value and this clearly moves him up a rung or two. And, in fact on Hall of Fame Monitor and Black and Gray Ink (not in reference to peak value) he is better than any of them.

Expanding out to include CF and RF and 1B, I find him comparable to Kirby Puckett, Enos Slaughter and Bill Terry, again not the greatest comps but not bad.

I also remember that during his prime he was feared in the way that David Ortiz is feared today and Rice has an MVP award which Ortiz does not.


This line of reasoning is just a bit odd to me. We have this HOM project where we try not to repeat the mistakes that Cooperstown made and are we just supposed to regress to Cooperstown's level for this week?

Rice's status is inflated by Fenway's large park effects during his peak years. 111/110/106. Hall of Fame Monitor/Standards are not park-adjusted. Black & Grey Ink are not park-adjusted. Similarity scores are not park-adjusted. Opposing hitters were feared more when they played in Fenway, too.

Ortiz is not a standard for induction to anything.

Ken Singleton has a better peak than Jim Rice (no tricks either, anyway you slice that peak, Singleton beats Rice). For that matter, Ken Singleton has a better career than Jim Rice. Where's the love for Ken?
   48. Delorians Posted: December 29, 2005 at 07:48 PM (#1798865)
Blyleven
Gossage
Trammell
Rice
Sutter
Murphy
Dawson
Clark
J Morris
L Smith
   49. sunnyday2 Posted: December 29, 2005 at 08:11 PM (#1798896)
This week's HoF exercise has nothing at all to do with the HoM.

Mostly, for the HoM I can vote for NeLers. For the HoF, no.

As for Singleton, David, you love him. There's the love.
   50. Paul Wendt Posted: December 29, 2005 at 08:50 PM (#1798981)
Then there's the VC which has inducted a good 2 dozen obvious mistakes, and another 2 dozen who, while not obvious mistakes, are not obviously better than another 2 dozen who are not in. Nevertheless, this gray zone--above and not including the 2 dozen obvious mistakes--is the true and real and actual HoF standard.

I don't see more than a grain of truth in this. Ross Barnes, Charlie Bennett, Sherry Magee, Ron Santo, Bobby Grich. Pitchers aside, and focusing on timing alone, it seems to me that the Hall of Fame has been "hard" on players from the 1870s to 19-aughts and 1960s to 1980s, but that is simply "easy" on players from the 1910s to 1950s, about three out of eight generations of major leaguers. What standard? Someone else might add Heinie Groh or Gavy Cravath, and trim that period to 1920s to 1950s, only one-third of the relevant period. (For pitchers it might be 1900s to 1930s, also about one-third.)
   51. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 29, 2005 at 11:08 PM (#1799269)
Well then I am a bit confused. There are about 11 guys on that ballot which meet the HOF standards (even taking out the really bad ones). I was doing this using the HOM as my guidline. You know as if we had the keys to the HOF and were about to reform it.
   52. EricC Posted: December 30, 2005 at 03:17 AM (#1799525)
2006 HOF prelim.

I'm an advocate of fairness to recent players, and have no problem listing 10 names as HoF worthy. IMO, players such as Blyleven, Clark, Dawson and Trammell are above the de facto HOF in/out line, but, unfortunately, most of them don't have a chance with the BBWAA. Not having done a full analysis of modern pitchers to compare them with the batters, I set the mix at 3 pitchers and 7 batters. Gossage and John are the next two pitchers. Murphy and Parker are borderline hitters; Belle and Mattingly are even more borderline, being modern equivalents of Kiner and Keller. Belle is 10th and Mattingly 11th. Concepcion has no chance in either the HoM or HoF, but has the IF career pattern that my system likes.

In alphabetical order:

A. Belle
B. Blyleven
W. Clark
D. Concepcion
A. Dawson
G. Gossage
T. John
D. Murphy
D. Parker
A. Trammell

Opening the vote to all ML players retired after 2000, neglecting Negro Leaguers:

D. Allen
B. Blyleven
G. Gossage
B. Grich
D. Quisenberry
P. Rose
W. Schang
T. Simmons
A. Trammell
L. Whitaker

19th century player I'd most like to see make the HoF: Deacon White
   53. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 30, 2005 at 01:42 PM (#1799800)
If I had an actual Hall of Fame ballot, I'm sure I'd vote for 10 every year. The way I usually do it is to vote for the guys that I think are easy selections (usually 4 or 5 of those) and then fill out my ballot with my 'less strong yesses' based on a combination of who has the least remaining eligibility and who might drop off entirely (5%) without my vote.

No brainers (alphabetically):

Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Alan Trammell

Yesses

Bruce Sutter
Tommy John
Dave Parker
Dale Murphy
Andre Dawson
Albert Belle
Will Clark (afraid Belle and Clark won't get 5%, so they get a yes, despite having 15 years left and not being a slam dunk in my mind)

Would get a yes, but I only have 10 spots

Lee Smith - I've been won over on him. But since he's got 12 years left and picked up 39% last year, I feel comfortable making him wait another year.

This is one of the weaker ballots in awhile usually I can whip of 15 deserving names. This year I only get 11.

Now if I could write in, I'd tack on:

Ray Brown, Wes Ferrell, Clark Griffith, Bucky Walters, Charlie Bennett, Cal McVey, Deacon White, Joe Start, Mule Suttles, Ross Barnes, Frank Grant, Hardy Richardson, John Beckwith, Heinie Groh, Stan Hack, Ezra Sutton, Jud Wilson, Bill Dahlen, Jack Glasscock, Home Run Johnson, Dickey Pearce, Harry Stovey, Sherry Magee, George Gore, Pete Hill, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Cristobal Torriente, Jimmy Sheckard, Gavy Cravath, Bill Freehan, Dwight Evans, Darrell Evans, Ron Santo, Joe Torre, Tony Oliva, Bob Grich, Dave Stieb (maybe), Billy Pierce (maybe), Ted Simmons, Lou Whitaker, Jim Kaat, Luke Easter, Charley Jones, Dobie Moore (maybe).

That's 43-46, plus 11 more that I can vote for, or 54-57 - I don't know that I could find that many mistakes in the Hall of Fame, so maybe that line is drawn just a tad to low.

Who would I toss out?

Definitely (33) - Bender, Bottomley, Chesbro, Combs, Cuyler, Dandridge, Day, Dean, Evers, R.Ferrell, Gomez, Hafey, Haines, Hooper, Hoyt, T.Jackson, J.Johnson, Joss, Kell, G.Kelly, Lazzeri, Lindstrom, Manush, Marquard, Mazeroski, McCarthy, Pennock, Rice, Schalk, Tinker, L.Waner, Wilson, Youngs

Probably (18) - Bancroft, Bell, Bresnahan, Chance, Drysdale, Duffy, Grimes, Hunter, Klein, Maranville, Perez, Roush, Schoendienst, H.Smith, Traynor, Waddell, Welch, Willis

Maybe (13) - Aparicio, Averill, Bunning, Carey, Doerr, Fingers, Jennings, Lombardi, McGinnity, Puckett, Sewell, Sisler, Terry

WOW - Wholly crap. I've never gone through it before, there's no way I would have guessed that there are 64 Hall of Famers I may not agree with. So I could keep all 54 that I'd definitely vote for, the 3 maybes and leave in the 13 that I maybe think shouldn't be Hall of Famers, and only add 6 to the overall Hall of Fame population?

WOW. I'm just floored by that.
   54. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 30, 2005 at 01:47 PM (#1799803)
Crap, I forgot Dick Allen and Dan Quisenberry - add them in as guys I'd vote for. I could still be convinced that Allen really was detrimental to his teams, but I wasn't there, so it's tough.
   55. sunnyday2 Posted: December 30, 2005 at 03:02 PM (#1799840)
If I were voting on a PHoF rather than a HoM or the Cooperstown HoF, I would have a small hall of about half the size of the chicken Coop. So I would concur with perhaps all of Joe's throw-out list. Well, maybe not Hughie Jennings.

Then I would have to find another 50-60 to throw out!

And I would agree with Joe even with a small hall that there are add-ins: Ray Brown, Suttles, Barnes, Wilson, Dahlen, Johnson, Pearce, Dobie Moore, maybe Joe Start.

But when voting for the HoM, since the number is already fixed, or the HoF, where the standards are if not fixed at least generally defined, then, yes, there are not as many throw outs but lots of add-ins.

The bigt add-in in the sky for Cooperstown is still Bill Dahlen.
   56. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 30, 2005 at 03:13 PM (#1799846)
Well then I am a bit confused. There are about 11 guys on that ballot which meet the HOF standards (even taking out the really bad ones). I was doing this using the HOM as my guidline. You know as if we had the keys to the HOF and were about to reform it.

Mark, this is how you were supposed to handle this exercise: pretend that you're a BBWAA voter for one day, but using your own brain. :-) IOW, just place the guys that you feel deserve enshrinement. If it's ten of them, great. If it's one of them, fine. If it's none of them, that's also acceptable.

I'll make this clear on the ballot thread next week.
   57. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 30, 2005 at 04:30 PM (#1799903)
Thanks, somehow I have become the voter least able to get my head around this simple exercise. Eisch.
   58. sunnyday2 Posted: December 30, 2005 at 04:49 PM (#1799925)
Well, it's not a simple exercise. You have to pretend that the HoF ballot (and therefore it's overall voting system) is somehow palatable. That is extremely difficult to do.
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 30, 2005 at 05:46 PM (#1800004)
Thanks, somehow I have become the voter least able to get my head around this simple exercise. Eisch.

Heh.

BTW, did you vote last year in our mock HOF project or was that before you joined the HoM?
   60. DavidFoss Posted: December 30, 2005 at 06:07 PM (#1800029)
The voting part will be a bit weird. I mean Joe mentioned above that after the slam dunks he would fill in his ballot using "a combination of who has the least remaining eligibility and who might drop off entirely (5%) without my vote." That makes sense if you are adding your ballot to the pre-existing BBWAA vote but doesn't really make sense here -- almost sounds like strategic voting but I understand its just for this week.

Anyhow, I'm glad we have this time to debate the candidates at the same time that the writers are doing but the voting is indeed a bit weird. Most of us did participate last year too but I don't think many us remember who "won". Its great discussion, though. :-)
   61. Paul Wendt Posted: December 30, 2005 at 07:39 PM (#1800205)
WOW. I'm just floored by that.

The friends of Averill, Carey, Jennings, McGinnity, and Terry are also floored.

Order of magnitude, you are voting in 20 "Negro Leaguers" and 10 MLers from before 1890, populations that didn't get full consideration. That accounts for half of the turnover.
   62. Lenny Posted: December 30, 2005 at 09:31 PM (#1800362)
Gossage
Blyleven
Concepcion
   63. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2005 at 12:45 AM (#1800583)
"almost sounds like strategic voting but I understand its just for this week"

No almost - it is strategic voting. With BBWAA yes/no, max-10, 5% minimum to stay system, I see no alternative. Unless you want candidates you'd like to see elected dropping off forever.

Lenny - please explain why you think Concepcion was better than Trammell. I explained the opposite here:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/jdimino_2003-01-09_0/

I'm just curious that's all, not trying to be belligerent or anything.
   64. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 31, 2005 at 12:48 AM (#1800588)
"The friends of Averill, Carey, Jennings, McGinnity, and Terry are also floored."

Didn't even see Bob Caruthers anywhere, did you?

:-)
   65. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: December 31, 2005 at 01:16 AM (#1800609)
Yeah, I was around last year but I remember not really being part of any discussion. I guess for me my HOM standard is now my HOF standard. Gets me in some trouble on on the newsblog.

Taling bad about Parisian bob is the only thing that can get karl more lively than talking about about Jake Beckley. So...

Caruthers Sucks! Doesn't belong! Wasn't a HOF pitcher or a Hall of Fame hitter!
   66. Buzzards Bay Posted: December 31, 2005 at 01:50 AM (#1800643)
Is anyone aware of a MLBPA HOF vote.....It would really be something to see the results of that...
   67. DanG Posted: December 31, 2005 at 03:28 AM (#1800717)
The important thing to keep in mind is that the criteria for election to the HOF are different than those used by the HoM. Rule #5 of the Rules for Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by Members of the BBWAA reads, in its entirety

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

This is why jschmeagol's approach is inappropriate. The HOF is including largely subjective elements in its consideration of players (playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character), whereas the HoM is mainly towards using the player's record and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

John should make sure to highlight these distinctions between the HOF and HoM criteria in his lead-in of the voting thread.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 31, 2005 at 03:35 AM (#1800725)
John should make sure to highlight these distinctions between the HOF and HoM criteria in his lead-in of the voting thread.

I shall, Dan. Thanks!

No almost - it is strategic voting. With BBWAA yes/no, max-10, 5% minimum to stay system, I see no alternative. Unless you want candidates you'd like to see elected dropping off forever.

If you feel they eventually belong, than I agree, Joe.
   69. Rob_Wood Posted: December 31, 2005 at 07:33 AM (#1800856)
The following players are fully qualified:
- Bert Blyleven

The following players are just barely above my cutoff point:
- Bruce Sutter

The following players are below my cutoff but give me some consternation (in decreasing order):
- Alan Trammell
- Will Clark
- Rich Gossage
- Andre Dawson
- Tommy John
- Dave Parker
- John Wetteland
- Albert Belle
- Lee Smith
- Don Mattingly
   70. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 31, 2005 at 03:32 PM (#1801012)
Just wanted everyone to know that I wont be taking my vacation next week, so I'll be on the job. I'll be now going away about a month from now, so I'll let you know exactly when it's finalized.

Happy New Year!
   71. Andere Richtingen Posted: December 31, 2005 at 04:33 PM (#1801044)
Blyleven
Sutter
John
Gossage
Trammell

Flip a coin on Dawson.
   72. Paul Wendt Posted: December 31, 2005 at 09:23 PM (#1801354)
Lenny - please explain why you think Concepcion was better than Trammell.

FWIW, Clay Davenport/WARP1 says fielding. I guess but don't know that he rates Concepcion "historically great" in words some others use.
   73. andrew siegel Posted: January 01, 2006 at 05:24 PM (#1801755)
If I am limited to voting for guys on the ballot who I think should be in the HoM, I'm very conventional:

(1) Blyleven
(2) Gossage
(3) Trammell
(4) Will Clark

FWIW, I then see Murphy, Parker, Lee Smith, and Bellw as the best remaining candidates in order.
   74. karlmagnus Posted: January 01, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#1801760)
In response to 65 (nice guy!) I would point out that at least the HOF had the sense to elect Beckley. However, having just checked, I was appalled to discover that Parisian Bob never got a single vote for the place -- the true cost of retiring in 1893 and dying in 1912. Since Caruthers, Ruth and Monte Ward are the only players to put up HOF quality stats as both pitchers and hitters (albeit with a short pitching career for Ruth and short hitting carrerr for Bob)... - geez!

Parisian Bob will be on my ballot next week. I realize he's not eligible, but some injustices are too great to be tolerated!
   75. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 01, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#1801779)
Wow, karl it took you two days to respond! I thought you had a Beckley/Caruthers beeper in your brain. ;-)
   76. sunnyday2 Posted: January 02, 2006 at 05:37 PM (#1802912)
Someone asked me about Jim Rice the other day and I responded. But here's some more. You may have read over in the Primer Blog about one of the BBWAA voters who said he had decided belatedly this year to vote for Jim Rice, after reviewing some research by the Red Sox' PR guy. Now I'm not gonna defend a writer sitting on his haunches for 6 years and then getting snowed by a PR guy, there is no defense for having the honor and responsibility of voting for the HoF and being so god damn passive about it.

Nevertheless I did find some of the research to be interesting--yes, I have obtained a copy of said research through the Halsey Hall (Minnesota) Chapter SABR Web site. To wit:

25 MLers have hit .300 with 300 HR over a ten year period. Take Babe Ruth for instance. He was of course the first to do it, and he did it 11 times, so to speak. IOW he did it over the period 1916-1925, 1917-26, 1918-27...1926-35.

From 1925 to 1973 (49 years), 14 different players did it a total of 83 times. The players are Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Ott, Greenberg, DiMaggio, Williams, Musial, Snider, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, F. Robinson and B. Williams.

From 1998 to 2005 (8 years), 11 players did it 39 times--Griffey, Bonds, Thomas, Bagwell, Piazza, Gonzalez, Ramirez, ARod, Sheffield, C. Jones, Vlad Guerrero.

From 1974 to 1997 (24 years) 1 player and 1 player only did it a total of 3 times. Yes, Jim Rice.

Also Jim Rice is the only player in history with 3 consecutive seasons of 35 HR and 200 hits. And he is tied with Cobb and Williams for the AL record of leading the league in TB 3 straight years.

Conclusion: His peak was short. His prime was short. His career was short. For a HoFer. And, sure, these measures are the sort of selective ones that separate one player from the pack somewhat artificially. But there was a period of time when he was a great hitter and there's a lot of hindsight in downgrading what really was a historic peak.
   77. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 02, 2006 at 06:30 PM (#1802950)
But there was a period of time when he was a great hitter and there's a lot of hindsight in downgrading what really was a historic peak.

Hitting .300 and having 300 homers over a ten-year period 3 times was surely historic. However, I don't see that translating into a historic offensive peak for him, after you take into account his lack of walks, his surplus of double plays, and playing in a great hitters park.
   78. sunnyday2 Posted: January 02, 2006 at 07:00 PM (#1802970)
John, I'm not a big fan of looking at walks as a separate number. I mean, the question is, how many times did he get on base. For Rice's big peak it was 259, 271, 258. And the fact that it was 200 hits and 60 walks, on average, to me, is better than, say, 160 hits and 100 walks. His OBA those 3 years was .376, .370, .381. That's the point.

For his career of course it is just .352, not great, not even very good, but good (not bad). But of course his case depends very largely on his 3 year peak. It was a hell of a peak.

The guy even led the league with 15 3B one year--and had 15 3B the previous year without leading the league.

I think the point is that Rice was quite unique for his period--a guy who hit HR AND for a high average. Nobody else did that for about 30 years there.
   79. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 02, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#1803008)
And the fact that it was 200 hits and 60 walks, on average, to me, is better than, say, 160 hits and 100 walks.

That's inarguable, Marc. Nobody in the sabermetrical field worth his salt would dispute that, either.

My point wasn't that he wasn't a great player at his peak. I think he was and a vote for him based on that could certainly be justified. But I think having a great peak is still different from having a historically great peak.
   80. sunnyday2 Posted: January 02, 2006 at 09:27 PM (#1803130)
Even then, John, it depends on whether its fair to expect a player in the 1970-1990 era to have a *historically* high peak if historically means comparing him to the 1930s and 1990s. I don't, I just compare his peak to other guys in the 1970-1990 era and you start running out of great hitters (much less historically great hitters) pretty quick.
   81. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 03, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#1804114)
Even then, John, it depends on whether its fair to expect a player in the 1970-1990 era to have a *historically* high peak if historically means comparing him to the 1930s and 1990s.

I agree that you have to place each player's stats in their proper context, but Rice was not in the Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Brouthers, etc. ballpark when it comes to historical peak, IMO.
   82. karlmagnus Posted: January 03, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1804191)
Rice's 1978 peak is 159 OPS+ vs. Norm Cash 1961 201. Rice career OPS+ 128 vs. Cash 139. We mentally overvalue Rice because we ignored walks and SO when he was around, and didn't correct for Fenway. Cash isn't in the HOF; he may have a decent shot at the HOM when eligible as he's roughly equivalent to Kiner/Medwick. Rice, probably not.
   83. karlmagnus Posted: January 03, 2006 at 04:50 PM (#1804198)
Rice's peak was a typical Manny Ramirez year, of which he's now had ELEVEN, several better than Rice's peak. Goes back to my head-bangingly reiterated point on every relevant thread -- The Red Sox would be out of their minds to trade Manny.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: January 03, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#1804260)
The Red Sox are just out of their minds. Manny has nothing to do with it.
   85. Dizzypaco Posted: January 03, 2006 at 05:35 PM (#1804281)
Rice's 1978 peak is 159 OPS+ vs. Norm Cash 1961 201. Rice career OPS+ 128 vs. Cash 139. We mentally overvalue Rice because we ignored walks and SO when he was around, and didn't correct for Fenway. Cash isn't in the HOF; he may have a decent shot at the HOM when eligible as he's roughly equivalent to Kiner/Medwick. Rice, probably not.

There's a big difference between evaluating Cash at his peak and Rice at his. 1961 was a fluke year, one of the best ever, but I would not say that 1961 represented his established level of ability - just look at 1960 and 1962.

Jim Rice, on the other hand, was nearly as good in 1977 and 1979, indicating that his performance in 1978 represented a real level of ability - it wasn't a fluke.

Having said that, I still wouldn't vote for Rice, for the other reasons you mentioned.
   86. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 03, 2006 at 06:34 PM (#1804394)
Here are the numbers that undermine Rice's candidacy

1974: 107
1975: 109
1976: 112
1977: 112
1978: 111
1979: 106
1980: 105
1981: 106
1982: 106
1983: 107
1984: 105
1985: 104
1986: 100
1987: 103
1988: 104
1989: 106

Those three-digit numbers are his the Fenway park factors for his career.
-His mean weighted park factor (by PAs) is 106.6.
-The mean weighted park factor during the three big years is 111.6.
-Rice's career H/R splits: 320/374/546/920 and 277/330/459/789.

I don't have HR park factors or AVG park factors for the team, but...
-In 1977, the Sox led the league in HR by 21, were second in AVG, were first in SLG, but their home/road R/G split was 6.19/4.49, the biggest split of any AL team. Rice hits 321/375/683/1058 at home and 319/377/509/886 on the road.

-In 1978, the Sox were barely second in HR, were third in AVG, second in SLG; their home road split was 5.43/4.43, second most extreme split in the league. Rice hit 361/416/690/1106 at home and 269/325/512/837 on the road.

-In 1979, the Sox were 1st in HR, AVG, SLG, and their home/road split was 5.88/4.64. This was the most extreme split in the league. Rice hit 369/425/728/1153 at home and 283/337/472/809 on the road.

So in my mind, you have a player posting what appears to be an historic peak, but doing so in a ballpark that's playing somewhere between the Ballpark at Arlington and Coors Field. On the road he's a good player, but at home he's Jimmie Foxx. Overall, looking at his career splits and his peak splits, it seems clear that Jim Rice is very much an illusion of park. How much? I don't have a precise answer, but enough that it knocks him out of the running in my opinion.
   87. TomH Posted: January 03, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#1804552)
Agree with the point that Rice was helped by his park, even probbaly somewhat more than traditional park effects call for.

OTOH, perhaps he tailored his swing for Fenway, and would have been a somewhat different hitter had he played elsewhere. Maybe he would have been BETTER on the road!? How many hitters have been messed up by playing half of their games at Coors field, for example?

Rice helped his team win real games. I will actually discount him a bit for his overly Fenway-itis, but he still may make my ballot.

Tangential subject:
Another interesting 'park homer' is Tris Speaker. Played at two different parks (half career in Boston, half in Cleveland), and hit MUCH better at home, far more than park effects or home cookin would suggest (data courtesy of Bill Deane of SABR)
place AVG .OBA .SLG
home .365 .449 .540
road. .325 .408 .462
most of the extra slugging is he hit 469 of his career 791 doubles at home. Tris was known as a very intelligent player, so maybe he would have been able to take advantage of any unusual park.
   88. sunnyday2 Posted: January 03, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#1804576)
All you Dewey Evans fans note #86.

Oh and all you Yaz fans. Reggie Jackson had a better road BA than Yaz did.

A guy plays half his games in his home park. Let's just throw all of those games out for everybody.
   89. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 03, 2006 at 08:24 PM (#1804597)
Rice helped his team win real games. I will actually discount him a bit for his overly Fenway-itis, but he still may make my ballot.

I'm confused, Tom. Didn't you list Rice as missing the cutoff on your ballot?

BTW, while I definitely feel you need to take park effects into account, Tom's post about tailoring your swing to your home park needs to be considered.
   90. TomH Posted: January 03, 2006 at 09:06 PM (#1804684)
between the time I posted #87 here and submitting my ballot, I considered Rice's role in pennant and post-season play, and decided he missed my cutoff.

In fact, Hershiser only made my ballot by the small boost he got for his fine record in October.
   91. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 03, 2006 at 09:27 PM (#1804727)
Most players that play in a big hitting park are both better than they are on the road and not as good as they are at home. I remember there being warnings about how ARod wouldn't be as great outside of the ballpark at arlington. This is probably because of the tailored swing approach. However, they are closer to the road stats than the home stats in this instance.

Rice's '77 and '79 aren't historically great seasons by any means. By WS he had 26 and 28 WS in thsoe two seasons (i forget which is which). Those are good seasons but aren't really even MVP caliber seasons. let alone historic ones. They are also his third and fourth best seasons, respectively, so it isn't like they were average seasons for him. Rice did everything that people in that time wanted, but they didn't seem to raelize how important things like GIDP and OBP are/were. I don't think Rice tailored his game to what people wanted I just think he is very very overrated.

I still like Rice more than Dawson, however.
   92. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 03, 2006 at 10:07 PM (#1804801)
A guy plays half his games in his home park. Let's just throw all of those games out for everybody.

I think you're being a bit hyperbolic here, Sunnyday. But I do agree with you that Dewey Fans and Yaz fans (and Lynn fans too) should take note. If you're going to cite peaks for guys on the late 1970s Sox, it's helpful to remember how extreme the context was. Even so, Rice's total homepark advantage is more than five percent, and that's quite a bit, something like .4 runs per game off his RC/27. For HOM purposes, it's even more important because that boost makes his production appear more significant than numerous very similarly valuable borderline LFs: Veach, Manush, Howard, Foster, Belle, L Gonzalez, R White, B Johnson. When the HOM votes on Rice, it'll be curious to see how all these guys do in comparison because there's hardly any diffrence between the best and "worst" among them.
   93. Daryn Posted: January 03, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1804843)
John,

It doesn't matter much -- but I'd like to delete Will Clark from my ballot. Can you do that? You don't actually have to edit the post, just don't tally the Clark vote, if possible.
   94. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 03, 2006 at 11:28 PM (#1804956)
It doesn't matter much -- but I'd like to delete Will Clark from my ballot. Can you do that? You don't actually have to edit the post, just don't tally the Clark vote, if possible.

Not a problem, Daryn.
   95. John DiFool2 Posted: January 04, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#1805222)
Hmm #93, I'm thinking of adding him to mine actually. Why would you delete him may I ask?
He's clearly a better hitter than just about any position player on the ballot, even if you
penalize him for a short peak. I want someone to convince me he belongs-demonstrate exactly
how clearly his can be separated from the Rice/Mattingly/Parker/Bell/Andre pack.
   96. Daryn Posted: January 04, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#1805511)
John Di,


I'm a career voter, for one, so his peak isn't that important to me. When I compared him to firstbasemen and corner outfielders throughout history, I thought he came up well short on career counting stats. When I orginally looked at it, I thought his exceptional career OPS+ made up for it. But, then I looked at my Hall of Merit ballot and saw Bob Johnson, whose stats are somewhat similar (in a different context) languishing in the 40s. After careful consideration, I think Clark is not among the best 215 players in history.

I think he is well ahead of Mattingly. I can see the argument that he is ahead of Belle -- but Belle makes my ballot because of his immensely rare dominant prime (see Doby and Kiner as two of his very few comparables). Rare in the context of nothing outside his prime.

Rice, Dawson and Parker have much better career numbers, though I am hesitating about Dawson as we speak. Rice also has the post 76 in this thread stuff going for him, which I find compelling.

What I have learned from the HoM project is that it is tough to draw the in/out line, and my mind can be changed from week to week. There just is very little difference between the 150th best player and the 350th best player in history.
   97. DavidFoss Posted: January 04, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#1805642)
But I do agree with you that Dewey Fans and Yaz fans (and Lynn fans too) should take note. If you're going to cite peaks for guys on the late 1970s Sox, it's helpful to remember how extreme the context was.

I thought most of us (at the HOM anyways) used OPS+ and other adjusted metrics anyways. If he took 'extra' advantage of his park well good for him, that helped the Sox win ball games.

Rice's peak line of 158-154-148 and non-consecutive extension of 141-137-131 is solid but hardly historic. You don't get inducted on that peak alone. Its below below Eddie Murray who has caught some criticism for not having a great peak. Higher batting peaks in this era belong to guys like Schmidt, ReJackson, Winfield, Singleton, Foster, Morgan, Jack Clark (if durable enough), Lynn, Carew, Brett, Mattingly, I could probably go on... For a three year peak, Luzinski is about the same as Rice. Rice has a nice peak, but I don't see why its in any way "historic".

Dewey is a career guy with almost the same OPS+ as Rice but with 1500 more PA and a better glove. He's not a peak candidate. Personally, I wouldn't rank him ahead of Rice. He gets touted a lot for being underrated.
   98. Paul Wendt Posted: January 05, 2006 at 06:47 AM (#1807209)
Here are the numbers that undermine Rice's candidacy

1974: 107
1975: 109
1976: 112
1977: 112
1978: 111


I suppose you mean that even his HOF candidacy (the subject of this thread) is undermined.

So in my mind, you have a player posting what appears to be an historic peak, but doing so in a ballpark that's playing somewhere between the Ballpark at Arlington and Coors Field.

This overstates what Rice achieved. The explanation that Rice is/was overrated because he didn't walk much also overstates what he achieved. Slugging was his calling card but even his slugging rates --without downward adjustment for ballpark and teammate effects, without mitigating attention to his mediocre walk rate and high out rate-- constitute no historic peak. Mere attention to rates rather than counting stats, rudimentary sabermetrics indeed, undermines his "historic" status.

406 total bases. That was his greatest and only "historic" achievement and it is the cornerstone of his reputation. But even then, he slugged only .600, with benefit of roundoff error. In the 30 years 1963-1992(*), ten other AL batters did better.

1963 .605 Mantle
1964 .606 Powell
1966 .637 Robinson
1967 .622 Yaz
1969 .608 Jackson
1972 .603 Allen
1978 .600 Rice (.5997)
1979 .637 Lynn
1980 .664 Brett
1987 .618 McGwire
1987 .605 Bell

*The strike zone was extended in 1963. The present (unexplained?) batting explosion began in 1993. In the four seasons just outside the 30-year period, 1961-62 and 1993-94, there were thirteen .600 slugging averages in the AL.
   99. karlmagnus Posted: January 05, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#1807572)
The contrast between Rice's '78, whcih at the time and since was seen as a historic season and Lynn's '79, which wasn't noticed much even at the time (Yaz's 300th hit and 400th HR were the big stories) is extraordinary. By OPS+ Lynn's was much the better season. Anyone know why nobody noticed it?
   100. sunnyday2 Posted: January 05, 2006 at 05:08 PM (#1807631)
I will say this about 1979. Brett or Lynn shoulda been the MVP. Doh!

But let's just say for the sake of argument that Paul's list in #98 is Rice's comp list. 10 guys, 5 HoFers, McGwire probably will be, Allen pretty clearly should be. So far so good. And then not a single one of these ten guys did it more than once (in the period Paul defines). Not Yaz, not Reggie, not Brett, whose careers are fully or at least for all intents and purposes encompassed by the period in question.

So I don't see #98 as much of an argument against Rice, though I recognize that there are such arguments.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8821 seconds
49 querie(s) executed