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

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion

2019 - (December 2018) - elect 3

Top 10 Returning Players

Luis Tiant (240), Sammy Sosa (238), Kenny Lofton (236), Andruw Jones (220), Jeff Kent (207), Ben Taylor (197), Johan Santana (186), Buddy Bell (139), Bobby Bonds (124), Jorge Posada (105)

Newly eligible players

Player Name	bWAR WS	WAR7	JAWS	HOFm	HOFs
Roy Halladay	64.7	225.5	50.6	57.6	127	45
Todd Helton	61.2	316.5	46.4	53.8	175	59
Andy Pettitte	60.8	228.7	34.1	47.5	128	44
Mariano Rivera	57.1	272.5	28.9	43	214	30
Lance Berkman	51.7	310.7	38.9	45.3	98	44
Roy Oswalt	50.2	175.3	40.1	45.1	59	34
Miguel Tejada	46.9	278.6	36.5	41.7	149	44
Placido Polanco	41.3	215.4	32.2	36.8	42	26
Freddy Garcia	35.7	136.4	28.3	32	38	23
Derek Lowe	34.5	175.6	28.4	31.4	51	19
Kevin Youkilis	32.7	144.3	31.2	31.9	29	23
Vernon Wells	28.7	186.6	26.2	27.4	52	19
Ted Lilly	27	114.3	24.8	25.9	12	16
Travis Hafner	24.8	142.5	24.6	24.7	31	19
Jason Bay	24.3	162.5	24.5	24.4	47	21
Michael Young	24.2	231.2	21.1	22.7	112	36
Darren Oliver	22.6	119.3	17	19.8	20	9
Jon Garland	22.4	117.5	19.5	21	17	9
Ramon Hernandez	21.6	156.7	18.7	20.2	43	26
Ryan Dempster	19.3	133.7	23.8	21.5	26	12
Juan Pierre	16.9	178.2	16.4	16.7	63	23
Octavio Dotel	15.4	95.5	14	14.7	25	13
Jake Westbrook	13.3	78.4	14.6	13.9	14	3
Jose Contreras	13.2	67.8	13.3	13.3	17	7
DL from MN Posted: January 23, 2018 at 12:35 PM | 195 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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. DL from MN Posted: February 06, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5620351)
Is anyone else using a JAWS-like system? If so how do you rate Hilton Smith, Ben Taylor, Dick Redding? My guess is Ben Taylor would be around Eddie Murray or Helton.
   102. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: February 06, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5620446)
I use a JAWS-like system as one of the inputs for my player calculations. The one difference is that unlike JAWS, I don't divide the value by 2. So in my system, using Dr.Chaleeko's MLE's, I have Taylor at a JAWS value of 114.12 (I do include a slight defensive regression to the mean for the NeL players). For comparison (and these are the value using my WAR calculations, not bWAR):

Palmeiro - 119.96
Murray - 119.86
Sisler - 113.79
Easter - 113.74
Hernandez - 113.46
McCovey - 111.81
McGwire - 111.52
Killebrew - 109.30
Terry - 101.92
Beckley - 101.36
Giambi - 100.75 (will make my PHoM soon after eligible)
Helton - 100.11

I have Hilton Smith at 113.82, just below Coveleski, Bunning, Drysdale and just above Haladay, Sutton, Shocker.

I have not run Redding yet because I'm waiting for Dr. Chaleeko to publish MLEs for him later this year.

And speaking of Dr. Chaleeko, I believe he votes now on a JAWS-like system based upon his own WAR calculation, but he indexes all of his numbers on a 100 scale, like Hall Rating at The Hall of Stats, which gives him a final CHEWS+ number.
   103. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 09, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5622800)
@102
Yes, that's correct. JAWS-like, but also Hall-Rating-like with a dash of my special sauce. One of the big things I'm learning in doing this new round of MLEs is that the Dick Redding fans out there are onto something. Though not a guarantee, it is a strong likelihood that I'm going to include him on my ballot. He appears to me like a superior candidate than Hilton Smith.

One thing, though. Redding couldn't hit the floor if he fell out of bed. Doesn't end up mattering much, but, for a Negro Leagues pitcher, it's fairly unusual. I'll be setting his MLEs out for your review later in the year, probably late Spring/early summer.
   104. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:09 PM (#5657342)
I thought maybe it was time to get a bit more active here and maybe activate this thread a bit.

(note: I didn't actually see this thread on the HOM main page; I got here by clicking the 2018 Discussion Thread and changing "2018" to "2019" in the link name.)

I've been busy with other things lately, including my second book, which I decided to self-publish on Amazon, where it's available in either paperback or for the Kindle (I don't know what the deal is with my first book not having a Kindle version - sorry to those of you who asked for one). Here's an article describing my new book for anybody interested - it looks at the top 150 players (based on my player won-lost records) for the first 50 years since MLB expansion.

Anyway, some thoughts on the 2019 ballot. First, big thanks to Dr. Chaleeko for his new MLE numbers. I have not had a chance to fully absorb them although I feel more comfortable that Ben Taylor will make my ballot. I'm also inclined to give a closer look to Dick Redding and maybe Bus Clarkson. And I need to read through Dr. C's posts on his website more systematically to see who else I might need to look more closely at.

Here's what spits out of my system at the present moment. This only includes guys whose careers fall in the years covered by Retrosheet - basically, 1925 - 2017, with some games missing before 1941.

1. Mariano Rivera
2. Roy Halladay - Mariano and Roy are a clear 1-2; I could see flipping them, though.
3. Tommy John
4. Jorge Posada
5. Andy Pettitte
6. Vern Stephens
7. Dizzy Dean - I'm missing some games during his prime seasons, so may be inclined to dig a little deeper into his numbers
8. Dwight Gooden - I mentioned on the previous page - the fact that my pHOM would have a LOT more pitchers really shows up in this ballot, which is excessively pitcher-heavy - perhaps too much so
9. Jeff Kent
10. Orel Hershiser
11. Johan Santana
12. Luis Tiant - that's 9 pitchers in my first 12
13. Toby Harrah - without adjustments, I'm pretty sure we're down to the point where guys from outside the years of my system will push everybody from here down off my ballot
14. Jim Kaat
15. Dave Concepcion
16. Roy Oswalt
17. Schoolboy Rowe - same caveat as Dizzy Dean (and Rowe's longtime teammate who gets more love here in HOM-land - Tommy Bridges)
18. Gil Hodges
19. Curt Simmons - honestly, I'm as surprised as you are
20. Lance Berkman
21. Bert Campaneris
22. David Wells - this one surprises me a bit too (or did the first time I saw him pop up fairly high on one of these lists - he's in my book)
23. Dennis Martinez - I zero out negative WOPA and WORL numbers, which I think may be overly generous to Martinez, who had a couple of really bad seasons in what should have been his prime that I'm not dinging him for.
24. Darryl Strawberry - speaking of positional balance, I have only 2 OF in my top 25, basically for the same reason I have 17 pitchers - I think the HOM has way too few P and offsettingly, too many OF
25. Dutch Leonard (the one who pitched from 1933 - 1953)

Retrosheet should do another release in June. As of now, I'm sure this will include deduced games for 1940 - we're finished with them. It might also include deduced games for 1939 - we're at Labor Day in deducing them. Dave Smith suggested that he's hoping to release the missing seasons back to at least 1921 and possibly 1920. So, some of these numbers may change later in the year and some earlier players may bubble up as I get more data on them.

Guys I'm particularly interested in seeing what additional data may tell us would include Wally Schang, Kiki Cuyler, Urban Shocker, Dave Bancroft, maybe Pie Traynor. And we'll see who else might pop out. I'll still be missing a lot of the careers of Schang and Bancroft, who began their careers in the Deadball Era. So, it may take a few more years for Retrosheet to get back to their rookie seasons.

I'm also leaning toward including Johnny Evers on my ballot this year based on the discussion we had on him near the end of the last page of this thread.

Okay, mostly this was an excuse to mention my new book to y'all. But I am hoping to dig into putting this ballot together over the next few weeks, so I thought it'd be good to organize my current thoughts.
   105. Jaack Posted: April 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5657476)
Taking a look at your ballot Kiko, what's your thought process for Hodges over Berkman?

I have their careers as pretty similar except that Berkman was just a substantially better hitter. I don't see how Hodges can make up the gap in hitting on his relatively advantages (slightly longer career, a bit better in the field).
   106. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 21, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5657692)
Taking a look at your ballot Kiko, what's your thought process for Hodges over Berkman?


Positional averages.

Gil Hodges was the best first basemen of the 1950s - with the caveat that this is because the better hitters were playing more important fielding positions: Stan Musial, for example, would have crushed Hodges in value if he'd just been an everyday first baseman for the entire decade.

I calculate positional averages empirically every season. This can lead to quirks. Gil Hodges' best season was probably 1952 or 1953. In 1953, first basemen had a lower overall winning percentage than third basemen or any of the three outfield positions.

Berkman kind of suffers from the same thing in reverse. He played in an era where there were a ton of good to pretty good first basemen and corner outfielders - think guys like John Olerud, Carlos Delgado, Moises Alou, Greg Vaughn, to name a few guys who weren't as good as Berkman and don't show up in my (or many other peoples') consideration sets, but were better than the non-Hodges, non-Musial first basemen of the 1950s (Mickey Vernon, Ted Kluszewski, Earl Torgeson, et al.).

So, Hodges' positional average in 1953 is .514 which is low for a first baseman in a non-DH league. For his career, Hodges' positional average is .518. Berkman's positional average in his best season (2008) is .524 (also as a first baseman). For his career, Berkman's positional average is slightly greater than Hodges' (.520) despite Berkman having played a lot of outfield (including a couple of seasons' worth of games in center field).

The numbers in #104 just fall out of my system. So, I'm not necessarily defending it so much as explaining it. I go back and forth on whether it's a fair way to rate Hodges and Berkman. If you dropped Berkman's positional average (and his replacement level, which is keyed off of positional average) by, say 0.01 (the gap between he and Hodges in 1953/2008), that would give Berkman an additional 2.4 WOPA and WORL (1% of his career pWins, which were about 240) and I'm pretty sure would push Berkman ahead of Hodges (you'd get the same effect by raising Hodges' positional averages by .01, which probably would make more sense as an adjustment).

My system also really likes Gil Hodges' fielding and he looks a good bit better in context (pWins) than out of context (eWins) although the latter is also true of Berkman, just a little less so (and my system doesn't HATE Berkman's fielding; it just sees him as average). But mostly it's the positional averages.
   107. Jaack Posted: April 22, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5657983)
Hmmm... would it possible to do your positional adjustments treating 1B/LF/RF as one position? It seems like the best of the bat first players in Hodges' era were in corner OF as opposed to 1B.

If Ted Williams or Ralph Kiner had played a lot of 1B in the 50s (not a stretch in anyway) I'd guess Hodges would look worse despite no change in his own value. The weakness of 1B in the 50s doesn't seem to be a institutional issue like the weakness of shortstops in the 60s or 3B in the 20s.
   108. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 22, 2018 at 02:49 PM (#5658020)
That makes some sense Jaack. The 1950s were an odd time. There are several years where CF has a higher positional average than LF or RF because outside of Williams and Musial, the best hitting outfielders all tended to be center fielders - Mays, Mantle, Snider, Doby. The 1950s also see a bit of a quirk at catcher with Berra and Campanella. With 16 teams, 1 or 2 or 3 guys can really throw things off (I use means, not medians - I could try to shift to medians, but I'm not entirely sure how to do that taking into account backups in a way that maintains my ties to actual wins).

In some theoretical sense, the replacement pool for a position includes everybody at a defensive position higher along the spectrum (i.e., a more valuable defensive position). So, Eddie Mathews and Willie Mays and Ralph Kiner and Ted Williams and even Yogi Berra are potential first basemen. While Gil Hodges is not so much a potential third baseman or center fielder (although from what I've read, Hodges himself could have probably been a decent 3B).

One thing I've definitely thought about was trying to smooth out the positional averages, either use averages across all seasons I calculate or even do something like 10-year moving averages to allow for some shifting but of a more gradual nature. That makes all the sense in the world to me in calculating eWOPA and eWORL. But for pWOPA and pWORL, where I'm tying to actual wins, part of me feels like single-season empirical averages is the obvious "right" answer. The key to a team winning is to be better than its opposition on a position-by-position basis. One of the advantages of the Dodgers of the 1950s was that they were better than everybody else at first base (and second base and catcher and shortstop and, except for the Giants in the NL, in center field).

This is on my list of things I want to play around with. Maybe I'll push it up toward the top of the list.
   109. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 22, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5658022)
Actually, thinking about it, I think I know theoretically how I'd shift to medians. I'm just not entirely sure how to write the program to do it. But that may be the direction to go here.
   110. Bleed the Freak Posted: April 23, 2018 at 08:35 PM (#5658757)
Thanks for posting Kiko, I'm in the process of folding in your updates from new Retrosheet data and p/e wins.

Maybe I will have something soon to discuss, biggest winners and losers in the old vs new, etc.

I don't see how you are getting Concepcion > Campaneris, although reviewing your numbers, I see them as close but a flip the other direction?

I am getting Rowe and Leonard much lower than you have him reviewing your W-L records, and that's with extrapolating for missing games, and Simmons a bit lower.

Other guys I see doing quite well in your recent update, from your raw figures, do you adjust 20/30s OF lower?
Kiki Cuyler (still missing a couple of years)
Tommy Henrich (Even with moderate WWII credit)
Bob Johnson (minor MLE credit)

Sammy Sosa
Vladimir Guerrero
Larry Jackson
Don Newcombe (although quantifying his non-MLB career is prickly)
Andruw Jones
Dolf Luque (how do you view his Negro league career/integration credit)
Dale Murphy
Johnny Pesky (with peak/prime MLE/WWII credit)

A big glut starts to form after this that includes the guys you show in your top 25, sans Rowe, Simmons, and Leonard
   111. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 24, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5659183)
I don't see how you are getting Concepcion > Campaneris, although reviewing your numbers, I see them as close but a flip the other direction?


I tend to see Concepcion, Campaneris, and Toby Harrah pretty similar in my system. By pWins, they go Concepcion, Campaneris, Harrah; by eWins, I think they go exactly the reverse. Basically, Harrah's the best hitter, but worst fielder and played the least SS. Campaneris is the best baserunner; Concepcion is the best fielder. I'm pretty sure that I could tweak my weights in such a way to put those three in whichever order I'd like. So it's entirely possible that I'll change my mind by the time actual voting rolls around. But one of the things that I like about my system is that it's comprehensive enough that it doesn't automatically spit out a single set of "right" answers: it's perfectly reasonable to me to look at the numbers and declare Campaneris clearly better than Concepcion.

Speaking of tweaking my weights, I need to re-evaluate my weights, because I think I may want to try to get a few more outfielders closer to my ballot - probably at the expense of fewer pitchers. I think for the most part you've identified the outfielders who my system likes - although I would add Darryl Strawberry. Actually, another guy who popped up in the top 150 list I did for my book who really surprised me was Jose Canseco (he's #102; Strawberry is #82 in my Top 150 from 1961 - 2010). I think the weights I used there ended up being pretty peak-heavy and both Strawberry and Canseco had pretty strong peaks in the late 1980s (which was also a pretty low run-scoring environment relative to what came later, which I think masks some of their value). Anyway, I may re-work my weights somewhat and end up with a list that's a bit less pitcher-heavy.

Another thing that I have not done is work out WWII credit. I'm deducting value for players who played in the war years (which hurts Bob Johnson, for example), but I'm not giving extra credit to guys who are missing seasons there. At this point, I think the only two players for whom it might matter would be Henrich and Pesky (I've looked at Rizzuto and he's too far down in my system to be helped enough to put him on-ballot). But I should definitely try to figure out exactly how much they would benefit.

Cuyler should get an automatic re-evaluation when I incorporate Retrosheet's summer release. And, as I said, I still need to figure out where to fit Negro Leaguers and pre-1925 players (Schang, Shocker?, Evers?) into my consideration set / ballot.
   112. DL from MN Posted: April 25, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5659797)
Look at WWI credit in addition to WWII credit. Urban Shocker gets WWI credit from me.
   113. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 27, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5661662)
Just an FYI that Sammy Bankhead is worth your review. The MLE I’ve worked up paints a strong picture of his career value, and next week you’ll see that Bankhead is as strong a candidate as Buster Clarkson. There are many others who are worth a new look as well but because Bankhead’s discussion page was thinly populated, it seemed important to mention.

Generally, I’m about halfway through my position by position MLEs. There are a number of candidates whose cases merit a lengthy review. Either my MLEs are poorly calibrated (possible!), the NLDB stats paint a different picture than previous stats had, and/or our previous MLEs and qualitative assessments weren’t quite accurate. All those things are possible and even likely. We have much more and better info now, after all. PS: Gary Ashwill should win the Nobel Prize or something.

I’m not looking right at my numbers this second, but OTTOMH in addition to Bankhead, we may want to look closely at Taylor, Redding, Newcombe, Byrd, Dandridge, Serrell, Marv Williams, Marrero, Hilton Smith, Pettus, Silvio Garcia, maybe Rev Cannady, maybe Carlos Moran, maybe Julian Castillo. That’s before we even look at the outfield and half the remaining pitchers.

So I just want to say this because we are going to need to have a robust discussion of these Negro Leagues stars, and there are not only allvthe questions about the Negro Leagues in general, ther s also going to be questions about fairness to certain eras and positions.
   114. theorioleway Posted: May 16, 2018 at 11:22 PM (#5673958)
Dr. Chaleeko - thanks for your work on this - it's really great stuff! I'm looking forward to see how the baserunning adjustments work out. Did I miss Perucho Cepeda in all that you've done, is he still coming, or is there just not enough info on him?

In regards to your last paragraph - I feel like you posted before your calculations on how many players should be inducted per era - can you remind me where you posted that?

Thanks again!
   115. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 17, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5674572)
Oriole,

Somewhere in the last three years. Prolly in the discussion thread not the ballot.
   116. Bleed the Freak Posted: May 20, 2018 at 11:30 AM (#5675946)
Oriole, 2018 ballot discussion thread, posts 261 and 264 look at positional and era balances:

261. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: December 03, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5585129)
I've updated my position counts for the HOM. It now includes all appearances data from the NLDB, as well as some from select players' minor leagues time (Campy, Jackie, Irvin, Grant, Minoso, and Trouppe). I've seen a couple different ways that people prefer to assess position, so here's a few ways we could look at it. The totals below are all rounded.

PRIMARY = The position the guy played the most (i.e.: Ernie Banks is at 1B)
SUM ALL = The sum across all HOMers at every position of the percentage of appearances (i.e.: Ernie Banks counts 51% toward 1B, 45% toward SS, 3% toward 3B, and 1% toward LF)
SUM 33%: Similar to SUM ALL but only counting positions where a player made at least 33% of his appearances (i.e. Banks only counts 51% toward 1B, 45% toward SS, and everything else is ignored)
SUM 25%: Ditto but with a 25% threshold

C 1B 2B 3B SS LF CF RF DH SP RP
====================================================
PRIMARY 20 29 22 17 26 24 25 24 3 69 4
SUM ALL 18 29 22 20 23 27 26 24 5 58 12
SUM 33% 17 23 20 15 21 20 21 18 2 57 4
SUM 25% 18 24 20 16 22 22 21 18 2 57 6
----------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE 18 26 21 17 23 23 23 21 3 60 6



Based on any of these means of reckoning position, we remain well short at catcher and third base, and mildly so at second base. If we were to elect Chipper, Rolen, and Thome as three of our four, which seems pretty likely, it would have a very positive effect at 3B, of course. Here's how it would play out by each of the four methods above:
-PRIMARY: Adds 2 3Bs, total of 19 3Bs
-SUM ALL: Adds 2.02, total of 22
-SUM 33%: Adds 1.82, total of 16 (rounding error, goes from 14.6 to 16.4)
-SUM 25%: Adds 1.82, total of 18

I've also now updated my figures for comparing eras to one another. What I do is for every season, I determine what percentage of players' careers fell into that season. Then, I compare that to a theoretical "ideally balanced" HOM in which ease season has representation in proportion to the number of team-seasons played that year vs the number of team-seasons in all of history. But I also back out some career percentages from this theoretically balanced figure from recent seasons to account for the fact that some HOMers are still playing now. I base that on active players who already have a very strong chance (IMO). Finally, I subtract the actual career percentages that we've elected from the theoretically balanced figure to determine whether a given season are over or under the theoretical balance. Once that's done, I gang together groups of seasons that have a representation trend. Here's what those look like.

1871-1875: -0.90 vs theoretical balance, 83% of theoretical balance
1876-1890: +0.98, 105%
1891-1908: +6.04, 123%
1909-1921: -2.64, 89%
1922-1942: +9.46, 122%
1943-1945: -2.39, 60%
1946-1960: +3.54, 114%
1961-1968: -0.61, 96%
1969-1990: -9.28, 84%
===includes allowances for not-yet-eligible players===
1991-1998: -1.59, 92%
1999-2008: -1.02, 92%
2009-2011: -1.28, 24%
   117. DL from MN Posted: May 21, 2018 at 10:12 AM (#5676337)
Thanks for reposting. "Need a catcher" lines up really well with "Need a player from 1909-1921" for Wally Schang. I also think the past elections have us short on pitchers.
   118. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 22, 2018 at 09:35 PM (#5677736)
A few semi-random comments (all related to the 2019 Hall-of-Merit ballot, so not entirely random).

Thank you very much, Dr. C. I love the new work on Negro Leaguers. I could very easily see myself including 3 - 5 Negro Leaguers on my next ballot (at this point, I'd say Ben Taylor and Bus Clarkson will definitely be on my ballot, just not sure how high yet and who might join them).

Returning to my conversation with Jaack in #105 - #107, I took a look at what would happen if I shifted my positional averages from means to medians and, as best I can tell, at least for the years I examined (which were focused specifically on Gil Hodges), the answer is, "Nothing; it barely changes anything." There's still a case to be made that positional averages should be "smoothed" by perhaps averaging across multiple seasons. For pWins, which tie to team wins, I think what I do is correct: tie to actual results within the specific season, if we're interested in actual wins, we should look at actual results. But for eWins, it may make sense to do some kind of multi-year average. That said, I think if your result is suggesting that the average third baseman is above average (as, for example, BB-Ref's WAA says for the 1970s) then you're probably doing it wrong.

Looking at the weights I used in #104, I modified them for two reasons. First, I adjusted them to tie to what I did in my newest book, Baseball Player Won-Lost Records: 150 Players, 50 Years. That still leaves the problem that I pointed out in #104 - it produces an EXTREMELY pitcher-heavy ballot, because my pHOM would probably have an additional 20-25 pitchers who would replace 20-25 first basemen and outfielders, mostly. So, for example, I think Sammy Sosa is a perfectly cromulent HOMer, and he'd probably be in the lower levels of my personal HOM (he's #146 in my top 150 players from 1961 - 2010 in my book), but he ends up below 20 or 30 pitchers who I would have had in my personal Hall of Merit years ago, but who are still hanging around taking up space on my ballot - most prominently Tommy John (who turns 75 today - Happy Birthday!), but also Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser, and several more. I don't REALLY want to vote for 12 pitchers on my 15-player ballot, so I bumped down pitcher values by about 10% just to let a few non-pitchers bubble up. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if this falls entirely within the spirit of the HOM rules. So, if somebody objects and says, "No, no, you really should vote for 12 pitchers" I might do so.

Anyway, here's what I came up with for players who fall entirely within my system (since 1925, with some data extrapolated between 1925 and 1940). Rivera and Halladay are a clear top 2, with the order debatable, I think. Other top pitchers who show up, then, include:

Tommy John (really, guys, he was great; y'all need to jump on the Tommy John bandwagon)
Dizzy Dean (he will, admittedly, only appeal to peak voters; I try to think of myself as open-minded on that topic - Tommy John is mostly a career candidate, after all - although he also had an excellent extended prime)
Dwight Gooden
Andy Pettitte
Johan Santana
Luis Tiant
Orel Hershiser

All of these guys seem well qualified for the HOM and I'd kind of like to include them all, but I suspect space considerations will bump at least one or two of them off the end of the ballot. You can tweak the weights to get these guys probably in whatever order you'd like depending on how you feel about pWins vs. eWins and career vs. prime vs. peak.

Non-pitchers who show up well in my latest weighting (since 1925 with no additional credit for missing time):

Jorge Posada
Vern Stephens
Jeff Kent
Dave Concepcion
Darryl Strawberry
Gil Hodges
Lance Berkman
Bert Campaneris
Toby Harrah
Andruw Jones

Again, I'd be fine with all of these guys in the Hall of Merit, but almost certainly won't have room for all of them on my ballot.

Finally, I modified one of the player pages on my website, the Value Decomposition table. I wrote a little article about it here.

Basically, I added a table at the end of this page that breaks down my "key stat" (the stat in my link above with the various weights) by season. The first link in the last paragraph is to Tommy Henrich, who is missing 3 seasons due to World War II. It's a little hard to know how much credit to give him for those seasons. His years immediately before and after (1942, 1946) were okay, but not great, whereas his 1941 and 1947 seasons were two of the top three seasons of Henrich's career. If you just take a simple average of those four years, that'd be a key stat of 17 per season, times 3 would bump him up from a "Key Stat" of 140 to 191, which would put him about even with Jorge Posada as the top non-pitcher on my ballot. I'm not sure I want to go that high, but certainly that suggests that Tommy Henrich is a definite candidate in my system.

Other guys who are worth looking at this table for to try to fill in some gaps in my data would include Kiki Cuyler, Urban Shocker, maybe Johnny Pesky (I think you'd have to be very generous w/ WWII credit to get him on-ballot), perhaps Pie Traynor to address era and positional issues (although I don't see enough there in the seasons that I have), and, since I think he's a required disclosure, here's Phil Rizzuto.

For now, this only works on the default weights, but I thought people might still find it useful. I'm also going to try to modify my player pages either tonight or in the next couple of days to make missing seasons more obvious for people who want to try to eyeball their own missing-game credits.

I think that's all for now. I'll wait until Dr. C. finishes his Negro League MLEs before I comment on them. And I'll probably wait until after Retrosheet's June/July release before talking about players who pre-date my system, just to see if the next Retrosheet release picks up any more seasons for any of them.
   119. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 29, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5681462)
Hi, guys, I have a self-serving request for which I apologize if anybody finds it tacky.

At least two or three people on this side mentioned that they were hoping to buy my (first) book on the Kindle but it hasn't been released in that version yet. I talked to McFarland about this and their story is that they gave the relevant file(s) to Amazon and it's the latter's decision when to make the Kindle version of a book available. I don't understand what goes into this, but on the Amazon page for the book - here - about halfway down the page on the right is a little box that says "Tell the Publisher! I'd like to read this book on Kindle". If you have a minute, could some of y'all please click through to the page and click there? Hopefully that will lead to the Kindle version of the book being released.

Thanks! And again, my apologies for the self-serving tackiness of this post.
   120. Howie Menckel Posted: May 29, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5681516)
in case anyone wonders, I saw no 'catch' there

I clicked the button, and a "thank you" etc came on the screen. ballgame over
   121. Bleed the Freak Posted: May 29, 2018 at 08:23 PM (#5681782)
I don't own a kindle, but clicked and had the same result as Howie:

"Thank you for requesting Player Won-Lost Records in Baseball: Measuring Performance in Context by Tom Thress (Author) in Kindle Edition. Our goal is to make every title available for Kindle. We will pass your specific request on to the publisher."
   122. theorioleway Posted: June 22, 2018 at 07:34 AM (#5697644)
For anyone not paying attention to Dr. C's work on Negro Leaguers (and why aren't you?), Dick Redding is now a very serious candidate. By Dr. C's system, Redding is the top Negro League player eligible on the ballot, and by a fair margin.
   123. Rob_Wood Posted: June 23, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5698384)
Could someone summarize the case for Redding here? (Just a very high-level summary would suffice.)

The thread is going to have a zillion more posts in the next six months and I fear that few people will go back and visit a different thread in search of info on Redding. But if a summary case for him is presented herein, everybody will read it and Redding will be on everyone's radar.

Thanks much.
   124. Mike Webber Posted: June 27, 2018 at 12:23 PM (#5700673)
@ Kiko - Joe Dimino and I were glad we at least got to shake hands with you at the SABR convention. We were with a group of about a dozen headed to lunch and didn't have time to stay and chat. Plus, I knew that technically you were presenting your poster and doing a book signing at that time. I tried to find you again later, but unfortunately I whiffed. Hope I get a chance to see you at a convention soon when I can buy you a beer and chat all things HOM.
   125. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 27, 2018 at 05:20 PM (#5701052)
Here's where to find Redding's MLE.

A quick user's guide:
a) Trust the career line more than any given season line: There's a ton of rolling averaging and regression-ish stuff happening behind the scenes.

b) If something looks fishy, first check on the background data, all of which is based on the Negro Leagues Database and nothing else because that spot gives us league- and team-wide information. PS: That data does not always precisely match previous iterations of data we've seen and sometimes varies by a lot!

c) Check out the primer on how I do the MLEs if you have any specific questions. I know, it's a slog...but it may have the answer in it do why something looks funny. PS: I don't use component stats AT ALL.

d) Innings estimates are based on what a #1, #2, #3, #4, or #5 starter would throw, and if he isn't one, then he basically just gets the innings he throws.

e) It is ALWAYS possible that I have incorrectly entered a piece of data that is skewing things.
   126. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 27, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5701165)
Mike, it was great to meet you and Joe! Would definitely love to have a chance for a longer chat over a beer (or two or three).
   127. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 14, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5709954)
FYI, I've updated my website to incorporate Retrosheet's newest release. We now have complete play-by-play (counting deduced games) back to 1939 (Ted Williams's rookie season) and partial play-by-play for all seasons back to 1921. Here's a description of the data I have and games that are missing from 1921 - 1938: Seasons.
   128. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 15, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5710156)
FYI, I've updated my website to incorporate Retrosheet's newest release. We now have complete play-by-play (counting deduced games) back to 1939 (Ted Williams's rookie season) and partial play-by-play for all seasons back to 1921. Here's a description of the data I have and games that are missing from 1921 - 1938: Seasons.


Thanks Kiko, Retrosheet and the group continue to enrich our lives.

I wanted to highlight some of the article:

"Overall, play-by-play data for 3,445 new games were released by Retrosheet in its latest update. These data have been incorporated into my Player won-lost records as of July 14, 2018."

"Second, as of Retrosheet's previous update (in December 2017), Retrosheet was missing play-by-play data for 441 games in 1940 and 419 games in 1939. Those numbers have been reduced to zero. But of the 860 games added for these two seasons, only 202 of these games ended up being classified as "deduced games". The other 658 games (76.5% of the total games added) are straight event files. In some cases, Retrosheet had scorecards which had not been entered just yet last year. In some cases, in working through deducing the missing games, play-by-play data was found in some newspapers. And in some cases, in working through newspaper stories to deduce a game, it was discovered that filling in everything explained in newspaper stories left no uncertainties: some newspaper stories are detailed enough to place every baserunner in a game, sometimes multiple newspaper stories complement each other in a way that leads to all baserunners being covered, sometimes a few baserunner uncertainties are left that turn out to only be able to fit together in one possible way. It is impossible to say with certainly exactly how subsequent seasons will go, but it is quite plausible that additional historical seasons may one day have fewer than 100 deduced games (perhaps, in some cases, far fewer)."
   129. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 21, 2018 at 09:44 PM (#5713634)
If anybody's interested in using my Player won-lost records in putting together their Hall-of-Merit ballot (and, really, you all should be, it's a great stat!), I created a modified version of my Uber-Stats page that allows people to create their own Hall-of-Merit ballot. Here's the page where you can enter your weights and get a table of players. And here's an article describing it with some caveats and explanation of the various weighting options.

I'll probably post some comments over the next few days on a few specific players who I think warrant some discussion based on their won-lost records.
   130. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 22, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5713851)
I wanted to talk about a few players. I'm going to divide this into five messages. This first message is just to set things up.

To review, I use my own statistic: Player won-lost records, which is calculated from Retrosheet play-by-play data. Retrosheet has complete play-by-play data for the American and National Leagues since 1939, In addition, they've released incomplete season data for these leagues for 1921 - 1938. Which leaves no data for anybody prior to 1921 or for any other leagues (Negro Leagues, minor leagues).

I construct my ballot by taking a weighted average of various measures based on player won-lost records. See message #129 for both a copy of these weighted averages (based on the data that I have) and a link to a discussion of these weights. Given my weights, depending on how many Negro Leaguers end up making my ballot, it will probably require a "Key Stat" of 160 - 165 to make my ballot and maybe 150 or so to be an "interesting" candidate. The "Key Stat" is based on a bunch of statistics all denominated in "wins" although I'm not sure that it really makes sense to think of my "Key Stat" as having any specific denomination. It's mostly just a number although I think the relationship between players is probably fairly linear in it - i.e., if three players have "Key Stats" of 180, 160, and 140, the middle player is as much less valuable than the best player as he is more valuable than the worst of these three players.

Anyway, this is a predicate to my next four messages, which are divided based on the information that I'm missing in these players' cases. I apologize in advance that I think at least my next three comments are going to be pretty long.
   131. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 22, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5713853)
First up: players potentially deserving of non-MLB credit.

1. Tommy Henrich. Henrich shows up in the top 50 in my table that I link to in #129 with a "Key Stat" of 132.4. But Henrich missed three full seasons due to World War II. Henrich's "Key Stat" year-by-year is as follows:

1941 - 23.7
1942 - 9.8
...
1946 - 12.0
1947 - 18.2

He's about 30 "points" or so from ballot level or about 10 per season, which is pretty close to the simple average of 1942 and 1946. Henrich was actually much better in 1941 and 1947 than in 1942 and 1946, though, and if you base his WWII credit on the former seasons, you could potentially get his "Key Stat" up to 190 or so, which would probably push him up perhaps as high as top-5 on my ballot.

For now, I'm thinking of probably splitting the difference - simple average of the four above numbers is 15.9, times 3 plus 132.4 would be about 180 which definitely puts him on my ballot, probably in the 8 to 10 range.

2. Phil Rizzuto. Rizzuto has a "Key Stat" of 95.1 with the same three missing seasons as Henrich. Rizzuto's 1942 season is worth about 16.6 "points". Multiplying that by 3 would push Rizzuto's "Key Stat" up to about 145 or so. Which is probably off-ballot but is at least borderline interesting.

The problem is that Rizzuto didn't match his 1942 performance until 1950 and he had especially poor seasons his first three years back from the war. His 1946 - 1948 seasons add up to only 13.2 "points" or just over 4 per season.

It looks to me like World War II not only cost Phil Rizzuto three full seasons but it also affected the quality of his performance for at least a few years after he returned from the war. I think he had malaria or some such in 1946 so maybe he deserves a bit of credit there too.

Anyway, I can imagine constructing a hypothetical alternate universe where World War II doesn't happen and Phil Rizzuto makes my HOM ballot. But that feels too speculative for me. So, for now, I'm inclined to keep him off my ballot.

3. Johnny Pesky. The only other player who I think is close enough to a Hall-of-Merit career who might be worth looking at for World War II credit is probably Johnny Pesky. I show Pesky with a "Key Stat" of 85.2 with three full seasons missed. Pesky had pretty similar seasons right before and after the war (1942, 1946) with an average of just under 19 "points" per season. Multiplying that by three and adding it to his 85.2 puts him somewhere in the low-to-mid 140s, which is pretty solid, but not enough to make my ballot this year (or any time soon).

There is, then, one other player who intrigues me based on non-MLB credit.

4. Luke Easter. Based on his MLB performance, Luke Easter is far from making my ballot - Key Stat of only 26.2. But Easter's MLB performance is primarily his age 34-36 seasons (24.5 of his 26.2 falls in those three seasons). And Easter is intriguing because he is potentially deserving of "extra" credit on both ends of that. He played in the Negro Leagues in his 20s (and also I think lost time to World War II) but also played well in the high minors into his mid-40s.

In his three full MLB seasons, Easter earned about 8 "points" per season. Thinking very crudely, to get to my ballot, Easter would need about 20 years at 8 points per year. Which, depending on when we start giving him Negro League credit and when we stop giving him minor league credit could be plausible. Not to mention, he almost certainly had his best seasons before he hit MLB - a couple of 20 "point" seasons (which are plausible) would be the equivalent of five 8 "point" seasons. That said, if I look at the players most similar to Easter from age 34 to 36, the top 5 players who pop up are guys who are well outside of my consideration set (Norm Cash is #1 - Cash is outside of my top #100).

For now, I think Easter is going to stay off-ballot for me, but he's a guy who intrigues me and I'd be open to persuasion that I should be rating him more highly.
   132. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 22, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5713855)
Next group of players: Players who played 1921 - 1939, so I have all of their seasons, but am missing games within those seasons

1. Tommy Bridges. Tommy Bridges has done much better in HOM balloting than he does based on Player won-lost records. Bridges has a "Key Stat" of 121.8, which places him between John Candelaria and Claude Passeau, both of whom were fine pitchers, but neither of whom has gotten Hall-of-Merit support that I recall.

Bridges pitched for the Detroit Tigers of the 1930s, who I think have the most missing games from Retrosheet for any team in that decade. And looking closely at Bridges' record, I think there's pretty solid evidence that he pitched better in the games that I'm missing than he did in the games that I have, at least in some seasons. I actually wrote about this a bit in the second link in comment #129. The biggest discrepancy seems to be 1932. I think I'm going to hold off on putting Bridges on my ballot just yet, but will definitely be keeping a close eye on him as Retrosheet releases more data.

2. Kiki Cuyler. I am missing about 200 games of Kiki Cuyler's career (out of 1,800 - Retrosheet has really good coverage of the Pirates in the 1920s). He ends up with a "Key Stat" of 130.0 which puts him somewhere in my top 50 - 75, depending on how many Negro Leaguers and pre-1921 guys I push ahead of him.

He looks quite good in Player won-lost records and, if I were to go back and construct my own personal HOM, he might well be in it. I think he mostly suffers here from the fact that my pHOM would be much more pitcher-heavy with fewer outfielders, so my ballot ends up very pitcher-heavy. I could conceivably push Cuyler up a few slots if I damped down my stats for pitchers, although he's still behind several outfielders - Tommy Henrich, Lance Berkman, Andruw Jones, Jose Canseco, Amos Otis, George Foster, Fred Lynn, and Dale Murphy - so I don't think I'm being unfair to outfielders by leaving him off my ballot.

3. Pie Traynor. Like Cuyler, I'm only missing about 200 games of his career. He has a "Key Stat" of 117.6. That puts him smack dab between Jim Fregosi and Robin Ventura, which seems like a good position: a good, solid player who's a clear step below the Hall of Merit. I had been curious if he'd benefit from my positional averages being calculated empirically every year - i.e., if the average third baseman was pretty bad in the 1920s, Traynor deserves some credit for not being so. There are definitely guys who benefit from this - Gil Hodges (best 1B of the 1950s), Concepcion - Campaneris - Harrah (the only SS worth much of a damn in the 1970s). But Traynor isn't quite one - he's similar to Fregosi in this regard too (Fregosi was the best SS of the 1960s). Anyway, he's off-ballot and I can't see how that's likely to change.
   133. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 22, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5713856)
Next group of players: Players who debuted before 1921 but played at least some seasons for which I have Player won-lost records

1. Wally Schang. Schang has a "Key Stat" of 62.0 from 1921 onward. Baseball-Reference says he earned about 46% of his WAR and 38% of his career WAA over this time period. Based on how BB-Ref views Schang, I'm missing 8 seasons that probably look on average similar to Schang's 1922 or 1926 season. If I take his "Key Stats" for the 1922 and 1926 seasons (average, 9.9), multiply by 8 and add to his 62.0, that's about 140, which would put him off-ballot. But my Key Stat calculation likes a great and an average season better than two good seasons, so that my be underselling him. I also would expect him to benefit from having been the best catcher in baseball in the 1910s.

If I had to guess, I think Schang will eventually show up in my system as HOM-worthy. But it is still a bit speculative. He may make my ballot, but probably toward the bottom.

2. Urban Shocker. Shocker has a "Key Stat" of 112.6. I'm missing the first 780 innings pitched of Shocker's career (about one-quarter of his total) plus perhaps one season of World War I credit. Eyeballing Shocker's career, I'm missing one season similar in value to 1922 (1920), one season similar to maybe 1926 (1919), a couple half-seasons that add up to the equivalent of maybe 1927 (1916 - 17), and a 1918 season that, with WWI credit is maybe in line with 1919. That would get his career "Key Stat" up to about 161.5. Eyeballing the seasons of his that I do have, I wouldn't be surprised if he was better in games I'm missing than in games I have, especially as a Brown.

I wouldn't be shocked if he didn't eventually get to a "Key Stat" over 170. He'll probably make the back-end of my ballot.

3. Sam Rice. Dr. Chaleeko observed last year that Sam Rice looks very good in baserunning and fielding metrics based on play-by-play data for the seasons for which we have such data. And indeed he does.

Overall, I have Rice with a "Key Stat" of only 52.6, but Retrosheet is missing over half of Rice's career games, including his first three full seasons (plus a year of WWI credit?). Retrosheet's first season, 1921, was Sam Rice's age-31 season. Given that baserunning and fielding are mostly young men's games, I suspect we're missing Rice's three best seasons - BB-Ref has 1920 as Rice's best season and 1917 and 1919 similar to (but slightly below) 1921, 1923-25, and 1930. But BB-Ref suffers from the same problem as I do for these seasons: their best source for baserunning and fielding is Retrosheet.

If I give Rice four seasons (1917 - 1920, giving him WWI credit for 1918) as good as the best season which I already have (1925), that pushes his "Key Stat" up to 99.5. Which is still well short the 150 or so needed to make his case "interesting". But eyeballing the seasons which I have, I might be under-valuing him in some of the other seasons of the 1920s.

I think my weighting system also likes players with a stronger peak/prime, whereas Rice had a fairly flat career - and a bit short of a career for a pure compiler (he made his MLB debut at age 25, his first full season was his age-27 season). For those who are less peak-heavy in their evaluations, Sam Rice may be a player worth taking a look at. He certainly has a case.
   134. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 22, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5713857)
Finally, this comment will be shorter than my last three ("thank God!" says everybody; sorry). To be fair to all eras, I have to also consider players whose careers ended before 1921, for whom my Player won-lost records have nothing at all to say. Here are a few such players who I find potentially intriguing.

1. Johnny Evers. This is probably the only pre-1921 guy I might vote for (excluding Negro Leaguers). I wrote about him on the first page of this thread (see comments #61 - #72). Basically, his teams seemed to consistently out-perform their bWAR in a way that I wonder if he deserves credit for. I'm not sure exactly how to quantify that in terms of a ballot ranking, but I may throw him at the end of my ballot depending on how many Negro Leaguers end up taking up spots.

2. Vic Willis. He made my ballot a couple of times, as he had some support from others and seemed like the kind of player my system would like (my system likes above-average "inning eater" starting pitchers). I've become a bit less of a fan and he probably won't make my ballot. But with permanent eligibility, eventually Retrosheet will get back to the turn of the 19th/20th century and I'll have a better feel for how good Willis really was.

3. Joe Tinker and Frank Chance. I think Evers is probably the most deserving of the "trio of bear cubs, fleeter than birds", but I'm really curious what Player won-lost records will have to say about these two as well when we finally get back to the early 1900s.
   135. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 23, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5714264)
Thanks for sharing Kiko, I need to incorporate your updated ratings with the new Retrosheet update this summer, then will try to have feedback and questions for you.

...And the good doctor has worked tirelessly on Negro League MLEs.

Lots of nuggets to digest for us diehards in 2018!
   136. Howie Menckel Posted: July 23, 2018 at 08:16 PM (#5714481)
"1. Johnny Evers. This is probably the only pre-1921 guy I might vote for (excluding Negro Leaguers). I wrote about him on the first page of this thread (see comments #61 - #72). Basically, his teams seemed to consistently out-perform their bWAR in a way that I wonder if he deserves credit for."

it's Occam's Razor to explain the 1914 Miracle Boston Braves
   137. Carl Goetz Posted: July 24, 2018 at 09:25 AM (#5714722)
"Basically, his teams seemed to consistently out-perform their bWAR in a way that I wonder if he deserves credit for."
I tend to agree with this statement, but am holding off giving him credit until I figure out a way to determine how much he deserves. The main portion of his career (not counting his 1922 & 1927 token appearances was only 16 seasons. That's a small enough sample size that we can't rule out that he was simply lucky to play on teams that outperformed their bWAR. I think he's likely to be just off my ballot without a bump for his teams' over-performance. I'll be very interested to see your numbers on him if/when Retrosheet obtains those missing games.
   138. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 30, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5718067)
I know a scholar that would like to at least join BBTF if not voting for the Hall of Merit, but they received a screen telling them they aren't taking new members.

How can we help remedy this situation? Thanks all!
   139. DL from MN Posted: July 30, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5718102)
Huh? Hall of Merit will take anyone who wants to put time into making a ballot. BBTF isn't taking new accounts? Is this temporary or permanent?
   140. Bleed the Freak Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:04 AM (#5718384)
Huh? Hall of Merit will take anyone who wants to put time into making a ballot. BBTF isn't taking new accounts? Is this temporary or permanent?


I told him I had never heard of this issue and that the Hall of Merit is always welcome to new and thoughtful people.

Can anyone direct me to a mod/etc to help on this technical issue? Thank you and happy trade deadline day!
   141. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 31, 2018 at 10:47 AM (#5718405)
Bleed, there's a "Feedback" link in the upper right corner of all BBTF pages that takes you to a form you can fill in to report something. I have no idea if it works / how frequently Jim Furtado monitors it, but that's probably your best bet. Alternately (or also), I think Jim's on Twitter; you could try sending him a message there, but, again, I can't say how frequently Jim goes there (I follow him there and don't recall seeing him post much).
   142. Rob_Wood Posted: July 31, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5718783)
The situation regarding locked membership has been well-known for quite awhile now.

I cannot believe that Jim/Admin/PTB are not aware of it.

I also cannot believe that this situation is what they want for their website.

I used to communicate with Jim a bit back in the day via this email address: jimfurtado AT baseballstuff DOT com

   143. DL from MN Posted: August 01, 2018 at 10:59 AM (#5718990)
How long do we give it to get fixed before moving to another platform?
   144. Carl Goetz Posted: August 02, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5719608)
From someone far more baseball-literate than computer-literate, how hard is it to move to another platform?
   145. DL from MN Posted: August 02, 2018 at 01:46 PM (#5719707)
Well, obviously moving the old threads/content would be difficult but it wouldn't be difficult to find a new home for new threads/content.
   146. Carl Goetz Posted: August 02, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5719911)
Probably worth a little wait to avoid being rash then. Though, if we're moving, we'd want that completed for at least a few weeks worth of ballot discussion before the election.
   147. DL from MN Posted: August 16, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5728026)
Any updates on this?
   148. theorioleway Posted: August 17, 2018 at 06:07 PM (#5728959)
DL - in the event we decide we do need to move, where would you suggest moving to?
   149. OCF Posted: August 18, 2018 at 08:25 PM (#5729480)
It would be extremely awkward, and probably not sustainable for all that long, but one possible ad-hoc fix might be this: some member here, maybe Bleed the Freak, who is in email contact with this new person, could agree to make a series of posts. The first one would be "Introducting new member XYZ" and subsequent posts would have "This post is by XYZ" as the first line.
   150. Howie Menckel Posted: August 18, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5729508)
As the first voter in the first HOM election of "1898" - and all of the subsequent ones - I am pulling rank and ordering that nothing be considered until early September.
:)

they call them "the dog days of August" for a reason. lots of people sensibly shut out the world at this time.
   151. Bleed the Freak Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5729818)
OCF and all, I would be happy to do so if that is what is necessary.
   152. DL from MN Posted: August 20, 2018 at 09:39 AM (#5730086)
Where to exist long-term is a difficult question to answer. Ideally we would have hallofmerit.org and control our own destiny. I like BBTF but it seems to be in decline.
   153. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5740102)
104. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 20, 2018 at 10:09 PM (#5657342)
I thought maybe it was time to get a bit more active here and maybe activate this thread a bit.

Guys I'm particularly interested in seeing what additional data may tell us would include Wally Schang, Kiki Cuyler, Urban Shocker, Dave Bancroft, maybe Pie Traynor. And we'll see who else might pop out. I'll still be missing a lot of the careers of Schang and Bancroft, who began their careers in the Deadball Era. So, it may take a few more years for Retrosheet to get back to their rookie seasons.


Kiko, looks like you were able to comment on all but Dave Bancroft in your recap of new data.

After the latest Retrosheet update, your base key stat shows Bancroft at 106.5 but is missing some peak/prime years, enough that I would interpret him finishing no worse then mid-ballot for you?
And do you see him as better than Joe Sewell, as I'm trying to reconstruct my pHOM and these guys are duking at out for 1920s electees...

With a pitching glut of Babe Adams (more 10s), Red Faber (him and Uhle look a little short in your W-L records), Dolf Luque (at a 130.7 Key Stat + 1 all-star year and Negro credit amount/integration?), George Uhle (who scored a 109 in Michael J Binkley's tally), and Burleigh Grimes (excellent 126.5 Key Stat + 1 Cy Young level season and 1 maybe all-star!)...have you taken a look at Grimes yet/how do you feel about the pitchers from this era?

And I don't think they will be ballot worthy, but your latest update made Tony Lazzeri and maybe to a lesser degree Hack Wilson look very interesting...any thoughts on either?

Speaking of your updated W-L records, Darryl Strawberry could move from #24 on your prelim to end of ballot...can you share his case, as everywhere else I look has him woefully short.

Thank you kind sir :)

And trying to sneak one more in, quoting you from up ballot:

"2. Kiki Cuyler. I am missing about 200 games of Kiki Cuyler's career (out of 1,800 - Retrosheet has really good coverage of the Pirates in the 1920s). He ends up with a "Key Stat" of 130.0 which puts him somewhere in my top 50 - 75, depending on how many Negro Leaguers and pre-1921 guys I push ahead of him.

He looks quite good in Player won-lost records and, if I were to go back and construct my own personal HOM, he might well be in it. I think he mostly suffers here from the fact that my pHOM would be much more pitcher-heavy with fewer outfielders, so my ballot ends up very pitcher-heavy. I could conceivably push Cuyler up a few slots if I damped down my stats for pitchers, although he's still behind several outfielders - Tommy Henrich, Lance Berkman, Andruw Jones, Jose Canseco, Amos Otis, George Foster, Fred Lynn, and Dale Murphy - so I don't think I'm being unfair to outfielders by leaving him off my ballot."

Do you think Cuyler is worthy of a bit of early career minor league credit, and does he deserve any adjustment for the ridiculous way his manager handled him in 1927...was all-star level the next four seasons when he left for the Cubs, but not good enough to play for Donie Bush.
   154. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 06, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5740105)
Wanted to share great news that Jim Albright from Baseball-Fever was able to signup for an account here, not sure if he's had trouble posting or will be later, but at least another newbie was able to login.

I will post his awesome recap of the good doctor's latest Negro League MLEs in the Latin Player page.
   155. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 07, 2018 at 01:02 AM (#5740364)
Re: 153

1. Dave Bancroft - to be honest, he kind of slipped through the cracks for me. I have enough of his career that I feel like I have a good feel for his career but I'm missing enough seasons that it's hard to say exactly how good a candidate he is. That said, it looks like I probably have his best season (1921). He's good enough that I probably should have mentioned him earlier, but I think he looks to be off-ballot for me. Although I could see making a case for him. Might depend on how many Negro Leaguers I end up with. As for Bancroft vs. Sewell, I feel like I'm missing too much of Bancroft's career to be able to say definitively. They're probably both in my personal HOM if I were to go back and construct one.

2. Burleigh Grimes definitely strikes me as a worthwhile candidate. As does his contemporary Herb Pennock. Basically, my pHOM would probably be 35% pitchers which means that my favorite non-HOMers from earlier eras tend to be heavily pitchers. I can't speak intelligently about the Deadball Era or earlier but from the 1920s I definitely like Urban Shocker, Grimes, Pennock. From the 1930s, Dizzy Dean tends to show up highest in my numbers (my weighting is pretty peak-heavy). Lefty Gomez and Schoolboy Rowe also end up fairly high in my consideration set. Tommy Bridges doesn't show up too well but I'm missing a LOT of games from him, so I don't want to dismiss him out of hand (the same is true in reverse with Bridges' longtime teammate Schoolboy Rowe - I might be overrating him because I'm also missing a lot of his games).

As of now, I think Shocker and Dean will be on my next ballot. Probably nobody else, largely because I'm leaning toward including as many as 4 or 5 Negro Leaguers.

3. Hack Wilson and Tony Lazzeri both look to be off-ballot, probably both are outside my top 50 when I add in pre-1921 and Negro League players. I'm missing some games, but no seasons, for both of them, but I don't know that either one is close enough that they're likely to move into serious consideration.

4. Darryl Strawberry - the weights I used to construct my ballot are fairly peak-heavy and Strawberry's case is peak-heavy. Strawberry also looks quite a bit better in pWins than in eWins - by about 6 total wins for his career (over either positional average or replacement). Strawberry also rates as a better baserunner and fielder in my system (above-average at both over his career) than, say, Baseball-Reference (-2 RBaser, -7 RField for his career). As far as more traditional stats, his peak was in a fairly low-offense period (1988-92 in particular were quite low-scoring) and in a pretty strong pitchers' park. In Strawberry's best season - 1988, the Mets had a team ballpark factor (half Shea, half elsewhere) of 92, lowest in the NL.

5. Kiki Cuyler - to be perfectly honest, I have no clue what kind of minor-league credit he might deserve. The issue with 1927 is interesting, although I think that's starting to become a bit too speculative for me. But that doesn't mean others shouldn't do whatever they want on that count. Right now, just taking Cuyler's major-league stats at face value, he looks to me to be maybe two 1928, 1930-quality seasons short of being near the bottom of my ballot.

I think that's everybody you asked about!

   156. DL from MN Posted: September 07, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5740397)
Jim Albright from Baseball-Fever was able to signup for an account here


Good news
   157. Carl Goetz Posted: September 07, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5740452)
Kiko, Any update from Amazon on Player Won-Lost Records in Baseball: Measuring Performance in Context going on Kindle? I see Baseball Player Won-Lost Records: 150 Players, 50 Years available on Kindle, but not the initial book. I was hoping to get both on Kindle in November for my offseason reading.
   158. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 07, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5740463)
Thanks for the fast feedback Kiko...my other guy in question is dolf luque. A 130.7 key stat + how to handle integration and negro league value makes him an intriguing candidate. Can he leap forward amongst the 20s hurler crowd past Grimes?

And yes, Schoolboy Rowe looks worthy from your numbers plus he had 2 years of war service as a kicker, although how much war value should we give to pitchers?
   159. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 07, 2018 at 12:08 PM (#5740505)
Kiko, Any update from Amazon on Player Won-Lost Records in Baseball: Measuring Performance in Context going on Kindle? I see Baseball Player Won-Lost Records: 150 Players, 50 Years available on Kindle, but not the initial book. I was hoping to get both on Kindle in November for my offseason reading.


I talked to my editor at the SABR convention and bad news there. Apparently, McFarland has trouble rendering tables - of which my books have tons - in Kindle's unique format. I had a similar issue with the second book, which I self-published (i.e., uploaded to Amazon). It didn't render the tables correctly in either a Word or PDF format. But I finally got it to work when I uploaded an HTML version of the book. I need to follow up with McFarland to see if they could do something similar with my book with them.

Alternately, you can get an e-book version of my first book at Google Play.
   160. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 07, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5740509)
Re: Dolf Luque. He's a small step behind Grimes and Pennock in my current ranking and he appears to have fewer pre-1921 (white MLB) seasons than either of them. So it would take extra credit to get him up to their level. I'm not familiar enough with his case to know how much extra credit he deserves. But given that he's actually 3-4 years older than Grimes and Pennock it's easy to imagine him having amassed more pre-1921 value than either of them when one gives him proper minor-league/negro-league/Cuba/whatever credit.

Luque appears to have become a (white) major-league regular in 1919 at age 28. How many seasons of extra credit (and at what quality) might he deserve before then?
   161. Bleed the Freak Posted: September 07, 2018 at 08:50 PM (#5740768)
Re: Dolf Luque. He's a small step behind Grimes and Pennock in my current ranking and he appears to have fewer pre-1921 (white MLB) seasons than either of them. So it would take extra credit to get him up to their level. I'm not familiar enough with his case to know how much extra credit he deserves. But given that he's actually 3-4 years older than Grimes and Pennock it's easy to imagine him having amassed more pre-1921 value than either of them when one gives him proper minor-league/negro-league/Cuba/whatever credit.

Luque appears to have become a (white) major-league regular in 1919 at age 28. How many seasons of extra credit (and at what quality) might he deserve before then?


Can you run a keystat for Dolf by adding 4 seasons, equivalent to 1921, 1922, 1924, and 1927 and see what the result yields...thanks!
   162. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 07, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5740789)
Can you run a keystat for Dolf by adding 4 seasons, equivalent to 1921, 1922, 1924, and 1927 and see what the result yields...thanks!


I've actually set it up so you can do something like this yourself. From a player's main page, click on "Value Decomposition" (top right of either of the first two tables) and wait for the last table to load (it can take a little while). Here's Luque's page. Now, this is using my weights - others are free to use alternate weights. And I'll note with respect to Luque, basically half of his "Key Stat" is in two seasons - 1923 and 1925 - which were just monster seasons for Luque. As I think I noted above, my weights end up being fairly peak-heavy, which really helps Luque here.

Anyway, by season for 1921, 1922, 1924, and 1927, I have Luque's "Key Stat" at 9.4, 4.0, 5.7, and 7.4, respectively, which, if I did it right, adds up to 26.5. His career "Key Stat" at the above link is either 133.0 (sum of seasons) or 134.0 (career totals - to be honest, I'm not sure why these don't always match). If you add 26.5 to that it gets you basically right at 160.

That said, for my ballot, I discount pre-1947 seasons by about 7% (a number I basically pulled out of my ass) which would push Luque back down to just under 150.

Allowing room for pre-1921 players and Negro Leaguers on my ballot, I think it takes about 160 to get near the bottom of my ballot.

So, bottom line: Luque is definitely an interesting candidate depending on your choice of peak vs. prime vs. career and what, if anything, you do in terms of discounting the segregated major leagues. Probably off-ballot for me, but that could change by the time we vote in a few months.
   163. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 14, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5766266)
I've finally gotten round to putting all my Negro Leagues MLEs into my by-position rankings. Results will be below, but please note that these are based on the most up to date versions. Check back at the Hall of Miller and Eric if you're not sure you've got the very latest. Remember, sometimes the differences are subtle.

The following lists indicate which players are above my personal in/out line. The number I show is CHEWS+, which is my hybrid of JAWS and the HOS' Hall Score. 100 is the in/out line, and I generally think of any at 90 or above as a good candidate. Those in bold are guys still out there for the voting.
P
S Paige: 180
J Williams: 174
W Rogan: 160
D Redding: 136
M Dihigo: 128
J Mendez: 121
W Foster: 114
R Welmaker: 105
B Byrd: 105
D Newcombe: 104 (with MLE credit)

R Brown: 102
C Marrero: 97
R Bragana: 97

R Foster: 97
H Smith: 94
J Padron: 93
D Barnhill: 92

A Cooper: 90
BTW...L Day: 74

C
J Gibson: 176 (leads all C)
R Campanella: 139 (with MLE credit)
B Mackey: 129
L Santop: 129
Q Trouppe: 124
R Garcia: 111 (I'm skeptical, but dude could hit)

1B
B Leonard: 114
B Taylor: 113
B Pettus: 93

M Suttles: 91

2B
J Robinson: 154 (with MLE credit)
M Williams: 105
B Serrell: 98
B Avila: 94 (with MLE credit)
J Gilliam: 92 (with MLE credit)

3B
J Wilson: 134
C Moran: 104 (but, he's a lefty 3B...)
R Dandridge: 103

BTW...J Johnson: 60

SS
J Lloyd: 152
W Wells: 135
D Moore: 131
S Garcia: 113
S Bankhead: 108

G Johnson: 107
D Lundy: 107
J Beckwith: 95
B Clarkson: 94 (no war credit)

LF
M Minoso: 106 (with MLE credit)

CF
O Charleston: 173
M Dihigo: 149
P Hill: 138
T Stearnes: 133
C Torriente: 131
A Oms: 120
M Irvin: 120 (no war credit)
L Doby: 113 (with MLE credit, no war credit)
L Salazar: 105 (incidentally, he's at 87 as a pitcher)
W Brown: 102 (no war credit)
S Jethroe: 90

BTW... C Bell: 88

RF
W Rogan: 127
O Johnson: 112 (that's Heavy J.)
H McNair: 110
B Wright: 103 (that's Wild Bill)


So, Redding, Taylor, O. Johnson, and H McNair are the top remaining players by this list. Of course, war credit might boost up a couple fellows as well.
   164. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 14, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5766270)
Forgot to mention Frank Grant. No MLE for him at this time. Too little data. Same for several other guys who I'm not quite comfortable with, and they include
Nelson Dean
PEdro Debut
Leon Kellman
Silvino Ruiz
Wee Willie Powell
Harry Salmon
George Walker
Ted Trent
Alonzo Perry
Tetelo Vargas
Wilmer Fields
Perucho Cepeda
Jim LaMarque
Pancho Coimbre
Fred Wilson
Ed Steele.

I think I've otherwise covered all the major candidates in my MLEs. I'm not likely to create any more, and I'm not sure whether I'll update what I've got. The other players who I would have liked to have gotten to but probably aren't really that important are
C: Geravasio Gonzalez, Sam Hairston, Dan Kennard, Mitchell Murray, and Pearl Webster
IF: Lennie Pearson, Bienviendo Jimenez, Manuel Cueto, Candy Jim Taylor, and Alfredo Cabrera
P: Roosevelt Davis

So, basically we've got the biggies, even if it's not ridiculously completist.
   165. Bleed the Freak Posted: October 15, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5767010)
Perucho Cepeda


Thanks for the updates doc!

Perucho has been of interest to me for a number of years, by too little data available, do you have enough to eliminate him from consideration?
   166. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 15, 2018 at 11:13 PM (#5767356)
Thank you very much, Dr. C.! Great, great stuff!! As of now, I'm probably leaning toward including somewhere between 4 and 6 Negro Leaguers on my ballot.

What's your view of Luke Easter? His missing seasons seem to be not entirely Negro League - maybe not even mostly Negro League. But, from what I've read, would also seem to include a lot of fairly high quality play in the minor leagues both before and after his brief major-league career. I think he also probably deserves some World War II credit. What do you - and others - think of his case?

He intrigues me, but mostly in a "Man, if he was that good in his mid-to-late 30s imagine how good he must have been in his 20s", which is probably more speculative than what the Hall of Merit usually wants to see.
   167. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM (#5768397)
Re 165: Can't support Perucho. No data to work with and very little narrative.

Re 166: Easter isn't as amazing as promised. He would need a lot of WAR credit. He is in the 80s in CHEWS+, which is similar to guy's like Mark Teixeira or Adrian Gonzalez. Fine players both, but for me, they'd need some more All-Star level play to get to the in/out line.

I have a lot more to say about the guys we haven't elected. But I would strongly encourage everyone now to focus on the following guys whose combinations of performance and completeness of record make them the most attractive (IMNSHO):
Redding
Taylor
Dandridge
Newcombe
Wright and Salazar
Byrd and Welmaker

I feel VERY confident that the MLEs for the first three are reliable.

I strongly suggest diving deep on the MLEs for the last five, as well as the narrative about them. The fielding for Wright and Salazar needs a look, and the pitchers just generally need a look, though the amount of data on them is considerable and makes them fairly likely in my opinion to be reasonable/accurate.

I recommend leaving Easter and Clarkson alone until we discuss the group above.
Don't waste your time with Silvio Garcia.
   168. DL from MN Posted: October 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5768800)
I would concur with the conclusion that Redding and Taylor are a the top of the list. I appreciate the new input on Dandridge who has a strong pedigree. If everyone else is below Newcombe (who I think I have assessed correctly in the past and is off-ballot) then that's as far down the list as we need to go. I'll probably end up with fewer NGL players on my next ballot, not more.
   169. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 17, 2018 at 10:43 PM (#5769707)
Here's a little table that may help us sift through the rest of the Negro League candidates. This gives us both axes of an MLE (player's performance and the completeness of his record) as well some context to help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of his case. I've run this up for every player who's received a vote since 2013 (11) and the 100+ CHEWS+ players mentioned above.

LEGEND
POS = PRIMARY POSITION IN MLE
PT = PLAYING TIME (IP OR PA) THAT CONTRIBUTEES TO MLE
YRS = CAREER LENGTH IN MLE
MSS = NUMBER OF SEASONS WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING DATA FOR MLE
SHT = SHORT SEASONS, WHERE TEAM PLAYED FEWER THAN 10 DOCUMENTED GAMES
FLG = FIELDING GAMES CONTRIBUTING TO MLE
FL% = NUMBER OF SEASONS CONTRIBUTING TO FIELDING MLE PER TOTAL MLE CAREER SEASONS
WAR = MLE CAREER WAR TOTAL
CHEWS+ = MY PERSONAL RATING, 100 IS THE IN/OUT LINE
CNF = CONFIDENCE SCORE (SEE UNDERNEATH CHART FOR DETAILS)

NAME       PT  YRS MSS SHT FLG  FL%  CNF  WAR  CHEWS+
======================================================
PITCHERS
Byrd      1393  18  4   1   --   --   72  64.2  105
Cooper    1087  17  6   3   --   --   50  60.0   90 
Matlock   1130  14  4   0   --   --   55  47.7   76
Newcombe  2862  15  0   0   --   --   85  60.7  104
Redding   1967  21  2   2   --   --   88  93.0  136
Smith      847  17  6   0   --   --   51  61.0   94
Welmaker  1369  14  3   0   --   --   68  60.4  105 

HITTERS
Clarkson  4270  16  3   0  291   38%  61  56.5   94
Dandridge 5261  18  1   0  622   33%  76  63.3  103 
Easter    4872  17  5   0    0   30%  55  45.5   71
Howard    6927  16  0   0 1488  100%  84  32.8   80
Moran 3B  1893  14  0   0  412  100%  70  53.7  104
Moran CF  1893  14  0   0    0    0%  50  39.2   67
Salazar   2874  21  2   2   93   25%  74  63.4  105
Taylor    3680  19  1   1  704   95%  89  71.6  113
Williams  3509  17  3   0  111   25%  66  60.4  105
Wright    4562  19  0   0  193   33%  84  67.1  103  

CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE SCORE
Start at 100 and subtract
5 points for every missing season
3 points for every career MLE year under 20
2 points for every short season
1 point for every 5% of missing fielding value
1 point for every 100 PA below 3,000
1 point for every 50 IP below 1,500


Let's hope that comes through OK....

Before I make any comments, please note that I have two versions of Moran. He was, apparently, a lefty-throwing third baseman, and that would never have flown in MLB. So I put him in centerfield with league-average CF defense to see what it looked like, and you can see the result.

Now for extended commentary.
The important things to note here are that
a) Some players have cases very well grounded in lots of playing time. It's important to say that this can be illusory if that playing time is concentrated in several longer-schedule years and there are lots of missing, short, or shorter-schedule years in the player's record. Or not in it as the case may be.

b) Fielding is really important to look at because in most cases, we've only got fielding data for a quarter to a half of a player's career.
For Salazar and Wright, this is kinda a big deal. The data we have is from their age 19 to 24 seasons, and it's very very good. But we have zippo after that. So they end up with about 55 fielding runs to the good for their career. It's possible their value is somewhat lower. Salazar moved out of CF to RF and 1B, so that may well overinflate his fielding. But Wright was never forced to first, so it's possible he retained his fielding skills well into his career.

For Dandridge, whose evaluation also hinges on fielding value, the picture is much clearer. We have lots of his fielding data from his young days and his old-player days in AAA. His fielding in Minneapolis is pretty great, so I feel confident he's not a guy who looked good but wasn't.

Then there's Marv Williams. We have not too much fielding data for him, and, ultimately he went between 2B and 1B. I can't say that I'm confident that he's the league-average fielder my MLE suggests he is.

Clarkson's fielding is a mixed bag of early and late-career.

But finally let's mention Luke Easter here. I've basically used his MLB fielding as a proxy here. But the reality is that teasing out first base fielding from the basic stats we get for Easter's minor league years is above my pay grade. And probably not worth it because Easter probably isn't that great a candidate anyway, especially considering how much we don't know about him.

c) CHEWS+ is based on my own home cooked ratings. You should do you on this. But let's say that the confidence score (turned into a decimal), which is admittedly also very home cooked (and you should feel free to monkey around with it), could serve as a multiplying factor for the MLE WAR presented in the table to give a quick-and-dirty way to combine performance with documentation. So, for example, if I multiply Bill Byrd's 64.2 WAR by .72 (his confidence score turned into a percentage, I get 46. Doing that for every one here, the list looks like this:

PITCHERS
Redding: 81.8
Newcombe: 51.6
Byrd: 46.2
Welmaker: 41.1
smith: 31.1
Cooper: 30.0
Matlock: 26.2

HITTERS
Taylor: 63.7
Wright: 56.4
Dandridge: 48.1
Salazar: 46.9
Williams: 39.9
Moran 3B: 37.6
Clarkson: 34.5
Howard: 27.6
Easter: 25.0
Moran CF: 19.6

The very strong suggestion here is that it is Redding and Taylor whose combination of performance and documentation catapults them above the rest, especially Redding. After that, it's Wright, Newk, Dandridge, Salazar, and Byrd who merit the longest looks.

d) From the perspective of chronological and positional balance, Redding fits like a glove. My observations (see upthread in the 110s or 120s) say that the deadball era is underpopulated, and Redding helps that somewhat (though he's also in the well-represented 1920s). And there's plenty of room for us to take a pitcher. I'd be a little worried about yet another first baseman for Taylor's part, especially with Helton reaching the ballot this year. The rest of these guys (Moran excepted) fall into eras where we've over elected a little bit (by my calculation).

e) So, long story short, I think we should elect Redding forthwith and continue looking closely at Taylor. In the long run, we have a handful of other Negro Leaguers who appear to be interesting candidates but don't scream ELECT.

Or basically what DL said. ;)
   170. Bleed the Freak Posted: October 19, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5771207)
Thanks doc, some observations.

Clarkson is at 94 before WWII credit...what would he be at in your system with the bonus?

Don Newcombe should fall into the candidates from under-represented eras, and we are light on pitchers, no?

You noted all CHEWS players at 100+ were put in post 169, but I don't see R Garcia, S Garcia, S Bankhead, O Johnson, H McNair, all of whom receive a 108+ score, or likely worthy of HOM and certainly review.

The Luke Easter MLE hurts, as a guy mashing into his mid-40s, and could help the under-represented 1950s.

   171. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 19, 2018 at 04:54 PM (#5771398)
In my quotes post in #116 above, the post-War era is about 3.5 players overrepresented. YMMV depending on how you arrive at your own estimates of chronological balance.

As for pitching, I think we are just fine. We are at 28% (at least I think we are). I’ve persoanlly always figured that 30% +/- 3% is about right. We can elect a couple or a few pitchers and be fine. We can not elect a pitcher and be fine. It seems very likely we will elect two newbie pitchers this year, or maybe one this year and one next. Either way, it works out. Adding Redding to the mix won’t unbalance us for pitchers, and I strongly suspect that he would be a preferable candidate over other newcomers in this and the next two or three votes: Pettitte, Oswalt, Buehrle, Hudson, Lee (three of whom I will likely support). I’m prolly forgetting someone important here but this is OTTOMH.

I will get you figures for those other 100+ felllows.
   172. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 19, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5771406)
Here's the other fellows. Hurley McNair looks better than I originally thought confidence wise.

NAME       PT  YRS MSS SHT FLG  FL%  CNF  WAR  CHEWS+
======================================================
PITCHERS
Byrd      1393  18  4   1   --   --   72  64.2  105
Cooper    1087  17  6   3   --   --   50  60.0   90 
Matlock   1130  14  4   0   --   --   55  47.7   76
Newcombe  2862  15  0   0   --   --   85  60.7  104
Redding   1967  21  2   2   --   --   88  93.0  136
Smith      847  17  6   0   --   --   51  61.0   94
Welmaker  1369  14  3   0   --   --   68  60.4  105 

HITTERS
Bankhead  3232  21  6   0  268   33%  57  72.0  108
Clarkson  4270  16  3   0  291   38%  61  56.5   94
Dandridge 5261  18  1   0  622   33%  76  63.3  103 
Easter    4872  17  5   0  452   30%  55  45.5   71
R Garcia* 1815  11  0   0  288  100%  58  34.5  111
S Garcia  2986  17  7   0    0    0%  39  71.5  113
Howard    6927  16  0   0 1488  100%  84  32.8   80
O Johnson 1778  16  8   2  340   45%  53  64.6  112 
H McNair  2816  19  4   3  505   75%  64  74.5  110
Moran 3B  1893  14  0   0  412  100%  70  53.7  104
Moran CF  1893  14  0   0    0    0%  50  39.2   67
Salazar   2874  21  2   2   93   25%  74  63.4  105
Taylor    3680  19  1   1  704   95%  89  71.6  113
Williams  3509  17  3   0  111   25%  66  60.4  105
Wright    4562  19  0   0  193   33%  84  67.1  103  
*Does not include the recently documented 1901 season. Adding that would improve the confidence score by 3 to 5 points.

CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE SCORE
Start at 100 and subtract
5 points for every missing season
3 points for every career MLE year under 20
2 points for every short season
1 point for every 5% of missing fielding value
1 point for every 100 PA below 3,000
1 point for every 50 IP below 1,500
   173. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 20, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5771715)
Still another way to look at the Negro League results I've presented. Let's consider my confidence score to be a percentage and then multiply it by the MLE WAR. That will give us a different way to rank our guys. I did that, and, for pitchers and hitters respectively, I also divided that rsult by the median pitcher and hitter in the group to provide a sense of distance from the belly of the bunch.

PITCHERS
Redding: 81.8, 1.99 times median
Newcome: 51.6, 1.26
Byrd: 46.2: 1.12
Welmaker: 41.1, is median
Smith: 31.1, 0.75
Cooper: 30.0, 0.73
Matlock: 26.2, 0.64

HITTERS
Ben Taylor: 63.7, 1.69 times median
Wright: 56.4, 1.50
Dandridge: 48.1, 1.28
McNair: 47.6, 1.26
Salazar: 46.9, 1.25
Bankhead: 41.0, 1.06
Williams: 39.9, 1.06
Moran (3B): 37.6, is median
Clarkson: 34.5, 0.92
Johnson: 34.2, 0.91
S Garcia: 27.9, 0.74
Howard: 27.6, 0.73
Easter: 25.0, 0.66
R Garcia: 20.0, 0.53
Moran (CF): 19.6, 0.52

Again, this does not include war credit, and my MLEs are not adjusted to 162 games, which I neglected to mention previously.

Once again, we see Redding dominating the group, and Taylor a distant second well worth the time to reconsider. Then Wright, about whose defense we might have more discussion as a third also well worth a look. Then there's a huge clump of Newcombe, Dandridge, McNair, and Salazar, whose defense presents similar questions as Wright's. If we elected Redding then focused on those other six, we would be narrowing things down in a helpful manner for all of us.
   174. Carl Goetz Posted: October 23, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5772981)
When in December are ballots due? I haven't done much since July and want to figure out how to plan my "homework" between now and then :)
   175. Carl Goetz Posted: October 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5772987)
Dr. C, are their completeness issues with your Hilton Smith MLEs? I noticed you wanted us to focus on Byrd and Welmaker over Cooper and Smith despite similar overall WAR totals. I know in the past you've expressed concerns about Cooper's MLEs so I get that part. But wanted to check to see if you have issues with Smith's MLEs or simply forgot to include him in that list of focus players.

As always, thanks for all you do on Negro League players. You are a life saver.
   176. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 23, 2018 at 09:48 PM (#5773630)
Smith, Cooper, and Matlock all have much less documentation to their career than our other candidates. At this current moment, all Negro Leagues players suffer some degree of undocumented play. It might be whole swaths of careers, or it could be merely not having a given season's fielding data. Which means that, until we have more complete data, an MLE is ultimately a prediction of what the MLE would be if we had all the data in hand, as well as an estimate of what the fellow would do in MLB.

So right now I have lots of confidence in the MLE for Redding because we have scads of data for him. This means not only that we have more seasons than we do for other pitchers, but that we also have more innings within the seasons we have. The more innings we have, the more accurate an MLE is likely to be. Why? Because MLEs necessarily require regression of some sort because we deal with smaller in-season and career-length samples than with MLBs. So there can be a compounding effect.
   177. Carl Goetz Posted: October 24, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5773919)
Interesting. Is there a general feeling that we'll get more data on these players? Or is this just a crap shoot where occasionally random pieces of the puzzle turn up?
   178. Chris Fluit Posted: October 25, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5775223)
Interesting. Is there a general feeling that we'll get more data on these players? Or is this just a crap shoot where occasionally random pieces of the puzzle turn up?

The gaps are slowly filling in, though not necessarily in a straight chronological manner. One of the best sources, Seamheads, has been going season by season and league by league but has occasionally jumped around. For example, they have data for Leroy Matlock's time with the Pittsburgh Crawfords in the Negro National League (1933-38) and the Homestead Grays and Washington Pilots of the East-West League (1932) but not his time with the St. Louis Stars (1929-31) or with the Mexico City Diablos Rojos of the Mexican League (1940-42). That gives us a sense of his peak but not his full career. Seamheads should eventually fill in the NNL seasons for 1926-32, which would include three more seasons worth of data for Matlock. I don't know that we'll ever get good numbers for his last few years in Mexico. Right now, we're trying to judge him on half his career (7 of 13 seasons). Eventually, we should have 3/4 of his career (10 of 13) or even all of it. I'm not sure Matlock's full 13-year career will be HoM-worthy even when we have the full data. But Cooper and especially Smith might be.
   179. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 25, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5775452)
Re 177 and 178:

My MLEs include Mexican League data from 1937-1954 so we a lot about Matlock. That data will eventually be on the NLDB, but it's some months away I think.

But also, the data story is kinda complex. The minor leagues prior to about 1945ish are essentially unusable. The data may be partial for all players (typically no BB for hitters and thus no PA total; no RA and sometimes no IP totals for moundsmen), or there are no league totals. If no league totals, I don't include the season at all in my MLE. Better not to guess at stuff like that and to focus on what we know about the player. In many cases we have no fielding data for any player in a league (true in the minors, blackball, and Latin league's). In still more cases we may have just a handful of the games a team played in a season. So this is an issue across the spectrum. Heck, these problems still occur in MLB data where we don't have GIDPs prior to about 1938ish or caught stealing some for about a quarter of all MLB seasons.

That's why I'm talking about confidence in the accuracy of my work. When we are electing Josh Gibson or Joe Williams, there's far less need for an expansive data set because their reputations are so strong, and most of their seasons match that reputation, so even if you only have a few, they should provide good evidence. It's the guys like Mary Williams and Ray Dandridge who have been a problem because they weren't good enough hitters to blow away the competition. So much of Dandridge's reputation was based on his glove, and that's a hard sell until we had his DRA numbers and a little bit of interpolation of his minor league fielding numbers. But also, Hooks' batting has turned out better than originally ugh because he drew just enough walks (whereas he had been seen as an empty .300 hitter). Then there's Marv who hardly played in the Negro Leagues so he didn't develop a grand reputation among his contemporaries. He also played in a lot of low-level leagues in his home state of TX. The upshot is that we have little fielding data and little defensive reputation to work with. In the event, we have more of Dandridge's career and fielding than Williams', so I feel it's more responsible to the HOM community to say that his case is tighter than Williams, even though, at first glance, Williams might appear to have the superior MLE.

So, since you didn't ask, the following completely missing info will fill in a lot of gaps:
Missing NNL seasons through 1932
Missing ECL seasons of the same span
The ANL of 1929
Mexican League (in so far as it is not on the NLDB)
1948 NNNL/NAL
Any missing Cuban seasons prior to 1930ish
Puerto Rican Winter League seasons
Canadian Indy league season from late 1940s early 1950s. (There is some work done here, but it doesn't include a lot of key data such as walks)

I don't hold out much hope for the CWL post-1930ish because Gary A tells me that there are no English language sources for them, and he doesn't speak Spanish. I hold out little hope for minor league data prior to the mid-1940s because either it hasn't been tabulated or no one would care enough to do it anyway. But generally, this is a slow grind because it's all on a volunteer/avocational basis. The folks who do this work are heroes of mine, and this painstaking work requires time and close scrutiny. But also, it's worth noting that Gary A and his merry band often turn up previously unknown boxes or are able to find corroboration for a box that completes a game,, and they sometimes update with that stuff when they do bigger updates. Which means that complete is only ever a relative term....

So aren't you glad you didn't ask????

   180. Carl Goetz Posted: October 26, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5776002)
Not at all. Definitely fascinating stuff. Its very easy to look at those WAR numbers and just start ranking. I appreciate the very important added context.
   181. Bleed the Freak Posted: October 30, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5779500)
I could conceivably push Cuyler up a few slots if I damped down my stats for pitchers, although he's still behind several outfielders - Tommy Henrich, Lance Berkman, Andruw Jones, Jose Canseco, Amos Otis, George Foster, Fred Lynn, and Dale Murphy - so I don't think I'm being unfair to outfielders by leaving him off my ballot.


A discussion came up on another thread regarding Amos Otis, it prompted a memory of either a post here or at your site, I believe an article on park factors or fielding, that caused Amos to be vastly underrated.

Can you share the link/recap for us?

Also, when I go to your glossary page, I get the message [an error occurred while processing this directive] when I click on the links...http://baseball.tomthress.com/Articles/Glossary.php
You had an alternative link that you shared a couple of years ago, does that one work?

Happy Tuesday!
   182. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 30, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5779806)
A discussion came up on another thread regarding Amos Otis, it prompted a memory of either a post here or at your site, I believe an article on park factors or fielding, that caused Amos to be vastly underrated.

Can you share the link/recap for us?

Also, when I go to your glossary page, I get the message [an error occurred while processing this directive] when I click on the links...http://baseball.tomthress.com/Articles/Glossary.php
You had an alternative link that you shared a couple of years ago, does that one work?

Happy Tuesday!


Bleed, that glossary link should work - it works on my computer, anyway - http://baseball.tomthress.com/Articles/Glossary.php

As to Amos Otis, my Player won-lost records really like his fielding - like, he's arguably the best defensive CF for whom I've calculated Player won-lost records (second set of tables here).

I wrote about him in my first book - actually I wrote about him in both of my books. In my first book, he's on pp. 209-210 in the chapter on Fielding (Chapter 7). In my second book, he's #108 of the top 150 players (from 1961 - 2010).

At the risk of costing myself valuable book sales, this is essentially the relevant excerpt from the first book. The numbers here may be a little dated - although that's true of the book, too, and it doesn't affect the basic story regarding Otis; my system still loves him.
   183. Bleed the Freak Posted: October 30, 2018 at 10:01 PM (#5779930)
Thanks Kiko for the links, I'll give it a try tomorrow, but no luck with Chrome, Firefox, or Explorer.
   184. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 01, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5780615)
Tried the glossary link yesterday and today, no luck, tried on work laptop and my personal phone.
   185. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 01, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5781004)
Well that's odd and annoying, Bleed. I'm sorry. It works on both my laptop (both Chrome and whatever Microsoft renamed Explorer) and my iPhone. One possibility: maybe try putting https:// in front of it? My web host automatically provides both - i.e., any of my links should work as either http:// or https:// but I think some ISPs don't like the former (note: I can access it on my laptop either way). I'll mention it to my web host, although since I'm not having the problem, I'm not sure how helpful that'll be. Sorry.
   186. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 04, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5781891)
After all the Negro Leagues data got sifted through, I'm thinking about my 2019 ballot. I think it's looking this way on a by-position basis. We're electing to roughly the 23rd best at each batting position. My own methods of assessment strongly suggest catchers are our one area of keen need. Avoiding 1Bs might be a good idea and to a lesser degree at LF and CF. I think we could use a few more pitchers too. We're at about 26%, which might be a tad lower than I'd like. Other figures suggest that we could use help in the 1910s, 1970s and 1980s. And that we ought to avoid the entire 19th Century the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1950s.

PITCHERS
Redding: 136 CHEWS+, 24th among eligible pitchers (which is like 7th among hitters)
Halladay: 124 CHEWS+, 37th (~11th)
Rivera: 120 CHEWS+, 41st (~12th)
Tiant: 111 CHEWS+, 52nd (~15th)
Shocker: 111 CHEWS+, 53rd (~15th)
Santana: 109 CHEWS+, 57th (~17th)
Willis: 107 CHEWS+, 60th (~18th)

CATCHERS
T Munson: 107 CHEWS+, 20TH
W Schang: 103 CHEWS+, 21ST

1B
T Helton: 115 CHEWS+, 13TH
B Taylor: 113 CHEWS+, 17TH

2B
T Phillips: 102 CHEWS+, 21ST

3B
B Bell: 116 CHEWS+, 15TH
T Leach: 111 CHEWS+ 19TH

SS
A Fletcher: 119 CHEWS+, 17TH
J Tinker: 113 CHEWS+, 19TH

LF
B Veach: 112 CHEWS+, 15th
B Johnson: 104 CHEWS+, 19TH
R WHITE: 100 CHEWS+, 21ST

CF
A Jones: 116 CHEWS+, 18TH
K Lofton: 109 CHEWS+, 20TH

RF
H Hooper: 103 CHEWS+, 22ND
BO Bonds: 103 CHEWS+, 23RD

So, I'm looking at a ballot like this:
1) Dick Redding
2) Roy Halladay
3) Mariano Rivera
4) Todd Helton (despite having a lot of 1Bs, being 13th at a position is a very strong argument for a vote)
5) Buddy Bell
6) Luis Tiant
7) Urban Shocker
8) Thurman Munson
9) Wally Schang
10) Johan Santana
11) Vic Willis
12) Tommy Leach
13) Bobby Veach
14) Art Fletcher
15) Andruw Jones
   187. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 04, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5781960)
4. bachslunch Posted: January 24, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5612400)
7. Todd Helton. Excellent WAR and easily the best qualified 1B.


12. The Honorable Ardo Posted: January 24, 2018 at 08:31 PM (#5612946)
5) Todd Helton - Little things add up. Helton is akin to Will Clark with a shallower peak/longer prime: a very good on-base offensive threat, defender and base runner.



16. DL from MN Posted: January 25, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5613248)
Todd Helton = Norm Cash but with less bat than Cash after the standard deviation adjustments. All the modern players had high standard deviations in run scoring.
66) Todd Helton


19. Jaack Posted: January 25, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5613326)

Todd Helton - This year's biggest problem for me. I think he's worthy. It's possible I could change my mind in the future, but that's where I lean now. The problem is how high up the ballot should he go. Before any adjustments, I have him about tied with Jeff Kent for 7-8 range. But two things give me pause. First are his excellent RE24 numbers that are pumping up his batting record. I'm not sure RE24 adjusts correctly for extreme run enivornments, which would explain Helton's very high scores (as well as Giambi's as well, who also sees a huge boost based on the metric). The second thing is his defensive numbers. I believe Helton was a fine defender. - both the numbers and the eye test agree he was quite good. My main concern is how valuable an elite defensive first baseman in 2000-2002 Coors Field was. Until I figure those two out, he'll remain just off ballot.

16. Todd Helton


93. cookiedabookie Posted: February 05, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5619914)
25 Todd Helton


102. Michael J. Binkley's anxiety closet Posted: February 06, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5620446)
I use a JAWS-like system as one of the inputs for my player calculations. The one difference is that unlike JAWS, I don't divide the value by 2. So in my system, using Dr.Chaleeko's MLE's, I have Taylor at a JAWS value of 114.12 (I do include a slight defensive regression to the mean for the NeL players). For comparison (and these are the value using my WAR calculations, not bWAR):

Palmeiro - 119.96
Murray - 119.86
Sisler - 113.79
Easter - 113.74
Hernandez - 113.46
McCovey - 111.81
McGwire - 111.52
Killebrew - 109.30
Terry - 101.92
Beckley - 101.36
Giambi - 100.75 (will make my PHoM soon after eligible)
Helton - 100.11



186. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 04, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5781891)
After all the Negro Leagues data got sifted through, I'm thinking about my 2019 ballot. I think it's looking this way on a by-position basis. We're electing to roughly the 23rd best at each batting position. My own methods of assessment strongly suggest catchers are our one area of keen need. Avoiding 1Bs might be a good idea and to a lesser degree at LF and CF. I think we could use a few more pitchers too. We're at about 26%, which might be a tad lower than I'd like. Other figures suggest that we could use help in the 1910s, 1970s and 1980s. And that we ought to avoid the entire 19th Century the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1950s.

1B
T Helton: 115 CHEWS+, 13TH
B Taylor: 113 CHEWS+, 17TH

4) Todd Helton (despite having a lot of 1Bs, being 13th at a position is a very strong argument for a vote)


While the 2019 Hall of Merit Ballot shapes up to be Roy Halladay, Mariano Rivera, and Dick Redding as the 3 elected candidates, maybe 1 of these isn't elected, and who from the current ballot slides in?

Doc presents the pro argument, while DL shows the anti, without mixed in between.

Kiko, can you weigh-in for us, the base W-L Key Stat rank I see for Todd Helton is 114.5, not egregiously so, but below your HOF borderline, possibly worse than DL's #66 placement.

I appreciate Jaack's comment about RE24 potentially having issues with extreme environments, where do you base this on, anyone else have thoughts on this?
456.9 base runs to 635.1 RE24, 42.4 wins to 54.7, or +10.3 wins, offset partially by a clutch score of -2.4.

Some impressive work has been done at the Baseball-Fever to quantify the impact a home ballpark factors a player WAR, Helton is at -5.4, downloadable spreadsheet found in this post:
https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum/general-baseball/statistics-analysis-sabermetrics/83320-progressing-toward-better-stats-thread#post83320

Those who haven't weighed in, are we comfortable with Helton as a HOMer either this year or soon?
   188. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 04, 2018 at 06:32 PM (#5781961)
Sorry about the formatting, quoting from this thread from a number of resources, then throwing some additionally commentary in at the end.

Hope everyone is well, happy Sunday!
   189. Jaack Posted: November 04, 2018 at 08:37 PM (#5781997)
As I said before, Helton is, without a doubt, the most difficult player for me this election. I'm not opposed to his induction soon - he won't make my ballot this year, but he's not far from it and there are plenty of open spaces coming up in the next few years. I'd definitely like to work more with his defensive metrics - if I had stronger confidence that he really was saving 15-20 runs a year in his prime, he'd probably end up in mid-ballot territory.

With regards to his RE24, I think it's just inflated somewhat. For example, by RE24, his 2000 season ranks as the best non-Bonds season (5th overall) since 1974. Fangraphs’ linear weights model, on the other hand, ranks it 65th for the same time span. While it’s plausible that Helton was extraordinarily good with runners on base for most of his prime, I think it’s more likely that Helton was just perpetually coming up to bat with runners on base in the silly years at Coors Field. RE24 is, at it’s roots a highly improved version of RBI – it’s distributes credit a lot more fairly than RBI does and is less prone to players Joe Cartering their way to high totals, it is still susceptible to inflation if you always have runners in front of you like Helton did in the silliest years at Coors.
   190. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 04, 2018 at 10:40 PM (#5782018)
I'm not sure RE24 adjusts correctly for extreme run enivornments, which would explain Helton's very high scores (as well as Giambi's as well, who also sees a huge boost based on the metric).


I'm pretty sure that RE24 doesn't make any adjustments for run environments. It just measures a raw number of runs. Adjustments for run-scoring environment are virtually always made in the conversion from runs to wins (assuming you start with runs - my system just starts from wins).

In 2000, Baseball-Reference credits Helton with 94.9 RE24 which translates into 7.6 REW ("Base-Out Wins Added") - 12.5 runs per win. Even converting to wins, Helton's 7.6 REW did lead the league, though.

But if, for example, we look at Carl Yastrzemski, he also led his league in both RE24 and REW in both 1967 and 1968. In 1967, his 87.1 RE24 translate into 8.9 REW (9.8 runs per win). In 1968, his 58.3 RE24 translate to 6.2 REW (9.4 runs per win).
   191. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 04, 2018 at 11:17 PM (#5782028)
Kiko, can you weigh-in for us, the base W-L Key Stat rank I see for Todd Helton is 114.5, not egregiously so, but below your HOF borderline, possibly worse than DL's #66 placement.


Helton looks a bit worse in pWins (tied to team wins) than in eWins (context-neutral), mostly because he played for some lousy teams, which wasn't really his fault. If I recalculate my Key Stat looking only at eWins, Helton would jump to #24 among players for whom I've calculated Player won-lost records, which is, of course, still off-ballot.

When you put the air back into his stats, he just doesn't really stand out from a number of other players who were very good but aren't really great Hall-of-Merit candidates. Here, for example, are career comparisons, based purely on eWins, between Todd Helton and Carlos Delgado, Fred McGriff, and John Olerud. You can probably make a case for Helton over those three (in eWins; all three of them beat Helton more clearly in pWins), but then here's a comparison between Helton and Lance Berkman which doesn't even include Lance Berkman's postseason record, which is outstanding (.317/.417/.532 in 224 PA); Helton batted .211/.303/.281 in 66 postseason PA which also hurts him in my ranking.
   192. Jaack Posted: November 05, 2018 at 01:38 PM (#5782318)
I was under the impression that RE24 does adjust for run environment - in a 2000 Coors environment, more runs are expected so bad events are more costly. Compare this game from 2000, where the first out of the game was worth -0.33 runs, while in this game from 2014, where the first out was worth -0.28 runs.

That being said, there does seem to be a second adjustment in the runs to wins adjustment. I'll have to play around with the number to see how much of a difference it makes. Helton (and Giambi) look a bit more reasonible by REW than by RE24 - still better than by linear weights models, but not to an absurd degree.
   193. Jaack Posted: November 05, 2018 at 07:51 PM (#5782614)
After fully incorporating REW over RE24 for first basemen, the effect is mostly minimal. The only relevant players who swung significantly in either direction were Helton, Giambi, and McCovey. Helton landed right about where my haphazard adjustments had estimated him to be, so it doesn't exactly help him, it just makes me more confident in what he was. I'll have to decide between him and Robin Ventura for my last spot, unless there's someone who benefits greatly from the shift to REW.
   194. Bleed the Freak Posted: November 06, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5783179)
163. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 14, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5766266)

R Welmaker: 105


Is this with war credit for Welmaker/where would he rate after?

The MLEs at the Hall of Miller and Eric looks similar for Regino Garcia, who scored a 111, and Bill Cash, how does Cash rate for you?

Julian Castillo isn't listed above, but looks like he would come in at 90 or better, but still short of the 100 level.

Crude decade estimates, with players Doc has rated 102 or better as real candidates to consider:
1900s: Regino Garcia
1910s: Dick Redding, Ben Taylor, Hurley McNair,
1920s: Heavy Johnson
1940s: Bus Clarkson, Roy Welmaker, Silvio Garcia, Sammy Bankhead, Bill Byrd, Marvin Williams, Ray Dandridge, Wild Bill Wright
1950s: Don Newcombe

Holy cow on the depth of candidates from the 1940s...should this give us extra pause on remaining MLB guys from the same time era?
   195. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 07, 2018 at 09:00 AM (#5783531)
I do not include any war credit in MLEs ever.

Garcia is a little bit hard for me to get behind. Reason being he didn’t spend overmuch time stateside and early in his career didn’t play against US players very often. It’s not easy to peg QOP for early Cuban seasons. So I think there’s probably some air in his numbers. Also catcher defense, ack. Nothing really much in the lore to guide us there. The bat is great tho!
Page 2 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
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9908 seconds
41 querie(s) executed