HOF Mistakes Round 21 [Archive]

AstrosFan

06-04-2009, 11:33 PM

We all have our own definition of what makes a Hall of Famer. And many of us are simply appalled at what we see as terrible selections. I would like to start voting on the mistakes of the Hall of Fame.

Please Read These Rules Before Making Your Selections:

1. This is players only, which means players are to be judged on their playing career first. A player may receive a boost from a voter for other activities (managing, scouting, etc.), but those are only secondary considerations. But of course, do not judge a player solely by his numbers.

2. There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 60+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall. Again, DO NOT JUST VOTE FOR THE BAD PICKS. VOTE FOR ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY WOULD NOT ELECT TO THE HALL.

3. Please do not be shy. In participating in this project, no one is necessarily advocating the removal of anyone from the Hall. It is just a way to see who we would identify as mistakes made by the various election committees.

4. All players are eligible. Do your best when it comes to players you may have a hard time judging, like Negro Leaguers and 19th century players. You don't have to read an encyclopedia, but at least some research should help.

5. If a player receives less than 5% of the vote as a mistake, he becomes permanently ineligible. No one wants to belabor the point that Willie Mays is not a Hall of Fame mistake.

6. A player must have more than one vote, must have crossed the 20% threshold by his fourth try, and the 50% threshold by his 10th try, else he is dropped, unless he has been gaining noticeable momentum. What constitutes noticeable will be up to me, though I intend to do my best to define it in a way that will appease as many as I can. Think Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven in the real HOF voting.

7. At some point, we will reach a place where we just aren't going to identify any more mistakes. At that point, the project will shut down, and I will list the players alphabetically, and include some statistics for everyone's benefit.

8. Please be careful when voting. I do not have the power to edit ballots, and I do not wish to bother the mods constantly to ask them if they can change things. Because of this, ballots will not be changed, except in the case of honest mistakes. Please contact a mod about this if it happens, but please be very careful when voting, so the moderators do not have to be bothered more than necessary.

9. Please be respectful of other people's choices. Disagreement is natural, but calling those with a different viewpoint narrowminded, ignorant, etc. is unnecessary, and more likely than not untrue.

10. This is probably obvious, but the players are listed alphabetically.

11. Please post your ballot in the thread.

12. Voting is open for one week.

Have fun.

Round 1 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85732)

Round 2 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85918)

Round 3 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86180)

Round 4 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86423)

Round 5 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86826)

Round 6 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87111)

Round 7 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87330)

Round 8 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87606)

Round 9 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87839)

Round 10 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88081)

Round 11 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88343)

Round 12 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88576)

Round 13 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88817)

Round 14 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89069)

Round 15 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89333)

Round 16 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89769)

Round 17 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89961)

Round 18 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90163)

Round 19 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90357)

Round 20 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90533)

Voters by Round

Round 1 - 31
Round 2 - 22
Round 3 - 28
Round 4 - 25
Round 5 - 23
Round 6 - 22
Round 7 - 23
Round 8 - 25
Round 9 - 20
Round 10 - 16
Round 11 - 21
Round 12 - 17
Round 13 - 17
Round 14 - 17
Round 15 - 16
Round 16 - 19
Round 17 - 18
Round 18 - 20
Round 19 - 16
Round 20 - 22

Mistakes (31)

Dave Bancroft (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bancrda01.shtml), SS, 1915-30

Chief Bender (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bendech01.shtml), SP, 1903-17, 1925

Jim Bottomley (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bottoji01.shtml), 1B, 1922-37

Jack Chesbro (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/chesbja01.shtml), SP, 1899-1909

Earle Combs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/combsea01.shtml), CF, 1924-35

Candy Cummings (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cummica01.shtml), SP, 1872-77

Kiki Cuyler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cuyleki01.shtml), RF, 1921-38

Johnny Evers (http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/eversjo01.shtml), 2B, 1902-17, 1922, 1929

Rick Ferrell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/ferreri01.shtml), C, 1929-45, 1947

Chick Hafey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hafeych01.shtml), LF, 1924-35, 1937

Jesse Haines (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/haineje01.shtml), SP, 1918, 1920-37

Harry Hooper (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hoopeha01.shtml), RF, 1909-25

Waite Hoyt (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hoytwa01.shtml), SP, 1918-38

Catfish Hunter (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hunteca01.shtml), SP, 1965-79

Travis Jackson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jackstr01.shtml), SS, 1922-36

Judy Johnson (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=7030&bid=693), 3B, 1918-37

George Kell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kellge01.shtml), 3B, 1943-57

George Kelly (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kellyge01.shtml), 1B, 1915-17, 1919-30, 1932

Chuck Klein (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kleinch01.shtml?redir), RF, 1928-44

Tony Lazzeri (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lazzeto01.shtml), 2B, 1926-39

Freddie Lindstrom (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lindsfr01.shtml), 3B, 1924-36

Ernie Lombardi (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lombaer01.shtml), C, 1931-47

Heinie Manush (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/manushe01.shtml), RF, 1923-39

Rube Marquard (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marquru01.shtml), SP, 1908-25

Bill Mazeroski (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mazerbi01.shtml), 2B, 1956-72

Tommy McCarthy (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mccarto01.shtml), RF, 1884-96

Herb Pennock (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pennohe01.shtml?redir), SP, 1912-17, 1919-34

Ray Schalk (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schalra01.shtml?redir), C, 1912-29

Red Schoendienst (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schoere01.shtml), 2B, 1945-63

Joe Tinker (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/tinkejo01.shtml), SS, 1902-16

Lloyd Waner (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wanerll01.shtml), CF, 1927-42, 1944-45

PVNICK

06-05-2009, 05:57 AM

Hack Wilson - he was great from 1926 - 1930 at least at the bat but there are countless players who were great for a 4-5 year run with a year here and a year there of good that are not even close who actually were good with the glove. CF alone has Vada Pinson, Fred Lynn and Dale Murphy all of whom had the misfortune of not playing in the greatest offensive environment ever or close to it and thus setting a single season record to hang their hat on.

Phil Rizutto - I've blathered on often enough on this and will spare you.

jjpm74

06-05-2009, 06:31 AM

Mickey Welch
Early Wynn
Ross Youngs

AstrosFan

06-05-2009, 11:36 AM

Perez
J. Rice
S. Rice
Rizzuto
Sutter
Taylor
Welch
Willis
Wilson
Wynn
Youngs

jalbright

06-05-2009, 05:36 PM

J. Rice
Sutter
Taylor
Welch
Youngs

AstrosFan

06-07-2009, 04:33 PM

Bumping for visibility.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 05:13 PM

rsuriyop

06-07-2009, 06:34 PM

Wow, I'm surprised Maranville didn't make it in as a mistake, while Bancroft actually qualified. Anyone else think that Bancroft>Maranville?

Rice
Rizzuto
Welch
Wilson
Youngs

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 06:50 PM

Wow, I'm surprised Maranville didn't make it in as a mistake, while Bancroft actually qualified. Anyone else think that Bancroft>Maranville?

Maranville=The best defensive shortstop in the history of the game who dominated both in win shares and WARP3 as compared to others in the hall at his position. He is hurt by the fact that he played forever and that some folks never bother to look at anything besides OPS+and BA.

Bancroft=A good defensive shortstop with a borderline case for the hall. Maranville is much more valuable then Bancroft!

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 06:52 PM

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:05 PM

Wallace's player card:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1901 NL 6.91 3.22 10.1 3.9 10.13
1905 AL 6.30 2.78 8.5 2.7 9.08
1899 NL 5.09 3.82 6.1 5.0 8.91
1902 AL 4.24 4.62 5.0 6.8 8.87
1908 AL 4.44 4.34 5.3 6.1 8.78
1907 AL 4.48 4.10 5.1 5.5 8.58
1906 AL 5.46 2.92 7.4 3.2 8.38
1897 NL 5.64 2.29 7.6 3.0 7.93
1898 NL 5.42 2.41 6.6 2.8 7.83
1903 AL 3.95 3.51 4.4 4.5 7.46
1904 AL 4.95 2.38 6.1 2.2 7.33
1910 AL 3.55 1.43 3.5 0.5 4.98
1900 NL 2.65 1.42 1.9 0.5 4.07
1909 AL 2.5 1.33 2.2 0.6 3.83
1896 NL -0.14 0.63 -1.3 0.8 3.33
1911 AL 1.15 1.50 -0.6 0.8 2.65
1895 NL -0.2 0.62 -1.1 1.0 2.5
1912 AL 1.21 1.08 0.1 0.4 2.29

Very VERY consistently good solid player...but absolutely, positively ZERO peak dominance. And although he was consistently solid, his established level of performance was pretty soft by HOF standards.

He ranks 21st by the HOF Marker with 127 marker points...my cut for shortstops is several steps above that on the ladder at Joe Tinker (18th at 139 marker points) or perhaps Lou Doubreau (15th place, 148 marker points0 depending on how generous I want to be the HOF size.

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 07:09 PM

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:15 PM

Maranville=The best defensive shortstop in the history of the game who dominated both in win shares and WARP3 as compared to others in the hall at his position. He is hurt by the fact that he played forever and that some folks never bother to look at anything besides OPS+and BA.

Bancroft=A good defensive shortstop with a borderline case for the hall. Maranville is much more valuable then Bancroft!

Maranville was definitely not the "best defensive shortstop in the history of the game"...that honor belongs to Ozzie Smith. And #2 is not Maranville iether...it's Joe Tinker. And #3 still isn't Maranville...it's Honus Wagner...LOL

Maranville vs. Bancroft...the cards:
Maranville
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1916 NL 5.71 4.59 7.1 6.3 10.30
1914 NL 4.43 5.63 4.6 8.4 10.06
1921 NL 4.42 4.28 4.5 5.7 8.70
1917 NL 5.23 2.80 6.6 3.0 8.03
1924 NL 2.67 5.12 1.3 7.3 7.79
1915 NL 3.86 3.43 4.1 4.1 7.29
1913 NL 4.39 2.51 4.6 2.4 6.90
1922 NL 3.84 2.68 3.0 2.4 6.52
1919 NL 3.47 2.80 3.6 3.2 6.27
1929 NL 3.13 2.59 2.2 2.4 5.72
1923 NL 2.83 2.87 1.6 3.1 5.70
1930 NL 2.69 2.73 1.4 2.8 5.42
1920 NL 3.09 2.15 2.8 1.9 5.24
1932 NL 1.65 3.59 -0.7 4.4 5.24
1931 NL 2.14 1.53 0.2 0.3 3.67
1928 NL 1.21 2.30 -0.2 2.6 3.51
1933 NL 1.63 1.45 -0.1 0.2 3.08
1926 NL 0.81 1.03 0.0 0.7 1.84
1925 NL 0.44 1.00 -1.0 0.6 1.44

Bancroft
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1921 NL 8.03 4.83 11.6 6.9 12.86
1922 NL 6.09 6.03 7.5 9.2 12.12
1920 NL 6.01 4.87 7.7 6.9 10.88
1923 NL 4.45 4.33 5.6 6.5 8.78
1916 NL 4.23 3.84 4.8 5.1 8.07
1915 NL 4.11 3.76 4.0 4.7 7.87
1925 NL 5.55 2.16 7.6 2.1 7.71
1926 NL 5.93 1.15 8.4 0.1 7.08
1917 NL 3.43 3.55 3.4 4.8 6.98
1918 NL 3.08 3.55 2.6 4.8 6.63
1928 NL 1.74 3.13 -0.2 3.6 4.87
1919 NL 2.45 1.28 2.5 0.9 3.73
1924 NL 2.30 0.60 2.3 -0.2 2.90
1927 NL 1.51 1.00 0.3 0.1 2.51
1929 NL 1.06 0.92 -0.4 0.0 1.98

Bancroft was clearly the superior ballplayer while he wa around...but Maranville has a slight edge in longevity. However, the Marker system places high emphasis on separating oneself from average...which Maranville...really didn't...in fact Maranville spent a great deal of his career as an average or slightly below average hitter, while Bancroft was average or better and even had some double-average seasons with the bat.

Maranville's edge over Bancroft on defense was small: 63.4 for Maranville, 56.4 for Bancroft. But Bancroft was far and away the better hitter...67.4 to 42.9. Giving Bancroft a total value of 123.8 to Maranville's 106.3. Maranville is down aroud 30th ranked all time and Bancroft is 23rd...neither belongs in the HOF. Bancroft is the better candidate.

rsuriyop

06-07-2009, 07:15 PM

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:25 PM

Im assuming you mean Lou Boudreau?

You have a very balanced approach to looking at players. Its nice to see that kind of analysis around here. Id like to learn more about your player cards. Is there a writup about it somewhere?

The player cards come from PCA (Pythagorean Comparative Analysis) and if you're up for a lengthy full description about that system, you can join the Yahoo! group "baseball-databank" and find the PCA Manifest in their downloadable files or you can PM me an e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

Tee HOF Marker system is a simple addendum to PCA wherein I take the PCA ratings, multiply by two and subtract the value of an average player (if you are exactly average, you keep your rating...if you are half the value of an average player in marginal wins you get a 0 and if you are three times as valuable as average, you get a value 5 times the average)...the idea being to reward players for dominant peaks without unduly penalizing for hanging aroud and still being reasonably productive. I find it's a very balanced way of looking at both longevity and dominance.

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 07:28 PM

Maranville was definitely not the "best defensive shortstop in the history of the game"...that honor belongs to Ozzie Smith. And #2 is not Maranville iether...it's Joe Tinker. And #3 still isn't Maranville...it's Honus Wagner...LOL

Right now, I have 2 advanced systems to work with that Im comfortable with: WARP3 and win shares.

The 2 are neck in neck with Bancroft winning out on peak but Maranville winning out on carer value and Maranville being way ahead of Bancroft on DWS. I would like to learn more about your system, though because Im always looking at new ways to look at players.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:29 PM

I don't know about that. Was he really all that much better? From what I've gathered, Bancroft was better offensively and was a bit more than just a "good" defensive shortstop. All Maranville basically has going for him really is that he was probably just tad bit better with the glove, played for almost forever (albeit far past his prime), and was more famous. If being the best defensive player at a premier defensive position alone is enough to qualify anyone for the Hall, then I'm guessing that you're okay with Bill Mazeroski being in?

Funny thing is...Bill Mazeroski ALLLLMOST made my HOF cut despite being an abysmal hitter. He was THAT good with the glove.
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1962 NL 3.65 6.17 3.4 9.2 9.82
1960 NL 4.25 5.34 4.8 7.8 9.59
1966 NL 3.32 6.17 2.5 9.2 9.49
1958 NL 4.4 4.97 5.0 7.0 9.37
1964 NL 3.17 5.28 2.3 7.4 8.45
1963 NL 2.63 5.48 1.6 8.2 8.11
1968 NL 2.41 5.53 1.3 8.3 7.94
1965 NL 2.43 5.17 1.5 8.0 7.60
1961 NL 2.73 3.94 1.7 4.9 6.67
1967 NL 2.97 3.62 1.6 4.1 6.59
1957 NL 3.71 2.33 3.8 2.0 6.04
1970 NL 1.14 2.76 -0.3 3.6 3.90
1959 NL 0.78 3.00 -1.8 3.5 3.78
1969 NL 0.97 1.73 0.3 2.3 2.70
1956 NL 0.58 1.60 -0.6 1.7 2.18
1971 NL 0.86 0.53 0.4 0.3 1.39

Career totals of 131.8 MP (just 26.7 (LOL) for offense and 105.1 for defense)...ranks him 25th among second basemen...truly remarkable fielder.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:30 PM

Right now, I have 2 advanced systems to work with that Im comfortable with: WARP3 and win shares.

The 2 are neck in neck with Bancroft winning out on peak but Maranville winning out on carer value and Maranville being way ahead of Bancroft on DWS. I would like to learn more about your system, though because Im always looking at new ways to look at players.

Well you should know that PCA also has Maranville getting more total career wins...the trick is the HOF Marker penalizes you if you don't do something to separate yourself from average.

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 07:31 PM

The player cards come from PCA (Pythagorean Comparative Analysis) and if you're up for a lengthy full description about that system, you can join the Yahoo! group "baseball-databank" and find the PCA Manifest in their downloadable files or you can PM me an e-mail address and I'll send it to you.

It does look very balanced. I Pmmed you my email. Thanks!

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 07:33 PM

Well you should know that PCA also has Maranville getting more total career wins...the trick is the HOF Marker penalizes you if you don't do something to separate yourself from average.

Thats the big drawback with both WARP3 and Win Shares. Average is in the eye of the beholder with those systems. Ive been looking for something that either rewards for being above average or penalizes for not standing out.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 07:38 PM

WARP and WS lack a playing time element to groud them so you know how to find the average line...when I normalized PCA to account for the changing distribution of performance through history, it automatically gained a playing-time relative framework I used to ground all of my player rankings...you don't want to focus solely on runs above average...then you get weird things like very short-careered players beating out long-term professionals who hung around at the end of their career and lost value relative to average...but knowing where average is and rating based on how you stand does work if done thoughtfully.

AstrosFan

06-07-2009, 09:02 PM

Almost all of those players have no business in the hall...I'll list the INCLUSIONS instead of the mistakes:

Yount, Wynn, Willis, Sam Thompson, San Rice.

The only guys I did not vote vote as being mistakes.

Glad to finally have someone with a long mistakes list besides me. :)

Very VERY consistently good solid player...but absolutely, positively ZERO peak dominance. And although he was consistently solid, his established level of performance was pretty soft by HOF standards.

Most systems agree with that premise, and I think it's legit. I gave him a pass anyway, but I can see the argument for him as a mistake.

Maranville was definitely not the "best defensive shortstop in the history of the game"...that honor belongs to Ozzie Smith. And #2 is not Maranville iether...it's Joe Tinker. And #3 still isn't Maranville...it's Honus Wagner...LOL

Bancroft was clearly the superior ballplayer while he wa around...but Maranville has a slight edge in longevity. However, the Marker system places high emphasis on separating oneself from average...which Maranville...really didn't...in fact Maranville spent a great deal of his career as an average or slightly below average hitter, while Bancroft was average or better and even had some double-average seasons with the bat.

Maranville's edge over Bancroft on defense was small: 63.4 for Maranville, 56.4 for Bancroft. But Bancroft was far and away the better hitter...67.4 to 42.9. Giving Bancroft a total value of 123.8 to Maranville's 106.3. Maranville is down aroud 30th ranked all time and Bancroft is 23rd...neither belongs in the HOF. Bancroft is the better candidate.

The support for Maranville has always surprised me. I'm not on board with him being the greatest defensive SS of all time either, and I think Bancroft is a better player as well. But Bancroft made it as a mistake easily, and less than half of the people on this site, given projects around the league, think Maranville doesn't belong. It baffles me. At the very least, it should be close.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 09:38 PM

Glad to finally have someone with a long mistakes list besides me. :)

I'm not a TINY hall guy, but I like to kepe it to the group of players who legitimately separated themselves from the remaining very good players...if you look at the distribution of HOF Marker scores, it's pyradmial...the gaps between ranks shrink as you go down the list...once I get to a point where I see 10 guys in a row within 5 marker points of each other...I don't consider that HOF achievement. To me...the HOF should be a lasting tribute to men who stood far apart from the rest of the field either in remarkable peak dominance, remarkable durability of high performance level, or some combination thereof...NOT the place where all very good players go who were well liked in their time.

Most systems agree with that premise, and I think it's legit. I gave him a pass anyway, but I can see the argument for him as a mistake.

Wallace is borderline...he's close...in reality, my book will list players by rank for the top 10-15 (until it gets hard to separate them) and then by echelon below that, and Wallace is in the next echelon down from the sure HOFers...that means I'm not going to throw a fit if people disagree with me having him just out instead of just in.

The support for Maranville has always surprised me. I'm not on board with him being the greatest defensive SS of all time either, and I think Bancroft is a better player as well. But Bancroft made it as a mistake easily, and less than half of the people on this site, given projects around the league, think Maranville doesn't belong. It baffles me. At the very least, it should be close.

Indeed...Maranville was a good fielder...but I don't really see the overwhelming evidence that he was a TRANSCENDENTLY great one like Smith, like Mazeroski, like Ivan Rodriguez, Andruw Jones, Brooks Robinson, Keith Hernandez. I notice that PCA tends to see a HUUUUGE gap between the transcendent fielders and the good ones and the marker widens the gap further. This happens because the transcendently good glove men were not only brilliant when things went well like so many other good fielders...they sustained their brilliance over many seasons...most defensive peaks are short and quickly diminish because defense above all other skills requires your body to be in perfect shape to play well and requires you to be perfect in positioning, and in gameplan execution, and fundamentals. I routinely see great sluggers have a rough year with injuries and still manage to hack away for a 130 OPS+...down from their usual 160. LOL Fielders...when they lose a single step...go from 5 win shortstops to 2 win shortstops.

AstrosFan

06-07-2009, 10:09 PM

I'm not a TINY hall guy, but I like to kepe it to the group of players who legitimately separated themselves from the remaining very good players...if you look at the distribution of HOF Marker scores, it's pyradmial...the gaps between ranks shrink as you go down the list...once I get to a point where I see 10 guys in a row within 5 marker points of each other...I don't consider that HOF achievement. To me...the HOF should be a lasting tribute to men who stood far apart from the rest of the field either in remarkable peak dominance, remarkable durability of high performance level, or some combination thereof...NOT the place where all very good players go who were well liked in their time.

I'm not tiny hall either. Probably smaller than the current list, but not by a lot. My thing is that I believe there is a rather high percentage of players who are inferior to those outside the Hall.

bambambaseball

06-07-2009, 10:11 PM

Indeed...Maranville was a good fielder...but I don't really see the overwhelming evidence that he was a TRANSCENDENTLY great one like Smith, like Mazeroski, like Ivan Rodriguez, Andruw Jones, Brooks Robinson, Keith Hernandez. I notice that PCA tends to see a HUUUUGE gap between the transcendent fielders and the good ones and the marker widens the gap further. This happens because the transcendently good glove men were not only brilliant when things went well like so many other good fielders...they sustained their brilliance over many seasons...most defensive peaks are short and quickly diminish because defense above all other skills requires your body to be in perfect shape to play well and requires you to be perfect in positioning, and in gameplan execution, and fundamentals. I routinely see great sluggers have a rough year with injuries and still manage to hack away for a 130 OPS+...down from their usual 160. LOL Fielders...when they lose a single step...go from 5 win shortstops to 2 win shortstops.

All of those guys I see as all time greats defensively. Just out of curiosity, do you have any guys from Maranville's period or earlier as all time greats defensively? Guys like Bid McPhee? Im curious, because a lot of systems dont seem to take equipment or lack of equipment with McPhee into consideration when looking at defense. Maraville was voted in my the writers which is my main reason why Im reluctant to dismiss him. Im worried that 50 years from now people will look at Ozzie Smith who was easily the best defender Ive ever seen play as a mistake when looking back.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 11:27 PM

I'm not tiny hall either. Probably smaller than the current list, but not by a lot. My thing is that I believe there is a rather high percentage of players who are inferior to those outside the Hall.

Yes...I think that happened because players have gotten better with time, so each player is judged against his own existing HOF standard...and some of the criteria used to judge were messed up.

Calif_Eagle

06-07-2009, 11:38 PM

Wow, I'm surprised Maranville didn't make it in as a mistake, while Bancroft actually qualified. Anyone else think that Bancroft>Maranville?

Well... I posted a bit about Maranville on # 20 of this series & from what I read on that thread & this one, Bancroft would be ranked ahead of him.

My thing re: Maranville is that he died just before the Hall election & that probably propelled him in. If he had died 2 days *after* the 1954 Hall election, does anyone vote for him in 1955? I doubt there would've *ever* been a big campaign to get him in. He probably wouldnt be in today, unless Frankie Frisch & his VC company had a soft spot for him.

As for his playing longevity, well... I dont know what line of work he was qualified for outside of baseball, or what he did when his career ended. But he was playing for the Boston Braves in an era when they werent winning in general & werent drawing flies... as long as he still had the good glove they were probably willing to pay him to keep playing. Good deal for them, good deal for him. Its just a theory, but Braves owner Judge Fuchs was probably saving money over a younger SS & the Rabbit was still making more than he would have been in a "real job" (non-baseball) A win-win situation for both of them. Plus... Braves pilot Bill McKechnie loved defense & valued it highly in his managerial career. This may have bought the Rabbit the last 5 years of his playing career.

I think defense alone should qualify one for the Hall, if you are a non-pareil defender, someone who could be called the Greatest ever defender at a given position. I have no problem with Ozzie Smith or Bill Mazeroski being in the HOF.

SABR Matt

06-07-2009, 11:44 PM

All of those guys I see as all time greats defensively. Just out of curiosity, do you have any guys from Maranville's period or earlier as all time greats defensively? Guys like Bid McPhee? Im curious, because a lot of systems dont seem to take equipment or lack of equipment with McPhee into consideration when looking at defense. Maraville was voted in my the writers which is my main reason why Im reluctant to dismiss him. Im worried that 50 years from now people will look at Ozzie Smith who was easily the best defender Ive ever seen play as a mistake when looking back.

Guys in the top 5 fielders of all time at each position who are deadball era or earlier stars:

1B: Roger Connor (51.2 defensive MP, 4th rank, Keith Hernandez leads with 61.4) - Pipp is 8th on this list

2B: Bid McPhee (110.5 def MP, 1st rank)

Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie and Johnny Evers are 6-7-9 on the list BTW...with marker scores ranging from 83.6 to 74.9

3B: Jimmy Collins (63.6 def MP, 2nd rank, Brooks Robinson is 23 MP ahead of him in first though) - Pie Traynor is 9th

I seem tyo have an anti-old-timers bias in the catcher department...but I suspect that's because the great fielding catchers back then usually lasted like 3 seasons before their lack of equipment doomed them to sucking or retiring due to injury. See Buck Ewing as an example.

CF: Tris Speaker (146.3 MP, 1st rank, 2nd rank is Max Carey 13 MP behind and then a 25 MP dropoff to the rest of the best) - Tommy Leach is 8th.

LF: Jimmy Sheckard (83.4 MP, second behind Rickey Henderson at 94.0) - in 6th, is Fred Clarke, in 9th is Zach Wheat

RF: Harry Hooper (79.7 MP, 4th on the list...leaders are nearly tied...Roberto Clemente (99.3) and Al Kaline (98.6)...then a drop-off to the rest of the pack)

SS: Honus Wagner (2nd at 76.3 MP), Joe Tinker (4th at 73.3), and Bill Dahlen (5th at 69.6 def. MP...all trailing Ozzie Smith who comes in a whopping 25 MPs ahead of the pack with 101.6)...immediately outside the top 5 we also have Herman Long at 6th and Maranville 8th.

At the skill positions, the defensive greats seem to tower above the rest (3B, SS, CF, C in particular)...at easier positions, the gaps are smaller. And this too makes sense to me.

As fort concerns about old time players not getting credit for their inferior equipment...that was true for all the old time greats and the improvements hit everyone almost simultaneously...so systems like WS and PCA, which derive defensive scores from a top-down analysis of team defense relative to league context will not have a problem accounting for this...the spread of defensive performance is larger back then...but when I normalized everything to correct that, I took care of that problem.

jjpm74

06-08-2009, 12:09 AM

I seem tyo have an anti-old-timers bias in the catcher department...but I suspect that's because the great fielding catchers back then usually lasted like 3 seasons before their lack of equipment doomed them to sucking or retiring due to injury. See Buck Ewing as an example.

I have the same bias with defensive catchers. Most actually come from post-1945 for me (Ivan Rodriguez, Jim Sundberg, et,.al). However, Charlie Bennett stands out as one catcher from pre-1945 (forgetting about deadball/lively ball given the way catchers were used) who was valuable defensively and enjoyed an unusually long career despite the crude equipment available to him. The fact that catchers were platooned in his era make looking at him difficult, but he seems to be the best catcher of his day; not looking at the Buck Ewing and Deacon Whites of the world who played other positions.

Tiboreau

06-08-2009, 02:30 AM

Glad to finally have someone with a long mistakes list besides me. :)

Participating in the past few elections, I've also voted for several players as mistakes: Perez, Jim & Sam Rice, Sutter, Thompson, Welch, Willis, Wilson & Ross Youngs. In doing so, I've kept in mind one of the rules posted at the beginning of each election:

2. There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 60+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall. Again, DO NOT JUST VOTE FOR THE BAD PICKS. VOTE FOR ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY WOULD NOT ELECT TO THE HALL.

Maybe I think there are more players outside of the HoF who are deserving than other voters, or maybe I'm a little harder on certain types (6 out of 9 of my votes were for 1B/OF); however, I think I may agree with something Paul Wendt essentially said during the Purgatory elections--people just tend to vote for those whose mistake status they're 100% certain about, without regard for whether they may be the 250th or 275th best.

The support for Maranville has always surprised me. I'm not on board with him being the greatest defensive SS of all time either, and I think Bancroft is a better player as well. But Bancroft made it as a mistake easily, and less than half of the people on this site, given projects around the league, think Maranville doesn't belong. It baffles me. At the very least, it should be close.

I wonder how much of it is due to simply looking at their unadjusted Win Shares, which credits Maranville with 302 over his career & 110 during his best five consecutive years vs. Bancroft's 269 & 115. The problem with this is that without considering Replacement Level it overrates Maranville's career value. Looking at BP's WARP shows a much closer take betwixt the two, and Dan Rosenheck's WARP evaluation (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/dan_rosenhecks_warp_data) backs this up, even taking things one step further:
BP WARP3 car. top5 DR's WARP2 car. top5
Maranville 49.6 25.2 Maranville 50.2 26.4
Bancroft 51.7 29.8 Bancroft 56.8 30.3

Now, I consider both to be HoF mistakes, according to rule #2, since neither are in my top 230; if I was around when Bancroft was eligible he would've received my vote, and I did vote for Maranville during his last chance for election, but I don't see how one could decide that Maranville's not a mistake while electing Bancroft.

Right now, I have 2 advanced systems to work with that Im comfortable with: WARP3 and win shares.

The 2 are neck in neck with Bancroft winning out on peak but Maranville winning out on carer value and Maranville being way ahead of Bancroft on DWS. I would like to learn more about your system, though because Im always looking at new ways to look at players.

FWIW, Win Shares is the only system that that sees Maranville & Bancroft's career that way; BP's WARP1 gives Maranville only a slight career advantage, and considering the playing time of both candidates Bancroft's career had greater value to his teams. And as SABRMatt points out, Maranville may hold the fielding advantage over Bancroft (also an above average fielder), Bancroft's hitting easily eclipses Maranville's hitting value (or lack thereof) to a much greater extent (the 2nd two columns are Dan Rosenheck's Batting & Fielding Wins Above Average):
BP: BRAA FRAA DR: BWAA FWAA
Maranville -277 140 -16.0 16.5
Bancroft -41 74 8.9 10.3

Wallace is borderline...he's close...in reality, my book will list players by rank for the top 10-15 (until it gets hard to separate them) and then by echelon below that, and Wallace is in the next echelon down from the sure HOFers...that means I'm not going to throw a fit if people disagree with me having him just out instead of just in.

Well, I guess I would be one of those people that would disagree with you. . . .

The problem I think I have with this is that it assumes that all positional top 10-15 cohorts are equal. I don't know what you include in your top 10-15; however, including Negro Leaguers & 19th century ballplayers, I've ranked Bobby Wallace 19th among SS, 15th among HoF-eligible MLB SS since 1893. Yet, if I were to place him among 1B he'd rank 13th (very similar to Rafael Palmeiro when he becomes eligible for the HoF in '11, excluding the steroids issue), and the story is the same at almost every position (between 10th & 13th), only CF (18th, Alejandro Oms) & RF (18th, Dwight Evans) displaying similar depth as SS.

I've pointed out some comparables in overall value at other positions to tie into my second point--not all consistent careers are equal. One the one hand you have ballplayers who don't have the sensational peak but play at a very good level for a long period of time and are, IMO, solid HoFers: Eddie Murray, Pee Wee Reese, Fred Clarke, Eddie Plank & possibly Enos Slaughter. You also have ballplayers who performed at, well, a slightly above average level over a long period of time who I'd call borderline candidates at best: Jake Beckley (poster child), Tony Perez, Willie Randolph, Buddy Bell, Davey Concepcion, Bert Campeneris & Andre Dawson. IMO, the majority of these fall short of the top 230--only Dawson is above the line, IMO, while Bell & Concepcion stradle it. While Bobby Wallace doesn't belong in the former group, he doesn't belong with the latter group either and, IMO, is much closer to the former than he is to the latter:

DR's WARP2: car. top5 >4
Fred Clarke 74.7 31.5 15.5
Eddie Murray 63.6 31.5 13.8
Pee Wee Reese 76.9 31.2 17
Enos Slaughter 65.9 31 13.1

Bobby Wallace 69.5 30.5 16.7

Dwight Evans 66.1 32.9 12.9
Rafael Palmeiro 65.8 27.8 8.8

Andre Dawson 56.1 30.4 10.4
Dave Concepcion 55.6 31.9 11.2
Buddy Bell 55.9 28.9 9.3
Tony Perez 45.5 26.1 6.1

The first two columns are their career value & top 5 seasons according to Dan Rosenheck's WARP2; the third column is total of the WARP they've accrued in a season beyond 4. Now, other than a couple outliers, the 5 year peak of these ballplayers are within just a few points of one another. It is the career & prime value that separates them, and according Dan Rosenheck's numbers--which don't underrate early ballplayers like WARP3, or infielders like WS--Wallace stands out compared to borderline HoF candidates.
Now, he doesn't sniff the top 100, but IMO Wallace is closer to the #150 than he is to #225.

Paul Wendt

06-08-2009, 10:15 AM

On Bancroft and Maranville, I agree with Tiboreau. At the end I voted to put both of them in the BBF HOF (around rank 250), where I was usually alone on Bancroft and Maranville was elected. I don't understand why Bancroft is sometimes labeled a flaming mistake like Travis Jackson, who succeeded him as the Giants shortstop. On the other hand, I do understand that Maranville gets extra credit because he is in that conversation about the all-time best fielding shortstop.

Tiboreau replied to SABRMatt, in small part:
The problem I think I have with this is that it assumes that all positional top 10-15 cohorts are equal. I don't know what you include in your top 10-15; however, including Negro Leaguers & 19th century ballplayers, I've ranked Bobby Wallace 19th among SS, 15th among HoF-eligible MLB SS since 1893. Yet, if I were to place him among 1B he'd rank 13th (very similar to Rafael Palmeiro when he becomes eligible for the HoF in '11, excluding the steroids issue), and the story is the same at almost every position (between 10th & 13th), only CF (18th, Alejandro Oms) & RF (18th, Dwight Evans) displaying similar depth as SS.
I agree with the general point, although there may be enough scope within SABRMatt's "top 10-15" to cover the differences.

At the Hall of Merit, Negro Leagues members are concentrated at SS and CF. If we don't count them --and I suppose Matt doesn't-- then ten players at 3B or LF may correspond roughly in quality to fifteen or fewer at SS, CF, or RF.

Beside the Negro Leagues members, the Hall of Merit covers MLB players who retired before 2004. The recent and active players are concentrated at 1B, at least. That too may be a big difference underlying disagreement about the sizes of comparable "positional cohorts".

AG2004

06-08-2009, 01:44 PM

The HOF Marker system is a simple addendum to PCA wherein I take the PCA ratings, multiply by two and subtract the value of an average player (if you are exactly average, you keep your rating...if you are half the value of an average player in marginal wins you get a 0 and if you are three times as valuable as average, you get a value 5 times the average)...the idea being to reward players for dominant peaks without unduly penalizing for hanging aroud and still being reasonably productive. I find it's a very balanced way of looking at both longevity and dominance.

We do have a problem with Maranville in 1918 -- he lost most of the season to the war. The war problem affects a whole generation of players in the 1940s. Rizzuto, for example, lost three seasons during what should have been his peak due to World War II.

How does the system adjust for military service?

SABR Matt

06-08-2009, 02:44 PM

I do that case by case for now...but I am probably going to add value for everyone with a documented war record and make very conservative estimates for negro leaguers who also played in the majors for an extended period...and yes...that will improve Maranville's record a bit and a whole bunch of big leaguers from the 40s will move up.

STLCards2

06-08-2009, 03:40 PM

Glad to finally have someone with a long mistakes list besides me. :)

.

Outside of a few disagreements (Wynn, for example), we are typicaly on the same page.

jjpm74

06-08-2009, 06:45 PM

STLCards2

06-08-2009, 07:17 PM

I support Red Ruffing as a HOFer and don't see a separation between him and Wynn on closer analysis. I won't be voting against Wynn next round. Wynn's biggest fault was holding on too long to get to 300 wins. His career up to 1959 was a solid HOF career.

Off topic a bit, but for anybody interested...

Both were very good hitters - Ruffing seperates himself from Wynn becasue he was a great, all-time, hitting pitcher.

defensive-adjusted ERA+ (with offense converted in):

Wynn 4,500 IP 110 ERA+
Ruffing 4,300 IP 115 ERA+ (earily similar to Lyon's and Rixey's adjusted numbers)

Throw in a blistering postseason resume for Ruffing vs. a poor postseason resume for Wynn, and it is clear why Ruffing is a better HOf choice than Wynn. I still have Wynn as a borderline-in guy, but Ruffing is a solid selection, in my opinion.

nerfan

06-08-2009, 07:21 PM

Rizzuto
Youngs
Welch

i accidentally voted for Vic Willis. The rest are just borderline enough not to be eliminated.

Why is Robin Yount up there? He's one of the top five shortstops of all time.

STLCards2

06-08-2009, 07:33 PM

On the surface, Willis looks like an easy HOF pitcher - 118 ERA+, 4,000 IP, bucketloads of top 10 IP finishes, very nice peak from 1899-1902...

Yet he gets left off of a lot of HOF lists. I have seen a few studies that show that he got good defensive support (but not other-wordly like 3-Finger, for example). Is it that combined with the era he pitched in? Adjusting for defense, is he that worse off than his contemporary McGinnity who gets love from almost everybody?

Astorsfan-why do you chose to leave him off?
Matt- what does your analysis system say about Willis?

SABR Matt

06-08-2009, 08:51 PM

STLCards2

06-08-2009, 08:53 PM

SABR Matt

06-08-2009, 09:03 PM

Difficult to know, STLCards2...if he was a groundball pitcher, an extreme control-type pitcher and/or a situational pitcher (someone good at the little things like picking off baserunners, walking guys strategically to minimize risk, limiting productive outs etc), PCA would miss it. I don't know enough about Willis' style to be sure one way or the other.

However, I will say that he walked way too many guys compared to the walk rates of his era for me to believe he was a particularlyl dominant pitcher. And he does not appear to be a control type pitcher...his K rates are competitive with at least league average.

I see a pretty decent peak from 1899 to 1902 with another secondary stretch from 1906-1908 where he was above average...but I don't see a lot of dominance.

AG2004

06-09-2009, 11:31 AM

I'd like to know why Phil Rizzuto is getting such high percentages. My case for why Rizzuto is not a mistake can be found in the Keltner List thread.

With the exception of PVNICK back in round 17, I haven't seen anyone explain why they believe Rizzuto is a mistake. I'll respond to PVNick's arguments here.

Rizzuto, if he were out he might mot crakc the top five of SSs not in considerign Trammell and Dahlen are out and he's not in their time zone. Concepcion, Templeton, Tony Fernandez, Maury Wills may will be ahead of him along with "winners" like Bowa, Russell, Groat among others since being a Yankee during the Stengel years and having one MVP season was his primary calling card.

Let’s see if I can get five. Trammell, Dahlen, Dobie Moore, Dickey Pearce, and Perucho Cepeda. However, Pearce is ineligible due to the ten-year rule, and Cepeda was never under consideration because he played his entire career in the Caribbean.

Here are win share lines of the players PVNick mentioned. I added 60+ win shares to Rizzuto’s career total as compensation for military service. Since those were the years from age 26 to age 28, that’s a conservative mark. I also have plus signs after the peak marks, since I don’t know how much military service to give him. Concepcion’s and Templeton’s peaks are adjusted for strike-shortened seasons.

Rizzuto 291+, 86+, 121+
Concepcion 269, 80, 118
Templeton 209, 70, 102
Fernandez 280, 74, 118
Wills 253, 87, 128
Bowa 179, 53, 82
Russell185, 51, 70
Groat 225, 77, 112

I’d rather have Rizzuto than any of them. Wills is a close match in peak, but Rizzuto is obviously superior in career value.

Also, after looking at OPS+, I see only Fernandez (at 101) had a career OPS+ above Rizzuto’s 93. Rizzuto would have made up some of the difference had he been able to play during those three peak years, and Rizzuto’s defense would lift his overall value above Fernandez’.

How is that? They both missed the same 3 years 43-45. Rizzuto has a sub 500 OWP, other than 1950 his best OPS+ is 103, his batting runs are negative. Reese is in possitive territory on both scores. As for the glove, well I have yet to hear him referred to as anything approaching best ever, which is the tenuous thread that has Mazeroski in.

As I noted a few elections ago, according to Bill James' win share system, Rizzuto was an A+ defensive shortstop.

Defensive win shares per 1000 innings, shortstop
(among the 82 shortstops with over 10000 IP)

1. Marty Marion, 7.32
2. Joe Tinker, 7.28
3. Rick Burleson, 7.17
4. Phil Rizzuto, 7.14
5. Art Fletcher, 7.04
6. Everett Scott, 6.98
7. Honus Wagner, 6.89
8. Germany Smith, 6.86
9. Mickey Dolan, 6.86
10. Bill Dahlen, 6.82

Again, Rizzuto lost three prime years to the war; had he been able to play, he probably would have finished ahead of Burleson on the list.

Rizzuto turned 89 double plays per 1000 innings at shortstop, which is the best of all time. Furthermore, Rizzuto didn’t turn all those double plays just because he had the opportunity to do so. The 1942 Yankees exceeded expectations by 57 DPs, the best in history. The 1941 Yankees finished ahead of expectations by 42 DPs, the second best. From 1950 to 1954, the Yankees were +25, +34, +34, +20, and +38 in double plays against expecations. (I don’t have data for the late 1940s.)

By this comparison of DPs made to expected double plays, James discovered that Rizzuto was, "almost beyond any dispute," the best major league shortstop ever at turning the double play, and that the Rizzuto-Gordon combination was the top DP combo in major league history. (See page 638 of the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract for the DP info.)

---

Rizzuto won the MVP in 1950, and he deserved it; he had more win shares than any other major leaguer that year. He was an exceptionally good defensive shortstop, and the greatest ever at turning the double play. With wartime credit, he moves ahead of other seemingly similar players in value. He belongs in Cooperstown.

SABR Matt

06-09-2009, 11:53 AM

Rizzuto has no business in the HOF.
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1950 AL 8.67 4.63 12.7 6.4 13.30
1947 AL 5.50 4.51 7.1 6.3 10.01
1952 AL 4.75 5.17 5.2 7.6 9.92
1942 AL 4.75 4.93 5.6 7.2 9.68
1949 AL 4.53 4.16 4.6 5.5 8.69
1951 AL 5.43 2.72 6.9 2.9 8.15
1941 AL 3.25 4.28 3.0 6.3 7.53
1953 AL 4.37 2.79 5.5 3.3 7.16
1946 AL 2.24 3.33 1.2 4.4 5.57
1948 AL 2.61 2.44 1.8 2.5 5.05
1954 AL 0.79 2.34 -0.8 3.0 3.13
1955 AL 1.38 1.06 1.6 1.2 2.44

54.4 Offensive Marker Points, 58.4 Defensive Marker points (112.8 total)

Even once you make a WW2 adjustment:

He missed '43 through '45 to wartime service, his average marker value in '41, '42, '46, and '47 (per 550 PA / 145 EqG, his average season playing time during the same span) was 4.2 offense, 6.1 defense, so add 30.9 marker points to his career total, giving him 142.7 for his career.

He's still behind Lou Boudreau sitting at 17th on the all time shortstop list. My HOF cut stops at Boudreau because the final significant drop in the ratings occurs there...Boudreau is worth 148.8 marker points and the next guy down is worth 142.7...and all the shortstops that follow that are within 3 or 4 marker points of each other TOPS...it gets impossible to distinguish one from the other with any confidence. In otherwords...what we have here is a player who happens to be, approximately, the best of the rest. I have to exclude him.

AstrosFan

06-09-2009, 12:15 PM

PCA is not a huge Willis fan.
Yr Lg Off Def Pit O-M D-M P-M Wins
1901 NL -0.29 0.54 8.15 -1.3 0.8 12.2 8.40
1902 NL -0.99 0.55 8.19 -3.0 0.7 10.7 7.75
1899 NL -0.74 -0.03 8.50 -2.4 -0.4 12.6 7.73
1906 NL -0.50 0.50 6.56 -1.8 0.6 8.6 6.56
1907 NL -0.84 0.35 7.04 -2.4 0.4 10.2 6.55
1903 NL -0.66 0.12 7.02 -2.2 -0.1 10.2 6.48
1908 NL -0.53 0.30 5.41 -1.8 0.3 6.8 5.18
1904 NL -0.33 0.32 3.62 -1.7 0.1 2.2 3.61
1909 NL -0.8 0.36 3.85 -2.3 0.4 3.8 3.41
1910 NL -0.4 0.18 2.46 -1.3 0.1 1.9 2.24
1905 NL -0.8 0.39 2.62 -2.5 0.4 0.4 2.21
1898 NL -1.14 0.22 2.75 -3.1 0.1 1.4 1.83

In terms of pitching HOF Marker (PCA...not DNRA, since that does not exist for this time period), 81 marker points for pitching alone would place him approximately 85th all time on the pitching leaderboard...only a marginal candidate at best. PCA thinks his ERA+ was lucky...and he was not a particularly good fielder, nor a tolerably good hitter even by pitching standards.

Here's how Willis's teams ranked in DWS in the NL, in chronological order:

1898 - 2
1899 - 1
1900 - 1
1901 - 1
1902 - 2
1903 - 6
1904 - 7
1905 - 6
1906 - 2
1907 - 4
1908 - 4
1909 - 2
1910 - 8

That 1903-05 stretch is particularly telling, because without the great defensive support, he turns into an innings eater, and looks nothing like a Hall of Famer. The innings he was able to pitch were largely a product of their time, although he was among the top ten nearly every year and deserves credit for that. But his production was inconsistent, and it looks like any Hall of Fame type seasons he had were helped immensely by his defense, considering how his production dropped when he didn't have that help. The career line of approx. 4,000 IP and a 118 ERA+ isn't a good representation of how good he was.

McGinnity's a little better than Willis, but not much. I stand by my decision to vote for Willis as a mistake, but I'm not sure, if I had to do it over again, whether I'd keep McGinnity off my mistake ballot.

SABR Matt

06-09-2009, 12:27 PM

Jsquared83

06-09-2009, 12:54 PM

Perez
Rizzuto
Sutter
Wallace
Wilson
Youngs

Tiboreau

06-09-2009, 01:20 PM

As I noted a few elections ago, according to Bill James' win share system, Rizzuto was an A+ defensive shortstop.

Defensive win shares per 1000 innings, shortstop
(among the 82 shortstops with over 10000 IP)

1. Marty Marion, 7.32
2. Joe Tinker, 7.28
3. Rick Burleson, 7.17
4. Phil Rizzuto, 7.14
5. Art Fletcher, 7.04
6. Everett Scott, 6.98
7. Honus Wagner, 6.89
8. Germany Smith, 6.86
9. Mickey Dolan, 6.86
10. Bill Dahlen, 6.82

Again, Rizzuto lost three prime years to the war; had he been able to play, he probably would have finished ahead of Burleson on the list.

Rizzuto turned 89 double plays per 1000 innings at shortstop, which is the best of all time. Furthermore, Rizzuto didn’t turn all those double plays just because he had the opportunity to do so. The 1942 Yankees exceeded expectations by 57 DPs, the best in history. The 1941 Yankees finished ahead of expectations by 42 DPs, the second best. From 1950 to 1954, the Yankees were +25, +34, +34, +20, and +38 in double plays against expecations. (I don’t have data for the late 1940s.)

Rizzuto also has the defensive reputation to back up James's analysis.

He missed '43 through '45 to wartime service, his average marker value in '41, '42, '46, and '47 (per 550 PA / 145 EqG, his average season playing time during the same span) was 4.2 offense, 6.1 defense, so add 30.9 marker points to his career total, giving him 142.7 for his career.

Rizzuto was still recovering his strength during '46 after contracting malaria late in the war. I prefer to ignore that season when projecting '43 thru '45, and give greater weight to the years immediately preceding & proceeding that time. That being said, Rizzuto is, IMO, the very definition of borderline for this project. Earlier you noted that you wouldn't "throw a fit if people disagree with me having him just out instead of just in." That's how I feel about Rizzuto (except the other way around, I guess, since I have him in, but you know what I mean . . . ).

Tiboreau

06-09-2009, 01:24 PM

I have McGinity as a mistake as well. And I agree with you about the defense being a major problem for Willis's fans.

PCA is actually even less kind to Willis than Win Shares in terms of taking away credit when the defenses were great behind him since PCA is a DIPS metric and WS is not. But Willis' career PCA-BA for pitching is .280...which would be the equivalent of posting a 104 ERA+...LOL

Yeah...not a hall of famer...not even particularly close.

Glass half full/empty type thing, but I'd say that Win Shares is more generous in giving credit to Willis because not only does it inadequately consider average IP totals of his era but also it caps the amount of credit a defense can receive, which particularly effects the 19th century & Deadball eras when defense was a bigger part of the run prevention equation than it is now.

SABR Matt

06-09-2009, 01:53 PM

Right...when I talk about PCA as a DIPS metric...that's what I actually am talking about. WS has a hard cap on the potential value of a team defense...PCA does not. PCA splits defensive credit between pitchers and fielders using DIPS theory. The process works pretty darned well most of the time (the exception being if you happen to have 3 or 4 starting pitchers on your team that are great at reducing the BABIP...the mid-90s Braves come to mind).

And yes...the IP thing is a problem IF you are looking at win shares without accounting for playing time and putting things in the form of a rate.

SABR Matt

06-09-2009, 02:00 PM

Rizzuto also has the defensive reputation to back up James's analysis.

Rizzuto was still recovering his strength during '46 after contracting malaria late in the war. I prefer to ignore that season when projecting '43 thru '45, and give greater weight to the years immediately preceding & proceeding that time. That being said, Rizzuto is, IMO, the very definition of borderline for this project. Earlier you noted that you wouldn't "throw a fit if people disagree with me having him just out instead of just in." That's how I feel about Rizzuto (except the other way around, I guess, since I have him in, but you know what I mean . . . ).

Win Shares is a bit more ecstatic about Rizzuto's glove than is PCA...or...to put it this way...PCA's top defensive performances with at least 1200 EqG at short:

1) Mark Belanger (.326 PCA-BA)
2) Joe Tinker (.322)
3) Ozzie Smith (.321)
4) Marty Marion (.315)
5) Phil Rizzuto (.312)

BTW, my rankings make a heck of a lot more sense to me than James' rate rankings...what the heck is Rick Burleson doing on that list? Or Everett Scott for that matter? Or Art Fletcher! Good shortstops, sure, but all time great (per inning?)...I think not.

Once agian...because PCA is a DIPS metric...the team defensive ratings end up making more sense than they do within the win shares system and this produces more accurate defensive ratings than DWS.

STLCards2

06-09-2009, 04:27 PM

I have McGinity as a mistake as well. And I agree with you about the defense being a major problem for Willis's fans.

PCA is actually even less kind to Willis than Win Shares in terms of taking away credit when the defenses were great behind him since PCA is a DIPS metric and WS is not. But Willis' career PCA-BA for pitching is .280...which would be the equivalent of posting a 104 ERA+...LOL

Yeah...not a hall of famer...not even particularly close.

Fair enough. I'd stil like to see how Willis did stranding runners, inducing double plays, controling the running game, and the other things PCA can't capture. It may not close the HOF gap, but I bet he will get a lot closer.

As far as his team DWS, even though it makes his peak years look not-as-impressive, DWS helps out his not peak years quite a bit. So (assuming that his PCA is wiffing a bit on his defensive -netral ERA for the above reasons) what you have is a pitcher with less peak than what appears, but a more balanced career than appears. If his PCA is dead on, then he definitely is hurt all-around.

AG2004

06-09-2009, 06:56 PM

Win Shares is a bit more ecstatic about Rizzuto's glove than is PCA...or...to put it this way...PCA's top defensive performances with at least 1200 EqG at short:

1) Mark Belanger (.326 PCA-BA)
2) Joe Tinker (.322)
3) Ozzie Smith (.321)
4) Marty Marion (.315)
5) Phil Rizzuto (.312)

BTW, my rankings make a heck of a lot more sense to me than James' rate rankings...what the heck is Rick Burleson doing on that list? Or Everett Scott for that matter? Or Art Fletcher! Good shortstops, sure, but all time great (per inning?)...I think not.

Belanger comes in at 6.72 DWS per 1000 IP at shortstop, which is still exceptionally good. Burleson had the bad luck to make his debut when Belanger was still a star defensive shortstop, and Gold Glove voters probably kept voting for Belanger out of habit. Also, while Belanger had a gradual decline, the end to Burleson's career was sudden. After Burleson's arm injury in the 1981-82 offseason, he played just 44 games at short, which meant no decline phase pulled down his rate stat.

Everett Scott had a career fielding average of .965, while the league fielding percentage was .940. That 25-point gap is a record at shortstop. Scott is another player with a short career and rapid decline; he also had the misfortune of playing in the same city, and at the same time, as Rabbit Maranville during the latter's peak. Fletcher's another player who had a relatively short career with a sudden end. While Fletcher didn't play in the same city as Maranville, he played in the same league.

Maranville and Ozzie Smith both rank as A+ defensive shortstops, but their DWS/1000 IP averages were pulled down by declines that were both lengthy and gradual.

-----

Tiboreau does have a point about ignoring 1946 when calculating Rizzuto's wartime value -- he was recovering from malaria, which was a result of serving in the navy. I doubt he would have picked up the disease if he had remained in New York. If you were to use 1941, 1942, and 1947 to calculate his wartime value, Rizzuto would go up to 147.3 HOF Marker points in the PCA system. That would put him on the right side of the final significant drop in the ratings.

Out of curiosity, I would like to see the HOF Marker scores for numbers 13 to 25 at shortstop (Rizzuto, as I understand, is 18th).

SABR Matt

06-09-2009, 08:13 PM

Belanger comes in at 6.72 DWS per 1000 IP at shortstop, which is still exceptionally good. Burleson had the bad luck to make his debut when Belanger was still a star defensive shortstop, and Gold Glove voters probably kept voting for Belanger out of habit. Also, while Belanger had a gradual decline, the end to Burleson's career was sudden. After Burleson's arm injury in the 1981-82 offseason, he played just 44 games at short, which meant no decline phase pulled down his rate stat.

Everett Scott had a career fielding average of .965, while the league fielding percentage was .940. That 25-point gap is a record at shortstop. Scott is another player with a short career and rapid decline; he also had the misfortune of playing in the same city, and at the same time, as Rabbit Maranville during the latter's peak. Fletcher's another player who had a relatively short career with a sudden end. While Fletcher didn't play in the same city as Maranville, he played in the same league.

Maranville and Ozzie Smith both rank as A+ defensive shortstops, but their DWS/1000 IP averages were pulled down by declines that were both lengthy and gradual.

-----

Tiboreau does have a point about ignoring 1946 when calculating Rizzuto's wartime value -- he was recovering from malaria, which was a result of serving in the navy. I doubt he would have picked up the disease if he had remained in New York. If you were to use 1941, 1942, and 1947 to calculate his wartime value, Rizzuto would go up to 147.3 HOF Marker points in the PCA system. That would put him on the right side of the final significant drop in the ratings.

Out of curiosity, I would like to see the HOF Marker scores for numbers 13 to 25 at shortstop (Rizzuto, as I understand, is 18th).

Burleson's defensive career by PCA:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1981 110 3.73 0.339
SS 1979 147 4.89 0.336
SS 1974 81 2.46 0.323
SS 1978 145 4.35 0.321
SS 1977 154 4.55 0.319
2B 1974 28 0.78 0.308
SS 1980 149 3.96 0.306
SS 1976 146 3.17 0.285
SS 1975 158 3.36 0.282
SS 1986 26 0.47 0.268
SS 1983 29 0.44 0.255
2B 1987 52 0.75 0.248

Quality glove to be sure, but PCA does not see him as being even close to the same caliber of shortstop as Belanger in his prime...so no, I don't think he suffered from playing in the same league as Belanger.

Everett Scott:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1921 154 6.04 0.362
SS 1922 154 5.53 0.348
SS 1917 152 5.05 0.336
SS 1918 126 3.64 0.317
SS 1920 151 3.88 0.302
SS 1924 151 3.63 0.295
SS 1916 107 2.41 0.288
SS 1915 99 2.14 0.284
SS 1923 140 2.64 0.272
SS 1926 37 0.67 0.269
SS 1919 134 2.34 0.266
SS 1914 140 2.37 0.263
SS 1925 30 0.38 0.244

That's a little more like it...although his peak was brief and much of the rest of his career was mundane good as opposed to amazing. Scott was not CONSISTENTLY good either...the key to rating as a great shortstop by PCA and the marker system (well any position really, not just short) is not having weaker years mixed in with the good ones.

Art Fletcher:
Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
SS 1919 128 5.04 0.363
SS 1920 39 1.41 0.348
SS 1918 123 4.41 0.347
SS 1917 148 4.86 0.334
SS 1916 131 3.76 0.315
SS 1913 132 2.92 0.286
SS 1912 128 2.73 0.283
SS 1911 70 1.32 0.272
SS 1920 100 1.90 0.272
SS 1915 145 2.64 0.269
SS 1922 98 1.79 0.269
SS 1914 139 2.29 0.261

What do these guys all have in common? Short careers punctuated by well above average but very brief peaks...they are lost on PCA compared to win shares because PCA picks out larger differences between being average and being a star so when you have an average season it hurts you more.

I see your point about Malaria and Rizzuto...he's right on the borderline of the hall anyway, so spending hours arguing about him is kind of silly...he could really go either way...I just think if you're on the border and have to speculate some to push you onto the good side...you shouldn't be in the HOF.

The rankings, as I see them, with necessary wartime credit and estimates for modern (post-2005) seasons...(total - batting/fielding/pitching markers)

1) Honus Wagner (427.8 - 351.8/76.2/-0.2)
2) Alex Rodriguez (264.6 - 231.6/23.0/0.0)
3) George Davis (238.8 - 181.2/57.6/-0.4)
4) Robin Yount (236.4 - 180.5/55.8/0.0)
5*) Monte Ward (225.8 - 70.5/49.1/106.2)
5T) Luke Appling (191.2 - 131.3/58.9/0.0)
5T) Arky Vaughan (191.1 - 161.2/29.9/0.0)
7) Bill Dahlen (189.7 - 120.0/69/7/0.0)
8) Ernie Banks (185.9 - 146.6/39.3/0.0)
9) Ozzie Smith (182.0 - 78.7/103.3/0.0)
10) Barry Larkin (180.4 - 128.7/51.7/0.0)
11) Cal Ripken Jr. (178.8 - 122.5/56.3/0.0)
12) Joe Cronin (165.9 - 110.8/51.1/0.0)
13) Alan Trammell (150.1 - 112.6/37.5/0.0)
14T) Phil Rizzuto (148.3 - 70.1/78.2/0.0)
14T) Lou Boudreau (148.2 - 93.1/55.1/0.0)
16) Pee Wee Reese (142.2 - 82.8/58.4/0.0)
17) Herman Long (140.1 - 71.3/68.8/0.0)
18) Joe Tinker (139.2 - 65.9/73.3/0.0)
19T) Derek Jeter (138.2 - 132.7/5.5/0.0)
19T) Jack Glasscock (138.0 - 87.2/51.3/-0.5)
21) Bobby Wallace (135.2 - 74.6/52.5/8.1)
22) Luis Aparicio (134.1 - 65.8/68.3/0.0)
23T) Joe Sewell (125.4 - 83.3/42.1/0.0)
23T) Nomar Garciaparra (124.8 - 98.1/26.7/0.0)
25) Dave Bancroft (123.7 - 67.3/56.4/0.0)

I realized that there was actually one more significant gap I was missing...and it made more sense to make the HOF cut down there than it did at the higher mark...and when I recalculated Rizzuto's likely value he moved up to 14th...Jeter with estimates for 2006-2008 moves into a tie for 19th with Jack Glasscock and Nomar Garciaparra cracked the top 25 with his one decent year in 2006 pushing him over the edge. Bolded players are HOFers...in red, Rizzuto's new line. I didn't count Monte Ward as a ranking for this list but I wanted to show where he was when you included pitching credit.

AG2004

06-10-2009, 06:58 AM

What do these guys all have in common? Short careers punctuated by well above average but very brief peaks...they are lost on PCA compared to win shares because PCA picks out larger differences between being average and being a star so when you have an average season it hurts you more.

I see the difference.

Still, I don't think they do too bad in PCA. From your data, I figured out what their career PCA-BA (at shortstop only) would have to be. The formula is simple:

(1) For each season, multiply EqG by PCA.
(2) Add the totals for all the seasons.
(3) Divide the sum by EqG.

Burleson came in at a PCA-BA of .310. Since he only had 1145 EqG, he didn't make your top ten list. Since Rizzuto was fifth at .312, I doubt you have much of a complaint about Burleson not belonging in the top ten of defensive shortstops (when ranked by a rate stat like DWS/1000 Innings or PCA-BA, that is).

Everett Scott came in at .303 for his career, while Art Fletcher came in at .301. I don't know if they make your top ten by PCA-BA, but they do seem close. Mickey Doolan ("Dolan" was a typo) seems to fit into the Burleson-Scott-Fletcher class of player, but I think calculating his PCA-BA here would take us far, far off the thread's topic.

I realized that there was actually one more significant gap I was missing...and it made more sense to make the HOF cut down there than it did at the higher mark...and when I recalculated Rizzuto's likely value he moved up to 14th...Jeter with estimates for 2006-2008 moves into a tie for 19th with Jack Glasscock and Nomar Garciaparra cracked the top 25 with his one decent year in 2006 pushing him over the edge. Bolded players are HOFers...in red, Rizzuto's new line. I didn't count Monte Ward as a ranking for this list but I wanted to show where he was when you included pitching credit.

Thank you for the information!

I have all of the top 17 on the list as being deserving of the Hall, and I'd say Jeter's done enough to merit induction.

I have Maranville on my list of deserving players, but not Tinker. Give Maranville credit for 1918 and he has eight All-Star-type seasons; Tinker, on the other hand, has just six. Tinker's last season was at age 35; at baseball reference, the most similar player to Tinker "through age 35" was . . . Rabbit Maranville. Of course, Maranville had several more seasons to go. Comparing players to average hurts Maranville more than it does Tinker, I suppose.

Glasscock, Wallace, and Aparicio don't make my cut. Wallace almost made it, but peak value was a problem, and, given that he wasn't a top defensive shortstop, he doesn't get the small adjustment Maranville gets. Jennings would make my cut based primarily on his incredible peak value (170 WS in five consecutive seasons after adjusting for season length) and 4 MVP-candidate-type seasons (including one which adjusts to 42 WS); he did just enough in the rest of his career to get his career value to an adjusted 238 WS and make me feel comfortable with him.

I have two very early shortstops -- Dickey Pearce and George Wright -- in as players. There's also four shortstops who never played in the majors: John Henry Lloyd, Willie Wells, Dobie Moore, and Perucho Cepeda. If I had defensive statistics for Negro Leaguers, I could add Dick Lundy to the list. My HOF cutoff for major league shortstops is slightly higher than that of most players around here, but that's primarily because I have so many non-MLB shortstops in my list of deserving players.

You have Dave Bancroft near where I would put him. As I've claimed in other threads, he's an underrated player, and he's underrated because Cooperstown made a mistake when it admitted him.

We may differ in some of the details, but I think our general opinions on ranking shortstops are pretty close.

Freakshow

06-10-2009, 08:00 AM

Wallace almost made it, but peak value was a problem, and, given that he wasn't a top defensive shortstop,But he was a very good defensive shortstop for a long time. Other subtleties of his case, of which you're no doubt aware:
--Wallace pitched effectively for two years to start his career.
--His first seven years were played in a contracted MLB.
--He was a superior hitter, perrenially among the league leaders in RBI.
--His career OPS+ is 105, but that includes a couple years at the start when he was pitching and a long decline at the end. For the bulk of his career, 1897-1910, his OPS+ was 113.
--Most of his career was spent in the stronger of the two leagues.

SABR Matt

06-10-2009, 11:14 AM

I see the difference.

Still, I don't think they do too bad in PCA. From your data, I figured out what their career PCA-BA (at shortstop only) would have to be. The formula is simple:

(1) For each season, multiply EqG by PCA.
(2) Add the totals for all the seasons.
(3) Divide the sum by EqG.

Burleson came in at a PCA-BA of .310. Since he only had 1145 EqG, he didn't make your top ten list. Since Rizzuto was fifth at .312, I doubt you have much of a complaint about Burleson not belonging in the top ten of defensive shortstops (when ranked by a rate stat like DWS/1000 Innings or PCA-BA, that is).

Everett Scott came in at .303 for his career, while Art Fletcher came in at .301. I don't know if they make your top ten by PCA-BA, but they do seem close. Mickey Doolan ("Dolan" was a typo) seems to fit into the Burleson-Scott-Fletcher class of player, but I think calculating his PCA-BA here would take us far, far off the thread's topic.

If I drop the threshold needed for inclusion on the list...the top 10 shortstops by PCA-BA with at least 800 EqG are:

Neifi Perez (.334)
Mark Belanger (.326)
Joe Tinker (.322)
Hughie Jennings (.322)
Ozzie Smith (.321)
Tony Kubek (.317)
Marty Marion (.315)
Phil Rizzuto (.312)
Ron Hansen (.311)
Herman Long (.310) and Rick Burleson (.310)

Everett Scott and Art Fletcher might make the top 25 but there are a LOT of shortstops in the .300 to .310 range. The further down the scale you go, the more players start appearing.

Thank you for the information!

I have all of the top 17 on the list as being deserving of the Hall, and I'd say Jeter's done enough to merit induction.

I have Maranville on my list of deserving players, but not Tinker. Give Maranville credit for 1918 and he has eight All-Star-type seasons; Tinker, on the other hand, has just six. Tinker's last season was at age 35; at baseball reference, the most similar player to Tinker "through age 35" was . . . Rabbit Maranville. Of course, Maranville had several more seasons to go. Comparing players to average hurts Maranville more than it does Tinker, I suppose.

I think you're underestimating Tinker's defensive prowess and the value it carries...and I think you're giving Maranville the edge in longevity when he did not actually earn any additional value from that longevity...

Glasscock, Wallace, and Aparicio don't make my cut. Wallace almost made it, but peak value was a problem, and, given that he wasn't a top defensive shortstop, he doesn't get the small adjustment Maranville gets. Jennings would make my cut based primarily on his incredible peak value (170 WS in five consecutive seasons after adjusting for season length) and 4 MVP-candidate-type seasons (including one which adjusts to 42 WS); he did just enough in the rest of his career to get his career value to an adjusted 238 WS and make me feel comfortable with him.

I have two very early shortstops -- Dickey Pearce and George Wright -- in as players. There's also four shortstops who never played in the majors: John Henry Lloyd, Willie Wells, Dobie Moore, and Perucho Cepeda. If I had defensive statistics for Negro Leaguers, I could add Dick Lundy to the list. My HOF cutoff for major league shortstops is slightly higher than that of most players around here, but that's primarily because I have so many non-MLB shortstops in my list of deserving players.

You have Dave Bancroft near where I would put him. As I've claimed in other threads, he's an underrated player, and he's underrated because Cooperstown made a mistake when it admitted him.

We may differ in some of the details, but I think our general opinions on ranking shortstops are pretty close.

My HOF cut is still subjective just as everyone else's is...I try to place my cuts where they make sense in terms of the distribution of player performances, but reasonable men can differ.

AG2004

06-11-2009, 05:20 AM

But he was a very good defensive shortstop for a long time.

I use the win shares method for much of my analysis. One of the flaws in WS is that it slightly underrates the best defensive players at each position. Maranville was an excellent defensive shortstop, so his peak gets a small "bump" as compensation. Wallace wasn't a top-notch shortstop, so he doesn't get the adjustment.

This isn't part of a plot to get Maranville in and Wallace out. When I make the Keltner lists, I don't add these bumps when listing win share totals; I consider it later, as part of the analysis. Also, as noted above, I make the mental adjustments because of problems with the measuring system I use. The win shares system is the best one I've found, but it's not perfect.

Other subtleties of his case, of which you're no doubt aware:
--Wallace pitched effectively for two years to start his career.
--His first seven years were played in a contracted MLB.
--He was a superior hitter, perrenially among the league leaders in RBI.
--His career OPS+ is 105, but that includes a couple years at the start when he was pitching and a long decline at the end. For the bulk of his career, 1897-1910, his OPS+ was 113.
--Most of his career was spent in the stronger of the two leagues.

I don't use OPS+ in my analyses that often; usually it appears as a comment attached to the similarity score lists of comparable players. OPS+ considers neither defense nor playing time, and I don't know of a good method to combine OPS+ with either.

I do make season length adjustments, and they do appear in my comparables lists for peak performance. I have taken that into consideration when rating Wallace; seasons from 1890 to 1903 do get adjusted to 154 games.

However, even though there were just 12 teams from 1892 to 1899, there weren't a lot of southerners, either. I counted just 22 players who (a) were born in the former Confederate states, (b) made their debuts in the 19th century, and (c) had at least three years as a regular and/or second catcher. Here they are, along with their playing dates:

AL - Charlie Duffie, 1889-93
AR - None
FL - None
GA - Willie McGill 1890-96; Tully Sparks 1897, 1899, 1901-10
LA - John Peters 1874-84; Steve Toole 1887-90
MS - Sport McAllister 1896-99, 1901-03
NC - Charley Jones 1875-80, 1883-88
SC - Pat Luby 1890-92, 1895; Doc McJames 1895-99, 1901
TN - Bob Caruthers 1884-93; Noodles Hahn 1899-1906; Bill Hill 1896-99; Sammy Strang 1896, 1900-08
TX - Ned Garvin 1896, 1899-1904
VA - Steve Brodie 1890-99, 1901-02; Charlie Ferguson 1884-87; Dave Fultz 1898-99, 1901-05; Paul Hines 1872-91; Billy Nash 1884-1898; Deacon Phillippe 1899-1911; Ben Sanders 1888-92; Pop Tate 1885-90.

The Oughts had more major league teams, but those teams were better at finding players, and the player base was expanding as more southerners came into the league. Thus, while I can justify adjusting seasons from 1890 to 1903 to 154-game schedules, I can't justify adjusting seasons from the 1890s to more than 154 games; the quality of play does not justify it.

AG2004

06-11-2009, 06:59 AM

I think you're underestimating Tinker's defensive prowess and the value it carries...and I think you're giving Maranville the edge in longevity when he did not actually earn any additional value from that longevity...

Maranville was an average starter for a few years after he came back from the minors, and there is value in being average. In terms of my Keltner List evaluations, the only place where those average seasons make a difference is in career value. They don't help in peak performance or in All-Star-type seasons, both of which are important parts of my evaluations. I think we agree that average seasons shouldn't help a player as much as very good ones or great ones do.

However, career value does have some importance. Maranville was able to reestablish himself as a starter in the majors for several seasons, which means somebody thought he could be of value while playing for that long. He was of some value in the majors; otherwise, he would have either remained in the minors or retired from baseball altogether.

Give Maranville military credit for 1918, and his career WS totals go up to the 320s, with eight All-Star-type seasons. That military credit and a small boost for defense would bring his five-year peak into the low 120s. It's not the best, but, given his career value and those eight seasons, it's just enough to put him over the line. Tinker, however, had 258 career win shares, and six All-Star-type seasons. Even with a boost of 1 or 2 win shares per season, Tinker's win share profile of 258-79-118 would go up to somewhere around Joe Sewell's 277-84-125. Since I don't see Sewell as deserving of his induction into Cooperstown, any difference a defensive adjustment would make in Tinker's case would not be enough to help him make my list of deserving players.

AstrosFan

06-12-2009, 05:23 PM

Back to the top.

AstrosFan

06-16-2009, 01:56 PM

This actually wasn't supposed to be open this long. I made a mistake when typing in the number of days. But we've still got a few days left, so anyone who wants to vote is still free to do so.

AstrosFan

06-18-2009, 09:40 PM

About 24 hours left in this round. Those after shouldn't take so long, assuming I'm more careful.

AG2004

06-19-2009, 06:26 AM

SABRMatt, who originally cast a vote for Rizzuto above, later changed his mind and decided Rizzuto was not a mistake. How does this affect the voting?

SABR Matt

06-19-2009, 10:47 AM

Do the rules of this game require a 75% majority to elect as a HOF mistake? Because my vote for Rizzuto doesn't matter if so...although I would like that vote changed if possible.

AstrosFan

06-19-2009, 11:55 AM

SABRMatt, who originally cast a vote for Rizzuto above, later changed his mind and decided Rizzuto was not a mistake. How does this affect the voting?

I haven't concerned myself with who might have changed their minds after casting a vote, because I don't want to bother worrying about whether the votes really reflect the minds of the voters. I put the poll up because I assume they do. People do change their mind, including myself, but we simply change our votes in the next round. This is a special case, as the situation as it stands would swing Rizzuto from mistake to legit HOFer. But I'd prefer not to make adjustments, because I don't want to encourage people to vote casually, assuming that they can change their mind any time they want (not saying Matt is doing this). It is much easier for me to simply input the data as it reads on the poll. Checking the poll against any mind-changing in the thread would be a pain for me. If Matt is really concerned about it, he should notify a mod, otherwise, I'm leaving it as is.

Do the rules of this game require a 75% majority to elect as a HOF mistake? Because my vote for Rizzuto doesn't matter if so...although I would like that vote changed if possible.

No, just a 60% majority. It's simply too hard to get a 75% majority on mistakes. I originally started with 75%, but a few rounds went by, and the voters and I realized that we weren't getting anywhere with such a threshold. So I switched to 60%, and that has held up rather nicely.