Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, January 19, 2009

2010 Ballot Discussion

2010 (December 7, 2009)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
376 132.6 1988 Roberto Alomar-2B
346 121,8 1986 Barry Larkin-SS
341 106.6 1987 Fred McGriff-1B
305 104.4 1989 Edgar Martinez-DH/3B
272 108.8 1990 Robin Ventura-3B
260 79.1 1987 Ellis Burks-CF/RF
234 74.9 1990 Juan Gonzalez-RF/LF*
227 70.3 1991 Ray Lankford-CF
221 62.9 1990 Todd Zeile-3B
190 67.2 1987 Benito Santiago-C*
183 56.5 1992 Eric Karros-1B
161 58.9 1987 Mark McLemore-2B
126 59.0 1992 Pat Hentgen-P
126 53.7 1987 Mike Jackson-RP
130 41.6 1991 David Segui-1B
128 41.6 1994 Fernando Viña-2B
106 44.8 1991 Rod Beck-RP (2007)

Candidates
Age Eligible

100 1948 Billy Werber-3B 1/22/09
99 1954 Lonny Frey-2B 9/13/09
93 1960 Preacher Roe-P 11/9/08
93 1960 Sid Hudson-P 10/10/08
92 1958 Dom DiMaggio-CF 5/8/09
89 1960 Larry Jansen-P 10/10/09
86 1963 George Kell-3B 3/24/09
82 1966 Whitey Lockman-1B/LF 3/17/09
77 1975 Woodie Held-SS/CF 6/10/09
75 1967 Herb Score-P/Broadcaster 11/11/08
73——- Harry Kalas-Broadcaster 4/13/09
71 1975 Tom Tresh-LF/SS 10/15/08
64 1987 Dave Roberts-P 1/9/09
63 1985 Dock Ellis-P 12/19/08
54 1986 Mark Fidrych-P 4/13/09
53 1998 Dave Smith-RP 12/17/08

Thanks to Dan Greenia for the numbers!

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 19, 2009 at 02:44 PM | 516 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   201. Paul Wendt Posted: September 17, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3325257)
The page turns so I quote #199-200 in full.

199. Paul Wendt Posted: September 16, 2009 at 05:58 PM (#3323970)
Joe Dimino suggested the two weeks 11/29-12/13 for the 2010 balloting. It's reasonable.

Last year the election of Joe Gordon to Cooperstown "today" was announced Monday, December 8. Proximity in time moves to me ask whether the annual election to the Hall of Merit should close before the baseball Winter Meetings --this year, December 7-11. Alternatively, it's possible that the Winter Meetings should occur during the time period for this election. Presumably that may be because interest in the Hall of Fame stimulated by the Meetings may be valuable here.

I understand that the Meetings' annual event regarding HOF players is merely announcement of the results of the living Hall of Famers vote by mail. The Veterans Committee meetings during the Winter Meetings cover managers and umpires this year, executives in some other years, and pre-1942 players supposedly every five years.

Joe Dimino suggested the two weeks 11/29-12/13 for the 2010 balloting. It's reasonable. Last year the election of Joe Gordon to Cooperstown "today" was announced Monday, December 8. Proximity in time moves to me ask whether the annual election to the Hall of Merit should close before the baseball Winter Meetings --this year, December 7-11. Alternatively, it's possible that the Winter Meetings should occur during the time period for this election. Presumably that may be because interest in the Hall of Fame stimulated by the Meetings may be valuable here. I understand that the Meetings' annual event regarding HOF players is merely announcement of the results of the living Hall of Famers vote by mail. The Veterans Committee meetings during the Winter Meetings cover managers and umpires this year, executives in some other years, and pre-1942 players supposedly every five years.

200. Joe Dimino Posted: September 17, 2009 at 08:25 AM (#3324490)
Paul, I'm definitely fine with moving our election back to have everyone announced here before real life.

If you want to suggest new dates, that's fine - I was mainly trying to avoid having key times over Thanksgiving week . . .


Ok. I was asking, not sure myself.

Let me add to the factual basis.

1.
CORRECTION
> "I understand that the Meetings' annual event regarding HOF players is merely announcement of the results of the living Hall of Famers vote by mail."

Excuse me. That vote by mail on recent players is scheduled for odd years, which means the fall of even years, next announcement of results expected December 2010.

2.
One Associated Press story covering the election of Bowie Kuhn, et al, for 2008 induction is dated December 3 (Monday of the Winter Meetings 2007). Dick Williams received the phone call that morning, evidently following a meeting that morning.
: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3139417

The timing matches last year (Monday December 8), reported above, when players were on the agenda for 2009 induction.

So we may expect announcement this year Monday December 7 that Doug Harvey or Whitey Herzog has been elected for 2010. Players will not be on the agenda.

--
It seems ok to me that Thanksgiving week fall within the balloting period, perhaps not that balloting close on Thanksgiving Sunday (-11-29). This year the following Sunday night (-12-06) precedes expected announcement from the Winter Meetings by part of one day.
   202. DanG Posted: September 18, 2009 at 05:53 PM (#3326006)
Not that it's a big-dot-deal, but my suggestion for the timing of the annual elections has always been that we aim to preempt the mailing of the HOF ballot to the BBWAA voters. This historically takes place in the last week of November, so IMO the ideal time to close our election is the Monday before Thanksgiving, 11/23/09. Scheduling it earlier also enables the option of extending the election, as we have done at times. And we're still starting the balloting after the close of the postseason, making the HoM the center of the baseball universe during the dead of November.
   203. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: September 18, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3326012)
Not a bad idea Dan . . .
   204. DL from MN Posted: September 21, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3327849)
Has anyone set up a blogger "friends" list to better distribute our Hall of Merit election results?
   205. KJOK Posted: September 21, 2009 at 06:21 PM (#3328012)
Now that we have Dan Syz's wonderful MLE's back to 1978, we can look at Edgar Martinez minor league credit:

Year AB AVE/OBP/SLG
1984 474 .255
/.319/.380
1985 386 .236
/.312/.316
1985  71 .254
/.338/.338
1986 485 .233
/.312/.338
1987 468 .286
/.358/.438
1988 349 .281
/.370/.398
1989 120 .267
/.362/.400 


I'm not seeing much minor league credit here - more typical late bloomer who has to have good years to even get promoted.
   206. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 12, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3350104)
I'm not seeing much minor league credit here - more typical late bloomer who has to have good years to even get promoted.


I can see a case to add Gar's MLEs for 1988-89, but that really doesn't help his case much to worry about it too much.
   207. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 12, 2009 at 08:36 PM (#3350108)
Not that it's a big-dot-deal, but my suggestion for the timing of the annual elections has always been that we aim to preempt the mailing of the HOF ballot to the BBWAA voters. This historically takes place in the last week of November, so IMO the ideal time to close our election is the Monday before Thanksgiving, 11/23/09. Scheduling it earlier also enables the option of extending the election, as we have done at times. And we're still starting the balloting after the close of the postseason, making the HoM the center of the baseball universe during the dead of November.


Unless there are serious objections for it, Dan, I'll be glad to schedule it for then.
   208. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 12, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3350111)
Has anyone set up a blogger "friends" list to better distribute our Hall of Merit election results?


What do you have in mind, DL?
   209. DL from MN Posted: October 13, 2009 at 02:49 AM (#3350576)
Just thinking that a network of sympathetic bloggers posting the results simultaneously could cause the election results to go "viral".
   210. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM (#3350699)
Sounds like a great plan, DL. All we need now are the sympathetic bloggers. :-)
   211. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 13, 2009 at 05:09 PM (#3350955)
I think we know a few of those . . . if anyone wants to work with me off list, drop an email, but we could come up with a list of these that could be contacted once the results are in.

Also, if you are a sympathetic blogger reading and want any further info, like a list of HoMer not HoFer & vice versa, etc., just let me know . . .
   212. DL from MN Posted: October 13, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3351044)
We should probably come up with a "press release" that has all that information canned.

1) Results for 2010
2) Purpose / mission of HoM
3) Differences in results (HoM v HoF)

The article pretty much writes itself if you hand that out. Having our results in the dead of baseball talk ensures a worthwhile posting. I'm sure there will be some Reds blogs interested in this year's results.
   213. sunnyday2 Posted: October 28, 2009 at 09:55 AM (#3368206)
bump
   214. sunnyday2 Posted: October 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM (#3368238)
Over on that subsidiary page to the HoM

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/greenia_fixing_the_hall_of_fame/

Betcha didn't know.

Daniel Greenia works for the Pope as a church auditor.
   215. DL from MN Posted: October 28, 2009 at 01:48 PM (#3368293)
Put the Reds blog pimping Barry Larkin for the HoF on the list...
   216. sunnyday2 Posted: October 29, 2009 at 12:37 PM (#3369943)
From my 2009 ballot I've got:

Puckett
Williamson
Walters, Dean, Newcombe
Doyle
Cravath
Tommy Bond
Elston Howard
Leach
Belle
Rosen
Pesky, Rizzuto
Dick Redding

I have concluded that I am going to reluctantly have to have Alomar in an elect-me spot. No question about Larkin. Beyond that I like Ventura next, but I don't think any of them will be on my ballot. And before whining about Ventura, notice who W3's got 3rd in this cohort.

As a peak voter I should like Robby:

Alomar 377WS 37-35-34-31-30
Larkin 347WS 32-31-30-28-26

But then:

Alomar 117OPS+ 149-41-38-38-36
Larkin 116OPS+ 155-41-38-34-33 and then better than Alomar years 6-7-8-9-10

Oh, and I think Larkin was a SS. So I'm thinkin'

1. Larkin
2. Puckett
3. Alomar
4. E. Williamson
5. Newcombe
   217. Paul Wendt Posted: October 29, 2009 at 04:35 PM (#3370276)
How much do you want to bet?
Let's get to know each other
   218. JPWF13 Posted: October 29, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3370312)
Now that we have Dan Syz's wonderful MLE's back to 1978, we can look at Edgar Martinez minor league credit:


Ken Phelps    1978    KC    .244/.347/.378 418 ab
Ken Phelps    1979    KC    .254
/.345/.427 468 ab
Ken Phelps    1980    KC    .258
/.371/.439 488 ab
Ken Phelps    1981    KC    .271
/.346/.529 70 ab
Ken Phelps    1982    MON    .258
/.380/.460 476 ab
Ken Phelps    1983    SEA    .280
/.361/.588 289 ab 


just wanted to throw that out
   219. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: October 29, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3370463)
I could see giving Phelps credit for 1982-83, that's about it. For a DH/1B his 'look at me' season isn't really until 1981 when the power pops up, but even that is only 70 AB. If you want to get conservative you could say 1983, or aggressive start with 1981. And yes I do realize those are 1980 numbers and not 2009 numbers, but still, he doesn't blow you away.
   220. OCF Posted: October 31, 2009 at 04:41 AM (#3372233)
I was fooling around with my accumulated HoM files, and I came up with this. It doesn't belong in this thread, of course. It belongs in the 2013 discussion thread. But I can't promise that I'll still be involved by then - and probably none of you can promise that either.

For my basic offensive measure over the life of the project, I tied myself to a single unchanging source, a printed book. The last year with data contained in that book is 1999. With some of our recent candidates, I have cobbled together estimates for their decline phases that don't seem too far out of line, but I'm not willing to use those estimates to deal with a peak. If I stay around, I will have to change my methods.

But that leaves me with data for Barry Bonds that ends with his 1999 season. Now, I don't want to make an ideological point here. For Hall of Merit purposes, Bonds's accomplishments from 2000 through 2007 are very much part of his case. But you know how some people think ...

So what I've done is to take that record, turn it into RCAA, adjust that for run context - in other words, make the kind of table I've made many times before. I put that together with our top LF and RF, plus Gehrig, but I truncated each of the others at age 34. All of this is what was accomplished through the age 34 season. Here's the chart (for old times' sake):

Bonds . . 112  98  94  75  75  75  70 67 59 54 46 29 18 15
Ruth 
. .  137 131 131 112 111 109 107 86 73 56 54 19 14 12  7  0
Williams  118 116 111 108  
**  **  ** 97 96 72 63 63  *  * 43
Musial 
.  113 101  86  82  73  72  71 70  69 68 53 51 40  7
Aaron 
. .  97  86  71  69  68  62  61 61 60 56 53 52 52 46  7
Robinson 
92  83  76  68  65  60  51 51 49 48 43 41 39 35 25
Ott 
. . .  79  79  78  74  74  73  63 62 59 52 51 49 49 42 32 30 3 0
Henderson  83  79  58  55  51  50  47 46 45 45 44 41 36 29  3
Gehrig 
.  109 103 102  99  98  97  87 87 81 79 62 54 16  5  2 


The top three years represented there for Bonds are 1993, 1996, and 1992. The last four numbers in the line are the first four years of his career - he was a good player, of course, but those first four years are on the low side for an inner circle hitter. (Of course, Ruth has similar hitting numbers, from when he was a pitcher.) And the 54 in the Bonds line was from 1994, and I haven't extrapolated it out to a normal length season. (And the 70 was 1995.)

The asterisks for Williams and Musial are for war years in which they didn't play. For the last two such asterisks for Williams, the Korean War years, I do have data, a 24 and a 3, but I replaced those with asterisks.
   221. Tiboreau Posted: October 31, 2009 at 07:08 PM (#3372451)
I could see giving Phelps credit for 1982-83, that's about it. For a DH/1B his 'look at me' season isn't really until 1981 when the power pops up, but even that is only 70 AB.

Like you point out, '81 consist of a mere 70 AB, and IMO that ain't enough to acquire 'look at me' status. While '81 is his first season with an ISO. over .200, I don't think that '80 is dismissable in the sense you seem to be referring to--according to the bb-ref page on Willie Aikens, the lgOBP./lgSLG. for a hitter based in KC in '80 was .331/.399. If I'm calculating correctly, Phelps' MLE *OPS+ for that season would be 122. KC 1B Willie Aikens' *OPS+? 116. And while KC DH Hal McRae hit better than that, it wasn't by much: 124 *OPS+.

To me Ken Phelps '80 performance of a 122 *OPS+ is enough to achieve 'look at me' status; however, that point is moot--except as a curiousity--considering that no one would really think that Ken Phelps is a HoF candidate even if his MLEs were actual MLB performance.
   222. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 02, 2009 at 08:47 PM (#3374805)
Should we continue with this thread as the ballot discussion?

Or, should I open a new one?

I can send an email to the group to remind everyone to check back in as well.

Plan to start the ballot thread for 11/8, running through 11/22. Really don't want to have to extend it either . . . since the HoF ballots go out Thanksgiving week, right?
   223. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3374836)
Just thinking that a network of sympathetic bloggers posting the results simultaneously could cause the election results to go "viral".


Not to mention Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. I'll be happy to post links in any or all of those places.

-- MWE
   224. Juan V Posted: November 02, 2009 at 09:24 PM (#3374855)
Seeing this on hot topics reminded me to start working on the ballot.

Speaking of, is anyone else entertaining the thought of not putting Alomar in the ballot? I'm quite surprised by how low he scored on my spreadsheet, mostly due to poor defense according to Dan R's fielding wins (and double-checked using TotalZone). Boosting his glove to average puts him safely in the top 15.
   225. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 02, 2009 at 10:29 PM (#3374928)
Thanks Mike!

I'm starting to get plugged in there myself, especially with Twitter lately (I've been a Facebooker for awhile now).

Juan, I haven't looked at it in detail, but I cannot imagine that. I'd be shocked if he's not in the top 5 on my ballot, at first glance, and my initial guess is either he or Larkin #1.
   226. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 02, 2009 at 10:54 PM (#3374968)
I'm starting to get plugged in there myself, especially with Twitter lately (I've been a Facebooker for awhile now).


I've gotten more active on Twitter than on Facebook - in part because the latter is blocked at work :)

-- MWE
   227. OCF Posted: November 02, 2009 at 11:18 PM (#3375014)
Should we continue with this thread as the ballot discussion?

Or, should I open a new one?


Continue this one. That keeps everything in the same place. It's not too much burden to flip back to previous pages to see previous arguments.

As for Alomar - I'm pretty sure I'll have him #2. For me, there's just too much there not to put him on the ballot.
   228. Paul Wendt Posted: November 03, 2009 at 06:07 AM (#3375858)
222. Joe Dimino
Plan to start the ballot thread for 11/8, running through 11/22. Really don't want to have to extend it either . . . since the HoF ballots go out Thanksgiving week, right?

Right. So make it 11/8 running through 11/14.
:-)
   229. Juan V Posted: November 07, 2009 at 09:43 PM (#3382024)
OK, prelim time

1-Larkin
2-Dunlap
3-Tiant
4-B. Adams
5-Cicotte
6-Cone
7-Willis
8-Concepción
9-Reuschel
10-Appier
11-Belle
12-Rizzuto
13-Cravath
14-B. Johnson
15-Alomar
   230. Paul Wendt Posted: November 07, 2009 at 09:59 PM (#3382030)
In the 20th Century Candidates directory the link to Fred McGriff is broken. Here he is.
Fred McGriff
   231. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2009 at 04:15 PM (#3382272)
Seems like we got a lot of information about earlier players coming onto the ballot from their vote totals.
That is, there were anywhere from 6 to 20 or so future Hall of Merit players on the ballot as well, and we rated the new guy amid that collection. If we liked them better than all of that group, it said something, just as it did if the new guy needed 20 years to get in.

But now, with the new guys, we only vote on them compared to a group of guys we've rejected, in some cases for 100 years now. It's more "pass/fail" in a way - if the new guys are as good as our worst HOM player, we vote for them, basically.

Not necessarily a criticism, but an observation....
   232. Paul Wendt Posted: November 08, 2009 at 08:11 PM (#3382387)
1996 may be the last election of someone from the backlog who appeared on half the ballots (Keller and Wynn). 1997 may be the last election of a newcomer by less than acclamation (Dwight Evans). Since then most of the newcomers have been elected by acclamation, which is uninformative in the sense Howie describes, or they have been rejected decisively.
--most of them but not all of them. A few have been placed among the contenders: Willie Randolph, Dave Stieb, Andre Dawson, Bret Saberhagen, David Cone, Albert Belle. That is six in twelve years iicc.

Since the election of Keller and Wynn (1996), the standings have not clearly identified anyone as HOMer in waiting, except perhaps the highly rated newcomers like Randolph. Look at the results for 1998 when Jake Beckley edged Dick Redding or 2003 when Charley Jones edged Pete Browning. Following Browning the runners up were Bresnahan and young Dawson (two later elected) followed by Puckett, Johnson, Perez, Redding, Walters, and Duffy. The latter have been bypassed in favor of Oms, Reggie Smith, Nettles, McGraw, and Lundy (five elected), and also surpassed by Rizzuto, Cravath, and Leach.

I expect that no one from the backlog will win for 2010 this month and I don't have any good idea which of them be elected for 2011 next fall. Presumably the same is true for other observers. That is the sea change, no HOMers in waiting.
   233. Juan V Posted: November 08, 2009 at 08:28 PM (#3382395)
I think the backlog is more likely to beat the best of Edgar and McGriff now than to beat the worst of Brown and a boycotted Palmeiro a year from now.
   234. sunnyday2 Posted: November 08, 2009 at 08:32 PM (#3382399)
Yeah, I think we will navigate through the sea change. Maybe this is like 1930. We elected some borderline backloggers in and around that time and we will do the same coming up.

The real sea change may be a change in who our voters are. We will see how many long-time HoM participants have been lost this past year and how many new folks have arrived at BTF with a penchant for this sort of thing.
   235. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 08, 2009 at 11:05 PM (#3382457)
Responding to a comment from 10 months ago, don't really expect a response, but this is something I would like to understand better, so anyways:

Dan sez:


A Surfeit of Peaches Graham--I very much disagree with you on this point. A fielder who makes 5 plays and 200 errors is indubitably less valuable to his team (in terms of contributing to a pennant) than a DH (giving them the same offense).


Disagree. Let's take three players:

Player A is a DH, He makes zero plays. He gets zero points fielding credit.

Player B is a bad 1B. He makes 5 plays and 200 errors. He gets 5 points (or whatever) fielding credit.

Player C is a good 1 B. He makes 200 plays and 5 errors. He gets 200 points fielding credit.

So on fielding C>B>A (to render things simplistically).

Saying that DHs should receive some sort of penalty because they don't play the field is like saying that all AL pitchers should receive a penalty because they are incapable of hitting.


It's not a question of penalties, it's a question of credit. A NL pitcher who hits 10 singles gets X points of hitting credit. An AL pitcher would get zero points of hitting credit. So the AL pitcher isn't penalized, but the NL pitcher gets a (tiny) boost.
   236. Paul Wendt Posted: November 08, 2009 at 11:20 PM (#3382471)
The leading runners up now appear on about 40% of the ballots in contrast to 80% in 1930-32 and 50% in 1995-97. That change is one cause of instability, unpredictability.

The real sea change may be a change in who our voters are. We will see how many long-time HoM participants have been lost this past year and how many new folks have arrived at BTF with a penchant for this sort of thing.

True. That high turnover (expected) is probably the most important cause of unpredictability.

Another uncertainty is whether Dan R will make a relentless case for another throwing infielder, or will they be on their own this year?
   237. OCF Posted: November 10, 2009 at 07:32 AM (#3383832)
One thing we always warned ourselves about in years past was avoiding anachronism. In particular, we shouldn't let ourselves be distracted by players who weren't eligible yet and we shouldn't put ourselves in the time of the election and not use hindsight. Once in a while, I'd make a mild comment to the effect that we really would know about those guys without the using hindsight.

Well, we've now caught up with the time stream, and hindsight is not possible. And guess what - we really do know about all sorts of people who aren't eligible yet. So we never seem to elect CF any more? But there will be Griffey. Haggling about pitchers? Listen to all the debates you hear going on around you about Mussina and Smoltz and even Pettitte. What does that make Glavine? And what if none of the pitchers on this year's ballot can stand up to Kevin Brown? And all of those names and we still haven't mentioned the four best pitchers of the age. How about those second-rank outfielders of generations past, like Van Haltren or Duffy or Bob Johnson? We're going to have our generation of second-rank outfielders: Larry Walker and Jim Edmonds and Bernie Williams and maybe even Bobby Abreu.

All of which leads me to nod in agreement when Paul says in #232 that we have no HoMers in waiting. There isn't anyone in the current backlog that I can work up any enthusiasm for.
   238. rawagman Posted: November 10, 2009 at 03:45 PM (#3383950)
I've been absent for a while, but will be taking part in this election and catching up on recent discussions. Can someone who has remained more active than I please bump up discussion threads of new candidates that are not currently on the side-bar?
Much appreciated.
   239. OCF Posted: November 10, 2009 at 05:43 PM (#3384054)
rawagman: Larkin, Alomar, McGriff, Martinez, and Ventura are already on the sidebar. I don't really think you have to deal all that much with Burks, Gonzalez, Lankford, Santiago, or anyone else in order to make your ballot. We did have a nice discussion thread for Lankford but I don't really think anyone thought he was ballot-worthy.
   240. Yardape Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:25 AM (#3384568)
I'm not a "new" voter, but since I last voted in the 1920s (so to speak), I figure I'll post a ballot here first before putting one in the ballot thread. I like the concept of Win Shares, but don't like the application (studes' improvements at Hardball Times notwithstanding). Ultimately, I have a system in mind I'd like to implement, but I don't have time to finish it now.
I do want to get back to participating, however. For this ballot I looked at Chone's WAR first, and also consulted DanR's WARP and looked at BP's WARP and WS. I generally want to see a good prime, I do not favour pure career candidates. I think that will be obvious in the middle of my ballot.

1. Barry Larkin He's got the prime, with MVP-type seasons. In-season durability is an issue, but not a huge one, certainly not enough to knock him out of the top spot.

2. Sal Bando A solid-looking prime to me. Perhaps a closer look at Bando vs. his cohort would drop him, but on this ballot he looks quite good to me. Good hitting, I don't think his defense looks that bad.

3. Roberto Alomar I remember Alomar as the centre of a tete-a-tete between Neyer and Gammons on defensive stats several years ago. Neyer wrote that Alomar was not as good as his reputation, based on range factor. Gammons responded that range factor was ridiculous, and that Alomar was great. Perhaps they were both right? I lean towards Alomar being about average defensively, maybe slightly above, which puts him slightly below Larkin and Bando.

4. David Cone Cone was one of my favourite pitchers, even though he never pitched for any of my favourite teams. I remember him pitching in that legendary '95 Division Series against Seattle. It seemed like I was always waiting for him to become better than he did. I wish I could put him in an elect-me spot, but he just doesn't quite cut it.

5. Vic Willis Hey, he's still here! A tricky case. I'm not 100% confident in this, with questions about defensive support, but everything I've looked at indicates Willis was very good for a few years. If his career was a little longer, season-wise, he'd probably have cracked my top 3.

6. Orel Hershiser Someone who definitely seems more famous than his cold stats would indicate. I guess that's what a legendary stretch run will do for you. Still, his peak is pretty good, the career is decent, so he lands in the middle of my ballot.

7. Frank Chance Well-covered. A great player when healthy. If he'd been healthy more often, he'd have been in a long time ago. As it is, his OBP skills give him a strong enough peak to go here.

8. Kevin Appier It's funny voting for players I remember seeing. I would never have guessed I'd have Appier and Cone this close on my ballot, much less that swapping them would be reasonable as well. Perhaps that's because by the time Appier pitched for the Angels, he was more or less a journeyman. But he was very good in the early-mid '90s.

9. Al Rosen The beginning of my pure peak candidates. I was looking at a list of yearly Win Shares leaders by position, and there was Rosen with four straight wins at 3B. Easy HoMer, I thought, how come I've never heard of him? Well, now I know. This is about how far four really good years will get you.

10. Dizzy Dean A great pitcher for a short time. At this point in the ballot, with the candidates I'm evaluating, I'll take the great peak.

11. Tommy Bond Another peak case, but this is a tough one. How much was Bond, and how much was his defense? I doubt Bond is getting elected this year, so I'll probably have time to look into it. Nevertheless, I think that Bond was a great pitcher, and the best of his brief era.

12. Dale Murphy Again, my preference for peak. Murphy had the start of a HoM career, he just couldn't finish.

Dick Redding The Negro Leaguers (and MiL cases like Cravath; sorry Gavy!) are the toughest part of this ballot for me (as I'm sure they are for many). I'm not entirely convinced I've got them ranked quite right (Leroy Matlock just missed my ballot), but Redding looks like a very good pitcher who's worthy of a ballot spot.

14. Edgar MartinezHonestly, I didn't really expect to like him this much. I don't believe minor-league credit is due here, so he doesn't get any, and DHing strikes me as a knock against him. But he was amazingly productive as a hitter. He could go higher if I decide I'm too harsh on DHing.

15. Buddy Bell I think of Bell primarily as a career candidate, but his prime doesn't look too bad to me.

Top ten omissions in the next post.
   241. Yardape Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:33 AM (#3384576)
Top ten omissions:

Phil Rizzuto:He seems like a career candidate to me, and those types aren't going to be my first choices. It seems that simple.

Gavy Cravath:I'm sympathetic, and think I may be missing something here. The prime just isn't quite strong enough, at least at my look.

Tommy Leach:Leach was close to my ballot, he could definitely make it in the future (without looking at looming candidates). Perhaps his versatility makes him underrated in my system? Nevertheless, I don't see enough great seasons to lift him onto my ballot.

Luis TiantHis great seasons weren't great enough. HOVG.

Bucky WaltersCrediting his defensive support knocks that peak down enough to keep him off my ballot.
   242. DL from MN Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:40 PM (#3384801)
Good to have you back. I like the ballot, seems consistent. I will quibble with your assessment of Tiant. I can see someone saying he didn't have enough good seasons but his best seasons were up there with many pitchers we elected. 1968 and 1972 are pretty darned good, though a little light on innings due to injury.
   243. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 11, 2009 at 06:50 PM (#3385048)
Sal Bando at #2? For serious? Could you elaborate please?
   244. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM (#3385581)
Prelim Ballot II

I will stick with this order unless I am compelled by the electorate or new research is found in the next two weeks.

There are no glaring mistakes or omissions at the Hall of Merit, which has made me proud to observe the HOM’s body of work over the years, compared with the spotty record that the HOF sports.

I attempt to look at the sum of a player’s career, weighing peak, prime, and career. Systems that I analyze heavily for my rankings include WARP 1/Dan Rosenheck WAR, Joe Dimino’s PA for pitchers, and the MLE projections configured by Chris Cobb and Eric Chalek. In addition, Win Shares and contemporary opinion for Negro League players and defenders abilities pre-retrosheet era are worth considering.

I believe that War Credit should be awarded to players who demonstrate MLB quality skills on the book ends of a war. I am pleased that the electorate found Charlie Keller and Joe Gordon worthy of inclusion and hope that Don Newcombe will make it someday.

Everyone who is on this ballot would place in my pHOM.

1. Barry Larkin (1st year) - Replaces Henderson on my ballot. A truly great shortstop overshadowed by Cal Ripken Jr and playing in the small market of Cincinnati. Outstanding seasons in 1988, 1990-92, and 1996, all star quality in 94, 95, 98, 99. Nice filler seasons in 89 and 93. Underrated as well, due to fine defensive and baserunning play.

2. Roberto Alomar (1st year)– Sublime seasons in 91-93, 96, 99, and 01. All star type seasons almost every year from 88-01. Fell off a cliff in 02 at 34. Any chance he was older than he claimed? He had quite an impressive campaign as a 20 year old. Will be interesting to see what cap he wears into the HOM? Dan R shows him as most valuable for the Cleveland Indians, but the Toronto Blue Jays would be a fine choice as well.

3. Bert Campaneris (4) – a player greatly benefited by lightly documented value, namely, his baserunning ability and glove defense. In a season of dominating pitchers, Campaneris and his 4 HR’s were nearly an MVP caliber season in 1968, and his 1970 (20 HR’s!) and 1973 seasons where outstanding as well. Additional all-star seasons in 1971-72, 1974, and 1976-77. Solid filler in four other seasons. Quite valuable in a time when Jackie and Enzo Hernandez dotted the diamond.

4. David Cone (5) - Cy Young season in 1994 (deserved) and close to it in 1993. All-star type of years in 1988, 1990-91, and 1997-99, and a few solid filler years. Outstanding, five time World Series champion performer. While there is a heap of qualified pitching candidates from the 1990s, I don’t see Don Sutton (1970s) or Red Ruffing (1930s) on the outside of the HOM.

5. Rick Reuschel (2) – A truly outstanding 1977 season, with all-star caliber years from 1973-1980, and an additional four seasons of solid filler seasons. Excellent PA numbers. What if he would have had a Jim Palmer type of defense behind him? Instead, he had some stone gloves and is largely unrecognized for his greatness. Moved down slightly from last year…using a little more caution with placement of 1970’s hurlers.

6. Phil Rizzuto (7) – this guy will make or break the HOM based upon the electorate’s war credit theory. It appears he was suffering from sickness, which dampened his 1946 numbers, but his 1941 and 1942 seasons were excellent prior to the war, and that is more likely what his 1943-45 seasons would appear to be. Giving war credit is easier for me if a player has good durability in the remainder of his career, as Rizzuto has. One MVP season, 2 other excellent seasons, with 4 more all-star seasons (7 after war-credit). 1950’s AL inferior to NL, drops him below McGraw.

7. Gavvy Cravath (14) – another challenging fellow to place. How exactly would this guy have faired in a HR environment, getting the chance to start in MLB at 22-24. A monstrous NL bat from 1913-1917 at ages of 31-36, with 5 consecutive all-star seasons, and a MVP type year in 1915. I’m not sure how much credit he deserves prior to turning 31, but he places here for the time being. My 2009 ballot reflected him as a poor defender, but I am warming up to the idea that he was more decent/mediocre than anything else, enough to push him up 7 spots.

8. Urban Shocker (11) – Don’t forget an all-star type season for Urban in 1918. He put a Cy Young type performance in 1921, and an excellent 1922. 1920 and 1923-26 are all-star caliber years, and he throws in a couple filler seasons. He comes up quite impressively in the PA system.

9. Don Newcombe (10) – tough guy to place. He feels like the best available from the 1940’s-1950’s era that is lagging in electees, and the electorate is a bit light on pitching in general. Deserves credit for 1952/53 Korea conflict and came in guns blazing in 1949 as a Brooklyn rookie, so 1948 is a year he likely deserves some credit for. Nearly Cy Young type season in 1956, all-star seasons in 49-51, 59, and projected in 53-54, and a couple filler seasons. May have received more opportunities late in his career if he played in a different time era.

10. David Concepcion (9) – excellent base running skills, stratospheric defense peak during Big Red Machine’s three pennant run. 3 seasons worthy of Top 5-10 MVP - 1974, 1976, 1979. Five additional all-star type seasons: 1975, 1977-78, 1981-82. Adds a few more filler seasons. An even better playoff performer than in the regular season.


11. Johnny Pesky (12) – Bookending WWII, Pesky put up MVP type seasons. He throws in three more all-star type seasons, with a couple of above filler campaigns. Conservative WWII credit would give him an additional MVP type season, and two more all-star type seasons. That’s eight excellent seasons, with at least three MVP type campaigns. An electee with War Credit only.

12. Bill Monroe (13) – Upon looking at Brent’s MLE’s, Monroe stats seem to fit a HOM profile. Projected 8100 PA’s, OPS+ 133, with positive defensive value. His fielding reputation is shown as being equal to or greater than Jimmy Collins. He appeared to bat in key lineup spots on great teams. Good enough to play 2B/3B in his time defensively and with the stick. As for reputations, resident Negro Leagues expert Gary A mentioned four players worthy of Hall of Fame induction in an interview recently with Scott Simkus. Three of those (John Beckwith, Home Run Johnson, and Dick Lundy) have been elected. The other is Monroe.

13. Orel Hershiser (NR) – Fine peak from 1987-1989 – 1987 behind Clemens, best of 1988, behind Saberhagen in 1989, all-star type seasons in 84, 85. Filler seasons in 91, 92, 95. Impressive Domino PA total of .95. Piled up plenty of IP’s. One of the best hitting pitchers of his era.

14. Edgar Martinez - with MiL credit for 88 would move ahead of Tiant, but Calgary was a hitter's paradise (Ala Albuquerque - As a young boy, I could never figure why Billy Ashley wouldn't become a star...a hitter's paradise), and I am not sold on Edgar getting extra credit. Outstanding in 1992, with all-star quality seasons almost every year (91, 92, 96-98, 00-01). It was fun to watch him hit!

15. Tommy Leach (8) – 1902, 1907-08, and 1914 were outstanding, top 5 MVP type of seasons. 1901, 1903-05, and 1913 were all-star type seasons and he adds a few filler seasons. I wonder how he felt playing alongside the greatest SS. I see him a smidge below Monroe now, and have adjusted for league strength of the NL in Leach’s time.


15th last year – Elston Howard – What if he was born 15 years later? Looks to be underused by Yankees. Given full playing time at age 32, blossoms into a consistent all-star for four seasons, with an excellent 1964 behind the dish. Enters MLB at age 26. MLE credit from ages 24-25? I probably was projecting too much on him for a ballot placement.

Top 10 returnees off ballot:

1910s – Dick Redding. He might be more worthy than Monroe amongst Negro League stars or Nap Rucker versus contemporary SP’s, but the evidence hasn’t convinced me. Excellent peak in his 20’s, but his shoulder seasons just appear to be too weak. I’d take Doc Gooden at the moment over Redding. Behind Tiant and Walters in my consideration set.

1940s - Bucky Walters – Jim Palmer lite for the 30s & 40s. A good pitcher made excellent by some of the greatest defenses every assembled (Bill McKechnie LOVED gloves). I now see him as more deserving than Virgil Trucks, but still off ballot…A Top 40 placer.

1970s – Luis Tiant - voluminous amount of prime type seasons Tiant put together, combined with subjectively knocking him for pitching with an all-time great cohort in the 1970's. Excellent 1968 and 1974 campaigns. Sure fire all-star quality in 72, 73, 76. Fringe all-star/above average seasons in 66, 67, 69, 75, 78. He also falls just shy of ballot…A Top 40 placer.

From the Deeper Backlog:

1870s - Davy Force

1880s – Charlie Buffinton, Fred Dunlap, Jim McCormick, Jim Whitney, and Ed Williamson

1890s – None, Duffy/Ryan/VH might be the best remaining – a bit behind Sam Thompson

1900s – Vic Willis

1910s – Rabbit Maranville, Dick Redding, Nap Rucker, and Ben Taylor

1920s – Buzz Arlett, Dave Bancroft, and Jack Quinn

1930s – Tommy Bridges, Kiki Cuyler, Dizzy Dean, Bob Johnson, and Chuck Klein

1940s – Bus Clarkson, Dutch Leonard, Virgil Trucks, and Bucky Walters

1950s – NO MLB Players, NEL - Marvin Williams ?

1960s – Norm Cash, Jim Fregosi, and Elston Howard

1970s – Bobby Bonds, Ron Cey, Toby Harrah, Tommy John, Thurman Munson, Darrell Porter, Gene Tenace, and Luis Tiant

1980s – Buddy Bell, Brett Butler, Doc Gooden, and Lee Smith

1990s – Kevin Appier, Albert Belle, and Robin Ventura
   245. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 12:28 AM (#3385619)
His fielding reputation is shown as being equal to or greater than Jimmy Collins.


Whaaa? Isn't Jimmy Collins thought to be the 2nd greatest fielding 3B in history?
   246. Yardape Posted: November 12, 2009 at 01:00 AM (#3385657)
Sal Bando at #2? For serious? Could you elaborate please?


Uh, sure? Using Chone's WAR, here are the top candidates, just using straight career totals (obviously excludes Negro Leaguers or anyone who needs/gets extra credit):

Larkin 68.8, Martinez 67.2, Reuschel 65.4, Mullane 65.1, McCormick 63.9, Alomar 63.6, Buddy Bell 60.6, Bando 60.5, Tiant 59.4, Tommy John 59.

So there's Larkin, who I've got No. 1. Martinez I dinged because I don't think WAR's replacement-level for a DH is quite harsh enough. Perhaps I dinged him too much. Reuschel is probably a guy I need to take a closer look at - with Cone, Hershiser and Appier on my ballot, Reuschel would seem to fit in. Mullane and McCormick are 19th Century pitchers I'm quite familiar with, so I take their uber-stat ratings with a grain of salt. (Yet I still ranked Tommy Bond - it's true). Now Alomar, Bando and Bell. To my eyes, Bando and Alomar both had slightly better primes than Bell, so they rank higher. Bando's three best seasons: 8.9, 7.3, 6.3. Alomar: 7.9, 7.8, 6.4. I guess Bando's 8.9 stood out to me and lifted him above Alomar. I could see flipping them, but they're still both in elect-me spots and I don't see a big difference there.

I will quibble with your assessment of Tiant. I can see someone saying he didn't have enough good seasons but his best seasons were up there with many pitchers we elected.


True, true, I concede this point. My comment was harsh on Mr. Tiant, including the HOVG part. Certainly he (and Reuschel) are comparable to the pitchers on my ballot. I don't think I'll move him onto my ballot this year, but he's close, and I will think about it before posting in the ballot thread.
   247. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 01:47 AM (#3385702)
Ah, mystery solved...Sean is giving waaaaay more credit for playing 3B around 1970 than I do. I guess it just comes down to which system you thinks tracks the historical evolution of the defensive spectrum better. Also, that 8.9 has to be hardcore-deflated for the 1969 mega-expansion.
   248. John DiFool2 Posted: November 12, 2009 at 02:29 AM (#3385741)
I am curious as to why so many people have McGriff wayyyyy down on their ballots. Hell, at least one voter, after discussing and listing literally dozens of candidates, never mentioned McGriff once.

The problem to me is that McGriff has the most Runs Created of any candidate on the ballot (unless I missed someone, and I checked Perez and Staub). Putting such a player that far down simply doesn't pass the Sniff Test, to my way of thinking. It would require penalizing him in just about every way imaginable, as compared to the other RF/LF/1B/DH's, to do that (yes that includes adjustments for parks and league offenses), and, after having spent about an hour over at BBRef (and, earlier today, looking over this thread and his thread), I simply don't see it. The burden of proof is on those to show that the candidate with the best combination of counting and (adjusted) rate stats and peak seasons doesn't even belong at the top of the sluggardly heap, much less isn't a clear top 5 candidate overall.

He either has them beaten on peak, or, if he doesn't, he has 2000+ more PAs on them. Now, I'll be up front that I use a fairly steep timeline adjustment when making my estimates and comparing players across different eras (if that means that nobody from the 19th century makes my ballot, I apologize but that's the way I see it. Yes I read the rules on that). Indian Bob Johnson was in the top 10 last time, but I don't see how, even not considering the timeline, that he beats out McGriff. Johnson has 2 seasons above 150 OPS+, McGriff has 5 (and 4 more over 140), and 2000 PAs on top of that. You would need to ignore the timeline, give Johnson a big boost in terms of defense (he was a LFer, yes?) and baserunning (60% success rate I'll point out on steals) just to get him even.

Comparing him to the other guys on the left side of the defensive spectrum, only Brock, Bobby Bonds, and Mattingly would appear to get huge edges in either (if not both) category. Yes I know about the positional adjustments, and don't have any real issues with same. Yet I see him being put way below what seem to be clearly inferior players, leaving me profoundly puzzled.
   249. OCF Posted: November 12, 2009 at 02:40 AM (#3385748)
For the tiny number of ballots posted so far, I'm by far the "best friend" of McGriff - so I'll second what John DiFool2 says.
   250. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2009 at 03:23 AM (#3385773)
I vote for Bob Johnson on my ballot, and yes, he will factor into where I slot McGriff as well....
   251. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 03:58 AM (#3385794)
See my #53 for why I am a McGriff detractor.
   252. DL from MN Posted: November 12, 2009 at 04:09 PM (#3385981)
> Any chance he was older than he claimed?

I doubt a son of a famous baseball player was able to lie about his age. A baseball exec probably sent his mother flowers when he was born.
   253. DL from MN Posted: November 12, 2009 at 04:12 PM (#3385985)
Are we allowed to post 57 if Chris Cobb doesn't appear?
   254. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 05:56 PM (#3386105)
The case for electing Joss has in my view become ironclad since we elected Sandy Koufax fairly recently. 2324@131 vs 2327@142 isn't close.

Moving this over from the ballot thread...

Joss vs. Koufax. If you account for unearned runs allowed (and I think I'm doing this right), Joss's RA+ is 134, not 142, while Koufax moves up to 132. Making that adjustment also gives Koufax a massive peak advantage; for instance, Sandy's best six years ('61-'66) are 1632.2 at 154, compared to 1666.2 at 141 for Joss ('04-'09). On three best not-necessarily-consecutive years, it's Koufax ('63, '65, '66) 969.2 at 169, Joss ('06-'08) 945.2 at 145.
   255. DanG Posted: November 12, 2009 at 06:04 PM (#3386119)
> Any chance he was older than he claimed?

I doubt a son of a famous baseball player was able to lie about his age. A baseball exec probably sent his mother flowers when he was born.
Sandy senior was not a famous player when his sons were born. He didn't establish himself as a major league regular until mid-1968, when Roberto and Sandy junior were already born. Both sons were born and raised in Puerto Rico. Would most MLB execs at that time have known or cared that one of their prospects had a kid? It seems likely to me that an islander struggling to make it in MLB in the 1960's would not be able to bring his wife and family to America, that both Sandy, Jr and Roberto were a little older when they first were seen by anyone in the US.

Not saying it's likely, only that it's plausible that the young Alomars were a year or two older than their offical ages. For that matter, the same may be true for Sandy, Sr.
   256. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3386138)
But why should you adjust for unearned runs allowed? All it means is that the LAD defense in the early 1960s was relatively better than Cleveland's in 1902-10. Not surprising -- Cleveland had their HOF best hitter playing 2B, which may have increased the number of UER. Don't see why that adjustment should be made.
   257. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3386159)
But why should you adjust for unearned runs allowed? All it means is that the LAD defense in the early 1960s was relatively better than Cleveland's in 1902-10.

Actually, over Joss's 6-year peak from '04-'09, Cleveland allowed roughly 30 fewer unearned runs than the league average. (Outside of that, they allowed more; for Joss's total career, they allowed 45 more than average, or 5 per year, which is no big deal considering it's a team total.)

The issue is this: If Joss is allowing earned runs at a rate well below league average, and allowing unearned runs at exactly league average (or even a rate closer to league average than his ERA), ERA+ will overstate his value. As a very simple example, say Joss has an ERA of 2.00, and allows 1 UER per 9, while the league average ERA is 3.00, with 1 UER per 9. Joss's ERA+ would be 150, but his RA+, which is where team winning percentage comes from, is only 133. This is an issue for all deadball pitchers.
   258. DL from MN Posted: November 12, 2009 at 06:43 PM (#3386161)
> Would most MLB execs at that time have known or cared that one of their prospects had a kid?

I guess not, but the Puerto Rican scout who signed him probably would have cared. Sandy Jr. had a long career; Roberto had a typical decline for a 2B. I doubt either fudged his age.
   259. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 06:59 PM (#3386172)
Making the same adjustment for Mathewson as I did for Joss, his ERA+ drops from 135 to 132. The turn-of-the-century Giants had a good defense, right?
   260. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 07:09 PM (#3386183)
Taking Three Finger Brown's Cubs years (1904-1912) and giving them the same treatment, his ERA+ drops from 156 to 147. Does the Tinker-Evers-Chance defense do it for you?

It looks to me like ERA+ overstates the effectiveness of the best deadball pitchers no matter how good their defenses are.
   261. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 07:51 PM (#3386236)
But why should you adjust for unearned runs allowed?

From a larger perspective, you should do this because the pitcher has usually also made a significant contribution to the run scoring, so it's at least partly his fault.
   262. OCF Posted: November 12, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3386311)
All of my equivalent record work is based on RA+, not ERA+, on a season-by-season basis (not whole career). I did not directly compute a career RA+, but what I can do is back-form an equivalent RA+ from a career winning percentage. Since the wins were computed in the first place by a PythPat sliding exponent but the back-formed RA+ is from straight Pythag, most pitchers wind up with a lower RA+ than ERA+, and this is especially true of deadball pitchers because they pitched in low-scoring times, making wins harder to come by.

Here are some sample career back-formed RA+:

Walter Johnson 136
Pete Alexander 133
Lefty Grove 143
Christy Mathewson 129
Tom Seaver 128
Warren Spahn 118
Mordecai Brown 129 (unadjusted)
Mordecai Brown 121 (adjusted for defensive support)
Ed Walsh 133
Vic Willis 118 (unadjusted)
Vic Willis 113 (adjusted for defensive support)
Joe McGinnity 121
Rube Waddell 124
Ed Cicotte 118
Wilbur Cooper 115
Urban Shocker 124
Sandy Koufax 131
Ed Reulbach 125 (unadjusted)
Addie Joss 128
Carl Mays 114
Joe Wood 129
Babe Ruth 111

I think Joss may be affected more by the notion that you need a higher RA+ for the same winning percentage in low-scoring times than any other pitcher I worked on. My equivalent record for him is 161-98.

Taking Three Finger Brown's Cubs years (1904-1912) and giving them the same treatment, his ERA+ drops from 156 to 147.

If I do that in my system, without explicitly adjusting for defensive support, I get an equivalent record of 171-84, which back-forms via Pythag to an RA+ of 143. This is reasonably consisted with what Eric J said; the additional drop from 147 to 143 is the low-scoring times PythPat adjustment.
   263. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 09:10 PM (#3386328)
Thanks, OCF! I was hoping you'd show up.
   264. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM (#3386402)
Doesn't work. You are artificially zapping deadball pitchers for the inferiority of their equipment, and then comparing their stats with pitchers who didn't have such inferiority. If Joss is 41% better than the average pitcher of his time, he's 41% better than the average pitcher of his time, regardless of how bad the fielding was. It's the Hall of Merit, and 141 is the appropriate measure of his Merit, to be compared with Koufax's 131.

By your comparison, if Pedro Martinez v. 1999 had pitched on the 1871 Chicago White Stockings, he would have been a barely above-average pitcher.
   265. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM (#3386412)
Almost 30% of the runs scored in the American League during Joss's career are listed as "unearned." Should we treat it like the pitchers had no influence on those runs being scored at all?
   266. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:53 PM (#3386417)
karlmagnus, the point is that including errors in your evaluation of a pitcher's effectiveness obscures more than it clarifies. Not only does it incorporate subjective scorer's judgments, but it systematically biases your rankings in favor of pitchers with rangy but erratic defenses and against those with immobile but sure-handed ones. What you want to do is use RA+ adjusted for overall quality of team defense (determined as best you can using the most reliable advanced fielding statistics you have).
   267. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:54 PM (#3386419)
Joss actually allowed unearned runs at a lower-than average (that is, better than average) rate during his career. He's 215 earned runs better than average, whereas he's 267 runs better than average (neither figure park adjusted). If you ignore unearned runs, you miss that.
   268. OCF Posted: November 12, 2009 at 11:18 PM (#3386445)
I'm not buying your argument, karl. I'm not artificially zapping deadball pitchers; I'm simply holding them responsible for the runs that scored while they were pitching. And in my back-formed RA+, I have Koufax at 131 to Joss's 128, and with a distinctly higher peak. ERA+ has that as Koufax 131, Joss 141. So, in going from ERA+ to back-formed RA+, you lower the number (more precisely, move the number closer to 100) for low-scoring times, and you lower the number if the pitcher allows more than his share of UER. Joss pitched in very low-scoring times, and also allowed more than his share of UER. Koufax pitched in times and circumstances that were fairly low-scoring but not deadball low, but he also allowed fewer than his share of UER. Is there any good reason to credit Koufax for that? I think so; it was part of who he was as a pitcher. Here's a career stat for you: Koufax allowed 806 career runs, and 204 HR. That's an rather high HR/R ratio; to some degree it means that the only way to beat him was to hit the ball out of the park. If you merely added runners on base, he could, and frequently did, get out of it.

As for your crack about Pedro in the 1870's - well, for one thing, I don't like to use these methods for the 1870's and 1880's. There's just too much else going on then. And the last time I worked up Pedro, he had a back-formed ERA+ of 154, which is just otherworldly. (Yeah, he's probably lowered that a little by now.)

Another way to look at Joss is that he's about 1.6 times Joe Wood. Wood's rate stats are as good.
   269. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2009 at 11:26 PM (#3386451)
Joe Wood is my next project. The 1912 Red Sox are probably my all time favorite team.
   270. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 11:34 PM (#3386457)
Joss pitched in very low-scoring times, and also allowed more than his share of UER.

That depends on what you consider to be his share of UER. If you put it at the league average for UER/IP, he allowed less than his share; if you put it at (league average)/1.41, he allowed more.
   271. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:23 AM (#3386738)
And in my back-formed RA+, I have Koufax at 131 to Joss's 128, and with a distinctly higher peak.


I've got it even stronger . . .

Koufax at 153 with 63.1 WAR in 2213.3 adjusted innings. Best 5 years 11.7, 10.2, 9.9, 8.0, 7.5.

Joss at 125 with 40.4 WAR in 1899 adjusted innings. Best 5 years 7.0, 5.8, 5.6, 4.7, 4.6.

They aren't close. Even if you remove the innings adjustment. Joss's 1908 takes a pretty big hit when you adjust for team defense, it's a very good year, a 7.0, normally Cy Young contenderish, but Ed Walsh that year was a 10.9, for example. Cy Young himself was an 8.3.
   272. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:27 AM (#3386741)
Even if I give Joss equal innings to Koufax, he still comes out with only 75% of the WAR.

I think that's entirely reasonable to say Joss was 75% of Koufax. But Koufax is kind of on the edge. I think Ron Guidry, for example, had a better case than Joss.

Using the numbers above:

Koufax at 153 with 63.1 WAR in 2213.3 adjusted innings. Best 5 years 11.7, 10.2, 9.9, 8.0, 7.5.
Joss at 125 with 40.4 WAR in 1899 adjusted innings. Best 5 years 7.0, 5.8, 5.6, 4.7, 4.6.
Guidry at 119 with 49.1 WAR in 2469 adjusted innings. Best 5 years 8.5, 6.4, 5.5, 5.1, 4.7
   273. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:31 AM (#3386742)
BTW, that shows you how great Koufax was. 3(!) years significantly more valuable than Guidry's 1978, and another that was almost as valuable.
   274. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 13, 2009 at 02:40 PM (#3386787)
For those who are new to the Hall of Merit, Dan Rosenheck (Hitting) and Joe Dimino (Pitching) have done extensive research to value a players historical greatness.

Dan's information can be found at http://www.tangotiger.net/rosenheck/
Here you can download his Excel file that details hitters values.

Also, from the Dan Rosenheck's WARP Data page, http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/dan_rosenhecks_warp_data/P400/
Post 422, shows the most recent published Rankings by Dan, on a whole.

In order are his raw scores for players, with eligible players as follows:
422. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: September 19, 2007 at 11:58 PM (#2533329)
111. Phil Rizzuto, $173,175,176 (war credit for 1943-45)
120. Roberto Alomar, $168,037,864
122. Dagoberto Campaneris, $167,565,867
131. Johnny Pesky, $161,323,415 (war credit for 1943-45)
135. David Concepción, $159,343,562
145. Tommy Leach, $154,776,307
147. Dave Bancroft, $154,096,301
148. Edgar Martínez, $154,010,986
149. Gavvy Cravath, $152,470,860 (minor league credit for 1906-7, 9-11)
151. Jim Fregosi, $152,193,178
152. Bob Johnson, $151,852,428
153. Chuck Klein, $151,248,045
155. Rabbit Maranville, $150,875,410 (war credit for 1918)
158. Bobby Bonds, $148,958,773
161. Buddy Bell, $147,695,883
162. Ron Cey, $146,837,114
163. Toby Harrah, $146,788,510
164. Gene Tenace, $146,753,677
166. Robin Ventura, $146,265,236
167. Kiki Cuyler, $145,816,749
169. Dale Murphy, $144,777,231
170. Norm Cash, $144,665,638
172. Brett Butler, $141,823,282
173. Thurman Munson, $141,355,236
174. Bobby Veach, $141,335,556

Dan has since revised Gavvy Cravath's defense from historically awful, to ~ below average. From the Cravath thread, post 260, http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/gavvy_cravath/P200/
3-year peak: 21.8
7-year prime: 40.4
Career: 59.4
Salary: $164,012,445

Chris, thanks for asking me for these, because you may have gotten Cravath on my ballot. I think when I calculated Cravath for myself in the past, I was characterizing his fielding as substantially below average in the minors--I had somehow deposited him in the Greg Luzinski/Frank Howard bin. But if his career D was nearly average, then he's a clear HoM'er.

A caveat is that my old DRA numbers show Gavvy as quite poor at the MLB level: -25 in 1913, -11 in 1914, +7 in 1915, -20 in 1916, and -11 in 1917. However, I don't think those numbers are park-adjusted, and I imagine there may be a Baker Bowl effect. I will check in with Michael and see what he says.


The newly revised value for Cravath places him 4th in backlog amongst Dan's players, behind Rizzuto, Alomar, and Campaneris.

Joe Domino has published Pennants Added data for pitchers in November of 2008, which is another fine guide for looking at players historically.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Joe's data posted to the Hall of Merit Yahoo page for those who may want to view it?
If not, I can email copies.

In order of pennants added, with eligible players as follows:

Jack Quinn 1.099 - .766 without PCL credit
David Cone 1.089
Rick Reuschel 1.050
Tommy John 0.997
Orel Hershiser 0.949
Kevin Appier 0.947
Tommy Bridges 0.943
Urban Shocker 0.942
Don Newcombe 0.902
Burleigh Grimes 0.901
Bucky Walters 0.900
Dwight Gooden 0.895
Dennis Martinez 0.889
Luis Tiant 0.879
Virgil Trucks 0.878
Waite Hoyt 0.876
Frank Tanana 0.874
Bobo Newsom 0.860
Bob Shawkey 0.859
Dizzy Trout 0.859
Jerry Koosman 0.853
Ed Cicotte 0.853
Wilbur Cooper 0.852
Dolf Luque 0.847
George Uhle 0.844
Vic Willis 0.844
Babe Adams 0.843
Frank Viola 0.842
E. Dutch Leonard (RHP) 0.840
Herb Pennock 0.836
Larry French 0.832
Carl Mays 0.831
Larry Jackson 0.830
Steve Rogers 0.824
Dizzy Dean 0.820
Bob Welch 0.819
Nap Rucker 0.818
Lon Warneke 0.817
Lee Smith 0.809

Hopefully this will liven up discussions.

I would like to thank everyone for their contributions.

This is the best place for ranking baseball greats you'll find.
   275. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2009 at 03:53 PM (#3386855)
There has been discussion on Leon Day lately, I realized he's not in my consideration set. I can't find a good workup on him. Did we overlook a 7 time NgL all-star? Why was he dismissed so quickly? His HOF data doesn't look better than an average starter. He also didn't play all that long but part of that was the Negro Leagues falling apart toward the end. He could hit though. Is there a case for Leon Day as a Wes Ferrell type?
   276. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2009 at 04:45 PM (#3386932)
Jack Quinn 1.099 - .766 without PCL credit
David Cone 1.089
Rick Reuschel 1.050
Tommy John 0.997
Orel Hershiser 0.949
Kevin Appier 0.947
Tommy Bridges 0.943
Urban Shocker 0.942
Don Newcombe 0.902
Burleigh Grimes 0.901
Bucky Walters 0.900
Dwight Gooden 0.895


Do these numbers include any war credit for Newcombe?
   277. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2009 at 04:58 PM (#3386946)
There has been discussion on Leon Day lately, I realized he's not in my consideration set. I can't find a good workup on him. Did we overlook a 7 time NgL all-star? Why was he dismissed so quickly? His HOF data doesn't look better than an average starter. He also didn't play all that long but part of that was the Negro Leagues falling apart toward the end. He could hit though. Is there a case for Leon Day as a Wes Ferrell type?


I think the prevailing opinion here was that Leon Day and Hilton Smith were admitted to the Hall of Fame because of the advocacy of their famous teammates who served on the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee (Monte Irvin for Day, Buck O'Neil for Smith). Sort of like the Frankie Frisch effect. I think that view understates their effectiveness and neither should have been dismissed so easily. At the same time, All-Star appearances potentially overstate their case. Day was the star pitcher for the Newark Eagles, but his won-loss record is potentially inflated by having good-hitting teammates like Larry Doby and Monte Irvin. And Smith's rate numbers are a little inflated by spending a lot of time as a swingman (pitching long relief for Satchel Paige so that Paige could start more games while only pitching two or three innings). For much of his career, he was more Hoyt Wilhelm than Whitey Ford. They're decent candidates, though I think the case for Redding and Newcombe is even stronger which is why I've concentrated on those two.
   278. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 13, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3386958)
276. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM (#3386932)
Don Newcombe 0.902


.136 PA for war credit (.071 1952, .065 1953)
.096 PA for pre-MLB (.022 1946, .025 1947, .049 1948).
MLB Breakdown (1949 .116, 1955 .108, 1959 .098, 1956 .106, 1950 .073, 1951 .063, 1957 .062, 1958 .026)

War credit is given at a rate of 6th and 7th best seasons, although the three seasons prior to Korea, were his 1st, 5th, and 8th.

Pre-MLB credit adds career weight.
   279. fra paolo Posted: November 14, 2009 at 05:05 PM (#3387653)
Having been away a few 'years', I'm hoping to file a ballot in this election. I've been working on a rough draft this week, so here's a few observations that represent a sort of partial preliminary ballot. (I'm a 'prime' voter, now defining prime as best consecutive ten years. I also strongly believe in positional balance on a ballot of 15, which means trying very hard to include a representative from each of the 8 of the fielding positions plus at least 3 pitchers, with the remaining four slots up for grabs between the 'best remainders'. I also prefer to measure people against their peers at the position, rather than the whole body of HoMers.)

<u>New guys</u>
Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin are definitely front-runners for two of the 'elect-me' slots. I started life with Barry #1 and Roberto #2, but now I've switched them round.
Edgar Martinez is currently #3. I'm not likely to apply a 'DH penalty', as I now have a category for people like Joe Torre or Robin Yount, who arguably don't really have a position, and DH fits in there nicely. However, I could see myself moving Bucky Walters ahead of Edgar because of Walters' +10 WARP3 season.
Robin Ventura I like a lot. If you compare him against the likes of Ken Boyer, Heinie Groh and Jimmy Collins, he looks merit-worthy.
Fred McGriff in contrast, I don't like so much. He's a typical career player, adding useful value over the long haul but not really delivering much in the way of the 'pennant drive' seasons that I like. His career after 1994 in WARP3 terms is ten years of sub-Mazeroski value.

<u>Old Guys</u>
Bill Mazeroski's case (I was his biggest fan) was really undone by the WARP3 revisions. I'm not sure he'll even make my ballot this time. I thought he was undersold by the community, because he brought together average performance as a 2B with the bat, together with historically great fielding. But I'm led by the numbers we have at the moment to conclude I'm wrong.
Bucky Walters remains the top pitcher for me. I've liked him all along, and am tempted to give him an 'elect-me' slot. I've also got Burleigh Grimes and Luis Tiant on the ballot at the moment. I've got a couple more names, like Tommy Bridges, whom I haven't really run through my system yet.
Dave Concepcion and Phil Rizzuto are challenging one another. The more I look at it, though, the more I think that even with a reasonable amount of war credit Rizzuto doesn't quite catch Concepcion.

<u>Special Project</u>
I don't think we do catchers very well. When you look at the 'ranking the catches' ballot, there's 20 names and several of them are arguably 'not catchers' (eg, Deacon White). So I'd urge people to take a look at Roy Campanella and Bill Freehan in conjunction with Thurman Munson and consider how much better those two are than Munson. My take is that his stats don't look out of place with theirs. Munson probably deserves more votes than he's been getting.

I haven't really looked at outfielders yet, so that's why you don't find any of their names here.

EDIT: Ooops, I just noticed I meant to look at David Cone before I posted this. Oh well, a little something for later.
   280. sunnyday2 Posted: November 15, 2009 at 03:50 AM (#3387922)
Edgar Martinez is currently #3. I'm not likely to apply a 'DH penalty', as I now have a category for people like Joe Torre or Robin Yount, who arguably don't really have a position, and DH fits in there nicely.


I still don't get the idea of a "DH penalty." Surely you can't mean that you pretend that they play defense? Or that Yount didn't? I don't see how these are even remotely analogous. Giving a DH zero defensive value is not a penalty.
   281. Paul Wendt Posted: November 15, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3388085)
279. fra paolo Posted: November 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM (#3387653)
I also strongly believe in positional balance on a ballot of 15, which means trying very hard to include a representative from each of the 8 of the fielding positions plus at least 3 pitchers, with the remaining four slots up for grabs between the 'best remainders'. I also prefer to measure people against their peers at the position, rather than the whole body of HoMers.)

In that context "no 'DH penalty'" seems to imply
a representative from each of the 8 fielding positions and DH plus at least 3 pitchers, with the remaining three slots up for grabs.

Presumably, then, Edgar Martinez makes the ballot as the best eligible Hitter and his particular listing reflects his rank among Hitters relative to Larkin's rank among SS, Alomar's rank among 2B, and so on.

Edgar Martinez is currently #3. I'm not likely to apply a 'DH penalty', as I now have a category for people like Joe Torre or Robin Yount, who arguably don't really have a position, and DH fits in there nicely.

There may be some argument for considering Joe Torre a Hitter, not for Robin Yount.
   282. Jay Z Posted: November 15, 2009 at 08:20 PM (#3388159)
Bill Mazeroski's case (I was his biggest fan) was really undone by the WARP3 revisions. I'm not sure he'll even make my ballot this time. I thought he was undersold by the community, because he brought together average performance as a 2B with the bat, together with historically great fielding. But I'm led by the numbers we have at the moment to conclude I'm wrong.


I don't vote here, but I call B.S. on any "conclusion" that can be reached by some revision in a formula at this date. How about "we don't know." If the formula is so sacrosant, then why did it need to be revised?
   283. fra paolo Posted: November 15, 2009 at 09:14 PM (#3388186)
not for Robin Yount
No, I made a mistake there. I mixed him up with Paul Molitor, when I misremembered the second name on the spreadsheet below the 'utility guys' heading and didn't bother to check.

Anyway, here is a preliminary ballot, withe some indication of where players are grouping themselves:
1 - Roberto Alomar
[gap]
2 - Edgar Martinez - it's a dead heat between him and Barry at the moment
3 - Barry Larkin
[gap]
4 - Bucky Walters
5 - Dave Concepcion
6 - David Cone
7 - Albert Belle - This surprised me, kind of. I expected him on my ballot, but not this high.
[gap]
8 - Fred McGriff - too much career to ignore, possibly the sort of player I've undervalued in the past
9 - Robin Ventura
[gap]
10 - Tony Perez
[gap]
11 - Luis Tiant
12 - Bill Monroe
13 - Hugh Duffy
14 - Bob Johnson
15 - Thurman Munson - Not sure how Albert gets so high, yet Thurman stays so low because their peak cases are similar. Need to think about that some more.
16 - Kirby Puckett
17 - Phil Rizzuto
18 - Burleigh Grimes
19 - Gavvy Cravath
[gap]
Other chaps
   284. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:51 AM (#3388433)
OK, here's a draft with no explanations. A draft with explanations may go up later today (I'll be away for a week, & want to have backup if things go screwy when I'm travelling next Monday.) This is just in case anyone wants to debate anything while I'm actually around tomorrow.

1. Barry Larkin
2. Roberto Alomar
3. Bus Clarkson
4. Dick Redding
5. Bobby Bonds
6. Bill Monroe
7. Rick Reuschel
8. Norm Cash
9. Luis Tiant
10. Edgar Martinez
11. Bob Johnson
12. Tommy Leach
13. George Van Haltren
14. Phil Rizzuto
15. Gavvy Cravath
   285. fra paolo Posted: November 16, 2009 at 02:38 PM (#3388489)
My preliminary ballot needs to be revised to put Rick Reuschel on it. It's my fault for rushing the process.
   286. epoc Posted: November 17, 2009 at 08:04 AM (#3389225)
Hey all - I'm new to this project. I'll give brief explanations of my methodology and my reasons for my choices, but I'd be happy to go into further detail if anyone has any questions for me. Hopefully the week or so between now and the election deadline will give everyone enough time to look this over and address any concerns.

I'm a peak/prime voter. I use Rally's WAR for position players, and for pitchers I balance his WAR with WAR calculations of my own based on FIP vs. league average and pythagenpat. The following ballot is preliminary, but probably very close to where I'll end up.

1. Sal Bando - Great peak, great prime from 68-78.

2. Barry Larkin - He falls behind Bando because of durability issues.

3. Edgar Martinez - I don't think Rally debits DHs enough, but even after adjusting for that, Edgar still looks pretty good. Great hitter, comparable to Frank Thomas in my mind.

4. Dwight Gooden - His 1985 is one of the greatest pitcher seasons ever. That goes a long way. Plus, his DIPS stats suggest he's very underrated by ERA. Consistently great pitcher from 84-93, but 86-93 looks worse next to that gaudy 1985.

5. Bobby Bonds - Never had a huge year, but produced consistently at an all-star level.

6. David Cone - Same sort of thing as Bonds, but as a pitcher.

7. Cesar Cedeno - Obviously a weird career, but had that beautiful peak and just enough value otherwise.

8. Roberto Alomar - Weird career arc costs him here. You never knew whether he was going to be an MVP or just slightly above average, culminating in that disastrous 2002 for the Mets.

9. Dick Redding - The old NeL players are very hard for me to get a handle on. From what I could tell, it seems like his peak/prime compares favorably to Joss, Willis, and Ruffing, but falls a little short of Griffith, so I placed him in that area.

10. Kevin Appier - I don't quite trust the numbers for some reason, but he really was a great pitcher from 92-97.

11. Buddy Bell - Great stretch in the early 80s, solidly above average in the late 70s.

12. Frank Chance - Consistently great in the mid-aughts.

13. Bob Friend - Another pitcher that DIPS really likes. Pitched really well in a tough era in the NL.

14. Eddie Cicotte - Two phenomenal years, kind of inconsistently great.

15. Hugh Duffy - I think he belongs based on his standing relative to peers we've elected.

And the top ten returnees I left off my ballot:

Phil Rizzuto - I give war credit very conservatively, which may be why I undervalue him compared to the consensus. Very good player, but too few great seasons to really elevate him.

Gavvy Cravath - His peak is not special enough to make up for not having anything other than that.

Tommy Leach - Solidly above average player who put together a really good season once in a while.

Bucky Walters - Looking at DIPS stats really hurts his case, but even without them, he doesn't have much going for him other than a great 39-41.

Luis Tiant - 69-71 torpedo his case.

Kirby Puckett - Total Zone is really hard on his defense, but Rally's WAR numbers for him don't impress at all.

Bob Johnson - Consistently above average, one great year in a war year.

Rick Reuschel - Gets hurt a bit by DIPS. Still, pretty close to my ballot. Probably somewhere in my top 30-35.

I hope I wasn't too brief or dismissive. As I said, I'm willing to discuss this if anyone has questions about it.
   287. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 17, 2009 at 08:39 AM (#3389237)
I don't vote at HoM, or really comment in the threads as a rule, but I suspect it's going to be very hard to defend a ballot that places Roberto Alomar behind Bobby Bonds.
   288. OCF Posted: November 17, 2009 at 08:47 AM (#3389240)
Let's see:

Sal Bando: Hey, I support Bando, and have him on my ballot, in the #10 spot. Even at that, I have a hard time seeing him first ahead of Larkin.

Dwight Gooden: Hmm... if you're that much of a peakster, why mess around with Bando when you can go for that classic peak-only candidate, Al Rosen?

Bob Friend: While his actual W-L pretty severely understates his value, I find him hard to separate from the pack. I did do an RA+ PythPat equivalent record for him: it came out as 212-190. So a lot of bulk, and slightly better than average. Some others in the same general neighborhood: Charlie Hough (219-203), Jim Perry (196-169), Jesse Haines (193-163), Bobo Newsom (220-197), Fred Fitzsimmons (195-163), Mickey Lolich (215-189), Vida Blue (202-169). I've also got peak measure to go with that that I call a "big years score": for Friend, is is 11, which is pretty low, but it's pretty low for a lot of these guys. For the others I just mentioned: Hough 7, Perry 6, Haines 10, Newsom 20, Fitzsimmons 0, Lolich 15, Blue 28.

Come to think of it:
Gooden 174-137, big years score 24
Guidry 158-108, big years score 27
Blue 202-169, big years score 28

There's no doubt that of these three, Gooden had the single best year - he might have the single best year of anyone since Walter Johnson (although I'm still partial to Gibson 1968). But Guidry and Blue each also had pretty good top years. When you throw in the rest of the career - what makes Gooden stand out high on your ballot, while Guidry and Blue don't get mentioned?

OK, I get it - you're going by DIPS and not by ERA (or RA, which is what I use). I'm not sure I really trust that to justify lifting someone like Friend out of the group of his peers.

Frank Chance - Consistently great in the mid-aughts. I can see using the word "great". But "consistent" - not with his playing time issues.

Hugh Duffy: if it's his 1894 season that's the deal-maker for you, all I have to say is that I'm not completely overwhelmed by that season, and have always ranked Van Haltren ahead of him.
   289. OCF Posted: November 17, 2009 at 09:15 AM (#3389249)
We did give Bob Friend his own thread. On thing that got mentioned there: he was a bad hitter.
   290. Paul Wendt Posted: November 17, 2009 at 10:34 AM (#3389258)
15. Hugh Duffy - I think he belongs based on his standing relative to peers we've elected.

Maybe that is the standing of his peers all time? This group, more or less, voted Delahanty, Burkett, Clarke, and Kelley numbers 3, 6, 8, and 16 at LF; Hamilton #8 at CF; Keeler #18 at RF.
   291. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2009 at 02:21 PM (#3389278)
Welcome to epoc.

As somebody who has been here since 1898, we certainly need new blood on this project, so it's cool that epoc has found us. And what we really need, of course, is new peak/prime voter blood. Now, that's a fairly eccentric ballot, to be sure, one that will challenge for lowest consensus score. OTOH we've tolerated eccentric ballots pretty much since 1898, so that in itself is not a problem. So I'm inclined to count the ballot.

Still as a new voter, I think it's fair to ask for a case study or two.

I'm a peak/prime voter. I use Rally's WAR for position players, and for pitchers I balance his WAR with WAR calculations of my own based on FIP vs. league average and pythagenpat. The following ballot is preliminary, but probably very close to where I'll end up.


So just jumping off of Voxter and OCF, could epoc share some of the details/calculations, etc., that put Bando ahead of Larkin, and/or Bonds ahead of Alomar, or Friend vs. Reuschel, or Gooden vs. Cone or some other pitcher who is higher up in the consensus backlog. I'm not saying all of those, but may 2 of the case studies would be good.

Anybody? Let's try to give epoc some clear marching orders timely so that he and his ballot can be welcomed in appropriately. Like I say, we need the new peak/prime blood. Though I would also add, if you like Bando and if you're open to 19C players (e.g. Duffy) as you should be, take a look at Ed Williamson and keep in mind he was a SS for 2 years and 3B in those days was much more of a defensive position than it is today.
   292. DL from MN Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:49 PM (#3389326)
> Luis Tiant - 69-71 torpedo his case.

He had a major arm injury in 1970 (fractured scapula) after battling arm problems all of 69. It's not like he was trying to stink, in fact he muddled through quite well. If you are looking for a consecutive prime I'd suggest you treat 70-71 as a 2 year long rehab.

I would be interested in epoc's "PHoM, not HoM" list (and vice versa).
   293. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 17, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3389327)
Welcome epoc...

I thought I would summarize the top eligible candidates by career WAR by Chone Smith, for those who are not familiar, which may help enlighten us on epoc's rankings.

58 Barry Larkin 68.8
65 Edgar Martinez 67.2
84 Roberto Alomar 63.6
103 Buddy Bell 60.7
104 Sal Bando 60.5
123 Willie Davis 57.1
125 Bobby Bonds 56.9
137 Robin Ventura 55.1
138 Jack Clark 55
145 Bob Johnson 53.4
148 Norm Cash 52.9
151 Jose Cruz 52.3
152 Bob Elliott 52.2
153 Harry Hooper 52.2
154 Cesar Cedeno 52.1
156 Ron Cey 51.8
159 Tommy Leach 51
160 Sam Rice 50.9
163 Fred McGriff 50.5

171 Hugh Duffy 49.6
172 Frank Chance 49.4
   294. epoc Posted: November 17, 2009 at 05:56 PM (#3389455)
Thanks for the response, guys. I'll tackle all your concerns, but for right now I'll just give you a taste. So for Bando vs. Larkin: first off, as I said, I use Rally's WAR numbers. I understand they're kinder to Bando than Dan's, but I prefer the way Rally handles replacement level and positional adjustments. That said, Bando's three best years are 8.9, 7.3, 6.3. Larkin's are 7.4, 6.2, 6.2. Bando's best consecutive five-year stretch totals 33.6 (69-73), whereas Larkin's totals 27.5 (95-99). Bando's best 11-year stretch totals 60.2 to Larkin's 56.5. Best seven seasons, consecutive or not, total 45.5 for Bando and 42.1 for Larkin. That's a strong argument unless you totally reject Rally's War numbers. To me, Bando's ahead of Larkin unless you're a career voter or you both highly distrust Total Zone's defensive evaluation of Bando and severely discount Bando's 1969 because of the expansion. Also, it probably wouldn't make a difference if I did, but I don't give Larkin strike credit because of his durability issues.

I have Alomar and Bonds ranked very closely to one another, and the reason Bonds is higher is consistency. Alomar's best seasons are way better than Bonds', but Bonds' 5-year and 11-year consecutive bests are both higher than Alomar's - 29.7 to 27.5 and 54.3 to 52.8 - mainly because, as I said, you just couldn't count on Alomar to put up an all-star season year-in and year-out. The difference between the two is slight, but I like Bonds better. Also, again, if you don't trust the Total Zone numbers for Alomar's defense, you'll like him more.

I'll try to address all the other concerns when I've got some more time. Thanks.
   295. DL from MN Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:04 PM (#3389537)
To me, Bando's ahead of Larkin unless you're a career voter or you both highly distrust Total Zone's defensive evaluation of Bando and severely discount Bando's 1969 because of the expansion.


Or you think Rally's numbers are too generous to 3B and not generous enough to SS. That's why I'm curious about your personal "Hall". Is it fair to all positions? That is a constitutional requirement.
   296. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 17, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3389560)
I'm skeptical of defensive metrics, especially when it comes to players like Alomar. I suppose it's possible that he was a sort of 2B Derek Jeter, whose acrobatics blinded people to the fact that he simply wasn't making the plays that other guys were, but I doubt it. Anyway, taking into account positional adjustments, refusing to be swayed by crappy defensive metrics (especially since even the crappy ones we have aren't available for Bonds' era), and noting the Bonds, like Alomar, could be a bit all over the map, I don't really see how they're particularly close. One of the signal differences is that Alomar, when he had an OPS+ of 107 (as he did in San Diego in 1989), was still an All Star-caliber player, because of his position, even assuming he was only average at it. Bonds could have slightly better hitting seasons (as he did often) that were less valuable because he played mostly RF, and because Alomar made fewer outs. That last point is key, also -- Alomar had 7 seasons with a better OBP than Bonds' best, and even taking into account their differing eras, my guess is that would be a fairly significant difference.
   297. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 17, 2009 at 09:50 PM (#3389785)
Continuing the Chone Smith WAR theme, the top eligible hitter best season performances are listed:

I apologize for my lack of table making skills, but have tried to format in the live preview as best as possible.

xxxBarry Larkin - 7.4 6.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.0 3.9
xEdgar Martinez - 7.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.0 4.6
Roberto Alomar - 7.9 7.8 6.4 6.1 5.2 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.5
xxxxBuddy Bell - 6.9 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5
xxxxxSal Bando - 8.9 7.3 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.7 5.3 4.9 3.6 3.2
xxxxWillie Davis - 7.6 6.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.4 2.3 2.3
xxxBobby Bonds - 6.7 6.5 6.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.8
xxRobin Ventura - 6.7 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.5 3.9 2.9 2.3
xxxxxJack Clark - 6.5 5.7 5.0 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1
xxxBob Johnson - 6.9 6.0 5.0 4.6 4.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3
xxxNorm Cash - 10.0 5.3 4.4 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.3 2.8
xxxxxJose Cruz - 6.9 6.0 5.3 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.2 2.9 2.9
xxxxxBob Elliott - 6.2 6.0 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.5 3.3 3.2
xxHarry Hooper - 6.3 5.0 5.0 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3
xCesar Cedeno - 8.2 7.6 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.9 4.6 2.2 1.7 1.6
xxxxxxRon Cey - 6.4 6.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 2.8
xTommy Leach - 6.4 6.3 4.8 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.8
xxxxxSam Rice - 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0
xxxFred McGriff - 6.6 6.1 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.7 2.2
xxxxHugh Duffy - 7.6 5.2 5.2 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.4 3.9 2.3 1.9
xxFrank Chance - 8.4 6.4 6.1 5.9 4.6 4.2 2.9 2.6 2.5 1.5
   298. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM (#3389863)
Now from Chone Smith's WAR, best 3, 5, 7, and 10 year stretches:

xxxLarkin - 19.5 31.2 42.1 54.8
xMartinez - 20.1 32.2 43.4 58.1
xxAlomar - 22.1 33.4 42.5 53.5
xxxxxBell - 19.2 30.6 38.1 48.8
xxxBando - 22.5 34.5 45.5 57.2
xxxDavis - 19.1 29.2 37.7 45.7
xxxBonds - 19.5 29.8 39.6 51.8
xVentura - 18.6 29.2 38.3 47.4
xxxClark - 17.2 25.4 33.0 43.0
xJohnson - 17.9 27.0 34.1 44.1
xxxxCash - 19.7 27.3 34.5 44.0
xxxxCruz - 18.2 26.9 35.2 44.2
xxxElliott - 17.4 27.4 35.7 45.7
xxHooper - 16.3 23.4 30.4 40.6
xCedeno - 21.8 32.5 42.0 47.5
xxxxCey - 18.1 28.5 36.5 46.2
xxxLeach - 17.5 26.1 33.4 43.2
xxxxRice - 14.2 22.7 30.0 40.0
xxMcGriff - 17.9 27.5 34.9 42.8
xxxDuffy - 18.0 27.5 36.3 44.4
xChance - 20.9 31.4 38.5 45.1
   299. Mark Donelson Posted: November 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM (#3389882)
Prelim, since I cleverly never did one in this thread before, , thus saving myself the trouble of redoing it after the WARP revisions and my own revisions from the positional threads. (Though most of the biggest changes occur off-ballot, if only slightly so.) The usual extreme-peak philosophy applies for the most part.

1. Alomar
2. Larkin...they're actually neck and neck for me, with my assumption that Alomar was at least average to slightly above in the field. Also the slightly preferable peak. Still, could flip them on the final ballot.
3. Ed Williamson
4. Don Newcombe
5. Elston Howard
6. Johnny Pesky
7. Gavvy Cravath
8. Luis Tiant
9. Al Rosen
10. Phil Rizzuto
11. David Cone
12. Ken Singleton
13. Dizzy Dean
14. Albert Belle
15. Tommy Leach

At this point, the pHOM entrants appear to be Alomar, Larkin, and Richie Ashburn. Will have the usual explanations for these folks and the top-10ers not here on the actual ballot, but let me mention the other popular newbies: I'm not finding myself as fond as Edgar as most everyone else; the fact that he did play a position for a while moves him into the middle of my top 50 but not much further. McGriff is at the tail end of that top 50. Ventura is outside it by a decent margin.
   300. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 18, 2009 at 12:11 AM (#3389952)
Caveats to Chone Smith's WAR:

I'm not sure of his calculations, with regards to expansion, etc.

If no discounting is made for 1969, Bando is the clear favorite, finishing first in 3, 5, 7, and 10 year periods. Bando's best season is 8.9 in 1969, if discounted heavily, say 15%, he falls to 7.6. Even still, his numbers are rosy in Smith's WAR. His three peak would fall to 21.2, a solid third behind Alomar, Cedeno, and a smidge ahead of Chance. His five year 33.2 would be second only to Alomar, and his 7 and 10 year frames would still be the best.

With regards to Larkin versus Bando, unadjusted:
Larkin - 19.5, 31.2, 42.1, 54.8, 68.8
Bando - 22.5, 34.5, 45.5, 57.2, 60.5

If Bando's 69 is discounted 15%, as well as Larkin's 93 and 98:
Larkin - 19.5, 31.0, 41.2, 53.7, 67.3
Bando - 21.2, 33.2, 44.2, 55.9, 58.8

Bando holds a slight edge in peak and prime, while Larkin has a large lead in career. From these totals, I can understand your likeness for Bando.

However, I'm not sure why Roberto Alomar has been placed below Bobby Bonds and Cesar Cedeno.

xxAlomar - 22.1 33.4 42.5 53.5 63.6
xxxBonds - 19.5 29.8 39.6 51.8 56.9
xxCedeno - 21.8 32.5 42.0 47.5 52.1
Bonds total also include a 2nd best season of 6.5 in 1969, and 7th best 4.7 in 1977, both expansion years.

Based upon WAR, I hope you give Robin Ventura and Willie Davis a look before settling on Hugh Duffy with your 15th ballot placement.

xxxDavis - 19.1 29.2 37.7 45.7 57.1
xVentura - 18.6 29.2 38.3 47.4 55.1
xxxDuffy - 18.0 27.5 36.3 44.4 49.6
Ventura's 3rd best season came in 1998 expansion, with a 5.8.

Frank Chance does look quite sublime after his 3 and 5 best seasons, placing 4th best among eligibles, so if you like peak, I can understand his placement. He falls to sixth best after 7 seasons, and 12th best after 10 seasons, while placing last on career. If you are more of a prime/career voter based upon Smith's WAR, Chance would miss your ballot.



Davis after discounting expansion seasons 1962 and 1969 by 15%, his 2nd and 3rd best seasons.
xxxDavis - 18.1 27.6 36.0 44.0 55.9
Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
robneyer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.4012 seconds
49 querie(s) executed