Circle of Greats: Redemption Round #7

This Circle of Greats (COG) vote is not to induct anyone into the Circle, but only to select two players who will be restored back on to the main ballot after having been previously been dropped from eligibility.  This seventh “redemption round” (we’ve been holding such redemption votes interspersed among the regular voting rounds every tenth voting round or so) gives voters a chance to reconsider past candidates who have previously fallen off the regular induction ballots.

In this round you may include on your three-man ballot any major league baseball player who was born between 1946 and 1969 and has neither been elected to the Circle of Greats nor is currently on the 1907 COG ballot (there will be another redemption round next week for players born between 1908 and 1945).  As usual, you must vote for three and only three players to cast a qualifying ballot.  The two players who appear on the most ballots will be restored to eligibility for the next regular, induction round of COG voting.  If your personal favorite doesn’t come in the top two this time, do not despair — he will have other chances in future redemption rounds to be held from time to time.

There are many players who are eligible for your votes in this redemption round. As an optional aid to your selection process, I’ve put together two spreadsheets, one for pitchers and one for everyday players, that include some stats for a substantial selection of relevant players: Redemption Round 7 Optional Hitter List and Redemption Round 7 Optional Pitcher List. The spreadsheet with everyday players includes the 150 everyday players born between 1946 and 1969 who accumulated at least 25 Wins Above Replacement (baseball-reference version). The list is in order of career regular season plate appearances, from high to low. The pitcher list includes 76 pitchers born between 1946 and 1969 who accumulated at least 25 pitching Wins Above Replacement. That list is ordered based on a formula of career regular season IP+(5*SV), intended to represent a quantity measure of pitching but one that does not banish relief pitchers to the bottom of the list. Again, these spreadsheets represent entirely discretionary lists — your full options are as stated: all major leaguers born between 1946 and 1969 who have not been inducted into the COG and are not on the 1907 ballot that is also the subject of a vote this week.

The deadline to cast your ballots in this redemption round is Monday night, December 29 at 11:59PM EDT. You can change your votes until 11:59PM EDT on Saturday night, December 27.  You can keep track of the vote tally in this redemption round here: COG Redemption Round 7 Vote Tally.

As mentioned above, we will have another redemption vote next week that will cover players born between 1908 and 1945.

98 thoughts on “Circle of Greats: Redemption Round #7

  1. Voomo Zanzibar

    Plate Appearances per Win Above Average

    PaWaa:
    207.0 … (7660) Mark McGwire

    254.4 … (8090) Bobby Bonds
    265.0 … (9461) Willie Randolph
    270.7 … (8553) Keith Hernandez

    287.6 … (8283) Will Clark
    292.3 … (8271) Robin Ventura

    308.9 … (10009) Buddy Bell
    311.6 … (8133) Cesar Cedeno
    311.9 … (10228) Graig Nettles
    322.2 … (10569) Dwight Evans
    322.2 … (8344) Ron Cey
    332.0 … (9063) John Olerud

    353.4 … (9896) Sammy Sosa
    362.6 … (9537) Jeff Kent
    373.9 … (10769) Andre Dawson
    400.2 … (12046) Rafael Palmeiro
    _____________________________________

    Through each season closest to PA thresholds…

    PaWaa 7000:
    201.6 … Mark McGwire
    216.7 … Bobby Bonds

    222.7 … Keith Hernandez
    224.5 … Graig Nettles
    230.4 … Buddy Bell
    230.5 … Andre Dawson

    241.8 … Willie Randolph
    247.6 … Cesar Cedeno
    249.7 … Ron Cey

    260.8 … Sammy Sosa
    264.7 … Dwight Evans
    265.2 … Robin Ventura
    270.6 … Will Clark

    283.9 … Jeff Kent
    283.9 … John Olerud
    ______________________________________

    PaWaa 8,000:
    241.5 … Keith Hernandez
    243.0 … Andre Dawson
    249.0 … Buddy Bell
    250.4 … Sammy Sosa
    254.4 … Bobby Bonds
    256.0 … Willie Randolph
    263.4 … Graig Nettles
    263.8 … Dwight Evans

    282.1 … Robin Ventura
    287.6 … Will Clark
    288.8 … Jeff Kent
    297.9 … John Olerud
    301.3 … Cesar Cedeno
    309.0 … Ron Cey
    ______________________________________

    PaWaa 9,000:
    254.2 … Willie Randolph
    263.4 … Graig Nettles
    267.7 … Andre Dawson

    273.7 … Dwight Evans
    278.9 … Buddy Bell
    281.8 … Sammy Sosa

    328.4 … Jeff Kent
    332.0 … John Olerud
    _______________________________________

    PaWaa 10,000:
    286.8 … Graig Nettles
    308.4 … Dwight Evans
    308.7 … Andre Dawson
    308.9 … Buddy Bell
    _______________________________________

    Reply
  2. Voomo Zanzibar

    Innings Pitched per Win Above Average

    (IpWaa):
    69.6 … (2563) Bret Saberhagen

    81.4 … (2899) David Cone
    84.5 … (2595) Kevin Appier

    91.0 … (2392) Ron Guidry
    93.1 … (2895) Dave Steib
    98.9 … (2592) Jimmy Key

    111.8 … (3197) Chuck Finley
    116.7 … (2801) Dwight Gooden
    124.7 … (3130) Orel Hershiser
    125.6 … (2963) Mark Langston
    126.6 … (2836) Frank Viola

    157.0 … (3439) David Wells
    210.5 … (4188) Frank Tanana
    ____________________________

    IpWaa 1500:
    53.6 … Kevin Appier
    64.2 … Bret Saberhagen
    65.5 … Dave Stieb

    71.4 … Ron Guidry
    72.4 … Frank Tanana
    74.1 … Orel Hershiser

    98.1 … David Cone
    109.6 .. Jimmy Key
    __________________________

    IpWaa 2000:
    63.6 … Bret Saberhagen
    67.1 … David Cone
    69.5 … Kevin Appier

    83.8 … Dave Stieb
    84.4 … Ron Guidry
    89.0 … Orel Hershiser
    94.6 … Jimmy Key

    103.7 … Chuck Finley
    105.5 … Frank Tanana
    ______________________________

    IpWaa 2500:
    68.5 … David Cone
    68.9 … Bret Saberhagen
    77.7 … Kevin Appier
    86.9 … Dave Stieb

    95.8 … Orel Hershiser
    97.7 … Jimmy Key
    114.8 .. Frank Tanana
    _____________________________

    IpWaa 3000 :
    105.9 … Chuck Finley
    115.5 … Orel Hershiser
    146.0 … Frank Tanana
    _____________________________

    IpWaa 3500:
    168.1 … Frank Tanana
    _____________________________

    IpWaa 4000:
    193.5 … Frank Tanana

    Reply
  3. Hartvig

    McGwire and Palmeiro are no’s for me because I feel that without steroids they wouldn’t be in the discussion. The guys that I gave the most serious thought to were Dwight Evans, Andre Dawson, Buddy Bell, Ted Simmons, Willie Randolph, Thurman Munson, Dave Cone and Bret Saberhagen. I think they all (except Dawson) got a raw deal from the HOF but as I said I also don’t see a strong case for any of them for the COG, at least as of this moment.

    Buddy Bell, Andre Dawson, David Cone

    Reply
    1. birtelcom Post author

      18-year-old Don Mattingly signed his first pro contract, with the Yankees, on June 26, 1979. Munson died just a few weeks later, on August 2 that year.

      Reply
      1. Dr. Doom

        Dwight Evans
        David Cone
        Dave Stieb

        Cone and Evans were obvious choices for me; I don’t think they got a good shot their first chances, so I’d like to see them back. Stieb DID get a sort-of-fair shot once; he managed 8 votes, but in the infamous round in which we had 81 electors – the ONLY round in COG history in which 8 votes didn’t keep you on the ballot. I’d like to see him get another chance with a different electorate.

        Reply
        1. Dr. Doom

          ARGH!!!! I didn’t mean to nest this comment here; I WAS going to reply something about how Guidry, the other player mentioned on this ballot, was having his second-straight year leading the AL in ERA and FIP. Then I decided that was unnecessary, so I reloaded the page. But for SOME dumb reason, it STILL nested my comment up here. Stupid technology.

          Reply
  4. Voomo Zanzibar

    Best WAR seasons.

    Cone. Sabes . Appier . Stieb

    7.2 … 9.7 … 9.2 … 7.9
    7.0 … 8.0 … 8.1 … 7.7
    6.8 … 7.3 … 6.0 … 7.0
    6.8 … 5.5 … 5.6 … 6.8
    5.6 … 5.1 … 5.2 … 5.8
    5.2 … 3.8 … 4.6 … 4.9
    5.1 … 3.7 … 4.5 … 4.5
    4.4 … 3.6 … 3.5 … 4.2
    4.0 … 2.9 … 3.3 … 3.3
    3.8 … 2.7 … 2.8 … 2.2
    2.8 … 2.2 … 1.8 … 1.6
    1.9 … 2.0 … 1.4 … 1.4
    1.3 … 1.5 … 0.3 … 0.1
    1.1 … 1.5

    Reply
    1. Voomo Zanzibar

      4 … 1 … 2 … 3
      4 … 2 … 1 … 3
      3 … 1 … 4 … 2
      1 … 4 … 3 … 1
      2 … 4 … 3 … 1
      1 … 4 … 3 … 2
      1 … 4 … 2 … 2
      1 … 3 … 4 … 2
      1 … 4 … 2 … 2
      1 … 3 … 2 … 4
      1 … 2 … 3 … 4
      2 … 1 … 3 … 3
      2 … 1 … 3 … 4
      2 … 1 … X … X

      Reply
  5. bells

    Okay, I just retooled my spreadsheet to separate redemption guys by birth year, so I’m ready to roll.

    Here’s my methodology – I compare players on 4 slightly different metrics, then aggregate the rankings of the players on the ballot. So if a player ranks first on all 4 metrics, they get a 4, if they rank 10th on all 4, they get a 40, etc. The four metrics are:

    WAR – measurement of value above replacement players; has seemed to be the most widely discussed ‘advanced’ omnibus measurement of player value.

    WAA+ – measurement of value above average players; my thought is that it measures how ‘really good’ a player was (excluding negative seasons also suits this purpose), and so a player who hung on slightly above replacement for many years might score highly in WAR but less highly in WAA+.

    JAWS – measurement of combined peak and career value; my thought is that this is a different way of capturing some ‘middle ground’ between the above 2 metrics.

    WAR*WAR/162G (or /250IP for pitchers) – credit to Jon Autin for coming up with this idea as a way to measure a player’s productivity per amount of time that they actually played, rather than over a season or career; my thought is that this is a way of measuring value for players who may not have had shorter careers or did not always play full seasons, etc.

    Anyway, I ranked all the guys who had over 50 WAR (or any who didn’t but appeared on multiple CoG ballots), and here are the rankings of the top guys:

    1. Cone 13
    2. McGwire 17
    3. Bell 18
    4. Palmeiro 21
    5. Saberhagen 21
    6. Randolph 22
    7. Dawson 29
    8. Evans 29
    9. Hernandez 42
    10. Stieb 43

    Tough choices. Palmeiro suffers from being 14th in WAA+, and I’d be more inclined to vote for him if not, well, you know. Borderline enough that I’m swayed to drop him. Cone seems the best candidate; Sabes tops the fourth metric so I’m giving him a good look… although it seems poor to leave out Bell or Randoloph. Hmm… I may change this, but

    Cone
    McGwire
    Randolph

    Reply
    1. bells

      Also, if anyone is interested, here are the rest of the guys I measured:

      11. Sammy Sosa 47
      12. Bobby Bonds 48
      13. Gary Sheffield 54
      13. Chuck Finley 54
      15. Kevin Appier 56
      16. Darrell Evans 71
      17. John Olerud 73
      17. Orel Hershiser 73
      19. Chet Lemon 75
      20. Will Clark 76
      21. Robin Ventura 79
      22. Cesar Cedeno 91
      23. Dwight Gooden 93
      24. Jeff Kent 95
      25. Frank Tanana 98
      26. Ron Cey 102
      27. Jose Cruz 108
      28. Mark Langston 112
      29. Jack Clark 115
      30. David Wells 118
      30. Kirby Puckett 118
      32. Kenny Rogers 125
      33. Fred McGriff 126
      34. Ted Simmons 134
      34. Toby Harrah 134
      36. Luis Gonzalez 139
      37. Tony Phillips 142
      38. Brian Downing 145
      39. Jamie Moyer 151

      Reply
        1. oneblankspace

          It looks like Goldschmidt tagged him on the replay.

          Of course, when Moyer began his big-league career, neither Colorado nor Arizona had teams after the first of April.

          Reply
  6. Dr. Doom

    Through 18 ballots cast (my vote @31 up above):

    8 – Dwight Evans
    7 – David Cone
    5 – Willie Randolph
    3 – Bret Saberhagen
    2 – Buddy Bell, Andre Dawson, Goose Gossage, Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Thurmon Munson, Rafael Palmeiro, Ted Simmons, Dave Stieb
    1 – Jim Abbott, Kevin Appier, Will Clark, Jim Eisenreich, Darrell Evans, Keith Hernandez, Jeff Kent, John Olerud, Curtis Pride, Dan Quisenberry, Gary Sheffield

    Reply
  7. mosc

    Trying to find anybody on here I’d actually want to put in the COG is a challenge. Using “better than Murray/Reuschel” as a bar…

    I got Randolph at 4.31 (using my averaging method) and I tend to agree with RFIELD and RBASE. He was just not much of a peak player and averaging 4 WAR over 16 seasons is impressive but he was rarely in the discussion for best players in the league. OPS+ 104 will do that.

    Saberhagen I have a 4.71, also just under my line. He was a fairly inconsistent pitcher in his peak years with his best seasons separated by some distance. Normalizing his production into a nicer curve puts him slightly ahead of Reuschel but still not exactly koufaxian (5.00)

    Dewey (4.34), Stieb (4.66), Cone (4.73), all right there.

    I do like Andre Dawson (4.85) who had a very bell curve like productive career with memorable high’s and historic dominance. Maybe we should be taking a closer look at him. He doesn’t seem to be getting much attention.

    Dawson, Saberhagen, Randolph

    Reply
    1. PP

      Personally, I don’t think any of these guys are getting in. I like to pick a few faves to see if they’ll get another chance. While I’d like to see Dewey make the HOF, it’s never going to happen and probably shouldn’t. Obviously, the COG is another level up from that.

      Reply
  8. Voomo Zanzibar

    Using my systems noted above, Saberhagen and Cone stand out amongst the pitchers.
    Saberhagen had better monster years, Cone more good years overall.
    I take Cone.

    Randolph stands out for me amongst position players.

    Evans and Bell are remarkably similar.
    I’ll go with Bell, because Evans is in the lead, blocking Cone and Randolph
    _________________

    Vote:

    Buddy Bell
    David Cone
    Willie Randolph

    Reply
  9. Dr. Doom

    A morning update, through Voomo above @42 (including mosc’s vote change above @40):

    11 – Dwight Evans
    9 – David Cone
    8 – Willie Randolph
    6 – Bret Saberhagen
    5 – Buddy Bell
    4 – Dave Stieb
    3 – Andre Dawson, Mark McGwire, Ted Simmons
    2 – Goose Gossage, Ron Guidry, Keith Hernandez, Jeff Kent, Don Mattingly, Thurmon Munson, Rafael Palmeiro
    1 – Jim Abbott, Kevin Appier, Will Clark, Jim Eisenreich, Darrell Evans, Orel Hershiser, Dale Murphy, John Olerud, Curtis Pride, Dan Quisenberry, Steve Rogers, Gary Sheffield

    Reply
      1. oneblankspace

        If I recall correctly, Roy Rogers was born at about second base of Riverfront Stadium (before the park was built, obviously)

        Reply
  10. Josh

    Goose Gossage, David Cone, Don Mattingly

    I like Willie Randolph, but i’m surprised to see him with as many votes so far as he does. In my mind he’s not a Hall of Fame talent.

    Reply
  11. Dr. Doom

    Christmas, everyone! Hope you have a great day!

    One more update, through Josh’s @49 (including latefortheparty’s correction @46):

    12 – Dwight Evans
    11 – David Cone
    8 – Willie Randolph
    6 – Buddy Bell, Bret Saberhagen
    5 – Dave Stieb
    4 – Andre Dawson, Ted Simmons
    3 – Goose Gossage, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire
    2 – Ron Guidry, Keith Hernandez, Jeff Kent, Thurmon Munson, Rafael Palmeiro
    1 – Jim Abbott, Kevin Appier, Will Clark, Jim Eisenreich, Darrell Evans, Orel Hershiser, Dale Murphy, John Olerud, Curtis Pride, Dan Quisenberry, Steve Rogers, Gary Sheffield

    Reply
  12. Dave Humbert

    Cone, Palmiero, Dwight Evans

    Went with highest WAR pitcher, infielder, and outfielder. Feel any of them can be HOF (borderline) but COG cases are iffy.

    Saberhagen and Appier were brittle high peak guys a few steps below Cone and Dean/Ferrell. Randolph and B. Bell are not really “great” (lots of 2B ahead of Randolph and for 3B I prefer Nettles). McGwire has the rate stat advantage but 1600 hits for a career shows his limitations (have to give Raffy a bit more natural skill/durability credit for 3000 hits and 500 HR). I like Simmons but with Dickey/Campanella on the ballot and Cochrane/Hartnett approaching did not think he would last long enough to get in. Dawson has speed and 2700 hits, but Dewey has solid longevity and productivity also, and is less noticed because he is not in the HOF. The rest did not jump out to me.

    The above said, I believe the better postwar candidates are still on our backlog, and not sure anyone we add here will make it through the 1903 election and its consequences.

    Reply
  13. mosc

    What exactly is the problem with Andre Dawson? Anybody? In his prime he had a pretty complete toolset and as he aged he remained a durable and productive bat. His .323 career OBP is pretty low but he was quite a slugger with 400+ home runs in some offensively challenged years. Dwight Evans stellar .370 OBP was mostly in a park that was much friendlier.

    Dewey was a good fielder but he was still a corner outfielder. Dawson at his peak was a star center fielder. During ’80 to ’83 when both were stars WAR says Dawson put up 4 consecutive seasons better than Dewey’s single best (1981). Dawson stole bases and played a more important position. Both were similar power hitters when compensating for parks. Dewey remained a decent fielding outfielder as he aged thanks to his arm where Dawson was never a great fit in right field and Dewey took quite a few more walks.

    Walks make a big armed right fielder with no speed compete evenly in career value with a speedy stud center fielder but at their best, Dawson was clearly better. A non sabermetric guy wouldn’t look at the two and say that they were even similar in raw career value but I don’t think that should be taken too far to negate the better peak Dawson had over Dewey.

    Reply
    1. Voomo Zanzibar

      There’s nothing wrong with Dawson. On this particular nook of the baseball-arguing-community, however, the trend seems to be to support those who have been overlooked by the egg-salad-eating sportswriter canon.

      Dawson won an MVP in a 4.0 WAR year, and was the only candidate elected to the HOF on a ballot that included Blyleven, Raines, Larkin, Alomar, Trammell, and Edgar.

      Dewey outdid him in Rbat 353-234, and is most commonly mistaken for Darrell Evans.

      Reply
    2. T-Bone

      I never saw Dwight play in person but I did see Dawson. I was also at spring training the year he joined the Cubs. I realize it was just Ho Ho Kam park but Dawson stood a couple feet in front of the right field fence and threw ball after ball to home plate and every one of them was chest high on a line right to the catcher. He too had a great arm. Taking nothing away from Evans who also had a cannon, but I think Dawson’s arm is sometimes forgotten.

      Reply
    3. John Autin

      Dawson’s .323 OBP is “pretty low” indeed — below the adjusted league norm for his time (.332). That’s the most important offensive tool in the kit, so that’s a pretty big deficit to start with when you’re arguing all-time greats.

      Terrific defensive CF before his knees went, but once he moved to RF, the arm can’t make up for the lack of mobility. And he wound up playing a lot more RF than CF in his career (1,281 vs. 1,027 games).

      I’m glad Dawson’s in the Hall. He did have a higher peak than Dewey, but that’s 4 great years. Evans had a lot more *good* years.

      WAR does credit Dawson as the more valuable defender, by +5.5 dWAR. But Evans was a much better offensive player. A .370-.323 lead in OBP, in careers of equal length, is a massive edge. Dawson’s small edge in power doesn’t make up enough ground.

      Reply
      1. bstar

        Yes, Dawson did end up playing a season or two more in RF, but he should still be considered a centerfielder because he produced more value there than in right. No one considers Ernie Banks a first baseman because he played more career games there than at short.

        The Hawk didn’t do a lot of position-switching during seasons, so we can get a pretty clear picture of how much value Dawson produced at both spots:

        CF (1976-1983): 41 WAR
        RF (’84-’92,’95): 25 WAR
        DH (1993-1994): -2 WAR (#ohdear)

        Dawson was a centerfielder.

        Reply
        1. John Autin

          bstar, I’m fine with calling Dawson a CF for most discussion purposes. I’m just noting that his position change widens the gap between his peak value and career value.

          You know I’m a bit contrary on the subject of peak value. There’s no dispute that Dawson’s 4-year peak was better than Evans’s. But Dewey makes up that gap in their respective next-ten-best years.

          Comparing their four best seasons, Dawson leads by 1.3 WAR per year. I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of why 1.3 WAR is worth more in a peak year than a non-peak year.

          Dawson’s peak was high for someone of his career value, but still not as high as the elite CF peaks. His 4 years of 6+ WAR is tied for 9th among CFs (behind Ashburn). He had no other years of 5+ WAR, and no others of 4+ while playing CF.

          His 7 years of 4+ WAR is 43rd among OFs, and his 9 years of 3+ WAR is 51st (tied with Brian Giles, Jose Cruz and Brett Butler). So I’m even more uncomfortable than usual with letting Dawson’s peak stand for his overall career.

          Reply
          1. bstar

            John, I’m not the guy to pick that fight with, in regards to peak vs. (number of good years). If you’ll recall, the discussion that spurred your “Do peak players create more pennants?” series involved Ryne Sandberg and Lou Whitaker.

            I was the one claiming that Lou’s run of good/very good years was just as impressive as Ryno alternating 7+ WAR years with barely above-average ones. There’s a similar dynamic w/ Dawson and Evans. So, I think we are on the same page there.

            Unless you’re actually stating that Dwight Evans was a better player than Dawson. The numbers don’t point to that — they suggest two long-career guys whose WAR and WAA (non-negative) are almost identical.

            Dawson had more great years, Dewey had more good ones. Potato, Pot-ah-to. “…Let’s call the whole thing off…”

          2. Voomo Zanzibar

            For illustration:

            Evans . Dawson
            6.7 … 7.9
            6.4 … 7.4
            5.4 … 6.8
            5.1 … 6.8
            4.8 … 4.8
            4.5 … 4.8
            4.4 … 4.0
            4.1 … 3.9
            3.8 … 3.5
            3.7 … 2.9
            3.2 … 2.9
            3.1 … 2.8
            3.0 … 2.3
            3.0 … 2.2
            2.0 … 2.1
            1.2 … 2.0
            0.9 … -0.1
            0.9 … -0.2
            0.6 … -0.3
            0.4 … -0.9
            xxx … -1.1
            _______________

          3. bstar

            One other thing these guys have in common is that the strike in ’81 interrupted great years from both Evans and Dawson.

            1981 WAR, all players

            1. Mike Schmidt, 7.7 WAR
            2. Andre Dawson, 7.4 WAR
            3. Dwight Evans, 6.7 WAR
            4. Rickey Henderson, 6.6 WAR
            5. Buddy Bell, 6.2 WAR

          4. birtelcom Post author

            bstar @75: I’m always a bit skeptical of the “great year interrupted by a strike” theory. Part of the reason a partial year may appear to be an unusually great year is because it was interrupted without regression toward the mean. I’d give credit to a player for missing time for a strike, but only based on his established career level.

          5. bstar

            Weird, birtelcom, but I almost attempted a sort of projection for the rest of ’81 for both Dawson and Evans. Instead of just prorating their stats to reflect their games played in a full season based on (games/team games), I was going to attempt to use a three-prior-years, 5-4-3 weighting for years N, N-1, N-2, etc. and use that for rest-of-season.

            But I decided it wasn’t worth the effort because the final number isn’t that important. My point is that a 9 or 10-WAR season capped with an MVP might have changed Dwight Evans’ narrative enough to make him look more appealing as an HOF candidate. (Both players could have easily reached 9 WAR even with healthy regression to the mean.)

            And maybe with just such a season for Dawson, the saber-inclined might see him more as the five-tool guy he was in his athletic prime as opposed to the overrated historic out-maker a lot of people seem to think he is now.

            Narrative matters. That is not in dispute. It matters for Hall voting, it matters here. There’s no need to attempt this ’81-strike exercise for guys like Rickey or Schmidt because they’re so far over the line that a couple more WAR wouldn’t change their narratives.

            But for guys on the borderline of the Hall or the COG? I think it might make a difference.

          6. John Autin

            birtelcom @78 — Using career rates to project shortened seasons would generally shortchange the player. Though perhaps you meant the established level proximate to the year in question, rather than career level.

            I just looked at the 40 best short seasons among retired players, defined as follows: 120 G or less, highest WAR per 162 games with at least 4.0 WAR. (Not necessarily shortened schedules, just years the player had 120 G or less.)

            I compared their WAR/162 for the short year against (a) their career average, and (b) the average of the year immediately before and after the short year.

            The short year scored 58% above their career rate, but just 29% above the surrounding years.

            Dawson’s ’81 was one of the years in that study — in fact, it’s 4th-best by WAR/162 in the modern era. Since Dawson was in the middle of his peak run, with excellent years on either side of ’81, it might make sense to fill in the gap with an average of those seasons. That seems better than using his career rate.

        2. John Autin

          bstar @72 — I wasn’t arguing with you, just explaining my focus on Dawson’s RF/CF game counts. Since his peak was short and in CF, while the rest of his career was long and mainly in RF, there is a bigger gap between Dawson’s peak value and career value than for most players with similar peak *or* career values.

          My initial reply to mosc was probably misguided. I was trying to make a statement about using peak value as shorthand for the player in whole — e.g., I think of Ernie Banks as a shortstop, and as a guy who hit 500 HRs, but not as a shortstop who hit 500 HRs. I later realized that mosc’s comment was more nuanced than I thought, and I could just as well have kept my mouth shut. A lesson to be learned more than once. 🙂

          Reply
    4. RJ

      Dawson is one of those guys whose final few “hanging on” years really kick the crap out of his career WAA total. His final figure of 28.8 WAA looks decidedly non-COG worthy, but he lost 6.1 WAA in the last four years of his career as a bit part DH/corner outfielder.

      As with Biggio, we have to question whether we really care about a guy playing past his sell-by-date when teams were still willing to pay him millions to do so. Ignore those last four years and he passes Dwight Evans in WAA and moves into a virtual tie in WAR; suddenly things don’t look so clear cut.

      Reply
      1. Voomo Zanzibar

        To RJ’s point…

        Plate Appearances per Win Above Average

        Career
        322.2 … (10569) Dwight Evans
        373.9 … (10769) Andre Dawson

        PaWaa 7000
        230.5 … Andre Dawson
        264.7 … Dwight Evans

        PaWaa 8000
        243.0 … Andre Dawson
        263.8 … Dwight Evans

        PaWaa 9000
        267.7 … Andre Dawson
        273.7 … Dwight Evans

        PaWaa 10,000
        308.4 … Dwight Evans
        308.7 … Andre Dawson

        Reply
        1. bstar

          That wasn’t RJ’s point. His point was that if you only look at non-negative seasons, Dawson has 35.1 WAA and Evans has 34.8. Their career WAR, even before any adjustments, is also very close to even. Using just WAR and positive WAA, they really couldn’t be any closer in career value.

          If you’re going to try and make a case for Dewey actually being better than Dawson, you’re going to have to bring some numbers from outside of B-Ref and rWAR to do it. And we have generally just used B-Ref numbers all along, so I don’t see a reason to break from that. The differences between these two players numerically are so microscopic that probably the best conclusion is to call them even and move on.

          Yes, Evans was the better hitter of the two. But Dawson was the superior fielder in his prime, as Dewey really didn’t have the speed to even fake CF for a little while. And Dawson had some baserunning value in his time with the Expos, also. Add it all up and it’s a wash.

          I don’t know what to say about the negative backlash Dawson’s case has endured from sabermetrics for having the audacity to win an undeserved MVP in 1987. He was second in the NL in WAR in 1981 and finished second in MVP voting to Mike Schmidt. The following year, he led the NL in WAR but finished a distant 21st. The next year, 1983, Dawson was fourth in WAR and again finished second to Dale Murphy for the MVP. My point is that Dawson could have won any of those three years and we would all be sitting here right now thinking Dawson taking down the award was deserved.

          As to preferring Dewey over Dawson because one made the Hall and the other didn’t, I suppose I can at least understand the mindset but I don’t agree with it. This isn’t the Circle of Overlooked Players.

          I DO like both Dawson and Dewey. To me, they are both stronger candidates than the outfielders we currently have on the COG ballot, including Medwick, Minoso, Winfield, and Killebrew. I think they both deserve to be put back on the ballot so they can go head-to-head against some of these other outfielders.

          Reply
          1. bells

            Honestly though, in my method of assessment, those two guys are tied in terms of their ranking (both get a 29, as seen in my comment upthread). I definitely vacillate between valuing peak or longevity, which I try to take into account by using multiple rankings, and I’m not sure how to use that as a tiebreaker. With all else being equal, I kind of feel like someone being more overlooked in his career (and after) is enough reason to choose to champion him. It’s a factor, not a major one, but enough of one to create a preference if the rest is a wash.

            Of course, I didn’t vote for either of these guys, so I guess you can take my assessment with a grain of salt.

        2. bstar

          Apologies, Voomo. Your numbers above actually do illustrate RJ’s point very well. It’s the “less is more” part of your PaWaa numbers that sometimes confuse me.

          Reply
  14. RJ

    This seems about as good a place as any to note that today I watched the Dock Ellis film, “No-No: A Dockumentary”, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

    A small note: I had no idea about the trade that sent Willie Randolph (on this ballot), Ellis and Ken Brett to the Yankees for a year of Doc Medich. I mean, I understand why the Pirates wanted to get rid of Ellis, but why throw Randolph into any deal? He’d just hit 339/.405/.479 in AAA as a twenty-year-old!

    Reply
    1. Voomo Zanzibar

      They had a 24 year old 2B named Rennie who was great on defense and had hit .291 and .286 the previous two years.

      But yes, I certainly see your point.
      Nobody else on the ’75 Chareston Charlies hit over .308.
      Randolph was 14/0 stealing bases, had more walks than strikeouts, and a better fielding percentage than the other skill-infielders (Craig Reynolds and Bobby Valentine).

      Reply
      1. RJ

        Yeah, I did see that he may well have been blocked. But still… Obviously it’s difficult to ignore hindsight here.

        Renaldo “Rennie” Stennett. All those names are unique in major league history.

        Reply
  15. Hub Kid

    I like the split of 1946-1969 and 1908-1945… although I have to stop myself from trying to vote for Dick Allen and Reggie Smith. Here’s my actual vote:

    Dwight Evans (1949), Ron Cey (1948), Gene Tenace (1946)

    I think Dewey is the best ‘1946-1969 born’ player off of the ballot, especially because I give extra credit for being overlooked by the HOF. I like Cey and Tenace for pretty much the same reason. Dave Stieb, too, but I can’t pick between Cey and Tenace, and I think Cone is probably better, anyhow. It’s really hard for me to pick any from that great group of 80s-90s pitchers on the borderline (Appier, Cone, Saberhagen & Stieb)

    Now winning feels like it may be a real mixed blessing, looking at the active COG ballot. I feel like I may have just committed 1/3 of my regular votes from now until doomsday (should Dewey win).

    Reply
    1. Michael Sullivan

      I feel like Cone and Saberhagen are clearly better than Appier and Stieb, and I think both belong in the COG discussion. The latter two belong in the HOF discussion even though they’ll never be so discussed by anyone with the power to get them in, but I think they fall short of the COG standard. Not by a lot though, no more than Ford, one of our very few somewhat dubious (to me) selections so far.

      Reply
  16. Voomo Zanzibar

    I just learned this about Dawson’s first (monster) year in Chicago:

    Andre Dawson played for the Expos until after the 1986 season, when he took a pay cut to sign with the Chicago Cubs. Dawson’s knee injuries were aggravated by playing on artificial turf in Montreal, and he hoped playing home games on grass at Wrigley Field would prolong his career.

    Dawson had campaigned for the Cubs to sign him during the offseason, but general manager Dallas Green resisted, insisting that the Cubs would start Brian Dayett in right field (Dawson had moved from center field to right field in his final three seasons as an Expo, due to the condition of his knees), and that one player could not make a 71-91 team a 91-71 team .

    When the Cubs opened camp in Mesa, Arizona that spring, Dawson and his agent Dick Moss arrived in an attempt to secure a contract with the Cubs. Dawson and Moss’s stunt was derided as a “dog and pony show” by Green, who still wouldn’t make an offer to Dawson. Two weeks into spring training, Dawson turned the tables on Green and the Cubs, presenting Green with a blank contract. Green filled in the contract with insultingly low figures: a $500,000 base salary with $250,000 in incentives if Dawson made the All-Star team, started the All-Star Game, and won the 1987 National League MVP award.

    Reply
  17. bstar

    I am always surprised when I see David Cone’s WAR and ERA+ in his days with the Mets. He seemed way more dominant than those numbers indicate. Dude was just filthy.

    Cone, Dawson, Evans

    Reply
  18. Michael Sullivan

    RJ convinced me about Dawson — he’s about equivalent to Dewey, near the COG line and better than Killer at least on the current ballot.

    I was bitter when Dawson got elected to the hall, but I shouldn’t have been. He was a beast and he clearly deserved it. He just didn’t deserve it ahead of the guys he beat out. Trammell, Raines, and Edgar who are still outside looking in, Larkin and holy crap even *Blyleven*. If one or two of those others guys had made it along with him, I don’t think I would have felt the same way.

    With that in mind (and the fact that Dewey is probably in with or without my vote here:

    Cone, Dawson, Saberhagen

    Reply
  19. oneblankspace

    Quisenberry
    DaMurphy (is DwMurphy even eligible?)
    and speaking of two-letter first names in the boxscores,
    LnParrish c

    Not that any of these guys have a chance of making the cut…

    Reply
    1. oneblankspace

      Parrish retired in 1995 tied for second in career HR among those who had caught in 85% of their games, and tied for fourth at the 75% C level.

      Reply
    2. birtelcom Post author

      Dwayne Murphy was on the 1955 Part 2 ballot — didn’t get any votes though. For some reason, Robin Yount was more popular that round.

      Similarly surprising: Quisenberry needs no identifying first initial.

      Reply
  20. Lawrence Azrin

    Procrastination has it’s advantages – I get to break the deadlock! (for now…)

    – Dwight Evans
    -Brett Saberhagen
    – Andre Dawson

    All former Red Sox, whaddaya know? (though Saberhagen, Dawson are just at the end of their careers).

    Reply
  21. bells

    I like the results of this voting round – I think there were 35 players that got at least a vote, and this is only 1946-69! One thing I like about where we’re getting to now in the process is that we’re past the point of ‘correcting’ the ballot for players who were worthy but dropped off after awhile just due to the talent glut of certain years (like Alomar, Murray, and of course the elected such as Lofton and Edgar), and now we’re throwing players back on that never really got any consideration whatsoever. I haven’t even thought of David Cone in relation to the CoG in what seems like forever. Of course, maybe there was a reason they weren’t considered and they’ll just drop back off, but it seems a worthwhile exercise to me to at least make that comparison – whoever survives 1903 will be in consideration through the 1890s, I think. In the long term, it would be unfortunate if we were putting the same players back on the ballot and having them fall off repeatedly, but that hasn’t happened in the last 3 (or 4?) redemption rounds, and even if it starts now, there are only, what, 2 or 3 redemption rounds left? So I think the process is right where it should be.

    Reply
    1. Dave Humbert

      Was not sure at first we had a lot of overlooked candidates, but bringing back two postwar and two prewar will liven up the backlog a bit. Cone can now be compared to Brown, Reuschel, and Tiant. Dewey gets another chance. Plus two more oldies! The last 2 or 3 rounds may have us recycling the same set of guys, which could happen if they are consensus “borderline”. To this point, the majority of the “needs discussion” guys have at least made it onto the backlog, if they were passed over. I think redemption works well.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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