Circle of Greats: Redemption Round #3

This Circle of Greats (COG) vote is not to induct anyone into the Circle, but only to select two players who will be restored back on to the main ballot after having been previously been dropped from eligibility.  This third “redemption round” (we also held such rounds after the 1960 and 1950 rounds of voting) gives voters a chance to reconsider past candidates that have been rejected.  Rules and lists are after the jump.

In this round you may include on your three-man ballot any player who was born between 1940 and 1968 and has neither been elected to the Circle of Greats nor is currently ballot-eligible in the regular COG voting.  As usual, you must vote for three and only three  to cast a qualifying ballot.  The two guys who appear on the most ballots will be restored to eligibility for the next regular, induction round of of COG voting.  If your personal favorite doesn’t come in the top two this time, do not despair — he will have other chances in future redemption rounds, which are currently scheduled to be held once after every decade’s worth of regular induction rounds (after the 1930 round, the 1920 round, etc.) .

The lists of hitters and pitchers below show, in alphabetical order, the 18 hitters and 15 pitchers who have received at least three COG votes but have neither been inducted nor are on the current ballot.  The numbers in parentheses are the number of votes the player received during regular COG balloting rounds.  The names on these lists are only suggestions, they are not intended to be limiting: to repeat, you can vote for whoever you want among those born from 1940 through 1968 as long as they are not already in the COG or already on the regular ballot.

Position players born 1940-1968 who have received at least three votes in past regular COG voting (but are not currently eligible for the regular COG balloting and are not COG inductees):

Buddy Bell (3)
Andre Dawson (5)
Darrell Evans (3)
Dwight Evans (19)
Bill Freehan (3)
Keith Hernandez (3)
Jeff Kent (10)
Don Mattingly (12)
Fred McGriff (13)
Dale Murphy (6)
Graig Nettles (10)
Kirby Puckett (3)
Willie Randolph (4)
Ted Simmons (12)
Reggie Smith (4)
Gene Tenace (4)
Dave Winfield (53)
Jim Wynn (4)

Pitchers born 1940-1968 who have received at least three  votes in regular COG voting (but are not currently eligible for the regular COG balloting and are not COG inductees):  

Kevin Brown (31)
Dennis Eckersley (9)
Rollie Fingers (3)
John Franco (3)
Rich Gossage (13)
Ron Guidry (3)
Trevor Hoffman (6)
Catfish Hunter (3)
Bill Lee (3)
Mickey Lolich (3)
Dan Quisenberry (4)
Rick Reuschel (23)
Dave Stieb (8)
Don Sutton (11)
Wilbur Wood (4)

The deadline to cast your ballots in this redemption round is Friday night, November 29 at 11PM EST.  You can change your votes until 11PM EDT on Wednesday night, November 27.  You can keep track of the vote tally in this redemption round here:COG Redemption Round 3 Vote Tally.

115 thoughts on “Circle of Greats: Redemption Round #3

  1. 1
    Jeff Harris says:

    Dave Winfield, Kevin Brown

  2. 2
    donburgh says:

    The lists both say ‘born 1950-1968’

  3. 4
    Mike HBC says:

    Jim Abbott
    Curtis Pride
    Jim Eisenreich

    Spoiler alert! Here’s what my Redemption Round #4 vote will be:
    Jim Abbott
    Curtis Pride
    Jim Eisenreich

  4. 5

    Brown, Eckersley, Mark McGwire

  5. 6
    Mike says:

    McGriff, and one of the best men ever, not limited to baseball & a guy whose stats compare very favorably with Bruce Sutter (w/o the WS moment or the development if a new pitch)

    Dan Quisenberry

  6. 7
    koma says:

    Mark McGwire, Dennis Eckersley, Trevor Hoffman

  7. 8
    Artie Z. says:

    Kevin Brown, Dawson, Dwight Evans

  8. 9
    JEV says:

    Brown, Stieb, Dwight Evans

  9. 10
    Nick Pain says:

    Rick Reuschel, Dwight Evans, Graig Nettles

  10. 11
    Chris C says:

    1) Dennis Eckersley – we need a closer on this team. Hmm. Will we do a 1969 vote now that Rivera has retired?
    2) Craig Nettles
    3) Rick Reuschel

    • 28
      mosc says:

      I was promised 1969 at the 1 year anniversary of the 1968 round.

    • 47
      Artie Z. says:

      I would guess that Randy Johnson could fill in as the closer. I mean, if Chapman can do it certainly Randy Johnson can, right?

      And as much as I respect Rivera for what he has done on the field and what he hasn’t done off of it (by that I mean I can’t remember him being tied to ANYTHING negative), he’s only the second best player born in 1969. Now he’s way ahead of the 3rd best (whoever that is – Juan Gonzalez or Alex Fernandez or whoever), but I would guess that Junior gets voted in ahead of Rivera. Yes, Griffey’s last decade was virtually useless and even painful to watch at times, but the first dozen years were truly outstanding.

  11. 12
    brp says:

    Winfield, Reuschel, Reg. Smith

  12. 15
    KalineCountry says:

    Bill Freehan
    Fred McGriff
    Dave Winfield

  13. 16
    Dr. Doom says:

    A tough one. But I still have Kevin Brown as the highest-ranking player to miss COG election, so I’m voting for him (as I have in all of the redemption rounds). Narrowly missing my vote is Andre Dawson. I’m sad that I can’t vote for him.

    Kevin Brown
    Rick Reuschel
    Graig Nettles

  14. 17
    Dr. Remulak says:

    Mattingly, Winfield, Hoffman.

  15. 18
    JasonZ says:

    Mike @6 is correct.

    On September 1, 1979 my dad took me to
    Yankee Stadium to see the Yankees play
    the Royals.

    A glance at the box score reminded me that
    Jim Spencer hit his 16th homer that Saturday
    afternoon, which I remember like it was yesterday.

    It also revealed that Rich Gossage pitched the final two innings, allowing 2 harmless hits and
    striking out 6. This, I do not remember.

    What it cannot reveal is a 12-year-old Yankee fan
    during Royals batting practice on the 3rd base side. Hoping to get an autograph.

    Only one player signs. And he signs for awhile.

    Happiness, I have the autograph.

    Sadness, I cannot read it, and did not get
    the players number.

    Next season a reliever, (we didn’t call them
    “Closers” back then), burst upon the scene,
    one of the best, and everybody knew his name.

    I opened my autograph book and began to flip
    the pages. And there it was, easy as pie to
    read, for it was 1980 and everybody knew his
    name now.

    Thanks for the autograph Quiz.

  16. 19
    Bix says:

    Dwight Evans, Kevin Brown, Dave Winfield

  17. 21
    The Diamond King says:

    McGwire, Eckersley, Winfield

  18. 22
    Mo says:

    Quisenbery, Eckersly, Reuschel

  19. 23
    David Horwich says:

    Dwight Evans, Nettles, Winfield

    I also considered Brown, McGwire, Randolph, and Reuschel.

  20. 24
    Josh says:

    Mattingly, Winfield, Gossage

  21. 25
    oneblankspace says:

    Looking at who I have voted for or thought hard about in the regular rounds…

    Quisenberry (Thank you to all my starting pitchers who could not go 9 innings, and my manager who would not let them)

    Players I saw play in person on this list
    Mattingly (hit a HR)
    Dawson (hit a HR when I was under the stands)

    [X] Quisenberry
    [X] Da.Murphy
    [X] Fingers

  22. 26
    Voomo Zanzibar says:

    This is really hard.
    Six members of the 1983 Yankees on the suggested ballot and I probably wont vote for any of them. Consulting the coffee oracle, be back later…

  23. 27
    --bill says:

    Graig Nettles.
    Rick Reuschel.
    Kevin Brown.

  24. 29
    mosc says:


  25. 30
    Lawrence Azrin says:

    – Dave Winfield
    – Dwight Evans
    – Mark McGwire

  26. 31
    wx says:

    Jamie Moyer, Kevin Brown, Dennis Eckersley

  27. 32
    ATarwerdi96 says:

    Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, Rick Reuschel

  28. 33
    Gary Bateman says:

    Sutton, Winfield, Eckersley

  29. 36
    Voomo Zanzibar says:

    There are 20 players listed above that, in my opinion, are legitimate candidates for COG discussion. Plus the write-ins.

    Many of them disappeared in a one-and-done.

    Almost all of the 60 or so consistent voters are carrying dedicated holdover votes from year to year.
    The field of competition is getting bigger.
    This is the hardest vote yet, to me at least.
    I want to vote for all of these guys:

    Buddy Bell
    Willie Randolph
    Kevin Brown
    Rick Reuschel
    Dennis Eckersley

    Brown over Reuschel for peak.
    Willie over Buddy because I saw him play, and have a sense of his worth beyond the numbers.


  30. 37
    Brendan Bingham says:

    Dwight Evans, Hernandez, Nettles

  31. 38
    MJ says:

    Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel, Graig Nettles

  32. 39
    Insert Name Here says:

    So I’m going to be taking EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE, that is eligible into account for this one. This was a difficult decision. To save us from a list of 50+ candidates, I won’t be listing my full “ranking of other candidates” in this and future redemption rounds, but only some other choices, since I suppose they could come into play later.

    Initial vote based solely on merit:

    1. Kevin Appier (7.0 WAR/162 during 8-yr peak of 1970-77)
    2. Dave Stieb (7.0 WAR/162 during 6-yr peak of 1980-85)
    3. Bret Saberhagen (6.8 WAR/162 during 7-yr peak of 1985-91)

    Top five other deserving candidates: David Cone, Sal Bando, Graig Nettles, Jim Wynn, Jim Fregosi

    • 60
      Dr. Doom says:

      Shout-out to you, INH, for making me re-think my ballot. I didn’t end up making any changes, but thanks for making me reconsider Appier, Saberhagen, and Bando, about whom I had forgotten. Thanks!

    • 108
      oneblankspace says:

      Saberhagen is the youngest starter to win a World Series game. Even younger than Gooden.

      • 110
        Richard Chester says:

        oneblankspace: How did you get your info? Gooden never had a WS win and Saberhagen was preceded by Bullet Joe Bush, Jim Palmer, Fernando Valenzuela, Madison Bumgarner and Chief Bender in that order by yungest..

        • 111
          oneblankspace says:

          Maybe I’m misremembering and it was Start a WS game. Playing with the free version of the play index, Saberhagen is the youngest with 2 CG-W in the World Series, and the youngest to start Game 7.

          • 112
            Richard Chester says:

            Your second sentence is correct. Chief Bender had 2 CG at a younger age but he won only one of the two.

      • 114
        Doug says:

        The youngest to win a WS game is Frankie Rodriguez, game 2 in 2002, with 3 scoreless innings in relief.

        Saberhagen is the youngest to start a game 7, and to win a game 7, and the youngest to win any deciding WS game. Chief Bender is the youngest to start and to lose a deciding WS game.

        Steve Avery has the most WS starts (4) before his 23rd birthday. Waite Hoyt has the most WS CG (3) and IP (27) for the under-23 set.

  33. 40
    RonG says:

    Ted Simmons
    Ron Guidry
    Dwight Evans

  34. 41
    Jeff B says:

    Winfield, Sutton & Dawson

    IMHO, Winfield and Sutton are clearly the top 2 in the pool.

  35. 42
    bells says:

    Wow, I’m liking the redemption rounds even better than the elections; this is interesting stuff, arguing guys on the margins. If anything dispels the lazy characterization of sabermetrically-inclined folks as robotically ranking players based on a single number, it would be something like this. I think we should have redemption rounds more often!

    It’s interesting to me to look at the top 20 eligible-for-redemption in terms of WAR. In descending order:

    1. Rafael Palmeiro – higher WAR than 8 elected members of the CoG, and but for Whitaker (and guys introduced this round), higher WAR than any holdover on the ballot. Yet, not a single vote here. The steroids and finger wagging leave a large shadow, it seems.

    2. Rick Reuschel – 8 votes
    3. Kevin Brown – 9 votes
    4. Greg Nettles – 8 votes
    5. Don Sutton – only 3 votes
    6. Dwight Evans – 9 votes
    7. Buddy Bell – 0 votes so far
    8. Willie Randolph – 1 vote
    9. Andre Dawson – 2 votes
    10. Reggie Smith – 1 vote
    11. Dave Winfield – vote leader with 12
    12. Dennis Eckersley – 8 votes
    13. David Cone – 0 votes
    14. Mark McGwire – 4 votes, mostly zeroes and ones below
    15. Sal Bando
    16. Willie Davis
    17. Gary Sheffield
    18. Keith Hernandez
    19. Bret Saberhagen
    20. Darrell Evans

    • 44
      Voomo Zanzibar says:

      What sets Palmiero apart from the rest of the steroid gang is that he was brazenly wagging it in our face.

      It’s one thing to gain the competitive edge on the field.
      A lot of guys did that.

      But Palmiero was the only one who we had to watch brag about it when we went to commercial.

      I think the subconscious process of the average American guy when considering Raffy is something like:

      “Really dude? You’re a world class athlete, and you were taking drugs to bang your wife? And you’re getting paid extra millions to tell us about it? And, AND you have that moustache !!! Shenanigans motherfucker.”

      • 62
        bells says:

        Yeah, he was definitely a weiner. Funny how that sticks in our craw enough to discount him. I mean hell, Pete Rose, who was a huge asshole and gambled on his own team, and has a mere 7.6 more WAR than Palmiero, got voted in without much difficulty. Raf didn’t even get more than 2 votes, let alone stay on the ballot. I almost feel sorry enough for the guy to vote for him. And then I remember that ‘stache, and think the key word is ‘almost’…

        • 78
          no statistician but says:


          I think the true word that applies in the case of Palmiero—other than something like ‘revulsion’—is ‘uncertainty.’

          In 1988 the Cubs had two young candidates for the first base position, Palmiero and Mark Grace. In 1988-90, Grace hit 7, 13, and 9 HRs. Palmiero, who was traded to Texas after the ’88 season, hit 8, 8, and 14. Grace’s OPS+ for those years: 119, 139, 110. Palmiero’s: 126, 121, 104. Grace went on to play 2245 games, almost all of them at first base, Palmiero went on to play 2831 games, 2139 at first base. Grace’s career was consistent with its beginnings. In fact, he was one of the most consistent players of his era. Palmiero’s career went into overdrive and he racked up power numbers that have no obvious roots in his first seven years as a big leaguer.

          We can, I think, get a clear picture of Mark Grace’s career from his stats. The picture we get from Palmiero’s stats, which at first ran parallel to Grace’s for not just three but more like five years, is so uncertain as to defy pinning down. How much was Palmiero and how much was PEDs?

  36. 43
    Doug says:

    Eckersley, Stieb, Gossage

  37. 45
    oneblankspace says:

    As I type this comment, columns N and Y (r.smith and reg.smith) on the spreadsheet seem to refer to the same player.

  38. 49
    Miller says:

    In terms of redemption, I’m interested most in the criminally under-appreciated:

    Kevin Brown
    Rick Reuschel
    Keith Hernandez

    I’m pretty surprised Hernandez doesn’t get more love around here. If we’re to trust the DRA work of Michael Humphreys, which I do, Hernandez may be among the dozen or so best 1B ever to play the game.

    • 51
      oneblankspace says:

      KHernandez was in the clubhouse opening a beer while Buckner was booting that routine ground ball.

      • 53
        Miller says:

        As a Red Sox fan, that made me want to drink too. Hernandez had it right.

        In all seriousness though, that’s an example of jerkiness, not stinkiness. One day in 1986 can’t really be why Hernandez doesn’t get the respect for his career exploits, right?

    • 57
      Mike HBC says:

      You know what I would argue is criminally under-appreciated? Playing with one hand, no hearing, or Tourette Syndrome. But that’s just me.

      • 64
        bells says:

        sure they are, and actually as a come-lately baseball fan I really appreciate you highlighting these guys and their careers, because other than a passing understanding of who Abbot was, I didn’t know anything about them. But this is a stats site, so it’s understandable to me that people talk about being ‘underappreciated’ in terms of stats first, and maybe perseverance as a more peripheral thing.

        • 90
          Mike HBC says:

          I don’t really highlight them here as an argument that they deserve to be in the CoG or have any other “enshrinement” that actually relies on playing ability; they’re all in the Shrine of the Eternals, and that’s where they belong. But nobody who comes out of a Redemption Round is ever going to make it to the CoG; sure, Kenny Lofton might still be on the ballot, but he’s never come within a dozen votes of winning. In that regard, Jim Abbott is about as likely as Ted Simmons. So, I consider this entire redemption process a bit pointless, and as a result, I would rather name players whom I personally feel deserve the adulation.

          • 92
            bells says:

            ah, I see. I get what you’re saying.

            About your proclamation re: redemption rounders getting elected – I think things are likely to change once we get through the 30s. The guys that get back on for this vote are going to be slaughtered, no doubt. But there’s much less depth of top-level talent in the pool of players born pre-expansion. I’m willing to wager that by the time we get to 1915, Lofton and Martinez (former redemption rounders) will both be in. And it wouldn’t surprise me if up to 5 names on the redemption ballot get in eventually. We shall see, I suppose. Regardless, I do enjoy the discussion here, it makes me consider the careers of players I haven’t been familiar with.

          • 100
            Mike HBC says:

            I’m guessing that nobody who ever came from a redemption ballot gets there, but I suppose we’ll find out in a few months.

  39. 50
    Lawrence Azrin says:

    – Dave Winfield
    – Dwight Evans
    – Ted Simmons

  40. 52
    Andy says:

    Simmons, Winfield, McGwire

  41. 54
    jajacob says:

    Dave Winfield, Dwight Evans, Don Sutton,

    How did DW end up with negative field rating and all those gold gloves? His arm was amazing (didn’t he kill a seagull?), Before I looked up his Career WAR I was sure he was going to be in the 80’s.

    • 56
      Voomo Zanzibar says:

      Well, he killed the seagull on one bounce.

      But as a bleacher creature from 1987-1990, I call baloney on Winfield’s negative rating. I’ll concede that maybe he looked better than his range, because an enthusiastic 6’6 frame is fun to watch – but maybe doesn’t get up to full speed very quickly. But yes, his arm was fantastic.

      • 67
        paget says:

        Funny, I hadn’t checked in with HHS for a month or so, and the week I return I find we are picking up where I had last left off; conversation about dWAR and Dave Winfield. Seems to me that a great many of us think dWAR does a lot of violence to Winfield’s defensive talents.
        It also seems like a fair amount of readers think that Winfield suffers mostly as a function of his remarkable longevity; he stayed productive as a hitter for so long that his defensive statistics were bound to suffer as he entered his mid-30s and beyond. The problem with that reading is that b-ref gives him hideous dWAR basically his whole career, even in his 20s.
        Like Voomo, I’m very open to the idea that he wasn’t as remarkable in the field as he seemed to me when I watched him play. But not to him being one of the worst statistical fielders in the history of the game (there can’t be that many players who, according to b-ref, have lost more than 24 games with their glove alone).

        • 68
          paget says:

          By the way:


        • 72
          Dr. Doom says:

          The “glove alone” is a bit misleading, because of how dWAR is calculated. Most of his negative fielding rating is the positional adjustment (-135 runs), which he has no control over. SOMEONE would have been playing out there, and no matter WHO it was, it’s the same cost in terms of number of runs. So on that sense, DW only cost his teams 91 runs, which, over 24 seasons is bad – but not THAT bad. He basically cost his teams one run every 27 games in the field (that is, excluding his games as a DH). I’m betting it’s not that hard to fling guys A LOT worse than that.

          • 73
            Dr. Doom says:

            Interestingly, I decided to look up a bad defensive player. That player was Dante Bichette – who ALSO has an Rfield of -91, but in 900 fewer games on the field.

          • 74
            paget says:

            Hmm.. So if a rightfielder has an Rfield of 0 he still would have a negative dWAR based solely on his position? Doesn’t that seem … I don’t know … weird? Basically it means that if you are an absolutely average rightfielder defensively relative to your peers you are costing your team games. How is that possible? That seems to counter to the entire spirit of WAR. If you are performing at the same level as you peers how can you be adding or costing your team victories?
            There must be something I’m missing here.

          • 75
            birtelcom says:

            paget at 74: The fact that dWAR is negative does not mean a player is costing his team games compared to a replacement player. That’s because WAR is not oWAR plus dWAR. oWAR and dWAR are not components of WAR. WAR’s components are batting runs compared to average, fielding runs compared to average, baserunning runs compared to average, GIDP runs compared to average, then a positional adjustment and then an adjustment for playing time to reflect an adjustment from comparison to average to comparison to replacement level. oWAR is the offensive components added up plus the positional adjustment, dWAR is the fielding runs plus the positional adjustment again. So if you added oWAR and dWAR you’d be making the positional adjustment twice. You can use dWAr to measure defensive value but in doing so you can’t treat zero as equal to replacement level in dWAR — that would be over-doing the positional adjustment.

          • 81
            Dr. Doom says:


            No, paget, you’re NOT costing your teams games just by playing, because everyone has to play all the same fielders. It doesn’t cost anyone anything. But, when evaluating individual players, how do you compare a catcher to a shortstop to a left fielder? Their defensive positions have different requirements, and thus the relative value of offensive and defensive production of their replacements has to be accounted for. If you were so inclined, you could compare players based only on the other five components… but you’d quickly see that your SS and 2B and CF would all look “underrated,” and you LF and RF and 1B would all look “overrated.”

          • 84
            paget says:

            Two things:
            1)I guess my first point is fundamentally a semantic one then. If dWAR doesn’t actually reflect defensive WINS above (or below) replacement, it should be called something else. It’s a misleading term.
            2)My (incorrect) impression was that the positional adjustment was there to better evaluate only offensive performance. The theory behind evaluating a shortstops’ offensive production differently than a firstbasemen’s is pretty unassailable. I’m not sure I get the value of doing it for a player’s defense in the field. In the end, though, maybe all I’m saying is exactly what birtlecom@75 says about not counting the positional adjustment twice.

            At all events, got it.

          • 85
            Dr. Doom says:


            Many, MANY people agree with you, and have told Sean as much. The problem is, there are a bunch of people telling him to make the positional adjustment a part of oWAR, and an equal number saying the same about dWAR. So he decided to make everyone miserable by putting the positional adjustment as part of BOTH. Thus, like birt said, to get WAR, you have to add the two, and then subtract out the positional adjustment.

            The reason behind putting it in the defensive adjustment is this: what if I asked you to name the greatest 10 defensive seasons of all-time? How many would be SS, C, and CF? I think probably all of them would be. Because, great though Keith Hernandez was, he wasn’t better than even the average shortstops of his day defensively. Therefore, to account for position, you can include the positional adjustment in the DEFENSIVE part of the system, and the playing field will be leveled. That’s the theory, anyway.

            Tom Tango has spilled a lot of (digital) ink on the subject of where/how to apply the defensive adjustment. Ultimately, what he says is that there’s no such thing as a replacement offensive player, or a replacement defensive player. There’s only such thing as a (theoretical) replacement PLAYER. They HAVE to be considered as complete players, otherwise really wonky things happen. You can’t replace your no-hit, all-field shortstop with a replacement “hitter” – you MUST replace him with another shortstop. And it doesn’t matter if that shortstop is ALSO all-field, no-hit, or if he’s the opposite, or if he’s something in between. He’s a replacement-level player, regardless of HOW that contribution is happening. I don’t know if I explained that well, but I think it’s an important concept to grasp in order to understand WAR.

          • 86
            Voomo Zanzibar says:

            I understand the difference in athletic ability with regards to ‘range’ between a SS/CF and a First Baseman.

            A first baseman, however, sees more action than anyone (not including catcher).

            And that action involved a lot of specific skills, both physical and mental.

            What is the argument that a 1B is ‘less valuable’ than a 2B ?

          • 87
            birtelcom says:

            Voomo: Studies in recent years have shown that among first basemen the difference between the best and worst fielders of throws from other infielders is not large (though it’s not zero), in term of the effect it has on runs prevented. It’s a small difference compared to the difference among first basemen in terms of the difference in their own range on ground balls, liners, bunts, etc.

            And the impact of range differences at first are smaller than for any other infield position. Like a third baseman, a first baseman plays plays near a foul line, cutting down the range of area he needs to cover, especially as the first baseman needs to be within reasonable range of the first base bag on every play. But there are more right-handed batters than left-handed batters, so the third baseman sees more plays. Also, for a significant number of plays the first baseman is stuck standing on first base holding a runner right next to the foul line, severely limiting the range of area he can cover. There are simply a lot fewer plays on which the scope of a first baseman’s defensive skills come into play.

          • 88
            Dr. Doom says:

            It depends what you mean by “less valuable.” If the alternative were playing nobody at 1B or 2B, the 1B is more valuable. If the alternative were playing me at either 1B or 2B, I guarantee that your team would be better off with me at first than second.

  42. 55
    John Z says:

    Just a comment or observation if you will, i do not participate in the redemption round, look how it has worked out for kenny lofton. Now this is my suggestion or proposition if you prefer, for these on the redemption round and even the hold overs,there could be a simple separate ballot for the top 10 (IE D. Evans, Mattingly, Simmons, Winfield, McGriff, Rick Rueshal, Don Sutton, etc. The ballot similar to the veterans committee every 10 years and the top 2 (1 pitcher, 1 position player) make the cog, and the other veterans are banished forever never to be remembered again. It would sure clean up the ballot some and we wouldnt have to consider someone born in 68′ (Robbie Alomar) in 1939. I mean even the HoF drops names after 15 years on the ballot and Robbie been on the COG ballot 30 years. For those that would debate such a change maybe they would consider John Smoltz (If memory serves me correctly he received 50 percent of the ballot in his first year on the COG ballot 1967) who is still on the hold over ballot, a litle more before he vanishes forever into obscurity on the veterans ballot. Just a thought.

    • 77
      birtelcom says:

      John Z: Thanks for the comments. I welcome suggestions as to how to improve the process. I tend to avoid any rules that involve banishing any one forever from eligibility, without any hope of redemption, because it’s hard to predict how, say, Ted Simmons will fit into consideration compared to the candidates on the ballot in, say, the birth years 1910 to 1900. Maybe he’ll look quite good then, even if he might be banished today. And as for guys like Alomar being on the ballot for too many years, or the ballot being too long with old holdovers, well that’s really up to the voters themselves. As long as Alomar and the others continue to receive significant support each round, it costs nothing to keep them on the ballot. If their support goes away, so will they. 13, 15, 17 guys on a ballot really isn’t that long — last year’s BBWAA ballot had 37 names on it.

      • 79
        David Horwich says:

        15 seems plenty long when you can only vote for 3, and only 1 can be elected. Not to mention that all our holdovers are at least plausible candidates, while any given BBWAA ballot has a number of non-serious contenders – of the 37 on last year’s ballot, at least a dozen weren’t worth a second thought.

        By the way, what happens if there’s a tie in the redemption round voting? Redemption run-off?

        • 83
          birtelcom says:

          If there is a tie for the second redemption spot, there won’t be a runoff. There are two choices in that case : not taking either of the players tied or taking both of the players tied. If I announce which one of those I’m doing ahead of time, it may affect the way people vote. So the answer is this: if there is a tie for the second spot, I will flip a coin — heads they both get added to the ballot, tails neither gets added to the ballot.

          The only scenario where I can envision a runoff would be a three-or-more-way tie for the top spot.

        • 97
          mosc says:

          My 4th guy was Garry Sheffield who was certainly not going to make your top 15 by a voting based logic. 80 OWAR.

  43. 58
    Darien says:

    Jeff Kent, Dan Quisenberry, and, okay, I’ll be the guy: Rafael Palmeiro.

  44. 59
    t-bone says:

    Dwight Evans

  45. 61
    donburgh says:

    Fred McGriff, Rick Reuschel, Dan Quisenberry

  46. 63
    Abbott says:

    Winfield, Reuschel, McGwire

  47. 65
    aweb says:

    Palmeiro, McGwire, Sutton

  48. 66
    Hartvig says:

    With an already crowded ballot and a decades worth of great candidates on the horizon I don’t see a lot of hope for anyone pulling a Martinez or a Lofton and sticking around for more than a round or 2.

    McGriff, Reuschel, Winfield

  49. 69
    Kirk says:

    Dwight Evans, Dave Winfield & Rick Reuschel

  50. 70
    J.R. says:

    Keith Hernandez, Kevin Brown, Dave Winfield

  51. 71
    Mike G. says:

    Kevin Brown, Reuschel, Eckersley

    • 76
      birtelcom says:

      According to Adam D.’s Hall of Stats rankings, Mike G.’s ballot includes three of the top four pitchers available for this ballot, the top 4 being, in order, Brown, Reuschel, Cone and Eck. Cone got only a single vote in his birth year round.

      • 82
        Dr. Doom says:

        The great matters of intrigue to me in this whole process is that, even in this statistically-minded community, a lot of the sabermetric “favorites” still can’t get elected. And that’s because a lot of them, while HOF worthy, are not quite COG-worthy, which is a much higher standard.

  52. 80
    Luis Gomez says:

    Palmeiro, Hoffman, Ted Simmons.

  53. 89
    opal611 says:

    For Redemption Round #3, I’m voting for:
    –Rafael Palmeiro
    -Don Sutton
    -Willie Randolph

    Other folks I considered/reconsidered for redemption:

  54. 91
    Francisco says:

    Jeff Kent
    Dave Winfield
    Kevin Brown

  55. 93
    fireworks says:

    Brown, Dewey, Senor Mayo.

  56. 96
    Jeff Hill says:

    Jeff Kent: ALL TIME leader in HR and 3rd in RBI among 2nd baseman,4th in SLG%, 4th in doubles…2000 MVP

    Kirby Puckett

    Kevin Brown

  57. 101
    Bill Johnson says:

    Goose Gossage

    Jim Wynn

    Don Sutton

  58. 102
    bells says:

    Well, whoever gets elected this round is going to go right back on the redemption ballot, methinks, so I’m tempted to put together a ‘I’d like to see them get back in just so they can lose’ ballot with Palmiero, Brown and Sheffield. Buuut, I’m not feeling it. Instead, since I haven’t seen Bryan O’Connor on here yet, I’m going to borrow his methodology, which I always find an informative statistical touch point on each ballot.

    Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:

    1. Kevin Brown – 42.8
    2. Rick Reuschel – 42.5
    3. David Cone – 39.8
    4. Mark McGwire – 38.6
    5. Reggie Smith – 38.2
    6. Bret Saberhagen – 37.7
    7. Willie Randolph – 36.6
    8. Graig Nettles – 35.8
    9. Sammy Sosa – 35.7
    10. Buddy Bell – 35.5
    10. Dave Stieb – 35.5
    12. Sal Bando – 35.4
    13. Andre Dawson – 35.3
    14. Gary Sheffield – 35.0
    15. Dwight Evans – 34.7
    16. Dennis Eckersley – 34.4
    17. Kevin Appier – 34.4
    18. Keith Hernandez – 34.1
    19. Bobby Bonds – 33.6
    20. Rafael Palmeiro – 33.2

    That shakes things up a bit from the straight up WAR rankings; wow. Palmiero goes from #1 to #20, vote-leader Winfield (31.8) drops right off the list, as does Don Sutton, whereas guys like McGwire, Stieb, Appier and Saberhagen get a significant boost.

    The top 3 are pitchers; I only want to vote for 1. Reuschel and Brown are close (only because I counted batting WAA, where Reuschel is positive and Brown negative), but my dislike of Brown is enough of a tiebreaker. Best hitter is McGwire for sure. I’m torn between giving a third vote to an all-time defensive great (Nettles) or a great player who might be even more overlooked than Nettles (Smith). Hmmm…

    Reggie Smith

    • 105
      birtelcom says:

      Your choice of Reuschel over Brown puts Reuschel up by one over Brown in the race for the second spot in the voting (behind Winfield). Because the top two vote-getters return to the main ballot, that second spot is meaningful. Voting ends the night of what in shopping-mad America is known as Black Friday.

      • 107
        birtelcom says:

        And with Hub Kid’s vote @106, Dewey Evans is just one vote back of Brown:
        As of now the top five in the voting are:
        Winfield 21
        Reuschel 16
        Kevin Brown 15
        Dwight Evans 14
        Eckersley 10

  59. 103
    Arsen says:

    Reggie Smith, Rollie Finers, Goose Gossage

  60. 104
    Arsen says:

    Reggie Smith, Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage

  61. 106
    Hub Kid says:

    Dwight Evans, Reggie Smith, Kevin Appier

  62. 113
    Voomo Zanzibar says:

    I propose one of these votes every five years instead of 10.

    A. It’s fun.
    B. There are easily 20 worthy (for discussion) players on this ballot.
    B. Ernie Banks will probably be one-and-done in 1931.

  63. 115
    RJ says:

    Six-time Gold Glover JT Snow is eligible for this Redemption Round and comes onto the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this year. When I see the discussions about Dave Winfield’s dWar I always think of Snow.

    “He’s the best, without a doubt. He’s got the best hands.” – Robb Nen

    “There’s not a play that I’ve seen that he can’t make.” – David Bell

    “Knowing that he’s over there gives you the confidence as an infielder that you don’t have be perfect all the time. If you throw the ball low, he’ll pick it. If you throw it off line, he can make the play and tag the guy.” – Rich Aurilia

    Career Rfield: -22

    Since learning about WAR, Snow’s defensive rating is probably the thing that has surprised me the most. But birtecom’s comments @87 suggesting that, for a first baseman, range is a much more important ability than proficiency at picks perhaps help to explain this disparity between observation and dWAR. Perhaps Snow’s undoubted ability to salvage bad throws really wasn’t all that valuable.

    Article from which comments were sourced:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *