This post is for voting and discussion in the 43nd round of balloting for the Circle of Greats. This round adds to the ballot those players born in 1935. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full group eligible to receive your votes this round. The new group of 1935-born players must, as always, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers).
Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. The one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.
All voting for this round closes at 11:00 PM EST on Thursday, January 23 while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:00 PM EST Tuesday, January 21.
If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1935 Round Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover players; additional player columns from the new born-in-1935 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.
Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The 13 current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The new group of 1935 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.
Holdovers:
Lou Whitaker (eligibility guaranteed for 10 rounds)
John Smoltz (eligibility guaranteed for 7 rounds)
Bobby Grich (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Edgar Martinez (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Craig Biggio (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Juan Marichal (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Willie McCovey (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ron Santo (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kenny Lofton (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ryne Sandberg (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1935, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Frank Robinson
Dick Schofield
Tony Taylor
Felipe Alou
Jose Pagan
Earl Battey
Donn Clendenon
Russ Nixon
Bobby Richardson
Don Demeter
Reno Bertoia
Gene Oliver
Pitchers (born in 1935, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Lindy McDaniel
Moe Drabowsky
Bob Gibson
Jim Perry
George Brunet
Pedro Ramos
Don Cardwell
Mudcat Grant
Joe Gibbon
Joey Jay
Bob Veale
Sandy Koufax
Larry Sherry
Al Jackson
Dave Wickersham
Wow, here’s a stacked ballot!
Sandy Koufax
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
(I would love to also be able to vote for McCovey, Marichal & Killebrew)
Robinson, Koufax, Gibson.
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal
Bob Gibson
Frank Robinson
Ron Santo
Why Santo over Koufax? Koufax is the ultimate peak player – 46.6 pitching WAR (44.2 total WAR if you want to add in his “value” as a hitter) from 1961-1966. That’s over 7 WAR per year. Santo’s best 6 year period was 1963-1968: 48.4 WAR.
So long Eddie Murray – hopefully I will see you in a future (or past as we are going backwards) round!
FYI: The link to McCovey doesn’t work. Seems there is an (eligibility for two rounds) comment added in there.
Thanks for the catch on the McCovey link. It’s fixed now.
Frank, Bob, and Sandy. Shame on anyone who doesn’t vote for at least two of those three.
This is getting progressively more difficult.
Frank Robinson – Best player on the ballot.
Bob Gibson – Gets the nod over Koufax as best pitcher on the ballot.
Craig Biggio – Because I’m not submitting a ballot without Biggio
Apologies to Sandberg, Santo, Koufax, Edgar, and a few others. We may lose a few players this round and have many more lose a year of eligibility.
this is a tough round, since there are 2 no doubters among the new crowd, and three players I think belong in the COG who are on the bubble. I put Lofton, Sandberg and Murray ahead of Biggio, Killebrew, Marichal, McCovey and Smoltz, all of whom have a safety margin in the ballot.
I think every one of these guys has a borderline case, but my focus generally would be to keep people on the ballot who are more deserving than some of the holdovers if it’s feasible.
Whitaker is IMO, the clearest case on the holdover list, so normally I’d be voting for him, but I don’t expect him to win this round with Thomas and Gibson on the ballot, and he’s really safe.
My choice will be all strategic for the holdovers, on the assumption that one of Thomas or Gibson will win this on without my help.
Notes: Yes, I’m content to let Dick Allen drop off. I think he’s a clear HOFer, but in COG, I’m okay to let him go, I consider him a step below all the other holdovers here, and borderline for top 118.
Also, Koufax. I almost didn’t notice him on the ballot until I saw a vote for him, since I’m used to just skimming names at the bottom of the lists, figuring that those who played less than 15 years I will recognize if they are worth consideration. I probably can’t keep that up as we go farther back and I know fewer of the players. This vote shows me the error of that even in eras where I know the standouts, since it’s easy to look past a name on skimming.
In any case, while he certainly merits consideration, I am less enamored of his work than most. Great as he was, his peak only looks better than inner circle guys when using traditional stats because of his era and park. Even for those glorious 4 years, he was at best a peer of the greatest pitchers, not superior. And let’s be clear, that’s almost his whole HOF case. The rest of his career, he’s got 6 years of roughly average play before breaking out with 2 very good years, and then the famous 4 year stretch. 6 years that good with an otherwise below borderline WAR total is enough for the HOF, but not for COG. Consider that his total WAA is 8 less than John Smoltz, a player without a great peak, since some of his best years were spent in relief. I say no to Sandy. I don’t think it’s a tragedy if the commentariat disagrees, partly because fame and mystique do count for something, but I won’t be voting for him, strategically or otherwise.
My vote is for:
Sandberg, Lofton, Murray
Frank Robinson’s OPS numbers vs. pitchers on the ballot this round:
.879 vs. Koufax (124 PAs)
.726 vs. Gibson (98 PAs)
.949 vs. Cardwell (94 PAs)
1.033 vs. McDaniel (86 PAs)
1.109 vs. Jim Perry (73 PAs)
.783 vs. Marichal (68 PAs)
.857 vs. Al Jackson (58 PAs)
1.232 vs. Brunet (56 PAs)
.498 vs. Joe Gibbon (54 PAs)
.860 vs. Veale (45 PAs)
1.061 vs. Drabowsky (33 PAs)
.629 vs. Joey Jay (29 PAs)
1.910 vs. Larry Sherry and .873 vs. Mudcat Grant (26 PAs each)
1.538 vs. Wickersham (13 PAs)
.571 vs. Pedro Ramos (7 PAs)
Nice work, Joe Gibbon, holding down Frank. Gibbon had less success against Mickey Mantle (1 PA, resulting in one three-run homer — in the 1960 World Series). Gibbon is one of three pitchers against whom Mantle had a 5.000 career OPS, but the only one of those against whom Mantle had three ribbies.
Frank Robinson, Biggio, Grich
Oy. We’ve reached the difficult years. These early-1930s are going to be really tough.
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Ron Santo
I feel awful that a whole bunch of guys are going to completely get destroyed. Unless there’s a real groundswell to keep the backlog aloft (which seems unnecessary, given the quality of players who will be jumping on the ballot soon), I think we’re going to lose everyone on our bubble. And you can probably kiss the 2 round guys goodbye next round, too. Robinson and Gibson deserve election pronto. It’s about to get very messy up in the COG.
Robinson, Bob Gibson, McCovey
Robinson, Sandberg, Santo
Gibson will have to wait a ballot or 2 before I can fit him on my ballot.
It pains me to think Koufax may not be CoG-worthy, but I’m on the fence about him. I never saw him pitch (I was born the year he retired), but he was something of a childhood hero of mine. I read a juvenile biography of him, and I identified with him to an extent – he was a lefthanded Jewish kid from New York, I was a lefthanded Jewish kid growing up in the NY area…I didn’t have quite the stuff he had, to be sure.
The case for Koufax is pretty simple: what a peak! And the case against, as summarized by Michael Sullivan @8 above, is equally straightforward: it’s not enough.
I lean towards the “it’s not enough” camp; my feeling is that his record is a little too dependent on his park and era. It’s my belief – which is to say I certainly can’t prove it – that certain players, for whatever reason(s), are better able to leverage the advantages of their home parks – Dodger Stadium in the early/mid-’60s helped all pitchers, but it helped Koufax more than others; Coors Field helps all hitters, but Larry Walker was able to take better advantage of it; and so on.
Now, I do think we can adequately adjust for park/league factors and make a reasonably accurate assessment of how much the player was worth to his team in a given season or seasons, that is to say how much the player was worth in the real world. But when it comes to the more theoretical question of ranking the all-time greats, I’d rather take the players out of their specific contexts and consider how they’d stack up playing in a perfectly neutral environment. Take Koufax out of Dodger Stadium, and I think he’s roughly equivalent to Johan Santana – a very good pitcher with some outstanding years, but with too a short career.
I didn’t vote for Larry Walker, in case you were wondering.
Koufax is the one guy my brain refuses to be rational about. I completely understand the park and era arguments that diminish the value of his traditional stats, but damn it if I can’t help swooning every time I see those five consecutive black inked numbers under “ERA”.
I started following baseball just about the time that Koufax came into national prominence. It’s pretty hard to overstate just how highly he was regarded the last few years of his career. There were very few that didn’t see him as a sure-fire Hall of Famer.
He was also one of the first legends of my youth where looking at advanced statistics showed not just a different picture but one that I could also understand how it was arrived at and see how it all made sense.
I’m fine with him being in the Hall of Fame. In fact I’d probably vote for him myself. But I won’t be voting for him for the Circle of Greats.
Hall of Fame – sure. Koufax is one of many who I consider easy Hall of Famers, but borderline CoG’ers.
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasons:
Robinson 65.0
Gibson 50.0
Grich 43.6
Santo 43.3
Whitaker 42.7
Martinez 41.3
Smoltz 40.1
Lofton 39.3
McCovey 38.9
Sandberg 38.8
Biggio 36.3
Allen 35.9
Murray 34.9
Killebrew 33.0
Marichal 32.7
Koufax 32.3
I’ve been giving Smoltz credit beyond his WAA for his success in the closer role when he probably could’ve accrued more WAA as a starter. Now that Smoltz is no longer the best pitcher on the ballot, I have to decide whether he’s the second-best. Nah, I’ll go with the most overrated player in baseball history.
Robinson, Gibson, Koufax
Juan Marichal, Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson
Robinson, Gibson, Koufax
Let the fun begin. I’ve been looking forward to this stretch for some time.
Players on ballot ranked by their cumulative rank on 3 measures: Career WAR, WAA+, and JAWS. A ranking of #1 on all 3 will lead to a cumulative ranking of 3; a ranking of #16 on all 3 will lead to a cumulative ranking of 48. Here are the rankings (ranking on each measure in parentheses)…
Robinson 3 (1 1 1)
Gibson 6 (2 2 2)
Grich 11 (4 3 4)
Santo 12 (5 4 3)
Whitaker 15 (3 5 7)
Martinez 21 (7 6 8)
Smoltz 24 (6 7 11)
Sandberg 26 (10 10 6)
Lofton 26 (9 8 9)
McCovey 31 (12 9 10)
Marichal 33 (13 15 5)
Murray 33 (8 13 12)
Biggio 35 (11 11 13)
Allen 41 (15 12 14)
Killebrew 43 (14 14 15)
Koufax 48 (16 16 16)
I can’t justify making such a large exception for Koufax. Drysdale was done at 31 (32, but with a negative year) for similar reasons and I didn’t give him any credit, and he needed it less, having 67 WAR to his name. Obviously Sandy won’t have any trouble sticking around anyway.
First two choices are obvious, third is a tossup. Two ballots ago when I first started using this method I gave the edge to Santo, who trails Grich by a hair on WAR and WAA+ but is a few steps ahead on JAWS. I think I’ll do that again, especially since Santo is much closer to the bubble than Grich.
Robinson
Gibson
Santo
okay, Grich only has 3 rounds of eligibility; 2 is not ‘much closer’ I guess; I think I just assumed Grich was on for a Smoltz-like amount of rounds. Either way, vote still goes to Ron.
Robinson, Gibson, Koufax
Robinson, Gibson, Murray
I was going to vote for Whitaker but decided I could afford to vote for somebody to stay on the ballot. Something I gave up doing a couple of ballots ago. Wish I could spilt my third vote between Murray and Lofton like they sometimes do in year end awards.
1.0 for Robinson
.75 for Gibby I think I should duck for not giving him a whole vote.
.25 for Whitaker
.25 for Grich
.15 for Santo
.10 for Koufax
.10 for Martinez
.10 for Biggio
.05 for Lofton
.05 for Smoltz
.05 for McCovey
.05 for Marichal
.05 for Murray
.03 for Killebrew
.01 for Alou
.01 for Perry which brother was better Jim Perry or Joe Neikro.?
I would have to go with Ken Brett as an answer to your final question.
Myron Walter Drabowsky, we’ll call him Mo.
Relief pitcher for the ’66 Orioles.
6.2 scoreless relief innings in Game 1?
He inherited a lead, thanks to dingers from the Robinson brothers off of Double D.
But one hit, 11k off the pine?
Not a bad way to earn a ring.
Al Jackson.
Not one, but TWO
8-20 seasons
The first for the inaugural Metros.
And good for 3.0 WAR
Robinson, Gibson, Koufax
The list of new pitchers says ‘born in 1936’.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
Frank Robinson, Bobby Grich, Sandy Koufax
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Lou Whitaker
*sigh*, looks like I’ll be voting for Koufax till the cows come home. Circle of accumulators be damned. When you were at your best, you were not as good as Koufax. I vote for the exceptional, in all areas. Exceptional longevity, exceptional total value, and especially exceptional peak.
Koufax, Robinson, Gibson
I’d also raise questions on how park factors deal with the exceptional. I raised this with walker as well, we over-simplify the part effects but just looking at total run production in those stadiums vs other stadiums for given teams. Some pitchers are helped by large foul areas, others want a deep right field corner, others still want natural grass and not that crazy astroturf their middle infielders had to deal with. When you’re facing Derek Jeter, you don’t care how far the centerfield fence is at, he’s not hitting it there. You DO care about that first base foul territory though. You get the idea.
Koufax was too exceptional to fit in the park factor and yearly ERA+ adjustments. It’s not that simple. Statistics are not meant to be used that way. The outliers are outside of the analysis. Koufax breaks the statistical models.
Let’s look at some home/away splits for ERAs of pitchers over their age 27-30 seasons (Koufax’s great years):
Pedro: Home 2.30, Away 1.86
Maddux: Home 2.18, Away 2.05
Marichal: Home 2.37, Away 2.35
Ford: Home 2.64, Away 2.37
Koufax Home 1.31, Away 2.44
Drysdale Home 2.22, Away 3.29
Ron Perranoski, who was also pitching for the Dodgers in the 1963-1966 period, had a 2.09 home ERA and a 2.84 away ERA over that period. Excluding the Dodgers, the normal difference between home and away ERAs in the NL in the 1963-1966 period was about 0.25.
It’s hard for me to look at all these numbers and not conclude that while Koufax was indeed a great pitcher for those four years, the supposed uniqueness of his accomplishment over those four years is somewhat pumped up by the oddity of the conditions in which he and others pitched in LA in those years. And this is coming from a fan for whom Sandy was the God of Baseball (or maybe just God) at the time.
BTC #38:
I believe it was Peter Palmer and John Thorn that concluded that Larry Jackson had a better year than Koufax in one of Sandy’s ridiculous years from age 27-30. Maybe they weren’t too impressed with Dodger Stadium, either?
Career WAR, including offense:
Larry Jackson
52.1
Sanford Koufax
49.0
Is anyone going to remember this information when the 1928 ballot comes up? Or will Ford be dissed as usual for being a product of Yankee Stadium, I wonder. The fact is, that except for his poor showing in Fenway, Ford’s lifetime home record is just about the same as his road record.
You can look it up, as his manager used to say.
as usual? Who disses Ford for being a product of Yankee Stadium? His win% and wins are a product of the great teams he was usually on, and his WAR level is borderline. i’ve never heard anyone diss him very hard, he seems to be a perfectly good choice for the hall.
I’ve sometimes brought him up as an example of a clear to the BBWAA HOF player who is no better than some pitchers that have been decisively snubbed by the voters, but that’s not about him being undeserving, it’s about others being just as even more so. I don’t think he belongs in the COG — I put him behind most of the current holdovers. Another guy like Koufax who I don’t think it’s a crime if he’s selected, given the korean war service and his notoriety, but I won’t be voting for.
Michael S:
The implication gets raised. Old Yankee Stadium was purportedly 1) a pitcher’s park; 2) especially for lefties. At the moment I can’t cite any specific statements that, oh, yeah, but he was a lefty pitching in the stadium, but I’ve read them, just as I’ve read that Koufax only looked so good because of the mile high pitcher’s mound at Dodger Stadium.
If so, by the way, it’s strange that his W-L record was fairly consistent, home and away, and his ERA on the road, while higher, would have ranked third in the league in 1963, fourth in 1965, and second in 1966.
On a related note, the latest saint, Pedro, seems pretty nifty in the chart above. Where is the notation that says Fenway is a hitter’s park, so it’s to be expected that he would have a lower ERA on the road?
If I voted in the COG balloting, which I don’t, would I vote for Ford or Koufax? Probably not. But I think they are as worthy as several who have made the cut on the basis of longer careers resulting in higher WAR or some kind of mojo I can’t fathom.
I think the mojo term you are looking for is called “post season play”
Ford gets my vote
mosc:
Paradoxically, the players I had in mind were a mixed bag post season: Carew, Perry, Palmer, Ryan, Fisk, Blyleven, Molitor, Trammell, Raines, Walker, Mussina. I don’t claim Ford and Koufax were better than any (well, most) of these, but they were as good in their own ways.
And as for my comment on the COG voting, I forgot that you vote for three, so I might list them as a second or third choice after all, if I partook.
One last general comment in the form of a question: Why were the supposed pitching advantages of Yankee and Dodger Stadium enjoyed only by the home team stars? (Irony alert.)
Over the period 1950-1967 (the period of Whitey Ford’s career) pitchers on average had ERAs 0.35 lower at home than on the road. Whitey’s ERA over his career was 0.36 lower at home than on the road — a perfectly normal home field advantage, neither high nor low.
BTW, that league average home/road ERA difference is pretty much stable across much of modern baseball history. If you do that split for the entire period 1916 through 2013 it is a .40 home field advantage, and if you run it for just 2000 through 2013 it is 0.36. (It does jump around some year-to-year though.)
The Dodgers moved into Dodger Stadium in 1962.
Koufax home field ERA advantage 1962-1966: 1.20
Koufax home field ERA advantage 1955-1961: -0.61
If we assume that the normal home field advantage is around .35 to .40, then the size of Sandy’s home field disadvantage compared to normal was bigger before 1962 than the size of his advantage compared to normal after 1962. Although his raw career ERA through 1960 (his age 24 season) suggested he was scuffling, he’d been over his early career a solid, league-average pitcher.
So are you really saying that Koufax in 62-66 was not just *comparable* to Pedro in 1997-2000, but a lot better?
Very similar. Pedro kept it going for 7 years though really and Koufax didn’t so I don’t think they’re equals. Pedro had a hitter’s park adjustment in his WAR which I don’t particularly like. The more you strike guys out, the less park factor matters.
WAR works for Pedro and against Koufax. Pedro’s peak was nearly twice as wide as Koufax’s so I don’t think Koufax was better than Pedro career wise. I think at their absolute peak, they were just about equal and I don’t think anybody else reached that level for more than a year or two. Wood ate a lot of innings so maybe was up there in comparative value over a say 4 year period but not in per game dominance. Gibson also had a 4 year skyscraper peak.
Frank Robinson, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson
Bob Gibson is currently in second place to Frank Robinson. I think F-Rob should get in (F-Rob?), but I would rather see Gibby in first, so I am strategically withholding that vote.
CBiggio
BGibson
EMurray to keep him on the ballot
Biggio is close to using up a year of eligibility. Gibby looks a lock for returning.
Changing a strategic vote:
CBiggio
BGibson
DSchofield, Sr. (Jayson Werth’s grandfather)
It may not work, but it’s werth a try to get Biggio into the top 9+.
Elder Schofield is not Dick Sr. His full name is John Richard Schofield. His son is Richard Craig Schofield.
Murray, Sandberg, Robinson.
The voting structure has served pretty well so far, but I think it’s going to be straining at the seams the next few rounds. Players such as Marichal and Santo don’t have a lot of eligibility to use up only because they haven’t had time to build up those extra rounds. E.g if Marichal and Smoltz were to exchange birth years, I think Marichal would have 7 rounds of eligiblity in his pocket, while Smoltz would have just 2. Or switch Santo for Whitaker, and so on.
I think the holdover list could use some pruning – but not too much; I reckon somewhere between 8-10 of the current list belong.
Great point about switching players from earlier rounds with later rounds – the character of the ballot seems to have changed quite a bit. I don’t know if a Larry Walker or Alan Trammell could get in if he were on the ballot now, although I am glad that Trammell, at least, got in.
As I said in my response to the 1936 results, the COG voting has been good at being more selective than the HOF. On the other hand it has not been very good at recognizing players overlooked by the HOF, which is something of a given.
Here are COG electees not honored by the Hall of Fame, by HOF status:
banned: Pete Rose
not yet eligible: Griffey, Jr., Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera
elected in 1st round: Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine
on ballot now, not yet elected: Jeff Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Mike Mussina, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Larry Walker
long-time HOF ballot holdovers: Alan Trammell, Tim Raines
Also, on both COG & HOF ballots: Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez
& not yet eligible, on COG ballot: John Smoltz
You make fair points, David, but it’s also true that if the group really values a player very highly, it is not that difficult to build up an eligibility backlog quickly. Gaylord built up five rounds of guaranteed eligibility very quickly because a lot of voters found him to be a very credible induction candidate, round after round. If a player is not standing out enough to get even a quarter of the voters to consistently name him as one of their three choices, can he really complain when he drops off the ballot when the going gets tough? Plus there is always the redemption ballot route to protect against egregious examples of timing unfairness. Edgar dropped off but returned via redemption and swiftly accumulated some guaranteed eligibility.
True, there are redemption rounds, but we may end up with a backlog not unlike the current HoF ballot if too many good candidates get knocked off the ballot in the next few rounds. We shall see….
My main concern would be that some of the later rounds as we get into players who’s prime was in the deadball or 19th century eras, we won’t have as many players that I would consider legit COG candidates. If a lot of people fall off the ballot before then because of the powerhouse eras we’re headed into now and then near the turn of the century, there may not be enough redemption rounds to bring them all back.
I could see us ending up voting in some older guys who have fame, but really don’t stand up to some of the holdovers we have now, just because not enough of these holdovers are still around.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe good solid candidates are coming up at a rate of 1/year, and we won’t ever need more than 8-10 holdovers to keep from electing an inferior choice to those who have dropped or will drop off the ballot. So far, I’ve only seen a couple players drop off that were comparable to the guys on our current holdover list and Edgar came back.
Limiting to three votes makes it hard to draw conclusions about who people think is worth enshrining. I know on this ballot, I could potentially support 12 players, but I can only vote for 3. Now, if 11 other people agree with me and we split our votes exactly strategically, we can get to 25% for all of them, but realistically, a few will do well, and most will hold one round at best and a couple might drop off.
There are 9 players on this ballot in the top 95 of Hall of Stats. We haven’t yet enshrined anyone who is outside the top 120 by hall rating, and I’m hoping that any exceptions to that will either be just outside, or have some very compelling intangibles (negro league experience, war gaps, Koufax like peak).
My concern is that the more top 100 players drop off, the more likely we are to have to elect an inferior player at some point down the road.
To the extent that it looks like the talent is thinning such that we are getting toward a point at which a significant number of voters would likely prefer to vote for guys no longer on the ballot as opposed to the top guys on the ballot, I fully intend to accelerate the redemption process, either by holding redemption rounds more frequently or expanding the number of players who can be redeemed back onto the ballot as the result of any particular redemption round, or both.
Birtelcom, one if the best things about the COG as opposed to the HOF is that you’re more interested in product than process. You don’t care about slavish adherence to the rules if it’s producing bad results. And that’s why the COG is better than the Hall of Fame. It’s funny; we’re at the point now where I care more about THREE pretend Halls of Fame than I do about the break one (Hall of Merit, Hall of Stats, Circle of Greats).
Yes, DD, if unbending rules means irrational results, then the rules need to be adjusted. That being said, though, no competitive process is any fun if the rules of it seem overly arbitrary — consistency is an important value, too. The goal is to build a system with enough flexibility that it can accommodate needed variance while also giving people enough certainty and predictability that the process seems fair. Redemption rounds are useful that way, because all they do is give guys a route back on to the ballot, and it’s a route they have to earn with real support from the voters.
birtelcom @ 92 –
Sounds very reasonable!
Excellent comment, Michael. You’ve encapsulated why strategic voting for holdovers is so important.
After the top 100 are elected to the COG, and the careers of the birth year cohorts are getting weaker, I hope that will be an opportunity for some of the under-rated non-HOFers.
Maybe even a few of that top 100-120 that we are struggling to elect (or retain) will still be on the ballot, although a combination of Redemption Rounds and hanging-on to the ballot looks more likely. I look forward to a Redemption Round candidate winning, although not any time in these extremely good years for baseball talent that we are going through now.
Says the holdover list could use some pruning.
Votes for two of the four bubble players, who might charitably be considered the ninth- and tenth-best players on the ballot.
Sure, I voted for the two players on the bubble I think deserve to stay on the ballot. I did say “not too much” pruning, after all.
Robinson, Gibson, Lofton.
Allen
McCovey
Sandberg
Probably the end for the “eligibility guaranteed for this round only” guys.
Gibson, Robinson, Koufax
I knew Gibson and Koufax were coming but Robinson snuck up on me.
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Bobby Grich
Jim Abbott recoded two hits as a batter.
I would like to see a video of that.
Here’s a photo of the effort:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0906/this.day.sports.history.june15/images/jim-abbott.jpg
And THAT is why I vote for him in every Redemption Round (and why I voted for him in 1967 when he was initially on the ballot). The grit, the work ethic, the determination, the refusal to bow to a disability, the inspiration provided… all the WAR in the world can’t stack up to that.
Frank Robinson, Gibson and Lofton (who I consider the best and, maybe more importantly, most unique of the at risk players)
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Kenny Lofton
I was waiting for this round to point this out: I’ll take Pedro over anyone’s peak including Koufax’s 5 year run simply because of what he pitched against(roided up players in hitters parks), where at(home park) and the era(which clearly and undeniably favored Koufax in every way). Koufax was average at best for HALF of his career.
When we’ve been at this for two years do we vote on 1970 and deal with Thome and Edmonds…… so that we can eventually get to Pedro ’71?
Pedro would become eligible about two years from now. If we successfully complete the weekly voting process, and there is still interest, I’d hope we would re-convene the Circle voting every year, so as the BBWAA adds inductees we would also add inductees, while also bringing the latest group of 44-year-olds on to the ballot-eligible list. So Pedro would probably be in the first such group — if we really get that far.
I think people forget how ridiculous (in a good way) Pedro’s career was … perhaps it’s just my age though (Koufax was done a decade before I was born and was just … legendary) or a changing of how players are covered in the media. Or something else.
Whether it’s raw numbers or more advanced stuff:
From 1997-2003 his raw ERA was 2.20 – that’s lower than Mariano’s career ERA, and Pedro threw a few more innings in that span.
He went 219-100 for a .687 winning percentage.
He struck out 3154 batters in 2827.1 innings. That’s a higher rate than Nolan Ryan, with the caveat that Ryan pitched a few more innings 🙂
His career WHIP was 1.054. That’s 5th all-time behind the greatest relief pitcher in history and 3 guys who last threw an MLB pitch in 1894 (Monte Ward), 1910 (Joss), and 1917 (Ed Walsh). He’s a spot ahead of Christy Mathewson!
If you like more advanced stuff then Pedro has 86 career pitching WAR, which is 17th all-time – but Pedro didn’t pitch anywhere near the innings of the guys around him.
His 4 year peak (1997-2000) is basically the same as Koufax, except Pedro surrounded that peak with WARs of 4.6 and 4.0 prior to 1997 and followed the peak with WARs of 5.1, 6.5, 8.0, 5.5, and 6.9. Yeah, most pitchers would take those “non-peak” Pedro years – maybe Pedro’s peak should be called his peak within a peak.
Pedro’s career WAA (not excluding negative seasons) is 61.4. If his career WAA were his WAR it would rank 52nd, right ahead of Drysdale and two spots below Marichal.
His career ERA+ is 2nd … behind Mariano.
He’s 3rd in K/BB ratio … behind Tommy Bond and Curt Schilling, and just ahead of Mariano.
I know those rate stats would come down if he pitched more innings – he only pitched 2800 innings, and ranks 162nd all-time in innings. But is there anyone else who has a comparable 2800 inning stretch? You have to go to Lefty Grove or Randy Johnson or Walter Johnson to see some numbers like that over 2800 innings, which is truly special.
I did this for my pleasure:
Pedro(7 yrs, 96-02) vs. Koufax(5 yrs, 62-66) in prime years
1408 inn vs 1377
1009 hits vs 959
315 BB vs 316
1761 K’s vs 1444 K’s
11.25 K/9 vs 9.44 K/9
2.01 BB/9 vs 2.07 BB/9
6.44 H/9 vs 6.26 H/9
8.17 Avg WAR per yr vs 8.18
57.2 WAR vs 40.9 WAR
2.44 era vs 2.16 era
0.94 WHIP vs 0.925 WHIP
These last three really hit hard…
216 ERA+ vs 167.6 ERA+
5.19 RA9avg vs 3.8 RA9avg
101.3 park factor vs 92.3 park factor
You be the judge, I’ll take Pedro every day and then some.
I’d take Pedro, too, but to give Koufax his due – the Dodgers did win 3 pennants and 2 WS during his peak, and Koufax pitched quite well in the WS. I was just looking at the 1965 Series – Koufax pitched consecutive shutouts on 2 days rest in games 5 and 7.
Game 5 was an utterly dominant performance: 4 hits (all singles), 1 walk, 10 Ks; no Twin reached 2nd base until the 9th inning, when the Dodgers already had a big lead. Game 7 was almost identical, 3 hits, 3 walks, 10 Ks – a game score of 88 both times out.
On 2 days rest!
Ridiculous postseason performances by Koufax.
Comparing apples and grapes with the 3 pennants, though. The Dodgers didnt have to peel through two layers of playoffs to get to the World Series… with a Yankees juggernaut in the way.
_________
The first two years of Pedro’s 7 year peak (as detailed above) he was in French Canada.
His first year in Boston, they made the playoffs, and he won Game 1.
The only game they won.
_________
2nd year, they made the playoffs.
He left Game One after 4 scoreless. (?)
Down 2-0 in Game 3, he gave up 2 in 5.2.
They charged back and won three in a row.
He got one start against the Yankees in the LCS.
Only game they won.
Pedro went 7 scoreless. 2 hits. 12 SO.
_________
3rd year, the Sox won 85, fell short.
Pedro had a 291 era+
(with TWO unearned runs)
and an 11.7 WAR
The next best Sox starter had 2.3
__________
In 2001, 82 wins, golf in October.
Pedro only pitched 117 innings.
OutWARed 2nd best Nomo 5.1 – 3.2
__________
Finally, 2002, 93 wins, not good enough.
Pedro and Lowe were aces.
They needed one more starter with a clue.
__________
…Well, might as well continue.
2003.
8.0 WAR
They made the playoffs.
Left Game One with a lead, Kim blew it.
Went 7, gave up 3 in Game 5.
Good enough.
As for the LCS against the Yankees…
The Hawk would call it a ducksnort.
_________
2004
Champion of the World.
VZ @ 79 –
To be sure, getting to the WS in the pre-divisional era was easier than it is these days. I wasn’t really comparing the respective “postseason” performances of Martinez and Koufax, just noting some of Koufax’s accomplishments.
To Voomo #79: You looked at Pedro’s 1999 playoff appearances EXTREMELY improperly.
Game 1: Yes, he left with an injury after 4 shutout innings. Looked like he might be done for the series (at least).
Game 3: Was pitched by his brother, Ramon
Game 4: As the Sox couldn’t get anyone out and were tailing 8-6 in the 3rd inning, Pedro miraculously started warming up, silenced the crowd, then pitched 6 no-hit innings to save the season. One of the greatest pitching performances in playoff history.
@62/Jeff hill,
You need to give credit to Koufax’s higher IP seasonal totals, when you compare their rate stats. Koufax averaged about 277 IP/year compared to about 207 IP/year for Martinez, over the years you mentioned. In his best three years, Koufax averaged almost almost a hundred more 100 IP a year than Martinez did in his three highest IP years.
I think most reasonable people would expect Martinez’ rate stats to go down at least a little if he pitched 300+ innings in a year. And this is coming from one of Pedro’s biggest fans, who thinks that for peak value Pedro was the best pitcher _ever_, and clearly better than Koufax.
I agree that Koufax had tremendous IP years BUT many of the other aces in his era did as well. Even if(and it’s a big if)Pedro was starting more games and continued his greatness I doubt a single manager would’ve allowed any pitcher to reach 300 innings in the late 90’s early 00’s.
Noteworthy, absolutely…but he did it with a raised mound in the single greatest pitchers era since the dead ball era in a pitchers dream park. Pedro, just the opposite.
On the starters don’t get as many innings idea…
The 2013 Houston Astros had no qualifiers for the ERA title (162 IP). Among non-qualifiers, their best ERA was turned in by Jake Elmore. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/elmorja01.shtml
It certainly didn’t help matters that the Astros only averaged 8.89 IP per game.
The 2013 Astros were the 9th team since 1901 to produce no pitcher that pitched at least 1 IP per team game (the standard for ERA title qualification). The 2012 Rockies were the 8th such team. The only such team prior to 1995 was the 1957 Kansas City Athletics.
Robinson, Koufax, Gibson. Not to be a Luddite, but this is one time where I don’t even want to look at WAR.
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, and probably for the last time for a while, Lou Whitaker.
Sandberg
Santo
Koufax
Gibson, Koufax, Marichal
Robinson, Gibson, Grich
Sandy’s game 7 performance…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HeKbktNm0Mk
… Bob Gibson’s record performance in 1968…
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gR7mFvbd1XM
…and finally, the clinching game of the 1969 World Series.
In the interest of equal time see an aged Frank Robinson.
Don’t miss World Series Report before the game.
It is hosted by Jim Simpson and features Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax.
Included among the priceless comments is Mantle calling Swoboda’s catch the best he has ever seen.
Mantle also reveals, tongue in cheek, that he never believed in astrology, but is starting to now.
Forgot the link.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbCWUehZKVU
The link to this post and the wrapup from last round seem to have disappeared from the front page. Can anyone fix this? Andy? birtelcom?
Still on my front page. There’s John’s “pop quiz”, then the two COG posts.
It’s back now. I even tried refreshing a couple times before posting that comment, because I didn’t want to be wrong about it. But it was definitely gone (for me, at least) and it’s definitely back now.
One of the easier rounds – Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax
Robinson, Gibson, Marichal
Lou Whitaker, Craig Biggio, Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Can I ask you, why the vote for Whitaker? Don’t get me wrong, whatever voting method you use is totally legitimate and I’m not going to challenge you on that, it’s cool with me if you just like him, or if you think he’s the best on the ballot, anything. I’m just curious, because I only have two modes in voting here – ‘voting for the best’ and ‘voting strategically’, and Whitaker doesn’t fit in either right now for me (although he is certainly near the top of the ‘best’). He’s not going to win any rounds until we get to the 20s, and he’s not going to fall off with 10 rounds accumulated. So I’m just curious.
In fact, I’d say, given the voting so far, a vote for Whitaker is basically a wasted vote, since almost everyone who supports him for the COG has made the same calculation you and I did — he’ll survive till he has a shot to win without any help now, and he has zero chance to win this ballot with 3 popular choices among the newcomers (2 of them slam dunks). Which means he’s very unlikely to get 10% or be in the top 9.
Frank Robinson.
Sandy Koufax.
Bob Gibson.
Koufax, Frank Robinson, McCovey
Frank Robinson, Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson.
As I enjoy doing occasionally, I did some clicking and took a look back through the next 20 years or so. It’s generally been my feeling that once we got to the 20s, we might have a problem of too small of a ballot, so I had been considering suggesting a more frequent redemption round or something similar. But with such a talent glut in the 30s, keeping the current ‘every 10 years 2 candidates are back on’ trajectory, we still have a ways to go before whittling down the ballot. The 20s and 10s will probably see quite a few holdovers get strong consideration, as lots of new candidates are relevant to the ballot but maybe not to the win, necessarily (of course there are slam dunks like Musial and Williams). Anyway, assuming we have double elections every 3 years and redemption rounds as normal, it kind of looks like we’ll keep at least 12 (and often more) on the ballot for the forseeable future; it wasn’t until 1910 that I saw the possibility of dropping down to 11 or 10 candidates. Just FYI; I think birtelcom has planned to keep going as we have anyway, this just confirms to me that this process will be good for awhile.
Of course, if the next few years annihilate all of the current bubble guys and some of the 2-3 years eligibility guys, we might be confronted with a smaller ballot sooner than later; I’m just assuming maybe 2-3 guys will fall off but it could be more.
Here’s what I see happening. The Big Year is 1931:
Willie Mays – 156 WAR
Mickey Mantle – 109
Eddie Mathews – 96
Ernie Banks – 67
Ken Boyer – 62
Jim Bunning – 60
And that’s just that year’s cast! Including Gibson, Koufax, and Robinson from this round, you can tack on Aaron, Clemente, and Kaline from the 1934 rounds, then two rounds for culling the holdovers (1933 and 1932), and then this insane round. We have five rounds to vote on the three from this class and the even BETTER group of three next round. So what will happen? Here’s my guess.
We will lose three players in the next three elections, but many of them aren’t on the board yet. I’m guessing Robinson this round, Aaron in 1934 pt. 1, and Clemente in 1934 pt. 2. We’ll have lost some holdovers by the end of those rounds. Quite probably all the current bubble players. But in 1933 and 1932, it’ll be a dogfight. My guess is that Gibson and Kaline (respectively) will be elected in those two elections. But because particularly 1932 will have a (relatively speaking) weak ballot, whoever is still on at THAT point will gain a HUGE boost, potentially picking up even 50% of the vote for a player like Whitaker, Grich, or Koufax. They probably won’t win, but there’s likely to be A LOT of round of eligibility up for grabs in those two elections. It’s just an issue of attempting to stay on the ballot until then. And if players fall off before 1933, that’s even BETTER for those who remain, because there are fewer players among whom to spread the wealth. But that’s what I see happening. Unfortunately, this might not all go down until March. We shall see…
Yup, that’s pretty much how I see it as well. Let’s say we lose, for example, Allen and Murray this round. The ‘sometimes’ strategic voters have abandoned that tack in the face of such incredible candidates, but those more committed to strategic voting will be well served by having only a few players on the bubble, which creates easier rallying points. Of course, guys with a year or two of exemptions (Killer/Edgar/Biggio etc) could be losing them this round too, making it even harder…
What I’m particularly interested in is how the 1931 round is split. I’m guessing all the M’s get put in part 2, in which case part 1 could be the craziest election we’ve had in decades, with Banks/Boyer/Bunning among the newbies and prominent longtime holdovers such as Grich, Whitaker, and (less longtime) Santo who have the WAR, and also Koufax/Marichal/McCovey who have all had support beyond their WAR totals. Could be wiiiide open.
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax
Sandy Koufax, Dick Allen, Harmon Killebrew
That would have been one heckuva core from 1964 to 1966 or so. And with Sandy pitching, you would have needed to worry less about Allen and Killebrew in the field.
It’s probably not right to change now, but seeing some of these ballots, I wonder if an exception could be made where non-first place players can get in if they exceed some really high threshold like 80%, which might be enough to let Gibson in this round, maybe drop a double round somewhere in the 19th century whenever that happens. this would allow obvious standouts to clear faster during some of these ballot clogs, and push the pressure to a time frame where we know good candidates will be scarcer.
I wouldn’t favor that as a solution. One dimension of the multi-dimensional COG voting is seeing how the voting goes between even the top guys — Mays vs. Mantle, say. I’d be loathe to knock that dimension out by allowing them both in at once. It would also shift the nature of the voting lower down to allow others to avoid the big guys faster. Remember the goal here is not entirely to just produce a list of the top players of all-time, but rather to hold a series of vote/discussions each of which has its own unique dynamic. The combination of talents in this round is creating of bit of a different dynamic and I expect each of the next few rounds will show some variations, too.
Robinson, Gibson, and… oh lord, I only get one more? Santo, then.
I’ll just keep voting for the guys I think are the best 3 on the ballot and leave the strategy to others – Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal. Sorry, lou, Craig, Ron, and um , I forget
Whitaker, Martinez, Frank Robinson (who is an under-appreciated HOF’er, IMHO).
Looks like we’re likely to get a “Top 9”, rather than “guys with 10%”.
Don’t think that has happened since the first couple of votes.
This is a fascinating round given the framework of COG voting. Given that only one person can win, and the second place finisher will almost certainly win the next time, by voting for the fairly obvious third, you are essentially spreading a very few stray votes over the balance of the thirteen holdovers. You could get some aberrant results. I’m going to go with some others here in not voting for Koufax. He’s an exception to the general pattern of HOF voting, given the shortness of his career (and he even shorter peak.) I can’t give any weight to what might have been if he could have pitched longer, because he didn’t. And, applying my “perfect foresight GM” rule, I can’t really say I would have taken Koufax over every one of the often much longer highly productive careers of the balance of the 13. So, two picks on pure merit; Robinson and Gibson, and bubble guy Sandberg.
Usually, the 2nd-place finisher wins the next round. But USUALLY the next round doesn’t have Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente coming onto the ballot.
In regards to Koufax, the Dodgers team doctor back in the day said Koufax had the strongest
“Lats” he ever saw.
The lats function as follows…
From Wikipedia.
The latissimus dorsi is responsible for extension, adduction, transverse extension also known as horizontal abduction, flexion from an extended position, and (medial) internal rotation of the shoulder joint. It also has a synergistic role in extension and lateral flexion of the lumbar spine.
I don’t know what this means, but I am pretty sure it helped.
Those lats were just as strong home or away.
Koufax is interesting for another reason–in this era, he would be a GM’a nightmare. All that cheap service time when he was a merely promising hard throwing erratic lefty. Then he busts out. Randy Johnson somewhat similar. You could imagine a GM on a smaller market team) wondering whether to offer arbitration or, later, a QO. Imagine, for monetary reasons, cutting him loose.
Mike
At some point,after 6 years, he’s a free agent. And, his body of work was pretty mediocre at that point as well. If some GM with more balls than common sense offers him a multiyear deal, he’s either extremely prescient or just lucky.
Koufax’s turn around would be the equivalent of Edwin Jackson morphing into Bob Gibson. By the same token, you couldn’t blame a GM for letting him go
Well, Koufax never played minor league baseball but it’s hard to get a good idea what his service time would be. He was used erratically as a 19 year old in 1955 starting June 24th through September 24th. I believe he was post season eligible, pitched a shutout in August even, but he never pitched for Brooklyn in the post season. The next year he was a reliever and then a regular starter between June 3rd and August 5th.
Lets say he was hyped coming out of high school like harper but followed a strasburg-like contract status, except younger. I say that because harper signed a 5 year major league deal before arriving (which will actually save the nationals some money in arbitration it’s looking like). I think harper’s agent wanted to exhaust option years immediately to try and get his client into the MLB as an easy 40-man september callup or at least after three years being a regular (that would have started right now). So I think it likely that The Dodgers drafting Koufax would be right out of high school in the hypothetical july 1954 draft. This would line up with harper’s age (who was born in october, koufax in december). So drafting him in 1954 he’s going to the minors to start 1955. The nats sent an 18 year old harper to A ball but a 21 year old strasburg to AA. Lets say Koufax gets sent to A ball but pitches well (he did well in 1955 even in the MLB for god’s sake, 2 shutouts!) and ends up in AA with protected innings limits. 1956 he starts in AAA and the dodgers have some need for a starer clearly around June 3rd, that’s getting close to the time when you could avoid super-2 rules. Lets say they drag their feet and sneak him in to the MLB rotation in June 1956 avoiding super-2 rules. That sets up the following:
1956: Pre-arb1
1957: Pre-arb2
1958: Pre-arb3
1959: arb1
1960: arb2
1961: arb3
1962: free agent
Following the Strasburg example here, he debuted June 8th 2010 and avoided super-2 debut age 21. Koufax would be the same but a year younger, 7 months but whatever.
I guess you’d have to combine the brooklyn years into some kind of conglomerate 56-57 campaign that gave the same stats as his actual 55-57 career for this exercise. I don’t think an MLB team would send Koufax down, you look like a crazy GM bringing up such a young pitcher and not getting them going. I think at the time of the move to LA, You have a 22yo pre-arb3 guy done with the minors on track for 1962 free agency lightly paid 5th starter/long reliever. There’s nothing in his league-average performance over ’58-’60 that would indicate he gets anything more than year to year offers at team friendly dollars.
Jumping forward to free agency, here is koufax’s hypothetical profile:
Service time 6.118, will be age 26 in 1962 coming off his best season in ’61 where he pitched 80.2 innings more than any other year in his career. Prior to ’61 he was at league average levels but at 25 looked to finally realize his potential.
54W 53L 3.94 ERA, 947 IP (not bad for a free agent)
7.6 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 4.8 BB/9, 9.0 K/9
Considering that K rate is not normalized for era and the age 25 5.7WAR season he just put up, there’s no question at all that he’s going to get a qualifying offer from the dodgers for ’62 and equally little chance that he’d accept. He’d also be about as young as free agents ever get which for a starter who just showed you he’s capable of 250 innings in a season yet still doesn’t have 1000 innings of mileage on his free agent arm? That improved 3.4 BB/9 control in ’61 probably has you salivating madly. Led the league in K/BB at 2.80! Value.
I think it clear he re-signs for the dodgers. Other teams need to give up a first round pick, he’s the dodgers golden boy who they stuck with as a back end starter for years, and is finally coming into his own. I also don’t see why he would cost the dodgers any extra money. If they treat him like Strasburg he gets 3 arbitration driven paydays immediately after his 1958, 1959, and 1960 mediocre seasons costing probably pelfrey-like money only about $15m over those three years. Now as a free agent covering 1962+, there’s no way the dodgers get burned unless the contract is too short or has an opt out! He retires on his own or retires due to injury after 1966. That’s either no money or insurance money no cap hit either way.
I can’t see him getting less than a 3 year $45m deal for 62-65 with a $15m team option for 65. For 1966 they have to bite and give him $30m per, whatever length he’s not gunna use anyway. He retires a HOFer costing the dodgers very very little heartburn and quite possibly a criminally underpaid $110m career earnings. You get a lot of unexpected value in the last 5 years, granted 😉
I’m not sure how the 1954 Dodgers after goign 105-49 and losing to the yanks in the WS the previous year are able to draft University of Cincinnati committed Freshmen Sanford Braun but, you know, that’s that.
If this hypothetical 1954 draft wasn’t using a signing-bonus slotting system, then perhaps Koufax falls in the draft because of his perceived bonus demands and/or college commitment.
Regarding Koufax’s service time:
He was a Bonus Baby, which meant that he had to be on the 25-roster for two full years.
So his service time would have simply begun at the start of the ’55 season.
Mosc:
However, if he’ a free agent again (in 1965) at age 30, he either gets 6 years/$175,000,000 on he open market (or from the Dodgers – a la Kershaw)) or he gets Balfoured with the elbow issue. But whoever does sign him, is out a lot of money….
I don’t know if there has ever been a career like Koufax’s in the sense that he went from mediocre to absolutely, undeniably great and then totally gone, zero at age 31.
Roy Hobbs for one has had that mediocre to absolutely great then totally gone.
I looked at a list of players who had one of their final two seasons between ages 28-32 by WAR and found a lot of nobodies, Shoeless Joe Jackson (who obviously wasn’t mediocre), and found one name that fits this trend: J.R. Richard. He maybe wasn’t in Koufax’s league but the trend is the same.
In my lifetime, JR Richard certainly makes sense. As for Puckett, it was only two years of struggling versus Koufax’s five or so. But it just goes to show how unique his career truly was.
In retrospect, prior to Koufax’s debut there were only 3 (dead ball era) and 4 man rotations. So, you’re only talking about 64 starting pitchers and the veteran Sunday double header guys. If a guy couldn’t prove himself after 4-5 years, I imagine he languished in the minors after clubs gave up on him since there had to be somebody in the great USA who could give you 200 innings of 90 ERA+ ?
@119/Paul E,
Kirby Puckett? His first two full years in 1984/85: 0(!) and 4 HR, a 79 and 92 OPS+. Then he expodes in 1986: 31 HR, 365 TB, 142 OPS+ good for 40 Rbat and the usual awards – AS, SS, GG, #6 in MVP.
Over 1986-95, an AS all ten years, MVP votes all but two years and in the Top-6 six years. A good final year, then sudden retirement after 1995 when glaucoma left him almost blind in one eye.
Granted, the rise from mediocrity to greatness wasn’t as drastic, nor was he as great as Koufax was when his career ended, nor as young. But the ending was as sudden.
Like I said, he’d either retire or not be able to play due to injury. Either way no cap hit and the insurance money kicks in.
Some Koufax accomplishments that have not yet been mentioned:
– Four no hitters, including a perfect game
– Holds the NL single season strikeout record (382)
– Two-time World Series MVP
– Lowest career hits per 9 IP by a lefty
– Second highest strikeouts per 9 IP by a lefty
– Upon retirement was second(!) in career strikeouts by a lefty
Robinson, Gibson, and Santo.
I agree Koufax’s career just wasn’t long enough for COG inclusion.
Time for some strategic voting for my favorite non-existent on-the-bubble COG candidate, ‘MAL’:
– M urray, Eddie
– A llen, Dick
– L ofton, Kenny
Gibson, frank robinson, whitaker
I read that last as whatever, but that’s not what you said
I want to defend Koufax’s career over 1955-1960 too. It covers his age 19 to 24 seasons, in other words when he was very young. He earned 6.6 WAR and pitched 103 starts and 71 relief appearances for a total of 691.2 innings. Through that period he had an 8.9 K/9 ratio and a hell of a lot of potential obvious to anyone who would look. There are lots of great pitchers who did not come close to those totals by age 24. I don’t like reading comments that indicate he shouldn’t have even been in the major leagues or was somehow hurting the dodgers. You know what you call a 24 year old mediocre pitcher who strikes out batters at a higher rate than anybody else in the league? A hell of a prospect.
Koufax doesn’t have “two halves of his career”, one where he was a mediocre pitcher and the other where he was a stud. He has one career that starts when he was very young, 19, and where he took a couple years to get traction. By age 25, he was having a hell of a year, garnering MVP votes. The list of guys to win MVP’s before age 25 is pretty damn short.
Koufax the prospect was a strikeout machine! Sam Jones led the national league in strikeout rate among qualifying pitchers four years straight from 1955 to 1958. During those years, he was striking guys out at a 7.9 K/9 rate. Koufax pitched those years too. Jones pitched more than double the innings Koufax did but was ten years more mature and in the prime of his career. Rate wise? Koufax was a 7.8 K/9 and this is only ages 19-22!
I think it’s totally unfair to look at Koufax and say he was some kind of failure at any point in his career. At worst, he was a little slow to develop and the Dodgers probably expected more in his age 23 and 24 seasons than they got. Still, over those two years his K rate was over 10 and although wildly erratic and pitching in a pitchers park, he was an above replacement level pitcher. I’m sorry but you have to be worse than replacement level for me to call you a bust at age 24! Over ages 22-24, the perversion of underachieving that such a prospect achieved was to be roughly league average while filling in as a long reliever and spot starter.
Age 25? Koufax is a beast striking out more in a season than had been seen since Bob Feller who faced 40% more batters! No longer a prospect, Koufax was a stud. It’s not out of the blue either, I hate that. He was striking out guys like crazy in “his worst years” but didn’t have decent control. Shocking for a young pitcher, I know. His BB/9 improved every year fairly gradually from 1958 to 1963 and not surprisingly his peformance improved right along with it.
1958: 6.0 (22)
1959: 5.4 (23)
1960: 5.1 (24)
1961: 3.4 (25)
1962: 2.8 (26)
1963: 1.7 (27)
Horrible to historic gradually over 6 years fitting the well established pattern of young hard throwers progression as they develop control.
Koufax was not a surprise. He was a serviceable major leaguer at an incredibly young age, a top prospect, and at worst a slow developer. That does not paint him as a career of two halves or as an unexpected success or as someone who was ever considered a failure. People have suggested the dodgers pondered cutting him loose, complete insanity.
I’m not saying Koufax was a hall of fame pitcher through his age 24 season, I’m saying nobody is. That doesn’t make them flops or mean that half their careers were garbage. He was not an historically great young pitcher and he didn’t pitch past age 30, not a good combination for longevity. I’m not saying otherwise. I just find the barbs thrown at how a pitcher pitched league average at a less than league average age puzzling. Through age 24, Steven Strasburg has 8.4 WAR, Koufax had 6.6. Does anybody seriously predict the next few years of Strasburg’s career based only on past value without considering his age? Has the first part of Strasburg’s career really been a failure? Can you even BE a failure at age 25 with those WAR totals? Koufax threw more innings by 24 and was about half as good on a WAR/IP basis as Strasburg but he also got asked to pitch the swingman role.
Well said.
As a point of comparison, Nolan Ryan didn’t have BB/9 under 5 in consecutive seasons until age 32-33, and didn’t get under 4 in consecutive seasons until age 37-38. Ryan also didn’t have SO/BB above 3 until age 40, and wasn’t above 3 in consecutive seasons until age 42-43.
Randy Johnson’s slow ascent to greatness look fairly similar to Koufax’s as well.
Thanks Mosc, this kind of laying out of Koufax’s progress is helpful for the younger, casual fan like me who has of course heard the narrative around Koufax (and that’s what’s intriguing about his development, of course, the idea that he went from nobody to best ever to leaving ’em wanting more), but has never really delved into his development through stats. I imagine he’ll be an interesting figure on the CoG ballot for a bit of time (with some ‘easy’ choices coming up); will be interesting how he’s valued against a ballot of 65-70 WAR guys once the Aaron/Clemente/Mantle/Mays juggernauts have had their due.
And further to your point about unpredictability of pitching careers, I might contend that there are people who are ‘hall of fame pitchers through age 24’, but the most obvious one that comes to mind is Doc Gooden.
Top 5 Pitching WAR through Age 24 Season, Last 100 Years:
1. Bert Blyleven 37.4
2. Bob Feller 37.3
3. Frank Tanana 31.3
4. Dwight Gooden 30.7
5. Don Drysdale 28.9
Feller’s total is through age 22, after which he missed three years of MLB during World War II.
If you run out this list to top 11, instead of top 5, you’d see Felix Hernandez at #9 and Clayton Kershaw at #11.
Huh, my comment was more in support of Mosc in terms of ‘you have no idea who is going to be a hall of famer for a pitcher by age 24’, because anyone with eyes would’ve thought Gooden for sure by then. But this is an interesting list. Feller and Drysdale were too good to ever ignore, whereas Blyleven was a HoF pitcher by 24 but nobody else (or at least not enough people) agreed until 30 years later.
Well that’s the real knock on Blyleven. He was an historically incredible young pitcher on some rather unspectacular Twins teams. That, and people continually discount the value of league average ERA for 5,000 innings. There aren’t but a handful of guys ever born who could manage that.
People will talk about wins and losses but I think those are the two factors that really get misunderstood. Dude’s 7 year peak of a 22 year career starts at age 20 ffs.
Hmmm. If this were Hall voting, no doubt in my mind that Gibson, Robinson and Koufax are all first ballot guys. But this isn’t Hall voting and “there can be only one”. As the vote stands now, its between Bobby and Robby, with Robby in the lead. Maybe its just an accident of when I was born, but, on the mound, Bob Gibson is the best I ever saw. A vote for Koufax this round (subject to change) would seem to be wasted (except for accruing extra rounds) and, since there can be only one, voting for Robby would almost be like voting against my guy. Whitaker’s got ten rounds stored up–though I definitely think he’s worthy. So the “smart” play–even if they will ultimately fall short–would seem to be helping to keep some worthy bubble people alive…or trying to. So….
Gibson
Dick Allen
Lofton
For the 1935 election, I’m voting for:
-Ryne Sandberg
-Edgar Martinez
-Frank Robinson
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Smoltz
-Biggio
-Whitaker
-Grich
-Lofton
-Santo
-McCovey
-Murray
-Gibson
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson and Harmon Killebrew
Frank Robinson, Gibson, Koufax.
Frank Robinson, Bobby Grich, Edgar Martinez
I don’t think we’ve ever had a round anything like this vote split. Two guys are at over 75%, which I don’t think has happened ever, the third guy is well above 25% and 20 votes, and then it goes off a cliff, with the next guys at 7 votes or less (just over 10%). If we stopped voting now, Murray would move forward by virtue of being tied for 9th in voting (even though he’s less than 10%), Allen would drop off, and Killer, McCovey, Smoltz, Martinez, Biggio would all lose a round. Unless some strategic wrangling orchestrates a large tie for 9th, there’s gonna be some serious carnage.
At least next round the holdovers have a chance to – oh wait.
We’ve never had 2 players receive 75% of the vote; the closest we came was the first two elections:
1968 Piazza 79% Bagwell 72% Thomas 67%
1967 Bagwell 73% Thomas 68% Smoltz 50%
Those are the only times we’ve had 3 players draw 50% or more of the vote. Of course there wasn’t much of a holdover list to grapple with in those days.
In the subsequent 40 elections, 2 players drew 50% or more of the vote 6 times, with the #2 finisher usually just squeaking past the 50% mark:
1966 Maddux 91% Thomas 51%
1960 Ripken 83% Gwynn 51%
1958 Pt 1 Henderson 78% Boggs 52%
1946 Pt 2 Jackson 58% Ryan 52%
1944 Seaver 87% Carlton 60%
1939 Yaz 78% Niekro 57%
It’ll be interesting to see how many players draw 50% in 1935 Pt 1.
1934 Pt 1, excuse me. It’s late.
Assuming we vote in some Centerfielders in 1931, here are the number of games played in CF by all COG inductees:
Jr. Griffey
2145
Robin Yount
1150
Rickey
446
Reggie
188
Barry Bonds
171
Tim Raines
165
Yaz
165
Tony Gwynn
157
Frank Robinson (assumed)
101
Pete Rose
73
Booger Walker
69
Roberto Clemente (assumed)
63
Leo Molitor
43
Joe Morgan
2
Mariano Rivera
0
______________
My point, (other than my own relaxing stat-drool) is to ask:
Was there really only HALF of one great Centerfielder born between 1932 – 1968 ?
.
.
.
.
(this post was brought to you by the Friends Of Kenny (FOK))
Who would you guess the Active Leader in games played at CF is
(among players whose primary position is still CF)?
You’ve got to scroll past
Beltran
Hunter
Wells
Pierre
Granderson (moving to LF)
Kotsay
before arriving at
Coco Crisp with 1011.
VZ, that’s like I was saying some rounds back though. Guys aren’t center fielders as a career anymore, they’re outfielders. They move around and if their bat is anywhere near HOF worthy, they probably finished up on a corner. Griffey SHOULD have moved over in his early 30s, as most guys should. Beltran moved at about the perfect time according to WAR. He traded his -5 RFIELD and +1 RPOS for 0 RFIELD and -4 RPOS (a wash) between his age 33 and 34 seasons. Beltran was a gifted center fielder too, most guys should move when they’re even younger.
Beltran’s about 3 league-average years away from a HOF resume though but I think the Yankees have the right of it, he’ll get there.
Also, guys end up playing center or not based a lot on their team mates. If there’s a light hitting guy with great fielding, even if he’s below league average total value in center he may display a capable center outfielder to a corner if there are no better options. I don’t think that means we should change their career positional adjustments I just think it should be yet another reason we should stop talking about outfielders by position as some kind of qualifier.
We don’t need the ten best center fielders because lots of the best corner outfielders played center at various points.
With the idea that we could have a 2nd place finisher get 75% of the vote – should such player receive 6 holdover rounds? That a player could lose with such a high percentage was probably never considered.
But it is also highly, highly unlikely that a player who receives 75% of the vote will ever be in danger of losing four rounds of eligibility before they are elected.
Agreed, the years will not likely be needed, but one could argue that they are earned.
I’m resigned to seeing some the guys I’ve been voting for in the redemption rounds. There is no denying the greatness of this class. I’d like to see the two that don’t win this round rack up some rounds.
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Sandy Koufax
Frank Robinson, Bob Gibson, Kenny Lofton
Well, voting late, so some strategy is in order.
Robinson currently leads Gibson by five.
I doubt that is going to change by much, and Gibson is well clear of 50%, so I won’t vote for either of them.
Koufax is doubtful for 50%, but I’ll do my part to get him there.
The peak vs longevity question is a good one, and I hope Sandy can stick around for us to continue it.
I’ve carried Lofton for decades now, and this may be my last vote for him until the next redemption round.
And I’ll give the 3rd vote to Whitaker.
More and more I’m feeling that clocking 4 WAR, consistently, for a decade and a half is just splendid.
I’d like a team full of guys like that.
And voting for Whitaker breaks the 9th place logjam and sends more fellas into purgatory.
____________________
Koufax
Lofton
Whitaker
To get to 50% from where were are now (23 votes out of 59 already cast) Koufax would have to be named on every one of the next 13 ballots- which would also require the largest voter turnout since the 1957 election.
I’m not sure that doubtful quite covers it!
The most telling thing regarding about how we collectively think may not be who we vote for this round–it’s who we don’t vote for.
Voting time. Gibson and Robinson obviously belong, but neither need my help. I believe Koufax is deserving as well, but he’s not likely to reach 50% or drop below 25%, so I’m left with the holdovers. My vote is:
Edgar Martinez, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker.
Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey
I think Frank Robinson has this in the bag. I’m not going to waste a vote on him or Gibby.
Koufax is one of the tougher choices yet but I think his postseason feats are almost without peer for a starter (Mathewson, Gibby, etc.) and to me that puts him over the edge.
Koufax, Murray, Dick Allen
Wow, I have been busy, but I have been keeping an eye on the results. While Smoltz is not the best pitcher on the ballot, he does not deserve a goose egg. Stretch must be on a roller coaster, One round he peeks at more then 25 percent and the next round he can’t get the 10 percent required to keep his 2 round cushion. Finally Frank Robbie is one of my all time favorite O’s, not with out mention is that magical 66′ season when he won the triple crown and took my O’s to the promise land. My ballot this round is a little off kilter, but I am going to give a shout out to these 3 super vets.
Smoltz
McCovey
Robinson
Robinson, Martinez, McCovey
Robinson, Gibson, Killer
I am actually looking forward to more contentious ballots with the all time greats on them. We don’t seem to be talking about how great Frank Robinson and Bob Gibson were, it’s just kind of agreed on and moved to the side.
I would bring up an interesting topic though and that is the competition pioneering black players in the 1950s faced. Basically, they faced a barely integrated league. Mostly, they had the same advantages as earlier white players did competition wise. I think this is more than offset but the hate they had to deal with being thrown at them day in and day out but I think it does help explain some about the early success guys like Frank Robinson had in the league. I didn’t check exactly but I doubt he faced many black pitchers in 1956 where at the spry young age 20 he cranked out 38 home runs.
That’s not meant as a criticism of his talent. Certainly he faced guys like Bob Gibson (98 times) and plenty of historically great white pitchers like Spahn (180 times), Koufax (124 times), and Drysdale (94 times). I just think it should be kept in mind as we move forward into this semi-segregated era of baseball in the COG. Frank Robinson is maybe the first guy where this even applies at all.
He would’ve faced Don Newcombe, right? That’s all I’ve got off the top of my head. But then again, there were systemic racist reasons for not using black pitchers (“not smart enough;” also applied to catchers) that didn’t apply to position players (who can just get by on their “superior athleticism”). I sometimes wonder how much that has continued to persist, even subconsciously, as there really haven’t been many black pitchers in ML history, particularly relative to position players.
It also might be wise to consider the differences in the two leagues up until about 1970 or so. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were as many black players in the NL in 1956 (Robinson’s rookie campaign) as there were in the AL in 1966 (Robinson’s maiden voyage and Triple Crown season in the AL). I think the mid-1960s climate that Mays and Aaron and Robinson faced was fairly well-integrated, which makes sense after about 20 years. But the climate that those same players faced in the mid-1950s was quite a bit less so. It’s a good point you bring up. Like you say, the off-the-field factors may (more than) offset this idea, anyway. But it’s still an interesting point to consider.
Dr. Doom:
Pitchers smart? There’ve been some smart pitchers, but I don’t see the managerial ranks filled with ex-hurlers, and I don’t recall from my own playing days in league ball that the IQ of pitchers was very high on average. The three guys from my HS, all pitchers, who signed pro contracts weren’t honor roll types, I know that. The main things pitchers have as a group, I’d say, is a healthy ego and a sense of entitlement. When I think of the classic pitcher in this regard, I think Roger Clemens.
Maybe you’re confusing pitchers with quarterbacks in football.
As for catchers, Campanella and Ellie Howard come to mind among the pioneers, then Roseboro and Battey, a pretty good representation for the position in the first ten years of integrated play. I can’t buy your thesis.
The dearth of great black pitchers in the late 40’s & early 50’s could also partly be just a cyclical thing as well- in the 70’s there really weren’t any great shortstops until Robin Yount finally developed late in the decade- Bill James named Dave Concepcion the shortstop on his all-decade team, Mark Belanger won most of the Gold Gloves in the AL and Rick Burleson had a few good years but probably no one that is going to crack anyones top-25 at the position. Pitching kind of went thru the same thing from the mid 20’s & most of the 30’s after Walter Johnson & Pete Alexander got old up until Bob Feller broke out late in the decade about the only pitcher that’s going to crack anyones top-25 list that was active (that I can think of anyways) was Lefty Grove. But that probably would have been a lot different if Satchel Paige, Bullet Joe Rogan, Bill Foster, Slim Jones, Leon Day and a maybe few others had been in the league.
I was actually thinking about this from the opposite direction.
Imagine if you will that you take this kind of talent out of the league in say 1964: Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Dick Allen, Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Lou Brock, Tommy and Willie Davis, Maury Wills, Rico Carty, Vida Pinson, Tommy Harper, Jim Wynn, Joe Morgan and probably several more names that are escaping me at the moment. Yeah, they weren’t all at their peak right then- Banks had certainly slipped a bit and Morgan and Wynn were still a year away- but just imagine what effect that would have had on replacement level talent in the National League.
Ron Santo would have looked like Babe Ruth only playing third base at a Gold Glove level.
Has to make you wonder how much of an edge guys who played before integration really had.
One of the Cubs’ reasons for bringing up Ernie Banks in 1954 was that second baseman Gene Baker (a former Negro Leaguer) needed a roommate.
Perhaps Banks would not have made it to the Majors as soon; the 1953 Cubs SS situation was not great (Roy Smalley [2 of 3], Eddie Miksis, Tommy Brown, and Banks for 10 games) and he might have. He showed that they made the right decision with him at least.
Please change my vote from Murray, Robinson, Sandberg to:
Biggio, Murray, Sandberg
Killebrew: 44% of his starts were at first base, 34% at third, 22% in the OF.
D. Allen: 47% of his starts were at first base, 38% at third, 15% in the OF.
Killebrew: 71.3 career oWAR, -18.8 career dWAR
D. Allen: 69.9 career oWAR, -16.5 career dWAR
Killebrew age 21-35 slash line: .385 OBP/.536 SLG/.921 OPS/151 OPS+
D. Allen career (age 21-35) : .378 OBP/.534 SLG/.912 OPS/156 OPS+
Very similar performances on the field, diametrically opposite personal reputations.
Miguel Cabrera thru last year is a pretty good comp to Killer and Dick Allen also.
Miggy 154 OPS+, Allen 156 OPS+, Killebrew 151 OPS+
Killer: 44% at 1B, 34% at 3B, 22% in OF
DAllen: 47% at 1B, 38% at 3B, 15% in OF
MiggyC: 37% at 1B, 42% at 3B, 21% in OF
Killer: 71.3 oWAR, -18.8 dWAR, 60.4 WAR
DAllen: 69.9 oWAR, -16.5 dWAR, 58.7 WAR
MiggyC: 62.4 oWAR, -12.2 dWAR, 54.6 WAR
Methinks Cabrera might blow by these other two in the next couple of years.
Speaking of Miggy, see if you can tell which line through age 30 belongs to Cabrera, and which to Bad Henry:
BA — .320 — .321
SLG — .567 — .568
HRs — 366 — 365
RBI — 1216 — 1260
XBH — 796 — 791
OPS+ — 157 — 154
Games — 1656 — 1660
PAs — 7216 — 7126
Please don’t think I’m equating them as players, or even as offensive players. I’m just enjoying the eerie similarity of their raw batting totals.
BTW, through age 30, Miggy ranks 11th or higher in hits, times on base, total bases, HRs, extra-base hits, doubles, RBI, runs created…
Total offense? No, Miggy and Aaron are not as comparable through age 30.
But with the bat alone? Again, very similar: 462 Rbat for Cabrera and 480 for the Hammer.
Best of luck to Miggy in getting the 390 more Rbat after age 30 that Aaron got. Would be great to witness, though…
b-ref does list Hank Aaron as having the highest similarity score to Cabrera through age 30, not surprising given the numbers you’ve presented, John. From a sabermetric point-of-view, Miggy is 14th all-time in Rbat through age 30, only a bit behind Aaron at 12th. But Hank is also 6th all-time in Rbat after age 30. He was on three performance enhancers: talent, discipline and determination. (I posted before I checked bstar’s post — thinking alike).
Aaron was lean and lithe, very quiet, and, despite the MVP in 1957, under-appreciated for most of his career. Charlie Gehringer comes to mind as a parallel—the mechanical man.
The retrospective view of Aaron as the man who broke Ruth’s record has, in effect, rewritten history. Mays was the one played up by the media in the Sixties as the pretender to the throne. Aaron came out of nowhere.
nsb — True indeed. For the first half of his 30s, Mays defied ageing even more than Aaron. For age 30-35, his 263 HRs trailed only Ruth (up to that time), and his 61.1 WAR is the most ever for that range.
The Bill James predictor says that, through age 35, Mays had a 38% chance of reaching 715 HRs, and an over/under of 694. Even though Aaron had 12 more HRs through age 35, the tool gives him a 33% chance of 715 and an over/under of 687, because of a lower HR rate over the past 3 years.
Mays, though, would never again reach 30 HRs. After hitting 22 HRs at 36, his estimated chance at 715 dropped to 14%.
1 Barry Bonds 258 3050
2 Hank Aaron 203 2829
3 Babe Ruth 192 2975
4 Rafael Palmeiro 190 3360
5 Andres Galarraga 160 2561
6 Jim Thome 159 2522
7 Ted Williams 145 2509
8 Frank Thomas 137 2280
9 Fred McGriff 133 2794
10 Steve Finley 132 3036
11 Darrell Evans 131 2842
HR’s age 35-39 with PA’s.
For John in #191. Henry Aaron bettered by 25% by Bobby Bonds’ son. I’m no mathematician, but that’s gotta be greater than one standard deviation. When Bonds was approaching and eventually breaking the 755 HR standard, Henry was, probably for the first time in his public life, not a real gracious fellow. At least, he had his reasons….
1 Joe DiMaggio 73.5 7673
2 Arky Vaughan 70.9 7722
3 Dick Allen 69.9 7315
4 Johnny Mize 69.4 7370
5 Mike Piazza 65.7 7745
6 Mark McGwire 64.8 7660
7 Miguel Cabrera 62.5 7126
8 Shoeless Joe Jackson 61.5 5693
9 Home Run Baker 59.0 6669
10 Jim Edmonds 56.7 7980
11 Hank Greenberg 56.2 6097
Career oWAR; less than 8,000 career plate appearances
1 Barry Bonds 7 1992 2004
2 Alex Rodriguez 6 1996 2007
3 Dick Allen 3 1964 1966 1972
4 Shoeless Joe Jackson 2 1911 1912
5 Mike Trout 2 2012 2013
6 Jason Giambi 1 2001
7 Sammy Sosa 1 2001
8 Albert Pujols 1 2003
9 Jose Bautista 1 2011
10 Matt Kemp 1 2011
11 Miguel Cabrera 1 2013
Non-Hall of Famers 1901-2013 Most seasons 8.3 + oWAR.
Bonds had two seasons (1992 & 1993) prior to the great juicing expedition commencing in 1998(?). A-Rod? It’s his world and we’re all just living in it……Good for Mike Trout-hopefully he’ll stay healthy and keep away from the girls from Van Nuys
b-com:
I’m giving up my Koufax vote for Biggio. Please change to:
Biggio, Murray, Dick Allen
So I’m a bit later than usual this round, which means I might turn around right after making this vote to make a strategic change (after all, my initial voting is done without even looking at the spreadsheet).
Consequently, here is my vote for the 1935 round for either the next few minutes or for posterity:
1. Frank Robinson (7.0 WAR/162 during 14-yr peak of 1956-69)
2. Bob Gibson (6.9 WAR/162 during 12-yr peak of 1961-72)
3. Ron Santo (7.0 WAR/162 during 10-yr peak of 1963-72)
Rough, flexible ranking of other notables:
4. Kenny Lofton (6.7 WAR/162 during 8-yr peak of 1992-99)
5. Sandy Koufax (7.8 WAR/162 during 6-yr peak of 1961-66)
6. Juan Marichal (7.1 WAR/162 during 7-yr peak of 1963-69)
7. Bobby Grich (6.6 WAR/162 during 12-yr peak of 1972-83)
8. Dick Allen (6.6 WAR/162 during 9-yr peak of 1964-72)
9. Ryne Sandberg (6.2 WAR/162 during 9-yr peak of 1984-92)
10. Craig Biggio (5.8 WAR/162 during 9-yr peak of 1991-99)
11. Willie McCovey (6.7 WAR/162 during 8-yr peak of 1963-70)
12. Lou Whitaker (5.5 WAR/162 during 15-yr peak of 1979-93)
13. Harmon Killebrew (5.3 WAR/162 during 12-yr peak of 1959-70)
14. Eddie Murray (5.7 WAR/162 during 9-yr peak of 1978-86)
15. Edgar Martínez (6.4 WAR/162 during 7-yr peak of 1995-2001)
16. John Smoltz (5.8 WAR/162 during 5-yr peak of 1995-99)
17. Felipe Alou (5.3 WAR/162 during 7-yr peak of 1962-68)
Like I said, stay tuned for a possible vote change if I do not like the looks of the spreadsheet…
Aaaaaaannnndddd it looks like I’ll be changing 2/3 of my ballot. Keeping Robinson as he is my top choice, but throwing in Allen and Murray to save them from elimination.
Final vote: Robinson, Allen, Murray
I change my vote.
Call me the legend killer.
The sole purpose of this strategic vote is to eliminate a potential 8-way tie for 9th place.
I’m ready to see names drop off this ballot.
With a small apology to backers of
Murray, Martinez, Allen, Killer, McCovey, and Marichal, I change
From
Koufax
Lofton
Whitaker
to
Biggio
Grich
Whitaker
(Even though Murray is the Lou Whitaker of 1st Base. I hope we get around to electing him when the pickins get slim)
There’s still a multi-player tie, it’s just shifted up to 4th-9th place, and if any of the players who currently have 5-6 votes make it to 7, they’ll join the tie and preserve their eligibility. 12-way tie, anyone?…
Excuse me.
Didn’t think that 100% through.
I believe in Marichal, too – and I consider Grich borderline at best.
Can I change again?
To
Biggio
Marichal
Whitaker
You can change as many times as you want until 11PM EST tonight.
However you owe me for a new bottle of Wite-Out for that Google Docs spreadsheet.
I know you’ve had to explain this multiple times but a HHS search only takes me back as far as the ’58 election results in Feb of ’13 so I assume the articles from over a year ago are no longer accessible or I would have looked it up for myself.
Is it the winner gets in and the next 8 vote getters move forward (which as of this moment is anyone with 7 or more votes which is exactly 9 guys)
Or is it the winner plus the next 9 vote getters move forward (which as of this moment would be anyone with 6 votes and mean there are 13 guys moving forward or getting in and 2 more just 1 vote away from doing so)
Of course that would also mean that if it’s the second of those two- which my sometime erratic memory tells me it is- that if any one of those 4 guys with 6 votes gets one more vote (or either of the 2 guys with 5 get 2) then anyone left with 6 or fewer gets bumped (or loses a ballots eligibility anyways)
Which ever it is there are still quite a few players futures hanging in the balance and to be decided in the next couple of days.
The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the rules answers your question – “Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.”
So if a player is in the top 9 (or tied for 9th place) he gets another round, even with less than 10% of the vote. Right now 6 players with 7 votes are in a tie for 4th-9th places, so the players currently with 6 or 5 votes need 1 or 2 more to maintain all their years of eligibility.
David H. correctly states the rule. If a player is below 25% but is in the top 9, including ties, in terms of being named on the ballot (that’s the inductee plus eight, not the inductee plus nine) then that player wins one additional round of eligibility. That additional round replaces the one used up by the ballot in question, so if the player is a bubble guy he stays on the ballot for the next round (still as a bubble guy) and if he is not a bubble guy then he rolls over to the next round with the same stash of eligibility as he had at the start of the round.
On another rules question that came up, Chris C @ comment 141 asked if a vote of 75% or more should get 6 rounds of eligibility, as a continuation of the logic that gives 2 rounds for 25% and 4 rounds for 50%. That makes sense, but I also have a larger principle that I try to avoid making rule changes in the middle of a round that apply to that very round. The idea is that all voters should be entitled to vote knowing what the rules are. So I’m fine with changing the rules going forward to add a 75%/6 round rule, but it will not apply to the current ballot. It looks like Bob Gibson may not reach that level anyway, as the voting has shifted recently toward helping the guys at the bottom, but we’ve yet to see how any final voting plays out over the next two days.
Hartvig: I have been able to access articles from more than a year ago.
That will teach me to make comments when I’m that tired.
Thanks guys.
Richard- I just tried it again. I entered circle of greats in the search- clicked on the “last” tab- and the oldest article I found was Rauuul and the Grey Eagle from Dec 2012
hartvig: Try this. In the search box type in cog, not circle of greats. When the results come up click on last, then click on page 12. That should take you to cog results prior to Feb. 2013.
Search “circle of greats 1968”, or whichever year you’re interested in.
http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/12/circle-of-greats-1968-election/
Well, this is both illuminating and quite embarrassing. I was completely unaware that this site HAD a search box!
I guess I never look at anything in the right column except for the recent comments.
I only discovered the search box a week ago or so myself. So you’re not alone.
“I guess I never look at anything in the right column except for the recent comments.”
Just what the advertisers want to hear. I’ll bet you skip the commercials on your DVR, too. 🙂
They’re now disabling the fast forward on some of the network shows. 🙁
okay, so that means basically that if Murray, Allen, McCovey, Killebrew, Grich or Martinez (or, I guess, Smoltz) get up to 7 votes, they’re in regardless of whether we tip over 70 votes total; unless, of course, all 6 guys currently ranked 4-9 get another vote.
Interesting round, competitively/strategically/discussion-wise; I feel it might be a bit of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for those on the bubble, with the years coming up.
With Jeff B’s ballot (comment 193) Stretch & Steady Eddie join the throng at 7 votes and almost certainly means that any of the other 4 that do so will also move forward or at least not lose a ballots eligibility.
Robinson, McCovey & Murray
Some observations on a few of the pitchers on the ballot:
Pedro Ramos led the American League in losses four years in a row from 1958-1961, a period in which he put up an ERA+ of 102 and accumulated 13.1 WAR.
Don Cardwell had one year of 6.1 WAR and none others above 1.9. Roger Maris wasn’t the only one with 61 in ’61: Cardwell’s 6.1 year came in the same season, for the Cubs. His defense did him no favours that year, ‘supporting’ him with -0.46 runs per 9 innings. The main culprits were a young Ron Santo and Billy Williams, and an old Richie Ashburn. The other big offender was Jerry Kindall, who put up negative 19 Rfield in 1961, and followed that up in 1962 with… positive 19 Rfield.
Mudcat Grant had a career year for Oakland in 1970, at the age of 34. He was traded mid-season to the Pirates for a player to be named later, youngster outfielder Angel Mangual. Mangual landed the fourth outfielder spot at Oakland, winning the ’72, ’73 and ’74 World Series’ with barely 1000 career PAs under his belt. He was out of MLB by 1976. Meanwhile, Mudcat returned to the A’s in 1971, missing out on Pittsburgh’s World Championship that season. He retired after a year spent at AAA, also missing out on Oakland’s three championships.
Joey Jay played for the Milwaukee Braves in 1953 at the age of 17. There were ten more player-seasons of guys in their age 17 season over the following 11 years, and no more after that.
Bob Veale led the league in strikeouts in 1964 at the age of 28, his first full season as a starter. 1964 was the only year between 1959 and 1966 that the NL wasn’t led in Ks by a Dodger.
The reason for the younger teenagers in the 50s to early 60s, and the disappearance of them after 1964, was presumably the bonus baby rule. The rule required teams that signed kids from the amateur ranks to higher dollar contracts (by the standards of the time!) to keep them on the major league roster. The rule was in place off and on between the late 1940s until the amateur draft was adopted in 1965.
Ramos and Cardwell each hit 15 career homers. After 1970, which was the final MLB season for both those guys, the only pitchers to hit more than that number (or hit more than 12, for that matter) have been Carlos Zambrano and Mike Hampton.
Thanks RJ for that fun facts survey of some of the guys lower down the ballot — I always enjoy that kind of comment.
Glad you enjoyed it birtelcom. I might try to do this more often; it’s a shame we have all these interesting guys on the ballot and only a handful get mentions. Besides, it’s fun for me.
I’ll add my voice of encouragement to that. I tried really hard last year (sometime when we were voting on the 1950s) to read every player bio I could find of guys on the ballot, and to at least have a glance at the stats, high school, etc, of everyone, since I’m relatively new to the game and only have a ‘great men’ historical perspective from Ken Burns documentaries and Hall of Fame stuff. But I don’t consistently have that kind of time. One thing I love most about this site, though, is when people dig up some obscure fact (be it a stat or a funny anecdote) about a player I knew little about other than their name and notable career stats. CoG voting threads that have these sideline discussions are always my favourite.
OK, here’s a neat factoid about someone on the ballot.
Felipe Alou is the only player in history to play at least 400 games at these four positions: CF, LF, RF, and 1B.
Anyone want to hazard a guess at the other two players to have at least 300 games at each of these four positions?
One is an iconic Inner Circle guy and the other is perhaps sabermetrics’ favorite whipping boy.
Here’s a factoid about another player on the ballot, George Brunet. He holds the game searchable era record for the giving up the most bases loaded walks in an inning with 5. He did it while pitching for the A’s in a game against the White Sox on April 22, 1959, top of the 7th inning. He also tossed in an HBP with the sacks loaded. In that inning two other A’s pitchers gave up another 5 walks, making for a total of 10. The Sox scored 11 runs on 1 hit.
@213: One of the two with 300 GP is that Man Stan. Interestingly enough, he’s not the B-R search result from “the man” — that goes to Mantle.
Correct, obs, the other is Joe Carter.
You win a 1990 Donruss Sid Fernandez card, found in my back seat earlier tonight (I got a bushel of cards as sort of a gag X-mas gift). Best of travels coming to Tennessee to pick it up.
Wow – for a moment I read that as “Sidd Finch”. Even with a bushel load of cards, I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t be finding one with his likeness on it.
Players given a bonus in excess of $4,000 had to remain on the team’s ML roster for a period of 2 calendar years before they could be farmed out. The rule went into effect to prevent rich teams from stashing promising players into their farm systems. The Yankees circumvented the rule by having the KC A’s keep Clete Boyer on their roster for 2 years and then trade him to the Yankees when the 2 year period ended.
I realized afterwards that I did not give a clear description the events. The A’s signed Boyer and gave him the bonus money, then came the trade to the Yankees 2 years later. Yankees co-owner Del Webb was close buddies with A’s owner Arnold Johnson.
You have to wonder how many of those “bonus babies” careers were set back by that rule. Rather than getting playing time in the minors and developing and sharpening their skills at an early age the majority of them spent 2 years seeing very little playing time riding the bench in the major leagues.
Even Al Kaline would surely have been better served playing the field and getting as many plate appearances as possible in the minors in his first season rather than just making a few handfuls of pinch hitting appearances. Would Sandy Koufax have become S*A*N*D*Y K*O*U*F*A*X at 22 or 23 instead of 25? Would Clete Boyer have developed into a better hitter?
You have to wonder how many careers that rule messed up and if baseball cheated itself out of some of it’s best players.
Richard & Hartvig:
I believe Killebrew was one of those guys as well, with very few ML at bats for about 5 seasons
@224
Killiebrew joined the Senators in 1954 at age 18. For his first 5 years he amassed a grand total of 280 PA. Then in 1959, after just 33 PA in 1958, he became a full-time player and ended up leading the league in HR with 42 (tied with Colavito).
@ 231 Richard:
…and did not play in the minors until age 20 after, apparently, spending his age 18 and 19 seasons on the pines in DC.
He did slug .627, .532, and .479 down on the farm in his age 20-22 seasons respectively.
It looks like the Senators tried to give him a shot for about half a season when he was 20.
The question now is: If he had spent the 2 seasons prior to that playing full time in the minor leagues rather then picking up splinters on the Senator’s bench would he have been ready and added a couple of productive years to his ML career?
No one can say for sure but it’s certainly something to think about. And these are just some of the guys who went on to have at a minimum fairly productive major league careers. Were there others who lost their confidence by being overmatched at such a young age in the majors or whose skills atrophied in those years and never came back?
Might be an interesting book there if someone is looking for ideas.
@232 Paul E:
Thanks for mentioning his stints in the minors. He joined the Senators in mid-June 1954 and was sent to the minors two years later in mid-June 1956. He participated in 44 games for the Senators in 1956 and they lost 40 of them. Many of his appearances came in games, as a PH or sub, that were already hopelessly lost.
RC @231:
The 1959 Senators, with Sievers, Killebrew, Lemmon, and Allison hammering the ball (and Pasqual and Ramos and a couple of other decent pitchers on the staff) managed to finish last in the league for the third consecutive year. This was the era of the famous saying, “first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League.” the previous two years Sievers hit 42 and 39 HRs. So if home runs are the answer, what’s the question?
That’s some seriously bad timing for Mudcat Grant, who was also with both the Dodgers and the Cardinals a few years too late. Of course, he nearly got his championship in 1965, winning two games for the Twins. He iced the second with his three-run homer in the bottom of the sixth of Game 6, but none of his teammates could solve Koufax in the finale.
Assuming BTC has tallied everything, at 8PM tonight, 67 ballots have been cast for a total of 201 votes. Of those 201, 99 of them have gone to Robinson+Gibson. Of the remaining 102, Koufax has 22, Marichal 7 and the only other pitcher on the ballot (with a vote) is Smoltz, who has exactly 1. Seeing the face of the future…..
Allen, Martinez, Killebrew
By all-time Total Zone Runs as RF, the next vote features the
#1 Clemente
#2 Kaline
#7 Aaron and
#27 Maris
…As well as the #4 SS (Little Louie)
Voom:
How about for the period 1962-1965, in the midst of Clemente’s prime, Johnny Callison out-assisted Clemente (90-59) while committing fewer errors (19-39)?
A while ago, someone round here was looking for seasons where a batter’s triple slash line matched up with his career averages. Callison has a good one: .265/.332/.440 in 1969 versus a .264/.331/.441 career line.
RJ:
Callison’s career certainly hit a downward arc after 1965 when he should have been entering the prime of his career. He even tried eyeglasses….
The Phillies of the mid-60’s had a boatload of young talent: Short, Wise, Culp, Briggs, Gonzalez, Callison, Allen, Rojas. But, in a 10-team league, there was plenty of talent elsewhere (SF, CIN, STL, LA, PITS) to keep them as also-rans before the franchise just blew up in 1968
RJ:
AND that 117 OPS+ is pretty damn close to his 115 career mark
Rfield does rank Callison ahead of Clemente over the period 1962-1965. Callison is tied with Brooks Robinson for 6th most fielding runs above average in the majors for that period, behind only defensive stars Willie Mays, Willie Davis, Clete Boyer and Bill Mazeroski and also Ron Hansen. Hansen is probably most famous for one defensive play in particular: the only unassisted triple play in the majors between 1927 and 1994.
Robinson, Gibson, and Killebrew.
Lofton
F. Robinson
Gibson
And that breaks a 10-way tie for 4th.
Wonder if there’s is a Grich and Martinez fans out there to get it up to an 11-way tie for 5th?
Plus we have reached our highest ballot total since the wildly competitive 1957 election.
Robinson, Murray and Koufax
Murray, Gibson and Frank Robinson
The writer with 4772 comments did not vote.