Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, July 26, 2014

DJ Short: Maximum stay on Hall of Fame ballot changed from 15 to 10 years

Should Jetes be nervous?

Big news coming out of Cooperstown this morning, as the National Baseball Hall of Fame announced their first changes to the voting process since 1991. The most significant change is that recently-retired players will only be able to stay on the ballot for 10 years as opposed to the current 15.

Three candidates in years 10-15 will be grandfathered into this system and remain eligible for the full 15 years. That group includes Don Mattingly (his 15th and final year on the ballot will be in 2015), Alan Trammel (14th year in 2015), and Lee Smith (13th year in 2015).

This change is clearly aimed at breaking up the current log jam on the ballot, but it indirectly gives players from the steroid era a much tougher time of making it into the Hall of Fame. Or at least kicks the can down the road for the veteran’s committee to figure out. One alternative to breaking up the log jam would be to allow more than 10 players to be named on a ballot, but that doesn’t appear to be a consideration at this time.

Other changes of note:

- Hall of Fame eligible voters will now be required to complete a registration form and sign a code of conduct. Consider this a response to Dan Le Batard, who turned his ballot over to Deadspin readers this year.

- The names of BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America) voters will be made public with the election results, but individual ballot results will not be released by the Hall of Fame. Here’s hoping the BBWAA takes the next step.

JE (Jason) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM | 59 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ballot confusion, cooperstown, dan le batard, derek jeter, hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. McCoy Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4758014)
About time. I always thought 15 was too long
   2. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: July 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4758024)
I could see this hurt someone like Raines' chances of getting in through the BBWAA or it could create more of a sense of urgency. I actually prefer this for some guys like Walker and McGriff (since they are big time longshots for BBWAA election) as long as they make another change and allow them to be eligible for Veterans ballots sooner.

One more change they need to make is give the managers, execs, umps, coaches, and other non-player candiates their own Veterans ballot and do it the same year as the Pre-Integration ballot since that's the least popular ballot
   3. Rennie's Tenet Posted: July 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4758025)
Years on ballot next time around:

McGwire 9
Raines 8
E. Martinez 6
McGriff 6
Bagwell 5
Walker 5

Raines, at 46% last time around, seems to have the most to lose by having his eligibility snipped.
   4. JRVJ Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4758051)
These weren't the changes I wanted too see (I mostly wanted the ballot expanded to 15 or even 20, though I would have liked to see some sort of obligation to actually be following baseball to vote), but long term I think this is going to be helpful in that it will push people to make up their minds faster (even if it means keeping people out because of that).

However, this will hurt McGwire, Raines and will only make the Ballotgeddon situation worse, for a few more years.
   5. Hank G. Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4758055)
This seems more geared towards getting people off the ballot than getting deserving people in.
   6. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4758056)
Makes sense only in a world where people who are obviously HOF-worthy are deemed ineligible by more than 25% of voters for reasons unrelated to the rules. So, makes sense.
   7. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4758059)
Cross-posting from the other thread since this one is more likely to become dominant:

Yep, just as expected the Hall of Fame responds to the backlog with a shortsighted "solution" that is going to backfire.

Probably the Bud pushed for the new 10-year role out of earnestness to get the roiders and suspected roiders off the ballot ASAP, realizing that the farther removed from their playing careers we get, the less the voting body is going to be inclined to exclude them out of irrational roids hate.
   8. Hank G. Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4758066)
Also it seems unfair to candidates in their 8th or 9th year. All of a sudden, they only have one or two chances left?
   9. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4758074)
There are just two candidates in that leaking boat: Raines (year 8) and McGwire (9). Next up on the gangplank are Edgar and McGriff, each making appearance #6 in 2015.

Newcomers hitting the ballot in what are now Raines' three final years of eligibility: Pedro, Randy, Smoltz, Sheffield (Year 8); Griffey, Hoffman, Edmonds, Wagner (Year 9); Manny, Vlad, I-Rod, Posada (Year 10). Clearing the decks of Mark McGwire's massive 11% bulkhead of voter support may not be the key to Raines' induction.
   10. bobm Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4758082)
[8] Also it seems unfair to candidates in their 8th or 9th year. All of a sudden, they only have one or two chances left?

Agreed.


Cross posting:

There are players on the ballot who could make it in years 11-15 who will now be off after 10, and there will be players in the future off after 10 who would have made it in years 11-15.

My analysis, based on the Lahman database, of BBWAA electees in years 11-15 on the ballot:

      Last  First YoB
      Rice    Jim  15
     Vance  Dazzy  15
  Blyleven   Bert  14
     Kiner  Ralph  13
Maranville Rabbit  13
    Sutter  Bruce  13
     Terry   Bill  13
     Lemon    Bob  12
  Hartnett  Gabby  11
  Heilmann  Harry  11
    Snider   Duke  11
   11. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4758087)
There are just two candidates in that leaking boat: Raines (year 8) and McGwire (9).


Raines wasn't going to make it anyway, and excluding McGwire from the ballot is the entire point of the rule change.
   12. Wahoo Sam Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4758095)
I disagree that Raines wasn't going to be elected. I think he almost assuredly would be elected if he got 15 years on the ballot. He's already been above 50% and it only dropped down because of the top-heavy ballot this year. I projected him to get elected somewhere between 2018-21. There actually would be a clearing out on the ballot of serious candidates (even without this rule) by 2017-18. It's possible that Chipper, Bagwell, and Rivera could go in alone. There will not be any slam dunks in that stretch. (I think Thome will take a few years, just like Piazza and Bagwell).

I concur that this is a shortsighted move by the HOF. They have stubbornly refused to make any major changes to the writers' voting process, but now they are going to change the eligibility requirements, reducing the amount of time players can stay on the BBWAA ballot by a third.

A few of the players who would not have made it into the HOF if this rule had been in place: Blyleven, Rice, Sutter, Kiner, and DUKE SNIDER.
   13. Wahoo Sam Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4758097)
And Raines most certainly would have been elected already had the PED cheater guys not been on the ballot (which is really what this rule is designed to do). Biggio would be in by now too.
   14. Wahoo Sam Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4758099)
One minor fix to the VC ballot I would recommend, would be to remove Steve Hirdt. I chatted with Hirdt in Cooperstown about a decade ago about a few candidates. He looked blankly at me and said, "Those players aren't eligible." But they were, and they were already on the nominating list. He didn't understand their candidacy and he didn't understand the process. He's included on these committees apparently because they value his acumen as the figurehead of a stats company. He's less qualified to judge HOFers than 100 people who regularly post here.
   15. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4758102)
Most of the Veterans Committee is less qualified to judge Hall of Famers than 100 people who regularly post here.
   16. Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4758120)
I'm with Wahoo Sam on removing Hirdt. Here's a link and an excerpt from an article by Bruce Jenkins a SF Gate writer who got to vote on the last Expansion Era ballot. It gives an insight into how Jenkins and the voters feel about sabermetrics

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/jenkins/article/Columnist-proud-to-add-to-baseball-history-5053084.php#page-2


Old-school thinking
What I realized in Orlando, both in informal settings and the three-hour meeting, is that everyone in the room spoke the same language, far removed from the complex lingo of new-age stat devotees. At one point, someone asked if it was necessary to bring WAR, a trendy new stat, into any discussion. There was a bit of mumbling, mostly silence, and it never came up again.

No, this was a soundtrack from the game I first covered in the early '70s, with the now-defunct Santa Monica Outlook, and as a beat writer for the Chronicle (1977 through '89, when I was given a column). Within that realm, players, managers and writers treated wins, RBIs, batting average and ERA as invaluable measuring sticks - and never really felt compelled to adjust. These categories are widely ridiculed by the modern-day faction known as "stat geeks," many of whom have decided that old-school thought is a bunch of nonsense and that they are the true geniuses of baseball evaluation.

Whatever. I certainly didn't feel dated or out of touch hashing out a man's Hall of Fame credentials with Robinson, Fisk, Herzog or anyone else involved. I'm sure the brilliant Hirdt could have backed his opinions with WAR, WHIP or any other statistical measure known to man, but he spoke of traditional numbers and criteria of considerable weight: character, temperament, clutch performance and other intangibles, such as how it felt to witness the greats, and how they were viewed by other icons of the game.

Overall, it was a tremendous honor and unforgettable experience. As flawed as the process may be, that three-hour meeting created an atmosphere of truth and honesty. That's important to remember.
   17. Rob_Wood Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4758172)
Was there anyone between 11 and 15 years?
   18. Sunday silence Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4758185)

can I ask what this is supposed to mean:


- The names of BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America) voters will be made public with the election results, but individual ballot results will not be released by the Hall of Fame. Here’s hoping the BBWAA takes the next step


am I to understand that we to this day do not even know of all the people who vote in the election? or does this mean, we already knew who was eligible we just dont know those few guys who dont turn in ballots?

totally confused.
   19. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: July 26, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4758186)
Was there anyone between 11 and 15 years?


Do you mean anyone on the current ballot? If so, those guys are noted in the lede-in (Mattingly, Trammell and Lee Smith), and have been grandfathered for the rest of their ballot existences.


am I to understand that we to this day do not even know of all the people who vote in the election? or does this mean, we already knew who was eligible we just dont know those few guys who dont turn in ballots?


I think the latter. Biz of Baseball published the badge list (complete with year of joining the BBWAA) in the past, so we know who was eligible.

But your confusion is warranted. I'm not sure what purpose is served by noting who has voted but not revealing their votes.
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: July 26, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4758190)
This is just stupid, can't believe that anyone dumb enough thought that this was a solution...Yes the people who get elected in between 10-15 aren't always the best hofers out there (Rice, Sutter) but sometimes it takes that long for a campaign to be effective(Blyleven)

Guys like Trammell needed that extra time to get their names high up on the ballot, and even though he won't make it through the writers system, he establishes his name as a viable candidate through the veterans committee.

Raines was absolutely going to need that extra time, McGwire probably wouldn't have mattered.
   21. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 26, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4758197)
Guys like Alan Trammell weren't getting into the Hall of Fame through the BBWAA vote. Guys like that probably are getting in on the VC side, and today's decision just upped the chances that they'll actually be alive when it happens. This isn't really a great advance for the Hall, but it recognizes that the BBWAA is deteriorating, and unlikely to recover.
   22. John DiFool2 Posted: July 26, 2014 at 07:19 PM (#4758204)
Within that realm, players, managers and writers treated wins, RBIs, batting average and ERA as invaluable measuring sticks - and never really felt compelled to adjust.


Except that there were managers during that era who did in fact rely on other stats than these traditional markers, starting with Earl Weaver.
   23. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: July 26, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4758210)
So let me wrap my head around this. If you are in year 10, you will stay on the ballet for the next six elections. If you are in year 9, you will only stay on the ballet for the next two elections. Why did the players in years 11 and higher get a better deal than the players in year 6 and above?
   24. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4758214)
Because Mark McGwire is on year 9.
   25. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 26, 2014 at 07:49 PM (#4758216)
Because there's no way Tim Raines could ever pick up another 29% in just eight years, but Don Mattingly is poised to get the traditional 67% last-year bump.
   26. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: July 26, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4758218)
Because Mark McGwire is on year 9.


Good thing that Palmeiro didn't get to 5% last year or they would have been screwed.
   27. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:34 PM (#4758234)
Why did the players in years 11 and higher get a better deal than the players in year 6 and above?


No idea. The fair thing to do would have been to grandfather everyone in who is currently on the ballot.
   28. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4758238)
The problem remains the quality of the electorate. For all the process discussion the reality is that without a meaningful change to the people making the decisions there will be no meaningful change to the type of people being elected. This might screw a couple of individual guys (Raines is the obvious one who takes a hit) but on the whole the difference is fairly small.

The problem with the voters is that I don't know how you change it. I would hate any sort of formalized approach (e.g. 65 WAR and you're in) and I don't think adding broadcasters changes things in any meaningful way. Great, Scully gets a vote but so does Hawk. I also would not want to see a "knowledge test" because the type of test skews the results. I think the voters SHOULD have some advanced stat understanding but I like having a diverse electorate.

If it were up to me the best change I can think to make is to limit the pool to active writers or something of that nature. There would be flaws in that approach too but do we really need the Golf Digest guys voting?

tl;dr Stupid is as stupid does.
   29. Sunday silence Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:25 PM (#4758249)
I would hate any sort of formalized approach (e.g. 65 WAR and you're in)...


But it's funny because almost everyone here takes that very approach. "Raines is definitely a HoF'er because he has X WAR" and "Jack Morris only had Z WAR" and "Blyleven had Y WAR".

The discussion starts with WAR and then a few more people chirp in with narrative, because once you've boiled all the performance factors down to a single number, the only realistic avenue to argue is stuff other than numbers. Well than peak vs long term. So player X had 50 WAR, and very good peak, but his narrative is nothing special. Or Snider had a good peak, was a central part of first Brooklyn championship, a little short on WAR.

As long as you have a group like this, isnt it bound to be formalistic? At this point the primate community even has it's own set of recurring memes. Every primate is taught to recite: "You cant trust fielding range those numbers are dubious," "Arky Vaughan is certainly in the top 5 Shortstops" "X barely above the Mendoza line" "the steroid era inflated slug numbers" "park effects need to be accounted for," "stolen bases are worth 0.3 weighted runs." etc.

At this point, it's more or less a religious institution isnt it? It has it's own convocation. It has its own rituals. Everyone professions their allegiance of faith to Bill James. Everyone convenes at the weekly HOVG service. Everyone believes in WAR, everyone recites that Ty Cobb is best outfielder of the dead ball era, Babe Ruth is the greatest hitter ever, unless its Barry Bonds...
   30. Sunday silence Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:41 PM (#4758252)

The problem with the voters is that I don't know how you change it


You cant fix people, about the only thing you can fix is the process itself. Which is what Bill James was sort of arguing in the Politics of Glory, IIRC.

The problem with this approach is of course that once you've changed the criterion then everyone that came after or came below was judged on different criterion. It's like comparing fielding numbers when people didnt wear gloves or HR numbers in the dead ball era.

Not exactly according to Bill, but something along the lines of having differing blocs of voters. Surely not a block for sports writers. Maybe one for players/managers, one for statisticians, one of fans or something. But the blocs would have to have different functions. Like the Romans had a tribune who had veto powers. Others could only bring the legislation, something like the modern day Separation of Powers in the US system.

I dont really know if any of this is worth it though. Sure when you've got 6 or 7 guys who are the charter members of some club its pretty cool. And then you can induct a few more into your club every year. And you put up plaques on the wall to remember the esteemed members who've passed on when you convene every so often.

The concept is pretty cool.


But what happens to the HoF in 50 or 100 years, when you've got 1000 players in the HoF? And for most of them no one remembers why it was Duke Snider and not Vada Pinson, or Ron Santo not Ken Keltner, or Jim Rice not Dave Parker, or Lou Brock not Tim Raines, or Lloyd Waner not Billy Herman or a bunch of other comparisons. What is the point when you have so many HoFers no one can recite all of them, or no one remembers more than 20% of them, its like winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom or something. its hard to put in context. It just becomes some sort of ossified institution with it's own creaky rules and cranky partisans.

My guess is that it just dies a very slow death.
   31. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4758256)
For the most part I think the majority of posters here don't slavishly bow at the altar of WAR. There are some but a lot of posters I think use it as a jumping off point. A lot of the examples you give are the end result of a lot of discussion and analysis and far from what I think when I think of a meme or groupthink.
   32. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:57 PM (#4758262)
The change to 10 years is long overdue. Before the internet, it was understandable to err on the side of extending the ballot period to give voters the chance to read each other's opinions and generally research the candidates. I'm not sure if anything more than 5 years is necessary at this point, but 10 seems reasonable. The ballot cap on 10 players remains the big problem.
   33. vivaelpujols Posted: July 27, 2014 at 03:21 AM (#4758302)
I don't think this is that bad of a decision. Certainly it helps clear future backlog. But I do think that the rule shouldn't go into effect for guys who are 5 years + on the ballot or something. It's unfair to Raines who would likely have made it if he were allowed 15 years.
   34. vivaelpujols Posted: July 27, 2014 at 03:25 AM (#4758303)
No idea. The fair thing to do would have been to grandfather everyone in who is currently on the ballot.


I was thinking this, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of enacting this rule now. It wouldn't really start to clear the backlog until a while. I think there needs to be some cutoff.
   35. Hank G. Posted: July 27, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4758522)
As long as you have a group like this, isnt [sic] it bound to be formalistic?


Isn’t every voter’s decision formalistic? Even if it’s nothing more than “He felt like a HOFer”, they are relying of something to decide whether a player is qualified.

WAR is not perfect (no statistic or combination thereof is), but it’s relatively objective and IMO makes a good starting point. It forms a basis of discussion. I wouldn’t favor a hard line for in/out (for one thing, I think you have to make an adjustment for catchers), but can certainly sort the candidates into qualified, not qualified, and needs discussion (ignoring the character issue).
   36. Hank G. Posted: July 27, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4758525)
I was thinking this, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of enacting this rule now. It wouldn't really start to clear the backlog until a while. I think there needs to be some cutoff.


Perhaps something along the lines of “players currently on the ballot who would be affected by the change get the lesser of five more years or fifteen years total”.
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4758527)
But it's funny because almost everyone here takes that very approach. "Raines is definitely a HoF'er because he has X WAR" and "Jack Morris only had Z WAR" and "Blyleven had Y WAR".


Outside of maybe Ray, I can't think of one person here who takes that approach. Yes they use numbers, but they argue about the context of the numbers. You have people on here who think Ortiz belongs in, you have people on here who believe Rivera belong in, and neither one of those guys would make a good case strictly because of WAR. There probably is not one person on here who wouldn't put Piazza and his 59.4 war in, while there are plenty who would deny Kenny Lofton and his 68.2 war.

   38. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4758540)
I was thinking this, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of enacting this rule now. It wouldn't really start to clear the backlog until a while. I think there needs to be some cutoff.


Then you grandfather 5 years onto every player or 10 years, which ever is greater. As people like to point out, the one player this totally screws is Tim Raines, who might have gotten the momentum needed to make it to the hof, but was going to take another 3+ years for that to happen.

Realistically it was a panic move, and probably the wrong move, expanding the number of people allowed on the ballot would have been a better solution. It may not have gotten rid of any more candidates, but then the backlog doesn't matter because you would be free to vote for a lot more if you wanted to.
   39. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4758579)
The discussion starts with WAR and then a few more people chirp in with narrative, because once you've boiled all the performance factors down to a single number, the only realistic avenue to argue is stuff other than numbers. Well than peak vs long term. So player X had 50 WAR, and very good peak, but his narrative is nothing special. Or Snider had a good peak, was a central part of first Brooklyn championship, a little short on WAR.

It is more nuanced than that. For example, posters here discussed at length the large platoon advantage that Snider had, which certainly helped his numbers.
   40. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4758586)
But it's funny because almost everyone here takes that very approach. "Raines is definitely a HoF'er because he has X WAR" and "Jack Morris only had Z WAR" and "Blyleven had Y WAR".


Outside of maybe Ray, I can't think of one person here who takes that approach.


? I have never taken that approach. I have never relied on WAR as anything other than a starting point, and I have been very critical over the years of those who did so, pointing it out on many occasions.
   41. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 27, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4758689)
You have people on here who think Ortiz belongs in

Well, naturally. David Ortiz is the second-best hitter in the history of the Boston Red Sox: so says Carl Yastrzemski.
   42. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4758692)
? I have never taken that approach. I have never relied on WAR as anything other than a starting point, and I have been very critical over the years of those who did so, pointing it out on many occasions.


Then I apologize.
   43. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4758697)
It is more nuanced than that. For example, posters here discussed at length the large platoon advantage that Snider had, which certainly helped his numbers.


Hopefully those people are beaten down. Platoon advantages doesn't matter in the context of value provided to the team, which is ultimately all that matters. If you have a right handed power hitter in Fenway, it wouldn't matter that he took advantage of the park, he still provided value to the team, same with any platoon advantage. Only factor that a platoon would matter in, would be if that forces the team to have to carry another player as his partner. Snider in his peak was still averaging 148 games played in a 154 game season, that platoon advantage wasn't hurting the team.
   44. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4758727)
Cross-posting what I wrote in the other thread: I am mystified as to what actual problem this is supposed to solve. The "backlog" is not a problem in the first place, and this doesn't solve it.

(I mean, I assume what it's actually intended to do is get rid of the obviously-qualified steroids suspects sooner so that the HOF looks less stupid each year for excluding them. But that can't be the official justificiation.)
   45. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4758742)
Platoon advantages doesn't matter in the context of value provided to the team, which is ultimately all that matters. If you have a right handed power hitter in Fenway, it wouldn't matter that he took advantage of the park, he still provided value to the team, same with any platoon advantage.

How many BBWAA voters considered much beyond unadjusted, raw numbers like average, home runs, RBI, MVPs and all star appearances when Snider (or Jim Rice) was on the ballot?
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:36 PM (#4758743)
Cross-posting what I wrote in the other thread: I am mystified as to what actual problem this is supposed to solve. The "backlog" is not a problem in the first place, and this doesn't solve it.


I have to agree. This doesn't really solve any issues that they can express.

(I mean, I assume what it's actually intended to do is get rid of the obviously-qualified steroids suspects sooner so that the HOF looks less stupid each year for excluding them. But that can't be the official justificiation.)


Yes, but even then it does just as much damage as good(in my opinion) Yes it will eject McGwire eventually, but Sosa was already probably going to be off the ballot in one or two years anyway, Bonds and Clemens will stay on the ballot their entire time. Meanwhile Raines is going to be hurt by this, and it's possible that hardliners will use this as an excuse to not soften their stance on guys like Piazza or Bagwell.

The obvious solution to this problem was 1. expand the ballots 2. an official word from the hof stating that a player shouldn't be penalized for doing what wasn't against the rules during their time. It wouldn't turn every voter of course, but it might help a few. (Obviously a comment like that could be more vague to allow the voters some of their autonomy but the point would still be that, you just can't ignore a generation)

   47. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:42 PM (#4758745)
How many BBWAA voters considered much beyond unadjusted, raw numbers like average, home runs, RBI, MVPs and all star appearances when Snider (or Jim Rice) was on the ballot?


My comment wasn't about the voters actions, but about people arguing actions.
   48. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:01 PM (#4758775)
Snider in his peak was still averaging 148 games played in a 154 game season, that platoon advantage wasn't hurting the team.

Well, it was hurting his team in that he sucked against lefties and once he proved that to the Dodgers Dressen and then later Alston didn't let him face lefties a whole lot and he wouldn't start a handful of games each year because of a lefty starting.
   49. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:22 PM (#4758782)
Well, it was hurting his team in that he sucked against lefties and once he proved that to the Dodgers Dressen and then later Alston didn't let him face lefties a whole lot and he wouldn't start a handful of games each year because of a lefty starting.


Yep, that .758 ops from 1949-1957, against lefties really hurt his team... So much so, that in that time period he had the fourth most plate appearances against lefties on the Dodgers.

and 15th most in baseball.
   50. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4758792)
Yep, that .758 ops(from 1949-1957, over against lefties really hurt his team... So much so, that in that time period he had the fourth most plate appearances against lefties on the Dodgers.

1. Snider batted 3rd usually, as compared having the 4th most PA against lefties

2. Guess which team faced the fewest left handed starters from 1949-1957? Guess which hitter on that team probably benefitted the most, platoon-wise?

For cumulative team seasons, From 1949 to 1957, vs LH Starter (within Platoon Splits), sorted by greatest Games Played for this split

                                            
Rk          G   GS    PA   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS
1    STL 7615 5400 23297 .268 .336 .395 .731
2    CLE 7273 5337 22931 .254 .340 .389 .729
3    CIN 6973 5022 21332 .258 .321 .383 .705
4    NYY 6518 4707 20458 .271 .352 .417 .769
5    SLB 6075 4338 18314 .249 .326 .357 .683
6    NYG 5871 4149 17629 .256 .329 .398 .727
7    CHW 5735 4194 18118 .265 .346 .378 .724
8    WSH 5672 4248 18155 .250 .333 .346 .679
9    PIT 4943 3537 14878 .253 .316 .360 .676
10   DET 4842 3636 15737 .267 .345 .380 .726
11   PHI 4795 3636 15536 .264 .335 .399 .734
12   BSN 4550 3492 14963 .261 .332 .393 .724
13   CHC 4536 3339 13823 .245 .306 .375 .681
14   PHA 4280 3231 13944 .253 .337 .369 .706
15   BOS 3905 2934 13218 .275 .360 .412 .773
16   BRO 3074 2313 10205 .276 .351 .438 .789


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 7/27/2014.
   51. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4758794)
For cumulative seasons, From 1949 to 1957, vs LHP (within Platoon Splits), (requiring PA>=2000 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by greatest percentage of total Plate Appearances in this split
                                                            
Rk   I           Player  Split From   To   G   PA PAtot    %
1           Bob Kennedy vs LHP 1949 1957 440 1220  2596 47.0
2             Jim Hegan vs LHP 1949 1957 564 1494  3505 42.6
3              Al Rosen vs LHP 1949 1956 602 1747  4360 40.1
4            Larry Doby vs LHP 1949 1957 719 2144  5367 39.9
5           Bobby Avila vs LHP 1949 1957 582 1777  4593 38.7
6         Dale Mitchell vs LHP 1949 1956 370 1191  3139 37.9
7              Al Smith vs LHP 1953 1957 312  974  2712 35.9
8            Wally Post vs LHP 1952 1957 303  822  2347 35.0
9        Ted Kluszewski vs LHP 1953 1957 337  920  2680 34.3
10         Sherm Lollar vs LHP 1952 1957 352  896  2650 33.8
11        Mickey Vernon vs LHP 1949 1954 223  671  2012 33.3
12             Gus Bell vs LHP 1953 1957 382 1075  3240 33.2
13           Nellie Fox vs LHP 1952 1957 477 1406  4246 33.1
14        Minnie Minoso vs LHP 1949 1957 458 1309  3978 32.9
15         Roy McMillan vs LHP 1953 1957 365  954  2948 32.4
16        Johnny Temple vs LHP 1953 1957 303  882  2767 31.9
17            Ray Boone vs LHP 1949 1957 511 1452  4573 31.8
18     Chico Carrasquel vs LHP 1952 1957 360 1033  3315 31.2
19           Walt Dropo vs LHP 1951 1957 302  786  2556 30.8
20            Jim Busby vs LHP 1950 1957 320  878  2892 30.4
21          George Kell vs LHP 1953 1957 237  652  2219 29.4
22           Bob Nieman vs LHP 1953 1957 233  620  2207 28.1
23           Eddie Yost vs LHP 1953 1956 197  585  2083 28.1
24           Jim Rivera vs LHP 1953 1957 309  744  2727 27.3
25            Billy Cox vs LHP 1949 1955 262  725  2753 26.3
Rk   I           Player  Split From   To   G   PA PAtot    %
26          Bill Tuttle vs LHP 1954 1957 229  594  2395 24.8
27            Al Kaline vs LHP 1953 1957 241  626  2575 24.3
28         Harvey Kuenn vs LHP 1953 1957 298  822  3429 24.0
29        Billy Goodman vs LHP 1951 1957 234  637  2802 22.7
30      Jackie Robinson vs LHP 1949 1956 357  954  4455 21.4
31         Carl Furillo vs LHP 1949 1957 410 1047  5181 20.2
32       Roy Campanella vs LHP 1949 1957 357  855  4495 19.0
33        Pee Wee Reese vs LHP 1949 1957 392 1084  5710 19.0
34           Gil Hodges vs LHP 1949 1957 431 1050  5826 18.0
35          Duke Snider vs LHP 1949 1957 431  977  5825 16.8
36          Jim Gilliam vs LHP 1953 1957 159  368  3428 10.7


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 7/27/2014.
   52. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM (#4758795)
I don't know where you're getting your info from but it is wrong.

Duke had the 56th most PA against lefties in the majors in your time period.
   53. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 11:00 PM (#4758798)
For cumulative seasons, From 1949 to 1957, vs RHP (within Platoon Splits), (requiring PA>=2000 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by greatest percentage of total On-Base Plus Slugging in this split

                                                                          
Rk   I           Player  Split From   To    G  OPS OPStot     %   PA PAtot
1              Gus Bell vs RHP 1953 1957  608 .917   .835 109.8 2165  3240
2         Mickey Vernon vs RHP 1949 1954  360 .916   .857 106.9 1341  2012
3            Larry Doby vs RHP 1949 1957  959 .948   .888 106.8 3223  5367
4            Nellie Fox vs RHP 1952 1957  765 .789   .749 105.3 2840  4246
5        Ted Kluszewski vs RHP 1953 1957  529 .999   .957 104.4 1760  2680
6           Duke Snider vs RHP 1949 1957 1226 .995   .955 104.2 4848  5825
7            Jim Rivera vs RHP 1953 1957  583 .784   .754 104.0 1983  2727
8         Billy Goodman vs RHP 1951 1957  563 .778   .759 102.5 2165  2802
9          Sherm Lollar vs RHP 1952 1957  565 .783   .766 102.2 1754  2650
10             Al Smith vs RHP 1953 1957  482 .825   .808 102.1 1738  2712
11            Billy Cox vs RHP 1949 1955  595 .694   .680 102.1 2028  2753
12            Jim Hegan vs RHP 1949 1957  713 .655   .646 101.4 2011  3505
13        Dale Mitchell vs RHP 1949 1956  661 .792   .782 101.3 1948  3139
14        Minnie Minoso vs RHP 1949 1957  739 .882   .874 100.9 2669  3978
15            Jim Busby vs RHP 1950 1957  579 .686   .682 100.6 2014  2892
16          Jim Gilliam vs RHP 1953 1957  712 .743   .742 100.1 3060  3428
17      Jackie Robinson vs RHP 1949 1956  964 .900   .903  99.7 3501  4455
18         Carl Furillo vs RHP 1949 1957 1127 .822   .825  99.6 4134  5181
19            Al Kaline vs RHP 1953 1957  540 .841   .846  99.4 1949  2575
20         Roy McMillan vs RHP 1953 1957  628 .656   .664  98.8 1994  2948
21          Bill Tuttle vs RHP 1954 1957  500 .690   .701  98.4 1801  2395
22     Chico Carrasquel vs RHP 1952 1957  666 .672   .683  98.4 2282  3315
23             Al Rosen vs RHP 1949 1956  791 .865   .881  98.2 2613  4360
24          Bobby Avila vs RHP 1949 1957  818 .743   .757  98.2 2816  4593
25        Pee Wee Reese vs RHP 1949 1957 1164 .740   .754  98.1 4626  5710
Rk   I           Player  Split From   To    G  OPS OPStot     %   PA PAtot
26           Gil Hodges vs RHP 1949 1957 1260 .870   .887  98.1 4776  5826
27           Eddie Yost vs RHP 1953 1956  381 .763   .779  97.9 1498  2083
28           Wally Post vs RHP 1952 1957  462 .786   .804  97.8 1525  2347
29         Harvey Kuenn vs RHP 1953 1957  672 .740   .760  97.4 2607  3429
30            Ray Boone vs RHP 1949 1957  911 .780   .802  97.3 3121  4573
31       Roy Campanella vs RHP 1949 1957 1013 .841   .867  97.0 3640  4495
32           Bob Nieman vs RHP 1953 1957  488 .803   .828  97.0 1587  2207
33          Bob Kennedy vs RHP 1949 1957  482 .691   .713  96.9 1376  2596
34          George Kell vs RHP 1953 1957  476 .754   .779  96.8 1567  2219
35           Walt Dropo vs RHP 1951 1957  544 .673   .711  94.7 1770  2556
36        Johnny Temple vs RHP 1953 1957  513 .662   .706  93.8 1885  2767


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 7/27/2014.
   54. cardsfanboy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4758799)
I don't know where you're getting your info from but it is wrong.

Duke had the 56th most PA against lefties in the majors in your time period.


Did a PI search...

Apparently I didn't do it right.
For cumulative seasons, From 1949 to 1957, vs LHP (within Platoon Splits), (requiring AB?700), sorted by greatest Plate Appearances for this split
Rk             Player  Split From   To   G   PA   AB
                                                    
1          Larry Doby vs LHP 1949 1957 719 2144 1802
2         Bobby Avila vs LHP 1949 1957 582 1777 1505
3            Al Rosen vs LHP 1949 1956 602 1747 1470
4           Jim Hegan vs LHP 1949 1957 564 1494 1320
5           Ray Boone vs LHP 1949 1957 511 1452 1222
6          Nellie Fox vs LHP 1952 1957 477 1406 1240
7       Minnie Minoso vs LHP 1949 1957 458 1309 1114
8         Bob Kennedy vs LHP 1949 1957 440 1220 1078
9       Dale Mitchell vs LHP 1949 1956 370 1191 1073
10      Pee Wee Reese vs LHP 1949 1957 392 1084  911
11           Gus Bell vs LHP 1953 1957 382 1075  984
12         Gil Hodges vs LHP 1949 1957 431 1050  894
13       Carl Furillo vs LHP 1949 1957 410 1047  962
14   Chico Carrasquel vs LHP 1952 1957 360 1033  922
15        Duke Snider vs LHP 1949 1957 431  977  872
16           Al Smith vs LHP 1953 1957 312  974  821
17       Roy McMillan vs LHP 1953 1957 365  954  835
18    Jackie Robinson vs LHP 1949 1956 357  954  818
19     Ted Kluszewski vs LHP 1953 1957 337  920  840
20       Sherm Lollar vs LHP 1952 1957 352  896  747
21      Johnny Temple vs LHP 1953 1957 303  882  763
22          Jim Busby vs LHP 1950 1957 320  878  785
23     Roy Campanella vs LHP 1949 1957 357  855  743
24         Wally Post vs LHP 1952 1957 303  822  753
25       Harvey Kuenn vs LHP 1953 1957 298  822  729 



Not sure where the mistake is from my PI.

   55. McCoy Posted: July 27, 2014 at 11:33 PM (#4758811)
Well, I don't know why you have an at bat minimum but the reason your numbers are wrong is because you did not uncheck the exclude incomplete data box.

I should also add that once we have all of the data in Duke will probably fall into at least the 60's.
   56. bobm Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:03 AM (#4758828)
For cumulative seasons, From 1949 to 1957, vs LH Starter (within Platoon Splits), (requiring G>=500 for entire season(s)/career), sorted by greatest percentage of total Games Played in this split

                                                          
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
1          Peanuts Lowrey 1949 1955 364  714 51.0 244 1196
2           Chuck Diering 1949 1956 313  642 48.8 264 1173
3             Bob Kennedy 1949 1957 396  815 48.6 311 1387
4                Les Moss 1949 1957 281  607 46.3 199  874
5               Jim Hegan 1949 1957 491 1075 45.7 447 1670
6                Del Rice 1949 1957 384  854 45.0 354 1371
7            Eddie Stanky 1949 1953 227  505 45.0 198  924
8                Al Rosen 1949 1956 457 1032 44.3 439 1928
9             Bobby Adams 1949 1957 421  954 44.1 342 1563
10            Connie Ryan 1949 1954 268  610 43.9 218  981
11            Bobby Avila 1949 1957 476 1094 43.5 427 1976
12             Larry Doby 1949 1957 545 1255 43.4 526 2293
13              Sam Dente 1949 1955 260  601 43.3 206  875
14             Hank Bauer 1949 1957 494 1145 43.1 488 2120
15            Stan Musial 1949 1957 585 1363 42.9 582 2585
16            Bob Elliott 1949 1953 266  630 42.2 236 1040
17               Sam Mele 1949 1956 361  857 42.1 322 1418
18       Red Schoendienst 1949 1957 551 1312 42.0 539 2437
19          Walker Cooper 1949 1957 300  718 41.8 218  981
20               Al Smith 1953 1957 250  608 41.1 240 1110
21           Rip Repulski 1953 1957 286  698 41.0 269 1175
22          Dale Mitchell 1949 1956 348  852 40.8 273 1319
23           Phil Rizzuto 1949 1956 391  977 40.0 360 1599
24             Wally Moon 1954 1957 237  594 39.9 228 1023
25         Ted Kluszewski 1949 1957 480 1217 39.4 450 1945
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
26            Monte Irvin 1949 1956 299  764 39.1 283 1195
27          Jerry Coleman 1949 1957 282  723 39.0 247 1034
28          Andy Seminick 1949 1957 316  820 38.5 281 1122
29            Stan Lopata 1949 1957 280  730 38.4 249 1042
30             Wally Post 1949 1957 234  613 38.2 215  953
31        Johnny Wyrostek 1949 1954 285  752 37.9 233 1041
32          Gil McDougald 1951 1957 360  952 37.8 346 1543
33           Hank Majeski 1949 1955 213  566 37.6 138  654
34          Ray Jablonski 1953 1957 233  620 37.6 207  896
35          Mickey Mantle 1951 1957 356  952 37.4 345 1559
36         Ed Fitz Gerald 1949 1957 214  574 37.3 164  708
37           Frank Thomas 1951 1957 289  776 37.2 285 1219
38             Hoot Evers 1949 1956 296  795 37.2 255 1131
39          Clyde Vollmer 1949 1954 215  578 37.2 171  777
40             Andy Carey 1952 1957 201  541 37.2 173  720
41           Sherm Lollar 1949 1957 393 1060 37.1 327 1406
42             Sid Gordon 1949 1955 341  922 37.0 324 1370
43                Al Dark 1949 1957 477 1303 36.6 471 2106
44             Yogi Berra 1949 1957 460 1259 36.5 426 1884
45      Wayne Terwilliger 1949 1956 215  590 36.4 180  808
46           Jerry Priddy 1949 1953 217  596 36.4 212  947
47           Johnny Groth 1949 1957 385 1068 36.0 356 1544
48           Roy McMillan 1951 1957 360  999 36.0 341 1360
49         Davey Williams 1949 1955 185  517 35.8 156  714
50           Billy Martin 1950 1957 215  601 35.8 179  787
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
51          Johnny Temple 1952 1957 244  688 35.5 217 1015
52          Minnie Minoso 1949 1957 370 1049 35.3 361 1602
53         Enos Slaughter 1949 1957 388 1103 35.2 288 1362
54         Jim Greengrass 1952 1956 177  504 35.1 173  731
55      George Strickland 1950 1957 283  807 35.1 252  989
56              Ray Boone 1949 1957 393 1127 34.9 361 1584
57            Wes Westrum 1949 1957 293  847 34.6 242  928
58             Dick Groat 1952 1957 177  513 34.5 175  730
59         Wally Westlake 1949 1955 244  709 34.4 203  891
60            Roy Sievers 1949 1957 337  980 34.4 321 1366
61             Eddie Yost 1949 1957 440 1281 34.3 424 1984
62          Willy Miranda 1951 1957 225  657 34.2 178  641
63              Jim Busby 1950 1957 345 1008 34.2 337 1465
64             Jim Rivera 1952 1957 292  862 33.9 217  966
65              Vic Wertz 1949 1957 394 1169 33.7 363 1605
66            Joe Collins 1949 1957 304  903 33.7 125  660
67          Cass Michaels 1949 1954 263  784 33.5 245 1064
68             Nellie Fox 1949 1957 431 1289 33.4 424 1919
69         Whitey Lockman 1949 1957 421 1283 32.8 387 1740
70          Earl Torgeson 1949 1957 352 1073 32.8 294 1347
71           Hal Jeffcoat 1949 1957 230  705 32.6 167  696
72          Mickey Vernon 1949 1957 402 1240 32.4 363 1614
73           Bobby Morgan 1950 1957 217  670 32.4 169  785
74            George Kell 1949 1957 366 1133 32.3 359 1569
75           Grady Hatton 1949 1956 287  889 32.3 201  952
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
76            Solly Hemus 1949 1957 268  832 32.2 178  905
77           Preston Ward 1950 1957 165  514 32.1 100  470
78             Walt Dropo 1949 1957 325 1016 32.0 292 1278
79            Bobby Young 1951 1956 208  652 31.9 187  782
80          Gene Woodling 1949 1957 337 1058 31.9 212 1073
81       Chico Carrasquel 1950 1957 349 1103 31.6 341 1475
82          Jackie Jensen 1950 1957 316  999 31.6 294 1324
83            Roy Smalley 1949 1957 236  747 31.6 200  828
84         Eddie Robinson 1949 1957 337 1070 31.5 272 1238
85             Bob Nieman 1951 1957 228  732 31.1 213  910
86            Willie Mays 1951 1957 237  762 31.1 234 1027
87           Dave Philley 1949 1957 375 1206 31.1 335 1506
88             Hank Sauer 1949 1957 342 1106 30.9 316 1352
89              Del Ennis 1949 1957 411 1334 30.8 410 1799
90           Johnny Lipon 1949 1953 181  588 30.8 170  780
91            Ferris Fain 1949 1955 267  870 30.7 245 1105
92             Pete Suder 1949 1955 184  602 30.6 160  692
93            Joe Astroth 1949 1956 161  530 30.4 127  514
94          Rocky Bridges 1951 1957 176  580 30.3 109  469
95          Granny Hamner 1949 1957 384 1277 30.1 377 1638
96            Dick Sisler 1949 1953 165  550 30.0 136  573
97          Hank Thompson 1949 1956 268  905 29.6 212  920
98            Eddie Joost 1949 1955 203  687 29.5 191  896
99           Eddie Miksis 1949 1957 232  790 29.4 170  788
100             Irv Noren 1950 1957 254  865 29.4 159  809
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
101          Billy Hunter 1953 1957 156  532 29.3 142  551
102         Bobby Thomson 1949 1957 342 1168 29.3 334 1461
103         Vern Stephens 1949 1955 211  721 29.3 194  885
104          Willie Jones 1949 1957 385 1320 29.2 378 1603
105         Harry Simpson 1951 1957 213  731 29.1 140  685
106            Joe Adcock 1950 1957 263  908 29.0 258 1048
107        Richie Ashburn 1949 1957 397 1372 28.9 396 1834
108              Gil Coan 1949 1956 205  710 28.9  86  502
109      Willard Marshall 1949 1955 202  702 28.8 131  627
110              Gus Bell 1950 1957 322 1120 28.8 314 1396
111           Don Mueller 1949 1957 326 1135 28.7 268 1170
112          Pete Runnels 1951 1957 263  921 28.6 233 1027
113            Cal Abrams 1949 1956 160  567 28.2 104  498
114      Clyde McCullough 1949 1956 146  518 28.2 123  462
115             Billy Cox 1949 1955 194  707 27.4 179  803
116         Eddie Waitkus 1949 1955 202  746 27.1 175  807
117            Andy Pafko 1949 1957 284 1065 26.7 273 1143
118          Dom DiMaggio 1949 1953 147  563 26.1 145  723
119           Bill Tuttle 1952 1957 150  581 25.8 144  641
120          Del Crandall 1949 1957 196  763 25.7 172  696
121             Al Kaline 1953 1957 159  622 25.6 151  665
122          Ted Williams 1949 1957 231  912 25.3 218 1022
123           Gus Zernial 1949 1957 277 1108 25.0 249 1111
124          Harvey Kuenn 1952 1957 189  771 24.5 186  869
125         Joe DeMaestri 1951 1957 190  785 24.2 161  668
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
126           Jim Delsing 1949 1956 190  786 24.2  89  475
127            Al Zarilla 1949 1953 129  554 23.3  95  452
128           Ralph Kiner 1949 1955 237 1020 23.2 226  989
129           Ernie Banks 1953 1957 140  613 22.8 140  583
130            Gene Baker 1953 1957 126  559 22.5 117  495
131          Johnny Pesky 1949 1954 149  672 22.2 123  624
132             Vic Power 1954 1957 116  530 21.9 111  494
133         Billy Goodman 1949 1957 243 1111 21.9 226 1079
134         Dick Kryhoski 1949 1955 124  569 21.8  74  371
135      Pete Castiglione 1949 1954 115  528 21.8  68  332
136         Smoky Burgess 1949 1957 166  764 21.7  80  436
137       Jackie Robinson 1949 1956 235 1084 21.7 228 1001
138          Dusty Rhodes 1952 1957 113  522 21.6  37  217
139        Danny OConnell 1950 1957 168  780 21.5 164  734
140          Jim Piersall 1950 1957 170  801 21.2 161  709
141         Fred Hatfield 1950 1957 151  716 21.1  74  358
142          Johnny Logan 1951 1957 191  914 20.9 187  806
143         Randy Jackson 1950 1957 176  847 20.8 162  691
144         Eddie Mathews 1952 1957 182  880 20.7 182  777
145           Sammy White 1951 1957 157  760 20.7 149  598
146             Dee Fondy 1951 1957 180  878 20.5 162  693
147            Elmer Valo 1949 1956 183  895 20.4 131  655
148        Roy Campanella 1949 1957 227 1132 20.1 216  926
149          Carl Furillo 1949 1957 248 1277 19.4 246 1096
150         Pee Wee Reese 1949 1957 246 1275 19.3 244 1143
Rk    I            Player From   To   G Gtot    %  GS   PA
151            Gil Hodges 1949 1957 253 1368 18.5 253 1087
152       Frank Baumholtz 1949 1956 135  738 18.3 104  476
153           Floyd Baker 1949 1955  89  508 17.5  33  175
154           Duke Snider 1949 1957 228 1332 17.1 202  917
155        Clint Courtney 1951 1957 108  634 17.0  49  262
156            Hank Aaron 1954 1957  96  579 16.6  96  420
157           Bill Bruton 1953 1957 101  668 15.1  70  359
158         Joe Garagiola 1949 1954  53  501 10.6  19   99
159           Jim Gilliam 1953 1957  70  746  9.4  68  329


Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 7/28/2014.
   57. Sunday silence Posted: July 28, 2014 at 06:05 AM (#4758844)
can we just go back to WAR?
   58. Ron J2 Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4758903)
Further to #56, worth noting that Snider wasn't getting a lot of days off against LHP. Maybe a couple of games a year. His PAs against LHP and PA% are all not that far off of those of Furillo, Reese, Hodges and Campanella.

Another interesting thing from the data posted. Looks like Campanella got his days off against RHP (which makes total sense)
   59. Ron J2 Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4758917)
And further to Snider/lefties. The splits are surprising to a lot of people, but they're perfectly in line with Eddie Mathews' (who hit .230/.331/.409 against LHP and faced a lot more of them than Snider did. And Mathews was literally picked at random. I just wanted to get some sense as to what a typical LH hitter from the period and Mathews was the first name that came to mind. I had no idea he had a large platoon split too)

But people overestimate the impact of Snider's relatively low total # of PAs against LHP. Assuming he faced the same mix of pitchers Mathews did I'd estimate he'd have had a career slash line of roughly .291/.374/.527.

In other words, it seems likely that in different circumstances he'd have had a career WAR about 5-6 lower. But as noted already his value in context (to a RH heavy team) is already provided by WAR.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(275 - 12:29am, Sep 24)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMets near extension with GM Alderson
(47 - 12:27am, Sep 24)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8059 - 12:21am, Sep 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3591 - 12:19am, Sep 24)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogChad | Have a heart! Root for the Royals
(37 - 12:16am, Sep 24)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-23-2014
(110 - 12:14am, Sep 24)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogMLB’s Metal Detector Policy is What ‘Terrorists Winning Looks Like’
(10 - 11:59pm, Sep 23)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogMLB creates pace of game committee
(115 - 11:57pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogBrisbee: Adam Wainwright and the Jan Bradys of years past
(26 - 11:40pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogVance Worley member of All-Surprise Team
(3 - 10:32pm, Sep 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(223 - 9:56pm, Sep 23)
Last: andrewberg

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Ballot
(4 - 9:52pm, Sep 23)
Last: MrC

NewsblogVIDEO: Jose Altuve leaves his feet to hit a high fastball
(6 - 9:23pm, Sep 23)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(308 - 8:22pm, Sep 23)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-23-2014
(9 - 7:04pm, Sep 23)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

Page rendered in 0.7942 seconds
53 querie(s) executed