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 9 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 
   801. rawagman Posted: October 16, 2006 at 07:27 AM (#2213602)
In general, I think one week should be enough. Maybe start the discussion threads a few days earlier, but a whole week or two earlier is a bit much.
   802. karlmagnus Posted: October 16, 2006 at 11:37 AM (#2213621)
I think the best is to have the 89 player threads go up at the same time as the 88 ballot, i.e. in 1 week's time. Otherwise you may well get mis-voting, though I suppose one can always make people correct it.
   803. Chris Cobb Posted: October 16, 2006 at 11:43 AM (#2213626)
I like karlmagnus's suggestion.
   804. Howie Menckel Posted: October 16, 2006 at 03:00 PM (#2213739)
Yeah, I see things starting to get confusing already...
   805. DL from MN Posted: October 16, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#2213742)
ditto. I want to look at new players after I've posted my ballot. Putting the new players up at the same time as the new ballot is appropriate. That's a week earlier than before.
   806. Howie Menckel Posted: October 16, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#2213743)
For one thing, "1987 ballot discussion" isn't even on the right-side bookmarks. guh
   807. KJOK Posted: October 16, 2006 at 07:30 PM (#2214121)
Personally, I'd like to see the new threads about 1 day later than they normally have been showing up, BUT still post the "19xx Ballot Discussion" thread a little early so anyone who wants to start discussing individual candidates can do so...
   808. yest Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#2214489)
we've been doing it one way for many "years" and I see no reason to change
   809. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 17, 2006 at 12:21 AM (#2214496)
Where were you guys last week when Dan brought this up?

Sheesh! :-)
   810. DanG Posted: October 17, 2006 at 03:51 AM (#2214616)
Since the only objection to early player threads boils down to, "I can't remember what year guys are eligible," I suggest that when John titles the player threads, he should include the year next to the player's name. For example, instead of just "Carl Yastrzemski", title his thread "Carl Yastrzemski (1989)".

The process of moving to earlier posting of player threads has had a temporary effect of putting out a lot of player threads in a short time, causing a bit of confusion. From here on, we can stay a couple years ahead of candidates' debuts if John continues posting the new five or six threads every two weeks.
   811. KJOK Posted: October 17, 2006 at 05:12 AM (#2214646)
Since the only objection to early player threads boils down to, "I can't remember what year guys are eligible,"

I don't think that's the only objection. My objection is it bumps the current threads/players out of the "Hot Topics" list, right at a very critical time in the election (the end) when some of us are scrambling to find certain pieces of information to complete our ballot.
   812. sunnyday2 Posted: October 17, 2006 at 11:43 AM (#2214710)
Each players' year of eligibility IS already right there at the top of the thread.
   813. yest Posted: October 17, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#2214923)
I don't think that's the only objection. My objection is it bumps the current threads/players out of the "Hot Topics" list, right at a very critical time in the election (the end) when some of us are scrambling to find certain pieces of information to complete our ballot.

thats the same reason I gave last week
   814. DanG Posted: October 18, 2006 at 12:48 PM (#2216369)
My objection is it bumps the current threads/players out of the "Hot Topics" list

You should say "bumped"; as I mentioned, that was only a temporary condition which we have just passed. If John now continues to post the normal 5-6 newbie threads every two weeks, this bumping won't happen again. We will then stay a couple elections ahead in beginning our evaluation of newbies. This extra time allowed for assessment can only lead to a better result, IMO.

Each players' year of eligibility IS already right there at the top of the thread.

Right, but I'm suggesting the year be part of the thread title; you could then skim a list of thread titles and find out years of eligibility. Just another small way to help voters do their job better.
   815. Chris Fluit Posted: October 20, 2006 at 06:10 PM (#2219715)
841. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 15, 2006 at 05:51 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.

So far, 9 different members have objected to the earlier posting date. Only 1 has made a continued plea for the earlier date. Several others have entered the discussion to offer compromises or to post counter-arguments without endorsing a position. And yes, I'm including the "Housekeeping" thread. Make of that what you will, Grandma.
   816. sunnyday2 Posted: October 20, 2006 at 06:27 PM (#2219732)
Make it 9-2.
   817. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 20, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#2219771)
I say whatever is the easiest thing for John to do. He's got plenty of things to do here...and in life. I don't see the current system as so problematic that it needs a major overhaul unless it's something John wants or feels he needs to do...unless a new system would create less work for him.
   818. Chris Fluit Posted: October 24, 2006 at 10:42 PM (#2223489)
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)


Looking at the former Dr. Chaleeko's list, I noticed a few errors. 1988 is an elect-two not three so that's Stargell plus one backlog. 1990 is an elect-three not two but with Jenkins left over from '89, there's still no room for someone from the backlog.
Next up, now that significant relievers are becoming eligible, you sometimes have to look further down the list. That 1991 year is probably Carew + Fingers + backlog though it's possible that Eric is right and it's Carew + 2.
There may be a lot of boycotts for Rose in 1992, which would open up a slot for either Grich or someone from the backlog. That would push Rose into '93 and either Niekro or Carlton into '94.
Then, 1994 is ridiculously hard to predict. Not only do you have the four borderliners and no clear-cut HOMers, you also have (possibly) Grich and Perez still hanging around from 1992.
After that, I agree with Eric that '96 and '97 could be the best chances for the backlog.
Oh, and I looked a little further ahead than that.

1998 (3 slots, Blyleven and Carter + 1 backlog)
1999 (3 slots, no backlog)
2000 (3 slots, the fourth man out of '99- either Ryan or Fisk, top newbie in Gossage, and 1 backlog)

All told, we'll elect 35 HOMers between 1989 and 2000. I think as many as 21 of those spots are going to be easily claimed by new candidates: Yastrzemski, Perry, Bench, Jenkins, Morgan, Palmer, Carew, Fingers, Rose, Seaver, Jackson, Niekro, Carlton, Schmidt, Blyleven, Carter, Brett, Yount, Ryan, Fisk and Gossage. That leaves 14 spots up for grabs. However, those 14 spots won't all go to the current backlog. There are new candidates who aren't as obvious as the titanic twenty-one but who will still get significant consideration: Singleton, Staub, Grich, Perez, Cey, Garvey, Sutton, Nettles, Simmons, Sutter, Da. Evans, John, Rice, Hernandez, Quisenberry, Dw. Evans, Parker, Randolph, Stieb, Morris and Hough. That's more than enough players to claim the other 14 spots though I don't think we'll quite embrace them all. Rather, I would guess that we're looking at 7-8 of the new backlog and 6-7 of the current backlog getting in during this time.
   819. Chris Cobb Posted: October 25, 2006 at 12:15 AM (#2223561)
Singleton, Staub, Grich, Perez, Cey, Garvey, Sutton, Nettles, Simmons, Sutter, Da. Evans, John, Rice, Hernandez, Quisenberry, Dw. Evans, Parker, Randolph, Stieb, Morris and Hough. That's more than enough players to claim the other 14 spots though I don't think we'll quite embrace them all. Rather, I would guess that we're looking at 7-8 of the new backlog and 6-7 of the current backlog getting in during this time.

Fearless predictions on this set:

Grich, Sutton, Simmons, and Da. Evans are locks. (Sutton and Evans will provoke debate, but they'll go in quickly nevertheless. Grich and Simmons won't provoke significant debate.)

Perez, Hernandez, and Randolph are likely HoMers, though it's conceivable that they won't be elected before 2007.

Staub, Cey, Nettles, John, Dw. Evans, and Stieb will draw support and have a shot at election. These six are the ones who will _really_ compete against the current backlog.

Garvey, Sutter, Rice, Quisenberry, Parker, Morris, and Hough will attract little support. I will be surprised if any break the top 20, though Sutter, Quisenberry, and Hough have shots and doing so.
   820. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 25, 2006 at 01:45 PM (#2223988)
-Now, we all know how I feel about Stieb, but I do think Billy Pierce, Rube Waddell, Hal Newhouser, and Wes Ferrell (among others) set a very strong precedent for Stieb who has a similar pattern of dominance to them. He will be wicked interesting.

-Oh and we should probably put Reuschel in Chris's fourth group, or maybe even his third. Reuschel could draw some votes from career guys, doesn't absolutely lack a peak, and pitched for virtually no good teams in his day (some bad, some mediocre, virtually none good---84 Cubs excepted---until he was age 38 and landed in SF in 1987 and gracefully slid into decline and retirement).

-Agreed, Nettles, Dewey, TJ, Staub are going to be tough. I think Randolph is in their tier as well, but that's just my feeling. Also, I'll add Singleton to that group. He's going to be a very strong peak/prime candidate that could sneak up on us.

-I gotta' think that Cey's in big, big trouble if Sal Bando can't draw substantial support.

-Several "years" ago I thought Quis had a tremendous chance, and I detected that some folks in the electorate had some inking toward him. But I think that's been abating lately. New information about his inherited runners troubles and JoeD's work (I think it was Joe, maybe Sunny or Chris?) showed some potential flies in his ointment. WS, for one, shows him as the AL's best pitcher for the stretch 1983-1985, one of only three relievers it so recognizes (Radatz and Gagne are the others). He'll be real interesting to take apart.

Looking at the former Dr. Chaleeko's list, I noticed a few errors.

How did I do that???? Blech. Sorry everyone.
   821. sunnyday2 Posted: October 25, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#2224024)
Well, let's say it is 7-8 backloggers, which is probably realistic. Do we have the right ones?

Pos/Top8Backlog/AlsoRans(with 100 pts or more)

C--Trouppe/Bresnahan

Personally I'm more partial to Ellie Howard with some credit for NeL play and for the career interruptus most black players not named Robinson or Mays experienced during the integration era. Bresnahan is legit, too. I'm happy that, adding Ellie, we would have the right 3 guys under consideration.

Related question: Is Trouppe (are Moore, Trouppe and Redding) the best NeLer(s) left?

IF--Childs, Boyer, Fox, D. Moore/Doyle

A case of "ignore the rest." The focus here is already working for these guys while, by comparison, we are spread our "hitters" votes around very broadly. Are these guys really better or just benefiting from our confusion about the hitters? I like Doyle over Childs and Fox, and I still like Ed Williamson over Ken Boyer, but none of these guys is a bad choice. Moore has probably taken over from Kiner, now, as THE pure peak candidate.

Corners ("Hitters")--Beckley/Keller, C. Jones, Cravath, B. Johnson, Cash, Bonds, Cepeda, Brock

Oddly, the top cornerman is not really a "hitter," or is he? His hitting has probably been lost in translation. All those triples that would have been HR in other eras! Interesting that we otherwise are favoring the peakers over the careerists, which is a bit uncharacteristic of the HoM. I would tout Cepeda more except that if y'all looked more closely I'm afraid you might end up preferring Cash. (F. Howard is basically interchangeable with Baby Bull, Gavy and Cash, too.)

In sum, right now we are poised to elect no backlog "pure hitters." And that's OK, we probably have too many already. Or is it OK? And which ONE might it be? I mean besides old eagle eye.

Hybrids (CF, multi-positions)--Wynn, Roush/Browning, Duffy, GVH, Oms, Leach (maybe Reggie Smith, still in the initiation process)

We could go deeper than 2 here and not elect a bad choice, though I prefer Roush and Browning on this list and don't prefer Duffy and GVH. Leach is the guy who remains really intriguing, not to say that he should rate higher but that he is a true true hybrid and therefore more intriguing--more likely to have been misunderstood--than anybody else on the list. How is he NOT better than Hugh Duffy?

P--none/Redding, Walters, Grimes, Welch, Dean

I think we probably need a pitcher but which one? Welch and Dean have their adherents but have for all intents and purposes been rejected. Redding remains poorly understood, is he or isn't he? I don't claim to really know. That leaves Walters, whom I am warming up to. And Bridges and Willis are close to 100 points, but even that would leave them 400 points short of election.

But I also feel that from the under-represented 1950s and especially from the under-represented integration era--and considering pitchers are maybe under-represented as a whole--that Don Newcombe is the one guy not currently in the 100 point club who needs to be better understood, certainly by me. I'm not saying he doesn't belong in 67th place, but I am saying that we probably don't have a collective handle on him. (Well, him and Bobby Estalella.)

I have a few other faves on or near my ballot (F. Howard, Eddie Cicotte) whom I won't bother you with. We all have our lost causes.

But in sum: How about more discussion please for Don Newcombe (way outside looking in), Quincey Trouppe (inside but should he be?), Ellie Howard (outside looking in) and Reggie (oops, Tommy) Leach (in the vestibule, which is not inside). And whether we are under-valuing borderline pitchers generally.
   822. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 25, 2006 at 04:17 PM (#2224083)
How about more discussion please for Don Newcombe
Sounds good to me.

Quincy Trouppe (inside but should he be?)
Yes, absolutely, in my opinion. You're all probably sick of hearing this from me, but Trouppe's case is particularly tough to assess due to a host of circumstances so unlike what we see today that it's difficult to get a good handle on them. The easier to understand stuff (NgL and MxL and MiL stats) show a guy who could hit, whole played mostly catcher but was athletic enough to handle 3B, and who played for a really long time. The years in Bismark and his year in the ring are illusions of his time, his race, and his econocmic situation. He didn't just emerge in 1938 as this wonderful player, he was a good player, growing into a great one all along.

Trouppe was a black atheletes in the depression, where he was, of course, barred from most major sports but also from any kind of upward social and economic mobility. In the near term, the NgLs had recently fallen apart and the second-generation leagues were just forming and on unsure footing. Boxing was the alternative to baseball, and Joe Louis had just won a heavyweight title, and was making good money doing it. A young black ballplayer of that time could likely look forward to a retirement of janitorial, refuse-collection, or security-guard work (no exaggeration, read the Riley book, most of these guys retired to lower-scale, labor-class jobs that white folks didn't want to do). Going to Bismark, from whence no enduring numbers seem to have come out and going into the ring are not questionable career choices, just as Dobie Moore's time with the wreckers was not. Moore played the highest ball he could find for the best price and benefits. Trouppe did the same in Bismark, then followed that with a brief attempt at a sport that probably would have paid better in a particularly difficult economic time.

He went back to baseball and starred. He didn't come out of nowhere. But if his record, without the ND/boxing years (that is, out of nowhere) is assessed, he probably rates as somewhat more meritorious than Bresnahan and Howard, which is where we've currently got him queued. But with some bulk added for those years, he moves up somewhat and his peak/prime/career, falls somewhere within the range described by Gary Carter, Ted Simmons, and Joe Torre: long-career, good-not-amazing peak. I don't know exactly where because I can't draw good estimates from no data. But I think it's enough that he compares favorably to that group to say that he's "in."

A lot questions have come up about his defense. Given the emphasis on running, defense, bunting, and small ball, it's highly dubious that Trouppe could have lasted long as a poor-fielding catcher in the NgLs. The lack of oral history about his defense occurs in part because he was outside the states before the war, inside the states during the war, in ND in the depression, and in the NgL when everyone younger went into organized ball. When he finally got into the MiLs (and majors) he was a catcher and was praised as a veteran presence and a handler of pitchers. In addition, I do recall him described earlier in his career as having a good arm (good enough to play third at some points). I think he was probably an athletic, if average-fielding catcher who lacked Biz Mackey's flashier defensive credentials, but whose defense didn't impair his teams. We've already inducted a guy with a bad catching glove who hit well (Torre), another multi-position NgL catcher who probably didn't have top-notch catcher-defense (Santop), we'll probably elect a guy with a questioned/questionable glove but who hit very well (Ted Simmons), and we're certainly going to elect a guy who couldn't throw to second in Mike Piazza. I think Trouppe fits right "in."

Ellie Howard
May appear on my ballot again this year.

Tommy Leach
On my ballot this year. As a 3B he's among the top dozen in history thanks to a very long career and a moderately good peak. As a CF, he's among the top 25 for the same reasons. Put 'em together, and he's a solid top-20 kind of guy at two positions of about equal defensive value. And interestingly, two positions with very different skill sets that show us a lot about the wide breadth of athletic talent he had.

And whether we are under-valuing borderline pitchers generally.
Which kinds of borderliners? Shorter-career/medium-peak pitchers? Or long-career/low-peak pitchers? Long-career/mid-peak pitchers walk in, as long as they're over 4000 innings or so. High-peak/short-career guys walk in too as long as they're over 2250 innings or so. But 2500+ with medium peak or 4000+ with low peak are both tough sells.
   823. Chris Fluit Posted: October 25, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#2224446)
The problem with an exercise of this nature is that almost by definition, the top returning backloggers are not clearly better than other backloggers of their type/position. If they were clearly better, then we'd have elected them long ago. Rather, they're slightly better or arguably better than the competition. For example, Quincy Trouppe is the top returnee at catcher but he's still only on half the ballots. So roughly half the voters prefer another catcher to Quincy Trouppe. The problem of course is that the other half of the voters can't agree on which catcher they prefer to Trouppe- whether it's Bresnahan, Schang, Lombardi, Howard or Munson. If the other half could agree on which catcher they thought was better, then that other catcher would be higher. So any time you do this kind of exercise, it's relatively easy to find some voters saying "no, that guy's not the best." Despite that flaw in this kind of approach, there is some value to it so I'm willing to play along.

C- Trouppe

I agree with Eric C. I think that Trouppe is handily better than the rest of the group. And I do think that Trouppe is one of the best Negro League candidates left on the ballot. I'm still not entirely comfortable with how I've divided Bresnahan, Lombardi, Howard and Munson but I'm very comfortable with having Trouppe ahead of the rest.

IF- Childs, Boyer, Fox, Moore

That's an interesting group. I prefer Fox to Childs, but I do think that we have the best at each position represented there in Boyer, Fox and Moore.

P--none/Redding, Walters, Grimes, Welch, Dean

It is interesting that we don't have any pitchers that high in the backlog. Is it a by-product of having recently elected Mendez, Waddell and Pierce? If so, will one or more of these pitchers move up in the backlog now that those three are off of the list? Are we currently undervaluing pitchers compared to hitters? I know that there are a few voters out there with only 0, 1 or 2 pitchers on their ballot. Or are we simply more divided about which kinds of pitchers to elect? The peak/career split can be pretty strong when it comes to pitchers. Just look at that list with a peak-heavy candidate like Dean and a couple of career-heavy candidates like Grimes and Welch.

As to the questions about Don Newcombe. He deserves 2 full years of military credit for time spent in Korea. Those 2 years come right in the midst of his peak and should give him 7 Cy Young caliber seasons, more than any other pitcher on the ballot and as many high-quality seasons as a lot of the hitting candidates like Charlie Keller. I also think that he deserves some minimal Negro League/minor league credit. Newcombe started pitching in Negro Leagues before signing with the Dodgers. However, the Dodgers had a (most likely wise) policy of slowly integrating one player at a time so Newcombe spent several years waiting in the minors before getting his turn. He was clearly a Major League caliber player at that time though I wouldn't argue that he was yet an All-Star caliber player. Even so, the process of integration prevented Newcombe from having those ramp-up seasons that would have added to his career value. He'd get full credit if he had stayed in the Negro Leagues, which would have been the case if he had played 10 years earlier. He'd get full credit if he'd been transferred straight to the majors, which would have been the case if he had played 10 years later. I think he shouldn't be penalized for being one of the pioneers of integration and should therefore get some credit for those years. Again, I'm not saying we create peak years out of whole cloth. But even if you're only giving him 10 wins a year for those minor league seasons on top of the military credit, you're looking at a pitcher who's 209-120 instead of 149-90.
   824. OCF Posted: October 26, 2006 at 12:35 AM (#2224511)
P--none/Redding, Walters, Grimes, Welch, Dean

For me, if we're going to consider any more white dead-ball or 19th century pitchers, I'd have Vic Willis at the head of that list rather than Welch. (On the other hand, Willis is not even on my ballot.) For mid-century pitchers, I find it hard to choose between Walters and Tommy Bridges, and I do have both of them on my ballot. (As we try to remember all of the factors that initially lifted Wes Ferrell and Dazzy Vance out of the group that contains them.) Grimes looks way too much like Kaat to me: the quantity without the needed quality.
   825. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: October 26, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2224522)
I'd have Vic Willis at the head of that list rather than Welch.

How 'bout my good buddy Wilbur Cooper?
   826. Howie Menckel Posted: November 11, 2006 at 07:33 PM (#2235315)
cribbed from the DanG's files, this time listing only serious candidates looking forward(and yes, that is a very fine line; I erred on the side of inclusion at times while trying to keep the lists lean - from 3 to 7 players):

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

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

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

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
222 76.2 1973 Darrell Porter-C (2002)

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
174 75.2 1976 Ron Guidry-P
168 58.1 1976 Bruce Sutter-RP

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

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
157 53.8 1979 Dan Quisenberry-RP (1998)

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

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*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
193 90.8 1984 Bret Saberhagen-P*

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
   827. Chris Fluit Posted: November 11, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2235334)
One correction to that list: Lee Smith is an RP not an RF.
   828. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 11, 2006 at 10:06 PM (#2235434)
Man, a TON of real toughies in this group. By alpha:

Belle
W Clark
Dawson
Dewey
Eckersley
Fingers
Hershiser
John
Murphy
Nettles
Parker
Lc Parrish
Perez
Randolph
Saberhagen
Singleton
L Smith
O Smith
Staub
Stieb
Sutter
Sutton
Whitaker

And toss in the closers too. Henke, Montgomery, Doug "Two Beers for Each Out" Jones, Wetteland, Myers, those guys whose WS won't look so great, but who were top-of-the-heap relievers for good stretches of time.

All of these guys have some really powerful arguments in their favor based on a combination of uberstats, reputation monitor/Keltner, and HOM precedent. And many also have difficult context illusions for us to push through, especially regarding starting-pitcher workloads, changing relief-ace usage, low late-80s run context, high 1990s run context. All in addition to our usual assortment of issues related to peak/career, positional/era balance.... ; )

Not to mention that we'll likely all have strong opinions on many or all of them due to having actually witnessed their careers in part or total.

Some portion of these toughies are going to make it hell for the Beckleys, Joneses, or Moores to find their way through the backlog thicket. Which is how it should be of course. Just because you've been on the ballot since 1898 or 1910 or whatever doesn't mean you get any senior-ballot-member-in-good-standing breaks.

This is going to be very interesting.
   829. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 13, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2236400)
Man, a TON of real toughies in this group. By alpha:

Belle
W Clark
Dawson
Dewey
Eckersley
Fingers
Hershiser
John
Murphy

Nettles
Parker
Lc Parrish
Perez
Randolph
Saberhagen
Singleton
L Smith
O Smith
Staub
Stieb
Sutter
Sutton
Whitaker


I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the vote of this Hall of Merit electorate for induction as a HoMer. :-D
   830. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2236424)
Eck, Ozzie, Sutton and Whitaker aren't real tough for me: IN, the tough one will be determining which 1B/OF makes it (especially versus the growing backlog of outfielders). The right answer might be "none of them".
   831. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: November 13, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#2236445)
DL, your post is exactly why I think this will be really interesting. I think we all probably look at this list and say to ourselves something similar about three-four of the guys. I have two guys I see as INs: Stieb and W Clark. All the others I'm not yet sure at all about. But so, we'll all have 2-5 guys we're feeling pretty strongly about in that vein. For instance, C. Cobb's already mentioned he expects Smith and Whitaker to receive substantial support, and I think he's mentioned Randolph too. Which I've taken to mean he will support them too. The commish has talked openly about Dawson and John. Still others have mentined Eckersley as being prominent INs for them. Oh, and I forgot about Puckett in this group too.

Anyway, I guess it's just like always, except that now we have much clearer impressions, and it feels like the career candidates are becoming more numerous which means the natural peak/career divisions among us could come into play with more and more intensity. But that last piece is my own impression only and not based in, you know, facts and stuff.
   832. Juan V Posted: November 13, 2006 at 06:29 PM (#2236466)
Just one thing: Wouldn´t our last bi-weekly election come with the Ripken-Gwynn-McGwire class?
   833. DL from MN Posted: November 13, 2006 at 07:29 PM (#2236518)
Why aren't we slowing things down to monthly as we come closer to the present day? I can understand wanting to have things caught up by 2008 but right now there is a gap of August 2007 to November 2007 between elections. We could add an extra discussion week between elections starting in 2000 and another extra week starting in 2005 and not miss the 2008 election window. I think discussing 2000 for an extra week would be more fruitful than discussing 2008 for an extra four months.
   834. jimd Posted: November 13, 2006 at 09:15 PM (#2236685)
1992 (December 25)—elect 2
...
2006 (July 16)—elect 3


In past years, there has been a two-week holiday break around this time.
During that time, there would be a discussion of the latest HOF ballot.
If we continue that tradition, then each election 1992 and later would be delayed by two weeks.
   835. jimd Posted: November 13, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2236698)
Just one thing: Wouldn´t our last bi-weekly election come with the Ripken-Gwynn-McGwire class?

I would think so. 2008 would be our first time voting prior to the HOF vote using our modified annual voting procedures.
   836. sunnyday2 Posted: December 03, 2006 at 08:23 PM (#2250800)
bump
   837. rawagman Posted: December 09, 2006 at 09:03 PM (#2256475)
An ommission - in 1993, Steve Garvey also becomes eligible. Which should be interesting as we will be considering him for the first time just as his last chance with the BBWAA expires.
   838. Paul Wendt Posted: December 31, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2271814)
Chet Lemon is the big surprise to me. Who? Not a serious HOM candidate but up there with Tony Phillips and Ken Singleton, easy qualifiers for Howie's streamlined lists.

Somehow I missed his career entirely. When I read LeMon, I imagine LeFlore.
   839. DanG Posted: January 08, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2276270)
New Eligibles 2007-2009

OK, this is the last one, after 106 years listing over 1550 players.

Notes:
1) Another good period for the backlog, in '08 and '09 especially.
2) There is some chance that a minor candidate or two escaped my net, someone with token appearances in 2004-06.
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) Sasaki is the JL all-time saves leader and pitched great, briefly, in MLB, so he's worth looking at.

2007 (November 12)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

427 169.1 1982 Cal Ripken-SS
398 124.3 1982 Tony Gwynn-RF
342 109.5 1987 Mark McGwire-1B
307 102.4 1980 Harold Baines-RF/DH
280 105.4 1984 Tony Fernandez-SS
259 98.6 1987 Paul O’Neill-RF
272 87.8 1986 Jose Canseco-RF/DH
267 85.1 1986 Bobby Bonilla-3B/RF
253 82.3 1986 Wally Joyner-1B
242 83.1 1987 Ken Caminiti-3B (2004)
205 94.2 1987 David Cone-P*
207 79.2 1987 Devon White-CF
224 72.0 1984 Eric Davis-CF
174 64.6 1988 Jay Buhner-RF
168 53.7 1989 Dante Bichette-RF/LF
137 51.6 1986 Stan Javier-RF/CF
147 47.9 1986 Dave Martinez-CF/RF
147 46.1 1987 Dave Magadan-3B/1B
124 58.0 1990 Kevin Tapani-P
131 45.6 1991 Bernard Gilkey-LF
130 41.7 1990 Darryl Hamilton-CF
112 47.7 1989 Ken Hill-P
111 44.3 1992 Scott Brosius-3B
116 42.4 1989 Charlie Hayes-3B
102 49.9 1986 Bobby Witt-P
129 34.6 1991 Dean Palmer-3B*
2008 (December 3)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)

390 131.8 1981 Tim Raines-LF
213 98.3 1986 Chuck Finley-P
231 80.0 1991 Chuck Knoblauch-2B
233 75.5 1990 Dave Justice-RF
214 74.2 1988 Brady Anderson-CF/LF
199 74.3 1990 Travis Fryman-3B
186 54.5 1990 Delino DeShields-2B
143 60.1 1992 John Valentin-SS/3B
136 60.1 1986 Greg Swindell-P
139 56.0 1989 Andy Benes-P
152 48.5 1985 Shawon Dunstan-SS
137 52.5 1979 Mike Morgan-P
120 54.3 1993 Robb Nen-RP
126 49.4 1988 Randy Velarde-2B
134 43.5 1994 Rusty Greer-LF
114 45.6 1991 Darryl Kile-P (2002)
2009 (November 3, 2008)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
189 87.3 1990 Kevin Appier-P*
206 63.4 1988 Ron Gant-LF
199 63.8 1990 Greg Vaughn-LF
200 59.8 1991 Mo Vaughn-1B
151 65.8 1991 Mike Bordick-SS
140 61.9 1982 Jesse Orosco-RP
129 49.8 1990 John Burkett-P
109 53.6 1991 Charles Nagy-P
113 50.7 1986 Dan Plesac-RP
115 46.0 1992 Denny Neagle-P
125 37.4 1991 Orlando Merced-RF/1B
038 15.4 1991 Kazuhiro Sasaki-RP
   840. DanG Posted: January 16, 2007 at 05:41 AM (#2280988)
bump
   841. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2007 at 12:22 AM (#2295764)
our remaining crops, rough line of top candidates, your mileage will vary a little. listing 3-5 even when it's a weak year; but not a huge number even in a good year.
Thanks as always to DanG


1995 —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

1996 —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
157 53.8 1979 Dan Quisenberry-RP (1998)

1997 —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

1998 —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*

1999 —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

2000 —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

2001 —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

2002 —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

2003 —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

2004 —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

2005 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
394 143.5 1982 Wade Boggs-3B
268 96.4 1983 Tony Phillips-2B/LF
193 90.8 1984 Bret Saberhagen-P*

2006 —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

2007 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
427 169.1 1982 Cal Ripken-SS
398 124.3 1982 Tony Gwynn-RF
342 109.5 1987 Mark McGwire-1B
307 102.4 1980 Harold Baines-RF/DH
280 105.4 1984 Tony Fernandez-SS
259 98.6 1987 Paul O’Neill-RF
205 94.2 1987 David Cone-P*

2008 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
390 131.8 1981 Tim Raines-LF
213 98.3 1986 Chuck Finley-P
231 80.0 1991 Chuck Knoblauch-2B


and after a year's break.....
2009 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
   842. DanG Posted: May 16, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2365710)
I have lists of new eligibles for the 2010 and 2011 elections. However, my source for win shares only goes through 2003. I would appreciate it if someone could supply these guys' career totals.

2010
Roberto Alomar
Rod Beck
Dave Burba
Ellis Burks
Doug Glanville
Juan Gonzalez*
Tom Goodwin
Ricky Gutierrez
Pat Hentgen
Mike Jackson
Eric Karros
Ray Lankford
Barry Larkin
Edgar Martinez
Brent Mayne
Fred McGriff
Mark McLemore
Benito Santiago*
David Segui
Robin Ventura
Fernando Vina
Todd Zeile
2011
Wilson Alvarez
Carlos Baerga
Jeff Bagwell
Bret Boone
Kevin Brown
John Franco
Marquis Grissom
Buddy Groom
Mike Hampton
Al Leiter
Raul Mondesi
Terry Mulholland*
Hideo Nomo
Jose Offerman
John Olerud
Rafael Palmeiro
Paul Quantrill
Steve Reed
Kirk Rueter
BJ Surhoff
Ismael Valdez
Larry Walker
   843. Juan V Posted: May 16, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2365718)
The 2010 guys, in decreasing order of WS:

Roberto Alomar: 376
Barry Larkin: 346
Fred McGriff: 341
Edgar Martinez: 305
Robin Ventura: 272
Ellis Burks: 260
Juan Gonzalez: 234
Ray Lankford: 227
Todd Zeile: 221
Benito Santiago: 190
Eric Karros: 183
Mark McLemore: 161
David Segui: 130
Fernando Viña: 128
Pat Hentgen: 126
Mike Jackson: 126
Rod Beck: 106
Dave Burba: 94
Brent Mayne: 87
Doug Glanville: 80
Ricky Gutierrez: 79
Tom Goodwin: 74
   844. Juan V Posted: May 16, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2365728)
And the 2011 guys

Rafael Palmeiro: 395
Jeff Bagwell: 388
Larry Walker: 311
John Olerud: 301
Marquis Grissom: 250
Kevin Brown: 241
BJ Surhoff: 230
Bret Boone: 208
Raul Mondesi: 183
John Franco: 182
Carlos Baerga: 160
Jose Offerman: 153
Al Leiter: 150
Mike Hampton 135
Terry Mulholland: 114
Wilson Alvarez: 105
Hideo Nomo: 100
Paul Quantrill: 98
Ismael Valdes: 97
Steve Reed: 83
Kirk Rueter: 83
Buddy Groom: 50
   845. DanG Posted: May 16, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2365733)
Wow, under a half hour; Great! Thanks, Juan.
   846. sunnyday2 Posted: May 16, 2007 at 06:13 PM (#2365816)
And I only see about 20-22 obvious HoMers--well, 20, I guess, then but others may see 22-23--for 33 slots beginning in 2000. Let's see, starting in 2000, there's Jack Morris....

Just kidding.

I don't have Puckett, Mattingly, Dawson or Raffy on the list. I was fairly exclusive, I think, so the number could get bigger, but not much.

The backlog game ain't over til it's over.
   847. Chris Cobb Posted: May 16, 2007 at 09:44 PM (#2365994)
I'm guessing we'll take about 25 from 2000-2011 newly eligibles, which leaves 11 spots for the backlog as of 2000.

We're definitely not done with the backlog.
   848. DL from MN Posted: May 16, 2007 at 10:21 PM (#2366011)
2 of those 11 will be "modern" backloggers Fingers and Randolph. I'm guessing that Dave Stieb and Tony Perez make it also. Still that leaves 7 slots. I'm rooting for Cravath and Johnson out of the top returnees, the rest I'm not voting for.
   849. jimd Posted: May 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM (#2366117)
Scoping back to just 2007:

BBWAA elections 1999-2007
(CAPS indicates first ballot; number is ballot percent)

1999 RYAN 99 - BRETT 98 - YOUNT 77
2000 Fisk 80 - Perez 77
2001 WINFIELD 84 - PUCKETT 82
2002 SMITH 92
2003 MURRAY 85 - Carter 78
2004 MOLITOR 87 - ECKERSLEY 85
2005 BOGGS 92 - Sandberg 76
2006 Sutter 77
2007 RIPKEN 99 - GWYNN 98

17 new HOFers, 16 potential HOMers, Carter already being elected. Even if we elect them all then there is room for 11 additional backloggers in the HOM. And will we elect them all? Perez is already backlogged and doubts have been raised about Sutter and Puckett and maybe others. Though some of those additional backloggers will be from the "new backlog" of Randolph, Gossage, Whitaker, Dawson, Trammell, Will Clark, McGwire, etc.
   850. Juan V Posted: May 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM (#2366123)
McGwire won't be backlogged. It will take a pretty substantial boycott to stall his first-year election, in which case he walks in easily with Raines and whoever else.
   851. jimd Posted: May 17, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2366165)
McGwire won't be backlogged.

I tend to agree with you. But that makes him class of 2007 with Ripken and Gwynn.
The BBWAA have already boycotted him once.
   852. Brent Posted: May 17, 2007 at 02:16 AM (#2366188)
My guess is that Randolph, Gossage, Whitaker, Trammell, and McGwire will all go in pretty easily. The ones I could see going either way (through 2007) are Puckett, Dawson, Will Clark, and Belle.
   853. sunnyday2 Posted: May 17, 2007 at 03:07 AM (#2366245)
I was thinkin':

2000--Gossage, Ryan, Redding
2001--Winfield, Whitaker, Randolph
2002--Smith, Trammell, Browning
2003--Murray, Sandberg, Walters
2004--Molitor, Eckersley, Fingers
2005--Boggs, Dawson, Bresnahan
2006--W. Clark, B. Johnson, Puckett
2007--Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire
2008--Raines, Mattingly, Duffy
2009--Henderson, Dale Murphy, Cravath
2010--Alomar, Larkin, Ch. Jones
2011--Bagwell, Perez, K. Brown

That's 11 current backloggers. I am sure there will be movement among them but I took them in the order of the 1998 results. Stieb and Oms are next and are on 15-16 ballots. Ch. Jones is on 14. Leach and GVH are next and are on 12-13. So I don't see much movement on the borderline but rather among the likely electeds of 2000-2009. Stieb or Oms ahead of Ch. Jones is the one.

Among the newbies, I have included Dawson, Puckett, Mattingly, Dale Murphy and K. Brown among those who don't look to me like NBs. Sure, there's opposition to all of them, but the alternative is Ch. Jones, Oms, Stieb, Leach, GVH, etc., all of whom have a ways to go. I didn't project Albert Belle. The peak is pretty good but his record looks way to much like Hack Wilson's to me. Will the Thrill OTOH looks like an NB--Richie Allen is more his comp I'd say.

The newbie borderliners I did not project "in" include J. Clark, McGriff, Edgar, Raffy, Walker and Olerud with more than 300 WS. Raffy at 395 is the high and I don't see how we could keep him out, but I'm projecting some boycott action in his first year on the ballot.

The newbie pitchers are a damn weak lot between Ryan and the guys who are still active. I'm projecting only one starting pitcher--K. Brown. I don't know that he's better than Stieb or Hershiser or Jack Morris for that matter at this point, I haven't looked in detail, I only noted that he is the leader among starting pitchers on WS. They all look outside to me but, like I say, I haven't looked in detail yet. I am projecting Gossage but not Lee Smith among relievers but if there's a groundswell for more pitchers, Smith could be the beneficiary, but so could Grimes or Welch or Hershiser. I cannot see Dennis Martinez.

Like I say, at the very end of the rainbow as of today, you gotta ask yourself--do I like Charley Jones, Tony Perez, Dave Stieb, Alejandro Oms, Kevin Brown, Raffy Palmeiro, Fred McGriff, Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez, Albert Belle...pick 3. Those will be the last decisions we know of today.
   854. Sean Gilman Posted: May 17, 2007 at 03:48 AM (#2366298)
You won't find a bigger Edgar fan than me, but I don't see how he gets in before Clark, Palmeiro, McGriff or Belle, though I haven't looked in much detail at their cases.

Interesting will be whether he or Griffey Jr will be the first HOMer to wear a Mariners cap.
   855. Sean Gilman Posted: May 17, 2007 at 03:50 AM (#2366303)
That's W. Clark I'm referring to above, BTW. Last I looked, he seemed to me a likely first ballot HOMer.
   856. DL from MN Posted: May 17, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2366492)
> The newbie pitchers are a damn weak lot between Ryan and the guys who are still active.

Bret Saberhagen is the best of the lot. If Fingers is in, Lee Smith should be also. He'll probably have to wait as long as Fingers though. Tiant could benefit also. Stieb is pretty clearly a better choice than Bucky Walters.
   857. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 17, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2366512)
Stieb is pretty clearly a better choice than Bucky Walters.


You forgot to type "IMO," DL. ;-)
   858. DL from MN Posted: May 17, 2007 at 02:22 PM (#2366521)
Who else's opinion would it be? If I start using someone else's opinion I'll be sure to cite it.

:)
   859. Juan V Posted: May 17, 2007 at 02:40 PM (#2366536)
Interesting will be whether he or Griffey Jr will be the first HOMer to wear a Mariners cap.


I'm pretty sure that'll be Edgar. To me, 2012 looks like Bernie Williams + two backloggers, with Edgar having a good chance of being one of them. However, we'll have to see what happens to McGriff, Walker, Olerud, the size of Palmeiro's boycott...
   860. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: May 17, 2007 at 09:46 PM (#2367273)
Lots of tough questions on those 2010 and 2011 ballots. And lots of colorful careers to discuss at length too. Those will be fun ones. Too bad we have to wait three years.
   861. DanG Posted: May 21, 2007 at 01:56 PM (#2372663)
And the 2011 guys

Rafael Palmeiro: 395
Jeff Bagwell: 388
Larry Walker: 311
John Olerud: 301
Marquis Grissom: 250
Kevin Brown: 241
BJ Surhoff: 230
Bret Boone: 208
Raul Mondesi: 183
John Franco: 182
Carlos Baerga: 160
Jose Offerman: 153
Al Leiter: 150
Mike Hampton 135
Terry Mulholland: 114
Wilson Alvarez: 105
Hideo Nomo: 100
Paul Quantrill: 98
Ismael Valdes: 97

Juan (or somebody):
I found a few guys I overlooked. If I can get career wins shares for them also, it would be much appreciated.

Tino Martinez
Troy Percival
Ugueth Urbina

There are probably also other minor candidates to add. And some, like Percival, may make comebacks.
   862. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 21, 2007 at 01:58 PM (#2372664)
Who else's opinion would it be? If I start using someone else's opinion I'll be sure to cite it.

:)


Heh.
   863. Juan V Posted: May 21, 2007 at 02:27 PM (#2372687)
Tino Martinez: 216 WS
Troy Percival: 112
Ugueth Urbina: 101
   864. Delorians Posted: May 22, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2374188)
....Ugueth Urbina

There are probably also other minor candidates to add. And some...may make comebacks.


That would be one heck of a comeback:

http://bugsandcranks.com/philadelphia-phillies/ugeth-urbina-sidelined-until-2021/
   865. DL from MN Posted: May 24, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2377553)
Looking into the future until 2009 the only iffy candidates I'm likely to support are Saberhagen, Cone and possibly Lee Smith. Nobody else gets above the top 25 of players eligible now. I don't think Will Clark is iffy in this crowd.

However, in 2010/2011 I have 10 players joining the ballot.
   866. DavidFoss Posted: May 24, 2007 at 07:25 PM (#2377592)
I don't think Will Clark is iffy in this crowd.

We may rush Will Clark in like we did Keith Hernandez & Dwight Evans... but I'd certainly like to take a long look at him. His career is not long, he's got a ton of superior contemporaries, and he's got some in-season durability issues. Why him and not Cepeda or Cash?

The details of the discussion can wait until he's eligible and has his own thread, but I think being "underrated" is a big boost for an HOM candidate. Plus his retiring young puts him on the ballot before all of his superior contemporaries, which seems a bit unfair.
   867. jimd Posted: May 24, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2377681)
Plus his retiring young puts him on the ballot before all of his superior contemporaries, which seems a bit unfair.

Yes. IF we were to do this all over again, I would support an age-based eligibility requirement over the current retirement-based one.
   868. Juan V Posted: May 24, 2007 at 09:20 PM (#2377686)

Yes. IF we were to do this all over again, I would support an age-based eligibility requirement over the current retirement-based one.


We'll be dealing with Julio Franco while he still is in his prime :)
   869. Juan V Posted: May 24, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2377696)
Plus his retiring young puts him on the ballot before all of his superior contemporaries, which seems a bit unfair.


Honestly, I don't think this is much of a problem. Even using HOM-time (which, by that time, is pretty much the same as real time), we'll have an idea of what to do with most of his contemporaries by the time he is eligible.
   870. Chris Fluit Posted: May 25, 2007 at 05:53 AM (#2378262)
It didn't help Catfish Hunter that we got to look at him before all of the other '70s pitchers became eligible. I doubt that his early eligibility will be of much consequence for Will Clark.
   871. DanG Posted: May 25, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2378456)
Yes. IF we were to do this all over again, I would support an age-based eligibility requirement over the current retirement-based one.

I agree. IIRC, when we were deciding eligibility rules there was some concern over being able to compare our elections to the actual Coop elections. I think we have discovered there is no merit to such concerns, we should have felt free to design our system independently.

Actually, I kinda like the five year rule, but I think we should've also set a minimum age of, say, 42 to be eligible.
   872. Paul Wendt Posted: May 26, 2007 at 12:21 AM (#2378884)
When I arrived in 1904, someone (a Cardinal fan?) expressed concern regarding Amos Rusie, the age-contemporary of McGinnity who was practically done before McGinnity's debut. It's clear that Rusie didn't need the early cosideration; he is not close to the bubble. I suspect that some who were elected on the first ballot at a ripe old age would struggle to get in under a slightly different system. For example Red Faber waltzed in over several incumbents who were later elected and some of them are never named among the weakest or most regrettable selections, whereas Faber has been named.
   873. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 26, 2007 at 12:48 AM (#2378921)
For example Red Faber waltzed in over several incumbents who were later elected and some of them are never named among the weakest or most regrettable selections, whereas Faber has been named.


In Faber's case, I think the speed that he made it into the HoM has caused some to think of him as a regrettable selection (I don't, BTW). Rixey is really not that much different than him, yet doesn't have the same stigma since it took many years before he was inducted.
   874. DanG Posted: June 11, 2007 at 06:43 PM (#2400435)
I doubt that his early eligibility will be of much consequence for Will Clark.

Agreed. For the record, here are the years that the 1990's firstbasemen become eligible:

2004 Cecil Fielder
2006 Will Clark
2007 Mark McGwire
2007 Wally Joyner
2009 Mark Grace
2009 Andres Galarraga
2009 Mo Vaughn
2010 Fred McGriff
2011 Rafael Palmeiro
2011 Jeff Bagwell
2011 John Olerud
2011 Tino Martinez
201x Frank Thomas
   875. sunnyday2 Posted: June 11, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2400518)
Off the top as a peak/prime WS/OPS+ voter (not to the exclusion of everything else, of course).

1. McGwire
2. Thomas
3. Bags
(gap)
4. Will the Thrill
(in/out about here)
5. Raffy
6. McGruff
(big gap)
7-9 (group). Galarraga, Olerud, Tino
10-11. Joyner-Grace, Grace-Joyner, who cares anyway
12-13. Vaughan-Fielder, Fielder-Vaughan...oh, never mind

Interesting that a 1980s 1B, some guy named Eddie Murphy--hey I saw him in Beverly Hills Cop--is eligible just one year before Fielder. Tells you a lot about both. Still as a peak voter, I'm not sure that McGwire doesn't stay #1. And Mattingly and Perez, two more recent backloggers, are still kickin' around. Mattingly would be somewhere around the 5-6 group while Perez remains hard to place. He seems better than that but might really end up in the 7-9 group. Not sure right now. That's a lot to choose from, but Will Clark is not hard to choose, not in the least.
   876. Paul Wendt Posted: June 12, 2007 at 01:19 AM (#2400755)
Look how the HBP standard moved on Galarraga. During his first peak, the expected one at ages 26-28, he led the league twice with 10-10-13 times hit. During his surprising renaissance he merely finished second once with 17-17-25-17 times hit. In the meantime hitters adopted body armor.

Marc s2
Still as a peak voter, I'm not sure that McGwire doesn't stay #1.

Well, you are also a prime voter too, see Gossage. But "Steady Eddie's" 12 years with Baltimore is too long to be a prime, eh?

In the first chapter of Baseball's All-Time Best Hitters, while explaining the limitation of his final analysis to everyone's first 8000 PA (or AB?), Michael Schell observed that Murray is the leader in decline after 8000. Clemente is the leader in gain after 8000 and is the only important hitter who needs a special exception to "first 8000" evaluation. The metric is Schell-adjusted batting average, I recall; that is a rate statistic. Murray's decline was not precipitous (he was past 9000 PA when he led the majors in batting average in 1990) but he put up almost 13000 PA in all.
   877. sunnyday2 Posted: June 12, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2400762)
Gossage is a special case, of course, in that his prime is pretty much all peak. But yes, I accept your compliment, I am indeed a "peak/prime" voter.

Will I have to rank Murray vs. McGwire? Ahhhhhh, no, won't happen. So we'll never know.
   878. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 01:47 AM (#2400769)
Looking back at some earlier questions and conundrums:

First, regarding candidates of the last decade who weren't "no-brainers" from post #818 by myself and #819 by Chris Cobb:

Me: All told, we'll elect 35 HOMers between 1989 and 2000. I think as many as 21 of those spots are going to be easily claimed by new candidates: Yastrzemski, Perry, Bench, Jenkins, Morgan, Palmer, Carew, Fingers, Rose, Seaver, Jackson, Niekro, Carlton, Schmidt, Blyleven, Carter, Brett, Yount, Ryan, Fisk and Gossage. That leaves 14 spots up for grabs. However, those 14 spots won't all go to the current backlog. There are new candidates who aren't as obvious as the titanic twenty-one but who will still get significant consideration: Singleton, Staub, Grich, Perez, Cey, Garvey, Sutton, Nettles, Simmons, Sutter, Da. Evans, John, Rice, Hernandez, Quisenberry, Dw. Evans, Parker, Randolph, Stieb, Morris and Hough. That's more than enough players to claim the other 14 spots though I don't think we'll quite embrace them all. Rather, I would guess that we're looking at 7-8 of the new backlog and 6-7 of the current backlog getting in during this time.

Chris: Fearless predictions on this set:

Grich, Sutton, Simmons, and Da. Evans are locks. (Sutton and Evans will provoke debate, but they'll go in quickly nevertheless. Grich and Simmons won't provoke significant debate.)

You were right. All three were inducted in their first year of eligibility, though Grich's quick induction was in part due to a significant boycott of Pete Rose.

Perez, Hernandez, and Randolph are likely HoMers, though it's conceivable that they won't be elected before 2007.

Fairly accurate analysis again. Hernandez looks like he should have belonged in the first group as he was elected quite easily. Randolph looks pretty good for this year. Perez has been a top ten returnee and could go in by 2007 but is by no means a lock to do so.

Staub, Cey, Nettles, John, Dw. Evans, and Stieb will draw support and have a shot at election. These six are the ones who will _really_ compete against the current backlog.

And so far, the backlog is holding its own against this group. Dwight Evans was elected immediately, but that only means that Perez and Dewey trade spots. Stieb is the only top ten returnee from this group, and therefore the only one with a strong shot at election by 2007.

Garvey, Sutter, Rice, Quisenberry, Parker, Morris, and Hough will attract little support. I will be surprised if any break the top 20, though Sutter, Quisenberry, and Hough have shots and doing so.

Correct again, Chris. Some of these guys attract a handful of votes but none has a serious shot at induction any time soon.

I had predicted that we would elect 7 or 8 guys from this group. Da Evans, Dw Evans, Grich, Hernandez, Simmons and Sutton make for 5. Randolph and Stieb look good for 6 and 7. Perez is a possible #8. Also, I made a mistake in my initial list. Rollie Fingers didn't draw as much support as I had predicted and didn't garner quick election. He's still a top ten returnee and could be elected by 2007, but so far his spot has gone to the one of the backlog candidates.
   879. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2400772)
Oops. That should be 6 so far, with Randolph and Stieb looking good for 7 and 8.
   880. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 02:08 AM (#2400792)
As for the backloggers, borrowing from sunnyday's post #822:

Well, let's say it is 7-8 backloggers, which is probably realistic. Do we have the right ones?

Pos/Top8Backlog/AlsoRans(with 100 pts or more)

C--Trouppe/Bresnahan

Personally I'm more partial to Ellie Howard with some credit for NeL play and for the career interruptus most black players not named Robinson or Mays experienced during the integration era. Bresnahan is legit, too. I'm happy that, adding Ellie, we would have the right 3 guys under consideration.


Trouppe got in. Bresnahan made a brief appearance in the top ten. Howard did garner more than 100 points in the '98 election though the strong new class of '99 pushed him back below that threshold.

Related question: Is Trouppe (are Moore, Trouppe and Redding) the best NeLer(s) left?

IF--Childs, Boyer, Fox, D. Moore/Doyle

A case of "ignore the rest." The focus here is already working for these guys while, by comparison, we are spread our "hitters" votes around very broadly. Are these guys really better or just benefiting from our confusion about the hitters? I like Doyle over Childs and Fox, and I still like Ed Williamson over Ken Boyer, but none of these guys is a bad choice. Moore has probably taken over from Kiner, now, as THE pure peak candidate.


We elected all of the big four (there was a pretty big gap from the first four who were all top ten returnees down to Doyle). Who are the infield candidates now? Well, there's new backlog candidate Randolph at 2B. Then there's Nettles at 23, Rizzuto at 24, Doyle at 26, Clarkson at 28, McGraw at 33 and Elliott at 35 (going by those who garnered 100 or more points in the more open 1998 election).

Corners ("Hitters")--Beckley/Keller, C. Jones, Cravath, B. Johnson, Cash, Bonds, Cepeda, Brock

Oddly, the top cornerman is not really a "hitter," or is he? His hitting has probably been lost in translation. All those triples that would have been HR in other eras! Interesting that we otherwise are favoring the peakers over the careerists, which is a bit uncharacteristic of the HoM. I would tout Cepeda more except that if y'all looked more closely I'm afraid you might end up preferring Cash. (F. Howard is basically interchangeable with Baby Bull, Gavy and Cash, too.)

In sum, right now we are poised to elect no backlog "pure hitters." And that's OK, we probably have too many already. Or is it OK? And which ONE might it be? I mean besides old eagle eye.


We did elect two cornermen, including one who Marc refers to as a "pure hitter" in Keller. The others are still in the mix, though they've been joined by new candidates like Singleton, R Smith and Staub.

Hybrids (CF, multi-positions)--Wynn, Roush/Browning, Duffy, GVH, Oms, Leach (maybe Reggie Smith, still in the initiation process)

We could go deeper than 2 here and not elect a bad choice, though I prefer Roush and Browning on this list and don't prefer Duffy and GVH. Leach is the guy who remains really intriguing, not to say that he should rate higher but that he is a true true hybrid and therefore more intriguing--more likely to have been misunderstood--than anybody else on the list. How is he NOT better than Hugh Duffy?


We've picked up two of the centerfielders in Wynn and Roush. Based on his performance in the '99 election (sandwiched between Bonds and Cepeda), Dale Murphy now joins this group and will likely pick up 100 points in a the more open upcoming elections. And I guess R Smith belongs here as well and not in the corner section.

P--none/Redding, Walters, Grimes, Welch, Dean

I think we probably need a pitcher but which one? Welch and Dean have their adherents but have for all intents and purposes been rejected. Redding remains poorly understood, is he or isn't he? I don't claim to really know. That leaves Walters, whom I am warming up to. And Bridges and Willis are close to 100 points, but even that would leave them 400 points short of election.


Marc's initial estimate was correct: we elected no backlog pitchers during this time. I suggested that maybe it was due to the then recent elections of backlog pitchers Mendez, Pierce and Waddell. I can't say for sure that was the case but after a drought during the '90s elections, pitchers look to be in pretty good position to claim backlog elections in the 2000s with old backloggers Redding and Walters and new backloggers Fingers and Stieb all in the top ten.

We ended up electing 9 backoggers, not the 6-8 that was predicted: 1 catcher, 1 first baseman, 2 second basemen, 1 third baseman, 1 shortstop, 2 centerfielders and 1 corner outfielder (Trouppe, Beckley, Childs, Fox, Boyer, Moore, Wynn, Roush and Keller). So far, those spots have come at the expense of Rollie Fingers and Tony Perez. But considering those two are 6th and 15th in the current backlog, it's likely that their elections were merely delayed.
   881. sunnyday2 Posted: June 12, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2400848)
Jim Wynn is one I hadn't anticipated though since his election I warmed up to him. I did not and do not support Beckley and Boyer. Boyer in particular has a whole lot of guys on the outside that look pretty much identical. But of course people say that of Fox, too, whom I did support. To some degree it comes down to Fox being the best eligible 2B (IMO) for awhile, while Boyer was never the best available 3B (IMO). That would be Ed Williamson. If we had elected Big Ed 75 years ago, would I have felt differently about Boyer?

No.
   882. Chris Fluit Posted: June 12, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2401243)
I think all of us can safely say that there are a couple of names in that list of 9 that we didn't support.
   883. Howie Menckel Posted: June 17, 2007 at 04:57 AM (#2406784)
just a bump for our remaining voting years..

2001 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
415 128.6 1973 Dave Winfield-RF IN
351 122.1 1978 Lou Whitaker-2B IN?
281 88.4 1984 Kirby Puckett-CF (2006) IN?
263 85.5 1983 Don Mattingly-1B BACKLOG?
248 86.5 1978 Lance Parrish-C

2002 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
325 138.7 1978 Ozzie Smith-SS IN
318 121.5 1978 Alan Trammell-SS IN?
340 108.0 1977 Andre Dawson-CF/RF BACKLOG?

2003 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
437 137.7 1977 Eddie Murray-1B IN
346 111.6 1982 Ryne Sandberg-2B IN
295 99.5 1982 Brett Butler-CF
198 82.5 1981 Lee Smith-RF BACKLOG?

2004 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
414 129.9 1978 Paul Molitor-DH/3B IN
301 127.1 1975 Dennis Eckersley-P IN
233 92.1 1977 Dennis Martinez-P BACKLOG?
240 66.9 1984 Joe Carter-LF/RF

2005 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
394 143.5 1982 Wade Boggs-3B IN
268 96.4 1983 Tony Phillips-2B/LF
193 90.8 1984 Bret Saberhagen-P*

2006 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
331 104.2 1986 Will Clark-1B IN?
243 85.5 1989 Albert Belle-LF BACKLOG?
210 87.0 1984 Orel Hershiser-P
187 79.5 1984 Dwight Gooden-P

2007 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
427 169.1 1982 Cal Ripken-SS IN
398 124.3 1982 Tony Gwynn-RF IN
342 109.5 1987 Mark McGwire-1B ?????????
307 102.4 1980 Harold Baines-RF/DH
280 105.4 1984 Tony Fernandez-SS
259 98.6 1987 Paul O’Neill-RF
205 94.2 1987 David Cone-P*

2008 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos (Died)
390 131.8 1981 Tim Raines-LF IN
213 98.3 1986 Chuck Finley-P
231 80.0 1991 Chuck Knoblauch-2B


and after a year's break.....
2009 —elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos
535 178.1 1979 Rickey Henderson-LF IN
294 96.5 1988 Mark Grace-1B
245 92.0 1987 Jay Bell-SS
241 91.0 1987 Matt Williams-3B
251 63.5 1986 Andres Galarraga-1B*
   884. Paul Wendt Posted: June 17, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2406941)
If I understand, "IN" means first year and backlog means not so fast.
I say Trammell is IN, beating Whitaker and Puckett if necessary, with more "ballot strength-adjusted electoral support" than Molitor or Eckersley will get. We'll see whether . . .
whether I or anyone has a good measure of bsaes by that time.
   885. Juan V Posted: June 17, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2406982)
I'm not so sure about Puckett and Clark. But that's just me...
   886. Paul Wendt Posted: June 17, 2007 at 05:43 PM (#2407023)
Chris Cobb,
I have your eligibility lists #247 to #346.
And I have #217 whose discussion or proposal is lost in cyberspace.

>>
career = first and last year at which the player competed either in the top-level negro leagues, a Latin American league, the major leagues, or (in the case of black ballplayers who may not have been given a chance to compete in the majors even after integration) the organized minor leagues. An * after these dates indicates that my listed career date diverges from the dates listed at the top of the player's biographical entry in Riley. All deviations from Riley are compiled and explained in a file I hope to get uploaded to the HoM yahoogroups site.
<<

Do you have the latter?

Among the HOF nominees I guess C.I. Taylor did not play enough at high level to be covered for HOM purposes. Is that right?

The other nominee who seems to be missing here is Red Parnell.
skimpy sketch of Parnell at NBHOFM treats him a notable player. (but so does Connie Mack's HOF plaque)
   887. DanG Posted: June 29, 2007 at 02:54 PM (#2422059)
Here's the "Official" listing: New eligibles for the 2010 election:

2010 (November 9, 2009)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

376 132.7 1988 Roberto Alomar-2B
346 122.2 1986 Barry Larkin-SS
341 104.6 1987 Fred McGriff-1B
305 108.3 1989 Edgar Martinez-DH/3B
272 110.1 1990 Robin Ventura-3B
260 83.5 1987 Ellis Burks-CF/RF
234 80.9 1990 Juan Gonzalez-RF/LF*
227 69.5 1991 Ray Lankford-CF
221 64.1 1990 Todd Zeile-3B
190 69.3 1987 Benito Santiago-C*
183 56.5 1992 Eric Karros-1B
161 58.9 1987 Mark McLemore-2B
126 59.0 1992 Pat Hentgen-P
126 53.7 1987 Mike Jackson-RP
130 41.6 1991 David Segui-1B
128 41.6 1994 Fernando Viña-2B
106 44.8 1991 Rod Beck-RP (2007)
   888. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 29, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2422290)
Santiago and Alomar remind me of the wonderful diversity in baseball today. I'm sure I've mentioned before but in times less interested in promoting diversity a lot of the guys on the 2010 list would be listed by anglicized names. For instance,

Bobby Alomar (a la Avila, robby seems too contemporary)
Eddie Martinez
Johnny Gonzalez
Benny Santiago (and I think one his Topps cards even says this, maybe 1987?)

Not much you can do with the Fernando....

Looking backward from there from 2004 to 2009 the following hit the ballot ....
Joe Canseco
Danny Bichette (who is not Latino, but I'm just guessing might have been anglicized anyway in the slightly Cathophobic 1950-1960s)
Del DeShields (possible Caucasionization?)
Andy Galarraga
John Samuel
Bobby Kelly (which he sometimes went by)
Lou Polonia
Ray Martinez
Joey Rijo

Luckily, Tony Pena, Danny Tartabull, Ozzie Guillen, Tony Fernandez, Dave and Dennis Martinez, and Stan Javier are already taken care of!
   889. DanG Posted: June 29, 2007 at 06:01 PM (#2422342)
Not much you can do with the Fernando

When Fernando Arroyo came up he was called "Fred" or "Fredie".
   890. OCF Posted: June 29, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2422398)
Luckily, Tony Pena, Danny Tartabull, Ozzie Guillen, Tony Fernandez, Dave and Dennis Martinez, and Stan Javier are already taken care of!

To the best of my knowledge, Stanley Julian Antonio (Negrin) Javier, born in late 1964, was named in direct homage to Stanley Frank Musial, who had been Julian Javier's teammate for four years before Musial retired at the end of the 1963 season.

Danilo Tartabull is also the son of an active major league player - born in Puerto Rico, to a Cuban father.

Francisco Rodriguez seems to be "Frankie" when he's not "K-Rod."
   891. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 30, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2423808)
I had a little theory about Tony Pena, Danny Tartabull, Ozzie Guillen, Tony Fernandez, Dave and Dennis Martinez, (but not Stan Javier after OCF's info). I wonder if, by coming up in late 1970s to early 1980s, they may be among the last of the big crops of Anglicized players. To test this, I went through the rosters of our current 30 teams on bb-ref, looking for players with anglicized-looking baseball names. I grouped players into three groups: guys with anglicized baseball names (Tony Batista); guys who might have anglicized baseball names (Manny Ramirez), guys with cognate names (David Ortiz):

Guys with anglicized names
Al Reyes (Rafael Alberto)
Andy Gonzalez (Angel)
Tony Batista (Leocadio)

Guys who might have anglicized names:
Rod Barajas (Rodrigo)
Manny Ramirez (Manuelo)
Sammy Sosa (Samuel)
Greg Aquino (Gregori)
Albert Pujols (Jose Alberto)
Tony Armas (Antonio)
Edgar Gonzalez (Edgardo)
the other Tony Pena (Ramon Antonio)
Tony Abreu (Etanislao Toni)

Guys with cognate names:
David Ortiz
Bengie (Benjamin) Molina
Willy Taverez
Jonathan Sanchez
Omar Vizquel
Denny Bautista
Omar Quintanilla
Rudy Saenez
Wilson Valez
Anthony Reyes
Victor Santos
Kelvin Jimenez
Adrian Gonzalez
Oscar Robles
Augie Ojeda
Alex Gonzalez
Ronny Paulino
Edwin Encarnacion
Randy Flores
Joel Piniero
Elmer Dessens
Victor Zambrano
Alex Cora
Robinson Cano
Alex Rodriguez
Bobby Abreu (given name Bob!)
Wil Nieves
Melvin Mora
Daniel Cabrera
Victor Martinez
Franklin Gutierrez
Andy Marte
Ben Francisco
Edward Mujica
Ivan Rodrigez
Omar Infante
Tony Pena
Joel Peralta
Vladimir Guerrero
Erick Aybar
hector Carrasco
Adrian Beltre
Felix Hernandez
Hiram Bocachica
Nelson Cruz
Vitor Diaz
Robinson Tejada
Frank Francisco
Bruce Chen
Kurt Suzuki
Ruben Gotay
Oliver Perez
Edgar Renteria
Martin Prado
Oscar Villarael
Abraham Nunez
Crisitan Guzman
Ron Belliard
Winston Abreu
Felix Pie
Henry Blanco
Ronny Cedeno

I'm sure I missed a bunch, and there's lots of guys who you can't tell. Anyway, 3 guys I thought were definitely anglicized, 9 others i though were maybe anglicized. I haven't looked at other years, but given how large the Latino population is in baseball now (what, 30-40%?), it seems like a pretty small number of anglicized names. If this is truly a small number compared to 1957, 1967, 1977, 1987, 1997, then it represents a very interesting evolution in how those who name ballplayers (be it themselves, their teams, or the press) go about their task.
   892. Paul Wendt Posted: June 30, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2423875)
Tony Abreu (Etanislao Toni)

"cognate" - Etanislao would be Stanley, I suppose.

> I'm sure I missed a bunch, and there's lots of guys who you can't tell. Anyway, 3 guys I thought were definitely anglicized, 9 others i though were maybe anglicized.

maybe anglicized - Are you unsure of the criteria or only unsure of the facts? For example, Sammy/Samuel what facts would make it "anglicized" or not?

Where in Latin America is baseball covered both in Spanish and English? Puerto Rico?
   893. Paul Wendt Posted: June 30, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2423877)
Stanley Anthony Coveleski (Covey)
born Stanislaus Kowalewski
   894. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: June 30, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2424027)
what facts would make it "anglicized" or not?

I'm unsure if whether simply adding a y or y-sound to the main consonant sounds in a person's name in order to create a nickname is an exclusively English-speaking thing to do. Or whether it would be just as common to do so in the D.R.

That is to say, are /saah-me/ and Sammy the same name? Would Sammy be known as Sammy in his homeland? Or Samito? Or something I don't know?

I don't have the cross-cultural chops to say, so rather than say it was definitely anglicized, I categorized those names elsewise.
   895. Paul Wendt Posted: July 12, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2438596)
Three weeks have passed so I will bump this up.

1.
Chris Cobb,
I have your eligibility lists #247 to #346.
And I have #217 whose discussion or proposal is lost in cyberspace.

>>
career = first and last year at which the player competed either in the top-level negro leagues, a Latin American league, the major leagues, or (in the case of black ballplayers who may not have been given a chance to compete in the majors even after integration) the organized minor leagues. An * after these dates indicates that my listed career date diverges from the dates listed at the top of the player's biographical entry in Riley. All deviations from Riley are compiled and explained in a file I hope to get uploaded to the HoM yahoogroups site.
<<

Do you have the latter?

2.
Among the HOF nominees I guess C.I. Taylor did not play enough at high level to be covered for HOM purposes. Is that right?
[What years did he play for a team that should be considered major?]

3.
The other nominee who seems to be missing here [in "New Eligible"] is Red Parnell.
A skimpy sketch of Parnell at NBHOFM treats him a notable player. (but so does Connie Mack's HOF plaque)
[born 1905.
Riley lists major career 1926-43 plus 1946 and 1950.
Eligible when?]
   896. DanG Posted: September 13, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2523078)
Here are the newbies for the 2011 election, three years from now. Five or six solid candidates here. We should get Japanese League MLEs for Nomo. I could easily have missed some minor candidates. A tip of the cap to Juan V for the win shares info.

2011 (November 8, 2010)—elect 3
WS W3 Rookie Name-Pos

395 137.4 1987 Rafael Palmeiro-1B
388 135.4 1991 Jeff Bagwell-1B
301 115.2 1990 John Olerud-1B
311 106.6 1990 Larry Walker-RF
241 106.0 1989 Kevin Brown-P
230 78.3 1987 BJ Surhoff-LF/C
250 67.1 1990 Marquis Grissom-CF
216 73.9 1991 Tino Martinez-1B
208 74.2 1993 Bret Boone-2B
182 79.9 1984 John Franco-RP
183 57.9 1994 Raul Mondesi-RF
150 67.7 1988 Al Leiter-P
160 56.0 1990 Carlos Baerga-2B
135 54.0 1994 Mike Hampton-P
153 46.5 1991 Jose Offerman-SS/2B
105 52.5 1991 Wilson Alvarez-P
101 46.4 1996 Ugueth Urbina-RP
100 44.9 1990 Hideo Nomo-P
114 37.5 1986 Terry Mulholland-P*
   897. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 14, 2007 at 01:22 PM (#2523969)
What an intersting group!

I wonder if Hampton's listing is a tad premature:

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2007/09/12/bravesnot_0913.html
   898. Mike Webber Posted: September 14, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2523975)
101 46.4 1996 Ugueth Urbina-RP


Will UUU be out of jail by the time we vote on him?
   899. Juan V Posted: October 04, 2007 at 08:58 PM (#2560292)
Too bad we'll have to wait a bunch of years until those elections, since I think they will be quite interesting. Plenty of new flesh for the backlog, which is a good thing since we'll thin it considerably in 2008-2009.
   900. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: October 04, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2560609)
I see Bagwell as *way* over the in/out line, Walker, Brown, and Palmeiro as clear HoM'ers, and Olerud as nowhere close.
Page 9 of 10 pages ‹ First  < 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 1.4442 seconds
68 querie(s) executed