Circle of Greats 1873 Balloting

This post is for voting and discussion in the 114th 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 1873. Rules and lists are after the jump.

The new group of 1873-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). 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 1873-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 EST Tuesday, December 8th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Sunday, December 6th.

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 1873 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-1873 group will be added to the spreadsheet as votes are cast for them.

Choose your three players from the lists below of eligible players. The thirteen current holdovers are listed in order of the number of future rounds (including this one) through which they are assured eligibility, and alphabetically when the future eligibility number is the same. The 1873 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:
Kevin Brown (eligibility guaranteed for 3 rounds)
Goose Goslin (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Nap Lajoie (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ed Walsh (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Dick Allen (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Richie Ashburn (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Andre Dawson (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Wes Ferrell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rick Reuschel (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Luis Tiant (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Rube Waddell (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Hoyt Wilhelm (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)

Everyday Players (born in 1873, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Bobby Wallace
Harry Davis
John Anderson
Claude Ritchey
Mike Kahoe
Jimmy Slagle
Chick Stahl

Pitchers (born in 1873, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Chick Fraser
Red Donahue
Bob Ewing
Jack Taylor
Jake Weimer

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
134 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
4 years ago

Wes Ferrell should still be on the holdover list with eligibility for this round only; he netted 4 votes last round, so he met the 10% cut-off.

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

8. It’s Jose Rijo, who actually managed 4 straight 3 WAA+ seasons from 1990-1993. That 1993 season was the capper, a fantastic 7.2 WAA/9.3 bWAR season. But it was 1993, and he only had 14 wins, so he finished a mere 5th place in the Cy Young voting. That was the year that Bill Swift and John Burkett both had over 20 wins (and finished 2nd and 4th respectively in the CYA voting) for the 103 win Giants, who lost one of the best modern division races ever to the 104 win Braves. I know the name Saloman Torres is… Read more »

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
4 years ago

Another small note about Rijo’s snub – the Reds are the only original 16 franchise without a Cy Young winner. Three other expansion franchises lack a CYA winner in their history: the Rangers, Marlins and Rockies. Rijo probably should have broken that drought for the Reds, but the world wasn’t yet ready for a CYA winner with a 14-9 record. I also undersold him a bit that year – he actually had a total WAA of 8.1 and bWAR of 10.2 when you include his hitting. His slash line was .268/.294/.354 in 97 PA’s for a 73 OPS+ – not… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#2: Ivy Olson in 1918 at age 32. It was a war-shortened season.

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

Going from memory… is #4 the 2003 Tigers?

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

12. Chick Stahl question: Lloyd Waner.

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

The 2003 Tigers were my first guess, as well. It’s probably not too surprising, though, that the answer is the 1962 Mets (Craig Anderson and Al Jackson).

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#10: Jimmy Austin and Larry Bowa.

Brent
Brent
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#1 is Tom Terrific from 1967 to 1970. You could raise the WAR parameter to 5.8 for him and he would still qualify.

Brent
Brent
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#6 is a bit shocking to me. It is Rogers Hornsby in 1929 with 8. Joe Gordon also had 7 in 1942 (and he seemed like a much more likely candidate as he led the AL in Ks in 1942 with 95)

Brent
Brent
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#3 is Jimmy Wilson in 1909 for the Browns, with 6 triples and 3 doubles (and no homers) amongst his 73 hits that year. Wilson was a pretty good player who played one too many years. 1909 was his last year. His 60 OPS+ was his career worst by 36 points.

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

11. Jack Taylor – Bobo Newsom in 1938: 31 complete, nary a shutout.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#5: Jack Doyle

Doug
Doug
4 years ago

I hadn’t noticed Doyle, but yes he meets the criteria and he was a teammate of Anderson’s for about a month and a half with the 1898 Senators.

But, Doyle and Anderson had another teammate who also did stole 20 bases in a season for 5 franchises.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Is it Kip Selbach?

brent
brent
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

#7 was a tricky one. I think the answer is Pascual Perez in 1985. He started 22 games, lost 13 of them and managed to only throw 95.1 innings. So he had one loss per every 7.3 IP or a L:IP ratio of 0.1367.

Doug
Doug
4 years ago
Reply to  brent

It is Perez.

Not surprisingly, those 95.1 IP are the fewest in a season with as many starts, and is the lowest IP per start ratio for any season with more than 15 starts.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

9 Kahoe — Using the <= for the BA/OBP/SLG, Roger Bernadina did it in exactly 250 PA in 2013. Others have done it in more PAs (Mark Belanger in 1972 was better than one run per 9 PA; John Knight in 1906 and Z.Versalles in 1967 took between 9 and 10 PA per run).

However… Bernadina's and Knight's OBP were exactly .250, and Versalles's BA was .199656 (which some would round to .200).

So the ones who qualify with a strictly lower slash would be Belanger and Versalles.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

Running the PI for .099.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago

I’ll try again. Running the PI for 250 PA and BA/OBP/SLG equal to or less than .1994/.2494/.2994 shows 9 players. Kahoe’s R/PA ratio is 0.099. For the other 8 players, eyeballing shows that Mark Belanger is the only one with R/PA greater than 0.099.

Doug
Doug
4 years ago

Belanger is correct.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago

Jake Weimer’s 2.23 ERA is 14th best all-time.
His 125 era+ is tied for 65th.

The top 50 guys on the leaderboard for ERA were deadball pitchers… with 3 exceptions:

2.209 … Mariano Rivera (13th)
2.430 … Clayton Kershaw* (34th)
2.523 … Hoyt Wilhelm (46th)

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago

Jack Taylor completed 97 percent of his starts.
I tried running a play index search for that and it doesn’t seem to be working

(requiring GS>=200 and CG>0.95*GS)

Getting zero results…………………

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
4 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo, did you set the search back to 1871 (instead of the 1901 default)? However, looking at it, even a search that only goes back to 1901 should still return Taylor, though he would be the only result. Here’s the list I got: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=OTdR7 Returns 15 guys over the full searchable period, setting a minimum of 200 starts. Not surprisingly, every single one of them besides Taylor is a 19th century pitcher (and even Taylor got his start in 1898). The highest percentage for a career looks to be Jack Lynch, who completed 214 of his 216 starts. Lynch also… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago

We’ve got a 76.3 WAR candidate on the ballot in Bobby Wallace.
6.1 WAR as a pitcher (age 20-22)
70.2 for a couple of years at 3B, and then a long steady career at SS.

Decent bat, nothing great, gets all those WAR points for his defense (which Bill James disagrees with) and longevity.

Nobody really near him in Similarity Score (Dave Concepcion, 887).

Anybody have strong thoughts on Wallace?

CursedClevelander
CursedClevelander
4 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Looks like my comment got lost in the ether, so I’ll re-submit:

I need to look more seriously at Wallace’s record, but I’ll quickly note that his best year (by bWAR) came in a pretty weak league, the 1901 NL. With the rise of the AL, both leagues suddenly had a bit of a dearth of talent. Wallace led the league with a 7.7 bWAR, then next season jumped to the AL.

You’re right that James seemingly took a pretty dim view of Wallace, only ranking him 36th among shortstops in the NBJHA.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Despite my best efforts, I can’t get too excited about Wallace. Basically, I can’t see where all that WAR is coming from. I’m going wait to vote, but I think I’m going to move on from Wallace.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

Doug, Wallace posted 67 Rbat; Dahlen had 137 and Davis 277. (Their fielding runs are all comparable, but Wallace slightly lags.)

Wallace just isn’t in the class of the other two.

(Ripkin is a good comparator for Davis. 197 Rbat, 80 behind David, and 181 Rfield, 35 ahead.)

Doug
Doug
4 years ago

Obviously not in the same class as the other three.

But, there are only 15 shortstops since 1893 with 120 Rfield. Wallace (10), Davis (9), Dahlen (10) and Ripken (11) had a total of 40 shortstop seasons with 3 oWAR, one more than the other 11 combined. Seems like Wallace provided both offense and defense at a level that few others at his position can match.

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago

Still, I find it a little surprising that a guy with 76+ career WAR is 0 for 12 in the voting so far. Even tho the Hall of Stats scores him as dead even with Dahlen at 143 each, they do list him at #8 at shortstop & Dahlen at #9. JAWS has Dahlen at #10 with a score of 57.7 & Wallace at #14 with a score of 56.0. One other factor in thinking about Wallace might be that he received next to no support from the BBWAA for the HOF. The Ernie Lanigan guided Old Timers Committee did… Read more »

Dave Humbert
Dave Humbert
4 years ago
Reply to  Voomo Zanzibar

Bobby Wallace is likely one of the least known hall of famers we get to consider. Is he good enough for the COG? So far not even one vote. It has been suggested his 76.2 WAR is hard to quantify and that perhaps his defensive skills were overrated. Does he stand out playing in the time of Wagner, Dahlen and Davis? My two cents on his behalf: How good was he defensively? Faith in defensive stats for early players is a bit shaky, but the Veteran’s Committee in 1953 was not relying on advanced stats. They elected him based on… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave Humbert

Worthy advocacy, Dave. I’ve looked at Wallace twice. I’ll take a third look.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Nap Lajoie Kevin Brown Wes Ferrell I WOULD actually consider voting for Bobby Wallace this round (he’s pretty definitively a 20th-century player). Still, I’d rather see that Lajoie gets in and that Kevin Brown continues support, as he should have, in my opinion, gotten in like dozens of rounds ago. The arguments made for Wes Ferrell regarding representation (check the other thread – way near the bottom, and mostly after voting closed, so you might have missed it) have swayed me, at least for one round. Of the holdovers, Brown and Ferrell are the ones I’d most like to see… Read more »

Doug
Doug
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

In a 5-year span (1897-1901) Wallace posted four seasons with 90 RBI from fewer than both 60 extra-base hits and 15 home runs. Twenty players have had four such seasons since 1893, but none since Dixie Walker (last in 1947). James Loney and Michael Young have a pair of such seasons in the recent past, but Jose Cruz Sr. is the only expansion era player to post three such campaigns.

T-Bone
T-Bone
4 years ago

Reuschel, D. Allen, Wilhelm

MJ
MJ
4 years ago

Nap Lajoie, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago

This is an update of the comparative figures I posted last round to help think through the choice we’ll make in the 1872-71 election, after Lajoie takes the 1873 round. It compares holdovers, Wallace from this round, and several players who will come on line next round (marked *). The WAR/Yr figure eliminates short fractional seasons and divides total WAR by the remaining number of seasons; career length is indexed against the shortest career in each category, which is set at 1.0. Apert from ERA+/OPS+, the remaining figures are just ways of juggling WAR. Obviously, these figures are just part… Read more »

Kahuna Tuna
Kahuna Tuna
4 years ago

I hope this is a good place to post my few last points about Hoyt Wilhelm. 1. Percentage of Unearned Runs Allowed Relative to League. Career unearned runs allowed by Wilhelm were 18.24% of the total runs he allowed, compared to 11.55% of the runs allowed by the leagues in which he pitched (1952-57 NL, 1958-68 AL, 1969 NL and AL, 1970-72 NL)—in other words, his UER were 57.9% higher than league UER. Among a group of 28 knuckleball pitchers I studied, Wilhelm’s is the third highest UER percentage relative to league. Only three pitchers with very short careers exceeded… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Amazing piece of research.

I would be very curious to hear Paul Richards reasoning as to why- after a seemingly successful experiment as a starter over parts of 3 seasons- Wilhelm was returned to the bullpen.

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

1.12 PB/9 !

Okay, I’ll check Jim Bunning:

29 PB in 3760 IP (I didn’t figure out K/E2):

0.069 PB/9

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

This doesn’t seem like good news for Wilhelm’s CoG candidacy. But it’s good to bear in mind that Wilhelm wasn’t used like a modern closer, and to interpret his teams’ awful W-L record when he was involved in a game, we’d need to analyze the games and situations in which he was used. For instance, I went to scan his game logs in the ’65 season, and I found such anomalies as Wilhelm being brought in to start the 5th inning, pitching 5 shutout innings to finish the game, but because the ChiSox were two runs behind when he came… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago

Career Splits:

High Leverage Situations
Medium
Low:

.222 / .300 / .316 / .616
.206 / .276 / .295 / .572
.215 / .282 / .308 / .591
____________________________

Ahead
Behind:

.218 / .287 / .306 / .593
.215 / .284 / .313 / .596
_________________________

8th Inning
9th
Extras:

.201 / .273 / .290 / .564
.205 / .273 / .288 / .562
.215 / .303 / .314 / .617

Mike L
Mike L
4 years ago
Reply to  Kahuna Tuna

Kahuna Tuna–that’s terrific work. About your observation that team records were better in games without Hoyt, isn’t that odd, since, if he were a “closer” presumably he’d be coming in with the lead? He finished the game in about 60% of his appearances

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

The roll of a relief “ace” was much less well defined in the 50’s & 60’s. Generally they came in when the starter tired and the game was still close- which might be in the 8th or even 7th inning and often with the game tied or even a run or 2 behind. Bill James covered this at some length in one or both of his Historical Baseball Abstracts (I think) where he showed pretty clearly that using your best reliever in that manor rather than the way is currently done is a far more efficient use of resources. That… Read more »

bstar
bstar
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

There’s a simple explanation for why Wilhelm’s teams lost more when he pitched — he entered more games with his team behind than with his team ahead.

Wilhelm pitched 1070 games but we don’t have data on 40 of them in the ’50s. But on the 1030 that we do have info, here is the game situation when Hoyt entered:

428….Team Behind
367….Team Ahead
235….Tie Game

Hoyt pitched 20 seasons in the bigs, 19 of them mainly as a reliever. 12 of those 19 seasons Wilhelm entered more often with his team behind than ahead.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

That explains a lot indeed, bstar. Thanks for doing that bit of research. If we just look at the ahead/behind record and compare it with W-L, the outcome isn’t really an advertisement for Wilhelm. His teams’ percent ahead rate when he entered the game was .461, and when the game ended it was .444. In some of those cases, it may be that an additional loss was determined after Wilhelm left (that is, he might have entered and left when the when his team was ahead or tied and they lost in the end), but the same may be true… Read more »

bstar
bstar
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

epm: It isn’t a black mark on Wilhelm’s record either.

I just did Craig Kimbrel. His teams’ records when he pitches (.825) is worse than his percent ahead rate (.896), just like Wilhelm’s.

So I think we can put to rest the idea that a 50-WAR pitcher didn’t make his team better.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Yes, I agree, bstar. My initial reaction to Tuna’s stat was quite negative, but when I worked it through, it became unclear that the figure is a useful measure.

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago

I’m not quite ready to weigh in with my vote yet but I did find something that struck me as a little amazing. In 1896 in a 140 game season and with 38 starts a 22 year old Chick Fraser managed to put just short of 600 men on base. I’m sure some of the old timers throwing 500 and 600 innings did many more in total and no doubt some guys who pitched themselves out of the rotation did more per IP but I would think that’s at least somewhere in the ballpark of the worst combination (total &… Read more »

Doug
Doug
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Fraser’s first three seasons featured 10+ H/9 and 4+ BB/9, a combination he managed to avoid for the rest of his 14-year career. Three other pitchers (Vern Kennedy, Oral Hildebrand, Sheriff Blake) have three such 162 IP seasons since 1893, but only Kennedy matched Fraser’s feat of posting those seasons consecutively.

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

And Fraser also added three-quarters of a base runner per start via HBP as well.

I guess his infielders never got lonely when he was pitching anyways.

Andy
Andy
4 years ago

Lajoie
Goslin
Waddell

Andy
Andy
4 years ago

Lajoie, Waddell, Walsh

mosc
mosc
4 years ago

Lajoie, Ferrell, Dawson

Surprising nobody at this point with that one I’m sure.

JEV
JEV
4 years ago

Lajoie, Brown, Goslin

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

Goose Goslin, Hoyt Wilhelm, Nap Lajoie

dr-remulak
dr-remulak
4 years ago

Nettles, Waddell, Wilhelm.

Brent
Brent
4 years ago

Lajoie, Goslin and K. Brown

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago

I notice that in the initial voting, Tiant is once again trailing, with no votes among the first nine ballots; Brown has 3 and Reuschel 2. I think Brown, Reuschel, and Tiant are very close as pitchers. I’m not sure I’ll vote for any of them when the 1872-71 round comes, but if I were to choose one, it would be Tiant. The reasons are mostly negative ones: In the 1875 round, Dr. Doom persuaded me that Reuschel’s 9.4 WAR season is not as clearly great as that number indicates, and is so unusual in his record that it probably… Read more »

David P
David P
4 years ago

EPM – My guess re: Tiant vs Brown is this. Tiant doesn’t have any strong supporters. He has people like us, people who think he’s more deserving than Brown and Reuschel, but aren’t convinced he’s COG-worthy. Brown, on the other hand, has several supporters who are convinced that he belongs in the COG. And continually make cases in his favor. Brown is basically Donald Trump. His supporters absolutely love him whereas the rest of us are saying: “WTF are you thinking???”. Tiant is more like John Kasich. Not even his biggest supporters really care one one or another if he… Read more »

Mike L
Mike L
4 years ago
Reply to  David P

Reuschel is Jeb Bush–he has the same physique, and it’s hard to get really jazzed up over someone so un-flashy. Besides, he also has a brother in the business (Paul)

David P
David P
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike L

Well done Mike L on the Bush-Reuschel comp!

And Doom…I hope that you understood that the Brown-Trump comparison has to do with the level of passion that both inspire in their supporters, nothing else. Though I suppose Brown and Trump are at least a bit alike in temperament…

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

Wow, I can’t say I’ve ever been compared to a Trump supporter before, but I suppose the analogy fits. The other thing that Tiant suffers from, I think, is lack of identity. Brown is clearly the “peak” guy. His peak is well-defined by both traditional and advanced stats. It’s consecutive, and while it’s at an unusual age (insert PED comment here, if you’d like), that’s not unusual for a pitcher, so his career arc looks normal. Likewise, Reuschel is the more consistent pitcher. Sure, there’s the one big season – but other than that, he was a pretty consistent performer.… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Your comment about Tiant’s career not following the traditional curve bears repeating.

In almost all ranking systems there is some sort of “consecutive year peak” component that penalizes players who’s performance was up & down over a considerable period of time. I don’t see why a handful of high WAR seasons over a 12 or 13 year time frame coupled with another handful of good to very good seasons and 2 or 3 poor or mediocre seasons sprinkled throughout should be any less valuable than someone who’s career followed the more traditional bell curve.

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Well, whether it SHOULD be is up for debate. If you’re a GM, and someone tells you, “I’ll give you one of two players: same WAR, same attitudes and everything by the time it’s all said and done. But one of them will have a predictable career arc, and the other’s seasons will be random.” Which one do YOU pick? Me? I’m taking the predictable guy, because I know when the time is to “go for broke.” (Fascinatingly, see Kevin Brown and the 1997 Marlins!!!) So I have sympathy for that argument. That said, for the most part, I basically… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Tiant’s JAWS score- by which he is just above the top 120 eligible players ranking cutoff and which uses a player best 7 consecutive years- leaves out his highest WAR season entirely. I’m still a little troubled by the number of pitchers from Tiant’s era that are already in the COG & regardless of my past support for him I had decided a few rounds ago that I just couldn’t see how there was room for him. Now I’m not so sure. Geez- there were still a handful of guys that I go back and forth over trying to decide… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Doom, You say that if you were a GM you’d choose Brown over Tiant because of the predictable path of his career, but I think that you mean you would do that if Brown’s career were in its peak phase. If it weren’t, I think you’d be foolish to gamble on a pitcher who was predicted to be washed up, rather than a pitcher who was simply unpredictable. Of course, my argument against Brown doesn’t have to do with any of this; it’s simply that there is an unknown discount that needs to be made for PEDs. At its lowest… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

epm – I generally don’t consider PEDs at all. Mostly, though, I was trying to point out something about TIANT’S career, not Brown’s. I agree that PEDs affect how some voters see him (it doesn’t make a difference to me). It’s just that Brown (and to a lesser extent Reuschel) has a “normal” career arc, whereas Tiant’s is bizarre, and I think that’s scared some voters away. What I was saying about career shapes was that, as a GM, if I had to sign a guy to a 20-year contract and take the good with the bad, knowing that both… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

I’ve got your point now, Doom. Sorry about the bat$#!+, but it seems to have tempered you well.

shard
shard
4 years ago

Lajoie – Ashburn – Walsh

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Through 11 (shard), here are the earliest of returns:

9 – Nap Lajoie*
===========75% (9)
===========50% (6)
4 – Kevin Brown*, Goose Goslin*
3 – Rube Waddell, Hoyt Wilhelm
===========25% (3)
2 – Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Ed Walsh*
===========10% (2)
1 – Dick Allen, Richie Ashburn, Andre Dawson, Graig Nettles*
0 – Luis Tiant

Kirk
Kirk
4 years ago

Hoyt Wilhelm, Rick Reushel, and Nap Lajoie

Voomo Zanzibar
Voomo Zanzibar
4 years ago

Vote:

Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
Hoyt Wilhelm

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago

A purely strategic vote:

Tiant, Ashburn, Allen

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Doug, did you miss my answer to trivia question 11 above? It’s Bobo Newsom in 1938.

Scary Tuna
Scary Tuna
4 years ago

Lajoie, Waddell, and Wallace.

Chris C
Chris C
4 years ago

Allen, Ashburn, Wilhelm

Gary Bateman
Gary Bateman
4 years ago

Lajoie, Goslin, Ashburn

Stephen
Stephen
4 years ago

Lajoie, Ashburn, K. Brown

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago

I probably couldn’t have been more wrong when I said that the time for strategic voting was over. Here is my current thinking: We currently have 13 holdovers. Upcoming elections will offer anywhere from 0 to 3 serious candidates. We have a minimum of 5 more elections to go (after the current one) and possibly more. My best guess is that it will be 7 so that’s the number I’ll work with. There are only a couple of these elections where I see a newcomer as being a sure thing which means that in the rest it is likely that… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

I guess I can see your point, Hartvig, and on an individual level, it makes sense. I think, for the most part, at this point, we need to be voting for those players we believe DO belong in. I’m also sympathetic to the idea that your 6th best choice is better than your 10th best. Let’s consider Richie Ashburn. I’m using him because I can’t remember the last time I heard an impassioned plea for Ashburn, so if someone out there in voter-land is a big Ashburn supporter, I apologize. Let’s say (and I don’t know that this is true)… Read more »

aweb
aweb
4 years ago

Lajoie
Wallace
K. Brown

Mike L
Mike L
4 years ago

Hartvig makes a good point. Outside of Lajoie, we are more and more sorting through ‘like kind’ players. I have voted for several of the holdovers, but I can’t say any one of them was my top choice on any ballot. I won’t vote for Brown for PED reasons but other than that I can consider all of the rest–except several of the rest seem kind of ordinary very good to me–“A-” players, more like Willie Randolph. Good arguments in favor of Wallace and Ferrell make them worth reviewing again. I think at this point I’m trying to find the… Read more »

Jameson O'Donnell
Jameson O'Donnell
4 years ago

“Big” Ed
Napoleon
Roderick Wallace

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Through 21 ballots (Jameson O’Donnell’s vote above):

15 – Nap Lajoie*
==========50% (11)
7 – Hoyt Wilhelm
6 – Kevin Brown*, Rube Waddell
==========25% (6)
5 – Richie Ashburn, Goose Goslin*
4 – Bobby Wallace
3 – Dick Allen, Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Ed Walsh*
==========10% (3)
1 – Andre Dawson, Graig Nettles*, Luis Tiant

Mo
Mo
4 years ago

Allen Ashburn Reuschel

Doug
Doug
4 years ago

No discussion so far about Harry Davis. While his career falls well short of HOF standards, his leaderboard appearances are quite comparable to HOF inductees. – Black Ink Batting – 34 (50), Average HOFer ≈ 27 – Gray Ink Batting – 134 (128), Average HOFer ≈ 144 That (50) denotes the 50th highest black ink score, not an insignificant accomplishment. Most notable are his four straights seasons (1904-07) leading the AL in home runs, matching the more famous accomplishment of his A’s teammate Home Run Baker. Davis’s 30.3 WAR aged 29-36 is the 14th highest total among first basemen at… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug

While I agree with absolutely everything else in your post I do have to point out that Johnny Mize was in the military from ages 30 through 32.

But unfortunately for Davis he was on his way out just as “the $100,000 infield” was arriving so he usually only gets a passing mention if any and even then only as a rather inferior placeholder until the final member of the quartet was in place.

Doug
Doug
4 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Glad you mentioned the bit about Mize. He, in particular, was a surprise to me when I saw his name below Davis’s – should have followed my instinct and checked it out.

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
4 years ago

– Napolean Lajoie (FTW)
– Goose Goslin (bonus round)
– Luis Tiant (stay on ballot/Red Sox favorite)

David Horwich
David Horwich
4 years ago

Lajoie, Nettles, Tiant I like Goslin, too, but he doesn’t need my vote this round. Otherwise, the rest of our pared-down holdover list doesn’t inspire me. –> Brown has a pretty good case, but I just don’t like him. –> Ferrell’s career is a bit too short. It’s tricky to evaluate the good-hitting pitchers. I don’t see that Ferrell was markedly better than Drysdale or Ruffing, and neither of them is on the ballot any more. –> if I had to choose another pitcher after Tiant from the holdover list I’d probably take Walsh, but we already have 4 deadball-era… Read more »

Hub Kid
Hub Kid
4 years ago

Tiant, Allen, Nettles I do like Ed Walsh, but I see the point about how many original deadball era pitchers, that we are likely to have, and how few ca. 1920-1960 pitchers (I think I voted for Lyons until he fell off the ballot, so I can’t kick myself here, unlike with more than a few others). I think Ferrell should be a HOF-er but I am not sure about him for the COG. I guess my fourth choice is Wilhelm, I just think that these three have a much better traditional case than him (although Tiant gets some “unusual… Read more »

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Through 25 ballots (Hub Kid): 17 – Nap Lajoie 7 – Hoyt Wilhelm =========25% (7) 6 – Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown*, Goose Goslin*, Rube Waddell 5 – Dick Allen 4 – Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace 3 – Wes Ferrell, Graig Nettles*, Ed Walsh* =========10% (3) 1 – Andre Dawson Most of our questions this round are answered already, even though we probably have 12-ish ballots to go. Everyone with 4+ will be safe already, and the crowd at 3 is likely to get one more each (though they do still need it to move on). No one has… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
4 years ago

Goslin, Lajoie, Wilhelm

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago

As a result of Dave Humbert’s advocacy, I’ve been giving Bobby Wallace a third look. I’m not sure I see him as a CoG member, but what I do see is a very close resemblance to Graig Nettles. Their surface WAR distribution is obviously very similar (Wallace’s oWAR/dWAR is 56/29, Nettles’ is 52/21), but they resemble one another in other ways. For example, for OBP, Wallace is 6 points over league average, Nettles 2; their power-speed numbers are nearly identical (BW:58.2, GN:59.1); their OWn% are also close: .554 to .551. Obviously, Nettles had much more power than Wallace (although Wallace’s… Read more »

David Horwich
David Horwich
4 years ago

OK, but Wallace was playing 100+ years ago, in a segregated league; Nettles was playing in a much more competitive era.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago
Reply to  David Horwich

It’s a valid point, David, but as I’ve said many times, I don’t believe more than a handful of Old Timers would be competitive in today’s MLB unless they had a few years to train up. Maybe Cobb and Johnson. It’s a different world. If we follow the logic of your argument too far, the CoG will be 95% postwar.

But for comparables like Wallace and Nettles, I can see where it would swing a vote. (I’m not likely to vote for either.)

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
4 years ago

Vote change:

As we get near the vote change deadline, Allen and Ashburn no longer need my vote to stay on the ballot. Tiant may, if one vote changes, Ferrell still does, Wallace and Reuschel, like Tiant, are not locks, and Dawson’s in danger. I’m willing to see Reuschel or Dawson fall off the list, but Wallace now looks more like a real CoG contender, and Ferrell has no similar-but-probably-better peer on the list.

Tiant, Wallace, Ferrell

Next round I expect to vote for my actual CoG picks, and it’s unlikely any of these three will be on my ballot.

Paul E
Paul E
4 years ago

Allen, Ashburn, Tiant

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago

I’m guessing that anyone with 4 votes will more forward so I will vote accordingly.

I’m happy to see that Wallace will make it thru to another round. I’m not sure that he belongs but I think he at least deserves further consideration.

I’m also not sure about Walsh either but I think a head to head matchup with McGinnity will be informative.

Finally I have slightly warmed to Nettles & it would be nice to have until the final ballot to make up my mind.

Lajoie, Ferrell, Nettles

Sorry mosc but I just couldn’t pull the trigger on Dawson

Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
4 years ago

Final day update, through 28 ballots (Hartvig):

19 – Nap Lajoie
===========50% (14)
8 – Hoyt Wilhelm
7 – Goose Goslin*
===========25% (7)
6 – Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown*, Rube Waddell
5 – Dick Allen, Wes Ferrell, Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace
4 – Graig Nettles*, Rick Reuschel
3 – Ed Walsh*
===========10% (3)
1 – Andre Dawson

Hartvig
Hartvig
4 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Doom

Today (Sunday, Dec 6th) is the last day to change your ballot.

Voting doesn’t end until Tuesday, Dec 8th.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
4 years ago

Voting in the ’73 round for

E.Walsh
H.Wilhelm
and
R.Waddell, who isn’t often first on any alphabetical list

Joseph
Joseph
4 years ago

Vote: Lajoie, Nettles, and Goslin.

Brendan Bingham
Brendan Bingham
4 years ago

Vote:
Reuschel, Tiant, Wilhelm

David Horwich
David Horwich
4 years ago

Totals through 31 ballots (Brendan Bingham’s):

20 – Lajoie*
=============50% (16)
10 – Wilhelm
8 – Goslin*
=============25% (8)
7 – Waddell
6 – Ashburn, Brown*, Nettles*, Tiant
5 – Allen, Ferrell, Reuschel, Wallace
=============10% (4)
3 – Walsh*
1 – Dawson

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

I think you have credited Nettles with one of Ed Walsh’s votes. I have five for Nettles (dr-remulak, David Horwich, Hub Kid, Hartvig, and Joseph) and four for Walsh (Andy (O’s logo), shard, Jameson O’Donnell, and oneblankspace). Let me know if my count is in error.

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

You’re correct, Dr. Doom – thanks for the catch. (Nettles and Walsh are in adjacent columns in my spreadsheet, so it was a simple transcription error on my part.)

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

I figured; I’ve been there before. But I thought there was also a possibility I had missed a vote change, so I figured I might as well ask!