|
|
Hall of Merit— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Monday, June 26, 2006
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to Don Malcolm for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (168 - 1:46pm, Jul 13)Last:  DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: Trophy Case (71 - 6:53pm, Jul 08)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1900 Results (6 - 6:28pm, Jul 08)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1900 Ballot (11 - 4:03pm, Jul 06)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1918 Results (6 - 8:58pm, Jun 29)Last: kennaMost Meritorious Player: 1920 Ballot (25 - 8:55pm, Jun 29)Last: kennaMost Meritorious Player: 1900 Discussion (9 - 1:14am, Jun 29)Last: Harmon RipkowskiHall of Merit Book Club (6 - 12:45pm, Jun 28)Last: progrockfanMost Meritorious Player: 1899 Results (6 - 1:51pm, Jun 22)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1899 Ballot (10 - 9:54am, Jun 22)Last: TomHMost Meritorious Player: 1899 Discussion (9 - 9:04am, May 31)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1898 Results (4 - 3:22pm, May 06)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1898 Ballot (8 - 10:07am, May 05)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1898 Discussion (7 - 1:08am, May 02)Last: Harmon RipkowskiMost Meritorious Player: 1897 Results (2 - 4:29pm, Apr 06)Last: DL from MN
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: June 26, 2006 at 04:11 AM (#2076037)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.
I wonder: who was a more meritious player, McAullife or Mazeroski?
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.
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).
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.......................
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. :-)
Looking over the numbers, he's in Wills/Aparicio/Mazeroski territory. He wont be on my ballot.
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. :-)
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.
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.
We appreciate that, Fra Paolo.
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.
The debate process is essential, IMO. It keeps us all of us honest in our evaluations.
The opposite would be certainly be more boring. :-)
It's a laughable notion..............
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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've got the 2002-2005 Angels, but with less Erstad and more Van Haltren....
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.
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.
Dick McAuliffe by John Cizik
"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.
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.)
http://www.registercitizen.com/article/RC/20160524/SPORTS/160529800
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main