Posted by Phil Rizzuto on October 04, 2005 at 10:22 AM

Did you see that, White? I have my own thread! Holy cow! Unbelievable!

Well, I'm off to beat the traffic.

Has anyone read "O, Holy Cow!"?

It's a collection of Scooter's strangest play-by-play moments set into poetic verse. It's a riot!

I've never seen that, Eric. I have to look for it Amazon.com.

BTW, whoever posted this...

Holy cow! A .706 OPS? I think Scooter's the least deserving member of the HOF and should be deselected.

...at baseballreference.com never heard of George Kelly or Rube Marquard (not to mention Ron Wargo's favorite pitcher :-), don't you think? Wherever you feel he ultimately belongs, he's no where near being the worst player in the HOF.

Here's a link to the book on amazon

O Holy Cow!

...at baseballreference.com never heard of George Kelly or Rube Marquard (not to mention Ron Wargo's favorite pitcher :-), don't you think?

Not that I don't sort of agree with the sentiment... and I suppose bb-ref just sells the pages to the latest or highest bidder... but it just doesn't seem right to see a bb-ref page sponsored negatively like that.

Holy Cow! The person who posted that has never heard of defense! Rizzuto, while not as good as Boncroft or Smith, is in the calss just belwo them defensively. He had more offensive value than Beauty as well.

One interesting note I found while writing my sernior thesis a few years ago, the Norfolk Naval base was so good at recruiting baseball players during the war that they had their pick of two shortstops; Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese! They decided, or more accurately Gene Tunney decided to keep Rizzuto so Reese was shipped over the the Air Base to play for their team. So at least one contemporary thought Scooter was better than Pee Wee!

So at least one contemporary thought Scooter was better than Pee Wee!

Yeah, but Pee Wee thought Dempsey was a better fighter. :-)

Not that I don't sort of agree with the sentiment... and I suppose bb-ref just sells the pages to the latest or highest bidder... but it just doesn't seem right to see a bb-ref page sponsored negatively like that.

I was kind of surprised to see that myself. I thought Sean had a policy against that type of comment, but that might have slipped through.

Eric, thanks for the link!

>So at least one contemporary thought Scooter was better than Pee Wee!

One contemporary *boxer.*

To me Rizutto is exactly a part of the good glove/weak hit crowd of Bancroft, Maranville, et al. Each is different of course but there are plenty of IF candidates who did both.

Pee Wee, OTOH, was another in this crowd, but had a longer career and a better bat, career-wise, than Phil.

Holy Cow, I don't usually weigh in here but I'll mention, as most of you must know, that Phil Rizutto is No. 17 all-time SS in the NBJHBA. There is no discussion of the conclusion he made in The Politics of Glory except to say that he rates Stephens behind Rizzuto and is sorry for any misimpression he caused by the prior book where people took him to say he thought Stephens was a better player than Scooter. He also states Scooter deserved the GG in '41, '42, '46 and '50 and that he also deserved the '50 MVP, and that Stephens never had a year as good as that.

Scooter lost three full seasons in his prime, especially on defense, to the War Effort.

--SF

PayRod, you make some good points, but if you even try to compare Rizzuto favorably to "PayRod," you're getting the bums' rush off this thread! :-)

Every other post in this thread has had the words, "Holy Cow!" I think I get the idea, although I have never listened to Rizzuto as a broadcaster.

But ... I did spend a considerable part of my childhood listening to Harry Caray. And Harry said, "Holy Cow!" Frequently. In the late 1960's, and it sure sounded like something he'd been saying for a long time.

So whose phrase is it, really?

I suspect the Holy Cows were concomitant. Rizzuto broadcasted Maris's 61st homer, so he went at least as far back as 1961.

So whose phrase is it, really?

Did a quick google. One site dates it back to 1942:

Holy smoke!, 1889;
Holy cats!, Holy mackerel!, both 1803;
Holy Moses!, 1906
, Holy cow!, 1942.

From "I Hear America Talking" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1976).

I guess it was common to say "holy" then something harmless to keep from using profanity.

I guess it was common to say "holy" then something harmless to keep from using profanity.

But why a cow? For what it's worth, I don't think the phrase "holy cow" would exist without the phrase "sacred cow," and in turn that phrase wouldn't exist without some vague knowledge of Hinduism.

None of which stops us 21'st century folk from saying "holy ####."

OCF,

You haven't heard of sacred ####?

Halsey Hall was an old newspaper sports reporter in Minneapolis going back to the '20s, and in the '60s he was the original color man on the Twins TV broadcasts. "Holy cow" was Halsey's trademark. In fact the Twin Cities SABR chapter is the Halsey Hall SABR Chapter and the quarterly newsletter is the Holy Cow.

I don't think Halsey knew much about no Hindus. If people were saying Holy Smokes and Holy Mackerel in the 19th century, here in farm country Holy Cow would have been a natural evolution. I'd say Holy Cow came from Holy (whatever) not from Sacred Cow.

Holy mackerel!, both 1803;

I didn't realize that Bud Selig is that old. :-)

I'd say Holy Cow came from Holy (whatever) not from Sacred Cow.

True, but some are guessing that they often pick something sorta religious so they can at least pretend to be blasphemous. Mackerel may have come from catholics eating fish on friday. Moses (and thus Moley) is already religious. One sight says that Cat or Cow may have been used as a substitute for 'Christ'. Kinda silly, but so is 'Geez', 'Dang', 'Darn', 'Gosh', 'Shoot', etc.

Of course it wasn't until 1975 that they come up with the Holy Hand Grenade.

Cripes!

I'm going to post a couple of favorites from O Holy Cow!. I'll try to reproduce them as they are in the book.

Colorado
They're having more snow
Out in Colorado.
Which is not Montana.
But it is not far from Montana.

             August 26, 1992
             Milwaukee at New York
             Sam Millitello pitching to Daryl Hamilton
             Third inning, one out, bases empty
             Brewers lead 1-0

Oklahoma
Boy I tell ya.
My geography for that part of the country
Is terrible.
Probably because there's a lot of snakes
Out there.
And I don't want to care to know too much
About that part of the country.
Two balls
One strike.
They got snakes in Oklahoma?
No?
No kiddin?
Great!

             May 25, 1991, WPIX-TV
             New York at Baltimore
             Seventh inning one out, bases empty
             John Habyan pitching to Mike Devereaux
             Score tied 3-3
             Final: Yankees 5, Orioles 4

The Man in the Moon
The Yankees have had a traumatic four days.
Actually five days.
That terrible crash with thurman Munson.
To go through all that agony,
And then today,
You and I along with the rest of the team
Flew to Canton for the services,
And the family ...
Very upset.

You know, it might,
It might sound a little corny.
But we have the most beautiful full moon tonight.
And the crowd,
Enjoying whatever is going on right now.
They say it might sound corny,
But to me it's some kind of a,
Like an omen.

Bot the moon and Thurman Munson,
Both ascending up into heaven.
I just can't get it out of my mind.
I just saw that full moon,
And it just reminded me of thurman.
And that's it.

             August 6, 1979
             Baltimore at New York
             Ron Guidry pitching to Lee May
             Fifth inning, bases empty, no outs 
             Orioles lead 1-0.

Eric, the first two are amusing, but the last one is actually poignant.

BTW, can you reproduce those "poems" here?

From the most recent Oxford English Dictionary:

1924: Dialect Notes V, 625: Cow, holy ---- vex[ation]: New York

. . .

1942: Berry & Van Den Bark, Amer. Thes. Slang, Section 194/6: Holy cow!

. . .

1949: M. Lowry, Let. 26 Mar.: "Holy great cow, what prose is this!"

To steer this back to his candidacy (I love the quips though!), I'm going to be a big fan here.

I was a big fan of Bancroft for awhile, and I like Scooter better. The D was A, if not A+ quality. There was bat. IMO he gets 3 peak years for the war, as he missed age 25-27.

Yankee Stadium also KILLED him as a hitter. If you have Diamond Mind, check out the singles factors for RHH in Yankee Stadium during the 40s and early 50s. He probably lost 15 points a year on his batting average to that park. The visibility must have been awful there, or perhaps the short porches in LF and RF allowed the corner fielders to position themselves in such a way as to prevent singles.

I think he's possibly the viable candidate most hurt by the war. Cecil Travis was hurt more (since it shortened his career), but he's not a viable candidate.

I know he's a whipping boy, but there's a lot to like here.

I had Vern Stephens #12, I see Scooter as easily the best MI on the ballot, I'll probably have him somewhere in the middle 3rd of my ballot this year.

Oh yeah, Holy Cow, the guy that sponsored that page is a #######!

I don't have the details, but I did a little WS study on Scooter, basically taking guys with a couple of WS either way at the same ages as Scooter on either end of the war, as a way to fill in his age 25-27 seasons. I figured this would account for things like PT as well.

IIRC, he got about 70-75 extra WS, something like 22-24, 23-25, 24-26 for the 3 missing seasons. Just something to think about when guaging him.

In terms of #17 at his position (if you agree w/James) being a HoMer, in our eventual final tally . . .

17*8 = 136

You would have to have a HoM that's about 29% pitching (assuming 25 Negro Leaguers make it) to say the #17 guy at a typical position isn't a HoMer.

We know we'll be short a few 3B and C, so that ups the 'quota' for the other positions.

My general screening criteria is that unless you were top 20 at your position, you've got to have some big positives for consideration. So in that respect Rizzuto is on the edge, but over it on the initial run through. I'd vote 'yes' if it were a yes/no ballot. I'm interested to see how he does when I catch up my PHoM.

"You would have to have a HoM that's about 29% pitching (assuming 25 Negro Leaguers make it) to say the #17 guy at a typical position isn't a HoMer."

Let me rephrase - if you have a HoM that's about 29% pitching, the #17 guy at a typical postion IS a HoMer.

if you have a HoM that's about 29% pitching, the #17 guy at a typical postion IS a HoMer.

Actually he's #16 SS by Bill James, not #17. Nonetheless:

The All Bill James #16 Team:

C: Roger Bresnahan
1B: Keith Hernandez
2B: Joe Gordon
3B: Ron Cey
SS: Phil Rizzuto
LF: Goose Goslin
CF: Richie Ashburn
RF: Harry Heilmann

While you can, of course, argue about rankings at any given position, this lineup looks pretty close approximation of the "Hall of Borderline" to me.

Of course, it is simply math to realize that if not #16, then we will be elected #17ff.

More interesting to me than the All-#16 team is the TNBJHBA All-Best Eligibles (or Very Soon to Be).

C- Roger Bresnahan #16
1B- George Sisler #24
2B- Jackie Robinson #4 or Joe Gordon #16
SS- Phil Rizzuto #16
3B- Al Rosen #14 or Pie Traynor #15
LF- Joe Medwick #13
CF- Wally Berger #13
RF- Gavy Cravath #29
P- Bob Feller #12 and/or Dizzy Dean #25, Carl Mays #38, Wes Ferrell #40, Lon Warneke #44

Well, it ends up looking a bit like the All-#16s. I guess what this says to me is if you like Rizzuto, you still gotta go through Medwick to get there.

As for Jackie and Feller having "low" career WS totals, James himself didn't think that was much of a problem and took care of it with his peak numbers and bullshit dump.

More relevantly, I think, we have inducted Bill James SS# 18 (Jennings), Dahlen (21), Monte Ward (35), and Glasscock (43) (and unranked Wright and Pearce).

If you agreed with some or all of those election, and lso electing the Top 16 Bill Jamesers, gets us to 21 non-Negro League Shortstops.

Well, that's if you think the 19th C. guys got a fair shake from James. I'm not certain they did and neither is he.

Doc and Matt, absolutely. Rizzuto won one deserved MVP. George Wright was the best player on the planet over a ten-year period from 1865-1875. It's more as if Stan Musial had been playing SS during Rizzuto's prime. So, without looking at any lists or numbers, off the top, the old-timers plus maybe James' top 15 would seem to be plenty of ML SSs.

IOW Rizzuto may become a factor by year 2000...? Or maybe not.

Yeah, James states that he has a timeline. However, I don't think his timeline is necessarily the big deal every makes it out to be. To me the biggest problem he has is that he doesn't schedule adjust WS, making everyone who played prior to the 154 game season seem like small potatoes.

Right now I would have to vote no on Rizzuto, meaning it is another Yankee that just misses the cut. He seems too much like Sewell, Lundy, Stephens, etc. to me.

Holy Cow!

Actually, James has a double timeline of sorts, since he doesn't schedule adjust WS, and then he does apply a timeline discount to older seasons. I agree that the lack of a schedule adjustment skews the numbers more.

I also think that any post in this thread without the obligatory "Holy Cow" is inappropriate and should be summarily deleted.

Somebody invoked Trammell's name above. Trammell, in my mind, is currently my 22nd-best SS of all time. Rizzuto is currently my 23rd. The margin is close enough that they could switch places easily.


15. Wells
16. Reese
17. Larkin
18. Glasscock
19. Jennings
20. Moore

21. Boudreau
22. Trammell
23. Rizzuto
24. Long
25. Wallace

26. Stephens
27. Pesky
28. Clarkson
29. Sewell
30. Ozzie

31. Bancroft

I think Trammell is borderline top 10 (in the 10-15 group). Maybe I'll miss someone but . . .

1. Honus

2. ARod (assuming reasonable remaining career)


3. Ripken
4. Yount
5. Vaughn
6. Banks
7. Davis
8. Dahlen
9. Wright

10. Appling
11. Jeter (projecting a bit here, best guess)
12. Trammell
13. Larkin
14. Cronin
15. Glasscock
16. Ozzie

next group, in no particular order (but a best guess), Boudreau, Reese, Rizzuto, Stephens, Jennings, Sewell, Wallace . . .

I haven't mixed the Negro Leaguers in, but I'd have him behind Grant Johnson and JH Lloyd too. Not sure on Wells, and I'd have him ahead of Moore.

I could see going through that group on SS (Rizzuto lands #17 among non-NegL retirees, just a coincidence with James), because 3B and C aren't going to be fully represented, and 2B is borderline.

I did this from memory and checking Dr. C's list, may

jschmeagol
Holy Cow! The person who posted that has never heard of defense! Rizzuto, while not as good as Boncroft or Smith, is in the calss just belwo them defensively. He had more offensive value than Beauty as well.

How so?

Rizzuto
- 10 full seasons and three parts, about 11 full equivalent, at OPS+ 93

Bancroft
- 15+ seasons equivalent to about 13 full at OPS+ 98
- namely, 12 seasons ~11 full at OPS+ 104
followed by 3+ seasons ~2 full at OPS+ 69

--
Joe Dimino on Rizzuto and the quasi-quota by position.

#26:
Rizzuto is on the edge, but over it on the initial run through.

#27:
"You would have to have a HoM that's about 29% pitching (assuming 25 Negro Leaguers make it) to say the #17 guy at a typical position isn't a HoMer."

Let me rephrase - if you have a HoM that's about 29% pitching, the #17 guy at a typical postion IS a HoMer.

#36:
I could see going through that group on SS (Rizzuto lands #17 among non-NegL retirees, just a coincidence with James), because 3B and C aren't going to be fully represented, and 2B is borderline.

"you could see it" sure sounds marginal compared to "on the edge, but [in] on the initial run through"

PhillyBooster has it right. In order to accept the Bill James Top 16 without qualms, you must expect a share of shortstops significantly bigger than the share at other fielding positions.

Put another way, granting doubts about Bill James rankings within the favored group (organized baseball under the 154/162-game season), and knowledge of those bypassed, I suggest that an appropriate allocation is
BJ Top 12 - election expected. why not elect?
BJ Second 12 - borderline
BJ #25 and below - election not expected. why elect?

Again, it is reasonable to elect a significantly oversize lot of shortstops.

On the other hand, is it silly to expect 30% pitchers in the end?

I don't think we know how many pitchers is silly. It will come down to who the nth pitcher is.

But re. the BJ rankings, Paul is mostly right.

• Top 12, why not elect?
• Second 12, why elect?

Except I would say:

• Third 12 if 19th century, why not elect? That is how far wrong BJ is on the 19th century. Any SS ranked 25-36 and 19C is probably better than any SS ranked 13-24 and 20C.

Good points Paul. I've never been set in stone on this, it was just something I was working through myself as I posted.

I would say that I have 21 total white shortstops (through Wallace).

I also think that 25% pitching is more my personal taste, though I could be convinced that 25-33% would be reasonable without much trouble. 25% works out to about 49 white pitchers through 2007 (IIRC). That would also leave 17-18 at each of the other 8 positions.

I could easily be convinced a 30% split is okay, which would be about 59 pitchers, and 17 at each position.

Obviously each position is not created equal. There won't be 20 3B in, and probably not 20 catchers or 2B either. So I think my #21 SS (Wallace) doesn't bother me at all as being in since he was early, and an easy choice for me.

I think there is a distinct cutoff betweeen Rizzuto/Stephens on my list, after that, I'm not as big a fan . . . but I wouldn't have a qualm either way, depending on the way the ballots land.

All I was trying to say is that, for me anyway, and probably James too, that Rizzuto is as borderline a candidate as they come (which isn't a knock).

And since the HoM is going to have a much better roster, I have zero issue with his being in the Hall of Fame itself, he isn't one of the 30 worst players in the Hall and by their standards (not the blatant Tommy McCarthy mistake standards, but the reasonable Dave Bancroft, Bobby Wallace standards) he's an easy selection.

25% pitching is more my personal taste, though I could be convinced that 25-33% would be reasonable without much trouble. 25% works out to about 49 white pitchers through 2007 (IIRC). That would also leave 17-18 at each of the other 8 positions.

I could easily be convinced a 30% split is okay, which would be about 59 pitchers, and 17 at each position.

I recall someone's argument for so many pitchers as 33%.
I expect about fifteen from the 1960s-70s.

Regarding my "silly" question, the replies make clear 30% is not a silly pitcher share but Joe's reply shows that 25% or 33% pitchers doesn't make a big difference in the number of players honored at a typical fielding position.

Obviously each position is not created equal. There won't be 20 3B in, and probably not 20 catchers or 2B either. So I think my #21 SS (Wallace) doesn't bother me at all as being in since he was early, and an easy choice for me.
. . .

agree
. . . (agree)

[Rizzuto] isn't one of the 30 worst players in the Hall and by their standards (not the blatant Tommy McCarthy mistake standards, but the reasonable Dave Bancroft, Bobby Wallace standards) he's an easy selection.

I might rank Bancroft higher (as a previous note suggests but doesn't state) or Wallace higher but not really quarrel with this.
Travis Jackson is a "blatant Tommy McCarthy mistake," I think you mean.

I recall someone's argument for so many pitchers as 33%.

I've argued in favor of that. Others have too.

I look at it this way. If you have 4 All-Star pitchers on your team, that's just as valuable as having 4 All-Star position players. OTOH, thoughout most of baseball history, if you have 5 All-Star pitchers on your team, you have a surplus and should make a trade to improve your team. To me, this argues that there are 4 starting positions at pitcher, just like there are 8 everyday starting positions. 4/(8+4) = 33%.

Now, in the 19th century there are less than 4 starting pitchers, and post 1975, 5 becomes the norm. And then there are the relievers. This may balance out, so that a good overall average appears to be around 4.

That's the theory. Now, it might be that when we look that deep into the pitching, and compare them to the corresponding everyday players, they don't look as good. Then arises the same questions that come up with the catchers: is the position too physically demanding, injury prone? Does it need a "bonus" to compete? We each have our own answers to those.

Well, except that nowadays when real men get together to play ball, there are 9 everyday starting positions ;-)

That should have been posted under an "Al Spalding" byline...

Joe Dimino wrote in #25:

I did a little WS study on Scooter ... he got about 70-75 extra WS, something like 22-24, 23-25, 24-26 for the 3 missing seasons.

I've done a similar study. The 10 most similars that I came up with were Boudreau, Cronin, Doerr, Glasscock, Bi. Herman, Lazzeri, Lombardi, B. Myer, Sewell, and V. Stephens. Based on the age 26-28 performance of the others, the median estimate for the WS performance of Scooter in his missing years are 29, 23, and 17 in some order, or 69 total. Since almost all of the comparison years were non-war years, these are estimates for a normal environment, not how many WS he would have had playing in the weakened competition of WWII.

Just tooling around Yankees.com, and according to it, Scooter's been in the booth since the late 1950s.

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nyy/history/broadcasters.jsp

Reputation Monitor

1. Wagner 414
2. Ripken 288
3. Yount 242
4. Banks 232
5. Smith 227
6. Vaughan 213
7. Cronin 211
8. Dahlen 211
9. Davis 208
10. Ward 208

11. Appling 201

12. Reese 195
13. Boudreau 191
14. Jennings 183
15. Wallace 180
16. Glasscock 177

17. Aparicio 174
18. Stephens 170
19. Sewell 168
20. Trammell 162

21. Rizutto 158--there he is
22. Bancroft 153

23. Wills 138
24. Maranville 137
25. Pesky 132

Scooter's been in the booth since the late 1950s.
Started doing Yankees games in 1957. I think he broadcast Giants games in 1956, after the Yankees released him.

I’m pleased to see that a number of voters are supporting Nellie Fox. I’ve long felt that HoM voters were not giving sufficient attention to players who contributed more with the glove than with the bat, so it’s good to see an outstanding fielder appearing on people’s ballots.

While we’re thinking about Fox, I’d like to remind voters of another candidate whose credentials are quite similar to, and (IMO) better than those of Fox—Phil Rizzuto.

Their careers (in elapsed time) were about the same length. Fox was a regular from ages 22 through 36; Rizzuto was a regular from ages 23 through 36. (I’m defining a “regular” as having at least 100 games and 300 plate appearances.)

Fox’s career OPS+ was 94; Rizzuto’s was 93. Both were slightly above average in OBP, but below average in isolated power.

According to Win Shares, Fox was rated an “A” 2B, and with 5.54 fielding WS / 1000 innings ranks second among HoM-eligible 2B with more than 10,000 innings. (Schoendienst ranks first; post-WWII second baseman have an advantage according to this measure because of Win Shares’ defensive spectrum shift between 2B and 3B.) Rizzuto was rated an “A+” SS, and with 7.14 fielding WS / 1000 innings ranks third among HoM-eligible SS with more than 10,000 innings (behind Marty Marion and Joe Tinker).

Nellie Fox won (and deserved) the MVP award for 1959. He led the league in games (156) and at bats (624), was second in hits (191) and doubles (34), third in times on base (269), fourth in average (.306), seventh in OBP (.380) and triples (6), and won the Gold Glove while leading his team to the pennant; win shares credits him with 30 WS. Phil Rizzuto won (and deserved) the MVP award for 1950. He ranked second in runs (125), hits (200), stolen bases (12), and times on base (299), third in doubles (36), fifth in games (155) and at bats (617), sixth in average (.324), ninth in walks (92), and tenth in OPS+ (122) while leading his team to the pennant; win shares credits him with 35 WS.

Fox averaged 20.81 WS/162 games; Rizzuto averaged 22.53 WS/162 games. During their primes (ages 23-35), Fox averaged 22.77 WS/162; Rizzuto averaged 24.84 WS/162.

Fox’s top 5 seasons in WS were 32-30-26-25-22=135. Rizzuto’s top 5 seasons in WS were 35-26-25-23-22=131.

Of course, Fox played 706 more MLB games over his career than Rizzuto. Let’s examine this difference.
- Rizzuto spent his age 25, 26, and 27 seasons in military service. Based on the average number of games he played during his seasons as a regular, he missed about 422 games.
- Fox was a regular at age 22, playing 130 games. By the time Rizzuto was 22, on the other hand, he had clearly demonstrated that he was capable of playing at the major league level, but the rich Yankee system held him back in AAA. Rizzuto had an excellent season at age 21 with the 1939 Kansas City Blues, one of the great teams of minor league history, hitting .316 and leading the league in double plays. With most other teams, that would have been enough to earn a promotion to the majors, but with the Yankees he found himself stuck behind 28-year old Frank Crosetti. Rizzuto went back to Kansas City for another season, this time hitting .347 with 201 hits, 124 runs, and 35 stolen bases, and finally received his promotion.
- For seasons when they weren't regulars, Fox played 119 games (mostly before age 22) and Rizzuto played 112 games (all after age 36).
- The remaining difference of 147 games reflects in-season durability. From ages 23 to 36, Fox averaged 151.3 games per season (149.2 games/season if the post-1961 seasons are converted to a 154-game schedule). Over the same ages, Rizzuto averaged 140.8 games/season. This difference probably partly reflects managerial preference—Stengel made heavy use of his bench and during his time as manager few Yankees played 150 games.

According to a win shares comparison, Rizzuto's higher rate of performance more than compensated for the games he typically missed. From ages 23 to 35 Rizzuto averaged 142 games/season and 21.8 WS/season, whereas Fox averaged 151 games/season and 21.2 WS/season (adjusting to a 154-game schedule).

If Rizzuto had played during the seasons he lost to military service, his career OPS+ and WS/162 likely would have been even higher—for most players, their age 25-27 seasons are among their best. Also, he may not have experienced an off year at age 28 as he adjusted back to baseball after the war.

Giving Rizzuto full credit for the seasons missed during the war, and possibly also a year of minor league credit, there seems to be a very strong case for ranking Rizzuto ahead of Fox.

Nice work, Brent.
I'll think all that over.

Another comment - one area where Rizzuto appears to be behind Fox is in peak. According to win shares, Fox leads in 3 highest seasons 88 to 86 and in 5 highest seasons 135 to 131.

However, if Rizzuto had his age 25 to 27 seasons back, it seems very likely that at least on of those seasons would have raised his peak scores. In post # 44, EricC presented an innovative method to project not only the average, but also the distribution of win shares over the three missing seasons. Based on the seasons of similar players at the same age, he suggested that the distribution of Rizzuto's win shares over the three missing seasons would have been about 29-23-17. This seems more realistic than simply plugging in the mean (23) for all three seasons.

If we include an imputed season of 29 win shares in our calculations of Rizzuto's peak, that would move him up to 90 WS for his 3 highest seasons and 138 WS for his 5 highest, with both numbers ahead of Fox's. Although this is just a projection, it suggests that with appropriate war credit Rizzuto likely would have matched or exceeded Fox's peak.

Good ponts. However, a bit of it hinges of giving Rizzuto an average of 23 WS for his three yeras in the service. I am currently giving him 22,20,18 so Fox beats Scooter in both peak and prime (if prime is measured by WS earned over 15 in a career). Plus, I belive that WS tends to be balanced more toward SS's than 2B. Still, something worth thinking about, I have Fox at #26 and Rizzuto at #34 for 1971.

Am I giving Rizzuto too few WS for his war years?

Oh and,

Glory Glory Man United! Carling Cup Champions 2006!

How much credit (if any) to give for years in the military service is, of course, a personal decision. But since Rizzuto averaged 21.8 WS/season during his age 23-24 and 28-35 seasons, I don't think it's unrealistic to assume he might have averaged 23 WS/season at ages 25-27. The thing I like about EricC's approach is that it's based on actual data of comparable players and it produces a distribution of scores as well as a mean.

I'd given Rizzuto a cursory regard on my first ballot, and put him in my "pending" tray. I've done some Brock2s for his missing war years:

Season      G      AB      R      H      2b      3b      HR      RBI      BB      BA      OBP      SLG    OPS     OPS+
1943      147      561     88     170     23     9        4      56      40      ,302      ,349   ,395   ,744     125
1944      154      584     89     174     25     7        5      58      40      ,298      ,343   ,390   ,733     116
1944      152      572     100    182     25     8        5      61      46      ,318      ,369   ,416   ,786     134

Unfortunately for him, he still doesn't gain entry to consideration for my ballot once these "statistics" are accommodated into his career record. I estimate he winds up with a career OPS+ of 103, which doesn't help him construct the kind of consecutive Prime I look for. What they give they also take away, so to speak. His bat during 1946-49 kills his HoM chances for me.

That second 1944 should be 1945. Sorry.

Those OPS+'s look too high. Did you adjust for the changing context during the war? Offense levels dipped from 1943-45.

No. That's an advisory I forgot to include. It wouldn't change my opinion, though.

<blockquote>Those OPS+'s look too high. Did you adjust for the changing context during the war? Offense levels dipped from 1943-45.

Probably- but he shouldn't have because brock2 doesn't know that offense dipped 1943-45 OPS+ should use 1941 & 42 offense levels to compute OPS+

Those OPS+'s look too high. Did you adjust for the changing context during the war? Offense levels dipped from 1943-45.

Why did the context change from 1943-45, though? Were there any changes beyond the exodus of talent, which for whatever reason hampered offense more than defense (plus pitching)? If it was just a matter of so many good players being absent, you would think that Rizzuto's numbers would be even better if he had played. This isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know.

I guess the question is, if you give Rizzuto credit for those years, are you assuming that only Rizzuto is being brought back to play, or that *everyone* is still around (i.e. no war)?

When you give WWII credit, I think the assumption is everybody is there.

I think I heard something about a soft ball during the war...??? Anybody?

second sunnyday2 on both counts.
War shortages led to the use of a poorer quality ball. I have seen it referenced, but won't go looking for the reference now.

I think I heard something about a soft ball during the war...??? Anybody?

Yeah. Balata ball during WWII.

I think Treder did an article about the Balata ball years over at THT.

Yeah. Balata ball during WWII.

the ball was dead

for instance- a pre-prime Stan Musial lead the NL in OPS+ both 43 & 44
his raw numbers weren't as good as his later post war years (after all the real players returned)

Okay, next question. Why would a changing offensive context affect Rizzuto's OPS+, which of course is relative to the other hitters in the league. They're all playing with the same ball, right? It seems to me a softer ball might actually help Rizzuto, in that a singles hitter could be less affected than a power hitter.

Okay, next question. Why would a changing offensive context affect Rizzuto's OPS+,

OPS+ uses league context, the league in 1943 hit .249/.322/.341
in 1944: .260/.325/.353
in 1945: .255/.325/.346

Brock 2 uses Phil's 1941-42 numbers to predict Phil's 1943-45 seasons
in 1941-42 the league was at:

.266/.341/.389 and
.257/.329/.357

Phil put up OPS+ of 96 & 103 in 1941/42
The Brock 2 generated seasons "thinks" the context of 1943-45 is something like .260/.333/.369 (weighting 1942 more heavily than 1941)

When you use actual 1943-45 league #s to compute Phil's OPS+ the result is too high
so Phil's hypothetical 1943 seaons of ,302/,349/,395
is compared to a context of .249/.322/.341 producing an OPS+ of 124
it should be compared to a context of .260/.333/.369 (because it was estimated using such a context)- which produces an OPS+ of 112

which is STILL too high
because whether you use .249/.322/.341 or .260/.333/.369 you are still off- because THOSE league wide numbers include pitcher performances- when BBREF computes OPS+ it removes pitcher hitting.

You do that and Phil's hypothetical OPS+ for 1943 becomes 105 or so...

It seems to me a softer ball might actually help Rizzuto, in that a singles hitter could be less affected than a power hitter.

possibly- but Brock2 isn't taking that softer ball into account- it assumes a continuation of 1941/42 conditions- so incomputing OPS+ you shuldn't use actual 1943-45 conditions but the conditions Brock2 thought were in effect in 1943-45.

Okay, got it. Thanks.

It seems to me a softer ball might actually help Rizzuto, in that a singles hitter could be less affected than a power hitter.

I dunno, giving Scooter a bonus because he would have abused wartime conditions more than the average player -- if he hadn't been in the military service that is... Well, that seems a bit weird to me. Also, I'm not even sure if that's the case. Hard hit grounders wouldn't be so hard hit with a deader ball and fielders might not find the holes in the infield. A deader ball affects more than just long flies.

Anyhow, the idea is to translate *both* the in-service and in-MLB guys to a hypothetical full strength league. The issue of credits & discounts because a lot less blurry if you consider 1943-45 MLB to be like a completely different league.

This is where WS come in handy. With the omnibus you don't worry about all those effects, you just figure what the total value would have looked like since the surrounding seasons are already adjusted for context.

Perhaps Rizzuto should get credit for his last minor-league season? From Brent in Post #48:

By the time Rizzuto was 22, on the other hand, he had clearly demonstrated that he was capable of playing at the major league level, but the rich Yankee system held him back in AAA. Rizzuto had an excellent season at age 21 with the 1939 Kansas City Blues, one of the great teams of minor league history, hitting .316 and leading the league in double plays. With most other teams, that would have been enough to earn a promotion to the majors, but with the Yankees he found himself stuck behind 28-year old Frank Crosetti. Rizzuto went back to Kansas City for another season, this time hitting .347 with 201 hits, 124 runs, and 35 stolen bases, and finally received his promotion.

Same situation as Keller: performed well enough in his first AAA season to merit a promotion, but held back, repeated the league with even better results.

To hijack this thread back to its earlier obsession, Harry Caray began his Cardinals' broadcasting career sometime before 1945. (He and Mel Allen between them practically retired the Sporting News's Broadcaster of the Year award.) I'd have to think that he would've used "Holy Cow!" well before the end of Rizzuto's playing career.

If I give Keller and Rizzuto MiL credit, and if that moves them up the ballot, then...

I feel like I gotta look at the guys they jump to see if maybe they got held back too, and should get some MiL credit. Then, if so, everybody is back at status quo.

It just seems to me that the concept of MiL credit because a guy got held back is applied a little bit selectively. What about Al Rosen? What about....

Well not all players were as good as Keller and Rizzuto when they were held back, I don't think you can assume that it would all even out. Keller, for one, has MLE's that show him to be around All-Star quality in both '37 and '38 ('36 and '37?). A number of the candidates we are looking at started early and struggled in the Majors at an age when Keller, Bob Johnson, and Rizzuto were stuck in the minors. I think if you only give credit to seasons that are average or above AND take out any first average or above season because every players needs a 'hey, look at me!' season, the list of players who would greatly benefit form MiL credit gets pretty small, especially once MLB teams started to own Minor League teams and there are fewer Arlett/Cravath type stories. I would think that half of them during this era are Yankees in fact.

Could we run MLE's for Rizzuto's 1940 season? It may help him if it is a 20 WS/6 WARP type of season or better.

>Well not all players were as good as Keller and Rizzuto when they were held back, I don't think you can assume that it would all even out.

I don't disagree, in fact this is exactly what I am saying. You can't assume either way. You've got to look at ALL of the players involved, not just the one immediately at hand.

I get the feeling that every new serious candidate that comes along has that question come up at some point. Aren't or haven't we given credit to Averill, Johnson, Keller, Maybe Rizzuto (assuming you give MiL credit)? Not to mention guys liek Willard Brown and Minnie Minoso, thoug that is a different case. I am wiling to look at more, but I dont' have the resources to do that at the moment.

Are there other obvious candidates? Remember, I think that it should take two very good MiL seasons to get credit for one. I guess that Al Rosen might be a candidate.

I doubt that "we" have done anything. Individual voters have.

I don't object to MLE credit from the MiLs or the NeLs or whatever, if anything I sometimes feel that we are not being imaginative enough--I mean, we have probably not elected anybody from the WWII generation who wouldn't have made it without any WWII credit, and I know we have not figured out how to give "the lost generation" of black players (whose primes came during integration) a fair shake.

It's just the fact that their application (of MLE credits) sometimes seems a bit haphazard. (And this is not directed at anybody in particular, I have no idea exactly who is applying the credits and who isn't.) But if voters give MiL credit to Keller and not Rube Waddell, just for e.g., there are many other e.g., then I think there's a bit of favoritism going on.

I get the feeling that every new serious candidate that comes along has that question come up at some point. Aren't or haven't we given credit to Averill, Johnson, Keller, Maybe Rizzuto (assuming you give MiL credit)?

I thought that MiL credit up until the early 30s was done because the minor leagues were independent and the transition of star minors players to MLB was not smooth. Cravath, Grove, Arlett, Averill, BJohnson & even JDimaggio had to be acquired from the best minor league teams of the day and the player had to choose to make the jump. In some cases (JoeD), the player certainly spent extra time in the minors due to the difficulty of the MLB team obtaining the player.

That rationale for MiL credit was at least how I was sold on its use. Now going through history and giving out MLE credit to every guy that repeats AAA for whatever reason (blocked by a star, team wants defense, bad management, etc) -- well that's not part of the original rationale and I'm not sure I want to be doing that. It complicates things greatly and is very close to 'what if' type of credit that we usually avoid here.

I agree with DavidFoss on this. I will throw in some MiL credit for integration era black players as well.
Normal management decisions, however misguided should not be made cases for bonuses or demerits.

But not as big a #### as the guy who sponsored the 2004 Red Sox team page.

But at least it's complimentary, Kevin (though their sales pitch is quite lame). The Rizzuto sponsorship is just plain ignorant.

Oh yeah, Holy Cow, the guy that sponsored that page is a #######!

But not as big a #### as the guy who sponsored the 2004 Red Sox team page.

Kevin, is there something about that Right Name, Right Now outfit that we should know something about? Are all of their profits funneled to one of Steinbrenner's Swiss bank accounts?

I may be an outlier on this, but I don't consider minor league credit to be "extra" credit. If a guy played baseball and played it well enough that he was one of the best [pick-your-own x] players around, then he should get credit for that season. As a matter of accounting simplicity, I assume most serious HoM candidates had one minor league season in which they would have been at least good major leaguers and let those wash out, but if a guy had multiple such seasons I count all-but one of them and if a guy had only one season but it was better than "good" I give him a bit of credit for it. In any given year, maybe 190 out of the top 200 North American professional baseball seasons are put up in the American or National leagues. Why shouldn't the other 8 or 10 guys get credit?

In any given year, maybe 190 out of the top 200 North American professional baseball seasons are put up in the American or National leagues. Why shouldn't the other 8 or 10 guys get credit?

Mr. Siegel, I have a Mr. E. Martinez on the phone. He says he'd like to discuss the implications of your question. Should I patch him through, sir?

Can I interest you in Dobie Moore circa 1916-1920?

I'm only arguing against giving MiL credit selectively.

So, also, Rube Waddell.

Doc, about that phone call from Mr. Martinez - is there a Mr. Boggs in the room with him?

It wasn't a question of if, it was a question of when

And that's offensive?

The Rizzuto thing is just rude. I'm not sure I see what's wrong with that quote, unless you had some kind of Stockholm-syndrome-like attachment to the idea of "The Curse."

I give Dobie exta credit and at one point had him in an elect-me spot. The most recent MLE's, however, suggest that between durability issues and deflation for high-run environments, his 5 or 7 year peak was not quite what I would have thought. He's around 20 on my ballot.

Rube certainly deserves extra credit, but since I have him 75th without it, it doesn't really matter.

Edgar will certainly be getting his due when he comes on the ballot.

This year I am adding in MiL credit for Bob Johnson (moves from 19th to 14th), Tommy Bridges (moves from 22nd to 15th), and Rizutto moves from 35ish to 25ish). Keller and Cravath already have credit.

Am I missing anyone?

And I don't think the Rizzuto thing is particularly rude either. Saying someone doesn't belong in the HoF, especially when providing a rationale for it, isn't rude.

Its reference web site. Along with retrosheet, its the standard place to look for a player's numbers. I guess they gotta pay the bills, but the comments/ads should not be negative in my opinion. Phil's friends and family will end up on that page looking for his numbers and -- although I agree he was not a great selection -- I think its tacky to have a comment like that up there.

the Grady Little brainfart season

OK, it's starting to make more sense now.

For looking at only one element, out of context, the rationale for why Rizzuto shouldn't be in the Hall is either poor (charitable reading) or purposefully deceptive (more likely interpretation). Pointing out the worst part of a player's game on the web page devoted to him is rude. As is rubbing in the Grady Little thing, if that's what that was about.

The devil made me do this....

So are Rizzuto's family forever to remain in darkness about the on the field strengths and weaknesses of their patrich? I agree that maybe saying he should be deselected is a tad overdramatic for the forum, but saying he didn't hit much is like saying my underarms smell badly. Some things are just always true, no matter how much I try to lacquer it over with deoderant. Why should Scooter's family be shielded from the knowledge that he often carried a weak stick? It's not like there's much room to contextualize that OPS with positional and league-based comparisons. And to answer the obvious redirect: One might venture an opinion about his HOF worthiness because it is the central question surrounding the player---whenever his name is brought up, that's what everyone talks about (unless they talk about his broadcasting, which is a somewhat related point, of course).

Dr. Chaleeko has only a 5% quality posting average and should be deselected from Baseball Think Factory.

Look, it's not a question of whether it's true that Scooter had a weak bat. The point is that the guy who thought it was worth some amount of his money to sponsor a player's page just to sh1t on him is a d1ck.

Look, it's not a question of whether it's true that Scooter had a weak bat. The point is that the guy who thought it was worth some amount of his money to sponsor a player's page just to sh1t on him is a d1ck.

That's it in a nutshell. The same goes for the jackass that Kevin spotlighted.

So are Rizzuto's family forever to remain in darkness about the on the field strengths and weaknesses of their patrich? I agree that maybe saying he should be deselected is a tad overdramatic for the forum, but saying he didn't hit much is like saying my underarms smell badly.

Well, I don't really see baseball-reference as a "forum". Its a reference page for raw data. If it was a forum, then someone might respond with the fact that Aparicio, Maranville, Tinker and Ozze Smith have even lower OPS's than Rizzuto's. No one claims that anyone should remain in the dark regarding how the general public feel about a player, or what his weaknesses are, but I don't think negative stuff should go on the de facto website for raw stats.

I dunno, its like someone taking out an ad out in the yellow pages next to your phone number and saying your business stinks. It might be true, but I don't think the yellow pages is the place for that.

Also in the room with Mr. Martinez are a Mr. J. Fournier and a Mr. K. Williams.

I have always liked Fournier, need to run him again in my current system. Despute Williams's late start, his MiL career is not especially impressive if I remember correctly.

Here's a new can of worms: if we are assuming one breakout minor-league season to get noticed and simply washing it out in our player evaluations, shouldn't guys who never played in the minors or never excelled in the minors lose 15-20 WS off their career totals?

The sponsor for A-Rod's page is pretty obnoxious as well. And that one must have cost a whole lot more than Rizzuto's page.

I guess it was common to say "holy" then something harmless to keep from using profanity.

I blame Dick Grayson. He was born c. 1925, so the date is about right.

>You have to be a pretty big dick to go through that much trouble to maintain your dickishness.

Check out every political blog known to mankind.

I do give credit to Moore and Waddell as wellas Fournier.

How much does Al Rosen deserve? I have seen his name brought up.

Rosen used to be the poster boy for guys stuck in the minors--in Rosen's case, behind Ken Keltner, of all people. Anybody want to give Rosen the Keltner test?

And isn't it ironic, for all you Indians fans out there, that your club was so loaded, was such a model of player development, and only won those 2 pennants. 'Course there was another team in that league that did pretty well in the player development/acquisition department too.

Rizzuto has passed away (source: cnn.com).