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

Thursday, August 28, 2003

New Eligibles Year by Year

Here we go, if someone can post them for the next 5-10 years, and then maintain this that would be great.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 28, 2003 at 04:20 PM | 959 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 8 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 
   701. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 15, 2006 at 04:36 PM (#2141583)
Trouble is that Milan is too good for Gumby Gantner. I've got him in my top 40 CFs.
   702. DanG Posted: August 15, 2006 at 05:00 PM (#2141606)
In CF, the best fit I found so far is Mickey Stanley, but at 1516 games he comes up a bit "short".
   703. yest Posted: August 15, 2006 at 05:02 PM (#2141608)
He was a long-time regular, and you can call him a good player, but he was never a legitimate all-star.

Others I found who seem to fit in are Carl Furillo in RF,


Furillo was the 2nd best RF in 49 after Musial and the best in 53
   704. DanG Posted: August 15, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#2141622)
Furillo was the 2nd best RF in 49 after Musial and the best in 53

Well, like OCF said:

That is, if he was ever one of the top two or three in the league at his position, then something must have happened to most of the other likely candidates.

I think for this squad you want to think more along the lines that Dr. C is investigating.
   705. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 15, 2006 at 05:45 PM (#2141671)
Gantner is the pivot man in a great irony. If you're a worse player than he was, you'll be awfully hard pressed to rack up 1800 games, 'specially for the same team. But if you've played 1800 games, you're probably a better player than he is, and you've very likely switched teams at some point because you are a desireable commodity...unless you are so desireable that you are never traded---in which instance you are not really comparable to Gantner in the first place.

Or as Yogi might put it, you couldn't ever be teammates with Gantner because nobody was his teammate.
   706. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 15, 2006 at 07:46 PM (#2141854)
Frank Tanana had 110 WARP? Is he better than I realized?
   707. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 15, 2006 at 07:49 PM (#2141862)
Hrbek was too good though - at his best, he was a legitimate All-Star - heck, he was runner up for an MVP Award, and since Willie Hernandez won it, you might make the case that he deserved an MVP Award (I haven't looked over all of the 1984 candidates - Winfield, Mattingly and Gibson round out the top 5 IIRC).
   708. karlmagnus Posted: August 15, 2006 at 07:52 PM (#2141864)
It's a toughie. I thought immediately of Mike Greenwell, but only 1250 games and you'd probably argue he was among the best 2 or 3 LF in baseball in '88. Extraordiarily early dropoff -- top player, younger than Clemens, but retired 10 years now.
   709. OCF Posted: August 15, 2006 at 08:34 PM (#2141915)
I was looking at a different group - the perpetual nomads. (Opposite of Gantner in that.) Guys like Otis Nixon and Reggie Sanders. Hmm... 1800 is rather a lot of games, isn't it?
   710. ronw Posted: August 15, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2141969)
Some more from the Gantner long-career, nothing spectactular with one team ilk:

Frank White - 2324 G, but he was an All-Star 5 years (still, lower career OPS+ (85) than Gantner (88))

Bill Russell - 2181 G, but a 3 time All-Star, and got a single MVP vote in 1973, 82 career OPS+

Frank Crosetti - 1683 G, 2 time All-Star, some low MVP votes (38, 43, 44) 84 career OPS+.
   711. ronw Posted: August 15, 2006 at 09:23 PM (#2141977)
By win shares, Gantner's lone All-Star year is 1983. (He never made a real All-Star team. In '83, he was actually tied for the 2nd best 2B in the AL at 21 WS, behind only Lou Whitaker (29 WS). He was actually tied with 1979 Rookie of the Year John Castino.

True to OCF's prediction, though, Bobby Grich (20 WS) was on the downslope of his career, Willie Randolph had a down year, Paul Molitor was now a 3B, and it turns out that according to Win Shares Frank White was never really a perpetual All-Star.

Frank White's lone Win Shares all-star year is 1986, although he made 5 real All-Star games. In '86, Frank (20WS) was still behind Tony Bernazard (25 WS) and Marty Barrett (22WS).
   712. DL from MN Posted: August 15, 2006 at 10:20 PM (#2142025)
Would Brad Radke fit? Gubicza works if you ignore his 5 innings with the Angels.
   713. DCW3 Posted: August 15, 2006 at 10:45 PM (#2142038)
Would Brad Radke fit?

I don't think so, since Radke had some pretty impressive seasons--in both 1999 and 2004, he was probably among the top two or three pitchers in the AL.
   714. yest Posted: August 15, 2006 at 11:22 PM (#2142090)
how a bought Tony Kubek
   715. jimd Posted: August 16, 2006 at 12:04 AM (#2142188)
Frank Tanana had 110 WARP? Is he better than I realized?

21 seasons, 4188IP. Tanana was awesome his first 1100 IP or so (1974-77). He's got 3 WARP 10 seasons. Best pitcher in baseball 1976, part of that discussion in 1975 and 1977 while pitching in front of some bad defenses (WS isn't quite as kind of course). After that, he pitched forever at about league average (3100 IP more). Like Faber, he has both career and peak but in an unusual shape (no shoulder seasons).
   716. Paul Wendt Posted: August 16, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2143217)
> Many of them do take that option, and hope to somehow make their exit memorable in some way (see Zidane, Z.)

I wrote that before the France/Italy final. I had no idea what was going to happen, none.


You're kidding. I thought everybody knew.

Could Warren Cromartie build a credible HoM case with his seven years in
JL ball?


No.

--
The advance lists of new eligibles for the late 1980s and the 1990s "Elect 3" rush suggest these words, not valid in every case but nonetheless words of wisdom in my opinion.
Relax, he's going in.
   717. DanG Posted: August 17, 2006 at 02:50 AM (#2144111)
Top 12 seasons in win shares
24-22-21-20-20-17-17-17-15-14-14-13 Sutton
26-20-20-19-18-17-17-15-15-14-13-12 Reuschel
25-25-24-24-18-16-16-15-13-11-08-06 Stieb
27-22-20-15-15-15-14-13-12-11-10-09 Tanana
21-20-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-14-14-12 Morris
21-20-18-17-17 15-15-14-12-12-09-08 Hough
18-18-17-16-16-16-15-15-14-14-12-12 D.Martinez
   718. Cuban X Senators Posted: August 17, 2006 at 03:27 AM (#2144135)
(I haven't looked over all of the 1984 candidates - Winfield, Mattingly and Gibson [after Hernandez and Hrbek] round out the top 5 IIRC)

You're forgetting the man who was in the AL top 5 from '81-'85.

Others with 5 straight top 5's:

Berra (7): '50-'56
Musial: '48-'52
Bonds: '90-'94
Bonds: '00-'04
Pujols: '01-'05
   719. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#2145185)
Wow Cuban - that's a great list - and more impressive to me being on that one than winning any one (or maybe even two) MVP Award(s).

And yes I forgot that it was pretty obvious that Cal Ripken was the best player in baseball in 1984, and IIRC he got one 10th place vote in the MVP balloting.
   720. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 18, 2006 at 12:44 AM (#2145186)
I do realize Cuban is referring to Eddie Murray in post 760, but that triggered Ripken's awesome 1984 back into my memory.
   721. DavidFoss Posted: August 22, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#2151424)
Frank Tanana had 110 WARP? Is he better than I realized?

He was pretty darn good through age 23 (40 WARP), coasted on run support at 24 and before his arm finally gave out.

His age 23 comps is a scary list of comtempory flame-out guys (GNolan, Gullett, Valenzuela), 19th century flame-outs (NHahn, Stivetts, CFerguson, ESmith, CSweeney), and a couple of HOF-ers who were washed up by age 32 (Drysdale, Bender). The presence of 19th century guys on the list strikes me as telling that his workload must have been too high at too young an age.

Tanana's sucessful comeback as an anonymous, journeyman 3rd-4th starter for the next 16 seasons helped everyone forget how great he was from 1975-77. *Tanana* was the Angels ace during much of the Nolan Ryan era.
   722. thok Posted: August 22, 2006 at 08:22 AM (#2151592)
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the old "Tanana threw in the 90's in the 70's and in the 70's in the 90's" joke.
   723. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 29, 2006 at 07:46 AM (#2159978)
I was just going through, and by 1995 we are going to be pretty deep into the backlog. I'm guessing at least 10 of our oldies but goodies are going to get in by the late 90s . . . don't give up on your lost causes just yet guys!
   724. jimd Posted: August 29, 2006 at 11:15 PM (#2160752)
don't give up on your lost causes just yet guys!

There are 65 HOMers remaining to be elected by 2006.

There are 33 BBWAA HOFers that are not yet HOM eligible.

Brock McCovey Hunter Stargell Yastrzemski
Bench Palmer Morgan Perry Jenkins
Carew Seaver Fingers Jackson Carlton
Schmidt Niekro Sutton Yount Ryan
Brett Perez Fisk Winfield Puckett
OSmith Murray Carter Molitor Eckersley
Sandberg Boggs Sutter

Assuming that we elect them all (big if), that means that there are 32 slots remaining for the backlog (both the current backlog, and the "new backlog", those that the BBWAA left behind, such as Trammell and Whitaker). And that number 32 could grow, if we deem any of the above to lack sufficient "merit" (hello Catfish ;-).

As a sidenote, all of the HOF Veteran's Committee selections are HOM eligible. Cepeda was the last one, in 1980.
   725. sunnyday2 Posted: August 29, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#2160775)
>all of the HOF Veteran's Committee selections are HOM eligible. Cepeda was the last one, in 1980.

Seriously, is that so? Migod, have the players of the past 25 years gotten the shaft or what?

And Joe (re. #765) see #16 in the 1983 results thread. I think it's more than 10.
   726. jimd Posted: August 30, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2160808)
Seriously, is that so?

Bunning in 96, Fox in 97, Cepeda in 99, Maz in 2001.
Then they shut down the VC as Frisch knew it, and
instituted the current Veteran's vote by the HOF membership.
As we all know, the new system hasn't elected anybody yet.

Cepeda's the guy with the most recent HOM eligible date.
   727. sunnyday2 Posted: August 30, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#2160810)
I guess I shoulda figured, they couldn't very well have elected anybody active after 1980 what with 5 years waiting, 15 on the ballot, and then do they wait another 5 years for VC consideration?

But OTOH the real point is not that players since 1980 are shut out, but Cepeda is in fact probably the only guy who played after 1970. So, so far, the '70s guys are the ones getting crapped on by the VC. Well, along with Joe Gordon.
   728. jimd Posted: August 30, 2006 at 01:32 AM (#2160833)
OTOH, since it seems unlikely that the new setup will elect anybody short of a Johnny Mize/Arky Vaughan kind of omission by the BBWAA, pressure will build to change it, and so it will be changed eventually (if they can figure out how to change it without offending the HOF membership).
   729. DanG Posted: August 30, 2006 at 01:19 PM (#2161256)
they couldn't very well have elected anybody active after 1980 what with 5 years waiting, 15 on the ballot, and then do they wait another 5 years for VC consideration?

If my understanding of the old VC rules is correct, the wait was until your 4th year after your last BBWAA year. IOW, you had to be retired for 23 years and off the BBWAA ballot for three years to be VC eligible. By this reckoning, Torre and Allen both were eligible for the last election in 2001 (when they elected Maz). Santo was due up in 2002, Munson in 2003, Minoso in 2004.

As I’ve said before, the HoM is electing three main constituencies that the HOF missed: 19th century, Negro league and expansion era.

First, we elected 15 19th century stars that the Hall has missed, ending with Pike in 1940.

Then, the Hall just put in 12 NeLers: 7 we had already elected, 2 we have since elected, 1 we should soon elect and 2 others getting little support from us. Would you swap our Grant Johnson and John Beckwith for their Ben Taylor and Andy Cooper?

Finally, the old VC elected only three expansion era stars: Bunning, Cepeda and Mazeroski. We’ve now started picking up the multitude of overlooked stars from the 1960s-70s-80s: Santo, Allen, Torre, so far; many others to come: Blyleven, Trammell, Gossage, Grich, Simmons, maybe a dozen more.
   730. sunnyday2 Posted: August 30, 2006 at 01:29 PM (#2161267)
What I love is the argument that the HoF has honored too many guys. And in order to right the wrongs of commission (G. Kelly, Marquard, etc. etc. ad infinitum) it has to leave Blyleven, Grich, Whitaker et al out. Then in about 50 years it will have the right number of guys.

Great logic.
   731. DavidFoss Posted: August 30, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2161378)
OTOH, since it seems unlikely that the new setup will elect anybody short of a Johnny Mize/Arky Vaughan kind of omission by the BBWAA, pressure will build to change it, and so it will be changed eventually (if they can figure out how to change it without offending the HOF membership).

Brace yourself for the overcompensation that usually happens when they do this. The 12 NeL-ers at once went surprisingly well, but when that there are that many inductees in a short time (or even one fell swoop!), its easy to make mistakes. Imagine 12 HOF inductees from the expansion era. Six of them would be "its-about-time" types, but there is likely to be some head scratchers in the bottom three. Then the bar for entry might be effectively lowered for a few years, etc., etc, etc.
   732. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2161566)
767. sunnyday2
Seriously, is that so? Migod, have the players of the past 25 years gotten the shaft or what?

769. sunnyday2
I guess I shoulda figured, they couldn't very well have elected anybody active after 1980 what with 5 years waiting, 15 on the ballot, and then do they wait another 5 years for VC consideration?

But OTOH the real point is not that players since 1980 are shut out, but Cepeda is in fact probably the only guy who played after 1970. So, so far, the '70s guys are the ones getting crapped on by the VC. Well, along with Joe Gordon.


772. sunnyday2
What I love is the argument that the HoF has honored too many guys. And in order to right the wrongs of commission (G. Kelly, Marquard, etc. etc. ad infinitum) it has to leave Blyleven, Grich, Whitaker et al out. Then in about 50 years it will have the right number of guys.

Great logic.


Great series of posts, sunnyday. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. However, I wouldn't put all of the blame on the VC. A lot of this has to do with the BBWAA. A lot of those '70s and '80s stars are still on the BBWAA ballot: Blyleven, Gossage, Rice, Trammell. The BBWAA also seems to have adopted the mindset that the Hall has gotten too big. And so I find myself a "big hall" kind of guy by default as it seems that players from more recent decades are being asked to meet a higher standard than those from earlier eras.

Also, I agree about Gordon being an obvious omission from the Hall of Fame. I was watching a game the other day and they flashed the stat of the top five second basemen with the most career home runs. Gordon, despite his years of military service, still made the list.

773. DavidFoss
Brace yourself for the overcompensation that usually happens when they do this. The 12 NeL-ers at once went surprisingly well, but when that there are that many inductees in a short time (or even one fell swoop!), its easy to make mistakes. Imagine 12 HOF inductees from the expansion era. Six of them would be "its-about-time" types, but there is likely to be some head scratchers in the bottom three. Then the bar for entry might be effectively lowered for a few years, etc., etc, etc.

I would like to see a 19th century commission, not unlike the recent Negro League commission. Then maybe a Bob Caruthers or a Lip Pike could get his due. The previous version of the VC had been dabbling in that era, electing Vic Willis (okay, he was more of an '00s player than a 19th century one), George Kelly and Bid McPhee in '95, '98 and 2000, as well as managers Ned Hanlon and Frank Selee in '96 and '99. However, I don't think that there's the will to do this as there was with the Negro League players. And I think that the addition of players most people have never heard of (like Bid McPhee) is one of the reasons why the previous VC was shut down and replaced.
   733. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 05:23 PM (#2161568)
Correction to my previous post: George Davis was the one elected in 1998, not George Kelly.
   734. OCF Posted: August 30, 2006 at 05:55 PM (#2161610)
George Davis was the one elected in 1998,

Go back and find our arguments and our ballot totals for the 1915 HoM election. As a body, we agree wholeheartedly with the election of Davis - we certainly have no problem with that. But how can you possibly include Davis and omit Dahlen? For us, Davis and Dahlen were both first eligble in 1915 (an elect-2 year) and were overwhelmingly elected. Davis was the highest vote getter, but I personally submitted a ballot that said 1. Dahlen, 2. Davis, and I wasn't the only one.

The balance is between Davis's offensive advantage (not that Dahlen wasn't also a productive hitter) and Dahlen's defensive advantage. There was a lot of sentiment to the effect that that particular comparison was too close to call.

I suppose you could say that Joe Tinker took Dahlen's spot in Cooperstown, not that it exactly works that way.
   735. DanG Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:26 PM (#2161697)
I would like to see a 19th century commission, not unlike the recent Negro League commission. Then maybe a Bob Caruthers or a Lip Pike could get his due. The previous version of the VC had been dabbling in that era, electing Vic Willis (okay, he was more of an '00s player than a 19th century one), George Davis and Bid McPhee in '95, '98 and 2000, as well as managers Ned Hanlon and Frank Selee in '96 and '99. However, I don't think that there's the will to do this as there was with the Negro League players. And I think that the addition of players most people have never heard of (like Bid McPhee) is one of the reasons why the previous VC was shut down and replaced.

Those recent 19th century inductees were solely due to the VC establishing a special subcommittee to identify worthy individuals from that era. This subcommittee consisted of two(?) VC electors who were given the task of compiling a special ballot for consideration by the VC at large, apart from the regular player balloting. They were limited to one inductee per year. They were granted a five-year mandate, 1995-99, which was extended for the final two years of the old VC (2000-01). In two of those years (1997, 2001) they failed to elect anyone. IMO, the fact that they only managed to elect Davis and McPhee from among the true 19th century players demonstrates a failure of their efforts. Still, it reflects a willingness on the part of the Hall to consider the early players. With increasing interest in recent years in Baseball History and Vintage games, there is yet hope that they will realize the need to review those days.
   736. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#2161754)
They ought to just put the fifty or so of us in a room, with a mandate to elect between x and y 19th-century guys (defining that term well to avoid the same situation as the Minnie Minoso/Buck Leonard issues of the NgL committee). I think we'd do alright. Well, better than alright. At this point our decision-making abilities are well-honed enough that we could probably do a great job and we'd need only two weeks of discussion and a few preliminary ballots to do it! ; )
   737. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2161755)
There also isn't a political/liberal guilt reason to start electing 19C players as there was with NeL players. There jsut isn't a lobby of people saying taht the HOF needs more 19c players than it has and there has been a lobby of people clamoring for more NeL players. That lobby wasn't wrong of course but it would be nice if there was a 19c one as well.
   738. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#2161765)
Glad to see I'm not the only one making bone-headed mistakes. Dr. Chaleeko, I'm assuming you meant Buck O'Neil and not Buck Leonard.
   739. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:53 PM (#2161781)
Here's a pretty good preliminary ballot for a 19th century commission:
Ross Barnes
Charlie Bennett
Bob Caruthers
Bill Dahlen
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Paul Hines
Cal McVey
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Hardy Richardson
Joe Start
Harry Stovey
Ezra Sutton
and Deacon White

and just for good measure, why not include
Cupid Childs
Charley Jones
George Van Haltren
Pete Browning
Jimmy Ryan
and Ed Williamson
   740. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2161787)
The only problem with a strict 19th century commission is that the same lack of inductees is extended into the earliest part of the 20th century. There are plenty of pre-World War I players like Jimmy Sheckard and Sherry Magee who would still fall between the cracks.
   741. DanG Posted: August 30, 2006 at 07:23 PM (#2161841)
There also isn't a political/liberal guilt reason to start electing 19C players as there was with NeL players.

OTOH, you don't have to overcome societal and institutional racism. Some BBWAA members were writing in Paige, Gibson and others for years before the HOF was shamed enough to allow them in.

the same lack of inductees is extended into the earliest part of the 20th century. There are plenty of pre-World War I players like Jimmy Sheckard and Sherry Magee who would still fall between the cracks.

Plenty? You just named the only HoMers in the group. (Dahlen more 19c, Groh more during and after WW-1)

That lobby wasn't wrong of course but it would be nice if there was a 19c one as well.

From the top of the HOF home page: National Baseball Hall of Fame and <u>Museum</u>: Preserving History - Honoring Excellence - Connecting Generations. They talk the talk; now we just have to get them to walk the walk.
   742. DavidFoss Posted: August 30, 2006 at 07:36 PM (#2161878)
Post 781:Here's a pretty good preliminary ballot for a 19th century commission:

Interesting to note that none of those are 1890s guys.
   743. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 07:57 PM (#2161938)
Sorry 'bout the exaggeration, DanG. Change that "plenty of" to "some."
   744. OCF Posted: August 30, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#2161970)
Interesting to note that none of those are 1890s guys.

Except for Dahlen, of course. The thing is that Cooperstown did already pick up many of the true grade-A 1890's players (except for Dahlen): Delehanty, Hamilton, Burkett, Nichols, along with a fair representation of the the A- candidates: Keeler, Kelley, Rusie, McPhee. We eventually elected Griffith and Jennings purely as players; the HoF already had them, possibly with more complicated resumes. McGraw is in the HoF, whether we elect him as a player or not. (One presumes that if we do a managers/executives wing, he'll be a shoo-in there.)

(Chris Fluit's post #781 didn't list Dahlen. He's a two-decade player, with a career running, apart from trivialities, from 1891 through 1909. He was probably a little better in the first half of that career.)
   745. rawagman Posted: August 30, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#2161979)
Interesting to note that Duffy was elected by the Hall in 195(5?). Yet he gets middling respect here.
   746. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 08:37 PM (#2161980)
(Chris Fluit's post #781 didn't list Dahlen. He's a two-decade player, with a career running, apart from trivialities, from 1891 through 1909. He was probably a little better in the first half of that career.)
Yes, it did.
   747. OCF Posted: August 30, 2006 at 08:39 PM (#2161982)
Oops - yes, it did. Sorry.
   748. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#2162013)
Glad to see I'm not the only one making bone-headed mistakes. Dr. Chaleeko, I'm assuming you meant Buck O'Neil and not Buck Leonard.

You don't think Buck Leonard was a horsebleep selection? ; )

Yes, you're right of course that I meant Buck, not Buck.

I think that Chris's list of 1800s guys ought probably also include Creighton and Harry Wright and any other early stars that I'm forgetting because I wasn't around to debate them at the beginning of the project. Not to mention HR Johnson, Bud Fowler, Sol White, and Frank Grant! And mabye Tip O'Neill and Abner Dalrymple and Tom York because I know John Murphy likes two of them, and I've always had a soft spot for Abner. Oh...and you know you love Arlie Latham!!!! But this is why the Hall should set some guidelines about what consistuts a 19th Century guy. As in born before X year or started career by 189X. Or finished it by 190X. Or something suitably inclusive but not foolishly exclusive.
   749. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#2162024)
The list doesn't need to include Harry Wright- he's already in the Hall of Fame. But as a Canadian, I like the Tip O'Neill suggestion.

And concerning OCF's post 786: you're right, the Hall of Fame did an okay job with the 1890s. Besides the players you mentioned, they also inducted Hugh Duffy and Wilbert Robinson (as player and manager).
   750. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2162029)
Oh, yeah, I forgot old Harry's already a member of the club. On the other hand, electing Uncle Wilbert doesn't speak well to VC's discriminating pallet.
   751. Chris Fluit Posted: August 30, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#2162041)
In defense of Uncle Wilbert and the VC, there was a tendency at the time to vote for someone based on their combined record as player and manager. Robinson wouldn't have gotten in on his playing career alone. Indeed, the Hall of Fame site lists him not as a catcher, but as a manager.
   752. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 30, 2006 at 10:26 PM (#2162077)
Didn't Creighton only pitch for about 2-3 seasons? Wasn't he dead by the time he was 21? I don't care how good he was those two years, that's not a Hall of Famer (or a HoMer).

And I thought we pretty much debunked that Harry Wright was a great player . . . is my memory failing me? I realize he's already in the Hall of Fame, but just wanted to double check that one.
   753. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 30, 2006 at 10:28 PM (#2162078)
Back to Creighton - if he's a legit candidate, then my new died young favorite Charlie Ferguson needs to be added to the ballot too :-)
   754. jimd Posted: August 30, 2006 at 10:46 PM (#2162093)
Even with managing credit Uncle Robby isn't a HOFer. Lots of guys have two pennants. And he didn't win the WS either time (3-9 in WS play). To be fair, using modern standards, he's got another Wild Card appearance (1924).

He was well-liked in his time and a baseball lifer. The team was nicknamed the Robins in his honor much of the time he was managing the Dodgers. His HOF selection strikes me as the equivalent of a posthumous gold-watch. They should set up an Uncle Robby wing and put all of the lifers in there after 50 years of service from minor-league start. Don Zimmer, Johnny Pesky, name your favorite coach, scout, etc.
   755. DavidFoss Posted: August 30, 2006 at 10:50 PM (#2162095)
Didn't Creighton only pitch for about 2-3 seasons? Wasn't he dead by the time he was 21? I don't care how good he was those two years, that's not a Hall of Famer (or a HoMer).

Three is about right. Four if you are generous. He took over as pitcher in mid-1859 and was dead in October of 1862 (at the age of 21). He was a big star and a memorable player, but that's just not enough meat for an HOM candidacy.

And I thought we pretty much debunked that Harry Wright was a great player . . . is my memory failing me? I realize he's already in the Hall of Fame, but just wanted to double check that one.

I posted his batting data to the Yahoo Group (in the Marshall Wright data files). His play is not very well documented before Cincinnati. He was a well-known enough name to play in some early all-star games, but his early teams (Knickerbocker 1858-60 and Gotham 1863-65) were not very strong and not very well documented with box scores either. Data for him is missing from 61-62 & 66. My unsubstantiated feeling is that Harry was playing quite a bit of cricket during this time and not completely focused on baseball. By the time he got to Cincy, he was over 30. He had a decent year in 1867 against a weaker schedule, but a stronger schedule and advancing age let to him being one of the weakest hitters on the great 1869-70 Cincy teams. He's a slam dunk HOF-er as a manager & pioneer, though.
   756. Chris Fluit Posted: August 31, 2006 at 12:02 AM (#2162185)
796. jimd
Even with managing credit Uncle Robby isn't a HOFer. Lots of guys have two pennants. And he didn't win the WS either time (3-9 in WS play). To be fair, using modern standards, he's got another Wild Card appearance (1924).

He was well-liked in his time and a baseball lifer. The team was nicknamed the Robins in his honor much of the time he was managing the Dodgers. His HOF selection strikes me as the equivalent of a posthumous gold-watch. They should set up an Uncle Robby wing and put all of the lifers in there after 50 years of service from minor-league start. Don Zimmer, Johnny Pesky, name your favorite coach, scout, etc.


As much as I like Wilbert Robinson, I have to agree with your assessment.
   757. OCF Posted: August 31, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2162191)
In his manager book, (and in an Abstract or two before that) Bill James did a structured "Manager in a Box" writeup. The very last question is something like, "If there were no professional baseball, what would this man be doing?" Some of that was just goofy one-liners, like the one for Earl Weaver: "Bouncer in a midget bar." But the entry for Harry Wright reads, "There was no professional baseball. He invented it."
   758. OCF Posted: August 31, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2162195)
I like the idea of the "Uncle Robbie" wing. How about Jimmie Reese? And who was that guy with the Panama hat and the radar gun at Dodger Stadium - was his name something like Brito?
   759. Chris Fluit Posted: August 31, 2006 at 01:34 AM (#2162377)
copied from post #726:

1985—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
348 82.4 1962 Lou Brock-LF
263 79.8 1966 Roy White-LF
224 80.3 1963 Mickey Lolich-P
206 77.1 1970 Thurman Munson-C (1979)
206 74.4 1965 Catfish Hunter-P (1999)

1986—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
408 101.2 1959 Willie McCovey-1B
233 53.2 1964 Willie Horton-LF

1987—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
302 88.1 1968 Bobby Bonds-RF (2003)
283 78.3 1967 Sal Bando-3B
146 61.7 1967 Mike Marshall-RP

1988—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
370 101.3 1963 Willie Stargell-LF/1B (2001)
325 86.4 1967 Reggie Smith-CF/RF
256 97.1 1964 Luis Tiant-P
277 71.9 1969 Bobby Murcer-RF/CF*
225 56.6 1967 Lee May-1B

1989—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
488 140.1 1961 Carl Yastrzemski-LF/1B
369 136.3 1963 Gaylord Perry-P
356 128.0 1968 Johnny Bench-C
323 121.4 1966 Fergie Jenkins-P
268 102.3 1960 Jim Kaat-P
280 91.4 1964 Bert Campaneris-SS
231 73.9 1970 Gene Tenace-C/1B
   760. Chris Fluit Posted: August 31, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2162385)
Copied from post #709:

1990 (November 27)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
512 156.8 1965 Joe Morgan-2B
312 107.4 1965 Jim Palmer-P
302 86.5 1970 Ken Singleton-RF
286 82.6 1969 Amos Otis-CF
258 64.1 1967 Rick Monday-CF
247 59.3 1971 Greg Luzinski-LF
236 60.8 1968 Bob Watson-1B
181 61.0 1968 Ron Reed-RP
185 54.6 1971 Mickey Rivers-CF
159 56.1 1969 Mike Torrez-P
158 56.1 1965 Tug McGraw-RP (2004)
140 52.4 1971 Paul Splittorff-P
164 43.1 1969 Lou Piniella-LF
122 46.6 1972 Mike Caldwell-P
110 44.8 1968 Tom Burgmeier-RP
112 41.1 1971 Milt May-C
113 39.1 1972 Dick Tidrow-RP
116 37.2 1973 Bucky Dent-SS
122 34.5 1977 Gene Richards-LF

1991 (December 11)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
384 124.5 1967 Rod Carew-2B/1B
358 102.3 1963 Rusty Staub-RF
305 81.5 1969 Al Oliver-CF/1B
240 87.9 1968 Jerry Koosman-P
188 81.1 1969 Rollie Fingers-RP
212 68.9 1974 Mike Hargrove-1B
219 60.4 1969 Richie Hebner-3B
203 63.0 1972 Garry Maddox-CF*
182 66.1 1973 Steve Rogers-P
179 63.8 1970 Larry Bowa-SS
196 47.1 1971 Jeff Burroughs-RF/LF
164 59.5 1972 Burt Hooton-P
177 48.7 1970 Oscar Gamble-RF/DH
159 53.3 1975 Sixto Lezcano-RF
169 49.8 1973 Al Bumbry-CF
125 45.2 1970 Larry Gura-P
141 35.2 1966 Jay Johnstone-RF/CF
107 48.0 1971 Tim Foli-SS
111 38.8 1974 Geoff Zahn-P
121 33.3 1971 Steve Braun-LF/3B

1992 (December 25)—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
547 160.2 1963 Pete Rose-LF/1B
388 147.7 1967 Tom Seaver-P
329 119.1 1970 Bobby Grich-2B
349 108.6 1965 Tony Perez-1B/3B
296 88.4 1970 Cesar Cedeno-CF
287 89.7 1971 Toby Harrah-3B/SS
269 88.0 1971 George Foster-LF
245 77.1 1971 Dusty Baker-LF
202 79.9 1970 Vida Blue-P
221 62.6 1971 Chris Chambliss-1B*
185 63.4 1969 Bill Russell-SS
194 59.9 1972 Ben Oglivie-LF
195 50.4 1971 Dave Kingman-1B/LF
165 50.1 1976 Jason Thompson-1B
159 45.4 1974 Bruce Bochte-1B
152 43.7 1973 Gorman Thomas-CF
133 51.2 1975 Dennis Leonard-P
139 44.6 1977 Steve Kemp-LF*
126 45.8 1971 Jim Slaton-P
123 48.7 1975 John Denny-P
138 36.3 1974 Al Cowens-RF (2002)
134 36.6 1974 Cliff Johnson-DH/1B
119 38.6 1976 Omar Moreno-CF
129 33.1 1974 Enos Cabell-B/1B
107 41.4 1971 Terry Forster-RP
106 38.5 1973 Steve Yeager-C

1993 (January 8)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
444 123.2 1967 Reggie Jackson-RF
374 135.7 1965 Phil Niekro-P
366 133.4 1966 Steve Carlton-P*
280 97.0 1973 Ron Cey-3B
279 84.0 1970 Steve Garvey-1B
257 68.7 1973 Garry Matthews-LF
240 74.8 1973 Davey Lopes-2B
242 68.5 1974 Bill Madlock-3B
222 76.2 1973 Darrell Porter-C (2002)
241 65.6 1973 Cecil Cooper-1B
230 61.8 1970 Hal McRae-DH
205 64.1 1975 Doug DeCinces-3B
181 61.3 1975 Roy Smalley-SS
179 57.4 1973 Dan Driessen-1B
186 50.0 1974 Andre Thornton-1B/DH
152 65.1 1974 Rick Burleson-SS
160 45.3 1972 Jorge Orta-2B/DH
157 41.3 1973 Johnny Grubb-LF/CF
139 48.8 1977 Ruppert Jones-CF
138 47.1 1972 Lee Lacy-RF/LF
114 48.8 1975 Gary Lavelle-RP
121 42.6 1977 Scott McGregor-P*
117 42.5 1980 Tony Bernazard-2B*
107 44.0 1973 Bill Campbell-RP

1994 (January 22)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
319 117.9 1966 Don Sutton-P
321 105.2 1969 Graig Nettles-3B
315 97.2 1970 Ted Simmons-C
313 94.9 1971 Jose Cruz-LF
269 105.8 1970 Dave Concepcion-SS
262 71.7 1972 Don Baylor-DH/LF
237 71.3 1971 George Hendrick-RF/CF
174 75.2 1976 Ron Guidry-P
195 62.7 1975 Phil Garner-2B/3B
189 65.2 1967 Joe Niekro-P
168 58.1 1976 Bruce Sutter-RP
160 58.1 1973 Gene Garber-RP
160 50.9 1976 Jerry Mumphrey-CF
176 43.9 1975 Larry Parrish-3B
136 48.0 1976 Butch Wynegar-C
140 43.6 1978 Bob Horner-3B
130 38.8 1976 Larry Herndon-LF
123 36.5 1977 Ray Knight-3B
109 37.7 1977 Mario Soto-P

1995 (February 5)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
467 157.4 1973 Mike Schmidt-3B
363 116.1 1971 Darrell Evans-3B/1B
301 109.8 1972 Buddy Bell-3B
289 108.5 1964 Tommy John-P
282 84.3 1975 Jim Rice-LF
206 90.9 1971 Chris Speier-SS
200 69.0 1974 Jim Sundberg-C
194 68.3 1970 Jerry Reuss-P*
192 68.3 1971 Doyle Alexander-P
173 54.9 1979 Dwayne Murphy-CF
159 62.8 1975 Kent Tekulve-RP
155 58.1 1975 Rick Rhoden-P
149 59.3 1977 Bob Stanley-RP
140 55.5 1978 Glenn Hubbard-2B
154 44.8 1974 Bob Forsch-P
146 46.0 1975 Manny Trillo-2B
134 38.2 1977 Lee Mazzilli-CF/PH
109 46.7 1977 Willie Hernandez-RP
131 37.6 1977 Tony Armas-RF/CF
126 38.8 1980 Leon Durham-1B
115 42.1 1977 Craig Reynolds-SS
102 43.4 1978 Shane Rawley-P
109 39.4 1977 Mike Krukow-P
   761. Chris Fluit Posted: August 31, 2006 at 01:37 AM (#2162391)
copied from post #730:

1996 (February 19)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
311 108.1 1975 Keith Hernandez-1B
265 91.3 1976 Chet Lemon-CF
280 83.7 1975 Fred Lynn-CF
240 95.0 1972 Rick Reuschel-P*
211 92.2 1973 Frank White-2B
226 66.2 1971 Bill Buckner-1B
210 69.0 1973 Bob Boone-C
194 52.0 1974 Claudell Washington-RF
157 53.8 1979 Dan Quisenberry-RP (1998)
153 52.5 1982 Johnny Ray-2B
135 50.3 1980 John Tudor-P
124 45.6 1977 Bob Knepper-P
133 41.4 1975 Dave Collins-LF/RF
124 40.0 1984 Phil Bradley-LF
114 42.7 1981 Gary Ward-LF
111 42.1 1977 Greg Minton-RP
112 40.6 1980 Ron Oester-2B
127 35.3 1979 Jeff Leonard-LF
105 41.3 1979 Mike Scott-P*
1997 (March 5)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
347 112.9 1973 Dwight Evans-RF
327 86.9 1973 Dave Parker-RF
259 71.3 1974 Ken Griffey-RF/LF
209 73.1 1976 Garry Templeton-SS
176 54.6 1977 Terry Puhl-RF
170 55.2 1980 Tom Herr-2B
177 51.5 1980 Lloyd Moseby-CF
158 55.1 1974 Rick Dempsey-C*
151 47.4 1981 Mookie Wilson-CF
150 46.5 1979 Terry Kennedy-C
128 49.8 1977 Jim Clancy-P
126 45.6 1980 Ernie Whitt-C
108 43.5 1979 Dan Petry-P
111 38.8 1977 Warren Cromartie-LF/RF
107 38.2 1978 Ed Whitson-P
115 34.5 1979 Ron Hassey-C
1998 (March 19)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
339 143.6 1970 Bert Blyleven-P
337 117.8 1975 Gary Carter-C
312 108.8 1976 Willie Randolph-2B
316 92.1 1977 Jack Clark-RF/1B
298 89.3 1974 Brian Downing-LF/DH/C
210 88.0 1979 Dave Stieb-P*
244 70.8 1978 Carney Lansford-3B
246 68.7 1980 Pedro Guerrero-1B/RF
166 65.7 1982 Jesse Barfield-RF
163 61.6 1978 Jim Gantner-2B
177 56.2 1982 Von Hayes-RF/1B
168 59.5 1980 Mike Scioscia-C
158 59.3 1976 Mike Flanagan-P
141 50.5 1979 Ken Oberkfell-3B
128 54.5 1977 Floyd Bannister-P
153 41.4 1984 Alvin Davis-1B
120 39.0 1984 Brook Jacoby-3B
116 40.7 1978 Don Robinson-P
106 40.3 1980 Dave Smith-RP
103 40.5 1978 Dennis Lamp-RP
1999 (April 2)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
432 133.2 1974 George Brett-3B
423 131.9 1974 Robin Yount-SS/CF
334 141.6 1968 Nolan Ryan-P
368 114.9 1972 Carlton Fisk-C
294 91.8 1977 Dale Murphy-CF/RF
241 110.0 1974 Frank Tanana-P
198 64.0 1982 Steve Sax-2B*
182 69.8 1975 John Candelaria-P
193 60.6 1983 Bill Doran-2B
171 48.4 1981 George Bell-LF
132 59.5 1983 Mike Boddicker-P
138 55.2 1980 Charlie Leibrandt-P
147 50.4 1980 Dickie Thon-SS
141 52.2 1983 Pete O’Brien-1B
134 45.0 1979 Alfredo Griffin-SS
132 42.2 1985 Glenn Davis-1B
117 46.6 1981 Mike Witt-P
118 39.8 1985 Rob Deer-RF*
104 44.9 1981 Bob Ojeda-P*
114 39.3 1984 Dan Gladden-LF
2000 (April 16)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
233 95.3 1973 Charlie Hough-P
225 90.2 1978 Jack Morris-P
223 89.9 1972 Rich Gossage-RP
230 80.7 1982 Kent Hrbek-1B
237 75.7 1978 Willie Wilson-CF
187 76.8 1982 Frank Viola-P*
188 75.6 1978 Bob Welch-P
202 59.4 1983 Kevin McReynolds-LF
190 58.6 1980 Lonnie Smith-LF
175 62.4 1982 Tom Brunansky-RF
157 61.1 1980 Jeff Reardon-RP
153 57.4 1979 Rick Sutcliffe-P
144 60.0 1982 Bruce Hurst-P
160 51.0 1981 Dave Henderson-CF
149 40.5 1981 Hubie Brooks-RF/3B
126 45.9 1980 Bill Gullickson-P
123 47.1 1985 Harold Reynolds-2B
120 36.2 1983 Gary Redus-LF
100 44.1 1985 Teddy Higuera-P
   762. Chris Fluit Posted: August 31, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2162398)
The whole "Uncle Robbie" discussion has got me wondering: who's up for a managers/executives wing once we've caught up to the players?
   763. DanG Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:58 AM (#2181581)
New Eligibles 2001-2003

There seems to be some interest in getting these done, so here's three more years. The ballot deadline dates assume that we will skip a week this year during the holiday season.

Notes:
1) Little room for the old backlog in this period.
2) Japanese league play will come under increasing scrutiny.
3) Again, there is an asterisk by players who are eligible earlier than the BBWAA rules, due to ignoring token appearances at the end of their career.
4) It’s also possible I missed a death date or two; due to its increasing rarity I sometimes forget to check it.

2001 (May 7)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

415 128.6 1973 Dave Winfield-RF
351 122.1 1978 Lou Whitaker-2B
281 88.4 1984 Kirby Puckett-CF (2006)
263 85.5 1983 Don Mattingly-1B
248 86.5 1978 Lance Parrish-C
231 74.1 1983 Andy Van Slyke-CF
218 68.9 1980 Kirk Gibson-LF/RF
194 55.8 1982 Howard Johnson-3B
141 63.1 1981 Dave Stewart-P
140 59.8 1984 Tom Henke-RP
133 61.1 1982 Mike Moore-P
137 59.4 1981 Dave Righetti-RP
156 51.1 1986 John Kruk-1B
148 53.7 1983 Scott Fletcher-SS/2B
132 56.9 1984 Jose Rijo-P*
148 40.2 1983 Kevin Bass-RF
122 47.7 1983 Spike Owen-SS
119 44.8 1982 Steve Bedrosian-RP
115 45.3 1982 Bud Black-P
108 48.2 1981 Greg A. Harris-RP
106 45.3 1984 Ron Darling-P
116 40.8 1985 Steve Buechele-3B
2002 (May 21)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

325 138.7 1978 Ozzie Smith-SS
318 121.5 1978 Alan Trammell-SS
340 108.0 1977 Andre Dawson-CF/RF
248 90.5 1981 Tim Wallach-3B
201 70.5 1985 Lenny Dykstra-CF
188 55.3 1986 Danny Tartabull-RF*
141 66.6 1984 Mark Gubicza-P*
155 53.1 1986 Robby Thompson-2B
146 54.0 1987 Mike Greenwell-LF
138 53.4 1978 Scot Sanderson-P
130 51.9 1978 Rick Honeycutt-P*
117 53.0 1984 Sid Fernandez-P*
116 44.3 1984 Dick Schofield-SS
138 35.4 1985 Vince Coleman-LF*
104 44.1 1983 Jeff Russell-RP
2003 (June 4)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

437 137.7 1977 Eddie Murray-1B
346 111.6 1982 Ryne Sandberg-2B
295 99.5 1982 Brett Butler-CF
198 82.5 1981 Lee Smith-RF
175 69.8 1981 Tony Pena-C
168 70.4 1981 Fernando Valenzuela-P
184 57.6 1985 Mickey Tettleton-C
174 58.4 1987 Kevin Seitzer-3B
157 57.9 1985 Greg Gagne-SS
159 50.4 1985 Darren Daulton-C
136 50.4 1988 Jody Reed-2B
117 53.0 1983 Kevin Gross-P
130 42.5 1982 Don Slaught-C
105 41.7 1986 Todd Worrell-RP
103 41.7 1987 John Smiley-P
   764. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 04:44 AM (#2181610)
Starting in the early 90's we will finally be getting into players that I remember (I was born in '81). It is tough, however, for me to say which players would be first. My introduction to baseball was mostly through baseball cards and those Pennant sticker books (I still have 3 of those all fileld out form the mid to late 80's). I lived in Central, Pa and we got like 30 Phillies games a year (the rest were on Prizm), a few national games andmy parents would only take me to an MLB game once a year or so. So beginning in '92 are some guys I remember actually collecting baseball cards of (Grich, Seaver, Rose, Chambliss, Russell) but I don't think I can say that I actually remember seeing any of them play (I may have, I just am not clear on this) until 1995 when Schmidt, Tekulve, and Rhoden (I watched him play for the yankees a few times on national games) become eligible. Still, It will soon be weird for me to move from evaluating guys I have no real attachments to so looing at guys like Scmidt, Tekulve, Kruk, Barfield, Mattingly, etc.

Man, now I know what Sunny and karl must have felt during the 1939 elections...;-)
   765. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 08:22 AM (#2181734)
It is a difficult transition from building a ballot wholly on the numbers to incorporating mental images of how players looked, their tools, etc. I believe that we as a group have done a good job of not getting carried away with our pet players. For me that would be Tony Oliva who has not made my ballot though he is around #40 which could be construed as generous. He was around #100 until my recent re-eval where he jumped up. Puckett will be a challenge for me, along maybe with Jack Morris. Guys like Killebrew and Molitor and Carew are not exactly controversial.
   766. karlmagnus Posted: September 19, 2006 at 10:52 AM (#2181747)
Yaz is my pet (I didn't get to the US until 1971, at age 21, so my childhood cricket hero David Allen, isn't eligible (certain pitching HOMer otherwise, eligible 1978.) Fortunately I shall be able to put him #1 without any twinges of conscience. Subsequent Sox I never fell in love with (Tiant, Evans and Fisk close, but not Rice, Boggs or Clemens) until Wakefield, Nomar and Manny of the current generation (only Wakefield is likely to cause an argument, and that not till 2018 or so; I assume Manny will be an easy #1 in his year and Nomar alas off the radar screen unless there's a big late career surge.)
   767. rawagman Posted: September 19, 2006 at 11:42 AM (#2181760)
Having entered in 1979, my first real baseball memories are of the surging Jays teams of 1985-86. The first game I ever went to was Jays-Angels (California, at the time) in August of 1985.
Started collecting baseball cards with childish seriousness in 1987. Only in the '92 (Rose) and '93 elections will I have the possibility of being swayed by childhood memories. But even then, those players were already old and past their primes by the time I got to witness them.
I am truly waiting for Will Clark's HOM debut.
   768. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 12:34 PM (#2181784)
Anybody that has Yaz #1 is obviously biased ;-)

As for Manny, well, whose on the ballot with him? Maybe F. Thomas or Biggio or Griffey or Sheff or Maddux or Glavine or maybe none of them. Too early to tell where he lands. He still trails Rusty Staub and Andre Dawson and Lou Brock on career WS.
   769. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 19, 2006 at 01:07 PM (#2181802)
(the rest were on Prizm)
f---in' prizm.

Boy those 2001-2003 classes are rough. From my point of view only...
YEAR  NBs      2ND TIER  BORDERS   ARGUABLE/INTERESTING
---------------------------------------------
2001 None       None     Winfield   Puckett
                         Whitaker   Mattingly 
(this is generous)
                         
Parrish    Henke
                                    Rijo 
(extreme peak sp case?)
2002 None       None     Ozzie      
                         Trammell
                         Dawson

2003 Murray     None     Lee Smith  Butler
     Sandberg                       Valenzuela 


Remember that's how I see it, many folks may espeially see Winfield and Ozzie in a different light, and I know Joe D. sees Dawson differently....
   770. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 19, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2181904)
I will say that I see Mattingly as pretty much the same player as George Sisler, maybe slightly better. I think that would make him a borderline guy in my book, not an arguable (generous). I would also drop Dawson a lot, he probably won't make my top 60.
   771. DavidFoss Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2181925)
I will say that I see Mattingly as pretty much the same player as George Sisler, maybe slightly better.

The career shape is sure similar, but Sisler's peak is higher (or longer depending on where you draw the line for Mattingly) and Sisler's career is a bit longer. Anyhow, we'll hash out the details in 15 'years'.
   772. Chris Cobb Posted: September 19, 2006 at 03:50 PM (#2181935)
Given that all three of the years in question are "elect 3" years, most of the players whom the Good Doctor has categorized as "borderline" will probably be immediately elected. There will be a Tier 1/Tier 2 glut in 1999, but it should be cleared in 2000.
   773. sunnyday2 Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:49 PM (#2182044)
2001--Whitaker is virtually an NB
2002--Trammell is virtually an NB
2003--both are arguably better than Sandberg

I think we will elect 2 newbies and 1 backlog each year. Mattingly has a different competitive set than Sisler.
   774. andrew siegel Posted: September 19, 2006 at 05:50 PM (#2182046)
Of those mention above, Murray, Sandberg, Ozzie, Winfield, and Trammell are clearly in my All-Time 200; Whitaker and Henke are right on the bubble for election; and Puckett has an outside shot. The rest are not particularly close. (As much as I love Don Mattingly, he is somewhere between the 26th and 30th best 1B of all-time and is on the verge of being overtaken by another half dozen guys.)
   775. DanG Posted: September 21, 2006 at 01:37 PM (#2183947)
New Eligibles 2004-2006

There seems to be some interest in getting these done, so here's three more years. The ballot deadline dates assume that we will skip a week this year during the holiday season.

Notes:
1) A good period for the backlog, before the big class of 2007 gets us up to the present.
2) There is some chance that a minor candidate or two escaped my net, someone with token appearances in 2003-05.
3) Again, there is an asterisk by players who are eligible earlier than the BBWAA rules, due to ignoring token appearances at the end of their career.

2004 (June 18)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

414 129.9 1978 Paul Molitor-DH/3B
301 127.1 1975 Dennis Eckersley-P
233 92.1 1977 Dennis Martinez-P
240 66.9 1984 Joe Carter-LF/RF
188 84.7 1984 Jimmy Key-P
182 80.6 1979 Danny Darwin-P
202 67.2 1984 Terry Pendleton-3B
178 58.7 1986 Kevin Mitchell-LF
176 50.6 1984 Juan Samuel-2B
140 57.9 1986 Doug Drabek-P
160 47.4 1986 Cecil Fielder-1B
122 56.1 1988 Jack McDowell-P*
123 55.2 1987 Randy Myers-RP
138 44.1 1986 Bip Roberts-2B/LF
113 43.0 1991 Chris Hoiles-C
107 38.3 1987 Shane Mack-LF/CF
2005 (July 2)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

394 143.5 1982 Wade Boggs-3B
268 96.4 1983 Tony Phillips-2B/LF
285 84.5 1982 Chili Davis-RF/DH
249 89.9 1982 Gary Gaetti-3B*
252 70.6 1983 Darryl Strawberry-RF
193 90.8 1984 Bret Saberhagen-P*
184 84.9 1984 Mark Langston-P
224 59.8 1982 Willie McGee-CF
158 71.8 1983 Tom Candiotti-P
173 60.9 1987 Terry Steinbach-C
134 57.6 1988 Jeff Montgomery-RP
154 43.4 1987 Jeff Blauser-SS
127 41.7 1984 Otis Nixon-CF
132 37.5 1990 Brian McRae-CF
115 40.4 1989 Jeff King-3B/1B
106 40.5 1988 Mike MacFarlane-C
2006 (July 16)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

331 104.2 1986 Will Clark-1B
243 85.5 1989 Albert Belle-LF
210 87.0 1984 Orel Hershiser-P
187 79.5 1984 Dwight Gooden-P
147 67.0 1985 Rick Aguilera-RP
146 65.8 1987 Doug Jones-RP
148 57.4 1985 Ozzie Guillen-SS
162 47.0 1989 Gregg Jefferies-1B/LF
155 48.7 1988 Lance Johnson-CF
127 58.5 1989 John Wetteland-RP
132 52.5 1988 Tim Belcher-P
145 46.0 1987 Mike Stanley-C
137 44.3 1989 Roberto Kelly-CF
115 53.5 1988 Todd Stottlemyre-P*
110 55.1 1990 Alex Fernandez-P
123 43.0 1988 Walt Weiss-SS
119 40.9 1991 Mickey Morandini-2B
124 38.1 1987 Luis Polonia-LF
110 42.7 1989 Ramon Martinez-P*
   776. DavidFoss Posted: September 21, 2006 at 03:07 PM (#2184003)
A big thanks to DanG for making over 100 years of eligibility lists!
   777. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2006 at 03:36 PM (#2184024)
A big thanks to DanG for making over 100 years of eligibility lists!

That's why I always make sure to give him credit (and also to Chris for the NeL lists a while back) on the Ballot Discussion threads, not to mention the necrologies. They are greatly appreciated.
   778. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 21, 2006 at 03:46 PM (#2184028)
Same basic idea as above. This time, there's fewer top guys and even more borderline/questionable types.

YEAR  NBs      2ND TIER  BORDERS    ARGUABLE/INTERESTING
--------------------------------------------------------
2004 Molitor     --      Eckersley  D Martinez
2005 Bawggs      
--      Saberhagen Phillips
                                    Montgomery
                                    Strawberry 
(peak argument?)
2006  --         --      Clark      D Jones 
                         Belle      Wetteland
                         Hershiser 
   779. Chris Fluit Posted: September 21, 2006 at 04:12 PM (#2184050)
Yeah, when I reposted the lists at the top of this thread, I really should have mentioned not just the post number that I got the list from, but also the other member who had posted them. Credit where credit is due. Thanks, DanG.
   780. DanG Posted: September 22, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#2184761)
In these past six years, I notice the year 1984 has an unusual number of high quality rookie pitchers. Looking at 2001-2006 new eligibles we see Tom Henke, Jose Rijo, Ron Darling, Mark Gubicza, Sid Fernandez, Jimmy Key, Bret Saberhagen, Mark Langston, Orel Hershiser and Dwight Gooden. I believe that John Franco and Roger Clemens were also rookies that year. Wow.
   781. andrew siegel Posted: September 23, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2186042)
2004-2006--Molitor, Boggs, Eck, Clark near the top of the ballot; nobody else going PHOM. Next question.
   782. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 23, 2006 at 06:49 PM (#2186065)
Eck's going to be really, really tough to deal with. His starting's not HOM level (four 130+ ERA+ years, three at 110-116 ERA+, two between 99-102 ERA+...and three awful ones <92 ERA+) but it's certainly above average. Then the five-six years of very-good to superb relieving. Then five or six below-average or so relieving seasons where his overal ERA+ is like 110 or less, which for a reliever means he's nothing special, but with one 129 ERA+ relief year mixed in. That could be harrowing. Or it could be easy. I just don't know. Is it a Wynn/Grimes/Ruffing situation of taking the good with the bad? I don't know. That feels like his best-case to me.

We'll need every ounce of good figurin' to this one right. And even though I loathe him as a player for personal fanboy reasons, I just don't know how to approach the guy quite yet. Contemproary opinion and post-career opinion of him is very, very high. Yet there's consistency and career-arc issues, and while folks want to make comparisons to Smoltz, now that Smoltz is starting very effectively again, his candidacy is very, very different from Eck's (lowest ERA+ in full seasons for JS: 103,103,104, six above 130 ERA+, 2 above 120 ERA+, all four relief seasons above 125 ERA+).

But here in 1986, opinion on Eck has soured. He's a washed-up starter whose early promise has broken down under issues of attitude and alcohol. A what-if, perhaps, but nonetheless an All-Star pitcher at times. A better version of another alcoholic who's never been able to cash in his talent: Dennis Martinez. I wonder if these two will ever make anything out of their talent?
   783. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 23, 2006 at 07:10 PM (#2186083)
I think Eck's peak and longevity of career are going to make it tough for him not to be inducted into the HoM. Is he an inner-circle HoMer? I don't think so, but I think he's considerably above the borderline. With that said, I haven't done my full-press analysis of him yet.
   784. Paul Wendt Posted: September 25, 2006 at 04:23 AM (#2186845)
Vic Willis: I haven't read that he was elected on a special 19th century ballot. Does someone have a reference, perhaps to the press release? I understand that Dixie Tourangeau of Boston (whose biography of Jimmy Williams is newly published by the SABR Bioproject) waged a successful campaign on old-fashioned lines. At one of my first SABR meetings (outside Providence RI), Len Levin introduced him as the man who got Vic Willis elected to the Hall of Fame. He is a researcher, that was a sideline.

This subcommittee consisted of two(?) VC electors who were given the task of compiling a special ballot

Dan, What is your source for this?
   785. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 25, 2006 at 05:09 PM (#2187169)
I don't know Albert Belle might make my ballot when he becomes eligible. I dont' see him as too dissimlar form Wally Berger (probably better) and Berger is #24 fo rme now. By 2006, he may be in the hunt for a ballot spot.
   786. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 27, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#2189504)
Just a thought here. But if you start filling in a little predictive scorecard for the backlog slots in near-future elections, it gets insanely difficult somewhere around 1988-1991. The reason being that Sal Bando, Ken Singleton, Bobby Bonds, Tony Perez, and Reggie Smith are total unknowns right now in terms of how the electorate will view them. And Kaat too. So doing much more prediction involving the backlog is kind of a crap shoot.

So naturally I tried it. It didn't work well, but what it did do is suggest what years might be particularly juicy for backlogging.

1987 (3 slots, 3 backlogs)
1988 (3 slots, Stargell the leading candidate, at least two backlogs, possibly three)
1989 (3 slots, no backlogs)
1990 (2 slots, no backlogs)
1991 (3 slots, Carew + 2 backlogs)
1992 (2 slots, no backlogs)
1993 (3 slots, no backlogs)
1994 (3 slots, several newbie borderliners, including Simmons, Nettles, Sutton, Sutter)
1995 (3 slots, Schmidt + 2, newbies includ Da Evans, John, J Rice, possibly 2 backlogs)
1996 (3 slots, Hernandez, Quis, Reuschel top the newbies, possibly 3 backlogs)
1997 (3 slots, Dewey, Pakrer, Griffey top the newbies, possibly 3 backlogs)

That's probalby as far as I'd be willing to look into the future. The credentials of actives in question are mostly settled and so not too big a deal to project ahead. Anyway, I see 12 NBs. Which leaves 19 backlogs or borderliners. So I'm guessing the range is something like between 5 and 19 backloggers, with 3 in the bank after next year and no idea who goes when thereafter.

Some toug choices ahead, which COULD boil down to:
-Kaat vs John vs Sutton vs Redding
-Boyer vs Bando vs Harrah vs Bell vs Evans vs Cey vs Nettles
-Perez vs Hernandez vs Beckley
-Fox vs Grich
-Stargell, Rice, Foster, Dewey, Cobra, Singleton, Cruz, Bonds, Staub, Smith, vs the current and already massive corner outfield glut
-Fingers, Gossage, Marshall, Quis vs. something?

Oh and there's that knotty DH issue to work out still.

Man, our ability to cut a razor thin line between glut and HOMer will be severely tested.
   787. DL from MN Posted: September 28, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2190616)
> Eck's going to be really, really tough to deal with.

Split Eck in 2 and here's what I get:
A starting pitcher who put up value equivalent to Milt Pappas or Camilo Pascual - not HoM
A relief pitcher equivalent to Jeff Reardon or John Wetteland - not HoM

Would you trade a borderline HoM caliber pitcher, ex: Urban Shocker, for Camilo Pascual and John Wetteland? I think I would. Eck's in for me - I have him close to Carl Hubbell in my all-time rankings.
   788. DL from MN Posted: October 09, 2006 at 03:18 PM (#2204652)
1988—elect 2
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
370 101.3 1963 Willie Stargell-LF/1B (2001)
325 86.4 1967 Reggie Smith-CF/RF
256 97.1 1964 Luis Tiant-P
277 71.9 1969 Bobby Murcer-RF/CF*
225 56.6 1967 Lee May-1B

Are we going to continue putting up player threads when the previous year's ballot thread goes up? I think it is a good idea.
   789. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 09, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#2204683)
Are we going to continue putting up player threads when the previous year's ballot thread goes up? I think it is a good idea.

I always post the player threads a week before the actual election starts, DL, so Stargell and the gang will have their threads posted sometime this weekend.
   790. DanG Posted: October 09, 2006 at 04:12 PM (#2204712)
I always post the player threads a week before the actual election starts, DL, so Stargell and the gang will have their threads posted sometime this weekend.

At this point in the project I think that's inadequate, IMO, to take only one week for assessing newbies against the mountainous backlog. We're in the fall of 1986 at this moment. We should already have done good assessments of those who last played in 1982 (Stargell, Smith, Tiant, Murcer, Lyle) and those who last played in 1983 (Yaz, Perry, Bench, Jenkins, Kaat, Campy, Tenace). We should be starting to discuss those who've been retired for two years now (Morgan, Palmer, Singleton, Otis, McGraw).

As we near the end we will do our most important work; showing the world exactly who squeaks into the Hall and who is left at the doorstep. Does anyone else think we would make better judgements of new candidates if we started their threads earlier?
   791. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 09, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2204717)
I don't understand why we need more time now than we did "decades" ago, but I have no problem creating the threads earlier, Dan. How much time do we need?
   792. DL from MN Posted: October 09, 2006 at 04:18 PM (#2204720)
I always start working on the next year's ballot when I post my this year's ballot. I think putting them up slightly earlier is a good idea that won't distract from the actual election. The "1988 ballot discussion" should stay away until next week.
   793. yest Posted: October 09, 2006 at 04:29 PM (#2204733)
I would perfer to waight till the later like you used to unless you can somehow extend the hot topics so the new threads won't knock out the old
   794. DanG Posted: October 09, 2006 at 04:41 PM (#2204743)
I don't understand why we need more time now than we did "decades" ago

I see two reasons:
1) The backlog is much larger, meaning the differences between ins and out is narrowing.
2) The closer we get to the present day, the deeper we will continue to dig into the backlog. The elections 2004 to 2006 will be a defining moment, I think; as we begin to close the door on elections, slowing down to annual inductions, the mass of the backloggers will be pressing hard at the gates. The 2008 election promises to be especially contentious, as two backloggers fight to walk with Raines into the HoM.

How much time do we need?

As I suggested, I think you should advance by three "years". IOW, at least a month real time should be enough lead time.
   795. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 09, 2006 at 06:47 PM (#2204907)
What i'll do today is post threads for the prominent candidates of '87 and post threads for the top candidates of '88 this weekend (the latter being done from now on, as we did with the NeLers).

If there is a clamor to post threads even earlier, then I will do so.
   796. Chris Fluit Posted: October 15, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2212586)
Let me clamor for not posting the threads too soon. We haven't even started voting on Stargell and already we've got discussion threads up about the guys coming after him. I'm afraid we're going to start looking so far down the road that we'll forget to concentrate on the guys we're supposed to be voting on right now.
   797. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2212594)
Let me clamor for not posting the threads too soon. We haven't even started voting on Stargell and already we've got discussion threads up about the guys coming after him. I'm afraid we're going to start looking so far down the road that we'll forget to concentrate on the guys we're supposed to be voting on right now.

I hear you and I knew this was going to happen, Chris, but it's only for this week. I'll post the '90 players two weeks from now.
   798. Rick A. Posted: October 15, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2212644)
I hear you and I knew this was going to happen, Chris, but it's only for this week. I'll post the '90 players two weeks from now.

John,

Thanks, I have to agree with Chris.

While I understand Dan's point, and extra evaluation time is good, it is also confusing. I haven't finished evaluating Stargell, R. Smith, Murcer, Tiant, etc. and Yaz, Bench, Jenkins threads are already up. The way we've done it in the past has worked fine, in my opinion.

As for me, I usually start evaluating new candidates after I post my ballot on Wednesday night. By the time the candidates threads come up, I at least have a preliminary idea where the candidates should rank, the shape of their career, the height of their prime, etc. With the early posting of their threads, I'm reading inforamtion on the candidates before I'm ready to digest it. It also messes up my schedule in regards to evaluation, reading opinions, reevaluating, placing on me ballot, etc.

It's not a big deal to readjust my schedule if we decide to stick with the early posting idea. But my preference would be to do it the same way we've done this for decades.
   799. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2006 at 09:51 PM (#2212684)
Since there are some who are for and against early posting of the player threads, I'll go with the majority opinion. If I get a majority supporting one position by the end of this week, then I'll abide by it for the remainder of the project.
   800. Chris Fluit Posted: October 15, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#2212764)
Thanks, John. I didn't mind the one extra week for Stargell. Some of us vote earlier in the week than others and are ready to move onto new discussion threads at the same time that the new ballot thread goes up. I just wouldn't want things to get too confusing by posting threads two weeks earlier than we used to.
Page 8 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8564 seconds
49 querie(s) executed