Marichal picked the wrong era to be great in.

Without questions, the biggest shock of doing RSI. He had the best run support of any HoF starting pitcher except for Al Spalding. His RSI was baaaaaarely less than Vic Raschi's. Occassionally two pitchers who are teammates for a long time have wildly divergent run support. I named this phenomenon Marichal-Perry Syndrome. From 1964-71 Marichal's run support was equivilant to the career run support of Allie Reynolds. For those same years Gaylord Perry had run support reminiscent of Phil Niekro's career mark. That's right -- the same line-up would hit like the Stengal Yanks for one guy, and the Ted Turner Braves for another. From memory, Spalding, Raschi, ALlie Reynolds, and Don Newcombe were the only pitchers with better run support than Marichal. Marichal loses over 20 twenty wins with the RSI W/L adjustment.

I always wanted to see what Perry & Marichal's W/L record would look like if you switched their run support for those years.

He comes out a lot worse than I expected. I mean, like, "WOW!" worse.

I've got him slightly below Billy Pierce. Way below Bunning and Drysdale.

His peak is higher than all of them, but not by a ton. And it's not like all of the little things go against him.

His innings get cut about 6% because of the era he pitched in (where everyone threw a bunch of innings). Pierce's innings get a 4% boost (part of that is his 228 relief IP at a 1.37 LI).

His park factor is 98.9.

But his defense support was neutral. He actually helped his cause, slightly above average hitting for a pitcher. His bullpens actually cost him 2.6 runs.

But even with the higher peak, it just doesn't add up to as much as I thought it would . . . here's a chart, just like the one I did for relievers, with all of the eligibles, plus Drysdale and Bunning, recent strongly supported electees.


PA - Pennants Added; aDRA - my version of Defense adjusted runs allowed, which uses PythaganPat exponents, and the Baseball Prospectus adjustments from NRA to DERA, 4.50 is league average; tIP - my version of translated IP, which accounts for leverage of relief innings, and adjusts starters based on era norms based on the league leaders IP and the size of the league; WAR - my wins above replacement, using aDERA, tIP and accounting for pitcher hitting; RSAR - my version of runs saved above replacement; BRAR - Batting Runs Above Replacement - my version, replacement is set to the pitcher average for the season, also adjusted for era IP; PSup - starting pitcher bullpen support, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (negative means good support); InRP - Inherited Runs Prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive is good); BRP - bequeathed runs prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive means good support); LI - Leverage Index, 1960-2005, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus, 1871-1959 estimated based on Pete Palmer's formula, the only difference being that I cap it at 3.00, not 2.00. 1 - pitcher's best season WAR; 2 - pitcher's second best season WAR; 3,4,5 - figure it out, you are smart; Top3 - pitcher's top 3 consecutive seasons of WAR; Top5 - pitcher's top 5 individual WAR seasons.

I have given war credit and docked war seasons as well. Quinn gets credit in the chart for missing PCL seasons (1916, 1917 and about 3/4 of 1918), see his thread for details.

Anyway, peak guys won't have any issues with Marichal, but career guys might want to take a second look.

I think Marichal belongs, don't get me wrong - I just think he highlights that we are missing the boat on Quinn, Pierce, Bridges and probably Grimes.

BTW - that chart only looks good for me if I set my IE under, "view, text, smallest" . . .

Where's Dizzy Dean in your chart?

Dizzy is at .661 PA.

His peak fits fine - problem is there is nothing else. Top 5 seasons are 9.6, 9.4, 7.6, 6.6, 6.3. The rest of his career is 10.4.

Dizzy Dean is very simple. If you are a peak voter, he's a no brainer. If you take career into account at all, he isn't.

Dean's peak jumps him over 7 pitchers that have higher WAR totals including Tony Mullane (unadjusted for weakness of AA still), Lefty Gomez, Bob Friend, Curt Simmons, Larry Jackson, Murry Dickson and Chief Bender.

But it's not enough to push him over guys like Lon Warneke, Carl Mays, Herb Pennock, Bob Shawkey, who all had respectable peaks and lasted a lot longer.

I'll post the whole chart at some point, but I don't have enough time to format it all right now.

1980 is a 3-in year, right?

As a peak voter, I like Marichal ahead of recent inductees Bunning and Drysdale, and I like him better than Dean. Dean's ERA+ is just not that great, for a guy who has no shoulder/prime seasons to go along with it. Still I'm not yet convinced that he is a HoMer. I'm thinking he's on my ballot but just barely.

1980 is a 3-in year, right?

Yes, sir.

His innings get cut about 6% because of the era he pitched in (where everyone threw a bunch of innings). Pierce's innings get a 4% boost (part of that is his 228 relief IP at a 1.37 LI).


Is there evidence that pitchers from this era threw more career innings than pitchers from other eras?

I agree with the placement of Pierce ahead of Marichal. I do like Marichal ahead of Tommy Bridges though. Pierce has a bunch of small bonuses - relief leverage, more replacement value, better hitting (.040 OBP advantage). How a system treats a particular era will color the end result.

so joe, does this mean you have PA data? did you post that?

i agree that Marichal looks to be overrated, but i'd say he's still above the line.

His IP looks pretty durable, what happened to him at the end of '67? Threw CG on 8/1, didn't play until 8/25 and got yanked, then was shut down for the year. Also, seems I remember his name being linked with hurting himself cutting open a golf ball. Web search for "marichal golf ball" yields several hits about him playing in celeb tournaments but not an injury.

His IP looks pretty durable, what happened to him at the end of '67? Threw CG on 8/1, didn't play until 8/25 and got yanked, then was shut down for the year.

He had a leg injury in '67, IIRC it was a torn calf muscle or something like that. Had nothing to do with golfing.

Then in the spring of 1970, when the Giants played a few games in Japan, Marichal came down with some kind of really bad virus and was deathly ill for the first half of '70. Didn't go on the DL, but he should have, because he pitched like crap until getting over it in the second half.

Jim Sp - the chart above is PA data. Set your browser to view text size smallest to be able to see it as a chart.

I haven't done any HoMers yet (other than Walter Johnson), just the relievers, Bunning and Drysdale. Will start on the HoMers after the SABR convention probably. I've done just about every reasonable candidate.

Give me a few minutes and I'll post a complete chart of everyone I've done . . .

Fully udpated chart. I'm leaving Mullane out right now, because I haven't figured out my AA adjustments yet. He's at .666 without any adjustments, but the adjustments will be significant, so I'm not comfortable listing him yet.



PA - Pennants Added; aDRA - my version of Defense adjusted runs allowed, which uses PythaganPat exponents, and the Baseball Prospectus adjustments from NRA to DERA, 4.50 is league average; tIP - my version of translated IP, which accounts for leverage of relief innings, and adjusts starters based on era norms based on the league leaders IP and the size of the league; WAR - my wins above replacement, using aDERA, tIP and accounting for pitcher hitting; RSAR - my version of runs saved above replacement; BRAR - Batting Runs Above Replacement - my version, replacement is set to the pitcher average for the season, also adjusted for era IP; PSup - starting pitcher bullpen support, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (negative means good support); InRP - Inherited Runs Prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive is good); BRP - bequeathed runs prevented, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus (positive means good support); LI - Leverage Index, 1960-2005, taken directly from Baseball Prospectus, 1871-1959 estimated based on Pete Palmer's formula, the only difference being that I cap it at 3.00, not 2.00. 1 - pitcher's best season WAR; 2 - pitcher's second best season WAR; 3,4,5 - figure it out, you are smart; Top3 - pitcher's top 3 consecutive seasons of WAR; Top5 - pitcher's top 5 individual WAR seasons.

Note the PA are a little higher on the new chart - that's because I updated for the 1980 ballot which means including 1979 in the calculations of average teams, pennant winners, etc.. As the leagues get more bunched, the value of individual seasons increases, especially big years, because one individual has more impact the closer the races and worse the pennant winners are.

Since we are voting in 1980, I don't believe my all-time calcs should be based on anything that happened after the vote.

Also, see how it bunches as you go down the chart - the separation gets closer between each pitcher.

IMO, the point where it bunches, you could say that is anywhere from Grimes to Walters - that's where we aren't talking HoMers anymore. Everyone above that point has clearly separated themselves from the pack - and to me that's where the 'great' players lie.

BTW - that list includes every eligible non-HoMer that is:

1) In the Hall of Fame
2) On Bill James' Top 100 list
3) Received a vote in a recent election

If I were a peak voter, Dean, Walters and Marichal really stand out. Waddell, Cicotte and Trout aren't bad choices on that end either. Shocker is a great prime candidate.

Marichal's peak credentials are impeccable. His prime was 1962-69. During that span, Win Shares has him as one of the top 3 pitchers in baseball 5 times (1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969). WARP is less enchanted with 1964, but has him number one (ahead of Koufax) in 1965 and 1966, and a legitimate MVP (best season in baseball) candidate both seasons. 1968 is a star season, and 1962 is an Honorable Mention.

Pierce does not ascend to those heights, though he compensates with more career value in non-star seasons. OTOH, it's the AL, not the NL, and these are the years when that distinction matters most.

Marichal will be either 2 or 3 on my ballot.

For me, Marichal's 1963-1966 peak is impressive enough to elevate him above pitchers (like Pierce) who threw similar context-adjusted innings at a similar rate of run prevention.

Yet I still think that Jose Mendez is the best pitcher on this year's ballot.

Waddell 135/180-79-65-53-27-25-23-21-8-2
Marichal 122/169-67-65-44-33-21-19-16-13-0

Each had 10 years of ERA eligible with >100 ERA+. Win Shares are 263-240 for Marichal, but the difference is in Marichal's partial and/or declining years of ?10 WS. Through 10 years, Waddell is better 8 times.

And Waddell's UER is a red herring--we now know they were within the standard range of the time. High standard range, sure, but within the range. No more probably than what Marichal gained from historically great defensive support, which still leaves the Rubester about 13 ERA+ points ahead.

Mendez is also on my ballot.

Waddell 135/180-79-65-53-27-25-23-21-8-2
Marichal 122/169-67-65-44-33-21-19-16-13-0

Each had 10 years of ERA eligible with >100 ERA+. Win Shares are 263-240 for Marichal, but the difference is in Marichal's partial and/or declining years of ?10 WS. Through 10 years, Waddell is better 8 times.

And Waddell's UER is a red herring--we now know they were within the standard range of the time. High standard range, sure, but within the range. No more probably than what Marichal gained from historically great defensive support, which still leaves the Rubester about 13 ERA+ points ahead.

Rube Waddell's UER issues have received too much press from both sides of the debate. While I'll have both gentlemen on my ballot, there is a reason Marichal will be in the top half and Waddell will be in the bottom, and it has nothing to do with Rube's UER.

Top 10 IP per season:
Waddell: 3, 4, 4, 10
Marichal: 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 8

Considering the eras they pitched in, Marichal's advantage in career WS is bigger than it appears, and--while I don't have their year-by-year numbers beyond what's published in the NBJHBA--Waddell's advantage by year is smaller, if in his favor at all. Pitching is where the competition issue is most largely felt, and both Win Shares and ERA+ do little to mitigate it--especially Win Shares.

RA+ PythPat record 226-164. That's a big drop from his actual record of 243-142, which reflects his run support, but not quite as big a drop as for Whitey Ford. He had a very high number of IP per decision: 9.11. He has equivalent seasons of 24-9 (1965), 23-11 (1966), 22-11 (1969), 22-14 (1963), and 20-16 (1968). While I understand the sentiment of "make him wait until Gibson," he certainly looks like a qualified candidate to me. He's Bunning with a better peak.

I'm another peakster who'll have some combination of Marichal/Waddell/Mendez near the top of my ballot (with a position player or two thrown in for good measure). Right now I'm leaning Mendez-Waddell-Marichal, but it's very, very close for me among these three.

The issue for me is comparing Marichal (226-164 equiv.) to Pierce (218-150 equiv.) That's awfully close. At least some of Marichal's IP advantage comes from it being easier for a pitcher to stay in a game longer in the low-scoring mid-60's. But Marichal was a workhorse in the context of his times, and Pierce wasn't really. That gives Marichal a peak advantage - but Pierce compensates with the leverage advantage of his relief work. It's a close call. The idea of citing "first-year caution" and keeping Pierce ahead is attractive to me - but there's also the AL/NL difference. I'll sort this out by ballot time.

As for the Roseboro bat incident: my view is that Marichal was directly punished for that within the game, and I won't add to the punishment in any way.

With his cartoonishly high leg kick, three or four different arm angles, and who knows how many different pitches, Marichal was a sight to see. I really can think of any current pitcher who looks like him at all.

That's "can't" think of anyone like him.

With his cartoonishly high leg kick, three or four different arm angles, and who knows how many different pitches, Marichal was a sight to see. I really can think of any current pitcher who looks like him at all.

Didn't see him pitch. Was he something like el Duque?

El Duque folds his leg and brings his knee up next to his head. Marichal kept his leg fairly straight and lifted his foot as high as his head, but not close to his head. He'd chop the leg kick short when he did his sidearm crossfire delivery.

I've seen film and it resembled Dontrelle Willis for leg kick. I don't think Dontrelle throws 8 pitches from 4 angles though. I had a high school teammate who was a gymnast. He had the highest leg kick you've seen (knee to chest) and threw junk from 4 angles. It really messed up the timing of good hitters. For some reason it didn't affect mediocre hitters as much.

Right now I'm leaning Mendez-Waddell-Marichal, but it's very, very close for me among these three.

I also think that if you like one of these guys, you should like them all. I have them Marichal (2), Waddell (10) and Mendez (13).

> The issue for me is comparing Marichal (226-164 equiv.) to Pierce (218-150 equiv.) That's
> awfully close. At least some of Marichal's IP advantage comes from it being easier for a
> pitcher to stay in a game longer in the low-scoring mid-60's. But Marichal was a workhorse in
> the context of his times, and Pierce wasn't really. That gives Marichal a peak advantage - but
> Pierce compensates with the leverage advantage of his relief work. It's a close call.

That makes Bunning, Drysdale, Ford and now Marichal as pitchers electors have said were "really close to Billy Pierce". The first 3 are in, Marichal is likely to go also. Lemon is probably in the same value range also. Why isn't Pierce in the top 10? I can see someone liking Mendez or Waddell more for peak reasons but I don't know why the electors who liked those other guys so much are snubbing Pierce. I've been looking a bit more at the 1950's and I think integration is really having a "smoothing" effect on the decade. The standard deviation in performance is really low. I think this is going to hurt the peak of 1950's players in general. Expansion in the 1960's helps expand the talent pool again but the 50's might have had the highest replacement level MLB has ever seen.

I've been looking a bit more at the 1950's and I think integration is really having a "smoothing" effect on the decade. The standard deviation in performance is really low. I think this is going to hurt the peak of 1950's players in general.

This is a very interesting idea. However, I think it's important to bear in mind the very uneven nature of the integration of the 1950s: in the early years of the decade, it involved only a small handful of players; then from about 1953-54 onward, as the number of players became significant, it was very heavily skewed into the NL; and throughout the decade and in both leagues, the proportion of position players of color far outweighed the proportion of pitchers of color.

So Pierce, in the AL of the 1950s, faced only a handful of black hitters (and a few of them were quite good, e.g. Doby and Minoso -- though for that matter Pierce rarely faced Minoso, who was generally his teammate -- but there weren't many of them), and competed for pitching notoriety with almost no black pitchers.

In the NL, by the second half of the 1950s, there was a large group of phenomenally good hitters of color (Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Banks, Cepeda, Pinson, etc.), but there were still only a handful of black pitchers in significant roles.

Pierce's peak is 1951-1959. There were only 8 teams in the American League that entire stretch. That is also the time it took from when the White Sox added Minoso to when every team in the AL had a black player. You mention the NL was adding black talent at a faster rate. Certainly a lot of the white replacement players pushed out of the NL were making their way into the AL to raise the talent level in that league. There was an absorption into the 16 team MLB of the 12-16 team Negro Leagues. That's a lot of well-trained ballplayers suddenly available.

Are we overboard in the 1930s and short in the 40s and 50s because we're not accounting for the influx of talent? It doesn't make sense that the amount of baseball talent shrunk in half suddenly. It makes me want to drop Bob Johnson and raise Minnie Minoso but I can't figure out by how much.

Certainly a lot of the white replacement players pushed out of the NL were making their way into the AL to raise the talent level in that league. There was an absorption into the 16 team MLB of the 12-16 team Negro Leagues. That's a lot of well-trained ballplayers suddenly available.

Sure, but the issue is that the sudden improvement in overall talent level wasn't uniform across both leagues, nor was it uniform across the realms of hitting talent vs. pitching talent. Therefore it wouldn't be entirely proper to apply some sort of "overall quality of competition factor" applying equally to all MLB players in the 1950s.

Are we overboard in the 1930s and short in the 40s and 50s because we're not accounting for the influx of talent? It doesn't make sense that the amount of baseball talent shrunk in half suddenly. It makes me want to drop Bob Johnson and raise Minnie Minoso but I can't figure out by how much.

That's the challenge, for sure. The issue is there and it's real; to ignore it isn't right. But exactly how to account for it? That's how you guys earn those huge HOM salaries.

You mention the NL was adding black talent at a faster rate. Certainly a lot of the white replacement players pushed out of the NL were making their way into the AL to raise the talent level in that league. There was an absorption into the 16 team MLB of the 12-16 team Negro Leagues. That's a lot of well-trained ballplayers suddenly available.

You're assuming a free market in players. There wasn't such a thing. There were no interleague trades for most of that decade (possibly all of it; Steve, refresh my memory on this). Minor league players were bound to a particular team with no time deadlines. A lot of friction prevented any equilibrium between the leagues.

There were no interleague trades for most of that decade (possibly all of it; Steve, refresh my memory on this).

There were no interleague trades without waivers until December of 1959. But there were plenty of waiver deals between the leagues, and yes, while interleague player movement wasn't anything close to as free as it is today, it was the case that a large portion of still-good-but-no-longer-good-enough-to-start-in-the-NL guys were able to be acquired by AL clubs, and make significant contributions, such as:

- Earl Torgeson
- Eddie Waitkus
- Gail Harris
- Billy Gardner
- Dick Williams
- Cal Abrams
- Rocky Bridges
- Grady Hatton
- Billy Klaus

There was a secondary NL-integration effect of improving quality of play in the AL. But it was a very mild effect compared to what was happening in the NL, for certain.

That makes Bunning, Drysdale, Ford and now Marichal as pitchers electors have said were "really close to Billy Pierce". ... Why isn't Pierce in the top 10?

For what it's worth, you were (at least in part) quoting me, and I'm already on record as an FOBP (friend of B. Pierce), possibly his best friend. Clearly not everyone shares my opinion about who's close to whom.

Minor league players were bound to a particular team with no time deadlines.

Not entirely true. There was the annual draft (not just Rule V, but a less restrictive draft as well) that teams took advantage of. The rich clubs were unable to protect all of their talent; they protected the best of it, for sure, but a lot of AAAA type guys moved between organizations in the draft each year.

>Are we overboard in the 1930s and short in the 40s and 50s because we're not accounting for the influx of talent?

The large number of '30s guys we've elected isn't so much a matter of not accounting for "contraction" (i.e. tougher competition) in the '50s and '60s. It's a reflection of the "opportunity" (the larger number of teams in the MLs and NeLs together).

More teams in the same league doesn't really accommodate more stars--there's still only one MVP, one pennant winner, 9ish all-stars etc. But when there are more teams in more leagues, there's more black ink, more trophies, more champions, more everything. Mostly, more stars.

But this is a good point, and yes, elevate Minnie and drop Bob.

Joe Dimino,

I wonder how Jack Quinn scores so high on your Pennants Added chart. Is it the leveraged relief innings? Have you given an appropriate discount for his best season WAR of 7.5 being in the 1914 Federal League, at a time when Quinn couldn't hold down an AL or NL job? Your chart has been a big help for me ranking pitchers effectively, and Quinn strikes me as an obvious anomaly.

I think that there might be a risk developing in trying to judge players according to overall talent level in the major leagues, docking Johnson for playing in an all-white league, for example, and worrying that we're raising thirties players over those of prior and subsequent decades just because of the talent influx during the fifties. The risk is that, as part of the HOM constitution, we are supposed to seriously consider 19th century players and Negro League players, but those two types of player also played in diminished environments. If Johnson is less impressive for playing without the competition of blacks, then why aren't the NeLers' cases muddied by the absence of white players from the leagues in which they played? And someone suggested earlier in one of these threads that it was easier to dominate in the 19th century because of smaller leagues and fewer players.

Now, it would obviously be silly and wrong to exclude everyone but post-1947 major-leaguers from the HOM, and we obviously aren't doing that. We're figuring out which NeLers to elect based on a variety of factors that does seem like the best combination at this time. One of the key factors in that system, however, is NeLer performance against contemporary major-leaguers and MLEs for their NeL stats that are derived from such; these were the same major leagues in which the 20s, 30s, and 40s major-leaguers about which we're worried played. In this case, then, we've considered each league to be what it is, and elected players from them based on the best evidence we have, which for Bob Johnson is his performance in the 30s and wartime AL. In the case of someone like Jake Beckley, we have to consider him in the context of the 1890s and 1900s NL. There's no alternative unless we want to have underrepresentation from every era and league of baseball before integration. What's meritorious is that which was meritorious in its native time and place.

Well, I did drop Johnson and raise Minoso but actually they didn't move at all in the placements. Johnson is getting most of his value in my rankings from his BRAA. Johnson's value above average is much higher than Minoso's value above average. Minnie gets a replacement value bump up but it still doesn't get him near Bob Johnson.

If you look at the composition of the HoM, it's hard to make the case that we have been too hard on "diminished environments." Even I wouldn't argue that we've elected too few 19C players, just that we missed a few who happened to be deserving--Browning, C. Jones, etc. There are a bunch of 19C contenders still getting votes, but that's just because we disagree on who the best ones are (due to the dreaded uncertainty factor).

The only candidate left from the '30s is Bob Johnson and it's hard to claim that he hasn't gotten a fair hearing, at least not on the basis of his era.

If you just compare ML numbers for Johnson and Minoso, BTW, you're missing out on Minoso's NeL career. Certainly it was not peak or even prime territory, but it adds. Some say Johnson should get some MiL credit, which makes for an interesting juxtaposition. It's my belief, hwoever, that other than maybe Monte Irvin, nobody with a really significant ML career has gotten any boost at all from his addition MiL or NeL work. Otherwise, Cravath, Waddell and Keller, and Minoso, among others probably, would be doing a little better. (We did elect Averill and Griffith and the XC that a few voters gave for MiL play didn't hurt, but it was not decisive, I don't think.)

If there is an era that is underrepresented, I believe it is the integration era for black players--players who, like Minoso, split their careers between the NeL and the "white" M or MiLs. Lots of guys (Wilson, Clarkson, ???) moved into the "white" M or MiLs but didn't get a fair opportunity to play in the MLs. We have elected (I am going off the top of my head here) 10-12-15 black players from 1935-45 and a similar number from 1955-65, but only about 4-5 from 1945-55. (Somebody posted a list a couple months ago, anybody help me here?)

I'm considering minor league credit for Cravath (4 years), Minoso (1 year), Keller (1 year) but I won't do it for Waddell. Rube was out of the majors because his personality made him unreliable and undependable. He stayed out of the major leagues partly by choice and partly through behavior to the detriment of his team. It is a credit to Connie Mack that Rube had any value to the major leagues at all.

I'm not a great believer in minor league credit, but if Waddell deserves any, it's for the beginning of his career not the end. By 1910 he was clearly not a very good major league pitcher, whereas in 1897-99, he was, but was kept out (entirely so in 1898) I presume by the shenangigans surrounding the Louisville franchise at that time (it was being merged with Cleveland to create one good team and the 1899 Cleveland Spiders.) Probably only about a year of credit, if you give credit, but it's not fair to dismiss him as a dopey drunk who doesn't deserve it.

I'm not a great believer in minor league credit, but if Waddell deserves any, it's for the beginning of his career not the end.

I agree with you on the latter part, karlmagnus. In fact, if we had a reasonable idea of how he did in the minors prior to the ML, I would adjust my ranking of him accordingly.

His MiL record has been posted. I don't have the details anymore, but he was pretty effective. I mean, every bit as much so as the Clark Griffiths and Earl Averills and Bob Johnsons who some give MiL credit to. Something like 17-5 or was it 13-5 in a season in which he played half a year in the bigs.

Did we ever get MLEs for him, Marc?

I don't think we ever had a translation.

DL:

I think it's been semi-established that Rube was of limited intelligence. So I have doubts as to how much "choice" played a role in his not playing in the so-called major leagues. And it would also explain the behavioral issues.

I have difficulty penalizing a player who may not have had true awareness as to his position within an organization. To the outside he may have been the "ace" of the team pitching staff. But to Rube he was likely just a guy who got to go on train rides, chase fire engines, and every so often play baseball with his friends. One could make the claim that Mack was exploiting Waddell. As such, I don't see how Rube's career can be considered as anything less then a success.

Frankly, it is one of the first major mainstream integration success stories of the 20th century with respect to having someone with a "disability" perform a service of value in the marketplace.

2 quickies - at the SABR Convention, not much time . . .

First, according to WARP and weighted by my translated innings, Marichal had exactly average defensive support, not "historically great defensive support", as was mentioned above.

Second,

"I wonder how Jack Quinn scores so high on your Pennants Added chart. Is it the leveraged relief innings? Have you given an appropriate discount for his best season WAR of 7.5 being in the 1914 Federal League, at a time when Quinn couldn't hold down an AL or NL job? Your chart has been a big help for me ranking pitchers effectively, and Quinn strikes me as an obvious anomaly"

I docked him for the Federal League, gave him a huge discount for 1914-15 adding .17 and .28 to his RA/9, which is higher than my AL discout for 1944-45.

But I also gave him credit for his PCL years, 1916-18. Check his thread for the details, but essentially is was 250 IP (216.3 tIP) at a 4.26 DERA for 1916, 306 IP (259.3 tIP) at a 3.89 DERA for 1917 (where he was great in the PCL) and about 3/4 of a season in 1918 for his PCL work before he returned to MLB, with 200 IP at a level that brought his overall DERA from the high 2's (he was great in his 1918 return) up to 3.89.

The grand total is about .140 or so PA for those years (.037, 1916; .061, 1917; about .040 for 1918). So without any extra credit I'd still have him about even with Grimes.

His estimated career LI is 1.26, and that's over 778 relief IP, which is a ton. I gave him credit for 15 relief IP each year 1916-18, since that fits in with his surrounding years, but only gave him a 1.12 LI for 1916-17. He has a 1.5 for 1918 - but that's based on what he actually did in his return. 1930 and 31 he had a ton of relief value, tossing 68 and 58 IP, LI's of 1.66 and 1.81 going a combined 13-6 with 21 SV.

Joe, thank you for taking time out from Seattle to answer my Jack Quinn question.

You have convinced me to move Quinn up from "the HoM netherworld" to "behind Bridges but ahead of Grimes". That said, Bridges is about 20th-25th in my set now, so Quinn is still a ways from my ballot. I agree with posts by andrew siegel and Max Parkinson in the Faber/Rixey/Quinn thread that you're slightly over-optimistic with credit for Quinn's 1914-1918 stretch. He also has the worst 5-year peak of all pitchers on your chart.

Getting back on track, Marichal is an easy call for my 1980 pHoM, and voters who like him ought to support Pierce as well.

I'm not a great believer in minor league credit, but if Waddell deserves any, it's for the beginning of his career not the end. By 1910 he was clearly not a very good major league pitcher, whereas in 1897-99, he was, but was kept out (entirely so in 1898) I presume by the shenangigans surrounding the Louisville franchise at that time (it was being merged with Cleveland to create one good team and the 1899 Cleveland Spiders.)

I'm not sure of the exact details, but something isn't right here. St. Louis was the team that got commingled with Cleveland to produce the 1899 Spiders. Louisville did wind up kind of getting merged with Pittsburgh when they went down to 8 teams, but I don't know of any specific wackiness before then.

I'm not sure of the exact details, but something isn't right here. St. Louis was the team that got commingled with Cleveland to produce the 1899 Spiders. Louisville did wind up kind of getting merged with Pittsburgh when they went down to 8 teams, but I don't know of any specific wackiness before then.

Yeah, you are correct. Lou/Pit were a syndicate. Cle/StL and Bro/Bal were the others. The Cle-StL shenanigans were famous. Something a bit similar happened in Bro-Bal but with McGraw/Robinson staying in Baltimore and building a winner with young players there. I don't know if there was a fourth syndicate or not (Washington was the other contracted team).

Louisville and Pittsburgh were evenly matched, though. With Wagner/Clarke/Leach on the Colonels and Tannehill/Leever/Chesbro on the Pirates. And I don't know how contraction helps earn you a job.

Louisville in 1899 was a "free" team, not captive like the Spiders - there's no funny business about the '99 Colonels roster. The franchise was collapsed after the 1899 season, with the best talent merged into the Pittsburgh roster.

Louisville pitchers, 1899: The top 4 were Phillippe, Cunningham, Dowling, and Woods. Young part-time pitchers included Magee, Waddell, and Flaherty.

Pittsburgh pitchers, 1899: The top 5 were Leever, Tannehill, Hoffer, Chesbro, and Sparks.

Pittsburgh pitchers, 1900: the top 5 were Phillippe, Leever, Tannehill, Chesbro, and Waddell.

Dowling (age unknown) and Woods (age 24) had ERA+ of 124 and 117 in 1899. That they were passed over for spots in the Pirate rotation in favor of the younger Waddell seems to imply that the management thought highly of Waddell.

And there were "victims" of that merge. One was Dummy Hoy, who couldn't displace the Pirate incumbent, Ginger Beaumont. Hoy found his way to the Chicago White Sox a year before Ban Johnson finally declared that the AL was a major league. Dowling resurfaced briefly in the AL; Woods made one token appearance for the Pirates and then didn't make it back to the majors.

A little Louisville Colonels history:

winter 1891: As negotiations progress for the AA Louisville to team to merge into the NL, the owner, Lawrence Parsons, sold the club at auction to pay off a mortgage. New owner is Dr. Stuckey.
winter 1892: Stuckey sells out to Fred Dresler.
1897: Barney Dreyfuss and Harry Pulliam become owners.
Aug 1899: home field, Eclipse Park, burns down. Delays in insurance settlement lead to most of the remaining home games to be played on the road.
Dec 6, 1899: Dreyfuss and Pulliam reveal they have purchased a half interest in the Pittsburgh team. Same day, Dreyfuss announced the following trade:
Louisville receives: Jack Chesbro, Paddy Fox, John O'Brien, Art Madison, and $25000
Pittsburgh receives: Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke, Tommy Leach, Claude Ritchey, Chief Zimmer, Mike Kelley, Deacon Phillippe, Rube Waddell, Walt Woods, Tacks Latimer, aand Patsy Flaherty.
Winter Meetings: Other Louisville directors go to meeting hoping to get a $20000 buyout from the NL.
March 9, 1900: Louisville owners accept a $10000 buyout from NL. Chesbro returns to Pittsburgh with the dissolution of Louisville.
Above from Total Ballclubs.

Early Rube Waddell Timeline:
1897: Signs a $500 contract with Louisville at age 18. Jumps team after being fined $50 by Fred Clarke for excessive drinking. Pitches 2 games.
1898: Goes to Detroit of the Western League. Pitches 9 games and jumps team to pitch semi-pro in Canada
1899: Returns to Western League with Columbus-Grand Rapids and wins 27 games. Louisville gives him another chance, goes 7-2.
1900: Goes 8-13 with Pit but leads league in ERA. Jumps team/farmed out/let go with sighs of relief to play for Connie Mack with Milwaukee in the Western League in July. After going 10-3 in the summer for Milwaukee, Pit demands his return. Finishes year with league best ERA.
1901: Clarke again fed up with Waddell after 2 starts at beginning of season. Dreyfuss sells him to the Cubs. Suspended for last month of season for erratic behavior. Plays for semi-pro team in Wisconsin.
1901-02: Hooks up with barnstorming team and makes it to California where Mack signs him for the Athletics in early summer of 1902.
From Total Ballplayers.

Louisville, St. Louis, they're all out West somewhere. Sorry!

46 minor league wins ought to be worth a season of minor league credit for Rube, I would think. To those who dismiss it because of alcohol/stupidity, just think how good he'd have been if he hadn't been a dumb alcoholic!

Will move him a few places up my ballot, I think; he was already on it.

Rube doesn't sound like much more of a pain than John Beckwith and we looked the other way on him.

Given that his MiL years were also contraction years, it's a fair argument, especially in light of the arguments for Averill and Johnson and Clarkie and Keller. I don't see how this is different.

PS. Of course, I've never given Rube any MiL credit. But as a peak voter, MiL credit doesn't have much impact on my voting anyway. Rube's existing ML peak is borderline historic as it is.

Personally, I give extra credit rather liberally. Charley Jones gets 2+ years for suspension, Ralph Kiner gets one for WWII, Keller gets 1.75 for WWII, and big believer in NeL MLEs. But I have not given credit to Waddell before because I don't see his minor league sojourns as anyone's fault but his own.

1897: NL Louisville - At 18, he was good enough to be a major leaguer, but Fred Clarke tried to reign him in and Waddell jumped the team.
1898: Western League Detroit - Jumps the team to pitch semi-pro ball in Canada.
1900: NL Pittsburgh - leads the league in ERA but jumps team in middle of year to play for Connie Mack in Western League Milwaukee, before returning at end of year.
1901: NL Pittsburgh - Clarke finally at wits end and has Dreyfuss sell Waddell to Cubs. Cubs suspend him for last month of season. Ends up in California barnstorming.
1902: Wins 10-12 games in Los Angeles before Mack purchases contract for Athletics.

The contraction years were 1899 and 1900.
In 1899, Waddell was 20 years old and had jumped 2 contracts in two years. I could see a team being hesitant about bringing him back.
In 1900, Waddell started the year with Pitt, but jumped team/left team/ something in the middle of the season, but was brought back by the end of the season.

To me, I see a player who was okay with playing in the "major" leagues, but was also okay with not playing. I see Fred Clarke bring him back to his team two times after he jumped the team. Many players were blackballed for such. Waddell wasn't. I don't see a player trapped. I don't see his career being hurt much, if at all, by the 4 team contraction. I see a player with phenomenal talent who got every chance in the book.
Personally, that is why I don't think Waddell deserves any minor league credit. Your Mileage May Vary.

Why isn't this in the Waddell Thread? I ask because after Marichal is elected next week, people are going to have a hard time finding this.

I'd recommend moving the relevant items to the Waddell thread via cut/n/paste..

back to Marichal

ERA+s, must pitch 154/162 IP, and at least 100..
Marichal 169 66 65 44 32 22 19 16 13 00
Drysdale 154 49 40 29 28 22 18 17 15 13
JBunning 150 49 43 42 34 32 29 14 14 04
BilPierce 201 48 41 36 33 24 15 13 08 07 07 05 04 03
EarlWynn 154 42 36 35 26 18 15 10 09 03
MiPappas 137 33 33 28 21 16 16 13 13 12
(Pierce's 201 is not a top-10 IP season.)

Marichal top 10 in IP: 1 1 3 5 5 6 8 8
Drysdale top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 5 9 9 10
JBunning top 10 in IP: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 8
BiPierce top 10 in IP: 3 3 3 5 5 7
EarlWynn top 10 in IP: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 7
MiPappas top 10 in IP: 7 10

Marichal ranked 5-3-8 in his three awesome ERA+ years, all of which crush this field (except debatable with 1 Pierce yr). He does lose ground to Drysdale-Bunning-Wynn, but he's reasonably durable as well. He's even still competitive in ERA+ in yrs 8-10, and only perhaps Pierce has a tail worth much at all beyond that.

Pierce was by top P last year at No. 6; Marichal noses him out this time via durability.

I can't imagine this guy not being on a ballot.

I can't imagine this guy not being on a ballot.

He'll be left off ballots by the same voters who left Drysdale and Bunning off their ballots: folks who apparently wouldn't be concerned if the HoM had only 15% pitchers or something like that.

Nevertheless, he'll be elected handily, just as Drysdale and Bunning were.

I think Drysdale's record is better because his durable seasons and his effective seasons match up better than Marichal's do, Pierce's because he had a longer prime. But Marichal will be on my ballot.

Not so fast!

Drysdale was #15, Bunning off ballot when elected. Marichal will be on my ballot, though not at the top. For a peak voter, anyway, there is a clear difference between Marichal and Bunning-Drysdale. Peaks in the 160s versus the 140s and 150s are where I sorta draw the line of what a great peak looks like (of course there are great peaks and great peaks--i.e. even Marichal's is not off the map, but again, it is different and clearly better than the other two).

Nevertheless, he'll be elected handily--if he can eek by the Norm Cash bandwagon, which based on prelims is not a given.

I think the problem for many pitchers especially may be the love of "rate stats."

A lot of guys who are utter workhorses could have had seemingly higher 'peaks' if they just sat out more often. Some of the newer stats supposedly make up for this by awarding more 'points' for more frequent play, but I don't feel as if they address it sufficiently.
You have two guys with 250 IP worth of 150 ERA+ level. But one guy throws another 50 extra innings at around league-average, knocking around 10 pts off his end-season ERA+ tally.
That second guy's the more productive pitcher, I'd say, given that it's another 50 IP of league average. Every team has to give IP to below-average pitchers, and if the stud pitcher can give you a ton of great innings and another 50-60 average innings, that's tremendous.

The same can be said about hitting rates, but the act of pitching itself breaks down an arm eventually - whereas it seems more like Father Time (or playing a tough defensive spot) does it to hitters.

Marichal is quite close to Bunning and Drysdale; that would take me a while to sort out. Pierce is a bit of a different animal, but I like what he did as well.

I base my votes largely on career value. I did not vote for either Drysdale or Bunning. To coin a phrase, I think they are borderline Hall of Famers. And the Hall of Merit has even higher standards.

But Marichal will be high on my ballot this year since he is definitely better than those guys. Marichal has much better performance in three areas I consider quite important. Complete games (era-adjusted), win pct relative to team, and baserunners per nine innings (era adjusted). I cannot imagine any voter leaving off Marichal from their ballot and I cannot imagine Marichal not being elected soonest.

Personally over the years I have been lonely friends of several pitchers that I thought merited serious consideration but have fallen way short. Including Addie Joss, Rube Waddell, Urban Shocker, Lefty Gomez, and Tommy Bridges (the only one of these faves still on my ballot).

Finally, I am sure that we'll have plenty of pitchers in the HOM. We are entering an era when there are innumerable pitchers with stellar credentials. Just off the top of my head, we'll be seeing Seaver, Blyleven, Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Palmer, Niekro, Sutton, Gibson, Jenkins, and John.

Given that several voters who did not support Drysdale and Bunning are indicating that they do support Marichal, I think he's almost certain to be elected in 1980.

Myself, I don't see much difference between the three, though Marichal's CG advantage gives him a leverage boost that is probably not reflected in the comprehensive metrics that could push him ahead. (Marichal's win pct relative to team is strongly influenced by his outstanding run support, so I don't see a significant edge there.)

Finally, I am sure that we'll have plenty of pitchers in the HOM. We are entering an era when there are innumerable pitchers with stellar credentials. Just off the top of my head, we'll be seeing Seaver, Blyleven, Carlton, Perry, Ryan, Palmer, Niekro, Sutton, Gibson, Jenkins, and John.

I agree that we are on track to elect a reasonable number of pitchers, though after the group Rob Wood listed passes through, we won't see many more serious pitching candidates. It will be very interesting to see how the electorate evaluates Sutton and John (and Kaat).

Highest CG Percentage, Expansion Era
For all pitchers with 100+ CG from 1961- (totals include entire career)

53.4 244 J. Marichal
52.9 255 B. Gibson
45.4 172 M. Cuellar
44.9 267 F. Jenkins
43.9 303 G. Perry
43.6 137 S. Koufax
42.7 152 M. Stottlemyre
40.5 211 J. Palmer
39.8 105 D. McLain
39.3 195 M. Lolich
38.6 187 L. Tiant
38.4 114 W. Wood
38.0 181C. Hunter
35.9 167 D. Drysdale
35.8 254 S. Carlton
35.7 231 T. Seaver
35.3 242 B. Blyleven
34.7 149 L. Jackson
34.2 245 P. Niekro
34.1 103 D. Leonard
33.2 175 J. Morris

Let's do a similar list for Pierce.

Highest CG Percentage, Pre-Expansion Era
For all pitchers with 95+ CG from 1943-68 (totals include entire career)

57.6 279 Bob Feller
57.4 382 Warren Spahn
57.1 140 Johnny Sain
56.7 212 Hal Newhouser
53.7 188 Bob Lemon
53.4 244 Juan Marichal
52.9 255 Bob Gibson
52.1 125 Harry Brecheen
51.6 164 Ed Lopat
51.2 192 Dutch Leonard
50.1 305 Robin Roberts
49.1 158 Dizzy Trout
48.7 113 Mel Parnell
47.4 290 Early Wynn
47.2 133 Ken Raffensberger
46.4 153 Ned Garver
46.3 136 Don Newcombe
45.1 107 Larry Jansen
44.7 193 Billy Pierce
44.3 137 Allie Reynolds
44.1 149 Murray Dickson

Notice no Bunning on either list.

Notice no Bunning on either list.

Bunning is another eight positions down on the first list. Here is a more pertinent list with Bunning on it.

Lowest CG Percentage, Early Expansion Era
Includes pitchers with 330+ GS 1953-75 (totals include entire career)

22.6 340 Johnny Podres
23.5 756 Don Sutton
24.4 447 Jim Perry
27.3 333 Mike McCormick
27.7 465 Milt Pappas
28.7 488 Claude Osteen
28.8 625 Jim Kaat
29.1 519 Jim Bunning
29.8 346 Sam McDowell
30.1 369 Bob Buhl
30.3 396 Dave McNally

That's interesting, because there's a bit in the New Historical Abstract on Bunning, where he quotes Gene Mauch as saying that Bunning was a pitcher he "couldn't relieve", as his stuff was so sharp that when a reliever came in, the batters would say to themselves, "Oh, we can hit this guy". James speculates that Bunning may have been left in games longer than he should have (apparently not!), and that the bullpen may have blown more of his leads than normal (still possible). Is there a difference between his Detroit & Philly CG numbers?

did he make it ?

did he make it ?

One (of several possible) ways to answer a question like that: go to this link which is our general navigation hub page, and since you see here that Marichal was eligible in 1980, click on "1980 results". What you'll see there is that it was an elect 3 year, and we elected Kaline, Santo, and Marichal (in that order), all of whom finished comfortably ahead of anyone in the backlog. So yes, Marichal made it on the first ballot.