This post is for voting and discussion in the 115th 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 1871 and 1872. Rules and lists are after the jump.
The new group of players born in 1871 and 1872, in order to join the eligible list, must, as usual, have played at least 10 seasons in the major leagues or generated at least 20 Wins Above Replacement (“WAR”, as calculated by baseball-reference.com, and for this purpose meaning 20 total WAR for everyday players and 20 pitching WAR for pitchers). Additionally, to be eligible, players must also have played at least half their career games since 1901 or compiled 20 WAR since 1901. This new group of candidates born in 1871 and 1872 joins the eligible holdovers from previous rounds to comprise the full list of players eligible to appear on your ballots.
Each submitted ballot, if it is to be counted, must include three and only three eligible players. As always, the one player who appears on the most ballots cast in the round is inducted into the Circle of Greats. Players who fail to win induction but appear on half or more of the ballots that are cast win four added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Players who appear on 25% or more of the ballots cast, but less than 50%, earn two added future rounds of ballot eligibility. Any other player in the top 9 (including ties) in ballot appearances, or who appears on at least 10% of the ballots, wins one additional round of ballot eligibility.
All voting for this round closes at 11:59 PM EST Thursday, December 17th, while changes to previously cast ballots are allowed until 11:59 PM EST Tuesday, December 15th.
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 1871-72 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 group born in 1871 and 1872 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 players born in 1871 and 1872 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)
Graig Nettles (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Ed Walsh (eligibility guaranteed for 2 rounds)
Hoyt Wilhelm (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)
Bobby Wallace (eligibility guaranteed for this round only)
Everyday Players (born in 1871 or 1872, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Fred Clarke
Willie Keeler
Fred Tenney
Lou Criger
Cy Seymour
Fielder Jones
Jack Warner
Dan McGann
Buck Freeman
Sam Mertes
Pitchers (born in 1871 or 1872, ten or more seasons played in the major leagues or at least 20 WAR):
Al Orth
Sam Leever
Deacon Phillippe
Joe McGinnity
Togie Pittinger
This round’s tidbits. Answers in red.
1. Fred Clarke is one of 6 players in major league history to play 2000 games in left field, and one of 4 players to begin a career with 18 consecutive seasons of double-digit stolen bases. Which two players ended their careers that way? Nap Lajoie, Lou Brock
2. Willie Keeler is one of 10 players in major league history to play 2000 games in right field, but one of only two in that group (the other is Sammy Sosa) who did not play 2000 RF games in one league. Which other player, like Keeler, played 750 RF games in the AL and NL? Dave Winfield
3. Cy Seymour posted his career best season at age 32 in 1905, leading the majors in batting, slugging, OPS, Hits, Triples, RBI and Total Bases. Who is the only other player to lead his league in those categories aged 30 or older? Honus Wagner (1908)
4. Lou Criger is the only player to post 5 consecutive seasons (1901-05) with 60 to 69 hits. Which non-catcher posted three such seasons consecutively including, like Criger, one for a World Series champion? Samuel Byrd (aka Babe Ruth’s Legs)
5. Al Orth is the only pitcher since 1893 to win 14 or 15 games in 5 consecutive seasons (1896-1900). Which other
twothreefour pitchers have done so for 4 consecutive seasons? Paul Foytack (1956-59), John Smoltz (1990-93), Jose Rijo (1990-93)6. Jack Warner slugged under .300 for his career of 1000 games and 3000 PA. Which two teammates of Warner’s did the same? Lou Criger, George McBride
7. Deacon Phillippe and Joe McGinnity are the only pitchers since 1893 to begin their careers with 5 consecutive 20 win seasons. Phillippe also finished strong with a 22-5 record over his final 3 seasons. Which other pitcher posted an .800 W-L% in 25 decisions over his last 3 seasons? Sid Monge
8. Sam Mertes was one of four players with 400 runs and 400 RBI for the 1901 to 1905 seasons, doing so despite just a .279/.348/.402 slash (the other three were a collective .350/.399/.497). In each of those seasons, Mertes recorded 75+ RBI from fewer than 160 hits and sub-.500 slugging. Which two players have the only longer streaks of such seasons since 1901? Lee May (1973-78), Tom Brunansky (1983-89)
9. Togie Pittinger is the only pitcher since 1901 to book-end consecutive 20 loss seasons (1903-04) with a pair of 20 win seasons, the latter a 23-14 campaign in 1905 with only 94 ERA+. Who is the only live ball era pitcher to post a lower ERA+ in a 20 win season with a .600 W-L%? Joe Niekro (1980)
10. Fred Tenney is the Braves’ franchise leader with over 1500 career games at first base. In his first season as a Giant at age 36, Tenney led his league in runs scored, the oldest first baseman to do so. Which is the only season to have first basemen aged 30 or older lead both leagues in runs scored? 2010 – Mark Teixeira, Albert Pujols
11. Fielder Jones’s 7 seasons with 135 CF games is the White Sox franchise high. Jones recorded ten seasons with 3 WAR, but none with 5 WAR. Which other outfielder did the same? Sam Rice
12. Sam Leever is the only pitcher since 1893 to finish his career with 11 consecutive winning seasons. Leever’s three 20 win seasons after age 30 are tied with teammate Vic Willis for the most by a Pirate since 1893. Which Pirate has the most 20 win seasons after age 35? Rip Sewell (1943-44)
13. Dan McGann was 6 times a league leader in HPB, including in his final season. Which other player did the same? Ron Hunt
14. Buck Freeman’s 25 home runs in 1899 were the most since 1893 and before Babe Ruth. Freeman was one of seven players (four were his Boston teammates) to record multiple triples in the 1903 World Series. Which is the only live ball era team to have multiple players with multiple triples in a World Series? 1993 Blue Jays – Paul Molitor, Devon White
15. Joe McGinnity and Kid Nichols share the distinction of being the only pitchers in major league history to win 20 games in each of their first 8 seasons. Similarly, McGinnity’s 135 wins aged 31-35 are tied with Cy Young for the most all-time. Who is the last pitcher to record 100 wins at those ages? Steve Carlton
#9 Joe Niekro posted a 20-12 record (W-L % .625) in 1980 for the Astros with an ERA+ of 93.
#7 is a surprise. It is not Sandy Koufax (.766 in his last 3 years). It is not Eddie Cicotte (.633) or Lefty Williams (.638). It is Sid Monge, who in his final 3 years went 7-1 (for Phillies), 10-3 (combined seasons between Phillies and Padres) and 3-1 (combined seasons between Padres and Tigers), for a total of 20-5 or an exact .800 W-L %. He did manage in that last season (1984) to pitch for both pennant winners. He was on the roster for the Tigers at the end of the year, but only pitched twice in September and I gotta think did not make the 25 man roster for the Tigers in the post season.
Philippe’s good fortune in W-L% is also reflected in never posting a losing record in 10+ seasons with a decision (a feat most recently accomplished by Andy Pettitte). Phillipe’s 1904 season with 162+ IP and ERA+ below 85 is one of 15 since 1901 with a .500 or better record and more decisions than starts. None of those seasons was in the expansion era and only three were in the live ball era, the last by Art Ditmar for the 1955 Kansas City A’s.
#6: Lou Criger and George McBride
#1…..one of them is Lou Brock
#1………Nap Lajoie is the other
#3……….Honus Wagner, 1908 (age 34)
Almost right.
Wagner led the majors in all of those categories, except one. His 19 triples, though, was only good enough to lead the NL.
I can’t seem to find this one. Ty Cobb came extremely close in 1917 (Age 30), leading the majors in Hits, TB, BA, SLG, OPS and Triples, but coming in 2nd in RBI to his teammate Bobby Veach. Veach edged him out by one RBI, 103 to 102.
Deacon White led in all 7 of those categories in his Age 29 season in 1877.
My mistake.
I’ll go with John’s answer, and amend the question to suit!
I believe one of the answers for #8 is Lee May (6 such seasons from 1973 to 1978)
That’s correct.
The other player had an even longer streak of such seasons.
It was Tom Brunansky.
#10 – 2010, Albert Pujols and Mark Teixeira – both 30.
15. So, a couple interesting tidbits. Sam Leever, who is now on this ballot, just misses out on this club, as he recorded 99 wins in his Age 31-35 seasons.
Two pitchers completed this feat almost exactly contemporaneously and as teammates – Bob Lemon from 1952-1956 (103 wins) and Early Wynn from 1951-1955 (100 wins on the dot), both with the Indians. Lemon won 17 games at Age 30 with the 1951 Indians, and Wynn picked up another 20 wins at Age 36 with the 1956 Indians. The Tribe won 570 games in those 6 seasons, which certainly helped boost a few win totals.
Another more recent pitcher to reach this milestone also spent some of those seasons in Cleveland – Gaylord Perry, with 103 wins from 1970-1974, 3 of those years in Cleveland, including the franchise’s first (and for a long time only) Cy Young Award winning season.
But the quiz answer and most recent player to rack up 100 wins in his Age 31-35 seasons is Steve Carlton, with 101 wins from 1976-1980.
That was quite the rotation for those early ’50s Tribe teams, with HOFers Lemon, Wynn and Feller joined by two-time 20-game winner Mike Garcia. On their 1954 pennant-winning team, all four were in their thirties, as was another HOFer (Hal Newhouser) coming out of the bullpen with a 148 ERA+, albeit in limited innings.
The rotation gets most of the ink (well, 4/5th’s of it – people rarely mention Art Houtteman, who had a pretty good season but was the least effective of the 5 starters), but the 1954 Indians also had a tremendous bullpen. Newhouser was joined by the dynamic rookie duo of lefty Don Mossi (191 ERA+ in 93 IP) and righty Ray Narleski (166 ERA+ in 89 IP).
Narleski continued to be a very effective reliever until a ruptured disc forced him out of baseball at Age 30. Mossi is of course famous for his rather unique looks (Mr. 5 Tool Ugly, himself), ended up starting for a while, and had a much longer career than Narleski. He’s also Hartvig’s avatar, of course!
Houtteman was one of the younger guys, 26 years old, but he was a veteran, and approaching the end of his career. Like Feller, he started his career as a 17 year old – with decidedly less fanfare, of course. He was out of baseball by 1957, shy of his 30th birthday.
Ya gotta root for guys who can win ugly!
My nom de plume also recalls a character of some note, altho limited to the small, rural town in which I grew up.
One of the more “colorful” anecdotes of the real Hartvig was the time he convinced several of his buddies to help him paint his house by buying several rounds down at the local tavern, immediately after which they went out to my brothers hardware store, bought a few 5 gallon buckets of whitewash & some brooms and violå- a an hour or so later you had a freshly painted house- walls, doors & windows- including the glass.
I assume when they were finished the returned to the tavern to toast a job well done.
One of Mossi’s teammates on the 1958 Indians and the 1964 White Sox was another player known for being a bit on the homely side: Hoyt Wilhelm. (Y’all knew I was going to post this, right?) Don had some trouble keeping the ball inside the ballpark in ’64—nine HR allowed in only 40 innings. Still wound up with seven saves and a sub-3.00 ERA.
Narleski, Wilhelm and Mossi: It didn’t work the one time they tried it.
#11: The answer is Sam Rice.
#14, the answer is the 1993 Blue Jays. Paul Molitor and Devon White each hit 2 triples.
#13: The answer is Ron Hunt, although he led his league seven times.
I noticed that Hunt finished tied for 15th in the NL MVP voting in 1969, with a 99 OPS+ in 128 games. In games in which he played, the Giants’ record was 70-58 (.547); in games in which he didn’t play, the Giants’ record was 20-14 (.588). Hmmm.
Hunt’s three qualified seasons with OBP 20% higher than SLG are tied with Eddie Stanky and Max Bishop for the most in the live ball era.
Hunt is the only player since 1901 to have three qualified seasons with a .350 OBP while slugging under .300.
#5: Paul Foytack and John Smoltz
Correct.
But, I missed Foytack, so there’s one more.
I found Jose Rijo.
Missed him too. Still one more.
I also found Andy Pettitte
#4: The answer is Jose Vizcaino.
Vizcaino was on the 2000 champion Yankees, the last of his three consecutive seasons with 60-69 hits. But, he split time in that 2000 season between the Yankees and Dodgers, and so had only 48 hits in the Bronx.
Long explanation but am looking for someone else.
Then it must be Sammy Byrd who later became a pro golfer.
Answer to #12: Rip Sewell
Ashburn, Allen, Goslin. I think this is the least excited I’ve ever been for a vote.
Keeler question-Dave Winfield?
You’ve got it.
Keeler is the last position player to record three times as many stolen bases as strikeouts for his career. The only 20th century players to do this with at least 20 career steals were all Charlie Finley pinch-runners: Allan Lewis, Herb Washington and Don Hopkins.
Brown, Goslin, Clarke
Nettles (for the win), Waddell, Wilhelm. Third basemen are under-represented in the HOF, and most likely in the COG as well.
For some reason, I had assumed we were combining the 1872 and 1871 birth years. Are we going to combine 1871 and 1870, or do we have less ‘open’ rounds at the end of the process?
I wanted to string out these last rounds to give the best chance to players of this period, who are disadvantaged by the number of chances to appear on the ballot. From the discussion, it doesn’t seem to me that there any players not currently on the ballot who have a large voting constituency and would therefore benefit from having a large number of open rounds.
Planned future rounds are:
116. 1871
117. 1870
118. pre-1870
119. open
120. 1971 (if necessary)
121+ open (if necessary)
I could swap rounds 119 and 120 if the readers prefer, so as to consider 1971 candidates in the unlikely circumstance that no new HOFers are elected next month.
There’s pretty much no chance of the BBWAA electing 0 new HoF’ers, since Griffey is a stone cold lock, but it’s very possible that he’s the only one. If that ends up being the case, and we end on 1971, we’d be leaving out either Pudge Rodriguez or Pedro Martinez. If we set the 1971 election as our 119th, we at least guarantee that both Pudge and Pedro get into the CoG (assuming whoever loses the 1971 election wins the ‘open’ election), and if we’re lucky and the BBWAA gives us a few more spots, then we finish out with that many more open elections. I think the highest realistic number of new HoF’ers is 3, with Piazza and Hoffman being the best shots to join Griffey.
That’s a good reason to reverse those rounds. 🙂
I agree it would be better to hold the 1971 election in round 119, or even round 118.
CursedClevelander –
Just as an FYI, I saw an analysis that looked at the effect of the new rule that eliminates voters who have been inactive for 10 or more years. Had that rule been in effect last year, Piazza would have been elected. So while not a guarantee, I’d say there’s a very strong chance that he gets elected this time around.
Jeff Bagwell looks like he might be the third guy elected this year along with Piazza and Griffey.
Super early, but 6 writers who didn’t have Bagwell on their ballot last year do this year (the most of any holdover). He’s at 91% right now (31 of 35 votes). That percentage will surely go down but the early results are encouraging.
I think Trevor Hoffman will get close but will have to wait until next year.
Ugh, I can’t read. Bagwell is currently at 89%, not 91.
Ah thanks, Bstar, I completely forgot about the HOF vote tracker!
So based on the 40 votes that have been tabulated so far, I’d say that Griffey, Piazza, and Bagwell are locks for election.
Raines and Hoffman are currently at exactly 75% so they’ll be close.
And I have to say that I’m really surprised/puzzled by Hoffman’s level of support. His WAR and WAA are equivalent to Lee Smith and Billy Wagner, neither of whom are close to 75% right now (Smith has 40%, Wagner 15%). Which means the reason that he’s getting votes is because of all of his saves. I thought we all agreed that saves are a junk stat and meaningless for evaluating a closer???
The more times passes the more my mind is boggled by how monumentally screwed up the HOF voting process has been and seemingly remains for what is now going on 80 years.
It’s nothing short of incredible that people who apparently long ago quit caring about who gets into the HOF actually still had hand in determining who got in simply by their lack of action. Wouldn’t you think that you’d at least have to send in a blank ballot in order for it to count as a vote?
I personally find the idea of Hoffman getting into the HOF to be ridiculous but if it’s going to happen anyways I’d prefer that it be now so as to add another round for us to vote.
And if by some miracle 5 guys DO get into a HOF this year I wonder if maybe it would be wise to consider carrying over one of the rounds to next years vote when the strongest new HOF candidates (Pudge Rodriguez & Manny Ramirez) both potentially have PED issues whereas the COG will have what I assume to be a sure thing in Chipper Jones (as well as Manny & Andy Pettitte).
I assume- and certainly hope- that we are going to continue to have COG elections for as long as the HHS community remains active anyways.
I’ve been working on the assumption that 1872-71 would be one round for some time. I think we have some very strong candidates coming up in 1870 (David and Dahlen), and the field will be strengthened by their addition. Rather than select two from the current list, which includes, in my mind, no outstanding candidates, I’d rather make sure we don’t crowd out stronger candidates left to come online.
Really good point, epm.
You’ve convinced me. I’ll change this round to 1871-72 and we’ll add an extra open round after the pre-1870 vote.
Not that it has to be this way, but I seem to remember that birtelcom added the ‘new’ birth year (this one being 1971) on the anniversary of the CoG starting, which was the start of December. That would have been this round or last round. Certainly I think it would make sense to have round 116 as 1870 (now that this one has been merged), the next pre-1870, then 1971 and however many ‘open’ rounds we need.
I have another question/suggestion I have been thinking of. Obviously the election posts (ie. the stand-alone posts announcing the latest inductee) have stopped; I would assume that this balloting process is time-consuming enough. I was wondering if maybe, after the rounds ended, that you (or whoever wanted to) could slowly do the remaining election posts when time permitted. I always appreciated the stand-alone posts honoring a statistical aspect of our inductees, and I bet if you didn’t have time for it or weren’t up for it, people would likely volunteer to do those posts. And of course it would allow us to have some more CoG content once the voting was over, and before the season started. Just a thought.
Good thought, bells.
Any content that readers would like to contribute is most welcome. E-mail me at doughhs@hotmail.ca.
Goslin, K. Brown, Waddell
Rick Reuschel, Hoyt Wilhelm and Ed Walsh
Goslin, Wilhelm, Ferrell
I’ve been away for a few weeks and I see Kevin Brown’s still on the outside. Let’s do this again.
Wins Above Average, excluding negative seasonal totals:
K. Brown 43.3
Reuschel 40.6
Ferrell 40.1
Walsh 38.6
Wallace 38.6
Tiant 37.5
Clarke 36.4
Waddell 35.9
Allen 35.8
Nettles 35.7
Dawson 35.4
Ashburn 33.9
Goslin 31.7
Wilhelm 28.7
Keeler 26.3
K.Brown, Walsh, Allen
The Next Post link to this page from the HR by country page is not up yet.
Waddell, Walsh, and K. Brown
Nobody is likely to break Deacon Phillipe’s record of 5 complete games in one World Series.
(I’m assuming that is the record):
http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1903_WS.shtml#post_pitching_loser::none
Play index shows one player with 5 CG in a single postseason, one with 4, and many with 3.
And the 4 CG postseason is from Bill Dinneen, in that exact same 1903 WS. It was a best of 9 series that went 8 games, and travel days meant that it was pretty spaced out. For instance, Philippe started Game 1 on October 1st, Game 3 on October 3rd, and then Game 4 on October 6th, so he had some time to rest his arm. He then pitched Game 7 on October 10th and Game 8 on October 13th.
Dinneen pitched in Game 2 (October 2nd), Game 4, Game 6 (October 8th) and Game 8.
Cy Young also had 3 CG’s in that series, and Sam Leever added one more for the Pirates. In the realm of unbreakable records, 13 total CG’s between the two teams in a WS is probably another one that’s safe.
Last WS with as many combined CGs:
2 – 1992
4 – 1985
5 – 1977
7 – 1968
8 – 1956
11 – 1921
13 – 1903
First WS with as few combined CGs:
5 – 1914
4 – 1916
3 – 1923
2 – 1954
0 – 1959
Not unless you count the 19th century “World Series”. Bob Caruthers pitched 8 complete games for the 1887 St. Louis Browns. He won half and lost half.
Interesting that Phillippe pitched those 5 WS CGs in 1903, but it was another 70 years until anyone appeared as a pitcher in all 7 games of a WS (Darold Knowles, 1973).
Vote:
Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
Hoyt Wilhelm
Goslin, Ashburn, Ferrell
Reuschel, D. Allen, Wilhelm
Goslin, Nettles, Tiant
Once again, here are the comparative figures I posted last round. They compares holdovers, and Clarke and Keeler from this round. 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. Apart from ERA+/OPS+, the remaining figures are just ways of juggling WAR.
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
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
With 1871 now added in, I’m supplementing my post with McGinnity’s stats:
___Name______P-WAR__Peak5___Top5___WAR/9IP__WAR/Yr____ERA+___Career length (IP)
McGinnity______60.4_____37.5___43.3_____0.158____6.0 (10)_____120_______1.31
This vote is different from previous rounds – one of the dozen players we’ve been debating about for many rounds is finally almost certain to get in, barring an unexpected surge of love for Clarke or Keeler (or the unusual Cy Seymour).
Among the holdover pitchers, I don’t see Brown, Tiant, or Reuschel as bona fide CoGers. As I’ve written many times, while I don’t rule out players with PED records, I do think we have to discount their performance, and that eliminates any advantage Brown may have had over Tiant and Reuschel. All were fine pitchers, and I was a Tiant fan, but I can’t see electing any of them over, for example, a sustained meteor like Waddell, who was a superstar whom fans felt they had to see, the way people later felt they had to see pitchers like Feller, Koufax, or Ryan. Has anyone ever felt that for Brown, Tiant, or Reuschel? (Well, maybe Tiant – his motion was something to see!) Walsh has a small statistical edge over Waddell, but I’m going to go with Waddell because of this pheenom effect. I have absolutely no doubt that Waddell is a true CoG player.
Ferrell and Wilhelm are outliers: Ferrell because of his combination of high-peak, short career, batting strength, and the very, very low representation of pitchers from his era; Wilhelm for reasons much discussed here – there’s really never been anyone like Wilhelm. Thanks to Kahuna Tuna, we now understand more about the effect of passed balls on Wilhelm’s stats, but I’m still confused about their implications. Nevertheless, I know about as much as I’m likely to about both of these guys, whom I studied or watched for many years (Ferrell’s record was fascinating to me as a kid – how could all those wins not total up to 200?), and I’m inclined to go with Wilhelm. I think Walsh actually has a quality edge over Hoyt, but Hoyt’s uniqueness, particularly in his time, gets my vote. (His 9-0 start in 1959 left a tremendous impression on me as a kid, and I’ve let that kid cast my vote.)
I don’t think this is a strong group of position players. I’ve been a big fan of the Goslin since I read his interview in The Glory of Their Times forty years ago, and I’m giving him the edge over Wallace, whom I have come to appreciate much more as a result of Dave Humbert’s advocacy. I loved Ashburn as a fan and appreciate the records of the others (Wee Willie falls a little short, but I’m short and always appreciate players shorter than I), but I’m going’ with the Goose.
Waddell, Wilhelm, Goslin
(I think my vote would be the same if this were an 1872-71 round; McGinnity just doesn’t quite match up to Waddell or Walsh, although he’s close.)
Goslin
Clarke
Keeler
Sorry I haven’t been around for a few days. I would’ve liked to have posted a vote update on or near the final day. Oh well. Anyway, here’s my vote:
Kevin Brown
Wes Ferrell
Rube Waddell
I would REALLY like to see one of these three pitchers go in this election!
I’ll pull out an initial update, through 15 ballots:
8 – Goose Goslin*
==========50% (8)
6 – Rube Waddell, Hoyt Wilhelm*
4 – Dick Allen, Kevin Brown*, Wes Ferrell
==========25% (4)
3 – Ed Walsh*
2 – Richie Ashburn, Fred Clarke, Graig Nettles*, Rick Reuschel
==========10% (2)
1 – Willie Keeler, Luis Tiant
0 – Andre Dawson, Bobby Wallace
Based on previous rounds and players’ votes relative to one another, this should be a VERY close election. I’m fascinated to see who wins!
I have Brown with 5 votes (JEV, Brent, Bryan O’Connor, Andy, Dr Doom) and Allen with 3 (Chris C, Bryan O’Connor, T-Bone).
Man, I miss the numbering system….
Correct you are, both on the count and the numbering system. 🙂
Ashburn – Walsh – Allen
Voting alert.
This round has been amended to also include 1871 birth-year players. Those who have already voted may wish to consider amending their votes.
One of my favorite tidbits about the 1871 birth year:
Two of the best pitchers born in 1871 were Amos Rusie and Joe McGinnity. Yet their career arcs were so different, they only have a single year of overlap where both pitched in the big leagues, and that’s only because of Rusie’s ill-fated 1901 comeback with the Reds, when he pitched a mere 22 ineffective innings.
(Quick aside: I figure most HHS regulars know that Rusie was traded for Mathewson, perhaps the single most lopsided trade in baseball history as measured by WAR – including batting, it’s 102.5 for Mathewson to -0.7 for Rusie. It’s a bit more complicated, since the Giants actually had Mathewson in 1900. He pitched incredibly well for the Norfolk, VA team, and was purchased by the Giants. He pitched relatively poorly in a short trial with them, was re-assigned to the Norfolk, VA squad, and then was drafted by the Reds late in 1900. Obviously the Giants liked what they saw in their short trial, as they almost immediately traded Rusie to re-acquire Mathewson. They might have also had some idea that Rusie was damaged goods, and that he wouldn’t be successful in the new century.)
McGinnity, who’s actually two months older than Rusie, debuted in 1899 at Age 28. Rusie was a young phenom, debuting in 1889 at Age 18 and having his last real season in 1898 at Age 27. (He did apparently still have some juice left in his arm, since he missed the 1899 and 1900 seasons due to a contract dispute, not injury.) Get rid of that messy 1901 blip for Rusie, and you can almost perfectly combine the two pitchers into a single amazing career. Doing so nets you Joe Rusie/Amos McGinnity, the Iron Thunderbolt, with a career W-L mark of 492-315 (exactly 246 wins from each half), 7,198 IP, 705 Complete Games, 62 Shutouts, 3,012 K’s, and 129.8 bWAR.
Also shows you how amazing guys like Walter Johnson and Cy Young were, since smashing together two HoF careers still leaves you well short of their WAR total.
Rusie’s contract dispute was actually in 1896, which was the first season he sat out. His adversary was Andrew Freeman, the Giants’ owner, and disputes with Freeman were not like other disputes, because Freeman was, to put it delicately, borderline psychotic. Rusie effectively boycotted the Giants in 1896, after run-ins with Freedman during the latter’s initial year as owner, including a fine Freedman levied against Rusie for “being out of shape.” Rusie and Freedman fought from the start (as did the rest of the league and Freedman), and this may have contributed to a falling off in Rusie’s record in 1895, in addition to his absence in ’96.
Rusie’s injuries came upon his return after a year of inactivity. (His 1899-1900 hiatus seems to have been for a combination of reasons, including injury, but not specifically a contract dispute – I recall once reading that Rusie had simply decided that there was no point to continuing in baseball if he had to put up with Freedman.) Had someone else purchased the Giants in ’95, Rusie’s career might have continued on in Cy Young fashion indefinitely.
I assumed his 1896 hiatus must have been either an injury or a contract dispute, but I don’t think that information was listed on his BB-Ref Bullpen page. I should have checked Wiki, which has more information, including some notes about his 1896 holdout. Apparently he thumbed his nose at Freedman in public, which at the time was akin to shooting the middle finger (Jack McDowell would be so proud). Freedman fined him $200 dollars, which was a very large portion of his salary, so Rusie refused to play until Freedman returned the money.
Wiki has this to say about his 1899-1900 hiatus, but it lacks a citation: “Following the 1898 season, a combination of hearing damage from a line drive to the head, arm trouble, and personal problems kept him out of baseball for two years.” With what you noted epm, I assume ‘personal problems’ is partially a euphemism for ‘hating Freedman’s guts.’
Digging a bit further, it seems a particular man took advantage of all this acrimony (and took advantage of Freedman) with some brilliant behind-the-scenes maneuvering – John T. Brush, the owner of the Reds and later the Giants. Brush helped Freedman purchase and sabotage the original AL Baltimore Orioles, and swooped up a couple of their star players for his Reds, Joe Kelley and Cy Seymour. But his real masterstroke was to come – he had a partial stake in the Giants, who acquired McGinnity, McGraw, Bresnahan, Jack Cronin and Dan McGann from the collapsing Orioles. After the 1902 season, Brush purchased the majority stake of the Giants from Freedman and became their owner and team president, selling his stake in the Reds to August “Garry” Herrmann, who was just on the Pre-Integration HoF ballot.
Brush owned the Reds when they traded Mathewson for Rusie, and some claim that even this had been a scheme orchestrated by Brush, who was trading Mathewson to the Giants with the knowledge that he would later own the team himself, and he knew that the trade was a rip-off.
In total, Brush had cobbled together the players that would be the foundation of the 1905 WS winning squad. He also got McGraw, who would later manage 8 more pennant winners and 2 more WS winners.
Rusie’s 1899-1900 hiatus was said also to be partly due to his dissolving marriage.
Not much to choose between Freedman and Brush: one was a psychopath and the other evil. I believe they were not actually in cahoots. This is how “Richter’s History and Records of Base Ball” (1914) describes the 1896 season, the year after Freedman’s arrival: “In this year Andrew Freedman quarreled with John T. Brush and thus caused a factional split in the League which widened with the years, created disorganization, and almost wrecked the organization.” By 1902, Brush was chairing an interim three-man executive committee controlling NL actions, an inheritance of the 1896 split which had led to a standoff on appointing a new league president. It was actually this committee, rather than Freedman or Brush, who broke up the Baltimore AL franchise by purchasing it and stripping it of its best players – the AL actually had to step in and replace the club with a new Baltimore club to finish the sesason. It was all part of the NL war strategy to strangle the AL. And if I recall correctly, stocking the Giants and pressuring Freedman to sell out to the most powerful man in the NL was designed as a league move to strengthen the NY franchise Freedman had wrecked and freeze the AL out of New York. The Giants were indeed strengthened, but since the AL replaced the Orioles with the Highlanders in ’03, it can’t be said that the AL’s route to success in the City was ultimately blocked.
Very interesting, epm. I need to read more about this period in history – I know the players, but I’ve forgotten a lot of the behind-the-scenes actions.
I know that Brush hated Ban Johnson, and he certainly would have loved to crush Johnson’s upstart AL under his heel if he could. Seen in that light, it makes sense that Brush wasn’t only trying to build his team into a powerhouse, he was trying to crowd out the AL from the country’s most important and biggest city.
Reading a bit more, I see that Johnson and Brush had been enemies ever since Johnson was a sportswriter for the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette and Brush was still the owner of the Reds. In fact, Brush helped Johnson become the president of the struggling Western League, a move that he thought would rid him of the pesky Johnson. Of course, that backfired tremendously – Johnson of course went on to transform the Western League into the AL, and the rest is history.
Just to bring this full circle, C.C., Brush was also the owner of the Indianapolis Hoosiers (NL) when Rusie was first brought up in 1889 – the Hoosier Thunderbolt. The league bought out Brush and closed down the Hoosiers, but gave Brush a partial interest in the Giants in compensation – Rusie going to the Giants in 1890 may have been part of that deal, which also involved Brush being guaranteed another team, which turned out to be the Reds – to which Rusie returned in 1901, with Brush as owner. I have no doubt that given Brush’s history of financial stake in the Giants (when syndicate baseball was still allowed), his animus towards Freedman, and his power in the NL, which was trying to get their New York franchise free of Freedman’s destructive control, Brush knew what he was doing in trading his light of the future, Matty, for his flickered-out thunderbolt of the past.
McGinnity, Walsh and Waddell. All guys with crazy high peaks in the 1900s. How do they measure up in various super-stats?
Win Shares: McGinnity 270.2, Walsh 260, Waddell 239.2
Win Shares Above Bench: Walsh 150.8, McGinnity 141.7, Waddell 130.6
Baseball-Ref WAR: Walsh 65.5, Waddell 58.6, McGinnity 57.7 (includes offensive WAR)
Baseball-Ref WAA: Walsh 38.2, Waddell 31.7, McGinnity 28.0 (excluding negative WAA seasons; these numbers are from The Baseball Gauge, and don’t quite match up with BB-Ref’s WAA totals)
Baseball-Ref pitching WAG (Wins Above Greatness, pitching totals only): Walsh 24.0, Waddell 22.8, McGinnity 18.5 (excluding negative WAG seasons)
Baseball Gauge WAR: Walsh 69.6, Waddell 63.6, McGinnity 62.5 (includes offensive WAR)
Baseball Gauge WAA: Walsh 43.7, Waddell 37.5, McGinnity 32.4 (excluding negative WAA seasons)
Baseball Gauge pitching WAG: Walsh 30.3, Waddell 27.5, McGinnity 20.2 (excluding negative WAG seasons)
Fangraphs WAR: Waddell 60.0, Walsh 49.2, McGinnity 40.4
Baseball Prospectus doesn’t seem to have WARP totals for old-timers anymore. Am I looking in the wrong place, or do I just need a subscription to access that information?
Of course those are only career totals, and a different picture emerges if you look at, say, 5 year peaks, or consecutive 5 year peaks.
I think that a cursory glance at these career totals confirms my original suspicion – McGinnity had a heck of a career and is a surefire Hall of Famer, but he’s a step behind Walsh and Waddell.
FanGraphs sure sees these three differently.
Not really, Doug, if you look at Fangraphs’ RA9-WAR.
Walsh 71.0, McGinnity 64.6, Waddell 60.6
IMHO there is no justification for using FIP as an approximation of deadball pitchers’ value. There just weren’t enough Ks, BBs, and HRs in that era for FIP to be a meaningful measure of anything.
Just look at Joe McGinnity. According to B-Ref, he faced 14,132 batters. The sum of his (K + BB + HR) = 1,932. So an FIP-WAR would be judging McGinnity’s career by only looking at 14% of the batters he faced while ignoring the other 86%. What’s that worth?
Would that apply in Waddell’s case?
By my calculations he’s just a hair under 27% & just as a basis for comparison I checked out Bob Gibson and he came in at 29.3%.
I know the additional 200+ home runs count for a lot but does that negate the fairly significant lead in strike outs over the rest of the league? Even Big Train & Sandy Koufax didn’t come close to dominating the league like the Rube did in K per 9.
Doug, why is Amos Rosie not listed as one of the pitchers eligible for election this round?
I had the same thought, Doom, and then I realized that Rusie’s post-1900 record tops out at 22 IP and -0.7 WAR.
Ah-ha! Right. Thanks. By the way, my computer “corrected” Rusie to Rosie, and I find that irritating.
Ashburn, Walsh, Tiant
Wilhelm, Tiant, Wallace
Re-post of last round thoughts on Bobby Wallace:
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 only 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? He stood out from his peers enough to earn over 75 WAR, putting him in the same area as Dahlen. All position players except Palmeiro over 70 WAR are in the COG so far. Wallace was definitely one of the earliest mainly 20th century players – Dahlen/Young/Davis only played 49%/45%/43% of their games in the 1901+ era. To me, Wallace is a truer representative of the Deadball Era. He has the most WAA of all position players on the ballot. I get it if some voters prefer peak guys like Walsh/Waddell, but is Goslin leading mainly due to familiarity? His SABR bio helps shed light on his unique career. I believe he’s as deserving as anyone for this spot.
Oops…49%/44%/42% are Dahlen/Young/Davis ratios.
In short, I feel passing up Wallace would be a notable oversight. Hopefully others will agree.
One other bit of fairly compelling evidence for his case is that while the BBWAA only gave Wallace minimal support in their early days they gave virtually none to Davis or Dahlen. Add that to Hall of Fame Historian Ernst Lanigan- who while perhaps not being a great judge of talent himself was very familiar with how all 3 players were viewed by others in their day and overall did a good job of advising the Old Timers Committee on their selections, Tommy McCarthy notwithstanding- also saw fit to enshrine Wallace ahead of them as well.
If nothing else that would seem to indicate that at least in his day Wallace was seen as something of a defensive force to be reckoned with.
I agree that Wallace is a truly viable candidate, even though I have not voted for him this round. But I can’t see a case for ranking Wallace over Davis, even with Wallace’s pitching thrown in. The two are almost exact contemporaries as shortstops, and when you compare their total dWAR which is what particularly distinguishes Wallace, the difference is not at all great: 28.7 to 24.0. Davis outpaces Wallace on oWAR by 14 points, despite losing a year of his prime to the NL/AL war, a force beyond his control of the type that we usually give some tacit credit for – give him back that year, and you’ve got a 90 WAR player.
I think the reason Davis was so overlooked compared to Wallace was simple: Wallace hung on in the game. He stayed active as a part-time MLB player till 1918, a decade after Davis, which would have been in the memory of the BBWAA memories in the late 1930s, when he also reemerged as a major league coach and, briefly, manager. Davis’s MLB career ended in 1909 and he had entirely disappeared from professional baseball by 1911; by the 1930s he was so entirely forgotten that no one knew whether he was alive or dead, or even how to find out.
I agree and that wasn’t what I intended to imply, altho in rereading what I wrote I can certainly see how it might seem that way. And I agree with what you say about the BBWAA- I didn’t originally intend to comment on that since Wallace’s support from them was so minimal anyways but then did anyways which kind of overshadowed the real point I set out to make.
I agree that Davis is the best of the bunch & I will certainly vote for him. I’m probably going to vote for Dahlen as well. Wallace is still a tossup for me altho he is in my final 5 for the current ballot, only one of which I am certain at this point I am voting for.
epm,
You’re right that Wallace should not rank over Davis, the point I’m aiming for is that Wallace is one of the more viable choices on the ballot right now. Davis and Dahlen will likely get in as well very soon. Wallace is more fully a 20th century player than either of the other two, and has plenty to offer in comparison to the rest of our backlog. I had felt that Wallace’s relevance needed to be emphasized, because his name is lesser known than others we’ve discussed quite a bit.
Dave, I’ve got no problem with your advocacy of Wallace this round, I was only responding to the suggestion that he was superior to Davis, which Hartvig had unintentionally made. Wallace was fourth on my voting list, right behind Goslin, and since I’d originally failed to see the strength in his case, I can say that my positive view of him as CoG material was formed by your advocacy. I’ll rethink my vote once again, though I think I’m more likely to switch Wallace for Wilhelm, rather than Goslin, and I actually think this round should go to Waddell.
(One point I disagree with you on concerns the relevance of Wallace’s 20th century profile. Davis and Dahlen were full time players through 1908, Young through 1910, and Wallace through 1912: there’s really not enough difference to matter – I don’t see Wallace’s six seasons as an unproductive, 52 OPS+ bit player as a having any purchase on CoG consideration, and don’t think the fact that the others had stronger pre-1900 careers should count against them.)
Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Bobby Wallace
Ferrell, Dawson, Nettles
Question: For candidates like Wheeler, are we only supposed to consider post-1900 stats?
If not, I’m wondering why so little support for him.
Joseph, My understanding is that a candidate who qualifies for the CoG – basically, at least 20 post-1900 WAR – stands with his full record. I think Keeler’s lack of support is just a reflection of his stats, which are great, but not quite up to the standards of his competition.
I agree with epm. It might be fair to discount any pre-1893 pitching stats a fair bit simply because of changes in the rules but the only likely candidate that would be affected by that would be Cy Young who has great plenty of post-1893 stats with which to make his COG case.
Jeez–Of course I meant, Keeler, not Wheeler.
It’s hard for me to not give serious consideration to someone with so many hits, .388 OBP, and other impressive stats, unless there is a serious PED issue or some other factor with an impact, even with relatively low WAR.
Wee Willie Keeler, Kee Killie Wheeler – six of one, half dozen of the other.
Keeler was great, and I was looking forward to his arrival on this list, but on examining his stats they seemed weaker in context than I thought they’d be. For example, in 1897 Keeler led the league with a .424 BA, but was still third (second to McGraw on his own team) in OBP, and second (on his own team, to Jennings) in WAR. In his other batting title year, 1898, he was seventh in OBP and not in the top ten in WAR. It was a high-average decade, and Keeler was very much a singles hitter – in ’98 only 10 of his 216 hits went for extra bases (!). He may have hit ’em where they wasn’t, but it seems they got over there pretty quick. And while a .388 OBP is great, it does only rank him 116th lifetime, just behind Gene Tenace (and just ahead of Goose Goslin).
Willie’s great heyday was his time with the Orioles, 1894-98, when he was part of the dominant team of the decade. But he was far behind Jennings in WAR, trained Joe Kelly, and was just ahead of McGraw. Those other guys didn’t do enough after 1899 to be CoG candidates, but good as Keeler was, all three may have been better players than he (if McGraw hadn’t become diverted by managing, he’d have gone in the Hall for his hitting) – it was a hell of a team.
All good points–thanks epm.
I see a lot of similarities between Clarke & Sam Crawford. Both were probably the biggest offensive star on their teams until one of the games greatest players came along to steal the spot light & they each played in their shadow for a considerable period of time. They were consistently very, very good to excellent but never head-and-shoulders-above-everybody great. They’re close but grading on the tough scale that the COG demands I see Crawford as an A- & Clarke as a B+. And, for me, B+ is on the wrong side of the cut off line.
It’s tough. We are comparing players from about as widely differing circumstances as possible representing over a century of the games history with no one, to me at least, who stands head & shoulders above their competition.
A couple of my choices basically came down to a coin toss.
Ferrell, Waddell, Ashburn
This parallel had never occurred to me, Hartvig. It’s neat. Clarke and Wagner got a bit more out of their partnership: four pennants and a Series title (in two tries) in 15 years together vs. three pennants and no titles for Crawford and Cobb in 13 seasons.
I was following up on Clarke to make sure I hadn’t sold him short, when I noticed a really interesting comparison in his two WS performances. On first glance, I thought his 1903 record looked better, 9 hits in 34 ABs (.265) vs. 4 hits in 19 ABs (.211) in 1909, which seems dismal. But then I noticed how few ABs that was for a seven-game Series, and my eye picked up the fact that in ’09, Clarke also had 5 walks, 4 sacrifice hits, and a HBP, plus 3 stolen bases with 0 caught stealing – and Clarke actually had 5 sacs, B-R seems to have made an error (Clarke also reached on an error once). In addition, Clarke hit two key HRs and had a net WPA of .521 – all of a .211 batting average.
Through 21 ballots (Hartvig), here’s an update:
8 – Goose Goslin*
7 – Rube Waddell, Hoyt Wilhelm*
6 – Kevin Brown*, Wes Ferrell
==============25% (6)
5 – Richie Ashburn, Ed Walsh*
4 – Dick Allen
3 – Graig Nettles*, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant
==============10% (3)
2 – Fred Clarke, Bobby Wallace
1 – Andre Dawson, Willie Keeler
Still WIDE open!
I like Goslin, and I’ve voted for him in the past, but I’m excited by all those Pitchers who are chasing him, so here’s an argument against:
Using the Neutralize Stats tool, to give his numbers a different perspective, here are his actual numbers, compared to what he is projected to do if he played in a neutral 2014 AL park:
.316 / .387 / .500 / .887
.298 / .366 / .471 / .837
2735 hits / 500 2B / 173 3B / 248 HR
2638 hits / 485 2B / 169 3B / 239 HR
1482 R / 1612 RBI
1342 R / 1464 RBI
__________________
Takes the shine off, not a lot, but a smidge.
A comparison, using the neutralized stats, with Carlos Beltran (almost the same number of PA):
.298 / .366 / .471 / .837
.280 / .355 / .490 / .845
2638 Hits / 485 2B / 169 3B / 239 HR
2454 Hits / 503 2B / 78 3B. / 392 HR
1342 R / 1464 RBI
1449 R / 1443 RBI
_________________
Of course, to be totally fair, here it is while also neutralizing Beltran’s stats to 2014 AL 100/100:
.298 / .366 / .471 / .837
.277 / .351 / .485 / .836
2638 Hits / 485 2B / 169 3B / 239 HR
2413 Hits / 498 2B / 76 3B. / 386 HR
1342 R / 1464 RBI
1393 R / 1393 RBI
_________________
The conclusion I draw from this exercise is that I like to look at baseball stats while drinking coffee on Sunday mornings.
Your conclusion seems strongly supported, Voomo. And the comparison is interesting too. Beltran would be a borderline CoG candidate too, so I’m not sure whether your stats are an argument against so much as an argument that we’re electing a borderline candidate this round, whether it’s Goslin or one of the pitchers. (I’m just like you: I voted for Goose, but I’d prefer to see one of those pitchers go in.)
Yes, I’m saying that I see him as borderline.
He played in a high-offense era, and while his counting stats are impressive… his .887 OPS is 22nd best among players with 5000+ PA between 1920-1940.
He wasn’t the best player on the field.
Waddell, Wilhelm, Ferrell – those guys have a claim to be the greatest at what they did, when they were doing it.
Regarding Ferrell, yes, Grove was the best at the time. Not Ferrell. Wes has a strong argument for 2nd best. At a time when (for some reason) there weren’t a lot of dominant pitchers.
And though it has been covered in many posts over the past year, I’ll repeat an aspect of his Pitcher-Who-Hits argument.
When Ferrell faced anyone but Grove, he was the best Pitcher on the field (during his peak).
But not only that, his team had 9 hitters.
The other team had 8.
Here is each year from 1929 – 1938
Wes Ferrell vs
American League hitters in the 9-hole:
1929
.237 / .283 / .387 / .670
.207 / .257 / .272 / .529
1930
.297 / .362 / .415 / .777
.219 / .270 / .295 / .565
1931
.319 / .373 / .621 / .994
.201 / .251 / .268 / .519
1932
.242 / .276 / .359 / .635
.191 / .244 / .253 / .498
1933
.271 / .363 / .471 / .834
.198 / .253 / .254 / .507
1934
.282 / .341 / .487 / .828
.192 / .244 / .248 / .491
1935
.347 / .427 / .533 / .960
.202 / .260 / .262 / .522
1936
.267 / .336 / .437 / .773
.203 / .255 / .256 / .511
1937
.281 / .355 / .353 / .707
.203 / .258 / .256 / .514
1938
.213 / .377 / .311 / .688
.191 / .245 / .247 / .491
Note that those AL stats include Ferrell’s numbers. So those 9-hitters (pitchers, pinch hitters, and position players in a double switch) were actually worse.
I think Walsh could also make the claim to have been the best at what he was doing during his peak years.
Your argument’s a good one, Voomo. I’ve already been considering modifying my vote as a result of Dave Humbert’s persistent advocacy of Wallace, but I was thinking of Wilhelm as the one who might drop off my ballot. Now we have arguments weakening Goslin from two sides, Wallace among position players and Walsh and Ferrell among pitchers. (Interestingly, there’s been more of a tendency to argue for Ferrell on the basis of his hitting – an extra 12.8 WAR, bringing his total to 61.6 – than to argue for Wallace on the basis of his pitching contributions – an extra 6.1 WAR, bringing his total to 76.3. Perhaps this is because all of Wallace’s pitching was done in the 19th century, or perhaps because he was at no point a true double threat, like Ferrell.)
Well shucks, i would hate for my stumping for Ferrell to take away a vote from Hoyt. Wilhelm is my number one pick.
We seem to think similarly with this group. If you dropped Goslin for Ferrell we’d have the same ballot (and Goose is probably my number 4).
Walsh, Wilhelm, FJones
Getting back this far, I don’t have much of a feel for 15 of the teams in the leagues
Allen, Waddell, Walsh
Allen, Waddell, Walsh
Things are really tight at the top after the last couple of ballots, so here’s a partial update:
8 – Goslin, Waddell, Wilhelm
7 – Walsh
6 – Brown, Ferrell
5 – Allen, Ashburn
… and as of Jeff B’s ballot below, there’s now a 4-way tie for first place with 8 votes!
I would also like to remind anyone contemplating vote changes that it is TREMENDOUSLY helpful if you comment at the BOTTOM of the thread if you make vote changes (as I assume some might consider, given the closeness of this election), rather than as a reply to your original comment. In the days of numbered comments, replying to your own was fine. But in this new-fangled HHS era we’re in today, it’s just too hard to slog through EVERY comment to see if there is one. Thanks!
Also, as an addendum to David H’s note above, although they’re not in contention, the pack at three votes is safe, for now – Graig Nettles, Rick Reuschel, and Luis Tiant. The rest are at two votes or fewer, and below 10%.
I could be wrong, but I count 7 for Ferrell, including Voomo Zanzibar’s vote on 13 December, nested below e pluribus munu a few posts above here.
Voomo actually voted on December 9.
Right; Voomo’s comment on December 13 was just an echo of his already-placed vote on December 9.
thanks for checking- I didn’t think to look at the names for each vote. (which is one reason why I am thankful for everyone who puts in so much time tabulating).
Walsh, Dawson, Keeler
I’ll keep my same ballot from a few elections ago:
K. Brown
Nettles
Waddell
Having just read through Waddell’s SABR bio, I have to say a big fat NO!!!!
Sorry, but I can’t think of anyone less deserving.
Talented? Yes.
Colorful Personality? No doubt.
But he was also a HUGE pain in the ass who quickly wore out his welcome wherever he went. Even the mild-mannered Connie Mack finally gave up on him.
Here are a few of the more “interesting” incidents from his career:
1903: Suspended by team from August 25th on for completely no-showing for a start against Cleveland.
1905: Missed the last month of the season due to an injury sustained by fighting with a teammate over a straw hat. Although some think the straw hat fight was just a ruse and he was actually paid off by gamblers. Either way, he was unable to pitch in the World Series, which his team lost in 5 games.
1908-1909: Unable to pitch in Massachusetts because there was a warrant against him for assault and battery against his parents-in-law.
Seriously, this is the guy some voters want to put in the COG? Sorry, but I can’t see it. He just did way too many things to hurt his team.
Which means I’m going to cast the anti-Waddell ballot: Walsh, Wilhelm, Goslin. (with apologies to Tiant and Nettles).
I suspect Waddell’s colorful past is well known to most HHS voters. I suppose it comes down to how you view Rube. Was he:
1. A big lovable oaf who was often involved in silly, larger-than-life antics because he had the heart (and perhaps the brain) of an overgrown child?
2. A drunk, out-of-control malefactor who usually got away with murder because he was a likable guy (and a hell of a pitcher)?
3. A man who would nowadays be considered mentally handicapped, and should be cut a bit of slack because he was certainly never given proper treatment or care?
Probably a bit of all 3? I don’t think he was ever outright malicious, but he certainly knew that his powerful left arm gave him a longer leash than most, and he abused that to the absolute limit. As you noted, even Connie Mack, who had come to be almost a sort of father figure to Rube, eventually gave up on trying to control him, though only after employing him for 6 very successful seasons.
Did he really hurt his teams? I’m not sure. His antics usually seemed to be to his own detriment, and he was mostly on first-division teams. Certainly missing the 1905 WS, whatever the real reason, hurt the Athletics.
But he’s hardly the only HoF’er with a bad reputation. Bill James has often downgraded Rogers Hornsby based on his attitude and the fact that he was so frequently traded, surmising that teams must have figured him more trouble than he was worth, even though everybody knew he was one of the greatest hitters ever. James also once wrote about current ballot holdover Dick Allen that he “did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball.” Of course, that’s patently ridiculous (pretty sure Hal Chase or some other famously crooked player should hold that distinction), and James may have softened over the years on Allen (I don’t remember him reversing himself in the NBJHA, but he may have done so on his website). For what it’s worth, Waddell’s contemporaries certainly thought he was worth the headaches, and he was indeed very well liked. Christy Mathewson, about as different as humanly possible in comportment from Waddell, said it was impossible not to like the big lug.
It should probably also be noted that Waddell’s eccentricities included very many virtuous acts. His obsession with firefighting is well-known, and though he didn’t really leave a game to chase down a fire truck and help fight a fire in progress, he was a member of several volunteer fire brigades. Late in his life, he contracted pneumonia while helping to counteract icy flood waters in his town of residence at the time. He saved at least one person from drowning, maybe more than that, though with Rube it can be hard to separate the fact from the legend.
David, Let me put a counter-argument.
Waddell was known as “eccentric,” in the polite parlance of the day, but what he probably was, in fact, was mentally handicapped. Bill James calls him “simpleminded,” and describes how opposing teams knew how important it was to distract him, because he was not able to focus his mind. Here’s what Sam Crawford had to say:
“Hughie Jennings, our manager at Detroit, used to go to the dime store and buy little toys, like rubber snakes or a jack-in-the-box. He’d get in the first-base coach’s box and set them down on the grass and yell, ‘Hey, Rube, look,’ and Rube would look over at the jack-in-the-box popping up and down and kind of grin, real slow-like, you know. Yeah, we’d do everything to get him in a good mood, and to distract him from his pitching.”
Your list of interesting incidents omits ones that show Waddell as heroic in ways that other players were not – for all his negative qualities, he was also known for spontaneous feats of bravery and self-sacrifice, including one that led to his eventual death at age 38. Waddell’s utter lack of prudence led him to do things others knew better than to do, both positive and negative – such as carrying out into the street a pot-bellied stove that was burning out of control before the house it was in could catch fire on the one hand, and forgetting about pitching a game because he’d seen a fire truck to run after on the other.
The teams that took on Waddell knew what they were getting – his defects were recognized from the get go. They got what they could out of Waddell, and when the difficulty of baby-sitting an immensely strong man with a weak mind grew too great, they got rid of him. Waddell’s mental disability was clearly responsible for the end of his career. He simply was not able to restrain his impulses – he had the emotional equipment of a child.
Waddell’s behavior should clearly be judged under standards of diminished responsibility – he’s in no way comparable to, say, a vindictive personality like Cobb or a cheat like Chase (not to mention PED users). His phenomenal talent and outstanding record are in some ways more impressive when you recognize that he was playing without a full deck.
CC and EPM –
Thanks for your well thought out replies. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
The thing about Waddell is that he’s a marginal COG candidate at best. Counting hitting, he has less than 60 career WAR. If you want to ignore hitting, then he has 61.0. Granted, no one has a lot at this point but when there are a lot of candidates who are basically even, then other factors need to be looked at.
Were Waddell’s actions detrimental to his team? I think it’s clear that they were.
Being suspended by his team for the final month of the season can hardly be considered a positive, even if the A’s were already out of it.
Missing the last month of the season and the WS because of either a stupid injury or being paid off by gambler’s? Hugely detrimental to the team.
Not being able to travel to Massachusetts for two year? Definitely detrimental.
And it wasn’t just Mack who wanted to get rid of Waddell. His teammates went to Mack and asked him to get rid of Waddell. Actually what I read is that they threatened to quit if Mack didn’t get rid of him.
Did he do some good? Sure but that was off-the-field. If we’re going to include the good off the field, then we also have to look at the bad. And that bad includes beating the crap out his in-laws.
Sorry, but Waddell is a marginal candidate who has some big black marks against him. I stand firm in my “no”.
There are five Cy Young Award winners with a felony conviction. Fergie Jenkins is in the COG. Denny McLain, Dwight Gooden, Vida Blue, and LaMarr Hoyt are not. Waddell pitched against Cy Young, so he was retired before the award was created.
OBS – Are you sure re: Jenkins felony conviction? Assuming you’re talking about his 1980 drug arrest, a Christian Science Monitor article from the time says that the amount of drugs in his possession was only enough for a misdemeanor in Canada.
From
Other Stars Who Have Served Time / By THOMAS ROGERS.
Published: July 20, 1990
http://nyti.ms/1PdmlVN
« Another Cy Young Award winner, Ferguson Jenkins, who won the award with the Chicago Cubs in 1971, when he won 24 games, narrowly missed a prison term when he was arrested in Toronto in 1980 and convicted of possession of hashish, marijuana and cocaine. But on the day of his conviction, the judge immediately expunged the record. »
Some thoughts on positional issues:
1) Obviously some issues do need to be taken into account. Physical limitations prevent virtually all catchers from playing more than so many games in the field in a season and over the course of their career. Defense is also a significant factor here as well as it may be the most difficult position to actually measure defensive effectiveness.
2) Outside of catcher I really don’t buy the argument that there should be so many players at each position. (And that’s not what I’m arguing at catcher either, just that we have to make adjustments). Outfielders tend to move around for a variety of reasons- slowing down as they age or due to injury, a better fielder joins the team or they join a team with a better fielder, needs of the team, etc. There has been talk that the COG is underrepresented at 3rd base, counting only 7 (Schmidt, Robinson, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Santo & Baker). But Harmon Killebrew played 105 games at third the season he won his MVP and over the course of his career he only played a little more than a seasons worth more games at 1st than 3rd. Paul Molitor played almost twice as many games at third than any other position in the field. Jim Thome had almost 500 games at third. Mel Ott probably should have won the MVP the year he got pressed into service as the Giants third baseman and he played games at the position in 7 other seasons. Edgar Martinez had about 4 full seasons worth of games at third. Assuming we continue to conduct yearly COG votes in the future next year brings Chipper Jones. Three years later we have Alex Rodriguez & Scott Rolen. A few years later Adrian Beltre and a few years after than Miguel Cabrera.
Please do not interpret this as opposition to the candidacy of Graig Nettles however. I may very well be moved to make a case for him myself before this process is over. It just that I don’t feel that THIS particular argument is valid.
3) The DH. This is mostly in our rear view mirror at this point. Does WAR get the positional penalty right? Should their be some additional consideration given to the fact that they aren’t on the field for hours in someplace like Arlington or St. Louis on a hot summers day, that they don’t suffer the dings & bruises & sometimes more serious injuries that can happen in the field, that they’re not dedicating hours of their time to practicing in the field? We can pretty accurately measure the value of a players offensive performance. I have no idea how to accurately measure or quantify the rest. But we have spoken and it is what it is.
FWIW I personally think we probably got it right.
4) Finally, relief pitchers. Personally, I don’t view this as a position any more than I would consider pinch hitter to be a position. We don’t judge left handed pitchers on a different scale than we do right handed. Were they more valuable to their team than a starter who pitched 150 to 200 more innings in a season very effectively? A pitcher who threw a thousand or more- perhaps much more- innings over the course of their career? To me at least they had better be putting up some pretty eye popping numbers in order for that to be the case.
If you disagree or see some flaws in my reasoning I’d love to hear from you.
hartvig, do you put Wilhelm in the last category of “relief pitchers”?
As a reliever:
13 seasons with 2+ WAR
8 seasons with 100+ IP
______________________
Wilhelm vs Koufax:
WAR (including hitting)
47.3
49.0
ERA+
147
131
IP
2254
2324
IP before age 30 season:
159
2001
IP after age 30 season
2095
323
Yes, I do consider Wilhelm a reliever.
Here’s my thinking.
Obviously it’s true that Wilhelm did put up about the same career WAR as Koufax- less pitching WAR (50.1 vs. 53.2) but he was a “better” hitter (-2.8 vs. -4.2). Or was he? Even though they pitched about the same number of innings, because he was mostly used as a reliever Wilhelm only had 493 plate appearances vs. 858 for Koufax. I’m not sure I view that as a positive in Wilhelm’s favor.
I also went back and looked at the excellent evaluation of the effect that Wilhelm’s passed balls/wild pitches had on the outcome of games in the comment section of 1875 Balloting. And while that showed- assuming I’m understanding it correctly- that they had a fairly minimal impact on the number of games that were lost where the unearned run was Wilhelm’s responsibility. But what it DOESN’T show is the number of inherited runners that scored and the impact that had on games outcome. Unlike in these post-Tony-LaRussa-closer-usage-model days, in those days the closer came in when the starter lost his effectiveness. And quite often that was after he had put a runner or 2 on base.
Someone- and I’m not sure who & unfortunately can’t find it so I’m going from memory- posted that Wilhelm’s teams had a losing record- worse than his teams overall record and by a not-inconsiderable amount, if memory serves.
If Wilhelm wasn’t losing games because he was allowing his own runners to score, doesn’t it seem logical that they were being lost because the starters inherited runners were scoring?
Some of the stronger arguments for Wilhelm’s candidacy- 2 ERA crowns & an excellent ERA plus among them- are highly suspect because they don’t account for the unusually high number of unearned runs that Wilhelm allowed and- to my knowledge at least- I don’t know if WAR accounts for the number of inherited runners to score.
Of his 50 career pitching WAR, about 10 of that came as a starter. How much of an adjustment is required to his 40 remaining to bring him to the level of the COG?
Wilhelm’s JAWS score- which makes no adjustment for relief pitchers- was 37.1- which would would put him starting pitchers such as Bob Friend, Jose Rijo, Andy Messersmith & Bob Welch. His Hall of Stats score of 108- where Andy does make a fairly generous adjustment for relievers- puts him below every COG pitcher except for Ford and Koufax, not to mention 2 dozen eligible pitchers that we’ve given a pass on (altho a few of them are still on the ballot).
And Koufax’s case pretty much defines the limits of peak vs. career whereas Ford was more complicated- traditional stats vs. advanced, the accuracy of negative adjustments to his WAR because of defenses behind him and the success of the teams that he pitched for.
It would seem that at a minimum Wilhelm would need some sort of a compelling intangible that WAR does not measure for him to be a viable candidate.
And every one that I can see- his late career start & the fact that he was something of a trailblazer as a reliever- would be more than offset by the fact that WAR, if anything, is actually overstating his value.
Finally you mention that Wilhelm had 13 seasons with 2+ WAR. But if you remove his one season as pretty much a full time starter only 4 of those seasons exceeded 3 WAR and none were above 3.7. Even if we add 20% to his each of his WAR scores to account for high leverage situations he still only cracks 4 WAR- barely- 3 times.
Can you imagine any other position where we would elect a player based on a dozen or so 3 and 4 WAR seasons?
Especially if he only rises to that level by being given every benefit of the doubt possible?
Sorry.
I’m a big fan of Wilhelm & I might even vote for him for the Hall of Fame since I’m a big Hall guy.
But I just don’t see him as being even remotely close for the COG.
Hartvig, I did another post calculating the percentage of inherited runners that Wilhelm allowed to score. He was right at the league average for the years he pitched: 36 percent.
As for his teams’ record in games he pitched, consider how often relief pitchers pitched back then in games their teams won. It was typically less than 25 percent. I’m studying now how frequently Wilhelm pitched in relief in games his teams won compared against other relief pitchers of that era. My hypothesis is that Wilhelm’s teams won quite a bit more often than the average, indicative of his importance and the changing role of relief pitching that Wilhelm helped to inaugurate. More soon.
Kahuna/Hartvig… KT not sure why you had to calculate his IR percentage – it is stated on his ‘More Stats’ page:
701/245 – 35 percent.
Curiously, I tried to run a play index search, using pitchers with 600+ IR………… and Wilhelm doesn’t show up at all. Not sure what the problem is.
However, there are some solid names on the list in his ballpark:
IR Score Percentage:
36 … McDaniel
36 … Garber
36 … McMahon
34 … Face
34 … Lyle
33 … Gossage
33 … Perranoski
The guys at the top of the list:
25 … Orosco
25 … Myers
26 … Groom
27 … Assenmacher
27 … Plesac
Mariano Rivera, with 367 IR, was at 29 percent
________________________
Where does his 701 IR stand all time?
1049 .. Orosco
969 … Lyle
852 … Burgmeier
832 … Goose
823 … McDaniel
818 … Plesac
801 … Stanton
782 … Fingers
771 … Tekulve
755 … Myers
701 … Wilhelm ?????????
695 … Knowles
367 … Mariano Rivera
______________________
Again, when I ran this search, Wilhelm didn’t actually show up on it. I believe the modern parlance for this is : wtf
This is a reply to Voomo’s 9:55 PM post. The PI only goes back to 1954 so it’s missing Wilhelm’s stats in 1952-1953 with a total of 133 IR.
According to Wilhelm’s Reliever Pitching on the “more stats” page- he entered with a lead 363 times, tied 192 times and behind 427 times for a total of 982 games. That’s about 37% of the games he entered he had a lead.
Admittedly however it doesn’t show how many of those times were with men on base.
Some other leaders in inherited runners scored percentage for different career IR cut-offs. Orosco, with his 24.88% rate and 1,049 career, IR is the leader for 1,000+, 900+, 800+, 700+, and 600+. Then we have (#’s are for 1954-2015):
500+: Randy Choate (19.92%, 527 IR), Javier Lopez (20.40%, 554 IR), Trever Miller (23.98%, 513 IR) [Also the only Trever in MLB history. However, Troy Tulowitzki’s middle name is Trever!]
400+: Ricardo Rincon (18.96%, 422 IR), Scott Eyre (21.97%, 437 IR), Randy Myers (22.94%, 401 IR)
300+: Ricardo Rincon again, Trevor Hoffman (20.23%, 346 IR), Joe Thatcher (21.16%, 345 IR)
200+: Still Ricardo Rincon, Sergio Romo (19.57%, 235 IR), J.P. Howell (21.18%, 255 IR)
100+: Clay Rapada (14.84%, 128 IR), Jesse Carlson (17.00%, 100 IR), Paco Rodriguez (17.54%, 114 IR), Brian Wilson (17.73%, 141 IR)
50+: Cody Eppley (11.76%, 51 IR), Sean Doolittle (11.94%, 67 IR), Scott Rice (12.50%, 72 IR), Bill Short (13.24%, 68 IR) [Hey, finally an old guy! Short played in the 1960’s, unlike everyone else so far in this exercise.]
The highest number of IR for someone with a 0% rate is 16, done by Chris Withrow. There’s a ton of guys with less IR and a 0% rate, including some interesting names like Don Sutton (10 IR), Kevin Brown (6 IR) and Jake Arrieta (6 IR). The closest misses were Rick Krivda (1 IS out of 20 IR for a 5% rate) and Jeremy Bonderman (1 IS out of 17 IR for a 5.88% rate).
I always found it surprising that Ricardo Rincon was so good with inherited runners, since his reputation was as a pretty mediocre reliever. Yes, he was a LOOGY, but so were most of the other guys on this list. One-out specialists unsurprisingly dominate this exercise, since they have a lot of chances to strand guys.
Trevor Hoffman is a surprise to me. For a closer in the era of the one-inning save, he actually put out a lot of fires, and had a great strand rate.
I’ll start with #4.
Hartvig, I basically totally agree with you on this, though I suspect we’re in the minority. I wouldn’t say that a reliever is just a PH – a PH is MUCH less valuable than a reliever. I think a reliever is actually most like a 4th outfielder or utility infielder. Roughly the same number of PAs in a season, good to be versatile, never sure when you’re working, having a good one may be the difference between a title team and a slightly-above-average one, etc. A pitcher deserves to be in the COG because he was one of the best – not as a reliever, but just “one of the best.” That’s how I feel about it, but I suspect that we’re going to catch a lot of flack for that opinion…
Ardolis Chapman finished 8th in the Majors in games finished in 2015. He faced 278 batters.
I agree with your view on relievers in general. And the only relievers I would consider for the COG are Mariano, Rivera (and maybe Eck, but there was more to his career).
We can’t look at Hoyt in the same way we look at Kimbrel and the new breed.
His rookie season (15-3), ten of his victories came in games in which he pitched at least 4 innings (all in relief).
He had 9 seasons in which he faced at least 400 batters (Mariano had one).
Outside of a 6+ WAR starter, I see an arm like that as the most valuable pitcher on a roster, for his versa-utility.
The other thing about catchers… on a recent quiz question, I discovered Terry Steinbach had a string of several years where he qualified for the fielding title for catchers (81 GP) but did not qualify for the batting title (502 PA).
Goslin, Nettles, Walsh
Excellent discussion in general and on Waddell and Wilhelm specifically. I think a reliever is extremely hard to value, particularly because of the evolving way they are being used. But, they do only show up 60-70 innings per year, and if you were asking me to pick between Mariano or Mike Trout, as much as I loved Rivera, it’s not that close a call. The pure weight of superior everyday performance can’t be overlooked. But I also think it’s a little difficult to value relievers, and particularly elite ones by just looking at raw stats. The psychic impact may not be fully measurable. Does the starter throw a little harder, because he knows he can turn the game over safely? How does that impact season-long wear and tear on the staff? Is there a measurable let-down after a bad blown save? Does the team play more freely knowing a one run lead gives them the game? That being said, I don’t think Wilhelm quite makes it in to our COG–we are picking the best 120 or so players, not a HOF (where he clearly belongs) and we have no imperatives to equalize among positions. Wilhelm was durable, he was useful, he was even exceptional a few years, but I don’t see him having the impact of some of the others we are considering. As to Waddell, who I have voted for several times, I am now reconsidering. I’ll wait for a bit longer.
What the hey – I’m in early at work, so I’ll throw an update up here on this, the last day to make vote changes on your ballot. This is through 26 ballots, Joseph’s above:
9 – Goose Goslin*, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh*
8 – Hoyt Wilhelm*
7 – Kevin Brown*
============25% (7)
6 – Wes Ferrell
5 – Dick Allen, Richie Ashburn, Graig Nettles*
3 – Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant
============10% (3)
2 – Fred Clarke, Andre Dawson, Willie Keeler, Bobby Wallace
1 – Fielder Jones
Doom – I think you missed my vote. At the end of my “no” for Waddall from yesterday, I cast a vote for Wilhelm, Walsh, and Goslin.
Correct you are! Thanks for pointing that out. Including Matt G.’s ballot below, that makes 28 ballots, and something that looks like this:
10 – Goslin*, Walsh*
9 – Waddell, Wilhelm*
8 – Brown*
==25% (7)
6 – Ferrell
5 – Allen, Ashburn, Nettles*
4 – Reuschel
3 – Dawson, Tiant
==10% (3)
2 – Clarke, Keeler, Wallace
1 – Jones
I say…
K Brown
R Reuschel
A Dawson.
I say…
K Brown
R Reuschel
A Dawson.
Thanks.
Voting For:
Walsh
Wallace
Clarke
Wilhelm, Allen, Dawson
Just for fun
All-time pitcher rankings, by Bill James in his NBJHBA:
#19 Ed Walsh
#27 Hoyt Wilhelm
#40 Wes Ferrell
#41 Joe McGinnity
#52 Luis Tiant
#53 Rube Waddell
#73 Kevin Brown**
#81 Rick Reuschel
**based on Kevin Brown’s career thru the 2000 season only
Interesting piece in Hardball Times today by Nathaniel Rakich about relief pitchers, including Wilhelm
http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-hall-of-fames-bullpen-problem/
He makes a good point about not really having a baseline for one-inning closers. What makes a one-inning closer a HoF’er? Eck was mostly a one-inning closer, but he has a hybrid career. Rivera is so far above his contemporaries that it doesn’t seem fair for him to be the baseline for one-inning closers.
For now I think it’s largely an academic exercise – I imagine Hoffman will eventually be elected primarily based on his save numbers, whereas Wagner will stay on the ballot but never seriously threaten the 75% mark. Personally I’d take Wagner over Hoffman, but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way – raw WPA favors Hoffman, for what it’s worth. I suppose that’s not really surprising, though – more IP + more save opportunities = more innings with high leverage and a chance to pile up WPA.
I think it’s going to matter more for the future, since the one-inning closer isn’t going away. Kimbrel and Chapman are building HoF resumes so far in their short careers, but both guys might end up retiring with somewhere around 800-850 IP based on their current usage. You can probably throw Kenley Jansen into that group too – similar age and IP, current WHIP under 1.000, K/9 above 14. If those guys all end up in that bWAR range of 27-29 (that’s where Wagner and Hoffman ended up), are they Hall of Famers? Do you need some postseason success added to it to really make a HoF case? Or do we need a completely new set of standards for this era of relievers?
I voted for Wilhelm this round (although, if it weren’t for Voomo, I would have changed my vote), but I think the argument Rakich makes is not strong. The reason is pretty simple. Rakich makes the following assumption: “Relief pitchers belong in the Hall of Fame. Reliever is a distinct and established position in today’s game, albeit a less valuable one, and the Hall doesn’t adequately capture the full story of baseball without including them.” He compares a relief pitcher to a designated hitter (for me, whether a pure DH would belong in the Hall is still open to question).
I don’t think RP is a position, any more than Pinch Hitter is a position. These are roles (and a closer is a role within a role). A DH is not a role: it’s a position established by the rule book, governed by a set of rules unique to the DH position.
If, in the future, it became recognized strategy for teams to make roster and contract room for a high quality PH who would be deployed once a game in high leverage situations (like a closer), and those players typically amassed, say, one-quarter of the PAs of full-time players, but, because of high leverage contexts and manager-selected pitcher match-ups generated outstanding WPA numbers and OPS beyond what we’d expect if they were regulars, should they be considered for the Hall? The PH would be like a closer in many ways – not a position, but an emergent role with particular value highly leveraged. But, I think we’d agree that it would take a truly outstanding set of stats to warrant HoF consideration on the basis of, say, 2000 PA as a PH.
I think the same is true of RPs, and the second problem with Rakich’s approach is that he assumes we can determine what those stats should look like on the basis of the representatives already in the Hall. Not only do two of the five have profiles very different from a pure RP, a really shaky basis for judging closers, but I think two of the others will eventually be viewed as major mistakes (Fingers and Sutter). Why would Rivera be an unfair standard? The pure closer is a very new role, and Rivera is the only player so far to perform it in a way that makes people uniformly say, “There – that’s a HoF closer for sure!” In the future, given the short history of the closer, it’s highly likely we’ll see closers more effective than Rivera – I think he’s more likely to be a Tris Speaker among RPs than a Babe Ruth – and they’ll make Hoffman and Wagner look like mistakes. To me, that’s the way you start making a judgment: How far below Rivera can you be and still be a lock for the Hall? – then figure out how far below that a borderline may lie.
I suppose we might eventually see someone whose regular season numbers eclipse Rivera – probably not over ~1300 IP, but perhaps closer to 900 or so. The one problem for the current bunch is that they’re succeeding with incredible K/9 numbers – they’ve got nasty stuff, but can they maintain dominance once they lose a step? Rivera was able to. It’s not an easy thing to do.
Rivera’s post-season record is what makes his career hard to surpass IMHO. How many other guys are going to be on 15 playoff teams? Obviously Rivera would be a HoF’er even if he never made the playoffs, but his incredible postseason numbers are what cements him as a legend.
As for the hypothetical PH specialist – if said player ended up with a WAR in the high 20’s and WPA/RE24 numbers that rivaled some of the lesser HoF’ers, I’d probably consider him as a viable candidate. I can’t imagine it ever happening, though. Relief pitchers usually stay in the bullpen because teams don’t think their stuff would play as a starter (or, like Rivera, they’re so dominant that they’re hesitant to make a change). If a guy put up crazy hitting stats as a PH specialist, teams would try to find somewhere he could play every day.
I suppose it doesn’t hurt to wait and see on guys like Wagner. It’s certainly possible that we end up with a bunch of guys eclipsing his stats, making him look like a poor choice in hindsight.
VOTE
Wilhelm
Ashburn
K. Brown
Totals through 31 ballots (brp):
11 – Walsh*, Wilhelm*
10 – Goslin*
9 – Brown*, Waddell
==============25% (8)
6 – Allen, Ashburn, Ferrell
5 – Nettles*
4 – Dawson, Reuschel
==============10% (4)
3 – Clarke, Tiant, Wallace
2 – Keeler
1 – Jones
Over the last 6 rounds the total number of ballots cast has been between 34-38.
Wallace, Clarke, Keeler.
Vote: Tiant, Reuschel, Wilhelm
Oh boy. I – don’t know who to vote for. This is the most interesting round in forever and I’m on a trip with no time to sit down and think and parse apart guys. I mean, I’ve done that for months in most of these guys’ cases, but I can’t make heads or tails of it right now as to who belongs, and there are some really thoughtful points being brought up here. Maybe there’ll be a tie and we can have a bit longer to discuss it, but I don’t feel confident being a kingmaker here.
Okay, close my eyes and throw at the dartboard.
Brown, Ferrell, and, uh…. Waddell.
Well, here we go. Last day. This is through bells, the 34th vote (remember – 4 votes makes a player safe; 10 will probably be the 25% point):
12 – Hoyt Wilhelm
11 – Ed Walsh
10 – Kevin Brown*, Goose Goslin*, Rube Waddell
==========25% (9)
7 – Wes Ferrell
6 – Dick Allen, Richie Ashburn
5 – Graig Nettles*, Rick Reuschel
4 – Fred Clarke, Andre Dawson, Luis Tiant, Bobby Wallace
==========10% (4)
3 – Willie Keeler
1 – Fielder Jones
Still pretty wide-open. 5 guys clustered at 10-12 votes, and really any of them still has a chance. A fascinating last day this will be! (That’s in honor of Yoda & the new Star Wars movie coming Friday.)
Seems I haven’t voted, so here goes.
Waddell, Wallace, Nettles
For the 1871/1872 election, I’m voting for:
-Andre Dawson
-Rick Reuschel
-Luis Tiant
Other top candidates I considered highly (and/or will consider in future rounds):
-Brown (Kevin)
-Goslin
-Ashburn
-Nettles
-Allen
-Walsh
-Waddell
-Wallace
-Clarke
-McGinnity
Brown, Walsh, McGinnity
Not so sure about Wilhelm or Waddell after all the discussion above, so going with our favorite unlikeable guy and Big (Peak) Ed. Would have sent last vote to Wallace, but he does not need it at this point and I could not let McGinnity be shut out (goes no one appreciates his 246 W in 3400 innings of work over 10 years – go figure).
This is at 11:05 PM EST by the way.
It looks to me, six minutes after the vote close, as though we’re in for a runoff between Wilhelm and Walsh, Brown and Waddell having fallen one vote short. Am I counting right?
Looks right to me, epm. Here’s my count (37 ballots):
12 – Walsh, Wilhelm
11 – Brown, Waddell
10 – Goslin
============25% (10)
7 – Ferrell
6 – Allen, Ashburn, Nettles, Reuschel
5 – Dawson, Tiant, Wallace
4 – Clarke
============10% (4)
3 – Keeler
1 – F Jones, McGinnity
One of the most tightly contested rounds we’ve seen. The Walsh-Wilhelm runoff will certainly present an interesting contrast, the high-peak/short-career starter vs the long-lasting reliever.
Previous runoffs:
Round 34 (1941): Ryan 33, Rose 31. Rose elected 2 ballots later.
Round 58 (1924): Smoltz 33, Snider 32. Snider elected next ballot.
Round 84 (1905): Alomar 37, Cronin 29. Cronin elected next ballot.
Round 89 (1901pt1): Cochrane 33, A Simmons 22. Simmons elected next ballot.
aack–I blew it. A couple of times yesterday I started writing a response and vote, but I couldn’t finish it–and my vote would have been the difference.
However, I think I like this result. We now have the opportunity to discuss the respective merits, straight up, of two entirely different types of pitching careers.
One regret I have is about Keeler–he had such an interesting career–a highly successful archetype (very quickly voted into HOF) of a player who, because of his physical limitations probably couldn’t get on college team these days. I was going to vote for him, just to keep him in the discussion.
Well, with Christmas coming soon, I doubt I’m going to be able to do much updating, so I’m going to do this now, assuming that Ed Walsh is going to win the runoff, since it’s been such a landslide so far.
Craig Biggio – 763
Eddie Murray – 731
Roberto Alomar – 725
John Smoltz – 658
Kenny Lofton – 608
Ryne Sandberg – 607
Harmon Killebrew – 585
*Kevin Brown – 567
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 – 356
Tony Gwynn – 346
Willie McCovey – 336
*Rick Reuschel – 316
#Minnie Minoso – 309
Juan Marichal – 268
*Graig Nettles – 266
Tom Glavine – 262
*Richie Ashburn – 243
Alan Trammell – 239
Mike Mussina – 233
Curt Schilling – 224
Nolan Ryan – 220
Ron Santo – 217
Lou Boudreau – 216
Tim Raines – 213
*Hoyt Wilhelm – 201
Larry Walker – 197
*Goose Goslin – 194
Barry Larkin – 188
*Dick Allen – 183
Frank Thomas – 181
Gabby Hartnett – 165
Paul Molitor – 152
Bob Gibson – 147
*Wes Ferrell – 142
Gaylord Perry – 142
Paul Waner – 140
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 (89), Rube Waddell (38), Bobby Wallace (11), Fred Clarke (4).
2. Falling off the ballot were (presumptive) electee Ed Walsh (63), Wee Willie Keeler (3), Fielder Jones (1), and Iron Man Joe McGinnity (1).
3. Hoyt Wilhelm (3), Kevin Brown (4), Rube Waddell (2), and Goose Goslin (3) each add a round of cushion to their respective stashes of eligibility.
4. Hoyt Wilhelm may not win this round, but the consolation is that, whether he did or not, he reached the 200-vote milestone. In these days of low voter turnout, getting to 200 votes is quite and interesting accomplishment.
5. A few players (Wes Ferrell, Dick Allen, Richie Ashburn, Kevin Brown) are approaching significant milestones. In the next few rounds, they should all have news coming in this space.
I think that Brown considerably improved his chances for eventually cracking the top 5 in votes which, were he not to eventually get in, would put him in a category all by himself with about 50% more votes than the next player who failed to do so. Tiant & Reuschel are already in the top 20 but have next to no chance of cracking the top 10 altho it’s conceivable that Tiant could pass Eckersley & Winfield for #2 in the “failed to launch” category.
When we’ve completed this process I hope we do some sort of a biggest oversight poll to see how well either the # of votes received or average votes per eligible round correlate to who we choose.
Pingback: Perfect 10 Streaks: Pitchers Who Owned an Opponent |