One of the most underrated players we have come across since our project's inception.

he should be in the Hall just for his batting stance

I know that it's not a stat of the enlightened stathead but 32 errors in '64? Ouch.

I know that it's not a stat of the enlightened stathead but 32 errors in '64? Ouch.

Is that really *that* high especially considering he played 160 games? Zoilo had 39 E's in 1965 and he won the MVP (and topped 30 E's in five other years). Groat had 40 in 1964 (and four other 30+). Campernaris had 34 one year. McMillan hit 34. Banks has years of 34 and 32. Concepcion and Kubek each hit 30.

Unenlightened or not, I'm not sure its really that remarkable.

One of my favorites as a kid. You couldn't help but like him with that bizarre open stance. He was much better at 2B than at SS. He was really exceptional in 67 and 68, kind of proof of the "batting average is overrated" POV. He got suspended five games in 68 for going after Tommy John. The Tigers lost all five. 50 extra base hits and 82 walks were pretty good in those days, esp for a middle infielder.

Wow, John Murphy is right. He's not far below Larry Doyle (though Doyle maintained his peak longer) on either offense or defense, and I have Doyle in my top 20. This proud Detroit Tigers fan salutes McAullife for being one of the top 300 players of all time.

I wonder: who was a more meritious player, McAullife or Mazeroski?

Its closer than i thought ardo, but i think mcauliffe is more meritous. Strictly using Win shares Mcauliffe averaged 6 win shares per 162 games better than mazeroski--22.15 to 16.40, his five peak seasons were far better 119 to 92. Also, now this is opinion here, but i think the advantage is probably greater than the win shares indicate. Maz was a great defender, but defensive statistics are hard to quantify, and i think that when rating mazeroski people tend to err in his favor because of his reputation---Macs offesive advantages are easy to show however (ill follow up w/ a more comprehensive post) and far outstrips the defensive advantage for maz

I really enjoyed watching Dick play but let's not get silly here. Dick had some serious holes in his game namely his inability to hit lefties. At all. He also received a good boost from Tiger Stadium. And while his defense was better then ok he wasn't anything to go "wow" about.

Second basemen/shortstops who can hit better than the average hitter are few and far between. Does that make him a great player? I don't know. I haven't finished my analysis for him yet. But unless his fielding was atrocious, which it appears it wasn't, he has to be a serious candidate.

All the statistics we're using are park-adjusted, Harvey, so Tiger Stadium doesn't matter a whit.

Vaux:

Understood. Doesn't affect the other items mentioned. I checked my memory versus Retrosheet. Dick's batting average versus lefties? .215 with no power whatsoever.

I don't think any context could make that look better.

Maybe I don't understand the concept of the Hall of Merit. Because while I enjoyed watching Dick as a player I would never consider him anything really special. He's a similar flavor to Jose Valentin. A middle infielder with an interesting blend of skiills who does more to help a team win then folks realize but at the end of the day he's not going to win any major awards. Nor should he.

Maybe I don't understand the concept of the Hall of Merit.

I should point out that McAuliffe hasn't got one vote yet. :-) He may not receive one either.

The point of the Hall of Merit is to pick the best players of all-time. Going over McAuliffe's stats, he unquestionably deserves an interview with us. Whether that will translate to any support is another matter.

Because while I enjoyed watching Dick as a player I would never consider him anything really special. He's a similar flavor to Jose Valentin.

McAuliffe kicks Valentin's butt all day and all night (and Jose could play at his peak). Look at McAuliffe's OPS+. The semi-Deadball conditions of the '60's shaped the perception that he wasn't much of a hitter (conversely, creating the image that the pitchers were world beaters). McAuliffe got on base and had a higher SLG, taking into account his park, more than the average hitter of his time. That's not Valentin (or for that matter, 95% of all second baseman throughout history).

John:

I was making a rough analogy using a former Brewer player.

But just so for the record Jose Valentin was a guy who had some power, walked, had some speed, had good range, made more errors then one would like, but was a pretty solid middle infielder.

Gee, Dick was a middle infielder with more power and walks but less speed who made more errors then one would like but was solid defensively and contributed to his team winning.

What exactly about this did you find so offensive as to write an explanation about 60's baseball and then utilize bold print? Good grief.......................

John:

I was making a rough analogy using a former Brewer player.

But just so for the record Jose Valentin was a guy who had some power, walked, had some speed, had good range, made more errors then one would like, but was a pretty solid middle infielder.

Gee, Dick was a middle infielder with more power and walks but less speed who made more errors then one would like but was solid defensively and contributed to his team winning.

What exactly about this did you find so offensive as to write an explanation about 60's baseball and then utilize bold print? Good grief.......................

Because if he were playing side-by-side with Valentin, he would have had a lot more power, have a much higher BA, and walk more than Valentin. They are only comparable if you ignore the fact that it was tough to hit forty years ago and is much easier today.

Again, I'm not saying that McAuliffe is an inner-circle HoMer. Hell, I'm not even saying that he will be on my ballot. But he was without doubt an underrated player. Not as underrated as Bobby Grich was during my childhood, but a guy who was better than his stats appear to be at first glance. That's all I'm saying.

As for being offended, Harvey, I wasn't. The bold print shouldn't be confused with shouting or anger. They're only used to stress a point. If I used capital letters, that would be a different story. :-)

If I unintentionally offended you, I apologize.

BTW, Maury Wills has received zero votes so far since he has been eligible. IOW, a thread doesn't necessarily suggest support for a player. :-)

Okay, I think I can make a decision about McAuliffe now.

Looking over the numbers, he's in Wills/Aparicio/Mazeroski territory. He wont be on my ballot.

Not to countermand our secretary, but I think Harvey made a nice analogy to Valentin. Exact same strength and weakness, including an ability and willingness to play at least two positions. I think the difference between them is purely one of degree. McAuliffe was absolutely a better player and so has more total value, but the comparison's a great one as a matter of the type of player they were. In fact, one might argue that McAuliffe is the probable fullest expression of the type.

McAuliffe was absolutely a better player and so has more total value, but the comparison's a great one as a matter of the type of player they were. In fact, one might argue that McAuliffe is the probable fullest expression of the type.

I don't dispute that they were similar types, Eric, but as you point out, McAuliffe was the more impressive version of that model.

Looking over the numbers, he's in Wills/Aparicio/Mazeroski territory.

I don't see anyone here saying that about Valentin when he's eligible. :-)

The point of the Hall of Merit is to pick the best players of all-time.

No, because you've set a number. The point of the Hall of Merit is to pick the n best players of all time. You've already predetermined roughly how many of them there are.

What exactly about this did you find so offensive as to write an explanation about 60's baseball and then utilize bold print?

This is the way HoMers regard newbies. They welcome those who put in the wonk, but woe betide anyone who doesn't and presumes to contribute. That's why I only lurk around here.

I don't disagree with HoMer attitudes, though. They've uncovered and shared an awful lot of information that when they started I didn't have a clue about. Good work.

No, because you've set a number. The point of the Hall of Merit is to pick the n best players of all time. You've already predetermined roughly how many of them there are.

Okay, the best within the same parameters set by the HOF. I think you knew what I meant. ;-)

This is the way HoMers regard newbies. They welcome those who put in the wonk, but woe betide anyone who doesn't and presumes to contribute. That's why I only lurk around here.

Huh?!!

I thought I was responding civilly toward Harvey, whom I respect and have enjoyed his posts in the past.

Again, the bold words are used to stress points. That's why they are there for us to use. At least I assumed that was their purpose. If netiquette proscribes otherwise, I wont use them again.

I don't disagree with HoMer attitudes, though. They've uncovered and shared an awful lot of information that when they started I didn't have a clue about. Good work.

We appreciate that, Fra Paolo.

I like the fact one has to earn ones' bones to vote around here.

It's really not that hard to earn the bones. What it really takes to vote is time and a thick skin.

This is the way HoMers regard newbies.

As I often like to point out, there is nothing typical about a HoM voter and there is no representative or average HoMer. We are an ungroupable group in my view. Which is all the better for the process.

I like the fact one has to earn ones' bones to vote around here.

The debate process is essential, IMO. It keeps us all of us honest in our evaluations.

We are an ungroupable group in my view. Which is all the better for the process.

The opposite would be certainly be more boring. :-)

By the way, I would vote for Dick in a heartbeat over Maury Wills. In fact, if someone tried to promote Wills over Dick I would be compelled to scoff. And if pushed ridicule.

It's a laughable notion..............

Maybe it is just the Tiger comparison, or Harvey's handle but McAuliffe's overall value seems very similar to that of Harvey Kuenn. They may have been different types of players, but both gave their teams solid production for 7 or so years. Neither has received, nor will likely receive a HOM vote.

I think that Mr. Wallbangers doesn't understand why we bother to post threads about guys who have as much chance of being elected as Mick Kelleher did of hitting a home run. We do it because it is fun.

Don't be upset because we post a thread about a guy.

Of course, when (either Murphy or Dimino) created the first thread for an individual player, the controversial player was HOMer Bob Caruthers, and merely created the thread led to some controversy. I think it was favre who posted his "Reasons Why I Won't Vote for Bob Caruthers." On the other side, if you think karlmagnus was a Beckley defender, you should read about his mancrush on Parisian Bob.

One other thing is that Murphy is very easy when it comes to creating a player thread. You don't even have to buy him dinner.

If I asked him to post a thread on Matt Alexander, he'd probably do it, but of course the thread would be subject to comments about the lack of HOM-ability of Matt the Scat.

In some ways, I like reading about the Dick McAuliffe threads more than the Willie Mays type of threads. The great player threads generally run off topic to marginal players anyway.

By the way, I would vote for Dick in a heartbeat over Maury Wills. In fact, if someone tried to promote Wills over Dick I would be compelled to scoff. And if pushed ridicule.

It's a laughable notion..............

I would take McAuliffe over Wills myself, Harvey.

But if we were to poll the members of the Veterans' Committee (many who played against or with both men) right now, how many would take him over Maury? I would be surprised if one of them did. Which brings me back to why I say that McAuliffe is underrated.

One other thing is that Murphy is very easy when it comes to creating a player thread. You don't even have to buy him dinner.

True, but a Guinness wouldn't hurt. :-)

If I asked him to post a thread on Matt Alexander, he'd probably do it, but of course the thread would be subject to comments about the lack of HOM-ability of Matt the Scat.

Heh. In all seriousness, I would strongly suggest that a thread for Aleander wasn't really necessary. But if Ron really wanted it, what the hell? It's not like it's going to hurt anybody or the process.

I just ran McAuliffe's offensive numbers this morning. Del Pratt, maybe, with a little more career? Still not enough to make my ballot, but certainly a very good player.

I just ran McAuliffe's offensive numbers this morning. Del Pratt, maybe, with a little more career?

Not bad, OCF, though Pratt played second base when it wasn't as valuable (though the position was in a transitional state) as it was during McAuliffe's time.

Del Pratt has always been the bottom/lower limit of 2Bs that I've felt were worth keeping on a list somewhere, and I agree McAuliffe looks better, though just a bit. That probably puts him somewhere around 125-150 among current eligibles.

But let us praise not-so-famous men. Pratt played about 70 more games (so, no, I don't see an edge for McAuliffe for his career) but McAuliffe played 666 games (yes, that's right, 666) at shortstop and then as John noted he played 971 games at 2B with a bit more defensive responsibility than Pratt.

Pratt's career is not un-typical of his day. He came up at age 24 and his first 5 years his median OPS+ was 123. The next 8 years he was never above 116 and the median was 105.5. McAuliffe's curve was more of the classic--came up at age 20, played part-time at 21 and had 2.5 years below average, then a sharp increase from 109 to 118 to a peak of 148, vastly better than anything Pratt ever did. Then 3 years in the 120s and then 5 years with a median of 95. Pratt was more ready to go, in other words, and was much better out of the gate. But Pratt fell of dramatically at age 29 and McAuliffe a year later.

Neither was a great fielder though Pratt was probably more adequate, but McAuliffe both at SS and 2B had much the greater challenge.

McAuliffe looks better than I expected, but still is in the second 100.

But let us praise not-so-famous men. Pratt played about 70 more games (so, no, I don't see an edge for McAuliffe for his career) but McAuliffe played 666 games (yes, that's right, 666) at shortstop and then as John noted he played 971 games at 2B with a bit more defensive responsibility than Pratt.

Del Pratt 1836 vs. Dick McAuliffe 1763 = 73 game advantage Pratt
Level eras by converting from 162 G to 154 G schedule and McAuliffe loses 80-85 games.
Pratt played during WWI which shortened 2 years, Pratt gains 40-45 games.

The gap is more like 190 to 200 games. I'm more a Pratt fan, not that it will make him any closer to the ballot. Both useful players on the infield.

Praising the consistent eligibles (never really an MVP or Cy Young argument, but at least 10 good seasons, 8 for pitcher)

P: Dutch Leonard 2.0
C: Wally Schang
1B: Jake Beckley
2B: Del Pratt
3B: Larry Gardner
SS: Art Fletcher
LF: Ben Chapman
CF: George Van Haltren
RF: Sam Rice

Ronw, thinking of the Keltner list, I think you'd win the peannant if that was your starting nine!

Easily pennant-winning, a powerhouse - esepcially if we fill out the pitching staff some. Waite Hoyt? Wilbur Cooper? Quinn? Luque? And some relief pitchers - Marberry, perhaps.

Average years per BB-Ref:

Leonard: 12-12 (as a starter: 11-11) with a 119 ERA+
Schang: OPS+ 117 (very good for a catcher, especially for when he played) in 110-130 games caught.
Beckley: OPS+ 125 (good power, low walks and could count on him to play the 2nd or third most games at first most every year)
Pratt: OPS+ 112 (good power, low walks and could count on 150 games a year)
Gardner: OPS+ 109 (some power, but most of the OPS+ is singles. Good for 150 games a year.)
Fletcher: OPS+ 100 (no walks, some power, about 130 games a year.)
Chapman: OPS+ 114 (born at the wrong time, lots of singles and stolen bases. 140-150 games a year.)
Van Haltren: OPS+ 121 (some walks, some power, good speed, good defense, good for 140-150 games a year.)
Rice: OPS+ 112 (no walks, lots of singles, some doubles, good for 150 games a year.)

So you have a team that will have a great batting average with lots of singles, some power, some stolen bases, and low walks. The team would be a good one. The team's weakness is that most of the players did not walk much - even accounting for their time - and most of the players' positives in slugging are due to their high number of singles, Beckley a positive exception here. I picture the mid-80s Cardinals with less speed, more power, and fewer walks. If Leonard was the best starter, it better have a great bullpen. If Wilbur Cooper and Dolf Luque are the anchors and Leonard and Hoyt are your numbers 3 and 4 then I think it is a powerhouse.

Well, that was a fun thought experiment.

So you have a team that will have a great batting average with lots of singles, some power, some stolen bases, and low walks. The team would be a good one.

So you've got the 2002-2005 Angels, but with less Erstad and more Van Haltren....

I'd fill out the pitching staff with:

Wilbur Cooper
Eddie Rommel
Jack Quinn
Larry French
Milt Pappas

In the pen
Waite Hoyt
Firpo Marberry
Charlie Root
Murry Dickson
Bob Friend

Luque has 1923 to keep him off of this list.

Tellingly, our highest support goes to Beckley, Van Haltren and Schang, the three with the highest average OPS+.

Harry Hooper would be perfect for the list but for 1918.

Their rivals, with the year that probably got these players elected:

P - Faber - 1921, 1922 bump him out
P - Lyons - 1927
P - Ruffing - 1938
P - Griffith - 1898
P - Rixey - 1923, 1925?
P - Galvin - 1879
P - Wynn - 1956
C - Bennett - 1881
C - Mackey
1B - Start - sometime pre 1871
2B - McPhee - 1892 (OK, maybe Pratt has some competition)
2B - Doerr - 1944
SS - Wallace - 1901 (I actually think Wallace deserves the nod over Fletcher here)
CF - Bell
RF - Keeler - 1897

OK, so Mackey could play third, but Doerr may have to try left field.

[cough]Bob Johnson[/cough]. (Before you toss 1944 at me, remember, it's a wartime season. If DiMaggio, Williams and Keller were playing, do you think Bob would be an MVP candidate?)

SABR BIO PROJECT ARTICLE ON DICK MCAULIFFE

Dick McAuliffe by John Cizik

consistent eligibles?
"Wallace deserves the nod over Fletcher here"?
Someone is confused, maybe me.

If the point is eligibles who consistently get some ballot support, Doyle is the obvious choice over Pratt.
If the pitching staff gets players like Shocker, Quinn, Cooper, it's a powerhouse, yes.

In some ways, I like reading about the Dick McAuliffe threads more than the Willie Mays type of threads. The great player threads generally run off topic to marginal players anyway.

After more than a fortnight away, I caught up yesterday and this morning. The titles of the threads in the right margin are displayed in blue for Kaline, Santo, Marichal, and "Willie Mays" somewhere on another page; black for all the others. (Norm Cash must be on another page, too, a blue one that I should probably open because there will be some good points about platoon batting.)

Dick passed on a week or so ago:

http://www.registercitizen.com/article/RC/20160524/SPORTS/160529800