Deacon White, voted into the Cooperstown Hall of Fame less than two weeks ago, was professional baseball’s first “greatest-ever hitting catcher”. From 1871 through 1879, which was White’s final season before shifting to other positions, the following (after the jump) were the top career Batting WAR numbers (or as it is referred to in various places in the baseball-reference Play Index, “WAR Runs Batting”, “runs_bat”, “Rbat” or “the number of runs better or worse than average the player was as a batter”) for players who had played at least half their games at the catcher position:
1. Deacon White 152
2. John Clapp 47
3. Emil Gross 11
4. Lew Brown 5
5. Doc Kennedy 4
Not much question there about who the best-hitting catcher had been during the first decade of pro baseball league competition. So it may be fitting that just thirteen days after the announcement of Deacon White’s election, we at HHS conclude a vote that puts Mike Piazza in as the first member of the “Circle of Greats”. Let’s apply the same test as we did above, except instead of 1871-1879, let’s do those career Batting WAR numbers (again, for all players who played at least half their career games at catcher) from 1871 all the way through to today:
1. Mike Piazza 419
2. Mickey Cochrane 270
3. Johnny Bench 269
T4. Bill Dickey and Gene Tenace 262
6. Gabby Hartnett 232
7. Yogi Berra 230
8. Ernie Lombardi 211
9. Jorge Posada 206
10. Joe Mauer 195
As was true with Deacon White in the 1870s, this list suggests there is little question who has been, by the numbers, the greatest hitting catcher in the history of the major leagues, by a wide margin. Welcome, Mike Piazza, to the Circle of Greats.
61 ballots were submitted in the 1968 round of COG voting. Here’s the final tally of who appeared on how many of the three-man ballots:
1. Mike Piazza 48 (78.7% of the ballots)
2. Jeff Bagwell 44 (72.1%)
3. Frank Thomas 41 (67.2%)
4. Mike Mussina 21 (34.4%)
5. Roberto Alomar 18 (29.5%)
6. Jeff Kent 6 (9.8%)
7. John Olerud 2 (3.3%)
T8. Sammy Sosa, Hideo Nomo and Matt Stairs 1 each (1.6%)
You can double-check my vote tally here: By the rules, Piazza as the top vote-getter is inducted into the Circle. Bagwell and Thomas, having appeared on at least 50% of the ballots cast, are eligible to be included on ballots through at least the 1964 round of voting. The rest of those who received at least one vote, by falling within the top 8 vote-getters (including ties), remain eligible for (at least) the 1967 round of voting. That 1967 round will begin with another post later today.
Is there a reason my vote wasn’t counted?
JamesS: you clearly voted @83 on the Circle of Greats thread. Your votes were for Frank Thomas, John Olerud, and Mike Piazza. You are correct that your vote is note listed on the spreadsheet posted by birtelcom. Obviously an oversight that I’m sure Birtelcom will correct.
Did you provide proof of age?
JamesS: Sorry I missed your vote, and Chris’s too – he voted right after you did. Both the official vote count and the running tally record have been corrected to include your and Chris’s previously uncounted votes.
Thank you.
Bryan,
Yes but I may have left a hanging chad.
A question, birtelcom. Since Mussina and Alomar didn’t get 50% of the vote and are only awarded one extra year of voting, what happens if they don’t win the 1967 vote but get over 50%? Are they then awarded an extra five years after that, or are both Mussina and Alomar flat out eliminated if they don’t win the ’67 vote?
If Mussina and Alomar in the 1967 round get over 50% without being elected they would then be automatically eligible for the next four votes (1966, 1965, 1964 and 1963). If they get over 20% or finish in the top 8, but don’t make it 50%, they would then be eligible for the 1966 vote. and if, say, Frank Thomas, who now holds eligibility through the 1964 vote, should again finish over 50% without winning in the 1967 vote, his eligibility would be extended through the 1960 vote (or if he finishes in the top 8 but below 50%, through the 1963 vote). In short, eligibility extensions keep adding up as long as you keep earning them — although of course you also use one up one round of extension every time you are not elected.
Got it. Thanks for the response.
It will be very interesting to see how grouping players by year of birth affects the ultimate standards of the Circle of Greats.
This may have been noted already, but the year we just voted on, 1968, had 9 players with 50+ career rWAR — 8 position players, and 1 pitcher. We shall not see its like again.
No other year has seen the birth of more than 6 total players with 50+ career WAR, nor more than 5 position players.
Looking ahead, the next eight years average about 3 players with 50+ WAR:
1967 has 4 total, 2 pos and 2 pitch.
1966 has 4 total, 1 pos and 3 pitch.
1965 has 2 total, 1 pos and 1 pitch.
1964 has 5 total, 4 pos and 1 pitch.
1963 has 4 total, 2 pos and 2 pitch.
1962 has 2 total, 0 pos and 2 pitch.
1961 has none.
1960 has 2 total, 2 pos and 0 pitch.
Among those born in 1961, only 2 had more than 30 career WAR: Don Mattingly (39.8) and Jimmy Key (46.1). There’s no telling what the backlog will be by then, but that could turn into a very interesting poll.
Oh, and no free pass for Tom Glavine, who will rank no better than 4th in WAR on the 1966 ballot.
Of the years from 1901-1980, no 50-WAR players were born in 1901, 1904, 1908, 1910, 1922-24, 1929-30, 1932-33, 1950, 1952, 1961 and 1976.
Lance Berkman, born in ’76, has 49.0 WAR. No player born in 1961 or before is still active; Jamie Moyer was born in ’62.
Pretty remarkable how big an impact that war has had.
1901 World War 1 1917-1918 Many of the soldiers were as young as 16 years old.
1922-24 World War 2 1941-1945 There may have been a few of the 1929 group here too.
1929-1939,1932-1933 Korean War 1950-1953
1950,1952 Vietnam 1959-1975 Peak ground troop levels in the late 60’s
That leaves a few years at the beginning of the century plus 1961 and maybe 1976 (depending on Berkman’s future) unaffected by war.
I don’t see voting getting any easier as we move forward either. Yes there will be fewer new big names each year but we’re also going to have an even bigger chunk of well qualified players carried over too. It’s highly likely that neither Sosa or Olerud will make it past next year and possible that Jeff Kent may not either (I’m assuming that the Matt Stairs bandwagon will have run it’s course as well) and since only one player can get in each year the list of also rans is just going to get better and better and probably make it more difficult to reach any sort of consensus.
Actually, just writing about it has got me kind of excited for the next round.
Sorry to go way off topic, but can someone explain the little spots of color on some players’ batting averages on B-R pages? I can’t figure it out.
They seem to be almost always on league-leading BAs, but not always:
Ty Cobb has them on all 11 batting titles, but also on 1910, when he lost the race to Nap Lajoie.
Honus Wagner & Tony Gwynn have them on all 8 of their batting titles.
Rod Carew and Rogers Hornsby have them on all 7 batting titles.
Larry Walker has them on his 3 batting crowns, ditto George Brett.
Ed Delahanty has one on his 1899 batting crown, but also on 1902, when Lajoie edged him out.
Lajoie, for that matter, has the color blobs on 3 of his titles, but not on 1902 or 1910. In 1902 he only had 87 games and 385 PAs, so it occurred to me that the color might indicate the leader as judged by today’s qualifying standards. But in 1910 he had 159 games, 677 PAs, so why no color there?
I recall that the 1910 Cobb/Lajoie race was controversial, and the league president made some sort of ruling about who was recognized; there may also have been some inaccurate tallying. Could the color indicate leaders as recognized by B-R, but not necessarily by MLB? Or vice versa?
And FWIW, there is none for Melky Cabrera this year, even though he was disqualified purely by fiat.
There must have been an announcement, but I missed it. What’s it all about?
Well, it’s addressed here (the ‘news’ section of B-R where the old blog used to be, sob sob):
http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/09/how-i-think-well-handle-melky-and-the-batting-title/
It sounds like, from my reading, B-R must use the spots of colour to denote the official league champion, not the leader, so Delahanty over Lajoie in 1902, Cobb over Lajoie in 1910, and Posey over Cabrera this year.
Apologies, Bells, I was typing and researching while your post came up.
No need for apologies, your post went into it in much more detail and so the fact that it is the product of at least 25 minutes of research is evident from its quality.
The subtle graying around the black ink is the recognized champion(Cobb in 1910) while the higher average but unrecognized champion gets black ink but no color(Lajoie in 1910). Cobb was proclaimed the winner not due to a PA issue but to the controversy around the third baseman backing up and letting Lajoie bunt for base hits on the last day of the season to make sure Nap won.
I admit, I’m confused about 1902 also. Lajoie is listed as the winner on the BA leaderboards, but he has no color which suggests Delahanty was credited with the title so he should have black ink AND color, but he has neither. This suggests to me that the subtle coloring is B-R’s recognized champion, because on Delahanty’s wikipedia page he is credited with the 1902 title. But since B-R thinks it should go to Lajoie AND he had a higher average, perhaps that’s why Delahanty has no black ink at all. I don’t know. Now I see Lajoie’s wiki page lists him also as the 1902 champion, so now I’m really confused. I think you’ve uncovered an error involving 1902. I would e-mail Sean to sort it out.
This may help:
http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/09/how-i-think-well-handle-melky-and-the-batting-title/
Sean retracts what he says re: Melky in this next link, about 10 days later. Pay attention to the “Update” at the end of the article.
http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/10/were-giancarlo-stanton-joey-votto-the-nl-slugging-and-on-base-champs-this-year/
This is why Cabrera has no black ink, because he’s disqualified and MLB created a once-only amendment to 10.22(a) which prevents Melky from winning on ghost at-bats because he failed a drug test. I remember your scathing critique of this decision, John, but that at least might explain it for you. But 1902? Looks like an error to me.
bstar: In the SABR Bio Project there is an explanation of what happened with Lajoie and Delahanty in 1902.
Here is the describing paragraph:
Big Ed battled former Phillies teammate Nap Lajoie of the Cleveland club for the batting crown in 1902. Though unofficial figures at season’s end showed Lajoie with a 15-point lead, .387 to .372, the official statistics released two months later declared Delahanty champion by a seven-point margin, which would have made Big Ed the only player ever to win both an NL and AL batting title. Research in later years, however, uncovered that Lajoie actually bested Delahanty, .378 to .376. By today’s standards Delahanty would have been declared champion anyway, because Lajoie had only 381 plate appearances.ere is the describing paragraph:
Thanks for all the replies about the “mysterious” color blobs on B-R.
On MLB.com:
For 1902, Delahanty is the recognized batting champ, with Lajoie not listed. B-R has Lajoie’s BA in bold, but Delahanty gets the color. Apparently, B-R recognizes Lajoie based on a standard of playing in 60% of the team’s games.
Except Delahanthy has neither color nor boldness on his B-Ref page in 1902. It’s just like he finished second no matter what. He’s not getting recognized there for even possibly winning it.
I see no color on the B-R pages. Just black “ink” or normal.
Time to visit the eye doctor? Time to buy a new computer?
The “color” is a very pale yellow background in the pertinent cell.
Mike, check out Nap Lajoie’s page and you’ll see some of his BA black inks have color and some don’t (1902 and 1910 don’t). That’s what we’ve been discussing.
Bstar – Actually Delahanty DOES have color for 1902. It may be a bit hard to see in comparison to his 1899 color (since that one also has the black) but it’s definitely there. Also see my post #24.
I just saw it, Ed, thanks. I actually have to tilt my laptop to see it. Why doesn’t he also have black ink? That’s what I don’t get. Also, Steve McCatty for 1981 ERA has the color but no black ink. I thought from your link that Sean said both players would get black ink. Now I’ve ended up the most confused of everyone.
Bstar – This is what Sean says: “For the purpose of the black ink test we’ll give both of them credit.”. I interpret the “black ink test” to refer to the Bill James “black ink” that’s listed under Hall of Fame Statistics.
John – Actually the “mysterious color blobs” apply to all ERA titles, BA titles and record holders.
See the first three bullets of Sean’s post here:
http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/10/2012-baseball-reference-end-of-year-updates/
You can see an ERA title example via Sandy Kofax:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml
And a record holder example via everyone’s favorite player:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/koufasa01.shtml
Oops…”everyone’s favorite player”:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml
Have to share this with my fellow HHSers. This may be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. How do people like this keep their jobs???
“The emerging Generation M, influenced by its Godfather, Bill James, and his capo, Billy Beane, is also deeply culpable for allowing their calculations to blissfully ignore steroids and, through that omission, attempting to legitimize the whole dishonest era (and themselves) by attempting to make the game revolve around only numbers. It is no surprise, then, that two of the Gen M standard bearers, power and on-base percentage kings Manny Ramirez and Jason Giambi (directly linked to Beane and James) were both disgraced by steroids.”
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8746034/blame-writers-vote-bonds-clemens-sosa
Yes Howard, the steroids era is all the fault of us number geeks. No one cared about numbers before we came along.
Definitely a big time rant against sabermatricians.
However, I’m never in my life going to understand why people invest so much energy into the issue of who should and should not get into the Hall of Fame. Do away with the damn thing for all I care.
You’re in the wrong place. 🙂 Well, on this one issue.
Let me amend my statement because it came off as quite arrogant.
I actually like the fact that people are interested in that issue, because it represents (one reason) why HHS is such a great site: people have interests in lots of different topics here. Some are really into the Hall of Fame and it helps spur discussion about comparative value, which makes you look at numbers and think about things. That’s all good. Also, some people are more focused on individuals, others on team issues. I’m guess I’m just more interested in the latter, that’s all.
Ed — From what I’ve read of Howard Bryant’s work (especially his Aaron bio), all I can say is: I won’t be reading any more of it.
And even though I depend on ESPN for mainstream content, I never forget that about half their output represents the deliberate elevation of style over substance.
Thanks John. I decided to look at Bryant’s book an Aaron on amazon.com. One particular review caught my eye and I read through it and then decided to see who wrote it. It was none other than YOU! (unless there’s some other John Autin going around reviewing baseball books).
Yes, Ed, and I’ll admit, you prompted me to re-view my review. Seems I liked the book more than I recalled in my prior comment — but that surely had more to do with the subject than the author. It remains the worst-edited mainstream publication I’ve ever read.
Why does it seem like my vote wasn’t counted? Not that it would have mattered- I went with the Bagwell/Piazza/Thomas triumvirate- but I am not any of the four Mikes listed. (Maybe I should use my last initial from now on, too? It probably didn’t help that I happened to have voted sandwiched between two other Mikes.)
Got it — sorry your vote slipped through. The official results have been adjusted to include your vote.
birtelcom, when can we expect the 1967 post?
A little late for the Hanukkah folks, but don’t say you didn’t get anything for Christmas.
L’chaim and Merry Christmas birtelcom!
Jorge Posada #9 All-time among catchers. HOF for Jorge.
Posada may arguably have been a top-10 hitting catcher (for example, #9 in OPS+ among players with at least 1,000 games catching; #9 in WAR Runs Batting among players who caught in at least 50% of their games), but he was not an above-average defensive catcher (for example, he caught 28% of attempting base stealers, compared to a league average in his era of 30%), which probably brings him down out of the all-time top 10 overall, at least in my view.