User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5517 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, April 03, 20061974 Ballot Discussion1974 (April 17)—elect 2 Players Passing Away in 1973 Thanks, Dan! John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: April 03, 2006 at 12:08 AM | 228 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot Topics2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(169 - 1:15pm, Nov 26) Last: kcgard2 Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Ballot (10 - 1:16pm, Nov 25) Last: lieiam Mock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires (11 - 6:01pm, Nov 24) Last: Ron J Most Meritorious Player: 2023 Discussion (14 - 5:22pm, Nov 16) Last: Bleed the Freak Reranking First Basemen: Results (55 - 11:31pm, Nov 07) Last: Chris Cobb Mock Hall of Fame Discussion Thread: Contemporary Baseball - Managers, Executives and Umpires 2023 (15 - 8:23pm, Oct 30) Last: Srul Itza Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Results (7 - 9:28am, Oct 17) Last: Chris Cobb Ranking the Hall of Merit Pitchers (1893-1923) - Discussion (68 - 1:25pm, Oct 14) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Ballot (13 - 2:22pm, Oct 12) Last: DL from MN Reranking Pitchers 1893-1923: Discussion (39 - 10:42am, Oct 12) Last: Guapo Reranking Shortstops: Results (7 - 8:15am, Sep 30) Last: kcgard2 Reranking First Basemen: Ballot (18 - 10:13am, Sep 11) Last: DL from MN Reranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread (111 - 5:08pm, Sep 01) Last: Chris Cobb Hall of Merit Book Club (15 - 6:04pm, Aug 10) Last: progrockfan Battle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)! (381 - 1:13pm, Jul 14) Last: Chris Cobb Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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.
And George Sisler's gone. A damn shame we didn't elect him while he was still alive.
And he had that HOF thing to console him before the big sleep.
Well, Colavito and Howard, at least, deserve scrutiny just as much as if we didn't have the two obvious candidates. We need to reach conclusions on them vs the rest of the runnersup.
This is when I started collecting baseball cards. I still have most of these guys...
I don't see any of the others getting onto or even particularly close to my ballot. Colavito, Jackson, Howard, and Maris were all very good players: anybody over 200 win shares with a peak that gets him into MVP consideration to boot is clearly a special player, and all four of these players had that. That said, they are all well behind the candidates who are on the borderline.
The only possible exception to this is Elston Howard, depending on how much MLE credit he merits. One year of credit, which is all I am ready to give him so far, will not be enough to get him onto my ballot. I think he probably needs three full seasons credit.
My guess would be Art Fletcher, George Burns, and Pepper Martin.
I'm going to go with Jim Bottomley, Freddie Lindstrom and Travis Jackson. :-)
It took a few years to get his influence off the committee.
Needless to say, my PHoM matches the elect-me spots on my ballot.
1. Mickey Mantle
2. Eddie Mathews
3. Willard Brown
4. George Van Haltren
5. Biz Mackey
6. Dobie Moore
7. Jake Beckley
8. Mickey Welch
9. George Sisler
10. Nellie Fox
11. Hugh Duffy
12. Tommy Leach
13. Edd Roush
14. Tony Mullane
15. Quincy Trouppe
16-20. Minoso, Redding, Rice, Childs, White
21-25. Smith, Streeter, Grimes, Kiner, Sewell
26-30. Johnson, Ryan, Strong, Gleason, Elliott
Prelim
1 Mantle
2 Mathews
3 Bob Johnson
4 Pierce
5 Kiner
6 Gordon
7 Mackey
8 Minoso
9 Bridges
10 Beckley
11 Trouppe
12 Leonard
13 Keller
14 Trucks
15 Elliott
16-20 Klein, Van Haltren, Sewell, W Brown, Cravath
21-25 F Jones, Lazzeri, Mendez, Shocker, L Jackson
26-31 Colavito, Waddell, Sisler, J Ryan, Trout, Roush
1. Mantle
2. Mathews
(chasm)
3. Mendez
4. Gordon
5. Oms
6. Trouppe
7. Pierce
8. Sisler
9. Redding
10. Schang
11. Fox
12. Kiner
13. Minoso
14. Sewell
15. Willis
16-20: Cravath, Leach, Mackey, Joss, Beckley.
21-25: Welch, Doyle, Roush, Jones, Bridges.
I excluded Willard Brown because I suspect that I'm under-rating him. Will a fan of Brown's make a strong case for his inclusion?
Elston Howard (5843, 108, +1 credit) strikes me as similar to Biz Mackey: good O/great D, played for winning teams, over-rated by most historians. Mackey's MLEs indicate more PA for Biz, even with Howard's extra credit. Ellie makes my top 40, just ahead of Ernie Lombardi.
Gordon (on ballot)
Boyer (he will be close)
Sewell (30ish)
Leach (40ish)
Traynor (45ish)
I of course would throw Bob Elliot and Al Rosen into that discussion. Then again I am a peak voter and you are a career voter.
If you're a career voter, you shouldn't prefer Gordon to the other four. The case for electing Gordon, in spite of his short career, is twofold:
-He had a great peak for a second baseman, interrupted by the Second World War (he lost his age 29 and 30 seasons, and it's hard to believe that his awful 1946 wasn't somehow war-related)
-As Bill James has written, he was killed by being an RH power hitter in Old Yankee Stadium. His Cleveland years are a fairer measure of his true talent level.
I agree that Sewell, Leach, and Traynor (by my rank) are fairly interchangeable, but don't you have Boyer much, much higher than those three?
Some kindly fellow (I forget whom) has observed that Emil "Dutch" Leonard (3218, 119) deserves to be part of this list. He makes for an interesting Drysdale-Pappas [high peak vs. high longevity] case study vis-a-vis Bucky Walters.
As for Drysdale himself (3432, 121), he's a better candidate than Pierce, Walters, Leonard, or Bridges.
No, just one spot. What am I missing? What makes Boyer noticeably better than Sewell? 7 points of OPS+? A better glove?
However, there remains the question of our overall evaluation of "glove positions." We now have, by my count, 55 1B/OF HoMers and only 46.5 C/2B/3B/SS HoMers. If we were to make up the difference immediately and if we assumed that we have the glove players in the right order, we elect:
Biz Mackey
Joe Gordon
Dobie Moore
Joe Sewell
Cupid Childs
Nellie Fox
Quincy Trouppe
Tommy Leach (.5)
Roger Bresnahan
Our top remaining "glove candidates" after these inductions would be
Bob Elliott
Larry Doyle
Wally Schang
John McGraw
Pie Traynor
Is it imaginable that we should be rebalancing our evaluations to bring gloves and bats to equal representation? If we placed that bit of additional emphasis on fielding, would some lower ranking glove candidates who were the better fielders rise, players like Rizzuto, Long, Maranville, Lave Cross?
I would endorse rebalancing--as soon as we elect Browning and Kiner and W. Brown, anyway ;-)
I must have a far steeper timeline than Chris Cobb and Daryn. For me, the difference in league quality between the 1960's NL (integrated and drawing from a large pool of athletes) and the 1920's AL (whites-only and already over-represented in the HoM) is drastic. Two identical players would be 3-4 spots apart on my ballot on that factor alone.
Also, I can level off a 2-3 point difference in OPS+, but Boyer's 7-point edge over Sewell is substantively significant - even more so in such a tightly bunched candidate pool.
I certainly agree with the premise. Yet I suggest more nuance. We didn't elect Max Carey for his hitting prowess, and we wouldn't be electing Larry Doyle for his silky-smooth fielding.
Over a full season, a 1 point difference in OPS+ is approximately one single single. A 7 point difference is 7 singles, or a little more than 1 single per month.
Put another way, it's about 1 Batting Win Share per full season. Playing SS is worth more than that, about 2.5 DWS per season when compared to 3B, assuming both were average at their positions (though both were better than that).
Sewell was a better hitter for his position than Boyer was for his.
"Reign of terror".
You'd think he'd committed a venal sin.
He just put placques of some of his old pals into a small building in Cooperstown, NY.....it's the kind of homage that many of us might do for our old pals 30 or 40 years after our great exploits together, if given a similar opportunity.
So he gave a few guys a pass; you'll elect some borderline/questionable types at the HoM before it's all done regardlees of how hard you strive to avoid doing so.
Now then, I don't pretend Frankie's a hero or that he "did the right thing" as Spike Lee would say it, but I think it's understandable.
I find your quest at the HoM an honorable one, but it's an imperfect world with imperfect rules created by imperfect humans and golly gosh, the results will most likely be imperfect as well.
On what evidence, aside from intuition, do you base your conclusions about differences in league quality? How do you determine what proper representation of a given league and given era is within the HoM?
I don't have a timeline, as such. I rank players from different eras against each other first based on their ranking within their eras. Since the Negro Leagues were fully functional in the 1920s, I rank Sewell against all of his NeL contemporaries as well as his ML contemporaries, and I think it reasonable that we elect about the same number of players, total, from the 1920s ML/NeL as from the 1960s ML. My theoretical quota for each decade is 20.5.
Sewell places 30th among the 1920s players in my current rankings.
Boyer places 29th among the 1960s players in my current rankings.
Boyer, if my rankings don't change within each decade, will rank a bit higher, possibly 8 places.
If my system, like the HoM electorate as a group, is underrating infielders, these two are being about equally underrated.
That is probably not a very good calculation. Still 4.2 wins isnt' taht much either I guess.
I rather doubt we would. My guess, and it's just a guess, would be that the people who are attracted to the Hall of Merit project are attracted to it precisely because they aren't the sort of people who think the Frischean cronyism is appropriate. It is admirable to have friends, and to treat them well, but to do it this in this fashion was wrong.
"Does Vet Panel Vote Pals into Shrine?"
'The thought has to be there that cronyism had to exist among some members of the committee who knew him, played with him or against him, or wrote the stories of his day....Perhaps this was evident in the words of some of the members who, in explaining their selection, talked about his powerful arm. For a first baseman, who seldom has to use his arm that much, it is scarcely a recommendation.'
It's not the same thing, jingoist, since the vast majority of the players that we have elected were on the field before we were born. If we have made any errors, they were created by faulty analytical systems or relying too heavily on anecdotes, not because we wanted to get our favorite players in (though I think we have to be on the lookout for it now).
As for borderline/questionable types, if we elect anyone of the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy variety, that will end my participation with the HoM. Fortunately, we haven't come remotely close to that level.
While I think Frisch misused his position at the HOF, he wasn't that different from many other ex-players there. He only had the bigger mouth. With that said, he wasn't Hitler or Stalin, either. His "sin" was of rewarding ex-teammates and friends, which I don't consider a terrible evil.
Great find, Kevin. Burnes nailed it pefectly.
Good find, indeed. So when was it then that so many sportswriters started becoming incredibly annying? Or was Burnes an anomoly in his own time?
I mean what would George Vescey or Buster Olney say about Geo Kelly today?
Frank McCormick and Bill White are a bit better, though I would rank both a bit above GK as well.
Jeff Conine is almost a dead ringer for career stats, but to be fair to GK, I'm not sure if he matches his peak.
So, somewhere between Jeff Conine and Bill White is my best estimate.
There was a call a few weeks ago for pitcher evals. Even taking a week off. Well, the "week off" is here. We've got a couple of weeks to kill here, so now would be the time for stuff like that.
George Kelly led his position in his league in WS once, 1B 1921, 24 WS.
Here's a little chart of comps. All of these guys led the league at their position once in their career and it was as a 1B (except Conine). Listed are the year they led, the WS that year, their raw career WS, their schedule-war-whatever adjusted WS, career OPS, and career PAs. I've ordered them by career PAs
CAREER CAREER CAREEER CAREER
NAME YEAR WS WS DR.C WS OPS PAs
------------------------------------------------------------
George Kelley 1921 24 193 203 110 6565
Joe Kuhel 1945 25 243 238 104 9095
Joe Adcock 1960 25 236 245 123 7304
George H Burns 1918 24 200 217 113 7233
Eric Karros 1995 25 183 198 108 7100
Bill White 1964 26 209 212 117 6680
George McQuin 1947 24 173 177 110 6597
Jeff Conine ---- -- 182 193 110 6590
Mo Vaughn 1998 25 201 213 132 6410
Jim Delhanaty 1911 23 149 155 122 4688
Claude Rossman 1908 23 56 N/A 113 2019
McQuinn, Conine, and Karros look like the winners to me. Somehow Karros really strikes the right chord for my tastes.
That's rather rash -- I like Marquard better than Hughie Jennings, but I didn't take my ball and go home.
I'll just assume it's hyperbole.
No, it's not hyperbole, Daryn. I'm very serious about this.
The bottom line is, if I didn't feel this group was serious about their selections or were not knowledgeable about baseball history, what would be the point?
That's rather rash -- I like Marquard better than Hughie Jennings, but I didn't take my ball and go home.
Because you can see a valid reason (I assume) for electing Jennings based on peak, I would assume. In fact, I felt all of the guys that are now HoMers that I didn't have on my ballot had valid reasons for induction, either based on peak, prime, or career.
But the Kelly/Marquard/Haines/Hafey/McCarthy group was discarded quickly, as they should have been.
As for Marquard over Jennings, I respectfully don't get that, Daryn.
My gut says you're right, rawagman.
The bottom line is that the HoM's election process has integrity. Therefore, if any one of us happens to disagree with one of the HoM's selections, more of the electorate (and, I expect, more of the careful observers) will disagree with that one of us who says, "This or that guy was a bad mistake" than will agree with him. The only case where this might not be true is where the information about a player has changed since he was elected.
Cue Minnesota sarcasm now.
N.o. w.a.y. unless you mean all 5 combined. Now two of them could carry Grant's or Jenning's jockstrap.
The HoM may (or may not) have made mistakes, but these 5? Har har.
Whenever I am challenged on my dislike of Jennings as a peak only candidate I look back at his career stats, adjust them for era, and see that he is not too far off Joe Gordon, for example. It makes me realize that when he got as high as ~34 on my ballot, I wasn't just overcompensating to please the crowd, he really deserved that. Marquard never ranked that high for me -- topping out in the 60s.
So I guess I'm the one guilty of hyperbole.
I supported Grant, but it is possible that yest is right and that Grant's actual performance was not worthy of the HoM. It is the risk we always take when reconstructing the careers of candidates like Pearce, Pike, Grant and Rube Foster.
The Hall of Fame process has occasionally had integrity but not always. And the Veterans Committee, especially during the '70s under Frisch's leadership, is the prime culprit for the slips in integrity. Until and unless we start trading votes (ie. you help me elect my personal favorite guy this year and I'll help you elect your guy next year) or honoring buddies and pals (or in our case, favorite players) over more deserving candidates, our mistakes will be nowhere near as numerous or egregious as those of the other Hall. There are those among us who probably harbor an excessive amount of hatred and resentment towards Frisch. Admittedly, his improper behavior is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things as John Murphy notes. But that's a very different defense than the one that claims there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.
I supported Grant, but it is possible that yest is right and that Grant's actual performance was not worthy of the HoM. It is the risk we always take when reconstructing the careers of candidates like Pearce, Pike, Grant and Rube Foster.
Good point, Daryn, but you would agree that we have to go with what we know at the time. If statistical evidence is unearthed that suggests that indeed those players were mistakes, that wouldn't mean our analytical process was faulty at the time of their inductions.
Chris, your post #41 was perfect.
thus the reason why I vote despite the big mistakes (Grant, Sutton, Richordson)
and to get Sisler and Welch in the HoM
But then again Frank Grant is now also a HoF mistake
BTW my complaints against Grant are stated on the old Negroe Leauge thread from before the move
What's your evidence for this, yest?
Mantle was a good major league player in half a season at the age of 19. At the age of 20, he led the league in OPS+.
Mathews was a good major league player at the age of 20. At the age of 21, he led the league in OPS+.
What does the all-time list look like of the greatest players by established value through the age of 21? I've got to run off to a class now, so I don't have time to look, but I know some of the names that would appear: Foxx, Cobb, maybe Cepeda?
Let's keep it to position players - pitchers raise a whole raft of other concerns.
Per the SBE (latest version),
Kelly created 983 runs, 5.49 R/G in a 5.17 league. His park-adjusted figures: +83 RCAA, +1 RCAP, .541 OWP.
He's an average first baseman in a nutshell.
Karros created 923 runs, 4.98 R/G in a 5.10 league. His park adjusted figures: +47 RCAA, -85 RCAP, .518 OWP.
So if anything, Kelly appears to get the better of Eric the Not Red.
Bill White created 959 runs, 5.75 R/G in a 4.49 league. His park adjusted figures: RCAA +161, RCAP +93, .579 OWP.
Clearly, he's not in Bill White's class as a hitter.
George McQuinn looks like Karros in less time, and Conine looks just like Karros and McQuinn. One more
George Burns created 1032 runs, 5.58 R/G in a 4.82 league. His park adjusted figures: 121 RCAA, 23 RCAP, .557 OWP.
Kelly appears in this review to be more like George H. Burns than any other player, though he's not as good a hitter and didn't play as many games as Burns.
Here's one final way to look at Kelly. In my own personal rankings, he's very closely ranked with Lu Blue, Kent Hrbek, Fred Merkle, Boomer Scott, Tino, and Lee May. I've not looked at the RC for any of them very closely, so let's see how they line up.
NAME DR.C WS RC RC/G LgRC/G RCAA RCAP OWP
-------------------------------------------------
Kelly 203 983 5.49 5.17 83 1 .541
Blue 208 1044 6.08 5.45 120 -24 .555
Hrbek 238 1090 6.24 4.56 262 122 .618
Merkle 206 776 4.62 4.21 83 34 .556
Scott 216 1012 4.66 4.19 46 -77 .515
May 226 1023 4.68 4.35 86 -39 .534
Tino 222 1136 5.59 5.12 112 -103 .543
Hmmmmmmm. Merkle's kind of like Burns, only a little better, but not as good as Hrbek or White. The lesser hitters, however are not all that close to Kelly. Blue's the closest of the below average RCAA guys, and he's about as far behind Kelly as Burns is better. That's the best I can do for the moment: Kelly's somewhere above Lu Blue, but he's not quite so good as Burns.
You could look here.
Do you really think he had malicious intent? Or did he instead think to himself: "I played on a 100 great teams in my caree between StL and NY, and we wouldn't have all won so many pennants without these guys, they deserve their due."
That would be flawed thinking, no doubt, but is it implausible that he felt that way? Or is it more plausible that he thought "Muahahahahahahah! The keys to the Hall of Fame are in my hands, and I'll induct every last one of my friends until the last left pinch hitter off the bench has a plaque! Muahahahahahahahahaha!!!"
And if you look under the top OPS+es off all time through age 21, you'll find all the guys you'd figure on seeing plus Fred Carroll.
Fred Carroll!!!???!!!!
Of the few years we have stats for him while they would have been great stats in the majors in the minor league there not as impresive I think its simaler to his namesake Dunlap(who I think was a bit better) in the UA
But he may be worth a relook. As a catcher, his career OPS+ was 135 in 8 years, that's including his final injury-plagued years OPS+ of 84. 4 years above 145. Also stats out as a decent defensive catcher.
All taken from Bill James, it is also claimed that Carroll didn't like playing in the majors, as he was a Californian, and hated the East. He played minor league ball in the West (dominated) for four more years. Then he retired and died at the age of 40. Can any credit be gleaned from that?
As is, he is in my top 15 of eligible catchers. But that could be 15th place, or 4th place.
If anyone knows a source, I'd love to find out more about him.
Did you actually say something objectionable there, yest, or did the cybernanny short circuit? :-)
the word was contemporary or some variation of it
As to Frisch, yes, I'm saying he had malicious intent. In fact, the way you described, that's malicious intent. It was an intent to enshrine certain guys without stopping to think about whether there were better players out there. Or more likely, he knew there were better players out there and didn't care. But even if he didn't realize there were better players out there, it still qualifies as malicious intent. He wanted to enshrine certain guys no matter what, and he thumbed his nose at the mission of his own committee and at Cooperstown to do it.
LOL
I just saw what you actually typed without the cybernanny behind the scenes. Let's just say that you might get a slap from your mother, wife, or sister if they saw it posted. :-D
############
BP's WARP-1 ratings agree with this. 66.7 to 66.5. They have comparable playing time, though Kelly is spread out over more seasons (more tryouts when young). White was the better hitter (.284 to .276) but BP sees Kelly as the better glove (more FRAA) at a time when the glovework was more important (more FRAR).
The two offset each other, leaving the two as nearly twins (at least until one examines league quality, which is another negative for Kelly).
I did. Much better defense. Not nearly the hitter, though.
Highlights
In 1957, he was MiL PoY. The next year as a 25 year old rookie he batted clean up in game 2 of the World Series, then fifth in game 3, then lead-off in game 4. That was the game where he lost a couple balls in the sun, however, and he became known, unfairly it says, as a weak fielder. He played 120 games in 1959 and ended up in KC.
His OPS+ line: 117/138-36-27-25-14-10 (plus 117-08-07 in 100 game seasons but < BA title eligible). Not bad but not even HoVG, really.
But in 1962 he led the league with 162 games and as a result (well,also as a result of tht 138 OPS+) was able to compile 25 HR-117 RBI and 185 hits, and a .308/.412/.495 with 117 BB. Mantle took the MVP.
Player-G-PA-HR-RBI-BA/OB/SA-OPS+
Mantle 123-499-30-89-.321/.486/.605-198
Siebern 162-710-25-117-.308/.412/.495-138
Sure, 198 vs. 138 is a big advantage but so is 710 PAs vs. 499. And just for the record, the next best offensive year was probably the Rock, though Killebrew led the AL in HR and RBI.
Player-G-PA-HR-RBI-BA/OB/SA-OPS+
Mantle 123-499-30-89-.321/.486/.605-198
Siebern 162-710-25-117-.308/.412/.495-138
Colavito 161-697-37-112-.273/.371/.514-132
Killebrew 155-658-48-126-.243/.366/.545-137
One can't help but wonder if Siebern had still been with the Yankees if the MVP might have been his. Of course when I say the 138 was a fluke, one also has to note the 136 way back in 1958 but in just 134 games. And the fact that he was a 25 year old rookie says something, too. But throw a 136-08-25-27-38-10-14-17-07 career into pinstripes allthe way and somehow it looks different. For that matter, figure he sticks with the Yankees in 1957 after 54 games in 1956... Not quite Moose Skowron but there's a lot more here than Joe Pepitone.
Are you taking NA and (if applicable) pre-NA into account? Clapp's a guy I've struggled with, because a little bit of pre-MLB credit would really help him.
Chris Cobb, do you have any NA shares for him? Or is there any chance you could work some up for him 1872-1875? I'd love to be able to rank him more precisely than I can now.
I think its a bit of a fluke that a 138 OPS+ (bb-ref says 141) would contend for an MVP at a hitter position like 1B. The BBWAA was usually looking for a reason not to vote for Mantle, and despite the fact that Mickey missed a full month, they couldn't come up with another guy to vote for. Almost any other year and that type of season doesn't enter the MVP discussion.
Plus 1962 was the year in KC that the fences were moved in. The RF porch in Yankee Stadium was inviting as well -- but his 1959-68 splits show he liked Fenway more than Yankee Stadium so perhaps he was an opposite field hitter.
Siebern will always be remembered as the guy who was traded for Maris. The Yankees had several options at 1B-LF, but no one with the arm to replace the aging Hank Bauer in RF.
A guy I often confused with Siebern is Sievers. I like him quite a bit better.
2) Yes, Siebern being an MVP candidate at 138 or 141 is the second sense in which his 1962 was a fluke. In 1961, you had Mantle, Maris, Colavito and Cash all above 180,.
Though of course expansion is assumed to have been a big contributor to those 1961 OPS's. OTOH if expansion was that big of a deal, how likely is it that the effect would be completely washed out of the system in '62?
AL - Top 5 OPS+
---------------
1958:188-181-178-159-147
1959:152-150-142-137-137
1960:164-161-151-145-142
1961:206-201-184-167-161
1962:196-141-138-135-132
1963:151-148-147-144-141
1964:177-176-163-153-150
1965:156-148-143-142-140
There are a few other weak years in there as well, both before and after the expansion, but I think 1962 was the weakest especially when you consider that Mantle missed a whole month. A balanced league that is hard to dominate is a plus on one hand, but I think this might also be a measure of how little star power the AL had in this time period. Its not until the Frank Robinson trade that the gap starts to close.
Player A 150-41-35-28-45-34-38-52/median 139.5
Player B 122-54-17-89-68-34-74-12/median 144
Player A career 130
Player B career 128
Yes, or should I say Yaz, of course this is biased as hell, considering player B had another 14 seasons of 100 games or more (11 of them >110) while Player A had 3 more (all >100 <110 after a devastating injury).
But for 7 years Tony Oliva was pretty comparable to Yaz, though more consistent, not the highs or lows. But of course if Tony is not quite the peak/prime player that Yaz was, and is light years behind for career, then even this peak/prime voter can see the difference.
But for 7 years Tony O was one helluva hitter. That's all.
1958:165-156-153-146-136
1959:181-167-155-155-153
1960:169-165-160-155-145
1961:164-161-160-157-153
1962:174-170-166-148-146
1963:179-175-165-161-147
1964:172-164-162-161-159
1965:185-160-157-154-151
6. Waddell (6)
11. Pierce (12)
14. Mullane (15)
19. Mays (50)
23. Shocker (34)
27. Walters (not top 50)
33. Welch (not top 50)
38. Joss (37)
41. Luque (not top 50)
42. Bridges (25)
48. Willis (46)
50. Cicotte (47)
Mays, Shocker, Walters, and Welch get gains, only real loser is Bridges. Urban Shocker? Yeah, don't know about that one but I place 'em where I see 'em. Walters still not enough since I'm not pure peak. Smiling Mickey doesn't have too much to be happy about though at least he now makes my Honorable Mention.
Yes - I am including NA. Nothing pre-1972. Of course, if you can include his earlier playing, I think Carroll's post majors career needs looking into. The minors then were not like the minors now and often said next to, if not absolutely, nothing about a player's ability to play where it mattered. The story goes that he hated playing in the bigs, as he hated the East Coast and always wanted to stay in California. He also continually played winter ball out west while a big leaguer. In 1889, he was possibly the best player in the NL. Led the league in OPS+ while splitting time between playing catcher (moderately good defence that year) and LF/CF (no question but he wasn't so great out there.
Then, at age 26, struggling through a hand injury (we know how hand injuries hurt hitters today) he was moved to the outfield, learned to field at least to league average level, but hit poorly, and went back west for 5 years of California ball. Bill James has some (impressive) stats for him there. I have no clue how to grade that league though, nor exactly how much credit I can give him for it.
It seems to me that if those four years can even earn him 2 years of ML credit, added to 7 of 8 excellent years in the bigs, I have a player that I have to look seriously at ranking highly.
Man, than you've created quite a Clapp Trapp! He'll won't even get credit for his big league seasons...
; )
His first team in 1872 was the Middletown (CT) Mansfields with a 21-year old Jim O'Rourke making also making his NA debut. Middletown didn't play a full schedule, so would have to check Nemec to see if they folded or were a mid-season replacement or something else.
Due to O'Rourke's later notoriety, perhaps this Middletown team has been studied. Anyone know where these guys came from? Paul Wendt?
Quoted from the NA season writeup for 1972 that the commish and I prepared years ago. (Shameless plug ;-) See the full version of the master page if you want to find the links and check these out (1871-6). Nemec was a major source for the season writeup, though the schedule analyses and all-star team selections were all ours.
Won't help with the pre-NA days though.
Mantle.....At the age of 20, he led the league in OPS+.
Mathews.... At the age of 21, he led the league in OPS+.
What does the all-time list look like of the greatest players by established value through age 21?
----
This is from a SABR published article. I can send a word doc if anyone wants the whole thing:
General Metric: Win Shares
Specific Metric: "established value" (EV); a weighted average of WS over the most recent 4 years: 40% of the current year, 30% the previous year, 20% of the year before that, and 10% in ‘year minus three’. But many players, did not play in the majors prior to age 20 or 21. A minimum number of WS were assigned to any early missing player-seasons, assuming that if the major league club had called up the player, he would have performed at a certain level. The minimum assigned WS are as follows: 6 at age 18, and 10 at age 19.
Table --- Win Shares By Age For Top Young Stars
......... Age 192021
Aaron, H.. .... 1329
Cobb, T.... 164136
Foxx, J....... 62234
Hornsby, R ...2838
Kaline, A.... 73126
Magee, S.. 112831
Mantle, M.. 133226
Ott, M....... 203128
Rodriguez,A 23422
Ruth, B..........2337
Vaughan, A....2134
Williams, T.....3230
Notes: 10% was added to the WS earned by players in the war-shortened 1918 season (Ruth and Hornsby).
Example: Rogers Hornsby. He did not play MLB at age 18, and earned no WS for his few games at age 19. He is assigned a baseline of 6 and 10 WS respectively for those years.
At age 21, Hornsby was the St. Louis Cardinals full-time shortstop, and led the league in slugging, total bases, OPS, and triples. He earned 37 WS. The year before he had 28.
His EV(21) = .4*37 + .3*28 + .2*10 + .1*6 = 25.8.
Highest EV(21) values are
Cobb 30.5
Hornsby 25.8
Ott 25.0
Ruth 24.3
Williams 24.2
Magee 23.6
The "ages" here are the traditional MLB ages (born before July 1 of season in question). Cobb was actually an 'old' 21. Mel Ott was born in March. He is the best 'younger half of 21' player in this table.
Cobb also topped the list as ages 20, 22, 23, and 24. Mantle wins at 25, Ruth at 26, with the highest EV ever, 49.5.
A-Rod and Pujols have put up the best early-career numbers in the past 40 years.
I head up I-95 a fair amount. One of my best friends is from Wilmington, DE (not NC) and lives in Newark, DE (not NJ). Whenever I pass the Elkton exit, I always, without fail think for at least a second, sometimes many more about Frankie Frisch crashing his car there.
I feel really bad about him dying, especially accidentally. But I feel really glad that he couldn't do any more to destroy the Hall of Fame, talk about mixed emotions! They really aren't mixed, of course I feel much more bad about the dying part. Does the shred of the other part make me a bad person?
My Mom is from Marshallton (near wilmington) and my aunt used to live in Newark, though she how lives closer to wilmington. Odd, how both joe and I know central, Pa. and Delaware.
You ain't kidding - it would be the equivalent, and I'm not exaggerating, of Derek Jeter heading up the committee in 2040 or so and putting Tino Martinez in. And Jason Giambi (Bottomley) and Chuck Knoblauch (Lindstrom). And Daryl Strawberry (Youngs). And Paul O'Neill (Hafey). And Kenny Rogers (Haines). And David Wells (Marquard).
It's really that ridiculous. There is very little exaggeration there. It's mind-blowing.
Both also have a decent peak. Tino 1997 was a great, but overrated season, much like Kelly 1924.
Both had a rep for being a great glove.
AVG/OBP/SLG vs. League
Kelly +.007/-.006/+.045
Martinez +.002/+.005/+.045
Tino has extended his career a bit, but given the modern salaries, I'm pretty sure with modern conditioning and salary motivation, Kelly could have hung on too.
Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose, Tino was the better player, by a smidge. But really, they are dead-ringers on many levels.
***************
Clapp and Carroll, two of my all-time favorites. I had them pretty high on the consideration set way back when. I'm almost positive I've voted for Clapp at least once. If you like Addie Joss, or Sandy Koufax, or other short career guys, Carroll certainly deserves a look-see. Clapp had a slightly longer, less high-peak career, but was also a helluva player. Both easily in the Hall of Very Good.
Pretty wild both died within 6 weeks of each other . . . over 101 years ago!
His first team in 1872 was the Middletown (CT) Mansfields with a 21-year old Jim O'Rourke making also making his NA debut. Middletown didn't play a full schedule, so would have to check Nemec to see if they folded or were a mid-season replacement or something else.
Due to O'Rourke's later notoriety, perhaps this Middletown team has been studied. Anyone know where these guys came from? Paul Wendt?
The Mansfield club has been studied because it's Middletown, Connecticut, in the big league!
David Arcidiacono, Middletown Mansfields
I believe that's Murnane on the left, Clapp on the right, on the cover.
Bookfinder.com lists one at $14.95, others ~$45, but you might still get one for $15 postpaid, from the author, via that web article.
<u>19 20 21 ......... Age</u>
-- 13 29 Aaron, H.. ....
16 41 36 Cobb, T....
-6 22 34 Foxx, J.......
-- 28 38 Hornsby, R ...
-7 31 26 Kaline, A....
11 28 31 Magee, S..
13 32 26 Mantle, M..
20 31 28 Ott, M.......
-2 34 22 Rodriguez,A
-- 23 37 Ruth, B..........
-- 21 34 Vaughan, A....
-- 32 30 Williams, T.....
The PCL was established in 1903. It was an "outlaw" league that put some "inlaws" out of business. You need to look for California (State?) League or (Pacific?) Northwest League. Or write to Carlos Bauer.
Carlos Bauer, minor league researcher and author/compiler of one PCL encyclopedia
Carlos Bauer on PCL history, 1-3
Parts 1-3 of 100(?) cover the establishment and first season of the PCL.
Perhaps the PCL or MiLB.com recently purchased pclbaseball.com, because that domain (where I read several of Bauer's articles) simply points to PCL junk(?) at MiLB.com
There is no entry for "Clapp" in the index.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main