Circle of Greats Supplemental Redemption Round

This Circle of Greats (COG) vote is not to induct anyone into the Circle, but only to select three players who will be restored back to the main ballot after having been previously dropped from eligibility. As with earlier redemption rounds, this is an opportunity for voters to reconsider past candidates who have previously fallen off the regular induction ballots. This “supplemental” redemption round is being conducted prior to the final two rounds of COG balloting that will consider only holdover candidates already on the COG ballot. 

In this vote you may include on your three-man ballot any major league baseball player who:
   –   was born before 1971; and
   –   has not been elected to the Circle of Greats; and
   –   is not currently on the 1971 Part 2 COG ballot that is also the subject of voting this week.

As usual, you must vote for three and only three players to cast a qualifying ballot.  The three players who appear on the most ballots will be restored to eligibility for the next round of COG voting. Unlike prior redemption rounds, only three players will be restored to the ballot, NOT the top 3 and ties. If more than 3 players are tied for the 3 highest vote totals, the tie-breaker process will be to discard ballots, starting with the last ballot cast, until the tie is broken. So, vote early as your ballot could be discarded if it is the last, or among the last, to be cast.

The deadline to cast your ballots in this redemption round is Sunday night, January 31st at 11:59PM EST. You can change your votes until 11:59PM EST on Friday night, January 29th.  You can keep track of the vote tally in this redemption round here: COG Supplemental Redemption Round Vote Tally.

Leave a Reply

100 Comments on "Circle of Greats Supplemental Redemption Round"

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

Here’s a link to the spreadsheet showing the likely candidates we used back in October (now a few players shy of being complete, I imagine):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ValuJEH0x3t4NsrEMEwMP4EZXaII_Cf_sknvSAafdPA/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=834747292

Dr. Doom
Guest

I would assume that Dave Winfield and Dennis Eckersley are the two biggest “favorite” players not included on that spreadsheet. It’s possible that Minnie Minoso isn’t either; my computer’s being mean and not loading the entire sheet, so I couldn’t tell you for sure, but that’s off the top of my head (and my every-round recaps, so it’s easy to remember).

Dr. Doom
Guest

This might just read as clutter to everyone, so I apologize in advance if it does (or if it’s annoying because you have to scroll past it every time). But here are ALL the players who received votes in our last redemption round, who are still eligible for this one:

Willie Randolph
Ken Boyer
Reggie Smith
Bobby Bonds
Rafael Palmeiro
Billy Williams
Stan Coveleski
Ted Lyons
Don Mattingly
Thurman Munson
Hal Newhouser
Don Sutton
Jim Abbott
Buddy Bell
Jim Edmonds
Jim Eisenreich
Dwight Evans
Red Faber
Keith Hernandez
Monte Irvin
Tommy John
Fred Lynn
Curtis Pride
Jim Rice
Joe Sewell
Ted Simmons

Dave Humbert
Guest

Other players of note that dropped off the ballot since Redemption Round 10:

Satchel Paige
Dennis Eckersley
Dave Winfield
Addie Joss
Mordecai Brown
Joe McGinnity
Jessie Burkett
Fred Clarke

And a few others that may be of interest:

Joe Torre
Mark McGuire
Sal Bando
Minnie Minoso
Ralph Kiner
Sammy Sosa
Gary Sheffield
David Cone
Vic Willis
Jim Bunning
Dizzy Dean
Red Ruffing

David Horwich
Guest

Dwight Evans, Dave Winfield, and…mmmm…I’ll go with Ken Boyer.

Andy
Guest

Ken Boyer, Jim Edmonds, and Stan Coveleski

Mike HBC
Guest

Jim Abbott
Curtis Pride
Satchel Paige (sorry, Jim Eisenreich)

mosc
Guest

The three most egregious I have:

Satchel Paige, Monte Irvin, Don Drysdale

Dwight Evans, Dave Winfield, Ken Boyer, Willie Randolph, Buddy Bell, Jim Edmonds, I can’t fault you for these choices. I have no idea how you separate them from each other it’s so close. I think there are other good choices on our ballot so I will abstain from all. Larry Doby and Ted Simmons also look awful good to me.

Feels like I could be missing somebody. Too many names.

Hartvig
Guest

Ted Lyons, Ted Simmons, Buddy “Ted” Bell

I think we have already done a pretty good job in identifying the best available candidates on our holdover list. There might be a handful of guys in the redemption lists I would vote for over who I view as our weakest holdovers but the reality is that Lyons would be the only one that there is any possibility of being on my ballot and that’s as yet to be determined.

Steve
Guest

The air is terribly thin but Satchel Paige, Monte Irvin, Ted Simmons

JEV
Guest

Drysdale, Kent, Medwick

oneblankspace
Guest

Edmonds, Minoso, Drysdale, TSimmons, DaEvans, that’s more than three.

Dr. Doom
Guest

This is a really tough one. I’m open to changing, so I’d be interested to see any arguments anyone has in favor of specific candidates. Usually, we don’t get too much strong advocacy in Redemption Rounds, but I’m hoping we do this time, since it’s the last chance any of these guys are going to get, probably for a few years in REAL time, not just COG ballots! I’m not really sure where to go with it, but here’s what I’ve got for now:

Dave Winfield
Don Drysdale
Ted Simmons

brp
Guest

Ted Simmons
Willie Randolph
Jim Edmonds

Paul E
Guest

Bonds, Simmons, Winfield

opal611
Guest

For the Supplemental Redemption Round, I’m voting for:
-Willie Randolph
-Don Sutton
-Rafael Palmeiro

Dave Humbert
Guest
I will make a case for one of my redemption favorites. Rafael Palmeiro has been shunned by most voters for the COG because he used steroids. A look at his numbers: 71 WAR, 20 yrs, 2831 G, 10472 AB, 1663 R, 3020 H, 585 2B, 569 HR, 1835 RBI, 1353 BB, 1348 SO, .288 BA, .371 OBP, .515 SLG, .885 OPS Are these borderline COG numbers? 3000H and 500HR have been only done by 4 other men: Aaron (could have used amphetamines with impunity), Mays (also played before any testing), Eddie Murray (Steady Eddie always had consistently good numbers) and… Read more »
David P
Guest
Dave Humbert – One thing I’ve never understood about Palmeiro is why was he still taking PEDs at that point in his career? He had to know that his career was almost over and that he was risking his chance at the HOF by taking PEDs. The only explanations I can think of are 1) He was so used to taking them that he never really thought about whether or not he should continue. 2) He was hoping to prolong his career long enough to catch on with a winning team and finally play in the WS. I can’t really… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Raffy’s explanation:

https://youtu.be/1-vTJlFUjmY?t=21s

Hartvig
Guest

I have extolled Lyons virtue before but since you mention it I feel compelled to point out that if you including his offensive totals Palmeiro’s & Lyon’s WAR totals (71.6 vs 71.5) are virtually identical.

And while Raffy has 3 votes poor Teddy has only mine.

My new cheesy campaign slogan:
“I’m not lyin’
you should vote for Lyons
’cause he was a real lion…
… on the field.”

That should get the votes rolling in.

Hartvig
Guest

Things you think of a moment too late.

Change that last line in the slogan to
“… between the lines.”

A winner fur sure.

Mike L
Guest
I think Dave H’s point about Palmeiro is well presented, but I’m more of a hardliner on steroids, so I wouldn’t have considered him. But I also want to make a couple of contrary points. Even putting the best possible face on his use, you have to make at least some downward adjustment to his career stats–what that adjustment is would be up to the individual voter. Remember, this is a guy who hit a total of 30 HRs in 1900 plate appearances between the ages of 23-25. That’s a line drive hitter like an Al Oliver. During the same… Read more »
David P
Guest
Mike L – I think the line drive hitter becoming a power hitter is actually fairly common. Kirby Puckett had 4 home runs through his first 1,327 PAs, then started regularly banging out 20+ home runs. Stan Musial shows a similar home run jump as Palmiero at a similar age. Yaz as well though his power surge only lasted 4 years. Clemente average 5.2 home runs a year for his first 5 seasons, then 16.5 a year for the rest of his career. There’s also Jose Bautista, who started hitting home runs at age 29 (no idea what to make… Read more »
Mike L
Guest
David P, not suggesting that line drive hitters can’t add some power, but Musial is the only player who had a large number of PA’s and then stepped up his power game and delivered near-elite power numbers on a sustained basis–and even he wasn’t a 40 per year person, nor did he keep the power peak that Palmeiro did into his later years. Age 30-39 for Palmeiro–373 HRs, Musial, 255, Yaz, 202. Look at the ten players who hit the most home runs from age 30 on, steroids or not: In order: Bonds/Ruth/Palmeiro/Aaron/Mays/Thome/McGwire/Sosa/Ortiz/Schmidt. None of them took anywhere near that… Read more »
David P
Guest

I don’t think we’re really disagreeing Mike L. I think the question is: was Palmiero’s power spike caused by PEDs, was it sustained by PEDs or was it both caused and sustained by PEDs?

I would actually put his power surge at age 28. His age 26 and 27 seasons don’t look that exceptional to me when you consider over 700 PAs in each of those seasons. And he also showed similar power at age 22.

Mike L
Guest
David P, that’s a really good question, because what we have is sketchy info and inference. He failed a test, but very late in his career. He was mentioned in the Mitchell Report, and according to Canseco was one of the guys Canseco shot up. I have no idea how much credibility to give Canseco, but he was traded to Texas at the August 31, 1992 deadline. They were together for the last month of 1992, and a full 1993 year–which is his age 28 year. So you have an accusation by a guy who liked to talk, and you… Read more »
Paul E
Guest
David P, Mike L A good friend did a lot of power lifting at a local gym that featured quite a few “strongmen”. He indicated his one good friend, in a single 4 month “cycle” of steroids, increased his personal best in the bench press from 420 to 560 pounds. Therefore, I say deduct 30% from Palmeiro’s total – it’s as good as any estimate. I had a 14-game plan at Ralph Cramden Yards and frequently saw Palmeiro swing effortlessly and hit the ball 380′ to R-CF. Very often….quite a beautiful swing – Billy Williams had nothing on him. But,… Read more »
dr-remulak
Guest

Randolph, Kiner, Mattingly.

aweb
Guest

Palmeiro, McGwire, Winfield
Obviously not a PED hardliner here, this is durable two guys with extremely long careers and only marginal peaks (Winfield only had one year above 5.4 WAR?). I’m in the group who thinks Winfield might be getting unfairly killed by his defensive numbers retrospectively. He didn’t seem that terrible when I saw his limited OF play in Toronto, just regular below average.

McGwire’s peak was greater, and disguised by in-season missed time – from 1992-2001, his Per 162 games numbers give him 60 HRs (or 6.8 WAR). Unfortunately, he only averaged 110 games a season in that stretch.

mosc
Guest

I’m not sure if we’re ignoring drugs that Sheffield doesn’t beat all those guys with the stick.

CursedClevelander
Guest
I’d take Sheffield’s offensive production over just about every other holdover or redemption candidate (prime McGwire is IMO easily the best offensive player we’ve omitted, but Sheff was much more durable and had a far longer career), but he was just such a poor defensive player. Unlike Winfield where there’s a clash between the advanced defensive stats and the eye test, I think just about everybody agrees that Sheffield never looked truly comfortable at any position, and teams kept trying to move him to the place where he’d do the least damage. But his pure offensive production is easily CoG… Read more »
CursedClevelander
Guest
One other thing I just noticed about Sheff: I always knew he was one of those relatively speedy guys that didn’t actually add any value with his legs because he got caught stealing too often. His career Rbase is -1. But his baserunning value pattern seems to be really odd. Through his Age 31 season in 2000, he was worth -12 runs on the bases. Then, from Age 32 to his retirement at Age 40, he was worth +11 runs on the bases. Obviously he became a much smarter baserunner, since he certainly didn’t get faster in his mid to… Read more »
Paul E
Guest

CC,
If steroids make you stronger, why wouldn’t they make you faster (Tim Montgomery, Ben Johnson, Kelli White, Marion Jones)?
I know many people on this site love them some Jeff Bagwell, but look at his career power and speed arc. I’m not saying he was on steroids but we all know he was a dedicated weightlifter. Even without steroids, strength training through resistance exercise increases speed and strength. Perhaps Sheffield is no different – no steroids, plenty of resistance exercise, therefore increased speed and power – just like Bagwell

CursedClevelander
Guest
It’s certainly possible, but it’s not like his SB totals shot up suddenly – he just was being caught stealing a lot less. That could be due to speed, or it could be due to being more judicious on the bases. The other thing is that his Rdp value pattern didn’t change much. Of course, DP rates aren’t purely about speed – they’re also about batted ball tendencies and putting the ball in play in general. Adam Dunn, no one’s idea of a speedster, had pretty good Rdp value because he had so many strike outs and fly ball outs… Read more »
aweb
Guest

He’s definitely on my list of guys I would consider voting for, which is most of the backlog at this point too, I just figured him below the others in this exercise. Sheffield was a damn good hitter perpetually placed at a position just past his ability in the field. Which by his 30’s, was basically anywhere in the field.

Gary Bateman
Guest

K. Boyer, Minoso, J. Sewell

Dr. Doom
Guest

Don’t let this vote update bias you TOO much! There are a lot of good candidates, and the round is still wide-open, but I thought I’d present those who have received multiple votes through Gary Bateman’s ballot, the 15th:

5 – Ted Simmons
4 – Don Drysdale, Willie Randolph, Dave Winfield
3 – Ken Boyer, Satchel Paige, Rafael Palmeiro
2 – Jim Edmonds, Monte Irvin

Hartvig
Guest
A while ago some raving lunatic- namely me- suggested on this site that after the conclusion of our current of our current exercise that we consider revoting the entire HOF sometime in the future, presumably building off of our work on the COG. I ask because of the segregation issue, one that I can not only see but have myself been on both sides of the fence at various times. I understand that in some way we are compounding the unfairness of segregation by not including players like Paige, Irvin, Charleston & Gibson. I also understand that by doing so… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
That’s just too big a project for my taste, Hartvig. But you’re 100% right in the fact that what we do is “compounding the unfairness of segregation by not including players like Paige, Irvin, Charleston & Gibson.” The problem I have is that I don’t see a good way to fix it, other than starting this whole process over and letting Negro League players be eligible (which I would’ve been ALL ABOUT if we had had the opportunity to do so when this process started). I know very little about the Negro Leagues; that said, I’d feel MUCH better about… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest
The question is raised in several places above regarding Dave Winfield’s fielding metrics. Winfield is the one player I have an actual close-up-eye-witness opinion about. I was a Bleacher Creature when Dave was supposedly worth -10 runs a year in the field. (the one and only teenager (sober and virginal) accepted right in the middle of the zoo of Section 39). And there’s no way, by this eyeball account, that those numbers are right. Which is troubling. Because we’re coming to regard WAR as Truth. And if Dave’s numbers are wrong, well, then why? And why should we trust anyone’s… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest

As I understand it, Voomo, what he’s getting dinged for those years is his range, not his arm. MANY people believe there’s something suspect about his numbers, though. As a “bleacher creature,” what was your feeling on that? Because, honestly, a phenomenal arm with bad range means you’re not ACTUALLY holding a lot of guys on, even if no one runs on you, because you’re not holding people if you don’t get to the ball.

no statistician but
Guest
I got curious about the range factor thing and did some spot checking: Bauer in 1956, low range factor; Maris in 1961, low range factor, Reggie in 1977, low range factor, O’Neill in 1998, slightly low range factor, Swisher in 2009, low range factor. I checked multiple years for a couple of these and what I found was that low range factor was the norm for Yankee RFers, even if their name wasn’t Winfield, going back to the 1950s, with an exception here and there. I don’t know what that indicates. Ruth in the twenties, when in RF, had a… Read more »
David P
Guest
NSB, Doom, Voomo and others – Did a bit of digging on how defensive ratings are calculated during Winfield’s career. For the latter part of his career (1990-1995) they have info on where hits fall so they use that data. Granted, the data isn’t as accurate as what they have today but it’s better than nothing. For earlier years of Winfield’s career they use an estimate based on where a batter typically makes out. For example, if a batter makes 30% of his outs on balls hit to right field, then every time that batter gets a base hit, the… Read more »
Voomo Zanzibar
Guest
Good question on his range. Hard to say. YS right field wasn’t terribly big. And like I said, Winfield Looked Good, whether he made the play or not. The sight of his six-six body at maximum effort, attacking a sinking liner, diving, and coming up short – it was fun to watch, and we all chanted ‘Dave! Dave! Dave!’ in appreciation. Then we told the people in the box seats that they sucked, chanted a$$hole at anybody who wandered into our section with the wrong hat, and sang the most deplorable profane songs in the direction of Kirby Puckett. It… Read more »
Dave Humbert
Guest

Palmeiro, Clarke, Coveleski

David P
Guest
My vote and rationale: 1) Winfield – I’ve never voted for Winfield before but here’s my thinking. If we were having this vote 20 years ago, Winfield would have been elected a long time ago. The only thing that holds him back are the advanced defensive metrics. In my opinion, there’s enough uncertainty in those metrics that a player of Winfield’s stature – a player who was considered both a great hitter, great baserunner, and great fielder – deserves another look. 2) Buddy Bell – I’ve voted for Nettles before and I really don’t see any difference between Bell and… Read more »
David P
Guest
BTW, the BBWAA has elected 51 players on the first ballot. Assuming I’ve counted correctly, 48 of them are in the COG. The exceptions are Brock, Stargell, and Winfield. There’s certainly a case that can be made that WAR doesn’t fully capture Brock’s baserunning value but it would have to be off by A LOT for him to be COG-worthy. Stargell? You could certainly make a COG case for him but I’ve never heard anyone argue that he’s significantly better than what WAR captures. So that leaves Winfield as the outlier. A player who was considered great enough to be… Read more »
David P
Guest

One final point re: Winfield. The eye test says he was a great fielder. The advanced stats say he was a horrible fielder. If you split the difference and say he was an average fielder, then Winfield has 73.1 career WAR and he’d already be in the COG.

Is it really that far fetched to think that a 7 time gold glove winner was at least an average fielder???

Paul E
Guest
David P, I’m not suggesting Stargell, Winfield, or Brock should be in the Circle of Greats but, regarding their HoF cases and 1st ballot selections, there probably was an awful lot of “eye-testing” going on with the BBWAA and these guys really were viewed as great players who had great careers upon their retirements. And six years later, they were still remembered fondly by the BBWAA. They all had warts – “Mr. May”, Brock was an iron glove in LF, and Stargell, who supposedly had a great arm, was never considered a great fielder or base runner. But whatever they… Read more »
Lawrence Azrin
Guest

Add Dennis Eckersley to the list of first-ballot HOFers not in the COG; elected in 2004 with 83.2%.

Bryan O'Connor
Editor

McGwire, Minoso, Eckersley

Dr. Doom
Guest

Here’s another quick update of all the guys with 3+ votes through Bryan O’Connor’s ballot above, the 19th:

6 – Dave Winfield
5 – Willie Randolph, Ted Simmons
4 – Don Drysdale, Rafael Palmeiro
3 – Ken Boyer, Satchel Paige

e pluribus munu
Guest
I thought I’d generate some WAR figures for those who are receiving significant support in this redemption round, spreading the net kind of wide. In these lists, our holdovers are listed in Pitchers P(Tot)-WAR…Peak5…Top5…WAR/9IP…WAR/Yr…ERA+…Career length 68.5 (68.3)……37.0…37.0……0.189……4.0 (17)……127……1.24……Brown 48.8 (61.8)……29.9…36.0……0.168……4.9 (10)……116……1.00……Ferrell 68.2 (70.1)……31.0…32.8……0.173……4.0 (17)……114……1.35……Reuschel 66.1 (66.7)……28.7…34.7……0.171……3.9 (17)……114……1.33……Tiant 61.0 (58.5)……43.9…43.9……0.185……5.9 (10)……135……1.13……Waddell 50.1 (47.3)……16.1…21.6……0.184……2.6 (19)……147……N/A…….Wilhelm** 65.2 (60.2)……40.0…40.0……0.190……4.7 (14)……127……1.18……Coveleski 61.2 (67.1)……29.8…32.1……0.160……4.4 (14)……121……1.31……Drysdale 62.5 (62.9)……28.0…29.7……0.171……2.6 (24)……116……1.25……Eckersley** 67.2 (71.6)……24.2…29.0……0.145……3.6 (19)……118……1.59……Lyons 60.4 (57.7)……37.5…43.3……0.158……6.0 (10)……120……1.31……McGinnity 10.3 (09.1)……10.1…10.1……0.190……2.1 (05)……124……0.18……Paige* 67.1 (63.5)……34.9…42.0……0.151……5.2 (13)……117……1.52……Willis Position Players WAR……Pk5……Top5……WAR/G…WAR/Yr……OPS+…Career length 58.7………31.5……36.7……0.034……4.2 (14)……156………1.0……Allen 63.6………31.6……32.7……0.029……4.2 (15)……111………1.3……Ashburn 75.2………22.6……29.8……0.031……4.0 (19)……110………1.4……Dahlen 64.4………32.4……33.7……0.025……3.4 (19)……119………1.5……Dawson 66.1………32.5……32.8……0.029……4.1 (16)……128………1.3……Goslin 68.0………28.7……32.2……0.025……3.4 (20)……110………1.4……Nettles 42.7………23.1……24.7……0.023……2.8 (15)……121………1.0……Posada 68.4………30.2……30.4……0.027……3.4 (20)……106………1.5……Rodriguez 70.2………28.6……31.3……0.029……4.2 (17)……105………1.3……Wallace 62.8………33.0……34.0……0.031……4.5 (14)……116………1.2……Boyer 67.4………22.2……26.6……0.030……3.7 (18)……133………1.3……Clarke… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest
I’m surprised Lyons hasn’t had more love from the voters. He didn’t have much of a peak but he put up 5.4 WAR in 1925 and 4.7 in 1942 and in between only had 1 year you could call poor. And even tho his 71.6 career WAR ties him for the most of any eligible candidate, it’s very reasonable to think that had he not been called into the service he would have had over 80 WAR. There are only 2 eligible players with more than 70 career WAR we have not honored in the COG and one of those… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest
Hartvig, There’s a lot to say for Lyons, but longevity seems to come first. Of all the regular starting pitchers on the list above, Lyons comes in last in terms of peak and WAR per game & season, and he’s in the bottom pack in ERA+. (His total WAR is tops among redemption rounders, but Dahlen and Wallace [total] surpass him overall- both are non-PED non-CoG 70 WAR guys.) But your point about the war is right. Lyons had become an Old Pheenom as a Sunday pitcher when he went into the army for three years, and his record upon… Read more »
David P
Guest
I’ll admit that I forgot about Lyons and I’m pretty sure I’ve voted for him before. The problem is that I see about about 10-20 players who I consider equivalent to the players who are on the current ballot. But I can obviously only vote for 3 of them. Honestly, I really wish that Birtlecom had structured this process differently. We’re questioning who the BBWAA selected. But why not also question how many people they selected? Why should we be limited to the exact number of BBWAA selections? Seems like we’d have been better off simply voting on whether or… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

I think we’d encounter these painful CoG borderline issues no matter what the voting rules, David. We only have two slots left, so the question really isn’t how many players could fit in on the holdover ballot; it’s how many could nudge out the top two on the holdover ballot. (Of course, we have different ideas who those top two are.)

David P
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your comment EPM. I’m not talking about how many people can fit into the holdover list. I’m talking about how many people belong in the COG. Rather than accept a pre-determined limit for the number of people in the COG, I think we would have been better off if the whole process had been structured more like the BBWAA. As candidates became eligible, we’d simply submit our ballots (max of 10) and whoever got more than 75% would be in. People receiving 5-74.9% of the votes would move onto the next ballot, and drop off… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

I just meant that I think it’s not a size issue but a cutoff issue. It would be hard to have a vote for a CoG without a sense of what measure of circle we’re envisioning – there will be small-circle and big-circle voters, and in the end 75% is as arbitrary as 119. Whatever voting method or circle size is involved, when you get to the borderline we’re all likely to feel that the cutoff between the last players in and first players out is arbitrary.

David P
Guest

“It would be hard to have a vote for a CoG without a sense of what measure of circle we’re envisioning – there will be small-circle and big-circle voters, and in the end 75% is as arbitrary as 119.”

I don’t see why that would be. That’s exactly how the current HOF voting works. And I see how forcing every voter to have a COG of the same size solves anything. Nor do I see the 75% as arbitrary. That’s the same cutoff percentage used by the BBWAA to elect people to the HOF.

e pluribus munu
Guest
You’re right, David. 75% isn’t arbitrary if the rationale is that it’s the same as the BBWAA. I meant that the BBWAA standard is arbitrary. And it would indeed solve your particular problem – the desire to vote for as many players as you deem worthy (at least by the old BBWAA rules; like birtelcom, they have now set an arbitrary limit, though without a mandate to elect). If we followed that plan, we would be addressing two questions at once: How big a circle and who’s in it. A small minority consisting of small-Circlers would be enough to determine… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest
One way to address the problem you have with the COG voting system- and also happily extend the process a little a little longer- might be for each of us to create our own COG and then compare notes, using some sort of formula as to who would then be in this “ultimate” COG. I’m sure there are some among us who would only pick half of the current members and others that would expand this list by another 50 players. Others would fall somewhere in between, adding or dropping a few and maybe shuffling the deck a little. Might… Read more »
David P
Guest

EPM – Here’s my issue with Birtlecom’s approach, in case I didn’t articulate it properly. We’re basically saying that by some strange miracle the BBWAA elected the correct number of people, they just elected the wrong people. But if they elected the wrong people, then by definition, it’s almost impossible for them to have elected the correct number of people.

David P
Guest
Hartvig – Adam has something similar on his site, using the Hall of Fame, the Hall of Stats, Baseball Think Factory’s Hall off Merit, and 5 personal Hall of Fames. What’s interesting is that every single list includes 200+ players, though they also encompass all years of baseball. There’s also 100% consensus on 138 players, which would be even higher if you threw out the Hall of Fame (which is often the outlier). http://www.hallofstats.com/consensus BTW, the process that’s most similar to ours is Baseball Think Factory’s Hall of Merit, though there are some very key differences: 1) They started in… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest
Interesting. The lists includes Old Timers who were not CoG candidates – the full consensus list drops to 128 without them. There are actually 197 players who would be in the Hall constructed by Adam’s site, if a 75% cutoff were applied (that is, 6 of 8 lists agreeing). The Hall of Stats does what birtelcom does: sets the number of entrants to equal the HoF total, only it uses the total Hall, not just the BBWAA. As you note, the Think Factory resembles the birtelcom model in stipulating the number to be elected. Looking at the personal sites, it… Read more »
David P
Guest

There are 32 players who are not in the Hall of Fame but are on the other 7 lists. That includes Jackson and Rose who of course aren’t eligible for the Hall.

Of the 32, some are in the COG, some have spent considerable time on the ballot but have never been elected, and some (e.g., Jimmy Wynn, Reggie Smith) have pretty much been ignore by COG voters.

e pluribus munu
Guest

A minor correction: I gather now that Ferrell’s Hall of Stats ranking does include his batting.

e pluribus munu
Guest

My coorection was to the comment below. (Hope I get it right this time!)

e pluribus munu
Guest
I took a look at this group, David; 19 are outside the CoG. I also looked at the group of players we’ve left off our list who were chosen on all eight lists, including the HoF: according to my count, there are 26 of these players. On Adam’s site, all players are listed in order of Hall of Stats rank. I looked to see how many who are outside the CoG rank at #119 or above on Adam’s Hall list. There are 15 players. Here they are, with their Hall of Stats ranks (I’ve excluded all pre-1900 players ineligible from… Read more »
Hartvig
Guest
As you mention, the HoS does not take things like time lost to war or segregation into account so that works in reverse as well. Meaning that Jackie Robinson, PeeWee Reese, Hank Greenberg, Joe Gordon, Roy Campanella (and possibly others that I am forgetting) ranked below some or all of those towards the bottom 119 on Adam’s list. Nor does it measure post season performance which was at least played a role in the case for Koufax & possibly Ford (and maybe someone else that I’m forgetting about). Cone does appear to be a bit of an outlier with no… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

Cone seems a puzzling case. Looking at his 1993 season, which appears among his less distinguished ones (11-14, ERA+ just +17 from his career mark, more or less career lows in SO/9 and K/BB – zero Cy Young notice), B-R gives him 7.2 WAR, the best of his career. A mystery to me – more puzzling than Reuschel in ’77.

bstar
Guest

epm, Cone set a career high in IP in 1993. It looks to me like that’s the main driver for his 7+ WAR total. According to WAR, Cone was better on a per-inning basis in both 1994 and 1997 but he didn’t even reach 200 innings in either of those seasons.

David P
Guest

Cone’s WAR in 1993 is also fueled by Kauffman stadium being rated as an extreme hitters park (106.7). That does reflect Cone’s season (4.05 ERA at home, 2.62 on the road) though I have a hard time wrapping my mind around Kauffman stadium being an extreme hitters park.

e pluribus munu
Guest

Yup. But it’s the comparison with 1988 that most bothers me. The IP differential isn’t much, the ERA+ is higher, and the peripheral measures (Ks, BBs, WHIP) are all way better in ’88. I suppose the difference is park effects, but his ’93 year simply looks pretty mediocre.

bstar
Guest
Cone’s W-L record for 1993 (11-14) is mediocre, sure, but a 140ish ERA+ over 250 innings is a really good season any way you slice it. Looking at his run support, the record makes sense — the Royals only scored 2.9 runs per game for him when the league average that year was 4.7. I think to see the difference in how WAR sees Cone’s 1988 and 1993 seasons you have to really focus on the details and the adjustments because it’s not readily apparent why the latter season is a bit more valuable. But after those adjustments you get… Read more »
e pluribus munu
Guest

Good analysis, bstar. Thanks.

Hartvig
Guest
One thing about Lyons is that while he did thrive in the roll as a “Sunday pitcher” it’s hard to say that he wouldn’t have just as much continuing in a more traditional roll as well, once he had adjusted to his arm trouble. But one thing I do believe for certain is that over the course of a season he still played an immensely valuable roll. Think of the panic that major league teams go into nowadays when confronted with a doubleheader. Bullpen use gets adjusted 2 or 3 games ahead and after, an early shellacking or going into… Read more »
Hub Kid
Guest

Ted Lyons – great longevity, time lost to war service & retired on top (after Hartvig above, and others)

Minnie Minoso – a serious whiff by the BBWAA and Veterans Committee(s)

Reggie Smith – very very good all-around, a classically neglected skill set for rankings outside the stats community (and 37+ WAA is pretty darn high).

Aside from Lyons (and I’m still undecided on I. Rodriguez in 1971 pt. 2), I think I will vote for “fixing HoF oversights” in the remaining COG rounds…

oneblankspace
Guest

So now it’s time to vote.

J.Edmonds
D.Drysdale
M.Minoso

T-Bone
Guest

Reggie Smith, Billy Williams, Dwight Evans

Luis Gomez
Guest

Ted Simmons, Rafael Palmeiro, Minnie Miñoso.

Lawrence Azrin
Guest

-Dave Winfield
-Ted Simmons
and the obligatory Red Sox player:
– Dwight Evans

Brendan Burke
Guest

Rice, Lynn, Edmonds

bstar
Guest

Lyons, Eckersley, Drysdale

e pluribus munu
Guest
The only player I think we’ve really made a mistake on is Paige, and, of course, I understand why that happened. Putting together the WAR figures above, I was struck by the fact that when we look at the tail end of Paige’s career – his MLB shot – which didn’t begin till he’d turned 42, he still generates WAR/IP at a higher rate than any pitcher on our list of holdovers. I think there’s no doubt that Paige was one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history, and his MLB numbers are confirmation of the testimony of MLB contemporaries… Read more »
MJ
Guest

Fred Clarke, Reggie Smith, Hal Newhouser

billh
Guest

Winfield, Paige, Mattingly

Jeff B
Guest

Paige, Sutton, Winfield

Dr. Doom
Guest
Sorry I’ve been absent a couple of days. Here’s a vote tally heading into this final day of voting: 9 – Dave Winfield 7 – Ted Simmons 6 – Don Drysdale, Satchel Paige 5 – Ted Lyons, Minnie Minoso, Rafael Palmeiro, Willie Randolph 4 – Jim Edmonds, Reggie Smith 3 – Ken Boyer, Stan Coveleski, Dwight Evans Just a couple of reminders: 1. THREE players go in. 2. Traditionally, in the event of a tie, there is no runoff – all players are restored. However, in this round, there will be THREE AND ONLY THREE players elected, even if it… Read more »
Richard Chester
Guest

Billy Williams, Mattingly, Lyons

Mike L
Guest

I don’t love redemption rounds, but if we are giving everyone one last look, Winfield, Simmons, Drysdale

Lyons fascinates me. Career K-9 2.4 How did he do it?

Hartvig
Guest

At least part of it had to do with strikeout rates being much lower in that era. He was below average in SO/9 but not by that much. He still managed to lead the league in SO/BB ratio twice and finish 2nd another time. Oddly enough his SO/9 actually went UP after he developed a sore arm. Go figure.

Of course he also managed to walk 106 batters in a season in which he struck out only 51 and still somehow put up 5.8 pWAR so there is that too.

Brendan Bingham
Guest

Vote:
Ted Simmons, Don Drysdale, Reggie Smith

Voomo Zanzibar
Guest

Ted Simmons flies under the radar.
No great defensive reputation.
No postseason resume.

But a fine bat and longevity.

Leaders, Catcher (50 percent):

Plate Appearances:
10270 .. Ivan
9853 … Fisk
9685 … Simmons
9019 … Carter
8702 … Kendall
8674 … Bench

(Kendall was durable, and had over 5000 PA in the top third of the batting order. Over 2000 as a leadoff hitter)

Hits:
2844 … Ivan
2472 … Simmons
2356 … Fisk
2195 … Kendall
2150 … Berra
2127 … Piazza
2092 … Carter
2048 … Bench

RBI
1430 … Berra
1389 … Simmons
1376 … Bench
1335 … Piazza
1332 … Ivan
1330 … Fisk

IBB
188 … Simmons
146 … Piazza
135 … Bench
127 … Mauer*
119 … McCarver
118 … Johnny Edwards (60 from the 8-hole)

Hartvig
Guest

To be fair, only about 7300 of Simmons hit’s came as a catcher, which is about the same as Yogi’s ratio. Of course there’s something to be said for a catcher who hits well enough to use as a DH when he’s not catching, which is one of the reasons I voted for him.

no statistician but
Guest
The sudden love for Simmons here is kind of amazing. No matter how you try to massage it, his fielding wasn’t up to par, and in spite of his reputation with a bat, his 53.0 oWAR isn’t exactly overwhelming, even for a catcher. Cochrane had 52.2 in a thousand fewer games, Bench had 65.2 in 300 fewer, Yogi 56.5 in 350 fewer, Piazza, another poor fielder, had 65.9 in over 500 fewer, and so on down the line. To a degree he was an accumulator in this regard, like Fisk who had 65.7 in about the same number of games.… Read more »
Mike L
Guest
NSB, to be honest, this is why I usually skip the Redemption Rounds. I feel like we do a good job of sorting players out–certainly sorting them out in the lower tier. But we also have a problem now that I think wasn’t anticipated. Over time, for a variety of reasons, the number of voters dropped significantly. It only takes 3-4 die-hards to keep someone on who might not otherwise have survived the earlier rounds. Added to that is that we are going deeper into more unsure territory (19th Century players) where we really don’t know what they really were… Read more »
bells
Guest
Shoot, I just haven’t had time to participate in this round like I’d like to. Not that I think anyone coming back on the ballot right now will probably have a shot at getting in, but still. Anyway, here’s my vote: Satchel Paige – I’ve been a vocal supporter of him in the CoG for a long time, so this should be no surprise. It’s too bad I am so late to it, because there are only a few hours and if he’s still tied, my vote won’t count. C’est la vie, Satch, you’re in my CoG. Hal Newhouser –… Read more »
Dr. Doom
Guest
Your final tally looks like this: 10 – Dave Winfield 9 – Ted Simmons 8 – Don Drysdale ============Returning to main ballot 7 – Ted Lyons, Satchel Paige 5 – Minnie Minoso, Rafael Palmeiro, Willie Randolph, Reggie Smith 4 – Jim Edmonds 3 – Ken Boyer, Stan Coveleski, Dwight Evans, Don Mattingly, 2 – Buddy Bell, Fred Clarke, Dennis Eckersley, Monte Irvin, Mark McGwire, Hal Newhouser, Don Sutton, Billy Williams 1 – Jim Abbott, Bobby Bonds, Jeff Kent, Ralph Kiner, Fred Lynn, Joe Medwick, Curtis Pride, Jim Rice, Joe Sewell Thoughts: 1. Dave Winfield will sorely miss his vote-getting partner… Read more »
wpDiscuz