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
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.
Got it. Thanks!
This round’s tidbits. Answers in red.
1. Jake Weimer is the only pitcher since 1901 with 20 win seasons for the Cubs and Reds, and the only pitcher with three 20 win seasons but none with more than 20 wins. Who is the only live ball era pitcher to match Weimer’s career start of four consecutive 250 IP seasons with 4 WAR? Tom Seaver
2. Bobby Wallace played shortstop for every inning of his team’s 1905 season. Who is the only older player to do this since 1901? Ivy Olson (1918)
3. Harry Davis’s 40 extra-base hits in 1897 included 28 triples. Who is the only other player since 1893 with triples comprising two-thirds of extra-base hits in a 400 PA season? Jimmy Williams (1909)
4. Chick Fraser’s 27 losses for the 1896 Colonels is the second highest total for a rookie pitcher since 1893, trailing only Bill Hill’s 28 setbacks on that same Louisville team. Which is the only expansion era team to have two rookie pitchers post 15 or more losses? 1962 Mets (Craig Anderson, Al Jackson)
5. John Anderson led his league in slugging in 1898, the only player to do so while playing for more than one team. Anderson stole 20 bases in a season for 5 different franchises (Superbas, Brewers, Highlanders, Senators, White Sox). Which two one-time teammates of Anderson’s did the same? Jack Doyle, Kip Selbach
6. Claude Ritchey’s 973 games at second base for the Pirates trails only Bill Mazeroski. Ritchey struck out 7 times in the 1903 World Series. Which HOF second baseman had more strikeouts in a single World Series? Rogers Hornsby (1929)
7. Red Donahue lost 35 games in 1897, five more than any other pitcher since 1893, and a rate of more than one L per 10 IP. Which pitcher has the highest L:IP ratio in a season with 20 or more starts? Pascual Perez (1985)
8. Bob Ewing recorded 3 WAA for Cincinnati for 3 consecutive seasons (1905-07). Who is the only expansion era Red pitcher to do the same? Jose Rijo (1990-93)
9. Mike Kahoe scored more than one run per 11 PA in 1903. Who is the only player since 1901 with a higher scoring rate in a 250 PA season, like Kahoe’s, with a slash lower (in all components) than .200/.250/.300? Mark Belanger (1972)
10. Jimmy Slagle recorded 100 games and 400 PA in each of the 10 seasons of his career, without ever reaching 50 RBI in a season. Which two players also failed to post a 50 RBI season in careers beginning with a longer streak of 100 game/400 PA seasons? Jimmy Austin, Larry Bowa
11. Jack Taylor finished every game he started for four consecutive 300 IP seasons (1902-05), and had no more than one unfinished game in every season of his career save the last. Who is the only live ball era pitcher to match Taylor’s 1901 season of zero shutouts in 30+ complete games? Bobo Newsom (1938)
12. Chick Stahl batted .354 in his 1897 debut campaign. Who is the only live ball era player to better that mark in a qualified (modern definition) first season? Lloyd Waner (1927)
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 still painful to some Giants fans.
1993 was only 22 years ago, but here’s one huge difference: Rijo led the NL in K/9 that season – with a 7.94 mark. In 2015, 35 pitchers qualified for the ERA title with a better K/9 than Rijo’s 1993 mark.
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 quite Ferrell-esque, but very good for the era. His 10.2 total bWAR led the NL, just squeaking past MVP-winning Barry Bonds and his 9.9 mark.
#2: Ivy Olson in 1918 at age 32. It was a war-shortened season.
Going from memory… is #4 the 2003 Tigers?
12. Chick Stahl question: Lloyd Waner.
Sad story about Stahl. Had a nice career (31.7 WAR in 10 seasons) before agreeing to become the 34 year-old player manager of the Boston Americans for the 1907 season (Boston was to have had the nickname “Chicks” that year). But, Stahl resigned as manager during spring training because he couldn’t stomach having to cut players from the team. This precipitated his suicide three days later, and only four months after marrying.
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).
Anderson went 0-11 in 14 starts and 3-6 in 36 relief appearances. That’s the rookie record since at least 1914 for losses as a starter without a win. Dutch Henry (0-15 in his final season in 1930) and Tom Sheehan (0-14 in his second season in 1916) have the only seasons with more starting losses without a win.
#10: Jimmy Austin and Larry Bowa.
#1 is Tom Terrific from 1967 to 1970. You could raise the WAR parameter to 5.8 for him and he would still qualify.
#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)
#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.
11. Jack Taylor – Bobo Newsom in 1938: 31 complete, nary a shutout.
#5: Jack Doyle
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.
Is it Kip Selbach?
Selbach is the one, and he was the WAR leader on that 1898 Senators team, until then his only club. Selbach’s travels began the next year when purchased by the Reds.
Anderson and Selbach were both outfielders, stole 338 and 334 bases, both had career totals exceeding 300 doubles, 120 triples and 40 home runs, and both played 100+ games for six franchises. Their career BA and SLG marks are .290/.405 and .293/.412. The one big difference: Selbach walked twice as much as Anderson, giving him a 50+ point OPS edge and about 25% more career WAR in only half-a-season’s worth more PA.
#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.
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.
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.
Running the PI for .099.
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.
Belanger is correct.
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)
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…………………
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 had 5 relief appearances and 5 games finished, so only twice in his career did he ever hand the ball off to another pitcher.
Actually, those two are connected in other ways. A cursory search shows them to be #1 and #2 all-time in consecutive complete games. Jack Lynch had 198 CG’s in a row, which is the all-time record. Taylor had 185 in a row, which is the post-1901 record (or post-1893 record, if you prefer). Sometimes Taylor’s streak is listed at 187 games; the discrepancy is apparently due to relief appearances. Taylor did complete 187 straight starts, but two of those are disconnected by some relief appearances he made.
Setting a 50 game minimum, I find two pitchers who completed every single game they started – “Cannon Ball” Bill Stemmyer and Fleury Sullivan. Stemmyer completed all 59 of his starts, but he made a relief appearance. All 51 of Sullivan’s pitching appearances were starts, and he completed them all, but he appeared in 3 games as a centerfielder. I needed to find someone whose entire major league career consisted of complete games as a pitcher! I finally did, by setting the minimum to 40 games – Sam Kimber, with 42 games, 42 starts, 42 CG’s. No relief appearances or position player cameos to sully his record.
That search is working for me. Taylor has far and away the best percentage of starts completed since 1893. Second is Kid Nichols (for his career and for his work since 1893) with 6 others topping 90%, including Red Donahue, also on this ballot (but just barely, with 184 games since 1901 and 183 before that).
If you look just at the period since 1901, the list shrinks to just two at 90%, with only Taylor and Addie Joss, followed by Cy Young at 89.7%, with Bill Donovan and Chick Fraser (also on this ballot) rounding out the top 5.
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?
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.
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.
Wallace and two contemporaries (George Davis, Bill Dahlen) all posted 60 WAR batting runs and 120 WAR fielding runs for their careers. Cal Ripken is the only shortstop since to post those totals.
Wallace and Dahlen are two of only 10 shortstops since 1893 to post 10 seasons with 3 oWAR. In Wallace’s case, all of those seasons were below 6 oWAR, but that total has fielding removed and it is 10 seasons, so he was making a creditable offensive contribution for a shortstop.
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.)
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.
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 a pretty good job of it- Tommy McCarthy excepted- but while Lanigan was still around in the 50’s to help the newly formed Veterans Committee their choices were sometimes questionable (Ray Schalk).
Wallace had a reputation for being an excellent defensive player.
The question is how accurately does WAR measure that.
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 his reputation as a premier defensive shortstop who transformed play at his position. His arm was very strong (so much so he accumulated 6.2 WAR as a pitcher to start his career), he had tremendous range (accepting 17 chances in a 1902 game – still the American League record) and released the ball quickly (by combining fielding and throwing in a smooth motion) to nab speedy runners of the day. Wallace led the AL in assists twice (NL once) and fielding percentage three times. During his prime (1900-1910) he placed in the top 5 almost every year in defensive games, putouts, assists, double plays, and fielding percentage as a shortstop. His Range Factor per game or 9 innings was never worse than 4th, largely in his later career around age 40. He was thought of defensively at short similar to J. Collins at third, possibly the best of his generation.
Bobby Wallace was no slouch with a bat either, at various times leading the AL in walks, hits, doubles, triples, total bases, and slugging percentage. From 1897-1908 he ranked in the top 10 in RBI’s in eight of the twelve seasons. His BA occasionally topped .300 (.335 in 1897, .324 in 1901) but his career BA was .268. Wagner, Dahlen, and Davis had better bats, but Wallace could hold his own, earning 3-5 oWAR/yr. from 1897-1910 (except 1900 and 1909 about 2.5).
Looking at his career, 19 of the 25 years were significant to his WAR (1895-96 as pitcher, 1897-1913 as player). 1894 saw him pitch 4 games (0.0 WAR), and 1914-1918 play as a part-time shortstop in only 89 games total (-0.4 WAR). 6 pitching WAR and a 125 ERA+ to begin, and 70.7 position WAR over 19 years, works out to about 4 WAR/yr. (sort of Whitaker-like). Some may see 25 seasons and assume compiler, but Wallace was in 2383 games with 8618 AB – his career is not so unusual after all. Those age 40-44 seasons were very part-time, but he was not dropping off a cliff value-wise.
Concerning league quality and competition levels – it is true the American League was a new league and competition was uneven, but Wallace jumped to the AL in 1902 to earn more money. The STL Browns gave him $32,500 over 5 years with a $6,500 signing bonus, making Wallace the highest paid player at the time ($7200/year was 3 times the NL salary cap of $2400 – who wouldn’t take that deal?). In the Deadball Era, defense was at a premium and AL teams were willing to pay for it. George Davis jumped to the AL in 1902 as well, though he and Dahlen were entering the latter part of their careers. You can’t blame Wallace for going where the money was, as many NL players did. The star player at the time was much better than average – Wallace was one of those stars.
Is Wallace of COG caliber? The voters will say, but I do think he has a career worth considering, and he should stick around for due consideration. Dismissing him as a “one and done” is ignoring the qualities that got him to the HOF in the first place. His play and contributions were memorable enough to the committee over 40 years later. Bobby Wallace deserves a closer look.
Worthy advocacy, Dave. I’ve looked at Wallace twice. I’ll take a third look.
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 elected. And since all the position players are the same in my book (with a slight edge to Nettles), I’ll go with this ballot.
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.
Reuschel, D. Allen, Wilhelm
Nap Lajoie, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown
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 of the story.
Pitchers
___Name________P-WAR___Peak5___Top5____WAR/9IP__WAR/Yr______ERA+___Career length (IP)
Brown__________68.5_____37.0___37.0_____0.189____4.0 (17)_____127_______1.24
Ferrell________48.8_____29.9___36.0_____0.168____4.9 (10)_____116_______1.00
McGinnity*_____60.4_____37.5___43.3_____0.158____6.0 (10)_____120_______1.31
Reuschel_______68.2_____31.0___32.8_____0.173____4.0 (17)_____114_______1.35
Tiant__________66.1_____28.7___34.7_____0.171____3.9 (17)_____114_______1.33
Waddell________61.0_____43.9___43.9_____0.185____5.9 (10)_____135_______1.13
Walsh__________63.2_____47.3___48.9_____0.192____6.2 (10)_____145_______1.13
Wilhelm________50.1_____16.1___21.6_____0.184____2.6 (19)_____147_______N/A
Position Players
___Name_________WAR____Peak5__Top5______WAR/G___WAR/Yr_______OPS+__Career length (G)
Allen__________58.7_____31.5___36.7_____0.034____4.2 (14)_____156______1.0
Ashburn________63.6_____31.6___32.7_____0.029____4.2 (15)_____111______1.3
Clarke*________67.4_____22.2___26.6_____0.030____3.7 (18)_____133______1.3
Dawson_________64.4_____32.4___33.7_____0.025____3.4 (19)_____119______1.5
Goslin_________66.1_____32.5___32.8_____0.029____4.1 (16)_____128______1.3
Keeler*________54.0_____27.0___27.5_____0.025____3.4 (16)_____127______1.4
Nettles________68.0_____28.7___32.2_____0.025____3.4 (20)_____110______1.4
Wallace________70.2_____28.6___31.3_____0.029____4.1 (17)_____105______1.3
All the columns line up perfectly as I type this, so they’re guaranteed to be a total mess when posted.
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 Wilhelm’s percentage: Charlie Haeger (2006-10), +103.5%; Steven Wright (2013-present), +73.3%; and Jared Fernández (2001-06), +59.3%.
Other UER percentages from this group of 28 knuckleballers, relative to their league rates: Wally Burnette (1956-58), +50.5%; Tim Wakefield (1992-2011), +44.9%; Al Papai (1948-1955), +40.8%; Dutch Leonard (1933-53), +39.6%; Tom Candiotti (1983-99), +36.1%; Steve Sparks (1995-2004), +30.9%; Wilbur Wood (1961-78), +26.5%; Phil Niekro (1964-1987), +24.5%; Roger Wolff (1941-47), +20.6%; Charlie Hough (1970-94), +19.9%; Ted Lyons (1923-46), +18.9%; Johnny Niggeling (1938-46), +14.8%; Mickey Haefner (1943-50), +13.8%; Gene Bearden (1947-53), +13.6%; Jim Bouton (1962-70 & 1978), +13.6%; Dennis Springer (1995-2002), +8.4%; Joe Niekro (1967-88), +4.6%; Jesse Haines (1918-37), +2.0%; Eddie Cicotte (1905-20, +1.1%; Eddie Fisher (1959-73), +0.1%; R.A. Dickey (2001-present), -2.5%; Danny Boone (1981-82 & 1990), -9.7%; Bob Purkey (1954-66), -10.3%; and Lew Moren (1903-10), -11.0%.
(I got my group of 28 from the Wikipedia page “List of Knuckleball Pitchers,” which is not at all complete. I discovered later that there are a bunch of other knuckleball pitchers with sizable careers whom I could have included in my survey—e.g., Hal Brown, George Caster, Bruce Dal Canton, Ben Flowers, Aubrey Gatewood, Lum Harris, Earl Harrist, Bob Humphreys, Ken Johnson, Andy Karl, Paul LaPalme, Dick Newsome, Joe Pate, Ewald Pyle, Willie Ramsdell, Eddie Rommel, Nap Rucker, Rich Sauveur, Barney Schultz, Tom Seaton, Bobby Shantz, Lou Sleater, Ray Starr, Fred Stiely, Marlin Stuart, Joe Sullivan, Ed Summers, Bob Tiefenauer, Jim Tobin, Jim Winford, Rasty Wright.)
It may be relevant to note that the Defensive Efficiency ratings of nearly all Wilhelm’s teams were at or above the league average. The 1964-67 White Sox led the AL in DefEff every season, and the 1959-62 Orioles finished third, second, first, and second in the AL in DefEff. This is not necessarily to imply that Wilhelm’s relatively high UER rates were due to his knuckleball. Other factors may have been in play. I will also note, however, that, for all but one of the first 16 years of his career (1952-67), the teams for which Wilhelm pitched all or most of the season led their league in passed balls—and the one exception, the 1953 Giants, finished second in the NL. The passed balls had to have had a significant effect on the number of unearned runs Wilhelm allowed.
This brings me to my second point about Wilhelm.
2. Wilhelm’s Rate of Passed Balls Thrown per Nine Innings Pitched. Pitcher’s Passed Balls Thrown (PBT?) is a statistic that isn’t kept officially, as far as I know. We would expect a PBT rate, if it existed, to be higher for a knuckleball pitcher than for most conventional-stuff pitchers. I’m going to present PBT rates for Wilhelm’s career, and they’re probably higher than, say, Jim Bunning’s, but please keep in mind I don’t have PBT rates for any other pitcher. I compiled this data manually.
As detailed in another post, I counted 36 relief appearances in which Wilhelm gave up one or more unearned runs in a game that his team lost by three or fewer runs. In 19 of those games the unearned run(s) scored as a full or partial result of 1) a passed ball that occurred while Wilhelm was on the mound (1957 and later) or 2) a strikeout on which the batter reached base as a result of a catcher’s error (before 1957; today we’d score this play as a strikeout plus passed ball).
Over the course of his career, Wilhelm pitched 2254.1 innings, throwing 265 pitches on which a passed ball was assessed, plus an additional 16 pitches on which the batter struck out but reached base because the catcher couldn’t handle the pitch and, under the scoring rules of the period (1952-57), was charged with an error. For this survey I’ve treated these “K+E2″s as passed balls. The 281 PBs in 2254.1 career IP represents a PBT rate of 1.12 PB per nine innings pitched (or, if you like, just about one PB per eight innings pitched). Here are Wilhelm’s year-by-year PBT rates:
1952: 17 PB + 4 K+E2, 1.19 PB/9IP
1953: 9 PB + 3 K+E2, 0.74 PB/9IP
1954: 8 PB + 2 K+E2, 0.81 PB/9IP
1955: 12 PB + 4 K+E2, 1.39 PB/9IP
1956: 12 PB + 3 K+E2, 1.51 PB/9IP
1957: 6 PB + 0 K+E2, 0.92 PB/9IP
1958: 17 PB, 1.17 PB/9IP
1959: 36 PB, 1.43 PB/9IP
1960: 14 PB, 0.86 PB/9IP
1961: 13 PB, 1.07 PB/9IP
1962: 22 PB, 2.13 PB/9IP
1963: 11 PB, 0.73 PB/9IP
1964: 17 PB, 1.16 PB/9IP
1965: 21 PB, 1.30 PB/9IP
1966: 11 PB, 1.22 PB/9IP
1967: 10 PB, 1.01 PB/9IP
1968: 3 PB, 0.29 PB/9IP
1969: 10 PB, 1.15 PB/9IP
1970: 9 PB, 0.99 PB/9IP
1971: 3 PB, 1.35 PB/9IP
1972: 4 PB, 1.42 PB/9IP
Career: 265 PB + 16 K+E2, 1.12 PB/9IP
It’s interesting that Wilhelm’s two highest PBT rates came in seasons (1956 and 1962) immediately after which he was traded to a different team. Those were also the first seasons for managers who replaced the managers who brought him to the team (1956 Giants, Bill Rigney, replacing Leo Durocher; 1962 Orioles, Billy Hitchcock, replacing Paul Richards). Of course, in 1956 Wilhelm notched eight saves but blew nine. That may have had more to do with his offseason trade to the Cardinals than Bill Rigney’s knowledge of how to use a knuckleball pitcher.
A few more career Wilhelm stats and then I’m done. Wilhelm had 32 holds; 73 blown saves; his teams’ record in games in which he appeared, 474-594-2 (W-L% .444); teams’ record in which Wilhelm served up one or more passed balls, 100-119-1 (W-L%, .461). Overall record of the teams for which Wilhelm played: 1,711-1,554 (W-L%, .524). Can’t be too many HOFers whose teams’ overall records were 80 percentage points better than the games in which they appeared! In 13 of his 21 seasons Wilhelm’s team had a record below .500 in games in which he pitched; in seven of those seasons the team had a sub-.500 record, and in six seasons the team’s record was above .500. In six seasons Wilhelm’s team had a winning record in games in which he appeared; five of those teams had winning records overall (exception: the ’59 Orioles). The 1965 White Sox went 95-67, 33-33 in Wilhelm’s appearances. Wilhelm’s teams went 6-6 in his appearances in 1971.
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.
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
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 in, it’s just a team loss on this accounting. Following up would be more work than I have the energy for – I guess I’m more like Charlie than Kahuna.
Kahuna’s two other Wilhelm-related research projects are posted in the 1875 round. One of them, on inherited runners scoring (bottom line: Wilhelm was MLB-average on that stat), was posted after the round seemed to end, and I just spotted it for the first time. Next round is the one that counts for Wilhelm, so we’ll want to remember to consult these three posts.
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
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
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 said I still don’t know why Wilhelm’s teams would have had a better record without him. Presumably some of those games would have been complete game victories but I would also assume that some would have been games where his team was getting clobbered as well. At least you wouldn’t think that you would run your best reliever out there in a totally lost cause unless he needed the work or something.
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.
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 on the victory side.
On the other hand, a pure closer, under modern usage, would almost always have a worse Pct. on that basis, since he’d ideally be sent to the mound only when his team was ahead, so a single blown save would put his total record under water, even if it involved the only runs he let in all year.
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.
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.
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 & per IP) of the two.
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.
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.
Lajoie
Goslin
Waddell
Lajoie, Waddell, Walsh
Lajoie, Ferrell, Dawson
Surprising nobody at this point with that one I’m sure.
Lajoie, Brown, Goslin
Goose Goslin, Hoyt Wilhelm, Nap Lajoie
Nettles, Waddell, Wilhelm.
Lajoie, Goslin and K. Brown
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 distorts his career value. In Brown’s case, I’m not willing to vote for a borderline CoG player who is known to have used PEDs, since even assessing PED impact at a minimum will drop his earned value below that of a peer like Tiant. (Overlooking PEDs in a 139 WAR pitcher like Rocket’s a lot different from doing so for a 68 WAR pitcher like Brown.)
I’m not sure Tiant is CoGworthy, but I think that he should be in the pack of candidates next round if Brown and Reuschel are, since I’d rate him best of the three. I’ll vote for him this round if it seems he’s in danger of being dropped.
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 wins. And yes, I realize I probably just made the worst analogy ever!
And I have no idea where Reuschel fits in any of this….
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)
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…
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. You know what you’re getting. Yes, there’s the weird mid-career lull, but he comes out of it.
With Tiant, you can’t really elect him on his consistency, like you can with Reuschel, because Tiant doesn’t have 10 years that look like the first 10 of Reuschel’s career, where he was solid but rarely spectacular, putting up All-Star type WARs every year.
Tiant ALSO doesn’t fit the Brown bill well, because although he and Brown both share high peaks, Browns is clear, defined, and consecutive. Brown, from 1996-2000 (even 1992-2001 if you’re looking for a solid 10-year peak) is just what you’d expect. High numbers with build up and let-down on either end. Tiant? He’s all over the map. 8.4, 3.1, 1.2, -0.4 (!), 6.6, 5.4, 7.8, 2.6, 6.3, 2.5, 5.6, 2.4. It’s hard to know what his “peak” is. If you just look at best seasons, regardless of order (I typically do; it’s why I’ve traditionally ranked him very highly), he scores well. But if you’re looking for a more “traditional” career, Tiant’s looks bizarre and can be difficult to compare to these other two.
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.
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 agree with you. No one has a perfect “bell curve” peak, anyway. And Tiant, for like 18 years, was, at any point, capable of being one of the best pitchers in baseball. That’s worth a LOT to me, and why I’ve voted for him many times. That said, I think it’s harder to form an IDENTITY and a reputation with voting bodies like this one when your career at one point seems like it’s in the deepest of valleys, and then at the next point it seems to be in the stratosphere. That’s just a harder player to nail down, and I don’t think it’s helped his showing in the COG.
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 what order to rank them in and now I’ve added back in yet another…
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 possible level, based on Mitchell Report (pp. 214-17) evidence of specifically reported PED use, that discount must be made on seasons totaling between 2.7 and 9.9 WAR (2-3 seasons 2000-3), and the seasons that follow (2.4-6.9 WAR) are also questionable because of the potential effect of the PEDs prolonging Brown’s career into those final years (he bought the stuff to address injuries). And, of course, any reports of PED use sufficient to make the Mitchell Report list means that the likelihood of broader PED use rises above the default level that applies to all players of that era. (Brown declined the opportunity to testify on whether he used PEDs, but the report includes his supplier’s statement that “he was ‘very knowledgeable’ about human growth hormone,” as well as a mail receipt to the supplier made out by Brown.)
It’s this level of doubt that, for me, drops Brown’s total claim on CoG consideration below Tiant’s. While I think it’s possible to argue that we can’t assume that Brown’s WAR would have been much lower if he had not used PEDs, because their performance effects on pitchers are not as clear as the effects on hitters (though the effects on injuries would be the same), the bottom line is simply that Brown’s WAR figures are squishy while Tiant’s are solid, and no comparison between the two can be made on a straight up basis – Brown is always going to need an undetermined discount.
While I do have concerns about the ethical side of all of this, I’m not advocating anyone consider those. This is just about getting a level-playing-field statistical comparison for comparable CoG candidates.
I want to add my congratulations to you for being analogized to a Donald Trump supporter! There are millions of Americans who would cheer you for it, and at least one who was astonished by the equanimity of your response.
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 would be worth 68 WAR total, I would think my chances of pennants would be increased by knowing that one player would have a predictable career shape, because I could pool all my resources toward that phase of a player’s career. With a guy like Tiant, that would be hard, because you never know WHEN he’s going to have a good year or a bad one.
As to equanimity in responding to comparisons to a Trump-backer, I labor in a profession in which cool, calm responses to absolute bat$#!+ insanity comes with the territory. It’s all in a day’s work.
I’ve got your point now, Doom. Sorry about the bat$#!+, but it seems to have tempered you well.
Lajoie – Ashburn – Walsh
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
Hoyt Wilhelm, Rick Reushel, and Nap Lajoie
Vote:
Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
Hoyt Wilhelm
A purely strategic vote:
Tiant, Ashburn, Allen
Doug, did you miss my answer to trivia question 11 above? It’s Bobo Newsom in 1938.
Got it, Doom.
Taylor’s proportion of CGs that were shutouts is the fourth lowest among those with at least 15 career shutouts, exceeding only Ted Lyons, Wes Ferrell and Earl Whitehill.
Lajoie, Waddell, and Wallace.
Allen, Ashburn, Wilhelm
Lajoie, Goslin, Ashburn
Wallace, Waddell, Wilhelm
Lajoie, Ashburn, K. Brown
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 at least some of our holdovers will be in contention.
I would guess that if all of us were asked to rank the holdovers from 1 to 13 most of us would see 1 or 2 that we are virtually certain belong and at least twice that many that we are equally certain do not.
But I think there are 2 problems.
The first is that there seems to be very little agreement about the order in which they should be ranked.
At least in my case there are people with multiple rounds of eligibility that are- for various reasons- at the bottom of my rankings and I suspect I’m not the only one who views it that way. Conversely I am equally certain that there are people who have my top picks at the bottom of theirs.
Then you get to the middle of the group where again at least in my case there are a hillbilly handful of guys where I am all over the place. If I were to rank them in order a dozen times I would probably come up with 13 different results.
But for the moment at least if someone in the 8 or so guys I view as being possibly worthy is in danger of falling off the ballot I may do a strategic vote to keep them on the ballot with the idea being I would rather see someone who might be my 5th or 6th choice get in rather than someone I view as 12th or 13th.
I have no idea if it makes sense to do this or it will make the slightest difference.
But for now at least it’s the approach I’m going to take.
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) that we ALL consider Ashburn about the 6th best player on the ballot. By your logic, some people should vote for him, just to keep him around, because we can all agree that there are a lot worse players.
The problem is, if we ALL think Ashburn is the 6th-best player, NO ONE believes that he actually deserves election. By another token, there are players I never would have voted for who HAVE gotten in (Harmon Killebrew, Whitey Ford, Lou Whitaker – probably another one or two, as well). But I’m glad that they’re in, because I know SOMEBODY wanted them in. I just don’t like the idea that we all come to a mutually disagreeable solution than one that is the path of least resistance. I can’t really imagine voting for Hoyt Wilhelm – but I would MUCH rather see him get in than Richie Ashburn, simply because I think that represents our collective will better – even though I prefer Ashburn. I hope that makes sense.
Lajoie
Wallace
K. Brown
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 players who are more ‘how can you leave him out?’ than make the finest gradation. It’s probably why i may vote for Ed Walsh again in any cycle where he’s in danger.
“Big” Ed
Napoleon
Roderick Wallace
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
Allen Ashburn Reuschel
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 that age, and more than Tony Perez, Johnny Mize, Jimmie Foxx, Gil Hodges, Keith Hernandez, Eddie Murray, Ernie Banks or Carlos Delgado.
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.
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.
– Napolean Lajoie (FTW)
– Goose Goslin (bonus round)
– Luis Tiant (stay on ballot/Red Sox favorite)
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 pitchers in the CoG, with another to come, so I’m OK with him not getting in.
–> As far as the other position players go…here’s a list of players in the CoG with an OPS+ below 120:
119 Cronin
118 Rose
117 Fisk, Whitaker
116 Alomar, Larkin
115 G Carter, Yount
114 Sandberg
113 Appling
112 Biggio, Ripken
110 Frisch, Trammell
107 Lofton
104 B Robinson
99 Reese
87 O Smith
Bobby Wallace had an OPS+ of 105. I can’t see putting him in the CoG unless I were convinced he was a defensive player of historic stature. I’m unlikely to be so convinced.
Andre Dawson, with an OPS+ of 119, would have one of the lowest marks of any outfielder in the CoG (as would Ashburn, at 111). I didn’t see the first half of Dawson’s career, so I don’t have a sense of how good a centerfielder he was in his prime. As a rightfielder, he doesn’t make the cut.
*****
By the by, Lajoie’s election will give us 14 second baseman in the CoG. The least-represented position is, of course, third base, with only 7 representatives.
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 career arc” points, too)
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 a realistic shot at catching Lajoie, so the elections decided. The things that remain are:
Will Dawson stay alive?
Will the three players at 3 votes get their 4th?
…and
Who, if anyone, will pick up an extra round of eligibility? There are a lot of guys with a shot at it, so we’ll see who gets there, if anyone.
Goslin, Lajoie, Wilhelm
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 1899 season suggests he had the means to show more), but they are strangely similar in their effectiveness in getting runs over the plate, with RBI/PA figures of .117 and .128. (I know that’s an odd number, but compare how close they are to the number for other five position players we are considering: Allen .153, Ashburn .060, Dawson .148, Goslin .164, Lajoie .153.) The same thing happens with R/PA – these two are within 7 points of one another (.110 and .117), while the other five range from .127 to .151.
Of course, I’m leaving out Wallace’s pitching career. While it was brief, it was on a good trajectory, with ERA+ moving 106, 121, 136, when at age 23 he was shifted to third, not because his arm was a problem, but because his bat and glove were more valuable. Thus he was more like Ruth than, say, Smokey Joe — Wallace was a bona fide two-way player.
My conclusion now is that Wallace is fully competitive with the group of position players we’re looking at (especially once Lajoie is elevated), comparable to and maybe a notch above Nettles, and as a complete player, probably one of the strongest in that group.
OK, but Wallace was playing 100+ years ago, in a segregated league; Nettles was playing in a much more competitive era.
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.)
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.
Allen, Ashburn, Tiant
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
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
Today (Sunday, Dec 6th) is the last day to change your ballot.
Voting doesn’t end until Tuesday, Dec 8th.
Voting in the ’73 round for
E.Walsh
H.Wilhelm
and
R.Waddell, who isn’t often first on any alphabetical list
Vote: Lajoie, Nettles, and Goslin.
Vote:
Reuschel, Tiant, Wilhelm
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
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.
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.)
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!
Wallace, Nettles, Dawson
Possibly the end for Dawson unless he gets more help (and Keeler seems to offer less overall). Feel more strongly for the other two to have realistic shots at final spots among position players. Cannot really impact any pitchers with my vote at this point anyway.
Bummer the Pre-Integration Committee passed on Dahlen again (he lost ground – only 50% this time). Adams did well for a relative unknown and maybe Stovey can build momentum. I think these eras and rotating committees make induction more select but may be just too difficult if a guy like Dahlen cannot break through.
Griffey may have most of the attention at Cooperstown next summer. Maybe the BBWAA will feel generous again in the coming month (we need more COG slots soon – hopefully Piazza gets in, not sure if Bagwell, Raines or Hoffman can make it).
Don’t think the roiders will be forgiven yet either.
I didn’t know much about Adams before this ballot came up – I think I remember a New York Times article about him a while back, but not much else. From what I’ve read recently, he seems like a slam dunk as a pioneer, so I imagine he’ll eventually make it.
Indeed, it’s a bummer that Dahlen has been passed over yet again. These new vet committees are certainly extremely picky, but they have shown that they’ll induct somebody – it was the Pre-Integration committee that picked Deacon White a few years back, during that embarrassing year where White ended up being the *only* player inducted that year. It seems like there’s no happy medium to be had with the VC – it’s either a revolving door of cronyism for inferior candidates, or these new ones that just plumb won’t elect anybody.
Stovey is one of those names I always just assumed was already in the Hall of Fame. He seemed like a pretty eminent 19th century player. I guess he’s being dinged because his star years were in the American Association, but it’s not like he was playing in the Union Association – the AA was a legitimate major league, it was just weaker than the NL. And he did put up some black ink in the NL once he switched leagues (as well as in the Player’s League, during its one season of existence).
Stovey was 5th in Black Ink among 19th century guys. Three of the guys ahead of him are Hall of Famers (Anson, Delahanty and Brouthers). The other one is Ross Barnes, who would probably be a Hall of Famer if his career had been long enough. Besides, Barnes put up most of that Black Ink in the National Association, which was decidedly more marginal of a league than the AA.
Cursed Clevelander:
The problem with the Veteran’s Committee’s is that the HOF has once again screwed up the process. Their are 10 candidates and voters are allowed to vote for up to 4 people. Under such circumstances, it’s almost impossible to get elected.
Joe Posnanski had a good piece on this. Here’s what he wrote:
“If they’re all equally good candidates, then each one had a 40% chance of getting picked for a ballot — 10 players on the ballot, voter chooses four, 40% chance. Pretty simple.
Well, if a player has a 40% chance of being on one ballot, his chances on making 12 of 16 is … get ready for it, less than 0.5%. That’s not 5% — it is less than one-half of one-percent. 995 times out of a 1,000, the player would NOT get elected. And remember, that’s assuming every voter uses all four of his votes.”
http://joeposnanski.com/the-veterans-committee-and-bad-math/
CC,
You’re right that the process for the VC has been screwed up. With limited votes the committees are likely to scatter the results and no one gets 75%. They appear to be trying to tailor ballots with 3-4 strong candidates to unite behind and numerous “filler” guys, but that is still no guarantee. The managers for 2014 were pretty obvious and considerably weaker players were put against them. When Minoso, Allen, Oliva, and other good players were put together for 2015 two of them ALMOST made it, but the split vote killed them. Similar thing happened to Dahlen/Adams/Stovey for 2016. They’ll have to change the system again to get any veterans in.
Dave, it certainly seems like they were trying to ‘stack the deck’ a bit with this year’s ballot. I mean, Frank McCormick and Marty Marion? Fine players, but not really anybody’s idea of a Hall of Famer. Well, Marion actually fared pretty well on the BBWAA ballot back when he was eligible, topping out at 40%, but I think his reputation has declined a bit since then. McCormick was only on 4 BBWAA ballots and would have been a one-and-done under the current rules, as he never reached 5% of the vote. I don’t think anybody every seriously advocated for him as a legitimate HoF’er and he was clearly a filler guy.
There is some really robust discussion going on here in the final rounds – love it! But it has to happen on a week I’m in transit so I don’t have enough time to read everything, let alone contribute. Well, at least I can vote. Good to see Ferrell getting a second look from some folks, we will see what happens in a more ‘open’ round next time.
Lajoie, Ferrell, Walsh
Wilhelm, Dawson, Allen
The spray of the voting keeps me from having to make hard choices–it looks like almost everyone is going to stay on. I’m starting to engage in an elimination process. Brown is out for me because of the PEDS. I have trouble really getting excited by either Nettles or Reuschel (Not saying they weren’t highly valuable players, but having seen both, and looking at contemporary evaluations, it’s hard to fully embrace them as extraordinary)Ashburn had the terrible disadvantage of straddling the Williams, Musial, Mays, Aaron, and Mantle era and just doesn’t look exceptional in comparison.
Lajoie, Walsh, and Waddell, and the band plays on
6 for Nettles thus far, 6 for Walsh (5 for Walsh and one for Big Ed) with 35 total
Brown, Lajoie, Waddell
I decided not to save Dawson; I just don’t think he’s going to be competitive in the few ‘open’ rounds we have left, and it only makes sense to vote strategically if the candidate in question has a realistic chance of winning a later round.
For the 1873 election, I’m voting for:
-Andre Dawson
-Rick Reuschel
-Luis Tiant
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Lajoie
-Brown (Kevin)
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Walsh
-Waddell
-Wallace
Just a note that it’s actually 10:29PM Central Time (11:29PM Eastern Time) at the moment, just in case there’s doubt about whether my votes are in on time! Thanks!
Not a surprise that Wagner and Lajoie were elected in consecutive rounds. Only other pair of 100 WAR players born the same year: Mays and Mantle in 1931.
1887 had a trio of 100+ WAR players: Walter Johnson, Eddie Collins, and Pete Alexander.
Eddie Mathews, with 96.4 WAR, narrowly missed making 1931 a trio as well.
And amazingly, poor Pete Alexander not only had to wait out the elections of Johnson and Collins (wasn’t it by just 1 vote?) but Ty Cobb as well.
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 – 556
Edgar Martinez – 507
Lou Whitaker – 493
#Dave Winfield – 408
#Dennis Eckersley – 407
Roy Campanella – 396
Whitey Ford – 382
Bobby Grich – 376
Sandy Koufax – 375
*Luis Tiant – 352
Tony Gwynn – 346
Willie McCovey – 336
*Rick Reuschel – 311
#Minnie Minoso – 309
Juan Marichal – 268
Tom Glavine – 262
*Graig Nettles – 260
Alan Trammell – 239
*Richie Ashburn – 237
Mike Mussina – 233
Curt Schilling – 224
Nolan Ryan – 220
Ron Santo – 217
Lou Boudreau – 216
Tim Raines – 213
Larry Walker – 197
*Hoyt Wilhelm – 189
Barry Larkin – 188
*Goose Goslin – 184
Frank Thomas – 181
*Dick Allen – 177
Gabby Hartnett – 165
Paul Molitor – 152
Bob Gibson – 147
Gaylord Perry – 142
Paul Waner – 140
*Wes Ferrell – 135
Jim Palmer – 133
Al Kaline – 132
Duke Snider – 130
Carl Hubbell – 126
Joe Gordon – 126
Ernie Banks – 119
Eddie Mathews – 115
Pete Alexander – 111
#Dwight Evans – 100
1. The other holdovers: Andre Dawson (85), Ed Walsh (51), Rube Waddell (27), Bobby Wallace (6).
2. Falling off the ballot was electee Nap Lajoie (39). Everyone else saved alive, thanks to opal611’s vote at the 11th hour, which saved Andre Dawson.
3. Hoyt Wilhelm picks up an extra round of eligibility.
4. No major player movement on the all-time vote list, so there’s not that much to report. I’ve been absent a few days, so I don’t have anything interesting to say.