Everybody knows that Cash corked his bat in '61, but did he ever say if he corked in other years?

And as we have discussed a zillion times, if he didn't, he would have been the single dumbest player in the history of baseball.

And as we have discussed a zillion times, if he didn't, he would have been the single dumbest player in the history of baseball.

Oh, I agree, Steve. My post was really a counter-argument against devauling his '61 season due to corking.

And as we have discussed a zillion times, if he didn't, he would have been the single dumbest player in the history of baseball.

Naaah, if he didn't he'd still be number 2 to Matt Harrington, but he would edge out Rick Thumbtack Honeycutt

Gee I wonder if Cash was the only guy in the 60s to cork a bat. There was a game in Detroit in the 70s, Graig Nettles broke his bat hitting a routine fly ball and a bunch of super balls come bouncing out. Freehan is racing around grabbing all the evidence. Of course the "penalty" for the illegal bat was he was out, ie nothing. Guys did wild stuff then.

Gee I wonder if Cash was the only guy in the 60s to cork a bat.

There is no way to know for sure, of course. But it's somewhere north of 99.9% likely that someone other than Cash corked a bat in the 60s.

And the 70s. And the 80s, 90s, and 00s, and indeed just about every decade before the 60s as well.

Adair, I think, wrote that corking the bat doesn't help the hitter, it actually hurts him. I believe because the loss of mass more than offsets the reduced weight.

Don't you cork the bat in the exact place that you want it to be teh heaviest? The whipping motion you can get from a heavy barrell and light/thin handle is what I though created the power. Corking the barrell would seem to be useless in this context.

This, by the way, is a large reason for the HR boom as most everyone here knows.

On Cash, I doubt that he will make my ballot. I like Sisler more and had him at #16 in 1979. Cash is very similar to Howard, who was at #25. In the consideration set with a chance to make the ballot, but not there right now or in the immediate future.

Reposting material Marc presented on F Howard/Cash/Cepeda comparisons...

sunnyday2 Posted: June 13, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#2062246)

Win Shares

F. Howard 297/38-34-30-28-25-25-23-23-21-13-13-10 (12 years ? 10 WS)
Norm Cash 315/41-27-24-24-23-23-21-21-18-18-18-16-16-15 (14 years)
O. Cepeda 310/34-30-29-29-26-26-23-23-21-20-19-19-17-13 (also 14 years)

Howard has the shorter career but seasons 1 through 9 he is +25 on Cash and +6 on Cepeda. Through their primes Howard appears to have been the more valuable of the three.

OPS+

F. Howard 143/180-73-72-54-51-48-46-38-27-14-5 (11 years ? 100 in 100+ games)
Norm Cash138/198-48-47-41-40-35-34-33-28-27-27-26-24-21 (14 years, all above 120)
O. Cepeda 133/166-66-58-48-35-34-33-32-30-30-26-16-9-7 (14 years)

Again Howard leads in years 2 through 8 (and 1 through 8 vs. Cepeda.

On OPS+, some bedfellows

146-150--Lajoie, Wagner, Cravath, Flick, Heilmann, Kiner, McCovey, Schmidt, Stargell, Sam Thompson
145--Mathews, Hack Wilson
144--Albert Belle
143--Crawford, Howard
142--Eddie Collins, Killebrew
141--Babe Herman, Harry Stovey
140--Berger, Burkett, Reggie Jackson
139--Anson, Hamilton, Bob Johnson
138--Cash, Jack and Will Clark, Al Rosen, Snider
134-137--Doby, Bill Terry, Frank Baker, Reggie Smith, Vaughan, Brett, Chance, Klein, McGraw
133--Cepeda

Hondo is certainly closer to those inner circle guys at the top of this list than Cash or Cepeda are.

Assuming Mays and Sisler get elected, here's an early early prelim for '80:

1. Dobie Moore
2. Kaline
3. Santo
4. Kiner
5. Waddell
6. Doyle
7. Joss
8. C. Jones
9. Browning
10. Cepeda--not sure that the above (WS and OPS) supports him ahead of Howard, but here he is
11. Marichal--I'm not comfortable with Marichal this low, I have to see if I can come up with a rationalization
12. Roush
13. Willis
14. Mendez
15. Howard--not sure he doesn't belong ahead of Cepeda, as well as Cash

21. Cash--those years 2 through 9 just don't do much for me. A man needs a prime.

Then assuming we elect Kaline, Santo and Marichal, in 1981 it's 1. Gibson, 2. Moore, 3. Killebrew, 4. Kiner. And if we elect Gibson and Killebrew, in 1982 it's 1. F. Robby, 2. Moore, 3. Kiner, 4. Waddell, 5. B. Williams, 6. Doyle, 7. Joss, 8. Freehan. In '83 I have Brooksie #4, Torre #5 and Wynn just off-ballot.

For the reason jschmeagol wrote, I'd think that corking would help a hitter hit for average but dampen power. You could possibly get around on more pitches more quickly, putting into play a bunch of balls you otherwise would be jammed by or overmatched by. But you can't necessarily generate the additional force necessary to do anything other than hit a few more singles.

For the reason jschmeagol wrote, I'd think that corking would help a hitter hit for average but dampen power. You could possibly get around on more pitches more quickly, putting into play a bunch of balls you otherwise would be jammed by or overmatched by. But you can't necessarily generate the additional force necessary to do anything other than hit a few more singles.

From my limited knowledge of tennis and golf, it would appear to me that a corked bat would make the bat more "perimeter-weighted" which would increase the size of a bat's "sweet spot". Anyone know enough about playing with wood bats to know if the effect of missing the sweet spot on a hit is significant? (Bloopers become line drives, etc.)

But yeah, hook up a corked bat to a precise robotic batting machine and perfect hits won't go as far due to the loss of bat weight.

Anyone know enough about playing with wood bats to know if the effect of missing the sweet spot on a hit is significant? (Bloopers become line drives, etc.)

I played entirely with wood bats until my 20s (that's all there were), and then with aluminum bats in slo-pitch softball from my late 20s and through my 30s. The sweet spot on wood bats is unquestionably smaller, and it's most prominently noticeable as contact is made closer to the hands. Get jammed to the slightest degree with a wood bat and the ball goes nowhere and your hands are full of bees for five minutes.

I disagree with Al Peterson's conclusion in #11 because I give more weight to 1B and LF/RF defense than most voters do.

Still, in the spirit of sporting debate, I'm impressed by the breadth of Al's post, and it pleases me to see him rank Charley Jones and Pete Browning - great sluggers of times long ago - ahead of Cepeda and Frank Howard. After all, our ranks are not too dissimilar:

Al: #4 Kiner, #8 C. Jones, #9 Browning, #10 Cepeda, #15 F. Howard, #21 Cash.
Ardo: #5 C. Jones, #8 Cash, #15 Cepeda, #18 Kiner, #20 Browning, #21 F. Howard.

Same six ballplayers among our Top 21 - Al and I just place different emphasis on different skills, and that's what keeps me interested and voting!

Ardo,

Those are sunnyday2's views. I just moved the post over to get his numbers over into the Cash thread. His work could have been lost due to it being in another thread.

I haven't had my own full analysis on the ballot yet but here are my tentative spots for 1980 on the 6 you mention.

#5 Cash, #13 Browning, #17 Kiner, #25 Cepeda, #31 Howard, #40 C Jones

I'm most uncomfortable with Charley Jones, feeling I might be giving him the short stick. Let me re-examine what I have on him to solidify his position.

If you just average the 3 rankings of Sunny (that's me, erroneously labelled Al [you can't call me Al] in #15), Ardo and the real Al (#16):

The two highest rated on average are Cash 11.3 and Kiner 12.3. And those are the two players on whom I disagree most with Ardo and the real Al.

Cash: Me 21, Al and Ardo 5 and 8
Kiner: Me 4, Al and Ardo 17 and 18

So here they are again:

WS

Cash 315/41-27-24-24-23-23-21-21-18-18-18-16-16-15 (1 yr>30, 8 yrs>20, 14 yrs>10)
Kiner 242/37-35-30-30-23-23-19-19-15-11 (4 yrs>30, 6 yrs >20, 10 yrs >10)

Cash 138/198-48-47-41-40-35-34-33-28-27-27-26-24-21 (5 yrs>140, 14 yrs>120, 14 yrs>100)
Kiner 148/183-82-72-54-45-40-31-21-16 (6 yrs>140, 8 yrs>120, 9 yrs>100)

I would have to be a peak voter to prefer Kiner, and I am. Cash had that great fluke season but then Kiner had 3 to 5 years better than anything else Cash ever had. IOW his peak is clearly better. Prime is in the eye of the beholder: I could say Kiner had the better 6-7-8-9 year prime, but you could say, no, Cash had the better 8-9-10-14 year prime.

Kiner, by my reckoning, was a "great" player--just barely for a long enough period of time, it's true, but his prime defines him as a great player (OPS+ 140s to 180s). Cash had one great year but that's not enough to define him as a great player. His prime (OPS+ 120s-140s) defines him as HoVG for me.

Even more interesting is a comparison of Cash to Sisler. Sisler of course polarized our electorate quite well. Those who liked Sisler, including me, are probably going to be inclined to say that Cash lacks the big peak that makes Sisler a HoMer, albeit a borderline HoMer. Those who didn't like Sisler might say that Cash's declining years are so much better, that 14 years of a more or less conventional career arc versus Sisler's 7 great and 7 poor makes Cash more of a HoMer profile. I'm thinking we will also polarize on Norm. I also think Norm will be held back by the head-to-head competition with his contemporary, Orlando Cepeda. Though you couldn't conclude that from Ardo's and Al's prelims, it's true.

To me the arguments for Kiner over Cash also work for Cepeda over Cash, but by a slimmer margin, to be sure. In fact, I wonder if Cash doesn't look uncomfortably like Gil Hodges.

Cash 138/198-48-47-41-40-35-34-33-28-27-27-26-24-21 (5 yrs>140, 14 yrs>120, 14 yrs>100)
Hodges 119/142-42-39-37-28-25-23-22-19-12...

At least for years 2 through 10, which is a pretty long run in which Cash's median in 135 and Hodges' 126.5. Cash is better, yes, with the 198 and 4 more years after Gil peters out, none of which is included in the "prime median." But a "prime" differential of about 8.5 OPS+ points over a non-starter doesn't inspire confidence. (Also, throw out Cepeda's best year and his median for years 2 through 10 is right there at 134.)

So to me Cash isn't so differentiated from some other candidates. Yes, they're all candidates, but against his peers, at the time he became eligible, Sisler stood out by a considerably wider margin.

You forgot to season-length adjust when you compared WS between Cash/Kiner.

Cash has some in-season durability issues. Its worth noting that he only has 600 extra PA's
despite all the extra seasons.

Cash has some in-season durability issues.

Until late in his career, it really wasn't durability so much as it was that the Tigers just sat him down against some tough LHPs on a fairly regular basis.

Wasn't he on the sauce, too?

With multiple threads running, there's no obvious place for me to put this post. I guess I'll just pick one.

Here's my context-adjusted RCAA system for number of our "bat" candidates (including next year's). The units are something sort of like wins, or in the case of the first listing, tenths of wins. I've systematically removed years of little playing time (for instance, Killebrew is treated as starting in 1959), then sorting from best to worst. First, the years, from best to worst:



All the nonlinearities of the system are in full view in dealing with Cash's 1961 season: I think that season has been overestimated somewhat. But it's still by far the best season on this list.

The next version is just the cumulative sum of the previous: sum of best 2 year, sum of best 3 years, and so on. A factor of 10 has been taken out to improve legibility. And I've stopped each line at its maximum - no negative values.

Oops, I inadvertently left Santo off the second chart. Putting him back in:



For 1981, this makes clear that Killebrew is in and that Pinson is not a serious candidate. For 1980? You can spin this in several ways.

Here's my context-adjusted RCAA system for number of our "bat" candidates

OCF, are these position adjusted (RCAAP)?

One of those candidates is not like the others. Santo plays a "glove" position.
(As does Killebrew some years.)

Santo plays a "glove" position.

As does Pinson.

I don't know squat about Norm Cash. Was his fielding reputation as rosy as his WARP fielding numbers?

No, they're not position adjusted. Yes, I'm fully aware of the implications of Santo hitting like this collection of "bats" while playing 3B. And yes, Pinson was primarily a CF (I had to look that up - he played more CF than I had thought.) It's been pointed out that the HoM has an oversupply of CF, but we've just entered the Mays-to-Griffey drought. The rest of that discussion can wait for next year.

Was his fielding reputation as rosy as his WARP fielding numbers?

Cash was considered an average defensive first baseman; not bad, but nothing special. He was never considered anything close to a defensive peer of the best of the AL in those years: Power, Pepitone, Scott, Spencer.

O's numbers show the same thing that WS and OPS shows--Cash had one mega-year, then was one of the pack (and not the leader of the pack by any means) years 2 through 9. It is only years 10 through 14 that he catches up, much less gets ahead, i.e. it is because he played a couple-three extra years at a little better than Ernie Banks 1B level. I understand that career voters might like that.

But for some of you who are at least somewhat inclined to peak/prime, what is the story? I don't get it. Is WARP real big on Norm?

Cash's 61 WAS great. But it was an expansion year for the AL, and it is well known that a ton of other guys had great years in 1961. Together, that takes a bit of luster off of it for me.

Steve Treder (# 19) wrote:
Until late in his career, it really wasn't durability so much as it was that the Tigers just sat him down against some tough LHPs on a fairly regular basis.

Retrosheet now allows us to look at RHP/LHP splits. After reading Steve’s comment, I decided to try to answer the following three questions using the retrosheet splits:
(1) Compared to other contemporary left-handed sluggers, did Cash have more difficulty in hitting against lefty pitchers?
(2) Compared to other contemporary left-handed sluggers, did Cash face fewer lefties?
(3) If the answers to (1) and (2) are yes, how much lower would his OPS+ have been if he had faced a more typical percentage of lefties?

Here are the splits of Cash and several other left-handed sluggers:


* For Maris, Stargell, and Williams the splits data are missing a few games and therefore do not sum to career plate appearances.

With respect to question (1), it’s clear that Cash did have a large platoon split—the largest of this group of players. Other players with large platoon splits are Oliva and Yaz; Williams had the smallest platoon split. (Note - it was a bit surprising to see how poorly these star sluggers did against LHPs. After seeing these data, I have to conclude that most baseball teams are probably not platooning enough.)

On question (2), it is also clear that Cash did bat less against LHPs (21.5%) than the other players in the comparison group. Maris, McCovey, Powell, and Yaz also were sometimes rested against lefties. Jackson had the highest percentage of plate appearances against LHPs at 34.4%.

Answering question (3), if Cash had been given an additional 965 plate appearances against lefties, it would have raised the share to 30% (about the same as Oliva and Williams). Assuming he had the same platoon differential in those added plate appearances, his career OPS+ would have dropped from 139 to 134. It’s clear that limiting his use against LHPs contributed to his relatively high career OPS+.

Cash was a player with a combination of unusual talents and some apparent problems. While he was active, his talents were certainly underappreciated. In recent years he has become a favorite of sabermetricians, and from preliminary ballots it looks like he may do quite well in the HoM balloting. I wonder if the pendulum hasn't swung too far the other direction, and if an analysis that focuses on the statistics isn't overlooking Cash's weaknesses.

I think I will be ranking Cash about 25th, behind both Cepeda and Howard.

After seeing these data, I have to conclude that most baseball teams are probably not platooning enough

So, so true.

This is exactly one of the overlooked costs of the modern-day expanded bullpen, achieved at the cost of a batting roster spot or two: it inhibits the capacity of teams to platoon. A platoon arrangement at one position gains a team far more platoon-advantaged PAs than a LOOGY in the bullpen can hope to get.

adj OPS+ seasons by some 1B or OFS as a regular, 100 or better)
Snider 172 70 66 56 42 40 40 36 23 18 13
Minoso 155 51 49 40 36 35 33 31 21 16 13 08
RKiner 184 84 73 56 46 40 32 21 17 16
Howard 177 77 70 53 49 46 44 37 27 11 07
NoCash 201 50 48 42 41 36 35 34 29 28 28 26 26 20
Cepeda 165 64 57 48 35 34 33 31 29 25 17 10 06
Cash looks pretty good here.
Notes: I gave Kiner a 390 PA season at 116, and Snider a 435 PA season at 140 and a 415 PA season at 113 - but not a 365 PA season at 127, which sort of balances out. I gave Minoso one 108 bonus for Negro League play. I gave Howard a 459 PA at 149 and a 487 PA at 107. I gave Cash a 142 at 458 PA, a 141 at 428 PA, a 126 at 452 PA, and a 126 at 420 PA.

Hmm. Maybe that's not the way to go. Let's make it 477 PA for 154 games, and 502 for 162 games (like batting title qualifying). Now it's:
Snider 172 70 66 56 42 40 36 23 18
Minoso 155 51 49 40 36 35 33 31 21 16 13 08
RKiner 184 84 73 56 46 40 32 21 17
Howard 177 77 70 53 46 44 37 27
NoCash 201 50 48 36 35 34 29 28 28 20
Cepeda 165 64 57 48 35 34 33 31 29 25 17 10 06

(I also tossed out a 492 PA, 111 for Howard while leaving a 501 PA and 129 for Cash because the latter came in 156 games. That's a break for Cash.)

Kiner had at least 640 PA eight times in a 154-game season. Bonus! Cash reached that number only twice.
Snider hit 640 six times, Cash twice.
Minoso hit 630 PA 10 times, again, Cash only twice.
Howard averaged a stunning 690 PA in his three monster seasons. Bonus!
Cepeda was never once below 550 PA in a qualifying season. Bonus!
And of course Minoso gets the best fielding bonus, to boost his cause.

Now, the second chart is not quite fair to Cash, because he was productive in those 400+ PA seasons. But as noted in intriguing work by Brent, he kept hitting the 120 mark because of the wisdom of his manager.

I'm leaning at Kiner-Cepeda-Howard-Minoso-Cash, all probably top 20 (and Bob Johnson right in the running, 138 OPS+ for 8047 PA with some war issues vs Cash 139 OPS+ in 7910 PA with platoon-issues and extra-games-played-era issues).
But it's quite a battle, and it's liable to flipflop.

I agree with the underrated/underrated parameter with Cash. He's not quite as good as at first glance.