Hey, I get to vote for my favorite player of all-time, vote for a seriously underrated player from my childhood, and utilize the boycott rule for the first time in over 60 years!

Oldest living HOMer
(progression)
1898 -- Deacon White (elected, age 50)
1901 -- George Wright (elected, age 54)
1912 -- Joe Start (elected, age 69; died, age 84)
1927 -- George Wright (age 80; died, age 90)
1937 -- Deacon White (age 89; died, age 91)
1939 -- Jack Glasscock (age 79; died, age 87)
1947 -- Cy Young (age 79; died, age 88)
1955 -- Grant Johnson (age 83; died, age 92)
1964 -- Elmer Flick (age 88; died, age 94)
1971 -- Zach Wheat (age 82; died, age 83)
1972 -- Red Faber (age 83; died, age 88)
1976 -- Stan Coveleski (age 87; died, age 94)
1984 -- Bill Terry (age 85)
1985 -- Joe Sewell (elected, age 86; died, age 91)
1990 -- Cool Papa Bell (age 86; died, age 87)
1993 -- Bill Dickey (age 83; )

Last year I missed Bell somehow.

Not that it matters much in the larger scheme of things, but is it appropriate to apply the boycott to Rose? Yes, he bet on baseball, yes, he seems to have become a rather awful person, but the damage that he did to the game with his gambling occurred after his time as a player, as far as I know. If we are leaving managerial "accomplishments" out of consideration, why bring Rose's into an assessment of his merits as a player?

I think there's circumstantial evidence to suggest that Rose, late in his career, was likely a steroid user. In particular, he allowed a known steroid dealerto live in his house. Yes, I know that Rose has vehemently and specifically denied steroid use but, well, consider the source.

Can you spot this in his playing record? No - of course not. I, for one, will not claim to be able to spot it in anyone's playing record. But he did maintain significant value to a significantly older than usual age. And don't be distracted by the fact that he was a singles hitter - Rose is a big, strong man (just ask Bud Harrelson or Ray Fosse), and strength and muscle mass were always a part of his game.

For all of that, and the gambling too, I have no intention of boycotting Rose, and with no boycott, he will inevitably wind up in an "elect me" slot on my ballot. (#2 behind Seaver seems likely.)

I'm sort of shocked anyone's not going to boycott Rose. If not Rose, then who?

Wasn't it fairly well established that Rose was gambling heavily by the end of his playing days?

If not Rose, then who?

Well, I'm not boycotting anyone, never have.

In the history of the Hall of Merit, only two players subsequently elected to the Hall of Merit were boycotted by a significant number of voters: Cap Anson and Joe Jackson. A handful of voters boycotted Gaylord Perry. Those are the only uses of the boycott of which I am aware.

A significant percentage of the electorate disagrees in principle with the boycott rule and does not exercise it in any case.

Myself, I boycotted Jackson but not Anson, as I thought that Anson's racism was widely shared, or his move to get black players out of major league baseball would not have succeeded so readily. I think other voters were well within their rights to boycott Anson, and the boycott of Perry was also reasonable.

Wasn't it fairly well established that Rose was gambling heavily by the end of his playing days?

I haven't engaged in the exhaustive debates about Rose on line that many others have, so I don't know what is "well-established" and what isn't. I know that Rose was banned for betting on baseball, and that he placed those bets while he was managing, but not playing, for the Reds, and that he has admitted to doing so.

I am not aware that he bet _on baseball_ while he was a player. If he was gambling heavily but not betting on baseball, that was certainly a poor life choice, but it would not, I believe, be a sufficient justification for boycotting hm. If he was betting _on baseball_ then, that's a different story, so I would like to know the facts, insofar as they have been reliably established.

I asked about the boycott in part to see if the evidentiary base of the case against Rose has changed since I stopped paying attention to it, and in part to argue against the application of the boycott to Rose in the absence of evidence about gambling on baseball during his playing career.

I fear this discussion will quickly spin out of control, but I hope that it won't.

And away we go...

Rose will not be on my ballot this year, that is to say, "this" year.

Rose will not be on my ballot this year, that is to say, "this" year.

What is your reasoning for exercising the boycott? If yest should account for ranking Morgan fifth on his ballot, those planning to leave Rose off of theirs should at least give their reasons . . .

So, will anybody be voting Rose over Seaver, or will Tom Terrific be our next unanimous choice?

Here's the relevant portion of the constitution:

"A player’s “personality” is to be considered only to the extent that it affected the outcomes of the player’s games (e.g., via his positive or negative effect on his teammates). In rare and extreme cases, a voter may opt to exclude a player on “personality” grounds on the first ballot on which the player appears. If that player does not get elected on his first ballot, the voter shall give the player full consideration in all subsequent ballots, regardless of the “personality” factors.

Allegations (proven or otherwise) about throwing baseball games may be especially troubling to some voters. It would be appropriate for such a voter to discount such a player’s accomplishments to some degree. In rare and extreme cases, it may even be appropriate for such a voter to choose not to vote for an otherwise worthy candidate. "

Now, when I started voting around 10 "years" ago and reviewed the constitution, 3 candidates immediately came to mind as potential boycotts for me:

1)Perry (open cheating...)
2)Rose (gambling et al)
3)Carlton (Elders of Zion)

My impression in reading the constitution was that the boycott could be applied no matter when the "personality" problems occured, since playing-days-only isn't specified. However, if the intent of the rule was to limit personality issues solely to playing days, I'll happily vote for Rose and Carlton.

I was unclear. What I meant was, if the problemsa player turns out to be odious after the fact (or beforehand), its not clear to me that you can't say that he's just an awful guy....if he has a bad personality 5 years after he retires, he presumably has one his whole life, right?

Minor quibble - LF/1B doesn't really describe Rose's 'position', as he's arguably the most 'multipostion' player in MLB history, with over 5,000 defensive innings at LF, 2B, 3B, RF & 1B.

Phil H a C (z),

I think your interpretation of the Constitution, as written, is reasonable. I think, however, that in intent, the boycott provision was aimed more narrowly to apply to the impact of a player's odious personality on the game, but others who were actually aroudn when the Constitution was written can speak to that with more authority than I can (having been here only since 1904 . . . ) Certainly that is how it has been employed in practice.

Perry's impact clearly occurred while he was playing. Few chose to boycott, but everyone seemed to agree that Perry's cheating provided legitimate ground for a boycott.

Rose's case is curious because his odious personality did have a deleterious impact on the game, but that impact occurred most strongly after he was no longer playing. That's why I think we should be discussing it.

Carlton's case has nothing to do with the game, and I think it would violate the established use of the boycott to exercise it in his case.

As to bad personality being life-long: people change. Rose appears to have become significantly more sociopathic as his ego grew, and his gambling addiction didn't help.

Cap Anson, on the other hand, who appears to have been a virulent racist in the 1880s, seems to have had a change of heart later in life. He played without objection against black teams in the Chicago city leagues in the 19aughts: Holway has a couple of remarkable photographs of him together with Rube Foster. Who would have thought?

So, will anybody be voting Rose over Seaver, or will Tom Terrific be our next unanimous choice?

If Rose didn't have any issues, I would have him narrowly ahead of Seaver, but under the circumstances, since they are very close anyway, I'll give the nod to Seaver. Since some voters don't factor in personality (or gambling) at all, and Rose surely has a _very_ impressive career, I would be somewhat surprised if he doesn't garner at least a few first place votes.

I am curious to see if the number of boycotts of Rose will be large enough to keep him from being elected in 1992.

Some sportswriters are saying they won't vote for Mark McGwire for the HoF. And why? Some say it's because his testimony to the U.S. Congress was not forthcoming. Discuss.

As for Rose, do you seriously believe that he didn't bet on baseball games while active?

But actually what especially bugs me about Petey is that as manager he put a clearly inferior player in his team's lineup day after day after day, which clearly hurt his teams. And of course the inferior ballplayer he put in the lineup every day was himself, and his reason was his selfish pursuit of individual glory.

As was said above: If not Pete, who?

Some sportswriters are saying they won't vote for Mark McGwire for the HoF. And why? Some say it's because his testimony to the U.S. Congress was not forthcoming. Discuss.

As for Rose, do you seriously believe that he didn't bet on baseball games while active?

But actually what especially bugs me about Petey is that as manager he put a clearly inferior player in his team's lineup day after day after day, which clearly hurt his teams. And of course the inferior ballplayer he put in the lineup every day was himself, and his reason was his selfish pursuit of individual glory.

As was said above: If not Pete, who?

I think, however, that in intent, the boycott provision was aimed more narrowly to apply to the impact of a player's odious personality on the game,

I'll take a crack at this.

IIRC, the "Personality Clause" was included as an appeasement to those who objected to being forced to vote for certain players, those whose deeds were so "heinous" that they couldn't be blocked out of their analysis. I wasn't in favor of it, I don't think it has a place here, and that it is already incorporated in any complete analysis of players' merit. I believe personality is relevant only to the extent that it affects the chances of success for the player's team.

But it was written in anyway. I think that as written it gives voters wide latitude to not vote for any first year player that they don't like, for whatever reason. So those who don't like Rose can ignore him for a year; after that they have to get back to the job of analyzing his playing merit.

Anyway, that's how I've always understood it, that you're allowed one year to downgrade a player for no good reason.

Also relevant is this from our Constitution:

Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player’s on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player’s baseball games. When tallying up value for an eligible player, any managerial contributions created as a player/manager should not be included under any circumstances.

So, if during his time as player-manager Rose made managing decisions to help him win bets, this is irrelevant to his HoM analysis. Equally, if he wrote himself into the lineup when the team had better options available, this is also irrelevant.

In my mind's eye I see Jim Wynn and Cesar Cedeno together in the Houston Astros OF. And indeed they did for 4 years, 1970-73.

But first Wynn 1963-1969

1963-64 137 games (117 in OF, mostly LF in '63, mostly CF in '64, 21 at SS in '63! A well below average player age 21-22
1965 157 games (155 CF) .275-.371-.470/146 with 43 SB and 4 CS
1966 105 games 104 CF; elbow injury) .256-.321-.440/118
1967 158 games (157 CF) .249-.331-.495/139
1968 156 games (153 OF: 56-93-7) .269-.376-.474/158 (Ron Davis started the year in CF for 52 games)
1969 149 games (all CF) .269-.438-.507/168 (148 BB, his peak year at age 27)

Then Cedeno CF and Wynn corner OF for 4 years

1970
Wynn 157 games (151 OF: 66-87-0) .282-.394-.493/143 (started the year in CF, then went left)
Cedeno 90 games (75 CF, 17 RF) .310-.340-.451/115 at age 19

1971
Wynn 123 games (116 OF: 1-48-72) .203-.302-.295/72 (did not appear to be injured, WTF?)
Cedeno 161 games (157 OF, 125 CF) .264-.283-.398/97

1972
Wynn 145 games (144 OF: 132 RF) .273-.389-.470/147
Cedeno 139 games (137 CF) .320-.385-.537/163

1973
Wynn 139 games (133 OF: 125 RF) .220-.347-.395/106
Cedeno 139 games (136 CF) .320-.376-.537/151

1974
Wynn to LA, 21 year old Greg Gross takes his spot
Cedeno 160 games (157 CF) .269-.338-.461/129 (Cedeno never again slugs .500)

So there is only one year in which they both play really well.

Career

Cedeno 17 years, 2006 games (1718 OF, 1457 CF; 12 years ? 100 games) 199-976-.285-.347-.443/124 (2,087 H, 1,084 R)
Wynn 15 years, 1920 games (1810 OF, also 12 years ? 100 games) 291-.964-.250-.366-.436/129 (1,665 H, 1,105 R)

Win Shares

10 (CF). Jim Wynn 305/36-32-32/141/25.7
21 (CF). Cesar Cedeno 296/33-30-30/140/23.9

WS prefers Wynn. I can't say that I see the difference being from #10 to #21. I can't say that I see the difference being in Wynn's favor at all.

In the history of the Hall of Merit, only two players subsequently elected to the Hall of Merit were boycotted by a significant number of voters: Cap Anson and Joe Jackson. A handful of voters boycotted Gaylord Perry. Those are the only uses of the boycott of which I am aware.

The boycotts of Anson and Perry did not prevent their first ballot elections. The boycott of Jackson was different in that it involved a large enough fraction of the electorate to prevent his first ballot election. Jackson's subsequent easy second-year election revealed how people analyzed his production.

Everyone who boycotted Jackson must also have boycotted Ed Cicotte, whether they said so or not. In the long run Cicotte turned out to be a deep-backlog candidate, although he does have supporters even now. The first-year boycott may have inhibited his chance to grab a place in the backlog (although it probably had no real lasting effects). But beyond that, a large majority of the electorate (possibly everyone except karlmagnus) is unwilling to do any extrapolation of Cicotte's career beyond 1920, a significant minority applies some discount to Cicotte's 1919 and/or 1920 seasons, and many members of the electorate, consciously or unconsciously, have developed the habit of shading equivocal evidence or judgment calls against Cicotte.

Hal Chase was judged to have insuffient talent and production to be considered a serious candidate (despite his considerable fame in his own time), making the question of whether anyone boycotted him moot.

No one has even reacted to my suggestion that Rose could have been a 'roider. The most likely reason is that even if true, it wouldn't change anyone's vote. It won't change mine. I did boycott Jackson; for me the line between Jackson and Rose is this: do I think that Rose was part of a conspiracy to throw games? I've heard no evidence that he was. (Even if there were evidence, it would have to be more convincing than that against Speaker and Cobb.) And with that line not crossed, I won't boycott Rose.

To be honest, I never liked Pete Rose when he was an active player. That "Charlie Hustle" stuff just grated on me and reminded me of all the aspects and values of the world of jockdom that alienated me even as I participated. Pete Rose was not "cool." Frank Robinson was cool, and Bob Gibson - for some reason those guys' passion for the game and competitive fire just seemed more genuine to me than Rose's act. (Side note: for someone growing up in the 60's, everything was about race. Don't underestimate the appeal of black heros to a white boy - and once you start thinking that way, you're not going to find Rose attractive.) I didn't like Rose as a player; I wouldn't want to have a conversation with him now. And none of that makes a bit of difference in my analysis.

I don't see why Rose is an automatic HOMer. His counting stat is severely tainted and his OPS+ is inadequate. In fact Pete, having been voting since 1900, I knew Jake Beckley personally, and all I can say is : you're no Jake Beckley!

Pete Rose & Jake Beckley, OPS+ by season, best to worst:

Rose – 158, 152, 141, 138, 134, 132, 130, 129, 128, 127, 127, 121, 119, 119, 118, 116, 115, 101, 99, 98, 94, 91, 80, 61

Beck – 157, 152, 144, 138, 133, 131, 128, 127, 127, 126, 126, 124, 122, 112, 112, 105, 102, 98, 45

I don't see how anybody who supports Beckley could possibly question Pete Rose. Only a hardcore peaker could possibly argue that Rose isn't a top candidate. The OPS+ numbers say so, at least.

Still, truly amazing how close they are--Pete's only real advantage is from his 16th best season and on.

In fact Pete, having been voting since 1900, I knew Jake Beckley personally, and all I can say is : you're no Jake Beckley!

You're absolutely right, karlmagnus. Rose isn't remotely Beckley, since he's about 67% better than ol' Eagle Eye. ;-)

Not from Chris Cobb's list he isn't. Add that Rose played during in an expansion era while Beckley played in a single league, including the tightest talent squeeze in baseball history of 1900, and that Beckley's 1B was a more valuable fielding position than Rose's average, by a considerable margin, and the 7 points of OPS+ and you have Beckley being significantly better. Someone said Staub made him doubt Beckley; with 10% fewer hits in longer seasons at a less valuable fielding position, Staub's nowhere near Beckley.

Rose, even more than Paul Waner, should be the comparison that finally convinces doubters that Beckley ought to be in the HOM.

Anyway, that's how I've always understood it, that you're allowed one year to downgrade a player for no good reason.

There's a very good reason, Dan. The reason is to deny that player a first-ballot induction.

Also relevant is this from our Constitution:

Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player’s on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player’s baseball games. When tallying up value for an eligible player, any managerial contributions created as a player/manager should not be included under any circumstances.

So, if during his time as player-manager Rose made managing decisions to help him win bets, this is irrelevant to his HoM analysis. Equally, if he wrote himself into the lineup when the team had better options available, this is also irrelevant.

Except when we debating all of this, Jackson and Rose were the two main guys we all talked about. Everyone knew exactly about our objections to Rose beforehand and that the compromise rule would take him into account, despite whatever the Constitution says.

Just for the sake of argument, let's give Jake Beckley the benefit of every possible doubt, however extreme.

Oh, wait, we already did that (#26 above).

There's a very good reason

Maybe to many voters. For me, I place no importance on first-ballot induction status, when guys like Eddie Collins and Pop Lloyd aren't members of the club.

Jackson and Rose were the two main guys we all talked about

I didn't remember this. In any case, IMO we should not be emphasizing our personal likes/dislikes or subjective judging of character in our analyses.

But it's our compromise rule and I don't want to beat a dead horse. Just trying to explain it to anyone who wasn't around back then.

karl, I'm a Beckely fan. He will be #2 on my ballot in 1991. But the above reasoning is absurd.

ONE
Pete's NL was the stronger league of his time. Maybe we should discount every single player from 1961 onward since there was expansion? Why don't we elect more 1930s guys, heck, we already have a few dozen, since they played before expansion. Yes, give a bonus to the 1900 league (OK, that is one year), but it's downright silly to pretend that 12 non-Hispanic non-black non-asian non-very-well-scouted teams in 1895 could match up to the competition in the NL of the 1970s.

TWO
Beckley's positon of first base in 1895 was NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT more valuable than Rose playing 2B and 3B and RF and LF and 1B. Stop saying it! Show me a postion averages table or some data if you disagree. And even then Rose's position flexibility is worth something; the Red Machine of 1975-76 would have been less if Rose hadn't successfully transitioned to third, clearing the way for Foster.

THREE
OPS+ is not a bad measure, but it is not a great one. Other more reliable measures (EqA or OWP) would show them very close.

FOUR
You often mention Beckley's durability as a plus, but you kinda forgot about the fact that Rose trounces Beckley in durability. Beckley twice finished in the top 9 in his league in a bats. Rose did that eightteen times. Oh, and that doens't account for Rose drawing more walks, too.

Beckley doesn't have to be anywhere near Rose to get into the HoM. And yes, the fact that he comes somewhere even in the vicinity of Charlie Hustle makes a good case for him. But I'm almost ready to drop Beckley just for spite, which of course will justifiably have my ballot nullified, and that will be one less elect-me vote for Jake. That would pretty small of me, wouldn't it? Being spiteful just to feel better about hosing karl's irrational pro-Beckley arguments? Would it do any good? Dunno. Maybe if karl would take off his Beckley-colored glasses and be more objective I'd stop getting these selfish impulses. Somebody help me....

I grant you I Beckleyfied this discussion, but it's not generally me but someone like Dr. Chaleeko making an unprovoked out-of-nowhere irrational attack on the man. I agree Beckley was a boring player, and so it's annoying to have him raised every time, but so was Pete Rose, dammit -- the Chalie Hustle thing never did anything for me either, and I think Beckley's a damn sight better comp for him than Ty Cobb, which is who he went through life comparing himself to.

On your detailed points:

1)The NL was stronger in the 1950s, but not so much after 1963, when both leagues were integrated. While it had a good run at All Star games, the AL won the World Series in 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984 and 1985 during his career, which is pretty well half (that list from memory, so sorry if I've missed one or claimed one in error.) Both leagues were expanding rapidly during Rose's career, while the Caribbean and Asian influx hadn't yet happened -- thus the 1890s, with only one major professional sport, had a greater concentration of talent.

2) 2/3 of Rose's games were 1B or OF, which we've agreed (other than CF) were less valuable positions than 1890s 1B. Wear and tear was much greater on an 1890s infielder, too.

3) Beckley's OPS+ is somewhat understated, because of his huge home park in Pittsburgh, in which he hit triples that would else where have been HR. I don't trust EqA or OwP because their formulae are non-tranparent to me, I agree that YMMV. The fact remains 118 for a primarily hitting player is very ordinary.

4) I didn't and wouldn't say Beckley was more durable than Rose; conditions were very different so it's difficult to draw a comparison. Both were highly durable.

When I see people who have Beckley 68th or something silly, and Brock or Fox, for example, high on their ballot I think on my bad days that it's done to spite me. Then I suppress this irrational paranoia. I do suggest strongly that we both avoid marking players down because we don't like their sponsor and also avoid threatening to do so -- it helps neither the process nor one's mental health.

Cheers!

Somebody help me....

I've been trying to help you for 30 years or so! Which isn't to say I've been successful....

But in the end, even if these two guys were equals in OPS+, the fact remains that Rose
a) had tons more walks, which OPS+ underrates significantly
b) played more demanding positions
b1) so his OPS+ compared to his positional peers was somewhat more valuable than Beckley's
b2) so his defensive contribution was likely more valuable as well.

So, if during his time as player-manager Rose made managing decisions to help him win bets, this is irrelevant to his HoM analysis. Equally, if he wrote himself into the lineup when the team had better options available, this is also irrelevant.

While I agree with the spirit of Dan's objections to the Jackson-Rose clause, I do think there's a granular point to make here. Associating with gamblers is one of baseball's inviolables. Durocher got suspended for a year just for consorting with one, despite no evidence that he ever bet on baseball. The appearance of impropriety is actually important here. However, I will draw the line between player-manager and manager. If he consorted with gamblers as a player, worse if he placed bets on the game, then I think there's a basis for boycott. If those actitivites occured only when he went to managing, then I think there's no reasonable basis for boycott, per the passages cited by zop and DanG.

The question raised by Sunnday about writing himself into the lineup is more difficult to address. I would ask this back-door question: is Rose the only player-manager to insert himself in the lineup for selfish reasons or to insert himself when he had a clearly better alternative? I doubt he's the only one, and I wouldn't be surprised that we've even voted for a few without boycott.

Whether Rose is the only one is a moot point. I mean, have we done a systematic study of MiLers to identify all the great MiLers who should get MLE credit? No. But that didn't stop (some of) us from awarding MiL MLE credit to selected (selective) players. And etc.

And my belief is that while Rose was making managerial decisions, he was active as a player at the time and he (personally and individually) harmed his team's chances of winning. Plus padded his numbers. I don't see how this can possibly be irrelevant.

Semi-random thoughts on the new candidates:

1992 (December 25)—elect 2
+Pete Rose-LF/1B: Unless persuasive evidence exists that Rose was gambling on the game in his playing days, I see no reason to boycott. Steroids and greenies are not much of an interest to me either, not until about 2002. Andy and I have argued this one before vis Bonds/McGwire. If you don't want to vote for him because he's an A-hole, well, you're going to love Kirby Puckett.

+Tom Seaver-P: Best pitcher since WW2? He's a strong candidate. Since eclipsed among righties by Clemens, and maybe by Maddux. What happened to him in the early 1980s? Arm troubles?

+Bobby Grich-2B: No doubt HOMer for me. Way more underrated than even Darrell Evans. This guy was actually the AL's best player for a couple years. He and Carew routinely battled for best 2B, then best player. Criminally overlooked by the mainstream media. If only he'd known not to carry around air conditioners in the offseason.

+Tony Perez-1B/3B: Doggie's a tough one. He's borderline, for sure. He's got a five or so really nice years that form a decent but not great peak. Then he hangs on forever. Playing 3B does help him somewhat in my eyes, but not a ton. He may squeak by, but even if so, he's literally straddilng the in/out line, and I won't cry either way for him.

+Cesar Cedeno-CF: A really wonderful player for a few years, but the shooting James discusses and other things must have worn him down. By the early 1980s, he was just about fork-tender. Too bad, because if he'd had just one or two more All-Star kind of years in him, he'd be on the borderline.

+Toby Harrah-3B/SS: He's one of the great surprises of my analysis. As a 3B, he's just above the borderline, right around Nettles, possibly ahead of him. His combo of walks and decent power is reminiscent of Grich, actually, but Harrah had a glove of Stuartesque proportions by every rating system I've looked at. Too bad, with any kind of defensive value, he'd be well up the list. As is, I probably won't vote for him unless the backlog clears quite a lot. He, Perez, Singleton are in the same strata.

+George Foster-LF: Jim Rice without the Fens. Seriously, anyone who thinks Jim Rice is all that should be ready to pull the trigger on Foster. I agree that Rice is better than Foster, but the difference between them is like the difference between Lyons, Rixey, Ruffing rather than the difference between Ruffing and, oh, Lefty Grove.

+Dusty Baker-LF: Worst manager of our times? Well, maybe not. He appears to get good years from older players, especially hitters, though he's susceptible to taking a lark on weak hitting middle men. So if he's managing a bunch like the 2000 Yankees where the bench is virtually nonexistent and the regulars are obvious and old, and there's no rookie hurlers, he's probably not a bad choice. But putting him in charge of a team with lots of young pitchers, hot young hitters, and a bench full of weak-hitting infielders is asking for trouble. What's that Mr. Hendry, you don't agree? Anyway, Dusty was a good player who thrived late in his career, which is kind of interesting in itself.

+Vida Blue-P: Man, what coulda been. But he was cooked by the late 1970s, wasn't he? He and Doc Gooden are in many ways linked in my mind....

+Chris Chambliss-1B*: How many homeruns do we remember for the piles of people coming out of the stands? This one and 715 must top the list. But in watching some old films of world series games recently (through a link someone here posted), I noticed that fans at those games frequently came out of the stands after games. Was this a common practice until 30 years ago? No idea.

+Bill Russell-SS: Yawn.

+Ben Oglivie-LF: The perfect 1970s-early 1980s hitter. All average, no walks, power. The anti-Singleton in some ways. Maybe the contrapositive?

+Dave Kingman-1B/LF: KONG!!!!! Treder did a nice piece on him a while back that's worth reading. But talk about your A-holes, this guy appears to have been one. I mean it's awfully telling that no team after collusion would sign him to a two-year deal in hopes that he would hit his 500th with them to give them a little attendance blip. What would the world have done if collusion hadn't kept him from 500 homers? Would the writers have voted for him? I don't think so, but it's hard to say.

+Jason Thompson-1B: Funny that he and Kemp are both on this ballot because they are the two huge career fades of my youth.

+Bruce Bochte-1B: Not to be confused with Bruce Bochey.

+Gorman Thomas-CF: One of my all-time faves. Daniel Okrent, before he became a persnikety, prickly NY Times ombudsman, wrote a lot of fun stuff about Stormin' Gorman in the wonderful nonfiction work Nine Innings. A fantastic book, especially for its time. Thomas has a pretty sweet peak and whole lot of junk around it, but for like five years, before the beer weighed him down, he was the burliest, bombingest, three-true-outcomes thing to happen to CF in a long time. And he had a really cool moustache. My kind of guy.

+Dennis Leonard-P: Another what-if. He was a really good pitcher, but what I remember him for is his imposing facial hair and his falling off the mound after breaking or snapping something. Courageous comeback but, obviously, not the same pitcher thereafter.

+Steve Kemp-LF*: Steinbrenner's bestest free-agent ever! Well, until Ed Whitson and Dave LaPoint and Carl Pavano came along.

+Jim Slaton-P: Is there anything to say about him? Good pitcher.

+John Denny-P: Must be among the most anonymous CYA winners ever. I seem to recollect there being attitudinal stuff about him, but I don't remember exactly what they were. When you're eight or nine, you feel the undertone, but you don't understand the words.

+Al Cowens-RF (2002): He did have that one big year.

+Cliff Johnson-DH/1B: Although I grew up a Yankees fan, I do remember admiring the Johnson/Oliver DH platoon in Toronto, for whatever reason. Perhaps because of the 1985 Topps record-breaker 18 pinch-hit HR card for Johnson in combination with Al Oliver's 1982 (1983?) batting leaders card. I'm always amazed that early on he was a Yankee and a catcher.

+Omar Moreno-CF: He's the whipping boy to this day.

+Enos Cabell-B/1B: Poor Enos. It was nice of Bill James to soft-pedal his famously harsh Cabell comments in the recent biography.

+Terry Forster-RP: He was a fat tub of goo, and you can quote me on that one. I mean, seriously, how does a ballplayer end up in a rivalry with a late-night talk show host?

+Steve Yeager-C: Invented the throat-guard if I remember correctly.

I grant you I Beckleyfied this discussion.....
I do suggest strongly that we both avoid marking players down because we don't like their sponsor and also avoid threatening to do so -- it helps neither the process nor one's mental health.

Cheers!
--
Excellent, Karl. As long as we all hold to the position of never being disingenuous (sp?); intentionally misleading others to make our point; our collective mental health ought to be fine. And if any of us do at times, in moments of weakness, overstate our favorite guys, a quick note of admission following the somewhat-irrational post would be welcome. I hold a couple of quirky positions on my ballot (McGraw, anyone?), but I hope I defend those votes with objectivity. I don't mean to threaten to change my vote for dislike of another voter (actually, it was certainly not personal, more the method used), and you're right, doing so could lead to all sorts of mischief and ill will, so I hereby rinse out my bad hair morning. But if I see a someone posting what SEEMS like irrational fanboyism, I'm likely to get spun up and ask rather pointedly "do you actually believe what you just wrote?!?!?".

Cheers as well. And go Jake B!

15. KJOK
Minor quibble - LF/1B doesn't really describe Rose's 'position',

Right, it’s one of the quirks about how I do those lists. I try to strictly limit the listed positions to two; in listing 1500+ players I had one or two exceptions. For guys like Rose that played his most games at corner OF, I list first the corner he played more (LF). Since he played more at another position (1B) than the other corner OF spot, I list that position second. It’s arbitrary.
--------------------------------------------
I don’t mean to exacerbate the Beckleyonification transpiring in this thread, but JB doesn’t seem to have been especially durable for his era. From 1896-99, in what should’ve been his prime years, he was consistently missing 20-30 of his teams’ games. In 1896, ~27; in 1897, ~21; in 1898, 39; in 1899, 22.

In only four years was he among the league’s most durable players. In 1893, tied for 10th in games, tied for 9th in plate appearances; in 1894, t10th in G, 11th in PA; in 1900, t2nd in G, 13th in PA; in 1901, t3rd in G, 4th in PA. As we know, Rose led the league in these categories many times.

Like Rose, there are special circumstances contributing to JB's unusual longevity. Baseball expanded just as he was entering his decline years, and he spent those years in the weaker of the two leagues. The hapless Cardinals kept running the Proven Veteran out there rather than scouting out a hope for the future. Against the weakened competition his bat held up pretty well, but after 1900 his fielding contribution was miniscule.

The question raised by Sunnday about writing himself into the lineup is more difficult to address. I would ask this back-door question: is Rose the only player-manager to insert himself in the lineup for selfish reasons or to insert himself when he had a clearly better alternative? I doubt he's the only one, and I wouldn't be surprised that we've even voted for a few without boycott.

In my opinion, this is overblown and doesn't match up with history. If anything, the blame goes on the Phillies.

-- Rose's first "should he be benched" year was 1980, but the Phillies were too busy winning the World Series to notice (or perhaps they rationalized it by saying he had the veteran leadership that missing in 1976-78). Also, somehow he was selected to the All-Star game as a reserve.
-- In 1981, Rose had a solid comeback year. His XBH power was leaving him but he was 2nd in AVG and 5th in OBP.
-- In 1982, Rose declines back to 1980 levels yet Phillies stick with him for 162 games (and he's selected to start the all-star game)
-- In 1983, the bottom falls out. The Phillies try Rose in RF to make room for the even-more-in-decline Tony Perez and Rose is simply awful. Phillies move him back to 1b but he gets less than 700 PA for the first non-strike-year since the 1960s. He actually ends up having a decent postseason, Phillies win the NLCS and lose the WS and release Rose three days later.

At this point Rose has 3990 hits which was only 199 short (though he thought 201).

Expos pick him up and think he can play LF. He can't but in LF-PH duties he's hitting over .300 in early June. They decide to try him at 1B and he stops hitting. After a couple of months they give up and trade him to the Reds for Tom Lawless.

Rose is now player manager. He silences his critics by going 8-15 in his first three games and ends up with a fine .365/.430/.458 for his six weeks with the team that year.

Cut to spring of 1985. Rose has 4097 hits which is less than 100 from the record. At this point why not? Nick Esasky was certainly a better choice and a better hope for the future, but all of Cincinnati was likely rooting for him. Oddly enough, Esasky is not even the backup as Tony Perez (together again!) gets hot and hits .328/.396/.470 in limited duty backing up Rose. Rose has a weak season for a 1B for sure (.264/.395/.319) yet he's shows an odd level of patience for a guy who's goal is collecting "hits" and ends up 4th in the league in OBP. The Reds finished 5.5 games back in 1985 so it could have been closer if they had a better bat at 1B, though it was big turnaround from the 70-92 season that they had in 1984.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this appear to be a fan-post of Rose. I actually can't stand the guy. I just think the "writing himself into the lineup bit" is overblown. It was only an issue in 1985 in my opinion. Before that, you can "blame" the Phillies who stuck with Rose in 1982-3 when he was clearly in decline and let him rack up enough hits to get close enough to Cobb so as to make the breaking of the record imminent.

I don't boycott anybody, either.

The Beckley-Rose comparison is interesting, but as noted Rose was more durable and often played a more valuable position (I give Beckley an edge of any Rose 1B-OFing, but Rose the edge on 1200+ games of 2B-3B).

Looking well ahead, I assume I'd have Seaver an easy No. 1, and Rose a little ahead of Beckley (who is near the top of my ballot anyway). Rose likely battles NFox, Grich, Browning for No. 2, haven't looked at all at Tony Perez yet.

Among the options the Reds might have had in 1985 would have been to bring Dave Parker in from the outfield to play 1B, shuffling some outfielders around and giving much more playing time to a 23-year-old Eric Davis.

Checking some others: Kal Daniels, 22 years old, was playing AAA ball in Denver: .302/.385/.565, only 76 games: not that overwhelming considering the altitude. (Daniels returned to Denver in 1986 and utterly torched the league for 40 games before being called up.)

Paul O'Neill, also 22, hit .305/.345/.420 in a full season at Denver - not as impressive as Daniels. He got a "cup of coffee" at the end of the year.

Of course, all of this is moot for reasons having little to do with Rose: Parker most likely wouldn't have stood for it.

I haven't worked up Rose's RCAA-based analysis yet, but I doubt that he'll even be on the same planet as Beckley. Beckley looks much worse on RC than he does on OPS+; I wouldn't be surprised if Rose looked better on RC.

And then there's the matter of leadoff hitters. I like leadoff hitters, even if I haven't yet found room to vote for Bobby Bonds. Pete Rose is simply one of the great leadoff hitters of all time (career division). Question #1: did he score runs?

One interesting counterpoint: in 1926, player-manager Ty Cobb let his own 137 OPS+ rest on the bench for half of the games. On the other hand, he did have three other outfielders that year with OPS+ of 154, 153, and 140. The next year, Cobb wasn't a manager any more and retured (at the age of 40) to something much closer to full-time play.

And then there's the matter of leadoff hitters. I like leadoff hitters, even if I haven't yet found room to vote for Bobby Bonds. Pete Rose is simply one of the great leadoff hitters of all time (career division). Question #1: did he score runs?

10710 PA at leadoff, 3620 PA batting 2nd and 1425 batting third. Add in the fact that he had extremely high in-season durability and played for great offensive teams meant that he was able to rack up 700 PA in a season fifteen times (including twelve in a row!). This certainly helps his VORP and WS numbers I sure.

I've seen some arguments complaining that too much of his value is in his durability (both in-season and career)... that his career basically amounts to two Harvey Kuenn careers strung back-to-back (I think that was old BBBA article). Some of that argument may have merit, the comparison is a bit uncanny actually... although he walked quite a bit more than double-Harv. Much of this type of analysis was likely meant to show how "overrated" Rose was. *Before* all the scandals, his baseball cards were always amongst the most expensive along with Mantle & Williams despite not really being in their class. I haven't checked lately, but the scandal may have kept the cards expensive.

That said, 547WS/160.2W3 is just way too much value to ignore even for this peak voter against the backlog. I'm a bit curious about the "Santo Letter" for him though. That might be a bit awkward. :-)

To take the focus away from you-know-who, I've just penciled in my 1991 ballot, and found that Carew was significantly better than Rose, and indeed a little better than you-know-who, too. For those bored with Mr. B., the Carew/Rose comparison is interesting, and fairly clearly in Carew's favour. 118 OPS+ really ISN'T very good, whereas 131 for a long career 2B/1B is definitely well the right side of the line.

An interesting comparison for Rose is Paul Molitor: overlapping collection of positions; similar kind of hitter. Excellent in the leadoff role. Molitor was a better baserunner; Rose drew more walks. Of course, in-season durability becomes a big issue with this comparison. And totally different personalities, of course.

40 some posts in and nobody has picked up the torch for Bobby Grich or the pitchfork for Tony Perez.

> curious about the "Santo Letter"

Have we received any responses to these letters?

Well, 1992 is a long way off. Some of us are still worrying '91.

But: Grich, si. Perez, who the hell knows. Cedeno and Gorman Thomas, I wish. Baker, Kingman, Cabell, no.

Check out the Rose/Saberhagen thread.

Post 13 there has convinced me to apply the one-year boycott, as of now.

But OK, I'll bite. Assuming we elect Carew, Boyer and Wynn:

1. Seaver--PHoM
2. Moore
3. Grich--PHoM
4. Roush
5. Fingers
.
.
.
(Somewhere about here: Rizzuto, F. Howard, Cravath, (Sewell), Newcombe, Walters--one of them, or Perez, probably PHoM.)
.
20. Perez
.
.
.
26. Cedeno
.
.
.
HM. Harrah

One of my favorite old baseball stories. Dave Nelson was a friend of mine and I got comp tickets and was sitting with the Texas Rangers' other comp tickets, and I met this girl who had gotten tickets from Toby. Actually I dated her myself the following week, just one time (same as Toby, I'm guessing). It was getaway day and after the game I was hangin' outside the clubhouse. Eventually Nelson came out and we were shooting the breeze, and this young lady was standing there waiting for Toby. Finally here comes Toby, moving very rapidly, very very rapidly, out the clubhouse door with nary a look to the left or the right, right up the steps and disappeared into the bus. The young lady was stunned, to say the very least. You can fill in all the blanks.

No stories about Grich or Perez or Cedeno.

We got a cursory reply from the Cubs PR woman (who has since left the team, by the way).
I made a modest attempt re Torre, but it was around playoff time, hardly ideal. I could try again.

I've told Joe D that I am skeptical of the effectiveness of the letters, because of the nicknames here.
They don't bother me, and hell this ain't my name, either, but it's a little tough to get a famed player or his aide to take TOO seriously some of the comments if they can't get past the amusing/confusing nom de plumes.

+Tom Seaver-P: Best pitcher since WW2? He's a strong candidate. Since eclipsed among righties by Clemens, and maybe by Maddux. What happened to him in the early 1980s? Arm troubles?

Not really. Seaver's career really had two phases. The first one ended in 1978 -- look at the dramatic drop-off in his strikeout rates in 1979 and it's pretty obvious that his time as a dominant flamethrower had come to an end. From 1979 to the end of his career, he still had enough pure stuff to win -- indeed, he should have won the CYA in 1981, in my very biased opinion, but got overwhelmed by Fernandomania. The only season that really stands out as bad after that is 1982, when he was beset by injuries (as I recall, it was no one problem in particular) that just rendered him ineffective. Other than that, he was actually darned consistent: solidly above-average, even when his W-L record was poor (as, for example, it was in 1983 for a bad Mets' team and in 1986 for the White Sox and Red Sox combined).

nobody has picked up the torch for Bobby Grich

Anyone not planning on putting him on their ballot? Does he have any cons? (Short-ish career may be the only one -- though not really short for a 2B). Perhaps durability issues? How great a fielder was he when he was younger? How much did he slip as he got older? Any theories as to how he slipped under the radar?

Short-ish? 2,000 games, a 12 year prime (14 years from end to end but 2 off years right in the middle).

Can't think of a better explanation for his lack of respect than he just did everything well rather than one or two things (well, other than defense which the powers that be can't/don't/won't really consider if your name isn't Ozzie) great. There are too many modern players who have been utterly abused by the BBWAA to rant about Grich too much (Will Clark the new poster boy), but Grich may be the most egregious case of all.

Tom Seaver. How many pitchers can say they had clearly THE best career over any 40 year interval of MLB history?

He doesn't have the gaudy ERA+ that the pre-WWII guys do, or the current gang, but given that nobody else between Grove and Clemens had a great ERA+ and great career length, he deserves to be placed as one of the 10 best pitchers ever, and possibly higher.

Bobby Grich. I'll be stunned if he is not elected quickly. Very similar to Santo, both in underratedness and type of player.

I have Seaver just behind Spahn and Grove on my all-time list. Clearly #1 on this ballot. Rose #2, Grich #3, Perez behind Reggie Smith, Cedeno in the 50s, Foster around 70, Vida Blue in the 80s, Baker around 150, Harrah not that close (Boyer's bat with a bad glove).

I believe the VC can add Grich to their ballot next time around.

Short-ish? 2,000 games, a 12 year prime (14 years from end to end but 2 off years right in the middle).

I'm trying to play devils advocate to get some discussion going. He tops my entire backlog (he's easily better than Doyle due to similar bat and better glove) so he'll have my vote.

8220 PA is not a huge number of PA's. In-season durability issues nip away some of the value for his 1983-84 seasons. But as a peak voter, his 73-76,79,81 are just too good. That's six 28+ WS seasons (adjusting for the strike) in the middle infield. And is wasn't a sharp decline after the top six either.

OPS+ toy

Doerr.... 145 31 28 28 17 16 16 16 14 14 05 03 03 (86)
Gordon... 155 35 35 30 26 25 24 21 17 08 03
Childs... 150 35 31 23 21 21 21 11 (94 90 71)
Fox...... 124 17 14 07 05 (99 97 94 92 91 86 77 72 69 58)
Doyle.... 154 48 40 36 33 28 26 20 14 09 06 00
Grich.... 154 44 38 35 30 30 27 25 18 16 00 (98)

Adjustments made:
This is knocking 20 pts off Doerr's 1944 season of 165, as it's both a war year and way beyond what he ever did otherwise. Doerr gets a 116 for missing 1945.
It also gives Gordon a 130 and a 125 for 1944-45.
Childs' 1890 AA of 181 adjusted to a 121.
Grich loses 10 pts off his 164 of strike-shortened 1981. Grich had a 142 for 477 PA in 1983, I give him a 130 on this chart.
Doyle a 135 in 429 PA in 1908, I gave him a 120 for that.

Grich had at least 595 PA in 7 of the years, and 700+ twice.

Hit like Doyle, fielded like Gordon?

So, will anybody be voting Rose over Seaver, or will Tom Terrific be our next unanimous choice?

I will be voting for Rose over Seaver. My first impression was that it was not even close, but I don't think I can support that statement. Still, a career lover like me can't ignore the all-time career leader in singles, hits, at bats, games and times on base, even if it comes with being the all-time leader in outs.

I like the list of players who were 4 time all-stars in three different decades. Pretty elite group. I think Aaron is the only player who was a 5 time all-star (or more) in three different decades.

Oh, and I am not boycotting. ;)

Not that he needs it, but to those of you for whom it might matter, there's an argument for Grich getting MiL credit for 1971.

In 1970, in 63 games at Rochester, Grich hit .383 and slugged .570. He was called up to the Orioles when both Davey Johnson and Chico Salmon went out with injuries in late June, and remained with the team for the rest of the season although he didn't play much (or very well) once Salmon got healthy. With those two and Belanger still around for 1971, Grich was returned to Rochester for the season, where he once again tore up the league.

It seems pretty clear, to me, that Grich's 1970 demonstrated his readiness to perform in the majors, and that he was sent back to Rochester for 1971 because there was no room at the inn.

-- MWE

Another big thing on Grich was how low his offensive context was. Here are BB-ref's park-adjusted league-average OPS figures for each Hall of Fame 2B, plus Grich:

2B
Charlie Gehringer     788
Tony Lazzeri          764
Bobby Doerr           761
Jackie Robinson       761
Frankie Frisch        760
Red Schoendienst      750
Ryne Sandberg         741
Nellie Fox            737
Rogers Hornsby        731
Billy Herman          730
Bill Mazeroski        724
Rod Carew             713
Joe Morgan            710
Bobby Grich           708
Eddie Collins         707
Bid McPhee            705
Nap Lajoie            676
Johnny Evers          671

A crude measure, but it does demonstrate the context the great 1970s 2B played in vis-a-vis other eras.

Also, I looked at this once, but Grich has more innings playing shortstop than just about any other HoF 2B (iIrc, only Hornsby has more), and when the Angels signed him as a free agent, they made him their SS initially, not their 2B. The only real reason he's a 2B is because of Mark Belanger. In 1972, when Grich made the All Star team as a 23-year-old, he actually played more games at SS than at 2B.

indeed, he should have won the CYA in 1981, in my very biased opinion, but got overwhelmed by Fernandomania.

PRAR: 68-47, Fernando
PRAA: 22-14, Fernando

That innings advantage wipes out the 6 point ERA+ difference.

I love Seaver, though, even if I'm too young (18) to have seen him pitch. And as a Cardinal fan, it pains me to admit that he was better than Gibson...even though I don't see the gap as pronouncedly as some, it's still reasonably clear to me.

That innings advantage wipes out the 6 point ERA+ difference.

Next thing you'll be telling me, you don't think they robbed Seaver in 1971, either. ;-)

That year, Seaver had a 50 point ERA+ difference lead over Fergie Jenkins (193-143) and lost. Jenkins had him in IP that year (325-286). It was, I believe, the first time ever a guy lost the CYA despite beating the winner by more than a run per game in ERA (1.76-2.77). It was really a "career achievement award" for Jenkins as much as it was a verdict he'd actually been the best pitcher in the NL that season, though he had, in all fairness, had a magnificent year (263-37 K/W ratio . . . wow).

Why? Because Beckley claims are like blood in the water to a shark.

Edited to add that DanG already covered this, but I just spent the time to figure it out, so I am posting it anyway.
Durability:
Beckley's games played as a percentage of team games, not decisions and then Rose's.

Beckley:
1888: 71 / 139 .51
1889: 123 / 134 .92
1890: 121 / 128 .95
1891: 133 / 137 .97
1892: 151 / 155 .97
1893: 131 / 131 1.00
1894: 131 / 132 .99
1895: 129 / 134 .96
1896: 105 / 132 based on 131 for Pit and 133 for NY .80
1897: 114 / 134 .86
1898: 118 / 157 .75
1899: 134 / 156 .86
1900: 141 / 144 .98
1901: 140 / 142 .99
1902: 129 / 141 .91
1903: 120 / 141 .85
1904: 142 / 155 .92
1905: 134 / 154 .87
1906: 87 / 154 .56
1907: 32 / 155 .21
16.83 team seasons in 20 years or 84%

Rose: 1963-1984 (not including the 2 Manager years)
1963: 157 / 162 .97
1964: 136 / 163 .83
1965: 162 / 162 1.00
1966: 156 / 160 .98
1967: 148 / 162 .91
1968: 149 / 163 .91
1969: 156 / 163 .96
1970: 159 / 162 .98
1971: 160 / 162 .99
1972: 154 / 154 1.00
1973: 160 / 162 .99
1974: 163 / 163 1.00
1975: 162 / 162 1.00
1976: 162 / 162 1.00
1977: 162 / 162 1.00
1978: 159 / 161 .99
1979: 163 / 163 1.00
1980: 162 / 162 1.00
1981: 107 / 107 1.00
1982: 162 / 162 1.00
1983: 151 / 163 .93
1984 Mon: 95 / 121 .79
1984 Cin: 26 / 41 .63
1984 composite: (121/162)x .79 = .59 plus (41/161) x .63 = .16 or .75
21.19 team seasons in 22 years or 96%

For comparison's sake, here are the numbers for Fred Tenney, career overlaps 14 of Beck's seasons, as well:
13.49 team seasons in 17 years or 79%.

I have Seaver at an RA+ equivalent record of 330-201, including years of 24-8, 23-9, 22-9. 21-9, 20-9. Yeah, he'll be #1 on my 1992 ballot.

Oh, as to the ballot,

Seaver number 1.
Rose number 2 if I don't boycott him.
Grich will be between 3 and 6. I see him as similar in value to Billy Herman.
Perez will be in the 50s I believe.
Cedeno is causing me to look a little closer at how I rank CF because he is similar in WS to Wynn, but my system has them significantly separate - about 30 ballot spaces (out of 225 or so.)
Harrah comes in about 10th among eligible 3rd basemen.
Foster/Baker/Chambliss/Kingman/Oglive bring back memories, but nothing approaching a vote.
Blue is a great what if.

Curious that bbref has Grich's career most similar as Toby Harrah.
Most posters have Grich somewhere in their top 10 for this upcomming ballot and Toby is probably around 70 or 80 on their ballots if he even breaks into their top 100.
Why is that?

Next thing you'll be telling me, you don't think they robbed Seaver in 1971, either. ;-)

That year, Seaver had a 50 point ERA+ difference lead over Fergie Jenkins (193-143) and lost. Jenkins had him in IP that year (325-286). It was, I believe, the first time ever a guy lost the CYA despite beating the winner by more than a run per game in ERA (1.76-2.77). It was really a "career achievement award" for Jenkins as much as it was a verdict he'd actually been the best pitcher in the NL that season, though he had, in all fairness, had a magnificent year (263-37 K/W ratio . . . wow).

Actually, I think the writers got it right that year, Sam, though it's very close. Those extra IP really help Jenkins' case, IMO.

Why is that?

Howie described Grich above (and I think he was right on target) as Larry Doyle's bat plus Joe Gordon's glove.
Toby Harrah was Joe Gordon's bat plus Bobby Bonilla's glove (or worse).

Grich is a little better on offense and a lot better on defense.

Harrah is a little worse offensively and similar (or a bit worse) defensively to Larry Doyle, whose defense has kept him out of the HoM. Harrah is therefore farther out.

That year, Seaver had a 50 point ERA+ difference lead over Fergie Jenkins (193-143) and lost. Jenkins had him in IP that year (325-286). It was, I believe, the first time ever a guy lost the CYA despite beating the winner by more than a run per game in ERA (1.76-2.77). It was really a "career achievement award" for Jenkins as much as it was a verdict he'd actually been the best pitcher in the NL that season, though he had, in all fairness, had a magnificent year (263-37 K/W ratio . . . wow).

Close, and I think I'd lean towards the guy with the much lower ERA, but hey...

Seaver's got Gibson's 1969 CYA. ;-) 2 fewer points in ERA+ - with a 40 2/3 IP advantage.

Plus, similarity scores can be quirky. Grich has an 11 point edge in OPS+ over Harrah which is not insignificant.

Seaver's got Gibson's 1969 CYA. ;-) 2 fewer points in ERA+ - with a 40 2/3 IP advantage.

As a huge fan of Seaver, I still have to agree.

As a huge fan of Seaver, I still have to agree.

Um, John? So you don't think he should have won the CYA's he should have (1971), nor at least one of the CYA's he DID (1969). Huge fan, huh? Do you even LIKE the guy??? ;-)

Um, John? So you don't think he should have won the CYA's he should have (1971), nor at least one of the CYA's he DID (1969). Huge fan, huh? Do you even LIKE the guy??? ;-)

Heh.

I do think that Seaver was the best pitcher in '81 (Fernando was third behind Ryan, IMO) and was the best pitcher of his generation. How's that? :-)

Check out the Rose/Saberhagen thread.

Juan, Can you link this please, I'm not sure to what/where you ar referring. Thanks!

As for Harrah's glove, yuck. Doyle's bat and Butch Hobson's glove! Or Chippers!

Rose/Saberhagen thread.

-- MWE

Thanks, Mike!

3)Carlton (Elders of Zion)

3)Carlton (Elders of Zion)?

Actually, I think the writers got it right that year, Sam, though it's very close. Those extra IP really help Jenkins' case, IMO.

No they don't.
Let's say Jenkins matched Seaver in ERA+ through 286 IP-
He would have given up 65 ER in those 286 innings
He actually gave up 100 ER- 35 extra ER in 39 IP do not help his case.

Seaver was the better pitcher in 1971

3)Carlton (Elders of Zion)

3)Carlton (Elders of Zion)?

Carlton was notoriously secretive during his career and refused to talk to the press. SI took subtle (Mastery and Mystery) and non-so-subtle (Hey Lefty Tell us How You Won #300) digs at him about this when they put him on their cover.

He finally ended his silence when it was announced that he was entering the HOF and he ended up saying a bunch of very weird and odd things about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It hit the news cycle for a while and people were alleging that he was anti-semitic... someone else can fill in the details I suppose.

In the end, it appears to me that the media has graciously granted Steve Carlton his wish of media silence except now, I think the media just doesn't want to listen to what he has to say. :-)

Again, someone can fill in the gaps because I've gone along with the media on this. I was a big fan when he was playing and I don't want to know how wacko his thoughts might be. If he's leaving everyone alone then that's fine.

Again, someone can fill in the gaps because I've gone along with the media on this. I was a big fan when he was playing and I don't want to know how wacko his thoughts might be.

Apparently that was all their was to know- Carlton was (and probably still is) a complete fruitcake- it wasn't just that he was secretive- his teams didn't want him to talk to the press.
What I remember most when his weirdness became public knowlege was some reporters ran to talk to McCarver, who'd been Carlton's quasi-official press spokesman during his playing career-

McCarver's comments boiled down to- Yes, Carlton was always like that- why do you think I was told to deal with the press for him?

Actually, I think the writers got it right that year, Sam, though it's very close. Those extra IP really help Jenkins' case, IMO.


No they don't.
Let's say Jenkins matched Seaver in ERA+ through 286 IP-
He would have given up 65 ER in those 286 innings
He actually gave up 100 ER- 35 extra ER in 39 IP do not help his case.

Seaver was the better pitcher in 1971

Okay, I know where I went wrong. Going over their Win Shares, I didn't realize Jenkins had an atypical kick-ass year with the bat (which gave him 2 more BWS than The Franchise). So Seaver was indeed the more valuable pitcher in '71. However, Jenkins was more valuable all-around than Tom Terrific, IMO.

I agree with Mike E. on Grich. In fact, he may even deserve some extra credit for 1972.

Grich was like Elston Howard in that he came up to a team that was really strong and didn't have a place to play him. He didn't win a regular job until 1973, despite being a top prospect since 1970. In 1972, he was the Orioles' utility infielder, although he ended up starting 123 games due to injuries and being so good. On most other teams, he'd have been playing every day by then.

What are Grich's MiL numbers? If they translate well and if take off his first godo year as a 'get noticed' years I coudl give him credit. However, it looks doubtful, 123 league starts is very different than playing in AAA.

Okay, here comes Hanrahan's seemingly outrageous claim du jour. Or maybe du year.

This isn't intended to be a hammer job on a player I don't support, but he makes for a good comparison to
one of my pet underrated guys.

But the real big question here, for those who support Cravath (or Keller or Klein or Wilson or Maris
or Browning, etc), is this: If you were persuaded that Frank Chance was a better hitter than Gavy Cravath,
for whom would you vote? Because....

Chance was a better hitter than Cravath
whoa, Back Up the Truck Ethel! Did he just say "Chance was a better hitter than
Cravath"? Yes, I think he did....


Frank Chance vs Gavy Cravath
(a step back to get the big picture, for anyone who cares)
defense - Chance was more valuable defensively
peak - Chance had a higher peak (rate wise), but Cravath played more
career length - Cravath had more
pennant/postseason - Chance a clear winner in a limited sample
offense - Chance was a better hitter* than Cravath
* "hitter" meaning 'offensive player', which is the combination of bat and legs; the
ability to get on base, score runs, advance others and drive them in, and not make outs.

let's take each of the five above points, one at a time:

defense

Chance played 14% of his career at catcher. He was a very good defensive first baseman when 1B
was more important than today. Cravath was an error-prone corner outfielder.

peak

Cravath's best year was 1915. His Offensive Winning Pct (OWP) that year was .774.
Chance had three years higher than that: .790, .800, & .826
Cravath played more in his best years, so you could call this either way.

career length

Chance had 340 more PA in his MLB career.
When we add in minor league credit, Cravath has much more time, although Chance should also be given some credit for the years he was trapped in a part-time role in spite of being far superior to the guys who played in front of him. The total difference ought to be between 1000 and 2000 plate appearances.

pennant/postseason

Chance played on some dynasty teams, of whom we have honored few. Chance had great
World Series stats (.402 OBA and 10 SB with 1 CS), while Cravath hit .125 in his
lone World Series, in which his team lost 4 games each by one run. I know, small sample.

offense

.career OWP
.Chance .719
Cravath .709

If we add in Cravath's missing years, his MLEs as calculated by some scholarly
gentlemen in this group would LOWER his career rate; probably down to about .690.
If we don't wish to do this, we could compare Cravath's .709 to Chance's 12 year prime;
Chance's OWP in 1900-11 was .739.

At this point, some people are thinking "OWP must be wrong". Cravath LOOKS so much better.
Well, that he does, when context is not accounted for. Some of Chance's advanage comes not
from the bat but from speed, which was real important in 1905. And measures like Linear Weights
and EqA, which do not very their weights by the era, do not account for this like they need to.

If OWP is wrong, someone can explain why. It's not that Cravath's OWP was poor - no, it's good;
it is that Frank Chance was a better offensive force, per at bat, than Willie McCovery or Dick
Allen (!) or Roger Connor or Jeff Bagwell.

Now, if you don't wish to vote for Chance because he didn't play enough, I respect that position. What
I don't see is how Gavy Cravath beats Chance unless 1600 PA trumps everything else. So I go back to my original
question -

if you were persuaded that Frank Chance was a better hitter than Gavy Cravath, for whom would you vote?

TomH,
That's a reasonable argument, although John McGraw seems awfully similar (or Ernie Lombardi - in the 'offense per position' part).

Chance was phenomenal when he played - he just didn't play quite enough.

i think that the peak argument isn't terribly close when MiL credit is given to Cravath and one keep sin mind how little Chance played. He has one season that looks like Cravath top four. Chance had HOM talent and I am tempted to vote for him form time to time but I can't pull the trigger because I am a stickler for in season playing time.

I do agree with Howie that John McGraw is a better candidate, especially with D considered. Mcgraw is currently in a position (#21) that he may make my ballot in the next few years.

Now, if you don't wish to vote for Chance because he didn't play enough, I respect that position. What
I don't see is how Gavy Cravath beats Chance unless 1600 PA trumps everything else. So I go back to my original
question -

if you were persuaded that Frank Chance was a better hitter than Gavy Cravath, for whom would you vote?


1600PA spread over a few peak seasons means alot to a peak voter!

Chance was a better hitter than Cravath

OK, time to pull out one of my RCAA-based charts.



Chance has 5099 PA in the majors, Cravath 4685. RCAA is very forgiving of missed time during seasons, so it's very friendly to Chance - but when he was in the lineup, yes, Chance was a tremendous offensive player.

Of course, this is only for the majors and does not take into account Cravath's time in the minors, particularly Minneapolis. Chance has no corresponding credit. However, unless you happen to believe that Cravath was a better player in Minneapolis than he ever was in the majors, then Chance has an offensive peak advantage over Cravath.

I haven't been voting for Chance - the missed time is too much for me, the 5000 PA not enough of a career. And the problem with McGraw is that he has even less playing time than Chance. But I've also never questioned the motives of those who do vote for those two, such as KJOK.

Yeah, I happen to vote for Cravath (barely) and not the others, but all 3 are intriguing and problematic cases. That's one of the great things about the project - even if you don't vote for Chance, you realize that he was a great player when he played, and a great manager, and Tinker-Evers-Chance really WERE dazzling in their own way (see Evers, 1914). Those Cubs were incredible, and we just picked Brown and Sheckard.
Is the Cubs DP rep so different from Jeter? The brain always tries to account for success, and these are all good players (granting that Jeter's prowess continued longer beyond the title time).

Let's put McGraw on that table. And, just because I feel like it, George Stone.



McGraw has 4926 PA and Stone has 3665 PA (note that because of higher-scoring conditions, McGraw was getting significantly more PA per game than the others).

Hmm... Stone's monster 1906 season happened at the age of 29. Does anyone have an account of where he was before his 1905 rookie year?

Re: Grich's minor league stats:
Well, I've no idea if this will format correctly.



The .383 BA wasn't good enough to lead the league if he'd qualified; Ralph Garr led with .386, .052 ahead of the number 2 man. I think Don Baylor led in slugging at .583. Rochester led the league in runs scored by 62 and allowed the 5th most runs.

In 1971, Grich led in BA, HRs, runs, etc. The second best slugging average in the league seems to have been Baylor at .539. This year Richmond led in runs scored by 31 and allowed just 16 more runs than the #1 team in that department. Baylor, incidentally, was in the same boat as Grich as far as being stuck in the minors and on the bench with the Orioles at that time.

I like Grich, but I won't likely give him or anyone else in this era any MiL credit.

I agree with Howie on the Grich credit, and that's why I don't offer Keller MiL credit. As Sunnyday might say, trapped by the reserve clause is one thing, trapped by teammates, well, that's just baseball.

But to get back to TomH's point. And actually OCF's as well. I think there's a couple things that I'm a little eery of in the Cravath/Chance thing. First TomH says that offense is both bat and legs. True! But. There's a couple numbers that are pretty important to the legs that we just don't have for their period: CS and GiDP. Without them I think it's kind of difficult to talk about the legs or the running game in a meaningful way.

Then there's the PA issue that OCF brought up, which is also a R/G issue. He's right that McGraw's benefitting more than the others on that one. What were hte run levels for each man's major leagues?
McGraw: 6.34
Chance: 4.57
Cravath: 4.09

Chance benefits somewhat by it because he played his early years in the late 1890s and early 1900s before the deadball era got started in earnest. Cravath loses out having missed the 1911 offensive bump. On the other hand, Cravath played in a park that increased offense (probably about 105 for his career), which seems like it should help him accumulate more PAs. And which contributes to his offensive OPS context being 14 points higher than Chance's (which were closer to neutral, though they were very hitter-friendly in the dynasty era).

Anyway, so I'm not sure whether Chance or Cravath comes out ahead on the PA business, but McGraw absolutely does, and without CS and GIDP, it seems a big of a jump to talk about Chance's leg game providing gaudy returns except possibly as a measure of non_HR eXBH...which might work against Cravath since his park was smaller and Gavy hit more homers.

Yes, without CS, we're missing a key ingredient, but
a) In the deadball era surely the breakeven point for SB success was much higher than post-1920.
b) Chance was a 91% basestealer in the postseason :)

1992 prelim ballot (assuming Carew, Boyer and Fox)

1) Seaver, Tom
2) Rose, Pete
3) Grich, Bobby - just below Ernie Banks on my all-time list
4) Johnson, Bob
5) Tiant, Luis
6) Cash, Norm
7) Trouppe, Quincy
8) Beckley, Jake
9) Staub, Rusty
10) Smith, Reggie
11) Perez, Tony - good glove keeps him ahead of Jim Wynn
12) Bridges, Tommy
13) Trucks, Virgil - 517 games, 328 starts means lots of effective relief work - 113 games finished and 30 saves
14) Wynn, Jim
15) Cepeda, Orlando
16) Roush, Edd - makes ballot if Wynn is elected instead of Fox

17) Clarkson, Bus 18) Leonard, Dutch 19) Elliott, Bob 20) Quinn, Jack 21) Keller, Charlie 22) Easter, Luke
23) Redding, Dick 24) Willis, Vic 25) Bancroft, Dave 26) Shocker, Urban 27) Koosman, Jerry
28) Howard, Frank 29) Bonds, Bobby 30) Cravath, Gavy 31) Smith, Hilton 32) Oms, Alejandro

Prelim:

Seaver Rose Grich at the top. Perez #16, Cedeno 31, Foster 33, Blue 39, Harrah 96, Baker not in top 100 but very good.

Grich I think is just tremendously underrated. A great fielder with pop in his bat, somehow this never stuck in people's minds. Bill James thought Darrell Evans was the most underrated player, but I think Grich is right there with him.

Perez will need a lot of discussion. Cedeno Foster and Blue all came up higher in my system than I expected, but aren't real close to the ballot. All probably should have been HoMers, but for various reasons fell short.
Perez: warp loves his fielding, win shares doesn't.
Cedeno: i have him pretty high for someone considered a disappointment.
Foster: it kills me as a mets fan to put him higher than Rusty Staub. It just kills me, but I guess those Reds years should count. Sigh.
Blue: 1971 and 1976 are monster years. It's not enough, but he was a great pitcher sometimes.

Grich I think is just tremendously underrated. A great fielder with pop in his bat, somehow this never stuck in people's minds. Bill James thought Darrell Evans was the most underrated player, but I think Grich is right there with him.

There was a book out this past summer entitled "Covering the Bases: Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense" (there was a thread on Primer, but it went a bit off subject and was shut down by Nelly)- in which the authors of that book took vehement dispute with Ja,es' assertions that Grich and Evans were underrated. In particular after their vigrous analysis of Evan verus Tony Perez, they essentially decided that Tony was superior because he drove in more teammates....

Just thought I'd share that

Jim Sp,

Interesting point about the underrated Grich viz a viz Evans. Since Grich was, IMO, a better player than Evans, it makes it doubly true. Grich had a real peak and was for a while in there perhaps the best player in the AL thaks to the combo of offense and defense. My WS-based Keltner estimates show him as twice the best AL position player. Plus best at his position a LOT, tons of All-star teams, a few MVP type years, tons of good stuff. Possibly top-ten all time at 2B. Evans by contrast is about five slots lower at 3B with lots of 1B and DH mixed in. Never best position player in league, and a little worse than Grich in all other cataegories too. Grich shows as a slam-dunk HOFer/HOMer, Evans as a decent HOFer/HOMer.

Back to Grich versus Evans,
I remember back in the late 70s that Grich was very highly regarded- Evans was not.
In the middle 80s I remember reading James and being puzzled by his comments concerning Grich being underappreciated- I had always thought he had been regarded as a star...
I later read a few more stathead publications which referred to grich as having been underappreciated. I starting wondering if I could truct my own memory.

Looking at BBref I see that he made 6 all star teams and received MVP votes 5 times. (Arguably he should have been top 3 at least in 1981- when he finished 14th) He was more highly regarded- while playing- than you'd realize by reading stathead descriptions of him being underrated-

But he was underrated while playing- his career OPS+ is higher than Alomar or Ryne Sandberg- closer to Joe Morgan's in fact- and Grich was a better fielder than Morgan. He was regarded as a star when perhaps he should have been considered at least a borderline superstar.

Now? The stathead perception that he's underrated is absolutely correct, towards the end of his career continuing to today the mainstream opinion of Grich as a star changed- he was regarded as just another decent player with a decent career- nothing special. I think if you asked 10 casual fans who remember the 70s to say who was better: Grich, Remy or Dave Cash (no cheating by looking at stats) 4 would say Cash, 3 Grich and 3 Remy.

Preliminary look at the newbies:

Rose: boycott; otherwise I'd be one of the few who would've ranked him above Seaver
Seaver: number one
Grich: Grich reminds me a lot of Bill Freehan- I like him, I'd love to see him honored, but when I look at the numbers I have a hard time justifying putting him ahead of other returning candidates.
Perez: a slightly lesser version of Beckley; Jake was 15th on my '91 ballot which means Tony will fall short for now

Chris, I think Grich is a LOT more compelling than Freehan. Best player in the AL in the mid 1970s (he and Carew were battling for that one every year and for best 2B). As noted above, the OPS+ is there, and it's 13 points better than Freehan's. And for his position it's really outstanding. Plus he's a killer glove. Add it up and his case is substantially more compelling than Freehan, IMO, by virtue of better seasons, better peak, better bat, at least as good a glove.

Hey, everyone. I know Concepcion isn't in the queue yet, but he is retired by 1992, so I'll press on. The article and discussion that I'm linking below are pretty interesting. I guess it covers a lot of the ground we've covered elsewhere, but I'm curious to know what anyone thinks about Rosenheck's WARP calculations and his general thinking on the matter. Suggesting that Concepcion is a better HOF/HOM selection than McCovey is pretty bold, and maybe it's worth examining his conclusion and method to see what of it.

Concepcion for the Hall article

I'm probably not savvy enough to get a strong grip on the issues in the discussion, but I think that Dan's method has logic to it. But at the same time, my intuition says there's either double-counting going on somewhere, or that the replacement level is being set too low. Or something's up with the positional replacement value as a concept.