BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1953 [Archive]

View Full Version : BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1953

Pages : [1] 2

Ace Venom

06-28-2009, 03:15 PM

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Format and Rules
Voting Rules: Voters may vote for between 0-15 candidates. Votes will be made public, and voters are encouraged to post their ballots in the thread and not view results before voting. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR BALLOT TO 15 VOTES AT MOST. EXCESS VOTES MAY RESULT IN YOUR BALLOT BEING DISQUALIFIED.
-Blank Ballots: A "None of the Above" option is available if you believe no one is worthy and you wish to submit a blank ballot. This option is not to be taken lightly and it is strongly urged that it be used only after the utmost consideration, as non-votes carry great weight. Additionally, if using this option, please post your rationale.

Voting Criteria: Players are to be evaluated within the context of the era in which they played and the history of the game to that point. Players are not to be held to standards that would materialize at a time beyond the year of the current election. Modern statistical analysis is permitted but must be applied strictly within historical context not to go beyond the year of the current election. Players are to be judged based solely on their playing careers. Other, non-playing contributions may be considered to the extent that they coincided with a player's playing career (such as a player/manager).

Thoughtfulness and Editing Ballots: Please review and thoughtfully consider the candidates before voting, and make sure you have accurately filled out your ballot before submitting. Requests for editing ballots after the fact will generally not be honored. Exceptions might be made if a voter accidentally voted for the wrong player or accidentally went over the voting limit (but I strongly encourage you to do your best to prevent either from happening).

Required Support: Players receiving at least 75% support in an election will be elected. Players need at least 5% support to appear on the next ballot.

Player Eligibility: Players eligible for an election will have last played at least 5 years prior to the election year and have appeared in at least 10 Major League seasons. If a player appeared in less than 10 seasons, he may still be eligible if he had a minimum of 3000 PAs or 1500 IP, though extra scrutiny will be applied. Players will remain on the ballot for 15 years, provided they continue to receive at least 5% of the vote, at which point they will become indefinitely eligible for periodic elections conducted by the Veterans Committee.
- Age Exception: For players 40 or older, they will become eligible the later of either 5 years after their last year of continuous play, or their first inactive year at age 45 or older.
- Death Exception: For players who meet the criteria for consideration, but die before their first year of eligibility can have the five year waiting period waived and placed on the ballot the year of death.

Election Period: Elections will close exactly one week after starting. The next election might not commence for another day or two.

Conduct Policy: Every vote is a voter's opinion on who should be elected to the Hall of Fame. It is our responsibility as voters to be respectful towards each other. Personal attacks should not be tolerated and you should notify a moderator rather than allowing an argument to escalate and further derail discussion of the candidates.

1953 Guide
There are 36 candidates on the 1953 ballot - 26 holdovers and 10 first timers. First time eligible players last played in 1948 (unless qualifying under the age or death rule) or were omitted on the ballot in previous years.

Newly Eligible (10)
Frankie Crosetti
Lonny Frey
Don Gutteridge
Thornton Lee
Frank McCormick
George McQuinn
Joe Medwick
Fritz Ostermueller
Arky Vaughan
Rudy York

Holdovers (28)
Player Year of Eligibility Previous Support High Support Low Support
Dick Bartell 3rd 6.45% 11.43% (1951) 6.45% (1951)
Wally Berger 8th 48.39% 53.85% (1947) 38.24% (1950)
Jim Bottomley 12th 12.90% 28.00% (1949) 12.90% (1952)
Tommy Bridges 3rd 22.58% 28.57% (1951) 22.58% (1952)
Earle Combs 14th 6.45% 24.14% (1945) 6.45% (1952)
Kiki Cuyler 11th 35.48% 55.17% (1945) 33.33% (1946)
Paul Derringer 4th 6.45% 5.88% (1950) 5.71% (1951)
Rick Ferrell 3rd 9.68% 8.82% (1950) 8.57% (1951)
Wes Ferrell 7th 51.61% 64.00% (1949) 50.00% (1950)
Lefty Gomez 6th 54.84% 57.14% (1951) 38.46 (1948)
Burleigh Grimes 15th 51.61% 60.71% (1947) 47.06% (1950)
Babe Herman 12th 6.45% 20.00% (1943) 6.45% (1952)
Bob Johnson 3rd 38.71% 42.86% (1951) 26.47% (1950)
Chuck Klein 5th 38.71% 45.71% (1951) 38.71% (1952)
Tony Lazzeri 9th 22.58% 37.93% (1945) 22.58% (1952)
Ernie Lombardi 2nd 32.26% 32.26% (1952) 32.26% (1952)
Al Lopez 2nd 6.45% 6.45% (1952) 6.45% (1952)
Heinie Manush 9th 29.03% 34.48% (1945) 20.00% (1951)
Pepper Martin 5th 6.45% 12.00% (1949) 6.45% (1952)
Buddy Myer 8th 16.13% 16.13% (1952) 11.11% (1946)
Sam Rice 15th 61.29% 71.43% (1941) 52.26% (1946)
Cecil Travis 2nd 9.68% 9.68% (1952) 9.68% (1952)
Hal Trosky 3rd 6.45% 14.29% (1951) 6.45% (1952)
Lloyd Waner 4th 9.38% 11.76% (1950) 9.38% (1952)
Lon Warneke 4th 9.38% 14.29% (1951) 8.82% (1950)
Hack Wilson 15th 48.39% 57.69% (1948) 40.74% (1944)

Holdovers Dropped From Last Election (5)
Player Reason Years on Ballot High Support Low Support
Harlond Clift Lack of Support 3 11.43% (1951) 3.23% (1952)
Leo Durocher Lack of Support 3 11.76% (1950) 3.23% (1952)
Pinky Higgins Lack of Support 2 8.57% (1951) 3.23% (1952)
Rabbit Maranville End of Eligibility 15 70.97% (1952) 52.94% (1950)
Eppa Rixey End of Eligibility 15 67.74% (1952) 37.04% (1946)

Last Year of Eligibility (3)
Player High Support
Burleigh Grimes 60.71% (1947)
Sam Rice 71.43% (1941)
Hack Wilson 57.69% (1948)

Penultimate Year of Eligibility (1)
Player High Support
Earle Combs 24.14% (1945)

Holdovers Receiving At Least 50% in Previous Election (4)
Player Previous Support Years with At Least 50% Support
Wes Ferrell 51.61% 7
Lefty Gomez 54.84% 2
Burleigh Grimes 51.61% 10
Sam Rice 61.29% 14

Hall of Famers - 161
A total of 161 players and contributors have been elected to the BBF Progressive Hall of Fame.

Hall of Fame Players Wing
Players Elected - 140
Player Year Elected Election Percentage Years on Ballot Position Primary Team Active Years Total Seasons Living/Deceased Age at Election
Pete Alexander 1935 93.94% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1911-1930 20 Deceased (1887-1950) 48
Cap Anson 1902 100% 1 First Base Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1871-1897 27 Deceased (1852-1922) 50
Earl Averill 1947 82.14% 2 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1929-1941 13 Living - Age 51 45
Frank Baker 1927 96.43% 1 Third Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1908-1914, 1916-1919, 1921-1922 13 Living - Age 65 41
Ross Barnes^ 1911 76.00% 11 Second Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879, 1881 9 Deceased (1850-1915) 61
Jake Beckley 1917 76.00% 6 First Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1887-1907 20 Deceased (1867-1918) 50
John Beckwith*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Third Base Chicago Giants (NNL) 1916-1938 19 Living - Age 51 45
James Bell 1952 (VC) 100% VC Center Field Pittsburgh crawfords (NNL) 1922-1946 25 Living - Age 50 49
Charlie Bennett 1907 75.00% 7 Catcher Detroit Wolverines (NL) 1878, 1880-1893 15 Deceased (1854-1927) 53
Roger Bresnahan 1925 79.17% 6 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1897, 1900-1915 17 Deceased (1879-1944) 46
Dan Brouthers 1901 90.00% 1 First Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1896, 1904 18 Deceased (1858-1932) 50
Mordecai Brown 1921 96.77% 1 Pitcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1903-1916 14 Deceased (1876-1948) 45
Pete Browning 1909 77.27% 9 Left Field/Center Field Louisville Colonels (NL/AA) 1882-1894 13 Deceased (1861-1905) Deceased
Jesse Burkett 1910 92.00% 1 Left Field Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1890-1895 16 Deceased (1868-1953) 42
Max Carey 1934 82.14% 1 Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1910-1929 20 Living - Age 63 44
Bob Caruthers 1909 77.27% 9 Pitcher/Right Field St. Louis Browns (Cardinals) (NL/AA) 1884-1893 10 Deceased (1864-1911) 45
Frank Chance 1932 83.33% 14 First Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1898-1914 17 Deceased (1876-1924) Deceased
Oscar Charleston*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Center Field Indianapolis ABCs (I/NNL) 1915-1941 27 Living - Age 57 51
Cupid Childs 1920 76.92% 15 Second Base Cleveland Spiders (NL) 1888, 1890-1901 13 Deceased (1867-1912) Deceased
Fred Clarke 1917 88.00% 1 Left Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1894-1915 21 Living - Age 83 45
John Clarkson 1901 90.00% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1882, 1884-1894 12 Deceased (1861-1909) 40
Ty Cobb 1933 96.55% 1 Center Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1905-1928 24 Living - Age 67 47
Mickey Cochrane 1942 89.19% 1 Catcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1937 13 Living - Age 49 38
Eddie Collins 1935 96.67% 1 Second Base Chicago White Sox (AL) 1906-1930 25 Deceased (1887-1951) 48
Jimmy Collins 1913 82.61% 1 Third Base Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1895-1908 14 Deceased (1870-1943) 43
Roger Connor 1902 79.17% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1857-1931) 45
Andy Cooper*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL/NAL) 1920-1941 22 Deceased (1898-1941) Deceased
Wilbur Cooper* 1950 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1912-1926 15 Living - Age 61 58
Stan Coveleski 1934 89.29% 2 Pitcher Cleveland Indians (AL) 1912, 1916-1928 14 Living - Age 64 45
Sam Crawford 1922 92.86% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1899-1917 19 Living - Age 73 41
Joe Cronin 1950 88.24% 1 Shortstop Boston Red Sox (AL) 1926-1945 20 Living - Age 47 44
Bill Dahlen 1916 88.00% 1 Shortstop Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891-1911 21 Deceased (1870-1950) 46
George Davis 1914 84.62% 1 Shortstop New York Giants (NL) 1890-1909 20 Deceased (1870-1940) 44
Ed Delahanty 1908 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1903 16 Deceased (1867-1903) Deceased
Dizzy Dean 1948 80.77% 3 Pitcher St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 1930, 1932-1941, 1947 12 Living - Age 44 38
Bill Dickey 1951 94.29% 1 Catcher New York Yankees (AL) 1928-1943, 1946 17 Living - Age 46 44
Martin Dihigo*` 1952 (VC) 100% VC Second Base/Pitcher Cuban Stars (East) (ANL/I) 1923-1945 23 Living - Age 48 47
Larry Doyle 1926 76.00% 2 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1907-1920 14 Living - Age 67 40
Hugh Duffy 1918 75.00% 8 Center Field/Outfield Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1888-1891, 1904-1906 17 Living - Age 86 52
Buck Ewing 1902 83.33% 1 Catcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1897 18 Deceased (1859-1906) 44
Red Faber 1940 76.46% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1914-1933 20 Living - Age 65 52
Elmer Flick 1916 80.00% 1 Right Field Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1898-1910 13 Living - Age 77 40
Willie Foster*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher Chicago American Giants (ANL/NNL) 1923-1938 16 Living - Age 49 43
Jimmie Foxx 1950 100% 1 First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1942, 1945 20 Living - Age 46 43
Frankie Frisch 1942 91.89% 1 Second Base New York Giants (NL) 1919-1937 19 Living - Age 54 43
Pud Galvin 1903 80.77% 3 Pitcher Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1875, 1879-1892 15 Deceased (1856-1902) Deceased
Lou Gehrig 1944 100% 1 First Base New York Yankees (AL) 1923-1939 17 Deceased (1903-1941) Deceased
Charlie Gehringer 1947 100% 1 Second Base Detroit Tigers (AL) 1924-1942 19 Living - Age 50 44
Josh Gibson*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Catcher Homestead Grays (ANL/NNL) 1929-1946 18 Deceased (1911-1947) Deceased
Jack Glasscock 1911 84.00% 11 Shortstop Cleveland Blues (NL) 1879-1895 17 Deceased (1857-1947) 54
George Gore 1909 77.27% 9 Center Field Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1867-1933) 52
Goose Goslin 1943 93.33% 1 Left Field Washington Senators (NL) 1921-1938 18 Living - Age 52 42
Frank Grant*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Second Base Cuban Giants (I/MSL) 1886-1905 20 Deceased (1865-1937) Deceased
Hank Greenberg 1952 93.55% 1 First Base Detroit Tigers (AL) 1930, 1933-1941, 1945-1947 13 Living - Age 42 41
Clark Griffith* 1940 (VC) 78.57% VC Pitcher Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1891, 1893-1909, 1912-1914 20 Living - Age 83 70
Heinie Groh 1936 81.25% 5 Third Base Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1912-1927 16 Living - Age 64 47
Lefty Grove 1946 100% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1925-1941 17 Living - Age 53 46
Stan Hack 1952 77.42% 1 Third Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1932-1947 16 Living - Age 44 43
Billy Hamilton 1906 82.61% 1 Center Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1888-1901 14 Deceased (1866-1940) 40
Gabby Hartnett 1946 96.30% 1 Catcher Chicago Cubs (NL) 1922-1941 20 Living - Age 53 46
Harry Heilmann 1937 96.18% 1 Right Field Detroit Tigers (AL) 1914, 1916-1930, 1932 17 Deceased (1894-1951) 43
Billy Herman 1952 77.42% 1 Second Base Chicago Cubs (NL) 1931-1943, 1946-1947 15 Living - Age 44 43
Pete Hill*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Center Field Chicago American Giants (I) 1899-1925 27 Deceased (1880-1951) 67
Paul Hines 1904 76.00% 4 Center Field Providence Grays (NL) 1872-1891 20 Deceased (1855-1935) 49
Rogers Hornsby 1942 97.30% 1 Second Base St. Louis Cardinals (NL) 1915-1937 23 Living - Age 56 45
Carl Hubbell 1948 96.15% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1928-1943 16 Living - Age 51 45
Hughie Jennings 1927 75.00% 14 Shortstop Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1903, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1918 17 Deceased (1869-1928) 58
Grant Johnson*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Royal Giants (I) 1895-1916 22 Living - Age 79 73
Walter Johnson 1932 100% 1 Pitcher Washington Senators (AL) 1907-1927 21 Deceased (1887-1946) 45
Addie Joss 1926 76.00% 15 Pitcher Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1902-1910 9 Deceased (1880-1911) Deceased
Tim Keefe 1901 75.00% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1857-1933) 44
Willie Keeler 1916 92.00% 2 Right Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1892-1910 19 Deceased (1872-1923) 44
Joe Kelley 1920 84.62% 8 Left Field Baltimore Orioles (NL) 1891-1906, 1908 17 Deceased (1871-1943) 49
King Kelly 1902 75.00% 2 Right Field/Catcher Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) (NL) 1878-1893 16 Deceased (1857-1894) Deceased
Napoleon Lajoie 1921 96.77% 1 Second Base Cleveland Naps (Indians) (AL) 1896-1916 21 Living - Age 79 47
Tommy Leach* 1940 (VC) 85.71% VC Third Base/Center Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1898-1915, 1918 19 Living - Age 76 63
Buck Leonard*` 1952 (VC) 100% VC First Base Homestead Grays (I/NNL) 1933-1950 18 Living - Age 46 45
John Henry Lloyd*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Lincoln Giants (I/ECL) 1906-1932 27 Living - Age 69 63
Herman Long* 1925 (VC) 75.00% VC Shortstop Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1889-1904 16 Deceased (1866-1909) Deceased
Dick Lundy*` 1952 (VC) 81.82% VC Shortstop Bacharach Giants (I/ECL) 1916-1939 24 Living - Age 55 54
Ted Lyons 1949 80.00% 3 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1928-1942, 1946 16 Living - Age 53 49
Biz Mackey*` 1952 (VC) 100% VC Catcher Hilldale Daises (ECL/ANL/I) 1920-1941, 1945-1947, 1950 26 Living - Age 56 55
Sherry Magee 1924 86.21% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1904-1919 16 Deceased (1884-1929) 40
Christy Mathewson 1922 93.55% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1900-1916 17 Deceased (1880-1925) 41
Joe McGinnity 1913 91.30% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1899-1908 10 Deceased (1871-1929) 42
Bid McPhee 1905 75.00% 2 Second Base Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1882-1899 18 Deceased (1859-1943) 42
Cal McVey*^ 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Catcher/First Base Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1879 9 Deceased (1849-1926) 71
Jose Mendez*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL) 1908-1926 19 Deceased (1887-1928) Deceased
Bill Monroe*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Second Base Brooklyn Royal Giants (I) 1896-1914 19 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Tony Mullane 1908 80.00% 8 Pitcher Cincinnati Reds (NL/AA) 1881-1894 14 Deceased (1859-1944) 49
Kid Nichols 1911 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1890-1901, 1904-1906 15 Deceased (1869-1953) 42
Jim O'Rourke 1901 90.00% 1 Left Field/Utility New York Giants (NL) 1872-1893, 1904 23 Deceased (1850-1919) 51
Alejandro Oms*` 1947 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Cuban Stars (East) (ECL/ANL) 1917-1935 19 Deceased (1895-1946) Deceased
Mel Ott 1952 100% 1 Right Field New York Giants (NL) 1926-1947 22 Living - Age 44 43
Dickey Pearce*^ 1920 (VC) 100% VC Shortstop Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) 1871-1877 6 Deceased (1836-1908) Deceased
Lip Pike*^ 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Center Field Baltimore Canaries (NA) 1871-1878, 1881, 1887 10 Deceased (1845-1926) Deceased
Eddie Plank 1922 92.86% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1901-1917 17 Deceased (1875-1926) 47
Spotswood Poles*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Center Field Lincoln Stars (I) 1909-1923 15 Living - Age 66 60
Charley Radbourn 1901 95.00% 1 Pitcher Providence Grays (NL) 1881-1891 11 Deceased (1854-1897) Deceased
Dick Redding*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Pitcher Brooklyn Royal Giants (I/ECL) 1911-1938 18 Deceased (1891-1948) 56
Hardy Richardson* 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC Second Base/Left Field Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1879-1892 14 Deceased (1855-1931) 65
Bullet Rogan*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Pitcher Kansas City Monarchs (NNL/NAL) 1917-1938 22 Living - Age 60 54
Edd Roush 1943 76.67% 1 Center Field Cincinnati Reds (NL) 1913-1929, 1931 18 Living - Age 60 49
Red Ruffing 1951 82.86% 2 Pitcher New York Yankees (AL) 1924-1942, 1945-1947 22 Living - Age 48 46
Amos Rusie 1906 78.26% 1 Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1889-1895, 1897-1898, 1901 10 Deceased (1871-1942) 35
Babe Ruth 1940 97.06% 1 Right Field/Left Field New York Yankees (AL) 1914-1935 22 Deceased (1895-1948) 45
Jimmy Ryan* 1930 (VC) 86.67% VC Center Field Chicago Colts (Cubs) (NL) 1885-1900, 1902, 1903 18 Deceased (1863-1923) Deceased
Louis Santop*` 1947 (VC) 91.67% VC Catcher Hilldale Daises (I) 1909-1926 18 Deceased (1890-1942) Deceased
Joe Sewell 1942 75.68% 5 Shortstop/Third Base Cleveland Indians (AL) 1920-1933 14 Living - Age 54 43
Jimmy Sheckard* 1945 (VC) 83.33% VC Left Field Chicago Cubs (NL) 1897-1913 17 Deceased (1878-1947) 67
Al Simmons 1949 96.00% 1 Left Field Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1924-1944 21 Living - Age 51 47
George Sisler 1935 90.91% 1 First Base St. Louis Browns (AL) 1915-1922, 1924-1930 15 Living - Age 59 42
Al Spalding^ 1915 80.00% 15 Pitcher Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1878 8 Deceased (1850-1915) Deceased
Tris Speaker 1933 100% 1 Center Field Cleveland Indians (AL) 1907-1928 22 Living - Age 65 45
Joe Start*^ 1920 (VC) 91.67% VC First Base Providence Grays (NL) 1871-1886 16 Deceased (1842-1927) 78
Turkey Stearnes*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Center Field Detroit Stars (NNL/NAL) 1923-1942 20 Living - Age 52 46
Harry Stovey 1907 75.00% 7 Left Field/First Base Philadelphia Athletics (AA) 1880-1893 14 Deceased (1856-1931) 51
Mule Suttles*` 1952 (VC) 90.90% VC First Base Newark Eagles (NNL) 1921, 1923-1944 23 Living - Age 52 51
Ezra Sutton* 1920 (VC) 83.33% VC Third Base Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1871-1888 18 Deceased (1850-1907) Deceased
Bill Terry 1941 80.00% 1 First Base New York Giants (NL) 1923-1936 14 Living - Age 54 43
Sam Thompson 1907 79.17% 5 Right Field Philadelphia Phillies (NL) 1885-1898, 1906 14 Deceased (1860-1922) 47
Cristobal Torriente*` 1947 (VC) 83.33% VC Center Field Chicago American Giants (NNL) 1913-1928 16 Deceased (1893-1938) Deceased
Pie Traynor 1942 83.78% 1 Third Base Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1920-1937 18 Living - Age 54 42
Dazzy Vance 1940 76.47% 1 Pitcher Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1915, 1918, 1922-1935 16 Living - Age 62 48
George Van Haltren 1918 75.00% 11 Center Field New York Giants (NL) 1887-1903 17 Deceased (1866-1945) 52
Rube Waddell 1915 84.00% 1 Pitcher Philadelphia Athletics (AL) 1897, 1899-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1914) Deceased
Honus Wagner 1922 92.86% 1 Shortstop Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1897-1917 21 Living - Age 79 48
Bobby Wallace 1925 75.00% 3 Shortstop St. Louis Browns (AL) 1894-1918 25 Living - Age 80 52
Ed Walsh 1922 89.29% 1 Pitcher Chicago White Sox (AL) 1904-1917 14 Living - Age 72 41
John Ward 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop/Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1878-1894 17 Deceased (1860-1925) 47
Paul Waner 1950 94.12% 1 Right Field Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) 1926-1945 20 Living - Age 50 47
Mickey Welch* 1920 (VC) 75.00% VC Pitcher New York Giants (NL) 1880-1892 13 Deceased (1859-1941) 61
Willie Wells*` 1952 (VC) 90.90% VC Shortstop St. Louis Stars (NNL) 1924-1948 25 Living - Age 48 47
Zack Wheat 1932 87.50% 1 Left Field Brooklyn Robins (Dodgers) (NL) 1909-1927 10 Living - Age 65 44
Deacon White 1904 76.00% 4 Catcher/Third Base Buffalo Bisons (NL) 1871-1890 20 Deceased (1847-1939) 57
Smokey Joe Williams*` 1947 (VC) 100% VC Pitcher Homestead Grays (I/ANL) 1905-1932 28 Deceased (1895-1946) Deceased
Vic Willis 1919 77.78% 5 Pitcher Boston Beaneaters (Braves) (NL) 1898-1910 13 Deceased (1876-1947) 43
Jud Wilson*` 1952 (VC) 90.90% VC Third Base Baltimore Black Sox (I/ECL/ANL) 1922-1939 18 Living - Age 54 53
George Wright^ 1907 75.00% 7 Shortstop Boston Red Stockings (NA) 1871-1882 12 Deceased (1847-1937) 60
Cy Young 1916 100% 1 Pitcher Boston Americans (Red Sox) (AL) 1890-1911 22 Living - Age 86 49

* = Elected by Veterans Committee
^ = Played Significantly Prior to 1871
` = Played in the Negro Leagues

Players Elected by Primary Position
Catcher (11): Charlie Bennett, Roger Bresnahan, Mickey Cochrane, Bill Dickey, Buck Ewing, Josh Gibson, Gabby Hartnett, Biz Mackey, Cal McVey, Louis Santop, Deacon White
First Base (12): Cap Anson, Jake Beckley, Dan Brouthers, Frank Chance, Roger Connor, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Buck Leonard, George Sisler, Joe Start, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry
Second Base (13): Ross Barnes, Cupid Childs, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Frank Grant, Billy Herman, Rogers Hornsby, Napoleon Lajoie, Bid McPhee, Bill Monroe, Hardy Richardson
Third Base (9): Frank Baker, John Beckwith, Jimmy Collins, Heinie Groh, Stan Hack, Tommy Leach, Ezra Sutton, Pie Traynor, Jud Wilson
Shortstop (14): Joe Cronin, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Jack Glasscock, Hughie Jennings, Grant Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Herman Long, Dickey Pearce, Joe Sewell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, John Ward, George Wright
Left Field (11): Jesse Burkett, Fred Clarke, Ed Delahanty, Goose Goslin, Joe Kelley, Sherry Magee, Jim O'Rourke, Jimmy Sheckard, Al Simmons, Harry Stovey, Zack Wheat
Center Field (20): Earl Averill, James "Cool Papa" Bell, Pete Browning, Max Carey, Oscar Charleston, Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, George Gore, Billy Hamilton, Pete Hill, Paul Hines, Alejandro Oms, Lip Pike, Spotswood Poles, Edd Roush, Jimmy Ryan, Tris Speaker, Turkey Stearnes, Cristobal Torriente, George Van Haltren
Right Field (9): Sam Crawford, King Kelly, Elmer Flick, Harry Heilmann, Willie Keeler, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Sam Thompson, Paul Waner
Pitcher (37): Pete Alexander, Mordecai Brown, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Andy Cooper, Wilbur Cooper, Stan Coveleski, Dizzy Dean, Red Faber, Willie Foster, Pud Galvin, Clark Griffith, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Walter Johnson, Addie Joss, Tim Keefe, Ted Lyons, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jose Mendez, Tony Mullane, Kid Nichols, Eddie Plank, Charley Radbourn, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Al Spalding, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Mickey Welch, Smokey Joe Williams, Vic Willis, Cy Young

Players Elected by Year
1901 (5): Dan Brouthers, John Clarkson, Tim Keefe, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn
1902 (4): Cap Anson, Roger Connor, Buck Ewing, King Kelly
1903 (1): Pud Galvin
1904 (2): Paul Hines, Deacon White
1905 (1): Bid McPhee
1906 (2): Billy Hamilton, Amos Rusie
1907 (5): Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, Sam Thompson, John Ward, George Wright
1908 (2): Ed Delahanty, Tony Mullane
1909 (3): Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, George Gore
1910 (1): Jesse Burkett
1911 (3): Ross Barnes, Jack Glasscock, Kid Nichols
1912 (0):
1913 (2): Jimmy Collins, Joe McGinnity
1914 (1): George Davis
1915 (2): Al Spalding, Rube Waddell
1916 (4): Bill Dahlen, Elmer Flick, Willie Keeler, Cy Young
1917 (2): Jake Beckley, Fred Clarke
1918 (2): Hugh Duffy, George Van Haltren
1919 (1): Vic Willis
1920 (2): Cupid Childs, Joe Kelley
- 1920 VC (7): Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Hardy Richardson, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Mickey Welch
1921 (3): Mordecai Brown, Napoleon Lajoie, Christy Mathewson
1922 (4): Sam Crawford, Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, Ed Walsh
1923 (0):
1924 (1): Sherry Magee
1925 (2): Roger Bresnahan, Bobby Wallace
- 1925 VC (1): Herman Long
1926 (1): Larry Doyle
1927 (2): Frank Baker, Hughie Jennings
1928 (0):
1929 (1): Addie Joss
1930 (0):
- 1930 VC (1): Jimmy Ryan
1931 (0):
1932 (3): Frank Chance, Walter Johnson, Zack Wheat
1933 (2): Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker
1934 (2): Max Carey, Stan Coveleski
1935 (3): Pete Alexander, Eddie Collins, George Sisler
- 1935 VC (0):
1936 (1): Heinie Groh
1937 (1): Harry Heilmann
1938 (0):
1939 (0):
1940 (3): Red Faber, Babe Ruth, Dazzy Vance
- 1940 VC (2): Clark Griffith, Tommy Leach
1941 (1): Bill Terry
1942 (5): Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Sewell, Pie Traynor
1943 (2): Goose Goslin, Edd Roush
1944 (1): Lou Gehrig
1945 (0):
- 1945 VC (1): Jimmy Sheckard
1946 (2): Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett
1947 (2): Earl Averill, Charlie Gehringer
- 1947 Negro League Players VC (19): John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, Willie Foster, Josh Gibson, Frank Grant, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Jose Mendez, Bill Monroe, Alejandro Oms, Spotswood Poles, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Louis Santop, Turkey Stearnes, Cristobal Torriente, Smokey Joe Williams
1948 (2): Dizzy Dean, Carl Hubbell
1949 (2): Ted Lyons, Al Simmons
1950 (3): Joe Cronin, Jimmie Foxx, Paul Waner
- 1950 VC (1): Wilbur Cooper
1951 (2): Bill Dickey, Red Ruffing
1952 (4): Hank Greenberg, Stan Hack, Billy Herman, Mel Ott
- 1952 Negro League Players VC (8): James "Cool Papa" Bell, Martin Dihigo, Buck Leonard, Dick Lundy, Biz Mackey, Mule Suttles, Willie Wells, Jud Wilson

Players Elected by Primary Decade
1870s (9): Ross Barnes, Cal McVey, Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike, Al Spalding, Joe Start, Ezra Sutton, Deacon White, George Wright
1880s (21): Cap Anson, Charlie Bennett, Dan Brouthers, Pete Browning, Bob Caruthers, John Clarkson, Roger Conner, Buck Ewing, Pud Galvin, Jack Glasscock, George Gore, Paul Hines, Tim Keefe, King Kelly, Tony Mullane, Jim O’Rourke, Charley Radbourn, Hardy Richardson, Harry Stovey, John Ward, Mickey Welch
1890s (19): Jake Beckley, Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs, Bill Dahlen, George Davis, Ed Delahanty, Hugh Duffy, Frank Grant, Clark Griffith, Billy Hamilton, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelley, Herman Long, Bid McPhee, Kid Nichols, Jimmy Ryan, Amos Rusie, Sam Thompson, George Van Haltren
1900s (24): Roger Bresnahan, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Collins, Sam Crawford, Elmer Flick, Pete Hill, Grant Johnson, Addie Joss, Willie Keeler, Napoleon Lajoie, Tommy Leach, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Bill Monroe, Eddie Plank, Jimmy Sheckard, Rube Waddell, Honus Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Ed Walsh, Vic Willis, Cy Young
1910s (17): Pete Alexander, Frank Baker, Max Carey, Wilbur Cooper, Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, Larry Doyle, Heinie Groh, Walter Johnson, John Henry Lloyd, Sherry Magee, Jose Mendez, Spotswood Poles, Louis Santop, Tris Speaker, Zack Wheat, Smokey Joe Williams
1920s (21): John Beckwith, Oscar Charleston, Andy Cooper, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber, Frankie Frisch, Goose Goslin, Harry Heilmann, Rogers Hornsby, Dick Lundy, Biz Mackey, Alejandro Oms, Dick Redding, Bullet Rogan, Edd Roush, Babe Ruth, George Sisler, Joe Sewell, Cristobal Torriente, Pie Traynor, Dazzy Vance
1930s (27): Earl Averill, James "Cool Papa" Bell, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Cronin, Dizzy Dean, Bill Dickey, Martin Dihigo, Willie Foster, Jimmie Foxx, Charlie Gehringer, Lou Gehrig, Josh Gibson, Hank Greenberg, Lefty Grove, Gabby Hartnett, Billy Herman, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Mel Ott, Red Ruffing, Al Simmons, Turkey Stearnes, Mule Suttles, Bill Terry, Paul Waner, Willie Wells, Jud Wilson
1940s (1): Stan Hack

Players Elected by Primary Organization
Bacharach Giants (I, ECL) (1): Dick Lundy
Baltimore Black Sox (I, ECL, ANL) (1): Jud Wilson
Baltimore Canaries (NA) (1): Lip Pike
Baltimore Orioles (NL) (3): Hughie Jennings, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley
Boston Red Sox (fka Americans) (AL) (3): Jimmy Collins, Joe Cronin, Cy Young
Brooklyn Atlantics (NA) (1): Dickey Pearce
Brooklyn Dodgers (fka Robins) (NL) (2): Dazzy Vance, Zack Wheat
Brooklyn Royal Giants (I, ECL, NNL) (3): Grant Johnson, Bill Monroe, Dick Redding
Buffalo Bisons (NL) (4): Dan Brouthers, Pud Galvin, Hardy Richardson, Deacon White
Chicago American Giants (I, NNL, NSL, NAL) (3): Willie Foster, Pete Hill, Cristobal Torriente
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NL) (12): Cap Anson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Bill Dahlen, Clark Griffith, George Gore, Stan Hack, Gabby Hartnett, Billy Herman, King Kelly, Jimmy Ryan, Jimmy Sheckard
Chicago Giants (NNL) (1): John Beckwith
Chicago White Sox (AL) (4): Eddie Collins, Red Faber, Ted Lyons, Ed Walsh
Cincinnati Reds (NL, AA) (4): Heinie Groh, Bid McPhee, Tony Mullane, Edd Roush
Cleveland Blues (NL) (1): Jack Glasscock
Cleveland Indians (fka Naps) (AL) (7): Earl Averill, Stan Coveleski, Elmer Flick, Addie Joss, Napoleon Lajoie, Joe Sewell, Tris Speaker
Cleveland Spiders (NL) (2): Jesse Burkett, Cupid Childs
Cuban Giants (I, MSL) (1): Frank Grant
Cuban Stars (East) (I, ECL, ANL) (2): Martin Dihigo, Alejandro Oms
Detroit Stars (I, NNL, NAL) (1): Turkey Stearnes
Detroit Tigers (AL) (5): Ty Cobb, Sam Crawford, Charlie Gehringer, Hank Greenberg, Harry Heilmann
Detroit Wolverines (NL) (1): Charlie Bennett
Hilldale Daises (I, ECL, ANL, EWL) (2): Biz Mackey, Louis Santop
Homestead Grays (I, ANL, NNL) (3): Josh Gibson, Buck Leonard, Smokey Joe Williams
Indianapolis ABCs (I, NNL, NSL, NAL) (1): Oscar Charleston
Kansas City Monarchs (I, NNL, NAL) (3): Willie Foster, Jose Mendez, Bullet Rogan
Lincoln Giants (I, ECL, ANL) (1): John Henry Lloyd
Lincoln Stars (I) (1): Spotswood Poles
Louisville Colonels (NL, AA) (1): Pete Browning
Milwaukee Braves (fka Boston Braves, Beaneaters, Red Stockings) (NA, NL) (10): Ross Barnes, John Clarkson, Hugh Duffy, Herman Long, Cal McVey, Kid Nichols, Al Spalding, Ezra Sutton, Vic Willis, George Wright
New York Giants (NL) (16): Roger Bresnahan, Roger Connor, George Davis, Larry Doyle, Buck Ewing, Frankie Frisch, Carl Hubbell, Tim Keefe, Christy Mathewson, Joe McGinnity, Jim O’Rourke, Mel Ott, Amos Rusie, George Van Haltren, John Ward, Mickey Welch
New York Yankees (AL) (4): Bill Dickey, Lou Gehrig, Red Ruffing, Babe Ruth
Newark Eagles (NNL) (1): Mule Suttles
Philadelphia Athletics (AA) (1): Harry Stovey
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (7): Frank Baker, Mickey Cochrane, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Eddie Plank, Al Simmons, Rube Waddell
Philadelphia Phillies (NL) (5): Pete Alexander, Ed Delahanty, Billy Hamilton, Sherry Magee, Sam Thompson
Pittsburgh Crawfords (NNL) (1): James "Cool Papa" Bell
Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) (8): Jake Beckley, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Wilbur Cooper, Tommy Leach, Pie Traynor, Honus Wagner, Paul Waner
Providence Grays (NL) (3): Paul Hines, Charley Radbourn, Joe Start
St. Louis Browns (AL) (2): George Sisler, Bobby Wallace
St. Louis Cardinals (fka Browns) (NL, AA) (3): Bob Caruthers, Dizzy Dean, Rogers Hornsby
St. Louis Stars (NNL) (1): Willie Wells
Washington Senators (AL) (2): Goose Goslin, Walter Johnson

Hall of Fame Contributors Wing
Contributors Elected - 22
Contributor Year Elected Contribution Living/Deceased Age at Election
Doc Adams 1925 Pioneer Deceased (1814-1899) Deceased
Ed Barrow 1941 General Manager Deceased (1868-1953) Deceased
Alex Cartwright 1925 Pioneer Deceased (1820-1892) Deceased
Henry Chadwick 1925 Writer Deceased (1824-1908) Deceased
Charlie Comiskey 1925 Owner Deceased (1859-1931) 66
Jim Creighton 1925 Pioneer Deceased (1841-1862) Deceased
Rube Foster 1930 Manager/Executive Deceased (1879-1930) Deceased
Miller Huggins 1941 Manager Deceased (1879-1929) Deceased
William Hulbert 1925 NL President Deceased (1832-1882) Deceased
Ned Hanlon 1936 Manager Deceased (1857-1937) 79
Ban Johnson 1936 AL President Deceased (1864-1931) Deceased
Bill Klem 1941 Umpire Deceased (1874-1951) 67
Kenesaw Landis 1951 Commissioner Deceased (1866-1944) Deceased
Connie Mack 1930 Manager/Owner Living - Age 91 68
Joe McCarthy 1951 Manager Living - Age 66 64
John McGraw 1936 Manager Deceased (1873-1934) Deceased
Al Reach 1946 Owner Deceased (1840-1928) Deceased
Francis Richter 1941 Writer Deceased (1854-1926) Deceased
Branch Rickey 1946 General Manager Living - Age 72 65
Frank Selee 1936 Manager Deceased (1859-1909) Deceased
AG Spalding* 1930 Executive Deceased (1850-1915) Deceased
Harry Wright 1925 Manager Deceased (1835-1895) Deceased

* = Also elected as a player

Contributors Elected by Primary Contribution
Commissioner (1): Kenesaw Landis
General Manager (2): Ed Barrow, Branch Rickey
League President (2): William Hulbert, Ban Johnson
Manager (6): Miller Huggins, Ned Hanlon, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Frank Selee, Harry Wright
Owner (3): Charlie Comiskey, Al Reach, AG Spalding
Pioneer (3): Doc Adams, Alex Cartwright, Jim Creighton
Umpire (1): Bill Klem

Contributions by Primary Franchise
Brooklyn Dodgers (fka Superbas) (AA, NL) (1): Ned Hanlon
Chicago American Giants (NNL) (1): Rube Foster
Chicago Cubs (fka White Stockings, Colts) (NA, NL) (1): AG Spalding
Chicago White Sox (AL) (1): Charlie Comiskey
Excelsior of Brooklyn (NAB) (1): Jim Creighton
Milwaukee Braves (fka Boston Braves, Beaneaters, Red Caps, Red Stockings) (NA, NL) (2): Frank Selee, Harry Wright
New York Giants (NL) (1): John McGraw
New York Knickerbockers (NAB) (2): Doc Adams, Alex Cartwright
New York Yankees (AL) (2): Miller Huggins, Joe McCarthy
Philadelphia Athletics (AL) (1): Connie Mack
Philadelphia Phillies (fka Quakers) (NL) (1): Al Reach
St. Louis Cardinals (AA, NL) (1): Branch Rickey

Contributors Elected by Year
1925: Doc Adams, Alex Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, Harry Wright, William Hulbert, Charlie Comiskey, Jim Creighton
1930: Rube Foster, Connie Mack, AG Spalding
1936: Ned Hanlon, Ban Johnson, John McGraw, Frank Selee
1941: Miller Huggins, Bill Klem, Francis Richter, Ed Barrow
1946: Al Reach, Branch Rickey
1951: Kenesaw Landis, Joe McCarthy

Miscellaneous Information
- Highest Regular Election Percentage: Cap Anson, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Kid Nichols, Mel Ott, Tris Speaker, Cy Young – 100%
- Number of 1st Ballot Electees: 61
- Most Years on Ballot Before Election: Cupid Childs, Addie Joss, Al Spalding – 15
- Number of Players Elected After 10 Years on Ballot: 8
- Number of Players Lasting 15 Years on Ballot without Election: 38
- Number of Players Elected by Veterans Committee: 39
- Highest Percentage Among Players Not Elected: 74.07% - Earl Averill (1946)
- Most Regular Election Electees in One Year: 5 (1901, 1907, 1942)
- Fewest Regular Election Electees in One Year: 0 (1912, 1923, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1938, 1939, 1945)
- Most Veterans Committee Electees in One Year: 19 (1947)
- Largest Ballot: 78 Players (1901)
- Largest Post-1915 Ballot: 50 Players (1952)
- Smallest Ballot: 23 Players (1918)
- Most Votes Cast: 37 (1942)
- Fewest Votes Cast: 20 (1901)
- Team With Most Players Elected: New York Giants - 16
- Team With Second Most Players Elected: Chicago Cubs - 12
- Electee with Longest Post-1871 Career: Smokey Joe Williams - 28
- Electee with Shortest Post-1871 Career: Dickey Pearce – 8 Seasons
- Members Elected as Both Players and Contributors: Al Spalding
- Youngest Elected Player: Amos Rusie – Age 35
- Oldest Elected Player: Joe Start – 78
- Number of Posthumously Elected Players: 25
- Number of Posthumously Elected Contributors: 16
- Number of Living Hall of Famers: 67
- Number of Deceased Hall of Famers: 94
- Oldest Living Hall of Famer: Connie Mack - 91
- Deceased in Past Year: Ed Barrow, Jesse Burkett, Kid Nichols

Number of Ballots Submitted in Past Elections
1901: 20
1902: 24
1903: 26
1904: 25
1905: 24
1906: 23
1907: 24
1908: 25
1909: 22
1910: 25
1911: 25
1912: 23
1913: 23
1914: 26
1915: 25
1916: 25
1917: 25
1918: 24
1919: 27
1920: 26
1921: 31
1922: 28
1923: 25
1924: 29
1925: 24
1926: 25
1927: 28
1928: 27
1929: 25
1930: 25
1931: 32
1932: 24
1933: 29
1934: 28
1935: 33
1936: 32
1937: 34
1938: 30
1939: 32
1940: 34
1941: 35
1942: 37
1943: 30
1944: 27
1945: 29
1946: 27
1947: 28
1948: 26
1949: 25
1950: 34
1951: 35
1952: 31

Links to Past Elections
1901 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77167)
1902 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77464)
1903 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77797)
1904 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78133)
1905 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78417)
1906 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78737)
1907 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79020)
1908 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79393)
1909 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79738)
1910 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80134)
1911 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80597)
1912 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81008)
1913 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81477)
1914 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81965)
1915 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82365)
1916 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82681)
1917 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=82940)
1918 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83241)
1919 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83422)
1920 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83665), 1920 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83697)
1921 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83924)
1922 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84099)
1923 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84257)
1924 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84423)
1925 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84552), 1925 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=84636), 1925 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83852)
1926 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84727)
1927 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84871)
1928 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85029)
1929 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85206)
1930 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85358), 1930 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=85439), 1930 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84578)
1931 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85681)
1932 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85850)
1933 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86054)
1934 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86291)
1935 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86514), 1935 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=86576)
1936 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86747), 1936 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85051)
1937 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87002)
1938 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87241)
1939 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87501)
1940 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87800), 1940 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php? t=87854)
1941 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88041), 1941 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87881)
1942 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=88297)
1943 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89063)
1944 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89394)
1945 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89744), 1945 Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89707)
1946 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89923), 1946 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=89916)
1947 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90195), 1947 Negro League Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90109)
1948 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90391)
1949 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90572)
1950 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90811), 1950 VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=90804)
1951 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=91009), 1951 Contributors VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=91013)
1952 (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=91182), 1952 Negro League Players VC (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=91175)

SavoyBG

06-28-2009, 03:26 PM

MY VOTES:

Berger
W. Ferrell
Gomez
Grimes
Medwick
Vaughan

Isn't this Lombardi's first year?

Ace Venom

06-28-2009, 03:32 PM

It's Lombardi's second year. With the ballot we've had for the last few elections, it's been easy to miss some of these people.

jalbright

06-28-2009, 03:35 PM

W. Ferrell
Grimes
Medwick
S. Rice
Vaughan
H. Wilson

Ace Venom

06-28-2009, 03:44 PM

Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Ernie Lombardi
Joe Medwick
Sam Rice
Arky Vaughan
Lon Warneke
Hack Wilson

Cowtipper

06-28-2009, 05:24 PM

Wally Berger
Jim Bottomley
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Paul Derringer
Wes Ferrell
Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Heinie Manush
Joe Medwick
Sam Rice
Arky Vaughan
Hack Wilson

Guys I'll vote for once I get room:

Lon Warneke
Lefty Gomez
Ernie Lombardi
Tommy Bridges

bambambaseball

06-28-2009, 05:31 PM

I really hope Sam Rice, Wes Ferrell and Burleigh Grimes make it in this year. :pray:

I didnt vote for Duckey Medwick, but I will when I have room. I think Arky Vaughn will get in no problem!

Cowtipper

06-28-2009, 05:39 PM

I really hope Sam Rice, Wes Ferrell and Burleigh Grimes make it in this year. :pray:

I didnt vote for Duckey Medwick, but I will when I have room. I think Arky Vaughn will get in no problem!

If Rice knew it was this hard to get into a Hall of Fame, then maybe he WOULD have accepted Clark Griffith's offer to play some more to collect the last 13 hits he needed for 3000.

Cowtipper

06-28-2009, 05:47 PM

Here are threads that were made specifically for some of the players on the ballot if you want to check them out...

Dick Bartell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80244&highlight=bartell)
Wally Berger (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85048&highlight=berger)
Jim Bottomley (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69367&highlight=bottomley)
Tommy Bridges (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72275&highlight=bridges)
Earle Combs (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=34472&highlight=combs)
Kiki Cuyler (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=18608&highlight=cuyler)
Paul Derringer (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=81980&highlight=derringer)
Wes Ferrell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=78505&highlight=ferrell)
Rick Ferrell (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=87925&highlight=ferrell)
Lefty Gomez (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49436&highlight=gomez)
Babe Herman (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69786&
highlight=herman)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=69657&highlight=johnson)
Chuck Klein (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=33602&highlight=klein)
Tony Lazzeri (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58584&highlight=lazzeri)
Heinie Manush (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77737&highlight=manush)
Frank McCormick (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83342&highlight=mccormick)
George McQuinn (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83570&highlight=george)
Joe Medwick (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=65355&highlight=medwick)
Buddy Myer (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=80079&highlight=myer)
Cecil Travis (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=40815&highlight=travis)
Hal Trosky (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85096&highlight=trosky)
Lloyd Waner (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=79822&highlight=waner)
Lon Warneke (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72043&highlight=warneke)

mwiggins

06-28-2009, 05:53 PM

If Rice knew it was this hard to get into a Hall of Fame, then maybe he WOULD have accepted Clark Griffith's offer to play some more to collect the last 13 hits he needed for 3000.

I really hope that none of the people voting for him are withholding their support simply because he didn't get those 13 hits. There's some good reasons to not vote for Rice, but that one is especially idiotic when you consider that fact that he missed almost an entire year due to the Great War.

But we all know that if he'd have not missed 1918, and he ended up with say 3,150 hits, that he'd have been in on the first ballot.

Ace Venom

06-28-2009, 05:59 PM

But we all know that if he'd have not missed 1918, and he ended up with say 3,150 hits, that he'd have been in on the first ballot.

This is true. Rice nearly got elected in 1941. Earl Averill and Ted Lyons each had over 70% at one point before being holdovers. One of the big things people hold against him is the fact that he did not hit with enough power. Win shares arguments have also worked against him. There's also talk of how he performed in the 1924 World Series, but I have a hard time believing they would have made it there without him given the season that he had.

bambambaseball

06-28-2009, 06:22 PM

JDD

06-28-2009, 07:45 PM

I think I only voted for 14, and after looking up Sam Rice's numbers, I think he deserves my vote. So if the person running the vote has the power to do so, please throw my 15th vote his way.

I think we can edit these things, right?

RyanExpress30

06-28-2009, 08:07 PM

1 Medwick
2 Johnson
3 Bottomley
4 Vaughn
5 Cuyler
6 Manush
7 Rice
8 Berger
9 Lazzeri
10 Wilson
11 Herman
12 Klein
13 Combs
14 Grimes
15 Bridges

Ace Venom

06-28-2009, 08:19 PM

SavoyBG

06-28-2009, 11:26 PM

PVNICK

06-29-2009, 05:39 AM

Bridges
Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Grimes
Medwick
Myer
Rice
Vaughan

Last votes conversations led me to give a vote to Bridges and Grimes.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 06:38 AM

Tommy Bridges
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Bob Johnson
Joe Medwick
Sam Rice
Cecil Travis
Arky Vaughan

dgarza

06-29-2009, 06:51 AM

Jim Bottomley
Tommy Bridges
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Lefty Gomez
Babe Herman
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Ernie Lombardi
Heinie Manush
Joe Medwick
Sam Rice
Arky Vaughan
Hack Wilson

1. Arky Vaughan
2. Joe Medwick
3. Chuck Klein
4. Hack Wilson
5. Ernie Lombardi
6. Lefty Gomez
7. Bob Johnson
8. Heinie Manush
9. Kiki Cuyler
10. Sam Rice
11. Jim Bottomley
12. Tony Lazzeri
13. Babe Herman
14. Tommy Bridges
15. Earle Combs

dgarza

06-29-2009, 06:54 AM

Jim Bottomley
Tommy Bridges
Kiki Cuyler
Lefty Gomez
Burleigh Grimes
Babe Herman
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri
Ernie Lombardi
Heinie Manush
Joe Medwick
Sam Rice
Arky Vaughan
Hack Wilson

1. Arky Vaughan
2. Joe Medwick
3. Chuck Klein
4. Hack Wilson
5. Ernie Lombardi
6. Lefty Gomez
7. Bob Johnson
8. Heinie Manush
9. Kiki Cuyler
10. Sam Rice
11. Jim Bottomley
12. Burleigh Grimes
13. Tony Lazzeri
14. Babe Herman
15. Tommy Bridges

KCGHOST

06-29-2009, 09:09 AM

Bridges
Gomez
Medwick
Vaughan

AG2004

06-29-2009, 09:16 AM

Adjust Sam Rice's career to a 162 game schedule.

162 games? Why would we do that? The schedule's been at 154 games ever since the shortened 1919 season. The length of the season has never, ever exceeded 154 games.

This 162-game adjustment is just a cheap trick to help Sam Rice.

One may note that I've adjusted some seasons of the 1890s to 154 games. Well, the 1892, 1898, and 1899 seasons were 154 games long. When comparing players, it seemed fair to adjust the 1893-97 seasons to match the 154-game length. But there is no justification whatsoever for creating a season length that has never been seen in major league baseball.

If the schedule were to be extended, it would have to go to 168 games. That would mean each team would play each other team 24 times a season: 12 home, 12 away. Each team has to play each other team the same number of times, which means the length has to be divisible by 7. Each team has to have the same number of home and away games, so the length has to be an even number. Therefore, the season length must be divisible by 14. 162 is not divisible by 14. Thus, there cannot be a 162-game schedule. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Ace Venom

06-29-2009, 09:31 AM

If teams keep shuffling around, who knows what will happen next? Major League Baseball is returning to Baltimore. There's actually a Major League team in Milwaukee now for the first time in over five decades. It was even longer for Baltimore. If you believe what you hear, the Athletics might be next.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 09:45 AM

If teams keep shuffling around, who knows what will happen next?

The only things we can say for sure is that the Yankees will keep winning most every year and that the Dodgers will never win a World Series.

AG2004

06-29-2009, 10:12 AM

Adjust Sam Rice's career to a 162 game schedule. That gives him 208 extra hits and brings his hit total up to 3195. Now give him a modest 155 hits for the 1918 season that he missed because he was serving his country, which would have been less than he ever did from 1917-1930. That brings his hit total for his career to 3350 and the scary thing is that he also would have been over 200 triples, over 500 doubles, over 4000 TBs, over 400 SBs, his BA, OPS and OPS+ would have been 3 points higher, and he would have had 1700+ runs and 1200+ RBIs. That puts him in ahead of Paul Waner who we elected the 1st time he was on the balott!

I'm not going to adjust Rice's career to a 162-game schedule. However, I will double his 1918 and 1919 totals to make up for a lost season.

This gives us:
Rice vs. Waner
R 1597-1627
H 3174-3152
2B 522-600
3B 193-191
HR 37-113
RBI 1152-1309
SB 425-104
BB 752-1091
TB 4193-4478

To reach the 200-triple mark, you need the "162-game adjustment." Rice's lead in hits and triples would be slight, and, with the exception of stolen bases, Waner would win everything else.

Rice's career OPS+ was 112; over a full season, his OPS+ never exceeded 123. Let's give Rice a 1-point boost in career OPS+ for his lost season, then. It's not even close to Waner's OPS+ of 134. The extra bhome runs, doubles, and (especially) walks help Waner a lot.

Furthermore, the National League deadened its baseball after the 1930 season, which meant NL offensive totals during that decade were lower than they were in both leagues during the 1920s. Hence, in terms of wins, Waner's offensive numbers were worth more than Rice's.

Finally, Paul Waner's peak was much higher than Rice's.

Sam Rice had a win share line of 327-72-115; Waner, 423-102-154. Harry Hooper, a right fielder who is not in our Hall, has a line of 321-79-118 (328-85-125 adjusted for season length). No other corner outfielder has a line similar to Rice's; those with similar peaks had much shorter careers, and those with similar career value had higher peaks.

Harry Hooper - long career, good glove, and a career OPS+ of 114. He's Sam Rice's best match. Hooper hasn't been inducted into Brooklyn, and neither should Sam Rice.

Jsquared83

06-29-2009, 10:27 AM

Cuyler
Gomez
Grimes
Lombardi
Manush
Medwick
Rice
Vaughan

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 10:36 AM

Harry Hooper - long career, good glove, and a career OPS+ of 114. He's Sam Rice's best match. Hooper hasn't been inducted into Brooklyn, and neither should Sam Rice.

Hooper's a good match. The reasons I think Rice is just above the line and Hooper is just below...

a) Hooper had his best season in 1918, which gets somewhat discounted due to the war.
b) Rice spent the early part of his career, and his first two seasons in the majors, as a pitcher. Yet he still was basically able to match Hooper for career value.

Matt, how does PCA show Hooper?

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 10:58 AM

Hooper's a good match. The reasons I think Rice is just above the line and Hooper is just below...

a) Hooper had his best season in 1918, which gets somewhat discounted due to the war.
b) Rice spent the early part of his career, and his first two seasons in the majors, as a pitcher. Yet he still was basically able to match Hooper for career value.

Matt, how does PCA show Hooper?

Hooper is a poor match. He had 500 less hits than Sam Rice in only 90 less games and a BA and SLG 40 points lower than Rice. There is no player in the history of baseball who compiled bigger career traditional stats than Sam Rice who is not in the HOF. Zero. No amount of manipulation of advanced metrics will convince his supporters to the contrary.

As a side note, give Sam Rice a horrific season for the year he lost to war service and he still gets to over 3000 hits, would have been elected many elections ago and we wouldn't be having this same tired conversation yet again. ;)

People want to believe that 3000 hits doesn't make a difference, but it does. So does 300 wins. The VC voted in Mickey Welch who was a middle of the road hurler and the difference between the supporters and the detractors was 1-2 voters who couldn't get past the fact that he had 300 wins.

Ace Venom

06-29-2009, 11:04 AM

The only things we can say for sure is that the Yankees will keep winning most every year and that the Dodgers will never win a World Series.

The Dodgers will never win the World Series. The Cubs can be back there in a few years because I have high hopes they can build around this Ernie Banks I've been hearing about.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 11:15 AM

Hooper is a poor match. He had 500 less hits than Sam Rice in only 90 less games and a BA and OBP 40 points lower than Rice. There is no player in the history of baseball who compiled bigger career traditional stats than Sam Rice who is not in the HOF. Zero. No amount of manipulation of advanced metrics will convince his supporters to the contrary.

Sorry, just trying to get Sam elected.

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 11:22 AM

Sorry, just trying to get Sam elected.

I think we're agreeing in our arguments. I just find Sam Rice significantly better than Hooper. Not slightly better.

Ace Venom

06-29-2009, 11:23 AM

We can get Sam on the VC if need be. I consider the 1955 VC meeting as the potential make up meeting. Rabbit Maranville, Sam Rice and Eppa Rixey all enjoyed strong support on the ballot for their years of eligibility. Wilson and Combs will likely languish, but consider the fact that we've had strong candidates slip off the ballot since the 1950 VC meeting. Wilson's a sure thing to not to make it this year and I wouldn't pin any hopes on Grimes making it this year either.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 11:47 AM

The Dodgers will never win the World Series. The Cubs can be back there in a few years because I have high hopes they can build around this Ernie Banks I've been hearing about.

With two young pitching studs like Hacker and Rush, Cubs fans should have a lot to look forward to in the 50's. Plus, they have the best RBI man in the league in Sauer. And I've heard rumors they're trying to trade for Ralph Kiner. He's only 29 and should have a lot of great years left.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 11:48 AM

I think we're agreeing in our arguments. I just find Sam Rice significantly better than Hooper. Not slightly better.

Win Shares shows them as pretty even with a slight edge to Hooper IMO.

CAREER
Rice - 327
Hooper - 321

BEST THREE YEARS
Rice, 24, 24, 24
Hooper - 29, 26, 24

PER 162
Rice - 22.03
Hooper - 22.53

PVNICK

06-29-2009, 11:57 AM

With two young pitching studs like Hacker and Rush, Cubs fans should have a lot to look forward to in the 50's. Plus, they have the best RBI man in the league in Sauer. And I've heard rumors they're trying to trade for Ralph Kiner. He's only 29 and should have a lot of great years left.

I heard there was some hex put on them something about a man and a goat.

Ace Venom

06-29-2009, 12:33 PM

I heard there was some hex put on them something about a man and a goat.

Who brings a goat to a baseball game anyway? :crazy

AG2004

06-29-2009, 12:43 PM

Hooper is a poor match. He had 500 less hits than Sam Rice in only 90 less games and a BA and SLG 40 points lower than Rice. There is no player in the history of baseball who compiled bigger career traditional stats than Sam Rice who is not in the HOF. Zero. No amount of manipulation of advanced metrics will convince his supporters to the contrary.

Hooper also has over 400 more walks than Rice. Also, even though Hooper played most of his career in the deadball era, and Rice played most of his in the liveball era, Hooper has over twice as many home runs as Rice.

What caused the change from the deadball era to the liveball era? For one thing, around 1920, the umpires started to put fresh baseballs into play more often. Before then, battered and dirty baseballs were kept in play as long as possible. The use of more new, clean baseballs would obviously help hitters; they can see the balls more easily, and the balls themselves would go farther when hit.

Adjust for the environment, and Rice's closest match in overall value would be Hooper. If the difference between Hooper's raw numbers and Rice's raw numbers is almost entirely due to the fact that umpires replaced dirty baseballs during Rice's career than they did during Hooper's, why should we induct one player and not the other?

Finally, someone has to be the leader in traditional stats among players who aren't in the HOF. Who should it be?

People want to believe that 3000 hits doesn't make a difference, but it does. So does 300 wins. The VC voted in Mickey Welch who was a middle of the road hurler and the difference between the supporters and the detractors was 1-2 voters who couldn't get past the fact that he had 300 wins.

Why should it make such a big difference? Let's take one bases-empty walk each season from 1919 to 1931, and make it a single. That will put Rice at 3000 hits. However, it won't change his overall value one bit.

Just because something makes a psychological difference doesn't mean that it ought to make a difference.

Brad Harris

06-29-2009, 12:59 PM

Berger
Cuyler
Ferrell (W.)
Grimes
Lombardi
Medwick
Rice
Vaughan
Wilson

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 01:55 PM

Finally, someone has to be the leader in traditional stats among players who aren't in the HOF. Who should it be?

Someone like Doc Cramer who had a lot of hits but didn't lead in any other offensive category. Not someone like Sam Rice who is in the top 50 all time in BA, Hits, triples, and in the top 100 in total bases, doubles (missing the top 50 by 1 double), runs created, and runs scored. Take away the guys from 1951-2009 and those ranks go up significantly.

Why should it make such a big difference? Let's take one bases-empty walk each season from 1919 to 1931, and make it a single. That will put Rice at 3000 hits. However, it won't change his overall value one bit.

Ask the handful of people this matters for. In a project like this, even changing the minds of a small number of people makes a huge difference. It was the difference in inducting vs. not inducting Mickey Welch.

Just because something makes a psychological difference doesn't mean that it ought to make a difference.

Convince the people who like milestones and maybe we'll see a better real hall of fame. ;)

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 01:58 PM

Win Shares shows them as pretty even with a slight edge to Hooper IMO.

CAREER
Rice - 327
Hooper - 321

BEST THREE YEARS
Rice, 24, 24, 24
Hooper - 29, 26, 24

PER 162
Rice - 22.03
Hooper - 22.53

A lot of the people who support Sam Rice are looking at traditional stats. Not win shares, PCAs and WARP3 (like it or not, that won't change) which is why that's where the focus should be. In a pure WS argument, Rice gets a slight edge due to a better DWS score (C+ vs. B-). That moves him ahead of Hooper, but I agree it's not by much.

Senor Octobre

06-29-2009, 02:22 PM

Hi, I'm back. Here is my ballot...

Berger
Bridges
Combs
W. Ferrell
Gomez
Herman
Johnson
Klein
Lazzeri
Lombardi
Medwick
Myer
Rice
Vaughan
Wilson

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 02:33 PM

That puts Rice back up above the line through 27 ballots. Given that we had just 31 votes last time, he might actually have a shot this time. But I'm not holding my breath.

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 02:36 PM

That puts Rice back up above the line through 27 ballots. Given that we had just 31 votes last time, he might actually have a shot this time. But I'm not holding my breath.

I'd take Rice over Beckley or Browning any day and both were elected through the general elections. Addie Joss also managed to get elected barely, so there is hope, and he is over the 75% threshold 27 voters in.

Senor Octobre

06-29-2009, 02:44 PM

Actually, I now regret voting for Babe Herman over Grimes on his last ballot. What are Grimes' chances of being elected via VC?

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 02:47 PM

Actually, I now regret voting for Babe Herman over Grimes on his last ballot. What are Grimes' chances of being elected via VC?

I think that both Grimes and Rixey will get elected via the VC. Same with Maranville. If Sam Rice doesn't get elected here, he will not make it in via the VC. There is much more of a split when it comes to him among the members of the VC, so his best chance is this election.

Hack Wilson will be an interesting one if/when he shows up on a VC ballot. Same with Wally Berger. Both have a good case for election and many of the VC members seem to support one or the other and in some instances, both.

Ace Venom

06-29-2009, 02:51 PM

I actually think Rice can make it in via the VC election based on voting trends alone. This is just based on what I've seen.

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 02:56 PM

I actually think Rice can make it in via the VC election based on voting trends alone. This is just based on what I've seen.

It's hard to say. Jimmy Ryan and Jimmy Scheckard were (pleasantly) surprising selections via the VC, so anything is possible, but the VC members seem to be much more polarized one way or the other when it comes to Sam Rice. He's one of a handful of players who looks great when you look at his traditional stats, but is borderline one way or the other when looking at WS, WARP3 and PCAs.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 02:59 PM

Actually, I now regret voting for Babe Herman over Grimes on his last ballot. What are Grimes' chances of being elected via VC?

At least you stuck with a fellow Robin. I don't support either one, but I might go with Herman if I had to pick one.

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 04:45 PM

I'm not going to adjust Rice's career to a 162-game schedule. However, I will double his 1918 and 1919 totals to make up for a lost season.

This gives us:
Rice vs. Waner
R 1597-1627
H 3174-3152
2B 522-600
3B 193-191
HR 37-113
RBI 1152-1309
SB 425-104
BB 752-1091
TB 4193-4478

To reach the 200-triple mark, you need the "162-game adjustment." Rice's lead in hits and triples would be slight, and, with the exception of stolen bases, Waner would win everything else.

Rice's career OPS+ was 112; over a full season, his OPS+ never exceeded 123. Let's give Rice a 1-point boost in career OPS+ for his lost season, then. It's not even close to Waner's OPS+ of 134. The extra bhome runs, doubles, and (especially) walks help Waner a lot.

It looks like even with your conservative adjustment, Sam Rice finishes in the top 200 all time in every offensive category but home runs. How's that not a HOFer?

AG2004

06-29-2009, 06:39 PM

It looks like even with your conservative adjustment, Sam Rice finishes in the top 200 all time in every offensive category but home runs. How's that not a HOFer?

Rice's peak keeps him out.

Rice has 72 win shares in his best three seasons, and 115 in his best five consecutive seasons. Rice was a corner outfielder whose single-season best in OPS+ was 123. He never finished in the top ten in OPS+, and, for a corner outfielder, that's a big problem.

Sam Rice's single-season best in win shares was 24. The win shares method underrates top defensive players, but Rice was a B- defensive outfielder, so that weakness in the method doesn't affect him. Rice was among the top ten in stolen bases in 1917 and 1919; if he wasn't caught stealing that often in those seasons, then he might be slightly underrated. However, given his caught stealing numbers in other seasons, he wasn't successful often enough for those stolen bases to have much of an effect. I don't have any reason to believe that he was better than the method indicates.

A single-season best of 24 is a problem. Teams whose best position player has 24 win shares a season don't contend for pennants on a regular basis. Some clubs have managed to reach 90 wins without any position player obtaining 25 win shares, but those teams had deep benches or great pitchers, and they couldn't do it twice. In order to contend for a pennant on a regular basis, a team needs, at the minimum, a position player who can get 25 win shares. It gets easier if the team's best position player can manage 26 or 27 win shares a year, but 25 turned out to be the minimum for a club to be a regular pennant contender (defined as 90+ wins).

If a player such as Rice were a team's best position player, that team would not be able to be a regular pennant contender. At best, Rice could play a strong supporting role on such a team. He had 24 win shares in both 1924 and 1925 -- but Goose Goslin was Washington's best position player, with 29 WS in 1924 and 31 in 1925. If you had reduced Goslin's total to 24 in 1925, the Senators would still have won the pennant easily -- but Walter Johnson led AL pitchers in win shares, Stan Coveleski was tied for second, and Dutch Ruether was the team's third pitcher with 20+ win shares. The 1925 Senators would have been an exception to the rule.

Simply put, Sam Rice, at his best, was not good enough to be the best position player on a regular pennant contender. No amount of career value can make up for that flaw. He was never a great player, so he doesn't deserve induction.

SABR Matt

06-29-2009, 06:51 PM

Except that Win Shares is completely and totally WHIFFING on Rice's defensive capabilities. There's no way he's a B- outfielder...none. ZERO chance that that is a correct assessment.

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 07:10 PM

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 07:30 PM

Does that mean that win shares is underrating or overrating his defensive ability, Matt?

Underrating.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 07:42 PM

Rice's peak keeps him out.

Rice has 72 win shares in his best three seasons, and 115 in his best five consecutive seasons. Rice was a corner outfielder whose single-season best in OPS+ was 123. He never finished in the top ten in OPS+, and, for a corner outfielder, that's a big problem.

Sam Rice's single-season best in win shares was 24. The win shares method underrates top defensive players, but Rice was a B- defensive outfielder, so that weakness in the method doesn't affect him. Rice was among the top ten in stolen bases in 1917 and 1919; if he wasn't caught stealing that often in those seasons, then he might be slightly underrated. However, given his caught stealing numbers in other seasons, he wasn't successful often enough for those stolen bases to have much of an effect. I don't have any reason to believe that he was better than the method indicates.

A single-season best of 24 is a problem. Teams whose best position player has 24 win shares a season don't contend for pennants on a regular basis. Some clubs have managed to reach 90 wins without any position player obtaining 25 win shares, but those teams had deep benches or great pitchers, and they couldn't do it twice. In order to contend for a pennant on a regular basis, a team needs, at the minimum, a position player who can get 25 win shares. It gets easier if the team's best position player can manage 26 or 27 win shares a year, but 25 turned out to be the minimum for a club to be a regular pennant contender (defined as 90+ wins).

If a player such as Rice were a team's best position player, that team would not be able to be a regular pennant contender. At best, Rice could play a strong supporting role on such a team. He had 24 win shares in both 1924 and 1925 -- but Goose Goslin was Washington's best position player, with 29 WS in 1924 and 31 in 1925. If you had reduced Goslin's total to 24 in 1925, the Senators would still have won the pennant easily -- but Walter Johnson led AL pitchers in win shares, Stan Coveleski was tied for second, and Dutch Ruether was the team's third pitcher with 20+ win shares. The 1925 Senators would have been an exception to the rule.

Simply put, Sam Rice, at his best, was not good enough to be the best position player on a regular pennant contender. No amount of career value can make up for that flaw. He was never a great player, so he doesn't deserve induction.

Actually, Rice had 25 in 1923, and 24 three other seasons. And 4 23 wins seasons. 8 seasons of 23 or more. Goslin, who was the greater player, had only 7 seaons at that level. Edd Roush, another HoFer had only 5 seasons at that level. Frankie Frisch, another HoFer, had only 5 seasons as well at that level. Gabby Harnett also had just 5.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:01 PM

Except that Win Shares is completely and totally WHIFFING on Rice's defensive capabilities. There's no way he's a B- outfielder...none. ZERO chance that that is a correct assessment.

They are certainly closer to his true defensive value than PCA is, which claims that Rice is more valuable defensively per game than Maranville, and that as a RFer that he has almost the same career defensive value as Rabbit.

That's preposterous.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:05 PM

A lot of the people who support Sam Rice are looking at traditional stats. Not win shares, PCAs and WARP3 (like it or not, that won't change) which is why that's where the focus should be. In a pure WS argument, Rice gets a slight edge due to a better DWS score (C+ vs. B-). That moves him ahead of Hooper, but I agree it's not by much.

That doesn't move him ahead of Hooper, because the defensive win shares are already included in the win share totals I posted. The letter grades were just publsihed as a guide for people who wanted to see what win shares fielding methods say about each player's defense.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:11 PM

It looks like even with your conservative adjustment, Sam Rice finishes in the top 200 all time in every offensive category but home runs. How's that not a HOFer?

Afraid not. He's nowhere near the top 200 in SLG% or OPS+

He is still in the top 75 though in career outs made.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:15 PM

Simply put, Sam Rice, at his best, was not good enough to be the best position player on a regular pennant contender. No amount of career value can make up for that flaw. He was never a great player, so he doesn't deserve induction.

Great point, AG !!!

If a played was not even good enough in ANY season to EVER have been the best player on a normal pennant winning team, how can he POSSIBLY be a hall of famer ?

Even Maranville had the one season with 27 win shares, when he won a real life MVP.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:17 PM

Actually, Rice had 25 in 1923,

I have two different win shares books that both say he had 24 in 1923.

The New Historical Abstract

Win Shares

SABR Matt

06-29-2009, 08:20 PM

They are certainly closer to his true defensive value than PCA is, which claims that Rice is more valuable defensively per game than Maranville, and that as a RFer that he has almost the same career defensive value as Rabbit.

That's preposterous.

I think the position that he was barely above average for a defensive outfielder is a far more ludicrous position than that he was a very good defensive outfielder and that very good defensive outfielders can influence run scoring at nearly the same level as very good defensive infielders.

BTW, you're misleading the readership here with your talk of Maranville having less value than Rice on defense. In terms of straight win scoring rate, Maranville was worth 56.0 wins in 2657 EqG at his various positions (2100 or so of those games at short), a rate of 3.16 wins per 150 EqG. Sam Rice was worth 41.9 defensive wins in 2219 EqG (about 1600 or so in RF), a rate of 2.83 wins per 150 EqG. Not only was he worth less in total...he was worth less per game.

But we expect a right fielder to be worth 1.78 wins per 150 G and a shortstop to be worth 2.72 wins per 150 G. In other words, Rice was further above average for his position than Maranville was for his position because we expect more out of shortstops. So when you convert wins to marker points, Rice and Maranville wind up in a virtual tie for marker score.

AG2004

06-29-2009, 08:23 PM

Actually, Rice had 25 in 1923, and 24 three other seasons. And 4 23 wins seasons. 8 seasons of 23 or more. Goslin, who was the greater player, had only 7 seaons at that level. Edd Roush, another HoFer had only 5 seasons at that level. Frankie Frisch, another HoFer, had only 5 seasons as well at that level. Gabby Harnett also had just 5.

The Win Shares book gives Rice 24 win shares in 1923.

Goslin had at least 26 win shares each year from 1924 to 1928. Adjust Roush's 1918 total for season length (22 win shares to 27), and he had at least 27 win shares, including 3 MVP-candidate-type seasons, each year from 1917 to 1920. Frisch had 3 seasons with 30+ win shares between 1921 and 1924; also, as Frisch was an A+ defensive second baseman, I give him a small boost due to the system's weakness.

All three of those players could be the best position player on a regular pennant contender over a period of four or five years. Rice could not.

Hartnett was an A+ defensive catcher, so his WS totals would underrate him a little. Furthermore, given the demands of the position and available equipment, catchers of the time couldn't play as often as other position players. For this reason, the number of times a catcher is the best in the league is more important than the number of times a catcher has an MVP-type season.

-----

Some time ago, I looked at teams from 1900 to now [OOC - It was actually until 1960, but it's still 1953 here] that had 90+ wins, and noted those teams whose best position players earned fewer than 28 win shares. There was one team with back-to-back seasons with no such player over 25 win shares (the best player each year had exactly 25 win shares), and a few other teams which reached 90 wins twice in three or four seasons without any player reaching 26 win shares.

However, there were no examples of teams that were able to reach 90 wins twice within 4-5 years without at least one position player reaching 25 win shares in at least one of those two seasons. A team can be a regular pennant contender if its best position player comes up with about 27 win shares per year. It can do so if its best position player comes up with 25 win shares per season, but it's rare. It can't do so on a regular basis if its best player has 24 win shares per year. It might reach 90 wins once if everything else goes well, but it's not going to do so again.

That's why I consider 25 win shares an important mark. Rice never reached the 25-win share level, which means he wasn't capable of being the best position player on a regular pennant contender. That's enough for me to consider Rice unqualified for the Hall of Fame.

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:33 PM

Afraid not. He's nowhere near the top 200 in SLG% or OPS+

He is still in the top 75 though in career outs made.

He's above average SLG% for a HOFer and average OPS+ for a good defensive player HOFer. You're pointless reply is a bad one!

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:35 PM

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:39 PM

I think the position that he was barely above average for a defensive outfielder is a far more ludicrous position than that he was a very good defensive outfielder and that very good defensive outfielders can influence run scoring at nearly the same level as very good defensive infielders.

BTW, you're misleading the readership here with your talk of Maranville having less value than Rice on defense. In terms of straight win scoring rate, Maranville was worth 56.0 wins in 2657 EqG at his various positions (2100 or so of those games at short), a rate of 3.16 wins per 150 EqG. Sam Rice was worth 41.9 defensive wins in 2219 EqG (about 1600 or so in RF), a rate of 2.83 wins per 150 EqG. Not only was he worth less in total...he was worth less per game.

But we expect a right fielder to be worth 1.78 wins per 150 G and a shortstop to be worth 2.72 wins per 150 G. In other words, Rice was further above average for his position than Maranville was for his position because we expect more out of shortstops. So when you convert wins to marker points, Rice and Maranville wind up in a virtual tie for marker score.

Who's we?

And you know very well that a B- for RFer is not "barely above average," since that B- is derived when compared to all other outfielders, including CFers. If you look at all RFers you'll see that a B- is well above average. Clemente is also a B-. Aaron is a C+, Dave Parker is a C+, Dwight Evans is a B-, Bobby Bonds is a B-.

Bill shouldn't have lumped all of the outfielders together with the letter grades, but being that he did you can at least not play dumb and say that he rates Rice as "barely above average."

He rates Rice with 56 career fielding win shares. That's more than Bobby Bonds (42), more than Frank Robinson (52), more than Dwight Evans (52), more than Harry Hooper (55), and almost as many as Clemente (60).

If the win shares letter grades were done disticntly for RFers Rice wqould be an A or maybe even an A+ in RF. He's only a B- because he's being compared to every great CFer also.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 08:39 PM

It just seems kind of arbitrary to me. Esp when a point or two difference in Win Shares is fairly meaningless. Would it really make such a big difference if one of those 24 win seasons was 26 or 27?

But you've definitely done your homework and have a well thought out approach, and that's all one can ask really. The study on the 90+ win teams is quite interesting.

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:40 PM

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:41 PM

He's above average SLG% for a HOFer

Are you insane?

His SLG% is below average for a hall of famer, and REALLY below average for a hall of fame OFer.

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:42 PM

Who's we?

And you know very well that a B- for RFer is not "barely above average," since that B- is derived when compared to all other outfielders, including CFers. If you look at all RFers you'll see that a B- is well above average. Clemente is also a B-. Aaron is a C+, Dave Parker is a C+, Dwight Evans is a B-, Bobby Bonds is a B-.

Bill shouldn't have lumped all of the outfielders together with the letter grades, but being that he did you can at least not play dumb and say that he rates Rice as "barely above average."

He rates Rice with 56 career fielding win shares. That's more than Bobby Bonds (42), more than Frank Robinson (52), more than Dwight Evans (52), more than Harry Hooper (55), and almost as many as Clemente (60).

If the win shares letter grades were done disticntly for RFers Rice wqould be an A or maybe even an A+ in RF. He's only a B- because he's being compared to every great CFer also.

This sounds like a good reason to vote for him. Not vote against him! :eek:

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:43 PM

Thats an arbitrary cutoff and a poor excuse to not vote for Sam Rice.

It's not arbitrary at all.

DID YOU READ HIS EXPLANATION OF WHY HE USES 25 AS THE CUTOFF?

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 08:44 PM

Right now Sam Rice has exactly 75% of the vote and needs some supporters before the guys who like to like to look for excuses to not vote for him swarm in and doom him to never being elected. :banghead:

What did you do? Get some of your buddies who never heard of Rice to come in and vote for him?

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:45 PM

Are you insane?

Not the last time I checked, but maybe you're mom dropped you on your head too many times when you were a kid cause you dont know when to stop! Im putting you on ignore now so if you do another annoying reply that makes no sense I wont see it. :rip:

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 08:49 PM

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:50 PM

bambambaseball

06-29-2009, 08:51 PM

Come on bam. It's just an internet HoF project. It's not that big of a deal if Rice makes it or not. The important thing is learning more about the candidates and seeing the process unfold through the years.

I agree with you. Thats why I just put the jerk who was insulting and attacking me on my ignore list instead of letting him get to me again.

AG2004

06-29-2009, 08:59 PM

Great point, AG !!!

If a played was not even good enough in ANY season to EVER have been the best player on a normal pennant winning team, how can he POSSIBLY be a hall of famer ?

Even Maranville had the one season with 27 win shares, when he won a real life MVP.

Maranville never won the MVP, but he finished second once and third another time.

Also, Maranville was an A+ defensive shortstop, so he's the type of player that the win shares system will underrate. [OOC - Zone ratings indicate that Ozzie Smith's defense was more valuable than the win shares system would indicate; see http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/article/ozzie_smiths_fielding_win_shares/
for more. We don't have zone ratings for Maranville's era, but his high performance in MVP voting when it was held indicates that there may be a similar gap in Maranville's case.] Given an adjustment for this weakness, Maranville probably could have led a team into the thick of a pennant race on a regular basis during his peak.

I think the position that he was barely above average for a defensive outfielder is a far more ludicrous position than that he was a very good defensive outfielder and that very good defensive outfielders can influence run scoring at nearly the same level as very good defensive infielders.

James' letter grades don't distinguish between corner outfielders and centerfielders. The data isn't available to make such distinctions, as the fielding statistics at baseball-reference or at baseball encyclopedias don't indicate how many putouts or errors came at each individual outfield position.

Rice was a corner outfielder during most of his career. He may have been a top defensive corner outfielder, but he was still a corner outfielder, not a center fielder. He was second among AL outfielders in defensive win shares in 1921, but he wasn't among the top three in either 1920 or 1922, his other two seasons as a center fielder. For the next four seasons, the Senators had players such as Nemo Leibold or Earl McNeely shuttling in and out of center field, followed by a 39-year-old Tris Speaker in 1927 and Red Barnes for most of 1928. In 1924, Rice played 34 games in center field, which was good for fourth on the team; Leibold was first with 52, followed by Wid Matthews with 43. If Sam Rice had the ability to play center field on a daily basis during the mid-1920s, wouldn't he have been doing so?

Considering all outfielders (as opposed to just right fielders), Rice's defensive letter grade of B- seems just about right to me.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 09:27 PM

In 1924, Rice played 34 games in center field, which was good for fourth on the team; Leibold was first with 52, followed by Wid Matthews with 43. If Sam Rice had the ability to play center field on a daily basis during the mid-1920s, wouldn't he have been doing so?

Considering all outfielders (as opposed to just right fielders), Rice's defensive letter grade of B- seems just about right to me.

Don't forget Rice was 34 years old in 1924. And BP shows him as a well above average CF that year. And as a well above average CF at age 30, in 153 games. In 1920 he set a record for most successfully handled chances by an OF. This despite having only been an outfielder for 2+ seasons.

And he also had a big time throwing arm, which normally tends to get a player steered toward RF.

AG2004

06-29-2009, 09:30 PM

Back to the actual discussion without loudmouth chiming in with his annoying replies, AG2004 why is 1 point enough to keep a guy like Sam Rice who was valuable in so many ways out of the HOF? Arent role players who could do what he did just as important to a winning team?

Well, I would prefer to see a series of seasons; one 25-win share season wouldn't be enough. Also, if a player were to go, say, 31-28-33-21-29-31, that's a good six-year string; the better a player is in the other years, the more likely it is that someone will step up in the one off year and shine (there's more space on the team for good players if the best player hovers around 30 win shares per season instead of around 26).

Role players who could do what Rice did are important to a winning team, but that doesn't mean the role players are worthy of induction. A team needs several role players of Rice's ability to contend for a pennant -- but inducting all of those role players would at least double the size of the Hall. We've turned most of those players down. Rice may have held on to that ability longer than most others, but he never reached the necessary level of greatness.

Incidentally, it's not just one win share that's keeping Rice off my list; his peak is far too low for my taste, and one additional win share would not change that.

Freakshow

06-29-2009, 09:45 PM

That's why I consider 25 win shares an important mark. Rice never reached the 25-win share level, which means he wasn't capable of being the best position player on a regular pennant contender. That's enough for me to consider Rice unqualified for the Hall of Fame.One of the years that Rice had 24 WS (1925), his team played only 151 decisions. Adjusting that to 154 would make that 24.48. I only have the integer WS totals, but if that was a "high" 24, it would round up to 25. Of course, if you adjust to 162 decisions his 1925 season becomes 25.75 WS. And his three other years of 24 schedule adjust to 25.

mwiggins

06-29-2009, 09:51 PM

Role players who could do what Rice did are important to a winning team, but that doesn't mean the role players are worthy of induction. A team needs several role players of Rice's ability to contend for a pennant -- but inducting all of those role players would at least double the size of the Hall. We've turned most of those players down. Rice may have held on to that ability longer than most others, but he never reached the necessary level of greatness.

Incidentally, it's not just one win share that's keeping Rice off my list; his peak is far too low for my taste, and one additional win share would not change that.

I can understand that mindset. That's what made me not vote for him originally. But at some point, for me at least, being able to sustain that 20-25 Win Shares level for such a long time - despite him missing most of his 20's due to the war and the fact that he started his career as a pitcher - makes him somewhat unique and starts to make his lack of very high peak seasons kind of irrelevant. The same way a GREAT peak can make a player's lack of longevity and total career value somewhat irrelevant.

Ideally you'd want both, but when there's not, I just try to judge each player on a case by case basis and try not to get stuck in hardfast standards.

SavoyBG

06-29-2009, 10:13 PM

Maranville never won the MVP, but he finished second once and third another time.

That's right, they gave it to Evers. I was thinking of the fact that he was the TPR MVP for that year. They also had him as the best player in the league in another season.

jjpm74

06-29-2009, 10:55 PM

However, there were no examples of teams that were able to reach 90 wins twice within 4-5 years without at least one position player reaching 25 win shares in at least one of those two seasons. A team can be a regular pennant contender if its best position player comes up with about 27 win shares per year. It can do so if its best position player comes up with 25 win shares per season, but it's rare. It can't do so on a regular basis if its best player has 24 win shares per year. It might reach 90 wins once if everything else goes well, but it's not going to do so again.

That's why I consider 25 win shares an important mark. Rice never reached the 25-win share level, which means he wasn't capable of being the best position player on a regular pennant contender. That's enough for me to consider Rice unqualified for the Hall of Fame.

How do you justify guys like Walter Johnson, Ted Lyons, Steve Carlton and Ernie Banks who had HOF peaks, but played on many losing teams? Who are the guys who had 25 WS who were part of 90 win teams? Who had HOF peaks on teams that did not reach 90 wins? How far below your HOF line is Sam Rice based on this?

This is an interesting approach and I'd like to learn more.

SABR Matt

06-29-2009, 11:01 PM

Maranville never won the MVP, but he finished second once and third another time.

Also, Maranville was an A+ defensive shortstop, so he's the type of player that the win shares system will underrate. [OOC - Zone ratings indicate that Ozzie Smith's defense was more valuable than the win shares system would indicate; see http://www.baseballgraphs.com/main/index.php/site/article/ozzie_smiths_fielding_win_shares/
for more. We don't have zone ratings for Maranville's era, but his high performance in MVP voting when it was held indicates that there may be a similar gap in Maranville's case.] Given an adjustment for this weakness, Maranville probably could have led a team into the thick of a pennant race on a regular basis during his peak.

James' letter grades don't distinguish between corner outfielders and centerfielders. The data isn't available to make such distinctions, as the fielding statistics at baseball-reference or at baseball encyclopedias don't indicate how many putouts or errors came at each individual outfield position.

Rice was a corner outfielder during most of his career. He may have been a top defensive corner outfielder, but he was still a corner outfielder, not a center fielder. He was second among AL outfielders in defensive win shares in 1921, but he wasn't among the top three in either 1920 or 1922, his other two seasons as a center fielder. For the next four seasons, the Senators had players such as Nemo Leibold or Earl McNeely shuttling in and out of center field, followed by a 39-year-old Tris Speaker in 1927 and Red Barnes for most of 1928. In 1924, Rice played 34 games in center field, which was good for fourth on the team; Leibold was first with 52, followed by Wid Matthews with 43. If Sam Rice had the ability to play center field on a daily basis during the mid-1920s, wouldn't he have been doing so?

Considering all outfielders (as opposed to just right fielders), Rice's defensive letter grade of B- seems just about right to me.

A corner outfielder's defensive ability should not be judged against the defensive abilities of center fielders when determining the merit of his defensive play relative to other corner outfielders, which is what the HOF Marker tries to do. But even if you want to put corner outfielders on the same scale as center fielders, I do not agree that he lacked the ability to play the outfield as well as other center fielders. He may not have adjusted ideally to the specific playing conditions of center field, but not all great defensive corner outfielders make good defensive center fielders. The problem with James' system is that he puts way too much weight (by default) on the guys who get time in center field because he puts too much weight on putouts without properly placing those putouts in the context of the minimum putout production one would expect for an outfielder at each position. The reason PCA gives more defensive credit to the corner outfield positions (relative to center) than win shares does (by default) is that PCA has a margin consistent with the shrinking spheres of influence for each level of the analysis. The less influence the thing being rated has on scoring, the higher the marginal pythagorean percentages get...as such, the margin for a whole team defense (in runs allowed) is 0.250 W%, the margin the for the pitchers is 0.350, the margin for infields and outfields are 0.400...James uses an arbitrary 0.2 for his defensive score margins and it winds up spectacularly overemphasizing center fielders compared to corner outfielders.

None of James' marginal analysis is technically correct...it's all pulled from his rectum and it results in an internally inconsistent metric, especially notable on defense.

AstrosFan

06-29-2009, 11:54 PM

W. Ferrell
Grimes
Johnson
Medwick
Vaughan

On Kiki Cuyler, I know it's pronounced "kye-kye kye-ler" but I still can't help saying "kee-kee kye-ler," just because it rolls off the tongue more easily. Anyone else have this problem?

SABR Matt

06-30-2009, 12:34 AM

Yes...I ALWAYS say Kee-kee...perhaps because in the modern game, we've got Kee-koh Cal-air-oh.

mwiggins

06-30-2009, 07:03 AM

The Win Shares book gives Rice 24 win shares in 1923.

Goslin had at least 26 win shares each year from 1924 to 1928. Adjust Roush's 1918 total for season length (22 win shares to 27), and he had at least 27 win shares, including 3 MVP-candidate-type seasons, each year from 1917 to 1920. Frisch had 3 seasons with 30+ win shares between 1921 and 1924; also, as Frisch was an A+ defensive second baseman, I give him a small boost due to the system's weakness.

Why would Frisch get a boost for Win Shares underrating his defense, but a top RF like Rice would not? Frisch was a better 2B than Rice was a RF, but Rice was good enough to handle CF while Frisch faired poorly as SS the one time he did get a chance to play there for any length of time.

And it's important to remember that Rice was not simply a corner outfielder. He was a CF who moved to RF as he aged. It's just that he missed much of the time that he would have been in CF due to his very late start as a position player. As soon as he learned how to play the OF, after his switch from pitcher to outfielder, the Senators moved him to CF. Which tells me that if he'd have come up as an OF from the beginning that he'd have spent probably half of his career in CF.

leecemark

06-30-2009, 07:06 AM

--He might have - but he didn't. Rice's bat would be marginal for a Hall of Fame CFer. It is well below the standards we've established for corner outfielders.

mwiggins

06-30-2009, 07:50 AM

--He might have - but he didn't. Rice's bat would be marginal for a Hall of Fame CFer. It is well below the standards we've established for corner outfielders.

But he does appear to compare very favorably to Edd Roush, who was elected fairly easily.

* BP shows Rice as a better defensive CF than Roush. I'm not sure how PCA or Win Shares rate them as strictly CF's.
* Rice tops Roush in career Win Shares, 327 to 314. And with their respective WW1 credits, Rice's lead grows to probably 25 Win Shares. And I believe those Win Share totals for Roush include his Federal League years, which makes Rice's advantage even greater.
* Rice has a small lead in Warp3 was well, 50.5 to 49.4.
* Roush posted a 127 OPS+ in 7339 PA (excluding his FL years). Rice posted a 112 OPS+ in 10,246 PA's, giving him a clear advantage there as well.

Roush is a HoFer because of his peak, Rice deserves to be because of his career as a whole. Roush was better through age 33, but after that he only had one good season.

After age 33:
Roush: 93 OPS+ in 1703 PA's
Rice: 109 OPS+ in 6057 PA's

That's a HUGE advantage for Rice. Rice was an above average hitter and defender and baserunner for years and years while Roush was not even able to play at a replacement level. Yeah, Roush was a CF and Rice was a RF during much of his career, but most of the years that Rice was an RF, Roush was either a below average CF or wasn't even good enough to play in the majors. Why does the fact that Roush was better in his 20's and early 30's so much more important as to allow him to waltz in to the Hall easily while Rice probably won't make it at all?

And that's without giving any allowance for Rice's late start due to his position change, or getting into any LQ advantages that Rice probably had over Roush.

Or put it this way...if I had a team and you offered me the choice of Rice or Roush, both at the start of their careers, I would take Rice without question. It wouldn't even be close in my mind.

leecemark

06-30-2009, 08:08 AM

--Those extra PA's at a 109 OPS+ have marginal value for a corner outfielder. I think we agree that Rice had a fine career. Probably as good a career as one could have without ever being a great player. For me the fact he was never great is a non-negotiable issue in his HOF case. Obviously not for you or others who support him. I can respect that and respectfully disagree. This is a difference of philosophy moreso than a disagrement on Rice - at least between us. Now the poster(s) who are arguing he was better than Paul Waner - or even close to Waner - I think are just plain wrong.

mwiggins

06-30-2009, 08:13 AM

Now the poster(s) who are arguing he was better than Paul Waner - or even close to Waner - I think are just plain wrong.

I can 100% agree with you there.

Though I still will argue that he was a great player. His greatness may not have been as valuable to his team as Roush's was at his peak, but Rice in say 1920 was a truely great, highly skilled, player. He posted a relative BA of 1.17 (in a league full of contact hitters), stole 63 bases, struck out just 23 times, and played a well above average CF. That's a great player in my book, but I know that's not the case for everyone due to his lack of walks and power.

Ace Venom

06-30-2009, 08:47 AM

There's room in the Progressive Hall for players like Rice. We'll get him on the VC, so don't worry about it if he doesn't make it here.

Ace Venom

06-30-2009, 09:31 AM

SavoyBG

06-30-2009, 09:38 AM

I'd like to propose a new eligibility rule given that relief pitchers have started appearing on the ballots. I'm trying to get an idea of a fair IP requirement for a pitcher whose largest contribution was as a relief pitcher. I'm willing to go as low as 900 IP for relievers, which I think is fair.

As long as he plays ten seasons why would the innings matter?

I don't think there's any real significant relievers who didn't play ten years.

How about using games for relievers rather than innings?

mwiggins

06-30-2009, 09:48 AM

I'd like to propose a new eligibility rule given that relief pitchers have started appearing on the ballots. I'm trying to get an idea of a fair IP requirement for a pitcher whose largest contribution was as a relief pitcher. I'm willing to go as low as 900 IP for relievers, which I think is fair.

I think 900 IP is pretty reasonable. Or even make it an even 1,000. I can't think of any RP's with a decent case who have less than 1,000 IP. That gets you all the real HoF relievers, plus guys like Smith and Quiz who will probably get some support.

Ace Venom

06-30-2009, 10:01 AM

As long as he plays ten seasons why would the innings matter?

I don't think there's any real significant relievers who didn't play ten years.

How about using games for relievers rather than innings?

To answer question one, we have an exception for people who didn't play ten seasons for other positions. To answer question two, that could be an additional exception if I decide there's a necessary one. 500 games might be a decent cutoff. You obviously won't have many in that range, but Wilhelm appeared in over 500 games in the first ten seasons of his career. I figure that's a decent cutoff. I can bump it up to an even 1,000 IP to get the exception for relievers:

For pitchers who appeared primarily in relief, the exception is 1,000 IP if the ten season requirement is not met.

AG2004

06-30-2009, 10:29 AM

How do you justify guys like Walter Johnson, Ted Lyons, Steve Carlton and Ernie Banks who had HOF peaks, but played on many losing teams? Who are the guys who had 25 WS who were part of 90 win teams? Who had HOF peaks on teams that did not reach 90 wins? How far below your HOF line is Sam Rice based on this?

This is an interesting approach and I'd like to learn more.

The people with HOF peaks, but played on losing teams, were still capable of leading a team into the thick of the pennant race on a regular basis if they were a team's best player. It isn't their fault if the management didn't give them the necessary support.

The question I asked was:
If a team is going to reach the 90-win mark,
then
how good does its top position player have to be?

The better a team's top position player is, the greater the chances it has of contending for a pennant on a regular basis. (For one thing, if the top position player has 32 win shares per year instead of 27, it can have a couple of position players with 27 to 31 win shares per year.)

If a team's top position player has just 23 or 24 win shares, then it needs at least two of the following three things to reach 90 wins:
(a) Four or five regulars with 20+ win shares; in other words, most of the team's position players have to be low-level All-Star-type players;
(b) A very deep bench that gets used often (the reserves make up for the starters); and
(c) An extremely strong pitching staff.

Getting two of these done is extremely hard, and there's no margin for error. That's why teams can't sustain a high level of performance if their best position player can't reach 25 wins. They can do it once in a while, but they can't do it twice over a short period.

A player with 24 win shares per year can't lead a team to 90 wins on a regular basis if he's the team's best position player. There are a few cases where a team can get 90 wins twice in a short period with its top player at 25 win shares, and several more with a top player at 26 win shares per year. However, it's when a player reaches 27 or 28 win shares per year that you can really feel comfortable having him as your best position player when you're building a 90-win team.

There have been teams that reached 90 wins on a regular basis with someone like Ralph Kiner as their best position player. Thus, Kiner was capable of leading a team into pennant contention on a regular basis if he were its best position player. The fact that the Pirates didn't give him the supporting cast is irrelevant to this claim; there were plenty of other teams which did reach 90 wins on a regular basis when their best player was someone who performed as well as Kiner played, and that's what matters.

I couldn't find any team between 1904 and 1960 whose best position player was someone like Sam Rice and which could win 90 games on a regular basis.

There were nine teams in the above time period which reached 90 games without any position players having 25 win shares. You can find the list at:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1263504

(Actually, in two of those nine cases, the person we would judge the "best" position player didn't lead the team in win shares because they missed over 50 games due to injuries; there were enough players of lower quality -- on a per-game basis -- to make up for the loss.)

The list is followed by a discussion on this issue.

---

For the record, I didn't bother looking at teams with fewer than 90 wins because they didn't meet the "if" part of a question. I didn't list everybody with at least 25 win shares on the teams I did look at, since I only wanted to know how good the "best position player" had to be.

jalbright

06-30-2009, 10:33 AM

I'd like to propose a new eligibility rule given that relief pitchers have started appearing on the ballots. I'm trying to get an idea of a fair IP requirement for a pitcher whose largest contribution was as a relief pitcher. I'm willing to go as low as 900 IP for relievers, which I think is fair.

Frankly, rather than looking at IP to deal with relievers, how about using relief appearances (G-GS) and use a minimum there--this way, you deal solely with relievers.

jjpm74

06-30-2009, 10:49 AM

I'd like to propose a new eligibility rule given that relief pitchers have started appearing on the ballots. I'm trying to get an idea of a fair IP requirement for a pitcher whose largest contribution was as a relief pitcher. I'm willing to go as low as 900 IP for relievers, which I think is fair.

For relief pitchers, it is easier to go by Games, Games finished, and later on, saves. Maybe set a basement for each of those 3 categories and any pitcher who meets any one of the 3 minimums gets a shot to appear on a ballot.

Paul Wendt

06-30-2009, 10:52 AM

A corner outfielder's defensive ability should not be judged against the defensive abilities of center fielders when determining the merit of his defensive play relative to other corner outfielders, which is what the HOF Marker tries to do. But even if you want to put corner outfielders on the same scale as center fielders, I do not agree that he lacked the ability to play the outfield as well as other center fielders. He may not have adjusted ideally to the specific playing conditions of center field, but not all great defensive corner outfielders make good defensive center fielders.
Matt,
I'm not sure whether you identify ability and merit and, by extension, how much you mean to argue about and vote for ability here. If distinct, does that "scale" for outfielders, or those two scales for corners and centers, weigh abilities or merit?

The problem with James' system is that he puts way too much weight (by default) on the guys who get time in center field because he puts too much weight on putouts without properly placing those putouts in the context of the minimum putout production one would expect for an outfielder at each position. The reason PCA gives more defensive credit to the corner outfield positions (relative to center) than win shares does (by default) is that PCA has a margin consistent with the shrinking spheres of influence for each level of the analysis.
What are these spheres and levels? Is outfield defense a level? Do you mean the shrinking scope for affecting the game, as one moves from center to corner outfield?

jalbright

06-30-2009, 10:57 AM

For relief pitchers, it is easier to go by Games, Games finished, and later on, saves. Maybe set a basement for each of those 3 categories and any pitcher who meets any one of the 3 minimums gets a shot to appear on a ballot.

I wouldn't worry too much about games. Going with a combination of games finished and/or saves works for me.

Paul Wendt

06-30-2009, 11:12 AM

...
I couldn't find any team between 1904 and 1960 whose best position player was someone like Sam Rice and which could win 90 games on a regular basis.

There were nine teams in the above time period which reached 90 games without any position players having 25 win shares. You can find the list at:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=1263769

(Actually, in two of those nine cases, the person we would judge the "best" position player didn't lead the team in win shares because they missed over 50 games due to injuries; there were enough players of lower quality -- on a per-game basis -- to make up for the loss.)

The list is followed by a discussion on this issue.
The given link goes to consideration of Sal Bando 1969-1973.

The cited list is several screens up at #1456 (or put "p=1263504" in that URL). The discussion is mainly between the two locations.

SABR Matt

06-30-2009, 11:32 AM

I can 100% agree with you there.

Though I still will argue that he was a great player. His greatness may not have been as valuable to his team as Roush's was at his peak, but Rice in say 1920 was a truely great, highly skilled, player. He posted a relative BA of 1.17 (in a league full of contact hitters), stole 63 bases, struck out just 23 times, and played a well above average CF. That's a great player in my book, but I know that's not the case for everyone due to his lack of walks and power.

Paul Waner's career by PCA;
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1928 NL 12.39 4.20 20.4 6.4 16.59
1927 NL 13.46 2.95 22.4 3.9 16.41
1936 NL 11.57 3.18 18.9 4.4 14.75
1934 NL 10.30 3.69 16.3 5.5 13.99
1926 NL 9.80 3.78 15.7 5.8 13.58
1929 NL 9.71 3.67 15.0 5.4 13.38
1932 NL 9.78 2.38 15.2 2.8 12.16
1931 NL 7.22 4.20 10.3 6.4 11.42
1930 NL 8.96 1.39 13.7 0.9 10.35
1937 NL 7.67 2.05 11.0 2.1 9.72
1933 NL 6.88 2.12 9.4 2.2 9.00
1935 NL 5.45 2.62 7.0 3.4 8.07
1939 NL 4.60 0.75 6.0 0.1 5.35
1938 NL 3.99 1.14 3.7 0.3 5.13
1941 NL 3.23 1.10 4.0 1.2 4.33
1943 NL 3.38 0.62 5.1 0.5 4.00
1942 NL 3.72 0.05 4.9 -1.0 3.77
1940 NL 2.18 0.26 2.7 0.1 2.44
1944 NL 1.27 0.18 1.5 0.0 1.45

No doubt about it, Waner was WAAAYYY better than Sam Rice...not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

Sockeye

06-30-2009, 08:56 PM

Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Joe Medwick
Arky Vaughan

JDD

06-30-2009, 09:24 PM

Some would want you to shave off eight games from these modern types and scale everyone back to 154 games.

mwiggins

07-01-2009, 11:03 AM

With 30 votes, it looks like the only suspense is whether Ducky can hold on. It will be interesting to see who will inspire debate going foward with Rice and Maranville now both off the ballot.

SavoyBG

07-01-2009, 11:50 AM

Jsquared83

07-01-2009, 12:05 PM

Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Joe Medwick
Arky Vaughan

Took another look at Johnson, much better #s than I originally thought. Definitely a HOF peak, just ashame he didnt start playing till 27. Can someone list how he stacks up to other HOF/borderline LFers?

DoubleX

07-01-2009, 12:22 PM

With 30 votes, it looks like the only suspense is whether Ducky can hold on. It will be interesting to see who will inspire debate going foward with Rice and Maranville now both off the ballot.

There are still players with plenty of eligibility left who have received good support but not much conversation. The conversation probably starts with Wes Ferrell and Lefty Gomez who are both currently at around 65%. After that, Wally Berger and Bob Johnson are around 50%, then there is Tommy Bridges, Kiki Cuyler, Chuck Klein, Ernie Lombardi all doing respectably enough that they could benefit from sustained conversation, though I would say only Ferrell and Gomez have a shot at getting to 75%.

mwiggins

07-01-2009, 12:28 PM

Took another look at Johnson, much better #s than I originally thought. Definitely a HOF peak, just ashame he didnt start playing till 27. Can someone list how he stacks up to other HOF/borderline LFers?

He didn't start playing in the AL until age 27, but he was a star in the almost major league PCL for 2+ years prior to that.

1931: 22 HR - .337 BA - .562 SLG
1932: 29 HR - .330 BA - .570 SLG

He was definitely ready for the majors before age 27, as his very strong rookie campaign proved.

BigRon

07-01-2009, 12:30 PM

I must be in a charitable mood today, since i feel like I've voted liberally.

In:
Berger- short but outstanding career
Wilson- I always struggle here- this time I put him over the line
Cuyler
Medwick
Vaughan- the easiest choice here
Ferrell- maybe the best of the pitchers I voted for
Gomez- being a Yankee helped him, he helped the Yankees
Grimes- sort of like Sam Rice, in a way- maybe a little more dominant, though not much

I did not vote for Sam Rice. Pretty tough call for me- he was a very good player for a long time. I guess there wasn't quite enough dominant performance to get my vote.

mwiggins

07-01-2009, 12:43 PM

There are still players with plenty of eligibility left who have received good support but not much conversation. The conversation probably starts with Wes Ferrell and Lefty Gomez who are both currently at around 65%. After that, Wally Berger and Bob Johnson are around 50%, then there is Tommy Bridges, Kiki Cuyler, Chuck Klein, Ernie Lombardi all doing respectably enough that they could benefit from sustained conversation, though I would say only Ferrell and Gomez have a shot at getting to 75%.

I don't know what's up with Ferrell. I don't remember anybody really arguing that he shouldn't be in. Numerous posters have made the point about how great his hitting was, which makes him a pretty slam dunk choice, but stuck in with the borderline guys like Grimes. People talk about wanting great seasons and a dominant peak, when the topic is Maranville or Rice, but Ferrell's dominant peak doesn't seem to be doing him any good. I mean, if you're going to vote for Dean or Vance, Ferrell should be a no-brainer. He's right there with Vance and Coveleski, a little bit above Dean and Ruffing, and a good ways above Cooper and McGinnity - and all of them are Hall of Famers.

Ace Venom

07-01-2009, 01:41 PM

I think Ferrell is being kept out by his 4.04 ERA and his 116 ERA+. That's the only explanation that I have. His hitting helps his case. The guy has the career home run record for a pitcher.

mwiggins

07-01-2009, 02:10 PM

I think Ferrell is being kept out by his 4.04 ERA and his 116 ERA+. That's the only explanation that I have. His hitting helps his case. The guy has the career home run record for a pitcher.

And the fact that he didn't get to 200 wins.

It's somewhat eye opening to compare Ferrell's big 1935 season to Dean's celebrated 1934 season.

Ferrell 1935: 25-14, 322 IP, 31 CG's, 134 ERA+, 3.25 DERA, 140 OPS+ (179 PA's). Finished 2nd in MVP. Led the league in Wins, CG's, IP. 5th in ERA+.

Dean 1934: 30-7, 312 IP, 24 CG's, 159 ERA+, 2.96 DERA, 53 OPS+ (126 PA's). Won MVP. Led league in Wins, Winning %, K's, and Shutouts. 3rd in K/BB and ERA+ and WHIP.

And Ferrell's 1930 and 1931 seasons were nearly as great as his 1935 season. Certainly Dean deserves some allowance for the fact that his peak was cut short by injury, but in terms of what they actually did on the field Ferrell's big years are right there with Dean's. And Dean was elected fairly easily on the strength of those big seasons. I won't argue that Ferrell was the better pitcher at his peak, that's absurd, but Dean wasn't one of the best hitters in the league either. Ferrell was during two of his three big seasons.

Domenic

07-01-2009, 02:29 PM

I think how well Ferrell did on mostly mediocre teams is a credit to his overall greatness, as well - his career winning percentage is .601, compared to his teams' .517 mark.

Ace Venom

07-02-2009, 08:23 AM

jjpm74

07-02-2009, 09:43 AM

It'll be interesting to see what kind of support Dixie Walker gets. He certainly fashioned what would be a borderline HOF career, being a 4 time all-star, who factored in in the MVP voting 8 times and posted a 121 OPS+ for a career where he was also an excellent defensive outfielder. His one smudge was his request to be traded when integration began, but that should be a non issue from a 1954 standpoint. His black and gray ink are up there. His CWS is 278 and his WARP3 is 52.6.

Here's his peak:

22-23-33-28-27-23

Best 3:

33-28-27

Best 5:

33-28-27-26-23

DWS: B

Back Ink: 9

Gray Ink: 126

MVP Shares: 1.47

Unlike Sam Rice who is expiring this year on the ballot, Dixie Walker has a high peak, including 3 seasons well above the marker AG2004 discussed earlier in this thread. He was also a much better fielder than Sam Rice. He will have my vote next year.

PVNICK

07-02-2009, 09:51 AM

My issue with Dixie would be that his best years were 41-47 with his arguably best seasons 42-46.

jjpm74

07-02-2009, 09:58 AM

My issue with Dixie would be that his best years were 41-47 with his arguably best seasons 42-46.

Should we punish every player who played during the war years? Stan Musial played in 42, 43 and 44. What should his discount be? Ted Williams played in 42 and 46. How about him? Joe DiMaggio, Luke Appling, Enos Slaughter, Bobby Doerr, Vern Stephens, Charlie Keller, Bob Johnson, Joe Medwick. Stan Hack, Mel Ott also played some of those years. Vern Stephens, Joe Medwick, Bob Johnson, Stan Hack and Mel Ott played every season from 42-46. Doerr only missed 1945.

mwiggins

07-02-2009, 10:05 AM

He was also a much better fielder than Sam Rice.

Where are you getting that from?

One good thing to remember about Walker when you look at his stats and notice he only had 7500 or so PA's is that he was stuck in the Yankee's organization early in his career and didn't get a chance to play regularly until age 26 when White Sox picked him up after the Yankees put him on waivers. He made the team in 1933, and played very well (123 OPS+ in 98 games) in CF, but hurt his shoulder. That injury hampered him the next couple of seasons, he wasn't able to get any playing time, and McCarthy finally gave up on him.

To me that more than offsets the fact that his best year was in 1944. Though I don't know if he'll get my vote.

Paul Wendt

07-02-2009, 10:21 AM

Here's who I have eligible for the first time in 1954.

... Jeff Heath ...
Jeff Heath was a great batter with an ugly side, or more than a side. It's said that he pounded nails into his old bats, or broke them, so the black rookie Willard Brown couldn't use them.

Here is one place that is partly "said", from his "Bullpen" entry at Baseball-Reference:
According to an story related by Buck O'Neil in Joe Posnanski's book The Soul of Baseball, Heath was upset that Beowns teammate Willard Brown had used his bat to hit an inside-the-park home run and deliberately broke it, so Brown, one of the first African-American players in the major leagues, could not use it again.

DoubleX

07-02-2009, 12:38 PM

I don't know what's up with Ferrell. I don't remember anybody really arguing that he shouldn't be in. Numerous posters have made the point about how great his hitting was, which makes him a pretty slam dunk choice, but stuck in with the borderline guys like Grimes. People talk about wanting great seasons and a dominant peak, when the topic is Maranville or Rice, but Ferrell's dominant peak doesn't seem to be doing him any good. I mean, if you're going to vote for Dean or Vance, Ferrell should be a no-brainer. He's right there with Vance and Coveleski, a little bit above Dean and Ruffing, and a good ways above Cooper and McGinnity - and all of them are Hall of Famers.

I think too much is made of Ferrell's hitting. It's a nice facet in his favor for sure, but I don't think makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. If he's right on the borderline for someone, the hitting could be the factor that pushes him in. But first and foremost, Ferrell was a pitcher, and it's by pitching standards that most judge him. I won't argue that he doesn't have an at least decent or debate-worthy case on his pitching alone, but I can see why someone would look at Ferrell and feel he doesn't have quite enough there. The first two things many people here are going to look at are ERA+ and IP, and a 116 ERA+ in 2,600 IP is good, but is not particularly compelling. Again, his hitting is an interesting aspect, but given that it too is a small sample size just 1345 plate appearances, it's probably not enough for some voter to make up his shortcomings as a pitcher, which is what he was.

This all being said, Ferrell is within reasonable striking distance where some good discussion could make a difference.

I've been mostly out of the loop the last couple of months - has there been much discussion about Lefty Gomez? He too is within reasonable striking distance, and I feel when players reach a certain level of support, they perhaps merit some added discussion.

DoubleX

07-02-2009, 12:44 PM

Here's who I have eligible for the first time in 1954.

Tiny Bonham
Mort Cooper
Elbie Fletcher
Augie Galan
Denny Galehouse
Jeff Heath
White Kurowski
Buddy Lewis
Elmer Riddle
Schoolboy Rowe
Rip Sewell
Clyde Shoun
Stan Spence
Dixie Walker
Taffy Wright

Pretty slim pickings next year. It's too bad guys like Sam Rice, Rabbit Maranville, Burleigh Grimes, and Eppa Rixey won't be around as such a lean year may have been a good opportunity for them.

1955 is a better year, the top candidates include:

Luke Appling
Joe Gordon
Tommy Henrich
Ken Keltner
Bucky Walters

I expect Appling will sail in and Gordon will have a good chance as well, though perhaps having to wait a few years. Walters will probably hang around and spark some discussion as well.

Ace Venom

07-02-2009, 12:49 PM

I expect Appling will sail in and Gordon will have a good chance as well, though perhaps having to wait a few years. Walters will probably hang around and spark some discussion as well.

Appling will get in. Gordon's not a slam dunk, but will have my support.

mwiggins

07-02-2009, 01:15 PM

The first two things many people here are going to look at are ERA+ and IP, and a 116 ERA+ in 2,600 IP is good, but is not particularly compelling.

This all being said, Ferrell is within reasonable striking distance where some good discussion could make a difference.

If that's all they're looking at, they're missing out. Ignoring his hitting is like ignoring a position player's defense.

Ferrell vs. some of our current HoFer's...

WS Top 3:
Dean - 37, 31, 31 (99)
Ferrell - 35, 32, 28 (95)
Vance - 36, 32, 26 (94)
Faber - 37, 31, 25 (93)
Coveleski - 32, 29, 29 (90)
Cooper - 31, 27, 27 (85)
Lyons - 30, 26, 23 (79)
Ruffing - 27, 25, 24 (76)
Rixey - 26, 26, 24 (76)

His top peak years are right there with Dean and Vance, two guys who waltzed in on their strong peak. And he played in a better league than those two did.

Career Win Shares:
Ruffing - 322
Rixey - 315
Lyons - 311
Faber - 292
Cooper - 266
Coveleski - 245
Vance - 241
Ferrell - 233
Dean - 181

Career value he's right there with Vance and Coveleski, and far ahead of Dean. The guys who outstrip him in this category are all ones with a peak inferior to Ferrell's.

WARP1:
Lyons - 93.9
Ruffing - 88.1
Rixey - 80.0
Vance - 75.1
Faber - 74.2
Ferrell - 72.6
Coveleski - 69.5
Cooper - 56.8
Dean - 55.8

Once again he's right there with everyone except for long career guys like Lyons, Ruffing, and Rixey - guys that can't compete with his peak.

Dean gets somewhat of a pass because of his injury shortened career, but Ferrell matches up very well with non-borderline pitchers in our Hall like Vance, Coveleski, and Faber. I think his main problem is that his main Hall case is based on his great peak, but he's not known as one of those great peak guys like Vance and Dean are. It's fairly easy for voters to overlook their total career value and IP since they have such a rep for great peaks.

Paul Wendt

07-02-2009, 04:00 PM

His top peak years are right there with Dean and Vance, two guys who waltzed in on their strong peak. And he played in a better league than those two did.
If he did, I don't believe the difference was significant.

There seems to be a consensus in favor of the American League in the 1910s and the 20-aughts; for the National League in the 1950s to 1980s.

In a classic study Dick Cramer estimated that the National League had been equally strong or stronger in average batting skill, often much stronger, essentially thruout the two-league history. That would have been 1901 to 1970-something, I think.
--but it is pitching skill alone that matters here!

SABR Matt

07-02-2009, 04:43 PM

Paul Wendt

07-02-2009, 05:15 PM

hear, hear!
We should have a "hark" smiley but I am forced to act younger than my age. :highfive:
(ok, it isn't the first time)

I would be voting for Medwick, but I voted for Fielder Jones and Roy Thomas on full ballots, and for Berger and Wilson recently (no longer voting annually). Medwick was a little bit greater than Cuyler and Manush, I think, and I would probably draw the line between them, but Medwick should not be on any small ballots.

jjpm74

07-02-2009, 05:41 PM

Where are you getting that from?

Dixie Walker is a B vs. Sam Rice's B- despite playing half his career in LF.

mwiggins

07-02-2009, 05:45 PM

I would just love to understand how the hell Joe Medwick is getting such strong support here...this I find completely bizarre. Basically two seasons wherein his hitting would qualify as HOF level in my book and then a whole string of blah.

He's getting support because most don't consider him to have had just two HOF level seasons.

Personally I'm suprised that you can be so down on Medwick, yet support Bob Johnson. I would take Johnson over Medwick, but I don't see a huge gap between them.

mwiggins

07-02-2009, 05:51 PM

Dixie Walker is a B vs. Sam Rice's B- despite playing half his career in LF.

Is that Win Shares? Dixie Walker didn't play half his career in LF. He played 249 games in LF, 312 in CF, and 1204 in RF. Compared to Rice's 47 games in LF, 601 in CF, and 1657 in RF.

BP rates them roughly the same, both slightly above average. Rice has a lot more FRAA, but he also had a longer career.

SABR Matt

07-02-2009, 06:43 PM

He's getting support because most don't consider him to have had just two HOF level seasons.

Personally I'm suprised that you can be so down on Medwick, yet support Bob Johnson. I would take Johnson over Medwick, but I don't see a huge gap between them.

One more time for education:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1937 NL 15.23 1.63 26.2 1.4 16.86
1936 NL 11.18 3.41 18.1 5.0 14.59
1935 NL 9.34 2.78 14.4 3.8 12.12
1939 NL 6.39 2.47 8.6 3.2 8.86
1934 NL 5.84 2.83 7.6 3.9 8.67
1938 NL 6.76 1.60 9.5 1.4 8.36
1941 NL 5.97 2.29 8.3 3.0 8.26
1940 NL 5.08 2.74 6.2 3.8 7.82
1933 NL 6.03 1.59 8.1 1.4 7.62
1944 NL 5.72 1.47 8.0 1.5 7.19
1942 NL 5.39 1.77 7.1 2.0 7.16
1943 NL 3.11 0.50 2.9 -0.2 3.61
1947 NL 1.69 0.72 2.3 1.1 2.41
1945 NL 1.22 0.83 0.4 0.9 2.05
1932 NL 1.48 0.17 2.3 -0.1 1.65
1946 NL 0.92 0.33 1.3 0.5 1.25

Two huge offensive years, one all-star level season below that...and then nothing but barely-average to slightly above average trail seasons. Color me unimpressed.

jjpm74

07-02-2009, 06:54 PM

Is that Win Shares? Dixie Walker didn't play half his career in LF. He played 249 games in LF, 312 in CF, and 1204 in RF. Compared to Rice's 47 games in LF, 601 in CF, and 1657 in RF.

BP rates them roughly the same, both slightly above average. Rice has a lot more FRAA, but he also had a longer career.

Yes, that's win shares. The fact that Walker was more or less a corner OF but scored a B defensively means to me that he was probably an excellent defensive outfielder. Add that to an impressive offensive career and that's just enough to make it onto my ballot next election.

jjpm74

07-02-2009, 06:59 PM

SABRMatt--could you post some info on the defensive ability of Dixie Walker? Was he a great fielder or does win shares overstate his ability?

AG2004

07-02-2009, 08:16 PM

I think too much is made of Ferrell's hitting. It's a nice facet in his favor for sure, but I don't think makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. . . . Again, his hitting is an interesting aspect, but given that it too is a small sample size just 1345 plate appearances, it's probably not enough for some voter to make up his shortcomings as a pitcher, which is what he was.

I've shown the calculations twice in previous elections: the difference between Ferrell and Vance in hitting is equal to 10 or 11 points of ERA+. (That didn't take into account that about 1/6 of his runs created at the plate came as an outfielder or pinch hitter.) The difference between an ERA+ of 116 and an ERA+ of 127 is a big difference. Those 1345 PAs are more than Dazzy Vance, Lefty Gomez, or Lon Warneke had; pitchers are going to have relatively low PA totals.

Ferrell finished among the top three AL pitchers in win shares six times, and his hitting had something to do with it. We can't pretend that pitchers don't go to the plate -- they do. What difference does it make if one pitcher gets more of his value from his hitting, and less from his throwing, than another, if both pitchers have the same value?

STLCards2

07-02-2009, 08:43 PM

I think too much is made of Ferrell's hitting. It's a nice facet in his favor for sure, but I don't think makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. .

This is one of the biggest mistakes that is made on BBF today. For guys like Ferrell, Ruffing, Caruthers, Lemon etc. - you are talking adding an extra 8-12 ERA+ points (if runs created were converted into runs prevented). How is that not a "big difference in the grand scheme of things." That is a huge difference. Think about all of the HOF pitchers who couldn't (or could barely) crack a 110 ERA- as pitchers for goodness sakes... Hunter, Pennock, Wynn, Chesbro, Marquard, Haines, Sutton ,Grimes, Hoyt. How many more non-hofers too, including Morris, Hershiser, and Gooden? That's right - Ferrell created more runs vs. average with his bat than these pitchers saved with their arms.

Guys like W. Johnson, Dysdale, Wynn, Mays and Gibson added on an extra 5-7 ERA+ points.

Even current guys like Glavine and Hampton in the DH/pitcher protection era added an extra 2-3 ERA+ points.

How can one say that it doesn't make a big difference?

As AG2004 said, a 127 ERA+ guy with a great peak and near 3,000 IP is well into generaly and sabermetricaly accepted HOF range.

mwiggins

07-02-2009, 08:51 PM

Two huge offensive years, one all-star level season below that...and then nothing but barely-average to slightly above average trail seasons. Color me unimpressed.

Which was the one all-star level season? '38? '39? '41?

SABR Matt

07-02-2009, 09:04 PM

DoubleX

07-02-2009, 10:49 PM

I've shown the calculations twice in previous elections: the difference between Ferrell and Vance in hitting is equal to 10 or 11 points of ERA+. (That didn't take into account that about 1/6 of his runs created at the plate came as an outfielder or pinch hitter.) The difference between an ERA+ of 116 and an ERA+ of 127 is a big difference. Those 1345 PAs are more than Dazzy Vance, Lefty Gomez, or Lon Warneke had; pitchers are going to have relatively low PA totals.

How did you figure it equates to 10 or 11 points of ERA+? That seems rather large considering the hitting sample size is pre tty small. I just don't see how 150-160 plate appearances a year at peak could translate into 10 or 11 points of career ERA+.

A pitcher's job is first and foremost to pitch, and I'd rather have the guy that is better and more consistently effective at that job and over a larger sample but may struggle in his few at bats.

Ferrell's hitting is a nice feature that helps his case, but he is a pitcher, and his 116 ERA+ in just 2600 IP doesn't get him close enough for me where his 1345 plate appearances pushes him over the line.

Paul Wendt

07-03-2009, 12:48 AM

How did you figure it equates to 10 or 11 points of ERA+? That seems rather large considering the hitting sample size is pre tty small. I just don't see how 150-160 plate appearances a year at peak could translate into 10 or 11 points of career ERA+.

A pitcher's job is first and foremost to pitch, and I'd rather have the guy that is better and more consistently effective at that job and over a larger sample but may struggle in his few at bats.

Ferrell's hitting is a nice feature that helps his case, but he is a pitcher, and his 116 ERA+ in just 2600 IP doesn't get him close enough for me where his 1345 plate appearances pushes him over the line.
I join you in disagreeing with some of the estimates posted here, but there is no problem of so-called sample size (which is a misnomer, too). During their pitcher games, starting pitchers all bat approximately in proportion to how much they pitch. ERA+ is a rate statistic; insofar as two pitchers excel equally at batting, by OPS+ or any other rate statistic, their batting excellence "translates into" equal proportional effects on ERA+.

It's a mistake to "weigh" a pitcher's batting in terms of counts such as plate appearances or runs created, when the point is "translation into" pitching in terms of rates such as ERA+.

It is not simple to put on the same scale those games played by career pitchers in other roles, such as outfielder or pinch hitter --132 games for Walter Johnson, 174 for Wes Ferrell, 4 for Mike Hampton. That part of a batting career should be assessed in comparison with average outfielders or average pinch-hitters, not in comparison with average pitchers. None of them since Bob Caruthers has been a skillful batter in comparison with the average outfielder and none since Joe Wood (career OPS+ 116) has been a skillful batter in comparison with average pinch-hitters. Here I mean none of them has maintained such levels for their careers. Some have done it during their peak seasons as batters.

SavoyBG

07-03-2009, 01:17 AM

I would just love to understand how the hell Joe Medwick is getting such strong support here...this I find completely bizarre. Basically two seasons wherein his hitting would qualify as HOF level in my book and then a whole string of blah.

Joe "Ducky" Medwick

I was once arguing with BJ about who was considered better at the time they were playing.....he said George Davis and I said Hughie Jennings. I made points about Jennings having better traditional stats, like runs scored, and like batting over .400 for a season, and that he played for the most famous team of the day while Davis was relatively unknown for a great player. Then I made the point that Jennings was voted into the hall of fame in 1945, while Davis never even got one vote back then. Bill then claimed that Jennings got into the hall of fame because he had a nickname.

A nickname, the key to making the hall of fame.

SABR Matt

07-03-2009, 03:10 AM

Well that's gotta be it SavoyBG...LOL...because the statistics don't make the case.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 07:02 AM

How did you figure it equates to 10 or 11 points of ERA+? That seems rather large considering the hitting sample size is pre tty small. I just don't see how 150-160 plate appearances a year at peak could translate into 10 or 11 points of career ERA+.

A pitcher's job is first and foremost to pitch, and I'd rather have the guy that is better and more consistently effective at that job and over a larger sample but may struggle in his few at bats.

Ferrell's hitting is a nice feature that helps his case, but he is a pitcher, and his 116 ERA+ in just 2600 IP doesn't get him close enough for me where his 1345 plate appearances pushes him over the line.

Even ignoring rate stats you can see how much his hitting helped his teams, compared to the normal weak pitcher. Esp in two of his great years when he was hitting like Al Simmons or Charlie Gehringer.

Using BP's Batting, Hitting, and Fielding Runs Above Replacement stats, just for the sake of a quick and dirty comparison. These are all career totals.

Ferrell: 523 PRAR, 51 BRAR, 21 FRAR (595)
Lyons: 801, -52, 31 (780)
Ruffing: 700, 27, 1 (728)
Vance: 689, -79, 11 (621)
Coveleski: 647, -91, 45 (601)
Dean: 493, -28, -5 (460)
Cooper: 516, -26, 4 (494)

He's off the mark a little bit, but still in the same territory as Vance and Coveleski. Now if we use Runs Above Average, which would reward his great peak, he looks even better.

Ferrell: 168 PRAA, 10 BRAA, 8 FRAA (186)
Vance: 308, -119, -7 (182)
Dean: 234, -55, -16 (163)
Lyons: 247, -111, 7 (143)
Coveleski: 286, -134, -18 (134)
Ruffing: 134, -39, -22 (73)
Cooper: 102, -71, -15 (16)

As you can see, he bests all of these HoF pitchers, even the ones that contributed much more with their arm than Wes.

Vance was CLEARLY a better pitcher than Ferrell, but even with their limted PA's, Ferrell's bat vs. Vance's bat can make a big difference for their respective teams.

Take Vance's great 1924 season vs. Ferrell's 1935 season. Vance, in 125 PA's, posted a batting line of .151/.231/.208 - good for an OPS+ of 20. He was an automatic out in the 9 spot. While Ferrell, in 179 PA's, posted a line of .347/.427/.533 - good for an OPS+ of 140. In other words, when Ferrell was pitching, he was the best hitter on his team by far. Among AL players with even 50 PA's that year, only 5 posted a better OPS+ than Ferrell did. So, even though Vance posted a much better ERA+ (174 vs. 140) (and ERA+ probably underrates how much better Vance was as a pitcher that year)in terms of overall value, his 1924 season was only a shade better than Ferrell's 1935 season.

leecemark

07-03-2009, 07:11 AM

How did you figure it equates to 10 or 11 points of ERA+? That seems rather large considering the hitting sample size is pre tty small. I just don't see how 150-160 plate appearances a year at peak could translate into 10 or 11 points of career ERA+.

A pitcher's job is first and foremost to pitch, and I'd rather have the guy that is better and more consistently effective at that job and over a larger sample but may struggle in his few at bats.

Ferrell's hitting is a nice feature that helps his case, but he is a pitcher, and his 116 ERA+ in just 2600 IP doesn't get him close enough for me where his 1345 plate appearances pushes him over the line.

--Pitching is obviously more important than batting when comparing pitchers, but pitching hitting is not and especially was not a trivial thing. Once upon a time a pitcher was expected to pitch a complete game if possible - or as close to it as his effectivness allowed in a particular game anyway. Teams weren't expecting to use 3 or 4 pitchers to complete the game and we not staffed to do so. A starting pitcher in Ferrell's day would typically bat 3-4 times in a game and the ability to make a contribution in those ABs had a significant effect on his teams chances to win.
--Wes Ferrell faced 11,565 batters as a pitcher and 1345 pitchers as a batter. That puts roughly 15% of his overal value to his team on his role as a batter. That he was able to make those appearances a positive contribution instead of the drag on team success that most pitchers were does make him a more valuable pitcher - or player whose position was pitcher if you prefer. Saying that pitcher batting is "just a bonus" asnd not really germane to their merit is the same as saying that firstbaseman are paid to hit and their defense doesn't really matter. Sure most of them make the vast majority of their contribution with the bat, but if you are Kieth Hernandez with the glove then that adds real value. Ferrell as a hitting pitcher is at least the equivilent of Hernandez as a defensive firstbaseman in that he was on a different level than most of his peers.

DoubleX

07-03-2009, 07:38 AM

STLCards2

07-03-2009, 08:01 AM

In the time I've been away, has this project come to the point where it's common to be comparing the players we're looking at to the likes of Keith Hernandez, Mike Hampton, and Tom Glavine?

Anyway, to make this simplistic, if I have two pitchers, one with a 130 ERA+ but can't hit, and the other with a 115 ERA+ but is a good hitter, I'm still going to take the better pitcher. For me, it's more important that the pitcher be better at pitching because how he performs in getting those 20+ outs a game and over 300 or so innings is more important to me than how he performs in 3-4 at bats a game and over 150 or so plate appearances. When I'm determining who I want to pitch, I want the player that is decidedly better and more effective at pitching.

If Ferrell was better purely on pitching, the hitting could make the difference for me, but again, a 116 ERA+ in 2600 IP just isn't enough to show he was good enough at the actually pitching aspect, his primary role, for the hitting to push him over the line for me.

EDIT: I also suspect that if teams and pitchers saw so much value in having good hitting pitchers (to the point where it could add 10-12 points of career ERA+), we would have seen more good hitting pitchers who weren't as good at the actual pitching. For instance, it would be ok to have a pitcher with a 95 ERA+ because his hitting would make it more like 105-110. If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen more hitting pitchers that weren't as good at pitching? Wouldn't there be less emphasis on pitching and more on hitting (relative to what is typical)? It seems to me that there is reason that having a pitcher be good at pitching is the primary concern - if good hitting really could make up for 10-12 points of ERA+, the pitching wouldn't matter so much and I think we would have seen that translate on the field.

It is becaue, like yourself, nobody sees the value in it. By the way - 10 ERA+ points in only 7 runs above average. It is more than plausable (even expected) that the greatest hitting pitchers of long ago created 7 more runs than the average pitcher - especialy when pitchers would get 120-130 PA's a season. That means they create an extra run offensively every 6th start. Wer'e not talking Babe Ruth here - but over a long seasons, it is significant. Over a long career, it is extremely important.

Pitching is of course their "main job." That doesn't mean what they produce offensively is not real, not helping their teams, or unimportant.

By the way - why the knock on Glavine and Henrnadez? Glavine is better than most all of the players on the poll, and Hernandez is better than a huge chunk of them too.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:04 AM

If Ferrell was better purely on pitching, the hitting could make the difference for me, but again, a 116 ERA+ in 2600 IP just isn't enough to show he was good enough at the actually pitching aspect, his primary role, for the hitting to push him over the line for me.

Yet, we have HoF pitchers who with a 116 ERA+ in 3500 IP, a 120 ERA+ in 3400 IP, a 127 ERA+ in 3100 IP, a 109 ERA+ in 4300 IP, and a 125 ERA+ in 3000 IP.

Say you had four pitchers:

Pitcher A: A terrible hitter (10 OPS+) with an ERA+ of 125 in 2966 IP
Pitcher B: A bad hitter (61 OPS+) with an ERA+ of 116 in 3480 IP
Pitcher C: A terrible hitter (9 OPS+) with an ERA+ of 127 in 3082 IP
Pitcher D: An average hitter (100 OPS+) with an ERA+ of 116 in 2623 IP

Both pitcher A & B & C are HoFer's. I don't see the difference in their pitching being so great that pitcher D's large hitting edge is rendered irrelevant. We're not saying his hitting makes him the equal of Pete Alexander or Ed Walsh. And even without his hitting, Ferrell's pitching - especially his peak pitching years - puts him into the borderline category.

Anyway, to make this simplistic, if I have two pitchers, one with a 130 ERA+ but can't hit, and the other with a 115 ERA+ but is a good hitter, I'm still going to take the better pitcher. For me, it's more important that the pitcher be better at pitching because how he performs in getting those 20+ outs a game and over 300 or so innings is more important to me than how he performs in 3-4 at bats a game and over 150 or so plate appearances. When I'm determining who I want to pitch, I want the player that is decidedly better and more effective at pitching.

I pretty much agree with that, but we're not talking about that large of an ERA+ differne between Ferrell and a number of current HoF pitchers.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:06 AM

By the way - why the knock on Glavine and Henrnadez? Glavine is better than most all of the players on the poll, and Hernandez is better than a huge chunk of them too.

It's not a knock against them, but we're in 1953 here. Glavine and Hernandez haven't even been born yet.

STLCards2

07-03-2009, 08:47 AM

It's not a knock against them, but we're in 1953 here. Glavine and Hernandez haven't even been born yet.

True, but I wasn't "comparing" them to any of the people in the poll. I was only using them as examples as how much hitting affects overall production today- clearly a whole lot less that it used too. but still enough over a long career that it shouln't be ignored.

AG2004

07-03-2009, 09:11 AM

How did you figure it equates to 10 or 11 points of ERA+? That seems rather large considering the hitting sample size is pre tty small. I just don't see how 150-160 plate appearances a year at peak could translate into 10 or 11 points of career ERA+.

I said that the difference between Wes Ferrell and Dazzy Vance, as hitters, equates to 10 to 11 points of ERA+. Here's how I obtained the figure:

We have 387 games in the field for Ferrell, and 548 overall. That's 161 games as a pinch-hitter. Throw in 3 or 4 PAs for each of the 13 OF appearances, and that's 39-52 more PAs. Let's say 200 total PAs for Ferrell as an OF or PH.

That means about 1145 of Ferrell's 1345 PAs came as a pitcher. That's about 85% of his overall PAs. Ferrell had 189 RCs with his bat; 85% of that is 161.

Dazzy Vance had 45 runs created. Baseball-reference has a stat called "AIR," which indicates the offensive context. Vance's 45 runs are equal to 48 RCs when we take AIR into account. (Ferrell's AIR is 116, Vance's is 108, and multiplying 45 by 116/108 gives us 48.)

The difference between Ferrell's hitting and Vance's comes to about 113 runs.
----
How does that translate into ERA+? Let's say that, instead of producing those 113 runs with his bat, Ferrell prevented them with his pitching instead.

Ferrell gave up 1177 earned runs during his career. Take away those 113 runs, and we get 1064 earned runs. Using Ferrell's IP totals, that produces an ERA of 3.65.

ERA+ is simply lgERA(adjusted for park), divided by ERA, times 100. Ferrell's 4.04 ERA and 116 ERA+ gives us a lgERA of 4.69. An ERA of 3.65 and a lgERA of 4.69 will give us an ERA+ of 128.

Due to rounding error, I decided to be conservative, and say the difference between Ferrell and Vance, as hitters, amounted to about 10 or 11 points of ERA+.

AG2004

07-03-2009, 09:54 AM

I also suspect that if teams and pitchers saw so much value in having good hitting pitchers (to the point where it could add 10-12 points of career ERA+), we would have seen more good hitting pitchers who weren't as good at the actual pitching.

I compared Ferrell to Vance, as Vance is a member of our Hall of Fame. Vance was a terrible hitter, even by the standards we apply to pitchers. The difference between Ferrell and an average-hitting pitcher will be somewhat less.

For instance, it would be ok to have a pitcher with a 95 ERA+ because his hitting would make it more like 105-110. If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen more hitting pitchers that weren't as good at pitching? Wouldn't there be less emphasis on pitching and more on hitting (relative to what is typical)? It seems to me that there is reason that having a pitcher be good at pitching is the primary concern - if good hitting really could make up for 10-12 points of ERA+, the pitching wouldn't matter so much and I think we would have seen that translate on the field.

How many pitchers are going to have an OPS+ of 100? George Uhle retired with an OPS+ of 86. Bob Lemon has an OPS+ of 95, and that's probably going to go down with age. Fred Hutchinson is a good hitter by standards of modern-day pitchers, and his OPS+ is just 75.

There aren't many people who can pitch well enough to get a 95 ERA+, and there aren't many people who can hit well enough to get an OPS+ of 95. This means that the number of people who can do both will be extremely small. You wouldn't get more of the type of player that you describe because they just aren't that many of them to begin with.

Paul Wendt

07-03-2009, 10:14 AM

That means about 1145 of Ferrell's 1345 PAs came as a pitcher. That's about 85% of his overall PAs. Ferrell had 189 RCs with his bat; 85% of that is 161.

Dazzy Vance had 45 runs created. Baseball-reference has a stat called "AIR," which indicates the offensive context. Vance's 45 runs are equal to 48 RCs when we take AIR into account. (Ferrell's AIR is 116, Vance's is 108, and multiplying 45 by 116/108 gives us 48.)

The difference between Ferrell's hitting and Vance's comes to about 113 runs.
----
How does that translate into ERA+? Let's say that, instead of producing those 113 runs with his bat, Ferrell prevented them with his pitching instead.

1.
In adjusting Ferrell's record for purpose of comparison with Vance, the reference AIR should be Vance's 108. Deflate Ferrell's 161 RC by 108/116 to 150 adjusted RC and take the difference from Vance's 45 RC, only 105 runs rather than 113. Right?

2.
Whichever side is the base for adjustment, the simple difference between two estimates of runs created (161-48=113, bold) is appropriate in the rest of the calculation only if the pitchers worked equal innings. Imagine if Ferrell produced those 161 or 150 runs as a batter while pitching double the number of innings that Vance pitched while producing 48 or 45 runs at bat! Or triple the playing time if comparing Jim Galvin and Jerome Dean.

Vance and Ferrell pitched roughly equal innings so this will make only another small difference in this case. --a small diff in favor of Ferrell, if I think correctly, but it's early and I'm hasty

3.
The estimate 1145 PA for Ferrell during his pitcher games is 0.44 PA per inning pitched, almost four per nine innings. During his 13 outfield games he made 10% more than average fielding plays (range factor per game 2.46, league 2.21). Therefore I suppose complete games played in the outfield and at least 4 PA per game, whereas the estimate 200 PA in non-pitcher roles rests on 3 PA per outfield game.

3b.
Walter Johnson also played the outfield in 13 games, with range factor about 2/3 of league average. It's plausible that he played only 6 innings on average, but I doubt it. I guess that he too played mainly complete games.

AG's method yields estimate 2347 PA for Johnson during his pitcher games, which is 0.40 per inning pitched, 3.57 per nine innings. AG estimates 3.93 for Ferrell, 10% more than I get for Johnson. My argument (3) would knock that difference down a little. Of course Ferrell's teams sent more batters to the plate than Johnson's did.

PVNICK

07-03-2009, 10:31 AM

Should we punish every player who played during the war years? Stan Musial played in 42, 43 and 44. What should his discount be? Ted Williams played in 42 and 46. How about him? Joe DiMaggio, Luke Appling, Enos Slaughter, Bobby Doerr, Vern Stephens, Charlie Keller, Bob Johnson, Joe Medwick. Stan Hack, Mel Ott also played some of those years. Vern Stephens, Joe Medwick, Bob Johnson, Stan Hack and Mel Ott played every season from 42-46. Doerr only missed 1945.

You missed the point. Almost everyone on the list did not have their peak almost exclusively in the war years. Do we want to annoint Snuffy Stirneweiss as well? Look at Walker's numbers he was average before the war at best and done by 1949.

leecemark

07-03-2009, 10:51 AM

EDIT: I also suspect that if teams and pitchers saw so much value in having good hitting pitchers (to the point where it could add 10-12 points of career ERA+), we would have seen more good hitting pitchers who weren't as good at the actual pitching. For instance, it would be ok to have a pitcher with a 95 ERA+ because his hitting would make it more like 105-110. If that were the case, wouldn't we have seen more hitting pitchers that weren't as good at pitching? Wouldn't there be less emphasis on pitching and more on hitting (relative to what is typical)? It seems to me that there is reason that having a pitcher be good at pitching is the primary concern - if good hitting really could make up for 10-12 points of ERA+, the pitching wouldn't matter so much and I think we would have seen that translate on the field.

--I think that there aren't enough players of sufficient skill on both sides of the ball to really make this an issue. As baseball has evolved players have been forced to specialize more and more in order to be major league quality at either pitching or hitting. If a guy has the talent to be a great pitcher he probably doesn't have the skill to be a great hitter. And if he DOES have the skill to do both he usually ends up playing everyday rather than pitching.
--Ferrell was a bit of an outlier in that he did have elite skills at both pitching and batting, but ended up a pitcher. I suspect he would have been something closer to his best seasons more often had he given up pitching in favor of the outfield or thirdbase or whatever. Then we'd be discussing him as a position player. As it is he is a borderline pitcher,who I probably wouldn't support had he not be anything special as a hitter. He was though and it adds enough to his case to make him a yes for me (not quite as good a pitcher as Bridges or Gomez, but a better overall candidate).

DoubleX

07-03-2009, 12:47 PM

There aren't many people who can pitch well enough to get a 95 ERA+, and there aren't many people who can hit well enough to get an OPS+ of 95. This means that the number of people who can do both will be extremely small. You wouldn't get more of the type of player that you describe because they just aren't that many of them to begin with.

But there may have been more if hitting from a pitcher was valued more greatly, and was so at the expense of better pitching. By this I mean, if a good hitting pitcher can make up in his relatively small hitting sample for what he might be lacking in pitching ability, why not develop more pitchers that way? I see three main ways this could manifest:

1) Pitchers could spend more time working on their hitting, at the expense of their pitching, and thus become better hitters but not as effective pitchers.

2) More mediocre pitchers who wouldn't normally cut it as pitchers could break through on account of having decent bats to make up for their pitching deficiency.

3) Teams might think to convert or focus players who exhibit talents at both hitting and pitching to pitching. To this juncture in history, there have been a number of players who showed some aptitude for both, but generally went to being a position player (Babe Ruth, Lefty O'Doul, Cy Seymour, Roger Bresnahan, Sam Rice, etc). My point here is that if there can be so much value from being a good hitting pitcher, perhaps at the expense of pitching ability, perhaps more of these players would have stayed with pitching because it would be more acceptable for them to be mediocre pitchers on account of their offense.

Anyway, I can see why you would compare Ferrell to Vance - the sample size is pretty similar and the ERA+ difference is within 10. Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference, but I'd rather have Vance, the better pitcher, pitching for me than Ferrell, because I'd rather have Vance's pitching ability for the 20+ outs I'll need him to get. Vance's peak as a pitcher is also much more striking than Ferrell's, and much more indicative of Hall of Fame pitching talent, though Ferrell was likely more consistent.

EDIT: I'll say that this has all served for me to move Ferrell closer, but there's still not quite enough actual pitching substance for him to get there.

AG2004

07-03-2009, 07:58 PM

1.
In adjusting Ferrell's record for purpose of comparison with Vance, the reference AIR should be Vance's 108. Deflate Ferrell's 161 RC by 108/116 to 150 adjusted RC and take the difference from Vance's 45 RC, only 105 runs rather than 113. Right?

105 runs would be the difference -- if Ferrell had been hitting and pitching in Vance's context. Had Wes been playing in Vance's time, he wouldn't have created as many runs, but he wouldn't have given up as many earned runs, either. His earned runs would then have to be multiplied by 108/116.

I multiplied Vance's 45 RC by 116/108 to determine what his bat would have produced in Ferrell's time. This way, I saved an extra recalculation of Ferrell's ERA.

2.
Whichever side is the base for adjustment, the simple difference between two estimates of runs created (161-48=113, bold) is appropriate in the rest of the calculation only if the pitchers worked equal innings. . . .

Vance and Ferrell pitched roughly equal innings so this will make only another small difference in this case. --a small diff in favor of Ferrell, if I think correctly, but it's early and I'm hasty

Vance had 1112 PAs, so Ferrell (as a pitcher) and Vance came to the plate about an equal number of times. The difference in PAs comes down to 33, or, if we use 4 PAs per outfield appearance, 20.

Multiply Vance's era-adjusted RC by the difference in PAs (say, 1143/1112), and we get 49 or 50 runs created. This makes a difference of about 111 runs created.

The problem here is that, if Ferrell had been as poor a hitter as Vance, he would have been pinch-hit for some of the time, and his IP totals would go down as a result.

AG's method yields estimate 2347 PA for Johnson during his pitcher games, which is 0.40 per inning pitched, 3.57 per nine innings. AG estimates 3.93 for Ferrell, 10% more than I get for Johnson. My argument (3) would knock that difference down a little. Of course Ferrell's teams sent more batters to the plate than Johnson's did.

At 4 PA per game for Ferrell's outfield games, and redoing all the other computations, we get a difference of about 110 runs created at the plate between his production and what his production would have been had he been hitting at Vance's rate (without any change in Ferrell's PA totals).

Taking those 110 runs away from Ferrell's earned run totals would still give him an ERA+ of about 128.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:09 PM

We have 387 games in the field for Ferrell, and 548 overall. That's 161 games as a pinch-hitter. Throw in 3 or 4 PAs for each of the 13 OF appearances, and that's 39-52 more PAs. Let's say 200 total PAs for Ferrell as an OF or PH.

That means about 1145 of Ferrell's 1345 PAs came as a pitcher. That's about 85% of his overall PAs. Ferrell had 189 RCs with his bat; 85% of that is 161.

Why do you guys only look at his PA's as a pitcher? Shouldn't we be evaluating him as an overall player, in this area, rather than just as a pitcher?

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:23 PM

Anyway, I can see why you would compare Ferrell to Vance - the sample size is pretty similar and the ERA+ difference is within 10. Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference, but I'd rather have Vance, the better pitcher, pitching for me than Ferrell, because I'd rather have Vance's pitching ability for the 20+ outs I'll need him to get. Vance's peak as a pitcher is also much more striking than Ferrell's, and much more indicative of Hall of Fame pitching talent, though Ferrell was likely more consistent.

I agree with you on Vance. But Ferrell doesn't need to match Vance to be HoF worthy. Vance is arguably the best NL pitcher this century outside of Matty and Alexander.

To me the comparison that should get him in is vs. Coveleski. Coveleski had more IP, but he also pitched part of his career in the Deadball Era. Ferrell led the league in innings 3 times, and had 3 other top 5 finishes. Coveleski had 5 top 5 finishes, but never was higher than 3rd in IP. To me, the difference in their eras goes a long way toward erasing Coveleski's 459 career IP advantage.

So then you have Coveleski with a career ERA+ of 127, vs. Ferrell's 116. But Ferrell's OPS+ was 100, vs. 9 for Coveleski. I'm not saying Ferrell is as Hall worthy as Coveleski, but there's not much difference between them IMO. I would think any voters that don't feel Coveleski is a bottom of the barrell HoFer would at least strongly consider Ferrell.

Brad Harris

07-03-2009, 08:33 PM

Vance is arguably the best NL pitcher this century outside of Matty and Alexander...
...and Seaver
...and Spahn
...and Maddux
...and Hubbell
...and Gibson
...and possibly Marichal
...or Perry
...or Niekro
...or Roberts
...etc.

AG2004

07-03-2009, 08:43 PM

But there may have been more if hitting from a pitcher was valued more greatly, and was so at the expense of better pitching. By this I mean, if a good hitting pitcher can make up in his relatively small hitting sample for what he might be lacking in pitching ability, why not develop more pitchers that way? I see three main ways this could manifest:

1) Pitchers could spend more time working on their hitting, at the expense of their pitching, and thus become better hitters but not as effective pitchers.

Vance's OPS+ was 10; Ferrell's, 100. That 90-point difference in OPS+ works out to about a 10- or 11-point difference in ERA+.

In other words, a difference in 1 point in ERA+ would correspond to a difference in 8 or 9 points in OPS+. It would probably be more time-effective to work on pitching instead of hitting.

2) More mediocre pitchers who wouldn't normally cut it as pitchers could break through on account of having decent bats to make up for their pitching deficiency.

How many such pitchers are there? Let's say the typical pitcher would have an OPS+ of 30. If we were to find someone with an OPS+ of 90, he would still have to have an ERA+ of 94 just to be equal in value to the average pitcher. How many people are there who could manage that?

3) Teams might think to convert or focus players who exhibit talents at both hitting and pitching to pitching. To this juncture in history, there have been a number of players who showed some aptitude for both, but generally went to being a position player (Babe Ruth, Lefty O'Doul, Cy Seymour, Roger Bresnahan, Sam Rice, etc). My point here is that if there can be so much value from being a good hitting pitcher, perhaps at the expense of pitching ability, perhaps more of these players would have stayed with pitching because it would be more acceptable for them to be mediocre pitchers on account of their offense.

Lefty O'Doul wasn't that good of a pitcher. As his OPS+ during his pitching days was just 22, his hitting didn't help that much. Once Cy Seymour's arm went, his hitting couldn't help; even with an OPS+ of 83, his pitching was so poor that he still wouldn't have been worth the equivalent of an average-hitting pitcher with an ERA+ of 60.

Bob Lemon did go from being a potential position player to being a pitcher. However, as I noted above, even having an OPS+ around 80 won't be enough to turn a mediocre pitcher into an All-Star; it's only worth about 5 points of ERA+ compared to the average pitcher. Ferrell made up so much ground on Vance partly because Vance, even by the standards of pitchers, was a terrible hitter; he wouldn't have made up as much ground if I had compared him to an average-hitting pitcher.

Besides, there's a good reason why more players would go from pitcher to position player than vice versa. As a position player, you get to play every day.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:44 PM

...and Seaver
...and Spahn
...and Maddux
...and Hubbell
...and Gibson
...and possibly Marichal
...or Perry
...or Niekro
...or Roberts
...etc.

Yeah, forgot about Hubbell. 4th best, I guess. Spahn and Roberts may well be on their way, but they've got a ways to go before they match Vance.

mwiggins

07-03-2009, 08:48 PM

Besides, there's a good reason why more players would go from pitcher to position player than vice versa. As a position player, you get to play every day.

And you get to concentrate much more on your hitting and take better advantage of your natural talent at the plate.

Take Joe Wood. Always a strong hitter, but during his career was a pitcher, his OPS+ was 92. After he went to Cleveland and switched to outfield his OPS+ was 116.

AG2004

07-03-2009, 08:51 PM

Why do you guys only look at his PA's as a pitcher? Shouldn't we be evaluating him as an overall player, in this area, rather than just as a pitcher?

I wanted to see how much difference his hitting was worth in terms of ERA. Thus, one extra run created with his bat while he was pitching would be worth the same as one extra run saved while he was on the mound.

I can't make a similar shift for the runs he created while he was playing the outfield or pinch-hitting, simply because he wouldn't have been able to save a run with his pitching at those times. His OF play and pinch-hitting aren't part of his value as a pitcher, but they are part of his total value.

AG2004

07-05-2009, 07:45 AM

None of those.

1937 and 1936 were HOF seasons, 1935 was an all-star season and none of the rest belong in a HOF-related thread. Do you guys have difficulty interpreting the tables I give you or are you just choosing not to believe even the hitting statistics, which show a rather paltry career by HOF standards.

According to the win shares method, 1935, 1936, and 1937 were MVP-candidate-type seasons. The method indicates Medwick had 9 All-Star-type seasons overall (each year from 1933 to 1939, as well as 1941 and 1942), falling just short in 1940 with 19 win shares.

Your tables indicate that Medwick had just three seasons with at least 7 offensive wins, and that Sam Rice had just two. Sam Rice's best single-season OPS+ was 123; Medwick had nine seasons with higher OPS+ marks than that. How do over half of those seasons come out as being worse than Rice's second-best offensive season?

I don't have trouble interpreting the tables. However, I do have trouble reconciling them with the OPS+ numbers for the two players. For now, I prefer win shares to PCA.

AG2004

07-05-2009, 07:50 AM

My ballot:

Wally Berger
Wes Ferrell
Burleigh Grimes
Joe Medwick
Arky Vaughan

Grimes led NL pitchers in win shares once, and was second four other times. He wasn't a consistent pitcher, but all those great seasons should push him in.

Senor Octobre

07-05-2009, 09:43 AM

Hmmm. Looks like Grimes might sneak in. As I said before, I regret not voting for him.

jjpm74

07-05-2009, 09:45 AM

You missed the point. Almost everyone on the list did not have their peak almost exclusively in the war years. Do we want to annoint Snuffy Stirneweiss as well? Look at Walker's numbers he was average before the war at best and done by 1949.

Dixie Walker's seasons at or over 20 win shares:

1937 20
1940 22
1942 26
1943 22
1944 33
1945 28
1946 27
1947 23

1943 and 1944 were the only years where the league was depleted of many of the stars I listed earlier. Walker's best years came in 1944, 1945, 1946. By 1946 everyone was back and playing.

It's silly to even bring up Snuffy. He barely played 10 seasons and was a full time player only 4 of those.

jjpm74

07-05-2009, 09:48 AM

Hmmm. Looks like Grimes might sneak in. As I said before, I regret not voting for him.

If there are 2 more voters who come in and both vote for him, he's in. If not, I'd be surprised if he didn't get in via the VC.

SABR Matt

07-05-2009, 11:26 AM

According to the win shares method, 1935, 1936, and 1937 were MVP-candidate-type seasons. The method indicates Medwick had 9 All-Star-type seasons overall (each year from 1933 to 1939, as well as 1941 and 1942), falling just short in 1940 with 19 win shares.

Your tables indicate that Medwick had just three seasons with at least 7 offensive wins, and that Sam Rice had just two. Sam Rice's best single-season OPS+ was 123; Medwick had nine seasons with higher OPS+ marks than that. How do over half of those seasons come out as being worse than Rice's second-best offensive season?

I don't have trouble interpreting the tables. However, I do have trouble reconciling them with the OPS+ numbers for the two players. For now, I prefer win shares to PCA.

That's what happens when you completely ignore defense or trust a defensive system that catastrophically underestimates the importance of the corner outfield positions.

AG2004

07-05-2009, 03:37 PM

That's what happens when you completely ignore defense or trust a defensive system that catastrophically underestimates the importance of the corner outfield positions.

I don't see how defense is relevant to the question I asked.

I noted that:
(1) Joe Medwick had nine seasons with an OPS+ higher than Sam Rice's single-season best of 123;
(2) PCA credits Rice with two seasons of more than 7 offensive wins; and
(3) According to PCA, Medwick has just three seasons with over 7 offensive wins.

What happened in all of those other years when Medwick had an OPS+ higher than 123? PCA claims that, in a majority of the years when Medwick's OPS+ was higher than Sam Rice's single-season high, Medwick had fewer offensive wins than Rice had in his second-best season.

That was why I had trouble reconciling your PCA tables for Medwick and Rice with the OPS+ numbers. It came down to the number of offensive wins for each player; defense did not figure into this apparent discrepancy at all.

RyanExpress30

07-05-2009, 08:02 PM

I always thought of Medwick as an obvious Hall of Famer even being an average defensive left-fielder.

SABR Matt

07-05-2009, 09:19 PM

I don't see how defense is relevant to the question I asked.

I noted that:
(1) Joe Medwick had nine seasons with an OPS+ higher than Sam Rice's single-season best of 123;
(2) PCA credits Rice with two seasons of more than 7 offensive wins; and
(3) According to PCA, Medwick has just three seasons with over 7 offensive wins.

What happened in all of those other years when Medwick had an OPS+ higher than 123? PCA claims that, in a majority of the years when Medwick's OPS+ was higher than Sam Rice's single-season high, Medwick had fewer offensive wins than Rice had in his second-best season.

That was why I had trouble reconciling your PCA tables for Medwick and Rice with the OPS+ numbers. It came down to the number of offensive wins for each player; defense did not figure into this apparent discrepancy at all.

Ah...well let's look at that, shall we/ What could PCA be seeing that OPS+ does not?

First and foremost...Sam Rice was a very gifted baserunner for a time when baserunning was far less common. Joe Medwick didn't run at all. The stolen bases account for significant runs produced by Rice that OPS+ will completely miss. Second, Medwick's OPS+ was driven less by the on base part and more by the slugging part (compared to Rice) and as such, Rice is consistently underrated offensively by OPS+ (because OBP is 1.8 times more important in run production than SLG). Third, PCA has a slightly higher park factor for St. Louis than the multi-year park factor used in OPS+ claculations ta B-Ref...in otherwords, Medwick's baseline for run production is higher than B-Ref estimates if you use James-style weighted park factors that account for park HR factor and park in play factor separately. The difference is minor but worth noting.

Ubiquitous

07-06-2009, 07:39 AM

Sam Rice was a gifted baserunner? How can one tell that Sam Rice is a gifted base runner based on the numbers?

Except for one year he usually stole around 20 bases a year and got caught 8 to 10 times a year, again except for one year. How valuable is a stolen base? I'd rather have him hit the double or homer that Medwick did than steal the occasional base.

As for OBP Sam Rice was 5.6% better than a league average hitter and Medwick was 5.5% better. Even if we say that Medwick's number should be adjusted adjusted slightly more as you say, the gap isn't that great. If Rice is consistently underrated because of his OBP in OPS+ then so is Medwick. Plus the difference in OBP doesn't not even come close to the vast difference the two had in SLG. Rice was 6.75% better than a league average hitter in regards to SLG and Medwick was 28.5% better than average. Home runs are better than a single and a steal.

AG2004

07-06-2009, 09:02 AM

Ah...well let's look at that, shall we/ What could PCA be seeing that OPS+ does not?

First and foremost...Sam Rice was a very gifted baserunner for a time when baserunning was far less common. Joe Medwick didn't run at all. The stolen bases account for significant runs produced by Rice that OPS+ will completely miss.

I'm having a hard time believing that Rice was producing a significant number of runs with those stolen bases.

In 1920, Rice led the league in stolen bases, with 63. He also led the league in caught stealing, with 30. A successful stolen base increases expected runs scored by .20, while an unsuccessful attempt decreases expected runs by .35. All that stealing resulted in an increase of 2.1 expected runs. The AL averaged 4.76 runs/game. Those bases weren't worth an entire win.

1921? 26 stolen bases, and 12 times caught. That's a net increase of 1 run. He had 24 stolen bases in 1924, but the 13 unsuccessful times resulted in an increase of .25 runs expected.

Rice's efficiency was too low for his stolen bases to have much of a positive impact.

Second, Medwick's OPS+ was driven less by the on base part and more by the slugging part (compared to Rice) and as such, Rice is consistently underrated offensively by OPS+ (because OBP is 1.8 times more important in run production than SLG).

Ubiquitous mentioned that Rice's career OBP, compared to context, is almost exactly the same as Medwick's career OBP, compared to context. On a season-by-season basis, Rice's OBP, divided by league OBP, was usually in the 105 to 111 range. In the Medwick's post-1937 high-OPS+ seasons, his OBP, divided by league OBP, was also in the 105 to 111 range. Since Medwick's slugging was significantly better than Rice's, those seasons should have produced more offensive wins than Rice had in his second-best seasons. So what happened in the PCA analysis?

Third, PCA has a slightly higher park factor for St. Louis than the multi-year park factor used in OPS+ claculations ta B-Ref...in otherwords, Medwick's baseline for run production is higher than B-Ref estimates if you use James-style weighted park factors that account for park HR factor and park in play factor separately. The difference is minor but worth noting.

How large is the difference? Since I don't know the formulas used for PCA, I don't know if the method overestimated the baseline.

I prefer win shares to TPR because any rating system that sets "average" as the baseline leads to troublesome consequences when we compare careers of different lengths. I prefer win shares to WARP3 because the win shares formula has been published. Thus, while I don't know what WARP3's weaknesses are, and can't adjust for them, I can adjust for shortcomings in the win shares system. (If PCA rates players on offense based on how they do compared to an across-the-league average, but rates defense based only on comparisons to other fielders at a player's position, that's a major problem for me.) I don't know where the weaknesses in PCA are, so I'll stick with the win shares system for now.

Paul Wendt

07-06-2009, 10:17 AM

As for OBP Sam Rice was 5.6% better than a league average hitter and Medwick was 5.5% better. Even if we say that Medwick's number should be adjusted adjusted slightly more as you say, the gap isn't that great. If Rice is consistently underrated because of his OBP in OPS+ then so is Medwick.
No, because relative underrating by OPS+ is caused by relatively higher standing in onbase average relative to slugging average --as for Rice relative to Medwick.
(Consistent underrating by OPS+ would be caused by consistently higher standing in onbase average relative to slugging average --a player whose onbase and slugging performance is further out to the onbase end of the spectrum than anyone else.)

For simple numerical example that roughly fit Medwick and Rice:

Suppose two players are equal by relative onbase average, meaning equally above or equally below their reference levels. One is 20% better than the other by relative slugging average. By OPS+ the difference between them is 10% where properly weighted estimates of their productivity would make the difference 7 or 8%.

AG2004

07-06-2009, 10:36 AM

For simple numerical example that roughly fit Medwick and Rice:

Suppose two players are equal by relative onbase average, meaning equally above or equally below their reference levels. One is 20% better than the other by relative slugging average. By OPS+ the difference between them is 10% where properly weighted estimates of their productivity would make the difference 7 or 8%.

In that case, the person with the higher slugging average should still have higher offensive productivity. PCA is still giving us a bunch of seasons where Medwick was roughly equivalent to Rice on relative OBP, noticably superior to Rice in slugging, and still less productive, in terms of offensive wins, than Rice. As noted above, Rice's stolen bases weren't creating a lot of runs. So where is the difference coming from?

jjpm74

07-06-2009, 11:47 AM

I am surprised Duckey got in his first year on the ballot by a sizable margin. I've always considered him a HOFer in the vein of Joe Kelley who struggled before eventually getting in.

mwiggins

07-06-2009, 11:49 AM

In that case, the person with the higher slugging average should still have higher offensive productivity. PCA is still giving us a bunch of seasons where Medwick was roughly equivalent to Rice on relative OBP, noticably superior to Rice in slugging, and still less productive, in terms of offensive wins, than Rice. As noted above, Rice's stolen bases weren't creating a lot of runs. So where is the difference coming from?

Some of it's probably in-season durability. Medwick played only 133 games in 1941 when he posted a 142 OPS+, and played only 128 games in 1944 when he posted a 132 OPS+. He also played less than 150 games in 1938 and 1940.

And I wonder how much, if any, PCA credits Rice for his non-basestealing baserunning. From everything I've read, he was certainly a better baserunner than Medwick, probably far better.

mwiggins

07-06-2009, 11:52 AM

I am surprised Duckey got in his first year on the ballot by a sizable margin. I've always considered him a HOFer in the vein of Joe Kelley who struggled before eventually getting in.

Well, both traditional stats and Win Shares support him, so he was drawing votes from both sides of the fence. And he was a historical rep as a great player, so he would be an easy selection for a casual voter.

Ubiquitous

07-06-2009, 01:02 PM

No, because relative underrating by OPS+ is caused by relatively higher standing in onbase average relative to slugging average --as for Rice relative to Medwick.
(Consistent underrating by OPS+ would be caused by consistently higher standing in onbase average relative to slugging average --a player whose onbase and slugging performance is further out to the onbase end of the spectrum than anyone else.)

For simple numerical example that roughly fit Medwick and Rice:

Suppose two players are equal by relative onbase average, meaning equally above or equally below their reference levels. One is 20% better than the other by relative slugging average. By OPS+ the difference between them is 10% where properly weighted estimates of their productivity would make the difference 7 or 8%.

But that isn't what is happening in Matt's contraption. You have two players that are roughly equal in OBP but one is significantly better at SLG yet the two of them are coming out equal in his contraption (non peak seasons).

SABR Matt

07-06-2009, 07:52 PM

Just to be clear, Medwick's career offensive PCA-BA is .300 and Rice's PCA-BA is .289. PCA is seeing that Medwick was, on average a better hitter and the difference isn't that small. But Medwick couldn't stay in the line-up in many of his high OPS+ seasons which kills his total value compared to Rice.

PCA may be slightly overrating the net value of Rice's steals, a known minor bias in the system for guys with extremely large SB attempt figures, however, I treat that as a small problem because I believe that in the vast majority of cases, a high-volume baserunner will be getting that value back by going first to third more often, second to home more oftem, first to home more often...these things don't get picked up by traditional metrics.

Ubi is wrong, however...although Rice and Medwick are relatively equal in OBP proficiency, OPS+ overestimates the value of the SLG component so there is a consistently low bias for Rice even though that won't make Rice into a better overall hitter (of course PCA doesn't make Rice into a better overall hitter either).

Ubiquitous

07-06-2009, 08:13 PM

Ubi is wrong, however...although Rice and Medwick are relatively equal in OBP proficiency, OPS+ overestimates the value of the SLG component so there is a consistently low bias for Rice even though that won't make Rice into a better overall hitter (of course PCA doesn't make Rice into a better overall hitter either).

In a case between two players with about equal relative OBP the distortion caused by SLG is going to be small and will not explain the fact that your PCA made Rice equal to Medwick (non peak season). The initial three reasons you gave for this were wrong, or I should say were minor reasons for some runs. The best reason so far is MWiggins' durability issue and that might not even really explain it either. According to PCA Joe was worth 6.4 wins in 1939. He played 150 games that year and had a 131 OPS+. Sam Rice in 1924 had 6.4 wins on offense as well. He played in 154 games and had a 115 OPS+. Sam stole 24 bases and was caught 13 times. That year Joe Medwick was 7.3% better than a league average hitter in terms of OBP. Sam was only 5.2% better than league average. In this case the disparity between the two should have grown not shrunk.

Sam Rice did not try to steal a lot of bases (except for one year), wasn't especially gifted in doing so, none of the stats you use to formulate PCA is going to show Sam Rice as a "gifted baserunner", stealing or otherwise, the OBP issue is minor, and the park factor issue is minor.

bambambaseball

07-06-2009, 09:52 PM

I cant believe Sam Rice and Burliegh Grimes didnt make it. Thats insane!!!:crazy:crazy:crazy:crazy:crazy:crazy:craz y:crazy:crazy:crazy:crazy

SavoyBG

07-06-2009, 10:22 PM

Just to be clear, Medwick's career offensive PCA-BA is .300 and Rice's PCA-BA is .289. PCA is seeing that Medwick was, on average a better hitter and the difference isn't that small. But Medwick couldn't stay in the line-up in many of his high OPS+ seasons which kills his total value compared to Rice.

PCA may be slightly overrating the net value of Rice's steals, a known minor bias in the system for guys with extremely large SB attempt figures, however, I treat that as a small problem because I believe that in the vast majority of cases, a high-volume baserunner will be getting that value back by going first to third more often, second to home more oftem, first to home more often...these things don't get picked up by traditional metrics.

And he will also get picked off much more often and will get thrown out trying to advance an extra base much more often than a station to station baserunner.

JDD

07-06-2009, 10:31 PM

No Rice? No Grimes? That's because most of the people voting here think the Hall of Fame should be made up of guys like Gehrig, Collins, and Speaker when when we know the bar is set a little lower than that.

The bar should be set somewhere among the ten least deserving HOFers (yet still deserving Hall of Famers) and the ten "best" players who are not quite HOFers by most standards.

Think barely HOFers and not quite HOFers. Those twenty players (perhaps all playing the same position??) are who help set the placement of the bar in my world.

To use a very recent example, I always considered Jim Rice HOF worthy not because he was almost Ted Williams (because he wasn't) but because he was the most feared hitter in the American League for just long enough to make him an important player in his own time AND he had the counting numbers to go along with that imprint. Heck, he did not even have to be Carl Yastrzemski to make my HOF (he wasn't as good as Yaz either).

But since when do you have to be somewhere just below Williams and perhaps just above Yaz to be good enough for the Hall of Fame?

Again, in my world, there's a lot to be said for the best available candidate. Those folks find a lot of work in the job market don't they?

The same could (should?) be said for the HOF if you lean towards inclusion like I do.

bambambaseball

07-06-2009, 10:42 PM

SABR Matt

07-06-2009, 11:21 PM

And he will also get picked off much more often and will get thrown out trying to advance an extra base much more often than a station to station baserunner.

Not necessarily true. Generally, the baserunning advances far outweigh the baserunning outs...and BTW pickoffs were recorded in the official statistics we already have available as caught stealing I believe...so that's not an issue.

Our play by play analyses of baserunning suggest that station to station runners give up as many as 15-25 runs per year (created) to the best baserunners that do not get recorded in the official statistics.

Example: Ichiro reaches base by error 15-20 times more than the average runner with his groundball total, he gets about 30-40 extra bases advancing on someone else's batted ball than the average baserunner with his number of chances, he stays out of the double play on his in play outs about 10-14 times more often than the average baserunner with his groundball rate, etc. Rice was no Ichiro on the bases, but it's not hard to imagine his being a good enough baserunner to produce significant baserunning value not shown in the statistics...not even reflected in PCA...that Medwick did not create.

As for Ubi's comparison of 6.4-win seasons by Rice and Medwick, Medwick's park factor in 1939 (the one used by B-Ref) was 106. PCA has the park factor at 108, heavily biased by the park-HR factor which is even higher. The offensive players in STL were getting credit taken away for their longballs at a much greater rate than B-Ref acknowledges with its' run-factor in OPS+ calculation. Rice, meanwhile, played a 96 park-facotr environment according to b-ref and a 94 park factor according to PCA that particular season. Also worth noting, although Medwick played nearly as many games as Rice in this comparison, Rice had 47 more plate appearances. Rice was hitting high in the order, Medwick was hitting in the middle of the order. Rice therefore had more chances to produce value than Medwick even when they both played the same number of games.

It's also inaccurate to describe Rice as a low-volume baserunner. He wasn't Cobb out there, but he was typically over 30 attempts which wasn't all that common in the 1920s and his success rate was quite good for that time period around 70%.

SABR Matt

07-06-2009, 11:24 PM

bambambaseball

07-06-2009, 11:29 PM

BTW...for the further purpose of illustration, in 1924, RIce was worth 6.4 offensive wins and that was good for 8.2 marker points while Medwick was worth 6.4 offensive wins, which was good for 8.6 marker points. In other words, PCA sees that Medwick was further above average per unit playing time than Rice was in that comparison of years...but that Rice played a notch more (in terms of plate appearances).

Sam Rice was way better then Medwick, but Sam Rice didnt have the lovable nickname so he didnt get elected! Thats how the people here vote! They dont listen to reason. Some use a weird win shares system that makes no sense but thats about it! :nosleep:

leecemark

07-07-2009, 06:28 AM

Sam Rice was way better then Medwick, but Sam Rice didnt have the lovable nickname so he didnt get elected! Thats how the people here vote! They dont listen to reason. Some use a weird win shares system that makes no sense but thats about it! :nosleep:

--It would be more productive if you tried to make an actual case fpr players you support instead of bashing people who don't see things your way. They can't listen to reason if there isn't any being offered. Stick to discussing the players and not your fellow voters.

SavoyBG

07-07-2009, 07:46 AM

--It would be more productive if you tried to make an actual case fpr players you support instead of bashing people who don't see things your way. They can't listen to reason if there isn't any being offered. Stick to discussing the players and not your fellow voters.

This guy bambam sent me a PM yesterday that would get him suspended from the site, but there didn't seem to be a way to report that abuse directly.

Ace Venom

07-07-2009, 09:28 AM

I don't look at this for a little while and I keep seeing the same old arguments. Let's set the record straight.

1) I voted for Sam Rice and Burleigh Grimes. They didn't get in, so this is up to the VC now. This is just the internet, so there's no need to get worked up about this too much.
2) I have a conduct clause associated with this project for a reason. I got sick and tired seeing bickering that did little to advance discussion of the project itself. In fact, this may have actually hurt the chances of candidates.
3) I'm a graduate student that does this in his spare time. Yes, we can have spare time. I don't like spending my spare time dealing with pointless bickering. If someone is doing something you don't like, ignore them. Do not drag down discussions in these threads with irrelevant comments or insults. Complain to the moderators if it's bad.
4) I can't tell people not to participate because this is in open poll format. That's not my place. I'd rather people participate and have relevant discussions. Simply saying, "You're crazy if you don't think so and so is a Hall of Famer," is not appropriate or relevant even if we are talking about people who did not vote for Babe Ruth. This project relies on us acting like grown ups and treating each other with respect.

There you have it. Arky Vaughan and Joe Medwick both qualified for election under the rules. I'll try to get the 1954 thread posted later today or tomorrow when I have the time.

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 10:14 AM

As I am also an overworked grad student, I feel your pain Ace...I have enough trouble finding time for sleep (and half the time I wind up posting here at bizarre and random hours when I'm dealing with an attack of insomnia), let alone doing the baseball research I want to do. :(

AG2004

07-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Example: Ichiro reaches base by error 15-20 times more than the average runner with his groundball total, he gets about 30-40 extra bases advancing on someone else's batted ball than the average baserunner with his number of chances, he stays out of the double play on his in play outs about 10-14 times more often than the average baserunner with his groundball rate, etc. Rice was no Ichiro on the bases, but it's not hard to imagine his being a good enough baserunner to produce significant baserunning value not shown in the statistics...not even reflected in PCA...that Medwick did not create.

I can't find any record of an Ichiro in the major leagues, and I doubt that records from Japanese baseball are applicable to the American game.

[OOC - That was the case in 1953. If the data set you used came from the 1990s and the 2000s, the conclusions might not be applicable to the circumstances of the 1920s and 1930s, a transition period from smallball play to station-by-station play.]

leecemark

07-07-2009, 12:46 PM

This guy bambam sent me a PM yesterday that would get him suspended from the site, but there didn't seem to be a way to report that abuse directly.

--If someone insults you - or otherwise violates site rules - via PM you can forward that PM to a mod (or mods).

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 12:50 PM

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 02:38 PM

I can't find any record of an Ichiro in the major leagues, and I doubt that records from Japanese baseball are applicable to the American game.

[OOC - That was the case in 1953. If the data set you used came from the 1990s and the 2000s, the conclusions might not be applicable to the circumstances of the 1920s and 1930s, a transition period from smallball play to station-by-station play.]

I don't think the difference between top baserunners and bottom baserunners has changed all that much between 1920 and today...in fact I think the disappearance of the stolen base in the 30s-40s-50s was *NOT* a reflection on how baserunners reacted to batted balls...only on how managers viewed the merits of the steal. I highly doubt that speedy baseball players simply stopped existing in the 40s...or that they were told NOT to go first to third on a single when they had the chance.

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 02:44 PM

You have to keep in mind that the 15 to 25 run difference is between the very best and the very worst. Considering that their is only one very best each season and one very worst each season the rest of the players are a lot closer to each other than the 15 to 25 runs that was mentioned earlier. Furthermore it isn't as simple as adding adding the 15 to 25 runs to the the great baserunner's bottom line. Great baserunners not surprisingly tend to hit at the top of the order where their hits are not worth as much as average and definitely not worth as much as #3 and #4 hitters. So while a great baserunner like Ichiro may get 20 or so runs added to his offensive line because of baserunning one also has to remove 10 to 20 runs because of where he hits and that doesn't even take into account that Ichiro's singles on average are not like other leadoff hitter's singles either.

If you adjust for one thing for one player then you have to adjust for everything for all players.

First of all, you're completely wrong about the magnitude of advantage in runs created that a lead-off hitter gets for his increased playing time. In a full starting 9, the 1st batting spot will get maybe 50 plate appearances more than the middle of the order and 120 more than the 9 hole. The league average RC/PA rate is certainly NOT 0.3 as it would have to be to match your 10-20 run claim for the lead-off advantage. That edge is more like 4-8 over the MOTO bats. And that's real value, not value MISSED by the analysis.

Secondly, if we could all please stop making an infield single out to be massively less valuable than an outfield single and in doing so needlessly over-exaggerating the value Ichiro loses on his infield singles (once again...I've run these numbers...the difference in value between an infield single and an outfield single is roughly 0.03 runs...that's IT!), that'd be AWESOME. Can we move on from that completely DEAD argument and go to something more productive? Cool.

Paul Wendt

07-07-2009, 04:24 PM

In a full starting 9, the 1st batting spot will get maybe 50 plate appearances more than the middle of the order and 120 more than the 9 hole.
The difference is close to 18 (=162/9) plate appearances per batting position, perhaps 15 to 19 for the eight steps down the order, because the first eight batteres are put out at different rates and the ninth batter at a much higher rate. So 50 is a good estimate for the difference from leadoff to batter four and 120 a good estimate for batter eight.

I agree with Matt on smallball and station-to-station baserunning (#195).

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 04:34 PM

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 04:37 PM

First of all, you are completely wrong on what I am talking about. I'm not talking about some increase in PA but the fact that a lead off hitter faces different on base situations than the average hitter and especially the #3 and #4 hitter. The value of every single event is based on average situations for those events and yet a leadoff hitter does not play in an average situation.

But I will say that the difference in PA between the two seasons is largely due to the fact that Sam Rice was a leadoff hitter while Medwick in 1939 hit 4th. Simply by being a leadoff hitter Sam Rice got more PA to put up more runs. If we adjust for this his total goes down when compared to Medwick.

If a 6% to 7% difference in run value is meaningless then pretty much any metric out there above and beyond runs created is meaningless as well. Why bother measuring anything if being off by 6 to 7% is a dead issue?

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 04:54 PM

You can't blame Ichiro for batting lead-off, Ubi. The difference between my required adjustment (accounting for real value that Ichiro or any lead-off hitter accumulated on the bases that may be lost to the statistical record) and your NOT-required adjustment to account for base/out state is that what a player does on the bases is directly under his control whereas who's on base when he gets to the plate is not. You cannot claim that Ichiro (or any lead-off hitter) is less great offensively because there are fewer men on base for his singles any more than you can claim that a great hitter on a bad team is less great because his home runs came with fewer men on base. What needs to be evaluated in a hall of fame debate is not the specific real-world value produced by a player but the true greatness of that player expressed in a fair context that makes cross-era and cross-phenotype comparisons possible.

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 04:59 PM

These philosophical, generalized conversations about era and statistical approaches are very hard to follow. How about focusing on discussion about the candidates and saving these types of debates for the statistics forum?

Here's a direct link to the statistics forum:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/forumdisplay.php?f=52

jjpm74...I'm a little tired of having to justify general philosophical debate in the context of a hall of fame thread. Every time we start having a great conversation about something DIRECTLY GERMAINE to a specific player-related issue (in this case, Sam Rice vs. Joe Medwick and the relative value of top-of-the-order skills vs. power skills), people grouse and moan...but that is EXACTLY THE POINT of doing these kinds of projects...debating what makes a player great is what makes a HOF discussion great. Otherwise we're all just blathering about our opinions and posting lists and talking about Win Shares and PCA rankings and who said what about a guy's defense and who was most well-liked in his era etc. No new ground can be covered and nothing valuable learned from a HOF debate if we do not explore the central issues of what makes a player great.

If you can't deal with that...I'm sorry...but don't ruin someone else's fun just because you're not having fun.

mwiggins

07-07-2009, 05:02 PM

But I will say that the difference in PA between the two seasons is largely due to the fact that Sam Rice was a leadoff hitter while Medwick in 1939 hit 4th. Simply by being a leadoff hitter Sam Rice got more PA to put up more runs. If we adjust for this his total goes down when compared to Medwick.

Rice was a leadoff hitter less than half the time in 1924 (I'm assuming you're still talking his 1924 vs. Medwick's 1939). Rice hit 3rd in 80 of his 154 games that year.

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 05:06 PM

Actually, Rice's extra plate appearances appear to be due to a combination of his batting higher in the order and his team being overall a little better offensively than Medwick's team. And Ubi is correct that a truly neutral metric would adjust for those things, though I'm not entirely sure what the best approach would be there. If you want to hang your case for Medwick in the HOF over Rice on needing to be right that Medwick's defense was not as far below Rice as I claim AND that Rice had more chances to produce runs than Medwick, thereby explaining his consistent offensive production relative to Medwick AND that PCA is somehow whiffing on the average value of Rice's offensive game...be my guest. I'll stick with my original assessment.

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 05:28 PM

What needs to be evaluated in a hall of fame debate is not the specific real-world value produced by a player but the true greatness of that player expressed in a fair context that makes cross-era and cross-phenotype comparisons possible.

What a player does defines his greatness. A player isn't great because of what-ifs, he is great based on what he does in the real world.

In the case of an argument in which one says that player X was worth X amount of wins to his team in year Y then player X really should be worth X wins that year. These ubermetrics are not true talent stats they are stats based on what players do, therefore they should actually measure what players do.

jalbright

07-07-2009, 06:01 PM

Guys,

It seems to me and at least a few others around here that these debates over statistical evaluation are sucking the air out of the discussion of the players. Now, the means of doing the evaluation are important, but I've got to request that you take those discussions to the Statistics forum, where you can hammer out these fine points at your leisure. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

jalbright

07-07-2009, 06:04 PM

jjpm74...I'm a little tired of having to justify general philosophical debate in the context of a hall of fame thread. Every time we start having a great conversation about something DIRECTLY GERMAINE to a specific player-related issue (in this case, Sam Rice vs. Joe Medwick and the relative value of top-of-the-order skills vs. power skills), people grouse and moan...but that is EXACTLY THE POINT of doing these kinds of projects...debating what makes a player great is what makes a HOF discussion great. Otherwise we're all just blathering about our opinions and posting lists and talking about Win Shares and PCA rankings and who said what about a guy's defense and who was most well-liked in his era etc. No new ground can be covered and nothing valuable learned from a HOF debate if we do not explore the central issues of what makes a player great.

If you can't deal with that...I'm sorry...but don't ruin someone else's fun just because you're not having fun.

Matt,

This one's a fine line, but the focus here should remain on the players rather than the rating system. Frankly, I think lately in this thread there's far too much about rating systems and not enough about the players. When you and others cross that line too far, personally, I think they're fully entitled to "grouse and moan" a bit. If you want to tear the systems down like rebuilding an engine, the Stats forum is far better suited to that

STLCards2

07-07-2009, 06:25 PM

Matt,

This one's a fine line, but the focus here should remain on the players rather than the rating system. Frankly, I think lately in this thread there's far too much about rating systems and not enough about the players. When you and others cross that line too far, personally, I think they're fully entitled to "grouse and moan" a bit. If you want to tear the systems down like rebuilding an engine, the Stats forum is far better suited to that

I would like to respectfully disagree. Outside of about three posts that refer to how the system accounts for baserunning (which is still a key point in the Medwick vs, Rice debate), every post referring to the PCA system talks specifically about Medwick and Rice. Surely in a debate with 20+ posts that use a method to evaluate specific players, the method creator is allowed a couple to explain how the system works.

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 06:45 PM

Everything that has been discussed, at least with me in the discussion, has been about Joe Medwick and Sam Rice. Matt believes that Rice is better than Medwick in part because of his way of evaluating those two players. I and it appears AG disagree with Matt's view that Rice and Medwick were about equal offensively (non peak season). I'm not sure why this discussion doesn't belong here. If two people can have a discussion about whether or not a player was a team player in this forum then we should also be allowed to discuss whether or not two players are equal statistically in this forum. Both Rice and Medwick were up for election in this vote. If one believes, like Matt, that Rice was better than Medwick and Medwick is getting elected then why can't he voice his reasons for believing that Rice is better? And if people do not believe that Rice is equal to MEdwick offensively why can't they voice their opinions? And if somebody sees what they think is a flaw in someones argument why can't they voice their opinion? If this conversation has to go over to the stats forum then I don't really see how anyone can have a discussion about players using stats. I mean if somebody says Lefty Grove was a better pitcher then Wes Ferrell because of their ERA and somebody else says that isn't true because Wes played tougher teams is that not allowed?

Secondly I'm not sure why a philosphical discussions on era should not take place here. We are voting on players based on eras in which they played and supposedly doing that voting in a different era. I'm pretty darn sure that an era discussion should take place. Just because somebody can't follow it or it isn't their cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't appropiate.

To me, at this point in the debate if we weren't haggling over Medwick and Rice this thread would be dead so why the heat? What discussion is being blocked? There would have been no discussion so why be annoyed? Just because you (the proverbial you) have a vision for how a conversation will go doesn't mean we all have to stick to that script.

leecemark

07-07-2009, 06:46 PM

--I think the debate has stayed pretty well focused on the players as well. I can see how it may be a little too "techy" for everyones taste, but those not interested in all the nuts and bolts can skip over that part.

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 06:57 PM

If you can't deal with that...I'm sorry...but don't ruin someone else's fun just because you're not having fun.

That's great that you are enjoying yourself. I am not and don't enjoy the fact that this project has been completely derailed by the philosophical debates that go on week after week. Enjoyment is a 2 way street and I personally liken the technical conversations to getting a root canal. Thankfully, there is a forum dedicated to statistics where you can enjoy yourself and a forum dedicated to the Hall of Fame where I can enjoy myself.

--I think the debate has stayed pretty well focused on the players as well. I can see how it may be a little too "techy" for everyones taste, but those not interested in all the nuts and bolts can skip over that part.

The problem is, the "nuts and bolts" go on and on for pages week after week, usually between the same 3-4 users. Between that and all the bickering, it's difficult for anyone outside of the handful who dominate these threads lately to have fun when the conversation is consistently about the intricacies of PCAs and players who were elected already plus players who haven't been born yet. I'm glad that people have taken an interest in PCAs, but the bottom line is that they are not a readily understandable approach and for parties interested in learning more about them, there is a statistics forum for such discussions. If they can occur here and in any other forum, at the expense of more casual users' enjoyment, why is there a statistics forum?

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 07:01 PM

Secondly I'm not sure why a philosphical discussions on era should not take place here. We are voting on players based on eras in which they played and supposedly doing that voting in a different era. I'm pretty darn sure that an era discussion should take place. Just because somebody can't follow it or it isn't their cup of tea doesn't mean it isn't appropiate.

Because this site is supposed to be about the enjoyment of all users. Not just the enjoyment of you and 2 or 3 others. If I started an intelligent conversation about how upsetting it is that the NY Mets are imploding this year and it was loosely tied to a thread in the statistics forum, should I get to carry on with it? Afterall, it is something I enjoy and why should my enjoyment not be carried over into other forums?

jalbright

07-07-2009, 07:09 PM

Let's not turn this into a debate about where the line is on the tech talk. I think we're in the gray area, and I really don't want to see another 50 post argument on evaluative systems like we've already seen in this project. Can we at least agree on that point and move forward?

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 07:15 PM

Because this site is supposed to be about the enjoyment of all users. Not just the enjoyment of you and 2 or 3 others. If I started an intelligent conversation about how upsetting it is that the NY Mets are imploding this year and it was loosely tied to a thread in the statistics forum, should I get to carry on with it? Afterall, it is something I enjoy and why should my enjoyment not be carried over into other forums?

Yes, all users is very much correct.

What we are discussing here isn't loosely tied to this subject it has everything to do with this subject. We are talking about Sam Rice and Joe Medwick, two players up for election this year. Why can't we talk about Sam Rice and Joe Medwick? How should we talk about these two players so that we stick to your script on how this conversation should go?

As for you example if the thread in the statistical forum was about imploding teams then it has every right to be in that forum. If the thread was about measuring the defensive efficiency of AL pitchers I would question why someone is talking about the Mets imploding this year.

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 07:47 PM

Yes, all users is very much correct.

Yes, as in there are more than you and SABRMatt here.

What we are discussing here isn't loosely tied to this subject it has everything to do with this subject. We are talking about Sam Rice and Joe Medwick, two players up for election this year. Why can't we talk about Sam Rice and Joe Medwick? How should we talk about these two players so that we stick to your script on how this conversation should go?

You are talking about Ichiro and lead off hitters and spinning off into a million tangents that have nothing to do with Medwick or Rice, which is a problem that has plagued this project for months and is getting very tired. Even if the posts were directly relevant, BOTH ARE OFF THE BALLOT. MOVE ON! If you don't want to, besides for the main statistics forum, there are also numerous IM tools readily available as well as services like Twitter that are much better suited to a 2 person conversation than a public forum.

STLCards2

07-07-2009, 07:48 PM

At any time, any posters can use any data/observation/method or lack-of-method they want to compare Medwick and Rice. Nobody is inately being held down by the "tech" discussion.

SABR Matt

07-07-2009, 08:05 PM

If this project has been derailed by ANYTHING it certainly has *NOT* been derailed by debating the merits and demerits of different approaches to defining greatness. Ubi believes greatness is *entirely* defined by the specific, real-world events that occur, whether or not players have control over certain contextual circumstances that helped lead to those events. That's a very serious position to take and I take a different one and those positions define how we vote.

I would put forth the belief that the real hall of fame would make a lot more sense if the voters spent time talking to each other and hashing out how they define greatness in this game. And I would ask again...what SHOULD get discussed in this project? What debating points regarding players SHOULD we talk about that won't offend certain users? What can we learn from conducting the HOF projects without allowing for deep conversation about the meaning of greatness and the merits of different statistical and historical evaluation techniques (note...I included the historical angle too, which seems to go on without any complaint at all in this forum...people have no problem with members talking about historical opinions in HOF discussion...it's like that method is valid but mine is not).

If I am not allowed to discuss what interests me about the HOF and about the giants of the game's history, I see no reason to continue posting in this subforum. Please don't take that as some kind of crass ultimatum. These projects will get along fine without me. I am just saying if you outlaw discussion like what's gone on in this thread, then you are outlawing my presence here because I have nothing to add above and beyond the kinds of discussions I have here on a regular basis. I am not an expert in baseball opinion, I don't get any value from parroting win shares in a discussion of a player, and I don't see a point in voting in a HOF project if I can't talk about the issues that motivate my vote.

That's really all there is to it.

STLCards2

07-07-2009, 08:13 PM

I don't get any value from parroting win shares in a discussion of a player, and I don't see a point in voting in a HOF project if I can't talk about the issues that motivate my vote.

.

I agree, I see no reason that a legal voter in a poll can't take whatever time they need to explain why they feel their vote is accurate -as long as they aren't needlessly repetitive or putting in one line per post.:D

Would we be having this conversation if a couple posters went on and on and on about historical artifacts and newspaper write-ups about the two players? Something that a great number of us see as being less interesting as advanced statistics? Would that conversation be pushed to the History forum? I doubt it, and nor should it.

Ubiquitous

07-07-2009, 08:14 PM

Yes, as in there are more than you and SABRMatt here.

Yes, and it is also more than you.

You are talking about Ichiro and lead off hitters and spinning off into a million tangents that have nothing to do with Medwick or Rice, which is a problem that has plagued this project for months and is getting very tired. Even if the posts were directly relevant, BOTH ARE OFF THE BALLOT. MOVE ON! If you don't want to, besides for the main statistics forum, there are also numerous IM tools readily available as well as services like Twitter that are much better suited to a 2 person conversation than a public forum.

First off, Joe Medwick and Sam Rice ARE ON THE BALLOT. They were both up for election in this thread. Talking about them was very much in keeping with this thread's theme. Secondly, this isn't a two person conversation and even if it was we still have the right to discuss it in public and in this thread. If anything your issue that you are raising belongs in another media form and not in a baseball hall of fame thread. Thirdly, Ichiro was brought up to give the audience a readily known example of a great baserunner. Ichiro was a quick example of the issues one has to face when considering the value of Sam Rice who was also a speedy leadoff hitter that was supposedly a good baserunner. Fourthly, the vote is over. Why do you care that we are still talking in a thread that nobody else is contributing too? If we were not talking about Joe and Sam then nothing would be said.

which is a problem that has plagued this project for months and is getting very tired

What you call potato some call potatuh. Just because people don't follow your script doesn't mean they are wrong.

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 08:22 PM

If this project has been derailed by ANYTHING it certainly has *NOT* been derailed by debating the merits and demerits of different approaches to defining greatness. Ubi believes greatness is *entirely* defined by the specific, real-world events that occur, whether or not players have control over certain contextual circumstances that helped lead to those events. That's a very serious position to take and I take a different one and those positions define how we vote.

That is great that you two disagree on this point. That is a philosophical difference that is not relevant to this project at all.

If I am not allowed to discuss what interests me about the HOF and about the giants of the game's history, I see no reason to continue posting in this subforum. Please don't take that as some kind of crass ultimatum. These projects will get along fine without me. I am just saying if you outlaw discussion like what's gone on in this thread, then you are outlawing my presence here because I have nothing to add above and beyond the kinds of discussions I have here on a regular basis. I am not an expert in baseball opinion, I don't get any value from parroting win shares in a discussion of a player, and I don't see a point in voting in a HOF project if I can't talk about the issues that motivate my vote.

It would really stink to see you go. You have contributed a lot of positive things to this project.

To clarify my earlier post:

DO discuss the merits of any player in this project using whatever method you see fit, including your PCA approach (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear from you on the defensive ability of Dixie Walker; was he a great defensive outfielder or does win shares overstate his ability?).

DO NOT go off on tangents that are philosophical and do not have anything to do with the candidates you are discussing. Things like explaining your view on league quality, what makes Ichiro a great hitter or what makes PCA better than Win Shares contributes nothing to the actual project.

To sum it up and to quote you:

That's really all there is to it.

;)

STLCards2

07-07-2009, 08:28 PM

what makes PCA better than Win Shares contributes nothing to the actual project.

;)

He believes PCA does a better job at comparing rice to Medwick than Win Shares. To him, it has everything to do with the project. he even goes on to explain why he thinks PCA is better than Win Shares...and how it affects the Rice vs. Medwick debate. I can't see how that is irrelevent to the project.

Ace Venom

07-07-2009, 08:31 PM

Well, I said I'd do it and I'm making good on it. This project is going on hiatus for at least a week.

STLCards2

07-07-2009, 08:35 PM

Well, I said I'd do it and I'm making good on it. This project is going on hiatus for at least a week.

Why? There were no personal attacks or inappropriate comments or anything. Just adults disagreeing. That is not a bad thing or something that needs to be shut down or put on hiatus.

Ace Venom

07-07-2009, 08:36 PM

Why? There were no personal attacks or inappropriate comments or anything. Just adults disagreeing. That is not a bad thing or soemthing that needs to be shut down or put on hiatus.

I have no problem with disagreeing, but I'm sick of the attitudes that I see. It seems as if people are more interested in being right than having any actual discussions. I think a cool down period is in order here.

leecemark

07-07-2009, 08:40 PM

--Well now we've done it. Time to look for project manager number 3?

Ace Venom

07-07-2009, 08:41 PM

--Well now we've done it. Time to look for project manager number 3?

Oh, I'll be coming back to this in a week. If I change my mind, you'll be the first to know.

JDD

07-07-2009, 08:43 PM

Hmmm... I think you hit it right there. The whole project is founded on a series of opinions. Everyone it entitled to theirs, right? Go ahead and take a few days and everyone gather their thoughts (and opinions) and we can move on from there.

jjpm74

07-07-2009, 08:43 PM

Why? There were no personal attacks or inappropriate comments or anything. Just adults disagreeing. That is not a bad thing or something that needs to be shut down or put on hiatus.

I agree and have complete respect for both SABRMatt and Ubi. This is just a minor difference of opinion that's being hashed out among adults who are trying to better understand each other's approaches.

DoubleX

07-07-2009, 09:05 PM

I don't know if my opinion carries any weight any more, but I would ask for people to cut Ace some slack. As I'm sure Ace is experiencing, this project takes something of a commitment to manage and it's hard not to get emotionally invested with its progress and direction, as well as develop an oversensitivity to these issues that everyone else might not feel. The manager of this project has a different level of attachment and a different perspective of this project and how it should run than other participants.

As a much more detached observer now, I thought the conversation in this thread was fine as it was largely player focused. I'm not a big fan of Hall of Fame discussions that are overly reduced to statistical formulas, but that's just part of the collective perspective. Nonetheless, having been in Ace's shoes, I know things can become frustrating for the project manager when it seems like any perspective is becoming too dominant or the conversation focuses more on method and semantics than on the players. This is part of the oversensitivity I mentioned above.

I also want to say that I think Ace has done a magnificent job in keeping this project running. It was no small task for him to step in and it hasn't missed a beat.

SavoyBG

07-07-2009, 10:46 PM

That is great that you two disagree on this point. That is a philosophical difference that is not relevant to this project at all.

Of course it's relevant. Different systems disagree on the value of the two players. It's entirely relevant to discuss what each system says and why.

DO discuss the merits of any player in this project using whatever method you see fit, including your PCA approach (BTW, I'm still waiting to hear from you on the defensive ability of Dixie Walker; was he a great defensive outfielder or does win shares overstate his ability?).

DO NOT go off on tangents that are philosophical and do not have anything to do with the candidates you are discussing. Things like explaining your view on league quality, what makes Ichiro a great hitter or what makes PCA better than Win Shares contributes nothing to the actual project.

I like Matt's tangents and I say that since you are no longer managing any part of the project that you really have no business telling any other poster what they should "DO" or "DO NOT."

It's not like we are running out of bandwith around here any time soon. As long as the discussions are not getting personal I don't see why there's a problem. If a particular exchange doesn't interest you, just DON'T READ IT!!!

RyanExpress30

07-08-2009, 12:50 AM

Well, I said I'd do it and I'm making good on it. This project is going on hiatus for at least a week.

Boooo . . . :cry: Say it ain't so, Ace!!!! I look forward to this project more than anything else on the 'net. Perhaps sad, but true. You're doing a great job by the way.

Frankly, coming from someone new to the site that doesn't say too much, the lively debates have been fun to read, even the more esoteric ones.

jalbright

07-08-2009, 07:51 AM

leecemark

07-08-2009, 09:19 AM

--If there is going to be a delay in moving on to 1954 I suggest we put it to good use. Please regard this as an opportunity to campaign for holdovers for this ballot who are close to election or for whom you think deserve more support. We don't often have much time for reflection and discussion between elections and we should take advantage of it.
--As for those whose time has expired, they've had 15 "years" to be picked over. Lets set them aside until they hit the VC ballot. The 1955 election is not too long to wait.

jjpm74

07-08-2009, 09:26 AM

Wes Ferrell and Lefty Gomez are the 2 holdovers who probably stand the best chance at election.

leecemark

07-08-2009, 09:38 AM

--Ferrell and Gomez are the leading returnees at 68 and 62 percent, respectively. Both are high enough in the vote and have enough time left (7 and 9 years) to have a strong chance. A third returnee actually has a better pitching record than either. Tommy Bridges has more IP and a better ERA+ than either and his IP advantage would be even higher had his career not been interuppted by WWII. There are reasons to like Ferrell (higher peak and great bat) or Gomez (higher peak) better, but anyone who supports either of these owes Bridges a serious look. He is way behind in support (38%), but has a dozen years left on the ballot to see that grow.

leecemark

07-08-2009, 09:42 AM

leecemark

07-08-2009, 10:03 AM

--We also have a trio of holdover with over 1/3, but less than 40% support. Any of them would need somebody making a strong case for them to get moving towards election.
--Kiki Cuyler should have many of the same supporters as Sam Rice did (which considering Rice's slide in the last few elections is not relaly a good indicator). Cuyler was also a good batting average, speedy corner outfielder who could play CF some as well. He had more power than Rice and probably a little more speed too. His peak was better, but he didn't pile up the counting stats - not being as durable in his prime and losing his legs earlier.
--Chuck Klein I would imagine shares more of Hack Wilson's support - again probably not a good indicator of growth potential. Klein was a good RFer to Wilson's less than stellar Cfer for what thats worth defensively. He also was more of a baserunner, leading the lead in steals once. Both had good peaks that look GREAT due to extremely favorable park and league factors (Klein especially benefiting from the Baker Bowl). Neither had much staying power.
--Ernie Lombardi has the longest to build his support, having received 35% of the vote in this his second ballot. He also does not share a profile with a recently rejected candidate - nor really anyone else we've had to consider. He is pretty clearly one of the best hitting catchers in the history of the game. Perhaps the best if you consider only his bat without the drag of his notorious lack of speed. Unfortunately he was maybe the worst baserunner ever and nothing to brag about defensively either. Tie that in with a lack of durability and longevity and you've got a candidate who somebody else will have to campion:D.
--Tony Lazzeri is halfway through his candidacy and has yet to build any real support - 21% in his 7th year. I doubt he can make the climb, but he is very similar to the rather easily elected Larry Doyle. He just was up against a better peer group as Doyle's NL cohortr was pretty short on star power.

SABR Matt

07-08-2009, 10:18 AM

Matt,
Please read post #212. My request is that we keep the discussion to the players rather than the rating system in this forum. I understand there's some overlap, and that's OK, but there's a better forum for the technical stuff.

I haven't discussed anything technical in this thread, so you have absolutely ZERO grounds for chastising for doing so in this thread.

mwiggins

07-08-2009, 10:20 AM

--Wally Berger is the leading hold over amoung position players at 53%. With 6 years left to build on that he has a solid chance, but Hack Wilson's expiring at that same level this year hurts him. Being a little better than Hack was one of the leading arguments for Wally. He is pretty comparable to Earl Averill as well and Averill got in failry easily. Not sure exactly what separated him from Berger and Wilson. Personally I voted for Averill and am voting for Berger, but Wilson just missed my ballot. Color them dark, medium and light gray amoung my borderline Hall of Famers.

Averill has his 3 "big" PCA seasons to add weight to his short career, that's He was still a great player at age 36, he just got a late start in the majors. He didn't really have the same sort of "great peak, early flame out" career that Wilson and Berger did.

I am suprised that Averill got in so easy, yet Bob Johnson has not even come close. They both have the late starts due to being stuck in the PCL. Both started at age 37. Both played in the AL at about the same time. Both had similar stats.

Win Shares:
Averill - 280
Johnson - 287

WARP3:
Averill - 49.8
Johnson - 63.7

OPS+:
Averill - 133 (in 7215 PA's)
Johnson - 138 (in 8047 PA's)

And yes, Johnson played during the war and had his best rate year in 1944. But if we take just their ages 27-35 (cutting off Johnson's 1942-1945 seasons), they are very comparable.

Ages 27-35:
Averill: 6080 PA's, 136 OPS+
Johnson: 5689 PA's, 137 OPS+

SABR Matt

07-08-2009, 10:27 AM

Johnson is superior to Averill by PCA as well, FWIW.

Averill's career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1934 AL 10.38 4.46 16.3 6.3 14.84
1936 AL 11.06 1.77 17.8 1.0 12.83
1932 AL 9.17 3.05 13.8 3.5 12.22
1931 AL 9.51 2.17 14.6 1.7 11.68
1938 AL 8.67 2.48 13.7 2.8 11.15
1933 AL 6.20 3.55 8.2 4.6 9.75
1937 AL 7.56 0.64 10.7 -1.4 8.20
1930 AL 6.76 0.96 9.7 -0.3 7.72
1935 AL 6.19 1.39 8.4 0.4 7.58
1929 AL 7.20 0.34 10.1 -1.9 7.54
1939 AL 3.13 1.39 3.6 1.9 4.52

Johnson's career:
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1944 AL 11.86 1.39 19.8 1.2 13.25
1939 AL 10.83 1.79 17.5 1.8 12.62
1937 AL 8.80 2.19 14.0 2.7 10.99
1942 AL 8.98 1.72 13.9 1.7 10.70
1938 AL 7.83 2.71 11.5 2.9 10.54
1941 AL 7.09 2.97 10.0 4.2 10.06
1936 AL 7.34 2.34 10.5 2.7 9.68
1934 AL 6.37 2.86 8.9 4.1 9.23
1940 AL 6.81 1.13 9.8 0.7 7.94
1935 AL 6.03 1.74 7.8 1.7 7.77
1945 AL 6.21 1.36 8.7 1.1 7.57
1943 AL 4.26 2.55 5.3 3.7 6.81
1933 AL 5.72 0.07 7.5 -1.6 5.79

You can see, backed by better defense, Averill has a slightly better peak, but holds his value a little less well at the tail of his career and Johnson played longer at a high level.

It's close and both, IMHO deserve a lot more voting respect than Wally Berger or Hack Wilson.

jjpm74

07-08-2009, 10:30 AM

I am suprised that Averill got in so easy, yet Bob Johnson has not even come close. They both have the late starts due to being stuck in the PCL. Both started at age 27. Both played in the AL at about the same time. Both had similar stats.

Was Bob Johnson's late start contractual or was it a performance issue? In his musings thread, jalbright cites this source:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/a_long_time_ago.php

However, Johnson failed trials with San Francisco, Hollywood, and Los Angeles. He did not play professionally until Wichita of the Western League signed him in 1929. Johnson played in 145 games at two levels and batted .262 with 21 HR while slugging .503. After again hitting 21 HR (in just over 500 AB) the following season in Portland, he went to spring training with the Philadelphia A's but didn't make the roster due to his inability to hit the curveball. Over the next two seasons in the minors, Johnson batted a combined .334 with 51 HR while slugging .567 and showing both patience at the plate and a powerful throwing arm in the outfield.

Either way, even without his PCL years, Bob johnson was an 8 time all star with great career markers who seems to fit the parameters of our HOF.

DoubleX

07-08-2009, 10:33 AM

Good stuff Mark - I think that kind of analysis is a nice way to either start or end elections as it gives us some things to think about heading into the next election.

I'm a Bridges supporter and would welcome more conversation about him. I have this stat at home somewhere so I'm going off memory, but I think he's one of just a very small handful of pitchers to have at least 6 years with an ERA+ of at least 140. Going against Bridges is that he wasn't especially durable (though not terrible), never led the league in any significant category other than wins one year, and didn't achieve any shiny number that some voters look for, just missing at 200 wins and 3000 IP.

I think Tony Lazzeri is deserving of more support. You're right that he had stiffer competition than Larry Doyle faced, but there's really not that much separating them, is there? Plus, how does the level of competition factor in? A long time ago I argued that Herman Long's value was hurt somewhat from playing in a league with a number of talented shortstops, whereas players like Del Pratt and Dave Bancroft, though perhaps lesser players, may have had more value because of the relative dearth of contemporary talent at their positions. So if the level of competition didn't hurt Long, it probably shouldn't hurt Lazzeri either.

I'm voting for Berger also, but what might be holding him back is that some might view his career as too short, similarly to Hack Wilson. Berger, like Wilson, had a great prime, but that's essentially all their careers are, and I guess for some voters the prime by itself either isn't good enough or long enough for their liking, and/or there's just not enough else there outside the prime.

leecemark

07-08-2009, 10:35 AM

--Averill is pretty clearly better in those age 27-35 seasons. Slightly more durable and, more importantly, played a very good center field to Johnson's very good left field. I'm assuming an advantage on the basepaths too.
--Averill hurt his back and was finished quickly while Johnson played on through WWII and put up some of his best numbers against that depleted competiton. I've got Johnson below all 3 CFers. Not THAT much below, but since they are all borderliners he doesn't quite make it for me.

mwiggins

07-08-2009, 11:01 AM

Was Bob Johnson's late start contractual or was it a performance issue? In his musings thread, jalbright cites this source:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/a_long_time_ago.php

Either way, even without his PCL years, Bob johnson was an 8 time all star with great career markers who seems to fit the parameters of our HOF.

Some of both, I'd say. I consider 1932 to be a year he could have/should have been in the majors, if not for Al Simmons. He had a big, breakthrough year in 1931 in the PCL (.337 BA/.562 SLG), and enjoyed a strong rookie campaign in 1933 (134 OPS+ in 142 games).

Averill does have a better PCL resume, for sure. He was great in all three of his seasons, and probably better than Johnson at age 26 (though it's hard to say for sure without knowing more about PCL parks).

Averill, to me, is a no-brainer Hall of Famer. Johnson is borderline, but still over the line.

SavoyBG

07-08-2009, 11:15 AM

SavoyBG

07-08-2009, 11:21 AM

Matt,

This one's a fine line, but the focus here should remain on the players rather than the rating system. Frankly, I think lately in this thread there's far too much about rating systems and not enough about the players. When you and others cross that line too far, personally, I think they're fully entitled to "grouse and moan" a bit. If you want to tear the systems down like rebuilding an engine, the Stats forum is far better suited to that

I don't get it. What would you have them do to talk about the "players?" Do you expect us to discuss the dynamics of Medwick's swing, or what high school that Rice went to?

Discussing the rating systems sheds lights on the strengths and weeknesses of the players as measured by the various systems. I am not at all bored with this and neither are several others in the thread who have said that they are enjoying the debate. If some people are not enjoying the debate, all they have to do is not read it. In fact, there is not much that I enjoy on this site at all, other than this stuff here. I just don't read the things that i don;t enjoy.

SavoyBG

07-08-2009, 11:22 AM

I would like to respectfully disagree. Outside of about three posts that refer to how the system accounts for baserunning (which is still a key point in the Medwick vs, Rice debate), every post referring to the PCA system talks specifically about Medwick and Rice. Surely in a debate with 20+ posts that use a method to evaluate specific players, the method creator is allowed a couple to explain how the system works.

Absolutely, I am with you here.

mwiggins

07-08-2009, 11:55 AM

A Case for Lefty Gomez:

We've had a lot of candidates who've drawn the criticism that they weren't "great" enough, or that their peak wasn't at a high enough level. We all like great careers, but most of us want a Hall of Famer to have achieved a certain level of greatness at some point in their careers.

Lefty Gomez has had this "greatness" in spades. Though somewhat obscured by arm injuries and a "down" year in 1932, Lefty was a fantastic pitcher at his peak during his 20's. Of course, he won the Triple Crown in both 1934 and 1937. Between those years, he struggled for two seasons with the effects of an arm injuries.

Gomez was often among the very best pitchers in the AL during his time. He was the best pitcher in the AL in 1934 and 1937. In 1931 he was probably the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher in the AL (he or Ferrell). In 1938, he was probably the 2nd best pitcher in the AL, behind Ruffing.

Primarily a fastball pitcher during his peak - Bill James ranked his fastball 6th best in baseball (behind Grove, Mungo, Paige, Dean, and Earnshaw) for the 1930-1934 "half-decade" - he later transitioned into a curveball finesse pitcher as arm troubles robbed him of his fastball.

Lefty was also a great post-season performer, posting a 6-0 record in 7 starts. His career post-season ERA was 2.86, and he threw complete games in 4 of his 7 starts.

He compares pretty favorably to a current Hall of Famer, Dazzy Vance. Both struggled with arm injuries and had a handful of a scattered great years as opposed to a brilliant consecutive peak run. In Vance's case, his career got a late start due to injuries, while in Gomez's case, his was cut short due to injuries.

Vance 1922-1930: 164-105, 2312 IP, 135 ERA+, Led league in ERA+ 3 times, K/BB 7 times, WHIP 3 times. Won MVP and Triple Crown in 1924.

Gomez 1931-1939: 163-84, 2175 IP, 133 ERA+, Led league in ERA+ once, K/BB twice, shutouts 3 times, and WHIP once. Won Triple Crown in 1934 & 1937.

He also matches up pretty well to Coveleski's 10 year run from 1917-1926.

Coveleski 1917-1926: 191-126, 2757 IP, 134 ERA+, Led league in ERA+ twice, shutouts twice, and WHIP once.

jjpm74

07-08-2009, 12:00 PM

I'm a Bridges supporter and would welcome more conversation about him. I have this stat at home somewhere so I'm going off memory, but I think he's one of just a very small handful of pitchers to have at least 6 years with an ERA+ of at least 140. Going against Bridges is that he wasn't especially durable (though not terrible), never led the league in any significant category other than wins one year, and didn't achieve any shiny number that some voters look for, just missing at 200 wins and 3000 IP.

While his career was clearly winding down by the outbreak of WWII, it is safe to assume that he would have achieved those shiny numbers had it not been for his war service. Something for the milestone minded voters to consider.

Looking at Gomez vs Ferrell vs Grimes vs Bridges, Tommy Bridges is close enough that I'll be adding him to my ballot next year.

jalbright

07-08-2009, 12:18 PM

I don't get it. What would you have them do to talk about the "players?" Do you expect us to discuss the dynamics of Medwick's swing, or what high school that Rice went to?

Discussing the rating systems sheds lights on the strengths and weeknesses of the players as measured by the various systems. I am not at all bored with this and neither are several others in the thread who have said that they are enjoying the debate. If some people are not enjoying the debate, all they have to do is not read it. In fact, there is not much that I enjoy on this site at all, other than this stuff here. I just don't read the things that i don;t enjoy.

That's all well and good so long as the focus remains on the players rather than the rating system. At the very least, the sidelight discussions on Ichiro in this very thread were tending in the wrong direction--they certainly weren't about guys on this ballot.

DoubleX

07-08-2009, 01:26 PM

While his career was clearly winding down by the outbreak of WWII, it is safe to assume that he would have achieved those shiny numbers had it not been for his war service. Something for the milestone minded voters to consider..

Yeah, I actually meant to mention that. Couple of other things on Bridges:

- He spent four years in the PCL after he was done in the Majors and was pretty successful, particularly in his first two years. I don't know how much of a plus this is given that the PCL in the late 40s wasn't what it was 20 years earlier, but he probably showed enough to reasonably conclude that he could have had some MLB success during this period.

- On the not so great side, Bridge's SABR Bio (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=807&pid=1553) notes that some suspected him of throwing illegal pitches.

In any event, I think Bridges is very close to the border. Like with Berger and Wilson, I can see how someone might say that there's not quite enough meat on the bones despite great peaks, but there's just enough for met to vote for Bridges.