Circle of Greats 1903 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 87th 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 1903. Rules and lists are after the jump.

The new group of 1903-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 1903-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 Thursday, March 12, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Tuesday, March 10.

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 1903 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-1903 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 1903 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 10 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Roy Campanella  (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dwight Evans (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Red Ruffing (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield
(eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1903, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Paul Waner
Charlie Gehringer
Lou Gehrig
Travis Jackson
Tommy Thevenow
Tony Lazzeri
Mickey Cochrane
Chick Hafey
Babe Herman
Carl Reynolds
Mule Haas
Joe Stripp
Rabbit Warstler
Roy Johnson

Pitchers (born in 1903, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Carl Hubbell
Clint Brown
Curt Davis
Chief Hogsett
Mike Ryba
Bill Walker

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
196 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson
7 years ago

Gehringer, Gehig, and Cochrane

Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson
7 years ago
Reply to  Bill Johnson

Gehringer, Gehrig, and Cochrane

Mike HBC
Mike HBC
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Waner

Doug
Editor
7 years ago

This year’s tidbits. Answers in red 1. Paul Waner spent most of his career with the Pirates, but collected his 3000th hit on June 19th, 1942 batting against his former team. Which other player got his 3000th hit playing against the team for which he had played the majority of his career? Rod Carew 2. Charlie Gehringer collected 200 hits each season aged 30 to 34. Who is the only other player to do this? Ichiro Suzuki 3. Lou Gehrig’s twelve consecutive seasons (1926-37) with 125 runs scored is twice as long as Ted Williams’ next longest such streak. Williams’… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Answer to #1 is Rod Carew who got his against the Twins. Lou Brock also got his 3000th hit against the Cubs but that was only rubbing salt in an old wound.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Additional tidbit: Tommy Thevenow is one of 11 players with 15+ seasons in the ML to never have a seasonal OPS+ higher than 89.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question #18: David Bell spent his last season playing 90 games at 3B for the Phils and 53 for Milwaukee.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question #19: In 1941 Bill Harman of the Phils pitched 5 games and caught 5 games.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

The answer to 4 is Atlee Hammaker in 1983.

For 12, Joe Medwick had 75+ XBH with less than 35 HRs from 1934-1938.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

I mean Medwick is the answer to 13.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

10. Ron Fairly has 215 career dingers sans a 20-HR season. He only hit more than 17 once.

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Answer to Question #5 is Sal Maglie (led in those categories in 1950) and Johnny Antonelli (1954).

Jason Schmidt also led in those categories in 2003, but none of his teammates ever did.

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#17 is Jeremy Bonderman in 2003. Went 6-19 in 162 IP, which was also his rookie year.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

13. My first thought was Don Mattingly, who had a three-year streak. Then, after a while, I thought of Nomar, who was SO CLOSE – 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003. He missed 1999 (and a four-year streak) by 2 XBH. Miguel Cabrera has also done it four times, though only two of those were consecutive. I’ll keep thinking…

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Dr. Doom: Question 13 was already answered in post 10.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I thought Mattingly might be the answer to 14, but he didn’t have a 3-year streak.

69 XBH in 1984
86 XBH in 1985
86 XBH in 1986
70 XBH in 1987

Chase Utley from 2006-2008. Bobby Abreu also did it, though from 2000-2002.

Doug
Editor
7 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

Utley is correct.

Doug
Doug
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

You guys are sharp. All of the answers given are correct.

bells
bells
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question 2 has to be Ichiro, right? He came in the league at age 27 I think and had 10 or 11 200-hit seasons in a row.

Doug
Doug
7 years ago
Reply to  bells

Correct. That was an easy one.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question #6: According to the PI, at the end of the 1960 season, Elroy Face had 248 GF and Clem Labine had 247 GF. Face got his 250th GF on 4-18-61 while Labine got his 250th on 4-20-61. That means that Face got there first. However Labine’s home page indicates a total of 257 GF at the end of the 1960 season meaning that he was first. There is an error somewhere.

Doug
Editor
7 years ago

There’s no mistake. Labine’s 257 GF through 1960 (on his Player page) includes 10 finished games in the AL. Thus, 247 NL games finished.

So, Face is the answer, getting there two days before Labine.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question 3 answer: the four players after Teddy Ballgame to score at least 125 runs three straight seasons are Pujols, Bagwell, ARod,….and !just wow! on the fourth one.

I challenge anyone to guess who the fourth player is. Hint: retired in 1953.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  bstar

I found the answer also but I’ll leave it to others to guess. Considering who he batted ahead of, it’s not surprising.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago

I had you pegged as the one guy who might get it off the top of his head.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago

If you told me the team, I would have guessed the shortstop. He went 113-114-125 in runs scored himself in the three years we are talking about.

no statistician but
no statistician but
7 years ago
Reply to  bstar

To end the suspense, I cheated and tracked the answer down:

DiMaggio, Joe’s younger brother Dom.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#12, Carl Reynolds question: Wally Berger,who did not wait very long. In 1939 he went 0/15.

Doug
Doug
7 years ago

Right you are, RC.

That really surprised me that every WS outfielder (with 12 PA) since Berger has had at least one hit.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago

Why is it that every time I see Wally Berger’s name I think of Wally Backman first? Why?!?

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#9, Travis Jackson question: Pee Wee Reese

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Answer to #9, Travis Jackson question: Pee Wee Reese

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#9, Travis Jackson question: Pee Wee Reese.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Question #7: Tony Kubek batted .333 in he 1960 WS.

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
7 years ago

Hmm, this is going to be tough for the 3rd spot. I know for sure my best position player spot goes to Gehrig (big surprise, right?) and my 3rd spot is going to Gehringer, who’d be a good bet for best position player on any other ballot. For best pitcher, though? That’s a tough one. Last ballot I voted for Brown. Brown has a slight edge on Hubbell in bWAR, and that’s without figuring in the era adjustment, but Hubbell has the better peak seasons (his two MVP years outdo Brown’s 1998 and 1996) and he’s a far superior postseason… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago

I’m starting to count ballots. Was this a vote? And if so, was it for Brown or for Hubbell? Or are you still thinking about it? I just want to make sure I’m counting correctly. So far, I’m not marking you down at all, but let me know!

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

You’re correct, Doom. Not a vote yet; still need to decide who is going to be my pitcher of choice, and I may change from Gehringer to a strategic vote if I think the Mechanical Man is safely entrenched in the Top 9.

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago

Gehringer is going to advance to the next round, for sure; he has well over 10% of the total final vote already in hand, so it doesn’t matter what place he finishes in. And in any case he’s going to finish second, or maybe third.

Steven
Steven
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell.

PaulE
PaulE
7 years ago

#15? Whitey Herzog’s hero Darrel Porter?

Gehrig, Gehringer, Waner

Doug
Doug
7 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Darrell Porter is correct. Who knew?

Paul E
Paul E
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug, Actually I did – w/o looking it up-merely because when it happened, I though it was quite remarakble. In the early 1980’s through late 90’s there was a guy in Chicago IL by the name of Walt Wilson who advertised in the Sporting News, “Any question answered for $.50; any list compiled for $ 1.00” You sent cash or stamps to a PO Box, and he got back to you within a week. He actually went to the library and researched this stuff. 100 BB , 100 RBI, 100 Runs scored was one of the first lists I requested.… Read more »

Doug
Doug
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

How timescales have changed in 30 years.

Just googled Walt Wilson. Still keeping his hand in, it seems. Was acknowledged by Warren Wilbert for assisting with Wilbert’s 2013 book “The Shutout in Major League Baseball: A History”.

Paul E
Paul E
7 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug,
Saw this on the SABR site regarding updates to Retrosheet for 2013: “Walt Wilson did a very thorough and systematic sweep through Chicago newspapers covering over 50 years”

Apparently, he still loves the game of baseball very much

Stephen
Stephen
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago

WAR Leaders, less than 6500 PA:

62.3 … Shoeless Joe
61.5 … Jackie Robinson
61.5 … Chase Utley*
57.5 … Hank Greenberg
52.1 … Mickey Cochrane
51.5 … Robinson Cano*
49.5 … Larry Doby
49.3 … Ralph Kiner
47.0 … Art Fletcher
_____________________

Cochrane also won pennants in his first two years as Player/Manager

KalineCountry
KalineCountry
7 years ago

Lou Gehrig
Charlie Gehringer
Mickey Cochrane

Andy
Andy
7 years ago

Well this is going to be fun! Gehrig, Hubbell, Gehringer

latefortheparty
latefortheparty
7 years ago

Lou Gehrig
Charlie Gehringer
Mickey Cochrane

JEV
JEV
7 years ago

Gehrig, Hubbell, Campanella.

koma
koma
7 years ago

Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Lou Gehrig

T-Bone
T-Bone
7 years ago

Reuschel to keep him eligible. WAR wasn’t around then but based on WAR he should have won the 1977 Cy Young award. He was never the name that Steve Carlton was, who won it that year, but looking bacwards with 20/20 hindsight Reuschel clearly pitched better than any other NL starter that year. Gehrig – one of my very favorite ball players. There’s even a little website – http://www.lougehrig.com/ with some interesting info. Carl Hubbell – I used to go to spring training in AZ every year from 1984 through 1989 and got to meet the very gracious and humble… Read more »

Brent
Brent
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell

JamesS
JamesS
7 years ago

Gehrig, Hubbell, Cochrane

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago

Gehrig, Cochrane, and Ferrell … not that I think Ferrell is better than others on the ballot, but he’ll need help to stay on the ballot and somehow Alomar and Murray made it in before this group of death year.

I seem to recall that Doug also did the 1931 birth year posts (the Mantle-Mays-Mathews year, with Banks-Boyer-Bunning also in the mix). He’s pinch hit in some big time years.

Jeff Harris
Jeff Harris
7 years ago

Gehringer, Gehrig, Hubbell

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago

I have never been more excited for a round than I am for the next one. I’m pretty sure of the winner here, but 1902 will be exciting! Also, we haven’t had anyone approaching single-round records for vote total, nor vote percentage for a long time… and this could definitely be an interesting one in that regard. Anyway, here’s my ballot: Lou Gehrig Charlie Gehringer Kevin Brown I know people will think I’m crazy for that last one. I have him by the slimmest of margins over Hubbell, but I begrudge no one a vote for just about anyone on… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I seriously doubt that Gehrig will set a single round % total simply because with so many strong candidates on one ballot our strategic voters are going to have their hands full keeping our holdovers around. And then even if they do manage to keep one or two of our bubble candidates this time around we could be faced with an even bigger issue next year since only Killebrew currently has more than 2 accumulated rounds of eligibility plus Al Simmons gets added to the ballot. Which could mean a ballot with Gehringer, Waner, Cochrane, Hubbel and Simmons and virtually… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Once we get past the point that I am talking about above there are 3 strong birth years in a row (Speaker, Faber, Wheat followed by Johnson, Alexander, Collins & Shoeless Joe followed by Cobb and Baker) (And I’m not by any means saying that I think that everyone I listed belongs in the COG- I don’t- just that they’re reasonable to consider) But that is followed by a long stretch where there are only a couple of years (80 & 74) where you have as many as 2 decent candidates and only another handful or so candidates scattered among… Read more »

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
7 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Building from Hartvig’s listing of upcoming votes (for now, we can vote for 119 total members – we have 86): Likely COG Inductees (As of 1903 ballot) 1903 : Gehrig, Gehringer, P. Waner, Hubbell, Cochrane + 3 HOF (Hafey/T. Jackson/Lazzeri) 1902: A. Simmons + 1 HOF (Averill) 1901 (double year): 1 HOF (Manusch) 1900: Grove, Goslin, Lyons, Hartnett + 2 HOF (Bottomley/H. Wilson) 1899: 2 HOF (Combs/Hoyt) 1898: Frisch + 4 HOF (Cuyler/Sewell/Terry/Traynor) 1897: 1 HOF (Youngs) + 1 Other (E. Rommel) 1896: Hornsby 1895: Ruth + 1 HOF (G. Kelly) 1894: Heilmann + 1 HOF (Pennock) 1893: 1 HOF… Read more »

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
7 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Breaking down the candidates 1903 to 1867 (primarily post-1900 careers): Slam dunks: 24 The following players coming up should easily make the COG (11 are top 20 all-time in WAR, 22 in top 80): Young, Ruth, W. Johnson, Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Hornsby, E. Collins, P. Alexander, Gehrig, Grove, LaJoie, Mathewson, Plank, G. Davis, Gehringer, Dahlen (the only non-HOFer), S. Crawford, P. Waner, Heilmann, Frisch, B. Wallace, Hartnett, Cochrane. All but the last 2 earned over 70 WAR (Hartnett/Cochrane are the remaining catchers > 50 WAR). Everyone over 70 WAR has gotten in not named Palmiero or Ruffing. The only two… Read more »

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
7 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

And the guys we’ve seen that have not made it yet to the COG (born 1904 or later): Backlog possibilities: 11 The backlog has four types of players on it as of 1903: High WAR (65+)/non-HOFers (K. Brown, Reuschel, Nettles, Dw. Evans, Tiant), High WAR (60-65)/HOFers (Winfield/Ashburn/Eckersley/Killebrew/Ruffing – Ruffing actually has 70 WAR, but only 55 of it is from pitching), a high peak/non-HOFer (W. Ferrell with 61.5 WAR – 48.8 pitching and 12.7 hitting), and segregation-impacted guys (Minoso/Campanella – see below). Some such as Brown/Nettles/Winfield/Killebrew have seen high support, so a few may battle their way in. Redemption hopes:… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

Excellent breakdown and analysis. I would add 3 names to the ones that you mentioned: Enos Slaughter who, if given reasonably generous credit for the 3 prime seasons he lost to WW2 would fall somewhere in the Wheat/Goslin/Clarke range. Ducky Wucky Medwick if only because he managed to stick around for 6 ballots. Finally, Monte Irvin who takes a bit of a larger leap of faith than Minoso or Doby because he was older than either of them when he finally got his chance and then he busted his leg after only a couple of seasons. But the special committee… Read more »

David P
David P
7 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

Hartvig – Even if the BBWAA selects 3 people (I think two are likely – Piazza and Griffey), we’ll soon be bringing in the 1971 birth class. Pedro is automatic, Pudge depends on how people feel about the PEDs allegations.

So we won’t gain much…

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

I’m still hoping for a spot for Satchel Paige.

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
7 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

Hartvig – agree that Slaughter’s war credit should get him on the “maybe” list.

Besides the favorite Dick Allen, it seems Ducky Medwick, Wilhelm, Dean, and Kiner were the significant vote-getters that fell off the ballot, but unlikely they will make it back.

Maybe when the COG is full we can have a 19th century vote (for old-timers) or a Negro Leagues vote (the committees missed Quincy Trouppe, Buck O’ Neill, “Cannonball Dick” Redding, Spottswood Poles, Bruce Petway, Dick Lundy, and others) until the BBWAA expands the Hall some more.

Abbott
Abbott
7 years ago

Cochrane, Gehrig, Hubbell

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago

A few things: 1. Lou Gehrig has been named on the first 17 ballots (and mentioned by CursedClevelander in what, for now, I’m not counting as a ballot). 2. Tony Lazzeri, Travis Jackson, and Babe Herman are all the kind of players who would maybe be deserving of a “favorite son” vote or two – nice careers in the 40-50 WAR range. Not gonna happen on this ballot, I’m afraid, but worth a shout-out, I think. 3. Remember: the TOP NINE players advance whether or not they get to 10%. If you, like me, no longer read the rules that… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

There will be at least 11 players on the ballot next year, if I’ve figured correctly. Even if all the players on the bubble drop off the ballot, there are 8 players with 2+ rounds of eligibility, so all 8 of them will be on next year no matter what; plus 3 or 4 new guys, depending on how Waner does.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Yes, that is true; I guess I wasn’t really looking at how many there would ACTUALLY be; I just meant that nine people are “safe” no matter how many/few votes they get, so long as they get at least one. Likely we will have 15 or so on the holdover list. I mostly just meant that being under 10% is not a death sentence.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

What you stopped short of saying is that there could be a 10-way tie for 9th place, and all those guys are good-to-go.

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
7 years ago

This is extremely tough. I always vote for who I think is the best player on the ballot, so that’s a vote for Gehrig. I’ve been voting for Ashburn and Minoso, but I can’t in good conscience vote for them ahead of the quartet of Cochrane, Gehringer, Hubbell and Waner. I will vote for Waner, because he doesn’t have much support yet and complete the ballot with Gehringer. I may make a change later on.

J.R.
J.R.
7 years ago

Winfield, Waner, Gehrig

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago

Seasons with at least 10 shutouts and 5 saves:

1908 … Ed Walsh
1908 … C Mathewson
1933 … Carl Hubbell

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Seasons with at least 10 saves and 5 shutouts:

1912 … Ed Walsh

Going down to 10 saves and 3 shutouts:

1963 … Bob Shaw

No pitcher ever had 10 saves and more than a single shutout after the save rule was officially adopted by MLB in 1969. Rollie Fingers is the only pitcher to have at least 10 saves and 1 shutout in a season twice.

Owen
Owen
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell

bstar
bstar
7 years ago

Iron Horse, Mechanical Man, Meal Ticket

(Gehrig, Gehringer, Hubbell)

opal611
opal611
7 years ago

For the 1903 election, I’m voting for:
-Lou Gehrig
-Dave Winfield
-Paul Waner

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

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago

Tally note: the ballots @ 30 and 31 haven’t been tallied.

Including those 2 ballots, the current standings after 23 votes (thru opal611’s vote @ 63):

23 – Gehrig
15 – Gehringer
12 – Hubbell
================50% (12)
6 – Cochrane
================25% (6)
5- Waner
================10% (3)
2 – Winfield
1 – Brown, Campanella, Eckersley, Ferrell, Killebrew, Reuschel
0 – Ashburn, Evans, Minoso, Nettles, Ruffing, Tiant

61 of 69 votes (89.7%) have gone to first-timers.

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

…and of course I’m sure you’re all wondering, “which election has had the highest percentage of votes going to first-timers?” (after the first few rounds, that is). I don’t have a definite answer, but a strong contender is the 1935 election, in which Gibson, Koufax, and Frank Robinson (along with Dick Schofield, who received a single vote) gathered up 60.1% of the vote. In the 1934 part 1 election, Aaron, Clemente, Kaline, and Aparicio took 56.9% of the vote (despite the presence of Gibson and Koufax on the ballot), and in 1944 Seaver, Carlton, Nettles (and Bando, and Belanger) received… Read more »

Doug
Doug
7 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Thanks David,

Fixed the tally sheet. Our totals are matching through Opal611’s vote.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

Doing my first audit; I’m with you so far…

jajacob
jajacob
7 years ago

gehrig, gehringer, evans

Darien
7 years ago

No holdovers for me today. Gehrig, Gehringer, and POISON.

Joseph
Joseph
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, and (and to attempt to keep him on the ballot) Nettles.

David P
David P
7 years ago

There are only 4 players in MLB history whose last names begin with “Geh-” and two of them were born in the same year and became HOFers. The other two are Paul Gehrman who pitched in two games for the Reds in 1937 and Hank Gehring who pitched for the Senators in 1907-08.

Anyway, my vote is Gehrig, Gehringer and Cochrane. I thought about voting for one of the bubble boys but Evans is the only one I’ve voted for in the past and I`m lukewarm at best about him.

Hub Kid
Hub Kid
7 years ago

Gehrig, Tiant, Evans

What a great birth year: it hurts not to vote for Gehringer, and Hubbell looks like he was probably better than any of our pitching holdovers. That said, I’m obviously a pro-holdover voter, so I’m using votes for two of my favorites.

Chris C
Chris C
7 years ago

Gehrig – Best player
Waner – Lagging total due to top tier ballot influx. Get him over the hump
Ashburn – My top choice among the bubble guys

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago

Through Chris C, the 29th vote: 29 – Lou Gehrig 19 – Charlie Gehringer 12 – Carl Hubbell ====================25% (8) 7 – Mickey Cochrane, Paul Waner ====================10% (3) 2 – Dwight Evans, Dave Winfield 1 – Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown, Roy Campanella, Dennis Eckersley, Wes Ferrell, Harmon Killebrew, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant 0 – Minnie Minoso, Red Ruffing Right now, there’s a nine-way tie for 8th; all of those players would advance (though Minoso and Ruffing would fall off if the balloting ended right now). Gehrig is guaranteed election. This is also one of the longest streaks of… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

We’ve topped 78 votes 5 times (89, 88, 81, 79, 79), but the last time was indeed long ago: the 1957 ballot, which began on March 21, 2013.

David P
David P
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom – Minoso has two rounds of eligibility. He won’t fall off even if he receives 0 votes this round.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  David P

Yeah; I was trying “fall off” as a catch-all to mean “lose a round, so either fall off or go down.” I was hoping it would work. I see that’s not the case. I just wish there were a term to use so we could discuss those things without having to use so much verbiage.

donburgh
donburgh
7 years ago

Gehrig, Waner, and Reuschel

brp
brp
7 years ago

Gehrig to win, and I always vote for the most-deserving
Richie Ashburn to try to stay on the ballot
Kevin Brown to try to stay off the bubble next year

Apologies to Carl Hubbell and Graig Nettles

mosc
mosc
7 years ago

NYEAR25 average of average (then averaged based on consecutive and sorted years). This metric highly favors peak but also tries to estimate the level of performance we typically remember a player for over a career. Eddie Murray is my typical COG threshold at 4.64 Gehrig: 7.84 (staggering) Gehringer: 5.71 Ferrell: 5.51 (still 4.46 with just pitching) Hubbel: 5.33 (0.08 benefit from hitting) Waner: 4.89 (Slightly better than Murray) Cochrane: 4.02 (just not enough career or a high enough peak) I have Paul Waner out. He had wartime at bats to extend his career and didn’t play against any black pitchers.… Read more »

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

aaand egg on my face for not realizing Cochrane was a catcher.

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

Nettles (4.85) is also above the Murray line. I’d put him ahead of Waner and I’n not sure between him and Hubbell.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

mosc, what is NYEAR25 ? _____ How was Waner extended by the WAR? He was still a league average player in 1941. And his WAA in 845 PA from 42-45 was 0.7. _____ The names of the teams in the league that Waner player/managed in 1946: Tampa Smokers Havana Cubans West Palm Beach Indians Miami Beach Flamingos Lakeland Pilots Miami Sun Sox ______ — Famous for his ability to hit while hung over, when Waner gave up drinking in 1938 at management’s request, he hit only .280 – the only time that he failed to hit .300 as a Pirate.… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

The first 12 years of Waner’s career (before he stopped playing hung over):

.348 / .417 / .507 / .923 / 142

Averaged:
110 runs
206 hits
300 total bases
_______________

Most hits, first 12 seasons:

2606 … Ichiro
2473 … Waner
2337 … Rose
2328 … Simmons
2304 … Puckett
2295 … Sisler
2267 … Boggs
2266 … Aaron
2246 … Pujols

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Whoops, Voomo, somehow I missed your comment (And largely just echoed it in @97). Anyway, Amen.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo: read his SABR bio. He wasn’t playing hung over — he was doing shots before every AB. NOT knocking that, BTW. It worked for him.

When I hear the name Paul Waner, I think about the stories of him taking batting practice and hitting ball after ball five feet inside the right field line and then switching up and placing balls right down the left field line with the same accuracy.

Just a wizard with the bat. I think Rod Carew is a really good comp.

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

@102,
I think Carew is a good comp too. Tony Gwynn maybe even more so (and with Gwynn you get the added benefit of them having played the same position). Waner strikes me as even more dominant at the plate than either of them (something his Rbat total would seem to confirm).

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo: mosc explained that NYEAR bit in his post #77 in the COG 1970 Balloting article.

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

@86/mosc, I find that -with some exceptions obviously- I agree with the perspectives you bring to bear on baseball mosc, but the value you place on Paul Waner’s career is a place where I don’t follow your rationale at all. Personally, I can’t make much sense of a Circle of Greats that doesn’t include Waner. 1)Extra war-time AB? Whopping total of 368 AB in which he added a grand total of 2.3WAR to his career. 2)Didn’t play against black pitchers? That argument goes for every one of our new crop of titans, including Gehrig whom you value highly. (And Ferrel… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  paget

A couple things: How is it “faith-in-WAR run amok”? Waner has more WAR than Nettles. Unless people are ONLY valuing the player’s top two seasons, Waner should come out ahead of Nettles by WAR. Second, Nettles has (Above-average-hitter)+(Outstanding-defender)+(Reasonably-difficult-position). Waner has (Very-good-hitter)+(Adequate-if-somewhat-sub-par-defender)+(Not-that-hard-of-a-position). Those are REALLY different qualifications. I think you’re being overly simplistic. Yes, Waner hit .348 – in a league in which (besides 1933, which was unusually low-scoring) games were always 9 R/G or higher. In Nettles 12-year peak, that was the HIGHEST the run environment got. Waner, in those twelve years hit .348, but with a secondary average of… Read more »

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

@99, *It’s faith-in-WAR run amok in my opinion because Nettles and Waner simply shouldn’t be in the same conversation when it comes to being all-time greats. Waner has slightly more WAR, but only slightly. And he’s much greater. *You’re right, these guys are totally different kinds of ballplayers. I would never have thought to make the comparison at all; I only did so because mosc said that he wouldn’t include Waner in his COG, and that he would include Nettles. A position I find more than a little perplexing. *You bring up Nettles’ secondary batting average. That’s bound to make… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

paget- Re: timeline adjustment I’ll agree that it’s an inexact science at best and that how a player performed in his own time should be the primary deciding factor. However I do think that there is still a place for it in how we assess players vs. one another. We are already making a lot of relative value judgements in how players from the same era stack up vs. one another: pitcher v. position player, offense v. defense, peak v. career, slugger v. average, outstanding at 1 or 2 things v. very, very good at everything and so on. Then… Read more »

Paul E
Paul E
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doom (et al): If you go to b-ref and Nettles player page, you can go to the ‘scenario builder’ and just about duplicate his career stats by placing his entire career as if he played every year with the 1984 SD Padres. If you place Waner with the 1984 Padres, he gets to 3,000 hits with seven 200-hit seasons and a slash line of .315/.386/.448 . I realize this exercise is a huge leap of faith but his career OPS+ of 134 seems to put Waner in good-enough company. As for the similarity scores, it’s a list of 10 HoF’ers… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

In a couple of cases I’m also considering making something of a reverse timeline adjustment as well.

If you look at JAWS or the Hall of Stats Home Run Baker is about dead even with Nettles, Bell & Boyer. Even putting aside that he missed a peak season trying to be an early Curt Flood and another taking care of his children he was clearly the best third baseman in the games first 75 years. I think that’s something to consider.

You could also apply this reasoning to Cochrane & Hartnett to some degree.

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

Cool discussion guys! 1) I can give another diatribe on NYEAR25 if you want, I think I’ve done it three times now though so I’m less inclined to waste the space. It’s a byproduct of the COG process and more akin to JAWS or hall rating than an analytical stat. Just another way of looking at WAR accumulation over a career rather than just adding it up. To add some comentary, it highly weights peak performance. High enough where Koufax is not the lowest pitcher we’ve elected, for example. It’s also not as harsh as something like WAA+ is for… Read more »

Paul E
Paul E
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

mosc, Re Nettles versus Waner, if we were to use merely offense as a means of comparison, Waner creates approximately a 100-AIR-adjusted 7.14 runs; Nettles 5.12 runs per 27 outs. By the good old Pythagorean Theorem, that’s a .660 winning percentage for Team Waner or, roughly, 107 – 55 per 162 games. That’s an awful lot of glove-work by a 3B to make up that deficit. When you consider he might get 3.5 – 4 chances at 3B per game, I just don’t think Nettles makes up the difference. Even if Waner were Gary Sheffield or some other iron gloved… Read more »

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

@125, Just a point to further your evaluation of Paul Waner. Waner and fielding: most of the comments on him seem to have assumed that he was a below average fielder. I’ve never heard anything about his reputation fielding-wise, so I can’t really talk about it, but it’s probably worth noting that, at the very least, WAR seems to judge him a solidly above-average fielder. I don’t often have a ton of faith in Rfield, but it’s worth bringing up that WAR doesn’t rate him an “adequate-if-somewhat-sub-par-defender” (comment 99). On the contrary, he was worth 38 fielding runs in through… Read more »

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Yes, WAR does rate Waner a below-average fielder. He has almost -10 dWAR for his career. Through age 35, he was -5.7. He has exactly one season of dWAR above zero. That’s pretty much what a below-average defender is. Contrast that with Nettles, who has over 20 dWAR.

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

@136,
That’s incorrect, he’s not a below average fielder. He’s an above average (solidly above average) fielder for his position. To only look at his total dWAR misunderstands the nature of his contribution.

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Looking only at the dWAR total as opposed to fielding runs, you might as well conclude that Keith Hernandez was just an average fielder when he might be the greatest fielding first baseman in the history of the game. 1B may be a much easier position to play than SS, but Hernandez is still saving runs for his team. As Wander does compared to his peer group. To me that makes him qualify as above average even if his Rpos sinks him into negative dWAR territory.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

I agree that Waner wasn’t a below average fielder – he did have 23 Rfield for his career, for whatever Rfield from the 1930s is worth. And I also have him in the COG, though I didn’t vote for him this time. Now time for some fun. Comparison time – who’s the greater player? Rbat: 460 to 420 Rbaser: -7 to 40 Rdp: 0 to 10 Rfield: 35 to 94 Rpos: -82 to -75 PAs: 8088 to 8030 The first player is Paul Waner through his age 34 season (mainly to get the PAs near the same as the other… Read more »

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Guys — judging a defender by his fielding runs alone is no worse than using raw, unadjusted offensive numbers without park factors. You’re not taking the context of how those numbers were compiled into account at all. We can safely say, “WAR says Paul Waner was a slightly above-average right fielder” and be correct. We cannot say, “WAR says Paul Waner was a slightly above-average fielder compared to all other defenders on the field.” That isn’t close to true. He is almost -100 runs defensively, -55 through age 35. Suppose Paul Waner had been put in center instead of right… Read more »

David P
David P
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Come on Bstar….99% of the time when someone says “Player X is an above (or below) average fielder”, they’re talking about “for their position”. They don’t bother to write or say “for their position” because it’s implied and everyone knows what they’re talking about. No one’s claiming that Waner was as good as Larkin or Cronin.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

David, you sure you read the comments above mine?

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

@179 Yeah, he’s sure. I recalled that during one of HHS’ Larry Walker dust-ups you had some comments to make about Walker’s fielding. I went back and found that you referred to Walker not only as a “fantastic right fielder” but also simply as a “great fielder.” How can you defend calling Walker a “great fielder” when he was worth only 1.5 dWAR for his career? The only way you could is if you implicitly accepted the idea that, in calling him a great fielder, you actually meant in comparison with all his peers at RF. Now, Walker had 94… Read more »

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

Trying to find some common ground here, paget, I think age 35 (you used this in comment 130) is a pretty good cutoff point for gauging what the numbers are saying about a player’s fielding instead of including all of his late decline years. It’s not fair to include those years for guys who played their entire career in the outfield, guys like Tony Gwynn, Dave Winfield, or even Walker and Waner. Walker is +92 Rfield, +29 runs overall thru age 35. Waner is +37 Rfield, -52 runs overall. There is an 81-run difference between the two at that point.… Read more »

paget
paget
7 years ago
Reply to  Paul E

@184/bstar, This is a helpful and interesting comment. And also not condescending at all, which makes it easier to digest than your earlier ones in this particular discussion. David P in comment 157 hit the nail on the head — no one here is looking at raw Rfield and then saying something like Waner is as good a fielder as Larkin, or as valuable in the field, or whatever. My point was always only that Waner was considerably more valuable in the field for most of his career than the average RF and that that would be another point in… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

@120
mosc: Why do you use a 25 year period instead the players actual number of years?

mosc
mosc
7 years ago

The smaller the number, the higher the weighting towards peak. NYEAR25 is chosen to be the length of an extremely long career to standardize the time window without penalizing all but the most extreme cases. Even at 25,as opposed to say NYEAR15, you’re extremely peak weighted. When I get home I’ll show an example with Koufax and Blyleven.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago

@140
mosc: Have you done your Koufax-Blyleven analysis? If I have done my analysis correctly I have 5.00 for Koufax and 5.61 for Blyleven.

aweb
aweb
7 years ago

Gehrig
Kevin Brown
Gehringer

MJ
MJ
7 years ago

Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Rick Reuschel

Shard
Shard
7 years ago

Richie Ashburn (for top9/10%); Mickey Cochrane and Charlie Gehringer

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  Shard

… and THERE it is. The first ballot not to name Lou Gehrig; it had to happen sometime. But ol’ Biscuit Pants had a good run!

Shard
Shard
7 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Doc – Gehrig has this round locked up. Anyway he never hit the same fan with a foul ball twice. Now that’s a COG accomplishment.

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  Shard

I guess it’s considered poor taste to not vote for the best candidate. It gives you 3 votes to everyone else’s 2 for determining who remains on the ballot and if they get extra rounds. Some people used to vote for strictly the three strongest while others were voting purely for the bottom of the ballot. We’ve kind of met in the middle where most folks will vote for who they want to win at the minimum and the rest of their ballot is more open to interpretation.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

But wouldn’t it be more fun if the obvious best candidate occasionally hung back for a round or two in order to set up discussions of comparable superstars?

Speaker and Cobb are two years apart, and we almost certainly won’t get that face-off.

Mike G.
Mike G.
7 years ago

Gehrig, Ferrell, Ruffing

BryanM
BryanM
7 years ago

Gehrig, Gehringer, and Kevin Brown — does anyone else here find it hard to compare players who played 80 years apart with a straight face? You can only beat who you play , but the complexity of the number of dimensions that the game has changed leaves my head spinning a bit – I have no idea whether my third choice was better than about 5 guys on the ballot who played in the 20s and 30s

RonG
RonG
7 years ago

Campanella, Cochrane, and Gehrig

David Horwich
David Horwich
7 years ago

Through 38 votes (#106), the standings:

37 – Gehrig
23 – Gehringer
================50% (19)
12 – Hubbell
================25% (10)
9 – Cochrane
8 – Waner
4 – Brown
================10% (4)
3 – Ashburn*, Campanella, Ferrell*, Reuschel
2 – Evans*, Winfield*
1 – Eckersley, Killebrew, Nettles, Ruffing*, Tiant
0 – Minoso

Asterisks denote players on the bubble.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
7 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

I’m right on board with you…

BillH
BillH
7 years ago

Gehrig, Hubbell, Winfield

dr. remulak
dr. remulak
7 years ago

Gehrig, Hubbell, Cochrane.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
7 years ago

No objection to #4 getting in.

Homeruns in 1927, AL:
Ruth 60
Philadelphia 56
St Louis (total) 55
Detroit 51
Gehrig 47
White Sox 36
Washington 29
Boston 28
Cleveland 26
Lazzeri 18
Williams (StL) 17

My votes:
Killebrew
Minoso
Lazzeri

mosc
mosc
7 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

That’s only the second vote for Killebrew. I’m glad that amongst a pool with multiple COG members his support rightly falls to ballot maintenance at best.

bstar
bstar
7 years ago
Reply to  mosc

That’s no different than all the other holdovers on the ballot, though.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
7 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

Last player to hit more HR in a season than a team: In 1949 Ralph Kiner had 54 and the White Sox had 43.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
7 years ago

I want to vote for Lazzeri, but his only standout stat is RBI.
And that’s batting 5th and 6th behind George and Henry.
But still…

6.125 plate appearances per RBI for Tony Lazzeri.

Among 2nd Basemen:

5.98 … Rogers Hornsby
6.13 … Tony Lazzeri
6.27 … Jeff Kent
6.44 … Bobby Doerr
6.70 … Joe Gordon
7.14 … Robinson Cano*
7.15 … Chase Utley*
7.18 … Charlie Gehringer