‘Tis the season to be voting, this post being for voting and discussion in the 80th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round begins to add to the ballot those players born in 1907. Rules and lists are after the jump.
Players born in 1907 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 this round and the bottom half next 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 1907-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, December 29, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Saturday, December 27.
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 1907 Part 1 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-1907 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 thirteen 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 1907 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 26 players born in 1907 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Thirteen of those are being added to the eligible list this round (alphabetically from Luke Appling to Larry French). The eleven players further down in the alphabet will be added next round.
Holdovers:
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 8 rounds)
Roberto Alomar (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dizzy Dean (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Joe Medwick (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1907, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Luke Appling
Jimmie Foxx
Dick Bartell
Bill Dickey
Tony Cuccinello
Gene Desautels
Dolph Camilli
Ray Berres
Pitchers (born in 1907, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Larry French
Jumbo Brown
George Caster
Spud Chandler
Bobby Burke
Jimmie Foxx
Luke Appling
Bill Dickey
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
110.1 … (2621) Wes Ferrell
130.3 … (1485) Spud Chandler
175.0 … (3150) Larry French
___________________________
Through the season closest to each Innings Pitched threshold…
IpWaa 1500:
70.4 … Dizzy Dean
72.8 … Rick Reuschel
76.6 … Wes Ferrell
88.8 … Dennis Eckersley
90.4 … Luis Tiant
168.7 … Kevin Brown
238.1 … Larry French
_____________________________
IpWaa 2000:
71.9 … Rick Reuschel
73.0 … Wes Ferrell
76.8 … Luis Tiant
96.5 … Kevin Brown
108.6 … Dennis Eckersley
180.1 … Larry French
______________________________
IpWaa 2500:
74.8 … Rick Reuschel
79.2 … Kevin Brown
84.4 … Luis Tiant
86.8 … Wes Ferrell
108.1 … Dennis Eckersley
204.1 … Larry French
_________________________________
IpWaa 3000:
76.1 … Kevin Brown
84.4 … Rick Reuschel
85.2 … Luis Tiant
96.1 … Dennis Eckersley
194.9 … Larry French
__________________________________
IpWaa 3500:
92.6 … Rick Reuschel
Wins Above Average (WAA),
expressed as a rate stat,
by dividing it into Plate Appearances (PaWaa):
PaWaa :
153.8 … (9676) Jimmie Foxx
223.6 … (7065) Bill Dickey
247.1 … (10254)Luke Appling
296.9 … (6353) Dolph Camilli
550.4 … (6880) Tony Cuccinello
710.6 … (8740) Dick Bartell
_______________________________
Here is a breakdown through different Plate Appearance levels.
Calculated through the end of each season closest to the level.
(Note how Appling gets better and better)
PaWaa 7000:
135.3 … Jimmie Foxx
295.6 … Luke Appling
PaWaa 8000:
133.4 … Jimmie Foxx
245.5 … Luke Appling
PaWaa 9000:
140.6 … Jimmie Foxx
241.8 … Luke Appling
PaWaa 10,000:
241.3 … Luke Appling
__________________________
Adding Foxx, Appling, and Dickey to the holdovers…
PaWaa:
105.1 … (1345) Wes Ferrell (see, also, his pitching stats)
153.8 … (9676) Jimmie Foxx
166.4 … (7024) Lou Boudreau (elected Last Round)
223.6 … (7065) Bill Dickey
247.1 … (10254)Luke Appling
287.8 … (7712) Minnie Minoso
289.8 … (8143) Joe Medwick
306.7 … (4815) Roy Campanella
322.0 …(10400) Roberto Alomar
350.0 … (9833) Harmon Killebrew
474.8 …(12817) Eddie Murray
521.4 …(12358) Dave Winfield
_______________________________
PaWaa7000:
135.3 … Jimmie Foxx
236.2 … Eddie Murray
237.4 … Minnie Minoso
254.4 … Harmon Killebrew
264.5 … Joe Medwick
287.0 … Roberto Alomar
288.6 … Dave Winfield
295.6 … Luke Appling
________________________
PaWaa8000:
133.4 … Jimmie Foxx
245.5 … Luke Appling
250.5 … Eddie Murray
257.1 … Roberto Alomar
270.8 … Harmon Killebrew
282.1 … Joe Medwick
314.6 … Dave Winfield
___________________________
PaWaa 9000:
140.6 … Jimmie Foxx
241.4 … Roberto Alomar
241.8 … Luke Appling
268.4 … Eddie Murray
293.0 … Harmon Killebrew
342.4 … Dave Winfield
____________________________
PaWaa 10,000:
241.3 … Luke Appling
294.1 … Eddie Murray
303.9 … Roberto Alomar
357.3 … Dave Winfield
____________________________
PaWaa 11,000:
345.3 … Eddie Murray
402.3 … Dave Winfield
____________________________
PaWaa 12,000:
385.7 … Eddie Murray
454.2 … Dave Winfield
Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Jimmie Foxx
Foxx
Murray
Alomar
Foxx to win
Tiant to make sure he doesn’t lose his extra year of eligibility
Last vote is between Dickey and Appling. I’ll go with Dickey though both are clearly deserving.
Ivy Andrews isn’t on the ballot because his 8 years and 19.4 WAR are below the thresholds but he deserves mention for three reasons:
1) Of the 244 retired pitchers with between 800 and 1200 IP and at least 100 starts, Andrews is 2nd in career WAR behind only Johnny Rigney.
Andrews continued pitching in the minors after his major league career was over so he wasn’t injured. He simply wasn’t appreciated in his time. Nowadays he’d probably get a three year, $30 million contract.
2) Of the 18 pitchers used by the 1932 Red Sox (43-111 record), Andrews is the only one with a winning record (8-6).
3) In his final season (1938), he was the AL ERA leader despite only pitching 48 innings and winning one game (AL rules at the time only required 45 innings pitched). Lefty Grove is now considered the 1938 AL ERA champion.
BTW, Ivy appears to be his real first name….
Foxx
Appling
Dickey
Foxx, Dickey, Campanella
Reuschel Foxx dickey
Foxx, Dean, Minoso
Foxx, Appling, Minoso
Fox, Appling, Tiant
Jimmie Foxx
Luke Appling
Kevin Brown
My 1907.1 vote:
Jimmie Foxx
Kevin Brown
Luke Appling
A caveat: I don’t really know how to treat catchers. I think WAR treats catchers extremely fairly on a seasonal basis (well, it could do a better job at defense, probably, but that’s not really what I’m talking about right now). On a career basis, though? Comparing catchers to other position players? No; I don’t really think it does a good job. The issue is, I don’t know by how much I need to adjust catcher stats to make them “line up.” It’s possible I could be convinced vis-a-vis Dickey. For now, though, I’m seeing him as below the line I have at Appling. I’m interested to read if anyone has a lot of insight on him, or catchers’ career WAR in general, because I could possibly be convinced.
Career WAR, catchers:
Bench 75.0
Carter 69.9
Rodriguez 68.4
Fisk 68.3
Piazza 59.4
Berra 59.3
Dickey 55.8
Hartnett 53.4
Cochrane 52.1
Simmons 50.1
We’ve inducted everyone above Dickey except for the not-yet-eligible Rodriguez.
Dickey is #7 on the list of catchers, at 55.8 WAR. At every other positon, the #7 player has 65-75 WAR. Catchers have shorter careers to begin with, and they routinely sit out 10-15% of the games in a given season – the highest single-season WAR by a catcher is 8.7 – so cumulative measures are not their friends.
Foxx, Dean, Appling
Foxx, Brown, Appling
Two/three deserving newcomers, a few of the stragglers are likely to drop off this time to the redemption rounds, right? Strategic voting seems to increasing over time, or that could just be my impression, but it would take a lot of vote wrangling to keep everyone around this time (somewhere, 10-15 CoG voters just muttered “challenge accepted” to themselves).
@17;
There are five holdovers, and they’ll probably need 7 votes to stay on the ballot, maybe 8 (there were 63 votes last time). Let’s say 70 people vote – that’s a minimum of 35 votes, in practice about 50 or more to be on the safe side. Foxx will get 60-65 by himself, so that leaves about 150 out of 210 total votes.
The big problem for the ‘bubble’ guys is that Dickey and Appling will also draw a lot of votes, so you’re probably right in that _someone_ is going to fall off the ballot.
Dickey, Dean, Foxx.
I can live without any of the holdovers.
Foxx
Appling
Dickey
Although he probably won’t earn my COG vote, Spud Chandler deserves some discussion. He was a very good pitcher for the Yankees for about a ten year period in the 30s and 40s and definitely had one of those careers at which we can look back and say “what if?”
He did not get to the major leagues until he was nearly 30 years old; he spent four years in college where he was a star football player, and later spent more time in the minors than he probably should have, because NY was so deep in pitching talent. Also, he struggled throughout his career with elbow problems that might have been corrected had Tommy John surgery come along a few decades earlier than it did.
JAWS…
Catcher:
45.0 … Bill Dickey (7th)
33.5 … Roy Campanella (25th)
First Base:
77.9 … Jimmie Foxx (3rd)
53.6 … Eddie Murray (14th)
49.2 … Harmon Killebrew (19th)
41.2 … Dolph Camilli (31st)
Second Base:
54.8 … Roberto Alomar (13th)
Third Base:
Shortstop:
59.2 … Luke Appling (9th)
Left Field:
47.6 … Joe Medwick (16th)
45.0 … Minnie Minoso (22nd)
Center Field:
Right Field:
50.8 … Dave Winfield (19th)
Starting Pitcher (quite a few 1800s players on this list):
58.3 … Wes Ferrell (39th)
56.9 … Rick Reuschel (45th)
55.6 … Luis Tiant (51st)
43.9 … Dizzy Dean (109th)
Relief Pitcher:
50.5 … Dennis Eckersley (1st)
Eck’s ranking is influenced by his work as a Starter.
This year’s tidbits.
– Luke Appling is the only player with an age 40+ season (1949) batting .300 with 100 walks. Who are the only players since 1901 with those career marks aged 40+?
– Jimmie Foxx won his 3 MVP crowns in the 3 seasons that he led the majors in TB and RBI (the only times he led his league in either category). Since 1931 (when former MVP winners in both leagues became eligible to repeat), who is the only player to lead the majors in those two categories and finish outside the top 10 in league MVP voting?
– Dick Bartell started 393 consecutive games (1931-34) as the Phillie shortstop. Later, Bartell became the 3rd Giant shortstop since 1901 with two 6 WAR seasons (1936-37), matching the number of Giant shortstops since with one such season. Who are they?
– Bill Dickey’s career .313 batting average is second among retired catchers, trailing only Mickey Cochrane’s .320 mark. Who is the only player/manager since Dickey to catch and manage in the same season?
– Tony Cuccinello owns one of only 9 final seasons of 3 WAR aged 35 or older. Of those players, only Cuccinello recorded more PA in that final season than in the three seasons preceding it combined. Which player in that group had the most PA over those 3 preceding seasons?
– Larry French leads all pitchers with 7 seasons (1932-38) of 25 starts and 12 relief appearances. Who are the two other pitchers with 5 such seasons?
– Spud Chandler and Rip Sewell had matching 1943 seasons, each leading his league in Wins and CG, the only time two pitchers aged 35+ have led in those categories. Almost 70 years after he retired, Chandler’s .717 career W-L% in almost 1500 IP remains the record for starting pitchers with 400 IP (no doubt Chandler subscribed to Waite Hoyt’s maxim that the key to a successful pitching career was playing for the Yankees). Who is the only relief pitcher with 400 IP and a career W-L% higher than Chandler’s?
– Gene Desautels’ 57 OPS+ is the lowest mark among catchers who played their entire careers (min. 2000 PA) in the AL. Desautels’ first home run (of only three) was inside-the-park at Griffith Stadium. Who are the only expansion era catchers with two IPHRs?
– George Caster is the last pitcher to have a season (1940) with 150 IP as a starter and losses in 75% of his starts. Who is the only pitcher in the last 60 years to lose 70% of his starts in 150+ IP as a starter?
– Dolph Camilli was the first player with multiple seasons of 100 runs, 100 RBI, 100 walks and 100 strikeouts. Who was the first player after Camilli to have two such seasons consecutively?
– Jumbo Brown was the first pitcher with a 500 IP career who never had a season pitching more than 90 innings. Brown is also the only pitcher with 250 career IP for both the Yankees and the New York Giants. Who are the two pitchers with 250 career IP for the Yankees and Dodgers, and who pitched for both in the World Series?
– Ray Berres’s career 43 OPS+ exceeds only Bill Bergen‘s mark of 21 among players catching 500 games. Berres has the distinction of not out-slugging his OBP for his career, or in any season with 100+ PA (both of which Bergen accomplished). BER evidently stood for “batting with extreme reluctance” as Berres was the 6th player with a name so prefixed to catch 200 games and fail to reach 85 OPS+ for his career (the next catcher in that lineage, debuting the season after Berres retired, would break that mold in a big way). At least Berres could look back on one month when everything clicked – September 1944 when he slashed .500/.529/.688 in, ahem, 17 PA.
– Bobby Burke is the only pitcher, among all those with 5 or more seasons of 10+ starts and single-digit totals for wins and losses, to never win or lose 10 games in any season. Who is the only other such pitcher without a 10 loss season?
Doug (or others) – Does Appling have the most age 39+ seasons with OPS+ of 100 or better? (qualified batting seasons only)
Indeed he does, together with Sam Rice. Here are the players since 1901 with more than one such season.
Generated 12/22/2014.
Johnny Cooney’s name caught my eye here. He’s the sort of player you don’t see anymore, but they showed up from time to time earlier in the game.
You might call them ballplayers.
After a few productive years they moved from the mound to the field, usually the outfield, where they performed creditably as well. Smokey Joe Wood and a guy named Ruth, Monte Ward in the early days. Cooney, like Wood and Ward, suffered arm trouble but had big league talent as a batter and fielder. Ruth? Who knows what kind of pitching record he might have established had he stayed on the mound.
You can add Reb Russell to that list of pitchers turned OF. After A few successful years as a pitcher he went to the OF. In 1922 he set a record with 75 RBI in just 60 G. That ratio of RBI/G of 1.25 is the highest for all players with a season of 25+ RBI.
In 1940 a 20 year old went 18 and 5 with a 2.62 ERA in D ball for St. Louis. Then he hurt his arm doing gymnastics in the offseason (I think).
His name was Stan Musial.
Additional tidbits:
Luke Appling has the two highest OBPs in a qualifying season for a 40+ years old player. His .439 at age 42 in 1949 is the highest and his .423 at age 41 in 1948 is the second highest. His 6 HR in 1936 with 128 RBI is the fewest for a player with that many RBI.
Tony Cuccinello in 1945 lost the AL batting title to Snuffy Stirnweiss by .00009, the smallest such difference ever.
Jimmie Foxx is one of two players that I could confirm to have a .300 lifetime BA after each and every AB of his career.
Cuccinello’s White Sox played their final game on Sep 25th, a Tuesday, even though the season ran to the following Sunday and there were 5 unplayed games still on Chicago’s schedule (I guess you had to be there). At the time, Cuccinello led Stirnweiss .308 to .305, a lead that widened when Stirnweiss went 1 for 5 against the As on Thursday. But, two 3 for 5 games against the Red Sox on Sat and Sun were just enough for Stirnweiss to take the title (the Yankees also finished a couple of games short of a full schedule). Had Cuccinello won that batting title, he would be the only player to do so in his final season.
Who is the only player to win a batting title in his next-to-last season?
Is it Ed Delahanty
That was supposed to have a question mark at the end. I’ve confirmed that it does no good to type one after clicking “Submit Comment”. ;o)
Ed would be the answer based on modern qualification standards. But, at the time, Nap Lajoie edged out Delahanty by two points, .378 to .376.
There’s another more recent player.
Finally, I think I’ve found it – Dale Alexander in 1932.
Alexander is the only one. And, he was 29, so not really what you’re thinking about when you say next-to-last season of a career.
The real end-of-career seasons don’t show up until the 3rd to last season when you have Lefty O’Doul (1932), Ted Williams (1958) and Pete Runnels (1962) as batting champs, all age 34 or older.
Alexander won the bating title in 1932. Due to the difference in qualifications for the title he qualified with 454 PA/392 AB. If the later rules of 400 AB or 502 PA applied then Jimmie Foxx would have won the batting title and also the triple crown. Alexander’s career ended prematurely in 1933 due to a badly burned leg resulting from an extended session in a diathermy machine.
Gene Desautels question: Dan Wilson, Gary Carter and Tim McCarver.
Correct.
Dan Wilson got his two in the space of two months play (Sep 1997 and May 1998). Oddly, both came in the bandbox that was the Kingdome and both against the Tigers. The second was a grand slam.
Another IPGS by a catcher was hit by Ron Karkovice in another indoor bandbox, the HHH Metrodome.
The only other IPGS by a catcher since 1961 was one of Tim McCarver’s, hit at the Polo Grounds against the Mets.
George Caster’s mate has to be Jose DeLeon.
I’m shocked that Mantle didn’t match the Camilli feat. But he only had 100 RBI four times, never consecutively.
Correct.
DeLeon’s travails came in 1985, losing 18 of his 25 starts (72%), including his only CG. His Pirates were shut out in 7 of those starts and scored just once in 4 others.
Jimmie Foxx: I almost didn’t even check on him, because I thought, “No WAY would he have finished THAT far down-ballot…” but the answer is HANK AARON, 1960. Yowza.
I don’t know if Doug means that the question applies to former MVPs only but in 1963 Dick Stuart led the league in RBI and TB and finished 13th in the MVP voting
Richard, re: Stuart — Doug asked for *MLB* leaders in RBI & TB.
Jimmie Foxx: I almost didn’t even check on him, because I thought, “No WAY would he have finished THAT far down-ballot…” but the answer is HANK AARON, 1960. Yowza.
I’m going to blame it on anti-Milwaukee bias, because George Scott finished 8th in 1975, and that’s pretty darn close to the same thing!
Aaron is the answer.
Finishing ahead of the Hammer in the MVP vote were four players from the world champion Pirates (incl. winner Dick Groat) and three from the 3rd place Cardinals, plus Willie Mays and Ernie Banks. Four players on the 2nd place Braves plus another Pirate finished 10 through 14 on the ballot. Mays was the only player with a higher WAR total than Aaron.
Dick Bartell: I’m not sure I understand the syntax of your question, but I think you mean, “Two Giants have had one 6-WAR season since Bartell’s two; who are they?” If that’s correct, the answer is Chris Speier (1972) and Rich Aurilia (2001).
Dolph Camilli: Did anyone do it before Mike Schmidt, 1976-1977? I tried some players, but couldn’t find anyone earlier. But there’s gotta be, right? Mickey Mantle came THISCLOSE about a dozen times in his career, but never quite managed consecutive seasons of it. He had the most “close calls” of anyone I found.
I believe Doug meant that as Bartell was the 3rd Giants SS with two 6-WAR seasons, so there are three since then with one such season. Anyway, there is a 3rd, recently deceased.
That was my meaning.
So, one more besides Speier and Aurillia.
The third must be Al Dark.
Indeed it must.
Schmidt is the answer.
That is SO surprising to me! I would’ve thought that there would’ve been like half a dozen guys AT LEAST who did it in the intervening 40 years. I was pretty surprised by this. But it seems like getting that timing down is a lot harder than you’d think. Guys like Harmon Killebrew and Frank Howard and Mickey Mantle and a host of others came REALLY close, but just couldn’t quite manage back-to-back years. Fascinating question.
As you say, harder than you might think. The only players since Schmidt to go back-to-back are:
Thome: 1996-97, 1999-2003
Bagwell: 1996-97, 1999-2001
McGwire: 1998-99
Delgado: 2000-03
Glaus: 2000-01
Sosa: 2001-02
Abreu, Dunn: 2004-05
Ortiz: 2005-07
Bautista: 2010-11
Doug: I’m not sure of this but is Stu Miller the answer to the Bobby Burke question?
Not Miller. He lost 10 in the 1967 season.
The group of pitchers are those with 5+ seasons of 10+ starts. The criterion is never losing 10 games in *any* season.
Billy Loes then?
Correction.
The group of pitchers are those with 5+ seasons of 10+ starts, each with fewer than 10 wins and 10 losses.
The criterion is never losing 10 games in *any* season.
So, Loes is not in the group, as he had only two seasons with 10 starts and fewer than 10 wins and losses.
I’ll try once more: Sal Maglie
The Barber did it.
Sorry for fouling up the explanation.
Larry French question: Dizzy Dean, Lefty Grove
Doug: I could not find an answer to the Luke Appling question. The PI shows only Appling.
Is the question not “which players had a .300 batting average and 100 walks from their age 40 season onwards”? In which case the PI throws up Sam Rice and Ty Cobb in addition to Appling.
RJ: I think you’re right.
Rice, Cobb and Appling are correct.
Remaining quiz answers:
Bill Dickey question: last player/manager to catch and manage in same season – Elvin Tappe (1962 Cubs)
Spud Chandler question: only 400 IP pitcher since 1893 with better career W-L% than Chandler – Howie Krist .771 in 444.1 IP (1927-36)
Jumbo Brown question: pitchers with 250 career IP for Yankees and Dodgers and who pitched for both in World Series – Al Downing, Tommy John
Has the Cuccinello question been answered? I found Kirby Puckett.
Sorry.
Yes, Puckett is the answer to the Cuccinello question of player with most PA over three years preceding final 3+ WAR season age 35+.
And Krist’s nickname was Spud.
Appling, Foxx, Dickey
Winfield, Foxx, Murray
Foxx, Winfield, Dickey
Double X, Appling, Eck. Wish I had extra votes for Murray and maybe Tiant.
Foxx, Appling, Alomar
3/4 of an excellent infield.
Foxx
Dean
Dickey
Appling, Foxx, Dickey
Foxx, Reuschel, Ferrell
Foxx, Appling, and Ferrell.
French was a really good pitcher for a number of years but has been almost entirely forgotten. Like others in this era he lost some time to WW2- 27 years to be precise. I guess that he must have liked his new career and figured that coming back at age 38 would have been a bit of a long shot.
And I’m trying to think of another hitter who had significant PA’s (like 1000+) in the majors before breaking out at age 29 like Camilli? Bill Robinson maybe- he didn’t hit his stride until he was 30 but he really only had a couple of outstanding seasons.
Anyways, there are now 4 players on the ballot that I’m certain belong and one of them is sure to get in this round and one the next. I’m not going to vote for Vaughan in this election because I’m sure that he (and Dickey) will both get enough votes to more forward so I’m going to use one of my votes on someone I’m pretty sure belongs to ensure they hang around long enough for me to decide for certain.
Foxx, Campanella, Ferrell
Edgar Martinez might be a good comp to Camilli. He had almost 1500 PA through age 28, including a couple of decent OPS+ years (in the 130s), but without much pop or production. He broke out at age 29, winning the batting title and leading in doubles. But, his first season with power and run production didn’t come until age 32, his first with 20 HR and 85 RBI, and the first of 8 seasons out of 9 with those totals (100+ RBI in 6 of those years; below 20/85 only in his age 39 season, a third of which was lost to injury). All 6 of Edgar’s seasons with oWAR over 5.5 came at age 29 and after.
French served aboard USS New York(#34 in your program-Axis vs. Allies).
Foxx Appling Dickey
Dizzy Dean, Harmon Killebrew; Jimmie Foxx
Update, through Steve @66:
27 (100%!!!) – Jimmie Foxx
14 – Luke Appling
11 – Bill Dickey
5 – Dizzy Dean
3 – Kevin Brown, Wes Ferrell
2 – Everyone else among the holdovers, except Joe Medwick (0).
What an odd round so far. It’s still early, but it sure is shaking out weird already.
Foxx, Murray, and … Ferrell (of the guys on the bubble, he’s the only one who interests me).
Appling and Dickey appear safe for now, unless there is a huge surge of voters or vote changes.
Appling, Dickey and Foxx
Foxx, Killer, and Campy
Foxx, Killer, Murray
Starting to doubt Killer will ever get in.
Alright, truths of life.
1) Foxx should and will win. I feel compelled for integrity purposes to at least vote for the best candidate on the ballot.
2) Dickey is every bit the equal of Yogi and Piazza and I think belongs. That said, he’s not going to win and I’m not sure he needs my vote.
3) Appling is above my borderline of Murray but barely and that includes a big help from his 1943 “best season” with inflated wartime RBAT. I wouldn’t feel that bad if he dropped off but he’s still better than Winfield even ignoring Winfield’s d.
4) Ferrell isn’t getting a ton of support and he should be
5) I’m afraid of campy dropping back to the borderline with Dickey getting some of that catcher love.
Foxx, Ferrell, Campanella
Well I didn’t add in any compensation for Appling missing time in ’44 and ’45 so he’s more clearly a no brainer. Meh, he’s not going to win and doesn’t need my vote.
It’s nice to have some time for the holidays at home. I wrote some excel VBA code that takes WAR as an input and can figure out the best WAR for a given N year period and also shows Dr. Doom’s method of best seasons sorted together and then averaged in a similar manor. I’ve taken to liking the combination of the N consecutive years and the ideal sorting. Hopefully this posts without imploding something for invalid characters…
Sub nyearparser()
Dim sh As Worksheet
Set sh = ActiveSheet
‘inputs
sh.Cells(1, 1) = “Year”
sh.Cells(1, 2) = “WAR”
startrow = 2
startyear = sh.Cells(startrow, 1)
npeak = 25 ‘the number of years to evalute. Less favors peak, more favors career totals
Dim nbest(1 To 25) As String ‘second number must be npeak
Dim nyear(1 To 25) As String ‘second number must be npeak
Dim nnormal(1 To 25) As String ‘second number must be npeak
‘outputs
sh.Cells(1, 5) = “Total”
sh.Cells(1, 6) = “Avg”
sh.Cells(1, 4) = “Start”
sh.Cells(1, 3) = “Best N”
sh.Cells(1, 7) = “Normalized”
‘starting comparison values
r = startrow
x = 1
nnormal(x) = sh.Cells(startrow, 2)
While x < (npeak + 1)
nbest(x) = Application.Sum(Range(sh.Cells(r, 2), sh.Cells(r + x – 1, 2)))
sh.Cells(startrow + x – 1, 4) = startyear
sh.Cells(startrow + x – 1, 3) = x
x = x + 1
If x 1
If nnormal(y) > nnormal(y – 1) Then
a = nnormal(y)
b = nnormal(y – 1)
nnormal(y – 1) = a
nnormal(y) = b
Else
y = 0
End If
y = y – 1
Wend
‘check if additional season is negative and don’t penalize
If nbest(x) 0
‘populate current year for comparison
x = 1
While x < (npeak + 1)
nyear(x) = Application.Sum(Range(sh.Cells(r, 2), sh.Cells(r + x – 1, 2)))
x = x + 1
Wend
'compare
x = 1
While x 0 Then
nbest(x) = a
sh.Cells(startrow + x – 1, 4) = sh.Cells(r, 1)
End If
x = x + 1
Wend
r = r + 1
Wend
‘output
x = 1
r = startrow
While x 0
a = nnormal(y)
If a > 0 Then
tn = tn + a
End If
y = y – 1
Wend
sh.Cells(r, 7) = tn / x
r = r + 1
x = x + 1
Wend
‘score
sh.Cells(startrow + npeak, 6) = Application.Average(Range(sh.Cells(startrow, 6), sh.Cells(startrow + npeak – 1, 6)))
sh.Cells(startrow + npeak, 7) = Application.Average(Range(sh.Cells(startrow, 7), sh.Cells(startrow + npeak – 1, 7)))
sh.Cells(startrow + npeak + 1, 6) = “MIX:”
sh.Cells(startrow + npeak + 1, 7) = (sh.Cells(startrow + npeak, 6) + sh.Cells(startrow + npeak, 7)) / 2
End Sub
My two COG Borderline candidates are Eddie Murray (4.64) and Rick Reuschel (4.85) for position players and pitchers. Steady Eddie’s normalized Dr. Doom sort barely even helps him he was such a consistent guy with a gradual decline.
Appling without any wartime compensation (I would tend to want to throw out 42 to 45 and replace them all with some kind of average as we discussed previously) gets a 4.92 score. He’s a 4-5 WAR player for years immediately before and after the war. Using 4.5 WAR for 42-45 raises his composite score to 4.99. He played a lot of years including a pretty good season in 43 so I don’t think the war correction in his case matters much.
…I guess it’s best approximation is that’s about what people remember him performing at over a given period of time. For a shorter peak period he was better than that and over the course of his career as a whole he was below it but it’s a weighted mix to favor peak but take into account all seasons.
Wow, that’s some seriously fantastic work. I totally get what you’re doing, and appreciate how comprehensive it is. Thanks alot for expounding on your methodology in the last few weeks, it’s really cool to see different posters’ evaluative methods.
Campanella, Tiant, Winfield
And there’s the end of Foxx’s bid for 100%. This is REALLY late in the process to go. I’m not going to research all previous rounds with shoe-in candidates, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Foxx is the first player to go over 30 votes at 100%.
And he wound up being named on less than 80% of the total ballots cast which I would guess shows that there is a LOT of strategic voting going on- including my own vote change.
And with a few really lean and one incredibly well stacked ballots coming up I think that’s probably a good thing.
I’ll be amazed if anyone on the bubble makes it thru the gauntlet that starts in 1903:
1903- Gehrig, Warner, Dickey, Hubbel, Gehringer
1902- Simmons, Averill
1901 (2 parts)- Manush
1900- Grove, Hartnett, Lyons, Goslin, Bottomley
Then we have a few years with several HOFers but only Frisch as an obviously strong candidate. I don’t see Averill, Manush or Bottomley as strong candidates either but that still leaves 10 candidates who are in only 5 elections- which might mean we’re going to have a pretty extensive holdover list some of those years unless some of the current guys (or the newcomers we’re voting on this election and next) get pushed aside.
Then after Ruth & Heilmann come along in 95 there are several really lean years again except for maybe Sisler & Vance.
The more I look at this I think it will be the NEXT rounds of redemption candidates (after the upcoming one) who will have more to say with who eventually gets in.
The fun continues.
Jimmie Foxx, Luke Appling, Rick Reuschel
Minoso, Appling Foxx
Amended ballot:
Jimmie Foxx
Luke Appling
Bill Dickey
Foxx, Dickey and Winfield
Tough not to vote for Murray, but he can afford to lose a round.
Didn’t realize Foxx has the best OPS for a RH hitter all time. He might be the best righty hitter ever.
Top 5 RH hitters of the live ball era (imho):
Hornsby
DiMaggio
Pujols
Aaron
Foxx
(Mays very close in the 6 spot.)
Speaking of RH hitters, Medwick is about to drop off with the ignominy of receiving no votes in his final round. Tough break for a guy who hit .324 and with power!
Maybe someone can answer me a WAR question. I was comparing Foxx and Gehrig through the lens of their Rbat totals and was intrigued by their respective 1936 campaigns. Gehrig clearly had the better year at the plate (ops 1.174 vs. 1.071), but that .100 difference translated into close to twice as many batting runs for Gehrig (88 vs. 49). They both played every game, had basically the same amount of PA, and, (surprisingly to me) had virtually identical tOPS+ (104/96 vs. 103/96). Both teams had terrific pitching staffs (the Sox had a pretty epic duo in Grove and Ferrell that year, but the Yankees were solidly above average). Anyone willing to fill me in on the logic here? Does the difference between Foxx and Gehrig lie primarily how great Grove and Ferrell were that year?
Here is my amateurish attempt to explain the batting runs difference between Gehrig and Foxx. I used B-R as a reference for my calculations. The first step in computing batting runs is to determine a player’s weighted OBA, identified as wOBA. By my calculations Gehrig’s wOBA was .507 vs. Foxx’s .473, a ratio of 1.074. Gehrig had more HR, BB and HBP. At that point the league wOBA is subtracted, scale factors are applied and a stat of wRAA is calculated. Gehrig’s was 96.27 vs. Foxx’s 72.55, a ratio of 1.33. Subtracting the league wOBA greatly affects the wOBA, wRAA and, ultimately, batting runs. The next step is to convert wRAA to batting runs but I do not know how to compute that. Gehrig should still come out much higher. The actual ratio of Gehrig’s batting runs to Foxx’s is, per B-R, 88.4/49.5 = 1.79, still a long way from 1.33. Perhaps someone out there knows how to convert wRAA to batting runs, I think ballpark factors are part of it.
Fangraphs shows almost the same values for wRAA as mine.
paget: the biggest driver is just park factors. Gehrig was playing in a pitcher’s park (multi-year PF of 97 for hitters) while Foxx hit in Fenway (PF of 106). Just using those numbers to park-adjust their OPS’s, we get 1.210 for Gehrig and 1.010 for Foxx. So now it’s a 200-point OPS difference.
League-average OPS in 1936 AL was .784. Since batting runs are based on the league average:
Gehrig: 426 points above average
Foxx: 226 points above average
OPS isn’t directly involved in batting runs so this is just a quick ‘n dirty check, but you can see the almost 2 to 1 ratio you mentioned in your comment.
tOPS+ home/away splits aren’t involved in batting runs, and I don’t understand your point about the Boston pitchers. That shouldn’t factor into it. There is no “quality of opposition” measure for hitters. There probably should be.
Interesting–if memory serves, during the kerfuffle over Whitey Ford, was reference not made to the advantage Ford would have had in not having to face his own (extremely potent) offense? I think I assumed that there were advanced stats that took quality of opposition into account for pitcher value. Is that not the case?
As you say, it seems like there should be a measure for this, both for pitchers and hitters. If you’re a pitcher on the, say, 1927 Yankees, shouldn’t it work slightly against you that you don’t have to face Murderer’s Row? Likewise, if you’re a hitter on the 1936 Red Sox, shouldn’t it work slightly against you that you don’t have to face two starters who together achieved 18WAR?
As for my reference to tOPS+ I was just trying to point out that neither player seemed to benefit more than the other thanks to his home ballpark. My problem with how WAR uses park factors is that it doesn’t take into account the fact that ballparks (particularly the old ones) provide very different hitting environments for LH and RH hitters. Not that we should only look at tOPS+ in trying to determine how much a player was hurt or helped by his home park, but making adjustments based solely on general run scoring environment in a park is not a sensitive enough tool for evaluating hitters.
So OPS is useful, but it’s nowhere near as good an approximation of value as batting runs. OPS+ is better, and the difference there looks much bigger (Gehrig 190 and Foxx 155). That’s after adjusting for park and scaling.
There are three factors that make Gehrig’s OPS not display his true strength relative to Foxx in 1936. One is the park: yankee stadium a slight pitcher’s park and boston a slight pitcher’s park. The quality of pitchers is not relevant as the park factors adjust for that. If they didn’t, then having good pitchers would have actually helped Foxx’s adjusted numbers, as it would have made fenway look like less of a hitter’s park.
#2: comparing raw OPS is working on a different scale than rBat, which compares what you do to the league average. League average OPS was .768 in the 1936 AL, so the appropriate scale would look at Gehrig as .406 above average, while Foxx was .303 above average. The difference, even unadjusted for park, looks bigger when you subtract out the league average, which is what rBat does.
#3: OPS values SLG more than OBP, but OBP is more valuable, and rBat captures this more correctly. Gehrig’s OBP was an otherworldly .478, 115 points above league average. Foxx was an excellent .440, 77 points above league average. Compare their SLG numbers: Gehrig .696 vs. lgAv .421, which is .275 higher. Foxx was .631: .210 higher. So Gehrig had about 50% more OBP points above average, but only 30% more SLG points above average. OPS isn’t giving full value to the OBP. This factor is smaller than the others but it matters.
I’m torn between five guys. Foxx, Dickey, Appling, Dean, and Winfield. Foxx has to be #1, he’s one of the best hitters of all time and i’ve always voted for who i feel is the best guy on the ballot. I feel Dickey belongs as #2 although Appling’s WAR and WAA stats are better (probably due to the Catching conundrum mentioned earlier). I don’t want Dean and Winfield to fall off the ballot as I want to keep voting for them. But i’m not sure i’m concerned because i’m going to have Dickey and Appling to vote for on the upcoming ballots anyways. I think I will stick for who I feel most belongs.
Shout out to Spud Chandler, who had a great but very short peak. Definitely doesn’t belong in the COG but at one short point was one of the top pitchers in baseball.
Jimmie Foxx, Bill Dickey, Luke Appling
Merry Christmas; I hope it’s a good one for all of you out there. And for those of you who don’t celebrate, enjoy your time off work, get some Chinese, and have a great day, too!
A Christmas vote update, trough Josh @85, which is 37 ballots into this thing:
36 (97.30%) – Jimmie Foxx
18 (48.65%) – Luke Appling
15 (40.54%) – Bill Dickey
5 (13.51%) – Roy Campanella, Dizzy Dean, Wes Ferrell
4 (10.81%) – Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield
3 (8.11%) – Minnie Minoso, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant
2 (5.41%) – Roberto Alomar, Kevin Brown, Dennis Eckersley
0 (0.00%) – Joe Medwick
For those supporting Appling and Dickey, there’s still incentive to keep voting for them, even though they have no chance of winning the round: both are making strong pushes for 50%… Kevin Brown’s situation has actually gotten WORSE since my last vote update… Jimmie Foxx’s percentage is RIDICULOUSLY high; it won’t stay that way forever, but yikes… Dean, Ferrell, Minoso, and Winfield are all in SERIOUS danger of falling off the ballot, though they could rally with strong pushes from the later voters… Joe Medwick’s only hope at this point is a minor (Christmas) miracle – I’m considering him done as of this point, as the votes that would be needed to spare him are probably better used on someone – ANYONE – else.
Well I don’t want Dean on the ballot anyway, because he’s not even close to the level of pitcher that belongs in the COG, so I’d like to see him fall off. Winfield isn’t even in my first 10 out, but at least I see him as a reasonable candidate.
I’ll be glad to see Medwick off. He doesn’t belong. I don’t understand how Dean is even close to staying on with this difficult to survive ballot.
Killebrew, Foxx, and Dickey.
Merry Christmas.
It gives me no pleasure in middle-age to be a contrarian, but I feel zero sense of obligation to vote for the best player. In fact, I’d love it if we didn’t vote Foxx in this week, and let him hang around to go up against Gehrig. But…
Fascinated by Wes Ferrell, can’t let him drop off.
And today I’m stung by the recent death of a good friend who left too soon, so I’m givin’ some love to longevity. That means Steady Eddie and Dave!
____________
Vote:
Wes Ferrell
Eddie Murray
Dave Winfield
Foxx, Killebrew, Dickey.
Reuschel, Foxx, Dickey
For the 1907 Part 1 election, I’m voting for:
-Roberto Alomar
-Eddie Murray
-Dave Winfield
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Foxx
-Appling
-Eckersley
-Killebrew
-Brown
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Medwick
-Dickey
@88: I can’t do it on an iPad right now, but if you compare Foxx’s ’29 to ’41 years against Gehrig’s ’26 to ’38, Gehrig betters him in all areas, 108 WAR to 90 etc. but those 13 years for each them were something. It always made me think even the greatest players have a limit of 13 great years like the greatest writers only have so many great books in them and the rest are just above replacement level.
Reuschel, Winfield, Foxx
Foxx, Murray, Alomar
Vote change.
I think I’ve only done this a couple of times before but the current crowded ballot coupled with a couple of lean upcoming years lead me to want as much choice going forward as possible (altho I’m aware the redemption round will help there I’m not overwhelmed with the choices so far)
Drop Foxx, add Minoso
New vote
Campanella, Ferrell, Minoso
I considered showing a little love for Tiant & Reuschel as well.
Ferrell
Winfield
Campanella
Ferrell, Tiant, Minoso
i took hartvig’s @96 comments seriously, but Foxx is so ridiculously good, i have to vote for him. But I’ll double down on my Tiant vote to help keep him alive. i only have one of those in me per round, and Dickey is too good to pass up.
Foxx, Dickey, Tiant.
Brown, Tiant, Eckersley
The winner this round plus the two new holdovers are pretty obvious. Purely strategic attempting to maintain pitching options. Would like to see a big, varied ballot duke it out a few years before restocking the redemption lists….
Dickey, Foxx, Killebrew
Tiant, Reuschel, Eckersley
Reuschel, Minoso, Campanella
Ferrel is already surviving, I have him right near my borderline. The other three last chancers I don’t have in, and the one who is close enough for his election not to be a travesty is also now safe (winfield with 8 votes). Tiant now has 7 votes so I judge him probably safe for 10% this election.
I support all three newcomers, but they are already in great shape for 25% and aren’t likely to hit 50 even if people don’t pay any attention to the downballot holdovers. I’m working to keep all those 2 rounders with 2 rounds. Nobody is a serious threat for 25%. Not happy that I can’t vote for Alomar and Brown who I think definitely belong and who are in danger of losing a round, but at least they have more than 1 safety. The others seem more important right now.
This is where I wish I was sure I’d be able to vote tomorrow night, but I may not be able to do so, so I have to cast it now.
Foxx, Appling, Eckersley
Foxx is in so let’s get Alomar to 10%; keep Dean above 10% and since it’s the last day of voting, let’s stop the shutout – Medwick
To make it official – Alomar, Dean, Medwick
Alomar, Murray, Eckersley
In recognition of his .388 average, whichi is still the single-season record on the South Side:
L.Appling
To keep them on the ballot without using up a round of eligibility:
J.Dean
O.Minoso
whichi… typo or freudian slip?
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
Foxx 65.2
Appling 44.2
Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
FerrellW 40.1
Tiant 37.5
Alomar 37.1
Eckersley 34.3
Murray 33.7
Killebrew 33.0
Dickey 31.9
Winfield 31.1
Minoso 30.6
Medwick 30.2
Dean 27.9
Campanella 19.2
Hard to argue Dickey lost too much WAA to war, but he certainly lost some to the tools of ignorance. He’ll get another chance…
Foxx, Appling, Brown
COG-like strategic voting finds its way into the real Hall of Fame voting: http://balleight.com/2014/12/28/why-mike-berardino-left-pedro-randy-johnson-off-hof-ballot/
Wow, almost missed the deadline:
– Join the chorus: Jimmy Foxx
– Keep him on the COG ballot: Minnie Minoso
– Symbolic vote, even though he has no chance (I know someone gave it a much better name before – what was it??): Dolf Camilli
Foxx, Appling, Ferrell.
Well, I usually vote early but I’ve been busy, so I find myself in the strategic voting position. I could create an 8-way tie for 6th place by including Alomar and Eckersley on my ballot. Both are at 6 votes, but there are now 58 (59 if I vote), so that’s not enough to stay on necessarily. Eck is right on the bottom of my CoG borderline, and honestly, I only want him elected if it gets to the last rounds and there are no other candidates that rise up from less obvious stats (someone with a shortened career, a catcher, ummm Satchel Paige, etc). Still, I want him to stay on the ballot until then, he deserves consideration. Brown would need 2 more votes after mine to not lose a round, which is maybe a longshot, but he has fewer rounds accrued than Alomar, so I’ll probably privilege him over Alomar, who has 4 rounds. I feel an obligation to honour the purpose of the CoG and vote for the best, too.
Here are the rankings that I use, cumulative rankings of players on the ballot on 4 measures: WAR, WAA+, JAWS, and WAR*WAR/162G (or WAR/250IP).
Foxx 4
Appling 8
Reuschel 16
Brown 16
Tiant 24
Alomar 26
Ferrell 30
Murray 31
Eckersley 35
Winfield 43
Killebrew 44
Dickey 45
Medwick 48
Minoso 51
Dean 58
Campanella 64
I’m going to go with
Foxx
Brown
Eckersley
If a candidate is in the top 9 (or tied for the top 9), he does not necessarily need 10% of the vote.
You have a good point there. I thought that was a rule we only used early on but I did find it listed above. With so much strategic voting nowadays, it may become virtually impossible to pare down that holdover list.
Birtelcom may need to amend that rule a bit to make “gaming” the system more difficult (One vote for Medwick and Camilli should NOT keep them around – the group obviously was not supporting them). The way votes have been getting spread out, we can and do support 12-14 candidates easily. Without a “minimum” vote level, less-deserving “favored sons” dilute the ballot focus away from others. Our rounds should force choices to be made among supported candidates. The rule was originally to ensure we retained sufficient candidates – I think our voting practices do that already without need of it.
If the rule were not eliminated, maybe restricting to the top 7 (with ties) would make it more select. The real HOF has too many deserving candidates to get good ballot consensus, while the COG might get too many mediocre candidates clogging its ballots. Just a thought.
But one vote didn’t keep Medwick and Camilli around – they were nowhere near 9th or tied for 9th, but rather tied for 16th-17th, so they’re gone. The “tied for 9th” rule hasn’t come into play in a rather long time, that I can recall.
My bad…the wording “top 9 in ballot appearances” I interpreted as total votes during that round only. With so many ties this round, 9th place on 1907.1 ballot was 1 vote. Did not realize it was cumulative vote total or 10%.
Makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for the misguided rant @139.
I think there’s still some confusion here; cumulative vote total has nothing to do with it.
If, for example, two players tie for 3rd place, the next player after them is not in 4th place, but rather in 5th place. So, the final standings of this round were:
1) Foxx 49
2) Appling 23
3) Dickey 20
4) Ferrell 10
5) Winfield 9
6T) Killebrew 8
6T) Minoso 8
6T) Murray 8
6T) Reuschel 8
10T) Alomar 7
10T) Campanella 7
10T) Dean 7
10T) Eckersley 7
10T) Tiant 7
15) Brown 6
16T) Camilli 1
16T) Medwick 1
I.e., Killbrew et al. were tied for 6th-9th places, Alomar et al. tied for 10-14th.
I stand corrected. Some things are easier to see with an example. There should not be much likelihood of someone in the top 9 getting less than 10% of our vote these days. Somehow I got a bit confused about places when there are ties. Thanks again.
Happy to clarify. I agree it’s unlikely the ‘top 9’ rule will come into play any time soon, especially considering how skilled we’ve collectively become at spreading our votes around to keep candidates on the ballot. As best I can recall, the rule has been activated at least once (although I don’t remember exactly when), and maybe a few more times, but only a very few.
Foxx, Brown, Reuschel.
Foxx, Appling, Alomar
Winfield, Ferrell, Killebrew.