We may not have anyone elected from this group in '87, so it's probably three from the backlog.

What makes a great game? Many things. It's never just the game itself, there's always a context; there are always other games that led up to it and other things that lurk in the background.

Let's go back to some of the background.

The Mets put together one of the greatest team seasons of our time: OPS+ 116, ERA+ 114, a 108-54 record (beating their pythag by 5 games). It was a balanced team - offense at nearly every position (it could have been every position except that Davey Johnson elected to give most of the playing time at SS to the non-hitter Santana rather than Howard Johnson or Kevin Mitchell), good pitching throughout the rotation (even if Gooden did return to human form). The Mets blew away the division, winning by over 20 games.

Mike Scott had just an insane year for the Astros. His emergence from journeyman/nobody to dominant power pitcher after the age of 30 was a rare and unusual story (albeit not quite Dazzy Vance's story). Scott had an ERA+ of 163, 306 strikeouts, and won the Cy Young easily. With the 39-year-old Nolan Ryan also racking up over a strikeout per inning, the Astros led the league in K's by about 80 - over the Mets, who weren't too shabby themselves.

As the Astros were getting close to clinching their division, the pitchers moved in for the kill.

On 9/23, Jim Deshaies pitched a 2-hit shutout - game score 92.
On 9/24, Nolan Ryan allowed one hit in 8 innings - game score 86. Kerfeld closed out the shutout. I think this was the clinching game.
So, can you top that? Yes, you can, even with the division clinched:
On 9/25, Mike Scott pitched a no-hitter - game score 98.

Scott's next start came on 10/2. He breezed through 7 innings with a game score of 74. Just getting set up for the playoffs.

Game 1 of the playoffs was on 10/8, Scott vs. Gooden. Glenn Davis's solo home run was all of the scoring for the game. Scott went the distance, a 5-hit shutout - game score 90.

The Mets then won Games 2 and 3 to go up in the series 2-1.

Game 4 was on 10/12, Scott vs. Fernandez (The Astros were going with a 3-man playoff rotation; the Mets with a 4-man.) Scott had a game score of 82 as the Astros won 3-1. The only Met run was a scratchy one in the 8th, involving Mookie Wilson going 1st to 3rd on a groundout.

Game 5 matched Ryan and Gooden. Gooden's game score was 72; Ryan's was 90. The game went into extra innings tied 1-1. The decisive break came on Charlie Kerfeld's error on a pickoff throw, leading to a Met run in the 12th. Jesse Orosco was bulletproof for two innings to get the win.

Which brings us to Game 6, Ojeda vs. Knepper. This game. Now, this was only a Game 6, with the Mets leading in the series 3-2. It wasn't a Game 7 - except that you can read the pitching rotation as well as I can. Mike Scott would have pitched, had there been a Game 7. That was on everyone's mind - the thought that Game 6 was the only chance the Mets were going to get.

If you were watching or listening to that game - or even if you had to go somewhere in the middle of the game, and came back hours later to discover that it was still going on - you'll never forget it. Would you even know the name Billy Hatcher except for this game? Do you still remember what was going on with Orosco in his 3rd inning of work in the 16th?

A game for the ages.,

A game for the ages.,

Indeed it was, OCF. Indeed it was.

Freddie Patek. 5'5", 148 pounds

Power Hitter Extraordinaire

yes, quite a game and series, Astros-Mets

the 1986 playoffs:

when I, mild mannered Tom who never raises his voice, scared the bejeebers out of my then-one-year-old, SCREAMING at the TV.

Was a team ever more dead than the Red Sox, down 3 games to 1, down 5-2 in the 9th against Donny (RIP) Moore?

Has a team in the post-season ever had TWO fly balls go off their fielders gloves into the stands for home runs?

Gedman, Mookie, Steamer, wild pitch.

Ray Knight, the Series MVP, JOGGING to third on the fated play, before scoring the winning run. What if the ball had only trickled behind Billy by a foot? Ray would've worn the goat horns.

I highly recommend the book One Pitch Away.

OCF,

Right on, one of the best effin' games I've ever witnessed in any form. Just an incredible few hours of baseball. Amazing that the Hendu homer game, this game, and the Buckner game could all have happened in the confines of one postseason. This game probably gets short shrift among all three, yet it was every bit the game that the others were.

What makes a single game a great baseball game to watch?
1) Lead changes
2) Great players making great plays
3) Bit players stepping it up in memorable, unexepected moments
4) Late inning comebacks
5) Dramatic extra innnings.

Then you rachet all that up
1) Playoff baseball
2) Dramatic series filled with great games
3) Do-or-Die, season-ending, elimination games

THEN you add to it that the other playoff series going on is just as dramatic and the atmosphere is frenzied and all four playoff teams are ones of cursed or woeful histories.

Wow. I was only 11 years old, I didn't get the full impact of all this at the time, yet these series still resonate as the most amazing I've been through, with the possible exception of the 2004 Red Sox ALCS 3-down comeback (which I was watching while in New England, so context is everything).

Was a team ever more dead than the Red Sox, down 3 games to 1, down 5-2 in the 9th against Donny (RIP) Moore?

Well being three down, behind in the ninth, and with Mariano on the mound comes to mind. ; )

Was a team ever more dead than the Red Sox, down 3 games to 1, down 5-2 in the 9th against Donny (RIP) Moore?

We were driving to a state park - in Orange County - taking our then 4-year-old along on an outing by the seashore - and listening on the car radio when Dave Henderson hit that home run. To this day, I don't think I could walk down the hall and say "Dave Henderson" without having some Angels fan jump.

Would you even know the name Billy Hatcher except for this game?

Not to dispute that the game you reference was one of the all-time great baseball games (it certainly was), but it wasn't Billy Hatcher's best post-season effort. This was...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1990_WS.shtml

Trivia question - In 2006 the New York Yankees Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano became the second keystone combination to both hit over .340 in the same season. Name the Cleveland teammates that first accomplished this feat.

OK, but what I really want to talk about is Dick Redding. Do we really think that Dick Redding is a guy we're ready to elect? Not in the 1987 election, but in the next backlog election or two?

Here's what Chris Cobb's projections about Redding look like in WS:

1911 27
1912 11
1913 5
1914 14
1915 40
1916 33
1917 27
1918 6
1919 4
1920 19
1921 21
1922 19
1923 13
1924 5
1925 8
1926 2
1927 7
1928 6
=========
267 total

230-177
114 ERA+

No adjustment for war, no batting.

Who does that look like? The SBE lists these guys as having similar Netural Wins and Losses (within ten wins),I've ordered them by the absolute value away from Redding's NEUT WIN%:


The most comparable guys are the more borderline of course (and this suggests evidence of why Pierce is ahead of C. Dick. In fact, Redding's NEUT W/L is better only than Bunning's and Harder's. Bunning's very borderline and his selection was not well loved by a good number of voters (and lurkers).

KJOK posted this:

Dick Redding Batting

1916
27 PA's
.222/.222/.296

1921
85 PA's
.143/.153/.226

1928
4 PA's
.250/.250/.250

Stats compiled by Gary A.

I'm thinking 2 WS a year for batting, just to be nice about it. Which gets you to

1911 29
1912 13
1913 7
1914 16
1915 42
1916 35
1917 29
1918 8
1919 6
1920 21
1921 23
1922 21
1923 15
1924 7
1925 10
1926 4
1927 9
1928 8

285 total

Ranking them top to bottom:


Now that batting credit I just gave is probably about right for the big years, but for the little years would be at least 1 WS too much if KJOK's batting totals are indicative of Redding's batting "prowess."

Anyway, that's good, but it is borderline, especially given the higher WS totals for pitchers of the era.

Is there reason to believe there's downside here? Possibly. The HOF study also doesn't help much: DICK REDDING 628.3, 91. That last number is his RA+ based on some calculations I made in the All-tim Ngl Stars thread. It's an esimate. It includes his successful 1920 and 1921 seasons as well as his somewhat ungraceful decline. It's my guess that the 1922-1927 HOF numbers actually make him out to be worse than Chris's original estimates would suggest he is in that period. I don't know for sure, but I do think it's a strong suggestion of downside.

OK, so that's the lay of the land on Dick Redding. I'm not 100% sold on him. As he stands now, with no further comment from Chris Cobb on the MLEs, Redding is in the backlog and looks like Luis Tiant and guys like that. But may also look like Jim Bunning, though I supported Bunning. I see enough post-MLE downside information to feel ill at ease about Dick (his Cuban numbers are also a mixed bag). In addition, there's another question on the table that's never been well answered: how is Redding better than a NgL pitcher that gets ZERO votes: Hilton Smith. The HOF study credits Smith with an utterly microscopic 1.68 ERA. No joke, a figure that's the best by far among all the NgL greats publically disclosed so far. Yeah, it's a shorter total career than Redding, but the kicker is that Redding's effective career is about the same length. Smith appears to have pitched from 1937-1948; Redding pitched effectively from 1911-1921 before fading away. Which may make Redding vs. Smith like Brooks versus Boyer only with Smith possibly being more better in their primes than Boyer would be as compared to Brooksie and with Redding being more borderline than Brooks was.

I don't know that Redding is or is not a HOMer. I'm skeptical right now, and I'd like to know what other people think before we end up electing him over Grimes, Walters, Dean, Bridges, or Willis.

Trivia question - In 2006 the New York Yankees Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano became the second keystone combination to both hit over .340 in the same season. Name the Cleveland teammates that first accomplished this feat.

Julio Franco and Tommy Hinzo???!!!???

I know this is hard to fathom, but these players are even older than Julio Franco.

Took a while:

Cupid Childs and Ed McKean, 1894.

-- MWE

Not to put any pressure on the MLEers, but my sistem would appreciate some ERA+ by season projections on Cannonball..

correct, I read the thing today about Jeter and Cano, but the article didn't name the previous pair. Between Sabermetric Encyclopedia and BB-Ref I figured it out. (Actually the article didn't say Cleveland, that was something of a red herring). Look for this question at the SABR convention in '07 or '08 (Cleveland, where it would be more topical).

I was very surprised with how well the newbies stacked up on this ballot. Bonds, Brock and Wynn are part of a 1970s "outfield glut" (remember that term?) that holds down the middle of my ballot. Bando shows up at #8 -- the difference between him and Boyer at #19 comes down to a better peak (36-31-29 vs. 33-28-28) and prime (seasons 9-11 are 21-19-17 vs. 17-17-13). I've said it a lot over the past several years, but the differences past the top three or four players are granular.

Super-prelim 1987 Ballot

1. Charlie Keller
2. Minnie Minoso
3. Phil Rizzuto
4. Bucky Walters
5. Nellie Fox

6. Alejandro Oms
7. Quincy Trouppe
8. Sal Bando
9. Bobby Bonds
10. Lou Brock

11. Jimmy Wynn
12. Dick Redding
13. Gavy Cravath
14. Vic Willis
15. Vern Stephens

Newcombe inherits Waddell's spot at #16. Pierce, Kiner and Boyer stay where they are at #17-19. Childs, Beckley and Moore stay pretty far off.

1. Charlie Keller

James, do you know where the Keller MLEs are posted here? I want to do another analysis of his candidacy this week. Thanks!

They used to call them "boners." And they used to refer to Merkle and Lindstrom and maybe Kubek. But to me the great World Series boner of all time was the Red Sox manager (no, not Grady Little) leaving Buckner at 1B instead of going to the usual defensive replacement, because he wanted the veteran to be on the field for the final out and celebration. Sentimentality will kill you every time.

Prelim

PHoM: Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer & Orlando Cepeda


1. Jake Beckley
2. Lou Brock
3. Nellie Fox
4. Dobie Moore
5. Mickey Welch
6. George Van Haltren
7. Jimmy Wynn
8. Edd Roush
9. Hugh Duffy
10. Tommy Leach
11. Quincy Trouppe
12. Bobby Bonds
13. Norm Cash
14. Orlando Cepeda
15. Cupid Childs

16-20. Minoso, Rice, Boyer, Kiner, Pierce
21-25. Mullane, Johnson, Redding, Ryan, Streeter
26-30. Willis, Strong, Grimes, Gleason, Greene

Not to put any pressure on the MLEers, but my sistem would appreciate some ERA+ by season projections on Cannonball..

It's in my post above. 230-177 with a 114 ERA+ per C. Cobb. I think the innings were around 3500-3800. But that's the initial estimate before the HOF study came out.

SABR Bio Project Bob Thurman

I thought he might have a thread but I guess not.

"Many years after his retirement Thurman confessed to his real age in a neatly hand-written 1982 letter to the Baseball Hall of Fame as follows:

"Many Baseball clubs like to put players ages back a few years. Mine was put back several times, so much so, that I always use the baseball age. Even when I joined the pension, I didn't think of [using] my correct age. So my real [birth date] is May 14, 1917.""

"In The Sporting News coverage of Thurman's acquisition by the Yankees in 1949, he was reported to be 26 years old. Apparently most of the baseball world bought off on this little fabrication because Thurman's birthday was listed as 5/14/23 by the Doubleday Official Baseball Encyclopedia, Annual Baseball Register, Baseball Digest and even the backs of his baseball cards during his active career."

Wow, so Thurman was 32ish when he made the big leagues. Huh. He could hit.

> His emergence from journeyman/nobody to dominant power pitcher after the age of 30 was a rare
> and unusual story (albeit not quite Dazzy Vance's story). Scott had an ERA+ of 163, 306
> strikeouts, and won the Cy Young easily. With the 39-year-old Nolan Ryan also racking up over
> a strikeout per inning, the Astros led the league in K's by about 80 - over the Mets, who
> weren't too shabby themselves.

Jason Grimsley was in the Phillies organization, so it wasn't his fault.

Anyway, here's my prelim ballot, I had both electees on ballot:

1) Johnson, Bob - better than Flick, Keeler, Magee, Slaughter, Sheckard, Snider, Hines, Carey, Ashburn, Sam Thompson, Irvin, Medwick, Doby, Bell, Willard Brown, Averill, Joe Kelley and Joe Jackson in my scoring system. That's in the 60th percentile among HoM outfielders and that's without minor league credit. Minor league credit boosts him above Goslin and Wheat. My spreadsheet may have flaws, but I can't see how it could be so flawed as to keep Bob Johnson out, especially as we dig deeper into the backlog for more outfielders. He was an 8 time all-star selection with 13 all-star caliber seasons. Add in 2 PCL all-star seasons as well. Win Shares is underrating his defense due to his poor teammates. Clearly #1 on this ballot.
2) Pierce, Billy - time to elect him
3) Cash, Norm - like Jake Beckley but with a higher peak
4) Beckley, Jake - not quite close enough to Cash to give him the elect-me bonus. Beckley should be in though.
5) Bridges, Tommy - I'm his best friend. I'll say again we're short on war era pitching.
6) Trouppe, Quincy
7) Leonard, Dutch
8) Cepeda, Orlando
9) Trucks, Virgil - now I'm the only person voting for Leonard AND Trucks
10) Boyer, Ken
11) Minoso, Minnie - not as good as Bob Johnson, similar player
12) Wynn, Jim - I'm surprised I'm lower than the consensus
13) Bancroft, Dave
14) Kiner, Ralph
15) Cravath, Gavy
16) Howard, Frank
17) Elliott, Bob - He's practically tied with Cravath and Howard. I may give him the last ballot slot due to his infield work
18) Keller, Charlie
19) Bonds, Bobby - shows up just behind the rest of the outfielders
20) Childs, Cupid - moving up but I still don't see how you could prefer him to Beckley
21) Easter, Luke
22) Shocker, Urban
23) Quinn, Jack
24) Roush, Edd
25) Ryan, Jimmy
26) Oms, Alejandro - another "if you like him look over Bob Johnson"
27) Redding, Dick
28) Evers, Johnny
29) Smith, Hilton - I agree Hilton Smith and Dick Redding aren't too different. I've pegged Hilton Smith as Virgil Trucks without the WWII credit. That's probably higher praise on my ballot than it is on yours.
30) Van Haltren, George
31) Moore, Dobie

71) Sal Bando - Not quite the hitter Bob Elliott was. Pretty much the same fielder Bob Elliott was. If you're loving Sal Bando I'd like to hear why you aren't voting for Bob Elliott.

91) Nellie Fox - I've tried boosting him in myriad different ways but he just didn't hit enough for a 2B. I like Bancroft a LOT better, more defensive value due to playing SS and more oomph out of his bat when compared to league hitting norms.

71) Sal Bando - Not quite the hitter Bob Elliott was. Pretty much the same fielder Bob Elliott was. If you're loving Sal Bando I'd like to hear why you aren't voting for Bob Elliott.

does this
a) account for war years?
b) account for DH years?

In Sal Bando's peak/prime, he was as good a hitter as Elliot. Elliot aged a little better.

1987 Prelim

I'm not really happy with this yet because I am not entirely committed to the next 3 in line for PHoM status. A bit more thought needed on that score.

1. Dobie Moore
2. Edd Roush
3. Pete Browning
4. Ralph Kiner--the big four, the obvious next choices for me
5. Larry Doyle
6. Charley Jones
7. Addie Joss
8. Charlie Keller
9. Nellie Fox
10. Dick Redding--moved from 33 to 13 but recent discussion is making me wonder again

All of the above are PHoM, below mostly not (unless otherwise noted)

11. Orlando Cepeda
(12a. Stan Hack)
(12b. Richie Ashburn)
13. Eddie Cicotte
14. Phil Rizzuto
15. Frank Howard

But I'm not even convinced that my next 3 PHoMers will come from this list of 6.

Close

16. Elston Howard
17. Gavvy Cravath
(17a. Bobby Doerr)
18. Minnie Minoso (PHoM 1970)
(18a. Jim Bunning)
19. Ed Williamson (PHoM 1924)
20. Norm Cash
21. Hilton Smith
22. Ken Boyer
(22b. Joe Sewell)
23. Marvin Williams
24. Luke Easter
(24a. Willie Keeler)
25. Alejandro Oms
26. Bucky Walters
27. Don Newcombe
28. Bobby Bonds
29. Rocky Colavito
(29a. Wes Ferrell)
30. Hugh Duffy

31. Cupid Childs (PHoM 1925)
32. Vern Stephens
33. Dizzy Dean
34. Lou Brock
35. Tony Oliva
36. Sal Bando
37. Billy Pierce

41. Jim Wynn
42. Jake Beckley

The HOF study credits Smith with an utterly microscopic 1.68 ERA. No joke, a figure that's the best by far among all the NgL greats publically disclosed so far.

I'd use the HOF ERA estimates with caution, particularly for Smith. From 1944 to 1948, the HOF has him allowing 99 runs, with only 21 of them earned. That would be a 3.69 TRA in 241.7 IP, but an 0.78 ERA. These are numbers reminiscent of the Cuban League in the 1900s, when the league fielding percentage was under .900. The rest of his career (1932, 1937-43) comes out to a 3.24 TRA, 2.07 ERA. Paige, on the same teams in the 40s, comes out similarly (though not as extreme), with only 18 of 60 runs allowed, 1944-47, counted as earned.

The point is that Smith's unearned run percentage in those years is vastly higher than earlier in his career, or than comparable pitchers in the 1920s. And I would have a hard time believing that the NAL in the 1940s committed a lot more errors than the NNL in the 1920s.

I also notice that Bullet Rogan in 1925 supposedly allowed 44 runs, every one of them earned, in 171.3 innings. I can guarantee you that no Negro League pitcher in the 1920s could possibly have pitched that many innings without letting in a few unearned runs.

I strongly suspect some clerical errors here.

Someone, I think it was Brent, mentioned that they likened Minoso to Goslin, Wheat, and Slaughter instead of the trio that I named (Johnson, Veach, and Burns). can that person explain to me why? To me the first three are better than Minoso and the latter pair by a decent margin. I have done charts to show how similar Burns, Veach, and Johnson were to Minoso (one in last year's discussion thread) I find it hard to believe that he is in Slaughter/Wheat/Goslin territory.

Care to enlighten me?

I think Johnson is in Slaughter/Wheat/Goslin territory.

<i.20) Childs, Cupid - moving up but I still don't see how you could prefer him to Beckley</i>


You can't be serious, right? It's obvious how someone could prefer Childs: they're a peak/prime voter. It's equally obvious how career voters could prefer Beckley.

As a peakalicious voter, I think Beckley isn't worth a can o' beans, but I recognize how someone could disagree. Surely you can do the peak voters the same courtesy.

John,

Here's the link for the Keller MLEs and my evaluation of his candidacy (it's in the 1975 ballot discussion thread):

<url=http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/38212/P100>Keller MLEs</url>

Look at posts 142-147.

hell...

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/38212/P100

Here's my preliminary look for this election:

1. Dick Redding, P (2)
2. Quincy Trouppe, C (3)
3. Nellie Fox, 2B (4)
4. Alejandro Oms, CF (5)
5. Billy Pierce, P (6)
6. Lou Brock, LF (7)
7. Burleigh Grimes, P (8)
8. Minnie Minoso, LF (9)
9. Don Newcombe, P (10)
10. Luis Aparicio, SS (13)
11. Orlando Cepeda, 1B (11)
12. Hugh Duffy, CF (14)
13. Ken Boyer, 3B (15)
14. Hilton Smith, P (n/a)
15. Ernie Lombardi, C (n/a)

Based on arguments that have been made over the last couple of weeks, I took a look at my own rankings just to see if I was happy with everyone's placement. Considered moving Trouppe ahead of Redding, but I left Cannonball in the top spot for now. Considered moving Pierce ahead of Oms. I did actually move Aparicio ahead of Cepeda. Considered moving Boyer ahead of Duffy. Did actually move Smith ahead of Lombardi as well as Moore. This would be Smith's first appearance on my ballot. Lombardi returns after an absence of a couple of years. So while there haven't been a lot of changes, that's because I like most of these guys where they were rather than a lack of retrospection.

16-20: Moore, Beckley, Welch, Traynor, Lundy
21-25: Monroe, Browning, Doyle, Taylor, Kiner

Still struggling with where to put Lundy. Almost gave him the ballot spot that went to Smith, but decided to move him down a couple of places instead. Welch moved up about 10 places. Otherwise, the next ten are relatively the same as on my last ballot.

Top Ten Disclosures: Kiner's the best corner outfielder not on my ballot. I've voted for him in the past but he's currently sunk to 25th. Childs is quite a ways back, most likely in the 50s. I think that Monroe, Doyle and Schoendiest all have better primes than Cupid. Jimmy Wynn is also nowhere close.

Here's another question for Redding people.

Here's three hypoethical candidates:


Here's an additional piece of evidence for each, the years of their primes:

A 1910-1920
B 1950-1960
C 1960-1970
D 1980-1990

Now I'm asking, which candidate is most impressive? I don't have an answer, but Dick Redding's case may ultimately be hinging on questions like these.

Chris Fluit:
I know I'm walking on shaky ground here, but I got to ask,
With 7 Negro Leaguers plus Newcombe and Minoso in your top 21, do you think maybe you are over rating the Negro Leaguers?

I figure if someone had no Negro Leaguers on their ballot someone would ask, and I am curious so, I've decided it was worth the risk.

Mike

OPS+
Beckley 157& 152 144 138 133 131 128 127 127 126 126 126 124 122 112 112 105 102 96 career 125
Childs 181* 150 135 131 123 121 121 111 94 94 90 career 119 (in half the career)

&Players; League
*American Assoc

Beckley played 1B because he threw LH; he was a darned good defender at 1B. Beckley's clearly got the better hitting peak, prime and career. Was 2B really THAT much more difficult to play than 1B in the 1890s? Childs was only a mediocre fielder at 2B. I don't buy that a team owner would rather have had Cupid Childs instead of Jake Beckley assuming they only had replacement talent at 1B and 2B.

James,

Thanks! I'll take a look at them this week before I make my ballot.

Beckley played 1B because he threw LH; he was a darned good defender at 1B. Beckley's clearly got the better hitting peak, prime and career. Was 2B really THAT much more difficult to play than 1B in the 1890s? Childs was only a mediocre fielder at 2B. I don't buy that a team owner would rather have had Cupid Childs instead of Jake Beckley assuming they only had replacement talent at 1B and 2B.

I'm not an "enemy" of Beckley and have defended him many times in the past, but he rarely was the best at his position, while Childs was the best numerous times.

Childs was above-average as a fielder at second, too.

Here's an additional piece of evidence for each, the years of their primes:

A 1910-1920
B 1950-1960
C 1960-1970
D 1980-1990

Now I'm asking, which candidate is most impressive? I don't have an answer, but Dick Redding's case may ultimately be hinging on questions like these.

I'm pretty sure you have a good idea what the answer is, Eric. ;-) BTW, I agree with you.

What does "best at 2B" mean exactly? For one, it means your glove isn't good enough for SS and your arm isn't good enough for 3B. Childs didn't play in an era where turning the double play was a huge factor and second basemen didn't have to field bunts, while 1B did. It may have been the least important position in the infield like it is with many modern amateur teams.

What does "best at 2B" mean exactly?

It means he was the best all-around at his position compared to his peers.

For one, it means your glove isn't good enough for SS and your arm isn't good enough for 3B. Childs didn't play in an era where turning the double play was a huge factor and second basemen didn't have to field bunts, while 1B did. It may have been the least important position in the infield like it is with many modern amateur teams.

Second base wasn't like it was today, but it still was a defense position.

As for first base, I totally agree. I've been saying that for "years" before you started voting here. Beckley is better than his offensive numbers suggest.

Someone, I think it was Brent, mentioned that they likened Minoso to Goslin, Wheat, and Slaughter instead of the trio that I named (Johnson, Veach, and Burns). can that person explain to me why?

My case that Minoso is comparable to Goslin, Wheat, and Slaughter is posted on the Minoso thread, see especially posts # 104 and 114. Minoso was a much better hitter than Burns and somewhat better than Veach. Johnson is a tougher comparison to make, since the comparison depends on how much to discount wartime competition and how to compare league quality pre-integration and post-integration. Johnson's PCL record suggests that he may be due 1 or 2 seasons of minor league credit, though he missed some playing time both seasons. After adjustments for league quality and NeL/minor lg credit, I see Minoso at least somewhat ahead of Johnson in each of the dimensions that I evaluate.

A couple of additional points: How many seasons of MLE Negro League/minor league experience should Minoso be credited with? Generally I ignore the first season that establishes the player was ready to play at the major league level. The latest MLEs (post # 112 in the Minoso thread) show his OPS+ from 1945-50 as 108-87-106-117-99-116. Although disappointing relative to his MLB levels, it should also be noted that for 4 of the 6 seasons these were above the major league averages for his position. (He was a third baseman most of this time; according to jimd's famous table, the average OPS+ of third basemen in the 1940s was 102.) I see him as deserving credit for either 3 or 4 seasons (that is, starting in 1947 or 1948).

My second point is that there is strong evidence that Minoso was an excellent fielder. He won 3 Gold Gloves, even though the award wasn't offered until he was age 31. I've also seen many comments and quotes from that time period that indicate he was considered an outstanding fielder. Win shares agrees; WARP doesn't...this is a case where WARP has it wrong.

I may add a few more comments later this week.

I posted this on the Jimmy Wynn thread months ago and no responded and now that he's closing in on election I'm speaking now so I don't have to forever hold my peace

Here’s the Split analysis I said I’ll do
unless I'm mistaking the argument for Wynn the despite his lack of HoM numbers his numbers were still HoM worthy because their hidden by his era and ballpark.
I can't due much with the era argument (except the obvious compare him to others in his era) but to find out how much his ballpark hurt him I'm taking his road rate numbers and applying it to his home AB and adding it to his road numbers and rounding it of to the nearest whole number to find his "true numbers" season by season while in Houston and LA I'm not changing his walk or HPB rates due to I doubt there's any reason physical (less windiness, or backgrounds that effected him (if I'm wrong on that please correct me with physical evidence not just statistical stats "proving it" but a reason why)) (BTW adjusting walk numbers will hurt him) and I don‘t want to get involve with PA and AB for skimpiness reasons let‘s just assume he walked the same rate why being in Houston or LA would bring that down from average. I'm not changing his at bat numbers or any season after 1975
I'm not including SH in the PA for his OBP

--------AB-----hits-------walks-------HBP-----2B-----3B--------HRs---BA-------OBP
1963--250----55----------30----------0-------9--------4---------4-----220------304
1964--219----57----------24----------1-------10------0---------8------260------336
1965--564----172---------84----------5-------27------6---------31----305------400
1966--418----119---------41----------1-------32------0---------17----285------350
1967--594----141---------74----------2-------18------2---------44----237------324
1968--542----136---------90----------5-------16------8---------33----251------363
1969--495----116---------148---------3--------8------0---------34----234------413
1970--554----150---------106---------1-------26------0---------26----271------389
1971--404----84----------56-----------2-------18------0---------10----208------307
1972--542----137---------103---------2-------20------2---------22----253------374
1973--481----109---------91----------4--------5-------5---------21----227------354
1974--535----145---------108---------0-------20------6---------28----271------387
1975--412----105---------110---------1-------22------0---------18----255------413
1976--449----93----------127---------0-------19------1---------17-----207------377
1977--194----34----------32----------0--------5-------2---------1------175------289
career-6653-1653-------1224--------27-----255-----36-------314-----248------367

here’s is actual number followed by his adjusted numbers
--------AB-----hits-------walks-------HBP-----2B------3B-------HRs----BA------OBP
career-6653-1665-------1224--------27-----285-----39-------291-----250------369
career-6653-1653-------1224--------27-----255-----36-------314-----248------367

with a neutral context from 1963-75 does this look like a HoMer (and this would be advantageous to Wynn because if he played in a neutral park he would have had to play some games in his real home park but here all I did was take out 1 bad park out of his number)

but to find out how much his ballpark hurt him I'm taking his road rate numbers and applying it to his home AB and adding it to his road numbers and rounding it of to the nearest whole number to find his "true numbers" season by season

I passed on commenting the first time, but since you posted again, I have to say that doubling road stats is NOT a good way to "neutralize" a player's statistics.

Players hit about 10% better at home to begin with. On top of that, some players may have even exceeded 10% better at home, maybe because of the park, maybe because of how they fit with the park, maybe by chance, but whatever the reason it is totally INCORRECT to adjust out that value.

The correct way to adjust the stats would be to find the run difference between Wynn's home and away parks, then adjust his OVERALL stats up or down as appropriate.

Players hit about 10% better at home to begin with. On top of that, some players may have even exceeded 10% better at home, maybe because of the park, maybe because of how they fit with the park, maybe by chance, but whatever the reason it is totally INCORRECT to adjust out that value.

The correct way to adjust the stats would be to find the run difference between Wynn's home and away parks, then adjust his OVERALL stats up or down as appropriate.

I agree with all of this. BTW, yest, are you using your method with Chuck Klein? I'm pretty sure if you did, he would take a far greater hit than Wynn, too.

Players hit about 10% better at home to begin with
due to knowing how play in their park


the differance beetween Klein and Wynn is Klein took an exeptionatly large advantage of his park while I have yet to se any evadince that Wynn did.

the differance beetween Klein and Wynn is Klein took an exeptionatly large advantage of his park while I have yet to se any evadince that Wynn did.

Except Baker Bowl was tailor made for Klein, while Wynn's parks weren't. IOW, if Klein had played in the same parks that Wynn had to, there would be absolutely no way that he could dominate them as he did in the Baker Bowl.

> Second base wasn't like it was today, but it still was a defense position.

I agree, it was still a lot more important than the outfield. Don't get me started on Hugh Duffy's defensive value.

On the Childs v. Beckley question...and Karl's not allowed to say anything. ; )

Let's reframe that discussion this way. How well does Beckley compare to Terry/Sisler/Tony Perez?

How well does Childs compare to Gordon/Doerr/N. Fox?

In other words, the player I've mentioned are clustered on or around the in/out line. My current system sees Beckley as obviously inferior to the players on the line. My current system sees Childs as as good or slightly better than the players on the line.

Returning to the Keltner List method I used on the Bando thread, Beckley is the 29th best 1B by that method. That's somewhat better than I have ranked him in my current system. He's tied with Mickey Vernon, and in 2006 was passed by Albert Pujols (yeah, AP is that good already). Terry (39, 16th), Sisler (33, 16th), and Perez (29, 24th) grade out somewhat ahead of him, and they define the borderlines. Jack Fournier with MiL credit might slip by him, but I'm not sure (haven't gotten that far in the system yet).

Childs is the 20th ranked 2B by this method with a score of 30. He's actually hurt somewhat by my system: his fabulous 1890 AA season doesn't get counted into his positional dominance and league dominance scores because I have declined to score players going from the AA/UA/FL to the NL due to QoP issues involved that could whack things out. So 30 and 20th. Fox is 32 (tied for 18th), Doerr is at 27 (21st, directly behind Childs), and Gordon scores 19 (25th). I don't currently give NgL credit in this system (that's one of my next steps as I build it), so Jackie sits just below Doerr and Childs (also all the position switching hurts him a bit), but further analysis would certainly move him well up the list and shuffle Doerr, Childs, and Fox down one.

So what I'm saying here is this...Childs relative to his position is just above the line, Beckley is a few guys below it. Given the agreement between my current career-interval-based WS system and the new Keltner-based system, I'm inclined to believe that's an accurate assessment of them.

I don't think Beckley and Pujols played the same defensive position. They both stood at 1B but their responsibilities were different. That said, Pujols is a very good fielder and I'd agree he's better than Jake Beckley.

Players hit about 10% better at home to begin with
<u>due to knowing how play in their park</u>

No. Well, actually, we don't really know EXACTLY why players hit (and pitch) about 10% better at home. But whether it's travel, umps, crowd, familiarity, it's 10%, and that 10% does not magically disappear when a team moves to a new stadium, so we can conclude that MOST of the 10% is other than knowing your park.

However, comparing home/road totals is <u> one valid portion </u> of evaluating a player; claiming someone took unusual advantage of their home field. In Wynn's case, "unusual advantage" may mean he was not hurt as much as other batters were. It's a line of reasoning to pursue as Mr Wynn climbs high in our backlog.

baseball-reference has been updated.

As a Twins fan, I raced to see who Joe Mauer's most similar was after winning the batting title at age 23. Its... SHANTY HOGAN! :-) No era/park adjustments, I suppose. Two through six are Dickey-Hartnett-Cochrane-Kendall-Berra which is more what I was hoping for.

Anyhow...
Pujols has moved from Dimaggio to the more-appropriate Foxx.
Ryan Howard is Norm Cash
Utley is Soriano
Soriano is HoJo
ToriiHunter is Dye
Dye is Tartabull

... happy hunting.

No. Well, actually, we don't really know EXACTLY why players hit (and pitch) about 10% better at home. But whether it's travel, umps, crowd, familiarity, it's 10%, and that 10% does not magically disappear when a team moves to a new stadium, so we can conclude that MOST of the 10% is other than knowing your park.

However, comparing home/road totals is one valid portion of evaluating a player; claiming someone took unusual advantage of their home field. In Wynn's case, "unusual advantage" may mean he was not hurt as much as other batters were. It's a line of reasoning to pursue as Mr Wynn climbs high in our backlog.

Good points, Tom.

With that said, Wynn doesn't appear to have exceeded the 10% home park advantage. Which makes sense, since he never played in parks that were easier for right-handed batters than left-handed ones.

Preliminary ballot time. I liked the song reference thing that went on in a few ballots last year, and maybe I'll come up with something for the actual ballot.
Among the new guys, nothing really interests me. Bando is the only one who breaks my top 75. I've got him 47th. He actually got me to reevaluate Bob Elliot. And put him 46th.
Bobby Bonds was a nice player. Somewhere between Kiki Cuyler and Tommy Henrich. If you like Bonds, you should really give another look to Tony Oliva. Bonds played for about two more years, but cannot be said to have been a long career guy, per se. Their carer rates are almost even and my defensive score has them both very close. But Bobby Bonds at his peak was nowhere close to Tony Oliva. Not even ballpark.
My 2 & 3 were elected last year and I need something to replace Rube Waddell. So sticking with lefties, my man Gomez is now my top pitcher candidate. For now.
Kiner (just in time?), Trouppe and Allen (patience is a virtue) join my PHOM.

1)Hugh Duffy (PHOM)
2)Ben Taylor (PHOM)
3)Gavvy Cravath (PHOM)
4)Lefty Gomez (PHOM)
5)Edd Roush (PHOM)
6)Nellie Fox(PHOM)
7)Ralph Kiner (PHOM)
8)Quincy Trouppe (PHOM)
((8a)Dick Allen)) (PHOM)
((8b)Billy Williams))
9)Vern Stephens
((9a)Bill Freehan))
((9b)Biz Mackey))
10)Bobby Veach
11)Tommy Bridges
12)Orlando Cepeda
13)Ken Boyer
14)Minnie Minoso
15)Wally Berger


16)Dizzy Dean
((16a)Juan Marichal))
17)Ernie Lombardi
18)Roger Bresnahan
19)Al Rosen
20)Mickey Welch
((20a)Jim Bunning))
21)Dick Redding (PHOM)
22)Chuck Klein
23)Tony Oliva
24)Jim Bottomley
((24a)Joe Gordon))
25)Billy Pierce
26)Dobie Moore
27)Addie Joss
28)Cupid Childs
29)Pete Browning
30)Bucky Walters

Similarity scores coudl be much more useful is park/era/even career arc (peak v. career)/etc. were taken into account. I think that PECOTA's most similar are really good though some things like height and weight aren't as useful for us.

With that said, Wynn doesn't appear to have exceeded the 10% home park advantage. Which makes sense, since he never played in parks that were easier for right-handed batters than left-handed ones.

The Jimmy Wynn debates have been raging on the internet for a few years now.

Person A: "Jimmy Wynn is underrated because he played in pitchers parks in pitchers eras. He's better than Overrated Player X (usually Jim Rice) who racked up better numbers by playing in a hitter's paradise in an era when it was easier to score."

Person B: "Hold the phone! Jimmy Wynn actually hit better at home than on the road! He shouldn't be getting these park factor bonuses! No fair!"

Forgive me, if I've turned one (or more) of those debates into a strawman of some kind. :-)

First off, Dodger Stadium & the Astrodome have been offensive black holes for much of their history, but during Wynn's prime 1967-1974, his BPF's were generally between 96 and 100. Most of the boost is an era adjustment and we already know from Freehan, Torre, Bando and Allen how underrated almost any player from this time period has been historically.

Secondly, I'm in jschmeagol's court on home/road splits. They are often too complicated to consider them unless the effects are really extreme. Taking extra advantage of your park helps your team win games anyways.

In my opinion Wynn's case hinges on his position in CF. He doesn't have the hitting numbers to get in as a corner. How does he compare to Averill?

In my opinion Wynn's case hinges on his position in CF. He doesn't have the hitting numbers to get in as a corner.

I agree, David. That Wynn was above-average as a center fielder also helps.

How does he compare to Averill?

With minor league credit, I think Averill was the better player. Of course, unlike some of the electorate, I think Averill was a fine selection, so being a little behind Rock is not a bad thing, IMO.

36. Mike Webber Posted: October 03, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#2196414)
Chris Fluit:
I know I'm walking on shaky ground here, but I got to ask,
With 7 Negro Leaguers plus Newcombe and Minoso in your top 21, do you think maybe you are over rating the Negro Leaguers?

I figure if someone had no Negro Leaguers on their ballot someone would ask, and I am curious so, I've decided it was worth the risk.

Mike

No worries about "shaky ground," Mike. It's a legitimate question. The short answer is "No, I don't think I'm over rating Negro Leaguers."

Now for the longer answer:
I have 4 Negro League players on my ballot. 2 more between 16-20 and 2 more between 21-25. That's 4 of 15, 7 of 21 (the number you cited) and 8 of 25. Going through the ballot, the average of Negro League players on my ballot is about 1/3- slightly less than that at 15, even at 21, slightly less again at 25. I don't think that's too high a percentage. One could argue that at this point we're voting on roughly 100 years of Major League Baseball (1880-1980, yes, baseball was played before 1880 but we don't have any strong candidates left from that early period) and 50 years of Negro League baseball (roughly 1900-1950). So 1/3 isn't entirely unreasonable. However, despite making that argument right now, I wouldn't actually agree with it. I think 1/3 would be too high. I think 1/2 of the players from 1900-1950 would be too high. And I think that for a couple of reasons. One, there were never as many Negro League teams as Major League teams. That was certainly the case before 1920 when you had several high-caliber barnstorming teams but no organized leagues. And that was still the case during the "golden age" of the Negro Leagues from the mid-30s to the late-40s. Even then, the Negro Leagues had 12 teams compared to 16 in the Majors. Another reason is that the quality of play was not as uniformly excellent as it was in the Majors and that the replacement level was a lot lower. That's why some Negro League players were active as teenagers or still active well into their forties (both rare feats in the Majors). So due to the lower number of teams and quality of replacement level, the Negro Leagues weren't as good as the Major Leagues and shouldn't have one-for-one representation. Yet we do know that the best players in the Negro Leagues were certainly capable of playing in the Major Leagues and at a high level and should be represented. The question of course becomes "how many?"

In that regard, I admit that my estimation of Negro League players is higher than that of the median voter. I don't think it's too high, but I do admit that it's above the median. In this case, I differ from the Hall of Merit norm. One of the quirks of participating in the Hall of Merit is that the longer that you participate, the more your differences become pronounced. The players on which you and the consensus agree are inducted. The players on which you and the consensus disagree are left on your ballot. The result is that your ballot over time tends to exaggerate your differences with the consensus. And so some voters have ballots with pronounced pre-1900 biases or with pronounced catcher biases because they rate pre-1900 players or catchers higher than the consensus. I have a higher estimation of Negro League players than the median and as we go forward, that becomes more pronounced as Major League players are elected off of my ballot at a quicker rate than Negro League players.

However, I would argue that the problem is not that my estimation is too high but that the median is too low. At our current rate, we're only going to elect one Negro League backlogger during the 1980s. That strikes me as too few. Our list of current top ten returnees includes only one Negro League player. That also strikes me as too few. Looking at last year's ballot, 1 player voted for 5 NeL players, 2 for 4, 9 for 3 (including me), 13 for 2, 18 for 1 and 9 for none. Of those 9 that had no Negro League players on their ballot, at least three had none listed in their top twenty and one had no Negro League players in his top thirty. You're right, Mike, that if someone had no Negro Leaguers on their ballot, that person would be challenged and rightly so. Those 9 voters who have no Negro League players drag down the median. They make it harder for Negro League players to get elected than their Major League counterparts. This is obvious to me when I look at the percentage chart that Lemon Curry posts in the results thread. Negro League players rarely achieve the same percentage as similar Major League players. Several Negro Leaguers made the "no brainer" category, yet not even Josh Gibson could make the inner circle.

Now I admit that I can't make up for those 9 voters all by myself. I wouldn't even want to. And not just because it's constitutionally prohibited to do so. I wouldn't want to stop voting for deserving Major League players like Fox and Pierce and Boyer and Duffy. I wouldn't want a ballot with 15 Negro League players. So I'm not trying to make up for the low median by myself by intentionally overestimating Negro League players. Rather, I'm trying to evaluate Negro League players to the best of my ability and place them in the positions I think they deserve. And when I come up with my results, I freely admit that I have a higher estimation and placement of Negro League players than the consensus. But that's only on average. That's not true of every player. Biz Mackey didn't make my personal Hall of Merit until years after he was honored by the electorate at large. I have Dobie Moore ranked lower than the consensus (12th overall, compared to 16th on my ballot). I also have partial Negro Leaguer Minnie Minoso lower than the consensus (5th overall to 8th on my ballot). And while a few Negro League players have made significant jumps on my ballot, such as Hilton Smith for whom I'll be voting for the first time, others have dropped. I used to have Taylor ranked higher than Beckley, but after a further comparison I decided that Beckley was truly better. I used to have Andy Cooper rated higher than he is now. He almost cracked my top 25 but I realized I had him too high and now he's dropped behind several other pitchers including Mickey Welch and Vic Willis. Dick Lundy bounced up ten spots but then back down another five. I may have a higher than median estimation for Negro League players, but I'm not going to blindly vote for every one.

As for the players I am currently voting for: Dick Redding's MLEs have him better than Pierce, a personal favorite that I'd love to see elected this year, but not as good as Whitey Ford. So when I first voted for Redding, I had him listed between the two. Since then, I've looked at the various sources that claim that Redding didn't contribute much in the second half of his career but I haven't yet been convinced to downgrade him. I've always had Quincy Trouppe rated higher than Biz Mackey. The criticisms against Trouppe seem to center around the theory that he wasn't that good defensively and that he played other positions. Well, we don't have much evidence about his defensive ability for the positive or the negative so while I'm not awarding him a bonus for defensive excellence (as I did for Freehan), I'm also not penalizing him for unsubstantiated claims of defensive ineptitude. We do know that other catchers like Biz Mackey also played other positions (he was on the same team as Santop after all) and we didn't exactly hold that against Joe Torre either when we voted him in. I'm not against the inductions of Mackey or Torre but it seems hypocritical that we find fault with Trouppe when we didn't with the others. He was a great-hitting catcher who was able to lead his team to several pennants and he is very deserving of induction. Alejandro Oms made some of my early ballots but faded when I considered him a lesser version of Kiner. However, I did a complete reevaluation in August and was surprised to see Oms jump up as high as he did. Major League pitcher Burleigh Grimes surprised me with a similar jump at the same time so it wasn't just a pro-Negro League position. Oms was better defensively than Kiner- playing centerfield rather than left- and did actually contribute quite a bit beyond the ten years that I first credited to him. Minnie Minoso gets onto my ballot without any Negro League credit to either his peak or prime numbers. I do give him a little credit towards his career numbers which is one of the reasons why he's higher than Duffy or Cepeda. Don Newcombe's case hinges a lot more on war credit for his time in Korea than it does on Negro League credit. As with Minoso, I don't give Newcombe peak or prime credit for playing in the Negro Leagues (I do give him prime credit for time missed to military service), though I do add to his career totals. And finally, Hilton Smith. He's highly regarded by the Hall of Fame, by Bill James (who gives him the equivalent of three Cy Young awards) and other sources. I'm not at all embarrassed to list a deserving Negro League pitcher from the '40s, a decade that has not gotten the attention of the '20s and '30s. And finally, finally, Dobie Moore, who's not actually on my ballot yet. I see his case as being very similar to that of Kiner. A dominant player for just under ten seasons. The positional bonuses that I give to glove positions make up the rest of the difference. He may make my ballot next year. Then again, he may not.

I hope that answers your question, Mike.

1987 Prelim

Last year, we elected McCovey (was #1) and Waddell (just off-ballot, a selection I'm OK with).

No outstanding newbies: I put Bando below Boyer because I believe in FRAA, and Bobby Bonds below Wynn.

Interesting thought: Bobby Bonds was on an HoM track before his career petered out in his early 30s. Think that influenced Barry's decisions with substance use in the son's early 30s?

1. Pierce
2. Ch. Jones
3. Schang
4. Cash
5. Trouppe
6. Redding
7. Wynn
8. Boyer
9. Fox
10. Minoso
11. Roush
12. Maranville
13. Cepeda
14. Beckley
15. Munson

16-20: Kiner, Browning, E. Howard, Bonds, Bridges.

i think that the uncertainty of MLEs and NgL data probably makes it more difficult for NgL candidates to get elected. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising if there's voters who have lots of NgLs on their ballot since those candidates are more likely to remain. What's much more puzzling as CF points out is those who have zero NgL candidates on their ballots or in their listed top-whatever. There's still plenty of guys, plenty of evidence, plenty of opinions. I find it hard to believe that of the 1470 or so NgLs that remain eligible zero of them haven't got a good enough case to merit a top-25 placement in someone's rankings.

If we are on the subject of Negro League representation, I really beleive the election drive should centre (for now) on Quincy Trouppe.
Looking at the Negro League players available based on their positioning in last year's ballot, we start with Minnie Minoso. His Negro League status is tenuous, as votes he gets should be based mostly on his time playing integrated baseball. Furthermore, there are loud questions about his status as the best corner OF available - see arguments for Kiner, Johnson, Veach, Jones, Keller, etc...
The highest purely NeL player on last year's ballot is Dick Redding. But he is not the highest ranked pitcher. He trails Pierce by a fair margin among the electorate. Bucky Walters isn't far behind, never mind my personal opinion on all three of them.
Next is Dobie Moore. To be honest, no SS can currently touch him on our ballot, and it should be a while until one does. But some will argue that the HOM has more than ample SS representation, and of course - how long was Moore's career worth, really?
Significance ends with Quincy Trouppe. He was the highest ranked catcher last year, but will probably lose that title as some flashy 70's types (long hair, sideburns, moustaches, etc...) join the ballots. AS others have pointed out, we've voted for Trouppe types (Torre), no questions about hsi career length. We could use another catcher in the HOM. He could rake, he played a defensive position at a level that was at least above-average. His career requires some imagination, in that he polayed at many and various levels and leagues. But for myself and 18 other voters last year, the numbers stood up to the test.
He joins my PHOM this year (Freehan's not in yet). This is the perfect time to check him out again.

Of course, if you'd rather reexamine Ben Taylor instead (I saw him lurking just off ballot for a number of you), please be my guest.

Chris F, thank you for your thoughful answer.

I have taken the position that since the statistical evidence is so sketchy that there needs to be an oral component to their arguement. That helped Cool Papa, and it hurts Quincy Trouppe. I don't claim to be right, but in the end that is what I feel most comfortable with. Dick Redding definately qualifies as having the reputation to back up his MLEs.

Doesn't it enhance Trouppe's reputation that even at the age of 39, the Indians put him on the field?
Think Willard Brown without the fame that having a nickname like "Home Run" will give a man.

Quincy Trouppe does well on the Keltner (Buckeyes won 3 titles). Then there's always the "80,000 Mexicans" thing going for him.

My Negro League top 50 ballot reps:
Trouppe (6th)
Easter (21) - basically tied with Kiner/Keller/Cravath
Oms (26) - I like him better than the 1890s outfielders
Redding (27)
Hilton Smith (29)
Dobie Moore (31) - short career holds him back, great peak candidate
Bus Clarkson (35) - I'm a little conservative, he could slide up
Ben Taylor (42) - Jake Beckley lite isn't going to make many ballots

I can't abide not having any NGL players in your consideration set.

Mike,

I think that your position is reasonable when certain conditions are met.
1) the player played in the states all the time
2) during the league era, the player mostly played in the NNL/NAL/ECL setups where most top talent was playing
3) the player played the vast bulk of his career before integration.

The reason for this filter is that guys like Trouppe just didn't have that many seasons among their black peers to build their reputation. Trouppe's career includes four years in ND with a small clutch of black players, and several years in Mexico. And that's all in his prime when he hit a lot and was at his fielding best. Most NgL players saw him as a guy in his mid 1930s or later if they saw him at all. So holding Trouppe to the same criteria as, say, Redding is in many ways stacking the deck against him.

And yet, what about Trouppe's reputation? In Mexico it was tremendous, because the oral history has that famous story of his being "traded" by the U.S. gov't to the Mexican league (i.e. granted a wartime visa) in exchange for 10,000 laborers. That's a fabulous piece of oral history.

Now you could argue that, well, Dandridge played a while in Mexico and DiHigo played a lot overseas. Sure, but that misses the point that both of them played numerous prime age/level seasons in the states in top leagues, which helped make their case to the HOF and HOM repsectively. In addition, both were also flashier talents for their era, a top glove and high-average hitter when that was highly fashionable and a two-way superstar. Trouppe is "just" a power/walks hitter with an unremarkable (but not poor) glove.

Mike,

I think that your position is reasonable when certain conditions are met.
1) the player played in the states all the time
2) during the league era, the player mostly played in the NNL/NAL/ECL setups where most top talent was playing
3) the player played the vast bulk of his career before integration.

The reason for this filter is that guys like Trouppe just didn't have that many seasons among their black peers to build their reputation. Trouppe's career includes four years in ND with a small clutch of black players, and several years in Mexico. And that's all in his prime when he hit a lot and was at his fielding best. Most NgL players saw him as a guy in his mid 1930s or later if they saw him at all. So holding Trouppe to the same criteria as, say, Redding is in many ways stacking the deck against him.

And yet, what about Trouppe's reputation? In Mexico it was tremendous, because the oral history has that famous story of his being "traded" by the U.S. gov't to the Mexican league (i.e. granted a wartime visa) in exchange for 10,000 laborers. That's a fabulous piece of oral history.

Now you could argue that, well, Dandridge played a while in Mexico and DiHigo played a lot overseas. Sure, but that misses the point that both of them played numerous prime age/level seasons in the states in top leagues, which helped make their case to the HOF and HOM repsectively. In addition, both were also flashier talents for their era, a top glove and high-average hitter when that was highly fashionable and a two-way superstar. Trouppe is "just" a power/walks hitter with an unremarkable (but not poor) glove.

I can't abide not having any NGL players in your consideration set.

I agree. Maybe not on your ballot, but there should be some in the vicinity of it.

FWIW, I had Oms and Moore last year on my ballot (I don't consider Minoso a NeLer).

Mike,

I think that your position is reasonable when certain conditions are met.
1) the player played in the states all the time
2) during the league era, the player mostly played in the NNL/NAL/ECL setups where most top talent was playing
3) the player played the vast bulk of his career before integration.

The reason for this filter is that guys like Trouppe just didn't have that many seasons among their black peers to build their reputation. Trouppe's career includes four years in ND with a small clutch of black players, and several years in Mexico. And that's all in his prime when he hit a lot and was at his fielding best. Most NgL players saw him as a guy in his mid 1930s or later if they saw him at all. So holding Trouppe to the same criteria as, say, Redding is in many ways stacking the deck against him.

And yet, what about Trouppe's reputation? In Mexico it was tremendous, because the oral history has that famous story of his being "traded" by the U.S. gov't to the Mexican league (i.e. granted a wartime visa) in exchange for 10,000 laborers. That's a fabulous piece of oral history.

Now you could argue that, well, Dandridge played a while in Mexico and DiHigo played a lot overseas. Sure, but that misses the point that both of them played numerous prime age/level seasons in the states in top leagues, which helped make their case to the HOF and HOM repsectively. In addition, both were also flashier talents for their era, a top glove and high-average hitter when that was highly fashionable and a two-way superstar. Trouppe is "just" a power/walks hitter with an unremarkable (but not poor) glove.

Mike, I thought my point was so vitally important that I had to post it three times. ; )

Sorry everyone, either me or the site was having issues around 5:20.

Sunnyday2,
I just want to point out that your preliminary ballot doesn't have an actual #12 on it.

As for those saying first basemen of Beckley's era having to field bunts, I've posted before that it just isn't true. I say that based on inputting play-by-play for hundreds (maybe it's thousands now) of games from 1888-1918 for Retrosheet. For those who claim it's true, on what evidence do you base your statement? (And incidentally, second basemen and shortstops did have to field bunts sometimes.)

And Dr. C., try 38 for Bob Thurman at his debut!

Huh, none on my ballot.
But I used to have Redding high before the reconsideration; I voted for Ben Taylor 2 of the last 3 years; I have Minoso well up my ballot; I don't vote for any Trouppe-type catchers of any color; and I only had Jennings 15th when elected so no I don't vote for Moore, either.

I was one of CP Bell's best friends, used to be of Redding, had Frank Grant near the top of my ballot, etc.

It's a fair point, but absence of Negro Leaguers isn't necessarily a 'black mark' ;)

Of the group, Redding is one I'll look at again. He definitely fell off my ballot 5-6 'years' ago, but the thinning herd means I can give him another thought.

More anecdotal evidence for Quincy Trouppe: He was one of only 27 players to make 5 Negro League All-Star Games. Now, the counter-argument can be made that we shouldn't induct all 27 of those players anyway and that there will be Major League players with 5 All-Star appearances whom we won't induct. However, Trouppe's 5 appearances come in 1938 and then from 1945 to 1948. That gap from 1939 to 1944 coincides with his time spent in the Mexican Leagues when he was clearly playing at an All-Star level. So he was an All-Star at age 25 and again from 32 to 35 and he wasn't eligible from age 26 to 31 because he was out of the country. Oh, and he didn't just play in those All-Star games- he was the starter.

He was a key contributor to the Cleveland Buckeye pennant winners in 1945 aand 1947 (some sources claim three straight titles from '45 to '46 to '47, while others only list the outer two). The Negro League Baseball Players Association's entry for the Buckeyes mentions that "the main attention grabber for the [1945] team was their catcher-manager, Quincey Trouppe. He helped the team win both halves of the Negro American League pennant. The team finished with an overall record of 53-16 and a winning percentage of .768. They also swept the Homestead Grays in the Negro World Series. Under Trouppe’s guidance, the team captured another flag in 1947 with a record of 54-23 and a winning percentage of .701."

Here is something old from the Petway thread:

Chris Cobb Posted: June 23, 2004 at 10:46 AM (#693776)
Here's the breakdown for Holway's all-star selections at catcher. As you'll see, Ron Wargo's inference is correct.

Holway all-star selections at catcher for players in my candidate pool

13 Josh Gibson
8 Biz Mackey
7 Bruce Petway
7 Louis Santop
5 Frank Duncan
3 Doc Wiley
3 Quincey Trouppe
2 Bill Pierce
2 Joe Greene
2 Roy Campanella
1 "Strike" Gonzalez
1 Larry Brown
1 Double Duty Radcliffe

And in summary it is my arguement against Quincy. Now Holway may see a box score with one homer and write down four, but he is wired in with the experts opinions about how Negro Leaguers rate. I'd bet that he'd finish no higher than 5th (not counting Campy) and probably lower than that if you polled people who have studied this stuff for years.

That being said, all of the things Doc wrote (over and over ;) )would hinder Quincy's ranking with the experts - that and the fact that generally the Negro League experts aren't sabermetrically inclined.

A lot of what was said about the reaction from outsiders with Freehan's election - both for and against - could be said about Trouppe - "What will people think? He never got a sniff from the HOF."

I can't abide not having any NGL players in your consideration set.

I disagree with this. I was Rube Foster's biggest supporter, as well as Cool Papa Bell's, but when Redding and Moore get elected, I'll only have Monroe left in my top 50. And if I didn't have Monroe, I'd hate to be called out for it.

And in summary it is my arguement against Quincy. Now Holway may see a box score with one homer and write down four, but he is wired in with the experts opinions about how Negro Leaguers rate. I'd bet that he'd finish no higher than 5th (not counting Campy) and probably lower than that if you polled people who have studied this stuff for years.

Let's look at this all-star data more closely, for whatever it's worth. Holway gives awards only to players in the North American Negro Leagues (or playing for top North American black teams when no leagues are organized), so when Josh Gibson dominates the MxL in 1940-41, he gets no Holway all-star awards.

Quincy Trouppe played full time in the Negro Leagues (listed on a Holway roster) for a total of seven seasons for which Holway names all-stars: 1932, 1936, 1938-39, 1945-47.

Holway named him an all-star in
1932 (Southern League when he played part of the season with the Monarchs. He started the season with the Detroit Wolves and then went to the Grays when the Wolves folded, apparently jumping to the Monarchs later)
1936 (West, played for KC Monarchs, no league formally organized)
1947 (NAL with Cleveland Buckeyes)

Three all-star appearances in seven seasons eligible, with the first and the last 15 years apart, is not exactly a shabby performance, considering that he was playing ball at a high level in 13 other seasons. I'd wager he might have scraped up a few more Holway all-star appearances in 1933-35 and esp. 1940-44 if he had played in the Negro Leagues, though not if he was playing in the same league as Josh Gibson . . .

Other info re: Cblau and bunting.

The following info was accurate the last time I checked BB-Ref.

I looked at the number of sacrifices per game and found this:
Year / League / Team Games / Avg. Sacrifices Team / per Game - 1894-1920
1894 / N / 132 / 96 / .73
1895 / N / 133 / 83 / .62
1896 / N / 132 / 97 / .73
1897 / N / 135 / 94 / .70
1898 / N / 154 / 112 / .73
1899 / N / 154 / 110 / .71
1900 / N / 142 / 101 / .71
1901 / N / 140 / 104 / .74
1902 / N / 141 / 119 / .84
1903 / N / 140 / 124 / .89
1904 / N / 156 / 131 / .84
1905 / N / 155 / 146 / .94 - Beck's last year over 100 games
1906 / N / 154 / 161 / 1.05 - Beck's last year as a regular
1907 / N / 154 / 169 / 1.10
1908 / N / 156 / 207 / 1.33
1909 / N / 155 / 208 / 1.34
1910 / N / 155 / 191 / 1.23
1911 / N / 156 / 177 / 1.13
1912 / N / 153 / 170 / 1.11
1913 / N / 155 / 155 / 1.00
1914 / N / 156 / 174 / 1.12
1915 / N / 156 / 173 / 1.11
1916 / N / 156 / 162 / 1.04
1917 / N / 156 / 169 / 1.08
1918 / N / 127 / 148 / 1.17
1919 / N / 140 / 151 / 1.08
1920 / N / 154 / 177 / 1.15

It is the generation after Beckley that deserves the "bunt fielding credit." A player like Ed Konetchy who played from 1907 to 1920 is the type of player who deserves the such credit.

Kelly, clearly what happened was that as long as Beckley the nonpareil was out there people were afraid to attempt the bunt as it would be an automatic out. Once Beckley was retired, it became all the rage because these other bums just coulnd't pick it like Jake ;-)

What was the number of bunts pre-1894?

BTW, I don't think I have ever posted that the "Inside Baseball" era started in full-force in 1890. It appears to have been a gradual process, since the decade started with sluggers Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Orr, and Larkin still going strong.

I do agree that Konetchy had more defensive responsibility than Beckley had over his entire career.

So back to our regularly schedule program,

Childs > Beckley.

Beckley v. Konetchy has always been a comparison of interest to me. According to Prospectus, Beckley had a .289 career EQA vs. .287 for Konetchy and both had 103 Rates at 1B. Beckley played in the tougher one league environment but Konetchy has slightly more defensive responsibility. Both were the best at their position numerous times but were rarely if ever MVP candidates. When you stack up their career patterns, they alternate best seasons sufficiently that neither gets a real peak or prime edge. Seems to me that--when on the field--the two were essentially equal.

The difference is that when you adjust for season-length, Beckley's career was more than 20% longer (roughly 11,000 translated PA vs. roughly 9100 for Konetchy). That is obviously a huge difference and justifies having Beckley substantially higher.

The two questions I have are:

(1) Is my reading of Beckley as Konetchy with historic career length accurate?
(2) Given the fact that Konetchy's career was plenty long, is the 45 spot gap that I have between them too large?

Andrew, my new system sees them as back to back. Beckley gets 24 points, Konetchy 23. The in/out line is over 30 for 1Bs.

These last six postings reaffirm that Ben Taylor is not a "Jake Beckley-lite" as one voter pointed out. If Negro League bunting patterns were similar to ML patterns, then Taylor gets the Konetchy boost, plus MLE's a fair bit higher than Beckley's numbers at a career length in Beckley-ville. And a glove with superb reps.

> As for those saying first basemen of Beckley's era having to field bunts, I've posted before
> that it just isn't true.

This has been an elightening discussion as to bunt rates but I still want some clarification in this comment. Did 1B not field bunts down the 1B line? If not, who was responsible for fielding bunts at that time?

I'll concede Taylor might not be "Beckley-lite" but might in fact be "Beckley period".

>Childs > Beckley.

And then there's Taylor.

Childs is in my PHoM, but I can't seriously see us electing any one of the 3 at this point.

I don't think 40 slots is a lot on these ballots. One or 2 seasons could make that difference on my ballot.

I also didn't necessarily mean top 50 as "consideration set". I consider 100 players. I don't know how Quincy Trouppe would fall out of a top 100 based on the evidence.

Prelim

PHOM: Right now the leaders are Torre, Elston Howard and one of Boyer and Dean

1. Charlie Keller
2. Cupid Childs
3. Hugh Duffy
4. Dick Redding
5. Ralph Kiner
6. Dobie Moore
7. Buck Walters
8. Jimmy Wynn
9. Pete Browning
10. Quincey Trouppe
11. Elston Howard
12. Dizzy Dean
13. Ken Boyer
14. Gavvy Cravath
15. Al Rosen

16-20 - Oms, GVH, Pierce, Bresnahan, Fox

Right now Sal Bando is at #28, which is two spots below Bob Elliot while Bobby Bonds is at #50, just below the Burns, Minoso, Veach, Johnson cohort as well as Chuck Klein and Hack Wilson.

Childs is in my PHoM, but I can't seriously see us electing any one of the 3 at this point.

I don't know why you say that, Marc, since Childs is the fourth strongest backlogger at this point. After '87, he may be #1 in that department.

re: lack of (NgL players, or any other sub-category) on ballots --

by the nature of our exercise, the phenomenon of some voters having ballots full of and empty of certain types will grow more prevelant the logner we go on.

the 'pennant is a pennant' crowd, who want more 19th century guys, once we elect borderline backloggers from recent years, will soon have ballots with mostly really dead players

'position scarcity' voters may have ballots full of catchers and third basemen

those who believe we're short on pitching may list 10 of 15 moundsmen

if Gadfly were here, we might see a ballot of 9 non-MLBers of darker hue; but if you think we've alreay elected too many, no NgLgers in your top 30.

it would be the same if someone had a 'rank the presidents' exercise; we might mostly agree in friendly fashion on George and Abe, but soon ballots full of all liberals and all conservatives would surface once the obvious winners are chosen

should we still encourage posts of "hey, man, you got 11 outfielders in your top 15!"? Sure we should. But there are lots of reasonable man's answers that will suffice. It's a strength of our diverse electorate. Yay 4 us.

Re: fielding bunts,

It was mainly the pitcher, who had a lot more fielding responsibilities back then. After that it was the third baseman and catcher. First basemen would field them if the batter pushed one hard down the line, but basically they just hung around the base to take the throw. This was changing somewhat during Konetchy's time, but it was still unusual for the second baseman to cover first on a sacrifice.

New guy to hit my ballot for the first time next week, and he received zero votes in 1986, so I could well be his 'best friend'. Ergo, an explanation.

Dominic DiMaggio. Three hundred hitter (yes, aided by Fenway), good eye, some pop, played full time and very well until age 35. Averaged scoring 110 runs a year in his prime. He missed 3 peak/prime seasons, ages 26 to 28. He could have been a hero in game 7 of the ’46 Series; he drove in all 3 of the Sox runs, but Slaughter’s mad dash erased Dom’s play.

Many have mentioned the HoM has been light in honoring the WWII era guys.

And I have him as one of the 4 or 5 best defensive outfielders EVER, along with Mays, Speaker, Flood, and possibly Andruw Jones.

measuring DiMaggio's OWP against other CFers, he is about even with Kirby Puckett and Max Carey.

measuring DiMaggio's OWP against other CFers, he is about even with Kirby Puckett and Max Carey.

From the SBE
<ex>
CAREER
CF

OWP OWP
1 Mickey Mantle .821
2 Ty Cobb .786
3 Joe DiMaggio .749
4 Tris Speaker .749
5 Willie Mays .731
6 Larry Doby .687
7 Jimmy Wynn .684
8 Jim Edmonds .682
9 Ken Griffey Jr. .679
10 George Gore .677
11 Duke Snider .671
12 Earl Averill .655
13 Roy Thomas .647
14 Earle Combs .641
15 Lenny Dykstra .639
16 Fred Lynn .638
17 Cesar Cedeno .635
18 Dale Murphy .630
19 Edd Roush .629
20 Bernie Williams .624
21 Ginger Beaumont .623
22 George Van Haltren .618
23 Mike Griffin .616
24 Rick Monday .600
25 Richie Ashburn .600
26 Kirby Puckett .599
27 Robin Yount .597
28 Chet Lemon .595
29 Kenny Lofton .584
30 Brett Butler .584
31 Amos Otis .583
32 Mickey Rivers .579
33 Vada Pinson .576
34 Clyde Milan .574
35 Cy Williams .570
36 Max Carey .569
37 Andruw Jones .566
38 Dummy Hoy .561
39 Fielder Jones .561
40 Dom DiMaggio .560
41 Baby Doll Jacobson .558
42 Dode Paskert .549
43 Dave Henderson .542
44 Willie McGee .541
45 Willie Davis .541
46 Steve Finley .539
47 Johnny Damon .536
48 Ned Hanlon .536
49 Lloyd Moseby .535
50 Lloyd Waner .522
</ex>

whoa! where did my numbers get THAT far off?

maybe I was using the non-DH-adjusted file for Kirby. Thanks, Mike, I'll re-check when I get back to my home computer.

Great list. Anybody have the time to plug in PAs and FRAA/FRAR??? That would make it pretty definitive at that point. Right now I don't know how to compare Vada Pinson, who some people see as a HoF/HoM candidate, at .576 versus Freddy Lynn, who nobody does, at .638.

I ran that list again, I knew there was something off with it. It only included the players seasons when he played his most games in CF, which is what shot Jimmy Wynn way up the list. Now its reset to show players with 5000 PA, that played the majority of their games in CF. Thru 2005, for Edmonds and Griffey jr.

As far as Dom DiMaggio, well this is even worse.

adding 10 fielding runs a year would change a player's OWP from .560 to .623, putting him very close in OWP and PA (adj for 162 game sched) to... Jimmy Wynn!

That list is good looking for Wally Berger, the latest inclusion in my backlog riddled ballot.

bump