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

2008 Ballot Discussion

2008 (December 3)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

390 131.8 1981 Tim Raines-LF
213 98.3 1986 Chuck Finley-P
231 80.0 1991 Chuck Knoblauch-2B
233 75.5 1990 Dave Justice-RF
214 74.2 1988 Brady Anderson-CF/LF
199 74.3 1990 Travis Fryman-3B
186 54.5 1990 Delino DeShields-2B
143 60.1 1992 John Valentin-SS/3B
136 60.1 1986 Greg Swindell-P
139 56.0 1989 Andy Benes-P
152 48.5 1985 Shawon Dunstan-SS
137 52.5 1979 Mike Morgan-P
120 54.3 1993 Robb Nen-RP
126 49.4 1988 Randy Velarde-2B
134 43.5 1994 Rusty Greer-LF
114 45.6 1991 Darryl Kile-P (2002)

Players Passing Away 11/06 to 10/07
HoMers
Age Elected

None

Candidates
Age Eligible

93 1953 Cecil Travis-SS/3B
91 1959 Max Lanier-P
90 1957 Sam Chapman-CF
90 1961 Pete Suder-2B
89 1961 Johnny Sain-P/Coach
89 1962 Phil Rizzuto-SS
85 1964 Bill Wight-P
85——Jack Lang-Sportswriter
84 1967 Hank Bauer-RF
84——Art Fowler-P/Coach
83——Herb Carneal-Broadcaster
80 1967 Clem Labine-RP
80 1973 Lew Burdette-P
80——Bowie Kuhn-Commissioner
75 1971 Ed Bailey-C
73——David Halberstam-Author
70 1977 Clete Boyer-3B
68 1980 Steve Barber-P
64 1983 Pat Dobson-P
64 1989 Bill Robinson-LF/RF

Upcoming Candidate
38 2010 Rod Beck-RP


Thanks, Dan!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 12:08 AM | 314 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: November 13, 2007 at 04:03 AM (#2612917)
It's Raines and two from the backlog.

I'm looking forward to the break in a few weeks.
   2. CraigK Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:29 AM (#2612954)
Yeah, definite backlog election.
   3. rawagman Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:55 AM (#2612995)
What - no love for Coolbaugh, Lidle or the releiver whose name escapes me from StL iun the necrology report?
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:01 AM (#2613007)
Never too early.

2008

Again, I’m mostly a peak/prime Win Shares voter though I look at a lot of information—especially my own annual MVP ballot and all-star selections, OPS+ and ERA+, HoFS, HoFM, ink, etc.—in trying to correctly interpret the numbers. Lately I’ve been looked at WS above the position median.

2008 PHoM—Raines, Trammell, Sheckard

* PHoM/not HoM so far 21st century elections—Puckett, Mattingly, Munson, Dean, Pesky, Rosen, Duffy, Walters, Belle

HoM/not PHoM 21st century elections—Whitaker, Randolph, Stieb, Bresnahan, Oms, Nettles

1. Tim Raines (new, PHoM 2008)--easy choice

2. Ed Williamson (4-2-3, PHoM 1924)
3. Kirby Puckett (5-13-15, PHoM 2001)—two oddly comparable players 100 years apart; two not-long thought not-quite-short careers, both exceptionally durable in-season (Ed led the league in games 4 times, Puckett >150 games 8 times; both played both sides of the ball pretty well; for Puckett, +107 WS versus the median CF compared to Dale Murphy at +75.5 or Reggie Smith at +71; that’s not a knock on Murphy and Reggie, BTW, +70s are pretty good

4. Dizzy Dean (6-1-2, PHoM 2002)—for a peak voter, the one big oversight of the HoM project to date; even with a short prime (6 years), the +39 WS above the “median ace” is the best available (tied with Walters)

5. Dick Lundy (7-7-20, PHoM 2006)—there is no precedent for not balloting (or electing) a SS with 16 years as a regular, 9300 PA and 347 WS (adjusted to 162 games). Note that his new OBA, based on the HoF and Cuban League data, is .347 versus Ozzie at .337. His new OPS+ is 104 versus Ozzie at 87. With 33 percent of his value on defense and 110 defensive WS, I’m guessing that makes him about an A- glove, same as Pee Wee Reese (OPS+ 98) and Joe Sewell (109). Trammell is a B glove with a 110 and 325 WS (after adjusting 1981)

6. Albert Belle (8-6-new, PHoM 2006)—WS peak beyond question at 37-34-34-31 (with 1994 and 1995 adjusted appropriately), positively Keller-ish

7. Larry Doyle (9-8-9, PHoM 1975)—at his best, a deserving NL MVP on a pennant-winning team; about 9 WS per year better than the median NL 2B

8. Don Newcombe (10-4-6, PHoM 1997
9. Elston Howard (11-3-5, PHoM 1994)—2 guys who missed more opportunities than anybody, Newk coulda been Robin Roberts, for Howard the comp is somewhere between Freehan and Cochrane; Newk was +3 WS per year better than the median “ace” which puts him in Stieb territory even without any MiL (integration) or Korea (military) credit, both of which he obviously deserves; Howard is +61 WS versus the median AL catcher

(9a. Alan Trammell [10a-13a-15a], PHoM 2008)

10. Tommy Bond (12-9-8, PHoM 1929)—he’s baaaack; pretty much the all-time WS peak monster even after I give his defenses half his credit

11. Bucky Walters (13-12-45, PHoM 2006)—the big mover in my pitcher re-eval at +39 WS versus the median “ace” AFTER discounting his WWII years

12. Al Rosen (14-11-12, PHoM 2005)—the #1 WS peak of anybody in my 30 hitters, and +12 WS versus position median

13. Johnny Pesky (15-10-11, PHoM 2004)—28 WS (in his rookie season) and 34 WS in the years before and after spending 3 years fighting WWII; adjusted WS peak (adjusted to 162 games), then, is 36-30-30, compared to Rizzuto’s 37-27-26 and Trammell’s 35-29-26; rate is 23.8 to Rizzuto and Trammel’s 22.5; +7 WS per year versus position median

14. Hugh Duffy (17-14-13, PHoM 2005)—I understand that WS overrates him, that’s why he’s here

(14a. Jimmy Sheckard [19a-19a-19a], PHoM 2008)

15. Tommy Leach (21-18-16, PHoM 1998)—what a valuable guy to have around, a rich man’s Roger Bresnahan

HoVVG

16. Phil Rizzuto (19-15-4, PHoM 1995)
17. Gavvy Cravath (18-17-17, PHoM 1995)
18. Reggie Smith (24-25-32, PHoM 1988)
19. Dale Murphy (16-16-23)
20. Ken Singleton (22-21-22)

21. Dick Redding (20-19-18, PHoM 1971)
(21a. Wes Ferrell [22a-16a-30a])
22. Bret Saberhagen (27-27-NR)
23. Vern Stephens (23-20-19)
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:02 AM (#2613010)
PS. None of the other newbies is top 50 material, though I'll say that Travis Fryman is underrated.
   6. DanG Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:19 AM (#2613026)
What - no love for Coolbaugh, Lidle or the releiver whose name escapes me from StL iun the necrology report?

You're welcome to post an addendum.
   7. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:57 AM (#2613068)
Josh Hancock?
   8. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 13, 2007 at 06:12 AM (#2613077)
Newly eligible and king of K/BB ratio (Minimum 3000 AB's):

1. Shawon Dunston 203 BB, 1000 SO, 4.93 Ratio
2. Tony Armas 260, 1201, 4.62
3. Mariano Duncan 201, 913, 4.54
4. Cory Snyder 226, 992, 4.39
5. Joe Hornung (1879-1890) 120, 498, 4.15
6. Jim Presley 210, 859, 4.09
7. Pat Meares 210, 859, 3.92
8. Alfonso Soriano 255, 966, 3.79
9. Alex Gonzalez (Current SS) 216, 814, 3.77
10. Cito Gaston 185, 693, 3.75
11-25 are through 2006: John Shelby, Don Demeter, Luis Salazar, Jose Hernandez, Pat Borders, Pete Incaviglia, John Bateman, Jose Guillen, Jerry Denny, Andres Galarraga, Mike Marshall, Juan Samuel, Shea Hillenbrand, Deivi Cruz, Lee May.

Future worst HOM in K/BB ratio is: Ivan Rodriguez, cracking the top 70, at 2.74, thanks to a 9/96 '07.
   9. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 06:40 AM (#2613095)
It comes as no surprise today, but 100 years ago I would have expected that we might come closer to following Bill James/WS rankings. Some of the more interesting juxtapositions would include the following. And generally I'm ignoring 19C because, no, it would have been logically impossible for us to reflect James ratings of the 19C guys given his timeline and our method:

Catcher--#14 Munson and #15 Howard out; #16 Bresnahan in

1B--#12 Mattingly, #13 Perez, #17 Cepeda out: #14 Clark, #15 Allen, #16 Hernandez, #24 Sisler in

2B--no real surprises

SS--#13 Aparicio, #15 Fregosi, #16 Rizutto out; #23 Sewell in--though even 100 years ago we probably saw Aparicio and Fregosi as "idiosyncratic" choices (i.e. mistakes) by James

3B--#11 Bando out; #21 Groh in

LF--#15 Brock, #19 F. Howard, #20 Belle out; #21 Magee, #22 Clarke, #23 Wheat, #24 Sheckard in

CF--#8 Puckett, #12 Murphy, #13 Berger out; #23 Carey in

RF--#14 Parker, #15 Bonds out; #19 Dawson, #22 Dw. Evans, #23 Flick, #35 Keeler in

P--#25 Dean, #38 Carl Mays, #44 Warneke, #46 Newcombe out; Faber, Coveleski, Pierce, #76 Rixey in
   10. OCF Posted: November 13, 2007 at 06:52 AM (#2613107)
Yeah, what about Bando? (Speaking as someone who has him on the ballot.)
   11. rawagman Posted: November 13, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2613177)
Wasn't Duffy in the top 15 among CF?
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2007 at 01:46 PM (#2613183)
Duffy was #20. I listed players within 10 slots of the current leader. Oops, I missed Fred Lynn #17, though. Vada Pinson and Hack Wilson also rate ahead of Duffy.

Yeah, Bando is the highest rated eligible, depending on how you factor the pitchers. Actually I divide by 4, so Dean is a 6.25 and the #1 eligible, Mays #2 and Warneke and Bando #3. I don't happen to support Mays or Warneke so I can't trump up Dean and Bando too much, at least not just on this basis.

Obviously Warneke remains the big surprise, but Fregosi and Berger and Bando are "up there." And a lot of the "ins" are, I think, very deserving. A lot of them are victims of a way too aggressive timeline--Sisler, Groh, Clarke, e.g.

Of the outs I have PHoMed: Mattingly, Cepeda, Rizzuto, F. Howard, Belle, Puckett, Dean and Newcombe. And among the "ins" I have NOT PHoMed: Sewell, Sheckard or Pierce, so I guess I'm a WS voter.
   13. Rusty Priske Posted: November 13, 2007 at 02:55 PM (#2613210)
When is this election?

Shouldn't we wait until... you know... 2008?
   14. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 13, 2007 at 04:17 PM (#2613301)
Shouldn't we wait until... you know... 2008?

The HOF will conduct its vote this or next month with the announcement in January, IIRC.... I might not be RC....

I think the consensus so far has been to hold our vote ahead of theirs to pre-empt their election and provide some rationales for the frontloggers and recent backloggers in their consideration sets.
   15. Rusty Priske Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2613362)
All righty then... here is my very prelim...

PHoM: Tim Raines, Dick Lundy, Joe Greene

Greene is my second case of a player sitting in a very different spot due to a changed list of people around him. Since I do comparisons to the eligible players rather than in a vacuum, Greene scores WAY higher in my PHoM than my HoM vote.

Prelim

1. Tim Raines
2. Tony Perez
3. Tommy Leach
4. Reggie Smith
5. Dick Lundy
6. George van Haltren
7. Rusty Staub
8. Mickey Welch
9. Lou Brock
10. Hugh Duffy
11. Ken Singleton
12. Bob Johnson
13. Norm Cash
14. Dick Redding
15. Kirby Puckett

16-20. Mullane, Murphy, Willis, Bonds, Monroe
21-25. Streeter, Cepeda, Grimes, Strong, John
26-30. Greene, Gleason, Robinson, Souell, Doyle
   16. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2613387)
I'd be interested to hear what the following voters think of Dick Lundy. Have you examined his new MLE's based on the HoF data? Are you aware that his reputation was so strong that one Negro League historian (can't remember if it was Gary A, Holway, or someone else) was stunned to hear he was left out of the HoM? Would you vote for Bobby Wallace if he were eligible today?

John Murphy
Sean Gilman
Rob Wood
Eric Chalek
Howie Menckel
Andrew M
DanG
Mike Webber
Jim Sp
jimd
KJOK

Cross-posting to Lundy's thread.
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 07:24 PM (#2613535)
Cross-posting from Lundy's thread the anecdotal evidence backing up his new MLE's, courtesy of the extremely helpful DL from MN:

Here's the quote from Holway

"Clarkson is a nobody. Lundy is one of the Big Three shortstops. Hit 30
points higher than Wells. Took (an older) Lloyd's job away from him. Won
three flags as a manager. Considered the smoothest fielding shortstop. A
travesty that he didnt make the Hall of Fame. I'd have named him in the
first five on the latest [1996] ballot.

Pop Foul"
   18. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2613571)
2008 Prelim

First, I'd like to thank everyone for allowing me the privilege of participating in this project. I'm rather proud of the work done by what my wife calls "your fake Hall of Fame". I keep reminding her that the internet isn't fake. Bricks and mortar don't trump a sound process.

PHoM this year is Raines, Dick Lundy and David Cone. Vic Willis, Urban Shocker, Biz Mackey and Wally Schang are next in line.

1) Tim Raines - Would have been 2nd on the 2007 ballot. 12.3 BRWAA in Dan R's WAR!
2) Luis Tiant - Does well in comparison to other elected pitchers on peak, prime and career. Not strikingly different than Marichal, Pierce, Bunning.
3) Tommy Bridges - Best rate production of the pitchers available, maintained that rate for a long period of time despite (perhaps because of) innings pitched numbers that aren't overwhelming. Their are fewer pitchers elected from Bridges' era than any other. It wasn't easy to pitch in the AL of the 1930s and early 1940s.
4) Rick Reuschel - Good hitter and fielder for a pitcher, as good of a pitcher as Jim Bunning.
5) Bret Saberhagen - The filler seasons are all above average, the peak seasons are outstanding.
6) Tommy Leach - Looks like he's my top backlog position player. Not as much bat as McGraw but more glove and just as good on the basepaths. Played two mid-spectrum defensive positions very well. Long career, especially for his era.
7) David Cone - Just a little bit less impressive than Saberhagen. Nobody thinks of either Saberhagen or Cone as a type of player you should enshrine which means people are underappreciating just how well they pitched.
8) Bus Clarkson - I like his bat over Lundy's glove. The new information on the Mexican League ban helps to explain further how he slipped through history relatively unnoticed.
9) John McGraw - Those are some astounding rate statistics. It's also a short career which is why he only gets this high on the ballot.
10) Reggie Smith - Best available outfielder, in my PHoM. I'm not sure why a certain prominent voter loves guys with good rate stats but questionable durability when they play a position but turns up his nose at Tommy Bridges.
11) Jim McCormick - Don't forget that he's a good hitter as well. Certainly more impressive than Mickey Welch's mediocrity.
12) Dick Lundy - Dave Bancroft with a little more career.
13) Virgil Trucks - Needs a little war credit to make the ballot but he deserves it.
14) Bob Johnson - Similar to Reggie Smith how he kept putting up good numbers year after year but never led the league in anything. Good fielder. I don't agree that war discounts make up for his missing PCL years. In order to make that claim you'd have to discount WWII baseball more than 33% which would mean the league went from MLB quality to AA in 2 years. Better than 3-4 contemporary outfielders who have been elected.
15) Lee Smith - Tentative hold on the final ballot spot. Smith is my in-out line for relief pitchers (and Fingers is out).

16) Ben Taylor
17) Dick Redding - In my PHoM, I would love to see him get elected this year.
18-20) Vic Willis, Urban Shocker, Wally Schang,
21-25) Norm Cash, Dutch Leonard, Gene Tenace, Tommy John, Gavy Cravath
26-30) Lave Cross, Jack Quinn, Phil Rizzuto, Nap Rucker, Ron Cey

Chuck Finley is somewhere in the low 30s. Dave Justice compares to Jack Clark and George Burns. Knoblauch is not quite Bobby Avila.
   19. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2613583)
Hahahah! I suppose "prominent voter" is a good thing...

1. Does 12.3 BRWAA for Raines surprise you? His lifetime SB/CS was 808/146, the data back up the reputation as a superlative non-SB baerunner, and he played in a low-scoring era where his skill set was extra-valuable.

2. You're completely right that I apply different standards for durability to pitchers than to hitters. I think that a low-IP pitcher hurts his team a LOT more by depleting the bullpen than a low-PA hitter hurts his team by depleting the bench.
   20. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2007 at 08:38 PM (#2613627)
12.3 BRWAA is just a LOT. That's something completely missed by OPS+ and to some extent by SB/CS alone.
   21. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 13, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2613638)
In the past I've cast some doubt on HOlway's remark, and I'm going to do it again.

What I know is that Holway is both a respected expert and a source of controversey. I don't know exactly how he manages both, and I don't know the exact nature of the controverseys. Others in the electorate have told that story somewhere else in these threads and may be willing to tell it again.

But I also know that there are statements in his summation of Lundy that are not as helpful as they might seem at first reading...

Clarkson is a nobody.
That's an overreach. He was a multisport star at Wilburforce (as Gary A has noted). He made East-West ASG teams. He made it to MLB. He led leagues of various quality in important stats deep into his career.

I think what Holway is saying here is that Clarkson has very little prominence in the oral and written history of the NgLs. I wouldn't doubt that's due to the fractured nature of his career. As Gary has since shown us, Clarkson's "nobodiness" may well be due in part to an unofficial blacklisting that occured because he played in Mexico in 1946-1947. I'm not an expert of any high caliber, but I think a reading of the facts of Clarkson's career does not support the idea that he was a nobody.

Lundy is one of the Big Three shortstops.
Yes. Oral tradition is a feather in his cap.

Hit 30 points higher than Wells.
We all know that this statement doesn't mean what Holway may think it means. For instance, dimes and dollars that he's comparing NgL average to NgL average. But by whose NgL numbers? And anyway, that conveniently leaves out play in several other venues: the Carribean, Mexico, Quebec. In addition citing averages without acknowledgement of park effects or run environment or quality of play considerations isn't all that helpful.

Took (an older) Lloyd's job away from him.
Yes. A feather in Lundy's cap as a fielder.

Won three flags as a manager.
Not really applicable to HOM consideration.

Considered the smoothest fielding shortstop.
Yes. Another check mark in his favor on the glove side.

A travesty that he didnt make the Hall of Fame. I'd have named him in the first five on the latest [1996] ballot.
I'm not entirely clear what Holway means here in the second half of his commentary. But it appears to be a strong recommendation that Lundy get lasting glory. Expert opinion has a place in the NgL discussion, particularly until we have a better sense of the statistical history of the leagues. I don't think that any expert, however, would claim to be 100% right all the time, nor do I think any of us voters would rate an expert's testimony as the only thing worth taking into consideration. Given the often preachy or strident tone of his Complete Book (the only book of his I've read), I'm not surprised that he deals in emotional absolutes such as "travesty." But I'm not sure that his hot language should sway anyone. His endorsement as a respected expert alone may be the information worth knowing, not the stridency of his language.

Hey, I could be wrong on all these accounts. As I see it, the stories of Lundy, Clarkson, Wells, and even Holway, himself, are deeply complicated. And evaluating his remark on its own terms tells me that:
-Lundy hit for a good (but not great) average in the NgLs.
-Lundy was an all-time great fielder.
-Lundy has a strong presence in the oral tradition.
-Holway supports his candidacy.

Those are good things for Lundy, but they also apply to some degree to Dave Bancroft. Or Phil Rizzuto. Or Rabbit Maranville. So while I find Holway's comments meaningful, I don't think they are decisive.
   22. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 08:52 PM (#2613650)
No one is suggesting that the HoM should do whatever Holway says. But his comments are extremely relevant, important, and valuable because they provide strong anecdotal and reputational support to the recent MLE's, which show Lundy to be a good cut or two above the other players you mention and--in my book--a slam-dunk HoM'er. I don't want to make this another debate about Clarkson, but for those of us who find MLE's valuable tools but are painfully aware of their limitations, an impeccable contemporary reputation can and does make the difference between making a ballot and failing to do so.
   23. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 13, 2007 at 09:17 PM (#2613685)
No one is suggesting that the HoM should do whatever Holway says. But his comments are extremely relevant, important, and valuable because they provide strong anecdotal and reputational support to the recent MLE's, which show Lundy to be a good cut or two above the other players you mention and--in my book--a slam-dunk HoM'er.

I just don't think that his comments do this, Dan. Holway provides support for what we've long known: that Lundy is a great fielder and has a strong presence in the oral tradition. His comments about his bat do nothing to advance Lundy's cause and may even be misleading. I don't consider that support for a slam-dunk.

I don't want to make this another debate about Clarkson,

Nor I. But the reason I pointed out his comment about Clarkson was to show that even recognized experts may not be assessing all players in the same ways we are. Holway's given us a clue about how he filters information, and it seems important that we recognize it in his evaluations.

I mean look at this another way. Clark and Lester are equally respected (in some quarters moreso). A group led by them, working with their numbers (which are the latest and may or may not be the greatest) found that Lundy was not only not a slam-dunk HOFer, but not even a HOFer. What weight should we give that opinion? Is that also the difference between on and off ballot consideration?

But for those of us who find MLE's valuable tools but are painfully aware of their limitations, an impeccable contemporary reputation can and does make the difference between making a ballot and failing to do so.

Sure, no argument there. If the MLEs match the reputation, that's a good indication that the reputation is correct as well. Do Lundy's match his reputation on offense? That's long been where the rubber meets the road.

I haven't made up my mind on Lundy yet, and I will do more investigation. I just think this bit from Holway presented in isolation isn't all that it may seem.
   24. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:01 PM (#2613752)
Lundy...has a strong presence in the oral tradition.


This is all I am trying to say. I suspect there are many voters who never knew this or who forgot it after so many elections, and it Is a key plank in his candidacy. I am not going any further than that.
   25. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:36 PM (#2613789)
"I think that a low-IP pitcher hurts his team a LOT more by depleting the bullpen than a low-PA hitter hurts his team by depleting the bench."

Which seems to conflict with your statements about the high replacement value of relief pitchers due to chaining...
   26. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM (#2613803)
Not in the slightest...the chaining thing is a response to people who multiply relief IP by leverage (notably Joe Dimino). So if a RP throws 70 IP at a LI of 2, they'll credit them with 140 IP without changing their replacement level. THAT, I think, is completely mistaken, for the reasons I've outlined on prior threads--a replacement pitcher would never be throwing double-leverage innings.

But leverage isn't germane to this discussion. A low-IP pitcher WILL cause the bullpen to be stretched, by creating a lot of 5th, 6th, and 7th innings (probably with an LI close to 1) that need to be filled by relievers. Either a team will force its middle relievers to throw more of these innings than they would otherwise, hurting their effectiveness, or they will have to be filled by replacements. Yes, there is still SOME chaining effect, but one so small that it can be ignored: the long reliever will pitch those innings (LI of 1), the mopup man will pitch the long reliever's innings (LI of .75), and the replacement will pitch the mopup man's innings (LI of .5). But the gap in effectiveness between the long reliever, the mopup man, and the replacement is miniscule, probably around .010-.015 of winning percentage. No matter what roles you juggle them around in, a pitcher who is damn close to replacement will still be forced into situations of a LI around 1. Thus, we can ignore the leverage issue and just do a straight subtraction of replacement value.

Does that make sense?
   27. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2007 at 11:33 PM (#2613844)
A few further clarifications. First, I now no longer vote based on rate for position players nearly as much as I used to, precisely because I began to ask myself, Why did I go to all this trouble to get the absolute best estimate of replacement level I possibly could, only to (in practice) use a different, higher one in my voting? I still care about rate, but mainly as a tiebreaker; I'm basically voting off of WARP totals (seasonal and career) these days. This is part of why Reggie Smith has fallen from the upper to the lower half of my ballot (just as he comes up on election!), and why McGraw now trails Lundy. I still think those two are eminently deserving, but that's because of the total value (both seasonal and career) they accumulated over replacement, not because of their high rates per se.

Second, our disagreement on Bridges is not just about rate vs. durability. We have sharply different views of how much war credit to give him, and perhaps how much to dock him for wartime competition in 1943 as well. I don't give him postseason credit; you do. And I suspect I care more about peak than you do. Using my preliminary pitcher WARP2, Bridges' peak is impressively low: top seasons of 6.0, a war-inflated 5.3, and 5.1. Compare that to the pitchers on my ballot: Saberhagen, has an 8.6, a 7.3, a 7, and a 6.9; Reuschel has a Cy Young-worthy 8.3, a 6.6 and a far longer career than Bridges'; Gooden has a mere 12.2 year that is worth about three peaks in one to me; Newcombe is a low peak for me but at least has 5 seasons over 5.0. I don't think there's any player in my PHoM that has a peak as low as Bridges', or even close to it, really. For a low-IP, high-rate candidate, I'll stick with Saberhagen and his four Cy Young-caliber years in lieu of Bridges' plodding above-average-ness.
   28. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2007 at 11:41 PM (#2613860)
Since I have been targeted by Dan for leaving off Lundy my ballot :-), I should admit that I haven't incorporated the new MLEs into my system because 1) it was a moot point in 2007 and 2) I didn't have the time.

I promise to reevaluate him and should find a spot for him in 2008.
   29. DL from MN Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM (#2613876)
I don't think "taxing the relievers" is a valid argument against a pitcher who started 362 games and completed 200 of them.
   30. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2613883)
Well, by the standards of his time, his innings totals just aren't very impressive. He either wasn't going deep into games (taxing the bullpen), or he wasn't starting as many games as his top peers (forcing his teams to come up with replacement starters). I can't imagine you're actually suggesting that innings totals don't matter, DL from MN, so I'm not really sure what we're arguing about here. The Tigers got less of Tommy Bridges than many other teams got from their aces in the same era, and when they didn't have him, they had to pitch someone bad, against another team who was pitching someone good. I really think it's that simple. Is there something I'm not getting? We see eye to eye on a lot of stuff, but I feel like we're just talking past each other on this one.

Interestingly, his usage pattern to me suggests he was deployed as a Sunday pitcher after age 30.
   31. Sean Gilman Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2613893)
Since I have been targeted by Dan for leaving off Lundy my ballot :-), I should admit that I haven't incorporated the new MLEs into my system because 1) it was a moot point in 2007 and 2) I didn't have the time.


Same here. But from my initial reading don't think he would have made my ballot anyway. I had Concepcion 15th. How does Lundy compare to him? Is there a shortstop Dan doesn't like? ;)
   32. DL from MN Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:34 AM (#2613896)
He wasn't starting as many games as other pitchers in his era. I'm not sure why we should penalize a pitcher for the games they didn't play in. I'd rather rate them on the performance in the games they pitched.
   33. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2613915)
Sean--I love Concepción, but Lundy seems to me to be the same player plus two extra All-Star years, a 12-year prime instead of a 10-year one. I think the electorate underrates shortstops as a group, so yes, I think we should have about 5 more in the HoM than we do. Of course there are SS I don't like, but the only one that gets any support here is Maranville. I'd like to think that's a mark of consistency. Do take a look at Lundy's MLE's, and compare them to the backlog. Thanks very much for your response.

DL from MN--I feel like an idiot saying this, but reductio ad absurdum: in the high-offense 1930 NL, a 20-year-old Dizzy Dean was given one start and threw a three-hitter, allowing one run. His ERA+ was a solid 502. Rating him on his performance in the game he pitched, he had what was indubitably the greatest pitching season in history. Why does nobody talk about Dizzy Dean's 502 ERA+ in 1930? Because it was in one start, of course. We're not "penalizing him for the games he didn't play in," we're simply only crediting him for the games--or, in this case, the single game--he did play in. Similarly, I give Bridges full credit for every game he pitched. I just give more credit to pitchers who threw in more games than he did. Do you really disagree with that?
   34. Chris Cobb Posted: November 14, 2007 at 01:53 AM (#2613958)
Dan, the problem with your claims about Bridges is that there are more usage options than you are considering. You wrote:

He either wasn't going deep into games (taxing the bullpen), or he wasn't starting as many games as his top peers (forcing his teams to come up with replacement starters).

During Bridges' prime, he was starting just as many games as his peers and was going as deep into games: his career complete game percentage is not out of line with his peers. What he _wasn't_ doing was throwing quite a few relief innings on the side. Now, obviously, it is to the credit of pitchers like Hubbell, Dean, and Grove that they were starting 35 games and relieving in 15, and Bridges is not as valuable as they are. However, he was not "taxing" the bullpen -- he was just not supplementing it.

During Bridges' post-prime career, he was a Sunday starter: his role on the staff was to start one game of the double-headers scheduled for each Sunday. He went deep into these games, and played a designated role that was part of their overall pitcherr usage plan. Obviously, he wasn't as valuable a starter as someone who was throwing more innings, but he wasn't "forcing his teams to come up with a replacement starter."

I'm not arguing that you should be voting for Bridges (I'm not), but it appears that you are interpreting the meaning of his IP in terms of modern usage patterns, not 1930s usage patterns in ways that may be exaggerating the "burden" that Bridges' durability was placing on his teams.
   35. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 02:06 AM (#2613968)
I have flopped between Bancroft or now Concepcion low on my ballot. Lundy would be fighting them.

I'm a little more offense-oriented than the average voter, so MLB Lundys don't always fare as well, either.
   36. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2613974)
HOM by pct of games at each position in the field or DH, thru 2007

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, 17 1Bs, 15 2Bs, 11 3Bs, 14 SSs, 56 OFs, 59 Ps.
If 65 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 18 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 12 3Bs, 20 SSs, 62 OFs, 60 Ps.
If 50 pct is your cutoff, then we have elected 16 Cs, 20 1Bs, 19 2Bs, 16 3Bs, 22 SSs, 66 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 (24.11) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, KHernandez 100, Beckley 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, WClark 98, Sisler 97, McGwire 96, 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 (17.20) - 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, Ripken 22, Frisch 20, Rose 18, Wallace 17, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (20.44) - 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, Ripken 77, 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 (62.98) - 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, Gwynn 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.
   37. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 02:24 AM (#2613976)
thru 2007

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 - 40/40/42/40/38/36/36/32/29/25...........................avg 35.7

interestingly outside of Henderson 1979 and maybe another, virtually of the 1970s guys already are eligible. They have higher numbers than 1940-60s, but still slightly trail 1920s-30s (which sort of had more teams counting NeL).
   38. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 02:30 AM (#2613983)
the HOM Ps and OFs per year can be found in the 2007 discussion thread, just adjust for Gwynn's add.

this part might be notable, now adjusted for Gwynn - again, 1970s has all but 1979 Henderson eligible I think

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

why were there fewer great OFs in that era/or why have we elected so many fewer?
This one really surprises me.

We had 7 to 12 OFs per year from 1885 to 1923, bumped up to 14-15 in 1924-27, and then went back to 8 to 12 thru 1971 except a couple of WW II years.
   39. Chris Fluit Posted: November 14, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2614077)
The overall totals show that we were electing just as many (if not more) players from the 1970s than from other eras. So it's not that we're short on OF so much as that we elected P and IF instead. And that's what happened. We didn't just grab the big catchers and infielders like Bench, Schmidt and Carew. We also grabbed Grich and Nettles and Torre and Simmons. We always knew that we'd elect a lot of '70s pitchers so that's not a surprise. And it shouldn't be a surprise that some of those pitching inductees came in place of outfielders.
   40. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 04:27 AM (#2614088)
Ps 1950-79

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
   41. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 04:59 AM (#2614130)
I'm certainly not somehow penalizing Bridges for imposing some added stress on his teammates! This entire discussion has just been my attempt to explain why I think that IP totals matter, and why I prefer, say, a 120 ERA+ in 300 IP to a 130 ERA+ in 200 IP. I give Bridges credit for the effectiveness he had in the innings he threw, compared to a replacement SP and to era usage norms--no more, and no less. I thought this was a consensus position, but perhaps not?
   42. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2007 at 05:06 AM (#2614141)
That would be my same take, Dan R
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: November 14, 2007 at 05:47 AM (#2614177)
Re. '70s OF. Just a hypothesis I guess as I couldn't/wouldn't want to have to defend this to the death. But it just seems to me that compared to the '50s and '60s, you had better athletes and better hitters starting to play other positions besides OF. I mean in the '50s and '60s, or at least in the '50s, lots of your 1B weren't even great hitters much less your 2B, 3B and (heaven forbid) SS. The good athletes were all P and OF. By the '70s you've got Morgan and Schmidt and Brett, just to name 3. Yeah I know, that's 3. Like I said, it's a hypothesis.
   44. OCF Posted: November 14, 2007 at 07:05 AM (#2614211)
But here's what's odd about that. When was the high-water mark of integration, of the inclusion of African Americans in baseball? Probably the 1970's, after which the subarbanization of youth baseball and the decline of the city game started taking its toll. But there was always racial typecasting with respect to what kinds of baseball players African Americans tended to be. They were dramatically overrepresented among the outfielders and dramatically underrepresented among pitchers and catchers, and to a lesser extent amond 2B/3B/SS. Yes, Joe Morgan played 2B, but who else? That typecasting should have/could have given this time period one of the deepest and richest talent pools for outfielders ever.

Or maybe that high water mark was really the 80's, where Dawson is about to be joined by Ranes and Henderson.
   45. DL from MN Posted: November 14, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2614366)
Or maybe we elected too many outfielders previously and only figured it out now. If we ran this project over again after the MMP I'm pretty sure the 1920s and 1930s would end up with fewer players, mainly outfielders (Brown, Averill, Medwick, Bell). I think we're going to add Reggie Smith to that 1970s list also.
   46. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 14, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2614437)
Agree with DL from MN
   47. sunnyday2 Posted: November 14, 2007 at 07:57 PM (#2614730)
Now that we are down to the very short strokes and a 2/3 backlog year, I am revisiting everybody. The new data I am plugging in is WS above the position median. It's not the only thing I look at, but it's interesting to say the least.

The consideration set is the top 3 at each position among the consensus, the top 3 on my ballot, and any HoM/not PHoM. the 3 key numbers are:

1. The median score. The main number, again, is how far above the position median. This is the median of those numbers.
2. What I call "the big rate." This is a per season rate that covers WS above the median but also WS versus the position leader each year.
3. The most important is the total WS above the median for the players "prime" years (100 games, regular at the position, >100 OPS+). Obviously I leave out some shoulder-type seasons this way.

I'll be sharing by position as I finish up, in the order in which these numbers (alone) suggest. I may have them differently on my ballot based on other info.

Catcher

1. (Trouppe) +9 WS per year vs. the median, +36 big rate (even position leaders were just NOT putting up any big numbers), +108 WS total. I have probably been underrating Trouppe, though obviously that depends on how you view his MLEs, which have somewhat more uncertainty than a lot of them do.

2. E. Howard +9.5 per year vs. the median, +27 big rate, +61 WS total, in just 6 seasons. "Integration" credit pushes him up, based on his high rates.

3. Munson +10 (the highest on this dimension), +16.5, and +85.

4. (Bresnahan) +9.5, +36 (tied with Trouppe for highest here), but just +57 overall. (Keep in mind "the big rate" includes WS versus the position leaders while the first and third numbers do not).

5. (Mackey) +7, +9 (IOW not nearly as dominating as the 4 above except maybe Munson), and +97. You'd have to be a peak voter to prefer Bresnahan, and I am and I do.

6. Parrish +7, +12.5 and +66. A valid contender, he belongs in this group, but at its bottom.

7. Schang +4.5, +0.5 and +36. That +0.5 means he was a far below the better catchers as he was above the median. The rest were closer to the top than to the middle. At +36 he's barely better than halfway to the rst of the guys on this list.

Take away Howard's "integration" credit and he's Parrish. And Munson's not quite Trouppe or Mackey, if you accept their MLEs. So maybe we've elected everybody that we should (or more). Which would be a good thing, since we're not going to elect any of these guys, ever. For me, however, Elston Howard does get the integration credit and is on my ballot. Meanwhile, I tend to discount Trouppe's MLEs a bit, so Ellie is the top candidate for me. But like I say, I can see why we aren't going to elect any more backlog catchers. Don't agree, but I can see it.
   48. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 14, 2007 at 10:58 PM (#2614986)
'm a little more offense-oriented than the average voter, so MLB Lundys don't always fare as well, either.

Howie, whats your rationale for weighting offense more heavily than the average voter?
   49. jimd Posted: November 14, 2007 at 11:25 PM (#2615018)
On the OFer shortage of recent vintage...

I think this might be another turf effect. Statues that could mash (e.g. Frank Howard) became less popular defensively when stadia got bigger and were paved with fast track turf. Turf could really embarass some of the slower guys (ball bounces over the head) and they were moved to first-base or DH, replaced by better fielders.

Meanwhile, in the OF, managers were able to live with a few less hits on offense to prevent a few more hits on defense and cut off some xbase hits in the gaps. When you combine the lower std's of the period with sacrificing some offense for defense, the modern marginal OF stars don't look as impressive as the older guys and so haven't attracted the same level of support here.
   50. KJOK Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:08 AM (#2615254)
Back to the comments about Holway, I think we need a little context:

Holway researched many boxscores. However, it's my understanding he did this entirely MANUALLY, meaning both using microfiche, and taking that microfiche and compiling the numbers with pencil and paper.

Holway's statistical research has been shown to be very 'sloppy'. Numbers apparently transposed or typoed, statistics that don't 'balance', including games against dubious competition, etc. vs. more meticulous researchers. Again, he used limited tools, so I understand partially why, but still we have to acknowledge that any Holway statistics have to be looked at very skeptically.

Holway has interview HUNDREDS of former Negro League players. When we talk about anecdotal and reputational support, Holway practically CREATED what we have, along with Buck O'Neil. If Holway made a comment about Clarkson not being important, and Lundy being great, it's somewhat because out of the subset of players he was able to interview, he heard a lot of raving about Lundy, and not much about Clarkson. And as we've noted before, a lot of that could be due to those inverviewees not having much exposure to Clarkson as a teammate or rival.
   51. KJOK Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:17 AM (#2615259)
Also, as the project is winding down, it would be great if those of you who created Negro League MLE's could post a spreadsheet of them in the FILES section of the Yahoo Group for permanent reference...
   52. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 03:54 AM (#2615280)
I think this might be another turf effect.

Basically, my hypothesis there is: turf forced managers to upgrade their OF defense.

Now that turf is gone and ballparks are smaller, two things might happen:
1) bigger slower 50's-and-earlier-style OFs that can hit make a comeback, or
2) nothing, because managers prefer the tradeoff.
   53. DL from MN Posted: November 15, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2615669)
I think the DH allows 16 players who can mash but can't play defense a position every year and there really aren't enough of those types to fill the outfields back up with them.
   54. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 15, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2615692)
A low-IP pitcher WILL cause the bullpen to be stretched, by creating a lot of 5th, 6th, and 7th innings (probably with an LI close to 1) that need to be filled by relievers.


WRT the italicized part of the statement: The LI of those innings is probably more like about .5 instead of 1 - LI falls off pretty quickly once a team gets behind.

-- MWE
   55. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 15, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2615762)
I'm not talking about a guy who's yanked because of poor effectiveness, I'm talking about a guy who's good but yanked because he's a six-inning pitcher (Pedro Martínez style). The innings that thus have to be picked up are likely to be in the 6th inning with a 2-run lead, which I would imagine is about an LI of 1.
   56. Gary A Posted: November 15, 2007 at 07:15 PM (#2615965)
We should both value what Holway has to say while also being careful not to let “reputation” (by which I think we ultimately mean the opinion of contemporaries about somebody they saw play) always equal “what John Holway thinks now.”

For one thing, he’s not the only historian who has conducted interviews, though it’s probable he’s done more than anyone else. Note that Jim Riley’s entry on Clarkson (for example) is extensive and respectful; I don’t know that he thinks Clarkson should be in the Hall of Fame or whatever, but he demonstrably doesn’t consider him a “nobody.”

For another, whatever Holway’s informants have told him gets filtered through his sense of what’s important, not least through what questions he asks.

And lastly, despite Holway’s extensive acquaintances with former Negro Leaguers, this is still, as Kevin says above, a “subset” of all Negro Leaguers. There are also many, many, many people he never interviewed—and many who were never interviewed by anybody, and can’t be now.

It bears keeping in mind that what we think of as the “reputation” of Negro Leaguers has been largely the work of a pretty small number of people who have wielded a great deal of influence: the most-read historians (Riley, Holway) and a few former players (Judy Johnson and, belatedly, Buck O’Neil, among others). I’m certainly not attacking them or saying they’ve intentionally distorted history or anything; it’s just that it’s always better, whenever possible, to keep in mind where a particular evaluation or opinion comes from.
   57. DanG Posted: November 15, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2616036)
To Ryan and others looking for a fuller necrology for 2007, here's a good thread:

In Memoriam

Here's another good link, although it needs updating:

2007 in Baseball from Answers.com
   58. jimd Posted: November 15, 2007 at 09:53 PM (#2616206)
I think the DH allows 16 players who can mash but can't play defense a position every year and there really aren't enough of those types to fill the outfields back up with them.

Back in the 16 team days, that would have been half the corner OFers.
   59. rawagman Posted: November 16, 2007 at 05:18 AM (#2617047)
A sentimental moment, if I may:
I just finished running the numbers for the 2008 candidates and as I was finishing, it hit me that this ritual of the last few years, a period in my life that saw me do many other things which define who I am today, this period is now over and I will be beginning a new one. In a new place and with new hobbies.
I hope to continue voting in the annual elections, but will not be taking part in any other project.
It has been a pleasure learning with you all.
   60. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 06:42 AM (#2617109)
Yes, the oldest thread that I can remember was the 1871 season recap. Thread opened in January 2003. Think about that, all you old-timers. What have you done with your life over the past 5 years? Something besides just this, I hope.
   61. OCF Posted: November 16, 2007 at 07:11 AM (#2617127)
An RA+ Pythpat list. I have included on this list everyone who is (1) eligible and not elected, and (2) has career equivalent FWP ahead of at least some candidate who receives votes. The list will be sorted by career equivalent FWP.

There are many things explicitly not adjusted for here. The three biggest are (1) the pitcher's own offensive value (except I do have isolated cases of adjusting for that, notably for Walters), (2) the pitcher's defensive support (except in the case of Willis), and (3) the IP expectations of the times. I do take (3) into account when I vote - else I'd have Vic Willis on by ballot - but I'm not taking it into account on this chart.

I'll present it as equivalent overall record, followed by a number in brackets. The number in brackets is a "big years" score, and it's very crude: just the year-by-year sum of yearly FWP above 15. It winds up being tremendously skewed toward dead-ball pitchers, just because of the yearly IP. I've put a + or a - to indicate that there is some adjustment begging to be made which should move this particular pitcher either up or down on the list.

(Note: if eligible, Kevin Brown would be at the very top of this list, with 216-146 [46].)

Willis....  248-196 [44] (adjusted for defense)
Adams.....  201-132 [40] -
Tiant.....  224-164 [35]
John
......  281-244 [ 3]
W
.Hoyt....  234-184 [18]
Bridges
...  190-124 [17]
Cicotte
...  209-149 [48]
W
.Cooper..  220-166 [23]
Powell
....  263-225 [26]
Shocker
...  181-117 [29]
Reulbach
..  178-115 [46] -
Reuschel..  221-174 [14]
Leever
....  179-117 [29] -
Saberhagen  174-111 [27]
Cone
......  190-132 [19]
Koosman
...  233-193 [21]
Quinn 
....  237-199 [ 1]
Warnecke
..  184-128 [38]
Luque
.....  203-154 [33]
Gomez
.....  169-109 [46]
Joss
......  16198 [40]
Walters
...  197-148 [43] (adjusted for offense)
Bender....  192-143 [19]
Kaat
......  262-241 [13]
Root
......  201-156 [12]
Tanana
....  245-200 [21]
Phillippe
.  171-118 [31] -
Key.......  171-117 [17]
Finley
....  199-156 [ 8]
Doc White
.  191-147 [19]
Pennock
...  216-181 [26]
D
.Martinez  231-203 [ 3]
Mays
......  189-146 [13] +
French....  195-155 [ 8]
Trucks
....  173-125 [24]
L
.Jackson.  200-162 [ 6]
Morris
....  226-199 [ 9]
Trout
.....  175-129 [25] (adjusted for WWII competition level)
Harder....  208-173 [20]
Rommel
....  167-117 [ 7]
Grimes
....  242-222 [25]
Guidry
....  158-108 [27]
Chesbro
...  182-140 [50]
Vaughn
....  174-129 [31]
Pappas
....  195-159 [ 1]
Blue
......  202-169 [28]
Derringer
.  216-189 [17]
Lolich
....  215-189 [15]
Tannehill
.  174-132 [28]
Rucker
....  156-108 [34]
Hershiser
.  191-157 [18]
Fitzsimmons 195
-163 [ 0]
Dean
......  13682 [35]
Newsom
....  220-197 [20]
Hunter
....  206-178 [31] -
Viola.....  177-138 [26]
Haines
....  193-163 [10]
Gooden
....  174-137 [24]
Friend
....  212-190 [11]
D
.Leonard.  193-165 [ 4]
J
.Perry...  196-169 [ 6]
Newcombe
..  14397 [ 9] (adjusted for offense
   62. rawagman Posted: November 16, 2007 at 01:25 PM (#2617204)
Why no thread for Robb Nen? He was a great peak releiver. Looks like a poor man's Tom Henke.
I guess, considering how little traction Henke got with the electorate, would answer my question...
   63. Howie Menckel Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:38 PM (#2617250)
The "how it all began" thread references the Dec 2001 Dimino article. Comments are from the Dickey Pearces of the project, lol

The Sept 2002 position threads feature modern names like Murphy, DanG, and marc/sunnyday.

By the end of that year I was harping on the "less counting angels on the head of a pin, more 'let's start voting'" agenda. Eventually, we began with the 1898 voting.

:)
   64. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 02:59 PM (#2617275)
Holy crap, you mean I've been doing this even longer than I thought. Between the Domino article and the first ballot thread, I was working for Jesse Ventura and started my current company. No wonder I didn't take a vacation that year. But most importantly, I got involved with the HoM! I had never heard of BBTF or the HoM until sometime in '02 when DanG clued me in.

Fall of '02...which World Series was that? The D-Backs was '01, right? The Angels?
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2617309)
First Base

WS above median has Orlando Cepeda spread-eagle above the field. The (parens) indicates a player who is HoM/not PHoM.

1. Cepeda +8 WS versus the median 1B in his median year, and a total of +104 WS versus the median for his career.

Everybody else (in my consideration set) is very close.

2. (Beckley) +6 and +87--better than expected, especially that +6, though nowhere near as impressive as Mattingly given their respective competitive sets
3. Cash +4.5 and +84
4. Mattingly +6.5 and +79.5--peak voters would like him better than Cash
5. Perez +4 and +73--would have to agree with DanR, not a HoM caliber resume. Cash, Mattingly and Beckley are better, and Cepeda is a lot better. And Perez didn't even have that good of a competitive set.

But since we're pretty obviously not going to elect Cepeda, it is probably the best we can hope for NOT to elect any of these guys (which means not Perez).

Second Base

Very tricky due to timeline and other considerations. The raw numbers first:

1. Fred Dunlap +13 and +94--this is after discounting '84 by 65 percent but of course includes adj to 162 games
2. Larry Doyle +8 and +116

3. (Lou Whitaker) +6 and +100
4. (Willie Randolph) +7 and +88--Randolph's median margin of +7 versus Whitaker's +6 is a bit flukey, Whitaker's average would be better. Just an odd distribution. And Whitaker's median # of WS in "prime seasons" is 22 versus Willie's 20. But the 100 to 88 edge is real and it's not as big as I would have expected. I haven't PHoMed either one of them, a +88 is not that impressive, a +100 considering WS may underrate a good modern defensive 2B is OK though of course Randolph was a little better than Lou.

5. Bobby Avila+9.5 and +56--this is the really tricky part. Only 6 "prime seasons" in the ML but +9.5 in his median year. So how many MLE seasons are you going to allow? As a peak voter, I could argue Avila as the best player available at 2B if I really wanted to--if I discounted Dunlap and Doyle on timeline/competition, and if I gave Avila the max number of MLE years that one could reasonably give.

Of course, Bill Monroe is in the consideration set, too, but we don't have any real numbers in his case.

So 2B is tricky. Since we've already elected a couple of borderliners borderliners, I'm OK with no more backlog 2B elections, but Doyle and Avila are attractive, Dunlap maybe a little less so and Monroe remains too much of an unknown at this point in time. All would be preferably to the bigger names like Laz and Maz and Schanedeenst.
   66. DanG Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2617311)
I had never heard of BBTF or the HoM until sometime in '02 when DanG clued me in.

Heh, not even. It was Baseballprimer back then.

So many of the threads from before May 2004 are incomplete on this site, due to a site "upgrade" at that time. However, these can still be accessed at Internet Archive or similar sites.
   67. DanG Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:28 PM (#2617323)
The "how it all began" thread references the Dec 2001 Dimino article.

Do you mean the "Something Better" thread?

The Sept 2002 position threads feature modern names like Murphy, DanG, and marc/sunnyday.

Another current name from the proto-HoM days is jimd.
   68. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2617326)
The "how it all began" thread references the Dec 2001 Dimino article. Comments are from the Dickey Pearces of the project, lol

The Sept 2002 position threads feature modern names like Murphy, DanG, and marc/sunnyday.

By the end of that year I was harping on the "less counting angels on the head of a pin, more 'let's start voting'" agenda. Eventually, we began with the 1898 voting.


I started visiting Baseball Primer in January of 2002, so I was practically there at the start and helped Joe with some spreadsheets regarding 19th century players. Later on, the project seemed like it stalled, so I stayed away for a little bit. Fortunately, I came back just as the first election was starting, so I lucked out or else I wouldn't have my 100% attendance record. :-)
   69. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2617327)
Another current name from the proto-HoM days is jimd.


KJOK, too.
   70. jimd Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:14 PM (#2617705)
The 29 voters of the 1898 election:
(ordered by ballot cast)

1) Howie Menckel
2) Andrew Siegel
3) Mark McKinniss (later Dolf Lucky)
4) Carl Goetz
5) Sean Gilman
6) MattB (later PhillyBooster)
7) Philip
8) Marc (later sunnyday2)
9) RobC
10) RMc
11) Rick A.
12) KJOK
13) Rob Wood
14) David
15) thebigeasy
16) TomH
17) Brian Hodes
18) Adam Schafer
19) dan b
20) ed phatyou
21) Joe Dimino
22) Jeff M
23) John Murphy
24) Al Peterson
25) jimd
26) Devin McCullen
27) Michael D
28) Esteban Rivera
29) DanG

if I missed any other significant handle changes, please let me know
   71. jimd Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2617725)
Fortunately, I came back just as the first election was starting, so I lucked out or else I wouldn't have my 100% attendance record.

And we're glad you did John. Without your dedication and presence, this project may not have completed; it certainly wouldn't have proceeded anywhere near as smoothly. I'm certain that I speak for the entire group when I say:

Thank you very much for all that you've done.
   72. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2617733)
26) Devin McCullen
28) Esteban Rivera


I'm surprised Ken Fischer wasn't right next to Devin and Esteban. I always think of those three as a group since they tend to vote around the same time for almost every election. :-)
   73. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2617737)
Thank you very much for all that you've done.


You're very welcome, Jim. I know I have sounded constipated posting here for a few months now regarding the HoM :-), but I'm happy that I found it and all of you guys almost 6 years ago. I have learned a lot and I think we have done a bang-up job with our institution compared to the HOF. I hope all of you are as proud of it as I am.
   74. Chris Fluit Posted: November 16, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2617759)
As a former lurker and a late adaptor, I'm very proud of what we've done here. I consider this to be the real Hall.
   75. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:00 PM (#2617766)
As a former lurker and a late adaptor, I'm very proud of what we've done here. I consider this to be the real Hall.


I also do, Chris, which explains why I don't get apoplectic anymore over Cooperstown's picks and omissions. Of course, we don't have their imprimatur and most likely never will, but what can you do?
   76. OCF Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:37 PM (#2617803)
Quoted from the 1903 discussion thread:

117. OCF Posted: June 17, 2003 at 01:18 PM (#514137)
So in the 1870's and 1880's, left fielders outhit right fielders. This is not what I would have guessed. Since then, the the table shows LF and RF very, very close in offense, shifting back and forth a little in no particular pattern. Although the ultimate goal here is to compare ballplayers to ballplayers, most of us tend to place players into bins labeled with a position as an aid to thinking about them. I'm not so sure of the utility of having two such bins labeled "LF" and "RF". Perhaps it would be better to just have one larger bin labeled "flank outfield", into which we put Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Hank Aaron, et. al., all for comparison on the same standards. Also note that in the 1910's, the centerfielders outhit the flank outfielders - a blip named Cobb/Speaker?

118. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 17, 2003 at 01:58 PM (#514138)
Welcome, OCF (I think you are newbie here)! Are you voting?

122. OCF Posted: June 17, 2003 at 02:17 PM (#514142)
I have neither the time nor the resources to say anything useful about 19th century players. Make that a non-voting lurker.


How exactly it got from there to me voting in the 1904 election and ever since ...
   77. DanG Posted: November 16, 2007 at 09:41 PM (#2617808)
Much of the early formative discussion of the HoM can be read here:

The Hall of Merit needs you!
   78. OCF Posted: November 16, 2007 at 10:43 PM (#2617890)
My quick reaction to my own post #61: you know, I think I've been overlooking Reuschel.
   79. jimd Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:03 PM (#2617920)
I'm surprised Ken Fischer wasn't right next to Devin and Esteban. I always think of those three as a group since they tend to vote around the same time for almost every election.

Ken joined us for 1899, so that tradition started shortly thereafter.
   80. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2617943)
Everyone's overlooking Reuschel.
   81. DL from MN Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:30 PM (#2617949)
I have him 4th on the ballot!
   82. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:45 PM (#2617959)
Ken joined us for 1899, so that tradition started shortly thereafter.

No kidding. Check out the
1901 Ballot (I missed 1900). Ken's at #73, I'm at #77, Esteban's at #80. Back then there was a lot more back-and-forth in the ballot threads.
   83. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 16, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2617971)
The other thing that amuses me about the 1901 Ballot is that the candidate I spent the most time arguing for was Pete Browning at #7, and as it's turned out he's the <u>only</u> guy on there who never made it into my PHoM. (If I re-did it now, he wouldn't even be on there, because I wasn't voting for Dickey Pearce yet.)
   84. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 17, 2007 at 12:05 AM (#2617976)
I'm talking about a guy who's good but yanked because he's a six-inning pitcher (Pedro Martínez style

Pedro: 6.75 IP/Start
Maddux: 6.79
Clemens: 6.94

You adjust for the AL and park and Pedro is probably ahead of Maddux.
   85. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 17, 2007 at 12:29 AM (#2617983)
Prelim:

1. Raines
2. Perez
3. Walters
4. Ryan
5. Staub
6. Matlock
7. Murphy
8. Saberhagen
9. Trout
10. Johnson
11. Cravath
12. Cone
13. Puckett
14. Lundy
15. Belle

34. Finley
   86. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2007 at 12:33 AM (#2617987)
A,

Please take another look at Doggie. Cepeda and Cash are both a lot better, just to name a couple. Is he really the best "hitter" available? What do you think his assets are? Some defensive value at 3B? You don't look like a straight career voter though you do have Staub in there, but Puckett and Belle too. Perez lacks not only the high peak that I like to see, but more than that he lacks the high prime. He was an average 1B for a long long chunk of that long career.
   87. rawagman Posted: November 17, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2618028)
2008 Prelim
1)Tim Raines (PHOM)
2)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
3)Tommy Bridges(PHOM)
4)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
5)Kirby Puckett (PHOM)
6)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
7)Bus Clarkson (PHOM)
8)Dale Murphy (PHOM)
9)David Cone (PHOM)
10)Vern Stephens (PHOM)
11)Dick Lundy (PHOM)
12)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
13)Bob Johnson (PHOM)
14)Dick Redding (PHOM)
15)Bret Saberhagen
We Shall Know Their Velocity
16)Tony Oliva (PHOM)
17)Bobby Veach (PHOM)
18)Dizzy Dean
19)Orlando Cepeda (PHOM)
20)Reggie Smith
21)Al Oliver
((21a)Andre Dawson))
22)Albert Belle
23)Jack Clark
24)Jim Rice
25)Wally Berger
26)Don Mattingly
27)Dan Quisenberry
28)Lee Smith
29)Bruce Sutter
30)Ernie Lombardi
((30a)Jimmy Wynn))
.
.
.
41) Chuck Finley
   88. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 17, 2007 at 01:28 AM (#2618043)
I meant Pedro circa 2003, not the durable 1997 version.
   89. Howie Menckel Posted: November 17, 2007 at 02:31 AM (#2618082)
I'll echo the debt of gratitude to Murphy - and Dimino as well, obviously.

Did we ever figure out who was nutty enough to vote in every election?
   90. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 17, 2007 at 03:19 AM (#2618112)
I'm not complaining about the conversation wandering where it will, but maybe we should set up a seperate "Thanks For The Memories" thread.

Howie, on the OF shortage of the 70s, how does it look in the 80s, if you project Rickey and Raines (& any other "no-brainers", pardon the expression)? Are the late 70s just a blip, or the start of a trend?
   91. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2007 at 09:12 PM (#2618589)
FYI here is the subset of 18 new eligibles highlighted by the HOF on the web
<i>2008:
*Brady Anderson,
*Andy Benes,
*Delino DeShields,
*Shawon Dunston,
*Chuck Finley,
*Travis Fryman,
*David Justice,
*Chuck Knoblauch,
*Mike Morgan,
*Robb Nen,
*Tim Raines,
*Greg Swindell,
*John Valentin,
*Randy Velarde,

That matches DanG's top 14 and adds Rod Beck, Jose Rijo, Todd Stottlemyre, Mark Wohlers rather than Rusty Greer and Darryl Kile.
The difference on Jose Rijo is a technicality, I suppose. Why wasn't Rijo eligible in 2001?
Rod Beck is probably a mistake they will correct in a week or three.
   92. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2618658)
Shortstop

Again my consideration set at this stage is my top 3, the consensus top 3 and any HoM/not PHoM still kicking around. The numbers are the median advantage in WS versus the position median (IOW take the differential between the candidate and the position median for each of the candidate's prime years, and then find the median of the differences) and then the total WS over median for all of the prime years (100 games and > 75 OPS+; I use 100 OPS+ for most positions but for C, 2B and SS I use 75).

1. (Alan Trammell) +9 and +147.5

2. Dick Lundy +7.5 and +139.5

3. (Joe Sewell) +10 and +117. The (parens) mean HoM/not PHoM. I'm not chagrined that I never PHoMed him. The numbers are there but omg did he ever have a really lousy group of peers at SS in the '20s. It's like nobody knew with the lively ball how much offense and how much defense they really wanted at the SS position, so they decided to go out and get guys who didn't do either one. Worse than Concepcion's peers and that's saying something.

4. Stephens +9 and +82. Against a historically great cohort.

5. Pesky +6 and +57. Against a historically great cohort and this is without WWII adjustment, which obviously needs to be applied.

6. Rizzuto +5 and +47. Against a historically great cohort and this is without WWII adjustment, which obviously needs to be applied. I'm inclined to think that Sewell ranks below all 3 though I'm rethinking that.)

7. Clarkson +10 and +92.5. Of course, he goes up against the same cohort in our virtual MLE world--half the time. The other half, against a NL that was not so tough. If I really believed he was this good....

8. Dave Concepcion +7.5 and +71.5. The latter figure is positively underwhelming considering how bad his cohort was. It's as if managers thought somehow that their team was better with an OPS+ 80 and 8 WS SS. Except Sparky, of course. By comparison, add in 3 years for WWII and Pesky is further above the median against Stephens and Rizutto and Boudreau and Appling than Concepcion is above Bowa and Russell and Raffy Ramirez and Tim Foli and Chris Speier. Add the 3 years for Rizzuto and he's about equal.
   93. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 17, 2007 at 10:37 PM (#2618662)
You know I was getting very different WS vs. median for Concepción than you were, sunnyday. Did we ever figure out why?

The worst-regulars average at SS is not nearly as low in the 1920s as it ia in the 1970s.
   94. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 17, 2007 at 11:26 PM (#2618707)
Rijo pitched too many innings in 2002 to qualify as a cameo appearence by our rules. He did appear on the Hall of Fame ballot before his comeback.
   95. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2007 at 11:51 PM (#2618735)
Sewell's medians (1921-28, SS) are Gerber 10, Gerber 15, Galloway 13, Scott 11, Tavener 8, Hunnefield 12, Galloway 12 and Cissell 11. Sewell's median year at SS was 23.5 WS and the median median was 11.5. His overall numbers including 2 prime years at 3B are 22.5 WS (median) versus the same 11.5.

For Concepcion, keep in mind that I am including prime years only, defined as 100 games and ? 75 OPS+, so 1974-82, 84-85, 87 (11 years). I have medians Metzger 10, a Mets trio totalling 10, Chaney 12, Tavares 14 and 16, Foli and Taveras (Mets) 12. We're now up to 1980: Russell 12 and 5 (adjusted to 7.5), Berra 14, then skipping to '84 DeJesus 8 and Khalifa 12 and for '87 (actually at 2B) Herr 16. The median of medians is 12, half a WS above Sewell's medians. Not much, but....

Okay, now here's the deal. For this exercise I didn't adjust from 154 games to 162, because what matters is the differential. But, yes, if I do that then Sewell's medians go to 12.1, and Sewell's own WS go up by about 1.

Still Sewell's advantage is about 10 (his median) or 12 (median of medians). Davey's is about 7-7.5.

Now Sewell's not even on the ballot so who cares about him, aside from me as he's not PHoM yet. But the bottom line is I get about 7.5 for Davey across 11 prime years. Nice record. Better on the face of it than Rizzuto, Pesky and Stephens. Just as good as Lundy, though for a shorter period of time. Not as good as Sewell. Not as good as Clarkson, if you accept his MLEs as an accurate reflection of his virtual value.

More to the point, what do you do with Concepcion versus, say, E. Howard and Munson who are +9.5-10, albeit in shorter careers/shorter primes? Well, Howard is a case but both had better peaks, which I like. What about the 2B? Concepcion looks better than Whitaker or Randolph to me, but I didn't support either of them.

And of course none of this addresses your point which was about the worst of the regulars. One reason I like the medians is, well, conceptually, those are the guys you're really competing against for a pennant. Take 1977 for instance. I pulled that number out of the air because it's the year I got married. Concepcion was at 19, Templeton and Ozzie were better, then you had a cluster of Tavares, DeJesus, Bowa, Russell and Almon (!) at 14-16. Way down at the bottom you had Speier and Foli at 6 (for the Giants, boy did the Expos get the best of that deal, meaning 12 WS, twice as many as the Giants, from the same two guys) and Metzger at 6 and Pat Rockett at 3. But my point is that the Giants and Expos and Astros and Braves finished well over 100 GB with that shitty SS play. It's the teams with guys at least in and around the middle that are contending and where any little advantage starts to matter.

The other reason I don't like using the worst regulars is what the heck is a regular? At that end of the spectrum it's pretty commonplace for teams to have 2-3 guys run through there in a year. Sure, the regular is guy who played the most games, but maybe that guy wasn't the most valuable. Maybe Joe Blow played 90 games and got 4 WS and John Doe played 70 games and got 5. Maybe you should count them both? I don't know. But using the median then MY choice doesn't matter so much.

But anyway, some of Concepcion's worst regular (setting aside all the ambiguous regulars) included Craig Robinson 6, Blanks and Tavares 7 (in this case the Pirates won the East with Tavares), E. Hernandez 9, Harrelson 4, Royster 4, Ozzie 7, Luis Gomez 4, DeJesus 4 (adjusts to 6), LeMaster 4. You could do worse than just pick the Braves SS each year. That's about 6 on average.

For Sewell, I've got Galloway 6, Johnson 9, Mitchell 5, Barrett 6, Waninger 5, Gerber 7, Reeves 6 and Gerber 5, or about 6 a year. Close enough for government work.

But like I say, if you included those teams that didn't have a "regular" SS you could get some lower ones but it's too much work.

Bottom line, I don't really know how good +7.5 is. All that really matters at this stage is where it fits with who's eligible and there's a few guys who are better. But this is also not the only number I use, it was just something I was curious about so I've added a column to the spreadsheet.
   96. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 18, 2007 at 12:12 AM (#2618748)
Ah, I see, you're including his 84,85, and 87. Do those help him at all? They would certainly pull down his average..I have those years as not much above replacement level.

I just define regular by classifying players according to what position they played the most games at, and then take a team's leader in PA at each position, making subjective adjustments for guys who were so terrible they'd screw things up Bill Bergen-style. My sample sizes are so large (in the 1970s, I'd have nine years times nine worst regulars per position is 81 player-seasons) that a handful of judgment calls aren't going to alter anything. Strength in numbers, I suppose.

I repeat that I think your methodology is really off in one key respect: simply taking the median player *total* at each position as the median and then subtracting, rather than calculating the median *rate*, multiplying that by the playing time of the player you want to evaluate, and then subtracting. Under your system, what happens if four teams happen to have a revolving door at a position in an 8-team league? Then one of the players used to calculate your median will be a part-timer, and given WS' replacement level will have an exceedingly low WS total, which will lead to an absurdly low median which will then make everyone else that year look too good. A level--whether it's replacement, average, or median--is a *rate*, which you subtract from another player's rate and then multiply the difference by that player's playing time. It's not an absolute total, and calculating it as such will get you into all sorts of trouble.
   97. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 18, 2007 at 12:12 AM (#2618749)
Please take another look at Doggie. Cepeda and Cash are both a lot better, just to name a couple. Is he really the best "hitter" available? What do you think his assets are? Some defensive value at 3B? You don't look like a straight career voter though you do have Staub in there, but Puckett and Belle too. Perez lacks not only the high peak that I like to see, but more than that he lacks the high prime. He was an average 1B for a long long chunk of that long career.

I try to combine career and peak, with more focus on career. I use Win Shares and WARP as a starting point and then make adjustments.

Comparing Perez to Cash and Cepeda their primes don't seem to be better. Using Win Shares (seasons at or above 20 and average for those seasons)

Perez: 8; 27
Cash: 8; 26
Cepeda: 9; 26

Perez also has more tack on seasons then they do.
   98. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 18, 2007 at 12:18 AM (#2618754)
Why can't you edit posts here?

Staub is also at 8 seasons at an average of 27.

Another note on Perez; he has the 5th most WS and 5th most WARP3 among eligibles.
   99. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2618757)
Why can't you edit posts here?


Don't know, AJM. I thought Joe was going to contact Jim about it, but I don't know if he ever got a response.
   100. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 18, 2007 at 01:16 AM (#2618787)
Reggie Smith has ten such seasons, plus a 19. And he accumulated those WS totals in fewer plate appearances than the other guys did, which means that his teams also benefited from the Win Shares that were accumulated by his replacements when he wasn't in the lineup. Oh yeah, and he played CF for half his career.

Using a replacement level of 14 WS per season for "bat" positions, here's how the four stack up on this basis:

PWS is player's Win Shares, RWS is replacement player's Win Shares, TWS is total win shares accumulated by the team at the position for the season. Pérez played for 22 seasons, the longest career of the group, so I have extended the other players' careers to 22 seasons as well, crediting them with 0 PWS for the years they did not play.

Atanasio Pérez

Year PWS RWS TWS
1965  06  08  14
1966  04  08  12
1967  23  01  24
1968  25  00  25
1969  31  00  31
1970  33  00  33
1971  23  00  23
1972  26  02  28
1973  32  01  33
1974  20  00  20
1975  19  02  21
1976  16  02  18
1977  17  01  18
1978  18  02  20
1979  14  03  17
1980  13  01  14
1981  11  04  14
1982  04  10  14
1983  06  08  14
1984  01  11  12
1985  08  10  18
1986  04  09  13
TOTL 353  81 435 



Orlando Cepeda

Year PWS RWS TWS
1958  21  00  21
1959  24  00  24
1960  27  01  28
1961  31  00  31
1962  26  00  26
1963  30  01  31
1964  23  02  25
1965  00  14  14
1966  19  02  21
1967  34  01  35
1968  17  00  17
1969  19  01  20
1970  21  01  22
1971  07  08  15
1972  03  12  15
1973  13  02  15
1974  00  12  12
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
TOTL 315 126 441 



Norm Cash

Year PWS RWS TWS
1958  00  14  14
1959  04  11  15
1960  17  05  22
1961  42  00  42
1962  23  01  24
1963  23  02  25
1964  18  03  21
1965  24  03  27
1966  27  00  27
1967  21  02  23
1968  18  04  22
1969  21  03  24
1970  16  05  21
1971  24  03  27
1972  18  03  21
1973  15  05  20
1974  05  11  16
xxxx  00  13  13
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
TOTL 316 142 458 



Reggie Smith

Year PWS RWS TWS
1966  00  14  14
1967  19  01  20
1968  25  01  26
1969  24  02  26
1970  25  01  26
1971  29  00  29
1972  27  02  29
1973  23  04  27
1974  25  02  27
1975  20  03  23
1976  14  05  19
1977  29  02  31
1978  24  03  27
1979  09  08  17
1980  17  06  23
1981  00  14  14
1982  16  06  22
1983  14  05  19
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
xxxx  00  14  14
TOTL 340 133 473 


So, as you can see, a team with Reggie Smith over 22 seasons would have accumulated 473 WS from his position, more than Cash (458), Cepeda (441), and last of all Pérez (435).
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
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7548 seconds
49 querie(s) executed