Circle of Greats 1895 Balloting

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

Leave a Reply

203 Comments on "Circle of Greats 1895 Balloting"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Mo
Guest

Reuschel Ashburn Ruth

David P
Guest

Ruth, Tiant, Lyons

Hub Kid
Guest

Babe Ruth, Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans

mosc
Guest

Ruth, Nettles, Hartnett

Darien
Guest

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

Artie Z.
Guest

Ruth, Kevin Brown, Nettles

koma
Guest

Harmon Killebrew, Dennis Eckersley, Babe Ruth

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest
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… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Ladislaw Waldemar Wittkowski (Whitey Witt) was the 1st Yankee to step to the plate at Yankee Stadium.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

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

jajacob
Guest

Let me know if this is a legal ballot
Ruth the position player
Nettles
Ruth the pitcher

mosc
Guest

No it’s not valid. Most pitchers have at bats in their career and lots of position players pitched an inning or two.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

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

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest
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… Read more »
jajacob
Guest

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

Dr. Doom
Guest

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

JEV
Guest

Ruth, Hartnett, Goslin

Kirk
Guest

Ruth Rueschel and Dw Evans

Steven
Guest

Babe Ruth, Gabby Hartnett, Goose Goslin.

Mike HBC
Guest

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.

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

This fella, perhaps, has an argument for most dominant:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

Brent
Guest

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.

Brent
Guest

Ruth, Goslin, Wilhelm

robbs
Guest

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.

oneblankspace
Guest

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.

oneblankspace
Guest

Gretzky’s 59 PIM in 1982-83 was tied for 28th among players who played in 80 games.

oneblankspace
Guest

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.

Gary Bateman
Guest

Ruth, Ashburn, Goslin

Bryan O'Connor
Editor

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

mosc
Guest

bwhahaha. It’s positively humorous looking at it like that.

JasonZ
Guest

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.

Dave Humbert
Guest
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… Read more »
David Horwich
Guest
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… Read more »
Dave Humbert
Guest

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.

Hartvig
Guest
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… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest

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)

Hartvig
Guest
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… Read more »
dr-remulak
Guest

Ruth, Nettles, Winfield.

Richard Chester
Guest

Ruth, Goslin, Hartnett

Andy
Guest

Babe Ruth, Kevin Brown, Hoyt Wilhelm

KalineCountry
Guest

Ruth
Goslin
Wilhelm

BillH
Guest

Ruth, Winfield, Nettles

e pluribus munu
Guest

Ruth, Campy, Goose

PP
Guest

Ruth, Goslin, Killebrew

Low T
Guest

Ruth, Nettles and Goslin.

David Horwich
Guest

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

Dr. Doom
Guest

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.

David Horwich
Guest

Yep, thanks for the correction.

Joseph
Guest

ruth, nettles, and goslin, please.

oneblankspace
Guest

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.

latefortheparty
Guest

Babe Ruth
Goose Goslin
Graig Nettles

oneblankspace
Guest

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

Mike L
Guest

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

Stephen
Guest

Ruth, Killebrew, Ashburn

Paul E
Guest

Winfield, Ashburn, Ruth

brp
Guest

I apparently didn’t vote yet.

Ruth
K. Brown
Reuschel

richard chester
Guest

Bob smith question 3: curt davis

richard chester
Guest

Bob smith question 3: curt davis

oneblankspace
Guest

Post 101, nested under post 18, contains a vote

David Horwich
Guest

…and thus ends the unanimous vote for Ruth, on the 30th ballot.

Dr. Doom
Guest

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.

David P
Guest

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.

Lawrence Azrin
Guest

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)

oneblankspace
Guest

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/

robbs
Guest

Wanted to go Killer Campy Babe but that’s too much.

Babe Goose Nettles

Bruce Nave
Guest

Babe Ruth
Harmon Killebrew
Dave Winfield

David Horwich
Guest

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

oneblankspace
Guest

The Top 9 + ties line is at the same place as the 10% line.

Hartvig
Guest
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… Read more »
no statistician but
Guest
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… Read more »
brp
Guest
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… Read more »
David Horwich
Guest
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… Read more »
David P
Guest
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… Read more »
Joseph
Guest

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. 😉

David Horwich
Guest

Rivera is already in – he was elected over 55 rounds ago…

brp
Guest
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… Read more »
Joseph
Guest

David H @ 123: I tried to find him on the spreadsheet, but overlooked something, apparently.

Okay–great!

David P
Guest

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.

David P
Guest
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… Read more »
Mike L
Guest
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… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
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,… Read more »
Mike L
Guest
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… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
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… Read more »
Mike L
Guest

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

PaulE
Guest

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

David P
Guest

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???

no statistician but
Guest

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.

Darien
Guest
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… Read more »
Chris C
Guest

Ruth, Eckersley, Ashburn

J.R.
Guest

George Herman, Harmon, and Winfield.

Luis Gomez
Guest

Ruth, Tiant, Winfield.

JamesS
Guest

Ruth, Campanella,Hartnett

wpDiscuz