Williams and a holdover for this election. That's the fact, Jack!

Well, with war credit and MiL credit, Don Newcombe's case shouldn't be written off without careful consideration.

I won't make an argument yet for where he might rank, but I note that Bill James has Newcombe higher than Lemon in the NBJHBA pitcher rankings, 48 to 50. If the electorate agrees with James on this one, Newcombe could get quite close to election this year.

I'm doubtful that Newcombe should rank quite that high, but he's a lot better than his major-league only totals indicate.

1966 prelim:

1966 PHOM Inductees: Ted Williams and one from the following: Leach, Moore, Brown, Slaughter, Beckwith, Jennings, Terry, or Herman. (I get to clear some of my personal backlog.) Looking back on things, I was too hard on Slaughter. I don't know if he would make my top 15, but he definitely should have been between 16 and 20. I am glad it didn't effect the election.

1. Ted Williams – PHOM 1966

2. Mickey Welch – PHOM 1901

3. Charley Jones – PHOM 1906

4. Pete Browning – PHOM 1921

5. Charlie Keller – PHOM 1957

6. Hugh Duffy – PHOM 1918

7. Bucky Walters – PHOM 1958

8. Quincy Troupe – PHOM 1960

9. Alejandro Ohms – PHOM 1964

10. Cupid Childs - PHOM 1932

11. Bob Lemon – PHOM 1965

12. Vic Willis – PHOM 1942

13. Tommy Leach

14. Dobie Moore

15. Luke Easter

16. Burleigh Grimes – PHOM 1961

17. George Burns – PHOM 1938

18. Willard Brown

19. Wilbur Cooper

20. Frank Chance:

Considering Don Newcombe, but I am not sure how much credit to give for Korea and his three years in the Dodgers' minors.

Alvin Dark and Bobby Thomsom don’t have enough.

Gil McDougald is a unique player. Used in a unique manner by Stengel that hid some of his value. A Gold Glover at second, third, or short. Played in a park that KILLED his power numbers. Probably doesn’t have enough career, but he was one of the keys to the Yankees’ dominance in the 1950s. During his 10 years with the team, during which he played at least 119 games every year, they went to 8 World Series. He went to 5 All-Star games. He was probably the fourth most important Yankee after Mantle, Berra, and Ford.

Currently, my PHOM has 15 players that are not in HOM. How does that compare to others?

Newcombe has a lot to offer without any other credit. Remember, because of the Dodgers' integration strategy and Korea duties, Newk only had 8 years where he qualified for the ERA title.

1 MVP
1 Cy Young
4 All-Star games.

League Leaders:
ERA: 4 top 10s, no firsts
ERA+: 6 top 10s, no firsts
Wins: 5 top 10s, with 1 first
W/L pct: 6 top 10s, with 2 firsts
WHIP: 7 top 10s with 2 firsts
BB/9: 6 top 10s, with 3 firsts
K/9: 3 top 10s, with 1 first
IP: 5 top 10s, with no firsts
Ks: 5 top 10s, with 1 first
K to W: 8 top 10s, with 1 first (in top 10 every year he qualified for ERA title!!)
CG: 7 top 10s, with no firsts.

Now add in 2 years of Korea credit.
Then add in some credit for Dodger minor league/integration strategy.

That looks like a good resume. He looks like an excellent candidate for my top 20 now that I look more at the evidence.

Currently, my PHOM has 15 players that are not in HOM. How does that compare to others?
32

Gil McDougald is a unique player. Used in a unique manner by Stengel that hid some of his value.

You are probably right Kelly, but it could be that Stengle maximized his value by playing him everywhere, but not every day. Damn handy player to have in a DMB or Strat league.

Wouldn't you love to see a big league manager today do something like, Youklis at third and Olerude at first vs righies, Youk at first and Mueller at 3b vs lefites. I didn't look at the splits or anything, but that is the general idea. Of course with Stengle it was Brown at third vs curve ball pitchers, and Lumpe at second vs sinkerballers, and McDougald everywere else.

Revenge of the OFs, with a rare two 100 pct OFs added to the mix.
We're at roughly 25 pct Ps, by this measure, if you're scoring at home...

HOM batters by percentage of games played at position (min. 10 pct)

C (8.03) - Cochrane 100, Dickey 100, Hartnett 98, Gibson 95, Campanella 95, Bennett 88, Santop 75, Ewing 47, Kelly 36, McVey 30, White 28, O'Rourke 11

1B (13.49) - Start 100, Gehrig 100, Mize 100, Terry 99, Brouthers 98, Leonard 95, Connor 88, Foxx 87, Anson 83, Greenberg 83, Suttles 70, Wilson 45, Stovey 37, Charleston 35, McVey 31, Jennings 26, Lloyd 25, Heilmann 22, Ewing 19, Kelley 16, Delahanty 15, Hines 12, Lajoie 12, Spalding 11, O'Rourke 10, Dihigo 10, JRobinson 10, Irvin 10

2B (10.15) - McPhee 100, Gehringer 99, E Collins 98, Herman 95, Lajoie 83, Frisch 77, Hornsby 72, Grant 70, Barnes 69, JRobinson 65, Richardson 43, Ward 26, HR Johnson 25, Groh 20, Hill 20, Pike 18, Dihigo 15, Wright 10, Wilson 10

3B (7.23) - Baker 100, J Collins 98, Hack 98, Groh 79, Sutton 69, White 51, Beckwith 50, Wilson 40, Davis 22, Frisch 20, Wallace 18, Dihigo 15, JRobinson 15, McVey 14, Richardson 13, Vaughan 11, Ott 10

SS (15.18) - Pearce 96, Boudreau 95, Reese 95, Glasscock 94, Appling 94, Cronin 92, Wells 90, HWright 89, Dahlen 88, Vaughan 85, Wallace 77, Jennings 70, HR Johnson 70, Lloyd 70, Wagner 68, Davis 58, Ward 44, Beckwith 35, Barnes 28, Grant 20, Sutton 19, Hornsby 16, Dihigo 15, Irvin 10

OF (35.85) - Carey 100, Clarke 100, Hamilton 100, Thompson 100, Wheat 100, Goslin 100, DiMaggio 100, Averill 100, Doby 100, Slaughter 100, Simmons 99, Burkett 99, Cobb 99, Flick 99, Gore 99, Sheckard 99, Speaker 99, Jackson 98, Stearnes 98, Keeler 97, PWaner 97, Crawford 94, Ruth 92, Magee 91, Ott 90, Hines 82, Torriente 80, Kelley 79, Heilmann 77, Irvin 75, Pike 73, Delahanty 72, Hill 70, O'Rourke 69, Rogan 65, Stovey 63, Charleston 60, Caruthers 50, Kelly 47, Richardson 40, Suttles 30, Santop 20, Dihigo 20, McVey 18, Ewing 17, Greenberg 17, Davis 13, Spalding 13, Wagner 13, Ward 11, White 10, JRobinson 10

SP (29.26) - Alexander 100, Covaleski 100, Faber 100, Plank 100, Vance 100, Grove 100, Hubbell 100, Lyons 100, Newhouser 100, Feller 100, R Foster 99, Brown 99, Mathewson 99, Walsh 99, Williams 99, Young 99, B Foster 99, Paige 99, W Johnson 98, McGinnity 98, WFerrell 97, Keefe 96, Nichols 96, Rusie 95, RBrown 95, Clarkson 94, Galvin 92, Radbourn 78, Spalding 72, Caruthers 47, Rogan 35, Dihigo 25, Ward 16

INF: 54.08
OF: 35.85
P: 29.26

Caveats: Totals treat all careers as equal. A little off on players like McVey and Sutton due to changing schedule length. Guesstimates on Negro Leaguers. Doesn't sufficiently represent pitching weight of players like Ruth or Caruthers.

P.S. I'd be open to 'improvements' on numbers for McVey/Sutton/Ruth/Caruthers types, and all Negro Leaguers.

Mike Webber:
Wouldn't you love to see a big league manager today do something like, Youklis at third and Olerude at first vs righies, Youk at first and Mueller at 3b vs lefites. I didn't look at the splits or anything, but that is the general idea.

We do see two platoons by three players at two positions. Is it that we don't see particular fielding positions paired (Joe Torre at third and home while one thirdbaseman and one catcher play part-time)? Or is something more complicated than three and two that we don't see?

Is designated hitter more likely than the fielding positions to be half of a three and two platoon?

How many HOMers were part of any platoon of significant duration?

There was the big guy in 1918, pitching in rotation, sort of, and fielding left against righty pitchers, sort of.

We do see two platoons by three players at two positions

Really? I'm not disagreeing, just the teams that I follow don't do that. In fact I can't ever remember the Royals doing that in my lifetime.

Maybe there is a pattern with Chone Figgins in Anaheim, but I dan't think of any three players sharing two positions in a platoon. Cincinnati had 4 outfielders last couple of years, and I am fairly certain there was no consistent platoon usage there.

Anyone have an example since Earl Weaver retired?

How many HOMers were part of any platoon of significant duration?


Bill Dickey was a platoon player, more or less for many years. Buddy Rosar was his right handed half near the end of his career, Joe Glenn from '36-38, Art Jorgens from 1931-1935. They would catch 30 to 50 games a year, Rosar caught more than that in the early 1940's.

I was looking at McDougald some more.

He just about qualified for every official batting race during his first nine years. Based on 3.1 PA per game, he comes up 4 PA short of qualifying in 1951 and 1954, but qualifies every other year up through 1959. Generally, he got a game off a week at most: 5 years over 138 games with other years at 131, 127, 126, 120 and 119. Also, it looks like once the year started, Stengel used at one position primarily most years. See following numbers. 1951, 1959, 1960 were the years with the most variability, while the other years saw him play one position the majority of the time and a second position once a week on average.
Has anyone read Dynasty by Golenbeck recently and remembers whether McDougald replaced an injured person long term during a year or served as a stop gap until a replacement could be found or Stengel just threw darts to determine a lineup?


Defensive Usage:

Year   2bG  3bG  SSG
1951:   55   82 
1952:   38  117  
1953:   26  136  
1954:   92   35  
1955:  126   17  
1956:   31    5   92  
1957:   21    7  121
1958:  115        19
1959:   53   52   25 
1960:   42   84      

His fielding average was higher at each position than the league average at that position during his career. He has league average range at second and third and way above average range at short over his career.
Per James' fielding win shares, McDougald rates similar per inning with Schoendienst, Frank White, and Nellie Fox or at "A" level at second base.
McDougald: 5.37 ws/1000 def innings in 4800 innings.
Fox: 5.54 in 20,000+ innings
Schoendienst: 5.61 in 15750 innings
White: 5.58 in 17850 innings.
At third, he rates similar per inning to Buddy Bell, Ken Boyer, and Aurelio Rodriguez or B+/A- level.
At shortstop, he rates similar to Dal Maxvill, Lou Boudreau, and Mark Belanger or A+ level.

McDougald was the glue that held the Yankee infield together. Every year, players were coming and going yet these teams were AMAZING at turning the double play based on the number of men on base.
1951: Yankees tie Cleveland for fewest baserunners per game, yet are second in double plays with 190. Phi is first by 14, but they put an additional man on base per game.
1952: Yankees are third in men on base per game, 11.9 to Chi's 11.7 and Cle's 11.8, yet are first in double plays with 199. This is 18 more than second place and 41 and 58 more than Chi and Cle respectively.
1953: Yankees are tied with Cle for second in men on base, 11.8 to Was' 11.7 and are second in the AL in double plays with 182 to Cle's 197.
1954: Yankees are tied for third for men on base with 11.9, but first in double plays with 198. That is 26 more than second place Was. The Indians allow about one fewer baserunner per game - roughly 130 over the year. The Yankees have 50 more double plays despite only 130 more baserunners.
1955: Yankees allow third fewest baserunners, but lead league in double plays with 180. They have 6 more double plays than Kansas City which allows more than 300 more baserunners than the Yankees. 10 more than Washington which allows more than 230 baserunners.
1956: Yankees allow third/fourth fewest baserunners, but lead league in double plays with 214, 27 more than second place KC.
1957: Yankees allow third fewest baserunners, 11.6 to Chi and Bal's 11.4 and 11.5. Yankees lead league in double plays with 183, edging out Chi and Bos.
1958: Yankees allow the third fewest baserunners, 11.3 to Bal and Det's 10.8 and 11.2. Yankees lead league in double plays with 182, 10 and 11 ahead of Bos and Cle. Bal and Det have 159 and 140 respectively.
1959: Yankees allow the fourth most baserunners and are third in double plays with 160. Bos leads with 167.
1960: Yankees tie for second in baserunners and are middle of the pack with 162 double plays. Chi is first with 175.

Certainly impressive from 1952 to 1958.

Yankee Stadium certainly hurt his power numbers. He hit 112 homeruns in his career. 83 on the road. 29 at home...

Number of players in the HoM and not in my PHoM (and vice versa), after thsi year: 18.

PHoM: Ted Williams and Jud Wilson.

Wilson shatters my record for the longest delay before induction between the two.

Prelim:

1. Ted Williams
2. Red Ruffing
3. George Van Haltren
4. Joe Medwick
5. Eppa Rixey
6. Mickey Welch
7. Jake Beckley
8. Willard Brown
9. Biz Mackey
10. Cool Papa Bell
11. Dobie Moore
12. George Sisler
13. Hugh Duffy
14. Tommy Leach
15. Edd Roush
16. Clark Griffith
17. Jimmy Ryan
18. Quincy Trouppe
19. Sam Rice
20. Cupid Childs

21-25. Lemon, Powell, H. Smith, Streeter, White
26-30. Strong, Gleason, Redding, Browning, Greene

A note on the necrologies, and to quote J. E. Jones:

MOONLIGHT GRAHAM.

Partial Prelim

1. Ted Williams

Just to relieve the suspense for y'all.

I don't see how a war adjusted Newcombe is any better than Lefty Gomez or Tommy Bridges. he would seem to fall into the mass of pitchers that we collectively rank between 40 and 70, if not lower. Giving credit to pre-1949 seems dubious, given his short time in the minor leagues and especially that 1948 was his age 22 season.

I project him to 184-106 and a 116 ERA+. Hall of Very Good, about 45 to 50 on my current ballot.

Bill Dickey was a platoon player, more or less for many years.

This has often been said about Dickey, but its not entirely fair. This is just one of the advantages of being a lefty-hitting catcher. You can pick your rest days to your advantage. Its better for your righty-hitting back-up as well. Mack would have been smart to do something similar with Cochrane/Perkins in the late 20s.

Of course, Berra played just about every day -- but that's fairly rare historically.

I don't see how a war adjusted Newcombe is any better than Lefty Gomez or Tommy Bridges. he would seem to fall into the mass of pitchers that we collectively rank between 40 and 70, if not lower.

He could hit, for one thing.

Giving credit to pre-1949 seems dubious, given his short time in the minor leagues and especially that 1948 was his age 22 season.

I won't push the case for any particular amount of minor-league credit hard until I have fully developed projection data to back it up, I believe it will be pretty readily demonstrable that Newcombe was an outstanding pitcher in 1948.

It readily demonstrable right now that five years in the minors, if you count from his rookie year in the NeL in 1944, was _not_ a short time in the minors for a pitcher of his caliber in this era. In fact it was exceptionally long. Here are some comparable pitchers and their development history

Hal Newhouser was in the majors full time at 19, was an above-average pitcher at 21, and had his first huge season at age 23.
Early Wynn was full-time at 22 and had his first big year at 23.
Bob Feller was a star at 19.
Robin Roberts broke in at 21, was a full-time starter at 22, and had his first big year at 23.
Whitey Ford broke in at 21 but lost his next two years to military service.
Billy Pierce, who had a cup of coffee in the majors at 18 in 1945 due to WWII, broke in as a reliever at 21 in 1948 and became a full-time starter in 1949 at age 22. He became a great pitcher at age 24, in his fourth season in the majors.

Newcombe was _dominant_ in 1949, when he broke in to the majors at age 23. Since he was immediately an elite pitcher, it seems likely that he would have been at least an above-average major-league equivalent pitcher in the preceding season and would have been used in the majors for a couple of seasons prior to age 23 according to the pattern that his white contemporaries followed.

Given the career patterns of so many of Newcombe's near-contemporaries who were similar to him in talent and pitching style, Newcombe's late entry into the majors seems the exception rather than the rule, especially given that his late entry to the majors was not because he was different developmentally from these pitchers. Except for the remarkable Feller, none of them peaked any earlier in the majors than Newcombe did himself despite breaking in later.

It seems highly likely, therefore, that race played a factor in Newcombe's being kept in the minors when he could have been helping the big-league club. Rickey was clearly working on plan of gradual, methodical integration, and it seems that he brought up black players when they were ready to perform at an all-star level. On the Newcombe thread, we learn that Newcombe stayed in Nashua for a year after Campanella moved on to "work on his curveball," which is a legitimate baseball reason for his advancement to be delayed, but, as good as his fastball was, he could have "worked on his curveball" at a higher level or as a reliever/spot starter in the majors (just like his white peers were doing), except, I surmise, that failure was not an option for black players at this time, so Newcombe had to be kept at a level at which he could improve and experiment while still dominating the competition.

McDougald #50, Newcombe #69, Dark #78.

1)Williams--#2 all-time after Ruth, with war credit.
2)Gordon--Fixed my war credit, he and Doerr moved up. PHoM in 1958.
3)Doerr-- PHoM in 1958.
4)Sewell--109 OPS+, reasonably long career, good shortstop (A- Win Shares). Yes, I am allowing for his switch to 3B at the end of his career. PHoM in 1939.
5)Stephens-- PHoM in 1961. Looks underrated to me.
6)Elliott--I like him better than Hack. Second greatest 3B to date, after Baker. PHoM in 1960.
7)Medwick-- PHoM in 1960.
8)Schang--His rate stats would put him in the HoM, but a look at each individual year isn’t impressive. Still, a hitting catcher with his career length isn’t common...Bill James rates him a C+ fielder in Win Shares, but says he was a good catcher in the NHBA. PHoM in 1938.
9)Mackey--#2 on my 1949 prelim, but more data on his hitting has dropped him to here. PHoM in 1964.
10)Cool Papa Bell--If Max Carey is in, Cool Papa should be too.
11)Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. Usually I'm a WS guy but this time I think Warp has it right.
12)Doyle— His hitting is legitimately outstanding, he played 2nd base, and a C+ defender by Win Shares. 126 career OPS+, compare to contemporary George Cutshaw, who was a regular 2B for 11 years with an OPS+ of 86. #19 all time in innings at 2B. Regularly in the 2B defensive Win Shares leaders, WS Gold Glove in 1917. Top 10 in Win Shares 1909-12, 1915. PHoM in 1926.
13)Rizzuto--Lots of war credit.
14)Beckley— Behind the big 3, much better than other dead-ball 1B. Win Shares best fielder at 1B in 1893, 1895, 1899, and 1900. Add in 2930 hits, with power and walks. No peak but a lot of consistent production, we’re not talking about Ed Kranepool here. PHoM in 1913.
15)Rixey—Early Wynn will be the next pitcher with more IP, his W/L percentage isn’t high because he didn’t get a lot of support. ERA+ is very good at 115 for such a long career. PHoM in 1939.
16)Waddell—Waddell has a run of 7 years (1902-1908) in which he was blowing people away, in three of those years with an ERA+ over 165. A seven year peak for a pitcher is much more rare than a seven year peak for a hitter, I give the short peak pitchers a lot more credit than the short peak hitters. PHoM in 1916.
17)Tommy Bridges—fixed his war credit
18)Lombardi-- A long career as a catcher with a big bat. I see 15 obvious catching electees: Gibson, Bench, Fisk, Carter, Hartnett, Dickey, Piazza, Berra, Simmons, Ewing, Cochrane, Campanella, Parrish, Rodriguez, Santop. I’m an advocate for what I see as the next tier: Freehan, Munson, and Porter will get strong consideration on my ballot too. You can’t have a baseball team without a catcher. Almost 2000 games caught including PCL.
19)Keller
20)Kiner

Ruffing#21.
Bob Lemon #55, ERA+ not very impressive, and played for good teams.
Griffith In my PHoM since 1912 but off the ballot at #30.
Van Haltren--#74, good player, part of the old OF glut with Ryan and Duffy.
Sisler--#81, I don’t see his case being very strong. His peak was not long enough to merit election, though he certainly was a great hitter for a few years.
Moore--#33, I didn’t vote for Jennings either.

Briefly...

Williams is more than double the raw points of anyone in my system, and my war credit is *very* stingy in this case. I cannot even imagine an argument for him not being #1 on this otherwise weak ballot

Newcombe was HOVG material, not going to make my ballot even with pre-MLB credit, though enough pre-MLB could get him into the top 50.

No one else is close.

So......

1. Williams
2. Moore
3. Lemon
4. Mendez
5. Doerr
6. Ruffing
7. Walters
8. Sewell
9. Griffith
10. Williard Brown
11. Dean - Gets shuffled down a touch, wasn't happy with his placement as I looked back
12. Gordon
13. Trouppe
14. Bob Johnson
15. Redding

16-20: Sisler, Browning, Mackey, Trout, Medwick

I may do a mild relook at everyone later this week, we're really getting hardcore into the backlog at this point, and every point counts.

FWIW, here is my prelim:

(1) Williams (new)
(2) Moore (1st)
(3) Rixey (3rd)
(4) Van Haltren (4th)
(5) Ruffing (6th)
(6) Oms (7th)
(7) Lemon (8th)
(8) Trouppe (9th)
(9) Duffy (10th)
(10) Roush (11th)
(11) Sisler (12th)
(12) Gordon (15th)
(13) Childs (14th)
(14) Beckley (13th)
(15) Sewell (16th)
(16) Doerr (18th)
(17) Medwick (17th)
(18) Eilliot (19th)
(19) Bob Johnson (nr/21st)
(20) Ryan (nr/23rd)

Dropping off: Keller (20th)-- I mistakenly gave him 3 years of war credit; when that gets reduced to 1.5, he slides from 19th to about 30th (it doesn't cost him more because most of his value is in his prime/peak, not in his career totals).

Newcombe might have put up a career like Ferrell or Lemon if given a full chance, but the career he put up is somewhere around 50th even with proper credit for non-ML seasons and wars. He's the pitching version of Luke Easter, in that he could really use a do-over.

Eppa Rixey footnote:

1915; was the pennant-winning Phillies #4 starter. Didn't pitch in the World Series against Boston until game 5, relieving the starter in the 3rd inning. Did well for a while, the team came back and was in position to win, but he gave up 2 home runs in the late innings to lose. The odd thing was he had only allowed 2 home runs in 176 IP during the regular season.

Things I noticed while updating some career 'point' totals:

- Dobie Moore had 93 pts in his 1932 debut... then 65 pts, then off the ballot for two years, then one 15th-place vote, then 17-21-90 pts. That kicked off a string of 8 years from 90 to 146. Then he suddenly dipped to 69, kicking off 10 straight years under 100 pts. But he got back to 114 in 1956, and he's been over 200 pts in 4 of the last 5 years in the latest Renaissance.
- John McGraw loyalty is underrated. He's gotten 50 to 59 pts in 9 straight years, even though he hasn't been above 60 pts since 1942. He hasn't been above 101 pts since 1932, when he peaked at 127 pts. He's only been above 100 pts 4 times in all these years and only over 75 pts 6 times, but his lowest ever is 32 pts in 1922.
- Wally Schang's group (if they are the same voters who pick Wally every year) also are loyal. He's been averaging around 100 pts per year ever since the mid-1940s, after having slipped at that point from being a 150 to 200-pt guy in his first six years on the ballot.
- Burleigh Grimes backers are as tough to remove as his ol' stubblebeard. Grimes was a 150 to 240-pt fellow in his first decade on the ballot, then slid to as low as around 70 in the mid-1950s. But he's averaging slightly better than 100 annually ever since, annually elbowing out Schang in mid-ballot positioning.

I like to explore some of the non-HoMers as well as HoMers, especially players from my youth who were themselves not youth at the time--ie. guys whose fading years I remember but not their primes. This week: Ray Boone, Mike Hegan and Whitey Lockman.

Boone and Hegan were teammates on some pretty good Cleveland Indian teams from 1948 to 1953 when Boone was moved, then teammates again in Detroit in 1958. Boone surprises me. Came up as a SS (age 25, he was behind Boudreau after all, and regular only at age 27), backing then succeeding Boudreau under manager Boudreau. Only 3 years as a 100 G + SS, however, with OPS 116-75-113, then moved to Detroit who made him a 3B. Unfortunately no WS rating. Then 4 years at 3B and 1 at 1B in Detroit, then a year at 1B split between Detroit and Chicago, then decline.

Apparently he wasn't a big glove because he hit a hell of a lot better than his kid other than that puzzling 75 in 1951. Otherwise:

SS: 116-75-113; 3B: 146-133-123-152; 1B: 108-93; career 115

Hegan of course was an A glove and a horrible hitter. OPS+:

94-69-74-79-75-71-80-69-75; career 74. He was consistent.

Hegan and Boone each had about 5200 PAs, though Hegan did it in 17 years to Boonie's 13, and Hegan needed an extra 300 games to get the same PAs. No surprise there.

Boone .275/.361/.429/115
Hegan .28/.295/.344/74

Lockman surprised me too. One of the luckiest players ever to rack up 6500 PAs playing OF and 1B at OPS+ 95. Mygod. But the Giants had some success with him. He hit for a good average, walked a little bit and scored a lot of runs. Still a B- glove and here is his OPS+ for his prime years 1948-57:

119-113-96-99-110-91-80-86-70-73

and .279/.342/.391/95

He broke in in 1945 at age 17 and was a regular at age 21. A regular phenom that is, and put up those 119 and 113 and scored 117 and 97 runs. Played CF in 1948 but moved to LF in 1949. After that, apparently nobody noticed that he wasn't hitting .300 and scoring 100 runs anymore.

Boone is another of those guys who could have benefited from a do-over. Bring him up to the bigs a couple years earlier, plant him at 3B where he could have stayed, let him get 16 years and 1500 PAs and see what happens. Don't know how bad he was with the glove, but his OPS+ on average over his 5 best years was a respectable 131. If there's anyway in hell he could have played SS, so much the better. At 1B he still woulda been a damn site better than Whitey Lockman.

Hegan got all the opportunity he could handle and was obviously a great defender whose teams won despite having two pitchers in their batting order. Lockman looks like a career AAA player, a (very) poor man's Ferris Fain or Gail Harris, not as good as Ike Boone or Buzz Arlett by a country mile.

Sunnyday, that's JIM Hegan, whose son Mike also was better known as a glove man (though the kid had a couple of nice seasons).
I remember the son in two incarnations with the Yankees, but mostly he was a Brewer.

Yes, Jim.

And when I saw Boone and Hegan I thought that not only were they rough contemporaries (at least at the end-point) but both had kids in the MLs too.

Anyway, glad you know who I meant.

Chris Cobb, sometime last week, issued some caution on Bob Lemon, in that we haven't measured him against his contemporaries yet. (I don't know where his post is right now)
..

I asume his peers would be Wynn, Larry Jackson, Ford, Pierce, Koufax, and Newcombe.

Weynn is the real career-length candidate here; his total value is obviously #1.

Koufax would win any race among peaksters, so it's difficult to lump him in the goup. Almost the same with Newk; I would personally have trouble giving Don enug bonus credit to get him in Lemon-range, but others may not.

Lemon was the real hitter among these guys, so even tho his pitching stats lag a bit, his .440 SLG gives him a real bounce.

Lary Jackson appears to be the easy one to spot as the weakest of this group, unless you give a very large NL bonus. And that will be part of our issues; MOST of these guys are AL-ers. If we conclude (and I do) that the NL was stronger in this period, can I also recommend honoring more AL pitchers (Wynn/Lemon/Pierce/Ford)? It's gonna make me think.
Whitey Ford and Pierce seem to tbe easiest to compare; and Ford is slightly ahead on the various measures I use. Lemon looks to be slightly above Pierce. So far, I think Bob looks like a reasonable candidate.

If we conclude (and I do) that the NL was stronger in this period, can I also recommend honoring more AL pitchers (Wynn/Lemon/Pierce/Ford)? It's gonna make me think.

Well, one of the NL possibilities is on this ballot: Newcombe.

So's the one name you missed in your list: Robin Roberts.

I asume his peers would be Wynn, Larry Jackson, Ford, Pierce, Koufax, and Newcombe.

Lemon's last great year (and last decent year) was 1956.

Koufax definitely too late...
Jackson too late

Ford overlaps a bit on the back end, so yes.

Other guys with significant overlap:

Robin Roberts
Warren Spahn
Allie Reynolds
Sal Maglie
Newhouser and Feller on the front end.

Plus a ton of guys whose careers look a bit too short or are missing something

Lopat,CSimmons,Roe,Jansen,Garcia,Trucks,Parnell

I think Roberts, Spahn & Wynn are the big guys who are not eligible yet.

Herb Score also seems like he was heading to the hall

I surmise, that failure was not an option for black players at this time, so Newcombe had to be kept at a level at which he could improve and experiment while still dominating the competition.

I just wanted to single out this line from one of Chris C's posts on this thread. I've been trying to say this to myself and others with this level of succinctness, and, characteristically, I've been unable.

This line really gets at the heart of guys like Easter, Newcomb, Clarkson, A Wilson, and scads of others, and in a way it helps explain why NgL candidates of this period get so little love and attention. Another guy who fits this picture is Sad Sam Jones (the II) who emerged in the early-mid fifties as a quality starter for the Giants. Anyway, a great point, well put.

Quincy Trouppe too.

I just thought I would toss out that I didn't give Williams any war credit.

None.

Nada.


It just doesn't matter. Without war credit he is merely the easy #1 by a wide margin, instead of an astronomical one.

so, would you give him war credit if Musial was on the ballot the same year, and you had to place them 1 and 2? :)

I think Williams just beats out Musial even without the war credit. Closer than I thought, actually.

A question that suddenly occurred to me, as I was trying to figure out why I'm not impressed by George Van Haltren...

Has anyone ever done a Drysdale/Pappas-type study for hitters?

In The Politics of Glory, Bill James makes a pretty solid case that a pitcher with a shorter career but more dominant seasons has more impact on a team's chances of winning a pennant. This is, of course, at the heart of the peak vs. career debate.

But has anyone ever conducted an analagous study for position players? It's hard to gauge James' feelings on the subject. He ranks Berger ahead of Roush, but Roush ahead of Hack Wilson. And, of course, all of them ahead of George Van Haltren. (I know, he's a timeliner. He ranks Duffy ahead of Van Haltren, too.)

I'm just wondering if anyone ever did a simulation to figure out if the rule still applied to hitters.

SWW,

I would imagine that it does.

I'm just wondering if anyone ever did a simulation to figure out if the rule still applied to hitters.

Yes, that has been done, and the subject was much discussed during the first 10-15 elections, when we were trying to hash out the relative merits of peak and career value for candidates. In fact, the Pennants Added metric that Joe Dimino has maintained at various points during the history of the project is in fact designed to measure the non-linear impact of outstanding seasons on a team's chances of winning a pennant.

You can find the Pennants Added tables, which haven't been updated in many a year, on the Important Links page, about three lines down and on the right. The discussion thread following the table probably runs through the justification for the Pennants Added numbers.

Incidentally, while it is true that the pennant value of high-peak seasons is higher than their win-share or WARP total shows, the increase above the linear value is not immense. For this reason, Joe has argued in the past that players with many seasons of just above average play add more pennants for their teams, over the course of their career, than players with shorter careers but notably higher peaks.

>In The Politics of Glory, Bill James makes a pretty solid case that a pitcher with a shorter career but more dominant seasons has more impact on a team's chances of winning a pennant.

I don't think this is James' conclusion at all. What he concluded was the short career/high peak has a better chance of making the HoF.

Baseball Prospectus did the Pennants Added analysis in one of their annuals, and IIRC the conclusion was that "high-peak" seasons did have more value, but it was a very small impact that would have very little change vs. ranking players strictly on their career value.

Pennants added measures the effects that a really good season, coming at random, has in changing the odds of a team winning the pennant. Since for most players a peak season is worth maybe 3 or 4 wins more than one of their non-peak seasons, and few teams miss winning a pennant by only 3 or 4 games, the pennants added effect is generally quite small.

Back in the 1939 discussion thread (starting in post # 124) I presented an alternative way of thinking about the role of peak value in winning pennants. Rather than thinking of teams passively waiting for a player to have an unexpected peak, I suggested that top teams (think of the Yankees and Red Sox) actively seek out the best players near the peak of their careers in an effort to push their team above its competitors. For such a team, "just above average play" may not be good enough; the team will want to replace some of its average players with top players. My conclusion was that for top teams that are trying to get an edge in winning a pennant, top players near the peak of their careers can be much more valuable than players who are near average.

What is the Baseball Hall of Merit? A pantheon conceived of by our founder and commissioner Joe Dimino as an alternative to the Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown. Our purpose is to correct the omissions and errors that can be found in the older institution.

I was reading this introduction to the HoM and thought that it did not accurately describe our purpose. I would propose:

What is the Baseball Hall of Merit? A pantheon conceived of by our founder and commissioner Joe Dimino as an alternative to the Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown. Our purpose is to identify the best players in baseball history and thereby determine/highlight/identify/ascertain/isolate? the omissions and errors that can be found in the older institution.

Any thoughts?

>In The Politics of Glory, Bill James makes a pretty solid case that a pitcher with a shorter career but more dominant seasons has more impact on a team's chances of winning a pennant.

I don't think this is James' conclusion at all. What he concluded was the short career/high peak has a better chance of making the HoF.

With much respect, I would submit that this was exactly what James concluded. He ran simulations of 1000 seasons with a Drysdale-type pitcher and a Pappas-type pitcher, and he found that Drysdale won significantly more pennants. So he concluded that, given two players with very similar numbers, the shape of the career did have a significant impact on the fate of the team. This did seem to have an impact on Hall of Fame voting, but given his subsequent pitcher ratings, I got the impression that he agreed. The point was to answer Pappas' question, "Why is he considered a better pitcher than me when we have practically the same record?" And the study said why.

Is Pennants Added based on the same kind of comparison? If I'm comparing, say, Earl Averill and Chuck Klein, is it saying that over the long haul, the shape of Averill's career did more for his team than Klein's did?

Is Pennants Added based on the same kind of comparison? If I'm comparing, say, Earl Averill and Chuck Klein, is it saying that over the long haul, the shape of Averill's career did more for his team than Klein's did?

It is the same kind of comparison. If Averill and Klein had the same number of, say, career win shares or career WARP but Averill had more Pennants Added, then it means that the shape of Averill's career (presumably because of a higher peak) did more for his team.

The thing about Drysdale and Pappas is that their careers were not extremes. Pappas had 16 years and Drysdale had 14.

A more interesting comparison would be Dizzy Dean (9 years) and Burleigh Grimes (19 years). Under James' test, you'd get 1000 years of Grimes (made up of ~53 cycles of his career) compared to 473 years of Dean (made up of ~53 cycles of his career) and 527 years of replacement pitcher. I think if that comparison were done, the Grimes side would win, and despite the peak friendly voters here, our consensus seems to be that Grimes' career has more value.

From #26: Lemon was the real hitter among these guys, so even tho his pitching stats lag a bit, his .440 SLG gives him a real bounce.

A new exhibit, showing Newc was right there with Lemon. Pitchers with .500 OPS 1948-56, minimum 500 PA (career OPS+ in parentheses):

1—.701 (82) B. Lemon
2—.698 (85) D. Newcombe
3—.668 (77) T. Byrne
4—.652 (76) M. McDermott
5—.586 (52) N. Garver
6—.558 (54) E. Wynn
7—.543 (58) J. Sain
8—.514 (39) M. Dickson
9—.512 (43) W. Spahn

With all due respect...

James ran two sims that show;

1) an average (.500) team winning about 3% more pennants with Drysdale added rather than Pappas, where 93 victories is = to pennant. (Sample size 3000)

2) an average team wins about 3% more pennants with Drysdale added rather than Pappas, where 96 victories = pennant and 90-96 victories = "some" unspecified number of additional pennants. (Sample 10,000)

Then he ran a sim with a variety of changes "intended to improve the realism of the study, make the conditions studied more like actual teams." Now a random sampling of teams from (.410 to .610) wins 203 more pennants with Drysdale than without, and 180 more with Pappas than without. 23 pennants in 10,000 years.

So, yes, there's a difference. In an average HoM pitchers' career .034 pennants.

Yeah, the Drysdale/Pappas example was just for pedagogical purposes for the book's mainstream audience. He was only using W/L record (Drysdale beats Pappas handily in ERA+ and K's). That's a bit of a "problem" with some of James' other metrics from that book (similarity scores, HOF monitor, etc) is that its slanted towards traditional stats to cater to the perceived audience of his book.

I think that BP's Pennant's Added study from their book a couple of years ago was done to take James' work was meant to take that type of idea to the next level. More rigorously done and using more advanced metrics than W/L. So, yes, its all the same idea but different implemention.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about this point so I thought I'd weigh in.

FYI,
mlb.com currently is conducting "fan voting for the Hall of Fame."

I voted, what the heck.
I went Blyleven-Gossage-Trammell.

But I'll spend far more time considering when it comes to the HOM vote.
Tons of sluggers like Belle and Rice and Dawson and Murphy, reminds me of our current situation.

>Tons of sluggers like Belle and Rice and Dawson and Murphy, reminds me of our current situation.

You bet. The HoM experience is part of the reason why I am a bit reticent to call these types of players HoFers, much less HoMers where we have a different (I think higher) standard.

I haven't started evaluating players from the 1980s yet, but here's a decade-by-decade track of the of/1b within 3 or 4 spots on either side of my quota-based in-out line, decade by decade. I don't rigorously follow the quotas in ranking players, but it gives me one point of information when comparing players from different eras.

1870s -- Pike / McVey York
1880s -- / Stovey C. Jones Browning
1890s -- Van Haltren / Ryan Duffy
1900 -- Flick / Leach
1910s -- Poles Hooper B. Taylor / Veach Burns
1920s -- Roush Sisler Arlett /
1930s -- Greenberg Suttles / Averill Medwick Bell
1940s -- Kiner / Keller
1950s -- Ashburn Minoso / Vernon Hodges
1960s -- Brock Wynn / Howard Pinson Cepeda Cash
1970s -- Perez Parker / Bo. Bonds R. Smith Cedeno

Obviously, the 1930s is an anomalously rich decade, so we've rightly dipped well below the quota line. I see the 1910s as anomalously weak, with none of the players around the quota line making my top 30. But otherwise this list lays out for me pretty clearly the territory of the borderline: the area in which we'll have to make our toughest, lowest-agreement decisions.

Rice & Dawson & Murphy will be around this line for the 1980s, I think.

I would have to say not to all of them at the moment, though I may end up impressed by Murphy. No Rice for sure. However, Belle will at least be right there eith Kiner for me (currently #10), maybe even Keller (Currently #6).

ALso are we going to do a HOM HOF thread like we did last year? If so I will not reveal my choices here.

Dobie Moore had 93 pts in his 1932 debut... then 65 pts, then off the ballot for two years, then one 15th-place vote, then 17-21-90 pts. That kicked off a string of 8 years from 90 to 146. Then he suddenly dipped to 69, kicking off 10 straight years under 100 pts. But he got back to 114 in 1956, and he's been over 200 pts in 4 of the last 5 years in the latest Renaissance.

I'd like to hear the current thinking on Moore, because I see some have him as high as #2. I've got him behind the following middle infielders: Artie Wilson, Bus Clarkson, Joe Sewell, Joe Gordon, Herman Long and Bobby Doerr. I think I'm looking at the same numbers as everyone else. I've stretched Moore's projections to the point where I actually am afraid I've totally made up his career. And he still falls behind those guys.

Is there a leap of faith in there somewhere that I haven't taken? Or is it really down to how much weight one gives to peak? I'm pretty balanced on peak and career, I think.

I'm not trying to start an argument. Just want to hear the other side.

Well there has been a lot of debate about Moore's years on the Wreckers and I think that the consensus on his age cahnged a few times, which would affect his Wreckers credit.

Also, many many people had him shackled behind one of the top pet cnaddiates ever, Hughie Jennings, including myself. Oddly enough, I have seen Dobie jump over some people on my ballot now that Hughie finally was elected about fifty years too late ;-)

>I'd like to hear the current thinking on Moore, because I see some have him as high as #2.

Actually he got 3 #1 votes.

If you're crediting Moore with about 10 years you're not making anything up. He's got 6.5 years in the NeLs plus somewhere between 3 and 7 years with the Wreckers. We haven't identified exactly when he started though there was a report of 1913. Someone reported box scores from 1917-18-19. So 3 to 7. The consensus has been to give him 3 years of MLEs.

So 9.5-10 years. Short career to be sure, well, not sure, because it could have been 13.5. But even his supporters I think assume about 10.

What he did during those 10 years, however, was to be possibly the best SS between Wagner and Banks for peak. Probably better than Cronin--hit just as well, better fielder. Better than Vaughan? Well, a better fielder, not a better hitter. Maybe not better than Vaughan but pretty close--for peak.

Or, put it another way, clearly the best NeL SS not named Lloyd, better than HR Johnson--at his peak.

If you're not a peak voter, there's not a lot to say. But for peak there just aren't a lot of 100-150 WS (3 and 5 years) SSs out there.

We haven't identified exactly when he started though there was a report of 1913. Someone reported box scores from 1917-18-19. So 3 to 7. The consensus has been to give him 3 years of MLEs.

Moore was definitely playing with the Wreckers in the spring of 1916. Earlier than that, I don't know. His first year or so he played third and usually batted eighth.

> We do see two platoons by three players at two positions.

Really? I'm not disagreeing, just the teams that I follow don't do that. In fact I can't ever remember the Royals doing that in my lifetime.

Anyone have an example since Earl Weaver retired?

CF-corner and 1B-DH seem most likely to me. Is that from experience? The good fielding CF or 1B plays only with the platoon advantage.

I was thinking of Dave Martinez in center and right for the White Sox, including one series here in Boston.
Darren Lewis (including time with Martinez) and Darryl Hamilton are candidate CFs.

If the 1996 White Sox did something like this all year long, it was only a half-platoon, Lewis and Danny Tartabull both batting right. (Lewis plays against LHP and as a defensive replacement, so Tartabull plays against RHP.) Another halfway example would be that when Lewis enters the game, Martinez moves to right against RHP but sits against LHP.

With the Red Sox 2000-2001, Darren Lewis shows only a modest tendency to play against LHPs, odd with Trot Nixon sitting against most LHP in 2000. (Lewis & Nixon alone would be only a straight platoon.)

In my mind's eye, Kevin Millar plays RF last year when Trot Nixon sits against a lefty, otherwise plays 1B. But that is a minor influence on the playing pattern, if at all.

Hey, John Kruk was in the series I recall. Late in a game, after high rollers vacated the front row, he in the on-deck circle talked to us immigrant fans. Maybe during a pitching change. Wakefield RHP was the starter.

Kruk played only half time in the first half of 1995, batting well but disenchanted (this was before Darren Lewis, btw). If platoon disadvantage was sometimes his reason for sitting, this was probably the pattern, with four at three positions.

vs RHP-LHP
DH Kruk-Thomas
1B Thomas-Martinez
RF Martinez-Devereaux

(This website is a great procrastinating tool!)

Procrastinating?
Worse, I've actually forgotten what I was working on.

Our purpose is to identify the best players in baseball history and thereby determine/highlight/identify/ascertain/isolate? the omissions and errors that can be found in the older institution.

I like that, Daryn. I'll revise the intro when I get the chance. Thanks!

Could someone with access to Win Share data please provide the following:

Defensive win shares (grades? rates?) for 1Bmen George Sisler, Jake Beckley, and Frank Chance. Carrer stats greta, but any other info might be helpful. Beckley played many more games at an older age, and might be hurt by a purely career rate stat.

Tom, here are their WS grades:

Sisler: C-
Beckley: B
Chance: B

Tom:

If you look on the positional threads, you will see that I posted the win shares letter grades for each position.

A Pie Traynor vote on the ballot thread got me thinking that there's a guy I have to take another look at.
I wonder if we underrated him. He wasn't an inner-circle candidate, but did we overreact?

If Pie Traynor were not in the HoF he would have a few more votes.

well... could be, I s'pose, but I actually bump him up a few places for his rep. He's in my top 25.

If Pie Traynor were not in the HoF he would have a few more votes.

If anything, as Tom points out, being in the HOF probably helps him. I think yest would agree with us, too. :-)

What hurts him is his offensive numbers relative to his contemporaries. Not that shoulld be the end of the discussion with him, since he stands out fairly well (but doesn't dominate) third basemen of the twenties and thirties.

I have him at #17. I think that's reasonable.

">In The Politics of Glory, Bill James makes a pretty solid case that a pitcher with a shorter career but more dominant seasons has more impact on a team's chances of winning a pennant. "

Regarding the James study, I've mentioned this a bunch of times, but here's my take.

Sunnyday summed it up pretty well. James concluded there is an impact that peak seasons are more valuable. But the data he produced showed the impact is quite small.

Also, every single time he tweaked the study to make it more realistic, the impact got smaller. His data is right in line with what Pennants Added shows - that peak seasons are more valuable, but only very slightly so. Like a "10" and a "0" being about 15% more valuable than two "5"s.

************

Daryn good point on the introduction. I kind of think the inspiration was to correct the mistakes, but the purpose is to identify the greatest players. So I think maybe a combination of the two is what we are trying to do, excellent point. I kind of like 'identify' among the choices you gave.

Howie - I think we've underrated all 3B from the speed (pre-WWII, but especially deadball and earlier) era. With faster players running down the line and the ball not being hit as hard, you really had to be a pretty good fielder to play there IMO. I think it's much closer to SS on the defensive spectrum than 2B is today, as an example.

Traynor's offense relative to his contemporary 3B is pretty darned good. He's overrated because he never walked, but there weren't too many 3B that hit better than him during his time, and all the ones that did had short careers.

Comparing him to other hitters, he's obviously not as good. But compared to other 3B/SS/2B I think he stacks up pretty well.

Brent, I think your point may have some merit (about teams actively seeking out peak players), but I think that it's much more relevant post free agency. I haven't had a chance to look at the 1939 thread yet . . . can you give the nutshell version here?

In a nutshell -- the free agents market comes close to what I have in mind... the free agent salaries tend to be determined by the richer teams that think they have a shot at the pennant. If a team won 87 games last season and still fell short, they may be willing to bid a lot to get a player who they think will push them over the top. As we know, a 10 percent difference in talent can make a 50 percent or 100 percent difference in salary. Why? Because what matters in the free agents market is not being better than a "replacement" player, but being better than the players that the top competitors in your division will be fielding.

Although it's easiest to see this happening post-free agency, I believe a similar model applies to earlier periods. Instead of competing for free agents, teams would compete for buying prospects from top minor league teams. For example, it's probably not a coincidence that Joe DiMaggio was sold to the Yankees rather than the Browns. Throughout baseball history I believe the best teams have sought out and purchased or traded for peak talent, and when those players were past their peak, they were often unloaded onto less competitive teams.

But those players in the past weren't bought at their peak - they were bought when they were young.

And teams don't pay free agents because they expect a peak season, they pay them because they are what are perceived to be the best available option. Does Billy Beane expect Esteban Loaiza to repeat his 2003? I doubt it. Most free agents get the big contracts once they are past their peaks (with some notable exceptions).

"Because what matters in the free agents market is not being better than a "replacement" player, but being better than the players that the top competitors in your division will be fielding."

I disagree. They are just trying to get the best players they think they can get.

A 10% difference in talent can make a 50 to 100% difference in salary because teams often misevaluate what they are getting and don't realize it's only a 10% difference in talent. I don't see why this would make short career high peak guys any more valuable than what metrics like Pennants Added indicate they would be.

A 10% difference in talent can make a 50 to 100% difference in salary because...

of the rarity of the people with 10% more talent. If a league had a 100 people in it and 95 were worth 8 out of 10 and 5 were worth 9 out of 10, those 5 would be paid twice as much as the others, or more. The pyramid of talent in real leagues is not too much different.

If Pie Traynor is underrated, Billy Nash is the all-time Domo in that category. He appears on no ballots now and never hit more than a handful, but dominated 3B in his era to the same extent that Traynor did, and has an almost identical WS profile (peak, prime, and career) if you adjust for season length. I have both of those guys in the 50's on my ranking list. I could see an argument that they both should be much higher, but not an argument that Traynor should rank substantially above Nash.

andrew, there were any number of "very good" 3Bs in those days--Lyons, McGraw, Joyce, Nash, Latham. Not sure he dominated. Not to say Pie was obviously the best year in and year out either....

Andrew:

I have Nash at #22 (I have Traynor at #17), so I agree with you.

there were any number of "very good" 3Bs in those days--Lyons, McGraw, Joyce, Nash, Latham

Not to mention George Davis (!)

Is there a 600 post limit on these threads? I tried re-posting the newly eligibles now that the thread has scrolled and now the thread is acting funny.

The following is from Hardball Times, by John Brittain. See note on Newsblog.

Oh and my point? Well Dobie Moore did as much or more than most of the following, and I agree 100 percent with Brittain's main point. Either you're a great player or you're not.

>What we need to keep in mind, however, is that to be eligible for Cooperstown consideration requires ten full seasons of major league service. In other words, you have ten years to make your Hall of Fame argument. There are a number of position players inducted with short careers: Puckett (12 full major league seasons), Phil Rizzuto (11 full major league seasons), Arky Vaughan (12 full major league seasons), George Kell (12 full major league seasons), Hack Wilson (less than 10 full major league seasons), Ralph Kiner (10 full major league seasons), George Kelly (less than 10 full major league seasons), Ross Youngs (less than 10 full major league seasons), Chick Hafey (seven full major league seasons), Earle Combs (less than 10 full major league seasons), Roy Campanella (less than 10 full major league seasons), Jackie Robinson (less than 10 full major league seasons), Billy Hamilton (11 full major league seasons), Hank Greenberg (less than 10 full major league seasons), Home Run Baker (11 full major league seasons), Bill Terry (11 full major league seasons), Mickey Cochrane (11 full major league seasons) …

You get the idea.

We can debate some of the selections, but it does provide decent evidence that you can establish Hall of Fame credentials with a short career. It’s actually pretty simple when you get right down to it—either you’re a Hall of Fame player or you aren’t. Brooklyn Dodger catcher Roy Campanella had only nine full big league seasons but won three MVP awards and played on five pennant winners (and one World Series champion). It was pretty obvious that Campanella’s career was a pretty good Hall of Fame resume. Conversely you could give Buddy Bell another 10,009 plate appearances or Jesse Orosco another 24 years of major league service and they still aren’t going to be immortals.

So the question before us today is this: In the ten full seasons Albert Belle played in the major leagues, did he craft a Hall of Fame career?,,,,

Frank Chance was a great player.
Frank Chance was a great player for 11 years, beginning when he posted a .638 OWP as a catcher, thru his season of a .678 OWP years later.
Yeah, he missed quite a bit of time during those 11 years.

HOM players by league, so far:

NL: 6 to 10 from 1902-31; 9 to 12 from 1932-42

AL: 9 to 14 from 1902-24; 14 to 17 from 1925-38; 12 to 14 from 1939-41

NegLg: 3 to 4 from 1902-09; 6 to 9 from 1910-22; 12 to 14 from 1923-32; 7 to 11 from 1933-42

HOMers per yr (again, this is by minimum 10 G):

1856-59 - 1
1860-65 - 2 to 3
1866-67 - 4
1868/69/70/71 - 6/8/9/10
1872-78 - 11 to 12
1879-80 - 16 to 17
1880-84 - 20 to 22
1885-89 - 23 to 25
1890-92 - 29 to 31
1893 ---- 26
1894-03 - 20 to 23

1904-07 - 24 to 25
1908-15 - 25 to 27
1916----- 31
1917-22 - 22 to 27
1923/24/25 - 30/34/37
1926-28 - 40
1929-36 - 35 to 38
1937----- 34
1938-40 - 30 to 31
1941/42/43/44 - 28/23/17/12
1945-47 - 16 to 17
1948/49 - 14/11


The only years from 30 to 40 HOMers are 1923-40....

Half the players John listed are mistakes . . . I like Belle, he's basically Kiner. Peak guys will love him, career guys may think there's enough. I've got Dobie #19, which is right near where I'd have Jennings.

Daryn good point on the introduction. I kind of think the inspiration was to correct the mistakes, but the purpose is to identify the greatest players. So I think maybe a combination of the two is what we are trying to do, excellent point. I kind of like 'identify' among the choices you gave.

FWIW, I second Joe's sense that it is best to make a choice. So short an introduction should not be hyphenated/slashed.

In a nutshell -- the free agents market comes close to what I have in mind... the free agent salaries tend to be determined by the richer teams that think they have a shot at the pennant. If a team won 87 games last season and still fell short, they may be willing to bid a lot to get a player who they think will push them over the top. As we know, a 10 percent difference in talent can make a 50 percent or 100 percent difference in salary. Why? Because what matters in the free agents market is not being better than a "replacement" player, but being better than the players that the top competitors in your division will be fielding.

Pennants Added is not designed to model market-power. (We all know that.) Neither is it designed to model the impact a player would have on pennant races in the real baseball business --but for the luck of the draw, so to speak. (That may be controversial.) Rather, the player is hypothetically placed on each of a few thousand teams in mlb history, with uniform* probability, because that models the values of the author. It seems right to place everyone on the 2005 Royals and 2005 Red Sox with equal probability, despite the facts of the baseball business.

*I don't know how or whether the probability distribution departs from uniform as an adjustment for different numbers of leagues, teams, or games. I suppose it is uniform within each league-season and that the departures are "technical" in one of the ways that overused word is used.

FWIW, I second Joe's sense that it is best to make a choice. So short an introduction should not be hyphenated/slashed.

Is the revised intro showing up differently in some quarters? This is how it has been since Dec. 5 (the day I responded to Daryn's post):

What is the Baseball Hall of Merit? A pantheon conceived of by our founder and commissioner Joe Dimino as an alternative to the Baseball Hall of Fame located in Cooperstown. Our purpose is to identify the best players in baseball history and thereby identify the omissions and errors that can be found in the older institution.

TomH #60
Could someone with access to Win Share data please provide the following:

Defensive win shares (grades? rates?) for 1Bmen George Sisler, Jake Beckley, and Frank Chance. Carrer stats greta, but any other info might be helpful. Beckley played many more games at an older age, and might be hurt by a purely career rate stat.

Ron Wargo #62 explained where he posted the letter grades assigned by Bill James. The only letter grade is a career rating, I think. Defensive win shares is calculated for each season, as one component of season win shares, but the Win Shares book provides only career data. For example,

Konetchy 287 win shares, 86:14:0 for batting:fielding:pitching
Beckley, 318 win shares, 88:12:0
(The roundoff error in 14% and 12% is significant, for some purposes huge.)

The book also lists the annual league leaders in defensive win shares, one leader at each of eight fielding positions. (The number of dws is essentially continuous and the leader's total is published to two decimal places: 2001 NL, Todd Helton 3.59). FWIW, here are the leaders in number of league leaderships.

<u>Win Shares Gold Gloves, number at first base</u>
7
Frank McCormick, 1939-46 except 1943
Steve Garvey, 1974-84
6
Connor, Konetchy, Vernon, Cash
5
Pipp, Grimm, Terry, Foxx, Murray
4
Anson, Beckley, Gehrig, Kuhel, Hodges, Power, White, O'Brien, Palmeiro, Grace, Olerud, Martinez

Cash is going for his sixth consecutive "Glove" this year
--and he'll get it, 1961-66.

Gehrig is the AL winner in 1925, when he replaced Wally Pipp after 30 games. Gehrig and Pipp are the two league winners in 1926.

Paul Wendt

Pennants Added is not designed to model market-power. (We all know that.) Neither is it designed to model the impact a player would have on pennant races in the real baseball business --but for the luck of the draw, so to speak. (That may be controversial.) Rather, the player is hypothetically placed on each of a few thousand teams in mlb history, with uniform* probability, because that models the values of the author.

Isn't it then a misnomer to call such a hypothetical construct "pennants added" as if it were measuring something real?

Defensive win shares (grades? rates?) for 1Bmen George Sisler, Jake Beckley, and Frank Chance. Carrer stats greta, but any other info might be helpful. Beckley played many more games at an older age, and might be hurt by a purely career rate stat.

Sisler (per year; estimated career innings: 17,575)

1.1
2.6
1.3
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.4
1.0
0.9
1.4 (two teams)
1.3
1.5
1.4
0.4
1.5

Beckley (per year; estimated career innings: 20,802)

1.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
2.3
2.7
1.5 (two teams)
1.5 (two teams)
1.8
3.0
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.1
0.3

Chance (per year; estimated career innings: 8,655)

1.0
2.1
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
2.1
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.4
1.1
1.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0

Do we need any pages set up for any '67 guys? None of them look like HoMers, but you may disagree.

Ned Garver? Big Klu? Mike Garcia?

Do we have a factor by which those defensive WS figures should be adjusted for WS getting the dead ball infield/outfield split wrong? By WS, Beckley's just as good a 1B as Chance and Sisler (eyeballing it)but we need to increase IF and reduce OF for both Beckley and Chance (and maybe early Sisler) to measure them properly against 30s or 50s players.

John, the links in the "Selected 20th Century Players" don't seem to be working - they're going to blank pages instead of the threads. I think the problem is that the links are pointing to http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/hall_of_famer_happy_jack_chesbro instead of http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/hall_of_famer_happy_jack_chesbro. The Negro League ones are good; I haven't been checking any others lately.

Thanks, Jeff and others, for the WS info.

Devin, any time you have that problem, use that special link at the top of the Hall of Merit Important Links page. All the links were screwed up with the last changeover and there are too many of them to go through and correct. I do try to fix them when I get the chance, though.

OK, I missed that. Not a big deal, I was able to Google the page I wanted anyhow. I just wanted to make sure you knew. Thanks!

Devin:

I updated the links for the "Selected 20th Century Players," so they should be fully functional now. Thanks for pointing it out to me!