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 30, 2009

2010 Results: Stars of the ‘90s Larkin, Alomar and Martinez Shine the Brightest at the HoM Today!

Star Reds shortstop Barry Larkin was the standout performer in the latest Hall of Merit election with his 94% of all possible points in his first year of eligibility.

All-time great second baseman Roberto Alomar was also impressive with his 84% as a newbie himself.

Last but not least, Seattle Mariners legend Edgar Martinez became the first full-time DH ever elected to the HoM. The first-time candidate earned 37% of all possible points.

Rounding out the top-ten are: David Cone, Phil Rizzuto, Gavvy Cravath, Hugh Duffy (back in the top-ten!), Bucky Walters, Luis Tiant and Rick Reuschel (first time in the top-ten!).

Thanks to OCF for his help with this election’s tally!

See all of you again here next year!

RK   LY  Player                   PTS  Bal   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1   n/e Barry Larkin             938   40  26 13           1                           
 2   n/e Roberto Alomar           849   41  11 16  4  2  2  1     1        1  2     1   
 3   n/e Edgar Martinez           371   26   1  1  3  3     3  4  3     1     2  3  2   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4    5  David Cone               316   22      2  2  4  2  1     2  1  1  4  1     1  1
 5    4  Phil Rizzuto             220   16      1  1  1  3  1  2     1  3        1  2   
 6    6  Gavvy Cravath            219   19         1  1     1  3  3  2     1  1  1  3  2
 7   14  Hugh Duffy               208   15      1  2  1  1        2  1  4  1  1     1   
 8    8  Bucky Walters            200   16         2  2  1  1     1  2     1  2     2  2
 9    9  Luis Tiant               198   15         2  1     1  3  2  1  2        1     2
10   13  Rick Reuschel            187   13      2  1     2  1     2  1     1  1  1  1   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11    7  Tommy Leach              185   14      1  2  1  2        1        2  1  1  1  2
12   10  Cannonball Dick Redding  185   13         3  1  1  2  1        1  1  1        2
13   n/e Fred McGriff             174   14            2     2  1  1  3  3        1     1
14   15  Don Newcombe             172   14            2  3  2  1           1  1  1  1  2
15   16  Dave Concepción          163   13            2  1  1  1  3  1     1  1  1     1
16   11  Kirby Puckett            145   10   1  1  1  1        1  1     1        1  1  1
17   20  Vic Willis               142   11         1     1     3  1  1  1  1  1     1   
18   12  Bob Johnson              140   12            1     2  2     1  1  3           2
19   22  Bobby Bonds              132   11         1     2        1  1  1  2     1  2   
20   23  Burleigh Grimes          124   10      1     1  2           1     1  1  1  1  1
21   17  Tony Perez               120    8         1  2  1  1  1     1              1   
22   18  Dizzy Dean               113    9         1  1  1              2  1  2  1      
23   30  Tommy Bridges            104    8         1     1  1     1  1     1  1     1   
24   21  Johnny Pesky              97    9            1  1  1           1        3  2   
25   26  Bus Clarkson              95    7         2        1              3           1
26T  27T Ken Singleton             90    8            1     2           1     2  1     1
26T  24  Mickey Welch              90    8                  3  1  1  1                 1
28   27T Bill Monroe               85    7            1  1        1  1     1  1  1      
29   29  Albert Belle              80    8                     1     1  1  1  2  1  1   
30   25  Dale Murphy               80    7               1        1  2     1  1  1      
31   34  Ed Williamson             77    5         1  1     1  1              1         
32   35  Bert Campaneris           75    4         2     1  1                           
33   32  Ben Taylor                74    6               1  1        2  1        1      
34   33  Bob Elliott               73    6                     1  2  2        1         
35   38  Norm Cash                 71    6                  2  1        1     1     1   
36   42  Fred Dunlap               69    6      1                    1  1     1     2   
37   19  George Van Haltren        65    5         1        1              2     1      
38T  31  Elston Howard             62    6               1     1        1     1        2
38T  40  Rusty Staub               62    6                     1        2  1  1     1   
40   39  Tommy John                62    5                  1  1     1  1  1            
41   46  Sal Bando                 62    4         1  1              1  1               
42   81  Buddy Bell                57    5               1  1     1                 1  1
43   48  Larry Doyle               56    4               2     1           1            
44   37  Pie Traynor               55    5         1                       1  1  1     1
45   79  Kevin Appier              48    4                        1  2  1               
46T  49T Addie Joss                48    3   1                    1     1               
46T  44  Frank Tanana              48    3         1     1                 1            
48T  36  Lou Brock                 46    4         1                 1                 2
48T  43  Urban Shocker             46    4                  1  1              1  1      
50   41  Lee Smith                 43    3            1        1     1                  
51   45  Vern Stephens             41    4                     1     1           1  1   
52   52  Babe Adams                40    2      1     1                                 
53   51  Ed Cicotte                38    2         1     1                              
54T  55  Don Mattingly             37    3   1                                      1  1
54T  77  Al Rosen                  37    3                        1  2                  
56   47  Carl Mays                 36    3                     1  1           1         
57   83  Tony Mullane              35    3                     1  1              1      
58   53  Chuck Klein               32    3            1                       1        1
59   82  Frank Chance              32    2            1     1                           
60T  62T Ernie Lombardi            31    3               1                       1  1   
60T  54  Sam Rice                  31    3                     1              1  1      
62   59  Jack Quinn                31    2         1                          1         
63   57  Dave Bancroft             30    3                  1                 1        1
64   56  Leroy Matlock             30    2            1           1                     
65   49T Wally Schang              29    2            1              1                  
66   87T Hilton Smith              25    2                     1        1               
67   60T Rabbit Maranville         23    3                                       2  1   
68T  --  Luke Easter               23    2            1                                1
68T  62T Dizzy Trout               23    2                           1  1               
70T  --  Orel Hershiser            22    2                     1                 1      
70T  64T Jim Kaat                  22    2                              2               
70T  73  Thurman Munson            22    2                  1                       1   
70T  58  Jimmy Ryan                22    2               1                             1
74T  69T Orlando Cepeda            21    2                     1                    1   
74T  66T Bruce Sutter              21    2                        1              1      
76   66T Sam Leever                20    2                              1     1         
77T  --  Cesar Cedeno              19    2                        1                    1
77T  71T Dwight Gooden             19    2                        1                    1
79   71T Dave Parker               18    2                                 1     1      
80T  69T George J. Burns           17    2                                 1        1   
80T  60T Jim Rice                  17    2                              1              1
82T  80  Chuck Finley              16    1               1                              
82T  74T Tony Oliva                16    1               1                              
84   74T Tommy Bond                13    2                                          1  1
85   78  Hack Wilson               13    1                        1
86   --  Jim McCormick             12    1                           1                  
87   64T Lefty Gomez               11    1                              1               
88T  85T Fielder Jones             10    1                                 1            
88T  91T George Kell               10    1                                 1            
88T  85T Deacon Phillipe           10    1                                 1            
91T  95T Bill Madlock               9    1                                    1         
91T  --  Nap Rucker                 9    1                                    1         
93T  84  Ron Cey                    8    1                                       1      
93T  87T Elmer Smith                8    1                                       1      
93T  87T Jack Fournier              8    1                                       1      
93T  91T Jack Morris                8    1                                       1      
93T  97T Al Oliver                  8    1                                       1      
93T  --  Will White                 8    1                                       1      
99T  66T Wilbur Cooper              7    1                                          1   
99T  91T Frank Howard               7    1                                          1   
99T  n/e Robin Ventura              7    1                                          1   
102T --  Jose Cruz                  6    1                                             1
102T 97T Charlie Hough              6    1                                             1
102T 95T Tony Lazzeri               6    1                                             1
102T 99  Billy Nash                 6    1                                             1
Dropped Out: Bobby Veach (74T), Lance Parrish (87T), Dom DiMaggio (91T).
Ballots Cast: 41

BTW, if you are a twitterer or facebookerer or myspacerer, please spread the word a bit about the election results.

You can use this short URL: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT

I’m sending this out, which fits under the 140 character Twitter limit with a couple of characters to spare:

Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez elected to the Hall of Merit! Cone, Rizzuto, Cravath top runners up: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT

Thanks!

 

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 30, 2009 at 09:44 PM | 140 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 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:02 AM (#3399735)
Congrats to Barry, Roberto and Edgar!

With that said, I wished the latter had gone through the gauntlet...

Plaques will be up sometime next week. I'll post the 2011 discussion thread tomorrow.
   2. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:04 AM (#3399738)
Congrats to the winners! 41 ballots too, one more than I remember from last year, the extension worked out well.
   3. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:07 AM (#3399740)
the extension worked out well.


Indeed it did, Joe.
   4. rawagman Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:07 AM (#3399741)
I find it interesting that no one was able to rise from the backlog. It hints that maybe, just maybe, we all did a pretty good job getting to the present. So much so, that the backlog will be dependent on drought years going forward.
That said, I agree with John that it would have been nice to get another year to discuss Edgar. I supported his candidacy (and PHOM'ed him), but the DH question could have used more debate.
   5. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:08 AM (#3399744)
That being said, I'm not thrilled with the result.

I don't s'pose I'm givin' anythin' away, then, by noting that it was close for 3 weeks and then got blown wide open just today. Some of us may not live to see another pre-TurfBall/LongBall player elected to the HoM.


Reposting that quote from a comment on the ballot thread.

I'm quite disappointed that Edgar didn't have to 'run the gauntlet' as we say (meaning be discussed for a few election cycles instead of rushing him in. But hey, Bill Terry got in this way too and the world didn't fall apart.

Especially when there's a new metric that is somewhat controversial, especially in it's handling of said player's position - to see it so readily used to elect a guy on his first shot, without a whole lot of leading discussion (though it did pick up late) really surprises (and somewhat disappoints) me.

Also, the LY part of the vote is off. I'll fix it, but I don't think that was updated. Rizzuto was the top runner up last year, for example.
   6. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:10 AM (#3399747)
I mean Edgar is a borderline candidate, I think everyone agrees with that. In that case, I think it's reasonable to be somewhat conservative the first time around, especially with perpetual eligibility, and a lot of question over how to value his position.
   7. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:11 AM (#3399748)
Congratulations to the Seattle Mariners on their first franchise cap.

That leaves the Diamondbacks, Rockies, Marlins, Rays and Rangers as current franchises without representation.
   8. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:12 AM (#3399751)
I mean Edgar is a borderline candidate, I think everyone agrees with that. In that case, I think it's reasonable to be somewhat conservative the first time around, especially with perpetual eligibility, and a lot of question over how to value his position.


I agree, Joe. Unfortunately, I see more newbie borderliners sailing in regardless in the near future.
   9. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:14 AM (#3399752)
I find it interesting that no one was able to rise from the backlog. It hints that maybe, just maybe, we all did a pretty good job getting to the present. So much so, that the backlog will be dependent on drought years going forward.


Fred McGriff's placement this year (13th) means that there should be at least one backlog spot available in 2012.
   10. Rick A. Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:14 AM (#3399753)
John,

Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but I'm seeing some discrepancies with the last year ranking of some players.

For instance, Rizzuto was 4th last year, but you have him listed as 10th.
Cravath was 6th last year, but you have him listed as 7th, etc.

EDIT: Oops, Joe beat me to it.
   11. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:15 AM (#3399755)
Actually, I think that only the top 10 or so had incorrect LY marks above. Still double checking though.

I'm not so sure John. I think it would help if we picked up the discussion for 2 weeks before and the entire time during the ballot, like we did in the last week this year.

This year the debate boiled down to yes/no on Edgar, instead of promoting, Cone, Rizzuto, Cravath and Walters. That's where we (the ones who wanted Edgar to run the gauntlet) dropped the ball I think.
   12. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:17 AM (#3399757)
41 voters. After all was said and done, only one truly new voter: mystikx20. However, there were several voters returning after a long time away.

Consensus scores for this:

Maximum possible: +9
Mean: -5.5 (just a run-of-the-ordinary consensus season).

mystikx20: +5
Howie Menckel: +1
Chris Fluit: +1
Sean Gilman: 0
Kenn: 0
rawagman: 0
Bleed the Freak: -1
Devin: -1
Al Peterson: -1
OCF: -2
...
Mark Donelson: -4
James Newburg: -4
Rusty Priske: -4 (median)
AJM: -5
fra paolo: -5
...
John Murphy: -6
...
Joe Dimino: -7
...
DL from MN: -8
mulder & scully: -8
Patrick W: -10
SWW: -10
Daryn: -10
Juan V: -12
bjhanke: -14
karlmagnus: -19
yest: -37
   13. Yardape Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:19 AM (#3399759)
Dropped Out: Jack Clark(n/e), Dom DiMaggio(91T), Hack Wilson(77), Lance Parrish(86T),
Bobby Veach(73T), Hack Wilson(77).


Poor Hack, dropping out twice in one year.
   14. vortex of dissipation Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:21 AM (#3399763)
As an outsider who has enjoyed following the HoM closely for years, even when I haven't agreed with the results, I'd like to say that I'm very pleased with this result. I think all honorees are fully deserving, and in the order of their votes...
   15. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:28 AM (#3399770)
Edgar is a more "certain" version of Gavy Cravath. If everyone treated Cravath like his supporters do he would be elected. I'm disappointed we can't get any consensus about who the top pitchers are. Cone seems to have some traction but everyone else is a mess. There are (to use Dan R's words) tons of "joke candidates" among pitchers.

Guys who aren't even in my HoVG:

Charlie Hough
Jack Morris
Will White
Jim Kaat
Bruce Sutter

Guys who are clearly HoVG:
Chuck Finley
Deacon Philippe
Ed Cicotte
Mickey Welch

Our agreement on what constitutes a replacement level position player is far higher than what constitutes a replacement level pitcher in each era. If that consensus builds, the pitchers will sort themselves out.
   16. Rick A. Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:29 AM (#3399771)
Dropped Out: Jack Clark(n/e), Dom DiMaggio(91T), Hack Wilson(77), Lance Parrish(86T),
Bobby Veach(73T), Hack Wilson(77).


I'm not really ballot counting, but I believe yest voted for Wilson.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:29 AM (#3399772)
Chris' comment was better than mine.

it would take a very concerted effort to direct the attention of a shifting and relatively unfocused electorate to the case of a player from the long-term backlog. I know that we are about to get a near-deluge of top players from the 1990-2010 era who will dominate the ballot for quite some time, so that's going to be the more decisive factor for quite some time, but without the continuity of engagement, building consensus about someone like Rizzuto or Bucky Walters (much less Williamson or Dunlap) would be formidably difficult.
   18. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:33 AM (#3399776)
... instead of promoting, Cone, Rizzuto, Cravath and Walters.

But we've been through their cases, and seen the arguments before. They each have their weaknesses, which we've seen along with their strengths. And some of us prefer Tiant or Reuschel to Cone, Pesky or Campaneris to Rizzuto, Johnson or Duffy to Cravath, Bridges or Shocker to Walters. How is a campaign to encourage consolidation of the backlog vote going to overcome those established preferences, and the arguments of voters who say you're promoting the wrong man?
   19. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:36 AM (#3399779)
Because some of those guys gain votes.

You present your case and win people over. We'd been through Nettles and McGraw too. Then a focused campaign, based on logic and reason shot them up the charts.
   20. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:38 AM (#3399783)
I've fixed the "LYs" and "Dropped Outs", I believe. This is only based on what was listed, not an actual counting of all the ballots personally. Please let me know if you see errors.

Also, I like to use "n/e" to describe candidates that were not eligible, and "--" to show candidates that didn't receive votes, even though they were eligible.
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:39 AM (#3399784)
Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but I'm seeing some discrepancies with the last year ranking of some players.

For instance, Rizzuto was 4th last year, but you have him listed as 10th.
Cravath was 6th last year, but you have him listed as 7th, etc.


I think what happened was that I save my spreadsheet after the 39th ballot last year. Though I added the 40th ballot and posted the correct results here, I must have forgotten to save the revised ballot counter. When I set up my spreadsheet for this election (by clicking onto a macro button), it was basing the LY numbers on 39 ballots, not 40.

I'll try to fix this tomorrow.
   22. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:40 AM (#3399786)
While I understand sentiments of disappointment about Edgar Martinez, he's only "borderline" in the broad sense of borderline by the rough standards that the HoM has applied to bat candidates over the years.

Take just the basics: Edgar has a 147 OPS+ in 2055 major-league games.

Only three players with a career OPS+ higher than Edgar have not been elected. They are

Gavvy Cravath, OPS+ 151, who has the whole MiL credit issue going and still finished at #6 this year,
Dave Orr, OPS+162 in a career of no more than 1000 season-adj. games in the 1880s AA,
Benny Kauff, OPS+ 149, in a career of about 900 season-adj. games, and whose career mark is an FL artifact: he never topped his career OPS+ in NL play

Considering only players with 2000+ games played in their careers, every single one with an OPS+ of 140 or better has been elected. The highest OPS+ among eligible, unelected players with over 2000 games played is 139, which belongs to Norm Cash.

So, really, no hitter with a career comparable to Edgar Martinez has been left out of the HoM.

One has to regard the DH as raising very significant issues about the face value of advanced batting statistics to argue against Edgar's inclusion. Given that the HoM electorate has been willing to elect fairly short-career, iron-glove outfielders if they could really rake (see Browning, Pete, and Kiner, Ralph), it's hard to see Edgar's election as anything but obviously consistent with prior standards.

The HoM line seems to fall decisively between Edgar and 1) Frank Howard, 2) Albert Belle, and 3) Norm Cash, who are the next three hitting candidates down with the highest combined OPS+/career length profiles.
   23. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:42 AM (#3399788)
I'm not really ballot counting, but I believe yest voted for Wilson.

He did, and Wilson should be on the results list with 13 points. The matching discrepancy: Welch should have only one 8th place vote and 90 points instead of 103.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:42 AM (#3399789)
I'll try to fix this tomorrow.


Looks like Joe beat me to it. Thanks!
   25. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:44 AM (#3399793)
John, I've got the LY's on there - but I just want to make sure yest's ballot was counted, as he had Hack Wilson 8th, and we don't have Hack with any points.
   26. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:44 AM (#3399794)
Ah, thanks OCF, I'll fix it now.
   27. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:44 AM (#3399795)
I don't think Martinez' election is that different than several we've had in the latter stages of the project - Dwight and Darrell Evans, Keith Hernandez, Will Clark. They weren't clear-cut choices, but they made it on a lot of ballots, and went in their first year with little difficulty.

I see I'm going to have to prepare some stinging explanations of why you're all wrong about Hugh Duffy for next year. :)

BTW, John, did we settle on a cap for Alomar?
   28. Howie Menckel Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:48 AM (#3399797)
all-time 'votes points' thru 2010 - those still eligible in 2011 election are in CAPS

electees are not in caps

in a way, these are most-oft debated candidates

Welch, the P with the most pts, climbs to 5th
Redding climbs to 7th and 2nd among Ps, could catch Welch in 7-8 yrs if not elected first
Monroe into top 40

TOP 50, ALL-TIME
DUFFY...... 27226.5
VAN HALTREN 26851.5
Beckley.... 25856
Browning... 24502.5
WELCH...... 18537
Childs..... 18484
REDDING.... 17950
Griffith... 17924
Waddell.... 17596
Jennings... 16976

CJones..... 15875
TLEACH..... 15563
Bresnahan.. 14965
Sisler..... 13892
Pike....... 13399
Sewell..... 12769
RYAN....... 12663.5
Mendez..... 12555
Thompson... 12349
Roush...... 12005

CRAVATH.....11903
Bennett.... 11503
WALTERS.....11496
Moore...... 10904
Rixey...... 10789
Caruthers.. 10704
Beckwith.... 9896
DOYLE....... 9774
HStovey......9576
GRIMES.......9513

BJOHNSON.....9419
Mackey.......8930
AOms.........8385
Start........8378.5
McGinnity....8232
McGraw.......8145
DPearce......8073
McVey........7985.5
FGrant.......7969.5
BMONROE......7807

Kiner........7746
Suttles......7690
NFox.........7587
Trouppe......7494
WFerrell.....7259
CBell........6968
SCHANG.......6796
Galvin.......6585
WILLIAMSON...6579
Keller.......6424

will get to the "others in active top 50" another time
   29. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:48 AM (#3399798)
OK, should be completely fixed.
   30. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:51 AM (#3399800)
Thanks again, Joe. I typed Welch instead of the Hackster for yest's ballot.
   31. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:52 AM (#3399801)
2005 results announced Sept. 29, 2007--54 ballots
2006--Oct. 21, 2007--51
2007--Nov. 12, 2007--48
2008--Dec. 3, 2007--50

2009--Dec. 15, 2008--40
2010--Nov. 30, 2009--41

So the big drop-off (OK, 10) was last year. Up until last year, we always voted 2-3 weeks after the previous vote. We've got 2 years of experience now of voting a year apart. I'm gonna guess that there's probably about a half dozen new voters each of the two most recent years.

The results for indvidual players changed much less than I expected. The bigger changes occurred a year ago.

Name...08...09...10

Rizzuto 13...4...5
Cone 15...5...4
Cravath 11...6...6
Walters 5...8...8
Tiant 12...9...9
Reuschel 29...12...10

OK there are counter-examples.

Leach 6...7...11
Duffy 14...14...7
Puckett 9...11...16
B. Johnson 10...12...18

But overall the top 24 a year ago is the top 24 this year. Only Tommy Bridges cracked the top 25 who was not there a year ago. So maybe the idea of massive change is a chimera. I don't know. But I do think Edgar's performance is a harbinger of things to come. There will be a small handfull of new voters each year motivated by some borderliner or other. 4 Edgar voters were enough to sway it. But, of course, his primary competition is another recent player who was 15th as recently as 2008. So I think our electorate has changed just a little bit the past two real-time years, but that's just enuogh.
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:53 AM (#3399802)
BTW, John, did we settle on a cap for Alomar?


Has to be Toronto, Devin.
   33. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:54 AM (#3399804)
Regarding Alomar's cap, I get the following as his DanR Pennants Added per team (all adjusted for season length):

San Diego: .115 (.036, .042, .037)
Toronto: .279 (.061, .066, .078, .033, .041)
Baltimore: .183 (.091, .057, .035)
Cleveland: .240 (.108, .044, .088)

My vote is for Toronto.

2 rings, more value, prime years (though not his best individual seasons).
   34. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:54 AM (#3399805)
Glad we agree!
   35. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:55 AM (#3399807)
Plus, he lived in the SkyDome!
   36. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:55 AM (#3399808)
So this is the year of the 1977 expansion! Heck, even the Reds were the 2-time defending champs for the entire 1977 season.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:57 AM (#3399809)
I see I'm going to have to prepare some stinging explanations of why you're all wrong about Hugh Duffy for next year. :)


Too high or too low? He did jump from 14th to 7th. No clue why.

Next year--Bagwell, Brown, Cone
   38. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:57 AM (#3399810)
Thanks again, Joe. I typed Welch instead of the Hackster for yest's ballot.


Thank you John, OCF and Ron for tallying.
   39. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:59 AM (#3399811)
One has to regard the DH as raising very significant issues about the face value of advanced batting statistics to argue against Edgar's inclusion. Given that the HoM electorate has been willing to elect fairly short-career, iron-glove outfielders if they could really rake (see Browning, Pete, and Kiner, Ralph), it's hard to see Edgar's election as anything but obviously consistent with prior standards.


I still think Joe's description of him as comparable to Bob Johnson in value is apt. Which means that Martinez was a serious candidate, but not one that had to have gone in his first year of eligibility.

With that said, we can't get everybody we want in every election. I'm satisfied with the results.
   40.     Hey Gurl Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:01 AM (#3399814)
I think he should go in as a Devil Ray.

They were his bread and butter.
   41. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:03 AM (#3399815)
And it took us 100 years to get Browning in and quite awhile to get Kiner in.

Also, Hernandez and Clark had much more initial support than Edgar. Edgar is much more like Bill Terry, in terms of Hall of Merit election, IMO.

With Terry, it was just like - oh crap, really? No further debate? Oh well. I feel the same way about Edgar.

And I'm not one that has Edgar way down the list, I've got him just off my ballot. But I just feel like it was rushed. C'est la vie.
   42. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:04 AM (#3399816)
Next year--Bagwell, Brown, Cone


Only if Raffy faces a big steroid boycott.
   43. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:05 AM (#3399817)
Yardape Posted: November 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM (#3399759)

Dropped Out: Jack Clark(n/e), Dom DiMaggio(91T), Hack Wilson(77), Lance Parrish(86T),
Bobby Veach(73T), Hack Wilson(77).



Poor Hack, dropping out twice in one year.


Especially funny since he didn't even actually drop out!
   44. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:08 AM (#3399820)
Guys who aren't even in my HoVG:

Charlie Hough
Jack Morris
Will White
Jim Kaat
Bruce Sutter

Guys who are clearly HoVG:
Chuck Finley
Deacon Philippe
Ed Cicotte
Mickey Welch


In my HoVG project so far, Will White is in. As are Cicotte and Welch. Philippe is not. Haven't gotten to the modern guys yet.
   45. Juan V Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:08 AM (#3399821)
I think he should go in as a Devil Ray.

They were his bread and butter.


I believe this is the first toast reference in this whole HOM election cycle. Kudos (and I can't believe it took so long)
   46. Howie Menckel Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:10 AM (#3399822)
For casual HOM visitors:

Our "election" of Edgar Martinez comes at a rough parallel of 35 to 40 pct of the vote.

Meaning, if you flip these over to Hall of Fame standards, we didn't elect him (and unlike some candidates, he doesn't have controversies or sentimental reasons that would likely produce a far different HOF opinion among the electorate).
He basically joins the crowd that replaces the 60 or so "bums" in the Hall of Fame who we are replacing with better alternatives - since we are accepting the total number of players chosen.
   47. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:12 AM (#3399824)
I still haven't done the Brown/Cone comparison. But I agree it will be Bagwell/Raffy and one of the other two.

Unless Dan and I (and a few others) can successfully spread the gospel on Rizzuto. I'm going to try.

The problem is that his case does not jump out at you. I realize I'm stating that obvious, but it's more than just war credit.

I'm not convinced every voter realizes his 1946 was due to war induced malaria - and that he deserves extended military credit for that. And that you shouldn't kill his 1943-45 war credit because of his malaria induced lousy 1946. I wasn't even aware of the malaria until last year.

Or that he deserves minor league credit for 1940 - every bit as much as Charlie Keller got, for example.

Or that his defense really was 'that good'.

His actual career numbers, much like DiMaggio's show him in as bad a light as he could possibly be seen in. In virtually any other time and place, Rizzuto has a career that shows up as a convincing HoMer.

Again, Dan was able to get the group focused on guys like Nettles and McGraw. Focused enough to elect them anyway.

I think a well presented stating of the case for Rizzuto would certainly help. It could add him to a few ballots where he's borderline, and move him up a few that he's already on.

Same for Cravath - although he's had his case presented, quite well by Gadfly. I think we have focused on those two as the best pre-1990s backloggers, based on the results of the last two elections, now it's time to try to push them over the top.

There's nothing wrong with taking a little time on the borderline modern players. We've got a long time to elect them.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:19 AM (#3399830)
BTW, if you are a twitterer or facebookerer or myspacerer, please spread the word a bit about the election results.

You can use this short URL: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT

I'm sending this out, which fits under the 140 character Twitter limit with a couple of characters to spare:

Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez elected to the Hall of Merit! Cone, Rizzuto, Cravath top runners up: http://bit.ly/6KhOXT

Thanks!
   49. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:28 AM (#3399838)
Added #48 to the main post.
   50. John DiFool2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:50 AM (#3399861)
I agree, Joe. Unfortunately, I see more newbie borderliners sailing in regardless in the near future.


Why the automatic 3 rule? The Cooperstown Hall has a threshold (75%) which must be reached. Is it because every voter puts in 15 names? I still think a hard threshold would work here (I am sure you hashed this out years ago in some dusty old thread buried 23 pages back).
   51. Juan V Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:54 AM (#3399865)
Thinking about it, I believe the big winner from Edgar's election (besides Edgar himself, of course) is Bernie Williams.
   52. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:07 AM (#3399878)
Marc sunnyday2 #37
Too high or too low? He [Duffy] did jump from 14th to 7th. No clue why.

There is some gap between the tallies for #15 Concepcion and #16 Puckett. Meanwhile Puckett #16 and Willis #17 are the highest finishers who were not named on any of the four extra preliminary ballots (HGM, epoc, JWPF13, and let me count my own). For both reasons, consider the first fifteen.

How do the top fifteen stand on those four extra prelim ballots? Edgar Martinez extraordinarily well. At the other extreme Hugh Duffy #7 trails with six points worth of extra mentions. There isn't much support for #8 Walters, either. Because #9-10-11t Tiant, Reuschel, and Leach do well there. If those four prelims were cast, that trio would climb to ranks 7-8-10; Walters and Duffy would drop to 9-11.

This small difference in current support may be practically important in Duffy's favor. If all voters will be required to comment on the top ten from this election, meaning the first seven in the backlog next year, that requirement will help keep Duffy in view; it will make him one minor focus of attention. That goes for Duffy and Reuschel, in place of Leach and Redding for whom it worked (or didn't work) this year.
   53. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:18 AM (#3399882)
Oh yeah, I never answered that. I'm not a Hugh Duffy supporter at all. I happened to reference him in response to DanR talking about taking an aggressive stance against Puckett in the ballot thread earlier today. So when he actually did show up in the top 10, I couldn't let it pass. Whether I'll actually get organized enough to produce said argument is a pretty open question.
   54. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:33 AM (#3399892)
One thing I am organized enough to do right now, is to show this year's updates to the highest-ranking non-HoMers in various stats. This time, it's a new non-electee taking some career-best spots (old holder in italics):

HR: Fred McGriff, 493 (26th) Jose Canseco, 462 (32nd)
Runs Created: Fred McGriff, 1704 (45th) Harold Baines, 1606 (60th)
Adj. Batting Runs: Fred McGriff, 447 (59th) Bob Johnson, 392 (73rd)
Adj. Batting Wins: Fred McGriff, 43.4 (58th) Jack Clark, 39 (73rd)
   55. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:37 AM (#3399894)
In that case, I think it's reasonable to be somewhat conservative the first time around, especially with perpetual eligibility, and a lot of question over how to value his position.

So what you're saying is that Edgar is a HoMer, just not a first-ballot HoMer? :)
   56. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:58 AM (#3399910)
I will be launching an all-out assault in favor of Larry Walker (yes over Palmeiro who I also think is deserving) next year. Any and every voter who doesn't have him high on his prelim can expect a haranguing from me. Many people have been mentioning the importance of concerted campaigns by committed advocates of controversial candidates to their eventual induction--I sure hope that holds true in 2010.
   57. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:01 AM (#3399913)
I didn't vote b/c I've been slammed with work and couldn't devote enough time to writing up a ballot that would meet my standards, but if I had, my ballot would have been :

1. Barry Larkin
2. Phil Rizzuto
3. Rick Reuschel
4. Johnny Pesky
5. Roberto Alomar
6. Dagoberto Campaneris
7. Luis Tiant
8. Reggie Smith
9. Dwight Gooden
10. Don Newcombe
11. David Concepción
12. Dom Dimaggio
13. Burleigh Grimes
14. Tommy Leach
15. Edgar Martinez

I wonder how that would have affected the outcome.
   58. Lassus Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:01 AM (#3399914)
Isn't the HoVG more like the Hall of Some Merit for you guys? HoSM?










I'll let myself out.
   59. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:05 AM (#3399915)
Good you didn't submit that one, 'zop, since Reggie Smith was inducted last year. Fortunately, the election wasn't close.

DL from MN--could I trouble you to elaborate your placement of Reuschel below so many other hurlers? I am quite convinced he is the cream of the backlog P crop.
   60. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:11 AM (#3399918)
'zop, the only real contested issue was Martinez versus Cone. If you had Martinez on your ballot (albeit 15th) and Cone off, you wouldn't have changed anything about that. But you would have added one more person to the 100+ member list of those receiving votes: DiMaggio.
   61. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:13 AM (#3399919)
Good, that makes me feel better. I was going to be annoyed if, as Dan R. put it, "Bucky Walters is elected because you don't submit a ballot".
   62. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:46 AM (#3399927)
If Lassus is referencing what I think he's referencing (and I kinda doubt it), all I can say is: Hoody Hoo!
   63. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 01, 2009 at 01:35 PM (#3399950)
I'm quite disappointed that Edgar didn't have to 'run the gauntlet' as we say (meaning be discussed for a few election cycles instead of rushing him in.

This is a bit different though. This election cycle was a year. If someone ran a few cycles before it was still only a month or two.
   64. fra paolo Posted: December 01, 2009 at 01:41 PM (#3399951)
I don't share the hand-wringing over Edgar winning. I had him fourth on my ballot, so I didn't think he was a 'first-ballot HoMer' either, but at least he was named on more than half the ballots. Last year's election was more problematic, in that McGraw wasn't. The top points scorer named on at least half the ballots was Gavy Cravath, or as DL puts it:

Edgar is a more "certain" version of Gavy Cravath. If everyone treated Cravath like his supporters do he would be elected.

In that sense, I think the electorate is showing consistency - which is good! - and people shouldn't be surprised or disappointed at the outcome.

The points system is pretty good, but I don't like the way a HoMer can get elected without being on 50%+1 of the ballots. It detracts from the 'marketability' of the HoM.
   65. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2009 at 02:11 PM (#3399954)
Very Preliminary Rankings for 2011:

1. Bagwell 175 (no one's close!)
2 & 3. Reuschel 145 & Brown (won't know which order until I do a full work-up on Brown, but I'm guessing his low end is 140, high 155)
4. Walker 134 (just ahead of the next one on intangibles)
5. Palmeiro 134.4
6. Cravath 129.3
7. Campaneris 129.4
8. Rizzuto 127.8
9. Concepcion 127.7
10. Tiant 126.6
11. John 125.7
12. Dunlap125.1
13. Grimes 125.5
14. Rucker125.2
15. B. Bell 122.2

It's a strong entering class. It's clear there's been some movement on new metrics, and the extension back in time of better base-running and fielding metrics, which I'll need to account for in firming up the order for the backlog.
   66. Rusty Priske Posted: December 01, 2009 at 02:40 PM (#3399968)
I was the median? Wow. I'm used to being a little less 'standard'. :)
   67. bjhanke Posted: December 01, 2009 at 02:51 PM (#3399971)
RE: Post #47

Joe, I'm one of the Rizzuto detractors, and I kind of apologize for the tone of the last post I wrote about Phil - it was a bit harsh on rereading - so I'm going to try to give you some help in the form of telling you what you would need to do to convert me.

The problem isn't war credit or even 1946 (although I'm leery of just writing off illness seasons, even if the malaria probably came from Italy). It's the entire context surrounding the war years. Here are Rizzuto's OPS+ before the fluke of '50:

41 - 96
42 - 103
46 - 74 (malaria)
47 - 100
48 - 79 (injured? he did miss some time)
49 - 88

So when I fill in the war years, I give them an average of about OPS+ 99, with one or two seasons of 102 or so. What else can I do?

In order to convince me to put Phil on a ballot, you have to convince me of one of the following two things, and probably both:

1) 1943-46 represent a peak that would just tower over the context surrounding them, a peak that was suppressed by the war. That's going to be a real hard sell. There are a lot of guys out there who would look real good if you could fill in missing years with years that are much better than the ones surrounding them that the player actually did play.

2) Convince me that, at the very least, Phil Rizzuto was as great a defensive shortstop as Maranville, Ozzie, and George Wright. Better than Marty Marion. It would help a lot if you could convince me that, somehow, Phil was better than any of those guys and somehow no one noticed.

These are tall orders, I know. Their height is why I don't have him on my ballot. Without them, he ends up drowned by Ozzie's glove and Rabbit's glove and career length. I have Rabbit at the bottom of my 15. At the very least, you have to convince me that Phil's career, with war credit, is the equal of Rabbit's. Right now, I am pretty thoroughly convinced of the opposite.

Please take this in the spirit I intend it to have. I'm not trying to make a case against Phil. I'm trying to give you some idea of what it would take to convince me. This is the kind of help I need on people like Will White. I'm a White supporter. I don't know what the thoughts of the opposition are, because I don't see them. That's what I'm trying to do here: Help you see how at least one detractor thinks, what my problems with Phil are. It's the kind of help I've been asking for, so I ought to offer up some of that when Joe posts up like he did in #47. It's only fair to give what you ask for.

- Brock
   68. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 03:18 PM (#3399995)
All the available numbers certainly show Rizzuto as in that class if not better...TotalZone puts him at +121 (with a particular strength on turning the DP); BP's FRAA has him at +127; and DRA shows +134. With war credit, that'd put him at about +170. By contrast, Marion is at +130/+158/+118, and Maranville is +130/+189/+100 (in a much longer career, and therefore with a lower rate). If you don't trust pre-PBP defensive stats, I can't blame you, of course. But I'm not sure how to go about arguing on anecdotal/reputational grounds without heading to my nearest library to search through decades of newspaper columns...
   69. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 03:38 PM (#3400015)
2 comments about Rizzuto. The "fluke" and the glove.

First, his 1950 stands out above his other seasons on OPS+. Maybe it was a fluke, somebody else will have to say what are the odds that a player with his overall record would have a season like that. But it happened. He did it. It's part of his record. You can't say, no, he is really the player of 1941-1949 and 1951-1954 and he's not the player of 1950. He's all of that.

2) Convince me that, at the very least, Phil Rizzuto was as great a defensive shortstop...and somehow no one noticed.


Second, no one noticed? He is regarded, I think, as one of the great DP SSs ever. His throwing was particularly good. Bill James says that based on 1941-1942 he was recognized as one of the best SS in baseball. James says he struggled after the war and he hurt his shoulder in 1948. But in 1949 Rizzuto was the only Yankee regular who didn't have injury problems, he played 153 games and the Yankees won the pennant. He was regarded as the best SS in baseball and as the Yankees' MVP. In 1950 it was more of the same.

EDIT: Thx DanR for beating me to this and doing it better. I'm with Dan on this. The best evidence we have is the best evidence we have. But I would also argue that the anecdotal evidence is there and it's good, too.

Rizzuto hit .316 and .347 at Kansas City, then .307 as a rookie and then .284. I think the flukes were 1946 (malaria .257) and the shoulder in 1948 (.252). That's not to say that I give him any more credit for those years than what they're worth. But likewise, 1950 gets full credit for its value.

But the main point is that people did notice that he was a great SS. He and Marion are pretty equal from the numbers I've seen but of course Marion's OPS+ is even lower than Maranville's. Rizzuto 93 Concepcion 88 Maranville 82 Marion 81. The question is, were any of those other guys so much better with the glove as to wipe out Rizzuto's edge with the bat? Reasonable people can disagree about that but Rizzuto's defense was recognized and 1950 happened.
   70. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:07 PM (#3400039)
Rizzuto's my top pure SS - but he's just short of the ballot in Wally Schang, Ron Cey and Bobby Bonds territory. Edgar was _just short_ of my ballot and just outside my PHoM. I was fairly conservative on the 1st ballot also not giving minor league credit, etc. Joe McGinnity has the inside track on the PHoM after the ranking exercise but Edgar is next in line.

Reuschel got dinged by WARP1 which bumped him down slightly. I had him grouped with Tiant and Cone before. WARP1 changed again and he might slide back up. I'd like to see a discussion of WARP1 v Chone WAR v Dan R WAR for pitchers to figure out what each is bringing to the table. We can slip in the Pennants Added methodology too. I do need value above replacement as well as value above average to make an informed decision. I don't like to reward long career average players (Tommy John).

Prelim for next ballot:

1) Bagwell
2) Brown - so clearly ahead of Cone, up in Drysdale territory
3) Larry Walker - tremendous glove value for a RF, as good of a bat as anyone on the fringes. Those MVP votes were deserved.
4) Cone
5) Bridges
6) Tiant
7) Palmeiro - hard for a career voter not to find Palmeiro better than Edgar. Will have to wait for PHoM though.
8) Leach
9) Reuschel? - probably moving ahead of Shocker
10) Shocker
11) Bob Johnson
12) Kevin Appier
13) Ben Taylor - compare to Palmeiro?
14-20) Will probably be jostled about during the year

I like Olerud better than McGriff. Bernie Williams is down near Puckett but I'm pessimistic on CF compared to consensus.
   71. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:07 PM (#3400040)
So, what does one have to do to join? I take it the next election is a year away.

Do I need to have a system to rank all players, or can I just focus on the top 50 guys in the back-log and the newbies? Must I have a "system" or can I just look at guys relative to who's in or out for the respective position/era?
   72. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:11 PM (#3400049)
It's not just war credit with Rizzuto, he was stuck in the minors putting up average or better MLB seasons.
   73. DanG Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:12 PM (#3400052)
it's hard to see Edgar's election as anything but obviously consistent with prior standards
Bingo.
The HoM line seems to fall decisively between Edgar and 1) Frank Howard, 2) Albert Belle, and 3) Norm Cash, who are the next three hitting candidates down with the highest combined OPS+/career length profiles.
Let's formalize this idea, the list of "bat" candidates.

Short career, 19th century
Player       OPS+    G      PA      To     From
Levi Meyerle 162    307    1453    1871    1884
Dave Orr     161    791    3411    1883    1890
Bill Joyce   143    904    4149    1890    1898
Ed Swartwood 142    724    3244    1881    1892
George Hall  142    365    1708    1871    1877 

Longer career, 19th century
Player       OPS+    G      PA       To     From
Tip O
'Neill  143    1054    4720    1883    1892
Henry Larkin 141    1184    5302    1884    1893
Denny Lyons  139    1121    5010    1885    1897
Mike Tiernan 137    1476    6716    1887    1899 

Short career, 20th century
Player         OPS+     G      PA      To     From
Gavvy Cravath  151    1220    4645    1908    1920
Benny Kauff    149     859    3564    1912    1920
Mike Donlin    144    1049    4282    1899    1914
Lefty O
'Doul   143     970    3659    1919    1934
George Stone   143     849    3668    1903    1910
Kevin Mitchell 142    1223    4696    1984    1998 

Mid-length career, 20th century
Player         OPS+     G      PA      To     From
Hack Wilson    144    1348    5556    1923    1934
Albert Belle   143    1539    6673    1989    2000
Jack Fournier  142    1530    6033    1912    1927
Babe Herman    140    1552    6226    1926    1945
Jeff Heath     139    1383    5560    1936    1949
D
Strawberry  138    1583    6326    1983    1999
Ken Williams   138    1397    5616    1915    1929
Pedro Guerrero 137    1536    6115    1978    1992
Wally Berger   137    1350    5663    1930    1940 

Long career, 20th century
Player       OPS+     G      PA      To     From
Jeff Bagwell 149    2150    9431    1991    2005
Frank Howard 142    1895    7353    1958    1973
Larry Walker 140    1988    8030    1989    2005
Norm Cash    139    2089    7910    1958    1974
Bob Johnson  138    1863    8047    1933    1945
Jack Clark   137    1994    8225    1975    1992
Chuck Klein  137    1753    7168    1928    1944 
   74. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:14 PM (#3400056)
Re: posts #65 and #70: prelims are likely to get lost here. I assume we'll have a 2011 discussion thread before too long.
   75. DL from MN Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:17 PM (#3400058)
The key to joining is being willing to put in the time necessary to make an informed decision. That's what it says in the rules. I'm pretty sure you'll need some method to make value judgements of how to rank one player versus another. Focus on this question - what do I consider as a "meritorious player"? Is it peak value or career value? Is it just value over replacement or do you want to see some evidence of being the best at a position? How do I consider all positions and all eras fairly? I like to focus on the ballot as if I'm a general manager who gets a player's entire career. If I would trade one guy's career for another I'm going to rank him lower on the ballot than the other guy.
   76. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3400085)
Thanks, Dan G., for that nifty table! That shows much more clearly and comprehensively what I was gesturing toward in my brief comment on Martinez.
   77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:00 PM (#3400102)
The key to joining is being willing to put in the time necessary to make an informed decision. That's what it says in the rules. I'm pretty sure you'll need some method to make value judgements of how to rank one player versus another. Focus on this question - what do I consider as a "meritorious player"? Is it peak value or career value? Is it just value over replacement or do you want to see some evidence of being the best at a position? How do I consider all positions and all eras fairly? I like to focus on the ballot as if I'm a general manager who gets a player's entire career. If I would trade one guy's career for another I'm going to rank him lower on the ballot than the other guy.

Sounds fair.

Are there some generally accepted valuation metrics that are used by a lot of voters? Not that I'd blindly follow a single value ranking, but are there 2 or 3 metrics that are in most peoples' consideration set? Obviously OPS+, coupled with some indication of quantity seems to be used a lot for hitting. I've seen reference to various WAR systems and win shares.

What do people find most valuable?
   78. rr Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3400106)
This is the best thing that has happened to Reds' fans in awhile.

GO BARRY!

As I have said, I don't think the BBWAA is going to like him as much as the HoM guys do. But as a Primate, I am glad my favorite player is in the HoM.
   79. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:08 PM (#3400109)
In that case, I think it's reasonable to be somewhat conservative the first time around, especially with perpetual eligibility, and a lot of question over how to value his position.

So what you're saying is that Edgar is a HoMer, just not a first-ballot HoMer? :)


I see the :-), but just to address it - I'm saying, I'm not 100% sure, heck, I'm not even 50% sure (and I don't really think we are as a group, either), so I think we should have taken a little more time. There's nothing wrong with saying I'm not quite sure yet. Especially when a player is one of the first handful of his peer-group to hit the ballot.
   80. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:10 PM (#3400110)
This is a bit different though. This election cycle was a year. If someone ran a few cycles before it was still only a month or two.


Yeah, but we hibernated for 49-50 weeks of that year . . .
   81. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3400115)
67. bjhanke Posted: December 01, 2009 at 08:51 AM (#3399971)
RE: Post #47
...
2) Convince me that, at the very least, Phil Rizzuto was as great a defensive shortstop as Maranville, Ozzie, and George Wright. Better than Marty Marion. It would help a lot if you could convince me that, somehow, Phil was better than any of those guys and somehow no one noticed.


One problem is that we don't all agree that those shortstops make a group. Sabrmetric measures don't agree that those shortstops make a group. Some observers did and some ratings do put Maranville behind Marion. For some it's easy for some to respond by pouncing on Maranville.


68. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 09:18 AM (#3399995)
All the available numbers certainly show Rizzuto as in that class if not better...TotalZone puts him at +121 (with a particular strength on turning the DP)

No way. The Scooter's fielding reputation takes a big hit from Total Zone (the range component of choneWAR, there is also a DP component).
Considering how long he played Maranville isn't much better by TZ, perhaps in the second tier with Rizzuto in the third tier.

Remarkably, TZ otherwise revives the conventional wisdom of long ago. Joe Tinker and Marty Marion are back on top.

That's enough in this setting. I'll take it to "Phil Rizzuto" --only because Omar Vizquel waited too long to retire!
   82. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3400116)
Brock, thanks for #67. I definitely take it in the way you intended it. Very helpful.

One thing I did was work up players who had similar value to what Rizzuto did for the known years, and filled in an approximation of what those players did in the missing years. I did this for everyone who missed significant WWII time.

I'll post the details when I get home . . .
   83. sunnyday2 Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:36 PM (#3400132)
Snapper, there's no single required metric. There's lots of guys here who use WAR or WARP but of course in various different flavors. WS are not uninfluential, though they've undoubtedly declined over the years. Heck we've got a voter who uses base hits.

I do think you need a "system" that can be applied to a range of players as opposed to something that only works for a finite set. e.g. the top 50 backlog. Some systems may work for 50 players but be unwieldy for any more than that. I speak from experience. I used to use a rank ordering but by about 1910 there was no way.

Anyway, you've got some time to put together what you think is defensible, so just do that, and then be ready to defend it! ;-) But especially be ready to defend it as fair to all eras.
   84. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:41 PM (#3400141)
Paul Wendt, yes, but Rizzuto's greatest strength was turning the double play!! choneWAR has him at +60 on range and +60 on DP's, for total defensive value similar to Marion and Maranville (pre-war credit; greater after crediting him for '43-'45). BP FRAA and DRA agree almost exactly. Why does it matter whether you save runs by taking away singles or by turning routine groundouts into double plays??
   85. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:46 PM (#3400148)
Do I need to have a system to rank all players, or can I just focus on the top 50 guys in the back-log and the newbies? Must I have a "system" or can I just look at guys relative to who's in or out for the respective position/era?


You don't need to build your own system. But you should be aware of the systems that are out there already, the pros and cons of them, etc.

I'm a huge fan of DanR's WAR personally. I've got a pitcher system that I think does a pretty good job, especially in terms of adjusting for innings norms across eras. It needs some work on adjusting for career length across eras.

There's Chone's WARP, the BPro's WARP, Win Shares, etc. All are useful, all need some tweaking, like WS having too low of a replacement level.

It's quite possible Bill James will have his Win/Loss Shares out in the next year or so too.

Once you get involved and start reading, you'll realize you need to do more than just look at the top 50 returnees.

At a minimum, you'll want to look at everyone that has gotten a vote in the last few years. You might find that there are guys you never would have realized you'd like that you love. And vice-versa.

Welcome aboard!
   86. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:49 PM (#3400155)
I'm a huge fan of DanR's WAR personally. I've got a pitcher system that I think does a pretty good job

Do you have links to these?

I'm pretty sure I know how to find Chones's and BPro's WARPs.

At a minimum, you'll want to look at everyone that has gotten a vote in the last few years

Where can I find this?
   87. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 05:55 PM (#3400170)
BTW, do you guys think it's best to post the 2011 ballot discussion now, or wait until after the holidays while discussing actual Hall of Fame voting, meta systems, etc. until then?
   88. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:02 PM (#3400177)
We definitely need to do a better job of organizing these things.

If you go to the important links link on the HOM home page, you can find all past results, etc.. I think that stuff is fairly well organized, but let us know if you have trouble.

DanR's WAR spreadsheet is posted in the files section of the Hall of Merit Yahoo Group (which you should join if you aren't already a memeber). The group is called "HallofMerit". Just go to groups.yahoo.com/group/HallofMerit . . .

I can't post my Pitcher Pennants Added there because the file is too big - I will check with Shock if he can set it up so I can host that and my DB based on Rosenheck's WARP (with some good queries built for ratings by position, MVPs; WWII Credit added, etc.).

I can email you the file though, assuming your email service can handle a 9 MB file.
   89. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3400179)
Joe, I was where you are now back in mid-July. I had been reading the comments for a couple of years (in real-time) that Edgar would most likely go in with Alomar and Larkin. I wasn't sure he deserved it. And I talked about it with a good friend of mine while driving to the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Then, when I got home, I did the work on both Martinez and McGriff. I wanted to know for myself not just how the electorate as a whole would handle them, but what I thought of them. I came away very impressed with Edgar Martinez, much more than I thought I would be. His career was a lot longer than a lot of people (including me) usually remember and a lot better. He was clearly the best hitter on the ballot- ahead of guys like Bob Johnson and Gavvy Cravath. That's when I made up my mind that I would be voting for him, and that I wouldn't mind his quick election at all. I didn't put him in an elect-me spot. I had him fifth behind a pitcher and a shortstop. But he was clearly deserving.

I also think we got Fred McGriff about right. I have him in my top 25, but off-ballot. I think that McGriff's placement shows that we're not just throwing every newly eligible player into the HoM. We do have to confirm whether or not he's the best available first baseman, ahead of Perez and Taylor and Cash and Cepeda. And we do have time to confirm whether or not he's more meritorious than candidates from other positions.

Furthermore, McGriff's placement means that we will be electing at least one candidate out of the backlog in 2012. Next year brings a big four of Bagwell, Brown, Palmeiro and Walker. But 2012's most significant newcomer is Bernie Williams. That's a maximum of five players for six spots. So one of Cone, Cravath and Rizzuto will get their shot. And possibly all three if we can be convinced that those returnees are better than Bernie Williams (or the holdover from Brown, Palmeiro and Walker).

Joe, I think you're over-reacting to Edgar's election. It's not nearly as disheartening or discouraging as you seem to make it. I actually think it's a good thing.
   90. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:14 PM (#3400194)
I'm a big believer in DanR's WAR. Heck, either he happened across my suggestions for how I would design one when he was building it, or I just got lucky that someone built a system the way I would have if I had the ability. I don't love the salary estimator, but in terms of the actual WAR number, I think it's the best one out there.

I'm especially in line with his idea of using the worst regulars as replacement level. I've been brought over the side that adjusting for standard deviation is a good thing too. I don't see how one can consider the DH defensive contribution any more valuable than being a very bad defensive 1B.

And Edgar just doesn't stand out by that methodology. The same methodology that we used to elect Graig Nettles. So it's not like it's some renegade system.

Edgar was a great hitter. But that's all he was. I'm still seeing how he's significantly better than Bob Johnson when you put the whole package together.

It's not the end of the world, like I said, it's no worse than the Bill Terry selection.

But I still think a wait and see approach would have been better. There are too many if's, and it appears to me that too many flaws were overlooked. He didn't really get the grilling I expected.
   91. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:14 PM (#3400196)
Joe: given that people are starting to use this thread to talk 2011, and even to post prelims, yeah, it might be time to open that 2011 discussion thread. Do we have a DanG eligibles list header available for it?
   92. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:17 PM (#3400198)
My WARP are also available from the link at the top of the "Dan Rosenheck's WARP Data" page dedicated to their discussion.

Joe Dimino, no, I never saw any of your suggestions for position player WARP. But great minds think alike, I guess. :)

Can I just ask here that anyone who does not plan to have Larry Walker among their top four in 2011 offer their reasoning?
   93. OCF Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:23 PM (#3400205)
Well, I haven't done enough to develop a solid opinion of Walker just yet. (Or, for that matter, Palmiero or Bagwell.) I do recall thinking in 1997 that the MVP probably should have been Piazza.
   94. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3400215)
If you go to the important links link on the HOM home page, you can find all past results, etc.. I think that stuff is fairly well organized, but let us know if you have trouble.

DanR's WAR spreadsheet is posted in the files section of the Hall of Merit Yahoo Group (which you should join if you aren't already a memeber). The group is called "HallofMerit". Just go to groups.yahoo.com/group/HallofMerit . . .

I can't post my Pitcher Pennants Added there because the file is too big - I will check with Shock if he can set it up so I can host that and my DB based on Rosenheck's WARP (with some good queries built for ratings by position, MVPs; WWII Credit added, etc.).

I can email you the file though, assuming your email service can handle a 9 MB file.


Thanks. You can try e-mailing it. Sometimes big files get through, sometimes they don't.

My WARP are also available from the link at the top of the "Dan Rosenheck's WARP Data" page dedicated to their discussion.

Thanks as well.
   95. Chris Fluit Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:49 PM (#3400237)
Joe: given that people are starting to use this thread to talk 2011, and even to post prelims, yeah, it might be time to open that 2011 discussion thread. Do we have a DanG eligibles list header available for it?


From New Eligibles Year by Year
896. DanG Posted: September 13, 2007 at 11:01 AM (#2523078)
Here are the newbies for the 2011 election, three years from now. Five or six solid candidates here. We should get Japanese League MLEs for Nomo. I could easily have missed some minor candidates. A tip of the cap to Juan V for the win shares info.

2011 (November 8, 2010)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
395 137.4 1987 Rafael Palmeiro-1B
388 135.4 1991 Jeff Bagwell-1B
301 115.2 1990 John Olerud-1B
311 106.6 1990 Larry Walker-RF
241 106.0 1989 Kevin Brown-P
230 78.3 1987 BJ Surhoff-LF/C
250 67.1 1990 Marquis Grissom-CF
216 73.9 1991 Tino Martinez-1B
208 74.2 1993 Bret Boone-2B
182 79.9 1984 John Franco-RP
183 57.9 1994 Raul Mondesi-RF
150 67.7 1988 Al Leiter-P
160 56.0 1990 Carlos Baerga-2B
135 54.0 1994 Mike Hampton-P
153 46.5 1991 Jose Offerman-SS/2B
105 52.5 1991 Wilson Alvarez-P
101 46.4 1996 Ugueth Urbina-RP
100 44.9 1990 Hideo Nomo-P
114 37.5 1986 Terry Mulholland-P*
   96. Chris Cobb Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:52 PM (#3400241)
Joe wrote:

Edgar was a great hitter. But that's all he was. I'm still not seeing how he's significantly better than Bob Johnson when you put the whole package together.

Joe, I and my system more or less agree with you and your system on this point. My system is based on Dan R's WAR, and it gives Edgar 122.7 points, and it gives Johnson 120.2 points, where the all-time in-out line for my personal HoM is about 120. Edgar is, by this measure, very much a borderline candidate. I think he should be in, and I think Bob Johnson should be in, but both are right on the border.

But that's my system, and your system. The HoM, as an aggregate of all the voters' systems, has been historically just a little bit more friendly to pure hitting candidates than I judge proper, mainly because the magnitude of fielding value remains harder to quantify than batting value, so a certain portion of the electorate has always kind of written it off when viewing a great hitter. Given this long-established tendency in HoM voting, it is obvious that, by the aggregate standards of the group, Edgar Martinez is qualified.

What I am trying to suggest is not that your position on Edgar is wrong, but that the argument you are making about him being "rushed in" is a mistaken diagnosis of the problem. The problem is not that Edgar was rushed in and should have had more vetting. The problem is that the HoM electorate is very slightly biased toward high-OPS+ bat candidates with weak defensive value. No amount of additional vetting of Edgar Martinez is going to alter that bias. If you want the next Edgar Martinez to get in line behind Phil Rizzuto, you'll have to make the case for fielding value. Making an individual case against "rushing in" a bat candidate with Edgar's credentials just won't work: the electorate in honoring Edgar is simply being consistent with its established standards. To change the outcomes, the standards of the electorate would need to be changed.
   97. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: December 01, 2009 at 06:58 PM (#3400255)
A key clarification to a common misunderstanding, Joe Dimino: my WARP do not use the worst regulars as replacement level. They use Nate Silver's Freely Available Talent (FAT) level (average production of players over age 27 making less than twice the league minimum salary) at each position as the "base" replacement level. The worst-regulars average is exclusively used to track the evolution of the defensive spectrum over the game's history--e.g., if the FAT level at a given position from 1985-2005 was 1.5 wins below average per 162 games, the worst-regulars average from 1985-2005 at the same position was 1.8 wins below average per 162 games, and the worst-regulars average at the position for the nine years surrounding the year in question was 1.4 wins below average per 162 games, then my replacement level for the year and position in question would be 1.1 wins below average per 162 games (FAT is 0.3 wins higher than worst regulars, so -1.4 + 0.3 = 1.1).
   98. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:05 PM (#3400267)
I only visit these discussions when there is an election result or a thread on a player I like.

That said, I have a lot of respect for those of you who have put time and effort into this project. The HOM threads are truly a great resource.
   99. Paul Wendt Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:14 PM (#3400281)
snapper #86
> At a minimum, you'll want to look at everyone that has gotten a vote in the last few years

Where can I find this?


Snapper and others,
Except for the literally brilliant markup this table in Excel format simply gives the election scores for 2008 to 2010 (three columns, not three-score columns).

Here is the link for your file, which will be available for 7 Days.
url=http://www.yousendit.com/download/MVNkTXRld0E1aWJIRGc9PQ (HOM2008-2010.export.xls)

It covers 129 players.
Four points are missing from the 2009 results.

For detail results of all elections see "Hall of Merit" (2009 and 2008 annual results linked here); "Important Links"; "Hall of Merit Ballot, Discussion and Results Thread" (what it says, covering all elections).
   100. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 01, 2009 at 07:16 PM (#3400287)
Edgar was a great hitter. But that's all he was.

Well, it's not literally all he was - he did play 500 games of third base.

I'm still seeing how he's significantly better than Bob Johnson when you put the whole package together.

Bob Johnson sits very high in the backlog. Edgar doesn't have to be significantly better, just a little better.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9612 seconds
48 querie(s) executed