Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, February 13, 2012

Most Meritorious Player: 1969 Ballot

Here are the specific rules for this election:
Candidate Eligibility: Any North American professional baseball player is eligible for the Most Meritorious Player (MMP) award including players in the top Negro Leagues or independent teams. Voters should consider the player’s on-field contribution to Major League Baseball (MLB) team(s) in that season only. If part of the season was spent outside MLB, that value may be considered as well. However, the player’s on-field contribution should be judged in relation to the highest level major league, not relative to a minor league. A season may include playoff or World Series games but does not include spring training or exhibition games. No credit will be given for games not played due to injury, wartime service or contract holdouts.
Ballot Length: For 1969, each voter should rank 12 players.
Voter eligibility: All voters who did not vote in the previous year’s election must post a preliminary ballot in the ballot discussion thread at least 2 days before voting ends. All voters must fill out a complete ballot. Voters must briefly explain their ballot choices. One person, one vote; anyone determined to have voted with multiple accounts will be banned and their votes will be disallowed. The MMP ballot committee has authority to exclude any ballot that does not meet these requirements.
Scoring: Points will be given in descending order with the highest-ranked player receiving 15 points, the second highest 14 points, and so on until the last player on the ballot receives 4 points. The player with the highest point total will be named the MMP for 1969. In case of a tie, the tiebreaker will be number of 1st place votes. If the first tiebreaker does not determine a winner the players will share the title of Most Meritorious Player.

Balloting will close at 4pm EST on 22 February 2012.

Anyone can vote, even if you haven’t said a word yet in any of the MMP threads. If you missed the last election, just post a preliminary ballot in the discussion thread by 21 February 2012.

fra paolo Posted: February 13, 2012 at 09:56 PM | 64 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.

   1. DL from MN Posted: February 13, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4060332)
hot topics
   2. DL from MN Posted: February 14, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4060634)
1) Rico Petrocelli - shortstops who could hit were as rare as hen's teeth
2) Reggie Jackson - Not quite as much value with the bat as McCovey but more positional value
3) Bob Gibson - top pitcher, hit pretty well for a pitcher as well
4) Willie McCovey - best hitter in baseball this year
5) Henry Aaron - 3rd slugger who wears #44 on the list
6) Frank Robinson - good year for sluggers, expansion years usually are
7) Larry Dierker - Fantastic pitching numbers, not great with the bat
8) Jim Wynn
9) Harmon Killebrew - positional value at 3B offsets his glove
10) Denny McLain - good followup season. I was reading the Johnny Sain chapter of Head Game and it gave Sain a lot of credit for McLain's success.
11) Bobby Bonds
12) Juan Marichal - strong showing for the Giants, not strong enough to make the playoffs

13-15) Rose, Staub, Cardenas
16-21) Carlton, Fregosi, Cleon Jones, Hands, Howard, Bando
   3. Mark Armour Posted: February 14, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4061112)
Jackson wore #9 with the A's, by the way. And Rico wore #6.
   4. Chris Fluit Posted: February 14, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4061119)
1969 Ballot

1. Rico Petrocelli, SS, Boston Red Sox (167 OPS+, +16 fielding runs)
2. Willie McCovey, 1B, San Francisco Giants (209 OPS+!)
3. Reggie Jackson, RF, Oakland Athletics (189 OPS+, 144 runs created)
4. Bob Gibson, P, St. Louis Cardinals (164 ERA+, 314 innings and one of the best-hitting pitchers)
5. Harmon Killebrew, 1B/3B, Minnesota Twins (more time at third would have bumped him ahead of Gibson)
6. Hank Aaron, RF, Atlanta Braves (177 OPS+, 128 runs created)
7. Juan Marichal, P, San Francisco Giants (168 ERA+, 299 innings)
8. Frank Robinson, RF, Baltimore Orioles (165 OPS+, 126 runs created)
9. Bill Hands, P, Chicago Cubs (162 ERA+, 300 innings)
10. Pete Rose, RF, Cincinnati Reds (158 OPS+, 138 runs created- playing time and defensive value in CF push him ahead of Howard)
11. Frank Howard, LF, Washintgon Senators (178 OPS+, 132 runs created)
12. Tom Seaver, P, New York Mets (165 ERA+, 273 innings)

13. Larry Dierker
14. Roberto Clemente
15. Jimmy Wynn
16. Gaylord Perry
17. Rusty Staub
18. Denny McLain (the top pitcher in the AL)
19. Boog Powell
20. Sal Bando
   5. DL from MN Posted: February 14, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4061143)
> Jackson wore #9 with the A's

True, at this time he was still wearing #9.
   6. lieiam Posted: February 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4062142)
I found this year to be a very close battle for the top spot among four contenders... and overall a lot of pitchers had damn fine years.
As usual, my ballot combines 7 different systems and adds in a 10% catcher bonus.
Here's my ballot:


1-Reggie Jackson 9170
2-Bob Gibson 8949
3-Rico Petrocelli 8883
4-Willie McCovey 8741
5-Hank Aaron 7861
6-Jim Wynn 7730
7-Sal Bando 7537
8-Larry Dierker 7475
9-Juan Marichal 7458
10-Frank Robinson 7278
11-Harmon Killebrew 7255
12-Denny McLain 7126

13-Pete Rose 7121
14-Phil Niekro 6988
15-Bill Hands 6921
16-Tom Seaver 6912
17-Johnny Bench 6723
18-Frank Howard 6653
19-Cleon Jones 6603
20-Bobby Bonds 6518
21-Bill Singer 6376
22-Roberto Clemente 6374
23-Ferguson Jenkins 6309
24-Tony Perez 6192
   7. Mr. C Posted: February 16, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4062154)
1969 Ballot

Framework
Hitting; I use custom linear weights to determine wOBA for each hitter, calculate the runs above the average (excluding pitcher hitting), adjust the average for park, fielding and position. I then add in an amount for replacement value, which is less than the normal replacement value. this total gives me a RAR. I then convert to wins by dividing by the runs to win ratio for for the league. This gives me WARR (wins above reduced replacement)

Pitching: Using the RA for each pitcher I calculate RAA, adjust for park and fielding and convert to a pythagapat w%. I set a replacement w%, which is again reduced from normal and determine WARR. I then add in an amount for pitching and fielding to get the final WARR.

1. Bob Gibson 9.5 WARR
2. Rico Petrocelli 9 WARR
3. Reggie Jackson 8.0 WARR
4. Willie McCovey 7.5 WARR
5. Larry Dierker 7.4 WARR
6. Juan Marichal 6.75 WARR
7. Frank Robinson 6.6 WARR
8. Harmon Killebrew 6.55
9. Hank Aaron 6.5 WARR Aaron and Clemente essentially had the same WARR. I ordered them according to their offensive value.
10. Roberto Clemente 6.5 WARR
11. Steve Carlton 6.4 WARR
12. Sal Bando 6.3 WARR

The next 8
13. Paul Blair
14. Bill Hands
15. Boog Powell
16. Tom Seaver
17. Denny McLain
18. Frank Howard
19. Jimmy Wynn
20. Jim Perry

   8. Mr. C Posted: February 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4062156)
I guess I should edit my posts more carefully. For pitchers I meant to say that I adjust the pitching WARR by adding an amount for hitting and fielding.
   9. sunnyday2 Posted: February 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4062356)
1969

1. Willie McCovey
2. Reggie Jackson--very close but I think the OPS differential outweighs the positional difference

3. Harmon Killebrew--not far behind the top 2, his team benefited immensely from his ability to play 3B
4. Henry Aaron--I had expected him to be fading (or, had remembered him to be fading) by now. Wrong.
5. Tom Seaver--I'll take him ahead of Gibson

6. Sal Bando--I remember this as an all-time great 3B year, better than anything Brooksie ever did and Brooksie was still God in 1969
7. Frank Robinson--a step behind the great hitters by now
8. Rico Petrocelli--he looks better on paper than he ever did on the field, but there it is
9. Pete Rose--looked better on the field than he ever does on paper, but this year he looks pretty good on paper, too
10. Frank Howard--right there with the best hitters but the D is a problem

11. Bob Gibson
12. Ron Santo
   10. DL from MN Posted: February 18, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4064057)
chirp, chirp
   11. lieiam Posted: February 18, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4064087)
I've got a question for sunnyday2:
Why do you prefer Seaver over Gibson?
I'm wondering because I have Gibson a step above all other pitchers this year and
Seaver is in a closely packed bunch of other pitchers, but overall I have him only 7th among pitchers.

   12. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 19, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4064349)
I managed to find the time to input new defensive numbers for 1969. Obviously these aren't as good as my post-1987 figures, because I'm doing a straight average of DRA-SFR-TZ rather than a weighted regression of them, but they're good enough for government work. I'm really struggling with how to place pitchers in this era. If I went by straight WARP1, my MMP would be a starter every year. So I'm just going to subjectively bump up hitters where I can construct an argument to justify it for myself.

It really is amazing how many players had their best years in 1969. My standard deviation calculations over all of baseball history are strongly affected by the huge consequences of this year's mega-expansion on the distribution of player performance.

1. Bob Gibson
9 innings a start, 164 ERA+, and hit almost .250. That's 11.6 WARP, and no adjustment can bring that back down to the pack.

2. Reggie Jackson
Ahead of Petrocelli as a hedge against my overrating SS of this era. The 189 OPS+ speaks for itself, but DRA and TZ both see him as a one-win fielder as well. 9.9 WARP1.

3. Rico Petrocelli
One of the greatest SS seasons ever. 167 OPS+ and an above-average fielder. Also 9.9 WARP1.

4. Willie McCovey
I'm amazed that Stretch's finest hour comes in this low. There's nothing misleading about the batting line save the high number of IBB's--he's got 9.0 batting wins. But all three defensive systems see him as a below-average fielder, and he had the misfortune to play at the all-time high for depth at first base (immediately before the advent of the DH created 12 new jobs for immobile sluggers). First basemen who could hit at the league average grew on trees in those days. That makes him a "mere" 8.6 WARP1.

5. Larry Dierker
This placement is very sensitive to how bad you think the Astros' fielding was. With neutral defensive support, he'd be 8 WARP. If you go by TZ's account he's near 10, and DRA's even higher. But SFR differs dramatically on the infielders--it sees Morgan as above-average rather than below, and Blefary as an excellent 1B. A straight average of the three gives him 9.5 WARP1. I can't move him ahead of McCovey when there's this much disagreement between fielding systems.

6. Denny McLain
He certainly shouldn't've split the Cy Young, as he was easily the AL's best pitcher the year after his 31-win season. Led the league in innings and allowed very few unearned runs. Helped a bit by his fielders, but there's just too much bulk here to drop him further. 9.1 WARP1.

7. Hank Aaron
Just another day at the office for this inner-circle great. 177 OPS+ and played a good right field. Only thing to quibble with is a few missed games. 7.9 WARP1.

8. Frank Robinson
Virtually the same comments as Aaron. 165 OPS+, ran the bases and fielded well. 7.8 WARP1.

9. Bill Hands
300 IP, 162 ERA+. Wrigley was a tough place to pitch. Would have been higher if he had broken a .100 batting average. 8.5 WARP1.

10. Juan Marichal
300 IP, 168 ERA+. Better hitter than Hands, but had better fielders behind him. 8.4 WARP1.

11. Jimmy Wynn, 7.4 WARP1. The Toy Cannon compiled an amazing offensive season fueled by 148 walks, and he could run. But he was clearly o stretched at CF by this point, and was moved to a corner the next year.

12. Sal Bando, 7.6 WARP1. Led the league in PA, posted a 153 OPS+, and sported an above-average glove. I always talk down Bando in HoM discussions because the robo-CHONE WARP voters put him high on their ballots, but this was an indisputably great year and would have been good enough to win an MVP in many seasons.

======

13. Roberto Clemente, 7.5 WARP1. Man could throw.
14. Tom Seaver, 8.1 WARP1. Led the league in Wins and took home his first Cy Young, but had outstanding defensive support.
15. Steve Carlton, 8.0 WARP1.
16. Harmon Killebrew, 6.4 WARP1. Monster hitter but misused--he was no third baseman, and there were plenty of cheap third basemen who could hit a bit in this era. They should have just left him at first all year.
17. Jim Perry. 7.5 WARP1. (and 6.6 more from his brother!)
18. Ferguson Jenkins, 7.4 WARP1.
19. Claude Osteen, 7.3 WARP1.
20. Rusty Staub, 6.5 WARP1. Le Grand Orange's great year at the plate was marred by subpar baserunning and defense.
21. Phil Niekro, 7.1 WARP1.
22. Frank Howard, 6.1 WARP1. Hondo could mash like few before or since, but was a born DH. Had his career started a decade later he would have been far more valuable.
23. Pete Rose, 6.0 WARP1. Charlie Hustle's offensive peak. But DRA thinks the center field experiment was a very, very, very bad idea.
24. Paul Blair, 6.6 WARP1 if you believe he was a +25 fielder.
25. Jim Fregosi, 6.4 WARP1. He played shortstop.
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: February 19, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4064489)

I'm having a harder time picking 12 in 1969 than I did picking 10 any other year. just so many great seasons, and so bunched together among the hitters and the pitchers.

   14. DanG Posted: February 20, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4064710)
A thought that I'm not sure has been mentioned in the discussion of 1969: the AL west was really BAD. Four of the AL's five worst team's were in the west. Both first-year expansion teams landed there, along with the White Sox and Angels, who had both collapsed in 1968 and were equally bad in 1969. This gave a boost to players like Jackson, Bando and Killebrew that should be accounted for.
   15. Howie Menckel Posted: February 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4065192)

fair point, DanG, minor tweaking at the buzzer for that

1969 ballot, keeping the “streak” alive – have never missed an HOM or MMP vote

1. WILLIE MCCOVEY – 209 OPS+ in 149 G means a 20-pt OPS+ win over any other MLB player. Led all of MLB in Offensive WAR, OBP, SLG, OPS (by a lot), Runs Created, Batting Runs, Adj Batting Wins, Offensive Win Pct, IBB (45, more than twice as many as runnerup), AB per HR, Base-Out Runs Added, Base-Out Wins Added, and Win Probability Added. Yeah, he wasn’t all that great a fielder, but he did enough for me to get No. 1.
2. RICO PETROCELLI – 167 OPS+ in 153 G at SS, which he played well – yes, please. At age 26, this dreamy all-around skillset will be a fixture on these top 12 lists for years to come – right?
3. REGGIE JACKSON – 189 OPS+ is No. 2 in MLB, 152 G. 1st in WAR Position Players, XBH, Situation Wins Added. Doesn’t get dinged like McCovey does re D, but still places behind Stretch and Rico.
4. BOB GIBSON – I don’t see him out as far ahead of 3-4 other SPs as some systems do, but the combo of dominance (164 ERA+) and durability (314 IP) has him ahead. The hitting bonus just makes me more comfortable with that choice.
5. JIMMY WYNN – Nobody noticed those 148 BB in 1969 (focus more on .269 AVG), but his OPS+ sure did (166). Wynn was no butcher at CF, which made him extremely valuable to the Astros.
6. HANK AARON – Missed 15 G, but this future Hall of Famer had a 177 OPS+ and doesn’t have the fielding qualms that most other mashers had this year.
7. FRANK ROBINSON – Missed 14 G, but this future Hall of Famer had a 165 OPS+ and doesn’t have the fielding qualms that most other mashers had this year.
8. SAL BANDO – Played every inning of every Oakland game at 3B, which is rare. Just as rare: 3Bs who can field with 153 OPS+s.
9. JUAN MARICHAL – 168 ERA+ nosed out fellow HOFers Seaver, Gibson, Carlton by a nose. Also had 299.6 IP, more than Seaver or Carlton.
10. PETE ROSE – 158 OPS+ at RF-CF, don’t quite buy the Gold Glove (his first), but he was more than adequate in the field.
11. FRANK HOWARD – 178 OPS+, and more BB (102) than K (96). 161 G, too. Ok, 29 DP is a lot. Lumbering outfielder at best – I remember it. But I think the adjustments are coming out just a little extreme.
12. HARMON KILLEBREW – 177 OPS+, first of two straight enormous, beastly players on my ballot both at bat and in the field. Killebrew played a lot of bad 3B in 1969, but that did leave some room for another bat in 1B/corner OF (Rich Reese had a career-year 132 OPS+ at 1B), so I guess that’s worth something.

Close: Clemente (missed 24 G), Staub and Allen and Stargell and Cleon Jones and Powell (didn’t quite dominate enough on offense), McLain (135 ERA+ not enough even with 325 IP), Seaver, Carlton, Dierker, Hands (canceled each other out, so only two Ps on this ballot)


   16. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 20, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4065194)
the AL west was really BAD. Four of the AL's five worst team's were in the west.


And yet the Washington Senators, who were 86-76 overall, were just 35-37 against the West, including 10-14 against the two expansion teams. Diego Segui of the Pilots beat Washington 4 times.

-- MWE
   17. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 21, 2012 at 03:46 AM (#4065303)
A bunch of points, Howie Menckel:

1. The defensive stats say Wynn was b-a-d in CF, and sure enough he got pushed to a corner the next year. What makes you say he could handle the position?

2. McLain seems to have had a very surehanded defense behind him--he allowed very few UER. His RA+ was 146. Did you factor that into your placement?

3. Marichal at 9 and Hands nowhere? Didn't they have, like, the same season?

4. I didn't know Rose won a GG this year. DRA thinks he was a historically bad CF. Do you have access to any anecdotal reports of how he played the position?
   18. bjhanke Posted: February 21, 2012 at 07:07 AM (#4065325)
I'm not Howie, and I can't cite anyone but myself. However, I was 20 years old in 1969 and, living in STL, heavily into baseball. I didn't like Pete Rose's act at all, especially after I realized that, when he ran out walks, he never turned left, just in case ball 4 got far enough away from the catcher that he could take second (which, to be fair, probably happens about 2 times in a career of even Rose's length). At that point, I decided that his act was just that - an act. I figured the main effect of it was to tire him out, and sure enough, he wasn't as good in September as he was in other months, although he was worse in May.

But regarding his defense in the outfield, well, I was paying attention to him, so I have some memories. As you might imagine, Pete took off running at the crack of the bat. That would give him an "effective speed" greater than the actual speed he had. But the risk would be that he would not be able to figure out where the ball was going that fast, and might lose some balls having to backtrack. Well, I have NO memories of seeing Rose have to stop in his tracks and reverse direction because he had judged the ball's direction too soon. And I was paying attention to Rose and actively looking for flaws in his game.

Pete actually won GGs in both 69 and 70, but both years, he played more RF than CF. I have serious doubts about his arm in RF and maybe even CF, and that may well be what DRA is seeing, but I would imagine his range was OK, even in CF. He wasn't going to be Curt Flood or Willie Mays, or even Duke Snider or Larry Doby, and I doubt he ever actually deserved a GG, but I would guess he was OK out there in CF when he was young. He was 28 in 1969.

- Brock
   19. DL from MN Posted: February 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4065435)
Do we need an extension? The site was down all weekend.
   20. Sunday silence Posted: February 21, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4065470)
arent you supposed to take off running at the crack of the bat?
   21. DL from MN Posted: February 21, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4065492)
arent you supposed to take off running at the crack of the bat?


Only if you know where it's going. It takes me a little while to figure that out.
   22. Rob_Wood Posted: February 21, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4065668)
My final ballot:

1. Willie McCovey
2. Reggie Jackson
3. Bob Gibson
4. Rico Petrocelli
5. Hank Aaron
6. Jimmy Wynn
7. Tom Seaver
8. Harmon Killebrew
9. Frank Robinson
10. Pete Rose
11. Frank Howard
12. Juan Marichal
   23. Howie Menckel Posted: February 21, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4065850)
per No. 17:

As I noted earlier, I found this ballot to be almost impossible.

Yes, a number of players had nearly identical seasons.

As we've discussed earlier, I don't have as high an opinion of managers and GMs as you do - nor as high an opinion of defensive stats. They are useful, but not as accurate as batting stats imo.

And yes, I recall, as Brock does, Rose's style. I don't think he was nearly as good at CF as RF, but he was a pretty good RF at the time. You lose something with him at CF, but he also hit like hell and was always in the lineup. He was a very good player in 1969 (and like Brock, I'm not particularly a fan of his overall).

   24. bjhanke Posted: February 22, 2012 at 07:52 AM (#4065950)
This is Brock Hanke's final ballot. AAARRGH!!!

I just finished writing a ballot up with comments and everything. However, I wrote it on the thread itself, rather than writing in WORD and copying over. When I tried to submit, the site crashed, with a "Site Preferences Not Found" message. When I got back on, everything was gone. I don't have time to redo the comments before I HAVE to go to bed, but I do have the list. So, sorry, here's the list of names, without comments. If someone wants to question a placement or wonders about a player's comment, I can respond tomorrow. But that will be after the deadline. I sleep during the day, and have things I have to do tomorrow evening.

1. Reggie Jackson
2. Bob Gibson
3. Rico Petrocelli
4. Hank Aaron
5. Tom Seaver
6. Willie McCovey
7. Sal Bando
8. Jimmy Wynn
9. Juan Marichal
10. Bill Hands
11. Larry Dierker
12. Harmon Killebrew
   25. Rick A. Posted: February 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4066010)
1969 MMP Ballot

I use a combination of WSAB and BPWAR. I also look at OPS+, ERA+, IP, and playing time. I give a catcher's bonus and a slight league strength adjustment.

1. Willie McCovey
2. Reggie Jackson
3. Rico Petrocelli
4. Bob Gibson
5. Hank Aaron
6. Jim Wynn
7. Juan Marichal
8. Bill Hands
9. Sal Bando
10. Frank Robinson
11. Larry Dierker
12. Frank Howard

13-15 Killebrew, Seaver, Rose
   26. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4066036)
Brock - nobody else has McCovey lower than 4th. Perhaps you can explain that one.
   27. sunnyday2 Posted: February 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4066055)
've got a question for sunnyday2:
Why do you prefer Seaver over Gibson?


Call me sentimental but this was the year of the Miracle Mets, no? Probably the biggest upset/surprise in baseball history or at least since I started watching in 1957. And these Mets scored 1 run per game less than the best offense. They did it with pitching. And Seaver was their best pitcher and led the league in W and was off the league lead in ERA by .11. And was the Mets D better than the Cardinals? I suppose somebody has posted about that, but it seems like a dubious proposition to me. Yet Seaver's WHIP was also better than Gibson's, was it not? Can somebody explain to me how Gibson gets 50 percent more WARP than Seaver? I suppose it's the home field. Then how come the Cards scored even fewer runs than the Mets?
   28. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4066067)
I shortchanged the discussion thread by not including the NL pitchers. I have the order there as Marichal, Dierker, Gibson, Hands, Seaver, Carlton. My ballot is quite pitcher-heavy. It seems my system thinks the rise in offense makes good pitching more valuable.

1) Tony Perez Great hitting season for a 3B, and he fielded well, too. Hard to replace, thus most valuable.
2) Rico Petrocelli A good bat at a weak-hitting position, where the league average wOBA was a miserable .290
3) Rod Carew Much the same case as Petrocelli, but he hit a bit worse at a position that overall hit a little bit better.
4) Cleon Jones Jones is lifted above a lot of better hitters on account of his defence, which my system has doubling his value. My system doesn't really like outfielders all that much, either. Of the hitters I looked at, Jones is second only to Perez in defensive contribution, and his .376 wOBA isn't embarrassing.
5) Denny McLain He is marginally the best pitcher in both the AL and in the majors, thanks to a lot of starts.
6) Mike Cuellar A fine season, helped a little bit more by his defence than McLain.
7) Juan Marichal None of the NL pitchers seem to have matched the top AL pitchers. Marichal had less help from his defence than Hands, and my system suggests he allowed the fewest 'pitching earned runs' per game of anyone in the majors.
8) Harmon Killebrew Killebrew gets a boost because he spent a good chunk of time with his big bat at 3B, where his wOBA compares favourably against a positional average for the AL of .297
9) Pete Rose Gets a fielding boost, like Jones, only not quite as much.
10) Bob Gibson See Dierker comment.
11) Larry Dierker I overrode my system here, which had Dierker ahead of both Gibson and Rose. Out of Marichal, Dierker and Gibson, Gibson had the best defence backing him up, Dierker the worst by quite a long way. Having said that, Gibson threw more innings, allowed fewer 'pitching earned runs' than Dierker (but not Marichal), and I've got him as achieving a better Pythag WPct.
12) Dick Bosman Bosman was the best pitcher in the AL in terms of my 'pitching earned runs', but he didn't put in nearly as many innings as any of the top chaps.

Next twelve
Hands
Bench
Bando
Seaver
Koosman
Staub
Carlton
McCovey
Palmer
Reggie!
Powell
Lee May
   29. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4066077)
And was the Mets D better than the Cardinals? I suppose somebody has posted about that, but it seems like a dubious proposition to me. ... Can somebody explain to me how Gibson gets 50 percent more WARP than Seaver?

My system has the two defences very close, with the Mets .02 of a run per game ahead. I really don't see a huge gap between Gibson and Seaver, about half a win in Gibson's favour. If one thinks the Cardinals have a better defence, then it could be a lot closer. I can only imagine the IP difference swings it heavily towards Gibson.
   30. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4066084)
fra paulo - Are you sure your spreadsheet doesn't have another "Bando" error in it when it comes to Tony Perez? 140 OPS+ is a nice season but he's my 3rd best 3B in 1969 after Killebrew (177 OPS+) and Bando (153 OPS+). The WAR calculators put Perez 3B defense as mediocre, not Brooks Robinson levels.
   31. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4066087)
Brock - nobody else has McCovey lower than 4th. Perhaps you can explain that one.

Not any more!

McCovey's wOBA is a best-in-baseball .404, but he's doing it against the second-highest positional wOBA in the National Leagueat .326 That hurts him a lot relative to other players in terms of being replaceable, once put into an 'average' lineup. My system also makes the Giants' 1B defence the worst in the league, which dings him quite a bit. And, as I say, my system thinks a lot of pitchers, so he gets pushed down further once the pitchers are integrated with the players.

Those are my reasons why he is lower than fourth.
   32. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4066094)
I'm sorry but that fra paulo ballot is just bizarre. You left off the top 2 offensive producers in baseball - Reggie and McCovey. You have a 140 OPS+ 3B ahead of a 167 OPS+ SS. You think Dick Bosman was more valuable than Tom Seaver in 1969. I can't figure out how to get Bosman ahead of Andy Messersmith, let alone Seaver.
   33. Al Peterson Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4066105)
1969 MMP Final ballot. The components to ranking include WAR, WARP, WS, OPS+/ERA+, even a sprinkle of WPA. Catcher bonus in effect along with review of post-season accomplishments.

1. Reggie Jackson, RF. The young Reggie when he could field and run. The 114 walks would be a career high.
2. Bob Gibson, P. Had 28 complete games. His stare alone made sure he wasn’t getting pulled.
3. Willie McCovey, 1B. Stretch had 45 IBB. If that sounds like a lot is was…
4. Rico Petrocelli, SS. 25 HRs by the All-Star break. That will get some attention.
5. Henry Aaron, RF. What’s a MMP list without Aaron? The Padres (!) had his number (.246/.343/.404).
6. Jimmy Wynn, CF. Toy Cannon hit .303 at home, .235 on the road.
7. Sal Bando, 3B. Finished strong with 11 HRs in Sept/Oct.
8. Larry Dierker, P. 20 game winner hit his high water mark at age 22.
9. Frank Robinson, RF. Last 100 RBI season for the Hall of Famer.
10. Juan Marichal, P. ERA+ crown for the Dandy. Lost a 14 inning 1-0 game to the Mets – OUCH!
11. Harmon Killebrew, 3B. HR, RBI crown for the big guy. MVP maybe not so much.
12. Denny McLain, P. In two years he’ll be piling up 22 losses for the Senators.


13. Pete Rose, RF
14. Frank Howard, LF
15. Tom Seaver, P
16. Bill Hands, P
17. Roberto Clemente, RF
18. Phil Niekro, P
19. Johnny Bench, C
20. Fergie Jenkins, P
   34. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4066112)
Are you sure your spreadsheet doesn't have another "Bando" error in it when it comes to Tony Perez

Yes. I checked it three times, and even refined the formula a bit to increase weighting the possibilities of high ratio of balls-in-play to league average. Cincinnati are tied with the Braves and the Mets for the best 3B in the league in my system, even though they allowed the most errors. Brooks Robinson is about 50 per cent better again than Perez.

I've got Bando at a .377 wOBA and Perez at .360. AL 3b=.297, NL=.299. (Killebrew I've got split between 1B and 3B.) The difference between them comes entirely through fielding, which gives me a swing of about four wins because Bando was poor.

Overall, the NL has much more extreme fielding results at 3B than the AL. The NL 3B seem either to have been good or bad with no middle ground. I wonder if this is a reflection of that somehow.
   35. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4066115)
Voted in previous elections but not this year

Johnny Fora
OCF
Alex King
Nate the Neptunian
Esteban Rivera
ronw
Yardape
John Murphy
   36. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4066130)
I can't figure out how to get Bosman ahead of Andy Messersmith, let alone Seaver.

I didn't compare Messersmith. I used an ERA+ cutoff which Messersmith missed.

It seems to be a league effect. Bosman was one of the best pitchers in a league where there weren't as many good pitchers. We are talking about fractional differences here.

In any case, I explained in some detail in the Discussion Thread what I was up to, more than anyone else this time round. The fact that Bosman was in my consideration set for AL pitchers and Messersmith wasn't should have been caught a lot earlier. I grant you that I didn't do my NL pitchers in a timely fashion, so if it is too bizarre for the project, knock Bosman off and add the next chap on my list, Hands.
   37. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4066135)
Dan R's data has Bando 5 runs worse than average and Perez 6 runs above average. Your defensive system has 4x the spread of the most accepted WAR calculators.

If defense is that important (and my guess is that spread wouldn't correlate with actual team wins) where is Leo Cardenas and why isn't Petrocelli (an above average SS) ahead of Perez? Why aren't you fond of Paul Blair?
   38. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM (#4066138)
> It seems to be a league effect.

The leagues aren't completely separate entities. Player movement could and did happen. If there is a drought of talent in one league and a glut in the other it makes little sense to penalize the league with the good players and reward the big fish in the smaller pond.
   39. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4066144)
Actually, it could be that I am using a different weighting between 'pitcher responsibility' and 'fielder responsibility' than WAR and suchlike for balls in play. In other words, I am not giving as much credit to the fielders as other formulae. That would explain a lot of my differences.
   40. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4066156)
I really have to get on with other things. As I said, I explained what I was up to in some detail in the discussion thread, including making it very clear that I would be ranking Perez quite high. In fact, I had pitchers at the top of my ballot, and then tweaked it to put the top hitters up there because I decided I was being too generous to pitchers.

why isn't Petrocelli (an above average SS) ahead of Perez? Why aren't you fond of Paul Blair?

I don't have Petrocelli above average, but merely average, and in fact a hair's-width below. I zero-out fielders like that based on my theory that fielding is only significant above or below a certain band fluctuating around .500 WinPct. Mostly .503-.497.

Neither Cardenas nor Blair made my consideration set because they didn't reach my OPS+ cutoff. Nor was either one the best fielder in the league.
   41. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4066159)
If you're not giving as much credit to the fielders then how can you have a 4 win spread between slightly above and below average fielders at 3B? What does Brooks (2.3 dWAR player) score in your system - 80 runs?
   42. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4066170)
Your defensive system has 4x the spread of the most accepted WAR calculators.

I can't help that they haven't figured it out yet!

More seriously, I have given a lot of thought to defence in the past, as part of my Mazeroski for HoM campaign. I was working on the system I used here when TotalZone came out, and I pushed mine to one side because I didn't think I'd be able to displace that. I can see where my system creates controversy, and have been trying to flatten it out. I'm quite happy, though, that my spread is a better way of understanding fielding than the other calculators.

Again, it may be I weight fielding more heavily when integrating its value with hitting.
   43. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4066175)
What does Brooks (2.3 dWAR player) score in your system - 80 runs?

He adds about 5 wins. Perez about 3. Bando costs just under 2 wins.
   44. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4066195)
You left off the top 2 offensive producers in baseball - Reggie and McCovey.

Says you. They are sluggers at slugging positions. When I put these chaps in the 'league average lineup', and use a run esitmator, I get the following effects:

McCovey 45.8 runs (now behind Wynn and just ahead of Perez at 43.3)
Reggie! 52.9 runs (now behind Petrocelli and Killebrew, among others)

And that's before adjusting for defence. So Perez, Petrocelli and Killebrew are all on my ballot where I had a lot more pitchers than other voters. By what I explained in the Discussion Thread one could argue that I should have Killebrew a lot higher, but not McCovey or Reggie!.
   45. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4066196)
> Pete Rose Gets a fielding boost

That contradicts the discussion also. Why not discuss when the subject came up?
   46. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4066203)
I don't understand your comment in #44. Reggie and McCovey were the two best hitters in baseball that year. I'm not taking into account position when I make that statement.
   47. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4066208)
> knock Bosman off and add the next chap on my list, Hands.

Done
   48. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4066257)
I'm not taking into account position when I make that statement.

OK, but in terms of merit or value, as I interpret it, Petrocelli and Perez (once defence is accounted for) have more than McCovey or Reggie!. If your team was completely average at every position, and you could replace one player, Petrocelli or Perez would help you more, never mind the gaudy statistics of McCovey or Reggie!.

As for Rose, he was one of the best hitters in the league, as well as being a better defender than Reggie! or McCovey. He was a much above average as McCovey is below average, and you're looking at 45.2 runs versus 37.4 hitting, which is less than a win. Rose is more meritorious than McCovey. Reggie! at 52.9 is not two wins ahead of Rose, and he rates worse than McCovey. So Rose comes out ahead there, too.

Really, if you want to pick on someone on my ballot seriously boosted by defence, I'd pick on Cleon Jones. But pushing him off would only have the effect of putting Bench on, with everyone else moving up.
   49. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4066289)
> If your team was completely average at every position

Making more sense now. You're using average instead of replacement value. In your system would an average player have zero value? I think that's what's leading to some of these distortions. This is an expansion season, replacement level dropped year to year.
   50. fra paolo Posted: February 22, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4066336)
In your system would an average player have zero value?

An average hitter for his position would have zero value. With fielding and pitching it's not so simple.

The fielding progressions are not so linear. A player doesn't score anything until he is about a win above or below average.

With the pitching, I use 'average', but I could just as easily use a 'replacement level'.
   51. OCF Posted: February 22, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4066414)
I'm not going to make it to submitting a ballot this year. If I did, it would look a lot like some sort of average of what's already been posted.
   52. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4066418)
I'm willing to extend because the weekend was lost due to server issues but nobody has asked me so far.
   53. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 22, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4066452)
Official ballot (no post-season bonuses and (only) a 1% demerit for AL players):

1) Reggie Jackson - Best ML player.
2) Willie McCovey - Best ML first baseman.
3) Hank Aaron - Best ML right fielder.
4) Rico Petrocelli - Best AL player.
5) Jim Wynn - Best ML center fielder.
6) Pete Rose (holds nose)
7) Bob Gibson - Best ML pitcher
8) Tom Seaver - I'm actually surprised that he places second here, because I grew up believing his Cy Young was well deserved. Tom Terrific will just have to live with the fact he was the greatest hurler of his generation instead. :-)
9) Sal Bando - A litlle better than Killer, so he gets the nod for greatest ML third baseman of '69.
10) Harmon Killebrew -
11) Frank Howard - Best ML left fielder
12) Frank Robinson - Another top-ten placement for Robby.



   54. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4066459)
Anyone want an extension? Going once?
   55. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4066522)
The election is closed
   56. sunnyday2 Posted: February 23, 2012 at 02:31 AM (#4066781)
I think I can see why there's no results yet. Trying to decide whether to throw out 2 ballots, right? Or maybe just 1 or the other? I think Reggie wins with all 13 ballots or with 11 or with the right 12, but Petrocelli wins with the other 12. What to do?

I still just can't recall any prism through which Petrocelli was that good in 1969, but neither is my memory that good.

P.S. I am not upset about it. Whatever is best for the project is fine with me. I don't know how I have gotten so out of step with the other voters, or they with me. I feel like yest.
   57. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 23, 2012 at 05:24 AM (#4066797)
John Murphy--how can Petrocelli be the best player in the AL if you have Reggie above him?

Sunnyday--this isn't rocket science. Seaver and Gibson had the same ERA+. Gibson had average fielders behind him, while Seaver had excellent fielders (Jones, Agee, Harrelson, Gaspar, and Jerry Grote threw out 56% of basestealers). The difference in defensive support is worth about 1.6 wins. Gibson had a 63 OPS+ as a hitter, while Seaver had a zero. That's 0.5 wins. And Gibson threw 15% more innings, which is worth another 1.4 wins or so. Add those 3 factors together and you get a 3-win gap.
   58. bjhanke Posted: February 23, 2012 at 05:26 AM (#4066798)
DL, back at comment #26, asks, "Brock - nobody else has McCovey lower than 4th. Perhaps you can explain that one."

VERY good question. The two placements I spent the most time on were where to put McCovey and whether Harmon or Rose should be 12th (I have them essentially tied). Here's how the McCovey thinking went:

I start these things by taking the lists of WS and WAR and listing the ordinals. Reggie!, for example, was first in WS and second in WAR. That gives him a score of 1+2 = 3, where low is good. The next best score, by this first pass, is Willie's, at 2+5 = 7. I put Gibson ahead of him because WAR went so completely bonkers over Bob's season that just his placement in the ordinals didn't seem to be high enough. Rico was third, at 5+3 = 8, which is just below Willie. But Rico completely dominated shortstops that year, and I am a complete sucker for that. Essentially, I'm trying to answer a different type of replacement rate question, "What quality of starter would a good team have, compared to this guy, bearing in mind that good teams have better starters than bad teams?" The answer in this case is, "Nothing anywhere near Rico." Aaron, in the ordinals, was next, just ahead of Gibson, at 3+9 = 12 against 12+1 = 13. But I gave Hank a postseason bonus. His team didn't win, but he himself played very very well in the CS. Seaver I obsessed over quite a bit. His ordinals don't put him in this class of ranks; it's 11+12 = 23. In the postseason, he pitched poorly in the CS, but won anyway. He pitched well, but not great, in the WS. Willie was an immobile first baseman, who could not play anywhere else. If you were to tell me that you really don't think that Tom should outrank Willie, I'd go right along with you. I obsessed and then went with what I had. In my original ballot, I wrote that the only reason I didn't vote them tied was that it's not allowed.

In short, I struggle with what I call "extras", things that don't appear in WAR and WS, for one reason or another. Since it's impossible (for me, at least), to numerically value those extras, I have to obsess and try to remember the season, if I can. So the short answer to your question is that Willie had no extras, just the #2 rank in ordinals. The people above him have extras. I can hardly argue with a consensus that places the #2 ordinals within the first four players. I just found, and possibly overvalued, extras.

Just because I mentioned it, here's the reason I put Harmon over Pete: Harmon, like Tony Perez, was playing a defensive position that he could just barely handle. Tony did this so the Reds could get both his bat and Lee May's in there. Harmon was doing this so the Twins could get Rich Reese into the lineup as well as Harmon. Rich had a real good season in 1969; I doubt the Twins would have won their division without him. I give Harmon credit for fighting 3B hard and accepting being laughed at for his failures, so that his team could get another bat into the lineup. Oddly enough, there's a downside to this. The Twins had, in 1969, the 24-year-old Graig Nettles on their bench, playing mostly LF when Bob Allison fell apart. He didn't hit much, and they didn't see enough of him, apparently, to realize what they had at 3B, so they traded him away. That was the cost of the 1969 division championship for them. Whether it was worth it is for you to decide, but it's not Harmon's fault in any case. Harmon was fighting beyond the call of duty to help his team win. I realize that Harmon won the MVP because he played every single game, led the league in HR and RBI and scored over 100 runs himself, but I can't find it in my heart to deny it to him. He was willing to sacrifice himself so that his team could win.

Does that look like defensible reasoning to you? Comments are welcome. Anything I can do to improve myself as an analyst is welcome.

Oh, and Sunnyday2. Yeah, it's a quirky ballot, but I've submitted some of those in the HoM myself, due to looking at extras and outlier careers. It's nothing like a yest ballot, which completely redefines the term "quirky."

- Brock
   59. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2012 at 09:33 AM (#4066841)
Not throwing out any ballots. Different perspectives are valued, as long as they have some thought behind them. Just takes time to get it posted.
   60. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4066842)
> Tony Perez, was playing a defensive position that he could just barely handle

fra paulo thinks he handled it admirably
   61. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4066926)
moved comment to results
   62. fra paolo Posted: February 26, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4069265)
What does Brooks (2.3 dWAR player) score in your system - 80 runs?

He adds about 5 wins. Perez about 3. Bando costs just under 2 wins.

I feel obliged to update this. I convert 'runs saved' into a winning percentage normally, but when I eyeball it I use the rough rule of thumb that 10 runs is equal to one win. So Brooks was saving fifty runs, Perez thirty, and Bando was costing twenty.

However, I've added another layer to my 'defensive winning percentage' calculation, this time converting the DWP directly to a number of wins, and I find ten runs does not equal one win. It's more like twenty. (This didn't affect my calculation for the MMP, as I used the total of 'runs created' for batting and then 'runs saved' for fielding, and used the sum of those two to rank my players.

So Brooks is actually a 2-win player, Perez a 1-win, and Bando cost the Athletics 1 win.
   63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 27, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4069563)
John Murphy--how can Petrocelli be the best player in the AL if you have Reggie above him?


Obviously, I goofed when I wrote that, though I don't have that much space between those two for it to matter much.
   64. fra paolo Posted: March 30, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4092792)
One more thing about Tony Perez. I was looking at the spreadsheet last night while preparing some data for the 1971 discussion, and a lot of his accumulated value is simply that Reds' 3B had lots of balls-in-play relative to other 3Bs.

'A-ha', I hear you say, 'should that be adjusted?' Well, I think the answer is 'no'. The way my system works benefits better 3Bs, as opposed to fielder with a worse reputation like Perez. The Los Angeles' 3B, who was mostly Bill Sudakis (118 starts) with a bit of Jim Lefebvre (42 starts), saved about 4 per cent more runs in 6 per cent fewer BIP. Perez simply accumulated value by having lots of assists in total, as opposed to adding value by rate.

Also, the Reds had more BIP than any other team in the NL in 1969, but in fact their lead comes through the air-ball outs. They are in the middle of the pack for ground-ball outs.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9452 seconds
49 querie(s) executed