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

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

2007 Results: Newly Eligible Ripken, Gwynn and McGwire Make It Into the Hall of Merit Easily!

In his first year of eligibility, legendary shortstop Cal Ripken was elected into the Hall of Merit practically unanimously with 99.83% of all possible points. He earned an “elect me” vote from every voter.

Star hitter Tony Gwynn also made a very strong showing with his 95% of all possible points.

Last but not least, supreme power-hitter Mark McGwire earned a more than respectable 86% of all possible points.

Rounding out the top-ten were: Bret Saberhagen (looks good for 2008!), Reggie Smith (he might make it in 2008, too!), Cannonball Dick Redding, Bucky Walters, Tommy Leach (first time in the top-ten!), Bob Johnson and Kirby Puckett.

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1  n/e  Cal Ripken, Jr.         1150   48  46  2                                       
 2  n/e  Tony Gwynn              1091   48   2 36  9  1                                 
 3  n/e  Mark McGwire             990   46     10 30  4  2                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    8  Bret Saberhagen          244   19            4     3  4  1     2  2     1     2
 5    4  Reggie Smith             236   20            2  3  3     1  2  2  1     2     4
 6    6  Cannonball Dick Redding  186   13            4  3  1  1  1     1     1  1      
 7    5  Bucky Walters            185   15         1     2  1  3  1  1     1  1  3     1
 8   14  Tommy Leach              185   14            2  1  3  1  2  1  2     1     1   
 9    7  Bob Johnson              181   15            1  1  2  1  2  2  2  1  1     1  1
10   11  Kirby Puckett            180   14            3  2  1  2  1  1     1        1  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11   12  Gavvy Cravath            171   15         1  1  1        2  2     2  1  3  1  1
12   10  Tony Perez               170   13         1  1  2  1  2     1  1     1  3      
13   16  Luis Tiant               168   15         1  1     2     1  1  2  1  1  1  1  3
14   13  Phil Rizzuto             168   14               2  2  3     1     3     2     1
15    9  John McGraw              168   13            2  4  1  1     1     1        1  2
16   30  Dick Lundy               156   13         1  2        1        4     4        1
17   15  Hugh Duffy               154   12            2  1  1  2     1  1  2  2         
18   17  George Van Haltren       153   10         1  2  2  2     1  1     1            
19   18  Bus Clarkson             150   13            2     1  1     4  1     1     1  2
20  n/e  David Cone               148   13            1           2  4  4           1  1
21   19  Ken Singleton            139   12               4        2     1        3  2   
22   20  Tommy Bridges            134   10            1  3  2     1  1           1     1
23   21  Dave Concepción          125   13               1        1  1  1  2  2  2  1  2
24   24  Burleigh Grimes          121   11            1        3  1        1  1  2  2   
25   26  Albert Belle             110   10                  1  1  1  3  1        1  1  1
26   31  Rusty Staub              108   10                     1     2  3  3        1   
27   22  Mickey Welch             106    8               1  1  2  2     1  1            
28   36  Don Newcombe             105   12                  1     1     1     1  4  1  3
29   33  Rick Reuschel            104    8            2  1  1  1              1  2      
30   29  Tommy John                99    8               2        2  1     2  1         
31   27  Vic Willis                96    7            2        1  3           1         
32   28  Dale Murphy               95    9                  2        1  1  2  1     1  1
33   37  Lou Brock                 93    9            1     1           1  1  2  1  2   
34   35  Larry Doyle               89    7               1  3        1        1     1   
35   23  Elston Howard             88   10                     1           1  4  1  2  1
36   32  Bob Elliott               86    8                        1  2  2  2        1   
37   39  Norm Cash                 85    8                  1     1  1  2  1        1  1
38   34  Bobby Bonds               84    7            1     1  1  1  1              1  1
39   25  Dizzy Dean                83    7            1  1  1           1  1        2   
40   42  Wally Schang              76    6            1     1     1  1     1  1         
41   46  Bill Monroe               71    6            1     1  1           1  1        1
42   43  Lee Smith                 61    4               2  1  1                        
43   44  Carl Mays                 59    5               1     1     1        1  1      
44   40  Pie Traynor               58    6               1           1        1  1  1  1
45   48  Bert Campaneris           58    5                        2  1  1     1         
46   41  Orlando Cepeda            56    5                  1     2           1        1
47   38  Ben Taylor                53    5               1     1           1        1  1
48   45  Dave Bancroft             50    5                     2              1     1  1
49   47  Ed Williamson             50    4            1     1        1                 1
50   53  Sal Bando                 49    4                        2  1  1               
51   50  Vern Stephens             48    4                     1  1     1  1            
52   49  Chuck Klein               47    4               1  1                    2      
53   60  Addie Joss                42    3         1                    1     1         
54   62  Lance Parrish             39    4                     1              1  2      
55   52  Frank Tanana              36    2         1           1                        
56T  54  Ernie Lombardi            34    3                  1           1        1      
56T  65T Tony Mullane              34    3                        1     1  1            
58   51  Johnny Pesky              33    4                           1        1        2
59   55T Leroy Matlock             33    3                        2                 1   
60   65T Bruce Sutter              32    3                     1           1     1      
61   58  Wilbur Cooper             31    2            1        1                        
62   59  Thurman Munson            30    3                     1              1     1   
63T  73  Buddy Bell                29    2               1        1                     
63T  55T Don Mattingly             29    2         1                                1   
65   61  Jack Quinn                28    3                  1                       1  1
66   67  Jimmy Ryan                28    2                  1     1                     
67T  75T Dwight Gooden             26    3                                 1  1     1   
67T  74  Rabbit Maranville         26    3                              1        1  1   
69   69  Sam Rice                  25    3                           1              1  1
70   68  Ed Cicotte                25    2               1                    1         
71   63  Al Rosen                  24    3                                 1        2   
72T  72  Frank Chance              22    2                           1     1            
72T  57  Urban Shocker             22    2                           1     1            
74   70T Fred Dunlap               21    3                                       1  1  1
75   77  Jim Kaat                  21    2                              1  1            
76T n/e  Harold Baines             20    2                        1                 1   
76T  75T Lefty Gomez               20    2                        1                 1   
78T  64  George J. Burns           17    2                              1              1
78T  82  Dave Parker               17    2                                    1  1      
80   70T Jim Rice                  16    2                                 1           1
81   87  Frank Howard              15    2                                    1        1
82T  86  Luis Aparicio             14    1                     1                        
82T  88  Brian Downing             14    1                     1                        
82T  79  Tony Oliva                14    1                     1                        
85   89  Jim McCormick             13    2                                          1  1
86  n/e  Jose Canseco              13    1                        1                     
87   90T Jack Clark                12    1                           1                  
88T  84  Hack Wilson               11    1                              1               
88T  92  Sam Leever                11    1                              1               
90T n/e  Tony Fernandez            10    1                                 1            
90T  93T Carlos Morán              10    1                                 1            
90T  93T Dizzy Trout               10    1                                 1            
93T  93T Tommy Bond                 9    1                                    1         
93T  96T Fielder Jones              9    1                                    1         
93T n/e  Paul O'Neill               9    1                                    1         
93T  90T Virgil Trucks              9    1                                    1         
97T n/e  Dom DiMaggio               8    1                                       1      
97T  98T George Kell                8    1                                       1      
97T  85  Tony Lazzeri               8    1                                       1      
97T  96T Jack Morris                8    1                                       1      
101T  98T Elmer Smith                7    1                                          1   
101T 102  Jim Fregosi                7    1                                          1   
101T 102  Charlie Hough              7    1                                          1   
101T 100  Bill Madlock               7    1                                          1   
101T  78  Bobby Veach                7    1                                          1   
106 102  Al Oliver                  6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Brett Butler(106), Ron Cey(83), Luke Easter(80T), Orel Hershiser(100), Dutch Leonard(107), 
Bill Mazeroski(80T), Gene Tenace(107), Mickey Vernon(102).
Ballots Cast: 48

Thanks to Ron and OCF for their help again with the tally!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 12:59 AM | 62 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:02 AM (#2612916)
Congrats to Cal, Tony and Mark!

HOF-not-HOM through 2007

1   Aparicio
Luis
2   Bancroft
Dave
3   Bender
Chief
4   Bottomley
Jim
5   Brock
Lou
6   Cepeda
Orlando
7   Chance
Frank
8   Chesbro
Jack
9   Combs
Earle
10 Cooper
Andy
11 Cuyler
Kiki
12 Dandridge
Ray
13 Day
Leon
14 Dean
Dizzy
15 Duffy
Hugh
16 Evers
Johnny
17 Ferrell
Rick
18 Gomez
Lefty
19 Grimes
Burleigh
20 Hafey
Chick
21 Haines
Jesse
22 Hooper
Harry
23 Hoyt
Waite
24 Hunter
Catfish
25 Jackson
Travis
26 Johnson
Judy
27 Joss
Addie
28 Kell
George
29 Kelly
George
30 Klein
Chuck
31 Lazzeri
Tony
32 Lindstrom
Freddie
33 Lombardi
Ernie
34 Manush
Heinie
35 Maranville
Rabbit
36 Marquard
Rube
37 Mazeroski
Bill
38 McCarthy
Tommy
39 McGraw
John 
40 Pennock
Herb
41 Perez
Tony
42 Puckett
Kirby  
43 Rice
Sam
44 Rizzuto
Phil
45 Schalk
Ray
46 Schoendienst
Red
47 Smith
Hilton
48 Sutter
Bruce
49 Taylor
Ben
50 Tinker
Joe
51 Traynor
Pie
52 Waner
Lloyd
53 Welch
Mickey
54 Willis
Vic
55 Wilson
Hack
56 Youngs
Ross

HOM
-not-HOF

1   Allen
Dick 
2   Barnes
Ross
3   Beckwith
John
4   Bennett
Charlie
5   Blyleven
Bert
6   Boyer
Ken
7   Browning
Pete
8   Caruthers
Bob
9   Childs
Cupid
10 Clark
Will
11  Dahlen
Bill
12  Dawson
Andre
13  Evans
Darrell
14  Evans
Dwight
15  Ferrell
Wes
16  Freehan
Bill
17  Glasscock
Jack
18  Gordon
Joe
19  Gore
George
20  Gossage
Rich
21  Grich
Bobby
22  Groh
Heinie
23  Hack
Stan
24  Hernandez
Keith
25  Hines
Paul
26  Jackson
Joe*
27  JohnsonHome Run
28  Jones
Charley   
29  Keller
Charlie
30  Magee
Sherry
31  McGwire
Mark
32  McVey
Cal
33  Minoso
Minnie
34  Moore
Dobie
35  Nettles
Graig
36  Oms
Alejandro
37  Pearce
Dickey
38  Pierce
Billy
39  Pike
Lip
40  Randolph
Willie
41  Richardson
Hardy
42  Rose
Pete*
43  SantoRon
44  Sheckard
Jimmy
45  Simmons
Ted
46  Start
Joe
47  Stieb
Dave
48  Stovey
Harry
49  Sutton
Ezra
50  Torre
Joe
51  Trammell
Alan
52  Trouppe
Quincy
53  Whitaker
Lou
54  White
Deacon
55  Wynn
Jimmy

*  not eligible for the HOF 
   2. Juan V Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2612918)
Who were the two?
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2612925)
Who were the two?


Two what, Juan.
   4. Juan V Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:10 AM (#2612928)
Oh, I thought that was obvious. I meant, the two who didn't vote Ripken first. I'm too lazy to check out the ballot thread.
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:17 AM (#2612937)
Howie and yest are the answer, Juan.
   6. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2612941)
Small correction, John: Tommy Leach made the top ten from 1940 to 1942.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:23 AM (#2612946)
Small correction, John: Tommy Leach made the top ten from 1940 to 1942.


I went through many of the old spreadsheets to see if he had made the top-ten, but I obviously didn't go through every one. Thanks, Chris!
   8. CraigK Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:24 AM (#2612949)
Well, my ballot doesn't look too stupid, even if I did singlehandedly keep Tony Fernandez and Paul O'Neill on the ballot.

I'd like to see a graph on the number of ballots cast each year throughout the HoM. I'm sure it's a climb from the beginning to now, but I'd like to see how steep.
   9. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2612960)
Wow, I find it shocking Saberhagen may be on the verge of induction and Hershiser didn't get a single vote. I haven't studied them to be sure who I'd rank higher (I'd be a more peak-oriented voter), but from eyeballing them recently I wouldn't have thought they'd be so different, especially with all the career voters here. And obviously not much postseason credit is meted out.
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:44 AM (#2612975)
The best of the rest.

C- Elston Howard #34 Wally Schang 40--looks like we'll be short of catchers for awhile
1B- Tony Perez 12
2B- Larry Doyle 34 Bill Monroe 41
SS- Phil Rizzuto 14 (with WWII credit) Dick Lundy 16 Bus Clarkson 19 Dave Concepcion 23--not that we need any more SS just yet
3B- Tommy Leach 8 John McGraw 15
LF- Bob Johnson 9
CF- Reggie Smith 5 Kirby Puckett 10
RF- Gavvy Cravath 11 Ken Singleton 21
SP- Saberhagen 4 Redding 6 Walters 7 Tiant 13--we might correct our pitcher shortage if we stay at this long enough
RP- Lee Smith 42--beats Sutter!

Unlikeliest to Succeed

C- Brian Downing 1 ballot
1B- Al Oliver 1 ballot
2B- Tony Lazzeri 1 ballot
SS- Jim Fregosi 1 ballot
3B- Bill (don't call me Leroy) Madlock 1 ballot
LF- Bobby Veach 1 ballot
CF- Fielder Jones even more unlikely than Dom DiMaggio 1 ballot each
RF- Paul O'Neill 1 ballot--now, that's a timeline (half of Dewey Evans, who was borderline)
SP- Charlie Hough, Jack Morris, Butch Trucks, Elmer Fudd, Tommy Bond, Sam Leever, Dizzy Trout Mask Replica 1 each
RP- All of them
   11. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:47 AM (#2612979)
>Bret Saberhagen (looks good for 2008!), Reggie Smith (he might make it in 2008, too!),

I agree they "look" good, but there were a bunch of guys who didn't vote this year. I don't think the overall eval of John McGraw has really changed.

But anyway, Sabes and Reggie would sure be a lot better choices than Bob Johnson. Redding, Reggie, Walters, Leach and Puckett are all PHoM.
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:48 AM (#2612983)
I agree. I've got Hershiser, then Sabes, then Conehead.
   13. jimd Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2612997)
The average number of voters is about 48.7 per election, stdev of 5.1
We started with 29 voters in 1898, reaching 45 in 1917.
The peak occurred at 56 ballots for 1934, later tied.
Decline set in, dropping to 45 in 1967, the lowest since the early years.
56 was attained again in 1982 and 1990.
Recent low was 47 in 2000-2001.
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:59 AM (#2613002)
I think Hershiser deserves more careful scrutiny than he got this year. His DERA isn't lights out, but he was a good hiter, a good fielder, and peaked in a low-SD league. He is exactly the sort of player that simple sorts by, say, ERA+ are going to miss, and he deserves better than that. I know I didn't quite get around to him myself, so I'm not casting aspersions about others' lack of attention to him.

However, except for the post-season credit, Rick Reuschel bests him in pretty much every dimension of the game, so if we start sweating the details to assess Hershiser accurately, we ought to do the same for Reuschel, who is the candidate I'd love to see pull a Nettles next year.

Raines, Saberhagen, and Smith would not be a bad set of picks for 2008, though.
   15. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:04 AM (#2613012)
>Rick Reuschel bests him in pretty much every dimension of the game,

You don't mean to include "peak" as a dimension of the game, then, I'm guessing? Or fitness?
   16. Chris Cobb Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:29 AM (#2613037)
Well, Reuschel was the predecessor to David Wells on looks, but except for his big arm injury in the early 80s, he was durable, fielded his position well, and hit well: he didn't have the classic "athlete" body type, but he was clearly not "out of shape". I started following him later in his career, when he came to Pittsburgh, but during those years I never saw that his build hurt his game.

As to peak, is Hershiser's 1984-89 really better than Reuschel's 1973-79?

Yes, Hershiser has the gaudier ERA+ scores and IP totals relative to context, but when you account for Hershiser's getting to play in a good pitcher's park (93-98 PF during his peak) in Dodger Stadium while Reuschel was laboring in Wrigley field while it was a hitter's paradise (105 to 112 PF during his peak) and for Hershiser getting, well, average fielding support while Reuschel got _terrible_ fielding support, Reuschel's peak starts looking pretty good.

You recall Joe Dimino saying a number of times about Reuschel that his 1977 was truly one of the great pitching seasons of the decade? You might ask him if he thinks Hershiser has any season that matches it: the answer, I would guess, is no.

These are the kinds of details that need to be sweated in both cases. Dissing Reuschel because he was a fat guy who played for bad teams isn't close to a fair assessment of his case.
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:33 AM (#2613044)
Reuschel's '77 is indubitably an HoM peak season, and a damn good one at that, and his '85 was also outstanding. Those two seasons hold up quite well against the remaining backlog pitchers IMO on a peak basis--not Dean, obviously, but certainly in the same ballpark (and probably better) than someone like Tiant.

McGraw got screwed by Parkinson's voting a minute too late, and by the absence of Mark Shirk. Hope they're there for 2008.
   18. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:43 AM (#2613055)
Reuschel's best two years are better than Hershiser's best two; Hershiser leads in seasons 3-6 and Reuschel reclaims the advantage after that.

Reuschel's fielders weren't *that* bad, Chris. BP says they cost him about 2 points of RA+. I'm a big Reuschel fan, but his case doesn't revolve around being the victim of poor fielders--rather, it's that he was a long-career pitcher with good ERA+ and legit Cy Young-type peak seasons in an era when those guys were few and far between. If you group him with the 70's star glut, he doesn't look so impressive, but their careers started 7-8 years earlier than his. If you group him with guys like Stieb, then he looks like a no-brainer. My analysis suggests the latter interpretation is more accurate.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:44 AM (#2613056)
Chris Cobb, BTW, what's your email address?
   20. Chris Cobb Posted: November 13, 2007 at 06:25 AM (#2613084)
Reuschel's fielders weren't *that* bad, Chris. BP says they cost him about 2 points of RA+

For his _career_, no, but check out the difference between his NRA and DERA during the 1973-79 stretch:

NRA / DERA
3.66 / 3.51
4.88 / 4.31
4.51 / 4.02
4.14 / 4.00
2.84 / 2.65
3.67/ 3.72
3.79 / 3.68

What particularly caught my attention were 1974-75: his fielders cost him half a run each season -- that's about 10 points of RA+. Sunnyday2 was talking about peak, and I would claim that Reuschel's weak fielding support makes his peak in particular appear lower than it was.

My e-mail? It's chris[underscore]cobb[at]earthlink[dot]net
   21. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 07:06 AM (#2613116)
I don't want to argue against Reuschel since I really like him, but I think BP is being too generous on its fielding adjustment for 1977. Looking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders. Using the DRA numbers, I calculate Reuschel's "true" DERA as 2.80. But BP's DERA numbers are screwy, since the league average is always actually lower than 4.50. Correcting for this error for the 1977 NL, Reuschel's DERA comes out to 2.73, not 2.65 as his DT page has it. In case .08 of DERA in a single year moves your ballot around. :)

I am working to get a revised version of DERA using DRA fielding adjustments in time for the 2008 ballot.
   22. mulder & scully Posted: November 13, 2007 at 09:00 AM (#2613162)
Sorry I didn't vote this year. I was sick most of the week and helping family members move the rest of the time. My vote would not have changed the winners, but Walters and Leach were the only others in the top 10 on my ballot. Cravath would have made the top 10 had I posted. Should be an interesting 2008!
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM (#2613174)
I agree they "look" good, but there were a bunch of guys who didn't vote this year. I don't think the overall eval of John McGraw has really changed.


I agree, Marc, and that's why I didn't state that it was a certainty.
   24. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2007 at 03:07 PM (#2613221)
all-time 'votes points' thru 2007 - those still eligible in 2008 election are in CAPS. electees are not in caps.


TOP 10, ALL-TIME
DUFFY...... 26614.5
VAN HALTREN 26506.5
Beckley.... 25856
Browning... 24502.5
Childs..... 18484
WELCH...... 18187
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
REDDING.... 17266
Jennings... 16976

CJones..... 15875
Bresnahan.. 14965
TLEACH..... 14866
Sisler..... 13892
Pike....... 13399
Sewell..... 12769
RYAN....... 12574.5
Mendez..... 12555
Thompson... 12349
Roush...... 12005

Bennett.... 11503
CRAVATH.....11218
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
WALTERS.....10777
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896
HStovey......9576
DOYLE....... 9572
GRIMES.......9119

Mackey.......8930
BJOHNSON.....8836
AOms.........8385
Start........8378.5
McGinnity....8232
DPearce......8073
McVey........7985.5
FGrant.......7969.5
Kiner........7746
Suttles......7690
NFox.........7587

MCGRAW.......7575
BMONROE......7544
Trouppe......7494
WFerrell.....7259
CBell........6968
SCHANG.......6641
Galvin.......6585
Keller.......6424
Sheckard.....6377

Others in active top 50
Williamson 6341, Willis 5577, Dean 5302, Elliott 4788, Joss 4583, Bridges 4425, BTaylor 4185, TPerez 3685, Rizzuto 3655, FChance 3633, CMays 3497, Traynor 3447, NCash 3384, Cepeda 3348, McCormick 3176, SRice 3163, Cicotte 3079, Brock 2832, Tiant 2825, ReSmith 2786, Tiernan 2692X, FJones 2596, EHoward 2498, Klein 2444, Veach 2346, Stephens 2312, GJBurns 2298, Singleton 2265, BoBonds 2251, Mullane 2221, Staub 2158, Lombardi 2074, Dunlap 2036, BClarkson 1950, Bancroft 1899, Lundy 1878

(just missed)
Poles 1842X, Hooper 1792X, Griffin 1726.5X
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 03:55 PM (#2613280)
I don't get Sabes over Cone at all.
   26. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2613284)
My vote would have moved Cone up to 16th.

I'm shocked that Dick Lundy didn't get more traction.
   27. rawagman Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2613305)
too many missing constituents this year to get a firm grip on what the electorate truly believed.
   28. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2613310)
Lundy was re-"discovered" just last "year!" The challenge is getting the whole electorate to give him their full consideration at this late stage. The new MLE's, which match his reputation, show him as *comfortably* above the established threshold--but how many people have looked at them? This is why I half-jokingly suggested in a previous thread that he should be a required disclosure.

Trust me, between me, 'zop, you, and even people who more or less hate me like sunnyday (JOKE), the electorate will be hearing a LOT about Lundy in the next two weeks. If we can get everyone to give him a full and fair review, I'm extremely optimistic about his 2008 chances.

Sabes vs. Cone is a standard deviation and cohort issue.
   29. Paul Wendt Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2613315)
DanR
Looking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders.

What is the problem in detail? Evidently putouts count more at some fielding positions than at others, so a team defense may be rated better or worse (locally overrated or underrated) depending on who catches a pop fly. For example, if "Snags" Reuschel scampers from the mound all over the infield, taking everything he can reach, that causes his team defense to be underrated?
   30. andrew siegel Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2613316)
So, Nettles is an HoMer and Cey gets no votes? Even on a compressed ballot, a very strange turn of events.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:33 PM (#2613318)
Dizzy Trout Mask Replica 1

Wow, one of the least listenable records that Rock-Crit types love to list as highly influential.

I'm not the guy to examine pitching, I just don't do well with it. But I think if someone can get a chart together that shows us pertinent information about:

Dean
Walters
Resuchel
Tiant
Cone
Saberhagen
Hershiser

it would be most helpful. Perhaps also include some comparable HOMers as well.

In other news, come on Tommy Leach!
   32. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2613323)
Paul Wendt--In DRA, all infield fly outs are considered automatic outs and treated like strikeouts, credited to the pitcher, no matter who catches them. They have no effect on the evaluation of the fielders.

andrew siegel--Most of Nettles' support came from career voters, and Cey didn't last long enough for them.
   33. Paul Wendt Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2613332)
Several regular voters were absent in 2007.
It may be common to re-examine those candidates who (re)gain "elect me" bonus points more closely than backlog candidates further down the ballot.

With those two qualifications, the 2007 results show that Redding, McGraw, Smith, Saberhagen, and Puckett are positioned to (re)gain the most bonus points in 2008. In particular, the leaders Smith and Saberhagen are not notably weak in this regard. If Redding (re)gains eight bonuses and Smith five, for example, that makes up only about one quarter of the gap between them.
   34. Rusty Priske Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:04 PM (#2613366)
HoM, not PHoM

Charlie Bennett
Pete Browning
Roger Bresnahan
Jim Bunning
Stan Coveleski
Don Drysdale
Buck Ewing
Wes Ferrell
Rollie Fingers
Whitey Ford
Joe Gordon
Rick Gossage
Hughie Jennings
Charley Jones
Charlie Keller
Ralph Kiner
Bob Lemon
Juan Marichal
Jose Mendez
Hal Newhouser
Alejandro Oms
Billy Pierce
Hardy Richardson
Dave Stieb
Sam Thompson
Dazzy Vance
Rube Waddell
Ed Walsh
Hoyt Wilhelm
George Wright
   35. Rusty Priske Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2613372)
PHoM, not HoM (in order they were inducted into my PHoM):

George van Haltren
Jimmy Ryan
Tommy Leach
Spotswood Poles
Mickey Welch
Hugh Duffy
Harry Hooper
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Hilton Smith
Sam Streeter
Frank Howard
Norm Cash
Lou Brock
Bobby Bonds
Orlando Cepeda
Reggie Smith
Rusty Staub
Al Oliver
Tony Perez
Dave Parker
Ken Singleton
Jack Clark
Bob Johnson
Ted Strong
Brett Butler
Kirby Puckett
Vic Willis
Dale Murphy

Obviously there are a nubmer that I would now change. Mostly it was the shiny new toy thing that got people inducted while I was still too enamored with them.
   36. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2613477)
"shows us pertinent information about:

Dean
Walters
Resuchel
Tiant
Cone
Saberhagen
Hershiser
"

I think Dick Redding (especially on a peak/prime analysis) holds up well against any of these guys. Do the MLE's already figure in war credit?
   37. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:33 PM (#2613788)
I think Dick Redding (especially on a peak/prime analysis) holds up well against any of these guys. Do the MLE's already figure in war credit?


No. He missed a little more than one full season (about 2/3 of '18 and 2/3 of '19). The MLEs give him 6 WS for the one and 4 for the other. His preceding seasons were 40-33-27 and his following seasons were 19-21-19. A conservative amount of war credit would give him another 30 WS for the time he missed.
   38. Paul Wendt Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:08 AM (#2613877)
32. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:36 AM (#2613323)
Paul Wendt--In DRA, all infield fly outs are considered automatic outs and treated like strikeouts, credited to the pitcher, no matter who catches them. They have no effect on the evaluation of the fielders.

In #29, I was guessing the significance of discretionary plays in #21 (quoted again below). Having guessed wrong I don't have another guess.

from DanR on Reuschel #21
I don't want to argue against Reuschel since I really like him, but I think BP is being too generous on its fielding adjustment for 1977. Looking at the DRA numbers for the '77 Cubs, the main reason the team grades out badly is that the team had an inordinately low number of infield popups--51 runs' worth below average. Since those plays are virtually automatic and discretionary, they really don't tell you very much about the quality of the fielders.
   39. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2613885)
Not sure what you're guessing about, Paul. The point is that the '77 Cubs defense was probably not as bad as BP says it was; it just looks bad superficially because opposing batters hit significantly fewer popups against their pitchers than they did against other teams' staffs.
   40. Paul Wendt Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2613916)
From the discussion thread which includes consensus scores by OCF
181. Eric Chalek (Dr. Chaleeko) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:20 AM (#2613304)
Wow, my basement-bound consensus score has recently taken a turn for the downright agreeable. Ghastly, I tell you.

Maybe you have become influential Eric. Still ghastly?
More likely the fine-tuned consensus algorithm goes haywire with data such as 2007 provides - "elect three" with three nearly unanimous newcomers.

Marc,
Regarding the meteoric rise of Graig Nettles, I know you mean his two giant steps at the end, 180 to 230 to 320 points. Dobie Moore was a notable celestial body of some kind, maybe a comet with a long orbit. I suspect that he would not have reached the zenith without your campaign.
   41. Paul Wendt Posted: November 14, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2613921)
DanR,
You observed that pop putouts are discretionary so I was guessing how that would affect the WARP measure of infield defense, presumably via who was catching the pop flies --discretion within the infield was my public guess (although Reuschel scampering off the mound was facetious).
My second guess would have been that their outfielders handled a high share of pops. The outfielders have better perspective, maybe that is overriding against the daytime sky. By the way did the Cubs frequently trail the league in infield pops? (51 estimated runs below average in 1977. Wow!) If so then I wonder too whether batter hit more pop flies at night.
   42. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 01:23 AM (#2613936)
Yes, the Cubs consistently had *extremely* low infield fly outs from 1960 to 1985--50 runs is quite high but hardly out of the ordinary (average is -30). It is indubitably a park effect--I imagine Wrigley has very little foul ground? The numbers I have suggest that very low popups and very high home runs are the two main factors accounting for Wrigley's 110+ park factors through this period.

Note that this still means WARP is double-counting, since it first applies a park factor and then applies the NRA-DERA adjustment. That said, we're squabbling over peanuts in this case--DRA has Chicago's team D at -21 in 1977, BP has it at -32.
   43. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 14, 2007 at 01:54 AM (#2613959)
It is indubitably a park effect--I imagine Wrigley has very little foul ground?


Correct.

-- MWE
   44. DanG Posted: November 14, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2614729)
As we wind down this phase of the Hall of Merit, I've got another "Fun Time" project started at Baseball-Fever. I call it "The Ultimate Quest for Candidates". Round one is a series of 12 polls to determine the best hall of fame candidates from each decade.

I would greatly appreciate any members of the HoM electorate who drop in and contribute their expert opinion.
   45. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 14, 2007 at 09:45 PM (#2614871)
Thanks for the link DanG. I'm surprised to see the weak support for Gavvy Cravath on baseball-fever. Cravath fans should stop by the website and support the man. Great to see voters recognizing Wes Ferrell, Heinie Groh, and Sherry Magee though.
   46. DanG Posted: November 14, 2007 at 10:44 PM (#2614967)
Thanks for the link DanG. I'm surprised to see the weak support for Gavvy Cravath on baseball-fever. Cravath fans should stop by the website and support the man. Great to see voters recognizing Wes Ferrell, Heinie Groh, and Sherry Magee though.

I totally agree. Veach is out-polling Cravath 12-5 at present?!? Even Babe Adams gets more love (7-5). We need a few more good voters over there.
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2007 at 12:14 AM (#2615063)
DanG, so how the hell do you actually vote? I registered and logged in and all of that crap, and my window says "you cannot vote on this poll." Say I wanted to vote for Wilbur Cooper. What exactly would I click on? The only thing that is live is the actual number, in his case being 13 at the moment.

Not to mention where is the 1910s poll? I suppose I should just poke around but the thing strikes me as byzantine.
   48. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 12:38 AM (#2615088)
The following would be the unofficial opinion of the HOM (as expressed by our voting patterns).
Of course, we can quibble about who goes in which decade.

The slashes? (/) The first marks the border between "frontlog" and "midlog", the second between "midlog" and "backlog". Front-loggers got more than 50% of the #1's (or would have if not for the presence of another "front-logger" on the ballot, eg Ruth vs Hornsby). Midloggers didn't get 50% but also didn't mingle with the real backloggers (more formal def'n courtesy of Paul Wendt).

HOM-not HOF

1860's 1 // Start Pearce
1870's 8 White Hines / Barnes / Sutton McVey Pike CJones
1880's 7 / Gore / Glasscock Richardson Stovey Bennett Caruthers Browning
1890's 2 Dahlen // Childs
1900's 3 // GJohnson Magee Sheckard
1910's 2 / JJackson Groh /
1920's 3 // Beckwith Moore Oms
1930's 2 // Ferrell Trouppe
1940's 3 // Hack Gordon Keller
1950's 3 // Pierce Minoso Boyer
1960's 5 Santo / Allen Torre / Freehan JWynn
1970's 7 Rose Blyleven Grich Gossage / TSimmons DaEvans / Nettles
1980's 7 Trammell Whitaker / Hernandez DwEvans / Randolph Stieb Dawson
1990's 2 McGwire / WClark /
   49. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 12:41 AM (#2615095)
Forgot to add. Frontloggers comprise almost 50% of the HOM; they are our "upper-half". Midloggers are the next 20%; they would be serious candidates for a writer's HOM. Backloggers are the remaining third; almost all of them would be removed by a "small-hall" advocate.
   50. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 12:44 AM (#2615100)
serious candidates for a writer's HOM

serious but marginal candidates for a writer's HOM

Proofread, then post. Not the reverse...
   51. DanG Posted: November 15, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2615672)
DanG, so how the hell do you actually vote? I registered and logged in and all of that crap, and my window says "you cannot vote on this poll." Say I wanted to vote for Wilbur Cooper. What exactly would I click on? The only thing that is live is the actual number, in his case being 13 at the moment.

Not to mention where is the 1910s poll? I suppose I should just poke around but the thing strikes me as byzantine.

Actually, I prefer the format of their forums to those here at BBTF. Two main reasons: 1) You can EDIT your posts whenever you want; 2) Anyone can post a poll - You can set a closing date if you want; you can allow multiple choices or not; you can set it to see who cast votes, or not.

I wonder if you're not having browser issues. I use IE or AOL browser and have no trouble. The only time you should get the message "you cannot vote on this poll" is if you're not logged in or if you've already voted on the poll.

The link I provided is to the introductory thread for the project. The last post there has links to the three threads with the polls posted in the project so far: the 1910's, 1920's and 1930's. The poll is at the top of each thread.
   52. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2616162)
HOF-not HOM

1860's 0
1870's 0
1880's 1 Welch
1890's 2 TMcCarthy Duffy
1900's 7 Chesbro Willis Chance Joss Tinker Evers Bender
1910's 7 Marquard Hooper Taylor SRice Bancroft Maranville Schalk
1920's 17 Haines Grimes Pennock GKelly Youngs ACooper Cuyler Combs Hoyt Traynor
---------- Bottomley HWilson JJohnson Manush TJackson Lazzeri Lindstrom
1930's 10 Hafey Klein RFerrell LWaner HSmith Lombardi Gomez Dean Dandridge Day
1940's 3 Rizzuto Kell Schoendiesnt
1950's 0
1960's 4 Aparicio Mazeroski Cepeda Brock
1970's 3 Perez Hunter Sutter
1980's 1 Puckett
1990's 0
----

And we thought we had problems with too many guys from the 1920's/1930's...
   53. Chris Fluit Posted: November 15, 2007 at 11:19 PM (#2616339)
Yikes! Only 2 of those 1920s guys are even in our top 50 (Grimes and Traynor) and only 2 more receive any votes at all (Lazzeri and Wilson).
   54. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM (#2616554)
And we've overachieved a bit on the '20s ourselves. However overboard is the HoF on the '20s.
   55. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM (#2616558)
DanG, I wonder, I use Safari 99 percent of the time. I'll have to try my IE, I guess.
   56. jimd Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:30 AM (#2616706)
Many of the excess in the 1920's/early 30's have a connection to Frisch and/or Terry.
Or were part of the '27 Yankees. (A ploy on their part to defuse criticism of the buddy selections?)
   57. Chris Fluit Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:41 PM (#2617258)
If you and all of your teammates are Hall of Famers, then the guys who beat you must be Hall of Famers too.
   58. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 04:33 AM (#2618181)
Midloggers didn't get 50% but also didn't mingle with the real backloggers (more formal def'n courtesy of Paul Wendt).

Yes.
I made the judgment call to depart from the formal definition in case of Joe Jackson and therefore Pete Hill. I overlooked Jackson's poor showing when he was newly eligible and called a "quasi-first ballot" HOMer. In turn Pete Hill did not finish behind a real backlogger (Jackson) so he is also a quasi-first ballot HOMer. If jimd made the same call, he would promote Jackson to the frontlog but leave Hill in the midlog, I think.

(Given 'frontlog' and 'backlog', this new 'midlog' is a happily coined term. The midlog is all of my quasi-first ballot HOMers who are not in the frontlog. Hill is not on jimd's list for the 1900s or 1910s because the HOF elected him last year.)

A few real backloggers made strong showings here in some informal sense. Glasscock, certainly. Maybe Richardson and one or more of the 1900s.
   59. jimd Posted: November 19, 2007 at 09:38 PM (#2620401)
When trying to determine the electoral strength of a particular candidate, the boycotts get in the way. So it makes sense to ignore the showing of those affected candidates in those years (for Jackson and Rose; Anson's election is the only sample we have for him).

This makes Jackson and Hill mid-loggers both. Even in his election year, Jackson received only 35% of the #1's, Pete Hill and the backlog being the only competition, and Hill only got one #1, though he received a number of #2's behind Jackson.

A few real backloggers made strong showings here in some informal sense. Glasscock, certainly. Maybe Richardson and one or more of the 1900s.

Radbourn edged Wright in 1898 by 7 points. Voters then backed off on Radbourn while we debated early pitching and fielding, causing him to sink down into the backlog, carrying the status of Keefe, Wright, Glasscock, and Rusie with him. Those 4 would otherwise be mid-loggers.
   60. jimd Posted: November 30, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2629613)
HOM-not-HOF broken down by Arm/Bat/Glove

Arm 6
Blyleven Gossage Caruthers Ferrell Pierce
Stieb
Bat 20
Rose McGwire Hines Gore WClark
JJackson Hernandez DyEvans Start Stovey
Magee Sheckard Pike Minoso Keller
JWynn CJones Browning Dawson Oms
Glv 29
White Dahlen Santo Grich Trammell
Whitaker Barnes Allen Torre Groh
Glasscock Richardson Sutton McVey Bennett
GJohnson Pearce Beckwith Hack Gordon
Freehan Childs Boyer Moore TSimmons
DlEvans Trouppe Randolph Nettles
   61. jimd Posted: November 30, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2629618)
HOF-not-HOM broken down by Arm/Bat/Glove

Arm 17
Chesbro *Pennock *Dean Bender Grimes
Hoyt Haines Marquard Gomez Welch
Joss *Hunter Willis Day HSmith
*Sutter Cooper
Bat 20
Duffy Chance McCarthy SRice Manush
LWaner Cuyler Combs Hafey Hooper
Youngs GKelly Bottomley HWilson Klein
*Brock Cepeda *Perez *Puckett Taylor
Glv 18
Evers Tinker *Traynor *Maranville Schalk
Bancroft JJohnson Lindstrom TJackson Kell
*Aparicio RFerrell Lombardi Dandridge Schoendienst
Lazzeri Rizzuto Mazeroski
*Denotes BBWAA selection
   62. jimd Posted: November 30, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2629625)
Even if the HOM is a tad bat-heavy, we have the same percentage as the HOF.

We have dumped a number of pitchers, replacing them with every-day players at the glove positions.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.8221 seconds
49 querie(s) executed