This post is for voting and discussion in the 90th round of balloting for the Circle of Greats (COG). This round is the second of two adding players born in 1901 to the list of candidates eligible to receive your votes. Rules and lists are after the jump.
Players born in 1901 are being brought on to the COG eligible list over two rounds, split in half based on last names — the top half by alphabetical order was added in last week’s round and the bottom half are being added now. This round’s new group joins the holdovers from prior balloting to comprise the full set of players eligible to receive your votes this round.
The new group of 1901-born players, in order to join the eligible list, must, as usual, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers). This new group of 1901-born candidates joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots.
Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. As always, the one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.
In total there were 14 players born in 1901 who met the “10 seasons played or 20 WAR” minimum requirement. Seven of those were added to the eligible list last round, and the seven remaining players (alphabetically from Harry Rice to Glenn Wright) are being added in this week’s round.
All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Tuesday, April 14th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, April 12th.
If you’d like to follow the vote tally, and/or check to make sure I’ve recorded your vote correctly, you can see my ballot-counting spreadsheet for this round here: COG 1901 Part 2 Vote Tally. I’ll be updating the spreadsheet periodically with the latest votes. Initially, there is a row in the spreadsheet for every voter who has cast a ballot in any of the past rounds, but new voters are entirely welcome — new voters will be added to the spreadsheet as their ballots are submitted. Also initially, there is a column for each of the holdover candidates; additional player columns from the new born-in-1901 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.
Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The thirteen current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The 1901 birth-year guys are listed below in order of the number of seasons each played in the majors, and alphabetically among players with the same number of seasons played.
Holdovers:
Harmon Killebrew (eligibility guaranteed for 9 rounds)
Carl Hubbell (eligibility guaranteed for 4 rounds)
Al Simmons (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Paul Waner (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Minnie Minoso (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1901, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Luke Sewell
Fred Schulte
Glenn Wright
Harry Rice
Clyde Sukeforth
Bennie Tate
Pitchers (born in 1901, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Vic Sorrell
Vic Sorrell, getting it done ugly:
WHIP over 1.5
Highest WAR:
6.1 (1.504) … Wes Ferrell (1929)
5.9 (1.555) … Bobo Newsom (1934)
5.7 (1.504) … Vic Sorrell (1930)
5.3 (1.544) … Alex Ferguson (1924)
5.3 (1.505) … Fritz Ostermueller (1934)
5.2 (1.561) … Phil Collins (1930)
5.1 (1.559) … Bob Feller (1938)
4.9 (1.555) … Vic Sorrell (1931)
4.8 (1.596) … Bobo Newsom (1938)
Bennie Tate, hitting machine:
Highest Season Batting Average, minimum 30 PA
.517 … Tripp Sigman
.512 … Rudy Pemberton
.500 … Gil Coan
.500 … Cameron Maybin
.486 … Eddie Murphy
.481 … Bennie Tate
.468 … Craig Wilson
Clyde Sukeforth, getting it done, for reals…
Highest Batting Average, CATCHER, minimum 250 PA
.399 … Don Padgett
.368 … Smokey Burgess
.367 … Babe Phelps
.366 … Gus Mancuso
.365 … Joe Mauer
.362 … Bill Dickey
.362 … Mike Piazza
.358 … Chief Meyers
.357 … Mickey Cochrane
.354 … CLYDE SUKEFORTH
.354 … Gabby Hartnett
.353 … Bubbles Hargrave
________
Padgett lost his .400 right at the end:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=padgedo01&t=b&year=1939
Sukeforth also had a perfect 2-0 record as Manager (in some fairly significant games).
WAR does not sort out our current balloteers:
72.8 … Waner
70.1 … Reuschel
68.7 … Simmons
68.3 … Brown
68.0 … Nettles
67.5 … Hubbell
66.7 … Tiant
63.8 … Winfield
62.9 … Eckersley
61.6 … Ferrell
60.3 … Killebrew
50.1 … Minoso
34.2 … Campanella
25.3 … Wright
20.5 … Sorrell
15.4 … Schulte
15.4 … Rice
3.8 … Sewell
3.3 … Tate
0.5 … Sukeforth
This round’s tidbits.
1. Luke Sewell’s career best batting average was .294 for the 1926 Indians. Which teammate of Sewell’s is the only other player to have 5000 PA from 1926 to 1937 and fail to bat .300 in any season of his career?
2. Fred Schulte posted four consecutive seasons (1931-34) of 30 doubles with single-digit home runs from fewer than 175 hits. Who are the only two players since with a longer streak of such seasons?
3. Glenn Wright began his career with 316 consecutive games as the Pirates’ starting shortstop, including every inning of his 1924 debut season. Wright leads all shorstops in RBI in both debut and rookie seasons, and also over the first two, three, four and five seasons of a career. Who is the only expansion era shortstop to exceed Wright’s RBI total over the first six seasons of his career?
4. Vic Sorrell’s 0.477 W-L% is the lowest in a 1000+ IP career among pitchers to play only for the Tigers. Which is the only franchise to have an expansion era team with 3 pitchers on its staff who would post 1000+ IP playing only for that franchise?
5. Clyde Sukeforth, at age 43 with the 1945 Dodgers, became the oldest player to catch 10 games in a season, a mark surpassed since only by Carlton Fisk. That same year, Sukeforth was chosen by Branch Rickey to approach Jackie Robinson to persuade him to meet Rickey to discuss plans for Robinson to join the Dodgers (two years later, Sukeforth would be Robinson’s manager for Jackie’s major league debut). Who is the second most famous player that Sukeforth was involved in signing?
6. Bennie Tate’s 1379 PA without an HPB was then the longest streak to end a career by catchers with at least one career HPB. Who is the only expansion era catcher with a longer such streak?
7. Harry Rice’s 420 PA in 1923 are the fewest in any season with 85 runs scored. That was the first of 5 consecutive 85 run seasons for Rice, each with fewer than both 65 walks and 185 hits. Who has the only longer streak of such seasons?
Answer to the Glenn Wright question is Miguel Tejada. His 498 RBI edge out Wright and his 486.
Additional tidbit: Luke Sewell is the only player with 20+ seasons to never have a seasonal OPS+ of at least 100. His top mark was 91 in 1924.
Answer to number 2, Fred Schulte question: Ben Chapman and Johnny Ray. Duffy Lewis did it prior to Schulte.
Bennie Tate question, number 6: I found that Greg Myers went his last 2010 PA without an HBP. Many of those PA were as a PH or DH but if you subtract his lifetime PH and DH appearances from that number it’s still greater than Tate’s 1379 PA.
All correct answers.
Answer to the Vic Sorrell question looks to be the Royals, who had Dennis Leonard, Paul Splittorff and Steve Busby as a trio on a bunch of teams in the 70’s.
At some point this season, the Giants will join that list with Cain, Lincecum and Bumgarner, but there’s no guarantee those three will retire as Giants.
Three are tough. There aren’t even many pairs. These are the only ones with retired expansion era pitchers with 1000+ IP.
– Teddy Higuera/Bill Wegman – Brewers 1985-94
– Mike Norris/Steve McCatty – As 1977-85
– Scott McGregor/Jim Palmer – Os 1976-84
– Don Wilson/J.R. Richard – Astros 1971-74
– Steve Blass/Bob Moose – Bucs 1967-74
– Whitey Ford/Mel Stottlemyre – Yanks 1964-67
Last trio before the Royals was Erskine, Koufax and Drysdale with the 1956-59 Dodgers. You’d have to be a real Red Sox fanatic to get the one before that: Mel Parnell/Willard Nixon/Tom Brewer 1954-56.
For Rice, I didn’t solve it, but it’s not Carl Crawford, Michael Bourn, Marquis Grissom or Vince Coleman, all of whom were reasonably close, but no cigar. It’s almost got to be a top-of-the-order guy in a high-offense era (’30s or 90s?) who didn’t walk a lot, possibly helped by being speedy. Or I’m way off and it’s just guy who scored runs off his own homers a lot.
Cesar Cedeno had seven straight seasons as such, from 1971-1977. You were in the right neighborhood by player-type, brp, just wrong about the era. In a similar era, Bert Campaneris did it 5 times in six years. Johnny Callison also equaled Harry Rice by doing it 5 times consecutively (1962-1966). Thank you, free P-I subscription (still available until 4/15, everyone)!
1. Luke Sewell question: Ozzie Bluege, his teammate for the two years Sewell spent with the Senators, 1933-34.
5. Clyde Sukeforth question: Roberto Clemente.
[Sigh] I meant “Ossie” Bluege.
Bluege was the farm director of the Senators who signed 17-year-old Harmon Killebrew in 1954.
Both correct.
The Clemente signing was an interesting story. Sukeforth had been fired as a coach by the Dodgers after the 1952 season (some say Sukeforth, as bullpen coach, was made the scapegoat for the choice to bring in Ralph Branca to relieve Newcombe in the 1951 pennant playoff). Branch Rickey, who was now running the show in Pittsburgh, picked up his friend again. On Sukeforth’s recommendation, the Pirates claimed Clemente from Brooklyn in the Rule V draft. Of course, it took a while before Clemente proved the wisdom of that choice, but sweet revenge nonetheless.
Simmons, Hubbell, Waner.
Killebrew, Waner, and Eckersley
Glenn Wright isn’t a serious COG candidate by any means and his offensive numbers were inflated by the times in which he played. Still for a few years there he was a really terrific player and if not for his injuries he might well rank among the greatest shortstops in history. Pretty amazing that for the first 40 years of the last Century the Pirates had arguably the games best shortstop playing for them almost every year.
Waner, Campanella, Ferrell
Wright and Joe Sewell are the only rookie shortstops to play every inning of the season. Sewell did it a second time the same year (1924) as Wright.
Ernie Banks missed by an inning and a half in 1954.
It is hard to remember that Sewell would be considered a rookie in 1921, given the September/October he had in 1920.
Like Ken Dryden in hockey. He was the MVP of the NHL playoffs in 1971, then won RoY honors in 1972.
Joe Sewell is one of 19 players who had 9+ consecutive seasons of 150+ games played. I determined that without using the PI.
Killebrew, Hubble, Simmons
Hubble, Simmons, Campanella
Does anyone know how birtelcom is doing? I’m getting a little worried; it’s been a pretty long time since he’s checked in here.
Here’s my vote:
Al Simmons
Kevin Brown
Carl Hubbell
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
Brown 43.3
Waner 40.8
Reuschel 40.6
FerrellW 40.1
Hubbell 39.8
Simmons 37.6
Tiant 37.5
Nettles 35.7
Eckersley 34.3
Killebrew 33.0
Winfield 31.1
Minoso 30.6
Campanella 19.2
Brown, Waner, Simmons
I believe Hubbell should have 4 rounds of eligibility, Waner 3, and Brown only 1.
I agree; David’s tally looks right to me. Kevin Brown lost a round in 1902 (round 88) and has not regained it; Waner and Hubbell were both over 25% last round (round 89, aka 1901.1) and should have picked up an extra round of eligibility.
Thanks for the correction.
I’ve confirmed your calculations and updated the post.
Waner, Tiant, Hubbell
Killebrew, Eckersley, and Waner
Simmons, Hubbell, Waner
Simmons, Waner, Winfield
Waner, Simmons, Hubbell
Waner, Hubbell, Eckersley
Simmons, Waner, Minoso
Reuschel Hubbel Simmons
Simmons, Winfield, Nettles
So far Hubbell is running at 33% …
… for having his name misspelled.
For the 1901 Part 2 election, I’m voting for:
-Dennis Eckersley
-Dave Winfield
-Paul Waner
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Simmons
-Killebrew
-Brown
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Nettles
-Hubbell
For the 1901 Part 2 election, I’m voting for:
-Dennis Eckersley
-Dave Winfield
-Paul Waner
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Simmons
-Killebrew
-Brown
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Nettles
-Hubbell
(Sorry if this posts multiple times. I seem to be having issues getting it to post.)
Hubbell, Campanella, Minoso
Hubbell is certainly good enough but I don’t think he’s the best player on this ballot. I don’t think he’s much better than Ferrell in the right context. It would be a shame to have a COG without Hubbell don’t get me wrong, I’m just not going to vote for him because I don’t think he’s at the top of this ballot
Simmons, Campanella, Ferrell… and if you guys let Nettles drop off I’ll be sad 🙁
Looks like we’re going to have another closely contested election. Totals through 19 votes (through #34):
12 – Simmons, Waner
10 – Hubbell
======================50% (10)
======================25% (5)
4 – Eckersley*, Killebrew
3 – Campanella*, Winfield*
2 – Brown*, Ferrell*, Minoso*
======================10% (2)
1 – Nettles*, Reuschel, Tiant*
As I mentioned @14, Brown only has one round of eligibility, rather than two (and Hubbell and Waner have 4 and 3 rather than 3 and 2, respectively), thus the asterisk after Brown’s name.
Waner vs. Simmons, by (some) of the numbers.
Games: 2,549 to 2,215 for Waner
PA’s: 10,766 to 9,518 for Waner
Slash lines: .333./.404/.473 for Waner; .334/.380/.535 for Simmons
OPS+: 134 to 133 for Waner
bWAR: 72.8 to 68.7 for Waner
bWAR7: 45.7 to 42.2 for Simmons
WAA: 38.7 to 34.8 for Waner
Rfield: 67 to 23 for Simmons
JAWS: 57.5 to 57.2 for Waner (basically a wash)
wOBA: .410 to .403 for Simmons
wRC+: 135 to 130 for Waner
fWAR: 74.7 to 69.3 for Waner
Simmons was regarded well enough defensively at the beginning of his career that he played 775 games in CF. Waner played just about his entire career in RF.
Simmons mashed in the playoffs for the 1929-1931 dynastic A’s, putting up a .338/.387/.667 slash line in 76 PA’s with 6 HR and 17 RBI. Waner only made it to one WS and he hit decently, going 5 for 15.
They were direct contemporaries with astoundingly similar value, though they did it in very different ways. Simmons had a lot more power, whereas Waner walked a lot more and struck out a lot less (2.90 career BB/K for Waner, compared to 0.83 for Simmons).
I’ll act according to the wisdom of Solomon and split the baby, making my vote:
Simmons, Waner, Brown
FWIW Adam Darowski’s Hall of Stats has it 137 for Waner & 131 for Simmons.
In 1927 when the A’s also had a 40 year old Ty Cobb and 39 year old Zach Wheat on the roster Simmons played 94 games in center. The following year Simmons spent all of his time in left field & Cobb played only in right while Bing Miller was the primary center fielder plus he spelled Cobb a fair bit in right while a 40 year old Tris Speaker took over in center about 1/3 of the time.
@36,
When two players are regarded as about equally good, it’s useful to see what how people rated the players – both contemporary opinion, and what respected historians think.
For example – from the BJNHA (Bill James New Historical Abstract):
Al Simmons – 7th amongst LFers, 84 overall
Paul Waner – 9th amongst RFers, 84 overall
Wow, that really clears things up…
@82,
OOPS! I meant:
Al Simmons – 7th amongst LFers, _71_ overall
Reuschel, Hubbell, Simmons
Usually, I vote late and try to keep some guys around. I’m afraid, if I try that on this ballot, I’ll forget entirely or end up voting for “Collins” again. So I’m just going to put forth the three in the current group I think most deserving (for one reason or another).
Simmons, Eck, Ferrell
I’ve consistently voted for Campy and Minoso but, sorry guys, you’re on your own for this round. I’ve never voted for Eck before, but I do think his role in the evolution of pitching can not be overlooked or under sold. He was transformational. For that same reason, my personal Hall of Fame would also include Marvin Miller and Curt Flood. But Eck’s got the numbers, too.
LOL regarding “Collins.” Probably wise to vote now; and if you change your mind, you still have until Sunday night to do so!
Hubbell, Simmons, Waner
Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Minnie Minoso
Hubbell, Nettles, Tiant
Choosing between Simmons and Waner is just as bad as choosing between Simmons and Cochrane except they are both outfielders, making it even worse.
I appreciate the head-to-head comparison by Cursed Clevelander @36 above, but I am going to pass again, and repeat my previous ballot, with the logic of ‘it’s time for a pitcher’ (with Hubbell having a very solid, straightforward case unlike any of the holdover pitchers).
Simmons was far better defensively. He also had the best and second best seasons between him and Waner with the bat (single season RBAT). Simmons was better on a rate basis he just didn’t play as long as Waner which allows Waner to compete in total WAR and WAA. Simmons played three consecutive seasons at >=7.5 WAR, a level Waner never reached in his career (best was 6.9).
Simmons beats Waner in WAR in their respective best seasons, best 3 seasons, best 3 non-consecutive seasons, best 7 seasons, best 7 non consecutive seasons (or any such number of seasons Waner unless you really don’t care about peak.
@42,
I’m not sure why you’re so invested in establishing Simmons’ supremacy over Waner (for a couple of rounds now it seems like a running concern); The difference between the two, no matter who one favors, is going to be very, very small indeed.
Personally, I think I’d take Simmons by a hair mostly because, though he played LF for the majority of his career, he proved that he could play CF well — had he been given the chance to play there for the majority of his career he would definitely be looked at as one of the top 10 CF of all time. And that just sounds cooler than being one of the top 10 LF of all time.
Talk to me on a different day though, and I might take Waner by a hair.
Hub, it doesn’t get any easier next ballot. If a pitcher wins, we add Goose Goslin to the mix, another OF who is roughly contemporaneous with incredibly similar career value (54.7 JAWS, 66.1 bWAR).
Mosc, that’s a great point re: Simmons’ 1929-1931. I like both career value and peak value, and I am undecided as to which I weigh more. I do have a subcategory of peak value that I consider and that is ‘multiple MVP level seasons’, and I did miss that great streak of Simmons’. Hmm…
I have another ‘subcategory’, and that is ‘excellence (i.e. significant WAR, etc.) at age 38 and up’ although looking at Waner his late career looks more like ‘hanging on a little bit too long’ (e.g. Biggio et al) than I thought it did.
Simmons does look like he is in good shape for this round, at least.
Cursed Clevelander, I had forgotten that Goslin was coming up, too- I think all I remembered for 1900 was Lefty Grove; along with Grove, it looks like we are likely to add to the ‘Who goes first?’ crowd of likely COG-ers that don’t stand out against each other very much, with the borderline crowd straggling on. 1900 is a good nickname year, at least.
Yeah, Grove is the obvious 1900 winner, and it seems we’ll add 3 more holdovers. Goslin as mentioned is similar in value to some of the other OF holdovers, Gabby Hartnett is to Cochrane what Waner is to Simmons (roughly contemporaneous players with similar career value, with Hartnett/Waner accruing more WAR because of longevity while Cochrane/Simmons had the higher peak value), and Ted Lyons (67.2 bWAR) seems to be right in that meaty zone for pitchers where we all agree they belong on the ballot but can’t decide who stands out among his peers.
Campanella, Hubbell, Simmons.
Harmon Killebrew; Carl Hubbell; Al Simmons –
Winfield, Hubbell, Simmons.
Not sure if mine went through… Winfield, Hubbell, Simmons.
Changing my vote: Nettles, Tiant, Simmons.
We need to start seeing some votes for Nettles or I’m going to start reposting all my Nettles propaganda.
Wes Ferrell, Kevin Brown, and Graig Nettles
simmons, nettles and tiant
Minoso
ASimmons (I just like saying Aloysius)
Harm and Kill the Brewers, er, Harmon Killebrew.
And he did, more or less, “Harm and kill the Brewers.” Killer OPS’d .954 against the crew, the highest total for him against any team. That wouldn’t be THAT odd, beating up on an expansion team, except that ALL of those games occurred in Killebrew’s age 34-39 seasons, when his overall OPS was only .807 total. Basically, his ability to beat up on them was the defining trait of his last 6 years in the league.
Campanella, Hubbell, Waner
Random eligibility question: Is Benny Kauff going to make the ballot in his birth year of 1890? He has the 20 WAR, but only if you include his Federal League years.
Not that it matters for practical reasons (he probably won’t get a vote), but I think he’s an interesting guy and I always like seeing what the great baseball minds at HHS think about the lesser lights in the firmament. He’s also one of the more sympathetic guys to be blacklisted (IIRC he was never proven to have been crooked on the diamond, just mixed up with some stolen cars in the off-season; I think Landis just didn’t like him).
This isn’t an official answer, of course, but it seems to me Kauff should be eligible – Kauff accumulated more than 20 WAR, as you mentioned, and the Federal League is considered a major league, so the fact that the FL wasn’t an outstandingly strong league is (IMO) irrelevant.
As far as I know, there isn’t a rule about excluding Federal League results, so he would therefore be eligible.
Not that my opinion matters any more than anyone else’s, but the rule in the text at the top says, “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).” It specifically calls out baseball-reference’s WAR calculation; as long as it’s good enough for them, it makes sense that it’s good enough for the COG ballot.
He did hit two homers in the same game in the 1917 Series against the Sox — a solo shot and a two-run homer.
Brown
Waner
Simmons
Al Simmons
Carl Hubbell
Graig Nettles
Waner, Simmons and Hubbell
Minoso, Reuschel and Killebrew
Reuschel, Hubbell, Waner
I’d love to see Waner and Simmons in a triple threat matchup against Goslin.
_______________
Vote:
Dennis Eckersley
Wes Ferrell
Dave Winfield
Paul waner, Carl hubbell, al Simmons
Quick update:
This is through 39 votes, ending with Josh’s post @77:
25 – Al Simmons
21 – Carl Hubbell
==========================50% (20)
19 – Paul Waner
==========================25% (10)
7 – Dennis Eckersley, Harmon Killebrew
6 – Roy Campanella
5 – Kevin Brown, Wes Ferrell, Minnie Minoso, Graig Nettles
4 – Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield
==========================10% (4)
No one receiving votes below the 10% threshold.
I have the same. My post @ 35 had a slight error – I credited Campanella with one too few votes, and Killebrew one too many – but I’ve done a recount from the start, and Dr. D’s count checks out.
It’s been about two days since I last posted, but there have only been three votes since then, so I’m not sure an update is actually merited. Nonetheless, here’s the skinny:
With 42 total votes (through MJ @93), the players with 4 votes (Luis Tiant and Dave Winfield) have dropped below 10%. The long-time holdovers are bunched from 4-7 votes. No one is between 25% and 49.99%. At exactly 50% (21 votes) are Carl Hubbell and Paul Waner; Al Simmons is in front with 27 votes, a fairly commanding (though probably not insurmountable) lead at this juncture.
Simmons – Warner – Ferrell
A Simmons
K Brown
G Nettles
Random sidetrack: Best post-war player to never make an all-star team?
I went with Eric Chavez. ’01-’05 he got MVP votes and won all the 3B gold gloves but no nod. Anybody want to correct me?
Some other options:
1) Tony Phillips: 7 seasons above 4.0 WAR, including 6 straight. I believe Phillips has the most career WAR for post WAR players who never made the All-Star game.
2) Tim Salmon – Rookie of the year, two top 10 MVP finishes, five seasons above 4.0 WAR, including a high of 6.6.
3) Kirk Gibson – MVP, 4 seasons above 4.0 WAR with a peak of 6.5.
4) Travis Hafner: Three straight seasons of 5.0+ WAR, two top ten MVP finishes, twice led the league in OPS+ and once each in slugging and OPS.
Other options include:
Garry Maddox (8 GGs in Centerfield, 4 seasons above 4+ WAR, high of 6.4).
John Valentin (5 seasons above 4+ WAR with a high of 8.3).
For pitchers, probably Charlie Leibrandt (4 seasons above 4+ WAR with two of those above 6 WAR).
BTW, Bernard Gilkey also has an 8+ WAR season without ever making an All-Star team. No idea if anyone other than him and Valentin has done that.
My pick would be Tim Salmon,
but honorable mention to:
Cesar Tovar (7-yr “peak” in which he averaged 3.7 WAR; received MVP votes in 5 seasons)
Rick Reuschel, Paul Waner, Kevin Brown
@92/mosc
– Tim Salmon, Kirk Gibson also come to mind; not up to researching them now.
intuitively I’d go:
– Salmon
– Chavez
– Kirk Gibson
For the win:
– Paul Waner (Simmons, Hubbell also quite deserving)
To stay on the ballot:
– Luis Tiant
– Minnie Minoso
Killebrew, Hubbell, Winfield
This is a vote change from the ballot @45, then?
He might not be able to see that he has already voted.
Winfield, Hubbell, Simmons
With only 45 ballots in and just 2 days to go in the voting that makes all of our holdovers safe, at least for the time being.
Tiant, Reuschel & Winfield all have 5 votes, Minoso, Campanella, Ferrell & Nettles all have 6, Brown & Eckersley have 7 & the Killer 8. Simmon’s leads with 27 votes & Hubbell & Waner are tied at 22. (this is all according to the spreadsheet). The vote totals for the past 4 elections haven’t been updated but in the 1906 election there were 60 ballots & in Part 2 of 1907 there were 59 so it is possible that 6 votes is all it would take for someone to move forward. Prior to that however you have go back to 1940 Part 2 to find an election with 60 or fewer votes so I probably wouldn’t count on it.
Has anyone heard from birtelcom? I’m starting to get a little worried.
“All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EDT Tuesday, April 14th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, April 12th.”
There are more than 2 days left in the voting, so there’s time yet to reach 61+ ballots cast.
Oops! I think I read that backwards & saw Sunday as the cutoff date for all voting.
I was wondering why there were so few votes this round. Thanks for clarifying.
On a tangent a comment about our current crop of pitchers (and one coming up)
This is how JAWS sees them:
Ferrell 58.3 #39
Hubbell 57.4 #44
Reuschel 56.9 #45
Brown 56.9 #46
Lyons 56.2 #48 Coming up in the 1900 election
Tiant 55.6 #51
One thing that should be noted is that the Hall of Stats makes no adjustment for pre-1900 pitchers so there are 13 that rank above any of our current candidates.
Hall of Stats (which does adjust for pre-1900 pitchers so only 2 rank above all of our current pool & a couple more above at least 1 of them
Brown 137 #27
Reuschel 135 #29
Hubbell 135 #30
Tiant 128 #34
Lyons 125 #40
Ferrell 110 #58
I assume that the difference in Ferrell is that JAWS takes his hitting into account whereas the HOS does not.
I understand that some people have issues with Brown’s better living thru chemistry history or the adjustments that WAR makes for the defenses behind Reuschel or Ferrell’s hitting but overall it looks like these guys should be in a fairly tight group. Juan Marichal, Bob Feller & Jim Palmer are 3 current COGer’s that also fit right in with these scores.
Another oops.
I just realized I left off Eckersley- possibly because JAWS lumps him in a separate category with relievers.
For Eck
JAWS 50.5 Which is #1 among relievers but #69 among starting pitchers
HOS 126 #39 Which is right in line with everyone else.
Why fewer votes?
Don’t know for sure, but the issues with the functionality of the comments have got to be driving people away.
I’ve been coming here daily for years now, and I’m down to maybe one visit a day. Because if the ‘recent comments’ aren’t refreshing, it’s a bit of a hassle to keep up with the conversations.
If I were a more casual user I’d probably be gone entirely.
Lyons missed time to WWII or else he’d likely be higher on the lists. Hard to say given his age but he was still going strong (in both pitching and hitting) at age 41 and did well when he came back at age 45.
Hartvig
Hall of Stats counts Ferrell’s hitting WAR but not his hitting WAA since WAR equals WAA for pitcher hitting.
@109:
Agreed. And it’s also discouraging any potential new readers.
I cannot see any comments after (or including) my vote in the browser I voted in, even when I click on a newer comment from the home page. The count there is stuck on 56.
@ Vooomo and Richard: I’m definitely commenting less often because of the lack of functionality. I don’t want to be a dick and badger Andy on Twitter about it, especially because I’m very grateful that he created this site, but the commenting problems are a real pain and have significantly reduced the amount of time I spend here.
What browsers do people here use? At work, I use Chrome; at home, I use the app version of Internet Explorer. I have never had a problem posting comments (except through my own stupidity, on occasion), nor have I had a problem viewing comments. Although the front page “Recent Comments” tracker is usually behind, I find the comment numbers in parentheses always to be accurate, so I tend to trust those more often. Of course, I’m a more-than-once-a-day visitor to this site, so it’s not that hard for me to remember the appropriate number of comments. But I just wanted to point out that I haven’t found the problems to affect me, besides the “Recent Comments” being behind.
My experience is the same as Doom’s vis Firefox. Of course, I still think it best if the site were fixed.
Mine isn’t quite that bad right now. I can see Richard Chester’s @ 116. But it does take hours or even a day or more sometimes for them to show up.
Firefox is the one that gets stuck when I make a comment, and sometimes when I don’t make a comment. [Ctrl-F5] to force a reload does not even work; sometimes loading again in a private window does.
This comment is being posted in Chrome.
The only way I learn about the new posts is via my Facebook page. As far as I know the most recent post is the one titled “Game Notes — Sunday thru Wednesday”.
My two cents worth. No problems at home with Chrome. Phone is Android and no problems there either.
Hubbell, Campanella, Winfield
Nettles, Tiant, Winfield
Not sure if I am pro-Winfield or not but I will offer up a vote to keep him safe so I can decide later on down the road.
Hubbell, Simmons, Winfield
Through 47 ballots (#114), and counting #101 as a vote change from #45, the current totals are:
28 – Simmons
24 – Hubbell
==========================50% (24)
22 – Waner
==========================25% (12)
8 – Killebrew, Winfield*
7 – Brown*, Campanella*, Eckersley*, Nettles*
6 – Ferrell*, Minoso*, Tiant*
5 – Reuschel
==========================10% (5)
To Voomo and Richard Chester’s points, @109 and @116 the difficulty in seeing recent comments is somewhat of a distraction. It may not be influencing traffic–that’s something Andy, presumably would know. I do think it might impact the quality of the conversations, because it’s hard to have a back and forth. It’s too mad, because there really have been some very fine pieces put up recently that are worth reading. One of the good things about this site is that there are no word-length limitations, so you get some very nice analysis. I’d hate to see it lose viewers at a time where there’s such good work being produced.
Anyway, before the week gets away from me,
Waner, and the two screwballers, Hubbell and El Tiante
Simmons Hubbell Waner
Tiant, Reuschel, Brown
Waner, Reuschel, Nettles
My comment post usually gives a white page and I wait a bit then go back to the previous page in Explorer. It may take 5-10 seconds to get back to the balloting post but it always works and my comment shows up. I don’t always look at recent comments – I visit every few days and watch the number of comments on the main posting to see how activity is going.
Tiant, Eckersley, Nettles
Brown, Reuschel, Ferrell
This is a vote update through Mike G. @129, the 53rd vote:
29 – Al Simmons
=========================50% (27)
26 – Carl Hubbell
25 – Paul Waner
=========================25% (14)
9 – Kevin Brown, Graig Nettles, Luis Tiant
8 – Dennis Eckersley, Harmon Killebrew, Rick Reuschel, Dave Winfield
7 – Roy Campanella, Wes Ferrell
6 – Minnie Minoso
Minoso might need one more vote, but everyone else is safe, as we won’t get 18 votes cast in the next 13 hours.
I’ll vote waner, Ferrell, brown.
And on the topic of the site, definitely my visits have gone down from several a day to a couple a week, solely due to my frustration around the lack of functionality. I am sure there is a more silent group that has simply stopped coming.
Hubbell, Waner, Killebrew
Simmons, Brown, Reuschel.