Personally I preferred Jim Creighton.

Was Creighton anything like the hitter Ferguson was? If he'd made it even to 30 I'd have had him #1/2 on my ballot along with Caruthers for the last 80 "years" but as it is one has to draw the line. What a pity!

Just 9 months older than Caruthers, incidentally. What was it about 1863-64 that produced multiple examples of this very rare talent combination (only the early Ruth being similar, really?)

Similarly, why did a whole bunch of 6-8,6-9, 6-10, 7-foot young men suddenly appear on the athletic scene about 1945? The great "big men" of hoops had been about 6-5 previously. There was something in nutrition and health starting in the '20s. There had to be. It is too much of a coincidence. As for 1863-64, again I would say there was some (in this case probably) cultural (rather than nutrition) phenomenon that produced a certain type of athlete. I don't believe in coincidences, much.

When was Wheaties invented ;-)

First, the 1920's were a prosperous decade. Second, vitamins were discovered and there was step ahead in nutrition. Kellogg promoted health and nutrition heavily.

Flour milling and rail transportation of beef were the big nutritional advancements of the 1860s.

Was the MLB talent pool low in the 50's because that generation grew up during the depression? Does this explain the lower number of integration era black ballplayers? Surely black children would have been hit hardest during the Depression.

Is there a bump up in performance in the 1970's due to vaccinations and the prosperous post-war economy?

Was the MLB talent pool low in the 50's because that generation grew up during the depression? Does this explain the lower number of integration era black ballplayers? Surely black children would have been hit hardest during the Depression.

Sunny and Karl. If true, would this line of reasoning be compatible/incompatible with the demographic theory of HOM representation of black talent or compatible/incompatible with the outlier theory of HOM represntation of black talent?

I mean, if we toss demography out the window because they are outliers, wouldn't we also toss this information out too? Would we posit they were not only outliers but, essentially, survivors among the fittest?

I don't believe that the depression reduced the numbers of black ballplayers in the '50s. Black kids always had the worst nutrition and health care, the fewest advantages of coaching, and of whatever else feeds into great athletic ability--except the desire to be a great athlete. Arguably the depression would have increased that one thing that makes the most difference.

By this logic, there would have been a dearth of poor white kids, too, and I don't know that we've seen that or that anybody has posited that.

The problem in this case is not the "pool," it was the lack of opportunities to play (at the very time that our folklore says blacks were finally getting the opportunity to play). It is demonstrable that black players after WWII lost the opportunity to play in the NeLs before they got the opportunity, in any significant numbers, got the opportunity to play in the MLs.

Now, maybe the talent pool was thin because of WWII, as has been suggested, but OTOH there's little evidence of that. We can all name one player whose career was really devastated--Cecil Travis. If there was a negligible impact on players who were in the MLs on Pearl Harbor Day, then how can we go about demonstrating that the younger generation was devastated? I mean, American losses in WWII as a percent of the talent pool are nuthin' like the Brits in WWI, I mean, this wasn't the charge of the light brigade. All of that aside, maybe the talent pool was a tiny bit thin because of WWII, and maybe that applies to blacks as well as whites.

But I don't see how the depression was a big impact.

LOL OCF - I said 'usually' not 'never'!

Joe, as strong as my memories are of the '67 Cardinals, any time the notion of a 29-year-old rookie pitcher gets floated, I just have to think of Dick Hughes. It's an automatic connection, and I couldn't help but respond. His success, especially during the time Gibson was on the DL, was one of the big stories of the year.

"Now, maybe the talent pool was thin because of WWII, as has been suggested, but OTOH there's little evidence of that. We can all name one player whose career was really devastated--Cecil Travis. If there was a negligible impact on players who were in the MLs on Pearl Harbor Day, then how can we go about demonstrating that the younger generation was devastated? I mean, American losses in WWII as a percent of the talent pool are nuthin' like the Brits in WWI, I mean, this wasn't the charge of the light brigade. All of that aside, maybe the talent pool was a tiny bit thin because of WWII, and maybe that applies to blacks as well as whites."

Well, as I mentioned on the Cupid Childs and Bob Gibson threads - there is a definte dearth of pitching in the early 1950s - it's inescapable in the numbers - at least as Prospectus has calculated them - and they nail the AA, the one league 1890s, the expansion of the 1900s, and the talent declines of WWI and WWII, not to mention the Federal League - so they are onto something. I don't dispute at all that there was a dropoff in the early 1950s pitching (I haven't checked hitting yet).

As for the explanation as always, there are a couple of reasons. In my opinion:

1) WWII and the hit the 18-21 population of 1942-45 took - outside of the players already in the majors. I'm talking about guys you've never heard of because they died in the war. Those players would have been in their prime in the early 1950s.

2) The emergence of the NBA and NFL.

3) The current players that were serving in Korea (dozens during the early 50s - many more than I realized).

Those more than offset intergration.

at least as Prospectus has calculated them - and they nail the AA, the one league 1890s, the expansion of the 1900s, and the talent declines of WWI and WWII, not to mention the Federal League -

Joe,

What aspect of pitchers/pitching does prospectus nail? Do you mean their era/league/QoP adjustments? Or their placement of replacement? Or what? Thanks for the clarification!

Max Lanier pitched very well in the Cuban League during the winters of 1946-47 and 1947-48. I posted his stats on the Max Lanier and Harry Brecheen thread.

1) WWII and the hit the 18-21 population of 1942-45 took - outside of the players already in the majors. I'm talking about guys you've never heard of because they died in the war. Those players would have been in their prime in the early 1950s.
I don't think it was just effected the causilties of the war.
1. soldiers who otherwise would be collage ballplayers never got to play in collage and thus never got scouted
2. after a few year gap in their career collage of minor leauge players weren't as good or didn't want to go through the whole system
3. after the seeing the horrors of war (espesialy WWII) they just dropped baseball (this perhaps was the biggest effect)

Dr. C - they show what looks like a very reasonable decline or bump for all of those 'known' data points that should show a drop of boost. To me, that puts the burden of proof on someone who wants to disagree with their conclusions for other years that aren't as cut and dried obvious - like the early 50s.

****

Thanks Brent.

****

Agreed yest

****

OK now some info on the coming candidates (new chart to be posted before 8 a.m. I hope).

Ran Lolich, Catfish and Tiant through, since it's now 1984 and they are all retired (though not eligible until 1985, 1985 and 1987 respectively.

Hunter suprised me . . . he gets a 22-run career boost for his hitting, and his bullpens killed him, costing him 17 runs (Sam McDowell only pitcher I've found more victimized). That's nearly 40 runs, which is a nice boost. That's a hidden 4 win season.

And you know what . . . it doesn't matter - he comes out as one of the worst Hall of Famers ever - worse than Chief Bender! I couldn't believe it. I get him as the 92nd ranked starter, in the general company of Howard Ehmke, Sad Sam Jones, Claude Osteen, Milt Pappas (slighty ahead of Hunter); and Sam McDowell, Addie Joss, Curt Davis, Harvey Haddix, Joe Wood, George Mullin, Earl Whitehill, Andy Messersmith, Johnny Antonelli, Wilbur Wood and Jesse Haines (slightly worse).

The funny thing is that they had similar peaks! Wasn't the great peak the reason that Hunter was elected over Tiant, despite similar records?

Best 3-consecutive: Tiant 16.3, Hunter 15.6
Best 5 non-consecutive: Hunter 29.5, Tiant 29.0
Top 5: Tiant 7.8, 6.4, 5.0, 5.0, 4.9; Hunter 7.3, 6.5, 5.9, 5.1, 4.6

I have Tiant as the #41 starter right now in the same general company with Bucky Walters, Ed Cicotte, Mordecia Brown, Rube Waddell, Dutch Leonard (slightly ahead); and Dolf Luque, Bob Lemon, George Uhle, Bob Shawkey, Larry French, Herb Pennock and Virgil Trucks (slightly worse).

Lolich even ranked higher than Hunter (#84).

OK . . . the new chart, through the winter of 1983, with a couple of almost eligible but definitely retireds included . . . first post will be 1-60, next post will be 61-120, third post will be 121-170, due to character limitations. Sorry about that :-)

61-120

121-170

Pitchers above include everyone post 1893 that is . . .

1) in the Hall of Merit
2) on the BB-ref top 100 for IP, W, ERA+
3) on the Virtual Cy Young Award thread I posted awhile back (1931-present)
4) assorted others

The other lists I'll post include anyone who is in the top 100 in Games Finished or Saves too.

The legend:

PA - Pennants Added; aDRA - my version of Defense adjusted runs allowed, which uses PythaganPat exponents, and the Baseball Prospectus adjustments from NRA to DERA, 4.50 is league average; tIP - my version of translated IP, which accounts for leverage of relief innings, and adjusts starters based on era norms based on the league leaders IP and the size of the league; WAR - my wins above replacement, using aDERA, tIP and accounting for pitcher hitting; RSAR - my version of runs saved above replacement (includes pitching and batting); BRAR - my version of batting runs above replacement, which uses the average pitcher that season as a baseline, but also includes hitting and fielding while not pitching; PSup - starting pitcher bullpen support, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (negative means good support); InRP - Inherited Runs Prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive is good); BRP - bequeathed runs prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive means good support); LI - Leverage Index, 1960-2005, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus, 1871-1959 estimated based on Pete Palmer's formula, the only difference being that I cap it at 3.00, not 2.00; LIP - Leveraged innings pitched; Ladj - League Adjustment to aDRA, adjusts for things like expansion and weaker leagues in-season, but it is NOT a timeline adjustment; the higher the number the weaker the league. Def - adjustment for the quality of defense behind the pitcher; postive number means pitcher played in front of above average defense. 1 - pitcher's best season WAR; 2 - pitcher's second best season WAR; 3,4,5 - figure it out, you are smart; Top3 - pitcher's top 3 consecutive seasons of WAR; Top5 - pitcher's top 5 individual WAR seasons.

Remember that Elmer Smith and John Ward's numbers are so high because I've estimated their hitting careers as well, but take that portion with a grain of salt . . .

Here we go with the swingmen, guys that started too much to be classified as relievers and relieved to much to be starters.

I completely forgot to give Maglie credit - I was almost through reading his thread last night and then it slipped my mind today as I tried to get this done. Once I get him done, I'll let you know where he ends up . . .

The next 3 I have slated at Bob Veale, Nellie Briles and Bill Dineen. If anyone has any requests let me know . . . I'm probably going to be done for the weekend here, but I'll get them 'in queue'.

A full accounting of who picked up credit for military service, black listing, etc.:

Billy O'Dell, 1955-56
Al Brazle, 1944-45
Ron Kline, 1953-54 (minimal)
Johnny Murphy, 1944-45
Hugh Casey, 1943-45
Jim Konstanty, 1945 (minimal)
Mace Brown, 1944-45
Pete Alexander, 1918, partial 1919
Lefty Grove, conservative 1922-24
Bob Feller, 1942-45 (at his 1938, 47, 50 level)
Kid Nichols, 1902-03
Ted Lyons, declining 1943-45
Red Ruffing, declining 1943-44, 1/2 1945
Early Wynn, conservative 1944-46
Whitey Ford, conservative 1951-52
Eppa Rixey, 1918, partial 1919
Amos Rusie, 1896
Jack Quinn, 1916-17, 3/4 1918
Red Faber, 1918
Urban Shocker, 1/2 1918
Tommy Bridges, declining 1944-45
Don Newcombe, 1946-48, 1952-53
Bob Shawkey, 1918
Larry French, declining 1943-45
Herb Pennock, 1918
Virgil Trucks, 1944-45
Lon Warneke, minimal 1944
Schoolboy Rowe, 1944-45
Curt Simmons, Sept. 1950, 1951
Murry Dickson 1944-45
Howie Pollet, partial 1943, 1944-45
Max Lanier, 1945-49
Johnny Sain, 1943-45
Howard Ehmke, 1918
Harvey Haddix, 1951-52
Johnny Antonelli, 1951-52
Spud Chandler, cons. 1944-45
Vern Law, minimal 1952-53
Tex Hughson, 1944-45
Johnny Rigney, 1942-45
Vic Raschi, 1946-47 moved to 1944-45, 1946-47 at 1948 level
Ewell Blackwell, 1943-45 developing
Babe Ruth, only pitcher years including (hitting for years where he did both pro-rated to only count what he hit as a pitcher)
Bob Turley, 1952-53

As I said, I need to get Maglie, and I had completely forgotten about Mullane's 1885. It won't be enough to push him any higher than past Mathews, but I need to add it.

By the way, if the charts aren't viewable, get mozilla firefox, drop the font down 2 notches from normal (by hitting CTRL/- twice) and widen the browser a bit.

I apologize, but not sure what else I can do.

Joe,

Your analysis of hunter v. bender above is interesting because it brings up a now-important point about pitchers.

If Hunter finished worse than Bender, but he was a very good hitting pitcher, how much value is he losing to the DH? And how do we go about comparing pitchers in the DH/non-DH eras? Espeically very good and very poor hitting pitchers?

I wonder if we are going to have to bonus DH league pitchers with a certain flat rate of hitting credit, you know whatever the average hitting pitcher of the non-DH league in the same year is or something like that. Just to make sure we can compare Braeburns to Galas or Mineloas to Navels.

Dr. C., he doesn't 'lose' anything.

The baseline for pitcher batting is treated as an average pitcher batted that season. If you hit league average for a pitcher you get no credit or debit.

So pitchers in DH leagues get no + or - relative to other historical pitchers, they break even. I have no problem at all with that - but please let me know if I'm missing something there.

To which end, here's some pitcher batting numbers for 1960-2005, both leagues. All per the SBE.

Sorry, misunderstood your system then. My bad. I thought it was an additive system where you were crediting pitchers with a certain average number of runs. So if Hunter was creating two runs, that's what he got so that he'd be disadvantaged in the DH era. I didn't realize zero was the basis.

No problem Dr. C - I'd much rather someone ask the question so I can explain than have them think I'm doing something I'm not.

From the legend above . . .

"BRAR - my version of batting runs above replacement, which uses the average pitcher that season as a baseline, but also includes hitting and fielding while not pitching;"

Should I clarify that in any way?

>So pitchers in DH leagues get no + or - relative to other historical pitchers, they break even. I have no problem at all with that - but please let me know if I'm missing something there.

Speaking of DH, this is exactly the same issue as how do we evaluate the "defense" of a DH? Can a fielder have less value than a guy who never played in the field? Can a pitcher in a DH league have more hitting value than a pitcher who actually hit?

The way I see it, a guy who never played in the field cannot be a more valuable fielder than a guy who did, and a pitcher who never batted cannot be a more valuable hitter than a pitcher who did.

Joe, re Hoyt, Pennock, Hunter, Bender, Marquard, Joss and Haines.

My Reputation Monitor uses ERA+ very heavily. And keep in mind, RM was meant to predict whether a player would be elected to the HoF or not. I use it only to build consideration sets, then I look at other things in my final ballot. Having said that.

Hoyt comes out as a mistake because of ERA+ 112, very low adj peak WS and very low HoF Monitor, HoF Standards, and ink. IOW he ranks fairly low on almost everything with no one big category that moves him out of the lower reaches of the list. His score is 99.5 with <100 being defined as a huge mistake. So even so he is close--not to being a HoFer or HoMer, IMO, but close to not being a huge mistake. But of course anything <150 is still a mistake.

Pennock is basically the same story; OPS+ 106 and trailing Hoyt on almost everything else, including a TPR <10 which very very few HoFers have. Total score 88.2. Not even close to being better than a huge mistake.

Bender is at 96.5, between the two. His ERA+ and peak WS are probably his weakest categories. His hitting, with 24 career WS, is a plus.

Hunter is way up at 129, still a mistake. His ERA+ 104 is pretty terrible but he is better than the other 3 on almost everything else except career WS.

Marquard is at 57.1 which goes beyond huge mistake into JOKE land. 103 ERA+ and a -2 TPR. Yikes.

Joss has an ERA+ 142 so he ranks highly on my chart. He is a very very rare player with more peak WS than career. Logically of course this is not possible, but my peak WS measure is 3 year peak + 5 year peak. (Like I say, it all adds up to a system in which a score of 200 predicts a HoFer, and a 150 predicts a HoF candidate. I'm not saying it "should," just that it "does." Joss' total is 167.)

Haines is at 62.3, joke land.

Bottom line: Joss has the great ERA+, Hunter is only mediocre not really poor other than ERA+, Hoyt is mediocre everywhere, and the others are mediocre to poor (worse than Hoyt.)

Boy if you think Hoyt isn't great shakes at 112 ERA+,k you're going to love "The Other Only" Nolan Ryan and his 112 ERA+? Didn't you hear, he's the greatest pitcher ever?

Well, keep in mind ERA+ is just one of many measures in the RM. But I'm not a big Ryan fan. Black ink in the form of Ks only gets you so far. I am probably less interested in how a pitcher gets batters out than most--a ground ball/fly ball out is really not much different than a K. I mean, your talking a skill there, not a value. But I don't know yet what Ryan's other values are and frankly I can't believe he isn't going to come out better than Hoyt.

Ryan is overrated by fandom at large because of the no-hitters and the strikeouts, but I think that we'll find his case is similar to that of Ernie Banks or Roberto Clemente: overrated, but still electable.

Ignoring Ryan's strikeouts for a minute:
Ryan has the best hits/allowed per 9 ip of any pitcher in history. He led his league in that category 12 times. Admittedly, that stat is a little skewed in Ryan's favor. Batters couldn't get hits off of him, but they could still reach base via walks or hit by pitch. Even so, Ryan had 9 seasons in which he was top ten in WHIP and two season ('90 and '91) when he led his league.

I'm not the biggest fan of ERA+ but I know that some other guys are. Ryan has seven seasons in which he's in the top ten of ERA+ and 2 in which he leads his league (including a monster 194). Comparing that to some recent inductees and to a pitcher coming up in a couple of years: Bunning 7 and 0, Drysdale 6 and 0, Marichal 6 and 1, Jenkins 6 and 0. So by peak/prime ERA+, Ryan comes out even or slightly ahead of these four pitchers, three of whom we already enshrined and a fourth whom we will likely enshrine. Ryan is left well behind Bob Gibson and Bert Blyleven by this measurement (10 and 2, 11 and 1 respectively), but still well above the bottom border of the Hall of Merit.

By WHIP and ERA+ alone, Ryan is a HoMer. He's not the best pitcher ever despite prevailing fan opinion. But then Ernie Banks isn't the best shortstop either, but he was still good enough to merit induction.

with out looking at his numbers
even though his walk rate's were astronamical wouldn't the fact that he wasn't getting that many hits leave a lot of the walks he gave up stranded on first so he'll have a lower walks to run ratio (never seen anyone use that stat before)?

Well if all those BBs were left stranded on first then how come his ERA+ is 112?

3 reasons
1. adjusting his era for park is irelavent to wehter or not the runs scored
2. had quite a few sub par seasons which brought it down
3. and most impotanly he still gave up all those walks I just think that each induvidual walk was a lot less harfull for him then for another pitcher due to a higher percentage of the runners wouldn't score but since the number of them was so high he still wouldn't have a great era

>had quite a few sub par seasons which brought it down

As a peak voter, I'm on board with this. I will be looking at his individual seasons, not just the 112.

>3. and most impotanly he still gave up all those walks I just think that each induvidual walk was a lot less harfull for him then for another pitcher due to a higher percentage of the runners wouldn't score but since the number of them was so high he still wouldn't have a great era

I also agree that in theory fewer of his BBs would score because, hey, he was a great pitcher. OTOH his ERA+ is 112 so you can't assume they didn't score. Obviously he gave up some earned runs overall.

Here's one reason why those BBs may have scored on Ryan at the same rate as anybody else: Wild Pitches. Ryan is the career leader for Wild Pitches, leading his league 6 times and finishing in the top ten another 8. So 10 to 20 times a year, at least one base runner was able to advance without the benefit of the player behind him getting a hit or a walk.

If Ryan had pitched only 4000 innings he'd be borderline, but he pitched 5386, fifth all time and with 3 of the 4 above him (Niekro's the 4th) retiring before 1930. More than 600 innings more than Roger Clemens, even now. Given how difficult it is for pitchers to stay healthy he deserves a HUGE boost for this, which takes him into top-100 territory even before you consider wins and strikeouts. I agree by all means that he's probably not top 50, whereas Clemens on the numbers is.

The 1969 MacMillan says Dutch Leonard (the one that accused Speaker/Cobb) was 'suspended by team' for 1923-24 and 'voluntarily retired' in 1922.

I'm definitely going to give him extra military credit for 1918, but I'm wondering what the story is with him from 1922-24. The BR Bullpen says he was pitching in 'Semi-Pro Ball'.

Here's another, Ray Kremer, what was he doing before his age 31 debut? He's from California, does he have a good PCL career? I've got him at .416 PA after age 31, which is pretty darn good.

Carlos Bauer's PCL book lists the following lines for Ray Kremer



No idea on the park effects going on here. Can anyone offer some guidelines? Just with the naked eye, it seems to me that Kremer was cutting his teeth for three years then blossomed at age 28 into a top-notch starter. Here's some possible explanations, none of which I have any support in the least for:
(1) His early work was obscured by park illusions.
(2) His defense improved dramatically behind him.
(3) Maybe he was a contact/groundball pitcher, and when the offensive deluge of the 1920s started he was less effected by it than surrounding pitchers.

Kremer spent several seasons in Oakland in the same rotation as Arlett. In the Arlett thread I made some attempts to approximate the run environment--it appears that Oakland's environment was a hitter friendly (compared to the rest of the PCL) during 1919-21 and starting in 1922 became pitcher friendly. See the Arlett thread.

I'm getting some very strange stuff when I run Mario Soto through my system.

I use some things that are basically BPro's WARP, but I modify them considerably - I use the PythaganPat exponent, I take LI into account, I adjust for inherited runners (both prevented and bequeathed), bullpen support, league quality (within season, not timeline). I use the BB-ref park factors. I use NRA and DERA to come up with a quality of team defense adjustment.

Normally my final DRA and BPro's DERA are reasonably close - for good pitchers DRA is generally lower, because BPro uses the wrong exponent when they convert RA vs. league to WPct.

Sometimes they are off by .10 or .15 maybe even .50 for a guy like Koufax.

Whenever this is off by a large number, it's usually because a league was exceptionally weak or strong, on the pitcher's 'rate' was really high (the issue with the exponent gets larger as you deviate further from the 4.50 league average).

But Soto has a rather pedestrian career DERA of 4.20, NRA of 4.13. His ERA+ is in line with this at 108.

But somehow, I'm getting his DRA at 3.65. I'm getting his DRA+ at 123. His league quality only explains .03 of this divergence (total of .55).

The weighting of his seasons (strike and leverage) explains another .01. His bullpen support and inherited/bequeathed runners explains another .04.

Now he was very, very good at not allowing unearned runs, for whatever reason (his D wasn't spectacular), probably the great strikeout rate.

But there's no way that and the exponent issue could explain the rest. Could it?

This discrepancy runs his whole career:



Could BPro be making a mistake with him? I've definitely got his IP and RA (I don't even look at ER) correct. At first I thought that maybe I took ER instead of RA, but I've got (1730.3 IP and 732 RA).

I get the following park factors:



After adjusting for park, I get his weighted career run environment at 4.61 and his career RA at 3.73. His career park factor is 103.3 (and accounts for his playing only 1/2 of his games at home).

Could that be way off from BPro in terms of the park factors? But that wouldn't explain his poor ERA+ since I'm using the same factors as BB-Ref. Could BPro somehow be making a mistake in his NRA/DERA?

I'm pretty puzzled here - but I've double checked and triple checked everything and I can't figure out if this is just one of those weird cases or if I've made a mistake somewhere - any thoughts? I could send along the spreadsheet if you'd like to take a closer look . . .

Got it, I'm a dipsh!t.

I was using AL LRA instead of NL. While the numbers above are the correct NL LRA, I was referencing the AL numbers instead.

This moves his career DRA to 4.02 and his DRA+ to 112, much better. He was a little better than his ERA+ would have you indicate, but he wasn't that much better. I knew there had to be something wrong, sorry for wasting your time with that.

Hopefully this is at least a good reminder to double check everything when your system gives you strange results, you probably haven't found a hidden superstar, you've probably made a mistake :-)

Soto is still pretty interesting . . . no one I've found (265 SP rated and counting) except for Babe Ruth (as a pitcher) had as high of a 3-year consecutive peak as Soto from 1982-84 with as little career value.

Soto had .444 Pennants Added. You have to go all the way up to Tex Hughson, Mort Cooper and Pink Hawley (.498-.501) before you get a pitcher with a higher 3-year peak and more career value - assuming you give Hughson a little war credit.

I'm not sure what that means, but my initial impression is that it's pretty solid evidence that he was pushed too hard.

I was messing around with my spreadsheet . . . and I decided to come up with a 'peak ranking'.

So I decided to run the Bill James scoring system from the NHBA on my guys with a few minor tweaks. First, I'm not using the subjective part, I'm only really interested in the numbers. Second, no timeline.

James uses the harmonic mean of career WS divided by 10 and 25. I'm using my WAR/10 and 5. I think 5 wins in my system is equivalent to 25 WS from a position player - I have a higher replacement level, and I'm not multiplying by 3. Also, 250 WS is a good career, but not quite over the line for the HoM (typically) and the same goes for 50 WAR in my system.

James takes the average of the best 3 seasons and the average of the best 5 consecutive - I'm doing the opposite, best 3 consectutive and best 5 overall - I think that paints a more complete picture.

James takes WS/G, I'm using WAR/250 tIP.

Add them all up and you get the "Bill James Score", or what I like to call, "Peak Score with Minor Extra Credit for a Long Career"

For now I have to leave out some guys like Smokey Joe Wood and Babe Ruth - they throw the WAR/G portion of the system off because of their position player games.

This certainly explains some things - I currently have Jack Quinn #28 among eligible post-1893 starting pitchers, but in the peak rankings he ends up 116th. Sandy Koufax is #29 in Pennants Added, but #3 in peak score. Dizzy Dean is #65 or #16.

It's definitely a different perspective, not that I agree - but if you are a peak voter, take a look at these rankings, maybe they'll help . . .

Starting Pitchers (* denotes HoM, rkC is rank based on Pennants Added, rkP is rank based on the modified Bill James NHBA system)

I think the 'peak' rating is probably best if your question is, 'who was the best when at his best?' If your question is, 'who was the most valuable?' you want the 'career' ranking (which IMO, puts the peak in it's proper perspective).

BTW, even though the starter list goes pretty deep it's not complete, meaning I'm sure there are dozens of better eligible pitchers that I haven't run through the system than Jack Harper.

Some really good info on historical pitcher usage and effectiveness here:

<url>http://www.livewild.org/bb/pitchingstaff/index.html
</url>

http://www.livewild.org/bb/pitchingstaff/index.html

Ahg, once more...
Historical Analysis of Pitcher Usage

What's the deal with Ray Kremer - he was a helluva pitcher from age 31 on, and nothing before that - was he just a late bloomer or does he have significant minor league credit pre-1924?

Kremer pitched for seven years with the PCL's Oakland Oaks before being acquired by the Pirates.

So, neither Denny McLain nor John Franco hit a remarkably high peak.
:-)

Kremer was with Oakland in the PCL from 1919-23. I've got his stats from 1920-22:

1920 - 13-22, 321 IP, 336 H, 148 R, 90 SO, 66 BB, 3.02
1921 - 16-14, 294 IP, 331 H, 144 R, 123 SO, 66 BB, 3.61
1922 - 20-18, 356 IP, 368 H, 151 R, 154 SO, 73 BB, 2.78

During this period Buzz Arlett was his teammate and fellow pitcher and was pretty consistently better than Kremer.

I can't locate Kremer's 1923 stats, but I believe he had a big year that got him to the majors.

Rob's correct - Kremer was with Oakland from 1917-23.

Paul, the problem with McLain is that his peak is a little overrated to begin with (he was great, but he wasn't Gibson or Koufax Great), and the fact that outside of 1968-69, 1965 is the only other year where he was even a league average pitcher. The James system really requires 5 years of at least being good before you can rate too high.

Franco isn't on the list yet . . . only eligibles (for the most part).

Need help.

I want to pull the following from every pitcher's player card on BPro:

YEAR
TEAM (I'm actually looking for league, but looking at their fields this is something like BRO-N)
TBF
IP
R
NRA (adjusted for season)
DERA (adjusted for season)
NRA (adjusted for all-time)
DERA (adjusted for all-time)

I'd like those to be colunm headings, and each pitcher season to be a row in a spreadsheet.

Is this possible to do in some type of automated way?

Is this something that someone with some skills can do easily? If it's a lot of work, I'd probably be willing to pay something, though probably not what it'd be worth in terms of an hourly wage :-)

If you can help, or have any ideas please let me know, either on this thread, or through an email.

Thanks!

Thanks for the Kremer stuff, much appreciated. Any idea what that might translate to at the major league level? Was he one of the best pitchers in the PCL? Was he being 'held back'?

I realize it's not going to be enough to get him in or anything, but I'm trying to be thorough, so if there's a few years he should be getting credit for that will move him up the list, I'd like to do it if I can.

LOL - there's Kremer stuff already posted up thread - I'd completely forgot!

Hardball Times Moving Beyond ERA+

Very interesting article....

And if hitters follow the same distribution, using standard deviations to evaluate them is not correct.

Joe,
Is there a version of your data which includes everyone and is up to date? Would be useful as we head into the home stretch.

Do you have DRA+ available somewhere? I see it referred to in your ballot but not in the numbers here. Would be useful to me, I'm pretty sure something like DRA+ minus 75 would correlate well with Dan R's warp numbers.

Also for someone like say Jack Stivetts, do the PAs here include hitting?

Is there a place to get info on how much credit goes to to fielding vs. pitching over time? Also on how well an average pitcher batted over time?

Looking back I'm realizing that Reuschel and Quinn need to rise on my ballot, I want to revisit your pitching data before we go to yearly.

Joe,
Looking at post #110, does that mean you support the big AL/NL league quality discount around the teens (eg Dave Bancroft)?

Jim - I will look this over tomorrow or Sunday, have to hit the rack now.

I'll post my current list of who I have (like 400 pitchers), let me know what other names you'd like to see . . .

Stivetts does have his hitting included. The only two (going from memory) that don't are Ruth and Wood.

As far as how much credit goes to pitching or hitting over time - I don't answer that. The spreads were wider early on. But Jim Palmer had as much 'fielding credit' as Tim Keefe. The difference was that Keefe's didn't stand out in his time while Palmer's did.

Don't forget, I'm trying my best to level the field across eras, under the theory that a pitcher can only pitch in the era he was born in.

My hitting numbers credit pitchers compared to the average hitting pitchers of that particular season - so I don't have any info on how they improved over time. Pitching is the one position where the 'average' hitter at the position is replacement level (since pitchers are not chosen for their hitting ability). So this makes it easy to just use RCAP for them (adjusted for season length).

For the guys like Caruthers that played the field too, I give them credit for what they did as non-pitchers based on WS, while splitting out the portion of their hitting that took place while pitching at the lower replacement level.

Here's the list of pitchers, actually ranked by Pennants Added, but with no numbers (I don't have the time to format it right now, which is what I'd have to do to post more than one column).

Both (LI*LIP/IP 30-54%)
Dennis Eckersley
Firpo Marberry
Ron Reed
Ellis Kinder
Bobby Shantz
Turk Farrell
Syl Johnson
Billy O'Dell
Al Brazle
Clint Brown
Ron Kline
Doc Crandall
Dick Drago
Dick Tidrow
Dick Coffman

Relief Aces (LI*LIP/IP over 54%+)
Hoyt Wilhelm
Goose Gossage
Rollie Fingers
Mariano Rivera
Lee Smith
Bruce Sutter
Stu Miller
Lindy McDaniel
Tug McGraw
John Franco
John Hiller
Kent Tekulve
Mike Marshall
Roy Face
Jeff Reardon
Dave Righetti
Tom Henke
Dan Quisenberry
Greg Minton
Bob Stanley
Gene Garber
Gary Lavelle
Don McMahon
Ron Perranoski
Sparky Lyle
Steve Bedrosian
Jim Brewer
Dick Hall
Dick Radatz
Johnny Murphy
Clay Carroll
Jim Kern
Terry Forster
Bill Campbell
Hugh Casey
Dave Giusti
Willie Hernandez
Al Worthington
Tom Burgmeier
Clem Labine
Jim Konstanty
Mace Brown
Eddie Fisher
Ted Abernathy
Bobby Thigpen
Bill Henry
Darold Knowles
Phil Regan
Johnny Klippstein
Al McBean
Joe Page
Marv Grissom
Bob Miller
Frank Linzy
Ken Sanders
Joe Heving
Turk Lown
Hal Woodeshick
John Wyatt
Ray Narleski
Bob Lee
Jack Aker
Larry Sherry
Bob Grim
Ryne Duren
Rawley Eastwick
Luis Arroyo
Wayne Granger
Jack Baldschun

Pre-1893
John Clarkson
Charley Radbourn
Tim Keefe
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Jim McCormick
Jim Whitney
Charlie Buffinton
Mickey Welch
Jack Stivetts
Al Spalding
Silver King
Bobby Mathews
Tony Mullane
Dave Foutz
Tommy Bond
Bill Hutchison
Gus Weyhing
John Ward
Adonis Terry
Charlie Ferguson
Sadie McMahon
Guy Hecker
Matt Kilroy
Mark Baldwin
Jim Devlin
Ed Morris
Candy Cummings
Elton Chamberlain
Larry Corcoran
Dan Casey
Ed Seward
Scott Stratton
Will White
Elmer Smith
George Haddock
Jesse Duryea
Lady Baldwin

Post-1893
Walter Johnson
Roger Clemens
Cy Young
Pete Alexander
Lefty Grove
Warren Spahn
Tom Seaver
Bob Feller
Christy Mathewson
Steve Carlton
Phil Niekro
Robin Roberts
Kid Nichols
Bert Blyleven
Gaylord Perry
Nolan Ryan
Bob Gibson
Ted Lyons
Red Ruffing
Carl Hubbell
Eddie Plank
Don Sutton
Ferguson Jenkins
Don Drysdale
Early Wynn
Hal Newhouser
Eppa Rixey
Jack Quinn
Whitey Ford
Dazzy Vance
Ed Walsh
Amos Rusie
Rick Reuschel
Jim Bunning
Sandy Koufax
Juan Marichal
Jim Palmer
Red Faber
Tommy John
Wes Ferrell
Stan Coveleski
Urban Shocker
Tommy Bridges
Billy Pierce
Dave Stieb
Don Newcombe
Bucky Walters
Burleigh Grimes
Luis Tiant
Virgil Trucks
Waite Hoyt
Frank Tanana
Rube Waddell
Clark Griffith
Bobo Newsom
Dizzy Trout
Bob Shawkey
Ed Cicotte
Jerry Koosman
Wilbur Cooper
Mordecai Brown
Dolf Luque
George Uhle
Vic Willis
Frank Viola
Babe Adams
Bob Lemon
E. Dutch Leonard (RHP)
Herb Pennock
Carl Mays
Larry French
Larry Jackson
Steve Rogers
Dizzy Dean
Nap Rucker
Lon Warneke
Paul Derringer
Schoolboy Rowe
Vida Blue
Joe McGinnity
Mel Harder
Claude Passeau
Eddie Rommel
Curt Simmons
Jack Powell
Bob Friend
Charlie Root
Murry Dickson
Jim Kaat
Ron Guidry
Hippo Vaughn
Jack Morris
Lefty Gomez
Tom Zachary
Camilo Pasqual
Mickey Lolich
Howie Pollet
Ned Garver
Al Orth
Doc White
Chief Bender
Jeff Pfeffer
Joe Bush
Jerry Reuss
Jesse Tannehill
Howard Ehmke
Sad Sam Jones
Milt Pappas
Harry Brecheen
Freddie Fitzsimmons
Sam McDowell
Max Lanier
Burt Hooton
Johnny Antonelli
Ted Breitenstein
Hooks Dauss
Doyle Alexander
Wilbur Wood
Andy Messersmith
Curt Davis
Claude Osteen
Johnny Sain
Harvey Haddix
Catfish Hunter
George Mullin
Joe Niekro
Earl Whitehill
Addie Joss
Rick Rhoden
John Tudor
Jesse Haines
Slim Sallee
Jon Matlack
Jim Perry
Spud Chandler
Bill Lee (Big Bill)
Jack Chesbro
Mel Stottlemyre
Ed Brandt
Bill Dinneen
Lew Burdette
Wild Bill Donovan
Ed Lopat
Noodles Hahn
Mike Garcia
Rube Marquard
Pink Hawley
Tex Hughson
Vern Law
Sam Leever
Ed Reulbach
H. Dutch Leonard (LHP)
Bill Sherdel
Rick Wise
Preacher Roe
Dean Chance
Mel Parnell
Mike Scott
Mort Cooper
Jim Maloney
Larry Dierker
Ken Forsch
Allie Reynolds
John Denny
Claude Hendrix
Johnny Rigney
Jim Bagby Sr.
Frank Dwyer
Smokey Joe Wood
Rube Walberg
Chris Short
Deacon Phillippe
Bob Knepper
Sal Maglie
Gary Peters
Mario Soto
Jim Barr
Jack Taylor
Mike Cuellar
Red Ames
Earl Moore
Guy Bush
Dutch Ruether
Ray Kremer
Nig Cuppy
Bob Forsch
Brickyard Kennedy
Sonny Siebert
Jouett Meekin
Dave McNally
Ewell Blackwell
Russ Ford
Jack Coombs
Hooks Wiltse
Fred Toney
Bob Buhl
Jim Scott
Frank Killen
Dick Rudolph
Vic Raschi
Bill Hands
Ken Holtzman
Woodie Fryman
Larry Jansen
J.R. Richard
Don Wilson
Gary Nolan
Joe Horlen
Dennis Leonard
Reb Russell
Tiny Bonham
Mike Torrez
Denny McLain
Steve Renko
Whit Wyatt
Babe Ruth
Toothpick Sam Jones
Mike McCormick
Jeff Tesreau
Red Donahue
Vean Gregg
Dave Roberts
Mike Krukow
Rudy May
Shane Rawley
Bob Veale
Juan Pizarro
Joe Coleman
Cy Falkenberg
Orval Overall
Scott McGregor
Jake Weimer
Mudcat Grant
Larry Gura
Bob Turley
Bill Lee (Spaceman)
Larry Cheney
Stan Bahnsen
Nellie Briles
Jim Rooker
Howie Camnitz
Tully Sparks
Kid Gleason
Jim Lonborg
Elden Auker
Don Gullett
Mike Caldwell
Ed Killian
Dave Goltz
Geoff Zahn
Paul Splittorff
Marty Pattin
Erskine Mayer
Billy Rhines
Chick Fraser
Harry Coveleski
Doc Medich
Dock Ellis
Pete Vuckovich
Tom Seaton
Al Mamaux
Jim Slaton
Ralph Terry
Red Barrett
Bill Bernhard
Ned Garvin
Bill Hoffer
Roy Patterson
Nick Altrock
Doc McJames
Jay Hughes
Bob Rhoads
Ernie Shore
Jack Pfiester
King Cole
Ed Summers
Seattle Bill James
Harry Krause
Nick Maddox
Roscoe Miller
Jack Harper
Dick Hughes
Joe Corbett

BTW, the other thing I want to do once I get this going is figure out who the "My Young Award" winners are. Problem is that until I get this in a database, it's not so easy to figure out.

Also, for the My Young Award, I only use pitching runs, hitting is removed. Anyway here's what I have so far (through 1892):

4-time:
Al Spalding (1871-73, 1875 NA)

3-time:
John Clarkson (1885, 1887, 1889 NL)

2-time:
Jim Devlin (1876-77 NL)
Jim McCormick (1880, 1882 NL)
Pud Galvin (1881, 1884 NL)
Ed Morris (1885-86 AA)
Tim Keefe (1883 AA, 1888 NL)
Silver King (1888 AA, 1890 PL)

1-time:
Bobby Mathews 1874 NL
Tommy Bond 1878 NL
John Ward 1879 NL
Tony Mullane 1882 AA
Charley Radbourn 1883 NL
Guy Hecker 1884 AA
Charlie Ferguson 1886 NL
Matt Kilroy 1887 AA
Bob Caruthers 1889 AA
Kid Nichols 1890 NL
Sadie McMahon 1890 AA
Bill Hutchison 1891 NL
Jack Stivetts 1891 AA
Cy Young 1892 NL

Oh, I might add that Maglie has no Mexican League credit up there. Everyone else has war credit as best I can figure out, even the Korea guys.

So for Joe, his highest-ranking (eligible) non-HoMer is Jack Quinn, followed by Rick Reuschel, and then, not very closely, by John, Shocker and Bridges. None of that is a surprise to anyone who has read Joe's votes. His lowest-ranking HoMer (post-1893) is Joe McGinnity, unless I missed someone lower. For some random reason, Joe has inserted Clemens into his system but not yet Maddux, Johnson (the sort-of-active one), Martinez, or Glavine. And he has Rivera rated on the relief list but not Hoffman. There, our HoM choices are in order - the top 3 - with the suggestion that Lee Smith has a borderline-defining case.

Yeah OCF, I just happened to run Clemens and Rivera a few months ago, and figured it didn't hurt to include them too . . . I don't have any plans to do the other modern guys any time soon.

I really need to build a database instead of a spreadsheet, but I'm still not sure of exactly how to set it up. Plus I'd need the Prospectus DERA numbers for everyone in their database, and I'd have to manually build a table of everyone in the 1969 MacMillan's pitching register's relief pitching numbers.

So for now, I guess it makes sense to maintain the manual spreadsheet. But if I'd realized how much work it was going to be earlier, it would have made sense to build the DB from the beginning.

Here's the list of pitchers I'll add to the list today, with their WARP too.

95.3 Charlie Hough
75.6 Bob Welch
70.4 Fernando Valenzuela
69.8 John Candelaria
66.6 Mark Gubicza
63.1 Dave Stewart
61.1 Mike Moore
60.0 Bruce Hurst
59.5 Mike Boddicker
59.3 Mike Flanagan
57.4 Rick Sutcliffe
56.9 Jose Rijo

If you want to see anyone else, let me know. I'll also try to add some relievers if I get a chance, guys like Mark Davis, Randy Myers, Jeff Brantley, Greg Harris, Jeff Russell, Todd Worrell and Dave Smith . . . I guess I could run Hoffman too.

His lowest-ranking HoMer (post-1893) is Joe McGinnity, unless I missed someone lower.

Lemon is lowest starter as a pitcher, if I correctly understand and recall the report from last year(?). But he has the bat.


#110
As for the explanation as always, there are a couple of reasons. In my opinion:

1) WWII and the hit the 18-21 population of 1942-45 took - outside of the players already in the majors. I'm talking about guys you've never heard of because they died in the war. Those players would have been in their prime in the early 1950s.

2) The emergence of the NBA and NFL.

3) The current players that were serving in Korea (dozens during the early 50s - many more than I realized).

Those more than offset integration.

1947-1950s integration was quite unbalanced by fielding position. Right?
Most HOM participants aim for membership roughly 30% pitchers and those with player-rating systems probably credit pitchers with about 30% of the total player value. But among the players who integrated the major leagues and famously improved overall quality between 1947 and 1960 both the number and the total value of pitchers was significantly less than 30%. Right?

So the talent pattern changed.
And another Jim Bunning became more valuable than another Rocky Colavito in 1961, relative to 1946, because the talent pattern changed. Right?

Whoa, did BP just change their DERA numbers?? The figures I'm using to calculate my pitcher WARP, which were downloaded from their site just last week, don't match up with their player cards anymore.

Welcome to WARP. We've all been dealing with that for several years.

Or gave up.

Whoa, did BP just change their DERA numbers?? The figures I'm using to calculate my pitcher WARP, which were downloaded from their site just last week, don't match up with their player cards anymore.

Dan - BP "recalibrates" their numbers after every completed season, since they add the most recent season in to all their calculations. I'm sure DERA, WARP, practically everything, changed again...

My three-month old #175 is related to the debate I just visited in "Shortstops". Joe Dimino and DanR are the principals there, both relying on ratings by the Baseball Prospectus team. Joe Dimino's interpretation relies on pitching data & ratings only(?). It seems to me that the relative quality of batting probably increased with integration, that is principally in the 1950s.

I see Mr. Peabody and Sherman are at it again-you really need to keep those guys locked up.