Circle of Greats: 1910 Part 2 Balloting

257 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the 77th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round completes the addition to the ballot of those players born in 1910. Rules and lists are after the jump.

Players born in 1910 are being brought on to the COG eligible list over two rounds, split in half based on last names — the top half by alphabetical order in the previous round and the bottom half this round. This round’s new group joins the holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full set of players eligible to receive your votes this round.

The new group of 1910-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must 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 11:59 PM EST Monday, November 24, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Saturday, November 22.

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 1910 Part 2 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 candidates; additional player columns from the new born-in-1910 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 fourteen 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 1910 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. In total there were 22 players born in 1910 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Eleven of those are being added to the eligible list this round (alphabetically from to Johnny Lanning to Dixie Walker). The eleven players higher up in the alphabet were added in the previous round.

Holdovers:
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 6 rounds)
Lou Boudreau (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Joe Gordon (eligibility guaranteed for 5 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dizzy Dean (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Joe Medwick (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1910, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Dixie Walker
Wally Moses
Joe Vosmik
George McQuinn
Skeeter Newsome
Billy Sullivan
Johnny McCarthy
Lew Riggs

Pitchers (born in 1910, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Schoolboy Rowe
Hal Schumacher
Johnny Lanning

0 0 votes

Article Rating

257 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Francisco

9 years ago

Joe Medwick, Luis Tiant, Kevin Brown

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

This is exciting. We’ve got very comparable field of position players. Here’s how they stack up using JAWS:

JAWS
55.8 … Boudreau (15th at SS)
54.8 … Alomar (13th at 2B)
53.6 … Murray (14th at 1B)
51.4 … Gordon (15th at 2B)
50.8 … Winfield (19th at RF)
49.2 … Killebrew (19th at 1B)
47.6 … Medwick (16th at LF)
39.8 … Minoso (22nd at LF)
33.5 … Campanella (25th at C)
_______

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

WAR
68.3 … Murray
66.8 … Alomar
63.8 … Winfield
63.0 … Boudreau
60.3 … Killer
57.1 … Gordon
55.5 … Medwick
50.1 … Minoso
42.7 … Walker
34.2 … Campanella

WAA
42.2 … Boudreau
37.1 … Gordon
32.3 … Alomar
28.1 … Killebrew
28.1 … Medwick
26.8 … Minoso
27.0 … Murray
23.7 … Winfield
15.7 … Campanella
_______

9 years ago

Wow, this has been going on a long time. Killer’s at the top of the holdover list.

Scary Tuna

9 years ago

Reply to PP

Does anyone know what player has built up the highest number of rounds of guaranteed eligibility without having yet been elected to the Circle of Greats? I’m sure some player on the holdover list probably had six or more rounds built up at one point – maybe even recently; I just don’t remember.

Hartvig

9 years ago

Reply to Scary Tuna

As of the 1945 ballot Whitaker had 11 rounds of eligibility and Smoltz had 9. By the time that Ryan finally got in on a runoff election in his 9th round he had already built up 11 rounds of eligibility as well.

But the highest number I was able to find was 15 rounds for Sandy Koufax by the time he was elected in the second 1922 ballot.

David Horwich

9 years ago

Reply to Scary Tuna

The answer for most rounds of eligibilty without having yet been elected is Killebrew, currently with 6 rounds. Except for Killebrew, Boudreau, and Gordon, everyone who’s ever had 4+ rounds of eligibility has been elected, and almost everyone with 3+ rounds. No one in redemption land has ever had 3+ rounds of eligibility; every player who has ever had 3+ rounds of eligibility is either in the CoG or on the current holdover list. Here’s a list of all players who’ve built up 3+ rounds of eligibility and not yet been elected: Alomar – 3 rounds from the 1960 through… Read more »

Scary Tuna

9 years ago

Reply to David Horwich

Thanks, Hartvig and David. You saved me a lot of time checking past threads. It took me long enough just to figure out when I had started voting. It looks like I joined during the 1937 Part 1 Balloting, at which time Whitaker had ten rounds of eligibility and Smoltz had seven. I just couldn’t think of anyone who had as many as six rounds built up without eventually being elected (and with good reason, it turns out).

David Horwich

9 years ago

Reply to Scary Tuna

I think Boudreau, Gordon, and Killebrew are all going to make it sooner or later, so they’ll drop off the list @ 33; harder to predict how Alomar, Brown, and Murray (all of whom fell off the ballot at one point or another and returned via redemption round) will end up. One thing I noticed, taking a quick glance at past holdover lists, was how much stronger the lists were in the past. In 1944, to pick a random year by way of example, there were 12 holdovers. 9 of those holdovers are now in the CoG (Biggio, Grich, Lofton,… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

Let’s apply some 4th grade math to those counting stats. Here is Wins Above Average, expressed as a rate stat, by dividing it into Plate Appearances (PaWaa): PaWaa: 166.4 … (7024) Lou Boudreau 176.2 … (6537) Joe Gordon 287.8 … (7712) Minnie Minoso 289.8 … (8143) Duck Medwick 306.7 … (4815) Roy Campanella 322.0 …(10400) Rob Alomar 350.0 … (9833) Harmon Killebrew 474.8 …(12817) Eddie Murray 521.4 …(12358) Dave! Winfield _______ Good, but let’s adjust for length of career. To use a semi-arbitrary baseline, I’m calling the first 7,000 PA of a player’s career Peak+. 7000 is roughly 12 full… Read more »

Joseph

9 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

This is a high fly ball way over my head that I can’t possibly get to. What does this all mean in terms of who belongs in the COG?

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

Reply to Joseph

Looking for a magic number to compare players from different eras, with different skill sets. This week the argument seems to be Boudreau and Gordon vs Killebrew.

Don’t know if it is helpful or not, but I certainly enjoy using the little calculator on my computer.

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

Here we remove the (perhaps)suspect dWAR from the equation. Who was a pure offensive force? oWAR, divided by Plate Appearances. This stat is called O-Pa (imagine you are at a Greek wedding) O-Pa: 138.1 … (9833) Killebrew 139.6 … (7024) Boudreau 142.9 … (4815) Campanella 148.6 … (10400) Alomar 157.9 … (6537) Gordon 159.4 … (8143) Medwick 162.0 … (7712) Minoso 169.1 … (12358) Winfield 209.4 … (12817) Murray _______ And here is where it gets tight… O-Pa 7000: 120.0 … Killebrew 139.6 … Boudreau 142.9 … Campanella (4815) 143.0 … Winfield 144.7 … Alomar 148.3 … Minoso 149.0 …… Read more »

bstar

9 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo, oWAR isn’t a “pure” measure of offensive force because it includes the positional adjustment. It’s not really defense-independent either because of this.

B-Ref’s previous incarnation of oWAR, which didn’t factor in what position hitters were playing on defense, was a better measure of pure offense.

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

Reply to bstar

Right. Good reminder.

9 years ago

Boudreau, Gordon, Brown.

Voomo Zanzibar

9 years ago

Innings Pitched per Win Above Average
IpWaa:

73.5 …. (1969) Dean
80.3 …. (3256) Brown
93.1 …. (3548) Reuschel
101.0 … (3486) Tiant
107.4 … (3286) Eckersley
109.3 … (3170) Ford
______

Here is IpWaa through age 34.
Pitchers do not fade as predictably as position players, so this is arbitrary and unfair (to Eck). But it is semi-handy to look at.

IpWaa (34)
72.9 … Big Daddy
74.2 … Dizzy Dean
79.2 … Brown
85.6 … Tiant
100.8 … Eck

Steven

9 years ago

Medwick, Minoso, Dean.

Hartvig

9 years ago

Gordon, Campanella, Minoso

Bix

9 years ago

Medwick, Eckersley, Campanella

Jeff Harris

9 years ago

Reuschel, Boudreau, Brown

oneblankspace

9 years ago

I think you left the note for the first half of a split vote in the description at the bottom.

Author

birtelcom

9 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

Whoops, yes, that last sentence. I’ll fix that now.

oneblankspace

9 years ago

Let’s see…

Dizzy
Ducky
Schoolboy
Skeeter

nope, can’t vote by funny nickname, so I’ll have to try something else later.

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Ah, 1910.2 COG balloting, how I’ve pined for thee! A highlight of my week is always the chance to vote here, and I’m glad to have the opportunity again! Here’s my ballot; same as last round:

Joe Gordon
Kevin Brown
Lou Boudreau

Mike

9 years ago

Dizzy Dean
Roy Campanella
Harmon Killebrew

David Horwich

9 years ago

Alomar, Campanella, Gordon

bells

9 years ago

Here’s the vote according to my statistical methodology. I take four measures of player value as a gauge of how players compare across advanced metrics that value things slightly differently. Then I give them a cumulative rank with all players on the ballot over 50 WAR, adding their ranking of each measure. Here are the measures: WAR – the ‘classic’ way of measuring a player’s value over a player the team could have gotten to replace the player, over that player’s career, to show how ‘good’ that player was. WAA+ – adding the wins above average players (rather than replacement)… Read more »

KalineCountry Ron

9 years ago

Campy
Minnie
Schoolboy

JamesS

9 years ago

Murray, Alomar, Boudreau

Andy

9 years ago

Killer
Boudreau
Alomar

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Boudreau, Tiant, Eckersley.

(One vote of unconditional support, the others to keep alive until I can make up my mind.)

latefortheparty

9 years ago

Kevin Brown
Lou Boudreau
Joe Gordon

Gary Bateman

9 years ago

Alomar, Minoso, Eckersley

Chris C

9 years ago

Coincidentally copying John Austin’s vote.

Boudreau, Tiant, Eckersley.

no statistician but

9 years ago

JA’s recent obituary tribute to Al Dark, a fine player but not a great one, sort of sets the table for this round of newcomers. Dixie Walker, Wally Moses, Joe Vosmik, George McQuinn, Schoolboy Row, and Hal Schumacher—some great seasons, some fine careers, but not a COG candidate in the group, and Walker, for whom the best case could be made, wasn’t called Dixie because his father was named Richard.

Scary Tuna

9 years ago

Killebrew, Winfield, Dean.

aweb

9 years ago

Brown, Boudreau, Killebrew

David P

9 years ago

Boudreau, Tiant, Murray

David P

9 years ago

Reply to David P

Vote change time! I was hoping Tiant might get over 25% this round but that’s seeming less and less likely. Meanwhile, I think Boudreau and Gordon are far better candidates than Killer. So time to drop Luis and vote for Joe.

David P

9 years ago

Reply to David P

Another vote change! Since Murray is safe, I’m going to drop him and vote for Alomar in hopes of getting him above 25%.

Steve

9 years ago

Dizzy Dean, Harmon Killebrew; Joe Medwick

Danny Boy

9 years ago

Killebrew
Murray
Eckersley

RonG

9 years ago

Campanella, Minoso, Dean

Hub Kid

9 years ago

Boudreau, Tiant, Minoso

Mike HBC

9 years ago

Gordon, Killebrew, Eck

9 years ago

Reuschel, boudreau, alomar

JEV

9 years ago

Killebrew, Campanella, Medwick

mosc

9 years ago

I have Boudreau in my top 3 but I’d rather see Joe Gordon win so I’m not voting for em. Also lets me keep Campy from dropping off. I don’t understand the support for Killer. He was a very one dimensional player. I think I’d rather have Thome (soon?) and I don’t see him above Eddy Murray. There are lots of bats from before WWII baseball we’re going to need to make room from and I don’t think Killer is going to hold up in comparison.

Gordon, Winfield, Campanella

Hartvig

9 years ago

Reply to mosc

I think we’re getting to the point where we can look ahead and start making comparisons to guys that play different positions but aren’t on the ballot yet as well. I would guess that most of us can look at the remaining candidates for the last 40 or so positions (Dave Humbert’s comment 228 on the 1910 Part 1 Balloting is immensely helpful for this). I would guess that almost all of us could go thru that list and easily name 25 to 30 players that they are absolutely certain belong. So then were not just trying to figure out… Read more »

no statistician but

9 years ago

Here’s a question I asked in a comment on Birtelcom’s ‘Ford in Your Future’ post. Doesn’t look like it’s going to get any replies there, so I’ll repeat it here, and add some more research: ‘Something I worked out while researching : Only two starting pitchers in the COG who were active prior to the era of low complete games have a ratio of OVER .02 WAR/IP—Koufax and Seaver. Of those in the New Age of Middle Relief, only Glavine and Smoltz have a ration of UNDER .02 WAR/IP. So a question: in comparative terms, does WAR reward starting pitchers… Read more »

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

No. It rewards pitchers who effectively keep the ball out of the hands of their defenses by striking out batters. All the “early” players you mentioned were high-strikeout guys. The two “modern” guys you mention who have a “low” ratio were NOT high-strikeout guys. I’m pretty sure it’s as simple as that, and has absolutely nothing to do with completing games or not (other than whether or not it’s easier to complete games when you’re not shooting for the K every time, but that’s a TOTALLY different conversation).

9 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Alternatively, modern pitchers are throwing a lower percentage of innings late in the game where the are at their least effective. A modern pitcher may throw fewer innings than an old school type, but a greater percentage of those innings will be at a high quality level, which is why they will have better WAR/IP.

no statistician but

9 years ago

Reply to Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom:

The lowest WAR/IP ratio currently in the COG is that of Nolan Ryan at .0155. Can’t be SOs alone, I’m thinking.

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Well, yeah. But Ks is A reason, not THE reason. Ryan walked a LOT of batters, too. Most ever, actually. If we assume that a defense gets credit for… you know… playing defense, and the PITCHER doesn’t get that credit, then we reward most the pitchers who get outs without letting those extra balls go to fielders. Likewise, a pitcher who averages 27 K/9, but also average 27 BB/9 and 9 HR/9 is a bad pitcher, even though he struck out TONS of guys. It’s not one-dimensional, but that IS a dimension of the game that impacts things, and pretty… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb, if your speculation were right, the next question would be whether that’s appropriate. And that, I think, is very hard to analyze without an advanced degree, for two major reasons: (1) The widespread availability of good relievers increased sharply around the late ’50s and again in the late ’70s. A comparison of starters’ and relievers’ ERA, by decade: 1925-34: SP 4.13, RP 4.46 … SP 7% lower 1935-44: SP 3.96, RP 4.09 … SP 3% lower 1945-54: SP 3.90, RP 4.06 … SP 4% lower 1955-64: SP 3.87, RP 3.73 … SP 4% higher 1965-74: SP 3.53, RP 3.44… Read more »

no statistician but

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Yeah, well, I worded the question in a deliberately provocative way. Something or some things have obviously changed, and you probably have nailed down most but not all, because I can think of at least one more—besides Dr. Doom’s point about strikeouts—and that is, in a general sense, strategy. From time to time some regular here on HHS, don’t remember who, suggests that the next step will be using nine pitchers per game, one per inning. Counting pitches, LOOGYs, set-up men, closers—these all are elements of strategy now, whereas what was done in those ways in the past was a… Read more »

brp

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

I’d be astonished if we don’t see changes in lineup construction and hitting methods in the next 3-5 years based on: 1) Success of the Royals this year by playing exactly the sort of baseball you’re talking about 2) Success of the Giants by winning 3 WS in 5 years without a traditional “slugger” on the roster and not exactly building around power 3) Extreme strikeout rates are a major reason for the drop-off in offense and the current approach by hitters is a moderate factor in that. I think we’ll see a bit more small-ball and slap-hitting. It won’t… Read more »

mosc

9 years ago

Reply to brp

The lower pitchers WHIP’s drift, the MORE important HR power is. In a low scoring environment, the best offense is going to correlate more closely with the long ball IMHO. Three true outcomes is the natural response to fielders being placed in more intelligent ways and pitchers meticulously analyzing the best places to pitch to contact.

brp

9 years ago

Reply to brp

@ mosc 97, I believe in defensive shifts… but have they really affected the league BABIP? It’s not been a big impact from what I’ve seen: http://www.billjamesonline.com/how_do_shifts_affect_league-wide_babip_/ So let’s say shifts become so common they somehow trim the league average BABIP down to like .275… that’s still 27.5% of the time you actually hit the ball in the park that it counts as a hit. You’re reaching base 27.4% more often than that 1 in a 1000 dropped third strike for a strikeout… You certainly could go the other way and reach for the Mark Reynolds’ of the world, but… Read more »

Hartvig

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

I also think that pitchers from the first “dead ball” era and before could pitch differently than the ones who came later. Christy Mathewson rather famously told a young pitcher to “Save your best stuff for when you need it”. If you tried doing that playing in the Baker Bowl in 1930 or against The Big Red Machine in the 70’s you’d be taking a shower by the third inning. I’m not sure if just looking at a players splits on the 4th time thru the lineup will show this or not. Unfortunately they don’t go far enough back to… Read more »

Dr. Doom

9 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

The “fourth time around” effect you describe is not aactually uncommon. Whether in today’s game or Bobo’s pitchers don’t usually pitch through the fourth time through unless they’re already pitching great. Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson… scores of modern guys’ stats look just like Bobo’s. It’s selection bias at work. If you compare “3rd time through the order” to 4th time through the order” ONLY in games in which they faced the lineup 4+ times, you will see the stats go down in time number 4 as opposed to time #3. The fact is, Warren Spahn’s I’d lower because his pitching… Read more »

koma

9 years ago

Harmon Killebrew, Joe Gordon, Dennis Eckersley

dr. remulak

9 years ago

Gordon, Boudreau, Killebrew.

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Tidbits for the new players on the ballot. – Dixie Walker led the NL with 124 RBI in 1945, a total amounting to more than 46.5% of his total bases. Only eight players have led their league in RBI with a higher “RBI efficiency” score. Which one of those eight had the highest score? – Wally Moses’ 435 career doubles ranks 8th among live ball era players with fewer than 100 career home runs. Who is the only other outfielder among the top 10 on that list? – Schoolboy Rowe had 3 seasons batting .300 (min. 100 PA), exceeded among… Read more »

Richard Chester

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Additional tidbits: George McQuinn is the only member of the Browns to hit a WS HR. His 34 consecutive game hitting streak in 1938 had been bested only by George Sisler and Ty Cobb in the AL at the time. Schoolboy Rowe was the first player to appear in the All-Star with both leagues, the AL in 1935 and 1936 and the NL in 1947. Wally Moses is the only player to have batted .300+ in each of his first 7 years and never did it again. One final tidbit which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Doug, I think the Schumacher question has three answers, not two.

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Right you are, John. Thanks.

Richard Chester

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Skeeter Newsome question: Lyn Lary, Dick Bartell and Dave Bancroft.

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Lary is a rare player to play every game in consecutive seasons for different teams, in 1936 for the Browns and the next season for Cleveland. Lary also played every game for the Yankees in 1931.

Wonder if any others have played every game in a season for three franchises and fewer than 500 career games for each.

no statistician but

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Doug: the name Rabbit Maranville was the first to pop into my head on this, and after he wasn’t cited as one of the three, I checked him out. He played over 100 games at short for Boston several times, Pittsburgh twice, and St. Louis once, 1928, 112 games, unless there’s something I’m not understanding.

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

The question was players with 100 games at shortstop for more than 3 teams – Lary and Bancroft did it with 4 teams, and Bartell with 5 clubs, incl 3 in 3 years with the Giants, Cubs and Tigers in 1938-40 (Lary had 4 straight seasons with 100 shortstop games, each in a different home, in ’34 BOS, ’35 WSH-SLB, ’36 SLB and ’37 CLE).

no statistician but

9 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Thanks. Fooled by the fact that Newsome played for 3 into not reading the rest attentitively, despite doing so at least four times. The mind is failing.

Richard Chester

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Billy Sullivan question: Jim Leyritz

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Leyritz played 70 or more games in eight seasons, but never played 70 games at one position in any of them.

What other players are like Leyritz who, in 1998-99, played in the WS for the losing side, then played in the World Series the next season for the team that won the year before? (Bill Skowron did something similar in 1962-63, playing for the winning WS side, then playing the next year’s WS for team that had lost the WS the year before).

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

FWIW, Leyritz played on the WS winning side in ’99, after playing for the losing side the year before. And he wasn’t in the 2000 WS, having been dealt away that June.

It probably is unusual to play on two WS winners for one franchise, and for a different WS loser in between.

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Answering my own question, I believe Leyritz’s feat is unique, at least among position players. I can’t find another who appeared in two winning WS for one team, and in between appeared in a losing WS with a different team.

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I was looking too and came up with the same result.

I had always thought that Terry Pendleton’s 5 appearances for a World Series loser was the record, but I didn’t realize he shares that distinction with Fred Merkle. Three of Merkle’s series losses were to the Red Sox: with the Giants in 1912; the Dodgers in 1916; and the Cubs in 1918. Others to appear for 3 different WS losers: Burleigh Grimes, Andy Pafko, Mark Koenig, Eddie Stanky

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to Richard Chester

Another quirk about Billy Sullivan. Rk Player Year PA OPS Tm Lg G AB R H HR RBI BA OBP SLG 1 Billy Sullivan 1910 151 .452 CHW AL 45 142 10 26 0 6 .183 .227 .225 2 Billy Sullivan 1933 140 .460 CHW AL 54 125 9 24 0 13 .192 .252 .208 Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool UsedGenerated 11/17/2014. Yes, Billy Sullivan was indeed born in 1910, the same year his eponymous father turned in a particularly forgettable season (one or many) for the Pale Hose. Perhaps to make his dad feel better, Junior… Read more »

brp

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Walker question – Not sure how to run ratios in the PI (like in the old 1994 Franklin Electronic Baseball Encyclopedia), but I’m guessing these are on the list, starting with my guess at #1:

Harmon Killebrew, 1971, 119 RBI, 232 TB, 51.29%.
Vern Stephens, 1949, 159 RBI, 329 TB, 48.33%.
Sam Crawford, 1910, 120 RBI, 249 TB, 48.192%.
Manny Ramirez, 1999, 165 RBI, 346 TB, 47.68%.

Presumably these guys are in the “top 8.”

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to brp

Killebrew in 1971 is top of the list with the highest ratio. Here are the top 8, ordered by RBI. Rk Player RBI ▾ TB Year Age Tm Lg G PA R H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS 1 Manny Ramirez 165 346 1999 27 CLE AL 147 640 131 174 34 3 44 96 131 .333 .442 .663 1.105 2 Vern Stephens 159 329 1949 28 BOS AL 155 712 113 177 31 2 39 101 73 .290 .391 .539 .930 3 Dixie Walker 124 266 1945 34 BRO NL 154 688 102 182 42 9… Read more »

Editor

John Autin

9 years ago

Reply to Doug

Killebrew ’71 isn’t just #1 in this ratio for league RBI leaders — he’s #1 of anyone with at least 83 RBI. Only two others had 100 RBI and at least half as many RBI as total bases: Vic Wertz, 1960 BoSox (103 RBI, 204 TB); and everyone’s favorite “who the heck?”, Maurice Van Robays, 1940 Pirates (116 RBI, 230 TB). Van Robays, a rookie that year, mostly batted 5th and 6th. The Bucs had four regulars with OBPs of .393 and up, and led the NL in OBP, but hit few homers. Van Robays ranked 3rd in NL RBI… Read more »

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I like that both 1910 RBI leaders were on the list, with a combined 11 home runs.

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Wertz’s 1960 season is also a favorite of those into ‘freak-show’ stats, as the player having the fewest runs scored (45) with 100 or more RBI. And 19 of those were on HR…

Was he that bad a base runner, or just really unlucky scoring runs? He had a similar but not as extreme {runs scored/ RBI ratio} in 1961 (33/60), though not quite as extreme.

Richard Chester

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

@98
Wertz scored 26 times on plays other than his own HR. Just this past year, with 59 R and 35 HR, David Ortiz scored just 24 such runs. That’s the fewest for players with 100+ RBI in a season.

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

@100/RC;

I also though of Ernie Lombardi for lopsided (runs scored)/{RBI) ratios after I posted #98.

He never had 100 RBI, but in 1939, he had 85 RBI/ 43 runs/ 20 HR. So, that’s only 23 runs scored other than his own HR. Not sure if that’s a record for 85 or more RBI, but it’s got to be close…

He had ever more lopsided ratios in 1946, but he was probably being pinch-run for a great deal by then.

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

These players scored fewer than 20 runs other than home runs in seasons with 15 HR and 400 PA: 14 - Marv Throneberry 1962 (30/16) 409 PA 15 - Danny Walton 1970 (32/17) 454 PA 16 - Lou Skizas 1957 (34/18) 410 PA 17 - Jim Hickman 1965 (32/15) 400 PA Dave Henderson 1993 (37/20) 422 PA Mike Piazza 2006 (39/22) 439 PA 18 - Gus Triandos 1959 (43/25) 468 PA Gus Triandos 1961 (35/17) 445 PA Joe Adcock 1964 (39/21) 415 PA Earl Williams 1976 (35/17) 415 PA Dave Kingman 1981 (40/22) 412 PA 19 - Roy Campanella 1956… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

@103/Doug;

Thanks; can you run the same list for least{Runs Scored – HR} for players with RBI>85? Triandos would’ve been my next likely candidate after Lombardi, but he had 85+ RBI only once and had 26 {Runs Scored – HR} that year.

Editor

Doug

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Lawrence,

Looks like these players have the fewest runs other than home runs in an 85 RBI season.

17 - Tony Clark 2005 (47/30)
23 - Ernie Lombardi 1939 (43/20)
     Fred Whitfield 1965 (49/26)
24 - Alfonso Soriano 2011 (50/26)
     David Ortiz 2014 (59/35)
25 - Dick Stuart 1965 (53/28)
     Steve Balboni 1986 (54/29)
     Henry Rodriguez 1998 (56/31)
26 - Gus Triandos 1956 (47/21)
     Vic Wertz 1960 (45/19)
     Willie McCovey 1977 (54/28)
     Adam Dunn 2013 (60/34)

Clark’s 2005 season is the only one with 85 RBI and fewer than 400 PA since 42 year-old Cap Anson in 1894.

Lawrence Azrin

9 years ago

Reply to John Autin

@110/Doug;

Great, thanks. Not surprisingly, there are mostly catchers and slugging first basemen/corner outfielders on these sort of lists.

Tony Clark had a strange career. It seemed as if he were completely done after his abysmal age-30 2002 season ( a 47 OPS+, 3 HR in 298 PA for a 1Bman – this a year after making the AS team), but he played another 7 years and had over 1600 PA, including for several very good teams (2004 NYY, 2007 ARIZ).