Call me crazy, but I don't think he will sail into the HoM like his "twin" Double D. ;-)

If Drysdale, then Pappas.

34 years ago he threw a pitch outside the strike zone. The ump called it a ball. Pappas hasn't stopped complaining about it sense. The Beatles song "Cry Baby Cry" wasn't written about him but it should've been.

Cry baby cry
Cry baby cry
You're old enough to know better
So cry baby cry.

My favorite fun fact about Milt Pappas: He won 150 games before his 30th birthday. Other liveballers who did this include: Hal Newhouser, Robin Roberts, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Gomez, Bob Feller, Vida Blue, Bob Feller, Greg Maddux, Catfish Hunter, Wes Ferrell, Jim Palmer, Mel Harder, Don Drysdale, and Bert Blyleven. That might actually be the complete list of liveballers who did it. They all had at least one 20 win season except for Pappas. He never won more than 16 in a season.

He had rotten run support, but apparetnly terrific defensive support in Baltimore. His H%s there are just absurd.

George Uhle and Dave McNally just miss the list.

I think I'd cry too if I lost a perfect game with two outs in the 9th inning. Bee hee hoo! :-) At least he got the no-hitter.

I find it amusing that his nickname was 'Gimpy' -- due to being a 'five-inning pitcher' and labeled a hypochondriac according to baseballlibrary. Explains why his IP totals are a bit low for his W/L records.

RA+ equivalent record of 195-159. Gets almost none of my "big years" bonus - his best equivalent season is 17-11 in 1964; after that, a lot of hard to distinguish seasons: 16-13, 13-8, 13-7, 12-8, 14-11. IP/decision is 8.54 - below average but not really unusual. Bad hitter.

Not at all similar to Drysdale (209-157 with some big years). Pitchers he does seem similar to (140-150 equivalent FWP, no big seasons): Larry French, Larry Jackson, Eddie Rommel, Freddy Fitzsimmons. A good pitcher, but you'd have trouble winning a pennant with him as your #1 because he wasn't a workhorse.

Doesn't make my ballot.

Milt Pappas was a better pitcher than y'all think - fifteen 14-11 seasons is no small achievement. That said, Burleigh Grimes was twice the pitcher Pappas was, and Grimes isn't in my top 25.

A guy like Pappas shows just how high our candidate floor has risen.

You know, guys, Milt Pappas thinks that Milt Pappas should be a HOMer.

Milt Pappas was a better pitcher than y'all think

I think he was a helluva pitcher, Ardo. He's still not Drysdale (who himself wasn't Clemens).

You know, guys, Milt Pappas thinks that Milt Pappas should be a HOMer.

Well, if we expanded out dimensions to a thousand players, I think he's a definite HoMer. :-)

With that said, Milt has the same chance of being an inductee as the late, great Doug and Irene Pappas have with our current setup. That is, none.

Or Erik Pappas.

Hall of famer Happy Jack Chesbro says:

"Hey, Milt Pappas is as much a HoMer as I am!"

Milt Pappas was a better pitcher than y'all think

I think he was a helluva pitcher, Ardo.

And so were Larry Jackson, Larry French, and Fat Freddy Fitzsimmons.

If it wasn't for Bill James, his similarity scores and his HOF book we wouldn't be "debating" Milt Pappas right now.

Similarity scores are heavily weighted towards Win-Loss record and career totals (not season totals).

Here is a comparison. "Dec" is decisions and EWPct uses ERA+ and Pythag (1/(1+(100/ERA+)^2))



Yes, Pappas was a very good pitcher, but the whole Drysdale thing is a red herring as Double-D crushes him in workhorseness and key peripherals. We could have punished DD more for not meeting expectations -- but that doesn't make Pappas any better.

With this issue *and* the Frank Robinson trade, Pappas is a bit more notorious that he really should be.

Whoops... a tab character snuck into that table! ARGH... All column headers shift to the right one.

Pappas is a bit more notorious that he really should be.

Pappas is also responsible for causing the instituting of the BBWAA 5% Rule

ARGH!

Whenever I see Steve Trachsel I think of Pappas. Watching Trachsel annoys me just like Pappas did.

My All-Annoying Team (meaning players I did NOT enjoy watching)

1b: Mike Hargrove
2b: Jerry Remy
ss: Ernest Riles
3b: Ray Knight
c: Thurman Munson
lf: Dave Kingman
cf: Dave Henderson
rf: Tony Armas
p: Milt Pappas
rp: Jose Mesa
M: John McNamara

Pappas is also responsible for causing the instituting of the BBWAA 5% Rule

Do tell.

Do tell.

The story, as I know it, an excerpt from something I wrote five years ago:

In the 1960’s the hall of fame wanted to reduce the number of players on the ballot by weeding out some of the marginal candidates. At that time, anyone active in ten seasons and retired for at least five years was included on the ballot and they could continue on the ballot up to twenty years after retirement as long as the writers felt like including them. It was evidently felt there was becoming an unmanageable number of candidates, due to the increasing number of long-career role-players and the expansion of the major leagues.
Beginning with the election of 1967, a screening committee began to sort through the first-year candidates, leaving off the ballot players who were obviously unqualified. This committee has done its job fairly well. However, it is entirely subjective, with no standards established to guide its work. This arbitrariness created the potential for cries of unfairness.
There was little controversy over the ballot screening until prior to the 1979 election. Milt Pappas, winner of 209 games (more than several hall of famers), was rejected by the screeners. He reacted bitterly and pointed out the fact he had as many wins as Don Drysdale, so how can you bar him from any consideration?
As a result the screening committee was trashed (for one year) and it was decided to change the rules to say that candidates needed to be listed on at least 5% of the ballots cast in order to continue on the ballot. That sounds pretty reasonable, but it simply hasn’t been fair. Incidentally, Pappas was one of the rule’s first victims, receiving only 1.2% support in 1979.
After six years the Hall essentially admitted the rule was bad when they had a committee reassess victims of the 5% rule. Eleven players were reinstated to the ballot in 1985. Interestingly, Pappas was not one of them. Four of these returnees (Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Vada Pinson and Curt Flood) continued on the ballot until their 15 years of eligibility were up. The same was done in 1986. Seven players, most notably Dave McNally, were given another shot. But they still kept the 5% rule, unchanged.

My favorite fun fact about Milt Pappas: He won 150 games before his 30th birthday. Other liveballers who did this include: Hal Newhouser, Robin Roberts, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Gomez, Bob Feller, Vida Blue, Bob Feller, Greg Maddux, Catfish Hunter, Wes Ferrell, Jim Palmer, Mel Harder, Don Drysdale, and Bert Blyleven. That might actually be the complete list of liveballers who did it.

From Lee Sinnins Encyclopedia:

The age 30 is the baseball age, and so if win 150 was before or after their birthday is questionable:

Doc Gooden, Roger Clemens and Ken Holtzman are definately additions to the list. Not Pedro or Mcnally too, October birthdays.

CAREER
1920-2005

AGE <= 30

WINS W
1 Catfish Hunter 201
2 Bob Feller 192
3 Hal Newhouser 191
T4 Don Drysdale 190
T4 Wes Ferrell 190
6 Robin Roberts 189
T7 Jim Palmer 174
T7 Ferguson Jenkins 174
9 Waite Hoyt 172
10 Mel Harder 171
T11 Vida Blue 170
T11 Juan Marichal 170
13 Tom Seaver 168
14 Bert Blyleven 167
T15 Ken Holtzman 165
T15 Greg Maddux 165
T15 Lefty Gomez 165
T15 Dave McNally 165
T15 Sandy Koufax 165
20 Roger Clemens 163
21 Dwight Gooden 157
22 Milt Pappas 156
23 Don Sutton 155
T24 Pedro Martinez 152
T24 George Uhle 152
26 Dizzy Dean 150

CAREER
1920-2005

AGE <= 29

WINS W
1 Hal Newhouser 185
2 Catfish Hunter 184
3 Robin Roberts 179
T4 Bob Feller 177
T4 Don Drysdale 177
6 Wes Ferrell 175
7 Waite Hoyt 161
8 Mel Harder 159
9 Dwight Gooden 157
T10 Vida Blue 156
T10 Bert Blyleven 156
12 Lefty Gomez 153
T13 Roger Clemens 152
T13 Jim Palmer 152
15 Ken Holtzman 151
T16 Milt Pappas 150
T16 Greg Maddux 150

Ah! Holtzman! I thought I forgot someone. I could've sworn I put Gooden on the list -- oh, I put Feller down twice. I thought there were 15-16 liveballers. Must be 16.

You're wrong on Clemens though. He had 146 when he turned 30. Sure he had 152 at the end of his age 29 season, but his birthday's in early August -- he was 30 for the last third of it.

>After six years the Hall essentially admitted the rule was bad when they had a committee reassess victims of the 5% rule. Eleven players were reinstated to the ballot in 1985.... But they still kept the 5% rule, unchanged.

Now that's bizarre. A one-time fix because the rule sucks, but keep the rule. Doh!

Now that's bizarre. A one-time fix because the rule sucks, but keep the rule. Doh!

Double doh!

I have a feeling that will happen again. As stupid as that would be, it's still smarter than not allowing quite a few wonderful ballplayers a real chance with the HOF electorate.

They wanted to reduce the number of names on the ballot? You know, we must have a thousand or more names "on the ballot." DanG prepares eligibility lists that normally contain three times as many candidates as even draw a comment, much less a vote. I think we've been able to cope, and I wouldn't have Dan do it any other way - if there's the slightest doubt, include him. Far more important is the list 80 or so candidates who drew votes in the last election. It seems that someone with the HoF could and should send the BBWAA a summary of the previous year's voting, just as a reminder.

There was little controversy over the ballot screening until prior to the 1979 election. Milt Pappas, winner of 209 games (more than several hall of famers), was rejected by the screeners. He reacted bitterly and pointed out the fact he had as many wins as Don Drysdale, so how can you bar him from any consideration?

"He reacted bitterly" can probably appear in any column ever written about Pappas. It should be his epitaph.

It seems that someone with the HoF could and should send the BBWAA a summary of the previous year's voting, just as a reminder.

I thought they did at some point. In Bill James' HOF book, he mentioned that the previous years voting was sent with the ballot starting in the 40s or 50s sometime. It greatly increased the correlation between each year's votes and allowed for candidacies to generate steam, etc. I don't have the book here for the exact quote or year they started doing so.

I hope they still do that.

I have a feeling that will happen again. As stupid as that would be, it's still smarter than not allowing quite a few wonderful ballplayers a real chance with the HOF electorate.

Well, it's been 20 years and they haven't done it again. And I don't expect they will reinstate anyone to the BBWAA ballot, due to the "New and Improved" VC. Don't worry, Will Clark will get a chance again...in 2023.

They wanted to reduce the number of names on the ballot?

They don't want to burden the electors with assessing too many guys, now! Those guys all have busy day jobs, dontcha know.

eligibility lists that normally contain three times as many candidates as even draw a comment

Also, it's for nostalgia purposes. It's fun to remember our old heroes, seeing how they stand with these newfangled metrics and all.

Yeah - hey! Julian Javier is eligible this year!

13. DavidFoss Posted: June 12, 2006 at 11:51 AM (#2061079)
If it wasn't for Bill James, his similarity scores and his HOF book we wouldn't be "debating" Milt Pappas right now.

That's right. Milt Pappas is famous! He belongs in the Hall of the Famous.

Four of these returnees (Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Vada Pinson and Curt Flood) continued on the ballot until their 15 years of eligibility were up.

One of them by mistake as Pinson did not get 5%. (I mentioned this before, Dan, and you misunderstood. He did not get 15% in 1985, either.)

Did they really essentially admit the rule was bad? Why retain it? Did they feel 5% had acquired sufficient notoriety and several of the "no first ballot" voters had died off?

--
26. DavidFoss Posted: June 12, 2006 at 02:56 PM (#2061275)
It seems that someone with the HoF could and should send the BBWAA a summary of the previous year's voting, just as a reminder.

I thought they did at some point. In Bill James' HOF book, he mentioned that the previous years voting was sent with the ballot starting in the 40s or 50s sometime. It greatly increased the correlation between each year's votes and allowed for candidacies to generate steam, etc. I don't have the book here for the exact quote or year they started doing so.

I hope they still do that.

Still do what? It's the year they stopped sending the preceding results, when they introduced the ballot, 1956. It decreased the correlation so that the preceding runners up were no longer routinely elected. Hank Gowdy, 10th in 1956, is the earliest person who finished in the top ten but is not a member.

Still do what? It's the year they stopped sending the preceding results, when they introduced the ballot, 1956.

My bad. I just looked it up and yes they stopped including the previous ballots that year.

Milt Pappas was a better pitcher than y'all think - fifteen 14-11 seasons (162 game average)is no small achievement.

A perfect candidate for the H.O.M. .... If M stands for mediocrity.

"He reacted bitterly" can probably appear in any column ever written about Pappas. It should be his epitaph.

True, but this one is justified. I mean, they let in Roy Face, Carl Erskine, Harvey Haddix, Vern Law, Don Larsen, Ed Lopat, Sal Maglie, Jim Maloney, and many others (I only got through the M's among players who recieved a vote) during the screening period.

A perfect candidate for the H.O.M. .... If M stands for mediocrity.

That "162 Game Average" line for pitchers can be a bit harsh on Won-Loss records. Loads of fine pitchers are at or near 14-11. Inner-circle guys like Maddux and Seaver are 'just' at 16-10.

Don Drysdale 14-11
Vida Blue 14-11
Don Sutton 14-11
Luis Tiant 14-11
Billy Pierce 14-11
Jim Bunning 13-11
Bert Blyleven 14-12
Gaylord Perry 14-12
Ferguson Jenkins 15-12
etc, etc, etc.

Pappas may not be much of a candidate, but lets not confuse HOVG (or even HOPG) with mediocrity.

Like Dick McAuliffe, Milt is another mini-Deadball Era player who passed on recently. Perhaps someone should copy Lawrence Ritter and interview some of these guys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/sports/baseball/milt-pappas-journeyman-traded-for-hall-of-famer-dies-at-76.html?_r=0

Like Dick McAuliffe, Milt is another mini-Deadball Era player who passed on recently.

Jim Ray Hart also died this month.

They wanted to reduce the number of names on the ballot? You know, we must have a thousand or more names "on the ballot." DanG prepares eligibility lists that normally contain three times as many candidates as even draw a comment, much less a vote. I think we've been able to cope, and I wouldn't have Dan do it any other way - if there's the slightest doubt, include him.

I realize this is a 10-year-old comment, but this would be terrible given the current Hall voting process. It works fine for HoM style voting, since you're simply taking the Top 3 vote getters, but limiting the number of names on a ballot with a percentage threshold for election (and a per-ballot limit) helps get people inducted. The best example of this was the most recent Golden Era ballot, where, given the voting parameters, there were simply too many names to choose from.

Wow, this thread is 10 years old.