This post is for voting and discussion in the 96th 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 1895. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of 1895-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 1895-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 Tuesday, June 9th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EDT Sunday, June 7th.
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 1895 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-1895 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 1895 birth-year players 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)
Roy Campanella (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Hoyt Wilhelm (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dwight Evans (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Gabby Hartnett (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ted Lyons (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (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 1895, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Babe Ruth
High Pockets Kelly
Jack Smith
Carson Bigbee
Joe Evans
Chick Fewster
Whitey Witt
Pitchers (born in 1895, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Bob Smith
Jakie May
Jimmy Ring
Harry Harper
Carmen Hill
Hugh McQuillan
Johnny Morrison
This round’s tidbits. Answers in red.
1. Babe Ruth shares with Christy Mathewson and Bob Feller the distinction, by age 22, of two 300 IP seasons with 125 ERA+, and with those two plus Smoky Joe Wood, of two or more 20-win seasons with that ERA+. Since 1901, who is second to Ruth in career batting WAR, among players like him with 20 career pitching WAR? Red Ruffing.
2. High Pockets Kelly’s five consecutive seasons (1921-25) with 95 RBI from fewer than 25 home runs is tied with Bill Terry, Pie Traynor and Bobby Abreu for the longest such NL streak. Who holds the AL record? Harry Heilmann 1923-29, Charlie Gehringer 1932-38.
3. Bob Smith’s four seasons with 200 IP, 20 starts, 10 relief outings and a losing record from sub-100 ERA+ are the most since 1901 (edging out fellow ballot candidate Hugh McQuillan‘s 3 such seasons). Smith and Kaiser Wilhelm (in the FL) posted such a season at age 40, the oldest pitchers (by 4 years) to do so. Who is the only pitcher with more career IP than Smith, among those like him with a pitching debut aged 30 or older? Curt Davis
4. Jack Smith posted three consecutive seasons (1920-22) batting .300 with 20 doubles and fewer than 50 RBI. Who is the only outfielder since to match that feat? Ichiro Suzuki.
5. Jakie May and Ray Kolp were teammates on the 1927-30 Reds, the first team with two pitchers who would compile 1500 career IP with only one 200 IP season. Which was the first team with three such pitchers? 1997 Rockies with Jamey Wright, Bill Swift and Frank Castillo
6. Jimmy Ring owns the only live ball era season (1922) leading his league in most allowed walks, home runs and wild pitches. Which live ball era pitcher had a season with zero wild pitches while leading his league in most allowed walks and home runs? Luis Tiant
7. Chick Fewster’s 77 OPS+ is among the lowest career marks for players with walks in 10% of 2000+ career PAs. Who is the only such player active in 2014 whose career OPS+ is lower than Fewster’s? Nick Punto
8. Carson Bigbee posted three consecutive seasons (1920-22) with 15 triples and 20 stolen bases. Who is the only expansion era player to match that feat? Carl Crawford.
9. Joe Evans posted a 52 OPS+ in 1917 as the Indians’ regular third baseman. Who is the only player since with a lower OPS+ in a season playing 125 games at the hot corner? Coco Laboy
10. Johnny Morrison posted a 113 ERA+ with H/9 ratio under 9.5 while starting over half his games in a 1500 IP career. Who is the last pitcher with such a career while posting a SO/BB ratio lower than Morrison’s 1.08 mark? Bob Lemon
11. Hugh McQuillan was fortunate to be traded to the Giants in 1922 for Larry Benton, but not only because New York was the defending world champion. As a Brave facing the Giants, McQuillan’s .273 W-L% was more than 200 points lower than his overall W-L%. Five years later, McQuillan was again traded for Benton who, as a Giant, compiled a .600 W-L% but, like McQuillan, had a woeful .292 mark (7-27) opposing the New York powerhouse. Which pitcher was most unlike McQuillan and Benton, by compiling a W-L% as a Giant more than 150 points lower than when opposing the G-men, both in 200+ career IP? Orel Hershiser .524 as Giant/.710 against Giants
12. Whitey Witt’s 1924 season ratio of more than 18 PA per RBI (36 RBI in 662 PA) is the highest by a Yankee centerfielder in any 250 PA live ball era season. In more than 2000 PA as a Yankee, Witt’s career ratio of more than 15 PA per RBI is also the highest for any centerfielder with 400 PA in pinstripes. Among all centerfielders, who has the highest PA per RBI ratio in a 5000 PA career? Roy Thomas
13. Carmen Hill is the only pre-expansion pitcher with fewer than both 10 games and 50 IP in each of his first 6 seasons. It must therefore have been a pleasant surprise for the Pirates to get 277 IP and 22 wins from the 31 year-old Hill in his first season above either of those markers. Who is the only Pirate since Hill with two seasons of 225 IP, 30 starts and 15 wins at age 31-32? Bob Friend
14. Harry Harper’s 1.1 IP starting game 6 of the 1921 WS is the shortest appearance by a starting pitcher allowing two home runs in a World Series game. Which such pitcher has the shortest start in a World Series opening game? Ed Figueroa, 1978 WS.
Carson Bigbee question:
Carl Crawford, 2004-2006
There are some doozies on here. Thought #3 would be Orlando Hernandez but El Duque was 900 innings short.
Is Roy Thomas (the deadball version) the answer to the Whitey Witt question? 299 RBI in 6575 PAs leads to a 21.99 PA/RBI ratio.
Thomas is the one, with almost 22 PA per RBI for his career.
Otis Nixon is the live ball era “leader” with more than 18 PA per RBI.
1. Babe Ruth – I take it the answer is John Montgomery Ward; 28.4 pitching WAR, 35.6 as a hitter.
2. High Pockets Kelly – Harry Heilmann had 7 such consecutive seasons, and that’s my best guess for now.
I think it’s a tie between Heilmann and his teammate Gehringer, who also had 7. Though their streak seasons did not overlap.
Ward’s career was a bit too early to meet the post-1901 cutoff. 🙂
Unless there’s some trickery involved with the question, highest batting WAR from a guy from the pitching position is:
15.0 … Ruth’s teammate Red Ruffing
No trickery. Ruffing is the one.
13. Carmen Hill – I thought I was going to have to look for a long time, so I thought I’d post it in a separate thread from my other answers… but then the answer was the first one I checked! It’s Bob Friend, 1962-63.
Johnny Morrison led the league is Games Pitched in 1924 with:
41
The only league leaders with a lower total (since 1871) were:
40 … Burleigh Grimes (1918 – war/flu shortened season)
40 … Joe Haynes (1942 – war, depleted rosters?)
Hugh McQuillen, question 11: Orel Hershiser, .524 as a Giant and .710 against.
It is Hershiser, who just met the 200 IP qualification is his lone season as a Giant.
If I read #14 right, I think it might be Ed Figueroa, 1978. (1.2 innings in Game 1, 2 Home runs allowed)
It is Figueroa.
1978 would be his last good season. Injuries set in the next season from which Figueroa never recovered, with only 210 IP and a 75 ERA+ the rest of his career.
My gut reaction is that Figueroa came down with Billy Martinitis, a mysterious ailment that many Tigers, Yankees and A’s pitchers suffered from in the 70s and 80s. But looking at his stats, it doesn’t appear Billy rode him any harder than most starting pitchers were rode in that period (unlike some other starters Billy had)
Sounds like Figueroa’s arm problems were caused by an unusual pitching motion:
Author Bruce Markusen summed it up well in 2008: “Over a four-year span, he averaged 248 innings per season, a substantial workload that became exacerbated by an awkward motion. In his wind-up, Figueroa tucked his left leg and left arm in toward his mid-section; by the time he put himself in position to deliver the pitch, he was throwing the ball across his body. It was a fun delivery to imitate (as I know well from hours of throwing a ball up against a boulder outside of my house), but it sure did appear to put extra stress on the arm and shoulder. Figueroa’s arm problems began in 1979; by 1981, he was fully cooked.”
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/750a1e46
Figueroa supposedly was delighted when Bob Lemon took over from Billy Martin part way through the ’78 season. So, a bit mysterious why Figueroa signed as a free agent with the A’s in ’81 during Martin’s “reign of terror” with Oakland’s unfortunate young arms. Not that it mattered for Figueroa who had only two more appearances for his career.
Doug – Figueroa’s SABR bio said he reached out to Martin.
I imagine he wanted another shot at the majors and that Martin represented his best shot.
After all, he went 3-10 with a 6.54 ERA the year before. And he started ’81 with the Rangers AA team and posted a 7.83 ERA in 6 starts before being released. At that point, his only chance was likely to reach out to a manager with whom he had had success in the past.
Jack Smith question-Stan Hack?
Sorry, Hack wasn’t an outfielder.
No. 4: Ichiro Suzuki
It is Ichiro. I was surprised there were no others.
Wally Moses had 50 RBI in 1940. One less and he would have met the criteria for four straight years (1938-41).
#9. Coco Laboy, 1970 Expos, 49 OPS+ in 137 games.
Since Laboy’s season of 476 PA, nobody has posted more PA in a season with BA under .200 and OPS+ under 50 (though Ivan de Jesus with .194/44 in 460 PA could have done so if not for the abbreviated 1981 season)
Switch the crime scene to shortstop, OPS+ 50 or lower and 400+ PA, and some mention must be made of Giants SS Hal Lanier in his age 24-25-26-27 seasons, 1967-70: OPS+ of 42, 38, 46 and 47, respectively.
In that vein, early birthday greetings to Billy Hunter who turns 87 tomorrow. He debuted by playing every game of the season in 1953 with a 37 OPS+. He improved to 66, 54, 58 and 47 in four more seasons with 250+ PA.
Hunter, though, had a fine glove with 2.8 dWAR (18 Rfield) in that rookie season and 1.6 dWAR (10 Rfield) two years later in only 98 games (712 innings) for the Yankees.
Chick Fewster answer: Nick Punto (76 OPS+ and 10.3% walks/PA), who was my second guess after Elvis Andrus, who walked too little (7.9%)and hit too well (83 OPS+).
#6, pitcher who led league in home runs and walks allowed while throwing zero wild pitches: Luis Tiant, 1969 Indians. He led the AL in losses, too (20).
Luis had more trouble than most adjusting to the new mound and strike zone. Here are his 1968 and 1969 seasons.
Generated 6/4/2015.
Does a ballet dancer have to adjust between performances to a dance surface modified in its texture and hardness? No? Well, then. (-;þ
Luis Tiant, +12 W-L in 1968 to -11 W-L in 1969—a swing of 23 decisions. Steve Carlton, +17 W-L in 1972 to -7 W-L in 1973—a swing of 24 decisions. Of course, in other respects these pairs of seasons were not similar at all.
Biggest swing from a winning season to a losing season per Fangraph stats.
Tom Hughes with a swing of 28 from 1903 to 1904.
Chief Bender with a swing of 26 from 1914 to 1915.
Going from a losing season to a winning season.
Ed Cicotte with a swing of 29 from 1918 to 1919.
Dolf Luque with a swing of 29 from 1922 to 1923.
Hal New houser with a swing of 29 from 1943 to 1944.
I think adjustment was exactly what was going on.
A lot of Tiant’s drop was a product of the excessively high quality of his ’68 season – a 1.60 ERA (186 ERA+). His ’69 W-L record was awful, but his ERA+ was still above average (101). (Interesting that the ERA+ drop-off was identical to Carlton’s.)
Tiant started the year 0-7 with a 7.51 ERA (the team was disintegrating around him, too: 6-15 without him, a .286 percentage, where they’d been .496 without him in ’68). Tiant took a week off and returned more like himself: he finished with a 2.89 ERA in his remaining 200+ IP, which would have been a top-10 figure if his 0-7 start hadn’t happened. His W-L record of 9-13 under-represents his quality.
He started ’70 6-0, and maybe he could have had a swing year in the opposite direction to match his fall, but an injury took him out of action for two months, and his mid-career slump grew from that. (Maybe for the best, in the end, since it made his later revival such a great story.)
I haven’t voted for Tiant in these CoG rounds, but looking at this stuff brought back to mind what a unique and wonderful pitcher he was, and I may in later rounds. The memory of his 180-degree swivel delivery is really lovely to recall.
Question #5: I found the 1998 Giants with Mark Gardner, Kirk Rueter and Jose Mesa. I hope I am right because I never spent so much time on one of Doug’s questions.
Not quite. There’s one team earlier than that.
Hint: one of the pitchers on that team was only released after spring training this season
Then how about the 1997 Rockies with Jamey Wright, Bill Swift and Frank Castillo.
Reuschel Ashburn Ruth
Ruth, Tiant, Lyons
Babe Ruth, Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans
Ruth, Nettles, Hartnett
Not that the winner of this round is in any doubt whatsoever, but I feel honour-bound to have him on my ballot all the same.
Ruth, Killebrew, Eckersley
Ruth, Kevin Brown, Nettles
Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Babe Ruth
In 1923, Jimmy Ring led the league in Earned Runs, Walks, and Wild Pitches…
with a 7.7 WAR
How?
Baker Bowl, for one.
Ring is credited with a 111.7 Park Factor.
And the balls that stayed in the park were thoroughly booted.
-0.41 RA9def
A nice round 50 errors from his shortstop Heinie (Feet In) Sand.
18 errors in 62 games from utility infielder Fran Parkinson (Glove Disease).
3rd Base was also poorly handled by Russ Wrightstone (Hands).
All around bad RF play from Curt Walker (Don’t Throw).
And it doesn’t help to have a lousy Centerfielder, Cy (But I Can Hit) Williams.
Ring did not help his own cause with the bat.
.106 / .122 / .159 / .281 / -29
An amazing -1.3 batting WAR for the pitcher.
But his record indicates his value, in this case.
18 – 16 on a team that went 50 – 104
LOL!
Fun stuff, Voomo.
Ladislaw Waldemar Wittkowski (Whitey Witt) was the 1st Yankee to step to the plate at Yankee Stadium.
True to form, Witt picked up his first RBI in the 8th game of that season-opening homestand.
Babe Ruth had these RBI totals, in consecutive seasons, without leading the league:
165
146
154
153
162
137
Yes, Gehrig led in 4 of those seasons, aided by batting behind Ruth, who averaged
.350 / .477
Let me know if this is a legal ballot
Ruth the position player
Nettles
Ruth the pitcher
No it’s not valid. Most pitchers have at bats in their career and lots of position players pitched an inning or two.
Ruth does just barely meet our requirements as a Pitcher:
10 Years on the Mound
20.6 WAR
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml#pitching_standard::none
WAR Leaders for Pitchers with less than 200 Games:
(active players not included)
33.3 / 199 … Brandon Webb
31.3 / 199 … Russ Ford
30.8 / 157 … Jim Devlin (in THREE years)
26.0 / 191 … Jake Weimer (debuted at age 29)
25.5 / 183 … Charlie Ferguson (in 4 years)
23.8 / 170 … Josh Johnson (is he done?)
23.7 / 168 … Ben Sanders (in 5 years)
23.1 / 199 … Ray Collins
20.9 / 197 … Johnny Rigney (WWII)
20.8 / 176 … Ed Seward (those 19th century pitchers just couldn’t stay healthy for some reason)
20.6 / 163 … G.H. Ruth
19.5 / 184 … Johnny Niggeling (debuted at age 34)
19.3 / 161 … Bill Hoffer
19.0 / 192 … Leon Cadore (once pitched 26 innings)
__________________________
Remove the guys who threw 500+ innings a year and you get:
33.3 / 199 … Brandon Webb
31.3 / 199 … Russ Ford
26.0 / 191 … Jake Weimer
23.1 / 199 … Ray Collins
20.9 / 197 … Johnny Rigney
20.6 / 163 … G.H. Ruth
19.5 / 184 … Johnny Niggeling
19.0 / 192 … Leon Cadore
18.0 / 193 … Britt Burns (hip injury)
17.7 / 170 … Rich Harden (various injuries)
16.3 / 198 … Harry Coveleski (arm)
16.2 / 167 … Steve Busby (shoulder/knee)
15.7 / 106 … Mark Prior (16.6 in his first 97)
well since I cant vote for Ruth twice, i’m not going to vote for him at all since he will get elected this round.
Evans, Nettles, Tiant
Again, it’s not a hard choice this week. Things should start getting a little more interesting soon. And we probably need to start figuring out how we’re going to handle pre-1880 birthdays, because that’s coming up soon, as well. Anyway, here’s the ballot:
Babe Ruth
Kevin Brown
Luis Tiant
Looks like we’re good with annual ballots back to 1874. After that, it’s looking like the last 3 ballots would be:
1872-73
1870-71
Pre-1870
I think our cutoff should probably be:
– 10 or more seasons or 20 WAR
– at least half of seasons or half of games since 1901
Might have to adjust that slightly for a few players. Clark Griffith is one who qualifies with half of seasons since 1901, but the last three or four of those were last game of the season cameos, so I don’t think he really belongs.
Would it be possible to have, following the 1874 ballot, a final redemption round (or two)? Then, we could have three straight “open” rounds, in which any players redeemed, still on the ballot, or born pre-1874 would all have three shots to nab the last few spots? If the last ballot is “pre-1870,” Cy Young will, without question, win. So I was thinking it would be good to have a few rounds in which no new players are added to the balloting, so that we can just focus on those players who are on the ballot, and we don’t make a headache for voters trying to keep players on. I don’t know; maybe no one else thinks that’s necessary, but it’s what I was thinking would be best.
How many players did birtelcom want to elect?
The total number selected by the BBWAA + special elections (Gehrig and Clemente). That makes it like 116, I think, but I’m not actually sure about that – I might have miscounted.
I count 119 as of 2015, although I think that is including run-offs (e.g. Appling). To be really sure, I would like to check Birtelcom’s first COG posts and then add the 2014 and 2015 HOF electees to his initial total, but I won’t have a chance to dig through the posts until tomorrow.
Birtelcom’s original proposal said 112.
http://www.highheatstats.com/2012/12/the-circle-of-greats-a-proposal/
Since then, 7 players have been elected, bringing the total to 119.
The 119 figure corresponds to what I’ve been thinking.
Plus we will presumably still be doing this in December of this year so that will add however many more to the total plus the 1971 birth year.
Since Pedro and Pudge are probably both locks I’m really hoping the BBWAA picks at least 2 because it’s already tough enough trying to figure out who should be in or out for those last few spots.
I’ll ponder it some more but I’m not seeing a strong case for doubling up on birth years. We have:
– 24 spots to fill before next year’s BBWAA election
– 24 more birth year elections (1874-94 plus 1872-73, 1870-71 and pre-1870)
– 25 or 26 players not yet eligible (born before 1895) with 60 career WAR and half or more of career since 1901
– several well-qualified candidates on the current holdovers
– a couple more redemption rounds
Seems like it should all work out about right, without tinkering with our established practice.
It’s not the number of eligible COGers upcoming but the distribution that is of concern:
We do have 24 more spots to fill but only 23 more elections (as the 1895 election will fill one spot). True that there are 25 or 26 remaining 60 WAR players pre-1895, but 8 of them are pre-1875, meaning only 3 of those 8 would be elected under our system (Wagner, LaJoie, and Young – Davis/Dahlen/Crawford (75+ WAR) and Wallace/Clarke (70.2 and 67.8 WAR) have no shot). If the 2016 election by the BBWAA adds 2, our 1971 election adds Pedro (86), and Pudge (68.4) joins the holdovers battling for the 2nd spot. A big 2016 election may help, but is not guaranteed. A 1972 election would add Chipper (85) and Manny (69.2). Not sure that we could add some deserving 70 WAR players from the early 1870’s any time soon because of our system. Seems the standard for pre-1875 birth year guys will be artificially higher because they have the poor luck to be the last considered. Seems a bit unfair because being a potent holdover at the end means little, while guys like Koufax and Ford (both with 53 WAR) generated lots of debate and eventually found slots to grab.
If you feel that’s the breaks for those guys, that’s OK too – it’s just the way our system works does not give them much of a chance, and combining years beforehand might even it out a bit while still giving holdovers a shot. I wouldn’t cry over Bobby Wallace or Fred Clarke not making it, though. Just some food for thought.
I think when all the spots are filled we should have a one round vote for everyone’s 3 that should have made it (but did not) and 3 that should not have (but did). It would be interesting to see the group’s thoughts on who was slighted and who got lucky in this entire effort spanning 3 years.
Don’t know why I thought Crawford was pre-1875, it was actually J. McGinnity in 1871 with 60.4 WAR – tremendous peak, but not a shoo-in. Will likely not beat other holdovers.
What will be the ruling on eligibility for Davis/Dahlen/Young for the COG?
I am leaning towards for qualification as either:
– 50% of games since 1901; or
– 40% of seasons and 40% of games since 1901
That will bring in George Davis as the only player with 40 WAR who is under 50% on both games and seasons. Players close to the line that are excluded by this approach include: Jesse Burkett, Jake Beckley, Joe Kelley, Lave Cross and Clark Griffith.
For the coming elections, I am looking at the following:
So, I have the combined birth years a few rounds after heavier birth years, to give a few rounds to work through those new additions, without having to dig too deep into the Holdovers to find a worthy candidate.
Anyway, let me know what you think.
Doug,
I like the 50% of games since 1901 cutoff (the beginning of the American League) and think of Dahlen/Davis/Young as old-timers who had more games and peak value in the 1890’s. Dahlen and Davis were overlooked as well by the Veteran’s Committee, whose job it was to consider early players as well as those missed by the BBWAA. I believe they should be part of a separate election for early players, but get it if the group wants them eligible for the COG. Whatever you decide.
Your upcoming elections list looks great and should smooth out the rough spots. If we want a somewhat “open” round 119 (as everyone knows Cy Young would take it if eligible) a minor tweak of combining 1890 and 1889 would give that one extra round at the very end for whichever holdover we feel strongest for. Coveleski is the only 60+ WAR newbie in those two years. Another “final” redemption round around 1870 (or during round 118) would be cool also to revisit those passed over one last time.
Anyone else in favor of the “free” round at the end concept?
Thanks for the feedback, Dave.
I have no problems with an open round following a final redemption round.
As to the 50% of games since 1901 as the only criterion, that would leave out Young, partly why I added the second criterion. However, if the second test were, say, 50% of seasons and 40% of games, that brings in Young while leaving out Davis.
Anyway, let me know if you have any better ideas (for example, a fixed number of PAs or Games since 1901).
Doug,
Actually, Hornsby was the 95th electee, so following 1 per year would have the 115th chosen in 1876 (fight between Willis, Waddell, and M. Brown), then the 116th in 1875 (should be Plank). That would leave 1874-73 (Wagner), 1872-71 (LaJoie as holdover) and 1870 and before as the 119th spot (Cy Young).
We have a surplus of great players born before 1875 who we will not have a place for (B. Wallace – 1873, F. Clarke – 1872, J. McGinnity – 1871, G. Davis – 1870 and B. Dahlen – 1870). All 5 were comparable or better than current COG choices and should have a chance (I’m assuming Chesbro, Powell, Keeler and J. Collins would not get enough support versus the above). Griffith played most of his games and earned more WAR in the 1800’s along with J. Kelly. If we base membership on where they earned the most WAR if games are nearly evenly split, there is a case that Young, Davis and Dahlen are 1800’s players. That would still leave 2 or 3 players on the outside due to their birth year and not their abilities in the 1900’s.
What we do have are some “empty” years coming up where lesser holdovers will get a spot almost by default. Say Hartnett gets 1893 (highly rated catcher with open year, Sisler only borderline choice). 1892 is barren (Schalk). 1891 you can argue for D. Vance. 1890 also weak (Carey/Rice/Shocker). 1889 does offer Coveleski. 1888-1883 is very busy with strong holdovers (Speaker, W. Johnson, Cobb, P. Alexander, E. Collins, J. Jackson) and unless we avoid J. Jackson all those spots are filled. 1882 offers nothing but HR Baker is still a holdover possibility. 1881-1879 is likely full (E. Walsh – aughties Koufax, Mathewson and S. Crawford). 1878 and 1877 are very bleak (Bresnahan as a holdover?).
In order to give everyone a chance, some weaker years could be combined such as:
1892-91: Vance or a preferred holdover
1890-89: Coveleski or a preferred holdover
1882-81: HR Baker, E. Walsh, or a preferred holdover
1879-78: S. Crawford or preferred holdover
1877-76: Willis/Waddell/M. Brown or preferred holdover
This would allow 1874 (Wagner), 1873 (LaJoie holdover), 1872 (B. Wallace, F. Clarke or old holdover), 1871 (McGinnity or holdover) and 1870 or prior (Young/Davis/Dahlen or holdover depending on WAR or games played ruling) elections. The 5 combo years above allow holdovers some chance still against non-slam dunk competition while giving everyone a shot. Note that 1971 adds 2 candidates (Pedro/Pudge) but 2016 will likely fill it (Griffey and Piazza). Adding Bagwell would help, but if Young and Davis were considered 1800’s players it would not kill the COG’s purpose.
The real issue with the above is that the process is being manipulated with an eye to that final roster. Maybe there is a different solution out there, but the inconsistencies of early birth years seems to upset the intent. I’d rather the best players got a reasonably equal shot instead of filling the off years with lesser talents, but perhaps others want a more steady process throughout. Would targeted double years be the right idea? How should Young, Davis, and Dahlen be treated: based on % of years in 1900s, % of games in 1900s, % of WAR in 1900s, or some other criteria?
By the time we get to the early 1870’s we’ll probably pick up at least a couple more rounds courtesy of the 2016 HOF elections- and dare we hope for 3 or even 4? Of course we’ll also add 1971 as well so there is that.
I do find your idea of combining weaker ballot years intriguing.
I’ll definitely be passing on McGinnity and am far from certain about Clarke, Wallace & Dahlen but they certainly at least deserve to be discussed and a chance at induction and leaving out George Davis would simply be repeating one of the exact same oversights that the BBWAA is guilty of doing.
Whatever we are going to end up doing we should probably hash it out sooner than later.
Oops,
Meant targeted combo years, not double years.
If I can add my two cents, I think it’s pretty clear that birtelcom wanted to, in his original proposal, echo the pool of electees as the BBWAA saw it. That’s why he (and others) have been lukewarm on Satchel Paige – it’s pretty clear that he belongs (duh!), but the point of THIS exercise was to see what WE would do with a similar pool of players. The issue of Davis and Dahlen is that it’s pretty clear that the BBWAA considered them “old timers” from the start. They received – combined, mind you – ONE vote in the first HOF election. There was already a plan for an Old Timers’ Committee, and those two were viewed as belonging to it.
Young, though, was seemingly treated as a “modern” player. The thing is, though, his vote total is suspiciously low… almost as if some people DID consider him an “Old Timer.” Nonetheless, if THEY considered him, I think we’re honor-bound by birtelcom’s original proposal to do the same. Dahlen and Davis, I’m fine with either way. They’re both RIDICULOUSLY close to 50/50 in either century, no matter how you split it. So while I see the argument that we should NOT consider them, it doesn’t really make much of a difference to me. Just thought I’d pass along a few things.
Doom – In that first election, the BBWAA let the voters decide for themselves who was part of which ballot. In the absence of instructions, some voters voted for Young in the modern election, others in the Old-Timers.
“Voters were given free rein to decide for themselves in which group a candidate belonged, with neither group knowing the outcome of the other election; some candidates had their vote split between the elections as a result – Cy Young, the pitcher with most wins in Major League history, finished 8th in the BBWAA vote and 4th in the Veterans vote.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_1936
As for Davis and Dahlen, their lack of votes makes it impossible for us to determine whether they were seen as 20th century or 19th century players. The only thing we can really conclude is that neither group of voters saw them as worthy candidates relative to all the other options.
Right; I know. I don’t disagree with anything you said. Perhaps my phrasing was poor, but exactly what you just said is what I meant. True, it’s possible that people just didn’t think that Dahlen or Davis belonged… but I think it’s more likely that the initial electorate thought that they were Old Timers. There’s no way to prove that, of course, but that’s my suspicion.
Ruth, Hartnett, Goslin
Ruth Rueschel and Dw Evans
Babe Ruth, Gabby Hartnett, Goose Goslin.
How many people will leave Babe Ruth- perhaps the most dominant athlete in any sport, ever- off their ballots because they’re worried about the twelfth- and thirteenth-best players (who will never make it in anyway) falling off? I’m going to guess eight.
This fella, perhaps, has an argument for most dominant:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html
Scoring 50 points a game is pretty amazing, but I think I am most amazed by Wilt leading the league in Free throws made that year, despite shooting only 61% from the line.
Ruth, Goslin, Wilhelm
I think Wilt is more like the Hornsby rather than Ruth of his sport (but with a lot more success with the ladies, I suspect). He was dominant statistically but won 2 championships vs 11 for his biggest rival (Russell). Despised by players and management, focused on stats and stupidly played a career without fouling out, meaning he was less valuable defensively at the end of games, and he even had an unsuccessful coaching career. Ruth was also a great pitcher, whereas Wilt was a track man at Kansas and dabbled in volleyball and boxing.
Or this guy
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.html
More assists than the 2nd player has goals + assists. The Oilers of the 1980s were so good at what they did that the league had to change the rules on 4-on-4 situations. His highest total for penalty minutes would have put him in 87th place this past season, and was tied for 169th in that season. (His career total for PIM would be tied for the 52nd highest single-season total.)
Uniform number retired throughout the leauge at his last regular season game.
Gretzky’s 59 PIM in 1982-83 was tied for 28th among players who played in 80 games.
Although I may later trade one of these for financing for a musical, I’ll vote for
The Sultan of Swat!
The King of Krash!
The Colossus of Clout!
BABE RUTH!
The Great Bambino
…who had a better year than Hoover.
along with Ted Lyons
and Hoyt Wilhelm.
Ruth, Ashburn, Goslin
Most Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
Ruth 135.4
Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
Tiant 37.5
Lyons 36.7 (now reflective of hitting value as well as pitching)
Nettles 35.7
Evans 34.9
Eckersley 34.3
Ashburn 33.9
Killebrew 33.0
Goslin 31.7
Winfield 31.1
Hartnett 30.3
Wilhelm 28.7
Kelly 27.6
Campanella 19.2
Ruth, Brown, Eckersley
bwhahaha. It’s positively humorous looking at it like that.
Mike HBC-
Since you opened the door of unanimity I must enter.
I have wondered since long before I understood the role that strategic voting would play in this process, if Babe Ruth would be unanimous.
I have wondered if this body would mirror the BBWAA and who and how many would decide that nobody deserves such an honor.
I have wondered how voting updates throughout the round influences things.
On unanimity:
Not sure what the argument would be *not* to give one of three votes to Ruth, but maybe someone feels that way. I know I will vote for the most dominant player of the game, even if a holdover suffers.
Voting updates are good for late voters especially to know when holdovers are “safe”, so strategic voting applies where it is truly needed. I always check the numbers before I vote, but the BBWAA had blind ballots where they did not know who their colleagues had chosen ahead of time. It’s a free country, but if BBWAA votes were conducted openly like the COG, they would likely have been more careful about their selections in the first place and reduced the need for this exercise.
Of course there’s no reasonable argument to be made that Ruth doesn’t belong, but the reasons someone might choose not to vote for him are the same as they’ve been along.
There are about 5 holdovers I support for the CoG, 4-5 I don’t think belong, the rest I’m neutral on. I wouldn’t cast a vote for someone in my neutral/”no” categories just to keep them on the ballot, but if it’s a choice between electing Ruth unanimously or preserving someone I think belongs, I’ll have no problem not voting for Ruth.
Having said that, with the holdover list down to 13, it’s probably not too likely 3 of the 5 I support are all going to need that one last vote (although Ruth will of course be soaking up a significant percentage of the total votes cast). So, I’m going to wait a while before casting my ballot, as I would like to vote for Ruth – but I don’t feel obligated to.
Sorry, I was thinking more of the “no one deserves unanimous selection” when I said “argument”. What would the guy have to do to merit such or is unanimity an unattainable ideal with this system?
Most likely someone would *not* vote for Ruth to protect holdovers as you stated, but if the voting is spread out evenly enough, he might have a shot. No one should feel obligated to vote Ruth, but it will be interesting to watch this week’s voting patterns.
My thinking is exactly along the lines of David Horwich’s. I almost always vote for who I consider to be the best candidate & reserve the other 2 for ones that I support who might be in danger of falling off the ballot. There have been a few times however that I cast my votes only for candidates in danger of losing eligibility.
And as worthy as he is I doubt that Babe will be our first unanimous selection.
After all, isn’t George Brett our current leader in highest percentage of votes for election?
He’s a great player and certainly deserving of being in the COG but I seriously doubt that any of us think that he’s better than Mays or Williams or Aaron or a couple of dozen other players that didn’t do quite as well.
I think the idea of some BBWAA voters NOT voting for someone who is clearly qualified because they don’t want them to get more votes than someone else or becoming the first unanimous selection is idiotic but then again they have 10 votes to use vs. our 3.
So I don’t really worry about who gets selected with the largest %, just that the players we select are the right ones.
Hartvig, the leaders for percentage are as follows:
Stan Musial (94.12%)
George Brett (93.44%)
Ted Williams (93.24%)
Jackie Robinson (91.78%)
Randy Johnson (91.67%)
Greg Maddux (90.67%)
Mike Schmidt (90.16%)
Joe DiMaggio (89.71%)
Lou Gehrig (89.23%)
Single-round vote leaders are as follows:
Ted Williams (69)
Greg Maddux (68)
Jackie Robinson (67)
Randy Johnson (66)
Stan Musial (64)
Cal Ripken (62)
Joe DiMaggio (61)
Rickey Henderson (60)
Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson (58)
Thanks Dr. Doom
I think that list re-enforces my point.
Certainly all very worth players but…
how many of us believe that DiMaggio is better than Mays? Or even Mantle, for that matter, who is nowhere on the list?
And while I love Stan Musial I doubt even a Cardinal die-hard would name him as the greatest player since Ruth.
Or that Randy Johnson is the greatest pitcher of the past 90 years.
Just too many variables for us to draw anything but the broadest of conclusions based on the % of vote received.
There’s probably pretty uniform consensus that someone who got more than 80% or thereabouts of the vote belongs in the COG. Someone elected with less than 40% maybe not so much. Beyond that, I don’t really see that it tells us anything.
An interesting diversion as we watch the votes roll in perhaps but nothing more.
Ruth, Nettles, Winfield.
Ruth, Goslin, Hartnett
Babe Ruth, Kevin Brown, Hoyt Wilhelm
Ruth
Goslin
Wilhelm
Ruth, Winfield, Nettles
Ruth, Campy, Goose
Ruth, Goslin, Killebrew
Ruth, Nettles and Goslin.
Results through 22 ballots (#72):
22 – Ruth
===============50% (11)
9 – Goslin
6 – Nettles
===============25% (6)
4 – Brown, Eckersley, Hartnett
3 – Killebrew, Wilhelm
===============10% (3)
2 – Ashburn, Reuschel, Tiant, Winfield
1 – Campanella, Evans, Lyons
Somewhere, you recorded a vote for Eckersley that should have gone to Evans. I have Evans with two votes (Hub Kid @4 and Kirk @29) and Eckersley with 3 (Darien @6, koma @13, and Bryan O’Connor @43). Otherwise, we agree.
Yep, thanks for the correction.
ruth, nettles, and goslin, please.
The comment was not supposed to nest under #33, so I’ll repeat it here.
Although I may later trade one of these for financing for a musical, I’ll vote for
The Sultan of Swat!
The King of Krash!
The Colossus of Clout!
BABE RUTH!
The Great Bambino
…who had a better year than Hoover.
along with Ted Lyons
and Hoyt Wilhelm.
Babe Ruth
Goose Goslin
Graig Nettles
On this date in baseball history:
1935:
Babe Ruth of the Boston Braves announces his retirement from baseball. Struggling with a .181 batting average at the time, he retires with 714 home runs, by far the most in major league history. Ruth will gain election to the Hall of Fame as part of its inaugural class next year.
from http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/June_2
And on the same date 75 years later, another slugger retired, one who looked like he might be the one to pass the Babe and Hammerin’ Hank.
Didn’t work out that way, but Ken Griffey Jr’s 398 home runs through age 29 were then (1999) the most ever, and are now second only to A-Rod’s 429 dingers.
I have to vote for Ruth. I’ve missed the last couple of rounds. I’m also checking out of the redemption votes because I just can’t get up the enthusiasm for players we’ve discarded (often several times).
Ruth and…………………………Goslin and Tiant.
Good story about Ruth in the NYT today-he bought the first disability policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/sports/baseball/a-policy-that-ruth-built.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2
Ruth, Killebrew, Ashburn
Winfield, Ashburn, Ruth
I apparently didn’t vote yet.
Ruth
K. Brown
Reuschel
Bob smith question 3: curt davis
Bob smith question 3: curt davis
Post 101, nested under post 18, contains a vote
…and thus ends the unanimous vote for Ruth, on the 30th ballot.
I think it’s truly bizarre that jajacob wanted to give Ruth TWO votes, but when he found he couldn’t, decided to give him NONE… but to each their own, I suppose.
Ruth’s percentage (96.97%) is far-and-away the best we’ve had so far. That being said, with our lower voter turnout of late, it would probably only take four people saying “no” to the Babe to put him behind Stan Musial’s percentage.
Also, my vote tally through Bruce Nave’s agrees with the one you posted @109.
Doom: Looking at Bryan O’Connor’s #43, I think we should have let jajacob vote 3 times for Ruth. After all, Ruth has more WAA than the next three players on the list combined.
An all-Red Sox ballot:
– Babe Ruth: too bad he didn’t stay a pitcher; he could’ve won 300, mebbe 350 games…
– Luis Tiant
– Dwight Evans (back to ‘Louie and Dewey’ – they played together from 1972 – 1978)
If lines 2 and 3 make it back to the 1869 election, you can throw in Hughie Jennings. (Eee-yah!)
/except he only played 281 games in the 1900-present era against 1003 in the 1871-99 era/
Wanted to go Killer Campy Babe but that’s too much.
Babe Goose Nettles
Babe Ruth
Harmon Killebrew
Dave Winfield
Welcome aboard, Bruce.
Thanks for voting.
Ruth, Tiant, Wilhelm
Through 33 ballots (#107):
32 – Ruth
==================50% (17)
13 – Goslin
10 – Nettles
==================25% (9)
5 – Brown, Killebrew, Tiant
4 – Ashburn, Evans, Hartnett, Wilhelm, Winfield
==================10% (4)
3 – Eckersley, Reuschel
2 – Lyons
1 – Campanella
The Top 9 + ties line is at the same place as the 10% line.
Ruth, Lyons, Campanella
I was tempted to vote for Hartnett instead of Ruth and I may yet change my vote but while I fail to see the honor in the unanimity of the vote I do comprehend that by not voting for who is clearly the best player we are effectively “awarding” ourselves an extra vote. I’ve done it before on a few occasions and chances are that I’ll do it again before we’re done if I think there’s a possibility of an injustice being committed but I don’t want to pretend that it doesn’t shift the burden of doing the heavy lifting onto someone else.
With 6 days left in the balloting and Ruth having no competition, I’ll again raise the question, for discussion’s sake, of whether or not relievers—Wilhelm in particular—are legitimate candidates for the COG.
Late in the last round I made the suggestion that the closest thing to a closer in baseball is a kick return specialist in football. Both see limited action but both are involved—unlike place-kicking specialists—in the heat of the battle and are game changers. I mentioned Devin Hester, the perennial All-Pro at the football position and asked if anyone considered him to be among the true elite in that sport.
Again I ask for comments.
And another thing: why does Fangraphs rate Wilhelm and most other relievers so much lower in WAR that B-Ref?
I would say that MODERN relievers don’t belong in the COG unless every single season they have looks like Aroldis Chapman’s 2012 and 2014.
Even Chapman has now played nearly 5 full seasons and has 276 innings pitched, which is about 1 1/4 seasons from a starter. His BBREF WAR is 8.9, which would equate to like 6.44 WAR/200 IP. And that’s including a ludicrous strikeout rate and the inflation closers get because of the “leverage index”.
Hoyt Wilhelm is a different case. He pitched 2254 innings, compared to 1283 for Rivera. He had 11 seasons with 100+ innings pitched and three straight seasons where he started 10+ games, and had an ERA+ of 158, 173 (primarily as a starter), and 116.
Wilhelm could pitch more than 1 inning at a time and proved he could be a starter. He threw about 50-60% as many innings as a starter, whereas modern relievers maybe top out at 30-40%.
So I have a really hard time accepting a modern reliever and only Rivera deserves discussion. It’s easier to at least make arguments for guys like Fingers or Gossage who threw a few more innings but they were also poor when starting. Wilhelm proved he could do both.
I think only one reliever belongs in the CoG, and we’ve already elected him.
The comparison with specialists in football is interesting. One thing about the closer is that it’s a specialized role that, unlike placekickers and punters, doesn’t require a specialized skill per se – in fact, most relievers end up in the bullpen because they lack either the repertoire or the stamina to be a full-time starter.
One difference from kick return specialists is that closers are used almost exclusively in higher-leverage situations; sure, a closer will pitch at the end of a blowout every once in a while, when they need to get some work in, but you’ll won’t see a closer pitching garbage-time long relief. It’s been a long time since I followed football, but I don’t recall that teams send out different return specialists based on game situation (please correct me if I’m wrong).
Anyway, my general view is that closers just don’t contribute enough to rank with starters, and that just about any great starting pitcher could also have been a great closer, but not vice versa. Rivera, although he was no more dominant than any other top closer, is an exception due to the length and consistency of his career (plus some bonus points for his postseason work).
As for Wilhelm, he pitched roughly the same number of innings as Sandy Koufax, and their WARs (per bb-ref, at least) are fairly close. Koufax’s handful of big years helped the Dodgers win pennants and World Series, while Wilhelm’s 2.0-3.0 WAR per year out of the bullpen no doubt helped his teams, it just didn’t have the impact of a dominant ace. Now, it’s entirely possible Wilhelm could have had a long, successful career as a starter – but he didn’t.
After giving this some thought, I think the best comparison for a relief pitcher is a 3rd down running back in football. They both do the same thing as others at their position, they just do it in certain, limited situations. And while they have a skillset that makes them valuable in those particular situations, they’re skillset is normally too limited for a bigger role. (the problem I see with NSB’s kick returner comparison is that kick returner is a position; relief pitcher and 3rd down running back are both roles of a particular position).
I think where people tend to get tripped up is that they think of relief pitcher as a position and compare them to other relief pitchers. But it’s not a position. It’s a role. All pitchers ultimately have the same responsibility – get outs and prevent runs. The fact that some of them are used at the beginning of games and others later on is ultimately irrelevant. Which means that relief pitchers should be compared to all pitchers. And in that sense the best of the relief pitchers are at best marginal COG candidates using WAR and poor to very poor using WAA.
Comparing relief pitchers, especially closers, to all pitchers seems a bit narrow to me because the best relief pitchers do not pitch as many innings.
For example, Mariano Rivera is 71st in pitching WAR for his career, but had few fewer innings within which to accumulate that WAR.
I picked Rivera because I think he belongs in the COG and when his year comes up, I intend to vote for him.
By the way, his WPA is third all time. Maybe somebody who understands that stat can explain why that is good. 😉
Rivera is already in – he was elected over 55 rounds ago…
Straight WPA is inflated in the favor of relievers. Leverage index is nonsense; giving up a run when up 1-0 in the 4th ties the game just as much as 1-1 in the 9th. But because the latter is it’s later in the game, it impacts the WPA.
WPA/LI does help to account for this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/wpa_li_def_career.shtml
Rivera is 18th, which is still damn impressive and is why he’s in the COG. The dominance is overwhelming and can’t be ignored despite his role being way less important than a starter or position player.
Just as a side note, guess who the next reliever is in WPA/LI? Would you believe it’s Hoyt Wilhelm at #28?
Even WPA/LI is skewed heavily for relievers. Example, Joe Nathan is 71st in WPA/LI (but 27th in WPA!) and 349th in career WAR, right below Kent Tekulve (83rd in WPA/LI).
After that you have to drop to #52 and Trevor Hoffman to find another primary reliever. In the top 100, there are 9 primary RPs, plus Tom Gordon, Virgil Trucks, and Dennis Eckersley. Point is, even in a stat which favors relievers, Mo and Wilhelm are at the top of the heap.
Also the whole damn point of WAR is to compare players across eras, positions, parks, league environment, etc… so yeah, we can compare starters and relievers.
David H @ 123: I tried to find him on the spreadsheet, but overlooked something, apparently.
Okay–great!
Brp – One note on the WPA/LI index. They only go back to 1938. So Rivera isn’t 18th all time and Wilhelm 28th. They’re 18th and 28th since 1938.
Joseph – The high WAR relative to innings pitched is because relievers receive a “leverage bonus”. If a starter pitches in the EXACT SAME SITUATION, they receive no bonus. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Beyond that, I fail to see how pitching fewer innings can be seen as some sort of positive or advantage.
Another comparison with relief pitchers, particularly closers, would be a short-yardage/goal line running back. They provide lots of value because they score touchdowns but often don’t contribute much else. Pete Johnson, for example, is 22nd all time in rushing touchdowns but only 99th in rushing yards. In fact Johnson was 5th all time in rushing touchdowns when he retired. Yet he’s never been seriously considered for the HOF because voters understand that while his touchdowns provided value in high-leverage situations, his overall contributions weren’t close to being HOF-worthy.
NSB, the value of relief pitchers was discussed (quite vehemently) during Rivera’s candidacy. Rivera was the best relief pitcher I ever saw, at least on a sustained level. His consistency at a high level is almost unmatched even if that consistency is at a position, that, by definition has fewer times in the game. Is Rivera one of the 125 greatest players of all time? I really don’t know–but that’s not the question that COG is designed for, given the soft-spots in birth years. Let me throw something about there about players at “less demanding” positions. Edgar Martinez was one of the best pure hitters we have seen, but if he had debuted in the 50’s, few people would know about him, since he just couldn’t physically play a position. The people who beat the drum for David Ortiz–does anyone realistically think he could handle 150 games a year at 1B? Paul Molitor had over 1000 games at DH–he, too, couldn’t stay on the field. The game’s rules and usage have changed over time, offering players new opportunities to excel. All those people–Edgar, Ortiz, Molitor, and Rivera, have benefited.
Wow… I don’t know where to begin. I couldn’t disagree with this post more. Yes, David Ortiz COULD play 150 g/year at 1B. I doubt he’d be any worse than Frank Thomas, who was just awful. Teams have been finding ways to keep productive bats in the lineup as long as baseball existed. Certainly Ortiz would be one of them.
As for Edgar, he was a fine 3B. Not an all-time great or anything, but at the VERY least, he battled the position to a draw. Saying that “he just couldn’t find a position” is untrue. The Mariners mishandled him, but he would’ve had a fine career as a 3B and/or 1B.
Monitor is the one of these players for whom you might have an argument, simply in that he has the very unusual distinction of being a player who was healthier in his 30s than in his 20s. It’s likely that avoiding the field is the cause of his sudden ability to stay in the lineup.
Regardless, Ortiz will never make the COG. Martinez, I feel confident, would have made the COG had he been an NL player in the same time period that he played. Monitor is less clear, I’ll give you that. But I think you sell Edgar (and teams’ willingness to keep bats in the lineup) short.
Doom, always happy for you to spread a little doom over my posts….What I read at the time about Edgar was that he was unable, physically, to play third base, not that he was incompetent. Seattle felt they had to keep him off the field to keep his bat in the lineup. Knee in particular, if I recall. As for Ortiz, he has about 430 innings (innings) at first base since 2005. Could he stand out there? Maybe, but for fewer games, and given that he’s at best a marginal HOF candidate, drop, say 30 games a year as a NL player, and you wouldn’t have him at his compiler stats. I don’t think he can do 150 games when ten years of actual on field performance show otherwise. He’s only started in 182 interleague games in his entire career, and many fewer in recent years.
I guess my impression of Edgar is based a lot on the scouting and numbers from early in his career. Scouts were lukewarm. But WAR rates Edgar as a fair defender. Ortiz… well, there have been a lot of immobile 1B in baseball history. I agree he has played poorly, but imagining an alternate world with no DH, I just imagine he probably plays a little better if he has to be out there EVERY DAY. The number of players with quality bats in MLB history who’ve been thrown out of the game for poor fielding is pretty minimal, while the converse has been numerous. Hitting, at the level Ortiz does, is so rare a commodity that you don’t get rid of it unless it’s ABSOLUTELY necessary. True, he would probably be a disaster defensively. But the existence of the “DH penalty” suggests that there’s a chance he might be an even BETTER hitter if he played the field, so there’s that, too.
Doom, check this out from Philly.com on Edgar’s luck with the field and the DL.
http://articles.philly.com/1996-07-24/sports/25620741_1_disabled-list-ray-lankford-arquimedez-pozo
Mike L
I recall the incident because Marzano was a Phila native and friend of my landlord. Boy, did I ever give him shit for that.
Could not agree with you more about Ortiz (and others) probable inability to stay on the field and/or achieve the counting stats and milestones of historical significance. Mantle may have hit 700 homers, certainly Mays would have. IMO, the DH detracts from the game, takes jobs from younger players, and these one-dimensionals are the highest paid players in the union! I say make them play the field but, the union will NEVER let it happen
Re: Rivera. I think most people would say he was the greatest reliever ever.
But where does that get you? In his long career with the Yankees, he only finished in the top 5 of team WAR 4 times (2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th). Granted, there was a lot of talent on those Yankees teams. But that’s still not very good. If you’re not consistently one of the top players on your own team, then how the heck do you deserve to be in the COG???
Some random comments:
Had the DH existed in earlier eras, would we be arguing about the likes of Dale Alexander and Fats Fothergill, do you think? Or what about George Crowe—a personal favorite o mine—late to the bigs because of segregation and trapped behind established first basemen for most of his career— or Luke Easter, who went on to terrorize pitchers in the IL for many years after the Tribe despaired of his glove when he was 37?
The DH presents an evaluation problem without a general solution, but I don’t think it can be equated to relief pitching myself.
I’m more of a believer in relief pitchers belonging than are most — I’ve voted for several, personally. In my view (and here I run the risk of sounding like Colin Cowherd, which terrifies me), this is not the Circle of WAR. Relief pitchers are legitimate major league players, and it seems appropriate to me to consider those men who are truly outstanding in the role just as we do others. Note that this is an argument only in favour of relief pitchers abstractly; I don’t here claim necessarily that any relief pitchers who have actually existed have played to a high enough standard. Debating the merits of individual players is what the voting rounds are for, and that’s fine — but I do consider relievers worthy of consideration in their own right.
Ruth, Eckersley, Ashburn
George Herman, Harmon, and Winfield.
Ruth, Tiant, Winfield.
Ruth, Campanella,Hartnett
Babe Ruth, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown
Vote:
Ted Lyons
G.H. Ruth
Hoyt Wilhelm
_______________
Ruth – Ashburn – Reuschel
Irrelevant to this, but these seem to draw the most eyeballs and this is great:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25206138/ambidextrous-pitcher-pat-venditte-coming-to-majors-with-as
With all the pitching injuries, would be interesting to see if any coaches of younger players would encourage something like this. Maybe even have a kid throw lefty one game and righty another instead of switching during as Venditte does.
Fun stuff either way!
It is painful at times to be life-committed as a Yankees fan.
If I were in charge this would have happened in The Bronx.
Apparently if Venditte faces a switch-hitter, the batter must declare what side of the plate he is going to bat from and then Venditte makes his choice. There can be no switching mid-AB after that unless the batter is lifted for a pinch-hitter.
What is he going to do glove-wise? Does he have an ambidextrous one or is he going to have a batboy bring him a different-handed glove every time he needs one? Interesting stuff.
So I guess BR will have to add a “Both” option for pitcher searches on the PI.
Two-thumbed glove
http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/visual/whatshot/VenditteGlove030415-001.jpg
bstatr @ 164 –
Actually, the pitcher has to declare which side he’ll pitch from before the batter decides which side he’ll bat from. Here’s the relevant section from the rulebook, part of rule 5.07:
(f ) (8.01(f )) Ambidextrous Pitchers
A pitcher must indicate visually to the umpire-in-chief, the batter
and any runners the hand with which he intends to pitch, which
may be done by wearing his glove on the other hand while touching
the pitcher’s plate. The pitcher is not permitted to pitch with the
other hand until the batter is retired, the batter becomes a runner,
the inning ends, the batter is substituted for by a pinch-hitter or the
pitcher incurs an injury. In the event a pitcher switches pitching
hands during an at-bat because he has suffered an injury, the pitcher
may not, for the remainder of the game, pitch with the hand from
which he has switched. The pitcher shall not be given the opportunity
to throw any preparatory pitches after switching pitching
hands. Any change of pitching hands must be indicated clearly to
the umpire-in-chief.
*****
This came up during Venditte’s debut – there was a bit of confusion regarding which hand he was going to pitch with to his (I think) 2nd batter, & the batter waited until Venditte had made it clear which side he was going to pitch from before getting into the batter’s box.
He faced a switch-hitter; Venditte made his decision based on which batting helmet the hitter was wearing. He declared, and the batter switched helmets. LHB vs RHP, swinging strikeout.
Video: http://atmlb.com/1B0Gitw
What?
I just watched a clip of the in-progress Yankees game at mlb.com
Alex Rodriguez.
RBI single.
And, he just moved into 2nd place all-time on the RBI list.
What?
Yes, the graphic they showed listed the leaders as such:
2297 … Aaron
1997 … Alex
1996 … Bonds
1993 … Gehrig
1992 … Ruth
________________
What?
What am I missing?
Babe Ruth had 2214 RBI.
(We are ignoring Cap Anson’s 2075, fine.)
But how is the YES Network off on Babe Freaking Ruth by 222 RBI?
When Rodriguez reached 1995 RBI, this was posted in a story on mlb.com:
“Baseball has a longstanding history of disputes over numbers, and the career RBI leaderboard is one of them. Due to the uncertain nature of record keeping in the early part of the 20th century, there are some discrepancies regarding Gehrig’s overall numbers. According to Elias, Gehrig’s career RBI total is 1,993. The various sources used to comprise MLB.com’s entire database, which lists Gehrig with 1,995 career RBIs, reflects alternative and also credible points of view.
Another historical issue clouding the situation: RBIs did not become an official statistic until 1920, and Elias doesn’t count the RBIs Babe Ruth collected before that season, listing his career total as 1,992. MLB.com’s stats list Ruth with 2,213 career RBIs, which places him second all time behind only Hank Aaron (2,297).”
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/126981066/alex-rodriguez-passes-lou-gehrig-on-all-time-rbi-list
So I guess YES was citing Elias’ figure. Why anyone bother with Elias at this point is a little beyond me, but anyway,
MLB.com has Ruth with 2213 RBI, as the story notes. BB-ref has him with 2214. Fangraphs has 2217. One of these might be accurate, or they might all be wrong, but there at least a lot closer to the actual total than Elias’.
Oy.
Just, oy.
This article shows some of the work that goes into getting accurate RBI totals before 1920:
http://sabr.org/research/accurate-rbi-record-babe-ruth
_______
Indeed, Herm Krabbenhoft has done some amazingly painstaking research into RBI numbers. As is evident from the article cited above, he’s discovered numerous small discrepancies along the way – not only in pre=1920 figures, but through the ’20s and ’30s. To quote from the article on Ruth’s RBI numbers:
“While researching the 1920–34 seasons I discovered a total of 284 games with RBI-errors in the official baseball records involving Yankees players…”
That’s almost 20 errors per season, and that’s only for one team!
David H – Is it me or is that article just a bit confusing?
It says that Elias is the official statistician of Major League Baseball. But then it says that MLB.com lists Ruth with 2,213 career RBIs, which is decidedly NOT the Elias number.
So why would MLB.com – which is the official site of Major League Baseball – use a different number than Elias, which is the official statistician of Major League Baseball???
I have no idea why Elias has the policies it does, nor can I speak to why MLB uses Elias as their official statistician but then posts different statistics from the ones they provide. I agree that it doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Ignoring pre-1920 RBIs because they weren’t officially recorded at the time doesn’t make much sense to me, either. As Krabbenhoft’s research shows (see the link @158), there are plenty of errors in the official records of the ’20s and ’30s, so to treat one era’s numbers as canonical and the other’s as nonexistent seems inconsistent, at the least.
Just mind-bogglingly inconsistent.
This isn’t the WWE, where they’ll overlook the reveal that Hornswoggle was the anonymous GM in an episode a year later.
Baseball is built upon its history.
Ignore 19th century stats?
Well, okay, different rules, different equipment, different field, even. So, sorry Cap.
But to disregard the first 6 seasons of the guy who MADE baseball?
Because you’re relying upon a thoroughly outdated database?
In the year 20 freaking www. 15 ?
Flat out embarrassing.
You can tell this isn’t the WWE, because if it were, Pete Rose would be in the Hall of Fame.
That would be the AL RBI list. Ruth had some RBI in the NL as a member of the Braves.
Ruth only had a dozen RBI in the NL, so that’s not the source of the discrepancy here.
Also worth noting that Hank Aaron had almost *all* of his RBI in the NL — also, humorously enough, as a member of the Braves.
This whole biz with Elias not counting Ruth’s pre-1920 RBI because RBI was not an ‘official’ statistic before that year is beyond ludicrous. It’s as is if Elias is proclaiming “Hey! Look at us! We are the official arbiters of all MLB statistics and whatever we say, goes”.
Of course Babe Ruth has a little over 2200 career RBI, and A-Rod is _still_ over 200 RBI away from passing him. I was used to 2209 as the official number for Ruth, but I see according to B-R the official number is now 2214. Speaking of B-R, A-Rod would actually still be 4th all-time in career RBI, not 2nd (though I would not include Cap Anson’s 195 RBI in the National Association, as I don’t consider the NA a ‘major league’ – but that’s another discussion).
Anyhow the situation is absurd – does Ty Cobb have only 727 RBI instead of 1933, because pre-1920 RBI totals don’t count? Do Honus Wagner, Napolean Lajoie and Sam Crawford have _zero_ RBI, since they retired in 1917? OF COURSE NOT!!!
It does boggle the mind. Even fundamentalists believe the world existed before 1920. Heck, even Cap is good in their bookkeeping.
Ruth, Reuschel, Hartnett
Ruth
Brown
Goslin
Campanella, Nettles, Ruth
Totals through 44 ballots (#170):
43 – Ruth
==================50% (22)
14 – Goslin
11- Nettles
==================25% (11)
7 – Brown
6 – Ashburn, Hartnett, Killebrew, Reuschel, Tiant, Winfield
5 – Wilhelm
==================10% (5)
4 – Campanella, Eckersley, Evans, Lyons
Ruth, Eckersley, Lyons
Ruth, Lyons, Eckersley
Have there actually been no comments for over 24 hours, or is the site frozen, or am I personally back in HHS limbo, as I was a few weeks ago?
Stay tuned.
Sundays never have too much commenting, so it was basically the “no comments for over 24 hours” thing, although there were a handful, such as bstar’s right above yours. If you can’t see that one, then it’s something else going on.
the site sends out cookies with future dates, messes everything up in terms of refershing. Delete the cookies from HHS and it’ll at least tell you posting updates. I have to do it pretty routinely now.
Gobble your cookies, at least from highheatstats.com , and force a reload/no cache with (Ctrl-F5)
Ruth, Wilhelm, Evans
Nettles, Evans, Campanella
Babe Ruth as a pitcher, and a hitter, Gabby Hartnett, and I’ll throw a vote for Graig Nettles just to see if he can get an extra round of eligibility and get some of on the fence stuff gone with.
For the 1895 election, I’m voting for:
-Babe Ruth
-Dave Winfield
-Dwight Evans
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Eckersley
-Killebrew
-Brown
-Tiant
-Nettles
-Lyons
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Reuschel
Here’s what I have through 51 ballots (#188). There have been a few ballots cast this round that were nested under other comments; I don’t think I’ve overlooked any, but they are easy to miss…
49 – Ruth
==================50% (26)
14 – Goslin
13 – Nettles
==================25% (13)
7 – Brown, Evans, Hartnett, Tiant, Wilhelm, Winfield
6 – Ashburn, Eckersley, Killebrew, Lyons, Reuschel
==================10% (6)
5 – Campanella
For what it’s worth, I have the same through 51. Campanella probably only needs one more vote to stay “above the line” and retain all his extra rounds of eligibility.
Ruth, Eckersley, Winfield
Ruth
Ashburn
Campanella
Ruth, Evans, Tiant
Ruth, Killebrew, Winfield
Shoot! I forgot about the time and posted my vote two minutes too late.
Well, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, if that’s any consolation.
With 96.3% of the vote (52/54), Ruth sets the mark for highest percentage; Goslin picks up an extra round of eligibility, and Nettles falls short of 25% by just one vote. Everyone else stays the same.
The Goose thanks you, Scary Tuna. 🙂
By not casting your vote in time, Goslin secures an extra round of eligibility.
Hwaton throws a no-hitter for SF tonight.
With 3 hit batters.
Wondered if anyone ever did that before.
The Play Index says no.
Two batters is the tops.
This gem by Steve Barber (with 10 walks!):
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL196704301.shtml
____
You don’t know Bo Belinsky:
May 5th, 1962
(I can’t post any more links)
____
And a solid by Virgil Trucks:
May 15th, 1952
(I can’t post any more links)
________________
I’m wondering if the Play Index is steering me wrong, though.
Because the reason I looked it up is because of this game.
When Dock Ellis went to war:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PIT/PIT197405010.shtml
That would be Heston.
Not Hwaton.
Ahem.
Babe Ruth, Harmon Killebrew, Hoyt Wilhelm
The short synopsis of the round is this:
Ruth is elected with the highest percentage ever – 96.30%.
Goose Goslin gains an extra round of eligibility, while Graig Nettles falls one vote shy of gaining one for himself.
Everyone else stays exactly where they were before the round started.