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, November 09, 2009

2010 Hall of Merit Ballot

OK, it’s time to start the voting. There is no rush . . . please read through the discussion thread to work through the candidates.

The election closes

11/23

11/30 at 8 p.m. EST. We welcome newcomers, but require that you are willing to consider players from all eras. Voters also must comment on each player they vote for, a simple list is not sufficient. If you haven’t voted before, please post your ballot on the discussion thread linked above first.

********
EDIT 11/25 3:18 PM CDT - the posting of the ballot to the discussion thread for new voters is not just a formality. With the posting of the ballot you are expected to post a summary of what you take into account - basically, how did you come up with this list? This does not mean that you need to have invented the Holy Grail of uber-stats. You don’t need a numerical rating down to the hundredth decimal point. You do need to treat all eras of baseball history fairly. You do need to stick to what happened on the field (or what would have happened if wars and strikes and such hadn’t gotten in the way). You may be challenged and ask to defend your position, if someone notices internal inconsistencies, flaws in your logic, etc.. This is all a part of the learning process.

It isn’t an easy thing to submit a ballot, but that’s by design. Not because we don’t want to grow our numbers (though we’ve done just fine there, started with 29 voters in 1898, and passed 50 eventually), not because we want to shut out other voices. It’s because we want informed voters making informed decisions on the entire electorate, not just the players they remember.

So if you are up for this, we’d love to have you! Even if you aren’t up to voting, we’d still appreciate your thoughts in the discussion. Some of our greatest contributors haven’t or have only rarely voted.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .
********

Please take a look at the 2009 election results, and don’t forget the top 10 returnees must be commented on, even if you do not vote for them. They are, in order: Phil Rizzuto, David Cone, Gavy Cravath, Tommy Leach, Bucky Walters, Luis Tiant & Dick Redding.

Voters should name 15 players, in order. Thanks!

Here are the newcomers:

2010—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)

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 09, 2009 at 01:39 AM | 230 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 09, 2009 at 01:48 AM (#3382514)
Should be a very interesting election, especially for the 3rd spot.
   2. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 09, 2009 at 01:51 AM (#3382516)
Here's a link to last year's ballot thread so you don't have to start from scratch . . .
   3. Adam Schafer Posted: November 09, 2009 at 02:35 AM (#3382543)
1. Barry Larkin - a clear #1 on this ballot. Not much more to say about this

2. Roberto Alomar - He may not the cream of the crop as far as HOM 2nd baseman go, but he is clearly a solid choice for someone like me that favors career value.

3. Gavy Cravath - Clearly used his park to his advantage. No doubt about it. However, I do not hold that against him.

4. Bucky Walters - This is an odd player for me to like, as I normally don't go for the short career guys. Bucky just happens to have a really odd blend of career and peak to not only get on my ballot, but to make a strong showing on it. He's not Koufax by any means, but the thought process behind him is along the same lines.

5. Don Newcombe - I am obviously giving NeL and military credit. With that credit his 1948-1956 years are outstanding, and make a very serious candidate out of him.

6. Bus Clarkson - I am willing to speculate he was better than Vern Stephens, and I really like Vern

7. Lee Smith - Clearly this is going to be unpopular, however, I give a lot of weight to career value and I do feel that relievers should be represented in the Hall of Merit as the other positions are.

8. Bruce Sutter - see Smith. Also similar to Bucky in the short career/high peak.

9. Vern Stephens - A shortstop that is consistently an All-Star and in the MVP consideration set is someone I can sure consider voting for.

10. Elston Howard - I really missed the boat on him earlier. Much like Newcombe, if you give him proper credit for
time he should've been a regular MLB catcher, you can't ignore him.

11. Tommy Leach - I bump him up after a re-evaluation. A career candidate.

12. Jack Quinn - a very early reliever, a very long career, a year missed for PCL play that I'll count.

13. Ernie Lombardi - a fair amount of career value for a catcher. Not to shabby with the bat either. I clearly understand why he's not on the top of everyone's list, but his general lack of support overall amazes me.

14. Johnny Pesky - Obviously only a serious candidate with war credit.

15. Chuck Klein - same general thought process as Cravath.


Phil Rizzuto - give him the same career numbers, but make him a life long KC Atheltic instead of a Yankee and he would never be considered for HOF or HOM

David Cone - I am a lifelong Royals fan, so this one pains me, but he doesn't have enough peak, enough career, or enough mix of both to make my ballot.

Luis Tiant - Similar case to Cone. Through in a 15+ win season in '69, '70 or '71 and he would've made the lower half of my ballot

Dick Redding - not even in consideration for my ballot.
   4. sunnyday2 Posted: November 09, 2009 at 03:17 AM (#3382570)
karlmangus where are you!?
   5. OCF Posted: November 09, 2009 at 03:22 AM (#3382574)
Ah - time to dust off the old ballot counter. And to realize that I've never actually placed Edgar in comparison to the backlog, which I need to do before I submit a ballot.
   6. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 09, 2009 at 03:30 AM (#3382579)
I've never voted in HoM before, but the presence of Edgar Martinez on the ballot makes me feel like I should start.
   7. mystikx20 Posted: November 09, 2009 at 11:04 PM (#3383462)
1 Alomar - Healthier and better longer than Larkin. Larkin has a couple seasons where he was better.
2 Larkin
3 Edgar - love the "3b" position thrown on there. All 3.5 seasons worth where he was probably losing value rather than adding it. I have no problem with DH'ing full time simply because there's a ton of guys who couldn't catch the ball but could always hit. In his case this doesn't seem to be a "pad the career length and totals by playing a few years in the AL" issue. He was still very productive for a very long time. It's possible actually having to play defense would have hurt his case or maybe shortened his career, but I think he would have been moved to 1b like Perez, Evans, or Allen in the absence of a DH rule.
4 David Cone
5 Tommy Leach - versatility helps. That "second" career gets him some serious consideration.
6 Bucky Walters - hitting ditto. Those early years pitching in the bandbox in Philly hurt some.
7 Gaavy Cravath - hitting in that bandbox helps some.
8 Bonds, Bobby - probably a bigger fan of 5 tool guys than I should be.
9 Tony Perez - long career with a better, more useful peak than somebody like Staub.
10 Tiant - 69-71 kills him. He's great for a while. It's not the losses in 1969, it's the "leading league in homers and walks allowed." If he was pitching all year in 70 (decent half year), I might consider him above Cone because of his stronger post seasons numbers and better peak. That trough is rough though.
11 Tommy Bridges
12 Ken Singleton
13 Don Newcombe
14 Burleigh Grimes
15 Fred McGriff - because meh.

Honorable mentions
Ventura - Have him rated around Traynor for 3b. Better prime/peak than some at his position.
Redding - I haven't gone over his MLE numbers carefully yet, but my first sense is to err toward the HoF on negro league players as they have pretty good data at this point. Meaning no. This is open to numerical persuasion.
Rizzuto - war credit helps. But not enough to crack the top 20 SS list. In my opinion he's the overrated/underrated guy on the table. As in: people who liked him seem to overrate him (he's not a hall of famer/merit type player) and the people who don't will understate him as though he was merely a pedestrian SS. He wasn't. He was a pretty good player. Let's just move on.
Dizzy Dean - aggravates me every time I look at his career numbers. He's a top 40 starter in my homemade averaged peak league. But that's pretty much his whole career.
   8. OCF Posted: November 09, 2009 at 11:30 PM (#3383498)
Hi, mystikx20. So you're a new voter, I think? (Or are you someone we know with a name change?) Can you give us a thumbnail sketch of your methods and sources? (Not that I see any red flags in your rankings - some things I disagree with, but that's the way it goes around here.)
   9. mystikx20 Posted: November 10, 2009 at 06:13 AM (#3383802)
There are always disagreements. Even if they're quibbles, quibbles can still start earthquakes. I assume DH along with RP will be a fight with some. Though perhaps less here than with Hall of Fame voters who seem genuinely insane, before even examining those rigged VC votes.

I basically blended WARP, Win Shares, EQA/Base Runs for an overall rating. I realize those don't go together but if somebody was higher in all of them, it's a good sign that they're pretty damn good. Then I gave a separate rating based on my own assessment year by year of all-star/mvp caliber seasons (easy way to eyeball peak/prime value). I bumped up the number of "all-stars" some whenever the league expanded and ignored the "must have one guy" rule so that it wasn't totally biased toward the pre-integration/expansion era. I haven't yet made a hard and fast number approach to combine the two systems for every position. Except for comparing say Koufax and Tommy John it's usually not a huge problem. Most of the rankings were done while working on an all time, all-star fantasy league I created using averaged 5-8 peak seasons (normalized). Gives me a pretty solid assessment of peak/prime value. Obviously that will be my bias though if somebody didn't do much else, like Dean, I'll admit defeat to somebody who put up more mortal numbers for a longer time.

The weak points were early 19th century players (NA league especially, post AA breakup when the rules started standardizing more or less I'm more familiar with the players and teams), negro league stats or other major league equivalencies, and projected stats for credit lost to wartime or other external causes. Cravath I put in my top 10 in large part based on reading up on these here. Of course he also starts in my league already, so it's not like I wasn't aware he was good.
   10. OCF Posted: November 10, 2009 at 08:07 AM (#3383842)
2010 Ballot.

I'm essentially a career voter. What that means is that seasons of even modest value still have some value, and that a player can't play himself out of the HoM by continuing to play at a lower level. For the same reason, I pay little attention to career rate stats. I do give bonuses for peaks and primes, but this doesn't mean a fixed number of years - rather it means the amount of performance above some higher baseline. In each pitcher's case, I'll give the RA+ equivalent record, and the number in the brackets will be a big year's score, although the latter is not interpreted in its raw form but is seen in timeline context.

The main changes I've made from 2009 is that I've backed off some on two groups of candidates: 1890's second-tier outfielders (GVH, Duffy, Ryan) and pitchers who were bad hitters (Willis, Gomez). And, of course, there is the new class.

And now: I'll contradict myself. I just said over in the discussion thread that I can't get excited about anyone in the backlog - but at the same time, I just can't bring myself to put any of McGriff, Martinez, or Ventura in "elect me" positions.

1. Barry Larkin An easy choice. Yes, he had in-season durability problems. But when you add up his total games played, it wasn't a particularly short career. And he was a terrific player when he was in the lineup.

2. Roberto Alomar Yes, I know all of the things that Dan R. has said about 2B becoming more like 3B and Alomar not being a great defender - but there's just too much career, and too much offense, for me to avoid.

3. Luis Tiant 224-164 [35].

4. Fred McGriff A little better offensively than Cash and Cepeda. Did have a bit of peak, obscured by the 88-92 scoring downturn, but it wasn't Will Clark's peak. He's basically a career candiate.
5. Larry Doyle I've got him as an even-up match for Don Mattingly as an offensive player, not even adjusting for season length.
6. Norm Cash One stellar year in a long career.
7. Edgar Martinez My markers for him are Jack Clark and Frank Howard. Of the three, Clark had the most defensive value, Martinez the most offensive value.
8. David Cone 190-132 [19]
9. Vic Willis 248-196 [44] This is already adjusted for his defensive support, but not explicitly for his hitting - that's a subjective adjustment.
10. Sal Bando Time for another glove-who-could-hit.
11. George Van Haltren Still my top CF candidate after all these years.
12. Bob Elliott
13. Johnny Pesky With war credit, now my favorite SS.
14. Hugh Duffy Not that far behind Van Haltren. Only his defense puts him ahead of Ryan.
15. Jimmy Ryan Reunited on the ballot with GVH and Duffy.

Very close to the ballot:

C: Gene Tenace. Half a catcher, and a terrific hitter.
1B: Orlando Cepeda. Could have him ahead of Cash.
2B: -
3B: Robin Ventura (new candidate). In his favor: he would be the 3B on the 1900's all-decade team (if you didn't move someone over from another position.) Also in his favor: compares well to Ken Boyer, who is in the HoM. But I don't know that that's enough (and I don't know about Boyer, either). Not quite enough bat for me.
SS: My comment from 2008: "I looked at the whole shortstop group - Concepcion, Campaneris, Fernandez, Maranville, Rizzuto, Lundy - and I can't see fit to bring any of them up to the ballot. Actually, I think I like Pesky as the best eligible SS." (Scratch Lundy from that as elected.)
Corner OF: Jack Clark, Frank Howard, Rusty Staub, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith. I have their offensive value in the order listed. Howard was a poor fielder and Singleton wasn't a good one. Clark finished his career as a 1B/DH and Staub leaned that way. Smith, who played some CF, was the best defensive player of this bunch but not the best offensive player. Both Clark and Smith have in-season durability issues. Overall ranking within this group: Staub, Clark, Singleton, Howard. (Subject to change at a moment's notice.)
CF: No one, really. Cesar Cedeno might be the closest.

P: Here are some more. As I said above, Kevin Brown would tower over all of them.

Lefty Gomez 169-109 [46] If I trusted the system, he might be higher.
Bucky Walters 197-148 [43] but part of that peak is due to strong defensive support - of course, the same can be said about Gomez.
Kevin Appier 172-116 [27] (Jimmy Key is my best comp.)
Lon Warnecke 184-128 [38] (!)
Jerry Koosman 233-193 [168]
Tommy Bridges 190-124 [17] Dropping my support for him in acknowledgment of his lack of peak.
Ed Cicotte 209-149 [48]
Wilbur Cooper 220-166 [23]
Tommy John 281-244 [3] Also hurt by lack of peak.
Rick Reuschel 221-174 [14] Interesting candidate, but I wound up not putting him on the ballot.

Chuck Finley (199-156 [8]) is in a group with Ron Guidry (158-108 [27]), Frank Tanana (245-220 [21]), Jack Morris (226-199 [9]), Jim Kaat (262-241 [13]), and Dizzy Dean (136-82 [35]).

Comments on some other candidates:

Mark Grace (new candidate): In my system, looks reasonably comparable to Sisler, Perez, Mattingly, and Vernon. Sisler is the best of that group, mostly by having the best peak. Perez has an apparent career value advantage, but enough of that was just hanging around that it doesn't amount to much. All of these guys were either high-average or high-OBP hitters but not sluggers, and most were pretty good defensively. None of them have the OBP-defense combination to match up to Hernandez, who was the best of the class.

Tommy Leach: I've never figured out exactly what to do with him. Has offensive value in the Brooks Robinson/Ken Boyer neighborhood, but that's well short of the GVH/Duffy/Ryan sort of offensive value. Considered as a CF, he doesn't measure up to Fielder Jones or Roy Thomas. Maybe I don't have sufficient imagination to figure it out, but I haven't been able to make him a candidate.

Dick Redding: The published data from the 20's cast enough doubt that I have a hard time supporting him.

Gavy Cravath: His major league data put him a little better than Roy White, a little worse than Albert Belle. The most optimistic spin I can put on his minor league record would make him almost Frank Howard - but Howard doesn't make my ballot.

Bob Johnson: He was born within 70 miles of where I was born - but I can't go for the home-state favorite. I have his value as essentially equal to Jose Cruz. Sure, Johnson was stalled in the minors, but then Cruz was jerked around in the lineup when he was younger.

Kirby Puckett: Compared to Brett Butler and Vada Pinson, a tiny bit more peak, a tiny bit less career. But I think that's the comparison group, and they're behind the Murphy/Murcer/Berger group.

Bus Clarkson: Perhaps he was a HoM level player. I just have a hard time seeing how to prove it with minor league statistics.

Don Newcombe: He had everything happen to him that could - but it comes down to this: I'm willing to project fill-in seasons, but I'm not willing to project a peak, and the peak he had just wasn't high enough.
   11. Paul Wendt Posted: November 10, 2009 at 02:18 PM (#3383898)
OCF,
Does Urban Shocker have a poor record by RA+?
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: November 10, 2009 at 02:30 PM (#3383903)
2010 Ballot

2009 PHoM—Rickey Henderson, John McGraw, Quincy Trouppe
2010 PHoM—Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar, Lou Whitaker
Considered for PHoM, still cued up—Fred Dunlap, Vern Stephens, Ken Singleton, Edgar Martinez Dale Murphy

The top 10 returnees are all in my top 50.

1. Kirby Puckett (2-5-5, PHoM 2001)—+107 WS versus the median CF compared to Dale Murphy at +75.5 or Reggie Smith at +71; another classic case of “so over-rated, he’s now under-rated”

2. Barry Larkin (new, PHoM 2010)
3. Roberto Alomar (new, PHoM 2010)

4. Ed Williamson (4-2-4, PHoM 1924)—great glove, spent 2 years at SS; led the league in games played 4 times; good bat, good enough to take unfair advantage of the short LF porch for bunches of ground-rule 2B when hitting it into the stands was a ground-rule 2B, and when they decided to call them HR, well, I don’t see how hitting it out there hurt his team, +109.5 WS over position medians

5. Phil Rizzuto (15-22-19, PHoM 1995)—+62 WS, but against one of the best cohorts ever, including Boudreau, Stevens, Pesky and Joost, among others

6. Don Newcombe (6-9-10, PHoM 1997)—missed more opportunities than anybody—NgL, quotas during integration transition era (you can look it up he was held back at Montreal 2-3 years after he obviously was ready but even the Dodgers wanted a limited number of blacks on the roster at the beginning), Korean War—in a more perfect world, he coulda been Robin Roberts

7. Larry Doyle (7-7-9, PHoM 1975)—at his best, a deserving NL MVP on a pennant-winning team; +116 WS over the position median


8. Al Rosen (13-8-14, PHoM 2005)—the #1 WS peak of anybody median; basically, Albert Belle with a glove

9. Bucky Walters (4-4-13, PHoM 2006)—the big mover in my pitcher re-eval at +47 WS versus the median “ace” (not just the median starter, but the median ace) AFTER discounting his WWII years

10. Hugh Duffy (23-24-17, PHoM 2005)--+88.5 WS vs. position median

11. Tommy Leach (11-14-21, PHoM 1998)—what a valuable guy to have around, MLB’s version of Scottie Pippen, +13 WS per year and +102 total WS over position median though it’s true that is against a fairly weak cohort

12. Dizzy Dean (5-6-6, PHoM 2002)—for a peak voter, the one big oversight of the HoM project to date; even with a short prime (6 years), the +39 WS above the “median ace” is among the best available

13. Albert Belle (12-10-8, PHoM 2006)—WS peak beyond question at 37-34-34-31 (with 1994 and 1995 adjusted appropriately), +108 WS versus position medians

14. Tommy Bond (9-13-12, PHoM 1929)—he’s baaaack; pretty much the all-time WS peak monster even after I give his defenses half his credit

15. Gavvy Cravath (8-11-18-17, PHoM 1995)—+13 WS per year versus the position median, ties for the best among 20C players; but against weak competition and for a short period of time

Dropped Off

16. Elston Howard (12-11-3, PHoM 1994)—after Newk, missed more opportunities than anybody, the comp is somewhere between Freehan and Cochrane, +9.5 WS per year versus position median


21. Johnny Pesky (14-19-15, PHoM 2004)—+74 against one of the best cohorts ever, including Rizzuto, Boudreau, Stevens and Joost, among others

Also PHoM and/or HoM-Worthy

16. Elston Howard (12-11-3, PHoM 1994)
17. Addie Joss (29-NR-50, PHoM 1967)
(17a. Lou Whitaker [18a-29a-39a], PHoM 2010)--+100
18. Dick Redding (17-18-20, PHoM 1971)
19. Fred Dunlap (25-17-HM)--+94 WS
20. Frank Howard (21-21-36, PHoM 1987)--+98

21. Johnny Pesky (14-19-15, PHoM 2004)--+74
22. Vern Stephens (22-23-23)--+82
23. Ken Singleton (26-20-22)--+91
24. Edgar Martinez (new)
25. Dale Murphy (20-16-16)--+84
26. Orlando Cepeda (24-37-43, PHoM 1987)--+104
27. Don Mattingly (28-41-43, PHoM 2001)--+79.5
28. Thurman Munson (19-26-NR, PHoM 2002)

HoVG

29. Tony Perez (32-45-26)--+73
30. Dave Concepcion (43-33-28)--+71.5, OPS+ of 88
31. David Cone (44-48-NR)
32. Bobby Avila (43-HM-50)--+56 with no MLE credit
(32a. Jim Bunning [26b-23a-24a])
33. Luis Tiant (48-50-45)
(33a. Wes Ferrell [26a-15a-22a])

34. Dan Quisenberry (31-27-25)
(34a. Dewey Evans [31a-39a-43a])--+97.5
(34b. Dave Stieb [31b-23a-27a])
(34c. Roger Bresnahan [32a-24a-26b])--+57
35. Sal Bando (33-35-34)
(35a. Bret Saberhagen [33a-25-27]
36. Jim Rice (34-NR-47)
37. Burleigh Grimes (35-28-33)
38. Hack Wilson (36-30-31)
39. Chuck Klein (37-42-40)
(39a. Early Wynn [37a-45a-NR])
40. Wilbur Cooper (39-29-30)
(40a. Ken Boyer [38a-37a-37a])--+91

41. Orel Hershiser (39-31-37)
42. Wally Berger (40-44-41)
43. Bill Monroe (41-32-32)
44. Bruce Sutter (42-46-40)
(44a. Jimmy Sheckard [44a-35a-19a])--+64
45. Bus Clarkson (45-40-NR)
46. Pie Traynor (46-38-38)
47. Bob Elliott (47-39-NR)--+81
48. Dave Bancroft (49-47-NR)
49. Bob Johnson (50-NR-46)
50. Vic Willis (HM-49-NR)

Honorable Mention

Dave Parker (HM-HM-29)
Norm Cash (HM-HM-NR)
(Biz Mackey [HM-HM-NR])
Jim McCormick (HM-HM-NR)
Lance Parrish (HM-HM-NR)
Hilton Smith (HM-HM-HM)
George Van Haltren (HM-HM-NR)
Eddie Cicotte (HM-NR)
Luis Aparicio (HM-NR)
Bobby Estalella (HM-NR)--probably a HoMer by now if he had played a normal career either in the ML or the NeL, he's basically Bob Johnson
   13. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2009 at 04:08 PM (#3383973)
All three of last year’s electees on my ballot – has to be a record! Alomar and Larkin very close in value, but not as good as Joss or Cicotte. Crime-dog better than I had expected. However Edgar’s significantly better than any of them and deserves to be ahead of all but Joss. Ventura just off bottom of consideration set – short career. Gonzalez and Burks just on the bottom of it, in that order.

1. (N/A-7-7-6-8-6-6-7-7-6-7-7-7-9-8-7-7-4-5-3-3-3-5-4-4-4-6-4-4-4-5-2-2
-4-4-3-3-5-4-3-2-2-3-5-2-2-1-2-1-2-1-3-1-2) Addie Joss. I’m now even more convinced I missed him earlier, and that adjusting innings down for dead ball pitchers is illegitimate. 2327 IP at an ERA+ of 142. 160-97 by age 30. If you assume the rest of his career would have been 1800 IP, 120-90 with an ERA+ of 110 (somewhat conservative, assuming you boost his last sick season, though pitchers didn’t last as long as they did later) then 50% credit would put him at 3227IP, 220-142, with ERA+ of 130. 25% credit puts him at 2777 IP, 190-120, with ERA+ of 136. Substantially better than Koufax. OPS+20. Electorate needs to take him more seriously.

2. Edgar Martinez 2247 hits@147. TB+BB/PA .567, TB+BB/Outs .933 Shortish career, but would deserve minor league credit if Joss wasn’t the only one ahead of him. Can’t see how McGriff is better, though McGriff a deserving bottom quartile HOMer.

3. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6-5-4-6-7-6-5-5-6-7-5-5-4-
4-5-4-6-4-4-5-4-4-5-4-4-6-5-5-5-6-7-5-5-6-7-6-5-5-7-5-5-5-6-3-4-7-6-4-4-6-5-4-3-3-4-6-3-3-2-3-3-4-2-5-2-3) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity – Newhouser a close comp, but Cicotte had a longer career. Successfully cursed Red Sox AND White Sox for over 8 decades!

4. (N/A) Roberto Alomar 2723 hits@116.TB+BB/PA .485, TB+BB/Outs .730 Great hitter for a 2B and a fairly long career. I’m a bit cautious with hitting stats from the 90s however.

5. (N/A-10-9-8-10-11-10-13-12-14-N/A-15-14-13-12-11-10-10-11-9-9
-10-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-10-7-8-11-10-8-8-10-9-5-4-4-5-7-4-4-3-4-4
-5-3-6-3-4) Ernie Lombardi. Up a bit more; we’re forgetting him. Berra closely comparable. 2137 hits, normalized to a 130 game season, and an OPS+ of 125 makes him a little better than Schang, but some of it was during the war years and he fielded badly. TB+BB/PA .492, TB+BB/Outs .719., the ratio between the two very low because of strikeouts, I assume. Plus a great nickname!

6. Barry Larkin. 2340 hits @116 TB+BB/PA .493, TB+BB/Outs .737. Very marginally better hitter than Alomar but shorter career, though he was a shortstop. Can’t see how he rates above Schnozz, therefore.

7. (N/A-14-15-14-13-14-15-14-15-14-15-15-13-12-13-10-11-13-12-10-
11-12-11-6-5-5-6-8-5-5-4-5-5-6-4-7-4-5) Vern Stephens. Short career – only 1859 hits, but comparing him to Reese he was much better, and not far short of Doerr. TB+BB/PA .508, TB+BB/Outs .756. OPS+ 119 Best season 1944, however. Sliding up ballot.

8. Fred McGriff 2497 hits @134. TB+BB/PA .566 TB+BB/Outs .873 Slightly better than I had expected, and fully ballot-worthy, halfway up as we’ve cleared out the stronger backloggers.

9. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9-8-7-8-11-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-11-12-
11-14-13-11-13-13-13-13-12-11-14-13-12-11-11-12-10-10-11-12-11
-11-11-13-13-11-10-11-8-9-12-11-9-10-11-12-8-7-7-9-10-6-7-5-8-7-7-5
-8-6-6) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.


10. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13-11-10-11-12-12-11-11-11-
12-12-11-11-12-13-12-15-14-12-14-11-10-11-11-10-12-11-10-9-9-
10-8-8-9-10-9-8-8-10-10-9-8-9-6-7-10-8-10-8-8) Sam Leever. Pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings at an ERA+ of 123, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.

11. (N/A-12-11-11-13-14-11-12-11-12-10-10-8-11-9-9) Tommy John 288-231, 4710IP@111. Infinitesimally below Sutton, better than Kaat.

12. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15-15-15-N/A-15-N/A-13-14-13-14-11-11-9-12-10-10) Carl Mays Had slipped down too far. 3021 innings at 119, 207-126 and 83 OPS+ Others should look at him more closely.

13. (N/A-13-13-11-14-12-11) Elmer Smith Deduct 10% from Elmer's Western League 1890 and 1891 batting and slugging percentages we get 301/461 and 284/431 respectively. Comparing against the PL of 1890 gives an OPS+ of about 130, against the NL of 1891 gives an OPS+ of about 139. That gives him 14 years of full-time play; adjust those to 130 game seasons (which I did for 19th century players) gives him about 2140 hits at an OPS+ of 128-129 plus a pitching record of about 1400IP at an ERA+ of 113 and a W/L of about 96-72. Elmer baby, you're on my ballot, albeit towards the bottom of it. Only 97 years late.

14. (N/A-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-13-14-11-12-14-13-11-13-14-13-11-10-10-12-13-10-11-10-11-9-9-12-15-13-12) Frank Howard Very slightly better than Kiner – significantly longer career. Underrated by history, but down a little when I look at Belle. OPS+ 142 for 1774 hits. TB+BB/PA .546, TB+BB/Outs .805 in a pitchers’ park and era.

15. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-
2-3-3-2-2-3-7-5-5-3-2-2-2-4-2-3-3-2-2-4-3-2-2-3-3-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-
3-2-2-3-2-2-4-2-3-2-2-4-2-2-2-4-3-3-3-4-2-2-2-2-N/A-15-N/A-15-N/A-14
-14-13-N/A-14-13) Mickey Welch. UER were 43.37% of total runs allowed for Mickey, compared to about 40% with all his HOM contemporaries except Galvin (who started earlier, anyway.) Hence his ERA+, his weakness anyway, overstates his value; in spite of 307-210 he was primarily an innings-eater. 4802IP. Will now be on and off ballot.
   14. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2009 at 04:08 PM (#3383974)
OFF BALLOT

16. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-
N/A-14-13-15-N/A-14-15-14-15-15-N/A-15-14) Hugh Duffy. We don’t have enough Beaneaters! However he’s not quite as good as Elmer Smith.

17. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A-15-15-N/A-14-N/A-15-13-12-14-15-12-13-12-13-N/A) George van Haltren. Had slipped too far at #44; we need more 90s stars, but he was significantly below Elmer Smith, either as hitter or pitcher.

18. (N/A-15-N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Rusty Staub. 2716 hits at OPS+124. TB+BB/PA .484, TB+BB/Outs .724. Not quite as good as Beckley, for not quite as long.

19. (N/A-12-N/A) Fred Lynn. Underrated, considerably better than Rice or Hernandez. 1960 hits at 130, but bonus for playing CF. TB+BB/PA .531, TB+BB/Outs .791. Lovely player to watch, and absolutely top-drawer at his best.

20. David Cone 2898IP@120 194-126. WS seems to be underrating modern pitchers just as it overrates modern hitters. Not quite Sabes, but better than Tiant and Reuschel.

21. Albert Belle 1726 hits @143. Short career, not quite Frank Howard but Frank was a little high. TB+BB/PA .597 TB+BB/Outs .896

22. (N/A-14-N/A-15-13-15-N/A-15-N/A) Luis Tiant 229-172. 3486 IP at 114. ERA+ a little low, but W/L good. He’s not top tier, but just a little better than Pierce. Big psychic plus for Red Sox affiliation. Looking at Reuschel, a little overplaced so have slipped him down.

23. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis Had slipped too far.

24. (N/A) Lee Smith 71-92 +478 saves. 1289IP @132. I find these relievers difficult to rank because their usage changes; with the exception of Wilhelm I don’t see any of them as clearly IN. (Rivera very short career in IP terms so far, and ERA+ declining as we speak.) Still, Lee Smith was better than Fingers and I think Gossage, though that one’s close.

25. Gavvy Cravath 1134 hits@150. Add 50% to career and deduct 5 points for more years in early career makes him 1699 hits @145, still a very short career, but comparable to Hack. TB+BB/PA .527, TB+BB/Outs .835.

26. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14-14-14-N/A-15-15-15-N/A-14-15-15-15-N/A-
14-N/A-15-15-N/A-15-N/A-14-N/A-15-14-N/A) Hack Wilson. TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144. (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore.

27. Rick Reuschel. 214-191, 3548IP@114. Tough to put him far from Tiant, who had a better W/L, but I now realized I was overvaluing Tiant a bit because of Red Sox affiliation.

28. (N/A-14-14-N/A) Chuck Klein. Shortish career but very good one. Similar player to Beckwith, beats Hack on career length, but Hack was better. TB+BB/PA .575, TB+BB/Outs .909, but only 2076 hits. OPS+137.

29. Indian Bob Johnson. Very similar career to Klein but infinitesimally less good. TB+BB/PA .569, TB+BB/Outs .890., only 2051 hits. OPS+138

30. Brian Downing. 2099 hits at 122 plus he caught about 1/3 of his games. TB+BB/PA.487 TB+BB/Outs.741

31. Tony Perez. Close to Staub but below him. 2732 hits at 122. TB+BB/PA .502, TB+BB/Outs .731.
32. Bill Madlock.
33. Toby Harrah
34. Ben Taylor.
35. Jim Kaat
36. Orlando Cepeda
37. Norm Cash
38. Jim Rice
39. (N/A-12-12-14-N/A) Tony Lazzeri
40. Cesar Cedeno
41. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice
42. Lou Brock
43. Mickey Vernon
44. Thurmon Munson
45. Sal Maglie.
46. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes.
47. (N/A) Heinie Manush
48. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan
49. Bob Elliott
50. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle.
51. Chuck Finley Obscure and slightly mediocre 200-173, but 3197 IP @115. Just below Reuschel and Tiant. Down a bit – I think 120ERA+ has got easier since ’90.

52. Jack Clark. As good as Reggie Smith but not for as long. 1826 hits@137OPS+, TB+BB .529, TB+BB/Outs .845
53. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
54. Harold Baines 2866 hits @120. TB+BB/PA .511 TB+BB/Outs .757. Lower than Staub and Perez.
55. Dennis Martinez 3999IP@106, 245-193. A lesser Kaat.
56. Jimmy Key
57. Dave Parker.
58. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
59. Gene Tenace
60. Kiki Cuyler
61. Deacon McGuire
62. Jerry Koosman.
63. Boog Powell
64. Ken Singleton.
65. Bucky Walters 198-160, 3104IP at 115 certainly doesn’t make the ballot, but should be on the consideration set, so here he is. Less than Tiant or Reuschel..
66. Sal Bando.
67. Jim Fregosi.
68. Jack Quinn
69. Juan Gonzalez 1936 hits@132. TB+BB/PA.578 TB+BB/Outs .843 Very short career, otherwise would be higher – he’s almost McGriff but with 80% of the career.
70. Tony Mullane
71. Ron Cey
72. Jose Canseco.
73. Pie Traynor
74. Jim McCormick
75. Dick Redding. My punt is 3200 innings at 114 ERA+ for a record of 207-159, i.e. same quality as Chris but a little shorter. About here looks right – a little below Grimes (longer career) and Maglie (better quality.)
76. Joe Judge
77. Spotswood Poles.
78. Buddy Bell.
79. Larry Doyle
80. Kirby Puckett
81. (N/A)Tony Fernandez. Turn him into an outfielder and he’s Kirby, so here he is. 2276 hits @101, TB+BB/PA .438 TB+BB/Outs .634

82. Ellis Burks 2107 hits @126; TB+BB/PA .548 TB+BB/Outs .820. Just within consideration set, rather than just outside it. Not that it matters.

83. Curt Simmons
84. Waite Hoyt.
85. Harry Hooper.
86. Vada Pinson
87. Gil Hodges
88. Jules Thomas.
89. Rico Carty.
90. Wilbur Cooper
91. Bruce Petway.
92. Jack Clements
93. Frank Tanana
94. Don Mattingley.
95. Orel Hershiser 204-150, 3130 IP@112. Not quite enough
96. Bill Monroe
97. Herb Pennock
98. Chief Bender
99. Ed Konetchy
100. Al Oliver
101. Darryl Strawberry.
102. Jesse Tannehill
103. Bobby Veach
104. Chet Lemon.
105. Lave Cross
106. Tommy Leach. Inferior to Childs, even if he’d played 3B his whole career, which he didn’t. Overall, Cross was better, too (2645@100 translates to 2645@ almost 120 with position bonus.) 2143 hits @109, which translates to at most 119 when you add say 50% of a 1900 3B bonus of 20. Not close.

107. Tom York

OFF: Phil Rizzutto. Not close—hugely overrated. OPS+ of 93, and not a particularly long career, even with war credit.
   15. OCF Posted: November 10, 2009 at 05:09 PM (#3384033)
Paul: Shocker 181-117 [29]. Not too different from Stieb. Yes, I should be mentioning him, too.

That was an, er, interesting ballot by karlmagnus. Now can we get a whole bunch of other voters in here to make him a smaller fraction of the total?
   16. DL from MN Posted: November 10, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3384036)
Open request to Dan R - my copy of your WARP is only complete until 2005. That will be inadequate for voting after this election.

Career voter, I like to add value over replacement to value over average. I use Dan R's standard deviation adjusted numbers primarily and BP WARP secondarily.

PHOM - Larkin, Alomar, Alejandro Oms

1) Barry Larkin - Ends up basically tied with Ozzie Smith in the spreadsheet. 8th among SS between Appling and Smith. Willie Wells is close also.
2) David Cone - Helped by good postseason numbers, strike credit, etc. Quality pitcher and IP compare favorably to others in his era. 43rd among pitchers, Bridges is 44th. Gossage, Drysdale, Marichal, Saberhagen and Mendez are in this same area.
3) Tommy Bridges - Deserves war credit, terrific strikeout pitcher with IP being the only knock against him. Fantastic performer in the postseason.
4) Luis Tiant - Yes he's behind a bunch of other pitchers from his era but he's legitimately qualified. 48th among pitchers. Bunning, Stieb, Ruffing, Pud Galvin are similar.
5) Tommy Leach - Great glove to go with the bat and good positional bump for playing CF and 3B. Among CF he's 15th in the same area as Reggie Smith. Among 3B he's 18th behind McGraw, Collins and ahead of Nettles.
6) Urban Shocker - gets WWI credit and had a good bat that can't be ignored when calculating his value. 55th among pitchers. Behind Ferrell and Koufax and ahead of Waddell and Pierce.
7) Bob Johnson - I've been voting for him since my 1st ballot. 16th among LF behind Stargell and ahead of Charley Jones, Sherry Magee, Charlie Keller, Goose Goslin and Minnie Minoso.
8) Roberto Alomar - Adjusting up over what the numbers tell me because it's really close the next 10 ballot slots and I believe the replacement value for his era was a little high historically. 17th among 2B around Doerr, Gordon, Herman and Frank Grant. Clearly behind Whitaker and Sandberg.
9) Kevin Appier - Will be competing for my PHoM in 2012, no shot in 2011. 58th pitcher between Waddell and Pierce, still doubting the numbers though.
10) Ben Taylor - Fits with the good glove, enough bat 1B we've elected. 18th at 1B behind Beckley and Hernandez but ahead of Will Clark.
11) Bus Clarkson - haven't lost him in the shuffle. A mostly-credit case but he could hit and play infield. 25th at SS behind the comparable SS/3B Joe Sewell.
12) Norm Cash - another good glove first baseman, that monster year puts him over the line. 19th/20th just before or after Clark depending on which direction the wind is blowing that day.
13) Rick Reuschel - takes a hit from my rankings last year but stays on-ballot. 58th pitcher, ahead of Clark Griffith and tied with Pierce.
14) Gavy Cravath - Needs the minor league credit and relied quite a bit on oddball ballparks but he put up the numbers. Would be at the bottom of the RF list but nearly tied with Sam Thompson.
15) Dick Redding - Gets the nod at the end of the ballot. Imagine if Dwight Gooden hadn't fallen off the cliff so early. 61st after Griffith but ahead of Don Sutton, Eppa Rixey and Mordecai Brown.


16-20) Wally Schang (PHoM - last C behind Mackey), Ron Cey (PHoM - last 3B behind Boyer), Edgar Martinez, Lave Cross, Johnny Pesky
21-25) Dom DiMaggio, Tony Mullane, Phil Rizzuto, Dizzy Dean, Bobby Bonds
26-30) Bob Elliott, Robin Ventura, Kiki Cuyler, Buddy Bell, Jose Cruz

41) Bucky Walters

72) Fred McGriff - I like Olerud better
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 10, 2009 at 05:43 PM (#3384053)
DL from MN--I haven't run full numbers for 2006-09, although I will try to in time for the next election. If you need specific player-seasons, just tell me and I can get them to you manually.
   18. DL from MN Posted: November 10, 2009 at 06:01 PM (#3384063)
These guys would be nice to have for 2006-09:

Bagwell, Jeff
Brown, Kevin
Walker, Larry
Palmiero, Rafael
Olerud, John
Williams, Bernie

Salmon, Tim
Franco, Julio
Finley, Steve

Bonds, Barry
Clemens, Roger
Piazza, Mike
Schilling, Curt
Biggio, Craig
Lofton, Kenny
Wells, David
Green, Shawn

Maddux, Greg
Thomas, Frank
Glavine, Tom
Mussina, Mike
Edmonds, Jim
Kent, Jeff
Rogers, Kenny
Alou, Moises
Gonzalez, Luis
   19. karlmagnus Posted: November 10, 2009 at 06:17 PM (#3384074)
I don't have too many eccentricities, but you guys hardly ever elect any of them, so over 110 ballots they add up!
   20. lawyerman Posted: November 10, 2009 at 07:50 PM (#3384164)
Don't see a worthy candidtae in the bunch. It's not supposed to be a hall of above average players. I also don't see why anyone should have more than one chance. Do they get better after several years of voting? If they are not worthy the first time, what makes them more worthy later on?
   21. DL from MN Posted: November 10, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3384191)
#20 is not really appropriate in a ballot thread. If you make the assumptions we have made when creating the process we're doing fine. You're questioning the decision space, voters have agreed to that decision space already so debating the assumptions is irrelevant for this thread. We have another thread where you can voice your objections to the process but frankly that ship sailed >5 years ago.

I'd also say there are plenty of absolute superstars we've elected who just happened to appear on a ballot with someone better who appreciate having more than one chance. It would be stupid to set up a process that only elected 'n' players a year with no second chances. That would guarantee that (for example) one of Tim Salmon, Julio Franco, Steve Finley or Brad Radke is elected next year while Schilling, Biggio and Lofton are left out the year after.
   22. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 10, 2009 at 08:49 PM (#3384195)
OK, DL. Do you need them for this election or not until next year?

Since BP's DERA stat (on which my pitcher WARP is based) has changed, I should probably update it to reflect that.
   23. DL from MN Posted: November 10, 2009 at 08:54 PM (#3384199)
I can wait till next year. Like I said, next year is when the data I have becomes irrelevant.
   24. OCF Posted: November 10, 2009 at 09:27 PM (#3384226)
And if you're coming from a Hall of Fame mindset: given a Hall that contains Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Phil Rizzuto, et al., to say that it doesn't have room for Barry Larkin - that's just silly. Don't make the standards something that they're not. (Note: we elected Wallace, dismissed Tinker from the voting, and currently have Rizzuto in the high backlog. None of them are egregious Hall of Fame mistakes - and none of them are Barry Larkin, either.)

We will elect three candidates this year. One of them may be a borderliner, someone about whom we can argue long and hard versus various other borderliners - but he won't be a ridiculous selection.
   25. sunnyday2 Posted: November 11, 2009 at 02:37 AM (#3384583)
he won't be a ridiculous selection.


I'd be just a tad concerned about participation. If we have half as many votes as last year, then who votes and who doesn't will be decisive. Or, actually, it will be close enough for 3rd place, I think, that who votes and who doesn't is sure to be decisive. I've come around to the idea that we are probably going to elect Edgar. We've already got one first-time voter with Edgar highly rated. There will probably be more.

I'm not saying he'll be a mistake. I'm just saying that if this election had come two weeks after the 2009 ballot, the voting would be significantly different than what it will be now.
   26. DanG Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:59 AM (#3384632)
I've come around to the idea that we are probably going to elect Edgar. We've already got one first-time voter with Edgar highly rated. There will probably be more.
If I get around to doing a ballot, Edgar looks like #3 or #4. Reading over his thread, nobody's made a case against him. Likewise, in the discussion the last couple days of his Newstand article there was little evidence presented to shoot him down. I can see where the peaksters won't like him too much, but if you lean more towards prime or career he seems to meaure up to HoM standards.
   27. DL from MN Posted: November 11, 2009 at 03:43 PM (#3384808)
Not enough defensive value, played in a high offense, high stdev era, slow as molasses on the basepaths, fragile. Still, just on the outside looking in on my ballot.

We could have a battle between David Cone and Edgar Martinez for the 3rd slot. Cone had a strong initial showing last year.
   28. DanG Posted: November 11, 2009 at 04:19 PM (#3384836)
played in a high offense, high stdev era, slow as molasses on the basepaths
Can you quantify any of these? Do they amount to enough to knock Edgar back very far?

And he wasn't that fragile. Had over 600 PA in 8 years. In a 15-year prime there were two years he missed more than 30 of his team's games.
   29. Chris Fluit Posted: November 12, 2009 at 02:41 AM (#3385749)
1. Roberto Alomar, 2B (new). Top ten second baseman all-time. OPS+ 116 in 10,400 plate attempts. Above average defensively, though maybe not as much as Gold Glove voting would have you think. Quick decline made people forget how great he was in his prime.

2. Barry Larkin, SS (new). Top fifteen shortstop all-time. OPS+ 116 in 9,057 plate attempts. Injuries meant he has 1,350 fewer plate attempts that Alomar despite playing two additional seasons.

3. Cannonball Dick Redding, P. Those who are judging Redding primarily on his '20s numbers are making a gross mistake. 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.

Redding was made player-manager of Brooklyn Royal Giants in 1923 and was still considered a top ace in 1924. In 1925, Redding's skills were diminishing and, as manager, he reduced himself to a part-time role as a relief pitcher. Over the next several seasons, he would sporadically give himself the ball in order to spare his best pitchers. If you're looking predominantly at his league stats, you're only looking at 2 of his 14 seasons as a top starter on top teams. Judging him by his relief record while he was a manager would be akin to judging John McGraw based on his pinch-hitting while manager of the New York Giants from 1902-1905.

4. Dave Concepcion, SS. I love prime candidates, especially shortstops. An OPS+ of 101 in 5883 plate attempts from 1973-82.

5. Don Newcombe, P. A great peak and an obscured prime because of military service (Newcombe fought in Korea) and the vagaries of delayed integration (clearly ready for the majors before his rookie season even if the majors weren't ready for him).

6. Edgar Martinez, DH (new).
I surprised myself by having him this high. The lack of defensive value is penalty enough- no need to dock him extra for being a DH. The wealth of offensive value is more than enough to make him a top candidate. OPS+ of 147 higher than you might think and 8672 plate attempts is more than you might think.

7. Kirby Puckett, CF. The Carlos Beltran centerfielder discussion a while back got me to take an extra look at Kirby Puckett and the other centerfielders of the past 25 years. I now think Puckett is more deserving than the 1890s cohort and moved him up accordingly.

8. Tommy Bridges, P. The 1930s are over-represented in the HoM but I can't ignore that solid 12-year prime from 1932 to 1943 and that excellent career ERA+ of 126 in 2826 innings.

9. Bob Johnson, LF. Not the sexiest pick but another strong prime candidate with 10 out of 12 seasons with a top ten OPS+.

10. Phil Rizzuto, SS. Another prime shortstop akin to the recently elected Dick Lundy and Dave Concepcion who was in an elect-me spot on my last ballot. Has a better big year than either of those two (Scooter's 1950 was huge), but not quite as consistent year-in and year-out.

11. Hugh Duffy, CF. The best of the eligible 1890s centerfielders- though Ryan is closer than I remembered. Another great eight-year prime (1890-1897) with both offensive and defensive value. Falls a bit as I think we've overlooked the 1980s centerfielders, Kirby Puckett and Dale Murphy.

12. Vic Willis, P. A dominant pitcher in his time. 3 seasons of 150 ERA+ and 300+ innings. Shoulder seasons make for a solid 12 year career from 1898 to 1909.

13. Pie Traynor, 3B. The best third baseman available. A solid bat for 11 years from 1923 to 1933, and better defensively when compared to his direct peers than is usually credited.

14. Bucky Walters, P. I'm coming around on Walters. He's not the type of player I usually vote for as he's usually seen as more of a peak or career candidate than a prime guy. But I think the case against him is overstated. Those Cincinnati Reds didn't win back-to-back pennants by accident. Walters was the best player on both of those teams and the best pitcher in baseball both those years. His best eight year stretch is 1939-1946 when he has a 135 ERA+ in 2030 innings.

15. Lou Brock, LF. Even though I shifted to more of a prime system a number of elections ago, I have one holdover from my days as a career voter. 1512 Runs Created, before giving him credit for taking extra bases.

Comments on new eligibles and top ten returnees

Fred McGriff- could have made the ballot; he's battling it out with Ben Taylor for the spot as the best eligible first baseman, well ahead of Cash, Cepeda and Perez
David Cone- looks like our Catfish Hunter, elected early before being compared against his true peers/contemporaries; across eras, his career numbers aren't as strong as Willis or Bridges, his peak isn't as good as Newcombe or Walters.
Gavvy Cravath- one of the benefits of doing my Hall of Very Good side-project is that I'm gaining an appreciation for some players I'd previously dismissed. Gavvy Cravath is one of those. He's rocketed up my charts and I could see myself voting for him at some point but I wasn't ready to knock any of the other outfielders off just yet.
Tommy Leach- an interesting mix, but not quite the standout career that some of his near-contemporaries had
Luis Tiant- a lot to like; he's in my top ten for pitchers and my top twenty-five overall but we've got plenty of pitchers from his era which isn't the case with Walters or Newcombe or, to a lesser extent, Redding
   30. Howie Menckel Posted: November 12, 2009 at 03:20 AM (#3385771)
I'll need 'til next week, but....

I'll have Larkin 1 and maybe Cone 2.
Am deciding between Alomar and Edgar, maybe for 3.

I'm actually held up from voting already due to slotting McGriff and deciding on Ventura....

I don't have any problem, regardless, re Edgar.
He hit more like Willie Stargell than anyone, arguably, and we have agreed to elect as many total players as there are in the Hall of Fame. Even if you pound him on no-field, he can't be considered a terrible pick.

My sense is that if we have 60 "HOM not HOF," they split - roughly - into 3 camps:
- 20 we think easily belong in the HOM
- 20 where we're quite lukewarm
- 20 that we wouldn't elect, but since they elected this many, we have to find modest alternatives to the bums who made the HOF undeservedly...
   31. Juan V Posted: November 12, 2009 at 03:29 AM (#3385776)
1. Roberto Alomar, 2B (new). Top ten second baseman all-time. OPS+ 116 in 10,400 plate attempts. Above average defensively, though maybe not as much as Gold Glove voting would have you think. Quick decline made people forget how great he was in his prime.


How are you concluding that he was above average defensively? I'm still working on that before submitting my final ballot.
   32. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 05:15 AM (#3385819)
Addie Joss. I’m now even more convinced I missed him earlier, and that adjusting innings down for dead ball pitchers is illegitimate. 2327 IP at an ERA+ of 142. 160-97 by age 30. If you assume the rest of his career would have been 1800 IP, 120-90 with an ERA+ of 110 (somewhat conservative, assuming you boost his last sick season, though pitchers didn’t last as long as they did later) then 50% credit would put him at 3227IP, 220-142, with ERA+ of 130. 25% credit puts him at 2777 IP, 190-120, with ERA+ of 136. Substantially better than Koufax. OPS+20. Electorate needs to take him more seriously.


Karl a few things . . . for one, I don't see how projecting a career that didn't happen due to injury (dying of natural causes is just an extreme injury), unless those injuries were sustained in a war, is really within the rules.

But even if you give a guy a pass for dying, you do realize that Joss had an arm injury and was probably done anyway, even if he didn't get sick, right?
   33. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2009 at 04:56 PM (#3386033)
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. I don't hold with knocking back Joss's annual IP, because his early death is equally a product of the conditions he played under. As for the arm injury, it's not clear whether he could have adapted, had death not intervened -- Lou Gehrig's 1938 is possibly the equivalent. A 142 ERA+ is hugely exceptional until the last 20 years, and Joss's was not a high standard deviation era.

We were quite keen on Joss initially, then went off him. I wasn't that keen initially but for about 50 "years" have been convinced he's a major omission. And one of our other wiser electors (Brock Hanke?) has recently joined me in that belief.
   34. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: November 12, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3386312)
I don't see how projecting a career that didn't happen due to injury (dying of natural causes is just an extreme injury), unless those injuries were sustained in a war, is really within the rules.

He's only made the exact same comment for the past 50+ years. It would seem such a rule should have been enforced a long time ago.
   35. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: November 12, 2009 at 09:12 PM (#3386329)
his early death is equally a product of the conditions he played under.

So are his innings totals. If you're adjusting one, it seems like you should also adjust the other.
   36. karlmagnus Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM (#3386384)
That's fine. My point is that Joss is MUCH better than Koufax WITHOUT such adjustments. The consensus in this group appears to be adjust for the innings difference and not for the death.
   37. Chris Fluit Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM (#3386399)
1. Roberto Alomar, 2B (new). Top ten second baseman all-time. OPS+ 116 in 10,400 plate attempts. Above average defensively, though maybe not as much as Gold Glove voting would have you think. Quick decline made people forget how great he was in his prime.

How are you concluding that he was above average defensively? I'm still working on that before submitting my final ballot.


The short answer is that I'm skeptical of the advanced metrics that show otherwise.

I find it surprising that a player who has an above average range factor and an above average fielding percentage- which means he was getting to more balls than other players and converting a greater percentage of them into outs- comes out as a below average defender

I also remember the results when one of the earlier advanced measurements first came out; I think it was called defensive efficiency. It showed that the Mets infield of 1999 was one of the greatest defensive infields in history (Ventura-Ordonez-Alfonzo and Olerud). It also showed that some of the other recent great infields were the Indians of the late '90s and the Blue Jays of the early '90s. In both of those cases, Alomar had another great defender on his team (Vizquel on the Indians, Olerud on the Jays) yet Alomar's contributions were part of what made those infields so good at turning balls in play into outs.

Then there are the Gold Gloves. The awards are an inaccurate measurement of defensive greatness. Yet, if not weighted too highly, they can be a part of the puzzle.

So I've got all of these elements telling me that Alomar was an above-average defender- traditional measuring stats, expert observation by those who played the game against him and early forms of advanced defensive metrics. I'm skeptical of each one. But taken together, they tell the same story. Then I have the newer defensive metrics. And they tell the opposite story. Maybe they're right. But that's taking a lot of faith to assume that the new metrics are right and all of the other measurements are wrong.

I'm not saying that Roberto Alomar is historically great as a defensive second basemen- like Vizquel at short or Ventura at third. But I do believe that Alomar was better than average at his position for most of his career. Though I also understand why a Mets fan would think otherwise.
   38. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM (#3386414)
Vizquel was a historically great defensive SS? Huh? Good, sure...but even top 25?
   39. Chris Fluit Posted: November 12, 2009 at 10:54 PM (#3386421)
9. mystikx20 Posted: November 10, 2009 at 12:13 AM (#3383802)
Redding - I haven't gone over his MLE numbers carefully yet, but my first sense is to err toward the HoF on negro league players as they have pretty good data at this point. Meaning no. This is open to numerical persuasion.


Mystikx20, if that's the case, then why aren't you voting for Andy Cooper, Leon Day and Hilton Smith. It seems inconsistent that you would accept the HoF's negative opinion on one Negro League player but not their positive opinion on three others. On the other hand, if it's possible that the HoF was mistaken in including Andy Cooper, isn't it also possible that they were mistaken in excluding Dick Redding?

Here's some corroborating testimonies that Redding was among the all-time great players:

Redding was named to the Negro League Baseball All-Time team by McNeil, the only pitcher to be honored by neither the HoF or the HoM (6 others are in both, Leon Day in the HoF)

Redding was 21st on the official SABR rankings of Negro League candidates in 1999, ahead of future HoMers Santop, Wilson, Lundy, Mendez, Beckwith and Trouppe

Redding was one of 29 players given his own side-bar in Lawrence Hogan's book Shades of Glory (published in 2006, the same year as the HoF vote), 23 are in both the HoF and HoM; 5 are in one Hall (Home Run Johnson and John Beckwith in HoM; Judy Johnson, Ray Dandrige and Leon Day in the HoF); Redding is the only one honored by neither even though Hogan specifically mentions that Redding should be in the Hall of Fame (every other player given such a specific push was elected later that year)

The Hall of Fame vote of 2006 should only be one piece of the puzzle. The Hall of Merit ignored it in terms of Home Run Johnson (who also played before the established leagues) and John Beckwith (who also played in the east). We certainly have the ability and the authority to disagree with them regarding Dick Redding as well. Isn't that kind of our purpose in the first place- to correct the mistakes of the Hall of Fame?
   40. sunnyday2 Posted: November 13, 2009 at 01:36 AM (#3386528)
The consensus in this group appears to be adjust for the innings difference and not for the death.


Well, uh, yeah, though I hardly think that's unique to "this group." Not everybody would adjust for the innings but not anybody adjusts for stuff like a guy got sick and died.
   41. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:13 AM (#3386734)
My point is that Joss is MUCH better than Koufax WITHOUT such adjustments. The consensus in this group appears to be adjust for the innings difference and not for the death.


When was Joss the best pitcher in his league? Koufax was the best pitcher in baseball for a 4-5 year stretch.

Joss doesn't come close to Koufax, IMO.
   42. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 13, 2009 at 03:20 PM (#3386809)
I don't think that's a good approach, Joe Dimino. None of the Glavine/Brown/Schilling/Mussina/Smoltz contingent were ever close to the best pitcher in the league outside of their absolute career seasons, because they happened to inhabit the same game as Pedro/Randy/Clemens/Maddux. Some of that is standard deviations, but most of it is just a strong cohort.
   43. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2009 at 03:45 PM (#3386838)
If he had been the best pitcher in his league for multiple years we would have elected him already.
   44. Paul Wendt Posted: November 13, 2009 at 07:49 PM (#3387205)
7. Kirby Puckett, CF. The Carlos Beltran centerfielder discussion a while back got me to take an extra look at Kirby Puckett and the other centerfielders of the past 25 years. I now think Puckett is more deserving than the 1890s cohort and moved him up accordingly.
...
11. Hugh Duffy, CF. The best of the eligible 1890s centerfielders- though Ryan is closer than I remembered. Another great eight-year prime (1890-1897) with both offensive and defensive value. Falls a bit as I think we've overlooked the 1980s centerfielders, Kirby Puckett and Dale Murphy.


Chris Fluit,
You didn't vote for Dale Murphy. Right?
   45. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:10 PM (#3387234)
Not this time, but he moved into my top twenty.
   46. Paul Wendt Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:14 PM (#3387243)
oops, #44 quotes Chris Fluit #29. So does this.

4. Dave Concepcion, SS. I love prime candidates, especially shortstops. An OPS+ of 101 in 5883 plate attempts from 1973-82.

bang ... croft


add: perhaps I could not edit #44 ("Invalid ...") because Fluit had replied while I was underway
   47. Chris Fluit Posted: November 13, 2009 at 09:18 PM (#3387338)
I like Bancroft, too. I didn't post my #16-25 this time (though I usually did in the past) but Bancroft is in there. I had him as the weakest of the top quartet of shortstops behind Lundy, Concepcion and Rizzuto (and yes, I know that Lundy is now elected so it's a top trio now).

Care to guess who else is in my next ten?
   48. Paul Wendt Posted: November 14, 2009 at 01:37 AM (#3387509)
Herman Long and Bert Campaneris.
maybe Joe Tinker, Rabbit Maranville, Tony Fernandez

Thirdbasemen don't rate the same.
No Ed Williamson, Bob Elliott, or Ron Cey and no comment on newly eligible Robin Ventura.
   49. Chris Fluit Posted: November 15, 2009 at 01:16 AM (#3387885)
Ha! Good try. I don't have that many shortstops in my top twenty-five. But throw Artie Wilson and Dick Bartell in there and you'd be pretty close to my shortstop rankings.

I mentioned a number of the other players in my current top twenty-five: McGriff, Taylor, Cravath, Tiant and now Murphy and Bancroft. The ones who haven't been uncovered yet are second basemen Bill Monroe (knocked off by the new eligibles) and Fred Dunlap, top available catcher Elston Howard and pitcher Burleigh Grimes (knocked off by Bucky Walters).
   50. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 04:03 AM (#3388340)
I don't think that's a good approach, Joe Dimino. None of the Glavine/Brown/Schilling/Mussina/Smoltz contingent were ever close to the best pitcher in the league outside of their absolute career seasons, because they happened to inhabit the same game as Pedro/Randy/Clemens/Maddux. Some of that is standard deviations, but most of it is just a strong cohort.


Well, if you are comparing someone with a short career, on peak to Sandy Koufax - he'd better stand out a lot more amongst his cohort that Joss did. That's part of what makes Koufax Koufax.

Pedro would hold up just fine under that kind of scrutiny, which is why he'll go sailing in with his 2800 IP. Joss, on the other hand, does not.

That was the point.
   51. Daryn Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:09 PM (#3388693)
I value career over peak, but can be entranced by a great prime. I look at traditional statistics, ERA+, OPS+, Win Shares and Ink. Equally importantly, I read everything on this board and incorporate all that work into my analysis, whether it is RSI, MLEs, PenAdds, simple comparisons of candidates or anything else.

1. Roberto Alomar -- I am a little biased, since he is one of my favourite all time players. I saw him play over 500 times and I am convinced his defence was very, very good. Obviously WinShares and WARP like him a lot, so I am not out on a limb here.

2. Barry Larkin -- amazingly underrated by the mainstream. People tend not to realize how rare good hitting is from a middle infielder.

3. Lou Brock – I think the post season value and the tremendous speed puts him ahead of the similar long-career peakless Beckley, who, of course, is now in our Hall.

4. Mickey Welch – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his dominating record against HoMers.

5. Tony Perez – 34th all-time in total bases, no black ink – the weight of his career totals push him above what otherwise looks like a definitional bubble candidate’s resume.

6. Burleigh Grimes – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between Rixey and Faber (both now elected) and Grimes.

7. Dick Redding – probably the 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind the Fosters and Brown), and that is good enough for me.

8. Tommy John – not too far from Grimes, a step above Kaat (at 19). No credit for the surgery, but medical pioneers (even the guinea pigs) get my respect.

9. Addie Joss – I don’t like short careers much, but I cannot ignore the best WHIP of all-time, the second best all-time ERA, the 12th best ERA+ and the nice winning percentage.

10. Fred McGriff -- most would agree with me that he is definitely better than Rice, with his substantially longer peak (though many of those people would have both 50 spots lower). He could be much higher as I really like the consistent shape of his career. It doesn't bother me that he plied his trade among many other great firstbasemen (see my comment on Tiant, who is pushed off the ballot by McGriff).

11. Jim Rice – I like the 77-79 peak. I like the runs created in his ten+ year prime and I like his overall totals. I do adjust raw totals significantly, but I think people are holding Fenway too much against him. From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the American League in total games played, at-bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging percentage, total bases, extra-base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games, and outfield assists.

12. Dave Parker – I think he is very similar to Rice, but I like Rice’s peak better. Their career counting stats impress me.

13. Albert Belle – I thought I would love him. What a peak! I hope the peaksters put him high, but as a career voter, this is as high as he can get for me.

14. Sam Rice -- 2987 hits speaks to me, but not even the best starch on the ballot.

15. Orlando Cepeda – He is a very difficult choice for me because he isn’t significantly better than Howard, Colavito and Cash, but the slight difference means 20+ spaces on this ballot.

16. Luis Tiant – I don’t have a problem with 11 pitchers from the 70s making our Hall. Talent isn’t evenly distributed and I have no problem with acknowledging value attached to favourable conditions.

17. Pie Traynor -- I think he would have been a multiple time all-star.

18. Harold Baines – 32nd all time in total bases, the DHing keeps him well behind Perez. I see him as a better candidate than Staub.

19. Jim Kaat
20. Lance Parrish
21. Jack Morris
22. Aparicio -- those 1000 extra outs separate him from Fox, as does the poorer defence.
23. Rusty Staub
24. George Van Haltren – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.
25. Jimmy Ryan – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs. Hurt by timelining.
26. Dizzy Dean
27. Tommy Leach – 300+ WS has to mean something.

Edgar falls somewhere behind Baines.

Walters -- He is about sixth of my off-ballot pitchers, which puts him in the high 40s.

Leach -- 27th on my ballot, though a very fine line separates Leach from Traynor (who is 17th). They used to be adjacent to each other on the ballot.

Cravath -- I like the idea of Cravath but don't trust the translations enough to put him in my top 40

Cone -- he isn't much behind Joss or Dean, but I could say that about a handful of players. There are razor thin differences separating the 250th best player from the 350th best player and I don't pretend to know where to draw the line.

Scooter -- I don't see him as a top 50 candidate, but I am sure I am undervaluing middle infield defence from his era. I get mocked for having Aparicio so high, but I'll take his longevity (and, I believe, a better glove) over the 11 points of OPS+ he cedes to Rizzutto.
   52. Yardape Posted: November 17, 2009 at 08:33 AM (#3389235)
More introduction can be found on post 240 and 241 of the ballot discussion thread. I have revised my ballot somewhat based on comments there.

1. Barry Larkin The best combination on the ballot. Great prime. Somewhat short career, due partially to durability issues, but not nearly enough of an issue to seriously hamper his candidacy on my ballot.

2. Roberto Alomar Moves up one spot from my prelim. I tend to believe his glove was not as good as advertised, but I doubt he was bad. With average defense, I think he tops everyone on the ballot but Larkin.

3. Sal Bando His looks like another great prime to me, even if adjusted for expansion. Does fairly well against his cohort. Though he's prime-centric, has a decent career as well.

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. Frank Chance Jumps one spot over Hershiser. I feel more confident that Chance among the best of his time than Hershiser. If only he could have stayed on the field...but then he wouldn't be on this ballot.

7. 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.

8. Kevin Appier I get to vote for a 2002 Angel, which is cool. At the time, I would never have guessed I'd have him this close to Cone on a HoM ballot, but I guess that's because his Angels time was well after his (overlooked) peak.

9. Al Rosen Textbook peak case, basically. Four outstanding seasons and nothing else. I favour peak so he makes my ballot, heading a line of other peak candidates.

10. Dizzy Dean Like Dean.

11. Dale Murphy And Murphy, who has more career than Rosen but a less impressive peak (IMO). Since peak is what's getting them both here, Murphy ranks just below.

12. 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.

13. Edgar Martinez Knocked down because I'm not sure the different stat systems have accurately figured out how to value a (mostly) pure DH yet. In fact, I'm slightly surprised he makes my ballot at all, but he was a really great hitter.

14. Buddy Bell He looked like a career candidate to me at first glance, but his prime is pretty respectable too.

15. Tommy Bond Drops from my prelim as I struggle with where to place him. The 1870s were a different game. Much of the pitching credit probably belongs to the defense. Still, Bond stands out among his peers for a period of time. I think he belongs on the ballot; I'll have another year to decide if I'm right.

Top Ten returnees not on my ballot:
Phil Rizzuto: Looks like a career candidate to me, not the kind I favour.

Gavy Cravath: I'm sympathetic. He's got a good prime. He's got some non-ML seasons of note, which are the interesting sorts of stories I love about this project. Yet he just comes up short for me. If I have time in this next year, I promise to try to take a closer look at Gavy.

Tommy Leach: Somewhere in the 20-30 range on my ballot (which is not exactly ordered after the top 15).

Bucky Walters: Taking some credit from him and giving it to his defense knocks his prime down enough to keep him off my ballot.

Luis Tiant: I was harsh on him in my preliminary comments, then had to take a closer look. Now he's hanging out with Rick Reuschel and Leroy Matlock in the "he could go on my ballot, but who would I knock off?" club.
   53. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 17, 2009 at 01:03 PM (#3389267)
I'm planning to write up my ballot next Monday when I get back from vacation. But just in case something goes screwy with my travel plans, I have a draft in post #284 of the discussion thread. If I don't post again by the deadline, use that.
   54. sunnyday2 Posted: November 17, 2009 at 02:22 PM (#3389280)
You guys should look at the Discussion Thread where there's a new prelim ballot to vette. We should do that sooner than later out of respect to the new fellow, name of epoc.
   55. mystikx20 Posted: November 19, 2009 at 03:33 AM (#3390856)
@chris "then why aren't you voting for Andy Cooper, Leon Day and Hilton Smith. It seems inconsistent that you would accept the HoF's negative opinion on one Negro League player but not their positive opinion on three others. On the other hand, if it's possible that the HoF was mistaken in including Andy Cooper, isn't it also possible that they were mistaken in excluding Dick Redding?"

I will clarify a couple points
1) I don't regard HoF positive opinions in cases where I had/have access to a sufficient amount of data. I have seen less reliable data for Redding's actual performance than for Day or Smith.
2) I don't plan on voting for people who I have an access to reliable data to that aren't as impressive. There are a huge number of people the HoF voters have had positive opinions on that I am underwhelmed by (ie almost all of Frisch's picks) and several who have in my opinion overwhelming cases to be included and are not as yet in the actual hall (ie, Blyleven and Raines). It is certainly possible that the Hall's positive opinions in this case were merely that, opinions. And unsupported upon solid data that they had and could look it critically to make some stronger more reliable or consistent judgments.
3) As a result, if I have only data sets I regard skeptically without some other data set that corroborates it with some greater reliability, such as Cravath's actual playing numbers next to his MLEs or Pesky or Rizzuto receiving war credit next to their actual numbers then, as I said, I am open to numerical persuasion. Judging the data in that case as open to interpretation rather than as a hard and fast factor for or against inclusion. One such persuasion however is still the opinions of critical observers, such as Hall of Fame commissions with access to (better) data. The cited examples you have made are also useful persuasions (the SABR study in particular). There are very few players for which this sort of unsupported opinion and assumption is necessary; primarily borderline cases who rely on MLE type credit to get votes at all.
4) Redding has, in my opinion, an interesting case to get a top 15 vote from virtually any voter and I think his relative ranking over the past few years of balloting suggests that this isn't an unpopular conclusion to reach. Smith and Day I think deserve top 100 looks, but not necessarily top 15 votes. Again, their relative lack of support here would suggest this is a frequently reached assessment. I did not vote for Redding in this instance because I was not overwhelmed with his case relative to other pitchers in the backlog. It's possible this assessment was wrong or at least incomplete and I suggested as much in my vote. I think it is sufficient to say that cases like this are very hard to quantify accurately enough.
   56. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2009 at 06:26 PM (#3391250)
9 ballots in, 4 days left. Haven't heard from Chris Cobb and he left a prelim in the discussion thread.
   57. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2009 at 06:46 PM (#3391276)
Also prelims in the discussion thread from Rusty Priske, Bleed the Freak, HGM, epoc and Juan V.
   58. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2009 at 07:00 PM (#3391294)
Noticeable for their ballot absence:

Dan R
'zop
AJM
Rick A
rawagman
dan b
Brock Hanke
Al Peterson
ronw
Sean Gilman
jimd
Patrick W
Rob Wood
Kenn
Mike Webber
yest
Mark Donelson
Brent
Tiboreau
Ken Fischer
Esteban Rivera
TomH
Devin
mulder & scully
SWW
Max Parkinson

I'm not worried about John Murphy or Joe D voting. Still, we're really light with 4 days left.
   59. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 19, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3391379)
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. 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.

8. 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.

9. Gavvy Cravath (14) – 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 5 spots. Dropped two spots from prelim – projecting his career value is extremely challenging, but he lands here this year.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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. Newest version of WARP cautions me about his placement…moved from 8th on prelim to 12th.

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. Doc Gooden (NR) – Sublime 1985 – maybe the greatest ever. 1984 ~Top 10, 1986 #1 starter season, forming excellent three year peak, 87, 90, 91, 93, all-start type seasons, filler seasons in 88, 92. Like Hershiser, one of the finest hitting pitchers of his time frame. Rock solid PA totals, excellent FIP too.

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 – Tommy Leach (8th last year, I had slightly overstated his case, but PHOM) and 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 (15th last year, not sure he was quite that valuable)

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

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

1990s – Kevin Appier, Albert Belle, and Robin Ventura
   60. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 19, 2009 at 10:45 PM (#3391740)
I don't think 'zop or I ever voted before the last day. Why would we start now?
   61. Mark Donelson Posted: November 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM (#3391756)
I’m a peak voter, though a formidable prime and/or a superstrong career can overwhelm those preferences. I lean on WS for hitters, with OPS+, some of DanR’s WARP, and a lot of defensive adjustment thrown in as well. For starting pitchers, I use PRAA, with some ERA+ adjustments, and both DanR’s numbers and a little WS for good measure. For relievers, I’ve adopted mostly a mix of career total PRAA and year-by-year peak PRAA, with an emphasis on the latter.

The positional ballots this year, along with the big shifts in BP’s figures, led to some big shifts, but most of them happened off-ballot, if just barely so (mainly because I hadn’t quite become a full Reuschel believer yet, so he was about to get on my ballot but hadn’t quite). There were also some minor on-ballot shifts, but those were must less radical.

pHOM: Alomar, Larkin, Richie Ashburn

2010 ballot:

1. Roberto Alomar (pHOM 2010). This placement is a combination of peak-voterism and my lack of faith in the “his fielding was lousy” meme. I’m among those choosing to split the difference and guess he was an average-to-slightly-above fielder; that plus the peak years put him just a hair above Larkin.

2. Barry Larkin (pHOM 2010). Which is not to say this guy’s not an easy selection too. More of a prime than my preferred level of peak, but the defense at this position more than makes up for that.

3. Ed Williamson (pHOM 1931). A lost cause, but still the best of the backlog 3Bs, for my taste. Great peak on both offense and defense.

4. Don Newcombe (pHOM 2008). While doesn’t seem at first to have the peak I usually look for—which has been what had always held him back for me—the era and the various factors blocking his career are likely responsible for most of that lack. Now that I’m sold on him, I’m really sold.

5. Elston Howard (pHOM 1976). The various extenuating circumstances of his career can’t hide the great (if short) peak. I still prefer him slightly to Bresnahan (who’s also in my pHOM).

6. Johnny Pesky (pHOM 1997). With war credit for both, I prefer his peak/prime to Rizzuto’s, and I prefer them both by a great margin over the other backlog SS candidates.

7. Gavvy Cravath (pHOM 1985). Yes, he dominated partially because of his stadium, but I can’t see why I should penalize him for that. With minor-league credit—which I think he deserves—I’ve always felt he’s a pretty easy choice.

8. Luis Tiant (pHOM 1991). He wasn't Carlton/Niekro/Perry/Jenkins—too inconsistent, not good enough long enough—but he packed enough brilliance into several years.

9. Al Rosen (pHOM 1968). The vote that proves my peakster-ism once and for all. Very short peak, obviously, but five great years, especially at 3B, are enough for me.

10. Phil Rizzuto (pHOM 2004). Thanks in large part to DanR, I’ve come around on his defense as world-class as opposed to merely good…which brings him to my ballot. With this view of his fielding, he’s very similar to Pesky in overall value, though still slightly behind him.

11. David Cone (pHOM 2008). With strike-year credit and postseason credit, he’s awfully similar to guys like Stieb, though he falls short of Saberhagen.

12. Ken Singleton (pHOM 1997). Another of the “I had no idea he was this good at the time” gang—I think he was the player most felt Jim Rice was back then. In my system, judged only on offense, Singleton matches up well with Clemente and is better than Stargell.

13. Dizzy Dean (pHOM 1967). Another really short peak, but he was inarguably dominant during it. It’s just long enough (and high enough for that brief period) for me. WARP’s revisions make the gap between Dean and the likes of Rucker and Hahn a bit larger again. (Which is a shame in a way--it would have been fun to vote for a guy named "Noodles.")

14. Albert Belle (pHOM 2006). I originally expected him to be at the top of my ballot, but his offensive numbers weren’t quite as fantastic for quite as long as I’d remembered (mind you, they’re still pretty remarkable). I see him as falling short of the Kiner/Keller types, but still good enough to make my pHOM.

15. Tommy Leach (pHOM 2006). Always a tough guy to evaluate (not so many CF-3B hybrids these days), but I’ve always liked his peak. Finally made my ballot recently after hanging around for a long time just off it.

16-20: [Ashburn (pHOM 2010)], Redding (1975), D. Murphy, Gomez (1987), Appier, Duffy (1930)
21-25: [Dw. Evans], G. Burns, Clarkson, E. Martinez, Doyle (1995), Hershiser
26-30: Bo. Bonds, Viola, [Sewell], Bando, Cicotte (1972), D. Parker
31-35: [Boyer], H. Smith, [Whitaker], D. Leonard, Avila, [Dawson], Hiller, Dunlap
36-40: McCormick, Puckett, Hahn, Berger, P. Guerrero
41-45: L. Smith, Elliott, Rucker, Cepeda, [Carey], Sutter
46-50: Munson, Reuschel, E. Martinez, Joss, Stephens, Walters (1968)

Required Explanations and Newbies:
I suspect it was just a peaky electorate last time out, but there are a lot fewer of these than usual!

•Walters. He’s in my pHOM, but got demoted some years back for not being demonstrably better than other not-yet-pHOMed guys; Chris Cobb’s somewhat recent analysis gave him another drop, as did the changes in WARP. He’s now at the very bottom of my top 50, and I consider him a pHOM mistake (someday perhaps I’ll go back and rectify those).

•Redding. He’s in my pHOM too, and him I still like, but there are still a few other pitchers I like better. He’s just barely off-ballot at #16.

•Edgar Martinez. A fantastic hitter, yes, and not the fielding black hole he’s usually theorized to be. But still, mostly a hitter, and to my surprise a bit short on the peak I’d want from someone of that description. (The minor-league credit I give him, but it doesn’t help his peak appreciably.) Debuts at #23.

•Fred McGriff. Again, a nice (and underappreciated) prime and career, but not quite up to what I’m looking for in terms of peak from a 1B. Just outside my top 50.

•Robin Ventura. Better than I realized, certainly, but nowhere near enough peak. Not terribly close to my top 50.
   62. Paul Wendt Posted: November 20, 2009 at 12:04 AM (#3391845)
57. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2009 at 12:46 PM (#3391276)
Also prelims in the discussion thread from Rusty Priske, Bleed the Freak, HGM, epoc and Juan V.

and fra paolo and devin who have not yet posted in this thread
   63. Esteban Rivera Posted: November 20, 2009 at 04:07 AM (#3391985)
I'm around but my regular computer died a week and a half ago and my backup files are at work. I've been on vacation these past two weeks and haven't been able to get them. I'll try to get what i can from my flash drives and go from there. Let's see if I can have a ballot by Sunday.
   64. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2009 at 02:25 AM (#3393126)
2010 ballot - our (and my) 113th since we began this version of the journey in 2003 (real time) with an "1898" ballot.

props to any other remaining "voting Ripkens" as well.

I had last year's electees Henderson-JMcGraw-ReSmith 1-xx-4 on my ballot.

The annual fine print: Overall, I think there is too much emphasis on WARP3 and WS, which are intriguing tools but which are not yet sufficiently mature.
So my fondness (but not blind allegiance by any means, especially where durability is an issue) for ERA+ and OPS+ helps, I think, as a reality check. Increasingly, I've had to adjust for PAs/IP per season, not really an issue in earlier years when nearly all the big stars played almost every day or pitched a ton of innings.
I tend to be mostly prime-oriented with hitters, and prime and career with pitchers. But a huge peak sometimes catches my eye, and a remarkably long hitting career also works for me.
Unlike a lot of voters, I've run out of "pet projects" to tout aggressively for the Hall of Merit.

1. BARRY LARKIN - 116 OPS+ in 9057 PA - he could walk into the HOM even if he was just a so-so fielder. 1995, he is MVP for a .319-15-66-133 OPS+. A year later, he goes an incredible .298-33-89-154 OPS+ with 60 more PA than 1995 - and finishes 12th in the voting, lol. 116 career OPS+ in 9057 PA, to Trammell's 110 in 9375. Barry had a little left when he quit (101 OPS+), too. Larkin does have to be dinged for durability, certainly - only reached 600 PA in 6 seasons. But compare to Joe Cronin - ranks 10th in our all-time HOM SS voting, 119 OPS+ in 8838 PA.

2. DAVID CONE - Extremely similar to HOMer Dave Stieb. I like him better than HOMer Saberhagen, 8 major prime seasons to Saberhagen's 5. I suspect people are underrating Cone's remarkable 1994, giving not enough credit on a strike-ruined season. 175-96 from 1988-99. Even won all 5 of his World Series starts, with a 2.12 ERA. It seems fair to say that we are a bit low on HOM SPs, as well.

3. ROBERTO ALOMAR - Career-high 150 OPS+ at age 33, looks like he'll cruise right into the Hall of Fame and Merit. Then - off a cliff. 89-80-81 OPS+s in 1500+ PAs, and done. Still, he opened with 14 full-time seasons, 5 of them 129 OPS+ and up - and without Larkin's durability problems, to say the least. 116 OPS+ in 10400 PA.
Compare to Ryne Sandberg - 114 OPS+ in 9282 PA, and ranks 9th among our 21 HOM 2Bs. Or Billy Herman, 112 OPS+ in 8641 PA (then add war credit), he's 13th. Geesh, it really does come down to where we rate his fielding, doesn't it?

4. EDGAR MARTINEZ - Almost 30 pct of his playing time was at 3B. 147 OPS+ in 8672 PA, even though first full MLB season was at age 27. Willie Stargell, 147 OPS+ in 9026 PA; he ranked 11th of our 22 HOM LFs. Sherry Magee, 136 OPS+ in 8546 PA, he's 12th. I'd struggle to place Edgar among a lot of HOMers, but this election makes it too easy. I had to debate him vs Alomar, and that's about it.


5. CANNONBALL DICK REDDING - A longtime favorite who climbed his way back onto my ballot in recent years and now finally has climbed back to "elect-me" status at times. I liked him as an all-around candidate, but the HOF research suggests he's more of a peak guy. Those types don't always fare well with me, but I see no better player on the board.
6. FRED MCGRIFF - 134 OPS+ in 10174 PA. Bill Terry, 136 in 7111 PA, he ranks 18th of our 19 HOM 1Bs. Harmon Killebrew, 143 in 9831, ranks 12th. Will Clark, 137 in 8283 PA, ranks 14th with peak and glove factors. I love the 157-166-153-147-166-143-157 prime, all in 600+ PA or equivalent. Tough to beat on this depleted ballot.

7. BOB JOHNSON - I like this sort of consistency over a long span, though I'd hardly say he's a 'must-elect.' Sort of the Joe Gordon of OFs in career shape, or a slightly longer and flatter version of Kiner. Or McGriff without the tail, offensively. I am concerned by 1944 being his highest OPS+; seems like he took advantage of the weak competition, so I discount that a bit. But has more than a decade's worth of excellent hitting, for a prime that I like better than Van Haltren's or almost any other holdover's.
8. BOB ELLIOTT - Good to see him mentioned in a discussion thread starting 6-7 'years' back, at least. Six seasons of at least 134 OPS+, ALL of them as a 3B (Ventura never had any that high). Wish he'd played all 3B and not much OF, but c'est le vie - Sewell seemed to get treated as a full SS by some. Beats out HOMer Boyer (see Boyer thread for details) and compares remarkably well with HOMer Santo as a hitter (see Santo thread for more details). Better than HOMer Hack as well, and better than HOMer DaEvans (see DaEvans thread).

9. BEN TAYLOR - Had meant to reconsider him for years; finally did so 5 yrs ago. Long career, excellent fielder, consistent player. I'm not 100 pct sold on the hitting MLEs, but very good reputation and for sure a quality player. Moves up slightly.
10. VIC WILLIS - Won a Howie SP bakeoff with Grimes and Walters several 'years' ago, with slightly more career than Walters and better peak than Grimes. It's close, but I'll stick with Willis for yet another year.
11. DAVE CONCEPCION - 9th time on my ballot. Peak is as good or better than Fox's; not quite as consistent, but a slick fielder and a very useful offensive weapon many times. Not fully buying the "other teams were stupid enough to play ciphers at the position" argument; that helped the Reds win pennants, but Concepcion can't get full credit for that stupidity. But he needs the modest credit in that regard to outlast Rizzuto. Similar case to Bancroft, whose prime I preferred in other years to Concepcion's length. It's close.
12. DAVE BANCROFT - Not sure if I ever voted for him before 10 years ago. But look at the prime: fantastic fielder at SS, with OPS+s of 120-19-19-09-09-09-04. Won a fresh 3-way evaluation vs Fox and Concepcion at one point, then fell to Davey. Similar to Randolph, but an SS.

13. KEN SINGLETON - Bob Johnson-like, but not quite as good for quite as long. Equally underappreciated in his time.
14. KIRBY PUCKETT - Good prime for a CF, but not amazing. I had said if I wasn't sold on him being an excellent defensive CF in his first 6-8 years, he'd drop a bit. And now I believe his defensive prime didn't last that long, so he has dropped slowly but surely. I'll pass on the intangibles, but he holds his own against BobBonds offensively, for instance, and has just enough at the finish line to pass DaMurphy on long prime.
15. BUCKY WALTERS - 4th pitcher on my ballot. Seemed to get Jim Palmer-like defensive support, without enough super-stats to make that irrelevant. Proved his mettle outside of 'war years.' Lemon-esque, though I wasn't a big fan there.


AMONG THE TOP 10 RETURNEES, BUT I'M NOT VOTING FOR THEM (YET)

PHIL RIZZUTO - I'll grant a lot of war credit and stipulate to the great, great fielding. But even 3 war credit years gets him only to 13 main years, and the fielding made him above-average overall but not excellent in most seasons. Yet at closer look, similar case to Concepcion when you cancel out the irrelevant parts. Throw in his lengthy career as a beloved broadcaster, and it's bizarre that he ever gets mentioned as one of the Hall of Fame's awful picks. There are literally dozens of worse ones.
GAVVY CRAVATH - Have voted for him before; do give him some minor league credit, absolutely. A reasonable pick; I just think that not only did he get a huge boost from the Baker Bowl, others could have done the same. Anyone else who has THIS much more MLB production in his 30s than his 20s? Not many.
TOMMY LEACH - I (barely) voted for him dozens of times, never quite warmed up to him. I wish some of the 3B-OF Leach-lovers compared him to my pet Elliott. Career 109 OPS+ here, and absolutely no decline-oriented mirage. Quite the fungible player past age 30. A guy who makes some stat systems look bad if you do a reality check.
LUIS TIANT - Looks like he has the peak at first glance, but notice that the IP just aren't quite there. Plenty good when he did pitch, but with that lack of innings you have to be even more dominant. Maybe he winds up as the era's last P electee, but probably not. A favorite of rate-voters.
RICK REUSCHEL - Unquestionably a lot better than we realized when he watched his career. 1997 is the lone "can't help but notice" year, with 20 W, 2nd in ERA+, 7th in IP, etc. Aside from that, a combo of workhorse seasons with some great-rate but non-workhorse seasons. A dozen 200+ IP seasons. But ruined by only being able to pitch 113 total IP at age 33-34-35; coulda made my ballot with a little more oomph.

JUST MISSED
DALE MURPHY - His modest fan club will be saddened that he fell off my ballot. A different peak-primieness than Belle, and a different fade as well.
ORLANDO CEPEDA - Suddenly popped up on my ballot 10 years ago with the reevaluation. Had been losing out to Perez with positional consideration, but closer look shows a sterling top-4 and top-10 offensive line. DH opportunity added nothing to his case.
BURLEIGH GRIMES - Compare to Ruffing, Rixey, Wynn and other such HOM pitchers - ok, Sutton, too. I dismissed him as short of Rixey and Ruffing, and he was. But he's just one 130 ERA+ year short of climbing onto this ballot. Better peak than Tommy John, and a lot more durable relative to his era.
ROBIN VENTURA - Great fielder, so ahead of better-hitting Cey. A plausible pick; I just ask for a little more offense or a little more career. Underrated.
RON CEY - In the past I have had him over Nettles and Bell and nearly on the ballot, but that's because I may like his fielding better than most. Closest of the trio to Bando in hitting.
LEE SMITH - Very tough one. 10 seasons I really like a lot, only 1 or 2 I love. Sutter has more to love, less to like. A lot of RPs do. Off my ballot, but may get back into consideration.
ALBERT BELLE - Eerily Kiner-esque and Keller-esque, and I like if not love these mashers. Wouldacoudashoulda been such an easy pick if not for the sudden career crash. It is true that in subsequent years even more of these types have proliferated.
   65. Rick A. Posted: November 21, 2009 at 03:08 AM (#3393171)
Nice to be voting again.
I am a Peak/prime voter, although pure career candidates can sneak through at important defensive positions. I tend to look at WS, OPS+, ERA+, adjusted IP, ranking within position per season.
PHOM
Roberto Alomar
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez

2010 Ballot
1. Roberto Alomar - In season durability moves him over Barry Larkin.
2. Barry Larkin - Clear HOMer
3. Vic Willis - Think we missed the boat on him. Decent prime valu with some peak seasons mixed in.
4. Hugh Duffy - Best eligible 1890's OFer.
5. Burleigh Grimes - Long career, better than Rixey.
6. Ed Williamson - Nice peak and good defense.
7. Dick Redding - Moved down a few slots.
8. Edgar Martinez - Great hitter. Would've been near top if he could have played 3rd more.
9. Bucky Walters - Moved down slightly, but still very good peak.
10. Ken Singleton
11. Dizzy Dean - Peak value candidate.
12. Elston Howard
13. Bruce Sutter - Very high peak value. I like him better than Lee Smith.
14. Thurman Munson - We seem to be short catchers, better than Bresnahan(who is also in my PHOM)
15. Don Newcombe - Gets extra credit.

New candidates
Fred McGriff - Best eligble 1st baseman, but misses my ballot.
Robin Ventura - od offense and very good defense. Below Boyer(who is not in my PHOM)

Required Dsclosures
Phil Rizzuto - I've really warmed up to Rizzuto as a candidate. Just outside my PHOM.
Gavy Cravath - In my PHOM.
David Cone - Moved up some, but still misses my ballot.
Luis Tiant - Just don't see it with him. Prefer Cone, John and Pierce(who isn't in my PHOM yet)

Off the ballot
16-20 Cravath,Leach,Easter,Bond,Rosen
21-25 W.Cooper,Mays,Rizzuto,Matlock,McGriff
26-30 Belle,L.Smith,Monroe,Murphy,F.Jones
31-35 Scales,Parrish,Puckett,Mattingly,Johnson
36-40 Perez,Traynor,Elliott,Pesky,Mullane
41-45 John,Shocker,Cone,Clarkson,H.Smith
46-50 F.Howard,Bando,Bell,Quisenberry,M.Williams
   66. bjhanke Posted: November 21, 2009 at 08:41 AM (#3393313)
I will get a ballot in by Monday sometime, although I need a deadline hour, as I'll have my back against the wall this time. I missed a month, literally, to a cold followed by a savage flu. Then there were the things I had to do to catch up (like pay my bills), then there were concerts (Rob Zombie, Raquy and the Cavemen), and my birthday is Nov. 20, which ended tonight. So, I've got a weekend of work ahead of me, especially as I'm going to do (well, finish) a several-hour look at 1880s pitchers. - Brock
   67. Juan V Posted: November 21, 2009 at 07:06 PM (#3393505)
Time to get busy.

Re-clarification of my system: I am an OPS+ times PA voter at heart, and that is the base of my position player system. I also borrow plenty from Dan R's work for fielding and baserunning, and somewhat less for positional replacement levels.

After building up and tearing down my pitcher system many times, I have decided to borrow Joe's calculation of NRA, to which I also add defense adjustments based on DERA, which I regress to the mean.

For both systems, peak and career are weighted by a JAWS-like formula.

PHOM: The two new middle infielders, plus Wes Ferrell.

1) Barry Larkin: In my top 10 of shortstops so far, and likely to remain there even after A-Rod and Jeter show up.

2) Fred Dunlap: Of course, the bulk of his case is in that 1884 monstrosity, which would be in the "best individual season ever" discussion if made in a "major" (no translations or discounts necessary) league. Sure, the UA discount takes a lot of air out of that, but even a 50% discount makes it an amazing season.

But even immediately before and after brutalizing the UA he was an excellent player, providing 10 WARP seasons four times (the schedule length adjustment and the timeline roughly cancel each other out in the translation to WARP3). Sure, he declined quickly after that, but that still makes the best peak available in the backlog.

3) Luis Tiant: In my many rebuilds of my pitching system, he was the constant high scorer among backloggers, which makes me confident on his case. Participant in the Year of The Pitcher festivities. Excellent at unearned run prevention, compared to his era.

4) Babe Adams: Sure, his defense helped him quite a bit (although the debate on Wagner's glove puts the size of the bit in question for the first half of his career), but I think the bulk of his run prevention was really his. Funny career shape, what happened to him in 1917?

5) Eddie Cicotte: Probably the best pitching peak left. Probably would be in both Halls by now if he had not, you know.

6) David Cone: The difference between him and Saberhagen is a bit of peak.

7) Vic Willis: The placement of Adams above states my opinion on the run prevention of the deadball-era Pirates. Besides that possible caveat, I see a solid HOM candidate.

8) David Concepción: I believe that something systematic was going on with shortstops in the 70's and 80's, so his offensive numbers gain extra value because of that. And plenty of glove goodness too.

9) Rick Reuschel: I'm bought. Got no favors from his defenses, hiding how good he really was.

10) Kevin Appier: Cone was hurt by his defenses, Appier was aided by them. Beyond this, they seem quite similar. Doing some quick calculations, I wouldn't be upset with 11 HOM starters from the 90's (It depends on how the guys currently in their late 20s/early 30s end up, however).

11) Albert Belle: Pretty nice hitter for a while. Enough bat-driven peak to ignore the lack of career IMO.

12) Roberto Alomar: Having him this low surprises me, to be honest. The reasons are the generally negative stat-head reviews of his fielding, and the relatively high replacement level for 2B in the Nineties, as argued by Dan R.

13) Phil Rizzuto: An earlier generation's Concepción?

14) Gavvy Cravath: An old friend returns to my ballot courtesy of Dan's newest work. It all depends on him being merely below average in the field, as opposed to awful.

15) Bob Johnson: Probably the best glove among pure bats in the backlog, which boost his not quite peaky, not quite careery case.

Tommy Leach is, literally, the sixteenth man.

Walters is one I just don't get. He seems to have too many breaks against him, like his defenses and the war. About 150th (!)

I don't think we know enough about Cannonball Dick, and what is in his thread doesn't look like a HOMer to me, although there could be one. Around 60th
   68. dan b Posted: November 22, 2009 at 01:23 AM (#3393653)
I start with a half peak/half career WS system with tendency to favor peak. I am also influenced by NHBA rankings. Whereas James looked at 3 best years and 5 consecutive years, I also look at 8 best years and 10 consecutive years. I look for hitters who would be above the median of already enshrined HoMers.

PHoM 2010 – Larkin, Alomar, Nettles

1. Larkin PHoM 2010. NHBA has him #6 SS, I wouldn’t put him that high, but still Top 10.
2. Alomar PHoM 2010. Above the HoM median in career, 3 year and 8 year peaks.
3. Walters PHoM 1968. Nice peak – 3 WS Cy Youngs, 1 runner up. One more big year than Dean.
4. Dean PHoM 1976. 1975 reevaluation of great pitching peaks put him on my ballot for the first time. 2 WS Cy Youngs, 1 runner up. Pitchers from the period 1934-1947 are under represented. Dean and Walters would help bring balance. NHBA #25 pitcher.
5. Rizzuto PHoM 1995. 1993 reevaluation moved him up. Stark says he is overrated, but Stark didn’t give him any war credit. NHBA #16.
6. Singleton PHoM 1997. Not many players on ballot with 3-32+ and 6-27+ WS seasons. Above HoM median for best 5 consecutive seasons.
7. Mays, C PHoM 1997. His era could also use another pitcher. A quality pitcher we are overlooking. WS comparison with 1938 inductee Stan Coveleski shows them to be nearly identical in value. Ten best seasons:
Carl 35-31-30-27-25-22-20-20-17-11;
Stan 35-32-30-29-25-23-22-16-16-12.
Similarity scores agree. NHBA #38.
8. Cravath PHoM 1967. With mle credit Gavvy is above the HoM median using 5 consecutive seasons, 10 consecutive seasons, 3 best and 8 best seasons.
9. Murphy PHoM 2002. 4 consecutive seasons with 30+ WS. Right at the HoM median for 5 consecutive years.
10. Duffy PHoM 1912. Compared with the median level of already enshrined HoMers using WS, Duffy would be in the top half using 5 consecutive seasons, 10 consecutive seasons, 3 best and 8 best seasons. If WS overrate him, then so do I.
11. Burns, G. PHoM 1996. Above the HoM median in 5 and 10 consecutive peaks and 3 best years.
12. Cone PHoM 2009. Will we have fewer pitchers from the 90’s than from the 50’s when there were roughly half as many teams? Probably not, but it could be close. I would put the in/out line for pitchers of the 90’s here.
13. Grimes PHoM 2009. Change in the way I evaluate pitching finds one I had previously underrated. 4 big years. By WS, his 4th best year is better than the 4th best year turned in by Grove, Hubbell, and Plank. The 8 year period from 1917-1924 is under represented by MLB pitchers. Mays, Cooper and Grimes would fix that.
14. Cooper, W PHoM 1942. Returned to my ballot in 1995 after 44-year hiatus. His peak was during a thinly recognized period. 1 WS Cy Young, 3 times runner up. Willis may have been better, but his era is more strongly represented.
15. Newcombe PHoM 1998. Unlike the pitchers I have placed higher, his era is well represented, but compares favorably to some of his already enshrined peers.

Disclosures:

16. Leach - PHoM 1926. On or nearly on my ballot for a long time.
Tiant – I think the HoM is light on pitchers. I have Tiant as the 9th best pitcher on the ballot behind the above listed 7 and Vic Willis.
Redding – I think we have the NeL well represented. Lets not over do it.

New guys off ballot:

Martinez and McGriff – OCF has them 4th and 7th with Norm Cash 6th. I agree the 3 are that close, but not quite in my top 30.
   69. JohnQ Posted: November 22, 2009 at 04:58 AM (#3393746)
I use Chone’s War, Warp-3 and Win Shares to make my list of players. I basically follow the Jaffe Jaws system: Career numbers + the 7 best seasons for all 3 systems of measurement. I feel this type of ranking is fair to both career value players and peak value players.

Then I might tweak the results using ops+, play-off contributions, and things like leadership etc.

1-Barry Larkin: Probably the most underrated superstar of the last 20 years. He could field a difficult position, he could hit, he was a leader, a good guy and he stayed with one club his entire career. MLB really dropped the ball not promoting this guy.

2-Roberto Alomar: There was a moment around 2001 where it looked like Alomar might be a top 25 all-time player but he literally fell of a cliff. Still, he was an amazing player who could field and could hit and helped the Blue Jays win back to back WS. People forget the great late peak he had in Cleveland. He probably could have won the MVP in 92 & 99.

3-Edgar Martinez: Boy was he fun to watch and could he hit. Lifetime 147ops+, 1631 runs created. His 147ops+ is second only to D. Allen among non HOF. He was on some great teams, but he never went to a World Series. He should have won the MVP in 1995.

4-Robin Ventura: Underrated player like most 3b. An excellent fielder that could hit but for some reason is mainly remembered for the “Grand Slam Single” and getting beat up by Nolan Ryan. He could have been the MVP of ’99, possibly ’93. He won 6 gold gloves, he should have won more. For some reason the writers decided to give the GG to Wade Boggs in 94-95?

5-Tony Perez: Played forever but what’s often forgotten is his great peak in the late 60’s-early 70’s before the Big Red Machine. 1524 runs created, 122ops+ and 350 win shares. Also, he provided great leadership for those 70’s Reds teams.

6-Bobby Bonds: He might have been the best player in the National League during the first half of the 70’s. A great peak by a dynamic great five tool player that was traded far too often IMO. He was a good fielder with a career 129ops+.

7-Rick Reuschel: Here’s a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, Hitter’s park, bad team, bad defense. Plus he was on the chubby side so people dismissed him as not being a great pitcher. We were wrong and we missed a great show.

8-Fred McGriff: Very good hitter who played forever but peaked early in his career on the Blue Jays. He was able to pad his stats with the Rays. He doesn’t do that well in WAR or Warp, but he has 340 Win Shares, 493 HR. The 1704 runs created (most by any non HOF) is the thing that stands out to me.

9-Jose Cruz: He got stuck in the Astrodome most of his career or he might be in the HOF today. The dome probably cost him .20 points on his batting average. He could field as well as hit and had a career 120ops+ and the 300+ win shares are what stand out to me.

10-Ron Cey: Another underrated 3B and a player who seldom gets the credit he deserves for the the Dodgers 4 National League pennants between the years: 1974-81. He not Garvey was the best player on those teams. He kind of got overshadowed when Schmidt came into his own. He could hit, 121ops+ plus he was a very good fielder in his Dodger days.

11: Jack Clark: I wasn’t a fan of his but he could really hit. He has a career 137ops+ which is the same as Will Clark. He has 300+ win shares and was a big part of the 85 & 87 N.L champion teams; he could have won the ’87 MVP. His 89&90;seasons are often forgotten because of the low scoring late 80’s and playing in San Diego but he put up 148 & 167 ops+.

12: Buddy Bell: He might be the most underrated player of my lifetime. He was excellent fielding third basemen who had career ops+ of 109 and 301 win shares.
He had a great peak that got lost on the 80’s Rangers. He got stuck on some bad teams in some small markets, plus he had the misfortune of playing during the “renaissance” of third basemen and got lost in the shuffle.

13: Phil Rizzuto: Great fielding short stop for many championship seasons and then had a huge 1950 season. Lost 3 seasons because of WW2 and if you’re fair and give him “War Credit” he deserves to be in the HOM.

14: Luit Tiant: Great flamboyant pitcher who was a dominant pitcher in the American League during the late 60’s-70’s. Had a 186era+ season in ’68 and a 170 in 1972. He Does well in WAR, Warp, and Win Shares. He has a Very good peak but its spread out a bit.

15: David Cone: Great big money pitcher who pitched on 5 WS champs. Odd career in that he played for the Royals twice, Mets twice and the Blue Jays twice. His 94 & 95 seasons are better than they appear because of the strike. He lost some time because of an aneurism in 96 and a broken finger in 87. He also had to suffer through the Mets horrible defense of the late 80’s early 90’s. He rates extremely high in WAR, and Warp, not so much in Win Shares. His career ended rather abruptly, plus there were some gaps because of injury and the strike.

Guy’s who missed the Cut:

Tommy Leach: I had him ranked the highest out of the top ten from last year. Hell of a good player but I think there are so many very good third basemen, Ventura, Cey, Bell, Bando, just to name 4 and Bando didn’t even make my list. Then he played Center so I have Cedeno and Murphy rated higher and they didn’t even make my list.

Bucky Walters: Very close, Ranks very high in Win Shares and Warp3 not as good in War. He was a great pitcher but there are a lot of very good-great pitchers. I had Vic Willis, Hershiser, Koosman, John, Tanana, Finley, ahead of him and I had Larry Jackson and Kevin Appier about even.

Gavy Cravath: Strange career. I think the Baker Bowl had a lot to do with his odd career arc. He didn’t start hitting those home runs until he was about 30. He could hit but for me his career is too short, 4600 plate appearances. And I see his 6 home run titles as more of an oddity than an overall great accomplishment.

Dick Redding: There were a lot of very good players on this year’s ballot, which hurt him. He was a Great pitcher with a great story but a tragic ending like most Negro League players.
   70. OCF Posted: November 22, 2009 at 05:53 AM (#3393770)
JohnQ: Are you a first-time HoM voter or are you a previous voter with a changed username?

JohnQ's ballot looks pretty exotic, with several players on it that no one else has voted for. But in terms of consensus score, it looks like it will be pretty close to the average over all voters. It looks like the outlier high consensus score will belong to mystikx20, who I believe is also a new voter. (And karlmagnus will be holding down his usual place.)
   71. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 22, 2009 at 06:33 AM (#3393780)
PHOM - Alomar, Larkin, McGriff

1. Roberto Alomar - Top 10 2B.

2. Barry Larkin - Top 15 SS.

3. Tony Perez - Long career (23rd in games, 34th in total bases, 62nd in runs created) and a nice peak split between third and first.

4. Bucky Walters - Great peak and good career value, 3000+ IP 115 ERA+.

5. Jimmy Ryan - Good hitting center fielder, long career.

6. Fred McGriff - Picked a bad time to be a slugger. Led league in homers with 36 and 35. 7 times top 6 in OPS+.

7. Rusty Staub - Very long career (11th all time in games, 30th all time in ABs) with a decent peak. 59th in career total bases, 72nd in career XBH, 36th in career times on base.

8. Leroy Matlock - MLE's show a pretty good 3000 innings and a nice peak.

9. Dale Murphy - Great hitting centerfielder. Excellent peak from '82-'87.

10. Dizzy Trout - Nice peak. '44 was fantastic, he was robbed of MVP by teammate Newhouser.

11. Bob Johnson - Outstanding hitter, never below a 125 OPS+ in his major league career.

12. Gavvy Cravath - Superb hitter, not much of a defender. Gets a couple of minor league seasons added to his major league totals. 4th on the all time home run list when he retired.

13. Edgar Martinez - Great hitter, no defensive value. Looks like Cravath to me.

14. David Cone - Similar to Saberhagen, but never had a season like Sabes '89.

15. Kirby Puckett - Good hitting, good fielding centerfielder. Not a long career, but a very good peak.

16. Albert Belle
17. Frank Tanana
18. Kevin Appier
19. Lee Smith
20. Buddy Bell
21. Robin Ventura
22. Ken Singleton
23. Bobby Bonds
24. Hugh Duffy
25. George Van Haltren
26. Ceasar Cedeno
27. Dave Parker
28. Brett Butler
29. Vada Pinson
30. Tommy John
31. Norm Cash
32. Lance Parrish
33. Elston Howard
34. Tommy Leach
35. Orel Hershiser
36. Burleigh Grimes
37. Chuck Finley
38. Bus Clarkson
39. Bob Elliott
40. Ron Cey
41. Marvin Williams
42. Dave Concepcion
43. Tony Fernandez
44. Harry Hooper
45. Luis Tiant
46. Buzz Arlett
47. Don Mattingly
48. Orlando Cepeda
49. Gil Hodges
50. Jack Clark
51. Jose Cruz
52. Willie Davis
53. Fielder Jones
54. Dick Redding
55. Rick Reuschel
56. Pie Traynor
57. Dennis Martinez
58. Jim Kaat
59. Gene Tenace
60. George Foster
61. Wally Berger
62. Fred Lynn
63. Vern Stephens
64. Dick Bartell
65. Ernie Lombardi
66. Toby Harrah
67. Lou Brock
68. Tony Phillips
69. Red Schoendienst
70. George Burns
71. Paul O'Neill
72. Bert Campaneris
73. Rabbit Maranville
74. Lave Cross
75. Cy Seymour
76. Ed Konetchy
77. Bobo Newsom
78. Jack Morris
79. Mark Grace
80. Charlie Hough
81. Jose Canseco
82. Ken Caminiti
83. Bobby Bonilla
84. Mickey Vernon

Rizzuto - Near Bancroft and Long around 30 among SS.
   72. JohnQ Posted: November 22, 2009 at 07:04 AM (#3393785)
OCF, I'm a first time voter. I wanted to do it last year but I didn't register in time.

I like the 15 player ballot and picking the top 3 format. The BBWAA should do the same thing. Everyone has to list 15 players and the top 3 should go in the HOF.

I could have gone into more detail about my picks but I didn't want to make my post that long.
   73. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: November 22, 2009 at 09:01 AM (#3393796)
Might be interested in casting a ballot. Does anyone know if Chone Smith's WAR numbers are adjusted for season length?
   74. DL from MN Posted: November 22, 2009 at 03:32 PM (#3393829)
JohnQ's ballot is very skewed toward modern players - Robin Ventura 4th and Tommy Leach off ballot. No Negro Leaguers or anyone else pre 1960 except Phil Rizzuto. I'm not buying that the top 15 unelected players are all from the 162 game schedule. I'm guessing the biases in his sources of data against short-season players have not been compensated for properly when combined into his ranking system.

The mix of pitchers is low also, we really need McGriff and Jack Clark more than Tiant and Cone?
   75. DL from MN Posted: November 22, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3393838)
I don't want to sound protective or reactionary but the number of new participants combined with the drop in returning participants is making me nervous about the results being representative of the "HoM" process. There are things that longtime participants have worked out already (adjusting for short seasons, positional balance including catcher bonuses, comparing across eras and within eras, war credit, war discounts, Negro League MLEs, strong and weak leagues, the evolution of pitchers & catchers, the evolution of the defensive spectrum, healthy skepticism of any uberstat system) that new voters are likely to miss by using a public domain uberstat and compiling 7 year prime numbers.
   76. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 22, 2009 at 04:39 PM (#3393856)
I don't want to sound protective or reactionary but the number of new participants combined with the drop in returning participants is making me nervous about the results being representative of the "HoM" process. There are things that longtime participants have worked out already (adjusting for short seasons, positional balance including catcher bonuses, comparing across eras and within eras, war credit, war discounts, Negro League MLEs, strong and weak leagues, the evolution of pitchers & catchers, the evolution of the defensive spectrum, healthy skepticism of any uberstat system) that new voters are likely to miss by using a public domain uberstat and compiling 7 year prime numbers.

There's some validity to what you say, but not everybody who has failed to vote in the HoM in the past is a mouth-breather.
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2009 at 04:53 PM (#3393865)
I'm stumped by the disappearance (so far anyway) of voters from last year, in that they can be working off a pretty good head-start in that previous ballot.
That said, the ballot is pretty tough in that Martinez, McGriff and possibly even Ventura present decision and/or slotting challenges. Of course, if a year of time isn't enough.....

I suspect the lower half of the top 10 and a little beyond are liable to jumble around a lot, but that wouldn't mean a rush of unexpected players being elected, either.

"adjusting for short seasons, positional balance including catcher bonuses, comparing across eras and within eras, war credit, war discounts, Negro League MLEs, strong and weak leagues, the evolution of pitchers & catchers, the evolution of the defensive spectrum, healthy skepticism of any uberstat system"

I agree that if a voter hasn't mulled a wide range of analysis like that, he's not really adhering to the process begun here in 2003.
   78. Juan V Posted: November 22, 2009 at 04:57 PM (#3393866)
I noticed that I forgot to disclose the non-ballot newbies! Edgar and McGriff (and Ventura, for that mattter) are in a narrow group just below my PHOM line. The issues with Edgar are well chronicled. McGriff has the bat, but is weighed down by glove, baserunning, and the depth of his position during his career.
   79. JohnQ Posted: November 22, 2009 at 05:45 PM (#3393901)
Wow, since a lot of the criticism seemed geared towards me, let me try to respond.

First off I’m not an 18 year old neophyte baseball fan, I’m 43 years old from NY-area and I’ve been following the game for 35 years and reading BTF for 4 years. My knowledge of the game has evolved from flipping Topps baseball cards to the Bill James abstracts to the Palmer books to the Baseball Prospectus books. So I didn’t just look at Baseball Prospectus to check who had the highest Warp 3 and then type his name in a box.

The Ballot to me seemed pretty open-ended, with no strict criteria regarding voting process. I didn’t see any type of quota system in the election rules for example: “ballots must have 5 starting pitchers 2 of which are ranked no less than 10th, At least 2 pre-1930 players must be included on your ballot, at least 1 Negro League player must be included on your ballot, no more than 2 players at a certain position must be included on your ballot, no win shares, no warp-3, etc.

I can’t see any of the pre-1920 players being any better than the players I’ve listed. Also they’ve appeared on 80-100 ballots already and they still haven’t finished in the top 3. And to play devil’s advocate, the pre-1920 players listed here didn’t have to face any Black/Latino players, didn’t have to play night baseball and didn’t have to play on the west coast.

I can’t see Tommy Leach being a better player than Ventura, Bell, Cey, Bando or Cedeno or Murphy.

DL-MN,

Your comments come off as quite condescending. You’re entitled to your opinions but why do feel the need to downgrade other people’s opinions. You think Leach was better than Ventura, Bell, Cey, and Bando, That’s fine, I respect your opinion but I don’t see it that way.

Then you write another very patronizing post saying a ballot like mine will somehow undermine the integrity of the HOM because I basically don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

Some people like career length, some like 5 year peak, some 10-year span, some 3 year span, some like win shares, some like warp-3, some like ops+, etc.

I thought the whole purpose of something like the HOM is to foster different viewpoints and interpretations.

If you don’t want different viewpoints/interpretations then what’s the point?
   80. Rusty Priske Posted: November 22, 2009 at 06:11 PM (#3393930)
I am on vacation and will not be back at the computer with my info on it until Nov. 26th.

Here is my ballot, but without any explanation. If you cannot allow it, I will totally understand.

PHoM: Robbie, Barry, Fred

1. Alomar
2. Larkin
3. Leach
4. McGriff
5. Perez
6. Van Haltren
7. Welch
8. Duffy
9. Brock
10. Staub
11. Bonds
12. Martinez
13. Monroe
14. Willis
15. Singleton

16-20. Cash, Murphy, Johnson, Puckett, Grace
21-25. Redding, S.Rice, Grimes, Streeter, Gleason
26-30. Greene, Ryan, Bremmer, Coimbre, Robinson
   81. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3393943)
John-Q,
I don't think that the comments from DL were intended that way, based on my experience.
It's just that traditionally we've been able to engage in discussion for a bit (of the sort you just made) for days or weeks or occasionally months before a ballot deadline comes along.

Your point about this holdover flotsam is understandable; I generally echo the sentiment.

That said, while it would not be surprising if you didn't think much of the leftover leading vote-getters, it is surprising that (Rizzuto being somewhat of an exception) you wouldn't find ANY of the early players appealing.

I didn't vote for 5 of the 10 top holdovers, but I did vote for Redding, Bancroft, Elliott, Ben Taylor, and Vic Willis.

Quota? Not at all; I'd have guessed I'd only have 2 or 3 such picks, which also would have been fine.

I'm not the gatekeeper, but not being able to find anyone from before WW II who can compare to practically all of the top modern candidates..... I hope you can appreciate the concern from that.
   82. OCF Posted: November 22, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3393949)
I'm going to step in here and defend JohnQ. Yes, his ballot has few of the older players on it - but go back and read Paul Wendt's post #232 on the discussion thread, about our backlog containing no HoMers in waiting. And Paul has been a member of our community from the beginning. And whatever you think of our pitcher balance, I can see letting a little skepticism of Cone and Tiant creeping in when we know about Brown, Smoltz, Mussina, not to mention the even bigger stars who are coming soon.

And we do need JohnQ, and epoc, and mystikx20 and other new voters. We had 45 to 50 voters for most of our elections, which got us a good spread of viewpoints, and had enough mass to overwhelm the most eccentric among us. It's clear that a number of those 50 are no longer participating. (And yes, there are certainly some of them whom we really, really would like to have back.)

And honestly, which is stranger: JohnQ saying that Cone and Tiant belong on the bottom of the ballot, behind a bunch of modern position players, or kalrmagnus saying that Cone and Tiant don't belong at all but Joss, Cicotte, and Leever all belong high on the ballot?

As a ballot counter (and I don't know how many ballot counters there are, since I don't know whether John Murphy and Ron Wargo are still participating) I'm happy to count JohnQ's ballot. And Rusty Priske's, too. That makes 18 so far.
   83. fra paolo Posted: November 22, 2009 at 06:43 PM (#3393950)
I don't want to sound protective or reactionary but the number of new participants combined with the drop in returning participants is making me nervous about the results being representative of the "HoM" process.

Aren't we all required to post preliminary ballots in any case, so that there could be questions asked and answers given that assured the electorate generally that the kind of issues raised by DL had at least been considered? Even long-time voters are not in theory exempt from that, are they?
   84. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2009 at 07:00 PM (#3393962)
Preliminaries are not required for longtime voters; seems like it's much preferred if not mandatory for newer voters, during the earlier "ballot discussion" thread, precisely to avoid having this discussion in a ballot thread if possible.

I'm not advocating either way regarding these ballots...
   85. Paul Wendt Posted: November 22, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3393983)
I agree with Howie and essentially at the same time I said it in the Discussion thread, #324.

#74-76 and 79 should be in the Discussion thread. Then most of #81-82 would be there too and #83-85 wouldn't exist. It may be too late now but:


70. OCF Posted: November 21, 2009 at 11:53 PM (#3393770)
JohnQ: Are you a first-time HoM voter or are you a previous voter with a changed username?

70b.
If a new voter, JohnQ, please post your preliminary ballot in the "2010 Ballot Discussion". You may be interested to read #286-306 which begin with the preliminary ballot by newcomer epoc.
   86. Chris Fluit Posted: November 22, 2009 at 08:15 PM (#3393991)
It is my understanding that one of the requirements of the Hall of Merit and its voters is to be "fair to all eras."

Though it is true that earlier eras have been picked over pretty extensively, that doesn't mean that those eras no longer have any deserving players or that they should be completely ignored. The Hall of Merit intentionally includes perpetual eligibility. Furthermore, the Hall of Merit has continued to recognize very early players in several recent elections, such as Charley Jones, Pete Browning and John McGraw.

The theoretical questions regarding the demands placed upon players in various eras comes up in Baseball Think Factory at least once a week. Yet it is my understanding that those theoretical questions were answered in the incubation stage of the Hall of Merit- players from every era are meritorious and should be honored as such. JohnQ's comments regarding the deficiencies of players whose careers took place primarily before integration and air travel do concern me as I wonder about JohnQ's willingness to be fair to all eras as constitutionally mandated.

It is my recollection that one of the concerns of the Hall of Merit and its founders was that new voters would join the project at a late date for the sake of supporting specific players or recent eras. OCF is correct: we do want and need new voters. And JohnQ is correct: we do want and welcome new viewpoints. However, we welcome those new voters and viewpoints within the framework of the Hall of Merit as outlined above.

It is also my understanding that preliminary ballots are mandatory for new voters. That's what I was told when I joined the project in the '70s and what many others have been told since. That allows current voters to discuss a ballot before it is officially submitted. That rule is not always strictly enforced. Ballots submitted to the ballot thread have usually been accepted provided they are posted early enough to allow the opportunity for discussion (I would suggest that JohnQ has fulfilled this requirement as he posted his ballot approximately 48 hours before the deadline and has obviously generated discussion).

JohnQ, I hope you do not take this as a personal attack on you in anyway. I would love to see you join as a new voter and become a member of the Hall of Merit. However, I would also like to see you moderate your thinking and consider the relative merits of players who performed before WWII.

One more thing, it seems appropriate to remind everyone of the words of our Constitution:
Lively, spirited discussion will help shape voters’ beliefs regarding the relative merits of baseball’s best players. All members are expected to be considerate of others’ opinions/arguments and be willing to consider alternative points of view. Disagreements will inevitably arise, but we will strive to maintain civility at all times.
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 22, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3393996)
First, a hearty welcome to the all the new guys, we definitely need to keep bringing in some new voters.

Paul, I do agree this should be in the discussion thread, but since it's here, I'll comment here for now.

JohnQ - don't take it personally - it was a reasonable point to bring up. We discuss things here, and it's not a personal attack. Everyone has had some things on their ballot discussed in the past. Obviously you've thought it through, if you are putting guys like Rick Reuschel, Jose Cruz and Ron Cey on your ballot, you aren't just rattling off the obvious guys.

Your ballot seems reasonable, but at the same point, I do have some concern when I hear that the modern guys were just better - that seems very much like timelining, which is frowned upon, but not outright prohibited. The idea of a pennant is a pennant is one of our main ideas. This project was specifically designed to be fair to all eras - and a blanket 'they weren't as good as the players of today' is going to draw some concern. That's the whole reason we have perpetual eligibility - because yes, those guys were just as good - the backlog (once you get past the obvious guys) is the backlog, no matter what your career dates were.

As far as not having played with negro leaguers, baseball did not expand from 1901 through 1961. To say that players from pre-WWII played weaker competition than guys that played in a game that expanded 50% from 1961-69 and another 25% from 1977-1998, 87.5% total from 1961-1998 is only looking at one side of the coin.

I don't think anyone is saying to toss your ballot, but it's definitely reasonable to discuss it and ask for an explanation - that's what we do around here. And as a new voter, it's reasonable to ask about your thought process.

So welcome aboard, and thanks for joining us.

And to pending new voters, this is one of the reasons we ask you post your ballot in the discussion thread first. No we aren't going to play technicalities and drop your ballot just because you didn't follow the recommended procedure to a tee, but it does make it easier on everyone if you do.

Rusty - just post your explanations when you return. We'll still count the ballot.
   88. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 22, 2009 at 08:31 PM (#3393998)
Chris's post wasn't there when I started mine . . . to address a few of the things he brought up:

It is my understanding that one of the requirements of the Hall of Merit and its voters is to be "fair to all eras."


This is true. It is one thing to consider all players and conclude none left from an era are worthy. It's another to not to consider the era at all.

It is also my understanding that preliminary ballots are mandatory for new voters. That's what I was told when I joined the project in the '70s and what many others have been told since. That allows current voters to discuss a ballot before it is officially submitted. That rule is not always strictly enforced. Ballots submitted to the ballot thread have usually been accepted provided they are posted early enough to allow the opportunity for discussion (I would suggest that JohnQ has fulfilled this requirement as he posted his ballot approximately 48 hours before the deadline and has obviously generated discussion).


Agreed . . . by not posting on the discussion thread and allowing some time for discussion, you make it tougher on everyone, you leave it open to being not allowed and you put some of us in a position we'd rather not be in.

That being said, we don't want to discourage new voters - if you are new and planning to submit a ballot still, please do! But please try to get it on the discussion thread as soon as possible. Even if it's just a preliminary ballot, you can finish fine tuning it before the deadline.
   89. OCF Posted: November 22, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3394002)
Joe - I emailed you a preliminary tally.
   90. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 22, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3394003)
Saw that OCF, thanks! I didn't want to look at it since I haven't voted yet . . .
   91. JohnQ Posted: November 22, 2009 at 11:59 PM (#3394127)
First off let me preface this and say that the HOM was a great idea and I agree with about 98% of the selections. Many people have said that they want to encourage new voters, which is a great idea, but you can’t get upset when the new voters don’t follow your way of thinking.

I never said “Modern guys were just better” or implied that I have something against pre-1950 players, I was playing Devils advocate to DL-MN. If someone appeared on my rankings I would have voted for him.

I had Van-Haltren, Welch, Waters and Willis very high on my list. And I think the HOM has done an excellent job with pre-1950 players.

But let’s be objective, there’s been 237 elected players elected. Leach, Cravath and Duffy have been on 80- 90 ballots and still haven’t gotten in the HOM. There are some players on the list that have been on 100 ballots and still haven’t gotten in the HOF. There comes a point when the HOM will crest as far as pre-1950 players. I think several players from the 70’s & 80’s have been overlooked because of that fact.

As far as Jack Clark goes, I see him as very close to Will Clark who was a first ballot HOM. Both got stuck in Candlestick, both had career137ops+, both had about the same win shares, Jclark-316, Wclark-331, both had about the same Warp-3, Jclark:58.2, Wclark:65.8. How does one guy (W.Clark) get in on the first ballot and the other guy (J.Clark) not get a single vote in last year’s ballot? That doesn’t make sense.
   92. Kenn Posted: November 23, 2009 at 12:05 AM (#3394132)
My 2010 Ballot:

I tend to be happiest with career or prime cases, relying heavily on ERA+ & OPS+, though with a ton of adjustments. At this point, I tend to think that players post-war and through integration, particularly ex-NeL's, tend to be underrated, due to the disruption of the leagues in that time period. I'm also pretty generous with catchers, and think that we've pretty significantly under-elected pitchers. I think that last statemetn is not an uncommon sentiment, as it's more that we can't agree, and past my top 2 I could go back and forth on the pitchers I like for a long time. Indeed, there is a fair amount of subjectivity that comes into the ballot with this backlog, and from about #8 through the next 20 or 25, I would be comfortable with just about anyone getting in, or not getting in.

1. Larkin - I have him and Alomar pretty even, and feel more confident in his defensive contributions

2. Alomar - With Larkin, easily ahead of the remainder of the ballot

3. Cone - When he was playing later in his career, I somehow had the impression of him playing his way out of the HOF. When I look him over now, I see that he was still pitching extremely well when he pitched, and his consistently high quality, even if quantity was erratic, is something I really like compared to the other options at this point.

4. Schang - I consider his early hitting, particularly in the first half of his career, extremely valuable for the time. Not a great amount of playing time, but almost entirely at catcher.

5. Rizzuto - I give war credit at a level mid-way between his '42 and '46 seasons, which together with excellent glovework places him at the top of the eligible shortstops.

6. Bridges - The other pitcher I'm strongly in favor of. Long downward trend in IP, and never terribly high to begin with, but consistency from year-to-year is fantastic, and I suspect a bit more value would have been tacked on if not for the war.

7. E. Howard - Slow start, not all of his NeL/minor league time deserves much credit, but looks to me as though he was very good in '54, and would have added a little bit more bulk to his career. In general, among a backlog where everyone has merits and faults, I find myself leaning towards the war and integration era folks more deserving of the benefit of the doubt than most.

8. E. Martinez - My favorite player ever. While I have no problem with giving minor league credit, I don't see him as deserving all that much (about 1 season), but the OBA is incredible, and defensive value isn't nonexistent given time at 3B (time at DH I treat as something along the lines of a quite bad, but not horrendous, 1B). He basically defines the borderline for players I think really should be in the HOM. Hopefully that's not any bias speaking, though the fully statistical side of my system genuinely does place him about here, too.

9. Monroe - Top-ranked full-fledged Negro-Leaguer in my backlog. Fantastic reputation, solid MLE's by my interpretation. That said, the fragmentary NeL stats that I've seen look erratic, and at times underwhelming, not unlike Dick Redding, so (1) a lot of this depends on reputation in years without much evidence and (2) that may mean I'm being inconsistent with Redding, though I'll discuss that more below.

10. McGriff - I grade out McGriff very similarly to Edgar, but there were a ton of good 1B as his contemporaries, and Edgar's time at 3B, even if brief, gives him the slightest edge in terms of where he was able to add value.

11. Newcombe - The biggest stretch, I think, on my ballot, where I'm already commonly giving players like him the benefit of the doubt. Should definitely get credit for wartime and I also think if not for the slow process of integration, he would have been giving solid years one or two years earlier. If indeed these things were true, there would form a good, consistent prime along the line of what Bridges, who I really like, turned out. Newcombe also appears to have been an excellent fielding and hitting pitcher. Still, this vote is much more explicitly than those for Bridges, Howard, or Rizzuto above a statement that we should expect a little less from the best players in times of war and during the immediate integration period.

12. Walters - The period where he was a really good pitcher is not particularly long, but he was pitching more and better than a number of contemporaries (e.g. Trucks, Trout, Gomez) who I think should also be getting strong consideration. At present, I think he was enough better to have the edge, despite concerns about wartime competition and help from defense.

13. Murphy - I used to prefer Puckett, but have come around to Murphy on account of his edge in OBP and some a bit of a drop in my rating of Puckett's defense. Among outfielders, Puckett, Bonds, Ryan, Johnson, and Cravath are not far behind (and not necessarily in that order), but I think the outfield has been mined pretty well for the time beign.

14. Lombardi - Very similar statistics to Schang, but offensive contribution doesn't stand-out quite as much among era and peers.

15. Concepcion - Excellent fielder and decent hitter for the position for a very long time

Next 6:
Clarkson - another casualty(?) of the integration era, and used to be on ballot, but I'm less impressed relative to quality of his competition than I had been before.

Cicotte - some excellent seasons mixed with some that aren't (insightful!)

Redding - this should be a player I really like by the standards above, deserving of some war credit, amazing reputation for years without much evidence. However, even more than Monroe, the stats that are available are underwhelming, including a number of the years before the HOF statistics release. Right now, I think his mix of evidenlty amazing years with merely good or mediocre ones resembles Cicotte, who I like, but not quite to the ballot yet.

Willis - A workhorse compared to the other pitching options, at least during his prime years. That's mostly a matter of when he pitched, but still a lot of quality in there.

Elliot - Good mix of hitting and fielding value

Cravath - Relatively generous with credit for time in minors, but gets hits for defense and to a lesser extent, possible park dependence.

Mostly outfielders and pitchers mentioned earlier in the next tier.


Other Returnees:
Leach - #33 Solid player, and I like the positional flexibility, but don't find him to stand out. About the end of the range where I'd be perfectly comfortable with him in the HOM anyway.

Tiant - #39 The only returnee I don't really find HO-meritorious. Doesn't stack up well enough for me with his contemporaries; I'd rather have Tommy John and his huge edge in IP.
   93. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2009 at 01:27 AM (#3394171)
A full day early!

As far as what I consider . . . I try to look at it all. I'm a career voter mostly - not because I have any bias towards it, but just because the numbers (and every study I've ever seen) tell me that peaks are overrated and 5+5 is only about 10-15% less valuable than 10+0.

I give full war credit, and I think it's a major mistake not to when comparing players across eras. My biggest regret on this project is that we didn't require all voters to give war credit like we did with Negro League credit. I see no difference, both were a circumstance of the player's birthday that was beyond his control.

I've systematically worked this in for anyone that is a reasonable candidate, all the way down to guys like Tommy Henrich, Mickey Vernon and Dom DiMaggio. If you want a copy of my Rosenheck access database with these guys added, please let me know.

I think it's a cop out to say we don't know so it's a zero. If a guy was a 25 WS a year player before and after the war, a zero is a much bigger mistake than giving him three 25s. As far as injury risk, you just credit a guy based on his playing time before and after the war. There's no reason to assume he would have been any more (or less) injury prone during those years.

I also follow similar philosophy on strikes. I just prorate the season, since a pennant is a pennant.

I give catchers at 50% career bonus, above and beyond what Pennants Added they accumulate.

I'll give minor league credit for players trapped - once they've had a 'here I am, let me play!' season. This does not apply to Edgar Martinez. He was simply a late bloomer.

I've been much more hands on in rating the pitchers than the position players, for which I rely on DanR's WARP, though I weigh them based on Pennants Added, not his salary estimator. I'm very confident in my pitcher rankings, and I make a manual adjustment for the extended career length that started in the 1960s (not shown below). My position player rankings are based largely on DanR's numbers.

After the player I'll list his Pennants Added and the player above and below him on the lists.

1. Barry Larkin SS (n/e) - 1.33 PA (Robin Yount, Alan Trammell). Won his MVP the wrong season, DanR's numbers give him the NL award in 1991. Just a great player, even with the injuries. Should be an easy Hall of Famer come January, but I'm nervous about his prospects.

2. Phil Rizzuto SS (3) - .98 PA, (Duke Snider, Elmer Flick). Now that I've given him systematic war credit and adjusted his 1946, during which he was recovering from malaria (which also impact his projections for 1943-45, if you use 1946 in those), he shows up as the best holdover position player by a substantial margin.

3. Jack Quinn SP (4) - 1.10 PA, (Eppa Rixey, Whitey Ford). I'm giving him credit for 1916-18 where he was pitching (quite well) in the PCL after the Federal League went belly-up. He gets a big leverage bonus for his nearly 800 IP of relief work at a LI of 1.26. Without any PCL credit I still have him between Bridges and Grimes.

4. Roberto Alomar (n/e) - .93 PA, (Graig Nettles, Willie Stargell). Similar to Will Clark, in that he had some great years, and was a very good player right from the start, then just disappeared and came in a few years short of what we expected when he was say, 30 years old. But there's a ton of value here, and it's quite possible the uber-metrics underrate his defense.

5. Rick Reuschel SP (2) - 1.05 PA, (Amos Rusie, Jim Bunning). This ranking surprised me a great deal when I first realized how good he was. It's one thing to 'discover' an Ezra Sutton (I mean as a group, not that I discovered him first or anything) who played 130 years ago. But Rick Reuschel was there, right before my very eyes. He pitched in the World Series for my favorite team when I was turning 9 years old. And I never had a clue he was this good.

My Pennants Added system, which accounts for fielding support, parks, bullpen support, etc.; shows him right behind Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh and Amos Rusie, and ahead of Jim Bunning, Sandy Koufax and Juan Marichal.

He isn't peakless either. His top 4 years are similar to that of Ron Guidry or Mike Scott - both considered 'peak' candidates. His 1977 was every bit as valuable as Bunning's 1966. Bunning definitely has him beat in years 2-5, but Reuschel makes it up with more quality in the back end. I get them essentially equal, Reuschel was a little better inning for inning, Bunning had a higher peak, but in the end they even out.

I have Reuschel with a 115 DRA+ over 3745 tIP, Bunning was 113 over 3739 tIP. This is where I would have ranked Bunning, who sailed into the Hall of Merit, I have no issue putting Reuschel here.

Even when I take my numbers, but filter them through a Bill James-type NHBA scoring system (that heavily focuses on peak), Reuschel still comes out in a group with guys like Jim Palmer, Noodles Hahn, Eddie Rommel, Tex Hughson, Clark Griffith and Whitey Ford. Hahn, Rommel and Hughson all had very nice peaks.

Using a JAWS scoring system, he comes out in a group with Wes Ferrell, Jack Quinn, Palmer, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber and Urban Shocker.

I am saying that Reuschel was every bit as good as the Jims, Palmer and Bunning. The only difference between Palmer and Reuschel is park and defense. Reuschel's 1977 was better than any season Palmer had. Palmer, like Bunning was better than Reuschel in the 2-5 best seasons, but by less than a win a year, and over the course of their careers, Reuschel was better, 115 DRA+ to Palmer's 113 (in a similar number of innings, Palmer had 3781 tIP. He had the one great year, and was very good from 1973-81 and 1985, 1987-89. That's a record that not a lot of pitchers can match.

I nudged him down very slightly because he played in an era where pitcher career length was much higher than typical historically. See a little more in the Cone comment.

6. Bert Campaneris SS (6) - .93 PA, (Willie Stargell, Joe Sewell). .470 OWP, in an era where the average SS was at .372. Long (9625 PA) career as well, and a good fielder (62 FRAA). System says to rank him ahead of Concepcion pretty clearly.

7. Urban Shocker SP (7) - .94 PA, (Tommy Bridges, Billy Pierce). Vaulted in 1981, with 1918 war credit (he was having a great year), and an adjustment for the AL being much better than the NL during his time. He was a great pitcher, peak guys should really look closer at him. He'd be a no brainer without his illness, which should not impact a peak vote.

8. Gavy Cravath RF (8) - .90 PA, (Will Clark, Roger Bresnahan, with catcher bonus). Either he was a freak of nature, or there's a lot missing. I vote for the latter. Check out his thread for deeper discussion of the specifics, including a great analysis from Gadfly. He's the kind of guy we were hoping to catch when we started this project. I'm much more comfortable moving him this high after seeing his latest translations.

9. Ben Taylor 1B (9) - Negro Leaguer, Chris Cobb's MLE from 8/25/2004 suggests 325 WS. Consider me convinced that he was really was a great hitter. The Hall of Fame's Negro League Committee had access to a lot of data, and they chose to include him, in a group that we generally agreed with. That counts for something with me. I would have much preferred his election to that of Oms.

10. Tommy John SP (5) - 1.00 PA, (Bret Saberhagen, Wes Ferrell). Tons of career value. I would probably be sick to my stomach if Jim Kaat (who did very well in the Veteran's Committee balloting this year) got in and John did not. On the surface (career W-L) they appear similar, but when you adjust for everything, they aren't close. I have John as similar to, but better than Burleigh Grimes - about 800 more translated IP, at a 106 rate instead of a 104 rate. That's more than enough to offset Grimes peak edge. I get John somewhere between Eppa Rixey/Red Faber and Grimes on the continuum. He's over the in/out line for me. I also give no extra credit for his poineering the surgery - someone had to be first.

11. David Cone SP (10) - 1.09 PA, (Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh). Last year I re-considered DanR's arguments in terms of standard deviation of era, and I'm still going to be a little more conservative with modern pitcher's due to the failure of my system to adjust downward modern career length for pitchers. This applies to John as well.

12. Tommy Bridges SP (11) - .94 PA, (Stan Coveleski, Urban Shocker). Unspectacular peak (although he would have won the 1936 AL Cy Young Award if it had been invented), but a lot of career value. War credit helps nudge him above Trout and Leonard. He could obviously still pitch when he left for the war, and was still good when he returned for a short time. I give him 2 years of credit at his 1941-43 level.

13. Dave Concepcion SS (12) - .88 PA, (Stan Hack, Willie Randolph). Better than I realized, and was really hurt by the 1981 strike, which occurred during his best season (and a season where the Reds had the best record in baseball, but missed the playoffs). Still no Trammell or Ozzie, but a very good player indeed. We could do worse than induct him.

14. Tommy Leach 3B/CF (13) - .88 PA (Stan Hack, Willie Randolph). I was a big fan of his awhile back, then he faded. He's back now, in no small part because of Dan R's work.

15. Bucky Walters SP (15) - .90 PA (Burleigh Grimes, Dwight Gooden). Walters once again gets my hotly contested 15th place vote. Johnny Pesky, Rabbit Maranville (with credit for a full 1918), Dave Bancroft, Don Newcombe, Burleigh Grimes, Edgar Martinez, Orel Hershister and Kevin Appier were top contenders. Walters combination of big years, hitting, and playing in what I consider a very tough era (the late 30s, right before war depleted the ranks and after nearly 40 years without expansion) won him my final 6 points.

Mandatory comments:

Dick Redding - he was good, but I think we are overrating him. I can't see how he's better than Grimes, who just misses my ballot.

Luis Tiant - .88 PA. Comparing him with Reuschel . . . I've got Tiant 54th amongst post-1893 SPs eligible. I give him credit for 3362.3 tIP, at the equivalent of a 112 ERA+, and he was +5 runs as a hitter. Reuschel I get at 3745.3 tIP, a 115 rate, and the same +5 BRAR.

Looking at their seven best seasons in terms of WARP, I see Reuschel at 8.7, 6.5, 5.3, 5.2, 5.1, 4.9, 4.8; Tiant at 7.7, 6.4, 5.2, 5.1, 4.9, 4.6, 4.5. Reuschel's top 3 consecutive were 18.8; Tiant's 16.4.

Using a Bill James NHBA peaky type system, with my wins, I get Reuschel at #55, Tiant at #100. Using a JAWS type system, I get Reuschel #39, Tiant #60.
   94. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2009 at 01:27 AM (#3394173)
Non-Mandatory comments:

Edgar Martinez is very close. I get him at .86 PA. He's the next position player on the list, in the mix with everyone listed in the Walters comment.

Robin Ventura is a tier below with .83 PA (yes, there are that many players at this level - which is one thing that suggests HoVG for both Edgar and Ventura). Norm Cash and Bobby Bonds are also here.

Since he was discussed a bit, Thurman Munson is close to, but about a full season behind Bill Freehan. I give a 50% career bonus for catchers and with that, I get Munson at .79 PA. I have Freehan at .87. I draw the line at Freehan in, Munson out, but I can definitely see support for Munson as a candidate.

Fred McGriff is a lot lower. He's down there with guys like Roy White, Jack Clark, Dale Murphy and George Burns at .73 PA. Defense and base running count.

Mandatory comments left over from last year, but may as well include them:

Kirby Puckett - .69 PA. Loved to watch him play, but there's just not enough there. DanR's numbers show him similar to Rizzuto - before giving any war credit. I've got him in a group with Ken Singleton, Bob Elliott, Fielder Jones, Joe Tinker, Harlond Clift, etc.. Very good player. A solid all-star in his day. But not a HoMer.

Bob Johnson - .80 PA. He's in the mix - but slides down when you deflate his numbers from WWII. I see him in a group with Fregosi, Cey, Cruz and Schang.
   95. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 23, 2009 at 01:28 AM (#3394174)
I'm copying this from last year, but I would once again like to add a huge thank you to all the contributors, lurkers and people who have helped out over the last 7+ 8+ real life years (and 113 elections). This project has gone beyond my wildest dreams in terms of what we've added to the overall knowledge base. I'm really floored by the whole thing.

And I'd especially like to thank John Murphy - without his work, this project would not be what it is.
   96. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2009 at 02:20 AM (#3394215)
thanks, JohnQ for the responses.

I think we were not that far off overall - you are identifying which early guys you prefer best, which is helpful, and not necessarily writing them off simply on their era, I think.

On the other hand, we have never refused to vote for players simply because they lingered on our list for so long. Those guys get dwarfed by no-brainers of course, but we don't just advance 'good' modern players, either. We try - tough as it is - to mix and match.

You shouldn't toss in an old guy or two just to appease the crowd.
Nor should you assume that none of the 'leftovers' be ignored just because they've 'failed' 100 times, either.

So:
"There are some players on the list that have been on 100 ballots and still haven’t gotten in the HOF. There comes a point when the HOM will crest as far as pre-1950 players. I think several players from the 70’s & 80’s have been overlooked because of that fact."

Just mull your picks one more time, if you don't mind. Very few if any of us think that ALL of the non-elected guys don't belong. We just disagree on which ones. Keep in mind that if you don't see ant worthy, you want to make sure that isn't because "the 70s and 80s have been overlooked."

Over the course of the last 6-7 years, it has not been unusual for voters to express reluctance in voting high for some newcomer or oldtimer compared to a player in a "preferred" zone. But if that's where they slot, well, then you vote against that self-interest, so to speak.

Your job is not to right any era wrongs, and no I don't think that's your intent.

I guess this is a Cliff Notes version of the angst we've all felt about some preferences vs how we must vote....
   97. Chris Fluit Posted: November 23, 2009 at 03:36 AM (#3394240)
#87 is a great post. Thanks for reminding us why you're the commissioner, Joe.
   98. Patrick W Posted: November 23, 2009 at 03:38 AM (#3394244)
I’ve made an artificial adjustment of about 1.8 WARP per 500 PA’s for the 2010 players analyzed, to account for the WARP adjustment made this year. I need to adjust everybody else down to the new baseline next year, or this could be my last ballot if I can’t find the time.

All comments are reruns, save the rookies. All apologies…

1. Barry Larkin (n/a), Cinc. (N), SS (’86-’04) (2010) – Will Clark, Sandberg and Larkin were players of my NL watching youth that were always assumed to be Hall of Famers during their playing days. It’s nice to see my methodology thought all of these were no brainer selections to the ballot.
2. Roberto Alomar (n/a), Tor. – Balt. (A), 2B (’88-’04) (2010) – Very close to Larkin. A little worse on offense, a little better on defense, but at the lesser position. It’s close, but I’ve got Barry on top.
3. Frank Tanana (2), Cal. – Detr. (A) SP (’73-’93) (2000) – Sandy Koufax peak (49.7 bonus WARP for Sandy’s peak vs. 46.9 for Frank), plus played for 10 additional years of average / below avg. Here is either the player that breaks my system or a vastly underrated pitcher by the rest of you.
4. Tony Perez (3), Cinc. (N), 1B / 3B (’65-’86) (1994) – Completely different BA/OB/SG breakdown, but the sum of his offensive and defensive value to a team makes him look like a twin of Willie Keeler to me.
5. Chuck Finley (4), Calif. (A) SP (’87-’02) (2008) – He’s ranked in the same grouping as these other pitchers. There’s a case to be made that he should drop because of playing in the DH league (can’t say how bad a hitter he’d have been), but even then he wouldn’t fall past 10 on this list.
6. Tommy John (5), Chic. – N.Y. (A) SP (’63-’89) (1997) – If you can maintain average for a quarter century, that’s just a different definition of greatness.
7. Luis Tiant (6), Bost. – Clev. (A) SP (’64-’80) (1988) – Right there with Drysdale, Ford and Marichal. Not a slam dunk, but the ballot’s not strong enough to hold him down.
8. David Cone (7), N.Y. (N) – N.Y. (A) SP (’87-’01) (2008) – His 10-year prime ranks in the top half of HOMers.
9. Lee Smith (8), Chic. – St.L. (N) RP (’81-’97) (2003) – Same value as Goose in 250 fewer innings. Gossage had more peak, but the ballot’s too thin to elect one and not the other.
10. Jim Kaat (9), Minn. (A) SP (’61-’83) (1991) – Kaat would probably be in the Hall today if his ’62-’66-’74-’75 had instead occurred consecutively. His best seasons don’t seem to coincide with Minnesota’s best as a team in the ‘60s either. Value is value in my system, and this is where he deserves to rank.
11. Rusty Staub (10), Hou. – N.Y. (N), RF (’63-’81) (1996) – In my system, I have to take 9400 AB’s of 0.295 EQA over 6400 AB’s at 0.301. Wynn has the bigger peak, but Staub has 5 more seasons to his career.
12. Rick Reuschel (11), Chic. – S.F. (N) SP (’72-’90) (1996) – On the other hand, if Reuschel is going in first ballot, then it probably is a weak ballot. Nearly equals the value of Kaat in 700 fewer innings.
13. Jack Morris (12), Detr. (A) SP (’78-’94) (2001) – I like my system of discounting the pitchers for their “effort” at the bat, but Morris points out how I need to somehow discount the AL pitchers in the DH era. Morris is nearly equal to Reuschel in my system because of Rick’s lack of prowess at the plate. By eyeball, Jack might drop 2-3 spots because of this issue; he’s still ballot-worthy until I resolve the discrepancy.
14. Norm Cash (13), Detr. (A), 1B (’60-’74) (1985) – Ben Taylor appears to be the comp, but Cash ranks so close to Dizzy in the total value column that I have raised Taylor 5 spots instead of starting Norm at 14.
15. Charlie Hough (14), L.A. (N) – Tex. (A) SP (’70-’94) (2004) – Charlie, Dutch. Dutch, Charlie.

Ron Cey (2010) – Let’s go all infield this year.

Phil Rizzuto (1972) – Ranked like top 270 +/- all time, so not a bad selection.
Gavvy Cravath – Mark Grace’s 5-year peak is every bit as impressive as this, and his 10-year score dominates vs. Gavvy. Neither is even close to a ballot.
Tommy Leach – Ranks 308th in my consideration list, Saberhagen ranks 165th. IOW, he barely missed making the ballot.
Bucky Walters (1961) – He’s just as good as Leonard, Trout, Koosman and Lolich.
Dick Redding – The bar for NeL pitchers has been set higher than this, IMO. The jump from Ray Brown to Bill Foster, Mendez and Redding will keep them all out of my Hall.

Two players were in last year’s top ten and in my top 15 this year.
   99. rawagman Posted: November 23, 2009 at 03:43 AM (#3394251)
2010 Ballot

I use a sort of peak-over career number that measures ink by playing time with a strong preference for players who had good in-season durability (non-exclusive, as we can see this year). Combined with rate stats and a glove measurement, I feel this gives me both context for what the player actually achieved versus what the league around him was able to do. My general baseball philosophy, may help in clarifying my rankings. I don't believe in the single stat theory of baseball, meaning I don't use WS or WARP in my rankings. Essentially, I follow this as I think a significant percentage of what contributes to winning baseball is not necessarily counted in box scores. This includes things like manager's prerogative, and actions that would require a historical pbp analysis that is currently unavailable. I search for what I consider "total ballplayers", guys who can do it all. I believe in positional representation and abhor the thought process that says that relievers were all failed starters and 2B are all failed SS, etc... A team cannot win without a 2B, nor without someone in LF. When I look at a player's career, I try to ask myself how I would feel about him as his manager - would his presence require special tactics to protect him, or is he completely reliable. I hope it can be seen by my rankings that the "reliable" players generally rise above the ones with clear holes in their games. There are always exceptions, but this is what I have. The stats I look at to get here tend to be traditional and rate, both offensive and defensive. Contemporary opinion also helps. I find comprehensive ranking systems to be exclusive of much of what I see on the field of play - that is, the narrative of the game. The stats for me represent measurements of aspects of the game, but beyond that, the narrative has to fill out the gaps. i.e. - Why was this number lower than expected and that number higher? Combining the stats with the narrative gives me a baseball world-view that I am happy with and feel qualified to discuss.

This year's notes. Pitcher rankings have been updated to reflect cahnges in modern thinking on DERA. This bumps Cone above Bridges and Gomez in my historical candidates pool, as well as providing an off-ballot surge for Luis Tiant. Of the newcomers who did not make my extended ballot, but are worthy within their positional cohorts, Benito Santiago has a profile similar to that of Tony Pena and Johnny Roseboro. Ray Lankford is of a piece with Rick Monday. Juan Gonzalez had some great years, but as a corner outfielder (and one not getting much help from his glove), he would need more to crack this list. As is, he is slotted between Kiki Cuyler and Darryl Strawberry among all-time RF. Pat Hentgen (oh, those ex-Jays!) sits on the tail-end of my pitching candidate cohort, between Dean Chance and Mark Langston. All other newcomers are on my ballot and extended ballot, or did not do enough over the course of their careers to merit inclusion in my positional candidate cohorts.

1)Barry Larkin (PHOM)
2)Roberto Alomar - Similar overall batting prowees between the two, and Alomar had the longer (read as more durable) career, but Larkin gets the top spot by virtue of the difference in value between an 'A' glove at short and a 'B' glove at second. (PHOM)
3)Hugh Duffy - Super peak, wonderful prime. Amazing bat, super glove. The epitomy of reliability. (PHOM)
4)David Cone - I prefer his longer prime to Redding and Saberhagen, and he beats at least Sabes by durability as well. (PHOM)
5)Tommy Bridges - He was really very good. A summary of a reevaluation of some of our backlog pitchers in my high backlog (Bridges, Gomez, Redding, Walters) Of those four, the white guys were all regulars for 10-11 seasons. Bucky and Lefty both had immense peaks, but I think that Lefty's non-peak years hold up better than Bucky's. Also, Lefty does not need any war discount. Dick Redding seems more similar to Walters in that his non-peak was not so impressive. His peak was still enough to leave in him solid backlog country. (I even put him in my PHOM back when I joined the project.) Tommy Bridges wins out. He had much greater consistency. He is to pitchers what Bob Johnson was to hitters, but more of a winner. We have been especially splintered as to the backlog pitchers, and I urge everyone to give Tommy Bridges a closer look. (PHOM)
6)Ben Taylor - Can't find the peak, but a better prime (through the roof), career and glove than Beckley. I think he may be the player most underrated by the electorate. (PHOM)
7)Edgar Martinez - More fielding value would probably have him in an elect-me position. As is, he surprisingly jumps right into my PHOM. (PHOM)
8)Kirby Puckett - I have it mentioned that some HOM voters consider Puckett to be a mistake of the BBWAA. I see where that sentiment may be emanating from, but I do believe that his election was earned A wonderful ballplayer. (PHOM)
9)Fred McGriff - He did not dominate as a bat to the extent of an Edgar, but consistent above-average performance and fielding that was moderate (I know that not everyone agrees, place the Crime Dog in the heart of my 2010 ballot.
10)Lefty Gomez - looking at him in any single way hurts him. Looking at him kaleidoscopically has him as the one of the best available pitchers in my eyes (PHOM)
11)Bus Clarkson - A new defensive readjustment moves to the cusp. (PHOM)
12)Dale Murphy - A player that my system loves. At his best he dominated. That refers to the years between 1979-1988. That's a 10 year prime with a very high peak. Also demonstrated very good fielding ability. Could easily move up my ballot. (PHOM)
13)Vern Stephens - Will we look at Nomar down the road like we look at Vern now? Great bat, good glove. (PHOM)
14)Gavvy Cravath - No longer the worst fielder in my top 120 candidates (Frank Howard). Probably still the best hitter, though. (PHOM)
15)Bob Johnson - I don't know why it took me this long. Great all-round LF. Very durable. (PHOM)
   100. rawagman Posted: November 23, 2009 at 03:45 AM (#3394253)
16)Dick Redding - One of the toughest for me to accurately place. I now think his teens peak was all he needed. (PHOM)
17)Tony Oliva - Career not as short as I thought. Had solid durability for the seasons he was around for. A world class hitter. (PHOM)
18)Bobby Veach - He did it all well. As complete a LF as is available today. (PHOM)
19)Dizzy Dean - Diet Sandy Koufax. 0 calories (career), no sugar (prime).
20)Orlando Cepeda - Going with my numbers. I support him, but the strength of many of the new guys as well as the recently dregded up arguments for others drops him off ballot.(PHOM)
21)Al Oliver - I was surprised by the similarities between Oliver and Reggie Smith. Very convincing peak and a glove that scores quite well. Career length is nice as well.
((21a)Andre Dawson))
22)Albert Belle - Fits in rather nicely with the next two on this list.
23)Jack Clark - Marvelous hitter who had his uses in the field as well.
24)Jim Rice - This is, more or less, where the in-out line can be found for the slightly bigger hall that I dream of.
25)Wally Berger - super-underrated
26)Don Mattingly - In the interest of my belief in a big hall for Cooperstown, I suppport Mattingly's induction. That said, for this project, he looks to be just the wrong side of the door.
27)Ernie Lombardi - defense was below average, but not quite horrible
((27a)Jimmy Wynn))
28)Ron Guidry - I love a dominant pitcher. I don't think it's necessarily correct to view pitchers and hitters in the same light and I value a strong peak (I mean really strong) for pitchers more than for hitters (prefer a steady, all round type there). Similar to, but not quite the equal of, Lefty Gomez, one of my inner circle of best friends.
29)Al Rosen - One more season in prime, and he is top 10
((29a)Jim Bunning))
((29b)Billy Pierce))
((29c)Graig Nettles))
30)Dan Quisenberry - I suppose I've decided that I value peak in a reliever over career totals. Mind you, if the guy has both...well, we'll see what happens with Goose in a few years.
31)Lee Smith - He didn't have the stellar peak of the two closers around him, but his prime outlasted them both. And his peak is really not that far below Sutter's, at least.
32)Lance Parrish - Solid all round catcher. Proud member of the HoVG. Not quite the HOM though.
33)Ron Cey - I remember his late Topps cards. Lots of very small print on the back. He compares favourably to the other eligible 3Bs. I'd still take Rosen's monster peak over his steady production, but it's close.
34)Tony Fernandez - Mr. Blue Jay
35)Norm Cash - Too much in one year - and that was not the best year for an everlasting peak, for a number of reasons.
((35a)Joe Gordon))
((35b)Dobie Moore))
36)Addie Joss - ERA/+ and WHIP are great, but why so little black ink?
((36a)Cupid Childs))
37)Fred Dunlap - Very short career. Very good, too.
38)Kevin Appier - Just ahead of Finley. I prefer the better rate to the longer career, but very, very close.
39)Tom Henke - Not a long career, but the Terminator was one of the best closers in the game at his peak. New DERA calculations boost him.
40)Chuck Finley - I remember being surpirsed when he didn`t come back for another season. I wonder what one more season of slightly above average performance would have done to his final ranking.
((40a)Rollie Fingers))
41)Luis Tiant - Undoubtedly a wonderful pitcher, but of the type who don't do that well in my system.I wasn't Billy Pierce's biggest fan, but I still liked Billy (and Marichal and Bunning) more than Tiant, so he starts off over here.
42)Bucky Walters - Very similar to Pierce in overall picture - but built differently.
43)Don Newcombe - big beneficiary of pitcher's fielding analysis.
44)Tommy John - I think I like his overall picture just a smidgen more than Sutton's.
((44a)Don Sutton))
45)Mickey Welch
46)Bruce Sutter - Very curious to see if anyone else has him as their highest ranked reliever right now. Shorter career than the others, but when he was at his best, he was the best. That works for me.
47)Tony Perez - No appreciable peak. As far as 1B go, I have Cepeda up higher because of his very nice peak and his not too short career as a regular. Ben Taylor suffers from a lack of documented stats. The stats there show that he could flat out mash the ball by dead-ball standards. Contemporaries say his glove was the best they had ever seen at 1B. How much as a scoop worth? I think it's worth alot. I maintain that while a below average defensive 1B can cause little measurable harm, while an above average glove at 1B will provide a hefty bonus to the team lucky enough to employ one.
48)Fred Carroll - I give him around 1.5 seasons prime MiL credit. Better than Tenace. And better than Bresnahan given credit.
49)Larry Doyle - If only the glove were just a little better.
50)Phil Rizzuto
51)Cecil Travis - A very worthy extra credit case.
((51a)Jake Beckley))
52)Jimmy Ryan
53)Fred Lynn - Very similar to Duffy and Roush. Loses a lot of ground due to in-season durability concerns for an otherwise very strong candidate. Should be appealing to Browning/Chance/McGraw supporters who overlook that sort of thing.
((53a)Charlie Keller))
54)Cy Williams
55)Brett Butler - Some are calling him an equivalent to Kirby. I'm not seeing it. At Kirby's best, he was the best. At Butler's best, he was very good. My system will always take the guy who was the best for a stretch.
56)Amos Otis - The end of the centrefield run.
57)Dolf Camilli
58)Fielder Jones - I was missing on him a bit. A very apt first name. Solid bat as well.
((58a)Roger Bresnahan))
((58b)Pete Browning))
59)Steve Garvey - Something between Perez and McCormick. Nice size career, defensive value, could hit a bit - nothing overwhelming though.
60)Mark Grace - It's always fun when a player's name can fit with his on-field ability/persona. A Graceful first-baseman, with the stick and with the glove. Splitting hairs betwen him and Garvey. I think Garvey stuck out just that much more among his 1B peers.
61)Jim Bottomley - More than just a Frankie Frisch mistake. Not that he wasn;t a mistake, but he was not the worst one made.
62)George Kell
63)Frank McCormick - One of the finest 1B gloves in MLB hitter, and a decent hitter as well.
64)Bob Elliott - A little 3B run here
65)Sal Bando
66)Robin Ventura - Fits nicely into this run of hot-corner-men. Solid career quantity and quality, both at the plate and with the leather. Does not stick out enough with either to threaten for the HOM.
67)Buddy Bell - Fits in rather nicely in this run of HOVG 3B.
68)Pie Traynor
69)Ed Williamson - I was missing a little something here.
70)Johnny Evers
71)Elston Howard
72)Joe Wood - If he had one more really good year as a pitcher, he'd be balloted
73)Bill Mazeroski
74)Tony Lazerri - Similar value to Maz. Accrued very differently.
75)Tommy Leach - With his recent rise in the standings, I took another look at him for our penultimate election. I can see arguments that would have him around or even above someone like Brett Butler, or maybe even a bit more, but that would only mean 20-30 ballot spopts for me, and not significant at this stage. Not being convinced either way, he stays down here. Fine player, but not HOM quality.
76)Vic Willis - A reexamination of all pitchers to include fielding ability causes an adjustment for Willis and a jump up the consideration set.
77)Thurmon Munson - see below.
78)Walker Cooper - some days, he reminds me of Quincey Trouppe
79)Johnny Pesky
80)Hippo Vaughn
81)Sparky Lyle - The biggest surprise of my remodeled reliever system. I don't look at postseason heroics so much, but for those who give plaudits for Fingers' work, check out Sparky. Great peak, very consistent. Hurt by new DERA's.
82)George Kell - Had him a bit too high earlier.
83)Cesar Cedeno - Found him to be comparable to Amos Otis and Jimmy Wynn in total value. Slots lower than those two in light of the shape of that value.
84)Vada Pinson - The ink really threw me for a twist. He looks like a good all-round CF, not great. But he amassed hefty ink totals for his generation. This may be a safe ranking.
85)Luis Aparicio - The low OPS+ masks his real effectiveness.
86)Tip O'Neill - The next Canadian.
87)Rocky Colavito
88)Chuck Klein - Drops like a rock. Great hitter Not much else. What separates him from Cravath. Not sure at the moment, really. I guess Cravath has those extra credit intangibles.
89)Denny Lyons
((89a)John McGraw))
90)George Van Haltren - Van Haltren is the big loser on the CF sweepstakes due to his poor fielding by my own accounts.
91)Rabbit Maranville
92)Matt Williams - Definitely hurt by the strike of '94, but hurt more by missing half of the following season. His peak was high, but he was fairly one-dimensional in his offensive game outside of that 1993-96 period.
93)Ellis Burks - Better durability (say 100 extra PA in a given season twice) would have potentially given him a oost of 40 places on this list.
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 2.1892 seconds
49 querie(s) executed