@DL from MN: Cool list in #38.
Tommy Bridges (at #14) is the highest one on your list I didn't vote for in the project.
Anyway... please vote next year! Graham is planning on continuing to do this so... there's always year #3.

I've never gotten the "can't evaluate a guy from 100 years ago" argument. Nobody would argue that we can't call Abraham Lincoln a great president because nobody alive saw him preside. And baseball players have a more direct, objective, evaluative record of how they excelled in their field than most people do. Well, I get where the argument is coming from, but I don't find it convincing - it may be harder to evaluate a player from 100 years ago than 1 year ago, but if we're going to evaluate players on a historical level, that's something you gotta do.

Well, I get where the argument is coming from, but I don't find it convincing - it may be harder to evaluate a player from 100 years ago than 1 year ago, but if we're going to evaluate players on a historical level, that's something you gotta do.

I think of it as about as difficult to evaluate as college baseball. The quality of competition varied tremendously even in consecutive years. Then you have the aspect of cheating beyond anything we've seen in the modern game. And of course the aversion to the long ball, meant they weren't playing the game optimally so I view the game and strategies as something in it's infancy, sure there are going to be some great pioneers in there, but beyond that, I think it's a little harder to feel comfortable about the numbers.

I know other people like to do all that work, and try to come up with numbers they feel comfortable with, but I personally just don't feel comfortable with anything prior to 1920. And I think anything prior to around 1906 or so is really difficult and subject to huge margin of errors.

And, I would add, who are the people most likely to be selecting these 19th century ballplayers, at this point? Probably people not as well-informed as DL from MN in #38...

And as for the Abe Lincoln argument: Most people would say that the quality of play in baseball has improved since the 1860s. I'm not sure how many people would say that about presidential leadership.

And as for the Abe Lincoln argument: Most people would say that the quality of play in baseball has improved since the 1860s. I'm not sure how many people would say that about presidential leadership.

I agree. Comparing Barry Larkin to Jack Glasscock is more like asking who's a better leader, Bill Clinton or Pachacuti. You can do it, but you'd be better off just presenting a balanced historical overview, as DL from MN suggests.

Simmons was a very good player, too. I'm not sure if he was better than Joe Torre, but they were both really good players.

But let's not compare him to Torre, who played fewer than half the number of innings at C than Simmons. Even in his earlier years Torre never started more than 108 at C, never played 1,000 innings in a season as a C, and was done as a C at 28; once he became a full time player at 21, Simmons never started fewer than 108 games at C until he turned 31.

Compare Simmons to other C. He's 9th in Career WAR, right there with Cochrane and Hartnett. If he'd retired instead of hanging on as a DH, he'd be just in front of them and right there with Dickey. His OPS+ is right there with Carter and Fisk. He has a nice peak and a long prime. Very solid HOF C.

I guess my whole point to virtually all the players not in the HOF, and not currently on the ballot, is that there aren't very many terrible omissions left out there

Other than Simmons, I agree. Plenty of guys to make good arguments about with the benefit of perspective brought about through statistical analysis developed more recently, but not too many, if any, terrible omissions.

There are 16 other players who have just as good a case as Ted Simmons or better.

There are almost 250 players inducted into the Hall of Fame. There are about 50 players not inducted that meet the minimum standard of being one of the top 200 players in history. That's an error of omission percentage of 25%. They've also inducted 50 players that are not in the top 300. That's an error of comission percentage of 25%.

Omission Percentage
Top 25 players 0%
Top 50 0%
Top 75 5% (Larkin and Bagwell are likely to be inducted, Trammell and Dahlen aren't)
Top 100 8%
Top 125 10%
Top 150 13%
Top 175 19% (This is where the Hall of Merit starts making omissions in my opinion)
Top 200 25%

For comparison's sake
Hall of Merit omission percentage: 5% (and likely to fall in a week)
Hall of Merit comission percentage: 5%

To me, Santo was the worst omission left, and now that he's in, there aren't too many off-the-ballot players whose omission drives people crazy.

While this is probably a popular sentiment it's not really the relevant issue.

With the HOF floor being what it is (e.g., T. McCarthy, L. Waner, G. Kelly, Lindstrom) there exists this large Gray Area. There are more than three hundred eligible players who were better than the worst players in the HOF. The Hall will never entirely fill this Gray area, nor should they try to do that.

The aim should always be to elect "the best" candidates. In the past year the Hall has (uncharacteristically) succeeded in this aim. Alomar, Blyleven and Santo ranked near the top of any reasonable list of deserving HOF candidates (the latter two have ranked as egregious oversights for longer than this website has existed).

Projects like Graham's help to develop a consensus identifying these best candidates. I'm not saying he's created a perfect ranking, but Larkin, Bagwell, Raines and Trammell would be included on any sane ballot in this year's BBWAA voting.

There are 16 other players who have just as good a case as Ted Simmons or better.

Who aren't on the ballot or not yet eligible? This is what Mr. Babloni's trainer and I were discussing.

Who aren't on the ballot or not yet eligible?

Absolutely - see comment 38

the HOF floor being what it is

I try not to include the mistakes in the Hall of Fame floor. I see the floor being the players around 250th place, or slightly below, that the HoF has inducted. There are plenty of players in the Hall of Fame that aren't in the Hall of Merit that I wouldn't call "mistakes". There are solid arguments for many of them and they are worthy of consideration. These are the players I would use to determine the HoF floor:

Pie Traynor
Chuck Klein
Kiki Cuyler
Dizzy Dean
Leon Day
Burleigh Grimes
Hugh Duffy
Vic Willis
Ralph Kiner
Bill Terry
Joe Medwick
George Sisler
Willard Brown
Nellie Fox
Andre Dawson
Red Faber
Earl Averill
Ernie Lombardi
Tony Perez
Dave Bancroft
Tinker, Evers and Chance

None of those guys are embarrassing choices. They're not particularly good choices given the available alternatives but they're not egregious mistakes like Lloyd Waner or Jack Chesbro. The Hall of Fame doesn't need to expand much at all to make those guys feel right at home. Any "errors" electing those players can be chalked up to changing tastes regarding the "size" of the hall as well as improvements in determining player value.

If a player is noticeably better than those players he has a pretty good argument. Conversely, if a player is about as good as those guys then it's not a tragedy that they haven't inducted him.

Larkin, Bagwell, Raines and Trammell would be included on any sane ballot in this year's BBWAA voting.

Depends on what you mean by sane. I can see rational arguments for excluding Bagwell (especially if you take a more nuanced view of the impact of possible steroid use than about 99% of people do) and Trammell, for sure, and depending on your POV of who *should* be included in the Hall, possibly the other two as well.

-- MWE

There are 16 other players who have just as good a case as Ted Simmons or better.

Well, I don't know enough about the "Old Timers" to say one way or the other, but I don't think Torre or Brown, just off the top of my head, have anywhere near as good a case as Simmons. Simmons is still a Top 10 Catcher and was even higher on the list when he retired pre Piazza and pre Rodriguez. Neither Brown nor Torre rate as highly at their positions although Torre is more difficult to place for me since he played multiple positions. I'd have to take a look at Evans to see where he fits in RF, but as strong a position as it has been, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than 10 in front of him.

Curiosity about the perception that Torre is a better ballplayer or better HOF candidate (as a player) than Simmons has led me to look at them more closely. I don't think Torre's case stands up to closer scrutiny relative to Simmons.

From 20 to 28 they were both predominantly C, Simmons much more so than Torre, but no arguing they were both C. Below is Simmons first and then Torre with OPS+ listed from high to low for ages 20 through 28:

148, 144, 142, 127, 124, 117, 116, 114, 74

156, 140, 140, 126, 126, 125, 112, 104, 104

Torre has a higher top season and a higher low season, but through the other 6 seasons they are very, very close. For the entire period Torre holds a slight edge of 129 to 125; however, Torre played a much higher percentage of his time at a position other than C during these years. Simmons only played 823 1/3 innings at positions other than C, predominantly 1B with a little LF and a smattering of 3B. Torre, otoh, played 2,181 innings at 1B. Point being it was easier for Torre to put up his offensive numbers as he had much more opportunity to rest and avoid the nicks that catching everyday causes. Also, by staying behind the plate, Simmons provided more value to his team as C is much more difficult to replace than 1B. This is born out by the WAR for the two.

WAR for the two, Simmons first:

6.3, 6.0, 5.4, 4.8, 4.2, 3.5, 3.5, 3.3, 0.2

6.4, 5.3, 5.0, 4.2, 3.8, 2.7, 2.4, 1.9, 1.6

Torre has a 0.1 edge in the top season and a 1.4 edge on the bottom, but Simmons is worth more in each of the other 6 and holds an overall edge of 37.2 to 33.3. I think Simmons is superior in their time as C. So how to judge the remainder of their careers?

Simmons remains as essentially a C for 5 more seasons and has one great and 3 very solid seasons along with one poor one. He then plays another 5 seasons where he's not even replacement level (Nothing to see here, move along).

Torre has two great seasons at 29 and 30, the first split between C and 3B and followed by his MVP season as a 3B. He also has 3 more solid seasons split between 1B and 3B, but none as good as Simmons 3 solid seasons during this period.

So after we lose the ability to compare them based on position, we have 5 seasons where both were very good players. Torre has an edge at the peak side with a 6.8 and a 5.6 to Simmons one big year of 5.4. Total value for Torre is 20.7 and for Simmons is 16.2. Edge to Torre. For their careers I see them as being very, very close. Simmons has the edge when they were both C and Torre has an edge in the late career, but he had moved off C, by and large, by that time. This being the case, I have no problem seeing Simmons as a legit HOF C, but a more difficult time seeing Torre as a HOF.

How do y'all perceive Mr. Torre? He was certainly on his way to being a HOF C, but does having two great seasons after that, 1.5 of which were not at C, but at 3B put him in? If so, why? I don't see the 3 solid seasons subsequent to his MVP adding to his Hall resume. Thanks for any insight!