Doc, well, yes, that's a pretty impressive list of LFers. All 22 of them are very strong HoM candidates to say the least, well, with the possible exception of Matsui. I'm sure we're going to have some pretty intense discussion of JL conversions. But considering we've already elected every one of them that has been eligible, I guess I can see Ducky where you've got him. Don't agree, of course. To me, he is around #10-12. And among those who have been eligible so far, only Delahanty clearly has a higher peak. IOW as of 1960ish he is possibly as high as the #2 LFer.

Where's the Goose?

Yup, forgot him, thanks. He's in that group beginning with Sheckard and leading down to Goslin.

OK, this is wayyyyyyy off topic, but it's been of interest to me for the last couple of days.

Where do Ichiro and Godzilla fall in the pecking order of corner outfielders? Before the last couple days they had no ranking---too few seasons. But to be fair I decided to try translating their Japanese careers.

Using no park factors, nor any regression, nor again using the JCL or JPL league totals, I simply applied a conversion factor. Clay Davenport's research suggested something around .94, so that's what I used. For slugging rather than use the square of the average conversion, which would have been .88, I knocked it down to .85 to account for the seeming lack of power shown by Japanese imports and for the uptick in power shown by the likes of Tuffy Rhodes and Alex Cabrera in Japan. I did not make any attempt to translate walk rates. (Which becomes important later....)

Continuing a little off topic, although this may be applicable to our Negro League players...

There are three very important factors to consider when doing Japanese League conversions:

1. The relative strength of the league vs. MLB. The 0.94 conversion should be very close.

2. The relative impact of the set of parks for each league. Japanese league parks are, on average, more conducive to offense that MLB parks, mostly due to being smaller and easier to hit HR's in. This means that hitters should be expected to lose more than 6% of their offense when going from Japan to US (more like 12%), but pitchers should be expected to lose almost nothing statistically when going from Japan to US. This works the opposite of course for players going from US to Japan, where hitters seem to gain more than 6% effectiveness while pitchers see no gain on average.

3. Individual hitters (and pitchers) will be impacted in differing ways. A "singles" hitter like Ichiro didn't get much benefit from the smaller Japanese parks, so he actually lost very little in terms of moving to the bigger, less offensively friendly US parks. Matsui, however, was a 50 HR season hitter in Japan, and moving to the US has cut into his power/offensive contribution considerably.

Which is a long way of saying that in Japan, Matsui was a much more valuable CF'er than Ichiro, but in the US Ichiro has been the more valuable player, almost all entirely due to the change in the set of parks.

Some might wonder whether Ichiro has really been more valuable than Godzilla in the U.S. Certainly not this year and the fact is that each of them has been pretty much "average" (for him) this year--ok, granted, Ichiro slightly less and Matsui, well, I'd say about average.

If I could have one or the other on my Twins, who god knows need some offense, I would take Matsui in a heart beat, though of course both are going to decline very soon, like right now.

KJOK,

Do you know anything about whether any factors may create changes in walk rate between Japan and the U.S.?

Do you know anything about whether any factors may create changes in walk rate between Japan and the U.S.?

Oh yes. Depending on how you look at the data, it can almost appear that US position players walk LESS when going to Japan! For Japanese position players going to the US, there is of course only limited data, but they do appear to walk less going from Japan to US. These two findings are of course somewhat in opposition to each other. (Pitchers, IIRC, had a more normal/expected result of slightly more walks Japan to US and slightly fewer walks US to Japan).

The way I've rationalized this is that perhaps US players, now able to be more successful/hit more home runs, take fewer walks once they get to Japan, even though they increase their intentional walks/pitch around walks. Japanese hitters wouldn't get pitched around as much as they did in Japan (I think Ichiro batted 3rd in Japan) as their hitting value is reduced by the approx. 12% I mentioned above.

It may well be that Matsui was pitched around A LOT but that he hasn't been in America. Is 65-85 walks his "true" walks level? Should I be translating his walks as only 2/3s of their Nippon totals? Ichiro comes out about equally as high on the walk side.

To find out the effect, I reduced both of their walks by one-third. This lowered Ichiro's OPS+ to 107 and his WS for the period to 195. Knocking back Matsui's walks dropped his OPS+ to 120 and his WS to 254 for the period. Still mighty monstrous, though probably enough to drop him into Cravath's territory instead of Reggie's.

Should I go with 2/3s the walks or full walks?

I'd be curious to see what you get for Oh's converted walk rate. I think I got some ridiculously high rates such as 200 walks per year...

I have Bob Feller miles ahead of everyone else on this ballot. The only way I can fathom how anyone could rank Jackie Robinson ahead of Feller is by undervaluing pitchers by a huge amount. I rate Feller around the 10th greatest pitcher ever while Jackie is around the 100th greatest position player.

You are underrating Robinson then. I have Jackie as the 4th best 2B which should put him solidly in the top 50, probably the top 35-40 position players ever. He has a huge MLB peak despite starting at age 28. He is a great candidate for MiL credit and maybe even some war/NeL credit. Career value is the only thing is keeping him from the Morgan/Collins/Hornsby trio.

You could still put Feller ahead of RObinson but I see it as pretty even,I prefer Jackie.

You are underrating Robinson then. I have Jackie as the 4th best 2B which should put him solidly in the top 50, probably the top 35-40 position players ever. He has a huge MLB peak despite starting at age 28. He is a great candidate for MiL credit and maybe even some war/NeL credit. Career value is the only thing is keeping him from the Morgan/Collins/Hornsby trio.

You could still put Feller ahead of RObinson but I see it as pretty even,I prefer Jackie.

You are underrating Robinson then. I have Jackie as the 4th best 2B which should put him solidly in the top 50, probably the top 35-40 position players ever. He has a huge MLB peak despite starting at age 28. He is a great candidate for MiL credit and maybe even some war/NeL credit. Career value is the only thing is keeping him from the Morgan/Collins/Hornsby trio.

You could still put Feller ahead of RObinson but I see it as pretty even,I prefer Jackie.

You need a real strong timeline to put Jackie above Nap Lajoie, IMHO. But still, Jackie has a decent argument for 5th best 2B ever. I probably will have Feller higher, but for this exercise, that won't matter much.

Having now done MLEs for Monte Irvin, I'd suggest that a very good comp for Irvin in terms of career offensive value and career shape is Junior Griffey.

Griffey has a 143 OPS+ through 2005 in just over 9000 PA.

Irvin had a career OPS+ of 142-145 (depending on how one assigns war credit) in, with war credit, about 8300 PA, which would be just over 9000 PA when adjusted for 162-game seasons.

Griffey reached the majors at 19 and had his best season (so far, but probably for his career) at age 23, with an OPS+ of 172. Irvin had his first MLE season at 20 and had his best season at age 23 with an OPS+ (by my conversion/projection system) of 175. Griffey obviously has better pure power, but Irvin was a better hitter for average and had better plate discipline.

Both players' value after age 30 was significantly depressed by injuries: nobody would elect Griffey to the HoM based on his play after age 30.

Griffey would obviously be substantially ahead on Irvin on fielding value, but I think Griffey's career to date gives a surprisingly good feel for Irvin's career, once Irvin is given war credit.

Comments on this years' ballots: Ron Wargo- So you are saying that you have Robinson number 1 based on his fame,rather than what he did on the field?

Yest- Even ignoring walks, which are less valuable than singles even in a high-power environment, how can you have Robinson below Beaumont? Robinson's slugging average was 14% over league average, while Beaumont's was 13% over. Since Robinson was primarily an excellent fielding infielder, even though Beaumont had about 400 more PA, Robinson is clearly more meritorious.

SWW-Sam Rice wasn't on very bad teams. The Nats finished in the first division 13 times in his 19 seasons with them.

it's eiser to have a 14% higher slugging percentage than the leauge in an era where HR are comman place then 13% in the dead ball era

Yest- Even ignoring walks, which are less valuable than singles even in a high-power environment, how can you have Robinson below Beaumont? Robinson's slugging average was 14% over league average, while Beaumont's was 13% over. Since Robinson was primarily an excellent fielding infielder, even though Beaumont had about 400 more PA, Robinson is clearly more meritorious.

Cliff, Beaumont had 250 more hits. That had probably some weight with yest, Not that I personally have Beaumont anywhere near Robinson as a playee myself, mind you.

it's eiser to have a 14% higher slugging percentage than the leauge in an era where HR are comman place then 13% in the dead ball era

Is this true? If we do this with homers, one would have to conclude that the vast majority of the great home run hitters were alive before 1920, which is an obviously ridiculous assertion.

I meant it only to improve his slugging numbers vs the leauge to equal Robinson not surpass

also Beaumont was a pretty good fielder not as much as Robinson but still a big plus

therefore with my singles theory and the more playing time I find Beaumont slightly better pick and Robinson just under my in-out line

it's eiser to have a 14% higher slugging percentage than the leauge in an era where HR are comman place then 13% in the dead ball era

Is this true? If we do this with homers, one would have to conclude that the vast majority of the great home run hitters were alive before 1920, which is an obviously ridiculous assertion.

I went through the top 100 SLG list from The Hidden Game of Baseball, which compares the top SLG seasons compared to the league average for those years. I found 11 seasons that happened between 1947-56, while I found *10 between 1899-1910. Sounds pretty even to me.

* There was actually nine because they didn't include any season prior to 1901, so Ed Delahanty's 1899 and Honus Wagner's 1900 seasons weren't included. Including both of them would knock off a season from Harry Lumley off the list.

I meant it only to improve his slugging numbers vs the leauge to equal Robinson not surpass

My post suggests that there's hardly any difference between the two eras when it comes to Relative SLG. That's not even going into the competition levels, which would help Robinson, not Beaumont.

yest, how many times would you say Robinson was the best at his position? How about Beaumont (Cobb and Speaker can't be used as excuses here, either)? No contest, it's Robinson.

John

Don't even bother ;-)

Don't even bother ;-)

Using my own words against me, huh? :-)

Just couldn't help myself, I guess.

Some Ginger Beaumont and the Deadball Era things...

I missed the 1916 elections and debates so I don't know if this was already brought out a long time ago, but...

His biggest years were 1901-1904.
In 1901, he was 7th in hits, 3rd in singles, 10th in average, and 3rd in runs.
1902: 1st, 1st, 1st, and 3rd in runs
1903: 1st, 1st, 6th in avg, and 1st in runs.
1904: 1st, 1st, 7th in avg, and 2nd in runs.


1901 was not a deadball year. The NL averaged 4.63 runs per team per game. It hit .267 / .314 / .348. The Pirate team averaged 5.54 runs/g and had a team OPS+ of 112 (2nd in league).
1902 saw some air leave the ball: .259 / .306 / .319; and the runs dropped to 3.98 per game. The Pirates had a team OPS+ of 125 (1st in league).
1903: Runs per game are back up to 4.78 and the league averages are back up to .269 / .324 / .349. The Pirates average 5.62 runs/g and have a team OPS+ of 114 (1st in league).
1904: Runs per game are back down to 3.91 and the league averages are down to .249 / .300 / .322. The Pirates average 4.33 and have a team OPS+ of 104 (2nd in league).

Also, in 1899, the league averages are 5.24 r/g and .282 / .335 / .366.
In 1900, the averages are 5.21 r/g and .279 / .331 / .366.
For 1901 - 1904 see above.
1905, the averages are 4.11 r/g and .255 / .309 / .332.
1906, the averages are 3.57 r/g and .244 / .304 / .310. and the deadball era has begun in earnest.
By 1907, the averages are 3.40 r/g and .240 / .301 / .309.

Some random thoughts.
To me, the dead-ball era didn't really start until 1906, though I can see an argument for 1904. It is not exact, but it seems to me that the singles went out the league first, then the power. By the time the dead ball era started, Beaumont was on the downhill side of his career. If he had his 1901-1904 numbers in 1906-1909, I would be a lot more impressed. Also, he played most every year in parks that helped offense.
Was he a good player? Yes. Did his hits have value? Yes. But his numbers were helped by his parks and his best offensive years were not deadball years.

All my opinion and Your Mileage May Vary.

couldn't help myself either

:-)

Yest, the one your'e missing was not Robinson, about whom I largely agree -- very overrated by history. Beaumont and Beckley were near contemporaries, and with 2930 hits at 125 compared with 1759 at 123,Beckley was 60% more of a player. Plus he played 1B, a more valuable defensive position.

Yest, never mind -- we agree approximately about Beckley as well as Robinson! :-)

I have Bob Feller miles ahead of everyone else on this ballot. The only way I can fathom how anyone could rank Jackie Robinson ahead of Feller is by undervaluing pitchers by a huge amount.

I have Feller #2. Maybe I'm undervaluing pitchers and maybe not, but part of the explanation for my rating is that Feller was a workhorse. The downside of a workhorse pitcher is that their season by season rate stats are not as good as their season by season counting stats. Feller was #1/top 3/top 10 in league ERA+ only 0/2/6 times. Even great performances during his missing seasons would not have put him into the elites of ERA+ dominance as judged by number of seasons in the top X.

Does anynoe want threads set up for Bonnie Serrell and/or Bob Thurman?

Mr. Blau wrote:

Comments on this years' ballots: Ron Wargo- So you are saying that you have Robinson number 1 based on his fame,rather than what he did on the field?

Of course not, I voted for him primarily based on his on-field accomplishments. He's an easy enough #1 that I didn't think I needed much comment-wise. I think Jackie is #5 or #6 all-time among 2B (behind Collins, Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, and perhaps Gehringer). I also said that I didn't have any problem with Feller being #1 on anyone's ballot.

Does anynoe want threads set up for Bonnie Serrell and/or Bob Thurman?

I've worked up some translations for both of them, but I don't think they are viable candidates. Serrell's just like Dandridge; Thurman was a 29-year-old rookie in the Negro Leagues (per Gadfly) which sorely limits his upside as a candidate. I'll just post my numbers in the discussion thread.

Okay, Eric. I'm not surprised by your answer. Judging from their write-ups in The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues, even Riley couldn't muster up a lot of praise for the two (especially in regard to Thurman).

John,

The guy I'd like to have a thread for is Sal Maglie. Seems like he might have a lot of "missing time" to discuss. I don't know that he'll make it in, but it seems like it would be worthwhile to talk about it.

Does anyone think Trucks needs a thread? James gives him a pretty close look in the NHBA's article on WW2 players.