User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.8294 seconds
59 querie(s) executed
|
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
| ||||||||
Hall of Merit — A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best Monday, May 15, 2006Ernie BanksEligible in 1977. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy
Posted: May 15, 2006 at 01:17 PM | 71 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News: |
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsReranking First Basemen: Discussion Thread
(35 - 4:10pm, Jun 02) Last: bjhanke Reranking Shortstops Ballot (11 - 10:03am, Jun 01) Last: DL from MN 2024 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (118 - 4:10pm, May 30) Last: Kiko Sakata Cal Ripken, Jr. (15 - 12:42am, May 18) Last: The Honorable Ardo New Eligibles Year by Year (996 - 12:23pm, May 12) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Shortstops: Discussion Thread (67 - 6:46pm, May 07) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Centerfielders: Results (20 - 10:31am, Apr 28) Last: cookiedabookie Reranking Center Fielders Ballot (20 - 9:30am, Apr 06) Last: DL from MN Ranking Center Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion Thread (77 - 5:45pm, Apr 05) Last: Esteban Rivera Reranking Right Fielders: Results (34 - 2:55am, Mar 30) Last: bjhanke 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (376 - 10:42am, Mar 07) Last: Dr. Chaleeko Reranking Right Fielders: Ballot (21 - 5:20pm, Mar 01) Last: DL from MN Ranking Right Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (71 - 9:47pm, Feb 28) Last: Guapo Dobie Moore (239 - 10:40am, Feb 11) Last: Mike Webber Ranking Left Fielders in the Hall of Merit - Discussion thread (96 - 12:21pm, Feb 08) Last: DL from MN Syndicate |
|||||||
|
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| | ||||||
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: May 15, 2006 at 01:24 PM (#2020475)I was going to wait 'til the other election was over, but I suppose it doesn't matter. A 'voter in 1976' already knows Banks is retired for four years, and could make a comparison with Sisler if he liked.
adjusted OPS+s on parade...
SISLER
starts 108 in a half-season, then
132 161 157 154 181 140 170, then misses year with sinus infection; then
091 110 085 101 110 098 081
BANKS
094 as a rookie, then
144 137 150 156 155 145 122, then moves over to first base
110 094 107 116 105 113 118 092
and 095 in a half-season
comparing best to worst, 100 minimum, 425 PAs
SISLER 181 70 61 57 54 40 32/10 10 01
EBANKS 156 55 50 45 44 37 22/18 16 13 10 07 05
the slashes denote pre-sinus for Sisler, and pre-position switch for Banks. Interesting that they never reached those levels again.
While Sisler's raw numbers are better, Banks' status as an SS makes him as impressive or more (your mileage may vary). Banks also brings a little more to the table in the matchup of their uneventful '2nd careers.'
Banks vs some actual modern SSs:
BANKS 156 55 50 45 44 37 22/18 16 13 10 07 05
VAUGH 190 49 48 46 40 40 34 32 26 19 13 00
CRONI 138 36 35 29 27 25 24 23 19 08 70 02
APPLI 142 38 25 24 23 21 17 13 12 11 10 03 02 01
Of course, Banks only has 7 of these actually at SS. He's not at all close to Arky by this measure, even if he had stayed as an SS.
Banks' SS hitting prime seems nicely ahead of Cronin and Appling, which is saying something. But Cronin and Appling have second-half careers as SSs that stand up to Banks' less-valuable numbers at 1B.
Looks like a HOMer to me.
Basically he is Dobie Moore + the second half of George Sisler.
Or, as Howie says, he is the first half of George Sisler (but at SS) plus the second half of George Sisler.
I have had Moore and Sisler at or near the top of my ballot forever, so this is not a bad thing. Just not anywhere near being an inner circle sort of thing.
If our HoM were half it's size, we'd have a fine argument over Ernie. As is, ho hum, he's going in easily.
His candidature is still interesting to me in that he is tough to accurately place.
He rises above my unPHoM'ed backlog, but not sure how far into the already PHoM'ed players.
Does he get an elect-me vote, or something around 5? 6?
Both will be quickly HoM3d.
Remarkably, he was known as "Ageless Ernie"! among other things. ("Let's play two" isn't a nickname in the same sense; you can't call someone that.)
According to baseballlibrary.com, it was "injuries to his legs," which suggests that there was no major, season-ending injury, but a gradual development of leg problems.
"June 23, 1961: Ernie Banks voluntarily takes the bench as a sore knee brings his 717 consecutive-games-played streak to an end."
From his games played this year, it looks like he tried to return to shortstop after sitting for a few games, but it clearly wasn't working, so he was tried in the outfield and then at first base. In 1962, he became a fulltime first baseman.
His decline and retirement is attributed to "nagging injuries and arthritis in his legs."
Here's another example: arthritic elbow. In previous eras would Koufax's elbow have been the cause de celebre it was? Perhaps not because it was not reported on in as much detail. Or an inverted example: Lou Boudreau. It's awfully difficult to get a handle on the exact nature of Boudreau's apparently career-ending shoulder problems. There's very little sense of what exactly went on. Ross Barnes is the very apex of this problem, and the vagueness of the reporting on his injuries has led most to believe that he left due to the demise of the fair-foul rule.
One might also guess that the increasing professionalism of the training staffs of baseball teams might have also have something to do with it.
While the general point is most likely true, it has nothing to do with Banks. AstroTurf wasn't installed into the AstroDome until 1966, the Dome's 2nd season, and Banks' 5th at 1B.
Definitely, but a really nice peak.
There's not much that could have been done with 1963 and 1964.
Although Banks did lead the Cubs in games at SS and Third in 1957.
Banks top 7 years from age 24-30 add to 194 WS. Moore from age 25-31 is only 171 WS (with age 25 doubled). That's a ginormous difference on peak or prime, whatever you want to call it.
If you want to say Moore only had 5 prime years not 7, Banks still beats him, 153-144.
You could give Moore 6, 9, 15, 19 WS for age 21-24 with the Wreckers, based on the careers of players with a similar record from age 25-31 (see Dobie Moore thread post 159).
That would give Moore 220 WS from age 21-31. Banks had 225 from age 22-31, which would narrow the gap career wise, but Banks still has the higher peak.
Banks Moore33 33
32 32
31 31
29 25
28 23
22 20*
19 19**
15 15**
14 9**
2 8
x 6**
225 221
*doubled 1920 year
**estimate Wreckers
Banks beats him pretty solidly in the middle. Moore started younger, but Banks did have two 18s and a 17 (still productive though not star-type seasons) during the Sisler-type years. I'll have Banks very clearly ahead of Moore. I could see how a 3-year peak only voter could have them even, but then even that voter would have to use career or extended prime as a tie-breaker. As Chris Cobb says, regression doesn't really impact Moore, because he was pretty good the whole time and the projection is based relatively on a lot of games.
First the Dr. Jekyls
Banks Sisler33 33
32 29
31 29
29 28*
28 27
22 27*
19 25
15 10
2 x
211 208
*Adjusted for schedule length.
Close, but edge Banks on peak, Sisler's 6-7 years much better than Banks which evens out the prime. Much closer than I would have expected.
Now the Mr. Hydes
Banks Sisler18 19
18 16
17 15
15 13
14 11
14 11
11 8
9 x
5 x
0 x
121 93
Huge edge for Banks. Better every year but the best year, by 2-3 WS per season - and he lasted a little longer.
Is this adjusting everything for season length?
Sometimes it helps being old. Ernie's career began to slip when his eyesight started to go. From an old interview with Banks:
"It was a depth perception problem I had and some players do have depth perception problems. I couldn’t pick the ball up as well."
Boy, the comparison to Sisler is even closer than we thought.
Harvey, you rule!
Glad to help. During the 60's Ernie always vigorously denied the Drabowsky beaning had any impact. But he got nailed in mid 1962 and while some of his offensive dip could be associated with the pitching climate change I think folks could make a pretty strong case that Moe's wayward pitch DID play a role in Banks offensive decline.
Leo Durocher would semi-privately grouch about playing a "blind guy" at first base. What are Ernie's batting splits? Because I would suspect that in night games his output was pretty dreadful.
Day AB's-5323 - .278 .334 .508Night AB's-2336 - .254 .310 .467
Is this possible?
Man, did you hit the nail on the head. Ernie Banks batting average in 1964 to 1971, excluding 1966:
Daytime: .279
Nighttime: .208
Slugging seemed to go along as well, but I haven't calculated it. Generally, Banks was still a very good hitter in the daytime, and just awful at night. I left off 1966, because something weird happened where either he had this massive reverse split for one season, or someone at Retrosheet reversed the numbers. I kind of think it might be the latter.
In 1963, by the way, there were no significant differences. After 1963, the differences were massive, every single year. Its too bad no one picked this up at the time.
I should have clarified. Day/Night splits after 1962. My understanding from folks around the team at the time as well as my personal observation was the Ernie couldn't hit for cr*p at night.
I honestly would be surprised if his average was over .150 in Shea during night games. I have this vague memory of him just waving at pitches against the Mets because of the poor lighting.
"Its too bad no one picked this up at the time."
Well, I did. And so did Leo. That's two who noticed........
Remember that he would never have played home games at night in Wrigley.
Mumps if left untreated can attack the brain. I know it can cause meningitis (sp?) So impacting the vision doesn't seem out of the question.
Me, I think it was just a second helping to what had already begun. Just like Tony C. who came back fine initially and then went downhill I think the same happened with Ernie.
He LOOKED like a different hitter by 1964. I could be off by a year or two but these old neurons are firing today. I just remembered where I left my crowbar. Of course, I lost it in 1975..............
Leo might have noticed it, but he kept playing him at night. Maybe he had no choice - I'm no expert on the '60s Cubs.
Leo was no fan of Ernie Banks. But because of Ernie's status with the Cubs even Leo Durocher couldn't make a change. Especially when in a superficial way Banks looked to be performing ok.
I take back everything I just said. If you compare Ernie Banks at night to Ernie banks during the day on the road, the difference isn't nearly as large, less than 20 points of batting average. Its not that Ernie Banks couldn't hit at night, its that Ernie Banks couldn't hit on the road, particularly after 1963.
Beat me to it.
Of course, part of the reason why Leo was no fan of Banks was because of his stature with the Cubs, no?
just looking at '63 and '64
Santo:
Day
.309/.350/.500
.339/.427/.610
Night
.264/.311/.431
.239/.315/.440
Williams
Day:
.298/.237/.525
.336/.396/.567
Night:
.236/.325/.426
.243/.293/.432
Leo had his flaws but he always respected talent. He thought Banks was grossly overrated and not much of a ballplayer. That and Ernie's demeanor was that of a nice guy. What was it that Leo said about nice guys? Something about finishing last??
Leo understood Ernie was loved and respected by others. But Leo didn't respect Banks ability. Because he didn't think he had much. Period.
Part a--correct. Directly linked to the term "overrated".
Part b--correct. Directly linked to the term "overrated".
Leo thought Banks s*cked. But he didn't have a good alternative AND Ernie was very popular.
Was Leo jealous of Ernie? Sure. Leo wanted the limelight to himself.
John,
The last twenty articles are out of character around here.
Tell Mister HS that you can't read look this up at baseball-reference.
Paul
Yes, I forgot to adjust Banks down for the 162 game schedule there. That would cost Banks about 6 WS over the decline phase. He would still be significantly ahead of Sisler, but not quite as much.
The last twenty articles are out of character around here.
Tell Mister HS that you can't read look this up at baseball-reference.
Paul
:-)
I would say he would have been good enough to evaluate there, as earleir in the season he signed with the Cubs, Quincy Trouppe (playing scout) recommended him to the Cardinals. They passed.
He played for Buck O'Neil's championship teams.
I can't imagine that #44 is actually a serious comment...? He doesn't need anything to be #1 or 2 on my ballot. Still I am curious, I didn't know he played in the NeL.
Quite serious. The comparison to Sisler was apt; I consider Banks, like Sisler, to be seriously overrated. I have Sisler ranked # 47. Banks was better than that--I tentatively have him slotted at # 21. Banks had only 6 outstanding seasons. He was a C defensive shortstop. His years at first base weren't any better than Joe Judge (actually, not as good). A player could make the top of my ballot with only 6 great seasons, but those seasons would have to have been a notch higher than Banks, more like Vaughan 1933-38.
Clearly a better prime than most of our HOM SSs, don't you think?
I like Sisler, have him around No. 4-8 usually. But Banks' peak is arguably better given the position (though I think Sisler's defensive work is underrated for his peak), and he has a little more to offer in his late phase.
I'll have a close battle of Bunning vs Banks for No. 1, with Beckley and Redding being my top holdovers.
I would proffer that those who see Banks and Sisler as comparable could just as easily move Sisler up onto the ballot as move Banks off-ballot.
Year G ab r h 2b 3b hr rbi sb avg.
1950 53 196 27 50 11 1 1 20 3 .255
1953 46 173 26 60 16 2 7 47 7 .347
Both years with KC Monarchs
If we all agreed on a 50 player consideration set (well, like our top 50 in the last election e.g.), then, sure, Sisler is probably the 4th most overrated. Even I who have him about #4 on my ballot would agree with that.
I thought out purpose was to elect the best players, however, not the least underrated.
As for Banks, I could be convinced to add an MLE season for '53. No evidence so far for any more than that.
It definately looks like he was MLB caliber in 53 - if that season bumps him up ballots for anyone.
Banks, more interested in softball than baseball, was a high school star in both football and basketball, and once ran a 52-second quarter mile. At the age of 17, he signed on to play baseball with a Negro barnstorming team for $15 a game. Cool Papa Bell later signed him for the Kansas City Monarchs. He returned to them after two years in the army, and the Cubs discovered him there at the end of the 1953 season.
At first, Banks's fielding was erratic. He posted error totals of 34, 22, and 25 early in his career, culminating in a league-leading 32 in 1958. He worked diligently to cut his errors down to 12 in 1959, then a record for shortstops, and led NL shortstops in fielding in both 1960 (he won a Gold Glove) and 1961.
Even though Banks had led the league in fielding the previous two seasons, injuries to his legs had cut down his range, so he accepted a move to first base in 1962.
When Leo Durocher took over the team in 1966, he kept bringing up young phenoms to replace Banks, but none did. Banks won the fielding title at his new position in 1969, and led NL first basemen in assists five times. By 1970, his legs had begun to weaken from nagging injuries and arthritis.
It's not clear to me that his knees could have handled second base, but I'd guess the main reason he went to first base was because it was open.
Here's the Cubs' starting lineup in 1961 and 1962
1961
C Dick Bertell
1B Ed Bouchee
2B Don Zimmer
3B Ron Santo
SS Ernie Banks
LF Billy Williams
CF Richie Ashburn/Al Heist
RF George Altman
1962
C Dick Bertell
1B Ernie Banks
2B Ken Hubbs
3B Ron Santo
SS Andre Rogers
LF Billy Williams
CF Lou Brock
RF George Altman
The 1962 Cubs had budding stars at 2B, 3B, LF, and CF, and Altman was playing at his peak, so first base was the only hole Banks was capable of filling that it made sense for him to take on. Bouchee was a weak hitter for a first baseman, and the Cubs apparently let the Mets pick up him up in the expansion draft, handing the position to Banks.
Brock wasn't really a centerfielder, but the Cubs didn't know that yet.
He doesn't stand far above the crowd, but I won't have any problem putting Banks #1 on my ballot. Remember that I am one of Doyle's better friends.
He should also definitely get 1 year Negro League credit, and possibly a touch more for war credit. I'd personally give him a half year there, simply do to his playing level immediately upon return. No more because he didn't seem MLB ready when he left.
He definitely is not an inner-circle HOF/HOMer, but he has to be at the 2nd stage.
An all-star 2B or SS if you want to say that. His OPS+ was 105-118 from 1964-68, that's much better than an average 2B or SS. Hell, it's above average for a 3B I would imagine.
His decline phase is being vastly underrated by some here. It was much better than Sisler's. He was an above average hitter (not accounting for position), and I would imagine he was at least a decent defensive 1B. He was a 14-18 WS guy during that time, which is still above average.
I would consider giving him credit for 1952-53.
At 332 actual WS, he is within 5 WS of Billy Hamilton, Joe Cronin, Willie Keeler, Richie Ashburn, Gary Carter. (And, yes, lesser lights like Caruthers, McCormick, Leach, Sam Rice.)
Add maybe 25--heck, make it just 20 MLE WS--and now we're talking Bench, Heilmann, Vaughan, Brouthers, Delahanty, Goslin, Snider. (And Brooksie, Max Carey, Tony Perez, Dwight Evans.)
I had him #2 on my prelim, now I see that he is a clear #1.
Still on a purely semantic basis I would say his decline was better than Sisler's, not "much better," but then I'm a peak/prime voter and the decline phases don't matter much to me anyway.
I'm giving Banks 10 and 15 MLE WS for '52 (mil) and '53 (NeL), which I think is not overboard.
Banks 357/33-32-31-29-28-22-19-18-18-17-15-15-15*-14-14-11-10*
Bench 356/37-34-34-30-28-26-24-22-22-20-19-19-19
That run of three 19-15 season advantages for Bench pretty much tells it all. Bench was 3-4 WS better for the 13 years that he played regularly. Banks caught up with 4 additional decline years. Advantage Bench.
OPS+: Here I'm giving Banks a 90 and a 110. He was 94 in 1954 but then 145 in '55. I'm shifting his "adjustment tax" back to '52.
Banks 122/157-56-50-45-45-37-22-16-16-12-10-10*-7-5-(4 years at <100)
Bench 127/171-46-44-40-33-29-28-24-23-21-15-8-5-0-(1 year at <100)
Bench better for 1 year, Banks better through the rest of his prime, but Bench's extended prime is much better and his decline is a little bit better.
Banks 512 HR-1636 RBI-.274/.330/.500 in about 10,150 PAs
Bench 389-1376-.267/.342/.476 in about 8550 PAs
Banks' HR and XBH rates are a bit higher, but Bench had 130 more BB in 1500 fewer PAs. Banks used about 7000 outs, Bench only about 5700.
I stand corrected. Bench looks like a better player through the accumulation of several small advantages especially that he was a career C while Banks was a half-career SS. Banks' power advantage is more than negated by that. Both were extremely durable BTW, playing 135-140-150 games quite reliably.
WS G WS/162Hamilton 337 1591 34.3
Keeler 333 2123 25.4
Cronin 333 2124 25.4
Leach 328 2156 24.6
Ashburn 329 2189 24.3
G Carter 337 2296 23.8
S Rice 327 2404 22.0
Banks 332 2528 21.3
Banks may have had a nice peak, but it looks to me like his career doesn't even measure up to Sam Rice.
Having said that, I've been quite consistent about giving players military and Negro league credit. With that credit, Banks will probably touch the bottom of my ballot. I still think you guys have him way overrated.
I don't think much of WS/162 for comparisons across era.
Player WS G WS/162Allen 342 1749 31.7
W Clark 331 1976 27.1
Grich 329 2008 26.5
Re Smith 325 1987 26.5
G Carter 337 2296 23.8
Santo 324 2243 23.4
D Parker 327 2466 21.5
W Davis 322 2429 21.5
Banks 332 2528 21.3
Dawson 340 2627 21.0
Oz Smith 325 2573 20.5
Pos Year PA OPS+ RCAA RCAP OWPSS 1953-61 5205 138 239 324 .638
1B 1962-71 5190 106 -32 -108 .472
Note the discrepancy between the late-career OPS+ (from bb-ref) and OWP (from Lee Sinins). He had quite low OBP's, I suppose.
Acutally the cutoff is probably earlier than that.
Pos Year PA G Seasons WS WS/162SS 1953-61 5205 1216 7.90 211 28.1
1B 1962-71 5190 1312 8.10 121 14.9
One of my favorite ballplayers when I was young, and yet I never got to see him when he was at his best. I was an AL fan my first two years, 1960-61, not moving to an NL city until the year Banks began playing first base.
But baseball cards and "Home Run Derby" tuned me on to Ernie Banks, the reigning two-time NL MVP when I first was aware of him.
When we played hardball or softball in the back yard he was one of those batters I had to emulate. Plant the feet in the box, then swish the bat back and forth, low, just missing the ground, flicking it from left hand to right, waiting for the pitcher to get set. No one ever seemed so calm in the box.
I just wish I'd seen him as the great shortstop he was, not as the "he used to be" he succumbed to being.
In retirement he was one of those icons, a one-team great, first African-American on his team, double MVP, Mr. Cub, Mr. Sunshine.
Let's Play Two.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main