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

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Minnie Minoso

Eligible in 1970.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 18, 2006 at 08:42 PM | 132 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 18, 2006 at 09:16 PM (#1827129)
Hey folks, here’s the story ’bout Minnie the Minoso!
   2. yest Posted: January 18, 2006 at 10:25 PM (#1827280)
if anyone has it can they please post Minoso pre major leauge stats
   3. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 18, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1827328)
i've got them, and i've got MLEs for them as well. Will post soonish.
   4. OCF Posted: January 18, 2006 at 10:58 PM (#1827370)
bb-ref has a 1922 date of birth. Wasn't his DOB actually 1924 or 1925? What is the best consensus on this?
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 18, 2006 at 11:32 PM (#1827449)
According to Minnie's latest biography, he says 1925.
   6. Brent Posted: January 19, 2006 at 05:30 AM (#1828034)
There was a discussion of Minoso's birth year in this btf thread from about 3 years ago. Unfortunately, the links to the articles that were being discussed are no longer functioning. It appears, however, that several posters were initially skeptical about the 1925 birth year, but then some additional evidence became available that persuaded them that it was probably correct. If any of you can provide more information, I'd be very appreciative.
   7. Chris Cobb Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:46 AM (#1828105)
FWIW, Baseball Prospectus accepts the 1925 date, 11/29/25 to be exact.
   8. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#1828331)
I have got to say that I understand how the BBWAA missed this guy, he will need his NeL and minor league time to count for him to make the HOM. However, one should think that the Veterans committee could have picked up on him instead of Mazeroski, to name one.
   9. Big Banjo Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#1828502)
Including Winter League, NeL, MLB and Minors, Minnie has at least 4190 career hits. That's a pretty exclusive club.
   10. Big Banjo Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#1828504)
Including Winter League, NeL, MLB and Minors, Minnie has at least 4190 career hits. That's a pretty exclusive club.
   11. Mike Webber Posted: January 19, 2006 at 11:19 PM (#1829159)
Minnie Minoso will be in Kansas City this summer for the SABR Negro Leagues convention, July 7-9. Non-SABR members are welcome to attend, if you want more info email me.
   12. sunnyday2 Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:25 AM (#1829287)
To me Minoso is high borderline just based on his ML career. Check out his consistent production throughout the '50s. The AL all-star OF of the '50s basically was Williams, Mantle and Minoso. Every now and again a guy like Jackie Jensen might do as well as Minnie. Sure he was no Mantle or Williams. He was more like whoever was #4 and #5 than like #1 and #2. Still in a time when 100 RBI meant something, he did it often without being a big bopper. An exceptionally valuable player, very comparable to a Joe Jackson or Jesse Burkett or Fred Clarke or Zack Wheat or Sherry Magee. Probably not quite as good as half of them and better than the other half, except it would be hair splitting to worry about which was which.
   13. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: January 20, 2006 at 09:57 PM (#1830693)
While the age situation changes things some, I think it's pretty clear based on his minor league performance that Minoso would have been happily producing at least in the Cleveland years on the ML level were he the proper skin tone for the time.

But I don't have them in front of me, so I suppose I should wait until Dr. C posts them up.
   14. Chris Cobb Posted: January 20, 2006 at 10:52 PM (#1830816)
Minoso's prime is very similar to Richie Ashburn's, as win shares sees it.

Minoso was a major-league regular for 11 years. In those years he earned 277 win shares.
Ashburn was a regular for 15 years, but his last four he was declining. In his first 11 years, he earned 275 win shares.

Here are their best 10 seasons, best to worst:

M A
32 29
29 28
29 28
26 28
26 26
25 26
25 26
24 23
21 22
21 21

Minoso's total 258, Ashburn's 257

Both were essentially done after age 35.

If Minso's age 21-24 seasons were as good as Ashburn's (I, like others, await Dr. C's numbers), he would have a better career than Ashburn and a longer prime. I am doubtful that he was quite as good at an early age as Ashburn was, since his value depended more on power, and power hitting tends to develop later in a players career (speed and defense players tend to have flatter development curves, like Ashburn), but we will see.

In any case, their major league primes were, as win shares sees it, highly similar.

WARP, fwiw, significantly prefers Ashburn on both fielding and league strength grounds.

Another player, btw, similar to both Ashburn and Minoso, is Alejandro Oms.
   15. EricC Posted: January 20, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#1830873)
Chris,

#14 neglects that the NL was substantially stronger than AL during the 50s, having 4 inner-circle types (Aaron, Mathews, Mays, and Musial) to only Mantle in the AL. Since WS (at least until recent years) is only based on in-league play, it underrates the NL players from this time such as Ashburn and overrates the ALers such as Minoso.
   16. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 20, 2006 at 11:55 PM (#1830897)
I would LOVE to post the Minoso stuff, but before I do...

could someone just let me know what the deal with the coding is for items that run over the width of the page? the pre tags with the <> signs don't work anymore, and the pre tags with the [] don't reduce the fonts enough to fit across the screen.

Thank you!!! I'll be eternally grateful for the answer.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: January 21, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#1830967)
4 inner circles vs. 1 in leagues with 64 regular position players--how much of a competitive difference is that?

More to the point, Minoso may have been deprived of a couple of ML seasons, which evens up the score quite a lot.
   18. Chris Cobb Posted: January 21, 2006 at 05:06 AM (#1831189)
Sunnyday2 wrote:

More to the point, Minoso may have been deprived of a couple of ML seasons, which evens up the score quite a lot.

True, but that doesn't affect the height of Minoso's peak, though it may affect the length of his prime. I am certainly in favor of giving Minoso appropriate credit for his MiL play.

My purpose was simply to note that by win shares, Minoso's and Ashburn's major-league primes are extremely similar. If Minoso's major-league prime throughout the 1950s shows him to be "an exceptionally valuable player," the win shares evidence presents Ashburn as similarly valuable.

Eric wrote:

Chris,

#14 neglects that the NL was substantially stronger than AL during the 50s,


Yes. I agree that the NL was almost certainly the stronger league at this time and that this consideration benefits Ashburn. My impression is that Ashburn has been subjected to an exceptional level of harsh criticism over the past couple of weeks, and that early comments on Minoso were much more favorable, so I simply wanted to establish that the more favorable view of Minoso offered by our two comprehensive metrics shows his prime to be extremely similar to Ashburn's. If Minoso looks good by this measure, then Ashburn must necessarily also look good by it.
   19. Brent Posted: January 21, 2006 at 04:32 PM (#1831398)
In # 6 I provided a link to a btf discussion of Minoso's year of birth, but I also mentioned that that thread's links to the original articles had gone dead. By going through the mlb.com archives, I was able to find all of the original articles except one, for which the mlb.com archive's own link is not functioning. At any rate, a nice series of articles on Minnie Minoso was written as part of the lead-in to the 2003 Veterans Committee election. I especially recommend # 3, on Minoso's youth in Cuba, and # 6 on breaking into the major leagues. (Unfortunately, the one link that was broken, # 5, looks like it may have been the most interesting article, covering Minoso's Negro League seasons.)

1. [url="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20021212&c>Minoso earns a nomination</a>
2. <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030108&c]Minoso humble, hoping for Hall call[/url]
3. [url="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030124&c>Minoso made his dream come true</a>
4. <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030124&c]The case for Minnie Minoso[/url]
5. Minoso thrived in Negro Leagues
6. [url="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030201&c>Minoso saw future in MLB</a>
7. <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030207&c]Minoso went with gut in '57 classic[/url]
8. <a href="http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030226&c>Minoso falls short in HOF voting</a>
   20. EricC Posted: January 21, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#1831529)
4 inner circles vs. 1 in leagues with 64 regular position players--how much of a competitive difference is that?

Actually, I unintentionally left Ted Williams off the list, so make it 4 to 2. Which isn't enough in itself to prove league superiority one way or the other because it says nothing about the other 60+ players, though I do stand by the conclusion of NL superiority during the 50s.

Another take on the issue is to ask which player had the better peak: Mantle of Mays? If you look at the players' performance relative to their own leagues, you would have to conclude that Mantle had the superior peak. But if you believe that the NL was stronger, you could argue that Mays actually had a better peak. Doesn't that at least seem plausible?
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: January 21, 2006 at 07:59 PM (#1831558)
Mantle had a better peak and if they switched leagues Mantle would have the better peak. Mays would not suddenly learn to take a BB in the AL, nor Mantle stop doing so.

Neither of them batted against Ted or Stan or Henry or Banks or F. Robby or one another. Mays and Mantle's OPS+ might slide a couple points against a different hitting pool, but their raw numbers just scream out that Mantle was a more valuable offensive player. (Of course, you've then got defense... but WS has Mantle's peak a good 10 WS higher, that's a ton and it includes defense. Whether you agree with the defensive evaluation is another story.)

What I'd like to know, though, is if the NL had better pitchers, where the integration story is not so clear cut. I mean, I see Newcombe on one side and nobody on the other, which leaves the quality of the two leagues up to about 159 white guys (I exaggerate, but you get the point).

Course, this is a Minoso thread. The question is if Minoso was the #3 AL OF of the decade (behind Mantle and Teddy), what does that mean. That he is as good as the #3 NL OF? No, he's not. Mays, Aaron, Snider and F. Robby were all better, and probably Kiner. Maybe Ashburn was #6, I don't know (I'm going off the top). If we elect Whitey, to me it puts Minnie in a good light.
   22. Chris Cobb Posted: January 21, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#1831684)
Re Ashburn and Minoso:

I'd elect them both eventually, though neither is at the top of the backlog. How they rank relative to each other in my system will depend on Minoso's minor-league numbers. Without them, he's just on the good side of the in-out line.
   23. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 21, 2006 at 11:54 PM (#1831825)
but I also mentioned that that thread's links to the original articles had gone dead.

If you locate them in the HoM archives, they'll activate when you click on to them.
   24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 21, 2006 at 11:56 PM (#1831829)
The question is if Minoso was the #3 AL OF of the decade (behind Mantle and Teddy), what does that mean.

Ossee Schrekengost was the best AL catcher of the 1900's. 'Nuff said. :-)
   25. Paul Wendt Posted: January 22, 2006 at 05:36 PM (#1832531)
But if you believe that the NL was stronger, you could argue that Mays actually had a better peak. Doesn't that at least seem plausible?

FWIW, I think not. It is implausible that the interleague difference was so great.

--
EricC
#14 neglects that the NL was substantially stronger than AL during the 50s,

Chris Cobb
Yes. I agree that the NL was almost certainly the stronger league at this time and that this consideration benefits Ashburn.

The shift from "substantially" to "almost certainly" seems to be one from high baseball significance to high statistical significance of the difference between leagues.

Fifty or 60 years ago, someone said truly that the magnitude of the difference between leagues in the 1950s would be a crucial issue today.
   26. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 22, 2006 at 08:11 PM (#1832701)
FWIW, I think not. It is implausible that the interleague difference was so great.

I agree, Paul. The AL was weaker, but it wasn't a minor league, either.
   27. jingoist Posted: January 23, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#1834327)
I'd suggest that perhaps Kaline should be included for comparison purposes, granted that he isn't an inner circle guy but was certainly a strong player during many of Minoso's best years.

I'd rank the AL outfielders during the 1950's as:
#1: Williams; #2 Mantle; #3 Minoso and #4 Kaline.
I'd rank the NL OF's:
#1 Mays; #2 Aaron; #3 Snider and #4 Frank Robby.
I'd have Musial as my #1 1B-man as he played fractionaly more games at 1B in the 50's than he did in the OF.

That said; given Minnie's Nel and MiL records I cant see the electorate not electing him to the HoM.
   28. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 23, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#1834402)
Minnie Minoso's pre-MLB stats

NEGRO LEAGUES              
YEAR LG  TM  AGE PO TMG  G  AB   H  TB 2B 3B HR SB BB K AVG  SLG
1945 NNL NYC 23  3B 17           
1946 NNL NYC 24  3B 44  33 123  32  54  7  3  3  1     .260 .439
1947 NNL NYC 25  3B 58  55 228  67  90 14  0  3  7     .294 .395
1948 NNL NYC 26  3B              
                 
CENTRAL LEAGUE              
YEAR LG  TM  AGE PO    TMG  G  AB   H  TB 2B 3B HR SB BB K AVG  SLG
1948 CL  DAY 26  3B
/2B     11  40  21  33  7  1  1  6     .525 .825
                 
PACIFIC COAST LEAGUE             
YEAR LG  TM  AGE PO       TMG   G  AB   H  TB 2B 3B HR SB BB K   AVG  SLG
1949 PCL SD  27  OF       188 137 532 158 257 19  7 22 13 51 59 .297 .483
1950 PCL SD  28  3B
/OF/SS 200 169 599 203 323 40 10 20 30 58 66 .339 .539
                 
CUBAN WINTER LEAGUE             
YEAR LG  TM  AGE PO TMG G  AB  H  TB 2B 3B HR SB BB K  AVG  SLG
1945 CWL MAR 23  OF 60 37 143 42  53  7  2  0  5      .294 .371
1946 CWL MAR 24  OF 66 64 253 63  82  9  5  0  7      .249 .324
1947 CWL MAR 25  OF 72 70 270 77 121 15 13  1  7      .285 .448
1948 CWL MAR 26  OF 72 69 260 69  99  8  5  4  9      .265 .381
1950 CWL MAR 28  OF 72 66 252 81 117 12  6  4 10      .321 .464 


Sorry if these have come out messy, don't have a better way to do them.
   29. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 23, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#1834407)
ack! WTF!
   30. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 23, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#1834410)
I just realize that the numbers I just posted aren't by the 1925 birthdate, they are by 1923. The MLEs, coming shortly, will be by the 1925 date.
   31. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 23, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#1834423)
I hope these don't come out scrambled again. Birthday is 1925, and the fielding has been assumed to be 2.71 WS/1000 INN.

YEAR LG AGE POS AVG  OBP  SLG   G   PA   AB   H   TB  BB
--------------------------------------------------------
1945 NL 20  OF .286 .362 .384  95  404  361 103  139  43
1946 NL 21  OF .244 .314 .345 132  554  503 123  173  51
1947 NL 22  OF .257 .329 .336 148  621  561 144  188  60
1948 NL 23  OF .272 .345 .402  80  337  303  82  122  34
1949 NL 24  OF .269 .326 .420 112  463  426 115  179  36
1950 NL 25  OF .307 .385 .439 136  581  515 158  226  66
========================================================
               
.272 .343 .385 703 2960 2670 726 1028 290 


Here's the OPS+ and WS

YEAR LG AGE POS AVG  OBP  SLG opssfws
---------------------------------------
1945 NL 20  OF .286 .362 .384 108  11.8
1946 NL 21  OF .244 .314 .345  87  10.6
1947 NL 22  OF .257 .329 .336  77  12.5
1948 NL 23  OF .272 .345 .402 102   9.7
1949 NL 24  OF .269 .326 .420  99  13.4
1950 NL 25  OF .307 .385 .439 116  22.2
========================================
               
.272 .343 .385  97  80.2 


The long and short of its is that he's a roughly league average player in the period, but his 1950 season does appear to be the get-noticed year before making the jump.
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 23, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#1834429)
The long and short of its is that he's a roughly league average player in the period, but his 1950 season does appear to be the get-noticed year before making the jump.

Which seasons do you think we should combine with his ML career, Eric?
   33. Chris Cobb Posted: January 23, 2006 at 09:10 PM (#1834588)
Dr. Chaleeko,

Thanks for the numbers!

Could you explain how you have estimated Minoso's playing time in these projections?
   34. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 23, 2006 at 11:36 PM (#1834885)
I have to say that I am much less impressed than I thought I would be by Minoso's numbers. He seems to have been a bit of a late bloomer and it is arguable that he got his chance at the right time if you figure that you need one good year before getting noticed. On the other hand a number of average years should be enough to get you noticed. Still, 1950 is the only season that will really help him in my system. He has gone from a guy I figured would be a HOMer to a guy who is about as borderline as it gets.

Good work Doc!
   35. EricC Posted: January 24, 2006 at 01:10 AM (#1835033)
FWIW, I think not. It is implausible that the interleague difference was so great.

That's what I get for shooting off from my head without checking the numbers first. :-) So, yes, Marc, Paul, John (and Ringo), Mantle's best seasons were off-the -chart, while Mays only pushed the edge of the chart. I hope this helps me recover some "knows what he's talking about" karma points.

On the subject of Minoso, I'm the wrong Eric, but I compared Minoso with similar players, and concluded that, with the typical age development pattern (assuming a late 1925 birthdate), he most likely would have played his first season as a regular in 1948, though 1947 is possible.
   36. Chris Cobb Posted: January 24, 2006 at 07:00 AM (#1835526)
The long and short of its is that he's a roughly league average player in the period, but his 1950 season does appear to be the get-noticed year before making the jump.

The reason why I asked about playing time above is that the main reason that Minoso's 1948 and 1949 seasons don't catch the eye is because Minoso is projected for only 80 and 116 games, respectively. The rate at which he is earning win shares shows him to have been about a major-league average player in both of these seasons. This is consistent with EricC's projection based on typical age-development patterns.

Minoso is thus not a late-bloomer, but fairly typical for a power-hitting outfielder: an effective regular when he has basically line-drive power in his early twenties who becomes an all-star when his power really develops in his later 20s.

I'll wait to hear more about the reasons for the Good Doctor's playing time projections for 1948 and 1949, but I'm inclined for now to give Minoso "cup of coffee credit" for 1948, the year in which he raised his quality of play to major-league average, and full credit for 1949 and 1950.
   37. sunnyday2 Posted: January 24, 2006 at 01:05 PM (#1835613)
Who knew, lo these many years ago, that it would be harder (or perhaps I should say more controversial) to guesstimate playing time than a NeLers' probable caliber of play.

Similarly who knew that MLE for MiL play would help a guy like Earl Averill get elected, and would be the heart of the case for Gavy Cravath.

There are other examples where the hypothetical date at which a player would have or should have become a MLer is a decisive decision. And extremely hypothetical.

I wonder if the counter-case shouldn't be considered--i.e. the guy who is in the MLs but is not a MLer. They who shouldn't be in the MLs but is because of inefficient markets. When we give Averill and Cravath and all those NeLers MLE seasons, should we take some away from somebody. You know, just to keep the earth from flying off its axis?

But seriously. Should Early Wynn, just e.g., have been in the MLs all those years in DC when all he threw was a fastball and a knuckler? Why not dock him some WS?

All of which brings me back to a decision I made 72 years ago, though it is not the reason I did it. That is, vote for a guy's peak/prime. The heck with all those other seasons. And, voila!, all the hypotheticals that pertain to those shoulder seasons go away.

IOW, if you have two guys who are essentially equal for their peak and prime, do you really want to elect a guy because he had a couple extra below-average ML seasons? I know I don't.
   38. karlmagnus Posted: January 24, 2006 at 02:24 PM (#1835642)
Add in 1949 and 1950 only, and he's good but clearly below Klein.
   39. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: January 24, 2006 at 04:37 PM (#1835754)
Basically my PT estimates are based on G and team G.

In 1949 and 1950, Minoso played in 137 and 169 games in the PCL. His teams were slated for 188 and 200.

1948 is a little harder to figure and so the electorate may wish to do their own adjusting. Minoso is listed as being on the roster of the New York Cubans, but I have no data to the effect. He played in the Central League for Dayton and tore it to shreds...but it's an 11 game sample out of a 144 game schedule. He also played in Cuba, 69 out of 72 games.
   40. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 24, 2006 at 04:45 PM (#1835768)
When I mentioned that Minoso was a bit of a late bloomer I meant in comparison to other HOMers, a good portion of which were stars in their early 20's. That doesn't seem to be the case with Minoso
   41. Jim Sp Posted: February 07, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#1853591)
bump
   42. TomH Posted: February 07, 2006 at 08:54 PM (#1853711)
ahhh...I see now I shoulda oughta have been reading Minnie's thread. Three years age diff does indeed make a difference for projected career value.
   43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 08, 2006 at 01:24 AM (#1854092)
I'll wait to hear more about the reasons for the Good Doctor's playing time projections for 1948 and 1949, but I'm inclined for now to give Minoso "cup of coffee credit" for 1948, the year in which he raised his quality of play to major-league average, and full credit for 1949 and 1950.

That's what I plan on doing.
   44. jimd Posted: February 08, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#1854217)
Catching up on my reading now that he's relevant...

Fifty or 60 years ago, someone said truly that the magnitude of the difference between leagues in the 1950s would be a crucial issue today.

IIRC, BP's finding was that the magnitude of the gap in the late 50's/early 60's was comparable to the magnitude of the gap in the late 10's/early 20's (leagues reversed). This will make no more difference to Mantle than it did to Hornsby. OTOH, Ashburn/Minoso may be like Lyons/Rixey. It can make a difference on the margin.

However, in the early 50's, there is an unusual dichotomy, where the NL appears to be building its edge in position players (great young talent pouring in), while the AL possesses a definite edge in quality starting pitching (what a rotation in Cleveland). Which league is stronger at that time is not so apparent, but when those pitchers fade, the NL appears to take the definitive lead for at least the next decade.
   45. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 03:37 PM (#1854522)
1. Clearly the Bill James rating is heavily laced with timeline and ########. I mean, Billy Williams has 91 more career WS, 6 more WS for top 3 yers and 9 more WS for top 5 years. Yet Minoso is #10 and Williams #11. Minoso's WS/162 games is 0.63 better. Of course in this particular case the timeline is not a factor but what, then, is? ########.

Ditto Ed Delahanty who is #12 despite ranking far ahead of Minoso on every numerical rating. Ditto Joe Medwick at #13, Jesse Burkett at #14, Goose Goslin at #16., etc. etc.

Now this is not to say that James is necessarily wrong. ######## is just his word for intangibles and etc. etc. and who is to say intangibles shouldn't be part of it. But what exactly is the content of the ######## dump in this case? It would have to be the notion that he was deprived on several seasons in which we woulda/coulda been a solid MLer. The data that we have (and James didn't?) now suggests that he wasn't as clearly ready for prime time as has generally been thought.

2. However.

If anybody has the old Neft & Cohen Encyclopedia of Baseball or other resource that is similarly organized--meaning, year by year with complete stats for each team all on one page--I would urge you to look through it at Minoso's career. Just picking a year at random, and you'll have to trust me that this is absolutely typical of what you will see every year for 8-9 years:

1960: Minoso is 37, White Sox are defending AL champs but fall to 3rd, 10 GB. Their run production actually increases by half a run per game but ERA goes from 3.29 to 3.60. Pretty much the same 5 man rotation (i.e. same distribution of starts, 2 of the 5 are new guys). Mainly Bob Shaw goes from 2.69 to 4.06. Wynn is up .33, Pierce stays steady at about 3.60, Frank Baumann improves on Dick Donovan at the #4 spot, and Herb Score basically replaces Barry Latman at parity. Gerry Staley stays solid in the bullpen but Turk Lown slumps and nobody steps in to replace him.

The real problem, though, is the Yankees who score 5 more runs than the Sox and fashion a 3.62 ERA versus the Sox' 3.60, yet the Yankees beat the Sox by 10 games. Clearly the Sox are not good enough to win, but neither really are the Yankees. Still somebody has to.

Meanwhile, Minoso is brought back from Cleveland. If he had been in Cleveland in '54 and Chicago in '59, instead of vice versa, he's probably be in the HoF today. Basically he replaces a platoon of Jim McAnany and Jim Rivera who combined for 46 RBI in '59.

Minoso Chi 1959 20-105-.311, 89 R, 184 H (leads league), 17 SB, 52 BB (not a lot bu 236 H + BB is 4th in the league behind Mantle, Yost and Runnels).

The AL all-star OF is surely:

Mantle 153 G, 119 R (leads league), 40 (leads league)-94-.275
Maris 136 G, 39-112-.283, .581 SA leads league
And Minnie Minoso, age 37

Next best? Next in RBI is Jim Lemon 38-100-.269, .508 SA, 81 R
Next in R is Jim Landis, Chicago, 89, 10-49-.253, 80 BB
Next in R+RBI is Tito Francona 84 R + 79 RBI, 17-79-.292

I guess my point is this. Minoso's numbers in 1960 are not what you'd call eye-popping. 20-105-.311. But nobody else was any better.

And if you go back through the decade of the 1950s, that's the way it is, year after year after year. Take 1954, the year he had the misfortune not to be in Cleveland. 19-116-.320, 119 R. Mantle is the only other player with 100 R and 100 RBI and even he only hit 27 HR and .300. The all-stars would be Mantle, Doby and either Minoso or T. Williams (Williams was hurt and played 117 games, very very productive games, but still only 117).

1959 when he had the misfortune not to be in Chicago. 21-92-.302, 92 R. Only Jackie Jensen and Harmon Killebrew had both more R and more RBI, and nobody else had more R + RBI. The (post-season) all-star OF? I'd pick Mantle, Jensen and Minoso.

So what is it about the '50s AL, that Minoso was always among the most productive OFers without ever putting up really eye-popping numbers. It has been suggested here that while the NL was better overall (was it?), the AL had better pitching. And Minoso had to hit against the world champs pretty much every single year. Now granted he didn't have to hit against the Indians and White Sox every year, but just one or the other.

Bottom line. Minnie Minoso was one of the top 3 OF in the AL virtually every year from 1951 to 1960. How many players can make a similar claim?
   46. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 04:43 PM (#1854616)
To follow up with one more thought.

It looks to me like Minoso is essentially Goose Goslin, for consistent performance at or near an all-star level without ever having that monster year.

10. Minoso 283/32-29-29/133/24.98
16. Goslin 355/33-31-29/147/25.14

The obvious difference being 72 career WS. Whatever age Minoso was in 1951, he was an all-star caliber player, with something to spare, in his rookie year. So at least a bit of that difference is bridged because Minoso was black. How much of it is bridged is a matter of taste.

OPS+ in >100G seasons

Goslin 176-55-47-45-42-40-36-27-17-17-15-12-12-11-2/128 in 9600 PAs
Minoso 154-52-49-41-36-36-32-32-21-15-14-(79)/130 in 7400 PAs

Goslin .316/.387/.500/128
Minoso .298/.389/.459/130

Some Black Ink

Goslin 3b (2), RBI (1), BA (1)
Minoso G (1), H (1), 2B (1), 3B (3), HP (10), SA (1), SB (3)

Minoso BB + HB >100 twice, >90 twice additional. His OBA in approx. #100 all-time.

Fielding: Goslin C+, Minoso B-

Obviously Goslin has the significantly longer ML career, coming up at age 20, platooning (?-101 G) at age 21, then full-time age 22-35, then rapid decline age 36-37, pretty typical for the time.

Minoso cuppacoffee age 23, nothing age 24, full-time age 25-35, rapid decline age 36-38 but 109G age 37. Not typical of his time--i.e. he actually declined a little early if 1925 is the right birth date. If correct, this certainly does not suggest an inner circle guy. Still the big question is what to do with the front end of his career.

Given his rookie line, again, regardless of his age (but, age 25?):

1951 .326/.422/.500/152, led league in 2B and HP and SB, scored 112 R, his 2nd best OPS+

Goslin, age 25, his 4th FT season: .354/.425/.542/155, no black ink, his 2nd best OPS+

LWTS or TPR or whatever you want to call it, sees it that way too (e.g. comparable). Goslin's total is 23.1 with a peak of 4.9 and 4.4 and a couple 3s and a 3 2s (7 years >2.0). Minoso is at 21.0 with a 4.1 and 3.0 with 6 2s (8 years at >2.0). Zero out the negative years and you get Minoso 23.6 and Goslin 26.4. AdjTPR/162 games = Goslin 1.87 Minoso 2.09.

In MVP voting Goslin was 9th in 1926, 6th in 1927, 6th in 1928, (no vote in 1929 and '30, but he had an off year in 1929 as well as first 1/3 of 1930 resulting in trade to St. Louis Browns). Never again top 10.

Minoso 4th in rookie year of 1951, 4th in 1953, 4th in 1954, 8th in 1957, 4th in 1960.

I could easily argue that Minoso was a more valuable player for his peak/prime than Goslin was, with the possible exception of one season when Goslin did the 176 OPS+. Years 2-11 are you pick 'em. Relative to his peers, as measured by black ink and just eye-balling year-by-year records, Minoso's standing (MVP, all-star) and impact was pretty much the same if not a tad better.
   47. andrew siegel Posted: February 08, 2006 at 04:58 PM (#1854627)
I very much agree with the Goose Goslin comparison for Minoso but still have him between 15th and 25th for 2 reasons:

(1) Once Mediwck and Johnson joined the ballot, many of us concluded that we gave Goslin something of an inappropriate free pass.

(2) To the extent that Goslin deserved his rapid induction, the difference between him and Medwick/Johnson was the length of his career/ total of his WS. If Minoso had been 28 when he came up, he would have that argument. Given the fact that he was 25, the most credit I can see giving him is around 40 Ws, which puts him closer to Medwick than to Goslin in career length.
   48. DavidFoss Posted: February 08, 2006 at 05:19 PM (#1854653)
Bottom line. Minnie Minoso was one of the top 3 OF in the AL virtually every year from 1951 to 1960. How many players can make a similar claim?

In 1952 its Mantle, Doby and Wertz. If you don't like Wertz's durability there's a decent gap, but then I'd have to go with Hank Bauer.
In 1953 Woodling, Mantle, Zernial and Doby sport higher OPS+'s. Do durability issues lower Woodling & Mantle below Minoso? Its arguable.
In 1955 its Mantle, Kaline and take your pick of Sievers, ASmith & Doby
In 1957 its certainly Mantle, Williams & Sievers
In 1958 its certainly Mantle, Williams & Colavito with Jensen & Sievers arguably ahead as well.
In 1959, Al Kaline bumps Minoso off the list.
In 1960 its Mantle & Maris and Sievers makes a strong claim, but if you think he missed too much time, then its another tough call between JLemon and Minoso.

My point is not that Minoso was not a solid and consistent player, he was. I just think its far too strong to claim that he was top-3 OF in the AL for ten years running... (or even virtually ten years running as I reread it now).
   49. jingoist Posted: February 08, 2006 at 06:44 PM (#1854768)
David;
Looking at each year, individually, as you just have, I don't disagree with your year-by-year conclusions.

However, SunnyDay2 is looking at the entire decade and I think his conslusions are solid.

2 weeks ago I posted the following:

I'd rank the AL outfielders during the 1950's as:
#1: Williams; #2 Mantle; #3 Minoso and #4 Kaline.

I think looking at the entire 10 years these are the 4 players who "owned" the AL oufield in the 50's (you can argue with the ranking but these are the 4 dominant players).

Minnie and the Duke are the 2 best OF candidates in the 1970 election.
   50. DavidFoss Posted: February 08, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#1854810)
Fair enough, I was just scaling back his claim from 'top N each year' to 'top N over a ten year period'. I'm not sure why I jumped on this particular overstep -- probably his use of R & RBI instead of less line-up dependent numbers led me to double-check.

Also, I would add Doby to the list. His ten-year peak is shifts a couple of years, but still plenty of overlap. I can't rank Minoso ahead of Doby.
   51. DavidFoss Posted: February 08, 2006 at 07:26 PM (#1854817)
On a more offbeat note. I just noticed that Minoso led the league in HBP in 10 of the 11 seasons seasons that he was a regular. I understand that this is incorporated into his OBP and no extra adjustments are needed. Still, 'skills' like this are always fun to make a note of.
   52. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#1854828)
David (in #48) did forget to credit Minoso:

1951: an obvious top 3 (maybe top 1). He was #4 in MVP voting behind Berra, Garver and Reynolds. The next OF T. Williams at #13 (obviously shoulda been higher).

1952 MVP: Minoso zero votes, won't argue that one

1953: Minoso #4, David's other picks Zernial #18, Mantle #22, Woodling #23, Doby zero

1954: David this season from his list. Minoso #4, Ted #7, Jensen #14, Mantle #15, Noren #16, etc. etc.

1955: Minoso zero.

1956: Minoso zero, but 21-88-.316 with 106 R and .525 SA. David didn't challenge this one.

1957: Minoso 8th, Mantle, Williams and Sievers #1-2-3

1958: Minoso some votes, Jensen, Colavito, Cerv, Mantle, Sievers, Williams all in top 10. Still Minoso is 24-80-.302, 94 R.

1959: Minoso 13th, 21-92-.302, 92 R.

1960: Minoso 4th, Maris and Mantle are of course 1-2, Sievers #7, Lemon #10. Speaking as a Twins fan, Bob Lemon was not/never an all-star. Minoso 20-105-.311, 89 R, 236 H + BB, 56 XBH. Lemon 38-100-.269, 10 2B, 1 3B, 209 H + BB. Minoso 288 TB, Lemon 268.

David, your list is not unfair or anything. I just see it differently.

And certainly if you could have an AL OF for the decade 1951-1961, my #1 draft pick would be Mantle even though he didn't play the whole decade, then Ted Williams despite decline by latter part of decade. Minoso is an obvious #3 as his competition is all having the odd year here and there. Being #3 to Mantle and Williams is not a bad thing, nor is being #4-5-6 every 2nd or 3rd year. Again, Goslin could not stand up to this scrutiny any better than Minoso.
   53. DavidFoss Posted: February 08, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#1854928)
David (in #48) did forget to credit Minoso

Yes, I left off 1951, 1954 & 1956 off the list where Minoso is certainly one of the top three outfielders. I didn't mean that as a spin. I just meant there was no challenge there.

As far as MVP voting goes, I don't know what the quirks of the BBWAA have to do with the HOM. I thought we were trying to improve on their choices? Doby shut out in 1953? Why? Because Rosen was the easy unaminous pick from CLE? Rosen played 3B. So what does the MVP voting have to do with ranking of AL OF-ers? Also, why the sudden regression to using triple-crown stats and runs?

I'm a Twins fan, too. Why knock *Jim* Lemon because his career went south when his team moved north? :-) He *was* an all-star in 1960 (backing up Minoso :-) ). He edges Minoso in OPS+ by a point, but I suppose Minoso should get an edge due to being OBP heavy (and I need to remove Sievers from the list because he had switched to 1B by then). So, you can have 1960, I suppose. :-)

And certainly if you could have an AL OF for the decade 1951-1961

Multiple endpoints. Minoso's got nothing (at least in MLB) outside of these 11 seasons. Shift a couple years earlier and Doby beats Minoso (if he doesn't already). Shift a couple of years later and Kaline beats him (if he doesn't already). This is supposed to be the weaker league. Not to say these players need discounts, but we may not go as deep with the 1950s AL.

Goslin could not stand up to this scrutiny any better than Minoso.

But no one said Goslin was top 3 AL OF-ers virtually every year. :-)

Goslin is not a litmus test. He was second tier guy who was voted in after shortly after a series of backlog elections and before the rush of NeL guys became eligible. We'll see in the near future can't be inducting every 128 OPS+ / 9800 PA guy that played in a 'bat' position. Same goes for Zack Wheat who was inducted under similar circumstances.
   54. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 08, 2006 at 08:44 PM (#1854942)
Just kind of a note. As everyone knows I used 162gWS. When I blow Minoso out to 162, it comes out to like 296 WS. Then I tack on the MLE WS for 1949 and 1950, and I'm up to 331 WS. But that doesn't help his peak at all. In fact, all it does is move him past Lou Brock into about 25th place among LFs. That might be okay for the museum in upstate NY, but I don't see him as a HOMer at this point.
   55. sunnyday2 Posted: February 08, 2006 at 09:08 PM (#1854985)
I don't even know where Minoso is going to be on my ballot. I was one of the guys who said that Goose Goslin wasn't living up to his rep, and I agree Doby was better. I wasn't trying to hype Minoso, I was just trying to be fair to Minoso who seemed on the verge--still does--of getting the back of the hand. That would be underhyping a pretty good player.

Yeah, Lou Brock may be another comp and that would be faint praise indeed. I would just say that the top 3 OF from any league for any decade are worth a look.
   56. jimd Posted: February 08, 2006 at 10:32 PM (#1855121)
Numbers from the "Win Shares by Decade--1950s" chart in the WS book.

AL OF
317 Mantle
234 Minoso
226 Doby
212 Williams (would move up with Korean War credit)
(173 Jensen)

NL OF
(285 Musial; about 50/50, slightly more games at 1b)
278 Snider
249 Ashburn
237 Mays (despite the late start, no MS credit)
(177 Aaron)
   57. jingoist Posted: February 08, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#1855227)
David;
That HBP stat is interesting.
I remember reading somewhere in one of Bill James books he was raving about Biggio being one of the " all-time best ever players" because he did the "little things", like leading the league (now all-time leader) in HBP and also hitting into the fewest (or relatively very few) DPs as a batter. Seemed to me James was ready to canonize Biggio.
With those thoughts in mind perhaps that's one reason BJ elevates Minnie to #10 on his all-time LF list.

If the electorate is voting on the very best players from each era then Minnie Minoso, as the #3 best AL OF for the decade of the 1950's has to be considered strongly. He's at least the #6 or #7 best OF in all ML baseball for the decade.

If Kiner had just played a few more years......
   58. Trevor P. Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:04 AM (#1855248)
I personally think that saying "Player X" was one of the top outfielders/shortstops/whathaveyou of a particular decade is somewhat misleading. Minoso ranks well on this "measure" because the vast majority of his career falls within the years 1951-1960.

Bob Johnson, whom I've compared Minoso to on the ballot thread, can make no similar "best of the decade" claim because his career is split between the 1930s and 1940s.
   59. Trevor P. Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#1855249)
Whoops, DavidFoss already covered that. I bow to both his wisdom and his promptness. :)
   60. jingoist Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:19 AM (#1855261)
Trevor P;
I think Klein and Johnson both seem to get short straws from numerous voters.
Roush and GVH and Duffy and maybe Ryan too. Don't forget Kiner.
But you cant elect everybody can you.
   61. DavidFoss Posted: February 09, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#1855276)
Seemed to me James was ready to canonize Biggio.
With those thoughts in mind perhaps that's one reason BJ elevates Minnie to #10 on his all-time LF list.


I'm all for accounting for the unaccounted (like SB/SB%, perhaps GIDP, etc) but HBP in incorporated into OBP already. Plus bb-ref now has 'Times on Base' which is a more comprehensive version of the back-of-the-envelope H+BB number. So getting a lot of HBP turns into a quirky-fun number for me rather than a useful correction I need to watch out for.

As for Biggio, I think James saw him as being grossly underrated and underappreciated and then went into sell mode as he sometimes does. Unfortunately, Biggio went into decline-mode shortly after the book came out which made his oversell look a bit silly. That said, what Biggio has done in recent years has padded his career numbers to the point where he's generally considered to be a future HOF-er by the mainstream media which agrees with the main point that James was trying to convey anyways.

As for Minoso, James wrote about him in his HOF book and the key point on him there was his late debut and that he was seemingly due several years of extra credit. With the adjusted birthdate, he might adjust his ranking.

I don't mean to sound like an EOMM, I'm just apparently in the mood to be distracted at work today. He's a fine player and a tough case with the birthday discrepancy and the failed try-outs in Cleveland. I'm not exactly sure where I'm going to rank him yet, and I'm hoping the discussion here will help me out.
   62. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: February 10, 2006 at 04:37 AM (#1857136)
How exactly did James 'oversell' Biggio?

He's clearly one of the top 10 MLB 2B. He was probably better than Alomar. There's a reasonable case he was the best player in baseball in the mid-90s, aside from maybe Bonds, or whichever slugger was on fire that particular year.

At worst is was a very slight oversell. Biggio was one helluva player in his prime.
   63. sunnyday2 Posted: February 10, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#1857306)
Re. my comments about Minoso and the decade of the '50s, in this case Minoso's career happens to coincide with that time, so it was some what natural to describe him in those terms.

Clearly his peers among the best OF of the '50s generally had longer careers and lot of value outside the '50s--Williams in the '40s, Mantle and Kaline in the '50s. He's not in that tier.

But there actually are a bunch of guys from Bauer to Wertz to Woodling to Sievers who kind of overlap. I guess what I was trying to show is that he is very clearly at the top of tier 2. In fact, in the AL he IS tier 2.
   64. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 10, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1857328)
Is the "top of tier 2" argument sort of like the argument that Sewell was the best SS in the AL of his time? In other words, aren't we back to the question of being better than a weak field?

We've answered that question differently for different players. For instance Hack and Groh are in; Sewell and Beckley are out.
   65. sunnyday2 Posted: February 10, 2006 at 03:07 PM (#1857344)
Don't disagree. I still haven't had time to slot Minnie into my ballot. Not clear where he will be. Like I said, I just thought he at least ought to be given some discussion.

Not to say that "faint praise" is all that is deserved either. I still think that being at the top of tier 2--as was Goose Goslin at the same position, and how about Elmer Flick or Joe Kelley or...--is a good thing.
   66. OCF Posted: February 12, 2006 at 07:19 PM (#1859354)
Let's look at four corner outfielders without terribly long careers: Minoso, Kiner, Keller, and Johnson.

Major league games played, career, is an issue for all of them: Kiner 1472, Keller 1170, Johnson 1863, Minoso 1835. Minoso lasted into the days of 162-game seasons, but it hardly makes any difference in his case.

Some extra features: Kiner has the advantage on all the others for in-season durability. In his years, he played all the time. Keller lost some playing time to WWII. Johnson's major league career got off to a belated start in an age of strong minors and inefficient player movement. In Johnson's case, we also have to deduct some for the weakness of WWII leagues, especially in 1944. Minoso's major league career was probably delayed by racism, but he might not have been all that good before then anyway. Minoso was probably the best fielder of these four, Kiner likely the worst.

Here are my modified RCAA numbers, season by season, sorted best to worst, for these four. Two notes: a war-strength deduction has been taken for Johnson but there are no other league-strength adjustments. Four years have been omitted from the end of Minoso's line, three of them small sample but also his below-average 1963 season.

Kiner    81 76 70 42 41 28 24 20 10  7
Keller   75 68 65 54 48 47 22 20  7  6  3  1  0
Johnson  59 48 35 35 34 32 29 27 22 21 20 17 16
Minoso   59 57 50 44 42 41 39 36 23 21 21  1  0 
   67. OCF Posted: February 12, 2006 at 08:46 PM (#1859398)
I didn't put Snider into post #66 for two reasons. First: he's a center fielder. Second: he's a little better, anyway. His top 5 years on that scale are 72-70-69-55-48, and he's got plenty of career that Kiner and Keller don't have.
   68. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2006 at 11:37 PM (#1859449)
Looks to me that peak guys such as myself should like Kiner and Keller out of that group. I have Keller above Kiner because he was a better fielder and gets war credit (are you giving him war credit in that chart OCF?). But I can see it the other way as well. I think they will be #'s 5 and 9 in 1970 for me.

Minoso and Johnson will appeal more to career/prime guys.
   69. OCF Posted: February 13, 2006 at 01:06 AM (#1859487)
No war credit on that chart, and if I were to indicate it, I'd put in asterisks instead of numbers. The problem with Keller is that even with that, it's still not very many games.
   70. Al Peterson Posted: February 13, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#1859884)
No war credit on that chart, and if I were to indicate it, I'd put in asterisks instead of numbers. The problem with Keller is that even with that, it's still not very many games.

Counting games as the playing time measure even exaggerates what Keller did as well. For the four guys mentioned earlier lets put in Games, Plate Appearances, Games in the Field, PA/Game, % of Total games played in field:
         G     PA     G(F)   PA/G  %G in Field
CKeller  1170  4604   1019   3.94  87.1%
RKiner   1472  6256   1440   4.25  97.8%
BJohnson 1863  8047   1856   4.32  99.6%
MMinoso  1835  7710   1791   4.20  97.6%


It is hard to ignore the fact that Keller was a PH from 1947 on. The back problems really
limited his usefulness and quantity of play.
   71. sunnyday2 Posted: February 13, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#1859885)
Yeah, there's a year or two worth of games that he racked up about 50 per year over several years' time. From the standpoint of the pennant being the ultimate goal, that has a lot less value than if the two years' worth of activity had actually occurred in two years.
   72. Al Peterson Posted: February 13, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#1859886)
Oops, sorry for the format. You get the idea anyways I suppose.
   73. andrew siegel Posted: February 13, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#1859921)
Just a note on OCF's numbers--if you measure peak by a player's best five seasons, Snider had almost exactly the same OFFENSIVE peak as Kiner plus a huge defensive advantage and a huge career advantage. Quite impressive.
   74. Trevor P. Posted: February 14, 2006 at 04:35 AM (#1860982)
OCF, I'm just curious - what sort of adjustments do you make to conclude that Minoso's 2nd to 8th best seasons are considerably better than Johnson's? In most of the metrics I tend to use (WARP1, WARP3, OPS+, BRAA, etc.) I can't see that great of a difference between the two.
   75. OCF Posted: February 14, 2006 at 05:59 AM (#1861063)
This is RC, which may be friendlier to a high-OBP, medium-power hitter like Minoso than some other metrics. The key adjustment from that is that the value of a run depends on the park-adjusted league run environment. Johnson played in higher scoring times than Minoso.
   76. Paul Wendt Posted: February 14, 2006 at 10:13 PM (#1861935)
being at the top of tier 2--as was Goose Goslin at the same position, and how about Elmer Flick or Joe Kelley or...--is a good thing.

You aren't going to find a first tier above Elmer Flick and I suppose that is true of everyone who has been elected on a 10-year career. And I think it's clear that Minoso wasn't so good a player as the other Clevelands --Flick, Averill, Doby.

Joe Kelley, maybe. Sherry Magee, yes. Or Cuyler. Or Medwick outside 1937, who would be outside the HOM. None of the four fits the ten-year framework so well as the four Clevelands.
   77. Howie Menckel Posted: February 15, 2006 at 02:36 AM (#1862355)
Snider vs Minoso vs Kiner, OPS+s as regular, minimum 100 OPS+

Snider 172 70 66 56 42 40 40 36 23 18 13
Minoso 155 51 49 40 36 35 33 31 21 16 13 08
RKiner 184 84 73 56 46 40 32 21 17 16

(I gave Kiner a 390 PA season at 116, and Snider a 435 PA season at 140 and a 415 PA season at 113 - but not a 365 PA season at 127, which sort of balances out. I gave Minoso one 108 bonus for Negro League play).

Minnie doesn't quite measure up on the scale of these boomers, even factoring in credit for his high OBPs and his durability. The Ashburn comparison is interesting, but less so for me - I didn't even have Ashburn in the top 15, and have no regrets about that.
   78. sunnyday2 Posted: February 15, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#1862393)
Howie,

can't argue your point, but Snider and Kiner would be #1 and 4 on my ballot if I had time to submit it...again. Minnie does OK against the next tier of hitters.
   79. DavidFoss Posted: February 15, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#1862793)
if I had time to submit it...again.

My guess is the problem occurs when a long time elapses between the last page reload and the submit key can cause a 'page not found' instead of a post. My ballot is always copied from wordpad for that reason, but I suppose I'll have to start doing my comments too if I'm going to be so slow in typing them.
   80. Paul Wendt Posted: February 15, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#1863024)
Minoso is the subject of Sunday's daily biography at the NBHOFM subsite for the upcoming special election. I don't think there is any reason to suppose that the compiler, who gives 1922, knows of the birthyear equivocation.
Minnie Minoso "biography" at NBHOFM

"Biography" is in snide-marks because the short, signed prose biographies of pre-League candidates have degenerated to compilations of bullet points, mainly playing tidbits.
Compare Dick Redding biography at NBHOFM
   81. Brent Posted: February 16, 2006 at 03:09 PM (#1864302)
Following up on my post # 49 on the ballot thread, I must say that I’ve surprised by the lack of support for Minoso so far in this election, particularly following the strong support that Ashburn received two elections ago. My own evaluation sees them as very similar.

- Minoso and Ashburn were both regulars through their age 35 seasons (1961 for Minoso, 1962 for Ashburn). Therefore, comparing 1951-61 for Minoso with ‘52-62 for Ashburn we have:

Minoso (1951-61)
- WS – 277 / top 5 – 32-29-29-26-26 (These are not adjusted for schedule length.)
- WARP1 – 85.0 / top 5 – 10.7-8.5-8.4-8.4-8.3
- WARP3 – 78.3 / top 5 – 9.7-8.1-7.8-7.7-7.4

Ashburn (1952-62)
- WS – 238 / top 5 – 29-28-28-26-26
- WARP1 – 74.1 / top 5 – 9.7-9.3-9.2-8.8-8.1
- WARP3 – 72.6 / top 5 – 9.4-9.1-9.0-9.0-7.7

For peak, the measures differ, with WS showing a very slight advantage for Minoso and WARP3 favoring Ashburn. For prime, Minoso has the advantage under both sets of measures, primarily reflecting his advantage over their age 32-35 seasons. WARP3 takes a bigger bite out of Minoso's record, presumably reflecting the higher concentration of talent in the NL.

Of course Ashburn also earned 91 WS during his age 21-24 seasons, whereas Minoso—if you believe the MLEs—earned just 58. However, I just don’t consider these MLEs to be plausible. Without moving to a more hitter friendly environment, how often does a player permanently improve his average by 37 points? (In Minoso’s case, according to the MLEs he went from hitting 244-.257-.272-.269 from ages 20-23 to hitting .326-.281-.313-.320-.288 ages 25-29.) With all respect to Dr. C, whose work I greatly appreciate, in this case I think we should seriously consider the likelihood that the MLEs are flawed, perhaps missing a park factor or some other needed adjustment.

There’s also the issue of playing time. My understanding is that because Dr. C was missing the data for the 1948 NeL, the MLEs show Minoso playing only 80 games. (Presumably the half season that is shown is coming from his Cuban League record.) Gadfly’s ballot noted that Minoso hit .336 in the 1948 Negro National League. Let’s try to track down these data and give Minoso proper credit.

As I said on the ballot thread, MLEs are not just data to be entered into a voter’s system – they each involve assumptions and projections, and they ought to be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism. I’d like to know more about the Doctor’s data and assumptions – for example, are there any park adjustments? For which leagues does he have league-wide data to use for adjusting for differences in batting environments? What quality adjustment factors is he using for the various leagues?

The MLEs also need to be considered in the light of Minoso’s actual MLB record, where from 1951-61 his average was consistently between .280 to .326, with an overall average of .305.
   82. sunnyday2 Posted: February 16, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#1864331)
Brent, here's the deal. Ashburn has been generally un (or under-) appreciated. Minoso has been generally appreciated (I mean by the saber folks).

Both are examples of Shiny New Opportunities to Demonstrate Our Independence.
   83. Chris Cobb Posted: February 16, 2006 at 04:20 PM (#1864383)
Brent,

Although I think your points about Minoso's playing time in Dr. Chaleeko's projections are well-taken, I'm not on the face of it persuaded that the 37-point shift in Minoso's batting average between ages 20-23 and 25-29 is unlikely. We generally don't see a player's full development curve as part of his major-league stats. To look at a player whose development curve we do see all at the major-league level, I took a quick look at Robin Yount. Weighting each season equally, I found that he had an AVE+ of 104.5 for his age 20-23 seasons and and AVE+ of 115.8 for his 25-29 seasons. Projecting those into a .266 league environment (same as Minoso, 1945-48), I get a .278 average for 20-23 and a .308 average for 25-29, a 30-point shift. Minoso's 25-29 league environment was slightly better for batting average than his 20-23 environment. Adjusting his 25-29 avg. (since league environment is built into Dr. C's projections), drops Minoso's BA difference to 34 points. Is there a reason to regard Yount as a peculiar case? More examples are needed, certainly, but this one example does not undermine my confidence in Dr. Chaleeko's projections.

Since the Good Doctor and I have shared data and methods in the projection business, I can say with certainty that he has
league batting environments for the NNL, PCL, and CWL seasons in which Minoso played but no park factors (although these would be irrelevant for the CWL, since only one park was used).

I'm not certain off the top of my head of his conversion factors, so I'll ask him to fill in that piece of background. I'm pretty sure we use the same NeL factors of .90/.82 and I'm pretty sure he uses something like .93/.86 for the PCL (I would use .95/.90), but the CWL was more variable, so I won't guess at that.
   84. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 16, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#1864473)
Ugh. As I was triple-checking my figures in response to Brent's queries I discovered a big Merkle-sized error in my Minoso MLEs for 1947. He was a good player that year (106 OPS+ and 20 SFWS). The revised numbers do lend a great deal of credence to Brent's intuition. Thanks Brent for pushing me to go back and take another look.

I'm incredibly sorry for this error, and I hope it doesn't cause any major problems in the election. I'll repost the revised numbers then start wiping all these eggs off my face.

YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG   G   PA   AB   H   TB  BB opssfws
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1945 NL 20  OF .286 .362 .384  95  404  361 103  139  43 108  11.8
1946 NL 21  OF .244 .314 .345 132  554  503 123  173  51  87  10.6
1947 NL 22  OF .280 .355 .425 148  627  562 157  239  65 106  20.4
1948 NL 23  OF .272 .345 .402  80  337  303  82  122  34 102   9.7
1949 NL 24  OF .269 .326 .420 112  463  426 115  179  36  99  13.4
1950 NL 25  OF .307 .385 .439 136  581  515 158  226  66 116  22.2
==================================================================
               
.277 .349 .404 703 2966 2671 739 1078 295 103  88.1 
   85. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 16, 2006 at 05:30 PM (#1864487)
1948 presents a major issue. Minoso absolutely destroyed the Central League, but played only 11 games (180 OPS+, 3.5 SFWS). He was below-average in Cuba, but played a full season (95 OPS+ and 16.2 SFWS). And I don't have any stats on his 1948 NNL play, so I can't get help there.

One thing I did try was taking 2/3s of his Cuba season and the entirety of his CeL season to create a sort of 2/3:1/3 projection. That yielded a 105 OPS+ and 14.1 SFWS). It's all part of his performance record, so I'm at sixes and sevens about what to do with it.

Suggestions?
   86. DavidFoss Posted: February 16, 2006 at 05:38 PM (#1864494)
With the November birthday, those ages in post 84 should be shifted a year younger.
   87. sunnyday2 Posted: February 16, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1864511)
Doc, this post probably should go at the top of the 1971 ballot discussion when it arrives and maybe even into the 1970 ballot thread. I mean, it only adds 7.5 WS but it basically extends Minoso's MLE career by a couple of years for some voters.
   88. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 16, 2006 at 05:52 PM (#1864512)
I am a firm believer that a player needs to have a godo season to get noticed by MLB clubs and that season for Minoso would have been 1947. Therefore I can't give him more than a cup of coffee in 1947. '48 and '49 arent' really seasons that add to his record (I do add them to his career totals but I also am a peak/prime voter who doesn't pay much attention to career totals), leaving him with only one significant MLB level season before age 25.

However, I do agree that he is nearly indistinguishable from Ashburn, same with a lot of guys. I have neither on my ballot but I do have Ashburn a little ahead, probably because I have a soft spot for high OBP-defense guys. It is only about 8-9 spots however.

And of course Ashburn's placing is if he were still eligible and hadn't been elected.
   89. sunnyday2 Posted: February 17, 2006 at 04:16 PM (#1865849)
Chris Cobb Posted: October 12, 2005 at 09:20 PM (#1680458)
Monte Irvin’s MLEs


Year Team EqG PA BB Hits TB BA OBP SA OPS+ BWS FWS Total
1939 Newark 75 301 22 98 135 .351 .399 .484 136 9.9 1.7 11.6
1940 Newark 128 504 41 152 235 .327 .384 .506 144 18.9 3.1 22.0
1941 Newark 141 556 52 169 267 .332 .396 .526 159 24.0 3.9 27.9
1942 New/MxL 146 591 60 174 301 .321 .395 .558 180 32.0 4.8 36.8
1943 Military Service
1944 Military Service
1945 Newark 30 120 14 29 46 .267 .352 .431 117 3.1 0.7 3.8
1946 Newark 144 605 77 176 269 .333 .419 .510 163 28.6 3.8 32.4
1947 Newark 150 630 81 159 256 .290 .382 .468 124 16.7 4.0 20.7
1948 Newark 116 487 65 128 219 .304 .396 .517 146 17.0 2.4 19.6
1949 JC* 63 263 41 75 120 .340 .443 .541 162 11.7 1.0 12.7
1950 JC* 18 80 20 28 61 .465 .600 1.025 318 5.1 0.5 5.6
1011 4137 473 1188 1910 .322 .402 .519 154 167.0 26.2 193.2

ML career 764 2893 351 731 1187 .293 .383 .475 126 83.3 14.0 97.3
Combined 1775 7030 824 1919 3097 .309 .390 .499 143 250.3 40.2 290.5

Minoso

YEAR LG AGE PO AVG OBP SLG G PA AB H TB BB ops+ sfws
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1945 NL 20 OF .286 .362 .384 95 404 361 103 139 43 108 11.8
1946 NL 21 OF .244 .314 .345 132 554 503 123 173 51 87 10.6
1947 NL 22 OF .280 .355 .425 148 627 562 157 239 65 106 20.4
1948 NL 23 OF .272 .345 .402 80 337 303 82 122 34 102 9.7
1949 NL 24 OF .269 .326 .420 112 463 426 115 179 36 99 13.4
1950 NL 25 OF .307 .385 .439 136 581 515 158 226 66 116 22.2
==========================================
.277 .349 .404 703 2966 2671 739 1078 295 103 88.1

Interesting juxtaposition. Irvin 700+ games in ML, 1000+ in NeL (these as I understand it are already MLEs, extended out to 154 games, total 1700+. Minoso 700 games in NeL, 1700+ in ML. Counting 2.5 years of WWII credit, Irvin (would have) played for 16 years and would have played maybe 2000+ games. Minoso DID 500 more than that.

Of course Irvin played at a higher level, at least in the NeL.

Irvin (NeL, age 20-31) .322/.402/.519/154 in 4,000 PA (or maybe 5,250 with war credit)
Minoso (NeL, age 20-25) .277/.349/.404/103 in 3,000 PA

Irvin (ML, age 30-37) .293/.383/.475/126 in 2,500 PA
Minoso (ML, age 23-38) .298/.389/.459/130 in 7,500 PA

OK, based on NeLs, Irvin is in a totally different class of player.

Based on ML play (not MLEs but ML play) Minoso is exactly the same kind of player as Monte Irvin. Now, yes, there are age issues, though it is unfair to say that Irvin was past his prime at age 30. He had the opportunity to excel at an age where many with his skill set do so.

And in fact he did.

Irvin (1951, age 32) .312/.415/.514/147 (led league with 122 RBI), by far his best ML season
Minoso (1958, age 32) .302/.383/.484/141, and this is by no means his best season but is closer to a typical season for him in the 1950s.

Irvin appears to have had his best seasons at age 23, 27 and 32, andthose 3 far outstrip anything else he did. Minoso had his best seasons at age 26, 29 and 30 and they were pretty typical of his prime. The 23 for Irvin and the 26 for Minoso is really the point of this long and rambling post. Minoso was a late bloomer. Irvin beats him up through age 25. But for the rest Minoso was just as good in 500-600 more games.

Peak/prime voters should love Minoso approx. the same as Irvin, I think.
   90. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2006 at 04:56 PM (#1865895)
1950 NL 25
Minoso (1958, age 32)


You are losing a year. I understand its a nitpick, but the ages on those Minoso MLE's need to be shifted a year younger due to the November birthday.
   91. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 17, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#1865922)
I disagree Sunny. It seems to me that IRvin had three years that were better than Minoso's best while their shoulder seasons are similar. Advantage Irvin on that one.
   92. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#1865945)
Peak/prime voters should love Minoso approx. the same as Irvin, I think.

As one of these voters I'm skeptical. We were told the following:

I figure, with war credit, Irvin would probably have about 8600 PA with an OPS+ of about 146.

Minoso's MLB numbers are 7700 PA with 130 OPS+. With MLE credit, he adds PA to reach Irvin's level, but the OPS+ will slip a point or two. Why are we supposed to be treating these two as similar again?
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 17, 2006 at 06:45 PM (#1866102)
Reposted from the 1970 ballot thread in light of new infromation from gadfly, noted by Chris C. If everyone thinks this post makes sense, then I'll post a version 3 of the Minoso MLEs.

Chris,

I didn't notice Gadfly's note, thanks for picking it up. With only his batting average to guide us in 1948, we can still create a very speculative MLE (as you have done) by using data from surrounding seasons to fill in his various rates. If we assume he'd played 50 of 60 team games in the NNL plus the 11 in the minors, roughly the same as you have done, it comes out to a full sason of 150 g. When I then roll it together with his Cuban numbers, I get this

YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG   G  PA  AB  H   TB BB OPSSFWS
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
1948 NL 23  OF .294 .370 .406 150 638 569 167 231 69 110  20.8 

If one operates under the assumption that the first see-me year belongs in the minors, then Minoso has three seasons (1948-1950) of MLE credit at 110, 99, 116 OPS+es (109 for the period); 20.8, 13.4, 22.4 SFWS (56.6 for the period); and a line of .291/.363/.421.

I'm going to copy this post over to the Minoso thread as well for more discussion, but I think I'm probably going to have to now post a version three for Minoso's MLEs in light of this new 1948 information.
   94. sunnyday2 Posted: February 17, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#1866141)
>1950 NL 25

That part of it came along with the chart that I cut and pasted. 32 in 1958 is correct with the November birthday.

To summarize:

• David, you're comparing Irvin's PAs with war credit vs. Minoso's without NeL credit. The 8600 seems a bit high for Irvin's PAs. He didn't miss 3 full years. I figure 8250, but even if it's 8600: And Minoso with NeL credit gets up to 10,000 or more.

• Irvin's peak is higher than Minoso's, depending on NeL conversions. IOW there is a bit of uncertainty as to how high Irvin's peak is, but I agree Irvin's peak is higher.

• For the vast bulk of the two careers Irvin and Minoso are essentially the same player. Yes, I've eliminated 2 of Irvin's best years to get there, I admitted that. But again they are also years whose MLE value depends on the conversion and the uncertainties attendant thereto.

• And Irvin's 146 is also dependent on conversions, plus a "guesstimate" over and above that. His real rate is 143 and someone guessed that if he had played during the war it would go up to 146. Well, it could have come down to 140. Now we're talking a 140 vs. a 130 in 2000 more PAs.

If Irvin were eligible I would have him a head of Minoso, but how much? As Chris said elsewhere, all of these guys are within hair-splitting distance. Minoso at 8600 PAs versus 10,500 PAs is a very very fat hair in this realm.
   95. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#1866186)
That part of it came along with the chart that I cut and pasted. 32 in 1958 is correct with the November birthday.

I understand. It comes from Dr. C's chart. Looks like Dr C is going to redo the chart again. If he could use ages 19-24 on the next version that would be great. We want his ages to line up with bb-ref (minus three).
   96. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#1866242)
David, you're comparing Irvin's PAs with war credit vs. Minoso's without NeL credit. The 8600 seems a bit high for Irvin's PAs. He didn't miss 3 full years. I figure 8250, but even if it's 8600: And Minoso with NeL credit gets up to 10,000 or more.

It was pretty close to three full years that he missed. 120 PA in 1945 is all he played. A 1600 PA increase sounds fair to me increases him to 1720 PA for the three years which lines up with his playing time estimates fine.

Irvin's peak is higher than Minoso's, depending on NeL conversions. IOW there is a bit of uncertainty as to how high Irvin's peak is, but I agree Irvin's peak is higher.

I thought if anything, MLE's were accused of regressing peaks away? Smoothing the peaks and valleys.

For the vast bulk of the two careers Irvin and Minoso are essentially the same player. Yes, I've eliminated 2 of Irvin's best years to get there, I admitted that. But again they are also years whose MLE value depends on the conversion and the uncertainties attendant thereto.

Its more than two years. 1941 is also up there. 1940 beats Minoso's career average (in limited playing time). Then there is the war years. You can't drop Irvin's best years like this and make some sort of 'vast bulk' argument. Irvin was billed as one of the top NeL-ers of the 1940s perhaps #2 to Gibson. Why are we selling him short now?

And Irvin's 146 is also dependent on conversions, plus a "guesstimate" over and above that. His real rate is 143 and someone guessed that if he had played during the war it would go up to 146. Well, it could have come down to 140. Now we're talking a 140 vs. a 130 in 2000 more PAs.

Irvin OPS+'s : 136,144,159,180,*,*,*,163,124,146,162....

What interpolation could we possibly do there that would *drop* a 143 OPS+?

If Irvin were eligible I would have him a head of Minoso, but how much? As Chris said elsewhere, all of these guys are within hair-splitting distance. Minoso at 8600 PAs versus 10,500 PAs is a very very fat hair in this realm.

10500?!? You want to give him credit for all six MLE years dating back to age 19? 9500 is much more reasonable (even a bit generous).

There is a *big* difference between 146 OPS+ (or 143) and 130 (or lower if you give him credit). The 140+ guys get much freer pass here while the 130 and lower guys often fall into the glut.
   97. sunnyday2 Posted: February 17, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#1866330)
Well, I'm giving Irvin credit for PAs back to 1939 when he was 20. Using the Chris Cobb method of giving MLE credit the year after he was playing at a ML level, I could argue 1941 for Irvin, which would reduce his total (of 8200-8600) by 800 PAs.

To me the comps are (best case) 10,500 vs. 8,600.

Worst case 9,000 vs. 7,000 for those who don't believe in war credit.

Middle of the road 9,500 vs. 7,800 or so.

In post #92 you had Irvin with the extra 1,000 PAs.

Another comp comes to mind for Minoso by the way. Enos Slaughter. 122 in about 9500 plus whatever war credit you give him. If 1600 is the number, Slaughter has 122 in 11,000, Minoso 130 in 9,500-10,500, Irvin 146 in 8,600.

Minoso looks better than Slaughter by approx. the same degree as Irvin is better than Minoso.
   98. DavidFoss Posted: February 17, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1866351)
Well, I'm giving Irvin credit for PAs back to 1939 when he was 20. Using the Chris Cobb method of giving MLE credit the year after he was playing at a ML level, I could argue 1941 for Irvin, which would reduce his total (of 8200-8600) by 800 PAs.

But Irvin started playing back in 1937. We've already cleaved off the first couple of years for him. 1941? His .363/.441/.520 157 OPS+ line in his 1939 half-season would have warrented a call up for sure.

Sounds like you are looking for a reason to vote for Minnie. Switching to Slaughter makes sense as he's a better comp in my opinion. It won't get my vote though as I didn't vote for Enos, but he did go in relatively easily.
   99. Mike Green Posted: February 17, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#1866440)
Slaughter is an excellent comp, as is Jose Cruz. Minoso's a little better than both of them, and would be right on the line...I guess you're not supposed to give him credit for being colourful.

Thank you to the doctor for supplying the missing Negro League/PCL data and translations.
   100. jimd Posted: February 17, 2006 at 11:05 PM (#1866499)
I have Slaughter ahead of Minoso due to career length. Otherwise, they're pretty similar. WARP has Slaughter as a somewhat better fielder, with very similar value as hitters, once the league quality is applied (MM .296, ES .294). Minoso makes the bottom of my ballot.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7286 seconds
49 querie(s) executed