Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, January 05, 2015

2016 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion

2016 (December 14, 2015)—elect 4

WS bWAR Name-Pos
403 83.7 Ken Griffey-CF
394 69.1 Manny Ramirez-LF/RF*
319 60.3 Jim Edmonds-CF
240 41.5 Jason Kendall-C
188 38.0 Troy Glaus-3B
183 28.4 Trevor Hoffman-RP
176 28.1 Billy Wagner-RP
229 25.8 Garret Anderson-LF
198 28.9 Luis Castillo-2B
137 29.0 Mike Hampton-P
191 24.8 Mike Lowell-3B
174 27.6 Randy Winn-RF/CF
155 24.7 Mike Sweeney-DH/1B
142 20.9 David Eckstein-SS
169 16.4 Brad Ausmus-C
136 20.7 Ronnie Belliard-2B
101 20.3 Chan Ho Park-P
69 17.1 Gil Meche-P
126 12.5 Cristian Guzman-SS
82 15.4 Jeff Weaver-P
104 15.4 Jay Payton-OF
131 10.7 Bengie Molina-C

Required disclosures (top 10 returnees): Mike Mussina, John Smoltz, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Kenny Lofton, Buddy Bell, Jeff Kent, Luis Tiant, Ben Taylor, Vic Willis

*see discussion below - we’ve decided to match Hall of Fame eligibility going forward, though we reserve the right to make exceptions on an as needed basis.

DL from MN Posted: January 05, 2015 at 01:42 PM | 175 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. DL from MN Posted: January 05, 2015 at 02:26 PM (#4873422)
2016 prelim

1) John Smoltz - Tops my ballot
2) Ken Griffey Jr - Little value after age 31
3) Mike Mussina
4) Tommy Bridges
5) Gary Sheffield
6) Manny Ramirez - very close between Manny and Sheffield
7) Jim Edmonds - Much, much better than Lofton
8) Urban Shocker
9) Phil Rizzuto
10) Gavy Cravath
11) Bus Clarkson
12) Luis Tiant
13) Bob Johnson
14) Bert Campaneris
15) Ben Taylor

16-20) Bucky Walters, Dave Bancroft, Brian Giles, Hilton Smith, Tony Mullane
21-25) Norm Cash, Johnny Pesky, Jeff Kent, Dick Redding, Wally Schang
26-30) Sammy Sosa, Don Newcombe, Dave Concepcion, Babe Adams, Tommy Leach

37) Kenny Lofton - HoM is overrepresented in CF
60) Buddy Bell - 18 fielding wins above average, still only 57 WAR and 17.7 wins above positional average. He's an average 3B bat with a great glove.
75) Vic Willis


>150) Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner, Jason Kendall, Troy Glaus
   2. soc40 Posted: January 05, 2015 at 04:01 PM (#4873563)
I don't believe Manny is eligible for this ballot. It's actually a pretty soft ballot after these recent titans. Griff stands out easily and Hoffman will linger til elected or 10 yrs. All other newcomers have a worse chance of getting 5% than this years class. Edmonds has the best shot at 5% but still don't like his chances
   3. DL from MN Posted: January 05, 2015 at 04:15 PM (#4873594)
Manny is eligible for this ballot barring a comeback in 2015.
   4. Chris Cobb Posted: January 05, 2015 at 08:44 PM (#4873809)
Re Manny's eligibiliy -- it's worth pointing out that the Hall of Merit treats end-of-career token appearances differently than the Hall of Fame for determining a player's first year of eligibility. Manny Ramirez will not be eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot until 2017, but he is eligible for the Hall of Merit in 2016.
   5. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: January 05, 2015 at 09:02 PM (#4873823)
I'm not a voter (way too much work just to catch up than I'm willing to invest), but this could be an interesting debate to follow.
1) John Smoltz - Tops my ballot
2) Ken Griffey Jr - Little value after age 31
Like this. I know you put quite a bit of work into your rankings, but BBRef says Griffey has more WAA through his age-27 season (41.1) than Smoltz had for his career (38.0); he then added another 11 WAA in the next 4 seasons. No matter how bad the end was, that seems like quite a bit to make up.
   6. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2015 at 01:38 PM (#4874347)
Dan R's numbers have Griffey as 76.4 WARP2 and 39.6 WAPA (above positional average) after I add on 1 and 0.7 respectively to account for post-2005 data.

Smoltz gets 73.7 WARP2 and 36.1 PWAA and then I add my postseason credit. Smoltz pitched 209 innings with a 2.67 ERA in the postseason so I essentially add back in his 1989 season to credit that and he ends up as 78.1 and 38.3. I have Smoltz ahead of Glavine, Schilling and Mussina.

Side to Dan R - the data I have is getting very out of date (spreadsheet stops at 2005). I'm missing multiple years of these recent candidates.
   7. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: January 06, 2015 at 02:36 PM (#4874514)
DL-

Would you be able to email me a copy of DanR's pitching WARP spreadsheet. I may be a complete idiot, but all I can find on the Yahoo! group is just the hitters spreadsheet. Thanks.

michaeljmengel at gmail dot com
   8. Howie Menckel Posted: January 06, 2015 at 02:58 PM (#4874559)

"it's worth pointing out that the Hall of Merit treats end-of-career token appearances differently than the Hall of Fame for determining a player's first year of eligibility. Manny Ramirez will not be eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot until 2017, but he is eligible for the Hall of Merit in 2016."

true. but as another original voter, I think at that time we were trying to keep players as close to their peers as possible, at a time when guys had more than an occasional pinch-hit or 5 a few years later. now we're caught up to real time, there are very few such quirks, and we seek to have a modest, at least, amount of comparison to BBWAA (granting that we've elected many of their rejects of late). I'd vote for spirit of the law and posting Manny in the year that BBWAA puts him on the ballot.
   9. Tiboreau Posted: January 06, 2015 at 05:47 PM (#4874734)
HoM is overrepresented in CF

How much of this reflects the best players of early eras, such as the 19th century & the Negro Leagues, more often playing its best players at skill positions? How does Lofton's rankings among modern CFs compare to other positions?
   10. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 06, 2015 at 06:50 PM (#4874783)
Agreed with DL and Tiboreau, one could argue that Earl Averill, Cool Papa Bell, Willard Brown, Pete Browning, and Edd Roush are borderline to poor selections...removing these guys and adding Kenny Lofton gives me 28 CF types (if we include ineligibles and count 8 negro leaguers as CF, if we move 2 Negro Leaguers to RF and 2 to LF, then only 24).
   11. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:29 PM (#4874858)
Then add Griffey and Edmonds to the CF list...
   12. DL from MN Posted: January 06, 2015 at 09:42 PM (#4874861)
I ripped up my pitcher evals and revamped them to better account for pitcher hitting. More use of WAR and less WAA and not much changed except Tommy John moved up onto the ballot. I'm targeting around 35% pitching and it stayed consistent throughout my PHOM so I think I'm doing it right.
   13. The Honorable Ardo Posted: January 07, 2015 at 07:05 PM (#4875576)
I'm working on a post about how Wally Schang is severely overlooked by the electorate. Should be up before the end of the month.
   14. The Honorable Ardo Posted: January 07, 2015 at 07:46 PM (#4875598)
First take:

1) Ken Griffey Jr. (new) - too valuable in his twenties to fall out of the top spot.
2) Mike Mussina (was #4)
3) Manny Ramirez (new) - a better hitter than Sheffield. I assume they were more or less equally woeful defenders.
4) Gary Sheffield (was #5)
5) John Smoltz (was #6)
6) Jim Edmonds (new) - as stated by others, very comparable to Duke Snider. Edmonds was a little less of a hitter than Duke, but a lot better with the glove.
-- (GAP) -- #s 7-15 are the same, except for flip-flopping Kent and Bell.
7) Wally Schang
8) Tommy John
9) Ben Taylor
10) Dolf Luque
11) Sammy Sosa
12) Hilton Smith
13) Jeff Kent
14) Buddy Bell
15) Nomar Garciaparra

First 5 off: Luis Tiant, Lee Smith, Kenny Lofton, Vic Willis, Frank Chance.
Next 5 off: Thurman Munson, Bobby Bonds, Fred McGriff, Bernie Williams, Bus Clarkson.

Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner are around #40, with Hoffman slightly ahead.
   15. homerwannabee Posted: January 08, 2015 at 09:12 AM (#4875785)
I consider Wagner one of the most under rated pitchers ever. He had Mo like numbers, but just not as long of a career.
   16. Delorians Posted: January 08, 2015 at 11:18 AM (#4875883)
Can someone point me to a list/post of the HOM electees by year? I used to follow this back when you guys were having elections every 3 weeks or so, but lost touch when you caught up with the present and am back after a few years to catch up. Looking at the 2016 eligible electees, it seems obvious that you've elected guys like Biggio, Bagweel, and Piazza (in addition to the recent BBWA electees), but I can't find a list/link of electees by year; it seems like you'd have that fairly accessible.
   17. DL from MN Posted: January 08, 2015 at 11:31 AM (#4875894)
I have a spreadsheet with year by year top 10 lists including inductees. I think there may be something in the Yahoo groups but it's likely not up to date. I've been helping to keep the lights on but have mostly ignored the bookkeeping (plaque room, keeping links up to date, etc). Here are the results of the last 10 elections

2015 - Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling
2014 - Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine
2013 - Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Craig Biggio
2012 - Rafael Palmeiro, Rick Reuschel, David Cone
2011 - Jeff Bagwell, Kevin Brown, Larry Walker
2010 - Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez
2009 - Rickey Henderson, John McGraw, Reggie Smith
2008 - Tim Raines, Dick Lundy, Bret Saberhagen
2007 - Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire
2006 - Will Clark, Alejandro Oms, Graig Nettles
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: January 08, 2015 at 09:39 PM (#4876509)
Here's a partial preliminary ballot and a review of the new candidates:

1. Ken Griffey, Jr.. (n/e). A long and frustrating final decade shouldn't obscure the brilliance of his opening decade. Dan R's WAR likes him less than other systems (I expect because it handles CF replacement level differently), but my system prefers Griffey to Mussina even using Dan R's WAR as the only input for Griffey. It's close with Dan R's WAR only; it's not close if BBRef, Fangraphs, or BP is included. Now, DRA sees Griffey as far below average defensively for his career, so when I factor in that point of view, that could conceivably shift his placement. But I doubt it.
2. Mike Mussina. (4) With this being an elect-four year, he's a shoo-in.
3. Manny Ramirez. (n/e) I wasn't sure he'd place this high, but the top of the ballot isn't as crowded as it has been the last few years. Better on both offense and defense than Gary Sheffield.
4. John Smoltz. (5) Close behind Manny, not close behind Mussina. He probably gets in this year.
5. Gary Sheffield. (6) Close behind Smoltz.
6. Jim Edmonds. (n/e) Very close behind Sheffield. Others have noted that Edmonds wasn't regarded as a potential future Hall of Famer when he was playing, but as a plus defender in CF, a career 132 OPS+ hitter, and a fairly long career, he's above the backlog. He won't go in right away, but he won't have a long wait.
7. Buddy Bell. (7) Holds steady in the middle of the ballot as Griffey, Ramirez, and Edmonds replace Johnson, Martinez, and Schilling.
8. Sammy Sosa. (8) The next member of the near backlog.
9. Bert Campaneris. (9) No change here either.
10Kenny Lofton. (10) Or here. We've gone from a very pitching-heavy ballot to an outfield-heavy one. When will the middle infielders get their day in the sun?

Because I'm in the early stages of a thorough re-examination of the longterm backlog, I'm not going to take my preliminary ballot below 10 at this point. But here's what I see in other new arrivals.

???.Jason Kendall. Lots of new data on catching value is requiring me to reconsider how I look at catchers. Kendall has over 40 career BBRef WAR, which is the point at which I do a full work-up for a player, though it's the very rare peakster who gets close to or over the in-out line with a career WAR below 50. I give catcher bonuses, so a catcher with WAR in the upper 40s may also get there. Kendall's in the low 40s, so without extra value from game-calling or pitch-framing, he won't make it, but I have to see what he got in those areas and decide how to use that information. I'm pretty certain he's not going to take an elect-me spot, but I won't say he can't make the ballot. If he looks poor by those measures, of course, he'll end up below the deep backlog, like

---Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner. A pair of fine relievers, both are below the deep backlog. Even if I multiply their wins above average by their full leverage index, instead of pro-rating it the way BBRef does, and then add in their value above replacement, they still only reach about 36 career WAR each. That's not close. Their value looks pretty similar to Rollie Fingers--who was better depends on how you factor in the inherited runners stuff and prorate reliever ERA as reliever usage changed--and I am pretty confident Fingers was a significant mistake selection. I hope we can avoid repeating that mistake with Hoffman and Wagner. Lee Smith is another good comp for them, and he hasn't gotten much traction with the electorate. Hoffman and Wagner may do better than he has, because their ERA+ values are higher than his, but he has a significant edge in innings. Among relievers, I see Mariano Rivera as a clear HoMer, Dennis Eckersley as borderline but in--with significant credit for that going to his starting pitching--and Wilhelm and Gossage as defensible selections who are probably nevertheless below starting-player HoM standards. Any relief pitcher not clearly as strong as Gossage or, preferably, Wilhelm shouldn't get close to election to the Hall of Merit.

---Troy Glaus. A very good career and a nice early peak. With 38.5 career WAR, he misses the cut for a full workup. A flash of Hall-of-Merit-level talent early in his career, but injuries sapped it early, too. Similar but lesser career to Nomar Garciaparra's.
   19. DL from MN Posted: January 09, 2015 at 12:14 PM (#4876796)
Redoing my prelim. I had errors for pitcher hitting with modern players and it was a situation where I wasn't going to be able to fix them all so I switched to BBREF batting numbers for pitchers, used PWAA a little less and WAR2 a little more.

1) Smoltz
2) Mussina
3) Griffey - Beats Mussina in WAR but my positional representation for pitchers is sliding Mussina ahead. Smoltz just flat out beats Griffey
4) Tommy Bridges
5) Sheffield
6) Manny Ramirez - Sheffield did play some premium positions poorly. The offensive contribution is very close
7) Edmonds
8) Rizzuto
9) Cravath
10) Urban Shocker
11) Tommy John - I had overdebited his hitting
12) Bus Clarkson
13) Bucky Walters - I think I was undercrediting his hitting but I may still have this messed up
14) Bob Johnson
15) Campaneris

16-20) Tiant, Taylor, Bancroft, Giles, Cash
21-25) Appier, Hilton Smith, Newcombe, Schang, Pesky
26-30) Kent, Wilbur Cooper, Sosa, Babe Adams, Grimes

31-40) Concepcion, Dick Redding, Leach, Trout, Gooden, Fournier, Tanana, Mullane, Lofton, Dizzy Dean

Wally Schang is pretty clearly the next best C on the list, just after Freehan and Mackey but ahead of Munson/Porter/Tenace. Jeff Kent is the best available 2B by just as wide of a margin.
   20. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: January 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM (#4877445)
DL from MN--email me and let's see if we can update. I can't believe it's been that long since I developed the system!

Chris Cobb--you can easily check in the Stdevs and Rep Levels file to see how CF is valued in the 90s, both relative to its historical average and to corner outfield. The quality of his fielding is obviously another place to look; I still claim that the defensive numbers in my 1987-2005 sheet are far superior to anything else available.
   21. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2015 at 11:29 AM (#4877456)
Updating the whole spreadsheet isn't necessary if you just put the 2006 and later data in the relevant player threads.
   22. Howie Menckel Posted: January 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM (#4877471)

We should probably decide on when Manny Ramirez gets voted on (see my Post 8).

I'm confident that the point of our ignoring token appearances, which I agreed with, in earlier-time voting was to slightly better sync up players with their peers. Now we're working in a parallel universe with HOF - effectively showing what their ballots might look like if PEDs were not an issue, to a great extent.

Sticking with a rule specifcally designed for another time and place in our voting journey seems inflexible at best. I think logic dictates that we now make players eligible when the HOF does. If we're not going to box ourselves into a corner on absolute voting deadlines, then it would make even less sense to box ourselves into a corner here. We'd have some confusion from the public at large to which the best answer would seem to me to be, "Well, this is the way we've been doing it, so we're stuck with it." No need for us to be.
   23. DL from MN Posted: January 10, 2015 at 01:06 PM (#4877521)
I'm fine with making Manny eligible in 2017; I suggested doing that and was talked out of it. It does make this year's election more boring. Without Manny it is pretty much a lock that Griffey, Smoltz, Mussina and Sheffield will get elected in 2016.

2017 would be Manny and Pudge Rodriguez with Vlad Guerrero, Jim Edmonds and Jorge Posada fighting it out with Kent, Sosa and Lofton for the 3rd slot. 2018 is Chipper Jones, Thome, Rolen plus another frontlogger. 2019 gets interesting again with Mariano Rivera and Roy Halladay battling the frontlog for three open slots. I'll guess Edmonds in 2017, Sosa in 2018.

Should we vote on it? I vote Manny 2017.
   24. Chris Cobb Posted: January 10, 2015 at 01:23 PM (#4877528)
Howie,

The discussion of what year Manny should become eligible took place a couple of weeks back in the New Eligibles by year thread, and Joe made the call for 2016. There's no reason the question couldn't be re-opened, but we have had as official a ruling as we generally have in matters like these.

How we handle this case now depends on whether you consider that the original rule was designed to handle the oddities of career endings in pre-1920s baseball or whether it was instituted to create a more consistent and sensible standard for defining a career than what the Hall of Fame uses. I lean toward the latter interpretation and the value of consistency that than the value of tracking exactly with the HoF when their approach doesn't necessarily make sense. As I said there, we're going to elect Manny long before the Hall of Fame electorate does, if they ever will, so how much does it matter if we vote him in before he becomes eligible over there?
   25. Howie Menckel Posted: January 10, 2015 at 02:04 PM (#4877574)

Ok, Chris, as long as it was debated and decided. The confusion will only last one vote, anyway, I suppose.
   26. Rob_Wood Posted: January 10, 2015 at 02:56 PM (#4877618)
I think Joe has 51% of the vote, but I don't think he is involved in HOM on a daily basis anymore, so I am not sure of the logistics. But I would be open to re-opening the "when should Manny become eligible" question.
   27. lieiam Posted: January 10, 2015 at 04:45 PM (#4877675)
Here's a very early preliminary ballot.
I've been reading along for years (and do vote in the MMP) but have never managed to get a Hall of Merit ballot created.
I still haven't really.
The below list has not incorporated numerous things I need to incorporate, such as:
Negro Leagues
league strength
war credit
season length adjustments (not sure which systems have factored this in already)

This list is simply what my system spat out without the above needed adjustments.
I don't know if I'll manage to create a real ballot (although I've got a lot of time to do so).

1- Ken Griffey, jr.
2- Gary Sheffield
3- Mike Mussina
4- Manny Ramirez
5- John Smoltz
6- Tony Mullane (an American Association discount would knock him down some; plus I may decide my system is too kind to 19th century pitchers)
7- Jim Edmonds
8- Tommy John
9- Sammy Sosa
10-Jim McCormick
11-Bobby Bonds
12-Jeff Kent
13-Norm Cash
14-Tommy Bond
15-Fred McGriff

16-20: B.Bell, T.Leach, J.Olerud, L.Tiant, K.Lofton
21-25: B.Johnson, V.Willis, J.Quinn, J.Cruz, T.Perez
26-30: B.Giles, M.Welch, W.Davis, G.Van Haltren, L.Gonzalez

Systems used:
baseball-reference WAR
fangraphs WAR
Dan R. WARP (adjusted up for seasons after 2005)
baseball gauge WAR
Win Shares
WSAB

   28. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 10, 2015 at 10:27 PM (#4877907)
Tom Thress (Kiko Sakata) Retrosheet Key Stat 2016 figures:

http://baseball.tomthress.com/Leaders/UberLeaders.php?y1=1949&y2=2013&p=0&e=1&w=.051&a=1&r=.949&na=1&nr=1&c=1&b1=1&b2=1&b3=1&ss=1&lf=1&cf=1&rf=1&dh=1&ph=1&pr=1&o1=1&sp=1&rp=1&psw=0&psa=0&psr=0>=0&ga=0&n=2000:

89.40 - (1) - Mike Mussina
88.20 - (2) - Tommy John
87.70 - (3) - Ken Griffey Jr.
82.60 - (4) - Manny Ramirez *
80.10 - (5) - John Smoltz
77.50 - (6) - Gary Sheffield
71.90 - (7) - Jim Kaat
69.30 - (8) - Toby Harrah
69.30 - (9) - Jim Edmonds
66.7 - (10) - Bobby Bonds
66.5 - (11) - Fred Lynn
66.4 - (12) - Sammy Sosa
64.0 - (13) - Dale Murphy
63.4 - (14) - Orel Hershiser
62.2 - (15) - Claude Osteen
61.9 - (16) - Bob Friend
60.5 - (17) - Jeff Kent
60.2 - (18) - Jack Clark
60.0 - (19) - Dick McAuliffe
59.8 - (20) - Rocky Colavito
59.3 - (21) - David Wells
59.2 - (22) - Bert Campaneris
58.2 - (23) - Norm Cash
57.8 - (24) - Rusty Staub
57.7 - (25) - Jim Rice

2016 returnees not mentioned above with multiple votes:
50.2 - Kenny Lofton
38.5 - Buddy Bell
41.8 - Luis Tiant
55.0 - Sal Bando
32.4 - Don Newcombe (No integration credit)
50.1 - Brian Giles
52.6 - Kevin Appier
52.9 - Fred McGriff
13.1 - Bob Elliott
37.2 - Lou Brock
28.9 - Thurman Munson
41.0 - Kirby Puckett
41.8 - John Olerud
21.8 - Vern Stephens
43.0 - Nomar Garciaparra
51.6 - Doc Gooden
   29. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 10, 2015 at 10:37 PM (#4877914)
I'm working on a post about how Wally Schang is severely overlooked by the electorate. Should be up before the end of the month.


Cool Ardo, Schang needs a close look by the electorate, Doc and Yoenis agree with you

Doc CHEWS:
CATCHER
NAME 7 Car. CHEWS
================================
I Rodriguez + 45 82 61.4
HOM MEDIAN 55.5 (Dickey)
Schang + 34 62 47.0
Munson + 41 52 45.8
HOM 75% LINE 45.2 (Bresnahan)


Yoenis catcher list, incorporating Max Marchi game calling data:
Rank Player HOM Rating adjWAR adjWAA
1 Carlton Fisk 208 96 66
2 Mike Piazza 201 85 60
3 Buck Ewing 191 80 59
4 Gary Carter 180 85 55
5 Johnny Bench 179 86 58
6 Ivan Rodriguez 175 79 46
7 Roy Campanella 168 86 58
8 Russell Martin 164 61 45
9 Yogi Berra 162 84 56
10 Brian McCann 159 60 44
11 Joe Mauer 148 60 41
12 Yadier Molina 146 55 38
13 Ted Simmons 143 72 46
14 Joe Torre 133 72 44
15 Mike Scioscia 132 57 40
16 Javier Lopez 125 52 35
17 Charlie Bennett 124 51 36
18 Tony Pena 118 55 34
19 Gabby Hartnett 117 66 41
20 Wally Schang 114 61 40
21 Bill Dickey 114 65 41
22 Deacon White 113 51 27
23 Jason Kendall 113 52 26
24 Thurman Munson 110 55 36
25 Jim Sundberg 109 54 32
26 Jorge Posada 107 46 26
27 Jason Varitek 101 41 23
28 Mickey Cochrane 99 58 36
29 Gene Tenace 98 52 33

   30. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2015 at 06:19 AM (#4877972)
Can someone point me to a list/post of the HOM electees by year? I used to follow this back when you guys were having elections every 3 weeks or so, but lost touch when you caught up with the present and am back after a few years to catch up. Looking at the 2016 eligible electees, it seems obvious that you've elected guys like Biggio, Bagweel, and Piazza (in addition to the recent BBWA electees), but I can't find a list/link of electees by year; it seems like you'd have that fairly accessible.


HOM Eligible Last First
1898 1898 White Deacon
1898 1898 Hines Paul
1898 1898 Gore George
1898 1898 Barnes Ross
1899 1899 O'Rourke Jim
1899 1899 Kelly King
1900 1900 Clarkson John
1900 1900 Ward John
1901 1898 Wright George
1901 1899 Keefe Tim
1902 1902 Brouthers Dan
1902 1902 Ewing Buck
1903 1903 Conner Roger
1903 1903 Anson Cap
1904 1901 Glasscock Jack
1904 1904 Rusie Amos
1905 1898 Radbourn Charles
1905 1898 Richardson Hardy
1906 1898 Spalding Al
1907 1907 Hamilton Billy
1908 1898 Sutton Ezra
1909 1909 Delahanty Ed
1910 1898 Galvin Pud
1911 1911 Nichols Kid
1912 1898 Start Joe
1912 1911 Burkett Jesse
1913 1905 McPhee Bid
1914 1898 McVey Cal
1915 1915 Davis George
1915 1915 Dahlen Bill
1916 1899 Stovey Harry
1917 1917 Young Cy
1917 1917 Clarke Fred
1918 1916 Flick Elmer
1919 1914 Kelley Joe
1919 1916 Keeler Willie
1920 1920 Walsh Ed
1921 1899 Bennett Charlie
1921 1914 Collins Jimmy
1922 1922 Lajoie Nap
1922 1922 Mathewson Christy
1923 1923 Wagner Honus
1924 1923 Crawford Sam
1924 1923 Plank Eddie
1925 1921 Johnson Grant
1925 1922 Brown Mordecai
1926 1925 Magee Sherry
1926 1909 Grant Frank
1927 1926 Jackson Joe
1927 1927 Hill Pete
1928 1928 Baker Frank
1928 1914 McGinnity Joe
1929 1920 Wallace Bobby
1929 1902 Thompson Sam
1930 1919 Sheckard Jimmy
1930 1899 Caruthers Bob
1931 1898 Pearce Dickey
1932 1932 Santop Louis
1932 1923 Foster Rube
1933 1933 Johnson Walter
1933 1933 Wheat Zack
1934 1934 Cobb Ty
1934 1935 Speaker Tris
1935 1934 Collins Eddie
1935 1934 Lloyd John Henry
1936 1936 Alexander Pete
1936 1934 Williams Smokey Joe
1937 1936 Heilmann Harry
1937 1934 Torriente Cristobal
1938 1933 Groh Heinie
1938 1934 Coveleski Stan
1939 1935 Carey Max
1939 1939 Faber Red
1940 1898 Pike Lip
1940 1940 Rogan Bullet Joe
1941 1941 Ruth Babe
1941 1941 Hornsby Rogers
1942 1941 Vance Dazzy
1942 1942 Terry Bill
1943 1943 Charleston Oscar
1943 1943 Cochrane Mickey
1944 1944 Gehrig Lou
1944 1943 Frisch Frankie
1945 1943 Foster Willie
1945 1944 Goslin Goose
1946 1946 Stearnes Turkey
1946 1946 Simmons Al
1947 1947 Grove Lefty
1947 1947 Hartnett Gabby
1948 1948 Gehringer Charlie
1948 1947 Wilson Jud
1949 1949 Hubbell Carl
1949 1948 Lyons Ted
1950 1950 Waner Paul
1950 1950 Dihigo Martin
1951 1951 Foxx Jimmie
1951 1950 Cronin Joe
1952 1952 Gibson Josh
1952 1952 Ott Mel
1953 1953 Greenberg Hank
1953 1952 Dickey Bill
1954 1953 Wells Willie
1954 1954 Vaughan Arky
1955 1955 Leonard Buck
1955 1955 Brown Ray
1956 1956 Appling Luke
1956 1946 Suttles Mule
1957 1940 Beckwith John
1957 1957 DiMaggio Joe
1958 1957 Boudreau Lou
1958 1953 Herman Billy
1958 1953 Hack Stan
1959 1959 Paige Satchel
1959 1959 Mize Johnny
1960 1908 Jennings Hughie
1960 1960 Newhouser Hal
1961 1946 Averill Earl
1962 1962 Feller Bob
1962 1962 Robinson Jackie
1963 1963 Campanella Roy
1963 1962 Irvin Monte
1964 1944 Ferrell Wes
1964 1964 Reese Pee Wee
1965 1965 Doby Larry
1965 1965 Slaughter Enos
1966 1953 Ruffing Red
1966 1966 Williams Ted
1967 1964 Lemon Bob
1967 1954 Medwick Joe
1968 1939 Rixey Eppa
1968 1968 Ashburn Richie
1969 1969 Musial Stan
1969 1969 Berra Yogi
1970 1970 Snider Duke
1970 1969 Wynn Early
1971 1912 Griffith Clark
1971 1971 Spahn Warren
1972 1957 Doerr Bobby
1972 1972 Roberts Robin
1972 1972 Koufax Sandy
1973 1973 Ford Whitey
1973 1948 Bell Cool Papa
1974 1974 Mantle Mickey
1974 1974 Mathews Eddie
1975 1975 Drysdale Don
1975 1949 Mackey Biz
1976 1958 Brown Willard
1976 1956 Gordon Joe
1977 1977 Banks Ernie
1977 1977 Bunning Jim
1978 1978 Clemente Roberto
1978 1978 Wilhelm Hoyt
1979 1979 Mays Willie
1979 1939 Sisler George
1980 1980 Kaline Al
1980 1980 Santo Ron
1980 1980 Marichal Juan
1981 1981 Gibson Bob
1981 1981 Killebrew Harmon
1982 1982 Aaron Henry
1982 1982 Robinson Frank
1983 1983 Allen Dick
1983 1982 Williams Billy
1984 1983 Robinson Brooks
1984 1983 Torre Joe
1985 1939 Sewell Joe
1985 1932 Méndez José
1985 1982 Freehan Bill
1986 1916 Waddell Rube
1986 1986 McCovey Willie
1987 1970 Minoso Minnie
1987 1961 Kiner Ralph
1987 1970 Pierce Billy
1988 1988 Stargell Willie
1988 1907 Childs Cupid
1989 1989 Bench Johnny
1989 1989 Yastrzemski Carl
1989 1989 Perry Gaylord
1990 1989 Jenkins Fergie
1990 1990 Morgan Joe
1990 1990 Palmer Jim
1991 1991 Carew Rod
1991 1975 Boyer Ken
1991 1932 Moore Dobie
1992 1992 Seaver Tom
1992 1992 Grich Bobby
1993 1993 Carlton Steve
1993 1992 Rose Pete
1993 1993 Jackson Reggie
1994 1993 Niekro Phil
1994 1994 Simmons Ted
1994 1994 Sutton Don
1995 1958 Trouppe Quincy
1995 1995 Schmidt Mike
1995 1995 Evans Darrell
1996 1957 Keller Charlie
1996 1983 Wynn Jimmy
1996 1996 Hernandez Keith
1997 1997 Evans Dwight
1997 1971 Fox Nellie
1997 1937 Roush Edd
1998 1913 Beckley Jake
1998 1998 Carter Gary
1998 1998 Blyleven Bert
1999 1999 Brett George
1999 1999 Yount Robin
1999 1999 Fisk Carlton
2000 2000 Gossage Rich
2000 1999 Ryan Nolan
2000 1991 Fingers Rollie
2001 2001 Winfield Dave
2001 2001 Whitaker Lou
2001 1998 Randolph Willie
2002 2002 Trammell Alan
2002 2002 Smith Ozzie
2002 1998 Stieb Dave
2003 1898 Jones Charley
2003 2003 Murray Eddie
2003 2003 Sandberg Ryne
2004 1921 Bresnahan Roger
2004 2004 Molitor Paul
2004 2004 Eckersley Dennis
2005 2002 Dawson Andre
2005 2005 Boggs Wade
2005 1899 Browning Pete
2006 1940 Oms Alejandro
2006 1994 Nettles Graig
2006 2006 Clark Will
2007 2007 Ripken, Jr. Cal
2007 2007 Gwynn Tony
2007 2007 McGwire Mark
2008 1943 Lundy Dick
2008 2005 Saberhagen Bret
2008 2008 Raines Tim
2009 1908 McGraw John
2009 1988 Smith Reggie
2009 2009 Henderson Rickey
2010 2010 Alomar Roberto
2010 2010 Larkin Barry
2010 2010 Martinez Edgar
2011 2011 Bagwell Jeff
2011 2011 Brown Kevin
2011 2011 Walker Larry
2012 1996 Reuschel Rick
2012 2007 Cone David
2012 2011 Palmeiro Rafael
2013 2013 Bonds Barry
2013 2013 Clemens Roger
2013 2013 Piazza Mike
2013 2013 Biggio Craig
2014 2014 Maddux Greg
2014 2014 Thomas Frank
2014 2014 Glavine Tom
2015 2015 Johnson Randy
2015 2015 Martinez Pedro
2015 2013 Schilling Curt
   31. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2015 at 06:23 AM (#4877974)
Smoltz gets 73.7 WARP2 and 36.1 PWAA and then I add my postseason credit. Smoltz pitched 209 innings with a 2.67 ERA in the postseason so I essentially add back in his 1989 season to credit that and he ends up as 78.1 and 38.3. I have Smoltz ahead of Glavine, Schilling and Mussina.


DL, do you have postseason credit worked up for elected and eligible candidates, or do you just adjust when players hit the ballot?
   32. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2015 at 06:24 AM (#4877973)
DL from MN--email me and let's see if we can update. I can't believe it's been that long since I developed the system!

Chris Cobb--you can easily check in the Stdevs and Rep Levels file to see how CF is valued in the 90s, both relative to its historical average and to corner outfield. The quality of his fielding is obviously another place to look; I still claim that the defensive numbers in my 1987-2005 sheet are far superior to anything else available.


Your system has been around for nearly a decade, long before BBREF WAR was public, and before old CHONE WAR was fully vetted.

Would be great to see the salary estimator taking into consideration the defensive figures from 1987-present...do you plan to update the defensive systems used for pre-1987?

Do you have a pitcher database set up yet, or do you continue to use BBREF WAR and make adjustments?

Thanks for the great spreadsheets Dan!!!
   33. DL from MN Posted: January 11, 2015 at 09:58 AM (#4877994)
I have a hodgepodge of postseason credit. I ran WPA numbers on pitchers a while ago and zeroed out any negative postseason series. Lately I've been eyeballing it because modern players have so much more postseason work.

I like the concept of using WAA/WPA for the postseason for players. Below average performance doesn't help win in the postseason when there are only good teams left and you need to beat the team you are playing that day. Systematic postseason evaluation of players is an area that is lacking among the various WAR calculators.
   34. bjhanke Posted: January 11, 2015 at 11:11 AM (#4878015)
Lieiam - Did you give Mullane credit for the year he got blackballed? Also, you said you used Win Shares. Where can I find an up-to-date list of WS for players who played after 2001? Also, do you or anyone else know if the concept of Loss Shares ever went anywhere, and if it did, where can I find a listing of Loss Shares? - Thanks in Advance!

DL, I'm not certain that the HoM is overrepresented in CF. When you DO come up with a true 5-tool player (6 tools if you could taking walks, which I do), he's very fast and has a real good arm, by definition (Mays, Mantle, Speaker, Cobb, Charleston, DiMaggio). Unless he just can't follow a fly ball, or is backed up behind Terry Moore or something, he's going to shine best in CF, so he'll play there. This means that a disproportional amount of the very very best players will wind up in CF. Also, as an aside, that is a very good ballot you have there in comment #1.

Dan R - Where can I find your sheets? Anyone who has seriously put together a defensive system is someone I want to look at. Defense is hard; I'll take all the researched opinions I can get. - Brock Hanke
   35. lieiam Posted: January 11, 2015 at 01:38 PM (#4878082)
@bjhanke:
1- Regarding Tony Mullane, no credit has been given for being blackballed. The numbers in my prelim ballot don't include any credit. No Negro League credit, no war credit, etc. I need to figure out a way to either "plug it in" or eyeball various credits into the system. I won't have a valid ballot until I do.
2- For Win Shares data I go to The Baseball Gauge. [Actual website: http://seamheads.com/baseballgauge/index.php]. This is also where I go for WSAB and baseball-reference WAR (since I'm already there it's easier to pull the data from this site than baseball-reference).
3- As for Loss Shares, I'm not sure. I've been hearing about it for years as well and if they exist or are available I'm not sure.

Also, my consideration set was key newcomers and everyone who had any votes in 2015 or 2014 election. I need to me more thorough but I doubt anyone who didn't receive any votes the last couple of years will make my ballot... but who knows.
   36. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 11, 2015 at 01:50 PM (#4878086)
Bleed, thanks for posting my numbers in #28. For a little more background, I calculate Player won-lost records using Retrosheet play-by-play data. My system is explained in (perhaps too much) detail here. The website from which Bleed drew his numbers in #28 actually lets you set your own weights in terms of whether to include context or measure vs. average or replacement or include postseason or give extra credit to any position. That's here.

I'm going to try to put together a ballot for the 2016 election. But one problem with my system is that since it requires play-by-play data, it only has complete data going back to 1948 with data for most games for all seasons back to 1934 and then a handful of additional seasons (see here). Which leads to the fairly obvious problem of how I incorporate pre-1930's-era players into my ballot.

So, first question: how many pre-1930's-era players do I need to consider? I assume I need to at least look at Ben Taylor and Vic Willis. Is it sufficient to just look at players who received HOM votes recently (say, in 2014 and/or 2015)? Or do I need to somehow allow for the possibility that I might find an old-timer that I love that nobody else has ever (or recently) voted for?

Second question: what's the best system for measuring old-timers - WAR, Win Shares, Dan R.'s system. Are there known issues with how any of these measure deadball or 19th-century guys? What about Negro Leaguers?

My first thought was to evaluate old-timers based on more recent players who seemed most comparable. Is that a valid "system"? If so, who would people say are good comps for Taylor and Willis. To be fair, I'd kind of like to get answers from their biggest fans as well as their biggest "enemies".

Thanks!
   37. JMD Posted: January 11, 2015 at 02:45 PM (#4878145)
I am doing some re-evaluation of my top 20 and want to use this post as a placeholder to come back to in November.

1. Griffey
2. Grimes
3. Redding
4. Manny
5. Sheffield
6. Kent
7. Smoltz
8. Sosa
9. McGriff
10. John
11. Mussina
12. Brock
13. Joss
14. Belle
15. Perez
16. Tiant
17. Rice
18. Parker
19. Edmonds
20. Cepeda
   38. JMD Posted: January 11, 2015 at 02:51 PM (#4878150)
It almost seems like the HoM voters have reached a consensus on the long time eligible players -- Lundy, in 2008, was the last such player elected, though Reggie Smith and Rich Reuschel were made to run the gauntlet a bit. Nevertheless, I think it would be disingenuous for me drop the 4 long time eligible players from my ballot just because they have no shot.
   39. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 11, 2015 at 03:28 PM (#4878212)
Jmd. Don't give up on those long time candidates. Redding and taint have been close to elected status and could make it once the front log clears.
Other than postseason, grimes looks like an excellent candidate, you never know when winds will change for the electorate.
Are u a win shares guy? Your ballot is reasonable, although I am not buying Brock or Rice.
McGriff is similar to Delgado, excellent bat, but enough defense or base running?
Too bad joss died young, he could have been in the top half of the half of merit.
Please look at mussina real close, I think he has an argument for being placed first.
No love for Edmonds?
   40. DL from MN Posted: January 11, 2015 at 03:55 PM (#4878270)
Is it sufficient to just look at players who received HOM votes recently (say, in 2014 and/or 2015)?


Absolutely. I didn't have 200 players evaluated the first time I voted.
   41. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2015 at 04:29 PM (#4878341)
"Is it sufficient to just look at players who received HOM votes recently (say, in 2014 and/or 2015)?"

Pretty much. I would also maybe suggest looking at guys who we debated for a long time and who received a good amount of votes over the years.

top votes-pt getters that we haven't elected AND who didn't get any votes in 2014 or 2015 are:

RYAN, DOYLE, BMONROE, SRICE, SINGLETON, TIERNAN, FJONES, KLEIN, STAUB, GJBURNS, DUNLAP

huh, OFs and 2Bs

I can't see asking to go any deeper than THAT, at this point.
   42. lieiam Posted: January 12, 2015 at 10:50 PM (#4879641)
@Howie Menckel:
I'll add the 11 guys you listed above to my consideration set. I've just added Buzz Arlett and Jim Kaat to it as well... Once I pull numbers I'll add a comment if any of them make my current top 15.
   43. Chris Cobb Posted: January 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM (#4879928)
RE the matter of considering players who have been eligible for a long time:

I'd strongly reaffirm the advice that people considering voting for the HoM for the first time not worry about evaluating everybody, especially in the first year or two that you vote. You want your ballot to have integrity, but realistically, we have a couple of years before there's going to be any likelihood of electing anyone from the longer-term backlog. Getting the top 10-20 right is a lot more important than getting to the next 30.

As you think over the longer term, though, I'd encourage you to consider very gradually building more comprehensive rankings. It's true that there are unlikely to be serious candidates who haven't been receiving any attention from the electorate recently, so folks who are seeking to get started with the HoM project don't need to make an effort to discover overlooked or unfairly neglected players. That said, there's no reason anyone interested shouldn't take a close look at players the electorate has left aside, especially if new analytical tools are being brought to bear. This search has two benefits. First, it keeps the project fresh and honest by not letting settled judgments go unexamined. Second, it strengthens the individual voter's conclusions by enabling the players who are indeed serious candidates to be seen in the context of players who are not.

Another piece of comprehensive rankings that can be important is evaluating already-elected HoMers in your system. That also helps to provide context for players who are currently candidates. Especially when you are looking at players from the nineteenth century or even from the 1930s, players may look better in comparison to modern players than they do in comparison to their peers. Knowing how many players have been elected from a given era in baseball and what you think about the selections that have been made already can help you to assess the remaining candidates from that period. For example, you might look at the 1880s and find that Tony Mullane, Jim McCormick, Mickey Welch, and Charlie Buffinton do really well in your system. Has the HoM unfairly neglected 1880s pitchers? Well, how do John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Charley Radbourn, Pud Galvin, Bob Caruthers, and Monte Ward look in your system? Should we have 9 pitchers from the 1880s? Or did the HoM pick the wrong 5 (or get 3 of 5 wrong)? About how many players should the HoM include from these period in order to be fair to all eras?

You really don't need to worry too much about those kinds of questions at the outset, but down the road, you may, and you'll see a fair amount of discussion this year, I think, from some of the longtime voters about how to assess what we've done with pre-WWII baseball in light of the need to be fair to all eras and positions. There's been a flurry of discussion on this subject in the 2015 Ballot thread, starting around post 117, which you might find useful, if you haven't seen it already, and I think that discussion will gradually shift over here to the 2016 ballot discussion. My hope is that the presence of this discussion will help new voters sift through a larger number of candidates more efficiently than would be possible working in isolation.
   44. Rob_Wood Posted: January 13, 2015 at 07:03 PM (#4880350)

Well said Chris.
   45. DL from MN Posted: January 13, 2015 at 08:24 PM (#4880384)
As you think over the longer term, though, I'd encourage you to consider very gradually building more comprehensive rankings.


I did this but I think I voted for 30 elections first
   46. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 15, 2015 at 06:54 PM (#4881859)
Dan R - Where can I find your sheets? Anyone who has seriously put together a defensive system is someone I want to look at. Defense is hard; I'll take all the researched opinions I can get. - Brock Hanke


Dan's sheets are available at the Hall of Merit Yahoo Group...not sure if any have been published since then.

   47. Bleed the Freak Posted: January 15, 2015 at 07:35 PM (#4881874)
So, first question: how many pre-1930's-era players do I need to consider? I assume I need to at least look at Ben Taylor and Vic Willis. Is it sufficient to just look at players who received HOM votes recently (say, in 2014 and/or 2015)? Or do I need to somehow allow for the possibility that I might find an old-timer that I love that nobody else has ever (or recently) voted for?

Second question: what's the best system for measuring old-timers - WAR, Win Shares, Dan R.'s system. Are there known issues with how any of these measure deadball or 19th-century guys? What about Negro Leaguers?


Chris Cobb like usual had an excellent response to this that I largely or completely agree with.

My two cents: I would say sufficient to review players receiving votes, only newly eligible or front-loggers are likely to be elected over the next few years anyway.

I recommend Dan's WAR for hitting/positional replacement value and DRA for defensive value foremost, but reviewing WAR from baseball-reference from the old timers is also recommended.

Win Shares has issues with suppressing defensive value for great players and there by raising the value of stone glove corner guys. Win Shares also can under/over credit players on teams with extremely good/bad records.

WAR is solid, but I prefer Dan's replacement level of worst 3/8 regulars and a rolling window for replacement rather than baseball-reference by decade cut offs...the most extreme examples of this could be Bert Campaneris versus Sal Bando.

Negro Leaguers have scattered MLEs in different threads, not sure that a comprehensive page has been setup to include this data.

Deadball/19th century - I am looking forward to Chris Cobb's upcoming study reviewing different fielding values using Baseball Reference R Field, DRA, and FRAA from Clay Davenport. The under-represented 1910s group might come up with some historically great fielders we are overlooking (Joe Tinker?).
   48. bjhanke Posted: January 16, 2015 at 04:49 AM (#4882012)
I, personally, still rely on Win Shares more than anything else, because I don't believe any version of WAR's modern pitching numbers (I think they overrate pitchers). However, if you separate out the pitchers from everyone else, WAR and Win Shares come up with VERY similar lists, which is a big help. Position player comparisons are less correlated. One very good reason for starting with the more modern players is that, to deal with older players at all, you have to figure out some way to deal with the effects of the conditions of the game. Before 1920, you could lead the league in homers with nine (if you played in the Baker Bowl; see Gavy Cravath). Before 1901, a foul ball was not a strike, which explains a lot about the careers of Sliding Billy Hamilton and John McGraw. They have NO power at all (check how few doubles they hit; never mind the homers), but hit .350 with over 100 walks a year anyway, because they just fouled off anything close to the strike zone until they got something they could bloop for a soft liner over the infield, but in front of the outfield, or an easy bunt single. Trying to compare players like this with Frank Thomas, or even Dick Stuart, is just a horror of knowing details of how the game was played. Defense at 1B was VERY important before about 1925, because everyone could bunt, since trying to hit homers was silly. As a consequence, there are no 1B from that era who are really good hitters; the best is George Sisler (through 1922, when he got beaned). But over in the Pacific Coast League, you have 1B like Stuart and Thomas. Names like Buzz Arlett and Gavy Cravath. The problem is that these guys did not play 1B in the PCL; they played RF, which was considered a less demanding defensive spot. These are just a few examples; trying to find out all of these things in a short time will just make you give up. Start with the most modern players, and work back. We could use some new voters who are motivated. - Brock Hanke
   49. Chris Cobb Posted: January 16, 2015 at 09:20 AM (#4882058)
Defense at 1B was VERY important before about 1925, because everyone could bunt, since trying to hit homers was silly. As a consequence, there are no 1B from that era who are really good hitters; the best is George Sisler (through 1922, when he got beaned).

As I've just commented over on the Ben Taylor thread, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that there were no really good hitters at first base during this era, nor to ascribe the lack of top hitters at first base exclusively to the defensive demands of the position. Jack Fournier's career suggests that players of his type were not playable as first basemen, and so the very bulky power bat players did not fit into the game of the deadball era: a player needed either enough footspeed to manage in the outfield or enough agility and dexterity to handle bunts & grounders at first base. Mark McGwire and Frank Thomas would have had no position in baseball in 1915. But the players at first base were still very good hitters, much better than any others in the infield and almost as good as the outfielders. My inference now is that the main reason that they didn't have the offensive stats the outfielders did is due to lack of speed, not lack of ability with the stick. When it is harder to get balls to the outfield, as it was in this era, the speed to beat out bunts and infield hits makes a bigger difference. When over-the-fence home runs are nearly impossible to hit, the speed to take an extra base on balls in the gap or over the heads of the outfielders makes a bigger difference. What really separates George Sisler from the other first basemen of his era as an offensive force, not as a batsman, is two things: (1) speed, and (2) readiness to take advantage of the lively ball when it arrived. A player like Ed Konetchy has a bunch of stolen bases on his record--a huge amount for a modern first baseman, but he probably had as many caught stealings as steals. George Sisler was leading his league in stolen bases, and in triples, which Ed Konetchy never did, although he did lead in doubles once. I don't think anyone ever sets a hits record without a lot of footspeed. Most players with that much speed at this time who weren't right-handed would have gone to the outfield--Sisler didn't: I don't know why. I think players like Ed Konetchy and Ben Taylor would have been regarded as great hitters in a period like the 1880s, when power allowed you to drive hits through a gloveless infield or the live-ball era, when they could have turned their power into home runs. In the deadball era, they couldn't take full advantage of their power due to lack of speed.

Here's a quick way to get a feel for what first base was like. I looked at the RC+ for the 25 players with the most games played at each position from 1906 to 1920, to see how many players could reach that level of playing time with an RC+ below 100. Here's how it breaks down:

SS -- 21 below 100 RC+
C -- 18 below 100 RC+
3B - 15 below
2B -- 12 below
1B -- 7 below
CF -- 4 below
LF -- 3 below
RF -- 3 below

So first base is still an offense-heavy position, not as heavy as the outfield--that has switched, but much more offense-heavy than any other infield position. And yet, the top OPS+ among the top 25 first basemen in games played, there's no one with an OPS+ comparable to the top players at positions with higher defensive demands: Collins and Lajoie at second, Wagner at short. Frank Baker at third base is as good an offensive player as anyone at first base. And the top two offensive players at first base are Frank Chance and George Sisler, the only two players in the group who are demonstrably fast men.

   50. bjhanke Posted: January 16, 2015 at 04:33 PM (#4882377)
Chris - That is just how I read the period. I didn't mean that the DBE 1B were lousy hitters compared to league average, but compared to modern 1B, just as happens at 3B. Also, there are several instances in which a PCL player who could hit but couldn't play defense got a tryout in the majors, but as a RF, not a 1B. Harry Heilmann's bat was what it took for some slow guy to play RF in MLB instead of the PCL; Harry, a lousy outfielder, didn't play 1B. Gavy Cravath had only one year at 1B, otherwise it was RF. Buzz Arlett's only MLB year was in RF. That's what they would have done to Thomas or McGwire - put them out in RF. Their bats were too good to lose, but, like Heilmann, they were bad gloves and, at that time, bad gloves with hot bats ended up in RF, not 1B.

I know I've asked this before, but since you're right here, have you been able to figure out what the bunting environment was for top Negro play during this period? Ben Taylor is probably the #2 1B DBE hitter, behind only Sisler through 1922. But the question is whether, if MLB had actually let him in, would he have ended up at 1B or RF? If he was a competent MLB 1B, he gets a Hall of Merit vote from me, because that has value. If he would have ended up in RF, then that's a harder standard, and I'm not sure. Knowing this is the only thing I still need to know to decide on Taylor. If he WAS an actual MLB caliber DBE 1B, I think it would make him the first of a series of 1B who are similar in that they don't run well, and don't have much power, but hit for good averages and 100 walks a year. Lu Blue, Roy Cullenbine, Earl Torgeson, Ferris Fain, Joe Cunningham. These were valuable players, and have similar offensive shapes to Taylor. Taylor was probably better with the bat than any except Cullenbine or Fain at his peak, and maybe better than Cullenbine. I would be very interested in voting for a 1B who had a DBE glove and Roy Cullenbine's bat, or Ferris Fain at his best. Thanks in hopeful advance, - Brock Hanke
   51. DL from MN Posted: January 16, 2015 at 05:58 PM (#4882424)
"Defensively, he was good on ground balls and could execute all the plays at first, making the other infielders look good by digging out low throws and making difficult plays with such ease that they appeared routine."

I haven't found a reference to just his bunt fielding but Taylor was considered to be one of the best. His pitching makes it clear he had a good arm.
   52. Chris Cobb Posted: January 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM (#4882626)
Brock,

When you asked this question before, I didn't have an answer. What DL has quoted from the biography of Ben Taylor in Riley's encyclopedia was about the extent of the historical evidence. I realized, however, that the Seamheads data offers quantitative but slightly indirect evidence on bunting: sacrifice hit data. We now have league-wide SH data for the whole of the deadball era. As part of working up the MLEs for Ben Taylor, one of the small improvements I decided to make to take advantage of the Seamheads data was to include adjust for sacrifice hit context. So I calculated the league rates for SH/PA for the National League and organized Black Baseball from 1911 to 1929. Some years are missing from the 1920s, but the data goes late enough into the decade to show the trends. In fact, here's the data:

Year NeL Rate/NL rate
1911 99.1%
1912 103.8%
1913 111.0%
1914 87.2%
1915 98.9%
1916 110.4%
1917 115.2%
1918 109.1%
1919 109.7%
1920 115.2%
1921 113.1%
1922 120.9%
1923 144.4%
1924 112.6%
1925
1926 102.8%
1927
1928 102.9%
1929

From 1911-15, the sacrifice rates are close to equal. From 1916-19, the NeL is consistently about 10% higher. From 1920-23, NeL is much higher--this is the period in which the NeL hasn't yet shifted over to a more lively-ball style of play, while the majors have. As the NeL transitions to the lively-ball environment in the second half of the 1920s, their rates drop back into parity with the NL. With respect to bunts, at least, Taylor was playing in a defensive context that was at least as demanding as his major-league DBE counterparts. Historically speaking, the first-base position Taylor was playing corresponded to the major-league dead-ball-era first base position, not to the later live-ball-era first base position.

That fact leaves open the possibility that Taylor fielded first base well enough to manage in the less competitive context of the NeL but couldn't have made it at first base in the majors. On this issue, we get some guidance from the fielding win shares. We don't yet have any established framework for doing fielding value conversions from the NeL to the majors--we've hardly taken stock of the fact that we have real NeL fielding data to work with at all. But, what we can do is look comparatively at the NeL first basemen who were active during Taylor's career and see how he compares. I have done that, looking at all the players (that I could find, but I think I have them all) who played a significant amount of first base whose careers overlapped with Taylor and who have at least 200 games played at first base in the Seamheads database. Here's how Taylor stacks up in that group:

Player // 1B Games // FWS/1000
Oscar Charleston // 257 // 2.11
Edgar Wesley // 399 // 1.95
Ben Taylor // 789 // 1.89
Agustin Parpetti // 496 // 1.80
Jud Wilson // 251 // 1.78
George McAllister // 221 // 1.76
Bill Pettus // 270 // 1.74
Bill Pierce // 210 / 1.74
Tullie McAdoo // 399 // 1.68
Leroy Grant // 578 // 1.65
Lemuel Hawkins // 302 // 1.60
Rober Hudspeth // 308 // 1.53
Toussaint Allen // 208 // 1.53
George Carr // 323 // 1.49
Eustaquio Pedroso // 220 // 1.39

Although win shares fielding analysis is inexact, it shows clearly that Taylor was among the best-fielding first basemen of the 1910-1930 period. He trails Charleston (and its never a shame to trail Charleston) and Edgar Wesley, but in both those cases there is reason to believe that Taylor is better in comparison to them than the numbers show. Only the first part of Charleston's career is represented, whereas the Seamheads numbers are virtually complete for Taylor and are weighted slightly towards his later career. In Wesley's case, either the latter part of his career isn't represented yet, or he was out of baseball fairly young--the data here is for his ages 26-33 seasons, whereas Taylor's comes from his ages 21-40 seasons. Given these factors, the numbers strongly suggest that Taylor's reputation as the best-fielding first-baseman of his day in Black Baseball was quite deserved.

I think there is no reason to doubt that Taylor would have been a first baseman, not an outfielder, had he played in the majors, and no reason to doubt that he would have fielded well.

As I may have said recently on the Taylor thread (where I will copy Brock's question and my response), what this data is insufficient to confirm is the claim that Taylor was a historically great defensive first baseman. Given the inexactness of first-base FWS, it's also insufficient to refute that claim, either.
   53. bjhanke Posted: January 19, 2015 at 07:58 AM (#4883757)
Chris - This is EXACTLY what I needed. I didn't need for Ben Taylor to turn out to be George Kelly with the glove or anything; I just needed to find out that he wasn't Gavy Cravath or Harry Heilmann. Unless there is a huge crunch of new giant superstars next year (and I don't think there is), I'm pretty sure that Taylor will be on my ballot.

The other interesting thing is the number of games Oscar Charleston played at 1B. Oscar's monster reputation is as a CF, and even in the DBE, CF was a more valued defensive spot than 1B. Way back in the 1980s, when I first started to run across research on the Negro Leagues, Oscar's reputation was nothing like it is now. He was generally considered to be the #2 CF in the NgLs, behind Cool Papa Bell. But no one was comparing him to Jimmy Foxx as a hitter or anything. The data dug up on Oscar over the last 30 years seems to have done his record a world of good. However, I had just assumed, based on a certain amount of commentary, but mostly just on logic, that Oscar's early years were the ones he spent in CF, and that later, he put on weight and lost the speed to play CF and had to move to 1B. Your data shows him with a lot of games at 1B in the earlier parts of his career. That's odd, and I don't know what to make of it, unless Oscar is a much older player than I thought he was. Actually, when I ran across Bill James' opinion of Oscar in the New Historical, it was a surprise. When I managed to assimilate it, I figured that Oscar had played CF early and 1B late, and that the commentors of the 1980s were guys whose sources only remembered Oscar from his "fat 1B" days. They didn't remember when he had been, essentially, Willie Mays. Now, I'm not sure what to think. His games at 1B are a LOT less than Taylor or Leroy Grant and a couple of others, but in line with the rest of the list. Do you have any quick answer as to how many games Oscar played in CF and when he played where? It's not a big enough issue to spend serious time on, because he's in every Hall he will ever be in, but it would be nice to know why the 1980s guys just didn't run into the same reputation for him as we have now. In any case, thanks for solving my Ben Taylor problem. I knew you'd come through; it was just a matter of where you'd find the data. SF data, when you're trying to evaluate bunt fielding, is certainly about the best indicator you can get. So, THANKS! - Brock
   54. Chris Cobb Posted: January 19, 2015 at 08:56 AM (#4883773)
Brock,

Most of Charleston's playing time at first base did come during the later part of his career--of his 257 recorded games at first in the Seamheads database, 167 came in the 1933-36 seasons, which have been compiled. There's a gap in the Seamheads data from 1929-32, so those four years are blank, and only about 50% of league seasons have been compiled from 1925-28, so there are gaps there as well. That leaves us with a complete view of Charleston's fielding positions from 1916-24, a spotty view from 1925-28, nothing from 1929-32, and a complete view from 1933-36. So if Charleston was not primarily a first baseman during Taylor's career, why does he appear in my data set? The answer is that he did play some first base earlier in his career, including one season as the primary first baseman for the ABC's in 1923. Given the very small number of "league" games in the pre NNL era of Black Baseball, to find the starting first basemen from that era, I looked at all the players I could find with at least 70 games at first base, and worked up from there. A player with an Eastern team from the 1910s might need four years as a starter to get to 70 games, whereas a player in the Western NNL from the early 1920s would get to that total in a single season. Charleston had 90 games pre-1929, so he got into the group, and 257 in his full career was enough to get him in to the final comparison set, even though he accumulated the majority of those games after Taylor's retirement.

Charleston appears to have begun to pick up first base as a secondary position in 1922, Ben Taylor's last year with the ABCs. That was the first season Taylor needed to sit for a few games. When he rested, Charleston moved to first, the left fielder Namon Washington shifted to center, right fielder Crush Holloway went to left, and 4th outfielder Lewis Hampton got the start. In 1923, when Taylor left the ABCs, the team put Charleston at first base about half the time and in center about half the time. It looks like they tried to replace Taylor with an aging Leroy Grant, but when he washed out, the team decided to go with first base by committee, which appears to have been a not uncommon arrangement in Black Baseball.

So, of Charleston's 90 games at first base before 1929, 56 came in 1922-23. Before 1922-23, he had played only 5 games at first. In his documented seasons 1924-28, he would pick up 29 more--once he had gained experience at first base, covering that position from time to time became a part of his role, especially during his Cuban seasons (which account for 16 of the 29 games).
   55. bjhanke Posted: January 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM (#4883882)
Chris - Thanks. The picture this suggests to me (as you note, there are too many holes in the data to be sure), that Oscar was not a Gold Glove in CF, and was on a team that had a LF who could play CF as well as Oscar, and that had a regular 1B who was starting to miss playing time. I hasten to add that "not a Gold Glove in CF" is hardly serious criticism, but it probably does drop him below Willie Mays. When the question is whether you were Willie Mays or not, I think your reputation is secure. - Brock
   56. Chris Cobb Posted: January 19, 2015 at 01:22 PM (#4883939)
The other piece of the picture that is relevant for Oscar Charleston is his FWS rate as a centerfielder. The data cover only Charleston's seasons from age 18 to 32, so no decline phase is included, and of course there is no accounting for competition levels (whatever that accounting should be), but for that period his FWS rate was 4.74/1000 defensive innings. Unless there would be a large competition discount, that number suggests he was a gold-glove caliber outfielder--not top 5 all time, probably, but very quite possibly the best of the 1920s. Here's his nearest full-career comps--outfielders with 4.0 FWS/1000 defensive innings and up--when Win Shares was published:

Andruw Jones, 6.47 (first five seasons only)
Curt Flood, 5.32
Jimmy McAleer, 5.20
Curt Welch, 5.11
Mike Kreevich, 5.06
Tris Speaker, 4.93
Oscar Charleston, 4.74
Jim Busby, 4.71
Marquis Grissom, 4.70 (not full career)
Dom Dimaggio, 4.66
Tommy Leach, 4.64
Pop Corkhill, 4.56
Paul Blair, 4.55
Jimmy Piersall, 4.50
Terry Moore, 4.41
Hugh Nicoll, 4.38
Max Carey, 4.37
Tommy Agee, 4.37
George Gore, 4.35
Hi Myers, 4.35
Lloyd Waner, 4.33
Fielder Jones, 4.29
Otis Nixon, 4.29
Amos Otis, 4.25
Taylor Douthit, 4.25
Sammy West, 4.20
Garry Maddox, 4.18
Willie Wilson, 4.13
Steve Brodie, 4.12
Willie Mays, 4.11
Darren Lewis, 4.07
Omar Moreno, 4.05
jim Edmonds, 4.02 (not full career)
Joe Dimaggio, 4.01
Bill Virdon, 4.00

The data strongly suggest that Charleston was a gold-glove centerfielder, regardless of the decision to have him cover first base for the ABCs in 1923.
   57. bjhanke Posted: January 19, 2015 at 10:34 PM (#4884288)
Chris - I think you're probably right about that. The list does have some oddities. Probably the two best defensive CFs in 1920s MLB were Waner and Douthit, and both have smaller numbers than we might expect. But dragging Charleston down towards Waner and Douthit doesn't even try to imply that he was worse. I am very surprised that Willie Mays' number is so low, but perhaps it suffered from his playing a very long career because he could still play CF and could still really hit. It's also possible that the best CF of the 1920s was actually Speaker, although listing him as "in the 1920s" is stretching it some. I remember Darren Lewis as a tremendous CF who could not hit, and his number looks low to me, too. Since Lewis could not hit, he didn't start, but he played a lot because, treated as a bench player, his glove was worth a lot, so he was probably the first OF off the bench (except just to pinch hit) on most of his teams.

In general, the list looks very credible to me, which means that I recognize a large majority of the names, and they are the names attached to hot glove reps. Piersall was a glove wonder in the 1950s, although he was too mentally unstable to have a full career. Bill Virdon looked like the second coming of Terry Moore until Flood showed up. Brodie's glove was famous, way back when. Curt Welch had a great glove rep. McAleer's is probably the best glove rep of the 19th century. There's not a clunker in the lot that I can see, although there are two fewer DiMaggio's than I expected, and I don't see Cool Papa Bell on there, which is also a surprise. But it does make a very good point about Oscar. Thanks! - Brock
   58. Chris Cobb Posted: January 20, 2015 at 08:16 AM (#4884378)
Except for Charleston, this is a purely major-league list, drawn for quick convenience from the all-time fielding table in Bill James's Win Shares book. Aside from Charleston, I haven't done rate calculations for any NeL centerfielders using the Seamheads data. That's another context that should be examined in assessing the significance of Charleston's centerfield numbers. It would also be instructive to calculate the rates of the ML players through their age 33 seasons, to get an age slice correspondent to Charleston's. Since this is work that's somewhat at a tangent to current HoM questions, I don't expect to pursue it in the near future, but when I get to my review of the 1920s and 1930s and am taking a fresh look at Cool Papa Bell as a member of the borderline HoM group from that period, I'll definitely take a look at his fielding and, by extension, this centerfield group.
   59. bjhanke Posted: January 20, 2015 at 09:23 AM (#4884410)
Chris - Thanks for all of this. And you're right. Analyzing Oscar Charleston doesn't really lead anywhere except to, "BOY, could he play baseball." And I do remember that this started out as a Ben Taylor question out of me, and you answered that very thoroughly. For that, and all the other research you do, I salute you! - Brock
   60. DanG Posted: January 22, 2015 at 05:18 PM (#4886223)
Apropos to the discussion of reviewing old candidates:

SABR: 2015 Overlooked 19th Century Baseball Legend primary election
   61. Howie Menckel Posted: January 22, 2015 at 09:18 PM (#4886321)

at a glance, looks like 10 of the 25 candidates are HOMers and several others got lots of votes for a long time, or still do
   62. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 25, 2015 at 02:16 PM (#4887595)
Okay, I've finally had some time to start putting together a preliminary ballot. I haven't gotten very far incorporating old-timers, but here's what my basic system spits out. I apologize in advance: this is going to be a really long post.

As I've said in earlier posts, I created my own player valuation system - Player won-lost records. I calculate Player won-lost records two ways: pWins tie to team wins and eWins control for context (including teammate quality). On my website, I put together a page that lets you set your own weights to create a player ranking. I played around with it to find a list that seemed to produce a good mix of players in terms of career vs. peak vs. prime with a good split by position and by time period. What I ended up with is here. It weights pWins and eWins the same, gives somewhat higher weight to wins over positional average (WOPA) than over replacement level (WORL). I zero out negative values for both WOPA and WORL. I also give a little weight to just raw wins (0.1-1.0-0.3 Wins-WOPA-WORL); I add postseason records for both WOPA and WORL. And then I do some position weighting to produce a relatively even balance of players by position. I adjusted all seasons to 162 games. I only have partial data before 1948 (and no data at all for most seasons before 1934); for partial-data seasons, I adjusted players' performance up based on actual games played and performance in games I have data for - this assumes players performed equally in missing games as they did in the games I do have in a season, which is wrong, but shouldn't be biased. I have no data on non-white-major-league performance and have made no adjustments for World War II or relative league strength, nor have I done any timelining here.

Looking at my top 150 players - which I think ends up being about comparable to the size of the HOM (given that I have virtually no pre-1934 or Negro League data), I get a split of about 30% pitchers, 70% non-pitchers. For non-pitchers, I'm perhaps a little light on catchers - who make up about 9% of the player decisions earned at the 8 fielding positions; the other 7 positions make up 11-15% apiece. Those seem fairly reasonable to me.

Looking at the decade in which players deduted, my top 150 has only 3 players who debuted in the 1920's (Ott, Gehrig, and Dickey) because I'm missing most of these guys' careers (I have data for 1922, 1925, 1927, 1931, and every season from 1934 on). I have 1 player who debuted in the 2000's (Pujols) - Miggy Cabrera is next at #163. From the 1930's through 1990's, the number of players who debuted by decade in my top 150 goes 20-11-16-28-23-24-24, respectively. I would guess that the 1940's are low because of World War II and segregation. The 1950's are probably also low because of segregation. Overall, though, that strikes me as a pretty reasonable mix. Obviously, I need to bring in outside information to consider pre-1930's candidates and players whose careers were affected by segregation.

Working through the above link, just taking the numbers as they come out, here's the top 50 players who I think are eligible for the 2016 Hall-of-Merit election. Names in parentheses are members of the Hall of Merit who are just above and below the player in this list.

A couple of general comments on my system. Player won-lost records LOVE above-average starting pitchers. I talk about this a bit in the Tommy John thread. I also wrote a fairly extensive article on pitching Player won-lost records here. If you can make 30 starts a year for 20 years being mostly above average over that time period, Player won-lost records adore you. Player won-lost records also love power, and they especially love power from defense-first positions.

Now, on to my preliminary rankings. This is not a preliminary ballot, as will be obvious from many of my comments. Most significantly, I'm missing a good sense of what to do with most players who fall outside of the time period covered by Player won-lost records.

1. Tommy John (Robin Roberts, Don Sutton) - see my earlier comment; Tommy John kind of falls perfectly in the wheelhouse for what Player won-lost records love in a pitcher. I'm probably going to bump him down a bit on my ballot, partly as a nod to other systems that aren't as crazy about him, and partly in recognition of the fact that there were so many other pitchers who were his exact contemporaries who ended up doing basically the same thing (Sutton, Ryan, Niekro, Blyleven, Kaat, not to mention a bunch of guys a clear step better). My first instinct is probably to slot John below Mike Mussina on my ballot.

2. John Smoltz (Lou Whitaker, Nolan Ryan) - Player won-lost records like his time as a closer and his postseason performance, which push him ahead of Mussina. That seems reasonable to me.

3. Ken Griffey, Jr. (Whitaker, Ryan) - the next HOMer below Ryan on my list is Duke Snider. My list ends up perhaps being a bit pitcher-heavy. I might, therefore, give Griffey a boost up to #1 as the best non-pitcher on the ballot.

4. Manny Ramirez (Bert Blyleven, George Brett)

I have two questions about Manny, which are somewhat related in my mind: (1) is he eligible for this election, and (2) is it within the spirit of the Hall of Merit to downgrade a player for suspension time beyond simply zeroing out the missed time? Looking at Manny's last season, it wasn't exactly a "token" appearance. The Rays were counting on him to be their regular DH. He only played 5 games because he got suspended and then quit rather than face his punishment. I'm inclined to penalize him for that more than just a simple "well, he gets zero for 2011 because he only played 5 games", but don't want to violate either the letter or spirit of the Hall of Merit rules.

5. Mike Mussina (George Brett, Jim Palmer) - the Mussina/Palmer comp feels about right to me. It's sometimes hard to get a good sense of pitcher/non-pitcher comparisons, but Brett/Mussina also feels pretty good to me.

6. Gary Sheffield (Bobby Grich, Alan Trammell) - Grich and Trammell are terrible "comps" to Sheffield in terms of how they produced their value - good-fielding middle infielders vs. a pure hitter who played indifferent defense at best, but I can see how they end up in the same place.

7. Jim Kaat (Phil Niekro, Paul Molitor) - he's a poor man's Tommy John. If I'm inclined to downgrade John (and I am), obviously I would need to also downgrade Kaat by a similar (or greater) amount.

8. Jim Edmonds (Bob Feller, Wade Boggs) - if you combined Ken Griffey's 20's and Jim Edmonds's 30's, how close would that get you to Willie Mays?

9. Dizzy Trout (Ryne Sandberg, Graig Nettles) - I'm not discounting his 1943 & 1944 seasons, which were undoubtedly excellent, but were also played against pretty sketchy competition. I would guess that he'll end up missing my ballot because of that.

10. Jeff Kent (Graig Nettles, Jeff Bagwell) - as I said above, Player won-lost records like guys who can hit, and hit with power, at defense-first positions, and Jeff Kent did that well.

(My first instinct is that Ben Taylor will probably end up slotting somewhere around here.)

11. Vern Stephens (Roberto Clemente, Larry Walker) - see Dizzy Trout; I will also say that I would probably be inclined to judgmentally adjust the ranking of Roberto Clemente to put him more clearly ahead of Vern Stephens (and several other players).

12. Dennis Martinez (Billy Pierce, Tim Raines) - he benefits a great deal from my zeroing out negative WOPA and WORL values. As a fan of the teams for which he put up most of those negative WOPA/WORL seasons, I feel like that might be too generous to El Presidente.

13. Dave Concepcion (Tim Raines, Ted Simmons) - similar to Dan R.'s system, my positional averages and replacement levels are based on empirical results, so Concepcion benefits from the weakness of other 1970's shortstops. Personally, I think that's reasonable.

14. Toby Harrah (Raines, Simmons) - see Jeff Kent and Dave Concepcion

15. Sammy Sosa (Raines, Simmons)

16. Paul Derringer (Raines, Simmons) - I'm missing his 1932 and 1933 seasons entirely; the rest of his seasons are missing at least some games, so I'm not sure how much I trust this ranking.

(My first instinct is that Vic Willis seems somewhat similar to Jim Bunning in value, which would put him about here in my system - which could make the bottom of my ballot depending on what I do with a few of the players listed above.)

17. Tony Perez (Rod Carew, Dick Allen) - (Rod Carew seems too low here); Tony Perez might be a little too high, but in context, his numbers were very good. e.g., for his career, Perez batted .279/.341/.463; with runners in scoring position, he batted .284/.364/.470; in what Baseball-Reference characterizes as "high-leverage" situations, Perez batted .300/.359/.491 for his career.

18. David Wells (Carew, Allen) - he's Jim Kaat in a different generation
19. Dale Murphy (Carew, Allen)
20. Bert Campaneris (Edgar Martinez, Willie Randolph) - see Dave Concepcion
21. Claude Passeau (Willie Randolph, Larry Doby)
22. Dutch Leonard (ditto) - I have only partial seasons for most of Passeau's and Leonard's careers, and am therefore fairly skeptical of these results.
23. Orel Hershiser (Larry Doby, Mark McGwire)
24. Bucky Walters (Doby, McGwire) - I'm inclined to bump Walters ahead of at least Passeau and Leonard, although his 1944-45 do probably need to be discounted somewhat. But I could see him having an outside shot at sneaking onto the bottom of my ballot.

25. Fred Lynn (Doby, McGwire)
26. Augie Galan (McGwire, David Cone)

This is around the level where full-career guys are more likely than not to NOT be in the Hall of Merit. We're almost certainly, then, to the point where it would take significant outside considerations to end up making my ballot.
(continued in subsequent comment)
   63. Kiko Sakata Posted: January 25, 2015 at 02:17 PM (#4887596)
(continued)

27. Darrell Porter
28. Indian Bob Johnson - he could qualify for such "outside considerations"
29. Amos Otis
30. Gil Hodges - he benefits from a weak version of the Concepcion/Campaneris thing as the "best first baseman of the 1950s", but not enough to get particularly close to my ballot.
31. Curt Simmons
32. Bob Friend
33. Bobby Bonds
34. Bernie Williams
35. Luis Aparicio
36. Kenny Lofton
37. Ron Cey
38. Jerry Reuss
39. Jim Rice
40. Sal Bando
41. Lew Burdette
42. Mel Harder - I'm missing his 1928-30, and 1932-33 seasons; 1933, in particular, was excellent (AL-leading 2.95 ERA in 253.0 IP) - probably not quite excellent enough to push him all the way up to my ballot, though
43. Fred McGriff
44. George Foster
45. Jerry Koosman
46. Dick McAuliffe
47. Rusty Staub
48. Claude Osteen
49. Vada Pinson
50. Larry Jackson

Luis Tiant is #61. Generally, he lacks the number of above-average seasons of the guys above him. He has two excellent seasons (1968, 1974) and maybe 11 more solidly above-average seasons, several of which are fairly low-inning. He only pitched 200 IP in a season 8 times. In contrast, Tommy John has about 16 solidly above-average seasons and reached 200 IP 12 times. Tiant's peripherals (3.47 FIP vs. 3.30 ERA) are also not quite as favorable as John's (3.38 FIP vs. 3.34 ERA).

Buddy Bell ends up well out of the consideration set here. He doesn't rate as high defensively in Player won-lost records as he does on Baseball-Reference: he's a fine, good to very good, defensive third baseman, but not second-best defensive 3B in MLB history as BB-Ref shows. He was a decent hitter, but nothing exceptional for a third baseman, and he was a lousy baserunner. The result was a player who was somewhat above average for a fair chunk of a decently long career, but not particularly close to a Hall-of-Merit player, in my opinion.

Trevor Hoffman ends up between Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers, but none of the three end up particularly close to my ballot (Mariano Rivera would probably be the only pure reliever in my pHOM).

Sorry that this is so long, but those are my initial thoughts. Comments and criticisms are welcome.
   64. DL from MN Posted: January 26, 2015 at 09:47 AM (#4887915)
I like the different perspective from this data. I agree that making sure all eras and all positions are represented will be the hard part.
   65. The Honorable Ardo Posted: January 28, 2015 at 01:50 AM (#4888931)
My re-appraisal of Wally Schang is up in his player thread, and I urge everybody to take a look. I like his candidacy more than ever; I'll have him at least 6th (ahead of Edmonds) and perhaps as high as 4th (between Manny and Sheff).
   66. Bleed the Freak Posted: February 07, 2015 at 03:17 PM (#4894932)

1. Tommy John (Robin Roberts, Don Sutton) - see my earlier comment; Tommy John kind of falls perfectly in the wheelhouse for what Player won-lost records love in a pitcher. I'm probably going to bump him down a bit on my ballot, partly as a nod to other systems that aren't as crazy about him, and partly in recognition of the fact that there were so many other pitchers who were his exact contemporaries who ended up doing basically the same thing (Sutton, Ryan, Niekro, Blyleven, Kaat, not to mention a bunch of guys a clear step better). My first instinct is probably to slot John below Mike Mussina on my ballot.

7. Jim Kaat (Phil Niekro, Paul Molitor) - he's a poor man's Tommy John. If I'm inclined to downgrade John (and I am), obviously I would need to also downgrade Kaat by a similar (or greater) amount.

12. Dennis Martinez (Billy Pierce, Tim Raines) - he benefits a great deal from my zeroing out negative WOPA and WORL values. As a fan of the teams for which he put up most of those negative WOPA/WORL seasons, I feel like that might be too generous to El Presidente.

18. David Wells (Carew, Allen) - he's Jim Kaat in a different generation.

Luis Tiant is #61. Generally, he lacks the number of above-average seasons of the guys above him. He has two excellent seasons (1968, 1974) and maybe 11 more solidly above-average seasons, several of which are fairly low-inning. He only pitched 200 IP in a season 8 times. In contrast, Tommy John has about 16 solidly above-average seasons and reached 200 IP 12 times. Tiant's peripherals (3.47 FIP vs. 3.30 ERA) are also not quite as favorable as John's (3.38 FIP vs. 3.34 ERA).


Interesting findings...is the electorate underrating longevity over peak/medium career candidates?

This emphasis leads to the following major differences:
John, Kaat, Martinez, and Wells would fall in your personal hall of merit, and from what i can tell,
HOM electees Rick Reuschel and Dave Stieb fall in the 100-125 range, with Sandy Koufax and Luis Tiant outside the 125, all outside of a personal hall.

Does these comments fairly represent your findings? Are we overrating Reuschel, Stieb, Koufax, and Tiant?

From the link in the Toby Harrah thread, I would have guessed Orel Hershiser to be a ballot guy, with Kevin Appier and Dwight Gooden not too far back...are Grape Ape and Doc close?
   67. lieiam Posted: February 08, 2015 at 10:21 AM (#4895118)
Who are the players most helped by war credit?
Off the top of my head I think of Rizzuto and Pesky.
[I've been thinking about figuring out war credit for the top war credit assisted candidates before I try and dig into the negro leagues].
   68. DL from MN Posted: February 08, 2015 at 12:00 PM (#4895149)
Enos Slaughter is helped by war credit. Without it he's much more marginal. Bob Feller is another that requires war credit in order to rank him versus the top pitchers. I give Tommy Bridges war credit.
   69. Chris Fluit Posted: February 08, 2015 at 12:15 PM (#4895158)
Charlie Keller probably isn't in the HoM without his year and 3/4 of war credit (he served in the merchant marines in '44 and '45).

For currently eligible players, Dick Redding deserves war credit for missing time during WWI. He missed almost all of 1918 and half of 1919. If properly credited, his amazing peak looks even more outstanding.
   70. Chris Fluit Posted: February 08, 2015 at 12:40 PM (#4895170)
Here's a larger, though still incomplete, list of inductees and eligible players who deserve war credit:

HoM Inductees:

Ken Boyer ('52-'53, missed two years of minor league play during Korean War)
Joe DiMaggio ('43-'45)
Bobby Doerr ('45)
Bob Feller ('42-'44, partial '45)
Joe Gordon ('44-'45, partial '46)
Hank Greenberg (partial '41, '42-'44, partial '45)
Billy Herman ('44-'45)
Charlie Keller ('44, partial '45)
Johnny Mize ('43-'45, partial '46)
Stan Musial ('45)
Pee Wee Reese ('43-'45)
Enos Slaughter ('43-'45)
Ted Williams ('43-'45, partial '52-'53)


HoM Candidates:

Dom DiMaggio ('43-'45)
Luke Easter (delayed his career because he had a draft-exempt job in the defense industry)
Sid Gordon ('44-'45)
Tommy Henrich ('43-'45)
Elston Howard ('51-'52, missed two years of minor league play during Korean War)
Don Newcombe ('52-'53, partial '54)
Johnny Pesky ('43-'45)
Dick Redding ('18, partial '19)
Phil Rizzuto ('43-'45)
Johnny Sain ('43-'45)
Cecil Travis ('42-'44, partial '45)
Virgil Trucks ('44-'45)
Mickey Vernon ('44-'45)

Those are most of the major ones. I might be missing a few WWI or Korean guys. War credit likely helped push Boyer, Gordon, Keller over the line. It's also a major part of the resume for some of our top returnees: Howard, Newcombe, Redding and Rizzuto.
   71. bjhanke Posted: February 09, 2015 at 09:25 PM (#4895987)
Cecil Travis and Barney McCosky would probably benefit more from WWII credit than any one else, because the war destroyed their game, and they were gone from baseball soon after it ended. - Brock Hanke
   72. Rob_Wood Posted: February 09, 2015 at 10:08 PM (#4896006)
Of course, the great Willie Mays missed time due to military service during the Korean Conflict.
   73. DanG Posted: February 10, 2015 at 02:11 AM (#4896059)
Adding to #70, a few additional HoM Candidates losing time to war service:

Dick Groat ('53-'54)
Del Crandall ('51-'52)
Lonny Frey ('44-'45)
Buddy Lewis ('42-'44, over half '45)
Dick Bartell ('44-'45)
Urban Shocker (most of 1918)
Rabbit Maranville (nearly all of 1918)
Ken Williams (nearly all of 1918)
Bobby Murcer ('67-'68)
   74. Rob_Wood Posted: February 10, 2015 at 03:20 AM (#4896061)
I am not doing anything systematic here, but I know Tommy Bridges deserves some war credit for serving in the army in 1944-1945.
   75. Jose Bautista Bobblehead Day Posted: February 10, 2015 at 06:46 AM (#4896066)
HoM Candidates who lost time to war service:
Sam Rice (nearly all of '18)
Spottswood Poles ('18, possibly part of '17)
Herb Pennock ('18)
   76. TomH Posted: February 10, 2015 at 07:51 AM (#4896071)
an oddity I have not found anywhere.. Hank Aaron did no military time. Was he 4F, or some other exemption?
   77. Chris Cobb Posted: February 10, 2015 at 04:52 PM (#4896425)
Aaron was not 4F. I've heard the story told a couple of different ways, but as a couple of recent biographies tell it, when Aaron was contacted by the draft board in the winter of 1953 and informed that he would likely soon be called for military service, the Braves contacted the draft board on his behalf. They told the draft board that if Aaron was not called up for military service, he would be integrating the Southern League in the 1954 season (as he had just been one of the players that had integrated the Sally League in 1953). Apparently the draft board found this case for not drafting him into military service compelling, and Aaron was never drafted. As it turned out, he did not integrate the Southern League in 1954 but started for the Braves after Bobby Thompson famously broke his ankle. The other version of the story that I have read, and I can't now locate the source of this version of the story, is that the very naive and unworldly young Henry Aaron essentially ignored the letters from the draft board when he received them, and that the Braves got involved when they discovered that Aaron was in danger of unintentionally getting into serious trouble over his non-response. But I haven't seen that version sourced in either of the serious biographies that I've found through Googlebooks today, so I don't at this moment vouch for it as a reliable version of the story. I mention it in case someone out there with a better knowledge of Aaron's biography knows that source and can comment on its reliability or lack thereof. Maybe it's an anecdote told somewhere by Bill James, as I hear it in my mind in something like his narrative voice. Must check the NBJHBA tonight . . .
   78. lieiam Posted: February 11, 2015 at 12:20 AM (#4896577)
thanks all for the comments and lists of players who deserve war credit; it's a big help!
   79. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM (#4896578)
Does these comments fairly represent your findings? Are we overrating Reuschel, Stieb, Koufax, and Tiant?


I probably would not have voted for Reuschel or Stieb and probably won't be voting for Tiant. The weighting system that I linked to above doesn't like Sandy Koufax, but I would probably be inclined to override my system and put him in my personal Hall. His career is very short - shorter than I'd like, but damn he was good at his best.

I would have guessed Orel Hershiser to be a ballot guy, with Kevin Appier and Dwight Gooden not too far back...are Grape Ape and Doc close?


Gooden falls just below the top 50 names that I quoted above (specifically, he's 53rd - in an interesting grouping he lands just behind Dave Parker and Darryl Strawberry). I might be inclined to bump him up a bit because I really love his peak, although he'd have to be bumped a lot to make my ballot. Appier is a bit farther back. His career ends up too short given the weighting system above.

I'm still wrestling a little bit with shifting my thinking from Hall-of-Fame to Hall-of-Merit. Since traditional Hall-of-Fame voting tends to be in-vs.-out, I tend to be fairly big hall and very open-minded about HOW a player makes his case: career, peak, prime; to me, if you can make a plausible case, I'm inclined to support you. But with the Hall-of-Merit, having to rank the players, I have to make a decision as to how much I weight career vs. peak vs. prime. And something like Tommy John vs. Sandy Koufax is tough, because it seems absurd on its face to think that John had a more "meritorious" career than Koufax, but, on the other hand, I think it's really easy to see the case for why you'd rather have John - he pitched 2-1/2 times as long as Koufax, mostly very well. But obviously Tommy John never had a season that was within sniffing distance of Koufax's 1966 or 1965 or 1963. But still, that's only 3 seasons - three really, really good seasons, but John had like 18 seasons better than Koufax's 7th-best season.

I feel like I might be underrating peak somewhat, although I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out exactly how to measure "peak" to work into the system.
   80. Rob_Wood Posted: February 11, 2015 at 04:17 AM (#4896595)
Our grand poobah Joe developed Pennants Added as an estimate of how many additional pennants a player's WAR/WAA profile could be expected to bring to his team over the course of his career (this idea may have originated from Bill James or others). I cannot remember the details, but you first develop a methodology to estimate the "marginal pennant impact" of the player's WAR/WAA figure, and then sum the seasonal impacts over his career. I don't think you simply assume the player is on an otherwise average team, though that is essentially the idea. I think some distribution is assumed for the quality of the player's team with associated "pennant impacts" based upon the player's WAR/WAA and the team's expected win pct without him. Use the player's WAR/WAA together with the team's expected win pct without him to estimate the team's expected win pct with him. Then convert these expected team win pcts into probabilities of the team winning the pennant. Then, of course, take the difference between the two respective pennant probs to reflect the player's contribution to his team winning the pennant. Note, I wrote WAR/WAA above since I cannot remember what went into Joe's methodology and a good argument could be made that both WAR and WAA could be used in this derivation.

Anyway, to make a long story short, since you have seasonal "wins" for each player, I think you can borrow Joe's pennants added methodology to come up with your own Pennants Added figures. Best of luck!
   81. Kiko Sakata Posted: February 11, 2015 at 03:05 PM (#4896839)
Best of luck!


Thanks, Rob!

By the way, I'm amazed at how you old-timers were able to work through entire seasons in a matter of a few weeks. I'm very glad that I'm starting once y'all have caught up to reality. Because I'm going to need every bit of a year to put something together.
   82. OCF Posted: February 19, 2015 at 03:18 PM (#4900278)
Off topic, but I thought I'd mention it somewhere. I was reading my campus newspaper at lunch (Cal State U. Long Beach, aka Long Beach State). There was a sports story, about the baseball team playing an exhibition game against some Korean professional team on spring training. The local coach used the opportunity to get some young and inexperienced pitchers some innings. One freshman was written up as doing well, with three scoreless innings.

His name? Chris Mathewson.

I wonder if the kid is even fully aware of why I would notice something like his name.
   83. snowleopard Posted: February 26, 2015 at 01:38 PM (#4904167)
I created a ranking system to give players HoF points. The calculated total is, (2*BRefWAR)+(1.2*BRefWAR7)+HofMonitor#+(2*HoFStandards#). I multiply final point totals by 0.85 for known PED users (in this case, Manny, Sosa, and Sheffield).

Of course, getting elected to the HoF is a different animal than getting elected to the HoM, and the HoF Monitor and Standards numbers reflect that (giving points for batting .300, for leading the league in RBIs, for appearing in the World Series, etc). So, this system is more relevant to HoF voting than HoM voting. Nonetheless, I am thinking that it may be interesting for folks here.

Given my system, here are the top scores for players (1) not already in the HoM, (2) eligible, and (3) active post-1940s (there's a bunch of nineteenth century pitchers who score high on this system):

588.9 Ken Griffey
467.7 Manny Ramirez
448.4 Mike Mussina
435.6 John Smoltz
421.2 Chuck Klein
404.0 Sammy Sosa
384.8 Kirby Puckett
379.0 Gary Sheffield
377.1 Jeff Kent
373.8 Bernie Williams
372.8 Luis Aparicio
370.2 Jim Rice
366.9 Jim Kaat
366.8 Lou Brock
365.9 Luis Tiant
365.6 Tommy John
363.4 Kenny Lofton
343.8 Fred McGriff
342.9 Catfish Hunter
342.2 Ernie Lombardi
341.8 Orlando Cepeda
341.6 Bob Johnson
337.6 Jim Edmonds
334.0 Nomar Garciaparra
332.4 Dave Parker
330.1 Albert Belle
329.1 Don Mattingly
328.0 Carlos Delgado
327.6 Jack Morris
325.6 Dale Murphy
   84. Kiko Sakata Posted: March 01, 2015 at 09:44 PM (#4905675)
I've worked through pitchers whose careers pre-date my system (in whole or in part) and tried to estimate how they would look in my system.

Many thanks to OCF for providing me with his spreadsheet that calculates Pythagorean W-L records for pitchers - and includes the formula for doing so! What I did was for players for whom I had calculated Player won-lost records and OCF had calculated Pythagorean records, I derived formulas for estimating expected eWins, eWOPA, and eWORL, given IP, PythW, and PythL.

In case anybody cares, my formulas end up being the following:

eWins = .057*IP + .0945*PythWins; eWOPA = .1967*PythWins - .1638*PythLosses; eWORL = eWOPA + .00567*IP

Based on that, I was able to calculate statistics (which I'll call "KeyStat" from here on) that parallel the numbers I linked to in commment #62. As a reference point, Sammy Sosa ended up #15 in comment 62 with a KeyStat of 112.0. The expected numbers quoted below do not include postseason, but are adjusted to a 162-game schedule.

I'll start with pitchers for whom I have Player won-lost records for their entire careers. The first numbers here are actual KeyStat numbers; numbers in parentheses are fitted values based on the above equations. Fitted numbers exclude postseason. Overall, at the career level, I get a standard error for KeyStat of about 14.5%, which is higher than I would like, but the results are not obviously biased against any particular career shape or pitcher type, so they should still work to get everybody onto comparable statistical scales.

Here are pitchers for whom I have complete (or very nearly complete) records whose names showed up in comment #62 or #63.

1. Tommy John - 150.1 (117.2) - not surprisingly, to me, John's actual numbers are quite a bit better than his "expected" numbers.

2. John Smoltz - 145.8 - the PythW/L numbers exclude postseason, which is a big selling point for Smoltz; they also don't deal terribly well with relief pitchers (which isn't a big deal for pre-1940's pitchers, of course). An apples-to-apples comparison of regular seasons as a starting pitcher, Smoltz has an actual KeyStat of 114.7 vs. an expected KeyStat of 98.3.

3. Mike Mussina - 134.8 (117.2) - what surprised me a great deal is that even in terms of the expected numbers, John ends up in the top 3 of my ranking among pitchers and right there with Mussina (the numbers in parentheses exclude postseason and seasons under 50 IP for both Mussina and John).

I'm still leaning toward dropping John to #3 among pitchers on my final ballot.

4. Jim Kaat - 131.1 (102.2) - the number in parentheses here excludes several of Kaat's shorter, more relief-heavy seasons

My ballot line is probably going to end up running somewhere in here. I'm kind of on the fence about Kaat.

5. Dennis Martinez - 112.9
6. David Wells - 110.7
7. Orel Hershiser - 108.3
8. Curt Simmons - 104.5
9. Bob Friend - 104.4

[Luis Tiant's expected KeyStat - based on PythW/L - would be about 103.1, which would slot him here - still pretty well off-ballot, but somewhat better than he actually ends up in my system (96.1, outside the top 50).]

10. Jerry Reuss - 103.0
...

Pitchers who pitched prior to 1893 created problems for me when I tried to do this. So, I've excluded them for now. (I have an idea of how to deal with them, but that'll be a separate post) Here, then, are pitchers for whom I am missing Player won-lost records for all or part of their career who either showed up in my posts #62 or #63 or who received Hall-of-Merit votes in the 2013 and/or 2014 election, ranked by expected KeyStat.

1. Vic Willis - 118.1 - This would slot Willis just below Jim Kaat, although I'm leaning right now toward putting Willis ahead of Kaat in the latter half of the top 10 on my ballot. That feels reasonable to me.

2. Jack Quinn - 107.8 - This leaves him probably just off my ballot - I'm guessing it'll end up taking about 115 or so to make my ballot. This makes no adjustments for league strength - bumping down his Federal League stats would push him down further - or give any postseason credit - although Quinn's WS record was pretty bad (0-1, 8.44 ERA in 10.2 IP). He's an interesting candidate, but I can't see him making my ballot.

3. Burleigh Grimes - 106.8 - Grimes had a somewhat better WS record than Quinn (3-4, 4.29, 56.2 IP); between that and Quinn's FL stats, I'd probably put Grimes ahead of Quinn, but he's probably still off-ballot.

4. Wilbur Cooper - 103.2
5. Babe Adams - 103.0 - I'd probably slot Adams ahead of Cooper based on his excellent 1909 World Series (3-0, 1.33, 27 IP) - maybe even ahead of Grimes, but we're still probably talking somewhere in the 20-30 range overall at best.

6. Dolf Luque - 101.4
7. Ed Cicotte - 101.4 - I'd be inclined to adjust his 1919 and maybe 1920 seasons down because of the whole World Series throwing if that's allowed; but he's off-ballot anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
8. Carl Mays - 96.1
9. Tommy Bridges - 95.3
10. Mel Harder - 93.4
11. Paul Derringer - 93.2 - he looks better in actual Player W-L record, but that may be because the games I have for him are a biased sample of his actual games. Consequently, I'd trust this number more than his ranking in #62.
12. Lefty Gomez - 90.7
13. Bucky Walters - 88.2
14. Urban Shocker - 87.7
15. Dizzy Trout - 86.2 - see my Derringer comments
16. Dutch Leonard - 85.0 - ditto
17. Addie Joss - 82.9 - my system likes long, good careers (e.g., Tommy John) over short, great careers (e.g., Sandy Koufax), so I wouldn't expect my system to be a big fan of Addie Joss. I might be inclined to judgmentally bump him up over what my system says, but there's a long way between here and making my ballot, and I can't see that big a bump.
18. Sam Leever - 82.9
19. George Uhle - 80.9
20. Claude Passeau - 75.0
21. Dizzy Dean - 70.3 - see my Addie Joss comments

So, of players since the 1950's, John, Mussina, Smoltz, and probably Kaat will make my ballot in some order.

Going back further, but staying in the 20th century (and the white major leagues), Vic Willis looks pretty certain to make my ballot, and Quinn, Grimes, Adams, and maybe Cooper are interesting candidates, but they'll all almost certainly end up comfortably off-ballot.

My next post (which may not be for a few days) will look at 19th-century white pitchers. I'm still not quite as comfortable with how to deal with Negro Leaguers.
   85. theorioleway Posted: March 22, 2015 at 12:15 PM (#4915671)
The discussion between Chris Cobb and others regarding era representation is really interesting. While I eagerly await the rest of Chris' review, does anyone know how many players he (or others) are allocating per decade?
   86. The Honorable Ardo Posted: May 28, 2015 at 01:59 AM (#4966025)
Bump!

On era representation, I don't have a set formula. I'll review "early" ballot discussion threads from time to time to make sure I'm not overlooking any worthy players. There are no pre-1900 candidates that I strongly support any longer, but I do think Ben Taylor and Wally Schang, in particular, should be in.

Revised prelim with comments:
1) Griffey Jr. If all the voters correctly appraise him as a "sustained peak" candidate rather than a "career" one, he'll rightly be a unanimous #1.
2) Mussina. Pitched exclusively in the AL East when it was MLB's toughest division, and thus better than his raw numbers indicate. Ahead of Smoltz even with postseason play factored in.
3) Manny. A more dangerous hitter than Sheffield. Both were lousy defenders, but I can't imagine Manny was much worse than Gary.
4. Smoltz. Just below Mussina, but well above our threshold. Better at both starting and relieving than Eckersley.
5. Sheffield. Just below Manny. A great offensive player; we'll leave it at that.
6. Schang. A glaring Hall omission that we can still correct! Durability? 3rd all-time in games caught at his retirement (and still in the top 40). Career on-base percentage of .393, just above Sheffield and Rod Carew - for a catcher who played half his career in the dead-ball era! Defense? Above the AL average in caught-stealing %, at a time when everyone ran. I outline in his player thread why his poor defensive "letter grades" are deceiving.
7. Edmonds. Similar career length and total player value to Duke Snider. Not quite the hitter, but a superior defender.
8. Taylor. I keep ranking him higher; the data unearthed by our knowledgeable NeL posters reveal a genuinely first-class hitter and defender, more akin to Keith Hernandez than Mark Grace.
--- (NEXT TIER) ---
9. Luque. I once had him #1, which astounds me in retrospect, but he had a fine peak and an artificially late start to his career.
10 Sosa. In the proper context, his batting value is dead equal to Chuck Klein. Will Sosa's superior outfield defense (especially in his youth) be enough to get him inducted?
11. John. More career value than anyone in the pitching backlog, but no peak at all; I like his candidacy less than I once did.
12. Kent. Below average defense is not the same as "abysmal, get this guy into the outfield" defense; Kent's bat contributed much more than his glove gave away.
13. H. Smith. Comparable to Walters, his near-exact contemporary. I see enough probability he was better to sneak him onto my ballot.
14. B. Bell. I don't buy the argument that he was an otherworldly defender in the same class as Brooks and Nettles; contemporary opinion clearly didn't think so.
15. Nomar. Played just long enough. Very close match to Lou Boudreau when the latter's 1943-45 are discounted for wartime competition.

First five off: Tiant, Lee Smith, Lofton, Willis, Leach.
Next five off: Chance, Bonds Sr, Munson, McGriff, Bernie Williams.

Tiant, Smith, Lofton, Willis, and Leach have been on my ballots before; all but Lofton (who should get there eventually) are in my PHoM.

Chance should be in and John McGraw out, but that ship sailed many "years" ago.
   87. Chris Fluit Posted: May 28, 2015 at 08:19 AM (#4966063)
Ardo, I'm curious that you say you see Hilton Smith and Bucky Walters as roughly equal with Smith sneaking onto the ballot. Shouldn't Walters at least make your top 25 if that's the case?
   88. The Honorable Ardo Posted: May 28, 2015 at 04:05 PM (#4966490)
Chris Fluit - no, because it's too closely packed together below Frank Chance at #21 (the last person who I strongly believe "should be in"). I don't have the time or interest any longer to decide whether (for instance) Bobby Veach ranks ahead of or behind Vada Pinson. We have so many highly qualified fresh candidates that we're never going to get deep enough where those distinctions would matter. That's why I've never gone to #60 or #100 as some voters have.

Walters pitched ~3100 innings at ERA+ 116. His FIP is a half-run worse than his ERA; his Cincinnati teams were good defensively.

Hilton Smith, according to our latest estimate (by Alex King in 2010) is "very similar to David Cone" at ~2800 innings, ERA+ 120. Alex's estimates cover only Smith's NeL career and not his Bismarck-and-earlier phase. Since Alex credits 1937 and 1938, Smith's first two NeL seasons, as his most valuable, it's fair to infer that Smith accumulated positive value pre-1937 - a conservative ~600 IP at 110 is well within reason. This brings Smith to ~3400 IP and Rick Reuschel/Jim Bunning territory.

This makes Smith (who could also hit, and who also pitched in front of strong defenses) "Walters plus one additional Cy Young-contender peak season", which is approximately the difference between #13 and #35ish on my ballot.

We just have a wide error range for Smith's performance, as we might expect for a WWII-era black pitcher whose merit is based on significant non-NeL play. I see Walters as Smith's floor, with a significant chance that Smith was a tier better.

All in all, I think Cooperstown hit and we (thus far!) have whiffed on Hilton Smith.
   89. Chris Fluit Posted: May 28, 2015 at 05:11 PM (#4966527)
Thanks for the explanation. I figured it was something like that. I'm sure most of us could barely fit a feather between #20 and #35 as there are a lot of players and not a lot separation among those who haven't been inducted yet.
   90. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM (#5037046)
Updating for new catcher framing article/stats available from Baseball Prospectus, along with the previous links:

The Max Marchi era
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16199
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhCbCTYVXQzKdC00ZXVoWENVSm5qSkU2emxtMVEyV0E#gid=1
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20596

The current sheriffs have used a mixed approach to measuring catcher framing: Called Strike Above Average (CSAA)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25514
From 2008 to present, Pitch F(X) data is available.
From 1988 to 2007, estimates are available thanks to retrosheet strike-ball data.

Top finishers from 1988-2014:
Brad Ausmus 242, Jose Molina 199, Russell Martin 185, Brian McCann 148, Yadier Molina 143, Jonathan Lucroy 139, Mike Piazza 137, Javy Lopez 135, Jason Varitek 115, David Ross 100, Tony Pena 94, Johnny Estrada 83, Paul LoDuca 82, Mike Scioscia 80, Joe Oliver 73, Joe Mauer 71, Buster Posey 71, Darrin Fletcher 70, Charlie O'Brien 70, Ryan Hanigan 69, Miguel Montero 67.

Does anyone have access to the full data set? The above is all I can find on a career basis.
   91. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 12, 2015 at 04:06 PM (#5037237)
The baseball prospectus guys have taken a dive into quantifying pitcher value, this time unveiling DRA (deserved run average):
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26613

Leaderboards are available dating back to 1953:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1853255

Findings:
I downloaded yearly data, setup a peak/prime/career system to gauge player values, players with seasons post 1953 have estimates for pre-1953:
Relief seasons value are an educated guess/adjustment from raw data, so feel free to adjust these guys in some other form.
Estimates for WAR/Negro leagues/Japanese/Cuban attempt at reasonableness to surrounding seasons.

Top 10: Clemens, Maddux, R Johnson, G Perry, Seaver, Pedro, Gibson, Spahn, Ryan, (Mussina)
11-20: Roberts, Schilling, Blyleven, Brown, Carlton, Niekro, Sutton, Jenkins, (Smoltz), Wynn
21-30: Marichal, [Rivera], Bunning, Drysdale, [Halladay], Stieb, Glavine, Wilhelm, Cone, (Tiant),
31-40: Koufax, Pierce, Ford, Eckersley, Saberhagen, Palmer, (Newcombe), (Morris!!), [Verlander], (Moyer!)
41-50: (Appier), Reuschel, Gossage, (D Martinez), [Sabathia], (L Jackson), (Hershiser), [Hudson], (Gooden), (Catfish)

51-60: [F Hernandez], [Kershaw], El Duque, Pascual, Langston, Finley, Kuroda, Key, Kaat, Vazquez,
61-70: D Wells, Viola, [Santana!], Garver, Fingers, S Rogers, Radke, Messersmith, Hough, Blue,
71-80: [Buehrle], [Greinke], [C Lee], [Pettitte!!], K Rogers, John, Valenzuela, Tanana, Maloney, J Perry,
81-90: [Wagner], Drabek, [Peavy], [Hoffman], Koosman, [Colon], Millwood, Lary, Benes, L Smith

Takeaways:
Top 36 have been elected/will be soon/when eligible.
Tiant is tough to ignore unless you are a firmer believer in Fangraphs WAR, Kiko's Stat, or Joe D's old PA.
Could be my allocation methods, but Newcombe looks great!
Since he scores well in other methods, seeing Appier at 41 makes him even more of an interesting bubble candidate.
Gooden remains interesting, depending on peak valuation.
El Duque and Kuroda aren't necessarily worthy, but they had excellent/overlooked careers.
Fingers is the lone "mistake" by the electorate at 65, but he does rank highest after the Rivera/Wilhelm/Gossage level.

   92. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 12, 2015 at 04:28 PM (#5037260)
The discussion between Chris Cobb and others regarding era representation is really interesting. While I eagerly await the rest of Chris' review, does anyone know how many players he (or others) are allocating per decade?


I was hoping Chris would publish his early baseball history ratings too, but below are my current by decade allotments, actual HOM elections, approximate Doc's estimates of how many to place in each decade?
1860s: 1.5/1.5/
1870s: 9.0/9.0/8.5
1880s: 16.5/18.5/17.7
1890s: 14.5/17.5/11.1
1900s: 19.0/18.0/18.3
1910s: 19.5/17.0/20.5
1920s: 22.5/22.5/22.4
1930s: 23.0/26.0/23.6
1940s: 20.5/20.5/22.4
1950s: 17.0/18.0/17.7
1960s: 19.5/20.5/20.0
1970s: 26.0/24.0/24.6
1980s: 26.5/22.5/25.4
1990s: 26.0/24.0/25.0
2000s: 26.0/?/?
2010s: 3
   93. Chris Fluit Posted: September 12, 2015 at 06:09 PM (#5037350)
Interesting stuff. Tiant finished 11th in the last election, the top backlog pitcher and the second backlog player behind Buddy Bell (the 21st century guys are frontloggers- just waiting for the traffic jam in front of them to let up for their chance to get in). Newcombe finished 20th though he's stalled out and hasn't made much progress. Maybe this will get a few more voters to take another look at him. Appier finished 32nd- though on the above list, he's behind pitchers who barely receive token support (Morris and the not yet eligible Moyer).

Fingers is the lone "mistake" by the electorate at 65, but he does rank highest after the Rivera/Wilhelm/Gossage level.
I agree. I think that we made the same mistake as the BBWAA. Fingers was the first pure closer to hit the ballot and sailed in. We probably should have waited- and we probably wouldn't have voted for him in retrospect. At least we didn't compound the mistake by also voting in Sutter.
   94. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 12, 2015 at 06:21 PM (#5037362)
Interesting to see many are confident of his election, not necessarily 1st ballot, but definitely worthy, while a lot of saber arguments can be made for players that might fall off the Cooperstown ballot:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?124915-Vladimir-Guerrero-First-Ballot-or-Not

My gut always thought Vlad would be an easy HOF selection, and I wouldn't argue against it, but is he really more or clearly ahead of other 2000s OF/1B types: Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltran, Lance Berkman, Jim Edmonds, Jason Giambi, Brian Giles, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Kenny Lofton, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Ichiro, and Jim Thome.

While I place an emphasis on peak/prime rather than merely career numbers, below will be a career only snapshot of different systems, with an extrapolation of 94/95 strike seasons, zeroing out negative seasons.

Baseball-Reference, Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Gauge with DRA (estimated post 2012), Average, RE24 Wins estimate (contextual hitting value above or below context neutral state), RE24 Offense Runs Fangraphs:

BA: 60.8/59.7/60.5/52.0/58.3/7.6/565.6
CB: 68.3/65.3/65.1/58.6/64.3/6.2/406.2
LB: 51.8/56.4/59.8/55.1/55.8/4.3/565.3
JE: 60.5/65.6/71.8/68.7/66.7/-.50/357.2
JG: 52.2/51.4/52.5/50.1/51.6/3.7/547.6
BG: 52.8/56.7/56.1/52.0/54.4/4.5/477.2
VG: 59.4/54.4/61.3/51.8/56.7/-.50/472.1
TH: 61.8/54.8/58.9/61.3/59.2/-1.3/642.7
AJ: 64.4/68.2/61.7/56.7/62.8/-.60/168.3
KL: 71.5/62.4/59.3/50.5/60.9/2.2/222.6
MR: 71.2/68.1/76.9/63.6/70.0/-1.5/703.4
GS: 63.2/65.1/78.0/65.4/67.9/2.8/667.6
SS: 61.2/63.6/63.2/58.4/61.6/1.9/409.9
IS: 59.6/57.5/49.9/45.7/53.2/6.6/180.4
JT: 73.1/70.7/69.2/69.8/70.7/-.40/661.8

Each system +/- RE24 incorporated:
BA: 68.4/67.3/68.1/59.6/65.9
CB: 74.5/71.5/71.3/64.8/70.5
LB: 56.1/60.7/64.1/59.4/60.1
JE: 60.0/65.1/71.3/68.2/66.2
JG: 55.9/55.1/56.2/53.8/55.3
BG: 57.3/61.2/60.6/56.5/58.9
VG: 58.9/53.9/60.8/51.3/56.2
TH: 60.5/53.5/57.6/60.0/57.9
AJ: 63.8/67.6/61.1/56.1/62.2
KL: 73.7/64.6/61.5/52.7/63.1
MR: 69.7/66.6/75.4/62.1/68.5
GS: 66.0/67.9/80.8/68.2/70.7
SS: 63.2/65.6/65.2/60.4/63.6
IS: 66.2/64.1/56.5/52.3/59.8
JT: 72.7/70.3/68.8/69.4/70.3

RE24 adjusted: Sheffield 70.7, Beltran 70.5, Thome 70.3, Ramirez 68.5, Edmonds 66.2, Abreu 65.9, Sosa 63.6, Lofton 63.1, Jones 62.2, Berkman 60.1, Suzuki 59.8 (this high with MLB only!), Giles 58.9 (no MLE credit while being blocked by the great Belle/Lofton/Ramirez), Helton 57.9, Guerrero 56.2, Giambi 55.3.

Vlad scores 9th in RE24 batting runs, 10th in unadjusted WAR (.9 ahead of Berkman), and 13th of 14 w/RE24 incorporated (.9 ahead of a peakier candidate Giambi).

This should reinforce that Sheffield/Ramirez/Edmonds are front-loggers?
Does this analysis help the Sosa/Lofton/Giles candidacies? With this being merely a career look, the monster '94 Lofton and '01 Sosa campaigns strengthen the case further.
It's a year ahead of schedule, but will Vladimir Guerrero be making voters ballots?



   95. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: November 13, 2015 at 10:05 PM (#5094865)
I think it's time to get this rolling, right guys?

I'll send an email out to the yahoo group once we iron this out.

Discussion from now through 12/1? Vote 12/2 through 12/14? If we end up needing to extend a week that gives us some slack with Christmas.

Any thoughts?
   96. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: November 13, 2015 at 10:10 PM (#5094870)
Also regarding Manny ... I am definitely open to discussing this.

How we handle this case now depends on whether you consider that the original rule was designed to handle the oddities of career endings in pre-1920s baseball or whether it was instituted to create a more consistent and sensible standard for defining a career than what the Hall of Fame uses. I lean toward the latter interpretation and the value of consistency that than the value of tracking exactly with the HoF when their approach doesn't necessarily make sense. As I said there, we're going to elect Manny long before the Hall of Fame electorate does, if they ever will, so how much does it matter if we vote him in before he becomes eligible over there?


In terms of the why, I believe it was the former (bolded) part. That was the genesis of it anyway, from my memory (which could easily be forgetting some of it).

I definitely see both sides to it. There's definitely a reasonable case to be made for being consistent with ourselves, and consistent with the HoF.
   97. DL from MN Posted: November 16, 2015 at 11:38 AM (#5096119)
Schedule looks good Joe. MMP for 1911 will end 12/2 and 2015 can start after HoM is done.
   98. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: November 16, 2015 at 01:54 PM (#5096305)
Great! Any thoughts re: Manny? Anyone?
   99. Rob_Wood Posted: November 16, 2015 at 02:03 PM (#5096327)
I've gone back and forth on this, but I am now firmly in the camp that says going forward we should match the HOF eligibility rules on what year a player such as Manny becomes eligible (holy run-on sentence).
   100. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 16, 2015 at 02:17 PM (#5096338)
Any thoughts re: Manny? Anyone?


I have never participated in a regular HOM election, but hope to do so this year, so take this for whatever you think it's worth. But even beyond Rob's point about matching HOF eligibility generally, in the specific case of Manny, I think the reason why he only played 5 games in his final season matters. In effect, I'd view the games he missed to suspension (or would have missed had he not just retired on the spot) as "games" for the purposes of evaluating his 2011 season - i.e., I'd be inclined to treat it more like a 105-game season - i.e., obviously a full, not token, season - than like a 5-game "token" season. Manny's 2011 season certainly seems qualitatively different to me than, say, Dizzy Dean's publicity stunt start in the final game of the 1947 season.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.0935 seconds
59 querie(s) executed