Circle of Greats 1901 Part 1 Balloting

177 Replies

This post is for voting and discussion in the 89th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG).  This round is the first of two adding players born in 1901 to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes. Rules and lists are after the jump.

Players born in 1901 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 is added in this week’s round and the bottom half next week.  This round’s new group joins the holdovers from prior balloting to comprise the full set of players eligible to receive your votes this round.

The new group of 1901-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 1901-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 14 players born in 1901 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Seven of those are being added to the eligible list this round (alphabetically from Guy Bush to Flint Rhem).  The seven remaining players will be added in next week’s round.

All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Tuesday, March 31st, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, March 29th.

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 1901 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-1901 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players.  The fourteen current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same.  The 1901 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)
Carl Hubbell (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Mickey Cochrane (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Al Simmons (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Paul Waner (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Roy Campanella  (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (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)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1901, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Johnny Cooney
Heinie Manush
Taylor Douthit

Pitchers (born in 1901, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Freddie Fitzsimmons
Guy Bush
Fred Heimach
Flint Rhem

177 thoughts on “Circle of Greats 1901 Part 1 Balloting”

  2. Bryan O'Connor

    Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:

    Brown 43.3
    Waner 40.8
    Reuschel 40.6
    FerrellW 40.1
    Hubbell 39.8
    Simmons 37.6
    Tiant 37.5
    Nettles 35.7
    Eckersley 34.3
    Killebrew 33.0
    Winfield 31.1
    Minoso 30.6
    Cochrane 29.5
    Manush 20.5
    Campanella 19.2

    Brown, Waner, Cochrane

    Reply ↓
  4. David Horwich

    Here’s the breakdown of current CoG membership by position:

    C – 6 (Bench, Berra, Carter, Dickey, Fisk, Piazza)
    1B/DH – 11 (Bagwell, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, E Martinez, McCovey, Mize, Molitor, Murray, Thomas, Thome)
    2B – 10 (Alomar, Biggio, Carew, Gehringer, Gordon, Grich, Morgan, J Robinson, Sandberg, Whitaker)
    SS – 11 (Appling, Banks, Boudreau, Cronin, Larkin, Reese, Ripken, Smith, Trammell, Vaughan, Yount)
    3B – 6 (Boggs, Brett, Mathews, B Robinson, Santo, Schmidt)
    LF – 6 (Bonds, Henderson, Musial, Raines, T Williams, Yaz)
    CF – 6 (DiMaggio, Griffey, Lofton, Mantle, Mays, Snider)
    RF – 8 (Aaron, Clemente, Gwynn, R Jackson, Kaline, Ott, F Robinson, Walker)
    U – 1 (Rose)
    SP – 22 (16 R, 6 L – Blyleven, Clemens, Feller, Gibson, Jenkins, Maddux, Marichal, Mussina, Niekro, Palmer, Perry, Roberts, Ryan, Schilling, Seaver, Smoltz; Carlton, Ford, Glavine, R Johnson, Koufax, Spahn)
    RP – 1 (Rivera)

    I note that I’m not 100% consistent in this listing, e.g. I have Banks and Carew at SS and 2B rather than 1B, Molitor could be listed as a utility guy along with Rose, etc.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom

      Thanks for posting this! It’s a nice reference to have, even with players whose positions are hard to define. For example, you didn’t mention Stan Musial, who played more games at 1B than anywhere else, but played more games in the OF than the IF. And among OF positions, while he played the most in LF, he was a majority RF in his three best seasons – 1943 (123/155 G), ’48 (81/155 G), and ’49 (123/156 G). He may not be as tough to categorize as Molitor or Rose, but he’s even tougher than Banks or Carew, in my opinion.

      Irrespective of Stan Musial’s positional legacy, I still appreciate the post. We’re coming to the point where we all need to start thinking a little more “strategically” in a long-term sense, and this is one helpful way to think of it.

      Reply ↓
      1. David Horwich

        Indeed, I didn’t list all the debatable cases, and of course this list isn’t the only way to think about it; some may prefer to list players at all the positions at which they spent substantial time, for example, while others may not care about positional distribution in the first place.

        Myself, I care some; not to the point of saying “we don’t have enough third basemen, let’s elect some more third basemen just to balance things out”; but enough that if it came down to a choice between 2 players of comparable value, one of whom played 3B and the other, say, 2B, I’d go with the third baseman.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dr. Doom

          I do think positions have a little bit of relevance when it comes to catchers, though. Their career values are definitely stunted by the position they play. The most WAR by any catcher is by Johnny Bench (75). Here are the number of players at each other position with 75+ WAR:

          1B – 7 (4 modern + Brouthers, Connor, and Anson)
          2B – 6 (not including Lou Whitaker at 74.9!)
          SS – 7
          3B – 7 (5 modern + Davis and Dahlen)
          LF – 5 (incl. Rose)
          CF – 6
          RF – 7 (incl. Musial)
          P – 27 (22 modern + Nichols, Keefe, Clarkson, Radbourn, and McCormick)

          Now, some may believe that catcher has just been deprived of great baseball players relative to the other positions, but I for one think that the wear-and-tear on a catcher’s body, while accounted for on the SEASONAL level by the positional adjustment in WAR, is NOT accounted for on the career level. So I think it’s VERY fair to look at these lists and ask the question with that particular position in particular, “just how many catchers DO we want?”
          This is particularly important to two men on the holdover list right now – Cochrane and Campanella, who are never going to blow you away with their WAR, but are (along with Gabby Hartnett) the only real legitimate catcher candidates who are going to come up. If not them, who? No one?

          Reply ↓
          1. Michael Sullivan

            We do have Pudge coming in 1972, and a few catchers on the redemption list that could have a borderline case.

            The best that I can think of off the top of my head would be Joe Torre, Ted Simmons and Thurman Munson.

            Torre’s WAR of 57.6 looks solid for a catcher, but his last 7 years he never caught. Looking at his WAR after 1970 (the last year in which he caught a game) it was 41.6 with a yearly average of 3.8.

            That’s solid HOF territory, but borderline for COG. Hartnett has a smaller WAR total but seems clearly ahead, when you consider that he has more than twice as many games caught as Torre.

            The big question I have for catchers is pitch framing, and working with the pitcher. It’s an important skill, but AFAIK it’s not accounted for in rField for catchers. I doubt it invalidates any of our current selections. I don’t know Dickey’s rep, but Bench, Fisk and Berra were all considered superior at this skill, and Carter at least average. The one guy who wasn’t considered very good (Piazza) wasn’t actually terrible according to recent attempts to quantify it, and was such an offensive powerhouse that he’s still pretty clearly in.

            IIRC, Munson gains a lot by considering framing, not sure about Torre or any of the earlier guys left to deal with.

            But it seems to me we’ve got six guys we should be considering for C if we’re dipping down a little to fill it out.

            Cochrane, Campanella, Hartnett, Munson, Torre, T. Simmons.

            Say something if I’m missing somebody. I think it’s reasonable to elect 3 from that group, and I wouldn’t think it’s wrong for it to be the first three I listed, but if we’re going to dig down a little in WAR to find catchers, we need to make sure we’re reconsidering those who fell a little short in previous/redemption rounds and not just those on or yet to come.

        2. Hartvig

          I do think it’s important that we keep a few things in mind about positional distribution.

          The first is that assuming we fall at least approximately in line with the HOF’s roughly 30/70 pitcher/position player split that works out to a little more than 80 position players or roughly 10 at each position. However I don’t think that means that to adhere to that as any kind of rule.

          There are reasons that some positions may have more great players than others. In the early era of the game third base was viewed as a defense first position and second base, primarily because there was less emphasis on the double play, was an offense first position. That view really didn’t start to change until the 30’s and beyond. That goes a long way towards explaining why 3 of the 4 greatest 2nd baseman were effectively finished by 1930 (actually 1931 for Hornsby) and why there’s only one serious third base candidate (Baker) who played prior to WW2.

          We’ve already talked about the difficulty is assigning a position to some players because they played a lot of games at multiple positions. But there are also players who started out at a position but for various reasons played their only briefly. Bonds and Kaline were center fielders. Foxx was a catcher and then a 3rd baseman. Biggio was also a catcher. Pujols was a third baseman & left fielder. There are many others.

          Finally is just normal variance. In a relatively small group like this having 7 or 8 guys at one position and 13 or 14 at another is completely reasonable.

          I think taking positional scarcity into account is reasonable but only as a tie breaker or minor consideration.

          I do however think that it’s entirely appropriate to measure catchers on a different scale from everyone else.

          Reply ↓
  11. Dr. Doom

    Yes, it’s REALLY early, but we have a three-way tie for first at 5 votes apiece for Cochrane, Simmons, and Waner. It would be really fun to see a down-to-the-wire battle, wouldn’t it?

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug Post author

      This is the 10th ballot. With the tally for Eckersley, only Ferrell of the 14 holdovers has yet to record a vote.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dr. Doom

        I haven’t checked the spreadsheet, but this was actually the 11th ballot. Not that it matters, just making sure you’ve got everyone’s – Dr. Doom, Bryan O’Connor, JEV, Jeff Harris, Abbott, MJ, David P, Brent, Richard Chester, Gary Bateman, Chris C.

        Reply ↓
  14. Voomo Zanzibar

    It looks like Johnny Clooney is one of only two players to play at least 150 games at both Pitcher and Centerfield.

    The other is Hal Jeffcoat

    Reply ↓
    1. Doug Post author

      You answered the trivia question before it was asked. 🙂 (So, I’ve come up with a different question)

      Reply ↓
    2. mosc

      Ankiel didn’t make it? Checking… nope. Only 51 pitching appearances. He was over 200 IP but not over 150 appearances. Oh well.

      Reply ↓
  15. Voomo Zanzibar

    Manush, 9 year peak

    .343 / .385 / .504 / .889 / 129

    202 Hits
    40 doubles
    13 triples
    9 .HR
    92 RBI

    Average on the bases and in LF
    4.3 WAR

    Black Ink for 3 franchises during peak.

    Reply ↓
    1. Richard Chester

      Manush is one of two players to lead his league in HBP in each of his first two years in the majors. David Eckstein is the other.

      Reply ↓
  18. Doug Post author

    This round’s tidbits.

    1. Johnny Cooney recorded 25 hits in 1923, good for a .379 BA. Who is the last pitcher to bat .350 in such a season?

    2. Freddie Fitzsimmons recorded 6 consecutive seasons (1926-31) for the Giants with double-digit wins and a winning record. Who is the last Giant pitcher to do this?

    3. Heinie Manush recorded two 200 hit seasons for both the Browns and Senators. Who is the only other player since 1901 with multiple 200 hit seasons for more than one franchise?

    4. Guy Bush’s 9 consecutive seasons (1926-34) with double-digit wins and a .500 or better record is the longest streak of such seasons by a Cub pitcher. Those seasons were the start of 15 straight years (1926-40) for the Cubs with at least 3 pitchers having such a season. What is the Cubs’ longest streak of such seasons since?

    5. Fred Heimach recorded 4 seasons with 10 starts and 20 relief appearances. Who are the only two pitchers to post four such seasons consecutively?

    6. Flint Rhem won 20 games in his only 250 IP season in 1926. Who is the only pitcher to do that following an earlier 20 win season?

    7. Taylor Douthit’s 752 PA in 1928 were then the most in any season. Douthit’s 87 OPS+ in 1930 remains the lowest mark in a 200 hit/90 RBI season, while his 0.8 WAR the same year is the lowest in any 200 hit season with 40 doubles. Which player since Douthit has the lowest WAR in a 200 hit/40 double season?

    Reply ↓
    1. Richard Chester

      Additional tidbit: Taylor Douthit set a still-standing record in 1928 when he recorded 547 PO in the outfield. His second best was in 1929 with just 442 PO in 4 fewer games than in 1928.

      Reply ↓
        1. Doug Post author

          Interesting symmetry as the first two home runs of Ruth’s career were also hit off the same pitcher, one Jack Warhop (who holds the Yankee franchise record for most career losses in fewer than 1500 IP).

          Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post author

        Actually, the question was what is the longest Cubs streak since 1940 with 3+ pitchers having 10+ wins and a .500 or better record.

        Reply ↓
    3. Richard Chester

      6. Flint Rhem question: Joey Jay. Mel Parnell and Howie Pollet did it preceding another 20 win season.

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post author

        Joey Jay is the answer.

        After those back-to-back 20-win seasons at age 26-27, his future looked bright (especially with less than 1000 IP to that point of his career). But, Jay would last only four more seasons with an 88 ERA+ in 612 IP.

        Reply ↓
    4. Dr. Doom

      2. Freddie Fitzsimons – Is it Juan Marichal? He had eleven straight from 1961-1971. Jason Schmidt had 5 straight such seasons, and I thought that was going to be the sneaky answers.

      3. Heinie Manush – Shoeless Joe Jackson.

      Reply ↓
          1. Doug Post author

            Correct. Hershisher batted .356 with 26 hits for the 1993 Dodgers. Catfish Hunter’s .350 average from 36 hits in 1971 is the only other such expansion-era season.

            Among pitcher seasons since 1901 with no other field positions, only Don Newcombe twice batted .350 with 25 hits, doing so in 1955 and 1958.

      1. Richard Chester

        Looks like there are two answers to the Manush question, Guerrero and Joe Jackson per comment #40. The PI lists Guerrero as playing for LAA and ANA which are actually the same team. Doug probably missed that in his search.

        Reply ↓
    8. Scary Tuna

      Doug, it looks like George Sisler lays claim to the lowest WAR in a 200 hit/40 double season with 0.3 WAR in 1929, unless you meant to still tie in the 90 RBI minimum. His first two times topping 200 hits and 40 doubles were far more productive, with 9.8 WAR in 1920 and 8.7 in 1922.

      The lowest WAR since Douthit and Sister in a 200 hit / 40 double season belongs to Dante Bichette with 1.0 for Colorado in 1998.

      Reply ↓
      1. Doug

        Thanks for the correction, Scary.

        I must have had something else in the search criteria and not been aware of it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Scary Tuna

          Since Douthit’s “accomplishment” came a year after Sister’s, it didn’t alter the validity of your question.

          Reply ↓
    9. Scary Tuna

      5. Fred Heimach question: One of the two is Tim Wakefield, from 1999-2002. Still looking for the other. There are several pitchers who accomplished the feat four times in five seasons.

      Reply ↓
      1. Scary Tuna

        Can’t say I ever remember hearing the name of the other before today: Elam Vangilder, from 1924-28 for the Browns and Tigers.

        Reply ↓
        1. Doug

          Vangilder’s 0.68 career SO/BB ratio is second lowest among pitchers with 1500 IP. His 0.61 mark starting at age 27 is lowest among pitchers with 1000 IP starting at that age.

          Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post author

        Correct, Richard.

        Without access to a reference source, I suspect even a die-hard Giant fan would have a tough time coming up with that answer.

        Reply ↓
  20. JasonZ

    Heinie Manush is the only player to have his name rhythmically pronounced over and over, as fast as is reasonable, in an Edmund O’brien film.

    Why?

    Because when this is done, it sounds just like a train.

    Name the film.

    Reply ↓
  22. opal611

    For the 1901 Part 1 election, I’m voting for:
    -Dennis Eckersley
    -Dave Winfield
    -Paul Waner

    Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
    -Simmons
    -Killebrew
    -Brown
    -Reuschel
    -Tiant
    -Nettles
    -Hubbell

    Reply ↓
  23. mosc

    Al Simmons > Paul Waner

    Waner was only a slightly better hitter when you include the power difference between the two, especially on a rate basis. Waner managed 10% more PA’s which is a lot of their RBAT difference. Simmons played some CF and rates as a better defender and because of that his peak is higher (he has all the tools). He exceeded 7WAR 3 years in a row, Waner never reached that level. Simmons has the highest and second highest RBAT season of the two players as well. Their career WAR’s are not that different.

    Simmons. (Ferrell and Campanella too)

    Reply ↓
    1. David P

      Mosc – Your #31 reads like a foregone conclusion, hunting for evidence to support it.

      Let’s look at their respective peaks. Waner’s was basically ages 23-36, whereas Simmons’ was 22-37. This works well because it equalizes the plate appearances (9275 vs 9261).

      Simmons has a slight edge in overall WAR (69.5 vs. 67.8) whereas Waner has a slight edge in WAA (38.8 vs 36.4).

      Simmons, as you’ve already pointed out, had the higher peak, having the three highest WAR and WAA seasons. But Waner balances that out by having a longer peak. Waner has the edge in seasons of 4+ WAR (12 vs 10) and in seasons with 2+ WAA (12 vs 9).

      Waner also has two other advantages. One is that he played for a longer time and was productive outside of his peak years, putting up 4.9 WAR in 1491 PAs. Simmons outside of his peak had -0.8 WAR in 257 PAs.

      Waner was also healthier than Simmons. He has a 7 to 3 edge in seasons with 150+ games played.

      At the end of the day, comparing Waner and Simmons is an exercise in extreme hair splitting. In my opinion, Waner has a slight edge over Simmons but it’s so slight as to be pointless. Vote for whichever one you like better, they’ll both get in eventually so it really doesn’t matter.

      (btw, you likely missed this but last round I showed that Ferrell’s WAR is about 5-7 points higher than it should be).

      Reply ↓
      1. mosc

        I read your reasons why you think Ferrell is over-stated by WAR I just don’t agree with it.

        NYEAR25
        Simmons: 5.17
        Waner: 4.89

        Reply ↓
        1. Richard Chester

          mosc: I ran the NYEAR25 numbers on my spreadsheet and my numbers for Simmons and Waner did not quite match yours. On the 1970 COG Balloting blog in your post 76 you showed a detailed analysis for Harmon Killebrew. Would it be possible for you do do the same for Waner or Simmons so I can determine where the differences lie? Also how come you do a 25 year period when the player’s career is less than that? Why not just run his actual career?

          Reply ↓
          1. mosc

            Sure. Lets hope this formats right…

            Waner
            Best N Start Total Avg Normalized
            1 1927 6.9 6.9 6.9
            2 1927 13.7 6.85 6.9
            3 1926 19 6.333333333 6.866666667
            4 1926 23.8 5.95 6.6
            5 1926 28 5.6 6.38
            6 1927 33.2 5.533333333 6.2
            7 1926 38.5 5.5 6.028571429
            8 1927 43.4 5.425 5.875
            9 1926 48.7 5.411111111 5.733333333
            10 1927 54.4 5.44 5.6
            11 1926 59.7 5.427272727 5.472727273
            12 1926 64.3 5.358333333 5.358333333
            13 1926 65.5 5.038461538 5.123076923
            14 1926 67.8 4.842857143 4.878571429
            15 1926 68.2 4.546666667 4.633333333
            16 1926 69.2 4.325 4.41875
            17 1926 70.4 4.141176471 4.217647059
            18 1926 72.1 4.005555556 4.011111111
            19 1926 72.6 3.821052632 3.821052632
            20 1926 72.6 3.63 3.63
            21 1926 72.6 3.457142857 3.457142857
            22 1926 72.6 3.3 3.3
            23 1926 72.6 3.156521739 3.156521739
            24 1926 72.6 3.025 3.025
            25 1926 72.6 2.904 2.904
            4.796872738 4.979633565
            MIX: 4.888253151

            Simmons:
            Best N Start Total Avg Normalized
            1 1929 7.9 7.9 7.9
            2 1929 15.7 7.85 7.85
            3 1929 23.2 7.733333333 7.733333333
            4 1928 27.8 6.95 7.425
            5 1927 33.6 6.72 7.1
            6 1926 38.7 6.45 6.783333333
            7 1925 45.2 6.457142857 6.542857143
            8 1925 49.4 6.175 6.3
            9 1925 54.6 6.066666667 6.1
            10 1925 59.1 5.91 5.91
            11 1924 60.6 5.509090909 5.645454545
            12 1925 63.3 5.275 5.391666667
            13 1924 64.8 4.984615385 5.092307692
            14 1925 67.1 4.792857143 4.814285714
            15 1924 68.6 4.573333333 4.573333333
            16 1924 69.6 4.35 4.35
            17 1924 69.8 4.105882353 4.105882353
            18 1924 69.8 3.877777778 3.883333333
            19 1924 69.8 3.673684211 3.678947368
            20 1924 69.8 3.49 3.495
            21 1924 69.9 3.328571429 3.328571429
            22 1924 69.9 3.177272727 3.177272727
            23 1924 69.9 3.039130435 3.039130435
            24 1924 69.9 2.9125 2.9125
            25 1924 69.9 2.796 2.796
            5.123914342 5.197128376
            MIX: 5.160521359

            Using a consistent N is important. The shorter the number, the more it favors peak over career. N=1 is just a top season ranking. N is not the length of a career.

          2. Richard Chester

            @67

            Thanks so much mosc. Now I realize that your values represent the average of the consecutive and non-consecutive season approaches. I then ran the non-consecutive season approach (i.e. in descending order of WAR) and my values matched yours. My spreadsheet can evaluate all years from NYEAR1 thru NYEAR25 in one shot.

          3. mosc

            Took me like 50 lines of code to calculate it off of a WAR table, you did it in spreadsheet formulas?

          4. Richard Chester

            @73
            I used a spreadsheet only, no code. If Andy doesn’t mind he could send you my email address. You could contact me and I could send you a copy of the spreadsheet. It’s just about impossible to describe in words how I did it.

          5. mosc

            Impressive. There’s a lot of comparative logic in it which is generally messy on a spreadsheet and very easy to code in loops so I went with code. My email address is simply the first letter of our hall of stats founder’s last name at what you call me with the internet’s favorite dot three letter suffix. I figure that’s encoded enough where villains need not bother.

      2. mosc

        Who had the best season? Simmons. Best 3 consecutive seasons? Simmons. Best 3 seasons non-consecutive? Simmons. Best 7 years consecutively? Simmons. Best 7 years non-consecutively? Simmons. You have to widen your look 13 years and beyond to find any Waner advantage at all and even then it’s slight.

        Simmons had nearly the longevity and a substantially higher peak because he was a substantially more complete player for a significant portion of time.

        Reply ↓
    2. Dr. Doom

      To clarify, this IS a vote for Simmons, Ferrell, and Campanella, correct? It’s hard to tell exactly what you mean by that last line, so I just want to make sure.

      Reply ↓
  28. David Horwich

    Early returns, through #37 (21 ballots)

    11 – Simmons
    ===============50% (11)
    10 – Cochrane
    9 – Hubbell, Waner
    ===============25% (6)
    4 – Winfield*
    3 – Brown*, Eckersley*, Killebrew
    ===============10% (3)
    2 – Campanella*, Manush*, Nettles*, Reuschel
    1 – Ferrell*, Minoso*, Tiant*

    Reply ↓
    2. bstar

      Jason, if you like your Robert Ryan as evil incarnate, check him out in Peter Ustinov’s Billy Budd. Great stuff.

      Reply ↓
      1. PaulE

        Bstar/Jason,
        ……or if you really enjoy film noir, check out Robert Ryan as Stoker Thompson in “The Set Up”. Produced to give the impression of events unfolding in real time, Ryan is very credible as a washed-up club fighter up against local “promoters”

        Reply ↓
  33. Low T

    I’ve missed a few elections recently because I waited too long to vote. I’m getting in early this time.

    Cochrane, Hubbell, and Waner over Simmons mainly because I’m fascinated by Waner’s odd personal story.

    This is one of the many reasons I’ve kept up with this project from the start, and why I read just about every comment for each election. I’m learning so much history and background about players that were just names and stats to me prior. I love this exercise and hope we figure out a way to extend it beyond its currently planned life-span.

    Reply ↓
      1. Low T

        His vision is one thing, and the fact that he hit worse when his vision was corrected with glasses.

        But I’m really fascinated by his drinking. Not after games like Ruth, not playing hung over like Mantle, but actually drinking before each at bat. From his SABR bio:

        “When I walked up there (to the batter’s box) with a half-pint of whiskey fresh in my gut, that ball came in looking like a basketball,” he would say. “But if I hadn’t downed my half-pint of 100 proof, that ball came in like an aspirin tablet.”

        I’m amazed that someone could consume that amount of 100 proof whiskey, if true, and hit at the level he did. And like his vision, when he tried to lay off the hard stuff, he was an awful hitter.

        Reply ↓
        1. Joseph

          I have horrible eyesight, and as a kid, had trouble hitting the ball–but when I did, it was hard.

          Maybe I should have tried drinking in Little League.

          Reply ↓
  36. Hub Kid

    Hubbell, Nettles, Tiant

    It’s been a while since we elected a pitcher- this time I’ll do my homework: not since Whitey (flippin’) Ford in 1910, and Bob Feller in 1917 before that. Back to David Horwich’s, Dr. Doom’s and Hartvig’s posts above RE: COG & HOF positions, 22 does sound like about the right pace… acknowledging that positions are not evenly spread out.

    Reply ↓
  38. robbs

    I’m sure one of the High Heaters knows this if knowable: How many wins does a team of ALL Replacement level players win? Or is this relevant?

    Simmons
    Brown
    Waner

    Reply ↓
    1. Joseph

      Baseball Reference says:

      >>>Sports Reference sets replacement level at .294 or (48-114). This change was made in March of 2013 after deciding with FanGraphs.com to set a single replacement level between our sites. We also smoothed out the changes in replacement level between the two leagues where before the change from one decade to the next had been stepwise.<<<

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained.shtml

      Reply ↓
  42. David Horwich

    With 31 ballots cast (through #66):

    15 – Simmons
    14 – Hubbell
    13 – Cochrane, Waner
    ==========================25% (8)
    6 – Campanella*
    5 – Brown*
    4 – Eckersley*, Killebrew, Nettles*, Winfield*
    ==========================10% (4)
    3 – Minoso*, Reuschel
    2 – Manush*, Tiant*
    1 – Ferrell*

    Reply ↓
  46. Dr. Doom

    I have a very good friend getting married in Houston on Sunday, so I’m not sure how much I’ll be around the next week or so – although I’ll at least check when I can, but I’m not sure about commenting. Hopefully, David Horwich will continue to provide vote updates.

    That said, before I go, I DO want to point out what we have at the top right now:

    15 – Cochrane, Hubbell, Simmons
    14 – Waner

    Yowza! This is SO COOL, you guys! I’ll try to stay in tune with what’s going on, because this is just awesome.

    Also, Campy’s got his 7 votes (should be enough, though an 8th never hurt anyone).
    Beyond that, Brown, Eckersley, and Killebrew are at 5 votes. The next crew back is Minnie Minoso, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel, and Dave Winfield, all at 4 votes and still keeping their heads above water at 11.76%, for the time being (34 votes, last being dr. remulak’s @72). Heinie Manush and Luis Tiant are at 2, and Wes Ferrell is at 1. Is it the end for some of these players? I gotta admit, it’s not looking good for the players at the bottom, especially with a tight race at the top that prevents late voters from spending ALL three votes on ballot-saving measures. ‘Twill be an interesting finish, I suspect!

    Reply ↓
  48. Hartvig

    Campy is safe and 25% seems like a long shot so I’m going with a couple that I think belong in the discussion for the last 2 or 3 spots and my choice among the top 4.

    Waner, Ferrell, Tiant

    Reply ↓
  49. Voomo Zanzibar

    Hubbell has good claim on being the best pitcher in the NL during his time.
    This should be enough to get him elected here.
    … He also played for strong teams, with excellent defenses, in a pitcher’s park. And is a distant 2nd to Lefty Grove across MLB.

    Here’s how he compares to Kevin Brown, during each of their peaks:

    IP
    3365 … Hubbell
    3155 … Brown

    RA9 / RA9OPP / RA9DEF / PPFp

    3.39 / 4.69 / 0.24 / 98.4
    3.66 / 4.71 / -.03 / 97.1

    __________________________

    Of the two beasts on the championship Athletics’ squads and the guy with the whiskey bottle in his pocket:

    PaWaa
    210.4 … Cochrane
    273.5 … Simmons
    278.1 … Waner
    _____

    PaWaa 6000
    181.6 … Simmons
    203.0 … Waner
    210.4 … Cochrane (6207)
    _____

    PaWaa 7000
    187.0 … Simmons
    208.5 … Waner

    They both had exactly 6733 PA when computing this.
    I think these WAR-based stats get a bit iffy as we go back in time, due to the questionable defensive metrics. Waner and Simmons were both terrific. I’ll go with Al for being an absolute beast during a championship run.
    _______________________________

    Vote:

    Roy Campanella
    Wes Ferrell
    Al Simmons

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc

      I think a lot of the same input data is in your process and mine but we rarely agree on the final ballot. This time though, I concur completely.

      Reply ↓
    1. Dr. Doom

      Voting is absolutely open to anybody!!! You may base your voting criteria on anything you like, whether it is to elect a player to the Circle of Greats, or to simply keep players on the ballot. It’s entirely up to you. Just be sure to use all three spots (you MUST vote for three players if you’re going to vote). Just make sure you read the rules up top, and feel free to ask any questions that might arise!

      Reply ↓
    2. Hartvig

      The purpose of this little exercise is for us to select 119 (? I think that # is correct) players- the same number of players selected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the BaseBall Writers’ Association of America- and see how our selections compare to theirs. We started with players born in 1968 (later expanded to include 1969 and 1970 and, assuming this process is still going on this coming December, players born in 1971) and working backwards.

      Reply ↓
  51. aweb

    Kevin Brown
    Cochrane
    Simmons (this may have been a previous thread, but Simmons getting MVP votes 8 times, including 4 top-5 finishes, but not getting votes during his best two WAR years, is just weird. It’s not like his value was all tied up in his defense – he lead the league in RBIs one of those years, and runs scored the other)

    Reply ↓
      2. Lawrence Azrin

        @89, 90;

        The Sporting News used to give out AL/NL MVP awards from 1929 to 1946, and at first they carried almost as much weight as the BBWAA awards. Al Simmons was the 1929 Sporting News AL MVP, Joe Cronin the 1930 Sporting News AL MVP.

        The selections usually lined up with the writers awards, but not always; for instance, Lou Gehrig was the 1931 (instead of Lefty Grove) and 1934 (instead of Mickey Cochrane) award winner.

        Reply ↓
  56. David Horwich

    Cochrane, Tiant, Winfield

    I’m a little nervous leaving Nettles with 6 votes, but I’m pretty sure he’ll pick up the additional vote he needs to be (mostly) safe.

    Reply ↓
  57. David Horwich

    Totals through 43 ballots (through #99):

    21 – Simmons
    19 – Cochrane
    17 – Hubbell
    16 – Waner
    ==========================25% (11)
    8 – Campanella*
    7 – Brown*
    6 – Killebrew, Nettles*
    5 – Eckersley*, Minoso*, Winfield*
    ==========================10% (5)
    4 – Ferrell*, Reuschel, Tiant*
    2 – Manush*

    Looks like the top 4 will all end up between 25-50%, and everyone else is just trying to hang on at 10%.

    Reply ↓
  59. Voomo Zanzibar

    Some thoughts about Kevin Brown.

    Comparisons to Carl Hubbell…
    Here are best Pitching WAR seasons.
    (batting WAR is negligible for both)

    (and this might be slightly unfair to Brown,
    as pitchers were asked to do more in Hubbell’s day.
    Though, if asked, perhaps Brown had the physique and competitiveness to complete more than half his starts and occasionally be a closer)

    Brown/Hubbell
    8.6 … 9.6
    8.0 … 8.8
    7.2 … 7.2
    7.0 … 6.7
    6.2 … 4.6
    4.8 … 4.4
    4.5 … 4.3
    4.3 … 4.0
    4.0 … 3.9
    3.6 … 3.3
    3.1 … 3.0
    2.8 … 3.0
    2.1 … 2.2
    1.7 … 2.1
    1.6 … 0.7
    0.2 … 0.0
    _____________________

    Reasons why people don’t like Kevin Brown:

    1. He got that enormous contract and was the highest paid player in the NL from 1999-2002. He backed it up the first two years (6.2, 7.2 WAR).
    Then he got hurt, and the money looked ugly.
    And while the Dodgers were competitive, they never made the playoffs.

    2. He was perceived as a jerkbag.
    The guy making 15 million dollars should not be a jerkbag.
    Fair enough.

    3. People remember the end.
    There are a lot of east coast fans at this blog.
    Brown was a key part of the 2004 collapse against Boston

    2 starts
    3.1 innings
    9 runs

    (They won the first game, 19-8
    But it was Game 7. Ugh.
    1.1 innings. 5 runs.

    Though, in his defense, it was Javier freaking Vasquez who relieved Brown with the bags full and gave up 4 to the Caveman.)

    And 2005?
    It was just ugly, and he was done in July.
    Part of a team that was old and bloated and no fun to root for.
    ______________

    4. Suspicion that he used muscle juice.

    In 1998, Brown took the Padres to the World Series.
    He faced McGwire and Sosa two times each, and kept them both in the yard.
    (and gave up a bomb to Mickey Morandini)

    Level playing field.
    Let’s blame ourselves and blame Selig, and finally give the players a pass.

    And maybe award some kind of shiny medal to Griffey, Gwynn, Jeter, and whatever heros we are (almost) completely certain in no way sought out a chemical edge.

    Personally, I think its likely that a bit of HGH administered by a competent doctor is probably safer and healthier than being addicted to amphetamines, which was more than common in MLB for at least 50 years.

    Reply ↓
    1. mosc

      He’s not that much better than Reuschel. 4 costs a few WAA, not a lifetime ban but a few points, and then he looks less dominant. Kevin brown through age 30:
      1451 IP 22.1 WAR, 8.6 WAA. 88-73 with a 3.78 ERA, 111 ERA+ and a K/9 rate of 5.3. This is the guy who the pitches like pedro for the next like 7 years? Yeah…

      Reply ↓
      1. RJ

        Same stats for Randy Johnson through age 30: 1245.1 IP, 19.9 WAR, 8.3 WAA, 81-62, 3.70 ERA, 113 ERA+, 9.6 K/9.

        FWIW Brown’s entry in the Mitchell Report refers only to 2001 onwards, i.e. post-peak.

        Reply ↓
        1. Voomo Zanzibar

          Pitchers aren’t speedy outfielders.
          They don’t turn to dust at age 30. If they have the smarts and the discipline they will certainly get better. Just like NFL quarterbacks.

          This was certainly true for everything athletic that I ever did (from sports to physical theatre).
          Yes, I was indestructible at 23.
          But far, far more skilled and embodied at 33.
          Because I was smart and disciplined and used good drugs.

          Reply ↓
        2. mosc

          Fine. Fine me another guy who pitched >1000 innings through 30 and then in his next 1000 innings raised his strikeout rate by more than 50% per inning.

          Randy Johnson threw no hitters before age 30 and struck out everybody. His walk rate plummeted and his dominance flew. Also, it’s not fair to split his career at age 30. His age 29 and 30 seasons were also excellent if not quite historic. Unit was a late bloomer but showed plenty when he was younger and improved year over year consistently. Brown? Night and day age 31 he’s a different pitcher.

          Reply ↓
          1. Voomo Zanzibar

            mosc, i personally am not disagreeing with you.

            i’m simply posing the question:

            after a century of gambling scandals, spitballs, mirrors in the bleachers, the A’s being the Yankees farm team, only white people being allowed to play, amphetamines, cocaine, painkillers, and exceedingly liberal use of Cortisone (adrenal gland steroid) shots, can we, now, in 2015, simply say “so what?” to the Steroid Era, and chalk it up to being the natural impulse of human ingenuity coupled with embarrassingly poor communication on a broad societal level?

          2. Doug Post author

            Find me another guy who pitched >1000 innings through 30 and then in his next 1000 innings raised his strikeout rate by more than 50% per inning.

            In fact, mosc, there is only one such pitcher since 1901. His name is Early Wynn and he posted 3.23 SO/9 thru age 30, and 5.37 after that, a 66.3% increase. The rest of the top 10.

            Player	 Thru Age 30	Age 31+	Chg
Kevin Brown	5.33	7.67	43.9%
Ted Lyons	1.93	2.68	38.9%
Bob Purkey	2.93	3.86	31.7%
Doyle Alexander	3.55	4.65	31.0%
Chuck Finley	6.37	8.16	28.1%
Roy Halladay	6.23	7.85	26.0%
Joe Niekro	3.82	4.64	21.5%
Mike Morgan	4.07	4.90	20.4%
Earl Moore	4.16	4.96	19.2%
          3. Voomo Zanzibar

            He moved to the NL at age 31.
            That accounts for part of it (pitcher in the 9-hole).

            It was the also the exact moment in time that strikeout totals soared, jumping by 2,000 over the previous year.

            National League Totals
            1995 … 13,309
            1996 … 15,252 (Brown’s 1st year)
            1997 … 15,272
            1998 … 17,443 (plus Diamondbacks)

          4. Voomo Zanzibar

            Scratch that last bit about strikeout totals soaring. I forget that 1995 was also a strike year. 144 game schedule

            (seriously, they canceled the world series, and didn’t freaking figure it out by opening day?)

          5. bstar

            @118

            “..can we, now, in 2015, simply say “so what?” to the Steroid Era..”

            In a general sense I think most fans can and always have said “so what”. But if you asked them to evaluate individual players’ careers (and not MLB players as a whole in that period), I am quite skeptical that a majority would choose to completely ignore steroid evidence against certain players, which is what is being proposed here.

            And we as a community have hardly turned a blind eye to previous players who were known steroid users. So why the call to ignore Brown’s use but not Rafael Palmeiro’s or Mark McGwire’s? I’m fine with anyone’s view on steroids but I think staying consistent within that view is important.

          6. Voomo Zanzibar

            I just want to know what the actual competitive imbalance was. What percentage of players were on steroids? We do not know.
            .
            But the suggestion seems to be that it was a plurality, during the years that Brown thrived.
            .
            The narrative also seems to be that it is the sluggers who started it.

            So if I’m a pitcher tossing against Big Mac and Slammin Sammy, and I’ve got Ken Caminiti as my cleanup hitter, how exactly are steroids giving me an edge? There is logic to suggest that steroids were the equalizer, and to NOT juice was the disadvantage.

            So, if we are dismissing the achievements of steroid users, do we also dismiss the (80? 90? percent of) players who were on amphetamines for several generations?

            Same thing, isn’t it?
            A drug that gives an edge that we really dont want guys to start popping every day when they’re 15 years old.

            We’ve all met tweakers.
            They suck.
            THAT was the go-to juice of nearly all of our childhood heroes.
            ________________

          7. CursedClevelander

            I wish we had Pitch F/x data on Brown’s 90’s seasons so we could figure out if his increased K rate had something to do with him changing his pitch mix. It should probably also be noted that his K rate in his “breakout” season (1996 with the Marlins) was 6.1, identical to his K rate in a much more pedestrian 1995 season with the Orioles.

          8. oneblankspace

            Voomo @123: They did figure it out by Opening Day, but the regulars wanted a spring training.

  61. Lawrence Azrin

    For the win:
    – Mickey Cochrane – for some decades after he retired in 1937, he was a serious candidate in the discussion of ‘greatest catcher ever’, probably till Johnny Bench was well-established by the mid/late 70s. No one to my knowledge ever made the claim for Al Simmons as ‘greatest left fielder ever’.

    Keep ’em on the COG ballot:
    – Minnie Minoso
    – Luis Tiant

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig

      Actually Aloysius has about as good a claim as any to the “best left fielder to play the game” title prior to WW2 as any…

      … but if he was it was only by a fairly narrow margin and, more importantly I think, his to claim only for a fairly brief period of time since Teddy Ballgame and Stan the Man came along just as his career was winding down (altho Musial probably would have been viewed more as a right fielder at that point in time).

      So I think you’re point about Cochrane still a valid one.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lawrence Azrin

        @134;

        Thanks. Ed Delahanty would’ve probably been regarded as “best left fielder to play the game” over Al Simmons before Ted Williams/ Stan Musial, also Fred Clarke would’ve had his supporters.

        Reply ↓
  63. Joseph

    Going to put in another pitch for Grain Nettles.

    Out of the top 7 WAR position player leaders for the 1970’s, everyone except Nettles is in the COG.

    Rk Player WAR/pos From To
    1 Joe Morgan 66.9 1970 1979
    2 Johnny Bench 58.8 1970 1979
    3 Rod Carew 56.2 1970 1979
    4 Graig Nettles 54.4 1970 1979
    5 Reggie Jackson 51.2 1970 1979
    6 Pete Rose 50.3 1970 1979
    7 Mike Schmidt 50.1 1972 1979
    8 Bobby Bonds 49.0 1970 1979
    9 Sal Bando 48.9 1970 1979
    10 Bobby Grich 46.8 1970 1979

    Yes–Notice that Nettles had more WAR than Mr. October.

    Also, every player with at least 350 HRs and WAR > 65 through the year Nettles retired (1988) is in the circle of greats:

    Rk Player HR WAR/pos
    1 Hank Aaron 755 142.6
    2 Babe Ruth 714 163.0
    3 Willie Mays 660 156.2
    4 Frank Robinson 586 107.2
    5 Reggie Jackson 563 73.8
    6 Mike Schmidt 542 106.9
    7 Mickey Mantle 536 109.7
    8 Jimmie Foxx 534 96.4
    9 Ted Williams 521 123.1
    10 Ernie Banks 512 67.5
    11 Eddie Mathews 512 96.4
    12 Mel Ott 511 107.8
    13 Lou Gehrig 493 112.4
    14 Stan Musial 475 128.1
    15 Carl Yastrz. 452 96.1
    16 Duke Snider 407 66.5
    17 Al Kaline 399 92.5
    18 Graig Nettles 390 68.0
    19 Johnny Bench 389 75.0
    20 Joe DiMaggio 361 78.2
    21 Johnny Mize 359 71.0

    Considering giving Nettles your vote.

    Reply ↓
      1. Doug Post author

        Welcome to HHS, Mark.

        Always good to support your favorites but, if you’d like your vote to be counted, you will need to name three different eligible players on your ballot.

        Reply ↓
  65. Mike L

    Btar’s comment at @129 about steroids I think makes the correct point. We all have different perspectives about users-ranging from disqualification to completely ignoring them. Consistency in applying those views matters.
    For me, Brown is out. I read carefully Joseph’s advocacy of Nettles, and the one thing that resonates with me on some of the Nettles discussion in general is how few the number of high quality third-basemen there were historically. Look at the JAWS list and Nettles is 12th (10th if you exclude Edgar and Paul Molitor) and none of the players above him played before 1952, and only one (Home Run Baker) are in the top 20. I don’t think you can find anything analogous at any other position. Not ready to vote for Nettles, but perhaps in a weak year.
    LA’s comment at @119 about Cochrane is spot-on. He was definitely on the short list when I was growing up.

    Good discussion, a reason why I usually wait to vote.

    Cochrane, Hubbell, and Waner.

    Reply ↓
  67. David Horwich

    Totals through 50 ballots (through #135):

    25 – Simmons
    ==========================50% (25)
    22 – Cochrane
    20 – Hubbell
    19 – Waner
    ==========================25% (13)
    8 – Brown*, Campanella*, Killebrew, Minoso*
    7 – Nettles*
    5 – Eckersley*, Tiant*, Winfield*
    ==========================10% (5)
    4 – Ferrell*, Reuschel
    2 – Manush*

    Reply ↓
  70. Dave Humbert

    Looked up the 3000+ hits club. Paul Waner was the 7th player in baseball history (1871-1942) to reach 3000 hits, and still ranks 17th overall. He did it in fewer games and PA than all above him except Nap LaJoie. The eagle-eye Tony Gwynn had 10 hits less, and was only slightly more efficient. That was some good booze. Paul Waner was not some compiler during a hit-happy era, he was among the all-time hitters with a blue collar work ethic. I think that is getting missed because of the team he played on and his unassuming narrative.

    Probably among the most underrated members of the 3000 hit club. Deserves more love for his accomplishments, though not as “known” as Simmons, Hubbell, and Cochrane. Has 72.8 WAR (4 more than Simmons, 5 more than Hubbell, almost 20 more than Cochrane). Just sayin’…

    Reply ↓
  72. Lawrence Azrin

    Continuing my pattern of one vote for the actual COG winner, then two votes to keep someone on the ballot:

    – Mickey Cochrane for the win (Al Simmons, Waner, King Carl, Campy and Killebrew also deserving COG candidates)

    then a couple pitchers who starred for the Red Sox:
    – Wes Ferrell
    – Luis Tiant

    I’m not totally convinced they belong, but I think we should continue to discuss them

    Reply ↓
      1. Lawrence Azrin

        @151, DH;

        OOPS!! Sorry, how careless of me. I got so used to voting the next-to-last day, I forgot that I voted Friday :(.

        Reply ↓
  73. bells

    Here’s my comparison of the candidates according to my methodology, which weighs and ranks candidates on the 4 following metrics: WAR, WAA+, JAWS and WAR*WAR/162G (/250IP for pitchers). A ‘4’ would indicate a candidate ranked first in all measures, and a ’56’ means a candidate ranks 14th on all measures.

    Waner 10
    Reuschel 13
    Brown 13
    Simmons 16
    Hubbell 20
    Ferrell 24
    Tiant 26
    Nettles 30
    Eckersley 35
    Winfield 40
    Killebrew 43
    Cochrane 47
    Minoso 47
    Campanella 56

    Interesting comparisons this round. Waner ranks 1st in WAR, but only 5th in WAR*WAR/162. Brown is first in WAA+ by a fair bit (2.5 over Waner). Ferrell is 1st in JAWS and WAR*WAR/250IP, but he’s 10th and 12th in WAR and WAA+ respectively (I don’t count his hitting WAA for the latter measure). Some of the better players on the ballot by my measure are continually receiving minimal, if that, support – Brown lost a round last time, Ferrell seems to be scraping by (and still might not this round)… I get the appeal of big name players from a bygone era, but I think the newcomers are comparable and an interesting discussion, not a slam-dunk upper tier the way the voting results reflect it. I’d vote for Waner for the win but he’s too far behind. Simmons is a fine choice, and he’d make it in my personal cut, but to make it interesting I’m going to support one of the greatest catchers of baseball’s first 60 years over the first-timer on the ballot.

    Cochrane, Ferrell, Reuschel

    Reply ↓
  78. David Horwich

    It’s a tight race at the top through 58 ballots (#158):

    27 – Simmons
    26 – Cochrane
    22 – Hubbell
    19 – Waner
    ==========================25% (15)
    10 – Campanella*
    9 – Winfield*
    8 – Brown*, Eckersley*, Killebrew, Minoso*, Nettles*
    7 – Ferrell*
    6 – Reuschel, Tiant*
    ==========================10% (6)
    2 – Manush*

    Reuschel and Tiant need another vote each to stay off the bubble/stay on the ballot, otherwise everyone else is safe.

    Reply ↓
    1. bells

      oh no! I voted not realizing LA’s vote was double counted, I just took it as an extra vote for Tiant that would have basically guaranteed safety. I would have voted for him otherwise. If there’s anyone out there yet to vote, if you would consider the worth of El Tiante and decide to send him a vote, it would make me happy…

      Reply ↓
  79. CursedClevelander

    No worries bells, I have an extra spot since Ferrell is safe, so I’ll throw a safety vote to Tiant. He’s right on my CoG borderline, so I think he merits further discussion. I’ll give him my “special consideration” vote.

    Also, since I think we need more catchers in the CoG (and since it’ll tie things up for the moment), I’ll give my “best position player” vote to Cochrane

    Kevin Browns remains my “best pitcher” vote, barely edging out Hubbell due to the era adjustment

    Brown, Cochrane, Tiant

    Reply ↓
    1. Hartvig

      And with that our race enters the final stretch.

      Assuming that David’s tally @ 159 is correct (usually a very safe bet) Cochrane now has a 1 vote lead over Simmons, 28 to 27.

      Hubbell & Waner are both safely well over the 25% mark needed for an additional round of eligibility but almost certainly too far back to make a serious run. None of the holdovers has a shot at 25% but since this was vote #60 Reuschel is in danger of losing his single round of extra eligibility which would leave the Killer as the only non-1903 or earlier holdover with any cushion.

      It’s a virtual certainty that another holdover will be selected in part 2 of the 1901 election (the highest WAR’s that I saw among newcomers were for Glenn Wright and Vic Sorrell) but 1900 promises to be a little more competitive with Hall of Famers Lefty Grove, Ted Lyons, Gabby Hartnett, Goose Goslin, Hack Wilson and Sunny Jim Bottomley.

      Perhaps not quite as strong (except for Grove, of course) as 1903 but I’d be very surprised if 3 of them don’t wind up on our list of holdovers.

      Reply ↓
      1. CursedClevelander

        I expect Grove will be the runaway winner in 1900, and Goslin, Lyons and Hartnett should probably draw enough support to stay on the ballot. Wilson to me is the interesting one; given Chuck Klein’s fate and the strength of the ballot, I’d predict he will fail to make the holdover list, but we shall see.

        Reply ↓
  84. Dave Humbert

    Simmons, Brown, Nettles

    Doug – appears bstar’s vote @37 is entered incorrectly on the spreadsheet (Cochrane got a vote instead of Hubbell)

    Reply ↓
    1. David Horwich

      I double-checked my tally before posting @159 (did a full recount), so I’m pretty confident that’s accurate.

      Now, through 64 ballots (#168) we have a 30-30 tie between Cochrane and Simmons…so it goes down to the wire!

      Reply ↓
      1. David Horwich

        Previous runoff elections:

        1941 – Ryan over Rose 33-31 (Rose elected 2 ballots later)

        1924 – Smoltz over Snider 33-32 (Snider elected next ballot)

        1905 – Alomar over Cronin 37-29 (Cronin elected next ballot)

        Reply ↓
      2. Scary Tuna

        They’ll both make it in, and I don’t have a strong preference for one over the other, so I left the opportunity for someone else to decide it. With a half hour to go, I figured there would surely be a few votes after mine. I’m fortunate to have gotten my choices submitted on time, as I’m working late this evening and nearly forgot to vote.

        So, with two worthy candidates, let’s have a runoff!

        Reply ↓

  86. Pingback: Circle of Greats 1973 Part 3 Runoff: Manny Ramirez vs. Mordecai Brown |

Leave a Reply to RJ Cancel reply

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