This post is for voting and discussion in the 88th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round adds to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes those players born in 1902. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of 1902-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 1902-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.
All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, March 22nd, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Friday, March 20th.
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 1902 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-1902 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 1902 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)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Charlie Gehringer (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Carl Hubbell (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Mickey Cochrane (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)
Paul Waner (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1902, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Al Simmons
Moe Berg
Earl Averill
Charlie Berry
Al Todd
Jake Flowers
Johnny Moore
Pitchers (born in 1902, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Red Lucas
Ray Benge
Watty Clark
Bill Hallahan
Ben Cantwell
Pat Malone
Off the top of my head (and therefore subject to change), I’m going with:
Charlie Gehringer
Al Simmons
Kevin Brown
Al Simmons is, of course, the greatest ballplayer from my hometown of Milwaukee, so I feel obligated to vote for him.
Campanella, Cochrane, Simmons
Charlie Gehringer, the only player so awesome they named Lou Gehrig after him.
Harmon Killebrew, the only player so awesome they named beer *and* killing after him.
Paul Waner, the only player so awesome they named an 80’s metal band after him. Except for every Damn Yankee ever. And also an honorable mention to John Rocker.
gehringer
Simmons
Killer
Gehringer, Brown, Waner
WAR from ages 27-36:
Earl Averill: 47.9
Al Simmons: 45.0
Both were basically done at the age of 36. The big difference between the two is that Simmons got an earlier start to his career. Averill was born in Washington and started his career in the PCL and his team was reluctant to sell his contract to a MLB team.
David P — I know you didn’t say that Averill deserves extra credit on his career evaluation due to that late start. But just to get out front of any implication, I don’t think it would be fair to give him an adjustment unless we do the same for many others in the same situation.
Averill started in MLB at 27, not because he was imprisoned in the minors for a long time, but largely by choice. As far as I can tell, his 3 years in the PCL were his only time in organized ball before the majors.
Three years is a perfectly normal apprenticeship, especially for the PCL in that era. Joe DiMaggio spent 3 full years in the PCL, hitting .340+ with power each year. But he started very young, so he was in the majors at 21. Many others spent 3 full years in the high minors.
Averill obviously was big-league ready on arrival — but so were DiMaggio, Paul Waner, Tony Lazzeri, and countless others who spent 3 full years in the high minors. Smead Jolley at 26 hit .404 with 45 HRs, 516 total bases in the PCL, but spent the whole next year there, topping 500 total bases once again, and finally reached the majors at 28, ready on arrival. Ernie Lombardi spent 3 full years at Oakland, hitting .366+ each year; he was also ready on arrival. Indian Bob Johnson spent 3 productive years in the PCL, ready on arrival at 27.
Without a systematic way of compensating all these guys, I resist the temptation to give any of them extra credit. I’m not arguing with what you said, just expressing a tangential opinion.
John – I was writing a reply to your comment but accidentally closed the window before I was done. The abridged version is that I don`t disagree with what you wrote.
Seems like Averill experienced some health problems as an adolescent and gave up baseball for several years. Later, after several years of semi-pro ball, he failed his first PCL tryout. A later semi-pro manager tweaked his swing which is when his career took off.
BTW, a few interesting facts about Averill:
1) He was the first AL player to hit a homerun in his first MLB at bat.
2) According to SABR and Retrosheet analysis, he’s one of 8 players with a month of 60+ hits (July, 1936).
3) He’s the only native of Washington with a season of more than 200 base hits (Sandberg and Olerud had seasons with exactly 200 hits).
BTW, his SABR bio has the following quite off quote/statement:
“”I was having a hell of a year in 1937 until my back went haywire in Philadelphia.” Averill, after batting .378 in 1936, was hitting .394 on June 26 when his back gave out. At the end of the season he had fallen to .299.”
The Indians did indeed play Philadelphia on June 26, 1937 but everything else in that quote/statement is incorrect. His batting average at the time was .306, not .394. And if he hurt his back that day it certainly didn’t affect his hitting. The month following that June 26th game, Averill put up a triple slash line of .412/.508.588.
According to the BR Play Index 11 players have had at 60+ hits in a month: Cobb, Speaker, Sisler, Traynor, Hornsby, Klein, Manush, Averill, Gee Walker, Bob Johnson and Billy Herman. Sisler did it 3 times and Hornsby and Speaker did it twice.
Gehringer (August 1937) and Al Simmons (1925) had 59 hits in a month, though technically 5 of Simmons’ 59 hits in September/October came in October.
The only players with 55+ hits in a month since 1950 are Ichiro (56, August 2004), Boggs (56, Sept/Oct 1985), Ripken (55, Sept/Oct 1983), Rose (55, August 1968), and Aaron (55, August 1958).
For whatever reason (weather, season schedule, make up games, etc.) it is a 2nd half phenomenon. There are 252 seasons since 1914 in which a player has gotten 50+ hits in a month:
April/March – one player (Dante Bichette, 1998)
May – 10 occurrences
June – 17 occurrences
July – 93 occurrences
August – 76 occurrences
Sept/Oct. – 55 occurences
Interesting. Minor correction due to B-R lumping Sept/Oct stats together: Sisler’s 1920 and Hornsby’s 1922 September totals include hits from games in October, which they needed to get over the 60 mark. So it has been done 13 times by 11 players with Sisler and Speaker pulling the trick twice.
The closest any player has come to 60 hits in a month since 1948 is Ichiro with 56 hits in August of 2004.
Artie: I think we had the same P-I search pulled up at the same time.
I think the second-half phenomenon is likely due to more doubleheaders after the break, both scheduled and from rainouts in the first half. That, and better hitting as the weather warms up.
Number of players with 35+ games in the following months:
March/April…0
May………..2
June……….3
July………97
August……119
Sept/Oct….236
bstar is right about the prevalence of make-up games in the second half. The Split Finder can be used to determine how well the ML batted in each half. For 38 seasons BA were higher in the first half, for 40 seasons BA were higher in the second half and for 23 seasons the BA were equal.
Doug/birtelcom,
I’m a believer in Richie Ashburn, so I guess take this with a grain of salt, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask for some kind of special dispensation on his behalf. It seems like there was some authentic confusion over time zones/time changes last round and the last two voters had Ashburn on their ballots. It doesn’t seem exactly in the spirit of fairness that he should fall off the ballot for a snafu of this kind.
Anyway, just had to ask.
Technically, I’m pretty sure that any such special dispensation would have to also return a round of eligibility to Luis Tiant and restore Dwight Evans to the ballot, as well. I’m basically agnostic on this point – I just want to note that, if we WERE to give such treatment to Ashburn, it would only truly be “fair” if we also treated the others who received late votes with that same courtesy.
The way I see it, the voting was open for more than a week, and the deadline was clearly stated in the instructions. Everyone had plenty of time to vote, and if anyone was unsure of the actual deadline they had ample opportunity to ask for clarification.
I mean, this site may have its own clock off by an hour, but we’re all capable of checking the actual time, right? And waiting until the last minute to vote is a choice a voter makes. If people don’t want to take a chance of missing the deadline – vote earlier.
This is of course just my opinion.
Yeah, I put my vote in under the deadline but something happened such that it didn’t take — when I discovered that, it was too late, but I threw it out there anyway just in case.
I agree 100% with David Horwich.
Beyond that, Ashburn stands a very good chance of being returned to the ballot via the next redemption round (which should be coming up in about 3-4 rounds). If he were on the current ballot, his chances of being elected prior to the next redemption round are 0. So not sure it really matters whether or not he’s currently on the ballot.
What you say makes sense, of course. For my part, though, as time has gone on in this process I have found myself increasingly invested in vote totals. I’m not sure if this will resonate with anyone else, but as we get closer to the conclusion of this process, I find that what I’m most interested in is ascertaining a sense of, say, the top 20 or so players who *don’t* make it in to the CoG. (Which means that Dr. Doom’s recaps, to me, have gone from being simply a curiousity to being totally fundamental to my enjoyment of what we’re doing here.)
Someone, I’m sure, will be able to propose some metric which makes sense of 1)the amount of votes garnered 2)the amount of time spent on the ballot 3)percentage of possible support gathered (and other quantities I’m sure) in order to establish some rough pecking order among the lower order inductees and those left out of the COG.
All this to say is that even though, practically, there’s no chance Ashburn makes it in before the next redemption round, I like seeing those vote totals inching up so that we get a sense of a pecking order even beyond CoG borders.
Yeah, it’s crazy that three votes were late! I don’t think that’s ever happened more than once in a round. For me, I was just out for the evening, came back, was hanging out and thought ‘shoot I forgot to vote; oh well I still have a couple of hours’ because for some reason I thought the deadline had been changed last year to be Pacific time (did I dream that up? Did it actually happen for a few rounds?) I went to the thread, saw my mistake, and wanted to note my preferences in a comment anyway. Even though I’d love it if the guys who fell off were still up for consideration, I could’ve paid more attention and rules are rules. No problems.
What Michael Sullivan says, about submitting his vote and having it not take and then not noticing until later – is a real problem with the current issues of the site. If someone says ‘hey I’ve been trying to vote under the deadline but it wasn’t working for me’ I think I’d lobby to make an exception. In this case, I guess it wasn’t mentioned at the time and we’ve moved onto the next round and so it’s too late. But I’d like to think this exercise is ‘not serious’ enough that we can be understanding if there’s a real tech issue, moving forward.
When birtelcom was gone and Doug took over, he changed the deadline to Midnight Pacific for the interim (and also split the two-ballots-this-year ballots differently).
I also seem remember some birtelcom rounds ending on Pacific time.
Agree there was some confusion, but extending the vote one hour would have not just saved Ashburn. @189 and @190 would have saved Ashburn and Evans, and prevented Campanella and Tiant from losing a round. @193 with additional support for Ashburn and Campanella was around 1:30 AM (12:30 according to the site), and seemingly too late by either criteria. @193 would also have knocked Reuschel down a round, which doesn’t seem very fair to his supporters either.
In a round such as this, it might be said that waiting for the very last hour to cast one’s vote was a bit risky and could (did) backfire – if those votes were cast earlier, the additional late votes for Winfield and Ferrell would not have caused such damage (voters expressed eagerness to save Winfield/Ferrell, but less so for Ashburn/Evans). In this case, a lesson learned.
I’m not particularly for or against Ashburn – I did support Tiant as I have before. Not sure salvaging Ashburn alone is fair to the process – if he gets saved, so should Evans and a round for Tiant/Campanella (@189 and @190), but that requires altering this ballot a bit retroactively. I would feel OK with either that change or none at all – whatever Doug/birtelcom believes is best.
My comment is pretty much in line with Dr. Doom’s but took me longer to type. I second David Horwich/David P.’s observations above as well.
I basically agree with all Davis & David’s… which is fitting, since I, TOO, am a David. Although, with as many as we have on this site, I’m glad I use a pseudonym. 🙂
I am not sure that being on the ballot when there is little chance to even win extra rounds of eligibility is actually very helpful until more of the backlog is cleared.
On the other hand, I personally wouldn’t argue with a timestamp. If you weren’t there at the time and went back and looked at it, the record looks clear tht those votes were on time, even if that record is actually wrong.
Sorry guys and girls, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was pulling for a dispensation for Ashburn at the expense of others who would have benefited. It’s that Ashburn is the only player who fell off who I firmly believe belongs, and so it was his situation that presented itself to my attention. Obviously, whatever we do (if anything) for him, we should do for other players who would have benefited from those last, uncounted votes.
I’m just filling in here, so I will stick with the rules as posted.
As others have noted, players dropped from the ballot are eligible to be restored in a future Redemption round.
As always, I’m against any special exceptions to the rules. I’ve missed the cutoff with my own voting more than once before, which is unfortunate, but, as David says, the solution is for me not to wait until the last minute to vote.
These are my thoughts exactly. You get burned if you play with fire. I missed a vote one time because it simply slipped my mind. It happens.
I did it too once. Lead to a runoff between Alomar and Cronin when I would have kept Alomar from winning. He still may not be in if I hadn’t messed that up.
Charlie Gehringer, Rick Reuschel, Paul Waner
Moe Berg had a fascinating life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_Berg
Charlie Gehringer
Al Simmons
Paul Waner
Gehringer, Hubbell, Simmons
Charlie Gehringer
Al Simmons
Mickey Cochrane
Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Minnie Minoso
Gehringer, Simmons, Cochrane.
Most Wins, first 3 seasons, since 1920:
60 … PAT MALONE
58 … Dave Ferriss
58 … Dwight Gooden
57 … Tom Seaver
56 … Don Newcombe
First 4 Seasons:
76 … PAT MALONE
75 … Tom Seaver
74 … Ray Kremer
74 … George Earnshaw
73 … Larry Jansen
73 … Dwight Gooden
Highest WAR in a season with a winning percentage less than .150, minimum 15 losses:
1.2 … BEN CANTWELL (4-25)
1.2 … Don Larsen (3-21)
1.0 … Matt Keough (2-17)
0.6 … Jack Nabors (1-20 … 1-25 for his career)
0.6 … Kent Peterson (2-15)
0.5 … Art Houtteman (2-16)
0.5 … Ken Reynolds (2-15)
BILL HALLAHAN once led the league in Wins and Strikeouts… and walks, and wild pitches……….. And yes, his nickname was Wild Bill.
He was also a World Series hero.
Two complete games in the 1931 WS – a shutout and a one-run.
Also the one out Save in Game 7.
RED LUCAS had 14.1 WAR as a batter.
He does not appear in a search for best hitting pitchers, however.
Not with the 50 percent at-position standard.
This is due to a lot of pinch hitting appearances (and a few games as a middle infielder). Lowering the standard to 42 percent, here are the leaders:
15.0 … Ruffing
14.1 … LUCAS
13.3 … Mullin
13.3 … Big Train
12.8 … Ferrell
Hubbell, Cochrane, Simmons
Al Simmons numbers were beastly.
Check out the difference in OPS and the similarity in OPS+ between Simmons and Wade Boggs. Speaks to the offensive era that Aloysius thrived in:
.334 / .380 / .535 / .915 / 133
.328 / .415 / .443 / .858 / 131
To go even MORE extreme, compare Simmons to Joe Morgan:
.271 / .392 / .427 / .819 / 132
100 points of OPS… 1 point of OPS+!!!
This year’s tidbits. Answers in red
1. Al Simmons held the AL record for most hits in the first two and first three seasons of a career, until eclipsed by Ichiro Suzuki more than 75 years later. Simmons’ 253 hits at age 23 are still the most for any player age 26 or younger. Simmons is the only player with 100 RBI in each of his first eleven seasons. Who is the only other player to do that in his first ten seasons? Albert Pujols
2. Red Lucas is one of only five live ball era pitchers with complete games in two-thirds of 200+ career starts. Which of those pitchers compiled 3000+ IP? Ted Lyons
3. Moe Berg was for many years the only live ball era catcher with a 1500+ PA career and a WAR per 1000 PA ratio below -2. Which catcher recently joined him? Chad Moeller
4. Earl Averill’s 48 career WAR is the third highest total among AL players who debuted aged 27 or older. Which such NL player has the highest career WAR total? Jackie Robinson
5. Bill Hallahan’s 1.21 career ERA as a World Series starting pitcher was then the best in the live ball era in 35+ IP. Which active and retired pitchers have the best ERA as World Series starters in 30+ IP? Madison Bumgarner, Babe Ruth
6. Ray Benge’s 199 IP in 1929 were then the most since 1901 with an ERA over 6.00 (Benge would have to wear that for only one year as Guy Bush went 225 IP with a 6.20 ERA for the Cubs in 1930). Who is the only such NL pitcher since Bush to exceed Benge’s IP total? Pedro Astacio
7. Watty Clark’s 109 ERA+ in 1932 is the lowest by a Dodger in a 20 win season with SO/BB ratio over 2. Who is the only pitcher since 1901 with a sub-100 ERA+ in a 20 win season with SO/BB ratio above 4? Bill Monbouquette (1963)
8. Al Todd’s 10 triples in 1937 are the most by a Pirate catcher (Todd also had an IPHR that season). Which Pirate catcher has the most 100 game seasons since 1920 with more triples than home runs? Manny Sanguillen
9. Ben Cantwell’s 1935 season is unique in major league history as the only qualified season with starts in 60% of appearances and more losses (25) than starts (24). But, Cantwell’s .138 W-L% that season is not even a franchise record low. Which Braves’ pitcher owns the all-time record for lowest W-L% in a season of 25+ decisions? Kaiser Wilhelm
10. Charlie Berry is tied with four other Red Sox catchers between 1914 and 1950 for the most seasons (4) catching 60+ games (every other team in that period had at least one catcher with 6 such seasons). Which one of those Boston catchers had to share playing time with his manager? Pinch Thomas
11. Johnny Moore compiled 5 seasons with 135+ hits, but totaled only 926 hits for his career. Who is the only such retired player since Moore with fewer career hits? Whitey Kurowski
12. Pat Malone is the last Cubs pitcher with consecutive 20 win seasons (1928-29) with twice as many wins as losses. When was the last time the Cubs had consecutive seasons with a different pitcher having such a season? 1963-64 (Dick Ellsworth, Larry Jackson)
13. Jake Flowers played on two world championship teams, but his Cardinals were only 2-6 in the WS games he played, tied for the lowest personal winning percentage (.250) among non-pitchers in 8+ career WS games for a WS winning team. Who shares that distinction with Flowers? Ted Kubiak
1. Albert Pujols. Also had 99+ in his first 12 seasons.
12. I’m pretty sure it’s Dick Ellsworth and Larry Jackson in 1963 & 1964.
10. This would be, I believe, the AMAZINGLY named Kaiser Wilhelm and his 3-23 record (.115) in 1905.
After that debacle (4.53 ERA, 68 ERA+), Wilhelm spent the next two years in the Southern Association before returning the bigs in 1908 at age 34. Now with Brooklyn, Wilhelm logged 332 IP with a 1.87 ERA (124 ERA+), but still could do no better than a 16-22 record (tied with Harry Howell of the 1905 Browns for most losses in a 120 ERA+ season with ERA under 2.00).
Wilhelm was chosen to manage the Phillies after Bill Donovan left halfway through the 1921 season to appear in the Black Sox legal proceedings. That year, the 47 year-old Wilhelm made his first big league appearance in 6 years after playing in the FL for its two seasons of existence (it was really 7 years as Wilhelm pitched just one inning in 1915). When Donovan was later let go, Wilhelm got the full-time manager job the next season before he too was sent packing.
It looks like the first two of those four appearances were while Donovan was still Manager.
And Donovan wasn’t fired exactly. He went on leave to be a witness in the Black Sox scandal. Then formally let go later.
Thanks Voomo. I’ll update the narrative.
The Phils 25-62 record under Donovan would have gotten most managers fired. They were especially bad in this stretch of 14 straight sub-.500 seasons (1918-31), 9 of which were under .400.
Additional tidbit:
Charlie Berry is the only person to officiate in a WS and an NFL title game in the same year, and possibly ever. In 1958 he umped in the WS and was head linesman in the Colts-Giants title game.
11. Whitey Kurowski with 925 hits.
Sharp as ever, Dr. Doom and RC. All answers are correct.
13. I came up with Ted Kubiak.
Right again.
Kubiak and Reggie Jackson were rookies with the 1967 As. Kubiak was traded to the Brewers where he had his lone season as a regular, then found his way back to the As for their WS championships (1972-74), though he appeared only in the ’72 and ’73 post-seasons.
5. If I’m reading your question correctly, Doug, the active and retired pitchers with the best ERA as World Series starters in 30+ IP are Madison Bumgarner and Babe Ruth.
Taking Bumgarner’s five inning Game 7 save against the Royals out of the equation leaves him with a 0.29 ERA in 31 IP as a WS starter. Ruth only appeared as a starter in the World Series, throwing an identical 31 innings and giving up three earned runs (to Bumgarner’s one) for an ERA of 0.87.
Harry Brecheen fell just short of the threshold, with 29 of his 32-2/3 WS innings coming as a starter, in which he allowed two earned runs for a 0.62 ERA.
You’ve got it, Scary.
6. Pedro Astacio with 209-1/3 IP an a 6.23 ERA for the 1998 Rockies.
That Rockies team had three pitchers (Astacio plus Jamey Wright and Darryl Kile) with 200 IP and ERA over 5.00, the most for any team since 1901. Only 8 other teams had two such pitchers, incl. another Rockies team (2004) and three clubs each from the 1936-38 and 1996-97 seasons, with the 1925 Robins rounding out the mix.
Speaking of Jamey Wright, he has signed on for his 20th season and second tour of duty with the Rangers. If he turns in negative WAR season this year (as he did last season), he would become (at least for the time being) only the fourth pitcher with 2000 IP and less than 10 career WAR (the others are Bill Dietrich, Ross Grimsley and Jaime Navarro).
10. Charlie Berry question (Dr. Doom’s answer @ 37 seems to be for #9 – Ben Cantwell):
If at least 60 of Pinch Thomas’ 66 games for the 1914 Red Sox came as a catcher, then he had four seasons catching at least 60 games for the Bosox, splitting time behind the plate through 1916 with Manager Bill Carrigan.
Right on both counts (50 and 51).
Pinch Thomas caught 64, 82, 90 and 77 games for the BoSox for 1914-17.
4. Earl Averill question: Jackie Robinson?
Robinson is the one. Particularly impressive for only a 10 season career.
3. Apparently Jeff Mathis can play some defense, so it’s not him. I feel no shame in having to search and find … Chad Moeller, who had -3.6 WAR in 1539 PAs.
I don’t know Chad Moeller, and no disrespect meant, but I’m going to take the under on number of languages known when comparing him to Berg.
Berg’s triple slash line is .243/.278/.299. There were 18 catchers with 1500 PAs who played before Berg who had worse numbers in all 3 categories (and all of them finished playing before Berg started, except Gabby Street, who had one PA at age 48 in 1931). Only two catchers (contemporaries of each other, but not Berg) since Berg with 1500 PAs have managed worse numbers in all three triple slash categories.
You wouldn’t know it from this game.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHI/PHI196905310.shtml
One homered and later walked and scored, and the other went 3 for 5 with a double.
Small sample size 🙂
The joke going around the AL was that Berg could speak a dozen languages but couldn’t hit in any of them.
2. Ted Lyons. He finished with a flourish completing his last 28 starts,
@108,
Lyons was a “Sunday pitcher” in 1942, making all 20 of his starts on that day. Advantages:
– it helped stabilize the rotation, with the large number of doubleheaders on Sundays
– it gave him extra rest, which at age 38/39 he certainly could use
It wasn’t just in that season. For his career, Lyons had almost half his starts (241 of 484) on 5+ days of rest.
8. Manny Sanguillen comes to mind as the most likely answer to the Al Todd question. 2nd choice would be Jason Kendall.
Sanguillen is right, with 4 seasons for the Pirates catching 100 games with more triples than homers. No other Pirate catcher since 1920 has more than one such season.
Those four seasons are the most in the expansion era playing for any team. Only Kirt Manwaring has come close to matching Sanguillen, with 3 such seasons and a fourth catching 85 games.
Speaking of Sanguillen, I can’t figure out his final two years with the Pirates.
He got a grand total of 133 PAs combined in those two seasons with 80 of them as a pinch hitter. He played a little first and very little catcher. It doesn’t appear he was hurt either year, they just had him sitting on the bench doing nothing other than the very occasional pinch hitting.
Which begs the question…why would you have a 35-36 year old Manny Sanguillen on your roster as a pinch hitter? It’s not like he was a good hitter earlier in his career.
Even odder, the first of those two seasons, the Pirates had Mike Easler in the exact same role.
Easler also appears to have spent the entire season with the Pirates, racking up a grand total of 62 PAs with 50 of them being as a pinch hitter.
Even in the days before teams needed 7+ arms in the bullpen, what team had the luxury to carry two pinch hitters on their roster? Course, the Pirates won the World Series that year, so what do I know???
A lot of teams had a primary pinch hitter from each side of the plate in those days.
And consider the offensive currency of the times, which was mainly batting average. Manny was a good, if not very good, hitter for average. Thru age 35, Sanguillen was a lifetime .298 hitter. He had three seasons finishing in the top 10 in BA in the NL, four over .300, and his worst year’s BA with the Pirates was .275.
Especially with men on, singles hitters who rarely strike out are good choices for pinch hitting because the value of a single is much higher with RISP than with no one on, and a strikeout is more costly.
Probably not the guy you want leading off an inning because of the almost complete lack of walks, but you could do worse than an old Sanguillen as your primary RH pinch hitter with the game on the line.
And Manny did win Game 2 of the ’79 World Series with a tie-breaking PH single off Don Stanhouse of the O’s in the ninth.
Bstar – Fair point re: Sanguillen’s batting average though it was in decline at that point. And he wasn’t used exclusively as a pinch htter against lefties (49 of his 133 PAs came against righties), which was actually a good thing since he showed an extreme reverse platoon split those two seasons.
As for teams carrying righty and lefty pinch hitters, that may be true but they weren’t exclusive pinch hitters the way Sanguillen and Easler were. In 1979 and 1980, there were 23 instances of a player having between 50-100 PAs with PAs being less than 1.5x Games Played. Sanguillen and Easler account for 3 of those 23 instances.
In the searchable era, form 1940 on, there have been 21 players with at least 20 PA in a season, all as a PH. Smoky Burgess leads the way with 76 PA in 1967.
The answer to the last remaining quiz question (7. Watty Clark) is the recently-deceased Bill Monbouquette.
Right you are, Scary.
Monbouquette went 20-10 in 1963 while leading the AL with a 4.14 SO/BB ratio. In 37 appearances (36 starts), he allowed two walks or less 35 times, and allowed only 3 walks in the other two games. The SO/BB ratio was “inflated” (if that’s the right term) by three games with 10+ Ks, whereas he fanned 5 or less is 26 of his 36 starts. It all worked out to a 99 ERA+, with his W-L helped by a lucky 3-3 record when allowing 5 runs or more, and a 15-3 mark when allowing 3 runs or less.
Nettles, Waner, Tiant. All votes for just keeping players on the ballot for the next one or two.
Cochrane, Winfield, Waner
Hubbell. Campanella, Averill
So I can just vote for Moe Berg three times, right?
No? Fine, then can I vote for him four times?
Gehringer for the win, Tiant and Nettles to stay on the ballot, plus a non-vote shout out to Earl Averill who as I’ve noted above had a prime that was just as good as Al Simmons, but has zero chance of being elected due to his late career start.
Haven’t seen this mentioned but yesterday Al Rosen – the 1953 MVP winner – passed away at age 91.
Rosen, incredibly, is the last Indian to win the MVP. Since then only two Indians have finished as high as second. Larry Doby, in 1954, 20 points behind Yogi Berra and Albert Belle in 1995, 8 points behind Mo Vaughn.
RIP Mr. Rosen.
Rosen was one of the great “what if” stories. Three years lost to WW2 then 4 more stuck tearing it up in the minors behind Ken Keltner and finally back problems and other assorted injuries sapping his effectiveness and ending his career far to early.
If things had worked out a little differently he could easily have been the player that Eddie Mathews would have had to try to supplant as the games all-time greatest third baseman.
Not to mention the oft-discussed fear of flying. That certainly made a big leaguer’s life a lot harder in the 1950s than it would’ve been 20 years earlier.
Doom – Are you sure about Rosen’s fear of flying? There’s nothing in his SABR bio and google didn’t turn up anything either. Perhaps you’re thinking of Jackie Jensen?
Must have been. I don’t know where I got around to thinking that was Rosen, though. I didn’t associate that with Jackie Jensen at all, so I must’ve just gotten confused somewhere along the way!
Dutch soccer player Dennis Bergkamp had a fear of flying that prevented him from travelling to away games in continental Europe. He was known as the Non-Flying Dutchman.
By US standards Europe is pretty small plus they have a fairly extensive rail system. Couldn’t he simply drive or take the train? Many if not most of the trips would be less than 6 hours and even the longest I could think of (Amsterdam to Rome or Madrid) would be about 24 hours by rail which baseball players used to do 2 or 3 times a week for as much as 3 or 4 weeks at a stretch.
As a former rugby player I know soccer players are a pretty soft bunch but this seems extreme even for them.
Hartvig: This was when he was playing for Arsenal in London. So he would sometimes play in away games in western Europe: France, the Netherlands… also Barcelona and Florence once.
But the schedule of top football teams just doesn’t allow for one of your star players to be driving from London to Kiev (or Moscow or Athens or Stockholm or Trondheim) and back mid-week.
I didn’t know you used to play rugby. That must be a fairly niche sport in North Dakota, no? (I’m letting the dig at me and my soccer playing brethren slide 🙂 )
Founding member of the North Dakota State “Lost Boys” rugby club back in the late 70’s- the University of North Dakota formed their club a couple of years before us and we were both members of the Minnesota Rugby Union which was well established. We were pretty awful our first couple of years but by my last year we had picked up a handful of guys with experience elsewhere (including a couple from overseas) plus a couple of guys from the track team so we were much more competitive.
And sorry about the dig but I just can’t resist one more:
https://youtu.be/RvUIbqKyppY
Football broadcaster John Madden never flew… once he saw a pilot buying flight insurance.
Al Rosen’s 10.1 WAR in 1953 is the all-time record for a third baseman.
His 145 RBI, 1.034 OPS and 180 OPS+ that year were 3B records until 2007 (A-Rod), 1980 (Brett) and 1966 (Dick Allen).
Minnie Minoso, another recent loss, was a teammate, in the 1949 PCL and briefly with the Indians.
(P.S. Those 1949 San Diego Padres had Rosen, Minoso, league BA and OPS champ Luke Easter … and ex-big leaguer Max West, who smacked 48 HRs, drew 201 walks, and both scored & drove in 166 runs in 189 games — but never got another look in the majors.)
Rosen also missed out on a triple crown in that 1953 season by the narrowest of margins. In the Indians’ last AB of the season, Rosen needed a hit to clinch the batting title, and apparently got it by beating out a slow roller down the third base line. But, the hit was not to be as Rosen was called out for missing the bag.
Meanwhile, in Washington, Mickey Vernon was left in the on-deck circle as the game ended on a Pete Runnels groundout, clinching the batting title for Vernon. Had Vernon made the final out instead of Runnels, Rosen would have been batting champ (even with his groundout in his last AB). Vernon’s teammates may have aided him in not having to bat again, as two of Washington’s last four outs came on the bases: Mickey Grasso getting picked off second base (with two outs and the pitcher batting); and Kite Thomas trying to stretch a single to left into a double.
JA, I love looking at those old school PCL stats. They always make Selig-era baseball look like the deadball era.
Gehringer, Cochrane and Killebrew.
I like Gehringer more than Simmons. That’s how I’m going to justify not voting for a clearly qualified Simmons.
Ferrell always seens to need my vote. I think he’s a much stronger candidate than he’s getting credit for. I think he’s every bit as strong as Hubbell or Cochrane.
The bubble to me has more talent on it than at any point I can remember. I look at the total list here and see guys like Eck, Winfield, and Waner as either my last few in or last few out.
Gehringer, Ferrell, Campanella
Killebrew, Simmons, Gerhringer
Cochrane – Gehringer – Simmons
Gehringer, Simmons, Waner
Reuschel, Hubbell, Simmons
I plugged Al Simmons’ most tasty stats through age 32 into the play index:
.350+ BA (.354)
2000+ Hits(2188)
1300+ RBI (1380)
He is alone.
Nobody else did that through age 32.
Only Hornsby and Cobb approach those arbitrary cutoffs.
Here are the other guys in the ballpark:
.354 / 2188 / 1380 … Simmons
.372 / 2713 / 1206 … Tyrus
.361 / 2476 / 1270 … Rajah
.349 / 1731 / 1262 … Ruth
.347 / 1763 / 1261 … Ted Williams
.343 / 2142 / 1570 … Gehrig
.334 / 2370 / 1744 … Foxx
use his OBP instead of his BA
mosc: Have you seen my reply to your comment #140 in the COG 1903 Balloting?
Yes! Thanks for the reminder.
Koufax vs Blyleven and the nature of picking an NYEAR threshold:
Note, this discussion assumes WAR is perfect as a seasonal measure. I don’t think it is, but the NYEAR averaging is another way of looking at WAR so WAR’s errors are only magnified.
Blyleven was a great pitcher. He’s 11th all time in pitching WAR. Koufax has some of the best seasons in baseball history but according to WAR they’re not in the top 10 since 1901. In fact, Koufax’s two years exceeding Blyleven’s 1973 9.9 pitching WAR (since 1901) is a feat matched by 13 other guys in addition to Koufax. Not to say Koufax is a slouch just that you don’t want to wait peak so highly that a very good peak pitcher like Blyleven doesn’t get his due.
If you use NYEAR7, which is similar to what a lot of guys do when they look at “7 year peak”, Blyleven has more WAR than Koufax but it’s less peak heavy and Koufax’s NYEAR7 is higher. It isn’t until NYEAR12 where Blyleven sneaks ahead of Koufax. That’s coincidentally Koufax’s entire career good for 82nd all time in pitching WAR. Blyleven’s best consecutive 11 seasons net him 65.3 WAR which on it’s own would be 42nd place, higher than Bob Feller. With Blyleven, you not only have 1970 + 11 more years to exceed Koufax’s career value, you can pick ’71 -’76 as well. Over any 12 year period from ’70-’88 he was better than Koufax’s career in summary WAR.
Koufax using NYEAR25 still blows past guys with much longer careers like Sutton and Reuschel. I think that’s correct. He put up a staggering peak. Excellence is a relative thing and being a little excellent for a long time is not as spectacular as being extremely excellent for a short time.
So putting that together, I think NYEAR makes the most sense with a fairly long window. 25 is about the longest time between any productive seasons a player has had and gives quite a bit of longevity credit. It gives enough years where even Blyleven stopped pitching and lets him run up a bit of a lead over Koufax. Still, Blyleven didn’t attain 10.7 WAR in a season or 36.5 WAR over 4 seasons. he loses those years pretty soundly and that averages through for quite a while.
Blyleven’s also one of the reasons I like Dr. Doom’s method of sorting a player’s best seasons for evaluation. His 1974 and 1984 seasons were both great and distanced by quite some time. Using that method for 50% and the consecutive method for 50% already gives Blyleven a big push.
I actually think you could take NYEAR to infinity. It should be a finite sum though we’d have to look at it as something other than a yearly average in result (more like a composite score). 25 is “good enough” to give a similar separation but it probably wouldn’t hurt to push that much further. Might make it feel less arbitrary?
Would you tell me what Koufax’s and Blyleven’s NYEAR25 values are so I can determine if my methodology is correct. My value for Killebrew matches yours but for some other players it does not match exactly.
Sequentially, I came up with 5.89 for Blyleven and 5.00 for Koufax. I also re-order the years as Dr. Doom suggested and then use that on equal weights with the sequential score. I get a total of 6.11 for Blyleven and 5.06 for Koufax. Blyleven’s score is very high, where I think it should be.
@116:
Thanks mosc. My values were 5.00 for Koufax (same as yours) and 5.61 for Blyleven (yours was 5.89). I don’t know where or how I went astray.
Blyleven’s got a mess of half-seasons to deal with, possible I didn’t add it up correctly. Also possible we’re handling negative WAR seasons differently. I tend to think with WAR as an accumulating stat that if the team needed you as a below replacement level player that’s on them. They should have benched/released you. Ideally I would substitute 0 for any seasons with WAR < 0.
Gehringer
Waner
Brown
Gehringer
Brown
Waner
For the 1902 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
-Gehringer
-Nettles
-Hubbell
Totals through 24 ballots (through #74):
16 – Gehringer
12 – Simmons*
===========50% (12)
9 – Waner*
7 – Cochrane*
===========25% (6)
5 – Killebrew
4 – Hubbell
3 – Brown, Campanella*
===========10% (3)
2 – Eckersley*, Nettles*, Reuschel, Tiant*, Winfield*
1 – Averill*, Ferrell*, Minoso*
Everyone with 2 votes is tied for 9th place, but it’s too early for that to be significant.
Yes, it’s too early for top-9 to be significant… sort of. Including the four votes below your update, we’re now at the point where all the top 9 HAVE reached 10%. That’s pretty significant. Because in spite of a ballot equally loaded with COG candidates as the last one (Simmons is not as worthy as Gehrig, but we’ve basically replaced one COG guy with another), this round WILL, in all likelihood, require anyone who wants to retain their position to actually reach 10%. That’s always a little more challenging.
Gehringer, Eck, and Hubbell
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
Gehringer 48.1
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
Averill 24.5
Campanella 19.2
Gehringer, Brown, Waner
Aloysius Szymanski
Saturnino Orestes Arrieta Minoso Armas
and
Gordon Stanley Cochrane
This is based primarily on baseball achievement. If it were overall life achievement, Morris Berg would have replaced Cochrane.
My vote posted as a reply to №80, so I am repeating it here:
Aloysius Szymanski
Saturnino Orestes Arrieta Minoso Armas
and
Gordon Stanley Cochrane
This is based primarily on baseball achievement. If it were overall life achievement, Morris Berg would have replaced Cochrane.
What I really meant to add here:
Berg had no positive WAA seasons
Campanella, Cochrane, Hubbell.
Gehringer, Ferrell, Nettles
Aloysius Simmons
Graig Nettles
Carl Hubbell
Shout-out, but no vote, to Moe Berg.
Cochrane, Winfield, Eckersley
Gehringer, Simmons, Minoso
Tuesday morning update, through Gary Bateman @106, the 31st vote:
20 – Charlie Gehringer
14 – Al Simmons*
10 – Paul Waner*
9 – Mickey Cochrane*
========================25% (8)
7 – Carl Hubbell
5 – Harmon Killebrew
4 – Kevin Brown, Roy Campanella*, Dennis Eckersley*, Graig Nettles*
========================10% (4)
3 – Dave Winfield*
2 – Wes Ferrell*, Minnie Minoso*, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant*
1 – Earl Averill*
Al Simmons, Harmon Killebrew, Charlie Gehringer and finally may Mr. May leave the ballot
Gehringer, Nettles, Tiant
Gehringer, Hubbell, Winfield
Reuschel Gehringer, Simmons
Campanella, Cochrane, Hubbell.
Hubbell
Gehringer
Campanella
Hubbell, Gehringer, Waner
Killebrew, Gehringer, Winfield
My post keeps kicking back…
Killebrew, Gehringer, Winfield
Reuschel, Hubbell, Waner
40-vote update (donburgh @126):
27 – Charlie Gehringer
16 – Al Simmons*
12 – Carl Hubbell, Paul Waner*
10 – Mickey Cochrane*
==========================25% (10)
7 – Harmon Killebrew
6 – Roy Campanella*
5 – Graig Nettles*, Dave Winfield*
4 – Kevin Brown, Dennis Eckersley*, Rick Reuschel
==========================10% (4)
3 – Luis Tiant*
2 – Wes Ferrell*, Minnie Minoso*
1 – Earl Averill*
I have a couple votes hiding at #80 — ASimmons, Minoso, Cochrane.
I was going to reply to that comment but forgot I hadn’t submitted my vote yet.
And once you click on reply, wordpress goes crazy.
Got it.
Thanks for spotting the oversight.
Thanks for posting down-thread! It’s is GREATLY appreciated, especially with as wonky as the updates to the feed on the main page have been!
I’ll protect the bubble.
Eck and Ferrell are difficult to compare to other pitchers.
Ferrell way a two-way player.
Eck had two careers, and his success as a reliever changed strategy across the sport (for better and worse).
And Waner, well, I like doubles.
I like triples.
I like .404 on base percentages.
And I just love almost 3X BB/SO.
__________
Vote:
Dennis Eckersley
Wes Ferrell
Paul Waner
Agree Eck and Ferrell are hard to compare to the other pitchers…just as Minoso/Campanella are tough vs. the other position players. I think Eck was a literal game-changer, and Campanella definitely lost a lot to the color line.
Ferrell and Minoso are more of a mystery to me, support-wise. Do voters feel they are “owed” a COG spot for not being selected to the HOF? Or is it that if they do drop off the ballot, they won’t beat out the other
redemption candidates to come back? Maybe with a steady survival level of support they can last until a (very) lean year arrives – then what?
Ferrell was a great 2 way player – but so was Ruffing, and we let him go. Ruffing had a worse ERA, but was an even better hitter than Ferrell and beats him for WAR soundly. Was Ferrell as deserving for the HOF as Ruffing….maybe, because of his peak. But how does that make him a true great if Ruffing is so lukewarm? I think the veteran’s committee missed on Ferrell (they picked his nice guy brother instead), but not certain the BBWAA should be blamed for passing him up. Must be a peak thing.
Minoso lost playing time to segregation – but how much is up for debate. He was a fine player who should have been put in the HOF during his lifetime, but the stupid veteran’s committee did not properly consider his contributions to the game. His WAR numbers don’t make him a no-doubter that the BBWAA forgot about, though. Billy Williams, Stargell, and Medwick all are good left fielders that generated more value, yet need redemption to have a shot. What gives?
I guess in these recent votes the popularity factor is playing a role – Minoso was very likable (the anti-Dick Allen), while Ferrell was a feisty winner that was misunderstood in his era. Colorful personalities sometimes get more support near the borderline – as we’ve seen Mr. May outlast Dewey also.
Not to say I’m pushing for Ashburn or Evans – they’ll have their chances to get back – but I think “extra credit” can get a little rampant and hurt guys like El Tiante, who had to fight through redemption to get here. Not everyone’s going to make it, and taking up votes with sentimental favorites just to avoid redemption keeps the logjam going (and saps support for better candidates). Just something to think about for those late voters.
Ruffing pitched 1700 more innings and had 700 more PA than Ferrell.
2.2 more WAR in those 700 PA.
They were contemporaries. Here are their slash lines.
Ferrell is the better one:
.280 / .351 / .446 / .797 / 100
.269 / .306 / .389 / .695 / 81
_______
As pitchers, Ferrell had 6 seasons above 6 WAR.
Ruffing had 2.
Their similarities are only that they could both swing a bat.
Ferrell is peak plus the best bat.
Ruffing is longevity, good offense, and 6 rings.
Was Ferrell a better hitter than Ruffing? Not necessarily so!
Almost all of Ferrell’s PAs took place between ages 21-30, during which he put up a 100 OPS+ (the same as his career number). Guess what Ruffing’s OPS+ was between ages 21-30? Exactly the same – 100.
Ruffing only looks worse because his career numbers include his decline phase as a hitter, something Ferrell never had to go through.
Secondly, was Ferrell the superior pitcher? Maybe, maybe not.
In terms of raw run prevention, Ruffing was +0.63 runs, Ferrell, +0.55. Ruffings’ defense was slightly positive, Ferrell’s slightly negative. That basically evens things out. (I’ll just take those numbers at face value cause I don’t feel like arguing defensive numbers).
So the big difference between the two is park factor. Ruffing’s is 96.3, Ferrell’s is 104.0. The park factor is what shoots Ferrell ahead of Ruffing.
But we have to ask if those park factor’s are accurate. As we’ve discussed before, park factors are constructed at the team level but players are affected individually.
Ruffing has a career 3.20 ERA at home, 4.49 on the road. That seems to fit with his 96.3 park factor.
But look at Ferrell. Home ERA of 3.72, road of 4.40. Hmmmm. Looks like Ferrell is in effect, double dipping. He gains a huge WAR benefit from his 104.0 park factor when he wasn’t hurt at all by his home parks. In fact, he personally benefited greatly from them. Based on that, I categorically reject that Ferrell deserves his 48.8 pitcher WAR.
BTW, the above analysis is trumped by the fact that Ruffing and I share a birthday, which clearly makes him not only better than Ferrell but one of the greatest players ever. 🙂
Last night I went and looked at every good hitting pitcher that I could think of- Gary Peters, Don Newcombe, Don Drysdale, Earl Wilson and several others.
Ferrell has a career -6 Rbat in 1345 PA’s.
The best I could find with the same or more PA’s was George Uhle with -30 Rbat in a little over 1500 PA’s>
Don Newcombe had just under 1000 PA’s and had an Rbat of -17. He actually spent a year in Japan after his MLB career was over playing as an outfielder/first baseman and hit pretty well.
But all of these guys were “good hitters for a pitcher” except for Ferrell.
@137,
These debates are not always purely statistical, nor should they be. Minoso probably missed two+/maybe three (or more) years of his career to the color line, and in some people’s minds (including mine) that pushes him a little of Billy Williams and Joe Medwick COG-wise.
Our COG election rules allow for voting for sentimental favorites or the ‘keep this guy on the ballot’ votes, however you wish to phrase it. It’s a strategy done by many, including me for a number of decades.
Quite a few if not the majority of these player comparisons are not clear-cut: why did Eddie Murray take so much longer than Willie McCovey to get elected? How about Roberto Alomar taking much longer than Bobby Grich? The results of these particular comparisons are not at all obvious to me.
I think the system is working just fine, and while I don’t like seeing ‘bubble’ candidates fall off the ballot after the great 1903 class of five qualified candidates, long-term it is better to have some of the less likely COG candidates go away for a while.
@143,
OOPS, meant to type ” …pushes him (Minoso)a little AHEAD of Billy Williams and Joe Medwick COG-wise.”
I’m usually the first guy jumping up and down abut time lost to the color line (campanella, Irvin, Paige are the three I’d take) but I don’t see it with Minoso. He simply wasn’t that good at age 26 despite a strong showing at 25. His time in the minors at ages 23 and 24 show a guy that was maybe held back a little more than he would other wise be but not one who was clearly an MLB star before his age 25 season. Looks like a year, at most.
I have the same type of perspective with Doby. It’s not that I don’t value him as a player it’s just that I feel he got a mostly fair chance to have a professional MLB career. The same wasn’t true of Campanella, Irvin, and Paige. For earlier guys, it’s too hypothetical for me to even speculate.
mineso, waner cochrane
Carl Hubbell, Paul Waner, Charlie Gehringer
Nettles, Tiant, Winfield
Brown, Reuschel, Cochrane.
Simmons, Waner, Hubbell
not sure this got through the first time
Simmons, Waner, Hubbell
Since Gehringer’s election seems rather certain, I’m going all ‘save the bubble guys I like best’:
– Minnie Minoso
– Luis Tiant
– Roy Campanella
Totals through 48 ballots (#152):
28 – Gehringer
=============================50% (24)
18 – Simmons*
16 – Waner*
14 – Hubbell
13 – Cochrane*
=============================25% (12)
7 – Campanella*, Killebrew
6 – Nettles*, Winfield*
5 – Brown, Eckersley*, Minoso*, Reuschel, Tiant*
=============================10% (5)
3 – Ferrell*
1 – Averill*
Simmons has 25% pretty much locked up, Waner is very close, Hubbell and Cochrane still have a shot.
Gehringer, Hubbell, Waner
Nettles, Tiant, Eckersley
Tiant, Reuschel, Eckersley
Waner
Winfield
Ferrell
Ferrell, Minoso, and Moe Berg…for helping to keep America safe.
Sure, lots of players have their cards on display at the Hall of Fame or wherever. But only Berg has his card on display at CIA Headquarters. And that’s worth celebrating.
Gehringer, Waner, Campanella.
Cochrane, Ferrell, Minoso
Winfield, Tiant, Minoso
Umm…are you a different “BillH” than the billh @ 113? If so, it’d help avoid confusion if you chose a different moniker…
If you’re the same BillH, it’s too late to change your vote.
Killebrew, Cochrane, Hubbell.
Test comment – I can’t get any comments in the past week to display, I’m stuck seeing the first 71 in this thread for some reason.
gehringer simmons hubbell
Simmons, Hubbell, Cochrane
Hmm, it’s hard to tell who has how many votes – the spreadsheet only seems to be at 45, but going from the last update @153 and counting from there, it seems to be 59 votes… is anyone else seeing that with the spreadsheet? Has it just not been updated for 4 days, or is it another site glitch?
Either way, I think that if I do my math right, the ‘bubble’ candidates for the round are Brown with 5 votes (although he has an extra round stored up) and Ferrell and Reuschel with 6. If my vote makes it 60, another vote could push either of them off. Here’s my cumulative ranking on 4 metrics (WAR, WAA+, JAWS and WAR*WAR/162 or /250IP for pitchers), with a ‘4’ meaning the player ranks first on all metrics, and a ’60’ meaning 15th on each metric:
Gehringer 4
Waner 14
Brown 17
Reuschel 17
Simmons 20
Hubbell 24
Ferrell 28
Tiant 30
Nettles 34
Eckersley 39
Winfield 44
Killebrew 47
Cochrane 51
Minoso 51
Campanella 60
Well, gotta vote for the clear top guy on the ballot. For the others, I’m surprised that Reuschel and Brown are so close to the bubble, as they are both strong candidates by lots of advanced measures. For me, anyone down to Hubbell is for sure CoG material, those down to Eck are in strong consideration, and I’ll of course make adjustments for context (Cochrane would be in for me, Campy and Minoso higher but not quite in). Anyway, a couple of guys I have near the top are in danger, so I’ll throw them a line.
Gehringer, Reuschel, Ferrell
Does seem odd Brown is only at 5 – must be a guy people love to hate. Would not be the first time he fell short (remember at least 2 occasions where he got screwed out of additional rounds by late voters). Even Reuschel is getting more love this round, though both are identical in rating and stored rounds.
Is 1901 the last double round? I think somewhere around 1900 birtelcom was going to stop the double rounds due to fewer viable candidates/year and the fact we only have 31 spots left after this year. There’s only five 20+ WAR candidates I can see, led by the immortal Mr. Manusch. A double year would help clear the big guns a little before 1900’s class hits, though. 1901 happens to be the first year of the American League, and such candidates would be among the first to start their careers in the 20’s Live Ball Era – seems fitting. Not so many higher level guys born before 1900 (some of the immortals, sure – just fewer of high caliber overall).
1901 will be a double round.
Hopefully, birtelcom will be back soon and clarify what we’re doing after that.
Eckersley, Tiant, Nettles
Killebrew, Winfield & Cochrane
Here’s what I have through #175 (61 ballots) – although at the moment I’m *not* including the ballot @164 (Minoso, Tiant, Winfield), which at the moment wouldn’t change any of the results:
32 – Gehringer
=============================50% (31)
20 – Simmons*
19 – Waner*
18 – Hubbell
17 – Cochrane*
=============================25% (16)
9 – Killebrew
8 – Campanella*, Eckersley*, Nettles*, Tiant*, Winfield*
7 – Ferrell,*, Minoso*, Reuschel
=============================10% (7)
5 – Brown
1 – Averill*, Berg*
Jumping ahead to next round a little…
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.