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 6 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6
   501. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 26, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3397342)
Oh, I wasn't making that case, Paul; just that it's funny sunnyday2 and I are part of the Ed Williamson family.
   502. sunnyday2 Posted: November 26, 2009 at 06:53 PM (#3397346)
James, and the Luke Easter family too. I am not a Bus Clarkson supporter but he is another poster child for the guys who got caught between the NgL and full integration (the end of the quotas) in the MLs. Newcombe and Elston Howard were also held back.

Paul, so Ed did play in the IA in 1877? If so, I would hope that would push him over the top for some more voters. I don't think we've ever had a systematic analysis of the IA of 1877, I'd like more of that. I have never elected Pud Galvin to my PHoM. IA credit might help there, too.
   503. DL from MN Posted: November 27, 2009 at 05:14 AM (#3397501)
I have Dick Redding as a slightly better version of Vic Willis (including the poor batting). I would encourage you to run your numbers esp since I think he looks better on a peak basis than he does on a career basis.
   504. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 27, 2009 at 05:49 AM (#3397508)
DL, do you have translated innings pitched for Redding or know anyone who does? I see that as being really crucial.
   505. DL from MN Posted: November 27, 2009 at 04:02 PM (#3397581)
My notes are not with me at my in-laws. #28 in the Dick Redding thread estimates 3500 IP from I9s with a 114 ERA+. There are probably methodological improvements since then that should be applied.

There's also this gem:

"Redding had an outstanding rookie year in 1911 with 17 straight wins. He had huge peak seasons throughout the teens (such as a 43-12 record in 1912 and a 23-2 in 1915). He had an extended prime that saw him pitch at a high level into the early '20s (17-12 in 1921). He was considered the second best pitcher of his era next to Smoky Joe Williams and was compared favorably to Walter Johnson. With war credit for missing a half season in each of 1918 and 1919, Redding has 12 solid seasons of top play before the start of an organized league in the East. His MLEs- converting those gaudy barnstorming numbers to expected performance in the major leagues- are still 234-174, putting him in the same territory as HoM contemporaries Stan Coveleski, Red Faber and Eppa Rixey."

Rick Reuschel was a comp also. I don't see Redding like these guys though as Redding was more of a shine bright, then flame out candidate. I'm voting Redding using Doc Gooden as a comp but with a more gradual decline.
   506. Paul Wendt Posted: November 27, 2009 at 10:04 PM (#3397757)
495. OCF Posted: November 26, 2009 at 01:18 AM (#3397220)
My records show James Newburg, aka "flaxseed", has voted in 20 previous elections: 15 of them between 1972 and 1987, four in scattered years before that, and once after that, in 1993.

My records aren't written and doesn't cover voting. They say James Newburg youngest? and Robert McNeil oldest?

>>Wilbur Wood – The last surprise, and the best peak on the ballot. Shoved into three seasons what today's pitchers would do in five.
<<

... One thing worries me a little about Wood over that span. How strong was the AL right then, anyway? Wood's 1972 may look good, but it pales compared to what Gaylord Perry put together in 1972. Was Perry's '72 really one of the top 10 pitcher's seasons since 1925? Or was the league a little softer that year?


We know what they thought, weak, so they authorized the designated hitter. Weak AL batting, a little deadball era continuing thru 1972 rather than 1968, would support raw statistics for AL pitchers and it would slightly support Wilbur Wood's famously heavy workloads (Chuck Tanner's methods, as Stan Bahnsen and Tom Bradleywho made 81 starts).

Regarding relative statistics, however, it's AL pitching not AL batting that counts. IIRC it has been said here that Jim Palmer was the only firstrate starting pitcher in the league, then Palmer & Perry. I don't endorse it yet.
   507. sunnyday2 Posted: November 29, 2009 at 02:56 PM (#3398508)
Bringing Dunlap and Williamson over here.

They were almost exact contemporaries so none of the following is adjusted for season length. There is an adjustment to Dunlap's 1884. I have always used a 65 percent discount, yes, Dunlap retains less than half of the face value of that season. That puts Dunlap's 1884 squarely into the mix as a "typical" Dunlap season.

Williamson in fact played the shorter seasons from 1878-1888 (as a regular), Dunlap 1880-1889. And yet, Ed play 1201 games, Dunlap 965.

Dunlap .292/.340/.406 Dunlap's advantage is mostly BA.
Williamson .255/.332/.384

WARP1 (BP)
Dunlap 48/7-6-6-6-5-4-4-3-3-3-1
Wmson 41/7-6-6-6-5-4-4-3-1-1-(-1)-(-1) take away the below avg season his total is 43

So I look at that as virtually identical for 8 years and Dunlap's overall margin is 48-43.

WS
Dunlap 140/17-17-16-15-15-14-14-13-10-10
Wmson 173/21-20-19-17-16-16-14-14-13-12

Obviously it comes down to fielding.

Dunlap--FRAR 585 FRAA 149, adjusted for all-time FRAR 267 FRAA 96
Wmson--FRAR 479 FRAA 79, adjusted for all-time FRAR 248 FRAA 49

To me this is not plausible. Williamson was a Gold Glove 3B with 2 years at SS, Dunlap was a good 2B. I am seeing Williamson with a much larger edge with the glove than Dunlap has with the bat.

And it comes down to some degree to those 2 below average years that Williamson had (acc. to WARP). And those 1201 games are important. Williamson led the league in games played 4 times, Dunlap 2. But during the 1880s Williamson played in 46 more games. This is the sum total of Dunlap's career as a regular while Williamson still had 1878 and 1879 to consider. Ed basically played 2 full seasons more than Dunlap.

I would agree they are comparable. Maybe they are both HoVG. But Williamson has some small advantages which, again. are offset basically by Dunlap's BA. But even then the OBA comes out to .332 vs. 340 which, considering the fielding spectrum at the time, is nothing.
   508. Howie Menckel Posted: November 30, 2009 at 01:29 AM (#3398815)
What's the deadline this week - and can we have some clarity that it really, really won't be extended again?

:(
   509. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 30, 2009 at 05:52 PM (#3399144)
It's 8 p.m. EST Monday 11/30/2009. It won't be extended again. We've already got 34 ballots, and I'm expecting a few more later today.
   510. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 30, 2009 at 11:51 PM (#3399546)
I think it's very clear that 1) Larkin's offensive stats drown Rizzuto's and 2) Larkin has career, prime and peak over Phil, all three, and 3) Phil's superseason would have been ho hum for Barry; a disappointment in Barry's prime.

Pulling this over from the ballot thread...

It's not really about Rizzuto vs. Larkin. Everyone (well, everyone but yest) seems to agree that Larkin is easily a HOMer. It's about Rizzuto vs. Cravath, or Cone, or Reuschel, or Duffy, or Leach, or whoever your backlogger of choice happens to be.
   511. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 12:24 AM (#3399574)
No, but sometimes it's about Rizzuto vs. Maranville. The following is directed to Brock:

It would seem to be a massive double standard to vote for Rabbit Maranville, around whom Rizzuto could hit rings. And if Maranville is a historically good fielding shortstop, well, so was Rizzuto.

Rizzuto's career OPS+ 94 is possibly suppressed by the fact that he fought in WWII during his prime, when he might have added in some more of those 100+ seasons, or maybe not. Actually I give him OPS+ 94-94-94 for those 3 years. Maranville was in the military in 1918, right in the heart of his prime, too, BTW, and because he had OPS+ 113 and 111 on either side, I give him credit for a 112. In years of 100 GP or more and years in military service:

Rizzuto 94/123-104-103-100-97-95-94-94-94-92-88-79-74
Maranville 82/113-12-11-98-96-94-90-88-88-86-81-79-77-76-75-59-59

Not a lot of black ink there.

I don't give Maranville any credit for 1927, btw. Usually the argument for MiL MLE credit is that a player got stuck and/or overlooked and didn't get a fair chance. As a guy who had been a ML regular for 11 years leading up to 1927, it's hard to say he was overlooked or didn't have a fair chance. Everybody knew what he could do, and nobody needed that.

1924--His OPS+ was 86 with Pittsburgh and they did not bring him back in 1925. Offenses were blossoming all over and the Pirates did the reasonable thing in bringing in Glenn Wright.

1925--Rabbit played for the Cubs with an OPS+ of 59 in 75 games. Of course he got hurt and for 1926 the Cubs made the reasonable judgment that they wouldn't bring back a hurt 34 year old.

1926--Brooklyn, 78 games, OPS+ 69, sharing the position with Johnny Butler. They decided to go with Butler, who played 149 games for the Dodgers in 1926.

1927--Tommy Thevenow had been the Cards' hot shot 22 yr old SS in 1926 but he got hurt, so they tried Maranville, they tried Heinie Schuble and they tried Specs Torporcer. They preferred Schuble and Torporcer which says something.

1928--The Cards brought Thevenow and Maranville north. Rabbit's OPS+ was 69 in 112 games. Thevenow's was 50.

1929--So in 1929 they got rid of both of them and brought in Charlie Gelbert. Maranville pretty clearly was the best of a bad lot in 1928. So in 1929 he goes to Boston where he starts, remarkably, through 1934 and age 42, though he moves to 2B the last 2 years. His OPS+ 79-75-77-59-59. Think about that. A 2B with OPS+ 59-59. If he gets MLE credit for 1927, then heck I'd dock him his entire 1932 and 1933 value. But for incompetent management, he's out of MLB before that.

And never once through all of those "declining" years did he play for a contender except St. Louis, the team that got rid of him in 1927 (and, yes, brought him back in 1928 but again got rid of him as quickly as they could).

Not to mention, Rizzuto is sometimes cited as a guy who in fact was "stuck" unreasonably in the MiL. He hit .316 at Kansas City in 1939 but the '39 Yankees were possibly the greatest team in ML history and didn't see the point of making changes. So in 1940, Rizzuto hit .347 with 201 hits, 124 runs and 35 SB. He was the AA MVP and the MiL PoY.

I'm not sayin' Maranville isn't a valid HoM candidate. I'm just sayin' that if you're gonna bash Rizzuto for a lack of black ink and you're gonna bolster Rabbit with MiL credit, then Rabbit over Rizzuto or, more to the point, "Rabbit good, Rizzuto bad" doesn't make any sense.
   512. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 02:17 AM (#3399663)
I'm pleased and a little relieved to see that one vote doesn't make a difference --at least, that mine wouldn't. Only a little because it's no surprise.


I have undertaken a little analysis of the current fall 2009 edition of "Davenstats" (to me). That is, Advanced Pitching Statistics by Clay Davenport, DT Cards at BaseballProspectus. See my notes posted this hour at "Pitchers for the Hall of Merit" #551 ff.

I have undertaken a big analysis of historical playing time by HOM members. Subscribers to the email list HallofMerit@yahoogroups.com have seen some of it, essentially a preview, last Monday (23 Nov 2009).
: "HOM members playing time, Illustration", HallofMerit email list (archives) #387
: "Re: HOM members playing time, Illustration", HallofMerit email list (archives) #388

One figure comprising three plots is available at "Files" section of the egroup website, "Graphs" folder. (The website is available to those members who Register and Sign In, which email list subscription does not require.)
: file HOM.of-if.emf at HallofMerit egroup Files/Graphs
HOM members 1871-2004 Fielding Games at outfield LF-CF-RF and infield 3B-SS-2B (full seasons equivalent). : Illustration. Other displays of HOM playing time to follow, distributed or published somehow. : MS Windows enhanced metafile format (.emf) version of the figure featured in "HOM members playing time, Illustration" (249K)
   513. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:12 AM (#3399750)
Let me record another preliminary ballot that is just over one week old. Pitchers stand out because they lack a hyphen(-) in this format. The prelim is what it looks like, the top two followed by seven pitchers and six non-pitchers alternating.

1- Larkin
2- Alomar
3 Shocker
4- Martinez
5 Tiant
6- Leach
7 Reuschel
8- Cravath
9 Newcombe
10- Rizzuto
11 Cone
12- Belle
13 Bridges
14- Howard
15 Quinn

Pitchers. There were seven pitchers on my semi-public preliminary ballot last year (when, as usual, I didn't vote). In rank order
: Shocker, Tiant, Reuschel, Newcombe, Cone, Bridges, Quinn
There were seven other pitchers (total 14) who would be strong candidates for honorable mention/top25 and longshot candidates for the ballot. In chronological order,
: Rucker, Redding, Mays, Cooper, Grimes, Dean, Walters
There were also the three outstanding pitchers outside the Cobb Sixty whom I must consider because they were not included in Chris Cobb's coverage one year ago --although I have "known" they must come up short.
: Al Orth, Claude Passeau, Ned Garver

Non-pitchers. There were the big four newcomers, who were only viable candidates, I surmised "aloud".
: Larkin, Alomar, Martinez, McGriff
There were three from my prelim last year.
: Leach, Cravath, Rizzuto
Beside Cravath, I have "known" for a few years that as a voter I would probably plunk for Albert Belle, Dale Murphy and Bobby Bonds. Finally I'm susceptible to Elston Howard, as one might guess given Newcombe and Cravath.
: Bonds, Murphy, Belle
: Howard

That's already 18 (plus ten more pitchers). McGriff, Murphy, and Bonds didn't make the prelim above.

Beside prelim infielders Leach, Rizzuto, Larkin, and Alomar, there were four strong candidates for honorable mention and longer shots for the ballot.
: Traynor, Bancroft, Campaneris, Concepcion
A "lover" of 19th century baseball may be expected to add Dunlap and Williamson but I didn't. Perhaps they would have been hon-men candidates nevertheless.
   514. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:59 AM (#3399812)
Paul, you support Shocker, Reuschel, Rizzuto, Cravath, Cone, Bridges, and Quinn.

Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please, Please, please,

. . . start voting next year. Together we can push each others consensus scores to the top!

:-)
   515. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:19 PM (#3400064)
And Tiant and Tommy Bridges. Why aren't you voting?
   516. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3400420)
Added Dan Greenia's necrology at the top of this thread.
Page 6 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
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3916 seconds
49 querie(s) executed