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

Sunday, October 21, 2007

2007 Ballot Discussion

2007 (November 12)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

427 169.1 1982 Cal Ripken-SS
398 124.3 1982 Tony Gwynn-RF
342 109.5 1987 Mark McGwire-1B
307 102.4 1980 Harold Baines-RF/DH
280 105.4 1984 Tony Fernandez-SS
259 98.6 1987 Paul O’Neill-RF
272 87.8 1986 Jose Canseco-RF/DH
267 85.1 1986 Bobby Bonilla-3B/RF
253 82.3 1986 Wally Joyner-1B
242 83.1 1987 Ken Caminiti-3B (2004)
205 94.2 1987 David Cone-P*
207 79.2 1987 Devon White-CF
224 72.0 1984 Eric Davis-CF
174 64.6 1988 Jay Buhner-RF
168 53.7 1989 Dante Bichette-RF/LF
137 51.6 1986 Stan Javier-RF/CF
147 47.9 1986 Dave Martinez-CF/RF
147 46.1 1987 Dave Magadan-3B/1B
124 58.0 1990 Kevin Tapani-P
131 45.6 1991 Bernard Gilkey-LF
130 41.7 1990 Darryl Hamilton-CF
112 47.7 1989 Ken Hill-P
111 44.3 1992 Scott Brosius-3B
116 42.4 1989 Charlie Hayes-3B
102 49.9 1986 Bobby Witt-P
129 34.6 1991 Dean Palmer-3B*

Players Passing Away 11/05 to 10/06
HoMers
Age Elected

Candidates
Age Eligible

95 1948 Elden Auker-P
94 1957 Buck O’Neil-1B
91——- Rod Dedeaux-college coach
87 1959 Billy Johnson-3B
86——- Curt Gowdy-broadcaster
78 1969 Jim Lemon-RF/LF
78 1971 Vic Power-1B
78——- Dick Wagner-GM
70 1978 Moe Drabowsky-RP
67 1979 Johnny Callison-RF
64 1984 Paul Lindblad-RP
61 1994 Joe Niekro-P
45 2001 Kirby Puckett-CF

 

 

Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 21, 2007 at 07:44 PM | 339 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 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:07 AM (#2589780)
It's going to be nice not having to worry about which candidates will be elected in our next election.
   2. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2589787)
Lot of newly eligibles will see votes, I think. In addition to the big 3, Baines, Fernandez, O'Neill, Canseco, Cone, Davis, and maybe even Bobby Bo will have their supporters.
   3. Juan V Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:18 AM (#2589793)
Wow.... now we're replicating the latest HOF vote. That makes me feel a bit melancholic.
   4. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:30 AM (#2589806)
Once again, I encourage all voters who haven't done so already to check out the new Dick Lundy MLEs.
   5. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2589807)
An amazing number of these guys were one-time Mets or Yanks.

Fernandez (both)
O'Neill (NYY)
Canseco (NYY)
Bonilla (NYM)
Cone (both)
Javier (NYY)
Magadan (NYM)
Buhner (NYY)
Tapani (NYM)
Gilkey (NYM)
Hamilton (NYM)
Brosius (NYY)
Hayes (NYY)
   6. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:45 AM (#2589832)
>Baines, Fernandez, O'Neill, Canseco, Cone, Davis, and maybe even Bobby Bo will have their supporters.

Those would all be very shiny very new very toys to appear on a ballot, IMO. I like Tony Fernandez, but I'm talking, like, top 50.
   7. OCF Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:52 AM (#2589840)
Is speed a good indicator for longevity? Do fast players stick around? There are two names I like to bring up when this question is asked: Stan Javier and Otis Nixon. Let's look at Javier.

From his record, it looks like Javier was a full regular player in 1994 and 1995 (strike-shortened seasons), and nearly a regular in 1997. Those were the only years he even had enough PA to qualify for the batting title. He just didn't hit enough to hold down a regular job (decent OBP, lousy SLG). But he held a major league job from age 22 through age 37. And to look at his record, he was as good a player at 37 as he'd ever been, at least offensively, except that his SB diminished a little at the end. (The same lack of offensive decline is also true of Nixon.) Of course, he was a prototype of a 4th outfielder: fast enough to play CF so you can put him anywhere in the outfield; willing to slap on an infielder's glove if you insist (well, that's probably just job status - he did what he had to do); a pretty good early-in-the-inning PH; a switch-hitter, which makes him easier to use as a PH; and if you ever insist on using a PR, he can do that, too.

Another look: take the player Javier was from, say, 1994 to 1998. Which would you rather have on your team - that player, or what Juan Pierre is going to be over the life of his Dodger contract? (Which is not the same question as asking whether you want either one in your starting lineup.)

Hey, he was named for an inner circle HoMer/HoFer. Is that good for anything?
   8. Chris Fluit Posted: October 23, 2007 at 03:04 AM (#2589851)
players with 100+ points in the last election/top 40 by position

P:
Bucky Walters (5)
Dick Redding (6)
Bret Saberhagen (8)
Luis Tiant (16)
Tommy Bridges (20)
Mickey Welch (22)
Burleigh Grimes (24)
Dizzy Dean (25)
Vic Willis (27)
Tommy John (29)
Rick Reuschel (33)
Don Newcombe (36)

C:
Elston Howard (23)

1B:
Tony Perez (10)- 1/2 3B
Ben Taylor (38)
Norm Cash (39)
(Orlando Cepeda is just out with 98 points in 41st place)

2B:
Larry Doyle (35)

3B:
John McGraw (9)
Tommy Leach (14)- 1/2 OF
Bus Clarkson (18)- 1/2 2B/SS
Bob Elliott (32)
Pie Traynor (40)

SS:
Phil Rizzuto (13)
Dave Concepcion (21)
Dick Lundy (30)

OF:
Reggie Smith (4)
Bob Johnson (7)
Kirby Puckett (11)
Gavvy Cravath (12)
Hugh Duffy (15)
George Van Haltren (17)
Ken Singleton (19)
Albert Belle (26)
Dale Murphy (28)
Rusty Staub (31)
Bobby Bonds (34)
Lou Brock (37)
   9. DL from MN Posted: October 23, 2007 at 04:58 AM (#2589904)
2007 Prelim

1) Cal Ripken
2) Tony Gwynn
3) Luis Tiant - yeah, I think he's that good. This is where I would place Bunning or Drysdale. Is it too much to ask that he's the next big mover from 16th place to in?
4) Mark McGwire
5) Tommy Bridges
6) Rick Reuschel
7) Bret Saberhagen
8) Bus Clarkson
9) Virgil Trucks
10) Tommy Leach
11) Dick Lundy (takes Nettles' spot on my ballot)
12) David Cone - clearly Saberhagen and Reuschel were better. Reuschel has more career PRAA and PRAR, plus Reuschel was a better fielder and hitter.
13) John McGraw
14) Reggie Smith
15) Jim McCormick

16) Bob Johnson (another 30's outfielder who isn't as good as Bob Johnson was elected!?)
17-20) Lee Smith, Ben Taylor, Dick Redding (2008!), Vic Willis
21-25) Urban Shocker, Wally Schang, Norm Cash, Dutch Leonard, Gene Tenace
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:25 AM (#2589951)
Thanks, Chris. Nice list.

Obviously we are going to elect Ripken and Gwynn...and McGwire, whether the latter goes in in '07 or '08. And Raines. So, as has been said, there are only 2 backlog slots left.

The first thing on my wish list is: No more hitters. None of the 1B interests me in the least. I like some of the OF but sorry, Charlie. We've got plenty.

So I would elect a glove and an arm.

Among the gloves, I still like Ed Williamson. But limiting myself to Chris' list, that is our consensus backlog, Lundy is easily numero uno with the new MLEs. If he can move from 30 to the top 10 in '07 then he can get elected in '08.

The pitchers are a lot harder. Personally I like Dean and Newcombe. If you're not giving Newk NeL and MiL and military credit, you're not seeing the whole package. If he had come along a decade earlier and had a "normal" NeL career, he'd be 90 percent of Willie Foster. If he had come along a decade later, he'd have been 90 percent of Bob Gibson. As it is, he was basically Robin Roberts.

But Dean and Newk are not gonna make it. I like all of the top 3--Walters, Redding and Saberhagen--in that order. As a low consensus guy, that is probably the kiss of death. Bridges just didn't throw enough innings, Tiant was overshadowed by too many other guys in his cohort. Grimes and Willis would be better.

McGraw is the Tommy Bridges of position players. Great when he was on the field, but not enough playing time. His peak/prime wasn't even as good as Al Rosen for that reason. The only thing he's got on Rosen is hangin' around time.

But the real nightmare scenario is we elect 2 bats.
   11. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM (#2589955)
Re. the pitchers, I worked up Win Shares versus the median ace. That is, I took the #1 starting pitcher on every staff and identified the median--4th + 5th/2 in an 8 team league, etc. etc., and figured out how far above or below the median our various backloggers are. There are 3 variations on this.

1) The candidates median (5th best year out of 9, e.g.) minus the median of the medians
2) The median among the differences
3) The average of the differences

The seasons considered are "prime" seasons--non-consecutive, seasons in which he was ERA title eligible with ? 100 ERA+

Walters--7 prime seasons--+9/+6/+6--+6 X 7 = +42 WS this includes a WWII discount)
Dizzy Dean--6 prime seasons--+6.5/+7/+6.5--+6.5 (average) X 6 seasons = +39 WS
Wilbur Cooper--11 prime seasons--+3/+5/+3--+3 X 11 = +33 WS
Grimes--9 prime seasons--+2/+4/+3--+3 X 9 = +27 WS
Newcombe--7 prime seasons--+2/+3/+3--+3 X 7 = +21 WS without any NeL, MiL or mil credit
Willis--9 prime seasons--+2/-1/+2--+2 X 9 = +18 WS
Saberhagen--6 prime seasons--+2.5/+3.5/+3--+3 X 6 = +18 WS
Tiant--10 prime seasons-- -1.5/-0.5/+0.5--+0.5 X 10 = +5 WS
Jack Morris--10 prime seasons--+0.5/+2.5/0--0 X 10 = +0 WS
Addie Joss--8 prime seasons-- -1/-0.5/0--0 X 8 = +0 WS
Bridges--9 prime seasons-- -1/-2/-1-- -1 X 9 = -9 WS
Gomez--9 prime seasons-- -3/-4/-1-- -1 X 9 = -9 WS
Cicotte--9 prime seasons---1/-1/-1.5-- -1.5 X 9 = -13.5 WS

When you solve for Newcombe's various sources of MLE credit, he must be right there with Walters and Dean. Cooper and Grimes are not bad choices. Saberhagen is stretching it just a tad, but Tiant and Joss and Bridges et al just don't cut it in my estimation. Granted Tiant was up against a pretty good cohort (median of medians was 19.5 vs. Saberhagen at 17. Walters' was 18, Dean's was 21, Newk's was 19. If anybody was up against a historically high cohort, it was Dean plus Willis, Cooper, Joss, the early guys.
   12. TomH Posted: October 23, 2007 at 12:14 PM (#2589961)
now I have to disclose Saberhagen?

OK - Bret Saberhagen, pitching much of his career for very good teams, won 167 games. And lost 117. What does his record look like if he were on mediocre clubs? Not much like a HoMer, is my guess.

Bret is in my backlog at #20 or #25; he has his good points; but I just don't see it.
   13. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2589969)

OK - Bret Saberhagen, pitching much of his career for very good teams, won 167 games. And lost 117. What does his record look like if he were on mediocre clubs? Not much like a HoMer, is my guess.


It would behoove you to check your data before you post.

Saberhagen pitched for 3 90 win teams in his prime (eg, more than 150IP in the season). During those seasons he was a combined 58-20.

For the rest of his prime, I believe he did not pitch on any teams that won more than 85 games.
   14. Howie Menckel Posted: October 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM (#2589979)
HOM by pct of games at each position in the field or DH, thru 2006
(I set Oms at 80, may adjust higher)

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

If 75 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 14 Cs, 16 1Bs, 15 2Bs, 11 3Bs, 13 SSs, 55 OFs, 59 Ps.
If 65 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 17 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 12 3Bs, 19 SSs, 61 OFs, 60 Ps.
If 50 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 19 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 16 3Bs, 21 SSs, 65 OFs, 60 Ps.

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

1B (23.15) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, KHernandez 100, Beckley 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, WClark 98, Sisler 97, Leonard 95, Connor 88, McCovey 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Murray 81, Suttles 70, Banks 51, Carew 50, Allen 47, Wilson 45, Killebrew 40, Stargell 40, Stovey 37, Torre 36, Charleston 35, Musial 35, DaEvans 32, McVey 31, Rose 27, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Yastrzemski 23, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Mantle 11, FRobinson 11, Spalding 10, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

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

3B (16.98) - Baker 100, BRobinson 99, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Nettles 96, Santo 95, Mathews 93, Boggs 93, Schmidt 92, Boyer 90, Groh 79, Sutton 69, Brett 63, DaEvans 54, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Allen 38, Sewell 34, Killebrew 33, Molitor 30, Trouppe 25, Torre 23, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Rose 18, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

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

OF (61.99) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, TWilliams 100, Ashburn 100, Snider 100, Clemente 100, Keller 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Medwick 99, Roush 99, CJones 99, SJJackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Mays 97, JWynn 97, Kiner 96, CP Bell 95, Crawford 94, Minoso 93, Dawson 93, Magee 91, Ott 90, Kaline 89, Mantle 88, Aaron 86, BWilliams 86, WBrown 85, Winfield 85, Browning 84, DwEvans 83, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Oms 80, Kelley 79, Ruth 79, Heilmann 77, FRobinson 77, RJackson 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Musial 65, Stovey 63, Yastrzemski 63, Charleston 60, Stargell 60, Kelly 47, Yount 43, HRichardson 40, Rose 38, Caruthers 33, Suttles 30, Killebrew 20, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, Bresnahan 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Allen 15, Davis 13, Wagner 13, Berra 13, McCovey 12, Spalding 11, Ward 10, White 10, JRobinson 10, Trouppe 10

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

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

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Hybrid P-hitters such as Ward, Ruth, Caruthers, Spalding have estimates that attempt to reflect their respective roles.
   15. Rusty Priske Posted: October 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM (#2589988)
Prelim

PHoM: Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire


1. Cal Ripken
2. Tony Gwynn
3. Tony Perez
4. Reggie Smith
5. Mark McGwire
6. Tommy Leach
7. George van Haltren
8. Mickey Welch
9. Rusty Staub
10. Hugh Duffy
11. Lou Brock
12. Ken Singleton
13. Harold Baines
14. Bob Johnson
15. Dale Murphy

16-20. Redding, Cash, Willis, Puckett, Bonds
21-25. Cepeda, Streeter, Mullane, Grimes, Strong
26-30. John, Monroe, Greene, Gleason, Robinson
   16. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 12:59 PM (#2589991)
Rusty:

No Dick Lundy in your top 30? He seems to have the career you need, and he's a glove IF. Your ballot is all bats and OF behind Ripken.

Even if not Lundy, do you really believe that all those outfielders are better than any of the available infielders?
   17. TomH Posted: October 23, 2007 at 01:24 PM (#2590019)
It would behoove you to check your data before you post.

and it would behoove you not to get snarky while cherry-picking stats.

Sabes pitched >100 innings 13 times in seasons where he spent the whole year with one team.

In 9 of those 13 years, the team had a winning record. Yes, it's true, many of them were 'barely' winning, such as 84-win teams, which conveniently missed your criteria of 85.

Overall, I will concede your point that his teams were not quite as good as I had thought. But a lot of pitchers have not been so foruntate to see action in five post-seasons. His 2-4 record and almost-5 ERA in October does not add to resume.
   18. DL from MN Posted: October 23, 2007 at 01:39 PM (#2590039)
"As it is, [Newcombe] was basically Robin Roberts"

I'm having a really hard time swallowing this one. I think the most generous interpretation of Newcombe's record is still only _half_ of Robin Roberts. The ERA+ are similar but it's still only 2155 innings for Newcombe vs. 4689 for Roberts. Some of it may be that Roberts came up at age 21 and Newcombe came up at age 23 (possibly held back) and some of it is that Newcombe went into the war and Roberts didn't, but Roberts still cleared 300 innings in a season 5 times during the 50's while Newcombe _never_ did. Even if you give Newcombe 3 extra seasons, that's still probably only 750 innings, only halfway to Roberts. I understand an argument that a racist quota cost Newcombe his early seasons and I understand giving him war credit. I haven't seen a good argument why racism would cost Newcombe innings during the seasons when he was the ace pitcher on the team.

'zop - I'd like to see Dick Redding squeeze onto Rusty's ballot.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:05 PM (#2590070)
I think sunnyday was just being hyperbolic. Roberts is probably a top 20 alltime pitcher.
   20. ronw Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2590131)
Update from last year

After 2006's election, we have a total of 6 spots left (3 per year from 2006-2008).
It looks like the remaining elections will be:

2007 - Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire
2008 - Raines, backlog, backlog

McGwire will have some protests, but I think he makes it sometime during the next two years. That leaves only 2 spots for the backlog.

The current backlog still consists of about 16 individuals Essentially, I include everyone who received more than 200 points in the last election). Let's look at how they have done since 2000:

Player  2006  2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
OF Reggie Smith   321   279  230  179  140  125  131
P Bucky Walters   317   278  245  218  210  220  225
P Dick Redding 303   273  248  228  232  253  289
OF Bob Johnson 297   322  265  252  250  251  211
P Bret Saberhagen 293   237  n
/e  n/e  n/e  n/e  n/e
3B John McGraw 273   187  194  166  149  150  130 
1B
-3B Tony Perez  269   261  238  244  230  196  238
OF Kirby Puckett  267   269  273  253  214  205  n
/e
OF Gavy Cravath   262   261  234  212  206  204  197
SS Phil Rizzuto   261   211  181  159  110  120  135
3B
-OF Tommy Leach 259   239  217  207  211  152  163
OF Hugh Duffy  244   241  244  216  222  224  222
P Luis Tiant   221   232  186  177  155  142  123
OF G
Van Haltren 219   191  174  178  181  153  181
SS Bus Clarkson   211   189  149  148  144  125  111
OF Ken Singleton  209   207  171  132  103  101  139 


With Nettles' jump from 16 to 3, we showed that we are considering more than outfielders. Also, it made me expand my list, as Nettles just made the cut last year.


1. It looks like any two of Reggie Smith, Bucky Walters, Dick Redding, or Bob Johnson will be part of the Class of 2008. The backlash against outfielders (especially with the pending election of Gwynn in 2007 and Raines in 2008) could hold to form, and we could see two pitchers.

2. Bret Saberhagen made a nice jump last year. He could overtake both Walters and Redding, but his comparison with Cone could hurt him.

3. Wow, where did John McGraw come from? He had nearly a 100 point jump.

4. Perez, Puckett and Cravath are now holding steady. Puckett came very close to election at one point.

5. Cravath is gaining and could pass Puckett and the Walters/Redding pitching tandem. Same goes for Tony Perez.

6. Rizzuto had a big jump, probably due to the advocacy of DanR (who helped vault Nettles and McGraw).

7. Duffy, Tiant, Van Haltren, Clarkson and Singleton may not get much more support.

8. Dick Lundy could gain with a couple of weeks to digest the data.

Per Howie's list in the "Eligibles" thread, the following 6 individuals could become backloggers:

2007 - OF-DH Harold Baines, SS Tony Fernandez, OF Paul O'Neill, P David Cone
2008 - P Chuck Finley, 2B Chuck Knoblauch

Revised predictions, based on the above voting trends:

2007 - Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire
2008 - Raines, (Reggie Smith), (pitcher from Redding, Walters, Saberhagen or Cone)

Sorry, Bob Johnson.
   21. ronw Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:53 PM (#2590134)
HOM not HOF 55 players

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

Three in one year! Next year we'll have McGwire or another backlogger on this list.
   22. ronw Posted: October 23, 2007 at 02:58 PM (#2590141)
HOF not HOM (All-Time) - 59 players

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

This list drops to 57 after the 2007 election of Ripken and Gwynn to the HOM, at which time the HOM not HOF list will increase to 56. In 2008, unless there is some weirdness from the writers, we'll likely have 2-3 more total electees than the actual HOF. Sorry, small-Hall people.

Besides Gwynn/Ripken, HOFers with a remote shot at HOM status include John McGraw, Tony Perez, Kirby Puckett, Phil Rizzuto and Hugh Duffy. None of them are primed for election, though.
   23. ronw Posted: October 23, 2007 at 03:01 PM (#2590145)
Whoops, I just saw that I elected Will Clark twice. That means that the HOM-not-HOF list will be 55 after 2007, and anywhere from 57-58 after 2008.

If the writers elect Tim Raines, we'll have a 57 player discrepancy between the two Halls after 2008. If they don't, then the HOM-not-HOF list will be at 58 players, the HOF-not-HOM at 57.
   24. Juan V Posted: October 23, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2590198)

If the writers elect Tim Raines, we'll have a 57 player discrepancy between the two Halls after 2008. If they don't, then the HOM-not-HOF list will be at 58 players, the HOF-not-HOM at 57.


Are you assuming the writers will elect Goose? I think they will.
   25. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2590245)

Sabes pitched >100 innings 13 times in seasons where he spent the whole year with one team.

In 9 of those 13 years, the team had a winning record. Yes, it's true, many of them were 'barely' winning, such as 84-win teams, which conveniently missed your criteria of 85.

Overall, I will concede your point that his teams were not quite as good as I had thought. But a lot of pitchers have not been so foruntate to see action in five post-seasons. His 2-4 record and almost-5 ERA in October does not add to resume.


He also pitched for real stinkers, like the "Worst Team Money Could Buy". If we're going to talk about cherrypicking stats, dropping your cutoff to 100 IP includes a lot of years that are largely irrelevant to the discussion of Saberhagen value.

As you yourself admitted, your characterization of the quality of Saberhagen's teams was incorrect; he pitched for good, not great, teams, and his W-L record is basically consistent with his RA and his run support (to wit: see his DT page on BaseballProspectus).

Don't say silly things, and no one will need to get snarky with you.
   26. TomH Posted: October 23, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2590259)
dropping your cutoff to 100 IP includes a lot of years that are largely irrelevant to the discussion of Saberhagen value

"a lot of years"?

Name them all.
   27. Chris Cobb Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:08 PM (#2590293)
McGwire will have some protests, but I think he makes it sometime during the next two years.

I think it is a very safe assumption that McGwire will be elected in 2007. Joe Jackson was kept back a year by the boycott, but it was larger than McGwire's will be, and the backlog was much less fragmented 80 years ago. Reggie Smith, the returning top of the backlog, will be lucky, what with the arrival of Ripken, Gwynn, and McGwire, to earn as many points in 2007 as he did in 2006. That was 321. So to get elected, McGwire needs to get, say 330 points. That's 15 placements in the #3 elect-me slot, if he were left off of every other ballot. There is, I think, no chance at all that he will not get at least 15 elect-me votes. Will Clark, whom most of the electorate ranks below McGwire absent steroid issues, sailed over this backlog, and McGwire will, too.

2007 is going to be Ripken, Gwynn, and McGwire, in that order, and then we'll take two from the backlog with Raines in 2008. There's just no way to build suspense about it, unless the electorate really becomes serious about preferring shortstops to great-hit, no-field types. So, really, we're going to have five weeks to discussion the 2008 ballot. And that's a good thing, because it's the last before we catch up, and we are in the middle of a significant reassessment of gloves and pitchers, to correct for our slight overemphasis on bat candidates overall.
   28. Jim Sp Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:13 PM (#2590299)
1) Ripken--Not a fan of the streak, but still gotta put him #1.
2) McGwire--Easily qualified, personally I’m not interested in a boycott.
3) Gwynn--Again, easily qualified.
4) Saberhagen1985-1994 are enough for me with 1337 K/352BB= 3.8K/W for 1917 IP. Top BP W3: 11.7, 10.2, 10.2, 8.7. Even 1999 is remarkable, 81K and only 11BB in 119 IP. There’s no doubt he was great, 2562 IP is enough bulk for me.
5) Tommy JohnA good pitcher every year from 1965 to 1980 except the year out, with 1979 a very good peak year (8.4 BP W3). I figure by 1980 he was getting to into candidate territory, then went on to win 74 more games. 4710 IP is a lot, at ERA+ of 111.
6) John McGraw--Ultra-dominant player when healthy. Set the quality of league anywhere you want, and McGraw is starting and a star when healthy.
7) Rizzuto--The man lost his age 25, 26, and 27 seasons to the war, right after a very good season in 1942, and 1946 wasn’t a good one for him as well. One of the best fielding shortstops of all time. A 93 career OPS+ is strong for a grade A shortstop, not weak. Great peak season in 1950 (11.4 warp3). PHoM 1977.
8) Cone--1988-1998 he was 163- 87. Best year might have been 1991 when he went 14-14 but 241K to 73BB in 232 IP, with only 13 HR allowed.
9) Reggie Smith--I’m convinced now. Compare to Wynn. Add some Japan credit too.
10) Campaneris--great non-SB baserunning.
11) Concepcion--Grade A+ shortstop and could hit some too. Weak hitting at the beginning and end, but above average during prime 1973-1982. Warp3 prime: 10.7, 10.2, 10.2, 9.7, 8.8, 8.7, 8.3, 8.0. Note that Win Shares is conservative in assigning fielding credit to the great fielders. PHoM 1994.
12) GoodenFor a period of time, a serious candidate for the greatest pitcher ever. From August 11, 1984, to May 6, 1986: 37-5, 1.40 ERA, 412 Ks and 90 walks in 404.6 innings. 201-142 translated BP career record. 1984-1991 actual record was 132-53, K/W ratio 3:1 while striking out 8/9IP. 62-59 thereafter, like Saberhagen there is no doubt that he was a great pitcher, 2800 IP is enough bulk for me.
13) Reuschel--Joe D is on to something here, the bad defense behind him is not his fault.
14) Quinn--Joe D makes the case for him also, it’s not an accident that he was able to pitch in the majors to age 49. 114 ERA+ for almost 4000 IP, plus PCL credit, plus leverage credit…
15) NewcombeKorean War and integration issues, decided to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Walters—walked more than he struck out, I’m not convinced that the hitting and fielding provide enough runs to outweigh that to get him in the HoM.
Redding #31.
Bob Johnson</b>--#18. WinShares says C fielder, warp thinks he’s considerably better than that. Very high assist totals from LF. Played CF for a terrible 1938 A’s team, also a little bit of 2B and 3B. On the whole I think the record indicates that he was actually a good defensive player. I also suspect that his WinShares suffer from playing on some horrible teams. May have struggled trying to get a break, tough to grab playing time on the great A’s teams earlier in his career. Never did anything but mash despite late ML start at age 27. 1934-1942 is a HoM worth prime in my view. PHoM in 1970.
Perez--#28
   29. Rusty Priske Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2590316)
There is one pitcher in there.

I am re-looking at Dick Lundy. He likely will get into my ballot... somewhere between 10 and 15.
   30. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2590327)
>Newcombe's record is still only _half_ of Robin Roberts. The ERA+ are similar but it's still only 2155 innings for Newcombe

>I think sunnyday was just being hyperbolic.

Head, meet wall. Bang. Bang. Bang. I mean, you just made my point for me, from #10 above.

>If you're not giving Newk NeL and MiL and military credit, you're not seeing the whole package.

I wish I had said, you're only seeing half of the package, then we would be in perfect agreement. I am not being hyperbolic, I don't think. Newk pitched in the NeLs. He was held back in the MiL because of racial quotas. He spent 2 prime years in the military.

Do people not know about this?
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2590334)
I see that Jim Sp, with the flames licking around him, still managed to notice Newcombe's unique resume. Thanks, Jim. I understand Newk is not going to get elected. A #15 is probably wholly justified, as opposed to my own ballot where he is around #4-5-6-7ish. I just hope that people understand that the sum total of Don Newcombe's resume is NOT anything even close to 2155 IP.
   32. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2590347)
2008 Prelim ;-)

1. Tim Raines--PHoM

2. Dizzy Dean
3. Ed Williamson
4. Elston Howard
5. Don Newcombe
6. Dick Lundy
7. Albert Belle
8. Larry Doyle
9. Tommy Bond
10. Johnny Pesky
11. Al Rosen
12. Bucky Walters
13. Kirby Puckett
(13a. Alan Trammell--PHoM)
14. Hugh Duffy
15. Phil Rizzuto

16. Dale Murphy or Ken Singleton or (serious darkhorse) Bret Saberhagen--one of them PHoM, the others oblivion

Everybody else on the list is PHoM.
   33. Dizzypaco Posted: October 23, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2590377)
The Bret Saberhagen discussion is a little strange. Saberhagen played the majority of his career for three teams. The first, the Royals, had good pitching and mediocre or worse hitting, and made it to the post season a couple of times largely because they played in a terrible division. The second team, the Mets, were bad all around. The third, the Red Sox, were actually built on pitching, and were below average offensively in one of the two years they made the post season with him.

The summary is that Saberhagen pitched for mediocre offensive clubs most of his career. And somehow, the quality of his teams is supposed to be a strike against him? The reason they were as good as they were is because they had guys like Bret Saberhagen...
   34. Chris Fluit Posted: October 23, 2007 at 09:08 PM (#2590709)
By Decade:

1860s - 1 (Pearce) (SS)

1870s – 9 (Anson, Barnes, McVey, Pike, Spalding, Start, Sutton, White, Wright) (P, C, 1B-2, 2B, 3B-2, SS, CF)

1880s – 19 (Bennett, Brouthers, Browning, Caruthers, Clarkson, Connor, Ewing, Galvin, Glasscock, Gore, Hines, C Jones, Keefe, Kelly, O'Rourke, Radbourn, Richardson, Stovey, Ward) (P-5, C-2, 1B-2, 2B, SS-2, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates –Welch, Williamson}

1890s - 17 (Beckley, Burkett, Childs, Dahlen, Davis, Delahanty, Grant, Griffith, Hamilton, Jennings, Keeler, Kelley, McPhee, Nichols, Rusie, Thompson, Young) (P-4, 1B, 2B-3, SS-3, LF-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates –Duffy, Van Haltren, McGraw}

1900s - 18 (Bresnahan, M Brown, Clarke, J Collins, Crawford, Flick, R Foster, Hill, G Johnson, Lajoie, Mathewson, McGinnity, Plank, Sheckard, Waddell, Wagner, Wallace, Walsh) (P-6, C, 2B, 3B, SS-3, LF-2, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates – Leach, Willis, Joss, Monroe}

1910s - 17 (Alexander, Baker, Carey, Cobb, E Collins, Groh, J Jackson, W Johnson, Lloyd, Magee, Mendez, Roush, Santop, Speaker, Torriente, Wheat, Williams) (P-4, C, 2B, 3B-2, SS, LF-2, CF-5, RF)
{Candidates –Redding, Cravath, Doyle, Taylor}

1920s - 19 (Beckwith, Charleston, Coveleski, Faber, W Foster, Frisch, Goslin, Heilmann, Hornsby, Mackey, Moore, Oms, Rixey, Rogan, Ruth, Sewell, Sisler, Vance, Wilson) (P-6, C, 1B, 2B-2, 3B-2, SS-2, LF, CF-2, RF-2)
{Candidates – Grimes, Lundy, Mays, Bancroft, Schang, Traynor}

1930s - 29 (Averill, Bell, R Brown, Cochrane, Cronin, Dickey, Dihigo, Ferrell, Foxx, Gehrig, Gehringer, J Gibson, Greenberg, Grove, Hartnett, Herman, Hubbell, Lyons, Medwick, Ott, Paige, Ruffing, Simmons, Stearnes, Suttles, Terry, Vaughan, Waner, Wells) (P-8, C-4, 1B-5, 2B-2, SS-3, LF-2, CF-3, RF-2)
{Candidates – B Johnson, Dean, Bridges, Klein}

1940s – 18 (Appling, Boudreau, W Brown, DiMaggio, Doerr, Feller, Gordon, Hack, Irvin, Keller, Leonard, Mize, Musial, Newhouser, Reese, Slaughter, Trouppe, TWilliams) (P-2, C, 1B-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS-3, LF-3, CF-3, RF)
{Candidates – Walters, Rizzuto, Clarkson, Elliott, Stephens}

1950s – 18 (Ashburn, Banks, Berra, Campanella, Doby, Ford, Fox, Kiner, Lemon, Mantle, Mathews, Minoso, Pierce, Roberts, J Robinson, Snider, Spahn, E Wynn) (P-6, C-2, 2B-2, 3B, SS, LF-2, CF-4)

1960s – 21 (Aaron, Allen, Boyer, Bunning, Clemente, Drysdale, Freehan, B Gibson, Kaline, Killebrew, Koufax, Marichal, Mays, McCovey, B Robinson, F Robinson, Santo, Torre, Wilhelm, B Williams, Yastrzemski) (P-6, C-2, 1B-3, 3B-3, LF-2, CF, RF-4)
{Candidates – Brock, Cash, Cepeda, E Howard, F Howard}

1970s – 23 (Bench, Blyleven, Carew, Carlton, Da Evans, Fingers, Fisk, Grich, RJackson, Jenkins, Morgan, Nettles, Niekro, Palmer, Perry, Rose, Ryan, Seaver, Schmidt, Simmons, Stargell, Sutton, J Wynn) (P-10, C-3, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- RSmith, Perez, Tiant, Singleton, Concepcion, John, Staub, Reuschel, Bonds, Tanana, Bando}

1980s- 18 (Boggs, Brett, Carter, Dawson, Eckersley, Dw Evans, Gossage, Hernandez, Molitor, Murray, Randolph, Sandberg, O Smith, Stieb, Trammell, Whitaker, Winfield, Yount) (P-3, C, 1B-2, 2B-3, 3B-3, SS-3, CF, RF-2)
{Candidates- Saberhagen, Puckett, Murphy, L. Smith, Mattingly)

1990s- 1 (W Clark) (1B)
{Candidates- Belle}
   35. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2590741)
Looking at this makes me more convinced than ever that the group has gone severely awry in making no adjustments for segregation. You had the same # of MLB teams in the 50s as in the 30s, but there are 60% more inductees from the 30s. Why? Because the talent pool was split between three leagues instead of two. The standard (measured in WS, WARP, ERA/OPS+, or their MLE equivalents) HAS to be higher in the three-league era...what would Averill's OPS+ have been if he had had to hit against Paige, and if the offensive league average included Gibson and Stearnes? The same argument applies to the NgL'ers, whose MLE's wouldn't look so rosy if they were being translated to a more difficult, integrated league. I think this may be the single largest mistake committed by the group. I haven't studied the already-elected NgL'ers enough to have a strong opinion on which of them should be excluded, but the borderline MLB players from the 30s (Averill, Herman, Medwick, Terry of the non-pitchers) seem particularly poor selections viewed in this light, and Bob Johnson would be too.
   36. Chris Cobb Posted: October 23, 2007 at 09:59 PM (#2590799)
Looking at this makes me more convinced than ever that the group has gone severely awry in making no adjustments for segregation.

Not to defend the group, but this is too hasty a judgment, based on a potentially arbitrary perodization of HoM selections.

I agree we have elected a few too many from this period, but

(1) The bulge era is not just the 1930s -- career periodization overrepresents the 1930s
(2) Not adjusting for segregation is not the only possible cause -- war credit for the 1940s and 1950s may also be an issue, as may be a true decline in the number of great players in these eras because the war/new economic opportunities simply prevented careers from happening.
(3) the order of elections needs to be considered also -- the HoM is not necessarily "the 231 best players of all time": we try to elect the best players available each year. Fluctuations in accomplishments due to random chance or socioeconomic factors may affect the rate at which meritorious players become eligible. It is worth noting that the 1930s players did well because the outclassed, as a group, the pre-integration players of preceding generations. There was a notable star drought from the late aughts to the early 1920s.

Looking at our elections historically, we elected 23 of the 1930s stars either as soon as they became eligible or as soon as space opened up:

1942 Terry
1943 Cochrane
1944 Gehrig
1946 Simmons
1946 Stearnes
1947 Grove
1947 Hartnett
1948 Gehringer
1949 Hubbell
1949 Lyons
1950 Dihigo
1950 Waner
1951 Cronin
1951 Foxx
1952 J Gibson
1952 Ott
1953 Greenberg
1953 Dickey
1954 Vaughan
1954 Wells
1955 R Brown
1956 Suttles
1959 Paige

The players who were somewhat more delayed were

1958 Herman
1961 Averill
1964 Ferrell
1966 Ruffing
1967 Medwick
1973 Bell

One would have to examine the history of eligibility to determine whether the election of players are "mistakes" or choices that are "correct historically, but not in an all-time context."

What newly eligible players were passed over? What "old backloggers" should have been preferred?

It's a complicated matter.

Worth examining, but not worth making snap judgments about.
   37. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM (#2590806)
Rizzuto had a big jump, probably due to the advocacy of DanR (who helped vault Nettles and McGraw).

Oy. I'm the Rizzuto advocate. Dan isn't the advocate for EVERY shortstop.
   38. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:26 PM (#2590819)
Agreed that the problem MIGHT have been that the '40s didn't supply the expected backloggers, so we kept right on electing guys from the '30s.

>the borderline MLB players from the 30s seem particularly poor selections viewed in this light, and Bob Johnson would be too.

Bingo.
   39. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2590825)
Hey! I'm a huge Rizzuto supporter!
   40. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2590828)
Hey! I'm a huge Rizzuto supporter!

Oh yeah? Then why am I the one arguing for malaria credit? You're too hung up on the Latins from the 70's to notice Rizzuto's Italian-style awesomeness.
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:39 PM (#2590832)
So, which of you 2 had him #2 on your ballot? that would be his biggest advocate.
   42. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:47 PM (#2590837)
So, which of you 2 had him #2 on your ballot? that would be his biggest advocate.

I dunno who has him #2. I have him #3. Dan has him #8. What a fraud he is. He should go back to eating his alfajores and bangin' Argentinian broads and leave the rest of us alone.
   43. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM (#2590840)
I don't eat alfajores, they're too sweet for me. Las señoritas argentinas, on the other hand...Let's just not go there.
   44. OCF Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:15 PM (#2590854)
Rizzuto's best friend (the #2) was Mike Webber. Besides 'zop, he also picked up a #3 vote from Joe Dimino, and #4s from Jim Sp and Brent.
   45. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:19 PM (#2590856)
The only thing keeping Concepción and Campaneris above Rizzuto for me is segregation (the 1950 AL was a barely integrated league).
   46. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:25 PM (#2590858)
Chris Cobb, I don't think the order of the elections has anything to do with it. When Terry was picked, Sewell, Jennings, Beckley, Bresnahan, Browning, and CJones were all eligible. When Herman got in, you still had all of those guys, plus Doerr, Gordon, and Keller. Etc..
   47. jimd Posted: October 23, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2590881)
If he [Newk] had come along a decade earlier and had a "normal" NeL career, he'd be 90 percent of Willie Foster. If he had come along a decade later, he'd have been 90 percent of Bob Gibson.

Black HOM pitchers born between 1908 and 1935.

1908 Ray Brown
1935 Bob Gibson

White HOM pitchers born between 1908 and 1935.

1908 Wes Ferrell
1918 Bob Feller
1920 Early Wynn, Bob Lemon
1921 Warren Spahn, Hal Newhouser
1923 Hoyt Wilhelm
1926 Robin Roberts
1927 Billy Pierce
1928 Whitey Ford
1931 Jim Bunning
1935 Sandy Koufax
   48. Jim Sp Posted: October 24, 2007 at 12:24 AM (#2590901)
born after 1935 would show the same pattern I think...
   49. Chris Cobb Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:02 AM (#2590927)
Chris Cobb, I don't think the order of the elections has anything to do with it. When Terry was picked, Sewell, Jennings, Beckley, Bresnahan, Browning, and CJones were all eligible.

I would not argue that Bill Terry was not a mistake.

However, if you want to make the argument that we should have elected Sewell, Jennings, Beckley, Bresnahan, Browning, or C. Jones in 1942 instead of Bill Terry, that is an argument that doesn't have anything to do with the electorate's overrating pre-integration players. It's an argument that we picked the wrong pre-integration player when we were rating them against each other.

By registering this objection, you only confirm my case that more was at work than improperly weighing pre- vs. post- integration. I'm not arguing that this _wasn't_ a problem, only that it was one problem among several, and that only by studying the order of elections can the role of the various problems that led to the 1930s overrepresentation be properly intrepreted.

The question of order becomes pertinent for comparing our treatment of 1930s players against later players. Sure, if we had had, collectively, the insight to pick Sewell instead of Terry in 1942, maybe we would have continued to have the insight to pick --somebody-- instead of Terry later.
   50. Jim Sp Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:09 AM (#2590934)
I would say more broadly that quality of competition is the skeleton in our collective closet. In respect to segregation, expansion, and talent pool issues...well after 100 years of doing this I feel that "a pennant is a pennant" means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Leagues are separate and unequal, and what number to put on that is the largest b$ dump in the (collective) system.

By the way I think the case for Newcombe would be greatly strengthened if you could get Joe D to put him on the ballot, he gives both Korea and integration credit, but has him falling a little short.

Why black position players had more success, and continue to have more success than black pitchers is murky, or maybe just plain suspicious. Connie Johnson and others got screwed, I'm pretty certain. In a segregated league one would imagine a normal pitcher/position player election ratio would have continued.
   51. jimd Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:26 AM (#2590954)
born after 1935 would show the same pattern I think...

1935 Bob Gibson
1937 Juan Marichal
1942 Ferguson Jenkins

1935 Sandy Koufax
1936 Don Drysdale
1938 Gaylord Perry
1939 Phil Niekro
1944 Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton
1945 Don Sutton, Jim Palmer
1946 Rollie Fingers
1947 Nolan Ryan
1951 Bert Blyleven, Goose Gossage
1954 Dennis Eckersley
1957 Dave Stieb
   52. OCF Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:31 AM (#2590960)
Do the same with catchers. Position typecasting and racial pigeonholing happened. (Note also in jimd's list that neither Marichal nor Jenkins was from the U.S.)
   53. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:40 AM (#2590966)
Chris Cobb, now I see what you're saying, point taken. Perhaps the real issue was that we should have backloaded the elections more--more elect-1's and fewer elect-2's in the early years, more elect-3's later on--to avoid giving too much of an artificial advantage to pre-integration players.
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2590970)
thru 2006

HOMers per year, minimum 10 G per player to qualify, or equivalent
(NeL in parentheses refers to any non-MLB-credited seasons for non-white players)

1850s - 0/0/0/0/0/0/1/1/1/1............................................ avg 0.4
1860s - 2/2/2/2/3/2/4/4/6/8.............................................avg 3.5
1870s - 9/10/12/12/13/13/13/12/13/17............................ avg 12.4
1880s - 18/20/22/22/24/25/26/25/27/27...........................avg 23.6 (with 0.4 NeL)
1890s - 31/33/32/29/24/25/24/23/23/24...........................avg 26.8 (with 1.5 NeL)
1900s - 23/27/27/25/27/28/27/28/29/29...........................avg 27.0 (with 3.5 NeL)
1910s - 30/29/28/31/30/30/34/28/25/27...........................avg 29.2 (with 7.2 NeL)
1920s - 29/32/36/38/43/46/49/48/48/45...........................avg 41.4 (with 15.2 NeL)
1930s - 43/45/46/44/41/41/41/42/39/41...........................avg 42.3 (with 14.1 NeL)
1940s - 44/43/39/28/20/22/34/34/34/28...........................avg 32.6 (with 9.4 NeL)
1950s - 28/29/26/28/29/33/34/31/31/32...........................avg 30.1
1960s - 32/33/34/35/35/35/35/35/37/38.......................... avg 35.0
1970s - 40/39/42/42/43/43/42/41/39/38...........................avg 41.1
1980s - 40/39/40/38/36/34/33/29/26/22...........................avg 33.6
   55. jimd Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2590971)
On the demographic hump in the late 1920's/early 1930's, I think it's easy to overstate it. I track this stuff by player birthdates, and it's noticeable. But say we were to remove three players born say 1900-1904, of who the most recently elected were Bell, Averill, and your choice of Beckwith or Ruffing (pitchers aren't the problem then, it's too many position players, both bats and gloves). And we then replaced them with three players born during the 1920's (careers centered in the 1950's), the whole thing smoothes out quite nicely. The early 1930's hump is now one player larger than our new shiny early 1970's hump. Alternate solutions are possible (toss out e.g. Oms, Moore, Sewell, and Terry).

I don't think the problem is so much that we failed to adjust the 1930's properly, it's that we failed to adjust the 1950's properly. It was a contraction era, and maybe the players from that period should have gotten a performance bonus when comparing them with the expansion periods that both preceded and followed. Their values would have been higher in a 20-24 team league, which is the approximate context that has benefitted those other two groups.
   56. Howie Menckel Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2590975)
HOM Ps, by year, through 2006 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
Saberhagen would be 1984-89; 1991; 1994-95; 1998
   57. Howie Menckel Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2590985)
HOM OFs, by year, through 2006 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 (6) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Browning OF-SS
1884 (6) - Hines, O'Rourke, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Ward OF-2B
1885 (7) - Hines, O'Rourke, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Browning, Thompson
1886 (10) - Hines, O'Rourke OF-C, CJones, Kelly OF-C, Gore, Browning, Stovey OF-1B, Richardson OF-2B, Thompson, Sutton OF-3S2
1887 (7) - Hines, CJones, Kelly OF-2C, Gore, Browning, Stovey OF-1B, Thompson
1888 (4) - Hines, O'Rourke, Browning, Stovey
1889 (7) - O'Rourke, Kelly, Gore, Browning, Stovey, Thompson, Hamilton
1890 (8) - O'Rourke, Gore, Browning, Stovey, Richardson, Thompson, Hamilton, Burkett OF-P, GDavis
1891 (8) - O'Rourke, Gore, Browning, 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 (11) - Hill, Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms
1922 (10) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin
1923 (12) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes
1924 (15) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell
1925 (14) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell
1926 (15) - Cobb, Speaker, Wheat, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1927 (14) - Cobb, Speaker, Carey, Torriente, Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner
1928 (12) - Cobb, Carey, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott
1929 (12) - Roush, Heilmann, Ruth, Charleston, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1930 (10) - Heilmann, Ruth, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1931 (12) - Roush, Ruth, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Suttles, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill, Dihigo
1932 (9) - Ruth, Oms, Goslin, Stearnes, Simmons, Bell, PWaner, Ott, Averill
1933 (10) - Ruth, Oms, 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 (5) - Yastrzemski, RJackson, DaEvans OF-1B-3B, Winfield, Dawson
1978 (5) - Yastrzemski OF-1B(DH), RJackson OF(DH), DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1979 (4) - RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1980 (4) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1981 (4) - RJackson, DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1982 (4) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1983 (3) - DwEvans OF(DH), Winfield, Dawson
1984 (3) - DwEvans, Winfield, Dawson
1985 (5) - RJackson OF-DH, DwEvans, Winfield, Yount, Dawson
1986 (3) - DwEvans, Winfield, Yount, Dawson
1987 (3) - Winfield, Yount, Dawson
1988 (3) - Winfield, DwEvans OF-1B, Yount, Dawson
1989 (3) - DwEvans OF-DH, Yount, Dawson
1990 (2) - Yount, Dawson
1991 (3) - Winfield OF(DH), Yount, Dawson
1992 (2) - Yount, Dawson
1993 (1) - Yount
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
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
Bonds would be 1968-79
Singleton would be 1971-80; 1981 OF-DH
Murphy would be 1980-91
Puckett would be 1984-95
Belle would be 1991 OF-DH; 1993-99; 2000 OF-DH
   58. DL from MN Posted: October 24, 2007 at 05:42 AM (#2591084)
Did you read the rest of the message? Even with reasonable credit Newcombe is 2900 innings to the 4155 for Roberts. I happen to think 1200 innings is an enormous gap given the same ERA+ production.
   59. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 24, 2007 at 12:14 PM (#2591155)
Did you read the rest of the message? Even with reasonable credit Newcombe is 2900 innings to the 4155 for Roberts. I happen to think 1200 innings is an enormous gap given the same ERA+ production.


Can't argue with that, DL.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2591229)
OK, DL is right. I can't extrapolate Newcombe to 4600 IP. I wasn't clear. With reasonable credit, Newcombe's prime is in Robin Roberts territory. I define prime as all those not necessarily consecutive seasons in which a pitcher is ? 100 OPS+ and ERA eligible.

For Newcombe that means adding 1947 and 1948, plus 1952 and 1953 and 1954. Half of 1954, he was still in the military. And I also posit that he would not have thrown a 90 ERA+ in 1954 had he been active continuously. Plus Chris gave him 126 IP in 1946, not enough to call it a prime year but 126 IP.

Add it all up and I get about 3170 IP, not 2900. And I get 12 prime seasons to Roberts' 11 prime seasons. It's also true that Roberts averaged 281 IP in those 11 seasons, Newk averaged 233 for his 12 prime seasons.

I don't think I was being hyperbolic, but I wasn't clear. Newcombe's prime with reasonable credit is just as long as Robin Roberts'.

Billy Pierce is of course a better comp. Pierce had 14 prime seasons with an average of 221 IP and a total of 3360 IP. His career OPS+ is 119 (Roberts 113, Newcombe 114 though it comes up a point or two if you posit that he would have been better than a 90 OP+ pitcher but for the 2.5 year military lay-off).

Warren Spahn is of course not a comp with any of these guys. Except if you look at his overlap with them--which is to say, if his ERA+ 98 in 1960 had indicated a final decline, if he hadn't preternaturally bounced back for 3 more prime seasons, 2 of them with 20+ wins. Then you'd have 13 prime seasons (Roberts 11-Newk 12-Spahn 13-Pierce 14) with an average of 282 IP.

Then there's Whitey Ford who actually is a comp with the Roberts-Newk-Pierce group, though a bit younger. Ford had 12 prime seasons with an average of 234 IP. He was of course more effective at 133 OPS+. But his career total of 3170 IP is pretty much identical to Newcombe's adjusted total.

So anyway, when you look at the great pitchers of the 1950s, Newcombe's record is hardly out of place at all.

Spahn 412 WS
Roberts 339
Wynn 309
Newcombe 264
Ford 261
Pierce 248
Lemon 232

The next best career total WS among pitchers with 100 WS in the 1950s are Wilhelm with 256 and Curt Simmons at 210. So I don't think I'm skipping anybody.

Newcombe's IP is > Lemon and = Ford and 200 IP short of Pierce. His ERA+ is > Roberts and Wynn, and within 5 points of Pierce, Spahn and Lemon.

Newcombe is arguably the weakest of the 5, but he is more like this group than he is like the next best group of pitchers from the 1950s, which is Simmons, Garcia, Ned Garver, Murry Dickson, Maglie, Burdette, Haddix, the guys who also earned more than 100 WS in the decade.

The question of course is whether he was better than pitchers from other decades--Dean, Walters, Saberhagen, etc. I think he's got them all beat on career length, oddly enough. Walters ends up with 3100 IP (at 115 OPS+) but just 7 prime seasons. As a peak voter, of course, I like them all. But I think Newk is there and Walters, in a very superficial sense (career totals, as opposed to career shape), is another pretty close comp.
   61. Chris Fluit Posted: October 24, 2007 at 08:35 PM (#2591898)
Is it time to start the anti-Reggie Smith campaign?

This is a guy who only had three seasons in which he played more than 150 games and only 7 in which he played more than 140. Those three seasons of 150 came at ages 22, 23 and 26 when he his OPS+ was 100, 126 and 129.

For sake of comparison

R. Smith
seasons of 150+ games: 3
140+: 7
120+: 10
100+: 13
total: 1987 in 17 seasons

Puckett
seasons of 150+ games: 8
140+: 9
120+: 11
100+: 12
total: 1783 in 12 seasons

Singleton
seasons of 150+: 8
140+: 11
100+: 14
total: 2082 games in 15 seasons

Murphy
seasons of 150+: 12
100+: 14
total: 2180 in 18 seasons

Bonds
seasons of 150+: 8
140+: 10
100+: 10
total: 1849 in 14 seasons

I know that games played isn't the only measurement (or even the top measurement), but it's pretty obvious that Smith had trouble staying in the line-up especially after he turned 26 (and even before) and especially compared to his contemporaries- the four of whom had more seasons over 150 games than Smith had over 140, and as many seasons over 140 as he had over 120. During their careers, a team was getting 10-20 more games per year out of any of the other four than they were out of Smith. Smith needed 5 extra seasons to play only 200 more games than Puckett while Singleton played 100 more games in 2 less seasons. One reason why Smith might just have had such good rate stats is that he simply didn't play as much as others.
   62. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:01 PM (#2591956)
Value is value, no? At the end of the day it's still 2,000 games plus Japan credit at a 137 OPS+. Puckett was 1,800 games at 124. Singleton 2,100 at 132, so same # of games after counting Japan at a meaningfully lower rate, plus he didn't play CF (nor was he a good fielding corner OF) and spent time as a DH. Murphy was 2,200 at 121. And Bonds 1,850 at 129. You've got to have a pretty hard-core fetish for in-season durability to have that factor outweigh allllll the marginal career value.
   63. sunnyday2 Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:22 PM (#2591982)
>Value is value, no? At the end of the day it's still 2,000 games

We had this debate re. Charlie Keller and we've had it re. others as well. Not that anybody agrees with me. But the goal in baseball is to win a pennant. For two players of more or less equal "rate"-ability, 2,000 games that come in smaller increments are not as valuable as 2,000 games that come in larger increments.

Of course, the players in question do not have identical "rate"-ability, so reasonable people can disagree on the rank order, though it's true that Reggie never had a 30 WS year. Everybody else up there did. At the end of the day, not all 2,000 games are created equal. The pattern matters.
   64. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:26 PM (#2591988)
Looking at this makes me more convinced than ever that the group has gone severely awry in making no adjustments for segregation. You had the same # of MLB teams in the 50s as in the 30s, but there are 60% more inductees from the 30s. Why? Because the talent pool was split between three leagues instead of two. The standard (measured in WS, WARP, ERA/OPS+, or their MLE equivalents) HAS to be higher in the three-league era...what would Averill's OPS+ have been if he had had to hit against Paige, and if the offensive league average included Gibson and Stearnes? The same argument applies to the NgL'ers, whose MLE's wouldn't look so rosy if they were being translated to a more difficult, integrated league. I think this may be the single largest mistake committed by the group. I haven't studied the already-elected NgL'ers enough to have a strong opinion on which of them should be excluded, but the borderline MLB players from the 30s (Averill, Herman, Medwick, Terry of the non-pitchers) seem particularly poor selections viewed in this light, and Bob Johnson would be too.


Or you could go with the theory that the number of jobs determines the talent level, and not vice-versa.

You could think that with 3 major leagues (counting the Negro League as major), there are more opportunities for coaching and development, and more high quality players are produced. You've also had no expansion in quite some time in the white majors, and little competition from other sports in the 1930s, to go with a Depression, that drives even more young men to take a shot at a baseball career - why not if other jobs are just as hard to come by. Bad economic conditions tend to produce more professional quality athletes right (see the Dominican Republic, for example).

I'm not just saying this as a devil's advocate, I kind of believe this. It's along the same lines as what Bill James said, though he may have been a little too optimistic, that if the majors suddenly expanded to 60 teams, within 10 years, the talent level would be back to normal.
   65. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:29 PM (#2591990)
By the way I think the case for Newcombe would be greatly strengthened if you could get Joe D to put him on the ballot, he gives both Korea and integration credit, but has him falling a little short.


Newcombe is very close to my ballot, probably the next pitcher on. I see little difference between him and Walters.

And don't forget to give him credit for his hitting. He's up there in Lemon/Ruffing territory in terms of his value with the stick.
   66. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2591991)
Reggie Smith = JD Drew (before his awful 2007 campaign)?

Just a question I don't know the answer.
   67. jimd Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:30 PM (#2591992)
Value is value, no?

Maybe to some, but not in my system, which is oriented around star seasons. Players who get hurt a lot, players who need extra rest, players who are platooned, all are less valuable then their rates indicate because it requires more roster maintenance to utilize them. If two players have the same total value at the same rate but one does it in say 9 seasons and the other in 12, my system will strongly prefer the 9 season guy.
   68. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:34 PM (#2591998)
Chris Cobb, now I see what you're saying, point taken. Perhaps the real issue was that we should have backloaded the elections more--more elect-1's and fewer elect-2's in the early years, more elect-3's later on--to avoid giving too much of an artificial advantage to pre-integration players.


We backloaded the elections plenty - it was clearly not a straight line, on purpose. If anything we backloaded them too much, IMO.

I personally don't see much of a jump from integration.

We lost many players we've never heard of in WWII, diluting the talent pool. Other sports started picking off MLB players by the 1950s. Economic conditions improved, and ballplayers didn't make much, relatively speaking, unless they were superstars, further dinging the pool.

I think integration basically offset this. By the early 60s, baseball expanded 25%, then 20% more in 1969. This offset the further gains in the talent pool made by integration.

The Baseball Prospectus league comparisons back this up, at least when looking at pitchers (I haven't looked at the hitters). Basically showing no gain in the overall quality of play from the early 1940s to the early 1980s. Sure there were more players, but there were also double the teams.
   69. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:48 PM (#2592012)
I'll give my full Don Newcombe rundown tonight, if I remember. If I don't, someone please remind me . . .
   70. jimd Posted: October 24, 2007 at 09:56 PM (#2592021)
You could think that with 3 major leagues (counting the Negro League as major), there are more opportunities for coaching and development, and more high quality players are produced. You've also had no expansion in quite some time in the white majors, and little competition from other sports in the 1930s, to go with a Depression, that drives even more young men to take a shot at a baseball career - why not if other jobs are just as hard to come by. Bad economic conditions tend to produce more professional quality athletes right (see the Dominican Republic, for example).

The problem with this theory is that the demographic group that has been overelected are the players born 1895-1904. These are the guys that for the most part were already teenagers to prime (17-26) when the NeLs really got rolling in the early 1920's, and 26-35 when the market crashed. They benefited from the expansion conditions but were not motivated to become baseball players by them. That would have affected the next generation that would encounter world war followed by contraction during their playing careers, the players born in the 1910's whose representation is not out of line.
   71. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 10:03 PM (#2592029)
Good point jimd.

That being said, I think the rest of the theory is still solid. More teams = more players = more great players, regardless of population, once the population per team exceeds 1,000,000 (James' number, not mine).

I thought it was being argued that players who played in the 1930-42 period were over-elected. I would think the talent concentration was quite high in the 1930s.
   72. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 10:07 PM (#2592032)
Sunnyday and jimd, sure, but I'm just saying that the gap on rate*career length is quite large, and it seems to me you'd have to either use an absurdly steep Pennants Added curve or an unrealistically low replacement level to avoid having Smith at the top of that group.

Joe Dimino, that theory seems pretty implausible to me...is there any evidence for it? I don't know what BP league comparison you're looking at, but in Baseball Between the Numbers, the graph *clearly* shows a very steep rate of increase in quality of play through about 1957 for the NL and about 1965 for the AL, and then a much more gradual improvement after that. Indeed, the change in slope is so pronounced that they decided to use the 1947-2005 trendline for pre-integration seasons rather than the actual data, because doing otherwise would have just reamed all the old guys.

No, I wouldn't say that Smith = Drew. Sure, they share a profile: high-rate outfielders capable of playing center who had trouble staying on the field. But Lil' Reggie is just a different order of magnitude. Smith's *career* OPS+ is 138, in over 2,000 games with Japan. Drew has only had three seasons above a 138 OPS+, and two of them were in 109 and 72 games. Plus he didn't play nearly as much of his career in center as Smith did. So, like, if you took J.D. Drew, and improved his rate, his durability, his fielding, and (presumably, judging by the arc of his career) his longevity, all in the same proportions, you'd get Reggie Smith. J.D. Drew:Reggie Smith::Buddy Bell:Jimmy Collins, for example.

I vote for Newcombe.
   73. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM (#2592055)
I'm saying compare the adjusted for all-time NRA to the adjusted for season NRA for pitchers across time. This is what their quality of league adjustment is.

I have no idea what that graph in the book measures at all. I'm looking at actual numbers on their website.

I compared it for every pitcher who was top 5 in the league in innings from 1876 through 2006. It hits all the big ones correctly - the expansions and contractions of the 19th century, the emergence of the AL, the Federal League, WWI, WWII, the expansions of the 1960s, 1977 and 1990s.

I still have no idea what that graph in the book or the 'trendline going back to 1947' measure, but using the actual impact on those stats, it shows pretty solidly everything I mention above.
   74. Mark Donelson Posted: October 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2592062)
Still early yet--more crunching to do--but here's where things stand at present:

2007 prelim

1. Ripken
2. Gywnn
3. McGwire
4. Saberhagen
5. Dean
6. Williamson
7. E. Howard
8. Willis
9. Cravath
10. Tiant
11. Rosen
12. Singleton
13. McGraw
14. Pesky
15. Cone (or maybe Belle or Rizzuto)

Of the other newbies, none are terribly close. Bonilla did better than I expected, but still isn't near the top 50. Not particularly enamored of Fernandez. Canseco drops in just below Strawberry, which seems fitting.

And then there's Dick Lundy. Ran the new numbers: As advertised, they do indeed bump him up to Bobby Wallace/Joe Sewell levels. Problem is, neither of those guys is in my pHOM, or close to it--not peaky enough for my tastes--and so neither is Lundy. He'll surface just outside my top 50, probably (or maybe just inside it). Rizzuto, with war credit and the all-world defense, is well above, I think--far more impressive peak. (And yes, I'm taking into account the smoothing effect of the MLEs--that might be what gets Lundy inside the top 50 rather than outside. But unless there's actual crushing of peak going on, rather than mere smoothing, I don't see enough here.) Ditto Pesky.
   75. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:15 AM (#2592140)
hey, it's 2007, I figure I might as well run the table..

HOM Cs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games (or equivalent) and mainly this position to be listed:
1861 - Pearce C-SS
1862-63 - Pearce
1864-65 - Pearce C-SS
1866-68
1869-70 - White
1871-73 - White, McVey
1874-76 - White
1877 - McVey
1878 - White, Bennett C-OF
1879 - White
1880 - Bennett
1881 - Bennett, Ewing C-SS
1882 - Bennett
1883-86 - Bennett, Ewing
1887 - O'Rourke C-3O
1888 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-OF
1889 - Bennett, Ewing
1890 - Bennett, Ewing, Kelly C-SS
1891 - Bennett, Kelly
1892 - Kelly
1893-1900
1901 - Bresnahan
1902-04
1905 - Bresnahan
1906 - Bresnahan C-OF
1907-08 - Bresnahan
1909
1910-11 - Bresnahan, Santop
1912-13 - Santop
1914-15 - Breshahan, Santop
1916-17 - Santop
1918-19
1920 - Santop, Mackey C-UT
1921 - Santop, Mackey C-2B-3B
1922 - Santop, Mackey
1923-24 - Santop, Mackey, Hartnett
1925-28 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane
1929 - Mackey, Cochrane, Dickey
1930 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey
1931-35 - Mackey, Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey, Gibson
1936-37 - Mackey, Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson
1938 - Mackey, Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson, Trouppe C-3O
1939 - Mackey, Hartnett, Dickey, Gibson, Trouppe C-3O, Campanella
1940 - Mackey, Dickey, Gibson
1941 - Mackey, Dickey, Gibson, Trouppe
1942 - Dickey, Gibson, Trouppe, Campanella
1943 - Dickey, Gibson, Trouppe
1944-46 - Gibson, Trouppe C-3O, Campanella
1947-48 - Trouppe C-3O, Campanella, Berra C-OF
1949-57 - Campanella, Berra
1958 - Berra C(OF)
1959 - Berra
1960 - Berra C-OF
1961 - Torre
1962
1963-65 - Torre C-1B, Freehan
1966-67 - Torre C(1B), Freehan
1968 - Torre C(1B), Freehan, Bench
1969 - Freehan, Bench
1970 - Torre C-3B, Freehan, Bench C(OF), Simmons
1971 - Freehan, Bench, Simmons
1972-73 - Freehan, Bench, Simmons, Fisk
1974 - Bench C(3B), Simmons
1975 - Freehan, Bench, Simmons
1976 - Bench, Simmons C(1B), Fisk, Carter C-OF
1977-78 - Bench, Simmons, Fisk, Carter
1979 - Bench, Simmons, Carter
1980 - Bench, Simmons, Fisk, Carter
1981 - Simmons C(DH), Fisk, Carter
1982 - Simmons, Fisk, Carter
1983 - Simmons C-DH, Fisk, Carter
1984-85 - Fisk, Carter
1986 - Fisk C(OD), Carter
1987 - Fisk, Carter
1988 - Carter
1989-91 - Fisk

EHoward would be 1958 C(OF); 1960-67
   76. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:16 AM (#2592143)
HOM 1Bs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1860-71 - Start
1872 - Start, Hines
1873 - Start, Anson, O'Rourke 1B-OF
1874 - Start, Anson 1B-3B, O'Rourke
1875 - Start, Anson 1B-OF, McVey 1B-OC
1876 - Spalding, Start, McVey
1877 - Start, Spalding, White 1B-OF, Sutton 1B-2B
1878 - Start
1879 - Start, Anson, McVey, Brouthers
1880 - Start, Anson
1881 - Start, Anson, White 1B-2O, Connor
1882 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor 1B-O3, Stovey 1B-OF
1883 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1884 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Stovey
1885 - Start, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Stovey
1886-87 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor
1888 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Beckley
1889-90 - Hines, Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Beckley
1891 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Beckley
1892 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Ewing, Beckley
1893-94 - Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Beckley
1895-96 - Anson, Connor, Ewing, Beckley
1897 - Anson, Beckley, Lajoie
1898 - Beckley, Wagner 1B-3B
1899 - Beckley
1900 - Beckley, Delahanty, Jennings
1901 - Beckley, Jennings, Kelley
1902 - Beckley, Jennings
1903 - Beckley
1904 - Beckley Kelley
1905-06 - Beckley
1907-09 - Beckley
1911 - Lajoie 1B-2B
1912-14
1915 - Sisler 1B-OF-P
1916-17 - Sisler
1918 - Sisler, Magee 1B-OF
1919-20 - Sisler, Heilmann
1921-22 - Sisler
1923 - JWilson
1924 - Sisler, JWilson, Terry
1925 - Sisler, JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1926 - Sisler, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Dihigo UT
1927 - Sisler, Terry, Gehrig
1928 - Sisler, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles
1929 - Sisler, JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx
1930 - Sisler, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Lloyd, Foxx, Charleston
1931 - Terry, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston
1932 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston
1933 - Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg
1934-35 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard
1936 - JWilson, Terry, Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Charleston, Leonard, Mize
1937 - JWilson, Gehrig, Foxx, Charleston, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1938 - Gehrig, Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1939 - Suttles, Foxx, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1940 - Foxx 1B-C, Greenberg, Leonard, Mize
1941-42 - Foxx, Leonard, Mize
1943-44 - Leonard
1945 - Foxx 1B-3B, Leonard
1946 - Greenberg, Leonard, Mize, JRobinson, Musial 1B(OF)
1947 - Greenberg, Leonard, Mize, JRobinson, Musial
1948 - Leonard, Mize
1949 - Mize
1950 - Mize, Irvin 1B-OF
1951 - Mize
1952-54
1955-56 - Musial 1B-OF
1957-58 - Musial
1959 - Musial, FRobinson 1B-OF, McCovey*
1960 - FRobinson 1B-OF, McCovey*, Killebrew 1B-3B
1961 - McCovey*, Killebrew 1B-3B
1962-64 - Banks
1965 - Banks, McCovey, Killebrew 1B-3B
1966 - Banks, McCovey
1967 - Mantle, Mathews 1B-3B, Banks, McCovey, Killebrew
1968 - Mantle, Banks, McCovey, Killebrew, Rose
1969 - Banks, McCovey, Rose, Allen, Torre
1970 - McCovey, Rose, Allen 1B-3B, Yastrzemski 1B-OF
1971 - Aaron 1B-OF, McCovey, Killebrew 1B-3B, Rose
1972 - Aaron, McCovey, Killebrew, Rose, Allen, Stargell 1B(OF)
1973 - McCovey, Yastrzemski 1B(3B), Rose, Torre 1B-3B
1974 - McCovey, Yastrzemski 1B-OF, BiWilliams 1B-OF, Rose, Freehan 1B-C, Allen, Torre
1975 - McCovey, Yastrzemski, Allen, Stargell
1976 - Yastrzemski 1B-OF, Allen, Stargell, Torre, Carew, DaEvans, KHernandez
1977 - McCovey, Carew, KHernandez
1978-79 - McCovey, Stargell, Carew, KHernandez, Murray
1980 - Carew 1B-DH, KHernandez, Murray
1981 - Carew, KHernandez, Murray
1982 - Rose, Carew, KHernandez, Murray, Boggs 1B-3B
1983 - Rose, Carew 1B-DH, DaEvans 1B(3B), KHernandez, Murray
1984 - Rose 1B(OF), Carew, KHernandez, Murray
1985 - Rose, Carew, DaEvans 1B(DH), Schmidt 1B-3B, KHernandez, Murray
1986 - DaEvans 1B(DH), KHernandez, Murray, WClark
1987 - DaEvans 1B(DH), KHernandez, DwEvans 1B-OF, Murray, WClark
1988 - KHernandez, Murray 1B-DH, WClark
1989 - DaEvans 1B-3B, Brett, Murray, WClark
1990 - Brett 1B(DH), Murray, WClark
1991-93 - Murray, WClark
1994-98 - WClark
1999
2000 - WClark
Cepeda would be 1958-59; 1961 1B-OF; 1962-64; 1966-70
Cash would be 1960-73
Staub would be 1963-64 1B-OF; 1968
TPerez would be 1965-66; 1972-80; 1981 (1B-DH); 1983
DaMurphy would be 1978
ReSmith would be 1982
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:17 AM (#2592145)
HOM 2Bs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1870 - Pike
1871 - Barnes 2B-SS
1872-76 - Barnes
1877 - Wright
1878
1879 - Glasscock
1880-81
1882 - Richardson, McPhee, Browning 2B-SS-3B
1883 - Richardson, McPhee
1884 - Richardson, McPhee, Connor 2B-OF
1885 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee
1886 - McPhee, Grant
1887 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1888 - Richardson, McPhee, Grant, Delahanty 2B-OF
1889 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant
1890-91 - McPhee, Grant, Childs
1892 - Richardson 2B-OF, McPhee, Grant, Childs, Ward
1893-94 - McPhee, Grant, Childs, Ward
1895-97 - McPhee, Grant, Childs
1898-99 - McPhee, Grant, Childs, Lajoie
1900 - Grant, Childs, Lajoie
1901-03 - Grant, Lajoie
1904 - Lajoie 2B-SS
1905
1906-07 - Lajoie
1908 - Lajoie, GDavis, E Collins 2B-SS
1909-10 - Lajoie, E Collins
1911 - E Collins
1912-13 - Lajoie, E Collins, HR Johnson
1914 - Lajoie, E Collins, Groh
1915-16 - Lajoie, E Collins
1917-19 - E Collins
1920-21 - E Collins, Hornsby
1922 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch 2B-3B
1923 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch
1924 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1925 - E Collins, Hornsby, Lloyd, Dihigo UT
1926 - E Collins, Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1927-28 - Hornsby, Frisch, Lloyd, Gehringer
1929 - Hornsby, Frisch, Gehringer
1930 - Frisch, Gehringer
1931 - Hornsby 2B-3B, Frisch, Gehringer
1932 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1933-35 - Frisch, Gehringer, BiHerman
1936 - Frisch 2B-3B, Gehringer, BiHerman
1937 - Gehringer, BiHerman
1938-41 - Gehringer, BiHerman, Doerr, Gordon
1942-43 - BiHerman, Doerr, Gordon
1944 - Doerr
1945 - JRobinson
1946 - BiHerman 2B-3B, Doerr, Gordon, JRobinson
1947 - Doerr, Gordon
1948-49 - Doerr, Gordon, JRobinson
1950 - Doerr, Gordon, JRobinson, Fox
1951 - Doerr, JRobinson, Fox
1952 - JRobinson, Fox
1953-62 - Fox
1963-64 - Fox, Rose
1965-66 - Rose, Morgan, Carew
1967 - Morgan, Carew
1968 - Carew
1969 - Morgan
1970-72 - Morgan, Carew
1973-75 - Morgan, Carew, Grich
1976 - Morgan, Grich, Randolph
1977 - Morgan, Randolph
1978 - Morgan, Grich, Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg, Molitor 2B(SS)
1979-80 - Morgan, Grich, Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg, Molitor
1981-83 - Morgan, Grich, Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg
1984 - Morgan, Grich 2B(1B-3B), Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg
1985-86 - Grich, Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg
1987-89 - Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg
1990 - Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg, Molitor 2B-1B
1991 - Randolph, Whitaker, Sandberg
1992-93 - Whitaker, Sandberg
1994 - Whitaker
1995
1996-97 - Sandberg
Doyle would be 1908-20
Concepcion would be 1987 2B-1B; 1988 2B-UT
   78. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2592148)
HOM 3Bs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1866 - Pike 3B-O2
1867-69
1870 - Sutton
1871-72 - Sutton, Anson
1873 - Sutton
1874 - Sutton 3B-SS
1875 - Sutton
1876 - Sutton, Anson
1877 - Anson 3B-C
1878 - Sutton, McVey
1879 - Kelly 3B-OC, Richardson
1880 - Richardson, Connor
1881 - Sutton, O'Rourke
1882 - Sutton, White, Ewing 3B-C
1883 - Sutton, White, Browning 3B-OF-1B
1884-85 - Sutton, White
1886 - White
1887 - White, Ewing
1888 - White
1889
1890 - White 3B-1B
1891 - Dahlen 3B-OF
1892 - GDavis 3B-OF
1893-94 - GDavis
1895 - GDavis, JCollins 3B
1896 - GDavis 3B-SS, JCollins
1897-98 - JCollins, Wallace
1899 - JCollins, Wagner 3B-OF
1900-05 - JCollins
1906
1907-08 - JCollins
1909-14 - Baker
1915 - Groh
1916 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-SS
1917-18 - Baker, Groh
1919 - Baker, Groh, Hornsby 3B-S2
1920 - Groh Frisch
1921 - Baker, Groh, Frisch 3B-2B
1922 - Groh
1923 - Groh, Beckwith
1924 - Groh
1925 - Frisch 32S
1926-27 - Beckwith, JWilson
1928 - JWilson, Dihigo, Foxx 3B-1B/C
1929 - Beckwith 3B-SS, Sewell
1930 - JWilson, Dihigo UT, Beckwith, Sewell
1931 - Beckwith, JWilson, Sewell
1932 - JWilson, Sewell
1933 - JWilson
1934-37 - Hack
1938 - Hack, Ott 3B(OF)
1939 - Hack
1940 - Hack, Trouppe
1941-46 - Hack
1947
1948 - Appling 3B-SS
1949-51
1952-54 - Mathews
1955-56 - Mathews, JRobinson, Boyer
1957 - Mathews, Reese 3B(SS)
1958 - Mathews, Boyer, BRobinson
1959 - Mathews, Boyer, BRobinson, Killebrew
1960-63 - Mathews, Boyer, BRobinson, Santo
1964-65 - Mathews, Boyer, BRobinson, Santo, Allen
1966 - Mathews, Boyer, BRobinson, Killebrew 3B-1B, Santo, Allen 3B-OF
1967 - Boyer 3B-1B, BRobinson, Santo, Allen
1968 - Boyer 3B-1B, BRobinson, Santo
1969 - BRobinson, Killebrew 3B-1B, Santo
1970 - BRobinson, Killebrew, Santo, Nettles
1971 - BRobinson, Santo, Allen 3B-OF-1B, Torre, Nettles, DaEvans
1972 - BRobinson, Santo, Torre 3B(1B), Nettles, DaEvans
1973 - BRobinson, Santo, Nettles, DaEvans, Schmidt
1974 - BRobinson, Nettles, DaEvans, Schmidt, Brett
1975 - BRobinson, Nettles, Rose 3B(OF), Torre 3B(1B), DaEvans, Schmidt, Brett
1976-77 - Rose, Nettles, Schmidt, Brett
1978 - Rose, Nettles, DaEvans, Schmidt, Brett
1979-81 - Nettles, DaEvans, Schmidt, Brett
1982 - Bench, Nettles, DaEvans 3B-1B, Schmidt, Brett, Sandberg, Molitor
1983 - Bench 3B-1B, Nettles, Schmidt, Brett, Molitor
1984 - Nettles, Schmidt, Brett, Boggs
1985 - Nettles, Brett, Molitor, Boggs
1986 - Nettles, Schmidt, Brett, Molitor, Boggs
1987 - Brett, Boggs
1988 - Brett, Molitor 3B-DH, Boggs
1989 - Molitor 3B(D2), Boggs
1990-97 - Boggs
1998 - Boggs 3B-DH
1999 - Boggs
McGraw would be 1982-95; 1987-1901
Leach would be 1899; 1901-04; 1906 3B-OF; 1908
Traynor would be 1922-34
Walters (!) would be 1934
Clarkson would be 1946-52??
TPerez would be 1967-71
   79. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2592149)
HOM SSs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1856-60 - Pearce
1861-63
1864 - Wright
1865
1866-67 - Pearce, Wright
1868-70 - Pearce, Wright, Barnes
1871 - Pearce, Wright
1872 - Pearce, Wright, O'Rourke SS-C
1873-75 - Pearce, Wright
1876 - Wright
1877- Sutton SS-3B
1878 - Wright
1879 - Barnes, Sutton SS-3B
1880 - Sutton SS-3B, Glasscock
1881 - Barnes, Glasscock
1882 - Wright, Glasscock, Kelly SS-OF
1883-84 - Glasscock
1885-86 - Glasscock, Ward
1887 - Sutton SS-OU, Glasscock, Ward
1888-89 - Glasscock, Ward
1890 - Glasscock, Ward, Delahanty SS-2O
1891 - Glasscock, Ward, Jennings
1892 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1893 - Glasscock, Dahlen
1894 - Glasscock, Jennings, Dahlen SS-3B
1895-96 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson
1897-98 - Jennings, Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis
1899 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace SS-3B
1900 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1901 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner SS-O3
1902 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace
1903 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner
1904-07 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, GDavis, Wallace, Wagner
1908 - Dahlen, HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1909-11 - HR Johnson, Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1912 - Wallace, Wagner, Lloyd
1913-16 - Wagner, Lloyd
1917-18 - Lloyd, Hornsby, Moore
1919 - Lloyd, Moore
1920 - Lloyd, Beckwith SS-3B, Moore
1921-22 - Lloyd, Beckwith SS-3B, Moore, Sewell
1923 - Moore, Sewell
1924-25 - Moore, Wells, Beckwith, Sewell
1926 - Wells, Sewell
1927 - Wells, Dihigo UT, Sewell
1928 - Wells, Beckwith, Sewell
1929 - Wells, Dihigo UT, Cronin
1930-31 - Wells, Cronin, Appling
1932-35 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1936 - Wells, Cronin SS(3B), Appling, Vaughan, WBrown
1937 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughn, WBrown
1938-39 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan
1940-41 - Wells, Cronin, Appling, Vaughan, Boudreau, Reese
1942 - Wells, Appling, Vaughan, Boudreau, Reese
1943 - Wells, Appling, Vaughan SS-3B, Boudreau
1944 - Wells, Boudreau
1945 - Boudreau
1946-47 - Appling, Boudreau, Reese
1948 - Boudreau, Reese
1949 - Appling, Boudreau SS-3B, Reese
1950 - Boudreau, Reese
1951 - Boudreau SS(3B), Reese
1952-53 - Reese
1954-56 - Reese, Banks
1957 - Banks SS-3B
1958-61 - Banks
1962-71
1972 - Grich SS-2B
1973
1974-77 - Yount
1978-83 - Yount, Trammell, OSmith
1984 - Yount SS(DH), Trammell, OSmith
1985-92 - Trammell, OSmith
1993 - Trammell SS-3B, OSmith
1994 - Trammell, OSmith
Lundy would be 1919-32ish
Clarkson would be 1939-42?
Rizzuto would be 1941-42; 1946-54
Concepcion would be 1970-83; 1984 SS-3B; 1985; 1986 SS-UT
   80. Howie Menckel Posted: October 25, 2007 at 12:19 AM (#2592150)
HOM DHs, by year, through 2006 election. Must have played half a team's games and mainly this position to be listed:
1973 - FRobinson
1974 - FRobinson, Kaline, Killebrew DH-1B, Santo DH-2B-3B
1975 - Aaron, Killebrew, BiWilliams
1976 - Aaron, BiWilliams
1977 - Murray DH-1B
1978
1979 - Yastrzemski DH-1B-OF, Fisk DH-C
1980 - Yastrzemski DH-OF(1B)
1981 - Yastrzemski DH-1B
1982 - Yastrzemski
1983 - Yastrzemski, RJackson DH-OF
1984 - RJackson, DaEvans DH-1B, Simmons DH(13)
1985 - Simmons DH (1B)
1986 - RJackson
1987 - RJackson, Molitor DH-3B
1988 - DaEvans DH-1B
1989
1990 - DwEvans
1991 - Brett, Molitor DH-1B
1992-93 - Winfield DH(OF), Brett, Molitor DH(1B), Dawson
1994 - Winfield, Murray DH(1B), Molitor, Dawson
1995-96 - Murray, Molitor
1997-98 - Molitor
Cepeda would be 1973
Staub would be 1977-78; 1979-80 DH-1B
Singleton would be 1982-84
Belle would be 1992 DH-OF
   81. DanG Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:40 AM (#2592767)
Howie:

Could you redo the chart in #54, adding in the years that HoMers were in military service?
   82. Mike Webber Posted: October 25, 2007 at 01:21 PM (#2592900)
Disappointing pitchers help!

Hi, I thought of a way to study disappointing pitchers with some data I have. I'd appreciate some suggestions on disappointing pitchers if anyone has a minute. I'm basically talking about active pitchers who aren't injury problems. Think Jeff Weaver.

If you have anyone that pops into your head please list them on the linked thread above.

Thanks!!
   83. Juan V Posted: October 25, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2593363)
Prelim. Back to boring high-consensusness for me, it seems.

1-Ripken
2-Gwynn
3-McGwire. I don't think I'll boycott.
4-Tiant
5-Cravath
6-Clarkson
7-Willis
8-Saberhagen
9-Cone
10-Belle
11-Concepción
12-Lundy
13-Lazzeri
14-Dunlap
15-Taylor

I haven't done Tony Fernandez yet, as I'm waiting for a clue on how much Japan credit he gets. Harold Baines, so far, is nowhere close to the ballot.
   84. sunnyday2 Posted: October 25, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2593399)
I really believe that Sabes and Cone appear to be candidates very very very largely by virtue of retiring at the right time, before their vastly longer career and therefore better qualified contemporaries become eligible.

Where do they fit into the "90s" pitchers all? Somewhere to the south of Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Unit, Glavine, Brown and Smoltz, at least. They're HoMers just because they broke down first? I'm gonna wait for the guys who broke down last.
   85. rawagman Posted: October 25, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2593447)
sunnyday - you are not wrong, but your approach to the situation may be. Cone status as a candidate rests on his ranking against currently eligible players. As we vote in 3 players annually, Cone only needs more support than all but 2 or less others. If that situation does not arise before some of those other pitchers become eligible, than you can safely compare Cone to them. If it does happen, well, then Cone is one of the 250 best players of all time. We would just have to accept that.
   86. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:05 PM (#2593451)
Why would Saberhagen be considered with the 90s pitchers when his best years were in the 80s?
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2593452)
Saberhagen broke down first because he started first.
   88. Juan V Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:10 PM (#2593458)
And I have to ask, is 10 starting pitchers with careers centered in the 90s (Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Unit, Schilling, Smoltz, Glavine, Brown, Mussina, Cone; I have Sabes as an 80s guy) really too much? Specially since a bunch of those guys might end up becoming 00s guys by the time it's all said and done.
   89. Juan V Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:15 PM (#2593466)
In fact, by my quick and dirty method to assign players to decades, I have Schilling as a 00s guy already.
   90. sunnyday2 Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2593477)
I'm just saying that guys whose careers overlapped his--and who overlapped pretty extensively (Clemens 13 year, Maddux 11, Unit 9, Glavine 8, Brown 10, not just a couple years here and there) and who are clearly better, are not yet eligible. I didn't invent this perspective. You've used it yourself to argue against guys. It is the luck of the draw that he might appear to be one of the better eligible pitchers at this moment in time.

Clemens, for that matter, is older, and Unit was born the same year.
   91. Juan V Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:40 PM (#2593505)
I don't like using overlap since it fails to account for career shape. For example, Saberhagen had already built up the bulk of his HOM case by his Age-27 season, while Johnson made himself a no-brainer almost entirely in his thirties.
   92. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:42 PM (#2593511)
There are also twice as many teams as there used to be. Sure we elected Cy Young and Kid Nichols and Christy Mathewson, but we also elected Rube Waddell, Joe McGinnity and Clark Griffith.
   93. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2593515)
Birthdates have zero place in the discussion IMO. Especially with pitchers.

What years did they pitch? When were their great seasons? When did the mid-point of their overall value take place.

Randy Johnson is absolutely not a prime contemporary of Bret Saberhagen, no matter what their birthdates.
   94. OCF Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:47 PM (#2593523)
Randy Johnson is absolutely not a prime contemporary of Bret Saberhagen, no matter what their birthdates.

Nor is Joe McGinnity a contemporary of Amos Rusie. (We've done this before, of course.)
   95. sunnyday2 Posted: October 25, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2593537)
Sorry. In my little world Saberhagen is about the 8-9th best pitcher of his "day." Clemens and Gooden and Stieb and Hershiser and, heck, Rick Rueschel were active when he started. Clemens, Maddux, Unit, Glavine, Brownie, Gooden, Hershiser, Smoltz and Cone were all active at his mid-point, and add Pedro by the time he reached the end. I don't remember knocking ourselves out to get Waddell and Plank into different cohorts.
   96. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 09:00 PM (#2593548)
No but the point is that we've elected '2nd tier' contemporary pitchers on numerous occassions.

Griffith, Waddell, McGinnity, Coveleski, Lemon, Sutton, Wynn, Rixey, Palmer, Faber, Ferrell, Pierce to name a few.

There are 2x the teams now, so 10 pitchers active in decade doesn't bother me at all.
   97. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2593553)
I mean if we are electing 3 a year, on average 1 pitcher and 2 hitters, having 10 pitchers that debut in a decade seems about right to me.

Even if it isn't 2:1 and it's 3:1 hitters, that's still 7 or 8 HoM pitchers debuting in a decade.

We've had 24 teams for almost 40 years now. This isn't 1915 anymore, there are 30 teams, not 16.
   98. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 09:04 PM (#2593555)
Which means saying the 8th-9th best is like saying 4th, 5th or 6th best from the 16 team era.
   99. sunnyday2 Posted: October 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM (#2593633)
I don't think that's self-evident. It comes down to cases. And when the 8th-9th best of the '90s is throwing 60 percent as many innings as the 4th-5th-6th best from earlier periods, that counts for something. I mean, the ability might be there, but he's just not as valuable.

The 4th-5th-6th best pitcher of the 1900s (decade) were Waddell, Willis and Plank with 671 WS among them, just within the decade.

The 7th-8th-9th best of the '90s were Cone, Finley and Appier with 462 WS among them.

I could make a better case that the 7th-8th-9th in the 1900s are equivalent to the 4th-5th-6th best in the 1990s. In fact, let's try it: Chesbro, Doc White and 3F Brown = 584 versus Unit, Brownie and Smoltz @ 499.

I'm not sayin' Chesbro was better than these guys, BTW. I'm sayin' Cone, Finley and Appier are not as meritorious as Waddell, Willis and Plank. I guess, specifically, I can't quite get Cone ahead of Willis (who's not on my ballot either).

Pitching is surely as valuable today as it was then, maybe more, probably more. But the value is just distributed too many different ways for 7-8-9-10 pitchers in a single decade to accumulate enough of it, IMO. I can only adjust expectations for workloads (and value) downward so far. Just like catchers. We only have one ML catcher between 1890 and 1925. Well, boo-hoo. I just can't get excited about a catcher who averaged about 77 games a year, or a pitcher who threw 180 IP a year unless he's as effective as Pedro Martinez.
   100. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 11:47 PM (#2593697)
sunnyday, but you have to factor in that pitchers are responsible for a much greater portion of run prevention today than they were 100 years ago, due to the increased prevalence of the Three True Outcomes. In the old days, pitchers threw a lot more innings, but they also depended a lot more on their fielders.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JPWF13
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.3986 seconds
49 querie(s) executed