The Ultimate Quest for Candidates - Final Ranking

[Freakshow]

Welcome to the Ultimate Quest for Candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68815)! This is the final round, where we take the top 20 candidates for the Hall of Fame and rank them in order. There will not be a poll with this thread, we're going for a more precise ranking in order to tell the Hall, "Here's the next player you should be inducting. And the next. And the next...." We'll allow two or three weeks for everyone to weigh in with their rankings and discussion of who should be ranked high or low.

You may change your ballot at any time before the official tally is done; in fact, here I would encourage voters to consider other's ballots and alternative assessments of these players. Comments on other people's ballots are welcome; if you think a voter blew it, try to persuade them to see things differently.

As always, we will be judging players by the same criteria that the Hall of Fame uses:

“voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game.”

So everything counts, their lifetime achievements on and off the field, along with their character and other intangibles.

Here is an alphabetical listing of the 20 players you need to rank, from the most deserving HOF candidate at #1 down to #20:

3 Dick Allen 1960s
4 Ross Barnes 1870s
1 Bert Blyleven 1970s
6 Bill Dahlen 1890s
8 Andre Dawson 1980s
4 Joe Gordon 1940s
4 Bobby Grich 1970s
5 Stan Hack 1940s
8 Paul Hines 1880s
7 Sherry Magee 1910s
3 Mark McGwire 1990s
7 Minnie Minoso 1950s
8 Dale Murphy 1980s
7 Tim Raines 1980s
5 Ron Santo 1960s
2 Ted Simmons 1970s
7 Harry Stovey 1880s
2 Joe Torre 1960s
6 Alan Trammell 1980s
2 Deacon White 1870s
For myself, Blyleven, Raines, Santo and Dahlen will all be near the top of my ballot, while Murphy, Stovey, Hack and Dawson are likely to lag near the bottom. I'm still thinking it over.:think:

[leecemark]

--I'll be giving some weight to putting living players higher. It won't be a primary factor, but it will be considered. I'll also be looking for players who did somethig special that makes them more worthy of getting a place in the Hall of Fame than a player of similar value who doesn't have anything of particular historic noteworthyness going for them.
--Prelininary ballot

1) Ron Santo - only guy outside Coopertown who has an arguement for top 5 at his position and is a lock for top 10. Very hard to understand this ommission.
2) Minnie Minoso - great player who stats suffer a little from missing the front end of his career. Even with that credit probably not this high based strictly on his playing career, but also was a pioneer for Latin Blacks. Has been a great ambassador for the game and is running out of time to attend his induction
3) Bert Blyleven - easily the best unenshired pitcher. In fact the only pitcher I'd call a glarign ommission.
4) Tim Raines - I'd have voted for him first ballot and was very dissapointed by his actual vote totals. A big step forward in the net election would be a good sign that the BWAA is learning to appreciate somethign other than big traditional milestone and is prepared to fairly consider recent players who clearly meet the middle range of established HoF quailifers from previous generations.
5) Alan Trammell - ditto, although I have much less hope of seeing this actually happen for Trammell.
6) Deacon White - Recent players have gotten badly mistreated by the voters, but no obvious Hall of Famer has been overlooked longer than White. The first generation of stars is badly underrepresented. White was one of the biggest of the 1870s and the best career of those not already enshirned (2nd only to Anson amoung original 1871 guys).
7) Bill Dahlen
8) Paul Hines
9) Ted Simmons
10) Ross Barnes
11) Joe Torre
12) Dick Allen
13) Sherry Magee
14) Bobby Grich
15) Joe Gordon
16) Andre Dawson
17) Dale Murphy
18) Stan Hack
19) Mark McGwire (ask me again and a couple years and I'm sure he'd be higher
20) Harry Stovey

[Erik Bedard]

Here's my preliminary attempt:

1. Dick Allen
2. Ron Santo
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Tim Raines
5. Bill Dahlen
6. Paul Hines
7. Minnie Minoso
8. Alan Trammell
9. Ted Simmons
10. Sherry Magee
11. Bobby Grich
12. Ross Barnes
13. Joe Torre
14. Deacon White
15. Joe Gordon
16. Harry Stovey
17. Stan Hack
18. Dale Murphy
19. Mark McGwire
20. Andre Dawson

[jjpm74]

My rankings and reasons for each:

1. Ron Santo--The best eligible player not in the HOF. 6th or 7th at worst at his position. The fact that he has not been elected to this point is a travesty.

2. Bert Blyleven--The best pitcher not in the HOF and possibly a top 40 pitcher all time. Only him and Quisenberry are clear omissions at this position.

3. Tim Raines--The guy could hit, run, had plate discipline. The fact of the matter is that his best years were spent on a team no one was watching and his defense was good but never among the best. I'm hoping he is elected in the next 2-3 years.

4. Bill Dahlen--The best at his position not in the HOF and a major omission. Possibly in the top 10 at his positon all time.

5. Paul Hines--The best out fielder not in the HOF. A major omission from a period that often gets overlooked.

6. Minnie Minoso--An embassador for the game and an excellent player who is clearly over the line for me.

7. Ted Simmons--One of the best catchers of the past 40 years. I'm hoping the VC does better than the BBWAA did with this candidate but I'm not holding my breath.

8. Dick Allen--One of the best talents not in the HOF. His attitude prevents him from being ranked higher for me.

9. Ross Barnes--A fielding wiz in an era where there were no gloves and a player with one of the highest peaks in the history of the game. The best of the 1st generation of stars.

10. Mark McGwire--A guy who struck out a lot, had several miserable years, then discovered a drug that rejuvenated his power but was not illegal to use in the MLB at the time. It's time to recognize the fact that McGwire had enough impressive seasons and compiled enough home runs to make it into an elite club and stop punishing him for something he did openly and made no attempt to hide that the press was more than happy to ignore at the time he was setting home run records. Minus the steroid scandal, McGwire reminds me of Kiner and Killebrew. EDIT: I have moved McGwire up to #10 after taking into consideration his high OPS+.

11. Joe Gordon--An excellent fielder at a defensive position and a player with an excellent peak. The brevity of his career prevents him from ranking higher.

12. Sherry Magee--A guy blessed with speed and power. If only his career was 20 years later...

13. Alan Trammell--I rank him just below Dahlen at his position. The fact that he gets almost no attention is a major travesty. Trammell and Whitaker just may be the greatest mid field battery of all time.

14. Stan Hack--#1 at his position in the 30s and early 40s. That alone is enough for his inclusion.

15. Deacon White--His value comes as a hitter who hit for average, for his longevity and continued performance into his 30s, and that played two defensive positions. I have Bennett ranked significantly higher than him at catcher.

16. Joe Torre--As a player, he was very good. It is his managerial career that puts him ahead of the remaining 4 for me.

17. Harry Stovey--Someone with power and speed. That gives him a slight edge on Dawson, and Murphy. His career was on the short side which prevents him from ranking higher for me.

18. Andre Dawson--A great fielder and someone who's career was hampered by playing his best years in Montreal. Someone just over the line for me.

19. Bobby Grich--A six time all star and a 4 time gold glove winner. Great at his position, but outside of my HOF bracket. I can see him firmly in the gray area, however.

20. Dale Murphy--He was great at a time when his team stunk. Unfortunately, he held on too long and ended his career with 6 miserable seasons and that is what he is consistently remembered for. Had he retired in 1987, he'd fare better for me. As it stands, I rank him well outside of the top 20, but apparently am in the minority.

[BlueBlood]

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Ron Santo
3. Tim Raines
4. Dick Allen
5. Ted Simmons
6. Alan Trammell
7. Minnie Minoso
.................................
8. Bobby Grich
9. Deacon White
10. Paul Hines
11. Sherry Magee
12. Ross Barnes
13. Bill Dahlen
14. Stan Hack
.................................
15. Harry Stovey
16. Andre Dawson
17. Joe Gordon
18. Dale Murphy
..................................
19. Joe Torre
20. Mark McGwire

[Brad Harris]

1. Ron Santo
2. Bert Blyleven
3. Dick Allen
4. Tim Raines
5. Bill Dahlen
6. Bobby Grich
7. Alan Trammell
8. Minnie Minoso
9. Mark McGwire
10. Deacon White
11. Joe Gordon
12. Paul Hines
13. Sherry Magee
14. Ted Simmons
15. Stan Hack
16. Harry Stovey
17. Andre Dawson
18. Joe Torre
19. Dale Murphy
20. Ross Barnes

[jalbright]

1. Blyleven
2. Santo
3. Allen
4. Dahlen
5. White
6. Magee
7. Hack
8. Hines
9. Raines
10. Stovey
11. Minoso
12. Simmons
13. Gordon
14. Grich
15. McGwire
16. Trammell
17. Dawson
18. Murphy
19. Barnes
20. Torre (solely as a player)

I would have had to work quite hard on this if not for the SOC project, for which I had done basically the same thing.

[Windy City Fan]

1. Santo
2. Blyleven
3. Allen
4. Raines
5. Dahlen
6. Minoso
7. Grich
8. White
9. Magee
10. Simmons
11. Gordon
12. Trammell
13. Torre
14. Hines
15. Barnes
16. Murphy
17. Dawson
18. Stovey
19. Hack
20. McGwire

[dgarza]

1. Ross Barnes
2. Mark McGwire
3. Harry Stovey
4. Dick Allen
5. Deacon White
6. Sherry Magee
7. Ron Santo
8. Bert Blyleven
9. Dale Murphy
10. Paul Hines
11. Minnie Minoso
12. Ted Simmons
13. Andre Dawson
14. Stan Hack
15. Joe Torre
16. Joe Gordon
17. Bill Dahlen
18. Tim Raines
19. Alan Trammell
20. Bobby Grich

[Paul Wendt]

"Loose groupings for now" - I like that

20. Torre (solely as a player)
I went back and forth and voted for Torre in rounds one and three.
Yes, as leecemark and Jim jointly suggest, the difference may be as great as number one to number twenty at this stage.

[Freakshow]

Yes, how to handle Joe Torre's case? If you think his primary contribution is as a manager, then he shouldn't even be considered here. The intent of this project is that we consider the whole career, not just as a player.

Here's my take. I generally don't give managers a lot of credit for anything. You win with players. That being said, there are a handful of managers in history who were exceptional, who did make their teams better. This was easier in the days of Frank Selee when the field manager also had a significant role in player procurement and scouting. But I digress.

With Torre, I don't give him big credit as a manager. Other of his contemporary managers could've done what he did with that talent. Nice job, but Torre's playing career did far more to make his teams win. And it was a hall of fame quality career. He'll be in the top half of my ballot.

[Freakshow]

I would have had to work quite hard on this if not for the SOC project, for which I had done basically the same thing.
Yes, the Suburbs of Cooperstown project is one I'm referencing as well. Here is where each of the 20 were drafted in that project:

Bert Blyleven 1
Bill Dahlen 2
Dick Allen 3
Ron Santo 4
Tim Raines 5
Alan Trammell 6
Deacon White 7
Mark McGwire 8
Bobby Grich 9
Ted Simmons 13
Paul Hines 14
Joe Torre 16
Minnie Minoso 26
Sherry Magee 28
Joe Gordon 37
Stan Hack 38
Andre Dawson 39
Harry Stovey 42
Ross Barnes 51
Dale Murphy 65
Rember that wasn't strictly a draft in order of HOF deservedness. We were building teams in that draft, so position scarcity played a major role in where players were drafted.

[Paul Wendt]

. . .
Harry Stovey 42
Ross Barnes 51
Dale Murphy 65 [60th major leaguer drafted, given 5 Negro Leaguers]
Remember that wasn't strictly a draft in order of HOF deservedness. We were building teams in that draft, so position scarcity played a major role in where players were drafted.
Three catchers and three shortstops in six of the empty spaces through #22: Bill Freehan, Charlie Bennett, and "Negro Leaguers" Trouppe, Beckwith, Lundy, Moore.

We were also asked to try and ensure that the top ten at eight fielding positions plus the top forty pitchers (sum=120) would be in the first 140 selections, the "inner suburbs". So in my interpretation we should do some maneuvering: if X and Y clearly belong, draft Y who might be overlooked rather than X who will certainly be taken. For me in round four (#34), Y=Hardy Richardson and X=Ross Barnes.

Yet I don't see any confirmation of our judgment in the fact that practically all of the Top 20 were in the Top 40 there. Participants in that draft project are about one-third of the voters here.

[Freakshow]

Another thing we always check is Bill James' positional rankings. Here's an approximate chronological arrangement:

Ross Barnes ---
Deacon White #76
Paul Hines #53
Harry Stovey #39
Bill Dahlen #21
Sherry Magee #21
Joe Gordon #16
Stan Hack #9
Minnie Minoso #10
Dick Allen #15
Ron Santo #6
Joe Torre #11
Bert Blyleven #14
Bobby Grich #12
Ted Simmons #10
Andre Dawson #19
Dale Murphy #12
Alan Trammell #9
Mark McGwire #3
Tim Raines #8
The timeline is in strong evidence here. James' rankings are increasingly problematical before 1920 and next to useless before 1893.

[Freakshow]

Two years ago we did a little project called The Hall of Corrections (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49821), electing the top 34 non-HOFers inclding Negro leaguers) over the course of 13 elections. Here's how our top 20 ranked in that project:

Ron Santo 1
Bert Blyleven 2
Dick Allen 3
Minnie Minoso 4
Sherry Magee 6
Bill Dahlen 7
Alan Trammell 8
Bobby Grich 9
Ted Simmons 10
Joe Gordon 11
Dale Murphy 13
Andre Dawson 15
Joe Torre 16
Paul Hines 17
Deacon White 20
Stan Hack 22
Harry Stovey 26
Ross Barnes 35
Mark McGwire ne
Tim Raines ne
McGwire and Raines were not eligible for the HOF at that time. Barnes was the top runnerup in the final election. Filling in some of the blanks, #5 was Gossage, newly elected to the Hall; #12 was Albert Belle; #14 was Keith Hernandez. Negro leaguers Beckwith (#28) and Johnson (#31) were also listed.

[jjpm74]

Another thing we always check is Bill James' positional rankings. Here's an approximate chronological arrangement:

Ross Barnes ---
Deacon White #76
Paul Hines #53
Harry Stovey #39
Bill Dahlen #21
Sherry Magee #21
Joe Gordon #16
Stan Hack #9
Minnie Minoso #10
Dick Allen #15
Ron Santo #6
Joe Torre #11
Bert Blyleven #14
Bobby Grich #12
Ted Simmons #10
Andre Dawson #19
Dale Murphy #12
Alan Trammell #9
Mark McGwire #3
Tim Raines #8
The timeline is in strong evidence here. James' rankings are increasingly problematical before 1920 and next to useless before 1893.

I'm not sure how James would handle McGwire today. Mcgwire's #3 comes after his 2000 season. That is before his horrific 2001 season and before the whole PEDs scandal. What doesn't help is that James gives no reason why he ranked McGwire at #3 instead writing the following fluff:

My seven-year old son's favorite player wife... about 55% of McGwire's career value is accounted for by his home runs, a high figure, but not as high as players like Dave Kingman and Steve Balboni. McGwire does do some things well, other than hit home runs.

Not much thought put into that statement. Also not much thought put into any player who played during baseball's first 70 years with a heavy emphasis placed on the past 30 or so years. I'm not ready to consider James' rankings seriously given his biases.

[Freakshow]

We did a project three summers ago called The 500 Player Pyramid, which is no longer archived on this site. The aim was to rate the top 500 players from 1 to 10. The project ground down as it progressed and we never did finish the final round (sorry, Mark). We did come up with a good ranking of 371 players, which I'm posting here.

Basically, a rating of 6- or higher puts you in the top 100. A 4- or better is top 200. The HOF line is around 3 or 3-. Our top 20 were rated like this:

Ross Barnes 3
Deacon White 3
Paul Hines 3
Harry Stovey 3-
Bill Dahlen 4
Sherry Magee 3+
Joe Gordon 4
Stan Hack 3
Minnie Minoso 4+
Dick Allen 4
Ron Santo 5
Joe Torre 4
Bert Blyleven 4+
Bobby Grich 4+
Ted Simmons 4
Andre Dawson 5-
Dale Murphy 5-
Alan Trammell 4
Mark McGwire 5
Tim Raines 5+
===========================
The 500 Player Pyramid

We’re taking the top 500 players of all time and ranking them from 1 to 10. These are the top 371 players of all time, which we determined in the first nine rounds:
THE TOP 371 PLAYERS IN BASEBALL HISTORY

Pitchers (101)
10 Johnson W*
9 Young C*
9 Grove*
9 Alexander*
9 Clemens
9 Mathewson*
8 Spahn*
8 Seaver*
8 Maddux
8 Paige*(n)
8 Johnson R
8- Carlton*
7+ Feller*
7+ Gibson B*
7 Nichols*
7 Hubbell*
7 Koufax*
7 Palmer*
7 Ford*
7- Martinez P
6+ Marichal*
6 Brown*
6 Williams J*(n)
6 Walsh*
6 Ryan*
6- Roberts*
6- Perry G*
5 Clarkson*#
5 Wilhelm*
5 Plank*
5 Jenkins*
5 Niekro P*
5 Keefe*#
5 Rogan*(n)
5 Vance*
5- Dean*
4+ Blyleven
4+ Eckersley*
4+ Glavine
4+ Gossage*
4+ Coveleski*
4 Newhouser*
4 Radbourn*#
4 Rusie*#
4 McGinnity*
4 Sutton D*
4 Wynn E*
4 Drysdale*
4 Fingers*
4- Waddell*
4- Lyons*
3+ Faber*
3+ Rivera M
3+ Sutter
3+ Lemon B*
3+ Bunning*
3+ Mays C
3 Galvin*#
3 Joss*
3 Brown K
3 Ferrell W
3 Ruffing*
3 Mussina
3 Rixey*
3 Foster W*(n)
3 Tiant
3 Schilling
3 Welch M*
3 Caruthers #
3 John T
3 Day L*(n)
3 Hunter*
3- Hoffman T
3- Kaat
3- Smith Lee
3- Brown Ray*(n)
3- Smith H*(n)
2+ Griffith C*#
2+ Smoltz J
2+ Spalding A*#
2 Foster Ru*(n)
2 Gomez L*
2 Grimes B*
2 Morris J
2 Guidry R
2 Quisenberry D
2 Bridges T
2 Pennock H*
2 Mullane T #
2 Redding D(n)
2 Walters B
2 Gooden D
2 Cicotte E
2 Hershiser O
2- Bender C*
2- Chesbro J*
2- Hoyt W*
2- Luque D
2- Willis V*
2- McCormick J #
2- Lyle S

Catchers (27)
9- Gibson J*(n)
8+ Bench*
8+ Berra*
7 Cochrane*
7- Piazza
7- Campanella*
7- Rodriguez I
6 Ewing*#
6 Dickey*
6- Hartnett*
5+ Fisk*
5+ Carter G*
4 Santop*(n)
4 Torre
4 Simmons T
3+ Mackey*(n)
3 Freehan
3 White Dea #
3 Munson
3 Bresnahan*
3- Lombardi*
2+ Bennett C #
2 Howard E
2 McVey C #
2 Schang W
2 Parrish Lan
2- Schalk R*

First Base (38)
10 Gehrig*
9 Foxx*
7+ Greenberg*
7 Anson*#
7 Brouthers*#
6+ Thomas F
6+ Mize*
6+ McCovey*
6 Murray*
6 Leonard B*(n)
6 Bagwell
6 Killebrew*
5 Sisler*
5 McGwire
5 Palmeiro
5 Connor*#
5- Suttles(n)
4 Allen
4 Perez*
4 Terry*
4- Cepeda*
3+ McGriff
3+ Hernandez K
3- Mattingly
2+ Cash N
2+ Clark W
2+ Start J #
2 Beckley J*#
2 Pujols A
2 Thome J
2 Chance F*
2 Garvey S
2 Bottomley J*
2 Hodges G
2 Vernon M
2- Galarraga A
2- Grace M
2- Helton T

Second Base (29)
9+ Hornsby*
9 Collins E*
9- Lajoie*
8+ Morgan*
7+ Robinson J*
7 Gehringer*
6+ Carew*
6- Frisch*
6- Sandberg*
5 Alomar
5 Biggio
4+ Grich
4 Whitaker
4 Gordon
4 Doerr*
4- Herman Bi*
3+ Fox N*
3 McPhee*#
3 Richardson H #
3 Barnes #
3 Randolph
2+ Kent J
2+ Lazzeri T*
2+ Childs C #
2+ Grant F*(n)#
2 Doyle L
2 Mazeroski B*
2 Schoendienst R*
2 Evers J*

Third Base (31)
9 Schmidt*
8 Mathews*
8 Brett*
7 Boggs*
5 Baker F*
5 Santo
5 Molitor*
5 Robinson Br*
4 Dandridge*(n)
4 Traynor*
4- Collins J*
4- Boyer K
3 Evans Da
3 Hack
3 Nettles
3 Martinez E
3 Jones Chi
3- Wilson Ju*(n)
3- Groh
3- Beckwith(n)
2+ Sutton E #
2 Cey R
2 Ventura R
2 Williams Ma
2 Rolen S
2 Leach To
2 Johnson Ju*(n)
2 Rosen A
2 Bando S
2 Bell Bu
2- Williamson E #

Shortstop (37)
10 Wagner*
8 Rodriguez A
8 Lloyd*(n)
8- Ripken*
7 Vaughan*
7 Banks*
6 Yount*
6- Cronin*
5 Appling*
5 Davis G*#
5 Smith O*
5- Larkin B
4+ Wells W*(n)
4 Trammell
4 Boudreau*
4 Dahlen #
4 Reese*
4 Ward J*#
3+ Aparicio*
3 Jeter
3 Wright Ge*#
3 Jennings*#
3 Sewell J*
3 Wallace*
3 Glasscock #
2+ Rizzuto P*
2+ Johnson HR(n)
2 Maranville R*
2 Stephens V
2 Concepcion D
2 Garciaparra N
2 Bancroft D*
2 Pearce D #
2 Tinker J*
2 Vizquel O
2- Lundy D(n)
2- Tejada M

Left Field (31)
10 Williams T*
10 Bonds Ba
9+ Musial*
8 Henderson*
8- Yastrzemski*
7 Delahanty*#
6 Rose
6 Stearnes*(n)
6 Simmons A*
5+ Stargell*
5+ Raines
5 Williams Bi*
5 Kiner*
5- Medwick*
5- Burkett*#
4+ Minoso
4+ Goslin*
4+ Clarke F*
4 O’Rourke*#
4 Brock*
4- Wheat*
3+ Magee S
3 Kelley J*#
3 Belle A
3 Irvin*(n)
3 Rice J
3- Stovey H #
2+ Sheckard J
2 Johnson Bob
2 Manush H*
2- Guerrero P

Center Field (39)
10+ Cobb*
10 Mays W*
10- Mantle*
9+ Speaker*
9 DiMaggio J*
8+ Charleston*(n)
8 Griffey
6+ Snider*
6 Bell C*(n)
6 Hamilton*#
5- Doby*
5- Dawson
5- Murphy Dal
4+ Puckett*
4 Ashburn*
4 Wynn J
4 Averill*
3+ Van Haltren #
3+ Roush*
3+ Carey*
3 Duffy*#
3 Hines #
3 Gore #
3 Hill P*(n)
3- Lynn
2+ Williams Be
2+ Wilson H*
2 Ryan J #
2 Berger W
2 Edmonds J
2 Pinson V
2 Pike L #
2 Browning P #
2 McGee W
2- Combs E*
2- Davis W
2- Jones An
2- Oliver A
2- Waner L*

Right Field (38)
10+ Ruth*
10- Aaron*
9- Robinson F*
8 Ott*
8- Gwynn*
7+ Clemente*
7 Kaline*
7 Crawford*
7- Jackson R*
6 Waner P*
6 Jackson J
6- Heilmann*
5+ Dihigo*(n)
5+ Winfield*
5+ Torriente*(n)
5 Sosa
4 Ramirez M
4 Kelly K*#
4 Sheffield
4 Keeler*
4 Evans Dw
4 Slaughter*
4- Thompson S*#
3 Bonds Bo
3 Flick*
3- Oliva
3- Smith Reg
3- Klein*
3- Parker D
2+ Walker L
2+ Staub R
2+ Suzuki I
2 Cuyler K*
2 Rice S*
2 Guerrero V
2 Cravath G
2 Youngs R*
2- Hooper H*

* = member of the Cooperstown hall
(n) = primarily Negro league player
# = primarily 19th century player

See the thread, “The 500 Player Pyramid – Tier 9: The 2’s” for full results of the “2’s” voting.

RULES

We’ve decided on the following structure:

10 10s
15 9s
20 8s
25 7s
30 6s (due to a tie, this is actually 31)
40 5s (reduced to 39)
55 4s (due to ties, reduced to 54)
75 3s
100 2s (due to ties, this is actually 102)
130 1s (now planned for 129)

We'll conduct voting one level at a time, starting with the 10's down to the 1's.

Because the upper levels are well-trod ground for most of us, we did the first six rounds on a semi-monthly basis, with ballots due on the 15th and 30th of each month, March through May. We'll go at a slower pace now through the summer months, going to monthly elections for the last four elections, finishing up in September.

To try and eliminate ties, the top 20% in each level will be specified with a + sign and your bottom 20% with a minus sign. For example, for the first election (10 10's), your top two players will be specified as 10+, the next six will be plain old 10's and the last two you will give 10-. This expresses some intensity to your rankings without having to go through the trouble of absolute rankings. Because of ties at the bottom of the last round, the 10th election (129 1's) will have 25 guys rated 1+, 78 rated 1, and 26 rated 1-.

Eligible are all players in MLB and Negro leagues 1871 to 2005. Players' activity in the minors or foreign leagues should be considered when ascertaining their value. Players should be rated based upon their value contributed to their team's quest for a championship. Off-field behavior is relevant only to the extent that it relates to the teams' fortunes. Intangibles such as leadership should be considered, but player-managers should not have their contribution as managers included in their value. Issues of time-lining, such as how to account for different schedule lengths and levels of play are up to the individual voter to decide and should be a topic of the discussions.

[dgarza]

I'm not sure how James would handle McGwire today. Mcgwire's #3 comes after his 2000 season. That is before his horrific 2001 season and before the whole PEDs scandal. What doesn't help is that James gives no reason why he ranked McGwire at #3 instead writing the following fluff:

My seven-year old son's favorite player wife... about 55% of McGwire's career value is accounted for by his home runs, a high figure, but not as high as players like Dave Kingman and Steve Balboni. McGwire does do some things well, other than hit home runs.


Not much thought put into that statement. Although it's very deep and thought provoking...compared to his Don Mattingly explaination. :cap:

I don't understand why he does that.

[Paul Wendt]

The Hall of Merit has elected 57 players not in the Hall of Fame and it has turned thumbs down so far to 57 Hall of Fame players. After catching up to the present last year, the group incompletely ranked its own 57. Nineteen of our Top 20 are among them, all but Dale Murphy.

Here are the four subrankings completed by the Hall of Merit.
I have highlighted our Top 20 (19 players) simply.

Twelve of the Hall of Merit members not in Cooperstown are ineligible there pending reinstatement by MLB (2), reconsideraton of the Negro Leagues (6), or recognition of basaeball before 1876 (4). We considered only the late four and one advanced to this finale.

Not eligible (12)
Pete Rose
Grant Johnson
Ross Barnes
Joe Jackson
Cal McVey
John Beckwith
Dickey Pearce
Dobie Moore
Quincy Trouppe
Lip Pike
Dick Lundy
Alejandro Oms

Twenty-one of the HOMers are eligible and debuted in the major leagues before 1943. In Cooperstown they are now outside the jurisdiction of the living Hall of Fame members, to be considered periodically by a new veterans committee that meets in person (to be appointed).

We have seven of those 21, biased in favor of the more recent.

Eligible major league players, debut before 1943 (21)
Bill Dahlen
Deacon White
Paul Hines
Jack Glasscock
George Gore
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Heinie Groh
Hardy Richardson
Bob Caruthers
Charlie Bennett
Sherry Magee
Stan Hack
Joe Gordon
Jimmy Sheckard
Charlie Keller
Harry Stovey
Cupid Childs
Wes Ferrell
Charley Jones
Pete Browning

Hack, Gordon, Keller, and Ferrell (top to bottom) stick out chronologically. They are all more than one baseball generation younger than Heinie Groh (1912 debut) whose last good season was 1921, and the last of them, Charlie Keller was a pinch-hitter when Minnie Minoso was a rookie (1951).

The remaining 24 HOMers not in Cooperstown fall in two groups of 12, one under jurisdiction of the living Hall of Famers, periodic vote by mail, and one under BBWAA jurisdiction, annual vote by mail.

Debut after 1942, no longer under BBWAA jurisdiction (12)
Bobby Grich
Ron Santo
Dick Allen
Ted Simmons
Darrell Evans
Joe Torre
Minnie Minoso
Bill Freehan
Billy Pierce
Jimmy Wynn
Graig Nettles
Ken Boyer

Under BBWAA jurisdiction (12)
Bert Blyleven
Tim Raines
Mark McGwire
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Will Clark
Keith Hernandez
Dwight Evans
Dave Stieb
Bret Saberhagen
Andre Dawson
Willie Randolph

plus Dale Murphy, not in the Hall of Merit

[Freakshow]

How does Win Shares see these 20 candidates? Here's an approximate ranking, giving equal weight to the career total and the top 3 years, with all numbers adjusted to a 162-game schedule:

Bill Dahlen (449: 39-35-29)
Tim Raines (406: 36-34-32)
Sherry Magee (374: 40-38-33)
Dick Allen (344: 42-41-35)
Bert Blyleven (346: 29-23-23)
Paul Hines
Deacon White
Mark McGwire (349: 41-30-30)
Ron Santo (326: 38-36-32)
Joe Torre (316: 41-29-28)
Ted Simmons (321: 30-28-28)
Andre Dawson (353: 36-29-28)
Ross Barnes
Harry Stovey
Minnie Minoso (340: 34-31-30)
Stan Hack (325: 35-32-31)
Bobby Grich (339: 32-31-30)
Alan Trammell (327: 35-29-29)
Dale Murphy (301: 33-32-32)
Joe Gordon (301: 32-28-27)

--The four early players are placed conservatively. I've seen estimates that have Hines and White with more than 400 AWS. As was said, win shares was never designed to accurately rate those guys.
--WS doesn't adjust for league quality, so players like Magee and Stovey come out lower if you do that.
--I added two low-prime years to Minoso's career total. If you simply want his schedule-adjusted total, subtract 44.
--Blyleven is listed as high as he is because I generally give modern pitchers a 20% boost (this is not reflected in the WS numbers shown). I believe WS underrates players like Bert because the replacement level used is too high relative to other positions.
--Simmons and Torre also were boosted for a catcher bonus, also not reflected in the numbers above.
--Gordon has two years of war credit.

[Freakshow]

How about the WARP3 view of the 20 candidates? Here's a ranking, giving equal weight to the career total and the top 3 seasons:

Bert Blyleven 147.7 13.6 10.8 10.6
Ron Santo 112.8 14.0 13.8 13.4
Alan Trammell 127.1 13.5 11.3 11.2
Tim Raines 131.1 12.0 11.3 10.5
Bobby Grich 123.9 11.8 11.6 11.0
Bill Dahlen 127.9 10.4 9.5 9.0
Joe Gordon 112.1 11.5 11.1 10.6
Dick Allen 99.2 13.4 11.4 10.9
Mark McGwire 109.8 11.9 10.8 9.6
Andre Dawson 107.5 11.8 9.9 9.4
Deacon White 110.1 10.6 10.1 9.6
Paul Hines 105.3 11.8 10.3 8.9
Stan Hack 100.3 10.9 10.2 9.7
Joe Torre 101.2 11.3 9.4 9.3
Ross Barnes 71.9 14.9 12.0 11.8
Dale Murphy 86.4 11.6 10.0 9.7
Ted Simmons 94.9 8.9 8.6 8.3
Minnie Minoso 89.0 10.5 8.6 8.0
Sherry Magee 87.8 10.2 8.5 8.0
Harry Stovey 76.6 9.4 9.2 8.3

--Just a couple adjustments to mention, otherwise the numbers are straight off the B-Pro site.
--Minoso was again given credit for two more low-prime years. If you disagree, subtract 12 from his career total shown above.
--Gordon, again, gets two years of war credit added to his career total.

[Freakshow]

Here's how I have them ranked now. Perhaps minor revisions will come later.

1 Blyleven
2 Raines
3 Santo
4 Dahlen
5 Minoso
6 Torre
7 Trammell
8 Allen
9 McGwire
10 Hines
11 White
12 Grich
13 Simmons
14 Barnes
15 Magee
16 Gordon
17 Dawson
18 Hack
19 Stovey
20 Murphy

[BlueBlood]

I find myself constantly readjusting my top seven...they all have their own superb arguments for inclusion. The other thirteen are pretty easy because I can see their faults and just far over (or under) the line I have them. Really, I'm absolutely unconcerned whether Trammell ends up above Raines or Santo above Blyleven. These guys should just flat out be in the hall, no debate.

[Erik Bedard]

My ballot is completed. Comment on it if you'd like.

[Freakshow]

At the risk of turning this into yet another PED thread, I would ask voters to consider whether they're making McGwire a scapegoat and thereby being unfair to him in ranking him near the bottom of the 20.

This was my take in a recent post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1214892&post=5): "Since I believe that a majority of players in the "steroids era" were using PEDs, it is unfair to make examples of the few who've been outed."

And later: "Players were not the ones in positions of power to effectively control the proliferation of PEDs in baseball."

[Brad Harris]

1. Ron Santo
2. Bert Blyleven
3. Dick Allen
4. Tim Raines
5. Bill Dahlen
6. Bobby Grich
7. Alan Trammell
8. Minnie Minoso
9. Mark McGwire
10. Deacon White
11. Joe Gordon
12. Paul Hines
13. Sherry Magee
14. Ted Simmons
15. Stan Hack
16. Harry Stovey
17. Andre Dawson
18. Joe Torre
19. Dale Murphy
20. Ross Barnes
Finalized.

[Paul Wendt]

How does Win Shares see these 20 candidates? Here's an approximate ranking, giving equal weight to the career total and the top 3 years, with all numbers adjusted to a 162-game schedule:
10. Joe Torre (316: 41-29-28)
11. Ted Simmons (321: 30-28-28)
--Simmons and Torre also were boosted for a catcher bonus, also not reflected in the numbers above.
From the adjusted placement and the unadjusted win shares I infer catcher bonuses similar in magnitude. Torre's catching career may look almost as long as Simmons's on the calendar but Torre didn't catch nearly so much as Simmons did when they were catchers. Measured in full seasons equivalent (fse) games, or shares of literally full seasons, Simmons was catcher twice as long as Torre, just ahead of Dickey, Berra, and Bench at about 11 seasons.
seasons
11.18 Simmons (rank 14, 1871-2006)
_5.59 Torre (#150)

Only seven have played a full season longer than Simmons as catchers.

(If he plays out this season successfully Ivan Rodriguez will be a step behind Fisk and Boone, as Omar Vizquel was a step behind Aparicio and Smith after 2007.)

[Paul Wendt]

If this were about spending real resources I would advocate spending none on Blyleven, Dawson, McGwire and Raines. I don't think the BBWAA has rejected them in any sense. (Jim Rice has more than doubled his 29%; Steve Garvey more than halved his 42%. Those guys do change their minds.)

And I would advocate spending none on Santo, Grich, et al, because we certainly wouldn't teach living Hall of Famers anything.

The Board of Directors hasn't yet appointed its new veterans committee to elect players with major league debuts before 1943. I suspect it's possible to influence them by spending money in the right way, but I don't know the right way. Does anyone?

The Historical Overview Committee comprises 11 active writers and I don't know of plans even to change the individuals. They will present the new v.c. with a ballot of ten. That is a low number. Practically it makes the HOC a nominating committee where it has been a screening committee, responsible for listing 200 names for 2003/2005/2007. Should we spend our $250,000 on the Tracy Ringolsby and Co.?

Maybe the best thing we can do with the money, toward electing the right people to the Hall of Fame, is to sponsor a study of the crack colored clubs from 1895 to 1919. At this stage the focus must be compilation of basic records from newspaper accounts.

[Freakshow]

From the adjusted placement and the unadjusted win shares I infer catcher bonuses similar in magnitude. Torre's catching career may look almost as long as Simmons's on the calendar but Torre didn't catch nearly so much as Simmons did when they were catchers.
Simmons' catching bonus was about twice as much as Torre's. That brings Simmons up next to Torre, despite Torre's large peak advantage.

[jalbright]

At the risk of turning this into yet another PED thread, I would ask voters to consider whether they're making McGwire a scapegoat and thereby being unfair to him in ranking him near the bottom of the 20.

This was my take in a recent post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1214892&post=5): "Since I believe that a majority of players in the "steroids era" were using PEDs, it is unfair to make examples of the few who've been outed."

And later: "Players were not the ones in positions of power to effectively control the proliferation of PEDs in baseball."

I put McGwire 15th without any adjustment for PEDs, so that has nothing to do with me. His career is a bit on the short side in terms of total playing time.

[Freakshow]

I put McGwire 15th ... His career is a bit on the short side in terms of total playing time.
HOF OF/1B within 600 PA of McGwire's 7660

OPS+
162 McGwire
140 Snider
137 Klein
136 Terry
134 Medwick
133 Averill
133 Kelley
126 Roush
125 Cuyler
124 Puckett
122 Duffy

All of these played better "D" than Mac, but that's a BIG gap to make up in OPS+. DiMaggio and Mize were not listed due to war credit.

[jjpm74]

At the risk of turning this into yet another PED thread, I would ask voters to consider whether they're making McGwire a scapegoat and thereby being unfair to him in ranking him near the bottom of the 20.

This was my take in a recent post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1214892&post=5): "Since I believe that a majority of players in the "steroids era" were using PEDs, it is unfair to make examples of the few who've been outed."

And later: "Players were not the ones in positions of power to effectively control the proliferation of PEDs in baseball."

My reasoning for ranking McGwire so low is because he basically reminds me of Kiner when it comes to his home run ability and career length. He's over the hump, but not in the same class as Trammell, Raines or Dawson, IMO.

My ballot is also finalized.

[jalbright]

HOF OF/1B within 600 PA of McGwire's 7660

OPS+
162 McGwire
140 Snider
137 Klein
136 Terry
134 Medwick
133 Averill
133 Kelley
126 Roush
125 Cuyler
124 Puckett
122 Duffy

All of these played better "D" than Mac, but that's a BIG gap to make up in OPS+. DiMaggio and Mize were not listed due to war credit.

I didn't say McGwire wasn't qualified for the Hall. I think he is. However, I rank him 15th among the names in our top 20, none of which are listed above. Thus, I consider the above beside the point. A large part of the reason he falls that far is the fairly small number of PA by HOF standards.

[Freakshow]

My reasoning for ranking McGwire so low is because he basically reminds me of Kiner when it comes to his home run ability and career length.
Games Played
1874 McGwire
1472 Kiner

Mac played 27% more games.

Plate Appearances
7660 McGwire
6256 Kiner

Mac had 22% more PA

At bats per home run

10.6 McGwire
14.1 Kiner

McGwire has the higher OPS+, 162 to 149.

McGwire was an all-star more years, 12 to 6.

McGwire did better in MVP voting, FWIW.

Kiner played in a park tailored to his swing. McGwire played in more challenging parks for homers.

Perhaps they conjure up a similar image of a classic slow-moving slugger. But their actual similarity is not close. McGwire was much better.

[jjpm74]

Perhaps they conjure up a similar image of a classic slow-moving slugger. But their actual similarity is not close. McGwire was much better.

FWIW, I consider all of the top 20 here HOFers with the exception of Dale Murphy. I just don't think McGwire belongs in the same class as guys like Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo, or Tim Raines.

[Freakshow]

I didn't say McGwire wasn't qualified for the Hall. I think he is. However, I rank him 15th among the names in our top 20, none of which are listed above. Thus, I consider the above beside the point. A large part of the reason he falls that far is the fairly small number of PA by HOF standards.
I looked for players in the Coop who played a similar position to McGwire in a career of similar length. I presented that list of ten HOFers to show everyone some of the guys who, presumably, jalbright would rank near Mark McGwire. It's a side point, but it's food for thought. For me, anyway.

[BlueBlood]

But McGwire juiced. It's unfair to other players and sets a bad example for youth who aren't mature enough to think responsibly about the matter. Then, to top it all off, this guy goes into denial mode in front of congress. Blech. Not only does he have a short career length and a nearly one dimensional hitting ability but he's also the product of steroids moreso that any other HOF qualified candidates. At least Clemens and Bonds were Cooperstown bound before they shot themselves up. McGwire was a rapidly declining, oft-injured slugger by the mid-90's.

I don't see the point of voting for circus freak shows that ruined the integrity of the game. I never want to see a PED user in the HOF.

[Freakshow]

FWIW, I consider all of the top 20 here HOFers with the exception of Dale Murphy. I just don't think McGwire belongs in the same class as guys like Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo, or Tim Raines.
I basically agree with this, although I tend to have Murphy on the in side of the HOF border; certainly ahead of Rice. What I don't get is how McGwire ends up #19 if you're not docking him for PED use.

[Paul Wendt]

Simmons' catching bonus was about twice as much as Torre's. That brings Simmons up next to Torre, despite Torre's large peak advantage.
Thanks.
Is there more to "Torre's large peak advantage" than 41-29-28 vs 30-28-28?
For that matter, how many "win shares derivatives" are you using behind the scene where you list only career total and best three?


loose groupings
--looser than I anticipated in commending Classic's loose grouping (no longer available above)

------------------------- no one here is in my Top 20 HOF members
Barnes
White, Hines, Dahlen
Santo, Grich
Blyleven, Raines, McGwire
------------------------- that Nine is certainly in my Top 20 candidates maybe in my Top 10
Magee
Allen, Simmons
Trammell
------------------------- that quartet is probably within my Top 20
Stovey
Hack, Gordon
Minoso, Torre
Dawson, Murphy
------------------------- some of those trailers are candidates for my Top 20

(That represents no recognition of Minoso as Latino ambassador or Torre as the man who served a decade under George.)

[BlueBlood]

I'm not sure how James would handle McGwire today. Mcgwire's #3 comes after his 2000 season. That is before his horrific 2001 season and before the whole PEDs scandal. What doesn't help is that James gives no reason why he ranked McGwire at #3.

My copy is the one with the 2003 postscript.

He re-ranked the top portions of each list and moved Big Mac down to #8.

"If you compare this list to what's printed in the body of the book, you'll find that a couple of players (Mark McGwire and Frank Thomas*) have moved down the list in the last two years. This should not have happened. I just screwed up. My rule is that I rate an active player as low as they might reasonably wind up rated, no higher. I failed to follow that rule in this case; I got burned. No excuses"

* Take note that he made a typo here and Thomas actually moved up the list. It's Jeff Bagwell who plummeted from #4 down to #10 which does all sorts of wonders for his Top 100 overall list.

1. Gehrig
2. Foxx
3. Mize
4. Murray
5. Killebrew
6. Greenberg
7. McCovey
8. McGwire
9. Thomas
10. Bagwell
11. Anson
12. Mattingly
13. Clark
14. Perez
15. Allen
16. Hernandez
17. Cepeda
18. Brouthers
19. Palmeiro
20. Cash

"Fred McGriff is a candidate to be considered one of the top 20 first basemen of all time. I have him twenty-first, and subjectively I think he should rate ahead of Norm Cash. My rating system doesn't agree, so I'll live with that. Jason Giambi and Jim Thome will probably rank among the top 20 when they get in a few more seasons."

That last sentence is pretty funny. :hp

[Freakshow]

Is there more to "Torre's large peak advantage" than 41-29-28 vs 30-28-28?
For that matter, how many "win shares derivatives" are you using behind the scene where you list only career total and best three?
No, it's only based on the data shown. The WS ranking was done rather quick and dirty, rather like Bill James' rankings. Any adjustments are mentioned in the notes. So, mostly numerical, some subjective adjustments.

[jjpm74]

I basically agree with this, although I tend to have Murphy on the in side of the HOF border; certainly ahead of Rice. What I don't get is how McGwire ends up #19 if you're not docking him for PED use.

I have him at #19 because he struck out a lot, had a .263 BA, had under 10,000 PA, was slow, had a 1991 season that is one of the worst for anyone in the NBHOFM and didn't have much to offer on the field. If you don't like the Kiner comparison, I also liken him to Killebrew without the longevity.

[Brad Harris]

My copy is the one with the 2003 postscript.

He re-ranked the top portions of each list and moved Big Mac down to #8.

"If you compare this list to what's printed in the body of the book, you'll find that a couple of players (Mark McGwire and Frank Thomas*) have moved down the list in the last two years. This should not have happened. I just screwed up. My rule is that I rate an active player as low as they might reasonably wind up rated, no higher. I failed to follow that rule in this case; I got burned. No excuses"

That makes no sense. In James' system, once a player's best three seasons and best five consecutive seasons have been established (i.e. his peak), the rest is all gravy. His career totals will only increase in time and his peak won't deflate. Throw in the fact that a player's timeline adjustment never changes and you have every element of James' ranking formula with the sole exception of the subjective element giving the player a rating that will never diminish. So what James is, in effect, saying seems to be that he gave a particular too many subjective points (0-50 possible, IIRC) and decided to lower that total in the revised rankings in order to toy with how the final list looked.

Does that make any sense to anyone else? I mean...how can a system that's based on a combination of peak and career performance ever rate a player lower in a subsequent year than it did the year before unless that player's career averages drop so low from one year to the next? I suppose that's not too subtle distinction when you're talking about fractions of a point separating some of these players? Still, career average represents something akin to 15% of the overall rating. I don't see how splitting hairs that thin drops a guy that many spots in the chart, particularly when he's that high on it. I suppose I need to get out my copy of the book and a calculator and start messing around this weekend. :laugh

[BlueBlood]

I have that PDF file where Kevin Harlow figured out the subjective factor for every player. I had no idea there were negative amount applied. John Ward earned a -44, Kid Gleason a -31 and Caruthers earned a -26. Obviously, James doesn't appreciate early baseball very much.

I'm not sure what McGwire earned on the scale as the article doesn't specify. However, I'm certain it was a positive adjustment given that he was still playing. At most, it was less than 9 on the scale of 50.

Notably, for this project, Dick Allen earned a -17. James claims he cost his team more game than any other player, a bad clubhouse presence, etc. Kent earns a -11 for some reason and so does Hal Newhouser (I always thought his place on the list seemed remarkably low).....

[jalbright]

I think that two of the worst features of James' rating for the latest Historical Abstract are his personal subjective adjustment, and his refusal to give any help to the pre 1890's batters despite the rather short seasons they had. I could understand one or the other, but the combination really screws 19th century hitters.

[BlueBlood]

Brouthers is probably the most irritating example. The best hitter of the 19th Century and he's relegated to the back end of the Top 20 1B-men.

[Paul Wendt]

I have that PDF file where Kevin Harlow figured out the subjective factor for every player. . . .
Kent earns a -11 for some reason and so does Hal Newhouser (I always thought his place on the list seemed remarkably low).....
Newhouser should be docked for league quality during WWII. The systematic elements of the system :-) count equallly every game played to a decision, and every league season from 1876 as the simple sum of those games.

Bucky Walters, Mort Cooper, and Dizzy Trout should also earn negative adjustments and the stars in military service (Gordon, Keller, Slaughter) should earn positive adjustments.

It is relatively easy to systematize those wartime adjustments in contrast to those for Allen and Kent.

"should" = on Bill James principles, I feel sure

Blueblood
>>
Brouthers is probably the most irritating example. The best hitter of the 19th Century and he's relegated to the back end of the Top 20 1B-men.
<<

It gets worse as they played more shorter seasons. Case in point, Paul Hines.

[Cougar]

First of all, I've got to say -- this is a great list. It's not the list I would have come up with, nor likely any one individual here, but collectively I think we did a very good job. Kudos to Freakshow.

My necessarily arbitrary and idiosyncratic ranking of guys who are all over my HOF line.

1. Minnie Minoso
2. Ron Santo
3. Bert Blyleven
4. Alan Trammell
5. Joe Gordon
6. Bill Dahlen
7. Joe Torre
8. Tim Raines
9. Stan Hack
10. Ted Simmons
11. Mark McGwire
12. Andre Dawson
13. Dale Murphy
14. Bobby Grich
15. Sherry Magee
16. Dick Allen
17. Deacon White
18. Ross Barnes
19. Paul Hines
20. Harry Stovey

Biggest caveat I should mention is that I tend to favor modern guys over 19th century players when judging close calls on merit, because I do think there's a timeline effect, so hence Trammell > Dahlen, Dawson & Murphy > Hines & Stovey, etc.

[jjpm74]

After closer consideration of McGwire's OPS+, I have moved him from #19 to #10 on my list.

[Paul Wendt]

1.
career batting, quick and dirty
In this millenium everyone looks first at OPS+. Simmons finished 9% below Torre, 117 to 128. Everyone should look further. Doing so, it is clear that that difference doesn't hold up. I believe that it disappears entirely in favor of some advantage to Simmons.

2.
playing time
GC G PA
1710 2456 9685 Simmons
_903 2209 8801 Torre
Simmons played 11% more games with 10% more plate appearances (columns two and three).

Simmons played 90% more games at catcher (GC). That is by far the biggest difference in his favor and it's huge. At their best they were both almost MVP-quality players because they were catchers. Even if below-average in the field they were good enough batters to be almost MVP-quality players in their primes.

3.
commonly overlooked tidbits
Double Plays (GIDP): Simmons 287, Torre 284.
Probably they both retired #5 on the career list, a negative achievement. Today they are #11 and #12. Simmons finished 1% "ahead" in 10% more plate appearances.

Sacrifice flies: Simmons 100, Torre 50.
Probably sac flies should be counted as outs in slugging average. For players with about 10000 pa, an extra 50 outs in the slugging denominator would cost about 1/200 in slugging average and 1/400 in OPS+.

Base stealing: Simmons 21/54, Torre 23/52
For some reason they both occasionally tried to steal a base. Perhaps many of the failures were botched hit-and-run plays.

4.
careers piecemeal: playing time, fielding position, and batting performance
Both played a few games in their teens and both were regular players for ten seasons in their twenties. Torre worked as a catcher only his twenties (plus ten weeks; it's "baseball age" :rolleyes:) so that is a good place to break their careers in pieces.

thru age 29
gc g ab OPS+
1310 1419 5230 126 Simmons
903 1357 4926 130 Torre
Simmons played about 5% more than Torre thru age 29, but played 407 more games at catcher (45% more) --although Torre was a "regular catcher" in nine of those ten seasons. Torre was used almost on a deadball era model, working 60% of team games behind the plate (in nine seasons). Simmons worked 80% of team games behind the plate (ten seasons).

By OPS+ Torre was 3% more successful as a batter, enough to balance Simmons playing 5% more games or atbats. (Torre's batting rate would be 5% more valuable than Simmons if "worthless batting" were OPS+ 50.)

The difference in time behind the plate is very significant. I cannot quantify its size but it is certain.

age 30-35
gc g ab OPS+
436 810 3039 106+ Simmons (53% c, otherwise dh-1b)
0 826 2897 126+ Torre (53% 3b, otherwise 1b)
At age 30 Simmons and Torre enjoyed big seasons --for Simmons his only silver slugger, in his last season with St Louis; for Torre his career year as a batter, fielding thirdbase for St Louis. Five more seasons constitute Simmons's American League career, split almost evenly between catcher and DH/1B. They complete Torre's career as a regular player, with the six seasons split almost evenly between third and first.

Torre played a few more games (1%), Simmons with a few more atbats (4%). Torre was more successful as a batter: 19% greater OPS+ and a 35% more valuable rate if OPS+ 50 is worthless. The difference is very significant. Here we are again, because Simmons worked 400 more games at catcher, which is also very significant.

How does 106 batting by a catcher compare with 126 by a thirdbaseman? I'm not sure.
What if the catcher was a better one? With the glove, Bill James gives them both C at catcher with no grade for Torre at third, unfortunately. Clay Davenport rates them Simmons 100 and Torre 102 at catcher (presumably C and C+ or C+ and B-). He rates Torre 92 at third, which is bad (perhaps D-). So we have advantage 20 points for Torre as a batter and, in half of their playing time only, advantage catcher plus 1.33 letter grades for Simmons.

age 36-38
gc g ab OPS+
35 227 411 86 Simmons (61g 1b, 11g 3b, ~120 ph)
0 26 51 35 Torre (~10 ph)
After age 35 Simmons returned to the NL and played three more years mainly as a pinch-hitter. Torre barely played, with certainly small and certainly negative value.

Subtract Torre's record from Simmons's. The net for Simmons is 35 games at catcher plus 360 at bats with OPS+ 93. That rate must be close to the pinch-hitters' average and it certainly represents some advantage Simmons. I'm equally certain that Ted Turner overpaid for it by late 1980s norms ($2M total).

5.
bottom line (for me here)
I have anticipated ranking Simmons #10 and Torre #20 or a little higher. There is some room between #10 and #20, more like 13 to 39 on my own list that doesn't exist. That overstates the difference between Simmons and Torre.

[Freakshow]

5.
bottom line (for me here)
I have anticipated ranking Simmons #10 and Torre #20 or a little higher. There is some room between #10 and #20, more like 13 to 39 on my own list that doesn't exist. That overstates the difference between Simmons and Torre.
Do you see Torre as more of a manager or a player? Where do you think he made his major contribution? When the Hall elects him, should he be listed with the players or the managers? (These are meant to be three different versions of the same question.)

[Cougar]

One almost has to think of him as a manager, as good a player as he was.

He's in the top 10 for career managerial wins, and if he manages through the end of next year (which one would surely expect at this point), he will almost certainly be in the top 5. He's managed 4 WS winners, 6 pennant winners, and 11 division winners (including 1 with Atlanta). 9 of those division wins were in a row.

That's some really heady stuff.

[Freakshow]

One almost has to think of him as a manager, as good a player as he was.

He's in the top 10 for career managerial wins, and if he manages through the end of next year (which one would surely expect at this point), he will almost certainly be in the top 5. He's managed 4 WS winners, 6 pennant winners, and 11 division winners (including 1 with Atlanta). 9 of those division wins were in a row.

That's some really heady stuff.
OK, he'll probably rank higher on the all-time managers list than he does on the all-time catchers list. What's that worth? Is a star manager worth more than a star player?:dismay:

[BlueBlood]

Not in my book. Managers these days have little to no impact on the finish of their team. I could see electing modern general managers. Torre had the biggest payroll in baseball for eons and won many WS and division titles thanks to the talent on board.

His career as a player doesn't hold up to my standards either. Those stats would be close enough had he spent a lot of time at catcher but he didn't. For me, he's under-the-line in both categories.

For reference's sake, the only manager still working that I would support is Bobby Cox. Maybe.

[Brad Harris]

Not in my book. Managers these days have little to no impact on the finish of their team. I could see electing modern general managers. Torre had the biggest payroll in baseball for eons and won many WS and division titles thanks to the talent on board.

His career as a player doesn't hold up to my standards either. Those stats would be close enough had he spent a lot of time at catcher but he didn't. For me, he's under-the-line in both categories.

For reference's sake, the only manager still working that I would support is Bobby Cox. Maybe.

Hard to say 'no' to a 2,000 wins.

[jjpm74]

Maybe on Cox, and no one else? No on LaRussa? I know LaRussa isn't exactly Mr. Popularity, but he did change the role of the reliever and seems to win wherever he goes. 11 1st place finishes, 2 WS, 2428 wins with more success than Cox.

[Freakshow]

After nearly a week of this poll, we have nine complete ballots and one partial. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 2.20
Bert Blyleven 2.60
Dick Allen 5.56
Tim Raines 5.90
Minnie Minoso 6.40
Bill Dahlen 7.00
Alan Trammell 9.90
Deacon White 10.00
Ted Simmons 10.22
Paul Hines 10.56
Sherry Magee 10.67
Bobby Grich 12.33
Joe Gordon 12.78
Mark McGwire 12.78
Ross Barnes 13.22
Joe Torre 14.00
Stan Hack 14.11
Harry Stovey 14.89
Andre Dawson 16.33
Dale Murphy 16.78

If you've placed anyone more than about five spots off from this consensus, you should take another look and consider whether you're assessing him accurately.

For myself, I have one player more than five places off from the consensus: Torre at #6, the consensus has him #16. I think he deserves the Hall either way, looking at only his playing or only his managing. The fact that he has two separate HOF careers makes him a slam dunk in my book.

We'll probably leave this poll open a couple more weeks; a lot of our regulars have yet to weigh in. The results above are not weighted; that wouldn't change it much since it's mostly our +80% voters participating in this. (I guess it's too much trouble for most people if there's no boxes to check off!:p)

[BlueBlood]

Maybe on Cox, and no one else? No on LaRussa? I know LaRussa isn't exactly Mr. Popularity, but he did change the role of the reliever and seems to win wherever he goes. 11 1st place finishes, 2 WS, 2428 wins with more success than Cox.

I'd lean towards a "yes" on LaRussa but wouldn't complain if he didn't end up in Cooperstown. Truthfully, managers with that many wins are guaranteed the accolade so it isn't worth discussing. Torre will go in as a manager ASAP.

[Cougar]

Not quite ASAP...they won't induct him while he's active. But when he leaves the Dodgers, as soon as it's clear that will be his last job, he'll be in, true.

But for all we know he might manage the Dodgers for 7-10 years. He turns 68 on Friday, is apparently in excellent health, and is probably even money to win the NL West this season. He'll likely have that job about as long as he wants it; Los Angeles is an awfully nice place for a celebrity manager to spend his twilight years.

[MadHatter]

1. Andre Dawson
2. Dale Murphy
3. Ron Santo
4. Ted Simmons
5. Dick Allen
6. Ross Barnes
7. Tim Raines
8. Joe Torre
9. Deacon White
10. Mark McGwire
11. Harry Stovey
12. Joe Gordon
13. Stan Hack
14. Bill Dahlen
15. Minnie Minoso
16. Alan Trammell
17. Paul Hines
18. Bert Blyleven
19. Sherry Magee
20. Bobby Grich

[jjpm74]

Could someone explain why Grich is ranked higher than Gordon, Hack, Barnes, McGwire, and Torre? I can see maybe being ranked higher than Harry Stovey and Andre Dawson. Grich's offensive numbers are all basically league average or lower as is his OPS+. I know he was great defensively and had a long career, but is he really better than Joe Gordon and Ross Barnes at 2B?

[Erik Bedard]

I'm going to test myself and see who people think I need to learn more about... (consensus - my ranking > 5)

1. Dick Allen (4.56)
2. Ron Santo (.2)
3. Bert Blyleven (-.4)
4. Tim Raines (1.9)
5. Bill Dahlen (2)
6. Paul Hines (4.56)
7. Minnie Minoso (-.6)
8. Alan Trammell (1.8)
9. Ted Simmons (1.22)
10. Sherry Magee (.67)
11. Bobby Grich (1.33)
12. Ross Barnes (1.22)
13. Joe Torre (1)
14. Deacon White (-4)
15. Joe Gordon (-2.22)
16. Harry Stovey (-1.11)
17. Stan Hack (-2.89)
18. Dale Murphy (-1.22)
19. Mark McGwire (-6.22)
20. Andre Dawson (-3.67)

Okay, just McGwire. And I'm penalizing him for PEDs (legal or not), and I know some others aren't, or are giving him less of a negative factor.

[BlueBlood]

+ means I have them ranked higher than the consensus, - means I have them ranked lower

1. Bert Blyleven (+1.60)
2. Ron Santo (+.20)
3. Tim Raines (+2.90)
4. Dick Allen (+1.56)
5. Ted Simmons (+5.22)
6. Alan Trammell (+3.90)
7. Minnie Minoso (-.60)
.................................
8. Bobby Grich (+4.33)
9. Deacon White (+1.00)
10. Paul Hines (+.56)
11. Sherry Magee (-.33)
12. Ross Barnes (+1.22)
13. Bill Dahlen (-6.00)
14. Stan Hack (+.11)
.................................
15. Harry Stovey (-.11)
16. Andre Dawson (+.33)
17. Joe Gordon (-4.22)
18. Dale Murphy (+1.22)
..................................
19. Joe Torre (-5.00)
20. Mark McGwire (-7.22)

Excluding the bottom two (which I won't budge on), I need to rethink:

Bill Dahlen (-6.00
Ted Simmons (+5.22)
Bobby Grich (+4.33)
Joe Gordon (-4.22)
Alan Trammell (+3.90)

[BlueBlood]

Could someone explain why Grich is ranked higher than Gordon, Hack, Barnes, McGwire, and Torre?

Hack: Grich is a better hitter at a position that's usually weaker offensively

Gordon: Grich has a much stronger peak

Barnes: Fair-foul rule

McGwire: PEDs

Torre: Didn't solely play catcher or as much as other HOF candidates at that position (or in the hall), so he's not as valuable at his position as his overall stats indicate. Plus, he will be in as a manager anyway.

[dgarza]

1. Ross Barnes +12.22
2. Mark McGwire +10.78
3. Harry Stovey +11.89
4. Dick Allen +1.56
5. Deacon White +5.00
6. Sherry Magee +5.67
7. Ron Santo -4.80
8. Bert Blyleven -5.40
9. Dale Murphy +7.78
10. Paul Hines +0.56
11. Minnie Minoso -4.60
12. Ted Simmons -1.78
13. Andre Dawson +3.33
14. Stan Hack +0.11
15. Joe Torre -1.00
16. Joe Gordon -3.22
17. Bill Dahlen -10.00
18. Tim Raines -12.10
19. Alan Trammell -9.10
20. Bobby Grich -7.67

My closest match was Stan Hack +0.11.
By farthest match was Ross Barnes +12.22.
My average deviation was a whopping 5.93!

What does this tell me? I don't know. I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me!

[dgarza]

Could someone explain why Grich is ranked higher than Gordon, Hack, Barnes, McGwire, and Torre?
I sure can't.
I know he was great defensively and had a long career, but is he really better than Joe Gordon and Ross Barnes at 2B?
Grich had more career value, but he was not "better at 2B" than Ross Barnes. Ross Barnes was a master of 2B...for short period of time.

[jalbright]

After nearly a week of this poll, we have nine complete ballots and one partial. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 2.20
Bert Blyleven 2.60
Dick Allen 5.56
Tim Raines 5.90
Minnie Minoso 6.40
Bill Dahlen 7.00
Alan Trammell 9.90
Deacon White 10.00
Ted Simmons 10.22
Paul Hines 10.56
Sherry Magee 10.67
Bobby Grich 12.33
Joe Gordon 12.78
Mark McGwire 12.78
Ross Barnes 13.22
Joe Torre 14.00
Stan Hack 14.11
Harry Stovey 14.89
Andre Dawson 16.33
Dale Murphy 16.78

If you've placed anyone more than about five spots off from this consensus, you should take another look and consider whether you're assessing him accurately.

I think five places isn't necessarily the best way to do it. You'd need to know silly mathematical stuff like standard deviations and the like to do it right. However, if all but one of us have player X fifth, and the last person has him even 10th, that ranking is a definite outlier. On the other hand, if somebody averages 10th but that's based on 19 ballots listing him in places 1 through 19, it's hard to say a 16th or 17th place or a 3rd or 4th place is really badly out of place. Also, while I respect the nine who have weighed in, we are still talking about a fairly small sample.

[Brad Harris]

Another factor for Grich is league quality adjustments

[Freakshow]

I think five places isn't necessarily the best way to do it. You'd need to know silly mathematical stuff like standard deviations and the like to do it right. However, if all but one of us have player X fifth, and the last person has him even 10th, that ranking is a definite outlier. On the other hand, if somebody averages 10th but that's based on 19 ballots listing him in places 1 through 19, it's hard to say a 16th or 17th place or a 3rd or 4th place is really badly out of place. Also, while I respect the nine who have weighed in, we are still talking about a fairly small sample.
Of course. Nobody is making any claims to precision here. And there is no intent to compel anyone to change their ballot.

It's all towards the aim of getting it right(er), the most important part of which is never to be certain you have anybody placed right. Remember the Socratic admonition: The unexamined ballot is not worth casting. The process of reevaluation, of incorporating new information into the analysis, never ends.

[Freakshow]

Could someone explain why Grich is ranked higher than Gordon, Hack, Barnes, McGwire, and Torre?
Perhaps you'll be consoled by the news that MadHatter's ballot knocks Grich behind Gordon, McGwire and Barnes. Talk about a consensus-breaker!:noidea

[Erik Bedard]

I really don't understand that ballot at all. Dawson #1? Murphy #2? Blyleven #18? It's almost like my ballot turned upside down.

[jjpm74]

Another factor for Grich is league quality adjustments

I understand that Grich played in a more competitive era than Barnes and Gordon, but was it that much stronger that one would rank Barnes near the bottom and Grich near the middle of this pack?

Deacon White's the only other player I seem to have placed well off the average here, but I'm confident and have done enough research and analysis on him that he stays put.

[leecemark]

--My prelininary ballot only ranked the op 6. Here is my final ballot edited to rank 1-20.

1) Ron Santo - only guy outside Coopertown who has an arguement for top 5 at his position and is a lock for top 10. Very hard to understand this ommission.
2) Minnie Minoso - great player who stats suffer a little from missing the front end of his career. Even with that credit probably not this high based strictly on his playing career, but also was a pioneer for Latin Blacks. Has been a great ambassador for the game and is running out of time to attend his induction
3) Bert Blyleven - easily the best unenshired pitcher. In fact the only pitcher I'd call a glarign ommission.
4) Tim Raines - I'd have voted for him first ballot and was very dissapointed by his actual vote totals. A big step forward in the net election would be a good sign that the BWAA is learning to appreciate somethign other than big traditional milestone and is prepared to fairly consider recent players who clearly meet the middle range of established HoF quailifers from previous generations.
5) Alan Trammell - ditto, although I have much less hope of seeing this actually happen for Trammell.
6) Deacon White - Recent players have gotten badly mistreated by the voters, but no obvious Hall of Famer has been overlooked longer than White. The first generation of stars is badly underrepresented. White was one of the biggest of the 1870s and the best career of those not already enshirned (2nd only to Anson amoung original 1871 guys).
7) Bill Dahlen
8) Paul Hines
9) Ted Simmons
10) Ross Barnes
11) Joe Torre
12) Dick Allen
13) Sherry Magee
14) Bobby Grich
15) Joe Gordon
16) Andre Dawson
17) Dale Murphy
18) Stan Hack
19) Mark McGwire (ask me again and a couple years and I'm sure he'd be higher
20) Harry Stovey

[Brad Harris]

I understand that Grich played in a more competitive era than Barnes and Gordon, but was it that much stronger that one would rank Barnes near the bottom and Grich near the middle of this pack?
The difference between the 1970-1986 American League and the 1870s NA/NL is about as big a difference in league quality as you'll find comparing any two leagues/eras. It's not as though Barnes isn't getting his due. Even at 20 on these lists, that's saying that a guy who starred in the National Association is the 20th best candidate outside Cooperstown. That's no small compliment.
Speaking for myself, I've got both Grich and Gordon considerably higher than Barnes. I certainly do subscribe to the "a pennant is a pennant" philosophy, but when we're comparing players from different eras, the quality of the era does play a role for me in their order in the queue if not in their deservedness.

[Brad Harris]

I really don't understand that ballot at all. Dawson #1? Murphy #2? Blyleven #18? It's almost like my ballot turned upside down.
The only discernable pattern emergent in MadHatter's votes is that there is no discernable pattern. :) All viewpoints are welcome.

[Paul Wendt]

I understand that Grich played in a more competitive era than Barnes and Gordon, but was it that much stronger that one would rank Barnes near the bottom and Grich near the middle of this pack?
On the other hand,
- A Hall of Merit special project, ranking the twelve 1943-1989 Hall of Merit members (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ballot_thread_group_2_careers_1943_1987/) who are not in the Hall of Fame, made Grich number one ahead of Santo, Allen, Simmons. (Those four were almost unanimously the top four in competition with Torre, Minoso, et al.)

And despite Santo's more than 10% greater playing time,
- Bill James rates Grich above Santo --329 to 324 win shares.
- Clay Davenport rates Grich above Santo --more wins above replacement despite Santo's more than 10% greater playing time.

[jalbright]

My problem with Barnes is simple: how responsible was the fair-foul rule for his success? If it's a lot, even at 20 he may be overrated. If it's very little, he deserves to be higher. If I ever am satisfied that I have a good handle on the answer to that question, I will certainly revisit how high to rank him. Until then, I'm more comfortable leaving him out of the Hall--and that immediately pushes him near the bottom of a list that I regard as otherwise wall-to-wall HOF caliber candidates.

[Paul Wendt]

--My prelininary ballot only ranked the op 6. Here is my final ballot edited to rank 1-20.

1) Ron Santo - only guy outside Coopertown who has an argument for top 5 at his position and is a lock for top 10. Very hard to understand this omission.
Bill Dahlen has a good argument at shortstop. Indeed a Hall of Merit special project (hot off the press) ranks him sixth, which is fifth in the major leagues because one is John Henry Lloyd.

I daresay Bill Dahlen has what we commonly call "an argument" for fifth overall but I suppose the condition is eligible major leaguers. On that condition:

Mark McGwire has an argument at first base. In 2001 Bill James ranked him third behind Gehrig and Foxx (same condition). I think there must be some timeline in the argument to get him ahead of Anson, Brouthers, or Connor.

Ross Barnes has an argument at second base. Presumably that would be fifth behind Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby, and Morgan --four specific people.
Paul Hines has an argument at center field. Presumably that would be fifth behind Cobb, Speaker, Mays, and Mantle --four specific people.
The argument for Santo also defers to four specific people Mathews, Schmidt, Brett, and Boggs. That is, "rank in the top five" is a synonym for "rank fifth".

Dan Quisenberry has an argument at relief pitcher.

[jjpm74]

Mark McGwire has an argument at first base. In 2001 Bill James ranked him third behind Gehrig and Foxx (same condition). I think there must be some timeline in the argument to get him ahead of Anson, Brouthers, or Connor.

Bill James later admitted that he ranked McGwire that high in error and demoted him to 8th.

[Windy City Fan]

1. Santo +1.2
2. Blyleven +0.6
3. Allen +2.56
4. Raines +1.9
5. Dahlen +2.0
6. Minoso +0.4
7. Grich +5.33
8. White +2.0
9. Magee +1.67
10. Simmons +0.22
11. Gordon +1.78
12. Torre +2.00
13. Barnes +0.22
14. Trammell -4.1
15. Hines -4.44
16. Murphy +0.78
17. Dawson -0.22
18. Stovey -3.11
19. Hack -4.89
20. McGwire -7.22

+/- 5.0 or greater bolded
+/- 4.0 - 4.99 italics

McGwire and Grich (just barely) are my only outliers. McGwire is not moving up due to a PED discount which I'm sure some folks are not applying. And I'm pretty firm on Grich as well. I always have viewed his exclusion as a pretty big error.

Trammell, Hack, and Hines are all in the 4.0 - 4.99 range. I could see bumping Trammell ahead of Barnes and maybe Torre. Hack is a guy I was a little surprised made the list. He's a borderline guy with a short-ish career that was probably helped by playing in the war weakened league at the end of his career. Hines probably belongs ahead of Barnes, but I can't see him going much higher than that.

[Windy City Fan]

Barnes and Hines don't really have much of an "argument" for top 5. I have yet to see anyone rank Hines ahead of DiMaggio, Snider, and Griffey, along with the 4 you already mentioned. I haven't seen Hines make many top 10 centerfield lists.

Barnes has the big 4 ahead of him, but also Gehringer, Robinson, Sandburg, Frisch, Biggio, Alomar, Carew. Barnes is almost definately outside the top ten at his position. He's got a fight on his hands to get inside the top 15 with guys like Whitaker, Gordon, Kent, Grich.

Dahlen in the top 5 is surprising. I'd say he has a case for top ten.

[leecemark]

--Barnes certainly has an argument top 5 PEAK secondbasemen. His career value puts him out of the top 10 at least for me. Hines I can't see as a top 5 CFer however you slice it, but I can see him in the top 10. Dahlen I don't see as a top 10 SS, but there are some pretty knowledgable people who do.

[Cougar]

I think LM is correct here. He and I had a long, friendly, and fruitful debate about sorting out center fielders, and I think the one thing we both came out of it believing is once you get beyond the top five (Cobb, Mays, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, in no particular order), you had Griffey and Duke Snider pretty clearly "on deck", and after that it gets awfully murky telling them apart. Since then Junior has probably made the big 5 a big 6, but after Snider, there's a heck of a gray area between 7 and 40.

[Brad Harris]

I think LM is correct here. He and I had a long, friendly, and fruitful debate about sorting out center fielders, and I think the one thing we both came out of it believing is once you get beyond the top five (Cobb, Mays, Mantle, Speaker, DiMaggio, in no particular order), you had Griffey and Duke Snider pretty clearly "on deck", and after that it gets awfully murky telling them apart. Since then Junior has probably made the big 5 a big 6, but after Snider, there's a heck of a gray area between 7 and 40.
Yeah, but that's where the real fun begins! :D

[leecemark]

--Thats for sure! I've long since exhausted what I have to say about Mays vs Cobb as #1 CFer (or Speaker vs Mantle for 3/4). DiMaggio is an easy #5, Griffey seems safely locked in at 6. Snider is generally at 7. Then the fun starts. I like Billy Hamilton next, but Hines has a reasonable case for best 19th century CFer and thus the 8 spt I have Hamilton in now. There are probably 8-10 guys who are decent choices to round out the top 10. Twice that many who have a case for top 20.

[Freakshow]

Highest OPS+, players with 38%+ of career or 800+ games in CF, 7250+ PA:

Cnt Player OPS+ RC PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+
1 Mickey Mantle 172 2038 9909 1951 1968
2 Ty Cobb 167 2522 13072 1905 1928
3 Tris Speaker 158 2154 11988 1907 1928
4 Willie Mays 156 2368 12493 1951 1973
5 Joe DiMaggio 155 1569 7671 1936 1951
6 Billy Hamilton 141 1221 7584 1888 1901
7 Duke Snider 140 1477 8237 1947 1964
8 Ken Griffey 139 1905 10541 1989 2008
9 Reggie Smith 137 1276 8050 1966 1982
10 Jim Edmonds 132 1339 7567 1993 2008
11 Paul Hines 131 980 7470 1872 1891
12 Fred Lynn 129 1232 7923 1974 1990
13 Jimmy Wynn 128 1149 8010 1963 1977
14 Ellis Burks 126 1350 8176 1987 2004
15 Edd Roush 126 1184 8156 1913 1931
16 Bernie Williams 125 1445 9053 1991 2006
17 Cy Williams 125 1132 7720 1912 1930
18 Kirby Puckett 124 1201 7831 1984 1995
19 Bobby Murcer 124 1101 7718 1965 1983
20 Cesar Cedeno 123 1144 8133 1970 1986
21 Jimmy Ryan 123 1341 9106 1885 1903
22 Hugh Duffy 122 1228 7827 1888 1906
23 Dale Murphy 121 1308 9040 1976 1993
24 Al Oliver 121 1347 9778 1968 1985
25 George Van Haltre 121 1288 8979 1887 1903
26 Chet Lemon 120 1077 7872 1975 1990
27 Andre Dawson 119 1518 10769 1976 1996

[leecemark]

--Those PA totals GREATLY understate the heft of Hines career. He played 20 years and was a regular all but the first and last. His longeviy ranks amoung the elite centerfilders. It is obscured by the shortness of seasons in his day though. His career was more than half over before he played 100 games - and the early ones were less than half that.

[jjpm74]

--Those PA totals GREATLY understate the heft of Hines career. He played 20 years and was a regular all but the first and last. His longeviy ranks amoung the elite centerfilders. It is obscured by the shortness of seasons in his day though. His career was more than half over before he played 100 games - and the early ones were less than half that.

The fact that without adjustment he still ranks 11th says a lot for how great Hines was in his day.

[Freakshow]

--Those PA totals GREATLY understate the heft of Hines career. He played 20 years and was a regular all but the first and last. His longeviy ranks amoung the elite centerfilders. It is obscured by the shortness of seasons in his day though. His career was more than half over before he played 100 games - and the early ones were less than half that.
Absolutely right. Off the top of my head, I'd adjust him with half again his career PA, putting him over 11,000.

Also note that the Runs Created total greatly underestimate his offense. In Hines' day, a great many runs were created by things the RC formula doesn't account for, such as forcing errors and sharp baserunning.

[Paul Wendt]

--Thats for sure! I've long since exhausted what I have to say about Mays vs Cobb as #1 CFer (or Speaker vs Mantle for 3/4). DiMaggio is an easy #5, Griffey seems safely locked in at 6. Snider is generally at 7. Then the fun starts. I like Billy Hamilton next, but Hines has a reasonable case for best 19th century CFer and thus the 8 spt I have Hamilton in now. There are probably 8-10 guys who are decent choices to round out the top 10. Twice that many who have a case for top 20.
"Snider is generally at 7". Maybe so, but only because we commonly rank him there. He wouldn't be if we didn't do it.
Seriously, Roger Kahn & David Halberstam and New York City in the 1950s, all well and good, it sells books, but ranking Snider ahead of Billy Hamilton or Paul Hines as a Hall of Fame player. :rolleyes:

DiMaggio and Griffey have their critics. They aren't universally considered "inner circle", "top rank", "first tier", etc. Those who do see them that way should start having fun at #7, not #8.

Griffey, Jr., is active. Counting all major leaguers, not only those who retired before 2003, I retract my nodding agreement that Ron Santo has what we usually call an argument for #5 at third base.

--
The special project to rank Hall of Merit 3Bmen (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_the_hall_of_merit_third_basemen_discussion/P100/) opened Monday. There is discussion for at least a week before posting ballots, which are rankings 1 to 18 in this case. It's usually a three-week cycle. Molitor and Allen are in the thirdbase lot; White, Killebrew, and Rose are not; Leach is not elected yet. Those classifying decisions impact at least all the rankings below the big four.

[henrich]

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Andre Dawson
3. Tim Raines
4. Dale Murphy
5. Mark McGwire
6. Joe Gordon
7. Bill Dahlen
8. Sherry Magee
9. Harry Stovey
10. Ron Santo
11. Dick Allen
12. Alan Trammell
13. Ted Simmons
14. Joe Torre
15. Bobby Grich
16. Minnie Minoso
17. Stan Hack
18. Paul Hines
19. Deacon White
20. Ross Barnes

I think Jim Rice is bad miss also, he's got one more year of eligibility, not sure if they'll elect him with Henderson on the stage saying Rickey likes it when he is honored.

[Brad Harris]

1. Bert Blyleven
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20. Ross Barnes

Wow. H-Factor FTW!

[Erik Bedard]

Can someone (particularly MadHatter or henrich, who had him first and second), explain to me why everybody loves Andre Dawson so much?

[Freakshow]

Can someone (particularly MadHatter or henrich, who had him first and second), explain to me why everybody loves Andre Dawson so much?
Great tools: #7 in Power-Speed Number
Long career: #22 in Outs made

Which is fine if your Runs Created rank is similar to your Outs rank. But Andre is #72 in RC. That power and speed is not compensating for his failure to get on base.

[Brad Harris]

Great tools: #7 in Power-Speed Number
Long career: #22 in Outs made

Which is fine if your Runs Created rank is similar to your Outs rank. But Andre is #72 in RC. That power and speed is not compensating for his failure to get on base.

400 career dingers, exclusive 300/300 club member, MVP Award (and two 2nd-place finishes), 8 all-star games

Probably also the feeling that he might have been better for longer without the artificial turf in le Stade Olymipique's outfield all those early years when he was winning 8 gold gloves in 9 years.

[leecemark]

--Unfortunate that someone who has not been involved in the process comes along and totally discounts the 19th century guys in our final ranking. Hopefully the weighting system for long term participation balances that out some.

[Paul Wendt]

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Andre Dawson
3. Tim Raines
. . .
18. Paul Hines
19. Deacon White
20. Ross Barnes
This ranking is tied at least as strongly to plate appearances and batters faced as it is to outstanding play.

Here we have the six players with long careers, except Barnes in place of Dahlen. Granted, I don't know how to make a pitching career commensurable in length or quality, so let me pass on the Dutchman. Raines, Dahlen, Hines and White should be at the top of the list, Dawson at the bottom.

(Hell, the Dutchman should be at the top too.)

[Freakshow]

One more opinion I surveyed is us here at BBF. In what order were the Top 20 elected to the BBFHOF?

Santo 14 (elected in the 14th BBFHOF election)
McGwire 18 (not eligible until the 17th election)
Raines 22 (not eligible until the 20th election)
Minoso 23
Allen 24
Blyleven 25
Dahlen 26
Hines 27
Simmons 27
Trammell 28
Magee 28
White 29
Dawson 29
Gordon 33
Hack 33
Grich 34
Stovey 34
Murphy 34
Barnes 50
Torre elected as contributor
The first 18 listed above were the first 18 MLB non-HOF players elected to the BBF. Torre was elected to the BBFHOF as a contributor for his manager career.

Ross Barnes was the 28th MLB non-HOF player elected. His inclusion in our Top 20 is encouraging to me, as more and more people seem to be understanding the case for him.

The gist of it is, a player can only play in the time he was born into. Barnes was a star of the first rank for eight years (1869-76). When Harry Wright was assembling his Boston dynasty, he used the core of his great Cincinnati teams and added the best players he could find, Barnes and Spalding. He played 2B only because the team already had the game's best shortstop.

Barnes was injured which led to an off year in 1877. In 1878 he played in the IA; my understanding is he was still recovering. He also may have simply gotten the best offer to play for Tecumseh that year. In any case, in 1879 Barnes returned to the NL and starred, the game's second best shortstop after Wright.

Barnes sat out 1880; I'm not sure whether this was related to an injury or the reserve clause controversy.

In 1881, Barnes returned to the NL at age 31. In that day this was a ripe old age for a pro player; only three regulars were older than 31 that year (Start 38, Ferguson 36 and White 33). Despite this, he was still one of the league's top shortstops.

Barnes should be viewed in the same light as players like Koufax, Walsh and Hamilton in that they maximized the unique conditions of the game to dominate in their time. We can endlessly conjecture about their performances in other times, absent the advantages they enjoyed in their era, but this should not detract from the great value contributed to their teams' efforts to win.

Although somewhat romanticized, Barnes' obituary reflects something of how he was viewed at the time of his passing in 1915:

Rockford Morning Star
Saturday, 6 February 1915
p. 10


ROSS BARNES IS
CALLED OUT BY
ALMIGHTY UMPIRE

Greatest Second Baseman
Known to Baseball Passes
Away in Chicago.

BURIAL TO BE IN ROCKFORD

Rockford relatives and friends were saddened last night by receipt of advices to the effect that Roscoe C. Barnes had passed away at Chicago after an illness of only three or four days from aneurism of the aorta.

"Ross" Barnes, as he was generally known, was born in Mt. Morris, N. Y., sixty-four years ago and came to Rockford with his familly in 1866. The then new game of baseball appealed to him and by devoting to it the same keen brains which his brothers displayed in mechanics he advanced so rapidly in this profession that by 1870 he had become a national diamond celebrity and started on a career where he attained such fame and standing that Henry Chadwick, the veteran journalist who was called the "Father of Baseball" up to the time of his death, a few years ago, maintained that he was the greatest second baseman known to the game, past or present, than which no higher praise could be bestowed.

Was Star at Boston.

Barnes played at shortstop with the famous Forest Citys of Rockford in 1868-69-70 and then accompanied A. G. Spalding and Fred Cone to Boston in the National association which was the forerunner of the National league, where he was under the management of Harry Wright and where for several years he covered second base in a manner which has never been eclipsed.

Later he was a member of the Tecumsh club of Gualph, Canada, for one brilliant season and with the Chicago National league club for several years, persistent ill health finally forcing his retirement in the late seventies.

Beau Ideal of Ballmen.

Barnes had remarkable skill in guaging ground and fly balls and many of the present batting rules were devised to cut off his "fair fouls" and other strategy at the plate, for he was one of the most scientific and consistentbatsmen in the history of the sport and stood high in both batting and fielding averages at all times.

He was the personification of grace and effectiveness on the field and in his prime was the beau ideal of the intelligent diamond athlete, on and off the field, a gentleman and man of honor deserving of the wide esteem in which he was held.

[Paul Wendt]

Later he was a member of the Tecumsh club of Gualph, Canada, for one brilliant season
:rolleyes:

Beside the hometown hyperbole that is some mis-spelling and amateur reporting.

The Tecumseh club (named for the native chief) was based in London Ontario. The Maple Leaf club of Guelph Ontario was another 1877 member of the International Association and thus half of the reason for naming it International rather than National.

[Paul Wendt]

White, Hines, Dahlen, Blyleven, Raines
------
. . .
Trammell
. . .
------
Hack, Dawson, Murphy

[Freakshow]

Hopefully the weighting system for long term participation balances that out some.
It will help a lot, actually. Unfortunately, regular participants are not immune from the discounting of 19th century stars (*cough*Cougar*cough*).

[Cougar]

Well, I'm applying an ointment and hopefully it'll clear up.

[henrich]

Can someone (particularly MadHatter or henrich, who had him first and second), explain to me why everybody loves Andre Dawson so much?


Dawson ranked 12th RF all-time behind Ruth, Aaron, Robinson F., Jackson R., Ott M., Winfield D., Kaline A., Clemente R., Crawford S., Ramirez M., Parker D., Dawson. Behind him are Sosa, Gwynn, Waner P., Slaughter, Klein C., and then Larry Walker.

Why? 4787 Total bases is nothing to sneeze at. Though he didn't win a world series I don't think that totally kills his chances at HOF status. He did his part by leading the league in these categories despite playing for bad teams, he earned seasonal top 10 finishes in the following categories for the following point values: 460 points in HR, 370 for RBI's, 120 for SB's, 240 for average, 720 points in MVP voting.

For career numbers you hope to get out of a HOF candidate 8000 points plus the bonus listed above for seasonal and the playoffs which was only twice for Dawson for 200 points.

career numbers translate to Runs+RBI's+SB=3278, average number for HOF 3000
career numbers for Total bases 4787 average to get to 8000 is 3500

average x 5 (move the decimal 3 places) 279 x 5=1395 for 8000 this number should be closer to 1500, but his other career stats carry him here.

Total that's 1395+4787+3278=9460 for his career totals, in which this number should be at least 8000 to warrant discussion. When you add in seasonal categorical leaders which totals 1910+9460=11,370+ his defense awarded by gold gloves of 8 seasons x 100 =800 points+ 2 playoff appearances x 100 equals 12,370 which is his final total. The magic number for anyone playing to warrant hall of fame induction is 10,000 before the Rx era. Dawson is in the previous era so therefore he should easily qualify into the hall of fame. The writers take their time, heck we only have 20-30 guys voting in some of these polls, and we don't always agree, imagine what that's like for 550+writers...they'll get it correct in time.

[henrich]

This ranking is tied at least as strongly to plate appearances and batters faced as it is to outstanding play.

Here we have the six players with long careers, except Barnes in place of Dahlen. Granted, I don't know how to make a pitching career commensurable in length or quality, so let me pass on the Dutchman. Raines, Dahlen, Hines and White should be at the top of the list, Dawson at the bottom.

(Hell, the Dutchman should be at the top too.)

I think the three most important things to a voter for the HOF is career stats, dominance and the playoffs. The 19th century brought them to a point where a World Series was played and for that the term pioneer is aptly named, but as far as offensive dominance, or career stats they come up short. I've always felt that defense is really tough to measure, but one thing I can measure it by is that if they were bad, they probably wouldn't be in the major leagues long, or they would (now) end up a DH. I know that good glove men don't get there due, and it's nice to root for the underdog, but I don't have these guys stacking up.

I really like the suggestion to the formula that I've applied to all these cool polls that have me multiply out the numbers for 19th century as if they played a full season. When that is complete (H-Factor*1.5) for the 19th century players, it may very well work for them, and if it does seem to work then Cap Anson may be in the top 20 to ever play the game. Is that a ridiculous statement?

[henrich]

--Thats for sure! I've long since exhausted what I have to say about Mays vs Cobb as #1 CFer (or Speaker vs Mantle for 3/4). DiMaggio is an easy #5, Griffey seems safely locked in at 6. Snider is generally at 7. Then the fun starts. I like Billy Hamilton next, but Hines has a reasonable case for best 19th century CFer and thus the 8 spt I have Hamilton in now. There are probably 8-10 guys who are decent choices to round out the top 10. Twice that many who have a case for top 20.

I have Billy Hamilton at 24th all-time, but my top 7 are the same. Cobb, Mantle, Mays, DiMaggio, Speaker, Griffey, Snider, etc.

[leecemark]

I really like the suggestion to the formula that I've applied to all these cool polls that have me multiply out the numbers for 19th century as if they played a full season. When that is complete (H-Factor*1.5) for the 19th century players, it may very well work for them, and if it does seem to work then Cap Anson may be in the top 20 to ever play the game. Is that a ridiculous statement?


--The 19th century guys DID play out full seasons. Those seasons were just shorter. If your system is to work for these players you need to multiply to extend their stats to a 162 game schedule. That is assuming that your system works for anyone. You seem to have some limitations in regards to adjusting for offensive context or differing expectations for different positions. Cap Anson in the top 20 is not a ridiculous statement. I have him in my top 30 and the diffenerce between #20 and #30 is not so large.

[leecemark]

I have Billy Hamilton at 24th all-time, but my top 7 are the same. Cobb, Mantle, Mays, DiMaggio, Speaker, Griffey, Snider, etc.


--24 amoung Cfers or all players? The former I would find incredibly low. The latter incredibly high.

[henrich]

--24 amoung Cfers or all players? The former I would find incredibly low. The latter incredibly high.


I think you mentioned that there's 20 players that could argue for spots 11-20
I just didn't have him as high as you. (This was for CF's, not all positions).

[henrich]

--The 19th century guys DID play out full seasons. Those seasons were just shorter. If your system is to work for these players you need to multiply to extend their stats to a 162 game schedule. That is assuming that your system works for anyone. You seem to have some limitations in regards to adjusting for offensive context or differing expectations for different positions. Cap Anson in the top 20 is not a ridiculous statement. I have him in my top 30 and the diffenerce between #20 and #30 is not so large.

I have Anson 5th in 1B all-time as it is, I was just saying he would be ahead of Jimmy Foxx if I multiplied him by 1.5 and just behind Lou Gehrig.

Top 5-Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Thomas F., Anson.

The point is for fans/voters to see clearly the players' statistical measure against their peers within their era and then all-time at their respective position(s).

Bill James said in his book, Whatever Happened to the Baseball Hall of Fame? "It's not like you can draw a line and say everyone above this line is in and everyone below it is out."

I set out to prove him wrong. However, I just put the numbers out there, if you want to debate where the line is for different positions that's for anyone to draw; I gave my opinions on it, but the statistics are the same for everyone, for an easy measure for the fans to judge for themselves.

[jjpm74]

I really like the suggestion to the formula that I've applied to all these cool polls that have me multiply out the numbers for 19th century as if they played a full season. When that is complete (H-Factor*1.5) for the 19th century players, it may very well work for them, and if it does seem to work then Cap Anson may be in the top 20 to ever play the game. Is that a ridiculous statement?

If a player played their team's schedule from start to finish, that is a full season. If by full season you are taking the 162 game schedule, you might as well write off the majority of baseball's history. If you want to see what these guys were capable of, go to bbref and hit neutralize. It'll give you a projection of what some of these guys would have done with a 162 game schedule. Is that perfect? No, but it is a lot better than completely discounting them. Especially in a project who's primary focus was looking at the HOF's mistakes and shortcomings and coming up with a list of players that should be in the HOF. This top 20 list game about after many rounds of voting by many different people. The fact that Ross Barnes, Paul Hines, and Deacon White made the top 20 on this list means that a lot of people in this community feel strongly that these guys are HOFers. If your formula has them coming up short, maybe that means that this formula still needs some retooling.

The same is true if you don't give a guy credit for time missed for WWI or the Korean War, or for late ML starts because of racism. These are things that were beyond a player's control and not something a player should be penalized for by ignoring.

[jalbright]

Bill James said in his book, Whatever Happened to the Baseball Hall of Fame? "It's not like you can draw a line and say everyone above this line is in and everyone below it is out."

I set out to prove him wrong. However, I just put the numbers out there, if you want to debate where the line is for different positions that's for anyone to draw; I gave my opinions on it, but the statistics are the same for everyone, for an easy measure for the fans to judge for themselves.

I agree and disagree with both you and Bill James. The main problem with James' statement is it's a little too categorical. While there are judgments to be made and thorny issues to resolve which blur the line, one can certainly set darned good guidelines out for determining who should be in and who should be out, and thus save one's time and effort for the close calls and those with other issues. That said, the statistics don't tell us everything. The stats don't tell us how to deal with the color line, military service, Japan, Castro's Cuba, the fair/foul rule, adjustments for season length, league quality and so forth. There's definitely an element of judgment involved here, and thus there is a need to build consensus. Some of the issues aren't excessively difficult to reach consensus on, but others are quite difficult.

[Windy City Fan]

My ballot has been edited. Though I'd still like to hear a compelling argument for Hack.

[Paul Wendt]

My ballot has been edited. Though I'd still like to hear a compelling argument for Hack.
This project is based partly on stipulated minimum numbers of candidates from each decade, 20-year, and 40-year period and those periods are defined so they exhaust the whole timespan without overlapping.

The stipulated number for 1910-1949 was four, but thanks or blame to a tie vote (Groh and Doyle) only three advanced to this finale. Magee, Hack, and Gordon are the three. They finished well ahead of Groh and Doyle and further ahead of popular candidates Wes Ferrell and Carl Mays.

We also have the stipulated number, five, from before 1910. We have four plus the stipulated number eight from after 1949 because the recent players romped in the runoff election.

[henrich]

If a player played their team's schedule from start to finish, that is a full season. If by full season you are taking the 162 game schedule, you might as well write off the majority of baseball's history. If you want to see what these guys were capable of, go to bbref and hit neutralize. It'll give you a projection of what some of these guys would have done with a 162 game schedule. Is that perfect? No, but it is a lot better than completely discounting them. Especially in a project who's primary focus was looking at the HOF's mistakes and shortcomings and coming up with a list of players that should be in the HOF. This top 20 list game about after many rounds of voting by many different people. The fact that Ross Barnes, Paul Hines, and Deacon White made the top 20 on this list means that a lot of people in this community feel strongly that these guys are HOFers. If your formula has them coming up short, maybe that means that this formula still needs some retooling.

The same is true if you don't give a guy credit for time missed for WWI or the Korean War, or for late ML starts because of racism. These are things that were beyond a player's control and not something a player should be penalized for by ignoring.

I understand what you mean with applying to a 162 game season. I felt as though by era they would stick out amongst their peers if they were great in their time period. The 19th century guys, I think you all have astutely pointed out that needs a multiplier there for people to cross-over eras. The Negro Leagues, Japan, Cuba etc I didn't account for either, as that was beyond the scope of the formula.

I do think that you can see that many of the players that we discuss as a forum peer group with a pretty high baseball IQ that we are not far off on the 20th century players and the litmus test as to whether they are worthy of induction or not. This is another statistical measure that has no whatifs involved, because I didn't want speculation. I felt speculation would be great for argument/discussion on making a case for someone who didn't meet the numbers necessary (10,000). I did not want to cloud the formula with projections, just hard data for what they actually did on the diamond.

I find the whatif/projections difficult to do internally because then where does that stop? If Eric Davis had not hurt himself diving while trying to catch a ball and lacerated his kidney where would his career have ended up? I did not want to go to that slippery slope, so I stayed with objective data. I left the opinions on why someone scores well or didn't score well open for debate.

[henrich]

I agree and disagree with both you and Bill James. The main problem with James' statement is it's a little too categorical. While there are judgments to be made and thorny issues to resolve which blur the line, one can certainly set darned good guidelines out for determining who should be in and who should be out, and thus save one's time and effort for the close calls and those with other issues. That said, the statistics don't tell us everything. The stats don't tell us how to deal with the color line, military service, Japan, Castro's Cuba, the fair/foul rule, adjustments for season length, league quality and so forth. There's definitely an element of judgment involved here, and thus there is a need to build consensus. Some of the issues aren't excessively difficult to reach consensus on, but others are quite difficult.

I agree with you on the difficulties to assess all of the factors. I find it daunting.

[Windy City Fan]

This project is based partly on stipulated minimum numbers of candidates from each decade, 20-year, and 40-year period and those periods are defined so they exhaust the whole timespan without overlapping.

The stipulated number for 1910-1949 was four, but thanks or blame to a tie vote (Groh and Doyle) only three advanced to this finale. Magee, Hack, and Gordon are the three. They finished well ahead of Groh and Doyle and further ahead of popular candidates Wes Ferrell and Carl Mays.

We also have the stipulated number, five, from before 1910. We have four plus the stipulated number eight from after 1949 because the recent players romped in the runoff election.

OK, I understand why he is on the list, but I'm still ranking him 5 slots below the concensus at 19th on my ballot. He and McGwire are the only ones on the list I have firmly decided against supporting for HOF election. I was curious to here an argument from people who support Hack or at least rank him higher than I do.

[Cougar]

OK, I understand why he is on the list, but I'm still ranking him 5 slots below the concensus at 19th on my ballot. He and McGwire are the only ones on the list I have firmly decided against supporting for HOF election. I was curious to here an argument from people who support Hack or at least rank him higher than I do.

Kinda surprising that a poster with the sobriquet Windy City Fan opposes a career Cub.

Stan Hack was a leadoff hitter, and a very good one. His career BA was over .300, and his on-base percentage was nearly .400.

This opening paragraph from his Wikipedia page is a good summation of his career:

Stanley Camfield Hack (December 6, 1909 - December 15, 1979), nicknamed "Smiling Stan," was an American third baseman and manager in Major League Baseball who played his entire career for the Chicago Cubs and was the National League's top third baseman in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Usually a leadoff hitter, he batted .301 lifetime, scored 100 runs seven times and led the NL in hits and stolen bases twice each. His 1092 walks ranked fourth in NL history when he retired, and remain a franchise record; he also hit .348 over four World Series. His .394 career on base percentage was the highest by a 20th-century third baseman until Wade Boggs exceeded it in the late 1980s, and was the top NL mark until 2001. Hack led the NL in putouts five times, in double plays three times and in assists and fielding percentage twice each. At the end of his career he ranked second in major league history to Pie Traynor in games (1836) at third base, second in NL history to Traynor in putouts (1944), assists (3494) and total chances (5684), and third in NL history in double plays (255).

Hack was an excellent fielder, one of the best base stealers of his era, and a very good on base man. He scored over 100 runs seven times, led the NL in hits twice, and led the NL in stolen bases twice. He was the best third baseman to play between Traynor and Mathews, and I don't think it's very close...that's about a twenty year span from Pie's last big season to Eddie's first.

In my opinion, the only reason Hack wasn't inducted 40 years ago is because the HOF voters don't quite know how to handle/rate leadoff hitters who don't have a ton of power and miss milestones.

[Brad Harris]

He was the best third baseman to play between Traynor and Mathews, and I don't think it's very close...that's about a twenty year span from Pie's last big season to Eddie's first.
I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, but is Hack really that much better than, say, Bob Elliott (who won an MVP is I recall correctly) or Al Rosen?

[Cougar]

I had a paragraph expanding on the claim that Hack was the best between Pie and Eddie M, but omitted it because I didn't want to get sidetracked.

In there, I said that the other claimants, as you say, would be Rosen and Elliott.

I think they're both borderline HOFers themselves, but I'd favor Hack. Rosen's got a higher peak than almost anyone, but got hurt and had a short career. Elliott put up a lot of his big numbers in pitchers' parks, but also did a lot during the war years. Neither was the fielder Hack was either.

[Paul Wendt]

OK, I understand why [Hack] is on the list, but I'm still ranking him 5 slots below the concensus at 19th on my ballot. He and McGwire are the only ones on the list I have firmly decided against supporting for HOF election. I was curious to here an argument from people who support Hack or at least rank him higher than I do.
I can't help there although I might rank him #18 above both Dawson and Murphy. No so-called careerist should rank him above Dawson.

Consensus ranking isn't easy to measure. If the group unanimously ranks Stan Hack #18 there is something to be said for calling that a consensus #18, but if half put Barnes & White below him and half put Dawson & Murphy below him, he will be #20 in the official results.

Don't worry about being "off by five" from the consensus ranking. I haven't posted a complete ranking but that worry isn't holding me back. Probably some people refer to the consensus-in-progress as a method of ranking some players they don't know well. That exaggerates the degree of consensus.
See the good-bye explanation from one Hall of Merit voter. (#151 Bob Allen's farewell (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_the_hall_of_merit_third_basemen_discussion/P100/))

[Paul Wendt]

Hack was an excellent fielder, one of the best base stealers of his era, and a very good on base man. He scored over 100 runs seven times, led the NL in hits twice, and led the NL in stolen bases twice. He was the best third baseman to play between Traynor and Mathews, and I don't think it's very close
The follow-up seems to say that it's close. ("the other claimants, as you say, would be Rosen and Elliott.
I think they're both borderline HOFers themselves, but I'd favor Hack.")

...that's about a twenty year span from Pie's last big season to Eddie's first.

In my opinion, the only reason Hack wasn't inducted 40 years ago is because the HOF voters don't quite know how to handle/rate leadoff hitters who don't have a ton of power and miss milestones.
Maybe so but if Pie Traynor were not in the Hall of Fame would he be in this poll? If in this poll whom would he outrank?
Few disdain him as a mistake but that doesn't mean many would rank him among the greater omissions.

[Cougar]

The follow-up seems to say that it's close. ("the other claimants, as you say, would be Rosen and Elliott.
I think they're both borderline HOFers themselves, but I'd favor Hack.")

Fair point; I thought the inference was there, but I'll clarify -- I don't think Hack is a borderline HOFer -- I think he's a clear one, like Santo, and his omission is a manifest mistake.

Rosen and Elliott...it kinda depends on the day...I wouldn't oppose them, but I'm not sure I'd hop a bandwagon for them either. That's a borderline case for me.

I think just about all of our top 20 are more or less clear HOFers, in fact. But I'm a big Hall guy, so sorry if that give some small Hall guys reflux.

Maybe so but if Pie Traynor were not in the Hall of Fame would he be in this poll? If in this poll whom would he outrank?
Few disdain him as a mistake but that doesn't mean many would rank him among the greater omissions.

Traynor was overrated for so long he's now underrated. He was an elite fielder, an excellent hitter for average (and yeah, the era inflates it a bit, but still), and had more pop than he's given credit for thanks to Forbes Field. (Look at the triples! Those are power triples, not speed triples.)

Best third baseman of the pre-Mathews era...no, that was probably Frank Baker. But a solid, mid-range HOFer...sure.

[Freakshow]

After nearly a week of this poll, we have nine complete ballots and one partial. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 2.20
Bert Blyleven 2.60
Dick Allen 5.56
Tim Raines 5.90
Minnie Minoso 6.40
Bill Dahlen 7.00
Alan Trammell 9.90
Deacon White 10.00
Ted Simmons 10.22
Paul Hines 10.56
Sherry Magee 10.67
Bobby Grich 12.33
Joe Gordon 12.78
Mark McGwire 12.78
Ross Barnes 13.22
Joe Torre 14.00
Stan Hack 14.11
Harry Stovey 14.89
Andre Dawson 16.33
Dale Murphy 16.78

If you've placed anyone more than about five spots off from this consensus, you should take another look and consider whether you're assessing him accurately.

For myself, I have one player more than five places off from the consensus: Torre at #6, the consensus has him #16. I think he deserves the Hall either way, looking at only his playing or only his managing. The fact that he has two separate HOF careers makes him a slam dunk in my book.

We'll probably leave this poll open a couple more weeks; a lot of our regulars have yet to weigh in. The results above are not weighted; that wouldn't change it much since it's mostly our +80% voters participating in this. (I guess it's too much trouble for most people if there's no boxes to check off!:p)
After two weeks we now have 12 complete ballots. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 2.92
Bert Blyleven 3.75
Tim Raines 5.75
Dick Allen 6.50
Bill Dahlen 7.58
Minnie Minoso 7.92
Ted Simmons 9.83
Alan Trammell 10.42
Deacon White 10.67
Paul Hines 11.42
Sherry Magee 11.42
Joe Gordon 12.33
Mark McGwire 12.42
Ross Barnes 13.00
Bobby Grich 13.33
Joe Torre 13.33
Andre Dawson 13.83
Harry Stovey 14.50
Dale Murphy 14.50
Stan Hack 14.58
The results above are not weighted. We'll leave this poll open about another week, hoping the rest of our regulars have a chance to weigh in by the end of the month. I continue to encourage those who have cast ballots to feel free to revise your ballot; continue to assess the relative merits of these guys up until the final results are posted.

[Paul Wendt]

I think just about all of our top 20 are more or less clear HOFers, in fact. But I'm a big Hall guy, so sorry if that give some small Hall guys reflux.
I agree.
I'm not calling Traynor a poor choice, only saying that I wouldn't put him near the front of the queue (Top 20) if he weren't in.
Traynor was overrated for so long he's now underrated. He was an elite fielder, an excellent hitter for average (and yeah, the era inflates it a bit, but still), and had more pop than he's given credit for thanks to Forbes Field. (Look at the triples! Those are power triples, not speed triples.)

Best third baseman of the pre-Mathews era...no, that was probably Frank Baker. But a solid, mid-range HOFer...sure.

==
loose grouping, version three --not so loose
The "group" members are listed in chronological order. I have incompletely ranked all of them but I don't know how to write that and it doesn't matter much. I don't mind saying Stan Hack looks like #18.

White, Hines, Dahlen, Raines


Barnes, Santo, Grich, Blyleven, McGwire


Simmons, Trammell
Magee, Allen

Stovey, Gordon, Minoso, Torre


Hack, Dawson, Murphy

[Paul Wendt]

White
Dahlen
Hines
Raines
Blyleven *
Santo
Grich
McGwire
Barnes

Trammell
Simmons
Magee
Allen

Gordon
Minoso
Stovey
Torre
Hack *
Dawson
Murphy

* almost set in stone or concrete

[Brad Harris]

Best third baseman of the pre-Mathews era...no, that was probably Frank Baker. But a solid, mid-range HOFer...sure.
Thank you! :highfive: Jimmy Collins, eat your heart out! :dance:dance:dance

[Freakshow]

With Paul's vote, we're now looking for the last three of our perennial voters:

AG2004
Chickazoola
zemtech

Also, three more of our nearly perennial voters:

hairmetalfreak
steveironcity
TheSlaff

Also, these six frequent participants:

baseballPAP
JohnShoemaker
Los Bravos
NineWorldSeries
Ruth May Bond
wardawg

Finally, four more we've seen in more than one quarter of the polls in The Quest:

AstrosFan
Captain Cold Nose
ColoradoExpress
PVNICK

[BlueBlood]

Some outsiders probably think this entire thread is at the moment a discussion of which players will be in the poll. We should add some pointless poll to this thread. Have it say "Rank The Top 20 Candidates In The Thread" and have the two options be "I Will" and "Ok"....watch the masses come flooding in. :bowdown:

[Freakshow]

Some outsiders probably think this entire thread is at the moment a discussion of which players will be in the poll. We should add some pointless poll to this thread. Have it say "Rank The Top 20 Candidates In The Thread" and have the two options be "I Will" and "Ok"....watch the masses come flooding in. :bowdown:
Ah, good idea, very tempting. :evil But I ask myself, Do I really want these people wandering into this thread to wreak havoc on the proceedings? :ughh
No, but I'll keep the idea in my back pocket for another day!

[Paul Wendt]

For our 19 finalists excluding pitcher Bert Blyleven here is
major league playing time 1871-2006, measured by share of team
Games played denominated in seasons.
18.71 Paul Hines
18.14 Deacon White
16.95 Bill Dahlen
16.82 Andre Dawson
16.09 Tim Raines
15.50 Ted Simmons
14.72 Alan Trammell
13.91 Ron Santo
13.83 Dale Murphy
13.68 Joe Torre
13.66 Sherry Magee
12.75 Bobby Grich
12.56 Harry Stovey
12.54 Stan Hack
11.77 Mark McGwire
11.75 Minnie Minoso
10.84 Dick Allen
10.10 Joe Gordon
7.755 Ross Barnes
For Dawson, Raines, and Simmons near the top of the list this includes about two, two and 2.7 seasons of games as designated hitter, pinch-hitter, or pinch-runner. McGwire played slightly more than one-half season games as dh, ph, or pr (not many pr).

For Hines this includes a debut season with OPS+ 48, where he played every game for a weak team that went out of business. (They could have used some more OPS+ 48 batters.)

For White and Barnes this counts nothing for their play on major teams before 1871, including two and one seasons with openly professional teams.

For Gordon this counts nothing for World War II time in military service.

For Minoso this counts nothing but a 9-game cup of coffee before 1951 when he was near-MVP at age 25.5.

Fielding games as share of team games, denominated in seasons (including adjustments described)
19.64 Deacon White (includes +1.5, 1869-70)
17.71 Paul Hines (includes -1, 1872)
16.85 Bill Dahlen
14.73 Andre Dawson
14.11 Alan Trammell
13.99 Tim Raines
13.61 Dale Murphy
13.59 Ron Santo
13.42 Sherry Magee
13.23 Joe Torre
12.77 Ted Simmons
12.71 Bobby Grich
12.55 Harry Stovey
12.27 Minnie Minoso (includes +1, 1949-50)
12.16 Stan Hack
11.96 Joe Gordon (includes +2, 1944-45)
11.19 Mark McGwire
10.66 Dick Allen
8.755 Ross Barnes (includes +1, 1870)
At my settings, 18 players appear without scrolling. Ross Barnes is eclipsed at the bottom of the list. Bert Blyleven is not listed because I have no comparable measure for pitchers.

[Paul Wendt]

Games played (fse 1871-2006)
Our twenty finalists include five with 16 full seasons equivalent games played, six with 15 fse. In our Top 100 we have nine and fifteen respectively. Those thresholds 16 and 15 full seasons define the 54 and 95 "all-time" leaders in playing time.

Here are the leaders among our Top 100 --the nine of 100 with at least 16 fse games played-- and their "all-time" rank.

rank
13. Hines
18. White
32. Graig Nettles
34. Dahlen
35. Darrell Evans
36. Dawson
45. Dwight Evans
47. Ezra Sutton
52. Raines

Fielding Games
Our finalists include three with 16 full seasons equivalent fielding games, also three with 15 fse. In our Top 100 we have four and seven respectively. Those thresholds 16 and 15 full seasons define the 33 and 56 "all-time" leaders in fielding.

Here are the leaders among our Top 100 --the seven of 100 with at least 15 fse fielding games-- and their "all-time" rank.

seasons
18.71 Hines (#7)
18.14 White (#11)
16.85 Dahlen (#20)
16.31 Ezra Sutton (#27)
15.98 Lave Cross (#34)
15.80 Graig Nettles (#38)
15.62 Dave Concepcion (#42)

Our "Top 100" includes seven 1871 players, all of whom played for professional teams in 1870: White, Sutton, Joe Start, Cal McVey, Ross Barnes, Lip Pike, and Dickey Pearce. That is everyone who graduated from our 1860s-70s poll, the six round one winners plus Lip Pike.

All but Sutton and Barnes also played for pro teams in 1869, the year that the Association permitted professional clubs --the first pro season. Start, Pike, and Pearce were compensated players on major teams before that.

The conservative adjustment only for openly pro seasons is enough to put Start on the all-time leaderboard.

Fielding games, including adjustment described in each line
seasons
19.64 White (#4) +1.5, 1869-70
17.71 Hines (#16) -1, 1872
17.31 Ezra Sutton (#18) +1, 1870
16.85 Dahlen (#21)
16.40 Joe Start (#26t) +2, 1869-70
15.98 Lave Cross (#35)
15.80 Graig Nettles (#39)
15.62 Dave Concepcion (#43)

Among the 57 players with at least 15 full seasons in the field 1869-2006, ten are eligible for but not in the Hall of Fame ("eligilbles" for short), those eight whom we put in our Top 100 and two more.

15.28 Tommy Corcoran (#53)
15.12 Vada Pinson (#55)

This is the point in the all-time list where "eligibles" become numerous. The next ten, down to 14.82 seasonsin the field, include four HOFers, Rafi Palmeiro, and five eligibles: Jack Glasscock, Buddy Bell, Darrell Evans, Jimmie Dykes, and Lou Whitaker.

[BlueBlood]

Freakshow, we are going to rank 21-100, right? Could we open up another thread while this one is ongoing?

I think instead of ranking, we could just list the other 80 guys with a yes/no next to their name and count up the percentages. After, we can rank the ties.

[Freakshow]

Freakshow, we are going to rank 21-100, right? Could we open up another thread while this one is ongoing?

I think instead of ranking, we could just list the other 80 guys with a yes/no next to their name and count up the percentages. After, we can rank the ties.
I welcome you do take the UQFC results and run with them. I had thought of perhaps ranking #21-40; that takes us near the edge of the for-sure deserving players. Beyond that, the difference between players begins to blur; I could see making groups beyond #40, but perceive no great value in us ranking them.

Still, it could be done. If you want to run a thread with what you've described, go for it.

A quickie assemblage of #21-40 could be this:

There are the 12 also-rans from the Final Runoff poll

Jim Rice
Gil Hodges
Charlie Bennett
Heinie Groh
Joe Start
Tony Mullane
Bob Caruthers
Vern Stephens
George Van Haltren
Larry Doyle
Wes Ferrell
Carl Mays

Add to these the eight also-rans from the 1950s-80s Round 3 poll

Lou Whitaker
Albert Belle
Dwight Evans
Keith Hernandez
Will Clark
Dave Parker
Darrell Evans
Bill Freehan

This isn't quite perfect to me, especially as it leaves out George Gore. But, hey, he only got one vote in Round 3! :eek:

[AG2004]

Here's my ballot.

1) Tim Raines
2) Paul Hines

Hines was arguably the best major league position player in three different seasons: 1878, 1879, and 1884. When looking at win shares, I've adjusted his seasons to 140 games, but he still has 5 MVP-candidate-type (30+ win shares after adjustment) and 10 All-Star-type seasons in the NL after the adjustments. Raines comes out ahead due to timelining, but Hines was still an exceptional player.

3) Ron Santo

Four MVP-candidate-type seasons and 8 All-Star-type seasons here. Overall career length puts him behind Hines.

4) Dick Allen

Allen could be a disruptive force sometimes.

5) Bobby Grich

Grich was a career second baseman in a DH league, which is why many people seem to be underrating him. Competing against DH would have the effect of lowering his OPS+ and his win share totals -- and, since he played just 9 games at DH, the rule doesn't help boost his career value. Making a schedule-length adjustment for the 1981 strike, Grich has three MVP-candidate-type seasons and 11 All-Star-type seasons. Grich also had two seasons of 29 win shares -- and, had he had the same performance in a non-DH league, they would have been seasons of 30 or 31 win shares, too.
Even with the adjustment, Grich doesn't close the gap in peak, so he remains behind Santo and Allen.

6) Bill Dahlen

Great career value with 14 All-Star-type seasons. His relatively low peak and possession of just two MVP-candidate-type seasons hold him back here.

7) Alan Trammell
8) Sherry Magee

9) Bert Blyleven

Great career value, but peak performance holds him back.

10) Deacon White

During his NL years, he had 1 MVP-type season and 6 All-Star-type seasons, but NA performances would boost these numbers up a bit. When White was a catcher, catchers could still play on an everyday basis; it wasn't until the overhand throw was legalized that teams had to introduce some type of rotation at the position.

11) Ted Simmons
12) Mark McGwire

13) Dale Murphy

He did have four MVP-candidate-type seasons, but a relatively short career and having just seven All-Star-type seasons work against him.

14) Minnie Minoso
15) Stan Hack

According to the analysts at baseballthinkfactory, Minoso was a late bloomer. His first "notice me" season was in 1947, and he didn't do so well in 1948. I can justify tacking on 35 win shares for 1949 and 1950, but that's about it for career value, and it doesn't help his peak. I think other voters are giving him more pre-1951 credit than I am.

Hack had a late spike in performance during WWII, which is taken into consideration here.

16) Joe Gordon

Gordon has two years of war credit. It could pull him up to Hack in peak, but it won't make up the gap in career.

17) Ross Barnes

Great peak, but a very short career against early competition doesn't help his case.

18) Andre Dawson

19) Joe Torre

That peak is driven by his 41-win-share season. He's equal in five-year-peak and career value to Simmons. However, Torre had seven seasons with 20+ win shares, while Simmons had ten such All-Star-type seasons.

20) Harry Stovey

[RuthMayBond]

Welcome to the Ultimate Quest for Candidates (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68815)! This is the final round, where we take the top 20 candidates for the Hall of Fame and rank them in order. There will not be a poll with this thread, we're going for a more precise ranking in order to tell the Hall, "Here's the next player you should be inducting. And the next. And the next...." We'll allow two or three weeks for everyone to weigh in with their rankings and discussion of who should be ranked high or low.

You may change your ballot at any time before the official tally is done; in fact, here I would encourage voters to consider other's ballots and alternative assessments of these players. Comments on other people's ballots are welcome; if you think a voter blew it, try to persuade them to see things differently.

As always, we will be judging players by the same criteria that the Hall of Fame uses:

“voting shall be based upon the individual's record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the game.”

So everything counts, their lifetime achievements on and off the field, along with their character and other intangibles.

Here is an alphabetical listing of the 20 players you need to rank, from the most deserving HOF candidate at #1 down to #20:Here I go

Tim Raines
Bill Dahlen 1890s
Mark McGwire 1990s
Dick Allen 1960s
Bert Blyleven 1970s had ta throw a pitcher in the mix
Ron Santo 1960s
Joe Torre 1960s probably should be higher
Ted Simmons 1970s
Andre Dawson 1980s
Sherry Magee 1910s
Alan Trammell 1980s
Stan Hack 1940s
Dale Murphy 1980s
Minnie Minoso 1950s
Bobby Grich 1970s
Harry Stovey 1880s
Joe Gordon 1940s
Deacon White 1870s
Paul Hines 1880s
Ross Barnes 1870s

[zemtech]

1. Paul Hines
2. Ron Santo
3. Dick Allen
4. Tim Raines
5. Bill Dahlen
6. Alan Trammell
7. Bobby Grich
8. Sherry Magee
9. Bert Blyleven
10. Dale Murphy
11. Deacon White
12. Minnie Minoso
13. Ted Simmons
14. Stan Hack
15. Joe Gordon
16. Ross Barnes
17. Mark McGwire
18. Joe Torre
19. Andre Dawson
20. Harry Stovey

[AstrosFan]

1. Raines
2. Blyleven
3. Santo
4. Allen
5. Dahlen
6. Minoso
7. Grich
8. Trammell
9. White
10. Simmons
11. Torre
12. McGwire
13. Magee
14. Hack
15. Gordon
16. Murphy
17. Barnes
18. Hines
19. Stovey
20. Dawson

[Paul Wendt]

There is no change in this ranking. I have only added some comments and revised the format.

: The Ultimate Quest finds only four players who certainly belong in the top 100 or may have a case for the top 50.
1) Deacon White
2) Bill Dahlen
3) Paul Hines
4) Tim Raines
( )
: Blank space restored here. When I learned of this project from DanG at the Hall of Merit about nine months ago, I probably would have guessed that I would go Dahlen-Blyleven followed by White and Hines. In the end I considered going with Hines number one and, frankly, I may have "chickened out". He is the one uncommon choice I have ranked 1 to 6 and seems to me baseball's "most underrated" player unless that is a black player from before WWI or someone who played only overseas (probably they aren't eligible).
: Blyleven is a fairly popular "number one" among sabrmetrically informed people but I can't get past the realization how very many men of his time, only half a baseball generation, put up records much like his. Bert Blyleven may have the most similar players in the Hall of Fame but he also has more similar players than do any of the four above. He may be the one whose case for Hall of Fame membership should be the most obvious to the most people but . . . And so it goes. The superlatives must be qualified, or they miss the mark here.
5) Bert Blyleven
6) Ron Santo
7) Bobby Grich
: In the Hall of Merit special project ranking recent HOMers who are not in the Hall of Fame (but no longer under BBWAA jurisdiction), I ranked them Grich-Santo. That was the big majority position, 16-5. After delaying for a while here, I determined last week not to review that discussion --and to care about this vote only to resolution +/-2. Without reviewing that discussion my preference for those who usually played a full season in one year bubbled Santo up to #6.
8) Mark McGwire
9) Ross Barnes
( )
10) Alan Trammell
: Trammell is not in my top ten (trailing at least George Gore and the Nine above). He bubbled to #10 here as I rediscovered trouble spots in the cases for the following trio.
11) Ted Simmons
12) Sherry Magee
13) Dick Allen
( )
14) Joe Gordon
15) Minnie Minoso
: A decade ago we knew that Minnie Minoso was 23 when Jackie Robinson signed with the Dodgers, 26 when he debuted in the major leagues himself, and 28 when the White Sox acquired him and put him in the lineup. Some people still believe it but the consensus is that he was 20, 23, and 25. Oh, what a difference.
( )
: Blank space inserted here. I might put Gordon or Minoso in the top 25. (Torre too, depending on my thought of the day re the Yankees manager gig, but another day I might not put him in the top 40.)
16) Harry Stovey
17) Joe Torre
: For a while before my comparison of their careers in three stages, it looked like Simmons #10 and Torre #20. That was unjustifiable. Certainly my own top 20 still includes Simmons not Torre.
18) Stan Hack
: In the past I have thought of Sherry Magee and Joe Gordon as top ten candidates for the Hall of Fame, without integrating recent players. The design of this project stipulated a minimum of four in the top 20 from the 1910s-40s. I might put Heinie Groh in there. The project was "saved" from four by a tie for fourth in round three (Groh and Larry Doyle).
19) Andre Dawson
20) Dale Murphy
: I think there is a good case for Andre Dawson and a good case for Dale Murphy. I'm not sure I would put either one in the first twenty centerfielders and I am sure I would put Paul Hines in the first ten.

[Colorado Express]

1. Blyleven
2. Santo
3. Gordon
4. Allen
5. Stovey
6. Murphy
7. Minoso
8. Raines
9. Torre
10. Grich
11. Hines
12. McGwire
13. Simmons
14. Dawson
15. Trammell
16. Barnes
17. Magee
18. White
19. Hack
20. Dahlen

[Freakshow]

After two weeks we now have 12 complete ballots. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 2.92
Bert Blyleven 3.75
Tim Raines 5.75
Dick Allen 6.50
Bill Dahlen 7.58
Minnie Minoso 7.92
Ted Simmons 9.83
Alan Trammell 10.42
Deacon White 10.67
Paul Hines 11.42
Sherry Magee 11.42
Joe Gordon 12.33
Mark McGwire 12.42
Ross Barnes 13.00
Bobby Grich 13.33
Joe Torre 13.33
Andre Dawson 13.83
Harry Stovey 14.50
Dale Murphy 14.50
Stan Hack 14.58

After three weeks we now have 18 complete ballots. Here is the average placement for each of the 20 so far:

Ron Santo 3.17
Bert Blyleven 4.22
Tim Raines 4.89
Dick Allen 6.11
Bill Dahlen 7.28
Minnie Minoso 9.06
Alan Trammell 10.11
Ted Simmons 10.22
Paul Hines 10.61
Deacon White 10.83
Sherry Magee 11.39
Bobby Grich 11.72
Mark McGwire 11.83
Joe Gordon 12.67
Joe Torre 13.39
Ross Barnes 13.94
Dale Murphy 14.00
Andre Dawson 14.72
Stan Hack 14.83
Harry Stovey 15.00
The results above are not weighted; 19th century guys will tend to benefit when we do that. We'll leave this poll open another day or two, hoping the rest of our regulars have a chance to weigh in by the end of the month. I continue to encourage those who have cast ballots to feel free to revise your ballot; continue to assess the relative merits of these guys up until the final results are posted.

[Paul Wendt]

As everyone here knows, I think several of these collective rankings are quite far wrong.

Only one of those is surprising, the high rank of Minnie Minoso.
A leftfielder hit 136 for a decade. That's good. He was a good baserunner, probably a great one. That's enough to share an alcove in the Hall of Fame liberation. If you see more value or honor in the 1950s than sixty years earlier, it may rank Minoso ahead of Elmer Flick.

But it isn't remotely so valuable nor so unusual as a catcher who hit 130 for a decade. And if you see more value or honor in the 1950s, you probably see even more in the 1970s, especially in the stronger league (Ted Simmons's NL) rather than the weaker one (Minnie Minoso's AL).
Neither Minoso nor Simmons was put up a record to crow about after the end of his decade. As batters, Minoso hit 93 in about 1100 PAs; Simmons hit 98 in about 3300 PAs.

The collective ranking now is a fairly neat division of the field into six sheep and fourteen goats. Simmons leads the goats and the group on average ranks him only two behind Minoso. That isn't far behind, but the comparison Minoso to Simmons may be the easiest to make, because of their shared consistency for a decade.
It seems to me that Minoso needs credit for two seasons before 1951 at his later-established level, in order to see his prime career about equal to Simmons (12 seasons LF ~ 10 seasons catcher?). Since the group average is two ranks above Simmons, and some of us put weight on those 2000 extra PA at league-average batting when Simmons was over the hill, the group ranking represents more like credit for three or four seasons before 1951. --not replication of his rookie season every year but, say, his 1951-53 seasons replicated in 1948-50.

In other words, the high ranking of Minoso seems to represent extremely generous credit for work "lost" to the slow pace of integration. Maybe what would be reasonable, lacking evidence about his twenties in Cuba, Negro Leauges, and OB minors, if Minoso were three years older --if he really were 28 years old in 1951, as everyone believed while he was active.

What do some people know about Minoso as a ballplayer 1946-50, when most of us now believe he was 20-24 years old?
Are there many voters who don't know anything about his early career but rely on the old "knowledge" that he was 23-27 years old? --and attribute a normal career path that fits 1951 at age 28?

[Paul Wendt]

By mistake my references use the two-week report rather than the three-week report. After three weeks, Minoso at #6 is in limbo between five sheep and 14 goats led by Trammell not Simmons.
For what it's worth here is the
one-week report (page 3, nine votes) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1247143&postcount=57), with a three-rung gap below the six sheep.
two-week report (page 5, twelve votes) (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1257843&postcount=123)

None of this affects the point. I use Simmons for example only because his ten prime seasons and "fall of a cliff" make the comparison with Minoso simple.

[Los Bravos]

With Torre, I don't give him big credit as a manager. Other of his contemporary managers could've done what he did with that talent. In that city, under that pressure, with that ownership? I'm not so sure. His unique personality enabled him to keep many balls in the air at once. And since he's far from a glory hound, it went largely unnoticed. Nice job, but Torre's playing career did far more to make his teams win. And it was a hall of fame quality career. He'll be in the top half of my ballot.That, I'll agree with you on.

This is a thoroughly unscientific list (no surprise to anyone who has read my posts) and I'm afraid I'm going to wind up giving short shrift to the 19th century guys.

1. Bert Blyleven
2. Ron Santo
3. Ted Simmons
4. Andre Dawson
5. Dick Allen
6. Joe Torre
7. Tim Raines
8. Alan Trammell
9. Minnie Minoso
10. Bobby Grich
11. Dale Murphy
12. Ross Barnes
13. Sherry Magee
14. Harry Stovey
15. Deacon White
16. Paul Hines
17. Joe Gordon
18. Stan Hack
19. Bill Dahlen
20. Mark McGwire

[Freakshow]

In that city, under that pressure, with that ownership? I'm not so sure. His unique personality enabled him to keep many balls in the air at once.
I suppose that enabled Torre to survive, but how meritorious is that? To last 12 years in any city is noteworthy. However, the record suggests that was probably too long: no world championships his last seven years, not even winning a playoff series his last three years.

[PVNICK]

1. Grich
2. Santo
3. Allen
4. Blyleven
5. Raines
6. Gordon
7. Magee
8. Simmons
9. Hines
10. Dahlen
11. Torre
12. Tramell
13. Minoso
14. White
15. Stovey
16. Murphy
17. Dawson
18. Hack
19. McGwire
20. Barnes

[Paul Wendt]

This is a thoroughly unscientific list (no surprise to anyone who has read my posts) and I'm afraid I'm going to wind up giving short shrift to the 19th century guys.
. . .
14. Harry Stovey
15. Deacon White
16. Paul Hines
17. Joe Gordon
18. Stan Hack
19. Bill Dahlen
20. Mark McGwire
That's long shrift to Harry Stovey
and inverse-consensus order for the quartet.

[Los Bravos]

Maybe you can petition to OP not to specifically ask for my opinion in the future.

[Freakshow]

Maybe you can petition to OP not to specifically ask for my opinion in the future.
To quote our own jalbright, from yesterday on another thread:

It is best if people don't have to listen to just me or whomever. But when it comes to the best of the [19th century players], there's a lot of information available, from many different perspectives.

Part of the idea of these projects is for the participants (at least) to learn a little from their participation.

So rather than take offense at Paul's observation, perhaps you would take time to reconsider your conclusions. Maybe you would be willing to dialogue with others here and sharpen your thinking on the whole issue.

But it's not required, of course. This is all for fun.:party:

[jalbright]

To quote our own jalbright, from yesterday on another thread:

It is best if people don't have to listen to just me or whomever. But when it comes to the best of the [19th century players], there's a lot of information available, from many different perspectives.

Part of the idea of these projects is for the participants (at least) to learn a little from their participation.

So rather than take offense at Paul's observation, perhaps you would take time to reconsider your conclusions. Maybe you would be willing to dialogue with others here and sharpen your thinking on the whole issue.

But it's not required, of course. This is all for fun.:party:


Ah, Freakshow, I'm flattered--but I do believe the quote in this context as well as the Negro Leaguer context I made it in. If you are willing to post your opinion here, you've got to be prepared for people to disagree with it or request your reasoning behind it. So long as such comments/questions are done in a respectful and appropriate manner, they're entirely legitimate. So, if you can't stand heat of that type, maybe you ought to consider staying out of the kitchen. I'd greatly prefer that people learn to deal with those kinds of comments/questions, as that is a huge part of how people learn here, and that is a major goal in these parts.

[Los Bravos]

Okay, just for the record...

Even though I announced going in that I would likely rate the 19th century guys low, I didn't simply pick names at random. I looked each of those guys up at Baseball-Reference.com and took a few minutes to judge the stats on each man. Looking at the numbers that translate well to the present game (to my mind that would be hits, stolen bases, overall BA and OPS+) I placed each of the players about where I thought he should be.

Maybe my conclusions are cracked, but I don't like having my integrity and/or basic intelligence questioned, especially since I was specifically requested to participate in this and I signalled in advance that my answer would likely be skewed toward 20th century players.

[Erik Bedard]

Hey, even if you've got unpopular opinions, the important thing is that they're defensible. Which is more than can be said about a couple ballots in this ranking.

[jalbright]

Okay, just for the record...

Maybe my conclusions are cracked, but I don't like having my integrity and/or basic intelligence questioned, especially since I was specifically requested to participate in this and I signalled in advance that my answer would likely be skewed toward 20th century players.

Frankly, the only comment I saw that bore directly on your picks was Paul Wendt's, and I don't see how it questioned either your intelligence or your integrity. It did disagree with your choices, in what I see as an appropriate manner. In sum, I humbly suggest you consider the possibility you're overreacting--or point me to something I'm missing.

[Los Bravos]

If you are willing to post your opinion here, you've got to be prepared for people to disagree with it or request your reasoning behind it. So long as such comments/questions are done in a respectful and appropriate manner, they're entirely legitimate.
Frankly, the only comment I saw that bore directly on your picks was Paul Wendt's, and I don't see how it questioned either your intelligence or your integrity. It did disagree with your choices, in what I see as an appropriate manner. In sum, I humbly suggest you consider the possibility you're overreacting--or point me to something I'm missing.That's entirely possible.

Having said that, I'll add that I'm willing to discuss pretty much any opinion I write around here, if asked for specifics and engaged in a legitimate dialogue. When I get a response that's more in the nature of an out of hand dismissal, I am going to have a tendency to not take it particularly well.That's long shrift to Harry Stovey
and inverse-consensus order for the quartet.That is the only one that addressed me directly, but I don't really see that as terribly constructive or respectful. This is the second time he's reacted with a brief, dismissive expression of incredulity at picks of mine in this forum.

All in all, this is really silly. I don't want it derailing the thread. Looking back, I should have just moved along. If my choices are that out of whack, Freakshow should feel free to disregard them with no offense taken by me.

[Freakshow]

The verdict is in from the scholars here at BBF. Here's what our results are saying:

1) To the BBWAA, electing recent players: Forget Jim Rice. The next three players you should elect (along with Rickey Henderson) are Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell.

2) To the hall of famers electing stars of the 50's, 60's and 70's: When you finally get unstuck, the first three players you should elect are Ron Santo, Dick Allen and Minnie Minoso.

3) To the special Veterans Committee for old-time players: The first three players you should elect are Bill Dahlen, Paul Hines and Deacon White.

Here are the official, weighted results:

Player ave rank Best Friends
Ron Santo 2.77 (4 @ #1)
Bert Blyleven 4.30 (6 @ #1)
Tim Raines 5.17 AG2004/Ruth MB/AstrosF #1
Dick Allen 6.01 Erik Bedard #1/(5 @ #3)
Bill Dahlen 7.48 Paul Wendt-RuthMayBond #2
Minnie Minoso 8.84 Cougar #1/leecemark #2
Alan Trammell 9.77 Cougar #4/leecemark #5
Paul Hines 9.79 zemtech #1/AG2004 #2
Ted Simmons 9.80 Los Bravos #3/MadHatter #4
Deacon White 10.35 Paul W #1/jalbright-dgarza #5

Sherry Magee 11.21 jalbright-dgarza #6
Bobby Grich 11.35 PVNICK #1/AG2004 #5
Mark McGwire 12.78 dgarza #2/RuthMayBond #3
Joe Gordon 13.19 ColoradoEx #3/Cougar #5
Ross Barnes 13.47 dgarza #1/MadHatter #6
Joe Torre 13.51 Freakshow-Los Bravos #6
Dale Murphy 14.80 MadHatter #2/henrich #4
Stan Hack 14.84 jalbright #7/Cougar #9
Andre Dawson 15.12 MadHatter #1/henrich #2
Harry Stovey 15.47 dgarza #3/ColoradoEx #5

A huge thank you to the 20 voters who contributed their rankings in this thread. I hope you will all join in the Collaboration Game that is starting soon in this forum. I'm also planning a major new project to start next month. (Hint: I'm gearing up to bring the MMP Project here, after rejection of the project at the HoM.)

[Erik Bedard]

The great thing about this project was that there was no consensus, it was never obvious who should go where. Ten guys received first-place votes. Only four weren't in someone's top three (Trammell (?), Torre, Hack, and Magee). And only one (Hack) didn't make anybody's top six. It would be interesting to see who was drinking hatorade on several of these guys as well. For example, if Gordon was as high as 3 and 5, why is he an average of 14th?

[Paul Wendt]

The verdict is in from the scholars here at BBF. Here's what our results are saying:

1) To the BBWAA, electing recent players: Forget Jim Rice. The next three players you should elect (along with Rickey Henderson) are Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell.

2) To the hall of famers electing stars of the 50's, 60's and 70's: When you finally get unstuck, the first three players you should elect are Ron Santo, Dick Allen and Minnie Minoso.

3) To the special Veterans Committee for old-time players: The first three players you should elect are Bill Dahlen, Paul Hines and Deacon White.
Ted Simmons completes our top ten. I consider him in a three-way tie with Trammell and Hines that I have entered 8-8-8 in my desktop baseball database. Our Ten includes two catchers, which is good for a baseball team, and Deacon White has experience in the player-captain/manager role that will be useful when we play in 1860s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even 00s conditions. He should command the respect of the other men, too, although the rambunctious Paul Hines may not see the age difference clearly.

Under 1860s, 70s, and early 80s conditions, Bert Blyleven may be able to handle the responsibility of pitching every game. Anyway, here is the first Ten.
LF CF RF
Tim Raines Paul Hines --
Minnie Minoso

3B SS 2B 1B
Ron Santo Bill Dahlen -- Dick Allen -3b
Alan Trammell

P
Bert Blyleven

C
Ted Simmons
Deacon White -3b (captain/manager)
Dahlen and Trammell must both try the pivot in spring training. When we play under early conditions, Santo will handle second.

We have a pair who rather clearly rank 11-12, Sherry Magee and Bobby Grich. They give us a designated hitter and a superior modern secondbaseman. That team will be as good as any for one game. How many bases did anyone ever take by running on the rightfielder?

[leecemark]

--Anybody looking for another project please check out the Top 100 polls in the History forum, if you aren't already participating. We just started Part 5 (41-50).

[jjpm74]

Murphy over Dawson??? Really :confused:

[Paul Wendt]

leecemark:
> 1) Ron Santo - only guy outside Coopertown who has an argument for top 5 at his position and is a lock for top 10.
> Very hard to understand this omission.

Bill Dahlen has a good argument at shortstop. Indeed a Hall of Merit special project (hot off the press) ranks him sixth, which is fifth in the major leagues because one is John Henry Lloyd.

The Hall of Merit has now ranked the thirdbasemen as well as the shortstops.
Election Results: Greatest Third Basemen? (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/election_results_greatest_third_basemen_schmidt_ma thews_brett_boggs/) (for discussion see the Discussion and Ballot threads)

Santo #7 at thirdbase behind the big four, Frank Baker, and Jud Wilson.
That is #6 in the major leagues, close to number five Baker.

Dahlen #6 at shortstop, #5 in the major leagues, close to number four George Davis.

[Paul Wendt]

Could someone explain why Grich is ranked higher than Gordon, Hack, Barnes, McGwire, and Torre? I can see maybe being ranked higher than Harry Stovey and Andre Dawson. Grich's offensive numbers are all basically league average or lower as is his OPS+.
By career OPS+ as implemented at baseball reference,
125 Grich
120 Gordon

and by the way
125 Santo

[Freakshow]

It would be interesting to see who was drinking hatorade on several of these guys as well. For example, if Gordon was as high as 3 and 5, why is he an average of 14th?
Candidates' Worst Nightmare

Ron Santo henrich #10/dgarza #7
Bert Blyleven MadHat #18/AG2004-zemtech #9
Tim Raines dgarza #18/jalbright #9
Dick Allen Cougar #16/Paul Wendt #13
Bill Dahlen ColoradoExp #20/Los Bravos #19
Minnie Minoso henrich #16/MadHatter-Paul Wendt #15
Alan Trammell dgarza #19/jalbright-MadHatter #16
Paul Hines Cougar-RuthMayBond #19
Ted Simmons Classic #14/(4 @ #13)
Deacon White henrich #19/RuthMB-ColoradoExp #18

Sherry Magee MadHatter #19/ColoradoExp #17
Bobby Grich dgarza-MadHatter #20
Mark McGwire Blueblood-WindyCityF-LosBravos #20
Joe Gordon Blueblood-RuthMayB-LosBravos #17
Ross Barnes Classic-henrich-RuthMB-PVNICK #20
Joe Torre jalbright #20/BlueBlood-AG2004 #19
Dale Murphy jjpm74-Freakshow-PaulWendt #20
Stan Hack WindyCityFan-ColoradoExp #19
Andre Dawson Erik Bedard-AstrosFan #20
Harry Stovey leecemark-Cougar-AG2004-zemtech #20

[Paul Wendt]

There is more agreement about the bottom as only 7 players reaped all the last-place votes. :rolleyes:
For me the last two, Dawson and Murphy, may not be in the top 40.

distribution of candidates by
highest rank, 1 to 7
10 3 3 1 0 2 1
lowest rank, 20 to 10
_7 6 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

[Paul Wendt]

Here are two ballots derived from Clay Davenport's WARP rating system.
Source: player pages at baseballprospectus.com ("DT cards")
Scope: 1871-2007

WARP1 rates everyone's impact in his own leagues, denominated in games
-- wins above replacement-level player at his own fielding positions and playing time

WARP1
: : 173
Dahlen
:
: : 151
Blyleven
:
: : 121 to 115
Magee
Raines
Hines
Santo
Grich
: : 108 to 97
Dawson
Allen
Torre
Stovey
White
Trammell
McGwire
Simmons
Hack
Gordon
: : 89 to 87
Minoso
Murphy
:
: : 62
Barnes

WARP3 incorporates adjustments for length of season, overall strength of league, and more --unknown except to the author :(

WARP3
: : 147
Blyleven
:
: : 131 to 121
Raines
Dahlen
Trammell
Grich
: : 112 to 105
White
Santo
McGwire
Dawson
Hines
: : 101 to 99
Torre
Hack
Allen
: : 94 to 71 with numerous small gaps
Simmons
Gordon
Magee
Murphy
Minoso
Stovey
Barnes

The idea is that this puts all of their careers in the same league. Magee and Stovey drop far down the rankings to reside with Minoso and Murphy because they played in weaker leagues --more than enough weaker to make up for the fewer games available.

There are not many catchers high in the WARP career ratings, or season ratings, because catchers play fewer games than their teammates even when they are healthy.

White and Barnes were pro ballplayers before 1871, not counted here.