This post is for voting and discussion in the 111th 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 1876 and 1877. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of players born in 1876 and 1877, 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). Additionally, to be eligible, players must also have played at least half their career games since 1901 or compiled 20 WAR since 1901. This new group of candidates born in 1876 and 1877 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 EST Thursday, November 5th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Tuesday, November 3rd.
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 1876-77 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 candidates born in 1876 and 1877 will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.
Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The seventeen 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 1876 and 1877 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:
Sam Crawford (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dennis Eckersley (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Addie Joss (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Satchel Paige (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Willie Randolph (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Ed Walsh (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Hoyt Wilhelm (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Dave Winfield (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1876 and 1877, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Tommy Leach
Frank Chance
Danny Murphy
Germany Schaefer
Pat Moran
Harry Steinfeldt
Elmer Flick
Fred Jacklitsch
Ginger Beaumont
George Browne
George Stovall
Wid Conroy
Charlie Hemphill
Charlie Hickman
John Titus
Jimmy Williams
Patsy Dougherty
Sammy Strang
George Stone
Danny Green
Pitchers (born in 1876 and 1877, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Nick Altrock
Bill Donovan
Mordecai Brown
Earl Moore
Harry Howell
Rube Waddell
Vic Willis
Bill Dinneen
Ed Killian
Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
K. Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
Ferrell 40.1
Walsh 38.6
Tiant 37.5
Willis 37.5
Randolph 36.4
Crawford 36.2
Waddell 35.9
Allen 35.8
Nettles 35.7
Dawson 35.4
Eckersley 34.6
Ashburn 33.9
3F Brown 33.1
Goslin 31.7
Winfield 31.1
Tinker 30.6
Flick 30.6
Wilhelm 28.7
Chance 28.5
Joss 25.2
Paige 5.7
By this measure, the top six on our ballot are all pitchers, and that excludes Waddell, Three Finger, Joss, and both relievers. Waddell, like Walsh, was all black ink. If we’re going to represent this era, these guys make a lot of sense to me.
Kevin Brown, Walsh, Waddell
This round’s tidbits. Answers in red.
1. Nick Altrock’s two CGs in the 1906 World Series, allowing no more than one run and one walk in each, place him in a group of only eight pitchers with two or more such games in the same World Series (but the only one of those eight to lose one of those games). Who is the last pitcher to turn in such a World Series performance? Bret Saberhagen (1985)
2. Bill Donovan posted 25 win seasons for Brooklyn and Detroit. Which two pitchers since 1901 also posted 25 win seasons in the AL and NL? Joe McGinnity, Jack Chesbro
3. Frank Chance recorded 5 stolen bases in the 1908 World Series. Which other Cub had as many thefts in a single World Series? Jimmy Slagle (1907)
4. Danny Murphy’s 9 RBI in the 1910 World Series are tied for the most by a right-fielder. Who shares that distinction with Murphy? Dwight Evans (1986)
5. Germany Schaefer’s 90 OPS+ in 1000+ PA through his age 33 season is the lowest mark among 177 retired players with 110 OPS+ and 5 oWAR in 1000+ PA aged 34+. Which active player will eclipse Schaefer’s mark if he remains in this group? Juan Uribe
6. Mordecai Brown recorded 21 wins for the Cubs in 1911, the most by an NL pitcher in a season with 25 starts and 25 reflief appearances. Which pitcher has the fewest wins in such a season? Hugh Mulcahy (1937)
7. Pat Moran is the only player since 1901 to catch 100 games for the Braves, Cubs and Phillies. Which two players caught 100 games for two of those franchises, and also for other franchises in both the AL and NL? Benito Santiago, Henry Blanco
8. Fred Jacklitsch caught 10 games in 1910 and also played at 1B, 2B and 3B that season. Which player has the most such seasons since 1901? Tom Satriano (1964-68)
9. Vic Willis recorded four consecutive 20 win seasons (1906-09), all aged 30+. Who is the last pitcher to do this? Dave Stewart (1987-90)
10. Harry Howell managed only a 78-91 (.462) record for the Browns despite a 121 ERA+ for the perennial AL doormat. Who is the only pitcher with a higher ERA+ for the Browns/Orioles among those, like Howell, with a losing record in 1000+ IP for the franchise? Ned Garver
11. Elmer Flick is one of 7 players since 1893 to begin a career with 10 seasons (1898-1907) of 120 OPS+ and 70 runs scored. Which player currently has the longest such active streak? Andrew McCutchen
12. Rube Waddell’s 349 strikeouts in 1904 stood for more than 60 years as the post-1893 single season record, until surpassed by Sandy Koufax in 1965. Who was the first pitcher to retire with better SO/9 and ERA+ marks than Waddell’s in a 2000 IP career? Roger Clemens
13. George Browne’s doubles comprised less than 11% of his 1000+ career hits. Which live ball era outfielder had such a career played entirely in the NL? Manny Mota
14. Ginger Beaumont is the only player since 1893 to begin a career with five consecutive seasons (1899-1903) of 90 runs scored and no more than 30 doubles. Of the 12 players with those totals in 4 of their first 5 seasons, which one had twice as many home runs as doubles in each of those four campaigns? Ralph Kiner
15. Bill Dinneen recorded a career 170-177 (.490) record despite a winning record in 50 decisions for the Browns/Orioles. Who is the only such pitcher with a lower W-L% in a 2000+ IP career? Pat Dobson
16. Charlie Hickman led his league in hits in 1902, despite changing teams in mid-season. Since 1901, who is the only other player to do this? Red Schoendienst (1957)
17. John Titus’s four consecutive qualifying seasons (modern definition) in 1906-09 with OPS in the very narrow range between 0.715 and 0.730 is the longest streak of such seasons, as is his streak of 66-75 runs paired with 20-24 doubles in each of those campaigns. Who is the other player with that runs and doubles combo in 3 consecutive seasons? Johnny Hopp (1945-47)
18. Jimmy Williams’ 27 triples in 1899 are the most by a rookie, and his 80 triples in 1899-1902 the most in the first four seasons of a career. Who is the only player to exceed Williams’ 3 seasons with 20 triples and 25 doubles? Ty Cobb
19. Charlie Hemphill’s 23 RBI for the Cleveland Spiders in 1899 is the lowest total among players with more RBI than team wins. Which player has the highest RBI total among those with fewer RBI than team wins? Mike Cameron (2001)
20. Patsy Dougherty is the only player since 1901 to lead his league in runs and hits in a season with fewer than 40 extra-base hits. Dougherty’s 157 stolen bases aged 30-34 are the most by a White Sox player, beating out such notables as Eddie Collins and Tim Raines. Dougherty played over 1000 games in left field but none at either of the other outfield positions. Who are the only two players since 1901 to do the same? Carlos Lee, Matt Holliday
21. Sammy Strang posted two 100 run seasons but no others of 60 runs. Which other player since 1901 did the same? Dick Howser
22. George Stone led his league in hits and total bases in 1905. Which other two rookies did the same? Charlie Hollocher, Tony Oliva
23. Danny Green smacked four home runs in fewer than 200 PA in 1898, tied for the most in such a debut season in the AL or NL before the live ball era. Who holds the live ball era record? Sam Horn (1987)
24. Ed Killian’s 2.38 ERA is the best mark by a Tiger pitcher in 1500+ IP for Detroit. Who is the last such Tiger pitcher like Killian with shutouts in 19% of his wins? Denny McLain
25. Tommy Leach recorded 9 hits in both the 1903 and 1909 World Series. Who is the only non-Yankee with the same number of hits in more World Series? Home Run Baker
26. Earl Moore’s 139 IP aged 28-30 are the fewest among 92 pitchers since 1901 with 1000 IP thru age 30 and 1000 IP after age 30, both with 100 ERA+. Among those in the group like Moore with fewer than 500 IP age 28-30, who had the best ERA+ for those seasons? Jim Perry
27. Harry Steinfeldt is the only player with 500 games at third base for both the Reds and Cubs. Steinfeldt’s Cubs tenure (1906-10) coincided with Chicago’s four pennant-winning seasons, the first being Steinfeldt’s best year, leading the NL in hits and RBI while logging 150 games at the hot corner for the first of four straight seasons. Who is the other third baseman to lead his league in hits and RBI in the same season? Joe Torre (1971)
28. George Stovall’s 6 walks in 1909 are tied with Art Fletcher and Whitey Alpermann for the fewest since 1901 in a qualified (modern definition) season. Which player has the best OBP in a qualified season with walks in less than 2% of PA? Hi Myers (1922)
29. Wid Conroy was the first of three players since 1901 with 200 games played at SS, 3B and LF. Who is the only player with 200 games at SS, 3B and either CF or RF? Hubie Brooks
#2 Bill Donovan question. Joe McGinnity (26 W for Baltimore in 1901; 31, 35 and 27 win seasons for the Giants in ´03, ´04 and ´06) and Jack Chesbro (28 wins in 1902 for Pittsburgh and 41 victories for the Yankees in 1904.
#3 Frank Chance question. Answer is Jimmy Slagle, who also stole 5 bases, but in the 1907 Series against the Detroit Tigers.
#9 Vic Willis question. Dave Stewart, Oakland Athletics from 1987 to 1990.
I’ll take an easy one.
#18: Ty Cobb, 4 times: 1908, 1911, 1912, 1917
Well, I am pretty sure #1 is none other than the 1985 WS MVP, Bret Saberhagen in Games 3 and 7.
#4 is Dwight Evans in 1986.
#6 is Hugh Mulcahy for the Phillies in 1937, he was 8-18 in 26 starts and 30 relief appearances.
Only Jesse Jefferson has a lower career W-L% than “Losing Pitcher” Mulcahy’s .336 mark (45-89) in a live ball era career of 100 starts and 100 decisions. Jefferson actually posted a winning record in the first two of his 9 seasons, something Mulcahy never did in his 9 year career.
#19 looks like it should be Mike Cameron with 110 RBI for the 116 win 2001 Mariners.
#10 is Ned Garver.
Is #23 as easy as it seems? Mark McGwire hit 49 as a rookie in 1987.
Not that easy. It’s most home runs in a debut season of fewer than 200 PA.
It looks like the answer is the legendary Sam Horn, with 14 HR’s in 1987.
Horn actually has the third longest career among “pure” DH’s (that is to say, guys who played 75% or more of their career at DH). The only two with longer careers are Ortiz and Hafner. Horn would have over 90% of his career games played at DH if not for many games as a pinch hitter, since he appeared as a DH in 292 games against only 12 games at 1B. His 80.1 defensive innings are by far the least among players with 1,000 PA’s.
#25— the answer is Lou Brock. Those who question his HOF worthiness usually overlook his play in the Series, which is arguably the best ever for multiple Series appearances, certainly in the top three.
Oops for me too. Misunderstood the question. You’re darned finicky, Doug.
#26: Jim Perry
Don’t know about anyone else but I am having a heck of a time with this website. The recent post and comment lists are way behind. I use a roundabout method to access them.
# 11—the answer is probably Andrew McCutchen.
When I was growing up—in fact, until I was grown up—Elmer Flick’s claim to fame was the dubious batting title he won in 1905 at the lowest level ever recorded, .306. Not only did Yaz eclipse that mark in 1969 at .301; now it’s listed as .308, although that is still the second lowest winning percentage.
How did it come about? Lajoie seems to have been injured that year, played in only 65 games at any rate, and his .329 figure failed to qualify.
25. Tommy Leach question: Frankie Frisch.
12. Rube Waddell question: Sandy Koufax.
Oops – I didn’t look closely enough. Koufax’s ERA+ was “only” 131. I think Roger Clemens is the answer.
Concerning the Tommy Leach question, #25, there are several non-Yankees with 3+ WS with 9+ hits. I think Doug is looking for someone with 3+ WS of exactly 9 hits in which case it would be Home Run Baker with the A’s.
Richard is correct. Sorry I botched the question.
#22 Charlie Hollocher & Tony Oliva
Like Oliva, Stone would follow-up his big rookie season with a batting title in his sophomore year. Stone also led in OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and TB (again) while topping the AL with 89 strikeouts.
Who are the only other batting champions since 1901 to lead their league in strikeouts? Answer is Babe Ruth and Jimmie Foxx.
#8: Tom Satriano
Satriano pulled off this quirky feat (caught 10 games and played 1B, 2B and 3B) for 5 consecutive seasons (1964-68).
#21: Dick Howser
#13 is Manny Mota, I believe.
#15 would appear to be Pat Dobson, who was 36-26 with O’s from 1971-1972, but only 122-129 overall (.486) and had over 2000 IP in his career.
#29: Hubie Brooks
On #28 I checked Mariano Duncan’s 1996 season (.340 BA, .352 OBP, 9 walks all year), but he didn’t have a qualified season that year (plus 9/417 is barely more than 2%).
Will think of some others.
So on #28, let’s try Hi Myers in 1922. 13 walks in 658 plate appearances (1.97%) and an OBP of .331.
#20: Matt Holliday and Carlos Lee
24. Ed Killian – Denny McLain, with 22.2% of his wins ()26/117) coming via the shutout.
I think #29 is Hubie Brooks.
#7: Besides Santiago the other guy is Henry Blanco.
# 27: Harry Steinfeldt was joined in 1971 by Joe Torre for this accomplishment.
#16: Red Schoendienst
All right, first to vote.
Sam Crawford – Richie Ashburn – Elmer Flick
Crawford, Brown and Goslin
Please confirm if Brown is Mordecai or Kevin.
Sorry, haven’t been here for a while. too busy watching my Royals. Kevin Brown is the vote. Mordecai is a great pitcher too. Maybe he will find his way to my ballot too some other vote.
All-pitcher ballot for me:
Kevin Brown, Rube Waddell, Luis Tiant
My next choices would probably be Ed Walsh, Rick Reuschel, and Wes Ferrell, so I don’t know if I’ll be casting any more ballots for positions players on the backlog.
Folks, if you’re voting, “Brown” is not going to cut it. We’ve got two solid candidates with that name, so please specify. Thanks!
unless you vote for both of them. There’s a law firm in St Louis of Brown and Brown. One of them wears an eye patch.
Sam Crawford, Kevin Brown, Rube Waddell
Sam Crawford, Rube Waddell, Kevin Brown
#17: Johnny Hopp
So hard to rate these older pitchers.
Vic Willis’ 67+ Pitching WAR doesn’t look cheap.
Still learning about him.
Along the way I get distracted by his Beaneater teammate, Kid Nichols (who is not eligible for our exercise.).
Dude had 27 Wins in his first 9 seasons.
What?
Most Wins, first 9 Years:
279 … John Clarkson
276 … Kid Nichols
271 … Old Hoss Radbourn
263 … Tim Keefe
258 … Mickey Welch
____________________
Since 2000:
137 … Roy Oswalt
137 … Justin Verlander
136 … CC Sabathia
We finally come to Mordecai Peter Centennial “Three Finger” Brown.
Great name. Great nickname. Great W-L record. Sixth all-time in ERA, with more innings than anyone ahead of him.
The ace of the staff on a team that AVERAGED 100 wins a year over an 8 year period when teams played 154 game schedule.
And yet…
How could those teams be so good? We know that Tinker to Evers to Chance was far from the Old Timers Committee’s finest moment. We know that not only was there no one on the team who could match up to Ruth or Mays or Musial they didn’t quite stack up to Mize or Trammell or Sandberg either.
And yet…
100 games a year over an 8 year span.
Something the Yankees of Ruth & Gehrig couldn’t do. Or of DiMaggio & Joe McCarthy. Or of Mantle & Berra & Ford. Or the Giants of Mays, McCovey & Marichal. Or the Big Red Machine in 162 game seasons.
Is it possible that there is not one person on a team that was so good for so long that belongs in the COG?
Maybe.
And this is another reason why I think we need to look at some of the records from this era with as much context as possible.
While Tinker or Evers or Chance may not have been great, they were certainly all very, very good as was Jimmy Sheckard. Harry Steinfeldt and then Heinie Zimmermann were above average at 3rd base as were Kling and then Archer at catcher. Wildfire Schulte, Jimmy Slagle and Solly Hofman were average to above average in the outfield.
But pitching was the real strong point. In addition to Brown there was Ed Reulbach and if it wasn’t Reulbach it was Orval Overall and if it wasn’t Overall it was Jack Pfiester and so on.
So maybe they didn’t have any great players but by being good to very good at every position made them a great team.
The New York Giants of that era were very similar in that regard (although they did have Christy Mathewson) as were the Pirates (again with the notable exception of Wagner)
It seems odd that these teams were able to dominate a league for such a long period of time with only a couple of really great players between them.
Am I missing something?
Hartvig –
A few points. As you’ve already noted, hardly anyone had great players during the Cubs period of dominance.
The Cubs won 90+ games every year from 1904-1912. During that period Honus Wagner led the NL in WAR among position players with 77.2 WAR, almost as much as the 2nd and 3rd players combined (Magee with 39.4 and Joe Tinker with 38.4). And Wagner was no spring chicken…those were his age 30-38 seasons. Think about how bereft of talent that NL must have been for a player of those ages to completely dominate the league.
At the same time, guys like Chance, Evers, and Tinker were much better than we give them credit for.
On a WAR/PA basis, Chance was about equal to guys like Pujols, Mize and Foxx. Tinker was similar to guys like Trammell, Larkin and Cronin. And Evers WAR/PA was similar to Lazzeri, Doerr, Alomar, and Randolph.
Maybe those three weren’t quite as good as the guys I mentioned but I don’t think they were that far off either. You can win a lot of games with that type of talent, particularly when you also have all the other players you mentioned.
BTW, the AL was also pretty bereft of talent during the period. From 1994-1912, the league was dominated by Nap Lajoie (61.5 WAR) in his age 29-37 seasons and Ty Cobb (55.8 WAR) in his very early years (age 18-25).
Also a point of comparison for how bereft of talent the NL was during those years. Willie Mays also lead the NL is WAR for his age 30-38 seasons (1961-1969) with a total very similar to Wagner (74.7). But Mays had a lot more competition. Aaron had 72.7 WAR. Clemente had 62.6. Santo had 56.6.
I admit that my comment about the Old Timer’s Committee select of Tinker to Evers to Chance was overly harsh. While they may not have been in the top tier of players at their respective positions during the games first 50 years they were in the tier right below that. And the reality is that even though the BBWAA got to choose from the cream of the crop between 1945 and 1959 the OTC actually managed to pick fewer real clunkers than the BBWAA during that same time frame.
Mordecai Brown gave up a LOT of unearned runs, 1044 total runs, 725 earned. Among other pitchers with around 3100 innings, I picked Whitey Ford and Orel Hershiser to check two later eras. Whitey gave up 1107 and 967; Orel 1366 and 1211. Earned runs were only 69% of Brown’s total runs allowed, compared to 87% and 89%for Ford and Hershiser. Obviously defense has improved considerably from the aughts to today, but how were errors charged back in the day? More liberally? Or were guys just booting the ball all over the field? Maybe this is something we should consider when looking at those miniscule ERA numbers from the early days.
Based on a lot of what Bill James has written, I’d say “booting the ball all over the field” is the likelier understanding. The grounds weren’t maintained by professional grounds crews the way they are now. The dirt wasn’t perfectly even. The balls by the end of the game weren’t really even ROUND, since they got so beat up and used a small number of them during one contest. The gloves were small and terrible. It’s really not SURPRISING that players were booting a lot of balls, but I think that’s the gist of it.
Your comment really got me thinking so I did a little checking.
First let’s look at some of Mordecai’s teammates(just during their time in Chicago):
Ed Reulback- 76.6% of runs (464/606) were earned
Orval Overall- 74.8% (241/322)
Jack “The Giant Killer” Pfiester- 64.7% (211/326) and with an even lower career ERA than Brown albeit in far fewer innings
Dunno what to make of this. Did Chicago’s vaunted just not play as well when Brown (and Pfiester) were on the mound or was there some other factor in play here? Were more balls being hit on the ground because of the types of pitches that they threw or something like that? Could it just be that the official scorer cut them more slack? No idea.
And since the trio of Tinker to Evers to Chance is famed for their defense I thought I’d take a quick peak at someone who played for someone other than the big 3 (Cubs/Giants/Pirates) during that time frame.
Nap Rucker 77.6% of his runs were earned (639/823) while playing for the fairly hapless Superbas (Dodgers) while being backed by an ever changing cast of characters at the keystone combo.
Finally I decided to see how much things changed by picking a good but not great pitcher who played for a variety of teams over a number of years beginning about the time that Brown’s career ended.
Sad Sam Jones- 82.5 (1656/2008)
I am well aware that this is miles away from being any kind of a comprehensive look at the issue but I think that it at least suggests a few answers as well as raising a few new questions.
The biggest one of which seems to be: How come so many of Brown’s runs were unearned?
The answer may be in part because of Brown’s deformity: according to his bio the missing index finger on his throwing hand gave his pitches a lot of movement—I’d guess like a knuckle ball—resulting in more WPs and PBs, plus a lot of ground balls with weird spin and fly balls that faded away. In a quick survey which I won’t document here—trust me—I found that the Cubs generally matched or exceeded league norms in the ratio of earned to unearned runs from 1904-1912, which in itself suggests that Brown’s pitching, or pitches, were the reason for the unearned runs un his games.
I had also heard that the knuckleball came about as full-fingered pitchers tried to reproduce the effects of the pitches of Three-Finger Brown.
I think another factor may have to do with what we mean by a great player. To win 100 games, you want great players that year. Whether they are great over a career is not relevant. Chicago had great players each year, but not necessarily players with careers that rank among the greats. The total number of WAR on those Cubs teams each year seems – after spot-checking – to be within MLB norms for leading teams. (The 1908 team slipped in against a much more dominant NY club, but we all know that story.)
As nsb pointed out recently, players of that era faced major hurdles to having a long, consistent career: many started late (like Brown) because they could not forsake wage work to try the odds of a baseball career. Some were buried in minor leagues off the scouting circuit. And careers were far more easily curtailed by injuries that medicine could not nurse back to health. A team that was willing to spend money and effort to scout, recruit, or purchase replacements for fast-fading stars had a great advantage.
And we can probably see this played out in the structure of the National League during that period. Competitive balance in the league was exceptionally low during the early years of the century, with talent concentrated among just three teams: New York, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. While the Cubs may have averaged over 100 wins for a period of eight years, the Giants averaged over 97 wins per year over a ten year span 1904-1913, and, unlike the Cubs, they didn’t have a 116-win season to pad that tally, while the Pirates averaged over 95 wins from 1901-9, and that’s with one third of those nine seasons on a 140-game schedule (pro rated, their average would be over 98 wins for the nine years).
From 1903-12, the dominance of those three teams over their league was almost total. In 1904 the Reds edged the Pirates out of third place by one game and in 1907 the Phillies slipped into third ahead of the Giants, but otherwise, the Cubs, Giants, and Pirates were 1-2-3 every year, and, except in 1912, the rest of the pack was always at least 8 games further back (in 1906 the fourth place team was 22 behind the third-place Pirates). New York and Pittsburgh were led by the dominant owners in the league, Brush and Dreyfus, and the managers of all three clubs were both top notch and long term at a time when the manager’s role was far broader than it is today – management was playing at a different level and those teams had a tremendous advantage when it came to putting together rosters of strong players.
At least, that’s how I’d try to make further sense of Hartvig’s shrewd observations.
Joss,Three Finger, Willis
K. Brown
Ashburn
Wilhelm
Crawford, Goslin and Ferrell
Question #5: Juan Uribe
Allen， Willis， Joss
Allen， Willis， Joss
Here’s a vote update, through 9 votes (Paul E above). So far, I’m counting Brent’s vote for “Brown” as being for Kevin since he voted for him last round, as well. But in the future, if people can disambiguate, that would be helpful. Anyway, here’s what we have so far, in the very early going:
5 – Kevin Brown
4 – Sam Crawford*
3 – Rube Waddell
2 – Richie Ashburn, Goose Goslin*, Addie Joss, Vic Willis
1 – Dick Allen, Three Finger Brown, Wes Ferrell, Elmer Flick, Luis Tiant, Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhelm
0 – Andre Dawson, Dennis Eckersley, Graig Nettles, Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Rick Reuschel, Dave Winfield
Begin the culling. Also, when I cast my ballot, I hadn’t noticed that Vic Willis was eligible this round. Separating these pitchers from one another is truly splitting hairs. They’re are a LOT of great players on here.
Sammy Strang’s last season he posted an .094 BA with a .385 OBP.
That’s 23 walks in 80 PA, with 5 hits.
Highest OBP
Minimum 75 PA
BA under .100:
.385 … Strang
.245 … Mickey Lolich
.244 … Cal McLish
.241 … Jon Matlack
.240 … Vida Blue
__________________
!
I just love this kind of stuff.
Related silly stat: I searched batters’ single seasons, 1901 to 2015, with 50+ PA and BB greater than 25% of PA. Strang, 1908, had the second-lowest batting average on the list. The lowest belonged to pitcher Ernie Koob, 1916 Browns, whose 15 walks and one sacrifice in 57 plate appearances left him 41 at-bats. He went 0 for 41.
Fifteen walks?! Next highest walks total for a hitter with a .000 average is seven, by Karl Drews, 1949 Browns.
Ginger Beaumont was the first batter in the first World Series.
And he used a 55 ounce bat.
I feel that Sam Crawford should definitely be elected.
And both Rube Waddell and Vic Willis deserve a look.
I can’t vote for all of them, though, because I’m stumping for a few pitchers who defy comparisons. I’m letting go of Eck, because I don’t see him getting in. I’ll ride Wes and Hoyt to the end, though.
Vote:
Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
Hoyt Wilhelm
Crawford, Paige, Goslin
Goslin, Ashburn, M. Brown
For the 1876/1877 election, I’m voting for:
-Andre Dawson
-Dave Winfield
-Willie Randolph
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Eckersley
-Reuschel
-Tiant
-Brown (Kevin)
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Walsh
-Crawford
-Willis
-Waddell
Ashburn, Crawford, Goslin
Now that Brent’s vote is confirmed as being Kevin Brown, here is an updated tally for your Monday lunchtime, though 14 ballots (Stephen):
6 – Sam Crawford*
5 – Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin*
4 – Richie Ashburn, Rube Waddell
==========25% (4)
2 – Mordecai Brown, Wes Ferrell, Addie Joss, Hoyt Wilhelm, Vic Willis
==========10% (2)
1 – Dick Allen, Andre Dawson, Elmer Flick, Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Luis Tiant, Ed Walsh, Dave Winfield
0 – Dennis Eckersley, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel
Vote: Crawford, Nettles, Randolph
I can’t vote for all my horses here. Nettles gets support and won’t win anyway so I’m leaving him off even though to date he has 0 votes. I still can’t believe we let in home run baker before nettles. I voted to redeem Randolph but only because I had to pick 3 people, not really sure he’s good enough.
Paige, Ferrell, Dawson
I apologize if this ends up being a multiple post but I’m getting some Java script errors messages.
As much as a reminder for myself as anything this is the 111th ballot meaning- that before we count on the BBWAA doing the smart thing and providing us with at least a couple more- we have 9 more elections (and that is counting this one) to decide who gets in to the COG.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this.
Coming up
1875- Eddie Plank
1874- Honus Wagner, Nap Lajoie
1873- Bobby Wallace
1871-72 Iron Man McGinnity, Fred Clarke, Wee Willie Keller
1870- George Davis, Bill Dahlen, Jimmy Collins
pre-1870- Cy Young
1971- Pedro Martinez, Pudge Rodriguez
My guess is that Plank, Wagner, Lajoie, Davis, Young, Martinez & Rodriguez are all locks.
Which means that after this round we can only be certain that ONE of the people on the holdover list OR of the non-lock newcomers is assured of a spot.
Odds are there will almost certainly be 1 more than that and at least I think probably 2. It’s not out of the question there might even be more but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Among the newcomers:
If you just go by war and use something like JAWS or the Hall of Stats as your guide, Dahlen & to a slightly lesser extent, Wallace are both fairly well above the cutoff line on both.
Fred Clarke is slightly above the HOS cutoff line, slightly below on JAWS
McGinnity is right around the JAWS cutoff line, slightly below the HOS. He also does quite well on peak performance.
Collins doesn’t do all that well on any WAR measure but both the BBWAA & the Old Timer’s Committee gave him more support than Home Run Baker.
I’m assuming that if these WAR tools are your benchmarks you already know where the holdovers fit into the equation.
This all leads me to the conclusion that at this point strategic voting- with the possible exception of giving a newcomer a second look just to be fair- no longer makes much if any sense. I can understand voting for someone if you truly believe that they are one of the maybe 3 or 4 best available candidates for those last 2 or 3 spots but I see absolutely no purpose in voting for someone simply to keep them on the ballot especially if that means not voting for someone that you see as more deserving. It’s nice to have a fair number of choices when picking these guys that are on the borderline but at this point- since there are no more redemption rounds or very, very few “next times” available- I would think that the most important thing is that we have the very best options to choose from rather than the biggest variety.
I have my list narrow down to 6, two of which I am virtually certain of. I’m going to have to look them all over one last time just to be sure.
I think Hartvig’s point is really well taken, so I’m posting this just to reinforce it: the time for voting to keep players on the list whom we really aren’t committed to voting into the CoG is probably over. I agree that we should be testing real support for the best candidates for the few remaining slots. That wouldn’t rule out voting for someone with little support if we feel that player’s really among the best three, but given that only 0-3 of the 16 non-winners this round are realistically going to get in . . .
For me, this produces a different problem. My vote was Crawford, Paige, and Goslin. I have no trouble voting for Crawford and Paige – I know Paige isn’t going in, but to me he’s the most worthy candidate on the list- but I have to vote for a third player. I really like Goslin best among the others eligible (I’ve always had a soft spot for Goslin too, so I’m a little biased), but I don’t think he’s really CoGworthy. Right now he’s only two behind Crawford, who’s leading. So what I may wind up doing is to track closely the final tallies, and if it looks like Goslin may challenge Crawford in the end, I may do strategic voting in a different sense, and swap out Goose for a non-contender.
The basic principle, I think, still conforms to Hartvig’s idea: voting to ensure that the best possible player wins, rather than to keep players eligible.
I actually thought of that after I posted.
This may BE the time for strategic voting but from a different perspective than has been done in the past.
I, for one, won’t be voting for George Davis, even though I’ve never engaged in “strategic voting” throughout this entire process – 111 rounds, 6 redemptions, and multiple runoffs. It’s just not been my style.
But I don’t “get” voting for Davis or Dahlen. The way I see it, they’re “old timers.” My first thought when considering a player is always, “Are his 20th/21st century MLB achievements ALONE enough to merit discussion on this player?” As I understand it, that’s always been the BBWAA’s perspective. Thus, Cy Young gets considered, while Satchel Paige, George Davis, and Bill Dahlen do not – at least from me. I don’t think the BBWAA really SERIOUSLY considered them the first time ’round, and I don’t think WE should, either.
I know that everyone’s mileage will vary on that count, but I feel like I have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, and that’s where I’m coming down on it. So maybe it’s foolish of me to think that anyone else will join me in ignoring Davis/Dahlen when the come onto the ballot, but I wouldn’t call Davis “automatic.” In trying to consider those players whom the BBWAA has considered and/or will consider (which I see as birtelcom’s original point in doing this exercise), I just don’t think those players match the goal of the exercise, although I would definitely support their induction into the Hall of Fame or any similar organization, and I won’t be upset or anything if any of them are elected.
Davis isn’t even eligible, is he? I thought you had to have at least 50% of your PAs in the 20th century to qualify. Over 55% of Davis’ plate appearances were in the 1890s.
What about Cy Young? It’s close, but he has slightly more IP in the 1890s than in the 20th century. According to the rules set up by birtelcom, I believe he is ineligible as well.
“Additionally, to be eligible, players must also have played at least half their career games since 1901 or compiled 20 WAR since 1901.”
All the above accumulated 20+ WAR after 1900.
As the Doctor has pointed out, these players are indeed eligible. So without trying to change the views of Doom (never sounds promising), let me make a case for considering Davis, Dahlen, and perhaps others whose careers spanned 1900 besides Young.
There is good reason, I think, to rule out players whose career value was accrued during baseball’s pioneering days. But I think we sometimes make a mistake in what we take those pioneering days to be. Nothing essential changed in the game of baseball in 1901. A new major league was formed, increasing the number of teams from 8 to 16, after the norm of the 1890s had been 12. (Prior to that time, the number of teams and leagues had varied, with a high of 25 teams in three leagues in 1890 – or 33 in 1884, if you accept the UA as a major league.) But why should there be a sharp dividing line among players simply because from 1901 on, the league structure stabilized?
The real divisions that affect individual player performance issues concern changes in the rules of the game or norms of play, not changes in the leagues. Those changes were incremental, proceeding from 1871/76 and continuing after 1901, but the fundamental division occurred in 1893, when the pitching mound was moved from 50 feet to 60’6″, transforming every aspect of the game. Performances before and after 1893 are simply not comparable; performances before and after any other year are comparable more or less – some rule changes had larger implications than others, but all on the scale of, say, the introduction of the lively ball in 1920, lowering the pitching mound in 1969 or the introduction of the DH in the American League in 1973, changes we never consider to be lines in the sand between “early” and “late” eras of baseball. It’s true that the 1890s were a high-scoring era and the 1900s a low-scoring era, and part of that was the product of changes in rules and norms of play, but this is also true of, say, the 1910s and 1920s, or the 1950s and 1960s.
In my view, the genius of birtelcom’s model is that by setting the divider at 1901, but allowing in players with 20+ WAR post-1900, great players spanning the era from 1893 through 1900+20WAR are all included. Since I’m an older poster, who long ago came to view the teams of the mid- and late 1890s as part of a continuum spilling through the pruning of the NL and advent of the AL, this fits my intuitions.
My horizons on this were expanded with the publication of the Macmillan “Encyclopedia” in 1969, which first opened the 1890s to full statistical exploration, and which was terrifically exciting. That was when Davis and Dahlen first became meaningful names to me, though their full impact was delayed until Bill James began to explore their careers in print. These players were important figures in the decade of the “aughts” (1900s) – like Young, they were leaders among the senior ranks of players who were the model teammates that the younger, truly post-1900 figures played beside and learned from.
So for those posters who may feel strange to the generation whose careers spanned 1893-1900+20WAR, I hope they’ll consider this a chance to get to know that history better and see how it is basically continuous with the old “modern baseball” boundary that I grew up with, and which I’d have thought by now would have been pretty well erased.
Of course, we each vote according to the way we see the world. I grew up a National League fan, so the perspective I’ve adopted my be intuitively more obvious. Richard Chester, who is not only senior to me by a few years but also an AL fan (and someone whose major encyclopedic orientation was, I believe, the Turkin & Thompson encyclopedia of 1951) may see things differently. And, naturally, if the 1890s are out of anyone’s inner boundary of concern, I can see why the perspective of Dr. Doom would be the defining one.
While I admit that getting called closed-minded isn’t the most flattering thing in the world (I like to think I’m assertive and confident – mean the same thing, but sound a lot better than “arrogant,” “standoffish,” “bossy,” “cocky” or your synonym of choice), I must say that, in general, I agree with you. I prefer 1893 as the cutoff point for “modern” baseball.
Again, though, I would reiterate that my perspective on this issue is that I would like to honor birtelcom’s original point in this exercise, which was to attempt to mirror the BBWAA’s process. I use 1901 as a cutoff in this exercise, though, because that SEEMS roughly how the early BBWAA decided which players were “theirs” and which belonged to the Old Timers’ Committee. Thankfully, it’s really only three players (Young, Davis, and Dahlen) who are all a.) qualified and b.) difficult to place. My basic perspective is that Young WAS elected by the BBWAA, so I would be in favor of his election, but that Young and Davis got SO little support, I’m not sure they were CONSIDERED, and therefore I’m not sure WE’RE supposed to consider them, either. Personally, I would rather elect players who may be less qualified, but who would definitely fall under BBWAA jurisdiction, rather than those who may never have seemed like the BBWAA’s players in the first place.
If we were to start the whole exercise over and be asked to name the 120-ish greatest baseball players in history, I would have voted VERY differently throughout this process. The Negro League players excluded alone would make what we’ve done so far a total travesty. But I’m willing to compartmentalize and say that we’re looking at a specific subset of players. Dahlen and Davis fall outside that subset, in my estimation, but I fully understand those who will choose to vote differently. I just won’t be one of them, unless someone makes a REALLY compelling case that I should be doing so.
Dr. Doom, If I seemed to call you close-minded, my apologies – I didn’t mean to say that (much less the other unflattering adjectives you list). You articulated a clear rationale from the outset, and in saying I wasn’t trying to change your mind, I only meant to indicate that I thought your position reflected a cogent personal viewpoint – and also, I’m afraid, to add a little colorful rhetoric at the expense of your screen name. I’m sure everyone here would agree that your posts are always excellent contributions, and that you are as open to the ideas of others as any of us.
No apology necessary! 🙂 And I never mind a bit of messing with my screen name – that’s what it’s there for!
I can certainly see your point- I did a very public 180 on Paige for that exact same reason.
One thing I would point out however is that in addition to Young the BBWAA also choose to enshrine Wee Willie Keeler as their 11th choice overall, ahead of Eddie Collins & Rogers Hornsby. Keeler did play a little more than half of his games post 1901- at least in part because of the expanded schedule- but according to WAR almost 60% of his value was prior to 1901.
Of course it’s equally true that in their fairly brief existence the Old Timer’s Committee were the ones saw fit to honor Eddie Plank, Rube Waddell, Iron Man McGinnity, Ed Walsh, Jack Chesbro plus Tinker, Evers, Chance and Three Finger Brown.
It’s pretty apparent that somewhere between 1939 & 1945 the OT Committee decided that the BBWAA wasn’t going to get off it’s behind and do it’s job so they decided to do it for them.
Eck, Ashburn, Dick Allen
Reuschel, D. Allen. 3 Finger Brown.
First let me say that a problem that I am having on my PC is that recent comments are no longer posting. This is a response to an epm comment in which he referenced my name. I now have to read comments on my Nook on which there is no reply button and with the comments no longer being numbered, my comments currently fall where they may. I find it impossible to pick a single year as a dividing line but I like to use 1901. I prefer it rather than 1893 because the foul strike rule was introduced in the NL in 1901 and in the AL in 1903. Nevertheless I agree with birtelcom’s decision to include pre-1901 players with 20+ WAR. And epm is right about my AL bias.
Let me take this opportunity to mention that original Baseball Encyclopedia writer Hy Turkin and I are fellow alumni. We both graduated from the Cooper Union School of Engineering, different years of course. Turkin had an EE degree but he ended up as a sportswriter for the New York Daily News. It was through his influence that the inferior balata ball of 1943 was tested in a Cooper Union lab. And of course the testing showed a reduction in the resiliency of the ball.
I would venture to guess that the balata ball Turkin Test has been explored in this detail on few other internet baseball sites.
Winfield, Allen, Dawson
I think that I have made up my mind.
But first I need to point out- just in case there is anyone here who may not already be aware of it- that Germany Schaefer once stole first base.
Not something you see happen every day.
Sam Crawford, Wes Ferrell, Ed Walsh.
At least for now.
Excellent point! And if you add the WAR of Schaefer’s full maneuver (stealing second, first, and second in one at bat, accompanied by various whoops and screeches, prompting a run scored, massive on-field cognitive failure, and a change in the rulebook), the adjustment might bring him into CoG territory.
Through 20 votes (Hartvig), we’re in an interesting place. Everyone’s received at least one vote. It looks like this:
8 – Sam Crawford*
5 – Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown, Goose Goslin*
=====25%
4 – Dick Allen, Wes Ferrell, Rube Waddell
3 – Mordecai Brown, Andre Dawson
=====TOP NINE
2 – Addie Joss, Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Ed Walsh, Hoyt Wilhlem, Vic Willis, Dave Winfield
=====10%
1 – Dennis Eckersley, Elmer Flick, Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant
Crawford is beginning to pull away from the pack. But as three straight ballots cast with Dick Allen’s name show, when turnout is low and the electorate this diverse in opinion and the qualifications of the players this hard to discern from one another, even a tiny number of votes can have tremendous sway.
Voting for:
Crawford
Joss
Walsh
Voting for
EWalsh
HWilhelm
SCrawford
It’s hard for me to believe that the guy on this list with I think the second most WAR (I could be wrong, I didn’t check) and the first most in HR’s, at a position that is under-represented (3rd Base), has so little support right now–namely, Nettles. I don’t have the time or energy to do a re-harsh of his qualifications right now–but I think he belongs.
Nettles has 68.0 WAR.
Sam Crawford (75.1) and Kevin Brown (68.5 – pitching only) have more.
Okay–he’s third by .5 WAR. I stand corrected. Thank you.
Joseph, Your post raises a perennial issue: how critical is WAR in ranking players, especially across eras?
I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think WAR and other advanced stats were great, and I always look first to WAR, OPS+, and ERA+ in thinking through how to assess players.
But Nettles illustrates for me the limits of WAR. An exceptional amount of his WAR value comes from his defense. I remember very well how good Nettles was at third, but I don’t put the same faith in dWAR as I do in offensive calculations. During his playing days, contemporaries just didn’t see Nettles as being in the class of players that we would normally be considering for the CoG (I certainly didn’t, although, Yankee-hater that I am, I couldn’t help but admire him): he wasn’t competitive for MVPs, he wasn’t a frequent All-Star, he garnered little support for the Hall. All this was true although I think everyone at the time regarded Nettles as among the all-time elite in playing third base.
These factors are reasons why I’ve never voted for Nettles (well, maybe some anti-Yankee bias is an unacknowledged reason too), and don’t see him as a strong candidate.
As for under-representation at third base: Third base was not generally a position that attracted strong players. Until Brooks Robinson and, to a slightly lesser degree, Clete Boyer began redefining the fielding expectations for third basemen, the position was usually assigned to less stellar fielders. With a few exceptions, like Al Rosen, it was also not a strong hitting position, which is why for so many years Pie Traynor could be considered by most baseball pundits the all-time greatest third baseman.
The modern third basemen we’ve voted into the CoG: Schmidt, Boggs, Mathews, Santo, are all far beyond Nettles in oWAR. The exception is Robinson, who lags 10% behind him in oWAR, but who is exceptional for having changed the game by redefining what excellence at the bag means, and is so far off the charts in dWAR that his total is more than 50% beyond any other third baseman, and not much below double Nettles’ total. As for the early third basemen we’ve voted in, Collins is a bit like Robinson in having defined the expectations for excellence at the position, and Baker’s a special case because of his WAR/PA rate in a career shortened by exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, I wasn’t convinced either choice was an outstanding one – I think the idea of a positional quota for the CoG may have played too great a role.
That’s why Nettles bare WAR figure doesn’t seem to me compelling.
I have a slight quibble with your statement that third base “was usually assigned to less stellar fielders”. That may have been true from about 1920 until Robinson came along but at least Bill James believed that in the dead-ball era defense was more highly valued at third than at second base.
Still, I agree with your overall assessment. In fact there are 2 other players on our holdover list that my questions about- partially fueled by a lack of complete understanding of- defensive WAR lead me to question how they are ranked.
The first is Reuschel who- and even though I did vote for him in the latest redemption round- gets quite a bump in WAR based on the quality of the defenses playing behind him. I can certainly understand that being a factor but I have to wonder about the accuracy of the assessments and exactly how much that contributes towards his ranking.
The second player is Ashburn and there I question if he may not be getting enough credit for his defensive prowess. I know we briefly touched on this subject once in the past but I still have to question the accuracy of his Rfield.
I don’t know if there is enough data left to be collected to significantly improve pre-advanced metrics defensive evaluations but if there is I suspect it will shuffle the deck a bit.
You have quibbled successfully, Hartvig. I recall James’ point now.
I also agree with you about Reuschel, and, having been a big fan of Ashburn, I’m sympathetic with your instincts in his case as well (though I don’t see him as being among the 120 best players of all time).
I was interested to check out Rick Reuschel on Fangraphs. What if we removed defense from the equation altogether, and just looked at his HR, BB, and K relative to the other pitchers of his time?
According to Baseball-Reference, Reuschel was worth 68.2 WAR.
According to Fangraphs, Reuschel was worth… 68.2 WAR.
No matter HOW you remove the defense – by ignoring non-HR batted balls altogether OR by adjusting for defense, they arrive at the same number (it’s odd, actually, and he’s probably about the only pitcher over 40 WAR for whom that’s true). I would say that that makes a strong case that B-R’s method of adjusting for defense is pretty strong in Reuschel’s case. The only quibble would be that he was just a pitcher who gave up a LOT of bad batted balls, which I suppose is an argument one could make. But it seems a pretty good indicator to me that Reuschel just played in front of some spectacularly bad defenses.
At this point I’m not certain that it matters altho Ashburn does seem to have a core of supporters & I do have him in my top 5. But had I read what Dr. Doom had to say about Reuschel it’s entirely possible I may have voted for him over Walsh.
The reality is that at this point I find it close to impossible to be certain that I’m giving the right weight to a whole range of different factors for players so different in so many ways and yet so close in others.
When we’re done with this process- and hopefully on a new server with expanded readership- I would really love to see a poll of both those of us involved in this process as well as those looking at it from the outside to see who is viewed as our biggest clunkers as well as our most glaring omissions.
At this point I’d be surprised if there is a lot of consensus either way.
EPM, I would say that your position is well-considered. And Nettles is indeed a rare type of player. When he retired he was the only player to achieve both at least 350 HR’s and exceed 20 dWAR. To me it’s interesting that the only players have have exceed those marks since then played a great deal of 3b also and are all probably better than Nettles (Ripkin, Jones, and Beltre). That probably argues against Nettles.
That said–if you go by oWAR–during the 10 years of 1970-1979, Nettles was a top 20 offensive player. And he was 6th in total HRs that decade. When you throw in that he had the 2nd most dWAR that decade (behind SS Belanger), I think he was among the best players that decade.
In regards to his reputation–well, first, if a player like Pie Traynor can be as highly overrated as he was–then perhaps Nettles was very underrated. Of course, as a Yankee fan, I think he was.
In any event, I respect your opinion and appreciate you sharing it.
Minor correction, epm: We haven’t elected Jimmy Collins yet. He’ll be eligible in his 1870 birth year, as he accrued over 20 post-1900 WAR. I’m sure he’ll get support, but he’s weaker than Davis and Dahlen among the 19th century position players who are eligible for our process, so I think he’s a bit of a longshot.
I think Baker was a fine choice. He’s the actual best pre-war 3B, as opposed to the popular contemporary choices of Collins and Traynor. I don’t think we need to be slaves to positional distributions, but it would be odd to have zero pre-war 3Bs in the CoG.
Absolutely right about Collins, C.C. I actually went to check the CoG list in writing to Joseph, and I found Collins there – it was, of course, Eddie. I was looking for 3B names and when I saw “Collins,” I forgot to think (and instead seem to have used creative imagination, manufacturing a memory of Collins’ selection and my view of it).
I was happy enough with Baker and voted for him on one of my ballots, but to me he’s a borderline call because of his short career, just as I felt that Jackson was problematic on those (and other) grounds (of course, Baker’s career end was forced by circumstances very different from Shoeless Joe’s).
As for pre-War players, if there were indeed no CoGworthy third basemen, it would be odd for sure, but odder to put a player who fell short into the Circle – we can’t make a player great (not to suggest that you were advocating we try). Fortunately, Baker gave us an “all-things-being-equal” option.
Crawford, Nettles, Tiant
crawford, Kevin Brown, Nettles
#7: Benito Santiago is one.
I voted yesterday, but my vote doesn’t seem to have posted. 2nd try:
Winfield, Allen, Dawson
Mordecai Brown, Waddell, and Willis.
K. Brown
Dawson
Nettles
I can’t see voting for the new old timers unless they really separate themselves from the pack, and I’m not seeing that here.
E. Walsh, L. Tiant, G. Nettles
Nettles, M. Brown, Waddell.
Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Sam Crawford
Another vote update,.through MJ (29 ballots):
13 – Sam Crawford*
8 – Kevin Brown
=======25% (8)
6 – Graig Nettles, Rube Waddell
5 – Richie Ashburn, Mordecai Brown, Goose Goslin*, Ed Walsh
4 – Dick Allen, Andre Dawson, Wes Ferrell
=======TOP NINE
3 – Addie Joss, Luis Tiant, Hoyt Wilhelm, Vic Willis
=======10% (3)
2 – Satchel Paige, Willie Randolph, Rick Reuschel, Dave Winfield
1 – Dennis Eckersley, Elmer Flick
Holy Graig Nettles!
Also, vote changes have closed, just so you’re all aware – that means ballots are locked in, and we’re just awaiting those voters who check in the last day or two.
Way to go, Nettles supporters!
Haven’t voted for a bit, but I’ll stick by my normal system.
Best pitcher: K. Brown (He’s finally getting some support! Looks like he may even earn some cushion rounds.)
Best position player: Nettles (by a hair over Ashburn). I have no problems with Crawford’s likely election, I just don’t have him as the best position player in my personal rankings.
Wildcard: Waddell. A true character, and maybe the best normalized strikeout pitcher of all time.
Reuschel, Tiant, Wilhelm
crawford, tiant, and Willie Randolph. A man who was un-redeemed for so long deserves some light and air, especially when you put him in context with other 2B we have picked.
Mike L:
Sorry, but I have to disagree on Randolph’s even being in the discussion. Since I am a Yankee fan myself, it may seem a betrayal to say so, but compared to his two COG contemporaries, Randolph fails to shine, except in the controversial—I’d say dubious— fWAR stat. Here are some figures:
Career OPS+: Randolph 104, Whitaker 117, Sandberg 114
Career oWAR: Randolph 53.6, Whitaker 67.1, Sandberg 59.5
Years with OPS+ above 130: Randolph 1, Whitaker 5, Sandberg 6
Years with oWAR above 5.0: Randolph 1, Whitaker 3, Sandberg 6
And despite Randolph’s WAR superiority in fielding, his contemporaries failed to see it that way:
Gold gloves: Randolph 0, Whitaker 3, Sandberg 9
My impression is that Sandberg was a peak player, Whitaker was a steady high contributor throughout his career, and Randolph was Whitaker lite.
To be fair to Randolph on the GG thing, his career put him in direct competition with Frank White (when they both in their primes) for the GG. Whitaker won his after White got long in the tooth and Sandberg, of course, didn’t have to compete with any of the 3 to win his Gold Gloves.
NSB, I understand your perspective. I voted for Sandberg in round after round when he was barely scraping by. I’m not suggesting Randolph is better than he is. I voted for him because I think there’s an argument to be made that if you look at every single position player we have voted in, he might just have squeezed in at the very bottom, just like Reuschel or Tiant arguably might be better than the one or more of those we selected. I’m voting for Randolph because we are entering into the increasingly murky world of Dead Ball era and pre-20th century players, where I don’t have a decent handle on what they are worth. I don’t expect Randolph to be elected. On Willie’s fielding, I agree with Brent–Frank White was a dominant contemporary. As to Lou’s GG, I would only point out that few things are political than GG (Jeter, are you there?) and Lou’s fWAR in the three years he won are not spectacular–he was actually better in other years. Anyway, with the number of holdovers with roughly the same cumulative WAR still being recycled in round after round, I thought, why not?
Crawford, K. Brown, Nettles
Going straight with my favorites. Maybe someone can finally get a cushion.
Final day update (through 33 votes, Dave Humbert’s above):
15 – Sam Crawford*
10 – Kevin Brown
==========25% (9)
8 – Graig Nettles
7 – Rube Waddell
5 – Richie Ashburn, Three Finger Brown, Goose Goslin*, Luis Tiant, Ed Walsh
==========TOP NINE
4 – Dick Allen, Andre Dawson, Wes Ferrell, Hoyt Wilhelm
==========10%
3 – Addie Joss, Willie Randolph, Rick Reuschel, Vic Willis
2 – Satchel Paige, Dave Winfield
1 – Dennis Eckersley, Elmer Flick
Everyone at 5+ is safe. If, by some miracle, we get 8 more voters today, the folks at 4 votes would be in trouble – but that is exceedingly unlikely. So the real questions are: will Graig Nettles and/or Rube Waddell get to 25%? And who from the 4-votes-or-fewer pack will get a rescue?
#14: Ralph Kiner
Imma begging for another Nettles vote, please. So he gets an extra cushion round.
Dawson, Winfield, Joss
Having read every single comment on every single round of voting (straight COG and Redemption rounds alike) but not having voted in forever and a day, I figure now’s as good a time as any to jump back in, as the rubber meets the road….
I like the paring down that’s going to occur but I feel like losing too many candidates too quickly might not be the best thing. I will save some folks with this ballot, at least for a round.
Randolph (I never thought he got enough respect while playing; Willie was a really solid all-around performer over a long career.)
Joss (Joss tossed the second perfect game in the 20th century. Not sure if that makes him COG-worthy exactly but it’s still cool. A “what-might-have-been” vote for sure as his twenties were pretty darn good.)
and for an extra round:
Nettles (I think the relative lack of esteem in which he was held during his career was mostly attributable to his middling batting average, a statistic not weighted nearly as highly now. Tough as nails, and a great combination of stick and glove at a tough position. Game 3 in the 1978 Series was a sublime moment. The Yankees would likely have been swept in ’78 if not for him.)
With those two votes, everyone is safe except:
3 votes: Reuschel, Winfield
2 votes: Paige
1 vote: Eckersley
Willis is also at 3 votes, though he’s a newcomer to the ballot. I agree with others that strategic voting is likely not going to be much of a factor anymore, since we only have so many “open” rounds left, but since we’re also through with the redemption rounds, it also means that once someone is gone, they’re gone for good.
Sigh, well, I guess most folks have given up on Paige as a viable option for them. That’s sad for me. I’m going down with the ship, though – I just think he played long enough in MLB that it’s hard to ignore him as a ‘negro league player’, and to overlook him on the ballot is to ignore an all-time great. Crawford is a fine choice, although I like a few others better. I guess if we’re losing a few next time, it’ll be an easier choice.
Satchel Paige, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown.
I’m with you, Bells. Paige is distinct from all other Negro League stars, apart from his outstanding record in match-ups against white pro barnstorming teams and the consensus judgment by black and white players alike that he ranked with the greatest pitchers ever. Paige pitched meaningfully in the majors, and we have, so to speak, “proof of concept.” Coming in cold in midyear 1948 at age 42, Paige pitched a half season at a near-league leading 165 ERA+ level, effective as both a reliever and, when finally given a chance, a starter, going 4-0 with two shutouts in seven starts (his starting ERA was 2.65, with zero unearned runs – he gave up only 1 unearned run in his 72.2 total IP). If that’s Paige off the tail end of a Negro League career that stretched from 1927-1947, it’s confirmation of the reputation he earned.
Not to mention that from ages 42-47, Paige compiled a 124 ERA+ over six seasons in the Majors.
I understand the argument that Dr. Doom and Hartvig make about the qualifications for the CoG according to birtelcom’s concept, and it’s fine. But I don’t agree with the second-line argument about Paige being the start of a slippery slope, since he has no parallel in stature and “proof of concept,” and I’m sorry we could not find room for him in the CoG doorway.
Well, if nothing else in this process, at least I found out who Connie Marrero was.
And yeah, it’s the singularity of Paige’s career that has got me so stubborn about it. Marrero, or guys like Buzz Arlett, are certainly interesting ‘what if’ scenarios, but in the end, they seemed to have some high degree of choice over where they spent their careers. A black man in America who is obviously the best pitcher of his generation, being kept out of Major League ball is a much more compelling case for me, to a different degree, and so I just don’t see it as a slippery slope at all. If I’m in a small minority that thinks that way, that’s cool. Thanks to you and mosc for being consistently supportive of Satch.
Vote update!
Craig Biggio – 763
Eddie Murray – 731
Roberto Alomar – 725
John Smoltz – 658
Kenny Lofton – 608
Ryne Sandberg – 607
Harmon Killebrew – 585
*Kevin Brown – 533
Edgar Martinez – 507
Lou Whitaker – 493
#Dave Winfield – 408
#Dennis Eckersley – 407
Roy Campanella – 396
Whitey Ford – 382
Bobby Grich – 376
Sandy Koufax – 375
Tony Gwynn – 346
Willie McCovey – 336
*Luis Tiant – 334
#Minnie Minoso – 309
*Rick Reuschel – 296
Juan Marichal – 268
Tom Glavine – 262
*Graig Nettles – 243
Alan Trammell – 239
Mike Mussina – 233
Curt Schilling – 224
*Richie Ashburn – 220
Nolan Ryan – 220
Ron Santo – 217
Lou Boudreau – 216
Tim Raines – 213
Larry Walker – 197
Barry Larkin – 188
Frank Thomas – 181
Gabby Hartnett – 165
*Goose Goslin – 164
*Hoyt Wilhelm – 163
*Dick Allen – 160
Paul Molitor – 152
Bob Gibson – 147
Gaylord Perry – 142
Paul Waner – 140
Jim Palmer – 133
Al Kaline – 132
Duke Snider – 130
Carl Hubbell – 126
Joe Gordon – 126
*Wes Ferrell – 120
Ernie Banks – 119
Eddie Mathews – 115
Pete Alexander – 111
#Dwight Evans – 100
1. The other holdovers: Andre Dawson (71), Ed Walsh (27), Addie Joss (15), Willie Randolph (8), Rube Waddell (7), Mordecai Brown (5).
2. Falling off the ballot were electee Sam Crawford (40), holdover Satchel Paige (67), LONG-time holdovers Dave Winfield (408) and Dennis Eckersley (407), as well as newcomers Vic Willis (3) and Elmer Flick (1).
3. The continuing saga of Dave Winfield and Dennis Eckersley has discontinued, at least for now. They have been jockeying for position on the list for a long time, and, for now, Winfield finished on top, 408-407. Disappointing for both, though, that they did not gain election. Winfield is now the highest-ever vote receiver not to be elected to the COG, replacing Minnie Minoso.
4. Picking up extra rounds of eligibility were Kevin Brown and Graig Nettles. Nettles was saved by being named on the penultimate ballot, as well as a 37th vote not being cast. He finished with exactly 9 of 36 votes.
5. Shockingly, in spite of only 36 ballots being cast, there were 21 (!!!) players named on ballots this round. That’s one of the highest totals in COG history. While there HAVE been more named, that was also way back when we had literally twice as many ballots being cast. This end is ROUGH. Good luck to the holdovers and newcomers in the next round! Each vote is a battle.
I think your last point- about the number of different players named- will probably be played out another time or 2 before we’re finished.
Trying to sort out or arrive at a consensus for the last couple of spots probably won’t be easy. But it should be interesting.
I’m just hoping the BBWAA surprises us this year and picks 4 new HOF members.
Maybe not likely but there have certainly been other occasions when players vote totals have jumped 20% from one year to the next.