Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, July 17, 2006

1981 Ballot

Prominent new candidates: Bob Gibson, Harmon Killebrew, Vada Pinson, Jim Perry, Claude Osteen, and Lindy McDaniel.

Top-ten returnees: José Méndez, Joe Sewell, Ralph Kiner, Minnie Minoso, Jake Beckley, Hugh Duffy, and Rube Waddell.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:46 AM | 172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:02 PM (#2102089)
I use Win Shares as the base for my ranking system, though I am now using a modified version (any negative values are converted into zeroes) of BRAR, FRAR and PRAR for the NA.

I am integrating the conclusions made by DERA with Win Shares for all pitchers.

I do place (to a certain degree) domination at one's position during the player's era. That doesn't mean that domination-by-default will necessarily help you though (Gil Hodges may have been the best first baseman of his era, but he wont make my ballot).

1) Bob Gibson-P (n/e): Gibson or Killebrew? I'll go with Bob. I don't think he's inner-circle, but he's closer to that than the borderline. Besides, Bob was cool as a commercial pitchman during the seventies. Best ML pitcher for 1968. Best NL pitcher for 1970.

2) Harmon Killebrew-1B/3B/LF/DH (n/e): How can the model for the MLB logo not be in the HoM? :-) For a guy with a low BA, he managed to score a ton of runs. I wonder how that happened? ;-) Best AL first baseman for 1965. Best AL third baseman for 1966. Best ML first baseman for 1967.

3) Roger Bresnahan-C/CF (4): Greatest catcher of the Deadball Era not named Santop. The poor man's Buck Ewing (Johnny Kling was the poor man's Charlie Bennett) is still good enough to be here on my ballot. Slightly better than Noisy behind the plate, but the Duke played longer and at other positions. Best major league catcher for 1905, 1906 and 1908. Best major league centerfielder for 1903.

4) Cupid Childs-2B (5): Best second baseman of the '90s. Too short of a career to knock out McPhee for tops for the 19th century, but not that far behind. Considering the average second basemen of his era, he was fairly durable. Best major league second baseman for 1890, (almost in 1891), 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1897.          

The most dominating backlogger for his position 99.9% of the time for each election.

5) Hugh Duffy-CF/LF/RF (6): "Only" the third best centerfielder of the '90s, but that position was very strong for that decade. Best major league right fielder for 1890 and 1891. Best major league centerfielder for 1892, 1893 and 1894.

6) Bob Elliott-3B/RF (7): Why Kell, but not Elliott? He could hit, field, and didn't have a short career. Best ML third baseman for 1943, 1944, 1947, 1948, and close in 1950.Best NL third baseman for 1949 and 1950.

7) Pie Traynor-3B (8): Best white third baseman of his time (though J. Wilson and Beckwith was better). Best major league third baseman for 1923 (Beckwith was better), 1925, 1927, 1929 (Beckwith was better) and 1932.

8) Alejandro Oms-CF (9): Thanks to Chris' work, another gem has been uncovered. He should gather more and more support over the next few "years."

9) Minnie Minoso-LF/3B (10): Probably the best ML left fielder of the fifties, though only because Teddy Ballgame was in Korea and Stan the Man played considerably at other positions. Best ML left fielder for 1956 and 1959. Best AL of 1953.

10) Burleigh Grimes-P (11): Pitched for a long time behind crappy teams and defenses. Not a bad peak, too Best NL pitcher for 1921 and 1929.
   2. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:03 PM (#2102090)
11) Mickey Welch-P (12): Yeah, pitching was different back then, but he still distinguished himself regardless. Best major league pitcher for 1885.

12) Bucky Walters-P (13): The guy had a nice peak, fairly long career, and could hit. Best ML pitcher of 1939 (extremely close in 1940). Best NL pitcher of 1940 and 1944.

13) Vic Willis-P (14): Willis pitched a ton of innings at an above-average rate for a long enough time for his era. Best major league pitcher for 1899. Best NL pitcher for 1901.

14) Dobie Moore-SS (15): Terrific peak; wished he had a little more career. I give him credit for his pre-NeL seasons. Probably would have been the best shortstop in the majors in 1919, 1921, 1922, and 1924.

15) Billy Nash-3B (n/e): Back on the ballot after a week's absense. Possibly the best defensive third baseman of the 19th century (and not too bad offensively). Great arm and a master of handling bunts. Captain for the Beaneaters for two seasons (1891-1892) and the highest paid player on the team after the Players' League folded. He was never the same after a beaning in 1896 (he developed vertigo).  Best ML third baseman for 1888, 1892, and 1893. Best NL third baseman for 1887 and 1889. Best PL third baseman for 1890.         

Kiner, Redding, Mendez, Sewell, Waddell, and Beckley all exist in my top-35, but they just fall short.
   3. TomH Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:15 PM (#2102098)
easy, non-controversial year to vote early, so I think I will... vote early!

1981 Ballot
Review of Hanrahan’s value system: career value with a fairly high replacement level (slightly below average). Something like WARP3 minus 2.5 wins per full year, or WS minus 11 per year adjusted for league quality, or RCAP adjusted for defense and timeline. No real credit for “peak”. Some subjective estimating of ability across time and place. I rank the long primes (or value above average) higher than most of us.

(x) indicates where I voted for them last ballot
[y] indicates their consensus rank from last ballot

1- Bob Gibson
One of the best dozen pitchers of all time.
2- Harmon Killebrew
A HoM without him would be a Killer.
3- Bucky Walters (4) [30]
Faced strong opponents, pitched real well, hit well too.
4- Joe Sewell (5) [5]
Great fielder, very good bat for a shortstop.
5- Jake Beckley (6) [8]
Very fine career, quite understated by Win Shares.
6- John McGraw (7) [36]
Great, GREAT RCAP. The HoM is short of 3Bmen and especially 1890s infielders. Also a brilliant tactician.
7- Ken Boyer (8) [17]
Good stick, fine glove, durable, very high-quality league, sweet prime, fine rep as a clubhouse leader. Could’ve used another productive year or two. League strength puts him above Elliot.
8- Billy Pierce (10) [11]
Similar to Bucky Walters, but no spiked peak. Some bonus value out of the bullpen.
9- Cupid Childs (13) [16]
Being an 1890s infielder, short career not held much against him. Consistently the best at his position, which not many on this ballot can say.
10- George Van Haltren (9) [18]
Quite a career; almost 400 WS when translated to a full schedule.
11- Bob Johnson (11) [23]
Very good long prime. Underrated by ultra-peak-ists and ultra-career-ists.
12- Minnie Minoso (12) [7]
Very similar to Bob Johnson.
13- Frank Chance (14) [58]
I continue to howl at the moon.
14- Ralph Kiner (15) [6]
Power prime.
15- Charlie Keller (off) [19]
Monster bat that Pete Browning’s supporters ought to fall in love with!

Top 10 disclosures: J Mendez #20, Waddell #21, Duffy around #50.

I’d feel better about Mendez if the 1952 Courier poll had ranked him higher. I completely understand those peaksters who have Mendez or Dobie Moore at #1.

Hugh Duffy was not a great hitter, nor even a very good one. He had one great year, and a bunch of decent ones. He will never make my ballot unless we find consensus that his defense was fabulous.
   4. yest Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:29 PM (#2102103)
1981 ballot
Gibson and Killerbrew make my PHOM this year

1. Bob Gibson love the strikeouts (makes my personal HoM this year)
2. Joe Sewell love the strikeouts (made my personal HoM in 1939)
3. Pie Traynor most 3B putouts 7 times (made my personal HoM in 1942)
4. Mickey Welch please see his thread (made my personal HoM all the way back in 1898)
5. Nellie Fox led his league in putouts a record 10 years in a row (made my personal HoM in 1971)
6. Chuck Klein 4 hr titles 1 triple crown (made my personal HoM in 1951)
7. Sam Rice if he got 13 more hits would he make the HoM? (made my personal HoM in 1940)
8. Pete Browning 13th in career batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1906)
9. Jake Beckley 30th in hits (made my personal HoM in 1915)
10. Rube Waddell most Ks/9IP 7 times in a row tying with Vance for the record led in it 1 more time (made my personal HoM in 1917)
11. Hack Wilson 4 hr titles RBI season record (made my personal HoM in 1940)
12. Ralph Kiner 7 HR titles (made my personal HoM in 1961)
13. Harmon Killerbrew hate the BA good thing he didn’t play in the dead ball era or else he wouldn’t make my top 1000 (makes my personal HoM this year)
14. Hugh Duffy had 100 runs or RBIs every full year he played (made my personal HoM in 1908)
15. Addie Joss 2nd in era (made my personal HoM in 1918)
16. George Kell very good hitter and fielder at important and under elected position (made my personal HoM in 1963)
17. Harvey Kuenn led AL shortsops in putouts twice assists once (made my personal HoM in 1972)
18. Heinie Manush 330 batting avg. (made my personal HoM in 1957)
19. Edd Roush 323 batting avg (made my personal HoM in 1937)
20.Hilton Smith see his thread (made my personal HoM in 1964)
21. Ray Schalk the best catcher ever (made my personal HoM in 1938)
22. George Van Haltren 31st in runs (made my personal HoM in 1925)
23. Jimmy Ryan 30th in runs (made my personal HoM in 1926)
24. Luis Aparicio being a better offensive player then Rabbit puts him here (made my personal HoM in 1979)
25. Rabbit Maranville best shortstop before Ozzie (made my personal HoM in 1939)
26. Jake Daubert 29th in triples (made my personal HoM in 1930)
27. Bobby Veach most doubles twice (made my personal HoM in 1931)
28. Bill Mazeroski probably saved on average around 90 runs a year
29. Gavvy Cravath most active HRs 1918, 1919 and 1920 (made my personal HoM in 1928)
30. Roy Thomas most times on base 6 times
31. Kiki Cuyler 2299 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
32. Lloyd Waner had the most OF putouts 4 times, finished 2nd once and finished 3rd twice (made my personal HoM in 1968)
33. Ginger Beaumont 1902 batting title (made my personal HoM in 1932)
34. John McGraw 3rd in on base percentage (made my personal HoM in 1930)
35. Jim Bottomley 2313 hits (made my personal HoM in 1968)
36. Levi Meyerle best rate season ever (made my personal HoM in 1975)
37. George J. Burns most walks 5 times (made my personal HoM in 1932)
38. Orlando Cepada 297 batting avg 379 HRs

explanation for players not on my ballot
Dick Redding, Dobie Moore and Jose Mendez barring new evidence not one will make my ballot (the HoF vote has absolutely no bearing on my vote )
Minnie Minoso would have been on my ballot with the addition of a few good seasons which his Negroe League stats seem to show he lacked
   5. Rusty Priske Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:52 PM (#2102116)
PHoM: Harmon Killebrew & Bob Gibson

1. Harmon Killebrew (new)

The biggest gap on the ballot is between 1 & 2...again.

2-6 are all pretty close. I could easily shuffle them.

2. Jake Beckley (2,3,3)
3. George Van Haltren (5,2,2)

These are the two of the three most underrated candidates that we have had in the history of this project, in my opinion. At leat Beckley might get in eventually. GVH never will.

4. Bob Gibson (new)

Am I underrating pitchers? Maybe. He still deserves to (and will) get in.

5. Vada Pinson (new)

The new guy he ISN'T getting the big press.

6. Mickey Welch (3,4,4)

See Beckley & GVH.

7. Nellie Fox (7,5,8)

8. Dobie Moore (10,7,5)

9. Tommy Leach (13,10,9)

10. Hugh Duffy (8,8,7)

11. Norm Cash (6,x,x)

12. Quincy Trouppe (11,13,11)

13. Orlando Cepeda (9,x,x)

14. Edd Roush (12,9,10)

15. Minnie Minoso (15,12,12)

16-20. Rice, Sewell, Childs, Kiner, Ryan
21-25. Boyer, White, Johnson, Pierce, Redding
26-30. Mullane, Streeter, F.Howard, Strong, Willis
   6. Daryn Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:41 PM (#2102131)
I have instituted a Grade ranking of my candidates. As and Bs would make my version of a Smaller Hall. B minuses and C plusses are borderline. Cs and below, including the 5 on my ballot, are not worthy.

Pinson not really close for me, but in the top 60.

I have Sewell, Minoso and Duffy at 20, 22 and 30.

1. Harmon Killebrew (A) – killer home run totals – probably better than Palmeiro, definitely better than Beckley.

2. Mickey Welch (A-) – 300 wins, lots of grey ink. RSI data shows those wins are real. Compares fairly well to Keefe. I like his dominating record against HoMers.

3. Juan Marichal (A-) – could have been higher than Welch; easy choice for me either way.

4. Burleigh Grimes (B+) – as a career voter, I have difficulty seeing the vast difference others see between Rixey and Faber (both now elected) and Grimes.

5. Jake Beckley (B+) -- ~3000 hits but no peak at all. Crawford (HOMer) and Wheat (HOMer) are two of his three most similars. 3200+ hits adjusted to 162 games. After voting for him at the very top of my ballot for 50 years, I have come to realize that his peakless career is rarer than I thought and also less deserving.

6. Dick Redding (B) – probably the 6th best blackball pitcher of all-time (behind, at least, Williams and Paige and likely behind the Fosters and Brown), and that is good enough for me.

7. Nellie Fox (B) -- I like the great defense, the 12 all star appearances, the MVP and the 2600 hits from a fielding position.

8. Ralph Kiner (B-)– He is my highest peak/prime only candidate. I cannot ignore his having more home runs than anyone else in his league 4 times (oh yeah, and tying for the lead 3 more times) and a 149 career OPS+.

9. Rube Waddell (B-) -- I like the three times ERA+ lead, the career 134 ERA+, the .574 winning percentage, the 46 black ink points, and, of course, all those strikeouts (plus the 1905 Triple Crown).

10. Addie Joss (C+) – I don’t like short careers much, but I cannot ignore the best WHIP of all-time, the second best all-time ERA, the 12th best ERA+ and the nice winning percentage.

11. Orlando Cepeda (C) – He is a very difficult choice for me because he isn’t significantly better than Howard, Colavito and Cash, but the slight difference means more than 30 spaces on this ballot.

12. Jose Mendez (C) – His hitting makes a difference for me. Looks like he was the 7th best blackball pitcher. He is barely better than (this is an unordered list) Bunning, Pierce, Harder, Warneke, Smith, Bridges, Gomez, Hoyt, Dean, Luque, Pennock, Trucks, Matthews, Quinn, McCormick, Cicotte, Willis, Walters, Bender, Mays, Cooper, Shocker, Mullane (highest WS of any non-candidate by far), Byrd and Mullin.

13. Roger Bresnahan (C) – Great OBP, arguably the best catcher in baseball for a six year period. Counting stats, like all catchers of this time and earlier, are really poor. I like him better than Schang because he compared better to his contemporaries, if you count him as a catcher.

14. George Van Haltren (C) – 40 wins, 2500 hits, never dominated. Pretty good adjusted win shares.

15. Jimmy Ryan ( C) – 2500 hits, good speed, lots of runs. Hurt by timelining. I used to have Duffy close to Ryan and GVH and then decided he was not as worthy. Still, Duffy is only 15 spots back.
   7. karlmagnus Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:42 PM (#2102132)
Gibson’s a slightly better Bob Feller, so ranks top by a modest margin. Killebrew a little lower than I’d expected – not a very long career. Pinson grossly overrated by WS; significantly below Sam Rice, who’s #30 – at bottom of consideration set (compared to Beckley, lacks 14 points of OPS+, 173 hits and some position difficulty.). Perry and Osteen just off bottom of consideration set; Jim’s brother will be high up the ballot.

1. (N/A) Bob Gibson 251-174. 3884 IP, 127 ERA+ ERA+ is much tougher than OPS+; 127 career ERA+ ranks you equal 41st, whereas 127 career OPS+ wouldn’t get you near the top 100 (border’s 136.) Not as good as Joss, for example, but around for longer.

2. (N/A-9-9-10-7-7-5-5-4-3-5-6-5-3-4-3-4-4-3-2-2-1-1-2-6-4-4-2-1-1-1-3-
-2-2-2) Jake Beckley. Better than Sisler (1 point OPS+, 118 hits, more dangerous/difficult fielding position) and we’ve just elected Sisler. Paul Waner is a very close comp (it was 37 years till we found one) and it thus makes no sense to have Waner far above Beckley. Significantly longer career than Clemente when you adjust the schedule, much longer relative to his contemporaries (he was #2 in AB when he retired, and #5 20 years after he retired.) Adjust his 2930 hits to full seasons and he's up there with Nap, above Babe, over 3200 hits, and OPS+ of 125 better than Van Haltren and slightly short of Wheat’s 129. Isolated power .127 vs “slugger” Wheat .135, in a less power-centered era. Marginally ahead of Welch, as we have seen more 307-win pitchers (now 10 others among currently HOM-eligible) than 2930-hit hitters (now 8 others). TB+BB/PA .455, TB+BB/Outs .707. Played for un-famous teams. Better than Keeler, almost as good as Crawford. More than a borderline HOMer, somewhere in the reaches well above the border but below the immortals. Should have been elected 40 “years” ago.

3. (15-14-11-12-10-9-6-8-7-7-6-7-6-3-3-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-5-4-2-3-2-3-3-
3-2-2-3-2-2-4-2-3-2-2-4-2-2-2-4-3-3) Mickey Welch. 307-210 comes to impress me more and more, particularly as we get more and more of the 1920s and 1930s pitcher glut – 7 more wins than Lefty Grove! 1885 looks like a pretty good peak too; 44-11 with a 1.67 ERA is pretty impressive, compared for example to Clarkson’s 49-19 at 2.73 in 1889. With 4802 IP, OK at an ERA+of 113 (but he never heard of ERA) he was far better than most of the 00s and 20s pitchers under consideration, none of whom (other than Young, Matty and Alex) got near 300 wins, and many of whom had ERA+s little better than Welch.

4. (N/A-7-7-6-8-6-6-7-7-6-7-7-7-9-8-7-7-4-5-3-3-3-5-4-4) Addie Joss. I’m now even more convinced I missed him earlier, and that adjusting innings down for dead ball pitchers is illegitimate. 2327 IP at an ERA+ of 142. 160-97 by age 30. If you assume the rest of his career would have been 1800 IP, 120-90 with an ERA+ of 110 (somewhat conservative, assuming you boost his last sick season, though pitchers didn’t last as long as they did later) then 50% credit would put him at 3227IP, 220-142, with ERA+ of 130. 25% credit puts him at 2777 IP, 190-120, with ERA+ of 136. Substantially better than Koufax.

5. (N/A-10-8-7-6-4-3-3-5-9-7-8-6-4-4-4-6-4-5-6-5-4-6-7-6-5-5-6-7-5-5-4-
4-5-4-6-4-4-5-4-4-5-4-4-6-5-5-5-6-7-5-5-6-7-6-5) Eddie Cicotte. Only 208-149 and an ERA+ of 123, but 3223 IP, more than Waddell and should get about 25% of the bonus for the 300-win career he should have had (he was, after all, a knuckleballer, who tend to peak late.) Much better than the 20s glut – only loses to Welch on longevity – Newhouser a close comp, but Cicotte had a longer career. Successfully cursed Red Sox AND White Sox for over 8 decades!

6. (N/A-15-N/A-5-4-4-6-10-8-9-7-5-5-5-7-5-6-7-6-6-7-8-7-6-6-7-8-6-6-5-
5-6-5-7-5-5-6-6-5-6-5-5-7-6-6-6-7-8-6-6-7-8-7-6) Pete Browning. Recalculating, to adjust ’82 as well as ’83-’92, he had 2,177 “normalized” hits, with no AA discount. However, TB+BB/PA .511, TB+BB/Outs .855. the same as Tiernan, not quite as good as Thompson, but he got no significant boost from the 1893-94 run explosion. Career OPS+162 vs. 146 Thompson and 138 Tiernan, but you have to discount a bit for AA

7. (N/A-10-9-8-11-N/A-15-15-14-10-10-11-12-10-12-11-9-8-9-10-10-9-
8-9-10-9-8-7-9-9-8-10-9-8-10-9-8-9-8-8-10-9-8-8-8-9-7-7-8-9-8-7) Charley Jones. Short career – only 1,780 normalized hits, even when adjusted to nominal 130-game-played season (but that’s more than Pike, with much less of an adjustment, and Jones too missed two prime seasons.) But OPS+ 149, TB+BB/PA .473, TB+BB/Outs .722, so above Pike and non-CF 90s OF.

8. (N/A-12-10-12-10-11-10-7-7-8-9-7-9-13-11-10-11-12-12-11-11-11-
10-8-8-9-10-9-8) Sam Leever. Pity he wasn’t able to start at the normal time; 2 more years would have made him a NB. Only 2660 innings, but was blocked till 27 by the one-league 1890s and having a steady job as a schoolteacher. Believe he needs to be looked at seriously by others, and included in pitcher analysis. Mild plus for high level of moral probity.

9. (N/A-11-14-N/A-15-13-14-12-12-13-14-13-9) Rube Waddell Few places up for 1898-1900 work in minor leagues. Only 193-143, and only 2961 IP but 134 ERA+, and UER were high but not exceptional.

10. (N/A-10-9-8-10-11-10-13-12-14-N/A-15-14-13-12-11-10-10-11-9-9
-10-11-10-10) Ernie Lombardi. Up a bit when compared with the closely comparable Berra. 2137 hits, normalized to a 130 game season, and an OPS+ of 125 makes him a little better than Schang, but some of it was during the war years and he fielded badly. TB+BB/PA .492, TB+BB/Outs .719., the ratio between the two very low because of strikeouts, I assume. Plus a great nickname!
   8. karlmagnus Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:43 PM (#2102134)
11. (N/A-9-8-8-9-10-8-10-9-8-7-8-11-11-10-10-10-11-11-10-9-11-12-
-11) Wally Schang. When you normalize his career to 130 game seasons for the first 18 years, as I do for catchers, he gets to 1941 hits, more than Groh at an OPS+ of 117, very similar. Furthermore, TB+BB/PA=.455, TB+BB/Outs=.728, also significantly better than Groh, over very close to the same period. And he was a catcher, more difficult than 3B.

12. Harmon Killebrew. Better than Frank Howard, not as good as Charley Jones; shortish career. 2086 hits, OPS+ 143, TB+BB/PA .580 TB+BB/Outs .891

13. (N/A-8-7-8-14-13-14-13-9-9-10-11-9-11-10-13-13-15-N/A-15-N/A-
15-N/A-15-15-14-13-N/A-15-14-13-12-13-11-11-12-13-12-13) Cupid Childs. OPS+119, almost the same as the 90s trio, and TB+BB/PA .470, TB+BB/Outs .797 highly competitive with them. Main negative is only 1720 hits, or about 1780 even if you normalize him to a 130 games played season. Nevertheless, he was a 2B.

14. (N/A-14-15-14-13-14-15-14-15) Vern Stephens. Short career – only 1859 hits, but comparing him to Reese he was much better, and not far short of Doerr. TB+BB/PA .508, TB+BB/Outs .756. OPS+ 119 Best season 1944, however.

15. (N/A-15-N/A) Frank Howard Very slightly better than Kiner – significantly longer career. Underrated by history. OPS+ 142 for 1774 hits. TB+BB/PA .546, TB+BB/Outs .805 in a pitchers’ park and era.


16. (N/A-10-12-N/A-15-N/A-15-14-15-N/A-15-14-N/A) Ralph Kiner Only 1451 hits, but an OPS+ of 149. Doesn’t really deserve war years bonus (too young.) TB+BB/PA .617, TB+BB/Outs .991. Closest comp is Hack Wilson, but Kiner was a little better. Down a bit because of short career.

17. (N/A-7-13-11-13-14-14-14-N/A-15-15-15-N/A-14-15-15-15-N/A-
14-N/A-15-15-N/A-15-N/A) Hack Wilson TB+BB/PA = .588, TB+BB/Outs = .954, OPS+ 144. (he does appear to have known about BB, unlike some others.) Very short career, but quality too good to ignore. OPS+ slightly below Jones, so here he goes.

18. (N/A) Quincy Trouppe. Not quite as good as Lombardi or Schang, but will be on ballot in quiet years. OPS+118, about 1900 adjusted hits. Much better than Mackey.

19. (N/A-14-14-N/A) Chuck Klein. Shortish career but very good one. Similar player to Beckwith, beats Hack on career length, but Hack was better. TB+BB/PA .575, TB+BB/Outs .909, but only 2076 hits. OPS+137.

20. Indian Bob Johnson. Very similar career to Klein but infinitesimally less good. TB+BB/PA .569, TB+BB/Outs .890., only 2051 hits. OPS+138

21. (N/A-15-N/A) Alejandro Oms. New MLE OPS+ of 125 moves him down a bit. Shorter career than Beckley, and not quite as valuable, but he was a darn good player nonetheless.

22. Minnie Minoso. Even if you add extra years, he’s a shorter career than Oms, and not as good as Johnson. 1963 ML hits at OPS+ of 130, TB+BB/PA .498 , TB+BB/Outs .759

23. (N/A-11-12-11-11-12-13-14-12-15-15-15-15-N/A) Carl Mays

24. Ben Taylor. Not all that far below Beckley and better than Van Haltren.
25. Orlando Cepeda
26. Norm Cash
27. (N/A-6-5-9-8-9-8-7-10-11-8-9-7-7-6-6-9-9-8-6-6-6-5-4-8-7-9-12-
N/A-14-13-15-N/A) Hugh Duffy. Up a little after looking at Ashburn
28. (N/A-12-12-14-N/A) Tony Lazzeri
29. (N/A-14-N/A-15-N/A) Sam Rice
30. (N/A) Mickey Vernon
31. (N/A-13-15-N/A-15-15-N/A) Vic Willis
32. Billy Pierce.
33. Sal Maglie.
34. (N/A) Burleigh Grimes.
35. (N/A) Heinie Manush
36. (N/A-9-10-10-13-N/A) Mike Tiernan
37. (N/A-11-12-15-14-N/A) Joe Sewell. Down a bit on Gordon comparison.
38. Bob Elliott
39. Ken Boyer. Just a hair short of Elliott, so slots here.
40. (N/A) Dick Lundy
41. (N/A-9-12-11-14-13-14-12-11-12-13-11-11-9-9-13-14-12-14-14-N/A) Levi Meyerle.
42. (12-15-N/A-11-10-12-10-10-9-8-11-12-10-10-8-8-14-15-13-15-15-N/A) Harry Wright.
43. (N/A-10-9-8-7-6-7-8-5-12-10-10-N/A-10-8-11-11-N/A) Jimmy Ryan
44. (N/A-13-12-13-13-12-14-15-12-13-11-11-N/A-11-9-12-12-N/A) George van Haltren. TB+BB/PA .469, TB+BB/Outs .765, not overwhelming for the 90s.
45. Kiki Cuyler
46. Deacon McGuire
47. Jack Quinn
48. Tony Mullane
49. Pye Traynor
50. Jim McCormick
51. Dick Redding. My punt is 3200 innings at 114 ERA+ for a record of 207-159, i.e. same quality as Chris but a little shorter. About here looks right – a little below Grimes (longer career) and Maglie (better quality.)
52. Joe Judge
53. Edd Roush
54. Spotswood Poles.
55. Larry Doyle
56. Curt Simmons
57. Roger Bresnahan.
58. Wayte Hoyt.
59. Harry Hooper.
60. Vada Pinson
61. Gil Hodges
62. Jules Thomas.
63. Wilbur Cooper
64. Bruce Petway.
65. Jack Clements
66. Bill Monroe
67. Jose Mendez
68. Herb Pennock
69. Chief Bender
70. Ed Konetchy
71. Jesse Tannehill
72. Bobby Veach
73. Lave Cross
74. Tommy Leach.
75. Tom York
   9. yest Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:47 PM (#2102135)

Marichal was elected
   10. Daryn Posted: July 17, 2006 at 02:35 PM (#2102158)
That is correct Yest -- Please, tallyers, put Bob Gibson into Marichal's slot. The comment remains the same.
   11. ronw Posted: July 17, 2006 at 02:49 PM (#2102167)
1981 Ballot –I use a little of WS, WARP, RCAA, OPS+, and traditional stats, as well as reputation. I’m putting bWS/700PA and pWS/300IP, plus my broad All-Star candidates, and MVP/Cy Young candidates for fun.

1. Bob Gibson 24.2 pWS/300IP, 6 CY, 10 AS. I have him below only Johnson, Young, Grove, Alexander, Williams, Mathewson, and Spahn so far, essentially neck-and-neck with Nichols on the all-time pitching list.

2. Harmon Killebrew 24.0 bWS/700PA, 4 MVP, 12 AS. Not a tough choice

3. Dick Redding I think his teens peak is higher than we realize. Seems similar to Juan Marichal as far as overall value and highish peak.

4. Hugh Duffy 20.9 bWS/700PA, 5 MVP, 10 AS. This guy jumped in my rankings. I didn’t realize how dominant he was during the early 1890’s.

5. Pete Browning 26.1 bWS/700 PA, 5 MVP, 8 AS. There were two better hitters through the 1880’s, Brouthers and Connor. There were many better fielders.

6. Dobie Moore 22.1 bWS/700 PA. Such a high peak that less PT may not really be an issue. Similar to Jennings for me.

7. Joe Sewell 15.8 bWS/700 PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS. My fraternity brother really received a boost in my rankings.

8. Tommy Leach 18.0 bWS/700 PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS. A good player from an underrepresented period.

9. Roger Bresnahan 22.7 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 11 AS. Yes, the MVP was as a CF, but still a very valuable player for his time.

10. Jose Mendez I think that I can’t ignore Mendez, who was probably the pitcher that Ferrell was, and may have been as good a hitter.

11. George Van Haltren 20.0 bWS/700PA, 1 MVP, 13 AS. Has gotten an elect-me vote on my ballot before.

12. Bill Monroe The ultimate overlooked candidate.

13. Vic Willis 22.0 pWS/300IP, 3 CY, 8 AS. I think we are underrating his early career peak.

14. Ralph Kiner 24.2 bWS/700PA, 4 MVP, 8 AS. Just enough for the ballot.

15. Minnie Minoso 21.8 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 11 AS (including Negro Leagues). Really neck-and-neck with Kiner.


Missing top 10

Jake Beckley – 18.6 bWS/700PA, 0 MVP, 12 AS. As good as tied with Sisler, Terry, Taylor, and Cepeda. Close to the ballot.

Rube Waddell – 23.8 pWS/300IP, 2 CY, 5 AS. He really has a Dean/Koufax argument for the HOM, and his peak is behind both.

New Notables

Vada Pinson – 16.9 bWS/700PA, 2 MVP, 9 AS. Surprisingly a Carey-esque hitter, with a shorter career and less fielding.

Jim Perry – 18.5 pWS/300IP, 0 CY, 6 AS. We just don’t elect pitchers without at least one CY season.

Claude Osteen – 17.1 pWS/300IP, 0 CY, 6 AS. See Jim Perry.

Lindy McDaniel – 26.0 pWS/300IP (mostly a reliever), 1 CY, 4 AS. He has the one CY season, but we also generally don’t elect pitchers with only 4 All-Star seasons. Just for comparison, Wilhelm was 34 pWS/300IP, 1 CY, 10 AS.
   12. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 03:05 PM (#2102179)
13. Harmon Killerbrew hate the BA good thing he didn’t play in the dead ball era or else he wouldn’t make my top 1000 (makes my personal HoM this year)

I'm pretty sure that his BA would have been much better and his strikeouts much lower during the first two decades of the last century.
   13. OCF Posted: July 17, 2006 at 03:10 PM (#2102184)
1981 Ballot. Having moved over the previous few years from Houston to Chicago to Madison, I adopted the Astros for the great but all-too-brief NLCS (CRUUUUUUZ!)

1. Bob Gibson (new) !968 was a terrifying year. Being 15 years old is plenty old enough to know about war, assassinations, riots and politics. Perhaps that's why I've clung as had as I have to my baseball memories, carried over the radio in the voices of Harry Caray and Jack Buck - and Gibson's glorious midseason streak is the memory to top them all. Even if we call "fluke" for that season, the man was a great pitcher and an easy HoM electee. Even karlmagnus is willing to admit that he's better than Beckley.
2. Harmon Killebrew (new) The prototype for the claim that a player can have a low batting average and still be great. In his own time, underrated because of the BA but feared nonetheless.
3. Billy Pierce (1, 2, 2, 2, 3) Underappreciated by both the HoF and (so far) us.
4. Larry Doyle (3, 5, 5, 3, 5) Big hitter in low scoring times - nearly as good a hitter as the backlog outfielders. Mediocre defense, but occupied the position for a long time. And no, I don't try to understand WARP.
5. José Méndez (4, 6, 6, 4, 6) Maybe Koufax isn't the right comparison, but maybe Coveleski?
6. Quincy Trouppe (5, 7, 7, 5, 7) As with all Negro Leaguers, a lot of this is guesswork.
7. Bucky Walters (7, 9, 9, 7, 8) Offense-adjusted RA+ PythPat 197-148, with a peak that nearly rivals Ferrell's. We elected Lemon - why not Walters?
8. Orlando Cepeda (----, 9) The Baby Bull. Cha-Cha. There are plenty of places to find fault: indifference to defense, selfishness about his role with the Giants, injury history, early decline. But the early decline sticks out because the start was so good. And his NL was a strong league. Let's put Bill Terry back on the ballot - I would take Cepeda over him.
9. George Van Haltren (6, 8, 8, 6, 10) He did accomplish quite a bit in his career.
10. Norm Cash (----, 11) One year does not make a peak (or a prime). But oh, what a year. Actually, he's on my ballot as a career candidate, although missing games in each year whittles away at his career value.
11. Joe Sewell (8, 10, 10, 8, 12) If only he'd had 2 or 3 more good years - then he'd be an easy choice.
12. Ralph Kiner (2, 4, 4, 9, 13) His career may not have lasted very long, but during it he played every day and he hit a LOT of home runs.
13. Frank Howard (---, 10, 14) Instead of talking about what he might have accomplished in another time and place, I'll talk about the value of what he did do in run-scarce circumstances.
14. Orestes Miñoso (10, 12, 12, 11, 15) This presumes at least a little pre-MLB value. Not the offensive value of the big HR hitters, but more mobile on defense.
15. Ken Boyer (14, 16, 16, 12, 16) Compared to Elliott, less bat, more glove, tougher league.
16. Bob Elliott (12, 14, 14, 13, 17) Roughly the equivalent of Dixie Walker as a hitter, plus 1300+ games of pretty good 3B.
17. Jake Beckley (11, 13, 13, 14, 18) Not much peak, long career. Was he really better than Vernon? Maybe defense, maybe a position-scarcity argument. Offensively, I don't see it.
18. Tommy Bridges (13, 15, 15, 15, 19) RA+ PythPat 190-124. Ferrell had a higher peak, but Bridges was a terrific pitcher.
19. Dick Redding (9, 11, 11, 16, 20) There seems to be more uncertainty around him lately.
20. Luis Aparicio (---, 17, 21) More games at SS than anyone else, 500 SB with a good percentage.
21. Hugh Duffy (15, 17, 17, 18, 22) Nothing new to say after all these years.
22. Rabbit Maranville (---, 19, 23) The appearance of Aparacio on the ballot casts the spotlight in his direction, and I fix an error in my calculations.
23. Mickey Vernon (16, 18, 18, 20, 24) Another loooong career 1st baseman, searching for a peak.
24. Nellie Fox (18, 19, 19, 21, 25) I'll be a supporter of Ozzie Smith when the time comes, and Fox has some of the same virtues. Nearly 2300 games at 2B, with extreme in-season durability. When I run his adjusted RCAA, a 10-year stretch in the middle of his career outshines his career as a whole, and even that 10-year stretch is only in the neighborhood of Stanky, Huggins, and Myer. All he really has over the likes of Doerr, Gordon, and Rizzuto is career length.
25. Phil Rizzuto (19, 20, 20, 22, 26) A glove-first SS candidate. Not a great offensive player, but at least useful on offense in an OBP-first shape, with good baserunning. But even with war credit, his career's not particularly long.
26. Cupid Childs (20, 21, 21, 23, 27) Like a lot of people, his career is too short. Not the offensive peak of Doyle, but it is a real peak.
27. Edd Roush (22, 22, 22, 24, 24) Nearly the same offensive value as the leftover 1890's guys; better hitter than Carey.
28. Vern Stephens (24, 24, 24, 26, 29)
29. Dobie Moore (25, 25, 25, 27, 30) Short career, high peak.
30. Bob Johnson (26, 26, 26, 28, -)

Waddell is not far off the top 30. If we were going to take one more early pitcher, he'd be the one.

Vada Pinson: not far away, not far at all. But I couldn't squeeze him into the top 30.

Sam McDowell: RA+ PythPat equivalent record 164-123, which is better than his actual record. Great year (equiv. 23-11) in 1970, 20-10 in 1965. Debuted a few days before his 19th birthday, was carrying heavy innings by age 22. Five times led league in strikeouts, and 6 times in walks. Maybe if he'd had blisters when he was younger, he could have been Nolan Ryan?
   14. rawagman Posted: July 17, 2006 at 03:17 PM (#2102195)
<u>1981 Ballot</u>
I would first like to thank all of you who have sent their kind thoughts my way. It's a nice feeling.
I live in Tel Aviv - we haven't been hit by missiles yet. Hopefully, it stays that way.
Also, hopefully, I don't get called up to serve in the reserves. I was discharged from The IDF 6 years ago and I'm in no mood to wear a uniform again.
For this years ballot, Gibson and Killebrew coast into my PHoM.
I have taken a fresh look at how I grade peak (especially among pitchers) and I have been shortchanging the 60's hurlers Drysdale, Marichal and Bunning. Especially Drysdale. He has moved right to the top of my personal backlog.
I struggled to get a handle on Pinson, and played it safe- he comes up 34th.
Other points of interest include a reexamination of Bus Clarkson, who debuts at 60 and Tommy Leach, who comes in at 54.
Quincy Trouppe inches up, Beckley and Cash fall.

1)Bob Gibson - In an ink-themed week, I noted Gibson's black being 10 times his gray. COnsidering the preponderousness of great pitchers in his league in his day (Koufax, Drysdale, MArichal, assorted 1,2 year wonders) it makes sense. A dominating pitcher. (PHOM)
2)Harmon Killebrew - Not the perfect player.But his defense at 1B (where he spent most of his career) was average/slightly above average. SO I can't punish him for not being a stellar 3B, or OF. On this ballot, he's closer to Gibson than to Duffy. (PHOM)
3)Hugh Duffy - Super peak, wonderful prime. Amazing bat, super glove. (PHOM)
4)Rube Waddell - Nothing in his resume tells me he wasn't a dominant pitcher (PHOM)
5)Gavvy Cravath - No longer the worst fielder in my top 120 candidates (Frank Howard). No longer the best hitter in that group, either (WIllie Mays). (PHOM)
6)Joe Sewell (PHOM)
7)Lefty Gomez - looking at him in any single way hurts him. Looking at him kaleidoscopically has him behind only Waddell as far as pitchers go in my eyes (PHOM)
((7a)Don Drysdale - I took a closer look at your ink - you were good - top the backlog))
8)Jose Mendez
((8a)Willard Brown - I had been underestimating him severely. His reputation enhances his already wonderful numbers.))
9)Ben Taylor - Reevaluation gets him on the ballot. Can't find the peak, but a better prime and glove than Beckley. This ranking may be an understatement.
10)Edd Roush - I found it in me (and Edd's numbers) to move him up a bit in the list. An exceptional hitter and fielder.
11)Quincy Trouppe - Not an easy call, but I think he's the best available catcher. Moving up a few slots this week.
12)Orlando Cepeda
13)Ralph Kiner - So much black ink, so little time. Super Peak!
14)Vern Stephens - Will we look at Nomar down the road like we look at Vern now? Great bat, good glove.
((14a)Biz Mackey - I was really underestimating both his offense and his reputation))
15)Minnie Minoso - still very good. Maybe a wee bit overrated.
16)Tommy Bridges - He was really very good.
17)Nellie Fox - Low OPS+, but he is an exception to that measurement. SLG is negligible for him, he did quite well with the rest
18)Ken Boyer - so close. Still my highest ranking 3B. At least for now.
19)Wally Berger - super-underrated
20)Dizzy Dean - Diet Sandy Koufax. 0 calories (career), no sugar (prime).
((20)Juan Marichal))
21)Ernie Lombardi - defense was below average, but not quite horrible
22)Roger Bresnahan
23)Al Rosen - One more season in prime, and he is top 10
((23a)Jim Bunning - He had merits, but not enough for balloting. Benefits from my re-examination of ink.))
24)Dick Redding - One of the toughest for me to accurately place (PHOM)
25)Chuck Klein
((25a)Joe Gordon - neither here nor there. War credit obviously helps him, but not enough for me.))
26)Billy Pierce - don't see him as being better than Bridges
27)Addie Joss - ERA/+ and WHIP are great, but why so little black ink?
28)Pete Browning
29)Charley Jones - he got the shaft - but I am not convinced as to what extent.
30)Fred Carroll - I give him around 1.5 seasons prime MiL credit
31)Cupid Childs
32)Phil Rizzuto
33)Charlie Keller - 3rd all time in extra credit
34)Vada Pinson - The ink really threw me for a twist. He looks like a good all-round CF, not great. But he amassed hefty ink totals for his generation. This may be a safe ranking.
35)Norm Cash - Too much in one year - and that was not the best year for an everlastig peak, for a number of reasons.
36)John McGraw
37)Jimmy Ryan
38)Alejandro Oms
39)Jake Beckley - Always very good. No peak, all prime. Defense is overrated. I have read about his arm being so weak (and erratic) that runners were able to take the extra base on him. Not sure how that works at 1B, but worth noting.
40)Luke Easter
41)Johnny Evers
42)Pete Reiser - The biggest "what-if" on my ballot. If you like Keller, look at the Pistol.
43)George Kell
44)Bobby Veach
45)Bob Elliott
46)Bucky Walters
47)Ray Chapman - I think his case deserves some credit.
48)Fred Dunlap
49)Jim Bottomley
50)Bob Johnson
51)Joe Wood - If he had one more really good year as a pitcher, he'd be balloted
52)Dobie Moore - Peak too short, not enough (not anything) surrounding it.
53)Bill Mazeroski - I need to revise my scoring regarding peak and all things offensive for prue "Glove" positions. Mazeroski would probably benefit from that, but not enough to ballot.
54)Tommy Leach - I had missed him until now - I don't see the great love for him, though.
55)Tony Lazerri
56)Dolf Camilli
57)Walker Cooper - some days, he reminds me of Quincey Trouppe
58)Johnny Pesky
59)Hippo Vaughn
60)Bus Clarkson - A newcomer to the consideration set. More shades of Quincy.
61)Tip O'Neill
62)Rocky Colavito
63)Denny Lyons
64)Cecil Travis - 2nd all-time for most war credit (Ted Williams). 4 years is a lot of credit.
65)George Van Haltren - a nice player, but there were always others who were better. Much better.
66)Lon Warneke
67)Don Newcombe
68)Jack Clements
69)Cy Williams
70)Roger Maris
71)Pie Traynor
72)Frank Chance
73)Kiki Cuyler
74)Red Schoendienst
75)John Clapp
   15. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 17, 2006 at 03:27 PM (#2102199)
1. Bob Gibson: Dominant peak/prime with plenty of career.

2. Jose Mendez: Dominant peak/prime with less career.

3. Harmon Killebrew: Great power hitter, period. Among the slowest players of recent times…of any time? He makes Olerud look like a sprinter. The prototype for the lumbering, three-true-outcomes slugger embodied by Mark McGwire.

4. Bucky Walters: Dominant peak, good prime, pretty good career. I like peak in my pitchers.

5. Quincy Trouppe: Best catcher available.

6. Charley Jones: Best left fielder available. A dominant batter in the 1870s and 1880s with a three-year vacation based on unfair labor practices. A continuous career would already have him in the HOM.

7. Roger Bresnahan: Outstanding catcher-hybrid candidate. Good peak, especially for the position, and a robust offensive game.

8. Billy Pierce: Wonderful 1950s ace pitcher. The innings may seem low, but I believe it is, in some part, due to his frequent use as a fireman. Lots o’ leverage there, plus he was an excellently effective moundsman.

9. Tony Mullane: Again with the unfair labor practice guys! Mullane racked up great seasons in the 1880s, got a one-year booting, continued racking up great seasons, pitched well in the 1890s NL, and looks a heckuva lot better than Mickey Welch to me.

10. Ned Williamson: Outstanding third baseman and a potent hitter of the 1880s.

11. Wilbur Cooper: One of those lefties that Jimmy Sheckard probably had trouble with. If only we had the PbP data to know! Dominant NL portsider of the 1910s-early 1920s.

12. Cupid Childs: Best second baseman available. Shaped like a hydrant, hit like a monster. Absolutely dominant at his position throughout the 1890s.

13. Hugh Duffy: Best centerfielder available (sorry Mike!!!). His combo of peak/prime is very good and he’s got enough career to stave off the Ryan/GVH/Roush gang.

14. Elston Howard: Another catcher, yes, but catchers are in somewhat short supply. Great five-year run that saw him win an MVP and probably deserve it. His career’s a mess due to the color line and in particular the Yanks’ unwillingness to commit to black players. They were glad they finally did with him.

15. Tommy Leach: Nifty multi-position star of the early 1900s. Great defensive player and a capable batter with a great deal of career value.

New guys

Vada Pinson: Well off the end. Great start, lousy finish, with mediocrity in between. Must have been Frank Robinson’s bad influence….

Jim Perry: He shoulda scuffed.

Claude Osteen: Not to be confused with Joel Osteen…. Good not great, a nice component part if you had, say, Koufax and Drysdale in your rotation.

Lindy McDaniel: I feel like he was better than I think he is, but I don’t know it.


Joe Sewell: In the 20s.

Ralph Kiner: Not impressed. I mean I am, but I’m not. How’s he much better than Minnie Minoso?

Minnie Minoso: How’s he much better than Ralph Kiner? He’s Dwight Evans and that’s probably not enough for my tastes.

Jake Beckley: He’s got a peak like Kansas. Nuf sed.

Rube Waddell: A guy I’m really unsold on, yet doubtful about my own stance. I don’t think he’s that impressive for his era, yet I see markers that suggest he was better than I think. I dunno.
   16. yest Posted: July 17, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#2102223)
I'm pretty sure that his BA would have been much better and his strikeouts much lower during the first two decades of the last century.

I agree with you abought the strikeouts (due to to them not caring a boghut it much) but I think his BA would be very simeler (5-10 points higher or lower) but his power would only be slightly above average cause most of his actual HRs would have been fly outs and those that were not would only be doubles or long singles due to his lack of speed which would have affected him more during that era. And in case you bring up his walking abilty I think that was mostly due to his HR power which would all but disapeer. Also his lack of defense would have been more harmfull due to the incresed need for 1st base defense
   17. yest Posted: July 17, 2006 at 04:14 PM (#2102226)
Also, hopefully, I don't get called up to serve in the reserves.

do you know their priority system of calling up reserves?
   18. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#2102271)
I agree with you abought the strikeouts (due to to them not caring a boghut it much) but I think his BA would be very simeler (5-10 points higher or lower) but his power would only be slightly above average cause most of his actual HRs would have been fly outs and those that were not would only be doubles or long singles due to his lack of speed which would have affected him more during that era. And in case you bring up his walking abilty I think that was mostly due to his HR power which would all but disapeer.

You have to remember that he wouldn't be going for homers, so he would have been more of a line-drive hitter. He wouldn't have as many flyball outs as you might think.

Of course, his lack of speed would have hurt his ISO even beyond the different baseball and hitting technique. With that said, his numbers may have been similar to Sherry Magee, but with more walks (which certainly would not have all but disappeared - Dave Kingman, maybe, but not the Killer).
   19. Qufini Posted: July 17, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2102304)
1. Harmon Killebrew, 1B/3B (n/e)
2. Bob Gibson, P (n/e)

They were both excellent players for a long time- I have Gibson with a 13-year prime from 1961-1973 and Killebrew with 14 from 1959-1972. I gave Killebrew the edge on black ink. Gibson's black ink comes mostly from his incredible 1968 season. Killebrew's black ink is spread out a little bit more, giving him a longer peak if not a higher one.

3. Jose Mendez, P (4)
4. Dick Redding, P (5)

These two pitchers have been in my personal Hall of Merit since 1975 (I started voting in '73) though I had them reversed at the time. They're both clearly within the borders we've established as they compare favorably with their white contemporaries like Coveleski and Faber.

5. Nellie Fox, 2B (6)
6. Quincy Trouppe, C (7)

The best second baseman and the best catcher on the ballot respectively. I also prefer them to some recent inductees like Joe Gordon and Biz Mackey.

7. Billy Pierce, P (9)
8. Orlando Cepeda, 1B (8)

Pierce jumped over Cepeda on my ballot for this vote. I decided that Pierce's larger peak advantage was more significant that Cepeda's advantages in longer measurements.

9. Luis Aparicio, SS (10)

He did what shortstops of his era were asked to do and he did it better than the rest.

10. Don Newcombe, P (n/a)

I made my case for Newcombe in the ballot discussion thread. I may not have convinced anybody else to follow my lead, but I at least had others defending this choice as a reasonable one. With 2 years of war credit for service during Korea, and partial minor league credit due to slow integration, Newcombe ends up with a better peak than career-heavy candidates like Welch and Grimes and a better career than peak-oriented candidates like Waddell and Dean.

11. Minnie Minoso, OF (11)

I see Minoso and Newcombe as similar players and gave Newcombe the edge based on black ink.

12. Hugh Duffy, OF (12)
13. Ernie Lombardi, C (13)

I haven't given up on Lombardi as a lost cause but he's fallen several places on my ballot due to new eligibles and new discoveries like Don Newcombe. I'm still a firm supporter of his candidacy.

14. Mickey Welch, P (14)
15. Ralph Kiner, OF (15)

Two guys that I think should be HoMers and I have a hard time placing them this low. But I think everybody above them is HoMer as well.

16-20: Sewell, Boyer (trading places), Oms, Browning (moving up), Pinson (new guy)
21-25: Grimes, Beckley, Stephens, B. Johnson, Wills

Top Ten Returnees: Sewell and Beckley are both close (as shown above). I have Rube Waddell 8th among eligible pitchers and 27th overall. He's just above my personal cut-off line so I have no objection to him as an inductee.
   20. yest Posted: July 17, 2006 at 06:18 PM (#2102315)
Of course, his lack of speed would have hurt his ISO even beyond the different baseball and hitting technique. With that said, his numbers may have been similar to Sherry Magee, but with more walks (which certainly would not have all but disappeared - Dave Kingman, maybe, but not the Killer).

of Killer's above average waking ability I would say 90% came from power and 10% drawing abilaty so takeing away power he's slightly above average (Kingman would be lucky if he got 5 walks all season)

I never realy saw Killer that much but from what I saw (mostly on ESPN Clasic)he was more a high and far hitter

BTW the 1000 was an exatirion he would probobly be around 600-800
   21. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 17, 2006 at 06:40 PM (#2102340)
I never realy saw Killer that much but from what I saw (mostly on ESPN Clasic)he was more a high and far hitter

But he wouldn't be that type of hitter during the Deadball Era.

of Killer's above average waking ability I would say 90% came from power and 10% drawing abilaty so takeing away power he's slightly above average (Kingman would be lucky if he got 5 walks all season)

You may be right about the Killer, while I have no doubt that you're correct about Kong.
   22. rawagman Posted: July 17, 2006 at 07:28 PM (#2102398)
Also, hopefully, I don't get called up to serve in the reserves.

do you know their priority system of calling up reserves?

I was an adjutant's assistant durign my 2-year stint in the everyday army. Probably not too much need for that in a time like this.
OTOH, I am assigned to the norhtern poriton of the country (Golan Heights), so you never really know.

I have no real idea about their priorities right now.
   23. TomH Posted: July 17, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2102416)
discussion of Killebrew and power-based offenses that have ruled since WWII:

We haven't talked about this in some time now, but there were points of view aired back in the deadball to liveball transition period about how different players would have done if they moved form 1905 to 1955 or vice versa.

Most voters don't put much weight on this at all ("value" strictly over "ability"), but some do, and it's a reasonable position to take. I for oen have argues that in some sense, Honus Wagner is a "better" player than Babe Ruth, if only that it is quite easy to imagine Wagner being an excellent ballplayer in any era, while the Babe would not have been as feared a hitter in 1900.

Anyway, it is difficult to project with confidence how various swings and speed combinations would have evolved. Even a slow slugger would have had the advantage in 1910 that the OFers would have to play much deeper, allowing more hits to fall in, and generating more doubles and triples. A better question to ask is "would the scouts have even SIGNED Dave Kingman in 1895?"; very likely, no, he never would have played pro ball at all.

A good research article would be to assess how much hitting home runs (and other hits) affects drawing walks, and come up with the players with the best and worst "eyes" in terms of pure walks drawn.
   24. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2102430)
of Killer's above average waking ability I would say 90% came from power and 10% drawing abilaty

Well, he had good walk rates as a bonus-baby bench player and good walk rates as an old man as well. Its all moot, though because his high HR rate is part of who he was.
   25. Thane of Bagarth Posted: July 17, 2006 at 08:17 PM (#2102438)
1981 Ballot

1) Bob Gibson
I’ve got him ranked as the 12th best pitcher so far, between Feller and Clarkson.

2) Harmon Killebrew
A solid HoMer, but below the “inner-circle” types as I see it.

3) Jose Mendez
I’m thinking Marichal might not be a bad comp for him, and it looks like Jose may just make it, too, one of these years.

4) Dick Redding
I don’t think the new HoF data is enough to discredit his legitimacy as one of the top eligible pitchers—yet.

5) Ben Taylor
The lack of data from his prime years makes all of this highly speculative, but I’m ranking him as if he was Keith Hernandez with a little less peak and more career (career totals of around 105 WARP3 and 320 Win Shares; with top 5s of 46 and 135, respectively).

6) Ken Boyer
53.3 WARP3 in top 5 seasons is tops among eligible hitters, including Killer.

7) Bob Johnson
Minor League credit moves him into he top 10.

8) Bucky Walters
Similar to Trout, but, thanks to 300 extra IP and an OPS+ advantage of 13 points, Bucky wins out.

9) Joe Sewell
His top 5 WARP is close to Boyer (52.4), but his 5-yr. consecutive Win Shares are a little lower. Overall, both uberstats have them as very similar.

10) Charley Jones
Perhaps an old-timer’s version Ralph Kiner (though I’ve got CJ a little higher). Credit for blackballed years gets him on the ballot.

11) Dizzy Trout
Nice 5 year peak: 47.4 WARP3, 126 Win Shares
Decent career: 88.4 WARP3, 228 Win Shares

12) Charlie Keller
Tied with Kiner and Howard for 2nd best top 3 seasons in Win Shares (unadjusted for season length) just behind Santo. The extra war credit for Keller gets him a spot above Kiner.

13) Billy Pierce
He’s within shouting range of both Trout and Walters. Lower peak sets him back, though.

14) Bill Monroe
Probably in the Doerr-Gordon 2B range…cautiously ranked a little lower.

15) Dobie Moore
Perhaps the Black Hughie Jennings, but I think he’s got more career value so he makes my ballot (Jennings would be ranked in the 40s or 50s).

The Rest of the Top 50

16) Minnie Minoso—Longevity, mixed with modest peak and some NeL credit gives him the edge over Kiner.

17) Ralph Kiner—149 OPS+ is pretty impressive, but his Relatively short 10 year career makes it hard to rank him much higher. I have given him a small bonus for playing time missed at the beginning of his career due to WWII service.

18) Jake Beckley—Oh so close to the ballot due to career value, still, 37.6 in his top 5 WARP3 seasons is pretty low.

19) Tommy Leach
20) Gavy Cravath
21) Jimmy Ryan
22) Burleigh Grimes
23) George Van Haltren
24) Harry Hooper
25) Rabbit Maranville
26) Norm Cash
27) Fred Dunlap
28) Sam Rice
29) Bob Elliott
30) Fielder Jones
31) Jack Quinn
32) Phil Rizzuto
33) Nellie Fox
34) Alejandro Oms
35) Cy Seymour
36) Vern Stephens
37) Quincy Trouppe
38) Vada Pinson
39) Orlando Cepeda
40) Dick Bartell
41) Hugh Duffy—He was in a dead-heat with Sisler, who I only voted for once, in 1948. Win Shares likes Duffy more, WARP3 likes Sisler, I’m kinda splitting the difference.
42) Dom DiMaggio
43) Urban Shocker
44) Spotswood Poles
45) Gil Hodges
46) George Burns
47) Carl Mays
48) Bobo Newsom
49) Johnny Pesky
50) Bobby Veach

Other Top Returnees Not in Top 50
75) Rube Waddell—Good rate stats and a decent peak, but even fewer translated IP than Koufax. I am currently not giving him any MiL credit. I’d like to re-evaluate my decision about this for next election. Can anyone point me to the discussion about the creditworthiness of his minor league time? I know I read it recently and was not thoroughly convinced, but now that I want to double-check I can't find it for the life of me. While it would take a substantial amount of credit to get him on my ballot, the distance between Quinn at #31 and Rube at #75 is not huge.
   26. Mark Donelson Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:09 PM (#2102571)
I’m an extreme peak voter; career numbers matter very little to me, except as a tiebreaker. I rely heavily on WS for hitters, with OPS+ and some WARP thrown in as well. For starting pitchers, it’s PRAA, with some WS and ERA+ adjustments for good measure. For relievers, I’ve adopted a mix of career total PRAA and year-by-year peak PRAA, with an emphasis on the latter, which seems to produce the most sensible results I can come up with.

Gibson and Killebrew go into my pHOM this “year.”

And I had a bit of an outfielder re-evaluation (finally convinced to do so by some inconsistencies I noticed when guys like Clemente and Kaline hit my ballot), which resulted in a few particularly peaky guys rising a bit: Keller, Slaughter, and Cravath. Roush also jumped a couple of spots, though it’s almost statistically insignificant at this point.

1981 ballot:

1. Bob Gibson (pHOM 1981). His PRAA is just overwhelming. Edges out Méndez and Waddell for the #1 slot.

2. José Méndez (pHOM 1960). Comparable with some of the best ML pitchers of his era, and those are some pretty shiny names.

3. Rube Waddell (pHOM 1919). Love his PRAA, love his strikeouts, and the unearned runs don’t bug me that much (especially with the revelation that they’re not even as bad as they at first seemed).

4. Hugh Duffy (pHOM 1930). I’ve read all the pro and con arguments, and I have to say I keep ending up in the same place on Duffy: He belongs, at least for anyone with as much of a peak emphasis as I have.

5. Harmon Killebrew (pHOM 1981). Not nearly as one-dimensional as his reputation would have it, though of course he was a pretty fearsome power hitter. Better than Kaline and Clemente, but not as good as Santo, among his recent peers. But better than Kiner—more good years, and a tougher position for some of them (even if the defense there wasn’t so hot).

6. Dobie Moore (pHOM 1932). Just enough to satisfy my (admittedly small) minimum requirements. Fantastic peak, even if it’s not quite what we thought before the new MLEs.

7. Cupid Childs (pHOM 1938). Another infielder with a great peak.

8. Ralph Kiner (pHOM 1964). He still looks pretty good to a peak voter.

9. Dizzy Dean (pHOM 1967). He’s risen with each reevaluation I’ve done. It’s a really short peak (which is why he’s not even higher), but he was inarguably dominant during it.

10. Charlie Keller (pHOM 1973). A peak I just couldn’t argue around anymore. My comparison of him, Kiner, and Killebrew led me to bump him up a few spots—with even fairly conservative war credit, he’s VERY close to Kiner.

11. Vic Willis (pHOM 1961). Not the most dominant pitcher of his era, perhaps, but he presents an awfully appealing peak.

12. Ed Williamson (pHOM 1931). A lost cause, but still the best of the backlog 3Bs, for my taste.

13. Quincy Trouppe (pHOM 1967). All the hard evidence makes him the best of the backlog catchers, a smidgen ahead of Elston Howard.

14. Eddie Cicotte (pHOM 1972). Clear enough dominance for long enough, in my book.

15. Bucky Walters (pHOM 1968). And that makes…seven pitchers on my ballot! Not in my top tier of unelected pitchers, but he’s got more than enough peak for me.
   27. Mark Donelson Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:11 PM (#2102578)
16-20: Rosen (1968), Bresnahan (1973), Redding (1975), C. Jones (1976), [Slaughter], E. Howard (1976)
21-25: Browning (1979), Joss, Pierce, Cravath, Fox
26-30: F. Howard, [Reese], Leach, [W. Ford], Doyle, Berger, McGraw
31-35: H. Smith, H. Wilson, [Doerr], Oms, Minoso, Boyer
36-40: Gomez, Chance, [Wynn], Roush, [Lyons], Poles, [Ashburn], Pesky
41-45: McCormick, J. Ryan, Elliott, Cepeda [Lemon], G. Burns, [Rixey]
46-50: Colavito, Rizzuto, Welch, Van Haltren, Sewell

Required Explanations and Newbies:

•Minoso. Kind of the rich man’s Van Haltren: very good for a long time, but he doesn’t really have the kind of peak I’m looking for. Midpack at #34.

•Sewell. Back from the dead? There’s just not remotely enough peak here for me. He creeps back into the last spot in my top 50.

•Beckley. No peak. What more is there to say? Not particularly close to my top 50.

•Pinson. Among CFs, he falls somewhere between Van Haltren and Fielder Jones for me. I’m a peak voter, so that’s not really saying much. He’s not in my top 50, though also not too far outside.

•McDaniel. I have him as roughly tied with Face and Kinder as the third-best reliever we’ve seen so far (after Wilhelm and Stu Miller). Who knew (of course, who knew about Miller or Kinder, either)? Not enough to get him to my ballot, though.

•Perry. About as good as Mel Stottlemyre, which means he’s not close.

•Osteen. Again, not remotely the kind of peak I’m looking for.
   28. jimd Posted: July 18, 2006 at 12:57 AM (#2102743)
13. Harmon Killerbrew hate the BA good thing he didn’t play in the dead ball era or else he wouldn’t make my top 1000 (makes my personal HoM this year)

I'm pretty sure that his BA would have been much better and his strikeouts much lower during the first two decades of the last century.

I think that yest has an excellent point here. It's not a given that flattening his swing would have increased his contact rate, at least to the point of making him acceptable in an era which abhorred strikeouts (the much higher error rates do put a premium on putting the ball in play; somebody might make a muff). Combine that with a lack of speed and Harmon has a real problem.

He might have wound up competing with Gavvy Cravath for the only MLB job open for a large slow guy; playing in that postage stamp of a RF in Baker Bowl for one of the few teams that didn't emphasize the stolen base, and hitting some dingers. The interesting question here is: who would have been better in that context?
   29. Trevor P. Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:07 AM (#2102762)
Sorry, comrades - I missed a few years there. Buying a car, moving to a new city, starting a new job, and visiting le family will do that to a person.

All my bracketed positions are from 1977, by the way. I would have had Kaline, Santo and Marichal 1-2-3 last year (which was my birthday year, so if there's any cake left...)

1) Bob Gibson (ne). Top five in IP eight times. Great WARP peak.
2) Harmon Killebrew (ne). Best career hitter available.
3) George Van Haltren (2). Consolidated league, long career, scads of win shares, and a pretty decent late-career prime. Don’t be swayed by the latest WARP translations (or, if you are, make sure you vote for Bob Johnson!) - GVH belongs.
4) Jake Beckley (3). 125 OPS+ in over 10,000 adjusted AB is quite a lot of value, even though I've moved slowly towards valuing a 9-year prime over a strict career.
5) Billy Pierce (6). I know it’s in vogue to compare Pierce to Marichal. But we enshrined contemporary Bob Lemon, and Pierce has nearly double (198 to 107) the amount of adjusted PRAA, and wins out in DERA 3.97 to 4.17. Do 220 more total bases at bat really make up that difference? If Lemon belongs, so does Pierce.
6) Quincy Trouppe (4). More appearances per season than Schang, and a much better hitter than Mackey. Probably Hartnett-lite. It's been bandied about on the Negro League induction thread that Trouppe wasn't even nominated for consideration, which unless our evaluations are way off is quite a shame.
7) Cupid Childs (5). Coming into the 1970s, I'd thought I might have been overrating Childs's contributions, but my 2B reevaluation in 1971 underscored how impressive his peak really was.
8) Bob Johnson. (12) Beats Minoso in career EQA, WARP1, WARP3, and OPS+. Probably one of the top five or six OF of the 1930s. Something interesting I noticed awhile ago - Johnson appears to be the only eligible player we haven’t enshrined who, according to BP’s translations, would have hit 500 HRs.
9) Edd Roush (7). Hurt by the discount to WARP3. Comparable to the now-elected Richie Ashburn.
10) Burleigh Grimes (8). Substantial movement in 1976 after comparing his case with Eppa Rixey, whom I had as high as #2. His extreme highs are enough to balance out his scary lows; if he’d grouped them all together, instead of vacillating between the two extremes, we might have the pitching equivalent of George Sisler.
11) Minnie Minoso (ne). Similar to Bob Johnson; placement depends on how much credit you give for his pre-ML play. I can’t fathom how one could have Minoso in an elect-me position and Johnsn off-ballot, though.
12) Bob Elliott (9). Not as good as Stan Hack, but quite similar. Severe lack in quality 3B during Elliott’s era (unlike Boyer’s).
13) Dick Redding (10). No longer do I see him as better than Grimes.
14) Jimmy Ryan (15). All the GVH comparisons are valid; I just think Van Haltren’s a tad better.
15) Joe Sewell (ne). Value accrued above contemporaries at his position helps him, just as it does Elliott.

Jose Mendez - Below Koufax, whom I had around #25.
Hugh Duffy - Win Shares might like his fielding, but WARP declares him to be average. His 1894 doesn’t impress me as much when league strength is taken into account.
Ralph Kiner – In a second tier of short-career corner outfielders like Charlie Keller and Pete Browning. He’s the best, though, and is currently just off the ballot.
Rube Waddell - Also not too far from the ballot; similar to Tommy Bridges.
   30. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:13 AM (#2102772)
The interesting question here is: who would have been better in that context?

High batting average, lots of speed... More of a 2b's and 3b's guy than an HR guy.

Guys like Roberto Clemente, Pete Rose, Vada Pinson, Lou Brock.
   31. DL from MN Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:17 AM (#2102777)
1981 ballot
sorry no comments but there's a new baby (KL from MN) in my house this week.
1) Bob Gibson
2) Harmon Killebrew
3) Bob Johnson
4) Billy Pierce
5) Norm Cash (I think I'm his best friend also)
6) Orlando Cepeda
7) Ken Boyer
8) Ralph Kiner
9) Bob Elliott
10) Charlie Keller
11) Tommy Bridges
12) Dutch Leonard
13) Jake Beckley
14) Jose Mendez (makes my ballot for the 1st time)
15) Minnie Minoso
16) Virgil Trucks
17) Joe Sewell
18) Quincy Trouppe
19) Frank Howard
20) Dick Bartell
   32. jimd Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:56 AM (#2102875)
The interesting question here is: who would have been better in that context?

Sorry. I meant Cravath or Killebrew.

We can already guess how effective Ichiro might have been ;-)
   33. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:21 AM (#2102991)

Couldn't we also say that a guy like Pie Traynor would have been much worse in the Modern era? yes, hew as a good fielder, but with no power or walks and an offensive game built completely on BA, I think he was in the perfect era for him. I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to vote that way, fine, but you should at least be consistent with it and not only dock low BA sluggers but also BA-only players as well and any other player that may not translate well to other eras.


How is Lombardi better than Killer? Just curious.
   34. yest Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:13 AM (#2103067)
that wasn't the reason for his low vote just the low BA his terrible speed and terrible fielding I wasn't docking him for era ajustments that was just the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Killerbrew
   35. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 06:21 AM (#2103069)
oh, sorry about that yest.
   36. mulder & scully Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:08 AM (#2103080)
Thane -
Here are my comments about Rube Waddell and minor league credit. Copied over from the Juan Marichal thread. Also reposted to the Rube Waddell Thread.

Early Rube Waddell Timeline:
1897: Signs a $500 contract with Louisville at age 18. Jumps team after being fined $50 by Fred Clarke for excessive drinking. Pitches 2 games.
1898: Goes to Detroit of the Western League. Pitches 9 games and jumps team to pitch semi-pro in Canada
1899: Returns to Western League with Columbus-Grand Rapids and wins 27 games. Louisville gives him another chance, goes 7-2.
1900: Goes 8-13 with Pit but leads league in ERA. Jumps team/farmed out/let go with sighs of relief to play for Connie Mack with Milwaukee in the Western League in July. After going 10-3 in the summer for Milwaukee, Pit demands his return. Finishes year with league best ERA.
1901: Clarke again fed up with Waddell after 2 starts at beginning of season. Dreyfuss sells him to the Cubs. Suspended for last month of season for erratic behavior. Plays for semi-pro team in Wisconsin.
1901-02: Hooks up with barnstorming team and makes it to California where Mack signs him for the Athletics in early summer of 1902.
From Total Ballplayers.

Personally, I give extra credit rather liberally. Charley Jones gets 2+ years for suspension, Ralph Kiner gets one for WWII, Keller gets 1.75 for WWII, and big believer in NeL MLEs. But I have not given credit to Waddell before because I don't see his minor league sojourns as anyone's fault but his own.

1897: NL Louisville - At 18, he was good enough to be a major leaguer, but Fred Clarke tried to reign him in and Waddell jumped the team.
1898: Western League Detroit - Jumps the team to pitch semi-pro ball in Canada.
1900: NL Pittsburgh - leads the league in ERA but jumps team in middle of year to play for Connie Mack in Western League Milwaukee, before returning at end of year.
1901: NL Pittsburgh - Clarke finally at wits end and has Dreyfuss sell Waddell to Cubs. Cubs suspend him for last month of season. Ends up in California barnstorming.
1902: Wins 10-12 games in Los Angeles before Mack purchases contract for Athletics.

The contraction years were 1899 and 1900.
In 1899, Waddell was 20 years old and had jumped 2 contracts in two years. I could see a team being hesitant about bringing him back.
In 1900, Waddell started the year with Pitt, but jumped team/left team/ something in the middle of the season, but was brought back by the end of the season.

To me, I see a player who was okay with playing in the "major" leagues, but was also okay with not playing. I see Fred Clarke bring him back to his team two times after he jumped the team. Many players were blackballed for such. Waddell wasn't. I don't see a player trapped. I don't see his career being hurt much, if at all, by the 4 team contraction. I see a player with phenomenal talent who got every chance in the book.
Personally, that is why I don't think Waddell deserves any minor league credit. Your Mileage May Vary.

End of copying

I can have Waddell's minor league stats up the first week in August. If anyone else gets there first, please go ahead.
   37. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:25 PM (#2103171)
A better question to ask is "would the scouts have even SIGNED Dave Kingman in 1895?"; very likely, no, he never would have played pro ball at all.

I think you mean Dave Kingman the prototype. I'm just about sure that Dave Kingman the actual player was drafted as a pitcher/batter combo. Apparently he had a terrific arm. I'm sure Steve Treder could comment on this, further, but I would suspect that Kingman would have simply ended up a pitcher with occasional batting prowess instead of a feast or famine slugger.

I also wonder if Kingman's eccentricities would have been somewhat mitigated by the Wagner/Burkett era. The money wasn't as big, there was no draft to puff up his ego, there wasn't a 75+ year tradition of "playing the game right" to rub against, and, heck, the position of field manager had barely come into its own. I wonder if he'd have been given a nickname like "Crab" and just left to brood. Unless he was a McGraw man, of course.
   38. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:45 PM (#2103190)
Couldn't we also say that a guy like Pie Traynor would have been much worse in the Modern era?

I don't want to tie up the ballot thread with this discussion - if people want to have it, I'm sure John can think of a good place for it. I'll simply say this: In the modern era, Pie Traynor would never have been shifted off SS.

-- MWE
   39. karlmagnus Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:57 PM (#2103201)
Jschmeagol (33) Killer couldn't catch for toffee. If you add 15-20 points of OPS+ for Schnozz being even a mediocre catcher, he soars ahead of Killer. Lombardi is undervalued by the electorate, IMHO. 125 OPS+ as a catcher doesn't grow on trees.
   40. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: July 18, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2103235)
karl, 15-20 OPS+ points is pretty generous, especially since Killer had many more ab's and a longer career, not to mention teh higher peak.


Good point. Then again ARod was moved off of short. Chances are, however, that if Traynor were moved off of SS today it would be to 2B not 3B, i.e. to the more important defensive position where his value would have been higher. I just dont' think his offensive game would have been a potent though.
   41. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:03 PM (#2103263)
I'm sure Steve Treder could comment on this, further, but I would suspect that Kingman would have simply ended up a pitcher with occasional batting prowess instead of a feast or famine slugger.

Of course, like the Killer, his batting style would have been different. I doubt he would have been the all-or-nothing slugger that I remember growing up. Maybe he would have been Harry Davis at the plate.
   42. Daryn Posted: July 18, 2006 at 03:38 PM (#2103325)
Killer couldn't catch for toffee

Is toffee supposed to be so irresistible that one's physical abilities improve measurably if toffee is the prize for successful performance of the assigned task?
   43. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 18, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#2103375)
Must. Have. Toffee.
   44. Jim Sp Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#2103627)
Gibson #1, no doubt. Killebrew #21. Cardenas #46—4 seasons above 9.0 warp3. Pinson #85. McDowell #91. Perry, Osteen very good also.

1) Gibson--#13 pitcher all-time, easy #1.
2) Mendez--PHoM in 1932.
3) 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 years with WARP3 > 10.0, plus an 8.8 and an 8.5. Easy best Warp peak of the holdovers. PHoM 1939.
4) Ken Boyer--PHoM 1976. highly rated by WARP3.
5) Bob Johnson--A very underrated player. I was a WS guy but here in particular I think Warp has it right—great defense. PHoM in 1970.
6) Rizzuto--Lots of war credit. PHoM 1977.
7) Minoso--I gave full ML credit for two+ years.
8) PeskyWar credit: MVP type seasons in 1942, 1946, 3 years in between missed to war.
9) Hodges--have I lost my mind? Look at his FRAR and FRAA, the Warp3 is very very good. Maybe the writers remember something that we’ve forgotten.
10) Bartell--missed him earlier. Add a little war credit too.
11) Clift--Warp3 loves third basemen, maybe too much…
12) Dick Redding--
13) Dom DimaggioWar credit. More than 2/3 of a HoM career, missing age 26, 27, 28 seasons which should have been his peak. Terrific fielder.
14) Dobie Moore--
15) Cecil TravisWar credit. More than 2/3 of a HoM career by age 27, before going to war. Not the same player after.

Kiner #16, Beckley #78, Duffy #120, Waddell #45, Pierce #28.
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:43 PM (#2103664)
Killebrew #21.

   46. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 18, 2006 at 07:58 PM (#2103680)
Double wow. Jim can you offer a little explanatory note on that one? I'm a little surprised that Bartell or Clift or DD or Travis are six to 10 slots higher up than Harmon. Or for that matter higher up than Bancroft. But more importantly, higher than Killebrew.
   47. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2103685)
Double wow. Jim can you offer a little explanatory note on that one?

Looks like Jim is overdosing on defense. :-)
   48. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:01 PM (#2103687)
I would first like to thank all of you who have sent their kind thoughts my way. It's a nice feeling.
I live in Tel Aviv - we haven't been hit by missiles yet. Hopefully, it stays that way.
Also, hopefully, I don't get called up to serve in the reserves.

I didn't realize this rawagman . . . hopefully this all blows over quickly. Keep us posted on what you can.

I agree with Mike Emeigh about Traynor. I also think we are underrating him. His offense wasn't all batting average either, he was above average SLG too. Granted, a decent amount of that was batting average, but his Isolated Power was pretty good for a 1920s-30s 3B.

The more I think about it, the more he looks like Jimmy Collins to me. Compared to positional averages:

Player    OWP  PAv  OPS  PAv FRAA
Collins  .550 .482 .752 .681  154
Traynor  .529 .440 .797 .723   59 
   49. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#2103691)
I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation as to how Killebrew could be #21 either . . .
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:04 PM (#2103692)
I didn't realize this rawagman . . . hopefully this all blows over quickly. Keep us posted on what you can.

Same here, Rawagman.
   51. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:06 PM (#2103695)
1. Bob Gibson - Love the peak, had a reasonably long career. Most of the concerns about the era seem to be downgraded by his RA+ and the like.
2. Harmon Killebrew - I don't have him quite as close to Gibson as some, because his peak was sporadic. Still a damn fine ball player and a shoo-in HOM'er. Not much defensive value, but one of the best hitters of his era.
3. Ralph Kiner - Peak guy through and through. Career length the only ? Hard to argue with his age 24 - 28 seasons. Closer to Killebrew than Killer is to Gibson.
4. Jose Mendez - Initial analysis puts him here, due to fantastic peak. Could have been an all-time great if not for the arm troubles. Was a good enough hitter to hold a job as a position guy after the arm injury.
5. Minnie Minoso - I think this is a good spot for a guy who had the best balance of career and peak. Minnie is a guy I'm open to arguments that he should be lower. I might be sentimentally overrating him.
6. Joe Sewell - For a shortstop, tremendous peak for his time. Great glove guy. Not so good after move off of SS. Positional scarcity premium.
7. Billy Pierce - Guy I'm having some trouble with. Odd peak, but that 1955 keeps grabbing my attention.
8. Hugh Duffy - I like his overall profile. Good on-base guy, reasonably good glove. Love that his teams outperformed what they were supposed to do.
9. Ken Boyer - Good peak for a 3B in that era. Fantastic glove guy. Here looks about right.
10. George Van Haltren - Maybe I'm overrating his defense. But another guy who's overall profile I like. More of a career guy, but a decent, if not odd, peak.
11. Rube Waddell - What a peak. Decent career, only knock is he maybe didn't throw as many innings as you might like.
12. Charlie Keller - Basically Ralph Kiner lite. If he had played as many games as Kiner, he'd be right there with him.
13. Cupid Childs - A guy I might be underrating. I love those age 22 - 25 seasons, and it looks like he had a decent glove.
14. Pete Browning - Good peak gets a discount due to competition, but not so much that Pete doesn't get a spot on my ballot. May move up in the future as I look into him more.
15. Charley Jones - Right there with Browning, I just feel Browning did a little more to deserve his spot.

16-20 Cannonball Dick Redding, Dobie Moore, Norm Cash, Rube Waddell, Roger Bresnahan
   52. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:07 PM (#2103699)
The Waddell mention in my 16-20 should be Nellie Fox.
   53. favre Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:27 PM (#2103719)
I consider myself a prime voter, using a combination of OPS+/PA, ERA+/IP, and WS on a season-by-season basis. I also give weight to underrepresented eras and positions.

1. Harmon Killebrew
2. Bob Gibson

Tough call for the top spot. Gibson may be the best pitcher we’ve seen since we elected Hubbell back in ’49—without having checked too closely, I would take Gibby over Spahn and Ray Brown. But Killebrew’s longer prime, impressive peak (though not as impressive as Gibson’s), and eight hundred games at 3B (even if he wasn’t very good) give him a slight edge.

3. Charley Jones
4. Rube Waddell
5. Jake Beckley

From 1876-1880 Charley Jones posted OPS+ seasons of 183, 169, 158, 156, and 154. He was the best LF of the 1870s, and one the top 3 outfielders of that decade—and that does NOT include his two blacklisted years of 1881-2. I had basically ignored him for years, which was a big mistake on my part. Take a look at him again if it’s been a while.

Waddell has eight seasons with an ERA+ above 120, with a top four seasons of 179, 179, 165, and 153--and he was striking out between seven and eight guys per nine as he was posting those. Sisler’s election means we have narrowed down the 1B gap from thirty to twenty years, 1897 until 1915. Beckley’s thirteen seasons with an OPS+ above 122 keeps him in the top five.

6. Dobie Moore
7. Billy Pierce

I’ve dropped Moore some as Chris’ new numbers have sunk in, but I still think he’s the best shortstop on the ballot, and (Ernie Banks notwithstanding) has been for a while. He is very comparable to Banks without the mediocre years at 1B. I will take Moore’s 1921-5 seasons over Joe Sewell’s best five; if you give Moore credit for his Wrecker days, then I don’t see how you could put Sewell ahead.

We are very short on pitchers from 1941-55. Pierce is the best pitcher left from the 1950s, posting five seasons with an ERA+ over 130: 201, 148, 141, 136, 133, and a sixth season at 124. That’s a great prime for a pitcher, though he did play for a lot of teams with excellent defenses.

8. Ralph Kiner
9. Orestes Minoso

Minoso is similar to Beckley, in some respects; very good defense, not a particularly high peak but a long prime. In fact, if you add in Dr. C’s MLE’s, Minoso’s career stats start looking a lot like Beckley’s 125 OPS+ in 10, 470 plate appearances. It doesn’t make much sense to me to have a lot of distance between the two; I’m glad to see the electorate is beginning to agree. By my definition, anyway, Kiner’s prime is only one year shorter than Minoso’s, and his peak is a lot higher, with OPS+ seasons of 184, 184, and 173.

10. Vic Willis
11. Nellie Fox
12. Bucky Walters

We only have five pitchers in from 1896-1900. Willis pitched from 1898-00, so he’d give us another hurler in that era. More importantly, he had 4000 IP with an ERA+ of 118 (and seasons of 167, 155, and 154), so we’ve elected most of the guys like him.

So far we only have four infielders from the 1950s (Robinson, Resse, Mathews, and Banks). We also have no 2B after 1952, when Jackie moved to LF; Carew began his career in 1967, so that would be about a fifteen year gap. Fox’s career—over 2600 hits and 300 WS—gets him on the ballot. Walters prime from ‘39-46 (particularly his ’39-40 peak) earns him a spot. Although it is not a reason I’m voting for Walters, it would be good to have an HoM rep from the 39-40 Reds pennant winners.

13. Bob Elliott
14. Ken Boyer
15. Roger Bresnahan

Elliott and Boyer drop as a bunch of guys who played some third—Santo, Killebrew, Allen, Brooksie, Torre—arrive onto our ballots. Still, Ken and Bob were both outsatnding players, and worthy HoM'rs. Elliott was a better hitter and had a little longer prime, which gives him the edge over Boyer’s defense. Boyer would give us another 1950s infielder.

We also have no one at catcher from 1891-1910. Bresnahan would not only help fill that gap, but also (a possible) one at CF from 1901-5, depending on what position you assign Pete Hill.

16-20: Gavvy Cravath, Jose Mendez, Wally Schang, Cupid Childs, Frank Howard.

Jose Mendez: Has been in my pHoM for years, and is still in my top twenty. I would welcome his induction, although I think there are several pitchers with better cases in front of him.

Hugh Duffy: Only one big year, and I question his WS A+ fielding grade. There is also no dearth of centerfielders in the Hall of Merit.

Joe Sewell: See Moore comment. Sewell does not stack up well with other SS in the HoM.
   54. Sean Gilman Posted: July 18, 2006 at 08:34 PM (#2103734)

1. Bob Gibson (-)--He’s good.

2. Harmon Killebrew (-)--Him too.

3. Pete Browning (3)--If he played in the PCL in the 00s or the Negro Leagues in the 30s, would he be a HOMer by now? Same as with the Negro Leaguers, the league translations inordinately underrate his peak. Besides, it isn’t like the AA wasn’t a major league. A better gladiator than Russell Crowe. (1927)

4. Charley Jones (4)--Jones, Shoeless Joe Jackson and Browning look pretty interchangeable to me. (1929)

5. Cupid Childs (5)--Where has the love for Cupid gone? (1938)

6. Tommy Leach (6)--May be the most underrated candidate out there. Great career value, fine peak and played two premium defensive positions. (1942)

7. Minnie Minoso (8)--Comparison with Clemente showed I’d been underrating his nice balance of career and peak in favor of more one-sided candidates. (1979)

8. Larry Doyle (9)--Another underrated infielder. Sisler-esque peak , according to win shares.(1945)

9. Edd Roush (10)--Another beneficiary of the Clemente Comparison. A good all-around outfielder who somehow got lost in the rush to induct every OF from the 30s.

10. Ken Boyer (11)--The borderline infielders are a mess. Elliott, Boyer, Sewell, Doyle, Gordon, Doerr, Fox, Sisler, they are all essentially the same, all are about equally deserving of being in or out of the HOM. I think Boyer’s defense trumps Elliott’s bat. (1975)

11. Joe Sewell (12)--From almost elected to weirdly underrated, but he'll get in eventually. (1976)

12. Hugh Duffy (13)--High peak, medium length career, the best of a large group of borderline OF candidates. (1964)

13. George Van Haltren (14)--Almost a HOMer not too long ago, will make it eventually. (1966)

14. Jose Mendez (15)--Peak was probably a bit higher than Mays, but the two are very even. (1972)

15. Carl Mays (16) (1968)--Nice peak, good career value, yet he seems to have completely fallen off the HOM radar in favor of Billy Pierce, which I still don’t understand at all.

(Max Carey)
16. Alejandro Oms (17)
(Richie Ashburn)
(Sam Thompson)
17. Ralph Kiner (18)
18. Nellie Fox (19)
(Joe Medwick)
(Earl Averill)
19. Frank Howard (20)
(Joe Gordon)
(Bobby Doerr)
20. Quincy Trouppe (21)
(Red Faber)
21. Bob Elliott (22)
(Red Ruffing)
22. Bucky Walters (23)
23. Wally Berger (24)
(Ted Lyons)
24. Dick Redding (25)
25. Ed Williamson (26)
26. Dobie Moore (27)
27. Norm Cash (28)
28. Vada Pinson (-)
29. Orlando Cepeda (29)
(Bob Lemon)
30. Billy Pierce (30)
   55. OCF Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#2103801)
Jim Sp's ballot is pretty startling but right now it's merely a close race between him and karlmagnus for lowest consensus score. The question I'd have for Jim Sp: how do you get Bob Johnson at #5 and Killebrew at #21? Your qoute about Johnson mentions defense, but a good corner outfielder is still just a corner outfielder.

At the other end of the scale: Got Melky? is a very strong candidate for having the highest consensus score this year. That can happen sometimes with a new voter - letting himself be influenced but the established voting patterns, and too new to have crusted over with favorite teddy bears and lost causes. However: to call him on one letter-of-the-law point, he does owe us an explanation for why he's not voting for Jake Beckley.
   56. DavidFoss Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2103809)
The question I'd have for Jim Sp: how do you get Bob Johnson at #5 and Killebrew at #21?

Hodges #9 compared to Killebrew #21 is interesting as well. Again, that is a lot of fielding. Its interesting, but not a huge deal. Even though I'm a huge Twins fan, I recognize that Harmon is far from inner circle and I was not expecting anything close to elect-me-vote unanimity.
   57. Jim Sp Posted: July 18, 2006 at 11:03 PM (#2103878)
Where were you guys when I posted on the discussion board last week, begging for some feedback?

the short answer is that I started taking the warp (in particular) defense numbers seriously and went to a peak oriented system.

Killebrew 109 95 87 74 73 71 70 66 64 62 55 53 51 39
Hodges 109 95 88 88 81 77 77 76 67 52 31 22
Johnson 103 98 91 90 82 78 77 73 71 71 58 57 52
Sewell 112 106 105 103 102 88 85 69 69 56 49 44

Years 1-9 Hodges is ahead of Killebrew
Years 1-13 Johnson is ahead of Killebrew
Sewell's years 1-9 again are way way ahead of Killebrew and everyone else from the backlog.

If you think warp is wacked, that won't be very convincing. On this ballot I came around to trusting the warp numbers, I think they value defense more appropriately than win shares. But I could be wrong about that. Also could be wrong about the war credit I handed out. If you care a lot about Killebrew's 10th and 14th best seasons then also I guess the above is not convincing.

Killebrew was a born DH who couldn't run, Hodges was a brilliant defensive first baseman, and Bob Johnson was a brilliant corner outfielder (check the assist totals). Killebrew was terrible everywhere they put him. There's more to baseball than hitting home runs and walking. Bill James in Win Shares gave very conservative defensive credit to players because he wasn't confident in his system. At the far end of the spectrum (i.e. the players we care about here) that means that Win Shares consistently undervalues defensive excellence at the expense of offensive excellence. Also the low replacement level of win shares gives lots of credit to good players who stick around forever, such as Killebrew.

Anyhow, that's the discussion we could have had last week, and can have next week. I certainly could be wrong, and I might even lean toward thinking that I am wrong. But I ain't changing my ballot now.

Don't worry Killebrew fans, it isn't going to matter.
   58. Jim Sp Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:07 AM (#2103974)
Killebrew 109 95 87 74 73 71 70 66 64 62 55 53 51 39
Hodges 109 95 88 88 81 77 77 76 67 52 31 22
Johnson 103 98 91 90 82 78 77 73 71 71 58 57 52
Sewell 112 106 105 103 102 88 85 69 69 56 49 44
   59. Jim Sp Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:08 AM (#2103978)
Sigh. Of course the columns lined up in the preview. Tried pre tags, that didn't work. What's the secret again?
   60. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:36 AM (#2104026)
Killebrew 109  95  87  74  73 71 70 66 64 62 55 53 51 39
Hodges    109  95  88  88  81 77 77 76 67 52 31 22
Johnson   103  98  91  90  82 78 77 73 71 71 58 57 52
Sewell    112 106 105 103 102 88 85 69 69 56 49 44 
   61. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:38 AM (#2104031)
"code" is the tag. With square brackets [] [/].
Compose in wordpad with a fixed width font (Courier) and fill with spaces (no tabs)!
   62. jimd Posted: July 19, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2104118)
At the far end of the spectrum (i.e. the players we care about here) that means that Win Shares consistently undervalues defensive excellence at the expense of offensive excellence.

Win Shares also refuses to speak ill of the defensively-challenged
(which is the flip side of the above).

Killebrew also played his entire career in the AL at its weakest. He still has a good career but it's not as impressive as Win Shares makes out to be, and the peak is just ordinary. He's still going into my PHOM on the first ballot, but the idea that he's an upper-third HOMer (as suggested by his NBJHBA ranking), well, I'd say more like bottom-third.
   63. DavidFoss Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:50 AM (#2104349)
My top three (all newbies) were elected last week. This week, the top two are newbies.

1981 Ballot
1. Bob Gibson (ne) -- 127 ERA+ in 3800 IP is hard to find in the post-war period. Gibson didn't have the extremely longevity of many of the guys who followed 5-10 years after he did, but his career is longer than most backloggers and he has an excellent prime.
2. Harmon Killebrew (ne) -- The Twins fan in me wants to point out that he led the Majors in BB and HR for the 1960s. A 143 OPS+ in 9800 PA is well within the HOM's standards. He's like Kiner with a much longer career and I have Kiner not too far down the list. That said, the league was not strong and Harmon had no glove. Looks a bit like a modern version of Heilmann (power instead of avg of course). Probably a notch below Harry. It would be interesting to see him on the same ballot as guys like Kaline, Clemente, Santo, Marichal, etc, but all these types of guys are being elected too quickly.
3. Larry Doyle (4) -- I think the electorate is underrating him, his support is waning. Fine second baseman for great Giants teams. Solid peak. Fielding was mediocre, but not as bad as WARP suggests.
4. John McGraw (5) -- 135 OPS+ is aided by the fact that its OBP heavy. In fact, his OBP is 3rd all time. Playing time issues keeping him out of the HOM so far...
5. Cupid Childs (6) -- Very comparable to Doyle. OPS+ is OBP heavy. Fielding was good, but not A-level.
6. Ralph Kiner (8) -- Top-notch peak, career sputtered out a bit too early. Still, 149 OPS+ in 6256 PA with a healthy peak on top of that is pretty darn good.
7. Gavvy Cravath (9) -- Cravath has a monster peak that is holding up against new eligibles.
8. Charley Jones (10) -- Unfairly blacklisted. Appears to be a hybrid or Pike/Stovey/Thompson, guys I've ranked fairly highly. Returning to my ballot after a sizeable absence. He is not from an underrepresented era which is making me a bit apprehensive about his future on my ballots.
9. Dick Redding (7) -- "Cannonball" had the 2nd best fastball of the 10's according to Neyer/James.
10. Roger Bresnahan (11) -- Great five year peak at C. 126 OPS+ is OBP-heavy. Didn't appear to play full-time outside his peak though... getting a small subjective boost due to catcher shortage from his era.
11. Joe Sewell (12) -- Top SS of the 1920s. High OBP, excellent glove. Decent peak, but a peak that warrants a longer career for a slam dunk induction. Still better than most. New candidates have pushed him off of many ballots and it will be interesting to watch to what degree his support returns as we dip deeper into the backlog.
12. Bob Elliott (13) -- Great hitter for five years... not as great as Al Rosen, but much more meat to his career making him more ballot-worthy.
13. Billy Pierce (14) -- Fine mid-size career candidate. Scores well in RSAA.
14. Charlie Keller (15) -- Tough guy to rank, but thought I'd toss him some love. A legitimate HOM peak, but issues with minor league credit before, war credit during, and his health later have kept him low. Its tough to pull the trigger on a borderline guy when so much of his value is speculative.
15. Al Rosen (nr) -- He's been hovering in the upper teens of my ballot for years and I'm finally pulling the trigger on Big Al. An all time great peak at the hot corner, but career length issues have kept him down.
16-20. Browning, BJohnson, Chance, Lombardi, Fox,
21-25. Beckley, Welch, Trouppe, DMoore, Roush,
26-30. Minoso, FHoward, Cash, Leach, Waddell,
31-35. KBoyer, Cepeda, Newcombe, TBridges
   64. rawagman Posted: July 19, 2006 at 09:24 AM (#2104424)
However: to call him on one letter-of-the-law point, he does owe us an explanation for why he's not voting for Jake Beckley.

He's a peak voter - stands to reason he won't be voting Beckley. Mind you, he did vote for GVH.

Tel Aviv is still safe.
   65. Willie Mays Hayes Posted: July 19, 2006 at 11:52 AM (#2104450)
However: to call him on one letter-of-the-law point, he does owe us an explanation for why he's not voting for Jake Beckley.

He's a peak voter - stands to reason he won't be voting Beckley. Mind you, he did vote for GVH.

I do like GVH's overall portfolio, if you will, a bit more than Beckley. I have Beckley at 21 right now, and can see him sneaking into the lower portions of my ballot in weaker years upcoming. As of right now, I'm not seeing much of a peak, and as a 1B, I'd like to see a better career to equate him with GVH, a CF. Perhaps I am making too much of a positional adjustment, but to me, Beckley seems an awful lot like Mark Grace.
   66. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:09 PM (#2104454)
Where were you guys when I posted on the discussion board last week, begging for some feedback?

I personally didn't notice it, Jim.

the short answer is that I started taking the warp (in particular) defense numbers seriously and went to a peak oriented system.

At the beginning of everyone's ballot, there should be some type of preface stating what type of voter you are and what statistical systems you use. Cuts down on the posts. :-)
   67. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:44 PM (#2104472)
[Copied to discussion thread for, uh, discussion.]


Thanks for the explanation. I did see your previous post about trusting WARP, but somehow I didn't remember the rankings associated with it. I guess my questions are these:
1) In the same vein as your saying "who cares about years 14 and 15?" who cares about 1B/RF/LF defense?
2) Why use WARP3 instead of WARP1? The issues with defense in 1 are complicated in 3 by the all-time adjustments which many folks on this board (self included) see problems with, and which, for instance, see Bartell's league as superior to Killebrew's, a proposition any timeliner worth his salt should find dubious.
3) Personal opinion: while James' defense system is conservative, WARP's defense rankings are inflated, and while I use James' myself (because they are more conservative), I suspect the truth is between them, and that can dramatically effect player rankings.

What evidence can I muster in support of this view? According to the SBE, Killebrew created 430 more runs than the average player at his position(s). Bartell created 147 more runs than a player at his position. So Killebrew created 283 more runs above position than Bartell did. In order to be placed ahead of Killebrew, Bartell should logically have at least 283 fielding runs above Killebrew.

Bartell played 13.1 seasons worth of games. If Killebrew had average defense, Bartell would have to be about 21 runs above average per season to catch Harm, which would be highly unlikely since only guys like Ozzie get close to that level. Of course, Killer doesn't, he's below average. WARP1 says he's at -107 FRAA, or 107 below average with the glove. Bartell is credited with 150 FRAA. That's a big swing, 157 runs. It's not enough. In WARP3, the difference is closer: -129 and 143, for a 272 run swing. That's still not enough, there's still a win's worth of difference there.

WARP sees Bartell as a defensive superstar with four seasons where he's worth 10+ WARP1. Because I don't trust how they are going about figuring defensive replacement, I can't say that I agree with them. But I can say that their calculations make Bartell out to be a slightly better and more peak-friendly candidate than Killebrew, which seems like a stretch to me, though I'm not dimissing that result out of hand. If they figured a way to use FRAA somehow to figure WARP (in other words, if they changed how they define defensive replacement), they might come up with a very different result, one where Bartell is likely behind Killebrew. This in addition to the fact that Killebrew is getting heavily penalized for below average performance at positions that don't have much defensive impact (especially in the post-war era), is where my skepticism comes in and lead me to ask in the first place why Bartell (at 104.9 WARP3) is 15 slots ahead of Killebrew (101.4).

[queue my once-monthly argument with Jimd about WARP's valuation of replacment!!!! ; ) ]
   68. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM (#2104475)
Also, MWE, I agree, Killer is not a top-third HOMer or HOFer. He's slightly below the middle of the pack for me, say, in the teens among all 1Bs ever.
   69. karlmagnus Posted: July 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM (#2104478)
Got Melky, we've had the Beckley/Grace discussion many times over the last 80 "years". Beckley's got 3-4 more years of career, plus he was a better hitter. Palmeiro's close -- slightly better hitter than Beckley, for equivalently long career. However, 1B was a much more important defensive position in Beckley's day, about equivalent to a modern CF (though with quite different skills needed.)

Having said that, 21 is perfectly reasonably within striking distance, so us Beckley fans look forward to a weak year. It's the guys who have him 145th I don't understand at all.
   70. Mike Webber Posted: July 19, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#2104618)
Karlm wrote
However, 1B was a much more important defensive position in Beckley's day, about equivalent to a modern CF (though with quite different skills needed.)

Having watched Mike Sweeney not catch pick off throws or dig balls out of the dirt or get his foot on the bag the last three seasons, I fully buy into the fact that a competent first baseman is a nice thing at any point in history.

However,I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus that 1b in 1890 was equivalent to a modern centerfielder, if there was he would have waltzed into the HOM long ago.
   71. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:22 PM (#2104693)
However,I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus that 1b in 1890 was equivalent to a modern centerfielder, if there was he would have waltzed into the HOM long ago.

I'm almost certain that Karl is correct except for the third digit in the year he gave. Change it to 1880 or 1870 and I'm pretty sure that supposition is accurate. By 1890, I'd need more information on how widespread the adoption of gloves ws among MLB 1Bs. I'd expect it was universal, but I don't know it. I think Beckley was probably in the first generation of guys whose careers were either entirely within or virtually entirely within the glove era. Someone please let me know if I'm off.

I think Grace is a near-perfect comp for their best respective 10 years. But Graces loses about 75 WS after that. Here's some guys who Bekcley could be compared to either in terms of peak/prime or else career value.
NAME       3   5  10  15 CAREER
BECKLEY   76 122 231 329  380

<peak comparitives*>
GRACE     78 126 227 301  302
DAUBERT   79 123 217 282  282
GALARRAGA 77 120 207 255  260
MORRILL   78 120 213 253  253
WERTZ     77 122 190 228  230
B  77 121 200 212  212
HARGROVE  74 120 205 220  220 

<career comparitives>
PALMEIRO  92 143 262 362  406
VERNON    90 135 237 318  352
McGRIFF   86 137 248 324  349

*all within four WS in 3-yearnonconsecutive peak and above 120 WS in 5-yearnonconsecutive peak.
all above 349 career WS with 3-yearnonconseuctive peak of 92 or less

I think it should be obvious from this chart that the paucity of peak cannot be understated. But also that while his career is quite lengthy and consistent, even at its long length, he's nowhere near the candidate that Vernon and McGriff are, let alone Palmeiro whom he's often copared to. Beckley is just not as good as these guys from a value perspective--not nearly.

Alright, but what about that 1B was tougher then and WS doesn't account for it? Even generously adding a WS a year (roughly 50% on most seasons) for playing 1B in a more difficult time would only increase his peak to 79 WS over three years. His peak still ranks with Grace's and might look as good as like Fred Tenney's. Adding these fielding WS would get him almost even with Palmeiro on career, but it doesn't change the fact that Palmeiro walks all over Beckley's peak and prime.

I'm convinced, and have been for a while, that Beckley is, valuewise, Mark Grace+4, where the four represents four standard-issue mid-90s Grace seasons of about 20 WS in value. Does that impress anyone outside of Wrigleyville? Deep in their hearts? Given how much seperation exists in the peak/prime gap between Beckley and other, more contemporary long-career/moderate-peak 1Bs (not only Palmeiro but also Perez and Murray, let alone McGriff and Vernon), labeling Beckley as the earlier incarnation of them seems inaccurate.
   72. Adam Schafer Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#2104698)
1. Bob Gibson - I like Killebrew, but Gibson was an absolute stud.

2. Harmon Kilebrew - Could've been #1 many other years, not that it matters, he'll be elected this year with Gibson

3. Mickey Welch - 300 wins should not be an automatic stat to get you in. Everyone says wins were easier to come by back then. Pitchers were used more, and thus able to win more. I guess the pitchers back then weren't aware of this since not many of them won 300 games. Welch may have pitched against worse teams...wasn't Welch and Keefe (who got elected) on the same team, pitching against the same teams for quite awhile? Top 10 pitcher in almost all major pitching categories from 1880-1889. Was never "the" best, but was consistently one of the best over and over.

4. Jake Beckley - not quite the peak, but plenty of career.

5. Burleigh Grimes - Between 1918-1931 he was pretty durable. A couple bad seasons mixed in, but all in all a dependable pitcher and I'm a career type of guy for the most part.

6. Joe Sewell - You couldn't strike the guy out! I absolutely love that about his career.

7. Nellie Fox - very close to Sewell in my rankings

8. Sam Rice - Top 10 in hits 12 of the years between 1917 and 1930, 8 times top 10 in Batting Average.

9. Gavvy Cravath - I looked long and hard at him, and decided I really needed to put more stock into his minor league years. With proper minor league credit now given, Gavvy has enough career to merit a spot on my ballot.

10. George Van Haltren - I welcome George back to my ballot after a long time away.

11. Pie Traynor - I can understand why everyone didn't fall head over heals for him, but I didn't imagine that he would recieve so little support.

12. Minnie Minoso - Initially thought he'd crack my top 10, then reading some discussion I didn't think he'd be top 30, but I've finally settled on him here. He still has plenty of room to move on my ballot though. Spots 14-20 are all easily exchangeable on my ballot.

13. Roger Bresnahan - if he had only caught more games, I'd have him a lot higher.

14. Wally Schang - Lots of extra credit for being a durable catcher.

15. Dick Redding - Finally has some room to move into my top 20.

16. Ernie Lombardi - I've said it before, I'll say it again, I love catchers, especially one with good career value. Ernie even has some peak to mix in. He didn't strike out, he hit for average, and SOMEHOW he got 27 triples in his career!

17. Bucky Walters - Been iffy on him for awhile. He has been more of a favorite for the peak voters, and not so much for the career voters, but another look at him shows me that he had a bit more career value than I was giving him credit for. Moving him up this high on my ballot is going to help Kiner out on mine too when there is room.

18. Ralph Kiner - Kiner finally breaks into the lower ranks of my ballot. If he could've had 2 more good (not even necassarily great) years, he could've moved up to the top 3 or 4 spots on my ballot. As is, not enough career value for me.

19. Billy Pierce - I like Pierce, I really do. Spots 15-20 are extremely tight. I don't have him ranked as far from Marichal as it may seem.

20. Cupid Childs - Extremley good 2nd baseman for his time. Not as much career as McPhee or I would've liked him better. Still not 100% sure I even want him this high.
   73. TomH Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:42 PM (#2104708)
Dr C, where do your career ##s come from? Are they adjusted for schedule or something else?
NAME....... 3.. .5.. .10. .15 CAREER
BECKLEY.. 76 122 231 329 380
PALMEIRO 92 143 262 362 406
VERNON.. 90 135 237 318 352
McGRIFF.. 86 137 248 324 349
   74. Jim Sp Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:52 PM (#2104720)
I think next time I'm going to average my old OPS+/ERA+/WSh system with the new warp3 system. And it is true that warp3 league adjustments--well, I have no idea if they are right or not. I assume they are better than what I could come up with myself.

Baby on the way (2nd daughter due Aug 10) so we'll see what I really get to.

Every system I come up with yields some odd results. Maybe I need to rely less on spreadsheets...however I'm enough of a geek that the spreadsheets are at least half of the fun ;-)

80 years of voting and I know less than what I thought I knew at the start.
   75. Jim Sp Posted: July 19, 2006 at 04:54 PM (#2104728)
oops, I'll copy to discussion thread...
   76. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 19, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2104741)

Yes, schedule adjusted, which includes for strikes. Vernon includes war credit. Should have mentioned that, thanks.
   77. Tiboreau Posted: July 20, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2104758)
1. sp Bob Gibson (nc)
2. 1b Harmon Killebrew (nc)
3. sp Jose Mendez (4, 2)—Dominated Negro era ball from 1910 to 1914, Mendez was similar in value to Rube Waddell except with more IP and without the flaky personality. His performance as a hitter and fielder in the ‘20s adds to his career value a bit as well.
4. ss Dobie Moore (5, 7)—Since his candidacy is based on his stellar peak (as well as pre-1920 credit) his numbers are underrated due to regression. Receives credit for his play with the 25th Infantry Wreckers from 1917 to 1920.
5. 2b Cupid Childs (10, 3)—One of the best infielders of the 1890s. Childs had a great peak, while his career was not overly short considering the rigors of playing infield at that time.
6. sp Bucky Walters (12, 5)—When at his best he was not only excellent pitcher but an inning eater as well. More career value than Ferrell but less peak value, especially considering the decreased competition during the war.
7. lf Ralph Kiner (6, 15)—Both Win Shares and WARP agree that Kiner & Keller were the best outfielders, peak-wise, available. Below Moore because, while their peak was better, Moore is closer to longer career, good peak infielders than the two peak-centric outfielders are to their counterparts.
8. lf Charlie Keller (7, ob)—See Ralph Kiner.
9. sp Dizzy Dean (8, 8)—For five years he was among the greatest pitchers of all-time. Sadly, his career essentially comprises of those five years. The greatest peak among eligible pitching candidates (excluding Bob Gibson).
10. 3b Al Rosen (9, ob)—Flip's candidacy is similar to Dean's: five excellent seasons without much else. Career cut short by Keltner at the front end and back injuries at opposite end.
11. cf Alejandro Oms (11, 4)—The Cuban Enos Slaughter: only one season over 30 WS, but 8 over 25; considering the effects of regression, had a nice peak as well as a real good career (340 WS).
12. sp Rube Waddell (15, 11)—While a real good player at his peak, his character created interesting issues for his teams, evidenced by his disappointing IP totals during that time and his UERA totals over his career.
13. cf Hugh Duffy (13, 6)—Excellent peak puts Duffy among the top of the outfield glut, and considering that his peak makes up 48.8% of his total WS, Duffy’s career value isn’t too shabby, either.
14. c Quincy Trouppe (14, ob)—Outside of Luke Easter and the 19th century Negro League stars, Trouppe’s records have been the one I've been least comfortable with. I've finally ranked him, however, finding him to be a bit better than Biz Mackey.
15. sp Billy Pierce (ob, 14)—Takes Eppa Rixey’s old spot on my ballot; while never great (according to the uber-stats), was always solid. Rixey had more career value, but Pierce’s peak was better, squeezing more into a shorter career. Very similar to Whitey Ford, and is also underrated due to usage patterns.

Required Disclosures:
25. 2b Nellie Fox (ob)—Two real good years followed by several slightly better than average ones. The opposite of Larry Doyle as a player, yet falls only one spot behind him.
27. sp Dick Redding (ob)—A pre-1920s Negro League candidate about whom little is known. Going by the translations on his thread, Cannonball would be much lower then this; I give him a boost considering the nature of the numbers in his era, but he is still primarily a career candidate.
28. lf Minnie Minoso (ob)—Negro League years help him stand out from a large crowd very good outfield candidates, but his five-year peak isn't enough IMO to push him into ballot territory.
31. ss Joe Sewell (ob)—He had a solid prime, dominating in an era of weak shortstops; however, his peak isn't quite as strong as I'd like and his best competition was banned from the majors. Similar in value to Bob Elliott according to WS.
50. 1b Jake Beckley (ob)—Yes, he had a long career, he just wasn't good enough in any one season for my taste.
   78. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2104773)
Yes, we're back. ;-)
   79. The Honorable Ardo Posted: July 20, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2104774)
Each player has their 78-79-80 ballot placement in parentheses. Last year, we elected Al Kaline (1), Ron Santo (2), and Juan Marichal (4).

1. Bob Gibson (new) - He wanted not only to win, but to dominate. 7-2 with 8 CG in nine World Series starts.

2. Harmon Killebrew (new) - There are a lot of guys who can play league-average defense. The ones who can hit like Killebrew and play average defense are inner-circle HoMers.

3. Jose Mendez (3-2-3) - More like Sandy Koufax than Wes Ferrell on the mound, even if he couldn't hit as well as Ferrell.

4. Wally Schang (4-4-6) - *His BBRef page says, "The ONLY great offensive catcher of the World War I era, and solid defensively as well. His greatness has been recognized in the Hall of Fame." *No offense meant to Louis Santop.

5. Billy Pierce (6-5-7) - He deserves leverage credit, on top of an already strong resume.

6. Norm Cash (new-8) - Like Pierce, Cash had the One Big Year, and a 139 career OPS+ coupled with consistently excellent 1B defense is nothing to sneeze at.

7. Charley Jones (5-3-5) - All positions, all eras. The only glaring NA-era omission.

8. Quincy Trouppe (7-6-9) - The tail of his career was preferable to the head of Campanella's career.

9. Ken Boyer (8-7-11) - a consecutive peak, entirely at 3B, in a strong league (1958-64). His rapid decline keeps him out of Santo territory.

10. Joe Sewell (9-8-12) - The best available SS. The latest research on Dobie Moore shows that Moore was slightly worse than Sewell in the same time span.

11. Nellie Fox (13-12-13) - a full grade better with the bat than Mazeroski, and nearly as skilled with the glove.

12. Dick Redding (11-10-14) - see my comments in his own thread.

13. Orlando Cepeda (new-15) - peak-a-licious career shape sneaks him onto my ballot.

14. Rabbit Maranville (x-14-x) - very high peak defensive value and cumulative career value. He has become a ballot fixture in quiet years.

15. Edd Roush (x-x-x) - A wide-ranging, power-hitting centerfielder whose best season was First World War-shortened.

16-20: Minoso, Kiner, Luque, Browning, E. Howard.
21-25: Beckley (10-11-10), Doyle, Bridges, F. Howard, Waddell.

I've soured on Beckley. Unless you accept that 1B in Beckley's day was as important defensively as 3B now, then he's a 10% better version of Harold Baines.
   80. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#2104775)
Baby on the way (2nd daughter due Aug 10) so we'll see what I really get to.

Good luck, Jim!

sorry no comments but there's a new baby (KL from MN) in my house this week.

Congrats, DL!
   81. karlmagnus Posted: July 20, 2006 at 04:00 PM (#2104779)
Beckley's a 5% better version of Harold baines on hitting, plus whatever percentage more importanbt 1B was in the 1890s. Since Baines is close to the borderline, that puts Beckley well above it. Suggest you un-sour on him.
   82. The Honorable Ardo Posted: July 20, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#2104780)
Vada Pinson is around #35. My CF rankings look like this:

Roush (15) -- gap -- Duffy/Pinson/F. Jones (top 35) -- gap -- Van Haltren/Ryan (top 45) -- the rest.
   83. rawagman Posted: July 20, 2006 at 04:15 PM (#2104787)
1) How is Beckley a 5% version of Baines?
2) who said Baines is close to borderline?
3) If Baines is close to borderline, how is 5% above that well above borderline?
   84. karlmagnus Posted: July 20, 2006 at 04:25 PM (#2104794)
1) OPS+ 125 vs 120 and a career that when adjusted is about 5% longer, plus 1B then vs. DH/OF now is probably about 10-15%.

2) We're not there yet, but I'd expect to have him around the bottom of my ballot and he gets some HOF support

3) We're not talking huge margins; 4.17% on batting plus a 5% longer career plus 10-15% on fielding is a lot of space. Palmeiro's better than Baines, Beckley's close to Palmeiro, but a little better when you adjust for fielding position difference and schedule. Eddie Murray's a good comp.
   85. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 20, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#2104804)
Eddie Murray's a good comp.

[Takes the bait]

Is not.
   86. karlmagnus Posted: July 20, 2006 at 05:15 PM (#2104834)
Same career length (when adjusted for schedule) 125 OPS+ Beckley vs 129 Murray and 1B was more important in Beckley's day and he didn't playe 1/4 of his career as a DH. Looks pretty comparable to me, Dr. C, with a slight edge to Beckley. Before you spend another 4 days crunching win share numbers, I don't believe in them; they're artificial and only really apply to the present day -- the adjustment factors are all wrong for a period without HR, with lots of errors and SB and with different fielding values.
   87. karlmagnus Posted: July 20, 2006 at 05:33 PM (#2104857)
Just to expand on my WS argument above, a high errors environment depresses the value of walks and home runs, in which the fielders can sit there and watch, and increases the value of hits, especially doubles and triples, in which they have to race across a vast bumpy field and fire an inaccurate throw with a dirty baseball into the infield. Triples were Beckley's specialty and are thus underrated by both WS and indeed OPS+. Hadn't bthought of that argument before, but it looks watertight to me.
   88. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2006 at 06:39 PM (#2104976)
Eddie Murray's a good comp.

[Takes the bait]

Is not.

Murray was a multiple MVP candidate, while Beckley wasn't. Since they both had long careers, I'll have to agree with Eric. They're not really close.
   89. karlmagnus Posted: July 20, 2006 at 06:52 PM (#2104993)
Any time the ball is hit (including outs, of course) there's a chance of an error. Batters who strike out, walk or hit homers (other than inside the park homers) are not giving errors a chance to occur. An Earl Weaver/sabermetric offense would thus be relatively ineffective in the 1890s, because it would benefit from few errors. Conversely, players like Beckley, or like Sliding Billy hamilton (stolen bases) were particulalry effective because they increased the error rate. Neither WS nor OPS+ captures this.
   90. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2006 at 06:57 PM (#2105009)
Here's Jeff M's ballot:

1981 Ballot

1. Gibson, Bob – Pretty much all the uber-systems agree that he is worthy. Tim McCarver gave me his proxy on this vote.

2. Killebrew, Harmon – Boy it took him a long time to get going. If this were last “year” he’d be fourth on the ballot, behind Santo, and he lags Gibson about as much as any #2 has lagged a #1 on my ballot. WARP1 thinks quite a bit less of him than WS. However, he took those “old player skills” about as far as you can, and deserves induction.

3. Oms, Alejandro – His closest comps appear to be Manush, Sisler and Wheat. All are already in the HoM and Oms played a more important defensive position than Sisler.

4. Jones, Charley – With all the extra credit given for minor league seasons, military service, etc., I finally broke down and gave Jones conservative credit for blacklisted seasons. He has been on my ballot every year even without the extra credit and the extra credit didn’t change his ranking much.

5. Waddell, Rube – RSI sheds some light on why his win totals aren’t what they could be.

6. Browning, Pete – After much teeth-gnashing, I increased the applicable AA discount, but he proved in the PL that he was no fluke. I don’t understand the arguments about his defense, since defense in the outfield really contributes little to the overall picture. Has been in my PHoM for most of the life of this project.

7. Minoso, Minnie – Not impressed with his Negro League stats, but they give him a boost on career measures. I believe he was one of the top outfielders in the majors during his career, but I’m not 100% convinced it was quite HoM level.

8. Wilson, Artie – An outstanding shortstop who outhit his competition by about 20% has to be on the ballot. I don’t see any real distinctions among Wilson, Sewell and Gordon, at least in terms of how to rank them.

9. Duffy, Hugh – A very good outfielder who hit approximately 40% better than the rest of the league. I’m in the process of recalculating all the grey ink scores for the candidates, using park adjusted numbers. Duffy’s grey ink dipped a bit when that happened, so he fell several spots on the ballot.

10. Sewell, Joe –He’s a nudge ahead of Joe Gordon in my system.

11. Dean, Dizzy – Short career obviously adversely affects his ranking.

12. Pierce, Billy – I don’t think he is HoM-worthy, but I think he’s close enough to be proud of.

13. McGraw, John – Doesn’t get enough credit for his abilities as a player.

14. Boyer, Ken – Boy he plummeted last week.

15. Fox, Nellie – Ditto.

Required Disclosure(s):

Kiner, Ralph – I’ve still got him as a short-career, weak-defending .274/.393/.539 guy. That’s good for #65 in my rankings, just behind Wally Schang and just ahead of Chuck Klein.

Mendez, Jose – He’s not in never never land like Redding. I’m committed to giving him another look…eventually, but he’s got a long way to go since he’s #60 in my rankings, between Rizzuto and Zimmerman.

Beckley, Jake -- He’s #41, a little behind Hack Wilson, tied with Urban Shocker, and a nudge ahead of Dave Bancroft.
   91. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:18 PM (#2105077)
Conversely, players like Beckley, or like Sliding Billy hamilton (stolen bases) were particulalry effective because they increased the error rate. Neither WS nor OPS+ captures this.

It's possible that such players increased the *number* of errors against their teams - but I wouldn't go so far as to assume that such players increased the *rate* of errors without a lot more evidence.

Triples were Beckley's specialty and are thus underrated by both WS and indeed OPS+.

Beckley's big seasons for triples were primarily in noted triples haven Exposition Park (he top-10'd in triples only twice outside of Expo, once in Rec Park in Pittsburgh and once in League Park II in Cincy, which was also a good triples park).

-- MWE
   92. rawagman Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:19 PM (#2105084)
I'm not sure I can buy into an argument that rests almost entirely, if not completely so, on the mistakes of other players.
   93. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:22 PM (#2105091)
Murray was a multiple MVP candidate, while Beckley wasn't. Since they both had long careers, I'll have to agree with Eric. They're not really close.

Righto! What Beckley and Murray have in common is
a) career length in years
b) position
c) a slugging percentage that is above the league and positional average...I didn't say how much.

That's the crux of their kinship. In fact, that's also the crux of Palmeiro's kinship with Beckley.
   94. mulder & scully Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2105124)
Used to be Kelly in SD

1981 Ballot:

To recap my balloting:
I consider prime/peak/per year/ and career and in that order.
Career totals adjusted for season length, WWI and II, minor leagues (rare), and blacklisting. Peak totals - 3 straight years for hitters and a 50/50 combo of 3 straight and best any 3 years for pitchers. Prime totals - best any 7 years. Seasonal average - per 648 PA for hitters and 275 innings for pitchers. Bonus for being a league all-star by STATS or Win Shares. Bonus for being the best pitcher in a league. Positional bonus for catcher. These numbers are weighted, combined and compared to theoretical maximums. Pitchers are adjusted for changes in the game (Pre 60', pre-Lively Ball, and current.) I try to have a fair mix of positions and time periods on my ballots. I consider place within decade as well.

PHOM: Gibson and Killebrew.

1. Bob Gibson: Best pitcher of the 1960s. Third best pitcher since Grove, only Spahn and Roberts are better in my system. Best career of any eligible pitcher. Peak is tied with Walters and Dean for best among eligibles. Prime is tied with Willis for best among eligibles. 6 years over 25 win shares is matched by no one among the eligibles. Yes, there is a slight adjustment for schedule length, but he is the best candidate by far. Best pitcher 3 times, 4 other times an all-star.
2. Mickey Welch: The weight of the evidence.
3. Charley Jones: The weight of the evidence. A top 10 position player from 1876 to 1885. Please see the Keltner List on his thread. All-time, through 1980, Jones ranks in a knot of five left fielders between 8th and 12th all-time. The other four are Simmons, Clarke, Stovey, and Magee.
4. Harmon Killebrew: 11th best first baseman so far. 2nd/3rd best of the 60s. Killebrew could play third or left if needed so I think he is more valuable than one who only plays first. Three true outcomes. 4 really big years push him this high.
5. Pete Browning: Hitter. Ranks at the top of a group of 5 center fielders between 13th and 17th all-time. Doby, Hill, and Brown are in the HoM, Duffy is not.
6. Charlie Keller: MVP level play for 6 straight years with 1.66 years of War credit. Only DiMaggio, Williams, and Musial were better in the 1940s before he hurt his back. I have him as the 13th best left fielder through 1979.
7. Hugh Duffy: A key member of the best team of the 1890s. Please see the Keltner List for him. I need to post that to the Duffy thread soon. Ranks in a group of 5 center fielders between 13th and 17th all-time. Doby, Hill, and Brown are in the HoM, Browning is not.
8. Quincy Troupe: A great hitting catcher whose nomadic career has done wonders to hide his value. I ask the many voters who trust the MLEs of elected or balloted NeLers to look again at Troupe. 10th best catcher of all time as of 19780.
9. Jose Mendez: From 1910 to 1914, only Johnson and Alexander were better. A gigantic peak.
10. Bucky Walters: Best peak available (tied with Dean) among eligible white pitchers.
11. Cupid Childs: Best second baseman of 1890s and its not close. 11th all-time among second basemen.
12. Vic Willis: Take another look. 4 times one of the top 2 pitchers in the National League.
13. Dobie Moore: Banks before Banks. My system finds them quite comparable. In a knot between 11th and 15th among shortstops through 1980 with Glasscock, Reese, Banks, and Jennings – all HoMers.
14. Tommy Leach: Great defense. Good hitting at two key defensive positions. A key player in one of the best defensive teams ever. 9th best third baseman if all credit for career is at third, 24th best center fielder if all credit is at CF. Split the difference and he is about even with Hack and Sutton (w/o NA credit).
15. Gavy Cravath: Credit for 1909, 1910, 1911. All players, All times. All-Star 5 times by STATS and Win Shares.
   95. DavidFoss Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2105129)
Any time the ball is hit (including outs, of course) there's a chance of an error. Batters who strike out, walk or hit homers (other than inside the park homers) are not giving errors a chance to occur. An Earl Weaver/sabermetric offense would thus be relatively ineffective in the 1890s, because it would benefit from few errors. Conversely, players like Beckley, or like Sliding Billy hamilton (stolen bases) were particulalry effective because they increased the error rate. Neither WS nor OPS+ captures this.

Um Karl, I could bend my brain to think of a reason why (value_HR - value_3B) might be slightly less back then that it is today, but your reasons here aren't correct in my opinion.

Basically a play that is scored a triple is going to clear the bases and leave a runner on 3B no matter what. Its got nothing to do with the fielding prowess of anyone on that particular play. The only possible advantage for the triples in the older era is that its more likely to batter to subsequently score due to fielding mishaps on *subsequent* plays.

Now, if you want to say that when a batter puts the ball in play in a poor fielding environment, that he is more likely to have a hit thats score a triple -- that better fielders would have held Jake to doubles more frequently -- then thats an advantage that *does* show up in OPS+ and WS and perhaps Beckley deserves a discount! (just kidding there).

The main descrepancy in poor fielding eras is not accounting for ROE. Since Beckley hit left-handed, he's not going to have as many ROE's as other batters. As a lefty, he'll hit more balls to RF will get him more triples though. :-) So, less advantage to Beckley in the *unmeasured* ROE's and more advantage to him in the *measured* triples.

I think its a slippery slope when you start trying to give batters bonuses for what is actually bad fielding.

Triples were Beckley's specialty and are thus underrated

Amusing semantic mishap there. :-) I suspect that might be the true motivation behind this line of logic.
   96. Daryn Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#2105153)
Murray, in fact, has the most career MVP shares of anyone who has never won an MVP. But Murray is a slam dunk HoMer -- in my view just outside the inner circle. That, as many of us have probably noticed is part of karlmagnus' charm -- he gets us into crazy arguments about whether Beckley or Carruthers is a good as Ruth or Cy Young, finally concedes, but say, see they aren't that far apart. It is why we love him. And I say this as someone who has Beckley 5th on the ballot.

I mean 3255 hits, 504 HR, 1627 runs, 1917 rbi -- say what you want about context and traditional stats, Murray was insanely good.
   97. mulder & scully Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#2105157)
16. Alejandro Ohms: Many years of all-star-plus years (over 25 win shares.) 19th among centerfielders through 1980. ould be dropping off the ballot soon.
17. Chance: Best peak and prime by a first baseman between Connor/ Brouthers and Gehrig.
18. George Burns: Best leadoff hitter of the 1910s NL. Overlooked.
<u>19. Kiner</u>: Just a hair behind Burns for best LF on my board.
<u>20. Minoso</u>: Did not place quite as high in his league as Burns and Kiner did.
21: Norm Cash: somewhere in here. Best first baseman in AL in 1961, 1963, 1965, 1966, and 1971. Even with the missed games.
22. Redding: Not enough shoulder seasons to go with the big 4 years.
23. Grimes: Too many ups and downs in his career to get elected, but I think he and Early Wynn are the same guy.
24. Cooper, Wilbur: He and Bunning are very similar, but Bunning is slightly better in several ways so there is an election gap between them.
25. Roush: PHOM for years.
26. Bresnahan: I have been overlooking him again. Great year in CF is a bonus. Look at how much better he was than other catchers of his era.
27. Doyle: Great hitter at second. Defense left something to be desired.
28. Easter: Could be anywhere between here and the ballot depending on how much credit I'm giving next week.
29. Long: Another key player on the 1890s Bostonians. Fantastic fielder.
30. Rosen: What if...
31. Stephens: Great hitter. More than adequate defense.
32. Frank Howard: Big drop. Did not place in his leagues.
33. Van Haltren: Lots of years of 25+ win shares in the 1890s. Too bad the other outfielders were putting up better every year.
34. Dean: Great peak. Just nothing else there.
35. Cepeda: A little behind Cash. Best first baseman in NL four times: 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1967. A little short on career, peak, and prime. Very close to ballot, but first base has the toughest standards.
<u>36. Waddell</u>: Does not have as many big years as the other great pitchers of his era. Lacks the innings pitched totals that other HoM pitchers of his era had. No credit for minor league time because he jumped his teams. He went to the minors on his own.
<u>37. Fox</u>: He certainly stood out over the other second basemen of his era. Too bad it wasn't that difficult.
38. Schang: I see the arguments
39. Tiernan: He had slipped through my net. Much better than I realized.
40. Fournier: Remember to give him credit for the White Sox screwing up.
41. Mays: The best supported pitcher, offensively and defensively, other than Spalding.
42. Monroe, Bill: He impressed the hell out of McGraw
43. Scales: Pretty good player.
44 McGraw: Just not healthy enough.
<u>45. Sewell</u>: A good player, but just a little short. Part of a reconsideration set to be done in time for 1985.
46. Berger: Not enough prime years for me.
47. Clarkson: Another good player who was introduced to me through this process.
48. Elliott: I need to review his candidacy
49. Shocker: A very good pitcher who faced very tough opponents.
50. Jones, F: Excellent defender. Stats are hard to difficult to understand because fo the context:
51/52. Denny Lyons / Ed Williamson: Two excellent third basemen of a bygone era.

<u>Pinson</u>: Around 110th - no peak, prime is not great. There were many great players in the 1960s, but he fell beneath them.
<u>Osteen</u>: Around the 60th/70th best available pitcher.
<u>Jim Perry</u>: Ditto.
<u>He Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken</u>: 11th best available first baseman. Around 140th among all eligible players.
No peak
Very low prime
His defense is overrated by some – I have seen a great deal of conjecture, but very little in the way of either anecdotal or numerical proof about how much difficult is was to play first in the 1890s. Also, I have never seen any explanation for why it should be tougher in that decade as opposed to earlier when they played without any gloves or later during the deadball era when bunting, or at least sacrifice hits, doubled compared with the 1890s.
Did not stand out against a rather poor group of competition in the 1890s among first basemen. - See Dr. Chaleeko’s wonderful posts on the Beckley Thread to see how he compares to other first basemen.
Comparisons to Harold Baines or Rafael “B-12” Palmeiro mean nothing to me because neither player will make my top 30 when they are eligible.
In honor of the San Diego Comic-Con and Army of Darkness, I say these three words in hopes Zombies will not attack me for my ranking, "Klaatu, Barada, Necktie."
   98. mulder & scully Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:44 PM (#2105168)
And by Zombies, I mean like out of a grave and not Karl. See Army of Darkness...
   99. mulder & scully Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:53 PM (#2105186)
Lindy McDaniel is 4th best retired closer, behind Wilhelm, Marshall, and Hiller. He ranks in second fifty players.

   100. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: July 20, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2105190)
That's the crux of their kinship. In fact, that's also the crux of Palmeiro's kinship with Beckley.

The Beckley-Palmiero comparison I can see, everything else equal. Palmiero's peak wasn't that impressive compared to Murray. Whether or not it was better than Beckley's comparing them to their peers is tricky, but at least it's an arguable point, IMO.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.9574 seconds
41 querie(s) executed