This post is for voting and discussion in the 85th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round begins to add to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes those players born in 1904. Rules and lists are after the jump.
Players born in 1904 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 1904-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must, as usual, 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). This new group of 1904-born candidates joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots.
Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. As always, 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.
In total there were 17 players born in 1904 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Nine of those are being added to the eligible list this round (alphabetically from Ethan Allen to Fred Frankhouse). The eight players further down in the alphabet will be added next round.
All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST Sunday, February 22, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Friday, February 20.
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 1904 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-1904 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 fifteen 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 1904 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.
Holdovers:
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 9 rounds)
Eddie Murray (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Joe Cronin (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Kevin Brown (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)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dwight Evans (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Red Ruffing (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1904, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Spud Davis
Ethan Allen
Ripper Collins
Pitchers (born in 1904, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Pete Appleton
Johnny Allen
Fred Frankhouse
Boom-Boom Beck
Lloyd Brown
George Blaeholder
The era of great nicknames continues unabated- Spud, Ripper, Gimpy and best of all Boom-Boom.
Cronin, Campanella, Ferrell
3 others on the bubble that I think might belong so I may revisit this list depending on how voting goes.
Boom-Boom Beck
supposedly earned his nickname while pitching for Casey Stengel’s Dodgers in 1934. Becoming upset during a July 4th game when Stengel came out to remove him when the Dodgers still had a lead, Beck angrily threw the ball into right field at the old Baker Bowl in Philadelphia, PA.
The ball hit the tin-plated wall and caromed to center.
The “boom-boom” of the rebound roused hung-over centerfielder Hack Wilson, who was daydreaming during the pitching change and thought the game had resumed. Wilson pursued the ball and fired a strike back to the infield.
Beck and Al Simmons have an interesting quirk about their careers.
– In Beck’s first career game, Simmons batted against him
– In Simmons’ last career game, twenty years later, he again batted against Beck
VZ @ 20 –
The Dodgers weren’t leading when Beck was removed; the Phillies were ahead 3-0 in the bottom of the 1st with 2 outs. Beck had allowed 3 runs on 3 hits and 3 walks & was removed with the bases loaded and the pitcher coming to bat.
Also, Wilson was playing RF, not CF, in that game.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI193407042.shtml
@38,
I copy/pasted that directly from Boom Boom’s bullpen page at b-r.
Well, that page has it wrong, evidently (presuming the box score is correct). I’ve not found the bullpen pages at bb-ref to be terribly reliable.
That page provides another version of the story, which is a little more specific and accurate. But that versiom claims Beck was traded to Philadelphia shortly after the July 4th game, which is incorrect, as he finished the year out with Brooklyn.
Possibly, the alternate story meant that it was Wilson who went to the Phillies shortly afterwards, as that indeed did happen, though Hack was released and picked up, rather than traded.
Wilson played his final game later that 1934 season, getting a 2 RBI pinch-hit, the only searchable Phillie to end his career that way.
Doug @ 67 –
Indeed, you’re right, the second anecdote is referring to Wilson rather than Beck; I misread the last part of the excerpt.
According to the Charlton’s Chronology Wilson was in RF that day.
Minoso, Ashburn, Cronin
Killebrew, Cronin, and Eckersley
Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Minnie Minoso
Murray, Nettles, Ferrell
Campanella, Evans, Minoso
Cronin, Evans, Tiant
Campanella, Minoso, Brown
Killebrew, Murray, Winfield
Eddie Murray, Roy Campanella, Dave Winfield
Same as last round – Cronin, Eckersley, Murray.
I tried to vote earlier, but apparently it didn’t take. Whoops.
Anyway, I promised Joe Cronin a vote earlier. I think I met that requirement in the Redemption Round, but I’m going to go ahead and toss him another vote, because i’m just not sure how to separate the people we have left on the holdover list. So here goes nothin’:
Kevin Brown
Luis Tiant
Joe Cronin
Joe Cronin
Graig Nettles
Rick Reuschel
I know it was the early 30’s, but wow, a Catcher who batted .327 over a seven 7 stretch! That would be Spud.
He batted .280 in his partial first year.
That’s .324 over his first 8.
Since 1893, Catchers BA in their first 8 years (minimum 2000 PA):
.328 … Mike Piazza
.324 … Spud Davis
.323 … Joe Mauer
.321 … Mickey Cochrane
.319 … Ernie Lombardi
.316 … Bill Dickey
.305 … Johnny Bassler
.304 … Manny Sanguillen
.304 … Jason Kendall
Here’s a little trivia question for you while I consider who to vote for:
Which player is the all-time American League career leader in home runs while playing third base?
No–it is NOT A-ROD.
Indeed, it’s a player who played before the steroids era: Graig Nettles.
I’m not going to sit around now and run the numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s the only (non-steroid era) career league leader for HRs at a particular position that we haven’t voted into the COG.
Conclusion: He is worthy of your consideration at the very least.
Wes Ferrell is tied for the AL lead (and holds the MLB lead outright) for home runs as a pitcher; obviously all of those guys are going to predate the steroid era. In fact, new holdover Red Ruffing is only one behind him in AL (2 behind in MLB).
Clearly those numbers offer such a shining indicator of their pitching value.
Here are those career HR leaders by position, thru 2014 and thru 1995. I’ve credited a player with a HR at a position if he played at that position in games with a home run (thus, some HR may be double-counted and some pinch-hit home runs may be counted for a subsequent position).
Note: counting his whole career (thru 1997), Sandberg (277) edges Morgan and Hornsby for pre-PEDs HR by a second baseman.
My compliments on this great little spreadsheet.
Ripper Collins makes the eligibility list this round despite only having played nine seasons in the majors. His career WAR total of 23.5 was over the 20 WAR eligibility minimum for players with fewer than 10 MLB seasons played. And that 23.5 over nine seasons includes a -0.2 season in a brief return to the majors in 1941. Almost 1,500 games played in the minors. Only Dizzy Dean had more WAR for the 1934 World Champion “Gas House Gang” Cardinals (Ripper’s WAR that regular season was more than Medwick’s and Frisch’s combined). Apparently Ripper was always the life of the party, too, contributing to the wacky image of those Cardinals (and maybe shortening his own stays in the majors?). Bill James in his New Historical Abstract ranked Ripper #100 all-time among first basemen (though if James updated that list today, others will have pushed him well off the top 100 list by now).
Poor guy–his MLB time was sandwiched between two HOF first basemen–probably why he spent so much time in the minors.
Winning Percentage leaders,
First 6 years of a career
Minimum 1000 IP
.739 … Johnny Allen
.734 … Whitey Ford
.719 … Dwight Gooden
.705 … Vic Raschi
.702 … Tim Hudson
.700 … Don Newcombe
Minoso, Ashburn, Ruffing
Ashburn Reuschel Cronin
Killer, Campy, Kevin Brown
This year’s tidbits.
1. Pete Appleton retired after the 1945 season as the oldest live ball era pitcher to post a 135 or better ERA+ in his only 200 IP season, accomplishing that feat in 1936 at age 32. Who holds that record today?
2. Johnny Allen’s 15 consecutive wins in 1937 remains the record for starting pitchers to begin a season. Who is the only pitcher since to equal that mark?
3. Fred Frankhouse’s 230.2 IP in 1935 were then the most by a Braves pitcher in a live ball era season with ERA+ below 80. Who holds that record today?
4. Lloyd Brown recorded 100 IP, 10 starts, 10 relief appearances and a .500 or better record in each of his 5 seasons (1928-32) with the Senators (joining teammate Firpo Marberry who also posted those totals in those same seasons). Who is the only Senators/Twins pitcher since to have 5 seasons with all of those markers?
5. Boom-Boom Beck is the only live ball era NL pitcher with a season (1933) losing 20 games while leading his league in starts, but not also leading in losses. Who is the only AL pitcher to do this?
6. George Blaeholder is one of five pitchers with 7 seasons of 20 starts, 10 wins and no better than a .500 record, and the only one to post those seasons (1928-34) consecutively and for the same club. Who is the only pitcher since Blaeholder to exceed his H/9 ratio in a career of 250+ starts?
7. Spud Davis recorded four seasons with 400 PA. Who is the only catcher with fewer 400 PA seasons and, like Davis, over 25 career WAR?
8. Ethan Allen is one of 41 players since 1901 to bat .300 in 2000+ PA thru age 27, and also in 2000+ PA aged 30+. Allen’s .223 BA for age 28-29 is easily the worst of the group, over 65 points lower than Tony Oliva’s next lowest BA. Who is the only active player currently in this group?
9. Ripper Collins is the only first baseman with two 4.5 WAR seasons and no other seasons of 3.0 WAR. Before Albert Pujols, who was the last Cardinal first baseman with 3 consecutive 4.5 WAR seasons?
1. Can you clarify this? I see Jack Quinn with 211 IP and ERA+ of 138 in 1928. Isn’t that live ball era?
I meant to also say that he was 44.
That wasn’t Quinn’s only 200 IP season.
2. Johnny Allen question: Dave McNally
McNally started the 1969 season with a 15-0 record, reaching that mark on July 30 by which time he had already logged 171 IP. McNally was only 5-7 the rest of the way, though he still averaged 7 IP over the last 14 of his 40 starts.
Two seasons later, McNally was one of four 20-game winners (the others were Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar and Pat Dobson) for the three-peat AL champion Orioles. Only the 1920 White Sox also had four pitchers win 20 games.
5. Boom-Boom Beck question: Wilbur Wood.
It was Wood, in 1973, the third of five consecutive seasons with over 40 starts. His 20 losses were second to the 21 setbacks for teammate Stan Bahnsen, who also had over 40 starts that season (and the one before).
Wood saw his ERA climb each year of those five seasons, going 1.91, 2.51, 3.46, 3.60 and 4.11, while averaging 336 IP.
Ripper Collins question: Bill White.
White is the answer.
If not for the 1981 strike, Keith Hernandez would have had four consecutive (1979-82) 4.5 WAR seasons. As it was, he almost did it with 4.2 WAR in 1981. Hernandez also had three consecutive 4.5 WAR seasons (1984-86) for the Mets.
Doug,
Re: 1. Pete Appleton question.
I could have overlooked someone, but I thought I found every pitching season since 1946 with ERA+ 135 and over/ IP 200 and over / age 33 and older, and each was by a pitcher with more than one season of 200 or more IP. Could the answer be a pitcher also aged 32, albeit several weeks older at the end of his age 32 season than Appleton was at the end of his? If so, my guess is Hisashi Iwakuma.
You did overlook someone.
He pitched for over twenty years, but only one in which he was primarily a starter. Led the league in ERA that year.
Is it Hoyt Wilhelm?
Wilhelm is correct. He posted a league best 2.19 ERA (173 ERA+) in 226 IP in 1959 at age 36.
Wilhelm also led the league in ERA (and W-L%) in his 1952 rookie season with 159.1 IP, still the most innings in a zero start rookie season.
Apparently I blew right past him when combing through my search results. When I checked again, there was Wilhelm’s name plain as day.
Looking at his stats that year leaves me wondering how ERA+ compares as an indicator of a pitcher’s performance versus other advanced statistics. Kershaw is the only qualifier the last two years with an ERA+ higher than Wilhelm’s 173 in 1959. I realize we’re comparing across eras, and having an era that much lower than league average as Wilhelm’s 2.19 was in 1959 is impressive. But his other stats just look to me like he had a pretty good year. Nothing stands out to suggest it was a truly remarkable performance. Does that seem a fair assessment – or are there other indicators I’m not noticing that clearly mark his 1959 season as outstanding?
Those who remember seeing Wilhelm pitch have cautioned against relying only on ERA in evaluating him, suggesting RA should also be considered since Wilhelm, like many knuckleballers, often didn’t know where his pitches would end up (and neither did his catchers).
Indeed, looking at Wilhelm’s 1959 season, 9 of his 64 runs allowed (14%) were unearned, high for most pitchers but actually a good number for Wilhelm who was north of 18% for his career. His 5 wild pitches doesn’t seem like a lot, but is probably understated because many more were probably swung at. I don’t know if there’s a scoring rule that says a wild pitch can’t be called on a strike, but it sure seems that most times (or every time) those are scored as passed balls and, sure enough, Orioles catcher Gus Triandos, catching Wilhelm for a full season for the first time, led the majors that year with a whopping 28 PBs.
Look also at Wilhelm’s 1962 season. Wasn’t fooling the scorers that year as he was charged with 11 wild ones in only 93 IP. But, he posted a stratospheric 192 ERA+ because only 71% of his runs allowed were earned.
On the other hand – Wilhelm was just really, really good in 1959, his one full year as a starter. He’s basically tied with Pascual as the best pitcher in the AL (7.8 to 7.6 WAR in Pascual’s favor). Every other pitcher is under 5 – Pascual was much better with the bat so he leads Wilhelm 8.6 to 6.8 in total WAR, but Wilhelm is basically tied with Mantle (6.6 WAR), which means he did OK.
Even if all of his runs against him were earned – he still leads the NL in ERA (2.54 to Pascual’s 2.64). And his 9 UERs aren’t out of line for the team – other pitchers on his own team had 9 UERs. King Felix had back-to-back years of 171 and 174 ERA+ numbers in which he had 15 and 17 UERs, respectively, though I would guess that King Felix’s seasons “look” more like one might expect them to given his other numbers.
While his other numbers aren’t eye-popping, he did finish 2nd in the AL in WHIP, 3rd in H/9, 7th in K/9, 10th in IP, 5th in K, 6th in CG, tied for 4th in SHO, 3rd in HR/9, and 3rd in FIP. He led in Adjusted pitching runs, adjusted pitching wins, RE24, WPA, REW, and was 3rd in WPA/LI.
I think it might be a perspective thing – he finished 7th with a K/9 of 5.535. I would guess no one thinks any member of the 2014 Orioles starting rotation is a top strikeout pitcher, yet the lowest K/9 among their 6 listed starters is 6.3 (Miguel Gonzalez). Jon Lester was 7th in the AL in K/9 in 2014, and he struck out a batter per inning. Herb Score, who led the AL in K/9 in 1959, would have finished 10th in 2014. Wilhelm’s WHIP in 1959, which was 1.128 for a 2nd place finish, would have been 8th in the AL in 2014. Plus Wilhelm’s W-L record (15-11) is underwhelming, which doesn’t help sell his stats.
Thanks for your insights, Doug and Artie Z. Work has kept me away for several days since I posted my question – I even missed the deadline for voting on the 1904 Part 1 ballot. :o(
Your responses give me a few more ideas to consider when evaluating players. That’s one thing I really appreciate about this site: there’s always more to learn from reading each other’s posts.
3. Fred Frankhouse question: Johnny Sain w/ 243.0 IP and 79 ERA+ in 1949.
Sain is correct.
Quite a drop-off (70 points) in ERA+ from the year before when he and Warren Spahn led the Braves to the pennant.
Spahn actually had only an okay season in ’48, with a 15-12 record and 105 ERA+. He improved to his “usual” 21 wins in ’49, the second of 8 times Spahn would win exactly 21 games.
One more: 4. Lloyd Brown question: Jim Perry.
Also, Iwakuma is the only pitcher I can find as a possible answer to the Pete Appleton question.
Perry is correct. His five seasons came in a 7-year period (1963-69), the last three consecutively.
Perry was a 20-game winner in 1969. Only Wayne Garland in 1976 has since won 20 games while also pitching 10 games in relief. Both of them needed those relief appearances to win 20, as Perry was 3-0 in 10 relief outings and Garland was 4-0 in 13.
6. George Blaeholder question: Brian Moehler
Moehler, who last pitched in 2010, is just the fourth pitcher since 1893 (and first since Blaeholder retired in 1936) with career H/9 over 10.4 in 250+ starts. Those two join Clarence Mitchell (1911-32) and Win Mercer (1894-1902). Of the four, only Moehler (12.3) was under 20 WAR.
Mercer was an interesting, and tragic, character. After four rough campaigns, Mercer regained his form in 1902 in his first season in Detroit, recording a career best ERA, pitching a one-hitter and two-hitter, and finishing second in the AL with four shutouts. The Tigers announced that Mercer would also be the team’s manager the next season. After the season, Mercer and Tip O’Neill organized a highly successful three month AL vs NL barnstorming tour with a galaxy of the game’s current stars. The tour ended in San Francisco where several of the players spent a few days of leisure before heading their separate ways. It was there that Mercer took his life, leaving several notes hinting variously at troubles with women, gambling and his struggles with depression.
8. Ethan Allen question: while b-ref still considers Manny Ramirez active, I’m guessing the answer we’re looking for is Victor Martinez.
Yes, V-Mart is the one.
I was surprised there was nobody else.
Me, too. Matt Holliday met the criteria before his 2014 season brought his age 30+ BA below .300.
A few players might join the list in a couple years, with Cabrera and Cano seeming to be the best bets. After Mauer’s down year, his average sits at exactly .300 for his age 30 and 31 campaigns. While he could bounce back, I guess you could say that about many a player whose performance dips in his early 30s. Three years ago, Albert Pujols looked to have a decent chance of joining this group.
Killebrew, Cronin, Ashburn
Richie Ashburn – Eddie Murray – Wes Ferrell
Cronin, Kevin Brown, Murray
Cronin, Murray, Minoso
Andy: I have not had a Recent Comment listing in almost 24 hours. I found out about the 1904 balloting via a message on Facebook. I then went to HHS and entered 1904 balloting in the searchbox and it came up.
Spud Davis question: Smoky Burgess
Burgess, with three 400 PA seasons, is correct. He did, though, have seasons of 399 and 392 PA.
I have been voting for Alomar for so long I feel lost.
Murray, Campanella, Tiant
Reuschel, Cronin, Ferrell
For the 1904-Part 1 election, I’m voting for:
-Dave Winfield
-Eddie Murray
-Dennis Eckersley
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Cronin
-Killebrew
-Brown
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Evans
-Nettles
-Ashburn
Killebrew, Eckersley, and Ashburn
Cronin, Tiant, Evans
I go with Tiant as the best of the ‘Missed by the HOF pitchers’ that seem to be the heart of the COG pitcher deadlock: 4 years as Cy Young contender (and a good case for best AL pitcher outright in 1968); curious ‘dual peak’ career (‘young peak’ in Cleveland, ‘veteran peak’ in Boston), with a real ‘trough’ in between the two, and a long fade after the Boston years.
@51,
Tiant was traded to the Twins after the 1969 season, went on the DL in the middle of the 1970 season, was released by the Twins during spring training in 1971. Picked up shortly afterwards by the Red Sox, in 1971 he struggled between the Sox and AAA. However, in 1972, he re-invented himself as the pitcher who threw from a hundred different angles, and as you said, began his second very successful part of his career.
Killebrew, Campanella, Murray
Ashburn
Nettles
Winfield
***** VOTE CHANGE *****
Murray
Ashburn
Winfield
***** VOTE CHANGE *****
Got it, and the change has been recorded. For future reference, though, I always recommend that vote changes be made in the form of new comments rather than as replies to your original vote. I’m much less likely to miss your change if it appears as a new comment at the bottom of the thread.
I second that! Sometimes, I do a quick Ctrl+F for the word “change” just to make sure, but yeah; I mostly just check the bottom of the thread, too. So please post changes down there! Thanks!
Nettles, Cronin, Campanella.
Murray, Eckersley, Evans
Miñoso, Tiant, Winfield.
Most baseball fans know that Dave Winfield was drafted in three different sports. My question is, does anyone knows in which round was he elected in the NBA, ABA and NFL drafts?
Luis G:
As far as I can tell, Winfield was drafted:
4th pick overall – San Diego Padres
79th pick overall – Atlanta Hawks
17th round – Minnesota Vikings (as a TE)
No idea where in the A B A draft (by the Utah Stars)
Dave!
1st Round MLB Padres (the College WS MVP (as a Pitcher)) .
5th Round NBA Atlanta Hawks
17th Round NFL Vikings
“I wanted to play the outfield and be in the lineup every day,” Winfield says. “Had I been drafted by a team looking to me [as a pitcher], I might have considered basketball. Football was never really an option to me, but [the Vikings] looked at me as a tight end.”
According to his SABR bio, Winfield was drafted in the 4th round of the ABA draft.
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/98b82e8f
Some web research suggests Winfield was Utah’s 6th round pick in the 1973 ABA draft.
Cronin, Tiant, Nettles
cronin, killer, tiant
Minoso, Killebrew, and Dw Evans
Murray, Winfield, Nettles
Brown, Cronin, Ruffing
Killer, Murray, Dewey
Every season from 1954 through 1997 had either Killebrew or Murray playing in the majors, except for 1976. Guys who were teammates of both Harmon and Eddie: Pat Kelly, Rick Dempsey, Steve Luebber, Nellie Briles.
Would like to see both get in. I think they’re deserving. It’s close between the two, as a previous discussion showed. Dewey’s an old fave, though COG might be a stretch for him. (Didn’t know Briles died a few years ago.)
Red Ruffing, Harmon Killebrew; and Joe Cronin George had it right Winfield was Mr. May and deserves a spot not
I don’t think we’ve discussed it recently on here and it tends to get lost in discussions about -91 RFIELD for a 7 time gold glover. I give Winfield full credit for 1989. He was old, but 1988 was one of his best years. He could still hit when he got to california in 1990 too.
Killebrew, Campanella, Winfield
Through 38 votes (J.R. @82), here are your leaders:
19 – Joe Cronin
12 – Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Murray
10 – Roy Campanella
==================25% (9.5)
8 – Minnie Minoso
7 – Richie Ashburn, Graig Nettles, Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield
5 – Kevin Brown, Dennis Eckersley, Dwight Evans
4 – Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel
==================10% (3.8)
2 – Red Ruffing
Cronin’s pulling away, but even if he does have the legs to win it, extra rounds of eligibility are a must-have for a number of our candidates, facing the gauntlet of 1903 (Cochrane, Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell, Waner), and 1902 (Simmons). 1901 isn’t much of an election (and it’ll be a split round, which helps) – but that’s still only four rounds to get all those guys in – and I imagine that all of them (with the possible exception of Waner) are going in. Then Goslin, Grove, Hartnett, and Lyons come on in 1900. Then there’s a cool off for a couple rounds, but then a pretty steady diet of about one COG-worthy guy per year. Surviving long enough to capitalize on the late or early 1890s, though? Well, that’s going to be the challenge for some of our current holdovers.
Dr D, I think you’ve miscounted; I’ve double-checked my tally, which agrees with birtelcom’s:
18 Cronin
13 Murray
12 Killebrew
==================25%
9 Campanella
8 Minoso
7 Ashburn, Tiant, Winfield
6 Eckersley, Evans, Nettles
5 Brown
4 Ferrell
==================10%
3 Reuschel, Ruffing
For some reason, my spreadsheet was counting dr. remulak’s vote twice, and The Diamond King’s not at all. I don’t really understand what happened. The data entry was correct; I just wasn’t getting the right total. Thus it is proved: never trust computers.
My tally now matches yours and birtelcom’s. I’ve updated through Jeff B below.
Strange things happen — thus it is excellent that we have multiple tallies going.
Murray, Killebrew and Winfield
Through Jeff B @87, the 39th vote:
18 – Joe Cronin
14 – Eddie Murray
13 – Harmon Killebrew
==================25% (10)
9 – Roy Campanella
8 – Minnie Minoso, Dave Winfield
7 – Richie Ashburn, Luis Tiant
6 – Dennis Eckersley, Dwight Evans, Graig Nettles
5 – Kevin Brown
4 – Wes Ferrell
==================10% (4)
3 – Rick Reuschel, Red Ruffing
Cronin, Murray, Eckersley
Joe Cronin, Red Ruffing, Dave Winfield.
Murray, Campanella and Exkersley
Campanella, Murray, Nettles
I’m hoping Campanella will get back off the bubble, although he’s just barely cracking 25% at the moment.
Roy Campanella, appearing on an episode of “Lassie”, about a year after his accident. What a graceful man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOb0L_DpdI
Eck, Cronin, Ashburn
Murray, Reuschel, Winfield
For the win:
– Eddie Murray
Extra round:
-Roy Campanella
Stay on the ballot:
– Dwight Evans
Campanella played 10 years in MLB
Ages 26-35.
The narrative of his life pre and post MLB is almost enough to enshrine him as a ‘Great’.
Here are some numbers.
First ten years of a Catcher’s career.
(Campanella lost some early years, and his full decline was also tragically shortened.)
HR
314 … Piazza
256 … Bench
242 … Campanella
212 … Parrish
208 … Yogi
RBI
975 … Piazza
929 … Bench
898 … Yogi
856 … Campanella
784 … Dickey
SLG
.579 … Piazza
.506 … Hartnett
.503 … Dickey
.500 … Campanella
.493 … Yogi
.491 … Napoli
.489 … Javy
.487 … Posey
.483 … Cochrane
.483 … Fisk
Total Bases
2685 … Piazza
2421 … Bench
2308 … Ivan
2223 … Berra
2189 … Cochrane
2117 … Kendall
2101 … Campanella
2051 … Mauer
______________
Campanella led the league in Range Factor 9 of 10 years (and one 2nd)
And here are the all time leaders in Caught Stealing Percentage:
57.40 … Roy Campanella+ (10)
56.11 … Gabby Hartnett+ (20)
54.81 … Buddy Rosar (13)
54.05 … Al Lopez+ (19)
53.09 … Mickey O’Neil (9)
You have to scroll to 26th place to find a guy whose career began after Campanella’s:
48.80 … Clay Dalrymple
“Campanella played 10 years in MLB
Ages 26-35.”
Just to remind people that before Campanella was ever allow to don a Major League uniform he had already caught more than a decades worth of professional ball games.
Not just the Negro Leagues either or all of the barnstorming that they used to do. He also played multiple seasons in Puerto Rico and Mexico plus seasons in Cuba and Venezuela as well. Add in the years he spent in the minors and it’s very possible that he caught over 2000 professional games before his first major league appearance. And yet at the time of his accident he was just a few games shy of cracking the top 25 for games caught in the majors.
Something to think about for those who think Campy’s career was too “short” to justify his inclusion in the COG.
murray evans nettles
I’m not going to vote for Cronin because I think he will win easily and I’m not sure he’s the best player on the ballot but clearly up there. Gives me one more vote.
Campanella, Ferrell, Nettles
Nettles over Winfield, Mosc?
Can you be convinced to change? Winfield stands a good shot of reaching 25% this round for the first time ever. He’ll need the extra help come next round, that’s for sure.
Paget, why did you want to go and pick on Graig Nettles? Now I have to post.
Nettles has more WAR than almost everyone in this round, including Winfield:
Eddie Murray+ (21) 68.3
Graig Nettles (22) 68.0
Dwight Evans (20) 66.9
Roberto Alomar+ (17) 66.8
Joe Cronin+ (20) 66.4
D. Winfield 63.8
Jim Edmonds (17) 60.3
Look who is near the top.
Nettles lead the league in WAR twice. How many for Winfield? Once.
There are a lot of reasons that Nettles is worthy over Winfield and many other players on the list this round.
During the 70’s, Nettles was sixth in HRs for the decade. When he retired, in 1984, he was 28th all time in HRs with a total of 390. He is the career leader in HRs by an AL 3rd baseman.
For those of you critical of his batting average: in the 70’s, Nettles and Mike Schmidt had .254 and .255 BA’s. Bet most of you are surprised it’s only .001 difference, eh?
Also notice that from 1969 through 1986, all three of the four teams he played on had at least one post season appearance while he was on the team. After he left the NYY, they went on a post season drought for about 14 years. Nettles was back in the World Series the year after he left. Winfield? His first year for NYY was their last post season appearance until after he left.
In the history of the game, only eleven players have over 50 oWAR and 20 dWAR. Nettles is one of them. Nettles is also one of only two players to have two seasons of oWAR >= 4 AND dWAR >= 3 (only 10 players ever have done this).
During the 70’s, Nettles was sixth in HRs for the decade. When he retired, in 1984, he was 28th all time in HRs.
Nettles was fourth in WAR for the decade (more than his Yankee teammate Reggie Jackson, btw), second in dWAR (ahead of B. Robinson, BTW–Belanger was first).
Lots of good reasons to vote for Nettles.
Joseph,
Not meaning to ‘pick’ nits, but the fact that Dewey Evans (one of my all-time favorites) has more career WAR than Dave Winfield might be the greatest argument against WAR I’ve seen in recent memory. But, hey, thanks for continuing to point out just how much an underappreciated ball player Nettles truly was.
Paul–well, we are picking nits here–because the three players we are now discussing (Nettles, Winfield, and Evans), were all certainly outstanding, and I wouldn’t try to convince anyone that they are not worthy of a vote. And making a choice between those three and several other players on the list DOES come down to picking nits.
My point here was that Nettles, as well as Winfield, is worthy of a vote, and that there are arguments for both; therefore, mosc’s original vote is supportable by the numbers.
And, BTW, even though I am a lifelong NYY fan, I would probably vote for Evans over Winfield. Evans has a lot more black ink.
And I liked Winfield as a player. To the extent that I have any concern with him is that it always seemed like he didn’t work that hard to back up his abundant natural ability. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but it that seemed like my impression.
I enjoyed watching Winfield play more than anyone but Rickey in the 80’s (the height of when I actually watched 100+ games a year).
Had a good view 30+ times a year as a teenage bleacher creature.
Six foot six and likely every game to make a laser throw, hit a vicious line drive, or throw his bat eleven rows deep behind third base.
And even when he failed it was still entertaining. Maybe this is why his crummy dWar doesn’t line-up with my memory. It was fun to see such a huge mountain lion of an athlete make the effort, even if he didn’t get there.
Joseph:
Re: Winfield not working that hard to back up his ability, it’s a mistake, I think, to go by appearances. I remember reading a comment by Joe DiMaggio in which he said that he couldn’t understand it when people told him he made fielding plays so effortlessly, his reply being something to the effect that whatever it looked like from the stands, he was going like hell on the field.
Some players make it look easy. Others dive in the dirt and don’t come up with the play.
Vote change! Mosc thinks Cronin will win easily but right now it’s 21-19. And honestly, Murray has waited long enough. So let’s tie things up for the moment.
Dropping Cronin, adding Murray
Was there some other round I figured that Cronin would win and he didn’t? You’d think I’d learn my lesson 🙁
Murray’s my borderline. I don’t even know what I’ll do if he loses, use Andre Dawson?
Winfield, Eck, Cronin.
I post a vote update, tail between my legs, hoping I don’t have a major error like last time. This takes us through TJay’s vote @109, the 49th ballot cast. I spy with my little eye a two way tie for the COG guys!
21 – Joe Cronin, Eddie Murray
13 – Roy Campanella, Harmon Killebrew
==============================25% (13 votes)
11 – Dave Winfield
10 – Dennis Eckersley
9 – Graig Nettles
8 – Richie Ashburn, Dwight Evans, Minnie Minoso
7 – Luis Tiant
5 – Kevin Brown, Wes Ferrell
==============================10% (5 votes)
4 – Rick Reuschel, Red Ruffing
A few guys struggling for 10%, a couple more struggling for 25%, and a tie at the top… wow. This is about as exciting as a COG election can get. Just today and tomorrow to make changes to your ballots, people! I imagine there will be some, as there usually are when things get this tight.
Winfield, Murray, Killebrew
Cronin, Brown, Ruffing.
Most career HR by a switch-hitter who played 70% of his games at 1B:
Murray, 504
Teixeira, 363*
T.Clark, 251
Segui, 139
R.Collins, 135
Smoak, 74*
W.Parker, 64
L.Blue, 44
Destrade, 26
D.McGann, 24
Holke, 24
*active in 2014
Voting:
Murray
Collins
Miñoso
Yeah, I’m not buying the historical importance of a switch hitter as opposed to a guy who hit right or left as it’s own value. Sorry.
The vote for Collins is the first vote for a 1904 birth year guy.
Same as last round:
Cronin
Ferrell
Winfield
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
FerrellW 40.1
Tiant 37.5
Cronin 37.3
Nettles 35.7
Evans 34.9
Eckersley 34.3
Ashburn 33.9
Murray 33.7
Ruffing 33.1
Killebrew 33.0
Winfield 31.1
Minoso 30.6
Campanella 19.2
Brown, Eckersley, and a first vote for Nettles, for whom some great cases have been made in recent comments.
I heatedly endorse your vote for Nettles. 🙂
Eddie Murray!!
Kevin Brown!!
Luis Tiant!!
Caffeinated this morning…
Another Vote Change!
I can’t believe I’m going to do this but I’m dropping Evans and voting for Campanella. I’ve been anti-Campanella since the beginning but after doing some more research I’m 90-95% convinced that he belongs.
I start with this. I’m a bit bothered by the fact that we’re likely to induct only 6-8 catchers, depending on what happens with Cochrane and Hartnett. Catcher is one of the most important positions and we know that WAR can’t begin to properly evaluate catcher defense.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to find other candidates who clearly belong. Perhaps Simmons but he’s not on the ballot right now so that’s a moot point.
So let’s look at Campy a bit closer. He has 34.2 WAR. I credit him with 11 WAR for his missed time prior to age 26. I came up with that estimate by looking at his 6 closest WAR comps for ages 26-35 and seeing what they did prior to age 26. That gets him to 45.2 WAR.
Next I give him a small adjustment for spending time in the minors in 1948 and for playing under a 154 game schedule. Let’s give him 1.8 WAR for that. So now he’s at 47 WAR.
Then we come to defense. He was +17 Rfield. I have a hard time buying into that number for someone with Campy’s defensive reputation. There are 61 catchers who have more Rfield than Campy from ages 26-35. I say he deserves at least two more WAR, putting him at 49.
If WAR could properly credit catcher defense he’d likely have even more WAR. And overall, I’d say my adjustments are on the conservative side. But even with 49 WAR, he’s the 9th-10th best catcher of all time. And that’s good enough for me.
I’ve been rethinking about Campy a lot lately; I’ve never thought he belongs, despite his fame and the 3 MVPs and the way his career ended and all that. But we’re coming to a point where we are going to have to differentiate based on more minute things – I use a statistical ranking as a basis to set the table, then try to parse out other differences (ie. certain stats are overlooking certain qualities, not representing others, what that player’s story/character/etc were); but it really hasn’t been that hard to stay the path of mainly statistical analysis, because I haven’t been voting in anyone who I think is borderline (I’ve been voting FOR people I think are borderline so they can stay on the ballot for future consideration, but never in a position where they are going to win). But ‘future consideration’ is coming up pretty much now, and after the glut of talent in 1903 and 1900, those issues will continue to pop up as we go back through the final 30 or so selections.
Anyway, all this is to say that I’m still not convinced about Campy, but am starting to come around to seriously consider him in the future. I suspect others may be in the same boat. All this is to say that Campy supporters – and supporters of any borderline guys – people are listening to your arguments.
bells, I am DEFINITELY in exactly the same boat as you vis-à-vis Campy. I, too, have long considered him outside of the COG; I’m not so prepared to say that anymore. So yes; Campy supporters (and other borderline/long-time-holdover supporters), state your cases. We’re listening.
I actually started to write a looong response to this, got about three-quarters of the way thru and my computer froze up on me (something that’s happened before when I’m on the HHS site and have multiple B-R pages open btw). I don’t have time to do it again but I’ll just hit some of the highlites:
1) I think David P is overly conservative by a considerable amount in his estimate that Campy lost 11 WAR to his late start
2) Barnstorming & the physical impact of catching 200 games a year
3) The stress that breaking the color barrier created- Jackie & Dan Bankhead were dead by 55, Newcombe turned to alcohol, etc.
4) Questions of the retroactively calculated dWAR for catchers in general and Campy specifically
and a couple of other things I’m too tired to bring to mind at the moment.
Hartvig -No idea how much WAR you think Campy could have gotten prior to age 26, but here’s the entire list of catchers with more than 15 WAR before the age of 26:
Bench: 35.4
Pudge: 24.7
Carter: 22.2
Simmons: 22.0
Mauer: 19.5
McCarver: 16.7
Ray Schalk: 16.5
Freehan: 15.5
Wynegar: 15.4
Kendall: 15.4
Note that only 9 out of the 10 played after Campy which may indicate recent changes in how soon catchers are called up. Or perhaps something else. But I think it’s telling.
I’d say only the top 5 players on the list have considerably more WAR than 11. Is it possible that Campy could have been in that group? Sure, but I’d say that based on the available evidence the odds are very low. And note that of the 6 comps I looked at for what he did age 26-35, the max WAR was 13.4 (Munson).
In my statement that my computer ate I went on at some length about the barnstorming that especially Negro League players did. I don’t have time to repeat it now but suffice it to say that I think that it’s possible Campanella caught more games than Bench and Mauer did in the Major League careers combined. And if that is the case it’s not surprising that his performance dropped off considerably in his final years.
But prior to his age 26 season I think that he’s right there with any of the top 5 players on that list and substantially better than any of the bottom 5. Compare his WAR numbers in his age 26 to 31 seasons to any of theirs (and don’t forget he was doing it in a 154 game season vs. 162).
Will never know for sure of course but my guess is that he missed out on a minimum of 20 WAR.
Hartvig – We may have to agree to disagree, but I’ll give you two ways of looking at this:
Let’s focus on Campy peak from ages 26-31.
1) By far his best comp for that period was Bill Dickey. In fact, they’re virtual clones of one another. Campy had 3006 PAs and 27.6 WAR, Dickey had 3075 PAs and 27.4 WAR.
How much WAR did Dickey have before the age of 26? Only 13.3.
2) Campy averaged 4.6 WAR from ages 26-31. If you give him three years of full time play before that, he’s at 13.8 WAR. Four years gets his to 18.4. To get him over 20 WAR you’ve got to give him more than 4 years of full time play before the age of 25.
Is that possible? Sure. But it’s not what you would project OR expect. There are too many things that can go wrong:
1) He gets blocked by an established catcher.
2) He struggles early in his career, limiting his playing time.
3) He gets hurt and misses playing time.
4) He’s simply not as good earlier in his career than he is during his peak, so his average WAR per season prior to age 26 is less than 4.6.
Again, as I stated, the 11 WAR that I estimated for him prior to age 26 is on the conservative side. But when dealing with so many unknowns, the best thing to do is to be conservative in your projections. Projecting Campy to have more than 20 WAR prior to age 26 requires lots of things to go right. Sometimes that happens, but more than often at least one star is misaligned.
My big thing as we get into the fine details around borderline guys. I’m making some adjustments for when you played, and giving big benefit of the doubt to Negro Leaguers whose careers were normally too short.
So, even though on the stats alone, even with appropriate adjustments for lost time comparable to what I’m giving wartime candidates, I tend to think that Campy and MInoso are very borderline and maybe would be out — I’m putting them in, and I’m especially putting them in over guys that the stats would say borderline in, but never or rarely played post integration.
Disagree if you will, but that’s the primary reason I’ve supported them from the start (and would have done the same for Doby and maybe Irvin if they’d had enough other support).
If this is about enshrining the best players of all time, then I think it’s reasonable to adjust a little for the level of play in the league, *especially* when it’s not just about the time, but about who *wasn’t allowed* to play.
And I think it’s quite fair to give a little extra benefit of the doubt to the players who were being kept out not by pure circumstance (war), but by explicit and discriminatory design.
Some of the guys people are talking about as slam dunks coming up on the ballot, I don’t feel that way, because I’m adjusting a lot more for era than others seem to want to. And I’d like the spots that would have gone to pre-integration borderliners to go to guys like Campanella.
That’s how I feel and how I’m voting.
Problem with extending Campy’s dWAR based on reputation and his proven prowess throwing out base thieves: His 10 years in MLB coincide with an all-time low in stolen bases.
NL teams averaged:
— 91 SB per year in the ’20s.
— 52 SB per year in the ’30s.
— 54 SB per year in the ’40s.
— 48 SB per year in the ’50s.
— 69 SB per year in the ’60s.
— 102 SB per year in the ’70s.
— 140 SB per year in the ’80s.
From 1948-57, Campy’s years, NL teams averaged 48 steals per year. And the Dodgers stole the most. The other 7 teams averaged 43 SB per year.
So in Campy’s era, a catcher’s arm was less important than at any other time in MLB history.
Over those 10 years, the Dodgers gave up the fewest steals — about 100 fewer than average.
In Johnny Bench’s first 10 full years, the Reds gave up the fewest steals — more than 300 fewer than average, and 100 fewer than the next-lowest team.
Yes, a catcher’s job is more than just stopping steals. But I think there’s a very good reason that Campanella’s dWAR doesn’t match his reputation. Imagine Mark McGwire playing every game in the original Yankee Stadium: His central skill, very valuable in the abstract, would be far less valuable in that specific context.
John – Dwar is composed of two components – Rpos and Rfield. Rpos covers what you’re talking about and indeed Campy has a lower Rpos than say Johnny Bench (generally 4-5 per year vs 7-8). But note that I made no mention of Dwar. I mentioned Rfield. It’s Campy’s low Rfield that concerns me. His Rfield should be independent of what you’re talking about. If not, then he’s being double penalized.
David P — I don’t understand why the league base-stealing context would be entirely subsumed in Rpos, for the purposes of this discussion.
I’m no expert on defensive stats, so pardon my thinking out loud:
Rfield, says the tooltip, is the “number of runs better or worse than average” — which I’m pretty sure means average *at his position*.
Since it’s essentially a counting stat, Rfield is affected by opportunities. Campy’s era saw the fewest runs in play that catchers might prevent. We would expect a great defensive catcher in such circumstances to show well against his contemporaries, but less so across eras. And that’s what we see with Campanella.
Campy ranks very well in Rfield for 1948-57:
— 3rd in total Rfield (behind Crandall and Yogi);
— 3rd in Rfield per 150 games played (behind Crandall and Lollar, out of 21 guys with 500+ games caught).
Crandall and Lollar are acknowledged defensive wizards; Bill James wrote that Crandall “was born with good defensive skills,” and Lollar has the lowest passed-ball rate of catchers listed in his top 100. Yogi was good defensively and played about 15% more than Campy in those years.
The other “opportunity” aspect is games played. Obviously, Campy had a short-ish MLB career. He was pretty durable in the years he played, but not exceptionally so:
— High of 140 games caught is 9th-best in that span.
— 2 years catching 130+ games, while four had more such years in that span, led by Yogi’s seven.
So I don’t see an obvious problem with Campy’s Rfield ranking against his contemporaries.
His Rfield across all eras doesn’t look so good. But isn’t that a product of opportunity? There just weren’t many chances for a catcher to affect the game defensively.
Compare Campanella to Gabby Hartnett, who also had a great CS rate, about the same as Campy’s, but also in a period of fairly low SB totals.
Hartnett in the 1930s is a very good match for Campy’s career totals:
— 1,180-1,215 in games played.
— 1,123-1,180 in games caught.
— Hartnett led the majors in CS% 4 times in the ’30s. Campy led the NL 5 times, MLB twice.
Hartnett is #1 in Rfield for that span, but his total is just 12 Rfield — 5 runs less than Campanella.
There are other little reasons that Campy’s Rfield should be low. Not only were SB totals very low, the overall success rate was just 56% (and lower if you take out the Dodgers). So even the value of discouraging SB attempts was lower than most other eras. SB success rates were 62% in the ’60s, 64% in the ’70s, 68% in the ’80s and ’90s, and 71% in the ’00s.
What am I missing in the Rfield picture?
David P @160 — I don’t understand why the league base-stealing context would be entirely subsumed in Rpos, for the purposes of this discussion.
I’m no expert on defensive stats, so pardon my thinking out loud:
Rfield, says the tooltip, is the “number of runs better or worse than average” — which I’m pretty sure means average *at his position*.
Since it’s essentially a counting stat, Rfield is affected by opportunities. Campy’s era saw the fewest runs in play that catchers might prevent. We would expect a great defensive catcher in such circumstances to show well against his contemporaries, but less well across eras. And that’s what we see with Campanella.
Campy ranks very well in Rfield for 1948-57:
— 3rd in total Rfield (behind Crandall and Yogi);
— 3rd in Rfield per 150 games played (behind Crandall and Lollar), out of 21 guys with 500+ games caught.
Crandall and Lollar are acknowledged defensive wizards. Yogi was good defensively and played about 15% more than Campy in those years.
The other “opportunity” aspect is games played. Obviously, Campy had a short-ish MLB career. He was pretty durable in the years he played, but not exceptionally so:
— High of 140 games caught is 9th-best in that span.
— 2 years catching 130+ games, while four had more such years in that span, led by Yogi’s seven.
So I don’t see an obvious problem with Campy’s Rfield ranking against his contemporaries.
His Rfield across all eras doesn’t look so good. But isn’t that a product of opportunity? There just weren’t many chances for a catcher to affect the game defensively.
Compare Campanella to Gabby Hartnett, who also had a great CS rate, about the same as Campy’s, but also in a period of fairly low SB totals.
Hartnett in the 1930s is a very good match for Campy’s career totals:
— 1,180-1,215 in games played.
— 1,123-1,180 in games caught.
— Hartnett led the majors in CS% 4 times in the ’30s. Campy led the NL 5 times, MLB twice.
Hartnett is #1 in Rfield for that span, but his total is just 12 Rfield — 5 runs less than Campanella.
There are other little reasons that Campy’s Rfield should be low. Not only were SB totals very low, the overall success rate was just 56% (and lower if you take out the Dodgers). So even the value of discouraging SB attempts was lower than most other eras. SB success rates were 62% in the ’60s, 64% in the ’70s, 68% in the ’80s and ’90s, and 71% in the ’00s.
What am I missing in the Rfield picture?
John – I’ll admit I’m no expert on Rfield and Baseball Reference doesn’t provide much info on how it’s calculated.
But let’s dig a bit deeper into the weeds. In 8 of Campy’s 10 seasons he put up an Rfield of either +1 or +2. Doesn’t that seem just a little bit odd to you?
Now one of his outlier seasons was 1953, when he put up an Rfield of +7. Here’s what’s interesting about that season.
That was the best season of catcher Rfield EVER.
That’s going all the way back to 1901, over 50 years of baseball! That covers a lot of different styles of baseball, some when there wasn’t much base stealing, others when there were lots. (again I have no idea how base stealing factors into Rfield).
Does that make any sense at all to you? That prior to Campy’s 1953 season, no catcher ever had an Rfield season better than +6. I’m sorry but I’m not buying that.
As a point of comparison, Pudge Rodriguez had 4 straight individual seasons of Rfield that were better than Campy`s career Rfield. Sure there were more steal attempts in Pudge’s era but there weren’t that many more.
BTW, I remembered something re: catcher Rpos. It’s entirely made up. For the other positions, Rpos is derived from actual data using players who play multiple positions. But since there are so few catchers who play other positions, Tom Tango admitted he just made up something that made sense to him. So we should probably be skeptical of that as well…
Campanella led the league in Range Factor 9 of 10 years (with one 2nd).
And he is the all-time leader in CS percentage.
And here’s where Brooklyn pitchers ranked in strikeouts with Campy putting down the digits:
5th
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
1st
1st
3rd
_____
So, if the ball is bunted, Campy gets there.
If a runner tries to advance, Campy nails him.
And calling a game? The strikeouts suggest a smart catcher.
If he is better than every other contemporary catcher in nearly every statistic that we have to work with, how does than translate to only one or two runs better than average (in every year but 1953)?
Vote: Reuschel, Evans, Murray
Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Red Ruffing
My votes:
Murray, Cronin and no surprise, Nettles.
Cronin, Killer, Tiant. I know this isn’t fair, but I never saw Murray as exceptional. Don Sutton with a bat.
I never thought of Murray that way, but now looking at his stats–I see your point.
If it’s not too late, I might change my vote. I’m considering it.
Cut out the garbage years from Killebrew’s career, and focus on 1959-1972. That’s 14 seasons, and Killebrew was really good, 60.7 WAR. 530 HR, 151 OPS+. That is Killebrew’s best stretch, by far, as 1954-1958 and 1973-1975 are basically worthless (note that Killebrew’s WAR over the 14 seasons is higher than his career WAR of 60.3).
Take Murray over his best 14 year stretch, 1977-1990. He had 63.2 WAR. “Only” 379 HRs and a 140 OPS+. But Murray was a better fielder and a better baserunner. He was more durable – he played in 110 more games (that’s almost 8 more games per year) despite the 1981 strike season which probably would have put him over 10 more games per year than Killebrew (and yes, he has a slight disadvantage in that 1959-1960 were 154 game seasons but that still puts Murray around 9 games more per year). Yes, Killebrew played multiple positions but he gets credit for that – his Rpos is only -58 over those 14 seasons, whereas Murray has a -127 to overcome.
Nettles’ best 14 year stretch puts him at 61.8 WAR, with 321 HRs and 113 OPS+ (overlapping in the same leagues with Killebrew and Murray). Yes, Nettles played a more demanding position, and yes, Nettles played it incredibly well. Yes, Nettles had an 8.0 WAR seasons and a 7.1 WAR season; he also had a 1.4 WAR season and a 0.8 WAR season in that stretch.
And now Don Sutton. His best 14 year stretch is probably 1971-1984, and he has 50.4 WAR and a 116 ERA+. OK, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s an incredibly valuable career. Even if Sutton’s three worst seasons in that stretch 1978 (1.4 WAR), 1983 (1.6 WAR), and 1979 (2.0 WAR) are replaced with his three best seasons outside that stretch (1966, 1968, and 1985, which total 9.4 WAR), he still “only” gets to 54.8 WAR. Replacing years won’t help Killebrew at all, will only help Murray a little (adds 0.4 WAR), and helps Nettles the most (adds 3.4 WAR).
Why ding Murray for being boring and consistent?
Murray and Killebrew seem extremely similar in value pattern.
Years 6+ WAR — 2 each
Years 4+ WAR — 9 each
3 best WAR years — Eddie 19.3, Harmon 18.5
WAA in non-negative years:
— Eddie 34.9 in 15 years
— Harmon 33.1 in 15 years
Years 2+ WAA — 9 each
Years 1+ WAA — 12 each
Each was the 1B WAR and WAA leader for the spans Artie cited, but by small margins, over K.Hernandez and McCovey.
It does seem odd that a Killebrew voter calls Murray unexceptional. Killer won some HR and RBI crowns, but he also hit .256 (below the adjusted league average); he never won an OPS+ crown, as Murray did. OK, he was still a better batter than Eddie, but then, he never won Gold Gloves, as Eddie did.
I think they both were great. And very similar.
John A, since I was that Killebrew voter, I’ll defend it. I think both Murray and Killer are marginal for COG. I gave Killer the leg up because of his “Black Ink”–he led the league six seasons, including three in a row. He also led in walks four times, SP once, OBP once, and the despised RBI 4 times. Murray His lifetime OPS+ is 143 (Murray’s was 129). I said before I wasn’t thrilled with the selections in the last round and this one, but I don’t have a problem giving a slight edge to Killer over Murray.
Mike L — I hear ya. But two things about black ink:
— Killer’s 14 full years averaged just over 10 teams in the league. Murray’s whole career had 14 teams per league.
Eddie might have had a lot more black ink in a 10-team league. He was 2nd in OPS and OPS+ 3 times, and once each in BA, SLG, Runs, Total Bases and RBI. Harmon had some 2nds, too, but the gap might have been much smaller if they’d been on equal footing.
Even the fact that Killer won an MVP and Eddie didn’t can be misleading. Eddie earned slightly more MVP shares, in the same span of time, and a larger field.
(BTW, I think size of league is an oft-overlooked factors in cross-era comparisons like HOF voting.)
— Sometimes black ink describes a specialist. Killebrew’s HRs, RBI and walks contain the vast bulk of his value. There’s very little else he did well, and some things he did quite poorly.
Murray had a big edge in several things, even if he didn’t lead the league — e.g., 30 doubles per 162 games vs. 19 for Killer.
I know Killebrew was a more potent batter. But Eddie’s edges in the subtler things make them equal in my eyes. I’ll be happy if both make it, or if both don’t. I just can’t distinguish between them.
Please change my vote from:
Campanella, Murray, Nettles
to:
Campanella, Murray, Winfield
Winfield has a shot at making 25%, while Nettles is safely over 10% but has no chance of making 25%, so.
Current totals through 59 ballots, including the vote changes @ 124 and 132:
26 Murray
25 Cronin
15 Killebrew
==============================25%
14 Campanella, Winfield
11 Eckersley
10 Nettles
9 Brown, Minoso, Tiant
8 Ashburn, Evans
6 Ferrell, Reuschel, Ruffing
==============================10%
1 Collins
Ferrell, Reuschel, and Ruffing need one more vote each to “make their 7”; Campanella and Winfield need somewhere between 2-4 more votes to get off the bubble. And of course there’s the possibility we might see our second runoff election in a row…
Cronin, Nettles, Tiant please.
For what it’s worth, I have the same tally as David Horwich through 59 ballots; Low T’s would be the 60th, restoring the tie at the top, putting Campy at EXACTLY 25% (15/60), putting Ferrell, Reuschel, and Ruffing at EXACTLY 10% (6/60). Should be a tight and interesting final day of vote changing!
????
In his comment at 133 David Horwich has Campanella at 14 votes and Low T did not vote for Campanella so if that is correct he remains 1 vote shy of 25% (or actually 2 since the next vote will mean that a minimum of 16 votes are required for 25%)
Were you perhaps looking at Killebrew?
Yup, I was looking at Killebrew. Whoopsie. That was just a typo. Sorry.
Doom, are you and Horwich including brp’s vote change for Murray at 112?
Oops, nope, missed that one. Corrected, through post 134, 60 ballots:
27 Murray
26 Cronin
15 Killebrew
==============================25%
14 Campanella, Winfield
11 Eckersley
10 Nettles, Tiant
9 Brown, Minoso
8 Ashburn, Evans
6 Ferrell, Reuschel, Ruffing
==============================10%
1 Collins
Obviously not! Thanks for the notice!
Cronin
Brown
Nettles
Murray, Campanella, Ashburn
Reuschel, Cronin, Nettles
I like Reuschel’s WAR and WAA, Cronin’s WAA over Murray (just barely), and Nettles for the force he was despite playing in the Schmidt/Brett/B. Robinson era. Probably the best 3B choice left besides HR Baker or a redeemed Ken Boyer for down the stretch, maybe he can get a round with late help. Looks like the new logjam position is pitching now, hard to separate them.
Interesting race this go.
Cronin for the Win, Campy in the drive to 25, and Ruffing for the Save
Vote:
Roy Campanella
Joe Cronin
Wes Ferrell
_______________
I’m good with Murray or Cronin.
Hoping for no tie. Late February is the dead zone of the sports year, let’s keep this thing rolling.
Final AM vote update, through Voomo @159 (65th ballot):
30 – Joe Cronin
28 – Eddie Murray
17 – Roy Campanella
==========================25% (17)
15 – Harmon Killebrew
14 – Dave Winfield
12 – Graig Nettles
11 – Dennis Eckersley
10 – Kevin Brown, Luis Tiant
9 – Richie Ashburn, Minnie Minoso
8 – Dwight Evans
7 – Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Red Ruffing
=========================10% (7)
1 – Ripper Collins
Is Joe Cronin pulling away, or will Murray make another charge into first? Will Campy stay “above the line?” Will Harmon end up with a vote total in the 23-24% range for roughly the one millionth round in a row? All these questions AND MORE will be answered by our final-round voters TODAY! Stay tuned!
Looks like this round was contentious enough that all of our strategic voters weighed in before the final day.
I don’t remember that happening before.
This is a test. I can’t seem to make a comment appear, even though the site says I’ve posted the same thing twice.
Yah, working less-well than before the fix last week.
Recent Comments aren’t appearing in the feed on the sidebar.
And the form is not remembering my personal data.
I’m using firefox.
Also, when I submit a comment, it no longer refreshes the page. The submission goes in, but the reload is simply a blank white screen.
Also, managers should use their best relievers in a tie game in the 9th inning on the road.
Ditto 167 and 168. Is anyone receiving new posts via thread subscription? ‘Cause I haven’t been for a while now.
I was having comments issues before Andy’s changes. I would get a blank page after submitting. But the comment would be there when I refreshed. (I use Chrome.)
Now, after submitting, I get either a blank page or an “Oops, that page wasn’t found!” And there’s a greater lag time for the comment to appear, either on the subject page or on the sidebar.
David P @168 — “there were more steal attempts in Pudge’s era but there weren’t that many more.” Actually, there were way more attempts in Pudge’s era.
Let’s compare league averages for Pudge’s first 10 full seasons against Campy’s career, per team/year:
— Attempts: Pudge era 154, Campy era 81
— Steals: Pudge era 105, Campy era 48
— CS%: Pudge era 32%, Campy era 41%.
Pudge threw out 51% — 19 points above average — recording 409 outs.
Campy threw out 57% — 16 points above average — recording 252 outs.
The Dodgers allowed 299 steals in those 10 years, about 180 fewer than average.
The Rangers allowed 661 steals in their 10 years, about 390 fewer than average.
So Pudge personally accounted for 157 more CS than Campy over 10 years. And his teams were 210 SB better than Campy’s, relative to league average.
Compared to league context, Pudge had a *better* CS rate than Campy, and a much greater reduction in total steals. It seems clear that Pudge’s tangible impact against stolen bases was far more valuable than Campanella’s.
The *proportions* of Rfield comparisons don’t matter. Pudge’s net Rfield edge for those 10 years is 115 runs, roughly one win per year. Is that prima facie implausible?
A great many people have said that the young Pudge Rodriguez was the best defensive catcher they ever saw, and not just in throwing out runners. I’ve heard praise of Campanella, but nothing close to that league.
I don’t see a good reason to mistrust the defensive stats. Campy rates among the very best of his era – second to Yogi in dWAR, and that mainly because Yogi played more. But it seems clear that a catcher’s defense was less valuable in that era than in any other.
I’m sure that Campy’s defense was more valuable in the Negro Leagues than it was in MLB, so it would be fair to boost his all-around ranking for that. But I can’t see a clear flaw in his MLB value as expressed by dWAR, Rfield, or whatever.
One effect that strict CS% does not capture — what if the catcher is so good at throwing out runners that the runners do not even attempt a steal? Some Cardinal fans have complained that Yadier Molina was being overlooked because opposing baserunners did not attempt to steal on him enough to allow him to qualify for the CS% title.
John –
As I pointed out above, no catcher had more than an +6 Rfield season for the first 50 years of MLB. Doesn’t that surprise you even a little?
In terms of career (1901-1950), Ray Schalk had 46 Rfield. No other catcher had more than 22. On the negative end, the worst was -22 Rfield by Red Dooin. Basically meaning that for the first 50 years of baseball catcher defense didn’t matter. You could insert any random catcher behind the plate and it would have almost no impact on your team. Do you really believe that to be the case?
Above you stated: “Crandall and Lollar are acknowledged defensive wizards. Yogi was good defensively…”.
Well, for the first 13 years of his career, Lollar never had an Rfield above +4. Why would that be if he were a defensive wizard? Berra’s pretty much the same. His highest single season Rfield was +5 in 1956. Every other season he was below that.
BTW, in terms of defensive winning percentage, Bill James ranks Campy as the best defensive catcher ever.
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/baseball-joe/blog/bill-james-on-fielding-part-7-012915
One note though. Carl Erksine states the following: “So we faced the same hitters often — I faced Musial 164 times — which made it a mind game, and Campy was a master at calling the unexpected.”
Well for the 135 PAs for which BR has data, Musial put up a 1.093 OPS. So maybe not the best example to use Mr. Erksine.
Meanwhile, I thought I’d look at Fangraphs to see what they had to say re: Campy’s defense. Unfortunately, they’re using the same defensive system as BR so there’s no second opinion. But they do have him with 4 more WAR than BR.
David P — Again, I have no doubt that Campy was a great defensive catcher. The issue is how valuable that was in the time that he played.
W% does not reflect opportunities. The modern leader in pitchers’ W% is Spud Chandler. But he only won 109 games. He was great for a few years, but didn’t pitch enough to be considered an all-time great.
Campy discouraged base thieves — but, because of the time in which he played, he didn’t have enough opportunity to discourage (or throw out) enough thieves to make a big impact on wins.
Since you quoted James, I’ll do the same, from his HBA comparison of Campy and Fisk:
“Let’s assume that Campanella eliminated all base stealing against the Dodgers. What is that worth? Something less than ten runs.” [because teams weren’t stealing anyway]
“Quickness behind the plate? OK. Soft hands? OK. … but what are those worth? Do you see a lot of plays that hinge on the quickness of the catcher?”
As for the small variance in Rfield among catchers from 1901-50, I would address that in two phases, with very different factors in each.
Until 1925, MLB teams averaged at least 150 steal tries per year, and bunts were prevalent. Catcher defense was so important that few poor ones got to play, and only if they were very good hitters.
The emphasis put on catcher defense is reflected in the batting stats. Out of 47 who caught 500 games in that span, the median OPS+ was 81. Bill Bergen was a regular for 11 years, despite being the worst hitter ever in a long career (21 OPS+). Ten more were under 70 OPS+. With one exception, the worst Rfield belonged to the best hitters, Roger Bresnahan and Wally Schang.
Look at Bubbles Hargrave, Ted Easterly and Art Wilson — good
hitters (OPS+ at least 114), but none got to bat 3,000 times because they weren’t good defensively. Easterly and Wilson had to go to the Federal League to play regularly, while Hargrave spent many years in the minors.
Since Rfield is a comparison to the average, if *all* the catchers are pretty good defenders, then it’s very hard to stand out. That would largely explain the low variance in Rfield.
Also, catchers in that time were not very durable. Schalk caught 1,626 games in that span, but just one other reached 1,300. If we use Rfield per game, Schalk’s lead shrinks substantially.
During 1926-50, catchers were more durable — 10 caught 1,300 games. But as batting average and home runs exploded, steals dropped off, and so did the opportunity for catcher defense to impact the game.
John – Sure winning % doesn’t reflect playing time. But you can hardly compare pitcher winning percentage with defensive winning percentage. Defensive winning percentage is, at least theoretically, completely under a player’s control. (I tried to find how James’ calculated it but couldn’t find any info). Meanwhile, how much of a pitcher’s winning percentage is under their control? I’d guess less than 50%.
While you’re explanation for catcher defense for the pre-1925 seems reasonable on the face of it, let’s unpack this a bit more. Back then, decisions were mostly being made via the eye test. After all, what else could they use? Do you really think that every single manager from 1901-1925 was so great at the eye test, that they could – without fail – always identify the best defensive catchers such that there was no variation in defensive ability? Cause that’s basically what you’re saying.
As for Hargrave, Easterly, and Wilson, the facts simply don’t support what you’re claiming. For one thing, Rfield has absolutely no problem with their defense. Wilson has a career Rfield of -2, Easterly of -6 and Hargrave of +1. Beyond that Wilson was blocked by Chief Meyers (a very good hitting catcher in his own right). Easterly actually did get regular playing time until he stopped hitting. As for Hargrave, I can’t find much info but I’ll note that he failed to hit from ages 20-22 (OPS+ of 48 in limited playing time) which may have as much to do with him being banished to the minors as his defense.
Aren’t you even a little bit curious as to how catcher Rfield is being calculated before you defend it so vigorously?
Here’s a few things that I’ve discovered by doing a bit of research. Prior to 1953, there are no play-by-play data. This means that the pre-1953 defensive stats are calculated differently. How exactly that impact catcher Rfield, I have no idea, but I’d be surprised if the impact is zero.
This article also contains a few nuggets:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/27/962148/historical-war-review-catchers
Here’s a quote re: Wally Schang:
“It’s worth noting, as with other pre-retrosheet catchers, it’s hard to make much of his defensive numbers, as we don’t even have information here on caught stealing percentages. Schang has a good defensive reputation, so it’s possible his true career WAR totals could even be higher.”
And Bill Dickey: “His defensive reputation was very strong, which is backed by Rally’s data (which only includes error and passed ball rates in this era).”
@182, 179;
Pre-1953, defensive ratings are probably regressed quite a bit; the further you go back, probably the more they are regressed towards average. So, I’d be _very_ wary of making one-to-one comparisons between modern players and pre-1953 players using Rfield.
JA, GREAT stuff
Voomo @169 — I don’t know what the strikeouts really tell us. Before Campy, the Dodgers were 3rd (’47) and 1st (’46). After, they were 1st every year from ’58-61 even before moving into Dodger Stadium. Seems like they just had a strikeout staff.
If I want to link a catcher with staff performance, I’d rather look at ERA+. And yes, the Dodgers were good in that measure with Campy, averaging 106.4 ERA+, and a 2.6 NL ranking. But, they averaged 108.2 ERA+ for the 2 years before & 4 years after, and a 2.8 NL ranking.
I don’t doubt that Campy called a good game. But I don’t think you can prove it with his pitchers’ stats.
Yes, I agree.
Just throwing the numbers that we have out there.
It’s hard, I think, to fully quantify a really good Catcher.
There are a lot of Team stats and outcomes that are informed by the various leadership aspects of the Catcher position.